DefiningProphecy
BelongstotheEmperor
Isasucklingpig
Lookslikeaflyfromadistance
—JorgeLuisBorges,“TheAnalyticalLanguageofJohnWilkins”
In TheOrderofThings,MichelFoucaultarguesthatknowledge-orderingschemes arealwaysculturallyspecific.1HemakesuseofanexamplefromJorgeLuis Borges’s1942essay“TheAnalyticalLanguageofJohnWilkins”,inwhichBorges discussesafictionalancientChineseencyclopaedia,the CelestialEmporiumof BenevolentKnowledge.2The CelestialEmporium isataxonomyofanimalsthat splitsthemnotalongfamiliarLinnaeanlines,butinsteadintofourteencategories whosesystematizingprincipleis—tothe(presumed)modernWesternreader3— unclear.Thisraisesaninitialquestion:istherenoprincipleatall,oristhereone thatisobscure?Nosystemofknowledge-ordering,Foucaultargues,canassume thatitscategoriesareobviousorintrinsictoitssubjectmatter,orevenmutually comprehensiblebetweenculturesortimeperiods.AsBorges’sessaypointsout,our senseofwhatisintuitiveinasubjectlikethetaxonomyofanimalsisanaccidentof historyandgeography;somewaysofthinkingfromotherplaces,times,orcultures areverydifferentfromourownwaysofthinking.Borges,nodoubt,wouldwishus totakethisstartlingfictionalexampleasacautionarytaleforuncriticallyassuming weunderstandmorefamiliarcultures.
Thisinsightisparticularlypertinentinthecaseofprophecy.InEnglish,we usethesameword,‘prophecy’,toconveytwo(ormore)differentmeanings.Most straightforwardly,weuse‘prophecy’asaconcretenoun,torefertothingswhich havebeensaidorwrittenprophetically,forexampleinthestatement‘Thewizard’s prophecyreferstothemiller’sdaughter’.Butsometimes‘prophecy’isanabstract noun,takinginawholesetofinterrelatedconcepts.Itincludesspecificspokenor writtenprophecies,butalsoalltheprocessesandculturalnormsthatgenerateand governthem,forexampleinthesentence‘Prophecyplayedanimportantrolein ruralEnglandinthe13thcentury’or‘Witcheswereconsideredtobeproficientat
1 Foucault(1970). 2 Borges(1952).
3 Inotethe(undoubtedlydeliberate)orientalizingconnotationsofthisexample:thatChineseculture is,totheWesterneye,quirky;nevertheless,theseconnotationshelptostrengthentheoverallpointof theexample,whichistohighlighttheculturaldisjunctbetweenknowledge-orderingschemes—and thereforethepossibilityforbothmisunderstandingandjudgement. OrigenandProphecy:Fate,Authority,Allegory,andtheStructureofScripture.ClaireHall,OxfordUniversityPress. ©ClaireHall2021.DOI:10.1093/oso/9780192846648.003.0002
prophecy’.Sometimes‘prophecy’evenreferstoaspecificphysicalortextualform: ‘Thewizardwentfromdoortodoorsellingprophecies.’Admittedly,thislastusage israrerandhighlycontext-dependent,butitfeaturesintextsfromantiquityas wellascontemporarytexts.InRabbinicscholarshipasfarbackasOrigen’speriod, ‘prophecy’oroftenjust‘prophets’referrednottospecificpropheciesorprophets buttothecanonicalpropheticbooksoftheTanakh.Inthenewsmediaandarts criticism,however,theterm‘prophet’regularlymeanslittlemorethan‘harbinger’ oreven‘persononthecuttingedge’.Additionally,althoughsomereligiousand politicalleadersself-styleorarestyledbyothersasprophets(orfalseprophets), religiousprophecyasacontemporaryforceisperipheraltothemajorityofpeople intheWest,eventomanyreligiouspeople.This,ofcourse,contrastssharplywith itsstatusasamajorculturalandreligiousforceinotherpartsoftheworld.
Scholarlycategoriesdoverylittletoeaseanyofthisconfusion.Thestudyof prophecycrossesagreatnumberofdifferentdisciplinaryboundaries,including philosophy,theology,history,anthropology,andpsychiatry.But,asLauraNasrallahargues,thiscanobscurethefactthatinbothGreco-RomanandJewish antiquity‘dreams,prophecies,visions,andoracleswereunderstoodtobepartof thesamebasicphenomenon’.⁴HowshouldwegoaboutplacingOrigeninallof this?Anaturalstartingpointmightbeconceptualhistoriesofprophecyinearly Christianity.Scholarshavewrittenanumberofgeneralhistoriesofprophecyin theearlyChurch,⁵manyofwhichunpickthecomplexecclesiasticalpoliticsof claimstopropheticinspiration.Butthegeneralpictureofpropheticmovements inthethirdcenturyandearliergivesusremarkablylittleinsightintoOrigen’s viewofthetopic.⁶Infact,Origenhardlyevermentionsecclesiasticalpoliticsor evencontemporarypropheticmovements.WhileOrigen’sviewsonprophecywere undoubtedlyshapedinsomewaysbyeventsintheworldaroundhim,much ofhiswritingandthinkingaboutprophecyhasatimeless,unplaceablefeelto it.HewritesprimarilyonGreekoracles,OldTestamentprophets,andabstract philosophicalnotionsofwhataprophetmightknowandhowtheymightknow it.Tounderstandhimonthesetopics,itisnotsufficienttogroundourselvesonly inbiblicalorcontemporarydefinitionsofprophecy:wemustalsoknowwhathe mighthavereadorpickedupfromthemanycenturiesofphilosophicalthought aboutprophecythatwentbeforehim.
⁴ Nasrallah(2003b),p.1.
⁵ Thereisasetofsourceandmethodologicalproblemswhichcomplicatesmuchscholarshipwritten inthenineteenthandtwentiethcenturiesonthehistoryofprophecyintheearlyChurch.Several majorhistoriesfrombeforethe1960sthatarestillinusebasetheirnarrativesonaproblematicclaim thatitisauniversalanthropoligicaltruththat‘primitive’societiesgothroughaphaseofshamanistic prophecywhichbecomesincreasinglyinstitutionalizedwithinbureaucraticstructures—suchasthe ChristianChurch.e.g.Campenhausen(1955)identifiestherelationshipbetweenindividualprophets andtheChurchasthefocalpointofstudyofChristianprophecyinthefirstthreecenturies.Adolf vonHarnack’workandthatofE.R.Doddstakethesameline.cf.Harnack(1908)andDodds(1965). Thesehistoriestendtorelyonproblematiccentralassumptions,oftenrelyingonoutdatedandracist anthropologicalliteraturesuchase.g.Tylor(1871).Forafurtherdiscussionoftheproblemsofthis literature,seeNasrallah(2003b).
⁶ Anexcellentaccountoftheso-called‘Montanist’orPhrygianmovementisNasrallah(2003b).The mostcomprehensiveworkontheMarcionitemovement,whichrejectedprophecy,isLieu(2015).
ButifweturntohistoriesofprophecyinJewishorinGreco-Romanthought, wearefacedwithanothermethodologicalhurdle:wedonot,forexample,need toknowtheprecisedetailsofinstitutionalshiftsinthepracticeofprophecyin theEarlySecondTempletounderstandhowOrigenviewstheOldTestament prophets.Butitwouldbefoolishtoassumethathewasnotinfluencedatall byJewishthoughtaboutprophecyinhisowntimeandthedecadesbeforehim. Similarly,whileOrigenwouldnothavehadanup-to-dateknowledgeofthe geologyofDelphi,wemust—forexample—beattentivetoanysignificantshiftsin oracleconsultationpracticesinthelateHellenisticperiodwhichmayhaveaffected howheunderstoodoracles.IntherestofthischapterIattempttogroundthe readerinsomescholarlydefinitionsofprophecyfromthesevariousfields.ThenI turnmorespecificallytoearlyChristiandefinitions,Origen’sowndefinitions,and scholars’interpretationsofOrigen’sviewsonprophecy.First,letuslookatthe terminologyusedinGreekandLatintotalkaboutthephenomenonofprophecy.
1.1Terminology
Inalongandvariedlife,Origenwroteanenormousquantity.Whilenotallofhis workhassurvived—muchwasdestroyedafterhiscondemnationin553—wedo havealargenumberofhistexts.Ofthoseworksthatdidmakeit,anumbersurvive onlyintranslationsmadefromGreekintoLatinbyRufinusofAquilea(c.340–410) andbyJerome(347–420).AlotofOrigen’sworkisexegetical:weknowof574 homilies(ofwhichwehave250inLatintranslationsandfiftyintheoriginalGreek) andfourlongcommentaries.Otherworksincludephilosophicaldisquisitions(one long, OnFirstPrinciples,andthreeshorter),worksofpolemic(including Against Celsus,alengthyrebuttalofalong-deadpagancritic),andalargetextualcritical work,the Hexapla,whichdoesnotsurvive.
JustasEnglishdoesnotdistinguishbetweenprophecyasaconcreteandabstract noun,neitherdoGreekorLatin,thelanguagesinwhichwehaveOrigen’stexts.The lackofclarityovertheterm‘prophecy’inallthreelanguagesmakesitveryhardto seeexactlywhichconceptisbeingemployedindifferenttextsandcontexts,both inOrigen’sownworkandinthesecondaryliterature.Toaidwithclarity,belowis ashortsummaryoftheterminologyinuseinGreekandLatintexts,includingthe termsusedbyOrigenandhistranslators.
1.1.1Greek
Theprefix προ isusedinnearlyallverbsofprophesying,andstraightforwardly hasthesenseof‘before’,bothspatiallyandintime.⁷Themostusualverbsfor
⁷ cf.1694Smyth(1920),p.384.
prophesyingorforeseeingare προλέγω,προφήμι,προεπίσταμαι⁸and προγιγνώσκω,⁹withitsrelatednoun/adjectivepair προγνώσις/προγνωστικός, fromwhichweget‘prognosis’and‘prognostic’.Thistermisusedinmedical literaturewiththesamemeaningastheEnglishtransliteration,1⁰butisalsoused tomean‘foreknowledge’inastrologicalliterature11andintheSeptuagintand GreekNewTestament.12
Otherlesscommonlyusedverbsofforeseeingorforeknowingattested invariousClassicalwritersinclude προαθρέω,13 προβλέπω1⁴(withadjective προβλεπτικός,‘abletoforesee’1⁵), προγνωρίζω,1⁶and προδέρκομαι.1⁷Severalverbs implyexplicitpronouncementofthepropheticknowledge(withmoreorless publicconnotations),including προαγορεύω,1⁸and προθεσπίζω.1⁹Comparethese with,forexample, προεῖπον (todeclarepublicly),attestedwidelywithnofuturative sense.2⁰Thereisaclassofverbsusedofomensthatdenoteshowingorsignifying aheadoftime,usedmostproperlyoftheobjectsofdivination.Theseinclude προαποσημαίνω,21 προδείκνυμι,22and προδηλόω.23Somehavespecificreligious connotations,like προκαταμαντεύομαι (todivine).2⁴
Acrossallperiods,themostcommonlyusednounsfor‘prophet’and‘seer’ are προφήτης2⁵and μαντίς.2⁶Morespecificallyusedoforaclesare φάτις,2⁷ θέσπισμα,2⁸and χρησμολογία2⁹(or χρηστήριον).3⁰ μαντεῖον31hasitsownsetof derivedtermsincluding μαντεία32(oracularactivity/divination).Thesimplest termfor‘prophecy’is προφητεία.33Oforacularactivityingeneral,Plutarchuses
⁸ LSJp.1488,e.g.Plato, Gorgias 459e;Xenophon, Cyropaedia 4.3.12.
⁹ LSJp.1473.Usedinphilosophy(e.g.Plato Symposium 219e)andmedicaltexts(Hippocrates Prognostics 1).
1⁰ LSJp.1473,e.g.Hippocrates, Prognostics;Galen, OntheArtofMedicine 4.90.
11 LSJp.1473,UsedofastrologersbyVettiusValens, Anthology 37.28.
12 e.g.Judges9:6(LXX);Acts2:23,1Peter1:2(SBLGNT).
13 LSJp.1466,Eustathius OntheNecromancer,againstOrigen 86.41.
1⁴ LSJp.1471,e.g.Psalms36(LXX),butusedas‘provideagainst’inHeraclitus, OnUnbelievable Tales 11.
1⁵ LSJp.1471,Eustathius OntheNecromancer,againstOrigen 83.33.
1⁶ LSJp.1473,Aristotle Topics 141b12.
1⁷ LSJp.1474,e.g.Aeschylus PrometheusBound 250.
1⁸ LSJp.1465–7,Usedstraightforwardlyas‘prophesy’byXenophon(Symposium 4.5),butmore usuallyusedfor‘proclaimpublicly’(e.g.HerodotusHistories7.10).Relatednounsinclude προαγόρευμα (Appian CivilWars 2.110)and προαγόρευσις (Aristotle, Poetics 1454b5).
1⁹ LSJp.1481,e.g.Lucian, Alexander 19. 2⁰ LSJp.1476,e.g.Plato Euthyphro 3c.
21 LSJp.1469,e.g.Josephus, JewishAntiquities 18.3.4.
22 LSJp.1473,e.g.Herodotus, Histories 1.209.
23 LSJp.1474,e.g.Plutarch, Pompey 32,butalsousedtomean‘aforesaid’inVettiusValens.
2⁴ LSJp.1484,e.g.DionysiusofHalicarnassus, Rhesus 28.
2⁵ LSJp.1540,e.g.Euripides, Rhesus 972. 2⁶ LSJp.1080,e.g.Homer, Iliad 1.62.
2⁷ LSJp.1919,e.g.Aeschylus Persians 227. 2⁸ LSJp.795,e.g.Herodotus Histories 2.29.
2⁹ LSJp.2006,e.g.DiodorusSiculus, Bibliotheca 16.26.
3⁰ LSJp.2006,e.g.Euripides Medea 667.
31 LSJp.1079,e.g.Homer, Odyssey 12.272.
32 LSJp.1079,e.g.Plato Timaeus 71d.
33 LSJp.1539,e.g.Lucian Alexander 40.UsedwidelyintheLXX,e.g.2Chronicles15:8.
definingprophecy11
προδήλωσις3⁴(prognostication),anditsrelatedadjective προδηλωτικός.3⁵Then tootherearethenamesofthevariousmanticarts,whichareusuallycompounds with μαντεία: πυρομαντεία (divinationbyfire), κληδομαντεία (divinationby suddennoises), ὀρνιθομαντεία (divinationbybirds), ὀνειρομαντεία (divination bydreams),andsoon.Otherspecializedtypesofdivinersinclude χρῆσμολογοι3⁶ (usuallyusedoftravellingoracle-sellers)and ἐγγαστρίμυθοι3⁷(usedsometimesof necromancers).Forpropheticecstasy,wehave ἔκστασις3⁸whichcomesultimately fromtheverb ἐξίστημι3⁹(tostandoutside).Thereisalso μανία,⁴⁰regularlyused bothforprophetic‘mania’butalsoasamoregenericmedicalandeverydayterm formadness.
Origen’sterminologyisfairlysimple.Heuses προφητεία ashisstandard wordforprophecy,especiallyindefinitionalstatements,andvariantsofthe wordappearover350timesinhiscorpus.⁴1Hisusualwordsfor‘prophet’and ‘prophesy’are προφήτης and προφητεύω.⁴2Forforeknowledge,heusestheusual phrase προγνώσιςτῶνμελλόντων,usingthisformulabothfordivineforeknowledge⁴3andtheforeknowledgeofagentsthathewouldconsiderdemonic—suchas Apollo.⁴⁴Moreinterestingly,incaseswhereOrigendoesnotbelieveaprophetto beatrueprophet,histerminologyvaries.ThusofBalaamandCaiaphas—figures towhomIreturninChapter6—Origenuses προφητεύει oftheirprophesying, butwillnotdescribethemas προφῆται,optinginstead,inBalaam’scase,forthe fairlyneutral μάντις.⁴⁵Inthecaseoffigureswhohedoesnotconsiderlegitimately inspiredatall,heusesacompletelyseparatefamilyofwords,referringtotheGreek oraclesas θεοπρόπων and θεσπίζω anditscognates.FortheecstasyofthePythia heusestheusualword, ἔκστασις.Ireturntothesespecificexamplesintherelevant discussionsinChapter6andelsewhere.
1.1.2Latin
AsinGreek,theprefix pro (or,related, prae)beginsmostLatinverbsthat explicitlydenotepropheticactivity;themostcommonoftheseverbsinclude praedico,⁴⁶ profor,⁴⁷and praenosco.⁴⁸Lessfrequentlyusedbutstillattestedare
3⁴ LSJp.1474,e.g.Plutarch, Moralia 2.398d. 3⁵ LSJp.1474,e.g.[Plato] Definitions 414b.
3⁶ LSJp.2006,e.g.Herodotus Histories 1.62. 3⁷ LSJp.467,e.g.Hippocrates Epidemics 5.63.
3⁸ LSJp.520,e.g.Aristotle Categories 10a1.
3⁹ LSJp.595.UsedintheBiblefor‘loseconsciousness’,cf.Judges4:21.
⁴⁰ LSJp.1078,e.g.Plato, Philebus 45e.
⁴1 e.g. CommentaryonCorinthians 55or CommentaryonJohn 2.208.
⁴2 e.g. HomiliesonLuke 6.2. ⁴3 e.g. OnPrayer 6.4. ⁴⁴ e.g. AgainstCelsus 7.3.
⁴⁵ e.g. CommentaryonJohn 28.12. ⁴⁶ OLDp.1428,e.g.Cicero OntheOrator 3.37.
⁴⁷ OLDp.1477,e.g.Lucretius, OntheNatureofThings 1.739.
⁴⁸ OLDp.1435,e.g.Ovid, Metamorphoses 12.86.
praesentio,⁴⁹ praevideo,⁵⁰ praesago.⁵1Otherwise,verbsofdivinationinclude divino,⁵2 vaticinor,⁵3andthepejorative hariolor.⁵⁴
Wordsforseervary:thereistheratherliterary vates,⁵⁵(oritsrelatednoun vaticinator⁵⁶)usedoftheSibylandothers.Thetermmostlyusedfororaclesis oraclum,⁵⁷usedofboththesiteitselfandthepropheciesdelivered. Prophetia and propheta,astransliterationsfromtheGreek,areusedoccasionallyforprophecy;⁵⁸ fordivinationgenerally,theusualwordis divinatio.⁵⁹AsinGreek,thereisa specializedvocabularyfordifferenttypesofdivination: haruspex⁶⁰forsomebody whodivinesbyentrails, augur⁶1forsomebodywhodivinesbytheflightofbirds, andsoon.
Generally,for‘prophecy’,Origen’stranslatorsJeromeandRufinusbothuse prophetia,usuallyseparatingthisfrom‘divination’(divinatio).⁶2Theterm prophetia,whilenotwidelyusedinLatin,isadirectGreekanalogueof προφητεία; forprophet,theyusuallyuse prophetes.⁶3Wecanbereasonablysureinthesecases thattheyaretransliteratingOrigen’susualGreekterms.
1.2DefinitionsofProphecy
JohannesLindblom,writingonprophecyinAncientIsrael,givesthefollowing definition:
[Aprophetis]apersonwho,becauseheisconsciousofhavingbeenspeciallychosen andcalled,feelsforcedtoperformactionsandproclaimideaswhich,inamental stateofintenseinspirationorrealecstasy,havebeenindicatedtohimintheformof divinerevelations.⁶⁴
Similarly,MarttiNissinendefinesprophecyas‘thetransmissionofallegedlydivine messagesbyahumanintermediarytoathirdparty’.⁶⁵JamesL.Kugeldefinesa prophetas‘amessengersentbyGodtospeakonHisbehalf’.⁶⁶Emergingfrom thesedefinitionsareafewfeatures:first,thataprophetisatypeofmessenger;
⁴⁹ OLDp.1440,e.g.Lucretius OntheNatureofThings 4.682.
⁵⁰ OLDp.1449,e.g.Virgil,Aeneid 5.445. ⁵1 OLDp.1438,e.g.SuetoniusOnGrammarians23.
⁵2 OLDp.564,e.g.Cicero, TusculanDisputations 1.114.
⁵3 OLDp.2015,e.g.Pliny, NaturalHistory 28.147.
⁵⁴ OLDp.786,e.g.Apuleius TheGoldenAss 2.7. ⁵⁵ OLDp.2015,Virgil Aeneid,6.65.
⁵⁶ OLDp.2015,e.g.Ovid LettersfromPontus 1.1.42.
⁵⁷ OLDp.1262,e.g.Virgil Georgics 4.449. ⁵⁸ OLDp.1492,e.g.Strabo Geography 2.
⁵⁹ OLDp.564,e.g.Cicero OnDivination 2.148.
⁶⁰ OLDp.787,e.g.Cicero CatilineOrations 3.19.
⁶1 OLDp.213,e.g.Livy FromtheFoundingoftheCity 8.23.14.
⁶2 e.g.at HomiliesonNumbers 13.6.2,whichdrawsthisdistinction.Seep.129ofthisbook.
⁶3 e.g. HomiliesonIsaiah 9.1. ⁶⁴ Lindblom(1963),p.46. ⁶⁵ Nissinen(2000),p.vii.
⁶⁶ Kugel(2007),p.439.
second,thattheprophetactsassomesortof(possiblyself-conscious)gateway betweenthedivineandthehuman;andthird,thattheprophetdelivershisorher messagetoothers.AlexanderJassenparticularlyemphasizesthisfinalelementin hisdefinition:‘whatdistinguishesaprophetfromanyotherallegedrecipientof divinerevelationishisorherstatusasaspokespersontoalargerbodyofpeople’.⁶⁷ Similarly,EugeneBoringgivesthefollowingdefinitionofChristianprophecy:
TheearlyChristianprophetwasanimmediatelyinspiredspokespersonfortherisen Jesus,whoreceivedintelligiblemessagesthatheorshefeltimpelledtodeliverto theChristiancommunityor,asarepresentativeofthecommunity,tothegeneral public.
However,asmentionedabove,theterm‘prophecy’issometimesusedtorefernot justtothephenomenonofmessage-giving,butalsomightincludeasetoftexts oreventherelatedprocessesforreadingthosetexts.Theabovedefinitions,which focusonlyontheactivityofmessengersinprophecy,donotcapturethiselement. IntheGreco-Romancontext,afurthercomplicationarisesmorereadilythan intheJewishcontext:whatisthedifferencebetweenprophecyanddivination?
TheOldTestamentisveryclearthatdivinationofallformsexceptingakind ofpriestlylot-castingisprohibited.⁶⁹Yet,evenintheJewishcontext,thelines betweenprophecy,divination,magic,andvariousotherpracticeswereblurred: forexample,theinterpretationofpropheticdreamswasnotconsideredaformof divinationinancientIsrael,whichitcertainlywasinGreeceandRome.⁷⁰
BothinGreco-RomanwritersandinClassicalscholarship,sometimesa divideispositedbetween‘natural’and‘technical’or‘inspired’and‘inductive’ divination.⁷1Technicalorinductivedivinationinvolvesdivinationbymeansof somesortofskill—sometimesusingspecialistequipment—whichapractitioner canlearn.Naturalorinspireddivinationisseenasaninbuiltandunwilledability whichapractitionerdoesnothavetolearn.Somescholarsapplythisdistinction todemarcatebetweeninspiredIsraelite-JewishprophetsandinductiveGreek seers.⁷2However,asDavidAunepointsout,thedistinctiondoesnotalwaysapply neatly.AnumberofGreco-Romanpropheticfiguresareclearlyinspireddiviners— suchasthePythiaatDelphi.Additionally,itisnotclearthattheJewish-Israelite prophetsneverusedeductivemethods.Forexample,someprophetsattachedto templesitesinancientIsraelwereinvolvedingroupstimulationofprophetic trancesthroughtheritualandperformativeuseofmusic,movement,andeven
⁶⁷ Jassen(2008),p.300. ⁶⁸ Boring(1991),p.38.
⁶⁹ Prohibitionsofdivinationoccurat:Genesis44:5;Genesis44:15;Leviticus19:26;Numbers22:7; Numbers23:23;Deuteronomy18:10;1Samuel15:23;2Kings17:17;2Kings21:6;2Chronicles33:6; Jeremiah14:14;Ezekiel12:24;Ezekiel13:6–7;Ezekiel13:23;Ezekiel21:21–3;Micah3:6;andActs16:16.
⁷⁰ Aune(1983),p.82. ⁷1 Formoreontheterminology,cf.Bonnechere(2007),p.150.
⁷2 cf.e.g.Lange(2007).
hallucinogens.⁷3Indeed,whenexaminedclosely,severaldivinatoryandprophetic techniquessuggestacertainmixingofinspiredandinductivetypes:thereseems nothinginherentlycontradictoryinsuggestingthatsomebodycouldstillbean inspiredpropheteveniftheytakesome(inductive)steps(suchasuseofmovement orhallucinogens)tomodifytheircircumstancesinordertobemorereceptiveto inspiration.
Infact,manydefinitionsofprophecyinvolve—implicitlyorexplicitly—the presenceofsomekindofecstasyorpossessiontrance.⁷⁴Modelsofthepossession trancevarybetweencompletepossession(theprophetisnotawareofwhatis happening,andoften‘wakes’fromthetrancewithnorecollection)andpartial possession(theprophetisawareofwhatishappeningandcaninteract,andsometimesintervene,withtheprophecy).Yetthisisnotaculturallyinterchangeable feature;insomeculturalcontexts,possessionisconsideredtobeanindication ofthefalsenessoftheprophecybeingdelivered,whereasinothers,possessionis viewedinaneutralorevenpositiveaspect.⁷⁵Whilethesedefinitionsgosomeway toestablishinglinesofinquiryintothephenomenonofprophecyintheirvarious contexts,forreasonsthatwillbecomeclearerbelow,noneofthesedefinitionsof prophecyworkswholesaleforOrigen.Letusturntosomeancientdefinitions.
1.2.1GreekPhilosophicalDefinitions
IreturninmuchgreaterdetailtoPlato,theStoics,andPlutarchatvariouspoints throughoutthisbook.Thissectionisintendedtogivethereaderaflavourof thelackofcleardefinitioninGreekphilosophyof‘prophecy’asdistinctfrom divination.Indeed,theword προφητεία doesnotappearatallinPlatoorAristotle. Platouses προφήτης,butonlyrarely,⁷⁶andAristotledoesnotuseitatall.Plato doesrefertodivinationfrequently.Whilehedoesnotprovideanyparticular overarchingdefinitions,manyPlatonicdialoguesmakereferencetofuture-telling. Forexample,inPhaedrus,Socratestakesitasobviousthatoraclescantellthefuture andthattheyfrequentlydoso:
AndifweshouldspeakoftheSibylandothers,whohavebyprophecy(μαντικῇ) foretoldmanythingstomanypeopleanddirectedtheirfuture,itisclearweshallbe speakingforalongtime.⁷⁷
⁷3 Aune(1983),p.86. ⁷⁴ Seee.g.Aune(1983),p.86.
⁷⁵ Ontheseandothergrounds,AuneseeslimitationsinthehistoriesofChristianprophecybyGuy (1947),Cothenet(1972),andHill(1979)despitepraisinganumberoftheirfeatures.
⁷⁶ Oneofthefewexamplesisin Alcibiades 150a6:‘sosaysthegodandtheprophetsofthegods’(ὥς φησινὁθεὸςκαὶθεῶνπροφήτης).
⁷⁷ Phaedrus 244b.
ForAristotle,prophecywasabitmoreambiguous.HisOnDivinationinSleepuses dreaminterpretationasacasestudyforthinkingaboutdivinatoryforeknowledge moregenerally.Aristotleexaminesthewidespreadacceptanceofpropheticdreams asalegitimateformofknowledgeofthefuture;heconcludesthatinmostcases, propheticdreamsarecoincidental.⁷⁸
SomeotherGreekphilosophicaltraditionsweremoreexplicitintheir supportfordivination.Inparticular,theStoicsendorseddivination.Chrysippus (280–206bc)doesusetheterm προφητεία buthedoessointerchangeablywith othertermsfordivination.⁷⁹ThepositionofPoseidonius(c.135–c.50bc),alater Stoicthinker,canbemoreclearlygleanedfromCicero’s OnDivination.⁸⁰Two definitionsappearinCicero’s OnDivination wherehediscussesStoicviewsof divination.⁸1
1. Divinationis‘thepresentimentandknowledgeoffuturethings’.
2. Divinationis‘thepredictionandpresentimentofthosethingswhichare thoughttooccurbychance’.
MiddlePlatonistsgenerallyendorseddivinationandprophecy.Forexample, Plutarchgivesvariousdefinitionsofprophecy.Severaldefinitionsaregivenin On theE—anunusualtextwhichdiscussesthephysicalformofdedicationsatthe Delphictemplealongsidethefamousmaxim.Onedefinitionofprophecy,given byPlutarch’sfriendTheon,isthefollowing:
Thepropheticartdealswiththatfuturewhichistocomeoutofthingspresentor thingspast.Thingswhichcomeintobeingfollowthingswhichhavebeen,things whicharetobefollowthingswhichnowarecomingintobeing,allboundinone continuouschainofdevelopment.Thereforehewhoknowshowtolinkcauses togetherintoone,andcombinethemintoanaturalprocess,canalsodeclare beforehandthings.⁸2
Theon’sargumentisthattheEIstandsforthe‘if’ofaprotasisinasyllogism—and byit,Apolloisshowingusthatknowledgeofthefuture,gainedthroughoracles,is reallyaformofdialecticreasoning.
TheBible
ThereisnoexplicitdefinitionofprophecyintheOldTestament,despitethe centralityoftheconcepttothevariousbooks,stories,andpeople.WhileNew
⁷⁸ SeeGallop(1996).SeealsoStruck(2016),pp.91–170.
⁷⁹ Fragment619of Fragmentamoralia inChrysippus(1903b).
⁸⁰ Foranintroduction,seeStruck(2016),pp.171–214.
⁸1 FormoreonthesedefinitionsandtheirrelationshiptoChrysippus,seeHahmann(2019).
⁸2 OntheE 6.
Testamentwritersmakeanumberofreferencestothefulfilmentofprophecies fromtheOldTestament,⁸3thementionsofprophecythatmakeanykindof definitionalpointscomefromjustthreewriters:theauthorof2Peter,theauthor ofRevelation,andPaul.First,andmoststraightforwardly,wehaveadefinitionof prophecyfromtheauthorof2Peter:
Firstofallyoumustunderstandthis,thatnoprophecy(προφητεία)ofscriptureisa matterofone’sowninterpretation,becausenoprophecyevercamebyhumanwill, butmenandwomenmovedbytheHolySpiritspokefromGod.⁸⁴
ThepassagecomesaspartofawiderexhortationtobelieveaccountsofChrist’s gloryandthusthedefinitionfocusesontheepistemologicalvalidityofprophecy asmore-than-human.Origenconsidered2Petertobespurious,anditisperhaps forthisreasonthatnodefinitionresemblingthisappearsinhiswork.⁸⁵
ThesecondsetofdefinitionsofprophecycomefromRevelation.Ontheone hand,theauthorofRevelationmakesanumberofreferencestohisowntext asprophetic,⁸⁶andalsogivinginstructions,sentfromChrist,abouthow(not) tousethetextgivenitsstatusasapropheticwork—namely,notto‘sealup’the ‘wordsoftheprophecy’.⁸⁷Alongwiththeseinstructionscomewarningsaboutthe consequencesofdefacingortamperingwiththepropheticwork.⁸⁸Butalongside thisself-consciousdiscussionofRevelation’spropheticstatusitsauthormakesa moregeneralstatementaboutprophecy:
ThenIfelldownathisfeettoworshiphim,buthesaidtome,‘Youmustnotdo that!Iamafellowservantwithyouandyourcomradeswhoholdthetestimonyof Jesus.WorshipGod!ForthetestimonyofJesusisthespiritofprophecy(πνεῦματῆς προφητείας).’⁸⁹
TheauthorofRevelation’sviewofprophecyhereclearlyfocusesveryheavilyon Christ,aviewwhichOrigenwillpickupandtowhichIwillreturninChapter8. Finally,letusturntothemoreextensivedefinitionsanddiscussionsofprophecy giveninthelettersofPaul.ThereisashortcommentaboutprophecyinRomans, andamuchmoreextensivediscussionofitin1Corinthians.Bothpassagesdiscuss prophecyinthecontextofawiderdiscussionaboutspiritualgifts,andbothdiscuss prophecyverymuchasacurrentandongoingphenomenon.First,thepassage fromRomans:
⁸3 e.g.Matthew13:14:‘InthemisfulfilledtheprophecyofIsaiah’,inreferencetoIsaiah6:9.
⁸⁴ 2Peter1:20–21.
⁸⁵ Eusebius ChurchHistory 6.25.8,quotingalostworkofOrigen:‘Peter,onwhomtheChurchof Christisbuilt...hasleftoneacknowledgedepistle;perhapsalsoasecond,butthisisdoubtful.’
⁸⁶ Revelation22:7:‘Blessedistheonewhokeepsthewordsoftheprophecyofthisbook.’
⁸⁷ Revelation22:10. ⁸⁸ Revelation2:18–19. ⁸⁹ Revelation19:10.
Wehavedifferentgifts(χαρίσματα),accordingtothegracegivenus.Ifaman’sgift isprophesying(προφητείαν),lethimuseitinproportiontohisfaith.⁹⁰
Thepassagefrom1Corinthiansgoesintofurtherdetailontheterm‘gift’,which Pauldescribesas‘themanifestationoftheSpiritforthecommongood’.Other gifts—alongsideprophecy—include‘theutteranceofwisdom’,the‘utteranceof knowledge’,faith,‘giftsofhealing’,miracle-working,the‘discernmentofspirits’, ‘variouskindsoftongues’,andfinallythe‘interpretationoftongues’.⁹1Thesegifts are,accordingtoPaul,manifestationsofoneandthesameHolySpirit,whoallots themtoindividualsashechooses.Thesegifts,however,comewithacaveat,found inPaul’sfamousdisquisitionontheimportanceoflove,whereheclaimsthatany giftoftheHolySpiritstillleavesitsrecipientas‘nothing’withoutlove.⁹2Similarly, PaulcautionsthatalthoughindividualgiftscomefromtheSpirit,theyareneither completenoreternal:
Loveneverends.Butasforprophecies,theywillcometoanend;asfortongues,they willcease;asforknowledge,itwillcometoanend.Forweknowonlyinpart,and weprophesyonlyinpart(
Thelongestpassageofrelevancetousis1Corinthians14:1wherePaulfocuses ontwospecificgiftsofthespirit,thegiftofprophecyandthegiftofspeakingin tongues.Hecontraststhetwogifts,andmakesitclearthatprophecyisbyfarthe superior.Paul’scommentsonprophecyasaspiritualgiftsetitinthecontextof otherspiritualpursuitsofindividuals.Thefocusisneitheronthecontentnoron theepistemologyofprophecy(asintheJohanninedefinition)butonthemoral statusoftheprophetandthemethodbywhichheorshebecomesaprophet.In boththePaulineandJohanninedefinitions,thereisanotablelackofreferenceto whatprophetsactuallyprophesyabout;whileinRevelation,wearetoldthatthe ‘testimonyofJesus’isanintegralpartofprophecy,nomentionismadeoffuturetellingoraccesstoknowledgeunavailabletoothers.InPaul’spassages,nomention ofcontentismadeatall.
Byandlarge,thesecommentsofPaul’sareseen—bothbyscholarsandinthe widerChristiancommunity—asthemostauthoritativediscussionofprophecy intheNewTestament;thereasonsforthisarecomplexandareasmuchtodo withPaul’sstatusinNewTestamentscholarshipaswiththedefinitionitself.As ElisabethSchüsslerFiorenzahasdemonstrated,however,thisunderplaysthesignificanceforearlyChristianwritersoftheJohanninedefinitionfromRevelation.⁹⁴ Nasrallah,whodiscussesPaul’sdefinitionatlength,hasshownthatthisdefinition participatesinahighlyrhetoricalandhighlycontesteddiscourseoverthenature
⁹⁰ Romans12:6. ⁹1 1Corinthians12:7–11. ⁹2 1Corinthians13:2. ⁹3 1Corinthians13:8. ⁹⁴ cf.e.g.Fiorenza(1985),133ff.
ofprophecyintheearliestChristiancommunities,andmaynothavebeenso straightforwardlyendorsedbyChristiansasitisnow.⁹⁵Unfortunately,wedonot haveOrigen’scommentsoneitheroftheseverses.Inwhatfollows,Iassumethat whilethedefinitionfrom2PeterisnotofmuchinteresttoOrigen,boththePauline andJohanninedefinitionsarepertinenttohisunderstandingofprophecy.
GreekPatristicwriters
DefinitionsofprophecyinGreekPatristicwritersofthefirsttwocenturiesad tendtoemphasizetwofeaturesofprophecy.Someofthem,likePaul’sdefinitions above,focusaroundtheideaofprophecyasaspiritualgift,thatis,afundamentally moralcallingthatistherefortheedificationandeducationofothers.Buttheother featurethatisemphasizedinmanydefinitionsisprophecyasawayofpredicting thefuture.ThusIrenaeus:
Prophecyisthepredictionofthefuture,thatis,thosethingswhichcomeafterwards, throughpresignification.⁹⁶
Thisformulationisveryclosetosomepagandefinitionsofdivination.Similarly, JustinMartyr:
Thereexisted,longbeforethistime,certainmenmoreancientthanallthosewhoare esteemedphilosophers,bothrighteousandbelovedbyGod,whospokebytheDivine Spirit,andforetoldeventswhichwouldtakeplace,andwhicharenowtakingplace. Theyarecalledprophets.⁹⁷
WhileJustin’sdefinitionhassomefocusonthecharacteroftheprophet(‘righteous’),itis—likethatofIrenaeus—primarilyfocusedonthefuture.However, somedefinitionsinpatristictextsarelessaboutseeingthefuturethanseeingthings hiddentoothers.ThusTatian:
God’sspiritisnotgiventoall,butdwellingamongsomewhobehavedjustlyand beingintimatelyconnectedwiththesoulitrevealedbypredictionstotheothersouls whathadbeenhidden.⁹⁸
Inthisvein,Clementalsoclaimsthatknowledgeofthefutureaswellasthe revelationofmysteriesarepartoftheremitoftheprophet: ⁹⁵ Nasrallah(2003b),pp.61–94. ⁹⁶ AgainstHeresies 4.34.5. ⁹⁷ DialoguewithTrypho 7. ⁹⁸ Tatian Oration 13.3.
AlltheprophetswhohadforetoldthecomingoftheLordandtheholymysteriesthat accompaniedhimwerepersecutedandkilled,justliketheLordhimself,whomade theirScripturesmanifest.⁹⁹
Patristicauthorsalsotakearangeofviewsonpropheticecstasy.Athenagorasuses animageofadivineflautisttodistinguishbetweentheinsightsofaphilosopher andtheinspirationofaprophet:
You...cannotbeignorantofthewritingsofMosesorofIsaiahandJeremiah,and theotherprophets,who,liftedinecstasyabovethenaturaloperationsoftheirminds bytheimpulsesoftheDivineSpirit,utteredthethingswithwhichtheywereinspired, theSpiritmakinguseofthemasaflute-playerbreathesintoaflute.1⁰⁰
Fromthisbriefsummarywecanseethatthereisagreatdealofvarietyinwhat earlyChristianthinkersconsiderthefundamentaloressentialcharacteristicsofa prophet.Sometakeprophecysimplytobepredictionofthefuture,somefocuson hiddenknowledge,andothershighlighttheimportanceofpropheticecstasy.
1.2.2Origen
Origengivestwoexplicitdefinitionsofprophecy,andseveralexplicitdefinitions ofwhataprophetis.Onedefinitionofprophecyappearsinthecatenafragments ofhis CommentaryonCorinthians andisquiteunlikeanyoftheearlyChristian definitionsexploredabove:
προφητείαἐστινἡδιὰλόγουτῶνἀφανῶνσημαντικὴγνῶσις,ἡεἴδησιςτῆςτοῦ κόσμουσυστάσεωςκαὶἐνεργείαςστοιχείωνκαὶχρόνων.1⁰1 Prophecyisknowledgewhichcansignifyobscurethingsthroughreason[orspeech], theunderstandingofthestructureofthecosmosandofthefunctioningofthe elementsandoftime.
Iwillreturntothisdefinitioninsomedetaillaterinthebook.Fornow,we maynotethebreadthofitsscope(thestructureofthecosmos,functioningof time),itsprimaryfocusoncosmicmetaphysicalquestions,anditsuseofthe term λόγος,thatmostversatileofallwordsinChristiantexts,whichspansseveral possiblemeanings:speech,dialogue,reason,orChrist.Infact,Origen’sdefinition
⁹⁹ Stromata 6.15.127.3–128.1.Clementalsousestheterm‘prophecy’torefertothewhole Septuagint,e.g. Pedagogue 1.11.96.3.
1⁰⁰ Athenagoras, APleafortheChristians 9. 1⁰1 CommentaryonCorinthians 55.
ofprophecyhereisanear-quotationofthedefinitionofadifferentconcept— ‘wisdom’—givenintheapocryphalJewishtexttheWisdomofSolomon.1⁰2
AnarticlebyCarolineBammelexaminesOrigen’sdefinition.1⁰3Shestateswithoutcaveatthatprophecyis‘notakindof γνῶσις orknowledge’.1⁰⁴Shetherefore makesthecasethatthedefinitionshouldbepunctuateddifferentlysothatitis readasadefinitionofprophecy(ἡδιὰλόγουτῶνἀφανῶνσεμαντική)followedby adefinitionof γνῶσις (εἴδησιςτῆςτοῦκόσμου etc.).Shetranslatesasfollows:
Prophecyistheartofindicatingthingsthatareunseenbymeansofwords.Gnosisis theknowledgeofthecompositionoftheuniverseandoftheactivityoftheelements andtimes.1⁰⁵
Idonotthinkthiscanstand.First,itisnotclearwhyOrigenwoulddefinethese twotermstogetherinsuchaway,ifnottodrawverycloselinksbetweenprophecy and γνῶσις:thispointisallthemoreacutegiventhequotationfromtheWisdom ofSolomon.Second,asIgoontoargueintherestofthisbook,prophecy is atype ofknowledgeforOrigen.1⁰⁶Ibelieve,therefore,thatthisdefinitionisdeliberately drawingtogethernotionsofwisdom,knowledge,andprophecy.
Origen’sseconddefinitionofprophecy,fromthecatenaeoftheFragmentson Matthew,isasfollows:
Προφητείαἐστὶπρόρρησιςμελλόντων,ὧνπερατουμένωντέλοςἔχειτὸῥηθέν.οὐκ
Prophecyisprognosticationofthefuture—ofthosethings,that,whentheyhave happened,whathasbeenforetoldisfulfilled.Thepredictiondidnothappenbecause itwasforetold:forthisisnotprophecy,butithasbeenforetoldbecauseitwillhappen inthefuture.Andthisisprophecy.
Thisdefinition,withitsfocusontellingthefuture,ismuchmoreinlinewith theotherdefinitionsgivenbypatristicwriters.Itdiffersinsofarasitcontainsan importantcaveataboutcausality—propheciesdonotmakethingshappen,but aremadebecausetheeventswillhappen.1⁰⁸Itis,however,importanttonote thatunderstandingOrigen’sviewofprophecyreliesontakingbothdefinitions
1⁰2 Wisdom7:17–18.IwillreturntotheimportanceofOrigen’suseofthisdefinitionfor‘prophecy’ asopposedto‘wisdom’inChapter8.
1⁰3 Bammel(1989).Harnackratherunhelpfullycommentsonlythatthisdefinitionisshortand probablyoriginatedinOrigen’slessons,cf.Harnack(1919),123n1:‘einekurzeDefinition,wiesie OrigeneswohlinseinemUnterrichtgegeben’.
1⁰⁴ Bammel(1989),p.489. 1⁰⁵ Bammel(1989),p.490.
1⁰⁶ IreturntoOrigen’sideasaboutknowledgeandepistemologyindetailinChapter8.
1⁰⁷ Fragment21onMatthew1.22,catenae.
1⁰⁸ IreturntothisissueindetailinChapter4.
together:Origendoesnotcountallpredictionofthefutureasprophetic.1⁰⁹ Origen’sdefinitionsofprophetsthemselvesarelessabstract,andmoreinlinewith hiscontemporaries.Theyincludethefollowing,fromthe SelectionsonEzekiel:
Prophetsarethosewhoservethewordthroughteaching,andprophesyingthethings ofGod.
Weseeinthisdefinitionthelinkbetweenprophetsandteaching,alinkwhich Origenalsodrawsinotherdefinitions: docereautemestprophetare.111
Toteachistoprophesy.
InashortbookonOrigenandprophecy,GunnarafHällströmemphasizesthis featureinparticular,arguingthatthemoreabstract CommentaryonCorinthians definitionalsoemphasizestheimportanceofteaching:
Bothdefinitions[ofprophecy,andofprophets]emphasizethattheprophetisa teacher.Prophecyis σημαντική, ittakesplace διὰλόγου andconsistsinadministering τῷλόγῳτῆςδιδασκαλίας.112
HällströmgiveshisowndefinitionofaprophetinOrigen’sthoughtasfollows:
TheprophetinOrigen’swritingsis,then,aperson ὁρῶνθεόν [seeingGod].Hismost importantequipmentisconsequentlythe‘eyeofthesoul’.113
Thisdefinitionissimilartoadefinitionfoundinthe Homilies ofpseudo-Clement: theprophetis‘hewhoseesall’(ὁπάντοτεπάνταεἰδώς);11⁴Hällströmpointstoa passageofOrigen’s AgainstCelsus whichexpressesaverysimilarnotion:
εὶἐνορῶντεςτῷθεῷκαὶτοῖςἀοράτοιςτοῦθεοῦκαὶμὴβλεπομένοιςαἰσθητῶςκαὶ διὰτοῦτοοὔσιναἰωνίοις.11⁵
[TheIsraeliteprophetswere]thosewhowerealwayslookingatGodandhisblessings, whicharenottobeperceivedbythesensesandbecauseofthisareeternal.
1⁰⁹ AgainstCelsus 4.95:‘Itisnecessarytorealisethatforeknowledgeofthefutureisnotnecessarily divine;forinitselfitismorallyneutralandhappenstobadandgood.’
11⁰ SelectionsonEzekiel 13. 111 CommentaryonMatthewCommentarySeries 49. 112 Hällström(1985),pp.24–25. 113 Hällström(1985),p.16.
11⁴ pseudo-Clementine Homilies 6.1.ItishighlycontestedwhethertheClementinehomilieswere writtenbeforeOrigen’slifetime.cf.Chapman(1902).Foranoverviewofthedebate,seeCarlson(2013). 11⁵ AgainstCelsus 7.7.
GunnarafHällströmalsoprovidesanotherdefinitionofaprophetinOrigen’s thought,claimingthatOrigenbelievesthataprophetisanalogoustoasage,‘more orlessaphilosopher’.11⁶Hearguesthatthisportrayalisverymuchinlinewith Philo’sunderstanding,atopictowhichIreturninChapter5.YetHällströmtakes afurtherstep:
Origenhasalsoshown,throughthesedefinitions,thathedoesnotfollowthegeneral viewof(OT)prophecyinearlyChristianity.Knowledgeofthefutureandofthe humanheartarenotconstituentofthiskindofprophecy.
ThisfitswithHällström’soverallthesisaboutprophecyinOrigen’sthought,which isthatthereweretwotiersofprophets:themajorscripturalprophets,whodealt withknowledgeofChrist,thefutureofIsrael,andmajoreschatologicalpoints;and theminor‘second-class’prophets,whohadonlylocalimportanceandprophesied onmattersofconventionalcommunityimportance(includingpredictionofthe future).WhileprophecytechnicallyculminatedinChrist,inreality,Christians inheritedthistwofoldstructure,withtheapostlesandsubsequent‘charismatic’ teachers—includingOrigenhimself—takingarolelikethatofthescriptural prophets,whilealargestructureofsecond-classprophetsandteachersbeneath themsupportedthemthroughtreatmentoflessspirituallypressingmatters. Hällström’staxonomyintofirst-andsecond-classprophetsrestsupon Against Celsus 1.37,whichheusestoargueastrongdistinctionbetweenthetwotypesof prophecyinOrigen’sthought,notonlyamongJews,butlater,amongChristians. SincethispassageofOrigenisimportantforunderstandingbothHällström’sthesis andmycriticisms,Iquoteitinfull:
ItseemstometohavebeenwellestablishedthattherewereprophetsamongtheJews whospokenotonlygeneralpredictionsaboutthefuture(προλέγοντεςοὐμόνοντὰ καθολικὰπερὶμελλόντων)—suchasthingsaboutChristandthekingdomsofthe worldandabouttheeventswhichwouldhappentoIsrael,andthosepeoplesthat wouldbelieveinthesaviourandmanyotherthingsabouthim—butalsospecific predictions(ἀλλὰκαὶτὰκαθ᾽ἕνα),suchashowthelostdonkeysofKishwouldbe found,andaboutthediseasethathadmadethesonofthekingofIsraelill,andany otherthingslikethiswhichhavebeenrecorded.11⁷
Hällströmtakesthestatement‘therewereprophetsamongtheJews’toindicate twoseparatestatements,eachpertainingtooneofthetwotypesofprophecy mentionedinthispassage(‘generalpredictionsaboutthefuture’and‘specific predictions’).Thatistosay,hereads‘therewereprophetsamongtheJewswho
11⁶ Hällström(1985),p.25. 11⁷ AgainstCelsus 1.37.
utteredgeneralpredictionsaboutthefuture’ and ‘therewereprophetsamongthe Jewswhoutteredpropheciesrespectingparticularevents’, and (implicitly)that thesearetwoseparategroupsofpeople.Ithinkthisisstretchingthetext.The phrase‘notonly...butalso’(οὐμόνον...ἀλλὰκαὶ)isconjunctive,makingitclear thattheprophetswhoutterthegeneralpropheciesarethesamepeopleasthe prophetswhoutterthespecificprophecies.11⁸Additionally,Origenemphasizes thisconjunctionbyclaimingthat‘ithasbeenwellestablished’—thatis,hefeelsthat whatheisclaimingisneitheruniquetohimnorparticularlycontroversial.Itwould beunusualifOrigenfeltthatproposingastrictdichotomoushierarchyofprophets was‘wellestablished’,giventhatweseenosuchclaiminanyotherChristianor Jewishwriterpriortohim.Origen’s AgainstCelsus isadetailedrebuttalofthe workofapreviouspaganthinker,Celsus—inplacesitcontainspoint-by-point rebuttal.Giventhispolemicalcontext,IthinkitismorelikelythatOrigenis,with thisemphaticformulation,rebuttingaspecificcriticismputbyCelsus.Tomeit seemsmostlikelythatCelsus’objectionhereisoneorbothofthefollowingpoints:
either1)‘Jewish/Christianprophetsallmakegeneralpredictionswhicheither don’tcometrueorcan’tbeprovedtohavecometrue’ and/or2)‘ChristianswronglyreadfulfilmentthroughChristintoJewish propheciesthatactuallyhavenothingtodowithChrist,andonthisbasis claimtruthforpropheciesthathavenotbeenprovedtrue’.
Inansweringinthisway,Origenwouldberefutingbothoftheseaccusations. Concerning1),Origen’srebuttalisthatprophetscanandroutinelydomake prophecies—suchasthataboutthedonkeysofKish—that are subjecttopost-hoc verification,andthosepropheciesareindeedprovedtocometrue.Concerning2), hisrebuttalisasfollows:sincetheprophetshavebeenproventobecorrectin localizedissuesofprophecy,wecanalsotrustthemintheirmoregeneralprophecies;ChristiansarecorrecttotakeChristastheproofofthoseprophecies.While Hällström’sdistinctionbetweenthetypesofprophecyissupportedbythetext— indeed,itisclearfromthistextthatOrigenbelievesdifferentcategoriesortypes ofprophecyarepossible—thereisnothinginOrigen’sworktosuggestthatthis distinctionhasanyparallelintheprophetsthemselves.Inthissense,Ialsodisagree withthischaracterizationofwhatitmeansforaprophettobea‘sage’inOrigen’s thought.While,asIshallargueinChapter5,Hällströmisrighttopointout Origen’srelianceonhighlyphilosophicalnotionsofthesagefrombothPhiloand Greektraditions,IdisagreethatthismeansOrigendoesnotincludeknowledgeof thefutureandofthehumanheartinhisdefinitionofprophecy.Indeed,inChapter 4,IdemonstrateexactlyhowthesetwosubjectsarelinkedinOrigen’sthought
cf.2764inSmyth(1920),p.630.
directlyunderthepurviewofprophecy.Additionally,Hällström’sdefinitiondoes notcapturethecentralityofChristtoOrigen’sdefinitionofprophecy,andits similaritytothedefinitionintheGospelofJohn—afeatureIargueforatlengthin Chapter8.
RobertHauckalsoexaminesOrigen’snotionofprophecyinhisbook TheMore DivineProof.Inthiswork,Hauckexaminesthepresentationofprophecyand inspirationintheargumentsmadebyOrigen(andimplicitlybyCelsus)in Against Celsus.11⁹Histhesis,inonesentence,isthefollowing:
ThequestionofpropheticknowledgeiscentraltowhatholdspaganandChristian apart,andindeed,isanimportantfacetoflateantiquereligiousthought.12⁰
SinceHauckisinterestedintherhetoricalframingofprophecyaspartofawider polemicalclashbetweenCelsusandOrigen,hemustestablishthebackground forbothmen’sviews;hethereforecarriesoutasurveyofGreekphilosophical doctrinesaboutprophecy,andalsoofearlyChristianunderstandingsofthesame topic.Hauck’sview,inshort,isthatthereisnoclearlyidentifiablefeatureof Greco-RomanprophecythatisnotalsofoundinChristianprophecy,and vice versa.Forexample,whileHällströmstatesthatthepresenceofpropheticecstasyis thedividinglinebetweenpaganandJudaeo-Christianprophecy,121Hauckwould (correctly)disagree,sincepropheticecstasycanbefoundinbothbutisuniform inneither.Instead,Hauckarguesthattounderstandwhycertaincategoriesof pagandivinationwererejectedbyChristiansonemustunderstandbothwhat madeprophecylegitimateinChristianeyes,andwhypagansrejectedChristian prophecy.Furthermore,hearguesthat,sincepropheticecstasyplaysanimportant roleinpolemicinbothpaganandChristiantheoriesofprophecy,itisnotinitself sufficientforclaimsoflegitimacyorillegitimacy,whichis,onceagain,inmyview completelycorrect.
Tomakehiscase,Haucktakesaccountofadiverserangeofauthors:Plato, Plutarch,Cicero,butalsoPhilo,Philostratus,JustinMartyr,Irenaeus,Tatian, Tertullian,andHermas.Centraltohisanalysisofthequestionofinspiration in AgainstCelsus istheproblemofhowhumanbeingscandistinguishbetween inspirationbyGodandinspirationbydemons.Hauckarguesthatwhilesome authorsmayclaimthepresenceofpropheticecstasyasthesignofdemonic inspiration,othersuseothercriteria:thisbecomesclearinthecaseofApollonius
11⁹ Therehavebeenanumberofotherexaminationsofprophecyin AgainstCelsus.Theyinclude: Sena(2007);Méhat(1987);Gasparro(1995).
12⁰ Hauck(1989),p.3.
121 ThusHällström:‘ecstasy[is]adividinglinebetweenChristianityandpaganism’.(Hällström [1985],p.15).Forfurtherdiscussionofthisfeatureseepp.102–104onpropheticecstasyinPlatonic philosophy,andChapter6forthelinesofdemarcationthatOrigenhimselfdrawsbetweenpaganand Judaeo-Christianprophecy.
ofTyana,aself-proclaimedprophetandsagewhosecriticsdidnotfocuson questionsofecstasy,butofmagicandcharlatanry.122AsHauckshows,paganand Christiancriticsalikeformulatedargumentsaboutthemoralityofthosepersons claimedasprophets,oftenusingthecriterionofimmoralityasawayofderidinga prophet’sclaimtolegitimacyandauthority.Whilethislineofargumentis,Ithink, aprofitableandsoundapproachtotherhetoricalcontext,thepointcanattimes becomereductive.Thisisespeciallythecasewhendealingwithalotofpolemical andapologeticworks,asHauckdoesinhislaterchapters.Hedoesnot,forexample, considerissueslikethequestionoffateorfreewill,prophecy’sinteractionwith time,ortherelationshipbetweenprophecyandscripture.
HauckdevotesachaptertoOrigen’sdoctrineonthequestionofprophecy.He concludesinthischapterthattheusualscholarlyspectrumofrationalism/mysticismdoesnotapplyverywelltoOrigen’sthoughtaboutinspirationandprophecy; instead,Hauckframesthequestion,ashehasinpreviouschapters,asoneof demonology:
Thisconflictaddressesapressingspiritualissueofitsworld:whichsidehasthe spiritualeffectivenesssufficienttobreaktheencompassingpowerofthedaemons andtomakeavailableknowledgeofGod?123
IthinkthatforacertainstrandofOrigen’sunderstandingofprophecy—which IaddressinChapter6—thisiscompletelycorrect.However,Hauck’sprimarily demonologicalapproachtoOrigen’sviewofprophecyislimitedbyhisexclusive focuson AgainstCelsus.Whileitworksextremelywellforthattext,itmissesa numberofotherfacetsforegroundedinotherworks.
ThemostacuteexaminationofprophecyinOrigen’sthoughtsofarhasbeen alongarticlebyIlariaRamelli,whichdrawsnotonlyfrom AgainstCelsus as manyscholarsdobutfromacrossOrigen’scorpus.12⁴Ramelliarguesthatfor Origen,prophecyis‘agiftsharedbymenandwomenalike’aswellasbeinga kindofproof.12⁵Shediscussestherelationshipbetweenprophecyandallegoryand makesthecasethatprophecycontainsthepromiseoftheuniversalrestoration (ἀποκατάστασις).12⁶AnumberofthepointsRamellimakeshaveresonancesfor thisstudy—inparticularherworkontheeschatologicalcomponentsofprophecy, towhichIreturninChapter8.However,herfocusisnotprimarilyonprophecy’s structure,andshedoesnotexaminetheaspectsofprophecyrelatedtofreewill andforeknowledgeinanydetail;inevitablyashorterstudycannotencompassas muchasamonograph-lengthworkcan.Inthisbook,Ialsousethewholerangeof Origen’scorpustoexaminecomprehensivelyOrigen’sconceptofprophecy.
122 IreturntoApolloniusindetailinChapter5. 123 Hauck(1989),p.135.
12⁴ Ramelli(2017b) 12⁵ Ramelli(2017b),p.18.
12⁶ IreturntothisconceptinChapter8.
