MONITUM AD COMMENTARIA ORIGENIS IN JOANNEM
I. Origenes, not long after he returned from Antioch, where he had been summoned by Mammaea, the mother of Alexander Severus—that is to say, in the year of Christ 219—began his exegetical works on Scripture at Alexandria, as he himself indicates in the prologue to John, no. 4: "Since all our action and our whole life are dedicated to God, seeing that we strive toward better things with great zeal, and since we desire to have the first fruits of all the many first fruits—unless we are deceived in thinking this—what other first fruits ought we to have had, after we were separated from one another by bodily distance, than to institute a discussion on the Gospel?" For one must dare to say that the Gospel is the first fruits A of all the Scriptures. "From the time, therefore, that we arrived in Alexandria, what other things could be the first fruits of our actions than the first fruits of the Scriptures?" Then, further on, no. 6: "I myself think that even if there are four Gospels, they are as it were the elements of the faith of the Church, of which elements the whole world is constituted, reconciled to God through Christ, as Paul says: 'God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself' [II Cor. v, 19], the sin of which world Jesus took away; for it is concerning the world of the Church that the words were written: 'Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world' [Joan. i, 30]." We have been commanded by you to investigate the Gospel according to John to the best of our ability. He addresses here Ambrose, at whose urging he undertook these Commentaries and to whom he dedicated them.
II. Having interrupted the work during his Achaean journey, upon his return and his having become a presbyter, he resumed it at Alexandria, as is evident from the preface to the sixth tome on John, no. 1: "And up to the fifth tome, even if the storm at Alexandria seemed to hinder us, we dictated the materials provided, with Jesus rebuking the winds and the waves of the sea." Up to the fifth tome, although a storm seemed to oppose us at Alexandria, what was granted to us we dictated, as Jesus rebuked the winds and the waves of the sea. Hence it is clear B that the first five tomes were composed at Alexandria before the year 231, when he moved to Caesarea; a fact also taught by Eusebius, *Hist.*, bk. VI, ch. 24. Indeed, he had begun the sixth likewise at Alexandria, but he was forced to start it anew, because he had not carried off the previous writing when he departed Alexandria, just as he himself says in the preface to that same tome, a little further on: "But know that we have, with great haste, begun the sixth tome anew, because what we had previously interpreted at Alexandria, I know not how, was not brought with us." Hence Nicephorus is either not to be heard, or else must be understood this way C when he says, bk. V, ch. 15, that six tomes on John were written at that time in Alexandria.
III. In the year, as we have already said, 231, Origenes, having found Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria, hostile to him for many reasons, departed Alexandria and took up residence at Caesarea, where not immediately, but yet not long after—and perhaps after the death of Demetrius, in the year 232, that is—having found some tranquility, he continued the interrupted work. This is indeed to be gathered from the preface to the same sixth tome: "And we were drawn away from the Egypt that had fallen upon us, rescued by the God who brought his people out of it. Then, after the enemy had campaigned against us most bitterly by means of his new writings—the true enemies of the Gospel—and all those in D Egypt..."
A raising winds of wickedness against us, Reason exhorted me to stand firm for the struggle and to preserve my governing faculty, lest wicked thoughts should gain strength to bring storm and distress into my soul, just as I had been about—untimely, before my mind had experienced calm—to connect the next parts of the Scripture. And the shorthand writers, as usual, being absent, prevented me from dictating. But now that those many fiery darts aimed at us have been quenched by God, and the arrows blunted, and our soul, having become accustomed to the things that have befallen it for the sake of the heavenly Word, is more easily constrained to endure the plots that have been formed—as if having obtained some measure of serenity—we no longer wish to delay in dictating what follows, praying that God, the Teacher whispering in the inmost sanctuary of our soul, may be present so that the structure of the exposition of the Gospel according to John may reach its end. And may God be a listener to our prayer, so that we may be able to join together the body of the whole discourse, no longer interrupted by any adversity, nor having the power to effect an interruption of the analysis of Scripture!
Having advanced from this occasion, we have been brought out of Egypt—God delivering us, who led his people out B of it—and then, after the enemy (Demetrius) had campaigned against us most bitterly by means of his new writings—truly hostile to the Gospel—and had stirred up all the winds of Egypt against us, reason exhorted me to stand firm in the struggle and to keep the better part of myself, rather than to attach the remaining Scripture inopportunely before my discourse had regained its tranquility, lest perchance wicked thoughts should gain strength and bring a storm into my soul. Moreover, those who were absent, who normally assist me—the swift writers—prevented me from committing to writing what I had pondered. Now, however, when many fiery arrows aimed at us have come to naught, God extinguishing them, and our soul, having grown accustomed to these things which occur for the sake of the celestial Word, is compelled to bear the plots that have been made more easily—as if having obtained a measure of calm—not delaying further, we wish to dictate what remains, praying that God, the Master echoing in the hidden sanctuary of our soul, may be present, that the structure of the commentary on the Gospel according to John may reach its end. And would that God might hear our prayers, that we may be able to join together the body of the entire work, and that no necessity may henceforth cut short or interrupt the series of Scripture! C Nevertheless, only long after the persecution of Maximin, since he mentions the twenty-second tome, as attested by Eusebius, *Hist.* lib. VI, cap. 28, and perhaps during his second journey to Athens, as Huet conjectures, were the later tomes brought to completion.
IV. Jerome, in the prologue which is prefixed to the Latin interpretation of Origen’s Homilies on Luke, commemorates thirty-nine tomes written by the same Origen on John. "For," he says, "what holy Blesilla had once requested at Rome, that I should translate into our language the thirty-six (read twenty-five) tomes of his on Matthew, and five others on Luke, and thirty-nine on John." The most learned Huet suspects an error of the amanuenses here, and thinks that instead of thirty-nine one should read thirty-two. That no more than thirty-one tomes were completed is deduced from the fact that Origen himself, in his thirty-fifth tractate on Matthew, page 922, regarding the words of Matthew: *But the robbers also, who were crucified with him, reviled him*, says that in his Commentaries on John he had expounded concerning the two robbers who were crucified with Christ, and had there debated whether these two robbers, of whom one blasphemed Christ according to Luke, were others, and those other two were they who both blasphemed according to Matthew and Mark. "And," he says, "in John, as we were able, we expounded concerning the two robbers, who were crucified with Christ, who according to Matthew indeed and Mark reviled him both on the cross; but according to Luke, saying that one of the hanging robbers blasphemed... It is fitting, therefore, that in the first place both robbers should be understood to have blasphemed the Lord... Or lest perhaps, as we also said there (in the Commentaries on John, that is), these two robbers from whom one blasphemed him are others, and those were other two robbers who both blasphemed (for thus it is to be read according to the mss.)." These things, however, are found nowhere in the nine tomes which still exist on John, and from the words just cited and the place where they are cited, it seems that Origen discussed the two robbers not in passing, but *ex professo* and in his own place. Moreover, since the thirty-second tome ends at chapter XIII, v. 33 of the Gospel of John, as we have already said, yet the matter of the robbers is dealt with in chapter XIX, v. 18 of the same Gospel, it is likely that more than thirty-two tomes were composed on John, and therefore Jerome’s reading, which commemorates thirty-nine tomes on John, seems genuine.
V. Of so many of Origen’s lucubrations on John, Eusebius writes that only twenty-two tomes had reached his own age (*Hist.* lib. VI, cap. 24). But since Jerome later, and Rufinus perhaps, had thirty-nine (or only thirty-two) in their hands, and tomes twenty-eight and thirty-two still survive today, it must be conjectured that Eusebius did not see more than twenty-two, yet more
A in his own age had existed. The injury of time later destroyed these, except for tomes 1, 11, vi, x, XIII, xix, xx, xxviii, and xxxii, of which a double translation has appeared. From the Venetian codex of St. Mark, which today appears nowhere, Ambrosius Ferrarius, a Milanese monk of Monte Cassino, compiled the former and published it in the year 1551; Joachim Perionius, also a Benedictine monk, did the latter from the Royal codex about three years later. I think he would not have taken on this labor if he had understood that he was acting not merely as an actor, but as one performing a bad performance of a good work. But the Ferrariana translation had not yet reached him; therefore, in the preface to his own explanation, he professes to be the first initiator of this labor. He persuaded Sixtus Senensis of this, who reported it the same; Sixtus also told it to a learned man who falsely repeated the same. But it is understood that these codices, the Venetian and the Royal, came from one and the same exemplar, from the conflict of the Ferrariana interpretation with the Perioniana and the Greek edition of Huet, which were expressed according to the Royal exemplar, as the gaps correspond so accurately to the gaps, although it must be admitted that the codex of Ferrari was in some places more complete and perfect. Each book differed chiefly in this, that the Royal kept the true and genuine distinction of nine tomes, whereas the Venetian had been cut into thirty-two tomes of one continuous series, by a certain Greekling of uncertain name, says Sixtus Senensis, by a new kind of imposture, so that the work might be B increased by a multitude of numbers, and might render the order of arithmetical computation more desirable, and sell for a higher price: whence Ferrarius, deceived, retained the same division of the book, and thought that out of the thirty-nine tomes which he supposed Origen had written on John, only the last seven were missing, and that the series of the work was interrupted by only a few small gaps. Although that learned man soon smelled the fraud, for in the earlier edition of his translation, at the beginning of tome xix, he writes in the margin that he suspects that these tomes were dissected in such a way so that the numbering would not be interrupted.
VI. But the most illustrious Huet, who first edited them in Greek at Rouen in 1668, restored to each its number in the Greek, while keeping the translation of Ferrarius as it was before, distributed into xxxi tomes, inasmuch as it, although it is rough in speech and not sufficiently pure, is nevertheless brighter and better than the Perioniana and adheres more closely to the Greek, and sufficiently renders its own fidelity. Yet it also labors under its own faults, and in this, the candor or understanding of affairs of Ferrarius seems to be greatly missed, because he announced with a solemn oath at the end of his work that he used the greatest faith and diligence in translating this book, so that nothing at all was changed from what the author wrote. Then he adds: Know, moreover, that I have found nothing in this book which appears to be contrary to the decrees of our holy mother the Church; for if I had found it, I would either not have translated the book C or I would have marked the passage as suspect. Yet he seems to have deliberately withdrawn things infected by the taint of perverted doctrine, nor did he allow fewer things to remain which stood at no small interval from the decrees of the Church. But all these things are noted in their proper places.
VII. From the double translation of Ferrarius and Perionius and the single Royal codex, Huet fashioned his edition, who would indeed have gladly used other codices described by the order of the Gallican clergy from the libraries of Italy some years ago, if Joannes Tarinus, a Parisian professor, to whose faith they had been committed in order that he might bring the same Commentaries on John, Commentaries on Matthew, and the Philocalia into the light, had wished to share them with him: but that man did not wish to light his candle from his own light, lest his own might shine less for him when he had lit another's. Regarding this matter the most illustrious Prelate complains very gravely and not unjustly. We, however, being more fortunate, have used two codices, namely the Bodleian and the Barberini, by whose fidelity we have restored the Greek, filled the gaps, and amended the interpretation of Ferrarius, having first changed his division of the tomes which Huet had preserved in the Latin.
VIII. Besides these nine tomes, chapters 4 and 5 of the Philocalia present two fragments from tome iv, and three others from the preface of the fifth, among which the middle one contains a particle translated from book vi of Eusebius's History, chap. 25. The Apology of Pamphilus the martyr also provides two Latin fragments. The first is from tome v, but the other, which is said to have been taken from the second, you will find nowhere in it. Nor, however, should we conclude for this reason that this tome is truncated, inasmuch as it appears complete in every part, nor does it seem to gape with any gaps. Whence we suspect more probably that these two fragments were excerpted from one and the same fifth tome. We have rendered the reason for this conjecture where it is suitable.
IX. Now, that we may say something about the lost tomes, besides what Eusebius writes in Hist. lib. vi, cap. 28, concerning the persecution of Maximin, which began to rage in the year of Christ 255, mention is made in tome xx. Origen himself in tome xvi on Matthew, page 748, on these words of Matthew: “Hosanna to the Son of David,” etc., says that the same had been weighed by himself in the Commentaries on John, when namely that passage was proposed to him to be explained: “On the next day, however, the great crowd which had come to the feast day,” etc. Which indeed it is probable was treated in tome xxix. Then in the same Matthew, tract. xxxv, page 893, he testifies that he examined more diligently in the Commentaries on John whether Christ's feet had been anointed at supper by one single woman or by more. Which indeed was prefixed to the same tome xxix. Finally, in his Epistle to the Romans, chap. vi, lib. v: But concerning the manner of baptism, he says, when we were explaining the Gospel according to John, when we came to that place where it says of Jesus: “He himself D will you
baptize in the Holy Spirit,” and likewise where the Savior says: “Unless one is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” we stated according to our best ability what could occur to us, or rather what God bestowed, where we also attempted to open up more deeply the force of the discourse in the passage: “Unless one is born again.” Furthermore, in the sixth tome on John, he indeed expounds these words: “He himself will baptize you in the Holy Spirit”; but he ought to have expounded the later words, “Unless one,” etc., at the beginning of the eleventh tome. Eustathius of Antioch produces a passage of Origen from the same lost tomes on John, where the matter of the stoning of Jesus by the Jews was being treated. Thus he says in the book De Engastrimytho: A Seeing likewise the drama of the stoning, since he endeavors to interpret this also tropologically, he speaks falsely about the Gospel text; saying, we found not, having searched in the preceding, that the Jews had taken up stones to throw at him. Then after a little he says: “For if they took them up again, they had taken them up before.” He wishes to demonstrate up and down that there is no precedence, and to establish another interpretation in the same way, that they took up arguments, but not stones, carelessly against him. And since the evangelist had previously said: “They took up stones therefore to throw at him,” and though he had written these things in the interval, having skipped about one hundred and thirty-five verses, he adds, having appended: “The Jews therefore took up stones, that they might stone him.” B But these things are recorded in two places, and appear to have been done at different times, because they do not have the same connection or conjunction of words; but Origen, who thinks he knows all the Scriptures, did not recognize this while writing that the whole Gospel was written as one piece word for word. And if anyone supposes that we are fabricating these things, by reading through the evangelical sentences and his commentaries upon them, he will find that we have spoken nothing false. Nor does it appear from these words where Origen treated the stoning of Jesus by the Jews, whether when he was explaining the former context of John, “they took up stones therefore to throw at him,” or when the latter, “the Jews therefore took up stones, that they might stone him.” Perhaps in both. If so, it seems highly probable that he treated it in tome XXI and tome XXV or XXVI. C Nor is he less strangely deceitful in the evangelical words while he scrutinizes the fact of the stoning, struggling to lead it into another meaning as if it happened through tropes.
X. Tillemont, in his Hist. eccl., tom. III, p. 572, suspects that something is missing in tome VI, where Origen had spoken many words both about martyrs and about a certain plague which is found nowhere in histories, and which, he says, perhaps raged around the year 232. But I do not sufficiently grasp from whence that most learned man could have conjectured this. For Origen discusses both, speaking about martyrs and about those who perished on account of the laws of pestilential diseases; nor is it a matter there of those who perished consumed by some new plague, but of those who, in ancient times among the Gentiles when pestilential diseases raged, delivered themselves as victims for their country, just as we have observed in its proper place.