Origenism
Christ can make a person pure, not his or her own efforts I. The setting of one early form of Origenism was the
(In Iohannem XXXII 7.74). Therefore → synergism is
not an accurate term for Origen’s conception. For him
the experience of the believer is central. The old ques-
tion whether he was himself a “mystic” (Völker, 62–75,
citing Homilia in Numeros 27) is therefore of secondary
interest. His purpose is to assist Christians on the path
of life and knowledge; the goal is not a fleeting ecstatic
experience but steady, ongoing, agonistic efforts.
Origen’s theology is rich and complex. We can prob-
ably do justice to it only in pairs of opposites. With its
anti-Gnostic focus, it was the first systematic theology
shaped by the scholarly standards of antiquity; it was
also provisional at many points, tentative and inconsis-
tent. Origen was a preacher whose heart went out to
ordinary Christians and at the same time a scholar who
critically scrutinized the inept. He was a passionate man
of the church (Homilia in Lucam 16.6) who lived in
conflict with some of its leaders throughout his lifetime.
Probably this paradoxical range is one of the reasons for
people’s fascination with Origen through the centuries
(→ Origenism) to the present day.
Sources: CPG 1, 1410–1505 ◆ Bibl.: H. Crouzel, Bibliographie
critique d’Origène, IP 8, 1971; Supplément, vol. I, IP 8A, 1982 ◆
Kongreßbände: Origeniana, 1975 till Origeniana Octava, 2002 ◆
Origene. Maestro di vita spirituale, SPMed 22, 2001 ◆ Periodical:
Adamantius 1, 1995ff. ◆ Bibl.: W. Völker, Das Vollkommenheitsi-
deal des Origenes, BHTh 7, 1931 ◆ K.-O. Weber, Origenes der Neu-
platoniker, Zet. 27, 1962 ◆ N. de Lange, Origen and the Jews,
UCOP 25, 1976 ◆ U. Berner, Origenes, EdF 147, 1981 ◆ H. Crou-
zel, Origène, 1985 ◆ B. Neuschäfer, “Origenes als Philologe,” SBA
18/1–2, 1987 ◆ H. Strutwolf, Gnosis als System, FKDG 56, 1993 ◆
H. Ziebritzki, Heiliger Geist und Weltseele, BHTh 84, 1994 ◆
R. Williams, TRE XXV, 1995, 397–420 ◆ C. Markschies, “’ . . .für
die Gemeinde im Grossen und Ganzen nicht geeignet . . .’?,” ZThK
94, 1997, 39–68 ◆ A. Salvesen, Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments,
TSAJ 58, 1998 ◆ H.J. Vogt, Origenes als Exeget, 1999 ◆ A. Monaci
Castagno, ed., Origene. Dizionario, 2000 ◆ T. Böhm, “Origenes.
Theologe und (Neu-)Platoniker,” Adamantius 8, 2002, 7–23.
Christoph Markschies
Origenism. Origenism is a complex phenomenon,
since the response to → Origen’s works and ideas came
from many sources; it arose initially from the Judeo-
Christian tradition of → Alexandria, where the exegeti-
cal heritage of → Philo of Alexandria played a leading
role. This Alexandrian tradition also incorporated cer-
tain ideas from pagan philosophy, Platonism in particu-
lar, following the lead of Philo and → Clement of
Alexandria. Also important was the appropriation of
this tradition in early monasticism, specifically by
→ Evagrius Ponticus, which led to an ascetic and mysti-
cal strain of Origenism. It is often not easy to isolate the
influence of Origen himself; the disputed teachings of
the great Alexandrian theologian, which gave rise to the
→ Origenist controversies, are only partially behind the
overall phenomenon.
RPP VOL 9_O_250-438.indd 376
376
Didaskaleion in Alexandria. In the context of this scho-
lastic tradition, in the 3rd century a process was already
underway that both adopted and criticized the heritage
of Origen. Among the teachers of this period, → Diony-
sius of Alexandria stands out. Unlike his predecessor
Heraclas (c. 232–247), Dionysius had a good relation-
ship with Origen, whose allegorical method of biblical
interpretation and theology of the Trinity he shared. He
did, however, reject the ascription of the book of Revela-
tion to the evangelist, while his polemic against the
Libyan Monarchianists (→ Monarchianism) led to a
radical version of Origen’s subordinationism. Of the
later heads of the school we know little, except that
→ Theognostus of Alexandria continued to practice Ori-
gen’s method of inquiry and → Pierius of Alexandria was
called a “young Origen.” The spread of Origenist ideas
in early Egyptian monasticism can be seen at the begin-
ning of the 4th century in → Hieracas, who rejected the
resurrection of the flesh and was therefore opposed by
→ Peter of Alexandria. Around the same time, Origen’s
spiritualized eschatology became the subject of violent
controversy, as we can see from the De resurrectione of
→ Methodius of Olympus (CPG 1, 1812). Supporters
of Origen like → Pamphilus of Caesarea and → Eusebius
of Caesarea sprang to his defense. Besides the Apologia,
which he enlarged after the death of his teacher (CPG 2,
3476), Eusebius dedicated the sixth book of his Ecclesi-
astical History to the memory of Origen (CPG 2, 3495).
The works of the Alexandrian, which Pamphilus had
organized in the library at Caesarea, are here presented
chronologically, while the person of the theologian is
defended against attacks by churchmen and pagans
(→ Porphyry). Despite the esteem Origen enjoyed in
Caesarea, his literary legacy was already suffering consid-
erable damage.
II. The Arian controversy, which erupted in Alexan-
dria, can also be understood as an internal conflict
within Origenism. While → Arius took the subordina-
tionist tendency of Origen’s Christology to an extreme,
Bishop → Alexander of Alexandria remained true to his
teaching concerning the eternal begetting of the Son.
→ Athanasius emphasized the agreement between the
faith of Nicea (→ Nicea, Council of [325]) and Origen,
while in the same period the latter’s theological heritage
was being cultivated by → Didymus the Blind. The last
known head of the Didaskaleion, Didymus shared with
Origen his allegorical interpretation of Scripture, his
Platonic views, and his teachings on the preexistence of
souls and → apocatastasis. In the spirit of Origen, he
defended free will against → Manichaeism.
Origen was first called a heretic by → Epiphanius of
Salamis, who in 393 sparked the first Origenist contro-
9/27/2010 10:50:19 AM
 377
versy in Palestine and Egypt. This controversy shows
how the influence of Origen had spread in both the East
and the West. The contacts that Western theologians
developed with the East during the Trinitarian contro-
versy (325–381) also acquainted them with Origen’s
writings. These Western theologians included → Hilary
of Poitiers, who wrote his commentary on the Psalms in
the spirit of Origen. Among these first Western readers,
→ Ambrose of Milan stands out; his relationship with
Origen as an exegete and master of the spiritual life is
closely linked with his reception of Philo. In the 4th and
5th centuries, however, the most important channels of
Origen’s thought in the West were his two translators,
→ Jerome and Tyrannius → Rufinus. Thanks to their
work, Origen’s writings were able to survive despite
their later condemnation in 553, including the contro-
versial central systematic De principiis, whereas only a
fraction survived in the Greek original. Such transla-
tions also gave → Augustine of Hippo access to the world
of Origen’s thought, toward which he was theologically
more open than Jerome had been. Until the period of
Humanism, however, the Western reception of Origen
was marked by the distinction between the theologian
and the exegete, which went back to Jerome.
In the 4th-century Greek church, the three Cappa-
docians (→ Cappadocian theology) made the most
important contribution to evolution of Origenism.
Here they followed in the footsteps of → Gregory Thau-
maturgus, a former pupil of Origen’s and later mission-
ary to Cappadocia, and → Firmilian of Caesarea, who
had invited the Alexandrian to Caesarea. Around 360,
at the initiative of → Basil the Great and → Gregory of
Nazianzus, the → Philocalia was produced, an anthology
of the works of Origen that had as its subject biblical
hermeneutics and the doctrine of free will. Thanks to
this anthology, several passages from De principiis sur-
vived in their original text. Later, in the homilies of his
Hexaemeron (CPG 2, 2835), Basil repudiated the alle-
gorical method, but in his Trinitarian theology he advo-
cated the Origenistic three-hypostases doctrine
(→ Hypostasis). Gregory of Nazianzus and → Gregory of
Nyssa may have developed a greater intellectual affinity
to Origen: the former continued to invoke Origen’s
exploratory methodology (Or. 27.10), while the latter
shared with him his Platonic views and the doctrine of
apocatastasis.
Closely tied to the Cappadocians, especially Gregory
of Nazianzus, was Evagrius Ponticus, who went back to
Clement of Alexandria by way of Origen. Both his prac-
tical ascetic works and his mystical Kephalaia Gnostica
were the wellspring for a new development of Ori-
genism. Evagrius developed a critical analysis of ascetic
practice in a protological and eschatological context.
RPP VOL 9_O_250-438.indd 377
Origenism
His inclination toward monistic and pantheistic ideas,
even more visible in many of his followers (like → Ste-
phen bar Sudaili in the early 6th cent.), brought him
under suspicion of heterodoxy. He was condemned for
this in 553 along with Origen and Didymus. The Greek
originals of his works, highly esteemed in early monasti-
cism, were lost, except for some that survived under the
pseudonym of → Nilus of Ancyra. The loss was compen-
sated, however, by the Syriac translation. Even the Keph-
alaia Gnostica (CPG 2, 2432) survived, whereas Origen,
unlike Evagrius, was always considered a heretic by
the Syrians.
III. The subsequent history of Origenism can be
reconstructed more easily in the West than in the East,
although as late as the 9th century → Photius of Con-
stantinople preserved much of the tradition, and indi-
vidual works (esp. Contra Celsum) continued to be read
in Byzantium. In the Latin High Middle Ages, besides
numerous Carolingian authors who profited from Ori-
gen’s exegetical heritage (e.g. → Paschasius Radbertus
and → Rabanus Maurus), the outstanding figure was
John Scotus → Eriugena. Several of his writings, espe-
cially the Periphyseon, his major work, borrow from Ori-
gen’s protology and eschatology. Like many later writers,
he endeavored to establish a bridge linking Origen and
Augustine.
Western Origenism reached its first highpoint in the
12th century, when the Alexandrian was particularly
esteemed as an exegetical and mystical writer. Besides
→ Hugh of St. Victor and → Richard of St. Victor, Ori-
gen influenced the Cistercians → William of Saint-Thi-
erry and → Bernard of Clairvaux, particularly through
his commentary on the Song of Songs. We also can
detect in → Hildegard of Bingen a familiarity with Ori-
gen’s homilies on the Hexateuch, which were widely
read in this period. The attitude of Scholasticism was
more reserved, especially with regard to Origen’s
“errors,” which were criticized by such writers as → Abe-
lard. Nevertheless even → Thomas Aquinas was prepared
to recognize the authority of the exegete. The situation
differed in the case of Meister → Eckhart, whose views
on the → unio mystica were based in part on Origen’s
theology of the image of God in the soul.
IV. A new era in the history of Origenism dawned
with the advent of Humanism, which over time was able
to return to the Greek texts (esp. Contra Celsum). In the
15th century, the Christian Platonism of M. → Ficino
and G. → Pico della Mirandola created a favorable atmo-
sphere for recovery of the speculative elements in Ori-
genism. This appropriation was built on in the 16th and
17th centuries by esoteric movements that sought to
claim Origen for a Christian → Hermeticism (II, 3) or
Kabbalism (→ Kabbalah: III). But Pico’s primary goal
9/27/2010 10:50:19 AM
 Origenist Controversies
was to reverse the condemnation of Origen. When the
papacy condemned this thesis, he responded with an
apologia for the salvation of Origen (1488), which used
motifs from the apologia of Pamphilus and emphasized
Origen’s loyalty to the church. At the beginning of the
16th century, this view gained the support of → Erasmus
of Rotterdam, who rendered outstanding service as edi-
tor of Origen’s collected works. He valued Origen pri-
marily as a philologist, exegete, and ethicist, while letting
the controversial theses fade into the background.
Because of his allegorical interpretation and doctrine
of free will, Origen generally found little sympathy
among the Reformers. In his De servo arbitrio (1525),
Luther rejected the Alexandrian’s explanation for the
hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. After some initial interest
in Origen, under Luther’s influence Melanchthon came
to criticize his biblical hermeneutics. Calvin shared the
same attitude, while Zwingli exhibited more openness.
In polemic against the doctrine of grace, Roman Catho-
lic apologists frequent appealed to Origen’s defense of
free will, which their opponents dismissed as Pelagian.
In this context, the Belgian Jesuit Pierre Halloix offered
a new apologia for Origen (1655), acquitting him of any
suspicion of heterodoxy. In his Augustinus (1640),
C. → Jansen attacked such attempts at rehabilitation,
arguing that the doctrine of free will was the root of all
the Alexandrian’s errors. The first historical-critical
assessment of Origen was the work of P.D. → Huet,
whose Origeniana (1668) painted a picture of Origen as
a writer and theologian that was free from any polemical
or confessional bias.
V. In the modern era, Origen repeatedly attracted the
attention of philosophers, beginning with G. → Bruno
and T. → Campanella. The former used Origen’s hetero-
dox views to bolster his own pantheistic ideas, while the
latter viewed him as a champion of a synthesis between
faith and reason. The → Cambridge Platonists returned
to him as a representative of a Christian Platonism;
Ralph Cudworth (1617–1688) was able to value him as
a pioneer of the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of
free will as the core of Origenistic thought once again
became the subject of a vigorous debate between the
Arminian J. → Leclercq and P. → Bayle, in which the lat-
ter argued against an optimistic soteriology with Ori-
genistic roots. At roughly the same time, modern
Origenism found its most significant exponent in the
person of G.W. → Leibniz, who was open to Origen’s
whole “system,” finding deep sympathy for the Alexan-
drian’s intellectual dynamism and developing his own
perspective on apocatastasis.
During the Enlightenment, thinkers like J.L. v.
→ Mosheim sought to reach a critical assessment of Ori-
genism. Those influenced by some of Origen’s character-
RPP VOL 9_O_250-438.indd 378
378
istic themes as mediated through Leibniz included
G.E. → Lessing, especially in his Erziehung des Men-
schengeschlechtes (1777); ET: The Education of the
Human Race (1875), and I. → Kant (Das Ende aller
Dinge, 1794; ET: The End of All Things, 1996).
VI. In the 19th century, scholars began exploring
Origen’s exegetical and theological heritage once more.
Besides the old apologetic goal of displaying the fidelity
of his thought to the church, the advocates of which
included J.H. → Newman, more emphasis was placed on
philological and critical analysis, culminating in the
20th century in the GCS edition, particularly in the
work of Paul Koetschau. While A. v. → Harnack brought
out the value of Origen’s homiletics for church history,
between the two world wars patristics scholars and
theologians like H. de → Lubac, K. and H. → Rahner,
H.U. v. → Balthasar, and J. → Daniélou opened a new
phase of Origenism, which focused once more on Ori-
gen as a Christian, exegete, and theologian within the
context of the church. In contrast to the modern dis-
missal of allegory, they placed particular value on the
rediscovery of the “spiritual” reading of the Bible it
makes possible, an approach that had its most brilliant
advocate in the Alexandrian.
H. de Lubac, Exégèse médiévale. Les quatre sens de l’écriture, 4 vols.,
1959–1963 ◆ A. Guillaumont, Les “Kephalaia gnostica” d’évagre le
pontique et l’histoire de l’origénisme chez les Grecs et chez les Syriens,
1962 ◆ H. Crouzel, Une controverse sur Origène à la renaissance.
Jean Pic de la Mirandole et Pierre Garcia, 1977 ◆ M. Schär, Das
Nachleben des Origenes im Zeitalter des Humanismus, 1979 ◆
A. Godin, Érasme lecteur d’Origène, 1982 ◆ G. Sfameni Gasparro,
Origene e la tradizione origeniana in occidente, 1998 ◆ G. Lettieri,
“Origenismo (in Occidente, secc. VII–XVIII),” in: A. Monaci
Castagno, ed., Origene. Dizionario, 2000, 307–322 ◆ B. McGinn,
“The Spiritual Heritage of Origen in the West: Aspects of the
History of Origen’s Influence in the Middle Ages,” in: L.F. Pizzo-
lato & M. Rizzi, eds., Origene. Maestro di vita spirituale, 2001,
263–289 ◆ M. Giradi & M. Marin, eds., Origene e l’alessandrinismo
cappadoce (III–IV secolo), 2002 ◆ E. Prinzivalli, Magister Ecclesiae.
Il dibattito su Origene fra III e IV secolo, 2002 ◆ L. Perrone, ed.,
Origeniana octava. Origene e la tradizione alessandrina, 2003.
Lorenzo Perrone
Origenist Controversies. The person and work of
→ Origen were already controversial during his lifetime.
After his death, while the reception of his work contin-
ued to spread in the Greek East and Latin West, resis-
tance was raised again against the allegorical
interpretation of the Bible and some of the theses Ori-
gen had presented, especially in the areas of protology
and eschatology (pre-existence of souls and → apocatas-
tasis). At the end of the 3rd century, → Methodius of
Olympus contested Origen’s understanding of the ori-
gin of the world and the loss of corporeality in the resur-
rection. These and similar critiques led → Pamphilus of
Caesarea and his student → Eusebius of Caesarea to
author an apologia of Origen (c. 310). With reference to
9/27/2010 10:50:19 AM
 379
Origen’s investigative method, instead of his opponents’
“dogmatization” of his thought, these two authors
rebutted several christological and anthropological
accusations. About this time, → Eustathius of Antioch
also attacked Origen’s allegorical method and thereby
justified the Antiochene’s (→ Antiochene theology)
rejection of the Alexandrian and his exegetical tradi-
tion. The attacks expressed to this point, not yet aimed
at Origen as a heretic, found no echo during the Arian
controversy (→ Arius). On the contrary, → Athanasius
of Alexandria praised him as the proponent of the
Nicene → homoousios. However, toward the end of the
4th century, a less favorable atmosphere led to the “first
Origenist crisis.” The controversy, initiated by the
attacks of → Epiphanius of Salamis (393) against which
Bishop → John of Jerusalem defended himself, started in
Palestine and soon extended to Egypt. Epihanius gained
the support of → Jerome and → Theophilus of Alexan-
dria, while John had Rufinus of Aquileia and → Melanie
the Elder, both admirers of Origen and close friends of
→ Evagrius Ponticus, on his side. A major issue of this
first conflict was Origen’s eschatology, specifically his
concept of the resurrection of the body, while the fun-
damental elements of his “system” were also questioned
on the basis of De principiis. When Rufinus translated
the apologia by Pamphilus and then De principiis (398,
CPG 1, 1715; 1482), Jerome responded with his own
translation of the latter. This debate continued for some
time through polemical writings (Rufinus, Apologia ad
Hieronymum; Jerome, Apologia contra Rufinum [CPL
197; 613]), without, however, compromising Origen’s
reputation in the Latin world. On the other hand,
Theophilus of Alexandria fought against the Origenist
groups who were active in Egyptian monasticism, partly
owing to the impact of Evagrius. These circles had first
reacted to the doctrines of the so-called Anthropomor-
phites, who, probably by drawing on traditions from
Asia Minor, wanted to include the body of the human
being as an image of God. After the condemnation by a
synod, the Origenists found an attentive ear in → John
Chrysostom, which led to political conflict between
Alexandria and Constantinople.
Despite occasional polemics, for example, the refuta-
tion of Pamphilus’s apologia by → Antipater of Bostra
(c. 460; CPG 3, 6687), a “second Origenist crisis”
erupted in Palestine only in the first half of the 6th cen-
tury. Adherents of Origen, Evagrius, and → Didymus
the Blind appeared among the monks of the → Sabas
Monastery in the Judean wilderness from 514 onward.
Their theological spokesman was → Leontius of Byzan-
tium, active around 530 in Constantinople, while the
political leadership was in the hands of Domitian, the
bishop of Ancyra (since c. 540), and Theodore Askydas,
RPP VOL 9_O_250-438.indd 379
Origin of the World, On the (NHC II, 5; XIII, 2; OW)
the bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (c. 537–588).
According to the portrayal by their opponents, espe-
cially → Cyril of Scythopolis, after the death of → Sabas
(532) the Origenists sought to gain control over his
institutions. The counter-reaction of Abbot Gelasius,
Sabas’s successor, led to a first condemnation of Origen
in an edict by Emperor → Justinian I (543; DH 403–
411). It was still aimed at Origen’s traditionally disputed
theses (pre-existence of souls and apocatastasis) on the
basis of De principiis, while the development that → Ori-
genism had undergone under the influence of Evagrius
was not yet taken into account. A division among the
Origenists in Palestine that happened in the following
decade as the result of internal power struggles opened
the path for the second condemnation of Origen at
the Second Ecumenical Council of → Constantinople
(IV, 2; 553). This time, the three proponents of the
Alexandrian tradition – Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus –
were condemned together; the formulated doctrines,
however, rather reflected the intellectual world of the
Kephalaia Gnostica (CPG 2, 2432).
F. Diekamp, Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten im 6. Jahrhundert
und das fünfte allgemeine Concil, 1899 ◆ A. Guillaumont, Les
“kephalaia gnostica” d’evagre le pontique et l’histoire de l’origénisme
chez les Grecs et chez les Syriens, 1962 ◆ L. Perrone, La chiesa di
Palestina e le controversie cristologiche, 1980 ◆ E.A. Clark, The Ori-
genist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian
Debate, 1992 ◆ W.A. Bienert & U. Kühneweg, eds., Origeniana
septima. Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts,
BEThL 137, 1999 ◆ D. Hombergen, The Second Origenist Contro-
versy: A New Perspective on Cyril of Scythopolis’ Monastic Biogra-
phies as Historical Sources for Sixth-Century Origenism, 2001 ◆
E. Prinzivalli, Magister ecclesiae. Il dibattito su Origene fra III e
IV secolo, 2002. Lorenzo Perrone
Origin of the World, On the (NHC II, 5; XIII, 2;
OW) a Gnostic tractate or treatise of the late 3rd or
early 4th century, supposed to have been written in
Alexandria. It is extant only in a Coptic translation, and
belongs to no known school. It is marked by the criteria
of ancient rhetoric, and has no title. Following a pro-
logue, it contains long descriptions, especially of prime-
val times (theogony, cosmogony, events from Gen 1–3),
and the end times, viewed apocalyptically. It is based on
numerous heterogeneous traditions, including earlier
Jewish traditions, refers to other literary works, has
affinities to the → Hypostasis of the Archons, and is closely
related to the → Nag HammadiLetter of Eugnostus.
Text: A. Böhlig & P. Labib, Die koptisch-gnostische Schrift ohne
Titel, 1962 ◆ H.-G. Bethge, Vom Ursprung der Welt, 1975 (with
comm.) ◆ B. Layton, ed., Nag Hammadi CodexII, 2–7; vol. II,
NHS 21, 1989 ◆ L. Painchaud, L’écrit sans titre, BCNH.T 21,
1995 (with comm.). Hans-Gebhard Bethge
9/27/2010 10:50:31 AM