PhilosopherJay

Hi Brian,

According to Eusebius' Church History (6,23)

One may assume that most, if not all the seven amanuenses and seven copyists, beside the girls skilled in elegant writing were educated Christians and also had read the gospels. It seems that one of them should have pointed out to Origen that he was making a collosal mistake and Mark did mention that Jesus was a carpenter.

Ambrose must have considered Origen a great Christian scholar. It is hard to see how Origen could have earned such a reputation without reading the available gospels at least a few times and discussing them at length with many people. It is hard to believe that he could have missed something as important as Jesus' occupation as a carpenter.

We can be certain that after the publication of Mark 6.3, being a carpenter became an important part of the identity of Jesus. It could not have been considered a trivial fact.

Let us say that I am reading a book about Ronald Reagan. The author says that Ronald Reagan never played a bad guy. I can say, "This author made a mistake, he never saw Ronald Reagan in "The Killers". He's really not as good a Reagan scholar as he pretends."

However, let us say the same author says that "Reagan has no interest in politics or running for elective office." Now it is not a matter of a mistake or not knowing Reagan's life that well. Now it is clearly a matter of chronology. It is obvious that the writer is writing before Reagan became governor of California and President of the United States. One cannot say that it is simply a mistake or sloppiness on the part of the author. No author can study a man's life and not know his major occupation/s.

In the same way, Origen, not knowing the occupation of Jesus according to Mark, cannot be exhibiting a simple mistake.

It is most probably a matter of chronology. The author is writing before any of the copies of Mark that he knows contain the information that Jesus was a carpenter.

This is a matter of the most basic knowledge about Jesus - his occupation. It is most improbable that Origen would not know that Mark had said that Jesus was carpenter unless none of his copies of Mark contained the line.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

GakuseiDon

I wonder if, by "in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter", Origen meant that the Gospels never described his profession as carpenter.

I remember someone (it might have even been aa) arguing that Jesus must have been a drunk, since he was accused of being so. But, though that accusation was made, the Gospels never portray him as a drunk. The Mark passage may be along the same lines. Certainly Mark never portrays him as anything other than an itinerant preacher from the start. The 'accusation' comes after Jesus was found astonishing people with wisdom and miracles:

Mar 6:1 And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.
Mar 6:2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing [him] were astonished, saying, From whence hath this [man] these things? and what wisdom [is] this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Calling him a 'carpenter' does appear to be along the lines of a put-down. One thing against that though is whether being called a carpenter was so bad. "You... you carpenter!" doesn't sound like such a jibe. Maybe something like "Yo, yo Mama's a carpenter! And so are your sisters!" would have been better.

aa5874

Please do not associate me with your follies.

dog-on

Maybe Mark, while known, was still in the hands of the heretics when Origen wrote and was not "current in the Churches", at that time.

Chili

They sure were not very Gnostic then since Jesus never set foot in the temple even once. His infancy did not exist as the reborn Joseph at the age of around 44 which is why it was said that "this temple took 46 years to built" in Jn.2:20.

And no, he was no carpenter but born with a mandate in the mind of Joseph . . . who just happen to have a tomb hewed as if our of rock in his own backyard where he met Nicodemus again after Pilate gave him the body just because he asked for it. As in: 'anybody wants a body'?

Oh, and don't get Jesus mixed up with James who was preaching Matthew and Mark where 'this Jesus' still was a carpenter . . . and sinner as such, still torn between right and wrong and so a carpenter after all . . . wherefore then this Jesus was raised but went back to Galilee and there died nonetheless = the anti-christ who preached a different gospel.

aa5874

Origen did not give any indication that gMark was in the hands of the "heretics" in "Against Celsus".

Origen's copy of gMark appears to have started similarly to the KJV gMark.

"Against Heresies" 2.4

dog-on

Yes he does, but this still does not mean that Mark was "current in the Churches", does it?

aa5874

So are you claiming that gMark was NOT "current in the Churches" or that you don't know?

The information supplied in "Against Heresies" do suggest gMark was a written gospel current in the Churches.

It is expected that when Origen referred to gMark in "Against Celsus" to refute the assertions of Celsus that he was using a CURRENT version of gMark used in the Churches.

PhilosopherJay

Hi GakuseDon,

This is a good point. We always have to be careful that we are getting a bad translation and misunderstanding text. It is possible that he meant that the gospel of Mark did not claim him as a carpenter, but only some Jews did.

However, when we look at the surrounding text, it seems difficult to see how this is the case (Anti-Celsus 6,23):

Note that he is criticizing Celsus for attributing the tree of life ideology to
A) the crucifixion on the tree
B) Jesus being a carpenter.

Origen notes that "A" is wrong because there is already a mention of "the Tree" in Mosaic writings and "B" is wrong because there is no mention of it in any of the current gospels.

In other words, Celsus, according to Origen, has made two mistakes, he has missed something that was in an earlier text and he has put in something that was not in the text.

If we assume that Celsus meant that the gospel of Mark only contains Jews saying Jesus was a carpenter and does not itself declare Jesus a carpenter, then he would have to explain that Celsus misunderstood the reference in the gospel of Mark. It would not be a case of Celsus missing something that was there and putting in something that wasn't, it would be a case of Celsus missing something that was there and misinterpreting something that was there. Origen would still have to explain why it was misinterpreted to make his meaning clear. He would still have to add something like, "Only the Jews call Jesus a carpenter, not any of the gospel writers."

Because the attack on Celsus is so nicely balanced as it stands -- he does not see what is there and he does see what is not there -- I think we have to conclude that the translation is correct and the apparent meaning is correct: there is no mention of Jesus being a carpenter in any of the gospels.

If there is some actual linguistic evidence of a mistranslation, we should then take that into account.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

bacht

Is the theological point of Jesus being a carpenter that he came to build a new 'house', replacing the old 'dwelling' of God (the temple)?