| Summary: | This essay asks in what ways modern (i.e. twentieth-century) philosophy can either make use of Origen or inform our reading of him. It argues in the first section that the predominantly exegetic method of Origen makes it difficult for analytic philosophy to accommodate his reasoning. In the second section it examines the comparisons drawn by John Lyons between Origen and Teilhard de Chardin, which also suggest affinities with Henri Bergson, but concludes that the disparity between modern evolutionary thinking and Origen’s timeless approach to the truth of scripture is not easily overcome. The rest of the article suggests that it would be more illuminating to note affinities between Origen and modern theorists who pursue their arguments in dialogue with canonical texts. In particular, Origen’s ubiquitous search for Christ in the text of scripture, without clear evidence of authorial intent, might be more intelligible in modern eyes if Christ were seen as a Derridean pharmakos or Girardean scapegoat.
|
|---|