¹ Griffin, Carl W. and Paulsen, David L., “Augustine and the Corporeality of God,” HTR 95 (2002) 97–118Google Scholar, at 97. Previous scholars have already explored the doctrines of anthropomorphism and the “form of God” either in apocryphal documents from the Acts of John 89–93 to Acts of Peter 20 to Clementine Homilies 17, or in various Gnostic writings, or in early mystical-ascetical visions. See, for instance, Fossum, Jarl, The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology (NTOA 30; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1995)Google Scholar and Newman, Carey C., Paul's Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric (NovTSup 69; Leiden: Brill, 1992)Google Scholar. Regarding the presence of the divine Form topic (morphe, eikon, and smot) in Gnostic materials, see, e.g., Marcus (Irenaeus Haer. 1.14.1); Tri. Trac. 53.22, 54.14, 55.1, 63.9, 66.13, 67.19, 72.35, 93.36; Ap. John 14.20–15.10; Gos. Phil. 71; Gos. Eg. III 67.8, 10; Soph. Jes. Chr. NHC III 91.11; Acts Pet. 12 Apos. 2.19; Great Pow. 36.9; Disc. 8–9 57.6; Paraph. Shem 1.35, 8.7; Treat. Seth 56.25, 68.6–7; Val. Exp. 35.25–30; Allogenes 51.6–35. For Christian anthropomorphism and the topic of the “Form of God,” see also Florovsky, Georges, “The Anthropomorphites in the Egyptian Desert” and “Theophilus of Alexandria and Apa Aphou of Pemdje,” in Aspects of Church History (Collected Works of Georges Florovsky 4; Belmont, Mass: Norland, 1975) 89–129Google Scholar; Quispel, Gilles, “The Discussion of Judaic Christianity,” in Gnostic Studies (2 vols.; Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul; Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut in het Nabije Oosten, 1975) 2:146–58Google Scholar; idem, “Ezekiel 1:26 in Jewish Mysticism and Gnosis,” VC 34 (1980) 1–13; Fossum, Jarl, “Jewish-Christian Christology and Jewish Mysticism,” VC 37 (1983) 260–87Google Scholar; Jantzen, Grace M., God's World, God's Body (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1984)Google Scholar; Clark, Elizabeth A., “New Perspectives on the Origenist Controversy: Human Embodiment and Ascetic Strategies,” CH 59 (1990) 145–62Google Scholar; Gould, Graham E., “The Image of God and the Anthropomorphite Controversy in Fourth-Century Monasticism,” in Origeniana Quinta (ed. Daly, Robert J.; Leuven: University Press, 1992) 549–57Google Scholar; Clark, Elizabeth A., The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Griffin and Paulsen, “Augustine;” Golitzin, Alexander A., “‘The Demons Suggest an Illusion of God's Glory in a Form’: Controversy Over the Divine Body and Vision of Glory in Some Late Fourth, Early Fifth Century Monastic Literature,” StudMon 44 (2002) 13–42Google Scholar; idem, “The Vision of God in the Form of Glory: More Reflections on the Anthroporphite Controversy of AD 399,” in Abba: The Tradition of Orthodoxy in the West (ed. John Behr and Andrew Louth; Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2003) 173–98; Ayres, Lewis, “‘Shine, Jesus, Shine:’ On Locating Apollinarianism,” in Studia Patristica XL (ed. Young, F., Edwards, M., and Parvis, P.; Louvain: Peeters, 2006) 143–57Google Scholar; Patterson, Paul A., Visions of Christ: The Anthropomorphite Controversy of 399 CE (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 68; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012)Google Scholar.

² For Origen, see Griffin and Paulsen, “Augustine,” 100–103. Henri Crouzel avows that anthropomorphism had many supporters in Origen's time; see Théologie de l'image de Dieu chez Origène (Théologie 34; Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1956) 257. For Victorinus, see Griffin and Paulsen, “Augustine,” 105. Cf. Augustine, ibid. 104–10. Griffin and Paulsen also assert that the doctrines of the incorporeality of God and the soul “were not fundamental doctrines before Augustine, although they became fundamental largely because of him” (ibid. 105). See also Teske, Roland J., “The Aim of Augustine's Proof That God Truly Is,” International Philosophical Quarterly 26 (1986) 253–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Verbeke, Gérard, L'évolution de la doctrine du Pneuma, du stoïcisme à s. Augustin (Greek and Roman Philosophy 43; Paris: Desclée, 1945) 387–544Google Scholar.

³ Hällström, Gunnar af, Fides simpliciorum according to Origen of Alexandria (Commentationes humanarum litterarum 76; Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1984)Google Scholar.

⁴ Clark, “New Perspectives,” 147. Clark mentions Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 6.7, Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 8.11–11.19, and Palladius, Dialogus de vita S. Joannis Chrysostomi 6.22–7.23. She adds on the next page that Cassian affirmed that the monks believed in God's anthropomorphic form because of “their simplicity;” see John Cassian, Conlationes 10.2–3.

⁵ Conf. 6.11.18, as cited in Griffin and Paulsen, “Augustine,” 108.

⁶ Mor. eccl. 10.17, as cited in Griffin and Paulsen, “Augustine,” 109.

⁷ Irenaeus (Haer. 4.3.1), Clement (Strom. 5.11), and Origen (Sel. Gen. 25) criticized the anthropomorphic position, while Justin asserted that God the Father cannot have a form (Dial. 1.4).

⁸ Ayres, “Shine, Jesus, Shine.”

⁹ Ibid., 157: “It was only as these theologies [i.e., of Alexander and Athanasius] gave way to the emphases of pro-Nicene theology in the 360s and 370s—after the upheavals of the 350s—that we find the clear exclusion of some of this earlier variety. Apollinaris’ theology would have passed much more easily in the context of the 340s and 350s, but a couple of decades later it had become much more incongruous and Apollinaris probably found himself under much greater pressure.”

¹⁰ For Xenophanes of Colophon, see Fr. 11–16, 23 as well as Test. 28.1, 9 and 31.3–5. For Aristobulus, see Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.10.1–2; for Philo, see Opif. 69, Mut. 54; see Celsus as cited in Origen, Cels. 7.27, 34. See also Clement of Alexandria's rejection of anthropomorphism in Strom. 5.11.68.13 as a “Hebrew” doctrine. A constant subject of debate among Greek philosophers (see Harold W. Attridge, “The Philosophical Critique of Religion under the Early Empire,” ANRW II/16:45–78), anthropomorphism was a key topic for such philosophers as Apuleius, Celsus, and Numenius. Assuming an anti-anthropomorphist stance, they articulated an apophatic discourse about God. See, e.g., Stroumsa, Gedaliahu, “The Incorporeality of God: Context and Implications of Origen's Position,” Rel 13 (1983) 345CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Torjesen, Karen J., “The Enscripturation of Philosophy: The Incorporeality of God in Origen's Exegesis,” in Biblical Interpretation: History, Context, and Reality (ed. Helmer, Christine with assistance of Taylor G. Petrey; SBLSymS; Atlanta: SBL, 2005) 73–84Google Scholar.

¹¹ For rabbinic anthropomorphism, one may consult Marmorstein, Arthur, Essays in Anthropomorphism (vol. 2 of The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God; Jews’ College Publications 14; London: Oxford University Press, 1937)Google Scholar; Scholem, Gershom, On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts in the Kabbalah (ed. Chipman, Jonathan; trans. Neugroschel, Joachim; New York: Schocken Books, 1991) 251–73Google Scholar; Stern, David, “Imitatio Hominis: Anthropomorphism and the Character(s) of God in Rabbinic Literature,” Proof 12 (1992) 151–74Google Scholar; Gottstein, Alon G., “The Body as Image of God in Rabbinic Literature,” HTR 87 (1994) 171–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fishbane, Michael, “The ‘Measures’ of God's Glory in the Ancient Midrash,” in Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity Presented to David Flusser on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday (ed. Gruenwald, Ithamar, Shaked, Shaul and Stroumsa, Gedaliahu G.; TSAJ 32; Tübingen: Mohr, 1992) 53–74Google Scholar. For Christian anthropomorphism, see n. 1.

¹² See Orphic Hymns 4.2; Xenophanes, Fr. 23 (Simplicius, In Ph. 23.18, Diogenes Laertius, Vit. 9.19); Parmenides, Ph. 8; Plato, Tim. 37c.

¹³ For Aristobulus's text, see Eusebius, Praep. ev. 8.10.1–2. Greek text from: Eusebius Werke VIII. Die Praeparatio Evangelica (ed. Karl Mras; 2 vols.; GCS 43; Berlin: Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1954–56) 1:451.

¹⁴ Eusebius, Praep. ev. 13.12.5 (GCS 43/2:192). English translation from: “Aristobulus,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; trans. A. Yabro Collins; 2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1983) 2:840.

¹⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶ Philo, Somn. 1.232. Greek text and English translation from: Philo (trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker; 10 vols. and 2 suppl. vols.; LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949–1956) 5:420.

¹⁷ mtlxx.

¹⁸ Philo, Spec. 1.45 (LCL Philo 7:124–25).

¹⁹ Philo, Opif. 31 (LCL Philo 1:24).

²⁰ Josephus, C. Ap. 2.190–91. Greek text and English translation from: Josephus (trans. H. S. J. Thackeray et al.; 10 vols.; LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926) 1:369.

²¹ Hermes Trismegistus, Tract. 11.16–17. Greek text from: Corpus Hermeticum (ed. A. J. Festugière; 4 vols.; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1954–60) 1:153–54. My translation.

²² Justin, Dial. 1.3.7. Greek text from: Iustini Martyris Dialogus cum Tryphone (ed. M. Marcovitch; PTS 47; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997) 76. English translation from: St. Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (trans. T. B. Falls and T. P. Halton; Washington, DC: CUA Press, 2003), 9. See also Bobichon, Philippe, Justin Martyr, Dialogue avec Tryphon. Édition critique, traduction et commentaire (Paradosis 47; Fribourg: Éditions Saint-Paul, 2003)Google Scholar.

²³ Justin, Dial. 1.4 (PTS 47:77).

²⁴ Justin, 1 Apol. 9.1–3. Iustini Martyris Apologiae pro Christianis (ed. M. Marcovitch; PTS 38; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994) 43–44. English translation from: Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies (ed. D. Minns and P. Parvis; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 97.

²⁵ Irenaeus, Epid. 34. Armenian text from: The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (ed. K. ter Mĕkĕrttschian; trans. S.G. Wilson; PO 12/5; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1919) 33 and Irénée de Lyon: Nouveaux fragments Arméniens de l'Adversus Haereses et de l'Epideixis (ed. Charles Renoux; PO 39/1; Turnhout: Brepols, 1978) 133. Latin text from: Irénée de Lyon: Démonstration de la prédication apostolique (ed. Adelin Rousseau; SC 406; Paris: Cerf, 1995) 130–32, 272–77. For a possible Greek retroversion, see Rousseau's suggestion in SC 406:272. English translation from: St. Irenaeus: Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (trans. J. P. Smith; London: Longman, Green, and Co, 1952) 69.

²⁶ See Matthias Bedrossian, New Dictionary Armenian-English (Venice: S. Lazarus Armenian Academy, 1875–79) 700.

²⁷ Irenaeus, Epid. 11 (PO 12/5:15). English translation from: Smith, Irenaeus, 54.

²⁸ Smith, Irenaeus, 148–49.

²⁹ See Bedrossian, New Dictionary, 430.

³⁰ Irenaeus, Haer. 2.7.6: “In like manner, neither can those things which are corruptible and earthly, and of a compound nature, and transitory, be the images of those which, according to these men, are spiritual; unless these very things themselves be allowed to be compound, limited in space, and of a definite shape, and thus no longer spiritual, and diffused, and spreading into vast extent, and incomprehensible. For they must of necessity be possessed of a definite figure, and confined within certain limits, that they may be true images (Necesse est enim ea in figuratione esse et circumscriptione, ut sint imagines uerae).” Latin text from: Irénée de Lyon: Contre les hérésies, Livre II (ed. Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutreleau; SC 294; Paris: Cerf, 1982) 76. English translation from: Irenaeus, Against Heresies (ANF; 10 vols.; Repr. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1994) 1:957. For Orbe, Antonio, see Hacia la primera teologia de la procesión del Verbo (Rome: Apud Aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, 1958)Google Scholar.

³¹ Ochagavía, Juan, Visibile Patris Filius: A Study in Irenaeus’ Teaching on Revelation and Tradition (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 171; Rome: Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1964) 91Google Scholar.

³² Irenaeus, Haer. 4.4.2: , . “Et bene qui dixit ipsum immensum Patrem in Filio mensuratum: mensura enim Patris Filius, quoniam et capit eum.” Latin and Greek texts from: Irénée de Lyon: Contre les hérésies, Livre IV (ed. Adelin Rousseau et al.; SC 100; Paris: Cerf, 1965) 420–21. English translation from: ANF 1:466.

³³ Irenaeus Haer. 4.6.6. (SC 100:450). For the Greek retroversion, see SC 100:451: . My translation.

³⁴ Irenaeus Haer. 4.20.8: “After this invisible manner (rationem invisibilem/), therefore, did they see God (videbant Deum/), as also Esaias says, “I have seen with mine eyes the King, the Lord of hosts,” pointing out that man should behold God with his eyes, and hear His voice. In this manner, therefore (Secundum hanc igitur rationem/), did they also see the Son of God as a man conversant with men, while they prophesied what was to happen, saying that He who was not come as yet was present proclaiming also the impassible as subject to suffering, and declaring that He who was then in heaven (eum qui tunc in coelis) had descended into the dust of death” (ANF 1:490; SC 100:650–52, Gr:651–53).

³⁵ E.g., Haer. 4.20.9.

³⁶ See Ochagavía, Visibile, 95–122, Orbe, Hacia, 346–47. For two-stage Logos Christology, see Wolfson, H. A., Faith, Trinity, Incarnation (vol. 1 of The Philosophy of the Church Fathers; 2^nd rev. ed.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964) 200Google Scholar.

³⁷ “From all this we may conclude that the preincarnate Word was in possession of a sort of visibility to the mind that was anterior to the visibility to the eyes of the flesh” (Ochagavía, Visibile, 91). See Orbe, Hacia, 407. See Houssiau, Albert, La Christologie de Saint Irénée (Dissertationes ad gradum magistri in Facultate Theologica vel in Facultate Iuris Canonici consequendum conscriptae / Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis Ser. III t.1; Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain, 1955) 18Google Scholar; and also Kunze, Bonwetsch, Chaine, and Lebreton referenced in Ochagavía, Visibile, 91.

³⁸ See, for instance, van Kooten, George H., Paul's Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity (WUNT 2.232; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008)Google Scholar; Giulea, Dragoş A., “Eikonic Soteriology from Paul to Augustine: A Forgotten Tradition?” Theof 42 (2011) 47–70Google Scholar.

³⁹ I am indebted to the anonymous reviewer for this idea.

⁴⁰ Irenaeus, Epid. 34 (SC 406:131–2; 272–77; PO 12/5:33 and 39/1:133). For a possible Greek retroversion, see Rousseau in SC 406:272. English translation from Smith, Irenaeus, 69–70.

⁴¹ Irenaeus, Haer. 5.18.3: “For the Creator of the world () is truly the Word of God (): and this is our Lord (), who in the last times was made man (), existing in this world, and who in an invisible manner () contains () all things created, and is crucified in the entire creation (), since the Word of God governs and arranges all things; and therefore He came to His own in a visible manner (), and was made flesh, and hung upon the tree, that He might sum up () all things in Himself ()” (ANF 1:546–47 [emended for clarity]; SC 153:245). See also Irenaeus, Haer. 5.17.4 (SC 153:233–34) for the cosmic extension of the Logos, an extension which is hidden to us (), therefore to the ordinary eye. We should mention here that Jean Daniélou also connects the text with the remarkable Jewish-Christian tradition which identifies the divine dynamis with a cosmic cross and the cosmic Christ; see, Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity (The Development of Christian Doctrine before the Council of Nicea 1; Chicago: H. Regenery Co., 1964) 270–92; see also Justin, 1 Apol. 55.1–6; Valentinians (Irenaeus Haer. 1.2.2); Irenaeus, Epid. 56, Haer. 1.3.5; Tertullian, Marc. 3.19; Clement of Alexandria, Exc. 43.1; Acts John 99; Gregory of Nyssa, An. res. 1.

⁴² See Rousseau, Adelin, “Le Verbe ‘imprimé’ en forme de croix dans l'univers’: A propos de deux passages de saint Irénée,” in Armeniaca: Mélanges d'études arméniennes (ed. Djanachian, Mesrop; Venice: St. Lazare, 1969) 67–82Google Scholar.

⁴³ In Haer. 4.20.5 and the following passages Irenaeus explains that what the prophets contemplated in similitudes will be contemplated face to face in the resurrected life.

⁴⁴ Clement, Protr. 4.51.6: . . Greek text from: Clément d'Alexandrie: Le Protreptique (ed. Claude Mondésert and André Plassart; SC 2; Paris: Cerf, 1949) 114. My translation.

⁴⁵ Clement, Exc. 10.2–3 (SC 23:78): . Greek text from: Clément d'Alexandrie: Extraits de Théodote (ed. François Sagnard; SC 23; Paris: Cerf, 1948) 78. My translation.

⁴⁶ Clement, Exc. 10.1 (SC 23:76). For scholarship on Clement's doctrine of the Protoctists in the larger context of early Christianity, see Bucur, Bogdan G., Angelomorphic Pneumatology: Clement of Alexandria and Other Early Christian Witnesses (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 95; Leiden: Brill, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁷ Clement, Exc. 11.3 (SC 23:82).

⁴⁸ Ibid., 12.2–3 (SC 23:83).

⁴⁹ Ibid., 10.6 (SC 23:80).

⁵⁰ Ibid.

⁵¹ E.g., De carne Christi.

⁵² Tertullian, Prax. 7: “Then, therefore, does the Word (sermo) also Himself assume His own form and glorious garb (speciem et ornatum), His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, ‘Let there be light’ (Gen 1.3). This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God—formed (conditus) by Him first to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom—‘The Lord created or formed me as the beginning of His ways (condidit me initium uiarum)’ (Prov 8.22).” Latin text from: Tertulliani Adversus Praxean liber (ed. E. Dekkers and E. Evans; CCSL 2; Turnhout: Brepols, 1954) 1165–76. English translation from: Tertullian, Against Praxeas (ANF) 3:601–602. Here I preferred the ANF translation to the newer one by Ernest Evans, which misses the point by rendering sermo with “discourse” and ornatum with “equipment.” See Evans, Adversus Praxean liber: Tertullian's Treatise against Praxeas (London: SPCK, 1948) 136.

⁵³ Tertullian, Prax. 7.

⁵⁴ Tertullian, Prax. 7. There are pages where Tertullian uses the word forma instead of effigia in connection with God, for instance in Marc. 1.3.2: “God is the great Supreme in form and in reason, and in might and in power (sit Deus summum magnum et forma et ratione et ui et potestate).” Latin text from: Tertullien: Contre Marcion, Tome I, Livre I (ed. René Braun; SC 365; Paris: Cerf, 1991) 112. English translation from: Tertullian, Against Marcion (ANF) 3:273.

⁵⁵ Tertullian, Prax. 7: “Now, even if invisible things (invisibilia illa), whatsoever they be, have both their substance and their form in God (habent apud Deum et suum corpus et suam formam), whereby they are visible to God alone (soli Deo uisibilia sunt), how much more shall that which has been sent forth from His substance not be without substance (quod ex ipsius substantia emissum est sine substantia non erit)!” (ANF 3:601–602; CCSL 2:1165–76).

⁵⁶ Tertullian, Prax. 15 (Evans, Adversus Praxean, 152; CCSL 2:1179). The Son's visibility does not have to be understood in an absolute way but from the Father's perspective. As seen above in Prax. 7, there are even other objects which are invisible. The distinction invisible Father-visible Son (cf. Novatian, On the Faith 18.1 and 31) is one viewed from a human perspective: while the Son manifests himself in theophanies, the Father remains unmanifested.

⁵⁷ Tertullian, Marc. 5.10.3; 5.15.7. Latin text from: Tertullien: Contre Marcion, Tome V, Livre V (ed. Claudio Moreschini; SC 483; Paris: Cerf, 2004) 208, 298.

⁵⁸ Tertullian, De carne Christi 11.3–4: “If it has this something, it must be its body (Si habet aliquid per quod est, hoc erit corpus eius). Everything which exists is a bodily existence sui generis (Omne quod est, corpus est sui generis). Nothing lacks bodily existence but that which is non-existent (nihil est incorporale, nisi quod non est). If, then, the soul has an invisible body (inuisibile corpus).” Latin text from: Tertullien: La chair du Christ, I (ed. Jean-Pierre Mahé; SC 216; Paris: Cerf, 1975) 258. English translation from: Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ (ANF) 3:531. See also Carn. Chr. 3.9.

⁵⁹ Tertullian, Prax. 2 (Evans 132; CCSL 2:1161) [italics in the original]. Cf. Prax. 8 and 11–13 for his further discussions on the unity and distinction in the Trinity. It is worth mentioning that Tertullian affirms in Carn. Chr. 3.8 that the Spirit did not put an end to his substance (substantia) when he descended at the Baptism and took a different substance (SC 216:220).

⁶⁰ Tertullian, Prax. 27 (Evans 173; CCSL 2:1199). Evans's translation is preferable to the ANF here since ANF 3:623 renders informabilem with “incapable of form,” a solution coming in complete contradiction with the next lines which affirm that, in his Incarnation, the Logos does not lose his form, and generally with Tertullian's doctrine according to which God has a form. Evans's solution, “untransformable,” makes much more sense, because the idea is that the divine Form of the Word is not changed through incarnation.

⁶¹ My investigation of the way Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine of Hippo—to mention fugitively some of the most illustrious names—use the Pauline expression (Phil 2.6) led me to the conclusion that, in the dozens of instances they employ the expression, its meaning is programmatically denoting the divine nature. The phrase was a sheer parlance commonly indicating Jesus's divine essence. Among them, Gregory explicitly affirms in Eun 4.8 the identity between and the divine nature: “the ‘form of God’ is certainly the same thing as his essence” (). Greek text from: Gregorii Nysseni Opera, vol. I-II: Contra Eunomium libri (ed. Werner Jaeger; Leiden: Brill, 1960) 2:100. My translation. Gregory reaffirms this identity in Eun. 8.5 as well as Basil of Caesarea in Eun. 1.18 and Hom. Hex. 9.6.

⁶² Origen, Comm. in Mt. 12.29. Greek text from: Origenes Werke X. Commentarius in Matthaeum I (ed. Erich Klostermann and Ernst Benz; GCS 40; Berlin: Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1935) 133. English translation from: Origen, Commentary on Matthew (ANF) 9:465. There are also other instances where the Alexandrian equates the terms and and refers with both of them not only to Jesus's divine condition, but also to the eschatological shape of the human being, which is conformed to Jesus's form of glory. The following text from Comm. Rom. 7.7.4 develops a remarkable vision of the eschatological destiny of the human being where humans will become images (copies/icons) of the same form of God which Christ enjoys: “Moreover, I would like to investigate what he has said, ‘conformed to the image of his own Son (conformes imaginis Filii sui [Rom 8:29: ]).’ Into which form (formae) may they be said to be conformed? For we read that the Son of God was at one time in the form of God (in forma Dei), and at another time in the form of a slave (in forma servi). . . . If these [virtues] are clearly formed in them [i.e., Christians] (in eis formentur) having become conformed into his image (conformes imaginis) they will be seen in that form (illam formam) in which [Christ] is in the form of God (in forma Dei).” Latin text from: Origenis opera omnia, t. 4 (ed. Jean-Paul Migne; PG 14; Paris, 1862) 1122A–C. English translation from: Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans Books 6–10 (trans. T. P. Scheck; Washington, DC: CUA Press, 2002) 84–5. See also Comm. Rom. 7.11.2.

⁶³ See Origen, Princ. 1.2.2, 4; 2.4.3; 4.1.27.

⁶⁴ See, for instance, Origen, Princ. 2.4.3: “For in no other way can anything be seen (uideri) except by its shape (habitum) and size (magnitudinem) and colour (colorem), which are properties of bodies (specialia corporum).” Latin text from: Origène, Traité des Principes, I (ed. Henri Crouzel and Manlio Simonetti; SC 252; Paris: Cerf, 1978) 284. English translation from: Origen, On First Principles (trans. G.W. Butterworth; New York: Haper & Row, 1966) 98. See also Princ. 2.10.2.

⁶⁵ Origen, Comm. Jo. 20.153–155. Greek text from: Origène, Commentaire sur Jean, IV (ed. Cécile Blanc; SC 290; Paris: Cerf, 1982) 230–32. English translation from: Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John. Books 13–32 (trans. R. E. Heine; 2 vols.; Washington, DC: CUA Press, 1993) 2:238. The interpreter here speculates on Micah 1:2–4 and John 8:42. Origen conceives of the Logos as glorious and in the form of God before the Incarnation. In his earthly existence, the Logos hides his glory in flesh and beneath his servant form; e.g., Princ. 1.2.5–7.

⁶⁶ Origen, Comm. in Mt. 12.36–37: “The Word has different forms () and he appears to each as is expedient for him to see (). He is never revealed to any man beyond his capacity to see ().” English translation from: McGuckin, John, The Transfiguration of Christ in Scripture and Tradition (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 9; Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1986), 155–57Google Scholar. Greek text from: GCS 40:152.

⁶⁷ Ibid.

⁶⁸ Ibid., GCS 40:153.

⁶⁹ Origen, Cels. 4.16. Greek text from: Origène, Contre Celse, II (ed. Marcel Borret; SC 136; Paris: Cerf, 1968) 220. English translation from: Origen, Contra Celsum (trans. H. Chadwick; Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1953) 194.

⁷⁰ Origen, Cels. 4.16 (Chadwick, Cels., 194; SC 136:222). In Comm. in Mt. 12.30 he directly affirms that the glory is accessible only to the perfect ones: “For indeed to the perfect appears the glory of the Word (), and the only-begotten of God His Father, and the fullness of grace and likewise of truth, which that man cannot perceive who requires ‘foolishness of the preaching,’ in order to believe” (ANF 9:466; GCS 40:133).

⁷¹ Origen, Cels. 6.68 “He ‘was in the beginning with God’; but because of those who had cleaved to the flesh and become as flesh, he became flesh, that he might be received by those incapable of seeing him in his nature as the one who was the Logos (), who was with God, who was God. And being spoken of under physical forms (), and being proclaimed to be flesh, he calls to himself those who are flesh that he may make them first to be formed like the Logos () who became flesh, and after that lead them up to see him () as he was before he became flesh ()” (Chadwick, Cels., 382–3). Greek text from: Origène, Contre Celse, III (ed. Marcel Borret; SC 147; Paris: Cerf, 1969) 348.

⁷² Ibid. Compare with the following expression from Comm. in Mt. 12.37: “the form of God in which he previously was ()” (McGuckin, Transfiguration, 156; GCS 40:152).

⁷³ See Origen, Cels. 1.60, 66; 2.8, 34, 64; 7.17; 8.42; Hom. 1–16 in Lev. 2.3. Fr. Eph. 3.16–17. See also Harl, Origène, 251: “La gloire du Christ est sa divinité.” However, some texts dissociate between form and divine light, as for instance in the episode of Transfiguration (e.g., Cels. 6.68).

⁷⁴ Origen, Princ. 2.4.3: “For he who has understood (intellexerit) the Son has understood (intellexerit) the Father also. It is in this manner then that we must suppose Moses to have seen (uidisse) God, not by looking (intuens) at him with eyes of flesh (oculis carnalibus), but by understanding (intellegens) him with the vision of the heart (uisu cordis) and the perception of the mind (sensu mentis), and even this in part only” (Butterworth, Princ., 99; SC 252:286).

⁷⁵ For Origen's anti-anthropomorphism, see Hom. 1–16 in Gen. 1.13; Comm. Rom. 1.22(19).102–130; Dial. 12; Cels. 4.37; Sel. in Gen. 25. For apophatic discourse in Origen, see, for instance, Margueritte Harl, Origène et la fonction révélatrice du Verbe incarné (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1958) 88–91; Henri Crouzel, Origène et la connaissance mystique (Paris: Desclée De Brouwer, 1961) 85–154, at 89. See, e.g., Princ. 1.1.5 (SC 252:96; Butterworth, Princ., 9): “Having then refuted, to the best of our ability, every interpretation which suggests that we should attribute to God any material characteristics, we assert that in truth he is incomprehensible and immeasurable (inconprehensibilem esse atque inaestimabilem).” See also Comm. Jo. 13.123–152 and many other texts. For the radical incorporeality of God's nature see for instance Princ. 1.1.6: “God therefore must not be thought to be in any kind of body, nor to exist in a body” (Butterworth, Princ., 10; SC 252:100).

⁷⁶ Origen, Princ. 1.6.4 (Butterworth, Princ., 58; SC 252:206). See also Origen, Princ. 2.2.2: “But if it is impossible by any means to maintain this proposition, namely, that any being (natura), with the exception of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, can live apart from a body (corpus), then logical reasoning compels us to believe that, while the original creation was of rational beings (rationabiles naturas), it is only in idea and thought that a material substance (materialem substantiam) is separable from them, and that though this substance seems to have been produced for them or after them, yet never have they lived or do they live without it; for we shall be right in believing that life without a body (incorporea uita) is found in the Trinity alone” (Butterworth, Princ., 81; SC 252:246–48). See also Princ. 4.3.15: “But the substance of the Trinity (substantia trinitatis) . . . must not be believed either to be a body or to exist in a body, but to be wholly incorporeal (ex toto incorporea)” (Butterworth, Princ., 312; SC 268:396–98); and Princ. 4.4.1; 4.4.5: natura trinitatis (SC 268:402, 412).

⁷⁷ Frances M. Young makes the significant distinction between two traditions on religious languages. The first envisions theology as part of a science of the divine (e.g., Eunomius), in which human language possesses a certain objectivity while describing the divine. To the contrary, the second tradition—assumed by the majority of patristic authors, Origen included—considers that religious languages cannot describe the divine in a direct, unmediated way, but obliquely; this language, however, is not merely metaphorical, but it is a continuous approximation of the divine; it is a language “in need of constant correctives” (Young, “The God of the Greeks and the Nature of Religious Language,” in Early Christian Literature and the Greek Intellectual Tradition: Festschrift for R. M. Grant [ed. W. R. Shoedel and Robert Wilken; Théologie Historique 53; Paris: Editions Beauchesne, 1979] 45–74, at 73).

⁷⁸ Methodius, Res. 3.18.4. Greek text from: Methodius von Olympus (ed. Nathanael Bonwetsch; GCS 27; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1917) 275.

⁷⁹ E.g., Methodius, Res. 1.49.1–2 and 2.24.2–3.

⁸⁰ Methodius, Res. 3.15.1 (GCS 27:271).

⁸¹ Methodius, Res. 2.24.3 (GCS 27:241).

⁸² Methodius, Res. 3.16.9 (GCS 27:273).

⁸³ Methodius, Res. 3.18.4 (GCS 27:275).

⁸⁴ Methodius, Res. 3.15.1–2 (GCS 27:271–72). In the Symposium 8.8 Methodius mentions this form of the Logos imprinted in the human being in an internalized manner: “For I think that the Church is here said to give birth to a male; since the enlightened receive the features, and the image, and the manliness of Christ, the likeness of the form of the Word being stamped upon them (), and begotten in them by a true knowledge and faith, so that in each one Christ is spiritually () born” (Methodius, Symposium [ANF 6] 337). Greek text from PG 18:149.

⁸⁵ Hom. Clem. 17:7: “For He has shape (), and He has every limb primarily and solely for beauty's sake, and not for use. For He has not eyes that He may see with them; for He sees on every side, since He is incomparably more brilliant in His body () than the visual spirit which is in us, and He is more splendid than everything, so that in comparison with Him the light of the sun may be reckoned as darkness.” Greek text from: Die Pseudoklementinen I. Homilien (ed. Berhard Rehm et al.; GCS 42; Berlin: Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1953–1992) 232. English translation from: The Clementine Homilies (ANF) 8:319. The passage continues by describing God's atypical and paradoxical actions effected through his radiant body: “for He hears, perceives, moves, energizes, acts on every side.”

⁸⁶ Ibid. 17:7 (ANF 8:319; GCS 42:232).

⁸⁷ Ibid. 17:7: “For He molded man in His own shape () as in the grandest seal, in order that he may be the ruler and lord of all, and that all may be subject to him. Wherefore, judging that He is the universe, and that man is His image () (for He is Himself invisible [], but His image man is visible), the man who wishes to worship Him honours His visible image, which is man” (ANF 8:319–20; GCS 42:232).

⁸⁸ Ibid. 17:8 (ANF 8:320 GCS 42:233–34).

⁸⁹ Ibid. 17:9 (ANF 8:320; GCS 42:234). The text further details the same idea: “And the extensions taking their rise with Him, possess the nature of six infinites; of whom the one taking its rise with Him penetrates into the height above, another into the depth below, another to the right hand, another to the left, another in front, and another behind.”

⁹⁰ Ibid. 17:10 (ANF 8:321; GCS 42:235).

⁹¹ Ibid. 17:11 (ANF 8:321; GCS 42:235).

⁹² Arnobius, Adversus nationes 3.17.1. Latin text from: Arnobius of Sicca, Contre les gentils (6 vols.; vol. 3 ed. Jacqueline Champeaux; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2007–2010), 3:14. English translation from: Arnobius of Sicca, The Case Against the Pagans (trans. G. E. McCracken; 2 vols.; ACW 7; Westminster, Md.: Newman, 1949) 1:205. See also 7.34.2: “Men, unable to know what a god is, what he stands for—his nature, substance, character (natura, substantia, qualitas)—whether he has form or is delimited by no outline of body (utrumne habeat formam an nulla sit corporis circumscriptione finitus), whether or not he does anything” (ACW 7/2:517; Contre vol. 6 [ed. Bernard Fragu]: 56).

⁹³ See Mühlenberg, Ekkehard, Die Unendlichkeit Gottes bei Gregor von Nyssa: Gregors Kritik am Gottesbegriff der klassischen Metaphysik (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 16; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966)Google Scholar and Young, “The God of the Greeks,” 59.

⁹⁴ Ayres, “Shine, Jesus, Shine,” 157.