The Christology of Origen
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an excellent paper, but I found a few minor imperfections in it.
Line 153: God > God was
Lien 240: the term “rebuttal” comes as a surprise. I surmise that the author refers to a previous discussion of Origen rebutting the idea of Christ being an emanation from his Father, but he does not use the term before, so initially I thought that he referred to the emanation in Wisdom 7:25-26, line 233, which, however, seems faulty. This is the only passage that I could not follow.
Line 248 intellgi > intellegi
Footnote 33, 1st line: Christian > Christians
Lines 275-276: twice “some” in the same sentence; delete the second “some”
Line 345: “and the implied in such a term”: something seems lacking
Line 417: 2:7 > 12:7
Line 426: catechumate > catechumenate
Lien 476: private > private’
Line 491: σε > διá½° σÎ
Lines 515-156: delete the hard return after “up”
Line 519: σκοπὸς (twice): σκοπÏŒς is more common and more acceptable outside of the original Greek sentence
Line 531-532: this is only a subordinate sentence. I suggest deleting “Given that”
Lien 547: importantly > important ?
Line 552: Probably the antecedent of “who” is “the believer”. Would not “and” be better, more elegant?
I suggest adding a reference to Anders-Christian Jacobsen, Christ – The Teacher of Salvation: A Study on Origen's Christology and Soteriology, Münster 2015
Riemer Roukema
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWhile this is a well researched piece, i.e., the most pertinent secondary is mentioned and used, the main issue according to this reviewer is that we get only 3.5 pages of original textual analysis, and this not until page 11 of 15. Relatedly, the author does not clarify for the reader from the outset how his or her contribution goes beyond the work of Peter Martens, for example, whose very recent treatment of the topic is heavily cited.
Possibly even more fundamental is the author's understanding of Christology itself. There are several moments throughout the paper where Trinitarian theology (i.e. the relationship between the Father and the Son) is elided with Christology (classically, the relationship between the two natures of Christ). See page 1 and bottom of 6 for example. If this author wants to expand the definition of what counts as Christology, and it seems that they do, then that needs to be said. The Christian's participation in Christ and Christ's work in the life of the believer does not strike this reader as squarely a question of Christology, even if it is related. Clarity on this is essential. The Christological issues came to the fore in the 5th century after much of the discussion at Nicea took on Trinitarian theology, but they are introduced as having both been dealt with in the fourth century (page 1 for example).
The section on the 4th century reception should come either at the outset or directly before the conclusion. It is odd to have it come before the author's own contribution to the supposed Christology of Origen himself.
The contribution of a whole section on the life of Origen is unclear. Perhaps a bit more detail on the gnostic and monarchic views that Origen seeks to refute in his articulation of his own Christological position would be more helpful.
Where possible include the Greek and Latin for the reader in the footnotes, particularly in cases where the argument turns on specific Greek and Latin terminology.
There is a fair amount of repetition in defending Origen given his historical position vis-a-vis the fourth- and fifth-century debates. No need to repeat it so many times. Placing the reception section up front might help you to say this once in that context and then move on and come back to that only in the conclusion.
In the conclusion - explain what the materialism of gnostics and monarchianisms is.
Typos and minor grammatical errors throughout the text - make sure to proofread.
It would be helpful to provide some bibliography for the reader on Origen on the so-called "rule of faith" or at the very least contextualise his position. How does he relate to predecessors and contemporaries (Irenaeus or Clement etc)?
Some bibliography to consult for specific issues.
Pg 7 - on the eternal generation of the Son in Origen, see Peter Widdicombe, The Fatherhood of God from Origen to Athanasius
Pg 9 - final paragraph before section on reception, consult some work on "partitive exegesis," as this is what you describe and it has been worked on, and Origen is actually a very early to witness to a way of reading scripture that became common place for authors such as Cyril of Alexandria and Theodore of Mopsuestia.
e.g. Lars Koen, "Partitive Exegesis in Cyril of Alexandria's Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John" Studia Patristica XXV (1991): 115-121.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would suggest a brief paragraph on the textual transmission (including the Latin translation/edition) of Peri Archon and the challenges it poses for interpreting Origen.
Please note that Origen's Nicene supporters included also Athanasios of Alexandria.
Typos: line 470 (ἡγεμονικÏŒν), 512 (theater), 516 (theatre)
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
