stephan huller

In another thread I was intrigued to notice that the Greek term οὐσία can be traced back to the Hebrew word יֵשׁ through the Syriac liturgy. In a sense it is hardly surprising as both words mean 'substance.' But given the fact that the Jewish term is connected with an angel hypostasis datable to the earliest mystical texts, I started wondering about the whole creed business.

Most people who study the fourth century Church are interested in understanding how the terms in the Creed 'fit into' the orthodoxy that came to dominate Christianity. Those of us who are not Christian find the whole Creed rather bizarre - a group of people who together have no clue about what their religion is about, chanting polysyllabic words they even have less of a chance of understanding.

So why develop a creed in the first place? What prompted this oddity? Clearly the Alexandrians and the Romans had a difference of opinion about the relationship between the Father and the Son. But the way many or most people look at it this notion of 'homoousios' was essentially created to figure out some way to reconcile one God from two beings.

But given that I start with Marcionitism, I am very comfortable with the idea that Jesus might have been understood to be have been a being who wasn't the Son or the Father (assuming that both were already known to Jews). So what I have started to think is that the controversy might actually have been centered around the explicit content of the Creed - i.e. whether or not the Father's οὐσία, a personified being or hypostasis, was one and the same with the Son.

The reason I make mention of this is because in earliest Jewish mysticism יֵשׁ does have a life of his own. He is the hidden power of God. The question then which prompted the Creed wouldn't be whether the Son was the same as Father (which is idiotic because a Father has to be older than his Son by definition). But whether or not the Father's οὐσία was one and the same with Jesus.

Now you may ask how could the Alexandrian tradition have gotten around this one. I have been going through Clement's references to οὐσία and they are quite generic. When you really think about it, the idea that the Father's substance was 'in the Son' doesn't preclude the possibility of it - the yesh - being a separate being.

Consider the Jewish mystical speculation regarding yesh (substance) and ayin (nothingness). 'Nothingness' is the highest divinity. Only the creation of yesh (= οὐσία) started the ball rolling for the creation of the universe. But yesh is not the Creator.

In was wondering whether it was understood that the οὐσία was behind the creation of the universe but understood to be nevertheless separate from it. The οὐσία partook of the Son in the same way the Jesus was understood to have left the crucified victim on the Cross ('My Lord, my Lord, why hast thou forsaken me).

The heretical 'docetic' Jesus is this οὐσία. The notion that Jesus had no flesh doesn't preclude him having 'substance.' It's just a heavenly substance, the substance of the Father which essentially cuts the divide between 'Father' and 'Son' centuries before Nicaea. The orthodox were trying to nail down - not the idea that the Father was the Son - but to 'corner' the οὐσία and make it one and the same with the Son, which Arius and others rejected.

Remember also that if Jesus is the οὐσία of the Father (rather than Son) we become sons in the same way that the Son partook of the οὐσία. We are not 'sons of the Son' but sons of the οὐσία or bar ithutho, a term used in the original Syriac creed.

steve_bnk

Constantine wanted a unified Chritianity as the Roman state religion.

Pragmatically the creed was a defacto loyalty oath for the Christian variants that wanted to buy into the new unified church.

Political differences within the faith had to be resolved and worded to satisfy many.

I look at theology like creative artistic invention. Trying to figure out analytically why it was worded as it was and what were the inferences and meaning to those back then seems like an impossible task.

The assumption that they had a cooherent intent may be wrong.

My compliments if you are conversant in Greek.

stephan huller

From my half an hour glance through all references to ousia in Philo (using the Brill concordance) I think I can begin to see where the gnostic idea of three natures comes from. Philo basically assumes that there are three types of ousie - the animal, soul and spirit. Man has a mixture of soul and spirit. There is clearly a sense that man will ultimately progress to have the divine ousia.

Ousia is used often in a way that sounds like a hypostasis. For instance Philo says that God's ousia has never been seen by any one; Moses saw only the hind portions of the ousia. I get the distinct impression that the ousia is understood to be something like the Holy Spirit but nevertheless something different. Heaven seems to be created out of the divine ousia in the same way that the earth was constructed out of the level-below divine ousia. It seems to resemble the Platonic concept of 'world soul':

If Jesus was yesh I would presume that the Marcionites identified him as the heavenly ousia as opposed to the soul from which this physical world was created.

mountainman

Is not this same term used quite prolifically in the Enneads of Plotinus, and especially the concept of the essence of the supreme Platonic divinity. The controversy would therefore appear to be that arising between the Christians and the Platonists in regard to the status of the essence of the supreme deity.

While Arius is generally perceived as a Christian, recent academic commentary points to Arius's capacity (and obvious training) as a Platonic theologian (identified in Rowan William's book on Arius). Arius may simply have maintained that the essence of the Christians' Jesus was not the same as, but similar to, the essence of the supreme divinity of Plato. Constantine and the Christians wished to argue to the contrary, that Jesus was the same as the supreme divinity known to the Platonist (imperially sponsored) hegemon of the 3rd and early 4th century.

That the Mystical Controversy at the Heart of Nicaea was between the Platonist philosophers and the Christians is directly supported by recently translated Fr. 5.6 of Philip of Side, Fragments (2010) ... [Supporters of Arius at the Council of Nicaea]. The Alexandrian hegemon seems likely to have been Platonist. The Christians at best may have been a largely unknown minority position, but Constantine personally redressed the balance of power between these two competing parties.

stephan huller

I don't think you understand any of the books you read. You are too busy trying to make things fit within your daft theory. Take the wax from out of your ears, stop telling the texts what you think they should say and you'll be surprised what you discover.

mountainman

"Arius' entire effort consisted precisely in acclimatizing
Plotinic logic within biblical creationism." [66]


[66] Charles Kannengeisser

p.209

ARIUS: Heresy & Tradition (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Rowan Williams

It is reasonable to conclude that Constantine dubbed Arius a "Porphyrian"
simply because Arius valued and followed the Enneads of Plotinus.

Doug Shaver

Can reasonable people reach a different conclusion?

stephan huller

But that's exactly what I mean. These concepts are completely alien to you, Pete. The mental picture you give of this whole period is so two dimensional it makes Dora the Explorer seem like it is filled with rich character development. 'Platonism' wasn't a religion. It was a way of looking and understanding the world. It certainly didn't exclude you 'believing' in the sanctity of the Bible. There were Jews who were Platonists and Christians who were Platonists. Platonism or 'neo-Platonism' help re-interpret old religious texts including the Bible.

Why don't you ever get this? What stands in your way of actually turning off that voice in your head that whispers 'conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy' incessantly and actually allow the information of the books you pretend to read to be absorbed in your head? Stop mining for quotes you can develop out of context. You abuse texts.

sotto voce

Did he ask for the moon?

stephan huller

An example of Clement's use of ousia that might identify it with Jesus the divine hypostasis:

I am not sure Clement is talking about the Logos but a hidden power between the Father and the Logos, his 'substance.' I wonder why the translators drop ὁ λόγος from the text? The French is typically superficial:

Those French!