|
HOME | GREEK LANGUAGE | LIBRARIES | BLOG | HELP | SEARCH | FREEWARE | BOOKSTORE |
|
|
Translated by John Patrick.
Origen Resources OnLine & in Print
|
128 Pages
Page 38
What credibility, forsooth, has the erroneous opinion, whether of Herod or of some of the people, that John and Jesus were not two persons, but that it was one and the same person John who rose from the dead after that he had been beheaded and was called Jesus? Some one might say, however, that Herod and some of those of the people held the false dogma of the transmigration of souls into bodies, in consequence of which they thought that the former John had appeared again by a fresh birth, and had come from the dead into life as Jesus. But the time between the birth of John and the birth of Jesus, which was not more than six months, does not permit this false opinion to be considered credible. And perhaps rather some such idea as this was in the mind of Herod, that the powers which wrought in John had passed over to Jesus, in consequence of which He was thought by the people to be John the Baptist. And one might use the following line of argument. Just as because of the spirit and the power of Elijah, and not because of his soul, it is said about John, "This is Elijah which is to come," [5304] the spirit in Elijah and the power in him having gone over to John--so Herod thought that the powers in John wrought in his case works of baptism and teaching,--for John did not one miracle, [5305] but in Jesus miraculous portents. It may be said that something of this kind was the thought of those who said that Elijah had appeared in Jesus, or that one of the old prophets had risen. [5306] But the opinion of those who said that Jesus was "a prophet even as one of the prophets," [5307] has no bearing on the question. False, then, is the saying concerning Jesus, whether that recorded to have been the view of Herod, or that spoken by others. Only, the saying, "That John went before in the spirit and power of Elijah," [5308] which corresponds to the thoughts which they were now cherishing concerning John and Jesus, seems to me more credible. But since we learned, in the first place, that when the Saviour after the temptation heard that John was given up, He retreated into Galilee, and in the second place, that when John was in prison and heard the things about Jesus he sent two of his disciples and said to Him, "Art thou He that cometh, or look we for another?" [5309] and in the third place, generally that Herod said about Jesus, "It is John the Baptist, he is risen from the dead," [5310] but we have not previously learned from any quarter the manner in which the Baptist was killed, therefore Matthew has now recorded it, and Mark almost like unto him; but Luke passed over in silence the greater part of the narrative as it is found in them." [5311]
[5304] Matt. xi. 14.
[5305] John x. 41.
[5306] Luke ix. 8.
[5307] Mark vi. 15.
[5308] Luke i. 17.
[5309] Matt. xi. 2, 3.
[5310] Matt. xiv. 2.
[5311] The question of John's relation to Jesus and of the supposed transcorporation, is more fully discussed by Origen in his Commentary on John, book vi. 7, p. 353, sqq.
Reference address : https://ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/fathers/origen/matthew-commentary.asp?pg=38
