Editing Origen (section)

===Hermeneutics===
{{rquote|right|For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.|Origen, ''On the First Principles'' [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm IV.16]}}

Origen bases his theology on the Christian scriptures{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=55–56}}{{sfn|Scott|2012|pp=55–58}}{{sfn|MacGregor|1982|pp=56–57}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2003|p=155}} and does not appeal to Platonic teachings without having first supported his argument with a scriptural basis.{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=55–56}}{{sfn|Scott|2012|pp=58–60}} He saw the scriptures as divinely inspired{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=55–56}}{{sfn|Scott|2012|pp=55–58}}{{sfn|MacGregor|1982|pp=56–57}}{{sfn|Ludlow|2013|pp=87–88}} and was cautious never to contradict his own interpretation of what was written in them.{{sfn|MacGregor|1982|pp=56–57}} Nonetheless, Origen did have a penchant for speculating beyond what was explicitly stated in the Bible,{{sfn|Olson|1999|pp=99–100}}{{sfn|McGuckin|2004|pp=13–17}} and this habit frequently placed him in the hazy realm between strict orthodoxy and heresy.{{sfn|Olson|1999|pp=99–100}}{{sfn|McGuckin|2004|pp=13–17}}

According to Origen, there are two kinds of Biblical literature which are found in both the Old and New Testaments: {{translit|grc|historia}} ('history' or 'narrative') and {{translit|grc|nomothesia}} ('legislation' or 'ethical prescription').{{sfn|Ludlow|2013|pp=87–88}} Origen expressly states that the Old and New Testaments should be read together and according to the same rules.{{sfn|Ludlow|2013|p=88}} Origen further taught that there were three different ways in which passages of scripture could be interpreted.{{sfn|Ludlow|2013|p=88}}{{sfn|Grant|1967|p=551}} The "flesh" was the literal, historical interpretation of the passage;{{sfn|Ludlow|2013|p=88}}{{sfn|Grant|1967|p=551}} the "soul" was the moral message behind the passage;{{sfn|Ludlow|2013|p=88}}{{sfn|Grant|1967|p=551}} and the "spirit" was the eternal, incorporeal reality that the passage conveyed.{{sfn|Ludlow|2013|p=88}}{{sfn|Grant|1967|p=551}} In Origen's exegesis, the [[Book of Proverbs]], [[Ecclesiastes]], and the [[Song of Songs]] represent perfect examples of the bodily, soulful, and spiritual components of scripture respectively.{{sfn|Ludlow|2013|p=90}}

Origen saw the "spiritual" interpretation as the deepest and most important meaning of the text{{sfn|Ludlow|2013|p=90}} and taught that some passages held no literal meaning at all and that their meanings were purely allegorical.{{sfn|Ludlow|2013|p=90}} Nonetheless, he stressed that "the passages which are historically true are far more numerous than those which are composed with purely spiritual meanings"{{sfn|Ludlow|2013|p=90}} and often used examples from corporeal realities.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Soler|first=Fernando|date=2019|title=The Theological Use of Eating and Drinking Metaphors in Origen's De Principiis|journal=Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum|volume=23|issue=1|pages=4–20|doi=10.1515/zac-2019-0001|s2cid=171528428|issn=1612-961X}}</ref> Origen noticed that the accounts of Jesus's life in the four canonical gospels contain irreconcilable contradictions,{{sfn|Perkins|2007|p=292}}{{sfn|Kugel|Greer|1986|p=183}}{{sfn|Keefer|2006|pp=75–76}} but he argued that these contradictions did not undermine the spiritual meanings of the passages in question.{{sfn|Kugel|Greer|1986|p=183}}{{sfn|Keefer|2006|pp=75–76}} Origen's idea of a twofold creation was based on an allegorical interpretation of the creation story found in the first two chapters of the [[Book of Genesis]].{{sfn|Scott|2012|pp=53–55}} The first creation, described in Genesis 1:26,<ref>{{bibleverse||Genesis|1:26|9}}</ref> was the creation of the primeval spirits,{{sfn|Layton|2004|p=86}} who are made "in the image of God" and are therefore incorporeal like Him;{{sfn|Layton|2004|p=86}} the second creation described in Genesis 2:7<ref>{{bibleverse||Genesis|2:7|9}}</ref> is when the human souls are given ethereal, spiritual bodies{{sfn|Layton|2004|pp=86–87}} and the description in Genesis 3:21<ref>{{bibleverse||Genesis|3:21|9}}</ref> of God clothing [[Adam and Eve]] in "tunics of skin" refers to the transformation of these spiritual bodies into corporeal ones.{{sfn|Layton|2004|p=86}} Thus, each phase represents a degradation from the original state of incorporeal holiness.{{sfn|Layton|2004|p=86}}