English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

While the adversaries of Origen of Alexandria traditionally have been described in general terms as either  literalists  or  Gnostics , Peter Martens has recently argued convincingly that Origen repeatedly refers to more specific categories of literalist opponents, whom he criticizes for particular literal interpretations. This paper argues that a similar specificity applies to his supposedly Gnostic opponents. In his  Commentary on the Gospel of John , Origen regularly uses designations such as “the heterodox” or “those who bring in the natures” to identify specific categories of exegetical opponents, which he defines by their particular interpretative practices or their adherence to particular teachings. When he responds to various scriptural interpretations, Origen takes care to specify which of at least seven identifiable categories of exegetical opponents he currently opposes. Throughout the commentary, Origen maintains the distinctions between these categories and Heracleon, the individual interpreter he names most frequently, and he never uses Heracleon’s words as an example of an interpretation by any of the identifiable categories.

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