Origen’s Vacillating Stances toward his “Valentinian” Colleague Heracleon
In: Vigiliae ChristianaeSearch for other papers by Carl Johan Berglund in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
When Origen of Alexandria presents numerous extensive quotations from Heracleon, whom he explicitly presents as a follower of Valentinus, one might expect a uniformly adversarial attitude toward this “Valentinian” sectarian. Instead, Origen’s stances are found to vacillate significantly from general renunciation and emphatic criticism, via considered disagreement and hypothetical approval, all the way to agreement and praise. The fascinating interplay between the stance taken and the dogmatic and philological matters in view implies that while dogmatic issues at stake are decisive for whether Origen agrees or disagrees with Heracleon, the full range of variance in Origen’s stances is determined by Heracleon’s philological methodology and presentation of evidence. Origen’s responses to Heracleon reveal that he viewed this predecessor not simply as a heterodox teacher, but also as a colleague in interpreting the New Testament using methods from Greco-Roman literary criticism.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 392 | 104 | 20 |
| Full Text Views | 282 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 159 | 12 | 0 |
Origen’s Vacillating Stances toward his “Valentinian” Colleague Heracleon
In: Vigiliae ChristianaeSearch for other papers by Carl Johan Berglund in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
When Origen of Alexandria presents numerous extensive quotations from Heracleon, whom he explicitly presents as a follower of Valentinus, one might expect a uniformly adversarial attitude toward this “Valentinian” sectarian. Instead, Origen’s stances are found to vacillate significantly from general renunciation and emphatic criticism, via considered disagreement and hypothetical approval, all the way to agreement and praise. The fascinating interplay between the stance taken and the dogmatic and philological matters in view implies that while dogmatic issues at stake are decisive for whether Origen agrees or disagrees with Heracleon, the full range of variance in Origen’s stances is determined by Heracleon’s philological methodology and presentation of evidence. Origen’s responses to Heracleon reveal that he viewed this predecessor not simply as a heterodox teacher, but also as a colleague in interpreting the New Testament using methods from Greco-Roman literary criticism.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 392 | 104 | 20 |
| Full Text Views | 282 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 159 | 12 | 0 |
