Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 04-29-2006, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Also notably (in light of my question to you about the relative dates of the two works by Origen), Peter Kirby writes:

Quote:

Origen's Commentary on Matthew dates ca. 230, and his Against Celsus ca. 250.

I do not know the basis of this dating, but if true it would seem more prudent to go through the first passage rather than the second looking for evidence of Origen having interpreted the phrase into existence.

Eusebius HE book 6 ch 36 says

Quote:

During the same period [While Philip the Arab was Emperor c 244-249] he [Origen] wrote his eight pamphlets to refute the attack made upon us by Celsus the Epicurean in his Truth Established also the twenty five books of his Commentary on Matthew's Gospel.

If reliable this implies a date for both works in the mid to late 240's

Andrew Criddle

Peter Kirby · 04-29-2006, 01:19 PM

I forgot where I got those dates. Could have been Stephen Carlson or Roger Pearse or Jeff Lowder. I plum done forgot.

regards,
Peter Kirby

andrewcriddle · 05-08-2006, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Notably, Olson called attention in that thread to the following passages from Origen.

Against Celsus 1.66:

For the sending of help to him in a very miraculous and unnecessarily public manner would not have been of any service to him, who wished to show that as a man, to whom witness was borne by God, he possessed within that form which was seen by the eyes of men some higher element of divinity, that which was properly the son of God, God the word, the power of God, and the wisdom of God, he who is called the Christ.

Against Celsus 4.28:

But now is Jesus declared to have come for the sake of sinners in all parts of the world, that they may forsake their sin, and entrust themselves to God, being called also, agreeably to an ancient custom of these scriptures, the Christ of God.

These references at least give an Origenic handle on the word called. I do not think Olson adequately addresses the triple Josephan context of the phrase, however, and that is what seems a most powerful argument in its favor, at any rate.

I made use of the link to a Greek text of Contra Celsum kindly supplied by Ben in another thread (thanks Ben) to investigate these uses of 'called Christ'.

I'm not sure if they are real parallels at all

1.66 reads ...hO KALOUMENOS ChRISTOS (Not LEGOMENOS)

4.28 reads ...KAI ChRISTOS EINAI LEGOMENOS TOU ThEOU which seems a very different grammatical construction.

Andrew Criddle

spin · 05-08-2006, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I made use of the link to a Greek text of Contra Celsum kindly supplied by Ben in another thread (thanks Ben) to investigate these uses of 'called Christ'.

I'm not sure if they are real parallels at all

1.66 reads ...hO KALOUMENOS ChRISTOS (Not LEGOMENOS)

The distinction between these two verbs I have looked at for a while, eg Josephus tends to use kaloumenos more for people than legomenos, which seems to be preferred for places, though it's not strict. (It may depend on his sources or even his scribe.)

Luke is the only gospel which uses kaloumenos and prefers it to legomenos in naming contexts (nine times to two), eg "a man whose name was called (kaloumenos) Zacchaeus" Lk 19:2 and "the one called legomenos Judas" Lk 22:47.

Perhaps you have some idea why one was used in preference to another, as they seem to have the same significance and both can be used in the same context, eg "Golgotha which is called (legomenos) the place of the Skull" Mt 27:33, "the place called (kaloumenos) the Skull" Lk 23:33.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

4.28 reads ...KAI ChRISTOS EINAI LEGOMENOS TOU ThEOU which seems a very different grammatical construction.

I don't think it was specifically either grammar or lexicon which was the point of the original comment: it was the act of naming the christ, being something that Origen did. And here's another example:

CC 3.1

But the majority of the Jews are so far from believing in Him, that those of them who lived at the time of His coming conspired against Him; and those of the present day, approving of what the Jews of former times dared to do against Him, speak evil of Him, asserting that it was by means of sorcery that he passed himself off for Him who was predicted by the prophets as the One who was to come, and who was called, agreeably to the traditions of the Jews, the Christ.

This I assume will be grammatically similar, going on the translation at least, to 4:28, which was either based on the above, ie CC 3.1, or its source.

spin

andrewcriddle · 05-08-2006, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I don't think it was specifically either grammar or lexicon which was the point of the original comment: it was the act of naming the christ, being something that Origen did. And here's another example:

CC 3.1

But the majority of the Jews are so far from believing in Him, that those of them who lived at the time of His coming conspired against Him; and those of the present day, approving of what the Jews of former times dared to do against Him, speak evil of Him, asserting that it was by means of sorcery that he passed himself off for Him who was predicted by the prophets as the One who was to come, and who was called, agreeably to the traditions of the Jews, the Christ.

This I assume will be grammatically similar, going on the translation at least, to 4:28, which was either based on the above, ie CC 3.1, or its source.

spin

3.1 is KALOUMENOS KATA TA IOUDAIWN PATRIA ChRISTOS

Andrew Criddle

spin · 05-08-2006, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

3.1 is KALOUMENOS KATA TA IOUDAIWN PATRIA ChRISTOS

Thanks, Andrew.

What is the link for the Greek text?

spin

andrewcriddle · 05-08-2006, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Thanks, Andrew.

What is the link for the Greek text?

spin

Ben provides a gateway here http://www.textexcavation.com/skeptiktexts.html

Contra Celsum is at http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/o...s/cc/gr/01.htm and following

Andrew Criddle

spin · 05-09-2006, 12:12 PM

Thanks. That's quite a valuable site, once I'd found how to deal with the fonts!

spin

darstec · 05-09-2006, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Thanks. That's quite a valuable site, once I'd found how to deal with the fonts!

spin

How did you deal with the fonts? They appear to be a mixture of Greek, Hebrew, Russian and whatever in my FireFox browser.

andrewcriddle · 05-09-2006, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

How did you deal with the fonts? They appear to be a mixture of Greek, Hebrew, Russian and whatever in my FireFox browser.

In IE one has to put Encoding to Unicode (UTF-8) I suspect it is similar in Firefox but I don't know.

AndrewCriddle

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

04-29-2006, 01:19 PM	#42
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	I forgot where I got those dates. Could have been Stephen Carlson or Roger Pearse or Jeff Lowder. I plum done forgot. regards, Peter Kirby

05-09-2006, 12:12 PM	#48
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Thanks. That's quite a valuable site, once I'd found how to deal with the fonts! spin

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.