Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 08-07-2011, 09:33 AM

Hi All,

In his Commentary on John, (248 CE), Origen gives us the best view of what the text of the first chapter of the Gospel of John looked like in the mid-Third century. He goes over the text line by line and gives a long and detailed exegesis about each one. Further, he quotes what was in the "Commentary" by Heracleon's regarding each line. Much of the work is lost, but we do have the section talking about the baptism of Jesus in John's Gospel.

While discussing the Baptism of Jesus in John, he also tells us something astonishing about what was not in the other gospels he read.
I would like to show exactly what was missing from the Gospels of Mark and Matthew that Origen read and why it makes sense that the missing material was later added in.

In Book 6, Chapter 31, Origen writes this. I have put in red what he says about the gospel of Luke:

Quote:

John the disciple does not tell us where the Saviour comes from to John the Baptist, but we learn this from Matthew, who writes: "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan to John, to be baptized of him." And Mark adds the place in Galilee; he says, "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in Jordan." Luke does not mention the place Jesus came from, but on the other hand he tells us what we do not learn from the others, that immediately after the baptism, as He was coming up, heaven was opened to Him, and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in bodily form like a dove. Again, it is Matthew alone who tells us of John's preventing the Lord, saying to the Saviour, "I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?" None of the others added this after Matthew, so that they might not be saying just the same as he. And what the Lord rejoined, "Suffer it now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness," this also Matthew alone recorded.

What is and is not found about the baptism in the gospels perfectly matches what we now have except for the statement that Luke "tells us what we do not learn from the others; that immediately after the baptism, as he was coming up, heaven was opened to him, and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove".

The whole paragraph is a perfectly simple and clear statement about what is in and what is not in the gospels. It is only in Luke that we find out "that immediately after the baptism, as He was coming up, heaven was opened to Him, and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in bodily form like a dove." What do the Mark and Matthew passages look like when we take out the line that Origen says are not there, but are only in Luke:

Mark:

Quote:

1.7And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 1.8I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." 1.9In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
{line Origen does not have}
1.11and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."
1.12The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. 1.13And he was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered to him.

Matthew:

Quote:

3.11 "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 3.12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."
3.13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him
3.14 John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" 3.15 But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented. 3.16 And when Jesus was baptized,
3.17 {line Origen does not have}
and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."
4.1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil
4.2 And he fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterward he was hungry.

Now compare these two versions with John:

Quote:

1.24 Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. 1.25 They asked him, "Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?" 1.26 John answered them, "I baptize with water; but among you stands one whom you do not know, 1.27 even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie." 1.28 This took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
1.29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 1.30 This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.' 1.31 I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel." 1.32 And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. 1.33 I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on
whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' 1.34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."

The Gospel of John does not have the dove descending from heaven. John had been told that this was the sign by which he would know of the man who baptizes with fire/holy spirit. (John baptizes with water. Jesus baptizes with fire.) The gospel does not say that Jesus was baptized, only that John saw the dove from heaven descend from heaven and remain on him. John is the sole witness to Jesus' as the Christ.

The text of Mark adds in that John baptized Jesus and has a voice from heaven declaring Jesus the son of God. Instead of the testimony of John, we have a voice from heaven testifying to the divinity of Jesus. Mark has made John's text much more dramatic. Instead of John just saying that he saw the dove coming from heaven, Mark actually shows it happening.

Matthew adds in the material about John being forced by Jesus to baptize him, but basically copies Mark.

Luke combines the John and Mark versions. He combines both the dove material from John and the heavenly voice from Mark and Matthew.

Later editors decided to harmonize Mark, Matthew and Luke and added the dove descending scene they found in Luke to Mark and Matthew. This is the scene that Origen was not in any other gospel except for Luke.

We can add one more important insight that Origen helps us to understand. Origen makes another important point (6.17) "It is to be observed that while the four represent John as declaring himself to have come to baptize with water. Matthew alone adds the words 'to repentance,' "

It is assumed that Mark, Luke and John understood John's baptism as being a cathartic act to wash away sin. This is not explicit in any of them. Rather we may take John's baptism or dipping to be for exactly the reason he gives, to find the man who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. At least this is how John and Mark probably understood it. We may compare John's baptism ritual to the pulling of the sword from the stone in King Arthur. The successful pulling of the sword is how the king is found. The same thing occurs in Cinderella, the princess is the one whose foot fits the shoe. For the writers of the Gospels of Mark and John, baptism is just a method for finding the Christ.
It is probably more closely related to the story of Pelias and Jason. Pelias is told that the man who will replace him as king will be the man with one sandal. Jason loses a sandal while crossing a river. Thus Pelias knows that Jason, the man with one sandal is the future king. He gets the information about the man who will replace him by going to the river. In the same way, John gets the information about the man who will replace him by going to the river. Note that the John the Baptist and Jason stories center on rivers, sandals and discovering future prophesied kings.
Only later in Christian history does baptism become a purification ritual.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

avi · 08-07-2011, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

Matthew adds in the material about John being forced by Jesus to baptize him, but basically copies Mark.

Luke combines the John and Mark versions. He combines both the dove material from John and the heavenly voice from Mark and Matthew.

Later editors decided to harmonize Mark, Matthew and Luke and added the dove descending scene they found in Luke to Mark and Matthew. This is the scene that Origen was not in any other gospel except for Luke.

I had offered some comments pertinent to this topic, about a week ago, in another thread, post #3;

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=304873

How can we judge the reliability of Origen?

In view of Origen's own texts having been possibly interpolated, do we not require a second witness to confirm his observations?

avi

aa5874 · 08-07-2011, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

...While discussing the Baptism of Jesus in John, he also tells us something astonishing about what was not in the other gospels he read.
I would like to show exactly what was missing from the Gospels of Mark and Matthew that Origen read and why it makes sense that the missing material was later added in......

The "Commentary on John" attributed to John has also exposed the obvious logical flaw with applying the "criterion of embarrassment" to UNRELIABLE sources. The baptism of Jesus by John may not have been a real event in the first place.

These are the words found in the "Commentary of John" X

Quote:

.....The truth of these matters must lie in that which is seen by the mind.

If the discrepancy between the Gospels is not solved, we must give up our trust in the Gospels, as being true and written by a divine spirit, or as records worthy of credence, for both these characters are held to belong to these works....

stephan huller · 08-07-2011, 12:42 PM

Hi Jay

I'm away from my laptop but I just so happen to be doing a lot of research on the dating of the Commentary on John and I am certain that scholars have the wrong date for the Commentary. Origen says quite explicitly (1:4) that it was the first fruit of his labors since he first came to Alexandria. There is no evidence that Origen was born in Alexandria so the plain meaning of the text is that this is the first book written by Origen. The reason scholars ignore the evidence of Origen is because it contradicts the chronology of Eusebius. But I can demonstrate that Eusebius - here as in many places - is making up a second visit for Origen to Alexandria to cover up some embarrassing facts about the early Church

maryhelena · 08-07-2011, 12:43 PM

Hi, PhilosopherJay

Great post, most fascination re Origen and what he says regarding what was not in his copies of gMark and gMatthew.

If the dove storyline has been added to gMark and gMatthew in order for their storyline to be harmonized with gLuke - methinks it was done out of misunderstanding of the JC storyline.....

I've been thinking along the lines that the four gospels could be viewed as being two 'editions' and not four 'editions' of the JC storyline. In other words, I'm thinking that gJohn and gMark are a 'pair' and gMatthew and gLuke are also a 'pair'. And if this is so, then Origen's statement re the lack of the dove story in early copies of gMark and gMatthew makes some sense....

The gospel 'pairs' are emphasizing two different elements of the baptism story - water and spirit. gMark goes with the water for JC and gJohn with the spirit, the dove. The same with gMatthew and gLuke. gMatthew goes with the water and gLuke goes with the spirit, the dove.

So, now, with the later misinformed desire to harmonize the baptism storyline - gMark and gMatthew are burdened with the spirit, the dove storyline - thus joining the two baptism elements, the water and the spirit - where the original storyline (re Origen) was to keep the water and the spirit storylines separate....

One could take this dualism, this paring of the gospels a step further - gJohn is the spiritual/theological storyline, gMark the 'human' adopted son of god. gMatthew the 'human' Davidic storyline and gLuke the spiritual rebirth, born again, storyline set from 6 c.e.

Just throwing some ideas out there....;-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

In his Commentary on John, (248 CE), Origen gives us the best view of what the text of the first chapter of the Gospel of John looked like in the mid-Third century. He goes over the text line by line and gives a long and detailed exegesis about each one. Further, he quotes what was in the "Commentary" by Heracleon's regarding each line. Much of the work is lost, but we do have the section talking about the baptism of Jesus in John's Gospel.

While discussing the Baptism of Jesus in John, he also tells us something astonishing about what was not in the other gospels he read.
I would like to show exactly what was missing from the Gospels of Mark and Matthew that Origen read and why it makes sense that the missing material was later added in.

In Book 6, Chapter 31, Origen writes this. I have put in red what he says about the gospel of Luke:

Quote:

John the disciple does not tell us where the Saviour comes from to John the Baptist, but we learn this from Matthew, who writes: "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan to John, to be baptized of him." And Mark adds the place in Galilee; he says, "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in Jordan." Luke does not mention the place Jesus came from, but on the other hand he tells us what we do not learn from the others, that immediately after the baptism, as He was coming up, heaven was opened to Him, and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in bodily form like a dove. Again, it is Matthew alone who tells us of John's preventing the Lord, saying to the Saviour, "I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?" None of the others added this after Matthew, so that they might not be saying just the same as he. And what the Lord rejoined, "Suffer it now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness," this also Matthew alone recorded.

What is and is not found about the baptism in the gospels perfectly matches what we now have except for the statement that Luke "tells us what we do not learn from the others; that immediately after the baptism, as he was coming up, heaven was opened to him, and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove".

The whole paragraph is a perfectly simple and clear statement about what is in and what is not in the gospels. It is only in Luke that we find out "that immediately after the baptism, as He was coming up, heaven was opened to Him, and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in bodily form like a dove." What do the Mark and Matthew passages look like when we take out the line that Origen says are not there, but are only in Luke:

Mark:

Quote:

1.7And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 1.8I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." 1.9In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
{line Origen does not have}
1.11and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."
1.12The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. 1.13And he was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered to him.

Matthew:

Quote:

3.11 "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 3.12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."
3.13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him
3.14 John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" 3.15 But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented. 3.16 And when Jesus was baptized,
3.17 {line Origen does not have}
and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."
4.1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil
4.2 And he fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterward he was hungry.

Now compare these two versions with John:

Quote:

1.24 Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. 1.25 They asked him, "Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?" 1.26 John answered them, "I baptize with water; but among you stands one whom you do not know, 1.27 even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie." 1.28 This took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
1.29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 1.30 This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.' 1.31 I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel." 1.32 And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. 1.33 I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on
whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' 1.34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."

The Gospel of John does not have the dove descending from heaven. John had been told that this was the sign by which he would know of the man who baptizes with fire/holy spirit. (John baptizes with water. Jesus baptizes with fire.) The gospel does not say that Jesus was baptized, only that John saw the dove from heaven descend from heaven and remain on him. John is the sole witness to Jesus' as the Christ.

The text of Mark adds in that John baptized Jesus and has a voice from heaven declaring Jesus the son of God. Instead of the testimony of John, we have a voice from heaven testifying to the divinity of Jesus. Mark has made John's text much more dramatic. Instead of John just saying that he saw the dove coming from heaven, Mark actually shows it happening.

Matthew adds in the material about John being forced by Jesus to baptize him, but basically copies Mark.

Luke combines the John and Mark versions. He combines both the dove material from John and the heavenly voice from Mark and Matthew.

Later editors decided to harmonize Mark, Matthew and Luke and added the dove descending scene they found in Luke to Mark and Matthew. This is the scene that Origen was not in any other gospel except for Luke.

We can add one more important insight that Origen helps us to understand. Origen makes another important point (6.17) "It is to be observed that while the four represent John as declaring himself to have come to baptize with water. Matthew alone adds the words 'to repentance,' "

It is assumed that Mark, Luke and John understood John's baptism as being a cathartic act to wash away sin. This is not explicit in any of them. Rather we may take John's baptism or dipping to be for exactly the reason he gives, to find the man who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. At least this is how John and Mark probably understood it. We may compare John's baptism ritual to the pulling of the sword from the stone in King Arthur. The successful pulling of the sword is how the king is found. The same thing occurs in Cinderella, the princess is the one whose foot fits the shoe. For the writers of the Gospels of Mark and John, baptism is just a method for finding the Christ.
It is probably more closely related to the story of Pelias and Jason. Pelias is told that the man who will replace him as king will be the man with one sandal. Jason loses a sandal while crossing a river. Thus Pelias knows that Jason, the man with one sandal is the future king. He gets the information about the man who will replace him by going to the river. In the same way, John gets the information about the man who will replace him by going to the river. Note that the John the Baptist and Jason stories center on rivers, sandals and discovering future prophesied kings.
Only later in Christian history does baptism become a purification ritual.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay · 08-07-2011, 07:15 PM

Hi Avi,

I think looking at the text of Origen itself makes the strongest case. Origen is really listing what unique thing each gospel writer is bringing to the table. He matches our current text with the other 3 examples he gives. It is only his attribution of the heavens opening and the dove coming down to Luke that is so jarring because it doesn't match our current text. The possibility exists that he could have forgotten that Mark and Matthew has the line, but I see that as a remote possibility. He seems to have his gospels open when writing this work and seems to be quoting every word precisely. I didn't find any other variations that he made.

In the work "Contra Celsus," he writes (book 1 chapter 40) regarding Celsus

Quote:

After these assertions, he takes from the Gospel of Matthew, and perhaps also from the other Gospels, the account of the dove alighting upon our Saviour at His baptism by John, and desires to throw discredit upon the statement, alleging that the narrative is a fiction.

Here, Origen shows he isn't sure in which gospels there is the line about the dove. He suspects Celsus of reading from the Gospel of Matthew because Celsus has just attacked the Virgin Birth and flight to Egypt found only in Matthew.He obviously does not have his gospels with him.

This makes me suspect that he must have checked his gospels afterwards to find out exactly where the line about the dove was. He found it only in Luke and that is why he can assert it so confidently in the work on John.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

Matthew adds in the material about John being forced by Jesus to baptize him, but basically copies Mark.

Luke combines the John and Mark versions. He combines both the dove material from John and the heavenly voice from Mark and Matthew.

Later editors decided to harmonize Mark, Matthew and Luke and added the dove descending scene they found in Luke to Mark and Matthew. This is the scene that Origen was not in any other gospel except for Luke.

I had offered some comments pertinent to this topic, about a week ago, in another thread, post #3;

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=304873

How can we judge the reliability of Origen?

In view of Origen's own texts having been possibly interpolated, do we not require a second witness to confirm his observations?

avi

PhilosopherJay · 08-07-2011, 07:21 PM

Hi Stephan Huller,

Interesting. I would like to hear more.

I don't think it would affect my thesis unless his work "Contra Celsus" came afterwards.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Hi Jay

I'm away from my laptop but I just so happen to be doing a lot of research on the dating of the Commentary on John and I am certain that scholars have the wrong date for the Commentary. Origen says quite explicitly (1:4) that it was the first fruit of his labors since he first came to Alexandria. There is no evidence that Origen was born in Alexandria so the plain meaning of the text is that this is the first book written by Origen. The reason scholars ignore the evidence of Origen is because it contradicts the chronology of Eusebius. But I can demonstrate that Eusebius - here as in many places - is making up a second visit for Origen to Alexandria to cover up some embarrassing facts about the early Church

aa5874 · 08-08-2011, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

....Here, Origen shows he isn't sure in which gospels there is the line about the dove. He suspects Celsus of reading from the Gospel of Matthew because Celsus has just attacked the Virgin Birth and flight to Egypt found only in Matthew.He obviously does not have his gospels with him.

This makes me suspect that he must have checked his gospels afterwards to find out exactly where the line about the dove was. He found it only in Luke and that is why he can assert it so confidently in the work on John.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

The writings attributed to Origen are NOT reliable sources. This is NOT the first time Origen made claims that are NOT corroborated and now we see contradictions in his writings.

Vorkosigan · 08-08-2011, 01:39 AM

Origen's claim makes no sense to me. The internal structure of Mark's gospels and the way the encounter plays out in the different texts suggests that Mark originally did have the JtB story. Only Origen lies or else has a text from which that is removed or himself cannot remember.

Solo · 08-08-2011, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Origen's claim makes no sense to me. The internal structure of Mark's gospels and the way the encounter plays out in the different texts suggests that Mark originally did have the JtB story. Only Origen lies or else has a text from which that is removed or himself cannot remember.

Origen did not claim that Mark lacked the JtB story, he claimed that Mark's (and Matthew's) account did not mention the descent of the Holy Spirit like a dove.

That however is also doubtful because of the Markan version claims the Spirit descended 'into him' (eis auton), whereas Luke and Matt have (ep'auton) 'on him'. Since a number of commentators identified this as a Markan signature, stressing the invasive nature of the Spirit (Meagher thinks Mark was just being clumsy when writing this up), I have my doubts that Mk 1:10 was copied from Luke.

Best
Jiri

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-07-2011, 12:42 PM	#4
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Hi Jay I'm away from my laptop but I just so happen to be doing a lot of research on the dating of the Commentary on John and I am certain that scholars have the wrong date for the Commentary. Origen says quite explicitly (1:4) that it was the first fruit of his labors since he first came to Alexandria. There is no evidence that Origen was born in Alexandria so the plain meaning of the text is that this is the first book written by Origen. The reason scholars ignore the evidence of Origen is because it contradicts the chronology of Eusebius. But I can demonstrate that Eusebius - here as in many places - is making up a second visit for Origen to Alexandria to cover up some embarrassing facts about the early Church

08-08-2011, 01:39 AM	#9
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Origen's claim makes no sense to me. The internal structure of Mark's gospels and the way the encounter plays out in the different texts suggests that Mark originally did have the JtB story. Only Origen lies or else has a text from which that is removed or himself cannot remember.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.