00 scheck front:Layout 1 - University of Notre Dameundpress/excerpts/P01197-ex.pdfORIGEN and the...

ORIGENand the Historyof Justification

The Legacy of Origen’s

Commentary on Romans

THOMAS P. SCHECKForeword by Joseph T. Lienhard, S.J.

University of Notre Dame Press

Notre Dame, Indiana

© 2008 University of Notre Dame Press

Copyright © 2008 by University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame, Indiana 46556

www.undpress.nd.edu

All Rights Reserved

Manufactured in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Scheck, Thomas P., 1964 –

Origen and the history of justification : the legacy of Origen’s commentary on

Romans / Thomas P. Scheck.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN-13: 978-0-268-04128-1 (cloth : alk. paper)

ISBN-10: 0-268-04128-8 (cloth : alk. paper)

1. Origen. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.

2. Bible. N.T. Romans—Commentaries. I. Title.

BS2665.53S34 2008

227'.106092—dc22

2008000407

This book is printed on recycled paper.

Scheck sample to comp 1/18/08 2:45 PM Page iv


I n t r o d u c t i o n

In his magnum opus, Medieval Exegesis, Henri de Lubac stated that thefull significance of Rufinus of Aquileia’s Latin translations of Origen forthe development of Christian thought and Western culture has not yetbeen fully measured.1 For me Lubac’s words constitute a challenge, andI hope that the following investigation will contribute in a small way tomeasuring the influence of one of Rufinus’s most important Latin trans-lations, that of Origen’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (hereafterCRm). The following table shows the approximate length of Origen’s majorwritings.

Table 1. Approximate Length of Origen’s Major Extant Works (According tothe Latin Text That Appears in Migne)2

Title of Work Number of Columns in Migne (with ancient Latin translator) (PG 11– 17)

*Against Celsus 493

Commentary on Romans (Rufinus) 455

*Commentary on John 405

*Commentary on Matthew

(on Mt 16.13– 22.33) 382

On First Principles I–IV (Rufinus) 296

Homilies on Numbers (Rufinus) 220

Commentary Series on Matthew

(on Mt 22.24– 27.66) 199

[traditionally called Homilies]

Homilies on Leviticus (Rufinus) 169

1


Table 1. Approximate Length of Origen’s Major Extant Works (continued)

Title of Work Number of Columns in Migne (with ancient Latin translator) (PG 11– 17)

Commentary on the Song of Songs (Rufinus) 136

Homilies on Joshua (Rufinus) 123

Homilies on Genesis (Rufinus) 117

*Homilies on Jeremiah (Jerome) 107

Homilies on Exodus (Rufinus) 100

Homilies on Luke (Jerome) 99

Homilies on Ezekiel (Jerome) 96

Homilies on Psalms 36– 38 (Rufinus) 90

*On Prayer 73

Pamphilus’s Apology for Origen (Rufinus) 72

Homilies on Judges (Rufinus) 40

*On Martyrdom 36

Homilies on the Song of Songs (Jerome) 21

Homily on 1 Samuel (Rufinus) 17

Spurious Works Attributed to Origen:

Anonymous Commentary on Job 149

*Dialogue of Adamantius on the

Orthodox Faith (Rufinus) 85

*Indicates that the work survives in its entirety in Greek as well

In spite of its stature as the second-longest extant work of Origen, sec-ond only to Contra Celsum, and as the longest of Origen’s surviving scrip-tural commentaries, Origen’s CRm has been seriously neglected as thesubject of research. It received some attention in the twentieth centurybut not a great deal. As late as 1988 Crouzel could still call it the parentpauvre, “the poor relation,” of Origen’s works and the most neglected ofhis writings.3 Even more recently Kovacs observed that “today Origen’s

2 Origen and the History of Justification


exegesis of Paul is largely unknown.”4 And if Origen’s exegesis of Paul islargely unknown, the legacy, or Nachleben, of Origen’s exegesis of Romanswould seem to be an even riper field of research and one that is longoverdue. Wagner had stated in 1945, “The question of the use made ofRufinus’ translations during later antiquity and the Middle Ages wouldbear systematic study. Hints on this point are not difficult to find.”5 Thisstate of affairs justifies an in-depth examination of Origen’s exegesis ofRomans followed by a study of the reception of Origen’s views in selecttheologians in the Latin West.

The Use of Rufinus’s Version

Origen’s CRm was originally written in Greek between 244 and 246.6 Ori-gen himself refers to it in his Commentary on Matthew 17.32 and Cels 5.47and 8.65. The Greek text was known to St. Jerome (cf. Eps 36, 121),7 St.Basil (De Spiritu Sancto 29.73), and the church historian Socrates (HE7.32.17).8 Fragments of the Greek original are preserved in the Philocalia,9

the Catena,10 and the Tura papyri.11 Didymus the Blind (313–98) drew onOrigen’s Greek exegesis of Romans in his work Contra Manichaeos.12 Theanonymous commentator on Paul, writing around the year 400, also usedthe Greek text of Origen,13 as did Pamphilus of Caesarea in his Apology forOrigen. Apart from these references, to my knowledge the Greek versionof Origen’s CRm had little direct influence.14 However, Rufinus’s Latintranslation of Origen’s CRm (406) had an extremely significant Nach-leben,15 far more significant than has hitherto been imagined. It appearsto me that Heither’s statement that Origen’s interpretation of Paul waswithout subsequent influence in the Church is seriously mistaken.16 Thecontext suggests that what she means is that Origen’s central interpreta-tion of Paul’s message, as she understands it, was lost to later view, but evenso the statement cannot stand. This topic will be the subject of the secondhalf of this book (chapters 2–7). For it was the Latin Origen’s Pauline exe-gesis that was transmitted to the West.17

My primary focus in this study is on “Rufinus’s Origen” and the legacyof Rufinus’s Origen. I will not endeavor to determine the original Greekwording of Origen’s expressions, or whether a given statement of theLatin Origen may in fact be a gloss of Rufinus. Such a task would require

Introduction 3


a separate study of the Greek fragments of Origen’s commentary, togetherwith an examination of the entire corpus of Origen’s writings. In anycase, T. Heither has done that task in large measure on texts that are rele-vant to this study.18 My aim instead is to move the discussion forward intothe Latin theological tradition and to analyze its engagement with the LatinOrigen. This is the aspect of Origen scholarship that has been seriouslyneglected. This will be more an investigation into Rezeptionsgeschichtethan Geschichte. The question of determining the historical authenticity ofthe views expressed in Rufinus’s translation is an important and indeedcomplex one, but it is not mine.

On the other hand, I would still like to make a few brief remarks con-cerning the reliability of Rufinus’s translation with respect to Origen’sdiscussions of justification. In the past some theologians have entirelydenied the authenticity of the discussions of justification in Origen’s com-mentary. In 1930 Völker declared confidently: “Origen never speaks ofjustification from faith, for the discussions in the CRm are hardly authen-tic.”19 Even apart from any other evidence, the suggestion that Origenwould “never speak” of a biblical theme like justification by faith strikesme as doubtful. Völker’s particular assertion has been proved false by thearchaeological discovery of the Tura papyri in 1941.20 These papyri containlong Greek excerpts from the original commentary, including extensivediscussions of justification by faith. Even texts where Origen speaks of“justification by faith alone” have been preserved.21

Prior to Völker, many German scholars were interested solely in recov-ering the alleged verba ipsissima of Origen and were deeply suspicious ofRufinus’s translations. Only the Greek fragments, or very little of Rufi-nus’s translations, were used as sources for Origen’s thought. It is truethat Völker used Rufinus’s translations more freely than did his predeces-sors. He encouraged scholars to study Origen’s homilies that have beenpreserved in Latin translations by Jerome and Rufinus, an exhortationthat fell on deaf ears, according to Lubac.22 But Völker was still quite dis-trustful of Rufinus, as the above citation proves. In some cases Protestantswere hostile to those who mined Rufinus’s Latin translations for informa-tion about Origen and denounced the efforts of Roman Catholic scholarsto form a “dogmatically correct” picture of Origen’s doctrine of justifica-tion based on Rufinus’s version. Völker criticized Wörter on this issue, andMolland reproached Verfaillie for the same reason.23



In large measure this minimalist approach to the use of Rufinus’stranslations as a source of Origen’s thought has been challenged and sub-stantially overcome in recent years through the efforts of such scholarsas Balthasar, Chadwick, Cocchini, Crouzel, Danièlou, Hammond Bammel,Heither, Lubac, Roukema, and Schelkle. None of these scholars denies thatRufinus’s translations contain post-Nicene Rufinian glosses, especially onChristological and Trinitarian passages, nor do I deny this. But they insistthat Rufinus should still be extensively used as a source for Origen’sthought. In the specific case of Origen’s CRm, the Tura find was of suchdecisive significance that Völker’s and Molland’s dismissive approach toRufinus’s version had to be completely abandoned. Roukema, for example,prefaced his recent study of Origen’s CRm with the words “The opinionswhich were held before the publication of the Tura papyrus will be left outof consideration, since this text has thrown a new light on Rufinus’ ver-sion.”24 It seems probable to me that most of the Origenian explanationsthat are discussed in this book are traceable to Origen himself, albeit in anew form of language and theological context.25 Of the theologians whoare investigated in chapters 2–7, only Erasmus had hesitations about thereliability of Rufinus’s translation of Origen’s CRm, and his scruples didnot touch the majority of passages that are examined here. In any case,since my focus is on the Latin Origen and his legacy, the reader, and inparticular the patristic scholar, is welcome to supply “Rufinus’s Origen”wherever I speak of “Origen.”

Parameters of This Investigation

This book is divided into two parts: a lengthy first chapter, in which Ori-gen’s views on justification are analyzed and discussed; and chapters 2–7,in which the legacy of Origen’s interpretations is investigated. I haveendeavored to make the initial chapter foundational for the remainderof the investigation. However, because each subsequent Latin theologianresponds differently to Origen’s CRm and calls attention to differentaspects of Origen’s Pauline interpretation, at times I have discussed impor-tant texts from Origen’s CRm in later chapters which are not mentionedin the first chapter. For example, Origen’s interpretation of Rom 5.12(the transmission of original sin) is discussed in chapters 2 (Pelagius),

Introduction 5


3 (Augustine) and 4 (William), but not in chapter 1. (I have avoided dis-cussing this topic in chapter 5 on Erasmus, even though there would havebeen significant material for reflection here, as R. Sider, the translatorand editor of Erasmus’s Annotations on Romans has shown.26 Likewise,Origen’s depiction of Paul as a tour guide of a king’s palace whose com-mission is to reveal partially the divine mysteries and recruit an army forthe king is discussed only in chapter 5 on Erasmus, who found this com-parison instructive. Moreover, Origen’s texts that comment on Romans 1(“God handed them over”) and Romans 9 (predestination, the meaningof the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart) are engaged outside of chapter 1. Thefirst chapter focuses primarily on Origen’s understanding of justification,faith, and works, with an excursus on Origen’s doctrine of grace.

The initial chapter on Origen’s doctrine of justification shows thatOrigen’s anti-Gnostic, anti-Marcion polemic is determinative for some ofhis theological emphases, especially his focus on interpreting Paul as anuntiring defender of the free choice of the will. Yet the anti-Gnosticpolemic is not the sole grounds for Origen’s views. The heart of Origen’sinterpretation of Romans is direct reflection on Paul’s text interpretedcanonically and ecclesiastically. The main result of this rather lengthyexamination is the confirmation of Rivière’s thesis, that Origen stressesthe intimate connection of faith and good works as the two complemen-tary conditions of salvation that must not be separated. Marcion was thefirst “Christian” to assert that God will not weigh the Christian’s works inthe judgment. In the face of Marcion’s denials, Origen contends for theunity of justice, holiness, and mercy in the one God, which implies thatthe Christian’s good and evil works will be recompensed. Yet Origenregards this teaching as a part of the deposit of faith and not merely areaction against heretics. That is to say, Origen believed that the Rule ofFaith, tracing back to the apostles, upheld the doctrine that good worksdone freely have meritorious value and secure eternal life for the baptizedChristian. Conversely, evil works, including those done by believers, willmerit punishment. The first chapter concludes with an excursus coveringmodern assessments of Origen’s doctrine of grace and his relation toAugustinian and Pelagian theology.

The rest of the book comprises six chapters that investigate Origen’slegacy in the West as an interpreter of Romans. On the matter of justifi-cation, I have found that Origen’s discussions cleared a path for later



theologians who likewise attempted to demonstrate harmony between theideas of Paul and James. Origen supplied material for exegesis that wasextensively exploited by subsequent theologians. I examine in some detailthe use of Origen by seven theologians: Pelagius, Augustine, William ofSt. Thierry, Erasmus, Melanchthon, Richard Montagu, and, to a lesserdegree, Cornelius Jansen.

Pelagius was a natural choice, since he was Rufinus’s contemporaryand the first Latin theologian to engage Origen’s interpretations of Paulin their Latin garb. Pelagius’s own Commentary on Romans itself became aclassic work in the West in a revised form (with orthodox interpolations).It was transmitted pseudonymously, and its authorship by Pelagius wasunknown until the twentieth century. Apart from a few “Pelagianizing”blemishes that focus on the doctrine of transmission of sin from Adam(Rom 5.12), it was received in the Catholic tradition as a highly instructiveand concise interpretation of Romans. Since it is infused with Origen’sPauline interpretations, the exercise of clarifying Pelagius’s indebtednessto Origen is worthwhile in its own right.

Chapter 2 will provide a snapshot of Pelagius, focusing on his Com-mentary on Romans, rather than a comprehensive study of all his extantwritings; it will show the extent of Pelagius’s borrowings from Origen andthe themes around which these borrowings center. Also included are sig-nificant discussions of texts from Origen’s CRm not mentioned in thefirst chapter, especially ones pertaining to the interpretation of Rom 5.12and the doctrine of original sin. I endeavor to interpret Pelagius fairly andsympathetically, though I still find grounds for agreeing with St. Augus-tine, who upon reading Pelagius’s CRm immediately reproached the authorfor a faulty understanding of the transmission of sin.

The third chapter focuses on Augustine’s possible use of Origen’s CRm.The importance of this Church Father should be obvious. My researchfollows the path taken by Bammel, who endeavored to show that Augus-tine did not neglect the Latin Origen’s exegesis of Paul. In some respects,the result is surprising: Augustine viewed the Latin Origen as an ally in thewar against Pelagius’s understanding of the transmission of sin. On theother hand, Augustine’s theological framework is independent and decid-edly different from Origen’s, especially in his later anti-Pelagian period.There are clear tensions in their respective Pauline interpretations. Still,Augustine was ready to learn from Origen as a Pauline exegete, and his

Introduction 7


dissent does not focus on Origen’s explanation of the constitutive role thatfaith and postbaptismal good works play in justification, or in Origen’sconception of justification as a renovation in the virtues.

In his last works, Augustine explicitly defines Origen’s departuresfrom orthodoxy, and his exposé focuses on Origen’s eschatology, doctrineof creation, and doctrine of souls. I argue that for all his explicit andimplicit disagreements with Origen’s understanding of Paul, Augustinedoes not focus his most serious criticisms of Origen’s theology on Ori-gen’s exegesis of Romans. This is an important result, for it shows a cleardistinction between Augustine and the Protestant Reformers, Luther andMelanchthon, who claimed to be loyal Augustinians.

The fourth chapter focuses on William of St. Thierry, an importantthough somewhat neglected Augustinian theologian of the twelfth cen-tury. In this chapter I first show how the ground was prepared for a favor-able reception of Origen’s exegesis of Romans in the Middle Ages whenSt. Jerome implicitly endorsed it in his own Pauline commentaries, andCassiodorus explicitly approved it in his Institutiones. As a result manymedieval theologians exploited the Latin Origen’s exegesis of Paul. Thischapter contains the most detailed textual analysis of any chapter in thisbook, since William’s exposition lends itself to this sort of analysis.William’s extensive use of the Latin Origen exemplifies the way a deeplycommitted Augustinian theologian was capable of receiving Origen in afriendly manner as an interpreter of Paul. Indeed, in his preface Williamassociates Origen with Ambrose and Augustine as a doctor of the Church.While borrowing massively from Origen’s exegesis in his own, particu-larly for the explanation of Romans 1–6, William nevertheless keeps hispredominantly Augustinian theological framework intact. The way hedoes this is by glossing his plagiarisms from Origen with Augustine’santi-Pelagian insights. The result is a new and original synthesis that capi -talizes on what William regards as Origen’s best insights, while preserv-ing the structures of the late Augustine’s doctrine of grace. This chapteralso contains discussions of important texts from Origen’s CRm that arenot mentioned in the first chapter, especially pertaining to Romans 1 and9, the themes of divine election and reprobation. William exemplifiesthe possibility of an “Augustinian” reception of Origen’s Pauline exegesis.William’s favorable reception of Origen’s exegesis stands out in dramatic



contrast with the programmatic rejection of Origen that is found in theprofessedly Augustinian theologians Luther, Melanchthon, and Jansen.

The fifth chapter focuses on the great patrologist Erasmus of Rotter-dam. Erasmus admired Origen as one of the greatest of the ancientexegetes of Romans and assimilated a massive amount of Origen’s exege-sis into his own interpretations of Romans. However, he did not do so inthe plagiarizing manner that William had adopted. Erasmus was the mas-ter of the Origenian material, whereas William had been more of a ser-vant of Origen’s interpretations. Following Godin, I first identify some ofthe basic principles of Erasmus’s reception of Origen’s Pauline exegesis.Then I compare his Paraphrase on Romans with Origen’s CRm. My aim isonce again to illustrate Origen’s substantial legacy in the West as an inter-preter of Paul. In contrast with the work of William, whose Exposition onRomans had no subsequent legacy, Erasmus’s biblical scholarship wasitself extremely influential in both Catholic and Protestant circles. Thusthrough him Origen’s voice was heard and it exerted an indirect influence(though this influence is not discussed here).

Chapter 5 also contains a significant excursus covering Origen’s legacyamong Erasmus’s predecessors in the fifteenth century and his contem-poraries in the sixteenth century. I have also appended a discussion of thefirst printed editions of Origen’s writings. This excursus demonstrateshow access to Origen’s writings was obtained during this period. Also,this material shows that Erasmus was the heir of an Origen renaissanceand not its principal instigator, an all too common misconception. More-over, I contend that Erasmus was no “Origenist,” as he is often described;rather he endeavored to retrieve the best of the entire Greek and Latinexegetical tradition, and his reception of Origen was largely determinedby the principle of patristic consensus.

The sixth chapter attempts to provide an answer to the question thatP. Grech posed in what is probably the most important article in Englishon Origen’s doctrine of justification in his CRm, namely, “How wouldthe Reformers have accepted Origen’s exegesis?”27 Because Luther andMelanchthon represent a fulcrum moment in the history of interpreta-tion of Romans in the West, namely the Protestant Reformation, I treatthe matter in some detail. The answer to Grech’s question is basicallythat they radically and programmatically rejected the basic structures of

Introduction 9


Origen’s exegesis of Paul and accused it of being “Pelagian,” or rather,anti-Christian. But according to Luther’s own account of his conversionexperience, his discovery of a new and unprecedented understanding ofRomans was determinative for his attitude toward the Church Fathers andhis assessment of the value of ancient Christian exegesis. Under Luther’sdecisive influence, Melanchthon crafted a theoretical justification forthe Lutheran Reformation in the form of a decadence theory of Churchhistory. This theory was later perpetuated in the Lutheran Centuries ofMagdeburg. According to Melanchthon, Origen’s faulty exegesis of Romansplays a decisive role in the corruption of the Church’s understanding ofthe Pauline “gospel.” He argues that the Protestant schism is the onlylegitimate answer to such corruption.

My analysis of Melanchthon’s critique of Origen shows that the essen-tial criticism turns on Origen’s doctrine of justification, not his doctrineof grace or his practice of allegorical exegesis. Moreover, Melanchthon’scritique of Origen on this doctrine is identical with his critique of his con-temporary Catholic opponents, of St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Augustinehimself. The evidence strongly suggests that the Lutheran Reformationwas not directed merely against medieval Catholicism. Instead, Lutherand Melanchthon viewed the corruption of medieval theology to be of apiece with the corruption of ancient Christian exegesis, as exemplifiedespecially by Origen, and embracing St. Jerome’s interpretation of Paul,but by no means excluding Augustine’s. In short, the Lutheran Reforma-tion was Luther’s Reformation, not Augustine’s. Though carried out pub-licly in the name of Augustine as a battle against medieval corruptions,it was privately acknowledged, by both Luther and Melanchthon, to bedirected against St. Augustine’s own interpretation of Paul.

The final chapter surveys the reception of Origen’s Pauline exegesisin post-Reformation controversies. After briefly mentioning the use ofOrigen’s CRm by late sixteenth century Protestants, I then treat in moredetail an early seventeenth-century polemical exchange between a Jesuit-influenced Catholic lay apologist, John Heigham, and his Anglican oppo-nent, Bishop Richard Montagu. The latter theologian’s amiable receptionof Origen stands out in stark contrast with Luther and Melanchthon’s.This shows, of course, that Protestantism was not univocal in its attitudetoward Origen as an exegete of Paul. Indeed, in a surpising text discov-ered in the course of my research, Montagu declares Origen to be the



“perfect Protestant,” and he says this precisely of the doctrine that Lutherand Melanchthon believed was Origen’s gravest error, namely justifica-tion by faith. Montagu’s importance is in the many ways he representsand anticipates the friendly reception of ancient Christian exegesis foundin an important sector of Protestantism which is clearly distinguishablefrom the Lutheran and Calvinist branches, namely that of anti-CalvinistAnglicanism and Continental Arminianism. In many ways Montagu alsoanticipates the later Anglo-Catholic movement of the nineteenth century.

This chapter concludes with a look at Cornelius Jansen’s Augustinus, inwhich we encounter another decadence theory that is riveted on Origen’sCRm. Like Melanchthon, Jansen accuses Origen’s CRm of being a fatalsource of “Pelagian” theology. But Jansen’s understanding of “Pelagian-ism” is totally different from Melanchthon’s, whose definition in turn dif-fers from Augustine’s. Jansen’s accusation of Origen turns on Origen’sdoctrine of grace and his interpretation of Romans 9 (predestination asforeknowledge, the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart). At this point in theinvestigation, I briefly discuss the Molinist doctrine of election post prae-visa merita in order to show that one of the accusations that Jansen raisesagainst Origen also lands on prominent Jesuit theologians who wereJansen’s contemporaries. This indicates that Jansen’s understanding of“Pelagian” is broader than that of the Catholic Church for it embracespositions that the Church (at least the Roman Catholic Church) does notcondemn as “Pelagian.” This is also confirmed by the fact that the Magis-terium censured Jansen’s book. That Origen was still the focus of muchdiscussion during these intra-Church controversies demonstrates theongoing legacy of Origen’s interpretations.

This book aims to cover the major periods in the history of Christianthought; though this means that many important theologians had to beleft out of the discussion.

The Complementarity of Faith and Works

The thesis of chapter 1 is that Origen demonstrates the intimate connec-tion of faith and good works as the two complementary conditions of sal-vation that must not be separated. I find solid reasons for agreeing withVerfaillie that Origen’s doctrine of justification anticipates the principal

Introduction 11


affirmations of the Council of Trent’s decree on justification. For chap-ters 2–7, I argue that Origen’s discussions of justification assisted laterCatholic theologians in demonstrating the equal necessity of faith andpostbaptismal good works for justification. Furthermore, I demonstratethat Origen’s legacy in the West as an interpreter of Paul was very sub-stantial. Catholic theologians generally read and explained Paul’s Letterto the Romans under the tutelage of the Latin Origen. Clearly, Origen’sPauline interpretation exerted a massive direct influence on Pelagius,William, and Erasmus. This is not to say that Catholic theologians receivedOrigen as an unassailable and infallible authority on Paul. On the con-trary, Origen’s interpretations were always susceptible to disagreement,criticism, and even reproach; but Origen’s Pauline exegesis was generallyreceived as Catholic exegesis. Although his anti-Pelagian theological sys-tem stands in significant tension with some of Origen’s Pauline interpre-tations, even Augustine did not make Origen’s CRm the principal locus ofOrigen’s errors. Moreover, on the theme of justification, faith, and works,Augustine does not differ substantially from Origen. Furthermore, that athoroughgoing Augustinian theologian like William of St. Thierry couldstill adopt so much of Origen’s Pauline exegesis throughout his exposi-tion of Romans 1–6 shows that even Augustinians had found a way of sub-stantially receiving Origen as a guide to the interpretation of Romans.

Luther and Melanchthon mark a significant aberration in this patternin that they were the first to identify Origen’s Pauline exegesis as the prin-cipal source of Origen’s errors, indeed as the source of deformation thatjustified their reformation. Their radical challenge to Origen’s stature asan interpreter of Paul focused on the conviction that Origen had funda-mentally misunderstood Paul’s doctrine of justification and the law/gospeldistinction. In a similar manner, Cornelius Jansen viewed Origen’s CRmas the fountainhead of Pelagianism, but in Jansen’s opinion this wasowing to Origen’s allegedly faulty understanding of predestination andgrace. Yet the mere fact that such sweeping criticisms of Origen’s CRmarose and that such decadence theories were spawned confirms my thesisconcerning the significant legacy of Origen’s commentary in the West. Foreven Origen’s enemies were unable to remain neutral about his Paulineexegesis and were forced to engage it.



00 scheck front:Layout 1 - University of Notre Dameundpress/excerpts/P01197-ex.pdfORIGEN and the...

Documents

Transcript of 00 scheck front:Layout 1 - University of Notre Dameundpress/excerpts/P01197-ex.pdfORIGEN and the...