ἐὰν προσίεταί τις; Hom. in Jer. xv. 4; in Matt. t. xv. 14, Vet. int. Lat.; cf. Hieron. de Vir. Ill. 2), the Gospels "according to the Egyptians," and "according to the XII. Apostles," "according to Thomas," and "after Matthias" (Hom. i in Luc., "Ecclesia quatuor habet evangelia, haeresis plurima, a quibus . . .," the Gospel according to Peter, the Book of James (in Matt. x. 17, τοῦ ἐπιγεγραμμένου κατὰ Πέτρον εὐαγγελίου ἢ τῆς βίβλου Ἰακώβου), Peter's Preaching (in Joh. xiii. 17; de Princ. Praef. 8, Petri doctrina), the Acts of Paul (in Joh. xx. 12; de Princ. i. 2, 3), the Clementines (Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 77; in Gen. iii. § 14, αἱ περίοδοι), some form of the Acts of Pilate (in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 122), the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs (in Joh. xv. 6), the Teaching of the Apostles (?) (Hom. in Lev. xi. 2).
Sayings attributed to the Lord are given in Matt. t. xiii. § 2, xvi. § 28 (Sel. in Ps. p. 432 L and de Orat. §§ 2, 14, 16; cf. Matt. vi. 33), xvii. § 31; in Jos. iv. 3. A few traditions are preserved: in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 126 (Adam buried on Calvary); ib. § 25 (death of the father of John Baptist) ; c. Cels. i. 51 (the cave and manger at Bethlehem); ib. vi. 75 (the appearance of Christ); Hom. in Ezech. i. 4 (the baptism of Christ in January).
Anonymous quotations occur, Hom. in Luc. xxxv.; Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 61; Hom. in Ezech. i. 5; in Rom. ix. § 2.
(2) The Text.—Origen had very little of the critical spirit, in the modern acceptation of the phrase. This is especially seen in his treatment of Biblical texts. His importance for textual criticism is that of a witness and not of a judge. He gives invaluable evidence as to what he found, but his few endeavours to determine what is right, in a conflict of authorities, are for the most part unsuccessful both in method and result. Generally, however, he makes no attempt to decide on the one right reading. He would accept all the conflicting readings as contributing to edification. Even his great labours on the Greek translations of O.T. were not directed rigorously to the definite end of determining the authentic text, but mainly to recording the extent and character of the variations. He then left his readers to use their own judgment.
This want of a definite critical aim is more decisively shewn in his treatment of N.T. Few variations are more remarkable than those in Heb. ii. 9: χάριτι θεοῦ and χωρὶς θεοῦ. Origen was acquainted with both, and apparently wholly undesirous to choose between them; both gave a good sense and that was a sufficient reason for using both (in Joh. t. i. 40: εἴτε δὲ χωρὶς θεοῦ . . . εἴτε χάριτι . . . ib. xxviii. 14: the Latin of Comm. in Rom. iii. § 8, v. § 7, sine Deo, is of no authority for Origen's judgment).
His importance as a witness to the true text of N.T. is, nevertheless, invaluable. Notwithstanding the late date and scantiness of the MSS. in which his Greek writings have been preserved, and the general untrustworthiness of the Latin translations in points of textual detail, it would be possible to determine a pure text of a great part of N.T. from his writings alone (cf. Griesbach, Symb. Crit. t. ii.). In some respects his want of a critical spirit makes his testimony of greater value than if he had followed consistently an independent judgment. He reproduces the characteristic readings which he found, and thus his testimony is carried back to an earlier date. At different times he used copies exhibiting different complexions of text; so that his writings reflect the variations faithfully. But great care is required in using the evidence which Origen's quotations furnish. He frequently quotes from memory; combines texts; and sometimes gives repeatedly a reading which he can hardly have found in any MS. (e.g. I. John iii. 8, γεγέννηται). Illustrations of this perplexing laxity occur in Hom. in Jer. i. 15 (Matt. iii. 12, xiii. 39) ib. iv. 2, v. 1 (Acts xiii. 26, 46; ib. iv. 4 (Luke xviii. 12); ib. v. 1 (Tit. iii. 5 f.).
(3) Interpretation.—Origen has been spoken of as the founder of a new form of literature in Biblical interpretation, and justly; though others, conspicuously Heracleon, preceded him in expositions of Scripture more or less continuous. Origen constantly refers to previous interpretors, esp. to Heracleon.
Origen's method of interpreting Scripture was a practical deduction from his view of the inspiration of Scripture. This he developed in the treatise On First Principles, bk. iv. He regarded every "jot and tittle" as having its proper work (Hom. in Jer. xxxix. fr. ep. Philoc. c. x.). All is precious; not even the least particle is void of force (in Matt. t. xvi. 12). Cf. Ep. ad Greg. § 3; in Joh. t. i. § 4. Minute details of order and number veil and yet suggest great thoughts (e.g. Sel. in Pss. xi. 370, 377 L). It follows that in interpretation there is need of great exactness and care (in Gen. t. iii. p. 46 L.; Philoc. xiv.) and scrupulous study of details (in Joh. xx. 29). Origen illustrates his principles by countless subtle observations of great interest. His skill in combining passages from different parts of Scripture in illustration of some particular phrase or detail is specially noticeable. Each term calls up far-reaching associations; and all Scripture is made to contribute to the fullness of the thought to be expressed.
Though Origen's critical knowledge of Hebrew was slight, he evidently learnt much from Hebrew interpreters and not unfrequently quotes Hebrew traditions and "Midrash." He gives also an interpretation of "Corban" (in Matt. t. xi. 9) and of "Iscariot" (in Matt. Comm. Ser. 78) from Jewish sources.
To obviate the moral and historical difficulties of O.T. he systematized the theory of a "spiritual sense," which was generally if vaguely admitted by the church (de Princ. 1, Praef. 8). There is, he taught, generally, a threefold meaning in the text of the Bible, literal (historical), moral, mystical, corresponding to the three elements in man's constitution, body, soul, and spirit (de Princ. iv. 11; Hom. in Lev. v. §§ 1, 5). Thus Scripture has a different force for different ages and different readers, according to their circumstances and capacities (in Rom. ii. § 14, p. 150 L.). But all find in it what they need.
This threefold sense is to be sought both in O. and N. T. The literal interpretation brings out the simple precept or fact; the moral meets the individual want of each
