3. Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians
Jerome's text shows that nearly all the catena fragments have parallels in Jerome's commentary. 29
29 J. A. F. Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen upon the Epistle to the Ephesians', JTS, os
3 (1902), 233-44, 398-420, 554-76, cites the parallel passages in Jerome's commentary on Ephesians in the footnotes to his edition of the catena fragments. See also F. Deniau, 'Le
Commentaire de Jérôme sur Éphésiens nous permet-il de connaître celui d'Origène?',
Origeniana: Premier colloque international des études origéniennes (Montserrat, 18-21 septembre 1973), ed. H. Crouzel, G. Lomiento, and J. Rius-Camps, QVetChr 12 (Bari,
1975), 166-8, 176-7; J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (New
York, 1975), 145-6; and G. Grützmacher, Hieronymus, ii, SGTK 10.1 (Berlin 1906; repr.
Darmstadt, 1969), 37-8.
A. von Harnack was so convinced of the extensive dependence of Jerome on Origen in his end p.6 commentary on Ephesians that he said, 'In a publication of the complete works of Origen one will have to ask oneself seriously if one should not publish Jerome's commentary on Ephesians as an appendix.' 30
30 'Origenistisches Gut von kirchengeschichtlicher Bedeutung in den Kommentaren des
Hieronymus zum Philemon-, Galater-, Epheserund Titusbrief', Der kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegetischen Arbeiten des Origenes, TU 42.4 (Leipzig,
1919), 156 n. 3.
Jerome's commentary constitutes a major witness to what Origen said in his commentary on Ephesians. This is significant for, as I noted above, Origen's commentary stands at the fountain-head of the exegetical tradition on Ephesians and, consequently, is of fundamental importance for that tradition (§1). I stress again, however, that this juxtaposition of the two texts allows us to hear only Origen's voice. It does not constitute a reconstruction of the actual text of Origen's commentary for, as I have indicated above and will show in more detail below (§3.3), Jerome's working methods do not allow for that nor, as we shall also see, do those of the catenist (§4.1.1).
3. Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians 3.1. The Setting of the Commentary in Jerome's Life
In 386 Jerome settled in Bethlehem, where the noble lady Paula and her daughter Eustochium, who had earlier come under Jerome's influence in Rome, built three convents for women and a monastery for men. Jerome spent his remaining life presiding over this monastery and devoting his time to the study of the Scriptures and to writing.
Early in this period Paula and Eustochium pressed him to produce expositions of the Pauline epistles for them. 31
31 Ephes. I. Praef. (539-40, Vall.).
Jerome, somewhat reluctantly, then composed commentaries on the four Pauline epistles,
Philemon, Galatians, Ephesians, and Titus, in that order. 32
32 There is a hint at the beginning of his comments on Philemon 1 that Jerome intended to treat all the Pauline epistles but if this was his intention he never carried it out for these four commentaries constitute all his commentaries on Paul (746, Vall.; see Kelly, Jerome,
149).
He wrote the commentaries rapidly one after the other sometime in the period, ad 386-8.
33 P. Nautin, 'La Date des commentaires de Jérôme sur les épîtres pauliniennes', RHE 74
(1979), 5-12, esp. 11, puts the composition in 386. G. Grützmacher, Hieronymus, i,
SGTK 6.3 (Leipzig, 1901; repr. Darmstadt, 1969), 60-2, puts it in 386 or 387. Kelly,
Jerome, 145, puts it in 387-8. Jerome remarks about the rapidity of his work at the end of the prologue to the second book of his commentary on Ephesians and says that he was sometimes writing as many as a thousand lines a day.
Jerome was still an admirer and defender of Origen, and especially of end p.7 his exegesis, at the time during which he composed the four Pauline commentaries. He had translated fourteen homilies of Origen on Jeremiah and fourteen on Ezekiel in ad
381. In the preface to his translation of the homilies on Ezekiel he refers with approval to Didymus' praise of Origen as the 'second teacher of the Church after the apostles'. 34
34 Cf. Princ., Rufinus Praef. 1.
In ad 383 he translated two of Origen's homilies on the Song of Songs for Pope Damasus.
In the preface to this translation he gives a short description of Origen's commentary on the Song of Songs. He praises Origen as superior 'to everyone in all his books' and says that in his commentary on the Song of Songs 'he exceeded even himself'. In 390 or 391
Jerome translated thirty-nine homilies of Origen on Luke at the request of Paula and Eustochium. In the preface to that work he refers to Origen as 'our Adamantius'
(Adamantii nostri). He says in that preface that when he was in Rome Blesilla had once requested that he translate the entirety of Origen's commentaries on Matthew, Luke, and John for her. The only reason he gives for refusing that request is that such a large undertaking would have demanded too much of his time and energy. He also notes that he has interrupted his work on his Book of Hebrew Questions in order to make the translation of the homilies on Luke. In the preface to the Book of Hebrew Questions he says that he would be willing to bear all the ill-will attached to Origen's name if only he could have his knowledge of the Scriptures. In his Lives of Illustrious Men written in ad
392 the chapter on Origen (ch. 54) is panegyrical. He praises his great glory, his study of the Scriptures, and his 'immortal genius'. No note of criticism is sounded in the chapter.
In his Apology (2. 16) Jerome claims to 'possess the whole of Origen's works' and to 'have read a vast number of them'. 35
35 Tr. NPNF, 2nd ser. iii.510.
Jerome's dramatic change of mind concerning Origen occurred in ad 393 under the influence of Epiphanius. Jerome's first known contact with Epiphanius came after the council of Constantinople in ad 381. Jerome remained in Constantinople a few months after the council and in 382 travelled from there to Rome in the company of Paulinus of Antioch and Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis. On his journey from Rome to Bethlehem in ad 385 Jerome stopped in Cyprus, where he was received by Epiphanius. 36
36 Jerome, Apol. 3.22.
Epiphanius had been engaged in a long and largely uneventful literary attack on Origen.
37 Kelly, Jerome, 197-8.
In ad 393 Epiphanius raised the level of his attacks on Origen from literary attacks to personal visitations of those holding Origen's views. He was especially concerned that Palestine harboured so many admirers of Origen. He sent Atarbius, end p.8
therefore, at the head of a group of monks to the monasteries of Rufinus in Jerusalem and of Jerome in Bethlehem to demand a renunciation of Origen's doctrines. 38
38 Jerome, Apol. 3.33.
J. N. D. Kelly assumes quite plausibly that Jerome's ready compliance with Atarbius' demands derived from his desire to please 'his octogenarian friend Epiphanius'. 39
39 Jerome, 198.
Rufinus, however, refused even to admit Atarbius and his monks into his monastery in Jerusalem. This stirred Jerome's anger against Rufinus because, he asserted, he had been suspected of holding Origen's doctrines because of his association with Rufinus. 40
40 Jerome, Apol. 3.33.
The dispute over Origen spearheaded by Epiphanius drove a wedge of division into the friendship of Jerome and Rufinus. Rufinus fanned Jerome's smouldering anger in ad 398 when, after his return to Rome, he published a translation of Origen's De Principiis and referred to Jerome's admiration for Origen in the preface to the translation. A vitriolic literary battle erupted between the two in which each wrote an Apology in defence of himself and as an attack on the other. 41
41 Rufinus, Apologiae in sanctum Hieronymum Libri Duo, PL 21.541-624; tr. NPNF, 2nd ser. iii. 434-82; Jerome, Apologia adversus libros Rufini, 3 bks., PL 23.397-492; tr.
NPNF, 2nd ser. iii. 482-541. On the controversy in general see K. Holl, 'Die Zeitfolge des ersten origenistischen Streits', in K. Holl, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte, ii (Darmstadt, 1964), 310-50; G. Grützmacher, Hieronymus, iii, SGTK 10.2 (Berlin, 1908; repr. Darmstadt, 1969), 1-94; Kelly, Jerome, 195-209; 227-58; and E. A. Clark, The Origenist Controversy (Princeton, 1992).
Origen's De Principiis, and especially the accuracy of Rufinus' translation of this work, formed the starting point of this debate although it ranged wider in the charges and countercharges which were made.
Jerome received a letter in late ad 398 from Pammachius and Oceanus who had read
Rufinus' translation of the De Principiis. 42
42 Kelly, Jerome, 236.
The letter expressed their concerns about some of the doctrines expressed in the work, their suspicions that Rufinus had eliminated even more controversial passages of the work in his translation, and about his implicit linking of Jerome with Origen's doctrines in the preface (Ep. 83). Jerome responded by making a literal translation of Origen's De
Principiis and sending this, along with a letter (Ep. 84), to Pammachius and Oceanus probably in early ad 399. 43
43 See Kelly, Jerome, 236-9.
In the letter he attempts to exonerate himself of all suspicion of holding Origen's doctrines. end p.9
3.2. The Debate Between Rufinus and Jerome Over Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians
One of the things Jerome does in his letter to Pammachius and Oceanus in his attempt to remove all suspicion of Origenism from himself is to refer the reader to his commentaries on Ecclesiastes and the three books of his commentaries on Ephesians. 44
44 See Append. A, Ep. 84.2. Jerome also referred to these same two commentaries to prove his innocence of charges of holding Origen's doctrines in his earlier letter to Vigilantius inad 396 (see Append. A, Ep. 61.2).
In these, he says, one will see how he has 'always opposed' Origen's 'doctrines'. 45
45 See Append. A, Ep. 84.2.
This statement brought Jerome's commentary on Ephesians into the debate, for Rufinus took up that commentary on Ephesians and cited a number of passages where, he claimed, Jerome repeated and accepted the doctrines of Origen. It is this which makes the controversy between Jerome and Rufinus of significance to this study, for Jerome, in his defence, points to several places where he admits that he has either quoted or followed
Origen in his commentary on Ephesians though he insists that he has never held Origen's doctrines. 46
46 The relevant passages from Jerome's Apol. are translated in Append. B. See E. A.
Clark, 'The Place of Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians in the Origenist Controversy:
The Apokatastasis and Ascetic Ideals', VC (1987), 154-71, and The Origenist Controversy, 122-4. Clark's discussion of the commentary on Ephesians in the controversy, while helpful in a general way, has a different focal point from mine. I am interested in the controversy for what it may reveal in the attempt to recover as much of the text of Origen's commentary on Ephesians as possible. Clark's article has no interest in Origen's actual text (I have noticed no reference to the catena fragments of Origen's commentary in either of her studies) but wants to discover how Jerome's ascetic ideals modified his Origenism.
It is significant to note that Jerome's denial concerns Origen's doctrines. He lists these erroneous doctrines to be those concerning the Son, the Holy Spirit, the fall of human souls from heaven, the resurrection of the flesh, and the restoration of all souls to one equal state after many ages (Ep. 84. 7). 47
47 Jerome gives a fuller list of Origen's errors in Apol. 2.12.
If he admits that these doctrines are erroneous, Jerome says, then he should be free to read the remainder of Origen's work without danger. He adds that once he has made this allowance for Origen's error there is no need to retract his former praises of Origen as an exegete and teacher nor to cease to praise him. This points us to the centre of the debate between Rufinus and Jerome over the latter's commentary on Ephesians. Jerome is not embarrassed to admit that he has relied on end p.10
Origen's commentary on Ephesians in the composition of his own, even translating parts of it. Rufinus, likewise, is not concerned to show that Jerome used Origen's commentary as the basis for his own. It is not, in other words, a debate about what in our day would be labelled plagiarism. F. Deniau has correctly pointed out that Rufinus, in his attack on Jerome, is not concerned to show that Jerome has used a particular text of Origen but wants to show that he holds doctrines of Origen. He thinks there is nothing in Rufinus'
Apology to assure us that Rufinus had read Origen's commentary on Ephesians. 48
48 He does think, however, that Rufinus must have known of the existence of Origen's commentary because he had certainly read Jerome's commentary on Ephesians where
Origen's work is mentioned in the introduction (F. Deniau, 'Le Commentaire de Jérôme sur Éphésiens', 170).
Rufinus never points to a passage in Origen's commentary on Ephesians to prove that Jerome is following Origen. He cites only passages in Jerome's commentary on Ephesians. This means that in the attempt to retrieve Origen's commentary on Ephesians
the comments of Rufinus have value only as a catalyst in that they prompt Jerome to identify what he has taken over from Origen.
At the end of his Apology Rufinus summarizes what he has argued against Jerome from the latter's commentary on Ephesians. 49
49 Apol. 2.41-2.
He begins with the question of the resurrection and of the distinction between the sexes in the resurrection. Rufinus does not say that he presented Jerome's view on this subject from his commentary on Ephesians but this is, in fact, the source of his criticism. Jerome had targeted Rufinus' Origenist view on these doctrines for attack in his letter to Pammachius and Oceanus (Ep. 84. 5-6). Rufinus responds that in his commentary on Ephesians 5: 28 Jerome holds the view which he now attacks in himself (Apol. 1. 23-4).
Rufinus also brings his argument on Jerome's interpretation of Ephesians 2: 17 around to condemn Jerome for holding the same view of the resurrection which he mocked in certain women in Epistle 84. 6. Jerome responds only in relation to Ephesians 5: 28. He says that the simple explanation which he gives first in his commentary is his own view and that what follows is the view of Origen. Then, to distinguish Origen's view from his own he cites what he says are 'the precise words which are contained in the third book of Origen's commentary'. This citation corresponds exactly with what Jerome has written in his own commentary. 50
50 See Append. B, 28-9. Jerome does not respond to the texts which Rufinus criticizes in the order in which Rufinus has them in his Apology, but takes them up in their order in the Epistle to the Ephesians. He also does not respond to all of the texts which Rufinus criticizes (see Clark, 'The Place of Jerome's Commentary', 156). Jerome says that he had not yet seen Rufinus' Apology when he wrote the first book of his own Apology in which he defends his interpretations in his commentary on Ephesians but that he depended on the memory of his brother Paulinian, who had memorized some of the texts in the list of texts which Rufinus had cited against him (see Append. B, 21, 28).
This testimony of Jerome allows us to identify some, at least, of end p.11
Origen's comments on Ephesians 5: 28 in the absence of any fragments in the catena commentary on this verse.
Rufinus then turns, in the summary of his arguments against Jerome at the end of his
Apology, specifically to Jerome's commentary on Ephesians.
I then took up one by one the points in which he had blamed Origen. . . . I showed from those very Commentaries of his from which he had said that we might expect to learn and test his belief, that on the circumstances of the soul, the restitution of all things, and the devil and the apostate angels, he has himself written the same things which he blames in Origen. Moreover, I convicted him of having said that the souls of men are held in this body as in a prison. I also proved that he had written in these very Commentaries that the whole rational creation of angels and of human souls constitutes one body. . . . In like manner I convicted him of teaching in these same Commentaries that the truth and more perfect doctrine is not to be published to all. 51
51 Apol. 2.42; tr. NPNF, 2nd ser. iii. 479 (revised).
Rufinus singles out six points in this summary which he has argued against Jerome on the basis of the latter's commentary on Ephesians. These points provide a convenient guide to his argument in the Apology.
The first of these concerns the previous state of the soul. Rufinus quotes and discusses
Jerome's comments from the commentary on Ephesians 1: 4. 52
52 Rufinus, Apol. 1. 25-7.
Jerome presented two interpretations. The second interpretation argues that all souls preexisted in an invisible state before they entered this visible world. He introduced the second interpretation with the words, 'But another, who attempts to show that God is just
. . . says'. Rufinus fastens on two aspects of this introductory statement. First, because
Jerome says the second interpretation is concerned to vindicate the justice of God this shows, Rufinus says, that the first interpretation does not vindicate God's justice.
Therefore, Jerome must hold, Rufinus argues, that the second interpretation presents the unquestionable catholic doctrine since all orthodox Christians are concerned to vindicate
God's justice. Second, Jerome must, therefore, intend that he himself be understood to be the 'other' who makes the remarks concerning the preexistence of souls for he would certainly want to vindicate the justice of God. end p.12
In his reply to this charge of Rufinus Jerome insists that the first interpretation given to Ephesians 1: 4 which takes the verse to refer to God's foreknowledge is his own view. 53
53 See Append. B, 22. Jerome takes up Rufinus' criticism of his view of the origin of souls again in Apol. 3.28-30 but does not discuss it in relation to texts in Ephesians.
He then says that he cited Origen's view but referred to him simply as 'another' to avoid introducing 'the odium of his name'. After quoting what he says he cited from Origen he adds that he has omitted nothing which Origen said although he has abbreviated his 'very extensive argument'. The material taken from Origen on this verse in Jerome's commentary seems clearly to extend beyond what he cites in his Apology. He must have broken off his citation after he thought he had quoted enough to show that it was Origen whom he intended by the term 'another'. The remainder of the paragraph, which carries on the same interpretation, is introduced with the words, 'Therefore, they say' (itaque . . . inquiunt). Jerome's defence allows us to identify another passage from Origen's commentary on Ephesians with confidence in the absence of any fragment in the catena commentary.
Rufinus presses this same accusation concerning the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls in additional passages in Jerome's commentary. First, he moves to the immediately following verses in Ephesians (1: 5b-6) and quotes Jerome, who says that those 'who think that souls turned away before the creating of the world . . . seize the opportunity in this passage . . . ' to prove the justice of God. Rufinus recognizes that Jerome ascribes this view to 'another' but insists that because he never argues against the view, as he does, for example, when he sets forth the doctrine of heretics such as Marcion, Valentinus, or Arius, the words must be those of Jerome himself. Rufinus accuses Jerome of using the manoeuvre which rhetoricians use of speaking in the person of 'another' to set forth their own opinions when they want to avoid ill-will against themselves (Apol. 1. 28-9). 54
54 Jerome offers a reply to the accusation of speaking in the person of 'another' in Apol.
3.13 but does not discuss it in relation to any specific passage in Ephesians.
Rufinus then cites Jerome's interpretation of Ephesians 1: 12 in connection with the same subject. Because the Greek participle in the verse has a prepositional prefix which means
'before', that is, 'those who have previously hoped', Jerome connects the meaning of this verse with the interpretation given of Ephesians 1: 4 which spoke of a pre-existence of
souls. Rufinus takes Jerome's statement, 'But . . . the addition of the preposition draws us to that understanding we discussed above when we were explaining' Ephesians 1: 3-4 to prove that when Jerome end p.13 introduced the views of 'another' in explaining that earlier passage he meant himself
(emphases mine). Rufinus argues that this is proved by the fact that Jerome introduces the alternative interpretation of Ephesians 1: 12 with the assertion that it is the view of 'another'. This 'another', he argues, cannot be Origen because the first interpretation given is in agreement with the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls for which Jerome condemns Origen. The interpretation Jerome gives of Ephesians 1: 4 and introduces as that of 'another' must, then, be Jerome's own interpretation. 55
55 Rufinus, Apol. 1. 30-30a. Two consecutive sections have the number 30 in PL 21. I have given the number 30a to the second section. It seems to me that the best explanation of the puzzle of why Jerome presented the two alternative interpretations of Eph. 1: 12 as he did is that he has taken the whole passage from Origen. The first statement noted in the text above is Origen's statement referring back to his own interpretation of Eph. 1: 4.
The alternative interpretation is also from Origen, which Origen introduces as being that of 'another' as he often does in his exegesis (see §3.3 below).
Rufinus also appeals to Jerome's interpretation of Ephesians 1: 22, 1: 17 (Apol. 1. 36) and 2: 3 (Apol. 1. 38) to show that he holds Origen's doctrine of the pre-existence of souls.
Jerome's Apology contains no response to these additional passages cited by Rufinus to prove that Jerome held the doctrine of the preexistence of souls. Perhaps they had slipped
Paulinian's mind. 56
56 See above, n. 50.
Jerome must have considered his reply offered in relation to Ephesians 1: 4 sufficient, however, for he wrote the third book of his Apology after he had read the two books of Rufinus' Apology and he provides no further defence of his interpretations in his commentary on Ephesians in this book. 57
57 The only reference to the commentary on Ephesians in the third book of the Apology is in 3.11 where Jerome repeats his earlier explanation that he offered the opinions of others as well as his own in the commentary.
Rufinus is certainly correct in detecting Origen's doctrine in these passages and it is quite probable that we have Origen's text represented in Jerome's remarks on Ephesians 1: 5b6, 1: 12 and 2: 3. We lack, however, Jerome's own admission to confirm this and there are no parallels in the catena fragments to the remarks of Jerome in question.
The next two points Rufinus introduces in the summary of his arguments at the end of the Apology concern the subjects of the final restitution of all things and the devil and the apostate angels (Apol. 2. 42). These are related doctrines in Origen, and Rufinus treats them together in his attack on Jerome. Rufinus argues that Jerome's commentary on Ephesians is interlaced with Origen's doctrine of the final restitution of the evil powers
(Apol. 1. 35). He begins by focusing on the alternative interpretation
end p.14
Jerome offers for Ephesians 1: 12 to which we referred above. Rufinus argues that this shows a belief in the doctrine of a final restoration of all things when even the devil and the apostate angels will be restored and will receive rewards of a 'second order' in the
kingdom of God (Apol. 1. 31-2). He cites Jerome's interpretation of Ephesians 2: 7 (Apol.
1. 34) as further proof of this doctrine in the commentary. He argues that Jerome's interpretation of Ephesians 1: 20-1 shows that he holds Origen's doctrine that souls may advance or decline on the scale of goodness in the various ages through which they must pass (Apol. 1. 35-6). He appeals to Jerome's interpretation of Ephesians 1: 22 and 2: 17 to show that Jerome holds Origen's doctrine that the cross of Christ had saving power for heavenly as well as earthly beings (Apol. 1. 38). Jerome's interpretation of Ephesians 2:
17 also shows, Rufinus argues, that he believes there is no difference between the souls of men and angels and that humans will be restored to the form of angels which they have lost (Apol. 1. 39). Rufinus cites Jerome's interpretation of Ephesians 4: 3 as further proof that he holds the doctrine of the final universal restoration of all things (Apol. 1. 41).
Jerome responds to Rufinus' criticism of his interpretations on only two of the passages cited. Responding to Rufinus' criticism of his interpretation of Ephesians 1: 20-1, Jerome denies that his suggestion of 'ascents and descents' indicates that he is following Origen.
He distinguishes between the 'ascents and descents' which he has mentioned and what
Origen taught. The latter, he says, taught that 'Seraphim and Cherubim become demons and human beings'. What he says, however, he insists, is that 'the angels have been allotted different kinds of offices among themselves'. The latter, Jerome asserts, does not contradict 'Church teaching'. 'Angels do not', he insists, 'become human beings nor are human beings, in turn, changed into angels.' 58
58 See Append. B, 23.
It may be that Jerome has modified Origen's interpretation as he insists. There can be little doubt, however, that his interpretation has been influenced by Origen. The parallel text in the catena commentary breaks off right where the point of controversy begins. The parallel text makes clear, however, that Jerome has been following Origen up to that point, at least, and the parallel catena text on Ephesians 1: 22-3 immediately after the controversial passage shows that he is following Origen there as well. Did he, then, break away from Origen for two paragraphs or modify what Origen had written? end p.15
The other passage to which Jerome responds from among those mentioned by Rufinus in connection with the doctrine of the final restitution of all things is Ephesians 2: 7. Jerome says that the first interpretation he gives of this passage is his own view, the second that of Origen, and the third that of Apollinarius. The passage from Origen, he says, is that introduced as the words of 'a diligent reader'. 59
59 See Append. B, 24.
This statement allows us to identify confidently another small block of Origen's material in Jerome's commentary in the absence of a parallel text in the catena commentary.
Rufinus then objects that Jerome holds Origen's doctrine that the soul is imprisoned in the body. He cites Jerome's interpretations of Ephesians 3: 1 and 6: 20 as proof (Apol. 1. 40).
Jerome mentions only Rufinus' criticism of his interpretation of Ephesians 3: 1 in reply.
He says, again, that he has offered three interpretations. The first is what he thought correct, the second is what Origen taught, and the third is the opinion of Apollinarius. He adds, however, that he does not think it 'an absurd interpretation that the soul is said to be bound in the body until it return to Christ'. 60
60 See Append. B, 25.
The interpretation which Jerome identifies as Origen's consists of a single sentence.
There is no parallel in the catena commentary for this sentence so Rufinus' accusations against Jerome have forced him to identify still another small part of Origen's commentary. There are parallels in the catena commentary, however, for the discussions preceding and following the paragraph containing this sentence and they show quite clearly that Jerome's whole discussion follows Origen, with the exception, of course, of the view Jerome had identified as that of Apollinarius and, perhaps, that which he has identified as his own. 61
61 See §3.3 below for my basis for questioning that when Jerome says he has expressed his own opinion he is not still following Origen.
Rufinus' next point against Jerome concerns the universal resurrection but he singles this out as a special point apart from his charge that Jerome holds Origen's doctrine of the restitution of all things. His particular point is that in the passage in question, namely
Jerome's interpretation of Ephesians 4: 16, Jerome teaches that 'the whole rational creation of angels and of human souls constitutes one body' (Apol. 1. 42). Rufinus quotes the whole of Jerome's rather lengthy discussion except for the final sentence where
Jerome says his text is rather obscure because he has been translating from Greek where the things were stated metaphorically. In his reply Jerome says, 'I abridged in a brief discussion end p.16
Origen's very lengthy exposition . . . omitting none of his examples or proofs.' 62
62 See Append. B, 26.
Jerome defends himself against holding the doctrine of Origen, however, by insisting that when he inserts the remark, 'yet not so that, as another heresy has it . . . ', he shows that he considers what he has just discussed to be heretical just as the view that he is about to introduce is also heretical. 63
63 See Append. B, 27.
He concludes his defence by noting that he said at the end of the discussion that he had translated these things from Greek and inviting Rufinus to look in the Greek text and see if they are not there. The catena commentary omits all discussion of Ephesians 4: 16.
Jerome's remarks are significant, therefore, for they give us a sure identification of a rather long interpretation of Origen in his commentary.
Rufinus' final point against Jerome argues that the latter had condemned Origen for teaching that truth is not to be communicated to all people. 64
64 Rufinus appears to be referring to Jerome's statements in Apol. 1. 18 about the sixth book of Origen's Stromata where he quotes Eph. 4: 25 and talks about lying.
Jerome himself, however, Rufinus asserts, sets forth this same doctrine in his interpretation of Ephesians 4: 25 (Apol. 2. 1-2). Jerome has no response to this charge in his Apology. The catena commentary, while lacking a parallel to the specific doctrine that Rufinus mentions on Ephesians 4: 25, does show clearly that Jerome has followed
Origen's commentary on Ephesians in his other comments on this verse. It is quite likely, therefore, that the doctrine highlighted by Rufinus in Jerome's commentary was also in Origen's.
This survey of the debate between Rufinus and Jerome over the latter's commentary on Ephesians further confirms the conclusion reached above that Jerome relied on Origen in the commentary in general (§2). It has also identified five passages in the commentary
which Jerome specifies that he has derived from Origen and for which there are no parallels in the catena commentary. These passages form part of Jerome's comments on Ephesians 1: 4, 2: 7, 3: 1, 4: 16, and 5: 28. It is quite probable that the other passages in which Rufinus claims to find Origen's doctrines and to which Jerome makes no response are also dependent on Origen's commentary on Ephesians. We cannot be certain in these cases, however, because Rufinus never cites any text from Origen's commentary itself. end p.17
3.3. Jerome's Methodology in Using Origen in His Commentary on Ephesians C. H. Turner observes that in his Apology Jerome sets out the way he has treated Origen's work. He has avoided 'doctoring Origen for Western readers' as Rufinus did. 'He himself either rendered the actual words, . . . or, where the exposition was a very lengthy one, reduced it to reasonable compass, yet without omitting anything either of the arguments or of the illustrations.' 65
65 'Greek Patristic Commentaries', 495.
Jerome himself provides an example from his commentary on Ephesians 5: 28-9 where he has translated Origen word for word (ipsa verba, Apol. 1. 28). F. Deniau provides a list of nine additional passages in Jerome's commentary which the catena fragments show to have been translated literally from Origen. 66
66 'Le Commentaire de Jérôme sur Ephésiens', 166, cf. 176-7. The passages translated literally are on Eph. 1: 13, 2: 19-22, 3: 13, 4: 13-15, 5: 4, 5: 5, 5: 7-14, 6: 1-3, and 6: 11.
It is important to note that there is nothing in Jerome's text introducing these literal translations from Origen to indicate that anyone other than Jerome himself is speaking.
The same is also true in the many parallels between the catena fragments and Jerome's comments where he seems not to have translated literally but to have paraphrased
Origen's thought. Where Jerome agrees with Origen he uses Origen's thoughts as his own.
It is only in those few places where he disagrees with Origen's view and wants to distance himself from it that he indicates he is expressing the view of someone other than himself by introducing the passage with the phrase, 'another says', or something similar. 67
67 See Append. B, 22, on Eph. 1: 4. Cf. M. A. Schatkin, 'The Influence of Origen upon St. Jerome's Commentary on Galatians', VC (1970), 50.
Even in such cases, it does not necessarily follow that the view Jerome claims for his own does not come from Origen for Origen often expresses more than one view on a text in his commentaries without choosing between them. 68
68 See the remarks of C. Bammel at n. 88 below.
Jerome sometimes also takes up a first-person expression in Origen's text and expresses it in the first person in his own text as if he were the person speaking. 69
69 A. Harnack, 'Origenistisches Gut', 156 n. 1, 161-2 n. 2; C. P. Bammel, 'Die Pauluskommentare', 198-9, esp. n. 73; F. Deniau, 'Le Commentaire de Jérôme sur
Ephésiens', 174 n. 16.
L. Doutreleau calls attention to this same procedure in Jerome's use of the commentary of Didymus on Zachariah. Didymus says, 'I have read the explanation in a commentary', and Jerome echoes, 'I have read in a commentary.' 70
70 L. Doutreleau (ed., tr.), Didyme l'aveugle sur Zacharie, i, SC 83 (Paris, 1962), 132.
In his remarks on Ephesians 3: 3 in the end p.18
catena fragments Origen says, 'But I think ( . . . δ0x001f72 νομ0x001f77ζω) there is a solecism in the passage.' Commenting on the same verse Jerome says, 'But I think (Puto autem) the manner of speaking is also defective in this passage' and a few lines later he refers to solecisms in Paul's style. 71
71 Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', 408 (13.11); PL 26. 587.
An even clearer example occurs in Jerome's appropriation of Origen's comment on the term συμμ0x001f73τοχοι in Ephesians 5: 7. Origen remarks, 'But I do not recall ( Figure acprof-0199245517-graphic-4 ) the term "fellow companion" used elsewhere outside the present passage.' Jerome repeats, 'Furthermore, I do not recall (Porro non memini alibi) that I have read the term "fellow companion" elsewhere except in the present passage.' 72
72 Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', 561 (25.15-16); PL 26. 645. These examples from Ephesians are noted by C. P. Bammel, 'Die Pauluskommentare', 199 n. 73.
In this repetition Jerome follows Origen even in an error for the term occurs also, as J. A.
F. Gregg and C. P. Bammel note, in Ephesians 3: 6. 73
73 Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', 561; Bammel, 'Die Pauluskommentare', 199 n.
73.
A. Harnack has also noted that Jerome often cites what he has found in Origen as if he knew the original himself. 74
74 'Origenistisches Gut', 151-3.
A. Souter considers that all references in Jerome's Pauline commentaries to Christian personalities who preceded Origen and to their literature are derived from Origen. 75
75 Earliest Latin Commentaries, 116-20. He also thinks Jerome's references to Greek non-Christian literature and mythology largely dependent on Origen (ibid. 122-3).
Souter notes, for example, Jerome's proven dependence on Origen from the catena fragments for his reference to the agraphon concerning 'money-changers' on Ephesians 4:
31 and 5: 10, and for his reference to Valentinus and his doctrine of two baptisms on Ephesians 4: 5. 76
76 Ibid. 117-18. Agraphon: PL 26. 637, 646; Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', 557
(22.37), 562 (25.47); Valentinus: PL 26. 610; Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', 413
(17.3-4).
L. Doutreleau points out that in his commentary on Zachariah Jerome often borrows his
Scripture citations from the commentary of Didymus on Zachariah. He uses the same
Scriptures as Didymus does, in the same order and in the same way, even fusing several passages as a single text as Didymus does. 77
77 Didyme l'aveugle, i. 130-1.
A comparison of Jerome's commentary on Ephesians with the catena fragments from Origen's commentary shows that he did the same with Origen. In the relatively short passage explaining Ephesians 1: 7b-8a Jerome follows Origen's exposition and cites five of the same passages of Scripture that appear in the brief catena remarks, and cites them in the same order as Origen (Luke 7: 41-3; 1 Cor. 6: 3; 1 end p.19
Pet. 1: 12; John 17: 21; 1 Cor. 15: 10). 78
78 PL 26. 554; Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', 238-9 (4.25-43). Jerome's citations do not usually correspond exactly in number with those in the catena fragments, sometimes being more and sometimes less than appear there. This is because both he and the catenist were selecting what they wanted to use from Origen's text. Jerome is not
dependent, of course, on our catena fragments but on the text of Origen's commentary, as was also the catenist.
In the longer exposition of Ephesians 2: 1-5 eleven passages occur in the same order in both the catena fragment and Jerome's commentary (2 Cor. 11: 6; Ps. 18: 13; Gal. 1: 4;
Eph. 5: 16; Gen. 47: 9; Eph. 6: 12; Matt. 6: 26; Gal. 5: 17; Phil. 3: 21; Gen. 8: 21; Eccles.
7: 20). 79
79 PL 26. 571-3; Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', 402-4 (9.155-224).
These examples could be multiplied throughout Jerome's work where there are parallels in the catena fragments. He draws his Scripture citations largely from Origen.
É Bonnard observes that in his Commentary on Matthew Jerome sometimes takes up theological themes from Origen's Commentary on Matthew. This is especially true, he says, of the theme of God's goodness, which was important to Origen against the denigrating attacks of the Gnostics on the God of the Old Testament. 80
80 É. Bonnard (ed., tr.), Saint Jérôme commentaire sur S. Matthieu, i, SC 242 (Paris,
1977), 37.
D. Brown observes that when Jerome does this in the Commentary on Matthew he 'ignores Origen's apologetic thrust against the Gnostics' since 'Gnosticism was no longer a "live" issue in Jerome's day.' 81
81 Vir Trilingus: A Study in the Biblical Exegesis of Saint Jerome (Kampen, 1992), 161.
The theme of God's goodness was a part of the larger theme of the unity of the God of the Old and New Testaments. This larger theme was important in Origen's continual polemics against Marcion and the Gnostics and occurs in many of his works 82
82 See, for example, Princ. 2.4.1-5.4; 2.9.5-6; Jo. 1.253; 6.15-31; Comm. in Matt. 10-17,
14. 13 (GCS 40. 313. 26 ff.). including the catena fragments on Ephesians.83 Jerome treats the same theme in his
Commentary on Ephesians in each of the same four passages in which Origen treats it. 84
84 PL 26. 547, 584, 645-6, and 663.
Three of the occurrences are in passages which Deniau considers Jerome to have translated literally from Origen. 85
85 See n. 66 above.
In two of these passages Jerome mentions Marcion by name, which the catenist does not do. This suggests that Origen had mentioned Marcion's name and the catenist omitted it for there would be no need for Jerome to introduce the name of Marcion where Origen had not. In his end p.20 comments on Ephesians 1: 3, which is not a literal translation from Origen, Jerome introduces the theme of the unity of the Creator and the Father of Jesus Christ. He does not introduce it at the same place in the text at which Origen does nor does he present it in the same way but, nevertheless, he treats the theme of God's unity in the same passage in which Origen treats it. He does not, in this last instance, refer to any heresy in connection with the theme.
F. Deniau cites Jerome's remarks about the nature of his commentary on Ephesians in his
Apology to show how Jerome conceived his work as a commentator. 86
86 'Le Commentaire de Jérôme sur Éphésiens', 172-3; see Append. B, 16 and also Jerome, Apol. 3.11.
There Jerome calls attention to the variety of literary genres and then notes that Rufinus' attack has focused on his commentary on Ephesians which belongs to the genre of a commentary. Jerome attempts to vindicate himself by arguing that the purpose of a commentary is to explain the obscure statements of another by citing the opinions of various interpreters of the author's words so that the reader may judge which interpretation he considers to be true. He notes here, as also in his preface to his commentary on Ephesians, that he has followed Origen, Didymus, and Apollinarius.
Deniau concludes from this that Jerome conceived of his commentary in the manner of a catena setting forth the views of others and, occasionally, his own views. 87
87 'Le Commentaire de Jérôme sur Éphésiens', 173. Deniau does point out that Origen contributes the lion's share of the remarks in all the passages that can be compared with the catena fragments.
This conclusion may be correct but it is misleading when applied to the problem of ascertaining the relationship of Jerome's commentary to Origen's. It suggests that Jerome has provided interpretations drawn from several separate sources. An observation of C. P.
Bammel, however, shows how cautious we must be when Jerome claims to be citing views from two or more interpreters. She notes that Origen regularly presented more than one view on a text and that a comparison between Jerome's commentary and the catena fragments shows Jerome repeating the different interpretations from Origen. This manner of working on Origen's part, she observes, gave Jerome the opportunity to appear to be citing the views of various commentators whereas he drew all the views, in fact, from Origen. 88
88 'Die Pauluskommentare', 197-8; cf. 205-6.
Most recently R. Layton has argued persuasively in a doctoral dissertation that, despite his claim to the contrary concerning multiple sources, 'it is likely that Jerome composed the entire commentary solely end p.21 by reference to Origen'. 89
89 'Origen as a Reader of Paul: A Study of the Commentary on Ephesians', Ph.D. diss.
(Univ. of Virginia, 1996), 298-9. See ch. 4 for his argument.
This conclusion must be slightly modified, however, by allowing for those few passages which Jerome specifically identifies in his Apology as having come from Apollinarius
(see §3.2 above). Most significantly, Layton has shown that Jerome's exegetical approach to the epistle relies on Origen. Origen, he demonstrates from the catena fragments, employed the 'Problems and Solutions' approach of the classical commentary tradition in his commentary on Ephesians. Layton finds this most evident in the use of questions and answers in Origen's text and in the division of lemmata to conform to a particular question. Jerome, he argues, has not always preserved this form but, even where he has not, it is often latent in his text. 90
90 Ibid. 201-302.
3.4. The Special Problem of the Prologues in Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians We know from Origen's commentaries on the Gospel of John, the Epistle to the Romans, the Song of Songs, and from fragments from his commentaries on the Psalms, Genesis,
Leviticus, Lamentations, Matthew, and the early small commentary on the Song of Songs that Origen composed prologues to the books of his commentaries in the format common to commentaries on secular literature. 91
91 See I. Hadot, 'Les Introductions aux commentaires exégétiques chez les auteurs néoplatoniciens et les auteurs chrétiens', in M. Tardieu (ed.), Les Règles de l'interprétation (Paris, 1987), 99-122; B. Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, SBA 18.1-2
(Basel, 1987), 57-84; R. E. Heine, 'The Introduction to Origen's Commentary on John
Compared with the Introductions to the Ancient Philosophical Commentaries on Aristotle', in Origeniana Sexta: Origène et la Bible/Origen and the Bible, ed. G. Dorival and A. Le Boulluec, BEThL 118 (Leuven, 1995), 3-12; idem, 'Restringing Origen's
Broken Harp: Some Suggestions Concerning the Prologue to the Caesarean Commentary on the Psalms', paper delivered at the conference 'The Harp of Prophecy: The Psalms in Early Christian Exegesis' at the University of Notre Dame, 1998; idem, 'The Prologues of Origen's Pauline Commentaries and the Schemata Isagogica of Ancient Commentary
Literature', SP 36 (Leuven, 2001), 421-39.
Each of the three books of Jerome's commentary on Ephesians begins with a prologue.
Nothing, however, has been preserved in the catena commentary from Origen's prologues so we have no specific texts to compare to Jerome's texts to see the extent of his dependence on Origen in the prologues. We do, however, know the kind of topics Origen usually treated in his commentary prologues and we may use these topics as a kind of grid to place over Jerome's prologues to see what in them might have been derived from Origen's commentary on Ephesians. end p.22
3.4.1. The Background of Origen's Prologue Topics in the Prologues of Non-Christian
Commentaries Our knowledge of the topics of commentary prologues dates from Karl Praechter's 1909 review of the Berlin Academy's twenty-six volumes of ancient commentaries on Aristotle called the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. 92
92 K. Praechter, 'Die griechischen Aristoteleskommentare', ByZ (1909), 516-38. This review has been translated into English by B. Caston in R. Sorabji (ed.), Aristotle
Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and their Influence (Ithaca, NY, 1990), 31-54.
The commentaries in the series range in date from the beginning of the third century, with the commentaries by Alexander of Aphrodisias, to the twelfth century, with the commentaries by Michael of Ephesus. In this review Praechter called attention to the schemata isagogica of the commentaries, which he located in the general area of the knowledge of how philosophical, and especially exegetical, lessons were conducted. 93
93 'Aristoteleskommentare,' 526.
He noted that from the second century on philosophical instruction was primarily exegetical in nature, which means a student read the works of the great philosophers of antiquity with a teacher who explained the text as they proceeded. 94
94 Ibid. 523-6. The commentaries on Aristotle are largely, Praechter points out, transcripts from these oral lectures of the various teachers and only later became literary productions. Cf. R. Sorabji, 'The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle', in Aristotle
Transformed, 7.
The reading of Aristotle always began with the Categories. Praechter noted that the commentaries on the Categories beginning with those of Ammonius in the sixth century begin with a twofold introductory schema. The first presents a general introduction to Aristotle's works and philosophy and the second treats the Categories themselves. The general introduction involves the following ten points.
(1) How did the philosophical schools get their names? (2) What is the division of the treatises of Aristotle (that we might know where we should place the treatise in question)? (3) With which treatise should one begin the reading of Aristotle? (4) What is the goal (τ0x001f73λος) of Aristotle's philosophy? (5) What are those things which bring us to this goal? (6) What is the literary form ( Figure acprof-0199245517-graphic-5 ) of Aristotle's treatises? (7) Why did the philosopher practise obscurity (τ0x001f74ν
0x001f00σ0x001f71φειαν)? (8) What sort of person must the interpreter of such writings be? (9) What sort of person should be admitted as a pupil? (10) How many chapters should one anticipate for each treatise of Aristotle, of what sort are they and why? 95
95 'Aristoteleskommentare', 527-8 (my translation of the Greek cited by Praechter).
Praechter has listed the topics as they appear in Simplicius' commentary on the Categories. He notes that there are some minor variations in the list as it appears in Ammonius, Simplicius, Olympiodorus, Philoponus, and Elias but thinks the differences not to be worth mentioning. end p.23
This general introduction to the philosophy of Aristotle which appears in the prologues of commentaries on the Categories in the sixth century and later was followed by what
Praechter called a special introduction to the Categories. The format of this special introduction, however, was not limited to prologues to commentaries on the Categories, but appears in the prologues to commentaries on other works as well. In other words, what Praechter calls the special introduction was the introductory format one would normally use when beginning a commentary on any work of Aristotle. This schema embraced the following points:
(1) The aim of the writing (τ0x001f78ν σκοπ0x001f79ν), (2) its usefulness (τ0x001f78 χρ0x001f75σιμον), (3) its authenticity (τ0x001f78 γν0x001f75σιον), (4) its place in the order of reading ( Figure acprof-0199245517-graphic-6 ), (5) the reason for the title (
Figure acprof-0199245517-graphic-7 ), (6) the division into chapters (τ0x001f74ν ε0x001f30ς κεφ0x001f71λαια δια0x001f77ρεσιν), (7) the part of philosophy, or of whatever field of study was concerned, to which the writing belongs and, occasionally,
(8) the manner of the teaching ( Figure acprof-0199245517-graphic-8 ). 96
96 Aristoteleskommentare', 529-30. Praechter took this list from the prologue to Ammonius' commentary on Porphyry's Isagoge.
Praechter notes that this complete list of points does not always appear in the prologues.
Sometimes it is stated that a particular topic does not need to be considered and sometimes a topic simply does not appear in the discussion. 97
97 Ibid. 530.
Praechter observes that he had not found this fixed schema anywhere prior to Ammonius.
He admitted that individual topics found in these lists could be found in commentaries prior to Ammonius but thought it highly unlikely that as many as three should appear in the same work as early as the third century. 98
98 Ibid. 530-1.
In 1964 M. J. Lossau, in a general investigation of ancient exegesis of Demosthenes, argued that the introductions to the commentaries treated the topics of date and authenticity, to which group of speeches the speech in question belongs (i.e. forensic or deliberative), the situation, and the contents or the intention of the speech. 99
99 M. J. Lossau, Untersuchungen zur antiken Demosthenesexegese, Palingenesia 2 (Berlin/Zurich, 1964), 124-5.
Some of the material Lossau worked with is early but it is fragmentary and limited in scope. 100
100 The papyrus fragment of Didymus (c.80-10 bc) is the earliest representative of the exegesis of Demosthenes (ibid. 66).
He end p.24 notes that the formal composition of the earliest commentaries on Demosthenes can be ascertained only with 'hypothetical methods'. 101
101 Ibid. 124.
Most of the prologue topics he lists do not appear in the first-century bc fragment of Didymus' commentary on Demosthenes with which he works. 102
102 Lossau attempts to reconstruct commentaries from the 2nd cent. bc on the basis of later materials (ibid. 67-127).
Two monographs by Jaap Mansfeld have greatly expanded our knowledge of the schemata isagogica. The first surveys the use of the schemata from Origen in the third century to Stephanus in the seventh, 103
103 J. Mansfeld, Prolegomena: Questions to be Settled before the Study of an Author, or a Text, PA 61 (Leiden, 1994). and then investigates the subject in relation to works on Plato and Plotinus and the medical commentaries of Galen on Hippocrates. Mansfeld's second monograph treats commentaries on mathematical authors ranging in date from the third century bc to the sixth century ad 104 104 J. Mansfeld, Prolegomena Mathematica: From Apollonius of Perga to Late
Neoplatonism, PA 80 (Leiden, 1998).
There are several significant points which emerge from Mansfeld's two monographs which have relevance for an investigation of the schemata isagogica in relation to Origen's prologue to his commentary on Ephesians. First, knowledge and use of the various topics found in the highly schematized prologues of the fifth and sixth centuries ad are to be found quite early in commentary prologues, some as early as the second century bc, and were clearly used by Ptolemy and Galen in the second century ad . 105
105 Prolegomena: Questions, 141, 174; Prolegomena Mathematica, 2, 38, 75, 82-5, 92-5.
This further confirms some of my own earlier findings in regard to the usage of the schemata isagogica by Alexander of Aphrodisias at the end of the second century ad . 106
106 R. E. Heine, 'The Introduction to Origen's Commentary on John', 3-12.
This means, of course, that such topics were not a novelty in the third century ad when
Origen began writing Biblical commentaries. The surprising thing would be that he should have no knowledge of them rather than that he should know and make use of them.
Second, this recognized set of topics which was considered before one read the particular text in question with students was referred to with the technical phrase, 'What comes before the study of . . . ' ( Figure acprof-0199245517-graphic-9 ). Mansfeld points out that this technical phrase appears in the conclusion of the prologue to Origen's
Commentary on John and traces the phrase 'from Thrasyllus in the first century via Theon of
end p.25 previous | next Smyrna in the second and Origen in the third, to Hierocles and Proclus in the fifth century C.E.' 107
107 Prolegomena: Questions, 26, 98.
Third, the distinction between what Praechter called the 'general introduction' and the 'special introduction' in the later formalized schemata of the fifth and sixth centuries does not apply to the earlier period. Topics from both of these categories are treated together in the prologues to individual works of an author. In this regard the topics concerning the qualities required of the student 108 108 Ibid. 13, 95. or of the exegete, 109 109 Ibid. 161. and the reason for the obscurity of the writing 110
110 Ibid. 16, 149-52, 159-60. are of particular interest in relation to Origen's prologues. Fourth, the topics may be discussed without the use of the later technical terminology111 and, as Praechter also noted in relation to the later prologues, without using the entire list of topics. 112
112 Ibid. 130-1; above, n. 97; cf. R. E. Heine, 'The Introduction to Origen's Commentary on John', 5-7.
Finally, an account of the life of an author was often considered an indispensable preliminary to the study of his writings. 113
113 Prolegomena: Questions, 6, 180.
This was known prior to Mansfeld's studies in regard to the poetic commentaries on Virgil by Donatus and Servius but he has demonstrated that this was the case also in regard to philosophers and other literary figures. These Lives vary 'in length, complexity and profundity'. 114
114 Ibid. 6, 38; Prolegomena Mathematica, 41.
In addition to helping one to understand what the author wrote, the Life may also have paradigmatic implications to show that the author's life was consistent with his teachings.
115 Prolegomena: Questions, 183; cf. 190.
3.4.2. The Prologue Topics in Origen's Other Commentaries There are two extant complete prologues to commentaries by Origen, one on the Song of Songs in the Latin translation of Rufinus and one on the Gospel of John in Greek. There is also a prologue to the first book of his commentary on Romans in Rufinus' translation though this prologue has been modified by Rufinus and probably abbreviated by him also. 116
116 In his own preface to the translation Rufinus tells us that it is his intention to reduce the bulk of the commentary on Romans by half. One of the things he has done to reduce the size of the commentary is to omit the prologues to all the books except the first. It was the practice in non-Christian commentaries to begin nearly every book of a commentary with a prologue. Origen appears to have followed that practice, for his commentary on John has a prologue for every book except the nineteenth, whose beginning is missing. It appears that Rufinus has drastically abbreviated even the prologue to book one, for it falls far short of the length of the prologues to book one in
the commentaries on John and the Song of Songs. Not only has Rufinus changed Origen's prologue by shortening it he has also introduced a section which he tells us did not appear in Origen's prologue. This is the discussion of Paul's change of name which occupies the final section of the prologue (see C. P. Hammond Bammel, Der Römerbriefkommentar
(AGLB 16), 42-4).
In end p.26 addition, there are a number of fragments preserved in catenae, the Philocalia, and Eusebius from the prologue to Origen's commentary on the Psalms. Beyond this there are, to my knowledge, only a few bits and pieces in fragments from prologues to commentaries on Genesis, Leviticus, Lamentations, the small early commentary on the Song of Songs, and Matthew.
I. Hadot and B. Neuschäfer have each argued that several of the prologue topics treated in later non-Christian commentaries can be found already in the prologue to Origen's commentary on the Song of Songs. 117
117 I. Hadot, 'Les Introductions', 99-122; B. Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, 57-84.
Hadot identified the following six topics in this prologue.
(1) The persons of the dialogue, that is, 'Who is speaking?'; (2) the literary genre; (3) the disposition necessary for taking up a study of the work; (4) the fundamental theme
(skopos or prothesis) . . . ; (5) the part of philosophy to which the work belongs and its place in the order of reading the works of Solomon; (6) the title. 118
118 'Les Introductions', 111-12; cf. 119 and Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, 77-84.
Mansfeld, Prolegomena: Questions, 11, has suggested that the utility of the Song of Songs is also discussed (Prol. 1.4-7). I fail to see this, however, in the section to which he refers. The section seems to me to discuss the qualities necessary in the reader, which is where Hadot places the section.
Hadot's first topic, 'the persons of the dialogue', is a topic treated by later commentators in prologues to commentaries on Plato's dialogues.
I have identified traces of six of the later formalized topics in Origen's commentary on John. 119
119 Heine, 'The Introduction to Origen's Commentary on John', 3-12.
There is a clear discussion of the reason for the title, and there are probable discussions of order, the division into heads, and the theme of the Gospel. There is also a discussion of the qualities necessary in the interpreter and probably also a discussion of the qualities necessary in the student of the Gospel. 120
120 Ibid. 12.
Most of these topics are discussed without using the later technical vocabulary of the topics but, as I noted in the previous section, this was common among authors of the end p.27 second and third centuries. I would add to those observations, since my earlier study considered only the long prologue to the whole work found in the first book of the commentary, that there are allusions to the topic of obscurity in the fragments of the prologues to the fourth and fifth books of the commentary preserved in the Philocalia and in Eusebius' Church History. 121
121 The discussion belonging to the prologue to the fourth book raises the question of the barbarous expressions in Scripture and responds with the Pauline text, 'But we have this
treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency may be of the power of God and not of us'
(2 Cor. 4: 7). If Scripture had the beauty of expression admired by the Greeks, Origen says, one might suppose that people were charmed by its beauty rather than grasped by its truth. In the discussion in the prologue to the fifth book Origen attempts to defend the large volume of works he is producing on the Bible. He cites Eccles. 12: 12 and refers to the 'hidden' and 'unclear' meaning in this text which warns against 'making many books'.
He asserts that to understand the meaning of this verse one must go beyond the literal sense of the text.
I add also the observation of Mansfeld noted above (§3.4.1) that Origen closes the prologue to the commentary on John with the technical phrase used to refer to the topics treated before the reading of a work with students.
The prologue to the commentary on Romans as we have it in Rufinus' translation begins with a discussion of the topic of obscurity. 'The letter written to the Romans', Origen says, 'is considered more difficult to understand (difficilior . . . ad intellegendum) than the other letters of the apostle Paul.' He attributes this difficulty to the confused and unclear expressions which sometimes appear in the letter and to the fact that Paul raises many questions in the letter, a number of which the heretics find useful for their cause. This leads him to a prayer which concludes with the words of Proverbs 1: 6, that God may
'make us worthy "to understand proverbs and figures, the words of the wise and their riddles".'
Origen next notes that 'the learned' observe 'that the apostle appears to be more perfect in this epistle than in others'. 122
122 Bammel, Der Römerbriefkommentar (AGLB 16), 37.15-17.
He then sets out Paul's progress in spiritual perfection by comparing statements in 1
Corinthians, Philippians, 2 Corinthians, and Romans. He especially contrasts 1 Corinthians 9: 27, where Paul refers to punishing and subjecting his body so that, after he has preached to others, he himself should not be cast off, with Romans 8: 37-9, where he says, 'For I am certain that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities . . . will be able to separate us from the love of God.' This section, I suggest, is intended as a miniature spiritual bios of the apostle. Mansfeld has pointed out commentaries in which the Life of the author is quite brief and where the commentator cites only 'what meets his particular purpose' from the end p.28
Life. 123
123 Prolegomena: Questions, 38; Prolegomena Mathematica, 41.
He also observes that 'in some cases the works [of an author] may be used to reconstruct the relevant aspects of the bios'. 124
124 Prolegomena: Questions, 180.
This is what Origen has done for Paul, for there was no Life of Paul available in the third century. Origen has reconstructed an aspect of Paul's spirituality from his epistles. His purpose is to show that by the time Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans, which shows a 'more perfect understanding', 125 125 Bammel, Der Römerbriefkommentar (AGLB 16), 40.79. he had achieved a more sublime spiritual level.126
Immediately after establishing that Paul 'appears to be more perfect in this epistle than in others' Origen suggests that the epistle was written from Corinth. 127
127 He bases this on Rom. 16: 1 and 23, 1 Cor. 1: 14 and 2 Tim. 4: 20 (Bammel, Der
Römerbriefkommentar (AGLB 16), 40.80-41.92).
A discussion of the place of origin of a particular writing does not appear to have been a standard prologue topic. Donatus mentions a discussion of origin in the prologue to his commentary on Virgil's bucolic poetry 128
128 Vitae Vergilianae, ed. I. Brummer, appendix in Tiberi Claudi Donati Interpretationes
Vergilianae, ed. H. Georgii, ii (Stuttgart, 1969), 11.197-8. 12.220 ff. but he means the origin of the genre of bucolic poetry and not where the individual poems were written. 129
129 See Mansfeld, Prolegomena: Questions, 43, 46-7.
This may have been Origen's addition to the list of topics for treating the Pauline epistles.
Finally, Origen concludes the prologue with a brief summary of the contents of the letter
(continentia epistulae) to the Romans. This falls under the general topic of the subject of the treatise. One of the things Proclus mentions in his In Platonis Rempublicam which should be discussed in the end p.29 preliminary matters is 'the "subject [0x001f51π0x001f79θεσις] of the discussions which pervades the work as a whole".' 130
130 Procli Diadochi in Platonis Rem Publicam Commentarii, i, ed. G. Kroll (Leipzig,
1899), 5.22-3; cited in Mansfeld, Prolegomena: Questions, 31.
In a discussion of the Collectio of the fourth-century Pappus of Alexandria Mansfeld says, 'When the summary of the contents of a particular work is given what came to be called its σκοπ0x001f79ς or 0x001f51π0x001f79θεσις as well as its parts are of course involved, though the terms themselves are not used.' 131
131 Prolegomena Mathematica, 20.
W. Rietz, P. Nautin, and B. Neuschäfer have all offered reconstructions of the prologue to Origen's Caesarean commentary on the Psalms. 132
132 W. Rietz, De Origenis Prologis in Psalterium (Jena, 1914); P. Nautin, Origène (Paris,
1977), 261-79; Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, 67-77.
Only Neuschäfer, however, has considered the prologue in relation to the topics of commentary prologues. Rietz provided a new edition of the prologue fragments contained in PG 12. Both Nautin and Neuschäfer based their reconstruction on Rietz's edition of these fragments. None of the fragments in PG 12, however, are found in the tradition of catena manuscripts on the Psalms known as the Palestinian catena, which M. Richard considered to be the most reliable catena. 133
133 'Les Premières Chaînes sur le psautier', in Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, BIIRHT 5 (1956), 89.
I have, therefore, suggested an alternative reconstruction of this prologue based on the fragments in the oldest and best witness to the Palestinian catena on the Psalms, the ninth-century Oxford manuscript Baroccianus 235. I have also used fragments from the Philocalia and Eusebius which I think Nautin incorrectly attributed to the early
Alexandrian commentary on the Psalms. My reconstruction finds clear discussions of the following five topics of commentary prologues: (1) obscurity, (2) the reason for the title,
(3) authenticity, (4) the number of psalms, and (5) the order of the psalms. There is also a discussion of the meaning of the term diapsalma which I think Origen introduced to the
topics to be treated in prologues to commentaries on the Psalms. Finally, there is the possible mention of the aim of the treatise and its usefulness. 134
134 Heine, 'Restringing Origen's Broken Harp'.
There are also some traces of the topics of commentary prologues in the fragmentary bits and pieces remaining from five other commentaries. Of the six small fragments from the prologue to the commentary on Lamentations, the first discusses the subject of the book, which would qualify either as the πρ0x001f79θεσις or 0x001f51π0x001f79θεσις, and the acrostic structure of the book, which might be related to the topic of the manner of the teaching. end p.30
The third fragment contains a discussion of the title of the book. 135
135 Fr. 1-71 in Jer., frs. 1 and 3.
There is a single fragment from the prologue to the commentary on Genesis preserved by Pamphilus. It may be related to a discussion of the obscurity of Scripture and of the qualities necessary in the exegete. The context in which Pamphilus places it, at least, suggests these topics. 136
136 PG 12.45-6=PG 17.544B-545A.
There are two possible fragments from the prologue to the commentary on Matthew. One comes from the catena and is a part of a discussion of the title. 137
137 Comm. in Matt. I, 2, fr. 1.
The same definition of 'gospel' given in the fragment appears also in the discussion of the title in the prologue to the commentary on John. The other fragment is found in Eusebius and discusses the order of the four Gospels. 138
138 HE 6.25.3-6.
The fragment from the small Alexandrian commentary on the Song of Songs begins by discussing the necessity of identifying the person who is speaking in Scripture and the persons who are being addressed. It proceeds to identify the changes in speaker and addressees as one of the causes of the obscurity of Scripture. 139
139 Phil. 7.1. See M. Harl, 'Origène et les interprétations patristiques grecques de l'"obscurité" biblique', VC (1982), 351.
The two fragments related to prologue topics from the commentary on Leviticus, however, are the most interesting of the fragments. They appear in what must have been the first lemma of the commentary on Leviticus 1: 1. 140
140 Mansfeld noted that prologue topics might be treated in connection with the first lemma in a commentary (Prolegomena: Questions, 47).
The first fragment treats the title and subject together. It was not uncommon in the earlier non-Christian commentaries for two topics to be treated together when there was some kind of connection between them. Alexander of Aphrodisias, for example, considered the title of Aristotle's On Sense Perception to reveal its theme. 141
141 Heine, 'The Introduction to Origen's Commentary on John', 6-7.
Proclus, in his In Platonis Rempublicam, says that one of the things to be discussed in the preliminary matters is " 'the theme of each (dialogue)" which', Mansfeld remarks,
'includes the issue of its title'. 142
142 Cited in Mansfeld, Prolegomena: Questions, 31.
Leviticus has this title, Origen says, because it contains things related to the priesthood, sacrifices, and other things of this nature ordained by God. The second fragment refers to
the teachings which have been hidden (0x001f00ποκεκρυμμ0x001f73να . . . μαθ0x001f75ματα) in the subjects treated in the book and how one who would understand them must approach them in the spirit of David who said, 'Open my eyes that I may understand the end p.31 marvels of your law' (Ps. 118: 18). 143
143 PG 12.397A-B.
This is a reference to the topic of obscurity and also to the qualities necessary in the interpreter.
The following prologue topics appear in Origen's commentaries. The topic of the persons either speaking or being addressed appears twice; the qualities necessary in the exegete or the student appears four times; a discussion of the theme or subject appears five times, and possibly six; the question of the order of reading or the order of the books appears four times; the topic of the title is discussed six times; the issue of obscurity is referred to five or, possibly, six times; and the following topics each appear once: the literary genre, the part of philosophy to which the work belongs, the division into heads, the authenticity, the number (of psalms), the usefulness, the manner of teaching, the Life of the author and the place of origin of the writing.
3.4.3. The Prologues in Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians There are prologues to each of the three books in Jerome's commentary on Ephesians.
144 PL 26.537-44; 586; 633-6 (Vall.).
The prologue to the second book is very short, however, and treats only Jerome's personal concerns. This prologue can be ignored in our analysis. The prologue to Book I also begins with a considerable amount of personal material that comes from Jerome which I pass over here. He makes the transition into the specific prologue topics by a discussion of the task of a commentator. This discussion could come from Origen, especially since it differs from Jerome's description of the task of a commentator given in his Apology. 145
145 1.16 (Append. B, 16) and 3.11.
The commentator's task, he says in the prologue to the first book of the commentary on Ephesians, is to 'enter into the meaning of the prophets and apostles, to understand why they wrote, in what way they have declared their thinking [and] what they regard as characteristic' of the various peoples of the Old and New Testament to whom their words are addressed. The first duty of a commentator mentioned in this list, 'to understand why they wrote', refers to the necessity of ascertaining the σκοπ0x001f79ς of an author; the second, to understand 'in what way they have declared their thinking' may refer to the 0x001f51π0x001f79θεσις or summary of the subjects treated such as I noted above in the commentary on Romans (§3.4.2). The question concerning what is characteristic of the persons addressed relates to their identity. The question of identity falls under the topic of the persons addressed which Origen discusses in the prologues to his commentaries on the Song of Songs. All three of these points are later taken up in the prologue to the commentary on Ephesians. end p.32
After making this general statement about the task of a commentator Jerome applies the discussion specifically to the epistles of Paul. He says that 'in conformity with the diversity of places, times, and people to whom' the epistles have been written, 'they must also have diverse themes (causas), subjects (argumenta), and origins (origines)', for Paul addresses the 'wounds which have been inflicted on the individual churches' and does not,
'like an inexperienced physician', attempt 'to heal the eyes of everyone with the same eyesalve'.
He then makes a short reference to the topic of order when he says that Ephesians stands in the middle of the epistles both in its concepts and in its order (ordine). He explains that he does not mean that it comes after the first epistles and precedes the shorter final ones, but that he means that it stands in the middle of the epistles 'in the sense that the heart of an animal is in its mid-section'. This shows that he is not thinking primarily of the location of the epistle in the Pauline corpus but of its central significance in Pauline thought, although he bases the latter on the former. 146
146 See R. A. Layton, 'Origen as a Reader of Paul', 314-19, on the location of Ephesians in early canonical lists.
In the same sentence in which he locates Ephesians centrally in Pauline thought he also alludes to the topic of obscurity when he says that this helps us understand 'the magnitude of the difficulties and the profundity of the questions' contained in the epistle.
The next subject discussed belongs, I suggest, to the topic referred to as the persons of the dialogue in commentaries on Plato. The addressees and their situation are discussed along with some brief remarks that could be considered to refer to the characteristics of the addressees, although that subject is discussed much more fully in the prologue to the third book. The Ephesians were worshippers of Diana and lived in Asia's chief city where idolatry and the magical arts flourished. They had long been held by the power of demons and knew the reality of 'spiritual beings and powers'. There is also a discussion of Paul, the person speaking in the epistle. The length of his ministry in Ephesus is mentioned and the nature of his preaching is described.
Jerome then comes to the σκοπ0x001f79ς and subject (i.e. 0x001f51π0x001f79θεσις) of the epistle, although neither of these terms or their equivalents appear. 'We have . . . repeated all these things', he says, 'to show why the apostle has heaped up more obscure ideas and mysteries unknown to the ages in this epistle than in all the others and has taught about the dominion of sacred and hostile powers, what demons are, what they are capable of, what they were previously (quid ante fuerint) and how they have been overthrown and end p.33 destroyed after the advent of Christ.' The last two subjects mentioned are distinct footprints of Origen, for whom demons had not previously been demons, and who gave a special meaning to the destruction of demons. 147
147 See §4.3.4 below for Origen's understanding of the meaning of the destruction of the evil powers.
The topic of obscurity is also mentioned here. The reason for the obscurity in the letter is linked to its subject which, in turn depends on the situation and characteristics of the addressees.
Jerome closes the prologue to the first book by acknowledging his indebtedness to Origen's three volumes on Ephesians and his minimal use of the small commentaries on the epistle by Apollinarius and Didymus.
Jerome begins the prologue to Book III of the commentary by stating that he has 'provided a sufficient discussion of the subject' (argumentum) of the epistle in the prologue to Book I namely that it reveals the 'mysteries hidden from the ages' (Eph. 3: 9).
In this prologue he intends to show how 'the etymology of the name itself corresponds with the understanding' which he set forth in his discussion of the subject. 148
148 See Layton, 'Origen as a Reader of Paul', 319-22 for a discussion of the possible sources of Jerome's etymology of Ephesus. He concludes that the most likely source of Jerome's etymology is Origen.
This I take to be a discussion of the standard prologue topic of the reason for the title. 149
149 The fact that the Greek fragment from Origen's commentary on Ephesians 1: 1 shows that 0x001f10ν 0x001f18φ0x001f73σ0x001ff3 did not stand in the text Origen used does not argue against this discussion of the title coming from Origen's prologue to the commentary (J. A. F. Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', 235). The text he used of the epistle may still have had the title Πρ0x001f78ς 0x001f18φεσ0x001f77ους Throughout the catena fragments Origen refers to the people addressed as the Ephesians. He even introduces his comments on Eph. 1: 1b by saying, 'In the case of Ephesians alone we find the phrase, "to the saints who are".'
Jerome wants to show how the title of the work and the understood subject and σκοπ0x001f79ς are in harmony with one another. There was precedence for seeing the theme or subject of a work revealed in its title in the philosophical commentaries on Aristotle and Plato. 150
150 See text above at nn. 141 and 142.
Origen also joined the two in his commentary on Leviticus, as I noted above (§3.4.2).
Jerome's prologue to the commentary on Ephesians is relatively rich in prologue topics.
There are discussions of order, obscurity, the persons of the epistle, the σκοπ0x001f79ς, the subject, and the reason for the title. Five technical terms associated with the schemata isagogica occur in the prologue: causa, argumentum, origo, ordo, and obscurus sensus.
Did Jerome draw his discussion of these prologue topics from Origen's commentary on Ephesians? Only C. Bammel and R. A. Layton end p.34 have, to my knowledge, addressed the question of the prologues of Origen's Pauline commentaries. Layton, in a doctoral dissertation on Origen's commentary on Ephesians, discusses the topics as they relate to that commentary. 151
151 'Origen as a Reader of Paul', ch. 5.
He concludes that the prologues point to Origen as their source though Jerome may have contributed 'an isolated detail'.152 Bammel's primary interest was not in the topics of the prologues as such but in using the prologues to help establish the chronology of Origen's
Pauline commentaries. 153
153 'Origen's Pauline Prefaces and the Chronology of his Pauline Commentaries', in Origeniana Sexta: Origène et la Bible/Origen and the Bible, ed. G. Dorival and A. Le
Boulluec, BEThL 118 (Leuven, 1995), 495-513.