Commentary on the Gospel of John

The “Commentary on the Gospel of John” (40s of the 3rd century) originally consisted of 32 books, of which only 9 have survived. Origen began work on an explanation of the Gospel of John at the request of Ambrose, giving the commentary an anti-Gnostic orientation. As the object of polemics, he used the interpretation of the Gospel of John, written at the end of the 2nd century. Gnostic Herakleon (distinction between good and evil divine principles; Christ was recognized as the Savior only of predestined spiritual people, i.e. Gnostics). Origen, unlike the Gnostics, associated the division of Christians into different levels not with nature, but with the personal freedom of rational beings. Seeing the Gospel of John as the pinnacle of New Testament literature and emphasizing the depth of the religious concepts and images it contained, Origen used the Gospel text as the basis for many digressions in which he offered a rational understanding of the main provisions of Christian doctrine using the means of Greek philosophy. Thus, a significant part of the 1st book of the commentary is devoted to revealing the meaning of the concept “beginning”. Considering this word as one of the names of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Origen, relying on it, analyzes in detail the meaning of other trinitarian and Christological names: Logos, Wisdom, Life, Truth, etc. The Commentary on the Gospel of John reflected in one form or another all of Origen’s theological interests, as a result of which this work is one of the most important sources of information about his religious worldview. *The title of the work in Latin is In Iohannem commentarii. Paragraph I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX “Commentaries on the Gospel of John” is the earliest exegetical work of the Alexandrian didaskal that has come down to us, rightly called by Henri Cruzel 2 “Origen’s masterpiece” 3 . After Origen, detailed commentaries on the fourth Gospel were written only by St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria and Bl. Augustine 4. The reason for writing the commentaries was the compilation of interpretations of the Gospel by the Gnostic Heracleon, a follower of Valentinus (in a number of places, Origen quotes in detail the interpretations of Heracleon and then refutes them 5 ). Origen began writing the Commentaries in Alexandria either after 218, at approximately 33 years of age, or, more likely, between 225 and 229, when he was about 40 years old. During his stay in Alexandria, he managed to write the first four books of Commentaries, the fifth was compiled during a trip to Palestine in 230–231. Before leaving Alexandria in 231, Origen managed to begin the sixth book. The activity of Heracleion occurred approximately in the 170s. Thus, the first Christian commentary on the Gospel of John (and at the same time a response to its heterodox interpretation) was given in the Church only half a century after the death of a prominent representative of Gnostic teaching. Here we can recall another of Origen’s works, “Against Celsus,” written in the last years of the theologian’s life and dedicated to the apology of Christianity in response to criticism of Celsus three quarters of a century earlier, at the end of the 170s. Origen - like St. Hippolytus of Rome - acted as a successor to the early apologists and St. Irenaeus of Lyons and at the same time an interpreter of the Holy Scriptures, defending the teaching both from pagans and heretics. According to the 33rd letter of Bl. Jerome 7, “Commentaries” consisted of 32 books 8, of which in total only 9 have survived. The first book (39 chapters, 292 paragraphs) serves as an introduction to the interpretation, it examines the first half of the first verse of the Gospel (“In the beginning was the Word”). The second book covers John. 1 ,1b-7. The following books provide not so voluminous, but still quite extensive comments (book VI John 1, 19–29; X: John 2, 12–25; XIII John 4, 13–54; XIX: John 8, 19–25; XX: John 8, 37–53; XXVIII John 11, 39–57; XXXII John. 13, 2–33). Even from the parts that have reached us, one can judge the monumentality of the work. Origen's interpretations of the first 13 chapters took up 32 books. Since the Gospel of John has a total of 21 chapters, one can imagine how voluminous all the commentaries would have been if Origen had managed to complete them: if the existing proportion had been maintained, the work would have amounted to 52 books, i.e. 29 volumes in the Sources Chrétiennes series! Such a scale far exceeds the interpretations of all subsequent commentators on this Gospel. During his life, Origen wrote three types of interpretations of the Holy Scriptures: homilies, scholia and commentaries. Only a small part of them has survived, not all of them have survived in the original language: many works are known only in the free Latin translation of Rufinus; several works were translated by Bl. Jerome. An insignificant part of Origen's exegetical heritage has been translated into Russian, and even then from the Latin version of Jerome 9. Filling such a gaping gap in Russian translations of the works of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church is one of the main tasks of Russian patrolology, since the study of patristic exegesis is unthinkable without taking into account the interpretations of Origen. If the dogmatic errors of the didascal were condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council 10, then Origen's exegesis was never subjected to conciliar discussions and condemnations and had a direct or indirect (through catenas) influence on all patristic interpretations of the Holy Scriptures up to Bl. Theophylact of Bulgaria. The question of the degree of influence and relationship between Origen's dogmatic errors and his exegetical principles, although raised in principle, seems to have never been studied in detail 11 . The same can be said about the study of the influence of specific Origen interpretations on patristic exegesis 12 . The main critical edition 13 of the “Commentaries” remains the text prepared in the series “Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller” (Bd. 10) by the Prussian Academy of Sciences and published in 1903. This text 14 is reproduced (with some changes, but without detailed critical apparatus) in the edition of S. Blank in the series “Sources Chrétiennes” (SC). The value of the SC edition lies in the prefaces, French translation and commentary. Preparing the publication for 25 years, S. Blank noticeably improved its quality as she gained experience. If the first volumes of the Commentaries in the SC series provoked sharp criticism from P. Noten 15 both from the point of view of textual criticism and due to errors in translation, then subsequent editions met with a more favorable reception from this famous specialist. After the publication was completed (SC 120, 157, 222, 290, 385) in 1992, the first volumes were reprinted, with additions taking into account criticism and comments. The edition of the Prussian Academy remains in scientific use thanks not only to the apparatus, but also to the collection of catenary fragments. The electronic version of the TLG “Comments” includes two editions (E. Proyshena and S. Blank) 16. Unfortunately, no attempt was made in any of the editions to restore - at least partially and approximately - the lost pieces of commentaries (more precisely, their meaning), relying on all the extant works of Origen in which the fourth Gospel is quoted or mentioned. Of the modern European translations, the Italian translation 17 deserves special mention: E. Corsini wrote a valuable preface (111 pp.) and excellently translated the entire text, including catenary fragments. The appearance of two complete translations of the Commentaries into modern European languages ​​stimulated a closer study of this work of Origen. Over the past decades, many articles have appeared devoted to individual passages of the Commentaries 18, as well as a special monograph concerning Origen’s interpretation of the beginning of the Gospel of John 19. Two works 20 appeared in Russian, written as part of A.V. Petrov’s project to translate “Commentaries” 21. At the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Theological Institute M.V. Kireeva defended her dissertation for the degree of candidate of theology “Commentary on the Gospel of John Origen and St. Cyril of Alexandria (exegetical methods)” 22. When this issue of “Theological Works” was already prepared for delivery to the printing house, it was discovered that quite recently a translation of the entire first book of “Commentaries” appeared on the Internet, completed by a graduate of Novosibirsk State University, candidate of cultural studies A. V. Tsurkan and approved in the attached “Expert Opinion” by Doctor of Philology K. A. Timofeev 23 . We did not have time to compare both translations, so we invite interested readers to do this work themselves. The translation of the first twenty chapters published below is based on the edition: Origène. Commentaire sur Saint Jean. Tome I (Livres I-V) Texte grec, avant-propos, traduction et notes par C. Blanc. Paris, 1966 (SC 120). Discrepancies with S. Blank in the choice of discrepancies are specially noted. In the selection or definition of allusions from the Holy Scriptures, we also sometimes disagree with the French publisher, usually without special reservations. We considered it unnecessary to explain most of the places already commented on in SC, but we added a number of other necessary, in our opinion, notes. The following notations are used in the translation: italics mark implicit quotations and allusions (the latter are usually marked with “cf.”) In quotations from the Holy Scriptures, Church Slavonic and Synodal translations are used with minor changes, adapted according to the grammatical and spelling norms of the modern Russian language and taking into account discrepancies in the ancient Greek manuscripts according to the critical editions of A. Ralphs and Nestlé-Aland. In other words, the italics and quotation marks indicate the extent to which Origen's biblical readings correspond to modern scholarly editions of the Greek texts of Scripture. The abbreviations made by Origen when quoting biblical texts are not noted. 1. I think that just as the ancient people, called “God’s” 24, were divided into twelve tribes and over the remaining tribes [placed] the Levitical rank, which also served God (τὁ θεῖον θεραπεὐουσαν), [consisting] of many priestly and Levitical ranks, so too, in my opinion opinion, according to the “hidden things of the heart of man” (1 Pet. 3:4), every people of Christ, having received the secret 25 name of Judea and “circumcised in the Spirit” (cf. Rom. 2:29), has the more mysterious properties of these [twelve] tribes. You can learn more clearly about this (about which other prophets are not silent for those who know how to listen) from John from the Apocalypse. 2. John says this: “And I saw another angel rising from the east of the sun... having the seal of the living God. And he cried with a loud voice to the four Angels, to whom it was given to harm the earth and the sea, saying: Do not harm the earth, nor the sea, nor the trees, until we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads. And I heard the number of them that were sealed: one hundred and forty-four thousand that were sealed out of all the tribes of the children of Israel. Of the tribe of Judah twelve thousand were sealed; from the tribe of Reuben... twelve thousand” (Rev. 7:2–5). 3. Then, having enumerated the remaining tribes with the exception of Dan, much later he adds: “And I looked, and behold, a Lamb stood on Mount Zion, and with Him an hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, like the voice of many waters and like the voice of great thunder; and the voice that I heard was like the sound of harpists playing their harp. And they sing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn this song except these hundred and forty-four thousand who were redeemed from the earth. These are those who have not defiled themselves with their wives, for they are virgins; these are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. They are redeemed from among men, the firstfruits of God and the Lamb, and there is no guile in their mouth, for they are blameless” (Rev. 14:1-5). 4. And the fact that this is said by John about those who believed in Christ and, moreover, from the tribes [of Israel], although their race according to the flesh does not seem to ascend to the seed of the patriarchs, can be proven as follows: “Do not harm,” says [the Evangelist], “neither the earth, nor the sea, nor the trees, until we have put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God. And I heard the number of those who were sealed:... one hundred and forty-four thousand... sealed... from all the tribes of the children of Israel” (Rev. 7:3-4). 5. So the sons of all the tribes of Israel, numbering one hundred and forty-four thousand, are sealed on their foreheads. John further says that these one hundred and forty-four thousand, having the name of the Lamb and His Father written on their foreheads, are virgins and have not defiled themselves with women. 6. Thus, what other seal can be on the foreheads, if not the name of the Lamb and His Father, since in both places it is said that the foreheads have in one case a seal, in the other - letters containing the name of the Lamb and the name of His Father? 7. But if [the sons] “of the tribes” are the same as the “virgins,” as we showed earlier, and among the [sons] of “Israel according to the flesh” (1 Cor. 10:18) believers [in Christ] are rare - so that another, perhaps, would dare to say that the number of believers from “Israel according to the flesh” would not number one hundred forty-four thousand, - it is obvious that one hundred forty-four thousand those who are not defiled with their wives consist of pagans who come to the Divine Word. Therefore, he who says that in every tribe the virgins are its firstfruits would not sin against the truth. 8. After all, it is added: “They are redeemed from among men, the first fruits of God and the Lamb, and in their mouth there is no guile, for they are blameless” (Rev. 14:4-5). You should know that the speech about one hundred and forty-four virgins allows for an anagogical interpretation, but now it is unnecessary to interrupt the present reasoning and expound the prophetic words that teach us the same about the pagans. 9. “But what does all this have to do with us?” - you will ask, reading what is written, you, Ambrose 26, are truly “a man of God” (1 Tim. 6:11) and “a man in Christ” (cf. 2 Cor. 12:2), striving for no longer human, but spiritual existence. [Members of] the tribes who offer tithes and firstfruits to God through the Levites and priests do not only have firstfruits or tithes, while the Levites and priests, using only tithes and firstfruits, offer tithes to God (I assume also firstfruits) through the high priest 27 . 10. As for the majority of us who are approaching Christ’s teaching, devoting themselves mainly to everyday things and bringing small deeds to God, they could rather be called [members of] the tribes, giving little to the priests and meagerly nourishing the service of God; on the contrary, it is appropriate to call those who have truly devoted themselves to the Divine Word and to the service of God alone Levites and priests according to the excellence of their activity in this. 11. Those who ascend and seem to have primacy in their kind will, perhaps, be high priests according to the order of Aaron, and not according to the order of Melchizedek (cf. Heb. 7:11). If anyone opposes this [comparison], considering that we are acting wickedly by attaching the name of a bishop to a person, since Jesus is often prophesied by the Great Priest, as for example: “The great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God” (Heb. 4:14), then one should answer him that the apostle made a distinction, saying that the prophet said about Christ: “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 109:4; Heb. 5:6; Heb. 7:17), “and not according to the order of Aaron” (Heb. 7:11). Following him, we say that people can be bishops according to the order of Aaron, and according to the order of Melchizedek - Christ of God. 12. So, since we, throughout our entire life and all our activities dedicated to God, “pursue what is best” (cf. Heb. 11:16), desiring to have it all with the firstfruits of many firstfruits (unless we are mistaken in thinking so), then what [more] important thing should we have done after our bodily separation from each other 29 if not the study of the Gospel? After all, we must boldly affirm that the Gospel is the firstfruits of all Scripture. 13. Therefore, what other first fruit of activity should there have been after our return to Alexandria, if not [turning to] the first fruit of Scripture? But we need to know that the first fruits and the first fruits are not the same thing (cf., for example, Exod. 34:26 and Deut. 26:2), for the firstfruits are brought after, and the first fruits - before the harvest (cf. Num. 18:12-13, 28:26; Exod. 23:16, etc.). 14. So, it would not be a mistake to call the firstfruits of the Scripture, distributed in all God's churches and confident in its Divine character, the law of Moses, and the firstfruits - the Gospel. For after all the fruits of the prophets who were up to the Lord Jesus, the perfect Word languished. 15. If anyone opposes the idea of [such] an explanation of the firstfruits, saying that the Gospel is followed by the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles, and therefore it is impossible to retain what was interpreted above about the firstfruits, that the firstfruits of all Scripture is the Gospel, then one must object, firstly, that in the epistles that have come down one senses the way of thinking of men who are wise in Christ, who helps them, but who are in need, in order they were believed, in the testimonies contained in the Law and the Prophets, so that the apostolic words, wise and worthy of faith and with great success in achieving their goals, are not like: “Thus says the Lord Almighty” (2 Sam. 7:8 [cf. 2 Cor. 6:18]). 16. And according to Paul: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable” (2 Tim. 3:16), consider whether he includes [in it] his own letters; or not [it seems] that “I speak, not the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:12); “I command all the churches” (1 Cor. 7:17); “How I suffered in Antioch, in Iconium, in Lystra” (2 Tim. 3:11) and the like, written by him from time to time, * * * [reveals] apostolic power * * *, but not the unalloyed purity of God-inspired words? 17. To this, further, it should be added that the Old Testament, which does not point to the “Coming One” (cf. John 1, 15.27, etc.), but [only] proclaims it, is not the Gospel, while the whole New Testament is the Gospel, and not only because it [the New Testament] says like the beginning of the Gospel: “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn. 1:29), but also because it contains various praises and teachings of Him, because of whom the Gospel is the Gospel. 18. Finally, since God placed in the Church apostles, prophets and evangelists, shepherds and teachers (cf. Eph. 4:11) 30, then when we examine what is the task of the evangelist - namely, not only to tell how the Savior healed a man born blind (cf. John 9:1), raised a stinking dead man (cf. John 11:39), what performed miracles, but also to induce faith regarding Jesus, which distinguishes the evangelist - then we will not hesitate to call what the apostles wrote the Gospel. 19. To those who object to the second explanation, that we have not properly called the whole New Testament the Gospel, since the Epistles are not so inscribed, it should be answered that often in Scripture two or more [subjects] are called by the same name, referring primarily to one of them. Thus, the Savior says: Do not call [anyone] Teacher on earth (Matthew 23:8-9), - [and] the apostle - that teachers are also appointed in the Church (cf. 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11). 20. Consequently, these latter will not be Teachers in the exact meaning of the Gospel expression. Likewise, the Epistles will not be the Gospel in the literal and full sense of the word, if we compare them with the story of the deeds of Jesus, His sufferings and His speeches. And yet the Gospel is the Firstfruits of all Scripture, and we will dedicate the firstfruits of all our desired future activities to the Firstfruits of Scripture. 21. I think that although the essence of the four Gospels is like the elements of the faith of the Church, of which the whole world consists, reconciled in Christ with God (as Paul says: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” [2 Cor. 5:19]), - the world whose sin Jesus took away (for about the peace of the Church it is written: “Behold the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world” [John 1:29]), - the firstfruits of the Gospels is The [Gospel] of John, which we study at your request to the best of our ability, is silent 31 about the Genealogy [by the other evangelists] (τὸν γενεαλογούμενον) and begins with Him whose generation cannot be spoken (ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀγενεαλογήτου) . 22. In fact, Matthew, addressing the [Jews] waiting for the [Son] of Abraham and David, says: “The book of the kinship of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1); and Mark, [well] knowing what he writes, narrates: “The beginning of the Gospel” (Mk. 1:1), the end of which we find, rather, in John * * * - “The Word [that was] in the Beginning” (John 1:1), the Word of God. But Luke * * * still preserves the greatest and most perfect words about Jesus for [the disciple] “who fell to the breast of Jesus” (John. 13:25), since none of them revealed His Divinity as fully as John, who put into His mouth: “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12); “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life” (John 14:6); “I am the Door” (John 10:9); “I am the Good Shepherd” (John 10:11); and in Revelation: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the First and the Last” (Rev. 22:13). 23. So, we must dare to say that just as the Gospels are the firstfruits of all Scripture, so the Gospel of John is the firstfruits of all the Gospels, the meaning of which no one can understand without “falling into the breast of Jesus” (John 13:25) and without taking Mary from Jesus, who also became his mother. And in order for another to become John, he must be such that Jesus, like John, points to him as Jesus. For if Mary, according to those who think sensibly about her, had no other son than Jesus 32; Jesus says to his mother: “Behold, your son” (John 19:26), and not: “Behold, this is your son,” - it’s the same as if He said: “Behold, this is Jesus, born of you.” And anyone who is perfect - “he no longer lives, but Christ in him” (cf. Gal. 2:20), and when “Christ” “lives” in him, then it is said about him to Mary: “Behold, your Son” Christ. 24. Is it still necessary to say what our mind needs to be, so that we can worthily interpret the word hidden inside the clay treasuries (cf. 2 Cor. 4:7) of simple speech, when the writing can be read by everyone, and the word can be heard by everyone with bodily hearing, and tangible through sound? Truly, those who are going to accurately understand the Gospel must say: “But we have the mind of Christ... that we may know the things given by God” (1 Cor. 2:16;.. 1 Cor. 2:12). 25. About the fact that the entire New Testament is the Gospel, one can also cite the words of Paul, where he says: “According to my gospel” (cf. Rom. 2:16). For, although the writings of Paul are not for us the book usually called the Gospel, everything that he preached and spoke was the Gospel. And what he preached and said, he wrote; therefore, what he wrote is the Gospel. 26. But if Paul’s writings were the Gospel, then Peter’s was the Gospel, and in general everything that arranged the coming of Christ and prepared and created His coming for souls who want to let in the Word of God, standing at the door, knocking (cf. Rev. 3:20) and wanting to enter souls. 27. It’s time to explore what is hidden behind the name “Gospel” and why these books have such an inscription. So, “evangelism” is a speech containing an announcement of useful things that, as it should be, please the listener when he receives what is announced. Such speech is no less evangelical if it is examined in relation to the listener. Either evangelism is speech that contains a present benefit for the one who believes [it], or it announces the presence of an expected benefit. 28. All the definitions we have said are suitable for [the books] called Gospels, since each Gospel, being a collection of messages useful to the believer and beneficial to those who do not pervert [them], evokes, as it should, joy, teaching about the saving coming for people of the “begotten before every creation” (Col. 1:15) Jesus Christ. But it is also clear to any believer that each Gospel is a speech teaching about the coming of those who wish to receive the Good Father in [His] Son. 29. It is also obvious that through these books the desired good is proclaimed, for John the Baptist expresses the voice of almost every people by sending to Jesus [to ask]: “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect another?” (Matthew 11:3) - for Christ was the good expected by the people, about which the prophets announced. All who were under the Law and the Prophets, down to ordinary people, placed their hope in Him, as the Samaritan woman testifies, saying: “I know that the Messiah, who is called Christ, will come; when He comes, He will tell us everything” (John 4:25). 30. In the same way, Simon 33 and Cleopas, “talking with each other about everything that happened” (cf. Luke 24:14) with Jesus, say to the risen Christ Himself, not yet knowing about His resurrection from the dead: “Do you really live alone in Jerusalem and do not know about what has happened in it these days?” - To the one who asked: “About what?” - they answer: “What happened to Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet, powerful in deed and word before God and all the people; how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him up to be condemned to death and crucified Him; but we hoped that He was the One who was to deliver Israel” (Luke 24:18-21). 31. To these [examples one can add] the words of Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, who found his brother Simon: “We have found the Messiah, which means Christ in translation” (John 1:41). And a little later, Philip, having found Nathanael, tells him: “We have found the One about whom Moses wrote in the Law and the Prophets - Jesus, the son of Joseph, from Nazareth” (John 1:45). 32. Perhaps they will resist the first definition, since [books] not inscribed with the Gospels also fall under it: after all, the Law and the Prophets are “words containing an announcement of useful things, joyful, as it should be, to the listener when he receives what is proclaimed” 34. 33. To this we can say that before the coming of Christ the Law and the Prophets, since He who explains the mysteries contained in them had not yet appeared, had no proclamation in the sense of the Gospel definition. The Savior, having come and made the Gospel bodily 35, made all [books] as if it were the Gospel. 34. And we will not be far from the goal if we use as proof [the words]: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump” (Gal. 5:9). That * * * the sons of men to His Divinity, having removed the veil [lying] on the Law and the Prophets (cf. 2 Cor. 3:14-16), pointed to the Divine [character] of all [Old Testament books], clearly presenting to those who wish to become disciples of His wisdom, what is true in the Mosaic law, “the image and shadow” of which the ancients “served” (Heb. 8:5), and what is the truth of historical events that “happened to them [the Jews] figuratively, but were described for the sake of us who have reached the last centuries” (1 Cor. 10:11). 35. After all, everyone to whom Christ came no longer worships God, either in Jerusalem or on the mountain of the Samaritans, but, having learned that “God is Spirit,” spiritually serves Him “in spirit and truth” (John 4:24) and no longer figuratively worships the Father and Creator of all. 36. So, before the Gospel, which arose due to the coming of Christ, not one of the ancient [books] was the Gospel. The Gospel, being the New Testament, made shining in the light of knowledge the never-decaying “renewal of the spirit,” which separated us from the “old letter” (Rom. 7:6), characteristic of the New Testament itself, but contained in all Scripture. This means that the Gospel - the real reason for what is considered the Gospel in the Old Testament - should be called primarily “Gospel”. 37. However, it should be known that even before His appearance in the body, Christ’s coming was intelligibly perfect (and not children, still subject to mentors and trustees [cf. Gal. 4:2]), for whom the “fulness of the time” had already come (Gal. 4:4), such as, for example, the patriarchs, “the servant Moses” (cf. Heb. 3:5) and who saw the glory of Christ prophets. 38. Just as before His manifest coming in the body He came to the perfect 36, so after the foretold coming - to infants, since they are “subject to trustees and stewards” (Gal. 4:2) and have not yet reached the “fullness of time”, 37 the forerunners of Christ appeared [before] - words adapted to children’s souls and rightly called “schoolmasters” (cf. Gal. 3:24-25), but not yet the Son Himself, the glorified God the Word, Waiting for the proper preparation for the people of God who have the capacity to contain His Divinity. 39. It should also be known that just as there is a [Mosaic] “law containing a shadow of the good things to come” (Heb. 10:1), which is the [Gospel] law proclaimed according to the truth, so [the] Gospel itself - understood, as it is believed, by all readers - teaches [only] the shadow of Christ’s sacraments. 40. The same Gospel, which John speaks of as “eternal” (cf. Rev. 14:6), but which can actually be called “spiritual,” clearly presents to those who understand everything right (cf. Proverbs 8:9) about the Son of God Himself and the sacraments represented by His words, and the things hinted at by His deeds. Therefore, it becomes clear that just as there is a Jew on the outside (cf. Rom. 2:28) and the circumcised one, and there is something on the outside and in secret (cf. Rom. 2:29), so is the Christian and baptism. 41. Paul and Peter, who were formerly Jews and circumcised on the outside, later received from Christ [the ability] to be such in secret, for the sake of the salvation of many, according to oikonomia, not only confessing in words, but also demonstrating by deeds (cf. James 2:18) that they are Jews on the outside. The same must be said about their Christianity. 42. And how impossible it was for Paul to help the Jews according to the flesh if he did not circumcise Timothy (cf. Acts 16:3) at the request of common sense (cf. Acts 16:3) and, when it is blessed, he did not become shaved (cf. Acts 21:24) ) and those who make offerings and, in general, Jews with Jews, in order to “win the Jews” (cf. 1 Cor. 9:20) 38 , so what is put forward for the benefit of many by “secret” Christianity alone cannot make those who are the first in “outer” Christianity better and lead to greater and higher things. 43. Therefore, it is necessary to be a Christian [both] spiritually and physically, and where we must proclaim the gospel of the body, saying to carnal (cf. 1 Cor. 3:3) [people]: “I know nothing except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (cf. 1 Cor. 2:2), - you need to do this. When those guided by the Spirit and “bearing fruit” (cf. Col. 1:10) are in Him, desiring heavenly Wisdom, then they should be introduced to the Word that returned after the incarnation (ἐπανελθόντος ἀπὸ τοῦ σεσαρκῶσθαι) to what “was in the beginning to God” (John 1:2) 39. 44. In our opinion, it was not useless to say this, examining [the meaning of the word] “gospel”, mentally distinguishing, as it were, the sensible Gospel from the intelligible and spiritual. 45. And now [we] must translate the sensual Gospel into the spiritual. For what [meaning] would the interpretation of the sensory have without translating it into the spiritual? None or little and [would be the occupation of] anyone who is convinced that he understands the meaning [based on] the letter. 46. But all our effort at the present moment [should be aimed at] trying to reach the depths of the Gospel thought and explore in it the naked truth beyond the [veil] images (γυμνὴν τὺπων). 47. If we understand the good things proclaimed in the gospel, [it is clear that] the apostles preach Jesus, and when they say that the Resurrection is preached by them, then it is somehow Jesus, for Jesus says: “I am the Resurrection” (John 11:25); Jesus [himself] preaches the gospel to the poor (cf. Luke 4:18 [Isa. 61:1]; Matt. 11:5; Matt. 5:3) intended for the saints, calling them to divine promises. 48. And Divine Scripture confirms the gospel of the apostles and our Savior. David speaks of the apostles, and perhaps also of the evangelists: “The Lord will give the word to those who bring good news with much power, the king of the powers of the beloved” (Ps. 67:12-13), - teaching at the same time that conviction is achieved not by the weaving of words, 40 by the manner of expression or by trained eloquence, 41 but by the presence of Divine power. 49. That is why Paul says in one place: “I know not the words of those who are proud, but power, for the kingdom of God is not in words, but in power” (1 Cor. 4:19-20), and in another: “And my word and my preaching are not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and power” 42. 50. Simon and Cleopas testify to this power when they say: “Did not our heart burn along the way when He opened the Scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:32). The apostles - since God gives power to those who preach to varying degrees - had great power, according to David: “The Lord will give the word to those who preach the gospel with much power” (Ps. 67:12). 51. Isaiah, saying: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news” (Rom. 10:15 [cf. Is. 52:7 Masorah]) 43, - implies the beauty and timeliness of the preaching of the apostles, following Him who said: “I am the Way” (John 14:6), - praising the “feet” that walk the intelligent path of Jesus Christ and those entering through the Door (cf. John 10:9) to God. These, whose feet are beautiful, preach the “good” gospel, Jesus. 52. And let them not be surprised at our interpretation that by the word “good” in the plural the gospel of Jesus is preached, for having understood what is hidden behind the names by which the Son of God is called, we understand how Jesus, whom those whose “beautiful feet” preach the gospel of, is many good things. 53. The first good is life: Jesus is life (cf. John 14:6). Another good is “the light of the world” (John 8:12); “light”, which is “true” (John 1:9); “the light of man” (John 1:4): all this is called the Son of God. Another mental good, besides life and light, is truth; in addition, the fourth is the path leading to it. Our Savior teaches and says that all these [goods] are He: “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life” (John 14:6). 54. How is it not good that “he who shook off the dust” (cf. Is. 52:2) and deadness 45 rose again, becoming a partaker of this thanks to the Lord, since He is the Resurrection, as He says: “I am the Resurrection” (John 11:25). But the door through which one ascends to the pinnacle of bliss is also a blessing. Christ says: “I am the Door” (John 10:9). 55. What can we say about Wisdom, which God “created” as the beginning of His ways in His works” (Prov. 8:22), with which her Father rejoiced, rejoicing in her intelligent “manifold” (Eph. 3:10) beauty, visible only with intelligent eyes and calling the one contemplating Divine beauty to heavenly love? After all, Divine Wisdom is a good about which together with the above, those whose “feet are beautiful” preach the gospel. 56. But the power of God (cf. Rom. 1:16), which is Christ, is ranked by us among the eighth good. 57. One cannot ignore God the Word, who is after the Father of all, 46 for this good is no less than any other. So, blessed are those who received these blessings and received them from those who preach the gospel with “beautiful feet.” 58. Moreover, if someone, like the Corinthian, in whose presence Paul argues that he knows “nothing except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2), having learned, accepts the Man [incarnate] for us, then he is “at the beginning” of good things, having become, thanks to the Man Jesus, “a man of God” (cf. 1 Tim. 6:11) and having died for sin by His death, for [about] Jesus [it is said]: “that he died... for sin... he died once” (Rom. 6:10) 47. 59. From His life, since [it is said about] Jesus: “Whoever lives, lives for God” (ibid.) 48 - everyone who has become conformed to His resurrection receives [grace] to live for God (cf. Rom. 6:10). Who will doubt whether righteousness, sanctification, and redemption are good in themselves 49 ? After all, those who preach the gospel of Jesus also preach the gospel to them, claiming that He has become for us “righteousness... from God,... sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30). 60. Based on these difficult-to-count texts about Jesus and imagining how He is a multitude of good things, it will be possible to guess about [other good things] existing in Him in whom all the fullness of the Divinity was pleased to dwell bodily (cf. Col. 1:19; Col. 2:9), but not contained in what is written. 61. But what do I say to “the written ones,” when John says about the whole world that “the world itself cannot contain the books that are written” (John 21:25)? 62. Consequently, it is the same thing to say that the apostles “preach the good news of the Savior” and “preach the good gospel” (cf. Rom. 10:15 [Isa. 52:7]). For this He received from the good Father to be a multitude of good things, so that everyone might find himself among good things, taking through Jesus this or those [goods] that he contains. 63. And even the apostles, whose “feet” are “beautiful,” and their zealous followers would not have been able to “preach the good news” if Jesus had not first preached these good things to them, as Isaiah says: “He who speaks, here am I; like spring 50 on the mountains, like the feet of one who brings good tidings of peace, like one who brings good news, for by those who hear I will work out your salvation, saying to Zion: “Your God will reign!” (Isa. 52:6–7). 64. What kind of mountains are these, on which the speaker Himself acknowledges His presence, if not those [prophets], in no way less than the highest and greatest [mountains] on earth, which must be explored by “able ministers of the New Testament” (2 Cor. 3:5-6) in order to keep the commandment that reads: “Upon a high mountain, he who preaches the good news to Zion, exalt,... he who brings good news to Jerusalem... with with the power of his voice" (Is. 40:9) 51. 65. It is not surprising that Jesus preaches good news to those who have good news, since good things are none other than He Himself. For the Son of God preaches the gospel of Himself to those who can know Him without [the mediation of] others. However, He who ascends the mountains and brings good tidings to them [the prophets], Taught by the good Father, who commands “the sun to rise... on the evil and the good, and sending rain on the just and the unjust” (Matthew 5:45), does not despise the poor in soul (cf. Matt. 5:3). 66. For to them He preaches the good news, as He Himself testifies, having taken [the book of] Isaiah and read: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, for He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor and has sent Me... to preach liberation to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind”;... closing the book and giving it to the servant, He sat down”; and when all [eyes] were fixed on Him... he says: “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:18-21 [Isa. 61:1]). 67. You need to know that the Gospel also covers every good deed done for Jesus, such as [the act of a woman] who did evil deeds (cf. Luke 7:37), but repented and was able, thanks to sincere removal from evil, to pour incense on Jesus (cf. Mk. 14:3) and spread the smell of peace throughout the house (cf. John 12:3 ), smelled by everyone [who was] in it 52. 68. That is why it is written: “Wherever this Gospel is preached to all nations, what she did will also be told in her memory” (Matthew 26:13). It is clear that the [good deeds] performed for His disciples relate to Jesus. After all, pointing to those who have experienced good, He says to those who created it: “To whom you did it, you did it to Me” (Matthew 25:40) - so that every good deed we have done towards our neighbor is included in the Gospel, written on the heavenly tablets and read by everyone who is worthy of the knowledge of everything. 69. But on the other hand, part of the Gospel is set aside for the denunciation of those who have sinned against Jesus. 70. The Gospel also includes the betrayal of Judas (Mark 14:10); and the cries of the wicked people: “Destroy such a one from the land!” (Acts 22:22); and: “Crucify Him, crucify Him!” (Luke 23:21); and the mockery of those who crowned Him with thorns (cf. Matt. 27:29); and the like. 71. Therefore, we can conclude that anyone who betrays the disciples of Jesus is considered a traitor to Jesus. In fact, He [says] [still] to the persecutor [of Christians] Saul: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” - and: “I am Jesus, whom you persecute” (Acts 9:4-5). 72. Who are the owners of the thorns with which they crown Jesus, dishonoring [Him]? These are those suppressed by “cares, wealth and the pleasures of this life”, who, having received the Word of God, “do not bear fruit” (Luke 8:14). 73. Therefore, let us beware lest we, as having crowned Christ with our thorns, be written down [on the tablets] and as such be read by those who know Jesus, who dwells in everyone and with all rational [beings] or saints, and [knowing] how He is anointed with ointment (Luke 7:38), treated to a table (cf. Matt. 25:35) and glorified or, on the contrary, dishonored, suffers ridicule and beatings (Matthew 27, 29 ff.). 74. We needed to say this in order to show how our good deeds and the sins of the erring are included in the Gospel - either in “eternal life” or in “eternal reproach and shame” (Dan. 12:2). 75. If among people there are evangelists who are honored by such service (cf. 2 Tim. 4:5), and even Jesus Himself preaches the good gospel (cf. Is. 52:7 [Rom. 10:15]) and preaches the good news to the poor (cf. Is. 61:1 [Luke 4:18]), then “angels”, created by God “spirits,” and “ The servants of the “Father of all, who are “a flame of fire” (Heb. 1:7; cf. Ps. 103:4), should not be deprived of [the honor] of being evangelists themselves. 76. Therefore, the angel, “appearing to” the shepherds and making sure that “the glory [of the Lord] shone around them” (cf. Luke 2:9), says to them: “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which will be to all the people, because today a Savior has been born to you in the city of David, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:10-11). While people do not yet understand the gospel mystery, their more powerful [higher powers], the heavenly army of God, say, giving praise to God: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men” (Luke 2:14). 77. Having said this, the angels leave the shepherds for heaven, leaving us to understand how the “joy” announced to us by the Nativity of Christ Jesus is “glory to God in the highest” “to those who humble themselves with the finger” (cf. Ps. 43:26), when they return to their rest (cf. Ps. 114:7) and gather in the highest through Christ to glorify God 53. 78. But the angels still marvel at the coming peace on earth thanks to Jesus - this place of battle, where (lit. into which) the star that fell from heaven, rising in the morning (Is. 14:12) is crushed by Jesus. 79. In addition to what has been said, you need to know about the Gospel that it is first of all the Gospel of the Head of the whole body (cf. Col. 1:18, etc.) of those who are being saved, Jesus Christ, as Mark says: “The beginning of the Gospel of Christ Jesus” (Mark 1:1 with a rearrangement of words), but also of the apostles, which is why Paul says: “According to my gospel” (Rom. 2:16). 80. Moreover, the beginning of the Gospel (for it has dimensions: beginning, continuation, middle and end) is either the entire Old Testament 54, the image of which is John (cf. Matt. 11:9), or its end, represented by John (cf. Matt. 11:13), as the boundary between the Old Testament and the New. 81. After all, the same Mark says: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “Behold, I am sending My angel before You, who will prepare Your way.” “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: prepare the way of the Lord, make... his paths straight” 55. 82. Therefore, I am surprised how heterodox 56 attribute both Testaments to two gods, convicted no less [than others] by this text. How can John, in their own opinion, be the beginning of the Gospel, since he is a man of another god, the demiurge, and does not know, as they believe, the new deity? 83. However, the gospel ministry entrusted to the angels is not [limited] to just one and insignificant [good news] to the shepherds (Luke 2:8 ff.), for at the end of [times] an angel flying through the sky with the Gospel will preach the gospel to every people, because the good Father does not abandon forever those who have fallen away from Him. 84. Indeed, John, the son of Zebedee, says in Revelation: “And I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth, and to every nation and kindred and tongue and people, and said with a loud voice: Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come, and worship Him who made heaven and earth, and the sea and the springs of water” (Rev. 14, 6–7). 85. Nevertheless, since we have presented that the entire Old Testament, designated by the name of John, according to one interpretation, is “the beginning of the Gospel” (Mark 1: 1), then, in order not to leave this understanding unproven, we will propose what is said in Acts about the eunuch of the queen of Ethiopia and Philip, namely: “Philip,... beginning from the scripture... Isaiah: “Like a sheep “he was led to the slaughter, and like a silent lamb before the shearers,” he preached to him about the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:30–35 [Isa. 53:7]). How can he, starting from the prophet, preach the gospel about Jesus, if Isaiah was not some part of the beginning of the Gospel? 86. By this we can at the same time confirm what we said before, that all Divine Scripture is the Gospel: if the one who preaches the gospel preaches good news (cf. Isa. 52:7 [Rom. 10:15]), and all [the prophets] before the bodily coming of Christ preached Christ, who is “good,” as we have shown, then the words of all of them are to some extent part of the Gospel. 87. The Gospel, which is said to be told “in the whole world” (Matthew 26:13, cf. Rom. 1:8) 57, we [and] understand as being proclaimed “in the whole world” - not only the earthly space, but also the entire sum of heaven and earth or heaven and earth 58. 88. But why drag out the conversation about what the Gospel is? All that has been said is already enough so that [people] not unsophisticated can, [based] on these [examples], cite similar [places] from Scripture and see how glorious are the good things in Jesus Christ, from the Gospel, who is served by people and angels, and in my opinion, principalities, and powers, and thrones (cf. Col. 1:16), and dominions, and “every name that is named not only in this century, but also in the future” (Eph. 1:21), even if Christ Himself [served the gospel]. With this we will conclude the preface to the joint reading of what is written [in the Gospel of John]. 89. Now let us ask God to help us through Christ in the Holy Spirit to discover the mysterious meaning contained, as in a treasury, in the [gospel] words. “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1) 90. It is not only the Hellenes who assert that the word “beginning” has many meanings, for if anyone examines this term comprehensively and wants to know exactly what it refers to in each place of the Scriptures, he will discover the ambiguity of the name in the Divine Word 59. 91. One of them is the “beginning” of the transition, that is, the path and extent, as follows from [the phrase]: “The beginning of a good path is to do what is righteous” (Proverbs 16:6). After all, the “good path” can be very long: first [by it] we must mean practical activity, which is meant by [the words] “doing what is righteous,” and then contemplative activity, on which the path ends - in the so-called final “restoration” (ἀποκαταστάσει) 60, since then there will not be a single enemy left, unless [what is said] is true: “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death” (1 Cor. 15:25-26). 92. Then there will be one activity for those who come to God through His Word - to contemplate God, so that in [such] knowledge of the Father the Son will be depicted in perfection in all (cf. Gal. 4:19) 61, as now the Son alone knows the Father. 93. If someone diligently investigates when those to whom the Son who knows the Father reveals the Father are recognized (cf. Matt. 11:27), and sees that the one who sees now sees “through a mirror and fortune-telling” (cf. 1 Cor. 13:12), “not yet knowing as he should know” (cf. 1 Cor. 8:2), I would not be mistaken in saying that no one - be it an apostle or prophet (cf. Eph. 3:5) - does not know the Father, but [they will know] when they become one, as the Son and the Father are one (cf. John 10:30; 17:21). 94. If it seems to someone that we have deviated to the side, clarifying one of the meanings of the word “beginning” and saying [all] this, then he should point out that this digression is necessary and useful for our presentation. After all, if there can be a “beginning” of transition, path and length, and “the beginning of a good path is to do what is righteous” (Prov. 16:6), then one can know whether any good path has a “beginning... - to do what is righteous,” and after the “beginning” there is contemplation, and how contemplation. 95. But there is also a “beginning” of creation, as could be shown from [the words]: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1), although this meaning is expressed more clearly, I believe, in Job: “This is the beginning of the creation (πλάσματος) of the Lord, created to be mocked by His angels” (Job 40:14). 96. Another might assume that of what was created at the creation of the world “at the beginning” refers [only] to “heaven and earth,” but it is better, according to the second quotation 62, to consider that of the many corporeal beings, the first [created was a creature] called the “dragon,” also called, however, the “great whale,” which the Lord “overcame” (Job 3:8; cf. 2 Pet. 2, 4). 97. It is necessary to dwell on the fact that if all the saints live in bliss in a completely immaterial and incorporeal life, then the one called “dragon”, having fallen from pure life, was according to his merits first of all bound by matter and body (cf. Jude 6; 2 Pet. 2:4), so that for this reason the Lord could, speaking “through the storm and the clouds” (Job 38:1), say: “This is the beginning of the creation of the Lord, created to be mocked by His angels" (Job 40:14). 98. However, it is possible that the dragon is not the beginning of the creation of the Lord in general, but - since many corporeal [creatures] were created "to be mocked by the angels" - the beginning of [only] the latter, since some can remain in the body differently, as, for example, the soul of the sun [is] in the body 63 and all creation, about which the apostle says: “The whole creation ... groans and is tormented until now” (Rom. 8:22) 64. 99. Perhaps it is [said] about her: “The creation was subjected to vanity, not voluntarily, but by the will of him who subjected [it] to hope” (Rom. 8:20) 65, so that by “vanity” we would [imply] bodies and bodily affairs, which is inevitable for [those who are] in the body. He who [lives] in the body does not create bodily things according to his own will; therefore the creation was subjected to vanity against its will. 100. And he who does not voluntarily do bodily works does them for the sake of hope, as if we said that Paul wants to “remain in the flesh” (Phil. 1:24) not of his own will, but because of hope, since it was not unreasonable, preferring in itself - “to be resolved and to be with Christ” (Phil. 1:23), to want to “remain in the flesh” for the benefit of others and advancement (cf. Phil. 1:25) not only of one’s own in the desired [benefits], but also of those who benefit from it. 101. Similarly, we can interpret the words of Wisdom in Proverbs as denoting the “beginning” of creation: God “made me the beginning of His ways in His works” (Proverbs 8:22) - however, this [phrase] can also be attributed to the first [meaning], i.e. [the beginning] of the path, because it is said: God “made me the beginning of His ways.” 102. It would not be absurd to call the “beginning” the God of all, citing as obvious proof (σαφῶς προπίπτων) 66 that the beginning of the Son is the Father, [as] the beginning of creatures is the Creator, 67 and in general God is the Beginning of everything. The proof will be supported by [the verse]: “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1), meaning by the Word the Son, of whom it is said that He is “in the beginning”, due to His being in the Father. 103. Thirdly, the beginning is that from which everything [came] as from substratum matter, as those who consider it uncreated 68 think, but not we 69, who are convinced that God created the existing from the non-existent, as taught by the mother of the seven martyrs in the [books of] Maccabees (2 Maccabees 7:28) and the angel of repentance in the “Shepherd” 70. 104. In addition, “beginning” is “by what”, for example 71 “by idea” 72; so, if “the image of the invisible God is the Firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15), then His beginning is the Father. Likewise, Christ is the beginning of those created “in the image of God” (Gen. 1:27). 105. For if people are “in the image”, and the image is in the Father, then the “for which” of Christ is the Father, the beginning, and the “for which” of people, who were created not according to what 73 is the image 74, but in the image, is Christ 75. “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1) would fit the same example. 106. There is also a beginning of knowledge, on the basis of which we say that the art of writing begins with letters. Therefore, the apostle says: “In time you should have been teachers, but you must again be taught the basics of the words of God” (Heb. 5:12). 107. But the beginning as [the beginning] of knowledge is twofold: one is by nature, the other is in relation to us. So, if we were talking about Christ, His beginning by nature is Divinity, and in relation to us, who cannot approach the truth (ἄρξασθαι τῆζ ἀληθείαζ) about Him because of His greatness 76 - His Humanity, why to infants (cf. 1 Cor. 3, 1 and etc.) Jesus Christ is proclaimed, and He is crucified (cf. 1 Cor. 2:2). Therefore, Christ, so to speak, by nature is the beginning of knowledge, since He is the Wisdom and Power of God (cf. 1 Cor. 1:24), but for our sake “the Word became flesh to dwell in us” (John 1:14) 77, at first only so capable of containing Him. 108. Therefore, perhaps, He is not only “the Firstborn of all creation” (cf. Col. 1:15), but also “Adam,” which means “man.” And the fact that He is Adam, says Paul: “The last Adam is a life-giving spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45). There is also the beginning of an activity, in which, after the beginning, there is a certain end. Consider again whether Wisdom, which is the beginning of the works of God (cf. Proverbs 8:22), can also be considered the beginning 78. 109. Since we have now identified so many meanings for [the word] “beginning,” let us examine to which one should be attributed “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1). It is clear that it does not refer to [the meaning of] transition, path or extent; it is no less obvious that it is not about creation. 110. However, it is possible that [means] an active creative principle (τὁ ύφ´ ού, Óπερ στˆ ποιοàν), since God “commanded”, “and they were created” (cf. Ps. 148:5). For in some respect, Christ is the Creator, to whom the Father says: “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3), and: “Let there be firmament” (Gen. 1:6) 79. 111. The creator is Christ as the beginning, since He is Wisdom, for due to the fact that He is Wisdom, He is called the beginning. After all, Wisdom says in Solomon: “God made me the beginning of His ways in His works” (Prov. 8:22), so that “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1) [meaning] “in Wisdom”: Wisdom is thought according to the structure of speculation 80 regarding the universe and plans, the Word is taken from the side of communication to rational [beings] of what is seen. 112. And one should not be surprised if the Savior, being, as we said earlier, a multitude of goods distinguished in the mind, contains in Himself the first, second and third [goods]. After all, John, speaking about the Word, added: “What happened was life in Him” (John 1:3-4) 81. This means that life occurred in the Word, and neither the Word (God the Word, Who is the Father, through whom all things came into being (cf. John 1:1-3) is different from Christ, nor life is different from the Son of God, Who says: “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life" (John 14:6). So, just as life happened in the Word, so the Word was in the beginning. 113. Consider now whether we may not interpret “In the beginning was the Word” in accordance with this meaning, 82 so that everything should happen according to Wisdom and the patterns of the plan conceived in Him [the Word]. 114. For I believe that just as a building or a ship is built or erected according to architectural models, while a building or a ship begins with models in the mind of the master 83, so everything happened according to the logoi of future [creatures] ordained by God in Wisdom, because He created everything by Wisdom (ἑν σοφία) (cf. Ps. 103:24) 84. 115. It should be added that God, who created, so to speak, animate Wisdom, entrusted to Her beings and matter - formation, and species, and, as I assume, essences. 116. So, it is not difficult to say more generally that the beginning of everything is the Son of God, who says: “I am... The Beginning and the End,.. Alpha and Omega,.. The First and the Last” (cf. Rev. 22:13). But it is necessary to know that He is not the beginning of everything that He is called. 117. For how can He be the beginning [because] because (καθ´ ὂ) He is the life that came into being in the Word, which is obviously its beginning? 85 And it is even clearer that He cannot be the beginning [because] He is the “Firstborn from the dead” (Col. 1:18). 118. And if we diligently examine all his names, then He is the beginning only by being Wisdom, and is not the beginning by being the Word, since “the Word... in the beginning... was” (cf. John 1:1). Therefore, one could safely say that the oldest [epithets] conceivable in the names of “the Firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15) is Wisdom. 119. So, God is completely one and simple. Our Savior, because of the multiplicity [of creation], since “God offered ... Him ... as a propitiation” (Rom. 3:25) and the firstfruits of all creation, becomes a multitude [of things] or even, perhaps, everything that every creature needs from Him that can be liberated (cf. Rom. 8:21). 120. Therefore, He becomes a light for people when, darkened by vice, they need a light that shines in darkness and is not enveloped by darkness (cf. John 1:5): if people had not found themselves in darkness, He would not have become a light for people. 121. In a similar way, one must think about the fact that “He is... the firstborn of the dead” (Col. 1:18, cf. Rev. 1:5): after all, if, suppose, the wife had not been deceived and Adam had not fallen (see Gen. 3), and man, created for incorruptibility (cf. Wis. 2:23), had achieved this incorruptibility, He would not have descended “into the dust of death.” new" (Ps. 21:16) and would not have died, since the sin for which He had to die for the sake of [His] love for people would not have existed; and if He had not done this, He would not have become “the firstborn from the dead.” 122. It is necessary to examine whether He would have become a shepherd if man had not been attached to the foolish beasts and had not become like them (cf. Ps. 48:13). For if God “saves men and beasts” (Ps. 35:7), then He saves those cattle whom He saves by giving them a shepherd, because they cannot accept a king. 123. So, he who has collected the names of the Son must examine which of them would have appeared without existing in such numbers if the saints had been in the original bliss. Perhaps, only [the names] Wisdom, Word and Life, and certainly Truth, would remain, but all the others that He accepted for our sake would not be there. 124. Blessed are all those who, needing the Son of God, have become such that they no longer need the doctor himself, who treats the sick, or the shepherd, or redemption, but Wisdom, the Word, Justice or any other [good] for those who are able, by virtue of [their] perfection, to contain [all] the best [that] He has. Enough about [the words] “In the beginning” (John 1:1). But not the very first among the works and interpretations of Origen. Previously, he wrote interpretations of the Psalms and Lamentations of Jeremiah, the treatise “On the Resurrection” and some others. The “Commentaries” are contemporary with the treatise “On the Beginnings”: both works have much in common in certain topics (for example, on the polemics with Gnosticism in the work “On the Beginnings”, see: “Le Boulluec A.” La place de la polémique antignostique dans le Peri archon Origeniana. Premier colloque international des études origéniennes (Montserrat, 18–21 September 1973) Dirigé par Henri Crouzel, Gennaro Lomiento, Josep Rius-Camps (Quaderni di “Vetera Christianorum”, 12, 1975. P. 47–61), and in the spirit itself. A famous French scientist, a leading specialist of the last century in the study of Origen's heritage. He compiled, in particular, an excellent annotated bibliography (with indexes and continuations) of all studies on the Alexandrian theologian, which greatly facilitates orientation in modern scientific literature. Crouzel H." Origin. P., 1985. P. 70. Interpretations of only the first two have been translated into Russian. A detailed analysis of the interpretations of Heracleon and Origen using the example of Book XIII of the Commentaries is presented in the study: “Poffet J. M.” La méthode exégétique d'Héracléon et d'Origène, commentateurs de Jn. 4. Jésus, la Samaritaine et les Samaritains. Friborg: Éd. Universitaires, 1985 (Paradosis XXVIII). 304 p. Possible dates are based on Origen's mention (I, 13) of separation from Ambrose. According to one understanding, we are talking about Origen’s absence in 224–225 to Antioch at the invitation of Mammaea, the mother of Emperor Alexander Severus (cf. “Eusebius,” “Ecclesiastical History” VI, 21, 3–4; 23, 1). According to another interpretation, in this place Origen implies the temporary absence of Ambrose in Alexandria in 215–216 due to the persecution of philosophers by Caracalla. in Iohannem libros xxxii, in partes quasdam Iohannis excerptorum librum i... . The number 22, given by “Eusebius” in “Ecclesiastical History” VI, 24, 1, is clearly incorrect and can be explained either by a copyist’s error or by the incompleteness of the copy of the Caesarea Library. There is no information that Origen managed to write more than 32 books. Three fragments that came down in catenas on the subsequent books of the Gospel of John (on John 14, 3; 17, 11 and 20, 25. See: “Origenes”. Bd. IV Hrsg. E. Preuschen. Leipzig, 1903. S. 560–562, 574) could have been taken from other works of Origen or from those excerpts mentioned Jerome. Perhaps Origen himself subsequently changed the nature of the commentaries, moving to the genre of scholia on individual passages. I mean the homilies on the Song of Songs, translated into Russian twice. Although the name of Origen was preserved only in the acts of the local Council of Constantinople, the condemnation was confirmed by subsequent Ecumenical Councils. For more details, see, for example: Writings of ancient Christian apologists. [M.;] St. Petersburg, 1999. pp. 478–479, note. 193. Right there. pp. 476–479. Let us recall that in the dogmatic-philosophical treatise “On the Principles” Origen included a special exegetical part, which greatly influenced the Cappadocians. For the first (as far as I know) experience of such work, see the article: “A. G. Dunaev.” On the boundaries of poetic allegory in the interpretation of Holy Scripture (using the example of the image of a mountain in Origen and in patristic exegesis) Christian East. New series. T. 4. St. Petersburg, 2003 (in print). Electronic version: http":www.danuvius.orthodoxy.rugora.htm All manuscripts go back to the same codex, so the significance of discrepancies is not so great. Emendations: "Koetschau P". Beitrage zur Textkritik von Origenes’ Johannes-Kommentar. Leipzig, 1905. This work remained unaccounted for in the first volumes of the publication by S. Blank. Nautin." Notes critiques sur l'In Johannem" d'Origène (livres I-II) Revue des Études Grecques. 1972. T. 85. No. 404–405. P. 155–216; "Idem." Notes critiques sur l'"In Iohannem" d'Origène (livre X) Revue de philologie, littérature et histoire anciennes. 1981. T. 55. Fasc. 2. P. 273–284; "Idem." Notes critiques sur l'"In Iohannem" d'Origène (livres XIII, XIX et XX) Ibidem". 1985. T. 59. Fasc. 1. P. 63–75. Corsini" (Eugenio"). Commento al Vangelo di Giovanni. Torino, 1968. (Classici della Filosofia.) 950 p., ind. The work “Vogt H” is devoted to the general characteristics of the “Commentaries” and the theology of Origen reflected in them. Beobachtungen zum Johannes-Kommentar des Origenes Theologische Quartalschrift CLXX (1990), 191–208. Pazzini D. “In principio era il Logos: Origene e il prologo del vangelo di Giovanni. Brescia, 1983. 139 p. Petrov A.V., Tsyb A.V.” Controversy between two commentators on the Gospel according to John (Heracleon and Origen) Man, nature, society. Proceedings of the 8th international conference of young scientists December 22–28, 1997 St. Petersburg. 1997. pp. 36–40; "Panteleev A.D., Petrov A.V., Tsyb A.V." Fragments of Heracleion the Gnostic from Origen’s treatise “Commentary on the Gospel of John” AKADEMEIA. Materials and research on the history of Platonism. Interuniversity collection. Vol. 2 Ed. Doctor of Philosophy Sciences R.V. Svetlova and Ph.D. Philosopher Sciences A.V. Tsyba. St. Petersburg, 2000, pp. 305–328. This project was supported by the Russian Humanitarian Fund in 1997. I then intended to translate the “Commentaries” in full and, having collected all the necessary literature and made a test translation, submitted a corresponding application to the Foundation at the same time as A.V. Petrov, knowing nothing about the latter’s intentions. As a result of the decision of the Russian Humanitarian Fund, which provided a grant to A. V. Petrov, I had to abandon the plan, but the translation of the “Commentaries” has not yet appeared and I do not know whether A. V. Petrov is going to complete this work. Wed. Ref. 7.26 (8.1 wt); 8, 16 (8, 20); Lion. 26, 12; Deut. 7, 6; Os. 2, 25 (Rom. 9, 25), etc.; letters only in the NT (cf. Heb. 11:25). “internally” in the Synodal translation. Patron of Origen, who provided cursive writers at his disposal. Many other works of Origen are also addressed to Ambrose. The Levites and priests, according to the Old Testament regulations, received tithes and firstfruits from the children of Israel (Num. 18, 21–24; Deut. 18:1–8, 26:1–15; Neh. 10 [2 Ezra 20 LXX], 32–39), and the Levites gave a tenth of their tithes to God through the (high) priest (Num. 18, 28; Neh. 10, 38). The Law does not specifically mention tithing from the firstfruits, but from a comparison of the listed Old Testament texts, Origen’s assumption is quite likely. Literally: “having little communication”, therefore it can be translated as “Bl”, more neutrally (“having little in common”), but we are guided here by the meaning that the word took in the Christian dictionary. “Communion,” in addition to the Eucharistic meaning, implied very specific material assistance (cf. Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 8:4), and the Christian “agapes” themselves were unthinkable without common offerings. “Liturgy” actually means “general duty, service”: in classical antiquity, “liturgists” took on the costs of paying for public needs and events, which was a burdensome but honorable duty. According to the translation of “Bl”, a dash should be placed before “shepherds” (or, with punctuation retained, the last two words should be understood as an application or their case should be changed). Such an understanding would be in better harmony with Origen’s thought that if the evangelists are not alien to teaching, then the apostolic epistles can be called to some extent the Gospel, but the parallel cited by the translator is 1 Cor. 12, 28 hardly justifies such an interpretation. We consider another passage to be decisive - Eph. 4, 11. with reference to the catenas in the ed. Cramer II, 179, 1, where this phrase is reproduced), "Nau" (with a convincing parallel X, 32). In the first centuries, not everyone recognized or openly professed the ever-virginity of the Mother of God, although they proceeded from different considerations. For example, Tertullian considered the very fact of the birth of the Savior to be sufficient for Mary to be called both the Virgin and not the Virgin (“On the Flesh of Christ,” 23, see Russian translation: “Tertullian.” Selected Works. M., 1994. P. 185 with note 37 on p. 409). In other places (indicated at "Bl") Origen explains that the brothers of Jesus meant the sons of Joseph from his first marriage. The Evangelist Luke does not write about the name of Cleopas’ companion, but Origen calls the companion Simon in other places (for example, “Against Celsus” [PC] II, 62.68 with reference to Luke). According to the assumption of "Bl", Origen could read in Lk. 24, 34 lšgontej instead of lšgontaj, and such a reading is attested in one NT manuscript. However, there may be another explanation. According to a copyist’s note in the margin of Codex S, Cleopas’s companion on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:18) was named Simon, although Codex V in the margin contains a different scholia: “Nathanael was with Cleopas, as it is said in the Panaria of the great Epiphanius. Cleopas was the cousin of the Savior and the second bishop of Jerusalem." Quoted from: "Metzger B. M. Textology of the New Testament. M., 1996, 199 (A. R. Fokin drew our attention to this place). About manuscript S, see in the same place, p. 54: "This manuscript is considered one of the most ancient manuscripts containing the text of the Gospels; the colophon indicates that it was written by a monk named Michael in 6547 from the creation of the world (in 949). The manuscript is currently in the Vatican Library under number 354. The text type is Byzantine.” It is interesting that in liturgical texts a different, third tradition of naming Cleopas’ companion Luke was established (see, for example, the fifth exapostolary of Sunday Matins or the prayer after the Gospel reading in the “Rite of Blessing on the Journey” from the Trebnik). It would be possible, following L. Pisarev (PC, Prev. 6. Russian translation, cited from reprint: Educational and Information Ecumenical Center of the Apostle Paul, 1996), to translate “tangible,” but for Origen this is not just a figure of speech, cf. below, § 43. These words of Origen, in our opinion, diminish the significance of the Incarnation of the Son of God. If we talk about the New Testament theophanies that took place after the Ascension of Christ, then they can hardly be equated with the Old Testament appearances of God. The addition of “Kl”, “Koe”, “Nau” is considered useless. The literature devoted to the interpretation of this phrase of Origen, as if belittling the Incarnation (after all, the death of Christ was not disincarnation and a return to the previous state!), is indicated in "Pa", p. 65–66, n. 9. log M: lÒgwn Koe" Nau" (cf. fwnîn, in our translation "expression", lit. "pronouncing sounds"): lÒgou Bl". 1 Cor. 2, 4 (in a number of NT manuscripts of human wisdom"). The best NT manuscripts quote from Isa. exactly in this and abbreviated form; Apparently, it was supplemented later according to the Old Testament. In §52–62, Origen lists the different meanings of the word “good,” and in §90–108, the word “beginning.” Below, in § 125–291, he will define about forty (!) concepts behind the word lÒgoj. For a detailed commentary on these passages, see: "Crouzel H". Le contenu spirituel des dénominations du Christ selon le livre I du “Commentaire sur Jean” d’Origène Origeniana secunda. Second colloque international des études origéniennes (Bari, 20–23 September 1977) Textes rassemblés par Henri Crouzel, Antonio Quacquarelli (Quaderni di “Vetera Christianorum”, 15). Roma, 1980. P. 131–150. t¾n nekrÒthta. A neologism of Origen, which appears many times in his different works (later used by some Church Fathers, but about half of all cases of word use still occur in Origen). The word has not only physical, but also moral (as a consequence of sin) meaning. Compare, for example, below, I, 181, 268; II, 53. Wed. “Exhortation to Martyrdom” 7, lin. 22 "Koe" and note. N. Korsunsky to Russian. Transl.: "Origen". About prayer. An exhortation to martyrdom. St. Petersburg, 1897 (reprint: 1992). P. 176. Addition of Origen to the New Testament quotation from Mark. 10, 18 par. (“No one is good except God alone, the Father”), not attested in any New Testament manuscript, reflects Origen’s subordinationism of the Son in relation to the Father. “once” synod., can be translated “once for all”; see also next. note Text Rom. allows for two interpretations: “that” (Ö) can be understood as replacing the conjunction with a neuter pronoun (as in modern translations with a parallel Gal. 2, 20b), i.e. “that He died,” or as a neuter subject, i.e. “that died” (Bl), with a reservation about the difficulties of translation into French, combines ce qui). Text of the “Comments” [Comm. John] does not allow us to say with certainty which interpretation the Alexandrian exegete preferred, but from the following passage it becomes clear that Origen understood Ö in the first sense: [...] (Commentarii in Romanos III.5-V.7 P. Cair. 88748 † cod. Vat. gr. 762 Ed. J. Scherer. Le commentaire d'Origène sur Rom. III.5-V.7. Cairo, 1957. P. 222, lin. Origen uses here a number of neologisms, translated descriptively into Russian: aÙtodikaiosÚnh, aÙtoagiasmÒj, aÙtoapolÚtrwsij. See content note. 17 at "Co" on p. 133–134. Unlike § 51 (and many other similar places both in Comm. John and in other works), where Origen quotes Isa. according to the text of Rom., close to the Masoretic (modern editions of the Slavic Bible also indicate a translation or later correction of the LXX from the Hebrew original), here Isa. is given in full accordance with the LXX (for ancient translations of Aquila and other authors, see Eusebius, Dem. Ev ". VI, 24, 4 and Com. Is. II, 41). However, it should be noted that in the Greek text the difference is not as sharp as in translations into other languages, for “beautiful” in Rom. rendered as æra‹oi (actually, “blooming”), and “spring” in the Septuagint as éra (the first meaning is “period”, “blooming time”, whence “spring”). For allegories based on the word “mountain” in Origen and in the subsequent exegetical tradition, see the work “On the Limits of Poetic Allegory...” (output given above, note 12). This place shows that Comm. In. are one of the first exegetical experiments of Origen, who also mixes here (as the analysis of the text shows and as Origen directly states in fr. 78 in Ev. Io. in catenis) all the Gospel texts telling about confirmation: Lk. (mention of sins), Matt. (direct quote) and, apparently, John. (detail about the fragrance of the whole house) and Mk. (katacšai toà 'Ihsoà with the genitive case, and not with the preposition p…, as in Matthew). Later, Origen will believe that the Gospels speak of three episodes: Matt. and Mark, about another - Luke, and about another - John. For the difficulties of interpreting these Gospel passages, see the Lopukhin Explanatory Bible to Matt. 26, 7. The combination of quotations from two psalms (an allusion to Ps. 43:26, not noticed by “Bl”, and a parallel with Ps. 114:7) is of fundamental importance here. An analysis of Origen’s other interpretations of these psalm verses shows that “humility into the dust” meant for him, first of all, the acceptance of the body (by incarnated souls, angels, or even Christ at the moment of incarnation), and “rest” (“peace”) - permission from the body or cleansing of the soul and its return to the state of mind (for angels or for people performing virtuous deeds). See, for example: "Origen", Comm. In. I, 121; XX, 225. 376; “On Prayer” II, 3 (Russian translation, p. 11); PC VII, 50; Sel. in Gen. (PG 12, 136); Sel. in Ps. (Dub.) (PG 12, 1576. 1592); Fr. in Ps. 114 Ed. J. B. Pitra (Dub.); "st". Justinian”, “Letter to Mena” (from “On the Beginnings”, 2); "St. Epiphanius of Cyprus,” “Panarius” LXIV, 4 (vol. 2, p. 412 Holl). Mk. 1, 1–3 (v. 2: cf. Mal. 3, 1 [Ex. 23, 20]; v. 3: Is. 40, 3 LXX). Synod. the translation follows textus receptus. Wed. Burdock. Plot. Bible to Mk. 1, 2–4. This refers to the Gnostics, primarily Marcion. On the polemic with the latter in the works of Origen, see: “Rius-Camps J”. Orígenes y Marcion. Carácter preferentemente antimarcionita del prefacio y del segundo ciclo del “Peri Archôn” Origeniana. Premier colloque international des études origéniennes. Bari, 1975, pp. 297–312; "Spada C.A." Aspetti della polemica antimarcionita nel "Commento al Vangelo di Giovanni" Origeniana quinta. Historica – Text and Method – Biblica – Philosophica – Theologica – Origenism and Later Developments. Papers of the 5th International Origen Congress, Boston College, 14–18 August 1989 Ed. by R. J. Daly. Leuven, 1992, pp. 85–91. The definition of the world (cosmos) as the totality of heaven and earth is an echo of Stoic philosophy (see Co, pp. 141–142, n. 24). For a commentary on the paragraphs devoted to the analysis of the word “beginning”, see: “Früchtel E”. 'Arc» und das erste Buch des Johanneskommentars des Origenes Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur. Bd. 117. Berlin, 1976. S. 122–147. For the meaning of this expression in this context and for the different translations of the phrase, see "Pa", p. 45, n. 44. Let us add on our own that in this paragraph (as in a number of other places in the Comm. In.) Origen formulates the doctrine of “praxis” and “theory” that later became traditional, but the theologian sees the notorious “apocatastasis” as the last step of ascent. It is interesting to compare this “three-stage theory” with the famous trilogy of Evagrius, the last part of which - where the dogmatic errors of the follower of Origen most clearly manifested itself - survived in its original form only in the Syriac translation. Origen's publishers give up on this point. Here Origen expresses an opinion about the animation of the sun, which is also found in many of his other works. Thus, in PC V, 11, he writes that since the sun, moon and stars themselves pray to God through the Son, one should not pray to them (Russian translation, see: Orthodox St. Tikhon's Theological Institute. Theological collection. Issue 2. M., 1999. P. 59 and note 39 on pp. 56–57). In other places, Origen speaks of their subordination to the Creator, their rational soul and ethereal body (“On Prayer” 7, Russian translation, pp. 30–31; “Exhortation to Martyrdom” 7, Russian translation, pp. 176–177 with notes); but more detailed considerations are available in “On the Principles” I, 7, where Origen asks himself whether the stars as such are counted among the rank of “principles” (¢rca...) or only because they rule over day and night; writes about their submission to vanity and cites the same NT quotes as in Comm. In. 1, 98–9, including even a comparison with the Apostle Paul; etc. (see II, 8, 3, Russian translation: “Origen.” On the beginnings. Samara, 1993, p. 136, there are parallels from Jerome’s letter; II, 9, 7, p. 144; III, 5, 4, p. 234 from Jerome’s letter). In this opinion, Origen simply shared the general views of the ancients (including Philo and Clement of Alexandria, who were heavily dependent on Plato), which were also reflected in the Bible, although more secretly, in a number of places that are difficult to interpret only as poetic images. St. polemicizes with this idea. Basil the Great in the third conversation on the six days, referring to Origen (as Justinian rightly writes in his letter to Mina: Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. Vol. 3. St. Petersburg, 1996. P. 527), although without naming him by name (cf. also Origen’s first homily on the book of Genesis), and this opinion is already directly classified as heresy by Justinian (cf. two excerpts from the works of Origen in the letter to Mina: ibid., pp. 535–536). susten£zeï sten£zei Origen. Origen omits the preposition “in” hope.” prop...ptwn Pr" was replaced by prob£llwn, and "Bl" followed this conjecture (only in the translation, not in the text), but there is no need for such emendations, for both verbs here are exactly the same in meaning, but with the only significant difference that the first was used by the Stoics (Chrysippus) as a "technical term" in relation to a rash or rash argument. It seems to us that this is precisely what explains Origen’s reservation at the beginning of the phrase: oÙk ¢tÒpwj. In this phrase, the Logos in relation to the Father is characterized not only through subordinationism, but also through indirectly expressed creationism (the Son is related to the Father in the same way as creatures are to the Creator). However, the influence of Proverbs is evident here. 8, 22 - places that later served as a stumbling block in Arian disputes. This refers to pagan philosophers and Gnostics. For more details see "Co", p. 148–149, n. 35. According to Origen, matter was created, but not in time, but logically, for it is only mentally separated from rational beings who have never lived without a corporeal nature, which is characteristic only of the Trinity (On the Principles II, 2, 2, Russian translation, p. 99). At the same time, it is impossible to identify matter, which is capable of taking different forms, including very subtle ones, with the rough bodily shell. Hermas", "Shepherd": "Commandments" I, 1; “Visions” I, 1, 16. The authority of the book of Hermas, which was included by ancient Christians even in the canonical texts, in Origen is still comparable to the NT texts, although in “On the Beginnings” Origen writes about “The Shepherd” as a book neglected by some (IV, 10). For the same quotes, see “On Principles” I, 2, 5. We follow the conjecture “Pr” (We”, “Wil”; “Nau”) justified in the further text: kaq' , oO_Eon Here Origen uses the Stoic formulations (Aet. Plac ". I, 11, 4: tÕ d kaq' Ö tÕ edoj) of the traditional identification of four causes, going back to Aristotle. In Latin terminology they correspond to: causa efficiens (§ 110), causa materialis (§ 103), causa formalis (§ 104), causa finalis (cf. § 108). See "Bl" and "Co" for details. That is, those created not according to the prototype (God the Father). For § 104–105 cf. as a parallel to “On Prayer” 22 (Russian translation, p. 78). Wed. “On Principles” I, 2, 6: “So, our Savior is the image of the invisible God the Father; in relation to the Father Himself He is truth; in relation to us, by whom He reveals the Father, He is the image through whom we know the Father...” (according to Rufinus); according to Jerome, letter to Avitus: “The Son, who is the image of the invisible Father, in comparison with the Father is not the truth; but “to us, who cannot perceive the truth of almighty God,” He seems to be the image of truth; because the height and greatness of the Most High is recognized in the Son in a somewhat limited way” (Russian translation, p. 52, emphasis added). Wed. The above quotation is also from § 104–105. It is in vain to add tÕ Pr" (We"), "Bl" before the quotation. This theme is developed in § 111. The literature on the ancient Christian tradition of identifying the “beginning” with Christ is given in Pa, p. 75, no. 20. The words sÚstasij and qewr…a in Origen are extremely polysemantic (see TLG). Translation options for this difficult passage are proposed in the “Bl” edition. SÚstasij here means the existence (parallels - further, II, 93; VI, 85) of ideas as such in Christ (Who is called Wisdom when ideas are considered ad intra, and the Word when ad extra, although this difference is purely logical, kat' p...noian), but an orderly and organized existence, just as an artist has in his imagination a certain set of ordered images-models, organized into a single and harmonious whole, having to be embodied in a work. "Co" (pp. 151–152, n. 38) links the word sÚstasij with Stoic terminology. Here Origen uses a breakdown into verses that does not correspond to that accepted in the “majority text.” Due to the enormous theological significance of the formal sentence boundary, let us consider the history of the interpretation of John. 1, 3–4 in terms of punctuation; The main tool for this will be the detailed apparatus in The Greek New Testament. 4th Rev. Ed. by B. Aland, K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini and B. M. Metzger. Stuttgart, 1994. 1) οÙδε žν Ö γšγονεν ν Initially, due to difficulties in interpretation, the manuscripts did not contain punctuation marks, papyrus (hereinafter referred to as P) 66, a (before correction), P 75 (before correction), majuscules A (V century), B (IV), D (IX), 253 lectionary. 2) οÙδε žν. Ö γšγονεν Point after “was nothing”: in P 75 after correction, majuscules C (V), D (V), L (VIII), W (V, but the text was added later), two minuscules, manuscripts of some Coptic and Syriac dialects. This breakdown was followed by: St. Theophilus of Antioch (Auth. II, 22), St. Irenaeus of Lyons (PE I, 8, 5 according to the Gnostic interpretation; II, 2, 5; III, 8, 3; 11, 1, p. 245 according to the Trans. Trans. with note 108 according to Grabbe; 21, 10; V, 28, 2); Gnostics according to the texts of Origen (see further Comm. John), Irenaeus (indicated above), St. Epiphany (Letter of Ptolemy to Flora) and St. Hippolyta; Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Alexander of Alexandria, Eusebius (in relation to handwritten punctuation according to another version: 1519); in the era of Arian disputes it was the reading of the Arians (according to St. Epiphanius and St. Ambrose); St. Athanasius, Marcellus, Meletius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem and Cyril of Alexandria, St. Hesychius (25), bl. Theodoret (35), St. Gregory of Nyssa, Macarius Simeon; from the Western Fathers and Teachers of the Church: Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Hilary, St. Ambrose (67), bl. Jerome (1218) and, according to him, many others; bl. Augustine. 3) oÙde žn Ö gšgonen. Dot after “to come soon”: a after correct. second hand, majuscules Q (IX), Y (VIIIX), most minuscules and “Byzantine” majuscules, lectionaries, all ancient translations (including Jerome’s Vulgate), with the exception of some Syriac and Coptic, St. Alexander of Alexandria according to manuscripts, Eusebius (419), Didymus (disputed, 13), Ps.-Ignatius of Antioch, St. Epiphanius (410); St. John Chrysostom, who sharply opposed a different reading in the “Commentary on the Gospel of John” and called it heretical; Theodore of Mopsuestia, St. Mark the Hermit, Paul of Emesa, Hesychius (35), bl. Theodoret (25), (St. John of Damascus); reading was widespread in Egypt at the direction of St. Ambrose; St. Ambrose (17), bl. Jerome (618). 4) oÙde žn: Ö gšgonen: Instead of dots in both places of the column at once, that is, an intermediate option that can be equated to the first: a series of minuscules and lectionaries. 5) oÙde žn Ö gšgonen aÙtù. zw¾ Period after “in Him”. This option is attested by Bl. Theophylact of Bulgaria (11th century) as accepted as “one of the saints” (quoted from the Russian translation, ed. Soykin, p. 504). All modern translations prefer the “classical” third option, indicating the second option in the notes (see The GNT, the corresponding punctuation apparatus), in contrast to most critical editions of the Greek text of the NT, including Nestlé-Åland, which chose the second interpuncture. Analysis of the NT parallels does not provide any decisive support for either interpretation, and Nestle-Aland's reference to Jn. 5, 26 does not solve anything, but the parallel they do not indicate with 1 John. 5, 11b, like the previous one, testifies to the great syntactic cohesion of the words aÙtù zw¾, which, unlike the fifth option, cannot be separated. It should be noted that: 1) neither Theophilus nor Irenaeus give any of their own interpretations of this verse, and we find the first detailed interpretation of it only among the Gnostics and Origen; 2) the original manuscript tradition cannot be established, because there were two tendencies in it, the first of which prevailed among the early fathers, mainly of the Alexandrian direction, and heretics (Gnostics, Arians and, according to Theophylact, Doukhobors), and the other somewhat later among the authors of a predominantly Antiochian orientation and in the church tradition. In our personal opinion, the indisputable theological advantages of the latter force other considerations to recede into the background, since the greater textual antiquity of the alternative (in the indirect literary tradition) version has here, contrary to Nestle-Aland, much less significance due to the relative equality of direct manuscript tradition. Interesting conclusions emerge from this analysis. The punctuation that breaks the verses gives a very dark meaning, because it is necessary to introduce into the Word the moment of becoming (gšgonen, unlike Ãn, emphasizes precisely the beginning of being), even if it is understood purely logically (Origen could well have deduced from here the eternity of the world with its creation, not conceivable in time, since otherwise God would not always be the Creator); on the other hand, as rightly emphasized in the Lopukhin Explanatory Bible (note 1 on p. 313 to John 1, 3), if we consider gšgonen not ad intra, but ad extra, it is not clear how created life could be called “light for people” in the next verse. Naturally, only such a breakdown could, due to its ambiguity, contribute to heterodox and non-Orthodox interpretations. As for punctuation within the syntactic group of the indicated verse in Origen, then, as follows from what follows (II, 155–156), it is preferable to put a comma before “in Him” rather than after. i.e. Wisdom, see § 108, 111. us. 399 indicates a parallel with Philo, “On the Creation of the World” 17–20 (Russian translation, see: “Philo of Alexandria.” Interpretations of the Old Testament. M., 2000, pp. 53–54), however, the list of similar images in ancient authors can be continued. See, for example: “St. Meliton of Sardis, “On Easter” § 36 (Works of ancient Christian apologists. [M.;] St. Petersburg, 1999. pp. 528–529 and commentary on pp. 557–558). Lit. “in “Wisdom”, which is what Origen uses in his interpretation, although in the Hebraized Greek LXX the preposition also has an instrumental meaning. § 116–118 are difficult to translate due to the specific terminology. According to Origen, nothing that has a cause in the Son can be a beginning for Him. In other words, Christ can be called the beginning only by that of which the Father is the beginning, and not He Himself. You might be interested in: