Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 01-11-2012, 01:55 PM

The story behind Against Praxeas is most interesting. Tertullian complains that Praxeas had a hand in getting the bishop of Rome to condemn Montanism (Victor? Zephyrinus?). At the same time Tertullian counters that Praxeas was a patripassian = someone who argued that when Jesus was crucified the Father suffered on the cross. Many people have tried to figure out who 'Praxeas' was. One legitimate scholar argued that Praxeas is a disguise for the name Irenaeus. However I think it more likely that Irenaeus was the author of the text and Praxeas was someone else who curbed Irenaeus and also Hippolytus's influence with the Roman bishops of the early third century.

Callixtus, Zephyrinus's successor is accused of Sabellianism (which is the same as Patripassianism). It is difficult to see how this 'heresy' actually developed and from what the charge developed. Is it related to the alogoism (i.e. the people who devalued the significance of the Gospel of John)? I think so because the Gospel of John is cited over 115 times in the counterattack against Praxeas. It would be hard to imagine that Praxeas could have claimed anything like Jesus was the Father given the Prologue's statement to the contrary.

Matthew is the second most cited text at twenty reference and Tertullian explicitly states near the end that 'Matthew and Luke' agree with John:

Quote:

In addition to Philip's conversation, and the Lord's reply to it, the reader will observe that we have run through John's Gospel to show that many other passages of a clear purport, both before and after that chapter, are only in strict accord with that single and prominent statement, which must be interpreted agreeably to all other places, rather than in opposition to them, and indeed to its own inherent and natural sense. I will not here largely use the support of the other Gospels, which confirm our belief by the Lord's nativity: it is sufficient to remark that He who had to be born of a virgin is announced in express terms by the angel himself as the Son of God [Against Praxeas 26]

And Luke is subsequently cited twelve times. Yet the author (Tertullian) never once references Mark anywhere in the text, only Matthew and Luke represent 'the other gospels' which agree against Praxeas's position. Does this mean that Praxeas's preferred gospel was Mark? I think so. And this echoes a trait we see from Gaius of Rome's attack against Mark - namely that John is disproved because it contradicts Mark.

Yet it is in the next chapter that things get really interesting. I never noticed this before. Apparently Praxeas belongs to a sect which divides Jesus and Christ into Son and Father respectively. Tertullian begins with an argument as follows:

Quote:

For, confuted on all sides on the distinction between the Father and the Son, which we maintain without destroying their inseparable union— as (by the examples) of the sun and the ray, and the fountain and the river— yet, by help of (their conceit) an indivisible number, (with issues) of two and three, they endeavour to interpret this distinction in a way which shall nevertheless tally with their own opinions: so that, all in one Person, they distinguish two, Father and Son, understanding the Son to be flesh, that is man, that is Jesus; and the Father to be spirit, that is God, that is Christ. Thus they, while contending that the Father and the Son are one and the same, do in fact begin by dividing them rather than uniting them. For if Jesus is one, and Christ is another, then the Son will be different from the Father, because the Son is Jesus, and the Father is Christ. Such a monarchy as this they learned, I suppose, in the school of Valentinus, making two— Jesus and Christ. [ibid 27]

I am not sure this is a fair representation of the beliefs of Praxeas. I think Jesus was the Son and the Father was Christ as we see in what follows:

Quote:

And so, most foolish heretic, you make Christ to be the Father, without once considering the actual force of this name, if indeed Christ is a name, and not rather a surname, or designation; for it signifies Anointed. But Anointed is no more a proper name than Clothed or Shod; it is only an accessory to a name. Suppose now that by some means Jesus were also called Vestitus (Clothed), as He is actually called Christ from the mystery of His anointing, would you in like manner say that Jesus was the Son of God, and at the same time suppose that Vestitus was the Father? Now then, concerning Christ, if Christ is the Father, the Father is an Anointed One, and receives the unction of course from another. Else if it is from Himself that He receives it, then you must prove it to us. But we learn no such fact from the Acts of the Apostles in that ejaculation of the Church to God, Of a truth, Lord, against Your Holy Child Jesus, whom You have anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together. Acts 4:27 These then testified both that Jesus was the Son of God, and that being the Son, He was anointed by the Father. Christ therefore must be the same as Jesus who was anointed by the Father, and not the Father, who anointed the Son. To the same effect are the words of Peter: Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made that same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ, that is, Anointed. Acts 2:36 John, moreover, brands that man as a liar who denies that Jesus is the Christ; while on the other hand he declares that every one is born of God who believes that Jesus is the Christ. Wherefore he also exhorts us to believe in the name of His (the Father's,) Son Jesus Christ, that our fellowship may be with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. 1 John 1:3 Paul, in like manner, everywhere speaks of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ. When writing to the Romans, he gives thanks to God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 1:8 To the Galatians he declares himself to be an apostle not of men, neither by man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father. Galatians 1:1 You possess indeed all his writings, which testify plainly to the same effect, and set forth Two— God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. (They also testify) that Jesus is Himself the Christ, and under one or the other designation the Son of God. For precisely by the same right as both names belong to the same Person, even the Son of God, does either name alone without the other belong to the same Person. Consequently, whether it be the name Jesus which occurs alone, Christ is also understood, because Jesus is the Anointed One; or if the name Christ is the only one given, then Jesus is identified with Him, because the Anointed One is Jesus. Now, of these two names Jesus Christ, the former is the proper one, which was given to Him by the angel; and the latter is only an adjunct, predicable of Him from His anointing,— thus suggesting the proviso that Christ must be the Son, not the Father. How blind, to be sure, is the man who fails to perceive that by the name of Christ some other God is implied, if he ascribes to the Father this name of Christ! For if Christ is God the Father, when He says, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God, John 20:17 He of course shows plainly enough that there is above Himself another Father and another God. If, again, the Father is Christ, He must be some other Being who strengthens the thunder, and creates the wind, and declares unto men His Christ. And if the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ, that Lord must be another Being, against whose Christ were gathered together the kings and the rulers. And if, to quote another passage, Thus says the Lord to my Lord Christ, the Lord who speaks to the Father of Christ must be a distinct Being. Moreover, when the apostle in his epistle prays, That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and of knowledge, Ephesians 1:17 He must be other (than Christ), who is the God of Jesus Christ, the bestower of spiritual gifts. And once for all, that we may not wander through every passage, He who raised up Christ from the dead, and is also to raise up our mortal bodies, Romans 8:11 must certainly be, as the quickener, different from the dead Father, or even from the quickened Father, if Christ who died is the Father. [ibid 28]

The thing that caught my eye is that the Marcionite reading of Gal 1:1 as recorded in Origen's Commentary on Galatians (and preserved by Jerome) is not the Father raised the Son but that the Marcion version did not read:

Quote:

Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

But according to Origen something like:

Quote:

an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ who raised him from the dead

The reason this interests me is that Tertullian's citation of the line implies clearly that there were three figures mentioned in the text - the apostle, Jesus and the Father. Yet in the Marcionite text there was just two - the apostle and Jesus.

Now if you start thinking about the difference between Tertullian's position and Praxeas's position, Praxeas would have it that Christ is the title of the Father. This is strange to us because we see 'Jesus Christ' everywhere in the Pauline writings. Yet I happened to be looking at la-reid's page here at the forum where he makes mention of a curious detail from Philippian's chapter 2. Paul says:

Quote:

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

La-reid noted this is strange because it implies that Jesus only got his name after the crucifixion. Yet I think with Against Praxeas we can solve the mystery - the name Jesus got was 'Christ' (more on that in a minute). In other words, it is a reflection of the argument associated with Praxeas above.

In other words, Jesus and Christ were two different figures. Praxeas says the names belong to the Son and Father respectively. When did Jesus become JC? At the crucifixion. It was then that the Father "gave him the name that is above every name." But what name was that?

Tertullian acts like the name was Christ and had to do with unction? But doesn't Chrestos make more sense here? Indeed Jesus wasn't anointed at the cross. We also have discovered that the cross was shaped like a chi-rho which was used as a symbol to show that manuscripts were 'right.' I wonder whether the same symbol was used on sacrifices to show that they were 'correct' to (a stamp of some sort in Greek). In other words, that Jesus when he was sacrificed was a 'right' sacrifice.

But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit. Notice also that the Marcionites emphasize over and over again that Jesus was not the Christ of the Jews. What other Christ was there? What is really going on likely is that they said that he was not Christ just like Praxeas

stephan huller · 01-11-2012, 02:54 PM

Now another Marcionitism in the next chapter:

Quote:

On this principle, too, the Father was not associated in suffering with the Son. The heretics, indeed, fearing to incur direct blasphemy against the Father, hope to diminish it by this expedient: they grant us so far that the Father and the Son are Two; adding that, since it is the Son indeed who suffers, the Father is only His fellow-sufferer. But how absurd are they even in this conceit! For what is the meaning of fellow-suffering, but the endurance of suffering along with another? Now if the Father is incapable of suffering, He. is incapable of suffering in company with another; otherwise, if He can suffer with another, He is of course capable of suffering. You, in fact, yield Him nothing by this subterfuge of your fears. You are afraid to say that He is capable of suffering whom you make to be capable of fellow-suffering. [ibid 29]

or as Evans translates

Quote:

In fact because they are ashamed of direct blasphemy against the Father, they hope it may in this manner be mitigated, while they now admit that Father and Son are two if indeed in this fashion the Son suffers while the Father suffers with <him>. In this also are they fools. For what is "compassion" except "suffering with" another? Further, if the Father is impassible he is of course incompassible or if he is compassible he is of course passible. So you do him no benefit by this fear of yours. For you fear to call passible him whom you do call compassible. But the Father is just as incompassible as the Son also is impassible as regards that state in which he is God. "But in what way did the Son suffer, if the Father also did not suffer with him?" The difference begins from the Son, not from the Father. For also if a river is defiled by some muddying, although the one substance comes down from the spring and there is no interruption at the spring, yet the malady of the river will not attach to the spring: and though the water which suffers <injury> belongs to the spring, so long as it suffers not in the spring but in the river it is not the spring that suffers, but the river which Chas comet from the spring. So also how could the Spirit of God suffer in the Son?

the important thing here is that the original Latin does not mention 'other heretics' at all:

Quote:

ergo nec compassus est pater filio. scilicet directam blasphemiam in patrem veriti, diminui eam hoc modo sperant, concedentes iam patrem et filium duos esse, si filius sic quidem patitur pater vero compatitur. stulti et in hoc. quid est enim compati quam cum alio pati? porro si impassibilis pater utique et incompassibilis; aut si compassibilis utique passibilis. nihil ei vel hoc timore tuo praestas. times dicere passibilem quem dicis compassibilem. tam autem incompassibilis pater est quam impassibilis etiam filius ex ea condicione qua deus est. sed quomodo filius passus est si non compassus est et pater? separatur a filio, non a deo.

What struck me as interesting here is that Tertullian uses the same kind of language in Book Four of Against Marcion with respect to the healing of the leper:

Quote:

Since, however, he (Marcion) quotes with especial care, as a proof in his domain, a certain companion in suffering (συνταλαίπωρον), and associate in hatred (συμμισούμενον), with himself, for the cure of leprosy, I shall not be sorry to meet him, and before anything else to point out to him the force of the law figuratively interpreted, which, in this example of a leper (who was not to be touched, but was rather to be removed from all intercourse with others), prohibited any communication with a person who was defiled with sins, with whom the apostle also forbids us even to eat food, forasmuch as the taint of sins would be communicated as if contagious: wherever a man should mix himself with the sinner.

I thought it was strange to see the parallel usage of these terms. Notice also the Irenaeus makes reference to a group who use the Gospel of Mark to argue that 'Christ was impassible':

Quote:

Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. [AH 3.11.7]

These are clearly not Valentinians (as they follow in the list). A superficial reading of this passage would argue that this sect is NOT the same as Praxeas. Yet this misses the point.

Praxeas's point (cf. Phil 2.9) is that Jesus only became Christos/Chrestos at the crucifixion. It was at this point that 'he received the name above all other names' and was enthroned. To this end Irenaeus is merely exaggerating that 'Christ' was watching impassibly. Rather Christ is described as the Father and thus perfectly 'impassible' (without passion). The Son who is the Jewish God has passion (given his outbursts, anger, jealousy etc).

Here are some other indicators that the Christ was the Father who become one with Jesus at some point after the beginning of the narrative:

Quote:

For they will have it, that the Word and Christ never came into this world; that the Saviour, too, never became incarnate, nor suffered, but that He descended like a dove upon the dispensational Jesus; and that, as soon as He had declared the unknown Father, He did again ascend into the Pleroma. Some, however, make the assertion, that this dispensational Jesus did become incarnate, and suffered, whom they represent as having passed through Mary just as water through a tube; but others allege him to be the Son of the Demiurge, upon whom the dispensational Jesus descended; while others, again, say that Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary, and that the Christ from above descended upon him, being without flesh, and impassible. But according to the opinion of no one of the heretics was the Word of God made flesh. For if any one carefully examines the systems of them all, he will find that the Word of God is brought in by all of them as not having become incarnate (sine carne) and impassible, as is also the Christ from above. [Ah 3.11.3]

Besides this, also, it was a much heavier task, that He whom the Jews had seen as a man, and had fastened to the cross, should be preached as Christ the Son of God, their eternal King. Since this, however, was so, they certainly did not speak to them in accordance with their old belief. For they, who told them to their face that they were the slayers of the Lord, would themselves also much more boldly preach that Father who is above the Demiurge, and not what each individual bid himself believe [respecting God]; and the sin was much less, if indeed they had not fastened to the cross the superior Saviour (to whom it behoved them to ascend), since He was impassible. [ibid 3.12.6]

But(1) there are some who say that Jesus was merely a receptacle of Christ, upon whom the Christ, as a dove, descended from above, and that when He had declared the unnameable Father He entered into the Pleroma in an incomprehensible and invisible manner: for that He was not comprehended, not only by men, but not even by those powers and virtues which are in heaven, and that Jesus was the Son, but that Christ was the Father, and the Father of Christ, God; while others say that He merely suffered in outward appearance, being naturally impassible. The Valentinians, again, maintain that the dispensational Jesus was the same who passed through Mary, upon whom that Saviour from the more exalted [region] descended, who was also termed Pan,(3) because He possessed the names (vocabula) of all those who had produced Him; but that [this latter] shared with Him, the dispensational one, His power and His name; so that by His means death was abolished, but the Father was made known by that Saviour who had descended from above, whom they do also allege to be Himself the receptacle of Christ and of the entire Pleroma; confessing, indeed, in tongue one Christ Jesus, but being divided in [actual] opinion: [AH 3.14.1 notice here that the sect who has the dove coming down upon Jesus is NOT the Valentinians but certainly the Marcosians cf. Book One]

But inasmuch as all those before mentioned, although they certainly do with their tongue confess one Jesus Christ, make fools of themselves, thinking one thing and saying another;(10) for their hypotheses vary, as I have already shown, alleging, [as they do,] that one Being suffered and was born, and that this was Jesus; but that there was another who descended upon Him, and that this was Christ, who also ascended again; and they argue, that he who proceeded from the Demiurge, or he who was dispensational, or he who sprang from Joseph, was the Being subject to suffering; but upon the latter there descended from the invisible and ineffable [places] the former, whom they assert to be incomprehensible, invisible, and impassible: they thus wander from the truth, because their doctrine departs from Him who is truly God, being ignorant that His only-begotten Word [ibid 3.14.6]

Concurring with these statements, Paul, speaking to the Romans, declares: "Much more they who receive abundance of grace and righteousness for [eternal] life, shall reign by one, Christ Jesus."(10) It follows from this, that he knew nothing of that Christ who flew away from Jesus; nor did he of the Saviour above, whom they hold to be impassible. For if, in truth, the one suffered, and the other remained incapable of suffering, and the one was born, but the other descended upon him who was born, and left him gain, it is not one, but two, that are shown forth. But that the apostle did know Him as one, both who was born and who suffered, namely Christ Jesus, [ibid 3.16.9]

It is worth noting that Against Praxeas also takes an interest in the 'my God, my God why hast thou forsaken me' as if Praxeas and his tradition interpreted this in much the same way:

Quote:

However, if you persist in pushing your views further, I shall find means of answering you with greater stringency, and of meeting you with the exclamation of the Lord Himself, so as to challenge you with the question, What is your inquiry and reasoning about that? You have Him exclaiming in the midst of His passion: My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? Matthew 27:46 Either, then, the Son suffered, being forsaken by the Father, and the Father consequently suffered nothing, inasmuch as He forsook the Son; or else, if it was the Father who suffered, then to what God was it that He addressed His cry? But this was the voice of flesh and soul, that is to say, of man— not of the Word and Spirit, that is to say, not of God; and it was uttered so as to prove the impassibility of God, who forsook His Son, so far as He handed over His human substance to the suffering of death. [Against Praxeas 30]

The point then is that Praxeas and this sect who used the Gospel of Mark to hold much the same opinions understood that there was a figure of flesh on the cross but that 'Christ' flew away after alighting upon him.

We can't be sure that baptism is meant here even though the dove is referenced. I think it is a different narrative completely where a dove literally came down on the crucified Jesus (much like a dove left Polycarp in his flames). The reason for this is that it resembles verbatim the idea in Genesis 15 of Abraham 'separating' or dividing the animals and then the bird(s) came down upon the carcasses and somehow caused their resurrection. This was supposed to be connected with the promise that human beings would ultimately receive astral bodies.

Both the crucifixion with the dove descending on Jesus and its counterpart in Genesis would be 'the sign of Jonah' (yona = dove). Notice that THIS IS NOT THE BAPTISM insofar as the dove does not 'go into Jesus' but:

Quote:

but that He (Christ = the Father) descended like a dove upon the dispensational Jesus; and that, as soon as He had declared the unknown Father, He did again ascend into the Pleroma.

In other words, the dove swoops down upon Jesus, alights upon him and then ascends and then Jesus says "My God, my god why hast thou left me."

stephan huller · 01-11-2012, 04:23 PM

A parallel in Irenaeus Book Two of Against Heresies. The Logos (Jesus) is understood to have fallen with Sophia and become ignorant of the Father according to the heretics which Irenaeus refutes with the same solar analogy

For if, existing in the Father, he knows Him in whom he exists--that is, is not ignorant of himself--then those productions which issue from him being his powers (faculties), and always present with him, will not be ignorant of him who emitted them, any more than rays [may be supposed to be] of the sun.

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

01-11-2012, 04:23 PM	#3
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	A parallel in Irenaeus Book Two of Against Heresies. The Logos (Jesus) is understood to have fallen with Sophia and become ignorant of the Father according to the heretics which Irenaeus refutes with the same solar analogy For if, existing in the Father, he knows Him in whom he exists--that is, is not ignorant of himself--then those productions which issue from him being his powers (faculties), and always present with him, will not be ignorant of him who emitted them, any more than rays [may be supposed to be] of the sun.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.