BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM

CCXLIV

ORIGENIANA DECIMA
ORIGEN AS WRITER
Papers of the 10th International Origen Congress,
University School of Philosophy and Education “Ignatianum”,
Kraków, Poland
31 August – 4 September 2009

EDITED BY

SYLWIA KACZMAREK – HENRYK PIETRAS

IN COLLABORATION WITH

ANDRZEJ DZIADOWIEC

UITGEVERIJ PEETERS
LEUVEN – PARIS – WALPOLE, MA
2011

94341_OrigDec_BETL244_Vw V 4/07/11 15:19

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV

INTRODUCTORY PAPERS

Lorenzo PERRONE (Università di Bologna)

Origenes pro domo sua: Self-Quotations and the (Re)construc-
tion of a Literary Œuvre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Antonio CACCIARI (Università di Bologna)
From Grammar to Theology: History of a Word. On diastolß
and Related Terms in Origen and in the Origenian Tradition . . 39

I. THE LITERARY MILIEU OF ALEXANDRIA AND CAESAREA

PALESTINA IN ORIGEN’S TIME

Anna TZVETKOVA-GLASER (Wissenschaftlich-Theologisches Semi-

nar Heidelberg)
L’interprétation origénienne de Gen 2,8 et ses arrière-plans
rabbiniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Christian HENGSTERMANN (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster)
The Neoplatonism of Origen in the First Two Books of His
Commentary on John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

II. COMPLEXITY AND SCOPE OF ORIGEN’S WORK

Éric JUNOD (Université de Lausanne)

Du danger d’écrire, selon Origène . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Gerald BOSTOCK (Perth)
Satan – Origen’s Forgotten Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

III. HERMENEUTICS

Sébastien MORLET (Sorbonne, Paris)

Signaler l’accord des textes: Un trait caractéristique de l’exégèse
d’Origène et du commentarisme grec de l’époque impériale . . 127

94341_OrigDec_BETL244_Vw IX 4/07/11 15:19

 X TABLE OF CONTENTS

Christoph MARKSCHIES (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin)

Scholien bei Origenes und in der zeitgenössischen wissen-
schaftlichen Kommentierung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Karin METZLER (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin)
Namensetymologien zur hebräischen Bibel bei Origenes . . . . . 169
Michael Vlad NICULESCU (Bradley University)
Changing Moods: Origen’s Understanding of Exegesis as a
Spiritual Attunement to the Grief and the Joy of a Messianic
Teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Sebastian GULY (Cambridge)
The Salvation of the Devil and the Kingdom of God in Origen’s
Letter to Certain Close Friends in Alexandria . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Matthew PEREIRA (Columbia University, New York)
From the Spoils of Egypt: An Analysis of Origen’s Letter to
Gregory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

IV. APOLOGIES

Leszek MISIARCZYK (Cardinal Wyszynski University, Warsaw)

The Influence of Justin Martyr on Origen’s Argumentation in
Contra Celsum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Johannes ARNOLD (Phil.-Theol. Hochschule, Sankt Georgen)
Unordnung, bedingt durch Hass? Origenes und die Struktur von
Celsus’ Alethes Logos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Antonio CASTELLANO (Università Pontificia Salesiana, Roma)
“Che significa il nome ‘Logos’ dato al Figlio di Dio?”: Il titolo
“Logos” e la polemica antimonarchiana nel Commento a
Giovanni di Origene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

V. COMMENTARIES, HOMILIES AND APOCRYPHA

Reinhart CEULEMANS (University of Leuven)

Origène dans la catena Hauniensis sur le Cantique des canti-
ques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Agnès BASTIT-KALINOWSKA (Université de Metz)
De Paul à Origène: Étude de quelques phénomènes stylisti-
ques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

94341_OrigDec_BETL244_Vw X 4/07/11 15:19

 TABLE OF CONTENTS XI

Agnès ALIAU-MILHAUD (Sorbonne, Paris)

La réécriture au passif et ses enjeux dans le Commentaire sur
Jean d’Origène . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
Chiara BARILLI (Università di Bologna)
L’infanzia in Origene: Passi scritturistici ed interpretazione.
Alcune osservazioni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
Guido BENDINELLI (Facoltà Teologica dell’Emilia Romagna, Bologna)
Il matrimonio nel Commentario a Matteo di Origene . . . . . . . . 385
Charlotte KÖCKERT (Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg)
Didymus the Blind and Origen as Commentators on Genesis:
A Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407
Patricia Andrea CINER (Universidad Católica de Cuyo, Universidad
Nacional de San Juan, Argentina)
Unión mística y osadía: Implicancias del término tolmjtéon
en el Comentario al Evangelio de Juan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
Enrico CATTANEO (Napoli)
L’alleanza dei due re contro Gerusalemme (Is 7,1-9): Una
pagina origeniana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437
Sylwia KACZMAREK (Pontifical Academy of Theology, Krakow)
L’Exemplum di Paolo nel Commento alla Lettera ai Romani . 445
Samuel FERNÁNDEZ (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile)
Verso la teologia trinitaria di Origene: Metafora e linguaggio
teologico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
Franz Xaver RISCH (Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der
Wissenschaften)
Die Prologe des Origenes zum Psalter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
Barbara VILLANI (Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissen-
schaften)
Zur Psalmenauslegung des Origenes: Einige Beobachtungen am
Beispiel von Psalm 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
Olivier MUNNICH (Paris-Sorbonne)
Le rôle de la citation dans l’écriture d’Origène: Étude des
Homélies sur Jérémie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
Manabu AKIYAMA (Tsukuba University, Japan)
La “figura” tipologica vera nelle Omelie di Origene su
Ezechiele . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539

94341_OrigDec_BETL244_Vw XI 4/07/11 15:19

 XII TABLE OF CONTENTS

Henryk PIETRAS (“Ignatianum”, Kraków)

L’apocrifo giudaico “Preghiera di Giuseppe” nell’interpretazione
origeniana – CIo II.31.188-190 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545

VI. THE LANGUAGE OF ORIGEN

Giulio MASPERO (Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome)

Remarks on Origen’s Analogies for the Holy Spirit . . . . . . . . . 563
Domenico PAZZINI (Verucchio)
Figura simbolo legge linguistica nella prosa di Origene . . . . . . 579
Mariusz SZRAM (KUL Lublin)
La symbolique des nombres et le diable dans l’exégèse allégo-
rique alexandrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593
Gilles DORIVAL (Aix-Marseille Université)
La forme littéraire des Hexaples d’Origène . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601
Andrea VILLANI (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen)
Uno sguardo d’insieme sulle prosopopee divine in Origene:
Il Padre e il figlio a colloquio con l’uomo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615

VII. PHILOSOPHICAL SOURCES

Ilaria L.E. RAMELLI (Università del Sacro Cuore, Milano)

Origen’s Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Reassessment . . . . . . . 649
Joseph S. O’LEARY (Sophia University, Tokio)
Biblical and Metaphysical in the Texture of Origen’s Writing
(CIo II.175-192) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671

VIII. DISCIPLES AND FOLLOWERS OF ORIGEN

Alfons FÜRST (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster)

Origen Losing His Text: The Fate of Origen as a Writer in
Jerome’s Latin Translation of the Homilies on Isaiah . . . . . . . 689
Jean-Marie AUWERS (Université catholique de Louvain)
Le Commentaire du Cantique des cantiques dans la traduction
latine de Rufin et dans l’Épitomé de Procope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 703

94341_OrigDec_BETL244_Vw XII 4/07/11 15:19

 TABLE OF CONTENTS XIII

Joseph VERHEYDEN (University of Leuven)

Origen in the Making: Reading between (and behind) the Lines
of Eusebius’ ‘Live of Origen’ (HE 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713
Enrico DAL COVOLO (Pontificia Università Lateranense)
Theia anagnosis / Lectio divina: Origene, Ambrogio, Agostino 727
Bernard POUDERON (Université François Rabelais Tours)
Les Lamentations de Jérémie et l’Exégèse sur l’âme (NHC II, 6)
chez Origène et Olympiodore d’Alexandrie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 733
Roland M. PANCERZ (WSD OFM, Kalwaria)
Didimo il Cieco e gli antropomorfismi biblici . . . . . . . . . . . . . 751
Monica TOBON (University College London)
Evagrius as Writer: The Example of Eulogios 2’s Discussion
of Xeniteia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765
Emanuela PRINZIVALLI (“La Sapienza”, Roma)
A Rediscovered Author and Origen’s Heritage: Didymus the
Blind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779
Vladimir CVETKOVIC (University of St Andrews)
From Adamantius to Centaur: St Methodius of Olympus’
Critique of Origen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791
Marie-Odile BOULNOIS (École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris)
La diversité des nations et l’élection d’Israël: Y a-t-il une influ-
ence du Contre Celse d’Origène sur le Contre les Galiléens de
Julien? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803
Emiliano FIORI (Leiden)
The Impossibility of the Apokatastasis in Dionysius the Areo-
pagite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Dimitrios ZAGANAS (Sorbonne, Paris)
L’Exégèse vétérotestamentaire d’Origène et de Cyrille
d’Alexandrie: Continuité ou divergence? À propos de la typo-
logie des personnages bibliques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
John T. SLOTEMAKER (Boston College)
The Primity of the Father in Origen of Alexandria and Augustine
of Hippo: Beyond East and West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855

94341_OrigDec_BETL244_Vw XIII 4/07/11 15:19

 XIV TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ulrich VOLP (Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz)

“… for the fashion of this world passeth away”: The Apo-
kritikos by Makarios Magnes – An Origenist’s Defense of
Christian Eschatology? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873
Cordula BANDT (Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissen-
schaften)
Reverberations of Origen’s Exegesis of the Psalms in the Work
of Eusebius and Didymus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891
Miros¥aw MEJZNER (UKSW, Warszawa)
L’e˝dov e l’∫xjma: La critica al concetto origeniano di risurre-
zione nel contesto dell’escatologia intermedia nel De resurrec-
tione di Metodio di Olimpo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907
Vladimir BARANOV (Novosibirsk, Russia)
“Condensing and Shaping the Flesh…”: The Incarnation
and the Instrumental Function of the Soul of Christ in the
Iconoclastic Christology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 919
Piotr O. SCHOLZ (UMCS Lublin)
Griechisch oder Altägyptisch?: Zur Frage nach den Wurzeln
der theologischen Spekulationen des Origenes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933
Jon F. DECHOW (Portola Valley, CA)
Pseudo-Jerome’s Anti-Origenist Anathemas (ACO I.5:4-5) . . . 955

INDICES

SACRA SCRIPTURA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969

ORIGENIS OPERA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 983
AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1001
AUCTORES MODERNI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025

94341_OrigDec_BETL244_Vw XIV 4/07/11 15:19

 FROM ADAMANTIUS TO CENTAUR
ST METHODIUS OF OLYMPUS’ CRITIQUE OF ORIGEN

I. THE TESTIMONIES AND CHRONOLOGY OF

METHODIUS’ CRITIQUE OF ORIGEN

There is no doubt that the earliest comprehensive criticism of Origen

was launched by the end of the 3rd century by Methodius of Olympus.
Methodius belonged to the intellectual circles that might be expected to
be sympathetic to Origen’s works due to his indebtedness to the scrip-
tural interpretation of the Alexandrian author1. There are many testimo-
nies, which substantiate the idea that Methodius was both the follower
of Origen and at the same time one of his most influential critics. Thus,
Apologia pro Origene2 undertaken by Pamphilus and finished by Euse-
bius, preserved in the Latin translation of Rufinus, states that Methodius,
who depended frequently on Origen’s teaching, dared to attack the great
Alexandrian. Jerome also testifies that Methodius wrote against Origen3.
Indeed, Methodius’ critique of Origen had serious consequences on
Origen’s reputation. Thus, Epiphanius of Cyprus, influenced by Metho-
dius’ criticism of the Origenian myths regarding the fall, the restoration
of the souls and the embodied existence, presented in his Panarion4
these teachings as heretical. Gregory of Nyssa, in his De hominis opifi-
cio and De anima et resurrectione mostly relying on Methodius’ De
resurrectione, challenged Origen’s anthropological stance. Photius of
Constantinople in the 235th chapter of his Bibliotheca extensively quoted
Methodius’ work Xeno or De creatis, where the bishop of Olympus
refuted Origen’s teaching regarding the eternity of the world. However,
the scholarly consensus agreed that Origen remained a guide for Metho-
dius in scriptural interpretation, and that mostly Origen’s cosmological
and anthropological attitudes were criticized by the bishop of Olympus.
There is still a matter of question whether Methodius is ‘turncoat’
Origenist, as he was seen by Eusebius, or his criticism rather has a cor-

1. L.G. PATTERSON, Methodius of Olympus: Divine Sovereignty, Human Freedom, and

Life in Christ, Washington, DC, The Catholic University of America Press, 1977, p. 5.
2. Pamphilus, Apologia pro Origene 127 (SC 464, 208-209).
3. Hieronymus, De Viris Illustribus 83 (PL 23, 727b).
4. Epiphanius, Panarion 64 (GCS 31, 503504).

94341_OrigDeci_46_Cvetkovic_0.indd 791 5/07/11 09:58

 792 V. CVETKOVIC

rective purpose because Origen strayed to heterodoxy in some of his

teachings. If one opts in favor of the first option, then it is worth asking
to ask when the rupture with Origen had taken place. However, the dat-
ing of Methodius’ writings is not an easy task. The majority of the
scholars have agreed that the latest among Methodius’ works against
Origen is Xeno or De creatis. The other two works De libero arbitrio
and Aglaophon: De resurrectione were dated as Methodius’s early and
middle works. A significant problem has to do with the fact that some
of the works against Origen were preserved only in the Paleoslavic
translation, such as the De libero arbitrio and the De resurrectione,
while other works such as the De creatis, whose orthodoxy seemed
allegedly dubious to the Slavonic translators, exists just in Greek frag-
ments. The usual order of these works including also the work Sympo-
sium or On chastity which is the only work entirely preserved in Greek
is as follows: De libero arbitrio, Symposium, De resurrectione, De
creatis. The significance of Methodius’ Symposium lies in the fact that
it propounds some ideas which resemble Origen’s and they are perhaps
even derived from him as Jerome claimed5. Patterson has rightly
remarked in his monograph that Methodius of the Symposium is nothing
else but a follower of Origen on the principles of scriptural interpreta-
tion6. It is not a matter of dispute at all whether Methodius’ reliance on
Origen is explicit or not in the Symposium, but whether the works writ-
ten at the same time represent an attack on Origen. The testimonies on
Methodius coming from Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa and Photius have
agreed with regard to one point: the works De libero arbitrio and De
resurrectione are written against Origen. Photius also added the dialogue
De creatis to this list. If the aforementioned order of Methodius’ writ-
ings is correct, then we encounter the following problem: how is it
possible for Methodius of the Symposium to be an Origenist in the mid-
dle of two attacks directed at Origen: the earlier one in the De libero
arbitrio and the later one in the De resurrectione and De creatis?

II. THE MODERN INTERPRETATIONS OF METHODIUS’ CRITICISM

In order to preserve the consistency of Methodius’ criticism of

Origen Vaillant places the De libero arbitrio later than the Sympo-

5. Hieronymus, Contra Ioann. Ier., 8.415 (PL 23, 377c); Contra Rufini 11.466 (PL 23,
423c-d).
6. PATTERSON, Methodius of Olympus (n. 1), p. 130.

94341_OrigDeci_46_Cvetkovic_0.indd 792 5/07/11 09:58

 FROM ADAMANTIUS TO CENTAUR 793

sium7. Thus, Methodius as Vaillant pictures him, after his Origenist

phase in the Symposium experiences the split with his teacher in the De
libero arbitrio, and finally he declares war to Origen in the De resur-
rectione and De creatis. Vaillant substantiates his idea by pointing to the
consistency in Methodius’ arguments against Origen from the early to
the late phase. Even if Methodius does not mention Origen by name in
the De libero arbitrio, the position he is attacking in this early dialogue
is identical to the position of the heterodox opponents personifying
Origen in the De resurrectione and De creatis. Therefore, according to
Vaillant the turn of Methodius from Origenism is a slow and gradual
process commenced in the De libero arbitrio and which reached its cli-
max in the De creatis. Contrary to Vaillant, Patterson, following Musuri-
llo, dates the Symposium among Methodius middle dialogues, and
locates it with certainty after the De libero arbitrio. Musurillo argues
that the dialogue was written in the period between the two persecutions,
one of Valerian (in 260) and the other of Diocletian (in 303) and should
be dated between 270’es and 290’es8. Patterson offers textual evidences
as well claiming that the Symposium summarizes and alludes to some
arguments of the De libero arbitrio. He also warns that these arguments
will be misunderstood if they are not read against the background of the
De libero arbitrio9. Considering the De libero arbitrio as the first work
in the order of Methodius’ writings, Patterson had to deal again with the
alleged inconsistency of Methodius’ criticism of Origen. Patterson
solves this problem by challenging the old claim that the De libero arbi-
trio is implicitly and covertly written against Origen. Thus, Patterson has
offered an alternative reading of the De libero arbitrio, predominantly
against the background of another dialogue known as the Dialogue of
Adamantius or De recta in deum fide (On the true faith in God)10. The
main reason why the Dialogue of Adamantius is associated with the De
libero arbitrio lies in the fact that both writings contain an almost iden-
tical passage of more than two hundred lines. Moreover, the same pas-
sage can be found in Eusebius’ Preparatio Evangelica11, where the pas-
sage is presented as a work On matter of a certain Maximus, who lived
during the reign of Septimius Severus and who wrote extensively on the

7. A. VAILLANT, Méthode d’Olympe. Le “De autexousio” (PO 22.5), Paris, Firmin-

Didot, 1930, pp. 649-652.
8. H. MUSURILLO (ed.), Methodius. The Symposium. A Treatise on Chastity (ACW, 27),
New York, Newman, 1958, pp. 11-12.
9. PATTERSON, Methodius of Olympus (n. 1), pp. 62-63.
10. R.A. PRETTY, Dialogue on the True Faith in God, Leuven, Peeters, 1997.
11. Eusebius Caesariensis, Praeparatio evangelica 7.21 (GSC, 33.1, 404-416).

94341_OrigDeci_46_Cvetkovic_0.indd 793 5/07/11 09:58

 794 V. CVETKOVIC

matter and the origins of evil12. While Eusebius attributed the text to
Maximus in the Preparatio Evangelica, Gregory the Theologian and
Basil the Great attributed it to Origen. In their compilation of Origen’s
writings called the Philocalia of Origen, they copied the text in the
twenty-fourth chapter under the title Matter is not uncreated, or the
cause of evil, with the acknowledgment that its source is Eusebius13.
Rufinus who made a Latin translation of the Dialogue of Adamantius by
the end of the 4th century, also attributed this work to Origen. The mod-
ern scholarship has univocally rejected the possibility that the author of
this work is Origen. However, there is no scholarly consensus over the
question whether the author of this work intended to attribute the role of
the orthodox speaker Adamantius to Origen. Textual similarities between
this work and the works of Methodius led scholars to Methodius, but
after a detailed analysis, the possibility that the Dialogue of Adamantius
belongs to Methodius was overruled, due to the difference in style
between this dialogue and other of Methodius’ writings. According to
Vaillant, the author of the dialogue might have been somebody who
believed that Methodius plagiarized Origen14. Another solution sug-
gested that the author is a follower of Methodius. There might have
existed also more than one reason why a follower of Methodius would
compose such a book. According to Patterson, it is likely that a disciple
of Methodius indented to preserve the unity of his teacher’s writings
because the dialogue consists of an excerpt also from Methodius’ De
resurrectione15. This argument seems to be an attempt to once more
substantiate the consistency of Methodius’ teachings, and more impor-
tant the continuity in his attitude toward Origen. Another likely solution
would be that the intention of the author was to demonstrate that Origen
was more ‘orthodox’ than it had been supposed16. Finally, according to
T.D. Barnes, the Dialogue of Adamantius is a work written in the middle
of the third century and Methodius copied the dialogue in both of his
works the De libero arbitrio and the De resurrectione17. However,
Barnes’ argument did not gain much appreciation among scholars.

12. Eusebius Caesariensis, Historia ecclesiastica V.27.1 (GSC, 9.1, 498). See also
G.A. WILLIAMSON – A. LOUTH (eds.), Eusebius. The History of the Church, London, Penguin
Classics, 1999, p. 75.
13. Origen, Phil 24 (ROBINSON, 143-150).
14. VAILLANT, Méthode d’Olympe (n. 7), p. 638.
15. PATTERSON, Methodius of Olympus (n. 1), pp. 62-63, 12f.
16. PRETTY, Dialogue on the True Faith in God (n. 10), p. 21.
17. T.D. BARNES, Methodius, Maximus, and Valentinus, in Journal of Theological
Studies, N.S. 30 (1979) 47-55, p. 48.

94341_OrigDeci_46_Cvetkovic_0.indd 794 5/07/11 09:58

 FROM ADAMANTIUS TO CENTAUR 795

III. PATTERSON’S POSITION: A MATTER OF MISUNDERSTANDING

Patterson argues against Jerome that the De libero arbitrio is a covert

attack on Origen on the basis of the textual similarities with the Dialogue
of Adamantius, which is clearly the refutation of the Gnostic teachings.
The fact that Eusebius, the editors of Philocalia of Origen and the author
of the Dialogue of Adamantius do not consider the text they copied as an
attack on Origen is a clear evidence for Patterson that the De libero
arbitrio is not an anti-Origenist dialogue18. Moreover, the identification
of the opponents of Adamantius as Valentinians could only suggest that
the De libero arbitrio, even without mentioning the name of the Valen-
tinians is an attack directed against them. Patterson went a step further
offering a number of places from the Symposium as a proof that Metho-
dius argues against Gnostics19. According to Patterson, Methodius is not
only indebted to Origen in the De libero arbitrio, but his Origenism
became far more explicit in the Symposium. Therefore, the rupture with
Origen or with the one of whom Methodius thinks that represents the
Origenist views began later in the De resurrectione where Methodius
subjected to criticism his own views adopted earlier from Origen20.
According to Patterson even in the De resurrectione, before he chal-
lenged Origen’s views, Methodius dealt with the teachings of Valentin-
ians and the other Gnostics. When it comes to the point of Methodius’
open criticism of Origen in the De creatis, Patterson makes the whole
case relative by claiming that Methodius misunderstood what Origen
meant by “eternal creation”21. Moreover, many things Methodius attrib-
uted to Origen are never claimed by him, but they rather represent the
possible implications of some Origenistic views. Patterson admits that
Methodius’ treatments of the implications of the views of Origenists in
the De libero arbitrio and De creatis are scarcely similar, but he still
remains on the position that if the De libero arbitrio is regarded as cov-
ert criticism of Origenism then one is confronted with the puzzlement
caused by Methodius’ reliance on Origen in this work and in the Sympo-
sium22.
My further aim is to challenge Patterson’s stance of the alleged Origen-
ism of Methodius in matters of ontology and cosmology, as well as his
attitude according to which Methodius’ criticism of Origen is a conse-

18. PATTERSON, Methodius of Olympus (n. 1), p. 32.

19. Ibid., p. 62, 38f.
20. Ibid., pp. 122-123.
21. Ibid., p. 135.
22. Ibid., pp. 211-212.

94341_OrigDeci_46_Cvetkovic_0.indd 795 5/07/11 09:58

 796 V. CVETKOVIC

quence of the misunderstanding of the great Alexandrian. In what fol-

lows, I would like to argue that Methodius’ position on creation had not
been changed from his early to his late dialogues. In my opinion, Metho-
dius’ three arguments: the first against the two agenneta, the second
against pre-existent matter and the third against eternal creation, are
rather different aspects of one and the same logic applied for the purpose
of dialogues. Patterson attempted to prove Methodius’ reliance on Origen
by reading all other dialogues against the background of the Symposium.
In what follows, I will attempt to read two early supposedly Origenistic
dialogues the De libero arbitrio and the Symposium against the back-
ground of the anti-Origenistic De creatis.

IV. THE ARGUMENTS FROM DE CREATIS

1. God as Almighty

In his dialogue De creatis or On created things, Methodius exposes

his refutation of Origen in the form of a dialogue between two charac-
ters: the Centaur, an Origenistic speaker, and apparently Methodius him-
self. Methodius commenced his first argument by evoking the idea from
Peri archon 1, 2, 10 that “the workman must be so called from his work,
and the maker from what he makes, and the Almighty Ruler from that
which He rules over”23.
It is worthy to point out that the English word Almighty is the transla-
tion of the Greek term Pantokrator used by both Origen and Methodius.
George Florovsky rightly remarked that neither the English nor the Latin
translation conveys accurately the real meaning of the Greek word Pan-
tokrator. Both translations Almighty and Omnipotens stress the potential
capacity of God to exercise power, while the Greek term Pantokrator
refers to the actual exercise of ruling power. In Origen’s case the term
further implies that God could not be Pantocrator from the eternity
unless ta panta existed from eternity24. The Centaur’s claim goes exactly
along the same line, for he says that “the world was made by God from

23. Methodius, De creatis 2 (ANF 6, 379); (GCS 27, 494). The quotation resembles
a passage from Origen, Prin 1.2.10 (tr. Butterworth, New York, 1966, 23): “As one can-
not be a father apart from having a son, nor a lord apart from holding a possession or a
slave, so we cannot even call God almighty if there are none over whom he can exercise
his power”.
24. G. FLOROVSKY, St Athanasius’ Concept of Creation, in Aspects of Church History
(The Collective Works of George Florovsky, 4), Belmond, MA, Nordland Publishing
Company, 1975, p. 43.

94341_OrigDeci_46_Cvetkovic_0.indd 796 5/07/11 09:58

 FROM ADAMANTIUS TO CENTAUR 797

the beginning, and there was no time in which it did not exist”. The
opposite statement that it was a time when the world was not, would
imply that God was not a creator from the beginning. Thus, the unchange-
able and unaltered God has altered and changed from non-Creator into
Creator. The only way out of this logic is to claim that the world is not
without beginning and coeternal with God. Therefore, the eternal exist-
ence of another reality along God for Origen is not a premise, but rather
a consequence, which derives from the fact of the unchangeable nature
of God. It seems that the Platonic framework of dyadic cosmology is
more a refuge for Origen than a deliberate choice from beginning as
Patterson claims. The claim that the world is eternal is a price Origen has
to pay in order to secure divine omnipotent and perfect nature, as well as
the permanency of His role as Creator. Moreover, Platonic arguments
about the just, good and omnipotent God together with the doctrine of
generation of cosmos from Timaeus, perfectly fitted in Origen’s interpre-
tation of the creation.
Further in the dialogue, Methodius challenges the Centaur’s position,
by developing his arguments from the same premises as Origen, namely
that God is perfect and unchangeable. According to Methodius, God is
perfect because He is not dependant on something else which is out of
his being. Therefore, God is considered perfect, Creator and Omni-
potent not by means of the world but by Himself, because the perfect
things possess their perfection by themselves and not through anything
else. Methodius concludes that God’s need for the things through which
He is marvelously Almighty and Creator, would just imply that he is
imperfect. The next issue Methodius deals with is the alteration in the
divine being. Methodius focuses on Origen’s argument that the Creator
will be exposed to change if the world is not eternal because He must
pass from not creating to creating the world. For Methodius, the doc-
trine of creation is also a question of biblical exegesis and therefore he
establishes his argument on the passage from Gen 2,2, which describes
the rest of God during the seventh day of creation. Methodius claims
that God would not be at rest from creating the world on the seventh
day if the world were not completed. However, the rest implies the
change because God passed from the act of creating to the act of not
creating, but it is not necessarily a change in the divine being because
God did not change when He made the world from what He was when
He was not making it.
The very fact that Methodius deals first with ontological dependence
clearly implies that he understands the real origins of Origen’s view of
the eternity of the world. Therefore, it would be wrong to conclude that

94341_OrigDeci_46_Cvetkovic_0.indd 797 5/07/11 09:58

 798 V. CVETKOVIC

Methodius interprets Origen’s speculation as arising from the eternity

of matter as Patterson did25. By liberating God from the dependence on
the world, Methodius opens the possibility to regard created things not
as “without beginning” or “coeternal”, but as having a temporal
“beginning”. Thus, Methodius launches an attack on the position that
things could be called created, even if they did not have their begin-
ning. The beginning of the world is a proof that things are created, and
if they are created they must be created by some cause because it is
hard to imagine existence without cause. Thus, Methodius concludes
that if the world was created it did not exist before. Therefore the cre-
ation that has a beginning could not be coexistent with its cause or God.
The alternative to this is to allow that the world is uncreated. This
would suggest that the world is unchangeable and perfect in itself, and
without need of anything. Methodius develops this idea into the argu-
ment based on the analogy between God and a sculptor and the world
and a statue. According to Methodius, the consequence of uncreated,
perfect and eternal world would be its incapability of change. There-
fore, the eternity of the world, even at the level of ideal existence, is
closely tied up with ideas of perfection and independence and it chal-
lenges the role of the Creator because there is nothing to add to perfect
nature that exists from eternity.
In his De libero arbitrio, Methodius poses the same question regarding
the possibility for God to be a creator, but in a totally different context,
where it serves more to the purpose of the refutation of the Gnostic
views, than it attempts to deal with the possible consequences of Origen-
istic teaching. Methodius uses the same analogy of God and the artist like
in the De creatis, but with a different purpose. Methodius argues that a
human artisan by fashioning in the existing substances is capable to cre-
ate something that did not exist in substances before. Therefore, accord-
ing to the bishop of Olympus declaring that God is just a creator of
properties from the pre-existing matter is reducing divine omnipotence
to the status of a human artisan. Methodius concludes that is unaccepta-
ble to think of God as Creator if He did not create both properties and
substances (12, 10-11).
These two arguments about God from the De libero arbitrio and De
creatis are different aspects of one and the same argument that God is
not a creator if He works in something which possesses substances and
properties from eternity.

25. L.G. PATTERSON, The Creation of the Word in Methodius’ Symposium, in Studia
Patristica 9 (1966) 240-250, pp. 247-248.

94341_OrigDeci_46_Cvetkovic_0.indd 798 5/07/11 09:58

 FROM ADAMANTIUS TO CENTAUR 799

2. The Providential Role of the Son

The next argument from the De creatis describes the role of the Son
in creation. This argument is usually associated with Arius, who applied
a similar logic not against the eternal creation of the world like Metho-
dius did, but against the eternal creation of the Son. The real purpose of
this argument is to distinguish between the creational and the providential
role of God.
Methodius clearly shows that God created the world, firstly by His will
and secondly out of nothing in the following words:
We said there are two kinds of formative power in what we have now
acknowledged; the one which works by itself what it chooses, not out of
things which already exist, by its bare will, without delay, as soon as it
wills. This is the power of the Father. The other which adorns and embel-
lishes, by imitation of the former, things which already exist. This is the
power of the Son, the almighty and powerful hand of the Father, by which,
after creating matter not out of things which were already in existence, He
adorns it26.

By the phrase that God “creates by Himself what He chooses” Metho-

dius is keen to show that God has absolute freedom in creation. God does
not encounter any restrictions, either in the form ideal pattern or the
preexistent material. Methodius’s emphasis that God creates through bare
will is another very important element, which completely frees God from
the necessity to create. If the creation is an act of will, the existence of
the world is accidental and not necessary; it is a kind of gift of God.
Finally, Methodius’ words “without delay, as soon as God wills” show
his awareness of the issue of the idle God. By denying any delay between
a divine decision to make the world and the actual act of making it,
Methodius provides an answer to the question “why not sooner”. Thus,
God did not change his will by deciding to create, but His changeless will
was to create as soon as he wanted to create. The second formative
power, or the Son, shows more about the nature of the relationship
between God and the world. The passage “the other is that which adorns
and embellishes, by imitation of the former, things that already exist” is
usually interpreted in terms of the subordination of the Son to the Father.
For Patterson this passage does not only resemble Gnostic and Origenis-
tic teachings about the Son as a semi-God or an instrument of the Father
in creation, but also Methodius’ proto-Arian stance27. However, such an
interpretation is highly unlikely because Methodius’ intention here is to

26. Methodius, De creatis 9 (ANF 6, 381); (GCS 27, 498).

27. PATTERSON, The Creation of the Word (n. 25), p. 240.

94341_OrigDeci_46_Cvetkovic_0.indd 799 5/07/11 09:58

 800 V. CVETKOVIC

show that God did not abandon the world after creating it, but the world
is still the subject of His providential care. Therefore, by conferring the
governmental and providential role to the Son, Methodius does not in any
way challenge the power of the Son because it is clearly stated that He
is Almighty (pantadúnamov). The bishop of Olympus rather proves that
the world is dependent on the Son’s divine power, which keeps it in
existence. This is not the only place, where Methodius stresses the prov-
idential role of God. In the De resurrectione, Methodius describes the
Son as “the first-born of God, the parent and artificer of all things, [who]
brings forth everything into the world; whom the ancients called Nature
and Providence, because she, with constant provision and care, gives to
all things birth and growth”28. Even the interpretation of the theme of
tabernacle in the Symposium 9,1, which according to Patterson clearly
shows Methodius dependence on Origen’s grand scheme of the spiritual
history of the fall and the restoration of the souls, points to the governing
role of the Son. Methodius pursues the same argument like in the De
creatis, commencing with the quotation from Gen 2,1-2 about the rest of
God on the seventh day of creation. The rest does not signify that God
has finished the world and that the Fest of Tabernacle mentioned in the
Lev 23,39-43 has come. Thus, Methodius claims that:
For even now God is still creating by His omnipotent will and inscrutable
power: the earth still yields its fruit, the waters still gather together into
their receptacles, light is still being divided from the darkness, the number
of man is still growing through the creation…29.

The recurrences of the same themes and the arguments usually scrip-
turally based, like it is the case with the interpretation of the Gen 2,1-2,
show that Methodius is consistent in his views on creation from his early
to his late writings.
As Patterson remarks, the chain of Methodius’ conclusions does not
necessarily deals with authentic aspects of Origen. They are arranged as
a support for the refutation of the axiom that God is almighty only if He
exercise authority over the world, which exists from the eternity30. How-
ever, Methodius does not attribute all the views against which he argues
to Origen, but he rather sees them as implications of Origen’s aforemen-
tioned axiom. He neither reads Origen’s position as an interpretation of
the cosmological picture of Plato’s Timaeus similar to the one given by
Atticus or Plutarch, where the “creation” is a rearrangement of preexist-

28. Methodius, De resurrectione 1.15 (ANF 6, 369).

29. Methodius, Symposium 9.1 (ACW 27, 132-133); (GCS 27, 114).
30. PATTERSON, Methodius of Olympus (n. 1), p. 213.

94341_OrigDeci_46_Cvetkovic_0.indd 800 5/07/11 09:58

 FROM ADAMANTIUS TO CENTAUR 801

ent matter. On the contrary, the implication of Origen’s axiom of God’s

omnipotence, as Methodius sees it, is the eternal existence of another
reality, which has the principle of its existence not in God but in itself.
Therefore, Methodius deals exactly with the Origenistic state of affairs
because the myth about the monad that preexisted from eternity and the
subsequent fall of rational beings from the unity with God reveal the
inner discrepancy of Origen’s position: namely how something perfect
and unchangeable, which exists from eternity with God, and on which
God exercises His power is capable of change? This was not only a ques-
tion asked by Methodius, but every subsequent critic of Origen from
Gregory of Nyssa to Maximus the Confessor pointed out this matter.
Therefore, it seems a bit naive to claim that Methodius’ misrepresentation
of Origen that became highly influential shortly after his death, led to the
condemnation of the latter at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 55331.

V. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, Methodius’ criticism of Origen was not a matter of

academic dispute, but it rather had a corrective purpose because Origen
in the eyes of the bishop of Olympus strayed to heterodoxy in some
of his teachings. Even if Methodius disagreed with Origen, the great
Alexandrian remained for him a ‘man of the Church’, as Methodius
claimed it in the De resurrectione, one of his most critical works on
Origen. What is relevant for us here is not whether or when did Metho-
dius turn from Origenism to anti-Origenism, but whether Methodius
changed his teaching on creation drastically to such extent that his later
writings contradict his earlier writings on this issue. The fact that Metho-
dius argued against the eternal creation and preexistence of matter from
the first until the last work in the same way proves that he had from the
beginning a very precise and consistent doctrine of creation. He was
always a severe critic of the elements taken from the Greek philosophical
tradition that contradict the Christian teaching on creation. Therefore,
whether Methodius attacks Gnostics by criticizing the Platonic myth con-
cerning the preexisted matter in their teachings or he argues against
Origen’s usage of middle-Platonic idea of eternal creation, the bishop of
Olympus is always refuting pagan philosophical ideas inconsistent with

31. Ibid., p. 218. See also L. TURCESCU, Review of: Methodius of Olympus: Divine
Sovereignty, Human Freedom, and Life in Christ by L. G. Patterson, in Church History
67 (1998) 121-123, p. 123.

94341_OrigDeci_46_Cvetkovic_0.indd 801 5/07/11 09:58

 802 V. CVETKOVIC

biblical beliefs. Methodius, as a good disciple of Origen in matters of

biblical interpretation, attempts to correct his teacher by offering an alter-
native interpretation of the relevant biblical passages that deal with the
issue of creation. Therefore, Methodius’ alleged misrepresentation of
Origen that led to the condemnation of the latter is not a real issue. The
real issue is that Methodius’ corrective criticism of Origen could not
prevent Origen’s readers to go astray by following the great Alexandrian.
Nevertheless, Origen remained a man of the Church for Methodius.

Faculty of Theology Vladimir CVETKOVIC

University of Aarhus
Bygning 1443
Tåsingegade 3
8000 Århus C
Denmark
vc@teo.au.dk

94341_OrigDeci_46_Cvetkovic_0.indd 802 5/07/11 09:58