J Theol Studies 2000 HEINE 478 514

RECOVERING ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY
ON EPHESIANS FROM JEROME

JEROME includes a reference to a commentary by Origen on
Ephesians in three books in his list of Origen's works in Epistle
33.4 to Paula. He refers again to a commentary by Origen on
Ephesians in three books in the introduction to his own Commen-
Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

tary on Ephesians (PL 26, 543-4). 2 Origen's commentary has not
survived in either a Greek manuscript tradition or in a Latin
translation. This is a serious loss, for Origen ranked Ephesians
at the pinnacle of the Pauline epistles. He considered it to contain
'solid food' or mystical understanditig in contrast, for example, to
the 'milk' of 1 Corinthians. When he argued with Celsus about
the 'superior wisdom' which Paul spoke 'among the perfect',
he asked Celsus to look carefully at Paul's meaning in his
epistles to the Ephesians, the Colossians, the Thessalonians, the
Philippians, and the Romans (Cels. 3.1920). This is not the cano-
nical order of these epistles but is the order Origen gives them
in terms of his evaluation of their contents. The epistle to the
Ephesians heads the list. The Commentary on Ephesians must have
been a reservoir of Origen's theological and spiritual thought.
Every step, therefore, that can help to recover portions of this
lost commentary of the great Alexandrian exegete is worthwhile.
In 1842, J. A. Cramer's publication of the catena commentary
on the minor Pauline epistles from the Paris manuscript Coislin
204 brought to attention a number of excerpts from Origen on
Ephesians in this catena. 5 J. A. F. Gregg collected and reedited
the comments of Origen on Ephesians in Paris Coislin 204 in
1902.6 Athos Codex Pantocrator 28 appears to contain the same
1
Sancti Eusebii Hteronymi Epistulae Pars I: Epistulae I-LXX, ed. I. Hilberg,
CSEL LIV (Vienna, 1996), p. 257.
The column numbers cited throughout this essay and printed in bold type in
the appendix are those of Vallarsi which can be found in all editions of the
commentary.
3
Horn. 1-14 in Ezech. 7.10. Cf. C. Jenkins, 'The Origen-Citations in Cramer's
Catena on 1 Corinthians', JTS, OS, 6 (1905), p. 354 (xviii 15-16), and Jerome,
Comm. in Eph. on Eph. 5:24 (PL 26, 655).
4
Origen: Contra Celsum, trans. H Chadwick (Cambridge, 1965), pp. 139-40
5
J. A. Cramer, Catenae in Sancti Pauli Eptstolas ad Galatas, Ephesios,
Philippenses, Colossenses,Thessalomcenses. Ad Fidem Codd. MSS (Oxford, 1842;
repr. Hildesheim, 1967), pp. 100-225. On Pans Coislin 204 see K. Staab, Die
Pauluskatenen nach den handschnftlichen Quellen untersucht (Rome, 1926), pp. 53-70.
'The Commentary of Origen upon the Epistle to the Ephesians', JfTS, OS, 3
(1902), pp. 233-44, 398-420, 554-76.
Oxford University Press 2000
[Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 51, Pt. 2, October 2000]
RECOVERING ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY 479
selections from Origen on Ephesians as Coislin 204, though
in abbreviated form. 7 K. Staab considers its text on the four
epistles Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians to
be 'im wesentlichen identisch mit dem Typus Parisinus.'
The scribe of Athos Laura 184, better known as Codex von der
Goltz, checked the biblical text of his ancient exemplar on
Ephesians against the biblical text in Origen's commentary on
Ephesians. 9 This manuscript, however, offers little help in terms
of Origenian scholia on Ephesians. Athos Laura 184 contains

notices showing where each of the books in Origen's commentaries
on the Pauline epistles began. Unfortunately, it has only the notice
showing where the first book in the Ephesians commentary began.
A later scribe, who erased many references to Origen in the margins
of this codex, seems to have removed these notices from the margins
in the text of Ephesians. 10 Dr Francesco Pieri, who has recently
prepared a new critical edition of Jerome's Commentary on
Ephesians, has now undertaken the preparation of a new critical
edition of the Greek fragments of Origen on Ephesians based on
Paris Coislin 204 and Athos Pantocrator 28. 12
These Greek catena fragments are very helpful and have
provided us with the Greek text for some, at least, of Origen's
comments in his commentary on Ephesians. Most of the frag-
ments are brief, however, and show the common tendency of
See F. Deniau, 'Le commentaire de Jerome sur Ephesiens nous permet-il de

connattre celui d'Ongene?', in H. Crouzel, G. Lomiento, J. Rius-Camps (eds.),
Origeniana. Premier colloque international des etudes origennes (Montserrat, 18-21
septembre 1973), Quaderni di 'Vetera Chnstianorum' 12 (Bari, 1975), p. 163, n 1,
and K. Staab, Pauluskatenen, p. 255.
8
Ibid.
9
C. P. Bammel, 'A New Witness to the Scholia from Origen in the Codex von
der Goltz', Origeniana et Rufiniana, Vetus Latina 29 (Freiburg, 1996), pp. 137-8.
On the Codex von der Goltz, see F. von der Goltz, Eine textkritische Arbeit des
zehnten bezw sechsten Jahrhunderts, T U 2.4 (Leipzig, i8yy); Six Collations of New
Testament Manuscripts, ed. K. Lake and S. New, Harvard Theological Studies xvii
(Cambridge, Mass., 1932), pp. 141-219; J. N. Birdsall, 'The Text and Scholia of
the Codex von der Goltz and its Allies, and their bearing upon the Texts of
the Works of Origen, especially the Commentary on Romans', in H. Crouzel,
G. Lomiento, J. Rius-Camps (eds.), Origeniana. Premier colloque international des
etudes origemennes (Montserrat, 18-21 septembre 1973), Quaderni di 'Vetera
Christianorum' 12 (Ban, 1975), pp. 215-22.
10
F. von der Goltz, Eine textkritische Arbeit, p. 95.
" 'L'esegesi di Girolamo nel Commentano a Efesini Aspetti storico-esegetici e
storico-dottnnali. Testo cntico e annotazioni', Doctoral Dissertation Universita
degli Studi di Bologna, 1996/97.
I have the information concerning his work on the Greek fragments from
personal correspondence with Dr Pieri
480 RONALD E. HEINE
catenists to abbreviate the remarks that they excerpt. 13 Further-
more, the fragments do not cover all the verses in Ephesians. 14
The catenist appears to have been very conservative in relation
to Origen's speculative theological thought and has preserved
primarily grammatical and ethical comments from Origen along
with a few spiritual comments. 15
Near the end of the introduction to his commentary on
Ephesians Jerome states that he has partly followed Origen's three
books on Ephesians (ex parte secuti sumus) and that he has derived

a few things (pauca) from the small commentaries on Ephesians
by Apollinarius and Didymus. 16 The catena fragments from
Origen's commentary on Ephesians make clear the extent of
Jerome's indebtedness to Origen. 17 Nearly all the fragments have
parallels in Jerome's commentary.
The controversy between Rufinus and Jerome brings to atten-
tion a few additional passages in Jerome's commentary on
Ephesians which depend on Origen's commentary but have no
parallels in the catena fragments. 18 Only those passages where
Jerome says he has used Origen on Ephesians, however, can
See R. E. Heine, 'Can the Catena Fragments of Origen's Commentary on

John be Trusted'' VC 40 (1986), pp. 118-34.
C. H. Turner noted that 'the only considerable passages which are wholly
unrepresented are Eph. 2:7-11, 3:411, 3:19b4:2, 4:8-10 5:25-33 (with the
exception of two short notes on vv. 27 and 31), 6:4-8'; 'Greek Patristic
Commentaries on the Pauline Epistles', in J. Hastings (ed.), A Dictionary of the
Bible (Edinburgh, 1904), p. 494. There are, however, a number of significant single
verses or parts of verses which are omitted, such as 1:4a and 2:16 and 18.
1
Cf. C. P. Bammel, 'Die Pauluskommentare des Hieronymus: die ersten
wissenschafthchen lateinischen Bibelkommentare?' Christianesimo Latino e cultura
Greca sino al sec. IV, XXI Incontro di studiosi dell'antichita cristiana, Roma 79
maggio 1992, Studia Ephemeridis 'Augustinianum' 42 (Rome, 1993) p. 199.
16
PL 26, 543-4.
Gregg (JTS, 1902) cites the parallel passages in Jerome's commentary on
Ephesians in the footnotes to his edition of the catena fragments. See also
F. Deniau, 'Le commentaire de Jerome sur Ephesiens', pp. 166-8, 176-7, and
J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (New York, 1975),
pp. 145-6.
1
See 5. Eusebii Hieronymi Apologia Adversus Libros Rufim, PL 23, i.16, 2 1 - 9;
Rufini Aquileiensis Presbyten Apologiae in Sanctum Hieronymum, PL 21, 1.22-43,
ii.1-2, 28, 41-2; F. Deniau, 'Le commentaire de Jerome sur Ephesiens', pp. 168-72.
On this controversy and the role of Jerome's commentary on Ephesians in it, see
E. A. Clark, 'The Place of Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians in the Ongenist
Controversy: The Apokatastasis and Ascetic Ideals', VC 41 (1987), pp. 154-71;
idem, The Origenist Controversy. The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian
Debate (Princeton, 1992), pp. 121-51.
be used with confidence to reconstruct Origen's commentary.
F. Deniau has correctly pointed out that Rufinus, in his attack
on Jerome, is not concerned to show that Jerome has used a par-
ticular text of Origen but wants to show that he holds doctrines of
Origen. He thinks there is nothing in Rufinus' Apology against
Jerome to assure us that Rufinus had read Origen's commentary
on Ephesians. Deniau believes, however, that Rufinus must
have known of its existence because he had certainly read Jerome's
commentary on Ephesians where Origen's work is mentioned in

the introduction. 19
It has long been known that Jerome's Pauline commentaries are
a rich source for seeking material from Origen's lost commentaries
on the same epistles of Paul. These commentaries were written
before the outbreak of the Origenist controversy when Jerome was
still an admirer of Origen. A. von Harnack was so convinced of
the extensive dependence of Jerome on Origen in his commentary
on Ephesians that he said, 'Man wird sich bei einer Gesamtausgabe
der Werke des Origenes ernstlich fragen miissen, ob man riicht
im Anhang den Epheser-Kommentar des Hieron. mit abdrucken
soil.' 21
This essay builds on this known dependence of Jerome on
Origen's commentary on Ephesians. It will attempt to show how
one may proceed to identify material in Jerome's commentary
which derives from Origen but which has no parallels in either the
Greek catena fragments or in the literature of the controversy
between Jerome and Rufinus. It will first show how Jerome uses
Origen in his commentary on Ephesians by looking at some
examples where there are parallels in the catena fragments. It will
then provide a set of criteria for isolating Origenian material in
Jerome. Finally, it will apply these criteria to Jerome's comments
on Ephesians 3:4-11, which is one of the longer passages for
which there are no parallels in the catena fragments, and will
argue that most of this passage has been taken over from Origen's
commentary on Ephesians.
19
'Le commentaire de Jerome sur Ephesiens', p. 170.
20
See C. P. Bammel, 'Die Pauluskommentare', pp. 187, 203 and E. Clark, 'The
Place of Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians', p. 154.
21
'Origemstisches Gut von kirchengeschichtlicher Bedeutung in den
Kommentaren des Hieronymus zum Philemon-, Galater-, Epheser- und
Titusbrief, Der kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegetischen Arbeiten des Origenes,
T U 42.4 (Leipzig, 1919), p. 156, n. 3.
See n. 14 above.
482 R O N A L D E. H E I N E
I. J E R O M E ' S M A N N E R O F W O R K I N G IN H I S
C O M M E N T A R Y ON E P H E S I A N S
C. H. Turner observes that in his Apology against Rufinus (i.28
and 22) Jerome sets out the way he has treated Origen's work. He
has avoided 'doctoring Origen for Western readers' as Rufinus
did. 'He himself either rendered the actual words...or, where
the exposition was a very lengthy one, reduced it to reasonable
compass, yet without omitting anything either of the arguments
or of the illustrations.'23 Jerome himself provides an example

from his commentary on Ephesians 5:28-9 where he has trans-
lated Origen word for word (ipsa verba, Apol. i.28). F. Deniau
provides a list of nine passages in Jerome's commentary which
the catena fragments show to have been translated literally from
Origen.24
It is important to note that there is nothing in Jerome's text
introducing these literal translations from Origen to indicate that
anyone other than Jerome himself is speaking. The same is also
true in the many parallels between the catena fragments and
Jerome's comments where he seems not to have translated literally
but to have paraphrased Origen's thought. Where Jerome agrees
with Origen he uses Origen's thoughts as his own. It is only in
those few places where he disagrees with Origen's view and
wants to distance himself from it that he indicates he is expressing
the view of someone other than himself by introducing the pas-
sage with the phrase, 'another says', or something similar.23
Even in such cases, it does not necessarily follow that the view
Jerome claims for his own does not come from Origen, for
Origen often expresses more than one view on a text in his
commentaries without choosing between them.26
Jerome sometimes also takes up a first person expression in
Origen's text and expresses it in the first person in his own text
as if he were the person speaking. L. Doutreleau calls attention
to this same procedure in Jerome's use of the commentary
of Didymus on Zachariah. Didymus says, 'I have read the
23
'Greek Patristic Commentaries', p. 495.
'Le commentaire de Jerome sur Ephesiens', p. 166, cf. pp 176-7. The
passages translated literally are on Eph 113, 2:19-22, 3:13, 413-15, 5:4, 5:5,
5.7-14, 6:1-3, and 6:11.
23
Apol. i.22, on Eph. 14. Cf. M. A. Schatkin, 'The Influence of Origen upon
St. Jerome's Commentary on Galatians', VC 24 (1970), p. 50.
26
S e e at n . 4 6 b e l o w .
27
A. Harnack, 'Origenistisches Gut', p 156, n. 1, pp. 161-2, n. 2; C. P.
Bammel, 'Die Pauluskommentare', pp. 198-y, esp n. 73; F. Deniau, 'Le
commentaire de Jerome sur Ephesiens', p. 174, n. 16.
explanation in a commentary,' and Jerome echoes, 'I have read in
a commentary.' 28 In his remarks on Ephesians 3:3 in the catena
fragments Origen says, 'But I think (... 8e vofiiw) there is a sole-
cism in the passage.' Commenting on the same verse Jerome says,
'But I think (Puto autem) the manner of speaking is also defective
in this passage,' and a few lines later he refers to solecisms in
Paul's style. 29 An even clearer example occurs in Jerome's appro-
priation of Origen's comment on the term au/x/xero^oi in Ephesians
5:7. Origen remarks, 'But I do not recall (ov /nefu'17/xai 8e aXXaxov)

the term "fellow companion" used elsewhere outside the present
passage.' Jerome repeats, 'Furthermore, I do not recall (Porro non
tnemini alibi) that I have read the term "fellow companion" else-
where except in the present passage.' In this repetition Jerome
follows Origen even in an error for the term occurs also, as
J. A. F. Gregg and C. P. Bammel note, in Ephesians 3:6.31
A. Harnack has also noted that Jerome often cites what he has
found in Origen as if he knew the original himself.32 A. Souter
considers that all references in Jerome's Pauline commentaries
to Christian personalities who preceded Origen and to their
literature are derived from Origen. Souter notes, for example,
Jerome's proven dependence on Origen from the catena fragments
for his reference to the agraphon concerning 'money changers' on
Ephesians 4:31 and 5:10, and for his reference to Valentinus and
his doctrine of two baptisms on Ephesians 4:5. 34
L. Doutreleau points out that in his commentary on Zechariah,
Jerome often borrows his Scripture citations from the comment-
ary of Didymus on Zechariah. He uses the same Scriptures as
Didymus does, in the same order and in the same way, even fusing
28
L. Doutreleau, Didyme L'aveugle sur Zacharie, Vol. 1, SC 83 (Paris, 1962),
P 132.
Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', p. 40S (xin.ii); PL 26, 587.
30
Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', p. 561 (xxv.1516); PL 26, 645. These
examples from Epheseians are noted by C P. Bammel, 'Die Pauluskommentare',
p. 199, n. 73.
Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', p. 561, Bammel, 'Die Pauluskommen-
tare', p. 199, n. 73.
32
'Origenistisches Gut', pp. 151-3.
33
The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul ( O x f o r d , 1927),
pp. 116-20. He also thinks Jerome's references to Greek non-Christian literature
and mythology largely dependent on Origen (ibid., pp. 122-3).
34
Earliest Latin Commentaries, pp. 117-18. Agraphon. PL 26, 637, 646; Gregg,
'The Commentary of Origen', p. 557 (xxn.37), p. 562 (xxv.47); Valentinus: PL 26,
610; Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', p 413 (xvii.3-4).
484 RONALD E. HEINE
several Scriptures as a single text as Didymus does. 5 A compar-
ison of Jerome's commentary on Ephesians with the catena frag-
ments from Origen's commentary shows that he did the same
with Origen. In the relatively short passage explaining Ephesians
i:7b-8a, Jerome follows Origen's exposition and cites five of the
same passages of scripture that appear in the brief catena remarks,
and cites them in the same order as Origen (Luke 7:413; 1 Cor.
6:3; 1 Pet. 1:12; John 17:21; 1 Cor. 15:10).36 In the longer exposi-
tion of Ephesians 2:1-5 eleven Scriptures occur in the same order

in both the catena fragment and Jerome's commentary (2 Cor.
11:6; Ps. 18:13; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 5:16; Gen. 47:9; Eph. 6:12; Matt.
6:26; Gal. 5:17; Phil. 3:21; Gen. 8:21; Eccles. 7:20).37 These
examples could be multiplied throughout Jerome's work where
there are parallels in the catena fragments. He draws his Scripture
citations largely from Origen.
E. Bonnard observes that in his Commentary on Matthew,
Jerome sometimes takes up theological themes from Origen's
Commentary on Matthew. This is especially true, he says, of the
theme of God's goodness, which was important to Origen against
the denigrating attacks of the Gnostics on the God of the Old
Testament. 38 D. Brown observes that when Jerome does this in
the Commentary on Matthew he 'ignores Origen's apologetic
thrust against the Gnostics' since 'Gnosticism was no longer a
"live" issue in Jerome's day.' The theme of God's goodness
was a part of the larger theme of the unity of the God of the
Old and New Testaments. This larger theme was important in
Origen's continual polemics against Marcion and the Gnostics and
occurs in many of his works 40 including the catena fragments on
3
Didyme L'aveugle, 1, pp. 1301.
PL 26, 554; Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', pp 238-9 (IV.25-43).
Jerome's citations do not usually correspond exactly in number with those in the
catena fragments, sometimes being more and sometimes less than appear there.
This is because both he and the catenist were selecting what they wanted to use
from Origen's text. Jerome is not dependent, of course, on our catena fragments
but on the text of Origen's commentary as was also the catenist.
3
PL 26, 571-3; Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', pp. 4024 (ix. 155-224).
38
E. Bonnard, Saint Jerome commentaire sur S. Matthieu, Vol. 1, SC 242 (Pans,
1977), P- 37-
3
Vir Trilingus: A Study in the Biblical Exegesis of Saint Jerome (Kampen,
1992), p. 161.
40
See, for example, Princ. 2.4.1-5.4; 2.9.5-6; Io. 1.253; 6.15-31; Comm in
Mt. 10-17 I-M3 (31326 ff.).
Ephesians. 41 Jerome treats the same theme in his Commentary on
Ephesians in each of the same four passages in which Origen treats
it.42 Three of the occurrences are in passages which Deniau con-
siders Jerome to have translated literally from Origen. 43 In two of
these passages Jerome mentions Marcion by name, which the
catenist does not do. This suggests that Origen had mentioned
Marcion's name and the catenist omitted it for there would be
no need for Jerome to introduce the name of Marcion where
Origen had not. In his comments on Ephesians 1:3, which is

not a literal translation from Origen, Jerome introduces the
theme of the unity of the Creator and the Father of Jesus
Christ. He does not introduce it at the same place in the text at
which Origen does nor does he present it in the same way but,
nevertheless, he treats the theme of God's unity in the same pas-
sage in which Origen treats it. He does not, in this last instance,
refer to any heresy in connection with the theme.
F. Deniau cites Jerome's remarks about the nature of his
commentary on Ephesians in his Apology against Rufinus i.16 to
show how Jerome conceived his work as a commentator. 44
There Jerome calls attention to the variety of literary genres and
then notes that Rufinus' attack has focused on his commentary
on Ephesians which belongs to the genre of a commentary.
Jerome attempts to vindicate himself by arguing that the purpose
of a commentary is to explain the obscure statements of another
by citing the opinions of various interpreters of the author's
words so that the reader may judge which interpretation he con-
siders to be true. He notes here, as also in his preface to his com-
mentary on Ephesians, that he has followed Origen, Didymus, and
Apollinarius. Deniau concludes from this that Jerome conceived
of his commentary in the manner of a catena setting forth the
views of others and, occasionally, his own views. This con-
clusion may be correct but it is misleading when applied to the
problem of ascertaining the relationship of Jerome's commentary
to Origen's. It suggests that Jerome has provided interpreta-
tions drawn from several separate sources. An observation of
C. P. Bammel, however, shows how cautious we must be when
41
O n E p h . 1:3, J. A. F . G r e g g , ' T h e C o m m e n t a r y of O r i g e n ' , p p . 2 3 5 - 6
(ii.13 ff.); on E p h . 2:19-22, ibid. p p . 4 0 7 - 8 (xii.39 ff.); on E p h . 5:9, ibid. p . 562
(xxv.35 ff.); and on E p h . 6:13, ibid. p p . 5 6 7 - 8 (xxxi.8 ff.).
42
P L 26, 547, 584, 6 4 5 - 6 , and 663.
43
See n . 24 a b o v e .
44
'Le commentaire de Jerome sur Ephesiens', pp 172-3.
45
Ibid., p. 173. Deniau does point out that Origen contributes the lion's share of
the remarks in all the passages that can be compared with the catena fragments.
486 RONALD E HEINE
Jerome claims to be citing views from two or more interpreters.
She notes that Origen regularly presented more than one view
on a text and that a comparison between Jerome's commentary
and the catena fragments shows Jerome repeating the different
interpretations from Origen. This manner of working on Origen's
part, she observes, gave Jerome the opportunity to appear to be
citing the views of various commentators whereas he drew all
the views, in fact, from Origen.46 Most recently R. Layton has
argued persuasively in a doctoral dissertation that, despite his

claim to the contrary concerning multiple sources, 'it is likely
that Jerome composed the entire commentary solely by reference
to Origen.'47 Most significantly, Layton has shown that Jerome's
exegetical approach to the epistle relies on Origen. Origen, he
demonstrates from the catena fragments, employed the 'problems
and solutions' approach of the classical commentary tradition in
his commentary on Ephesians. Layton finds this most evident in
the use of questions and answers in Origen's text and in the divi-
sion of lemmata to conform to a particular question. Jerome, he
argues, has not always preserved this form but, even where he
has not, the form is often latent in his text.
II. C R I T E R I A FOR R E C O G N I Z I N G ORIGEN'S

M A T E R I A L IN J E R O M E ' S COMMENTARY ON
EPHESIANS
The criteria I suggest here are based on the working methods of

Jerome I have discussed in 1 and on observations others have
made of Jerome's methods.49 They are for identifying material
in Jerome for which there is no parallel in the catena fragments
46
'Die Pauluskommentare', pp. 197-8; cf. pp. 205-6.
'Origen as a Reader of Paul: A Study of the Commentary on Ephesians', Ph. D.
dissertation University of Virginia, 1096, pp. 2989. See ch. 4 for his argument.
This dissertation came to my attention after I had already written this article. The
passage I analyse, however, is not treated specifically in the dissertation. I have
attempted to take Layton's work into account in what follows at those points where
it relates directly to my arguments.
4
Ibid., pp. 201-302.
C. H. Turner, 'Greek Patristic Commentaries', p. 494, treats only the remark
in Jerome's preface to the Ephesians commentary about using Origen's com-
mentaria, parallels in the catena fragments, and the literature of the controversy
between Jerome and Rufinus as criteria. A. Harnack, 'Origemstisches Gut',
pp. 141-68, draws up no specific list of criteria for indentifying Ongenian material
but makes various remarks throughout the article that pertain to such criteria, such
as the naming of Valentinus, Marcion, and Apelles together. A. Souter, The
Earliest Latin Commentaries, pp. 116-25, lists the kinds of material found in
Jerome which he thinks come from Origen. F. Deniau, 'Le commentaire de Jerome
and which Jerome does not identify as Origenian in his Apology
against Rufinus. The following criteria point to Origen rather
than Jerome when they appear in the text of Jerome's commentary
on Ephesians:
1. The discussion of theological issues which were important in
the first half of the third century but which had been settled
and had passed into the background by the second half of the
fourth century;

2. Reference to historical problems such as persecution and
martyrdom which were urgent concerns in the first half of the
third century but not in the second half of the fourth;
3. The expression of views or interpretations which can be
demonstrated from other works of Origen to be his character-
istic views or interpretations;
4. The use of the same Scriptures as Origen to argue for or to
illustrate an interpretation;
5. The use of the same arguments as Origen to argue for an
interpretation;
6. The citation of Greek non-Biblical Christian literature used by
Origen in other works;
7. The same exegetical procedure as used by Origen, particularly
the use of the 'problems and solutions' technique, the focus on
philological problems in the text, and the provision of multiple
solutions to a problem;
8. A connection with a context of Origen which can be shown
from the catena fragments.
These criteria can point us to the thought of Origen but not to
his actual words as F. Deniau also observes. Jerome may have
translated Origen literally in some places; he may have para-
phrased him in others. He may have abridged and rearranged
some materials and he may occasionally contribute a remark of
his own. The more criteria that converge on a single passage,
of course, the higher the probability that Origen is the source of
the material. Given Jerome's statement that he is drawing on
Origen's commentary on Ephesians, however, and given the
extensiveness of his dependence on Origen that a comparison with
sur Ephesiens', pp 174-5, provides a list of seven criteria for identifying Origenian
material in Jerome's commentary. R. Layton does not provide a list of criteria, but
works especially with identifying the presence of the 'problems and solutions'
technique in Jerome's commentary. He also makes use of the criteria I have listed
as 3 and 4 in the following list.
so
Ibid., p. 175-
51
Ibid.; see also L Doutreleau, Didyme L'aveugle, 1, p. 129.
488 RONALD E. HEINE
the catena fragments demonstrates, the probability is very high
that in passages where various criteria in this list apply we have
comments from Origen's commentary on Ephesians before us
which Jerome has either translated or paraphrased.
I have provided a complete translation of Jerome's comment-
ary on Ephesians 3:112 in the Appendix as a basis for the discus-
sion which follows and refer to the paragraph numbers in this
translation in the form (App. 7).

III. J E R O M E A N D O R I G E N ON E P H E S I A N S 3:4-11
I begin by noting that Jerome's comments on this passage are

set in a clearly Origenian context (see 11.8). Both the remarks
immediately preceding our passage and those immediately follow-
ing it have parallels in the catena fragments which I indicate
by the italicized words in the translation of the comments on
Ephesians 3:1-4 and 3:12 in the Appendix (App. 1-5, 24-5).
Further, Jerome identifies some of his remarks on Ephesians 3:1
as the view of Origen in his Apology against Rufinus i.25. These
are also set in italics in the Appendix (App. 2) and identified
by a reference to Jerome's Apology.
The very brief comments on Ephesians 3:4 may be linked
directly to the last comment of Origen attested in the catena frag-
ment on Ephesians 3:1-3. The catenist writes ' " I n the few
words" which are "before" these it is truly possible for the one
who has read carefully to discover the "revelation" of the holy
"mystery which has been made known" to Paul.' 52 Jerome's
initial comment on Ephesians 3:4 either follow Paul's text about
reading the preceding words or allude back to the preceding state-
ment of Origen cited above about discovering the mystery made
known to Paul by reading Paul's previous brief remarks.
Jerome then comments on the general contents of Ephesians,
'This is what we said in the preface, namely that no epistle of Paul
contains so many mysteries, is so wrapped in hidden meanings
which the apostle also boasts that he knows and briefly hints at
so that we might pore very carefully over what he has written'
(App. 5). In the preface to book one Jerome refers to the
mysteries in the epistle in relation to Paul's ministry at Ephesus
described in Acts 19. 'We have repeated all these things to show
why the Apostle has heaped up obscure ideas and mysteries
unknown to the ages in this epistle above all others and has
Gregg, p. 408 (xiii.16-17); cf. Jerome's paraphrase in italics in App. 5

taught about the dominion of sacred powers and contrary powers,
which are demons, what they are capable of, what they were
previously and how they have been overthrown and destroyed
after the advent of Christ' (PL 26, 5412). In his preface to book
three Jerome alludes back to these remarks and says that he has
shown in the preface to book one that 'the blessed apostle wrote
to no other church in such a mystical manner' (PL 26, 633-4).
C. P. Bammel considers the prefaces of Jerome's Pauline com-
mentaries 'to be substantially based on Origen.' 53 R. Layton, in

a careful analysis of Jerome's prefaces to books one and three,
has shown the cohesion of the argument in these prefaces, except-
ing, of course, the personal remarks of Jerome at the beginning
and end of the preface to book one and the references to his
friends in that to book three. This cohesion, Layton thinks,
shows that Jerome has not put the prefaces together from various
sources but has either drawn on a single source, which would
have to be Origen, or composed it himself. Further analysis of the
arguments in the preface leads Layton to conclude that 'Jerome's
argumentum as a whole' in the preface 'derives from Origen's
commentary.' 54 There is a good basis, therefore, for suspecting
that Jerome's comment on Ephesians 3:4 has been lifted from
Origen's comments on this verse.
Ephesians 3 .-3-7
Jerome's discussion of Ephesians 3:5-7 is structured by two
questions, which suggests Origen's 'problems and solutions' tech-
nique (see 11.7). (1) How was the mystery of Christ unknown to
other generations (App. 69)? (2) What is this mystery which
was not revealed previously as it is now (App. 1015)? The two
questions correspond to Ephesians 3:5 and 3:67 respectively.
He must anticipate the answer to the second question in order
to answer the first but he reserves the major discussion of the
mystery for question two.
Jerome's first step in answering the first question is to cite
passages from the Old and New Testaments which show that the
patriarchs and prophets predicted the advent of Christ and the
calling of the Gentiles (App. 6). This was a common early Chris-
tian theme. It is significant, however, that Jerome begins with
53
' O r i g e n ' s Pauline Prefaces and the Chronology of his Pauline Commentaries',
in G. D o n v a l and A. L e Boulluec (eds.), Origemana Sexta. Origene el la Bible/
Origen and the Bible, Actes du Colloquium Origenianum Sextum, Chantilly, 30
aout-3 septembre 1993 ( L e u v e n , 1995), p . 498, cf. p . 507.
54
R L a y t o n , ' O r i g e n as a Reader of Paul', p p . 3 0 3 - 3 0 .
490 RONALD E. HEINE
John 8:56, Abraham 'saw my day and was glad', for, as I will show
later, this is also the Scripture with which Origen begins to prove
the same point in his argument for the unity of the old and new
revelations.
The Old Testament texts that Jerome cites show that the patri-
archs and prophets spoke of Christ and the calling of the Gentiles.
This recognition, then, poses a subordinate question. Did the Old
Testament personalities who spoke of Christ and the calling of the
Gentiles know that of which they spoke or were they speaking

in ecstasy as Montanus claimed prophets spoke (App. 7)?ss
The view that they spoke in ecstasy without understanding
what they said is dismissed without discussion on the basis of 1
Corinthians 14:32.
These two preliminary steps set the stage for the focal problem
perceived in Ephesians 3:5. 'If they understood, I ask how Paul
now says that what was not known to other generations has been
revealed to the apostles of Christ' (App. 7). The answer to that
question is approached in the typical style of Origen by presenting
alternative solutions (see 11-7 above). The first possibility is
that Paul spoke very precisely and made a distinction between
'the sons of men' and 'the sons of God' based on Psalm 81:6.
Those who spoke of such mysteries in the Old Testament
belonged to the sons of God who had 'received the spirit of adop-
tion' (App. 7). Jerome does not pursue this suggestion either to
confirm or to reject it but simply offers it as a possibility.
The second possibility, however, is developed and is clearly the
favoured solution (App. 7). Paul did not intend to make a general
statement that the mystery of God was unknown to former
generations. He meant only that the patriarchs and prophets
perceived what was to come less clearly than the saints and
apostles now perceive it as a consequence of the revelation in
Christ. The distinction is that between the knowledge that the
prophet has of what he prophesies and the knowledge that the
one who sees the fulfilment of the prophecy has of what was
prophesied. The latter is a greater knowledge because it is seen
with the eyes whereas the prophet only recognized what is to come
'in the spirit'.
55
Cf. O r i g e n , Comm. in Rom. 8.6, ' I n q u o t a m e n s i m u l e t lllud o s t e n d i t u r , q u i a
non, ut aliqui putant, prophetae nesciebant, quid dicerent, et quasi ahenato sensu
suo prophetabant.'
56
See, for example, Origen's discussion of the prophecy of Caiaphas in
Jo. 28.98-191.
Jerome then introduces Luke 10:24 (=Matt. 13:17) which also
poses the problem of an inferior revelation to the saints of the Old
Testament (App. 8). He argues that one must either apply the
same solution to this saying of Jesus or, suggesting a third pos-
sibility one 'must say that in the same way that all faces are not
alike so neither are hearts and, according to the apostle, there are
a diversity of gifts' (App. 9). He develops this last possibility first
by noting the diversity of gifts discussed by Paul in 1 Corinthians
12 and then by contrasting the diversity of subjects discussed by

Solomon and Moses in the Old Testament.
Jerome blends the second and third possibilities in his conclusion
to the discussion of Ephesians 3:5. The blending occurs in his
recognition that 'the patriarchs and prophets had some things
which the apostles did not have' (App. 9). This is based on the
third possibility which points to the diversity of gifts and the
diversity of things known. He then turns to the second possibility
which distinguishes between knowing in the spirit and knowing
by sight. 'On the other hand, in virtue of the favorableness of
time and the preaching of the gospel the apostles have known
the mystery of Christ more completely. For indeed, the holy
men of old also knew but not as the apostles on whom rested
the necessity of preaching' (App. 9).
The second question that structures Jerome's discussion of
Ephesians 3:57 moves the discussion on to verses six and seven.
'What is this mystery which was not revealed previously as it is
now?' (App. 10) The answer is given in verse six, that 'the
Gentiles are joint heirs,' etc. Jerome begins with a critique of
Paul's style which, he says, 'makes an indecorous Latin sentence.'
One might think that this whole discussion of style and inspiration
must come from Jerome since he refers to his 'Latin' sentence.
This is not an unquestionable conclusion, however, for Origen
often critiques Paul's style and also holds the view of inspiration
that is expressed in the assertion that 'individual words, syllables,
tittles and punctuation marks in the divine Scriptures are full of
meaning.' 57 It may be that Jerome has simply added the adjectives
'Latin' and 'Greek' to Origen's comments.
The statement that the Gentiles are 'joint heirs' is interpreted,
by means of Romans 8:17, Deuteronomy 18:2 and Psalm 15:5
to mean that they are 'joint heirs of Christ' and that the inherit-
ance is the Lord himself (App. 10). This is an Origenian inter-
pretation. It appears in the catena fragments on Ephesians 1:18
See, for example, Origen, Horn. 1-13 in Ex 1.1; Comm. in Rom. 5.1.
492 RONALD E. HEINE
where two of the same three Scriptures also appear to support the
interpretation (see 11.3, 4)-
But you will ask if God himself is also 'the inheritance of the saints' even
as (the phrase) 'heirs of God' (Rom. 8:17) is understood, so that, just as
we speak of heirs of estates and heirs of houses, applying (the word)
inheritance to the pieces of property, so we should also understand 'the
heirs of God.' And the law which says, 'You shall not give the sons of
Levi an allotment among their brothers because I am their portion,
says the Lord' (Jos. 18:7; passim), and elsewhere, 'The Lord is their

inheritance' (Dt. 18:2), pertains indeed to such a meaning.58
Jerome next argues for the diversity and unity of the church on
the basis of Paul's analogy of the human body in 1 Corinthians 12
and asserts that unity is assured on the basis of the term 'copart-
ners' (App. 11-13). The discussion then turns to Ephesians 3:7
in relation to which Jerome notes that Paul's humility is indicated
'when he claims that the gospel of which he is a minister was not
of his own merit but the grace of God' (App. 14).
Finally, Jerome returns abruptly to the question of the relation-
ship between the old revelation and the new which was the focal
point of the discussion of Ephesians 3:5.
Those who want the prophets not to have understood what they said, and
to have spoken in ecstasy, as it were, to confirm their doctrine drag in,
along with the present testimony, also this which is found in many manu-
scripts to the Romans, 'Now to him who is able to strengthen you accord-
ing to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the
revelation of the mystery kept secret from eternal times but now revealed
through the prophetic Scriptures and the advent of our Lord Jesus
Christ' and the rest. (Rom. 16:25-6; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 1:10; App. 15)
It may be that a different group is being considered here from
those introduced in conjunction with the name of Montanus
earlier. There the question was one of actually speaking in ecstasy.
Here Jerome qualifies speaking in ecstasy with 'as it were' (quasi).
Jerome's answer to the objection based on Romans 16:256 is
that the mystery was not kept secret from those who were announ-
cing it but from the Gentiles to whom it would later be revealed.
There are two strong suggestions that Jerome is drawing on
Origen in the passage quoted. First, the allusion to the manuscript
problem concerning Romans 16:25-6 is typical of Origen's way
of working (see 11-7). He discusses this particular problem
in his Commentary on Romans (10.43). Second, the blending of
Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', p. 399 (ix.45-50).

i Timothy 6:14 or 2 Timothy 1:10 with Romans 16:25-6 is
characteristic of Origen as we will see later (see 11.4).
Jerome concludes the discussion of Ephesians 3:57 by empha-
sizing once again the unity of the old revelation and the new.
It must be noted as well that the mystery of our faith cannot be revealed
except through the prophetic Scriptures and the advent of Christ. 60 Let
those, therefore, who neither understand the prophets nor desire to
know them, but assert that they are intent on the gospel alone, know

that they do not know the mystery of Christ which was unknown to all
the Gentiles from eternal times. (App. 15)
The reference to those who do not 'desire to know' the prophets
but are 'intent on the gospel alone' is a key reference for locating
this discussion historically. Harnack took the slightly earlier refer-
ence to 'those who want the prophets not to have understood what
they said and to have spoken in ecstasy, as it were,' and who drag
in Romans 16:25-6, to refer to Marcion. 61 This is an attractive
suggestion but I think it cannot be correct because Origen
tells us that Marcion had removed this section from the epistle
to the Romans. He would hardly have appealed to a section of
Scripture that he had excised from the biblical text. It is clear
that the question of the relation of the old revelation to the
new is the overarching issue that fuels the discussion of Ephesians
3:5-7. Marcion had placed this issue in centre stage but he and his
followers were not the only ones who raised the question. I will
argue in what follows for a context for this discussion other
than that provided by Marcion. The question of the unity of
revelation was an issue of great importance in the early third
century but not in the latter part of the fourth (see 11.1). The dis-
cussion of Ephesians 3:57, in other words, treats a theological
problem of Origen's time not Jerome's.
F. Deniau, 'Le commentaire de Jerome sur Ephesiens', p. 174, n. 17. Add to

Deniau's list of references J. A. Robinson, The Philocaha of Origen (Cambridge,
1893), 35.S-11 (from Origen's commentary on Psalm 50), and Comm in Rom. 10.6.
Deniau thinks that 2 Tim. 110 has been blended with Rom. 16:25-6.
H. Gorgemanns and H. Karpp, Origenes vier Biicher von den Prinzipien, Texte
zur Forschung 24 ( D a r m s t a d t , 1985), p. 695. n. 27, however, point out the
influence of 1 T i m . 6:14. 1 T i m . 6:14 has ' L o r d ' , whereas 2 T i m . 1:10 has
'Saviour'. 1 T i m . 6:14 has the order 'Jesus Christ', whereas 2 T i m . n o has 'Christ
Jesus'. Origen clearly uses 2 T i m . 1:10, however, in the example I cite from the
Philocalia above, for there he has 'Saviour' instead of ' L o r d '
60
H e r e the significance of the blending of 1 T i m . 6:14 or 2 T i m . 1:10 with
R o m . 6 : 2 5 - 6 becomes clear. R o m . 6 : 2 5 - 6 speaks only of the prophetic Scriptures
T h e verses in 1 and 2 T i m . add the advent of Jesus Christ.
61
'Origenistisches G u t ' , p. 157.
62
Comm. in Rom. 16.43.
494 RONALD E. HEINE
Are there parallel discussions of this problem elsewhere in
Origen's treatises? Like all writers who produce large amounts
of work Origen tended to repeat himself and provide very similar
discussions wherever the same theme occurred. There are three
major discussions of the issue discussed here in the extant works
of Origen. 63 I shall concentrate on that in the Commentary on
John, Book 6.15-31 which is the fullest discussion.
The discussion of the relation between the revelation given to

Moses and the prophets and that given to the apostles occurs first
in Origen's Commentary on John in the context of Origen's
attempt to prove against the gnostic Heracleon that John 1:18
should be included with the words of John the Baptist beginning
in John 1:15 and not be ascribed to the disciple who wrote the
Gospel. Origen never explicitly identifies the significance of this
distinction in his discussion. E. H. Pagels, however, has pointed
out that Heracleon understands John the Baptist to be a repre-
sentative of the creator God of the Old Testament whom the
Gnostics designated the Demiurge. 64 This fact and its significance
for our argument become clearer in Origen's later debate with
Heracleon over the meaning of John 1:267. Heracleon had said
on these verses, 'He is already present... and is manifest to all
of you' implying that a new revelation of the unknown God was
now in process. Origen counters that Christ 'was always among
men' and that he was in such men as Isaiah and David, implying
that there is no disjuncture between the God of the Old Testa-
ment and of the New nor is there a disjuncture in the revelation
in the two Testaments. Further, Heracleon had taken John the
Baptist's statement that he was unworthy to loose the thong of
Christ's shoe to indicate the Demiurge's inferiority to Christ.
Origen claims in addition that Heracleon 'truly disdains what is
called the Old Testament.' 66 When we consider Origen's argu-
ment against Heracleon on John 1:18 in this context it becomes
clear that Heracleon must have argued that John 1:18 speaks of
the Gnostic unknown God and have concluded that John the Bap-
tist, as a representative of the Demiurge, could not have spoken of
this God for the Demiurge was ignorant of him. Consequently,
Heracleon ascribed John 1:18 to the disciple of Jesus who wrote
the Gospel of John rather than to John the Baptist who preceded
Io. 6.15-31; 13.301-19; Comm. in Rom. in.43.

64
The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis Heracleon's Commentary on John
(Nashville, 1973), pp. 52, 54.
Origen, Io. 6.194200.
66
Io. 6.117.
Jesus and represented the Demiurge of the Old Testament.
Origen launches a lengthy rebuttal to prove the unity between
the old revelation in Moses and the prophets and the new revela-
tion in Christ and consequently also to prove the unity of God.
Origen's concluding remarks show that the primary concern
in his argument with Heracleon's interpretation of John 1:18
is parallel to that in Jerome's discussion of Ephesians 3:57
(App. 7-9, 15)-

We have spent time ... examining these matters at greater length because
some, in the fantasy of glorifying Christ's sojourn, say that the apostles were
much wiser than the fathers and the prophets, and have fashioned another
God who is greater. Others, not daring to go so far as this in their argu-
ment, because of the unexamined nature of their teachings, minimize the
gift given to the fathers and the prophets from God through Christ, through
whom 'all things were made' (italics mine).57
The first group to which Origen refers is clearly the Gnostics. The
second group appears to be Christians not considered heretical
but considered to err in their view of the relation of the old revela-
tion to the new. They may have been influenced by Gnostic
teachings but did not go so far as to denigrate the God of the Old
Testament or to recognize another higher God. Origen's remarks
make clear how widespread and important the issue of the relation
between the old revelation and the new was in the early third
century. The theological problem perceived as critical in Jerome's
discussion of Ephesians 3:57 is a problem of the early third
century and it is a problem which Origen addressed.
Origen's overall approach to this problem and some of the
Scriptures he considered important to interpret in relation to it
can also be shown to be parallel to Jerome's approach and related
Scriptures. Origen's first step, like Jerome's noted above, was to
show that things related to Christ's advent had been made known
by the patriarchs and prophets. Like Jerome, Origen begins by
citing John 8:56 to prove this point. 68 This is followed, again
like Jerome, by the question of understanding. Did the ancients
understand the things they spoke about Christ? Origen regularly
answered this question by quoting Proverbs 16:23 a s it appears
in the Septuagint.
If 'a wise man shall understand the words from his own mouth and shall
bear knowledge on his lips' we must either declare rashly that the
67
lo. 6 . 3 1 ; t r a n s . R. E . H e i n e , Origen. Commentary on the Gospel according to
John, Books 1-10, FOTC 80 (Washington, iyXo), p. 177.
68
Jo. 6.15-20.
496 R O N A L D E. H E I N E
prophets were not wise, if they have not understood 'the words from their
own mouth,' or admit that the prophets were wise because they have
received what is correct and true and have understood 'the words from
their own mouth' and borne knowledge on their lips.
Jerome uses i Corinthians 14:32 rather than Proverbs 16:23 t 0
show that the prophets understood the things they said and did
not speak in ecstasy (App. 7).70 There are no extant texts of
Origen where he uses 1 Corinthians 14:32 to make precisely this
point though one of his applications of this verse might lend

itself to such a use. He sometimes understands it to mean that
the words of prophets can be understood and explained only by
prophets. 71
Origen then comes to the focal point of his discussion of the
problem. 'I wish to prove that those who have been perfected in
former generations have known no less than the things which were
revealed to the apostles by Christ, since the one who also taught
the apostles revealed the unspeakable mysteries of religion to
them.' He begins by quoting the same blend of Romans
16:25-6 with 1 Timothy 6:4 that we noted in Jerome above.
This leads, via an allusion to Proverbs 16:23, t o the conclusion
that 'the prophets knew the things which have been made mani-
fest to the apostles.' Origen then quotes Ephesians 3:5-6 and
says the reason Paul said this was that 'it was not revealed to
many' (italics mine). 74 Jerome's argument, also related to
Romans 16:25-6, that the mystery was not kept secret from
those who were announcing it but from the Gentiles to whom it
would later be revealed closely resembles this (App. 15). Origen's
argument occurs in fuller form in his Commentary on Romans
where he says that the prophets knew that of which they spoke
but that they did not reveal the mystery universally (vulgo) until
Io. 6.21; tr. R. E Heine, Comm. jfn. 110, p. 174. See also Origen, Comm. in
Rom. 10.43 lo. 13.316
70
In the prologue to his commentary on Isaiah (PL 24, 19B-20A) Jerome uses
Prov. 16:23 as it appears in the LXX along with 1 Cor. 14:32 to argue that the
prophets did not speak in ecstasy as Montanus and his prophetesses said. P Jay,
L'exegese de saint Jerome d'apres son ' Commentmre sur Isaie' (Paris, 1985), pp. 352-4
takes note of Jerome's discussion of prophetic inspiration in his commentary on
Ephesians in relation to his discussion of the same in the prologue to the
commentary on Isaiah, and suggests (p. 354, n. 153) that Jerome is very likely
following his Ongenian source for his discussion in Ephesians.
Horn. 113 in Ex. 4.5.
Io. 6 . 2 4 ; t r . R. E . H e i n e , Comm. jfn. 110, p . 174.
73
I b i d . 6.25; ibid., p . 175.
74
I b i d . 6.26, ibid.
the Word became flesh at which time the mystery was made
known to all the Gentiles for the obedience of faith. 5
Next, in his argument in the Commentary on John, book six,
Origen explains the distinction Paul makes between what was
formerly revealed and what has now been revealed by suggesting
two different ways of understanding 'revealed'. Something can be
said to be revealed when it is understood or, if it is a prophecy, it
can be said to be revealed when its fulfilment is complete. The
prophets knew about the inclusion of the Gentiles referred to in

Ephesians 3:6 so far as understanding goes. The apostles, on the
other hand, have seen this fulfilled 'with their own eyes.' 'They
understood the events no more than the fathers and the prophets'
but they have perceived the truth 'through the completed event.' 76
This is the same argument that Jerome uses as his primary explana-
tion of the distinction between the old revelation and the new
(App. 7, 9).
Immediately after this explanation Origen points out that
Matthew 13:17 should be interpreted in this same way.
Jerome does the same except that he uses the Lukan parallel
(Luke 10:24) to Matthew 13:17 (App. 8). The way that the inter-
pretation is developed differs between the two but the same point
is made in the exposition.
The two suggestions made by Jerome for solving the problem of
the relation of the old revelation to the new posed in Ephesians
3:5-7 for which I have found no exact parallel in Origen are the
first and the last. The first proposed a distinction between the
phrases 'sons of men' and 'sons of God' based on Psalm 81:6
(App. 7). This so closely resembles the kind of distinctions
Origen often makes and resembles the distinction he sometimes
uses Psalm 81:6 to make, that it most likely comes from Origen.
The other proposal Jerome makes for solving the problem is that
of a diversity of gifts based on 1 Corinthians 12 (App. 9). I have
found nothing resembling this in Origen with respect to the prob-
lem of the unity of the old and new revelations. Perhaps Jerome
took this argument over from one of his other two sources.
The intention of my argument has not been to show that
Jerome was dependent on Origen's discussion in book six of his
Commentary on John, but to show how Origen treated the problem
of the relation of the old revelation to the new and to suggest
75
Comm in Rom. 10.43.
76
Io. 6.27-8.
Io. 6.29; cf. 13.315.
78
See Io. 20.242, 266; Horn. 1-16 in Lev. 9.10; 11.2.
498 RONALD E. HEINE
how he probably treated the same subject in his Commentary
on Ephesians. The many similarities between Origen's treatment
of this topic and Jerome's treatment of it in his comments on
Ephesians 3:57 suggest that Jerome has taken over the bulk, at
least, of his discussion from Origen's Commentary on Ephesians.
Ephesians 3:8-g
Paul's words in Ephesians 3:89 do not raise the kind of theo-
logical issues that Ephesians 3:5-7 raised. The commentary,

consequently, is briefer. The 'problems and solutions' technique
of Origen is again apparent (see 11-7) and two problems are
noted. He first identifies the problem of Paul's truthfulness in his
claim to be the least of the saints if he, nevertheless, was still
worthy to be an apostle (App. 16). The problem is solved by
joining a loose combination of Matthew 20:26 and Mark 9:35
with 1 Corinthians 4:9 and 1 Corinthians 15:10 to show how Paul
was weaker than all and, therefore, also greater than all.
The second problem involves Ephesians 3:8b~9. How can the
riches of Christ be unsearchable if they are preached to the
people? Or, if the mystery has been hidden from the ages in God,
why has Paul proclaimed it to the Gentiles (App. 17)? The
second part of this question is not answered specifically but the
key phrase, 'the mystery hidden from the ages in God', is blended
with the 'unsearchable riches of Christ' in answering the first
part. Three possibilities are suggested (App. 17, 19). The first
two are based on two different ways of understanding the terms
'unsearchable' and 'secret'. First, the riches which previously
were unsearchable have been revealed after the Lord's passion.
Second, the riches which were unsearchable by human understand-
ing have been revealed by God so that they are now perceived.
This answer is further distinguished from the first by suggesting
that the riches themselves continue to be unsearchable and secret
and are known only by the grace of God. Psalm 30:20 is cited in
connection with this argument. The third possibility shifts the
focus to the phrase 'the mystery hidden from the ages' and sug-
gests a different way of understanding the term 'ages'. A temporal
understanding of 'ages' is implicit in the first two answers. The
third possibility suggests that 'ages' may refer to 'all the spiritual
and rational creatures which were in the ages' and were ignorant
of the mystery. This is supported by references to Galatians 1:4
and Ephesians 2:7. Finally, the statement in Ephesians 3:9 that
locates the mystery of Christ 'in the God who created all things'
is used to prove the unity of the God of the Old Testament and
the New against Marcion and Valentinus (App. 18).
Indications of Jerome's dependence on Origen for his remarks
on these two verses are not as strong as those for the preceding
three verses but there are, nevertheless, traces of Origen to be
found here also. Four of the eight criteria provided in 11 above
appear in this discussion (11.1, 3, 4, 7).
The first trace of Origen which I point out occurs in the discus-
sion of the unity of the God of the Old and New Testaments and
the mentioning of Marcion and Valentinus specifically in conjunc-

tion with this problem (App. 18). This had relevance in Origen's
lifetime but not in Jerome's (11.1). Second, Origen's 'problems
and solutions' technique structures the exegesis, and the three
possibilities for interpreting Ephesians 3:9 (App. 17, 19) suggest
Origen's exegetical procedure of providing multiple answers to an
exegetical problem (11.7). Third, the suggestion that 'ages' may
mean 'the spiritual and rational creatures which were in the ages'
and the citation of Galatians 1:4 to support this view (App. 19)
resembles a definition that Origen gives to 'ages' in his discussion
of Ephesians 2:2. The latter discussion is extant in the Greek
catena fragments on Ephesians. The discussion there concerns
the meaning of the phrase 'the Aeon (Age) of this world'.
Galatians 1:4 is cited to show that 'the present Aeon (Age) is an
evil living being, identical with "the ruler of the power of the
spirit of the air"'. Then Hebrews 1:3, 'through whom he made
the Aeons (Ages),' is cited to show 'that the Aeons are a creation,
one of whom can rebelliously have become evil and be said to be
the "Aeon (Age) of this world"'. This discussion and that pro-
vided by Jerome as his third possibility for explaining Ephesians
3:9 belong to the same world of thought (11.3).
The fourth trace of Origen which I find in Jerome's discussion
concerns his use of some of the same Scriptures that Origen uses
to interpret or complement one another to make similar points
(11.4). I have already referred to the similar use of Galatians
1:4 to define the meaning of 'aeon' or 'age'. The most striking
similarity is the joining of the saying of Jesus concerning the
necessity of being last in order to be first (Mark 9:35; Matt.
20:26-7) with 1 Corinthians 4:9 in relation to Paul (App. 16).
Origen joins these Scriptures in relation to Paul in his eighth
homily on Jeremiah. The intervening statement which links the
two passages is also similar in Jerome and Origen. I place his
remarks parallel to Jerome's remarks on Ephesians 3:8.
Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', p. 403 (ix.168 ft.).

500 RONALD E. HEINE
ORIGEN JEROME
<P-qaiv 6 acoT-rjp " ' O BeXwv iv vjiiv elvai Loquitur Dommus in Evangelio ad
npojTos carat navTcov eoxaros " discipulos: Qui vult in vobis major esse
'ET7]PT]OV ravTijv TT)V kvToXr/v flavXos, fiat omnium minor qui vult esse primus
Koi TJV eaxaros iv TOVTCO JW Koafiw 816 sit omnium novissimus. Quod Paulus
t/rqoiv "AOKW yap, 6 8ebs rjna.; TOUJ operecomplebat, dicens:Puto enimquia
OLTTOOTOXOVS kox&Tovs aTT&etev, a;? Deus nos apostolos novissimos ostendit
iiriBavaTlovs, .. (Horn. Jer. 8.4). quasi morti destinatos (PL 26, 592;
App. 16).

Origen uses Ephesians 3:8 to interpret the meaning of 'last' in
1 Corinthians 4:9 in the catena fragments on 1 Corinthians as
Jerome uses 1 Corinthians 4:9 to interpret the meaning of 'least'
in Ephesians 3:8 (App. 16). Like Jerome, Origen raises the ques-
tion of Paul's truthfulness in what he says in Ephesians 3:8. He
says that he did not mean that he was the 'least' in holiness for
then he would not have been speaking the truth. Origen also
cites Jesus' saying that 'the last shall be first' (Matt. 20:16) in
this discussion of 1 Corinthians 4:9. This is not the same Scripture
that appears in Jerome's comments on Ephesians 3:8 but it is very
similar and shows that Origen made a connection between Jesus'
teaching about the first and the last and Ephesians 3:8. Finally, in
his discussion of Ephesians 1:8-9 m the catena fragments, Origen
uses Psalm 30:20 much like Jerome uses it in his discussion of
Ephesians 3:9 (App. 17).
Ephesians 3:1011
Jerome's exposition of Ephesians 3:10-11 focuses on the phrase
'the manifold wisdom of God'. The Church has now revealed this
hidden wisdom not only to the Gentiles but also to the princip-
alities and powers in heaven. These principalities and powers are
the good powers which serve God and not the evil powers of
Ephesians 2:2 (App. 20).81 The fact that this wisdom has been
revealed to the principalities and powers is taken to mean that
the cross of Christ was for them as well as for humans. It is
these heavenly powers who express their amazement in Isaiah
63:1 and Psalm 23:8 when they see 'God returning to heaven
with a body' (App. 21). The Church, therefore, as revealer of
this hidden wisdom, does not possess 'a simple faith' but a
C. Jenkins, 'Ongen-Citations', p. 360 (xx.4 ff.).

Cf. Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', p. 406 (xii.2-8).
'manifold and multifarious wisdom' (App. 22-3). The discus-
sion concludes with a somewhat confused application against the
Arians of the understanding that wisdom was made in Christ
(App. 23). This entire exposition moves within the framework
of Origen's thought except, of course, the remarks about the
Arians, and joins two scriptural texts which Origen uses in con-
junction with one another to indicate the revelation of the mystery
to the heavenly powers (11-3, 4).
Jerome repeats here in brief form the conclusion he reached in

his exegesis of Ephesians 3:5-7 concerning the Church's under-
standing of God's 'ancient plan of the ages' but extends it beyond
the patriarchs and prophets to include also the principalities and
powers (App. 201). The Church's understanding is superior
because the plan has been brought to its completion and 'we see
it'. I pointed out above in discussing Ephesians 3:5-7 that this
was Origen's answer to the problem of the superiority of the
new revelation to the old.
That the cross of Christ was effective not only for humans but
for all rational heavenly beings as well is a characteristic doctrine
in Origen's theological system. For Origen, Christ is the ' "great
high priest" who offered himself as the sacrifice offered once for
all not for humans alone but also for every spiritual being'.
Furthermore, 'it would be strange to declare that he tasted death
for human sins but not further also for any other creature in addi-
tion to humans which happened to be in sins, for instance for the
stars since not even the stars are absolutely pure before God as we
have read in Job'. Rufinus twice accuses Jerome of holding this
Origenist doctrine in his Commentary on Ephesians, but not in
relation to the passage under discussion though it provides an
additional parallel case. 83
The view that Christ took his body of our flesh to heaven after
the completion of his work on earth (App. 21), which Jerome
connects with the revelation of God's plan to the heavenly powers,
is attested in various places in Origen's works. 84 Origen refers to
the amazement of the heavenly powers on seeing this by citing
Isaiah 61:3 either alone 85 or in conjunction with Psalm 23:8 as
Jerome does here (App. 21).86
Jo. 1.255-7; trans. R. E. Heine, Comm.Jn. 1-10, pp. 85-6, modified. See also
Jo. 6.284; 13.241-5, 413; 28.1545; Horn. 1-39 in Lk. 10.3; Comm. in Rom. 1.4, 9;
5.10; Horn. 1-16 in Lev. 1.2; 2 . 3 .
83
In h i s attack on J e r o m e ' s exposition of E p h . 1:22 a n d 2:17 (Apol. i.38).
84
Jo. 6.288; Horn. 1-16 in Lev. 9.5; Pamphili Apol. Ong. 7 ( P G 17, 6 0 0 A - B ) .
85
Pamphili Apol. Orig. 7 ( P G 17, 6 0 0 A - B )
86
Jo 6.288; Comm. in Mt. 10-17, 16.19.
502 RONALD E. HEINE
Jerome's comments contrasting 'simple faith' and the 'manifold
and multifarious wisdom' of the Church reflect Origen's perennial
concern to relate these two subjects and to correct the view held
by the majority that the Christian faith is simple and rests on a
literal understanding of the biblical message. 87 The series of con-
trasts Jerome lists, beginning with 'You consider the cradle of
Christ; look equally at heaven' (App. 21), suggests that those
addressed focus on the simple story of the earthly Jesus and
miss the mystery of the heavenly being. In his Commentary on

John, Origen contrasts the divine and human in Christ in a way
that is similar but not exactly parallel to the series of contrasts
that Jerome provides (App. 22).
Opposite statements concerning our Lord, so far as the literal meaning
is concerned, are true: 'He was born of David' and, 'He was not born of
David.' For, on the one hand, the statement, 'He was born of David,'
is true, if we understand his material part... But this very statement is
false if we should take it that he was born of the seed of David in the
case of his more divine power, for he was appointed son of God in
power. And perhaps for this reason the holy prophecies proclaim him
here as servant and there as son. He is called servant because of the
'form of a servant' and because he is 'of the seed of David' but son in
accordance with his power as firstborn. So it is true to say that he is
man and that he is not man. He is man insofar as he is capable of
death; not man insofar as he is more divine than man. 88
Finally, Jerome's conclusion to his list of contrasts, 'What is
wiser than this foolishness... more obscure than this wisdom
which God "has made in Christ Jesus our Lord?" ' (App. 22),
is in harmony with Origen's discussion of 1 Corinthians 1:205
at the conclusion of his eighth homily on Jeremiah. Origen argues
there that it is not God's wisdom which overcomes the wisdom of
the world and shows it to be foolishness. God's foolishness is
sufficient for that for 'the foolishness of God is wiser than men'
(1 Cor. 1:25). God's whole work in Christ on earth is his foolish-
ness. 'My Lord and Saviour', Origen concludes, 'has taken up all
the opposite things that by the opposites he might destroy their
opposites and we might be made strong from the weakness of
Jesus and wise from the foolishness of God and, having been
introduced by means of these things, we might be able to ascend
to the wisdom and power of God which is Christ Jesus to whom
belongs glory and power forever.' 9 Origen makes a subtle and
87
See Princ. 1. Pref. 3; 4.2.6, 8; 4.3.14; lo. 1.42-5.
Io. 10.213; tr. R. E Heine, Comm. Jn. 110, p. 260.
89
Horn. Jer. 9.9.
important distinction in this discussion. He usually understands
'wisdom' as one of the titles of the pre-existent Christ based,
especially, on Proverbs 8:22. In this discussion he distinguishes
between Christ himself who is the true 'wisdom of God' and
the working out of God's redemptive plan in Christ which he
calls God's 'foolishness' here.90 This is in harmony with the
understanding of God's plan and wisdom that Jerome presents
in his list of contrasts and his concluding remarks about the
'wisdom which God "has made in Christ Jesus our Lord'".

What, it seems to me, Jerome's words about the 'wisdom which
God "has made in Christ Jesus our Lord" ' refer to is God's
plan which is apparent foolishness and not to Christ himself as
the 'wisdom of God'.
The conclusion that Jerome adds concerning the Arians,
however, understands 'wisdom' in its Christological sense based
on Proverbs 8:22 (App. 23). Whether he took these comments
over from Apollinarius or Didymus, both of whom were strong
opponents of Arianism, or made the comments himself, the mean-
ing of the phrase the 'wisdom' which has 'been made in Christ'
has shifted from the meaning which it had in the previous discus-
sion. This shift in meaning may further suggest that the preceding
discussion came from Origen and not Jerome and that Jerome did
not grasp the precise meaning that Origen intended for the phrase
the 'wisdom of God' in the discussion. In the preface to book two
of the commentary Jerome refers to the rapidity with which he
was working, sometimes completing as many as a thousand lines
a day (PL 26, 586). This rapidity could explain the disjuncture
in meaning between what I take to be Origen's comments about
the wisdom of God made in Christ and the anti-Arian comments
tacked on because they refer to the origin of wisdom.
CONCLUSION
I have found six of the eight criteria I listed above to apply to

Jerome's exegesis of Ephesians 3:4-11 (11.1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8).92
The whole exegesis is framed by material dependent on Origen
both preceding and following it as the catena fragments show.
See also Cels. 3 47 far another non-Christological definition which Origen

gives to the 'wisdom of God' in 1 Cor 1.18 ff.
91
See H. F. D. Sparks, 'Jerome as Biblical Scholar', in P. R. Ackroyd and
C. F. Evans (eds ), The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. 1 (Cambridge, 1970),
P- 953&-
Criterion 1 applies twice; 3 applies 8 times; 4 applies <j times; 5 applies once; 7
applies several times; and 8 applies twice.
504 RONALD E. HEINE
Most of the discussion of Ephesians 3:5-7 is concerned with the
early third century problem of the relation of the new revelation
to the old. The problem of the unity of the God of the Old and
New Testaments in association with Marcion and Valentinus is
introduced in the conclusion of the exegesis of Ephesians 3:8-9.
Eight interpretations are presented which can be identified as
interpretations favoured by Origen, some of which were charac-
teristic and controversial views of Origen. Nine different Scrip-
tures or combinations of Scriptures are used in the same way

that Origen uses them. The exegetical procedures overall are the
same as Origen's customary ways of working, and once he uses
the same argument Origen uses to establish an interpretation.
There is very little in Jerome's entire exegesis of Ephesians
3:411 which could not have come from Origen and much that
parallels Origen's thought, manner of working and situation. Given
the fact that we know that Jerome was dictating his Commentary
on Ephesians with Origen's Commentary on Ephesians open before
him and that he was a great admirer of Origen at the time he was
composing it, these findings suggest very strongly that the exegesis
of Ephesians 3:411 found in Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians
was derived from Origen's commentary. This does not mean, of
course, that we have recovered Origen's actual words but rather
that we know the main lines of his thought on these verses in
Ephesians.
APPENDIX
JEROME: COMMENTARY ON EPHESIANS,
BOOK II
(Translated from the text of F. Pieri) 93
There are parallels in the Greek catena fragments for the
comments on Ephesians 3:1-3 and 3:12 in the translation which
follows. The italicized words in these passages are the material
which the catena fragments show that Jerome has taken over from
Origen. I have placed those remarks which clearly do not come
from Origen in square brackets throughout the translation. I have
added paragraph numbers in parentheses to make references in
the essay more precise.
Eph. 3:1-4 FOR T H I S REASON I PAUL AM T H E
PRISONER O F JESUS C H R I S T ON BEHALF O F
YOU G E N T I L E S , IF INDEED YOU HAVE HEARD O F
T H E DISPENSATION OF T H E GRACE OF GOD GIVEN
93
See notes 11 and 2 above.
TO ME FOR YOU, THAT THE MYSTERY WAS
MADE KNOWN TO ME IN REVELATION, JUST AS I
WROTE ABOVE IN A FEW WORDS, ACCORDINGLY
BY READING (THEM) YOU CAN COMPREHEND MY
UNDERSTANDING IN THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST.
(1) To what extent does the phrase, 'For this reason I Paul am the
prisoner of Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles,' pertain to the
sequence of the discourse and the structure of the language which pre-
cedes it? Although we searched very diligently we could find nothing

which answers to it. For he did not say, for this reason I Paul have
done this or that or have taught this or that but while the thought
remains up in the air he has passed over to other matters. Unless,
perhaps, excusing in him that which even he himself has confessed
when he says, 'although untrained in speech but not in knowledge'
(2 Cor. 11:6), we should seek the order of meaning in the clause
rather than the order of the words. The meaning can be rendered as
follows: For this reason I Paul the prisoner of Jesus Christ and a
prisoner for you who are from the Gentiles have made known the mys-
tery that I might pass it on also to you just as I have said 587 a little
earlier in this same epistle. But you ought to hear of the dispensation
of the grace of God which has been given to me for you who are from
the Gentiles for whom also I am the prisoner of Jesus Christ.
(2) But Paul's being the prisoner of Jesus Christ for the Gentiles
can also be understood of his martyrdom because when he had
been thrown into prison at Rome, he sent this epistle at the same
time that he wrote to Philemon, the Colossians and the Philip-
pians (as) we have shown in another place. Or, perhaps, because
many passages refer to this body as the prison of the soul in which
it is held as in an enclosed cell, we say that Paul is confined by the
fetters of the body and could not return and be with Christ (Phil.
1 .-23) so that his preaching among the Gentiles might be finished com-
pletely (see Jerome, Apol. i.25). Some, however, introduce another
meaning in this passage, namely that Paul was predestined before
his birth and sanctified from the womb of his mother to preach to
the Gentiles (Gal. 1:15), and later accepted the bonds of flesh.
(3) But I think that the manner of speaking is also defective in this
passage. For instead of that which he ought to say, namely, For this
reason I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ on behalf of you Gentiles,
have made known the mystery just as I wrote above in a few words,
as you can read and understand, he says. 'For this reason I Paul the
prisoner, the mystery was made known to me in revelation,' etc. But
if someone can also show that the apostle was perfect and has not com-
mitted grammatical errors according to the coherence of the language
and manner of speaking, then listen to that person instead.
506 RONALD E.HEINE
(4) But whenever we note solecisms or similar things we do not
defame the apostle as ill-willed people make accusations but
rather we are defenders of the apostle because as a Hebrew of
the Hebrews (Phil. 3:15), lacking the polish of rhetorical speech,
the proper arrangement of words, and the grace of eloquence, he
would never have been able to bring the whole world to faith in
Christ, unless he had preached him in the power of God and
not in the wisdom of speech. For he himself also says to the
Corinthians, 'And when I came to you, brothers, I came not in

the excellence of speech or wisdom 588 announcing to you the
testimony of God' (1 Cor. 2:1). And again, 'And my speech and my
preaching were not in the persuasive words of wisdom but in the
demonstration of the Spirit and power, that your faith might not
be in human wisdom but in the power of God' (1 Cor. 2:4-5).
(5) He, therefore, who committed solecisms in speech, who
could not render a hyperbaton and round off a period, boldly
claims wisdom for himself and says, 'That the mystery was made
known to me in revelation just as I wrote above in a few words.'
For truly if anyone will contemplate the preceding (words) of this
epistle, he will see mysteries revealed in it, some small part of which
he has touched slightly in his discourse, not so much to bring
forth everything which he knew, as to indicate modestly what
he is passing over in silence. Accordingly, by reading them, he
says, you can comprehend my understanding or wisdom in the
mystery of Christ. This is what we said in the preface when we
remarked that no epistle of Paul contains so many mysteries and
is so wrapped in hidden meanings which the apostle boasts that
he knows and briefly hints at so that we might pore very carefully
over what he has written.
Eph. 3:5-7 AND TO OTHER GENERATIONS IT WAS NOT
MADE KNOWN TO THE SONS OF MEN AS IT HAS NOW
BEEN REVEALED TO HIS HOLY APOSTLES AND
PROPHETS IN THE SPIRIT, THAT THE GENTILES
ARE JOINT HEIRS, BELONGING TO THE SAME
BODY, AND ARE COPARTNERS OF THE PROMISE IN
CHRIST THROUGH THE GOSPEL OF WHICH I WAS
MADE A MINISTER ACCORDING TO THE GIFT OF
GOD'S GRACE WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME
ACCORDING TO THE OPERATION OF HIS POWER.
(6) It seems necessary to re-examine rather thoroughly how the
mystery of Christ, which the apostle related partially above, was
unknown to other generations. Were Abraham, Jacob, Moses,
Isaiah, and the other prophets ignorant of it or not? Scripture
relates that the advent of Christ and the calling of the Gentiles
were predicted by these very people. Abraham, in fact, saw his
day and rejoiced (John 8:56) and it was said to him, 'All the
Gentiles will be blessed in your seed' (Gen. 22:18). And Jacob
says prophetically of him who is to arise from Judah, 'And he will
be the expectation of the Gentiles' (Gen. 49:10). Moses, too,
considered the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures
of Egypt (Heb. 11:26). 589 And Isaiah says, 'Behold a virgin will
conceive and will give birth' (Isa. 7:14). And elsewhere, 'He will be
the rod of Jesse, who will arise to rule the Gentiles; in him the

Gentiles will hope' (Rom. 15:12). And that the list not grow
long, let it suffice to cite a few verses from the Psalms. 'And all
the families of the Gentiles shall worship before him' (Ps.
21:28). And again, 'All the Gentiles will serve him' (Ps. 71:11).
And even more clearly of the people of Israel and of our Lord
the Saviour, 'Visit this vineyard and perfect that which your
right hand planted, and (look) upon the son whom you have
confirmed for yourself (Ps. 79:1516). The dispensation of his
body is also indicated in the words which follow, 'Let your
hand be upon the man of your right hand and upon the son of
man whom you have confirmed for yourself (Ps. 79:18).
(7) It must, then, either be accepted in accordance with
Montanus that the patriarchs and prophets spoke in ecstasy and
did not know what they said or, if this is impious inasmuch as the
spirit of prophets is subject to prophets (1 Cor. 14:32), they
understood by all means that which they spoke. And if they
understood, I ask how Paul now says that what was not known
to other generations has been revealed to the apostles of Christ.
Either, therefore, one must answer that Paul has testified
cautiously and distinctly that the mystery was unknown to the
sons of men, not to the sons of God, to whom it is said, 'I said,
You are gods and sons of the Most High (Ps. 81:6), because these,
of course, who have received the spirit of adoption, to whom the
patriarchs and prophets belonged, knew the mystery of God. Or,
if this is not accepted, and appears too violent and forced, the
statement will be transformed so that it says that Paul has not said
in a definite and general manner that the mystery of the Lord was
not known at all to other generations but that the ancient patri-
archs and prophets did not know it in the manner in which it has
now been revealed to his saints and apostles. For it is one thing to
recognize in the spirit the things that are to come and another to
94
I have supplied this verb from the second clause of Ps. 79:15 which, in the
LXX, reads, eiripXeijiov k ovpavoii KO.1 iSe, on the basis of the preposition em (super)
which begins the clause in question.
508 RONALD E. HEINE
discern them when the work has been completed. This is also
why John is said to be greater than all the prophets (Luke 7:28).
He saw with his eyes him of whom the others had prophesied
and pointed to him with his finger saying, 'Behold, the lamb
of God; behold him who takes away the sins of the world'
(John 1:29).
(8) One can also explain the following saying in the same way,
'Many prophets and just men desired to see what you see and they
did not see; and to hear what you hear and they did not hear'

(Luke 10:24). They desired, no doubt, to see and hear these things
which they knew would be in the future. But if they did not know
the things which were to come, how could they desire those things
of which they were completely ignorant? We read in the books of
the Kings that the Lord 590 promises to Solomon in a dream and
says, 'Because you have asked this thing from me and you did not
ask for many days for yourself nor did you request riches nor the
lives of your enemies but you asked that you might understand
and attend to judgement, behold I have performed your word
and I have given you a judicious and wise heart. There was no
one like you before you and no one similar to you will arise
after you' (1 Kings 3:11-12). Now how can anyone think that
a mystery has been revealed to the apostles of Christ of which
Solomon was ignorant when Solomon was wiser than all the
apostles? This divine testimony applies also to the patriarchs in
retrospect. Solomon also says confidently of himself, 'God has
taught me wisdom; I have known the understanding of holy
things.' David, likewise, boasts of knowledge of hidden mysteries
when he says, 'You have made known to me the uncertain and
hidden things of your wisdom' (Ps. 50:8). And God says through
the prophet to him who prided himself in wisdom, 'Are you wiser
than Daniel?' (Ezek. 28:3).
(9) Either, then, that interpretation must be held of which we
have already spoken above, that the patriarchs and prophets were
ignorant of the mystery of Christ as now revealed to the apostles,
because it is one thing to hold something in the hands and another
to see what will be in advance in the spirit, or we must say that in
the same way that all faces are not alike so neither are hearts and,
according to the apostle, there are a diversity of gifts. One has
prophecy, another various kinds of tongues, another the gift
of healing, helps, (and) governances. This one is wise, that one
faithful; this one has the capacity to understand secrets, that one
is intent on simple faith alone (1 Cor. 12:4-10, 28). For all have
not likewise spoken, following Solomon's example, of the nature
of beasts and birds and plants so that they should treat (subjects)
from the cedar in Lebanon to the hyssop which comes out of the
wall (i Kings 4:33). On the other hand, perhaps Solomon did
not see all the kinds of sacrificial beasts and (ways) of worshipping
God in the way that Moses did nor did the Lord speak to him
face to face (Exod. 33:11). Neither did Solomon have nor under-
stand so massive an apparatus of vessels whose pattern the Lord
showed Moses on the mountain (Exod. 25:40). And just as we
must believe that the patriarchs and prophets had some things

which the apostles did not have so, on the other hand, in virtue
of the favourableness of time and the preaching of the gospel the
apostles have known the mystery of Christ more completely. For
indeed, the holy men of old also knew but not as the apostles on
whom rested the necessity of preaching.
(10) 591 But what is this mystery which was not revealed to
other generations as it is now? Obviously it is that which follows,
that 'the Gentiles are joint heirs, belonging to the same body,
and are copartners of the promise in Christ through the gospel
of which' Paul 'was made a minister according to the gift of
God's grace which has been given to' him 'according to the opera-
tion of his power'. I know that the juxtaposition of the ideas of his
chain of thought, by which he says, 'joint heirs, belonging to the
same body, and copartners,' makes an indecorous [Latin] sen-
tence. But because it is so in the [Greek] text and individual
words, syllables, tittles, and punctuation marks in the divine
Scriptures are full of meaning, we wish to be in greater danger
in the arrangement and order of words than in understanding.
(11) The Gentiles, therefore, are joint heirs with Israel or, what
we think is better, are joint heirs with Christ so that God is our
inheritance and we are joint heirs of Christ. It is written in
another passage, 'heirs of God and joint heirs of Christ' (Rom.
8:17). It is not that some possession is divided between us but that
the Lord himself is our inheritance and possession. Indeed, 'the
Lord,' it says, 'is your inheritance' (Deut. 18:2) and elsewhere,
'the Lord is my portion and my inheritance' (Ps. I5(i6):5).
(12) Moreover, 'belonging to the same body' means that just as
there are many members in one body, for example, eyes, hands,
ears, feet, belly, and knees and, although they are in one body,
they have their differences, and they rejoice and feel pain recipro-
cally, so, although those who believe in Christ have different gifts,
nevertheless, they have been brought together into the one body
of the church.
(13) Now, indeed, it would be possible to suspect some conflict
in the one body on the basis of the two terms above, i.e. 'joint
heirs and belonging to the same body'. But all disagreement has
510 RONALD E. HEINE
been completely eliminated on the basis of the addition, 'and
copartners of the promise in Christ Jesus'. For where there is one
copartnership all things are in common.
(14) Furthermore, to show that it is God's grace and not his
own merit, Paul adds beautifully, 'through the gospel of which I
was made a minister according to the gift of grace which has been
given to me according to the operation of his power'. For he also
knew that he had been a persecutor and had devastated Christ's

Church. On the basis of this humility the charge of arrogance is
completely excluded. Some think he should be reprehended for
his claim that a mystery has been revealed to himself which had
been unknown to the patriarchs 592 and prophets. To be sure,
a humble disciple who claims that the gospel of which he is a
minister was not of his own merit but the grace of God would
never be puffed up with presumptuous words.
(15) Those who want the prophets not to have understood what
they said and to have spoken in ecstasy, as it were, to confirm their
doctrine drag in, along with the present testimony, also this
which is found in many manuscripts to the Romans, 'Now to him
who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the
preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the
mystery kept secret from eternal times but now revealed through
the prophetic Scriptures and the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ'
and the rest (Rom. 16:25; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 1:10). To these we
must briefly respond that the mystery of Christ had been kept
secret in times past not among those who were announcing that
it was to be but among all the Gentiles to whom it was afterwards
revealed. And it must be noted as well that the mystery of our
faith cannot be revealed except through the prophetic Scriptures
and the advent of Christ. Let those, therefore, who neither under-
stand the prophets nor desire to know them but assert that
they are intent on the gospel alone, know that they do not know
the mystery of Christ which was unknown to all the Gentiles from
eternal times.
Eph. 3:8-9 TO ME, THE LEAST OF ALL THE SAINTS,
HAS BEEN GIVEN THIS GRACE TO PREACH THE
UNSEARCHABLE RICHES OF CHRIST AMONG THE
GENTILES AND TO ENLIGHTEN ALL IN RESPECT
TO WHAT IS THE DISPENSATION OF THE MYSTERY
WHICH HAS BEEN HIDDEN FROM THE AGES IN GOD
WHO CREATED ALL THINGS.
(16) I do not think that the apostle Paul had decided in the priv-
acy of his own mind that he should say that he really was the
least among all the saints, for example, among those who were
in Ephesus or Corinth or Thessalonica or who had believed in the
whole world. Even though it is an indication of humility to call
himself the least of all the saints, it is the offence of lying to have
one thing hidden in the heart and to utter another thing in speech.
Proof, therefore, must be found that Paul truly was the least
among all the saints and that, nevertheless, he did not fall short
of the worthiness of an apostle. The Lord says to his disciples
in the Gospel, 'Whoever wishes to be great among you must
become least of all and whoever wishes to be first must be last

of all' (Matt. 20:26-7). Paul fulfilled this in action saying, 'For
I think that God has shown us apostles last, as if appointed for
death' (1 Cor. 4:9). Among all those, therefore, who desired to
be weak because of Christ, the apostle Paul was weaker and, there-
fore, greater. 593 'For I,' he says, 'have laboured more than all of
them, yet not I but the grace of God is with me' (1 Cor. 15:10).
Because of this humility, seeing that he is the least of all the
saints, this grace has been given to him to preach the unsearchable
riches of Christ among the Gentiles and to teach the dispensation
of the mystery which has been hidden from the ages in God who
created all things.
(17) If the riches of Christ are unsearchable, how are they
preached among the people? If the mystery has been hidden from
the ages in God, for what reason is it brought forth to the Gentiles
by Paul? 'Unsearchable' and 'hidden', however, are to be under-
stood in a twofold manner. The riches were previously unsearch-
able and now, after the passion of the Lord, they have been
revealed. Or perhaps the things which were unsearchable by
human nature itself have been perceived by God's revelation of
them. It is one thing to attain by one's own curiosity to a secret
which ceases to be unsearchable as soon as it has been learned.
It is another to be totally unable to understand by one's own dili-
gence but by God's grace to know that which, once you know it
and even make it known to others, continues none the less to be
unsearchable. Although the secret was made known to you, it is
as great in you as it was formerly. The Psalmist testifies that the
riches of Christ are unsearchable when, speaking to this same
Christ, he says, 'How infinite is the multitude of your goodness
which you have hidden for those who fear you' (Ps. 30:20).
(18) These riches of his goodness had been hidden from all
previous ages in God who is the creator of all things. Where are
Marcion and Valentinus and all the heretics who assert that the
maker of the world, that is the visible world, was one and the
maker of the invisible world another? They say that this one is just
(and) that one, I know not whom since he is always unknown,
512 RONALD E. HEINE
alone is good who is the Father of Christ. Behold God, in whom
the mystery of Christ had been hidden from all previous ages,
is proclaimed to be the creator of all things. From this it is
demonstrated that the God of the New Testament and of the Old
Testament is the same.
(19) Now the mystery hidden from the ages can also be under-
stood in another way, 594 namely that the ages themselves were
ignorant of it, that is, all the spiritual and rational creatures
which were in the ages. Age, in fact, is frequently taken for

those who live in the age. As Paul speaks to the Galatians and
says, 'that he might deliver us from this present wicked age'
(Gal. 1:4). And in another place he says, 'that he might show in
the ages to come' (Eph. 2:7), because he means to all who were
to be in the ages to come.
Eph. 3:10-11 T H A T T H E MANIFOLD WISDOM OF GOD
M I G H T BECOME KNOWN NOW TO T H E PRINCIPALI-
T I E S AND POWERS IN HEAVENLY PLACES T H R O U G H
T H E CHURCH ACCORDING TO T H E PLAN O F T H E
AGES WHICH HE MADE IN CHRIST JESUS OUR LORD.
(20) According to the gift of God's grace which has been given
to the apostle that he might preach the unsearchable riches of
Christ and teach the mystery among the Gentiles which had been
unknown from the ages, therefore, the secret itself has been
revealed to him that the manifold wisdom of God, which was
formerly established according to the ancient plan of the ages
(and) is now seen to have been consummated in Christ, should
be made manifest not only to the Gentiles but also to the princip-
alities and powers through the Church. Moreover, if the manifold
wisdom of God which has now been revealed to them through the
Church was unknown to the principalities and powers in heavenly
places which we ought to understand as saints and ministers
of God (although some interpret them as the prince of the air
(Eph. 2:2) and his angels) by how much more was it unknown
to the patriarchs and prophets whom we have shown above not
to have been ignorant of the mystery of Christ but not to have
known it as the apostles.
(21) Indeed, the manifold wisdom of God [which is expressed
by the Greek word TTOXVTTOIKLXOS and, as I thus say, is called multi-
farious] has now been revealed through the Church to both prin-
cipalities and powers. We know what God formerly determined in
his mind would be and has now been accomplished on the basis of
the fact that we see it. The cross of Christ, therefore, was not only
for us but was also for the angels and all the powers in heaven and
revealed the mystery which they did not previously know.
Accordingly, they are amazed at God returning to heaven 595
with a body and say, 'Who is this who comes from Edom with
scarlet garments from Bosra so beautiful in his bright robe?'
(Isa. 63:1) And in another passage, 'Who is this king of glory?
The Lord of the powers, he is the king of glory' (Ps. 23:8).
(22) Let us not think, therefore, that in the Church there is a
simple faith but a manifold and multifarious wisdom so that not
only is it diverse but it is distinct in its great variety. You consider

the cradle of Christ; look equally at heaven (Luke 2:7-14). You
look at the infant crying in swaddling clothes but listen, at the
same time, to the angels' praise (Luke 2:714). Herod persecutes
him but the magi worship him (Matt. 2:16). The Pharisees are
ignorant of him but a star points him out (Matt. 2:2ff). He is bap-
tized by a servant but the voice of God is heard thundering from
above (Matt. 3:16-17). He is immersed in the waters but a dove,
or rather the Spirit in a dove, descends (Matt. 3:16). He comes to
the passion and he fears the suffering; he wants the cup to pass
him by and he censures Peter because he feared the cup (Matt.
2
6:3/-9; 16:21-3). What is wiser than this foolishness, more
distinct than this variety, more obscure than this wisdom which
God 'has made in Christ Jesus our Lord'?
(23) For although, based on the order and connection of the
words, many can understand the Church also 'to have been made',
as also the npoOeais [that is 'plan', which we have represented in
the neuter gender with the Latin word propositum,] wisdom,
nevertheless, resounds to a greater extent than the others as
'having been made' in Christ. 'The wisdom of God,' indeed,
'is foolish to men' (1 Cor. 1:25). [But if wisdom is said to have
been made in Christ in accordance with the mystical meanings
the Arians understand falsely that she is glorified with respect to
that testimony in which wisdom says that she has been created
and brought forth and established at the beginning of the ways
of God (Prov. 8:22-3 LXX). And, at any rate, she has been created
according to them; she could not have been born. But if she was
born, how is she said to have been established and created?]
Eph. 3:12 IN WHOM WE HAVE BOLDNESS AND ACCESS
IN CONFIDENCE T H R O U G H T H E FAITH IN HIM.
(24) Nothing can so offer us boldness with God and purity of
conscience of which it is said, ' / / our conscience does not condemn
us we have confidence with God' (1 John 3:21) except the Word,
truth, wisdom, (and) justice which are all understood to be in
Christ (1 Cor. 1:30). These things, therefore, give us boldness
with God even as they give us access so that our understand-
ing approaches him, diligently contemplates him, assumes and
514 RONALD E. HEINE
appropriates something of his majesty in itself, procures a certain
colour and splendour, of light, as it were, from the rays of the sun,
and says, 'The light of your countenance 596 is signed upon us,
Lord' (Ps. 4:7).
(25) It is great, therefore, not only that we have boldness but also
that we have it in confidence. We not only have access but that the
access itself might be firmer, we have it in confidence. The principle
and origin of this boldness and access is faith in Christ. Whoever,
therefore, does all things with reason and order believes in Christ as

Word and Reason; whoever can understand wisdom believes in
Christ as Wisdom; whoever has understood truth believes in Christ
as Truth; whoever has lived justly believes in him as Justice. It is
not necessary to say more since the necessity of speaking of Christ
in a similar manner has often rested on me.
RONALD E. HEINE

J Theol Studies 2000 HEINE 478 514

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Theol Studies 2000 HEINE 478 514

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RECOVERING ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY

ON EPHESIANS FROM JEROME

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

See F. Deniau, 'Le commentaire de Jerome sur Ephesiens nous permet-il de

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

See R. E. Heine, 'Can the Catena Fragments of Origen's Commentary on

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

II. C R I T E R I A FOR R E C O G N I Z I N G ORIGEN'S

The criteria I suggest here are based on the working methods of

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

I begin by noting that Jerome's comments on this passage are

Gregg, p. 408 (xiii.16-17); cf. Jerome's paraphrase in italics in App. 5

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', p. 399 (ix.45-50).

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

F. Deniau, 'Le commentaire de Jerome sur Ephesiens', p. 174, n. 17. Add to

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Io. 6.15-31; 13.301-19; Comm. in Rom. in.43.

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', p. 403 (ix.168 ft.).

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

C. Jenkins, 'Ongen-Citations', p. 360 (xx.4 ff.).

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

I have found six of the eight criteria I listed above to apply to

See also Cels. 3 47 far another non-Christological definition which Origen

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

Downloaded from http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/ at Biblioteca Augustininanum on November 2, 2016

You might also like