Heracleon and the Seven Categories of Exegetical Opponents in Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John

1 “Those Who Stop at the Letter”

Various designations referring to literalist interpreters appear in two separate contexts, both confirming the findings of Martens. In one of them, Origen is engaged in an excursus on the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9. Origen argues that the fulfillment referenced in Matthew 21:4–5, when Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a donkey and on a colt, cannot be limited to the physical event, since the author, in that case, would have to narrate how Jesus fulfills not only what Zechariah foretells in this verse, but also in the following one:

For if this prophecy predicts only the physical event that is described by the evangelists, those who stop at the letter should preserve for us the continuation of the prophecy, which reads: “And he will destroy the chariots of Ephraim and the warhorse of Jerusalem. . .”^[13]

Here, the expression οἱ ἐπὶ τοῦ γράμματος ἱστάμενοι (“those who stop at the letter”) is used to refer to a category of interpreters with whom Origen disagrees. Judging from Origen’s argument in the context, these interpreters read Zechariah’s prophecy as referring to the historical event of Jesus entering Jerusalem on the back of a donkey, and do not make any symbolic interpretations of the prophecy. Hence, they refrain from proceeding beyond the literal interpretation—they “stop” at “the letter.” Thus, Origen refutes a category of interpreters defined by their exegetical practices.

The same category remains in view for several pages and is mentioned again using the alternative designation οἱ ψιλῇ τῇ λέξει προσεχόντες (“those who devote themselves to the bare letter”).^[14] The two designations are roughly equivalent, but the latter alternative implies that the constraint to literal interpretations is a general habit and not limited to any particular passage. In an intermediate paragraph, Origen specifies why he opposes this particular literal reading: because Ἰουδαῖοι (“Jews”) would ask, based on a literal understanding of the next verse in Zechariah, how Jesus destroyed chariots in Ephraim and a horse in Jerusalem.^[15] In Origen’s view, the literal interpretation of this prophecy is dangerous because it gives Jewish apologists reason to deny that Jesus fulfilled this messianic prophecy. This criticism of one literal understanding of scripture thus fits the pattern discerned by Martens: Origen does not refute literal interpretations in general, but literal interpretations that may be used to deny that Jesus is the Messiah.

In another passage, Origen is discussing details of the temple building project reported in the Septuagint’s Third Kingdoms 5–6 that, he insists, find their continuous validity only in an allegorical reading. In this context, Origen uses the designations οἵ μηδὲν πέρα τῆς ἱστορίας οἰομένοι διὰ τούτων δηλοῦσθαι (“those who think that nothing is revealed through this beyond what is reported”) and the more polemical τοὺς τῇ λέξει δουλεύοντας (“those who are slaves of the letter”).^[16] Despite the varying wording, the reference is clear: some interpreters refrain from allegorical interpretations of the specific features of the temple, and treat them as mere historical minutiae. Origen refutes a literal interpretation that may be used to argue that the meaning of the text is limited to Jewish ceremonial law—completely in line with Martens’s findings.

Even though Heracleon is sometimes criticized by Origen for overly literal interpretations, it would be unreasonable to claim that Origen generally includes Heracleon in the category of “those who stop at the letter.” This is especially clear when he criticizes Heracleon for interpreting the first half of John 4:35 literally, while allegorizing the second half:

In addition, how strange would it not be to allegorize every part of both “Lift up your eyes” and “see the fields, that they are already white for harvest,” but not take what [. . .] comes before this, “Do you not say: ‘Four more months, then the harvest comes,’ ” allegorically? Heracleon nevertheless, similarly to most people, does stay within the word (λέξις), not thinking that it should be interpreted anagogically, when he says that he speaks of the harvest of crops as still being four months away, even though the harvest of which he spoke was already at hand.^[17]

Heracleon’s reluctance to allegorize the four months that remained to the harvest is criticized, but not taken to be a general habit since Heracleon does allegorize other parts of the same passage.^[18] There is no reason to argue that Origen includes Heracleon in “those who stop at the letter.”^[19]

2 “Those Who Are Confused on the Father and the Son”

This way of specifying a category is not limited to literalist interpreters. On several occasions, Origen refers to a seemingly large number of scriptural interpreters who he finds to have problematic views concerning Christ, because they are eager to preserve the unity of God:

What troubles many who wish to love God is that they fear to be proclaiming two gods (εὐλαβουμένους δύο ἀναγορεῦσαι θεοὺς), and therefore embrace false and ungodly opinions: either they deny that the individuality of the Son is another than that of the Father and declare him to be God—who by them is called “Son” in name only—or they deny the divinity of the Son and take his individuality and individual essence to be another than that of the Father.^[20]

The opponents in view here seem to be those traditionally identified as Monarchians or patripassianists—participants in third-century Christological debates who emphasize the importance of avoiding any notion of two gods. According to Thomas E. Pollard, Monarchianism took two forms: the earlier modalistic Monarchians denied any distinction between the Father and the Son, which they viewed as successive manifestations of the one God, while later dynamic Monarchians denied the divinity of Christ, and viewed him as an ordinary human being adopted as Son of God.^[21] Ronald E. Heine remarks that Origen does not call these Monarchians “heterodox,” but regards them as “brothers,”^[22] and speculates that the category might encompass the majority of Christian believers, including some bishops.^[23] Le Boulluec argues that Origen is lenient toward this group because they remained within the church when the Gnostics formed an external sectarian movement.^[24] It may be anachronistic to draw such a sharp line between internal and external opponents in the third century, however.

The same category seems to be in view when Origen speaks of “those who are confused on the Father and the Son,”^[25] those who assume that “the Father is not distinct from the Son in essence,”^[26] or “those who do away with his humanity and accept only his divinity, and also to their antithesis, those who rule out his divinity but confess the human as holy and the most virtuous of all humans.”^[27] Even though no specific designation recurs, Origen repeatedly opposes a specific category of scriptural interpreters defined by their adherence to a specific doctrine.

3 “Those Who Bring in the Appearance”

Once, Origen defines and criticizes a category whose interpretative practices seem to be shaped by docetic Christology:

And those who bring in the appearance (οἱ τὴν δόκησιν εἰσάγοντες), not comprehending him who humbled himself even to death and became obedient even to the cross, imagining only impassibility and superiority in every such occurrence, want to deprive us, if they can, from the most virtuous human of all humans, while we cannot be saved by theirs.^[28]

The description given here seems to match those usually called Docetists.^[29] Origen gives a recognizable designation of a specific category of interpreters, describes their interpretative practice as imagining a superior, impassible Christ in every passage in which he seems to suffer, and criticizes them for not presenting an effective Savior figure.^[30]

4 “Those Who Defend Reincarnation”

While considering various ways in which John the Baptist may be identified with the prophet Elijah even though he explicitly denies such an identification (John 1:21), Origen opposes a category of scriptural interpreters who defend reincarnation:

On the first point, someone will say that John was unaware of being Elijah—and those who use this passage to defend reincarnation will immediately use this saying to claim that the soul puts on another body while in no way remembering its previous lives.^[31]

Although often associated with eastern religions, the concepts of reincarnation (μετενσωμάτωσις) and transmigration of souls (μετεμψύχωσις) were well known in Greek antiquity, and appear in various writings from the fifth century onwards.^[32] Origen abstains from refuting the concept in detail,^[33] but hypothesizes that the same category of interpreters will assert, in close similarity to those referenced in Luke 9:19, that Jesus is one of the Old Testament prophets, only that he has been reincarnated rather than risen from the dead. In response, he points out that Gabriel does not refer to Elijah’s soul (ψυχή) but to his spirit (πνεῦμα) and power (δύναμις).^[34] Although Origen expresses the point as a hypothetical rather than actual interpretation of John 1:21,^[35] this example also features a category of opponents specified by their adherence to a particular doctrine. The interpretation that John was Elijah, but was unaware of this fact, is not criticized in vacuo, but because it may be used to support the views of those who defend reincarnation.

5 “Those With Different Views”

The designation most commonly used for proponents of alternative interpretations of the Gospel of John is οἱ ἑτερόδοξοι (“the heterodox” or “those with different views”). This admittedly broad term appears in several instances where Origen refutes particular scriptural interpretations maintained by one precisely defined category: those who worship the Father of Christ while disowning the God of the Jews.

The first appearance of this designation occurs when Origen remarks that the presentation of John the Baptist as the beginning (ἀρχή) of the gospel of Jesus Christ in Mark 1:1 should be a difficulty for οἱ ἑτερόδοξοι:

This makes me wonder how the heterodox (οἱ ἑτερόδοξοι) can attribute the two testaments to two gods, when they are no less proven wrong even by this statement. For how can John, the man of the Maker (δημιουργός), be the beginning of the gospel if he—as they believe—belongs to another god, and knows nothing—as they think—of the new deity?^[36]

While no heterodox interpretation of any particular passage is in view here, οἱ ἑτερόδοξοι are defined by—and criticized for—their interpretative practice of attributing the Old and the New Testaments to different divinities, a model in which the Jewish prophets do not have knowledge of the Father of Christ. Since the differentiation between the Maker and the Father is Origen’s sole criterion for the category of the heterodox, but only one of several in most modern definitions of the Gnostics, Origen’s category is wider than modern concepts of Gnosticism,^[37] but works well to specify which interpretative practice he is currently refuting.

The next time the designation is used, Origen explains that the erroneous theology of οἱ ἑτερόδοξοι is a result of their incompetence in scriptural interpretation:

Having engaged these matters, it is necessary to observe that not every time something is named “darkness” it is taken in a bad sense; there are instances in which it is written in a good sense. It is because the heterodox (οἱ ἑτερόδοξοι) do not make this distinction that they consent to slanderous opinions about the Maker, withdraw from him, and devote themselves to the fabrication of myths.^[38]

As above, οἱ ἑτερόδοξοι is not used as a designation for Origen’s exegetical opponents in general but specifies those who withdraw from the Maker (δημιουργός) of heaven and earth.^[39] They are criticized for a particular interpretative flaw, namely their inability to perceive that the word σκότος (“darkness”) is sometimes used to denote something good.

In another interaction with this category, Origen describes how some of the heterodox (τῶν ἑτεροδόξων τινὲς)^[40] deny that Christ’s arrival was predicted by the Jewish prophets, arguing that if Moses was believed without any predictions, based only on his words and miracles, such predictions would be redundant for the Son of God, who exceeds Moses and the prophets. He claims that they do this because they have invented another god besides the Maker (διὰ τὸ ἀναπλάσσειν ἕτερον <θεὸν> παρὰ τὸν δημιουργὸν).^[41] The interaction appears in the context of John 1:7, but it is unclear whether Origen’s opponents are referring to this particular passage.

In an extended series of passages,^[42] Origen allegorically identifies the Samaritans of John 4:27–42 with οἱ ἑτερόδοξοι, specifying that they have disowned the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,^[43] and turned to worship a fiction rather than a fact, a myth rather than a mystery.^[44] No interpretation of particular scriptural passages are in view here—οἱ ἑτερόδοξοι are simply criticized for their defining characteristic of rejecting the God of the Jews.

In the context of discussing Jesus’s assertions, in John 7:28 and 8:19, that his (Jewish) hearers know neither him nor his Father,^[45] Origen reports that οἱ ἑτερόδοξοι view these assertions as proof that the Father of Christ is not the God of the Jews:

It is necessary to know, however, that the heterodox (οἱ ἑτερόδοξοι) think that it is clearly demonstrated from this passage that the god whom the Jews worship is not the Father of Christ. For if it is to the Pharisees, who worship the Maker, the Savior was speaking when he said, “You know neither me nor my father,” it would be clear that the Pharisees did not know Jesus’s father because he is another than the Maker—and likewise the people of Jerusalem, to whom he had said before: “. . .but he who has sent me is true, and you do not know him.” This they say, having neither read the divine scriptures nor observed the custom of expression in them.^[46]

Apparently, the heterodox referenced in this passage take Jesus’s assertions that the Jews in his audience know neither him nor his father as evidence that the Father of Christ, whom the audience do not know, is a different divinity than the God of Abraham, whom they do know. Origen rejects this view, arguing that its proponents are unfamiliar with common idioms in the Jewish scriptures. His accusation that they have not read (μὴ ἀνεγνωκότες) the divine scriptures (τὰς θείας γραφάς) is likely intended to claim insufficient familiarity with the scriptures rather than complete ignorance. The phrase τὴν συνήθειαν τῆς λέξεως (“the custom of expression”) refers to a standard concept in literary criticism: the habits or idiosyncratic expressions of particular authors.^[47] In this case, it refers to idioms that are common in the Jewish Scriptures, even though they may be irregular elsewhere—such as the concept of not knowing God. Origen explains that several Old Testament figures were described as “not knowing the Lord”^[48]—including the sons of Eli the priest and several kings of Israel and Judah—not because the God of Abraham was an unknown entity to them, but because they were sinners.^[49]

The refutation is extensive, and Origen shows a great deal of persistence in fully responding to the heterodox interpretation of John 7:28 and 8:19. This suggests that these two verses were important proof-texts for at least some of those who differentiated between the Maker of the world and the Father of Christ. Even if these interpreters cannot be presumed to base their doctrines on the same level of scriptural scrutiny as Origen does, they apparently found it valuable to use the Gospel of John to argue for their views.^[50] We may also notice that Origen, at least rhetorically, expects his exegetical opponents to match his literary-critical expertise. He does not present their inability to recognize the Old Testament idiom of “not knowing the Lord” as something to be expected and accepted, but points it out as a flaw.

The views and interpretations of the heterodox are presented separately from Heracleon’s views and interpretations. No views attributed to the heterodox are supported by quotations from Heracleon even though Origen clearly had access to his comments on the Fourth Gospel.^[51] In the only instance where Heracleon is presented as being in agreement with the heterodox—on the not particularly unorthodox point that John the Baptist is greater than all the Old Testament prophets—Origen points this out explicitly:

Furthermore, not only Heracleon but—as far as I have investigated—also all the heterodox (οἱ ἑτερόδοξοι), being unable to distinguish a slightly ambiguous expression, understand John as being greater than Elijah and all the prophets on account of “Among those born of a woman, no one is greater than John,” since they do not realize that “No one is greater than John among those born of a woman” can be true in two ways: not only by him being greater than all, but also by some being equal to him.^[52]

In this passage, Origen claims that all the heterodox—as far as he knows—are making the same interpretation as Heracleon on Luke 7:28: that John the Baptist is greater than all the prophets coming before him.^[53] Heracleon and the heterodox are differentiated, separated by the conjunctive phrase ἀλλὰ καί (“but also”), indicating that Origen is not including Heracleon in this category.

The category of ἑτερόδοξοι identified here matches a definition of haeretici given in a Latin reference to Origen’s otherwise lost Commentary on Titus that appears in Pamphilius’s Apology for Origen:^[54]

Everyone who professes to believe in Christ, and yet says that there is one God of the law and the prophets, and another God of the Gospels, and who says that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is not he who is proclaimed by the law and the prophets, but is some other, whom no one knows and no one has heard of, men of this type we designate as heretics, however various, however different, however fantastic be the fictions they concoct.^[55]

Here and elsewhere when Origen speaks of the heterodox, his favorite three examples are Marcion, Basilides, and Valentinus.^[56] In one of his homilies on Jeremiah, Origen speaks of πάντων τῶν ἑτεροδόξων (“all of the heterodox”), naming Valentinus, Marcion, and Basilides as examples.^[57] In another, he speaks of the fruit of those who speak out against the Maker (δημιουργός), naming Marcion, Basilides, and Valentinus.^[58] And in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, his rejection of these three exegetical opponents is stated with all his rhetorical efficiency: “Actually, each of the heterodox and those who have produced some falsely called knowledge has also built an entrance to Hades—Marcion one, Basilides another, and Valentinus another.”^[59] Considering that he originally presents Heracleon as a personal associate of Valentinus,^[60] and that he seems to have Heracleon’s writing available at his time of writing, it is remarkable that he does not use Heracleon as an example of how “the heterodox” interpreted the Fourth Gospel.

6 “Those of Marcion”

Even though Marcion and his followers doubtlessly would fulfill his definition of “the heterodox,” Origen occasionally refers to them specifically. In one of these passages, he mentions that Paul’s usage of τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου (“my gospel”) to refer to the contents of his teaching has been misunderstood ὑπὸ τῶν Μαρκίωνος (“by those of Marcion”), who argue that it refers to a single written source.^[61] Here, he defines a category of scriptural interpreters simply by their association with Marcion. In another instance, Origen rejects a distinction made by οἱ αἱρέσεις (“the heretics”) between ὁ δίκαιος (“the just one”) and ὁ ἀγαθός (“the good one”)—precisely the distinction for which Marcion was known.^[62] The label αἱρέσεις does not serve to add any precision to this case,^[63] but its plural form suggests that it is the followers of Marcion who are in view, defined by a teaching they shared with Marcion.^[64] Marcion himself is also mentioned as having rejected Christ’s birth from Mary.^[65] Origen’s way of referring specifically to Marcion and his followers, rather than to the larger category of “the heterodox” suggests that he found value in specifying precisely whom he was opposing.

7 “Those who Bring in the Natures”

The clearest definition of οἱ τὰς φύσεις εἰσάγοντες (“those who bring in the natures”) appears in the context of Jesus’s remark that his hearers are unable to hear the words of God because they are not of God (John 8:47):

Those who bring in the fiction of different natures (οἱ τὴν περὶ διαφόρων φύσεων εἰσάγοντες μυθοποιίαν) when they say that there are children of God by nature and original constitution, who through their kinship to God are uniquely capable of receiving the words of God, also believe themselves to be demonstrating what they present from this.^[66]

Here, Origen references a specific category of scriptural interpreters, defined by their shared teaching that some humans are by nature “uniquely capable of receiving the words of God.”^[67] Origen, who maintains that being a child of God is a matter of free choice, points to the affirmation that all humans by nature are children of wrath in Eph 2:3, to the promise that all who have received Christ have the choice of becoming God’s children in John 1:12, and to the exhortation to love one’s enemies in order to become a son of the Father in Matt 5:44–45.^[68]

In a similar passage, the same interpreters are said to have used Jesus’s declaration that “if God was your Father, you would love me” (John 8:42) as proof that the hearers’ response is determined by their inherent nature (φύσις):

Since those who bring in the natures (οἱ τὰς φύσεις εἰσάγοντες) use this statement and explain it [saying] that you would have recognized me as a family member and a brother, and in addition loved me as your own, if God was your Father, we must ask them: Did Paul at one time hate Jesus?^[69]

Origen responds by arguing that Paul’s change of opinion from rejection to acceptance of Jesus and his followers contradicts his opponents’ proposition that human response to Jesus is determined by an immutable inner nature.^[70]

The category also appears when Origen reflects on the identity of “the scattered children of God” in John 11:51–52:

In this case, those who bring in the natures (οἱ μὲν τὰς φύσεις εἰσάγοντες) will evidently say that the children of God are those who, according to them, are spiritual. [. . .] Thus, it is now time to consider who those now called children of God are, if not those who are spiritual according to those who bring in the natures.^[71]

Based on the notion that certain people are πνευματικοί (“spiritual”), and therefore uniquely capable of receiving the words of God, Origen speculates that “those who bring in the natures” will identify “the scattered children of God” with this group and refutes this interpretation by presenting his own.

In First Principles, Origen discusses what this category of interpreters makes of the notion that God hardened the heart of the Pharaoh (Ex 9:12):

Since some of the heterodox use this—roughly speaking, they also do away with free will by the introduction of natures (φύσεις εἰσάγειν) that perish, unable of being saved, and others that are saved, being incapable of perishing—and say that the Pharaoh has a perishing nature on account of this hardening by God, who has mercy on the spiritual ones, but hardens the earthly ones, let us see what it is they are saying.^[72]

Origen specifies that the interpreters whom he opposes introduce earthly (χοϊκοί) natures that perish and spiritual (πνευματικοί) natures that are saved, which makes it is clear that he is speaking of “those who bring in the natures.” This time, he also clarifies that this category are some, but not all, of οἱ ἑτερόδοξοι, making them a sub-category of the heterodox. In his extended response, Origen reuses his usual designation “those who bring in the natures,”^[73] and points out that if Pharaoh’s disobedience to God were due to his inherent nature, there would have been no reason for God to repeatedly harden his heart.

When Celsus complains that Christians disagree on whether their god is the same as the god of the Jews, Origen admits to the existence of several schismatic Christian groups. Celsus’s list includes Jewish Christians, Simonians, Marcionites, and several other groups. Origen seems not to recognize all of them, but admits to the existence of “those who bring in the natures”:^[74]

Let there also be a third category who call some people animated (ψυχικοί) and others spiritual (πνευματικοί)—I think he refers to those of Valentinus. What does that concern us who are of the church, who denounce those who bring in natures that are saved or perish on account of their inherent constitution?^[75]

When Celsus refers to Christians who call some people ψυχικοί and other πνευματικοί, Origen makes two associations, and identifies the category both as “those who bring in natures” and as “those of Valentinus.” Based on Origen’s and other heresiological identifications, it is not unreasonable to use the epithet Valentinians for this category of scriptural interpreters. In so doing, however, we should recognize that Origen’s definition of this group differs from those used by modern scholars who—taking their starting point in the descriptions of Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 130–202 C. E.)—speak of believers in the idea of an eternal realm (πλήρωμα) populated by divine beings (αἰῶνες), of which the youngest fell from the eternal realm and gave rise to a lower, material existence, from which humans may be rescued by a heavenly Savior (σωτήρ).^[76] The extent to which believers in this supposedly Valentinian myth adhere to the determinism based on three human natures—which Origen uses to define his category—is debated among scholars.^[77] In the one instance where Origen is unambiguously referring to a mythology of multiple αἰῶνες, by speaking of “those who have invented the mythology of aeons in pairs, and believe that Word and Life have been brought forth by Mind and Truth,”^[78] neither “the heterodox” nor “those who bring in the natures” are mentioned, and the passage could be viewed as defining an eighth category.

That Origen maintains a clear distinction between “those who bring in the natures” and Heracleon is apparent in the two instances in which he finds Heracleon’s view to be in conformance with the defining doctrine of this category. The first such instance appears in the context of Jesus’s claim that his hearers intend to kill him because his word has not made any progress among them (John 8:37):

But from those who bring in the natures (τῶν τὰς φύσεις εἰσαγόντων) into “because my word makes no progress among you” and respond, in accordance with Heracleon (κατά Ἡρακλέωνα), that it makes no progress because they are unfit, either in essence or in will, we would like to learn: how would those who are unfit in essence have heard from the Father?^[79]

It is clear that the interpretation summarized here is attributed to “those who bring in the natures.” Secondarily, the interpretation is also said to be made κατά Ἡρακλέωνα (“in accordance with Heracleon”). As previously observed by Ansgar Wucherpfennig, this remark indicates neither that he includes Heracleon in this category, nor that he—before this point—has found their characteristic teaching to be present in Heracleon’s writing.^[80]

The other instance occurs when Origen concludes, from his interpretation of John 8:43, that Heracleon views some humans as having the same nature as the devil:^[81]

But now, it is clear that he is saying (λέγων) that some humans are consubstantial with the devil, as his followers believe (οἴονται οἱ ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ), of a different essence than those they call animated or spiritual.^[82]

The shift from the singular λέγων (“he is saying”) to plural οἴονται (“they believe”) makes it clear that Origen distinguishes between Heracleon himself and his later followers who,^[83] by their common technical vocabulary, can be identified with “those who bring in the natures.” Thus, even when Origen deals with a category he identifies as associated with Heracleon, as associated with Valentinus, and as a sub-category of “the heterodox,” he takes care to maintain the distinction between these different categories, and to specify whose scriptural interpretation is currently in view.

8 Conclusion

This paper has demonstrated that there are several instances in Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John where this author refers to his exegetical opponents not in vague, generalized terms, but in specific, well-defined categories: “Those who stop at the letter” are interpreters who refrain from allegorical interpretations of the Christian scriptures. “Those who are confused on the Father and the Son” are Monarchians who deny either the divinity or the humanity of Christ in order to maintain the unity of God. “Those who bring in the appearance” are proponents of Docetist Christology. “Those who defend reincarnation” are interpreters who claim John the Baptist to be Elijah reincarnated. “The heterodox” or “those with different views” are scriptural interpreters who reject the God of the Jews while worshiping the Father of Christ. “Those of Marcion” would certainly fit into this definition but are nevertheless sometimes referred to specifically. “Those who bring in the natures” are defined as interpreters who categorize human beings as either spiritual (πνευματικοί), animated (ψυχικοί), or earthly (χοϊκoί). They are also identified as a sub-category of “the heterodox,” and as followers of Valentinus.

Origen maintains a clear distinction between these seven categories and Heracleon. He never uses Heracleon’s comments to exemplify how any of these categories interpret the Gospel of John but points out explicitly when he finds Heracleon’s interpretations to conform to the views of “those who stop at the letter,” “the heterodox,” or “those who bring in the natures.” The precision by which Origen previously has been demonstrated to refer to his literalistic or Jewish opponents has thus been revealed to also apply, at least within his Commentary on the Gospel of John, to his non-literalistic exegetical opponents.