Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 12-12-2006, 11:00 AM

I have been reading the works of Origen and I have specifically come upon the sections that I believe Doherty is referring to regarding Origen's discussion of the crucifixion of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 2, but these passages don't seem to confirm his claim, at least not clearly.

Here is the work:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04123.htm

Here are some quotes:

Quote:

And the Apostle Paul teaches us that we ought not to give place to the devil; but "put on," he says, "the armour of God, that you may be able to resist the wiles of the devil:" pointing out that the saints have to "wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Nay, he says that the Saviour even was crucified by the princes of this world, who shall come to nought, whose wisdom also, he says, he does not speak. By all this, therefore, holy Scripture teaches us that there are certain invisible enemies that fight against us, and against whom it commands us to arm ourselves. Whence, also, the more simple among the believers in the Lord Christ are of opinion, that all the sins which men have committed are caused by the persistent efforts of these opposing powers exerted upon the minds of sinners, because in that invisible struggle these powers are found to be superior (to man). For if, for example, there were no devil, no single human being would go astray.

Quote:

The holy apostle, wishing to teach us some great and hidden truth respecting science and wisdom, says, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians: "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect; yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of the world, that come to nought: but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: which none of the princes of the world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." In this passage, wishing to describe the different kinds of wisdom, he points out that there is a wisdom of this world, and a wisdom of the princes of this world, and another wisdom of God. But when he uses the expression "wisdom of the princes of this world," I do not think that he means a wisdom common to all the princes of this world, but one rather that is peculiar to certain individuals among them. And again, when he says,"We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory," we must inquire whether his meaning be, that this is the same wisdom of God which was hidden from other times and generations, and was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets, and which was also that wisdom of God before the advent of the Saviour, by means of which Solomon obtained his wisdom, and in reference to which the language of the Saviour Himself declared, that what He taught was greater than Solomon, in these words,"Behold, a greater than Solomon is here,"—words which show, that those who were instructed by the Saviour were instructed in something higher than the knowledge of Solomon. For if one were to assert that the Saviour did indeed Himself possess greater knowledge, but did not communicate more to others than Solomon did, how will that agree with the statement which follows: "The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment, and condemn the men of this generation, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here?" There is therefore a wisdom of this world, and also probably a wisdom belonging to each individual prince of this world. But with respect to the wisdom of God alone, we perceive that this is indicated, that it operated to a less degree in ancient and former times, and was (afterwards) more fully revealed and manifested through Christ. We shall inquire, however, regarding the wisdom of God in the proper place.

Quote:

Accordingly, in the holy Scriptures we find that there are princes over individual nations; as in Daniel we read that there was a prince of the kingdom of Persia, and another prince of the kingdom of Græcia, who are clearly shown, by the nature of the passage, to be not human beings, but certain powers. In the prophecies of Ezekiel, also, the prince of Tyre is unmistakeably shown to be a kind of spiritual power. When these, then, and others of the same kind, possessing each his own wisdom, and building up his own opinions and sentiments, beheld our Lord and Saviour professing and declaring that He had for this purpose come into the world, that all the opinions of science, falsely so called, might be destroyed, not knowing what was concealed within Him, they forthwith laid a snare for Him: for"the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers assembled together, against the Lord and His Christ." But their snares being discovered, and the plans which they had attempted to carry out being made manifest when they crucified the Lord of glory, therefore the apostle says, "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, who are brought to nought, which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

3. We must, indeed, endeavour to ascertain whether that wisdom of the princes of this world, with which they endeavour to imbue men, is introduced into their minds by the opposing powers, with the purpose of ensnaring and injuring them, or only for the purpose of deceiving them, i.e., not with the object of doing any hurt to man; but, as these princes of this world esteem such opinions to be true, they desire to impart to others what they themselves believe to be the truth: and this is the view which I am inclined to adopt. For as, to take an illustration, certain Greek authors, or the leaders of some heretical sect, after having imbibed an error in doctrine instead of the truth, and having come to the conclusion in their own minds that such is the truth, proceed, in the next place, to endeavour to persuade others of the correctness of their opinions; so, in like manner, are we to suppose is the procedure of the princes of this world, in which to certain spiritual powers has been assigned the rule over certain nations, and who are termed on that account the princes of this world. There are besides, in addition to these princes, certain special energies of this world, i.e., spiritual powers, which bring about certain effects, which they have themselves, in virtue of their freedom of will, chosen to produce, and to these belong those princes who practise the wisdom of this world: there being, for example, a peculiar energy and power, which is the inspirer of poetry; another, of geometry; and so a separate power, to remind us of each of the arts and professions of this kind.

I'm not seeing how this clearly shows that Origen considered Paul's passage in 1 Cor. 2 to be talking about other worldly "princes of this world"...

jakejonesiv · 12-12-2006, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I have been reading the works of Origen and I have specifically come upon the sections that I believe Doherty is referring to regarding Origen's discussion of the crucifixion of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 2, but these passages don't seem to confirm his claim, at least not clearly.

Here is the work:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04123.htm

Here are some quotes:

I'm not seeing how this clearly shows that Origen considered Paul's passage in 1 Cor. 2 to be talking about other worldly "princes of this world"...

Nay, he says that the Saviour even was crucified by the princes of this world, who shall come to nought, whose wisdom also, he says, he does not speak. By all this, therefore, holy Scripture teaches us that there are certain invisible enemies that fight against us, and against whom it commands us to arm ourselves.

Malachi151 · 12-12-2006, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Nay, he says that the Saviour even was crucified by the princes of this world, who shall come to nought, whose wisdom also, he says, he does not speak. By all this, therefore, holy Scripture teaches us that there are certain invisible enemies that fight against us, and against whom it commands us to arm ourselves.

This is true, but Origen says that these invisible enemies influence the earthly princes, and it is the earthly princes who put Jesus to death, so even according to Origen, it is earthly princes who put Jesus to death, not the spirit beings.

Toto · 12-12-2006, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

This is true, but Origen says that these invisible enemies influence the earthly princes, and it is the earthly princes who put Jesus to death, so even according to Origen, it is earthly princes who put Jesus to death, not the spirit beings.

That seems a bit unclear. Could you give the details of how you reached that conclusion?

E.g.

Quote:

Accordingly, in the holy Scriptures we find that there are princes over individual nations; as in Daniel we read that there was a prince of the kingdom of Persia, and another prince of the kingdom of Græcia, who are clearly shown, by the nature of the passage, to be not human beings, but certain powers.

I don't see any of his references to "princes" to clearly refer to human beings. But then I find this all rather obscure.

gstafleu · 12-12-2006, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

This is true, but Origen says that these invisible enemies influence the earthly princes, and it is the earthly princes who put Jesus to death, so even according to Origen, it is earthly princes who put Jesus to death, not the spirit beings.

Origen doesn't say "earthly princes," he says "princes of the/this world." The question is: what does he say in Greek (if that is his language) and what in Paul is he referring to. If it is to Paul's των αρχοντων του αιωνος τουτου it is not clear these are earthly beings. Maybe somebody who really knows koine can jump in here, but I'm pretty sure that "rulers of the/this age" is a pretty good translation. It is not at all clear that these "archontes" are human beings, so possible the translation in the Origen quote is misleading.

Gerard Stafleu

Malachi151 · 12-12-2006, 03:42 PM

Maybe you guys were right, maybe I just wasn't reading it clearly. In the third quote it looked like maybe he was talking about other worldly princes in the first paragraph and then earthly princes in the second paragraph, but maybe not. It is a bit confusing.

And in the first two paragraphs I couldn't make anything out of what he was saying.

jakejonesiv · 12-13-2006, 07:28 AM

There is a similar passage in Tertullian, ( Adv. Marcionem, Book 5, chapter 6). It contains the earliest interpretation of 1 Cor. 2:8 of which we have any record.

Marcion taught that the princes (Latin principes; Gk. archontes) of the creator (the "demiurge," the creator, the prince of this world) ignorantly crucified Christ. Tertullian strongly disagreed, but the priority of Marcion’s interpretation is thereby established.

Tertullian’s reasoning against Marcion took two parts.
#1. By reading the gospels back into the context of 1 Cor. 2:8, Tertullian argued that the demons recognized the identity of Jesus, and thus could not have been ignorant. We acknowledge today that the reading of the gospel material back into the Pauline epistles is invalid. Indeed, it would be invalid to do so even with Marcion's gospel.
#2. Having a different view of the O.T. God, Tertullian argued the Creator is not ignorant, and therefore the apostle (i.e. Paul) must have been referring to secular princes (King Herod, Pontius Pilate). But this is merely an argument based on theological differences.

The arguments against the archontes being spiritual forces has hardly advanced since Tertullian's time.

Indeed, all the text searches of ancient Greek useage of archontes and all the opinions of subsequent scholars are not helpful, because in the middle of the first century CE, Marcion already interpreted archontes as the minions of the Demiurge.

The only question left is; In the Pauline context, did the archontes crucify Jesus directly or allegedly use men as their agents?

Jake Jones IV

ynquirer · 12-13-2006, 11:17 AM

The key text is Lk 23:34: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." This is doctrine in reaction to the paradox that Jesus was the Messiah, and he was nonetheless killed by men. How could they possibly do that? The answer is, “they didn’t know what they did.”

Now, if they didn’t know what they did, why did they do so? Paul’s, Tertulian’s, and Origen’s answer is quite the same. The men that killed the Messiah were driven by “energies” stronger than these men’s understanding and will. Pilate, for instance, appears unwilling to kill Jesus; however, he yields to a stronger power. Likewise, the centurion in Lk 23:47: "Certainly this man was innocent!"

What power is this? I’d call it Roman politics. The Roman governor of Judea must keep a balance and try to appease the Jews whenever something critical was not at the stake. When he came to build an aqueduct and fund it by means of the Temple treasure, something critical for Roman politics was at stake, and accordingly he didn’t yield. When the price to appease the Jews was the life of an innocent yet negligible man - for Jesus was nothing other than this for Roman politics - nothing critical was at the stake and the governor yielded. Such was Roman politics. Such was the prince of Rome’s rationale - a parallel for the princes of Persia and Tyre, as mentioned by Origen.

jakejonesiv · 12-14-2006, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

The key text is Lk 23:34: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." This is doctrine in reaction to the paradox that Jesus was the Messiah, and he was nonetheless killed by men. How could they possibly do that? The answer is, “they didn’t know what they did.”

Now, if they didn’t know what they did, why did they do so? Paul’s, Tertulian’s, and Origen’s answer is quite the same. The men that killed the Messiah were driven by “energies” stronger than these men’s understanding and will. Pilate, for instance, appears unwilling to kill Jesus; however, he yields to a stronger power. Likewise, the centurion in Lk 23:47: "Certainly this man was innocent!"

What power is this? I’d call it Roman politics. The Roman governor of Judea must keep a balance and try to appease the Jews whenever something critical was not at the stake. When he came to build an aqueduct and fund it by means of the Temple treasure, something critical for Roman politics was at stake, and accordingly he didn’t yield. When the price to appease the Jews was the life of an innocent yet negligible man - for Jesus was nothing other than this for Roman politics - nothing critical was at the stake and the governor yielded. Such was Roman politics. Such was the prince of Rome’s rationale - a parallel for the princes of Persia and Tyre, as mentioned by Origen.

How can you determine what Paul meant by appeal to Luke 25:34? Surley you will agree that is invalid.

Jake Jones IV

ynquirer · 12-15-2006, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

How can you determine what Paul meant by appeal to Luke 25:34? Surley you will agree that is invalid.

The issue produced by the OP is Origen in connection to Paul. Luke is a valid reference to explain what Origen meant to say. Nothing in Paul contradicts either Luke or Origen.

From that point, I take together Luke and Origen as indications of what Paul himself meant to say. Of course, such backward induction may lead to mistakes as may always follow from any application of the inductive method. I wouldn't agree the method is "invalid," though.

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

12-12-2006, 03:42 PM	#6
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Maybe you guys were right, maybe I just wasn't reading it clearly. In the third quote it looked like maybe he was talking about other worldly princes in the first paragraph and then earthly princes in the second paragraph, but maybe not. It is a bit confusing. And in the first two paragraphs I couldn't make anything out of what he was saying.

12-13-2006, 07:28 AM	#7
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	There is a similar passage in Tertullian, ( Adv. Marcionem, Book 5, chapter 6). It contains the earliest interpretation of 1 Cor. 2:8 of which we have any record. Marcion taught that the princes (Latin principes; Gk. archontes) of the creator (the "demiurge," the creator, the prince of this world) ignorantly crucified Christ. Tertullian strongly disagreed, but the priority of Marcion’s interpretation is thereby established. Tertullian’s reasoning against Marcion took two parts. #1. By reading the gospels back into the context of 1 Cor. 2:8, Tertullian argued that the demons recognized the identity of Jesus, and thus could not have been ignorant. We acknowledge today that the reading of the gospel material back into the Pauline epistles is invalid. Indeed, it would be invalid to do so even with Marcion's gospel. #2. Having a different view of the O.T. God, Tertullian argued the Creator is not ignorant, and therefore the apostle (i.e. Paul) must have been referring to secular princes (King Herod, Pontius Pilate). But this is merely an argument based on theological differences. The arguments against the archontes being spiritual forces has hardly advanced since Tertullian's time. Indeed, all the text searches of ancient Greek useage of archontes and all the opinions of subsequent scholars are not helpful, because in the middle of the first century CE, Marcion already interpreted archontes as the minions of the Demiurge. The only question left is; In the Pauline context, did the archontes crucify Jesus directly or allegedly use men as their agents? Jake Jones IV

12-13-2006, 11:17 AM	#8
ynquirer Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 572	The key text is Lk 23:34: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." This is doctrine in reaction to the paradox that Jesus was the Messiah, and he was nonetheless killed by men. How could they possibly do that? The answer is, “they didn’t know what they did.” Now, if they didn’t know what they did, why did they do so? Paul’s, Tertulian’s, and Origen’s answer is quite the same. The men that killed the Messiah were driven by “energies” stronger than these men’s understanding and will. Pilate, for instance, appears unwilling to kill Jesus; however, he yields to a stronger power. Likewise, the centurion in Lk 23:47: "Certainly this man was innocent!" What power is this? I’d call it Roman politics. The Roman governor of Judea must keep a balance and try to appease the Jews whenever something critical was not at the stake. When he came to build an aqueduct and fund it by means of the Temple treasure, something critical for Roman politics was at stake, and accordingly he didn’t yield. When the price to appease the Jews was the life of an innocent yet negligible man - for Jesus was nothing other than this for Roman politics - nothing critical was at the stake and the governor yielded. Such was Roman politics. Such was the prince of Rome’s rationale - a parallel for the princes of Persia and Tyre, as mentioned by Origen.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.