What Did Origen Really Say?

What Did Origen Really Say? · What Shall we Say on Origen?

Here is a little remark on the text : the translation for the first 23 chapters of book IV (De Principiis) are different from Latin and from Greek.

Here is a text, as translated from Greek:

16. It was not only, however, with the (Scriptures composed) before the advent (of Christ) that the Spirit thus dealt; but as being the same Spirit, and (proceeding) from the one God, He did the same thing both with the evangelists and the apostles — as even these do not contain throughout a pure history of events, which are interwoven indeed according to the letter, but which did not actually occur. Nor even do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is agreeable to reason. For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. Cain also, when going forth from the presence of God, certainly appears to thoughtful men as likely to lead the reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and what is the meaning of going out from Him. And what need is there to say more, since those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place? Nay, the Gospels themselves are filled with the same kind of narratives; e.g., the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in order to show him from thence the kingdoms of the whole world, and the glory of them. For who is there among those who do not read such accounts carelessly, that would not condemn those who think that with the eye of the body— which requires a lofty height in order that the parts lying (immediately) under and adjacent may be seen — the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians, and Parthians, were beheld, and the manner in which their princes are glorified among men? And the attentive reader may notice in the Gospels innumerable other passages like these, so that he will be convinced that in the histories that are literally recorded, circumstances that did not occur are inserted.

...

... All these statements have been made by us, in order to show that the design of that divine power which gave us the sacred Scriptures is, that we should not receive what is presented by the letter alone (such things being sometimes not true in their literal acceptation, but absurd and impossible), but that certain things have been introduced into the actual history and into the legislation that are useful in their literal sense.

19. But that no one may suppose that we assert respecting the whole that no history is real because a certain one is not; and that no law is to be literally observed, because a certain one, (understood) according to the letter, is absurd or impossible; or that the statements regarding the Saviour are not true in a manner perceptible to the senses; or that no commandment and precept of His ought to be obeyed — we have to answer that, with regard to certain things, it is perfectly clear to us that the historical account is true; as that Abraham was buried in the double cave at Hebron, as also Isaac and Jacob, and the wives of each of them; and that Shechem was given as a portion to Joseph; and that Jerusalem is the metropolis of Judea, in which the temple of God was built by Solomon; and innumerable other statements. For the passages that are true in their historical meaning are much more numerous than those which are interspersed with a purely spiritual signification. And again, who would not say that the command which enjoins to honour your father and your mother, that it may be well with you, is useful, apart from all allegorical meaning, and ought to be observed, the Apostle Paul also having employed these very same words? And what need is there to speak of the (prohibitions), You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness? And again, there are commandments contained in the Gospel which admit of no doubt whether they are to be observed according to the letter or not; e.g., that which says, But I say unto you, Whoever is angry with his brother, and so on. And again, But I say unto you, Swear not at all. And in the writings of the apostle the literal sense is to be retained: Warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak, be patient towards all men; although it is possible for those ambitious of a deeper meaning to retain the profundities of the wisdom of God, without setting aside the commandment in its literal meaning. The careful (reader), however, will be in doubt as to certain points, being unable to show without long investigation whether this history so deemed literally occurred or not, and whether the literal meaning of this law is to be observed or not. And therefore the exact reader must, in obedience to the Saviour's injunction to search the Scriptures, carefully ascertain in how far the literal meaning is true, and in how far impossible; and so far as he can, trace out, by means of similar statements, the meaning everywhere scattered through Scripture of that which cannot be understood in a literal signification.

And from Latin:

16. Nor was it only with regard to those Scriptures which were composed down to the advent of Christ that the Holy Spirit thus dealt; but as being one and the same Spirit, and proceeding from one God, He dealt in the same way with the evangelists and apostles. For even those narratives which He inspired them to write were not composed without the aid of that wisdom of His, the nature of which we have above explained. Whence also in them were intermingled not a few things by which, the historical order of the narrative being interrupted and broken up, the attention of the reader might be recalled, by the impossibility of the case, to an examination of the inner meaning. But, that our meaning may be ascertained by the facts themselves, let us examine the passages of Scripture. Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars — the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it. The departure of Cain from the presence of the Lord will manifestly cause a careful reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and how anyone can go out from it. But not to extend the task which we have before us beyond its due limits, it is very easy for anyone who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account. The same style of Scriptural narrative occurs abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? Or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men? And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by anyone who will read them with attention, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification.

...

... The object of all these statements on our part, is to show that it was the design of the Holy Spirit, who deigned to bestow upon us the sacred Scriptures, to show that we were not to be edified by the letter alone, or by everything in it — a thing which we see to be frequently impossible and inconsistent; for in that way not only absurdities, but impossibilities, would be the result; but that we are to understand that certain occurrences were interwoven in this visible history, which, when considered and understood in their inner meaning, give forth a law which is advantageous to men and worthy of God.

19. Let no one, however, entertain the suspicion that we do not believe any history in Scripture to be real, because we suspect certain events related in it not to have taken place; or that no precepts of the law are to be taken literally, because we consider certain of them, in which either the nature or possibility of the case so requires, incapable of being observed; or that we do not believe those predictions which were written of the Saviour to have been fulfilled in a manner palpable to the senses; or that His commandments are not to be literally obeyed. We have therefore to state in answer, since we are manifestly so of opinion, that the truth of the history may and ought to be preserved in the majority of instances. For who can deny that Abraham was buried in the double cave at Hebron, as well as Isaac and Jacob, and each of their wives? Or who doubts that Shechem was given as a portion to Joseph? or that Jerusalem is the metropolis of Judea, on which the temple of God was built by Solomon? — and countless other statements. For the passages which hold good in their historical acceptation are much more numerous than those which contain a purely spiritual meaning. Then, again, who would not maintain that the command to honour your father and your mother, that it may be well with you, is sufficient of itself without any spiritual meaning, and necessary for those who observe it? Especially when Paul also has confirmed the command by repeating it in the same words. And what need is there to speak of the prohibitions, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, and others of the same kind? And with respect to the precepts enjoined in the Gospels, no doubt can be entertained that very many of these are to be literally observed, as, e.g., when our Lord says, But I say unto you, Swear not at all; and when He says, Whosoever looks upon a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart; the admonitions also which are found in the writings of the Apostle Paul, Warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak, be patient towards all men, and very many others. And yet I have no doubt that an attentive reader will, in numerous instances, hesitate whether this or that history can be considered to be literally true or not; or whether this or that precept ought to be observed according to the letter or no. And therefore great pains and labour are to be employed, until every reader reverentially understand that he is dealing with divine and not human words inserted in the sacred books.

NewAdvent : Origen : De Principiis (Book IV)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm

On 31.III.2022 (a day on which I was robbed), a John Hunt had said:

There are hundred, thousands of Bronze Age creation myths, sure. But they’re impossible to take literally today (it was tough enough in the third century AD, as one of the key Early Church Fathers, Origen, said -And who is so stupid as to imagine that God planted a garden in Eden eastward, and put in it a tree of life, which could be seen and felt?)

He refused to give a reference, and so could gloss over that Origen mainly thought Biblical history historic*. But "history" may also be a category not just on a lean cure as in Origen, but actually lacking from the vocabulary of Kirill of Moscow, on this issue:

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and all Russia believes science and religion do not contradict each other, as they respond to different questions, and there is no sense in searching an answer to spiritual questions in works on Physics or Biology.

BIO-ORTHODOXY : Patriarch Kirill of Russia: "It is naive to read Genesis as the texbook on anthropogenesis"
http://www.bio-orthodoxy.com/2016/08/patriarch-kirill-of-russia-it-is-naive.html

In the article he is quoted mentioning "anthropogenesis", "physics", "biology", "spiritual questions" as well as "textbook" - but he never mentioned either "history" or "chronicle". I am here not concerned with his arguably believing Adam had physical ancestry and arguably dodging the question how this relates to Adam growing up with or without language, and how that affects spiritual questions**, but with the probability that, as at least nominally Eastern Orthodox (about as much as Bergoglio is Roman Catholic, Tony Palmer was Anglican) he probably thinks or hopes or pretends (to himself as to others) that he has patristic support for this. A little hint, the late Stephen J. Gould was a Jew, not a Christian. And (as is very often the case with them), a nominal one with little regard for actually setting out to believe what his ancestors or predecessors in the religion believed. He was also not a Church Father.

Now, the wording of Kirill, "it is naive" reminds a bit of Origen's (depending on what it is translated from) words in chapter 16 of book IV.

And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east,

And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east,

Because you see, I don't think John Hunt was the first man to quotemine this, I have seen it quotemined again, with a little more context and actual reference, that's how I found the reference, and now, I intend to prove both that this was quotemining and that Origen is perhaps not the most representative of Church Fathers.

First, it is quotemining in omitting that Origen does believe in such a thing as Biblical history - it is just a bit peppered or has cherries on the cake with non-literal episodes. Taking this as "you can't take Genesis literally" is - I won't say "literally", I resist this temptation of a pun - cherry-picking.

Second, it is quotemining in omitting that Origen applies this to the New Testament as well, for instance the episode in Luke 4 and Matthew 4, as he mentioned it:

the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in order to show him from thence the kingdoms of the whole world, and the glory of them. For who is there among those who do not read such accounts carelessly, that would not condemn those who think that with the eye of the body— which requires a lofty height in order that the parts lying (immediately) under and adjacent may be seen — the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians, and Parthians, were beheld, and the manner in which their princes are glorified among men?

as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? Or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men?

Third, this leads up to a test on how representative Origen is of the Church Fathers. You see, we can quote a lot of different Church Fathers on both Matthew 4 and Luke 4, taken together in conspectus, namely in a magnificent work by St. Thomas Aquinas, whom Kirill is of course not admitting either patristic orthodoxy or personal canonisable sainthood of. Actually, Matthew 4 makes Origen himself more reasonable than above quote.

Let us first see the verses 8 to 11 in the Bible:

Matthew 4 : [8] Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, [9] And said to him: All these will I give thee, if falling down thou wilt adore me. [10] Then Jesus saith to him: Begone, Satan: for it is written, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve. [11] Then the devil left him; and behold angels came and ministered to him.

And here come the Fathers:

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. The Devil, left in uncertainty by this second reply, passes to a third temptation. Christ had broken the nets of appetite, had passed over those of ambition, he now spreads for Him those of covetousness; He taketh him up into a very high mountain, such as in going round about the earth he had noticed rising above the rest. The higher the mountain, the wider the view from it. He shews Him not so as that they truly saw the very kingdoms, cities, nations, their silver and their gold; but the quarters of the earth where each kingdom and city lay. As suppose from some high ground I were to point out to you, see there lies Rome, there Alexandria; you are not supposed to see the towns themselves, but the quarter in which they lie. Thus the Devil might point out the several quarters with his finger, and recount in words the greatness of each kingdom and its condition; for that is said to be shewn whch is in any way presented to the understanding.

ORIGEN. (in Luc. Hom. 30.) We are not to suppose that when he shewed Him the kingdoms of the world, he presented before Him the kingdom of Persia, for instance, or India; but he shewed his own kingdom, how he reigns in the world, that is, how some are governed by fornication, some by avarice.

REMIGIUS. By their glory, is meant, their gold and silver, precious stones and temporal goods.

RABANUS. The Devil shews all this to the Lord, not as though he had power to extend his vision or shew Him any thing unknown. But setting forth in speech as excellent and pleasant, that vain worldly pomp wherein himself delighted, he thought by suggestion of it, to create in Christ a love of it.

GLOSS. (ord.) He saw not, as we see, with the eye of lust, but as a physician looks on disease without receiving any hurt.

JEROME. An arrogant and vain vaunt; for he hath not the power to bestow all kingdoms, since many of the saints have, we know, been made kings by God.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. But such things as are gotten by iniquity in this world, as riches, for instance, gained by fraud or perjury, these the Devil bestows. The Devil therefore cannot give riches to whom he will, but to those only who are willing to receive them of him.

REMIGIUS. Wonderful infatuation in the Devil! To promise earthly kingdoms to Him who gives heavenly kingdoms to His faithful people, and the glory of earth to Him who is Lord of the glory of heaven!

AMBROSE. (in Luc. c. iv. 11.) Ambition has its dangers at home; that it may govern, it is first others’ slave; it bows in flattery that it may rule in honour; and while it would be exalted, it is made to stoop.

GLOSS. (non occ.) See the Devil’s pride as of old. In the beginning he sought to make himself equal with God, now he seeks to usurp the honours due to God, saying, If thou wilt fall down and worship me. Who then worships the Devil must first fall down.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. With these words He puts an end to the temptations of the Devil, that they should proceed no further.

JEROME. The Devil and Peter are not, as many suppose, condemned to the same sentence. To Peter it is said, Get thee behind me, Satan; i. e. follow thou behind Me who art contrary to My will. But here it is, Go, Satan, and is not added ‘behind Me,’ that we may understand into the fire prepared for thee and thy angels.

REMIGIUS. Other copies read, Get thee behind me; i. e. remember thee in what glory thou wast created, and into what misery thou hast fallen.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. Observe how Christ when Himself suffered wrong at the hands of the Devil, being tempted of him, saying, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, yet was not moved to chide the Devil. But now when the Devil usurps the honour of God, he is wroth, and drives him away, saying, Go thy way, Satan; that we may learn by His example to bear injuries to ourselves with magnanimity, but wrongs to God, to endure not so much as to hear; for to be patient under our own wrongs is praiseworthy, to dissemble when God is wronged is impiety.

JEROME. When the Devil says to the Saviour, If thou wilt fall down and worship me, he is answered by the contrary declaration, that it more becomes him to worship Jesus as his Lord and God.

AUGUSTINE. (cont. Serm. Arian. 29.) The one Lord our God is the Holy Trinity, to which alone we justly owe the service of piety.

AUGUSTINE. (De Civ. Dei, x. 1.) By service is to be understood the honour due to God; as our version renders the Greek word ‘latria,’ wherever it occurs in Scripture, by ‘service’ (servitus), but that service which is due to men (as where the Apostle bids slaves be subject to their masters) is in Greek called ‘dulia;’ while ‘latria,’ always, or so often that we say always, is used of that worship which belongs to God.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. The Devil, we may fairly suppose, did not depart in obedience to the command, but the Divine nature of Christ, and the Holy Spirit which was in Him drove him thence, and then the Devil left him. Which also serves for our consolation, to see that the Devil does not tempt the men of God so long as he wills, but so long as Christ suffers. And though He may suffer him to tempt for a short time, yet in the end He drives him away because of the weakness of our nature.

AUGUSTINE. (De Civ. Dei, ix. 21.) After the temptation the Holy Angels, to be dreaded of all unclean spirits, ministered to the Lord, by which it was made yet more manifest to the dæmons how great was His power.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. He says not ‘Angels descended from heaven,’ that it may be known that they were ever on the earth to minister to Him, but had now by the Lord’s command departed from Him, to give opportunity for the Devil to approach, who perhaps when he saw Him surrounded by Angels would not have come near Him. But in what matters they ministered to Him, we cannot know, whether in the healing diseases, or purifying souls, or casting out dæmons; for all these things He does by the ministration of Angels, so that what they do, Himself appears to do. However it is manifest, that they did not now minister to Him because His weakness needed it, but for the honour of His power; for it is not said that they ‘succoured Him,’ but that they ministered to Him.

GREGORY. (non occ. vid. in Ezek. 1:8. n. 24. in 1 Reg. 1:1. n. 1. 2.) In these things is shewn the twofold nature in one person; it is the man whom the Devil tempts; the same is God to whom Angels minister.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. Now let us shortly review what is signified by Christ’s temptations. The fasting is abstinence from things evil, hunger is the desire of evil, bread is the gratification of the desire. He who indulges himself in any evil thing, turns stones into bread. Let him answer to the Devil’s persuasions that man does not live by the indulgence of desire alone, but by keeping the commands of God. When any is puffed up as though he were holy he is led to the temple, and when he esteems himself to have reached the summit of holiness he is set on a pinnacle of the temple. And this temptation follows the first, because victory over temptation begets conceit. But observe that Christ had voluntarily undertaken the fasting; but was led to the temple by the Devil; therefore do you voluntarily use praiseworthy abstinence, but suffer yourself not to be exalted to the summit of sanctity; fly high-mindedness, and you will not suffer a fall. The ascent of the mountain is the going forward to great riches, and the glory of this world which springs from pride of heart. When you desire to become rich, that is, to ascend the mountain, you begin to think of the ways of gaining wealth and honours, then the prince of this world is shewing you the glory of his kingdom. In the third place He provides you reasons, that if you seek to obtain all these things, you should serve him, and neglect the righteousness of God.

HILARY. When we have overcome the Devil and bruised his head, we see that Angels’ ministry and the offices of heavenly virtues will not be wanting to us.

AUGUSTINE. (De Cons. Ev. ii. 16.) Luke has not given the temptations in the same order as Matthew; so that we do not know whether the pinnacle of the temple, or the ascent of the mountain, was first in the action; but it is of no importance, so long as it is only clear that all of them were truly done.

GLOSS. (ap. Anselm.) Though Luke’s order seems the more historical; Matthew relates the temptations as they were done to Adam.

e-Catholic 2000 : Catena Aurea by St. Thomas Aguinas : [Matthew] CHAP. 4
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/catena/untitled-11.shtml#_Toc384506911

So, the other Church Fathers (and even Origen, here) differ on how the Devil showed Our Lord the kingdoms, but none of the scepticism of Origen was quoted, St. Augustine contradicted him - "we do not know whether the pinnacle of the temple, or the ascent of the mountain, was first in the action; but it is of no importance, so long as it is only clear that all of them were truly done," and the consensus clearly seems to be with St. Augustine. It is literally historic. The author who gives most spiritual lessons is also the one who gives a fairly "naive" explanation on how the showing was "truly done" - it is whoever, either St. John Chrysostom or someone else, wrote a book I do not know the title of, but which was formerly attributed to St. John Chrysostom and is by modern scholarship no longer attributed to him. In the original text of St. Thomas, it says "Chrysostomus super Matth." and only the translation into English adds any "pseudo" to this.

So, we would perhaps do well to consider following all of the Church Fathers or all except on occasions Origen, rather than Origen against all the rest - and if we see this choice made imperative in the Catena Aurea, we may from above quote from De Principiis giving the context on the remarks against literality of parts of Genesis 2 conclude that probably the other Church Fathers would not agree on that one either.

It is 50 minutes past midnight on Easter Sunday, Christ is Risen, Glorify Him, and now I am cutting off this part here, I will make another post referring to the same quotes and answering Origen's difficulties to literality.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Easter Sunday
17.IV.2022

* According to Andrew Sibley, CMI, he specifically rejected long aeons in his Contra Celsum:

Origen, origins, and allegory
by Andrew Sibley | This article is from
Journal of Creation 32(2):110–117, August 2018
https://creation.com/origen-origins-and-allegory

And you can check that claim here:

NewAdvent : Contra Celsum (Origen)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0416.htm

** A post with short résumés in French on my main blog also indexes the actual full length articles in English on this blog, on this matter, I need not repeat each argument separately for Kirill as well, it's enough to remind him:

New blog on the kid : Une série de posts sur mon blog créationniste-jeune-terre
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/03/une-serie-de-posts-sur-mon-blog.html