Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T12:18:50.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In Search of Origen's Commentary on Philemon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Ronald E. Heine
Ronald E. Heine
Affiliation:
Institut zur Erforschung des Urchristentums
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a letter to Paula, in which he includes a list of Origen's Pauline commentaries, Jerome refers to a commentary on Philemon. There is no extant Greek manuscript tradition of this commentary by Origen. There are also no Greek fragments attributed to Origen in the catena commentary on Philemon edited by Cramer from the eleventh-century codex Parisinus Coislin 204. The Codex von der Goltz, which has provided helpful information on some of Origen's other Pauline commentaries, has only two brief, marginal references to Origen on the textual reading of Philemon at verses 10 and 12. The only known portion of Origen's commentary on Philemon that has been preserved is a fragment of his comments on Philemon 5 in Rufinus's Latin translation of In Apologeticum S. Pamphili.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 93 , Issue 2 , April 2000 , pp. 117 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 , JeromeEp. 33.4 (CSEL 54, 257.6-7).Google Scholar

2 Cramer, John Anthony, Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Novum Testamentum (8 vols.; 1838-1844; reprinted Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1967) 7. 104–11.Google Scholar

3 Bammel, Caroline P., “A New Witness to the Scholia from Origen in the Codex von der Goltz,” in , eadem, ed., Origeniana et Rufiniana (Vetus Latina 29; Freiburg: Herder, 1996) 137–41.Google Scholar

4 Goltz, Eduard Alexander von der, Eine textkritische Arbeit des zehnten bezw. sechsten Jahrhunderts (TU 2.4; Leipzig: J. C. Heinrichs, 1899) 90.Google Scholar

5 PG 17. 591C-593C.

6 Turner, C. H., “Greek Patristic Commentaries on the Pauline Epistles,” Hastings Dictionary of the Bible (4 vols.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1898-1902; extra volume, 1904) 496Google Scholar ; Harnack, Adolf von, “Origenistisches Gut von kirchengeschichtlicher Bedeutung in den Kommentaren des Hieronymus zum Philemon-, Galater-, Epheser- und Titusbrief” (TU 42.4; Leipzig: J. C. Heinrichs, 1919) 141–46Google Scholar ; Souter, Alexander, The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul (Oxford: Clarendon, 1927) 115Google Scholar ; Nautin, P., “La date des commentaires de Jérôme sur les épîtres pauliniennes,” RHE 14 (1979) 5–12Google Scholar , esp. 11 ; Bammel, Caroline P., “Die Pauluskommentaredes Hieronymus: Die ersten wissenschaftlichen lateinischen Bibelkommentare?,” in Cristianesimo Latino e cultura Grecafino al sec. IVGoogle Scholar (Ephemeridis, Studia “Augustinianum” 42Google Scholar ; Rome: Patristicum, Institutum “Augustinianum,” 1993) 187–207Google Scholar ; , eadem, “Origen's Pauline Prefaces and the Chronology of his Pauline Commentaries,” in Dorival, Gilles and Boulluec, Alain Le, eds., Origeniana Sexta (BEThL 118; Leuven: Peeters, 1995) 495–513Google Scholar.

7 , Nautin, “La date,” 5–12Google Scholar ; , Bammel, “Pauluskommentare,” 187.Google Scholar

8 FL 26. 369-70 (Vallarsi); ibid., 543-44 (Vallarsi).

9 , Turner, “Greek Patristic Commentaries,” 496.Google Scholar

10 , Bammel, “Pauline Prefaces,” 496.Google Scholar

11 , Bammel, “Pauluskommentare,” 191.Google Scholar

12 Origen Princ., Praef. Ruf. 2.

13 PL 23. 403A ; , Bammel, “Pauluskommentare,” 191Google Scholar.

14 Callahan, Allen Dwight, “Paul's Epistle to Philemon: Toward an Alternative Argumentum,” HTR 86 (1993) 357–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Mitchell, Margaret M., “John Chrysostom on Philemon: A Second Look,” HTR 88 (1995) 135–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Callahan, Allen Dwight, “John Chrysostom on Philemon: A Response to Margaret M. Mitchell,” HTR (1995) 149–56.Google Scholar

15 , Callahan, “Paul's Epistle to Philemon,” 365.Google Scholar The statement is not completely accurate, for Rufinus did not translate Origen's commentary on Philemon. The reference is to the fragment from Origen's commentary on Philemon in Rufinus's Latin translation of the In Apologeticum S. Pamphili.

16 , Mitchell, “John Chrysostom on Philemon,” 147.Google Scholar

17 Ibid., n. 44. She also notes that, depending on “their origin and provenance,” the Marcionite prologues may also support a third-century date for the understanding of Onesimus as a slave (ibid., n. 46).

18 See n. 6 above.

19 , Callahan, “A Response to Margaret M. Mitchell,” 153.Google Scholar

20 Zahn, Theodor, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (2 vols.; 1888-1890; reprinted Hildesheim: Georg 01ms, 1975) 2. 997–1006.Google Scholar

21 Ibid., 1002. The passages cited by Origen, Zahn areHorn. Num. 16.4Google Scholar and Comm. in John 1.5 (GCS 1.15-16).

22 Ibid., 1002-3.

23 Ibid., 1003. Zahn provides no references in support of no. 1. For no. 2 he refers to Hom, Isa. 3.2; Hom. Num. 6.3 and Comm. in John 2.6 (GCS 2.84-85). To these should be added Comm. in John 6.220 and 13.405. In the latter passage the “remaining” is referred to as a “sign” as here and in the passage in Hom. Isa. For no. 3 Zahn provides numerous references scattered throughout Origen's works.

24 Ibid., 1003-6.

25 See also, , Bammel, “Pauline Prefaces,” 506.Google Scholar

26 PL 26. 743-44 (Vallarsi).

27 , TertullianAdv. Marc. 5.21Google Scholar ; 1.1; see also, Harnack, Adolf von, Marcion (1924; reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960) Beilagen, 127.Google Scholar

28 See also Harnack, von, “Origenistisches Gut,” 141–42.Google Scholar

29 Gregg, J. A. F., “The Commentary of Origen upon the Epistle to the Ephesians,” JTS 3 (1902) 555.Google Scholar

30 Biblia Patristica (6 vols.; Paris: Éditions du centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1986-1995).Google Scholar

31 See the discussion of the prophecy of Caiaphas in his Comm. in John below.

32 See Baskin, J. R. (“Origen on Balaam: The Dilemma of the Unworthy Prophet,” VC 37 [1983] 24)Google Scholar , who cites evidence from , Philo and , Plato, and Feldman, L.H. (“Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus,” JTS 41 [1990] 395)Google Scholar , who cites evidence from Josephus.

33 , OrigenComm. in John 28.122.Google Scholar

34 , OrigenHom. Isa. 3.1–2Google Scholar ; Horn. Num. 6.3.

35 , OrigenHom. Num. 6.3Google Scholar ; Hom. Isa. 3.2; Comm. in John 2.84-85; 6.220; 13.405.

36 , TertullianAdv. Marc. 5.21.1.Google Scholar

37 Biblia Patristica, 1.519.

38 Hennecke, Edgar and Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, eds. New Testament Apocrypha, (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963-1965) 2. 351.Google Scholar

39 Dassmann, Ernst, Der Stachel im Fleisch: Paulus in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Irenäus (Münster: Aschendorff, 1979), 296, 245, 155, 132.Google Scholar

40 Pagels, Elaine Hiesey, The Gnostic Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 115.Google Scholar

41 Ibid.

42 , IrenaeusHaer. 1.28.1Google Scholar ; , EpiphaniusPan. 47.1.6-3.1.Google Scholar See also 5, 7, 9-11 of Tatian collected by Whittaker, Molly, Tatian Oratio ad Graecos and Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982) 78–83Google Scholar.

43 , EusebiusHist eccl. 4.29. 4–5Google Scholar ; compare , EpiphaniusPan. 47.2.3.Google ScholarLawlor, Hugh Jackson and Oulton, John Ernest Leonard (Eusebius [2 vols.; London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1927-1928] 2. 151)Google Scholar question that Severus was an actual person and suggest that the people Eusebius describes were Ebionites. The Ebionites were a Jewish Christian sect of the second century which rejected Paul's apostleship and all his epistles. See , Hennecke and , Schneemelcher, eds., New Testament Apocrypha 2. 121–23.Google Scholar It is not likely that Ebionites were in view as the opponents referred to in § I of the prologue, however, as the opponents there seem to have accepted most, if not all, of Paul's other epistles.

44 PL 26. 743-44 (Vallarsi); Zahn § 1.

45 , Bammel, “Pauline Prefaces,” 506Google Scholar , n. 67. This procedure may have had its roots in the critical method of “άυασκευή (refutation) and κατασκευή (confirmation)” which Grant, Robert M., (The Earliest Lives of Jesus [New York: Harper, 1961] 40–49)Google Scholar has pointed out was practiced in antiquity by rhetoricians and was used by Origen throughout his works (ibid., 50-79).

46 See Perrone, Lorenzo, “Perspectives sur Origène et la littérature patristique des ‘Quaestiones et Responsiones,’” in Dorival, Gilles and Boulluec, Alain Le, eds., Origeniana Sexta (BEThL 118; Leuven: Peeters, 1995) 158.Google Scholar

47 , JeromeComm. in ep. ad Eph., 2.Google Scholar prol. (PL 26. 586 [Vallarsi]).

48 See below on Phlm. 1-3, 5.

49 , Harnack (“Origenistisches Gut,” 142)Google Scholar asserts, without providing any evidence, that the naming of Valentinus, Marcion, and Apelles together in the prologue also points to Origen. I have been unable to find any passages in the volumes published in GCS where Origen mentions the names of these three heretics together. The three names that I have found linked with some frequency in Origen are Marcion, Valentinus, and Basilides (Comm. in Mt. 10-17, 10. 12 [GCS 40 92.2-3]; 22. 23 [GCS 40 122.20-21]; Princ. 2.9.5 [GCS 22 168.15]; Hom. 1-39 in Lc, frag. 166.2 [GCS 49]; hom. 29 [GCS 49 169.5-6]; hom. 31 [GCS 49 176.5-6]; Hom 1-20 in Jer., hom. 10.5 [GCS 6 75.20-21]; hom. 17.2 [GCS 6 144.12-13]; Hom. in 1 Reg., hom. 1.10 [GCS 33 19.10-12]; Hom. 1-14 in Ezech., hom 8.2 [GCS 33 403.12-13]; Hom. 1-28 in Num., hom. 12.2 [GCS 30 98.13-14]; Hom. 1-26 in Jos.; hom. 7.7 [GCS 30 335.9-10]; hom. 12.3 [GCS 30 370.3]). The addition of Apelles' name to that of Marcion and Valentinus, while not negating the possibility that the statement comes from Origen, does not appear to add any special confirmation.

50 Neuschäfer, Bernhard, Origenes als Philologe (Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 18; Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt, 1987) 240–42Google Scholar ; , Perrone, “Perspectives sur Origène,” 151–64.Google Scholar

51 Layton, Richard Ashby, “Origen as a Reader of Paul: A Study of the Commentary on Ephesians” (Ph.D. diss., University of Virginia, 1996) 201–302.Google Scholar

52 , Harnack (“Origenistisches Gut,” 143–44)Google Scholar thinks Jerome's reference to the epithet Adiabenici for Septimius Severus indicates his dependence on Origen, for he thinks Jerome in 387 would hardly have gone back to this epithet on his own.

53 , OrigenComm. in Rom. Praef. 2.Google Scholar

54 , Bammel, “Pauline Prefaces,” 503, 505.Google Scholar

55 , Harnack, “Origenistisches Gut,” 144.Google Scholar

56 PG 17. 591C-93C; see , Souter, The Earliest Latin Commentaries, 115Google Scholar.

57 , Nautin (“La date,” 11–12)Google Scholar prints Jerome's and Rufinus's texts in parallel columns and highlights the common terminology between the two texts.

58 , OrigenPrinc. 3.1.1–24, esp. 4-6.Google Scholar

59 Faye, Eugène de, Origène sa vie, son œuvre, sa pensée (Bibliothèque de l'École des hautes études 37, 43–44; 3 vols.; Paris: Editions Ernest Leroux, 1923-1928) 3.193.Google Scholar

60 Comm. in John 20.168-70; 198-202 ; trans. Heine, Ronald E., Origen: Commentary on the Gospel according to John Books 13-32 (Fathers of the Church 89; Washington; Catholic University of America, 1993) 248–49Google Scholar.

61 GCS 3, 390.23-391.1.

62 , Harnack, “Origenistisches Gut,” 145–46.Google Scholar

63 , RufinusApol. 1.40 (PL 21.579A-B).Google Scholar

64 , Turner, “Greek Patristic Commentaries,” 496Google Scholar ; , Harnack, “Origenistisches Gut,” 146Google Scholar , , Souter, Earliest Latin Commentaries, 115.Google Scholar

65 Deniau, Francis, “Le commentaire de Jérôme sur Ephésiens nous permet-il connaître celui d'Origène?,” inGoogle ScholarCrouzel, Henri, Lomiento, Gennaro, and Rius-Camps, Josep, eds., Origeniana: premier colloque international des études Origènes (Quaderni di “Vetera Christianorum” 12; Bari: Istituto di Letteratura Cristiana Antica, 1975) 170Google Scholar.

66 , Bammel, “Pauluskommentare,” 197–98Google Scholar, see also 205-6.