Page 1 of 1
What Are the Odds that Origen DIDN'T Use his Master Ammonius's Gospel Canons in his Commentaries?
Posted: Thu May 16, 2019 7:33 am
by Secret Alias
Everyone knows that in both the Commentary on John and on Matthew there are numerous places where Origen makes reference to what parallel readings are found in other gospels. Do we really need proof that Origen used or did use Ammonius's gospel canons like Eusebius? Or is it fair to assume he knew them?
Re: What Are the Odds that Origen DIDN'T Use his Master Ammonius's Gospel Canons in his Commentaries?
Posted: Thu May 16, 2019 10:57 am
by andrewcriddle
Re: What Are the Odds that Origen DIDN'T Use his Master Ammonius's Gospel Canons in his Commentaries?
Posted: Thu May 16, 2019 8:23 pm
by Secret Alias
It's a great article. But the OP isn't addressed as far as I can see.
Re: What Are the Odds that Origen DIDN'T Use his Master Ammonius's Gospel Canons in his Commentaries?
Posted: Sat May 18, 2019 12:51 am
by andrewcriddle
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 8:23 pm
It's a great article. But the OP isn't addressed as far as I can see.
It suggests that Origen's work on the Septuagint was inspired by Ammonius' work on the Gospels.
This
pioneering piece of scholarship drew upon a long tradition of Alexandrian textual
scholarship and likely served as the inspiration for Origen’s more famous
Hexapla
Andrew Criddle
Re: What Are the Odds that Origen DIDN'T Use his Master Ammonius's Gospel Canons in his Commentaries?
Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 1:16 pm
by Secret Alias
Right, but what I was asking was - when Origen in the Commentary on Matthew says "and Mark say ... and Luke says" - and he lays out what Mark and Luke and sometimes John says in almost every entry - is he using Ammonius's book to do this?