Origen, the great Christian theologian and exegete of the third century, who labored initially in Alexandria in Egypt and later in Caesarea in Palestine, had a reputation during his lifetime and after his death for being a strong advocate of allegorical methods of interpreting the Holy Scriptures. This does not mean that Origen in principle denied the need for a thorough study of the texts of Scripture, aimed at finding out their direct, literal meaning, which could be incomprehensible to believers who were not experienced in theological, historical and philological matters. On the contrary, it was Origen who was one of the founders of Christian Biblical philology, which put at the service of studying Biblical texts the techniques and methods developed by ancient grammarians. At the same time, the literal meaning of the Holy Scriptures - both in cases where this meaning was sufficiently obvious, and when its clarification required serious analytical work - was of much less interest to Origen than the non-obvious, "mysterious" meaning of the inspired Scriptures, taught in them in a hidden, allegorical form and revealed in them. exclusively by means of allegorical exegesis.

We will not discuss the question of the cultural and historical roots of the idea that every sacred text contains a teaching addressed only to the initiates, the chosen ones, who are worthy to join the higher, divine and often saving knowledge, which is why the most important characteristic and main feature of such a text is its "darkness", which allows you to protect what is being conveyed It is a teaching against profanation, but it is not an insurmountable obstacle for a wise or inspired interpreter. Suffice it to say that in the Christian community, despite the emphatically universalistic nature of Christian preaching, such an attitude towards the texts of Holy Scripture was manifested quite early and that Origen fully shared this attitude.1 Origen was willing to admit that many spiritual and even life-saving truths are expressed in Scripture in a direct and generally understandable form, 2 but he was convinced that a literal reading of a significant part of the texts of Scripture is impossible in principle, because the literal meaning in these cases is clearly contrary to common sense or the requirements of piety. In addition, he identified a group of texts of Scripture whose literal meaning did not arouse suspicion and could generally be considered reliable, but in which minor "distortions" were deliberately introduced (i.e., at the suggestion of the divine Author of the Scriptures), signaling that these texts also contain a second, additional meaning, expressed by the divine Author of the Scriptures. not directly, but allegorically. And, finally, even the absence of any anomalies in the text that prevent us from perceiving this text in its direct and literal sense, did not cancel, according to Origen,

1 This issue is discussed in detail in the article [Harl, 1982, p. 334-371].

2 See, for example: De princip. IV, 2, 6: "That the first (bodily) meaning in itself can be useful, this is evidenced by many people who believe truly, but simply "(translated by N. Petrov).

page 5
the need for an allegorical interpretation. Hence Origen's main methodological postulate, which states that not all texts of Scripture have a literal meaning3, but all texts of Scripture contain a "spiritual" (i.e., allegorical) meaning4.

Guided by this principle, Origen in his commentaries and homilies on the Old Testament and New Testament books focuses on allegorical interpretations, which, for all their diversity, in the vast majority of cases are constructed in the same way. This method is based on a procedure that implies, firstly, the isolation from the text of a descriptive, narrative or poetic character of a chain or system of key images that are assigned an "allegorical" meaning (as if these images were symbols, i.e. they had both their own and non-proper, secondary reference replacing the primary reference), secondly, the implementation of the projection of the relations represented in the original system of images onto the resulting system of correlative " values "and, thirdly, the comprehension of new connections that arise already at the level of" values", which allow us to formulate a certain maxim of didactic content.

To illustrate this method of interpretation, we refer to the interpretation of the famous Gospel parable of the Good Samaritan 5, which Origen gives in the homilies on the Gospel of Luke. Origen explains:

"Under this man [i.e., under a man who became a victim of robbers. - O. N.] refers to Adam or the teaching about man, about the life he led initially, and about the fall due to disobedience. Jerusalem, on the other hand, means paradise or Jerusalem on high. Jericho is the world. Robbers are hostile forces, i.e. either demons or false teachers who were before Christ. Wounds are disobedience and sins. The fact that a person has been stripped of his clothes means that incorruptibility and immortality are taken away from him, and that he has lost all virtue. He is left half-dead, for half a human being is subject to death, but his soul remains immortal. The priest is the Law, the Levite is the Prophets. The Samaritan is the Christ who received flesh from Mary. Wine is His word, edifying and correcting. Oil is the teaching of humanity, mercy, and compassion. The innkeeper is the Church, the innkeeper is the apostles and their successors, as well as the bishops and teachers of the Churches, or they are angels assigned to watch over the Church. The two denarii are the two Testaments, the Old and the New, or the love of God and the love of neighbor, or the knowledge of the Father and the Son. And the return of the Samaritan is the second coming of Christ. " 6
Origen, therefore, sees in the parable of the Samaritan an allegorical exposition of the Christian teaching about the path of humanity, which lost immortality as a result of the fall, found itself on the verge of destruction due to its own depravity, which made it vulnerable to the machinations of demons and false teachers, did not find salvation through the teachings of the Old Testament, but was saved by Christ in the bosom of the the coming of Christ.

In addition, allegorical interpretations in Origen can be based on etymologization of proper names, which allows identifying the bearer of a proper name with some abstract entity. In this case, the semantics of the name, rather than the semantics of the sense image, play a constitutive role, but the method of constructing the interpretation remains the same.

And finally, in Origen, one can find - although extremely rarely - an interpretation that-

3 That is, an acceptable literal meaning, distinct from the verbal meaning, which can be regarded as true or false, as plausible or absurd, but which cannot be "absent" in narrative texts.

4 See: De princip. IV, 3, 5; cf. ibid., 2, 9; 3, 1.

5 See Luke 10: 30-35: "A certain man was going from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him of his clothes, wounded him, and went away, leaving him barely alive. A priest happened to be walking along the same road, and when he saw him, he passed by. And when the Levite was in that place, he came and looked, and passed by. But a Samaritan passing by found him, and when he saw him, he took pity on him, and came and bound up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his donkey, and brought him to the inn, and took care of him; and the next day, as he was going away, he took out two denarii, and gave it to the innkeeper, and He said to him, " Take care of him; and if you spend anything more, I will pay you back when I return."

6 In Luc. hom. 34, 3 (fr. 71).

page 6
They are based on playing with lexical meanings of words (for example, replacing the direct meaning of a word with its derived or figurative meaning). For example, the instruction addressed to Noah, according to which the entrance to the ark was to be arranged in the side wall of ark 7, Origen, relying on the derived meaning of the adjective πλαγιoς (not just "side", but also "opposing", "contradicting", "disobedient"), which occurs in the Greek translation of Leviticus 26: 27, where God threatens punishments to those who disobey Him, and sees it as a reference to all those who have rebelled against God and will not find salvation in the bosom of the Ark Church.8 But, as in the previous case, this procedure serves only an auxiliary role, providing an additional justification (and associative, i.e. relatively weak) for the key identification of Noah's Ark with the Church, outside of which ("sideways") all those who rebel against God and do not deserve salvation are left.

This kind of allegorical interpretation, based on a technique that was widely used to interpret biblical texts in the Alexandrian Judeo-Hellenistic tradition (for example, in Philo of Alexandria), Origen strictly used to explain the implicit, "mysterious" meaning of both the Old and New Testaments, that is, exactly the meaning that Origen believed was most important in the Bible. it allowed believers to share in the knowledge of the most exalted mysteries of the divine teaching. However, there was one rather extensive group of texts of Scripture that Origen interpreted mainly in the literal sense: this is the corpus of the New Testament epistles of the apostles and, in particular, the epistles of the Apostle Paul9. The reasons for this are clear: unlike those books and sections of the Old Testament and New Testament Writings, which were dominated by historical material that did not contain an explicit doctrinal meaning, or legislative material (i.e., the presentation of commandments and legal regulations, which in the Christian era had to undergo a specific rethinking), the Apostolic epistles themselves could be considered as historical texts. an authoritative exegetical and doctrinal source. In this latter case, therefore, there was no need for the interpreter to search for and try to decipher the mysterious images and symbols, since the apostolic teaching was expressed in a direct, non-veiled and non-allegorical form.

Origen certainly considered himself a faithful disciple of the Apostle Paul. In his own theological system, it is hardly possible to find propositions that are not the fruit of reflection on the texts of the apostolic epistles and are not supported by certain statements of the apostle. However, Origen's approach to interpreting these texts was not entirely conventional.

In order to demonstrate the peculiarities of this approach, it is enough to compare the Origen's interpretation of the Apostle Paul's teaching about two kinds of knowledge and two stages of human perfection, set forth in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (2:6 - 3:3)10 and served as the basis for the development of epistemological and exegetical works-

7 Gen. 6: 16: "And you shall make the door of the ark on its side (tnv δε θυραv της κιβωτoυ πoιησεις εκ πλαγιωv)"

8 See: In Gen. hom. 2, 5.

9 These are the fourteen epistles attributed to the Apostle Paul in the early Church tradition. There is evidence that Origen wrote commentaries on Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews, as well as homilies on Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, Titus, and Hebrews. Of these, only the commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (in Latin translation and in Greek fragments), Greek fragments of commentaries on the Epistles to the Ephesians and Galatians, as well as Greek fragments of homilies on 1 Corinthians have survived.

10 " But we proclaim wisdom among those who are perfect, but not wisdom of this world, nor of the powers of this world that pass away; but we proclaim the wisdom of God, secret and hidden, which God intended before the ages for our glory, which none of the powers of this world has known; for if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, and the things that God has prepared for those who love him have not entered into the heart of man. But God has revealed it to us by His Spirit, for the Spirit penetrates all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows what is in a man, except the spirit of man that dwells in him? So no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. But we have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit from God, that we might know what has been given to us from God, which we also proclaim, not in words learned from human wisdom, but in words learned from the Holy Spirit, considering spiritual things with spiritual things. The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, because he honors them

page 7
Origen's own religious doctrine, with an interpretation of the same texts by Origen's immediate predecessor, Clement of Alexandria.11
Both Origen and Clement strongly condemned the soteriological doctrine of the Valentinian Gnostics, who, citing the authority of the Apostle Paul, taught about three categories of people (hylics, or "carnal" people identified with pagans, psychics, or "soul" people identified with ordinary Christians, and pneumatics, identified with the Valentinians themselves) and about two ways of salvation, one of which is open to psychics (i.e. Christians), who are endowed with freedom of choice and therefore either perish or are saved through faith and good deeds, and the other is open to pneumatics (i.e. Gnostics), who were originally intended for salvation and keep a spark of spiritual knowledge (gnosis) in themselves.

In criticizing this doctrine, Clement of Alexandria pointed out that the Valentinian interpretation does not in any way reflect the thoughts of the Apostle Paul himself. In particular, Clement drew particular attention to the fact that the Valentinians ignored the fact that the Apostle Paul emphasized the opposition of" earthy "and" spiritual "Christians - in the absence of an explicit opposition of" carnal "and"spiritual" Christians. In fact, the last two metaphorical designations are used by the apostle Paul in a synonymous or close to synonymous sense, in order to indicate to the addressees of the epistle that they, being burdened with carnal and worldly sinful thoughts, have not yet reached the degree of perfection that would allow them to establish themselves in the faith and teaching of Christ. That is why Clement, reflecting on his own flock, tends to identify the "carnal" (or" carnal-soul") with catechumens who are still only on the way to the true faith and have not yet received the saving baptism, and the" spiritual " with baptized Christians.12 Similarly, Clement interprets the metaphorical juxtaposition of " milk "(as a teaching adapted to the" infant "level of spiritual development of the addressees of the message) and"solid food". In contrast to the Valentinians, who saw this as an indication of the superiority of "gnosis" over the unintelligent, infantile, unenlightened "faith," Clement insists that the content of the teaching preached to "infants" coincides with the content of the teaching available to spiritually strengthened Christians. He writes that the Apostle's statement should not be understood in the sense that "solid food" is something fundamentally different from "milk": on the contrary, they are essentially one, although this does not prevent us from asserting that " milk is a widely spread sermon, and solid food is faith, as a result of catechesis, strengthened and strengthened." made a solid foundation " 13.

It is noteworthy, however, that the juxtaposition of "partial" knowledge and "perfect" knowledge in 1 Corinthians 13: 9-12-14 is no longer considered by Clement as another par.-

foolishness; and cannot understand, because it is spiritually judged. But the spiritual one judges everything, and no one can judge him. For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he should judge him? But we have the mind of Christ. And I could not speak to you, brethren, as if you were spiritual, but as if you were carnal, as if you were infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, and not with solid food, for you were not yet able, and even now you are not able, because you are still carnal. For if there is envy, strife, and discord among you, are you not carnal? and do you not act according to human custom?"

11 See the article devoted specifically to this issue [Kovacs, 2003, p. 317-329]. See also [Camelot, 1945, p. 43 sq.; Mortley, 1973, p. 109-140].

12 See: Clement, Paedag. VI, 30,1-3; 31,2; cf. ibid., 36,3: "Indeed, the Apostle calls those who have already believed through the Holy Spirit 'spiritual', and those who have not yet been cleansed 'carnal'. These he properly calls "carnal," for their thoughts are still connected with the carnal, as among the Gentiles."

13 Ibid., 38.1.

14 " For we know in part, and prophesy in part; but when the perfect thing comes, then that which is in part will cease. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; but when I became a man, I left the childish things behind. Now we see as if through a [dim] glass, divinely, then face to face; now I know in part, and then I will know, even as I am known."

page 8
The opposition between "milk" and "solid food" is strongly opposed, despite the connection between "partial" knowledge and "infantile" knowledge, which the apostle himself seems to postulate. The Valentinians also saw in this text evidence of the superiority of "gnosis" over "faith," while Clement, rightly believing that the apostle in this case used a convenient and familiar analogy to express a different, new thought, prefers to see in his words an indication of such knowledge as is anticipated by faith. 15 but which will be fully attainable only in the "next age", and directly reproaches its opponents for boldly and groundlessly claiming to possess such a fullness of contemplation already in the present life.16
Origen, for his part, also does not accept the Valentinian doctrine of hylics, psychics, and pneumatics, the former of which are by nature doomed to destruction, and the latter - also by nature - receive guaranteed salvation. However, the very idea of distinguishing between three (and not two, as in Clement and the Apostle Paul) categories of believers (in Origen's terminology, these are "simple believers"," more perfect "and" spiritually perfect " Christians), who have access to different types of knowledge ("carnal", "spiritual" and "spiritual").spiritual"), seems to Origen fruitful and convincing. Moreover, unlike Clement of Alexandria, Origen is ready to insist even on the substantive differences between the "carnal", "spiritual" and "spiritual" doctrines addressed to believers at different stages of spiritual perfection. Moreover, this point turns out to be so significant for Origen that later on it will be based on Origen's exegetical theory (the doctrine of the three senses of Scripture), historiosophy, and the doctrine of the three stages of Divine revelation.

However, what is important here is not the theological differences between Clement of Alexandria and Origen, but only the fact that the source of these differences was a difference in the reading of the same passage of the apostolic epistle: Clement found in the Apostle Paul a direct contrast between "carnal-spiritual" and "spiritual" Christians, whereas Origen believed that the source of these differences was the difference in the reading of the same passage of the apostolic epistle. that the apostle speaks not of two, but of three separate groups of believers. This is not an accidental discrepancy in the interpretation of an obscure and ambiguous text, but a general difference in the approaches of Clement of Alexandria and Origen to the interpretation of the New Testament epistles.

Although Clement, like Origen, willingly used the technique of allegorical exegesis of Scripture, however, when interpreting the epistles of the Apostle Paul, he prefers to consistently adhere to the most simple and natural (from our modern point of view) method of reading the text, based on a more or less unbiased reconstruction of the intention of the author of the text itself. His attention is directed not only to the words and phrases that the apostle used to express his thoughts, but also to the context of his utterances, which directly determines the meaning of these utterances. Accordingly, the numerous comparisons, images and metaphors that give special vividness and expressiveness to the texts of the epistles of the apostle and are intended not to conceal the meaning of what is said, but, on the contrary, to convey this meaning to readers or listeners in the simplest and most intelligible form, are perceived by Clement precisely as comparisons, images and metaphors, the use of which is not strictly terminological the intuitive meaning of which is clarified and clarified through the context. Thus, Clement is not at all confused by the fact that the Apostle Paul contrasts the" spiritual "principle in one case with the" spiritual "principle, and in another with the "carnal" principle (in the absence of a clear distinction between the latter), since he allows freedom and, in part, randomness of word usage, which allows us to use related or similar concepts in meaning for

15 Since faith is understood in Clement as the knowledge of those promises that will be fulfilled in the Hereafter, and therefore it, in turn, has as its object and content what will be given to Christians in direct contemplation after their resurrection (see: Paedag. VI, 29, 1 - 3).

16 See ibid., 37, 1-2.

page 9
In contrast, he elaborates on the fact that the same image or metaphor may imply different meanings in different contexts.17
However, the main feature of Origen's approach to the interpretation of the texts of the apostolic epistles can be considered precisely that Origen with exceptional persistence and consistency considers all the images and metaphors used by the Apostle Paul as a special kind of terminological code that requires - like any code in general - an unambiguous and unified interpretation, and in numerous clarifying or complementary repetitions, so characteristic of the for the style of the Apostle Paul, he tends to see not just some literary or oratorical device that allows the author to express his thoughts more clearly and accurately, and not a figure of speech that is quite common in the Jewish and Aramaic literary tradition, but explicit and deliberately introduced terminological distinctions that require specific analysis, theoretical understanding and speculative development. Therefore, if Origen meets with the apostle Paul's mention of "carnal", "spiritual" and "spiritual", he is already convinced in advance that this use of words is not accidental, and further proceeds from the fact that since the apostle names three categories of people, the interpreter is obliged to accept and explain this fact, at least even the context made such an interpretation difficult, and not to refer to the inaccuracy, inaccuracy, approximation or carelessness of expression allowed by the great Teacher of Christians. In other words, Origen approaches the apostolic epistles with the same standards and criteria that would be appropriate to apply to the language of a geometric treatise, where doubling or ambiguity of terms is not allowed.
Does this mean that Origen, because of his own mind, or because of the peculiarities of his education, or because he belonged to a certain cultural environment, was not at all receptive to the most ordinary means of expression in a lively literary and colloquial language, which often takes the roundabout paths of descriptive phrases or hinting analogies and prefers non-artificial terms of the understanding, what about the spontaneous flashes of images or fresh metaphors that allow us to intuitively grasp meaning in all its many-sided completeness even before it becomes the subject of rational comprehension - not to mention the actual stylistic embellishments and excesses thoroughly studied and systematized in Greek grammars, which Origen, no doubt, was familiar with from school? That would be hard to believe. Moreover, Origen's own exegetical practice seems to suggest the opposite. As Marguerite Arles has brilliantly and most convincingly shown in her works, relying mainly on the material of Origen's commentary on the Epistle to the Romans and on the material of Origen's Philokalia (a collection of excerpts from various works of Origen concerning the interpretation of Holy Scripture), Origen did not just find numerous examples of inconsistency in the use of words in the Apostle Paul, due to the use of homonymous expressions, as well as the tendency of the author of the Epistle to Romans to make abrupt changes in topic, sudden transitions from one subject of discussion to another (which implied a change in context and, consequently, contextual meaning) and to substitute the subject, addressee, or even the object of utterance (which, in each particular case, also had to imply a change in meaning of the statement): he was ready to extend these observations to the language of the Holy Scriptures as a whole. According to M. Arles, "Origen's remarks on the language of Paul are closely connected for him with the general characteristics of the language of the Scriptures, to which he attributes exactly the two features that have just been mentioned:

17 See the discourses of Clement of Alexandria on the various meanings of the metaphorical image of "infancy" in the Apostle Paul (33,1 - 4) and similar discourses on the image of "milk" (34,3 - 36,5).

page 10
ambiguity of vocabulary and the absence of18 in the composition of the whole" [Harl, 1972, p. 171-172].

At the same time, being convinced of the inspiration of Scripture, Origen sees the main task of the interpreter in overcoming any empirically detectable anomalies of the biblical language, revealing the harmony of meanings hidden behind the deliberate inaccuracy and "darkness" of the expressions used in it, which form a single, coherent and consistent teaching. This, as M. Arles rightly notes, explains Origen's striking lack of genuine interest in such aspects and features of the text that could be directly due to the personality, individual inclinations and subjective intentions of the author of the text.:

"Origen does not try to explain the peculiarities of the style of the Apostle Paul through his psychology, culture, and circumstances of life: he connects them with the divine will, aimed at proclaiming something to people through Paul in a form that is accessible to them. [ ... ] Revealing the meaning of a particular text, he attributes semantic preferences (meaning συvηθια) the implied meaning (βoυληαμ) , the author's intention (πρoκειμιov), and the intention (σκoπóς) are not at all to the direct author of the text, whether it is Moses, or David, or the Prophets, or the Evangelists, but to the "Spirit that inspires the Scriptures" or "the Word of Christ". As such, he pays almost no (or even no) attention to the author. He treats the text in its connection with other texts as if they live their own life, forming a single unfolded semantic integrity, or "discourse", which remains unchanged and permeates all the biblical books" (Harl, 1972, p.173-174).

The same a priori theological presumption of the unity of the biblical "discourse" and its inspiration deprives Origen's approach to the biblical texts of a "historical" perspective: Origen demonstrates complete indifference to the differences between the Greek language of the Septuagint and the language of the New Testament, and does not make the slightest attempt to establish parallels with the Hebrew (except when he compares several texts with each other). Greek translations), preferring to consider the Biblical language as a homogeneous unity when commenting on texts (Harl, 1972, p. 182). Accordingly, Origen's a priori belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures also stems from Origen's belief that all "the incongruities and absurdities of the biblical language are neither accidental nor subjective, but are generated by the very divine sense-revealing will that is present even in the smallest iota of the sacred text" (Harl, 1972, p. 174).

Hence the paradoxical nature of the hermeneutics on which Origen's literal interpretations of the texts of Scripture are based: As R. Cadiou noted, Origen was "one of those who believed that meaning is revealed through words rather than through phrases, although he often relies on context in his conclusions" (Cadiou, 1935, p. 28). However, M. Arl herself, referring to this judgment, adds that her own conclusions confirm only the second part of Cadew's thesis: "Origen's lexical research and his attention to the search for the" main meaning "of words are compensated by his attention to the context and establishing the connection of the word with the " subject of utterance "" [Harl, 1972, p. 185, p. 58]. However, in reality, the observations of the French researcher, as it seems to me, testify in favor of the validity mainly of the first part of the thesis under discussion.

Indeed, the idea of the inspiration of Scripture automatically implies for Origen the affirmation of the principle of semantic unity and consistency of Biblical Revelation, i.e., the " acolouphy "and" symphony " of meanings. Meanwhile, an essential feature of the biblical language, which Origen has to take into account when studying the Bible from a philological and exegetical point of view, is the fundamental

18 Greek. ακoλoυθια-literally, "agreement", "correspondence", a grammatical term indicating the principle of semantic uniformity, which allows explaining incomprehensible word usage based on parallel contexts.

page 11
the fragility, ambiguity and instability of word usage, easily explained by cultural and historical reasons and features of biblical poetics, but obviously excluding the possibility of establishing" akolufia "directly at the level of the text, which, therefore, has to be considered only as a foundation on which a wise and experienced interpreter builds an immaculately harmonious system of" meanings " that corresponds to the innermost meaning of the word. and not every mind can accommodate the idea of the true author of the Holy Scriptures, that is, the Holy Spirit. So the direct and necessary consequence of Origen's original conviction in the need to search for a pre-established "acolouphy" of the Holy Scriptures is not so much the "lack of interest" noted by the French researcher in all the subjective or accidental moments that could have been introduced into the text by his mortal "authors", but, on the contrary, hypertrophied attention to these moments, which are regarded as "anomalies", but by no means accidental, involuntary, subjectively or historically determined, but, on the contrary, premeditated and deliberately introduced into the text - if not by its direct author, then by the One who moved it with his hand.

Moreover, if the statement of the "anomaly" of the biblical language implies the idea that it is necessary to restore the "acolouphy" of the meaning of the texts of Scripture, then the "anomalies" themselves provide the "building material" necessary for such restoration, since they destroy their immediate context precisely as "anomalies", but, being recognized a priori as non-random, they require re-creating a new context for yourself - already outside the text itself, at the level of "metalanguage " or"metatext". So the main difficulty that Origen inevitably had to contend with was not the "obscurity" and "incomprehensibility" of the biblical texts, but, on the contrary, the fact that the texts he was supposed to interpret were not sufficiently "obscure", "incoherent" and "absurd" - that It would make it possible to perceive them unconditionally as a" coded "message, the true meaning of which, to be deciphered, remains out of position in relation to the "incoherent" text, but is deduced - using specific procedures-from it. Of course, Origen very easily copes with this difficulty, pointing out that the Divine Author deliberately arranged the Scriptures in such a way that his texts-often, but not always - can be successfully read as if in two "semantic registers" at the same time: in the direct, immediately obvious sense, and in the sense that is reconstructed interpreter 19. Nevertheless, it is precisely the "anomalies" that the interpreter finds in the text that are of the greatest interest and value to him, since it is precisely words, phrases or images that fall out of natural contextual connections that can be put in direct and unambiguous relation with the meanings of the" higher " order, which are harmonically coordinated with each other and form a new meaning., completely independent context.

This is the origin of the specific method of interpretation that Origen used and which was very accurately described by M. Arle in the article already cited (recall that we are talking about the technique of literal interpretations in Origen).:

"The method used to discover this" symphony "consists in" restoring the coherence "of meaning, in combining passages whose real meaning is found not at the level of" literal "semantic connections, but at the level of" spiritual " ones; this is what Origen means by ffuvetpeiv (Philocalie ch. 1, p. 28, 14 Rob. = De principiis IV 5 (21), p. 331, 10 Koetschau) and it was this principle that he justified by referring to the words of the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 2: 13:

19 Characteristically, Origen finds it surprising and piously surprising that the Holy Spirit has taken care to make even the "lowest", immediately obvious meaning "not useless" for the edification of believers, while at the same time using it to express through it that "higher" meaning which is revealed only to the most worthy and wise (see: De princip. IV, 2, 8). That is, it is forced to affirm and justify the independent value of the "literal" meaning, in which some texts of Scripture, if not all, can be understood.

page 12
"Which also we proclaim, not in learned words from human wisdom, but in learned words from the Holy Spirit, considering spiritual things with spiritual things" (Origen's commentary on this verse in Catena fragment, ed. C. Jenkins, JTS 6 (1902), p. 240: The meaning of Scripture is revealed when we consider certain words together and combine them. (highlighted by the author of the article - M. Arles) those of them that have the same nature, ta öμoια συvαγειv). Here we find the same methodological principle as in the text from De principiis quoted above: it is by relying on words of the same nature, that is, those that are equally interpreted in the spiritual register, that the exegete can restore the coherence of the true meaning of texts [ ... ] " [Harl, 1972, p. 178, p. 44].

But this is also the origin of the striking, though difficult - to-explain, feature of Origen's interpretations (both "literal" and "allegorical"), which R. Hanson drew attention to, pointing out Origen's striking insensitivity to poetic images and metaphors and the tendency to take them "literally", thereby destroying the intuitive concept of the originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals of the Originals It is obvious that their meaning is obvious and, as it were, forcing itself to a completely superfluous (and therefore clumsy and unnatural) "allegorical" interpretation of them. He's writing:

"In so many cases, Origen uses allegory simply because he is unable to recognize the ordinary metaphor or, if he does see it, does not want to leave it as it is, but must necessarily reinterpret it as an allegory, and in a violent and crude way. The words " I came not to bring peace, but a sword "(Matthew 10:34) mean to him that Christ" breaks the unrighteous union of body and soul " (Comm. on John I, 32). He calls Ezekiel's metaphorical designation of the king of Egypt by the name of the "dragon ""spiritual" and carefully explains that it cannot possibly be a "literal" dragon (ibid. VI, 48). [ ... ] Of course, he had to argue with the school of completely unimaginative literalists [ ... ], but very often there is a feeling that as a response to literalists who cannot recognize a metaphorical turn when they encounter one, an allegory is offered that shows the same lack of imagination. [...]

This conscious attitude to explain any understandable figurative expression and any difficulty by means of an allegory sometimes leads Origen to see difficulties and figurative language even where they do not exist. [ ... ] Indeed, allegory can become an all-consuming passion in Origen, depriving him of all exegetical flair and common sense. He embarks on a meticulous and useless allegorization of every detail, every word of the story of the "saturation of the five thousand" (Comm.on Matt. XI, 1). [ ... ] The beautiful line of Lamentations 1, 2: "He weeps bitterly in the night, [and his tears are on his cheeks]" prompts Origen to demonstrate his rejection of this striking verbal image. Unlike Clement of Alexandria, he was devoid of literary taste and flair, and this phrase puzzles him. To begin with, he conscientiously explains that the city cannot literally cry. Then he suggests that the word "city" is used here in a figurative sense, to refer to its inhabitants, who can cry at night. All this he declares to have a literal meaning. And then he allegorizes this passage, referring it to the soul that weeps, having been torn into "confusion" (Babylon) and excommunicated from its true homeland (Horn, on Lam., frag. 10) " [see: Hanson, 1959, p. 246-247]20.

A similar observation is made by M. Arles, who writes:

"We have to state [...] that Origen often explains these texts (scl. texts of the Septuagint, as well as - texts of the New Testament corpus. - O. N.) as texts that are to some extent alien to him. If he precedes the interpretation of the psalm with a paraphrase of its verses, if he explains word by word some phrase from Jeremiah or from the Epistle to the Romans, it is because the meaning is flowing-

20 Note, however, that Origen was probably as good at recognizing biblical metaphors (or rather, poetic images) as any of his contemporaries who were trained in grammar and rhetoric. Even the last example of R. Hanson's forcible allegorization of a transparent literary image shows that Origen was still able to see in the figure of "weeping Jerusalem" a poetic trope ("city" or "inhabitants of the city"). Another thing is interesting: in this case, Origen identifies the metaphorical meaning with the literal meaning (which is quite natural: metaphors and other tropes are used precisely to express the figurative meaning, which should be considered as their direct and only meaning), but he immediately rejects this meaning in order to return to the verbal meaning of the name "JerusalemIf we take into account the previous interpretation, then we need to solve this aporia by means of an allegorical interpretation: if Jerusalem cannot be a city, then it can be a symbol of something else, for example, the soul.

page 13
cta is not detected immediately. Origen looks for the meaning that the author has put into words, it is difficult for him to find a logical connection between phrases, he hesitates in choosing between several interpretations of the text, the meaning of which is obvious " [Harl, 1972, p. 186].

M. Arles herself, noting that "Origen did not seem to have a direct, spontaneous and complete understanding of the texts that he commented on", explains this by the linguistic and cultural gap that separated Origen from the texts that he commented on (in particular, his poor knowledge of the Hebrew language and his immunity to Hebraisms and Aramaisms characteristic of Greek of the Septuagint and New Testament), and concludes that it was his lack of understanding of the meaning of the text that often led him to try to forcibly restore the elusive logic of this text (Harl, 1972, p. 186-187).

However, such an explanation of this phenomenon, which is not very flattering for Origen, consisting in stating that he has no elementary artistic flair or his inability to "understand" the obvious meaning of texts, the study of which, as we know, was the main task of his whole life, can hardly be considered completely satisfactory and exhaustive. There is no disputing the fact that in many cases Christians, brought up in the spirit of the culture that later became known as "classical", really did not understand - and could not understand! - all the nuances and nuances of the meaning of the biblical texts that arose on a Semitic cultural basis that was alien to the Greeks and Romans, and often did not take into account (or misinterpreted) those special religious, historical and cultural realities that were somehow reflected in these texts. But in the immediate vicinity of Origen, we see the figure of Clement of Alexandria, a man of the same culture, the same upbringing, and the same era, who, meanwhile, "understood" the very texts that" puzzled "and" baffled " Origen21. So it is reasonable to assume that Origen - if not always, then at least quite often-could not so much as did not want to see the meaning that modern researchers qualify as"obvious"22. It seems that the causes of such a mysterious (and, we may add, extraordinary) "mental blindness", the degree of which seems implausible, should be sought in a special approach to the texts of Scripture, based on the understanding of Revelation as a "teaching" communicated through the text and through the text, but not in the text itself, and Origen was obliged to search for an extra-positive, "higher" meaning, even in cases where the direct, directly expressed meaning of the text turns out to be quite transparent and intelligible, or when the text has a pronounced figurative-metaphorical nature, but can be adequately interpreted without much effort on the basis of semantic connections presented in this text itself.

In support of this assumption, we can refer to the words of Origen himself, who writes in his treatise "On the principles"::

"In the same way, to what mind-searching person will the epistles of the apostles seem clear and easily understood, when even here there are innumerable passages that present, as if through a window, no small material for the greatest and most numerous reflections? Therefore, if this is so, and if many people are mistaken, then it is not safe for anyone to declare that, when reading (the Scriptures), he easily understands what the key of understanding is needed for, which, according to the Saviour's word, is found among the lawyers"23 (emphasis added - O. N.).

21 We are not talking here about our own contemporaries, who read the Scriptures in translations into new languages and, for the vast majority, do not know at all not only Hebrew, but even Greek, but do not experience at all the painful difficulties that researchers attribute to Origen when reading, say, the epistles of the Apostle Paul.

22 Of course, we are not talking about really "dark" and difficult places or about such semantic nuances, the understanding of which required Origen (as well as from any other commentator) special knowledge, which he may not have had.

23 De princip. IV, 2, 3: αi δε τωv απoστoλωv επιστoλα i τivι τωv βασαviζει v επισταμε vωv λoγoυς δoξαιεv αv εivαι σαφεiς καi ευχερως vooυμεvαι, μυρiωv oσωv κακεi ως δι' oπης μεγiστω v καi πλεiστω v voηματωv βραχεiα v αφoρμηv παρεχvτω v; Δiota;oπερ τoυτωv oυτως εχovτωv καi μυρiωv oσωv σφαλλoμε vωv, oυκ ακivδυvov εv τω αvαγιvωσκει< i>v

page 14
Let us emphasize that what is said explicitly refers to the New Testament epistles, which are interpreted literally even in Origen, who easily finds reasons for applying allegorical interpretations not only in the Old Testament, but also in the texts of the Gospels, i.e., in the Bible.e. Origen here formulates the principles not of "allegorical" but of "literal" interpretations, which, however, turn out to be the same in both cases. Indeed, Origen is quite explicit here about the fact that the" simple"," obvious", and" surface "meaning of the Apostolic epistles (which is" obvious "to Clement, but for some mysterious reason" not obvious"to the" Valentinian " Gnostics and Origen himself) is in reality too much to understand. it is too obvious, too widely available, and therefore not only is not of great interest to the interpreter and thoughtful reader, but it is even tempting and dangerous - because there is a risk of not seeing behind this external and obvious meaning another, deeper and more important meaning, the discovery of which just requires effort on the part of the interpreter. It is no accident that Origen uses the expression" as through a window "(δι' oπης), which refers the reader to 1 Corinthians 13: 12 ("Now we see as if through a [dim] glass, divinely", Greek: βλεoπμε v γαρ αρτι δι' εσoπτρoυ ε v α ivi γματι) and to the difficult-to-translate to the participle κατoπτριζoμε v oι in 2 Corinthians 3: 1824, thus indicating that the "explicit" meaning in the "literal" (not allegorical) interpretation, as well as the "literal" meaning in the "allegorical" interpretation, simultaneously "hides" the real, hidden, deep meaning, and provides an opportunity to see this meaning. No less remarkable is Origen's reference to the words of Jesus in Luke 11:52: "Woe to you, the lawyers, for you have taken the key of understanding: you did not enter in yourselves, and you hindered those who entered," clearly understood as an indication of the need to approach all the texts of Scripture in general as a complex "cipher", which requires a correctly selected key to read.

Thus, we can say that Origen's hermeneutics is based on the perception of the text of the Holy Scriptures as a sign, code system, where the natural or contextual semantics of an image (in allegorical interpretations) or a word (in literal interpretations - if these are really interpretations) can be of interest only insofar as it is possible to use it to detect the " key", providing a transition from an obviously meaningless, or ostensibly meaningful, or even completely meaningful, but "trivial" conglomerate of images-signs-words to the meaning hidden behind it. The phenomenon of such an attitude to the text with expressive conciseness was described by G. Hesse, who knew a lot about such games with "meanings", in the poem "When reading an ancient philosopher", which refers to the destroyed perception of the text, which was once "clear" and" transparent", but lost its semantic coherence for posterity - along with the loss of the "key" that would allow this connection to be restored. Hesse uses a remarkably faithful image in his poema musical key, the removal of which destroys the "acolufia" and turns the sequence of musical signs into a meaningless, useless and unreadable set of characters. However, we find a very similar analogy in Origen himself in the 2nd book of his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, the only fragment of which is preserved in the Philokalia 25: it speaks of the imaginary nature of all the contradictions and inconsistencies found in Scripture by an unsophisticated reader, who is likened to a person who has no ear for music and does not know the laws of harmony, therefore, it perceives only the direct differences between the sounds produced by the strings of a musical instrument, and not the music produced by them.

It is quite obvious that this last analogy was in turn the fruit of Origen's reflections on that curious passage in the First Epistle to the Corinthians-

ευχερως απoφαivεσθ αι voεiv τα δεoμεvα ‘της gamma;vωσεως', ηvτιvα o σωτηρ φησιv εivαι παρα ‘τoiς voμικoiς' (Russian translation by N. Petrov).

24 In the Synodal translation: "But we are all with our faces uncovered, as in a mirror, beholding the glory of the Lord" (nnμε i ς δε πα v τες α v ακεκαλυμμ&ep silon;v ω πρoσωπω τη v δoξα v κυρ i oυ κατoπτριζoμε v oι).

25 See in Mat. com. fr. 3 (Klostermann-Benz) = Philocalia 6.

page 15
we are told that glossolalia without further "interpretation" has no edifying value, and where, in support of this idea, the apostle makes a comparison with the disordered sounds made by musical instruments: "And soulless [things] that make a sound, like a pipe or a harp, if they do not produce separate tones, how to recognize what is played on the pipe or on the harp? And if the trumpet makes an indeterminate sound, who will prepare for battle? " 26 In Origen, of course, this musical analogy is significantly reinterpreted, but if we follow the logic of this reinterpretation, we can understand that - from the point of view of Origen - all Scripture can be considered as a Revelation communicated "in an unknown language" - even if this language seems (or occasionally turns out to be) "understandable" or similar to the original text. a familiar, natural, and publicly available language. Therefore, the perception of "intelligible" texts of Scripture as "incomprehensible", which is so characteristic of Origen and rightly surprising researchers, is probably explained not so much by a real lack of understanding of the direct meaning of these texts (including the metaphorical one), but by the specifics of Origen's approach to these texts, which are almost forcibly assigned the status of "incomprehensible" - for the sole purpose of making it possible to "understand" them at a higher semantic level.

Equally interesting is another explanatory analogy used by Origen to describe his own hermeneutical method, and borrowed, by his own admission,from a certain Jew who compared the interpretation of Scripture to walking through a house with many locked chambers, the keys of which are deliberately confused. 27 We cannot say with complete certainty what method of interpretation the notorious Jewish interpreter who proposed this comparison had in mind, but it is not difficult to guess what the above analogy must have meant in the context of Origen's own exegetical theory and practice. It is quite obvious that" false "keys here should not be understood as erroneous or false interpretations, the responsibility for which could be assigned to some incompetent or unscrupulous interpreters, namely, the "literal" meaning of words (or text fragments), which does not provide semantic "acolouphy", which, however, will be restored, if the interpreter manages to find the correct keys.

Further developing this comparison, we can say that the technique of interpretation used by Origen himself consists in finding at least one" correct "key that fits the lock, and then using it to unlock other similar "doors". There is no need to remind you that this particular method of interpretation has been used for centuries and is still used today in the decryption of encoded text. Of course, this method can also be qualified as a technique of "explaining the incomprehensible through the understandable" (or, in Origen's case, "explaining Scripture through Scripture"), since it implies extrapolating the "meaning" obtained in one case to other similar contexts as well. However, we should not forget about a very significant nuance: we are not talking about situations where the idea expressed vaguely and vaguely in one part of the text is clarified through the involvement of another part of the text, where the same idea is expressed much more clearly and definitely. The key meaning that Origen is concerned with searching for can be just as successfully really deduced from the context (and then mechanically transferred to other contexts, the transformative influence of which on the "meaning" accepted for the paradigm is no longer taken into account) or independently constructed by the interpreter - if the context is ignored (for example, based on the lexical meaning of the incoming word, not matching the contextual meaning, or based on the identified etymology of the word); in fact, the method of detecting such a paradigmatic

26 See 1 Corinthians 14: 7-8.

27 See: In Ps. 1 com. fr. = Philocalia 2, 3. M. Arl draws attention to this text in the article cited above (see [Harl, 1972, p. 180-181]).

page 16
meaning does not play a significant role at all, since it is not the authenticity of this meaning28 that is of fundamental importance, but its key character, that is, its universal applicability, which makes it possible to provide "acolouphy" at the meta-level of associated meanings where it is impossible at the level of contextual meanings.

In practice, this almost always implies the absolutization of the "literal" meaning of an image or word, which in this case is removed from the system of their closest contextual connections, which in the normal case would determine their direct, intentional and really literal (and not lexical) meaning. That is, Origen's "hyperbukvalism" and "figurativism" go hand in hand, and he carefully avoids only the most natural, middle way, which allows us to easily understand the meaning of what the direct author of the text said, but does not allow us to go beyond what was said and forces us to sacrifice the principle of "acoluphy" of meanings, which excludes the possibility of accidental, inaccurate, unsuccessful interpretation. or any word usage. Simply put, Origen treats interpreted texts as if they were treatises based on a strict terminology system, which, however, is not known to us, and which the interpreter, using the means available to him, "translates" into an easily understandable language, establishing and explaining the meaning of mysterious terms and reconstructing the teaching expressed with their help. Accordingly, if Origen comes across a pair or chain of similar or synonymous expressions that overlap in some place in the Apostle Paul's work, he will certainly insist that although the apostle may have used the word accidentally, it was not by chance that the Spirit that guided him led him to use two or three words instead of one., and that each of these words must be assigned an independent and not synonymous meaning. That is why, when Origen found references to "carnal," "spiritual," and "spiritual" Christians in St. Paul, he insisted, guided by the imperative of terminological rigor, that each of the above-mentioned names should be assigned to a separate, independent category of Christians.
In general, considering the Apostolic epistles written in figurative language and replete with metaphors, Origen tends to ignore the "meaning" expressed in this way as obvious and generally accessible, and prefers to interpret the apostolic metaphors as a metaphorical code (most closely similar to that successfully used by many early Greek philosophers until the emergence of philosophical schools required some degree of understanding). unification of philosophical terminology, at least within the framework of specific schools and trends, and formalization of this terminology). However, such a specific interpretation would have been technically impossible if the interpreter had not previously postulated the principle of "akolufia" and "terminological" rigor, which the texts of Scripture had to meet.

It is no accident that Origen himself, when discussing the rules of interpretation of Scripture in the previously mentioned fragment of the 2nd book of the Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, reproduced in Philokalia 29, refers to the verse of Ecclesiastes: "The words of the wise are like needles and nails driven in, and their authors are from the one shepherd" (Ecclesiastes 12: 11), while explaining that the Word Logos is the only "shepherd" of the meanings expressed in words (ei ς δε πoιμη v τω v λoγικω v o λoγoς), which they may not seem to agree with each other to those who have no ears to hear, but who are in genuine and perfect harmony. Although Origen in this case emphasizes mainly the role of the Shepherd-Logos, that is, the Divine Author of the Scriptures and at the same time the Divine Rational Principle that ensures the" acolouphy " of the Scriptures, nevertheless we can safely say,

28 More precisely, the criterion of authenticity is being changed, since the interpreter gives up in advance the obligation to relate the "meaning" he has found to the intention of the direct author of the text (who may write without realizing the true meaning of what is written) or to verify this meaning with the context (which a priori is considered as incoherent or pretended-coherent).

29 See: In Mat. com. fr. 3 (Klostermann-Benz) = Philocalia 6.

page 17
that he was also not indifferent to the image of "needles" and "nails", which undoubtedly meant "true meanings" emanating from the one Logos and "nailing" the shaky, inaccurate, flickering, elusive words, descriptive phrases and images of the Scriptures, which from this moment on are fixed, perhaps not obvious, but the only true meaning and which can later be used to decipher other, still incomprehensible texts of the" encoded " Divine message.

However, it is particularly significant that Origen adheres to this method of interpretation both when it comes to the literal understanding of the text (as in the case of the interpretation of the apostolic epistles) and when he constructs figurative interpretations (usually allegorical): the difference, in fact, is reduced only to the fact that in the latter case, "deciphering"the meaning of the text is not necessary. elements of the figurative series (which are assigned improper, substitutive meanings) are mainly exposed, while in the first case, the object of interpretation is elements of the verbal series (including metaphors perceived as elements of the "metaphorical code", i.e. as technical terms, the meaning of which is not captured from the context, but is established analytically).

In both cases, Origen sees Scripture not as a multi-colored web, where the semantic pattern is formed by a complex interweaving of threads, but rather as a broken mirror, in the many fragments of which the same divine, invariant "meanings" are reflected - with varying degrees of distortion, which together form a harmonious and harmonious unity. And the immediate task of the interpreter, from his point of view, is undoubtedly to look carefully at these "fragments" and find in them vague reflections, unclear reflections of "higher meanings", catching their subtle shades and semantic "consonances" that connect the disparate elements of this scattered mosaic and allow the interpreter to restore (or guess) its original and true appearance.

Thus, there is no reason to argue about whether Origen "understood" the texts he interpreted or "did not understand": in any case, his gaze was directed not at the text itself, but beyond it, but it is obvious that with such a shift in the focus of perception,it was more convenient for him to deal with the "incomprehensible" text, and not with one that would be understandable in itself and therefore does not require interpretation. Again, the main difficulty for Origen was not that some texts of Scripture were "incomprehensible" to him and that he was therefore forced to puzzle over their meaning and invent the most intricate interpretations for them, but, on the contrary, that he too often had to deal with them. "understandable" texts, which, nevertheless, could be interpreted allegorically (i.e., in the highest didactic sense) in the same way as texts containing real or imaginary "semantic anomalies" - if only we reject the idea that an easily understandable and readable text does not imply an allegorical interpretation.

It is for this reason that Origen was forced to reformulate the main methodological principle that guided the interpreters-allegorists, who considered the impossibility of literal understanding of the text as a condition for the transition to allegorical exegesis (that is, they allowed the existence of texts that are understood in a literal sense and do not require further rethinking or reinterpretation). By asserting that not all texts of Scripture have a literal meaning, but all texts of Scripture have an allegorical meaning, Origen actually recognizes that the Scriptures contain not only "incomprehensible" or "ostensibly understandable" texts in their literal sense, but also texts in which even the most sophisticated interpreter-allegorist will not be able to find significant ones. "anomalies". However, he insists that this last circumstance is not an obstacle to the allegorical interpretation of the text, since this text in Origen's eyes is only an instrument through which the Divine Logos taught His spiritual teaching, and since the "spiritual" meaning, in Origen's deep conviction, can only be an allegorical meaning.

page 18
PRIMARY SOURCES

1. Clement of Alexandria

Paedag. = Paedagogos

Clement d'Alexandria he pedagogue / Ed. C Mondesert, H. -I. Marrou. P.: Ed. du Cerf, 1965 (Sources chretiennes)

2. Origen

De princip. = De principiis

Origene. Traite des principes. Tome III, Livres III et IV / Ed. H. Crouzel et M. Simonetti. P.: Ed. du Cerf, 1980 (Sources chretiennes)

In Luc. horn. = In Lucam homiliae

Origene. Homilies sur S. Luc / Ed. M. Rauer. P.: Ed. du Cerf, 1998 (Sources chretiennes).

In Gen. hom. = In Genesim homiliae.

Origene. Homelies sur la Genese / Ed. L. Doutreleau. P.: Ed. du Cerf, 1976 (Sources chretiennes).

In Mat. com. = In Mattheum commentaries.

Origenes. Die Matthäuserklarung. Bd. I-III / Hrsg. von E. Klostermann, E. Benz, L. Fruchtel, U. Treu. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1968, 1976.

Philocal. = Philocalia

Origene. Philocalie, 1 - 20: Sur les Ecritures / Ed. M. Harl. P.: Ed. du Cerf, 1983.

list of literature

Cadiou R. Lajeunesse d'Origene. P.: G. Beauchesne et ses fils, 1935.

Camelot P. Th. Foi et gnose: Introduction a Vetude de la connaissance mystique chez Clement d'Alexandrie. P.: J. Vrin, 1945.

Hanson R.P.C. Allegory and Event. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1959.

Harl M. Origene et la semantique du langage biblique // Vtgiliae christianae. Vol. 26 (1972).

Harl M. Origene et les interpretations patristiques grecques de l' "obscurite" biblique // Vigiliae Christianae. Vol. 36 (1982).

Kovacs J.L. Echoes of Valentinian Exegesis in Clement of Alexandria and Origen: The Interpretation of 1 Cor. 3.1 - 3 // Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition I Ed. L. Perrone. Vol. 1. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 2003.

Mortley R. Connaissance religieuse et hermeneutique chez Clement d'Alexandrie. Leiden: Brill, 1973.

Permanent link to this publication: