The last line underlined from Origen appears to argue why the books beyond the first 4 (Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn) should be considered truly as Gospel, even if they are not called out as Gospel typically as these four are, in answer to the objection immediately preceding, "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." His argument is that the name of Gospel applies to the "whole of the New Testament," regardless that "the name attaches itself most significantly to one of those things," i.e., the books called Gospels.
His argument is also that the Gospel is the first fruits of scripture, where first fruits come last. He argues that this is not disproven by the epistles and Revelation coming last, after the books called Gospels, because Origen argues that they are part of the "Gospel."
Origen's Understanding of the New Testament
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8615
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistl
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8615
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: Origen's Understanding of the New Testament
No offense intended, and I know you view this as relevant to the discussion over Pauline authenticity (and it may be), but we have a thread going for this.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Re: evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistl
Sure, but Oigen also makes interesting comments about those epistles -Peter Kirby wrote:The last line underlined from Origen appears to argue why the books beyond the first 4 (Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn) should be considered truly as Gospel, even if they are not called out as Gospel typically as these four are, in answer to the objection immediately preceding, "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." His argument is that the name of Gospel applies to the "whole of the New Testament," regardless that "the name attaches itself most significantly to one of those things," i.e., the books called Gospels.
His argument is also that the Gospel is the first fruits of scripture, where first fruits come last. He argues that this is not disproven by the epistles and Revelation coming last, after the books called Gospels, because Origen argues that they are part of the "Gospel."
It is like he is engaged in merging texts.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?
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8615
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: Origen's Understanding of the New Testament
Not sure what you're implying (and why).
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
- stephan happy huller
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
- Contact:
Re: Origen's Understanding of the New Testament
While it might not be applicable here there are examples outside of Origen of this phenomenon which point I think to the existence of a 'scrambled' canon of writings. In other words, when Irenaeus says that the heretics developed cento gospels or when critics of Secret Mark put up the idea of 'cento gospels' - I think there is a strong case that the order of the gospels and the Pauline letters - even the composition of each individual letters was deliberately scrambled to avoid the original context of the individual sections. You see it when comparing the short Syriac Epistles of Ignatius to the existing ones too. Someone actually fused two different epistles together to make to the Romans. The same happened in the Pauline corpus too and the gospel - breaking up a single long gospel into four texts.
Everyone loves the happy times
- stephan happy huller
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
- Contact:
Re: Origen's Understanding of the New Testament
Also compare Origen's Commentary on Matthew to the Diatessaron. I remember doing that once on a long flight (because Book 10 of the series has both texts - one at the beginning and the other at the end) I think there are whole sections which show that the Origen text wasn't a commentary on Matthew per se but a 'super gospel.'
Everyone loves the happy times
Re: Origen's Understanding of the New Testament
Interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a whole lot of that going on over a whole lot of years - over decades; across/over generations.stephan happy huller wrote:While it might not be applicable here there are examples outside of Origen of this phenomenon which point I think to the existence of a 'scrambled' canon of writings. In other words, when Irenaeus says that the heretics developed cento gospels or when critics of Secret Mark put up the idea of 'cento gospels' - I think there is a strong case that the order of the gospels and the Pauline letters - even the composition of each individual letters was deliberately scrambled to avoid the original context of the individual sections. You see it when comparing the short Syriac Epistles of Ignatius to the existing ones too. Someone actually fused two different epistles together to make to the Romans. The same happened in the Pauline corpus too and the gospel - breaking up a single long gospel into four texts.
That region was a melting pot theologically and culturally.
Re: Origen's Understanding of the New Testament
Writings attributed to Origen are evidence that the Jesus story used in the Churches was NOT the Four Gospels but another version.
Origen's Against Celsus 1.31
It was the Memoirs of the Apostles [the Gospels of the Disciples of Jesus] that was used in the Churches---NOT the Four Gospels.
The cave birth story of Jesus is NOT found in the Four Gospels but it is in the Memoirs of the Apostles.
Justin's Dialogue with Trypho LXXVIII
Origen's Against Celsus 1.31
Origen's Against Celsus 6.36With respect to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, if any one desires, after the prophecy of Micah and after the history recorded in the Gospels by the disciples of Jesus, to have additional evidence from other sources, let him know that, in conformity with the narrative in the Gospel regarding His birth, there is shown at Bethlehem the cave where He was born, and the manger in the cave where He was wrapped in swaddling-clothes.
Origen's Commentary on John 6.31....in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter.
Origen appears to corroborate the writings of Justin Martyr.Luke does not mention the place Jesus came from, but on the other hand he tells us what we do not learn from the others, that immediately after the baptism, as He was coming up, heaven was opened to Him, and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in bodily form like a dove.
It was the Memoirs of the Apostles [the Gospels of the Disciples of Jesus] that was used in the Churches---NOT the Four Gospels.
The cave birth story of Jesus is NOT found in the Four Gospels but it is in the Memoirs of the Apostles.
Justin's Dialogue with Trypho LXXVIII
But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him...