Origen’s commentary on John

I understand. Let’s keep in mind, however, that the ancient sources are unclear on this point, and that there are at least three possibilities: 1.) That Origen composed 32 books on John’s Gospel, and that 22 of them were lost; 2.) That he intended to compose 32 books but only finished ten; or 3.) That he did indeed complete the commentary, but later copyists revised his numbering system, reducing the original 32 books to a more manageable ten, by using larger parchment and smaller script. The latter is not an uncommon occurrence. Byzantine-era editions of Plato’s Dialogues, for example, do not follow the (now) standard numbering of Stephanus.

First, we must remember that a large number of Origen’s writings — including the De Principiis, and the Commentaries on John and Matthew — had already been translated into Latin before Origen’s official condemnation. Selections of his original Greek writings were compiled by Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzen and entitled Philokalia (“love of beautiful things”), this also before his condemnation. I have also seen various Syriac manuscripts attributed to other writers, but which are clearly translations of portions of Origen’s work. So, it is safe to say that his work was widely disseminated long before his official condemnation as a heretic.
Secondly, it was not only the “Roman clerics” who were responsible for destroying his work, but zealous bishops of the Eastern (Greek-speaking) portion of the Empire (such as it was in that era, divided and weakened). However, there was and remained a strong Origenist element, persisting until the end of the Byzantine Empire. One of the pillars of the Orthodox faith, St. Maximus the Confessor (early to mid-seventh century), had been an Origenist early in his life, and ended up later revising Origen’s doctrines along the lines of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. Origen’s influence was so deep and abiding that an authentic record of his work was partially hidden, but never completely wiped away. The fact that a seventh-century sub-deacon was an Origenist in his youth is more than ample evidence, I think, for the persistence of Origen’s ideas well beyond the period of his condemnation.