Wednesday, February 5, 2020

Origen of Alexandria (185-253)

Origen of Alexandria (185-253) was probably the most well educated Christian scholar of the second century besides Clement. The first academic Christian Bible schools were found in Alexandria and Origen was without a doubt the most prestigious of their teachers. He denies that Christ is the "supreme God over all" and instead subordinates him to the Father.

 "Grant that there may be some individuals among the multitudes of believers who are not in entire agreement with us, and who incautiously assert that the Savior is the Most High God; however, we do not hold with them, but rather believe Him when He says, "The Father who sent Me is greater than I."" (Contra Celsus, 8.14.)

 Take careful notice that Origen understands St. Joh. 14:28 as a denial that Christ is the supreme God while Athanasius endeavored to apply the text to eternal generation. (Athanasius, Cont. Arian. 13.58.) Origen also identifies the "one God" with the Father alone, to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit. 

"Accordingly, we worship with all our power the one God, and His only Son, the Word and the Image of God, by prayers and supplications; and we offer our petitions to the God of the universe through His only-begotten Son." (Cont. Cel. 8.13.)

Some say Origen clearly teaches eternal generation and condemns Arian doctrine in De Principiis, where he denies that the Son was begotten from nothing. (De Princip. 4.28.) But this section quotes from fourth century Arian maxims which were not in existence during the time or Origen, which suggests this section was added later. Origen is made to say, "can anyone who has learned to regard God with feelings of reverence suppose or believe that God the Father ever existed, even for a single moment, without begetting this wisdom?" Stevenson suggested that these words may be spurious, 

"However, we must note the strikingly anti-Arian tone of this statement, which may indicate that it comes from Rufinus rather than Origen." (Austin Stevenson, The Eternal Generation of the Son (CRUX: Fall 2015, Vol. 51, No. 3), p. 21.) 

We are largely dependent upon the Latin paraphrase of Rufinus for the text of De Principiis, and he was a vehemently anti-Arian translator. In what survives of the original Greek text of Περί Αρχών we find a Christology which is decidedly Homoian in direction.

 "The significant problem must be noted, if not dealt with in any depth here that much of the surviving text of DP is the Latin translation of Rufinus, who, by his own admission, felt at liberty to make certain alterations (See Rufinus, pref. to DP, lxii). As a result the authenticity of particularly anti-Arian or pro-Nicene statements in the text of DP is questionable." (Commentatio St. Joh. 2.6.)

 To the noticeable dismay of Rufinus, it was the custom of Origen to refer to the Son as a "creature" and Rufinus endeavors to obscure these passages in his Latin translation. Origen plainly states that the Son and Spirit are created in his commentary on the fourth Gospel, 

"We consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and at the same time we believe nothing to be uncreated but the Father. We therefore, as the more pious and the truer course, admit that all things were made by the Logos, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was made by the Father through Christ. And this, perhaps, is the reason why the Spirit is not said to be God's own Son. The Only-begotten only is by nature and from the beginning a Son, and the Holy Spirit seems to have need of the Son, to minister to Him His essence, so as to enable Him not only to exist, but to be wise and reasonable and just, and all that we must think of Him as being." (2.6.) 

Of the three hypostases, “we believe nothing to be uncreated but the Father.” Hanson commented on the freeness of speech with which Origen would refer to the Son and Spirit as creatures, 

"We can also note that both Origen and Arius described the Son as a 'creature' (ktisma). But here we encounter a difficulty. It is indeed pretty clear, in spite of the efforts of Rufinus in his translation of Peri Archon to disguise the fact, and those of Jerome to exaggerate it, that Origen did in the Peri Archon describe the Son as 'having come into existence' (γενητός) and as a 'creature' (κτίσμα), at a point when nobody distinguished 'having come into existence' (γενητός) from 'begotten' (γεννητός)." (Hanson, Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, p. 62.)

 Like Justin Martyr before him, Origen calls the Logos a "secondary deity" (δεύτερος θεός) or a deity of second rank. 

"It appears to me that those who hold the Holy Spirit to be created, and who also admit that all things were made through Him, must necessarily assume that the Holy Spirit was made through the Logos, the Logos accordingly being older than He… We consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and at the same time we believe nothing to be uncreated but the Father. We therefore, as the more pious and the truer course, admit that all things were made by the Logos, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was made by the Father through Christ." (Commentatio St. Joh. 2.6.)

To say that the "father alone is uncreated" in contrast to the other two hypostases seems very close to Arianism. I should say that Origen is likely the primary source for the subordinationist tendencies of the later Arius of Alexandria. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Popular Posts