Day 2: ANF09 Book I.4-6 or FC80 Book 1.12-26

[Nemo]

ANF09 Book I.4-6 is FC80 Book 1.12-26

The focus of this section is the firstfruits of the Scriptures.

1. What is the firstfruits of all the Scripture?
2. What is the difference between OT and NT?
3. What is the difference between the gospels and the epistles in the NT?
4. What is the Gospel?

[Nemo]

By the time Origen wrote this commentary in early to mid 3rd century, the churches seemed to already have a New Testament in a form close to what we have today, i.e., with the four gospels followed by Acts and the epistles of the Apostles. Otherwise, Origen wouldn't be trying to make a distinction between these writings to clarify what he means by "firstfruits" of the Scriptures.

[Genni]

Nemo wrote: "By the time Origen wrote this commentary in early to mid 3rd century, the churches seemed to already have a New Testament in a form close to what we have today, i.e., with the four gospels followed..."

It is my understanding (ref. F.F. Bruce) that at this time there was still dispute about several books, including Hebrews and James, and that books like Didache and The Shepherd of Hermas were considered Scripture.

[Genni]

Again, if God set in the Church 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, or raised up a dead man who was already stinking, 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.

I hesitate with this. Just because an evangelist engaged in hortatory to "strengthen belief in the the mission of Jesus", that does not mean that that particular aspect is the gospel.

[John]

It never occurred to me that the earliest Christians, and especially the leaders of the churches, would need to make the case that the scripture they had...the 4 Gospels, Paul's writing and Peter's writing and others...were the same as the Hebrew Scriptures. It makes sense to me now thinking about it, but i live such an insular life that I have never known anyone (that I know of) that hasn't thought the Bible to be holy in some sense. I now understand why Origen had to start so far in front of John's Prologue with the basis of "what is scripture" and "what is Gospel" and "what is firstfruits."

[John]

Genni wrote: "Nemo wrote: "By the time Origen wrote this commentary in early to mid 3rd century, the churches seemed to already have a New Testament in a form close to what we have today, i.e., with the four gos..."

Yes, WHC Friend, Bart Ehrman and Luke Timothy Johnson all support that the canon was fluid at this early stage and that James and Hebrews had not entered the circulation.

[John]

On a personal note, i am finding the FC80 to be the more likable translation. This is pure opinion and observation. Nemo, thank you for posting both source chapters.

[Nemo]

John Angerer wrote: "On a personal note, i am finding the FC80 to be the more likable translation. This is pure opinion and observation. Nemo, thank you for posting both source chapters."

I also find the footnotes in FC80 helpful.

For example, it picks up the philosophical sense of the word "element", in which Origen refers to the Four Gospels as "the elements of the faith of the Church". The Four Gospels are so essential, so constitutional, to the Church that if any one Gospel is missing, the Church would not exist. I've never thought about it that way. Now I understand why Irenaeus says "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are".(Against Heresies III.11.8)

[Nemo]

"i live such an insular life that I have never known anyone (that I know of) that hasn't thought the Bible to be holy in some sense. "

If you read Bart Ehrman, you don't live an insular life. :)

[Nemo]

ANF09 1.5 (FC80 1.15)

the Acts and the letters of the Apostles came after the Gospels"

If I remember correctly, the modern scholarly consensus is that Paul's epistles were written before the four gospels, so when Origen says that the epistles came after the gospels, what order is he referring to?

[Nemo]

Genni wrote: "It is my understanding (ref. F.F. Bruce) that at this time there was still dispute about several books, including Hebrews and James"

I'm not surprised about James or some of the other "catholic epistles", but I haven't read any Church Father disputing Hebrews. Could you provide the primary source for that?

[Genni]

Nemo wrote: "Genni wrote: "It is my understanding (ref. F.F. Bruce) that at this time there was still dispute about several books, including Hebrews and James"

I'm not surprised about James or some of the othe..."

Maybe "dispute" was too strong of a word. It isn't that they disputed it in the sense of thinking it heresy, but rather that it was not accorded the same authority by some of the fathers as the letters of Paul, etc. Bruce points to Clement's First letter and Iranaeus, who appeals to a collection of writings that does not include Hebrews, James, and several others.

Otoh, Tertullian said that it had not come down to him as one of the NT books, but that in his opinion, he would rate it as apostolic. So maybe "dispute" is a little fitting? It does seem that the conversation was ongoing.

[Clark]

I submit that Origen is doing something quite different from the way people seem to be reading him. By doing his extended riff on "gospel" and "good things" and suchlike I submit he is emphasizing the connectedness and unity of all Scripture in Christ, and having fun playing with the words while he's doing it. His approach seems to be almost poetry rather than normal argument or exposition.

[Nemo]

Genni wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Genni wrote: "It is my understanding (ref. F.F. Bruce) that at this time there was still dispute about several books, including Hebrews and James"

I'm not surprised about James or som..."

For those interested in the development of the NT canon, the writings of Origen might be a good source of information. For starters, he was a bona fide biblical scholar and teacher in the Church, so he kew, perhaps better than anyone else of his time, what was considered Scripture in the church; secondly, he also travelled a lot and corresponded with other scholars, and so he was familiar with not only his local church, but also churches in other locations.