Pui Him Ip: Origen against Origen? Origen's paradoxical legacy in Athanasius’ anti-Arian exegesis of Prov 8.22 and Col. 1.15 in Contra Arianos 2

In his entry on Athanasius in the Nuovo dizionario patristico e di antichità cristiane,Alberto Camplani remarks that a more detailed perception of continuity and discontinuity between Athanasius and Origen remains under-explored. Khaled Anatolios has noted (Origeniana Septima, 1999) that Athanasius took over key ‘Origenian’ principles and modified them for his own purposes. This paper continues to expand this approach by arguing that Athanasius’ exegesis on Prov. 8.22 and Col. 1.15 in Contra Arianos 2 reveals a paradoxical Origenian legacy: in Athanasius’ hands, Origen was used against Origen. First, I will show that in his attempt to counter 'Arian' use of these passages to establish the Son as ‘made’ and ‘created’, Athanasius took over a key principle of Origenian exegesis, namely, that some Christological titles in Scripture should be attributed absolutely or without qualification, whereas others should be attributed only ‘for us’ (ComJn 1.248-251). For Origen, this principle allows one to read the meaning of some Christological titles in a purely economic manner. I will then show that inContra Arianos 2, Athanasius took over this ‘Origenian’ exegetical strategy (CAr 2.53-4) to argue that the phrases ‘he created’ in Prov. 8.22 (CAr 2.56) and ‘firstborn’ in Col 1.15 (CAr 2.62-64) should be read purely economically, a reading that deviates significantly from Origen’s own (e.g. ComJn 1.90-124 & PArch 1.2.6). This analysis further suggests that while traces of Origen’s theological approach is present in Athanasius, the latter’s theology can be called ‘Origenian’ only with severe reservations.