PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

This intersects with several other current threads, but is essentially, I believe, a new topic.

In book Seven of his Church history, Eusebius gives Origen's position on a number of Church texts:

3. In his first book on Matthew's Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows:
4. "Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language.
5. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, 'The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.'
6. And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John."
7. In the fifth book of his Expositions of John's Gospel, he speaks thus concerning the epistles of the apostles: "But he who was 'made sufficient to be a minister of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the Spirit,' 2 that is, Paul, who 'fully preached the Gospel from Jerusalem and round about even unto Illyricum,' did not write to all the churches which he had instructed and to those to which he wrote he sent but few lines.
8. And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, 'against which the gates of hell shall not prevail,' Matthew 16:18 has left one acknowledged epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful.
9. Why need we speak of him who reclined upon the bosom of Jesus, John, who has left us one Gospel, though he confessed that he might write so many that the world could not contain them? And he wrote also the Apocalypse, but was commanded to keep silence and not to write the words of the seven thunders.
10. He has left also an epistle of very few lines; perhaps also a second and third; but not all consider them genuine, and together they do not contain hundred lines."

Now, notice in line seven where Origen allegedly says that Paul "did not write to all the churches which he had instructed and to those to which he wrote he sent but few lines."

When we look at the argument from Commentary on John, Book V (http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...gen-john5.html), we see that Origen is not giving his opinion on the writings of Paul. Rather he is arguing against his friend Ambrosius about the extent of his own writing and if it too much in comparison to other Jewish and Christian writers.

I do not, therefore, shrink from bringing forward what excuse I think I am able to offer for myself, and to point out the arguments, which you would certainly use against me, if I acted contrary to our agreement. And in the first place. the Sacred History seems to agree with the text in question, inasmuch as none of the saints composed several works, or set forth his views in a number of books. I will take up this point: when I proceed to write a number of books, the critic will remind me that even such a one as Moses left behind him only five books.

After this we get the passages (7-10 in Church History) that Eusebius cites. What is interesting is that the views expressed in these passages do not represent Origen's opinion, but the opinion of an imaginary critic who is accusing Origen of writing too much. What is astonishing is that Origen does not disagree with the Church critic who says that Paul "did not write to all the churches which he had instructed and to those to which he wrote he sent but few lines." Origen accepts this argument. Within the context of the whole argument, it only makes sense if this is a widely held-common opinion of the church, otherwise Origen could simply dismiss it as being an unusual or heretical opinion that he does not agree with as he often does with other arguments.

This causes us a great problem. How could it have been the common opinion of the Church circa 240 that Paul ""did not write to all the churches which he had instructed and to those to which he wrote he sent but few lines"?
Even if we exclude "Hebrews" it seems impossible to describe all of Paul's letters as "but few lines". They are quite long for letters of the period and it is impossible for the common opinion of the Church to be that they are "but few lines."

Rather than fitting Paul, the description actually would fit John in his writings in the Apocalypse"/Revelation in which he writes only a few lines to seven churches (certainly not all the ones he visited).

A few lines later, Origen does mention John and the Apocalypse:

What are we to say of him who leaned on Jesus' breast, namely, John, who left one Gospel, though confessing that he could make so many that the world would not contain them? But he wrote also the Apocalypse, being commanded to be silent and not to write the voices of the seven thunders. But he also left an epistle of very few lines. Suppose also a second and a third, since not all pronounce these to be genuine; but the two together do not amount to a hundred lines.

Since the text about Paul writing "a few lines" does not fit Paul, and does fit John, let us see if it would fit in the nearby text about John.

[I]What are we to say of him who leaned on Jesus' breast, namely, John, who left one Gospel, though confessing that he could make so many that the world would not contain them? But he wrote also [in]the Apocalypse, did not write to all the churches which he had instructed and to those to which he wrote he sent but few lines being commanded to be silent and not to write the voices of the seven thunders. But he also left an epistle of very few lines. Suppose also a second and a third, since not all pronounce these to be genuine; but the two together do not amount to a hundred lines.

(The last line is an obvious forgery as Origen would have to say "suppose also a second and third letter that our Church does not accept in order for it to make any sense at all.)

Now compare how much smoother this text flows when we put if after the earlier Moses reference, instead of the Paul reference we now have. Here is the text as Eusebius passes it down to us:

I will take up this point: when I proceed to write a number of books, the critic will remind me that even such a one as Moses left behind him only five books.

But he who was made fit to be a minister of the New Covenant, not of the letter, but of the spirit, Paul, who fulfilled the Gospel from Jerusalem round about to Illyricum, did not write epistles to all the churches he taught, and to those to whom he did write he sent no more than a few lines.

Here is the revised text following the quote from Moses:

I will take up this point: when I proceed to write a number of books, the critic will remind me that even such a one as Moses left behind him only five books.
What are we to say of him who leaned on Jesus' breast, namely, John, who left one Gospel, though confessing that he could make so many that the world would not contain them? But he wrote also [in]the Apocalypse, did not write to all the churches which he had instructed and to those to which he wrote he sent but few lines being commanded to be silent and not to write the voices of the seven thunders. But he also left an epistle of very few lines.

See how much smoother this flows. Since, he is writing a commentary on John's Gospel, it would make sense that he would mention John first. Notice also that the phrase "a few lines" in the last line in reference to the epistle of John now matches the phrase "a few lines" in the previous line in reference to the Churches that John wrote.


Now it is hard to know precisely why Eusebius would want to disrupt the original text. It suggests that John did not write the entire Apocalypse, but that the same author of the Gospel and epistle did write the Church letters within it. Eusebius might have found this objectionable in some way.


This is my hypothesis, that Eusebiuis has changed a reference about John writing a few lines into a reference about Paul writing a few lines.

But here is an addendum or corollary thought that seems to follow, but is far more astonishing:

Accepting that Eusebius did make the above changes, the problem we now face is trying to figure out why Eusebius would ever have Origen saying that Paul wrote only "a few lines." Origen, as Eusebius knew was the greatest textual scholar of his time. This would call into question parts of every letter of Paul that the Church endorsed as authentic. There is only solution that I can think of -- the original statement was worse than this. The original statement declared that the position of the Church in the time of Origen was that none of Paul's epistles were authentic. Thus we may reconstruct the original text this way:

"But he who was 'made sufficient to be a minister of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the Spirit,' that is, Paul, who 'fully preached the Gospel from Jerusalem and round about even unto Illyricum,' did not write to any of the churches which he had instructed. And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail left only one epistle of acknowledged genuineness."

This reconstruction, if correct, would suggest that the Church of Origen, circa 240 C.E., did not accept any letters of Paul as authentic and only one of Peter's. This would also suggest that many of the references to Paul's epistles in Origen's text are later Eusebean interpolations.

That claim seems very strong and there may be ready evidence to subvert it. I would like to see the evidence refuting both hypostheses brought independently.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay