Citation with stable link: Philip A. Harland, 'Israelites, Egyptians, Idumeans, Scythians, and others: Origen on ethnic hierarchies and their spiritual equivalents (mid-third century CE),' Ethnic Relations and Migration in the Ancient World, last modified August 9, 2024, https://philipharland.com/Blog/?p=19186.
Ancient author: Origen of Alexandria (mid-third century CE), First Principles (primarily following the Latin version associated with Rufinus) 2.9.3-6; 3.1.23-24; 4.3.6-10 (link; link to Greek / Latin and French translation)
Comments: Origen of Alexandria in Egypt (who also spent time in Caesarea in Syria) was a highly educated Jesus adherent who also thought of himself as a pursuer of wisdom of the Platonic variety. In these passages, Origen openly addresses the ethnic hierarchies that underly his evaluation of numerous peoples from civilized to savage. Origen agrees with other followers of Jesus such as Valentinus and Basilides on the hierarchical arrangement but differs on the rationale, since Origen does not like their idea of inherently different types of souls (apart from differences based on merit). Egyptians and Idumeans, although inferior to Israelites, are nonetheless given a special place in the middle and among those who might be accepted as Israelites. This hints at the spiritual argument that is coming later.
Origen then goes on to use these presumed hierarchies of peoples as an analogy for the spiritual status of souls before their descent from the celestial realm down to specific peoples of the earth. There is a sense in which the destination of a soul among a particular people corresponds to the moral merit or its opposite gained by the soul in the celestial realm. So inferior souls get sent to be part of inferior and uncivilized peoples, and vice versa. So, for instance, he speaks of the superior status of the spiritual Israelite and assumes the utter debasement of the spiritual Scythian. But he also assumes the ability of an Egyptian or such to shift status to a superior Israelite, at least spiritually speaking.
All of this also provides a broader context for evaluating Origen’s belated debate with Celsus over superior (wise) and inferior peoples (link).
Works consulted: M. den Dulk, “Origen of Alexandria and the History of Racism as a Theological Problem,” Journal of Theological Studies 71 (2020): 164–95.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
[Ethnic hierarchies and their basis]
[Origen’s and others’ view regarding the variety of humanity from wild to civilized]
(2.9.3) Some creatures, however, are called “earthly”, and among these, too, that is, among men, there are no small differences, for some are barbarians, others Greeks, and of the barbarians some are wilder and fiercer, whereas others are more gentle. Some moreover employ laws of the highest excellence, others poorer and ruder ones, while others follow inhuman and savage customs rather than laws. Some men are from the very moment of their birth in a humble position, brought up in subjection and slavery, placed under lords and princes and tyrants; whereas others are brought up with more freedom and under more rational influences. . . [omitted discussion of other criteria for differentiating human beings].
[Explanation of the variety by those such as Marcion, Valentinus and Basilides, involving a variety of types of souls corresponding to relatively civilized/good or uncivilized/evil peoples]
(2.9.5) But when we say that the world is arranged in this variety, in which as we have explained above it was made by God, the God whom we call good and righteous and absolutely fair, the following objection is customarily raised by many, and particularly by those who come from the schools of Marcion, Valentinus and Basilides and who assert that souls are in their natures diverse. They ask how it is consistent with the righteousness of God who made the world that on some he would grant a habitation in the heavens, and not only give them a better habitation, but also confer on them a higher and more conspicuous rank, favouring some with a “principality”, others with “powers”, to others again allotting “dominions”, to others presenting the most magnificent seats in the heavenly courts, while others shine with golden light and gleam with starry brilliance, there being “one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars, for one star differeth from another star in glory”. To sum it up briefly, they ask what reason there could be, supposing that God the creator lacks neither the will to desire what is good and perfect nor the power to produce it, that when creating rational natures, that is, beings of whose existence he himself is the cause, he should make some of higher rank and other of second and third and many still lower and less worthy degrees?
Finally, they raise an objection on the score of the differences that exist among men on the earth. Some, they say, inherit at birth a happier lot, as for example the one who springs from Abraham and is born by promise, and the other, the child of Isaac and Rebecca who, while yet lying in the womb, supplants his brother and is said, before he is born, to be loved by God. Speaking generally, one man is born among the Hebrews, with whom he finds instruction in the law of God, another among the Greeks who are themselves men of wisdom and no small learning, another among the Ethiopians, whose custom is to eat human flesh, others among the Scythians, where murdering parents is practised as if sanctioned by law, or among the Taurians, where strangers are offered in sacrifice.
If then, they ask us, this great diversity and these various and different conditions of birth, in which certainly the power of free-will has no place – for a man does not choose for himself either where or among what people or what state of life he will be born, – if, they say, all this is not caused by a diversity in the natures of souls, that is, a soul with an evil nature is destined for an evil people and a good one for a good people, what alternative is there but to suppose that it is the result of accident or chance?
Now if this were admitted, we would no longer believe the world to have been made by God nor to be ruled by his providence, and consequently it would seem that no judgment of God on every man’s actions is to be looked for. But in this matter what is clearly the truth of things is for him alone to know who “searches all things, even the deep things of God” [1 Corinthians 2:10].
[Origen’s response to those who say there are different types of souls: Only one type of soul, but always with free-will which is the cause of the diversity of peoples from civilized to uncivilized]
(2.9.6) We, however, speaking simply as men, will, in order not to nourish the arrogance of the members of the sects (or: heretics; haereticii) by being silent, to the best of our ability reply to their objections with such arguments as may occur to us, as follows:
We have frequently shown in the preceding chapters, by declarations which we were able to quote from the divine writings, that God the creator of the universe is good and just, on the one hand, and all-powerful, on the other. Now when “in the beginning” [Genesis 1:1] he created what he wished to create, that is rational beings, he had no other reason for creating them except himself, that is, his goodness. As therefore he himself, in whom was neither variation nor change nor lack of power, was the cause of all that was to be created, he created all his creatures equal and alike, for the simple reason that there was in him no cause that could give rise to variety and diversity.
However, since these rational creatures, as we have frequently shown and will show yet again in its proper place, were endowed with the power of free will, it was this freedom which induced each one by his own voluntary choice either to make progress through the imitation of God or to deteriorate through negligence. This, as we have said before, was the cause of the diversity among rational creatures, a cause that takes its origin not from the will or judgment of the creator, but from the decision of the creature’s own freedom. God, however, who then felt it just to arrange his creation according to merit, gathered the diversities of minds into the harmony of a single world, so as to furnish, as it were, out of these diverse vessels or souls or minds, one house, in which there must be “not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth, and some inclined towards honour and some towards dishonour” [2 Timothy 2:20] . . . [omitted extensive sections].
[Origen once again returns to refuting the notion of different types of souls]
(3.1.23) However, regarding those who bring in diverse natures of souls and adduce this statement of the apostle [Romans 9:20-21] in support of their teaching [e.g. Valentinus and Basilides are in mind again], we must answer them as follows. If they agree with us that the apostle says that both those who are made for honour and those who are made for dishonour, whom they call the persons of saved and of lost natures, come “from one lump” [Romans 9:21], then the natures of souls will not be diverse, but there will be one nature for all. And if they admit that one and the same potter undoubtedly indicates one creator, then there will not be different creators for those who are saved and for those who are lost. Now let them choose whether they wish the passage to be interpreted as indicating a good God who creates evil and lost men, or a God that is not good and who creates men that are good and prepared for honour. The necessity of giving an answer will extract from them one of these two alternatives.
However, according to our contention that God makes vessels of honour or of dishonour by reason of preexisting causes, the proof of God’s righteousness is in no way compromised. For it is possible that one vessel, which from previous causes has in this world been fashioned for honour, may in another age, if it has acted carelessly here, become a vessel of dishonour in accordance with what it deserves with respect to its conduct. Just as, on the other hand, if a man has from pre-existing causes been formed by the creator as a vessel of dishonour in this life, and yet has amended his ways and purged himself from all his faults and low vices, he may in that new age become a “vessel for honour, sanctified and fitting for the master’s use, prepared for every good work” [2 Timothy 2:21].
[Israelites as high status (“vessels of honour”) and Egyptians and Idumeans as low status (“vessels of dishonour”), but potential status changes due to free-will]
Finally, those who were formed by God to be Israelites in this age, and have lived a life unworthy of their noble birth and fallen away from their high descent, will in the age to come, for their unbelief, be changed as it were from vessels of honour into vessels of dishonour. On the other hand, at the same time many who in this life have been reckoned among the Egyptian or Idumean vessels but have embraced the faith and conduct of the Israelites will “enter into the assembly of the Lord” [Deuteronomy 23:7-9] and exist as vessels of honour “at the revelation of the sons of God” [Romans 8:19].
[Deuteronomy 23:7-9 LXX [NETS trans.]: “You shall not abhor an Idumean, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a resident alien in his land. If sons are born to them in the third generation, they shall enter into the assembly of the Lord. Now if you go out to encamp against your enemies, you shall guard against any evil thing.”]
So it is more agreeable to the rule of piety to believe the following: that every rational creature, according to his will and conduct, is changed at one time from bad to good and at another falls from good to bad; that some continue in good, and some even advance to what is better and ever ascend to higher things until they reach the highest stage of all; and, that others continue in evil or, if the evil within them begins to overflow, go on to a worse condition and are at last overwhelmed in the lowest depths of wickedness. We must suppose from this that it is possible for some who have begun at first with small sins to be so given over to wickedness and to go to such lengths of evil that their sin equals even that of the opposing powers; and that, on the other hand, if, through many severe punishments and most bitter punishments they are able at last to recover their senses and by degrees endeavour to find a remedy for their wounds, they may when their wickedness has ended be restored to what is good. This leads us to the opinion that since, as we have frequently said, the soul is immortal and eternal, it is possible that in the many and endless periods throughout diverse and immeasurable ages it may either descend from the highest good to the lowest evil or be restored from the lowest evil to the highest good.
[Balancing free-will with God’s initiatives]
(3.1.24) Now the language of the apostle, in the passage where he speaks of vessels of honour or dishonour, namely, “if a man purges himself, he will be a vessel for honour, sanctified and fitting for the master’s use, prepared for every good work” [1 Timothy 2:21], seems to put nothing in God’s power and everything in ours. In the passage, however, where he says, “The potter has a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel for honour, and another for dishonour” [Romans 9:21], he appears to attribute everything to God. Now we must not take these passages to be contradictory to one another, but the meaning of each must be combined into one and a single interpretation drawn from the two. In other words, we are not to think that the things which are in the power of our will can be performed without the help of God, nor that those which are in God’s hands can be brought to completion apart from our acts and earnest endeavours and purpose. For, in fact, we do not have it in our own will either to desire or to perform anything without being bound to recognize that this very power of desiring and performing was given to us by God, subject to the distinction which we spoke of above. Nor again are we to think that when God fashions vessels, some for honour and some for dishonour, he regards our wills or purposes or merits as a cause of the honour or dishonour, as if they were a kind of matter out of which he may fashion each one of us either for honour or for dishonour. The truth is that the very movement of the soul and purpose of the mind of itself suggests to him, to whom the heart and the thoughts of the soul are not hidden, whether the vessel should be fashioned for honour or for dishonour. But let these arguments, which we have discussed to the best of our ability on the questions that arise out of free will, be sufficient. . . [omitted large sections].
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
[Ethnic hierarchies as analogies or allegories for the soul’s status in relation to God]
[Israelites as the superior people]
(4.3.6) The divine writings declare that a certain people (gens / ethnos) on the earth was chosen by God, and they call this people by many names. Sometimes the people as a whole is called “Israel,” sometimes “Jacob”; and in particular, when the people was divided into two parts by Jeroboam the son of Nebat, the ten tribes which became subject to him were called Israel, and the other two, including the tribe of Levi and the tribe which sprang from the royal family of David, were named “Judah.” The entire country inhabited by this people, which had been given them by God, was called Judea, the metropolis of which was Jerusalem, called the metropolis or mother city as being a kind of mother of many cities. The names of these cities you will find frequently mentioned here and there in the other divine writings, but they are gathered together into a single group in the book of Joshua the son of Nun [Joshua 13-21].
[Spiritual or secret Israelites / Judeans]
This being so, the holy apostle, desiring as it were to raise up and exalt our understanding above the earth, says in a certain place: “Behold Israel after the flesh” [Romans 9:8]. In saying this he certainly indicates that there is also another Israel, which is not “after the flesh” but after the spirit. And again he says in another place: “For they are not all Israel, who are of Israel” [Romans 9:6].
(4.3.6 continued, in the Greek only, i.e. omitted by Rufinus) And again: “Neither is a person a Judean who is one bodily, nor is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh; but a person is a Judean who is one secretly, and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter” [Romans 2:28-29]. For if we take the phrase “a Judean secretly” as a test, we will realize that as there is a descent group (genos) of bodily Judeans, so, too, there is a people (ethnos) of those who are “Judeans secretly”, the soul having acquired this noble descent (eugeneia) in virtue of certain unspeakable words.
Moreover there are many prophecies spoken about Israel and Judah which relate what is going to happen to them. And when we think of the extraordinary promises recorded about these people, promises that so far as literary style goes are poor and distinguished by no elevation or character that is worthy of a promise of God, is it not clear that they demand a mystical interpretation? Well, then, if the promises are of a spiritual kind though announced through material imagery, the people to whom the promises belong are not the bodily Israelites.
(4.3.7, from the Greek) But we must not spend time discussing who is a “Judean secretly” and who is an Israelite “in the inner man”, since the above remarks are sufficient for all who are not intellectually dull. We will return to the subject before us and say that Jacob was the father of the twelve patriarchs, and they of the rulers of the people, and they in their turn of the Israelites who came after. Is it not the case, then, that the bodily Israelites carry back their descent to the rulers of the people, the rulers of the people to the patriarchs, and the patriarchs to Jacob and those still more ancient. Whereas are not the spiritual Israelites, of whom the bodily ones were a type, descended from the clans, and the clans from the tribes, and the tribes from one whose birth was not bodily, like that of the others, but of a higher kind. Wasn’t that one born of Isaac, and Isaac descended from Abraham, while all go back to Adam, who the apostle says is Christ [1 Corinthians 15:45]? For the origin of all families that are in touch with the God of the whole world began lower down with Christ, who comes next after the God and father of the whole world. God is thus the father of every soul, as Adam is the father of all men. And if Eve is interpreted by Paul as referring to the assembly (or: church) [Ephesians 5:31-32], it is not surprising (seeing that Cain was born of Eve and all that come after him carry back their descent to Eve) that these two should be figures of the assembly. For in the higher sense all men take their beginning from the assembly.
(4.3.8, now following Rufinus’ Latin again) Now that we have learned from him, therefore, that there is one Israel according to the flesh and another according to the spirit, then when the saviour says, “I am sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” [Matthew 15:24], we do not take these words in the same sense as do they who “mind earthly things”, that is, the Ebionites, who even by their very name are called poor (for in Hebrew the word ebion means “poor”), but we understand that it is a descent group (genus) of souls which is called Israel, as the meaning of the word itself indicates, because Israel means “the mind seeing God” or “man seeing God.” . . . [omitted section on the notion of a heavenly Jerusalem].
[Spiritual Egyptians, Babylonians, Tyrians, and Sidonians]
(4.3.9) If therefore the prophecies relating to Judea and Jerusalem, and to Israel, Judah and Jacob indicate to us (because we do not interpret them in a fleshly sense) various divine mysteries, it certainly follows that those prophecies which were uttered concerning Egypt and the Egyptians, or Babylon and the Babylonians, or Sidon and the Sidonians, must not be understood to refer to the Egypt which is situated on the earth, or to the earthly Babylon or Tyre or Sidon. Nor can the prophecies which the prophet Ezekiel utters concerning Pharaoh king of Egypt apply to any particular man who may have reigned in Egypt, as the context of the passage clearly shows. Similarly the statements concerning the prince of Tyre cannot be understood as being made in respect of any man who was an actual king of Tyre. Furthermore, regarding the statements made about Nebuchadnezzar, which are found in many places in the writings and especially in Isaiah, how is it possible for us to accept them as spoken of a man? For he is no man, who is said to have “fallen from heaven”, or to be the “morning star”, or to have “risen in the morning.” Moreover, as for the statements which are made in Ezekiel concerning Egypt, that it shall be “laid waste forty years” so that “no foot of man” shall be found there, and that it shall be so overwhelmed with war that throughout the land human blood shall flow to a height up to the knees, I do not know how any man of intelligence could interpret these as referring to that earthly Egypt which lies next to Ethiopia.
Let us see, however, whether the above passages may not be more suitably interpreted as follows: Just as there is a heavenly Jerusalem and Judea, and no doubt a people dwelling in them who are called Israel, so it is possible that near to these there exist certain other places, which apparently are called Egypt, Babylon, Tyre, or Sidon. As well, the princes of these places and the souls, if there are any, who dwell in them, may be called “Egyptians,” “Babylonians,” “Tyrians” and “Sidonians.” From among these souls, in keeping with the manner of life which they lead there, a kind of captivity would seem to have taken place, as a result of which they are said to have gone down from higher and better places into Egypt [i.e. with Egypt considered the lowest here], or to have been scattered among other peoples.
[Analogy of judgment in the underworld]
(4.3.10) For perhaps, just as those who depart from this world by the common death of all, are distributed according to their deeds and merits, as a result of the judgment, some going to a place which is called the “lower world” others to “Abraham’s bosom” and to the various positions and dwelling-places in it. Likewise the inhabitants of the regions above, when they die there, if one may so speak, descend from those upper places to this lower world [again, with Egypt as analogous to the lower world]. For the other lower world, to which are conveyed the souls of those who die on earth, is called by the writings, I believe on account of this distinction, “the lower Hades”, as it says in the Psalms, “And you have delivered my soul from the lower Hades” [Psalms 86:13 LXX].
[Souls destined to certain peoples on earth based on merit in the celestial realm]
Each of those [i.e. souls], therefore, who descends to the earth is destined in keeping with his merits or with the position which he had held above to be born in a particular place or people, or in a particular walk of life, or with particular infirmities, or to be the offspring of pious parents or the reverse. A result of this is that it happens occasionally that an Israelite falls among the Scythians [i.e. punishment of the apparently superior soul based on merits in the celestial realm] and a poor Egyptian is conveyed to Judea [i.e. reward for the apparently inferior soul based on merits in the celestial realm].
Nevertheless our saviour came to gather together the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” [Matthew 24:35]. Yet since most of the Israelites have not submitted to his teaching, those who belonged to the peoples (gentes) [traditionally rendered “Gentiles”] have been called. It would appear to follow from this that the prophecies which are uttered concerning the various peoples should rather to be referred to souls and the different heavenly dwelling-places occupied by them. Moreover in regard to the records of events that are said to have happened to the people of Israel, to Jerusalem, or to Judea, when they were attacked by this people or that [e.g. Tyrians, Egyptians, Babylonians], there is need for careful inquiry and examination (seeing that in very many cases the events did not happen in a physical sense) to discover in what way these events are more suitably ascribed to those populations of souls who once dwelled in that heaven which is said to “pass away” or who may be supposed to dwell there even now.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Source of translation: G. W. Butterworth, Origen on First Principles (London: SPCK, 1936), public domain in Canada (passed away in 1963), adapted by Harland.