Allegory, Origen in Dialogue With The Stoics and Plato

The Philosophical Stance of Allegory in Stoicism and its Reception in Platonism, Pagan and
Christian: Origen in Dialogue with the Stoics and Plato

Author(s): ILARIA RAMELLI
Source: International Journal of the Classical Tradition, Vol. 18, No. 3 (SEPTEMBER 2011), pp.
335-371
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41474721 .
Accessed: 30/01/2015 09:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Journal of the
Classical Tradition.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DOI 10.1007/sl2138-011-0264-l
Stance
The
Philosophical
and
Stoicism
Platonism,
its
Pagan
in
Origen
and
Plato1
Dialogue
of
Allegory
in
in
Reception
and
Christian:
with
the
Stoics
MediaB.V.2011
Science+Business
Springer
Thisarticleis composedofthreepartsand an epilogue.In thefirstpart,itspointis

and theauthorendeavors
thatinStoicismallegorywas partand parcelofphilosophy,
itintheirphilosophical
Theautoclarify
thereasonwhytheStoicsintegrated
system.
thortendstoruleoutthatitwas onlyforan "apologetic"
reason,inordertodefendthe
In thesecondsectionitis argued
is offered.
anda different
Stoicdoctrines,
explanation
as well,both
thatallegorybecamepartofphilosophyin Middleand Neoplatonism
and theauthorstudieshowa harshdebatearosebetweenthe
"pagan"and Christian,
and traditions
toconsider
sidesaboutwhichtexts,myths,
"pagan"and theChristian
in
truths
rich
of
(i.e.,
expressedsymbolically).
philosophical
susceptible allegoresis
and differences
arealso pointedoutbetweenOrigen'sand "pagan"alleSimilarities
ofbibonOrigen'stheorization
StoicandPlatonic.Thethirdpartconcentrates
goresis,
- significantly
includedinhisphilosophical
licalallegoresis
masterpiece,
againqua part
levelshe defines,
andparcelofphilosophy
literal,
moral,and
-, on thethreeexegetical
narratives
on
and on thespecialstatusofthescriptural
on theirantecedents,
spiritual,
and exegeticalpractice.In relationto
and thetelosin his own theorization
thearkh
theauthorargues
thathaveonlyan allegorical
theseexceptions
(narratives
meaning),
which
statusofPlato'smyths,
thatOrigenwas inspiredbythespecialepistemological
how
sometellingexamples,theauthordemonstrates
he moreover
praises.Providing
1. Thisis therevisedand expandedversionofa lecturedeliveredon November15,

I amwarmlygrateful
totheinviters
2010atBostonUniversity.
(especially
Stephen
onbehalfoftheStudyGrouponMythandReligion
ScullyandZsuzsannaVrhely
ofClassicalStudies),toall thosewhomadethateventpossible,
oftheDepartment
and thosewho discussedmydraftwithme,particuand to all theparticipants
whichsintopublishthisarticleinJCT,
Haase forhisinvitation
larlytoWolfgang
me.
honored
cerely
e Filosofia,
GreIlariaRamelli,Universit
CattolicadelSacroCuore,Facoltdi Lettere
ITALIA
1-20123
terzo
Gemelli
Milano,
1,
piano,Largo
gorianum,
Vol.18,No.3, September
International
2011,pp.335-371.
Journal
oftheClassicalTradition,

336
2011
International
/September
Journal
oftheClassicalTradition
and thetelosand,
withPlato'smythson thearkhe
Origenevenentersin conversation
ifnecessary,
corrects
them,and directly
comparesthemwiththebiblicalstorieson the
and die telos.
arkhe
I.
role of allegory in Stoicism,fromthe Old Stoa to Neostoicism or
Roman Stoicism,is philosophicallyremarkable,as allegory- and espeThe ciallyallegoresis,i.e. theallegoricalexegesis ofmyths,rituals,etc.- was
in Stoicism.Indeed, I have argued extensively,
part and parcel of philosophy
fortheStoics,farfrombeing
thatallegorywas philosophy
and I hope forcefully,
a mereetymologizing(althoughetymologies,especiallyofepithetsofdeities,
were importantin Stoicism,and interpretedin both a physicaland an ethical
/rhetoricaldevice
key).2Stoic allegorywas not,or certainlynotonly,a literary
in its value.
or skhma,
but it was primarilyphilosophical
Allegoresis had been used since the very beginning of Stoicism,from
Zeno' s commentarieson Homer and Hesiod onwards.3Cleanthes also enof archaicpoetry,even proposingtexgaged in the allegoricalinterpretation
tual emendationsthatsupportedit.He was convincedthatpoetryis theaptest
way to expressthesublimityof what is divine:
Cleanthes maintainsthatpoetic and musical models are better.For
the rationaldiscourse [Aoyos]of philosophyadequately reveals divine and human things,but,per se, it does not possess appropriate
expressions[Xesisoimai] to conveytheaspects ofdivine greatness
This is why meter,melodies,and rhythmsreach,inso[0sa Msy0ri].
faras possible,thetruthofthecontemplationofdivinerealities(SVF
1.486).
Consistentlywiththis,
Cleanthes [...] used to state thatthe divinitiesare mysticalfigures
and sacred names [KqoeisUpa], thatthesun is
[muotikoc
oxtmgtcx]
a bearer of the sacred torch,and that the universe is a mystery
and used to call those inspiredby the divinitiespriests
[jjuoTripiov],
of
capable initiatingpeople to mysteries[teeotcx](SVF 1.538).4
e problemidel pensiero
Temimetafisici
2. See I. Ramelli,Allegoria
, I, L'etclassica,
disantico98,Milan:Vitae Pensiero,
2004,chs.1 and 9, also withwide-ranging
I
add
I
refer
readers
and
now
to
which
cussionofexisting
Metaphor,
scholarship,
andModern
Revisions
Ancient
Tradition.
, ed. G.R.
; andtheClassical
Thought
Allegory
Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press,2003,and TheCambridge
CompanBoys-Stones,
iontoAllegory
CUP,2010(a review
, eds. R. Copelandand P.T.Struck,
Cambridge:
in thisJournal).
ReviewsofAllegoria,
articleon whichis forthcoming
I, byF.FerMawr
Review
Classical
95 (2007)979-983;R. Chiappiniello,
rari,Athenaeum
Bryn
2006;M.N. Bustos,Stylos14 (2005)182-187.
dell'eth
classica
3. See Ramelli,Allegoria
,
, I (above,n. 2), ch.2.1-2;eadem,Allegoristi
ReMilan:Bompiani,
2007,ch.1,section2,onZeno,withtextsandcommentaries.
viewedbyM. Herrerode Huregui,7/w13(2008)333-334.
textsand commentaries
I (above,n. 2),ch.2.3;therelevant
4. See Ramelli,Allegoria,
dell'et
areinAllegoristi
classica(above,n. 3),ch.1,section3, on Cleanthes.

337
Ramelli
It is meaningfulthatCleanthes does not divide philosophy into logic,

but into six parts,
physics,and ethics,which is the standardStoic partition,5
which result,I think,fromthe duplication of the aforementionedthree:diethicsand politics,and physicsand theology(SVF 1.482).
alecticsand rhetoric,
The last couple is the most relevantto thepresentinvestigation.Physicsand
theologyare distinguished,but at the same timecoupled; in Stoic immanentism,physicsends up coincidingwiththeology,but Cleanthesattachesa special importanceto the religiousplane, in a "mystical"perspective.Although
forCleanthes,too,theobjectsofphysicsand theologyare coextensive,neverfromphysics,in thatitexplains theuniverse
thelesstheologyis differentiated
the deities seen as mysticalfigures,and myths,which are
seen as a mystery,
expressed in a more sublime and symbolicformthan the discursive logos.
In thisway,
Now, such an explanationis thetaskofallegoricalinterpretation.
founded upon allegoresis.
theologyis constitutively
My argument,though,is principallybased on Chrysippus,6and not only on
his use ofallegoresisin his exegesis ofOrpheus,Musaeus, Homer and Hesiod
of
in Book 2 of his TTepi0scov,On Divinities
, but especially on his theorization
classified
work
1
the
same
in
of
Book
(SVF 2.1009,significantly
by
allegoresis
von Arnimunder theheading Physica.VII, and not under "theology").Here,
Chrysippustheorizedtherelationofallegoryto theology,as expressedin poetry,rituals,and traditionin general, including visual representations.He
claimedthattheexpressionoftruth,oftheLogos, takesplace throughphilosoofnormsand customs,including
phers,poets,and "legislators,"or institutors
be interrituals.Poetry,expressingmyth,and cultictraditionsmusttherefore
pretedallegoricallyin orderto detectthetruthhidden in them,and since truth
is one, just as the Stoic Logos is one, the truththerebydetectedwill be one
withthephilosophical truthof Stoicism.Afterobservingthatthebeauty and
orderofthestarsand thecosmos inspiredhumanbeingswiththenotionofthe
divinities,Chrysippusgoes on to say:
O tvTrspiTcov0scovTrapaSovTssoeaonov i xpiaivss0r|Kav
rjiiv
5 TOUMU0IKOU,
TOU(UOIKOU,
ElScOV,
TpiTOV5s
[J8V
5E'JTSpOV
TTpCOTOV
5s TO |JEV
AlSaGKETCCI
SKTCOV
TOTT)VJjapTUpiaV
VO|JCOV
sXr]<J)TOS.
to 5s
tcov
utto
to
5s
tcov
utto
ttoititcov,
<t>iAoao<j)cov, |ju0ikov
(Jhjoikov
OUVOTCXTai.
OCEI
TTOXSCOS
VOpiKOV
SKCXOTTIS
U<J>'
Those who have handed down the worship of the gods have presented it to us in threeforms:first,in the physicalform;second, in
the mythical
form,and third,in theformattestedby norms("laws").
, themythicalone by
Now, thephysicalformis taughtby philosophers
poets, and thenormativeone is establishedby the individual cities.
mostrecently,
5. See forinstance,
,
J.B.Gourinatand J.Barnes,eds.,Lirelesstociens
de France,2009,withreviewby I. Ramelliin Bryn
Paris:Pressesuniversitaires
2010.
MazvrClassicalReview
delletaclassica(above,n.3),
I (above,n.2),ch.2.4;Allegonsti
6. See Ramelli,
Allegoria,
textsand commentaries.
withtherelevant
ch.1,section4, on Chrysippus,

338
2011
International
/September
Journal
Chrysippus'theorizationclearlymeans thatallegoryis partoftheology,which

is a majorconstituentofStoicphilosophy.Allegory,to be precise,providesthe
verylinkbetween theologyand physics (or sometimesethics),which is the
veryheartof the whole Stoic immanentisticsystem.It is remarkablethatin
what immediately follows the above-quoted passage from SVF 2.1009,
in a physical'>rethical
Chrysippusin factoffersan allegoricalinterpretation,
sense, of the deitiesand heroes of myths,also having recourseto etymology.
confersa systematiccharacterto Stoic alleIn thisway,he programmatically
In
this
of
passage he divides thedeitiesintoseven
goresis theologicalmyths.
as
Ouranos and Gea, in connectionwith
deities
such
cosmic
categories: 1)
whom Chrysippus recalls thathuman beings gained the notion of divinity
fromthe contemplationof the stars;2) beneficentdeities;3) harmfuldeities;
4) deitiesrepresentingpassions; 5) deitiesrepresentingvirtues;6) "mythical"
deities,createdby poets and 7) beneficentdeities thathave a human origin,
like Heracles. Each of these categories,as Chrysippusspecifies,corresponds
to an evvoia 0e>v,an "idea of the divinities,"and entails a peculiar applicationofallegory.Allegory,accordingto Chrysippus,is even themainmodality
of the study of theology,in all of its traditionalexpressions,and connectsit
ofculan importantinstrument
withphysicsand ethics.Allegoryis therefore
turalunity.Now, such a need musthave been feltby Chrysippusin a particularlystrongway,given his extremelybroad culturalinterests,reflectedin a
greatdeal of workson a wide range of topics,many of which devoted to linguisticsand logic.
Allegoresisof mythswas carriedout by many exponentsof Stoicismafterwards,such as Diogenes of Babylonia in his work on Athena,richin etymologyand consistentwithhis interestsin linguisticsand logic;Apollodorus
On Divinities
ofAthens,the authorof a TTspi0e<>v,
, of a work on etymology,
and of a Homeric commentaryfullof allegoricaland etymologicalinterpretations; and Crates of Mallus, the author of systematiccommentarieson
Homer,who put his own philosophical and philological skills to the service
of Homer, seen as a poet steeped in many disciplines,
of his interpretation
fromastronomyto geography.Crateshimselfcoined theself-designation
Kpitikos, meaningthatnot onlywas he versed in philology,grammar,linguistic,
and literature,
but thatthesecompetenceswere framedin a philosophicalsystem,theStoic one.7
Chrysippus'theorizationwas of such importthatit is stillreflected,not
but also in
only in Apollodorus and Crates,or in Varro'sTheologiaTripertita,
Annaeus Cornutus,in thefirstcenturyCE. Indeed, Cornutuswas stronglyinfluencedby Chrysippus,as well as by Apollodorus.8In his handbook of alle-
I (above,n. 2), ch.2.5 (Diogenes)and

7. On theseallegorists
see Ramelli,Allegoria,
dell'etclassica(above,n. 3), ch.1,secch.3 (Apollodorusand Crates);Allegoristi
and Crateswithall theirallegoricaltextscomtionson Diogenes,Apollodorus,
mentedon.
I (above,n. 2), ch.6; eadem,AnneoCorin RamelliAllegoria,
8. Extensive
treatment
traduzionee
e integrativo,
di teologa
nuto:Compendio
greca,saggiointroduttivo
79
R.
Aevum
reviewed
Milan:
220;F.
Radice,
(2005)
2003;
by
Bompiani,
apparati,
8 (2008)
Athenaeum
95 (2007)550-551;J.-B.Gourinat,
Ferrari,
Antique
Philosophie

339
Ramelli
or CompendiumTheologiae
goresis applied to the Greek gods, the'ETTi5po|JTi
Graecae,in the conclusion ( 35), Cornutusdeclares that
Ox oi TuxovTEssysvovTOoi TTaXaiot,ccAKai auviEvai t]v toi
komou4>aiv iKavoi Kai Tipos to 5icxaupoXcovKai aiviyijaTcov
<j>iAooo<J>r|aai
nepi auTjs EUETT<J>opoi.
The ancientswere notpeople ofno account,but theywere bothable
to understandthenatureof thecosmos and well capable ofexpressing philosophical truthson it throughsymbolsand allusions.
Allegoresisperformsthe verytask of findingthe philosophical truthunder
theveil ofriddles.This is why itbelongs,and mustnecessarilybelong,to philosophy.Cornutusprobablyjoined theMiddle Stoic (Posidonian: see Sen. Ep.
90) idea of theexcellenceof thefirsthuman beings,who could directlyaccess
thetruthand expressed it throughmythsand rituals,to theOld Stoic notion
of directand common access to truthby means of common innatenotionsor
Koivai Evvoiai.The resultwas the supportof the inclusionof allegoricalexegesis in philosophy,as an importantaspect of philosophyitself.For each divinity,from Ouranos to Hades, Cornutus in his handbook provides an
ofitsnames and epithets,itsattributes,
allegorical-etymological
interpretation
and
and
so
on. Physicalallegory(Zeus represents
of
its
rituals,
myths
aspects
the ether,Hera the air,etc.) is prevalent,althoughthereare also examples of
ethicaland even historicalexegeses.
From Cornutus' (and Chrysippus') perspective,poetry and the other
formsof transmissionof ancient "theology,"such as rituals,culticepithets,
and visual representations,
expressvarious truthsin a symbolicway,whichalmust
This
, and more specifically
decrypt.
operationis philosophical
legoresis
the
truth
on
nature
and
the
since
its
is
object
divinity;in the Stoic
theological
immanentistic
framework,
indeed,divinityand natureare coextensive,so that
theologyand physicsare one and the same or rathertwo sides of thesame
coin and allegoresisreveals thisveryidentity.In thisconnection,etymology
was abundantly employed in Stoicism in the service of philosophical allegoresis,but the latteris farfrombeing reduced to an etymologizing,as has
sometimesbeen assumed.9Etymologyitselfwas an expressionof the Stoics'
philosophicaltheoryof language, accordingto which names are "by nature"
in thatthe "firstsounds" (TTpcTai<(>cova)imitatedthe objects,and
(<J>oEi),
286-289.On Cornuto
areexpressly
based (see "Vorwort,"
p. VII) theintroduction,
Einberblick
andnotesofthevolumeCornutus:
DieGriechischen
Gtter.
translation,
undDeutungen
berNamen
, Bilder
, hrsg.v.H.-G.Nesselrath,
eingel.,bers,u. m.inH.-J.Klauck,I. Ramelli
terpretierenden
Essaysvers.v.F.Berdozzo,G. Boys-Stones,
u. A.V.Zadorojnyi,
SAPERE14,Tbingen:MohrSiebeck,2009.
P.Steinmetz,
9. See,forinstance,
Deutungundallegorische
Dichtung
"Allegorische
in deraltenStoa,"Rheinisches
Museum129(1986)18-29;in partalso A.A. Long,
in Philoand Etymology
in Stoicism:a Plea forDrawingDistinctions,"
"Allegory
TheStudiaPhilonica
Annual9 (1997)198-210,
esp. 200-201.See also J.Tate,"Cornutusand thePoets,"ClassicalQuarterly
23 (1929)41-45;idem,"Platoand Alle24 (1930)1-10,esp. 3; idem,"On the
ClassicalQuarterly
goricalInterpretation,"
ClassicalQuarterly
28 (1934)105-114.
HistoryofAllegorism,"

340
2011
International
/September
Journal
on thisbasis names were constituted.Etymologywas conceived as an instrumentboth fortheunderstandingof thetruenatureof thegods, given thatetymologygoes back to theauthenticmeaningofa name,and forshowinghow
traditionalnames and epithetsof deitiesreflecttheirnature,physicalor ethical. This same natureis expressed allegoricallyin myths.Etymologydemonofthetraditionsconcerningthegods
stratesthattheallegoricalinterpretation
is not a mere intellectualgame, but thatit is "true" (Itumo),in thatetymology,accordingto theStoic linguistictheory,has a directgrasp on nature.This
is why it is a privilegedinstrumentof allegory.
One may wonder why the Stoics attached to allegory such a philosophical
prominence.This issue in turnbears on thequestion of therole of allegoryin
Stoicism,whichI do notbelieve was simplyto supportStoic philosophy(in a
merely"apologetic" line). This mighthave been the case at thebeginningof
Stoicism,but less so in the day of Chrysippus,and even less in thatof Corof mythswas a
nutus. It is obviously the case thatthe Stoics' interpretation
as is shown forinstanceby Book 2 ofChrysippus'On DiStoicinterpretation,
vinities,
, in which the material fromHesiod, Homer, and other poets was
adapted to Stoictheologysuch as expounded in Book 1 ofthesame work.The
merely"apologetic" explanation,however,is unsatisfyingvis--vis the apparentlygrowinginterestin allegoresisamong theStoics,and theirgrowingallegoricalproduction.Ifallegoresiswas merelymeantto prove thetruthofthe
doctrinesof the Stoics, one should expect a declineof theirinterestin allegoresisof mythover time,when theStoic systemcould stand by itself.Moreover,in such a rigorousand structuredsystem,at a certainpoint thesupport
of theallegoricalexegesis of Homer and othermythologicaland cultictraditionswould have proved too unsystematicand episodic to be helpfulto a significantextent.
oftheRather,I suspectthatStoicismintendedto servetheinterpretation
ological poems and, more generally,aimed at integratinginto its own philosophical system the traditional expressions of theology poetic, cultic,
a
broad
cultural
creation
of
synthesis,iniconographie... witha view to the
but
traditional
die
philosophicallylegitimizedin the due
heritage,
cluding
forms.This meant a rvaluationof myth,in its various traditionalexpressions- rituals,epithets,poetry,iconography,... - as beareroftruth,afterithad
been corrodedby rationalisticcriticism.The Stoics,interestedas theywere in
intendedto validate poetryand
poetry,and literature,
linguistics,etymology,
otherexpressionsof mythand theology,by means of allegoresisaccordingto
theirown philosophicalsystem.Such a validationwas probablymeantto constructa broad and organic cultural unity,systematicand comprehensive,
based on the Logos.10This is clear,forinstance,in Chrysippusand Posidonius. Indeed, thewhole of theStoic allegoricaldiscourse revolvesaround the
Logos. It is the Logos-Pneuma of which the various deities are partialmanifestations;theLogos inspiredthepoets and thecreatorsofmythsand rituals,
and of the "natural" language which etymologytends to reveal,in orderto
I (above,n. 2),ch.9.

Ramelli
341
findthetruthin thewords. The veryinsistenceon Homer - fromZeno to the

firstcenturiesCE, withHeraclitustheRhetorand the De vitaetposiHomert11
- as thepossessor of the truthsof thevarious
disciplines,fromgeographyto
aims
at
onto
the
physics,clearly
projecting
veryoriginsof culturethatunity
in
the
which
was
the
ideal
of Stoicism.
grounded
Logos
It seems significantto me thatin Cicero's De naturadeorum,among the
three(four)speeches,namelytheEpicurean (Vellerns,Book 1), theStoic (Balbus, Book 2), and theAcademic (Cotta,Books 1 and 3),12theStoicis thelongest
by far,and the one which includes the widest range of interestsand disciplines. Balbus' rich argumentmanifestlyreflectsthe Stoic aim of creatinga
vast culturalunit focussed on theologyand physics,but includingcontributions fromcosmology,astronomy,physiology,logic, mathematics,customs,
ritual,legends,poetry,linguistics,etymology,eloquence, and even more.
The fewexceptionsto Stoic allegoricalpracticeinclude Seneca. Certainly,
he disagreed withPosidonius on theexcellenceof thefirsthuman beings. He
thoughttheycould not possibly have had a directaccess to the truthconthemythsinvented
cerningthenatureofthecosmos and thedivine;therefore,
by themdid not conceal such truths.Thus, a crucialconditionforallegoresis
was lacking.This is whySeneca polemicized againstallegoresisofmythsand,
perhaps, even specificallyagainst Cornutus and Musonius Rufus.13This is
also why,forhis critiqueof traditionalpagan religion,Seneca was appreciated by Christianauthorsand declared by Tertulliansaepenoster(De an. 20):
he "often"spoke "like a Christian."Indeed, in Apol. 12.6 Tertulliandepicts
Seneca as pluribuset amarioribus
de vestrasuperstitione
perorantem,
"haranguwith
bitter
rather
words
about your [sc. thepagans'] superstition."
ing
many
II.
The inclusion of allegoresis in philosophy,a typicalfeaturein Stoicism,returnsin Middle and Neoplatonism- which incorporatedsignificantStoic elements- both on the "pagan" and on the Christianside. This is the case, for
instance,with a ChristianMiddle /Neoplatonistsuch as Origen,who meaningfullychose to include his theorizationofBiblicalallegoricalexegesis right
in his philosophical
in thevery
masterpiece,TTepi'Apxcv(On FirstPrinciples),14
same way as the Stoics consideredallegoryto be part and parcel of philosophy.Likewise,the question of the aim of Origen's allegoresis- was he using
theBible in defenseof his metaphysicalsystem,or metaphysicsto provide a
11. On thisallegorical
workascribedtoPlutarch
and on Heraclitus
see Ramelli,Alledell'et
classica(above,n.3),chs.8 and
goria,I (above,n.2),chs.7-8,andAllegoristi
On Heraclitus
see also D.A. RussellandD. Kon10,withtextsand commentaries.
Homeric
Problems
stan,eds.,Heraclitus:
, Atlanta:SBL,2005.
12. AnalysisoftheStoicargument
I (above,
reported
byCiceroin Ramelli,Allegoria,
n.2),ch.5,andtextand commentary
inAllegoristi
dell'eth
classica(above,n.3),ch.
6.
13. As I arguedinAllegoria,
I (above,n. 2),ch.6.6.
14. On whichsee I. Ramelli,"Origen,Patristic
and Christian
Platonism:
Philosophy,
theChristianization
ofHellenism,"
Christianae
63 (2009)217Re-Thinking
Vigiliae
263.

342
International
2011
/September
journaloftheClassicalTradition
philosophicalbasis fortheBible? - is thesame as thatof thepurpose of Stoic

allegoresis: did theyuse mythin defense of theirphilosophical system,or
philosophical allegoresis in defense of mythicaland ritual traditions,inte1 tend to support
gratingtheminto a great,unitaryphilosophical system?15
thelatteralternativein both cases.
Indeed,as Porphyryattests(F39 von Harnack),16
Origenwas verywell acquainted withtheworksofCornutusand Chaeremon,who, in thisway,seem
to have representeda remarkablebridgebetweenStoic allegoresisand Christianallegoresis:
'
oukocTToTaoiv,
Xoiv5s
TrisrjMox0r|pastcov louSaKcovypa<t>cov
ett'E^rjyrjoEis
tives supevTTpo0uMTi0svT8s,
ETpTovTO
auyKXcooTous
Kai avappooTous toIs yEypamjvoi
[...] aiviypaxa yap Ta <J>avEpcs
Kai siTiOsicoavTBs
cos
napa McouoeTXEypEvaslvai KOjjTroavTEs
o
08OTriMaTa
[...] EiTayouaivsriyriaeis.
TTrjpri
Kpu<J>cov
puoTripcov
5e TpTos Trjs axoTTas e vSpos co Kayco kom5veos cov eti
vTETxTiKa,
o4>5pa EuSoKiprioavTosKai eti 5i' cov KaTaXXoiTTEv
eu5oki|jovtos,TTapEiXr)<J>0co,
ouyypaMMTcov
'Qpiyvous, ou kXeos
toutcov
tcov
to7s
SiSaoKaXois
Trapa
Xycov pya 6ia55oxai.
ev tos Ka0' tim&S
xpaTTjs yap outos 'Appcoviou to ttXeiottiv
Xpvois ettSooivev <j>iXoao(J)ia
oxtikotosyEyovcos.[...] Kara pv
tov !ov XpiOTiavGs
Kai rrapavojjcos,KaTa 5e xas TTEpi
tcov
cv
kcx'to 0eiouSoas EXrjvicov
te kol'tcx'EXXtivcov
tos
irpayMOiTcov
bvEioisUTToaXX0|jEvos
tos
M^0ois.luvrvte yp Ei tco TTXcxtcovi,
te Nouprivou
Kai KpovouAiroXXo<j>vous
te Kai AoyyvouKai Mo5epaTou NiKopaxou te Kai tcov ev to7s TTu0ayopEoisEXXoyipcov
5e Ka Xaiprpovos to
avSpcov cpXEiauyypmjaor ^XP1^"1"0
Itcoko KopvouToute Tas iXois, Trap'cov tov metoXtitttikov
tcov Trap' "EXXrioivpuoTripcovyvos TpTTovTa7s' louSaiKaTs
rpa<J>als.
TrpoofjvpEV
Some, out of a desire to get freefromtheineptitudeofJewishScripture,but withoutsimplydetachingthemselvesfromit,turnedto exegeses thatare incoherentand not fittingthetexts[. . .] theypretend,
boastfully,thatthe thingsMoses said so clearlyare enigmata,and
proclaim thattheyare oracles fullof reconditemysteries[...] then
theydevelop theirexegeses [. . .] This method,so odd as itis, derives
15. As I triedtoargueinAllegoria,
I (above,n.2),ch.9: Chrysippus'
theorization
oftheofthesort.
ologywouldalreadysuggestsomething
lb. un tnisfragment,
wnicncorresponds
tobuseoiustit b.iy.4-8,
see l. Kamelli,unand Innovation,"
gen and theStoicAllegoricalTradition:
Continuity
Invigilata
Lucernis
28 (2006)195-226,and "Origen,Patristic
and Christian
PlaPhilosophy,
tonism"(above,n. 14),also withwide-ranging
literature.
Thispassage,according
to Eusebius,comesfromBook3 ofPorphyry's
. Pier
workAgainsttheChristians
FrancoBeatrice
identifies
thiswithBook3 ofPorphyry's
exOraculis.
See
Philosophia
his"TheOrientalReligionsand Porphyry's
UniversalWayfortheSoul'sDeliverorientales
dansle monde
ance,"in Lesreligions
, eds. C. Bonnet,V.
grecet romain
D.
Etudes
de
Praet,
Pirenne-Delforge,
philologie,d'archologieet histoireanciennes45,Bruxelles-Rome:
Institut
HistoriqueBelgede Rome,2009,343-368.

Ramelli
343
froma man whom I also met when I was still quite young, who
gained greatrenown and is stillwell known thanksto the writings
he left:Origen, whose fame is widespread among the masters of
these doctrines.He was a disciple of Ammonius', who in our time
had a greatsuccess in philosophy[. . .] His lifewas thatofa Christian
and contravenedthelaws, but in his view oftheexistingrealitiesand
of God his thoughtswere thoseof a Greek,and he turnedtheGreek
ideas into a substratumof the alien myths.He was always close to
Plato, and was conversantwiththewritingsof Numenius, Cronius,
Apollophanes,Longinus,Moderatus,Nicomachus,and themostdistinguishedof the Pythagoreans;he availedhimself
ofthebooksofthe
Stoics Chaeremonand Cornutus,fromwhichhe learnedtheallegorical
method
, whichheapplied, then,to theJewishScripoftheGreekmysteries
tures.
It is interesting
thatPorphyryconsidersOrigen responsibleforthetransfer
of
theallegoricalexegeticalmethodfromtraditional"pagan" mythsto theBible.
He does not mentionClement,nor Philo or otherJewishallegoricalexegetes
of theBible. The same noteworthyomission,at least withrespectto Philo, is
alreadyfoundin Celsus (ap. Orig. CC 4.51,whichwill be discussed below [pp.
347-348]).ConfirmingPorphyry'sinformation,
Jeromealso atteststhatOrigen,drawinginspirationfromClement'shomonymouswork,wrotetenbooks
of Stromateis,
wherehe came up witha remarkablecomparativeaccomplishment:
Hunc imitatusOrgenesdecernscripsitStromateas,Christianorum
et
interse sententiasconparanset omnianostraereligionis
philosophorum
NumenioCornutoque
dogmatade PiatoneetAristotele,
confirmans,
wrote
ten
in
which
he matched
Clement,
Stromateis,
Origen,imitating
theChristianideas withthose of thephilosophers,and confirmed
all
thetruths
ofourfaithby means ofPlato's,Aristotle's,Numenius', and
Cornutus'texts(Hier. Ep. 70.4).
Indeed, Origen shows reminiscencesof allegorical interpretationsof
mythsthatare foundin Cornutusand in theStoicallegoricaltradition,and of
Stoic etymologicalinterpretations.
In CC 1.24 he even mentionstheStoics' etymologicalprinciplesbased on theirconceptionof language as being <J>'josi.17
In Princ.2.8.2-3,forinstance,vpuxnis said to derive fromvpuxos,vjyis
accordingto an old Stoicetymology(SVF 2.222-223).In Origenthereare also al17. See A. van den Hoek,"Etymologizing
in a Christian
Context:
TheTechniques
of
Clementand Origen,"StudiaPhilonica
Annual16 (2004)122-168;relationship
betweenetymology
and linguistic
theoriesin lateantiquity:
M. Amsler,Etymology
andGrammatical
Discourse
inLateAntiquity
andtheEarlyMiddleAges,Amsterdam1989.Origen,likePhilobefore
him(D.T.Runia,"EtJohnBenjamins,
Philadelphia:
ymologyas an AllegoricalTechniquein PhiloofAlexandria,"StudiaPhilonica
Annual16 [2004]101-121),
also interprets
Hebrewnames:R.P.C.Hanson,"InterofHebrewNamesinOrigen,"Vigiliae
Christianae
10 (1956)103-123.
See
pretation
I. Ramelli,"Philosophical
furthermore
in Philoand its
AllegoresisofScripture
ofNyssa,"StudiaPhilonica
Annual20 (2008)55-99.
LegacyinGregory

344
International
2011
/September
Journal
ofGreekmythicalfiguresthatrecallthoseoftheStoic
legoricalinterpretations
tradition.18
Besides Cornutusand Chaeremon,Origen also knew Middle Platonicand Neopythagoreanallegorists,such as (accordingto Origen himself,
Porphyryand Jerome)Numenius and theJewPhilo. The former,apparently
withoutbeing eitherJewor Christian,allegorizedtheBible,boththeLXX and
some books of what laterbecame theNew Testament.19
Philo allegorized the
LXX in thelightofPlatonism,20
and his cosmological and allegoricalexegesis
18. Forinstance,
theStoicexegesisofHades as thetenebrous
airthatwrapstheearth,
as developedin Cornutus,
is also
Comp.35,on thebasisofearlierStoictradition,
in
Princ.
4.3.10:
the
dead
descend
to
that
is
this
beHades,
world,
present Origen,
causetheyarejudgeddeserving
ofoccupying
theregionaroundtheearth.ButalHades as thecontiguousregion
readyNumenius,F32 des Places,interpreted
whichwe callourworld.Origenmighthavedrawnthisinterpretation
fromhim
as well.
19. Origenparticularly
esteemedNumenius,whomhe quotesfourtimesin Contra
1.5(= Numen.Fib des Places);4.51(FlOa);5.38(F53);5.57(F29).In fact,it
Celsum,
is Origenwho atteststhatNumenius,"in his desireforlearning,
wantedto examineourScriptures,
inthemas susceptible
ofallegorical
too,andwas interested
and
not
full
odd
of
ideas"
Kai
Ta TipeTepa
<t>iXo|ja0Gs
(ouXrievTa
interpretation,
Kaion^pcivouyypapMaTcov,
eos TTepi
TpoTToXoyou|jvcov
sTaoaiKaiKtvr|0evTa
CC 4.51).Again,Origeninforms
us that"Numenius,
thePythagorean
philosopher,
a manwho expoundedPlatomuchbetter[sc.thanCelsusdid],and studiedthe
doctrines
indepth,inmanypassagesofhisworksquotesMoses'and
Pythagorean
theprophets'
and
ofthem,
for
writings, offers
verylikelyallegorical
interpretations
orin thoseOn numbers
and On place.In the
examplein theworkentitled
Hoopoe,
thirdbookofhisworkOn theGoodhe also citesa storyconcerning
Jesus,without
his
and
it
tov
name,
(Nou
p^viov
TTuGayopeiov,
mentioning
interpretsallegorically"
TTXaTcova
Kai TTepi
tcovTTuBayopeicov
avpa ttoXXg
KpeTTov
SiTiyrjoapevov
tgvouyypaMMCXTcov
axoeKTipevov
Ta
oyMaTcov
TToXXaxo
TTpeoeuoavTa,
Kaitcovttpo<|>titgv
KaiokainSavcosaTaTpoTToXoyovTa,
sv
Mcooecos
cooTrep
tg3KaouMBveo
"Ettotti
Kai evtos TTepi
Kai evtos TTepi
tottou.'Ev
apincov,
tcTpTcoTTepi
Kai TTepi
to 'ItioolOTopiavTiva,to ovopa
Taya0ou ektibtoi
aTOU
o Xycov,
KaiTpoTToXoye
aniv,ibid.).NumeniusinspiredOrigenbothin
theexegetical
and inthetheological
field(see Ramelli,"Origen,Patristic
PhilosoPlatonism"
of
the
Bible
[above,n. 14]).His allegorical
phy,and Christian
reading
parallelshis exegesisofPlato,in which,amongotherthings,he associatedthe
intheOdyssey.
oftheunderworld
Due to
mythofErwithHomer'srepresentation
his allegoricalinterpretation
ofScripture,
OrigenvaluesNumeniusmuchmore
thanCelsus,who,likePorphyry,
didn'tadmitanyallegoricalinterpretation
of
'EKTiBeTai
Kai
Kai
lavvo
Kai
Mcooecos
Trjv
TTepi
Scripture:
'lappoicrropiav,
' aTvmSXXov
KXoou
KaiaXXcov
otimvuvomecx
aTroexoMeSa
fXX'okveKeivfl
"He [sc.Numenius]also citesMoses',Jannes',
andJambres'
and,
EXXtivcov,
story,
eventhoughwe arenotat all exaltedinit,nevertheless
we appreciate
Numenius
morethanCelsusandtheotherGreeks"- "Greeks"amongwhomOrigenintended
to includepeoplelikePorphyry,
who sharplyrejectedtheallegoricalreadingof
Thecontinuation
ofthispassageincludesthefamoussaying:"whatelse
Scripture.
is Plato,ifnotan Atticizing
Moses?"(Eus. PE 11.10.14= Numen.F8 des Places).
Numeniusprobablyinfluenced
betweenPlaOrigen's view oftherelationship
tonismand Moses' "philosophy,"
as Philounderstood
it.Butsee below(pp. 347ofClementas well.
348) fortheinfluence
20. See Ramelli,"Philosophical
ofScripture
etc."(above,n. 17)withdocAllegoresis
umentation.

345
Ramelli
was broughtintoChristiancultureby ClementofAlexandria.Moreover,Origen was acquainted with "Gnostic" allegorists,especially Valentinians,such

as Heracleon,whose allegoricalmethodhe criticized,notablyin theverysame
way as Philo had criticizedtheHellenisticJewishallegoristsof theBible who
in theirextremeallegorizpreceded him: forboth theseand the "Gnostics,"21
ing,emptied theliteral,historicallevel of theBible.22
This is also the main differencebetween the Christianand the "pagan" Platonists'use ofallegoresis:theformerretainedthehistoricalplane oftheBible,
while thelatterthoughtthatthestoriesofmythsneverhappened historically,
but are exclusivelyallegories.Philo was praised by Origenwitha referenceto
but also - and yetnot
thoseJewswho interpretedtheLaw not only literally,
Philo accepted
Indeed,
Sidvoiccv,
(CC
7.20).23
allegorically
exclusively TTpos
theliteralmeaningof Scripture,not consideringthesacred textas a mythical
tale,a fiction.Bothhe and Origen consideredScriptureas a historicalrecord,
at a firstlevel. The opposite approach was chosen by Neoplatonic exegetesof
Reis underlined
21. The complexity
ofthe"Gnosticism"
category
by M. Williams,
"GnosticismAn
a DubiousCategory,
Princeton,
Argument
thinking
forDismantling
?, Cambridge,
Press,1996;K. King,WhatIs Gnosticism
NJ:Princeton
University
25 (2003)
Lucernis
Mass.:HarvardUniversity,
2003,withmyreviewin Invigilata
PainA. Di Berardino
331-334;I. Ramelli,"Gnosticismo",
(ed.),NuovoDizionario
newEnglishedie diAntichith
Cristiane
tristico
2007,2.2364-2380,
, Genoa:Marietti,
in
in Cambridge:
tionforthcoming
JamesClarke;Z. Plee,"GnosticLiterature",
und
H. Grgemanns,
M. vonAlbrecht,
R.Hirsch-Luipold,
eds.,Religise
Philosophie
derfrhen
Kaiserzeit
, StudienundTextezu AntikeundChrisphilosophische
Religion
tentum51 = RatioReligionisStudien1,Tbingen:MohrSiebeck,2009,163-198,
H.F. Wei,
ofthe"Gnosticism"
who objectsto a totaldeconstruction
category.
: Einerezeptionsgeschichtliche
undGnosis
Studie
Frhes
Christentum
, Wissenschaftliche
MohrSiebeck,2010,studzumNeuenTestament
225,Tbingen:
Untersuchungen
in"Gnosticism"
and acceptsthiscategory.
oftheNew Testament
ies thereception
and
in theSchoolof
Gnosticism:
I. O. Dundenberg,
Beyond
Myth,Lifestyle, Society
New York:ColumbiaUniversity
Press,2008,buildsupon Williams'
Valentinus,
inparticular
and regardstheterm"Gnostic"as misleading
andKing'sarguments
on whichhe focuses.
forValentinianism,
we
22. Heracleon,a Valentinian,
wrotetheearliestChristian
exegetical
commentary
it
comof
in
his
own
knowof,on theGospelofJohn.Origenpreserves
fragments
was allegorical.Some "Gnostics"
on John;Heracleon's interpretation
mentary
similarto
used etymology,
too,forallegorical
etymology
purposes:an allegorical
in
the
A significant
is
one
thatofdieStoictradition.
Hippol.
Ref.
example
preserved
because he stopped
5.8.22:"The Phrygiansalso called him 'Father'[TTaTras]
themovement
[sTrauoe]
deprivedoforderand measurein whichall thingswere
ofalSome"Gnostics"werealso creators
tossingaboutbeforeitsmanifestation."
legoricalmyths.
evnoppTTco,
23. In CC 5.44Origenalso statesthattheJewish
priests,
soughtandexonOrigenandChrissenseofScripture.
ForPhilo'sinfluence
plainedthesymbolic
derjdisch-hellenistischen
Dergriechische
tianallegorists
see C. Blnnigen,
Ursprung
Frankfurt
a.M.etalibi:
undihreRezeption
inderalexandrinischen
Patristik,
Allegorese
CatA. vandenHoek,"PhiloandOrigen:A Descriptive
PeterLang,1992,228-262;
and
12
Their
Studia
Philonica
Annual
of
44-121,
(2000)
Relationship,"
alogue
etc."(above,n. 17).
ofScripture
Ramelli,"Philosophical
Allegoresis

346
International
2011
/September
Journal
a friendof theemperorJulianand
myths.For instance,Secundus Salustius,24
in
influenced
Iamblichus,
TTep'0e>vKai Koopou,On theDeitiesand
strongly
by
theWorld
, claims thattheeventsnarratedin mythsneverhappened at all, but
are symbols of eternaltruths.In 3-4 Salustius, also counteringChristianattacks on pagan myths,insists on the antiquityof mythsand theirdidactic
value: theyteachthatthegods exist(3.3) and, at a deeper and allegoricallevel,
theyrevealtruthswrapped up in storiesthatseem immoral,but are onlyveils
intended forthe exerciseof the exegetes' minds (3.1-3; cf.3.4). These things
never happened, but are allegories of eternal truthsexpressed in "divine
myths"(3.1), since the highest truthscan only be alluded to (3.1; 3.3). The
clearestexpressionis foundin 4.9:
Tauxa 5s EyvEXo
pvouSettoxe,eoti 5e ccei,Kai o mevvous apa navra
op, o 5e Xyos Ta pv TTpcxaxa 5e Ssimpa XyEi.
These thingsdid nothappen at any time,but theyexisteternally,
and
theintellectsees all of themtogetherat thesame time,while thediscourse expressesthem,some first,and some afterward.
Likewise,theemperorJulianin Ad deorumMatrem170-171assertsthatmythoJulogicaleventsneverhappened,but are tobe interpreted
onlyallegorically.25
lian, in line with the Neoplatonic traditionof Porphyry,who in De antro
had interpretedOd. 13.102-112as an allegoryofthesoul's voyage
Nympharum
throughmatterand itsliberation,supportedtheallegoricalexegesis ofmyths
and did not admitof theirhistoricity.
In Or. 7.217C he claims thattheabsurdof
in
declared
Deor.
Matr.
167D and by Salustius De diis4.7) inity myths(also
duces the mind to seek out theirdeeper sense; likewise,in 222C he explains
thatthe irrationality
of mythis an exhortationto go beyond the littera,and
into
its
hidden
and
truesense.
peer
Now, this notion thatthe defectuslitterae
, i.e. the absurdityof the plain
meaningof a text- also known to Philo,Hippolytus,and Irenaeus - is an invitationto go beyond theliterallevel was definitelyshared by Origen.But in
litteraeonly occurs in a few cases, whose specific
Origen's view the defectus
functionis to provide hints to deeper meanings; normally,the literallevel
mustbe maintainedalong with the spiritual,allegoricalmeaning(s). The littera(almost always) relateshistoricalfactsthatreallyhappened at a certain
time,and not mere symbolsof eternaltruths.Justas thebody has its impor-
24. See I. Ramelli,"GiovanniCrisostomo

e l'esegesiscritturale:
le scuoledi Alessandriae di Antiochia
e le polemichecon gliallegoristi
Crisospagani/'in Giovanni
tomo:Orientee Occidente
traIV e V secolo.Attidel XXXIIIIncontro
di Studiosi
dell'Antichit
Istituto
Patristico
6-8maggio
Cristiana,
Roma,
2004,StuAugustinianum
dia Ephemeridis
with
93/1,Rome:Augustinianum,
2005,121-162,
Augustinianum
documentation
andbibliography,
andG.R.Boys-Stones,
"TheStoics'TwoTypesof
in idem,ed., Metaphor,
: Ancient
and theClassicalTradition
Allegory,"
Allegory,
and
Modern
Oxford:
Oxford
Revisions,
Press,
2003,
189-216,
Thought
University
esp.
211-212.
25. See onlyF.Grasso,"L'interpretazione
allegoricain GiulianoImperatore,"Rudiae
8 (1996)31-40.

Ramelli
347
tance in human beings and is destined to resurrection,26

so too the "body" of
that
the
is
fundamental
in
biblical
is,
liitera,
Scripture,
exegesis.The body is the
seat and vehicleofthesoul's recoveryofitsformerstatusas nous( Princ. 2.8.3),
a status fromwhich it fell,but to which it must be restored.And the visible
world,createdby God and governedby his Logos to thepointofbeing fullof
God, favorsthe finalrestorationof all rationalbeings (Princ.2.1.1-3).On the
otherhand, Origen and his spiritual exegesis will be heavily criticizedby
Christianswho did not appreciate his allegorism,just as many were suspicious of his philosophical formationand use of philosophyin theinterpretationof Scripture.27
Origen's relationshipto Stoic allegoresis was anticipated,and perhaps
influenced,by ClementofAlexandria,who employed Biblicalallegoresisnot
only on thebasis of Paul's typology,but also drawing inspirationfromclassical "pagan" allegorists- certainlyincluding the Stoic Chaeremon,whose
writingshe knew28- and fromPhilo's biblicalallegoresis;he also knew "Gnostic" allegoresis. Clement, who uses the technical terminologyof allegory
(Xriyopia,oii|joXov,aviyna, aivTTOnai),turnsto allegoresiswhen theliteral meaningis not satisfying,
due eitherto an internalcontradictionor to anthropomorphismsunworthyof God. He thus follows the defectuslitterae
methodthatwas adopted by Philo and ancientallegorists,and was thendeveloped by Origen as well as "pagan" Neoplatonists, as has been shown
above (p. 346). Allegoresisis seen by Clementin the lightof a deep continuitybetween the classical and the Christianworld.29In the expositionof allegoresis in Strom.5, he remarks that in every people the leps 'oyos or
in
expressionofreligiouscontentsis characterizedby hiddenness(E7TiKpuv|;is)
therecess (diSuTOv)of the truth(Strom.5.419.3-4).All those who spoke about
God, barbariansand Greeks,hid theprinciplesofbeing,and expounded the
truthonlythroughaiviynaTcx,oupoAa,XTiyopiai,
etc.,likethe
HETa<J>opa,
Greeks' oracles: forthis reason, Apollo Pythiusis called Loxias, "oblique"
(Strom.5.4.21). Clement interpretsApollo's epithet with referenceto the
obliqueness of his responses and theirveiled form,accordingto an exegesis
widely spread in Stoic allegoresis,forinstancein Cornutus,Comp.32, with
26. RepeatedaccusationsleveledagainstOrigenofdenyingtheresurrection
ofthe
I. Ramelli,"Origen'sExegesisofJeremiah:
See,forinstance,
bodyaregroundless.
Resurrection
Announcedthroughout
theBibleand itsTwofoldConception,"
Au48 (2008)59-78.
gustinianum
27. On whichampledocumentation
is foundinRamelli,
"GiovanniCrisostomo
e Yesetc."(above,n. 24),and eadem,"Origeneallegorista
il
cristiano:
egesiscritturale
trafilosofa
cristiana
e allegoresi
biblica,"Invigilata
dupliceattaccoe la simmetria
Lucernis
31 (2009)141-156.
28. Strom.
5.4.20(on thesymbolical,
and allegorical-enigmatic
tropic-metaphorical,
usage ofhieroglyphics),
parallelto a passageby Porphyry
ap. Eus. HE 6.19.4-8,
seemsto be takenpreciselyfromChaeremon,theauthorof a workon hiero5.4.19).
glyphics(see also Strom.
29. See I. Ramelli,"Muoxrpiov
di ClementeAlessandrino:
negliStromateis
aspettidi
continuit
conla tradizione
Mistero
e reliallegoricagreca,"in II voltodelmistero.
ed. A.M.Mazzanti,CastelBolognese:Itaca
tardoantica,
gionenellacultura
religiosa
Libri,2006,83-120.

348
2011
International
/September
Journal
and derivationsfromApollodorus ofAthens

parallelsin Heraclitus'Allegories
and the ancientStoics.30Clementis also on the same line as Justin,according
to whom the deities of Greek mythswere evil daemons (lAp. 5.2), who deformedthe truthsof Scripture,favoringthe absurdities told by poets and
who, nonetheless,ifled by theLogos, could expresshidden
mythographers,
truthsas well. Justin'sidea in lAp. 23.3, thatdaemons sometimescorrupted
theoriginalinventorsofmyths,and poets incorporatedthosecorruptedmyths
in theircompositions,recallstheconceptionofan originaltheologicalknowledge corruptedby subsequent incrustations,which is found in Cornutus,
Comp.17.35;Justinlikelyread thispassage. Thus, accordingto Clement,the
and this
veryanalysisofthenames ofpagan deitiesrevealstheirnon-divinity,
derived
from
method
of
the
means
is
etymological
analysis accomplishedby
Stoic allegoresis,which aimed at unravelingthe "true" (sTupos) meaning of
names and epithets.
In thisrespect,Origen's - like Clement's,and already Philo's - allegoresis oftheBible,whichmaintainedthevalidityofthehistoricallevel,was very
both fromthe old Stoic allegorical tradition(significantly,
different
Origen
used Xiiyopiaand related termswith circumspection,probablybecause
and fromMiddle /Neoplatonic
theywere linkedwiththis"pagan" tradition31)
With
well.
the
as
latter,
though,Origen's allegoricalexegesisseems
allegoresis
to share somethingmore: forinstance,the division between the immanent
and the transcendentplanes vs. the Stoics' immanentism,and especially a
moreunitaryand systematicview and thenecessityof intimatecoherencein
theallegoricalpractice.
Indeed, Origen- like Clementin part- detached himselffromStoic allewhen in his exegesisoftheBiblehe
goresis,comingcloserto Philo's method,32
Philo had deeply feltthisstrucinsistson unity,wholeness,and coherence.33
ad loc.
: Compendio
30. Cf.Ramelli,Cornuto
(above,n. 8),commentary
Plato
Aldershot:
31. So M.J.Edwards,Origen
142;J.D.Dawson,
2002,
,
Ashgate,
against
andtheFashioning
Christian
Angeles:UniBerkeley-Los
ofIdentity,
Reading
Figurai
e la sua
M.
24-27
and
of
California
Simonetti,
Press,2002,
esegeta
Origene
versity
The
Brescia:Morcelliana,
25-26,52-65,104-105.
2004,15(onGal4:22-31),
tradizione,
mostextensively,
ContraCelsumis theworkin whichOrigenuses aXAriyopia
thatOrigenassociateditwiththepaganpractice.
whichconfirms
32. However,ClementdoesnotseemtohavepossessedPhilo'sandOrigen'sfinelexReandCultural
Readers
seeD. Dawson,Allegorical
icalandphilological
sensitivity:
ofCalifornia
Alexandria
visioninAncient
, Berkeley-Los
University
Angeles-Oxford:
Press,1992,215-218.
of
Tradition
and thePhilological
33. M. Demura,"Origen'sAllegorical
Interpretation
"
Practice
andtheReligious
Nona:Origen
, Papers
Alexandria,inOrigeniana
ofhisTime
2005,
, 29August- 2 September
, Pcs,Hungary
Congress
Origen
ofthe9thInternational
Lovaniensium
eds.G. Heidi- R.Somos,Bibliotheca
Theologicarum
Ephemeridum
howOrigenintendedtointerpret
underlines
2009,149-158,
228,Leuven:Peeters,
whole. The coherenceofOrigen'sscriptural
theBible,in a coherent
exegesisis
CriticintheAlexandrian
alsohighlighted
"Origenas a Literary
byJ.A. McGuckin,
e la
: OrigenandtheAlexandrian
Octava
in Origeniana
tradition/
Tradition,"
Origene
Au27-31
International
the
8th
tradizione
Pisa,
alessandrina,
Origen
Congress,
Papersof
LoTheologicarum
gust2001,ed. LorenzoPerrone,BibliothecaEphemeridum
121-136:
125.
Leuven:
vaniensium
2003,
Peeters,
164,

349
Ramelli
turalunityof the allegoricalsystem,while the Stoics seemed less concerned

with it.34Accordingto Clement (in his polemic against "Gnostics" and Marcionites,similarto thatofOrigen),theBible is pervaded by theprincipleofineach point in Scripturecan be clarifiedthanksto similarpoints
tratextuality:
7.
(Strom. 16.96.2-4).Clementis criticizingChristianexegeteswho,
tcxap<|)i0Gos
sis tocsiSias pETayouaiSoas,
eipripva,
eKeyopevoi
r'
ovas, o to OT]paivpevov
oiyas 0TT0paSr|V
TavBipsvoi<f>c
aTcovokottoivtss,XX' auT| vpiXr)
aTroxpcopevoit?| ssi. [...] ]
XriGeiaS oksv tgopsTaTi0vattcxorjpaivopsvaspioKETai- outco
SiSaoKaAiav -, XX' sv tgo
psv yp vaTpsvpouoiTraoav ocXr|0r|
Kai
tgo
0sco teegosoiksiov
ti
tgo
TravTOKpccTopi
Kupico
SiaoKsvpaoGai
KaTCX
KCKV
TCOeaiOUVKOOTOV
TGOV
TS Kai TiplTOV,
roSsiKVUMEVCOV
Tas ypa<|)s haTcovttccivtgovpocovypa<t>ov.
selectingambiguous expressions,turnthem into expressing their
own opinions,just pickingout a fewwords here and there,without
looking at theirdeep meaning,but simply stickingto the mere literal level [. . .] The truth,however,is not to be foundin thesubstitution of meanings - for in that way they will subvert every true
teaching-, but ratherin theinvestigationofwhat is perfectlyproper
and appropriateto the Lord and the omnipotentGod, and in conin Scriptures
on thebasis, again,
firmingeachofthethingsdemonstrated
in
the
same
similar
Scriptures,
passages.
of very
For instance,when he explains a passage, Clement,like Origen- and like the
earlyrabbis- refersto otherrelevantbiblicalpassages, because Scripturein his
view constitutesa coherentwhole, and the meanings of its parts are interIn both Clementand Origen,thisalso involves typologicalexeconnected.35
which
links togetherfiguresand episodes of the Old and the New
gesis,
Testaments.Origen,like Clement,thinksthatScriptureconsistsin a coherent
body, characterizedby unity.Origen oftenspeaks of sippos36,aKoXou0ia,
thatStoicalI (above,n. 2),ch.9. Itmustbe said,however,
with
which
of
Homer
were
aware
of
the
Homer,
interpreting
principle
legorists
theBiblewiththeBible).AlClementandOrigenappliedtotheBible(tointerpret
itwas also used for
a Hellenistic
philological
principle,
thoughthiswas initially
Thisprinciple
also parallelsthatused bytherabbis,whointerpreted
philosophy.
withScripture,
and was notunknowntoearlyChurchFathers,
suchas
Scripture
the
of
tosuch
no
one
used
and
theorized
it,
unity Scripture,
Hippolytus,
although
an extentas Origendid.
thatthesameLogoswhoinspired
35. As Origentoowilldo,Clementthinks
Scripture
is illuminated
is also itstruee^yTiTTis,
(Strom.
by whomthehumaninterpreter
boththeunityofScripture
and thecoher1.26.169).TheLogos,thus,guarantees
inOrigensee
enceofitsinterpretation.
Fortheconceptofthe"body"ofScripture
inAlexandrian
A. van den Hoek,"Theconceptofacopa tcovTpa<|>cov
theology,"
in StudiaPatrstica,
Louvain:Peeters,1989,250-254.
XIX,ed. E.A.Livingstone,
toindicatetheconcatenation
36. E.g.,Princ.4.2.8;thetermwas usedbyphilosophers
i' pappevr',"fate,"
technicus
ofcauses,especially
bytheStoics,whohad theterminus
tcov
thecona
chain
of
causes.
affirms
the
ttveupotikcov,
eippos
Origen
denoting
catenation
ofspiritual
senseswithinthewholeBible.Thisuse ofeipposis drawn
4.1.2.2.
fromClem.Strom.

350
2011
International
/September
Journal
in all thepartsof Scripture,and of theouyysveiaor

and ou|j<J>covia
cxpMovia37
ofthevarious exegeticalreadingsto one another,forinstancein Philoc.
affinity
he interprets
theBible withtheBible,relatinga pas6 (cf.ibid.1.30).Therefore,
in
similar
of
to
another
which
conceptsor termsoccur: in this
sage Scripture
he does not takeinto
of
both.
he
attains
the
Moreover,
way,
spiritualmeaning
considerationan isolatedallegoricalpoint,but rathera whole passage in itsalIn Philoc.2, fromthe commentaryto Psalm 1 (cf.chs. 1-7
legoricalsystem.38
too), Origen assimilates God's Providence and Suvapis, which permeates
to thedivine inspirationthatpervades thewhole Scripture,from
everything,
cj)opMai)39
top to bottom,as faras thesmallestdetails:tracesand hints0XVT1>
of God's Wisdom are to be foundeverywhere,spread "in each letter;"for,as
theJewishmastersasserted,thewords ofScripturehave been calculated metoi
TroTiscxKpisias,"with theutmostaccuracy;"hence,in Scripturenot even a
single word is superfluous.40Thus, it is necessary to "investigateScripture
down to its tiniestdetails" (pexpi tcov eXcxxotcov
[...] speuvavxr|vypa^v,
Comm.in lo. 32.6.68).So, in Philoc.2.3 Origen assimilatestheBible to a house
and to a
composed ofvarious rooms,thekeysofwhichare interchangeable,41
musical instrumentin which the stringsare mutuallyharmonized (ibid.6).
The sacred books form"one and the same book" because theyhave one and
the same content:Christ(ibid.5.4-7),42and the injunctionof Ex 12:9b to eat
37. Philoc.6,2.In Comm.inlo. 10.18.107
OTgppTaTai
OrigenspeaksofsuTovoTaTCxt,
whichlinkall partsofScripouvoxai,"extremely
strongand robustconnections"
"theharthuscreatingthecxpijovia
tureto one another,
ouv0eoecos,
tt's ttcxotis
theunityofttveGmcx
so thatintheentireScripture
monyofthewholecompound,"
ofTTvepa
and tovos("tenis unbroken.
TheStoicderivation
orSpirit
/inspiration
is clear:see e.g. SVF 2.439-462.On Origen's
sion") thatpermeateeverything
as continuous
see also Edwards,OrigenagainstPlato(above,
scopiaofScripture
n. 31),137-138.
withotherspiritual
realities
38. Origen,CC 4.71,quotes1 Cor2:13:comparespiritual
tohermeneutical
realities.Thus,Origenuses a comparative
method,bringing
meanmeaningofone biblicalpassagewiththeallegorical
gethertheallegorical
Cf.Comm.
ingsofotherbiblicalpassages,bothoftheOld and New Testaments.
withthebreakbetweenthetwo
inMatth.10.15;Horn,in Lev.1.7.Thiscontrasts
criticized
introduced
Testaments
by Origenbeby "Gnostics"and Marcionites,
fromthebegincause "theydo notrespecttheexpositive
oup^coviaofScripture
ningto theend" (Comm.in lo. 10.42.290).See I. Ramelli,"La coerenzadella
gnosticoall'unisoteriologia
origeniana:dalla polmicacontroil determinismo
alia ricerca
dellasalvezza,
in Paganie cristiani
versalerestaurazione
escatologica,"
diStudiosi
deliAntichith
Cristiana
secoliMIL AttidelXXXIVIncontro
, Roma
, Istituto
5-7maggio
Patristico
96,
2005,StudiaEphemeridis
Augustinianum
Augustinianum,
661-688.
Rome:
2006,
Augustinianum,
'
ofDe vitaetposiHomeri;
39. A<|>op|Ji
lexicon,
especially
belongstotheStoicallegorical
I (above,n. 2),ch.7.
see Ramelli,
Allegoria,
inNum.3.2;27.1;Horn,
inMatth.Ser.89;Horn,
40. Phil.6; Comm.
inMatth.16.2;Comm.
inlos.15.3;Comm.
inlo. 19.40.89.
7.16.96.2;3.4.38.1.On theexampleofthekeyssee Edwards,Ori41. Cf.Clem.Strom.
and
n. 31),138-139;
Plato
idem,"Origenon Christ,
(above,
Tropology,
genagainst
(above,n. 2),235-256,
esp.241.
Allegory
Exegesis,"inMetaphor,
andtheFashioning
42. See Dawson,Christian
(above,n. 31),
ofIdentity
FiguraiReading
73.

351
Ramelli
wholly the Passover lamb should remindreadersthatthe whole Scriptureis

one body (Comm.in lo. 10.103). In thisrespect,Origen and the Neoplatonists
seem to share a common demand forunityand coherencein theirallegorical
exegesis:thiswas alreadysoughtby Philo,whereastheStoicallegoristswould
appear to have cared less forthis.
Middle Platonicallegoresiswas inspiredby Stoicallegoresisin turn.The very
method suggested by Cornutus in order to findout the philosophical truth
hidden in mythsand rituals was taken up by Middle Platonists such as
That method was a comparisonwith otherpeoples'
Plutarchor Porphyry.43
and
an interestwhich is also manifestin ancultic
traditions,44
mythological
otherNeostoic: ChaeremonofAlexandria,who allegorizedEgyptianmythology and was particularly concerned with the symbolic value of
In thisconnection,in many cases a conflictarose withChrishieroglyphics.45
traditions
tian Platonicallegorists,such as Origen,concerningwhatnon-Greek
toconsiderauthoritative.
Indeed, some pagan Middle and Neoplatonistssuch
as Celsus, Porphyry,and theemperorJulian- unlike Numenius - refusedto
recognizethe Hebrew (and thenChristian)traditionexpressed by the Bible,
deprivingit of a philosophical nature and rejectingthe principle already
close
to
Middle
and
the
Platonism,
Jewishexegete
by his
supportedby Philo,
that
hid
Hellenistic
this
Jewish
predecessors46
writing
deep philosophical
truthsto be unveiled by means of philosophical allegoresis. Celsus, forinstance,claimed as follows,in Origen's quotation (CC 4.48; 50; 51):
xax' cxXXt}Qr|ovoxi Kai 'louSaicovKai Xpioxiavcovo ettieikeoxepoi
5s
etti
xouxois Kaxa^suysiv sttTr|v
yopooiv. Aeyei aiaxuvopEvous
'louSaicov
Kai Xpioxiavcov
oi
ettieikeoxepoi
aXXiiyopiav. [...]
eoxi
5'
TTcos
axa,
TTEipcovxa
aXXriyopEfv
ox ola aXXrjyopiav
XX'
xiva,
[ j^'
Eurj0Eoxaxa
vxiKpus
pE|ju0oXyr|xai.
8TTi5EXo0a
axcovXXriyopiaiyypa<J>0ai
ttoX
xcovpu0cov
yovSoKoaai TTEpi
aioxious eioi Kai xoTTcoxEpai,x priSapripriSapcos pnoo0fjvai
SuvapEva 0au|jaoxfi xivi Kai TravxaTTaaiv
vaio0ixco pcopa ouvaTTxouoai.
[Celsus] statesthatthe more reasonable ones among bothJewsand
He claims that they
Christiansinterpretthese stories allegorically.
have recourseto allegorybecause theyare ashamed ofthem.[...] The
more reasonable ones among Jewsand Christianstryto allegorize
thesestoriesin some way; yet,theyare notsusceptible
ofanyallegorical interpretation
, but, on the contrary,
, and ofthe
theyare baremyths
moststupidkind.[...] However, the allegoriesthatappear to be written on these mythsare far more shameful and unlikely than the
andPorphyry's
'The OrientalReligions
UniversalWay
43. On Porphyry
see Beatrice,
fortheSoul's Deliverance"(above,n. 16).
44. See G.R.Boys-Stones,
inMetaphor,
"TheStoics'TwoTypesofAllegory,"
Allegory,
and Ramelli,Allegoria,
I (above,n.
andtheClassicalTradition
(above,n. 2), 189-216,
2),ch.9.
I (above,n. 2), ch.7.1;Allegoristi
dell'etaclassica(above,n.
3) ch.9.
ofScripture
etc."(above,n. 17).
46. See Ramelli,"Philosophical
Allegoresis

352
International
2011
/September
Journal
mythsthemselves,since,withastonishingand totallysenselessmadness,theylinktogetherthingsthatare absolutelyand completelyinwithone another.
compatible
Indeed, Celsus believed ttXsovtgvKara to ypaupa AsecovUTiSsvaXoyov

Eivai a0impov ev t> vopcoKa tois TTpo<j>rTais,
"thatin the Law and the
there
is
no
doctrine
the
literal
sense of the words"
prophets
deeper
beyond
CC
7.18).
(ap. Orig.
Ill
Withinthiscomplex framework,special attentionwill now be paid to theinterpretationof the narrativesconcerningthe originof the world and eschatology,which seem to be subjectto special hermeneuticalrules,both in Plato
and in Origen.The latterwas certainlyrecallingPlato and interpretedthebiblical narrativeson thearkhand the telosin a different
way thantherestofthe
Bible.
'
In Book 4 of TTspiApxcv,devoted to scripturalexegesis and preserved
also in Greekin thePhilocalia,Origen theorizes47
a threefoldinterpretation
of
the Bible, literal,moral,and spiritual,in which each level correspondsto a
- and to a degree of
componentof thehuman being- body,soul, and spirit48
Christianperfection:
2) moral
3) spiritual
exegeticallevels: 1) literal
human being:
1) acopa
2) vJajxti
3) TTVEupa
Christians:
1) incipientes 2) progredientes3) perfecti
Origen in Princ.4.2.4 (Philoc.1.11) relieson Prov 22:20,interpretedby him in
thesense thatone is invitedto read thetextsTpioocs,"in threeways" or "at
threelevels;" the aim of a correctreading of Scriptureis the salvation of the
human being in all of its threecomponentsand phases of development:
Kono 5s (TTypavpai
auTa Tpiaoais sv ouAfjKai yvcasi[...] oukov
5s7 sis TrjvsauTou vpuxriv
Ta tcov ayicov
Tpixcos aTToypd<t>8O0ai
voTipaTa,'iva o yiev aTToaTsposoiKoSopiTaiano tt's
ypanMCXTcov
ooveiaapKs
oGtcosivoMaovTcov
f|Mcov
tt|vTrpxEipov
Tjs ypa<t>rs,
5e ettittooovavaEr|Kcoccxtto
t% coottepe'i
ekSoxtv,
v}ajx%aT%,
o 5e teXeios [...] aTTOtou tiveumotikou
OKiv ttspisxvts
vomow
tcov meXAvtcov
ek
yaSaiv. cooiTEpyp o ov0pcoiTosouvottikev
t6v aUTOVTpTTOV
Ka! TI
OCO|jaTOSKai VpuxfsKCXITTVEU|jaTOS,
tto0eou eis avOpcoTTcov
oiKovo|jri0E7oa
ocoTTipavSorjvaiypa^T].
47. On thistheorization
Dergriechische
der
(Princ.
4.2.4-6;3.5)see Blnnigen,
Ursprung
-hellenistischen
andEdwards,
(above,n.23),205-265,
jdisch
Allegorese
esp.207-220,
Plato(above,n. 31),123-152.
against
Origen
48. See K.J.Torjesen,
"Body,Soul,and Spiritin Origen'sTheoryofExegesis,"AnglicanTheological
Review67 (1985)17-30;Dawson,Christian
andthe
FiguraiReading
in
(above,n. 31),75,78 and passim;I. Ramelli,"Tricotoma,"
Fashioning
ofIdentity
Milan:Bompiani-Centro
di StudiFilosofici
, dir.V.Melchiorre,
Enciclopedia
Filosfica
di Gallarate,
2006,vol.XII,11772-11776.

Ramelli
353
And you writethemthrice/ in threeways in will and knowledge

[...] Therefore,it is necessary to write the meanings of the sacred
Scripturesonto one's soul in a threefoldway,thatthesimplerperson
may be edifiedby theflesh,so to say,of Scripture 1 call in thisway
its mostobvious meaning theperson who is advancedto some de[. . .] by the
gree may be edifiedby itssoul,as it were,and theperfect
spirituallaw,whichincludes in itselftheshadow ofthefuturegoods.
For,just as thehumanbeingconsistsofa body,a soul,and a spirit,in the
same way also Scripture
does, which was givenby thedivinityin its
for
thesalvation of thehuman beings.
providentialeconomy
In Philoc.1.30 Origen considersthesethreestages of developmentalso froma
historicalperspective:the firstphase is thatof JewishoiKOVopiaand correthe "body" or "flesh"(occp)ofScripture(see also Comm.
sponds to thelittera,
in Io. 6.227; Horn,in Lev. 1.1); the second is thatof the Christiansat present,
and thethirdis thespiritualone, in theeschatologicaldimension.49
Now, the Platonic distinctionbetween the sense-perceptibleand the intelligiblelevels implied a strongallegoricaland symbolicaldimension,insofar as the inferiorlevel was conceived as a symbol and shadow of the
superior.50
Origen draws a parallel between thesense-perceptiblelevel of reChrist's
human nature,and thelitteraofScripture,and, on theotherside,
ality,
the intelligiblelevel of reality,Christ'sdivine nature,and the spiritualsense
ofScripture(Horn,in Lev.1.1; Comm.inMatth.Ser.27). This conceptionis found
in Origen'scosmology,in his exegeticaltheory,
in his ecclesiologicaland sacramentaldoctrines,and in his anthropology.51
Among ChristiansthemselvesinNum.9.7;inLev.10.2= Philoc.1.30.Prov22:20was alreadycitedby
49. Orig.Horn,
butwithiooca.On thedoctrine
Clem.Strom.
ofthesoulinOrigenrel.(9.)45.3-4,
latedtothethreeScriptural
senses:D. Dawson,"Allegorical
Readingand theEmbodimentof theSoul in Origen/'in Christian
Rhetoric
, and
Origins:Theology,
, eds. L. Ayres- G. Jones,London:Routledge,1997,26-44;Edwards,
Community
and Exegesis"(above,n. 40),242-243.
"Origenon Christ,
Tropology,
inCant.3.208Bae.;Philoc.1.30;Horn,
inNum.36.5.ThomasOlbricht,
50. Comm.
"Analin EarlyChristianity
andclassicalculture:
ogyand Allegoryin ClassicalRhetoric,"
- T.H.OlStudiesinHonorofAbraham
eds.J.T.Fitzgerald
]. Malherbe,
Comparative
bricht L.M. White,Supplementsto NovumTestamentum
110,Leiden-Boston:
thereis not
Brill,2003,371-391:
386,observesthatinPhilo,too,behindallegoresis
butPlatonism,
withitsontological
rhetoric,
bipartition.
51. He distinguishes
thehumanbeingas God'simageinGen1:27,whois thevous,the
truehumanbeing(in Princ.4.4.7,in linewithPlatonism,
he defineshumansas
ofbodies),and themanmadeofdustinGen2:7,inspiritswhoavailthemselves
as theheavybodyderivedfromsin.Our mainTTcrraois
is to be an
terpreted
in
of
the
while
the
other
is
and
consists
amas
Creator,
image
beingmadeof
dust(Comm.inIo. 20.182).Thisdistinction
was alreadyin Philo,Opif.46.134;LA
1.12.31.Origen'sallegoricaltheorization
was strongly
theScripChristological:
ture,divineand Seottveuotos
(Princ.4.1;2.1-2),is considered
byhimas therevelationof Christ-Logos
(1.3.2),who,just as he assumeda humanbody in his
so intheScriptures
is clothedinthewrappingsofthelittera
incarnation,
(CC 6.77;
Horn,
inLev.1.1;Comm.
inMt.Ser.27):Scripture
is theperpetualIncarnation.
This
is strictly
linkedwiththeprinciple
oftheunityofScripture,
derivedfromClement.
orveil,a ocopaTiKOV
Origenspeaksofan Ivupa,a garment
aspectthatcoversthe

354
2011
International
/September
Journal
thus,not only among "the Jews" - the spiritualsense escapes the majority,
In Princ.1, praef.8 Origen presentsas a doctrinerecogdue to its difficulty.52
nized by thechurchthat
... perSpiritumDei scripturae
sintetsensumhabeantnoneum
conscriptae
solumqui in manifesto
est, sedetaliumquendatnlatentem
quamplurimos.
et
Formaeenimsunthaecquae descripta
suntsacramentorum
quorundam
divinarum
rerumimagines.De quo totiusecclesiaeuna sententiaest, esse
quidemomnemlegemspiritalem.
Scriptureshave been writtenby means oftheSpiritofGod, and have
as a meaningnot only thatwhich is patent, but also another one,
hidden, which escapes most people. For the thingsthatare written
in them are the formsof certain mysteries,the images of divine
things.In thisrespect,thewhole churchentertainsone and thesame
opinion: thatall theLaw is infactspiritual
and tuttoi,many (those particularlysimSince theBible is fullof aiviy[JCCTa
inthe
or
, oi ttoXXoi)
,
cxTToiJTspoi
simplicioresmostpeople, quamplurimi
ple,
in
the
Old
Testament
God's
literally(rpos Asiv,
terpret
anthropomorphisms
Kara to ptitov,Princ.4.2.1-3).It is interestingto note thatcriticismof anthropomorphismsascribed to deitieswas preciselyone of the main reasons that,
in ancientGreece,firstled to theallegoricalinterpretation
of myths.53
For Origen,themostimportantScripturalsense is undoubtedlythespiritual,reservedto those to whom the Spiritcommunicatesthe meanings "no
longer throughthe letters,but throughliving words" (Princ.4.2.4, with a
meaningfulreminiscenceof Plato's "living speech" in Phaedr.276A).54As resultsfromPrinc.4.3.6ff.,
thespiritualsense itselfseems to be divided intotwo:
derived
Paul and used by Justinand Irenaeus, and allegory,
from
typology,
used by Clement and "Gnosticism." Though Origen in his exegeticalpracdoes
tice does not always offerall threeof these readings,and furthermore
his thenotseem to draw a sharpdistinctionbetweentypologyand allegory,55
52.
53.
54.
55.
is revealing
spiritualsense(Princ.3.6.1;4.1.6;2.8).ThemainokottosofScripture
is toconceal
tothehumansthemysteries
usefulfortheirsalvation;thesecondary
accountsor
thesemysteries
underthatveiloftextseasytoread,suchas historical
at leasta moralteaching.
laws,containing
inEz. 11.1;CC 3.45;4.76:Cf.Clement,
Strom.
6.15.126.In Princ.
Princ.4.2.7;Horn,
4.1.7a thirdreasonis given:tomakeamena possibletoo,so thatfaithcanstand
outbyopposition.
I (above,n. 2),ch.1,withall thereferences.
Ramelli,Allegoria,
andtheFashioning
See Dawson,Christian
(above,n. 31),
ofIdentity
FiguraiReading
76.
His vocabulary
is notso differentiated
betweenthetwo(Origne,
Philocalie,
1-20,
Africanus
deSuzanne,
surlescritures,
surl'Histoire
parN.
parM. Harl,La Lettre
toEdwards,
de Lange,SourcesChrtiennes
302,Paris:Cerf,1983,121).According
n.
the
three
on
and
236,
Christ,
(above,
40),
exeget"Origen
Tropology, Exegesis"
thedistinction
between
icallevelstheorized
byOrigenareactuallyall typological;
withthecontroversy
between
andallegory
aroseonlyintheIVthcentury
typology
on whichsee I. Ramelli,"Giotheexegetical
schoolsofAntiochand Alexandria,
vanniCrisostomo
e l'esegesiscritturale"
(above,n.24)andOlbricht,
"Analogyand

Ramelli
355
orizationof multipleinterpretations
of the text,in which the spiritualmeanof
are
does
not seem to be in line with theStoic
ings Scripture inexhaustible,
method
of
which
involved
a single level of interpretaexegetical
allegoresis,
tionof Greek myths,usually physical allegory.The profoundunityof Scriptureand the multiplicityof interpretations
would seem to be two important
respectsin which Origen's exegesis differsfromtheStoic.
moralislocus: Horn,
(moralisinterpretatio,
Origendrew moralinterpretation
in Gen. 2.6; moralisdoctrinavel ratio:Horn,in Num. 9.7) above all fromPhilo,
who read the sacred textas an allegoryof the troublesof the soul between
good and evil. This "psychological"exegesis had alreadybeen christianized
by Clement. Origen, who uses it much more systematically,considers this
level - the "soul" of Scripture(see above the quotation fromPrinc.4.2.4) usefulforthosewho are makingprogress(;progredientes
), thanksto themoral
that
find
in
can
it.
The
facts
of
the
Old
Testament
cannotbe simteaching
they
of factsof the New; theyratherprefigurespiritualtruths,
ple prfigurations
because an elevation of level (avaycoyi]) has to take place. Old Testament
in Christ:56
thisis in line with the
prophecies,however,had theirfulfillment
typologicalinterpretation
accordingto which factsand charactersin theOld
Testamentare symbolsand prfigurations
of the New Testament.This readingwas alreadyfoundin Paul, as Origennotesin Princ.4.2.6,describingPaul's
exegesis as typological(tuttikcos).57
For all theimportanceof thespirituallevel,and even ofthemorallevel,however,Origen thinksthatthe literal,historicallevel of Scripturemaintainsits
fullvalue in almostall cases, unless oiXoyaor aSuvaxa arise.Indeed, whereas
everyScripturalpassage has a spiritualsense,onlya feware deprived ofliteral
meaning (Princ.4.2.5; 9), because of logical absurdities(ciXoya),paradoxes
or materialimpossibilities(aSuvaxa, Princ.4.3.1-4).Indeed, Ori(TTapcxSoa),
gen insiststhatthereare many more passages in Scripturethatare endowed
inClassicalRhetoric"
cf.F.M.Young,"TheRhetor(above,n.49),381-382;
Allegory
icalSchoolsandTheirInfluence
on Patristic
inTheMaking
Exegesis/'
ofOrthodoxy.
ed. R.Williams,
EssaysinHonorofH.Chadwick,
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
distinction
inOrigensee also
Press,1989,182-199.
Againstthetypology-allegory
e la sua tradizione
"ReSimonetti,
(above,n. 31),51-70;P.Martens,
Origene
esegeta
theAllegory
Distinction:
TheCase ofOrigen,"Journal
visiting
/Typology
ofEarly
Christian
Studies
16(2008)283-317.
Vision
, BalJ.J.O'KeefeandR.R.Reno,Sanctified
timore:
distinction
JohnsHopkins,2005,chs.4-5,tendto stickto thetraditional
betweentypology
and allegory.
56. Princ.1.3-6.Origenwas inspiredbyHeb 8:5,wheretheHebrewcultis OKiaand
oftheheavenlythings.Theliteralsenseis a
(shadowand indication)
TTEiyMCx
shadowofthespiritualin CC 2.2;Horn,inHier.7.1; 18.2;Comm.inMatth.10.15;
Comm.
inMatth.Ser.52;Horn,
inNum.24.1;Comm.
inIo.6.625.
57. OrigencallsPaul'sexegesesaXXriyopiai;
Paul inGal4:22-31saysthatHagar'sand
Sarah'sstorieswerecxXXriyopouMeva.
Paulhimself
seemstohavetheorized
thealin 2 Cor 3:12-18,wheretheveilon Moses' faceat
legoricalreadingofScripture
Sinaiis considered
as follows:forthosewhoarefixated
on thetextas an endinitself,thetextremainsveiled,butthosewho turnto theLordare enabledto see
thetexttoitstrueaimandmeaning(tXos):forthem,theveilis removed.
through
See Dawson,Christian
andtheFashioning
(above,n. 31),
FiguraiReading
ofIdentity
34-35;188.

356
2011
International
/September
Journal
witha literalmeaning(besides thespiritual)thanthosewhichare deprivedof

theliteralmeaningand onlyhave a spiritualsense:
uerasuntquamea quae
multoenimplurasuntquae secundumhistoriam
nudumsensumcontinent
,
spiritalem
thosepassages which are trueon thehistoricalplane are much more
numerous than those which have a bare spiritual meaning (ap.
Pamph. Apol.123 [200Amacker-Junod]).
Thus, for example, in Pamphilus' Apol. 125 (204 Amacker-Junod)Origen
claims thatthewhole storyofthePatriarchsis historical,and likewisethatthe
miracleofJoshuareallyhappened. As instancesofbiblicalpassages deprived
in theOld Tesofliteralmeaning,Origenadduces God's anthropomorphisms
factsthatdid not
tament,contradictions,
grammaticalor factualincongruities,
really happen (Princ. 4.3.1), and legal prescriptionsimpossible to fulfill.58
not
These have indeed "bare spiritual meanings" (yupva TrvsuMomKCx),
it
that
is
necesin
understand
in
order
to
let
readers
a
literal
sense,
wrapped
saryto seek fora deeper meaning(Princ.4.2.9; Phil. 1.16). One significantexample comes fromHorn.3 in Ps. 36, 7:
conterentur."
Quomodopotesthocsecun"Quoniambrachiapeccatorum
acere
coneturper imperitiam?
vim
dumlitteram
etiamsi
stare,
aliquis
f
itapositafquae etiameumquivalde brutusestet
Suntmultain scripturis
ad inmovere
stertit
possunt,immocogereutnecessehabeatlitteraderelicta
tellectum
conscendere
spiritalem.
"For the arms of thesinnerswill be shattered."How can thispossibly be truein a literalsense, even in case one should tryto forcethe
meaningout of ineptitude?In Scripturethereare many passages of
thiskind,which can induce even one who is stupid like a beast and
so asleep as to snore,or bettercan forcesuch a guy to see thatit is
necessaryto abandon theliteralmeaningand to ascend to thespiritual interpretation.
In a remarkablemethodologicalpassage, Princ. 4.2.9,Origen observes:
kociSvaTa
'Eviote Ss Xyos xpfaiMosouk|j<|>avsTai.KonoXXotb
'iva Tj
Kai
i
vomo0ete7tcxi tous svTpsxeaTSpous tittitikcotbpous,
t<>v
sttiSiSovtes
eccutous,
yeypanMevcov
aaavco tt's Istcxoscos
TTslojjaiooyovAacooi Trspto Ssfvto 0so 'iovvovsis toc
ToiaOra rjTsTv.
But sometimes a useful discourse does not appear. And on some
otheroccasions, even impossible thingsare prescribedby the law,
forthesake ofthosewho are moreexpertand particularlyfondofinvestigation,that,applyingthemselvesto the toilof theexamination
of Scriptures,theymay be persuaded by reason thatin Scripturesit
is necessaryto look fora meaningthatis worthyof God.
vis.2.4.3as
the"widowsand orphans"ofPast.Herrn,
58. In Philoc.1.11he interprets
thoseBiblicalpassagesdevoidofliteralsense,and in Horn,in Gen.2.6 he reads
Noah's ark,builton threeand twolevels,as a symbolofScripture,
havingthree
theliteralis missing.
orjusttwo,whenever
levelsofmeaning,

Ramelli
357
It is also notable thathere Origen attachesto the study of

Scripturethe very
lexicon of philosophical investigation(tittitikcotpous,
s^btccoscos,TT6a|ja
The reason is that,in his view,the allegoricalexegesis of
ioAoyov,rjTsTv).
theBible is an importantpartofphilosophy;thisis also why he decided to include his theorizationofbiblical allegoresisin his philosophicalmasterpiece.
In this connection,the very functionof the few scripturalpassages thatare
deprived ofa literalmeaningis to have theexegete-philosopherrealize thata
philosophicalscrutinyofScriptureis needed. This scrutinyaims at findingin
theBible meaningsthatare "worthyof God." Again, thisseems to have been
one oftheveryfirstfactorsthatproduced a searchforallegoricalmeaningsof
mythswhose literalsense sounded unworthyof thedivine.
However, in Origen's view, illogicalitiesand factual impossibilitiesin
Scriptureremain exceptional: the fullhistoricityof the biblical narrativeapart fromthearkheand the telos,as I shall point out (below,p. 358f.)- is not
in question forOrigen,and thisis a momentousfactorof differentiation
from
Stoic and Middle as well as Neoplatonic allegoresisof myth.That forOrigen
the reading of a scripturaltexton the spiritualplane does not imply the rejection of its literal meaning is also clear fromPamphilus Apol. 113 (188
Amacker-Junod):
Haec enim,licethabeantspiritalem
tamenmanentepriushisintellectum,
torele
ueritateetiamspiritalisrecipiendum
estsensus,
Even ifthesepassages have a spiritualmeaning,however theirspiritual sense mustbe receivedonlyafterfirstmaintainingtheirhistorical truth.
did takeplace
So, forinstance,Jesus'miracles,such as healingor resurrections,
even
at
the
time
same
also
mean
historically,
though
they
spiritualhealing
and spiritualresurrections,
e.g.,
caecossempercuratsecundumspiritalem
cum ignorantia
intelligentiam,
obcaecatasillumintmentes
tunccaecumsanauit,
, tamenet corporaliter
(Christ)always heals thosewho areblind in thespiritualsense,when
he illuminatestheminds thatare blinded by ignorance;however,he
thenhealed thatblind man fromthephysicalpoint of view as well.
For Origen,only the ascertainmentof thelitteramakes it possible to cortheliterallevel is useful
rectlydevelop theallegoricalexegesis. Furthermore,
to edify(o'lKoSopeiv)those who cannotunderstandScriptureto a deeper degree (Princ. 4.2.6;8-9,partiallyquoted above). Preciselyforhis attentionto the
- produced his Hexapla,to
littera,
Origen- who had once been a grammaticus
establish the Scripturaltext,and discussed philological points in his commentaries,such as thaton John.He used theHexaplanot only in his classes,
as his commentariesshow,but sometimeseven in his preaching,as we know
fromhis Homilieson Jeremiah,
preservedin Greek.59Accordingto Origen,in
59. Latintranslations,
ordrastically
reducedOrigen'srichphiloinstead,eliminated
in thisconnection,
areOrigen'sattention
to hislogicalapparatus.Remarkable,
and
his
collation
of
to
Palestine
with
the
tory philology,
manuscripts/his
journeys
aim ofestablishing
whether
JohntheBaptistoperatedin Bethanyor Bethabara
inIo.6.40-41),
andhisconcernwiththereasonwhythesuccs(John1:28;Comm.

358
2011
International
/September
Journal
fact,the spiritualsense of Scriptureabsorbs both its soul and its body,without destroyingthem.For thepurpose of theallegoricalreadingis to show the
connectionbetween spiritualand materialrealities,spiritand body, not to
allow thespiritto annihilatethebody.Origen illustratestheinterrelationship
between spiritualand materialbeing and between litteraand allegoricalexegesis in Princ.4.2.9; 3.4.6; Comm.in Matth.10.14-15;15.1,and elsewhere.This
is particularlyevident in Origen's doctrineof the spiritual
interrelationship
senses in Princ.1.1.9 and elsewhere.So, his exegesis ofJohnperfectlyreveals
his deep concern- against Heracleon - forpreservinghistory,includingthe
incarnationof the Logos, and offeringan allegorical exegesis thatis consistentwiththeliteralplane.
WithintheBible,however,thereare narrativesconcerningthe arkhand the
literaland allegorteloswhichescape thiscompositemodel of interpretation,
ical. These essentiallyconsistin theveryfirstsectionsofGenesis,withtheaccountofthecreationoftheworldand ofthehumanbeing,and theApocalypse
ofJohnor Revelation.The literaland historicalmeaningin theseaccountswas
probablythethinnestof all Biblicalbooks in Origen's eyes. In theprologue to
his Commentaryon theSong ofSongs Origenascribesa peculiarstatusto the
firstchaptersof Genesis, those including the creationaccount. He declares
thatthesechaptersmustbe studied only at theend of one's cursusstudiorum,
aftertherestoftheBible,just like theSong ofSongs (theseBiblicalbooks consince theymustcome afterall therestin
stitutewhat he calls theeuxeQcboeig,
one's studyplan). The reason is easy to see: the Genesis account of creation,
just as theSong ofSongs (and we could add Revelation),ought to be entirely
allegorized and cannotabsolutelybe takenliterally.Therefore,theyrequirea
maturestudent.
oftheaccounts
I suspectthatfortheexclusivelyallegoricalinterpretation
of thearkhand the telosOrigen was inspiredby Plato's philosophicalmyths,
whichOrigenexplicitlypraised as theonlyway ofspeaking ofwhat is otherwise impossible to expound. He knew verywell thatPlato could use only a
mythical,not a theoretical,language preciselywhen tacklingthequestion of
thearkh- in his Timaeus,withwhichOrigenwas verywell acquainted60- and
thetelos
, in his eschatologicalmythssuch as thatofEr at theend oftheRepublic
and his otheraccountsof theunderworld,withwhichOrigen was deeply familiaras well.61This is why it is only in a mythical
form,and not in a theoretfrom
sionofeventsafter
Jesus'baptismintheGospelofJohn(1:29-36)is different
few
exof
the
is
one
thatoftheSynoptics
(Comm.inIo. 10.3).Moreover,
Origen
thestoryofthemagicianofEndorin1 Sam28,andprobegeteswhoreadliterally
eunuchsfortheKingdomofHeaven
ablythepraiseofthosewhomakethemselves
(Matt.19:12).
and theMindofGod: TheAtterlire
60. See,e.g.,G.R.Boys-Stones,Time,Creation,
40 (2011)319inAncient
Studies
in
ofa Platonist
Philosophy
Theory Origen/'Oxford
337.
di Nissa Sull'animae la resurrezione,
61. See I. Ramelli,Gregorio
introduzione,
notee apparati,Milan:Bompiani-Catholic
2007,withfour
traduzione,
University,
critical
essays,neweditionofDe animaalso based on theCopticversionpredatofDe AnimaandofIn
andcommentaries
translations
ingeveryGreekmanuscript,
and thereviewsbyP.TzaIllud: TuncetIpseFilius
, appendixesandbibliographies,

Ramelli
359
ical one, thatPlato presentedalso thedoctrineofmetensomatosis,whichOrigen,like Gregoryof Nyssa in De anima, rejectedoutright.That Origen had in
mind Plato's mythsin his own considerationson what must be expressed
mythicallyand allegorically,and thathe reflectedon theepistemologicalstatus of thosemyths,is also proved by CC 4.39,wherehe praises Plato because
he used mythswiththeintentionofconcealingthetruthto "themajority"and
revealingit only Tots siSooi. The latter,"those who know,"clearlyare those
who are able to interpretPlato's mythscorrectly- thatis, allegorically.
After
an
extensive
section
of
Plato's
quoting
Symposium(203BE), containingthe
and
of
Penia
on
to observe thatits exegeteswill eiPoros,
myth
Origen goes
thertakeitliterallyand lampoon it,whichhe hopes Christianswill not do because ofPlato's greatness,or will interpretitallegorically,knowingthatPlato
hid his thoughtbehind a mythin orderto conceal it to the majority,only reof course the
vealing it to those who are capable of allegoricalinterpretation,
philosophers:
to
toutois, 'ecxvpv xr|vKaKOTi0Eiav
"Apa yap oi svxuyxcxvovTss
KsAoou mucovTai,ottep XpioTiavcov aTTEirj,
KaxaysdaovTai to
Kai sv x^r] OioovTaitov tt|ikotovXxcova.'Ev 5s x ev
MIJ0OU
p0ouextern XEyopEva<}>ioo<|>cos
5'jvr]0coiv
EupElv
eetcxovtes
to ouXrmato TTAcxtcovos,
vpovTaiTi'va TporovSeSuvitoi Ta
ijev5i tous ttoXXousev
HEyaXalauTco <|)aiv|jEvaSypaTa Kpvpai
TCOTO[JU0OU
EITTEV
5' COS'eXP^VTO[S E5OIVCCTTO
MU0COV
OXTIMOTI,
TO TTEp'l
r)0EasTOTaTa OUVTaaVTOS
EpGKElV
oXilMa.
Now, thosewho runintothismyth,iftheyimitateCelsus' malignity,
will deride it and will poke funat Plato, so greatas he is. But be this
theconfarfromChristiansiOr else, if theyinvestigate
philosophically
tentsthatare expressedin theformofa myth
and
are
,
therebyable to
findout whatPlatomeant
, they<will see> how he could hide under
the appearance of the myththose doctrineswhich seemed to him
while at thesame time
particularlysublime,because of themajority,
revealingthem,as appropriate,to thosewhoknowhow to ferretout
frommythswhat theauthormeantconcerningthetruth.
It is to be remarkedthat,once again, Origen expresslydeems allegoricalexeexercise,and thathe takesit forgrantedthatsuch an allegesis a philosophical
mustbe applied to Plato's myths.This is theverysame
goricalinterpretation
kind of exegesis, allegorical and philosophical,which he claimed forScriptureas well. What is more,in the immediatecontinuationof the passage at
stake,OrigenovertlyassimilatesPlato's mythofPoros to theGenesis account
of thearkh:
Christianae
62 (2008)515-523;M.J.Edwards,Journal
malikos,Vigiliae
ofEcclesiasticalHistory
60 (2009)764-765;M. Herrerode Huregui,7/m
13 (2008)334-336.On
see Edwards,Origen
Plato(above,n.31);P.Tzamalikos,
Origen'sPlatonism
against
: Philosophy
andEschatology,
toVigiliaeChristianae
Origen
ofHistory
Supplements
diFilosofa
Neoscolastica
100
85,Leiden-Boston:
Brill,2007,withmyreviewinRivista
and
Christian
Platon(2008)453-458;and Ramelli,"Origen,Patristic
Philosophy,
ism"(above,n. 14).Further
fortheidentification
ofOrigentheChrisarguments
tian with Origen the Neoplatonistin I. Ramelli, "Origen the Christian
Middle/Neoplatonist,"
inActaPatrstica
etByzantina.
forthcoming

360
International
2011
/September
Journal
Totov 5s tov TTapcx
TTAcxtcovi
5ia tov nap* auTcptou
pu0ov'eeOemtiv
ti
Sokovtcc
is kttov
TrapaTTToiovs'xBiv
TcpTrapaSsacoto sou,
Kai Tr|vsviav tgo eke7o$ei
Kai tov (jtto tx's
TrapajiaXXoMEvr|v,
utto
Evias ETriouEu0|jvov
TTpovtco avpcoTTcp
ettiPouAeuomevco
to ojeos.
I have reportedthismyth,which is foundin Plato,because the garden ofZeus thereinseems to have somethingverysimilarto thegarden/Paradise of God [sc. in the Genesis story],and Penia can be
compared to the serpentfound in the garden/Paradise,and Poros,
thevictimof Penia's plot,can be compared to thehuman being,the
victimof the serpent'splot.
This assimilationofPlato's and theBible's myths,mostremarkably,

is notconfinedto theframeworkof a debate with a Middle Platonist,such as theContraCelsum,but was also drawn by Origen,and much more extensivelyand
on Genesis. Origen's own testimonyat the
completely,in his lost Commentary
end of CC 4.39 seems to me unequivocal.62Moreover,in CC 6 Origendeclares
that the Genesis storyof the protoplasts' sin and theirbeing enveloped in
"skin tunics"(which forhim symbolizemortaland heavy corporeality)must
not be takenliterally,
but has a "mysticaland secretmeaning,"which he assimilates,once again, to thesymbolicmeaningofPlato's mythof thedescent
of thesoul afterithas lost its wings:
That the human being was chased out of Paradise, the man along
with the woman, and was enfolded in the so-called 'skin tunics,'
which God made forthose who had sinned because of the transgressionof the human beings, well, all thishas a kind of secretand
Tiva Kai muotikove'x1Ayov],even
mysticalmeaning[crppTiTOV
more than Plato's mythofthedescentofthesoul has [imp tt|v kotcx
cxTcovakc0o5ovtt's vpuxjs],when it loses its wings and falls
Kai SEpo<j>spo|JEVTis],
'until it becomes
down here [TTTEpoppuoorjs
attachedto somethingsolid' [egosv OTEpEou
tivos AcxrjTai].
Thus, Origen compared the Genesis storyof the creationand fallof the
human being to Plato's mythsof Poros and Penia and of the fallof the soul,
claimingthattheymythically
expressedthesame content,and thatbothmythical accountsshould be interpretedallegorically,in orderto get a philosophiOUTE
Ta TTEpi
KOITOVTTapElOOV
TO0EO
62. OuTEETOVTTAcXTCOVOS
TOV6<J)IV
M0OV
Kai oa EvauTcoavayEypaiTTaiyEyovIvaivvKaipos fiv6ir|yrioao0arnpocos oTvt' fiv,eis TaTa
1% Teveoecos,
riyouMEvcos
yp ev tos EriyriTiKo
both
"Now itwas nottherightoccasionforgoingthrough
ETTpayMaTEuacxME0a,
andthestory
andthegarden/ParadiseofGod andall that
Plato'smyth
oftheserpent
treated
all thisin
For1 havealready
happenedin it accordingto whatis written.
in
I could."
and
as
the
main
on
insofar
as
Genesis,
depth,
subject, mycommentary
on Genesishe has analysed
Origenis notsimplysayingthatinhisCommentary
thebiblicalstoryoftheserpentand theParadise,butthatin thatworkhe has
intheservice
analysedbothPlato'smythandtheGenesisstory,
clearlytheformer
withthelatter.
ofa comparison
Theshortcomparison
foundinCC 4.39,whichhas
beenquotedabove,is an extremely
versionofwhatwas developed
compendious
toa muchgreater
extentinOrigen'slostCommentary.

361
Ramelli
cal truthout of them,whereas theirliteralexpositionsare simplylaughable.

on Genesisbeing lost, fromCC 4.39 it is
His fullerreportin the Commentary
stillpossible to grasp notonlytheverytermsofthiscomparison,but also Origen's own explanationofthereasonwhy such strikingsimilaritiesemergebetweenPlato's myth- transformed
by Origenintoa mython thearkh and the
Genesis account of thearkh:
8TT!
TTTCOKE
KTCX
TT8
CX
VUSs 5]XoVTTOTSpOV
O TT
TOUTOISO
OUVTUXCXV
0(
0( ouvEV
O'OVTC
"FIVES'
SIS
COS
j
TTXctcOV,
TT)
r,
AiyUTTTOVTTo5r||J
Ka
'
Kai
Ta
'louSaicov
to
is
paBcov
<J>iXooo<j>ouai
Trap'aTcov
Tuxcov
Ta 5s TTapSTTOlTlGS,
TCX
M8VTiva TSTTlpTlKS,
TTpOGKOVpCXl
<J)Ua|J6VOS
rextt's louSaicovTTiprjaaiao<t>ias,5iatos "EXXrjaiSKTou ttovtt]
Trapa tos ttoos 5iocto eviovtgdvvopcovKai tt|v
^BXTiiJBvcov
KaT' aUTOUSTToXlTEaV.
iSlOTpOTTOV
It is notquite clearwhetherthisstory[sc.themythofPoros] occurred
to Plato's mind by chance or,as some believe, duringhis sojournin
EgyptPlato also ran into people who adhered to the philosophyof
the Jews,learntfromthem,and then retainedsome thingsand altered some others,being carefulto avoid offendingthe Greeks by
keeping to the wisdom of the Jews in its entiretyand in every respect,since thelatterwere calumniatedby mostpeople fortheoddityof theircustomsand thepeculiarityof theirway of life.
Among the unnamed "some," Clement was prominent,who defined Plato
"thephilosophertaughtby theHebrews" in Strom.1.1.10.2,and thenin ch. 21
offereda chronologicalexplanationof thisassertion,similarto Tatian's in his
63and in chs. 22-29 showed the indebtednessof Greek
Oratioad Graecos,
philosophy,and above all of Plato, to Moses. Of course, Origen intentionally
not only because
, ratherthan a Jewishreligion,
speaks of a Jewishphilosophy
fromthatphilosophy stemmed what he wanted to presentas the Christian
oftheHebrew Bible
philosophy,but also because theallegoricalinterpretation
had alreadybeen
and
he
knew
that
this
task
is in his view a philosophical
task,
and
and otherpredsuch
as
Philo
Aristobulus,
authors,
performedby Jewish
ecessorsofPhilo. Indeed, in CC 4.51,soon afterreportingCelsus' denigratory
words (whichhave been quoted above) againstany allegoricalinterpretation
of theBible,Origen observes thatthisis not only an attackon Christianallebut also on Jewishallegoresisofitas representedby Philo,
goresisofScripture,
Aristobulus,and others.64
Origen is therebycreatingforhimselfa non-Christianand pre-Christian
ancestryin thephilosophicalallegoresisofScripture.In
fact,thisancestryseems to have been completelyoverlookedby Middle and
Neoplatonistswho opposed biblicalallegoresis,such as Celsus and Porphyry.
withG.
incollaboration
Vitee dottrine
deipicelebri
63. See myDiogene
Laerzio,
filosofi,
Milan:Bompiani,2005,introductory
Reale and G. Girgenti,
essay,pp. XXXIIICXXXVIII.
TaTa Xeyeivr| Kai tcov eti
64. 'Eoiks e TTspiTcovOiXcovos'ouyypaMMaTcov
'eoti tcx ApioTooiiXou.
ottoTcx
apxaioTEpcov,
iToxonai e tov KeXoov'it'
ofsayingso proposthetreaTa iXia,"He givestheimpression
vEyvcKEvai
I suppose
suchas Aristobulus.
tisesofPhilooroftheevenmoreancientexegetes,
thatCelsushad notreadthosebooks."

362
2011
International
/September
Journal
Justas Plato spoke of thearkhand the telosin a mythicalfashion,likewise,to

thearkhand the telos,which are beforeand afterhuman historyand historical experience,Scripturenecessarilyhad to apply a mythical- and notan historical - language, which demands an allegorical interpretation.Indeed,
Origen declares thatthe arkhand the teloshave been leftunclarifiedby the
teachingoftheChurch(Princ. praef.7) and are unknowneven to angels (Princ.
4.3.14). Indeed, not even the angelic orders really know the aQyf'and the
xXo:
sanctorum
equeexercitus
angelorumequesanctaesedesequedominascirepossuntintegre
initiumomtionesequeprincipatus
nequepotestates
niumet finemuniuersitatis,
not even the hosts of theholy angels, nor theholy thrones,nor the
dominations,nor theprincipates,nor thepowers,can fullyknow the
beginningofall beings and theend ofall things(ap. Pamph. Apol.82
[140Amacker-Junod]).
This is why thesecompletelyescape human knowledge,and in Scripturethey
are describedonly mythicallyand allegorically,and not at all historically.
Christianphilosophicalexegetesmustapply allegoryat itsbest
Therefore,
when interpreting
thearkhand telosaccounts.This is what Origen did in his
on
own interpretation
of Revelation,to which he alludes in his Commentary
Matthew,and which survives both in fragments- the scholia65,which have
- and scatteredthroughbeen demonstratedto be at least partiallyauthentic66
on Johnand Matthew,
out otherextantworksofhis,such
as
his
Commentaries
'
Homilies on Jeremiah,and TTspiApx>v.Origen and theOrigeniantradition
of theApocalypse,
would always be suspicious towardliteralinterpretations
unlikemanyOriwhichproduced millenarianism.67
himself,
however,
Origen
to
commented
on it,and
as
Revelation
belonging Scripture,
genians,accepted
it
in
an
cited
but
he
it,
allegoricalway. In Princ.
frequently
entirelyinterpreted
of Revelation,when
2.11.2-3he is obviouslycriticizinga literalinterpretation
he attacksthoseexegeteswho held thattheeschatologicalbeatitudewill consist in eating and drinkingand otherworldlypleasures, and thatthe heavenlyJerusalemwill be an earthlycity,made ofpreciousstones,in accord with
a literal interpretationof Rev 21. Rather,Origen explains, the heavenly
Jerusalemdepictedin Revelationwill be, not a citymade of stonesand gems,
but a citymade of saints (civitassanctorum),in which each one will be inofViolencein theApocalypse:Destruc65. See I. Ramelli,"Origen'sInterpretation
in theApocalypse.
in Violence
ofSinners/'
tionofEviland Purification
Proceedings
- Ancient
Violent
Texts
Christian
Commentators
of
Interpreting
oftheNTP Symposium
7-11September
theApocalypse,
Catholic
Leuven,
2009,ed. J.Verheyden,
University
NovumTestamentum
etOrbisAntiquus/StudienzurUmweltdes NeuenTestaundRuprecht,
2011.
ments92,Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck
on theApoca66. An earlyMedievalprologueto an anonymousIrishcommentary
Patr.102[B.V.18],fols.101inms.Bamberg,
Bibliothek
Staatliche
lypse,preserved
oftwelvehomilieson theApocalypsebyOrigen.See
110,atteststo theexistence
Medieval
evidencefortwelvehomiliesbyOrigenon theApocJ.F.T.
Kelly,"Early
Christianae
39 (1985)273-279.
alypse/'Vigiliae
67. See Ramelli,"Origen'sInterpretation
ofViolencein theApocalypse"(above,n.
literature.
63),also withfurther

363
Ramelli
structedin order to become a living precious stone, in an apokatastasis or

restorationof rationalcreaturesto theoriginalplan of God:68
etperfectum,
sicutex initio/acSapientiaeescisnutritamensad integrum
: utetiamsiquis
Dei ac similitudinem
tusesthomo, ad imaginem
reparetur
tamen
instru
ex hacvitaminuseruditusabierit,
detulerit,
probabilia
opera
id
edoceri
et
et
in
ilia
Hierusalem
civitate
sanctorum
est
,
informari
possit
et
eo
et
constan
vivus,
electus,
lapispretiosus
lapis
pro quodfortiter
effici
terpertulerit
pietatis.
agonesvitaeet certamina
One's intellect,fed withthefood of Wisdom so to become complete
and perfect,just as the human being was made at the beginning,
must be restoredto the image and likeness of God. Thus, even if
someone has leftthislifewithoutbeing instructedenough, and yet
has produced praiseworthydeeds, thisperson will be able to be instructedin thatfamousJerusalemthatis a cityofsaints,to be taught
and formedso to become a livingstone,a precious and selectstone,
in thatthisperson has endured withfortitudeand perseverancethe
trialsof lifeand thebattlesof faith.
In thesame way,Dionysius ofAlexandria,a disciple and faithfulfollowerof
Origen's, afterstatingthatsome ascribedRevelationto Cerinthus,a "Gnostic,"
did not rejectit altogether,but attributedit to a John,differentfromthe
homonymousauthorof the Gospel and Letters,and, lamentingits obscurity
and solecisms,claimed thatitmustbe interpreted
(ap. Eus. HE
onlyallegorically
7.24.3-25.26).Even severalcenturieslater,thefirstknown Greekcommentator
on Revelation,Oecumenius (sixthcentury),who cited the Cappadocian Faand was influencedby Origen, defended
thersand Eusebius as auctoritates
theauthenticity
of Revelation,like Origenhimself,but read it,again, allegoriagainst all its chiliasticinterpretations.69
callyand mystically,
Origennot onlypraised methodologically,as I have pointed out,but also enteredin conversationwith,Plato's mythson the arkheand the telos,without
hesitatingto correctthemat times.One example concernshis correctionof
Plato's eschatologicalmyths,and in particularthenotionof "incurable"souls,
which sharplycontravenedOrigen's doctrineof apokatastasisand had to be
rejectedby him. Accordingto Plato, indeed, some who have done too much
evil are "incurable"(vaToi), and therefore
theirsouls, aftertheirdetachment
A Reassessment/'
in Origeniana
68. See I. Ramelli,"Origenand theApokatastasis:
- H. Pietras,
Dcima
Bibliotheca
, eds.S. Kaczmarek
Ephemeridum
Theologicarum
Leuven:Peeters,
Lovaniensium
, forth244,649-670,
2011,andeadem,Apokatastasis
coming,chapteron Origen.
was recovered
69. Oecumeniuscommentary
byDiekamponlyattheendofthenineItwas editedby H.C. Hoskier,TheComplete
teenthcentury.
Commentary
ofOecuofMichigam
SeriesXXIII,
menius
ontheApocalypse
, University
Studies,Humanistic
AnnArbor:University
ofMichigan,
editionis
1928,29-260.Today,thebestcritical
thatbyM. de Groote,Oecumenii
inApocalypsin,
TraditioExegetica
Commentarius
witha dis1999.Thefirst
Graeca8,Leuven:Peeters,
completeEnglishtranslation,
ofOecumenius'srelationship
to Origen,is byJ.N.
cussion,in theintroduction,
: Commentary
on theApocalypse
, The FathersoftheChurch,a
Suggit,Oecumenius
newtranslation,
CatholicUniversity
ofAmerica,
2006.
112,Washington:

364
International
2011
/September
Journal
fromtheirbodies, cannotbe healed throughsuffering

and thenrestoredto the
contemplationof theIdeas, but mustremainin Tartarusforever.The concept
of people who are aviaxoi both on earthand in hell occurs ratherfrequently
in Plato. In particular,Origen probablyhad in mind threefamous passages
fromPlato's descriptionsofotherworldly
punishmentsin Phaedo,Gorgias,and
In
Phaed.
113E2
Plato
claims
that
those who are incurabledue to the
Republic.
seriousnessof theirsins are destinedto Tartarus,fromwhere theywill never
be released:
O'i 5' v SoeoaivviccTcose'xeiv5i tcxnsys0Ti
t>vanapTrmccTcov,
Kai pEyXas ] <|>vousccSkousKa Trapavnous
f' tspoauXasTToXXs
ttoXXousssipyao|J8voirj 'XXa oa ToiaTa TuyxvEiovto, toutous 5s T]TTpOOTjKOUOa
EIS TOVTpTOpOV,O0EVOUTTOTE
|Jo7papiTTTBI
SKaiVOUOlV.
Those who seem to be in an incurableconditiondue to theenormity
of theirsins, having committed,forinstance,many grave profanations of temples,or many illicitmurdersagainst the law, or other
similarcrimes,well, the appropriateFate throwsthese people into
Tartarus,fromwhere theyneverexit.
In Gorg.525C2, Plato, afterremarkingthatonly throughsuffering
is it possible to get rid of evil, observes thatthose who committedextremelyserious
sins have become incurable.As a consequence, theirtorments,which are exbut are
presslydescribedagain as eternal,do not produce theirpurification,
retributive
and
useful
for
other
as
a
and
not for
simply
people,
paradigm,
thesesinnersthemselves(thisis a kind ofpunishmentthatOrigen refusedto
believe God mightever inflict):
O'l 5' v Ta saxaTa aSiKTjacoaiKai 5ia Ta toiouto aSiKrmaTaaviaToi
yvcovTai,SKtoitcovTa TrapaSsyijaTa yyvsTai, Kai outoi auToi
HSVouKETiovivavTai ouSlv, ote viaToi ovtes, 'oi5 ovvavTai
oi toutous opcVTEs
5icxtos apapTias to (jyioTaKai oSuvtipototo
Kai <J>0EpC0TOTO
TOV0(81XpOVOV.
TTar)
TTaOXOVTOS
As forthosewho committhemostextremekindsofinjusticeand because of such crimesbecomeincurable,
well, thesepeople provide examples to others. They are no longer useful to themselves in
but theyare useful to
anything,preciselybecause theyare incurable,
who
see
them
the
and
endure
most painful and
others,
greatest
dreadfulsufferings
due
to
their
sins.
perpetually,
In Resp. 615E3 Plato repeats thattyrants,the worst sinnersin his view, and
privatecitizenswho have committedterriblesins are incurableand therefore
are neverallowed to leave theirplace ofpunishment:
'Ekevovte KaTEi5o|jEV
Kai oXXouc- oxeSov ti auTcovtous
Eâ<J>vr)s
ttXeiotous Tupcvvous'rjaav Se Kai Sicoto tives tcov MEyXa
- ous oiomvousr5iavar)GEa0ai ouk eSexeto to
rmapTTiKTcov
aXX'
TOTETIS TCJV
OUTCOS
viaTCOSEXOVTCOV
EIS
OTOMIOV, EpUKaTO
i] |jr| iKavws SeScokcos5kt]v,ettixeipovivai.
TTovripav,

Ramelli
365
We suddenly saw him down there,and others - most of them

but therewere also some privatecitizenswho had committyrants,
ted serioussins -, who believed theywere finallyabout to go up, but
whom the opening did not receive,but it mooed everytimeone of
in respectto
thesepeople who were in such a situationofincurability
wickedness,or one who had not paid enough,attemptedto go up.
Here Plato is clear in distinguishingthose who finishpaying theirdebt with
justiceand can exittheplace ofpunishmentat a certainpoint,and thosewho
are utterlyincurableand will never finishpaying,and thus will never leave
the place of punishment.Indeed, even apart fromthe aforementionedpassages, sin is oftenpresentedby Plato as an illnessofthesoul thatmay become
incurable,also in contextsin whichhe is speaking ofhuman justice.
Now, if Plato thoughtthatsome sinnersare incurable,Origen corrects
Plato on thispoint by claimingthatno being is incurableforits creator,not
even the devil. Since he createdall creatures,Christ-Logos,who is God, will
also be able to heal all of themfromtheillness of evil:
Nihilenimomnipotenti
est,necinsanabile estaliquidfactori
impossibile
suo,
Nothingis impossible forthe Omnipotent;no being is incurablefor
theOne who createdit (Princ. 3.6.5).
Origen,who insertsthisdeclarationin thecontextofa discussion oftheeventual conversionand salvation of the devil qua creatureof God, is simplyintroducingtheargumentof God's omnipotence,whichcomes,notfromGreek
philosophy,but fromtheBible,whichPlato could notknow (especiallyMatth
19:25-26and Mark 10:26-27,exactlyin referenceto salvation: "impossible for
human beings,but nothingis impossible forGod"70):those who admittedly
are incurable on human standards are not incurable for God. Universal
apokatastasis and salvation - i.e., the restorationof all rationalcreaturesto
God, who is theGood, and theirconsequentsalvation- will in factbe a divine
miracle.
This debate about Plato's positionconcerningtheeventual restorationof
all souls, or not all, lasted long in Platonism,both on its Christianand on it
"pagan" side. Macrobius, a Neoplatonistwho offereda fullallegoricalreadin thelast chapteraffirmsthat,according
ing of Cicero's SomniumScipionis,71
e oi nariTaieetttooovto
70. Matt.19:25-26:'Akouoccvtes
Tis
oôpa, XyovTEs*
uvaTai
ocoSrjvai;
apa
'EuAevâs 'ItjooseittevaTos*TTapv0pcTTOis
totouvaTovEOTiv,
"Thedisciplesgotupsetwhen
uvaTCx,
Trape0ec3TrrivTa
theyheardthis,andsaid:'Ifthisis so,whocanbe saved?'Jesuslookedattheminis
tenselyand said to them:'Thisis impossibleforhumanbeings,buteverything
06
for
God.'"
Mark
10:26-27:
Oi
repioocos
Xeyovxes
Trps
'eetttiooovto
possible
eauTos*Kai ts vaTai oco0rjvai;'EuXevpas
auTos 'IrjoosXeyerTTap
X'ou Trapaeco*irdvTayap uvaTa TTaptco eco,
vivaTov,
vSpcoTTots
"Theybecamequiteupset,sayingto eachother:'And who can be saved?'Jesus
lookedatthemintensely
and said:'Impossibleforhumanbeings,butnotforGod,
sinceeverything
is possibleforGod.'"
71. See I. Ramelli,"Macrobioallegorista
e il tardoplatonismo
latino,"in
neoplatonico
. Commento
al SognodiScipione
Macrobio
, ed. M. Neri,Milan:Bompiani,
2007,5-163.

366
2011
International
/September
Journal
to Plato, all souls will returnto theiroriginalplace, some sooner and others
later,but all of themwill eventuallyreturn:
aniEr UlePlatonicus[...] saeculainfinita
dinumerans,
quibusnocentium
emerde
Tartaris
sero
in
easdem
mae,
permittuntur
poenassaepereuolutae,
, quod est caelum, tandemimpetrata
gereet ad naturaesuae principia
purgationeremeare.Necesseest enimomnemanimamad originissuae
citopostcorsedemreuerti.
Sedquae corpustamquamperegrinae
incolunt,
ut suis
illecebris
uero
ad
uelut
reuertuntur,
corporum
quae
pus
patriam
tanto
ad
illis
uiolentius
ab
sedibusinhaerent,
,
supera
separantur
quanto
seriusreuertuntur.
The famousEr of Plato [...] counts infiniteaeons in which the souls
of sinners,afterreturningmany and many timesto the same punishments,are finallyallowed to emergefromTartarus,and to return
to theprincipleoftheirnature,thatis,heaven, afterattaining,at last,
returnto itsoriginalplace.
purification.For everysoul mustnecessarily
But those souls which inhabit a body as strangersreturnto their
homes, as it were, soon afterabandoning the body, whereas those
whichstickto theallurementsofthebodies as thoughtheyweretheir
permanentabode, themoreviolentlytheyare separated fromthem,
thelatertheyreturnto heaven.
Even thosesouls thathave erredmost of all, aftera verylong permanencein
Tartarus,will return,purified,to theiroriginalcondition.AlthoughPlato admittedofsome exceptions,forsouls who are absolutelyincurable,Macrobius
wanted to presentPlato's thoughtin his own way, and since he believed in
universalapokatastasisor therestorationof all souls, he ascribed thistheory
to Plato as well, so to make it more authoritative.72
Examplescould be provided,too,ofhow OrigencorrectedPlato,notonly
on his eschatological myths,but also on his mythicalaccount of the arkhe,
while at the same timehe consistentlydeployed this mythicalaccount. For
,73as
Origen read the Genesis storyof thearkhein he lightof Plato's Timaeus
the
Middle
and
the
Christian
the
Middle
Platonist,
Platonists,
Philo,
Syrian
had done. Butunlikeall (or almostall) of these,Origenagain corBardaisan,74
rectedPlato on at least one point:he did notadmitofthepre-existenceofmatbetween his Christianthoughtand
ter.He himselfunderlinesthisdifference
inSomeLatePlatonists,
72. See my"TheTheoryofApokatastasis
Paganand ChrisLeeds12-17July
MediaevalCongress,
tian,"lecturedeliveredattheInternational
31 (2006[2011])197-230..
inIllinoisClassicalStudies
2009,forthcoming
und
73. On Origens exegesisof Genesissee Ch. Kckert,Christliche
Kosmologie
beiOrgenes
: DieAuslegung
desSchpfungsberichtes
kaiserzeitliche
, Basilius
Philosophie
kaiserzeitlicher
undGregor
vonNyssavordemHintergrund
Timaeus-Interpretationen,
MohrSiebeck,2009;
StudienundTextezu AntikeundChristentum
56,Tbingen:
und
den
bei
A. Tzvetkova-Glaser,
Rabbinen,
frhen
PentateuchauslegungOrgenes
PeterLang,2010,also
in theContextofAntiquity
7,Frankfurt:
EarlyChristianity
inAnzeiger
withthereviewsbyI. Ramellirespectively
frdieAltertumswissenschaft
2011.
2011and BrunMawrClassicalReview
: A Reassessment
Bardaisan
I. Ramelli,
74. See,alsowithfurther
literature,
ofthe
ofEdessa
AlsointheLightofOrigenandtheOriginal
anda NewInterpretation.
Evidence
FragStudies22,Piscataway:Gorgias,2009.
De India, EasternChristian
ments
from

Ramelli
367
Greekphilosophyon thisscore in Horn,in Gen. 14.3:

Moralisveroet physicaquae diciturphilosophia
paeneomniaquae nostra
suntsentit;dissidetveroa nobiscumDeo dicitessemateriam
coaeternam,
The doctrinesofmoralphilosophyand oftheso-called physicalphilosophy are almost all the same as ours; theyare in disagreement
withus, however,in the claim thatmatteris coeternalwithGod.
But even in his philosophical masterpiece,Origenengages in a reductio
ad absurdumof the hypothesisthatmatteris uncreated and coeternal with God
( Princ. 2.4.3). Origen must have treatedthis question extensivelyin his lost
Commentaryon Genesis. It is fromtherethat,veryprobably,a long fragment
ofOrigen's preservedby Eusebius (PE 7.20) comes, in whichOrigen opposes
again to his adversariesthe argumentof theomnipotenceof God:
Ei 5s tivi TTpooKOTTTEi
5i tous avBpcoirivousxexvxas m 5vaa0ai
KaxaTTapa5saa0ai tov 0sv x^P1^ XrisyevTiTouuttoksimbvtis
Ta vxa, 'etts'ir'5iavSpiavTOTTois
OKEusiv
Xa^K xoSiov
uvaxai, |jr|5tsktcovX^pW ucov,
spyov TTOifioai
|jr)5soixoSopos
SOU[...] TT)V
XCOpsX0COV,
Tipos aUTOVTTSpl5uvd|J6COS
r)TT)TBOV
oaav orjs XPC81
ixawi sotiv axo f]oiiArjoisTTOirjoai
ysvoSai.
ki ToiaTTjvKai toioutcos sktuotiv
tc3
[...] to xrjvXriv,
toocxuttiv
ett*
sotiv
sou,
tsxvtt]Ayco
<j>soTr|K8vai
aysvTiTcos oris
aoyov.
If one mistakenlymaintains,because of human craftsmen,thatit is
impossibleto admitthatGod createdtheexistingbeingswithoutthe
substratumof uncreated matter,since neithera sculptorcan even
begin his own work withoutbronze,nor a carpenterwithoutpieces
of wood, nor a builder withoutstones,well, to objectto thisperson
itis necessaryto conducta researchintothepower ofGod. [...] God's
will is sufficient
to call to existencethe substancehe needs. [...] It is
equally absurd thatmattermay subsistwithoutbeing created,given
thatit is so much,so great,and so capable of God's creativeLogos.
This point,however - the so-called creatioex nihilodoctrine- would lead us
too farhere.
Whatis importantto pointout in connectionwiththepresentinvestigationis
how OrigenprojectedPlato's mythicalaccountsofthearkhand thetelosonto
his own exegesis of thebiblical accounts of thearkhand the telos, seeing the
same epistemologicalstatusboth in Plato's myths(the Timaeus,probablythe
mythof Poros,and theeschatologicalmyths)and in thebiblical mythicalaccountsat thebeginningofGenesis and in Revelation,so that,forinstance,his
of theParadise and theinitialfallis allegorical.75
In Princ.4.3.1
interpretation
75. Tzvetkova-Glaser,
Pentateuch
bei Orgenesund denfrhenRabbinen
Auslegung
callsattention
tothefactthatPhilo,Leg.1,45,offered
an
(above,n.71),117,rightly
of
the
Paradise
as
and
virtue
of
Eden
as
His
exinterpretation
allegorical
luxury.
egesiswas ofcourseknowntoOrigen.See also G. Brke,"Orgenes'Lehrevom
Urstnddes Menschen,"
72(1950)1-39,andW.K.
Zeitschrift
frkatholische
Theologie
beiAmbrosius
undseinenVorgngern
Bietz,Paradiesvorstellungen
, Diss.Gieen1973,

368
2011
International
/September
Journal
Origen explicitlyincluded the whole account of the Paradise and the whole
storyofcreationin Genesis among thescripturalpassages deprivedofa literal
meaningand susceptibleonly of an allegoricalinterpretation:
Tis yovvovs'xcovoitostcxi
TipconivKai SsuxspavKai TpnivTipspav
Kai
T6
TTpcoiavx^pi? ilîou yeyovsvai Kai oetivt]sKai
sTTspav
Kai x^P1^ oupavou; Tis 5' outcos
5
oTspcov;Tr|v oiovsi npcoTTiv
cos
oir]0fivai Tpuov avOpcoTiouyEcopyou tov 0eov
TlX0ios
TrapaSEioov8V'ESp KaTa vaTOas, Kai ijovcorjs
TT8(J)UT8UK8vai
cogts5ia tcovocopaTiKcv
8vauTcpTT6Troir|K6vai
opaxov Kai aiorjTv,
o5ovtcov ysuoapsvovto KapTio,to fjvavaAapavEiv, Kai ttocXiv
to no to5e
Tiv Trapato MMaOTlcy0ai
KaXoKa'iTTOvripo
mtsxbiv
to ijXouXa|jav0|i8vov;'Ev 5 Kai 0sos to Seiivovev tc Trapaouk
Ka'i 'ASotputtoto vjXov
SeocoTTEpiTraTElv
Kp'JTTTEG0ai,
XyT]Tai
6i
to
auTa
Tiv
lOTopias,
oipai Siotcxiv
TpoTTiKcs Sokovjotis
TTEpi
Tiv pucrnpia.
Kai oii ocopaTiKcosyyEvri|jvris,
Now, who, ifendowed with intelligence,will believe thata first,a
second,and a thirdday,and an eveningand a dawn, tookplace without sun,moon,and stars?And thattheday thatshould have been the
firsttookplace even withoutsky?Who is so stupid as to believe that
has planted a garden in Eden toward the
God, like a human farmer,
East and put a visible and sense-perceptibletreeof life therein,so
thatone,by eatingitsfruitwithone's bodilyteeth,could acquire life,
and also could participatein good and evil aftermunchingwhat is
takenfromthattree?If,then,God is said to strollin thegarden/Paradise in theevening,and Adam to hide under thetree,I do notthink
truthsin
thatanybodywill doubt thatthesethingsindicatesymbolical
account
an allegoricalway,by means ofwhat lookslikea historical
, and
has
never
happenedcorporeally.
yet
Aftera series of examples taken fromthe whole storyof the creationof the
world and of thehuman being,the last sentenceis particularlyweighty:the
storyofAdam and theParadise has neverhappened "corporeally,"and therealbut itis to be interpreted
forehas neverhappened literallyand historically,
in
truths
that
it
in
that
is,
expressed a
encompasses "mysteries,"
legorically,
of
find
we
for
instance,
Thus,
many examples allegoricalexesymbolicway.
own exegeticalproduction,
in
Paradise
and
the
the
creation
of
Origen's
gesis
fromthementionof "intelligibletrees"(Horn,in Gen.2.4) to thatof "intelligible rivers" and "intelligiblewoody valleys" in Paradise (Sei. in Num. PG
12.581B),up to theetymologyof "Eden" as rjSii,"once upon a time,"to signify
a primevalstate(Fr.in Gen.236; D15 Metzler76).The whole of thefirstHomily
on Genesisbristleswith passages fromthe creationstory- the entirehexameron
, includingtheEden account- ofwhichonlyan allegoricalexplanation
is given.The same claimthatthecreationaccountmustbe allegorizedemerges
even fromHorn.1 in Ps. 36 (p. 60 Prinzivalli),albeiten passant:
ofthelostParadiseis exthatOrigen'sinterpretation
31-32,whobothunderscore
clusivelyallegorical.
desBuches
DieKommentierung
76. Orgenes,
Genesis,
eingel.u. bers,v.KarinMetzler,
2010.
Berlin- New York:De Gruyter,

369
Ramelli
sinedubioin quo
DiciturDeus ab initioplantasseparadisumdeliciarum,
deliciis
frueremur,
spiritalibus
at thebeginning,God is said to have planted a garden/Paradise of
delights,undoubtedlywith the intentionthatin it we mightenjoy
spiritualdelights.
Since Origen attributedthe same epistemologicalstatusboth to Plato's
mythsconcerningthearkhand the telosand to thebiblical mythicalaccounts
on thearkhand the telos, thisis why in thesecases, fortheinitialpartofGenesis and forRevelation,Origenabandoned his generalrule ofmaintainingthe
literal,historicalplane oftheBible along withtheallegorical,just as Plato had
abandoned his theoreticaland dialecticalexpositionin orderto hint,in myths,
at truthsthatcouldn'tpossiblybe expressedin thatotherway.Origenpraised
Plato forhis use of mythsthatpointed to the truthonly forthose who could
which is forhim an exegesis of
grasp it throughan allegoricalinterpretation,
a philosophicalnature.
Epilogue
Allegoryis only forsome, at least in thepresentconditionand in thisworld;
Origen agreed with Clement on this point. Stoic allegoristsdid not put the
same emphasisas Clementand Origendid on thenecessityofhidingthetruth
fromthose who are unworthyof it and /or not yetprepared to receiveit unveiled, and thereforeon the importanceof allegory as a means to hide the
truthfromsome while revealingit to others.However, accordingto the Stoics, only philosophers,and only Stoic philosophers,possessed the key to allegoryand could grasp thephilosophicaltruthexpressedby ancientmythsin
an allegoricalway.
ofmyths,
The importanceoftheprerogativeofthecorrectinterpretation
in
in
all
its
evidence
to
of
the
of
the
thatis,
key allegory,emerged
possession
the dispute between "pagan" and ChristianPlatonists(Middle and Neoplatonists)on what mythswere worthyand susceptibleof allegoricalinterpretation. This was tantamountto asking what mythscontained philosophical
truthsthathad to be unveiled,or unlocked,by means of an allegoricalexegesis. The virulenceof the debate betraysthe crucialityof the question. Most
"pagan" Platonists,apart fromNumenius, denied that Biblical mythshid
philosophical truths;thisis why Porphyryso sharplycriticizedthe foremost
Christianallegorist,Origen,forhaving applied the allegoricalhermeneutics
inheritedfromtheStoicsto a text(Scripture)that,fromhis own pointofview,
was not susceptibleof it.
On the otherhand, Christianallegoristssuch as Clement- who allego- did receivesome alrizedBiblicalbooks or passages in his lostHypotyposeis77
on passagesfromGenesis,Exodus,Psalms,Paul's
he commented
77. In particular,
and theso-calledCatholicepistles.In HE 6.14.1Eusebiusspecifiesthat
letters,
on theLetterofJudeandtheotherCatholicepistles,
Clementcommented
plusthe
are partiallypreLetterofBarnabasand ApocalypseofPeter.The Hypotyposeis
exdoctrines
the"unorthodox"
servedbyPhotius,Bibl.Cod. 109,whohighlights
on
Clement
ofAlexandria
poundedin thatwork(see now P. AshwinSiejkowski,

370
2011
International
/September
Journal
of pagan myths;otherChristianapologists, on the

legorical interpretations
insisted
that
"pagan" mythswere only immoraltales deprived of
contrary,
truth
whatsoever;finally,yetotherChristianswere so susany philosophical
a
of
as
whole - which theysaw as "pagan" and sometimes
picious allegory
also as "Gnostic" that theynot only rejectedany allegoresis of "pagan"
myths,but even refusedtheapplicationof allegoricalexegesis to theBible itself.Such accusations were abundantlyleveled against Origen;he was critibut also
cized forhis biblicalallegoresisnotonlyby pagans such as Porphyry,
from
the
Christian
side
a
more
reaction
There
was
also
Christians.78
specific
by
in
narrative
his
of
the
Genesis
s
Commentary,
against Origen' allegorization
whichalso explains theloss of thismonumentalmasterpiece.These polemics
are echoed in Epiphanius Pan. 55.1-2;58.6-8and theAntiochenes.At thesame
time,in his allegorizationoftheOld TestamentOrigenalso countered"Gnostic" and Marcioniteclaims thatthe Old Testamenthad to be separated from
theNew as a productof an inferiorGod, or even an evil demiurge,and thereforecould not containhigh philosophical truthsto be discovered throughallegoresis.In Horn.5 in Ps. 36, 5 Origen is clearlythinkingof the Marcionites
and at least some "Gnostics" when he denounces theirdistinctionbetween
God thecreatorand a different,
good God superiorto the former:
Deumfinguntsibialium quendam
Cumenimhaeretici
supraconditorem
Deum . . . negantes creatoremomnium Deum Deum esse bonum,
extolluntur
supracedrosLbani,adversariis
impiissuis praedicationibus
adverhuiuscemodi
scilicetpotestatibusinnitentes
, quaruminspiratione
eo
omniumDeum commenta
sus creatorem
simularunt,
pro quod legem
earnesse
secundum litteramtantummodointellegenteset spiritalem
suis.
in
sunt
,
cogitationibus
ignorantesdecepti
When thehereticsimagine a certainotherGod superiorto God the
Creatorand deny thatthe God who created all thingsis the good
God, in theirimpious preachingtheyexalt themselves"beyond the
cedars of Lebanon," clearlyleaning on thehostilepowers. For they
are inspiredby the latterin theirclaims against God, the Creatorof
all, and iftheyare so mistakenin theirthoughtsitis because theyinin a literalsense,and ignorethattheLaw is
terprettheLaw exclusively
spiritual
toVigiliaeChrisPhotius'
Trial:
TheEvidence
Bibliotheca,
Supplements
from
of'Heresy'
tianae101[Leiden:Brill,2010]),and in a partialLatintranslation,
Adumbrationes,
and othin Cassiodorus,plusfragments
fromEusebius,MaximustheConfessor,
in Egyptin
was discoveredin a monastery
ers.A manuscript
oftheHypotyposeis
- EricOsborn,"Clement
itwas lostagain(see C. Duckworth
1779,butapparently
36 [1985]67-83).ReStudies
ofAlexandria'sHypotyposeis
Journal
ofTheological
Bucur
Brill,
2009])also made
[Leiden:
Pneumatology
(Angelomorphic
cently,
Bogdan
and
extensive
use ofthiswork,as wellas I. Ramelli,"Origen,GreekPhilosophy,
TheinHarvard
theBirthoftheTrinitarian
forthcoming
MeaningofHypostasis,"
Review.
ological
cristiano"
78. See Ramelli,"Origeneallegorista
(above,n. 27).

Ramelli
371
Veryinterestingly,
Origen here indicates the reason why,in his view, Marcionitesand Gnosticswere so deceived: justbecause theydid notread theOld
Testamentallegorically.
Yet,Origenhimself,likePhilo,in turnblamed extremebiblicalallegorists,
who annihilated the literal,historicalplane of Scriptureby exclusively adheringto an allegoricalreading.In thisway,theytransformedall the events
narratedby Scriptureinto myths,which, as "pagan" Neoplatonists mainbut were exclusivelyallegoriesofeternal
tained,neverhappened historically,
truths.Origen,instead,as I have pointedout,drawinginspirationfromPlato's
use ofmyths,distinguishedthebiblicalaccountsofthearkhand thetelosfrom
therestof theBible: only these accounts are susceptibleof an exclusivelyalsince theyare no historicalnarratives- and theyare
legoricalinterpretation,
even comparable,and actuallywere compared by Origen,to Plato's myths, while the restof the Bible maintainsits historicalvalue even ifit has many
spiritualmeanings.


Allegory, Origen in Dialogue With The Stoics and Plato

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Allegory, Origen in Dialogue With The Stoics and Plato

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Philosophical Stance of Allegory in Stoicism and its Reception in Platonism, Pagan and

Christian: Origen in Dialogue with the Stoics and Plato

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

Thisarticleis composedofthreepartsand an epilogue.In thefirstpart,itspointis

1. Thisis therevisedand expandedversionofa lecturedeliveredon November15,

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

It is meaningfulthatCleanthes does not divide philosophy into logic,

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

Chrysippus'theorizationclearlymeans thatallegoryis partoftheology,which

I (above,n. 2), ch.2.5 (Diogenes)and

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

findthetruthin thewords. The veryinsistenceon Homer - fromZeno to the

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

philosophicalbasis fortheBible? - is thesame as thatof thepurpose of Stoic

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

was broughtintoChristiancultureby ClementofAlexandria.Moreover,Origen was acquainted with "Gnostic" allegorists,especially Valentinians,such

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

24. See I. Ramelli,"GiovanniCrisostomo

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

tance in human beings and is destined to resurrection,26

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

and derivationsfromApollodorus ofAthens

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

turalunityof the allegoricalsystem,while the Stoics seemed less concerned

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

in all thepartsof Scripture,and of theouyysveiaor

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

wholly the Passover lamb should remindreadersthatthe whole Scriptureis

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

Indeed, Celsus believed ttXsovtgvKara to ypaupa AsecovUTiSsvaXoyov

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

And you writethemthrice/ in threeways in will and knowledge

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

witha literalmeaning(besides thespiritual)thanthosewhichare deprivedof

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

It is also notable thathere Origen attachesto the study of

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

This assimilationofPlato's and theBible's myths,mostremarkably,

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

cal truthout of them,whereas theirliteralexpositionsare simplylaughable.

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

Justas Plato spoke of thearkhand the telosin a mythicalfashion,likewise,to

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

structedin order to become a living precious stone, in an apokatastasis or

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

fromtheirbodies, cannotbe healed throughsuffering

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

We suddenly saw him down there,and others - most of them

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

Greekphilosophyon thisscore in Horn,in Gen. 14.3:

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM

This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:05:03 AM