Origen, Comm. in Matth. 15:3: Marcion's distance from the enigmatic obscurity of Mark (and of Thomas)
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:06 am
Couchoud makes an interesting observation about Marcion:
(Paul-Louis Couchoud, Histoire de Jésus, p. 298, Presses Universitaires de France)
Translation:
Reading the relative passage in Origen:
...it seems rather clear that Marcion would have disapproved Mark also for his excessive allegorism, or at most enigmatic obscurity, his double meaning.
Who has read the best commentaries on Mark knows very well, I think, that Mark is the gospel of the double meaning par excellence.
So I am inclined to think that this "enigmatic obscurity" could well work as an anti-marcionite weapon.
A way to say, again and again:
you Marcion argued for a Jesus who preaches simple and clear that the Law of the evil demiurge YHWH has to be abandoned. Period. We, against your Jesus, we argue that Jesus preached in a cryptic and obscure way, to eclipse the fact that your Jesus preached the pure and simple desertion of the Law of the Creator.
On sait ce qu'il disait d'un des rares passages de Matthieu qui eussent pu obtenir son suffrage, celui où Jésus énumère parmi les eunuques "ceux qui se sont faits eunuques pour le Royaume des Cieux" (Matth. 19:12). Il réprouvait une telle façon de désigner la continence volontaire. Selon lui les préceptes de Jésus étaient toujours simples et nus, sans obscurité énigmatique ni double sens. [Origen, Comm. in Matth. 15:3]
(Paul-Louis Couchoud, Histoire de Jésus, p. 298, Presses Universitaires de France)
Translation:
We know what he [Marcion] said of one of the rare passages of Matthew which could have obtained his vote, the one where Jesus lists among the eunuchs "those who made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 19:12) . He disapproved such a way of designating voluntary continence. According to him, the precepts of Jesus were always simple and bare, without enigmatic obscurity or double meaning. [Origen, Comm. in Matth. 15: 3]
Reading the relative passage in Origen:
For if the hand which seizes the testicles of a man is cut off, how will it not also be so for the person who on account of ignorance of the way which leads to moderation has given himself to such a dubious state?
Therefore, let the one who is about [K356] to dare to do such a thing take account, what he will endure from those who cast reproaches and avail themselves of this text, “A eunuch and one who is mutilated will not enter into the Church of the Lord” (Deut 23.2), so numbering the man himself among those who have been mutilated. Nor have I yet mentioned what
things he may suffer out of season [παρὰ καιρὸν] from the seed being hindered (as the students of physicians say) from descending from the head [M1261] to the male parts, which, while descending through certain vessels near the cheeks, causes hair to grow for men around the chin by the natural heat of the [seed] that is descending. Those who consider it
necessary to make themselves eunuchs in a somatic sense on account of the kingdom of heavens are indeed lacking such hair. Should they experience such things as a heaviness in the head and dizziness which sometimes comes upon the principal part [of the soul]18 and agitates the imagistic faculty so that it imagines unnatural things, from something so
material [as literal castration]? Before I come to the explanation of this passage, it must be said that if Marcion had really kept consistent with himself, when saying it is not necessary to allegorize the Scripture, he also would have rejected these passages as not having been said by the Savior, deeming it necessary [K357] either 1) to admit (along with affirming that the Savior had said these things) that one who has become a believer is persuaded to give himself over to dare to do such things, or 2) that, as it is not reasonable to dare to do such things as will bring slander against the word, one is not to believe these words to be from the Savior unless they might be allegorized.
Therefore, let the one who is about [K356] to dare to do such a thing take account, what he will endure from those who cast reproaches and avail themselves of this text, “A eunuch and one who is mutilated will not enter into the Church of the Lord” (Deut 23.2), so numbering the man himself among those who have been mutilated. Nor have I yet mentioned what
things he may suffer out of season [παρὰ καιρὸν] from the seed being hindered (as the students of physicians say) from descending from the head [M1261] to the male parts, which, while descending through certain vessels near the cheeks, causes hair to grow for men around the chin by the natural heat of the [seed] that is descending. Those who consider it
necessary to make themselves eunuchs in a somatic sense on account of the kingdom of heavens are indeed lacking such hair. Should they experience such things as a heaviness in the head and dizziness which sometimes comes upon the principal part [of the soul]18 and agitates the imagistic faculty so that it imagines unnatural things, from something so
material [as literal castration]? Before I come to the explanation of this passage, it must be said that if Marcion had really kept consistent with himself, when saying it is not necessary to allegorize the Scripture, he also would have rejected these passages as not having been said by the Savior, deeming it necessary [K357] either 1) to admit (along with affirming that the Savior had said these things) that one who has become a believer is persuaded to give himself over to dare to do such things, or 2) that, as it is not reasonable to dare to do such things as will bring slander against the word, one is not to believe these words to be from the Savior unless they might be allegorized.
...it seems rather clear that Marcion would have disapproved Mark also for his excessive allegorism, or at most enigmatic obscurity, his double meaning.
Who has read the best commentaries on Mark knows very well, I think, that Mark is the gospel of the double meaning par excellence.
So I am inclined to think that this "enigmatic obscurity" could well work as an anti-marcionite weapon.
A way to say, again and again:
you Marcion argued for a Jesus who preaches simple and clear that the Law of the evil demiurge YHWH has to be abandoned. Period. We, against your Jesus, we argue that Jesus preached in a cryptic and obscure way, to eclipse the fact that your Jesus preached the pure and simple desertion of the Law of the Creator.