GarColga

Hi. I'm in an internet discussion with a Christian who refuses to consider that any early Christian copyists might have 'corrected' scripture.

There is a perfect quote from Origen on page 145 of "The Jesus Mysteries" but I don't want to use it because I can't determine the source from the footnotes.

Does anyone know in which writing of Origen this quote can be found? Or maybe know of any other 'church father' who might have acknowledged that there were differences in manuscripts?

Toto

The cite is also quoted here, with some other quotes you might use.


 "In AD 178 the secular writer Celsus stated in polemic against the Christians: ‘some of the believers . . . have changed the original text of the Gospels three or four times or even more, with the intention of thus being able to destroy the arguments of their critics.’ (quoted in Origen, Contra Celsum, SC 132, 2, 27). Origen does not deny the existence of such changes.” 54

 Indeed, Origen wrote, "It is an obvious fact today [third century A.D.] that there is much diversity among the manuscripts, due either to the carelessness of the scribes, or to the perverse audacity of some people in correcting the text, or again to the fact that there are those who add or delete as they please, setting themselves up as correctors." 55

 "It is therefore not possible to reconstitute with certainty the earliest text, even though there is no doubt about its having existed in written form from a very early date, without a preparatory oral stage." 56

 "In the period following AD 135, the recensions proliferated with a resultant textual diversity which reached a peak before the year 200." 57

---

footnotes:

52 Leon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux, An Introduction to New Testament Criticism, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 95.
53 Ibid.,
54 Ibid., 96.
55 Ibid., citing Origen, In Matthaeum 15.14, in PG 13:1293.
56 Ibid., 97.
57 Ibid., 98.

Origen's In Matthaeum does not seem to be on the web in English translation.

edited to add: Freke and Gandy seem to take the quote from G. Stanton, Gospel Truth?, 1995.

Steven Carr

Why do you need quotes?

Why not just look at the manuscripts?

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm and

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli2.htm have pictures of early manuscripts where you can see the correction.

Peter Kirby

Jerome, arguing against the idea that Jesus had true brothers though Mary conceived Jesus as a virgin, maintains that similar wording is used of Jesus: "The Evangelist himself relates that His father and His mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him, and there are similar passages which we have already quoted in which Joseph and Mary are called his parents. Seeing that you have been foolish enough to persuade yourself that the Greek manuscripts are corrupt, you will perhaps plead the diversity of readings. I therefore come to the Gospel of John, and there it is plainly written, 'Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.' You will certainly find this in your manuscript." (The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, 18) There are indeed differences in the Greek manuscripts at Luke 2:33, Luke 2:43, and Luke 2:48, where the wording has been modified to avoid the implication that Joseph was the father of Jesus.

Origen writes: "For the expression here plainly indicates that now for the first time Peter confessed that Christ was the Son of the living God, Matthew then, according to some of the manuscripts, has written, 'Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no man that He was the Christ,' but Mark says, 'He charged them that they should tell no man of Him;' and Luke, 'He charged them and commanded them to tell this to no man.' But what is the 'this'? Was it that also according to him, Peter answered and said to the question, 'Who say ye that I am.'-'The Christ, the Son of the living God?' You must know, however, that some manuscripts of the Gospel according to Matthew have, 'He charged.'" (Commentary on Matthew, 12.15)

Origen writes: "In order that we might be taught what it was that the disciples came to Jesus and asked to learn of Him, and how He answered to their inquiry, Matthew, though he might have given an account of this very thing only, has added, according to some manuscripts, 'In that hour the disciples came unto Jesus,' but, according to others, 'In that day;' and it is necessary that we should not leave the meaning of the evangelist without examination." (Commentary on Matthew, 13.14)

Origen writes: "But he who has received the little child, and the Saviour, and Him that sent Him, is least of all the disciples of Jesus, making himself little. But, so far as he belittles himself, to that extent does he become great; as that very thing, which caused him the more to make himself little, contributes to his advance in greatness; for attend to what is said, 'He that is least among you all the same is great;' but in other manuscripts we read, 'The same shall be great.'" (Commentary on Matthew, 13.19)

There is an online English translation of Origen's commentary on Matthew here, but it does not extend past Book XIV. Books XV, XVI, and XVII, or portions thereof, are available in Greek.

Here is the famous line from Celsus.

Origen, Contra Celsum, Book II, Chapter XXVII
After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections.

best,
Peter Kirby

GarColga

Wow guys, thanks! This is exactly what I'd hoped for!

demoninho

Interesting and useful stuff, but how do who know the epistles of Origen are in fact not anti-christian forgeries or parts of it anti-christian interpolations?

Or indeed if they were true the original text of the gospel was indeed discovered by the early church fathers and is the version surviving today?

SLD

We've had a couple of discussions about this very matter, one here concerning the evolution of Acts and the additions put in it by some ancient writers concerning statements made by Paul and Jesus that are also quoted in Euripides' "The Bacchae". And also one, (can't find the link right now) concerning the story of Jesus forgiving the Prostitute. That story apparently went in and out of the gospels a few times. Augustine raged against those who would take it out because of the passage seems to imply that Jesus accepted her sin.

And of course there is the famous controversy over the ending of Mark. The original ending was Chapter 16 Verse 8, with the women running away from the empty tomb, but later Christians added the rest of the story. See this discussion: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...136&perpage=25

There's really quite a few of them. In fact, there's a whole school of thought that argues that the Bible is correct only in it's original form. You see that argument made many times when contradictions are pointed out. IIRC, it's called the "Chicago" school.

SLD