I'm revisiting this, now a week later, after looking more widely both at Origen's writings and the context of the Commentary on John. I would like to put this reading to use by providing some comments that can help contextualize the passage we've been talking about.
In the interim, I have read this from Panayiotis Tzamalikos (Origen: New Fragments from the Commentary on Matthew, on p. xxxiv and in endnote viii): "Origen ... averred that John the Baptist ‘is the beginning of the Gospel and the last of prophets’. He did so in the commentary on John, and it now turns out that he wrote this also in this preamble to his commentary on Matthew." For Tzamalikos, this is part of a larger case that Codex Holy Cross 104 goes back to Origen's Commentary on Matthew, which he incorporates into the attestation for the commentary.
For me, this gives support to the fact that Origen had integrated this idea into his own thought. It is probable that Origen had written on the topic at least briefly - i.e. referring to "Mark, stating that John is the beginning of the Gospel, the last of the prophets" - also in the Commentary on Matthew.
I have some thoughts on what Origen is doing in the first book in the Commentary on John in relation to the heterodox and the meaning of "the gospel," but I want to avoid giving the impression that this is completely essential to what I am saying here, so I will summarize before returning to the primary discussion. Let's bracket this as follows.
Origen provides two definitions of "the beginning of the gospel" here (1.80):
Later he provides only one definition of "the beginning of the gospel" (1.85):
This refers back to the first of the two offered earlier:
The other interpretation of "the beginning of the gospel" that Origen offers is this:
Before saying more, we should bring into view another passage (Commentary on Matthew 10.21):
These four passages, then, are based on the same essential idea (with variations):
Now we can bring the passage back into view to consider again:
In 1.79-80, we receive in summary form a restatement of the structure of Origen's argument here: the "gospel" is not just the gospel of Christ Jesus (corresponding to the gospel text or texts), nor is it just also the gospel of Paul and the apostles (corresponding to the apostolic writing or writings), but we must also acknowledge that the "beginning of the gospel" is John, who represents either the Old Testament as a type (in agreement with Origen's broader strategy of defining the gospel) or the final events of the Old Testament (in agreement with Origen's tactics here specifically when bringing up this specific point).
The part with "the man of the demiurge, and ignorant of the new deity, as they suppose" helps to secure the identification of the "heterodox" who "attribute the two testaments to two gods" here more specifically as the Marcionites, given its parallels in other anti-Marcionite discourse. Of great interest is what is meant by this: "For how could John ... be the beginning of the gospel, as they themselves think?" After aligning the four passages from Origen above on this subject, the reference should be understood as deriving ultimately from this Gospel text (Commentary on Matthew 10.21):
In Commentary on Matthew 10.21, Origen interprets this in such a way as to make John part of an ending, which gives way to a new beginning. In the preface to the Commentary on Matthew and also in Commentary on Matthew 10.21, John is called the "last of the prophets." In Luke 16:16, it is also written:
This provides at least a partial understanding of the Marcionite idea here. The beginning of the "gospel" is its preaching, post-John. The reference "since that time" here gives a justification to allow Marcionites to be described as identifying a point in time as "the beginning of the gospel."
That doesn't mean that Origen's description is strictly neutral, since his purpose here is to refute the Marcionites. To execute on this purpose, Origen employs the same interpretation of Mark 1:1-3 that he outlined also in the preface to the Commentary on Matthew:
Which is Origen's way of referring to what he quotes here:
Taking the Marcionite idea, which is in some way related to what's written in Luke 16:16, Origen glosses the full implications of his own interpretation of "the beginning of the gospel" onto the Marcionites. Which is to say, yes, the Marcionites would have no problem describing John as being "the last of the prophets" in some sense. But, no, they wouldn't agree that "the beginning of the gospel" is defined, as it is in Mark 1:1-3, with John going before Jesus and preparing the way as it is written in Isaiah. Yet that is of course how Origen attempts to refute them.
Thus far, while I have no doubt that the way I've expressed it could be much improved, I think it relatively uncontroversial.
This question then naturally justifies some controversy here: given that Origen had his own reasons for thinking the "last of the prophets" was the meaning of Mark 1:1-3, couldn't we simply attribute quoting Mark here to Origen's own understanding of the New Testament, not in any way related to how the Marcionites understood their own instrument? After all, Origen's even quoted the wrong passage here for explicating the Marcionite understanding of the "beginning of the gospel."
To answer simply: yes, that's completely plausible.
Does anything also suggest the plausibility of an alternative here where Origen is associating "Mark" with the Marcionites? Only a little. Take the passage again, to see if there is anything left to talk about:
Contrast with the reference to Acts later:
Acts is explicitly rejected by Origen's Marcionite contemporaries. Here Origen doesn't bother offering the other interpretation of the two, the one that tactically tied into the anti-Marcionite argument he was making based on Mark. This reference wouldn't have the same value in controversy with Marcionites as the earlier one might have.
So let's once again look at some of the features of Origen's passage:
On the other hand, as previously stated, Mark 1:1-3 isn't what Marcionites would have meant by "the beginning of the gospel." What the Marcionites would have understood as the relevant gospel reference here has more in common with "the law and the prophets were until John," which isn't in the Gospel of Mark that Origen quotes. The fact that the quote isn't one acceptable to Marcionites raises the question of whether all the references to Mark here derive only from Origen's own understanding of what "the beginning of the gospel" means.
So while there is room for reasonable doubt, given that the evidence in Origen is circumstantial in nature, it also seems reasonable to think that Origen had in mind some kind of association between Mark, either the evangelist or the gospel, and the Marcionites. This is not just because Origen quotes Mark here, nor is it because Origen is explicit on what the association is, given that he isn't. But the idea of some kind of unspecified association (either of the evangelist Mark or of the gospel of Mark) arises from Origen's wording in his lead-up to the quotes of Mark and in his discussion of how this refutes the heterodox.
After that, all we are left with is inferences and/or speculation, and different people may make different inferences. Those inferences can be considered informed only when also including a wider context that goes beyond just what Origen says.
In the interim, I have read this from Panayiotis Tzamalikos (Origen: New Fragments from the Commentary on Matthew, on p. xxxiv and in endnote viii): "Origen ... averred that John the Baptist ‘is the beginning of the Gospel and the last of prophets’. He did so in the commentary on John, and it now turns out that he wrote this also in this preamble to his commentary on Matthew." For Tzamalikos, this is part of a larger case that Codex Holy Cross 104 goes back to Origen's Commentary on Matthew, which he incorporates into the attestation for the commentary.
| Codex Holy Cross (Τιμίου Σταυροῦ) 104, Jerusalem | Translation |
|---|---|
| 16v ( ̓Ωριγένους) Πρῶτος δὲ τῶν λοιπῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν γεγράφηκεν ὁ θεῖος οὗτος ἀνὴρ τὸ παρ‹ὸν›4 | 17r εὐαγγέλιον ἑβραΐδι φωνῇvi τοῖς ἐκ περιτομῆς‹,› καὶ γράμμασιν ἑβραϊκοῖς συντεταγμένον. Δεύτερον δὲ τὸ κατὰ Μᾶρκον ὡς Πέτρος ὑφηγήσατο αὐτῷ, ὃν καὶ υ‹ἱὸ›ν5 ἐν τῇ καθολικῇ προσαγορεύει ἐπιστολῇ.6 Τρίτον δὲ τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν τὸ ὑπὸ Παύλ‹ου›7 ἐπαινούμενον εὐαγγέλιον τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν.8 Καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσι τὸ9 [κατὰ] ̓Ιωάννην. | 16v (Origen) But first among the other evangelists, this divine man wrote the present Gospel in Hebrew for those of the circumcision, and it is composed with Hebrew letters. Secondly, there is the Gospel according to Mark, as Peter narrated to him, whom he also designates as his son in the catholic epistle. Thirdly, there is the Gospel according to Luke, praised by Paul, directed to those from the nations. And above all is the Gospel according to John. |
| Εἰ δὲ γέγραπται ταῦτα πν‹εύματ›ι,12 εἴποιμι δ ̓ ἂν ὅτι καὶ λόγον τινὰ ἔχει ἡ τῶν εὐαγγελίων τάξις. Καὶ ὅρα εἰ δυνάμεθα λέγειν ὅτι πρῶτος εἰκότως ἔγραψεν ὁ εἰς γέ- νεσιν ἀνθρωπίνην καταβιβάζων αὐτ‹ὸ›ν13 τῷ λόγῳ, καὶ γενεαλογῶν αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ̓Αβραὰμ ἕως Δα‹υί›δ,14 καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ Δα‹υὶ›δ15 ἕως τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνο‹ς›16 ἕως αὐτοῦ τοῦ Χ‹ριστοῦ›.17 Διὸ καὶ τὰ πλεῖστα ἀνθρώπινα ὁ Ματθαῖος διηγήσατο καὶ μετὰ τοῦτον Μᾶρκος, φάσκων | 17v ἀρχὴν εἶναι τοῦ εὐαγγελίου18 ̓Ιωάννην19 τὸν20 τελευταῖον τῶν προφητῶν.viii Καὶ τρίτο‹ς›21 ὁ Λουκᾶς ὁμολογεῖ μεθ ̓ ἑτέρους ἐπιβεβληκέναι τὸ γράφειν εὐαγγέλιον, λέγων. ̓Επειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων,22 ἀλλ ̓ ἔοικε μὴ ἐγκεῖσθαι τὰ τῶν πολλῶν. | If these things are written by the Spirit, I would also say that the arrangement of the Gospels has some significance. And consider if we can say that it is fittingly written that the one who descends into human generation, tracing him from Abraham to David, and from David to the Babylonian exile, and from the Babylonian exile to himself, Christ. Therefore, Matthew related mostly human things, and after him, Mark, stating that John is the beginning of the Gospel, the last of the prophets. And thirdly, Luke confesses along with others to have taken up the task of writing the Gospel, saying, 'Since many have attempted to set forth an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, but it seems that the majority are not well-arranged.'" |
For me, this gives support to the fact that Origen had integrated this idea into his own thought. It is probable that Origen had written on the topic at least briefly - i.e. referring to "Mark, stating that John is the beginning of the Gospel, the last of the prophets" - also in the Commentary on Matthew.
I have some thoughts on what Origen is doing in the first book in the Commentary on John in relation to the heterodox and the meaning of "the gospel," but I want to avoid giving the impression that this is completely essential to what I am saying here, so I will summarize before returning to the primary discussion. Let's bracket this as follows.
Origen's key point in the first 90 sections or so of his commentary is the meaning of "the gospel," and he is engaged with certain heterodox interpretations long before the points at which he mentions them more explicitly. Origen's counter-argument to the heterodox on this point follows an outline that accepts and expands. Origen mentions those who would distinguish the apostolic writings from the "gospel" (1.15), so the obvious common ground is the plainest meaning of the term "gospel" in reference to a text. After providing his definitions, Origen acknowledges the key reference "according to my gospel" in Paul (1.25), and Origen uses this reference in a transformative way to support his own views:
If someone thought "my gospel" was written by Paul or by an amenuensis of Paul named Mark? Then they wouldn't agree here.
Origen extends the argument on the meaning of "gospel" further to encompass all the writings of the New Testament (1.26):
Origen proceeds to extend the "gospel" in some way to the law and the prophets also, among other things. The gospel is about something awaited (1.29). The savior has made all things gospel as it were (1.33), so the law and the prophets are now gospel even if they're not entitled gospels (1.32). So the Old Testament is now gospel in a special sense (1.36). Christ revealed himself spiritually to Moses and the prophets (1.37), but the rest had only a shadow of the good things to come (1.39).
Definitions of the "gospel" and the "spiritual gospel" are given. There's a digression on "good things" that generally doesn't prove itself in any clear way to be interacting directly with Marcionite thought, although the reference to the "good Father" with an important proof text of identity with the creator (1.65), as well as the anointing of Jesus (1.66) and the fulfillment of scripture (1.66), quite plausibly provide some details of such interaction. For comparison, Origen's Homilies on the Psalms refer several times to the "good God" when implicitly refuting the heterodox. When this digression ends (1.74), angels are brought in too (1.75-78). Here we get the passage of interest (1.79-82) that will be discussed more, then angels (1.83-84), before more arguments along the same lines as the passage of interest. Acts is quoted where Philip "preached the Lord Jesus to him, beginning from the Scripture of Isaiah" (1.85). The definition of the preaching of "good things" is used to argue "all of these are in some way part of the gospel" (1.86).
Origen concludes that "it is possible to gather comparable things from the Scriptures and see what the glory of the good things in Jesus Christ is from the gospel" (1.88), which not only encapsulates his understanding of the "gospel" but also helps to justify his hermeneutic approach, which will range over more material than just the Gospel of John itself in his commentary.
As my digression indicates, Origen had multiple purposes for his treatment of the subject of the meaning of the "gospel," so it's not as though interacting with the heterodox at certain points was his only intent. Yet Origen does interact with them explicitly at some points, and to some extent Origen prepared the structure of his arguments (outside of these explicit references) in a way that would justify his own understanding of the term "gospel" over and against those with a more narrowly circumscribed understanding of the term. Those who would disagree with Origen in the most fundamental way would be the heterodox because their differences were not merely semantic - i.e., whether we should call one thing the apostolic writings and another thing the gospel, maybe yet another thing Old Testament scripture - but also involved a quite different understanding of the law and the prophets. Origen's definitions ultimately serve to allow him to bring the Old Testament scripture "in some way" under the umbrella of the gospel.
For among Paul's writings we do not have a book called a "gospel" in the usual sense, but everything which he preached and said was the gospel. And the things which he preached and said he also wrote. What he wrote, therefore, was "gospel."
If someone thought "my gospel" was written by Paul or by an amenuensis of Paul named Mark? Then they wouldn't agree here.
Origen extends the argument on the meaning of "gospel" further to encompass all the writings of the New Testament (1.26):
But if the writings of Paul were gospel, it is consistent with that to say that Peter's writings also were gospel and, in general, those which present the sojourn of Christ and prepare for his coming and produce it in the souls of those who are willing to receive the Word of God who stands at the door and knocks and wishes to enter their souls.
Origen proceeds to extend the "gospel" in some way to the law and the prophets also, among other things. The gospel is about something awaited (1.29). The savior has made all things gospel as it were (1.33), so the law and the prophets are now gospel even if they're not entitled gospels (1.32). So the Old Testament is now gospel in a special sense (1.36). Christ revealed himself spiritually to Moses and the prophets (1.37), but the rest had only a shadow of the good things to come (1.39).
Definitions of the "gospel" and the "spiritual gospel" are given. There's a digression on "good things" that generally doesn't prove itself in any clear way to be interacting directly with Marcionite thought, although the reference to the "good Father" with an important proof text of identity with the creator (1.65), as well as the anointing of Jesus (1.66) and the fulfillment of scripture (1.66), quite plausibly provide some details of such interaction. For comparison, Origen's Homilies on the Psalms refer several times to the "good God" when implicitly refuting the heterodox. When this digression ends (1.74), angels are brought in too (1.75-78). Here we get the passage of interest (1.79-82) that will be discussed more, then angels (1.83-84), before more arguments along the same lines as the passage of interest. Acts is quoted where Philip "preached the Lord Jesus to him, beginning from the Scripture of Isaiah" (1.85). The definition of the preaching of "good things" is used to argue "all of these are in some way part of the gospel" (1.86).
Origen concludes that "it is possible to gather comparable things from the Scriptures and see what the glory of the good things in Jesus Christ is from the gospel" (1.88), which not only encapsulates his understanding of the "gospel" but also helps to justify his hermeneutic approach, which will range over more material than just the Gospel of John itself in his commentary.
As my digression indicates, Origen had multiple purposes for his treatment of the subject of the meaning of the "gospel," so it's not as though interacting with the heterodox at certain points was his only intent. Yet Origen does interact with them explicitly at some points, and to some extent Origen prepared the structure of his arguments (outside of these explicit references) in a way that would justify his own understanding of the term "gospel" over and against those with a more narrowly circumscribed understanding of the term. Those who would disagree with Origen in the most fundamental way would be the heterodox because their differences were not merely semantic - i.e., whether we should call one thing the apostolic writings and another thing the gospel, maybe yet another thing Old Testament scripture - but also involved a quite different understanding of the law and the prophets. Origen's definitions ultimately serve to allow him to bring the Old Testament scripture "in some way" under the umbrella of the gospel.
Origen provides two definitions of "the beginning of the gospel" here (1.80):
But the beginning of the gospel (for its greatness consists of a beginning, a sequence, a middle, and end) is either all the Old Testament, John being its type, or, because of the connection of the New with the Old, the final events of the Old Testament which were presented through John.
Later he provides only one definition of "the beginning of the gospel" (1.85):
Since, then, according to one interpretation, we presented all the Old Testament, which is indicated by John's name, to be "the beginning of the gospel," we shall juxtapose from Acts what is said of the royal Ethiopian eunuch and Philip, so that this interpretation will not be without a witness. For "Philip," Scripture says, "preached the Lord Jesus to him, beginning from the Scripture of Isaias which reads, 'He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb without voice before his shearer."' Now how does he preach Jesus, beginning from the prophet, unless Isaias was some part of the beginning of the gospel?
This refers back to the first of the two offered earlier:
| But the beginning of the gospel (for its greatness consists of a beginning, a sequence, a middle, and end) is either all the Old Testament, John being its type (1.80) | according to one interpretation, we presented all the Old Testament, which is indicated by John's name, to be "the beginning of the gospel" (1.85) |
The other interpretation of "the beginning of the gospel" that Origen offers is this:
because of the connection of the New with the Old, the final events of the Old Testament which were presented through John
Before saying more, we should bring into view another passage (Commentary on Matthew 10.21):
In reference to these things, it seems to me, that as the law and the prophets were until John, [Luke 16:16] after whom the grace of prophecy ceased from among the Jews; so the authority of those who had rule among the people, which included the power to kill those whom they thought worthy of death, existed until John; and when the last of the prophets was unlawfully killed by Herod, the king of the Jews was deprived of the power of putting to death; for, if Herod had not been deprived of it, Pilate would not have condemned Jesus to death; but for this Herod would have sufficed along with the council of the chief priests and elders of the people, met for the purpose. And then I think was fulfilled that which was spoken as follows by Jacob to Judah: "A ruler shall not depart from Judah, nor a leader from Israel, until that come which is laid up in store, and he is the expectation of the Gentiles." [Genesis 49:10]
These four passages, then, are based on the same essential idea (with variations):
| Commentary on Matthew (preface) | Commentary on Matthew (10.21) | Commentary on John (1.80) | Commentary on John (1.82) |
|---|---|---|---|
| ... Mark, stating that John is the beginning of the Gospel, the last of the prophets ... | ... the law and the prophets were until John, after whom the grace of prophecy ceased from among the Jews ... the last of the prophets was unlawfully killed by Herod ... | ... the beginning of the gospel ... is ... because of the connection of the New with the Old, the final events of the Old Testament which were presented through John. | ... John, the man of the demiurge, and ignorant of the new deity, as they suppose, be the beginning of the gospel, as they themselves think ... |
Now we can bring the passage back into view to consider again:
(79) In addition to what has been said, we must know this too about the gospel. First of all, it is the gospel of Christ Jesus, the head of the whole body of the saved, as Mark says: "The beginning of the gospel of Christ Jesus." But further, it is also the gospel of the apostles, on account of which Paul says, "According to my gospel."
(80) But the beginning of the gospel (for its greatness consists of a beginning, a sequence, a middle, and end) is either all the Old Testament, John being its type, or, because of the connection of the New with the Old, the final events of the Old Testament which were presented through John.
(81) For the same Mark says, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As it is written in Isaias the prophet, Behold I send my angel before your face, who shall prepare your way. A voice of one crying in the desert, Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."
(82) This passage causes me to wonder how the heterodox attribute the two testaments to two gods, when they are refuted no less even by this word. For how could John, the man of the demiurge, and ignorant of the new deity, as they suppose, be the beginning of the gospel, as they themselves think, when he belongs to a different God?
(80) But the beginning of the gospel (for its greatness consists of a beginning, a sequence, a middle, and end) is either all the Old Testament, John being its type, or, because of the connection of the New with the Old, the final events of the Old Testament which were presented through John.
(81) For the same Mark says, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As it is written in Isaias the prophet, Behold I send my angel before your face, who shall prepare your way. A voice of one crying in the desert, Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."
(82) This passage causes me to wonder how the heterodox attribute the two testaments to two gods, when they are refuted no less even by this word. For how could John, the man of the demiurge, and ignorant of the new deity, as they suppose, be the beginning of the gospel, as they themselves think, when he belongs to a different God?
In 1.79-80, we receive in summary form a restatement of the structure of Origen's argument here: the "gospel" is not just the gospel of Christ Jesus (corresponding to the gospel text or texts), nor is it just also the gospel of Paul and the apostles (corresponding to the apostolic writing or writings), but we must also acknowledge that the "beginning of the gospel" is John, who represents either the Old Testament as a type (in agreement with Origen's broader strategy of defining the gospel) or the final events of the Old Testament (in agreement with Origen's tactics here specifically when bringing up this specific point).
The part with "the man of the demiurge, and ignorant of the new deity, as they suppose" helps to secure the identification of the "heterodox" who "attribute the two testaments to two gods" here more specifically as the Marcionites, given its parallels in other anti-Marcionite discourse. Of great interest is what is meant by this: "For how could John ... be the beginning of the gospel, as they themselves think?" After aligning the four passages from Origen above on this subject, the reference should be understood as deriving ultimately from this Gospel text (Commentary on Matthew 10.21):
the law and the prophets were until John [cf. Luke 16:16]
In Commentary on Matthew 10.21, Origen interprets this in such a way as to make John part of an ending, which gives way to a new beginning. In the preface to the Commentary on Matthew and also in Commentary on Matthew 10.21, John is called the "last of the prophets." In Luke 16:16, it is also written:
Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached
This provides at least a partial understanding of the Marcionite idea here. The beginning of the "gospel" is its preaching, post-John. The reference "since that time" here gives a justification to allow Marcionites to be described as identifying a point in time as "the beginning of the gospel."
That doesn't mean that Origen's description is strictly neutral, since his purpose here is to refute the Marcionites. To execute on this purpose, Origen employs the same interpretation of Mark 1:1-3 that he outlined also in the preface to the Commentary on Matthew:
Mark, stating that John is the beginning of the Gospel, the last of the prophets
Which is Origen's way of referring to what he quotes here:
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As it is written in Isaias the prophet, Behold I send my angel before your face, who shall prepare your way. A voice of one crying in the desert, Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."
Taking the Marcionite idea, which is in some way related to what's written in Luke 16:16, Origen glosses the full implications of his own interpretation of "the beginning of the gospel" onto the Marcionites. Which is to say, yes, the Marcionites would have no problem describing John as being "the last of the prophets" in some sense. But, no, they wouldn't agree that "the beginning of the gospel" is defined, as it is in Mark 1:1-3, with John going before Jesus and preparing the way as it is written in Isaiah. Yet that is of course how Origen attempts to refute them.
Thus far, while I have no doubt that the way I've expressed it could be much improved, I think it relatively uncontroversial.
This question then naturally justifies some controversy here: given that Origen had his own reasons for thinking the "last of the prophets" was the meaning of Mark 1:1-3, couldn't we simply attribute quoting Mark here to Origen's own understanding of the New Testament, not in any way related to how the Marcionites understood their own instrument? After all, Origen's even quoted the wrong passage here for explicating the Marcionite understanding of the "beginning of the gospel."
To answer simply: yes, that's completely plausible.
Does anything also suggest the plausibility of an alternative here where Origen is associating "Mark" with the Marcionites? Only a little. Take the passage again, to see if there is anything left to talk about:
(79) In addition to what has been said, we must know this too about the gospel. First of all, it is the gospel of Christ Jesus, the head of the whole body of the saved, as Mark says: "The beginning of the gospel of Christ Jesus." But further, it is also the gospel of the apostles, on account of which Paul says, "According to my gospel."
(80) But the beginning of the gospel (for its greatness consists of a beginning, a sequence, a middle, and end) is either all the Old Testament, John being its type, or, because of the connection of the New with the Old, the final events of the Old Testament which were presented through John.
(81) For the same Mark says, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As it is written in Isaias the prophet, Behold I send my angel before your face, who shall prepare your way. A voice of one crying in the desert, Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."
(82) This passage causes me to wonder how the heterodox attribute the two testaments to two gods, when they are refuted no less even by this word. For how could John, the man of the demiurge, and ignorant of the new deity, as they suppose, be the beginning of the gospel, as they themselves think, when he belongs to a different God?
(80) But the beginning of the gospel (for its greatness consists of a beginning, a sequence, a middle, and end) is either all the Old Testament, John being its type, or, because of the connection of the New with the Old, the final events of the Old Testament which were presented through John.
(81) For the same Mark says, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As it is written in Isaias the prophet, Behold I send my angel before your face, who shall prepare your way. A voice of one crying in the desert, Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."
(82) This passage causes me to wonder how the heterodox attribute the two testaments to two gods, when they are refuted no less even by this word. For how could John, the man of the demiurge, and ignorant of the new deity, as they suppose, be the beginning of the gospel, as they themselves think, when he belongs to a different God?
Contrast with the reference to Acts later:
(85) Since, then, according to one interpretation, we presented all the Old Testament, which is indicated by John's name, to be "the beginning of the gospel," we shall juxtapose from Acts what is said of the royal Ethiopian eunuch and Philip, so that this interpretation will not be without a witness. For "Philip," Scripture says, "preached the Lord Jesus to him, beginning from the Scripture of Isaias which reads, 'He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb without voice before his shearer."' Now how does he preach Jesus, beginning from the prophet, unless Isaias was some part of the beginning of the gospel?
Acts is explicitly rejected by Origen's Marcionite contemporaries. Here Origen doesn't bother offering the other interpretation of the two, the one that tactically tied into the anti-Marcionite argument he was making based on Mark. This reference wouldn't have the same value in controversy with Marcionites as the earlier one might have.
So let's once again look at some of the features of Origen's passage:
- Origen makes parallel references to what "Mark says" and what "Paul says."
- Origen explicitly makes the corresponding parallel references to the gospel of Jesus and gospel of the apostles.
- He gives the phrase from Paul, "According to my gospel," which is key to Marcionite thought on the subject.
- He repeats that Paul's phrase includes the apostles, plural, as also in Commentary on John 1.26.
- The gospel quote is given with "the same Mark says" (Φησὶ γὰρ ὁ αὐτὸς Μάρκος), a reference to Mark's identity as author.
- Mark (not say Acts) is what makes Origen "wonder how the heterodox attribute the two testaments to two gods."
- Quoting Mark means that "they are refuted no less even by this word" (ἔλαττον καὶ ἐκ τούτου τοῦ ῥητοῦ ἐλεγχόμενοι).
"When, therefore, Marcion, or any of his dogs, shall bay against the Demiurge, bringing forward arguments from the comparison of good and evil, they should be told that neither the apostle Paul nor 'short-measure' Mark reported these things — for none of them is written in the gospel according to Mark."
Ἐπειδὰν οὖν Μαρκίων ἢ τῶν ἐκείνου κυνῶν τις ὑλακτῇ κατὰ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ [dēmiourgôu], τοὺς ἐκ τῆς ἀντιπαραθέσεως ἀγαθοῦ καὶ κακοῦ προφέρων λόγους, δεῖ αὐτοῖ(ς) λέγειν ὅτι τούτους οὔτε Παῦλος ὁ ἀπόστολος οὔτε Μάρκος ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος ἀνήγγειλαν —τούτων γὰρ οὐδε<ὶς> ἐν τῷ <κατὰ> Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται
Ἐπειδὰν οὖν Μαρκίων ἢ τῶν ἐκείνου κυνῶν τις ὑλακτῇ κατὰ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ [dēmiourgôu], τοὺς ἐκ τῆς ἀντιπαραθέσεως ἀγαθοῦ καὶ κακοῦ προφέρων λόγους, δεῖ αὐτοῖ(ς) λέγειν ὅτι τούτους οὔτε Παῦλος ὁ ἀπόστολος οὔτε Μάρκος ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος ἀνήγγειλαν —τούτων γὰρ οὐδε<ὶς> ἐν τῷ <κατὰ> Μάρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται
On the other hand, as previously stated, Mark 1:1-3 isn't what Marcionites would have meant by "the beginning of the gospel." What the Marcionites would have understood as the relevant gospel reference here has more in common with "the law and the prophets were until John," which isn't in the Gospel of Mark that Origen quotes. The fact that the quote isn't one acceptable to Marcionites raises the question of whether all the references to Mark here derive only from Origen's own understanding of what "the beginning of the gospel" means.
So while there is room for reasonable doubt, given that the evidence in Origen is circumstantial in nature, it also seems reasonable to think that Origen had in mind some kind of association between Mark, either the evangelist or the gospel, and the Marcionites. This is not just because Origen quotes Mark here, nor is it because Origen is explicit on what the association is, given that he isn't. But the idea of some kind of unspecified association (either of the evangelist Mark or of the gospel of Mark) arises from Origen's wording in his lead-up to the quotes of Mark and in his discussion of how this refutes the heterodox.
After that, all we are left with is inferences and/or speculation, and different people may make different inferences. Those inferences can be considered informed only when also including a wider context that goes beyond just what Origen says.
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Fri Apr 19, 2024 8:20 pm