Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 08-08-2011, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Origen's claim makes no sense to me. The internal structure of Mark's gospels and the way the encounter plays out in the different texts suggests that Mark originally did have the JtB story. Only Origen lies or else has a text from which that is removed or himself cannot remember.

There are OTHER possibilities.

What would Origen benefit by blatantly lying about the Gospels?

The writings atrributed to Origen should have been Publicly KNOWN by the CHURCH and HERETICS and circulated with those significant errors in the 3rd century.

The HERETICS should have been DELIGHTED to prove that Origen was NOT credible but a FICTION writer.

But, in any event, the writings attributed to Origen have confirmed that the Gospels and Church writings are UNRELIABLE historical sources.

mountainman · 08-08-2011, 09:00 AM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Avi,

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.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

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.

I had offered some comments pertinent to this topic, about a week ago, in another thread, post #3;

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=304873

How can we judge the reliability of Origen?

In view of Origen's own texts having been possibly interpolated, do we not require a second witness to confirm his observations?

avi

PhilosopherJay · 08-08-2011, 09:42 AM

Hi maryhelena,

Thanks.

Figuring out the gospels' relationships always gives me a headache. Mark and John seem to tap from some common sources. Matthew expands Mark and adds Q plus his own stuff, Luke uses Mark and Q and his own source. But then you have, I think Luke (or somebody else) harmonizing Mark and Matthew (but not John) with Luke.

The general themes and styles of each author can easily be seen, as you note, but the totality of changes is problematic.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Hi, PhilosopherJay

Great post, most fascination re Origen and what he says regarding what was not in his copies of gMark and gMatthew.

If the dove storyline has been added to gMark and gMatthew in order for their storyline to be harmonized with gLuke - methinks it was done out of misunderstanding of the JC storyline.....

I've been thinking along the lines that the four gospels could be viewed as being two 'editions' and not four 'editions' of the JC storyline. In other words, I'm thinking that gJohn and gMark are a 'pair' and gMatthew and gLuke are also a 'pair'. And if this is so, then Origen's statement re the lack of the dove story in early copies of gMark and gMatthew makes some sense....

The gospel 'pairs' are emphasizing two different elements of the baptism story - water and spirit. gMark goes with the water for JC and gJohn with the spirit, the dove. The same with gMatthew and gLuke. gMatthew goes with the water and gLuke goes with the spirit, the dove.

So, now, with the later misinformed desire to harmonize the baptism storyline - gMark and gMatthew are burdened with the spirit, the dove storyline - thus joining the two baptism elements, the water and the spirit - where the original storyline (re Origen) was to keep the water and the spirit storylines separate....

One could take this dualism, this paring of the gospels a step further - gJohn is the spiritual/theological storyline, gMark the 'human' adopted son of god. gMatthew the 'human' Davidic storyline and gLuke the spiritual rebirth, born again, storyline set from 6 c.e.

Just throwing some ideas out there....;-)

aa5874 · 08-08-2011, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi maryhelena,

Thanks.

Figuring out the gospels' relationships always gives me a headache. Mark and John seem to tap from some common sources. Matthew expands Mark and adds Q plus his own stuff, Luke uses Mark and Q and his own source. But then you have, I think Luke (or somebody else) harmonizing Mark and Matthew (but not John) with Luke.

gMark and gJohn are NOT close to at all. gMark has ZERO to do with SALVATION of the Jews or that Jesus died for the Sins of ALL Mankind or was SACRIFICED.

Examine the FUNDAMENTAL difference in gMark and gJohn.

Mark 4

Quote:

...10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. 11 And he said unto them...... all these things are done in parables....... lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them...

Joh 3:16 -

Quote:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

And further, the author of gJohn removed all the so-called Failed prophecies of Jesus found in gMark and virtually re-wrote the Jesus story found in gMark.

This is FINAL prayer of Jesus in gMark which was COMPLETELY discarded by the author of gJohn and REPLACED by an ENTIRE chapter which does NOT even include the words in gMark.

Mr 14:36 -

Quote:

And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

The author of gJohn DISCREDITS gMark's version of the Final prayer of Jesus.

John 17: -

Quote:

These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee.......4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.....

The author of gJohn appears to be embarrassed by the Synoptic Jesus story and changed the Jesus character to God Incarnate and the Creator not just the Child of a Holy Ghost.

Even the post-resurrection scene in gJohn consumes TWO whole chapters but in gMark, there is HARDLY a verse in the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

andrewcriddle · 08-08-2011, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Hi Jay

I'm away from my laptop but I just so happen to be doing a lot of research on the dating of the Commentary on John and I am certain that scholars have the wrong date for the Commentary. Origen says quite explicitly (1:4) that it was the first fruit of his labors since he first came to Alexandria. There is no evidence that Origen was born in Alexandria so the plain meaning of the text is that this is the first book written by Origen. The reason scholars ignore the evidence of Origen is because it contradicts the chronology of Eusebius. But I can demonstrate that Eusebius - here as in many places - is making up a second visit for Origen to Alexandria to cover up some embarrassing facts about the early Church

Hi Stephan

IIUC the scholarly consensus for Origen's Commentary on John is that it was written over a number of years with Origen moving from Alexandria to Caesarea in the process. IE book 1 would be written early in Origen's career and book 6 some years later.

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

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 08-08-2011, 12:22 PM

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

stephan huller · 08-08-2011, 01:40 PM

Thanks Andrew

I just saw Jay's date of 248 CE and did a double take. But what I am saying goes far beyond this. I have difficulty believing that Origen came back again to Alexandria after leaving c. 215 CE. I think Eusebius is quite deliberate about citing a original reference to 'Adamantius' in the section on Clement in Book Six and referencing it in such a way that he leaves open the possibility that this is an allusion to Origen. From memory he says something like 'Origen was also called' Adamantius.

We know that there were other Adamantius's. The anti-Marcionite Dialogues associated with a figure of this name are clearly one example. The title I think goes back to Ezekiel 28 and applied to all the great men of Alexandria (i.e. those who had 'hardened themselves' or became so impassable that they were like Adam before the fall).

I strongly suspect that the original report that Eusebius cites regarding this 'Adamantius' who went to Rome and then back to Alexandria was actually Clement rather than Origen. Notice the context.

We unfortunately no longer know where Eusebius is getting this original information but he goes out of his way to cite the Alexandrian as named 'Adamantius' so this name - rather than Origen or Clement - must have appeared in his original report. We see Epiphanius do the same thing when citing material from original sources.

My point would be that Eusebius is deliberately creating a second visit for Origen to Alexandria when there was none. This happens all the time in Patristic sources in the fourth century. Look at Gregory Nazianzus's claim about a visit for Gregory Thaumaturgus to Alexandria which scholars think is hogwash.

Why would Eusebius have made this up (and the subsequent reference to seeing manuscripts of the Stromata and the Treatise on the Resurrection with Origen's handwriting claiming the texts were written originally in Alexandria during the reign of Severus Alexander?).

I think Clement and Origen rather than being friends were irreconcilably hostile towards one another. Eusebius also goes to great lengths to claim Origen was Clement's student but has to go to Alexander of Jerusalem to get that information.

Odd that Origen and Clement would both write treatises called Stromata (which I think is wrongly translated as Miscellanies). I think the numbers of books in these series 7 and 10 point to the original reference being the progressive 'unveiling' of the tent of the ancient Israelites in the wilderness. It really means 'curtain' or 'hanging' (perhaps 'cover'). Strange that the two contemporaries would (a) not make reference to one another in their works (at least explicitly) and (b) would pen competing visions of the holy truth hidden by a series of coverings.

Contemporaneous authors only chose to write books with the same name if they are adversaries (i.e. here is the correct version of X). And to this end an important reference:

Quote:

Clement, a presbyter of Alexandria, in my judgment the most learned of men, wrote eight books of Stromata and as many of Outline Sketches, a treatise against the Gentiles, and three volumes called the Pedagogue. Is there any want of learning in these, or are they not rather drawn from the very heart of philosophy? Imitating him Origen (hunc imitatus Origenes) wrote ten books of Stromata, in which he compares together the opinions held respectively by Christians and by philosophers, and confirms all the dogmas of our religion by quotations from Plato and Aristotle, from Numenius and Cornutus [Jerome Letter to Magnus 4].

aa5874 · 08-08-2011, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

....IIUC the scholarly consensus for Origen's Commentary on John is that it was written over a number of years with Origen moving from Alexandria to Caesarea in the process. IE book 1 would be written early in Origen's career and book 6 some years later.

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

Andrew Criddle

What is the basis for your certainty? Without any corroborative source of antiquity you are certainly just speculating.

We can hardly be certain about anything yet you want people to think that you are "almost certain" about Origen's end time of writing the " Commentary of John" WITHOUT a shred of supporting evidence.

mountainman · 08-08-2011, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

We unfortunately no longer know where Eusebius is getting this original information but he goes out of his way to cite the Alexandrian as named 'Adamantius' so this name - rather than Origen or Clement - must have appeared in his original report. We see Epiphanius do the same thing when citing material from original sources.

My point would be that Eusebius is deliberately creating a second visit for Origen to Alexandria when there was none. This happens all the time in Patristic sources in the fourth century. Look at Gregory Nazianzus's claim about a visit for Gregory Thaumaturgus to Alexandria which scholars think is hogwash.

Why would Eusebius have made this up ......

Early Alexandrian Christianity - Eusebius and the Life of Origen - Robert M. Grant, professor of New Testament and Early Christianity ...

Quote:

Eusebius and the Life of Origen

Nearly everything that is recorded about the early history of Alexandrian Christianity lies in the Church History of Eusebius. Many Alexandrian theological writings are preserved, but as might be expected they cast little light on historical events. Now the basic difficulty with Eusebius' work is that it has to be classified as "official history." It therefore contains a judicious mixture of authentic record with a good deal of suppression of fact and occasional outright lies. He wrote it in defence of himself and his friends and their outlook toward the nascent imperial church establishment under God's messenger Constantine.

etc
etc
etc

PhilosopherJay · 08-09-2011, 08:19 AM

Hi Stephan,

Regarding the 248 date, I didn't really do any research on that. The Preterist Archive said 248, so I copied it.

I've noticed that other sites assign his Contra Celsus and Commentaries on Matthew to the year 248 as well. I'm not sure why.

I had considered the date largely irrelevant to the point I was making about a missing line in the gospels he read, but perhaps it isn't.

Incidentally, great point about contemporaneous authors. Possibly good to apply to the gospels themselves.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Thanks Andrew

I just saw Jay's date of 248 CE and did a double take. But what I am saying goes far beyond this. I have difficulty believing that Origen came back again to Alexandria after leaving c. 215 CE. I think Eusebius is quite deliberate about citing a original reference to 'Adamantius' in the section on Clement in Book Six and referencing it in such a way that he leaves open the possibility that this is an allusion to Origen. From memory he says something like 'Origen was also called' Adamantius.

We know that there were other Adamantius's. The anti-Marcionite Dialogues associated with a figure of this name are clearly one example. The title I think goes back to Ezekiel 28 and applied to all the great men of Alexandria (i.e. those who had 'hardened themselves' or became so impassable that they were like Adam before the fall).

I strongly suspect that the original report that Eusebius cites regarding this 'Adamantius' who went to Rome and then back to Alexandria was actually Clement rather than Origen. Notice the context.

We unfortunately no longer know where Eusebius is getting this original information but he goes out of his way to cite the Alexandrian as named 'Adamantius' so this name - rather than Origen or Clement - must have appeared in his original report. We see Epiphanius do the same thing when citing material from original sources.

My point would be that Eusebius is deliberately creating a second visit for Origen to Alexandria when there was none. This happens all the time in Patristic sources in the fourth century. Look at Gregory Nazianzus's claim about a visit for Gregory Thaumaturgus to Alexandria which scholars think is hogwash.

Why would Eusebius have made this up (and the subsequent reference to seeing manuscripts of the Stromata and the Treatise on the Resurrection with Origen's handwriting claiming the texts were written originally in Alexandria during the reign of Severus Alexander?).

I think Clement and Origen rather than being friends were irreconcilably hostile towards one another. Eusebius also goes to great lengths to claim Origen was Clement's student but has to go to Alexander of Jerusalem to get that information.

Odd that Origen and Clement would both write treatises called Stromata (which I think is wrongly translated as Miscellanies). I think the numbers of books in these series 7 and 10 point to the original reference being the progressive 'unveiling' of the tent of the ancient Israelites in the wilderness. It really means 'curtain' or 'hanging' (perhaps 'cover'). Strange that the two contemporaries would (a) not make reference to one another in their works (at least explicitly) and (b) would pen competing visions of the holy truth hidden by a series of coverings.

Contemporaneous authors only chose to write books with the same name if they are adversaries (i.e. here is the correct version of X). And to this end an important reference:

Quote:

Clement, a presbyter of Alexandria, in my judgment the most learned of men, wrote eight books of Stromata and as many of Outline Sketches, a treatise against the Gentiles, and three volumes called the Pedagogue. Is there any want of learning in these, or are they not rather drawn from the very heart of philosophy? Imitating him Origen (hunc imitatus Origenes) wrote ten books of Stromata, in which he compares together the opinions held respectively by Christians and by philosophers, and confirms all the dogmas of our religion by quotations from Plato and Aristotle, from Numenius and Cornutus [Jerome Letter to Magnus 4].

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

08-08-2011, 12:22 PM	#16
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.