stephan huller

I don't know if you have read any of Origen's commentaries on Matthew or John but it is very strange that he has no one (other than a heretic named Heracleon) to work off. It is simply unbelievable that no one before him ever attempted to engage in writing commentaries on Matthew, Luke or John.

Origen is very aware that certain 'ideas' were off limts because they demonstrated 'heresy.' Perhaps this is why no one before Origen attempted to write commentaries on the gospels. Being hetero-orthodox was bad for your health. But Origen was very, very smart. He knew all the traps. He saw what happened to his master Clement and started with a fresh slate.

I think the whole Alexandrian tradition was adapting to a new historical situation in Rome. I think that Irenaeus's 'rules' regarding what was good and bad interpretations were introduced while Clement was already established. It was easier to figure out that Clement was a 'bad guy.' Origen could watch what happened with Clement and learn how to avoid making the same mistakes.

It was very brave for Origen to attempt to put forward a positive interpretation of what passages mean (Irenaeus restricts himself almost exclusively to what was the wrong interpretation of certain passages). Origen does demonstrate an awareneness about the political significance of Matt 16.18 (unknown apparently to Irenaeus) but does his best to subvert that political dogma in Comm. Matthew. But it is incredible that he has no knowledge of a 'positive' orthodox interpretation of most - if not all - of the gospels.

One can make the case that Christianity was all 'free love' before the third century but this is ludicrous. Irenaeus goes out of his way in Book Three of Against Heresies to imply that the Roman Church knows the truth about every passage related to the gospel. The problem seems to be that this knowledge was solely limited to Irenaeus's own imagination. He doesn't seem to have ever found the time to write an authoritative explanation of the various passages in the four gospels (the heretics seem to have had these commentaries).

All that Irenaeus concerns himself with is REFUTING and EXPOSING those opinions which existed prior to his editing of the canon. In other words there was a gospel tradition with commentaries BEFORE Irenaeus; they just weren't orthodox (or according to Irenaeus's taste). I would even argue that the Catholic gospels were formed - as Celsus says - threefold and fourfold to 'answer objections' (or perhaps 'objectionable beliefs). When Origen finally attempted to write the first commentaries on these texts from an 'orthodox' point of view what we really have is a crypto-heretic attempting to reintroduce heresy by making it seem to conform to the new 'rules' of the canon (hence all the verbose allegorization - he's trying to get from the heretical A to the heretical B by way of C,D,E,F,G,H etc. - shifting and introducing various scriptures to support something that was ultimately heretical).

I think Origen designed his explanations to give headaches to those who were initiated into his way of thinking. That's why he was so invaluable to Ambose (a 'repentant' former heretic). Ambrose put Origen on his payroll to 'speak in code' in the same manner that Sabbatians went underground in Turkey or crypto Jews and Christians everywhere oppression faced them.

My question is why we should treat Christianity any differently than Islam? If the Quran is pretty much understood to have been formalized in its present form not much before محمد بن جریر طبری (al-Tabari) - i.e. 9th centuy CE - shouldn't the introduction of all Holy Texts generally be assumed to be followed by commentaries? How could a formalized religion exist without written commentaries to explain those texts?

Here's another absurdity. In Book Three Chapter 2 (from memory) Irenaeus condemns the heretics from passing on interpretations of the gospel by word of mouth. He implies that the Roman tradition didn't work that way. Where the hell is their written commentaries to lay out the exact shape of orthodoxy and why doesn't Origen know of them?

Song of Erra

Juststeve, how much time do you think separates the Gospel of Mark and the Gospels of Luke and Matthew? If you say, for example, thirty years–then you must think thirty years was enough time for a gospel to circulate and be derived into two more gospels. Why, then, doesn't the same amount of time apply to the production of a commentary? (Matthew and Luke do, after all, “comment” on Mark by way of the changes they make, so it's not like we're talking wholly different genres.) Your position seems inconsistent to me.

Toto

questions re Origen split off

Russellonius

This is what we all know, but many us us act as if the literary genre involved was peer-reviewed journal.

The dominant mode of presentation of the stories contained in the texts could only have been oral when the population was 95% illiterate. Texts were ancillary to the growth of the movement. In the first centuries, as today, Christianity was a social phenomenon requiring face-to-face interaction to function.

One purpose of writing down gospels was for enfranchisement. Only a wealthy and influential person would commission a scribe to produce a codex (much like Titian's customers were people of wealth and influence, often people pursuing a religiously tinged social agenda, who could afford to pay). A gospel copy sent to an associate would allow other literate people to learn and perform the text, allowing the gospel to exist in performance elsewhere. A franchise.

Another purpose of a written text in a predominately illiterate society would be for calibration.

Texts that exist in performance are subject to some fluidity. They are also subject to 'reader'-response criticism. When texts exist in performance in the social network of a religious environment, people, whether literate or not, are able to respond. The stories told about, and reactions to, the performed text is a continuation of the creation of the myth within the local audience. The purpose of 'commentaries' might well have been an effort to calibrate the developing mythology - to rein it in when local interpretation or innovation caused it to become too wide-ranging or off-course for their purposes.

Irenaeus' insisting that word of mouth was not the way interpretations were passed on seems to me an effort to enforce written calibrations and to suppress rival religious entrepreneurship. Of course, contrary to his claim, religion always functions primarily as oral person-to-person social interaction and texts are only ancillary - even when most people can read and written texts abound. Just try talking to any highly-committed Christian about the Bible and you'll see what I mean.

aa5874

One can ONLY make a determination on EXTANT DATA. It cannot be even EXPECTED that any CONCLUSION is based on ALL or EVERY piece of data ever collected on a matter under consideration.

The data collected SO FAR tends to show that the Gospels called according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were NOT known by Justin Martyr up to the middle of the 2nd century.

Justin Martyr KNEW a Gospel or Gospels called the "Memoirs of the Apostles" and stated that the Memoirs were read in the Churches on Sundays.

Now, there is information in the "Memoirs of the Apostles" not found in the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and was known also known to Origen in "Against Celsus".

The "cave birth story of baby Jesus" is found in the "Memoirs of the Apostles" and NOT at all in the Canonised Gospels

"Dialogue with Trypho" LXVIII Now, Justim Martyr made some very important and critical statements which tend to show that the "Memoirs of the Apostles" with cave birth story PREDATED the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Even those who record the MYSTERIES OF MITHRAS imitated the CAVE of baby Jesus.

"Dialogue with Trypho" LXX
And to show the Memoirs of the Apostles" was probably the earliest gospel Origen would claim that the CAVE where baby Jesus was born was known in Bethlehem.

"Against Celsus" 1.51 The EXTANT EVIDENCE so far tend to show that the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John POST-DATED the "MEMOIRS of the Apostles" or AFTER the middle of the 2nd century.

But, examining the EXTANT EVIDENCE even further using "Against Celsus", a STARTLING admission by Origen tends to confirm that there were NO gospels known to CELSUS with CONTRADICTORY genealogies which any SKEPTIC would have IMMEDIATELY NOTICE.

Even Christians noticed the discrepancies in the genealogies according to Origen yet CELSUS did not even mention them.

"Against Celsus" 2.32
And now, Origen will continue to cast doubt on the early dating of gMark when he claimed while he was ALIVE no GOSPEL described Jesus as a CARPENTER.

Only gMark implied Jesus was a CARPENTER.

"Against Celsus" 6.36 The EXTANT DATA tends to show that the Gospels according to Matthew, MARK, Luke and John were after the middle of the 2nd century or AFTER "TRUE DISCOURSE by CELSUS.

avi

Well written!!!
Thank you, very much.

avi

stephan huller

Here's an example of a commentary or commentaries developed from canon(s) before the establishment of our fourfold gospel (by Irenaeus?).

Tertullian's source in Against Marcion Book Four (and Five).

Tertullian seems to copy out a number of passages where the original Syrian writer argues that Marcion has removed things from HIS gospel (i.e. the Syrian writer's gospel) which only appear in Matthew. In other words, the Marcion corrupted the Gospel of Luke argument first developed by the circle of Irenaeus WAS NOT originally part of the argument at the heart of Tertullian's source.

These commentaries were systematically destroyed (or perhaps more accurately - were abandoned) because it betrayed the late dating of the Catholic gospel(s).

In other words, Polycarp, Justin and other pre-Irenaean figures probably did develoip commentaries on THEIR gospel(s). However these were abandoned because they demonstrated how un-Catholic these 'Church Fathers' really were.