jewish-christian gospels and syriac gospel traditions likely source for this passage is theGospel of the Hebrewswhich was orig-
inally composed in Greek but later on translated into Syriac....TheRichManinOrigen’sCommentary on MatthewThe Latin text of Origen’s commentary on Matthew often differs from
the Greek one. Although the translation may include some original
readings,^9 the story about the rich man proves to be a later addition.
In the context preceding the passage, Origen reasons that since the love
commandment is missing in the parallel passages of Mark and Luke, and
because Jesus would surely have objected had the man really claimed to
havekeptthelovecommandment,itmustbealateradditioninMatthew’s
gospel.^10 Origen himself also gave another interpretation—which now
follows the added passage—for those who do not agree that the love
commandment is a later addition. According to Origen, one can also
think that the Lord wanted to gently show the man that he had not
fulfilled the commandment. Therefore, the Lord said that if the man
wants to be perfect he must go and sell everything he has and give to
the poor. By doing this, he would then fulfill the love commandment in
reality. Obviously, the added passage where Jesus openly reprimands the
man for neglecting his neighbors does not fit with Origen’s “gentle” Jesus.
However, this contradiction did not bother the translator who added the
story,probablybecauseitshowedsowellhowdifficultitisforarichman
to be generous and thus love one’s neighbor.^11
(^9) E. Klostermann found the Latin translation a useful tool for reconstructing the
original text of the commentary. See Vogt , vii–xi. Other scholars have not been so
optimistic. See, for instance, Vogt , –.
(^10) Obviously, modern redaction critics would agree with Origen: The love command-
ment is added by Matthew, the editor of the gospel!
(^11) Klijn , –, thinks that the translator took offence at the way in which the
Greek original superficially implied that a passage in the New Testament could be deleted.
Therefore, the translator quoted theGospel of the Hebrewsin order to show that the love
commandment was recorded there, too. In Klijn’s view, this shows that the translator
attached some importance to theGospel of the Hebrews.Itisdifficulttoagreewith
this explanation because the Latin text still includes Origen’s clear arguments for the
secondary character of the love commandment and because, according to the Latin text,
it is up to the readers to assess Origen’s reasoning:iudicent autem qui possunt, utrum
vera sint quae tractamus an falsa. The introduction to the quotation also leaves it for the
readers to take it or leave it:si tamen placet alicui suscipere illud, non ad auctoritatem, sed
ad manifestationem propositae quaestiones. Klijn may have been influenced by Schmidtke
, , who believes that the Latin translator totally undermines Origen’s original
criticism. I do not think so. In my view, the translator only says in the first part of his
addition that, in the New Testament, Origen did not dare to set forth the parameters for