Origen's Commentary on the Fourth Gospel, Book 5, Examined
G.D.O'BRADOVICH III
MAY 22, 2015
I Introduction
The following excerpt from Jean Hardouin demonstrates his view regarding the alleged writings of the Church Fathers:
"Those forgers so arranged among themselves...if but one of the monuments which they have invented falls away, the whole must necessarily collapse..yet it is ...their mutual consent-which shows the fraud. "(Prolegomena, Chapter 5, Section 4)
We have neither the time nor the inclination to read the hundreds of volumes of atheistic writings of the Church Fathers. However, we will seize upon the idea that if the writings of one of the Church Fathers can be shown to be a forgery, the rest will also be discredited.
There are dozens of Church Fathers and a handful of well known church Fathers. How are we to narrow our list to one Church Father?
“One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn’t belong.”
The following excerpt from Jean Hardouin demonstrates his view regarding the alleged writings of the Church Fathers:
"Those forgers so arranged among themselves...if but one of the monuments which they have invented falls away, the whole must necessarily collapse..yet it is ...their mutual consent-which shows the fraud. "(Prolegomena, Chapter 5, Section 4)
We have neither the time nor the inclination to read the hundreds of volumes of atheistic writings of the Church Fathers. However, we will seize upon the idea that if the writings of one of the Church Fathers can be shown to be a forgery, the rest will also be discredited.
There are dozens of Church Fathers and a handful of well known church Fathers. How are we to narrow our list to one Church Father?
“One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn’t belong.”
Saint Alexander of Alexandria
Saint Ambrose Saint Athanasius Saint Augustine Saint Barnabas Saint Basil the Great Saint Clement of Alexandria Saint Clement of Rome |
Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem Saint Dionysus of Rome Saint Ephraim the Syrian Saint Gregory the Great Saint Gregory of Nyssa Saint Hippolytus Saint Ignatius of Antioch |
Saint Jerome
Saint John Chrysostom Saint Justin Martyr Origen of Alexandria Saint Peter of Alexandria Saint Polycarp Saint Vincent of Lerins |
Origen is not a saint and this is due, in no small part, to the reason that he advocated universalism, that is, even Satan and the fallen angels will enjoy the benefit of Heaven.
Excerpts and Commentary from “Commentary on the Fourth Gospel, Book 5”
II Excerpts and Commentary from “Commentary on the Fourth Gospel, Book 5”
“I, for my part, am inclined to shrink from toil, and to avoid that danger which threatens from God those who give themselves to writing on divinity... For Solomon says in Ecclesiastes, My son, beware of making many books; there is no end of it, and much study is a weariness of the flesh. For we, except that text have some hidden meaning which we do not yet perceive, have directly transgressed the injunction, we have not guarded ourselves against making many books.
Origen suggests that those who write about theology are possibly threaten by God is a curious thought, but “much study is a weariness of the flesh” echoes Hardouin’s statement that reading the writings of the Church Fathers is “tedious”. Guarding oneself from writing many books is an injunction that Origen personally avoided.
"...and then that we ought not to compose many books... and I might appeal in support of this position to the fact that not even the saints found leisure to compose many books…”
The statement that the Christian “saints” did not have time to write many books is discredited by the hundreds of volumes that have reached our time.
“Sacred History seems to agree with the text in question, inasmuch as none of the saints composed several works, or set forth his views in a number of books. ...even such a one as Moses left behind him only five books.”
Origen clarifies that the authors of the Bible, even Moses, wrote few books.
“Paul, who fulfilled the Gospel from Jerusalem round about to Illyricum, [Romans 15:19] did not write epistles to all the churches he taught, and to those to whom he did write he sent no more than a few lines. “
We can not confirm or deny that Saint Paul wrote letters to all the churches where he taught. We take exception to the idea that “he sent no more than a few lines.”
The following is the letter found in the Book of Acts (15:23-29):
“The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”
It would be reasonable to describe this letter as a “few lines”. However, we can not honestly characterize the letter to the Romans, or any of Saint Paul’s letters, as “a few lines”. Origen is either ignorant of the Apostle’s writings or he is lying to the reader.
“And Peter.. left only one epistle of acknowledged genuineness. Suppose we allow that he left a second; for this is doubtful…”
Although Origen acknowledges one epistle, he ingeniously questions the “genuineness” of the second epistle of Saint Peter.
“What are we to say of him who leaned on Jesus' breast...who left one Gospel, though confessing that he could make so many that the world would not contain them? ... he wrote also the Apocalypse ... But he also left an epistle of very few lines. Suppose also a second and a third, since not all pronounce these to be genuine; but the two together do not amount to a hundred lines.”
Origen now observes that the most prolific author of the New Testament only wrote two books and one authentic epistle. Once again, Origen questions the authenticity of the New Testament canon, that is, the Second and Third Epistles of Saint John.
“We are obliged... to say that whoever speaks that which is foreign to religion is using many words…”
Origen is forward when he writes that commentators utilize many words, while religious authors write concisely. This echoes Hardouin’s sentiment that it takes more effort to manipulate the truth and write dishonestly than it is to relate the truth. This amount of words, truth and lies, can be judged by one book of Scripture and the hundreds of volumes of the Church Fathers.
“It appears, then, that the much speaking which is condemned is judged to be so rather from the nature of the views propounded, than from the number of the words pronounced. “
We note the use of the uncertain wording, “It appears...”. The nature of the views are to be condemned, rather than the number of words. We agree that the writings of the Church Fathers should be judged by the atheistic views they propound.
“Christ is written about even in the Pentateuch; He is spoken of in each of the Prophets, and in the Psalms, and... in all the Scriptures. “
We encounter the Orthodox belief that all Scripture speaks of Christ. If Origen only questioned Scripture, his writings would be recognized as atheistic and censured. He must include acceptable views if he wants his words to avoid being discovered and condemned. Therefore, Origen’s views must be condemned for questioning the authenticity of the New Testament canon and not for the majority of acceptable Christian teaching he relates.
“... if a proof that the sacred writings are one book... Moses also bears witness to the unity of the sacred book…”
Origen reiterates the Orthodox belief regarding the wholeness of Scripture by appealing to the authority of Moses.
“The Apostle says: According to my Gospel in Christ Jesus; he does not speak of Gospels in the plural, and, hence, they [the Marcionites] argue that as the Apostle only speaks of one Gospel in the singular, there was only one in existence. But they [the Marcionites] fail to see that…”
Origen is bring to our attention to a verse of Scripture that heretics use to question the unity of the Gospel. The less than causal reader will wonder why the Marcionites interpret this verse in an unusual manner that is removed from the clear and obvious meaning.
“...and what I am now concerned about is, not the quantity I may write, but the effect of what I say, lest, if I fail in this point, and set forth anything against the truth itself, even in one of my writings, I should prove to have transgressed the commandment, and to be a writer of many books. “
We read the ironic statement that Origen is concerned that if writes any false statements (“against the truth itself”), then he would “be a writer of many books.”
“Yet I see the heterodox assailing the holy Church of God in these days, under the pretence of higher wisdom, and bringing forward works in many volumes in which they offer expositions of the evangelical and apostolic writings…”
The “many volumes” and “expositions of evangelical and apostolic writings” by those with different opinions that supposedly concern Origen are identical to the endless commentaries that Hardouin refers to in his book.
“...and I fear that if I should be silent and should not put before our members the saving and true doctrines, these teachers might get a hold of curious souls…”
The “curious souls” of Origen are the same youths that are the target for all esoteric writing.
“... which, in the absence of wholesome nourishment, might go after food that is forbidden, and, in fact, unclean and horrible.”
Origen states that he does not want the “curious” reach for “forbidden food” or knowledge. We conclude that the atheist's denial of God also means that there is no resurrection. We agree that this realization of having only having a finite life is “horrible”.
“... one who is able to represent in a genuine manner the doctrine of the Church... should take his stand against historical fictions…”
Origen presents himself as one who knows Church doctrine and confronts “historical fictions”. Unfortunately, Origen does not expound upon these falsehoods of history. Fortunately, we possess the writings of Hardouin to explain where Origen is uncharacteristically silent.
“...and oppose to them the true and lofty evangelical message in which the agreement of the doctrines, found both in the so-called Old Testament and in the so-called New, appears so plainly and fully.”
Origen uses pious language (“true and lofty evangelical message”) only to subtly question the “so-called” testaments.
.”..for it may be that I am not endowed with that habit and disposition which he ought to have who is fitted by God to be a minister of the New Covenant…”
After much perseverance, we rewarded with a possibility (“may be that I am not endowed..”) by Origen that we can agree without hesitation. We notice the use of the “New Covenant” that is, we assume, synonymous with “the so-called “New Testament.
“I, for my part, am inclined to shrink from toil, and to avoid that danger which threatens from God those who give themselves to writing on divinity... For Solomon says in Ecclesiastes, My son, beware of making many books; there is no end of it, and much study is a weariness of the flesh. For we, except that text have some hidden meaning which we do not yet perceive, have directly transgressed the injunction, we have not guarded ourselves against making many books.
Origen suggests that those who write about theology are possibly threaten by God is a curious thought, but “much study is a weariness of the flesh” echoes Hardouin’s statement that reading the writings of the Church Fathers is “tedious”. Guarding oneself from writing many books is an injunction that Origen personally avoided.
"...and then that we ought not to compose many books... and I might appeal in support of this position to the fact that not even the saints found leisure to compose many books…”
The statement that the Christian “saints” did not have time to write many books is discredited by the hundreds of volumes that have reached our time.
“Sacred History seems to agree with the text in question, inasmuch as none of the saints composed several works, or set forth his views in a number of books. ...even such a one as Moses left behind him only five books.”
Origen clarifies that the authors of the Bible, even Moses, wrote few books.
“Paul, who fulfilled the Gospel from Jerusalem round about to Illyricum, [Romans 15:19] did not write epistles to all the churches he taught, and to those to whom he did write he sent no more than a few lines. “
We can not confirm or deny that Saint Paul wrote letters to all the churches where he taught. We take exception to the idea that “he sent no more than a few lines.”
The following is the letter found in the Book of Acts (15:23-29):
“The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”
It would be reasonable to describe this letter as a “few lines”. However, we can not honestly characterize the letter to the Romans, or any of Saint Paul’s letters, as “a few lines”. Origen is either ignorant of the Apostle’s writings or he is lying to the reader.
“And Peter.. left only one epistle of acknowledged genuineness. Suppose we allow that he left a second; for this is doubtful…”
Although Origen acknowledges one epistle, he ingeniously questions the “genuineness” of the second epistle of Saint Peter.
“What are we to say of him who leaned on Jesus' breast...who left one Gospel, though confessing that he could make so many that the world would not contain them? ... he wrote also the Apocalypse ... But he also left an epistle of very few lines. Suppose also a second and a third, since not all pronounce these to be genuine; but the two together do not amount to a hundred lines.”
Origen now observes that the most prolific author of the New Testament only wrote two books and one authentic epistle. Once again, Origen questions the authenticity of the New Testament canon, that is, the Second and Third Epistles of Saint John.
“We are obliged... to say that whoever speaks that which is foreign to religion is using many words…”
Origen is forward when he writes that commentators utilize many words, while religious authors write concisely. This echoes Hardouin’s sentiment that it takes more effort to manipulate the truth and write dishonestly than it is to relate the truth. This amount of words, truth and lies, can be judged by one book of Scripture and the hundreds of volumes of the Church Fathers.
“It appears, then, that the much speaking which is condemned is judged to be so rather from the nature of the views propounded, than from the number of the words pronounced. “
We note the use of the uncertain wording, “It appears...”. The nature of the views are to be condemned, rather than the number of words. We agree that the writings of the Church Fathers should be judged by the atheistic views they propound.
“Christ is written about even in the Pentateuch; He is spoken of in each of the Prophets, and in the Psalms, and... in all the Scriptures. “
We encounter the Orthodox belief that all Scripture speaks of Christ. If Origen only questioned Scripture, his writings would be recognized as atheistic and censured. He must include acceptable views if he wants his words to avoid being discovered and condemned. Therefore, Origen’s views must be condemned for questioning the authenticity of the New Testament canon and not for the majority of acceptable Christian teaching he relates.
“... if a proof that the sacred writings are one book... Moses also bears witness to the unity of the sacred book…”
Origen reiterates the Orthodox belief regarding the wholeness of Scripture by appealing to the authority of Moses.
“The Apostle says: According to my Gospel in Christ Jesus; he does not speak of Gospels in the plural, and, hence, they [the Marcionites] argue that as the Apostle only speaks of one Gospel in the singular, there was only one in existence. But they [the Marcionites] fail to see that…”
Origen is bring to our attention to a verse of Scripture that heretics use to question the unity of the Gospel. The less than causal reader will wonder why the Marcionites interpret this verse in an unusual manner that is removed from the clear and obvious meaning.
“...and what I am now concerned about is, not the quantity I may write, but the effect of what I say, lest, if I fail in this point, and set forth anything against the truth itself, even in one of my writings, I should prove to have transgressed the commandment, and to be a writer of many books. “
We read the ironic statement that Origen is concerned that if writes any false statements (“against the truth itself”), then he would “be a writer of many books.”
“Yet I see the heterodox assailing the holy Church of God in these days, under the pretence of higher wisdom, and bringing forward works in many volumes in which they offer expositions of the evangelical and apostolic writings…”
The “many volumes” and “expositions of evangelical and apostolic writings” by those with different opinions that supposedly concern Origen are identical to the endless commentaries that Hardouin refers to in his book.
“...and I fear that if I should be silent and should not put before our members the saving and true doctrines, these teachers might get a hold of curious souls…”
The “curious souls” of Origen are the same youths that are the target for all esoteric writing.
“... which, in the absence of wholesome nourishment, might go after food that is forbidden, and, in fact, unclean and horrible.”
Origen states that he does not want the “curious” reach for “forbidden food” or knowledge. We conclude that the atheist's denial of God also means that there is no resurrection. We agree that this realization of having only having a finite life is “horrible”.
“... one who is able to represent in a genuine manner the doctrine of the Church... should take his stand against historical fictions…”
Origen presents himself as one who knows Church doctrine and confronts “historical fictions”. Unfortunately, Origen does not expound upon these falsehoods of history. Fortunately, we possess the writings of Hardouin to explain where Origen is uncharacteristically silent.
“...and oppose to them the true and lofty evangelical message in which the agreement of the doctrines, found both in the so-called Old Testament and in the so-called New, appears so plainly and fully.”
Origen uses pious language (“true and lofty evangelical message”) only to subtly question the “so-called” testaments.
.”..for it may be that I am not endowed with that habit and disposition which he ought to have who is fitted by God to be a minister of the New Covenant…”
After much perseverance, we rewarded with a possibility (“may be that I am not endowed..”) by Origen that we can agree without hesitation. We notice the use of the “New Covenant” that is, we assume, synonymous with “the so-called “New Testament.
Conclusion
III. Conclusion
We recall that the first printing of Erasmus’ first edition in 1516 was titled the “New Teachings” and the second edition of 1519 was titled the “New Testament”. Subsequent editions of Erasmus’ work were titled the “New Testament”. Clearly, Erasmus did not know of the tradition of referring to the Gospel as the “New Testament”, although Origen allegedly wrote about the “so-called New Testament” 1,300 years before Erasmus. Therefore, the writings of Origen must have taken place after the second edition of 1519.
"Those forgers so arranged among themselves...if but one of the monuments [alleged writings of the Church Fathers] which they have invented falls away [is shown to be a forgery], the whole [of the alleged writings of the Church Fathers] must necessarily collapse..yet it is ...their mutual consent-[their consent or agreement when quoting the New Testament without variants] which shows the fraud. " (Prolegomena, Chapter 5, Section 4)
We recall that the first printing of Erasmus’ first edition in 1516 was titled the “New Teachings” and the second edition of 1519 was titled the “New Testament”. Subsequent editions of Erasmus’ work were titled the “New Testament”. Clearly, Erasmus did not know of the tradition of referring to the Gospel as the “New Testament”, although Origen allegedly wrote about the “so-called New Testament” 1,300 years before Erasmus. Therefore, the writings of Origen must have taken place after the second edition of 1519.
"Those forgers so arranged among themselves...if but one of the monuments [alleged writings of the Church Fathers] which they have invented falls away [is shown to be a forgery], the whole [of the alleged writings of the Church Fathers] must necessarily collapse..yet it is ...their mutual consent-[their consent or agreement when quoting the New Testament without variants] which shows the fraud. " (Prolegomena, Chapter 5, Section 4)