On Not Misreading Origen

This essay draws together points from earlier short studies in an attempt to clarify why and how Origen was misunderstood by both his critics and his defenders in the fourth century. We need to identify what he is seeking to avoid saying: his concern is to rule out any kind of divisibility in the di...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Modern theology 2022-04, Vol.38 (2), p.305-317
1. Verfasser: Williams, Rowan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 317
container_issue 2
container_start_page 305
container_title Modern theology
container_volume 38
creator Williams, Rowan
description This essay draws together points from earlier short studies in an attempt to clarify why and how Origen was misunderstood by both his critics and his defenders in the fourth century. We need to identify what he is seeking to avoid saying: his concern is to rule out any kind of divisibility in the divine life, and also to challenge any suggestion that the effect of the Logos’s activity in creation is in any way limited. These concerns explain why he is critical of widely received exegetical consensus on some passages when such consensus gives hostages to the views he seeks to exclude. Furthermore, this must all be understood in the context of a model of scriptural exegesis which is both deeply informed by the literary scholarship of the day and shaped by the understanding of exegesis as a ‘priestly’ task of induction into the divine life of the Logos.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/moth.12755
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2645375399</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2645375399</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2605-346c4a36890c7e82d0db5ee0de20185a5a981a81298715e411560e86494db73c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9jz1PwzAQhi0EEqGwMDFGYkNyufO3R1QBRWrJUmbLTdySqk2KnQr135MSZm55l-fuvYeQW4Qx9vO4a7vPMTIt5RnJUChDAZg8JxkwpahGrS_JVUobAERtISN3RZO_t10-r1MMvqqbdV7Eeh2aa3Kx8tsUbv5yRD5enheTKZ0Vr2-TpxktmQJJuVCl8FwZC6UOhlVQLWUIUAUGaKSX3hr0Bpk1GmUQiFJBMEpYUS01L_mI3A9397H9OoTUuU17iE1f6ZgSkmvJre2ph4EqY5v6T1duH-udj0eH4E7m7mTufs17GAf4u96G4z-kmxeL6bDzA9LJV7g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2645375399</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>On Not Misreading Origen</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Williams, Rowan</creator><creatorcontrib>Williams, Rowan</creatorcontrib><description>This essay draws together points from earlier short studies in an attempt to clarify why and how Origen was misunderstood by both his critics and his defenders in the fourth century. We need to identify what he is seeking to avoid saying: his concern is to rule out any kind of divisibility in the divine life, and also to challenge any suggestion that the effect of the Logos’s activity in creation is in any way limited. These concerns explain why he is critical of widely received exegetical consensus on some passages when such consensus gives hostages to the views he seeks to exclude. Furthermore, this must all be understood in the context of a model of scriptural exegesis which is both deeply informed by the literary scholarship of the day and shaped by the understanding of exegesis as a ‘priestly’ task of induction into the divine life of the Logos.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0266-7177</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-0025</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/moth.12755</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Apologists ; exegesis ; Psalms ; subordinationism ; Valentinians</subject><ispartof>Modern theology, 2022-04, Vol.38 (2), p.305-317</ispartof><rights>2021 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2022 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fmoth.12755$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fmoth.12755$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Williams, Rowan</creatorcontrib><title>On Not Misreading Origen</title><title>Modern theology</title><description>This essay draws together points from earlier short studies in an attempt to clarify why and how Origen was misunderstood by both his critics and his defenders in the fourth century. We need to identify what he is seeking to avoid saying: his concern is to rule out any kind of divisibility in the divine life, and also to challenge any suggestion that the effect of the Logos’s activity in creation is in any way limited. These concerns explain why he is critical of widely received exegetical consensus on some passages when such consensus gives hostages to the views he seeks to exclude. Furthermore, this must all be understood in the context of a model of scriptural exegesis which is both deeply informed by the literary scholarship of the day and shaped by the understanding of exegesis as a ‘priestly’ task of induction into the divine life of the Logos.</description><subject>Apologists</subject><subject>exegesis</subject><subject>Psalms</subject><subject>subordinationism</subject><subject>Valentinians</subject><issn>0266-7177</issn><issn>1468-0025</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9jz1PwzAQhi0EEqGwMDFGYkNyufO3R1QBRWrJUmbLTdySqk2KnQr135MSZm55l-fuvYeQW4Qx9vO4a7vPMTIt5RnJUChDAZg8JxkwpahGrS_JVUobAERtISN3RZO_t10-r1MMvqqbdV7Eeh2aa3Kx8tsUbv5yRD5enheTKZ0Vr2-TpxktmQJJuVCl8FwZC6UOhlVQLWUIUAUGaKSX3hr0Bpk1GmUQiFJBMEpYUS01L_mI3A9397H9OoTUuU17iE1f6ZgSkmvJre2ph4EqY5v6T1duH-udj0eH4E7m7mTufs17GAf4u96G4z-kmxeL6bDzA9LJV7g</recordid><startdate>202204</startdate><enddate>202204</enddate><creator>Williams, Rowan</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>C18</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202204</creationdate><title>On Not Misreading Origen</title><author>Williams, Rowan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2605-346c4a36890c7e82d0db5ee0de20185a5a981a81298715e411560e86494db73c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Apologists</topic><topic>exegesis</topic><topic>Psalms</topic><topic>subordinationism</topic><topic>Valentinians</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Williams, Rowan</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Humanities Index</collection><jtitle>Modern theology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Williams, Rowan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>On Not Misreading Origen</atitle><jtitle>Modern theology</jtitle><date>2022-04</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>305</spage><epage>317</epage><pages>305-317</pages><issn>0266-7177</issn><eissn>1468-0025</eissn><abstract>This essay draws together points from earlier short studies in an attempt to clarify why and how Origen was misunderstood by both his critics and his defenders in the fourth century. We need to identify what he is seeking to avoid saying: his concern is to rule out any kind of divisibility in the divine life, and also to challenge any suggestion that the effect of the Logos’s activity in creation is in any way limited. These concerns explain why he is critical of widely received exegetical consensus on some passages when such consensus gives hostages to the views he seeks to exclude. Furthermore, this must all be understood in the context of a model of scriptural exegesis which is both deeply informed by the literary scholarship of the day and shaped by the understanding of exegesis as a ‘priestly’ task of induction into the divine life of the Logos.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/moth.12755</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0266-7177
ispartof Modern theology, 2022-04, Vol.38 (2), p.305-317
issn 0266-7177
1468-0025
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2645375399
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Apologists
exegesis
Psalms
subordinationism
Valentinians
title On Not Misreading Origen
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T20%3A51%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=On%20Not%20Misreading%20Origen&rft.jtitle=Modern%20theology&rft.au=Williams,%20Rowan&rft.date=2022-04&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=305&rft.epage=317&rft.pages=305-317&rft.issn=0266-7177&rft.eissn=1468-0025&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/moth.12755&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2645375399%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2645375399&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true