[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Of course, this may not be as directly relevant as his thoughtsabout language being developed in view of the unique biblical role of Johnthe Baptist.In another piece of his Johannine commentary (In Joh.1.24Preuschen, p.29, 17 31), Origen censures the heretics for seeking scripturalpassages to support their theology of a divine logos conceived merely asthe voice or utterance (profor`an) of God; this would amount to a denialof the reality (Hup´ostasin) or substance (ohus´ian) of the Logos, which isquite unacceptable.So Origen may have in mind this sort of worry when hedistinguishes voice and language, with the aim of securing a superior realityfor the divine Logos.Edwards points out some similar worries in Philo.The learned Jew perceived that the divine will to communicate, evinced bothin creation and in scripture as the record of creation, was better represented bythis term [logos] than by its Platonic rivals, nous and paradeigma; on the otherhand, both commonsense and piety forbade him to imagine that the speech ofGod consists of sounds like those emitted by the human larynx.The instrumentof creation in Philo s thought is therefore not so much a word as a changelesspattern which abode in the mind as a coherent scheme of being when it had notyet taken shape in space and time.16Edwards may have stretched the point about the nature of Philo s instrument of creation a little too far (see Philo, Sacr.65 Cohn; Decal.47Cohn; Migr.6 Wendland; Opif.16 37 Cohn), but there certainly is a greateremphasis in Origen on the creative and communicative role of the Logos, adivine power which is distinguished from the purely physical yet inspiredfwn¨jß kaqa´iretai l´ogoß, t^¨j f´usei to¨u l´ogou kaqa´irontoß p¨asan t`jnsjma´inousan fwn´jn.Ka`i Hapaxapl¨wß ote h Iw´annjß t`on crist`on de´iknusin, anqrwpoß qe`on de´iknusi ka`i swt¨jra t`on has´wmaton, ka`i fwn`j t`on l´ogon.16 Edwards, Origen Against Plato, p.67.The words in square brackets supplywhat is clear from the context of discussion.Edwards covers a number of basiccontrasts with Philo on the Logos, particularly the basic shift in Origen away fromthe Philonic notion of the Ideas as thoughts in the mind of God, towards speaking ofitems or contents in the divine mind.Thümmel, Philon und Origenes , pp.282 3discusses the distinction in Origen between Sophia and Logos, which suggests to methat Origen s Sophia is a notion closer to Philo s Logos; as Thümmel points out withreference to the Johannine commentary, Origen s Logos is more heavily orientedtowards rational beings and their destiny. 52 Word and Meaning in Ancient Alexandriavoice from God.Origen may have registered the theological worries sharedwith Philo by distinguishing clearly between voice and language, raising thereality of the divine Word to a superior level above mere voice.The Logosis stable and not subject to physical limitations, yet it is separated from thedivine mind as well in being revealed in the world.On the anthropic level, Origen does little to clarify the connection betweenincorporeal and corporeal (audible) linguistic entities, apart from observingthat human logos is more independent.Our vocal faculty cannot producemeaningful utterances by itself (compare St.Paul on glossolalia, 1 Cor.13.1),its utterances cannot independently attain the power of spoken language; onthe other hand, language may be produced by itself, being unspoken withinthe mind.However, we are told that utterances depend on the purifying functionof incorporeal language to make them meaningful (t^¨j f´usei to¨u l´ogoukaqa´irontoß p¨asan t`jn sjma´inousan fwn´jn).Why does Origen loadhis semantics with hieratic notions? What does he mean by the purifyingfunction of language? I would explain the matter as follows.Origen pointsout that human logos can be independent of vocal sound, being freely activein the mind without any verbal expression, in contrast to the voice, whichdepends on language to be meaningful.Of course, there are importantconnections between voice and language.This is seen from the examplesof John the Baptist as well as Zacharias, which show that hearing the voiceprecedes the mind s understanding of language.But we are also told thatutterances depend on the purifying function of incorporeal logos to makethem meaningful.Perhaps Origen means by purifying the ordering andcompletion of vocal sound by logos (compare In Joh.10.28 Preuschen, pp.201, 28 202, 1).We might compare the rational ordering of logos to thecreative activity of the divine Logos in forming bodies by inserting qualitiesinto matter.17 Presumably, the function of human logos emerging from thispassage also makes meaningful utterances reflect truth, a capacity whichultimately derives from divine reason.18Now I will briefly introduce some broader philosophical comparisons.Ihave already pointed out Origen s emphasis on the activity of incorporealLogos in the world.For the Logos is required to assume an outward role, inaccord with standard Stoic ideas as well as the Johannine view of the Wordmade incarnate.Denying logos an outward role would also depart sharplyfrom contemporary Platonist Peripatetics such as Origen s nemesis Porphyry,who stands firmly in the logos distinction tradition.For Porphyry, logos is17 Compare Bostock, Origen s Philosophy of Creation , p.259.18 Compare Robert M.Berchman, Self-Knowledge and Subjectivity in Origen ,in Origeniana Octava, pp.437 50 at 438 9, 442 4. Origen 53speech articulated by the tongue, signifying (sjmantik`j) of the inwardaffections (paq¨wn) of the soul. 19 However, this distinction of meaningfulspeech and the contents of mind differs from Origen s distinction.Origendenies that speech is intelligible in its own right, rather it is understoodby virtue of language, a view which is not prominent in the philosophicalmainstream.Mind and Body in LanguageIn Chapter 1, we saw that Philo presents speech as the physical vehicle ofmeaning.In Origen, we have reviewed one text which distinguishes voice andlanguage, detailing differences in the function and nature of these elements.However, Origen is not always quite so concerned to distinguish voice andlanguage, even in this monumental work of biblical commentary, nor does heuse the same semantic terminology in everything he writes.On occasion, heslips into the traditional container or vehicle images familiar from Philoand other writers.For example, when discussing the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem ridingon an ass (Jn.12.12 14), Origen writes as follows (In Joh.10.29 Preuschen,p.202, 13 16). And perhaps (someone) might reasonably compare thevocal sounds which envelop the logos which brings them into the soul toan ass, for the beast is a burden bearer, and a great burden and a heavy loadare revealed from the text. 20 Here Origen locates language within voice, itsvehicle.Besides this passage, other passages are more closely aligned withphilosophical tradition in terminology and conceptual resources, as we willsee a bit later.It is possible that Origen senses a lack of biblical support for the containerand vehicle models most of the relevant biblical passages focus on themouth and the heart, for example, Ps.15.2; Ps.44.2; Mt.12.34; Lk.6.45.There may also be philosophical discomfort in the interaction of intelligibleand sensible realities.How is an intelligible content or meaning lodged inan enveloping articulate sound? The relation between the incorporeal andthe bodily is a notorious problem for Origen s theology in general.In his19 Porphyry, Abst.3.3 Nauck, p.188, 17 20.At least in the bit about signifyinginternal affections, Porphyry says something that sounds Aristotelian (Aristotle, Int [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl matkasanepid.xlx.pl
.Of course, this may not be as directly relevant as his thoughtsabout language being developed in view of the unique biblical role of Johnthe Baptist.In another piece of his Johannine commentary (In Joh.1.24Preuschen, p.29, 17 31), Origen censures the heretics for seeking scripturalpassages to support their theology of a divine logos conceived merely asthe voice or utterance (profor`an) of God; this would amount to a denialof the reality (Hup´ostasin) or substance (ohus´ian) of the Logos, which isquite unacceptable.So Origen may have in mind this sort of worry when hedistinguishes voice and language, with the aim of securing a superior realityfor the divine Logos.Edwards points out some similar worries in Philo.The learned Jew perceived that the divine will to communicate, evinced bothin creation and in scripture as the record of creation, was better represented bythis term [logos] than by its Platonic rivals, nous and paradeigma; on the otherhand, both commonsense and piety forbade him to imagine that the speech ofGod consists of sounds like those emitted by the human larynx.The instrumentof creation in Philo s thought is therefore not so much a word as a changelesspattern which abode in the mind as a coherent scheme of being when it had notyet taken shape in space and time.16Edwards may have stretched the point about the nature of Philo s instrument of creation a little too far (see Philo, Sacr.65 Cohn; Decal.47Cohn; Migr.6 Wendland; Opif.16 37 Cohn), but there certainly is a greateremphasis in Origen on the creative and communicative role of the Logos, adivine power which is distinguished from the purely physical yet inspiredfwn¨jß kaqa´iretai l´ogoß, t^¨j f´usei to¨u l´ogou kaqa´irontoß p¨asan t`jnsjma´inousan fwn´jn.Ka`i Hapaxapl¨wß ote h Iw´annjß t`on crist`on de´iknusin, anqrwpoß qe`on de´iknusi ka`i swt¨jra t`on has´wmaton, ka`i fwn`j t`on l´ogon.16 Edwards, Origen Against Plato, p.67.The words in square brackets supplywhat is clear from the context of discussion.Edwards covers a number of basiccontrasts with Philo on the Logos, particularly the basic shift in Origen away fromthe Philonic notion of the Ideas as thoughts in the mind of God, towards speaking ofitems or contents in the divine mind.Thümmel, Philon und Origenes , pp.282 3discusses the distinction in Origen between Sophia and Logos, which suggests to methat Origen s Sophia is a notion closer to Philo s Logos; as Thümmel points out withreference to the Johannine commentary, Origen s Logos is more heavily orientedtowards rational beings and their destiny. 52 Word and Meaning in Ancient Alexandriavoice from God.Origen may have registered the theological worries sharedwith Philo by distinguishing clearly between voice and language, raising thereality of the divine Word to a superior level above mere voice.The Logosis stable and not subject to physical limitations, yet it is separated from thedivine mind as well in being revealed in the world.On the anthropic level, Origen does little to clarify the connection betweenincorporeal and corporeal (audible) linguistic entities, apart from observingthat human logos is more independent.Our vocal faculty cannot producemeaningful utterances by itself (compare St.Paul on glossolalia, 1 Cor.13.1),its utterances cannot independently attain the power of spoken language; onthe other hand, language may be produced by itself, being unspoken withinthe mind.However, we are told that utterances depend on the purifying functionof incorporeal language to make them meaningful (t^¨j f´usei to¨u l´ogoukaqa´irontoß p¨asan t`jn sjma´inousan fwn´jn).Why does Origen loadhis semantics with hieratic notions? What does he mean by the purifyingfunction of language? I would explain the matter as follows.Origen pointsout that human logos can be independent of vocal sound, being freely activein the mind without any verbal expression, in contrast to the voice, whichdepends on language to be meaningful.Of course, there are importantconnections between voice and language.This is seen from the examplesof John the Baptist as well as Zacharias, which show that hearing the voiceprecedes the mind s understanding of language.But we are also told thatutterances depend on the purifying function of incorporeal logos to makethem meaningful.Perhaps Origen means by purifying the ordering andcompletion of vocal sound by logos (compare In Joh.10.28 Preuschen, pp.201, 28 202, 1).We might compare the rational ordering of logos to thecreative activity of the divine Logos in forming bodies by inserting qualitiesinto matter.17 Presumably, the function of human logos emerging from thispassage also makes meaningful utterances reflect truth, a capacity whichultimately derives from divine reason.18Now I will briefly introduce some broader philosophical comparisons.Ihave already pointed out Origen s emphasis on the activity of incorporealLogos in the world.For the Logos is required to assume an outward role, inaccord with standard Stoic ideas as well as the Johannine view of the Wordmade incarnate.Denying logos an outward role would also depart sharplyfrom contemporary Platonist Peripatetics such as Origen s nemesis Porphyry,who stands firmly in the logos distinction tradition.For Porphyry, logos is17 Compare Bostock, Origen s Philosophy of Creation , p.259.18 Compare Robert M.Berchman, Self-Knowledge and Subjectivity in Origen ,in Origeniana Octava, pp.437 50 at 438 9, 442 4. Origen 53speech articulated by the tongue, signifying (sjmantik`j) of the inwardaffections (paq¨wn) of the soul. 19 However, this distinction of meaningfulspeech and the contents of mind differs from Origen s distinction.Origendenies that speech is intelligible in its own right, rather it is understoodby virtue of language, a view which is not prominent in the philosophicalmainstream.Mind and Body in LanguageIn Chapter 1, we saw that Philo presents speech as the physical vehicle ofmeaning.In Origen, we have reviewed one text which distinguishes voice andlanguage, detailing differences in the function and nature of these elements.However, Origen is not always quite so concerned to distinguish voice andlanguage, even in this monumental work of biblical commentary, nor does heuse the same semantic terminology in everything he writes.On occasion, heslips into the traditional container or vehicle images familiar from Philoand other writers.For example, when discussing the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem ridingon an ass (Jn.12.12 14), Origen writes as follows (In Joh.10.29 Preuschen,p.202, 13 16). And perhaps (someone) might reasonably compare thevocal sounds which envelop the logos which brings them into the soul toan ass, for the beast is a burden bearer, and a great burden and a heavy loadare revealed from the text. 20 Here Origen locates language within voice, itsvehicle.Besides this passage, other passages are more closely aligned withphilosophical tradition in terminology and conceptual resources, as we willsee a bit later.It is possible that Origen senses a lack of biblical support for the containerand vehicle models most of the relevant biblical passages focus on themouth and the heart, for example, Ps.15.2; Ps.44.2; Mt.12.34; Lk.6.45.There may also be philosophical discomfort in the interaction of intelligibleand sensible realities.How is an intelligible content or meaning lodged inan enveloping articulate sound? The relation between the incorporeal andthe bodily is a notorious problem for Origen s theology in general.In his19 Porphyry, Abst.3.3 Nauck, p.188, 17 20.At least in the bit about signifyinginternal affections, Porphyry says something that sounds Aristotelian (Aristotle, Int [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]