CUA Christian Culture(s) in the Patristic Age (Presentation Link)

For my presentation today at Catholic University of America’s conference on “Christian Culture and Cultures in the Patristic Age,” I’ve created with the Greek and English text of the poem I’ll be discussing (Gregory of Nazianzus’ poem 1.1.11, On the Incarnation). I’m particularly exited to show off the capabilities of hypothes.is, an excellent annotation tool.

You may find the demo site here: https://gregory.equul.us.

HTD: On Opting Out of the Tenure Track Search

The last 15 months have been almost dizzying. In that period, my wife gave birth to our second child; we moved twice and bought a house; I wrote the bulk of my dissertation, defended it, and graduated; and orchestrated a career change. It’s that last I’d like to reflect on here. Deciding to forego the tenure track job search was both painful and liberating; before too much time passes, I want to capture my thoughts.

Like many PhD candidates in the final year of their program, I was torn between two conflicting goals: applying to as many postdocs/teaching jobs as possible, and actually finishing the dissertation. The latter necessarily took precedence– I decided not to teach at all so I could finish, which meant that we were now paying the university a couple of thousand dollars a term for tuition. We were both committed to me finishing. I did apply to a few posts, and put considerable effort into both, but, as I fully expected, neither worked out. When 2019 rolled around, I saw only two academic options: 1) trying to string together a few adjunct posts in the DC area; 2) trying to find a 1–2 year appointment somewhere else in the country. Neither, as you can imagine, sounded particularly appealing. Things at this point came into much clearer focus.

The key question that emerged was this: do I have a strong enough sense of vocation to the academy to justify all the suffering that a tenure-track job search will cause for both me and my family? (Spoiler alert: no!). Throughout my time at Catholic, I felt strongly that what I was doing was worthwhile, regardless of what came next. It was a marvelous investment in both my mind and my soul, and shaped me in ways for which I’ll always be grateful. I embarked on this journey so that I could make meaningful contributions to the scholarship on early Christianity. Yet I began to see that the tenure-track path was not the only, nor necessarily the best path for what I’d set out to do. Though I’d begun with the expectation of eventually being a professor, it was the intellectual work of research that drew me, not teaching in a college setting. All I needed for research was a good library, and then time and space to think and write. The tenure track search promised neither time nor space, and much pain besides.

There were, of course, other reasons for foregoing the tenure track search. My wife, sister and I wanted to stay in the Washington DC area. After 7 years here, we’d developed friendships, particularly at church, that we were loath to give up. For cultural, educational, and demographic reasons we thought it a good place to raise our kids; and my wife loved her job and didn’t want to leave it. So too, my mother wanted to move to be close to us, but couldn’t really do that until we’d committed to being a particular place for a long time. It seemed to me much wiser to put relationships with friends and family before a particular job, because I knew I could find meaningful employment in a variety of settings, not just in the academy. I saw in fact that working outside the academy might give me the stability I need to pursue meaningful research projects in the time I’m not working.

This shift in perspective was easier for me than it would be for most: I had a skill (software development) that is both remunerative and in high-demand (my undergraduate degree is in Computer Science, and I worked at IBM in college as a Software Developer). It was, to use that word again, dizzying to go from a situation in where dozens or hundreds of highly qualified people would apply for a single position (the academy) to a context in which recruiters were calling and sending me e-mails regularly, even though I hadn’t worked as a software developer in 7 years. It wasn’t a cake walk by any means: I had to spend focused time getting caught up technically. But within a couple of months I was earning money as a developer. I started doing some freelance work over the summer, building a book search facility for a small press (https://buzzellbooks.fifthpress.org). In July, I started working in the Division of IT at University of Maryland, College Park as a software developer. Being on staff with a large university means, inter alia, full library privileges, for which I’m enormously thankful. It’s certainly been a challenge to remain connected to intellectual life, but it continues. I’m working slowly on a book proposal; this week I give a research presentation related to my dissertation work; and in January, I’ll present at the annual meeting of the Society for Classical Studies, the national academic organization for Classical Literature.

When I talk to friends still in graduate school, many tell me, “I wish I also had those technical skills!” The implication is that such a transition is impossible for them because they weren’t programmers in a previous life. It certainly was an enormous advantage for me that I had that prior experience. But my ability to write software was actually integrally connected with my ability to read classical languages (code is language, after all). So I’m convinced that nearly anyone smart enough to be in a PhD program that requires foreign language is also smart enough to learn to write software; it’s just a matter of time and opportunity. It’s also important that the intangible skills gained in a PhD (dedication to a long-term project, time management, self-motivation, analysis, writing…) are all extremely valuable in the marketplace; it does, however, require creative reconfiguration of how you see both yourself and present yourself to potential employers. The jump was easier for me than it would be for most (which is not to say it wasn’t painful and stressful). But above all, people in PhD programs (and those adjuncting afterwards) need to realize that they have autonomy. My last few years would have been considerably less stressful had I realized that sooner.

The change has certainly been painful, as all change is. We grow attached to our visions of the future; I’d imagined I’d end up teaching in some small liberal arts college in some small town. Visiting such places does make me yearn sometimes for a different modus vivendi. Friends and professors have been supportive by and large, but there’s certainly disappointment too– “o we’d hoped you would be the one to land that tenure track job!” And yet when I see how beautifully things have worked out, I’m overwhelmed by the mercy of the One who orchestrates all things with more intricate care than I could fathom.

What about research? One of the things I learned in my last year was that I could only do serious research for about 20 hours a week. I saw that even with 10 hours a week, I’d be able to make legitimate progress on research goals (articles, translations, etc.) During my final year, I had also gotten in the habit of getting up early before my kids got up to work for 60–90 minutes. I’ve maintained that practice since starting work as a developer. So there’s consistent time built into my schedule to do things not related to my full-time job (as it happens, I’ve been using that time to freelance lately). Not being under the eye of a hiring committee also affords me greater flexibility in the types of intellectual work I do. I can work on translations or editions instead of articles and monographs, for instance, or submit my work only to presses/journals that support open access. I’ll also have space to engage in digital humanities endeavors that wouldn’t necessarily map well onto a traditional publication. So I’m excited about the possibilities for my research. We’ll see what comes of it.

Upcoming Presentation: Oct. 4, 2019 at CUA

This Friday (Oct. 4, 2019), I’ll be giving a presentation at a conference at CUA devoted to Christian Culture in the Patristic age (program here). The presentation is devoted to Gregory’s poem 1.1.11, On the Incarnation (see my blog post here, for more on that poem). The presentations are aimed at a general audience, so if you’re in the area of Washington DC it would be a lovely way to spend an Autumn Friday. Prof. Robert Wilken will be delivering the keynote.

Text Criticism and Biblical Authority in Origen’s Homily on Ps 77

Here’s another post I originally published in 2017 on Origen’s Psalm Homilies.

Below you’ll find the Greek text of section 1 of Origen’s first Homily on Ps. 77 along with my translation. Beneath this, you’ll find my notes and comments.

(Update 3/27/17: James Snapp Jr wrote in, several weeks ago to point out an embarrassing typo and to direct me to Willer’s textual commentary on the Greek gospels: http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/index.html

Willker notes that Porphyry and Eusebius mention the reading; both seem to be repeating Origen.)

English Translation

We regularly say that the psalms with the prefix “of understanding” use this superscription to direct the listener to investigate carefully what has been said, as they need interpretation and explication, since every psalm with this prefix has dark sayings, riddles, and parables. This is indeed the case here, for we have the superscription, “of understanding, by Asaph” and immediately it says in the psalm, “I shall open my mouth in parables, I shall speak riddles as from the beginning.” (Ps. 77:2). One must know that Matthew mentions this saying– writing about how the Savior spoke in parables, he said, “so that the passage may be fulfilled ‘I shall open my mouth in parables; I shall speak in riddles as of from the beginning’ or rather, ‘ <I shall declare things hidden> since the establishing of the world’. (1) Though Matthew paraphrased with those sorts of words what was said in this way here, there occurred a scribal error in the copies of the gospel, for it says, “so that what was said through the prophet Isaiah may be fulfilled, ‘I will open my mouth in parables’”. It’s likely that one of the very first scribes found the text, “so that what was said through the prophet Asaph,” and supposed that it was an error because he did not realize that Asaph was a prophet. This caused him rashly to write “Isaiah” instead of “Asaph” because of his unfamiliarity with the prophet’s name.

Now it must be said that the devil generally plots against living creatures and plans to divide the churches, to contrive heresies and schisms, and to produce countless stumbling blocks among men. It’s no surprise, then, that he also plots against the scriptures. Since our salvation is through them, he contrives to introduce discrepancies among them, so that through these discrepancies readers might be scandalized. Which are we to heed, this one or that one? (2) You know all that we have labored over for God and for his grace, in juxtaposing the Hebrew text and the other editions to ascertain the proper correction of these mistakes. He will also grant aid in all that we want to do about the rest.

Now one must acknowledge this, that if someone ever proposes something as a contradiction in the scripture, we must not regard these as contradictions, as we know that either we don’t understand something or a scribal error has occurred, of the sort we find, for example, in the third book of Kings i.e. English 1 Kings. It is written there “Rehoboam reigned 16 years and reigned for 12 years over Jerusalem” (1 Kings 12:24) and later “He reigned for 41 years and 17 years over Jerusalem.” (1 Kings 14:21). It is impossible for the same man to have ruled for 16 years and to have ruled for 17 years.” But even if there not been this close scrutiny through our comparing the readings of the other editions, we would still hesitate to posit conflict among the scriptures because we discovered that one of them was interpolated.”

So we see that the devil plots against the scriptures, but we must not, therefore, rashly resort to correcting the text. For Marcion suffered from something of this sort in supposing that the scriptures were in error and that the devil had brought about additions. So he entrusted himself with the task of correcting the scripture. In so doing, he cut out from the foundations necessary parts of the gospels, like the birth of the savior, and countless others, like the visions and prophecies, and necessary parts of the apostle. As such, it’s reasonable for one have faith in the maker of heaven and earth and all within them more because of the universe and the order in it, than because of the scriptures. Likewise, it’s reasonable for one to believe in Christ Jesus more because of the clear display of his power in the churches, and from the multitude of the might he shows in ruling the world, than because the scriptures. Only afterwards should one then come to the scriptures, and even then, one should ask again for grace from God, so that we don’t misunderstand what has been written.

The scriptures are the pretext for much death coming upon souls. Every heresy takes its ungodly notions from the scriptures and from them they also think to establish them further. Some heresies have their roots in the gospels, some in the apostolic writings, some from the law, and some of the prophets. I say this not to impugn the scriptures, but because I want to show that initial faith comes about not so much on the basis of the scriptures as on the proof of something clearer than the scriptures. Heaven and Earth, and all within it, are a much clearer proof than the scriptures. I recall saying once while in discussion with some Marcionites, “There are two choices— what ought we to do? Believe in the scriptures, which you say lead to the Father, or believe in the universe and its order, which leads to the Demiurge (3)? For if the scriptures did not contain these, it would be reasonable for someone to look at the universe, see its order, and to believe in its creator, instead of holding the sorts of notions that you hold.” (4) And it seems to me that this was rightly said, and able to strike the one who’s looking for an argument clearer than this less persuasive one. For it’s a much clearer argument to look to heaven, the constellations, the sun, moon, and stars, the earth, and the animals on the earth, and then to their king on the earth, mankind, adorned with such skills, and then to marvel at the one who made all of this and receive the herald of such marvelous teaching, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This then is my defense of the passage in the gospel of Matthew, “in order to fulfill what was said by the prophet Isaiah, ‘I shall open my mouth in parables; I shall speak riddles as from the beginning.’”

Comments

There’s quite a bit that’s fascinating in this passage. Origen has a problem: his copies of Matthew attribute this passage to Isaiah, when it clearly comes from the psalms. His solution is text critical: he posits an emendation to change the name from Isaiah to Asaph. He even goes a step further and speculates on the reason for the change: a scribe didn’t realize who Asaph was, and substituted the name of a prophet he did know.

The situation in the mss is quite different. All of the early majuscules simply say “the prophet” without specifying a name, with one notable exception: Sinaiticus. It seems likely, however, that “Isaiah the prophet” was the reading in all of Origen’s manuscripts, as he has to resort to emendation. Not only that, he supposes that it was one of the very first scribes that made the mistake (τὶς τῶν ἀρχῆθεν γραφόντων). Perhaps the “Isaiah” reading was widespread in Caesarea in the 3rd century. Someone who knows more about the textual history of Matthew can no doubt elucidate this better than I. For what it’s worth, it seems to me that the error arose because of the formulaic nature of the clause. Matthew cites Isaiah again and again; it would be quite easy for a scribe to insert the name by accident where it doesn’t belong. As one who’s memorized portions of Matthew, I can say that keeping straight the various subtle changes from one “fulfillment formula” to the next is not easy.

Origen does not want to resort to emendation too quickly, however. Marcion is his chief example of a rash emender. I find Origen’s strategy rather fascinating. He doesn’t have a shared authoritative text from which to argue, and so he can’t point to scripture. Instead, he points to extra-textual phenomenon: the order of the universe, the power of the churches, and it seems, the moral purity of Jesus’ teachings. The scriptures are sufficiently contested, especially in the most difficult passages, that they shouldn’t form the foundation of one’s faith, or, at least, shouldn’t be set forth as the way to convince someone to become a Christian. Ideally, for Origen, faith precedes serious engagement with the scriptures. That doesn’t mean, however, that the scriptures aren’t extremely important. Our salvation “is through them” and that’s precisely why the devil plots and schemes against them. The scriptures are a spiritual treasure, but can easily become a stumbling block if one doesn’t come to them with the right approach.

Notes

(Editorial additions marked with an asterisk are my own tentative suggestions. Those not so marked are Perrone’s).

There seems to be an error in the text here. The psalm reads φθέγξομαι προβλήματα ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς (“I shall speak riddles from the beginning”) , but the gospel reads ἐρεύξομαι κεκρυμμένα ἀπο καταβολῆς κοσμοῦ (“I shall reveal things hidden from the foundation of the world.”) The following text suggests we should have Matthew’s reading here (which we do in part with ἤτοι ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου), as Origen characterizes Matthew’s citation as a paraphrase (παραφρασάντος … Ματθαίου). I’ve supplied ἐρεύξομαι κεκρυμμένα after ἤτοι. We would then understand Origen to be correcting himself with the ἤτοι (these homilies are not explicitly labeled as impromptu in the ms, but others in the collection are). Conceivably Origen meant to cite the text as found in Matthew’s gospel, but instead used the Psalm’s wording. The following sentence seems suspicious too. We’d expect the δέ in the opening of the sentence, not after γέγονε, but Origen does seem to use so called apodotic δέ. I’ve tentatively inserted a μέν after παραφράσαντος to bring out the contrast. Such a construction (μέν+δέ with a genitive absolute) wouldn’t be classical Attic, but it seems we need something to smooth over the asyndeton. I’d have to do more work with the TLG to determine the insertion is fully warranted.

I wonder if something has dropped out here, or the text is corrupt. We have a very sudden transition with no nominative to clarify the change in subject. I’ve changed οἶδεν (“he knows”) to οἶδατε (“you all know”), which seems to make decent sense.

Marcion held that there were two distinct gods, one of the Old Testament and one of the New Testament. The OT god, generally called the Demiurge or Creator had created the universe, but was generally angry and arbitrary. The NT god, the Father, was the higher god and the father of Christ. He had sent Christ to correct the mistakes of the Demiurge.

Origen’s point is that even if you excise everything in the scriptures about God being creator, one could infer a good creator from the order in the universe.

Greek Text

Πολλάκις λέγομεν ὅτι οἱ ἐπιγεγραμμένοι συνέσεως ψαλμοὶ διὰ τῆς ἐπιγραφῆς ἐπιστρέφουσι τὸν ἀκούοντα ζητεῖν τὰ ἐν τῷ ψαλμῷ λεγόμενα ὡς δεόμενα ἑρμηνείας καὶ διηγήσεως τῷ σκοτεινοὺς λόγους καὶ αἰνίγματα καὶ παραβολὰς ἐμπεριέχεσθαι παντὶ ψαλμῷ, ὅπου γέγραπται τὸ συνέσεως. Τοῦτο δὴ καὶ ἐνθάδε γεγένηται· ἐπιγέγραπται γὰρ συνέσεως τῷ Ἀσάφ, καὶ εὐθέως λέγεται ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ ἀνοίξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ στόμα μου, φθέγξομαι προβλήματα ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς. Καὶ τοῦτο χρὴ εἰδέναι, ὅτι τοῦ μὲν ῥητοῦ ἐμνήσθη ὁ Ματθαῖος. Περὶ γὰρ τοῦ σωτῆρος γράφων ὅτι ἐν παραβολαῖς ἐλάλησεν, εἶπεν· ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ “ἀνοίξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ στόμα μου, φθέγξομαι προβλήματα ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς”, ἤτοι <ἐρεύξομαι κεκρυμμένα> ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. Παραφράσαντος <μέν> τὸ ῥητὸν τοιαύταις λέξεσιν οὕτως ἐνθάδε εἰρημένον τοῦ Ματθαίου, γέγονε δὲ περὶ τὰ ἀντίγραφα τοῦ εὐαγγελίου σφάλμα γραφικόν· ‘ἵνα γάρ,’ φησί, ‘πληρωθῇ τὸ εἰρημένον ὑπὸ Ἠσαΐου· “ἀνοίξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ στόμα μου”’. Εἰκὸς γὰρ ἕνα τινὰ τῶν ἀρχῆθεν γραφόντων μὴ ἐπιστήσαντα μὲν ὅτι ἐστὶν ὁ Ἀσὰφ προφήτης, εὑρόντα δὲ τὸ ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ εἰρημένον ὑπὸ Ἀσάφ, ὑπειληφέναι ὅτι ἁμάρτημά ἐστι καὶ τετολμηκέναι διὰ τὸν ξενισμὸν τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ προφήτου ποιῆσαι ἀντὶ τοῦ Ἀσὰφ Ἠσαΐου.

Καὶ καθόλου δὲ λεκτέον, ὅτι ζῶσιν ἐπιβουλεύει ὁ διάβολος καὶ τὰςἐκκλησίας βούλεται διασκορπίζειν, ἐπινοεῖν δὲ καθ’ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν αἱρέσειςκαὶ σχίσματα, ἔτι δὲ καὶ σκάνδαλα μυρία γεννᾶν ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. Οὐθαυμαστὸν εἰ καὶ ταῖς γραφαῖς ἐπιβουλεύει· ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἡ σωτηρία ἡμῶνδι’ αὐτῶν ἐστιν, ἐπινοεῖ διαφωνίαν γενέσθαι ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς, ἵνα διὰ τῆςδιαφωνίας γένηται σκάνδαλον τοῖς ἀναγινώσκουσι· τίνι προσακτέον, τῷδε ἢτῷδε; Καὶ ὅσα μὲν διὰ τὸν θεὸν καὶ τὴν χάριν αὐτοῦ ἐκάμομεν, συνεξετάζοντεςκαὶ τὰ Ἑβραϊκὰ καὶ τὰς ἐκδόσεις ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἰδεῖν τὴν διόρθωσιν τῶν σφαλμάτων, οἶδατε (Perrone and the ms read οἶδεν)· ὅσα δὲ θέλομεν καὶ περὶ τὰ λείποντα ποιῆσαι, αὐτὸς εὐοδώσει.

Τοῦτο μέντοι χρὴ εἰδέναι· ἐάν ποτε προτείνηταί <τι> ὡς ἐναντίωμα ἀπὸτῆς γραφῆς, μὴ νομίζωμεν ἐναντιώματα εἶναι, εἰδότες ὅτι ἤτοι ἡμεῖς οὐνοοῦμεν ἢ ἁμάρτημα γέγονε γραφικόν, οἷον ἐπὶ παραδείγματος ἄντικρυςεὕρομεν διαφωνίαν τῇ τρίτῃ τῶν Βασιλειῶν. Γέγραπται γὰρ ἐκεῖ ὅτι Ῥοβοὰμἑκκαίδεκα ἐτῶν ἐβασίλευσε καὶ δώδεκα ἔτη ἐβασίλευσεν ἐπὶ Ἰερουσαλὴμ καὶπάλιν· τεσσαράκοντα ἑνὸς ἐτῶν ἐβασίλευσε καὶ τὰ ἑπτακαίδεκα ἔτηἐβασίλευσεν ἐπὶ τὴν Ἰερουσαλήμ. Ἀμήχανον δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν ἑκκαίδεκα ἐτῶνπαρειληφέναι τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ ἐπὶ ἑπτακαίδεκα βεβασιλευκέναι. Καὶ εἰ μὴπολλὴ ἐξέτασις ἐγεγόνει, συνεξεταζόντων ἡμῶν ταῦτα τὰ ἀναγνώσματα ταῖςλοιπαῖς ἐκδόσεσιν, ἐμέλλομεν οἴεσθαι μάχην εἶναι τῶν γεγραμμένων, ὡςεὕρομεν ὅτι τὸ ἕτερον αὐτῶν παραγέγραπται.

Ἐπιβουλεύει τοίνυν καὶ ταῖς γραφαῖς ὁ διάβολος, ἀλλὰ οὐ διὰ τοῦτο ἡμᾶς χρὴ τολμᾶν καὶ προπετῶς ἥκειν ἐπὶ τὴν διόρθωσιν. Τοιοῦτον γάρ τι παθὼν καὶ ὁ Μαρκίων καὶ ὑπολαβὼν ἡμαρτῆσθαι τὰς γραφὰς καὶ τοῦ διαβόλου γεγονέναι παρεγγραφάς, ἐπέτρεψεν ἑαυτῷ διορθοῦν τὴν γραφήν. Καὶ ἐπιτρέψας, ἦρεν ἐκ βάθρων τὰ ἀναγκαῖα τῶν εὐαγγελίων, τὴν γένεσιν τοῦ σωτῆρος, καὶ ἄλλα μυρία, καὶ ὀπτασίας καὶ προφητείας καὶ τὰ ἀναγκαῖα τοῦ ἀποστόλου. Διὰ τοῦτο εὔλογόν ἐστι τὸν πίστιν ἔχοντα, οὐ τοσοῦτον διὰ τὰς γραφὰς ὅσον διὰ τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὴν τάξιν τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ, <εἰς> τὸν ποιήσαντα τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ πιστεύοντα εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, οὐ τοσοῦτον ἀπὸ τῶν ἀναγνωσμάτων ὅσον ἀπὸ τῆς ἐναργείας ἐκ τῆς δυνάμεως τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν, ἐκ τοῦ πλήθους τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ κεκρατηκότος τῆς οἰκουμένης, ἔπειτα ἥκειν ἐπὶ τὰ γράμματα, μετὰ τοῦτο πάλιν αἰτεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ χάριν, ἵνα μὴ παρεκδεξώμεθα τὰ γεγραμμένα.

Πολὺς γὰρ θάνατος ἐπεισῆλθε ψυχαῖς προφάσει τῶν γραμμάτων. Πᾶσα αἵρεσις ἀπὸ τῶν γραμμάτων φέρεται τὰ ἀσεβῆ νοήματα καὶ ἀπ’ αὐτῶν οἴονται αὐτὰ κατασκευάζειν· ἀπὸ εὐαγγελίων, ἀπὸ ἀποστόλων, τινὲς δὲ αἱρέσεις ἀπὸ νόμου, ἀπὸ προφητῶν. Οὐ ταῦτα λέγω κατηγορῶν τῶν γραφῶν, ἀλλὰ βουλόμενος τὴν προηγουμένην πίστιν γενέσθαι οὐ τοσοῦτον ἐπὶ τὴν γραφὴν ὅσον ἐπὶ τὴν τῆς γραφῆς ἐναργεστέραν ἀπόδειξιν· ἐναργεστέρα δὲ τῆς γραφῆς ἀπόδειξις οὐρανός, γῆ καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ. Τοῖς ἀπὸ Μαρκίωνος διαλεγόμενος <μέμνημαι> εἰρηκέναι· “δύο προκειμένων—πιστεύειν τῇ γραφῇ, ὡς ὑμεῖς λέγετε πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, ἢ πιστεύειν τῷ κόσμῳ καὶ τῇ τάξει πρὸς τὸν δημιουργόν—, τί χρὴ μᾶλλον ποιεῖν; Εἰ γὰρ καὶ ἡ γραφὴ <μὴ> ταῦτα περιεῖχεν, εὔλογον ἦν ἐπὶ τὸν κόσμον ἐλθόντα καὶ ἰδόντα τὴν τάξιν, πεπιστευκέναι τῷ δημιουργῷ ἢ τοιαύτας ὑπολήψεις ἔχειν περὶ θεοῦ ὁποίας ὑμεῖς ὑπειλήφατε”; Καὶ ἔστιν ἀληθῶς τὸ λεγόμενον, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, οἷόν τε πλῆξαι τὸν ζητοῦντα ἀπόδειξιν ἐναργεστέραν παρὰ ὑποδεεστέραν· ἐναργεστέρα ἀπόδειξις βλέπειν οὐρανόν, ἄστρα, ἥλιον, σελήνην, ἀστέρας, γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ γῆς ζῷα, αὐτῶν βασιλέα τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν ἐπὶ γῆς τοσαύταις τέχναις κεκοσμημένον, θαυμάζειν τὸν ταῦτα πεποιηκότα καὶ ἀποδέχεσθαι τὸν κήρυκα τῆς διδασκαλίας τῆς τοιαύτης, Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν σωτῆρα ἡμῶν. Καὶ τοῦτο εἰς ἀπολογίαν διὰ τὸ ἐν τῷ κατὰ Ματθαῖον γεγράφθαι, ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου· ἀνοίξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ στόμα μου, φθέγξομαι προβλήματα ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς.

Bibliography

Perrone, L., M. M. Pradel, and A. Cacciari, Origenes Werke, vol. 13: Die neuen Psalmenhomilien (Berlin 2015)

Evagrius, On Prayer 47–49

47

The demon is exceedingly envious of a person at prayer and uses every means to ruin this goal. That’s why it never ceases stirring up thoughts about daily affairs through the memory and inciting compulsive desires through the flesh. It does this so that it can impede our progress in our journey out of this country to God.

48

Whenever that most foul demon is unable, after much trying, to hinder earnest prayer, it withdraws for a short time and then later has its revenge after the end of prayer. It either kindles some sort of anger within you and ruins that excellent and disciplined state that comes from prayer, or seduces you to some irrational pleasure and does violence to your mind.

49

After you have prayed as you ought, be on your guard against what you ought not to do and stand with courage as you guard your fruit. After all, in the beginning you were commanded “to work and to keep.” So after you have done your work, do not let the result of your labor go unguarded. Otherwise, you’ll have no benefit from your prayer.

Evagrius, On Prayer 44–46

44

If your mind still gazes about you during the time of prayer, you know that a solitary mind is no longer praying, but a worldly one, for it is trying to adorn its outward tent.

45

In your prayer. guard your memory with all your power so that it doesn’t present all the normal things to the mind but instead moves you to knowledge of the presence. By natural inclination the mind is easily held captive by memory during the time of prayer.

46

While in prayer your memory will present to you either mental images of old matters, or newer concerns, or the face of someone who has caused you pain.