The heterodoxy
derived from, at least strengthened by, his study of of this work, according to the standard of the day,
Plato, and others of the Greek philosophers.
derived from, at least strengthened by, his study of of this work, according to the standard of the day,
Plato, and others of the Greek philosophers.
William Smith - 1844 - Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities - c
Epiphanius, in one place, speaks of literal adherence to the original ; and the seventh,
efanias tds Bib nous, Sextuplices Libros. The eighth, and ninth columns being occupied by three
names τετρασέλιδον, εξασέλιδον, οκτασέλιδον, Qua- versions, known from their position in this work
drupler Columna (s. pagina), Sertuplex Columna, as η πέμπτη και η έκτη και η εβδόμη εκδόσεις,
Octuplex Columna were also applied to the work Quinta, Sexta, et Septima Editiones, i. e. versions.
by ancient writers. In one citation the name to Each of the first six columns contained all the books
TTEVTAGÉ Aidov, Quintuplex Columna, is found. In of the Old Testament, and these six complete
some cases a book of Scripture is cited thus: columns gave to the work its title Hexapla: the
é annoùs 'Iepeuías, Sextuplex Hieremias, i. e. “ Je other columns contained only some of the books, and
remiah in the Herapla. " But this multiplicity of principally the poetical books, and from them the
names must not mislead the reader into the supposi- work derived the titles of Octapla and Enneapla,
tion that Origen prepared more than the two works, which were therefore only partially applicable. The
known respectively as the Tetrapla and Hexapla. assertion that the title Hleaapla was given to the
Which of the two was first published has been a work ou account of its having six Greek versions,
subject of great dispute with the learned. The we believe to be erroneous. We give as a specimen
text of Eusebius (H. E. vi. 16, ad fin. ) is not set- a passage from Habakkuk ii. 4, which is found in
tled in the place which refers to this point, nor ! all the columns.
:
Το
Εβραικόν.
TO 'ESpaikov
Ελληνικούς
γράμμασιν.
'Ακύλας.
Σύμμα-
χος.
oi o'.
Θεοδο-
τίων.
E'.
s.
z'.
וצדיק
באמונתו
יחיה
ουσαδικ βη-
μουναθω ιειε.
Kal 81- ó de o de o de ó del ó de
ó de
καιος εν δίκαιος δίκαιος δίκαιος δίκαιος δίκαιος δίκαιος
πίστει
τη εαυ-
εκ πίστη εαυ- τη εαυ- τη εαυ- τη έαυ-
αυτού του πίσ- τεώς μου του πίσ- του πίσ- του πίσ- του πίσ-
ζήσεται. τει ζήσει. ζήσεται. τει ζήσει. τει ζήσει. τει ζήσει τει ζήσει.
The Tetrapla contained the four versions, the at Nicopolis, on the Ambracian gull, in the reign
Septuagint, and those of Aquila, Symmachus, and of Alexander Severus. These dates would accord
Theodotion. Of the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, respectively with the time of Origen's first visits to
and Theodotion, an account is given under their re- Palestine and to Greece. Ancient writers, however,
spective names, and of the Septuagint there is a brief differ as to the discovery of these versions. Ac-
notice under ARISTEAS. Of the three remaining cording to one passage in Jerome (Prologus in
versions we give nere a brief account. The Quinta Exposit
. Cantic. Canticor. secundum Origen. ), Origen
Editio, according to Epiphanius (De Mensuris et himself stated, that the Quinta Editio was found
Ponderib. , c. 17, 18), and the author of the Synopsis at Nicopolis: according to Zonaras (Annal. xii. 11),
S. Scripturae, which is ascribed to Athanasius, was the Septima was found at Jericho ; and according
found at Jericho in a wine jar, by one of the learned to Nicephorns Callisti, both the Sesta and Septima
men of Jerusalem ; and Epiphanius adds the date were found there. Eusebius states that one of the
of the discovery, the seventh year of Caracalla versions was found at Jericho and one at Nicopolis,
(A. D. 217 or 218). The Editio Sexta, according to but does not give their numbers. The difference
the same authorities, was also found in a wine jar between these authorities is owing more probably
## p. 51 (#67) ##############################################
ORIGENES.
51
ORIGENES.
to the careiessness or mistake of the writers or and Scholia of Origen himself and of Pamphilus
transcribers, than to any variation in the order of and Eusebius, long remained in the library of tho
the versions in different copies of the Hexapla ; for martyr Pamphilus at Caesareia ; and were probably
this appears to have been so fixed as to have sug- destroyed in the seventh century, either at the
gested the common mode of referring to them by capture of that city by Chosroes II. the Persian, os
their place in the arrangement. The Quinta, Sexta, | its subsequent capture by the Samcens. The few
&c versions, are anonymous ; at least the authors transcripts that were made bave perished also, and
are not known. Jerome (Adr. Rufin. ii. 34, the work, as compiled by Origen, has been long lost.
ed. Vallars. ) calls the authors of the Quinta and Numerous fragments have, however, been preserved
Sexta, Jews ; yet a citation from the Editio Sexta, in the writings of the fathers. Many of these, con-
which citation Jerome himself has given in Latin, taining scraps of the versions of Aquila and the other
shows that the author of that version was a Chris- Greek translators, collected by Petrus Morinus, were
tian. Josephus, author of the Hypomncsticon (Jo- inserted by Flaminius Nobilius in the beautiful and
SEPHUS, No. 12) mentions a current report that valuable edition of the Septuagint, fol. Rome, 1587.
the author of the Editio Quinta was a woman. These fragments, and some additional oncs, with
The author of the Editio Septima was probably a learned notes were prepared for publication by Jo-
Jew. (Montfauc. Praelim. in Herupla, cap. viii. annes Drusius, and published after his death with
$ 5. ) These three versions are far less literal this title, Veterum Interpretum Graecorum in toluin
than the other four versions; the Sexta, in parti- V. T. Fragmenta, 4to. Amheim, 1622. But the
cular, has some amplifications of most unauthorized most complete edition is that of the learned Bene-
character.
dictine Montfaucon Hexaploruin Origenis quae
Beside the compilation and arrangement of so supersunt, 2 vols. fol. Paris, 1714. Montfaucon re-
valuable a critical apparatus as these versions, tained the arrangement of the versions adopted by
Origen added marginal notes, containing, among Origen, and also his asterisks and obeli, wherever
other things, an explanation of the Hebrew names. they were found in the MSS. employed for the
There is reason to think that he occasionally gave edition ; and added a Latin version both to the
in bis marginal notes a Greek version of the read- Hebrew text (for which he employed that of
ings of the Syriac and Samaritan versions, of the Santes Pagninus or of Arias Montanus with slight
former in various books, of the latter in the Penta- alterations, and also the Vulgate), and to the Greek
teuch only. Certainly such readings are found, not versions. He prefixed a valuable Praefatio and Prae-
only in extant MS. where the Hexapla is cited, liminaria, to which we have been much indebted,
but in the citations of it by the fathers of the fourth and added to the edition several Anecdota, or unpub-
and fifth centuries. It is to be observed also that lished fragments of Origen and others, and a Greek
Origen did not content himself with giving the and a Hebrew Lexicon to the Hexapla. An edi-
text of the Septuagint as it stood in his own time, tion based on that of Montfaucon was published in
deeming it to have been much corrupted by the 2 vols. 8vo. Leipzig and Lubec, 1769, 1770, under the
carelessness or unscrupulous alterations or additions editorship of C. F. Bahrdt: it omitted the Hebrew
or omissions of transcribers. (Origen. Comment. in text in Greek letters, the Latin versions, the Anec-
Matth. apud Hodium, De Text. Originalibus, lib. iii. dota, or previously unpublished extracts from Origen
c. iv. $ 8. ) He amended the text chiefly by the and others, and many of the notes. Bahrat pro-
aid of Theodotion's version, allowing the received fessed to correct the text, and increased it by some
reading to remain, but marking his proposed alter- additional fragments; and he added notes of his
ations or additions with an asterisk (*), and pre-own to those which he retained of Montfaucon's.
fixing an obelus (+) to such words or passages as Bahrdt's preface intimated his purpose of preparing
he thought should be omitted. The use of another a Lexicon to the work, but it is not suhjoined to
mark, the lemniscus (= or =), which he is the copy now before us, nor can we find that it was
said to bave employed, can only be conjectured : ever published.
the account of its use given by Epiphanius (De 11. 'Efpytiká, Exegetical works. These compre-
Mensur. et Ponderib. c. viii. ), is evidently erroneous. hend three classes. (Hieronym. Praef. in Translut.
Origen's revision of the text of the Septuagint was Homil. Origen. in Jerem. et Ezech. ) 1. Tówon, which
regarded by succeeding generations as the standard ; Jerome renders Volumina, containing ample com.
it was frequently transcribed, and Latin, Syriac, mentaries, in which he gave full scope to his intel-
and Arabic versions made from it.
lect. 2. ExorcaScholia ; brief notes on detached
In the preparation of this most laborious and passages, designed to clear up obscurities and re-
valuable work, Origen was encouraged by the ex- move difficulties. 3. Homiliae, popular expositions,
hortations and supported by the wealth of his delivered chiefly at Caesareia ; and in the latter part
friend Ambrose. It is probable that, from the of his life (i. e. after his sixtieth year, A. D. 246),
labour and cost required, comparatively few tran- extemporaneously, being taken down at the time
scripts were ever made ; though there were a suffi- of delivery by persons employed for the purpose.
cient number for the leading ecclesiastical writers of the Tóuoc there are few remains. Of the
of succeeding ages to have access to it; as Pam-Scholia a number have been collected chiefly from
philus, Eusebius of Caesareia, (these two are said to the citations of the fathers, and are given by
have corrected the text of the work, and Eusebius Delarue under the title of 'Extoval, Selecta. Of
added Scholia,) Athanasius, Theodorus of Hera- the Homiliae a few are extant in the original, and
cleia, the Arian, Diodorus of Tarsus, Epiphanius, many more in the Latin versions (not very faithful
Rufinus, Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Proco- however) of Rufinus, Jerome, and others. Our
pius of Gaza, &c. Others of the fathers employed space does not allow us to give an enumeration of
the work less frequently ; and some borrowed their Origen's Exegetical works, but they will be found
acquaintance with its various readings from the in Delarue's edition of his works.
citations of their predecessors. Origen's own copies In his various expositions Origen songht to
of the Tetrapla and Hexapla, with the corrections extract from the Sacred Writings their historical
:
E 2
## p. 52 (#68) ##############################################
52
ORIGENES.
ORIGENES.
mystical or prophetical, and moral significance. I except a few fragments cited by Jerome or by Pam.
(Orig. Homil. XVII. in Genesim, c. 1. ) His philus, in his Apologia pro Origene, or by Origen
desire of finding continually a mystical sense led himself in his De Principiis (Delarue, vol. i. pp.
him frequently into the neglect of the historical | 32—37).
sense, and even into the denial of its truth. This 3. Στρωματείς 6. Στρωματέων λόγοι . Stro-
capital fault has at all times furnished ground for matew (8. Stromatum) Libri X. , written at Alex-
depreciating his labours, and has no doubt ma- andria, in the reign of Alexander Severus (Euseb.
terially diminished their value: it must not, how | H. E. vi. 24), in imitation of the work of the same
ever, be supposed that his denial of the historical name by Clemens Alexandrinus. (CLEMENS
truth of the Sacred Writings is more than occasional, ALEXANDRINUS. ) The tenth book was chiefly
or that it has been carried out to the full extent composed of Scholia on the Epistle of Paul to the
which some of his accusers (for instance, Eusta-Galatians. Nothing is extant of the work, except
thius of Antioch) have charged upon him. His two or three fragments cited in Latin by Jerome.
character as a commentator is thus summed up (Delarue, vol. i. pp. 37–41. )
by the acute Richard Simon (Hist. Critique des 4. Περί αρχών, De Principiis. This work,
Principaux Commentatcurs du N. T. ch. iii. ) :- which was written at Alexandria (Eusebius, H. E.
“Origen is every where too long and too niuch vi. 24), was the great object of attack with Origen's
given to digressions. He commonly says every enemies, and the source from which they derived
thing which occurs to him with respect to some their chief evidence of his various alleged heresies.
word that he meets with, and he affects great It was divided into four books. The first treated
refinement in his speculations (il affecte de pa- of God, of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit ; of the
roître subtil dans ses inventions), which often leads fall, of rational natures and their final restoration
him to resort to airy (sublimes) and allegorical to happiness, of corporeal and incorpore. d beings
meanings. But notwithstanding these faults, we and of angels: the second, of the world and the
find in his Commentaries on the New Testament things in it, of the identity of the God of the old
profound learning and an extensive acquaintance dispensation and of the new, of the incamation of
with every thing respecting religion ; nor is there Christ, of the resurrection, and of the punishment of
any writer from whom we can leam so well as the wicked: the third book, of the freedom of the
from him what the ancient theology was. He had will, of the agency of Satan, of the temptations of
carefully read a great number of writers of whom man, of the origin of the world in time and of its
we now scarcely know the names. " His proneness to end: the fourth, of the divine original and proper
allegorical and mystical interpretations was probably mode of studying the Scriptures.
The heterodoxy
derived from, at least strengthened by, his study of of this work, according to the standard of the day,
Plato, and others of the Greek philosophers. or rather perhaps of the next generation, was as-
111. Other Works. The exegetical writings of cribed by Marcellus of Ancyra to the influence of
Origen might well have been the sole labour of a the Greek philosophy, especially that of Plato,
long life devoted to literature. They form, how- which Origen had been recently studying, and had
ever, only a part of the works of this indefatigable not taken time maturely to consider. Eusebius
father. Epiphanius affirms (Haeres. lxiv. 63) that replied to Marcellus by denying the Platonism
common report assigned to him the composition of of Origen, and Pamphilus, in his A pologia pro
“six thousand books " (ĈEukioxidious Biblous); Origene, attempted to prove that he was ortho
and the statement, which is repeated again and dox. On the outbreak of the Arian controversy,
again by the Byzantine writers, though itself an Origen was accused of having been the real author
absurd exaggeration, may be taken as evidence of of that obnoxious system ; and Didymus of
his exuberant authorship. Jerome compares him Alexandria, in his Scholia on the Depà apxwv
to Varro, the most fertile author among the Latins of Origen, in order to refute this charge, endea-
(Hieron. ad Paulam Epistol. 29, ed. Benedictin, voured to show how far be differed from them.
33, ed. Vallars. , et apud Rufin. Invectiv. lib. ii. 19), (Didymus, No. 4. ) But as the limits of orthodoxy
and states that he surpassed him and all other became more definite and restricted, this mode of
writers, whether Latin or Greek, in the number defence was abandoned ; and Rufinus, no longer
and extent of his works. Of his miscellaneous denying the heterodox character of many passages
works the following only are known :-
with respect to the Trinity, affirmed that they
1. 'Etotohal, Epistolae. Origen wrote many were interpolations. When, therefore, at the
letters, of which Eusebius collected as many as close of the fourth century, he translated the repi
he could find extant, to the number of more than apxw into Latin, he softened the objectionable
a hundred (H. E. vi. 36). Most of them have features of the work, by omitting those parts re-
long since perished. Delarue has given (vol. i. lating to the Trinity, which appeared to be hete-
p. 1—32) those, whether entire or fragmentary, rodox, and illustrating obscure passages by the in-
which remain.
sertion of more explicit declarations from the author's
2. Lepd dvao táoews, De Resurrectione. Euse other writings. On other subjects, however, he was
bius says this work was in two books (H. E. vi. said to have rather exaggerated than softened the
24), and was written at Alexandria before the objectionable sentiments. (Hieron. Contra Rufin.
Commentaries on the Lamentations of Jeremiah, i. 7. ) Such principles of translation would have
in which they are referred to. Jerome (ibid. ) seriously impaired the fidelity of his version, eren
adds that he wrote two other Dialogi de Resur- if his assertion, that he had added nothing of his
rectione ; and in another place (Ad Pammach. own, were true: but as he did not give reference
Epistol. 61, edd. vet, 38, ed. Benedictin. ; Lib. to the places from which the inserted passages
Contra Joannem Jerosolymitanum, c. 25, ed. Val- were taken, he rendered the credibility of that
·larsi) he cites the fourth book on the resurrection, assertion very doubtful. Jerome, therefore, to er.
as if he regarded the two works as constituting pose, as he says (Ibid. ), both the heterodoxy of the
The works on the resurrection are lost, I writer and the unfaithfulness of the transistos,
one.
## p. 53 (#69) ##############################################
ORIGENES.
63
ORIGENES.
ܪ
gave another and more exact version of the work. | Jerome (Ad Paulam Epistol. 29, ed Benedictin, 33,
Of the original work some important fragments, in- ed. Vallars. and apud Rufin. Indect. lib. ii. 19), was,
cluding a considerable part of the third and fourth we have no means of ascertaining. There were,
books, have been preserved in the Philocalia ; in perhaps, other works beside those enumerated by
the Epistola ad Mennum, Patriurcham CPoli- Fabricius (l. c. ): for there is no complete list
tanum of the emperor Justinian, given in the of Origen's works extant ; those drawn up by
various editions of the Concilia (e. g. vol. v. p. Eusebius (see H. E. vi. 82) in his Life of Pam-
635, &c. , ed. Labbe, vol. iii. p. 244, &c. , ed. philus, and by Jerome (see De l'iris Illustr. c. 5+)
Hardouin); and by Marcellus of Ancyra (apud in the mutilated Epistle to l'aula, just cited, are
Eusebium, Contra Marcellum). Of the version of now lost
Jerome, there are some small portions preserved in Several works have been ascribed to Origen, and
his letter to Avitus (Epistol. 59, edd. vett. , 94, ed. published under his name, which really do not
Benedictin, 124, ed. Vallars. ). The version of belong to him. Of these, the most important are
Rufinus has come down to us entire ; and is given the following. (1) Arroyos katà MapklavioTW
with the fragments of Jerome's version and of the i tepl tas eis Oede opoñs plotews, Diulogus contra
original by Delarue (vol. i. pp. 42—195).
Marcionitas sive de Recta in Deum Fide. This was
5. Περί ευχής, De Oratione. This work is first published in the Latin version of Joannes
mentioned by Pamphilus (Apol. pro Orig. c. viii. ), Picus, 4to, Paris, 1555, and in Greek by Jo.
and is still extant. It was first published, 12mo. Rud. Wetstenius, with a Latin version, 4to, Basel,
Oxford, 1685, with a Latin version. (Delarue, 1674. It is given by Delarue (vol. i. pp. 800-
vol. i. pp. 195—272. )
872), but not as Origen's. It was ascribed to
6. Eis uaptúplov #pOTPETTIKOS Abyos, Exhortatio Origen, perhaps by Basil and Gregory Nazianzen,
ad Martyrium, or repl uapt uplov, De Martyrio, certainly by Anastasius Sinaita ; but Huet has
addressed to his friend and patron Ambrosius, and shown that internal evidence is against its being
to Protoctetus of Caesareia, during the persecution bis ; and it is in all probability the production of
under the emperor Maximin (a. D. 235—238), and a later age. Adamantius is the “ orthodox
still extant. (Delarue, vol. i. pp. 273–310. ) It speaker in the Dialogue (comp. Maximus Hiero
was first published by Jo. Rud. Wetstenius SOLYMITANUS); and there is reason to believe,
(Wetstein) the younger, 4to, Basel, 1574, with a froin the testimony of Theodoret (Haeret. Fubulur.
Latin version and notes. Origen's letter of like Praefut. and i. 25), that the author really bore that
purport, written when a mere boy to his father, has name, and was a distinct person altogether from
been already noticed.
Origen ; but that, as Origen also bore the name of
7. Kata Kencov Tómoi ', Contra Celsum Libri Adamantius, the work came to be erroneously
VIII. , written in the time of the emperor Philippus ascribed to him. (2) Miloo opoúueva, 6. Toû kard
(Euseb. H. E. vi. 36), and still extant. In this | πασών αιρέσεων ελέγχου βιβλίον α', Philosophu-
valnable work Origen defends the truth of Chris- mena 6. Adversus omnes Haereses, Lilver primus.
tianity against the attacks of Celsus, an Epicurean, This work was first published with a Latin version
or perhaps a Platonic philosopher (Celsus). The and notes, vindicating Origen's title to the author-
Philocalia is chiefly made up of extracts from it. ship, by Jac. Gronovius, in the tenth volume of
It was first printed in the Latin version of Christo- his Thesaurus Antiquitatum Graecarum, p. 249, &c. ,
phorus Persona, fol. Rome, 1481, and in Greek under the title of Origenis Philosophumenwv Frug.
by David Hoeschelius, 4to, Augsburg, 1605. (De mentum. This title is not quite correct : the Phi-
larue, vol. i. pp. 310-799. )
losophumena, or account of the systems of the an-
It may be as well here to mention that the cient philosophy, appears to be entire, but is itself
dokania, Philocalia, so often mentioned, was a only a portion of a larger work against all here-
compilation by Basil of Caesareia, and his friend sies" or sects holding erroneous views. The author
Gregory of Nazianzus (Basilius, No. 2 ; GREGO is not known ; but he was not Origen ; for in his
RIUS NAZIA NZENUS), almost exclusively from the prooemium he claims episcopal rank, which Origen
writings of Origen, of which many important frag- never held. (The work is in Delarue, vol. i. pp.
ments have been tbus preserved, especially from 872—909. ) (3) Exónia eis cixdiv Kupakúv, Scho-
his reply to Celsus. It is divided into twenty- lia in Orationem Dominicam, published by Fed.
seven chapters. It was first published in the Latin Morellus, in 1601, as the production of " Origen
version of Gilbertus Genebrardus, in the second or some other teacher of that age :" but Huet and
volume of that author's edition of Origen's works, Delarue deny that these Scho'ia are his, and Huet
fol. Paris, 1574, and in Greek by Joannes Ta- ascribes them to Petrus of Laodiceia, following the
rinus, 4to, Paris, 1618. It is not given as a whole editors of the Bibliotheca Patrum, who have given
by Delarue, but such of the extracts as are not a Latin version of them in that collection. (Delarue,
elsewhere extant are distributed to their appro- vol. i. pp. 909, 911. )-The above, with (4), an an-
priate places,
cient Latin version of a Commentary on Job, are
Many works of Origen are totally lost. An the only supposititious works given by Delarue.
enumeration of those of which we have any in- Others, however, are extant, and have been given
forination is given by Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. by other editors, but do not require any further
vol. vii. p. 235, &c). The majority of those notice here.
which are lost were biblical and exegetical. The Beside his own works, Origen revised the Lexi-
others were chiefly directed against the various con of Hebrew names, Hebruicorum Nominun S.
classes of heretics, and partly consisted of records Scripturae et Mensurarum Interpretation of Philo
of bis disputations with them. The book De Judaeus (Philo); and enlarged it by the addition
Libero Arbitrio, mentioned by himself in his Com- of the names in the New Testament: the work is
mentary on the Epistle to the Romans, was perhaps consequently ascribed to him in some MSS. : but
that portion of his lepi dpxw which relates to that after his reputed heresies had rendered him odious,
subject. What the Monobiblia, mentioned by the name of Cyril of Alexandria was prefixed to the
E 3
## p. 54 (#70) ##############################################
54
ORIGENES.
efanias tds Bib nous, Sextuplices Libros. The eighth, and ninth columns being occupied by three
names τετρασέλιδον, εξασέλιδον, οκτασέλιδον, Qua- versions, known from their position in this work
drupler Columna (s. pagina), Sertuplex Columna, as η πέμπτη και η έκτη και η εβδόμη εκδόσεις,
Octuplex Columna were also applied to the work Quinta, Sexta, et Septima Editiones, i. e. versions.
by ancient writers. In one citation the name to Each of the first six columns contained all the books
TTEVTAGÉ Aidov, Quintuplex Columna, is found. In of the Old Testament, and these six complete
some cases a book of Scripture is cited thus: columns gave to the work its title Hexapla: the
é annoùs 'Iepeuías, Sextuplex Hieremias, i. e. “ Je other columns contained only some of the books, and
remiah in the Herapla. " But this multiplicity of principally the poetical books, and from them the
names must not mislead the reader into the supposi- work derived the titles of Octapla and Enneapla,
tion that Origen prepared more than the two works, which were therefore only partially applicable. The
known respectively as the Tetrapla and Hexapla. assertion that the title Hleaapla was given to the
Which of the two was first published has been a work ou account of its having six Greek versions,
subject of great dispute with the learned. The we believe to be erroneous. We give as a specimen
text of Eusebius (H. E. vi. 16, ad fin. ) is not set- a passage from Habakkuk ii. 4, which is found in
tled in the place which refers to this point, nor ! all the columns.
:
Το
Εβραικόν.
TO 'ESpaikov
Ελληνικούς
γράμμασιν.
'Ακύλας.
Σύμμα-
χος.
oi o'.
Θεοδο-
τίων.
E'.
s.
z'.
וצדיק
באמונתו
יחיה
ουσαδικ βη-
μουναθω ιειε.
Kal 81- ó de o de o de ó del ó de
ó de
καιος εν δίκαιος δίκαιος δίκαιος δίκαιος δίκαιος δίκαιος
πίστει
τη εαυ-
εκ πίστη εαυ- τη εαυ- τη εαυ- τη έαυ-
αυτού του πίσ- τεώς μου του πίσ- του πίσ- του πίσ- του πίσ-
ζήσεται. τει ζήσει. ζήσεται. τει ζήσει. τει ζήσει. τει ζήσει τει ζήσει.
The Tetrapla contained the four versions, the at Nicopolis, on the Ambracian gull, in the reign
Septuagint, and those of Aquila, Symmachus, and of Alexander Severus. These dates would accord
Theodotion. Of the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, respectively with the time of Origen's first visits to
and Theodotion, an account is given under their re- Palestine and to Greece. Ancient writers, however,
spective names, and of the Septuagint there is a brief differ as to the discovery of these versions. Ac-
notice under ARISTEAS. Of the three remaining cording to one passage in Jerome (Prologus in
versions we give nere a brief account. The Quinta Exposit
. Cantic. Canticor. secundum Origen. ), Origen
Editio, according to Epiphanius (De Mensuris et himself stated, that the Quinta Editio was found
Ponderib. , c. 17, 18), and the author of the Synopsis at Nicopolis: according to Zonaras (Annal. xii. 11),
S. Scripturae, which is ascribed to Athanasius, was the Septima was found at Jericho ; and according
found at Jericho in a wine jar, by one of the learned to Nicephorns Callisti, both the Sesta and Septima
men of Jerusalem ; and Epiphanius adds the date were found there. Eusebius states that one of the
of the discovery, the seventh year of Caracalla versions was found at Jericho and one at Nicopolis,
(A. D. 217 or 218). The Editio Sexta, according to but does not give their numbers. The difference
the same authorities, was also found in a wine jar between these authorities is owing more probably
## p. 51 (#67) ##############################################
ORIGENES.
51
ORIGENES.
to the careiessness or mistake of the writers or and Scholia of Origen himself and of Pamphilus
transcribers, than to any variation in the order of and Eusebius, long remained in the library of tho
the versions in different copies of the Hexapla ; for martyr Pamphilus at Caesareia ; and were probably
this appears to have been so fixed as to have sug- destroyed in the seventh century, either at the
gested the common mode of referring to them by capture of that city by Chosroes II. the Persian, os
their place in the arrangement. The Quinta, Sexta, | its subsequent capture by the Samcens. The few
&c versions, are anonymous ; at least the authors transcripts that were made bave perished also, and
are not known. Jerome (Adr. Rufin. ii. 34, the work, as compiled by Origen, has been long lost.
ed. Vallars. ) calls the authors of the Quinta and Numerous fragments have, however, been preserved
Sexta, Jews ; yet a citation from the Editio Sexta, in the writings of the fathers. Many of these, con-
which citation Jerome himself has given in Latin, taining scraps of the versions of Aquila and the other
shows that the author of that version was a Chris- Greek translators, collected by Petrus Morinus, were
tian. Josephus, author of the Hypomncsticon (Jo- inserted by Flaminius Nobilius in the beautiful and
SEPHUS, No. 12) mentions a current report that valuable edition of the Septuagint, fol. Rome, 1587.
the author of the Editio Quinta was a woman. These fragments, and some additional oncs, with
The author of the Editio Septima was probably a learned notes were prepared for publication by Jo-
Jew. (Montfauc. Praelim. in Herupla, cap. viii. annes Drusius, and published after his death with
$ 5. ) These three versions are far less literal this title, Veterum Interpretum Graecorum in toluin
than the other four versions; the Sexta, in parti- V. T. Fragmenta, 4to. Amheim, 1622. But the
cular, has some amplifications of most unauthorized most complete edition is that of the learned Bene-
character.
dictine Montfaucon Hexaploruin Origenis quae
Beside the compilation and arrangement of so supersunt, 2 vols. fol. Paris, 1714. Montfaucon re-
valuable a critical apparatus as these versions, tained the arrangement of the versions adopted by
Origen added marginal notes, containing, among Origen, and also his asterisks and obeli, wherever
other things, an explanation of the Hebrew names. they were found in the MSS. employed for the
There is reason to think that he occasionally gave edition ; and added a Latin version both to the
in bis marginal notes a Greek version of the read- Hebrew text (for which he employed that of
ings of the Syriac and Samaritan versions, of the Santes Pagninus or of Arias Montanus with slight
former in various books, of the latter in the Penta- alterations, and also the Vulgate), and to the Greek
teuch only. Certainly such readings are found, not versions. He prefixed a valuable Praefatio and Prae-
only in extant MS. where the Hexapla is cited, liminaria, to which we have been much indebted,
but in the citations of it by the fathers of the fourth and added to the edition several Anecdota, or unpub-
and fifth centuries. It is to be observed also that lished fragments of Origen and others, and a Greek
Origen did not content himself with giving the and a Hebrew Lexicon to the Hexapla. An edi-
text of the Septuagint as it stood in his own time, tion based on that of Montfaucon was published in
deeming it to have been much corrupted by the 2 vols. 8vo. Leipzig and Lubec, 1769, 1770, under the
carelessness or unscrupulous alterations or additions editorship of C. F. Bahrdt: it omitted the Hebrew
or omissions of transcribers. (Origen. Comment. in text in Greek letters, the Latin versions, the Anec-
Matth. apud Hodium, De Text. Originalibus, lib. iii. dota, or previously unpublished extracts from Origen
c. iv. $ 8. ) He amended the text chiefly by the and others, and many of the notes. Bahrat pro-
aid of Theodotion's version, allowing the received fessed to correct the text, and increased it by some
reading to remain, but marking his proposed alter- additional fragments; and he added notes of his
ations or additions with an asterisk (*), and pre-own to those which he retained of Montfaucon's.
fixing an obelus (+) to such words or passages as Bahrdt's preface intimated his purpose of preparing
he thought should be omitted. The use of another a Lexicon to the work, but it is not suhjoined to
mark, the lemniscus (= or =), which he is the copy now before us, nor can we find that it was
said to bave employed, can only be conjectured : ever published.
the account of its use given by Epiphanius (De 11. 'Efpytiká, Exegetical works. These compre-
Mensur. et Ponderib. c. viii. ), is evidently erroneous. hend three classes. (Hieronym. Praef. in Translut.
Origen's revision of the text of the Septuagint was Homil. Origen. in Jerem. et Ezech. ) 1. Tówon, which
regarded by succeeding generations as the standard ; Jerome renders Volumina, containing ample com.
it was frequently transcribed, and Latin, Syriac, mentaries, in which he gave full scope to his intel-
and Arabic versions made from it.
lect. 2. ExorcaScholia ; brief notes on detached
In the preparation of this most laborious and passages, designed to clear up obscurities and re-
valuable work, Origen was encouraged by the ex- move difficulties. 3. Homiliae, popular expositions,
hortations and supported by the wealth of his delivered chiefly at Caesareia ; and in the latter part
friend Ambrose. It is probable that, from the of his life (i. e. after his sixtieth year, A. D. 246),
labour and cost required, comparatively few tran- extemporaneously, being taken down at the time
scripts were ever made ; though there were a suffi- of delivery by persons employed for the purpose.
cient number for the leading ecclesiastical writers of the Tóuoc there are few remains. Of the
of succeeding ages to have access to it; as Pam-Scholia a number have been collected chiefly from
philus, Eusebius of Caesareia, (these two are said to the citations of the fathers, and are given by
have corrected the text of the work, and Eusebius Delarue under the title of 'Extoval, Selecta. Of
added Scholia,) Athanasius, Theodorus of Hera- the Homiliae a few are extant in the original, and
cleia, the Arian, Diodorus of Tarsus, Epiphanius, many more in the Latin versions (not very faithful
Rufinus, Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Proco- however) of Rufinus, Jerome, and others. Our
pius of Gaza, &c. Others of the fathers employed space does not allow us to give an enumeration of
the work less frequently ; and some borrowed their Origen's Exegetical works, but they will be found
acquaintance with its various readings from the in Delarue's edition of his works.
citations of their predecessors. Origen's own copies In his various expositions Origen songht to
of the Tetrapla and Hexapla, with the corrections extract from the Sacred Writings their historical
:
E 2
## p. 52 (#68) ##############################################
52
ORIGENES.
ORIGENES.
mystical or prophetical, and moral significance. I except a few fragments cited by Jerome or by Pam.
(Orig. Homil. XVII. in Genesim, c. 1. ) His philus, in his Apologia pro Origene, or by Origen
desire of finding continually a mystical sense led himself in his De Principiis (Delarue, vol. i. pp.
him frequently into the neglect of the historical | 32—37).
sense, and even into the denial of its truth. This 3. Στρωματείς 6. Στρωματέων λόγοι . Stro-
capital fault has at all times furnished ground for matew (8. Stromatum) Libri X. , written at Alex-
depreciating his labours, and has no doubt ma- andria, in the reign of Alexander Severus (Euseb.
terially diminished their value: it must not, how | H. E. vi. 24), in imitation of the work of the same
ever, be supposed that his denial of the historical name by Clemens Alexandrinus. (CLEMENS
truth of the Sacred Writings is more than occasional, ALEXANDRINUS. ) The tenth book was chiefly
or that it has been carried out to the full extent composed of Scholia on the Epistle of Paul to the
which some of his accusers (for instance, Eusta-Galatians. Nothing is extant of the work, except
thius of Antioch) have charged upon him. His two or three fragments cited in Latin by Jerome.
character as a commentator is thus summed up (Delarue, vol. i. pp. 37–41. )
by the acute Richard Simon (Hist. Critique des 4. Περί αρχών, De Principiis. This work,
Principaux Commentatcurs du N. T. ch. iii. ) :- which was written at Alexandria (Eusebius, H. E.
“Origen is every where too long and too niuch vi. 24), was the great object of attack with Origen's
given to digressions. He commonly says every enemies, and the source from which they derived
thing which occurs to him with respect to some their chief evidence of his various alleged heresies.
word that he meets with, and he affects great It was divided into four books. The first treated
refinement in his speculations (il affecte de pa- of God, of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit ; of the
roître subtil dans ses inventions), which often leads fall, of rational natures and their final restoration
him to resort to airy (sublimes) and allegorical to happiness, of corporeal and incorpore. d beings
meanings. But notwithstanding these faults, we and of angels: the second, of the world and the
find in his Commentaries on the New Testament things in it, of the identity of the God of the old
profound learning and an extensive acquaintance dispensation and of the new, of the incamation of
with every thing respecting religion ; nor is there Christ, of the resurrection, and of the punishment of
any writer from whom we can leam so well as the wicked: the third book, of the freedom of the
from him what the ancient theology was. He had will, of the agency of Satan, of the temptations of
carefully read a great number of writers of whom man, of the origin of the world in time and of its
we now scarcely know the names. " His proneness to end: the fourth, of the divine original and proper
allegorical and mystical interpretations was probably mode of studying the Scriptures.
The heterodoxy
derived from, at least strengthened by, his study of of this work, according to the standard of the day,
Plato, and others of the Greek philosophers. or rather perhaps of the next generation, was as-
111. Other Works. The exegetical writings of cribed by Marcellus of Ancyra to the influence of
Origen might well have been the sole labour of a the Greek philosophy, especially that of Plato,
long life devoted to literature. They form, how- which Origen had been recently studying, and had
ever, only a part of the works of this indefatigable not taken time maturely to consider. Eusebius
father. Epiphanius affirms (Haeres. lxiv. 63) that replied to Marcellus by denying the Platonism
common report assigned to him the composition of of Origen, and Pamphilus, in his A pologia pro
“six thousand books " (ĈEukioxidious Biblous); Origene, attempted to prove that he was ortho
and the statement, which is repeated again and dox. On the outbreak of the Arian controversy,
again by the Byzantine writers, though itself an Origen was accused of having been the real author
absurd exaggeration, may be taken as evidence of of that obnoxious system ; and Didymus of
his exuberant authorship. Jerome compares him Alexandria, in his Scholia on the Depà apxwv
to Varro, the most fertile author among the Latins of Origen, in order to refute this charge, endea-
(Hieron. ad Paulam Epistol. 29, ed. Benedictin, voured to show how far be differed from them.
33, ed. Vallars. , et apud Rufin. Invectiv. lib. ii. 19), (Didymus, No. 4. ) But as the limits of orthodoxy
and states that he surpassed him and all other became more definite and restricted, this mode of
writers, whether Latin or Greek, in the number defence was abandoned ; and Rufinus, no longer
and extent of his works. Of his miscellaneous denying the heterodox character of many passages
works the following only are known :-
with respect to the Trinity, affirmed that they
1. 'Etotohal, Epistolae. Origen wrote many were interpolations. When, therefore, at the
letters, of which Eusebius collected as many as close of the fourth century, he translated the repi
he could find extant, to the number of more than apxw into Latin, he softened the objectionable
a hundred (H. E. vi. 36). Most of them have features of the work, by omitting those parts re-
long since perished. Delarue has given (vol. i. lating to the Trinity, which appeared to be hete-
p. 1—32) those, whether entire or fragmentary, rodox, and illustrating obscure passages by the in-
which remain.
sertion of more explicit declarations from the author's
2. Lepd dvao táoews, De Resurrectione. Euse other writings. On other subjects, however, he was
bius says this work was in two books (H. E. vi. said to have rather exaggerated than softened the
24), and was written at Alexandria before the objectionable sentiments. (Hieron. Contra Rufin.
Commentaries on the Lamentations of Jeremiah, i. 7. ) Such principles of translation would have
in which they are referred to. Jerome (ibid. ) seriously impaired the fidelity of his version, eren
adds that he wrote two other Dialogi de Resur- if his assertion, that he had added nothing of his
rectione ; and in another place (Ad Pammach. own, were true: but as he did not give reference
Epistol. 61, edd. vet, 38, ed. Benedictin. ; Lib. to the places from which the inserted passages
Contra Joannem Jerosolymitanum, c. 25, ed. Val- were taken, he rendered the credibility of that
·larsi) he cites the fourth book on the resurrection, assertion very doubtful. Jerome, therefore, to er.
as if he regarded the two works as constituting pose, as he says (Ibid. ), both the heterodoxy of the
The works on the resurrection are lost, I writer and the unfaithfulness of the transistos,
one.
## p. 53 (#69) ##############################################
ORIGENES.
63
ORIGENES.
ܪ
gave another and more exact version of the work. | Jerome (Ad Paulam Epistol. 29, ed Benedictin, 33,
Of the original work some important fragments, in- ed. Vallars. and apud Rufin. Indect. lib. ii. 19), was,
cluding a considerable part of the third and fourth we have no means of ascertaining. There were,
books, have been preserved in the Philocalia ; in perhaps, other works beside those enumerated by
the Epistola ad Mennum, Patriurcham CPoli- Fabricius (l. c. ): for there is no complete list
tanum of the emperor Justinian, given in the of Origen's works extant ; those drawn up by
various editions of the Concilia (e. g. vol. v. p. Eusebius (see H. E. vi. 82) in his Life of Pam-
635, &c. , ed. Labbe, vol. iii. p. 244, &c. , ed. philus, and by Jerome (see De l'iris Illustr. c. 5+)
Hardouin); and by Marcellus of Ancyra (apud in the mutilated Epistle to l'aula, just cited, are
Eusebium, Contra Marcellum). Of the version of now lost
Jerome, there are some small portions preserved in Several works have been ascribed to Origen, and
his letter to Avitus (Epistol. 59, edd. vett. , 94, ed. published under his name, which really do not
Benedictin, 124, ed. Vallars. ). The version of belong to him. Of these, the most important are
Rufinus has come down to us entire ; and is given the following. (1) Arroyos katà MapklavioTW
with the fragments of Jerome's version and of the i tepl tas eis Oede opoñs plotews, Diulogus contra
original by Delarue (vol. i. pp. 42—195).
Marcionitas sive de Recta in Deum Fide. This was
5. Περί ευχής, De Oratione. This work is first published in the Latin version of Joannes
mentioned by Pamphilus (Apol. pro Orig. c. viii. ), Picus, 4to, Paris, 1555, and in Greek by Jo.
and is still extant. It was first published, 12mo. Rud. Wetstenius, with a Latin version, 4to, Basel,
Oxford, 1685, with a Latin version. (Delarue, 1674. It is given by Delarue (vol. i. pp. 800-
vol. i. pp. 195—272. )
872), but not as Origen's. It was ascribed to
6. Eis uaptúplov #pOTPETTIKOS Abyos, Exhortatio Origen, perhaps by Basil and Gregory Nazianzen,
ad Martyrium, or repl uapt uplov, De Martyrio, certainly by Anastasius Sinaita ; but Huet has
addressed to his friend and patron Ambrosius, and shown that internal evidence is against its being
to Protoctetus of Caesareia, during the persecution bis ; and it is in all probability the production of
under the emperor Maximin (a. D. 235—238), and a later age. Adamantius is the “ orthodox
still extant. (Delarue, vol. i. pp. 273–310. ) It speaker in the Dialogue (comp. Maximus Hiero
was first published by Jo. Rud. Wetstenius SOLYMITANUS); and there is reason to believe,
(Wetstein) the younger, 4to, Basel, 1574, with a froin the testimony of Theodoret (Haeret. Fubulur.
Latin version and notes. Origen's letter of like Praefut. and i. 25), that the author really bore that
purport, written when a mere boy to his father, has name, and was a distinct person altogether from
been already noticed.
Origen ; but that, as Origen also bore the name of
7. Kata Kencov Tómoi ', Contra Celsum Libri Adamantius, the work came to be erroneously
VIII. , written in the time of the emperor Philippus ascribed to him. (2) Miloo opoúueva, 6. Toû kard
(Euseb. H. E. vi. 36), and still extant. In this | πασών αιρέσεων ελέγχου βιβλίον α', Philosophu-
valnable work Origen defends the truth of Chris- mena 6. Adversus omnes Haereses, Lilver primus.
tianity against the attacks of Celsus, an Epicurean, This work was first published with a Latin version
or perhaps a Platonic philosopher (Celsus). The and notes, vindicating Origen's title to the author-
Philocalia is chiefly made up of extracts from it. ship, by Jac. Gronovius, in the tenth volume of
It was first printed in the Latin version of Christo- his Thesaurus Antiquitatum Graecarum, p. 249, &c. ,
phorus Persona, fol. Rome, 1481, and in Greek under the title of Origenis Philosophumenwv Frug.
by David Hoeschelius, 4to, Augsburg, 1605. (De mentum. This title is not quite correct : the Phi-
larue, vol. i. pp. 310-799. )
losophumena, or account of the systems of the an-
It may be as well here to mention that the cient philosophy, appears to be entire, but is itself
dokania, Philocalia, so often mentioned, was a only a portion of a larger work against all here-
compilation by Basil of Caesareia, and his friend sies" or sects holding erroneous views. The author
Gregory of Nazianzus (Basilius, No. 2 ; GREGO is not known ; but he was not Origen ; for in his
RIUS NAZIA NZENUS), almost exclusively from the prooemium he claims episcopal rank, which Origen
writings of Origen, of which many important frag- never held. (The work is in Delarue, vol. i. pp.
ments have been tbus preserved, especially from 872—909. ) (3) Exónia eis cixdiv Kupakúv, Scho-
his reply to Celsus. It is divided into twenty- lia in Orationem Dominicam, published by Fed.
seven chapters. It was first published in the Latin Morellus, in 1601, as the production of " Origen
version of Gilbertus Genebrardus, in the second or some other teacher of that age :" but Huet and
volume of that author's edition of Origen's works, Delarue deny that these Scho'ia are his, and Huet
fol. Paris, 1574, and in Greek by Joannes Ta- ascribes them to Petrus of Laodiceia, following the
rinus, 4to, Paris, 1618. It is not given as a whole editors of the Bibliotheca Patrum, who have given
by Delarue, but such of the extracts as are not a Latin version of them in that collection. (Delarue,
elsewhere extant are distributed to their appro- vol. i. pp. 909, 911. )-The above, with (4), an an-
priate places,
cient Latin version of a Commentary on Job, are
Many works of Origen are totally lost. An the only supposititious works given by Delarue.
enumeration of those of which we have any in- Others, however, are extant, and have been given
forination is given by Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. by other editors, but do not require any further
vol. vii. p. 235, &c). The majority of those notice here.
which are lost were biblical and exegetical. The Beside his own works, Origen revised the Lexi-
others were chiefly directed against the various con of Hebrew names, Hebruicorum Nominun S.
classes of heretics, and partly consisted of records Scripturae et Mensurarum Interpretation of Philo
of bis disputations with them. The book De Judaeus (Philo); and enlarged it by the addition
Libero Arbitrio, mentioned by himself in his Com- of the names in the New Testament: the work is
mentary on the Epistle to the Romans, was perhaps consequently ascribed to him in some MSS. : but
that portion of his lepi dpxw which relates to that after his reputed heresies had rendered him odious,
subject. What the Monobiblia, mentioned by the name of Cyril of Alexandria was prefixed to the
E 3
## p. 54 (#70) ##############################################
54
ORIGENES.
