The Canon of Origen of Alexandria

Origen was the most brilliant, proliﬁc, and inﬂuential author of the ﬁrst three centuries of Christianity. Born in 185 ce, he was raised by Christian parents in Alexandria, Egypt. Already as a child, Origen was recognized as a prodigy. While still a teenager, according to the church historian Eusebius, he was appointed to be head of the famous Catechetical School in Alexandria, a kind of institution of Christian higher learning. Origen soon became the leading proto-orthodox spokesperson of his day, with extensive writings that included detailed expositions of Scripture, sermons, theological treatises, defenses of the faith against its cultured despisers, and refutations of heretics. His inventive theological explorations were seen as acceptable by the proto-orthodox of his day; but he was later condemned as a heretic, largely because of the ways his views were developed by his successors. As a result of this condemnation, many of his writings were destroyed. But a good many also survive, revealing the true brilliance of Origen’s mind. None of these surviving writings provides a full listing of the books that Origen considered to belong to the New Testament canon. He does make scattered references to the canon, however, and these can help show how the canon was taking shape in the early third century in proto-orthodox circles of Alexandria. The following partial lists are drawn from Origen’s Commentaries on Matthew and John and his Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews, as these are quoted in the writings of Eusebius (see below). As can be seen, Origen accepted the four Gospels that were eventually agreed upon: the Pauline epistles (which he does not enumerate in this fragment), one letter of Peter, allowing for the possibility of a second, one letter of John and possibly two more, and the Apocalypse of John. In the ﬁnal fragment given here, he addresses the problem posed by the book of Hebrews, accepting it as canonical, but expressing his opinion that Paul was not its actual author.

Translation by Bart D. Ehrman, based on the Greek text in Gustave Bardy, Eusèbe de Césareé, Histoire Ecclésiastique (SC, 41; Paris: Cerf, 1951).

334

THE CANON OF ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA

Now in the ﬁrst volume of his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, [Origen] defends the canon of the church, testifying that he recognizes only four Gospels. This is what he says: Among the four Gospels—the only ones not disputed by the church of God under heaven—I have learned from the tradition that the ﬁrst written was that according to Matthew, the former tax collector and then apostle of Jesus Christ, who delivered it to believers coming out of Judaism, drawing it up in Hebrew letters. Second was that according to Mark, who recorded it as he was instructed by Peter, who acknowledges him as his son in the Catholic epistle he wrote, where he says, “The church in Babylon, chosen with you, sends you greetings, as does my son Mark,” [1 Pet. 5:13]. The third was that according to Luke, the Gospel praised by Paul and made for those among the Gentile Christians. And after all these was that according to John. And in the ﬁfth volume of his Expositions on the Gospel of John, the same author [Origen] said these things concerning the apostolic epistles: Paul was made worthy to be a minister of the new covenant, a covenant based not on the letter but the Spirit [2 Cor. 3:6]; and he spread the gospel from Jerusalem and its vicinity, as far as Illyricum [Rom 15:19]. He did not write to all the churches he had taught; but to those he did write, he sent letters of just a few lines. But Peter, on whom the church of Christ was built and against which the gates of hell will not prevail [Matt. 16:18], left behind one letter that is acknowledged, and possibly a second, for it is disputed. And

335

why do we need to speak of the one who reclined on Jesus’ breast, John, who left behind one Gospel, while admitting that he could produce so many that the world would not be able to contain them [John 21:25]? He also wrote the Apocalypse, after being ordered to be silent and not to write what was spoken by the voices of the seven thunders [Rev. 10:3–4]. He also left behind an epistle of a very few lines, and possibly a second and third. For not everyone agrees that these are genuine. But taken together, both do not contain a hundred lines. In addition to these, he says the following about the letter to the Hebrews in his Homilies on it: The writing style of the epistle entitled “To the Hebrews” does not have the unskilled character of the apostle, who admitted that he was an unskilled writer [2 Cor. 11:6], at least with regard to style. The epistle is better Greek in its composition, as everyone able to evaluate differences in style will admit. At the same time, everyone who attends closely to the reading of the apostolic text will agree that the thoughts of the epistle are marvelous and in no way inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle. After a few other matters he adds the following: But I would say that the thoughts of the epistle appear to be those of the apostle, whereas the style and composition of the letter are those of someone who had his writings in mind, and wrote down the words of his teacher at his leisure. And so any church that considers the epistle to be Paul’s should be approved for their view; for the ancients had good

CANONICAL LISTS

336

reason to pass it on as his. But as to who wrote the epistle, truly God knows. We have heard a report from some that it was written by Clement, who become bishop of Rome;

whereas others think it was Luke, the one who wrote the Gospel and Acts. . . . . (Eusebius, Church History, 6. 25, 3–14).