Origen - Brian correction of apparatus

[Steven Avery]

Origen has an allusion to the verse, but not to the first phrase.

Lardner
https://books.google.com/books?id=r0grAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA533
speculative, not helpful

Ben David
https://books.google.com/books?id=KXkUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA122

Thirdly, The note of Griesbach such instances, the antecedent is so defined by the verb connected in support of his emendation is, with it, as to become, without for the most part, a tissue of false ambiguity, the subject of another reasonings and misrepresentations. verb. But then, it should be He says, that the ancient Greek remembered, it means a whole fathers read is and not θεός; class, and never an individual. whereas it is a demonstrable fact Ὡς εαν λυση μίαν των εντολών that Justin, Origen, and Clement τουτων ελαχίσος κληθησεται, Mat. of Alexandria, &c. had in their v. 19. Here ὁs is for ανθρωπος copies the common reading. These is; the antecedent ανθρωπος being fathers understood by the wordsa general term, is limited by the "God appeared in the flesh," clause ὃς εαν λύση, and under this the Logos of God united with the limitation it is the subject to man Jesus, or Jesus Christ enκληθησεται. - " The man that dued with the Logos. In this shall break one of these least they understood him rightly, and commandments, shall be called were mistaken only in supposing least." In English, as in the that Logos a real being, which original, the words in italics form was considered by Paul and his the restricting clause, and the brethren as a personified or me. antecedent man, with that restric. taphorical being. The question, tion, is the nominative case to then, is, did they, when referring shall be called. If we try the to this verse of the apostle, mennew fangled reading by this crite- tion the Logos as having appeared rion, we shall find, that though in the flesh? If so, they read grammatical in form, it is yet θεος and not is in their copies. absurd in meaning. "He who Thus Justin-απεστειλε λόγον ίνα hath appeared in the flesh, is κοσμῳ φανῃ, ὃς δια αποστόλων justified in the spirit, is seen by κηρυχθεις ύπο εθνων επιστεύθη. Ori. angels," &c. But every man gen also says, as Rufinus tranappears in the flesh: every man, slates him," Is qui VERBUM therefore, is justified in the spirit caro factus-manifestatus est in carne." These fathers considered and seen by angels, &c.

Secondly, the reformed reading the Logos as synonymous with perverts the language of the apos. χρ1505; and thus Clement of tle. He says, that "God ap. Alexandria calls the Logos, when peared in the flesh." This is 'the alluding to this verse-μυσηριού great mystery which he had just μεθ' ήμων είδον δι αγγελοι, τον mentioned; and if θεος be taken χρισον.-Cyril writes, το μεγα away, or changed for os, the mys της ευσεβείας μυσηριον, τουτέσι χριστος ὃς εφανερωθη. The same verb. He would know that a writer also adds- Ουχ έτερον το της noun obliquely and accidentally ευσεβείας μυστηριον, η αυτος ήμων introduced to define the object of ὁ εκ του θεου πατρος λογος, ὃς a verb in a preceding, has no • εφανερωθη. These ancient authors necessary connection with a verb then, with absolute certainty, in the subsequent clause. But a read θεος; and the variety and reader of English or any other high antiquity of their copies, set modern language is betrayed to at nought all subsequent copies think otherwise. For he is al. that may read otherwise. I have ways a substitute for some person taken the above passages from preceding it, and consequently Griesbach's own note, his attention is withdrawn from

Samuel Davidson
https://books.google.com/books?id=3VgXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA387

Burgon
http://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA473

 

[Brianrw]

Summary​

In the modern critical editions, and in the (outdated and woefully inaccurate) assessment of Samuel Davidson above, we find Origen among the evidence listed for qui (Gr. ὅς), which is "who" in English. This is incorrect. The statement in question occurs in his Commentary on Romans (1.4.1): De quibus quamvis periculosum videatur chartulis committere sermonem, tamen non otiose praetereunda sunt dicta sapientium et aenigmata, sed subtili admodum mentis acie, in quantum res patitur, velut per quoddam speculum contemplanda: ne forte is qui Verbum caro factus apparuit positis in carne, sicut Apostolus dicit quia manifestatus est in carne, justificatus in spiritu, apparuit angelis &c.

The word in question is not the relative pronoun, qui ("who") but rather a Late Latin subordinator, quia ("that"). The verb manifestatus ("he-was-manifest") directly references is qui Verbum caro factus. That is, “Though it may seem perilous to commit [such] words to paper, yet they are not to be idly passed over, the sayings and riddles of the wise, but with very subtle keenness of the mind, insofar as circumstances permit, as though contemplating in a mirror: that He who is the Word made flesh,” i.e., God, “appeared to those who were in the flesh, even as the Apostle says that He [the Word] ‘was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit’ [and] ‘seen of angels.’” In more ancient Christian writings John 1:1, 14 and 1 Timothy 3:16 are frequently intertwined in commentary.

Ben David and John Burgon (briefly, see also p. 448) above rightly assess the situation. The reason for attributing the reading qui (“who”) to Origen stems from the suggestion by Wetstein, who was followed by Griesbach (1806),[1] Henry Alford (1865)[2], F.J.A. Hort (1882),[3] Philip Schaff (1882)[4] et al that qui (“who”) should be read in place of quia. Ultimately Schaff, in 1863, reified this conjecture and proclaimed that Origen in Latin indeed reads qui manifestatus est.[5] Origen has been incorrectly listed among the evidence for qui ever since.

Minuscule 1739 (9th century) was produced from a second or third century exemplar that remained in use until about the 4th century, and contains a colophon indicating it was copied from a text edited by Origen in the Pauline Epistles. The reading contains the Euthalian header "On the divine incarnation" and the reading is "God was manifest in the flesh."

---

[1] “Griesbach—Nov. Testamentum Grace, Vol. II”, The Monthly Review, vol. LIII, [1807] p. 505.
[2] Henry Alford, The Greek Testament: with Various Readings, [Deighton, Bell, and Co., Cambridge, 1865] p. 333
[3] Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction. Appendix [Macmillan and Company, 1882], Appendix I: Notes on Select Readings, p. 133
[4] Philip Schaff, The New Testament in the original Greek, [Harper & Brothers, 1882] vol. 2, p. 133: “Orig.Rom.lat.Ruf(sicut apostolus dicit Quia [? Qui] manifestatus est in carne &c.)”.
[5] Philip Schaff, A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version, [Harper & Brothers, 1883] p. 200: “Origen (qui manifestatus est)”.

 

[Steven Avery]

Brian did a great job above.

A fellow named Jeffrey Gibson tried to utilize Origen in our conversatios.

 

[Steven Avery]