Origen's allegorical exegesis is highly controversial in the history of biblical
Antioch strongly rejected his allegorical interpretation and espoused the view that the best
reading for the Bible was to interpret it with historical and literal meanings. In addition, many
Protestants have been skeptical about the usefulness and validity of allegorical interpretation
since Luther criticized Origen's allegorical approach to the Scripture.
allegorical interpretation. Henri De Lubac and Henri Crouzel, the Catholic scholars, have
observed that Origen carried out his allegorical exegesis in the context of the tradition of the
church.
Second, there are different views about whether a distinction between typology and allegory in Origen is
necessary or valid. Some say no. See M. F. Wiles, "Origen as Biblical Scholar," in Cambridge History of the
Bible, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 482. Others claimed
that Origen turned typology into allegory. See S. J. Bertrand de Margerie, The Greek Fathers: An Introduction to
the History of Exegesis (Petersham, MA: Saint Bede's Publications, 1993), 110-11. For a detailed debate in
relation to this topic, see Karen Jo Torjesen, Hermeneutical Procedure and Theological Method in Origen's
Exegesis (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1985), 5-6. Torjesen, like R. P. C. Hanson and H. de Lubac, believes
the identification of Origen as a Christian exegete should be approached from another perspective rather than a
distinction between typology and allegory.
century, E. de Faye criticized Origen's allegorical exegesis as primarily concerned with Greek philosophy rather
than Scripture itself.
by Lubac and Couzel are insightful and worthy of examination, but these scholars seem to go too far in defending
Origen. According to these French Catholic theologians, Origen was charged wrongly with heretical teachings
that he did not hold.