Scripture and self in origen of alexandrias exegetical practice

University of Denver Digital Commons @ DU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 1-1-2014 Scripture and Self in Origen of Alexandria's Exegetical Practice Micah David Saxton University of Denver Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.edu/etd Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, and the Christianity Commons Recommended Citation Saxton, Micah David, "Scripture and Self in Origen of Alexandria's Exegetical Practice" (2014). Electronic Theses and Dissertations.edu/etd/577 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.edu,dig-commons@du.

SCRIPTURE AND SELF IN ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA’S EXEGETICAL PRACTICE __________ A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the University of Denver and the Iliff School of Theology Joint PhD Program University of Denver __________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy __________ by Micah David Saxton June 2014 Advisor: Gregory Robbins PhD ©Copyright by Micah David Saxton 2014 All Rights Reserved Author: Micah David Saxton Title: SCRIPTURE AND SELF IN ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA’S EXEGETICAL PRACTICE Advisor: Gregory Robbins PhD Degree Date: June 2014 ABSTRACT In this dissertation I examine the nature of scripture and the self as presented by Origen of Alexandria. I argue that Christian scripture and the Christian self are constructed by exegetical practice; furthermore, in the case of Origen, I will demonstrate that Christian scripture and the Christian self are so closely related that it is best to speak of a scripture-self complex emerging out of his exegetical practice. I use a theory of structure as developed by William Sewell as a means to discuss both scripture and the self. As “structures,” scripture and the self are composed of “resources” and “schemas” that are paired together into meaningful wholes.

That whole is a structure, which in turn structures other aspects of culture. However, resources and schemas are not automatically paired together. Rather, they are paired together by practices of historical agents who both shape structures and are shaped by them. With this framework in mind, I discuss the ways in which exegetical practices pair resources and schemas together into meaningful wholes.

There are two initial processes, the becoming scripture of biblical texts and the becoming the self of a human person, which I trace in Heracleon, Irenaeus, and Origen. I then argue that in the case of Origen, scripture and self mutually structure one another. I call these processes “the anthropomorphizing of scripture” and “the scripturalizing of the self.” These processes result in what I call a scripture-self complex, by this term I mean that scripture cannot be what scripture is without the self being what the self is and the self cannot be what the ii self is without scripture being what scripture is. Key texts for my study of Origen’s exegetical practices are his Commentary on the Gospel according to John, On First Principles, Homilies on Jeremiah, and finally, Commentary on the Song of Songs.

iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There is a hackneyed proverb that claims, “It takes a village to raise a child.” I have never raised a child, but I have now completed a dissertation and I know that it takes a village to complete a dissertation. I would like to acknowledge that village. First and foremost I am grateful to my dissertation advisor Gregory Robbins who will always know more about this topic than I will. I am also grateful to Pamela Eisenbaum and Sarah Pessin who served on my dissertation committee.

I could not have asked for better committee members, they each pushed me to think through many issues from angles I would not have anticipated. Katherine Turpin has graciously volunteered her time to chair my dissertation defense; I am pleased that my defense was in such capable hands. There are others who were also a part of my dissertation’s village. Notably, my intrepid writing group: Eric Smith and Erica Ferg Muhaisen.

My early chapters benefited greatly from Erica’s input and Eric’s keen eye has saved me from many embarrassing errors; to say nothing of his intellectual contributions. Finally, I would also like to acknowledge Mark George and Michael Hemeneway, both of whom have helped me to be a more careful thinker. I am grateful to this village for helping raise my dissertation. Any errors contained herein are, however, my own and for them I am responsible.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION. 1   Introduction and Thesis. 1   Questioning Scripture and the Self. 9   Methodological Tools: Structure, Discourse, and Practice.

34   Outline of Chapters. 36   CHAPTER TWO: SCRIPTURE AND SELF BEFORE ORIGEN. 40   The Structure of Scripture in Heracleon. 45   The Structure of the Self in Heracleon.

62   The Structure of Scripture in Irenaeus’s Against Heresies. 64   The Structure of the Self in Irenaeus’s Against Heresies. 89   CHAPTER THREE: STRUCTURING SCRIPTURE IN ORIGEN. 99   Exegetical Practices that Construct Scripture.

102   The Greco-Roman School. 103   The Use of Books. 107   Commentary as a Practice. 114   The Practice of Grammar.

137   CHAPTER FOUR: STRUCTURING THE SELF IN ORIGEN. 140   Origen’s Structure of the Self. 141   Resources of the Self. 142   The Schema of the Self.

152   Liturgical Practices that Construct the Self. 169   Homiletical Practices that Construct the Self. 172   v Addressing the Text to the Hearer. 180   Constructing the Other.

192   CHAPTER FIVE: THE SELF STRUCTURES SCRIPTURE AND SCRIPTURE STRUCTURES THE SELF: ORIGEN’S SCRIPTURE-SELF COMPLEX. 194   Self Structures Scripture: Anthropomorphizing of Scripture. 196   Allegorical Reading: Terms and Historical Background. 198   Allegorical Reading in Origen.

205   Scripture Structures Self: The Scripturalizing of the Self. 250   vi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Introduction and Thesis Origen of Alexandria (c. 185-254) was the most influential thinker in the Christian tradition between Paul and Augustine. During his lifetime Origen was called upon to settle significant theological debates, he traveled internationally to combat various heresies, and, for better or worse, Origen’s theological legacy was to have significant influence on all sides of the theological debates of the fourth and fifth centuries.1 It would be difficult to overestimate his theological influence on the early church.

Yet, for all that, Origen is best known as the most prolific exegete in the early Christian tradition. Indeed, most of modern scholarship that focuses its attention on Origen does so in order to say something about his exegetical practice, this dissertation is no exception. It is no surprise that the most commonly quoted lines from Origen’s extant 1 For Origen’s general influence see Joseph W. Trigg, Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third-Century Church (London: SCM, 1985).

For his theological legacy in the major debates of the fourth and fifth centuries see Elizabeth A. Clark, The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christain Debate (Princeton, N.: Princeton University Press, 1992). Origen’s influence was felt soon after his death; even authors hostile to Christianity were aware of his influences. Eusebius records a fragment from Porphyry who says of Origen “But this kind of absurdity [allegorical interpretation of the Bible] must be traced to a man whom I met when I was still quite young, who had a great reputation, and still holds it, because of the writings he has left behind him, I mean Origen whose fame has been widespread among the teachers of this kind of learning.

1 corpus come from On First Principles where he discusses the theoretical background of his exegetical practice: “For just as man consists of body, soul, and spirit, so in the same way does the scripture, which has been prepared by God to be given for man’s salvation.”2 Origen speaks of scripture in terms of a human person. Scripture is conceptualized anthropologically. In a less-cited passage from a homily on Genesis, Origen likens a person’s heart to a library; in other words he conceptualizes a person bibliographically.3 There is a close connection between scripture and the human person, or better, the self in the theoretical background of Origen’s exegetical practice that is directly related to his understanding of salvation.4 However, Christian scripture and the Christian self are not “natural categories.” In this dissertation I will argue that Christian scripture and the Christian self are constructed by exegetical practice; furthermore, in the case of Origen, I will demonstrate that Christian scripture and the Christian self are so closely related that it is 2 ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ ἄνθρωπος συνέστηκεν ἐκ σώµατος καὶ ψυχῆς καὶ πνεύµατος, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ ἡ οἰκονοµηθεῖσα ὑπὸ θεοῦ εἰς ἀνθρώπων σωτηρίαν δοθῆναι γραφή. Butterworth, Origen: On First Principles (Gloucester, Mass.

The entirety of this dissertation could be construed as a commentary on this passage in so far as I am concerned with what it means to say that a self consists of body soul and spirit and what sort of thing is scripture that it can also consist of the same elements. 3 Si quis est.conuertere se potest a rebus fluxis ac pereuntibus et caducis et audire uerbum Dei ac praecepta caelestia, hic intra cor suum arcam alutis aedificat et bibliothecam, ut ita dicam, intra se diuini consercrat uerbi. Heine, Origen: Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, The Fathers of the Church, vol.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 86. 4 I prefer the term “self” over the term “person” because the former seems to me to be more general and therefore constrains interpretation less.

Furthermore, “self” is widely used in secondary literature, which allows my project to be put in conversation with others. 2 best to speak of a scripture-self complex emerging out of his exegetical practice. Toward this end I will discuss four processes: (1) the becoming scripture of biblical texts, (2) the becoming self of a human person, (3) the anthropomorphizing of scripture, and (4) the scripturalizing of the self. I turn now to question the nature of scripture and self.

Questioning Scripture and the Self The above claim that scripture and self are not natural categories needs clarification: I simply mean that there are no naturally occurring objects that can be identified as scripture or self. This may seem self-evident in the case of scripture but less so in the case of self. I am not denying the reality of biological entities that are called, for example, human beings. But what the human being may be—in addition to or exclusive of a biological entity—is entirely constructed by culture.5 It may seem that what scripture and self finally are is obvious, but if so this is only because both have been constructed in generally homogenous ways in modern western communities.

It is useful to question each of these categories, especially in the context of antiquity. I begin with scripture. Scripture For the sake of clarity I would like to make a distinction between “scripture” and two other terms with which it is closely associated: “text” and “canon.” I use the term “text” to refer to a material written document. Important in this notion of text is that it is material and not conceptual.

Texts are documents that can be produced, used, and 5 Catherine Belsey makes a helpful distinction using the terms “organisms” and “subjects.” “We are born organisms (of course), and we become subjects. How? By internalizing our culture, which is inscribed in the signifying practices that surround us from the moment we come into the world.” Catherine Belsey, Poststructuralism: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 57. 3 destroyed; they are bound up with the materials out of which they are composed.6 “Canon,” as is well known, comes from the Greek term (κανών) that literally refers to a straight rod but has metaphorically come to mean a standard of measure or a standard of excellence.