Where does Origen deny that Jesus is Carpenter?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Where does Origen deny that Jesus is Carpenter?

Post by Giuseppe »

I read in a mythicist book that, in polemic against Celsus, ''Origen denies that Jesus is said to be a carpenter in any Gospel current in the Churches''. Can you say me where precisely Origen did so?

Therefore is Mark 6:3 of Mark an interpolation made after Origen?
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?”
And if it is an interpolation, then the same references to the brothers of Jesus, in the same verse, are a late addition?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Where does Origen deny that Jesus is Carpenter?

Post by GakuseiDon »

IIUC the question is whether Jesus was considered a carpenter himself, or a son of a carpenter. So "carpenter" is probably not an interpolation, but "son of" might have been added or removed at some stage.

The quote you want is from Origen's "Contra Celsus", Book 6, containing one of my favorite zingers from Celsus: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... en166.html
  • Ch 36:

    The subject of the "tree of life" will be more appropriately explained when we interpret the statements in the book of Genesis regarding the paradise planted by God. Celsus, moreover, has often mocked at the subject of a resurrection,--a doctrine which he did not comprehend; and on the present occasion, not satisfied with what he has formerly said, he adds, "And there is said to be a resurrection of the flesh by means of the tree;" not understanding, I think, the symbolical expression, that "through the tree came death, and through the tree comes life," because death was in Adam, and life in Christ. He next scoffs at the "tree," assailing it on two grounds, and saying, "For this reason is the tree introduced, either because our teacher was nailed to a cross, or because he was a carpenter by trade;" not observing that the tree of life is mentioned in the Mosaic writings, and being blind also to this, that in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter.

    Ch 37:

    Celsus, moreover, thinks that we have invented this "tree of life" to give an allegorical meaning to the cross; and in consequence of his error upon this point, he adds: "If he had happened to be cast down a precipice, or shoved into a pit, or suffocated by hanging, there would have been invented a precipice of life far beyond the heavens, or a pit of resurrection, or a cord of immortality." And again: "If the 'tree of life' were an invention, because he--Jesus-- (is reported) to have been a carpenter, it would follow that if he had been a leather-cutter, something would have been said about holy leather; or had he been a stone-cutter, about a blessed stone; or if a worker in iron, about an iron of love."
The second highlighted quote isn't relevant to your question, but it's the previously mentioned 'zinger' that I like. (Also repeated in longer form in Ch 34).
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Where does Origen deny that Jesus is Carpenter?

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote:and being blind also to this, that in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter.
Thanks. Therefore the identification of Jesus with the ''carpenter'' (allegory of the Creator god) was never made by the Christians like Origen. For the latter, Jesus could be only the Son of the Creator God (YHWH).

The identification 'Jesus= carpenter' could have only a symbolic meaning, for Origen: that Jesus was apparently the demiurge for the inhabitants of Nazaret (and that therefore he was really the son of another God: not the Creator God). Surely Origen didn't like that meaning.

This is a little Gnostic clues found in the Gospel of Mark.

The second highlighted quote isn't relevant to your question, but it's the previously mentioned 'zinger' that I like. (Also repeated in longer form in Ch 34).
Origen, moreover, in his book against Celsus, quotes the latter as saying :
“ You feed us with fables and cannot give them a shade of plausibility.”

At any case, if you want have evidence of a very old mythicist denial (by Gentile philosophers) of the existence of Jesus (possibly even before that he was euheumerized), read this thread).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Where does Origen deny that Jesus is Carpenter?

Post by Giuseppe »

So Rylands:
The statement that Jesus was a carpenter is evidently very late; for Origen, in controversy with Celsus, denies that Jesus is said to be a carpenter in any Gospel current in the Churches. For this and other reasons, verse 3 of Mark, chap, vi, except the last clause, may be confidently pronounced to be a late interpolation. Wherewith the brothers and sisters of Jesus also disappear. The idea that Jesus was the son of a carpenter, no doubt, came first; that he was a carpenter himself was an inference from this. The idea probably came into the Gospel story in the following way. It has already been mentioned that the Gnostics made a distinction between Jahveh the God of the Jews and the pure supreme God. Jahveh was the God of this world and the creator of it. He was accordingly termed by the Gnostics the “ demiourgos,” which means maker, workman, handicraftsman. The term could be applied to a carpenter. The Gnostics, of course, said that the Logos, Jesus, was not the son of the demiourgos, but the son of the supreme God. The Jewish Christians refused to recognize this distinction; for them Jesus was the son of Jahveh the creator. Consequently, Matthew, who is the representative of the Jewish Christians among the Evangelists, thought it necessary to insert in his Gospel a statement to that effect. He would not use the Gnostic term “demiourgos,” as he rejected its implication, and so he employed the word “ tekton," which has the same significance, and the application of which he knew that his readers would understand. But the word “tekton'' besides meaning any kind of artificer, was more particularly applied to builders and carpenters ; and so the word is translated “carpenter” in our Bibles. The distinction of meaning between the Greek words “ demiourgos ” and “ tekton ” is very much less than that between the English words “creator,” or “maker,” and “carpenter.” Note also that Matthew did not write “ son of a tekton,” but “son of the tekton.” Matthew’s early readers, then, when they read that Jesus was son of the tekton, understood well enough that he was affirming that Jesus was the son of the Creator.
(Evolution of Christianity, p. 163-164, my bold)

One may do a case for Gnostic priority by seeing that specific trajectory:

an hypothetical Gnostic proto-Mark : Jesus is apparently the Demiurgos
Mark: Jesus is apparently the Carpenter
Matthew: Jesus is the son of the Carpenter
later Christians: Jesus is the presumed son of a carpenter.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Where does Origen deny that Jesus is Carpenter?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

GakuseiDon wrote:Ch 37:

Celsus, moreover, thinks that we have invented this "tree of life" to give an allegorical meaning to the cross; and in consequence of his error upon this point, he adds: "If he had happened to be cast down a precipice, or shoved into a pit, or suffocated by hanging, there would have been invented a precipice of life far beyond the heavens, or a pit of resurrection, or a cord of immortality." And again: "If the 'tree of life' were an invention, because he--Jesus-- (is reported) to have been a carpenter, it would follow that if he had been a leather-cutter, something would have been said about holy leather; or had he been a stone-cutter, about a blessed stone; or if a worker in iron, about an iron of love." [/list]

The second highlighted quote isn't relevant to your question, but it's the previously mentioned 'zinger' that I like. (Also repeated in longer form in Ch 34).
Yessssss, that is one of my favorite things from Celsus. :D
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Where does Origen deny that Jesus is Carpenter?

Post by iskander »

GakuseiDon wrote:IIUC the question is whether Jesus was considered a carpenter himself, or a son of a carpenter. So "carpenter" is probably not an interpolation, but "son of" might have been added or removed at some stage.

The quote you want is from Origen's "Contra Celsus", Book 6, containing one of my favorite zingers from Celsus: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... en166.html
  • Ch 36:

    The subject of the "tree of life" will be more appropriately explained when we interpret the statements in the book of Genesis regarding the paradise planted by God. Celsus, moreover, has often mocked at the subject of a resurrection,--a doctrine which he did not comprehend; and on the present occasion, not satisfied with what he has formerly said, he adds, "And there is said to be a resurrection of the flesh by means of the tree;" not understanding, I think, the symbolical expression, that "through the tree came death, and through the tree comes life," because death was in Adam, and life in Christ. He next scoffs at the "tree," assailing it on two grounds, and saying, "For this reason is the tree introduced, either because our teacher was nailed to a cross, or because he was a carpenter by trade;" not observing that the tree of life is mentioned in the Mosaic writings, and being blind also to this, that in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter.

    Ch 37:

    Celsus, moreover, thinks that we have invented this "tree of life" to give an allegorical meaning to the cross; and in consequence of his error upon this point, he adds: "If he had happened to be cast down a precipice, or shoved into a pit, or suffocated by hanging, there would have been invented a precipice of life far beyond the heavens, or a pit of resurrection, or a cord of immortality." And again: "If the 'tree of life' were an invention, because he--Jesus-- (is reported) to have been a carpenter, it would follow that if he had been a leather-cutter, something would have been said about holy leather; or had he been a stone-cutter, about a blessed stone; or if a worker in iron, about an iron of love."
The second highlighted quote isn't relevant to your question, but it's the previously mentioned 'zinger' that I like. (Also repeated in longer form in Ch 34).

Celsus in chapter 37, It is a cheap taunt from a boor

The tree of life is a central religious invention in the Jewish religion, but it is of minimal importance in Christianity.
"The phrase “torat emet” is part of the Torah service during which we sing etz hayyim hee, “it is a tree of life.” Since we are holding the scroll at the time, it is evident that Torah is what is meant here "

Was Jesus said to be a carpenter? who cares!! :)
Garon
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:33 am

Re: Where does Origen deny that Jesus is Carpenter?

Post by Garon »

Luke 4:23 Jesus calls himself a Doctor. Never a carpenter.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Where does Origen deny that Jesus is Carpenter?

Post by andrewcriddle »

Giuseppe wrote:I read in a mythicist book that, in polemic against Celsus, ''Origen denies that Jesus is said to be a carpenter in any Gospel current in the Churches''. Can you say me where precisely Origen did so?

Therefore is Mark 6:3 of Mark an interpolation made after Origen?
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?”
And if it is an interpolation, then the same references to the brothers of Jesus, in the same verse, are a late addition?
Matthew 13:55 reads the son of the carpenter most manuscripts of Mark 6:3 read the carpenter the son of Mary some manuscripts of Mark read the son of the carpenter and of Mary this seems to be the reading of the Caesarean text, the text that Origen (living at Caesarea) appears to have used for his later works including Against Celsus.

Andrew Criddle
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Where does Origen deny that Jesus is Carpenter?

Post by Giuseppe »

some manuscripts of Mark read the son of the carpenter and of Mary this seems to be the reading of the Caesarean text, the text that Origen (living at Caesarea) appears to have used for his later works including Against Celsus.
It seems a similar thing to the 'Jesus Barabbas' affair (the occurrence only in later manuscripts of the name 'Jesus' linked with 'Barabbas').

As per Jesus Barabbas, via his evident symbolism, we accept that reading as the original, at the same way I think that the original reading of Mark was ''the son of carpenter'' (via his evident symbolism), while the Celsus's reading (Jesus as carpenter) was a later one and more literalist (''if Jesus is the son of carpenter, then he is a carpenter, too'').
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Garon
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:33 am

Re: Where does Origen deny that Jesus is Carpenter?

Post by Garon »

Handyman is better interpretation then carpenter.
Post Reply