This pdf is a digital offprint of your contribution in B.

Bitton-Ashkelony, O. Irshai, A. Kofsky, H. Newman &

L. Perrone (eds), Origeniana Duodecima, ISBN 978-90-429-
3947-9

The copyright on this publication belongs to Peeters

Publishers.

As author you are licensed to make printed copies of the

pdf or to send the unaltered pdf file to up to 50 relations.
You may not publish this pdf on the World Wide Web –
including websites such as academia.edu and open-access
repositories – until three years after publication. Please
ensure that anyone receiving an offprint from you
observes these rules as well.

If you wish to publish your article immediately on open-

access sites, please contact the publisher with regard to
the payment of the article processing fee.

For queries about offprints, copyright and republication

of your article, please contact the publisher via
[email protected]
 BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM

CCCII

ORIGENIANA DUODECIMA
ORIGEN’S LEGACY IN THE HOLY LAND –
A TALE OF THREE CITIES:
JERUSALEM, CAESAREA AND BETHLEHEM
Proceedings of the 12th International Origen Congress,
Jerusalem, 25-29 June, 2017

EDITED BY

BROURIA BITTON-ASHKELONY – ODED IRSHAI

ARYEH KOFSKY – HILLEL NEWMAN – LORENZO PERRONE

PEETERS
LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT
2019
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIII

PROLEGOMENON

Lorenzo PERRONE (Bologna)

Origen and His Legacy in the “Holy Land”: Fortune and Mis-
fortune of a Literary and Theological Heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

I. JERUSALEM AND THE HOLY LAND:

HISTORICAL AND MYSTICAL GEOGRAPHY

Agnès ALIAU-MILHAUD (Paris)

Bethabara and Gergesa (Origen, Commentary on John VI,204-
211): Geographical Digression or Exegesis? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Marie-Odile BOULNOIS (Paris)
Mambré: Du chêne de la vision au lieu de pèlerinage . . . . . . . . 41
Harald BUCHINGER (Regensburg)
Pascha in Third-Century Palestine: Origen’s Newly Identified
Homilies on the Psalms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Antonio CACCIARI (Bologna)
The Fall of Jerusalem in Origen’s Newly Discovered Homilies
on the Psalms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Lavinia CERIONI (Roma)
“Mother of Souls”: The Holy City of Jerusalem in Origen’s
Commentary and Homilies on the Song of Songs . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Giovanni HERMANIN DE REICHENFELD (Roma)
From Capernaum to Jerusalem: Noetic History and Historical
Occurrences in Origen’s Sacred Geography of the Holy Land . 123
Tommaso INTERI (Torino)
“A Place to Worship the Lord Our God”: Origen’s Exegesis of
the Holy Land in His Homilies on the Prophets . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
VIII TABLE OF CONTENTS

Nikolai LIPATOV-CHICHERIN (Nottingham)

Early Christian Tradition about Adam’s Burial on Golgotha and
Origen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Valentina MARCHETTO (Bologna)
“Jerusalem … Is the Divine Soul” (FrLam VIII): The Holy
Land in Origen’s Early Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Christoph MARKSCHIES (Berlin)
Local Knowledge vs. Religious Imaging: Origen and the Holy
Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Emanuela PRINZIVALLI (Roma)
The City of God and the Cities of Men according to Origen . . 221
Franz Xaver RISCH (Berlin)
Die Stufen des Tempels: Zur Auslegung der Gradualpsalmen
bei Origenes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

II. THE SCHOOL OF CAESAREA AND EUSEBIUS

Pier Franco BEATRICE (Padova)

Porphyry at Origen’s School at Caesarea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Francesco CELIA (Jerusalem)
Studying the Scriptures at the School of Caesarea: The Testi-
mony of Gregory of Neocaesarea’s Oratio Panegyrica . . . . . . . 285
Mark DELCOGLIANO (St. Paul, MN)
Eusebius of Caesarea’s Defense of Origen in Contra Marcellum
I,4,1-27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
Pedro Daniel FERNÁNDEZ (San Juan)
Alexandrie et Césarée: La continuité de l’itinéraire pédagogique
d’Origène . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Marc HIRSHMAN (Jerusalem)
Origen, Copyists, and Books of Aggada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
Aaron P. JOHNSON (Cleveland, TN)
Cities Divine and Demonic in Eusebius of Caesarea . . . . . . . . . 325
Adele MONACI CASTAGNO (Torino)
Eusèbe de Césarée, Jérusalem et la Palestine: Une question
controversée . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
 TABLE OF CONTENTS IX

Sébastien MORLET (Paris)

Συμφωνία: Symphonic Exegesis from Origen to Eusebius of
Caesarea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
Joseph PATRICH (Jerusalem)
Caesarea Maritima in the Time of Origen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375

III. ORIGEN’S LATIN LEGACY: RUFINUS AND JEROME

Andrew CAIN (Boulder, CO)

Origen, Jerome’s Pauline Prefaces, and the Architecture of
Exegetical Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
Maurizio GIROLAMI (Pordenone)
Bible and/or Tradition in the Works of Origen, Rufinus, and
Jerome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
Justin J. LEE (Durham)
“Seek and Ye Shall Find”: Rufinus and the Search for Origen’s
Trinitarian Orthodoxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
Katarina PÅLSSON (Lund)
Likeness to the Angels: Origen, Jerome, and the Question of
the Resurrection Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461

IV. TRADITION, INNOVATION, AND HERITAGE:

ORIGEN’S EXEGESIS AND THEOLOGY

Cordula BANDT (Berlin)

Psalms as Part of the Worship in Early Christian Exegesis . . . . 477
Carl Johan BERGLUND (Uppsala)
Discerning Quotations from Heracleon in Origen’s Commentary
on the Gospel of John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489
Andrew BLASKI (Champaign, IL)
Jews, Christians, and the Conditions of Christological Inter-
pretation in Origen’s Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505
Gerald BOSTOCK (Perth)
Origen’s Unique Doctrine of the Trinity: Its Jewish and Egyptian
Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519
X TABLE OF CONTENTS

Stephen C. CARLSON (Fitzroy)

Origen’s Use of Papias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535
Elizabeth Ann DIVELY LAURO (Los Angeles, CA)
History and Context of Origen’s Relation of the Two Seraphim
to the Son and Holy Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547
Samuel FERNÁNDEZ (Santiago)
“That Man Who Appeared in Judaea” (Prin II,6,2): The Sote-
riological Function of the Humanity of the Son of God according
to Origen’s De principiis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563
Alfons FÜRST (Münster)
Matter and Body in Origen’s Christian Platonism . . . . . . . . . . . 573
Anders-Christian JACOBSEN (Aarhus)
Origen on Body and Soul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589
Samuel JOHNSON (Notre Dame, IN)
The Sacrifice of the Law in Origen’s Homilies on Leviticus . . . 603
Jussi Pentti JUNNI (Helsinki)
Being and Becoming in Celsus and Origen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617
Lenka KARFÍKOVÁ (Prague)
Is Romans 9,11 Proof for or against the Pre-Existence of the
Soul? Origen and Augustine in Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627
Vito LIMONE (Milano)
Ousia in Origen: The Use of the Term in Light of the Homilies
on the Psalms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643
Francesca MINONNE (Milano)
Origen and the Grammatical Process of Interpretation: Ὑπερβατά
as Solutions to Solecisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659
Domenico PAZZINI (Verucchio)
Le lieu de Jésus et la voie négative de l’épinoia dans le
Commentaire sur Saint Jean d’Origène . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671
Gianluca PISCINI (Tours)
Trois versions de Phinees: Nb 25,7-8 dans la tradition alexandrine
(Philon, Origène, Cyrille) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681
Anna ZHYRKOVA (Kraków)
The Philosophical Premises of Origen’s Teachings on the
Subject of Christ as an Ontological Unity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697
 TABLE OF CONTENTS XI

V. THE ORIGENIST LEGACY: FROM EVAGRIUS TO BALTHASAR

Vladimir A. BARANOV (Novosibirsk)

The First Responses to Iconoclasm in Byzantium and Origen’s
Tradition: The Cases of Constantinople and Palestine . . . . . . . . 711
Maria FALLICA (Roma)
Origen and the Glorified Body: Bullinger, Sozzini and Calvin
in Dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725
Cornelis HOOGERWERF (Leiden)
Origen, “Destroyer of the Holy Scriptures”? Origen and Theodore
of Mopsuestia on Ephesians 5,31-32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 741
Raffaele TONDINI (Padova)
Photius as Origen’s Reader (and Editor). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753
Robin Darling YOUNG (Washington, DC)
Evagrius and the Christian Interpretation of the Psalms: Proposals
for Further Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 771
John ZALESKI (Cambridge, MA)
The Nous Is the Head of the Soul: Remaking Origen’s and
Evagrius’s Anthropology for the Church of the East . . . . . . . . . 789
Elisa ZOCCHI (Münster)
“Where the Human Senses Become Spiritual, Faith Becomes
Sensory”: Corporeality and Spiritual Senses in Balthasar’s
Reading of Origen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805

INDICES

ABBREVIATIONES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823
SACRA SCRIPTURA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825
ORIGENIS OPERA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835
AUCTORES ANTIQUI ET MEDIAEVALES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
AUCTORES MODERNI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877
 ORIGEN’S USE OF PAPIAS

Did Origen know and use Papias? The question is difficult to answer,
but we have some clues. On the one hand, Origen possessed a well-stocked
library in Caesarea and had access to a broad stream of earlier Christian
writers1, while Papias of Hierapolis was a second-century exegete who
wrote five volumes of a work called Exposition of Dominical Oracles2.
A copy of Papias’s work was in the hands of Eusebius of Caesarea two
generations later when he composed his Ecclesiastical History3. Since
much of Eusebius’s library stems from Origen4, there exists the possibility
that Papias’s work may well have been among those in Origen’s library
and available to Origen himself. On the other hand, we know hardly any-
thing at all about the content of Papias’s work because it has largely per-
ished, leaving merely fragments in the form of quotations by later writers,
only a handful of which are of any substantial length. These fragments
have been collected since the age of printing and none of them belong to

1. On Origen’s scholarship and bookishness, especially in Caesarea, see generally

A. GRAFTON – M. WILLIAMS, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen,
Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea, Cambridge, MA – London, The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press, 2006.
2. This information comes from Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. III,39,1, who quotes Irenaeus,
Adv. Haer. V,33,4 for the number of Papias’s volumes. All quotations of the Greek
text of Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. are taken from Eusebius Werke: Die Kirchengeschichte,
ed. E. SCHWARTZ – T. MOMMSEN (GCS NF, 6, 3 vols.), Berlin, Akademie Verlag,
1999.
3. Eusebius is the first to quote from the preface of Papias’s work in Hist. Eccl. III,39,3-
4. On the other hand, B. GUSTAFSSON, Eusebius’ Principles in Handling His Sources, as
Found in His Church History, Books I-VII, in Studia Patristica 4 (1961) 429-441, pp. 431-
432, argues that Eusebius may have been dependent on a lost work of Clement of Alexan-
dria for his collection of extracts from Papias, appealing to Eusebius’s lack of citation by
book. However, Gustafsson’s insistence on references to particular book numbers is arbi-
trary since, for one of his major quotations, Eusebius, does cite the prologue to Papias’s
work (Hist. Eccl. III,39,2 κατὰ τὸ προοίμιον τῶν αὐτοῦ λόγων). As for Clement as a
possible intermediary, it is unsupported by the surviving works of Clement. A letter to
Theodore attributed to Clement and published by Morton Smith, though dependent on
Papias, has been shown to be a forgery; see F. WATSON, Beyond Suspicion: On the Author-
ship of the Mar Saba Letter and the Secret Gospel of Mark, in JTS 61 (2010) 128-170;
P. JEFFERY, The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals of Sex, Death, and
Madness in a Biblical Forgery, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 2007; and
S.C. CARLSON, The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith’s Invention of Secret Mark, Waco, TX,
Baylor University Press, 2005.
4. A.J. CARRIKER, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea (SupplVigChr, 67), Leiden –
Boston, MA, Brill, 2003, p. 23.
536 S.C. CARLSON

Origen5. In other words, we do not possess any direct evidence, in the form
of an explicit citation of Papias, for Origen’s knowledge and use of Papias
within Origen’s incompletely but substantially preserved large body of
work. This state of affairs forces us to consider indirect evidence, and this
study looks at the overlaps of Origen and Papias in two different areas: on
the question of chiliasm and on the origin of the Gospel of Mark.

We will begin with Papias’s eschatological views, particularly with

respect to the millennial reign of the returning Christ (cf. Rev 20,4-6). In
his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius writes that Papias quoted “strange
parables of the Savior and his teachings and some other more legendary
things, among which he says that after the resurrection of the dead will be
a thousand years when the kingdom of Christ will subsist upon this earth
in bodily form” (Hist. Eccl. III,39,11-12)6. The idea among some Chris-
tians of a material kingdom of Christ on earth after the resurrection was
also known to Origen, who rejected it7. Controversy over these views raged
in Rome when Origen visited Hippolytus there, so he was in a position to
become directly acquainted with the views and writings of the millenari-
ans8. Writing in On First Principles II,11,2, Origen criticizes those who
interpreted the future promises (repromissiones futuras) literally, in the
pleasure and luxury of the body (in uoluptate et luxuria corporis)9. Indeed,

5. The first printed collection of Papias’s fragments is P. HALLOIX, Illustrium ecclesiae

orientalis scriptorum, 1633, vol. 1, pp. 635-649. At the present writing, the two most
complete editions of the fragments (with somewhat differing coverage) are E. NORELLI,
Papia di Hierapolis, Esposizione degli Oracoli del Signore: I frammenti (Letture cristiane
del primo millennio, 36), Milano, Paoline, 2005, and M.W. HOLMES, The Apostolic Fathers:
Greek Texts and English Translations, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker, 32007, pp. 722-767. For
an earlier list of fragments and detalied analysis, see also U.H.J. KÖRTNER, Papias von
Hierapolis: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des frühen Christentums (FRLANT, 133), Göttin-
gen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983, and J. KÜRZINGER, Papias von Hierapolis und die
Evangelien des Neuen Testament (Eichstätter Materialien, 4), Regensburg, Pustet, 1983.
6. My translation of Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. III,39,11-12 (GCS NF 6, 290,5-8 SCHWARTZ)
ξένας τέ τινας παραβολὰς τοῦ σωτῆρος καὶ διδασκαλίας αὐτοῦ καί τινα ἄλλα μυϑι-
κώτερα· ἐν οἷς καὶ χιλιάδα τινά φησιν ἐτῶν ἔσεσϑαι μετὰ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν,
σωματικῶς τῆς Χριστοῦ βασιλείας ἐπὶ ταυτῃσὶ τῆς γῆς ὑποστησομένης.
7. For a helpful overview of Origen’s attitude to the millennium, see C. MAZZUCCO,
Millennio, in A. MONACI CASTAGNO (ed.), Origene. Dizionario: La cultura, il pensiero, le
opere, Roma, Città Nuova, 2000, 281-283.
8. MAZZUCCO, Millennio (n. 7), pp. 281-282. See also L. GRY, Le millénarisme dans
ses origines et son développement, Paris, Picard, 1904, pp. 87-107; G. MAIER, Die Johannes-
offenbarung und die Kirche (WUNT, 25), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1981, pp. 88-89.
9. Origène. Traité des principes, ed. H. CROUZEL – M. SIMONETTI (SC, 252), Paris,
Cerf, 1978, p. 396,30-31.
 ORIGEN’S USE OF PAPIAS 537

it is this materialism that Origen found most objectionable about the

doctrine, along with its advocates’ literal exegesis of the scriptures10.
Origen lists a number of scriptural passages which have been understood
in this “Judaic sense” (Iudaico … sensu), among which is Mt 26,29,
where Jesus takes the cup at the Last Supper and states that he will not
drink of it until he drinks it new in his Father’s kingdom11.
This is the very saying of Jesus that Irenaeus cites in Against Here-
sies V,33,1 in his confutation of the Valentinian position that life after death
will take place in a super-celestial realm. Specifically, Irenaeus argues, “For
[Jesus] can neither be understood as drinking the fruit of the vine with his
disciples up above in the super-celestial place, nor it is the case that those
who drink it lack flesh, since the drink taken from the vine belongs to the
flesh and not the spirit”12. Thus for Irenaeus, a literal/non-spiritual reading
of Mt 26,29 is key to his argument for the resurrection of the entire person,
both body and soul. Jesus makes a promise that they will enjoy wine in the
resurrection, an enjoyment that, according to Irenaeus, requires a fleshly
body. In this section, Irenaeus goes on to cite another scriptural promise
about a material blessing, this time Isaac’s blessing of Jacob in Gen 27,28,
where God may give “from the dew of heaven and from the plenty of earth
an abundance of wheat and wine” (Adv. Haer. V,33,3). This Old Testa-
ment blessing is not mentioned in the Gospels, but Irenaeus cites a statement
attributed to Jesus via Papias that the days will come when grape vines and
wheat stalks will be exponentially productive, with multiple factors of the
number 10,000 (Adv. Haer. V,33,3-4). This application of Gen 27,28 to the
future times of the kingdom is another example of a scriptural promise taken
in a literal sense, the kind of reading of scripture that Origen attributes to the
more simple-minded Christians13.

10. MAZZUCCO, Millennio (n. 7), pp. 282-283; H. PIETRAS, I Principi II,11 di Origene
e il Millenarismo, in L. PERRONE (ed.), Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian
Tradition. Papers of the 8th International Origen Congress, Pisa 27-31 August 2001
(BETL, 164), Leuven, Peeters, 2003, 707-714.
11. SC 252, 398,57-61.74 CROUZEL – SIMONETTI. On the patristic exegesis of the “fruit
of the vine” saying in Mt 26,29 and parallels, see generally P. LEBEAU, Le vin nouveau du
royaume: Étude exégétique et patristique sur la Parole eschatologique de Jésus à la Cène
(Museum Lessianum. Section Biblique, 5), Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1966.
12. My translation of Irénée de Lyon. Contre les hérésies, livre V, ed. A. ROUSSEAU –
L. DOUTRELEAU – C. MERCIER (SC, 153), Paris, Cerf, 1969, pp. 406.408,17-21: Neque
enim sursum in supercaelesti loco constitutus cum suis potest intellegi bibens vitis gene-
rationem, neque rursus sine carne sunt qui bibunt illud: carnis enim proprium est et non
spiritus qui ex vite accipitur potus.
13. On Origin’s attitude toward and engagement with the “simpler” Christians, see
generally G. AF HÄLLSTRÖM, Fides Simpliciorum according to Origen of Alexandria
(Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 76), Helsinki, Societas Scientiarum Fennica,
1984.
538 S.C. CARLSON

It is unclear who was first responsible for the application of Gen 27,28
to life in the eschaton. Irenaeus’s predecessor Justin, Dial. 51,2, under-
stood it to be fulfilled by the resurrected Jesus himself in Jerusalem before
his ascension. J.B. Lightfoot has argued that Irenaeus got it from Papias,
by identifying Mt 26,29 as the “saying of the Lord”, interpreting it in
millennial terms, and adducing an oral tradition about the fantastic fertil-
ity of grape vines and wheat in support14. Some scholars also appeal to a
similar exegesis by Victorinus of Pettau in his Commentary on Revelation
that interprets Mt 26,29 in reference to the millennial kingdom as “mul-
tiplied by a hundred parts, ten thousand times greater and better”15. Yet,
Victorinus is dependent on both Irenaeus and Papias and would not con-
stitute an independent witness for the presence of this exegesis in Papias16.
Hence Origen’s source could have been Irenaeus rather than Papias.
Indeed, with the lack of clear evidence supporting Lightfoot’s contention
that Papias himself interpreted Mt 26,29, it seems better to attribute the
interpretation to Irenaeus, which means that Origen’s reference to this
interpretation stems from Irenaeus rather than Papias. As such, it is not
a promising avenue for exploring Origen’s knowledge of Papias, but it
is important to keep in mind that Irenaeus did quote and name Papias
here for a literal interpretation of an Old Testament promise. Thus, even
if Origen obtained the exegesis of Mt 26,29 from Irenaeus rather than
from Papias, in the same context he read a notice by Irenaeus of Papias’s
reading of Gen 27,27, a materialistic reading of the divine promises that
Origen objected to in On First Principles.

II

The other case involves the use of Papias for something that Origen
must have found more congenial: his statements connecting the author
of the Gospel of Mark to Peter17. In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius

14. J.B. LIGHTFOOT, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion, London –
New York, Macmillan, 1889, pp. 158-159.
15. Victorin de Poetovio. Sur l’Apocalypse suivi du Fragment chronologique et de la
Construction du Monde, ed. M. DULAEY (SC, 423), Paris, Cerf, 1997, p. 122: quod est
centum partibus multiplicatum, decies millies ad maiora et meliora.
16. See M. DULAEY, Victorin de Poetovio, premier exégète latin (Collection des Études
Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 139-140), Turnhout, Brepols, 1994, vol. 1, p. 265.
17. Much has been written on Papias’s comments on the origin of Mark quoted by
Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. III,39,15; see the bibliography compiled by Elizabeth König and
Markus Vinzent in KÜRZINGER, Papias (n. 5), pp. 138-243, no. 40; and more recently
S. MORLET – L. PERRONE (eds.), Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire ecclésiastique: Commentaire.
Vol. 1: Études d’introduction. Anagôgê, Paris, Les Belles Lettres – Cerf, 2012, pp. 359-360.
My discussion here focuses on the relatively ignored Papias fragment in Hist. Eccl. II,15,2.
 ORIGEN’S USE OF PAPIAS 539

conveys a defense of the fourfold gospel from Origen’s commentary on

Matthew (Hist. Eccl. VI,25,4-6):
As I learned in the tradition about the four gospels, which are alone uncon-
tested in the Church of God under heaven, that written first was the one
according to the former tax-collector and later apostle of Jesus Christ Mat-
thew, who released it for the believers from Judaism as he had composed it
in Hebrew letters; and second was the one according to Mark, as Peter guided
him, whom he also acknowledged in the catholic epistle by stating these
words, “Greeting you is the co-elect [church] in Babylon and my son Mark”;
and third was the one according to Luke, the producer of the gospel praised
by Paul for those from the Gentiles; in addition to them all, the one according
to John18.

Two points ought to be made concerning Origen’s statement. First,

Origen refers to tradition (ἐν παραδόσει μαϑῶν), a term which Origen
uses, not so much in the sense of the deposit of faith, as in other early
Christian writers, but for “small and comparatively unimportant pieces
of information”19. Even though some of the items of his statement can be
deduced from the New Testament (e.g., the relationship between Peter and
Mark in 1 Pet 5,13), Origen does not present himself as the originator of
these details, but indicates that they were taught by his predecessors20.
Second, Origen explicitly cited 1 Pet 5,13 in his statement: “as Peter gui-
ded him, whom he also acknowledged in the catholic epistle”. Already in
Origen’s time, then, the identification of the Mark the evangelist with the
Mark of 1 Pet 5,13 was traditional. What could be his sources for this?
A clue to Origen’s source can be found in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. II,15,
where the same passage from 1 Peter also appears. In this chapter, Euse-
bius transmits a tradition that the Roman Christians were not satisfied with
the mere orality of Peter’s preaching about Jesus, so they went to his fol-
lower Mark to put the teaching down in writing:

18. My translation of GCS NF 6, 576,7-17 SCHWARTZ: 4 ὡς ἐν παραδόσει μαϑῶν περὶ

τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων, ἃ καὶ μόνα ἀναντίρρητά ἐστιν ἐν τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν
ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ ϑεοῦ, ὅτι πρῶτον μὲν γέγραπται τὸ κατὰ τόν ποτε τελώνην, ὕστερον δὲ
ἀπόστολον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Ματϑαῖον, ἐκδεδωκότα αὐτὸ τοῖς ἀπὸ Ἰουδαϊσμοῦ πιστεύ-
σασιν, γράμμασιν Ἑβραϊκοῖς συντετεγμένων· 5 δεύτερον δὲ τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον, ὡς
Πέτρος ὑφηγήσατο αὐτῷ, ποιήσαντα, ὃν καὶ υἱὸν ἐν τῇ καϑολικῇ ἐπιστολῇ διὰ τούτων
ὡμολόγησεν φάσκων «ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτὴ καὶ Μάρκος ὁ υἱός
μου»· 6 καὶ τρίτον τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν, τὸ ὑπὸ Παύλου ἐπαινούμενον εὐαγγέλιον τοῖς
ἀπὸ τῶν ἐϑνῶν πεποιηκότα· ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάννην.
19. R.P.C. HANSON, Origen’s Doctrine of Tradition, in JTS 49 (1948) 17-27, here
p. 19. Hanson goes on to explain: “Some of these traditions, whether called παραδόσεις
or not, are probably intelligent guesses, and some perhaps derived from popular legend or
gossip”.
20. R.P.C. HANSON, Origen’s Doctrine of Tradition, London, SPCK, 1954, p. 137,
identifies one of Origen’s predecessors as Clement of Alexandria.
540 S.C. CARLSON

Now such a radiance of religion beamed upon the minds of Peter’s audience
that they could not be content with hearing him just once or with an unwrit-
ten teaching of the divine preaching. With all kinds of entreaties, then, they
urged Mark (whose gospel is extant), as he was Peter’s follower, to leave
behind a memorial in writing of the teaching handed down to them orally,
and they did not give up before they prevailed upon the man, and in this way
they were the occasion for the writing of the Gospel according to Mark.
They say, when the apostle realized what was done as the spirit revealed to
him, he was pleased with the men’s eagerness, and he ratified the writing
for reading to the churches. Clement in the sixth book of the Hypotyposeis
has set forth the story, ...21.

It is of particular note that Eusebius attributed the whole story to

Clement in the sixth book of the Hypotyposeis, but claims that “they say”
(φασι) Peter himself ratified the text for reading in the churches. Thus,
there are two statements of attribution in this part: to Clement and to
anonymous contemporaries.
Although Clement’s Hypotyposeis is lost, we are fortunate that Euse-
bius preserves a parallel for Clement’s testimony, related later in Hist.
Eccl. VI,14,5-7:
But again in those very books Clement presented a tradition of the original
elders about the order of the gospels in this manner: He said that those of the
gospels comprising the genealogies were written for the public, that Mark had
this disposition: that when Peter was in Rome preaching the word openly and
proclaiming the gospel by the spirit, those present, who were many, entreated
Mark, as one who followed him for a long time and remembered what was
said, to record what was spoken; but that after he composed the gospel, he
shared it with those who wanted it; that, when Peter found out about it, he
did not actively discourage or encourage it; but that John, last, aware that the
bodily facts were disclosed in the gospels, urged by friends, and inspired by
the spirit, composed a spiritual gospel. So much for Clement22.

21. My translation of GCS NF 6, 140,3-14 SCHWARTZ: τοσοῦτον δ’ ἐπέλαμψεν ταῖς

τῶν ἀκροατῶν τοῦ Πέτρου διανοίαις εὐσεβείας φέγγος, ὡς μὴ τῇ εἰς ἅπαξ ἱκανῶς
ἔχειν ἀρκεῖσϑαι ἀκοῇ μηδὲ τῇ ἀγράφῳ τοῦ ϑείου κηρύγματος διδασκαλίᾳ, παρακλή-
σεσιν δὲ παντοίαις Μάρκον, οὗ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον φέρεται, ἀκόλουϑον ὄντα Πέτρου,
λιπαρῆσαι ὡς ἂν καὶ διὰ γραφῆς ὑπόμνημα τῆς διὰ λόγου παραδοϑείας αὐτοῖς κατα-
λείψοι διδασκαλίας, μὴ πρότερόν τε ἀνεῖναι ἢ κατεργάσασϑαι τὸν ἄνδρα, καὶ ταύτῃ
αἰτίους γενέσϑαι τῆς τοῦ λεγομένου κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου γραφῆς. 2 γνόντα δὲ
τὸ πραχϑέν φασι τὸν ἀπόστολον ἀποκαλύψαντος αὐτῷ τοῦ πνεύματος, ἡσϑῆναι τῇ τῶν
ἀνδρῶν προϑυμίᾳ κυρῶσαί τε τὴν γραφὴν εἰς ἔντευξιν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. Κλήμης ἐν
ἕκτῳ τῶν Ὑποτυπώσεων παρατέϑειται τὴν ἱστορίαν, ...
22. My translation of GCS NF 6, 550,15-28 SCHWARTZ: αὖϑις δ’ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὁ
Κλήμης βιβλίοις περὶ τῆς τάξεως τῶν εὐαγγελίων παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνέκαϑεν πρεσβυ-
τέρων τέϑειται, τοῦτον ἔχουσαν τὸν τρόπον. προγεγράφϑαι ἔλεγεν τῶν εὐαγγελίων
τὰ περιέχοντα τὰς γενεαλογίας, τὸ δὲ κατὰ Μᾶρκον ταύτην ἐσχηκέναι τὴν οἰκονο-
μίαν. τοῦ Πέτρου δημοσίᾳ ἐν Ῥώμῃ κηρύξαντος τὸν λόγον καὶ πνεύματι τὸ εὐαγγέ-
λιον ἐξειπόντος, τοὺς παρόντας, πολλοὺς ὄντας, παρακαλέσαι τὸν Μᾶρκον ὡς ἂν
 ORIGEN’S USE OF PAPIAS 541

This passage broadly supports the request motif (τοὺς παρόντας, πολ-
λοὺς ὄντας, παρακαλέσαι τὸν Μᾶρκον), but it does not support Peter’s
ratification of Mark’s Gospel, which Eusebius attributed to “they say”.
Rather, Clement has an oddly non-committal response by Peter: “that,
when Peter found out about it, he did not actively discourage or encou-
rage it”. This example helps to illustrate how Eusebius uses his sources
in Hist. Eccl. II,15, with a mix of elements, some of which are attributed
to and found in a traditional author, while others are attributed to anony-
mous sources and not found in the author cited nearby.
Following the citation of Clement in Hist. Eccl. II,15,2, Eusebius adds
that Papias also corroborates his testimony, as follows:
Joining him, moreover, is the Hierapolitan bishop named Papias, testifying
that Peter mentions Mark in his first letter, which they say was even com-
posed in Rome herself, and he indicates this very thing, when he referred to
the city more figuratively as Babylon, with these words: The co-elect in
Babylon greets you, and also my son Mark23.

In this statement attributed to Papias, there is a remark in indirect dis-

course that “Peter mentions Mark in his former epistle”, quoting 1 Pet 5,13,
as well as another claim that “they say” in the reference to Babylon as a
code for Rome. As with Clement, Eusebius’s appeal to Papias can be
checked later in the Ecclesiastical History, in this case, when Eusebius
presents a quotation from Papias on the origin of the Gospel of Mark in
Hist. Eccl. III,39,15, as follows:
And this is what the elder would say: “Mark, who had indeed been Peter’s
interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order,
about what was either said or done by the Lord”. For he neither heard the
Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said24, Peter, who would give his

ἀκολουϑήσαντα αὐτῷ πόρρωϑεν καὶ μεμνημένον τῶν λεχϑέντων, ἀναγράψαι τὰ εἰρη-

μένα· ποιήσαντα δέ, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον μεταδοῦναι τοῖς δεομένοις αὐτοῦ· ὅπερ ἐπιγνόντα
τὸν Πέτρον προτρεπτικῶς μήτε κωλῦσαι μήτε προτρέψασϑαι. τὸν μέντοι Ἰωάννην
ἔσχατον, συνιδόντα ὅτι τὰ σωματικὰ ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις δεδήλωται, προτραπέντα ὑπὸ
τῶν γνωρίμων, πνεύματι ϑεοφορηϑέντα πνευματικὸν ποιῆσαι εὐαγγέλιον. For the
translation of προγεγράφϑαι as “written for the public”, see S.C. CARLSON, Clement of
Alexandria on the “Order” of the Gospels, in NTS 47 (2001) 118-125.
23. My translation of GCS NF 6, 140,14-19 SCHWARTZ: συνεπιμαρτυρεῖ δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ
ὁ Ἱεραπολίτης ἐπίσκοπος ὀνόματι Παπίας, τοῦ δὲ Μάρκου μνημονεύειν τὸν Πέτρον
ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ ἐπιστολῃ· ἣν καὶ συντάξαι φασὶν ἐπ’ αὐτῆς Ῥώμης, σημαίνειν τε τοῦτ’
αὐτόν, τὴν πόλιν τροπικώτερον Βαβυλῶνα προσειπόντα διὰ τούτων· Ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ
ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτὴ καὶ Μάρκος ὁ υἱός μου.
24. Several scholars have interpreted this “as I said” (ὡς ἔφην) as a reference by
Papias to an earlier discussion of his on the Gospel of Mark, referred to in Eusebius, Hist.
Eccl. II,15, where the relationship to Mark to Peter is explicit: G.E. STEITZ, Des Papias von
Hierapolis „Auslegung der Reden des Herrn“ nach ihren Quellen, in Theologische Studien
und Kritiken 41 (1868) 63-95; T. ZAHN, Introduction to the New Testament, transl.
542 S.C. CARLSON

teachings as needed, but not as an arrangement of the dominical oracles,

so that Mark did not fail at all by writing certain things as he recalled. For
he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify anything among
them25.

This passage is concerned with the literary criticism of Mark’s gos-

pel, and it lacks the request motif found in Clement, or anything about
Peter’s reaction to the written Gospel, either non-committal in Clement
or approving in Eusebius’s anonymous sources. In other words, with the
exception of a more congenial post facto ratification by Peter attributed
to anonymous tradents, the request story for the origin of Mark preceding
the citation to Clement and Papias can be derived from Clement’s account
alone26.
Returning to the material after the citation of Papias in Hist. Eccl. II,15,2,
there are also two pieces of information: first, the identification of Mark
with Peter’s spiritual son of the same name in 1 Pet 5,13, and, second,
the identification of Babylon in the same verse as Rome. The latter claim
is attributed to the anonymous “they”, and if it is set aside as a later
addition to the tradition as suggested in our treatment of the previous
part, this leaves us with the identification of Mark and the question of
who made it. As for Clement, there is nothing in the Clement fragment
quoted by Eusebius that supports the identification with the Mark of the
Petrine epistle27, though the association was known to the compiler of
Clementine comments about the catholic epistles in the Adumbrationes28.

J.M. TROUT et al., 2 vols., Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1909, repr. Minneapolis, MN, Klock &
Klock, 1971, pp. 449-450, n. 10; A. DELCLAUX, Deux Témoignages de Papias sur la Com-
position de Marc?, in NTS 27 (1981) 401-411. Others, however, interpret this as a reference
to Mark’s having been the interpreter of Peter in the preceding sentence, esp. NORELLI,
Papia (n. 5), pp. 210-211 n. 1; KÖRTNER, Papias (n. 5), p. 259, n. 13a; W.R. SCHOEDEL,
Papias, in ANRW II.27.1 (1993) 235-270, here pp. 260-261.
25. My translation of GCS NF 6, 290,21–292,2 SCHWARTZ: καὶ τοῦϑ’ ὁ πρεσβύτερος
ἔλεγεν· Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος, ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἀκριβῶς ἔγρα-
ψεν, οὐ μέντοι τάξει τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου ἢ λεχϑέντα ἢ πραχϑέντα. οὔτε γὰρ ἤκουσεν τοῦ
κυρίου οὔτε παρηκολούϑησεν αὐτῷ, ὕστερον δέ, ὡς ἔφην, Πέτρῳ· ὃς πρὸς τὰς χρείας
ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λογίων,
ὥστε οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν Μάρκος οὕτως ἔνια γράψας ὡς ἀπεμνημόσευσεν. ἑνὸς γὰρ ἐποιή-
σατο πρόνοιαν, τοῦ μηδὲν ὧν ἤκουσεν παραλιπεῖν ἢ ψεύσασϑαί τι ἐν αὐτοῖς.
26. This is the conclusion of NORELLI, Papia (n. 5), p. 215 n. 1, in a change of position
from his earlier view that the request tradition was Papian in E. NORELLI, La mémoire des
origines chrétiennes: Papias et Hégésippe chez Eusèbe, in B. POUDERON – Y.-M. DUVAL
(eds.), L’historiographie de l’Église des premiers siècles. Actes du colloque de Tours.
Septembre 2000. Organisé par l’université de Tours et l’Institut Catholique de Paris
(Théologie Historique, 114), Paris, Beauchesne, 2001, 1-22.
27. NORELLI, Papia (n. 5), p. 220, n. 2.
28. See B. ORCHARD – H. RILEY, The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic
Gospels, Macon, GA, Mercer University Press, 1987, p. 131: Marcus, Petri spectator,
 ORIGEN’S USE OF PAPIAS 543

As for Papias, there is also nothing in the famous Markan testimonium

of Hist. Eccl. III,39,15, but this does not exhaust what Papias has to say
about Mark. Two paragraphs later, in III,39,17, Eusebius mentions that
Papias “used testimonies” from First John and First Peter29. As scholars
generally recognize, this Petrine testimony would have to be none other
than 1 Pet 5,1330. This line of argument suggests that it was Papias who
made the identification of Mark the evangelist with Peter’s spiritual son,
and accordingly part of the tradition referred to by Origen.
Unfortunately, both Papias’s Exposition of the Dominical Oracles and
Clement’s Hypotyposeis are lost, and this hampers our ability to check
independently Eusebius’s citation of their testimony on the role 1 Pet 5,13.
It is possible that both made the identification (or worse, that both did
not make the identification)31. Nevertheless, there is one detail in Origen’s
testimony on Mark that is easier to derive from Papias than from Clement.
That detail is that Mark wrote as “Peter guided him” (ὡς Πέτρος ὑφη-
γήσατο αὐτῷ). In Clement, the composition of Mark’s Gospel occurred
in response to entreaties by the local Romans without Peter’s knowledge
or even subsequent endorsement, a scenario that rules out the guiding hand
of Peter. By contrast, Papias is more open-ended about Peter’s role in
Mark’s Gospel, and the notice that Mark was Peter’s interpreter (Μάρκος
μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος) suggests a closer relationship of Mark
to Peter in the writing down of the gospel, although modern scholarship
is rightly skeptical of this interpretation32. Another point of corroboration

praedicante Petro evangelium palam Romae coram quibusdam Caesareanis equitibus et

multa Christi testimonia proferente, petitius ab eis, ut possent quae dicebantur memoriae
commendare, scripsit ex his quae a Petro dicta sunt evangelium quod secundum Marcum
vocitatur; sicut Lucas quoque Actus Apostolorum stilo exsecutus agnoscitur et Pauli ad
Hebraeos interpretatus epistolam. NORELLI, Papia (n. 5), p. 220, n. 2, rightly cautions that
the Adumbrationes are a reworking of the Hypotyposeis. By contrast, L.J. STEVENS, The
Evangelists in Clement’s Hypotyposes, in Journal of Early Christian Studies 26 (2018)
353-379, argues that the Adumbrationes best preserved the text of Clement with Eusebius
dependent on an intermediary source; even if this is correct, the Adumbrationes would not
then directly reflect the form of Clement’s tradition on Mark as Eusebius encountered it.
29. GCS NF 6, 292,7-8 SCHWARTZ: κέχρηται δ’ ὁ αὐτὸς μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιωάννου
προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου ὁμοίως.
30. NORELLI, Papia (n. 5), pp. 330-331, n. 34.
31. It is also possible that Origen himself could have made the identification, inde-
pendently from Papias, despite his claim that he was presenting what he learned from tradi-
tion. This is essentially the position of NORELLI, Papia (n. 5), pp. 220-221, n. 2. The iden-
tification is certainly natural if not obvious (though the specificity of the appeal to 1 Peter
instead of Acts or 2 Timothy for the identity of Mark still requires explanation), but it is
striking that Eusebius would attribute it to Papias, whom he held suspect, than to Origen
whom he held in high esteem.
32. In particular, the influential analysis of J. KÜRZINGER, Die Aussage des Papias von
Hierapolis zur literarischen Form des Markusevangeliums, in BZ 21 (1977) 245-264,
544 S.C. CARLSON

for Papias as Origen’s source is the information that Matthew was ori-
ginally written in Hebrew, a detail also present in Papias. According to
Eusebius in III,39,16 but also much more widely spread throughout the
tradition, including Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III,1,1, who himself is depen-
dent on Papias33.

III

The evidence that Origen knew and used Papias is admittedly cir-
cumstantial but sufficient to conclude that the Alexandrian polymath
had known of Papias’s work and even consulted it for information
about the origin of the Gospel of Mark. Much stronger is the case that
Origen was familiar with – and rejected – Irenaeus’s eschatological teach-
ing at the end of Book V of Against Heresies, especially on the nature
of the resurrected body. But this familiarity with Irenaeus proves that,
at the very least, Origen knew of Papias, because Irenaeus cites Papias
favorably in this section and commends him as a disciple of the evan-
gelist John (Adv. Haer. V,33,4). It is reasonable to infer that Origen’s

reprinted in KÜRZINGER, Papias (n. 5), 43-61, reads Papias’s remarks about Mark in terms
of rhetorical terminology, so that Mark is a later expounder of Peter’s teaching. By contrast,
A.D. BAUM, Der Presbyter des Papias über einen ‹Hermeneuten› des Petrus, in TZ 56
(2000) 21-35, takes ἑρμενευτής as an oral translator for Peter, whose Aramaic was much
stronger than his Greek, and he reads the aorist participle γενόμενος as indicating that this
employment occurred before the composition of the Gospel.
33. If we had good evidence of Papias on the origin of the Gospel of John, then this
could be another point of comparison, but such evidence is lacking. J.V. BARTLET, Papias’s
‘Exposition’: Its Date and Contents, in H.G. WOOD (ed.), Amiticiæ Corolla: A Volume of
Essays Presented to James Rendel Harris, D.Litt. on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birth-
day, London, University of London Press, 1933, pp. 15-44, and C.E. HILL, What Papias
Said about John (and Luke): A ‘New’ Papian Fragment, in JTS 49 (1998) 582-629, seek
to find in Papias a source for unattributed tradition on the composition of the Gospel of
John in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. III,24. Norelli’s thorough response in Papia (n. 5), pp. 508-
521, finds this position dubious. Since then, two English-language articles have come out
in (qualified) support for the Bartlet-Hill position, though without any citation of or engage-
ment with Norelli’s criticism. T.S. MANOR, Papias, Origen, and Eusebius: The Criticisms
and Defense of the Gospel of John, in VigChr 67 (2013) 1-21, argues that Eusebius is
(also) reacting to criticisms of the Gospel of John raised by Origen. D. FURLONG, Theodore
of Mopsuestia: New Evidence for the Proposed Papian Fragment in Hist. Eccl. 3.24.5-13,
in Journal for the Study of the New Testament 39 (2016) 209-229, seeks to argue that The-
odore of Mopsuestia is another source for Papias’s remarks on John, but all of Theodore’s
purported knowledge of Papias is found elsewhere in Eusebius, and in my view does not
therefore show Theodore’s comments to be independent of Eusebius. (Furlong’s observa-
tions about Theodore are to some extent anticipated by the uncited I. RAMELLI, Fonti note
e meno note sulle origini dei vangeli: Appunti per una valutazione dei dati della tradizione,
in Aevum [2007] 171-185).
 ORIGEN’S USE OF PAPIAS 545

interest in scripture would have led him to consult such an early Chris-
tian, and Origen’s statements about the original of the Gospel of Mark
are consistent with that consultation (indeed, more consistent than with
what is known of Clement’s traditions about Mark). If these are the por-
tions of Papias that Origen knew and used, indirectly if not directly, what
does this tell us about his attitude to Papias? It appears to be much like
his attitude toward the Gospel of Thomas, as I have discussed in an ear-
lier study: although there were certainly aspects of the writer’s work he
did not agree with, Origen was nonetheless willing to consider useful
those parts he did agree with34. If he had read Papias, he would have
agreed with his comments about the origin of Mark and the identification
of Mark within another part of the New Testament. Yet, there were also
parts of Papias that Origen would have strongly disagreed with, such as
his readings of the fulfillment of the scriptural promises after the resur-
rection. These Papias had interpreted literally, and this is the very style
of interpretation that Origen rejected in On First Principles, as too
focused on bodily pleasures and luxuries. Origen’s decidedly negative
attitude toward the kind of exegesis that Papias represents is also reflected
in Eusebius, who evaluates Papias in Hist. Eccl. III,39,13 as follows:
“For he had a very small mind, it appears, to judge from the words he
says, except that he became part of the reason for why such a large num-
ber of the ecclesiastics after him had a similar opinion citing the man’s
antiquity, as he appeared to Irenaeus and any other with similar views”35.
Origen would have wholeheartedly agreed.

Institute for Religion and Critical Inquiry Stephen C. CARLSON

Australian Catholic University
Locked Bag 4115
Fitzroy MDC, VIC 3065
Australia
[email protected]

34. S.C. CARLSON, Origen’s Use of the Gospel of Thomas, in J. CHARLESWORTH –

L.M. MCDANIEL (eds.), Sacra Scriptura: How “Non-Canonical” Texts Functioned in Early
Judaism and Early Christianity (Jewish and Christian Texts, 20), London, Bloomsbury –
T&T Clark, 2014, 137-151.
35. My translation of GCS NF 6, 290,11-14 SCHWARTZ: σφόδρα γάρ τοι σμικρὸς ὢν
τὸν νοῦν, ὡς ἂν ἐκ τῶν αὐτοῦ λόγων τεκμηράμενον εἰπεῖν, φαίνεται, πλὴν καὶ τοῖς
μετ’ αὐτὸν πλείστοις ὅσοις τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν τῆς ὁμοίας αὐτῷ δόξης παραίτιος
γέγονεν τὴν ἀρχαιότητα τἀνδρὸς προβεβλημένοις, ὥσπερ οὖν Εἰρηναίῳ καὶ εἴ τις
ἄλλος τὰ ὅμοια φρονῶν ἀναπέφηνεν.