Q: In Mark 6:3, Jesus is referred to as The carpenter, the son of Mary. But in the earliest manuscript of Mark (Papyrus 45, from c. 225), the verse says, "Is not this the son of the carpenter?" Apparently it wasn't in any of the Gospels at the time of Origen (who died in 254), who said (in Against Celsus, VI:36) that in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus himself ever described as being a carpenter. It just goes to show you that the text on which modern translations are based isnt reliable.
A: Rather, it just goes to show you that Origen didnt have a great memory when it came to the Gospel of Mark. Origen did not use the Gospel of Mark very much. His favorite Gospels were Matthew and John. On another occasion, when discussing the Lords Prayer, Origen mentioned that he had searched through the Gospel of Mark to see if it had such a prayer, but he discovered that it did not (this statement is in Origens De Oratione, XVIII:3). A person who frequently resorted to the Gospel of Mark would not have to consult it freshly to find out if it contained the Lords Prayer or not.
Theres a bit more to the story: Origen moved to Caesarea in about 231, escaping some difficulties that had arisen in Alexandria where he had worked previously. Origen took some manuscripts from Alexandria to Caesarea with him. But the folks at Caesarea also had manuscripts. It is in the group of witnesses to the text of Mark which have been named Caesarean -- P45, 565, 700, and the Armenian version, in particular -- that we find support for the reading the son of the carpenter. The questioner seems to be using Origens statement as if it somehow undermines the usual reading -- O TEKTWN, O hUIOS THS MARIAS, that is, the carpenter, the son of Mary. But what should be noticed is that Celsus charge is based on the usual reading. Celsus was putting down Jesus on the grounds that He was merely an (uneducated, ordinary) carpenter. When Origen responds, it is to deflect Celsus charge. If we are dealing with two different texts of Mark 6:3, whose text do you think we should favor: the text used by Celsus, or the text of the Gospels current in the churches mentioned by Origen, who was capable of forgetting about Mark 6:3, and who was also capable of selecting his sources to favor his point? Not only was Origens memory fallible, but Origen himself was capable of taking advantage of the fact that he could make claims in his rebuttal of Celsus that most readers would have no way to challenge.
We are not required, however, to conclude that Origen was either forgetful or amorally ruthless. Origens statement may mean that in no copies of the Gospels is Jesus ever described as being a carpenter /at the time/ -- that is, He is never depicted doing carpentry-work, even though the people of Nazareth had known Him as a carpenter at some earlier time. In this case, Origens reference to Gospels current in the churches is probably meant to refer to the canonical Gospels (including Mark), and to exclude spurious and apocryphal tales in which Jesus performs miraculous carpentry-work.
(For more info about Origen and the texts he used, the reader may wish to consult Bruce Metzgers informative essay Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament Manuscripts, which appears as chapter 9 in Volume VIII of New Testament Texts & Studies, Historical and Literary Studies - Pagan, Jewish, and Christian. Most seminary libraries probably either have a copy, or can acquire one through an interlibrary loan.)
Finally, it may be a good idea to look at how the text supported by P45 looks next to the usual reading:
P45: O TEKTONOS O _US_ THS MARIAS.
Usual: O TEKTWN O _US_ THS MARIAS.
(Note: "_US_" is a contraction of the word "hUIOS," "son." Also, P45 is damaged, and part of its text is reconstructed; the absolutely secure extant portion of the passage under discussion in P45 is "-OS O _U-.")
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
A: Rather, it just goes to show you that Origen didnt have a great memory when it came to the Gospel of Mark. Origen did not use the Gospel of Mark very much. His favorite Gospels were Matthew and John. On another occasion, when discussing the Lords Prayer, Origen mentioned that he had searched through the Gospel of Mark to see if it had such a prayer, but he discovered that it did not (this statement is in Origens De Oratione, XVIII:3). A person who frequently resorted to the Gospel of Mark would not have to consult it freshly to find out if it contained the Lords Prayer or not.
Theres a bit more to the story: Origen moved to Caesarea in about 231, escaping some difficulties that had arisen in Alexandria where he had worked previously. Origen took some manuscripts from Alexandria to Caesarea with him. But the folks at Caesarea also had manuscripts. It is in the group of witnesses to the text of Mark which have been named Caesarean -- P45, 565, 700, and the Armenian version, in particular -- that we find support for the reading the son of the carpenter. The questioner seems to be using Origens statement as if it somehow undermines the usual reading -- O TEKTWN, O hUIOS THS MARIAS, that is, the carpenter, the son of Mary. But what should be noticed is that Celsus charge is based on the usual reading. Celsus was putting down Jesus on the grounds that He was merely an (uneducated, ordinary) carpenter. When Origen responds, it is to deflect Celsus charge. If we are dealing with two different texts of Mark 6:3, whose text do you think we should favor: the text used by Celsus, or the text of the Gospels current in the churches mentioned by Origen, who was capable of forgetting about Mark 6:3, and who was also capable of selecting his sources to favor his point? Not only was Origens memory fallible, but Origen himself was capable of taking advantage of the fact that he could make claims in his rebuttal of Celsus that most readers would have no way to challenge.
We are not required, however, to conclude that Origen was either forgetful or amorally ruthless. Origens statement may mean that in no copies of the Gospels is Jesus ever described as being a carpenter /at the time/ -- that is, He is never depicted doing carpentry-work, even though the people of Nazareth had known Him as a carpenter at some earlier time. In this case, Origens reference to Gospels current in the churches is probably meant to refer to the canonical Gospels (including Mark), and to exclude spurious and apocryphal tales in which Jesus performs miraculous carpentry-work.
(For more info about Origen and the texts he used, the reader may wish to consult Bruce Metzgers informative essay Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament Manuscripts, which appears as chapter 9 in Volume VIII of New Testament Texts & Studies, Historical and Literary Studies - Pagan, Jewish, and Christian. Most seminary libraries probably either have a copy, or can acquire one through an interlibrary loan.)
Finally, it may be a good idea to look at how the text supported by P45 looks next to the usual reading:
P45: O TEKTONOS O _US_ THS MARIAS.
Usual: O TEKTWN O _US_ THS MARIAS.
(Note: "_US_" is a contraction of the word "hUIOS," "son." Also, P45 is damaged, and part of its text is reconstructed; the absolutely secure extant portion of the passage under discussion in P45 is "-OS O _U-.")
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
