Resumen de Did Origen Write the Letter to Theodore?
Recent debate has suggested forgery is implausible; yet the letter does include non-Clementine elements, including the proposal that Christians should perjure themselves rather than reveal the authorship of a non-canonical Markan gospel that the letter describes. Since the misattribution of ancient texts is not uncommon, it is prudent to wonder if the letter has likewise been misattributed, rather than forged. REFUTING THE CASE FOR FORGERY The authorship debate was recently taken up in the first York Christian Apocrypha Symposium.1 The authorship and contents of the letter's gospel fragments are in many ways a separate issue from the authorship and contents of the letter itself, and will not be examined here.2 Even Smith's accusers agree that the framing letter itself merits more attention than it has received, and the present article will focus exclusively on the letter's authenticity and attribution.3 The arguments that the letter is forged have been repeatedly refuted, as even one of Smith's opponents at the symposium admits.4 For example, its authenticity should not rely on knowing the provenance of the Voss volume in which it was discovered.5 Indeed, several apocrypha are represented by manuscript evidence that is of either late or unknown provenance, yet they are regarded as authentically ancient.6 While Smith may have done work prior to 1958 on subjects that at times echo his reading of the letter, any purported connections between that work and the text of the letter are exaggerated, and arouse no suspicion that the letter somehow reflects his own thought.7 Likewise exaggerated are claims that his account of his discovery betrays signs that he used a 1940s mystery thriller as a template for an invented story of discovery.8 Nor was the Voss volume out of place at Mar Saba, where most library holdings were not catalogued anyway, and Smith's failure to test the manuscript scientifically is understandable given that several subsequent attempts to examine it were unsuccessful. [...]those who lie well (bene mentitur), and without shame contrive for their comrades whatever comes out of their mouth, prove themselves to be the best master.79 To be sure, Jerome is at times a polemicist; his dispute with Rufinus has been described as "bitter and personal, and vindictive. Ronald Heine writes that the doctrine of concealing the truth from certain persons was "quite likely" found in Origen's own Commentary on Ephesians.86 Origen elsewhere argues (from Jer 20.7-12) that even God in some ways deceives.87 Origen frequently justifies deception, on the grounds that the meaning of Scripture is often too complex or subtle for the uninitiated, or even too morally challenging for the everyday believer.88 Origen offers examples of justifiable deception: that of children when teaching morality, and (just like Clement, and both following Plato) that of a patient by a doctor to avoid fear and pain.89 Origen went still further, claiming (according to Jerome) that lying for the sake of edification was apostolic, and portraying the confrontation in Antioch between Peter and Paul over table fellowship with Gentiles as a staged encounter, for the purposes of illustrating that the Jewish law did not hold for Gentiles.90 Again, we might suspect Jerome of polemicism here, yet Origen did boast that he deliberately presented Christian teachings as non-Christian, to earn the attention and respect of pagans, after which he revealed their true source.91 Origen held that the literal meaning of Scripture is often senseless, and that the Christian must frequently interpret Scripture solely on the spiritual level.92 The letter's attitude towards perjury, deceit, and scriptural obfuscation resembles Origen's attitudes at least as well as Clement, if not even more so.
