7/30/2019 1205319

1/21

Eustathius of Antioch's Attack on Origen: What Is at Issue in an Ancient Controversy?Author(s): Joseph W. TriggSource: The Journal of Religion, Vol. 75, No. 2 (Apr., 1995), pp. 219-238Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1205319Accessed: 13/04/2010 11:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

Journal of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1205319?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1205319?origin=JSTOR-pdf

7/30/2019 1205319

2/21

Eustathius of Antioch's Attack onOrigen: What Is at Issue in an AncientControversy?*JosephW.Trigg / ChristChurch,PortTobacco arish,La Plata, Maryland

May we not see in Saul's desperate calling up of Samuel fromthe dead, and in the irony of the old prophet's ghost being ableto tell Saul only what he already knew, an image of those schol-ars who would penetrate behind the veil of the Bible's words tothe truth beneath, only to find there what they knew already?[GABRIELOSIPOVICI]'"Having often been astonished by evidences of your piety, I marvel mostat this instance of it, that you request an accurate account of my opinionconcerning the medium whose story is narrated in the first book of theKings, for you say that you are not pleased with what Origen publishedon this subject." Thus, Eustathius, bishop of Beroea in Syria, writing dur-ing the decade after the end of the Great Persecution in 312, introducedthe subject of a treatise evidently solicited by an otherwise unknown col-league, Eutrophius, "most excellent sacred herald of orthodoxy." On theMedium,the extensive work that follows, takes Origen to task for his inter-pretation, in a homily, of 1 Sam. 28.2Although obscure enough now, Eus-

*I wish to thankAngelaChristmanand WilliamS. Stafford or theirpatientand helpfulcriticismof thisarticleduringits preparation.1Gabriel Josipovici, TheBookof God:A Responseo the Bible (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Uni-versityPress,1989),p. 28.2 Eustathius'sOn theMediumhas been edited and translatedby ManlioSimonetti(seeManlioSimonetti,ed. and trans.,LamagadiEndor,BibliotecaPatristica 5 [Florence:Nar-dini Editore,1989]).Origen'shomilyhasbeen edited and translatedby PierreNautinandMarie-ThereseNautin (see Pierre Nautin and Marie-Th6erseNautin, eds. and trans.,HomeliesurSamuel, ourcesChretiennes SC]328 [Paris:LesEditionsdu Cerf,1986]).Thediscoveryof fragmentsof Origen'shomilyat Tura means that the earliereditionsby A.Jahn(Texteund Untersuchungen urGeschichteder altchristlichen iteratur , 4 [Leipzig,1886])andby ErichKlostermannKleineTexte83 [1912])havebeen superseded.The ini-? 1995byThe University f Chicago.Allrightsreserved.0022-4189/95/7502-0003$01.00219

7/30/2019 1205319

3/21

The Journal of Religiontathius was a rising star in the Constantinian church, admired as a literarystylist and ecclesiastical statesman; in 325 his fellow bishops would accordhim, by that time bishop of Antioch, the preeminent position at the Coun-cil of Nicaea.3 Eustathius's contribution to theological debate in the earlyfourth century was his insistence, distinctive in the period, that Christ hada human soul. His staunch support of the homoousion led Constantine todepose him, probably in 331. Since he did not reclaim his see, as othersdid, when Constantine died in 337, we may assume that he himself haddied in the meantime.4 Eustathius set about his task with a vengeance.He accused the long-since-departed Origen of attempting to introducenecromancy and divination into the church and taunted him for alleg-edly repeating himself like a dotard and raving like a drunkard, as wellas for being "ingenious," "big-talking," "long-winded," "dogmatical,"and"senseless" and, in an ironic context, "very learned."5Eustathius's treatise, the first response by a theologian from Antioch toOrigen's exegesis, has attracted scholars who posit a distinctively Antio-chene school of Christian theology in opposition to a supposed Alexan-drian school. His insistence on Christ's full humanity, along with his op-position to Origen, makes it tempting to see him as a forebear of Diodoreof Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who shared both sentiments.Thus, R. V. Sellers wrote that "in his insistence on the literal, as againstthe allegorical, interpretation of the sacred writings, he is a true Antio-chene and a forerunner of later worthies of the same school of thought." 6Likewise, D. S. Wallace-Hadrill effectively treats Eustathius as a represen-

tial citations are from Eustathius On theMedium1.1 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., p. 94). Trans-lations are mine unless otherwise indicated.3On Eustathius's style, see Sozomen Historia Ecclesiastica2.19 (PatrologiaGraeca [PG]67:981C [Paris]). On his writings, see Jerome De VirisIllustribus85 (PatrologiaLatina [PL]23:671 [Paris]), and Epistula70.4 (PL 22:667). The modern reader may prefer R. P.C. Han-son's description of Eustathius's vaunted style as "pompous wordiness" (R. P.C. Hanson,TheSearchfortheChristianDoctrineof God[Edinburgh: T & T Clarke, 1988], p. 160).4 See Henry Chadwick, "The Fall of Eustathius of Antioch,"Journal of TheologicalStudies49 (1948): 27-38; and Hanson, Search,pp. 203-11, which summarizes his arguments from"The Fate of Eustathius of Antioch," ZeitschriftfiirKirchengeschichte5 (1948): 171-79.5 For desiring to bring in necromancy, blaspheming, repeating himself like an old man,and raving like a drunkard, see Eustathius On theMedium3.4, 17.3, 17.2, 20.2, 23.3 (Simo-netti, ed. and trans., pp. 102, 162, 160, 163). On other epithets of abuse, see Jon F Dechow,"Origen's 'Heresy': From Eustathius to Epiphanius," in OrigenianaQuarta,Die Referatedes 4.InternationalenOrigeneskongressesInnsbruck,2-6 September1985), ed. Lothar Lies, Inns-brucker Theologische Studien 19 (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1937), pp. 405-9. Frequent refer-ences to Origen as a dogmatizer (6oyaTOtaTog;)r as dogmatizing (6oytaTixcov) insinuate thathe makes up his own doctrines without regard for the established teaching of the church;see Simonetti, ed. and trans., pp. 211-12.6 R. V. Sellers, Eustathiusof Antiochand His Place in theHistoryof ChristianDoctrine(Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928), p. 81.

220

7/30/2019 1205319

4/21

Eustathius's Attack on Origentative Antiochene exegete in the same sense that Diodore of Tarsus, The-odore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus were.7 It is tempting tosee the great christological controversies of the fifth century as the resultof the clash between mentalities fostered over centuries by distinctive Al-exandrian and Antiochene schools, with the Antiochene appreciation forthe actual humanity of Jesus of Nazareth and for actual biblical historycoming face to face, at Ephesus and Chalcedon, with an Alexandrian ide-alism contemptuous of lived, human reality in either case. Nonetheless,a serious examination of Eustathius's treatise suggests that such an ap-proach distorts the complex reality of early Christian thought. To beginwith, although, as we shall see, Eustathius takes a swipe at Origen's alle-gory, he here attacks Origen for a literal interpretation. Other scholarswho have studied Eustathius closely, notably Michel Spanneut and Man-lio Simonetti, deny that Eustathius anticipates Diodore's opposition onprinciple to allegory.8The source of Eustathius's vehemence is, I intendto show, not repugnance to allegory, but a different mentality reflected indifferent theological concerns and, more fundamentally, a very differentunderstanding of the role of the Bible. An examination of how the twomen interpreted 1 Sam. 28 thus provides insight into why Origen, themost brilliant, learned, and influential thinker of the Greek theologicaltradition, never had a secure and honored place within it.The passage in dispute, 1 Sam. 28, is a magnificent specimen of biblicalnarrative. It opens with King Saul frantically seeking divine guidance.He had earlier sought, in obedience to God, to expel mediums and wiz-ards from Israel; now, with a Philistine army gathered against him, hegoes in disguise to ask a medium to summon the prophet Samuel fromthe dead. Ironically, he must swear not to betray her to Saul before shewill speak:11.Then the womansaid,"Whom hallI bring up foryou?"He answered,"Bringup Samuel for me."12.When the womansawSamuel,she cried out with a loudvoice;and the woman saidto Saul,"Whyhave you deceived me? Youare Saul!"

7 D. S. Wallace-Hadrill, ChristianAntioch:A Studyof EarlyChristianThoughtn the East (Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).8 Michel Spanneut, Recherchesur lesecritsd'Eustathed'AntiocheLille: Facultes Catholiques,1948), p. 62, justly points out that "s'il prend evidemment aux abus fait de l'allegorisme,jamais il ne ridicule la methode elle-meme." Simonetti sees the true and proper Antiochene"school"as beginning with Diodore (Manlio Simonetti, Letterae/oallegoria:Un contributo llastoriadell'esegesi atristica[Rome: Institutum Patristicum "Augustinianum," 1985], p. 124).Another recent historian, Christoph Schaublin, in his study of Antiochene exegesis(Christoph Schaublin, Untersuchungenu Methodund HerkunftderAntiochenischenExegese[Co-logne and Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1971]), passes over Eustathius in silence, seeking the rootsof the distinctively Antiochene approach to the Bible in Lucian, who lived a generationearlier.

221

7/30/2019 1205319

5/21

The Journal of Religion13. The Kingsaid to her,"Haveno fear;what do you see?"The woman said toSaul,"I see a divine being [D'n'7K,ranslated"gods" n the LXX]coming up outof the ground."14. He saidto her,"Whats his appearance?"rnKn-n=n,mplyinga singularantecedent,but in LXXti E`yvo;:Whathaveyou learned?"]She said,"Anold man is coming up; he is wrappedin a robe."So Saul knew that it wasSamuel,and he bowedwith his faceto the ground,and did obeisance.15. Then Samuel said to Saul,"Whyhaveyou disturbedme bybringingme up?"Saulanswered,"Iam in greatdistress; or the Philistinesarewarringagainstme,and Godhas turnedawayfrom me and answersme no more, eitherby prophetsor by dreams;so I have summonedyou to tell me whatI should do." 16. Samuelsaid,"Why hen do you askme, sincethe LORDhas turned fromyou andbecomeyour enemy?"17. "The LORDhas done to youjust as he spoke by me, for theLORD has torn the kingdomout of your hand, and given it to your neighbor,David." 18. "Moreover he LORDwill give Israel also withyou into the hands ofthe Philistines; nd tomorrowyou and your sons shall be withme."[NRSV]

This narrative resisted attempts by Jews and, especially, Christians inlate antiquity to integrate it into the rest of Scripture. Although to allappearances it was a straightforward historical narrative, it raised dis-turbing doctrinal and moral questions. Was a departed prophet subject,against his will, to a medium (?yyaaopitlu0eoin the LXX) and her pre-sumed demonic accomplices? Could a righteous prophet be expecting awicked king to join him shortly in hell? Could necromancy provide accu-rate knowledge of the future, and if so might it not be permissible toresort to it? An age preoccupied with demonology and eschatology andfascinated by the occult could not ignore such questions.9 Eustathius andOrigen gave the passage closer attention than any other early commenta-tors, but they were far from alone. K. A. D. Smelik has chronicled theattempts by early biblical interpreters to deal with the passage. Jews, onthe whole, took the position that Samuel did appear to Saul, although itremained an open question. Christians were more divided. Significantly,given a general lack of interest in the historical books of the Old Testa-ment, we know the positions of almost all major interpreters. Justin Mar-tyr, Origen, Ambrose, and Augustine, among others, argued that Samueldid appear to Saul. Tertullian, Eustathius of Antioch, Ephrem, Gregoryof Nyssa, Evagrius Ponticus, Jerome, and Ambrosiaster, among others,argued that a demon in the appearance of Saul had actually appeared.

9 See Peter Brown, "Sorcery, Demons and the Rise of Christianity: From Late Antiquityto the Middle Ages," in his Religion and Society n the Age of Saint Augustine (New York:Harper & Row, 1972), pp. 119-46; and Henry Chadwick, Priscillian:On the Occultand theCharismaticn theEarly Church Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976). Patricia Cox Millerdiscusses the disconcerting quality of the narrative in antiquity in her "Origen on the Witchof Endor: Toward an Iconoclastic Typology," Anglican TheologicalReview 66 (1984): 137-47.

222

7/30/2019 1205319

6/21

Eustathius's Attack on OrigenJohn Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Ishodad of Merv, among others, leftthe question open.10

The passage 1 Sam. 28 assumed such importance because it challengedearly Christian interpreters to explain an inspired text convincingly whileat the same time being faithful to their conviction that all of Scripturewas divinely inspired and consistent with the church's rule of faith. Suchinterpreters could not ascribe the anomalies of the text to the limitationsof an earlier time with a less differentiated understanding of the soul'sdestiny. For them realistic narrative implied, and could scarcely be dis-tinguished from, factual information about the past. Significantly, GreekioTopia, best translated "narrative," can denote either or both of its En-glish derivatives, "history" and "story." Thus, such interpreters couldscarcely conceptualize a difference between two issues that are separatefor us: (a) whether or not the narrative implies that Samuel himself actu-ally appeared to Saul, and (b) whether or not it was the power of a me-dium that actually summoned the prophet from Hades. A positive answerto the first implied a positive answer to the second, with all its disturbingimplications for the validity of occult practices and the destiny of the soul.For us, by contrast (unless we are Fundamentalists), the literal sense ofbiblical narrative does not necessarily imply factuality.Thus, for example,Hans Frei takes it for granted that he can identify the literal sense of theNew Testament as one which applies primarily to Jesus as the "ascriptivesubject" while leaving open "whether the status of this identification isthat of a chief character in a narrative plot, historically factual person, orreality under an ontological scheme." 1Origen's spiritual and philosophical outlook belonged to Alexandria,where he lived until he was in his mid-forties. He has clear links to Philo,Basilides, Valentinus, Clement of Alexandria, and Plotinus, who werenourished by the same culture. Like all of them, he was also an heir tothe Alexandrian heritage of Zenodotus and Aristarchus, who, during thePtolemaic period, established the discipline of textual criticism.12None-theless, the homily to which Eustathius responded was, like all of Origen'ssurviving homilies, preached in Palestine. Around 233 Origen perma-nently left Alexandria, probably because of tension with Bishop Deme-

10K. A. D. Smelik, "The Witch of Endor: 1 Samuel 28 in Rabbinic and Christian Exegesistill 800 A.D.," VigiliaeChristianae33 (1977): 160-79." Hans Frei, Typesof ChristianTheology,ed. George Hunsinger and William C. Placher(New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1992), p. 5.12 On Origen's Alexandrian background, see Joseph W.Trigg, Origen:TheBibleandPhilos-ophy n theThird-Century hurch Atlanta:John Knox, 1983). See also Robert M. Grant, Heresyand Criticism: The Search for Authenticityin Early Christian Literature (Louisville, Ky.:Westminster/John Knox, 1993).

223

7/30/2019 1205319

7/21

The Journal of Religiontrius of Alexandria and with his successor, Heraclas.13 For the remainingtwo decades of his life, he resided mostly in Caesarea, where he preachedhis surviving homilies, which, like the rest of his works, were recorded bystenographers.14 The controversy over Origen's theology that probablyoccasioned his departure from Alexandria continued after his death; Eus-tathius had access to On theResurrection, refutation of Origen's eschatol-ogy along with his allegorical interpretation of Scripture, written byMethodius of Olympus, a contemporary bishop who did not survive theGreat Persecution.15

Origen's homily on 1 Sam. 28 begins with him summarizing four peri-copes that had just been read (1 Sam. 25-28). In a gesture unique in hisextant homilies, Origen asks the bishop presiding at the gathering to as-sign him one of them as his text.16 Pierre Nautin argues that this manwas Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, where Origen's first homily on 1Samuel, preserved in Latin, was preached.'7 He presumably wanted tosee how Origen would handle a well-known topos. Origen's homily isthus a tour de force all the more impressive for being, apparently, extem-poraneous. Origen, in his homily, speaks of Christians who look askanceat the scripture. These people say, "'I do not believe the medium; whenthe medium says that she had seen Samuel, she lies. Samuel was notbrought up. Samuel does not speak. Just as there are false prophets whosay "Thus says the Lord" and the Lord has not spoken, so this pettydemon lies when it promises to bring up the person requested by Saul."Whom shall I bring up," it says. "Bring up Saul for me."' This is what issaid by those who say that this narrative [rtiv iiaoptav Tacz?riv]s nottrue."18 Given the widespread interest in the passage, we need not as-

13See Pierre Nautin, Origene:Sa vie et son oeuvre(Paris: Beauchesne, 1977).14See Eusebius EcclesiasticalHistory6.23.1-2.15Thus, see e.g., Methodius OntheResurrection1.27.1-28.5 (Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte [GCS] 254-56) = Epiphanius Panarion 19 (GCS22.430-31 [the superscripted numeral refers to the 2d ed.]). Artemo Vitores, in Identidadentreel cuerpomuertoy resucitado n Origenes eguin l "deResurrectione"eMetodiode Olimpo Je-rusalem: Franciscan Printing House, 1981), has shown that Methodius did have Origen inmind in his objection to an allegorical interpretation of the "coats of skin"in Gen. 3:21. Seealso Simonetti, Letterae/o allegoria,pp. 105-7; and Emanuela Prinzivalli, L'esegesi e Metodiodi Olimpo Rome: Institutum Patristicum "Augustinianum," 1985). Nathanael Bonwetsch ob-serves of Methodius that "Er hat ... die exegestische Prinzipien des Origenes nicht aufge-geben, aber eingeschrankt" (Nathanael Bonwetsch, Die TheologiedesMethodiusvon Olympus[Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1903], p. 148).16 Origen Homilies on 1 Samuel 5.1 (Simonetti, ed. and trans. [n. 2 above], pp. 44-46 =Nautin and Nautin, eds. and trans. [n. 2 above], pp. 172-74).17 Nautin and Nautin, eds. and trans., pp. 57-60.18 Origen Homilieson 1 Samuel 5.3 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., p. 48 = Nautin and Nautin,eds. and trans., pp. 177.1-179.9). Translations are mine unless otherwise indicated.

224

7/30/2019 1205319

8/21

Eustathius's Attack on Origensume, pace Nautin, that Origen was necessarilyresponding to a singlespecific literary work.19

The passage evidently intrigued him, since he referred to it in threeworks from his Caesarean period that deal with seemingly unrelatedtexts. In a homily on Jeremiah 18, that prophet's descent to the potter'shouse recalled to Origen Samuel's descent into Hades. Origen therespeculated that Samuel had voluntarily descended to Hades in order to"observe and behold the mysteries of Hades."20 He cites it twice in thelater books of his CommentarynJohn. In book 20 he refers incidentally toSamuel's being summoned by the medium as evidence that he, alongwith the other saints of the Old Testament, was in Hades awaiting Christ'sResurrection. In book 28, the prophecy of Caiaphas in John 12:49-51,that one man should die for the people, led Origen to mention the me-dium in connection with the validity of prophecy on the part of thewicked.21In the fifteenth book of his Commentaryn Matthew,also a latework, Origen referred to the passage in connection with an exegeticalcrux: how is it just for the laborers called at the eleventh hour in Matt.20:1-6 to receive the same wage paid to those who bore the burden inthe heat of the day? Interpreting the labor in the vineyard as the soul'slabor in its embodied state, Origen argued that some souls may laborbefore being embodied, just as Samuel, prophesying to Saul, laboredafter being embodied.22 These references, from works preserved inGreek and spanning roughly the last twenty years of Origen's career, areall consistent with Origen's treatment of the passage in his homily, as is afurther discussion from an unnamed work of his cited by Eustathius.23By contrast, an isolated fragment from a catena quotes Origen as sayingthat the medium did not summon Samuel and that he investigates theidentity of the apparition and the means by which it was summoned.24The fragment probably misrepresents a position put forward as a hypo-thetical possibility.

19Nautin and Nautin, eds. and trans., pp. 78-79.20 Origen HomiliesonJeremiah18.2 (SC 238:182.40-46).21 Origen CommentarynJohn 20.393 (SC 290.346) and 28.148-49 (SC 385.134). He alsocited Balaam and Saul "among the prophets" (1 Sam. 19) in this connection.22 Origen Commentaryn Matthew15.35 (GCS 10:452.23-34). See Ekkehard Muhlenberg,"Das Gleichnis von der Arbeitern in Weinberg (Matthaus 20, 1-16)," in Ermeneumata: est-schrift ir Hadwig Hrner, ed. Herbert Eisenberger (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1990), esp.pp. 14-20.23 See Eustathius On theMedium 28.2-6 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., pp. 194-96 = Nautinand Nautin, eds. and trans., pp. 210-212). Eustathius states that Origen "interpreted thepassage a second time in order to defend himself." Nautin supposes that this occurredduring his next homily at Jerusalem.24 Origen, Frag. 14 on 1 Sam. 28:11-12 (GCS 32:299).

225

7/30/2019 1205319

9/21

The Journal of ReligionIn accepting the assignment, Origen states that he will discuss the nar-rative as it stands without resort to an elevated interpretation (avaywyiT).

It is not, he makes clear, a foregone conclusion that a text should betreated thus. Other difficult texts, the narratives in Genesis of Lot's inces-tuous intercourse with his daughters and that of Tamar and Judah, wouldbe inappropriate to discuss simply on the level of narrative. In this partic-ular case, though, "the narrative concerning Saul and the mediumtouches everyone because there is a necessary truth according to theword. Who, after all having departed this life, would wish to be underthe authority of a demon?"25 Those who look askance at the passage doso to spare believers anxiety in this regard.26Nonetheless, however com-mendable such an intention may be, an accurate examination of the textdoes not support such an interpretation. We must, rather, accept thenarrative as it stands because the Holy Spirit, speaking in the person(cp6oomov) of the narrator, gives every indication that it occurred as re-lated. It states that Saul "knew that it was Samuel" (v. 14) and introduceshis words with "Samuel said" (vv. 15-16) without reservation.27Further-more, a petty demon could not have spoken Samuel's words to Saul, sincethey would be beyond the knowledge of a demon. A demon would nothave known that the Lord had already designated David king or thatSaul would die the next day, clearing the way for David to ascend thethrone. Following Paul and Ignatius, Origen believed that such mattersbelonged to the divine plan of salvation, which was deliberately hiddenfrom the demons.28 There must, then, be some other way, besides deny-ing the truth of the narrative, to explain how Samuel was not-and, byimplication, Christians need not fear being-under the control of ademon.

Having thus set forth the issues at stake, Origen comments dramati-cally: "Behold, what a great struggle there is [6ao ayd6)votnv] n the wordof God, a struggle requiring hearers capable of hearing holy doctrines,namely, the great and ineffable ones concerning our departure from this25 Origen Homilies on 1 Samuel 5.2.1-3 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., p. 46 = Nautin andNautin, eds. and trans., pp. 174-76).26 Ibid., 3.1 (Simonetti, ed. and trans. [n. 2 above], p. 48 = Nautin and Nautin, eds. andtrans.[n. 2 above],p. 176).27 Ibid.,4 (Simonetti, d. andtrans.,pp. 50-54 = NautinandNautin,eds. andtrans.,pp.

180-84).On the conceptofnp6oo0ov, ee BernhardNeuschafer,OrigeneslsPhilologeBasel:FriedrichReinhardt,1987),1:263-76.28 OrigenHomilies n 1 Samuel (Simonetti, d. and trans.,pp. 54-56 = Nautin and Nau-tin, eds. and trans., pp. 184-86), and 8.5 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., p. 68 = Nautin andNautin,eds. and trans.,p. 200). Nautinand Nautin,eds. and trans.(pp. 84-86), trace thedoctrinethat a demoncould not prophesyconcerningthe divineplan of salvation o Igna-tiusEphesians9.1, whichOrigencited in Homilies nLuke6.4 (SC87.144). It couldjust aseasilycome from 1 Cor.2:7-9. In other cases,Origen allowsthat the wickedmayobtaingenuine knowledgeof the future.See OrigenContraCelsum .96 (SC136.424-26).226

7/30/2019 1205319

10/21

Eustathius's Attack on Origenplace, since at the place where we are now in our discussion, objectionshave arisen against the first interpretation [that Samuel did not actuallyappear to Saul], but the second [that Samuel did appear] is by no meansclear."29Origen then enters the fray. How, he asks, could Samuel be inHades? Here he argues a fortiori that, if Christ descended into Hades,we should not be shocked to read that a prophet descended to the sameplace, especially since a prophet would be needed there to prepare forChrist's coming.30This is why John the Baptist sent his disciples to ask ofChrist, "Areyou he who is to come or do we seek for another?" (Luke7:20). John already knew and had acknowledged that Jesus was the com-ing Messiah, but, anticipating his own death, he still needed to know ifhe was to continue preparing the way for the Messiah in Hades. He mayhave been like Peter, who "knew great things concerning Christ, but hedid not wish to accept the more humble things concerning him," confess-ing Jesus as the Messiah but trying to deter him from the way of the Cross(Matt. 16:16-22). John "was aware in prison of great things concerningChrist. He knew the 'heavens opened.' He knew the Holy 'Spirit descend-ing from heaven' on the Savior and remaining 'on him' [Matthew 3:16].Having 'seen' such a great 'glory' [John 1:14] he doubted and perhapsdisbelieved that someone so glorious should 'descend' as far as Hell and'the Abyss' [Romans 10:7]."31Origen provides his hearers two further reasons why it should not bedisturbing to believe that Samuel was in Hades. First, death would nothave deprived him of his prophetic powers but would, on the contrary,have enhanced them. To confirm this he cites 1 Cor. 13:9-10, "Now Iprophesy in part and know in part, but when perfection has come, thepartial will disappear." Second, all souls, even those of saints like Abra-ham and Samuel, were in Hades, excluded from paradise until Christopened the way. Origen uses the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus inLuke 16 to prove (1) that Abraham was in Hades, where the Rich Mancould see him, and (2) that he, as a righteous man, did not share the RichMan's torment.32 Moreover, Origen claims, just as Jesus did not cease tobe the Christ in his descent to Hades, so Samuel did not lose his capacityfor choice (7poaipe?ot), that is, self-determined moral action,33when he

29 Origen Homilieson 1 Samuel 4 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., p. 4 = Nautin and Nautin,eds. and trans., p. 184).30 Ibid., 6 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., pp. 56-60 = Nautin and Nautin, eds. and trans.,pp. 186-92).31 Ibid., 7 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., pp. 62-66 = Nautin and Nautin, eds. and trans.,pp. 194-98).32 Ibid., 9 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., pp. 63-70 = Nautin and Nautin, eds. and trans.,pp. 200-204).33 The importance to Origen of the concept he referred to as choice (tpoaipeat;) or per-sonal agency (T6avcieoi6otov) cannot be overestimated. It is the subject of one of the most

227

7/30/2019 1205319

11/21

The Journal of Religiondescended there: "So Christ was still Christ even when he was below.Thus, so to speak,while he wasin the placebelow,he was withrespecttochoice [Tpoatpeoat] bove. In the samewaythe prophetsalso, includingSamuel,when they descendedwhere the souls are below,could be belowwithrespectto place,but not be below withrespectto choice."34 amuel,then, was not under the control of a pettydemon; he did appearto Sam-uel, but he did so not undercompulsion.This does not mean thatSamuelchose to descend to Hades as if, like Christ,he could have chosen not to.His exercise of ipoatipe-t lies, rather,in choosing to prophesy.ThusSamuel conforms, even here, to the ordinary characterof prophecywhich, for Origen, is rational and voluntary.35Origen thus demonstratedthat,while Samueldid come up from Hades to speakwithSaul,his hav-ing done so need not disturbChristianbelievers.Although,unlikethem,Samuel,havinglived before Christ'scoming,wasin Hades,like them, heretained his capacity orself-determinedmoralaction.He concludes thatthere is no obstacle(7p6ocKOpLta)n the passageand that those to whomGod has revealed its meaning can properly understand it.36In one in-stanceOrigen's ack of access to the originalHebrew causedhim a prob-lem he need not have had; he did not know that, in verses 13-14, theoriginalHebrew has onlyone figureappear.Conceivably, ad he been inCaesarea,he could have discovered this from other translationsof the

extensive chapters of Origen's PeriArchon(chap. 3.1); and Hal Koch (Pronoiaund Paideusis:Studien iberOrigenesundsein Verhaltnisum Platonismus Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1932]) hasshown that it, along with the notion of divine providence, is one of two fundamental con-cepts that shape Origen's theological enterprise. On the importance of this concept in thephilosophy of the time, see Albrecht Dihle, TheTheory f the Will n ClassicalAntiquity Berke-ley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1982).34 Origen Homilies on 1 Samuel8 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., p. 68 = Nautin and Nautin,eds. and trans., pp. 198-200).35 Thus, e.g., Origen criticizes the ecstasy and loss of consciousness of the Pythian priestessin contrast with the full rationality and clear vision of the Hebrew prophets (Origen ContraCelsum7.3-4 [SC 150.20]) and credits Moses, as a "greatprophet," with a full understandingof the spiritual interpretation of the Passover lamb; see Origen On thePassover40 (translatedinto French as Origen Sur la Pdque, ed. and trans., Octave Guerand and Pierre Nautin[Paris: Beauchesne, 1979], p. 232). Nautin's edition suggests that Origen, in referring toPaul's discussion of glossolalia in 1 Cor. 13, toyed with the idea that Samuel, when sum-moned, was speaking in a sort of ecstasy, and thus not by choice, but Simonetti convincinglyreads the passage differently. The interpretation depends on whether or not a sentencethat deals with Samuel's speaking in ecstasy is intended as a question. See Origen Homilieson 1 Samuel 9 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., p. 70 = Nautin and Nautin, eds. and trans., p.202). Origen brings up glossolalia only to point out that such ecstatic speech does not edifythe church, so that, by contrast, Samuel must have engaged in the fully conscious and un-derstandable exercise of prophecy. See Simonetti, ed. and trans., p. 91. This principle ex-plains why Origen felt a need to explain the possibility of genuine prophecy on the part ofthe wicked.36 Origen Homilieson 1 Samuel 10 (Simonetti, ed. and trans. [n. 2 above], p. 74 = Nautinand Nautin, eds. and trans. [n. 2 above], p. 206).

228

7/30/2019 1205319

12/21

Eustathius's Attack on OrigenHebrew in his Hexapla.37Origen, at a loss to explain why the mediuminitially saw more than one figure, suggests that Samuel may have beenaccompanied by the souls of other prophets or by angels assigned tohim.38Eustathius attempts to refute this interpretation by arguing that themedium, assisted by the devil, deceived Saul into believing that he hadencountered Samuel. Although he was, as we shall see, willing to misrep-resent and malign Origen, he attached a copy of Origen's homily to histreatise, thereby preserving it. Although bold enough to take on Origen,Eustathius had only superficial familiarity with or comprehension of histhought, failing to realize, for example, that Origen actually shared hisunderstanding of the salvific role of Christ's human soul.39Like Origen, Eustathius was concerned with what we ordinarily call the"literal sense" of the passage; he speaks of his work as investigating "theletter of the narrative," xO6iSioopias ypCa.ta.40 Both assumed that someevent occurred, and neither sought to provide a deeper meaning such asa message about God's dealings with the soul or a prophecy of the comingof Christ. Again, like Origen, Eustathius identified the Holy Spirit as theeffective narrator. Nonetheless, he denied that Samuel actually appeared.This is because such an interpretation would (a) encourage the faithfulto resort to magic and necromancy; (b)disparage the power of God, whoalone can raise the dead, whereas a medium could not raise an ant or aspider, much less a prophet; and (c) undermine Christian morality byerasing the distinction between ultimate destinies of the just and the un-just.41The first two of these obstacles are ones Origen did not envisage,but the third bears some resemblance to the principal obstacle Origenwas aware of: raising fears on the part of the faithful that they would be

37Origen does seek to get beyond the Septuagint to the original Hebrew in his HomiliesonJeremiah,his only other homilies that survive in Greek. See Pierre Nautin, introductionto Origene, Homdlies urJermie (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1979) (SC 232:114-18). Origen'sHexapla, which no longer exists, seems to have laid four Greek translations (six in the caseof the Psalms) in parallel columns word for word beside a column consisting of a Greektransliteration of the original Hebrew and, perhaps, a column of the Hebrew itself. Origen,who could not read Hebrew, used it to get beyond the limitations of the Septuagint, theaccepted Old Testament version in the church. He frequently referred to variant readingsprovided by the other Greek versions, those of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, in hisexegetical works on the Old Testament. Other versions no longer extant, which were oftenmore literal in their translations, might have alerted him to the fact that the apparition isunambiguously singular in the Hebrew.38 Origen Homilies on 1 Samuel7.1-3 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., p. 62 = Nautin and Nau-tin, eds. and trans., pp. 192-94).39 Eustathius On theMedium 18 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., pp. 164-66). On this topic seeSimonetti, ed. and trans., pp. 231-32; and Alain le Boulluec, "Controverses au sujet de ladoctrine d'Origene sur l'ame du Christ," in Lies, ed. (n. 5 above), pp. 223-37.40 Eustathius OntheMedium2.1 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., p. 96).41 Ibid., 3.4, 3.3, 14.7 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., pp. 102, 100, 150).

229

7/30/2019 1205319

13/21

The Journal of Religionsubject to infernal powers after death. Significantly, while for Origen theproblem the text raises is the possibility of a soul's loss of capability forresponsible action characterized by power to choose, Eustathius's con-cern is that it may suggest that the righteous and the wicked will sharethe same destiny after death. This eschatological focus is consistent withEustathius's having been influenced in his views on Origen by Methodius,whose principal objections were similar. It was almost certainly Meth-odius who also suggested Eustathius's cleverest bit of invective, affectingto marvel at the high reputation "among the many" of the superciliousAlexandrian.42

Taking the passage verse by verse, Eustathius attempts to refute Origenby using the same techniques of Hellenistic literary criticism. In doingso, though, he misrepresents Origen's best argument, that the inspirednarrative voice identifies the apparition as Samuel. He states that Origen"wasswept away by error to such an extent that he did not blush to conferupon the Holy Spirit the words of the guilty woman. The blasphemiesshe uttered with her female tongue he transferred in their entirety to theHoly Spirit, attempting to overawe his hearers with a name worthy ofcredence."43 Eustathius thus indicates that Origen's interpretation de-pends on the veracity of words spoken in direct discourse by the medium,which, he argues, should not be taken at face value. He cites Old Testa-ment passages where, he contends, we cannot lend credence to words indirect discourse. These, he argues, show that the words of the womanand of the apparition can be understood as false without injuring theintegrity of the narrative.44He also claims that the narrative gives noindication that Samuel did not actually appear because it takes forgranted that we will not credit claims to occult powers. Indeed, the veryword eyyaoxpi?u0Oogin-belly fable) alerts us to the falsity of the woman'sclaims.45Here, though, he assumes that forbidding recourse to necro-mancers implies disbelief in them, even though the contrary is morelikely. Like some book reviewers, Eustathius unhesitatingly prescribeswhat others should have said. The real Samuel, he contends, would nothave permitted Saul to worship him. In addition, he would have rebukedhim for resorting to a medium, referring to the prohibition of such activ-

42 Ibid., 23.3 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., p. 180). Methodius states that Origen appeals tothe many who are impressed by outwardly impressive but specious arguments rather thanto those who are considered to be accurate interpreters. On the Resurrection1.27.3 (GCS255) = Epiphanius Panarion 64.19.5 (GCS 22.431). Origen's often stated contempt for themany is one of his many legacies from Plato.43 Eustathius On theMedium 3.5 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., p. 102).44 Ibid., 7-9 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., pp. 114-26).45 Ibid., 4.6-9, 11.3, 26.10 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., pp. 106-8, 134, 198).

230

7/30/2019 1205319

14/21

Eustathius's Attack on Origenity in Leviticus, in a call to do penance.46Eustathius pounces on Origen'sclaim that Samuel retained his capacity for choice while in Hades:"In the same way,"he said, "the prophets also, including Samuel, when theydescendedwhere the soulsare,"so to speak,"below, ouldbe below withrespecttoplace,butnot be belowwithrespectto choice."Ashe surfeits he world,makingit resound with hischatter,he does not seem to understandthis, thatanypersonwhatsoever, ven the someone utterlyunflinching,would,on descendingto Ha-des, remain above with respect to choice. For there is no person, righteousorunrighteous,who would not long to be dwellingalwaysabove, should he departfor the subterraneanregions. If then all persons, on being led down to Hades,would love to be above with respect to choice, even if some of them had beenengaged in not entirelyrighteouslives,what sortof privilegedoes he reserveforthe companyof prophets?47Here Eustathius fails to comprehend Origen's argumenf because, again,he is concerned with eschatology where Origen is concerned with freemoral agency. Eustathius also argues that the apparition of angels pro-vides further proof that the narrative cannot be taken at face value andof Origen's ill will. Not content with subjecting the saints to demons, Eus-tathius complains, Origen even puts the angels under them, forgettingthat they are always in God's presence.48Eustathius makes some telling points. He asks why, if Samuel actuallyhad been summoned, Saul apparently did not see him, since he relied onthe medium's description.49 He argues that the apparition did not actu-ally prophesy anything that Samuel had not prophesied while he wasalive. The one new piece of information the apparition supplies, that Sauland his son would die the next day,was, he contends, actually false, since,he argues, the biblical narrative allows a few more days to pass beforethey actually meet their fate.50 Eustathius also puts his finger on one casewhere an a priori assumption on Origen's part led him to ignore theactual narrative. While Origen sought to show how Samuel could be inHades voluntarily, he did not explain his indignation at being summonedby the medium.51 Even so, Eustathius overstates his case when he writesthat Samuel was compelled to speak; Samuel complains only that he hasbeen annoyed by Saul's summons. Even though he does find some real

46 Ibid.,11.10-13,10.7 Simonetti,d. and rans.n.2 above], p. 136-38,128).47 Ibid.,17.6-7 Simonetti,d. andtrans., p. 162-64), eferringoOrigenHomiliesn1Samuel .8 (Simonetti,d. andtrans.,p. 68 = NautinandNautin, ds. andtrans. n. 2above], p. 198-200).48 EustathiusOntheMedium0 (Simonetti, d. and trans.,pp. 168-70).49 Ibid.,5-6 (Simonetti,d.andtrans., p.108-14).50 Ibid.,23.2,12-13 Simonetti,d. and rans., p. 180,140-48).51 Ibid.,16.4-6 Simonetti,d. andtrans., p.156-58).231

7/30/2019 1205319

15/21

The Journal of Religionweaknesses in Origen's interpretation, Eustathius does not, in the end,provide a convincing alternative. He focuses closer attention on the pas-sage than any other ancient author, but the more minutely he examinesthe passage, the farther away we are from the gripping drama of a des-perate king illicitly summoning a dead prophet only to have his doomconfirmed.The reference to angels is the occasion for Eustathius to step back fromthe passage at hand to charge that, by allegorizing every other passage inthe Bible while interpreting only this one literally, Origen demonstratedhis bad faith. "But, as it seems, Origen pretended not to be aware [thatthe angels are in God's presence] in order to make a place for the ac-cursed practice of necromancy, just as he who had undertaken to allego-rize the scriptures in their entirety did not blush to interpret this onepassage alone literally [Tri ToDypadiLaxo;],speaking oracularly in a spe-cious manner even while neglecting to pay the attention he should to itscorporeal sense."52This tack allowed Eustathius to criticize Origen as anexcessive allegorizer in a treatise where the point at issue is Origen's de-fense of the obvious sense of the narrative. This is the passage which hasled some scholars to identify Eustathius as an early champion of Antio-chene opposition to Alexandrian allegory. A close examination reveals,however, no rejection of allegory on principle. Eustathius cites five ex-amples from Origen's works. His first is a reference, in Origen's Commen-taryon Genesis,to the Garden of Eden as a myth (i.t0?o;).This, Eustathiusargues on the basis of rhetorical theory, implies contempt for Scripture,since a myth is just a made-up story.53The passage in question has notsurvived, but Origen certainly did not accept the narrative as a factualaccount, if only because of its anthropomorphisms. Eustathius, though,ignores the philosophical use of "myth," derived from Plato, which Ori-gen treats respectfully in his ContraCelsum.54He also attacks Origen for

52 Ibid., 21.1 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., p. 170).53 Ibid., 21.2-3 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., p. 172). See Max Rauer, "Origenes uber dasParadies," in FestschriftErichKlostermann,Texte und Untersuchungen 77 (Berlin: Akade-mieverlag, 1961), pp. 253-59.54 On the concept of myth in Hellenistic grammar, see R. M. Grant, TheEarliestLivesofJesus (New York: Harper, 1961), pp. 40-44. For Origen a t60oqs s untrue as narrated butmay yield a deeper meaning. It and related words (e.g., tueOooiotv, u9Ookoyia)ccur fre-quently in the ContraCelsum,where both Origen and Celsus use them to dismiss, respec-

tively, pagan and Christian stories. Origen, however, finds common ground with Celsus inhis respect for Platonic myths. He defends the story of the temptation of Eve in Genesis 3by comparing it to the myth of the birth of Eros in Plato. After quoting Plato's Symposium203B-E in full, Origen states:If readers of this were to imitate the malice of Celsus (which no Christian would do) theywould ridicule the myth and would make a mock of so great a man as Plato. But if theycould find Plato's meaning by examining philosophically what he expresses in the form ofa myth, they would admire the way he was able to hide the great doctrines as he saw them

232

7/30/2019 1205319

16/21

Eustathius's Attack on Origenbetraying the literal sense by ignoring it in his interpretation of Abra-ham's wells and of Rebecca'sjewelry in his Homilieson Genesis.55Here Ori-gen interpreted the narratives as allegories of his favorite activity,biblicalinterpretation. Similarly, he criticizes Origen for allegorizing the namesof Job's daughters in his now lost Commentary nJob rather than, as hesays he would have done, holding up Job's endurance as a moral exampleto the newly baptized.56He finally accuses Origen, in Origen's CommentaryonJohn, of allegorizing Lazarus's death as a symbol for our death becauseof sin rather than using it to exalt the power of God.57 In both of the lasttwo cases, Eustathius is characteristically confident about the approachsomeone else should have taken, but he does not seem to have under-stood the difference in genre between a homily, where moral exhortationwas called for, and a learned commentary. It is also hard to see why theseparticular examples from Origen's vast oeuvre should have been singledout as objectionable.58In addition, none of Eustathius's objections to Ori-gen seem to account for the vehemence with which he attacks Origen orhis determination never to give him the benefit of the doubt.In significant ways Origen and Eustathius are closer to each other intheir assumptions about biblical interpretation than either of them is tomodern critical scholars. Both hold that the Holy Spirit inspired the en-tire Bible word for word, so that it is entirely consistent with itself andwith the church's rule of faith. Origen's belief in verbal inspirationemerges explicitly in his fifth homily on 1 Samuel when he describes thenarrative voice (Tcp6octov)as that of the Holy Spirit. Eustathius sharesthis assumption and challenges only Origen's application of it. Both alsoin the form of a myth on account of the multitude, and yet to say what was necessary forthose who know how to discover from myths the true significance intended by their author.I quoted this myth from Plato because he mentions "the garden of Zeus," which seems tobear a certain resemblance to the paradise of God, and Penia, who like the serpent of theBible, and Porus, who was conspired against by Penia, who is like the man against whomthe serpent conspired.See Origen ContraCelsum4.39 (SC 136:286.43-56), trans. Henry Chadwick (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1965), pp. 215-16. Stories that imply human form or emo-tions in God qualify as i)9Oot. hese include the Jewish tradition in which God tricks theprophet Jeremiah into taking the cup of his wrath against Israel (in Origen Homilies onJeremiah20.2 [SC 8:256.16]). InPeriArchon 2.4.3 (SC 252:286.157), Origen rejects as spretisanilibusfabulis(in Rufinus's translation) the proof from Exod. 33:23 that God has a face anda back.

55 Eustathius On theMedium21.5-6 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., p. 172).56 Ibid., 21.7 (Simonetti, ed. and trans. [n. 2 above], pp. 172-74).57 Ibid., 21.8 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., p. 174). The surviving section of Origen's discus-sion of the raising of Lazarus is in his CommentarynJohn 28.2-11 (SC 385.62-104). We havelost the portion dealing with John 11:4 where Jesus states that Lazarus's death "is for theglory of God."58Aloysius Vincenzi shows that these examples are specious in his In SanctiGregoriiNysseniet OrigenisScriptaetDoctrinam Rome: Bernardi Morini, 1864), 2, pt. 2:338-61.233

7/30/2019 1205319

17/21

The Journal of Religionassume that the entire Bible, as the Spirit's oracle, relates directly to theconcerns of Christian believers. Even so, the two men differ significantly.For Origen, the Bible is a unity, but that unity is spiritual. Consequently,the letter of one passage does not have to be consistent with another. ForEustathius, it seems, rather, that the whole Bible is consistent at one levelof meaning, one that we could, with reservations, call literal.59This observation leads us to ask what is really at issue between Origenand Eustathius. It is not opposition on principle to allegorical exegesis;Eustathius's treatise is not the opening salvo of an Antiochene assault onAlexandrian allegory. Although Eustathius did question Origen's use ofallegory, he had no quarrel with him on that score with relation to thispassage.60 In fact, of the two, it is Origen who more nearly accepts thenarrative as, in Northrup Frye's words, "a definitive transcript of actualevents."61 Read literally, the passage clearly implies that the medium actu-ally brought up Samuel; it is Eustathius who must explain to us that adeeper understanding of the passage rules out such a simple interpreta-tion. Eustathius effectively concedes as much when he (erroneously) ac-cuses Origen of interpreting this one passage literally while allegorizingthe rest of the Bible. It is Origen who does not allow doctrinal and moralconcerns to predetermine an interpretation which the narrative, by it-self, does not suggest. While finding attractive the interpretation thatSamuel did not appear to Saul, one that would spare him the need toexplain how Samuel retained his freedom to choose, Origen rejectedit for the sole reason that it violated the integrity of the biblical narra-tive.This tender sensitivity to the letter is not as anomalous as Origen's rep-utation as an allegorizer might suggest. Close critical analysis of the textis, in fact, the basis of Origen's allegory. Scholars have now begun to rec-ognize that, in his impact on subsequent Christian exegesis, Origen's con-tributions to the study of what we would regard as the letter are at leastas significant as the impetus he gave to allegorical exegesis. As Robert M.Grant and Bernhard Neuschafer have demonstrated and Simonetti hasemphasized, not the least of Origen's legacies to Eustathius and to thelater Antiochene school was adapting Hellenistic critical techniques-lit-

59 On the difficulty of defining what "literal"means, see Northrup Frye, The GreatCode:TheBible and Literature New York:Harcourt BraceJovanovich, 1982), pp. 60-62, and WordswithPowerBeing a SecondStudy of the Bible and Literature San Diego, Calif.: Harcourt BraceJovanovich, 1990), pp. 5-6.60 Miller (n. 9 above), p. 138, states that "the important question which the interpretermust bring to a historical text, as Origen was to argue, is not whether the history 'really'happened (modern disclaimers to the contrary), but rather what, and how, such textsmean." Thus, we cannot equate "literal"with "historical"(p. 141).61 Frye, TheGreatCode,p. 60.234

7/30/2019 1205319

18/21

Eustathius's Attack on Origenerary, textual, and historical-to the Bible.62It is only the imposition of afalse dichotomy between Alexandrian allegory and Antiochene historicalinterpretation that has obscured Origen's role in this respect.One more reasonable cause of Eustathius's hostility is an opposition,fueled by Methodius, to Origen's eschatology. We have seen how such aconcern governs and distorts Eustathius's reading of Origen. Eustathiusis indeed suspicious of Origen's lack of zeal for the separation of the justand the unjust; by accepting that Samuel came up from Hades, Origenmade no distinction between Samuel's destiny and that of the wicked kingwho was soon, in the words of the apparition, to join him there. Even so,if this had been his primary concern, Eustathius could have found farmore incriminating texts among Origen's writings than this particularone, not simply in PeriArchon(OnFirstPrinciples)and in the ContraCelsum,but in many of the homilies on Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Origen was, afterall, on firm ground in terms of Scripture and tradition in placing thesaints of the Old Testament in Hades prior to their deliverance by Christat his Resurrection, as evidenced by the iconography of the Harrowingof Hell.Eustathius's hostility to Origen's eschatology points, nonetheless, to adifference between the two men that may well explain the vehemence ofEustathius's attack. Origen is at ease with indeterminacy, whether in theability to distinguish between the eternal destiny of thejust and the unjustor in the meaning of the biblical text. For Origen biblical interpretationis an ongoing struggle in which there may, indeed, be definitive prog-ress-in his homily the allaying of the fear, on the part of Christian be-lievers, that they could be subject to a demon-but there is no final, de-finitive outcome. For Eustathius, just as there is a determined destiny forthe just and for the unjust, every biblical text has a determined meaning.Eustathius seems to have been aware of terminology Origen adopted inhis discussion of biblical interpretation in book 4 of PeriArchon,but heignored Origen's view, also expressed there, that a spiritual meaning inno way precludes a bodily or literal meaning.63 He assumes, rather, thatthere can only be one interpretation of a passage, so that an allegoricalinterpretation, whether of Rebecca'sjewelry or of Lazarus's resurrection,

62 See Grant, TheEarliestLivesofJesus; and Neuschafer (n. 27 above). Simonetti (Lettera /oallegoria[n. 8 above], p. 125) goes so far as to credit Origen for the progress from "primitiveliteralism" to the scientific exegesis of Diodore and his followers.63 See Origen PeriArchon4.2.4-5 (SC 268:310-19), where he lays out the threefold actionof Scripture, allowing most passages a bodily or literal sense which addresses simple believ-ers. Simonetti writes that "Origene, pur allegorista in quanto spiritualista, considera l'inter-pretazione della lettera del testo santo come punto di partenza per il procedemento allegor-izzante, e ne tratta con esame molto attento, libero dai preconcetti che invece hannocondizionato l'interpretazione di Eustazio" (Simonetti, Letterae/oallegoria,p. 104).235

7/30/2019 1205319

19/21

The Journal of Religionsupplants and, therefore, in effect, denies the literal sense.64(That a pas-sage can have only one interpretation does seem to be a normal assump-tion. Augustine, for example, in a sermon in which he gives what wewould call a typological interpretation of Genesis 28, is at pains to assurehis congregation that he in no way denies that the sacrifice of Isaac actu-ally occurred as described.)65This brings us to what may be Eustathius's fundamental grievance. Isuggest that it lies precisely in that character of Origen's work that HenriCrouzel calls theologieen recherche,his presentation of ideas as tentativeand subject to correction.6 This is evident in Origen's approach to thepassage in his homily, one entirely characteristic of his work as a whole,in which he lays out legitimate alternative explanations and then workshis way logically to his own position. In general, Origen always speaksmore warmly and passionately about the process of biblical interpretationthan of its results. This is reflected in the gusto with which he addressesthe text in his homily. In a manner that prefigures Gregory of Nyssa, hepresents that process of research as a continual exploration of the myster-ies of God, an exploration that entails, for the interpreter, a personaltransformation into God's likeness. It our case, Origen unquestionablybrings to the text his own preconceptions, but he approaches it with theintention of learning something that he did not know before so that, ulti-mately, he may become something that he was not before. If this or anytext, as it stands, is surprising or even shocking, so much the better, sincethis means that it will afford him as an interpreter the opportunity tostretch his own understanding. What excites Origen is the way the textresists preconceived interpretations, raising seeming paradoxes. This, heexplains in Peri Archon, is because the Word of God has, in fact, so"planned" (oiKOvogi#oe)he scriptures so as to include "snares, obstacles,and" even "impossibilities" (oK6v6aXa cKatrpoaK6origaa Kacai6vaTa) toforce the intelligent interpreter to get beyond the obvious sense of thetext.67The techniques of grammar can help detect obstacles, or, in our

64 Eustathius claims that Origen's equation of the jewelry Rebecca receives with the moralimprovement received from studying the Bible "completely betrayed" (oauKo(odvTnoev)henarrative (Eustathius On theMedium21.6 [Simonetti, ed. and trans., p. 172]). He also criti-cizes the allegorical interpretation of names because this takes away preliminary supposi-tions that the things recounted occurred (Ts&;6v cpaygtxtovD67o0oaet;); see Eustathius OntheMedium22.2 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., p. 176).65 Augustine Sermonesde Scripturis2.7 (PG 38:30).66 Henri Crouzel, Origene(Paris: Editions Lethielleux, 1985), p. 267. See also Henri deLubac, Histoireet esprit:L'intelligence e 1'ecritured'apresOrigene(Paris: Aubier, 1950), p. 75,"Ses opinions 'osees,' qui sont peu nombreuses, sont proposees simplement, sans maliceaucune, a la fois sans dogmatisme et sans formules excessives de precaution."67 Origen PeriArchon4.2.9 (SC 268.334-36). See Jean Pepin, "Labsurdite, signe d'alleg-orie," in his La traditiond'allegorie:De Philond'Alexandrie Dante (Paris: ttudes Augustinien-nes, 1987), pp. 167-86.236

7/30/2019 1205319

20/21

Eustathius's Attack on Origentext, they can prove that there is no real obstacle. By this process theBible will lead the interpreter, through the solution of problematic pas-sages, to a deeper knowledge of God.For Eustathius any serious questions the text may raise have been de-termined in advance-necromancy is forbidden, the just have a destinyutterly distinct from that of the unjust-and interpretation entails bring-ing a recalcitrant text into line with those answers. We can either acceptthat Samuel actually appeared to Saul or accept the law that forbids nec-romancy.68Eustathius unwittingly described himself when he accused Or-igen of dogmatizing and those who follow him of blindly accepting pre-conceived opinions. This is clear when he complains that the text couldnot "take part in church" (EKKxrqotaiEv) if it contradicted the Mosaic pro-hibition of necromancy.69Where Origen, always respectful of other per-sons as free moral agents, is concerned to lead his listeners to a pointwhere they can understand the text for themselves and draw conclusionsfrom it relevant to their faith, Eustathius wants to make certain that theyare clear and unconfused about how to behave.This impatience with indeterminacy implies a fundamentally differentrole for the Bible in the life of the church and of individual believers.Origen shares Eustathius's assumption that the Bible is directly relevantto the spiritual needs of Christians and holds that it must be interpretedin conformity with the church's rule of faith but draws different conclu-sions. Simonetti, in an illuminating discussion of Origen's allegorical tech-nique, identifies the principle of usefulness (0x4FXeta), ow the text ad-dresses the spiritual concerns of those who are to hear it interpreted, as,in fact, fundamental to Origen's interpretation.70 Origen appeals to thisprinciple of usefulness at the beginning of his homily on 1 Sam. 28,speaking of how it "touches" his hearers, in order to justify his intentionto preach on the bare narrative, but in other cases he appeals to it to getpast the narrative.7' For Origen this usefulness of the text is open-endedand multivalent; the same text may have very different uses and, in con-sequence, different interpretations, depending on the persons for whomit is interpreted. He confines himself in his homily to questions raised by1 Sam. 28 at the level of narrative coherence in such a way as to leave

68 Eustathius On theMedium25.3 (Simonetti, ed. and trans. [n. 2 above], p. 190).69 Ibid., 16.10 (Simonetti, ed. and trans., p. 158).70 Simonetti, Lettera /oallegoria,pp. 79-80. For Simonetti this is one of three fundamentalprinciples. A second, ideological principle asks how the text relates to Christ, and a third,structural principle asks how, given Origen's Platonic view of reality, we can move from thesensible to the intelligible levels of being.71 See, e.g., Origen HomiliesonJoshua 8.2 (SC 71:220): "His auditis verisimile est auditoresdicere: quo mihi haec? Quid mihi confert, si cognoscam quod victi sunt hi qui habitabantGai, quasi non similia aut etiam potentiora bella vel gesta sint vel gerantur?"237

7/30/2019 1205319

21/21

The Journal of Religionopen other possible approaches to the text. Like the divine Logos who,by assuming various aspects, condescends to the needs of each rationalbeing, the scriptural logos has different meanings for persons at differentlevels of spiritual progress.72 When Origen eschewed an elevated inter-pretation in his homily, he did so in order to address what he perceivedto be the spiritual needs of the congregation.Eustathius, by contrast, does not want a Bible that offers access to theknowledge of God to those who can interpret it skillfully,but a Bible thatmeans what he already knows it must mean. This difference of approach,in particular the horror of ambiguity, offers the most plausible accountfor the vehemence of his rejection of Origen. If so, an ironic consequencefollows. Those who, in the twentieth century, would rehabilitate Origenas a doctor of the church have urged, with some plausibility, that his theo-logieen recherche,with its tentative character and potential for correction,has been misrepresented as a rigid system with heretical features. In Eus-tathius's case, though, and, we may suspect, in many others, it is preciselythis open-ended, indeterminate character of Origen's theology that madeit objectionable. Perhaps, given his enormous and recognized contribu-tions to Christian thought, Origen could have been forgiven for holdinga few doctrines like the preexistence of the soul, if an openness to deeperinsight were not the very soul of his approach to the Bible and to theologyas well.

72 On the aspects of the Word, see Marguerite Harl, Origeneetlafonctionrevelatrice u Verbeincarne (Paris: Seuil, 1958). On the function of the Word in Scripture, see Rolf Gogler, ZurTheologiedes biblischenWortes eiOrigenes Diisseldorf: Patmos, 1963), esp. pp. 299-364; andKaren Jo Torjesen, HermeneuticalProcedure nd TheologicalMethod n Origen'sExegesis(Berlin:De Gruyter, 1986).

238