Origen of the Problem
When writers attempt to revise the meaning of Christianity, imposing their own radical views, one of the ancient authors that they are often drawn to is the Alexandrian scholar Origen. Origen lived 185-254 AD, was known for his allegorical interpretations and was considered by some to be a heretic. You can see why he would be attractive to modern revisionists. The problem is that not even Origen tries to cast doubt on biblical Christianity the way some would wish. Origen was actually quite orthodox in his own way and can only be used for revisionist purposes by being misrepresented. Since I am most familiar with Tom Harpur’s work, I will use him as an example, although this error goes far beyond him. The following post is from our book, Unmasking the Pagan Christ and an article of mine responding to Harpur’s newer book, Water into Wine, that will soon be published in the McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry. I will examine the way Origen’s views on allegorical interpretation and reincarnation have been misrepresented.
No scholar denies that Origen promoted an allegorical interpretation of the Bible. The real question related to the present discussion is: did Origen deny all literal and historical value to the Bible, and did Origen’s allegorical interpretations match the conclusions that Harpur has reached? It is important to look at Origen’s own writings to answer these questions. It is too simplistic to claim Origen rejected literal interpretation for allegorical interpretation. Origen’s position was much more complex. First of all, the fact Origen took Jesus’ teaching in Matthew about removing any members that cause you to sin literally enough to have himself castrated, should create some doubt regarding any suggestion Origen’s interpretations were wholly allegorical.[1]While allegory was Origen’s main focus and his most famous accomplishment, it was just one of a number of ways to interpret the Bible. Origen saw the Bible as reflecting humanity in the possession of body, soul and spirit: “For as man consists of body, and soul, and spirit, so in the same way does Scripture, which has been arranged to be given by God for the salvation of men.” (De Principiis 4.1.11) The body, soul and spirit represent different levels of understanding of the mysteries of God, but each are important for biblical interpretation just as each are important for the human existence. Harpur suggests Origen completely opposed any literal or historical interpretation of the Bible, but Origen gives another opinion: Let no one, however, entertain the suspicion that we do not believe any history in Scripture to be real, because we suspect certain events related in it not to have taken place; or that no precepts of the law are to be taken literally, because we consider certain of them, in which either the nature or possibility of the case so requires, incapable of being observed; or that we do not believe those predictions which were written of the Saviour to have been fulfilled in a manner palpable to the senses; or that His commandments are not to be literally obeyed. We have therefore to state in answer, since we are manifestly so of opinion, that the truth of the history may and ought to be preserved in the majority of instances.(De Principiis 4.1.19) Origen was very clear that although he used allegorical interpretation extensively, he did not reject the historical basis for much of the biblical narrative. This is a confession Harpur and his predecessors are not able to share. Origen did not reject a literal history, but rather as described by R. L. P. Milburn, “What Origen dreaded was the bleak inadequacy of a barren literalism which failed to see the course of scriptural history transfigured in the light of Christian devotion whereby new wonders should continually be drawn out.”[2]In his book Water into Wine, Harpur once more brings Origen into the discussion, this time claiming his support for belief in reincarnation (p. 170). Although Harpur does not cite the source, this view of Origen is based on the book Reincarnation in Christianity by Theosophist Geddes MacGregor, whoargued that Origen wrote on reincarnation but that those texts have been destroyed, leaving no extant evidence.[3] That this is unlikely is demonstrated by Origen’s comments on the relationship of John the Baptist to Elijah. He explicitly denies that John is Elijah reincarnated: “In this place it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I should fall into the dogma of transmigration, which is foreign to the church of God, and not handed down by the Apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the Scriptures” (Commentary on Matthew 13.1).[4] The moral of the story is if you are going to use someone to support your position, especially someone as controversial as Origen, make sure you rely on primary sources. Origen, for all his faults, has very little to offer contemporary revisionists of Christianity.
[4] Cf. Origen, Commentary on John 6.4.
