Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
Recent scholarly interest in the Fathers as exegetes of Scripture has tended to examine the reasons why a patristic author takes a particular exegetical position. Rowan Greer's fine study of the Greek patristic exegesis of Hebrews best exemplifies this current tendency. Greer refuses to judge the ‘correctness’ of the Fathers' exegesis, for they have as much right to their interpretations as sixteenth-century or modern exegetes. Rather, he attempts to see how their theological concerns determined the questions which they asked of the Scriptures. These questions, in turn, shaped the answers that were given. This dialectic does not necessarily mean that these Fathers consciously forced the Scriptures into pre-formed theological moulds. The Fathers were honest in their desire to remain faithful to the Scriptures. Nevertheless, the theological principles which they either inherited from traditional views of Scriptural texts or formed in response to what they considered heretical opinions definitely shaped the questions which they asked of the Scriptural text and consequently, the answers which they received from it. This is no less true today.
1 The Captain of our Salvation. A study in the Patristic Exegesis of Hebrews [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1973]Google Scholar. For a statement of his methodology, see ibid., pp. 1–5. See also the summary of this methodology in Groh, D. E., ‘Changing Points of View in Patristic Scholarship’, The Anglican Theological Review, LX (1978), 460–461.Google Scholar
2 God the Anonymous: A Study in Alexandrian Philosophical Theology (Cambridge, Mass.: The Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, Ltd., 1976), p. 100Google Scholar. Cf. Harl, Marguerite, Origène et la fonction révélatrice du Verbe inconé (Paris: Editions du Soleil, 1958), pp. 107–108Google Scholar; Crouzel, Henri, Origène el la‘connaissance mystique’ ([Paris]: Desclée de Brouwer, 1961), pp. 108–112, 119–24.Google Scholar
3 For the date, see Nautin, Pierre, Origène. Sa vie et son oeuvre (Paris: Beauchesne, 1977), pp. 368–370Google Scholar. The dates for the other works of Origen which are mentioned in this paper are also those of Nautin.
4 For the fact that Origen received this trinitarian exegesis from a Jewish Christian, see Danielou, Jean, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, trans. Baker, J. A. (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1964), pp. 135–136.Google Scholar
5 PG 11. 148D-149A. For other instances of Origen's exegesis of Isa. 6:2–3 and Hab. 3:2 (LXX), see Kretschmar, Georg, Studien zur frühchristlichen Trinitätstheologie [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1956], pp. 64–68Google Scholar; Daniélou, , Theology, pp. 134–139Google Scholar; Crouzel, Henri and Simonetti, Manlio, Origène: Traité des Principes (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1978), II, 62–64, n. 23.Google Scholar
6 PG 11. 149A-B. Trans. Butterworth, G. W., Origen: On First Principles (New York: Harper and Row, Publ., 1966), pp. 32–33, revised.Google Scholar
7 For a discussion of this order of revelation, see Crouzel, , Origène, pp. 125–126Google Scholar; Hauschild, W.-D., Gottes Geist und der Mensch. Studien zur frühchristlichen Pneumatologie (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1972), p. 131.Google Scholar
8 On First Principles 1.3.4 (PC 11. 149B-C).
9 PG 11. 409B, C-D. Trans. Greer, R. A., Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer, First Principles: Book IV, Prologue to the Commentary on the Song of Songs, Homily XXVII on Numbers (New York/Ramsey/Toronto: Paulist Press, 1979), p. 213.Google Scholar
10 On Prayer 2.4 (PG 11.421A-B). Trans. Greer, Origen, p. 85.
11 See the solution offered by Ouhon, J. E. L. and Chadwick, Henry, trans., Alexandrian Christianity (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954), pp. 332–333.Google Scholar
12 See Origen, Commentary on John 2.2 (PG 14. 108B–109B); 13.25 (PG 14. 441B-C). For further discussion of Origen's subordinationism, especially with regard to the Spirit, see Hauschild, , Gottes Geist, pp. 141–149.Google Scholar
13 PG 11. 1316C–1317A. Trans. Chadwick, Henry, Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1953), p. 330.Google Scholar
14 Hanson, R. C. P., Origen's Doctrine of Tradition (London: S.P.C.K., 1954), esp. pp. 49–52Google Scholar. 83–7, 113, 126, 182–92; Hauschild, , Gottes Grist, pp. 128–129.Google Scholar
15 Commentary on Matthew 14.6 (PG 13. 1196C–1197A).
16 Daniélou, Jean, Origen, trans. Mitchell, Walter (London: Sheed and Ward, Ltd., 1955); pp. 157–159.Google Scholar
17 Dialogue with Heraclides 7 (Scherer, p. 70.5–14).
18 PG 11. 361B. Trans. Greer, Origen, p. 181.
19 Bible Reading in the Early Church, trans. Wilkinson, J. R. (London: Williams & Norgate, 1912), pp. 129–130.Google Scholar
20 Oration 21.6 (PG 35.1088B).
21 Hauschild, W.-D., ‘Die Pneumatomachen. Eine Untersuchung zur Dogmengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts’ (Theological Dissertation, Hamburg, 1967), pp. 16, 177.Google Scholar
22 First Letter to Serapion 22–27 (PG 26.581A-593C).
23 First Letter to Serapion 22 (PG 26.581 A).
24 First Letter to Serapion 22 (PG 26.581 A-C). Trans. Shapland, C. R. B., The Letters of Saint Athanasius concerning the Holy Spirit (London: Epworth Press, 1951), p. 121, revised.Google Scholar
25 See Laminski, Adolf, Der Heilige Geist als Geist Christi und Geist der Gläubigen (Leipzig: St. Benno-Verlag, GMBH, 1969), p. 148.Google Scholar
26 First Letter to Serapion 22 (PG 26.58 1B).
27 Laminski, , Heilige Geist, pp. 71, 148.Google Scholar
28 PG 26. 628B. Trans. Shapland, Letters, p. 171.
29 Third Letter to Serapion 1–2 (PG 26. 625B, C-628A). Letters, pp. 170–1, revised.
30 See Walker, J. B., ‘Convenance epistemologique de 1’ “Homoousion” dans la théologie d'Athanase’ in Kannengiesser, Charles, ed., Politique el théologie chez Athanase d‘Alxandrie (Paris: Beauchesne, 1974), pp. 255–275Google Scholar, passim.
31 See Laminski, , Heilige Geist, p. 148.Google Scholar
32 PG 26.589C–592A. Trans. Shapland Letters, pp. 129, 130, revised.
33 E.g. Letter to the African Bishops 7 (PG 26.1041B-C): ‘That which is changeable cannot be like God, who is unchangeable.’ For other references, see Laminski, , Heilige Grist, pp. 77Google Scholar, n. 126; 144–5. See also the comments of Meijering, E. P., Orthodoxy and Platonism in Athanasius: Synthesis or Antithesis? (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968), p. 101.Google Scholar
34 First Letter to Serapion26 (PG 26. 592B). Trans. Shapland, Letters, p. 131, revised.
35 Laminski, , Heilige Grist, pp. 148–149.Google Scholar
36 See First Letter to Serapion 25 (PG 26. 588C); Fourth Letter to Serapion 1 (PG 26. 637BC); 4–7 (PG 26. 641C–648B).
37 Fourth Letter to Serapion 4 (PG 26. 641D–644A). Cf. First Letter to Serapion 17 (PG 26. 572B-C): ‘All created beings, and especially we who are men, find it impossible to speak adequately concerning the things that are ineffable’ (trans. Shapland, Letters, p. 106).
38 Fourth Letter to Serapion 4 (PG 26. 644A). Cf. Fourth Letter to Serapion 6 (PG 26. 645C–648A).
39 PG 26. 580A. Letters, pp. 116–17, revised.
40 Kettler, F. H., ‘Origenes’, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart IV (1960), 1696.Google Scholar
41 See On the Decrees of the Synod of Nicaea 27 (PG 25.465B); Fourth Letter to Serapion 9–10 (PG 26. 649B–652A). See also the comments of Telfer, W., ‘The Fourth Century Greek Fathers as Exegetes’, Harvard Theological Review, L (1957), 94.Google Scholar
42 First Letter to Serapion I (PG 26. 532B).
43 Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Creeds (3rd. ed., London: Longman, 1972), p. 341.Google Scholar