Originally Posted by stephan huller

As Neil Diamond says, 'Hello again, my friend.' The Sabellians are among the most interesting heretics. Attested by Celsus (= Σιβυλλιστάς Against Celsus 5.61) and most interesting in a very old Syriac tradition which I found about and then contacted Sebastian Brock for clarification (sorry if this post is incoherent I am nodding my head at the same time while my wife rambles on about the Beatles).

In any event here is the wonderful information provided by Professor Brock who notes that there is only a Latin tr. of the relevant part of the Zuqnin Chron: the English translation only cover the later parts. The passage is on p.124 of Chabot's edition, vol I:

Brock also looked in the other large chron. (ad annum 1234) but found nothing there. He said I could try the other small Chronicles in Chron.Minora, but most of them don't cover the time of Hadrian. The source history of the different chronicles is quite complicated: for the Zuqnin Chron, there is a monograph by W Witakowski (1987). One other critically significant insight that Brock provided was noting that "the corruption of 'NQR' to NQY' (Ancyra to Nicaea) would not be all that difficult in Syriac script." At last we have an explanation for that little problem that emerges later in the Syriac tradition where it is said that Sabellius was excommunicated at Nicaea in the second century.

Thirdly there is Stuart George Hall, professor of ecclesiastical history at King's College London who developed an interesting theory about a lost reference to Irenaeus a work called Against Praxeas among the writings of Tertullian. Hall argued that Praxeas means 'fixer' or 'fraud' and that it may be a nickname Tertullian invented to disguise Irenaeus. Apparently, Tertullian was angry that Irenaeus had actively worked to make his own sectarian tradition heretical in the eyes of the bishop of Rome. He writes "Praxeas at Rome managed two pieces of the Devil's business: he drove out prophecy and introduced heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete and crucified the Father" (Prax. 1 — NE 168).

Tertullian alleges that Praxeas dissuaded a bishop of Rome some time ago from recognizing the leaders of his community, Montanus and Prisca as prophets and receiving their churches into communion. He adds that Praxeas went on to teach a pernicious doctrine, which ammounted to crucifying the Father. Praxeas asserts the 'monarchy' of God: God is single, and so Father, Son and Spirit are 'one and the same.'Tertullian argues that he rejects the oikonomia ('family principle' or perhaps 'economy'). In other words God is not best expressed through the concept of one but of a 'house' or family of beings.

It is very significant also that Irenaeus was said to be an author of a book with this exact title "On the Monarchy" (Eus. Hist. Eccl. 5.20.1) and was responsible for at least a few letters to Victor. We have already seen the church of Praxedis was related to the Novatian tradition of which Irenaeus's student Hippolytus was identified as a member. Surely Hall's assumption that Irenaeus is 'Praxeas and Victor was the bishop who ultimately excluded Tertullian's sect from the Catholic tradition has important implications for our information about Marcionitism.

I think it is highly possible that Polycarp (= who is 'John's disciple' and the presumed head of the 'Johannine tradition) and Irenaeus (= the first person to promote the John gospel as part of the four) represented the original Sabellian tradition - my wife has just walked away. To this end, if we accept this tentative identification the tradition of Polycarp (= Sabellianism).

We can more insight into the tradition by following Agapius's summary of the beliefs of Florinus of Rome. Remember Irenaeus acknowledges that Florinus spent more time with Polycarp (Irenaeus only claims to have known Polycarp as a little boy). Given that Florinus is closer to Polycarp, the Sabellian tendencies in Florinus's thought are quite noteworthy.

Florinus (in Agapius's summary) argued that the three gods were all together present as one during the making of the world and man. The Marcionites would certainly have rejected this idea and would have countered that one god was creating while another was in heaven.

There were of course many variations in between these stark positions. We can point to early 'Catholic' voices - no less than heretical ones - who based on the LXX reading of Psalm 44 said that the Word was 'emitted' from the Father (cf. Tertullian's " “heart has emitted [eructauit] excellent word [sermonem]"). It would take a century or more to hash out some kind of middle ground between the polar opposites of Polycarp and Marcion.

Nevertheless it is important to attempt to put forward our definition of what constituted 'heresy' at least initially in the Roman Church - viz. any tradition which dared to posit that the Son ever acted independently of the Father or (to get to the heart of the Arian dispute years later) any 'separateness' on the part of the Father from the Son.

It is important to have discovered our Syriac source material because it demonstrates that Polycarp may well have been denounced as a heretic. This helps explain why Irenaeus transformed his master into a wholly orthodox figure bent on battling 'heresy' - now effectively defined in terms of 'those who excommunicated him at Ancyra.' In other words, we have to imagine that those who argued for the independence of the various parts of the Trinity (for all early traditions were in one form or another 'Trinitarian' especially Marcionitism cf. Cyril of Jerusalem) could only see the absurdity of the proposition that the Father was crucified on the Cross. No wonder then that Zuqnin Chronicle not only mentions the Trinity but also 'the Cross' in relation to this heresy.

In some sense then, even though we know very little of the theology of those who may have condemned Polycarp/Sabellius we can be assured that they (a) understood that the Son functioned independently of the Father in some way and (b) that the crucifixion was necessarily understood as having an effect on the Son without touching the Father. Moreover we must also imagine that - by mere logical inference - these traditions must also have emphasized that (c) there was a time when the Son was not and (d) - most imporant of all - that after the ascension the Son was wholly absorbed into the Father.

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I didn't say that. You are again misrepresenting what I said. I just noted that Chrysostom doesn't comment on the passage. I made clear earlier that I found Athansius's comments and that disproved my original question. The question and answer were in the very same post. You can't accuse me of 'asserting' anything when I have a question immediately answered in the same post.

Originally Posted by stephan huller

You just don't want to read the material because it presents material you have no expertise on.

Originally Posted by stephan huller

No I said that Chysostom didn't comment on the passage in his Commentary on John.