Fides Simpliciorum
according to Origen of Alexandria
Publisher: Societas Scientiarum Fennica (1984)Paperback: 106 pages
Language: English
ISBN-10: 9516531687
ISBN-13: 978-9516531680
:: Buy from Amazon ::
Introduction
Scholars of Origen have for decades been agreed in thinking that the idea of spiritual progress, including the notion of different spiritual levels, occupies a central position in the theology of Origen. A great number of studies have, therefore, been devoted to this theme. Among the best known works are Völker’s “Das Vollkommenheitsideal des Origenes”, Lieske’s “Die Theologie der Logos-Mystik bei Origenes”, Bettrand’s “Mystique de Jésus chez Origène”, Jonas’ “Die origenische Spekulation und die Mystik”, and Crouzel’s “Origène et la ‘connaissance mystique'”. This concentration on the advanced Christian and his spiritual life has, however, been at the expense of the beginner or inferior believer, though he is often mentioned by Origen. This neglect in research is also strange in that Origen explicitly states that the simple believers are in the majority, whereas the advanced Christian is an exception in the Church. This is not to say that the simple believers, often called by the Greek name απλούστεροι or its Latin equivalents “simplices” or “simpliciores”, have been totally overlooked. Origen’s own standpoints are not fully understood without the simple believers, and this has been acknowledged at least implicitly by scholars when as a form of introduction to Origen’s views they have given a presentation of the corresponding opinions of the simplices. The Christianity of the simplices has thus served as a means of achieving a scholarly goal which is no longer connected with the simplices themselves. Naturally such a presentation, notwithstanding its potential merits as regards the goal aimed at, cannot do full justice to the Christiantiy of the “simpletons”, nor give a total view of it. The most exhaustive account so far has been given by Martin Hirschberg, who presents the simple believers for their own sake. But Hirschberg explicitly states that he will pass over the doctrinal aspects in order to concentrate on the historical. The simplices are, however, first and last treated by Origen as theological opponents, as critics of his exegesis and challengers of his speculations. They cannot be regarded as representatives of a Christianity without dogma. It has been pointed out that in those times of persecution and hatred of the Christians the ordinary Christian also had to know something about his faith. The simple believers did, at least to some extent. According to Origen himself God gave the inferior believers “doctrines”, δόγματα, that they could grasp, and “theology” to the advanced Christians. What these doctrines are remains to be shown; their possible place in the history of dogma has not yet been fixed. From the research of Origen one easily gets the view that the simplices represent a rather strange version of the Christian faith. For that reason parallels from the history of dogma will be given to some extent in the following.
Table of Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . 3 Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . 5 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . 7 1. FIDES QUA CREDITUR 1.1. TERMINOLOGICAL REMARKS . . . . . . . . . 11 1.2. THE BIRTH OF SIMPLE FAITH . . . . . . . . . 19 1.3. THE NATURE OF SIMPLE FAITH . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1. Intellectual Deficiency . . . . . . . . . 23 1.3.2. The Rejection of Speculation . . . . . . . . . 27 1.3.3. The Lack of a System . . . . . . . . . 32 1.3.4. Inclination towards Sensibles . . . . . . . . . 35 1.3.5. Religious Immaturity . . . . . . . . . 38 1.3.6. The Last Charisma . . . . . . . . . 41 2. FIDES QUAE CREDITUR 2.1. THE SCRIPTUREStd> 2.1.1. The Origin of Literalism . . . . . . . . . 43 2.1.2. Literalism . . . . . . . . . 46 2.1.3. Modified Literalism . . . . . . . . . 51 2.2. PROTOLOGY . . . . . . . . . 51 2.3. THE CREATOR GOD . . . . . . . . . 57 2.4. THE SAVIOUR GOD . . . . . . . . . 64 2.4.1. Tendency towards Modalism . . . . . . . . . 69 2.4.2 The Crucified God . . . . . . . . . 72 2.5. THE WORKINGS OF THE SPIRIT . . . . . . . . . 75 2.6. ESCHATOLOGY 2.6.1 Death and Ressurection . . . . . . . . . 80 2.6.2. The Life to Come . . . . . . . . . 88 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . 93 SOURCES . . . . . . . . . 96 LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . 97 Ancient authors . . . . . . . . . 97 Modern authors . . . . . . . . . 98 Index of names . . . . . . . . . 109 Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . 112 Book Review
Joseph W. Trigg
Grace Episcopal Church
Paducah, KentuckyOrigen referred to a group of fellow Christians, probably in their terms, as the “simpler” (hoi haplousteroi) or “the pure” (oi akeraioi) and, in a more classical ven, as “the many” (hoi polloi), “the majority” (to plēthos), or “the mob” (ho okhlos). To discuss serious theological issues in such people’s presence is, Origen said, to cat pearls before swine. Reinhold Seeberg considered the distinction between simple and advanced Christians to be the key to understanding Origen, and, more recently, F.H. Kettler has forcefully advanced a similar view. The lack heretofore of any critical study of the actual faith of simple Christians was, thus, a major lacuna in Origen studies.
The work under review fills that lacuna admirably. Hällström knows Origen’s work and the relevant secondary literature thoroughly. He defines the issue clearly and is finely sensitive to Origen’s use of language. He presents Origen’s understanding of simple faith (pistis in the sense of fides qua creditur) as a mode of cognition inferior to rational inquiry (zētēsis and related words), convincingly deriving Origen’s categories from Plato’s distinction between opinion (doxa) and knowledge (epistēmē). He also discusses in detail the contents of simple faith (fides quae creditur) as Origen presents it, a faith characterized by a biblical literalism and rejection of speculative doctrines. He knows how the beliefs of Origen’s “simpletons” on a range of topics represent the faith of a definite group of people whom we must assume to be the majority of third-century Christians, including their clergy. Hällström concludes that “the Origenist crises did not come from nowhere. The discussion had already been begun by the simplices.”
Adiscussion of simple believers’ views on the sacraments, on which the evidence is not as scantly as Hällström suggests, would have been helpful, as would a discussion of the relationship between Origen’s disdain for simple faith and his difficult relations with ecclesiastical authorities. But their lack does not diminish the value of the work he has done.