Interpreting the Bible Like Homer: Origen’s Prosopological Exegesis in the New Homilies on the Psalms

Abstract

Origen’s prosopological exegesis, derived from a technique developed for Homeric interpretation by the Alexandrian grammarians and applied by Christian interpreters to some texts of the Scriptures, has been already studied in its principal aspects by a few scholars in the 1980s, especially M.-J. Rondeau and B. Neuschäfer. However, the discovery of a corpus of 29 Greek homilies which have been attributed to Origen makes necessary a reexamination of the previous studies, in order to verify (and possibly correct) their results. This study aims to present such a comparison, analyzing some examples of prosopological exegesis in the new Homilies on the Psalms in the light of other examples in Origen’s remaining literary oeuvre; furthermore, it aims to show that Origen adopted (and adapted) an exegetical technique typical of the Alexandrian Homeric philology.

1. Introduction

The remarkable discovery of the twenty-nine Homilies on the Psalms contained in the Codex Monacensis Graecus 314 of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich (see, e.g., Perrone 2022) offers scholars of Origen a valuable opportunity. This finding provides them with novel insights into his works and thoughts while also enabling the verification of previous studies and interpretations through a more extensive textual basis. The opportunity presented by the Homilies on the Psalms seems to be of particular significance and promise for a re-evaluation of Origen’s utilization of the exegetical technique commonly referred to as ‘prosopological exegesis’. This technique has one of its distinctive areas of application in the interpretation of the psalms. Therefore, it is necessary to ascertain whether the recent sermons offer examples of this methodology. Moreover, it would be advisable to determine whether the findings of prior studies on this subject can be corroborated by the new texts or if they present a divergent portrayal of Origen as a commentator on the psalms. The essay’s objective is to provide answers to these questions. Firstly, it considers the relevant previous scholarship, and secondly, it examines some of the new texts.

In answer to the first research question above, the new homilies do indeed contain numerous examples of prosopological exegesis. Although Origen did not comment on all psalms according to this perspective, he did so for at least Psalms 15, 74, and 77.1 But what do modern scholars actually mean when they talk about ‘prosopological exegesis’? This terminus technicus is employed to denote a specific and ancient hermeneutic practice, which was first established within the domain of Alexandrian philology and subsequently adopted by Christians for the interpretation of the Bible. The main principle of prosopological exegesis is to pay attention to the characters speaking in specific biblical texts, in order to identify them and interpret their words accordingly. For Origen, this technique is based on some biblical presuppositions and some Greek models, which will be analyzed below (§ 3, pp. 4–6).

The study of this practice has witnessed a resurgence in recent years, largely attributable to a series of scholarly publications predominantly in conjunction with discourses on Trinitarian theology. In particular, the hypothesis has been proposed that the Christian concept of the Trinity developed in continuity with the prosopological exegesis of the Old Testament as practiced in the writings of the New Testament (see, for example, Bates 2012, 2015 and, for a more focused discussion of the development on conceptions about the Holy Spirit, Hughes 2018).2 Thus, prosopological exegesis has been identified as a method of interpreting the Bible that was used already by the authors of the New Testament and originated with Jesus himself. According to this opinion, prosopological exegesis could offer a more comprehensive explanation of the relationship between the OT and the NT, in contrast to the more conventional ‘typological exegesis’, which is considered to be less valid (see Bates 2015, p. 9).

This approach has been the subject of criticism from other scholars (e.g., Gentry 2019; Dernell 2020), who, on the basis of some case studies of specific OT passages quoted in the NT, have denied that NT authors consciously applied prosopological exegesis to OT passages. The idea that a technique originating in classical philology or rhetoric handbooks, which is attested only in later Christian authors, appears in the NT is considered to be anachronistic and historically implausible (Gentry 2019, p. 119). Furthermore, it has been argued that traditional interpretation based on “covenantally-informed typology” provides a more plausible explanation of the NT authors’ utilization of OT passages (Dernell 2020, p. 154).

2. The Status Quaestionis: Between Trinity and Exegesis of Homer

This contribution does not seek to enter into the debate about prosopological exegesis within the New Testament, nor does it aim to go beyond the boundaries of historical scholarship.3 Rather, it concentrates its attention exclusively on Origen’s application of prosopological exegesis, starting from the grammatical or rhetorical aspects involved in it, in order to address the general theme of the Special Issue of Religions and to highlight what the mentioned studies seem to neglect. Firstly, it is necessary to review briefly the previous research on Christian use of prosopological exegesis.4

A seminal contribution to this topic was made by Carl Andresen, who examined the development of the term ‘person’ (=Latin persona, Greek πρόσωπον) within the context of Trinitarian doctrine (Andresen 1961). Whilst taking into consideration some of his predecessors, Andresen primarily focused on Tertullian as the first theologian to establish a connection between ‘prosopographic exegesis’5 and the formula una substantia—tres personae. This concept, which in reality is not attested in Tertullian’s writings in this specific form, was employed by Andresen to elucidate Tertullian’s Trinitarian perspective. According to him, in Adversus Praxean Tertullian discerned the three Trinitarian persons conversing together by observing the dialogic structure of certain Old Testament passages. Furthermore, he applied the grammatical practice of identifying the speaking persons of a text, establishing an exegetical device that was already known to some of his predecessors but not yet fully exploited.

In a similar manner, Michael Slusser has dedicated some pages to the exegetical roots of Trinitarian theology (Slusser 1988). He correctly noted that Andresen overestimated the importance of Tertullian in the development of the Trinitarian concept of persona. He also observed that, in Tertullian, the Spirit usually does not play the role of an interlocutor, just like the Father and Son. Instead, the Spirit is identified as the source of Scripture and its author, so that he “never attains the personal definition of the others” (Slusser 1988, p. 476). At the end of his contribution, Slusser quotes Acts 7:55–56 and identifies therein a potential starting point for a Christian reflection on the Trinity. However, due to his emphasis on Trinitarian doctrine, he did not adequately consider the potential contribution of classical models to the adoption and development of prosopology in Christianity.6

Despite the relevance of these studies, the most significant monographic study dedicated to this subject was published by Marie-Josèphe Rondeau in 1985. Her merit was to regard prosopology as an exegetical technique in its own right, rather than merely as an instrument to trace the evolution of Trinitarian discourse (see Rondeau 1985). It is not a coincidence that the study of psalter interpretation in ancient Christian literature was the initial point of her research.

Since Rondeau devoted an entire monograph to the topic, she was able to expand the corpus of the authors under investigation, incorporating among others Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, and Augustine. At the end of the volume, Rondeau offers three concluding observations that are derived from her preceding analysis. The first of these is of particular interest to the subject of this contribution:7 prosopological exegesis is, first and foremost, a school technique, connected to prosopopoeia, a rhetorical figure of speech but also one of the progymnasmata, the preliminary rhetorical exercises, devoted to composing fictional speeches attributed to a character (see Anderson 2000, pp. 106–7 and below, p. 6); moreover, one of the primary objectives of prosopological exegesis is to ascertain Christ’s presence in the Psalter (Rondeau 1985, pp. 389–90). However, Rondeau noted that this is not the only method capable of achieving this objective. The notion of the accomplishment of the prophecies represents an alternative, more robust approach to substantiating the Christological dimension of the Old Testament. A comparison of prosopological exegesis with the prophecy accomplishment method reveals its distinctiveness. The former seems to be a particular application of the latter, because prosopological exegesis is specific to literary analysis, while the prophecy accomplishment method is broader and concerns history. Paying attention to the different speaking characters, Christian interpreters were able to distinguish the different characters on the stage, or to differentiate between the characters and the author of the drama. However, on occasion, these two perspectives are combined, with the prophetic–historic model serving to identify the character in question, while the prosopological model is employed to define the nature and qualities of the said character.

Still, further research is required to substantiate Rondeau’s conclusions, particularly in the case of Origen. The French scholar’s analysis was primarily based on scattered fragments from the catenae, which were often burdened with doubts about their authenticity. In contrast, we now have the unexpected opportunity of proving her results on a quite larger and more reliable textual basis.

In addition to Rondeau’s reconstruction, but without engaging with her research directly,8 the different perspective offered by Bernhard Neuschäfer in his important and erudite monograph on Origen as a philologist should be considered. He devoted several pages to Origen’s investigation of the speaking character (τὸ πρόσωπον τὸ λέγον), demonstrating that it was firmly grounded in both the rhetorical tradition (as Rondeau had previously noted) and the grammatical practices of Alexandrian philologists (Neuschäfer 1987, pp. 263–76, 475–81).9

In contrast to Rondeau, he paid more attention to the method of λύσις ἐκ τοῦ προσώπου,10 developed by Alexandrian philologists and studied by some Homer specialists (see Dachs 1913). According to this method, “if one takes into account in each case who the speaker is, contradictions in a text can often be proven to be apparent only because the speakers are not identical” (Nünlist 2009, p. 116).11 In other words, when reading a text, especially a dialogic one, what matters is the speaker’s point of view, or focalization.12 This definition focuses on internal inconsistencies within a text, which aligns well with the challenges that Christian exegetes faced when commenting on certain books of Scripture. By highlighting the analogies, Neuschäfer proved that Christian prosopological practice stems from the same textual and literary concerns that led to the development of the λύσις ἐκ τοῦ προσώπου method within Alexandrian Homeric scholarship. Furthermore, Neuschäfer suggested that Origen’s innovation was combining prosopological exegesis with his belief that Scripture has multiple senses (Neuschäfer 1987, pp. 272–76).13 Unfortunately, Neuschäfer’s study received no attention from English-speaking scholars focusing on prosopology, in contrast to the work of Andresen and Rondeau.

In conclusion, it is worth noting that Lorenzo Perrone has also addressed Origen’s investigation of the speaker of the psalms in broader studies on the Homilies on the Psalms (e.g., Perrone 2018, pp. 144–47).

A comprehensive evaluation of the two partially different approaches to Scripture identified in Christian exegesis by Rondeau and Neuschäfer is still required. These approaches are characterized by an emphasis on the rhetorical exercise of προσωποποιία and the λύσις ἐκ τοῦ προσώπου, and this contribution aims to consider these two partially different perspectives together.

3. Origen’s Twofold Mindset: Biblical Problems and Greek Solutions

In order to initiate the analysis of Origen’s texts, it is useful to consider the assumptions upon which his exegetical practice is founded. Indeed, a number of programmatic passages demonstrate Origen’s cognizance of the challenges inherent in comprehending the Bible, challenges that can be addressed by resorting to the prosopological method.

The compilers of the Philocalia14 recognized the importance of such passages, and two such passages, which deal with this issue from different perspectives, have been collected in a section devoted to “The identity of the characters (πρόσωπα) in the Holy Scripture”.15 In Phil 7,1, an excerpt from the Commentary on the Song of Songs composed by Origen in his youth (if we may rely on the title recorded in the Philocalia)16 is preserved. In this passage, Origen clearly expresses the struggles that one encounters while reading particularly challenging biblical texts:

For anyone who does not understand the identity of the characters in Scripture, both as regards the speakers and the persons addressed, what has been read must be very perplexing; he will ask who the character speaking is, who is spoken to, and when the character speaking ceases to speak; for it often happens that the same character is addressed, though another character speaks to him; or the character addressed is no longer listening, and a different character receives what is said, while the same character speaks. And sometimes both change, the speaker as well as the character addressed; or, further, though both remain the same, it is not clear that they do. Do I need to seek an illustration of each of these cases, seeing that the prophetical writings abound in such a difference? In fact, we have here, if it is not recognised, a special cause of the obscurity of passages. It is also the habit of Scripture to jump suddenly from one discourse to another, and this makes particularly the prophets obscure and confusing.17

This methodological observation can be regarded as Origen’s theoretical premise, which suggests the necessity of a prosopological reading of the Bible. The confusing and obscure habit of Scripture of representing different and unidentified speaking characters, akin to a theatrical performance, and of changing these characters without explicit indication, necessitates a distinctive interpretive technique capable of identifying the characters speaking, the characters addressed, and the potential changes. Without a prosopological interpretation, the comprehension of challenging passages in the Bible becomes unattainable.

Should this be deemed valid for the Song of Songs, which Origen considers to be a literary work composed as a drama (see Perrone 2006), it would also be applicable, or even more so, for the psalms, where frequently multiple voices are presented, with no explicit indication of the speaker, as will be further elucidated in the following section.

In order to understand better Origen’s premises for prosopological exegesis, it is important to quote an additional passage of theoretical interest.18 While the excerpt from Phil 7,1 shows the perspective of the Bible reader, the following passage from the Philocalia (7,2) shifts the focus to its author, the Holy Spirit. The compilers of the Origenian anthology selected the fragment from the youthful Commentary on the Song of Songs for inclusion alongside a fragment from a Homily on the Acts of Apostles, not fortuitously, but as a result of their discernment of the methodological weight and interrelation of both passages. In this second passage, a terminus technicus from ancient rhetorical treatises is employed to explain how the Holy Spirit, the true author of the Bible,19 introduced various characters and allowed them to speak in the first person:

In the psalm wherein the things concerning Judas are written, one might say that it is not the Holy Spirit who speaks, for the words are clearly the Saviour’s, “Hold not thy peace, O God, at my praise: for the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful man is opened upon me,” (Ps 108:1–2) and so on, until we come to “And his office let another take” (Ps 108:8). Now if it is the Saviour who says this, how does Peter say: “It was needful that the Scripture should be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David?” (Acts 1:16) Perhaps the lesson is something like this: The Holy Spirit employs prosopopoeia in the prophets, and if he introduces a prosopopoeia of God, it is not God who speaks, but the Holy Spirit speaks in the character of God. And if he introduces a prosopopoeia of Christ, it is not Christ who speaks, but the Holy Spirit speaks in the character of Christ. So, then, if he introduces a prosopopoeia of a prophet, or of this or that people, or anything whatsoever, it is the Holy Spirit who introduces all these speaking characters.20

The Holy Spirit, as the authentic author of Scripture, employs the technique of προσωποποιία by allowing many characters to speak, including God, Christ, a prophet, or a people. The use of a formula such as ἀπὸ or ἐκ προσώπου followed by the person in genitive frequently signifies the presence of a prosopopoeia in the text (see Rondeau 1985, pp. 43, 59). In a well-composed prosopopoeia, the speech should be congruent with the character pronouncing it; in the case of the Bible—whose author, the Holy Spirit, is considered to be infallible—this is always true. Therefore, the identification of the character can be founded upon the principle of suitability (see Rondeau 1985, pp. 52–53), which essentially goes back to Aristotle’s Poetics 15, where the poetic characters are described (see Neuschäfer 1987, pp. 264–66).21

These reflections by Origen, to which one should add his remarks on the same subject in Contra Celsum 7.37, show that the problems he addresses derive from the obscurity and difficulty of the biblical text. At the same time, they prove his familiarity with Greek grammatical and rhetorical treatises, from which he sought the solutions to solve the biblical problems. Furthermore, these reflections demonstrate the close connection between prosopopoeia and prosopological exegesis. The presence of a prosopopoeia in a text necessitates the use of prosopological exegesis (see, e.g., Origen’s Homily on Ps 74).

Alexandrian philologists, such as Aristarchus, had already recovered Aristotle’s analysis of tragic characters and used it in their exegetical work on Homer: “Following Aristotle, Aristarchus argued also for consistency and credibility of ἦθος: characters (usually called πρόσωπα in the scholia) should behave according to what is appropriate (τὸ ἁρμόττον), suitable (τὸ πρέπον), and proper (τὸ οἰκεῖον)” (Schironi 2018, pp. 426–33: 429). Similarly, the rhetorical handbooks of preliminary exercises, or progymnasmata (see Webb 2001), define the quality of a prosopopoeia as the ability to maintain a speech coherent with the character who delivers it (see, e.g., Aelius Theon, Progymnasmata 8, quoted above, note 27).

As we will see above, Origen used the very same terminology when speaking of similar issues concerning the biblical characters.

Furthermore, by exploring how Origen’s observations align with the λύσις ἐκ τοῦ προσώπου principle, characteristic of the Alexandrian philologists, we will see that the reference to the speaking characters is pivotal in resolving the issue under discussion in both cases. As noted above (p. 4), for the Alexandrian critics, the objective is to demonstrate the coherence of Homer’s poems, and the λύσις ἐκ τοῦ προσώπου permits to attribute any apparent inconsistencies in the text to different speakers, not the author contradicting himself. To clarify the method with a single example, we can observe Porphyrius’ interpretation of the inconsistency produced by Ilias 6.261 (“for a weary man wine increases strength greatly”) and 265 (“that you not deprive me of strength and I forget valor”), which seem to contradict each other. The solution lies in the observation that different characters support different positions. It is not the author who is contradicting himself (see the text quoted in note 11).

Apparently, the text from Homily on the Acts shows Origen addressing a different issue, namely the need to substantiate the accuracy of Peter’s assertion in Acts 1:16 that the Holy Spirit spoke Psalm 108, despite Origen’s acknowledgment that the Savior could have spoken the psalm. However, the overarching issue remains the same: a problem of coherence within the text, which the exegete—whether Biblical or Homeric—must resolve.

As we will see in the following pages, Origen borrows terminology and methods from classical Greek culture also for other aspects—for example, the changes of speaker.

4. Origen’s Prosopological Observations in H77Ps 1, 2

The following lines will examine how Origen employs prospological exegesis in the recently discovered homiletic corpus. Examples of prosopological interpretations of the psalms can be found in the two H15Ps, in the H74Ps and in the first H77Ps. As its presence in the two Homilies on Psalm 15 has already been studied (see Grzywaczewski 2022; Juge 2024),22 the present study will instead focus on H77Ps 1.

Origen composed nine homilies on Ps 77 that form an almost autonomous corpus within the Homilies on the Psalms. In the first sermon of this group, he begins by addressing two preliminary issues: the title and the speaker (see Perrone 2018, pp. 138–47). In § 1, while he is examining the title of the psalm, Origen makes reference to Mt 13:35, wherein Ps 77:2 is cited in relation to Jesus. He identifies an inaccuracy in some manuscript copies (ἀντίγραφα) of the Gospel and provides a comprehensive analysis of the errors present in manuscript tradition, attributing them not only to scribal error, but also to the influence of the devil. Knowing that Scripture offers salvation to humanity, he attempts to mislead people not only by propagating heresies, but also by manipulating the Holy Scripture. Before proceeding to the subsequent paragraph, it is worth noting an interesting observation Origen makes in this discourse: “So this is something you must know: if something out of Scripture is held up as a contradiction, we must not assume a contradiction, knowing that either we do not understand or that a scribal mistake has occurred.”23 The remark is of general relevance, extending beyond the specific interest concerning the biblical textual tradition. The Holy Scripture is a perfectly coherent text; if one believes he has found a contradiction within it, he is mistaken—not the text. The following discussion will explore the implications of this idea from the perspective of the speaking character.

In the opening remarks of § 2, Origen states the following in a programmatic manner: “As it is our custom, in the psalms and in the prophets, to seek who is the speaking character, so also here, who is speaking must be sought.”24 Indeed, in spite of this assertion, Origen does not consistently examine the character speaking in each psalm. However, in this instance, he is compelled to do so due to a problem arising from the passage in Mt 13:35, which was already mentioned in § 1, where the evangelist quotes Ps 77:2 to confirm its fulfillment through Jesus.25 Although a parallel passage from the New Testament generally assists Origen in identifying the speaker of an Old Testament passage, in this case, the reverse is true. An aporia arises from the attribution to Jesus of Ps 77, whose content appears, at least in some verses, to be unsuitable for the Savior. Origen acknowledges that, in the absence of the explicit attribution in the Gospel of Matthew, he would not ascribe the words of the psalm to Jesus. He elucidates that his skepticism stems from the following words: “I will proclaim problems from a beginning” (Ps 77:2) and “as many of these things as we have heard and known” (Ps 77:3).26 Origen continues by stating that these words appear to be incongruent with the dignity of the Savior (Δοκεῖ γὰρ ταῦτα οὐ κατὰ τὸ ἀξίωμα εἶναι τοῦ σωτῆρος). In this context, the parameter that is utilized for the identification of the character speaking is the Savior’s dignity, τὸ ἀξίωμα τοῦ σωτῆρος. As previously stated, and as the description of the exercise of prosopopoeia in the progymnasmata handbooks demonstrates,27 the quality of a well-crafted prosopopoeia is contingent on the congruence between the speech and the character who articulates it. Consequently, this congruence, or its absence, serves as a pivotal factor to the identification of the speaker. In this particular instance, the words of Psalm 77:2–3 are in contrast with the dignity of the Savior, thereby rendering it impossible to identify him as its ‘real’ speaker. In the following lines, Origen expounds at length on the reasons for this assertion, namely that the Savior is not in need of an earthly teacher, an angelic one, or even the Holy Spirit; the only possible teacher for him is God the Father. Accordingly, the content of the speech is inconsistent with the Savior’s character. For this reason, the speaker cannot be the Savior. The question arises as to how Mt 13:35, along with its quotation from Ps 77:2 ascribed to Jesus, should be interpreted.28

Prior to proposing a potential solution, Origen asserts that he would not dare apply the words of the psalm to the Savior, unless Matthew had clearly said so himself (Oὐκ ἂν οὖν ἐγὼ ἐτόλμησα, εἰ μὴ ὁ Ματθαῖος εἶπεν ὅτι ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ σωτῆρός ἐστιν ὁ ψαλμός, ἐπὶ τὸν σωτῆρα ἀνάγειν τὰ ἐπιγεγραμμένα). The verb used here, τολμάω, is characteristic of Origen’s reticence (see Perrone et al. 2015, pp. 10–11) but also frequently appears when Origen examines the causes of philological errors, as in § 1 of this homily. The presence of errors or alterations in the biblical text can be attributed to the audacity of copyists and heretics, who have engaged in the unauthorized amendment of its contents.29 The recurrence of the verb τολμάω both in the philological section of § 1 and in the prosopological investigation of § 2 is indicative of Origen’s view of philology and prosopology as complementary preliminary aspects of a textual and grammatical analysis of a passage.30 This twofold approach is purported to elucidate the literal meaning of a text, thereby providing a foundation for the subsequent exploration of its spiritual meaning.31 Furthermore, the employment of τολμάω conveys the necessity for the exegete to engage with the text in the utmost respect, in order to circumvent the risk of modifying and corrupting Scripture, which is devil’s work.

In response to the inquiry regarding the attribution in the Gospel of Matthew and the subsequent application of the psalm to Jesus, Origen searches for potential resolutions and asks himself: “what shall I do?”. Asking a question like this could remind of the method of quaestiones et responsiones, a form of argumentation often used by Origen.32 Then, Origen offers a tentative answer: perhaps not the entire psalm, but only part of it, is pronounced by the Savior, in accordance with the idea that a change in speaking character occurs within it, a προσώπων μεταβολή.33 Changes of speakers are identified in some Homeric scholia and in the Ps.-Plutarch treatise on Homer, where they are considered as a valued feature of the epic poems.34 For Origen, this is also a common habit of Psalter, as he remarks:

Nonetheless, when Matthew says this, what am I to do? Do I say that the whole psalm is in the character of the Savior, or that these words are the Savior’s but in what follows the character changes? For often in one or another psalm many characters are speaking.35

In order to support his statement, Origen employs his customary method of “interpreting Scripture through Scripture”36 and presents a few parallel examples. He contends that these clearly demonstrate analogous instances of speaker changes—Psalm 31, which is examined in greater detail, and Psalm 74, on which Origen does not spend much time in this homily, perhaps because he commented on it in another sermon in this collection (H74Ps), where he deeply explores the identification of the speaker.

In his discourse, the preacher initially cites the opening verses of Psalm 31, specifically verses 1b to 2. He observes that these verses are spoken by a quite didactic speaking character (τὸ πρόσωπον διδασκαλικώτερον τὸ λέγον), which makes them difficult to attribute to a specific speaker. The preacher further notes that these didactic utterances can be ascribed to various speakers, including the prophet, the Holy Spirit, or even Christ.37 In summary, the initial verses of Psalm 31 present a challenge to the reader in terms of ascertaining the identity of the speaker, due to the lack of specificity in the wording. Conversely, the following verses depict two distinct speaking characters engaged in dialogue. In Ps 31:5.6–7,38 the human subject is involved in a process of self-reflection, wherein he acknowledges his transgressions:

“I recognized my sin, and I did not hide my lawlessness. I said, ‘I will acknowledge concerning myself my lawlessness to the Lord.’ Concerning this, every holy one will pray in an appropriate time: so that a flood of many waters may not approach him. You are my refuge from a tribulation that encompasses me, my rejoicing; ransom me from those who encircle me.”

Conversely, in 31:8 God is depicted as addressing the sinner, pledging to provide assistance and instruction:

I will make you understand and instruct you in this road, in which you walk.39

This fictitious dialogue between a sinner and God illustrates how Origen also uses Scripture in a performative way. Through a kind of “performative dynamic,” he invites his listeners to make Scripture their own and imitate it in their daily lives (see James 2021, pp. 125–28: 126).

Without further comment, Origen moves on to the next example, quoting Psalm 74:4b: “I will strengthen her pillars.” In this instance, too, he observes that “the entire psalm cannot be either in the character of God or in the character of Christ.”40 Origen’s statement is not substantiated by any evidence. This may be explained by the hypothesis that he had already delivered a sermon on Psalm 74 shortly beforehand,41 and he anticipated that his audience would recall his explanation regarding the characters speaking, the Church, and the Savior.42 These examples align with the hypothesis that a shift in the speakers occurs in Ps 77, thereby substantiating the earlier postulation:

This, then, is the custom in one psalm; it is possible that there is not one character speaking, but many. If this occurs in some psalms, it should be asked whether the same thing is to be understood here.43

Once it has been proven through two examples that the speaker habitually changes in the psalms, it should be verified whether such a change in speaker also occurs here. This is what Origen does in the following lines before beginning his interpretation of the content of the psalm. He further quotes Ps 77:1b (“Pay attention, my people, to my law”) and observes that the only person capable of articulating such words is the Savior. The content of the words excludes the possibility that they are spoken by the prophet; consequently, it is the voice of the Savior that speaks Ps 77:1–2, which Origen quotes yet again.44 In this remark, the criterion for identifying the speaker is once again the appropriateness of the words to the character. As remarked above (see p. 5, above), this is an idea that ultimately originates from the description of poetic characters provided by Aristotle in his Poetics, § 15, where a character is defined by several attributes, including appropriateness.45

In the following passage, however, Origen introduces a divergent consideration, predicated on the grammatical number. By pointing out the verbal form and the personal pronoun in the first-person singular, Origen confirms that the speaker is a single character until now, while the following verses show a plurality of speakers. The initial question can now be addressed with definitive clarity. A discernible change in character has occurred, a phenomenon that is substantiated by the quotation from Psalms 77:3–4a. It is noteworthy that Origen reiterates this point once more: “Evidently only one person began to speak, but in the rest the speaker is no longer one, but the speakers are plural”.46

Now, Origen simply needs to summarize the reasoning conducted thus far and explain how the idea that Jesus is the speaker of the psalm, as expressed in Matthew 13:35, can align with the content of certain psalm verses that he deems unbecoming of the Savior. Compared with the more detailed observations in previous lines, Origen definitively remarks in a rather rapid way:

Keep in mind, therefore, both that the Savior is the speaker, as Matthew recorded, and that the Savior does not speak throughout the whole psalm, but the prophetic character speaks some things concerning him and those from the people, or simply the majority, and the Church speaks the rest. This (has been said) to clear up the speaking character.47

Origen may have realized that the discussion of the speaking character had taken too long. Thus, he wants to finish the section on preliminary issues and move on to interpreting the psalm. For this reason, he is content to make a concise concluding statement that encapsulates the preceding arguments while leaving the identity of the second speaker ambiguous. This character could be the prophet (i.e., Asaph, in the case of Ps 77), or an undefined plurality (πλῆθoς) and the Church. It is only at the conclusion of the sermon, in § 7, that Origen revisits this issue; after the discourse of the Savior, his apostles and disciples responded to him, and they are also identified as some of the speakers of the psalm.48 However, Origen is keen to emphasize that the quaestio posed by the passage of Matthew 13:35 is resolved; the change of speaker enables the preacher to maintain the identification with the Savior suggested by Matthew, while simultaneously attributing to a different speaker the verses he deems unworthy of the Savior.

5. Conclusions

Whilst a more extensive investigation would be required to formulate definitive conclusions, the analysis of Origen’s prosopological observations in his homily on Ps 77 enables the drawing of some conclusions and the formulation of some suggestions.

To start with, in order to evaluate Origen’s use of prosopological exegesis in a correct manner, it is necessary to take into account the different Biblical and Greek models with which he was working. Among the latter, there is the λύσις ἐκ τοῦ προσώπου, which was elaborated by the Alexandrian critics to defend Homer from inconsistencies in his poems and to correct the text according to philological criteria. Secondly, there is the grammatical and rhetorical doctrine, exemplified by the preliminary exercise of prosopopoeia, which emphasizes the importance of maintaining consistent and fitting character and speech. This doctrine is also reflected in writings such as Ps.-Plutarch’s De Homero, which considers the change of characters. Considering the context of extant scholarship, this approach combines the perspectives of Rondeau and Neuschäfer, which have not often been considered in conjunction.49

Afterward, it is necessary to consider the differences and the similarities between Origen and his classical models. In opposition to the practice of Alexandrian philologists, who employed incoherences in the representations of Homeric heroes in order to athetize certain verses of the poems, Origen did not demonstrate any interest in the use of focalization to correct the text. However, as with the Alexandrian scholars, he seeks to resolve ostensible inconsistencies at an intertextual level, as evidenced by the issue posed by the words of Mt 13:15. Despite their authority, Origen regards these words as unreliable according to the literary criterion of the correspondence between speech and character. Origen’s attention to the πρόσωπον λέγον, as well as to the speaker changes, facilitates the resolution of the issue concerning internal coherence in the Bible. This, in turn, serves to uphold its authority as a revealed text.

As Rondeau and Neuschäfer have previously indicated, the Christian exegetes shifted the Greco-Roman use of prosopology in a theological direction. The doctrine of the divine inspiration of the biblical text, attributed to the Holy Spirit, constitutes the primary distinction; the focus on the speaker within the framework of the double sense of Scripture represents the secondary distinction. Rondeau’s argument, when considered in conjunction with Neuschäfer’s observations, suggests that while Christian exegetes primarily resorted to prosopology to establish a foundation for their Christological interpretation of the psalms, Origen demonstrated a notable degree of creativity in his application of this technique, thereby providing novel theological insights.

A comprehensive review of Origen’s arguments in his H77Ps 1 reveals convincing support for the analyses proposed by Rondeau and Neuschäfer. However, a further salient point emerges: the necessity to interpret the Bible in an all-inclusive manner, demonstrating that contradictions are merely illusory.

For Origen, the employment of philological, grammatical, and rhetorical knowledge, acquired during his formative years as a Greek πεπαιδευμένος, is not merely incidental. Rather, it is indicative of an indispensable necessity for the exegete and theologian. It is through this meticulous examination that the profound latent meanings of the biblical text can be unearthed. This examination, which is required by Biblical problems, can only be solved thanks to Greek solutions.