The Scriptural Citations in Origen's Homily on Jeremiah 2.21-22 RAKraft Aug 1989 [origenhom]; update 7/17/90 Origen's homily is built upon the following framework of biblical passages, with formulaic transitions/connections as noted: Title: [The Text, from Jer 2.21b-22, in isolation] 1.1 Wisd 1.13-14 as a starting point (no formula introduction) 1.4 "Then a little further along I find {?} the topic: Whence then did death enter?" Wisd 2.24(a) 1.7 "...The start of the reading from the prophet spoke about ..." 1.8 Jer 21.21b 1.9 "As it said" (allusion? God created humans surefooted|| Lat quote!) ?? source ?? 1.12 Brief running allusion to phrase from Gen 1.26 1.13 "For the (passage)" Gen 1.26 "relates to every person" 1.14 running allusions to phrases from Gen 1.26 and 1Cor 15.49 1.16 allusionary running expansion of 1Cor 15.49 1.17 "...the Word says accusingly" Jer 2.21b 1.19 "For" Jer 2.21a 1.22 "But" with resumptive running expansion of Jer 2.21a 1.23 "But" with concluding restatement of Jer 2.21a 1.24 resumptive and reflexive running expansion of Jer 2.21b with 2.21a 2.1 "After these things let us examine:" Jer 2.22 2.5 "There the Word speaks to ..." (allusions to phrases from Jer 2.21b) 2.6 Jer 2.22 2.10 Heb 4.12 without formula introduction 2.12 comments on two words from Jer 2.22 2.15 "...it is said:" concluding restatement of Jer 2.22 2.17 allusions to remedies "...about which is said" Isa 1.6b-7a 2.23 "The Lord in Isaiah sees, as he/it says:" Isa 4.4, followed by explanatory restatement of key words/phrases 2.27 inobtrusive allusion to phrase from 1Jn 5.17 (Jn 11.4) 2.28 resumptive reference to Isa 4.4 with restatement commentary and key terms from Jer 2.22 worked in 3.1 "Quickly I find the Word..." synoptic tradition (Mt 2.12//Lk 3.16) followed by explanatory repetition of words/phrases 3.4 possibly inobtrusive allusion to Heb 6.4-6 worked in 3.6 resumptive allusion to phrases from synoptic baptism tradition, introduced with beatitude formula (see Ps 1.1, Rev 20.6) 3.8 "Jesus includes them both; for" 3.9 Isa 11.1 with explanatory restatement of two key terms 3.11 "Thus" Dt 4.24 "and" 1Jn 1.5 with explanatory restatements 3.13 "And" Rev 20.6 with resumptive phrases from the above discussions and an allusion to 1Cor 3.12 3.23 doxology to Christ (typical prayer ending) The sermon, then, assumes that the listeners can recognize certain scriptural language and pharases that are introduced into the discussion without any obvious indications: e.g. Gen 1.26 and 1Cor 15.49 (on "image" of God and humankind), 1Jn 5.17 (mortal sin), 1Cor 3.12 (wood, hay, stubble). But for the most part, Origen builds upon a cluster of passages that are clearly identified in one way or another as scriptural quotations (but seldom introduced by a formal formula!). In addition to the base text from Jer 2.21-22, the sermon uses: Wisd 1.13-14 with 2.24 (whence came death/evil to God's good creation?) Gen 1.26 (God's universal image among humankind) (Heb 4.12, the power of the Word) Isa 1.6b-7a (incurable sores) Isa 4.4 (the cleansings by the Lord) traditions regarding Jesus' baptisms (Lk 3.16) Isa 11.1 with Dt 4.24, 1Jn 1.5 and Rev 20.6 juxtaposed (on God's twofold purging of humans). Textcritically, a few larger and smaller matters of interest emerge from an analysis of the Greek texts used in the homily: Jer 2.21-22 -- The "lemma" presented in the prefatory section seems suspiciously flawed in that it begins with Jer 2.21b and concludes with the material that follows without interruption in Jer 2.22, but implies that a break occurs between these passages ("On the [passage] ... until the [passage]:"). Since the homily itself (at 1.19ff) includes the material from Jer 2.21a, but only after extensive discussion of Jer 2.21b, it could be argued that the prefatory lemma, perhaps provided by a later copyist, mistakenly assumes the sequence Jer 2.21b + 21a + 22 since that is how the passages appear in the homily's order of treatment. Arguing against this explanation is the fact that in 1.7, the homily refers to Jer 2.21b as "the beginning of the lection"! Thus it seems probable that for whatever reason, Origen consciously presented the text in the sequence of Jer 2.21b + 21a, and the prefatory lemma is accurate both in where it begins, and in suggesting that some material is skipped over between Jer 2.21b and 2.22! Note that no witnesses listed in Ziegler's edition support this order. Note also that the Latin translation "corrects" the situation in two ways: by dropping Jer 2.22a from the lemma (thus creating a gap) and by rendering the Greek "beginning of the reading" as "in the present reading" (1.7, thus removing the implication that 2.21b starts the lection, although even the Latin lemma retains 2.21b as the starting section). On details, the Greek text of Jer 2.21-22 quoted in the Homily usually is internally consistent in the various repititions of words and phrases and agrees with the majority Old Greek text of Jeremiah in most particulars. Possibly Origen's text did not include any conjunction at the start of 2.21a, where most Old Greek texts have enclitic de/. The three quote-style references to this passage in the Greek Homily introduce it in three different ways: e)gw\ ga/r (1.19), e)gw\ de/ (1.22), a)ll' e)gw/ (1.23). Of course, these could all represent adaptations to Origen's homiletic flow, but it is interesting to note that several MSS and patristic witnesses do not contain the de/ of the majority text (some of these witnesses invert the words e)fu/teusa/ se, thus placing se in the place where most MSS have de/). If Origen's text of Jeremiah had included the de/, it would have served his purposes adequately in each of the aforementioned references. His variety of use suggests that no conjunction was present. The Latin text represents de/ (autem) in the first two occurrences, but treats the third in freely condensed and loose periphrastic fashion. Interestingly, the Latin has (plantavi) eam rather than the expected te (se) in the first quote (plantavi stands without object in the loosly presented third). In 2.16, the Greek text of the Homily presents a form of Jer 2.22 that varies in word order from the other three Greek references (lemma, 2.2, 2.7), with the phrases e)n tai=j a)diki/aj and e)nanti/on e)mou= reversed. This minority reading agrees with a handful of other early witnesses, including MSS SA, Cyril of Alexandria, and the Bohairic and Arabic versions. Furthermore, the Latin translation of the Homily follows the minority order in all four occurrences, which lends credence to the possibility that Origen's text originally consistently contained the minority order, but later Greek copyists "corrected" three of the quotations to agree with the more familiar Old Greek sequence. The Latin forms of the remaining materials from Jer 2.21-22 are relatively consistent as well, even where the Greek is not (ego autem in 2.21a twice, as noted above). Sometimes the Latin abandons repititious formal quotation for a looser blending of the material with its context (especially in 1.22b-25). The Latin has two somewhat unusual abberations: ego plantavi eam (Jer 2.21a, as noted above) and in Jer 2.22a si ablueris te nitro (2.15) instead of the expected si abluta fueris nitro that occurs twice before. The first, eam rather than te, seems dependant on its Latin context and almost certainly does not reflect a variant to the Jeremiah text in either Greek or Latin. The second surely provides evidence for an Old Latin variant [[check the texts here!]] and ultimately may reflect the attested alternative Greek forms of a)poplu/nh| (majority text of Jeremiah = the 4 Greek occurrences in the Homily) or a)poplu/nhj (B*-S*-106 L Chr Tht[p]). The evidence is too slim to conjecture a variant Greek form in the Greek vorlage used by Jerome. Wisd 1.13-14, 2.24-- The opening passage of the text of the Homily, from Wisd 1.13-14, agrees completely with the Old Greek majority text (the initial o(/ti in Wisd 1.13 is not appropriate in the Homily). The presence in the Latin Homily of in where the Greek has e)p' is not sufficiently strong evidence to suggest that Jerome's Greek Vorlage had e)n (so 68 471 La Syh verss[p] in Wisd 1.13), since the Latin preposition could represent either Greek term, or neither (Ambrose omits the preposition twice). [[check Old Latin]] The Latin use of nec...neque where the Greek has kai\ ou)k...ou)de/ in Wisd 1.14b might suggest the existence of a variant in the Greek (ou)de\...ou)de/), but it could also be due to translational preference. There is no evidence of such a variant in the Greek apparatus to Wisd 1.14. The introduction to Wisd 2.24 is a bit strange in the Greek Homily, possibly suggesting the existence of a source that included headers (rubrics) such as mentioned here: "Whence, then, entered death?" This idea would be strengthened if the existing word e)rw= were emended (see Latin) to read eu(ri/skw (so 3.1) or something similar -- "I find the heading...." Evidence for such headings in the vicinity of Wisd 2.24 is not recorded, although at Wisd 6.1 the Old Latin may attest a similar phenomenon (see also MS 46 at Wisd 4.10 "Enoch" as a heading?; MS 579 at Wisd 9.1 has a different sort of rubric; there are also analogies in such works as Old Greek Canticles). [[can r(hto/n bear this sense? check TLG]] The Latin Homily does not contain such indications in its relatively smoother and simpler transitional section. The text itself of Wisd 2.24(a) in both the Greek and the Latin forms of the Homily agrees with the Old Greek majority text. The Latin rendering of Greek ko/smon with orbem terrarum is not unusual in the Old Latin witnesses. Note that the ideas of Wisd 1.13-14 and of 2.24 are neatly linked by the repetition of the reference to God creating in 2.23, which also serves as an obvious link with the later discussion of God's image in humankind: "For God created man/Adam incorruptable, and made him as an image of God's own likeness." Gen 1.26 and 1 Cor 15.49 -- It is clear that the Homilist wants to weave allusions to phrases from these passages, along with the passages themselves, into the discussion. Gen 1.26 is an extremely popular text among patristic authors, and the Greek Homily agrees with numerous other witnesses (including MS 508 and the Old Latin tradition) in placing h(mete/ran after kaq' o(moi/wsin rather than after kat' ei)ko/na. Jerome's Latin translation of the Homily paraphrases here. The related passage from 1 Cor 15.49 is also popular among ancient Christian authors, and Origen's Greek text here seems to preserve the reading of most Greek MSS and the versions in fore/swmen rather than fore/somen (if we can trust the textual tradition for the Homily!). [[what does the Latin portemus represent?]] Whether Origen's Greek text of 1 Cor 15.49 lacked the exepigetic/adverbial kai/ that now appears in most witnesses after fore/swmen is impossible to say [[check Tischendorf's 8th ed here?]] since the atomized nature of the quotation flow would not require its preservation in the Homily. Heb 4.12a -- The Homilist sets the stage for this quotation from Heb 4.12 with all the talk about the power of the Word, but he does not mark the start of the quotation with any formula or other indicator. The Greek text is in complete agreement with the majority of witnesses to Heb 4.12a. [[check the Latin]] Interestingly, the Greek seems simply to break off the quotation and move on to the next thought, while the Latin version suggests that the remainder of Heb 4.12 should also be kept in mind with the closing words et reliqua (and the rest). Has Jerome confused the thrust of the somewhat awkward Greek phrase in 2.11, kai\ o(\ e)a\n (ei)/ph|j)? Jerome does seem a bit lost, or at least very loose in relation to the extant Greek, at this point. Isa 1.6b-7a and 4.4 -- Again, allusions to certain words and phrases in the passage precede the actual formal (formula) quotation of Isa 1.6b-7a. The Greek text of the Homily agrees with the majority text of Isaiah, except that the word a)lla/ is used to join Isa 1.6b to 1.7a, probably as an editorial insertion rather than an attempt to represent the biblical text being used. At least there is no record of such a variant in the apparatus to Old Greek Isaiah. For the Isa 4.4 material, Origen's two quotations are consistent with each other and agree with the main Old Greek tradition except in the absence of the preposition e)n before the first occurrence of the word pneu/mati (so also many "Lucianic" witnesses and Chrysostom). The presence of ou)=n at the start of the second Greek quotation seems to be resumptive, and almost functions as an introductory formula; there is no reason to think that it comes from the biblical text itself, which shows no variants at this point in the Greek tradition. (The Latin reshapes -- and probably misunderstands -- the transition between 2.27 and 2.28, eliminating the need for any resumptive particle.) The Latin treatment of the Isa 4.4 materials presents some other special problems. Whereas the second Latin quotation represents the Greek exactly with the words sordes filiorum et filiarum Sion (dirt of the sons and daughters of Zion), the first Latin version has only sordes filiorum Sion. It may be that et filiarum has dropped out through homoioteleuton, and should be restored in the first occurance. On the other hand, the traditional Hebrew (as noted in Hexaplaric witnesses) referred only to "daughters" in Isa 4.4, and thus it is possible that the first Latin citation should be restored to read sordes filiarum Sion in agreement with that Hebrew. Since Origen's argument does not seem to be specifically aimed at "daughters," and the homilist's comments do not hint at any need to explain this phrase, we can assume with some confidence that the Greek did not originally have the "hexaplaric" shorter reading, but it is possible that Jerome (perhaps inadvertantly) introduced that reading into his Latin translation in the first instance. Or that it came into the Latin (or for that matter, into the Greek prior to Jerome's acquisition of the text) later, by harmonization to a familiar hexaplaric form of the text. Note, however, that neither the Greek nor the Latin textual traditions of the homily show any other influences from "hexaplaric" variations in Isa 4.4: "the blood of Jerusalem he will cleanse from her/its midst." The Latin does have trouble or show corruption with the first quotation of this phrase -- sordes filiorum/filiarum Sion in sanguine (the Lord will wash the dirt of the sons/daughters of Zion in blood). This seems to disrupt both the flow and the meaning of the passage, which may give added weight to the suspicion of corruption in the Latin at this point. The second quotation in Latin replicates the Greek at this point. 1 Jn 5.16-17 (Jn 11.4) -- In the middle of the exposition of Isa 4.4, Origen alludes to 1 Jn 5.16-17 "there is a sin that is (not) death producing." Origen seems to be arguing that even serious sins that produce stains (i.e. "blood") can be cleansed ("If you sinned in a 'death producing' manner, in addition to sinning, you have been stained." But God can take care of that through "burning" -- through "fire") -- this is how the preserved Greek text can be read, and the Latin seems to reflect such a reading (see especially 2.31!). It is also possible that the negative particle from the allusion has dropped out of the Greek, and that Origen was saying that only sins that do not result in death can be cleansed ("If you sinned in a 'not death producing' manner, ...."). But the details of Origen's argument, especially in the final section on being baptized "with fire," support the text as it has been transmitted: "filth" can be washed away "by the spirit" "of judgment," but the "stain" of "blood" requires "burning" "in fire" and is a much more serious problem! The words from 1 Jn 5 (balanced by Jn 11.4) are frequent in Origen's theology of "universal salvation." In any event, there are no textual differences between the words from 1 Jn 5.16-17 that Origen uses and the text of the epistle itself. The traditions about Jesus baptizing with holy spirit and fire -- Origen does not refer to a specific Gospel when he alludes to the words of John the baptizer, that the one who comes after him will baptize "with the holy spirit and with fire." Indeed, the exact same phrase is found in manuscripts of all three synoptic gospels (Mk 1.8 = Mt 3.12 = Lk 3.16) although it is usually argued that the reference to fire was not original to the oldest recoverable text of Mark. From a textcritical perspective, there is nothing unusual about Origen's use of this well known Jesus tradition, although the Latin seems to omit "and in fire" the first time through (probably a corruption, given the subsequent repetitions). Heb 6.4-6 -- Possibly Origen intends to allude to Heb 6.4-6 in Hom 3.4, where the one who has believed and been considered worthy of the holy spirit sins again and must be washed with fire. The texts have little in common in terms of vocabulary, but the general description is the same, and it is not unlikely that Origen would have had his interpretation of other "unforgivable sin" passages (besides 1 Jn 5.17) in mind in this discussion. It is possible that this passage supports the view that Origen would read the pa/lin of Heb 6.6 with the word that precedes it ("and they again fail") rather than the one that follows ("to renew them again"). Isa 11.1 -- The Greek of Origen's Homily agrees exactly with the main Old Greek textual tradition for Isa 11.1 except that the resumptive ga/r appears in Origen rather than an initial kai/. There are few significant variants to this very popular "proof text." Whether the appearance of ejus in the Latin translation of Origen is simply for translational clarity or actually reflects an explicit pronoun in the Greek (or existing Latin) biblical tradition cannot be determined; at least one Greek witness has e)c au)th=j for the second occurrance of e)k th=j r(i/zhj (Hippolytus Antichrist 8). Dt 4.24 and 1 Jn 1.5 -- Phrases from Dt 4.24 and 1 Jn 1.5 are brought into the argument by Origen with a simple continuation conjunction "thus." Jerome reworks the context to include an explicit formula that covers both allusions: sic...in scripturis dicitur. Nothing of textcritical significance can be made from this observation that God is a "consuming fire" and "light"; the Greek text is fuller both in the initial context ("God is ... God is") and in the repetition of the designation "consuming fire" (Latin has only "fire" the second time), but it is not clear how exactly the full sequence of Greek words (including "God is") is intended to reflect the texts in mind. Dt 4.24 has o( qeo/j sou ("your God"), but the absence of "your" from Origen's allusion can hardly serve as evidence of a variant text. [[double check the Gottingen ed of Dt when it is found]] Rev 20.6 -- Origen continues with a simple conjunctive kai/ and a beatitude from Rev 20.6a about partakers in the "first resurrection." The main textual tradition in Rev 20.6 has maka/rioj kai\ a(/gioj where Origen uses only the first of those words. This need not indicate a textual variant, given the context of the sermon. Jerome's Latin follows Origen's Greek text exactly. 1 Cor 3.12-15 -- Origen finishes off the discussion of the need for purging by fire with the imagery of 1 Cor 3.12-15, where a person's "work" is tested by fire, and if the work is combustible, the person still will "be saved" "as through fire." Again, no valid textcritical judgments are possible from this type of allusion, where a few words from the biblical text are woven into the ongoing argument. [end 7/17/90]