Search

A careful study of the two prologues to Origen's collection of texts and of Gregory of Nazianzus' letter to Theodore of Tyana (ep. 115) indicates that the collection was originally an anonymus compilation (συλλογή or ἐκλογή). Gregory writes that the book he gives to Theodore contains «extracts from the φιλοκαλία of Origen». He uses the word φιλοκαλία to refer to the whole of Origen's work in favorable terms, just as Eusebius of Caesarea writes «φιλοκαλία of Irenaeus» (kephalaion H.e. V 26) to designate the entire work of lrenaeus. Basil and Gregory are not the authors of a collection called Φιλοκαλία, but the readers of an anonymous compilation of texts which Gregory presents as extracts from «the work of great beauty (φιλοκαλία) of Origen». The paper also examines the origin, dating, place of composition, structure, and aims of this anonymous compilation as well as the reasons for its attribution to the two Cappadocians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to give a general introduction to the theme section resulting from an international meeting held at the "Dipartimento di Storia Culture Religioni", Sapienza University of Rome, on November 11-12, 2016. The paper briefly clarifies the importance of the Book of Genesis in Western culture and the value of Origen's interpretation of it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper studies Origen's doctrine on 'taste' as 'spiritual sense' as part of his theological development of eating and/or drinking metaphors. To let know the most important fruit of the 'taste of Logos', namely the ontological participation in Trinitarian life, this article offers both a status quaestionis on origenian studies on the subject of 'spiritual nourishment', and a brief approach to Origen's hermeneutical framework for the use of 'eating' and/or 'drinking' metaphors in theological contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2010, I published a German translation (with a Greek text without critical apparatus) of testimonies and fragments by Origen commenting on the Book of Genesis. Now I am preparing the edition in the series „Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller" (de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston). The fragments are the remains of two works by Origen, the commentary and the 'scholia' concerning the first book of the Bible. Almost all fragments of these 'scholia' have come down to us through the florilegium called Collectio Coisliniana (ed. Petit), the exegetical Catena on Genesis (ed. Petit) and the Commentary on Genesis by Procopius of Gaza (ed. Metzler). In preparing the edition I have to rework parts of the editions of Françoise Petit in order to examine the different branches of the manuscript tradition, especially the different types of catena (according to the classification of Karo and Lietzmann). On this occasion one should question anew the origin of the fragments we call 'scholia'. What kind of work was it from which they come? The catenae and florilegia give at best the author's name for a fragment; very seldom we get the title of the work it comes from. Our testimonies give us three terms: 'scholia', 'semeioseis' and 'excerpta', presumably referring to the same kind of source, because Jerome used 'excerpta' as translation for 'scholia' as well as for 'semeioseis'. It is under discussion how to define the literary genre. In his fundamental paper Éric Junod examined the material and gave a rough definition: 'semeioseis', later on called 'scholia', were shorter exegetical remarks, formally distinguished from commentaries and homilies. Christoph Markschies gave them a place in the teaching at Origen's private university in Alexandria and in Caesarea Maritima, namely as both the notes of the hearers of Origen's lectures, analogously to the practice in philosophic schools of their time, and those by Origen himself preparing his lectures. Franz Xaver Risch, however, obtained quite another result from the detailed analysis of a catena on the Psalms, namely the second margin catena of the Codex Vindobonensis theol. gr. 8. As he could show, they are the author's notes in preparing a commentary and cannot be excerpts of any finished work. Of course, since we don't know any detail about the curriculum of Origen's university and the subjects of the lectures, we cannot exclude the possibility of his using any commentary (according to Risch) or any treatise (according to Junod) in teaching. Nor can we exclude 'scholia' coming from notes exclusively meant for purposes of teaching and learning. But we have no evidence. Since the discussion failed to find an exact meaning for 'scholia' or 'semeioseis' or 'excerpta', one should develop a broader concept to explain them. I propose to take them neither as an exact term of a literary genre nor as a label of function in running a private university, but as a category for librarian purposes. I think they were non-terminological designations, formulated ad hoc by users resp. librarians of the library of Caesarea, in order to separate remains of different pieces of Origen's literary legacy from the (finished) commentaries and homilies. Conclusions have to be drawn about the library of Caesarea Maritima as well as about the 'scholia' concerning the book of Genesis. At the time of Origen's death the library would host finished and unfinished works by Origen, possibly including material from the lessons of his 'private university' in Caesarea, as his preparations of lectures or pupil's notices of their contents. Origen's remains may have been with and without book cover, and the intention of some notices may have been uncertain, but they were esteemed as his legacy and included in the process of compiling catenae. 'Scholia' may have been morsels of such uncertain origin as well as excerpts of finished works. The 'scholia' concerning the book of Genesis seem to be drawn from a short commentary, perhaps not yet finished, meant to complete the extant commentary on Gen 1:1-5:1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to provide a general introduction to Origen's exegesis on the Book of Genesis. The few elements that modern scholars have at their disposal from the Commentary on Genesis make them understand on the one hand both the exegetical sophistication and the richness in contents of this commentary, on the other the importance of what we have lost and which we can hardly recover through other Origen's writings. The fact that Origen, in composing the commentary, exposed himself to his critics particularly for what concerns the elaboration of his protologic doctrines, combined with the fact that he later preferred a more covered language for exposing these same doctrines, makes the loss of this commentary particularly painful for those who are trying to reconstruct the evolution of his thought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]