aa5874

Origen is actually claiming that Jesus was NOT EVER described as a carpenter in the extant gospels of the Church.

In effect, Origen was NOT aware of ANY gospel (Caesarean or not) where Jesus was a carpenter.

'Against Celsus' 6. 36
Origen is attempting to completely refute Celsus since he wont find any gospel ( Caesarean or not) where Jesus was a carpenter.

Zeluvia

One wonders why he adds "current in the Churches". Why not just say "in none of the Gospels"?

aa5874

Perhaps he could only state the current position of the Gospels.

But, why did Celsus imply that Jesus was a carpenter?

It is odd that Celsus was claiming Jesus was a carpenter and Origen is claiming that the current Gospels did not EVER describe Jesus as such.

Brian63

Isn't a simple explanation just that Origen was factually wrong on this? Rather than the gospel still being worked on by that date, maybe it was settled but Origen just got his facts wrong.

Brian

aa5874

Why is that a simple explanation rather than a simple speculation?

According to apologetic sources gMark, which implied Jesus was a carpenter, was written since the time of Philo or sometime around or before 50 CE and was supposed to known among Jesus believers for about 200 years before Origen.

It is not realistic that Origen would not have known that Jesus was supposed to be a carpenter in gMark.

The statement from Origen that NONE of the CURRENT Gospels in the Churches ever described Jesus as a carpenter most likely implied that the versions of the Gospels at his time did NOT contain Mark 6.3.

avi

Thank you very much, aa, for this brilliant analysis.

I suppose there is another possibility, which for completeness, we ought to include, I mean, apart from this possibility:

I dispute this logic. I doubt very much that Origen lacked copies of every document. I am sure he possessed a magnificent library, or had access to one.

So, the other possibility, other likely explanation, is that, notwithstanding the opulence of his own collection, or the collection to which he maintained access, Origen nevertheless did not possess a copy of the gospel of mark.

In my own library of well over a thousand volumes, I have not a single copy of Julius Caesar by Shakespeare, nor a copy of Dickens' Oliver Twist, nor a copy of Voltaire's Candide, etc, etc, etc....

I doubt the value of concluding anything about the date of mark, based upon absence of citation from Origen, or anyone else......

I agree with aa that mark was not written until after the third Roman-Jewish war in 135 CE. I also agree with aa's opinion, that paul's writings date from the middle of the second century, not earlier. The fact that Origen fails to mention Mark, to me, does not indicate anything about the chronology of the gospels--Mark, or any other.

avi

Brian63

?

All of our proposed explanations are just speculations, since we cannot query Origen himself. Labelling my comment as "speculation" does not render it any more or less likely than any other proposal offered.






I am suggesting it as a reasonable possibility because we know that humans commit errors very, very, very, very, very commonly. This would be just another in a long line of many. Maybe he just got somewhat casual and did not check his source thoroughly when he made his statement. That seems a simpler explanation than proposing that the gospel of Mark was not in existence (or was still in flux) by that later date.

Brian

andrewcriddle

He (almost certainly) means "in none of the canonical Gospels" ie Matthew Mark Luke and John.

IE Origen is leaving aside the question as to whether or not apocryphal Gospels such as the Gospel of the Hebrews or the Gospel of Peter describe Jesus as a carpenter.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

But, whether Origen had a copy of gMark is beside the point since he appears to be an authoritative source. He appears to be aware of the CURRENT gospels in the Churches and appears to be aware of Churches position on the occupation of Jesus.

Origen is DEFENDING the veracity of the Gospels.

The implication of Mark 6.3 that Jesus was a carpenter most likely was writen AFTER Origen's "Against Celsus"

But, once you are aware of the contents of Dickens' Oliver Twist" you can still say the current copies of "Oliver Twist" do not ever describe him as "Harry Potter"

It may. You must remember that there was a text called "Memoirs of the Apostles" which seemingly VANISHED into thin air. It just MAGICALLY disappeared although Justin Martyr identified the "Memoirs of the Apostles" as being READ in the churches on Sundays.

Irenaeus OBLITERATED the "Memoirs of the Apostles" about 25 years after Justin Martyr. It was as if the "Memoirs of the Apostles" never ever existed.

Irenaeus knew ONLY of gMathhew, gMark, gLuke and gJohn being READ in the Churches since the 1st century but Irenaeus has been found to be 100% in error. All the Gospels were anonymous.

Now, when one reads the writings of Justin Martyr it would appear the "Memoirs of the Apostles" contained parts of gMatthew, gMark and gLuke.

How did the writings called gMatthew, gMark and gLuke develop?

Based on Justin it was the MEMOIRS of the Apostles that was being READ in the Churches at around 150 CE.

Justin wrote wrote not one thing about Matthew, Mark, and Luke as Gospel writers.

Irenaeus wrote about gMatthew, gMark, gLuke and gJohn and has been found to be 100 % in ERROR with chronology, dating and authorship.

It is time to examine the disappearance of the "Memoirs of the Apostles".

avi

That may be very instructive.
Problem I foresee, perhaps due to inexperience, is the absence of material from which to trace its existence, or disappearance.

I think it may be more instructive to investigate this chap Irenaeus.

To me, he holds the key. He is the source of so much (mis)information, that if only one could nail down something of his that was genuine, and not forged, one could begin to construct a chart, a hierarchy, to trace the references to the various gospels in a meaningful fashion.

A further key, I believe, would come from learning enough about Islam and the Quran, to understand why Muslims view both John the Baptist and Jesus of Capernaum as prophets.

What was the Muslim's source to derive such a conclusion? Perhaps it was Memoirs of the Apostles--a copy that somehow found its way to Saudi Arabia, on the caravans, and got stuck there for a few hundred years?

avi