Origen's Understanding of the New Testament

[MrMacSon]

Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:56 pm

... We know that Church writers admitted the Pauline Corpus was composed AFTER the Four Gospels and After Revelation.

See Origen's Commentary on John and the Muratorian Canon.

Origen's Commentary on John 1

Here, however, some one may object, appealing to the notion just put forward of the unfolding of the first fruits last, and may say that the Acts and the letters of the Apostles came after the Gospels, and that this destroys our argument to the effect that the Gospel is the first fruits of all Scripture.

That's quite a significant statement by Origen!

[MrMacSon]

... See Origen's Commentary on John and the Muratorian Canon.

Origen's Commentary on John 1

Here, however, some one may object, appealing to the notion just put forward of the unfolding of the first fruits last, and may say that the Acts and the letters of the Apostles came after the Gospels, and that this destroys our argument to the effect that the Gospel is the first fruits of all Scripture.

The next few sentences are quite remarkable -

To this we must reply that it is the conviction of men who are wise in Christ, who have profited by those epistles which are current, and who see them to be vouched for by the testimonies deposited in the law and the prophets, that the apostolic writings are to be pronounced wise and worthy of belief, and that they have great authority, but that they are not on the same level with that "Thus says the Lord Almighty" (2 Corinthians 6:18).

Consider on this point the language of St. Paul. When he declares that "Every Scripture is inspired of God and profitable" (2 Timothy 3:16), does he include his own writings?

Or does he not include his dictum, "I say, and not the Lord" ( 1 Corinthians 7:12), and "So I ordain in all the churches" (1 Corinthians 7:17), and"What things I suffered at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra" ( 2 Timothy 3:11), and similar things which he writes in virtue of his own authority, and which do not quite possess the character of words flowing from divine inspiration.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101501.htm

Then

Must we also show that the old Scripture is not Gospel, since it does not point out the Coming One, but only foretells Him and heralds His coming at a future time; but that all the new Scripture is the Gospel.

dewitness/aa5874 has previously effectively said writings such as this by Origen are key; these passages seem, to me, to indeed highlight an evolving belief system.

[MrMacSon]

it is the conviction of men who are wise in Christ, who have profited by those epistles which are current, and who see them to be vouched for by the testimonies deposited in the law and the prophets, that the apostolic writings are to be pronounced wise and worthy of belief,

"conviction of men who have profitted by those epistles ... " would be what one expects for people seeking to be religious leaders.

the old Scripture is not Gospel, since it does not point out the Coming One, but only foretells Him and heralds His coming at a future time; but that all the new Scripture is the Gospel.

Seems pretty clear they are redacting and finalizing new 'scripture'.

[Peter Kirby]

"All the new scripture" in Origen sounds more like a reference to the New Testament and related writings taken to be "new scripture," and taken to be the Gospel, contrasted with "old scripture," the Jewish scriptures, which are not taken to be "Gospel, since it does not point out the Coming One, but only foretells Him and heralds His coming at a future time."

[MrMacSon]

"All the new scripture" in Origen sounds more like a reference to the New Testament and related writings taken to be "new scripture," and taken to be the Gospel, contrasted with "old scripture," the Jewish scriptures, which are not taken to be "Gospel, since it does not point out the Coming One, but only foretells Him and heralds His coming at a future time."

I think it's more than NT v OT (and versions of the OT).

I think it's widely agreed that the NT was developed out of OT prophecies - this is showing reference to, and discussion of, it being done.

This is intriguing -

Consider on this point the language of St. Paul. When he declares that "Every Scripture is inspired of God and profitable" (2 Timothy 3:16), does he include his own writings?

Or does he not include his dictum, "I say, and not the Lord" ( 1 Corinthians 7:12), and "So I ordain in all the churches" (1 Corinthians 7:17), and"What things I suffered at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra" ( 2 Timothy 3:11), and similar things which he writes in virtue of his own authority, and which do not quite possess the character of words flowing from divine inspiration.

Origen seems to be referring to evaluation of the Pauline writings for suitability for inclusion.

[Peter Kirby]

I don't know what Origen was really thinking. But one guess is that he was thinking that Paul didn't acknowledge his writings as scripture; that he knows that the evaluation of the post-Septuagint Christian texts as scripture ("new scripture") is not as ancient as the apostle Paul's statement. (Essentially the same position you'd hear from anyone reading Paul's epistles critically today; Origen was quite philological / scholarly in his approach to exegesis.)

[MrMacSon]

I don't know what Origen was really thinking. But one guess is that he was thinking that Paul didn't acknowledge his writings as scripture; that he knows that the evaluation of the post-Septuagint Christian texts as scripture ("new scripture") is not as ancient as the apostle Paul's statement.

I don't follow - "that he knows that the evaluation of the post-Septuagint Christian texts as scripture" .... 'he" - Origen?

The next text is this

Again, if God set in the Church (Ephesians 4:11) apostles and prophets and evangelists (gospellers), pastors and teachers, we must first enquire what was the office of the evangelist, and mark that it is not only to narrate how the Saviour cured a man who was blind from his birth, (John 9:1) or raised up a dead man who was already stinking, (John 11:39) or to state what extraordinary works he wrought; and the office of the evangelist being thus defined, we shall not hesitate to find Gospel in such discourse also as is not narrative but hortatory and intended to strengthen belief in the mission of Jesus; and thus we shall arrive at the position that whatever was written by the Apostles is Gospel. As to this second definition, it might be objected that the Epistles are not entitled Gospel, and that we are wrong in applying the name of Gospel to the whole of the New Testament. But to this we answer that it happens not unfrequently in Scripture when two or more persons or things are named by the same name, the name attaches itself most significantly to one of those things or persons.

in 5. All Scripture is Gospel; But the Gospels are Distinguished Above Other Scriptures.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101501.htm

"we shall not hesitate to find Gospel in such discourse also as is not narrative but hortatory and intended to strengthen belief in the mission of Jesus"

= formulating text that can be revered and exhorted ie. revelatory.

Orien seems to be clearly commenting on the formulation of the NT by merging chosen epistlic works with the Gospels - "when two or more persons or things are named by the same name, the name attaches itself most significantly to one of those things or persons."

[Peter Kirby]

Okay, sure. I see that. (and yes, he=Origen)

[MrMacSon]

Regarding the authenticity of the letters attributed t Paul, I think this passage in Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John (Book I) is highly note-worthy: it discusses the texts attributed to Paul and their relevance

5. All Scripture is Gospel; But the Gospels are Distinguished Above Other Scriptures.

Here, however, some one may object, appealing to the notion just put forward of the unfolding of the first fruits last, and may say that the Acts and the letters of the Apostles came after the Gospels, and that this destroys our argument to the effect that the Gospel is the first fruits of all Scripture. To this we must reply that it is the conviction of men who are wise in Christ, who have profited by those epistles which are current, and who see them to be vouched for by the testimonies deposited in the law and the prophets, that the apostolic writings are to be pronounced wise and worthy of belief, and that they have great authority, but that they are not on the same level with that "Thus says the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:18 Consider on this point the language of St. Paul. When he declares that 2 Timothy 3:16 "Every Scripture is inspired of God and profitable", does he include his own writings? Or does he not include his dictum, 1 Corinthians 7:12 "I say, and not the Lord", and 1 Corinthians 7:17 "So I ordain in all the churches", and 2 Timothy 3:11 "What things I suffered at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra", and similar things which he writes in virtue of his own authority, and which do not quite possess the character of words flowing from divine inspiration. Must we also show that the old Scripture is not Gospel, since it does not point out the Coming One, but only foretells Him and heralds His coming at a future time; but that all the new Scripture is the Gospel.

... we shall not hesitate to find Gospel in such discourse also as is not narrative but hortatory and intended to strengthen belief in the mission of Jesus; and thus we shall arrive at the position that whatever was written by the Apostles is Gospel. As to this second definition, it might be objected that the Epistles are not entitled Gospel, and that we are wrong in applying the name of Gospel to the whole of the New Testament. But to this we answer that it happens not unfrequently in Scripture when two or more persons or things are named by the same name, the name attaches itself most significantly to one of those things or persons. Thus the Saviour says, Matthew 23:8-9 "Call no man Master upon the earth"; while the Apostle says that Masters have been appointed in the Church. These latter accordingly will not be Masters in the strict sense of the dictum of the Gospel.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101501.htm

[MrMacSon]

I try to make a point that things Origen wrote concur with Detering's views about Paul, then someone comes along and throws a spanner in the works - arnoldo with "JPH"* - and my initial point is lost.

Does any one agree that the quoted works of Origen seem to be discussing the merits of the works attributed to Paul?

and that Origen seems to refer to works with different names or different sources being lumped together?

.

* [JWH's crtique of Detering's thoughts on Paul is superficial; a non-critique. The conclusion is waffle and fails to address other scholarly assessments; such as Pauline Acts likely being based on works of Josephus, for example].