stephan huller

If you argue that there was a massive effort in the early third century to reconstitute the Bible, you are labeled a conspiracy theorist. The term of course has a negative connotation. Nevertheless how do we deny the fact that Clement and Origen - two men that supposedly had a 'teacher and student' relationship (even though Origen never acknowledges it) - had two different sets of scripture? The question has been explained that when Origen ran off to Caesarea he was forced to use different books. Yet his patron Ambrose was rich enough surely to have afforded him access to the 'true' scriptures of Alexandria if he so desired.

The plain fact is that Origen marks the clearest example of a rejection of the scriptures used by the earliest Christians. Nowhere is this clearer than in Origen's rejection of the LXX which was certainly used by his teacher Clement. Here is the clearest justification of Origen's break with tradition in the Letter to Julius Africanus:

Hanson and Kahle all agree that Origen is arguing for greater authority being given to the Hebrew text over the LXX. For most readers this is a 'no brainer' because the original Jewish scriptures (or at least most of them) where written in Hebrew. Yet this simple-minded interpretation fails to take into account the complete break with the past.

First of all, the Hebrew text that was used by the Jews in the third century was not necessarily the same as the original texts. The Masoretic text disagrees with the Samaritan and the DSS texts of the scriptures. Moreover the LXX often agrees with the Samaritan against the Masoretic. Yet even leaving the scholarly considerations aside, think for a moment about what Origen notes here in the Letter to Africanus. How could it be that the gospel writers, Paul, the early Fathers and even Origen's own teacher Clement were all mired in using an inaccurate version of the holy texts? Surely their interpretation could only be so good if their original data was faulty. If I use a map from 1953 to navigate my way around New York city I am going to be lost.

Yet it isn't just Origen's edition of the Jewish scriptures. Origen's text of Mark is different from Clement's. Origen is the first to use all the scriptures. He writes commentaries on all the gospels EXCEPT Mark the original Alexandrian gospel. As I have been noticing also his edition of the Pauline letters is completely different from Clement's. And all of this is just in 'one household' - i.e. the Alexandrian Church. What can account for this radical revision of history within Christianity?

Call me a conspiracy theorist but the fact that Origen was a 'gun for hire' - i.e. his relationship with his patron Ambrose has to factor into the equation. You could literally pay Origen to argue for something and he would do it. The fact that Origen's correspondent here is Julius Africanus and Africanus was very close to the Imperial government and the Emperor's in this period (a) had many Christians in their court and (b) were often described as believers has to factor into things.

Notice that even Africanus becomes a bishop of Emmaus is strange as this is the city in the revised Marcion gospel (Luke 24:13-27) that Jesus appeared to two disciples who were walking from Jerusalem. Coincidence? I am not so sure but I firmly believe the Christian scriptures underwent a complete revision in the early third century and Origen was paid to facilitate the transfer of authority.

Adam

I don't see evidence presented here of 3rd Century tampering with the New Testament. Lower Criticism accepts that various textual families already existed by then, such as Western, Alexandrian, and Caesarean.
For earlier tampering, the main suspicion falls on Marcion, who edited his favorite gospel, Luke, to remove the Western Non-Interpolation, particularly to eliminate unacceptable Christology that Jesus sweated blood at Gethsemane after an angel visited him (Luke 22:43-44).
The real issue goes back to the First Century, whether Higher Criticism can weed out supernaturalism that only turns up in later gospels. Only Q can help for that purpose, and only because its definition turns out to limit it to sayings, no narrative. The earliest stories about Jesus include miracles. Thus an a priori rejection of supernaturalism
drives many here to mythicism and a refusal to consider any evidence that eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus. If the gospels were written in the First Century, that's when any conspiracy occurred. But I have great difficulty getting my head around that--it pretty well requires a certainly that supernatural events do not occur.

GakuseiDon

Stephan, you bring up so many darn interesting topics I wish I had time to investigate them all!

One thing that sounds interesting is that IIUC the Samaritans only thought of the Pentateuch as being authentic. Do you have any links that provide differences between their Pentateuch and the Hebrew's' (either Hebrew or LXX)?

archibald

Er, what's so hard about getting your head around that?

stephan huller

Ok so let's start with the very basic problem. What would or could have caused Origen to abandon Clement's Bible, which for all intents and purposes we should identify as 'the official canon' of Alexandria? Look at how zealous the Catholics are at preserving their Vulgate text. Protestantism has infected the study of early Christianity so we take on 'Protestant assumptions' - i.e. that all Christians were free to decide upon 'the most accurate' or 'best' version of the scriptures. This is completely untenable. The scriptures were held to be holy down to the language they were preserved.

I can demonstrate this with a side by side comparison of Clement of Alexandria to Origen but let's leave this aside for the moment. Let's just deal with what the experts have noticed and indeed all experts have noted that Origen changed his use of the gospel of Mark and Matthew:

and now with respect to the Gospel of Matthew:

Now remember scholars explain this by implying that Origen somehow 'decided' or was forced by circumstance to change texts. Yet this is a very weak explanation. Not only Origen have the means to obtain the text, he is supposed to have went back to Alexandria c. 230 CE. He should have been able to get the original material back then. Why did he change? What can account for this amazingly significant decision?

It is impossible to overestimate the holiness ascribed to the Scriptures in the early Church. One didn't change recensions like fashion. Something significant must have 'convinced' Origen to change his mind.

And in case anyone is wondering - there is no record of a Commentary on Mark being associated with Origen. It is a false construct developed by Adela Collins in her Hermeneia commentary on Mark She argues that Origen might have compiled a commentary on Mark based on the way he exegetes Markan passages in his commentaries on Matthew and John (p. 105), but if he did there is no more trace of it. It's typical scholarly bullshit.

Adam

What I meant was, the evidence is so clear to me that the gospels and particularly Acts are First Century. To imagine ways that is not the case I would have to have some reason to "know" that they cannot be that early. See my thread, "Gospel Eyewitnesses" in which I even suggest names for the early writers: John Mark, Andrew, Nicodemus, Matthew (not the whole gospel), Peter, Simon of Cleopas, and John (as editor, not the whole gospel). http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=306983

But even if they wrote early, it could all be the lies of a conspirary. It's easier to get my head around that than to believe in mythicism. To do it later would have required too difficult an attention to hoking up what would looked like sources to 20th Century scholars, but why would they have bothered to do that? They would have needed supernatural guidance to help them to predict the far future and what it would take to fool us!

Adam

I had intended to include in my prior response (Post #2) to you that Origen would have had little reason to write a commentary on Mark, as almost all its verses would have been covered once, twice, or thrice in this other three gospel commentaries.
You are of course aware that Origen did not have any texts that divided Bible books into verses or even chapters. The papyri we have show no punctuation nor divisions between words. Certainly it would have been difficult to locate minor textual variants.
The honor that you acknowledge applied to the Scriptures argues against your thesis for wanton textual revolution.

stephan huller

But you miss the point. Origen's texts of the gospel changed. Origen's texts of the Pauline Epistles is not the same as previous generations of Alexandrian Christians (= Clement). Origen's switched recensions of the Jewish scriptures. This is titanic change. And what could account for it? Origen doesn't mention his teacher Clement who had an almost completely different version of the Bible. Did Origen think Clement was a holy man? I don' think so. If you don't accept his scriptures you can't accept his teachings. But it goes beyond just Origen. Origen's patron Ambrose was a deacon (= second in command/right hand man) in Alexandria. He too is said to have switched allegiances from Marcionitism (so Jerome). Here is another canon switcher. They are like an ancient Batman and Robin (perhaps Ambrose was more like Alfred or Commissioner Gordon to keep up the analogy).

If I can prove that Clement's letters of Paul were the same as the Marcionite recension of the Apostolikon then it can be argued that both Origen and Ambrose left neo-Marcionitism. I think the evidence is pretty compelling but I wait to show you until I publish it next year. The point for now is that you can't just pick and choose versions of the Bible and remain part of a pre-existent tradition. When Origen left Clement's Bible behind he also became a renegade from the Alexandrian tradition.

MCalavera

This is like two Christians arguing whether or not God created us through evolution or through direct creation.

stephan huller

How so?