Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| His Review of the Canonical Scriptures.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter XXV.—His Review of the Canonical
Scriptures.
1. When
expounding the first Psalm,1970
| 1970 On
Origen’s commentary on Psalms, see the previous chapter, note 3.
The first fragment given here by Eusebius is found also in the
Philocalia, chap. 3, where it forms part of a somewhat longer
extract. The second fragment is extant only in this chapter of
Eusebius’ History. | he gives a
catalogue of the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament1971
| 1971 On
the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament, see Bk. III. chap. 10, note 1.
Upon Origen’s omission of the twelve minor prophets and the
insertion of the apocryphal epistle of Jeremiah, see the same
note. | as follows:
“It should be stated that
the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are
twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters.”
Farther on he says:
2. “The twenty-two books
of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis,
but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Bresith,1972
| 1972 I
have reproduced Origen’s Greek transliteration of this and the
following Hebrew words letter by letter. It will be seen by a
comparison of the words with the Hebrew titles of the books, as we now
have them, that Origen’s pronunciation of Hebrew, even after
making all due allowance for a difference in the pronunciation of the
Greek and for changes in the Hebrew text, must have been, in many
respects, quite different from ours. | which means, ‘In the
beginning’; Exodus, Welesmoth,1973
| 1973 Οὐελεσμώθ. I represent the diphthong οὐ at the beginning of a word
by “w.” | that is,
‘These are the names’; Leviticus, Wikra, ‘And he
called‘; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim,
‘These are the words’; Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben
Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First and
Second of Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, ‘The called of
God’; the Third and Fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that
is, ‘The kingdom of David’; of the Chronicles, the First
and Second in one, Dabreïamein, that is, ‘Records of
days’; Esdras,1974
| 1974 The first and second books of Esdras here referred to are not the
apocryphal books known by that name, but Ezra and Nehemiah, which in
the Hebrew canon formed but one book, as Origen says here, but which in
the LXX were separated (see above, Bk. III. chap. 10, note 4). Esdras
is simply the form which the word Ezra assumes in Greek. | First and
Second in one, Ezra, that is, ‘An assistant’; the book of
Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth; Ecclesiastes,
Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir
Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle
in one, Jeremia; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther,
Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled
Sarbeth Sabanaiel.”1975
| 1975 Whether this sentence closed Origen’s discussion of the
Hebrew canon, or whether he went on to mention the other apocryphal
books, we cannot tell. The latter seems intrinsically much more
probable, for it is difficult to understand the insertion of the
Maccabees in this connection, and the omission of all the others; for
the Maccabees, as is clear from the words žξω δὲ
τούτων ἐστὶ
τὰ
Μακκαβαϊκ€, are not reckoned by Origen among the twenty-two books as
a part of the Hebrew canon. At the same time, it is hardly conceivable
that Eusebius should have broken off thus, in the midst of a passage,
without any explanation; though it is, of course, not impossible that
he gives only the first sentence of the new paragraph on the books of
the LXX, in order to show that the discussion of the Hebrew canon
closes, and a new subject is introduced at this point. But, however
that may be, it must be regarded as certain that Origen did not reckon
the books of the Maccabees as a part of the Hebrew canon, and on the
other hand, that he did reckon those books, as well as others (if not
all) of the books given in the LXX, as inspired Scripture. This latter
fact is proved by his use of these books indiscriminately with those of
the Hebrew canon as sources for dogmatic proof texts, and also by his
express citation of at least some of them as Scripture (cf. on this
subject, Redepenning, p. 235 sq.). We must conclude, therefore, that
Origen did not adopt the Hebrew canon as his own, but that he states it
as clearly as he does in this place, in order to bring concretely
before the minds of his readers the difference between the canon of the
Jews and the canon of the Christians, who looked upon the LXX as the
more authoritative form of the Old Testament. Perhaps he had in view
the same purpose that led him to compare the Hebrew text and the LXX in
his Hexapla (see chap. 16, note 8). | He gives these
in the above-mentioned work.
3. In his first book on Matthew’s Gospel,1976
| 1976 On Origen’s Commentary on Matthew, see chap. 36, note 4. The
fragment given here by Eusebius is all that is extant of the first book
of the commentary. | maintaining the Canon of the Church, he
testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as
follows:
4. “Among the four
Gospels,1977
| 1977 Compare Origen’s Hom. I. in Lucam: Ecclesia quatuor habet
evangelia, hæresea plurima; and multi conati sunt scribere,
sed et multi conati sunt ordinare: quatuor tantum evangelia sunt
probata, &c. Compare also Irenæus, Adv. Hær.
III. 11, 8, where the attempt is made to show that it is impossible for
the Gospels to be either more or fewer in number than four; and the
Muratorian Fragment where the four Gospels are named, but the number
four is not represented as in itself the necessary number; also
Tertullian’s Adv. Marc. IV. 2, and elsewhere. | which are the only indisputable
ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition
that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but
afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the
converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language.1978
| 1978 See Bk. III. chap. 24, note 5. |
5. The second is by Mark, who
composed it according to the instructions of Peter,1979
| 1979 See Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4. | who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges
him as a son, saying, ‘The church that is at Babylon elected
together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Marcus, my son.’1980
6. And the third by Luke, the
Gospel commended by Paul,1981
| 1981 See Bk. III. chap. 4, notes 12 and 15. Origen refers here
to 2
Cor. viii. 18, where, however, it is clear that the reference is not to
any specific Gospel any more than in the passages referred to above,
III. 4, note 15. | and composed
for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.”1982
| 1982 See Bk. III. chap. 24. |
7. In the fifth book of his
Expositions of John’s Gospel, he speaks thus concerning the
epistles of the apostles:1983
| 1983 This fragment from the fifth book of Origen’s commentary on
John is extant only in this chapter. The context is not
preserved. | “But he
who was ‘made sufficient to be a minister of the New Testament,
not of the letter, but of the Spirit,’1984
that is, Paul, who ‘fully
preached the Gospel from Jerusalem and round about even unto
Illyricum,’1985
did not write
to all the churches which he had instructed and to those to which he
wrote he sent but few lines.1986
| 1986 See Bk. III. chap. 24, note 2. |
8. And Peter, on whom the Church
of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not
prevail,’1987
has left one
acknowledged epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful.1988
| 1988 On the first and second Epistles of Peter, see Bk. III. chap. 3,
notes 1 and 4. |
9. Why need we speak of him who
reclined upon the bosom of Jesus,1989
John, who
has left us one Gospel,1990
| 1990 On
John’s Gospel, see Bk. III. chap. 24, note 1; on the Apocalypse,
note 20; and on the epistles, notes 18 and 19 of the same
chapter. | though he
confessed that he might write so many that the world could not contain
them?1991
And he wrote also the Apocalypse, but was
commanded to keep silence and not to write the words of the seven
thunders.1992
10. He has left also an epistle
of very few lines; perhaps also a second and third; but not all
consider them genuine, and together they do not contain hundred
lines.”
11. In addition he makes the
following statements in regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews1993
| 1993 Upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, and Origen’s treatment of
it, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17. The two extracts given here by
Eusebius are the only fragments of Origen’s Homilies on the
Epistle to the Hebrews now extant. Four brief Latin fragments of his
commentary upon that epistle are preserved in the first book of
Pamphilus’ Defense of Origen, and are printed by
Lommatzsch in Vol. V. p. 297 sq. The commentaries (or
“books,” as they are called) are mentioned only in that
Defense. The catalogue of Jerome speaks only of “eighteen
homilies.” We know nothing about the extent or the date of
composition of these homilies and commentaries. | in his Homilies upon it: “That the
verbal style of the epistle entitled ‘To the Hebrews,’ is
not rude like the language of the apostle, who acknowledged himself
‘rude in speech’1994
that is, in
expression; but that its diction is purer Greek, any one who has the
power to discern differences of phraseology will
acknowledge.
12. Moreover, that the thoughts
of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged
apostolic writings, any one who carefully examines the apostolic text1995
| 1995 προσέχων,
τῇ ἀναγνώσει
τῇ
ἀποστολικ &
135·ν€γνωσις meant originally the act of reading, then also that which is
read. It thus came to be used (like ἀν€γνωσμα) of the pericope or text or section of the Scripture read
in church, and in the plural to designate the church lectionaries, or
service books. In the present case it is used evidently in a wider
sense of the text of Paul’s writings as a whole. This use of the
two words to indicate, not simply the selection read in church, but the
text of a book or books as a whole, was not at all uncommon, as may be
seen from the examples given by Suicer, although he does not mention
this wider signification among the uses of the word. See his
Thesaurus, s.v. | will admit.’
13. Farther on he adds:
“If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those
of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one
who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure
what had been said by his teacher. Therefore if any church holds that
this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without
reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul’s.
14. But who wrote the epistle,
in truth, God knows. The statement of some who have gone before us is
that Clement, bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, and of others
that Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it.” But
let this suffice on these matters. E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
