FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-13-2006, 07:37 AM   #1
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default Did Origen refer to christians at all?

The following information has been taken from here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04039b.htm

It seems quite clear that Origen has been interpolated.
The question is this ...

Do you think it is possible that all christian references
in the works of Origen are plain and simple interpolations?



Quote:
EARLY USE OF THE CLEMENTINES

It was long believed that the early date of the Clementines was proved by the fact that they were twice quoted by Origen. One of these quotations occurs in the "Philocalia" of Sts. Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil (c. 360). Dr. Armitage Robinson showed in his edition of that work (1893) that the citation is an addition to the passage of Origen made by the compilers, or possibly by a later editor.

...[trim]...

PROBABLE DATE OF THE CLEMENTINES

We now know that the Clementine writer need not have lived before Origen. Let us add that there is no reason to think he was a Judæo-Christian, an Elchasaïte, or anti-Pauline, or anti-Marcionite, that he employed ancient sources, that he belonged to a secretive sect. We are free, then, to look out for indications of date without prejudice.

R. is certainly post-Nicene, as Waitz has shown. But we may go further. The curious passage R. iii. 2-11, which Rufinus omitted, and in which he seemed to hear Eunomius himself speaking, gives in fact the doctrine of Eunomius so exactly that it frequently almost cites the Apologeticus" (c. 362-3) of that heretic word for word. (The Eunomian doctrine is that the essence of God is to be unborn, consequently the Son Who is begotten is not God. He is a creature, the first-born of all creation and the Image of God. The Holy Ghost is the creature of the Son.) The agreement with Eunomius's ekthesis pisteos of 381-3 is less close. As the Eunomian passage was found by Rufinus in both the recensions of Clement known to him, we may suppose that the interpolation was made in the original work by a Eunomian about 365-70, before the abridgment R. was made about 370-80. (The word archiepiscopus used of St. James suggests the end of the fourth century.

Thanks for any constructive comments.



Pete Brown
mountainman is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 01:04 PM   #2
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman
The following information has been taken from here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04039b.htm

It seems quite clear that Origen has been interpolated.
The question is this ...

Do you think it is possible that all christian references
in the works of Origen are plain and simple interpolations?






Thanks for any constructive comments.



Pete Brown
Hard to say since neither you nor the article you cite provide the substance of Robinson's apparent argument for interpolation. The article merely states that he conclude the reference was an interpolation. We aren't give the evidence upon which he based that conclusion.

Why don't you provide it and we'll talk.
Gamera is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 01:24 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera
Hard to say since neither you nor the article you cite provide the substance of Robinson's apparent argument for interpolation. The article merely states that he conclude the reference was an interpolation. We aren't give the evidence upon which he based that conclusion.

Why don't you provide it and we'll talk.
Armitage Robinson and John Chapman (the author of the encyclopedia article) are usually considered careful scholars, so I wouldn't be surprised if their specific point hold up--that the person(s) who compiled the Philocalia using Origen as the main source added the reference to the pseudo-Clementines. In other words, the pseudo-Clementine reference is to attributed to the compiler(s) of the Philocalia, not to its main source, Origen.

Given the volume of Origen's work and its transmission apart from the Philocalia, Armitage Robison's point here really does not say anything remotely relevant about the state of Origen's text.

Stephen
S.C.Carlson is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 02:46 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: urban hell, UK
Posts: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman

Do you think it is possible that all christian references
in the works of Origen are plain and simple interpolations?
glancing at the text of de principiis, and particularly against celsus, where there is a christian-themed word every other sentence or so, i don't think you can even begin to argue that point.
steph s. is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 05:07 PM   #5
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steph s.
glancing at the text of de principiis, and particularly against celsus, where there is a christian-themed word every other sentence or so, i don't think you can even begin to argue that point.
Our argument will commence with the fact that Eusebius (under Pamphilus)
essentially inherited the entire contents, and indeed probably the sole
management of the preservation of the works of Origen in the physical
library of Caesarea. Much of Origen's source material, particularly his
more recent works, would have been physically located at this library.

Our argument is that Eusebius cut his teeth either interpolating, or
creating manuscripts out of the whole cloth, in the name of Origen,
starting with de principiis. Constantine sponsored this perversion.

Moreover we have the admission of the christian historian
Rufinus, in his Epilogue to Pamphilus the Martyr's Apology for
Origen Otherwise the Book Concerning the
Adulteration of the Works of Origen.
Addressed to Macarius at Pinetum a.d. 397.

Here is the text:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=169596

Rufinus must now re-insert the christian refefrences in the
philosophy of Origen, as quoted by Pamphilus, because -
he claims - the works were interpolated by "the arians",
and do not represent christian doctrine.

In other words, it is quite consistent to believe that the
literature of Origen (and Pamphilus about Origen) contained
absolutely no references at all to the fourth century religion
Constantine called christianity, until it was perverted by
Eusebius et al.




Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au
mountainman is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 05:15 PM   #6
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson
Given the volume of Origen's work and its transmission apart from the Philocalia, Armitage Robison's point here really does not say anything remotely relevant about the state of Origen's text.

Stephen
I have not yet allocated time to go through the entire set
of Origen's work, - it is quite voluminous.

How many works of Origen's are christian(TM)-philosophy free,
and how many mention the trade marked word "christian" or
indeed reference to the NT. Can anyone provide a quick
estimate on this ratio?


Pete Brown
mountainman is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 05:27 PM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
Default

You could start by looking here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/origen.html
S.C.Carlson is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 09:51 PM   #8
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson
You could start by looking here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/origen.html
Thanks. From Wace's summary ...

Quote:
His importance as a witness to the true text of N.T. is, nevertheless, invaluable. Notwithstanding the late date and scantiness of the MSS. in which his Greek writings have been preserved, and the general untrustworthiness of the Latin translations in points of textual detail, it would be possible to determine a pure text of a great part of N.T. from his writings alone (cf. Griesbach, Symb . Crit. t. ii.).
The literature was voluminous, but was it Origen's?

We have fourth century christian historians making
a point in saying that they "corrected" Origen's doctrines
(Rufinus. translating Greek to Latin 392CE) because
they believed that Origen's work had been interpolated
by heathens.


Pete Brown
mountainman is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 12:20 AM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera
Hard to say since neither you nor the article you cite provide the substance of Robinson's apparent argument for interpolation. The article merely states that he conclude the reference was an interpolation. We aren't give the evidence upon which he based that conclusion.
The Philocalia of Origen is an anthology from his works made by St. Basil and St. Gregory Nazianzen. How a passage from the ps.Clementine romances came into them later might be speculated, but we would need to see the passage. At all events, if someone scribbled a marginal note, it could find its way into the text.

The other passage is in the Latin translation of Origen of Matthew. All the Latin translations have been reedited, as Rufinus tells us. But it sounds as if the suggestion is that the Greek text from which it was made had been altered by Eunomian heretics; of course this sort of thing can happen.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 01:34 AM   #10
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse
The Philocalia of Origen is an anthology from his works made by St. Basil and St. Gregory Nazianzen. How a passage from the ps.Clementine romances came into them later might be speculated, but we would need to see the passage. At all events, if someone scribbled a marginal note, it could find its way into the text.

The other passage is in the Latin translation of Origen of Matthew. All the Latin translations have been reedited, as Rufinus tells us. But it sounds as if the suggestion is that the Greek text from which it was made had been altered by Eunomian heretics; of course this sort of thing can happen.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Let's stipulate that secondary texts like Origen's were subject to all kinds of redactions for all kinds of theological purposes. Even accepting that, it really doesn't support Pete's obsessive point that the real Origen never mentioned anything remotely Christian because Christianity was invented later by Constantine and then backed into older texts, including Origen's.

Given the density of Origen's writing as it applies to Christian references and themes, the idea that Constantine's henchmen backed Christianity into those text is somewhat absurb. Essentially they would have had to write the entire mss, since hardly a paragraph passes without Origen making a clear Christian reference.

In short this seems like a really desperate argument.
Gamera is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:14 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.