Tag Archives: Origen

Who wrote the Gospel of Mark (Part III)

Posted on by
Reply

Modified from original published on September 18, 2009

John MarkIn the first two posts on the Gospel of Mark we have examined the historical records of Papias (110) and Irenaeus (180). Both men were from Asia Minor who provided information regarding the author and dating of the book. They are two of the earliest pieces of information that we have.

Combining the two accounts we observed the following regarding the Gospel of Mark:

  1. Mark was the author.
  2. Mark wrote down what Peter was teaching and proclaiming.
  3. Mark was not a disciple of Jesus (while Jesus was alive).
  4. Mark wrote after Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome.

Another source of information regarding the Gospel of Mark is found in the Anti-Marcionite Prologues. These prologues were included with the Gospels in many Latin manuscripts and would have served a purpose similar to the summaries that precede a Biblical book in Bibles today. They provided the reader with information about the book.

All the prologues except for the Gospel of Matthew are still extant. The Anti-Marcionite Prologues are generally dated from the 2nd to the 4th century.

Mark made his assertion, who was also named stubby-fingers, on account that he had in comparison to the length of the rest of his body shorter fingers. He was a disciple and interpreter of Peter, whom he followed just as he heard him report. When he was requested at Rome by the brethren, he briefly wrote this gospel in parts of Italy. When Peter heard this, he approved and affirmed it by his own authority for the reading of the church. Truly, after the departure of Peter, this gospel which he himself put together having been taken up, he went away into Egypt and, ordained as the first bishop of Alexandria, announcing Christ, he constituted a church there. It was of such teaching and continence of life that it compels all followers of Christ to imitate its example.

The prologue confirms that Mark was the author and a disciple of Peter, however it does add some additional information:

  1. The book was written in Rome at the request of believers.
  2. Peter approved of the writing.

This information does seem to contradict the account in Irenaeus that the gospel was written after Peter was martyred.

We learn from this prologue another important piece of information regarding Mark. That after Peter died he went to Alexandria, Egypt and founded the church there. A fact that Eusebius (around 325) also records.

And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first established churches in Alexandria. (Eccl Hist 2.16)

Eusebius also confirms that the church of Rome requested Mark to write down Peter’s preaching and that Peter approved the content.

And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter’s hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark. And they say that Peter when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches.
(Eccl Hist 2.15)

The fourth century historian cites Clement of Alexandria as a witness regarding the authorship of the “Gospel according to Mark”. Clement was a bishop of Alexandria and prolific author. Eusebius quotes from Clement of Alexandria’s (180-200) work:

Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. (Eccl Hist 6.14)

Clement also tells us that the believers in Rome requested Mark to write down what Peter was teaching. However we have a discrepancy in this account as Peter did not approve (nor did he disapprove) the content.

Origen, a student of Clement, succeeded him as bishop of Alexandria. Origen affirms that Mark is the author who wrote what Peter was teaching in his commentary on Matthew (215-220):

“Among the four Gospels, 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,… The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his [universal] 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…. (Eccl Hist 6.25)

Origen, also ties together the earliest attestation we have that Mark was with Peter. This occurs in a letter written by Peter himself in the mid 60′s AD (1 Pet 5:13).

With the addition of the Anti-Marcionite Prologue, Clement, and Origen we get another line of information coming primarily from Alexandria, Egypt. What makes this information interesting is that history records that the author Mark was the founder of the church there and its first bishop. Their information may be better, even if it is later than Papias and Irenaeus, since it would likely be derived from the author of the book.

Note: Other early affirmations of Mark recording Peter’s preaching include Tertullian (208) in his books Against Marcion 4.5, however this account does not include information that helps us determine Peter’s involvement in the creation of the work.

[Continue reading through the series: part 4]

The Antioch Incident (Two Views) part 2

Posted on by
Reply

This is part 2 of a series of posts recreating the debate between Jerome and Augustine over the passage in Galatians 2:11-14. Think of it as the “cliff notes” to a series of letters written between them as a series of blog comments. I added some interaction with more recent debates to highlight how the issues we face today are not much different than those faced in the early centuries of Christianity. The comments are based on how I thought the theologians might respond to modern theological issues based on the point of view they expressed in their letters. You might want to start with part 1 and read Jerome’s blog post and the earlier comments.

Comment Section for the Antioch Incident

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo

Jerome, the high esteem that others hold you in is well deserved. Here in northern Africa we eagerly await your next set of translations of the Scriptures and ancient commentaries into the Latin. Thanks for updating everyone of your progress in your blog.I do hope you saw my comments regarding the use of the LXX that I left.

Regarding the events that took place in Antioch, you have appealed to the writings of those in the past and have asked if anyone holds to my opinion.The path you are taking us down is one well traveled. Like you Rob Bell, a popular writer, claims his views are orthodox appealing to the pool of diverse opinions that can be found among the ancient writers. He can even find many of the opinions he holds in Origen, yet that does not end the debate on “the fate of every person who ever lived”. Nor will it be the end to our debate.

I know that you hold Origen in high regard and where he holds to the truth we should accept him, but even you have had problems with some of his opinions on other matters. I only wish that you would apply your great learning and knowledge of this man and catalog his heresies for all to plainly see.

I, however, am not without support in the ancient writers. A hard working and well-read scholar like yourself is certainly familiar with the works of those great men who have labored for the gospel in ages past. Ambrose and Cyprian both share opinions that would agree with my own regarding the Antioch Incident.

As to the 7 names of men that share your view only 3 of them are credible as the rest have either left the church or had their writings and opinions censured.That leaves us with a score of 3-2 in your favor.

Not being as well read as you, I will be content to appeal to the Apostle Paul himself as my third supporter. Of course he is actually the only support that I really need because I place the Scriptures and the Apostle Paul above the opinions that are held by ancient writers no matter how wise and well educated they may be. I accept his testimony as true when he plainly said what Peter did was wrong. I do not accept that Paul presented as true that which he knew was false.

Jerome

Augustine, when time permits I will provide a more capable defense of this view, so that you do not accuse me of resting my opinion solely on the views of others. I am diligently working on translating the Scriptures as you well know, and hope to complete the Latin Vulgate soon.

I must point out to you that you ignore the task that I gave all who disagree with the opinion I expressed. If you wish to refute me then the burden lies with you to show how Paul was correct in condemning Peter for actions that he both condoned and practiced.

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo

When ever you present me with the gift of a response, I accept your words as sincere representing what you both think and affirm. I do not assume that you are deceiving me by saying things that you don’t actually mean.

Why would I not give Paul the same benefit of the doubt?

You are correct, we must examine the case by which Paul is accused of hypocrisy for condemning what he knew was right. But we must also examine whether Paul merely pretended to observe the law as you contend or consider the possibility that he actually performed Jewish rites without hypocrisy. For I cannot see how any case of hypocrisy is much better than the other. Are we really to choose between these options of 1) Paul condemned an action he knew to be right 2) Paul and Peter pretended to follow the Law and 3) Paul and Peter staged a rebuke. None of these seem worthy of these great men.

But my question still stands. Do the sacred books record falsehoods that the author presents as truth?

If this is the case we have no ground to stand on. How are we to seriously contend with a scholar like Peter Enns. He has adopted the view that Paul wrote falsely (even if Paul did not know it was a falsehood) when he wrote in Romans of the first Adam and the introduction of sin into this world?

Do you know how hard it would have been to deal with Pelagius and his notions of sin and the nature of man if these passages were not true. If he, as you do, could relegate as false any verse that demonstrated the folly of his ideas how would we be able to affirm anything as true. He could supply any meaning to a passage that suits his own opinions and call that the intended meaning. It would lead to chaos! I urge you to reconsider what you have written and write a rebuttal.

History merely repeats itself. It has all been done before. Nothing under the sun is truly new. (Eccles 1:9 NLT)

[click here for more comments]

The Antioch Incident (Two Views)

Posted on by
2

There are many blogs that examine passages in Scripture that have what might be called a “folk theology” interpretation. These posts then try to set the record straight explaining what is a more probable interpretation. Some examples are Jeremiah 29:11, Matthew 18:20, 2 Tim 2:13, and the notion “all sins are equal in God’s eyes” or “one little lie will send you to Hell”.

A passage that is not considered very controversial today or likely to get a closer look is the description of the Antioch Incident. But for the early church the event was pondered over and hotly debated.

This event is recounted in the letter to the Galatians (2:11-14) and went something like this: Peter is visiting Antioch, perhaps to see first-hand how the gospel is spreading to the Gentiles (Acts 11:19-26). While he is there, Peter sits down to some bacon, lettuce, tomato sandwiches with some Gentile believers. While they are enjoying their meal some Jewish believers sent by James arrive in Antioch. Peter sees them, excuses himself from the table, and leaves the room. Returning with a kosher fish sandwich, he joins the new group of Jewish believers and enjoys catching up on the latest Jerusalem news. Soon the other Jewish believers are getting up from the Gentile table – even Barnabas – and sit down with Peter and the new arrivals. The Gentiles are wondering what is going on and whether they must follow the Mosaic Law too. Overhearing this Paul, who has been eating alone in the corner, stands up marches across the room and has some words with Peter. He calls him out for his hypocritical behavior, which is encouraging the Gentiles to observe the Law and distorts the gospel.

We may stop for a moment and wonder why Paul chose to include this event as part of his defense of the Gospel? Or why Peter was afraid of the “circumcision party”? We are prudent to walk away from the event humble and alert to how our actions can impact the gospel since ‘even Barnabas’ was compelled to follow actions that contradicted the truth of the gospel. But what was it that sparked debate in the early church?

In this post we will look at how Jerome and Augustine wrestled with this passage as if they were writing and commenting in the blog-o-sphere. The source material will be several letters that were exchanged between these two theologians who have left a dramatic impact on Christianity.

The Antioch Incident

By Jerome (sometime in the 4th century)

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong. … when I saw that they were not behaving consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “If you, although you are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Gal 2:11,14)

What are we to make of this strange account given to us by Paul in his letter to the Galatians?

Porphyry, that noted philosopher and logician of old, does not consider Christians worthy of much attention. He has written against us calling us irrational and inconsistent. As an example he points out Paul as having wrongly rebuked Peter in Antioch. His claim is that Paul should not have corrected Peter, in front of a great many people no less, for engaging in the same behavior that he was in the habit of doing himself. What was this activity that Peter and Paul are both guilty of committing? Both were found observing Jewish precepts in order to win over Jewish people to Christ. Instead of remaining silent, Paul chose to humiliate Peter because he was envious of his position among those who are called Christians.

This philosopher has long been refuted by many, including the world renowned and widely published theologian, Origen. Who, if I may say so, was the mentor to my own teacher Didymus. This most distinguished teacher clearly shows the mistakes that are made in the conclusions drawn by Porphyry.

Porphyry rightly states that Paul adopted the practice that he accuses Peter of committing, becoming a Jew to the Jews so that he might win some (1 Cor 9:20). Therefore it can be concluded that Paul approved of Peter’s actions because he often imitated them.

But it must be noted that Peter and Paul were pretending to follow the Mosaic Law and did not do it out of sincerity as if they were actually doing them. For Peter and Paul both knew that the Mosaic Law was not in force now that the gospel was given. They only acted the part so that they might not offend the Jewish believers who were weaker in faith and had not understood that the Mosaic Law was obsolete and no longer to be followed. We must remember that this transition from Law to grace was still very new and was becoming accepted only with great difficulty. Hence neither Peter nor Paul sinned in regards to acting like Jews so that they might win them over.

Origen reminds us that things are not always as they seem. Paul did not foolishly choose to rebuke Peter for actions he actually condoned and practiced. Peter was guarding the weaker Jewish believers and Paul was guarding the weaker Gentile believers, so they chose to stage a rebuke of Peter with the purpose of reminding everyone that the way of salvation was not by the “works of the law” but through faith in Christ.

As for the reader, it must be left for you to decide if this interpretation is correct. However, if one chooses to reject this view then he must show how Paul could have rightly rebuked Peter for doing those actions which he used throughout his own ministry.

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo

Jerome, big fan of all your work. You are very diligent in your studies of the Scriptures and I always am eager to read your latest thoughts and insights. I regret that we can not engage in discussion sitting down together as friends. Anyone who reads your works will be mightily blessed.

I, however, find your latest entry to be indefensible. The very authority of Scripture is at stake if one is to adopt the view you propose. Can we accept that the authors of Scripture intended to write deceptive statements in the writings given to us for wisdom and edification?

For if Peter was acting correctly when he chose to leave the table of the Gentiles and to sit with the Jews, then what Paul wrote in his letter to the Galatians is false. Paul very clearly and plainly states for all to read that Peter was in the wrong and acted in a manner that contradicts the gospel (Gal 2:11,14). Now, if Paul wrote these statements which are not true why did he give no indication that they should not to be taken as fact? Instead, he wrote clearly that “in these writings I do not lie” (Gal 1:20). If Paul claims he did not lie then why should we assume that his statements are false? If I adopt your opinion then how can I have any confidence in even a single sentence in the Scriptures.

Only disaster can come from adopting your view as I hope you can now see. I must remain firm in this opinion unless I am refuted as to how the Scriptures can both contain false statements and be held with the highest authority.

Jerome

You pour out many kind words before you censure and publicly correct an old man, who finds joy in writing in the solitude that my retirement affords me. I am worn out from the race I have run and the battles I have fought, so I will skip with these pleasantries and get to the heart of the matter.

Were you to attack me alone for teaching falsehood that would be no small matter. But, in your rebuke you censure not my opinions, though I do hold to what I wrote, but the opinions of many illustrious men who exceed me in wisdom and spiritual insight.

For many hold to this view first put forth by Origen, including my very own mentor Didymus the blind. Others who hold to this view, whom you have undertaken to criticize are John who governs over the church of Constantinople, along with the bishop of Laodicea, Alexander, Eusebius of Emesa, and Theodorus of Heraclea.

Does anyone hold your view?

[click here for more comments]


The following letters were used as source material, with asterisks marking those letters that deal primarily with the Antioch Incident:
Augustine to Jerome letter 28 (*) , Augustine to Jerome letter 40 (*), Jerome to Augustine letter 68, Augustine to Jerome letter 71, Jerome to Augustine letter 72, Augustine to Jerome letter 73, Jerome to Augustine letter 75 (*), Augustine to Jerome letter 82 (*)

What is Orthodoxy? [Part 4] Is Origen Orthodox?

Posted on by
Reply

In the book Love Wins, Rob Bell speculates on what happens in the after-life opening up the door on various ideas claiming in an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News:

I think that the orthodox, historic, Christian tradition is this vast, diverse, conversation that’s been going on for thousands of years and I think Jesus can handle the discussion. It think he can handle the debate.

Based on these comments we have looked at the orthodox, historic, Christian tradition – or the Rule of Faith – in a series of posts exploring whether it is something that should be considered wide (vast/diverse) or narrow.

Now to this discussion I would like to look at Origen. Why? Because, Origen is considered one of the earliest writers who speculated on the after-life suggesting many ideas found in Love Wins. Origen (185-254) lived primarily in Alexandria, Egypt. His writings are later than the previous two apologists that we have examined and unlike Irenaeus and Tertullian, Origen is not writing against heresies. One might argue that rather he is creating them. In First Principles he is laying out a systematic theology of sorts.

Origen: On the After-Life

In this book Origen speculates on the after life. Before recording his ideas on this topic he writes:

But since the discourse has reminded us of the subjects of a future judgment and of retribution, and of the punishments of sinners, according to the threatenings of holy Scripture and the contents of the Church’s teaching—viz., that when the time of judgment comes, everlasting fire, and outer darkness, and a prison, and a furnace, and other punishments of like nature, have been prepared for sinners—let us see what our opinions on these points ought to be. [2.10.1]

From this two observations regarding the judgment and the punishment of sinners can be made – according to Origen:

  • they are according to Scripture.
  • they are according to the Church’s teaching.

Rather than jump into his opinions on the after-life, Origen next establishes that there is an after-life and a resurrection of the body:

there will be no absurdity in restating a few points from such works [other treaties he has composed], especially since some take offence at the creed of the Church, as if our belief in the resurrection were foolish, and altogether devoid of sense; and these are principally heretics, … [2.10.1]

From this two more observations can be – according to Origen:

  • a creed documenting the Church’s doctrine is in existence.
  • those who reject it are heretics.

Having established the resurrection of the dead and the immortality of the soul, Origen states that after we die God will raise out of up the natural body “a spiritual one capable of inheriting the heavens” for those that deserve it, while those that are “destined to everlasting fire or to severe punishments” are given a body that “cannot be corrupted or dissolved”. Based on this, Origen would certainly reject the annihilationist view of the after-life. Having established that the church teaches that there is an “everlasting fire”, he moves on to to “see what is the meaning of the threatening of eternal fire” [2.10.3].

Origen suggests that there are two possibilities [2.10.5]:

  1. psychological/emotional – the conscience torments the soul because it accuses/convicts the person of all the sin committed.
  2. physical – the pains of general punishment.

However it is his “opinion that another species of punishment may be understood to exist”. Here the pain is likened to the body being torn apart since the soul recognizes it is not connected to God and is in a disordered condition. This state when it has “been tested by the application of fire” will result in “restoration”. Here Origen is advocating the post-mortem evangelistic view.

He bases the restoration on:

  • “God our Physician, desiring to remove the defects of our souls”  will like a doctor take extreme measures to cure us and restore us. [2.10.6]
  • “Nothing is impossible to the Omnipotent, nor is anything incapable of restoration to its Creator” so the “destruction of the last enemy” is when the soul/body ceases to be an enemy and to be dead, but is rather restored. [3.6.5]

What should we make of these ideas in regard to orthodoxy?

Does that fact that Origen wrote out his ideas make them part of the historic, orthodox, Christian faith? Or are they one man’s ideas on what the after-life could be like. More importantly can the speculations withstand the teaching of the Scriptures and the church which even Origen acknowledged were to be the source of truth in his preface to First Principle:

Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance [...] it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite  limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these [areas that are in disagreement].

…

seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition. [preface]

Then he goes on to list what he considers plain and explicit doctrine clearly communicated by the apostles. Here is how they line up with the Apostles’ Creed.

Apostle’s Creed De Principiis (Preface)
I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into being [...]
And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord This just and good God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ [...]
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirity
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried [...] that this Jesus Christ was truly born, and did truly suffer, and did not endure this death common (to man) in appearance only, but did truly die;
He descended into hell
The third day he rose again from the dead that He did truly rise from the dead; and that after His resurrection He conversed with His disciples,
He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty and was taken up (into heaven).
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead the apostolic teaching is that the soul, having a substance and life of its own, shall, after its departure from the world, be rewarded according to its deserts, being destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its actions shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishments
I believe in the Holy Ghost the apostles related that the Holy Spirit was associated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son.
I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints [clearly acknowledges the teaching of the Church as the basis of truth]
The forgiveness of sins
The resurrection of the body And the life everlasting. that there is a time of resurrection from the dead [...]
Amen.

When Origen writes about his opinions on the after-life he shows that he is familiar with teachings that some will be raised to “eternal fire and punishments”. He then speculates that these punishments are restorative in nature. Even thought he attempts to support his ideas with Scripture he does not claim that these speculations are part of the Rule of Faith/creed. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that even Origen would not have considered his ideas or conclusions regarding “restorative punishment” as orthodox but rather his explanation to things that were (in his view) outside of the clear and plain teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

Is orthodoxy narrow or wide?

Is Origen’s list of clear teachings a good basis for orthodoxy? Can they be supported with Scripture?

Is there anything you agree with or disagree with in his list?