Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 04-06-2011, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Yes, I think that calling the accounts of Jesus' life and teachings gospels, may involve a shift from regarding them as texts which tell us about God's revelation to regarding them as texts which actually are God's revelation.

Andrew Criddle

Ah that's the sort of thing I would be interested to hear about Andrew: roughly, when did this shift take place, what's the evidence for it - and why did it obtain?

The shift seems to occur after Justin and is taken for granted by Origen. One indication is the way in which Justin uses the Gospels as sources of information about Jesus while Origen carries out detailed verse by verse exegesis of the Gospels sometimes exegesis of an allegorical nature.

Although the change in terminology happens at roughly the same time as this shift in attitude the two developments don't, on reflection, seem tightly linked.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 04-06-2011, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Ah that's the sort of thing I would be interested to hear about Andrew: roughly, when did this shift take place, what's the evidence for it - and why did it obtain?

The shift seems to occur after Justin and is taken for granted by Origen. One indication is the way in which Justin uses the Gospels as sources of information about Jesus while Origen carries out detailed verse by verse exegesis of the Gospels sometimes exegesis of an allegorical nature.

Although the change in terminology happens at roughly the same time as this shift in attitude the two developments don't, on reflection, seem tightly linked.

Andrew Criddle

Origen did think that Jesus was LITERALLY or TRULY born of the HOLY GHOST and a VIRGIN, DID TRULY RESURRECT and ASCENDED to heaven.

This is Origen in "De Principiis"

Quote:

....4. The particular points clearly delivered in the teaching of the apostles are as follow:—

First, That there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into being...................Secondly, That Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), [color]was born of the Father before all creatures[/color], that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things— For by Him were all things made —

He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit, that this Jesus Christ was truly born, and did truly suffer, and did not endure this death common (to man) in appearance only, but did truly die; that He did truly rise from the dead; and that after His resurrection He conversed with His disciples, and was taken up (into heaven).

Origen did write that JESUS CHRIST was GOD INCARNATE and did TRULY resurrect and ascend to heaven.

stephan huller · 04-07-2011, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Origen carries out detailed verse by verse exegesis of the Gospels sometimes exegesis of an allegorical nature

As a side point. I was once on a long flight from somewhere to Seattle (everywhere in America is far from Seattle it seems) and I happened to take with me the ninth or tenth volume of Schaff's Ante Nicene Church Fathers series with me which happens to have the Diatessaron and Origen's Commentary on John and Matthew in the same book. In any event, yes Origen does a line by line exegesis of Matthew and yes he often references related readings in Mark, Luke and John but what I discovered was that most of the time the citations of what Mark, Luke or John said actually mirrored the 'extra material' that appeared in the parallel section of the Diatessaron pretty closely. In other words, it's not clear if Origen's exegesis was dictated by an unmentioned 'fifth text.'

One might wonder if the Diatessaron had a role determining the Alexandrian liturgy in the third century. In other words, to have a 'united' Church Origen adopted the fourfold canon. Yet the church itself (and Origen secretly) still might have had loyalty to a more traditional text.

One more thing, it has been noticed that when Origen fled to Caesarea his Gospel of Mark changed. Most just write this off as having to use the readings that were available to him. But I have only read this said about his citations of Mark.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.