Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 08-09-2011, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I'm wondering whether Origen had basically our texts of the synoptic accounts of the baptism, but is referring in a rather confused way to the fact that in Matthew and Mark the opening of heaven and descent of the dove read as a vision experienced by Jesus, whereas in Luke they read as an objective event.

Andrew Criddle

Hi Andrew,
not sure that this explanation works: Luke seems to follow the synoptic predecessors in making the descent of the spirit at baptism a subjective experience of Jesus (given by the direct address of the heavenly voice "thou art my beloved..."). Luke only adds the 'in a bodily form' the intent of which appears to be placing the stress on the somatic 'feel' of the spiritual transformation.

My issue with the 'objectification' of the dove is that it runs counter to the intent of the transfiguration scene, in which the inner event is to be demonstrated to the senior group of the disciples. Luke again follows the established protocol: the voice talks about Jesus in the third person: "this is my son...listen to him". The baptism -tarnsfiguration symbology seems to me conveying a crucial point of the earliest Christology, saying in effect : "if perchance you too should get this experience of ecstatic joy and glory, it is not "yours" but "His". Only in John this baptismal event is objectified right from the start and the vision placed into the baptizer (in effect the prototype of a 'baptizee'). For this reason I'd prefer to look for other explanations of Origen's surprising remarks.

Best,
Jiri

PhilosopherJay · 08-09-2011, 09:35 AM

Hi Pete,

Good question. The passage does suggest that Origen is interested in comparing every passage in each gospel, so he might have had a tool that made it easier. Of course, it does not prove that he did.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Do you think it reasonable to assume Origen had available to him the Ammonian Canon tables (also called the Eusebian canons), the authorship of which Eusebius attributes to Origen's teacher Ammonius?

Best wishes

Pete

andrewcriddle · 08-09-2011, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

248 CE, however, is far too late, Origen almost certainly finished work on the Commentary on John before 340 CE.

Andrew Criddle

340 CE should obviously be 240 CE. Sorry.

Andrew Criddlr

andrewcriddle · 08-09-2011, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I'm wondering whether Origen had basically our texts of the synoptic accounts of the baptism, but is referring in a rather confused way to the fact that in Matthew and Mark the opening of heaven and descent of the dove read as a vision experienced by Jesus, whereas in Luke they read as an objective event.

Andrew Criddle

Hi Andrew,
not sure that this explanation works: Luke seems to follow the synoptic predecessors in making the descent of the spirit at baptism a subjective experience of Jesus (given by the direct address of the heavenly voice "thou art my beloved..."). Luke only adds the 'in a bodily form' the intent of which appears to be placing the stress on the somatic 'feel' of the spiritual transformation.

My issue with the 'objectification' of the dove is that it runs counter to the intent of the transfiguration scene, in which the inner event is to be demonstrated to the senior group of the disciples. Luke again follows the established protocol: the voice talks about Jesus in the third person: "this is my son...listen to him". The baptism -tarnsfiguration symbology seems to me conveying a crucial point of the earliest Christology, saying in effect : "if perchance you too should get this experience of ecstatic joy and glory, it is not "yours" but "His". Only in John this baptismal event is objectified right from the start and the vision placed into the baptizer (in effect the prototype of a 'baptizee'). For this reason I'd prefer to look for other explanations of Origen's surprising remarks.

Best,
Jiri

Hi Jiri

I'm doubtful of my explanation too.

One problem is that Origen says that:

Quote:

Luke does not mention the place Jesus came from, but on the other hand he tells us what we do not learn from the others, that immediately after the baptism, as He was coming up, heaven was opened to Him, and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in bodily form like a dove.

but this doesn't agree with our texts of Luke where there is no explicit mention of Jesus coming up out of the water or use of "immediately" or of Heaven being opened to him. These come from Matthew and/or Mark. It seems unlikely that Origen's texts of Matthew Mark and Luke all differed from those known to us, and it is hard to avoid the feeling that Origen is quoting from memory and getting muddled.

We also find in Contra Celsus Book 1

Quote:

After these assertions, he takes from the Gospel of Matthew, and perhaps also from the other Gospels, the account of the dove alighting upon our Saviour at His baptism by John

which indicates that Origen did know of a text of Matthew with the descent of the Spirit as a dove.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Maybe Origen is getting muddled over something that is found only in Luke, the idea that the Holy Spirit itself resembles a dove, (the other accounts just compare the descent of the Spirit to the behaviour of a dove).

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay · 08-09-2011, 09:57 PM

Hi Andrew,

It is a good and possible suggestion that Origen, despite his precise description of what is only found in the three other gospels, somehow misremembered what was in the Gospels in this one scene, although considering that he wrote some 25 books devoted to the 51 lines in the first chapter of John, it is a little difficult to understand how this could have happened.

Amazingly, Justin Martyr, also seems to have had a bad memory when it came to this short, well known and extremely important scene.
Here is his recall of the baptism story from Trypho (CHAPTER LXXXVIII):

Quote:

And then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan; and when He came out of the water, the Holy Ghost lighted on Him like a dove, the apostles of this very Christ of ours wrote.

This is what Justin Martyr tells us was written in the Memoirs of the Apostles
1. Jesus steps into water where John was baptising. There is a fire.
2. (No mention of Jesus being baptised), Jesus comes out of the water and the Holy Ghost like a dove lighted on him.

Martyr adds lots of other interesting information found nowhere in our current gospels:

Quote:

And when Jesus came to the Jordan, He was considered to be the son of Joseph the carpenter; and He appeared without comeliness, as the Scriptures declared; and He was deemed a carpenter (for He was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes; by which He taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life); but then the Holy Ghost, and for man's sake, as I formerly stated, lighted on Him in the form of a dove, and there came at the same instant from the heavens a voice, which was uttered also by David when he spoke, personating Christ, what the Father would say to Him: 'Thou art My Son: this day have I begotten Thee;' [the Father] saying that His generation would take place for men, at the time when they would become acquainted with Him: 'Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten thee.' "

This appears to be an earlier version of what we find in the synoptics. It leaves out that "only," and "with whom I am well pleased." It follows the Old Testament more exactly.

Rather than fault the memories of the Church Fathers, our best witnesses to the text of this time, we may rather fault the text which appears to be ever changing in the Second Century and even into the Third.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Hi Andrew,
not sure that this explanation works: Luke seems to follow the synoptic predecessors in making the descent of the spirit at baptism a subjective experience of Jesus (given by the direct address of the heavenly voice "thou art my beloved..."). Luke only adds the 'in a bodily form' the intent of which appears to be placing the stress on the somatic 'feel' of the spiritual transformation.

My issue with the 'objectification' of the dove is that it runs counter to the intent of the transfiguration scene, in which the inner event is to be demonstrated to the senior group of the disciples. Luke again follows the established protocol: the voice talks about Jesus in the third person: "this is my son...listen to him". The baptism -tarnsfiguration symbology seems to me conveying a crucial point of the earliest Christology, saying in effect : "if perchance you too should get this experience of ecstatic joy and glory, it is not "yours" but "His". Only in John this baptismal event is objectified right from the start and the vision placed into the baptizer (in effect the prototype of a 'baptizee'). For this reason I'd prefer to look for other explanations of Origen's surprising remarks.

Best,
Jiri

Hi Jiri

I'm doubtful of my explanation too.

One problem is that Origen says that: but this doesn't agree with our texts of Luke where there is no explicit mention of Jesus coming up out of the water or use of "immediately" or of Heaven being opened to him. These come from Matthew and/or Mark. It seems unlikely that Origen's texts of Matthew Mark and Luke all differed from those known to us, and it is hard to avoid the feeling that Origen is quoting from memory and getting muddled.

We also find in Contra Celsus Book 1

Quote:

After these assertions, he takes from the Gospel of Matthew, and perhaps also from the other Gospels, the account of the dove alighting upon our Saviour at His baptism by John

which indicates that Origen did know of a text of Matthew with the descent of the Spirit as a dove.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Maybe Origen is getting muddled over something that is found only in Luke, the idea that the Holy Spirit itself resembles a dove, (the other accounts just compare the descent of the Spirit to the behaviour of a dove).

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 08-09-2011, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

....I'm not sure what to make of this. Maybe Origen is getting muddled over something that is found only in Luke, the idea that the Holy Spirit itself resembles a dove, (the other accounts just compare the descent of the Spirit to the behaviour of a dove).

Andrew Criddle

Well, maybe Origen was NOT muddled at all.

avi · 08-10-2011, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

I think looking at the text of Origen itself makes the strongest case. Origen is really listing what unique thing each gospel writer is bringing to the table. He matches our current text with the other 3 examples he gives. It is only his attribution of the heavens opening and the dove coming down to Luke that is so jarring because it doesn't match our current text. The possibility exists that he could have forgotten that Mark and Matthew has the line, but I see that as a remote possibility. He seems to have his gospels open when writing this work and seems to be quoting every word precisely. I didn't find any other variations that he made.

In the work "Contra Celsus," he writes (book 1 chapter 40) regarding Celsus

Quote:

After these assertions, he takes from the Gospel of Matthew, and perhaps also from the other Gospels, the account of the dove alighting upon our Saviour at His baptism by John, and desires to throw discredit upon the statement, alleging that the narrative is a fiction.
Here, Origen shows he isn't sure in which gospels there is the line about the dove. He suspects Celsus of reading from the Gospel of Matthew because Celsus has just attacked the Virgin Birth and flight to Egypt found only in Matthew.He obviously does not have his gospels with him.

This makes me suspect that he must have checked his gospels afterwards to find out exactly where the line about the dove was. He found it only in Luke and that is why he can assert it so confidently in the work on John.

Thank you, Jay.

Origen comments on at least two other controversies, apart from the baptism issues you have raised: writings of Josephus, and, discussion of Yahweh (tetragrammaton).

Are his texts on those two topics at variance with Eusebius, or in harmony with EH?

My concerns about citing anything by Origen, are:
a. oldest manuscript evidence appears to be not in Greek;
b. redaction/interpolation of this third century author, by those who succeeded him....

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874, replying to Andrew's hypothesis of possible confusion by Origen

Well, maybe Origen was NOT muddled at all.

I do not know how one can distinguish potential confusion/dementia/alcohol abuse with:

a. redaction by subsequent generations of holier than thou true believers;

b. translation errors, since we lack the Greek originals;

avi

DCHindley · 08-10-2011, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

In his Commentary on John, (248 CE), Origen gives us the best view of what the text of the first chapter of the Gospel of John looked like in the mid-Third century. He goes over the text line by line and gives a long and detailed exegesis about each one. Further, he quotes what was in the "Commentary" by Heracleon's regarding each line. Much of the work is lost, but we do have the section talking about the baptism of Jesus in John's Gospel.

While discussing the Baptism of Jesus in John, he also tells us something astonishing about what was not in the other gospels he read.
I would like to show exactly what was missing from the Gospels of Mark and Matthew that Origen read and why it makes sense that the missing material was later added in.

In Book 6, Chapter 31, Origen writes this. I have put in red what he says about the gospel of Luke:

Quote:

John the disciple does not tell us where the Saviour comes from to John the Baptist, but we learn this from Matthew, who writes: "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan to John, to be baptized of him."

And Mark adds the place in Galilee; he says, "And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in Jordan."

Luke does not mention the place Jesus came from, but on the other hand he tells us what we do not learn from the others, that immediately after the baptism, as He was coming up, heaven was opened to Him, and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in bodily form like a dove.

Again, it is Matthew alone who tells us of John's preventing the Lord, saying to the Saviour, "I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?" None of the others added this after Matthew, so that they might not be saying just the same as he. And what the Lord rejoined, "Suffer it now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness," this also Matthew alone recorded.

What is and is not found about the baptism in the gospels perfectly matches what we now have except for the statement that Luke "tells us what we do not learn from the others; that immediately after the baptism, as he was coming up, heaven was opened to him, and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove".

The whole paragraph is a perfectly simple and clear statement about what is in and what is not in the gospels. It is only in Luke that we find out "that immediately after the baptism, as He was coming up, heaven was opened to Him, and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in bodily form like a dove." What do the Mark and Matthew passages look like when we take out the line that Origen says are not there, but are only in Luke:

N/A

The Gospel of John does not have the dove descending from heaven(!?). John had been told that this was the sign by which he would know of the man who baptizes with fire/holy spirit. (John baptizes with water. Jesus baptizes with fire.) The gospel does not say that Jesus was baptized, only that John saw the dove from heaven descend from heaven and remain on him. John is the sole witness to Jesus' as the Christ.

The text of Mark adds in that John baptized Jesus and has a voice from heaven declaring Jesus the son of God. Instead of the testimony of John, we have a voice from heaven testifying to the divinity of Jesus. Mark has made John's text much more dramatic. Instead of John just saying that he saw the dove coming from heaven, Mark actually shows it happening.

Matthew adds in the material about John being forced by Jesus to baptize him, but basically copies Mark.

Luke combines the John and Mark versions. He combines both the dove material from John and the heavenly voice from Mark and Matthew.

Later editors decided to harmonize Mark, Matthew and Luke and added the dove descending scene they found in Luke to Mark and Matthew. This is the scene that Origen was not in any other gospel except for Luke.

We can add one more important insight that Origen helps us to understand. Origen makes another important point (6.17) "It is to be observed that while the four represent John as declaring himself to have come to baptize with water. Matthew alone adds the words 'to repentance,' " ...

Jay,

I think you have missed the point of Origen's statement about Luke. It isn't that only Luke has the phrase "immediately after the baptism, as He was coming up..", since this is not in Luke at all, but is in Matthew and Mark, nor the phrase "the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him ... as a dove", as all of them say something like this, but it is the phrase "in bodily form", which is only in Luke! Origen is creating a composite picture of the event from the individual sources.

DCH

DCHindley · 08-10-2011, 04:11 PM

If anyone is interested in how these 6 accounts (Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn, Celsus, Gospel of the Hebrews) relate to one another regarding the baptism of Jesus, I've put together this handy table:

Mark 1:	Matthew 3:	Luke 2:	John 1:	Celsus (as preserved by Origen)	Gospel of the Hebrews (as preserved by Jerome)
			28 This [preaching by John the Baptist] took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. 29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of whom I said, `After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.' 31 I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel."		“Behold, the mother of our Lord and His brethren said to Him, John Baptist baptizes for the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him. But He said to them, what sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless, haply, the very words which I have said are only ignorance.”
9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.	13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him.	21 Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying,		“When you were bathing,” says the Jew, “beside John,
	14 John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" 15 But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness." Then he consented.
10 And when he [Jesus? John?] came up out of the water, immediately	16 And when Jesus was baptized, he [Jesus? John?] went up immediately from the water,
he [Jesus? John?] saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him [Jesus] like a dove;	and behold, the heavens were opened and he [Jesus? John?] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him [Jesus];	the heaven was opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove,	32 And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him.	you say that what had the appearance of a bird from the air alighted upon you.”	And it came to pass when the Lord was come up out of the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended and rested upon him,
			33 I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, `He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'	[The Jew says to Jesus] “This is your own testimony, unsupported save by one of those who were sharers of your punishment.”
11 and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."	17 and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."	and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."	34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."		and [the Spirit] said unto him: My son, in all the prophets was I waiting for thee that thou shouldst come, and I might rest in thee. For thou art my rest, thou art my first begotten son [tu es filius meus primogenitus]*, that reignest for ever.

*Compare John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son [literally unigenitus Filius, = ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός as found in the Byzantine textual tradition, μονογενὴς can be translated both “only begotten” as well as “first born son/heir” or “unique”] who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. [ET is Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition, Latin of Jn 1:18 is from the Vulgate, the Latin of the Jerome passage is all Jerome's]

DCH

PhilosopherJay · 08-10-2011, 10:11 PM

Hi DCHindley,

Great table.

The testimony of Origen and Justin Martyr give us two more variations on the theme.
This gives us eight quite different variations on the story.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

If anyone is interested in how these 6 accounts (Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn, Celsus, Gospel of the Hebrews) relate to one another regarding the baptism of Jesus, I've put together this handy table:

DCH

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.