Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Uncle Chip; Blogger; Forest Keeper; kosta50; annalex
Someone once listed your source as authoritative, and I still have problems with it...

Namely, the key is incorrect and misleading.

S indicates that the author does not mention the book in his catalog, which implies its rejection.

That is faulty logic. Jesus Himself doesn't mention all the books of the Old Testament as we know them. Would anyone suggest that He was rejecting Chronicles or Nehemiah?

Secondly, the listing is NOT accurate. For example, Origen DOES discuss some of the Deuterocannonical writings that your list supposedly says he didn't.

"You begin by saying, that when, in my discussion with our friend Bassus, I used the Scripture which contains the prophecy of Daniel when yet a young man in the affair of Susanna, I did this as if it had escaped me that this part of the book was spurious. You say that you praise this passage as elegantly written, but find fault with it as a more modern composition, and a forgery; and you add that the forger has had recourse to something which not even Philistion the play-writer would have used in his puns between prinos and prisein, schinos and schisis, which words as they sound in Greek can be used in this way, but not in Hebrew. In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behoves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon.Origen,To Africanus, 5

Origen is defending the Greek version of Daniel (which the Protestant reformers of the 1500's removed), as well as the story of Bel and the Dragon.

Later, Origen writes:

"Wherefore I think no other supposition is possible, than that they who had the reputation of wisdom, and the rulers and elders, took away from the people every passage which might bring them into discredit among the people. We need not wonder, then, if this history of the evil device of the licentious elders against Susanna is true, but was concealed and removed from the Scriptures by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of these elders." Origen,To Africanus,9

Origen gives his explanation to why the Greek version of Daniel was removed from the Hebrew Bible. Origen definetely considers it Scriptures.

How about this? "But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, 'The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense,' [Sirach 21:18] and have learnt 'to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us.’ [1 Pt 3:15] " Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12

Can we agree that Origen considered Sirach as Scripture?

"Tobias (as also Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews do not use. They are not even found in the Hebrew Apocrypha, as I learned from the Jews themselves." However, since the Churches use Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do. Tobias himself says, "Because I remembered God with all my heart; and the Most High gave me grace and beauty in the eyes of Nemessarus, and I was his purveyor; and I went into Media, and left in trust with Gabael, the brother of Gabrias, at Ragi, a city of Media, ten talents of silver" (Tobias, 1:12-14). Origen, To Africanus, 13

Origen speaks highly of Tobit. Elsewhere, he says "And it is written..." the formula used to describe a Scriptural passage.

"But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, ' ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.'" [2 Maccabees 7:28]" Origen, Fundamental Principles, 2:2

2 Maccabees is SCRIPTURE! Boy, Martin Luther would not be happy to hear this quote from Origen...

He also writes similarly about Wisdom as well. Thus, just in Origen, the website you post is woefully inadequate for those in search of the truth...

Regards

10,895 posted on 02/20/2007 6:57:04 AM PST by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10888 | View Replies ]


To: jo kus
You're right ---- Origen did place the deuteros in the fifth column of his Hexapla. Was there a time when he did not consider them to be part of the OT??? Was he the one who put them there in the first place??? Apparently Mellito's Old Testament did not have them. So Origen may have been the "origin" of the OT with deuterocanonicals.

But I am also sure that we all realize that citing Origen as authoritative on anything is fraught with errors as he was a well known heretic and corruptor of the texts of the scriptures.

10,900 posted on 02/20/2007 7:35:27 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10895 | View Replies ]

To: jo kus
Clearly, Origen (whose name the Protestants like to drop in order to justify their spurious canon) considers the books Luther rejected as Scripture!

Great quotes, jo.

10,902 posted on 02/20/2007 7:45:11 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10895 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson