Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [GTh] Origen and Thomas 3: Methodology

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    ... Hi Stephen, Could you explain a little bit about what s going on here? I.e., what are the Greek catenae extracted from the homily (would that be the
    Message 1 of 9 , May 6, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      > "We have read many others, too, lest we appear ignorant of
      > anything, because of those people who think they know something
      > if they have examined these gospels." Though this declaration does
      > not appear among the Greek catenae extracted from the homily ...

      Hi Stephen,

      Could you explain a little bit about what's going on here? I.e., what are
      "the Greek catenae extracted from the homily" (would that be the homily
      on Luke?)? Do we have a version other than the catenae? Does the
      same situation, whatever it is, hold for all of Origen's works?

      Regards,
      Mike
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... Origen s homilies on Luke have mainly survived in a a Latin translation by Jerome. It has also partially survived in Greek, in the form of catenae or
      Message 2 of 9 , May 6, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        On May 6, 2009 2:38 PM, Michael Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
        >Could you explain a little bit about what's going on here? I.e., what are
        >"the Greek catenae extracted from the homily" (would that be the homily
        >on Luke?)? Do we have a version other than the catenae? Does the
        >same situation, whatever it is, hold for all of Origen's works?

        Origen's homilies on Luke have mainly survived in a a Latin translation
        by Jerome. It has also partially survived in Greek, in the form of
        "catenae" or brief excerpts combined with other patristic quotations
        to constitute a "chain" of commentaries on a verse. In addition,
        Ambrose was so heavily dependent on Origen for his commentary on Luke
        that Jerome accused him of plagiarism.

        As for other works of Origen, some of them have survived in Greek, but
        many others come down to use primarily in Latin translations by Jerome
        and Rufinus.

        Stephen

        --
        Stephen C. Carlson
        Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
        Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)
      • Michael Grondin
        ... As you can tell, I don t know much about this, but if you don t mind, I have a followup question based solely on trying to follow your reasoning. If
        Message 3 of 9 , May 6, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          > Origen's homilies on Luke have mainly survived in a Latin translation
          > by Jerome. It has also partially survived in Greek, in the form of
          > "catenae" or brief excerpts combined with other patristic quotations ...

          As you can tell, I don't know much about this, but if you don't mind,
          I have a followup question based solely on trying to follow your reasoning.
          If Origen's homilies on Luke (how many?) survived in a Latin translation
          by Jerome, why do you write about the Origen statement in question:

          > Though this declaration does not appear among the Greek catenae
          > extracted from the homily, it is probably original because a similar
          > statement in Ambrose's commentary on Luke, which borrows heavily
          > from Origen, is present in the same context.

          Do you ignore Jerome's Latin translation here because the statement
          in question isn't in it? In that case, wouldn't it be better to describe
          the situation as being one in which the declaration appears in
          _neither_ the Greek catenae nor in Jerome's translation (the latter
          being presumably more complete, hence if anything perhaps even
          more worthy of mention in this context than the catenae)?

          Cheers,
          Mike
        • sarban
          ... From: Michael Grondin To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:27 PM Subject: Re: [GTh] Origen and Thomas 3: Methodology ... As you can
          Message 4 of 9 , May 6, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Michael Grondin
            To: gthomas@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:27 PM
            Subject: Re: [GTh] Origen and Thomas 3: Methodology





            > Origen's homilies on Luke have mainly survived in a Latin translation
            > by Jerome. It has also partially survived in Greek, in the form of
            > "catenae" or brief excerpts combined with other patristic quotations ...

            As you can tell, I don't know much about this, but if you don't mind,
            I have a followup question based solely on trying to follow your reasoning.
            If Origen's homilies on Luke (how many?) survived in a Latin translation
            by Jerome, why do you write about the Origen statement in question:

            > Though this declaration does not appear among the Greek catenae
            > extracted from the homily, it is probably original because a similar
            > statement in Ambrose's commentary on Luke, which borrows heavily
            > from Origen, is present in the same context.

            Do you ignore Jerome's Latin translation here because the statement
            in question isn't in it? In that case, wouldn't it be better to describe
            the situation as being one in which the declaration appears in
            _neither_ the Greek catenae nor in Jerome's translation (the latter
            being presumably more complete, hence if anything perhaps even
            more worthy of mention in this context than the catenae)?


            Hi Mike


            The statement is in Jerome but not the Greek catenae.

            At first sight this would just mean that the statement was not one of the extracts selected for the catenae. However there is a general problem that Jerome and Rufinus 'translated' freely in line with the theological concerns of a later age. Hence there is a potential concern that 'orthodox' passages in the Latin translations not found in the Greek extracts may have been added by the Latin translator. However, the parallel in Ambrose seems to rule that out.

            Andrew Criddle





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            ... No, the statement is in Jerome s translation. I m just arguing that it wasn t something Jerome added during his translation. Stephen -- Stephen C. Carlson
            Message 5 of 9 , May 6, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              On May 6, 2009 4:27 PM, Michael Grondin <mwgrondin@...> wrote:
              >Do you ignore Jerome's Latin translation here because the statement
              >in question isn't in it?

              No, the statement is in Jerome's translation. I'm just arguing that
              it wasn't something Jerome added during his translation.

              Stephen

              --
              Stephen C. Carlson
              Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
              Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)
            • Michael Grondin
              Thanks, Andrew. That clears up that question nicely, to my mind. (Confirmation from Stephen just came in, but I was already quite sure that it would be
              Message 6 of 9 , May 6, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks, Andrew. That clears up that question nicely, to my mind.
                (Confirmation from Stephen just came in, but I was already quite
                sure that it would be confirmed.) Stephen's SBL audience would
                no doubt understand why that passage was written as it was. For
                our audience, (including myself), I think it was good that it be
                spelled out.

                Mike
              • Judy Redman
                Stephen, Thanks for your postings. I am finding them interesting. As I read this your treatment of whether Origen had only heard about Thomas or had actually
                Message 7 of 9 , May 10, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Stephen,

                  Thanks for your postings. I am finding them interesting.

                  As I read this your treatment of whether Origen had only heard about Thomas or had actually read it, it occurred to me that one of the possibilities was that he had had access to some of the oral traditions in circulation which Thomas used, rather than having read Thomas. This is because I am interested in the field, but so are quite a few other scholars.

                  Of course, Origen actually names "According to Thomas", rather than simply quoting material from it, so he is aware of the existence of the actual document and certainly implies that he's read it, so it is highly unlikely that he is quoting from orally traditions when he uses non-canonical Thomas material. This may be worth mentioning in passing, or storing in your mind in case someone asks. :-)

                  Judy

                  --
                  "Politics is the work we do to keep the world safe for our spirituality" - Judith Plaskow, Phoenix Rising, 2000

                  Rev Judy Redman
                  PhD candidate & Uniting Church Chaplain
                  University of New England Armidale 2351
                  ph: +61 2 6773 3739
                  fax: +61 2 6773 3749
                  web: http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~jredman2 and
                  http://judyredman.wordpress.com/
                  email: jredman2@...
                • Stephen C. Carlson
                  ... Great question, Judy. As we ll see in the next excerpt, Origen explicitly said that he read the source. Stephen -- Stephen C. Carlson Ph.D. student,
                  Message 8 of 9 , May 11, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On May 10, 2009 10:00 PM, Judy Redman <jredman@...> wrote:
                    >Thanks for your postings. I am finding them interesting.
                    >
                    >As I read this your treatment of whether Origen had only heard about
                    >Thomas or had actually read it, it occurred to me that one of the
                    >possibilities was that he had had access to some of the oral traditions
                    >in circulation which Thomas used, rather than having read Thomas. This
                    >is because I am interested in the field, but so are quite a few other scholars.
                    >
                    >Of course, Origen actually names "According to Thomas", rather than simply
                    >quoting material from it, so he is aware of the existence of the actual
                    >document and certainly implies that he's read it, so it is highly unlikely
                    >that he is quoting from orally traditions when he uses non-canonical Thomas
                    >material. This may be worth mentioning in passing, or storing in your mind
                    >in case someone asks. :-)

                    Great question, Judy. As we'll see in the next excerpt, Origen explicitly
                    said that he "read" the source.

                    Stephen

                    --
                    Stephen C. Carlson
                    Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
                    Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.