Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 02-09-2012, 12:14 AM

Now let's break it down to claims made about Jesus healing the body and the soul:

Quote:

the Logos heals the soul itself by precepts and gifts—by precepts indeed, in course of time, but being liberal in His gifts, He says to us sinners, “Thy sins be forgiven thee.” (Paed. 1 51. 1)
Jesus, who heals both our body and soul--which are the proper man. (Paed 3.12)
does not the Savior who heals the soul also heal the body of its passions? (Strom 3.17)

Notice Clement isn't limiting himself to the idea that Jesus 'healed' a bunch of people in the gospel narrative. Clement understands 'Jesus' to be actively healing people by means of his substance in the contemporary world. Compare the early notion in the Acts of Thomas of the sacraments having this exact function - i.e. healing the body and soul http://books.google.com/books?id=i41...harist&f=false and the same idea is present in Ephrem http://books.google.com/books?id=i41...harist&f=false

stephan huller · 02-09-2012, 12:26 AM

The idea of Jesus as the healer is especially pronounced among the Marcionites whom Ephrem notes:

Quote:

For the Marcionites preach two things concerning our Lord which are at variance with each other, for "He abrogated the former laws and healed injured organs." (Against Marcion 3)

and again a little later:

Quote:

But nevertheless let us return to our former subject, which we abandoned for a while on account of the pretext of 'purchase.' If therefore before the coming of Isu this [convention] 9 existed, O Marcion, that is to say, that though laws were changed from generation to generation the order of nature 10 was fixed and . continued (lit. came) through all generations, we see that if our [P. 139.] Lord came and diverged from this [convention] 9 of the Maker it is evident that He was 'strange' to the Maker. But if He proceeded in accordance with this order it is manifest that this beseemed the Son that His steps should hasten in the footprints of Him that begat Him, for He also . . . But the Son [1. 17.] also preserved by His healing the normal arrangement of the former body, that He might testify, as their Father did, that the creatures were created aright from the Beginning. Our Lord therefore is not found to resemble a destroyer, nor a stranger, for He did not injure healthy organs . . . nor, again, when He healed did He bestow abnormal organs, nor, again, did He [make it [1. 33.] appear] to them by His creative power that He was alien to the Maker, but He preserved organs that were healthy, and cured organs that were hurt. But (?) He who preserves healthy organs, in order that they may not be hurt, plainly testifies concerning Him who created them that He is perfect and (that) it is not right that His arrangement should be hurt. But He who [P. 140.] sets in order organs that have been hurt testifies concerning |lxiv a creative power (shared) in common, (namely) that He is a fellow-workman to Him who set them in order from the Beginning ; and it is evident that it was a love (shared) in common which constrains Him to set in order by a common mode of workmanship the common work. For when the work of a craftsman is injured it cannot be set right save by him who made it, or by a fellow-workman to him who made it. These are two things from which the Marcionites have deflected, for they are not willing to call our Lord 'the Maker,' nor (do they admit) that He was (sent) by the Maker. But His active power itself deprives those who deprive Him of active power, especially because that active power of His was repairing the work of the Creator. But it is clearly seen that this is a thing learnt from Him, (I mean) that primeval Teacher who is the Architect of the creation. But this active power was sent as to the first of creatures,11 in order that it might be known that by this same active power the creatures had been created. For the repair of a work can only be wrought by means of that workmanship which set it in order.

But when this perfect Disciple of that perfect Architect came, not that He was a learner, nor was His Teacher instructed, in virtue of that workmanship which (proceeded) from Himself (and) in which the normal arrangements were included from the Beginning—when He came, therefore, He ordered aright the hands which He had made, that they might give alms to those who lacked health, whereas He found them (such) that, instead of giving alms from that which was their own, they committed thefts from that which was not their own. But because the hands did not perform that service on account of which He created them He was empowered, as a just Maker, to command that the hands should wither up. But instead of this He commanded that hand which was withered to be stretched forth ; 12 for He knew the effrontery of the Marcionites, that if when He was restoring and repairing the corruption of the natures they call Him 'strange' to Nature, if His deed had been contrary to Nature how much more would they have considered Him 'strange' ? But because they are perverse, perhaps if our Lord [P. 142.] had done contrary to Nature they would not have considered |lxv Him 'strange!' But even if they had been as it were able to learn perversely, yet for the upright Teacher it was not seemly that because of the perverse ones He also should teach perversity, a rent worse than the former one . . . ' unless' they were willing to learn. For if in the [straight] way the followers of Marcion are not [able to walk, in slippery places how] can they [direct] their goings ? (end)

stephan huller · 02-09-2012, 10:16 AM

Irenaeus testifies to the heretical belief that the purpose of Christianity is to change the substance of the individual from that of the Creator to that Jesus:

Quote:

And that he, the apostle, was the very same person who had been born from the womb, that is, of the ancient substance of flesh, he does himself declare in the Epistle to the Galatians: "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles," (10) it was not, as I have already observed, one person who had been born from the womb, and another who preached the Gospel of the Son of God; but that same individual who formerly was ignorant, and used to persecute the Church, when the revelation was made to him from heaven, and the Lord conferred with him, as I have pointed out in the third book, preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, his former ignorance being driven out by his subsequent knowledge: just as the blind men whom the Lord healed did certainly lose their blindness, but received the substance of their eyes perfect, and obtained the power of vision in the very same eyes with which they formerly did not see; the darkness being merely driven away by the power of vision, while the substance of the eyes was retained, in order that, by means of those eyes through which they had not seen, exercising again the visual power, they might give thanks to Him who had restored them again to sight. And thus, also, he whose withered hand was healed, and all who were healed generally, did not change those parts of their bodies which had at their birth come forth from the womb, but simply obtained these anew in a healthy condition.

For the Maker of all things, the Word of God, who did also from the beginning form man, when He found His handiwork impaired by wickedness, performed upon it all kinds of healing. At one time [He did so], as regards each separate member, as it is found in His own handiwork; and at another time He did once for all restore man sound and whole in all points, preparing him perfect for Himself unto the resurrection. For what was His object in healing [different] portions of the flesh, and restoring them to their original condition, if those parts which had been healed by Him were not in a position to obtain salvation? For if it was [merely] a temporary benefit which He conferred, He granted nothing of importance to those who were the subjects of His healing. Or how can they maintain that the flesh is incapable of receiving the life which flows from Him, when it received healing from Him? For life is brought about through healing, and incorruption through life. He, therefore, who confers healing, the same does also confer life; and He [who gives] life, also surrounds His own handiwork with incorruption.

Let our opponents--that is, they who speak against their own salvation--inform us [as to this point]: The deceased daughter of the high priest; the widow's dead son, who was being carded out [to burial] near the gate [of the city]; and Lazarus, who had lain four days in the tomb,(4)--in what bodies did they rise again? In those same, no doubt, in which they had also died. For if it were not in the very same, then certainly those same individuals who had died did not rise again. For [the Scripture] says, "The Lord took the hand of the dead man, and said to him, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And the dead man sat up, and He commanded that something should be given him to eat; and He delivered him to his mother."(5) Again, He called Lazarus "with a loud voice, saying, Lazarus, come forth; and he that was dead came forth bound with bandages, feet and hands." This was symbolical of that man who had been bound in sins. And therefore the Lord said, "Loose him, and let him depart." As, therefore, those who were healed were made whole in those members which had in times past been afflicted; and the dead rose in the identical bodies, their limbs and bodies receiving health, and that life which was granted by the Lord, who prefigures eternal things by temporal, and shows that it is He who is Himself able to extend both healing and life to His handiwork, that His words concerning its [future] resurrection may also be believed; so also at the end, when the Lord utters His voice "by the last trumpet,"(6) the dead shall be raised, as He Himself declares: "The hour shall come, in which all the dead which are in the tombs shall hear the voice of the Son of man, and shall come forth; those that have done good to the resurrection of life, and those that have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."[AH 5.12.5 - 13.1]

There was some heretical argument developed around a resurrection of individual which was used to demonstrate that the Christian individual had a new yetser or yesh. Clement describes the same heretical argument as taking place with respect to a lost resurrection pericope shared between his Alexandrian Church and the heretics:

Quote:

From the heretics we have spoken of Marcion from Pontus who deprecates the use of worldly things because of his antipathy to their creator. The creator is thus actually responsible for his self-control, if you can call it self-control. This giant who battles with God and thinks he can withstand him is an unwilling ascetic who runs down the creation and the formation of human beings. If they quote the Lord’s words addressed to Philip, "Let the dead bury their dead; for your part follow me," they should also reflect that Philip’s flesh was of the same formation, and he was not endowed with a polluted corpse. Then how could he have a body of flesh without having a corpse? Because when the Lord put his passions to death he rose from the grave and lived to Christ. We have spoken of the lawless communism in women held by Carpocrates. [Stromata 3.4]

As much as I respect Andrew Criddle I can't understand why he doesn't see this evidence as pointing to the existence of a lost Alexandrian resurrection narrative in a gospel shared by Clement's church, the Marcionites and the Carpocratians which was used as the basis to the idea that Jesus came to change the yetzer of the catechumen to the divine yesh.

stephan huller · 02-09-2012, 10:29 AM

There are a number of 'healing' passages listed above which make reference notice also that 'let the dead bury their dead' is used in conjunction with the same ideas again:

Quote:

Suppose the matter to be a law-suit. Let your father be imagined to present himself to you and say, "I begot and reared thee. Follow me, and join with me in wickedness, and obey not the law of Christ;" and whatever a man who is a blasphemer and dead by nature would say. But on the other side hear the Saviour: "I regenerated thee, who wert ill born by the world to death. I emancipated, healed, ransomed thee. I will show thee the face of the good Father God. Call no man thy father on earth. Let the dead bury the dead; but follow thou Me. For I will bring thee to a rest of ineffable and unutterable blessings, which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of men; into which angels desire to look, and see what good things God hath prepared for the saints and the children who love Him." I am He who feeds thee, giving Myself as bread, of which he who has tasted experiences death no more, and supplying day by day the drink of immortality. I am teacher of supercelestial lessons. For thee I contended with Death, and paid thy death, which thou owedst for thy former sins and thy unbelief towards God." [QDS 23]

There are over half a dozen other 'death' references in the collection above.

stephan huller · 02-09-2012, 01:43 PM

So if Yeshu is the yesh of the Father who has come to earth to transform the yetser of the catechumen hence the name Jewish name for Christians, notzrim [1] - it would seem logical that the point at which Jesus gave his yesh to the world was the Last Supper. Yet I have my suspicions that this wasn't a part of the original gospel. Aside from a single, suspicious reference in the Paedagogue (a document which hopelessly corrupt) I see no evidence for the 'dinner narrative' anywhere in Clement of Alexandria. Perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong.

Nevertheless I wonder if the repeated reference in Irenaeus and Clement to a resurrection as the point at which the Christian God began the 'healing' of the human body and the 'passion' of its members should make us suspect that there was no Eucharist narrative. The same thing is true with baptism by John - one paltry reference in the Paedagogue which again is a corrupt text.

Remember the Marcionites wouldn't have had a confirmation that Jesus established the sacraments of the Church with 'the twelve' apostles. The Secret Mark narrative is much closer to their prejudices - i.e. a single 'secret' apostle/disciple.

[1] The term notzrim is a well established Aramaic term denoting Christians from the rabbinic literature. It is undoubtedly the original term behind the title 'Nazarene' and - as I am about to demonstrate - it actually stands behind the seemingly familiar concept of the Passion of Christ. It is my suggestion to read the term נוצרים as notsarim (root YOD-tsade-resh, nif‘al participle). I believe this deserves serious consideration. Of course there could have been a pair of terms, an exoteric term notsrim from nun-tsade-resh meaning “guardians” and an esoteric term notsarim from yod-tsade-resh meaning “re-formed" = NUN-tsade-resh, qal, participle. You should also go through the shades of meaning of yetser listed in Jastrow, if the meaning of notsarim is “those with a new yetser”. Indeed as Schiffman notes the concept of the two spirits in the Community Rule bears some relationship to the rabbinic concept of two yetsers or 'natures' in man.

stephan huller · 02-09-2012, 01:50 PM

So what I am suggesting is that in the original gospel the divine yesh is given to humanity through a resurrection narrative. This was replaced in due course with the introduction of both (a) the familiar baptism by John introduction unknown to the Marcionite gospel and (b) a story that Jesus and his disciples 'had dinner' together before the Passover.

I know it sounds radical but the dinner narrative has always been problematic for me for several reasons most notably it destroys the significance of the Passover sacrifice. After all Jesus is 'our Passover sacrifice' but the dinner where the yesh is given takes place before Passover. It's a problem for the narrative because now essentially the Passover is being eaten before the sacrifice which is illogical.

A possible line of argument to support the Eucharist narrative replacing the original emphasis of a resurrection dispensation is Ephrem's consistent understanding that Jesus died at the Last Supper. This is perplexed scholars for some time but the logic is clear - the yesh has to be in the sacraments in order for the flesh and blood to have healing power. Sure Ephrem could have argued that Jesus magically put his essence into the Last Supper but I think there was a symbolic attachment to death in the ritual which suddenly disappears when you excise the gnostic resurrection narrative and have Jesus and the disciples share a last meal.

stephan huller · 02-09-2012, 02:05 PM

In the Synoptics, the Last Supper is the annual Passover supper, but in John Jesus dies the afternoon before the Passover. In fact, John seems to go out of his way to emphasize that Jesus died before Passover eve, not on the first day of the feast.

My difficulty again is that the Last Supper that Ephrem claimed Christ 'sacrificed Himself,' prior to His actual death on the Cross. Sebastian Brock The Luminous Eye, 101 notes briefly that the symbolic interpenetration of the Last Supper and the crucifixion was seen by early Syriac theologians to have been so complete as to provide one way of measuring the three day resurrection.

There was originally something else going on here. The key is to remember the consistent mystical emphasis on the idea of 'breaking' the body. The breaking of the bread is an imitation of the breaking of the body, but the way the orthodox have it now the breaking of the body on the cross is an imitation of the meal ceremony which comes first in the narrative! It must originally have been reversed (i.e. a meal celebrated with a resurrected person).

It's the placing of the meal before the crucifixion which causes the Synoptic and Johannine narratives to conflict with one another.

stephan huller · 02-09-2012, 04:43 PM

It's amazing to see how rare the actual references are to the Last Supper in the early Fathers. Irenaeu's allusions are paltry but nevertheless very interesting. He clearly knows of the washing of the feet of Jesus's disciples (John 14) yet all subsequent Last Supper references are from Matthew. No allusions to material from Mark, Luke or John. Very interesting. Yes, Irenaeus is the first to cite the fourfold gospel but could it be that he began with something resembling a Diatessarion (= a single, long gospel)? In any event here are all his references:

Quote:

Now in the last days, when the fulness of the time of liberty had arrived, the Word Himself did by Himself "wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion," when He washed the disciples' feet with His own hands. For this is the end of the human race inheriting God; that as in the beginning, by means of our first [parents], we were all brought into bondage, by being made subject to death; so at last, by means of the New Man, all who from the beginning [were His] disciples, having been cleansed and washed from things pertaining to death, should come to the life of God. For He who washed the feet of the disciples sanctified the entire body, and rendered it clean. For this reason, too, He administered food to them in a recumbent posture, indicating that those who were lying in the earth were they to whom He came to impart life. As Jeremiah declares, "The holy Lord remembered His dead Israel, who slept in the land of sepulture; and He descended to them to make known to them His salvation, that they might be saved." For this reason also were the eyes of the disciples weighed down when Christ's passion was approaching; and when, in the first instance, the Lord found them sleeping, He let it pass,--thus indicating the patience of God in regard to the state of slumber in which men lay; but coming the second time, He aroused them, and made them stand up, in token that His passion is the arousing of His sleeping disciples, on whose account "He also descended into the lower parts of the earth," to behold with His eyes the state of those who were resting from their labours, in reference to whom He did also declare to the disciples: "Many prophets and righteous men have desired to see and hear what ye do see and hear." [AH 4:22]

Besides, the Lord also declared regarding him, “Woe to the man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed;” [Matt. xxvi. 24] and, “It were better for him if he had never been born;” [Mark xiv. 21] and he was called the “son of perdition” by Him. If, however, they say that Judas was a type of the Enthymesis, not as separated from the Æon, but of the passion entwined with her, neither in this way can the number twelve be regarded as a [fitting] type of the number three. [AH 2.20]

[those heretics] devoid of sense, who, [arguing] from what happened to those who formerly did not obey God, do endeavour to bring in another Father, setting over against [these punishments] what great things the Lord had done at His coming to save those who received Him, taking compassion upon them; while they keep silence with regard to His judgment; and all those things which shall come upon such as have heard His words, but done them not, and that it were better for them if they had not been born [Matt 26:24] and that it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the judgment than for that city which did not receive the word of His disciples.[AH 4.28]

Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things--not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful--He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, "This is My body." And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand: "I have no pleasure in you, saith the LORD Omnipotent, and I will not accept sacrifice at your hands. [AH 4.17.5]

For this reason, when about to undergo His sufferings, that He might declare to Abraham and those with him the glad tidings of the inheritance being thrown open, [Christ], after He had given thanks while holding the cup, and had drunk of it, and given it to the disciples, said to them: "Drink ye all of it: this is My blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of this vine, until that day when I will drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." Thus, then, He will Himself renew the inheritance of the earth, and will re-organize the mystery of the glory of [His] sons; as David says, "He who hath renewed the face of the earth."(3) He promised to drink of the fruit of the vine with His disciples, thus indicating both these points: the inheritance of the earth in which the new fruit of the vine is drunk, and the resurrection of His disciples in the flesh. For the new flesh which rises again is the same which also received the new cup. And He cannot by any means be understood as drinking of the fruit of the vine when settled down with his [disciples] above in a super-celestial place; nor, again, are they who drink it devoid of flesh, for to drink of that which flows from the vine pertains to flesh, and not spirit. [AH 5.33]

And notice the language in the citation of the Eucharist narrative is clearly directed against the original understanding that Jesus gave the disciples a heavenly 'substance' (= yesh). The only other allusion to the narrative is quite general in Ignatius:

Quote:

[Satan] who sought to “sift the faith” [Luke xxii. 31] of the apostles [Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 7]

The Diatessaron 44, 45 reads:

Quote:

11 And before the feast of the passover, Jesus knew that the hour was arrived for his departure from this world unto his Father; and he loved his own in this world, and to the last he loved them. And at the time of the feast, Satan put into the heart of Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to deliver him up. And Jesus, because he knew that the Father had delivered into his hands everything, and that he came forth from the Father, and goeth unto God, rose from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded his waist, and poured water into a bason, and began to wash the feet of his disciples, and to wipe them with the towel where- with his waist was girded. And when he came to Simon Cephas, Simon said unto 17 him, Dost thou, my Lord, wash for me my feet? Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do, now thou knowest not; but afterwards thou shall learn. Simon said unto him, Thou shalt never wash for me my feet. Jesus said unto him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Simon Cephas said unto him, Then, my Lord, wash not for me my feet alone, but my hands also and my head. Jesus said unto him, He that batheth needeth not to wash save his feet, whereas his whole body is clean: and ye also are clean, but not all of you. For Jesus knew him that should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.

22 So when he had washed their feet, he took his garments, and sat down, and said unto them, Know ye what I have done unto you? Ye call me, Master, and, Lord: and ye say well; so I am. If then I, now, who am your Lord and Master, have washed for you your feet, how needful is it that ye should wash one another's feet! This have I given you as an example, that as I have done to you so ye should do also. Verily, verily, I say unto you, No servant is greater than his lord; nor an apostle greater than he that sent him. If ye know that, ye are happy if ye do it. My saying this is not for all of you: for I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture might be fulfilled, He that eateth with me bread lifted against me his heel. Henceforth I say unto you before it come to pass, that, when it cometh to pass, ye may believe that I am he. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and whosoever receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

31 Who is the great one, he that sitteth, or he that serveth? is it not he that sitteth? I am among you as he that serveth. But ye are they that have continued with me in my temptations; I promise you, as my Father promised me, the kingdom, that ye may eat and drink at the table of my kingdom.

34 And the first day came, the feast of unleavened bread, on which the Jews were wont to sacrifice the passover. And Jesus sent two of his disciples, Cephas and John, and said unto them, Go and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat. 36, And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee? He said unto them, Go, enter the city; and at the time of your entering, there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water; follow him, and the place where he entereth, say to such an one, the master of the house, Our Master saith, My time is come, and Arabic, at thy house I keep the passover. Where then is the lodging-place where p. 169 I shall eat with my disciples? And he will shew you a large upper room spread and made ready: there then make ready for us. And his two disciples went out, and came to the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover as he had said unto them.

41 And when the evening was come, and the time arrived, Jesus came and reclined, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: I say unto you, that henceforth I shall not eat it, until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

44 Jesus said that, and was agitated s in his spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, One of you, he that eateth with me, shall betray me. And they were very sorrowful; and they began to say unto him, one after another of them, Can it be Lord? He answered and said unto them, One of the twelve, he that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, will betray me. And Io, the hand of him that betrayeth me is on the table. And the Son of man goeth, as it is written of him: woe then to that man by whose hand the Son of man is betrayed! for it would have been better for that man had he not been born. And the disciples looked one on another, for they knew not to whom he referred; and they began to search among themselves, who that might be who was to do this.

45 2 Arabic,And one of his disciples was sitting in his bosom, he whom Jesus loved. To him Simon Cephas beckoned, that he should ask him who this was, con- 3 cerning whom he spake. And that disciple leaned on Jesus' breast, and said unto him, 4 My Lord, who is this? Jesus answered and said, He to whom I shall dip bread, and give it. And Jesus dipped bread, and gave to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. 5 And after the bread, Satan entered him. And Jesus said unto him, What thou 6 desirest to do, hasten the doing of it. And no man of them that sat knew why he 7 said this unto him. And some of them thought, because Judas had the box, that he was bidding him buy what would be needed for the feast; or, that he might pay 8 something to the poor. Judas the betrayer answered and said, Can it be I, my 9 Master? Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said. And Judas took the bread straightway, and went forth without: and it was still night.

10 And Jesus said, Now is the Son of man being glorified, and God is being glorified in him; and if God is glorified in him, God also will glorify him in him, and straightway will glorify him. 12 And while they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and divided; and he gave to his disciples, and said unto them, Take and eat; this is my body. And he, took a cup, and gave thanks, and blessed, and gave them, and said, Take 14, and drink of it, all of you. And they drank of it, all of them. And he said unto them, This is my blood, the new covenant, that is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this, the juice of the vine, until the day in which I drink with you new wine in the kingdom of God. And thus do ye in remembrance of me. And Jesus said unto Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asketh that he may sift you like wheat: but I entreat for thee, that thou lose not thy faith: and do thou, at some time, turn and strengthen thy brethren. My children, another little while am I with you. And ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; I say unto you now also. A new commandment I give you, that ye may love one another; and as I have loved you, so shall ye also love one another. By this shall every man know that ye are my disciples. if ye have love one to another. Simon Cephas said unto him, Our Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered and said unto him, Whither I go, thou canst not now follow me; but later thou shall come.

stephan huller · 02-09-2012, 05:55 PM

And notice that Irenaeus cites a lost text in the name of Jeremiah in the middle of retelling of the Eucharist narrative:

As Jeremiah declares, “The holy Lord remembered His dead Israel, who slept in the land of sepulture; and He descended to them to make known to them His salvation, that they might be saved.”

Again how remarkably similar to the resurrection narratives of Secret Mark and John - in the middle of a discussion of the Last Supper!

stephan huller · 02-09-2012, 06:40 PM

The very same saying appears in a slightly different form elsewhere in Irenaeus (!) and Justin. First the reference in Justin's Dialogue:

And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: 'I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.' ⁠Jeremiah*11:19⁠ And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: 'The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.'

Interestingly enough, we see the same kind of quotation by Irenaeus in his Against Heresies in multiple locations at important theological intersects (3.20.4; 4.22.1; 4.33.1; 4.33.12; and 5.31.1).* This supposed extant OT textual tradition seems to be a theological butress to Irenaeus’ understanding of the descent of Christ.* In the very places you would expect him to default a quotation of 1 Peter 3:19-20, he does not, and instead supplies us with the same extant quotation.* The citation is recorded in minor formulaic variations as follows:

“And the holy Lord* remembered His dead Israel, who had slept in the land of sepulcher; and He came down to preach His salvation to them, that He might save them.“* -* Her. 3.20.4 (here Irenaeus claims this passage is from Isaiah)

“And the holy Lord* remembered His dead Israel, who had slept in the land of sepulcher; and He descended to them to make known to them His salvation, that they might be saved.“* -* Her. 4.22.1 (here Irenaeus claims the passage is from Jeremiah, in congruence with the claim by Justin Martyr)

“The holy Lord remembered His own dead ones who slept in the dust, and came down to them to raise them up, that He might save them.“* -* Her. 5.31.1 (here Irenaeus states that “others”, in context speaking of the prophets, have said this, indicating he may of thought both prophets had recorded this sentence in its most rudimentary form)

It seems unlikely for the fathers to invent similiar passages to build a theology upon, especially as they are in context being used apologetically.* Due to its frequent citation, its apolegetic usage, and its proposed deletion from manuscripts due to Jewish removal, this leaves us with the strong possiblity of the previous existence of an extant LXX tradition that provides seemingly adequate support for a possible view regarding the descent of Christ.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-09-2012, 01:43 PM	#225
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	So if Yeshu is the yesh of the Father who has come to earth to transform the yetser of the catechumen hence the name Jewish name for Christians, notzrim [1] - it would seem logical that the point at which Jesus gave his yesh to the world was the Last Supper. Yet I have my suspicions that this wasn't a part of the original gospel. Aside from a single, suspicious reference in the Paedagogue (a document which hopelessly corrupt) I see no evidence for the 'dinner narrative' anywhere in Clement of Alexandria. Perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong. Nevertheless I wonder if the repeated reference in Irenaeus and Clement to a resurrection as the point at which the Christian God began the 'healing' of the human body and the 'passion' of its members should make us suspect that there was no Eucharist narrative. The same thing is true with baptism by John - one paltry reference in the Paedagogue which again is a corrupt text. Remember the Marcionites wouldn't have had a confirmation that Jesus established the sacraments of the Church with 'the twelve' apostles. The Secret Mark narrative is much closer to their prejudices - i.e. a single 'secret' apostle/disciple. [1] The term notzrim is a well established Aramaic term denoting Christians from the rabbinic literature. It is undoubtedly the original term behind the title 'Nazarene' and - as I am about to demonstrate - it actually stands behind the seemingly familiar concept of the Passion of Christ. It is my suggestion to read the term נוצרים as notsarim (root YOD-tsade-resh, nif‘al participle). I believe this deserves serious consideration. Of course there could have been a pair of terms, an exoteric term notsrim from nun-tsade-resh meaning “guardians” and an esoteric term notsarim from yod-tsade-resh meaning “re-formed" = NUN-tsade-resh, qal, participle. You should also go through the shades of meaning of yetser listed in Jastrow, if the meaning of notsarim is “those with a new yetser”. Indeed as Schiffman notes the concept of the two spirits in the Community Rule bears some relationship to the rabbinic concept of two yetsers or 'natures' in man.

02-09-2012, 01:50 PM	#226
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	So what I am suggesting is that in the original gospel the divine yesh is given to humanity through a resurrection narrative. This was replaced in due course with the introduction of both (a) the familiar baptism by John introduction unknown to the Marcionite gospel and (b) a story that Jesus and his disciples 'had dinner' together before the Passover. I know it sounds radical but the dinner narrative has always been problematic for me for several reasons most notably it destroys the significance of the Passover sacrifice. After all Jesus is 'our Passover sacrifice' but the dinner where the yesh is given takes place before Passover. It's a problem for the narrative because now essentially the Passover is being eaten before the sacrifice which is illogical. A possible line of argument to support the Eucharist narrative replacing the original emphasis of a resurrection dispensation is Ephrem's consistent understanding that Jesus died at the Last Supper. This is perplexed scholars for some time but the logic is clear - the yesh has to be in the sacraments in order for the flesh and blood to have healing power. Sure Ephrem could have argued that Jesus magically put his essence into the Last Supper but I think there was a symbolic attachment to death in the ritual which suddenly disappears when you excise the gnostic resurrection narrative and have Jesus and the disciples share a last meal.

02-09-2012, 02:05 PM	#227
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	In the Synoptics, the Last Supper is the annual Passover supper, but in John Jesus dies the afternoon before the Passover. In fact, John seems to go out of his way to emphasize that Jesus died before Passover eve, not on the first day of the feast. My difficulty again is that the Last Supper that Ephrem claimed Christ 'sacrificed Himself,' prior to His actual death on the Cross. Sebastian Brock The Luminous Eye, 101 notes briefly that the symbolic interpenetration of the Last Supper and the crucifixion was seen by early Syriac theologians to have been so complete as to provide one way of measuring the three day resurrection. There was originally something else going on here. The key is to remember the consistent mystical emphasis on the idea of 'breaking' the body. The breaking of the bread is an imitation of the breaking of the body, but the way the orthodox have it now the breaking of the body on the cross is an imitation of the meal ceremony which comes first in the narrative! It must originally have been reversed (i.e. a meal celebrated with a resurrected person). It's the placing of the meal before the crucifixion which causes the Synoptic and Johannine narratives to conflict with one another.

02-09-2012, 05:55 PM	#229
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And notice that Irenaeus cites a lost text in the name of Jeremiah in the middle of retelling of the Eucharist narrative: As Jeremiah declares, “The holy Lord remembered His dead Israel, who slept in the land of sepulture; and He descended to them to make known to them His salvation, that they might be saved.” Again how remarkably similar to the resurrection narratives of Secret Mark and John - in the middle of a discussion of the Last Supper!

02-09-2012, 06:40 PM	#230
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The very same saying appears in a slightly different form elsewhere in Irenaeus (!) and Justin. First the reference in Justin's Dialogue: And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: 'I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.' ⁠Jeremiah11:19⁠ And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: 'The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.' Interestingly enough, we see the same kind of quotation by Irenaeus in his Against Heresies in multiple locations at important theological intersects (3.20.4; 4.22.1; 4.33.1; 4.33.12; and 5.31.1). This supposed extant OT textual tradition seems to be a theological butress to Irenaeus’ understanding of the descent of Christ.* In the very places you would expect him to default a quotation of 1 Peter 3:19-20, he does not, and instead supplies us with the same extant quotation.* The citation is recorded in minor formulaic variations as follows: “And the holy Lord* remembered His dead Israel, who had slept in the land of sepulcher; and He came down to preach His salvation to them, that He might save them.“* -* Her. 3.20.4 (here Irenaeus claims this passage is from Isaiah) “And the holy Lord* remembered His dead Israel, who had slept in the land of sepulcher; and He descended to them to make known to them His salvation, that they might be saved.“* -* Her. 4.22.1 (here Irenaeus claims the passage is from Jeremiah, in congruence with the claim by Justin Martyr) “The holy Lord remembered His own dead ones who slept in the dust, and came down to them to raise them up, that He might save them.“* -* Her. 5.31.1 (here Irenaeus states that “others”, in context speaking of the prophets, have said this, indicating he may of thought both prophets had recorded this sentence in its most rudimentary form) It seems unlikely for the fathers to invent similiar passages to build a theology upon, especially as they are in context being used apologetically.* Due to its frequent citation, its apolegetic usage, and its proposed deletion from manuscripts due to Jewish removal, this leaves us with the strong possiblity of the previous existence of an extant LXX tradition that provides seemingly adequate support for a possible view regarding the descent of Christ.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.