Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 01-14-2012, 08:42 PM

I know the usual answer is that Jesus was a historical man and he felt 'passionate' about dying on the cross. Yet even people like Clement of Alexandria use the term 'the passion' to describe the events leading up to Jesus's crucifixion. Clement of course is adamant that God is passionless and impassible.

So why does Clement call it 'the passion' if God is impassible? Could it be that it was because Clement believed that the god Jesus 'switched forms' with Judas in the days leading up to the crucifixion?

I've already cited the Islamic Gospel of Barnabas. There are other references in the Islamic tradition referencing this 'substitution' concept. Here is everything Irenaeus says about a very similar idea already in existence by the mid second century:

Quote:

That they improperly and illogically apply both the parables and the actions of the Lord to their falsely-devised system, I prove as follows: They endeavour, for instance, to demonstrate that passion which, they say, happened in the case of the twelfth AEon, from this fact, that the passion of the Saviour was brought about by the twelfth apostle, and happened in the twelfth month. For they hold that He preached [only] for one year after His baptism. They maintain also that the same thing was clearly set forth in the case of her who suffered from the issue of blood. For the woman suffered during twelve years, and through touching the hem of the Saviour's garment she was made whole by that power which went forth from the Saviour, and which, they affirm, had a previous existence. For that Power who suffered was stretching herself outwards and flowing into immensity, so that she was in danger of being dissolved into the general substance [of the AEons]; but then, touching the primary Tetrad, which is typified by the hem of the garment, she was arrested, and ceased from her passion.

Then, again, as to their assertion that the passion of the twelfth AEon was proved through the conduct of Judas, how is it possible that Judas can be compared [with this AEon] as being an emblem of her--he who was expelled from the number of the twelve, and never restored to his place? For that AEon, whose type they declare Judas to be, after being separated from her Enthymesis, was restored or recalled; but Judas was deprived and cast out, while Matthias was ordained in his place, according to what is written, "And his bishopric let another take." They ought therefore to maintain that the twelfth AEon was cast out of the Pleroma, and that another was produced, or sent forth to fill her place; if, that is to say, she is pointed at in Judas. Moreover, they tell us that it was the AEon herself who suffered, but Judas was the betrayer. Even they themselves acknowledge that it was the suffering Christ, and not Judas, who came to passion. How, then, could Judas, the betrayer of Him who had to suffer for our salvation, be the type and image of that AEon who suffered?

But, in truth, the passion of Christ was neither similar to the passion of the AEon, nor did it take place in similar circumstances. For the AEon underwent a passion of dissolution and destruction, so that she who suffered was in danger also of being destroyed. But the Lord, our Christ, underwent a valid, and not a merely accidental passion; not only was He Himself not in danger of being destroyed, but He also established fallen man by His own strength, and recalled him to incorruption. The AEon, again, underwent passion while she was seeking after the Father, and was notable to find Him; but the Lord suffered that He might bring those who have wandered from the Father, back to knowledge and to His fellowship. The search into the greatness of the Father became to her a passion leading to destruction; but the Lord, having suffered, and bestowing the knowledge of the Father, conferred on us salvation. Her passion, as they declare, gave origin to a female offspring, weak, infirm, unformed, and ineffective; but His passion gave rise to strength and power. For the Lord, through means of suffering, "ascending into the lofty place, led captivity captive, gave gifts to men," and conferred on those that believe in Him the power "to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and on all the power of the enemy," that is, of the leader of apostasy. Our Lord also by His passion destroyed death, and dispersed error, and put an end to corruption, and destroyed ignorance, while He manifested life and revealed truth, and bestowed the gift of incorruption. But their AEon, when she had suffered, established ignorance, and brought forth a substance without shape, out of which all material works have been produced--death, corruption, error, and such like.

Judas, then, the twelfth in order of the disciples, was not a type of the suffering AEon, nor, again, was the passion of the Lord; for these two things have been shown to be in every respect mutually dissimilar and inharmonious. This is the case not only as respects the points which I have already mentioned, but with regard to the very number. For that Judas the traitor is the twelfth in order, is agreed upon by all, there being twelve apostles mentioned by name in the Gospel. But this AEon is not the twelfth, but the thirtieth; for, according to the views under consideration, there were not twelve AEons only produced by the will of the Father, nor was she sent forth the twelfth in order: they reckon her, [on the contrary,] as having been produced in the thirtieth place. How, then, can Judas, the twelfth in order, be the type and image of that AEon who occupies the thirtieth place?

But if they say that Judas in perishing was the image of her Enthymesis, neither in this way will the image bear any analogy to that truth which [by hypothesis] corresponds to it. For the Enthymesis having been separated from the AEon, and itself afterwards receiving a shape from Christ, then being made a partaker of intelligence by the Saviour, and having formed all things which are outside of the Pleroma, after the image of those which are within the Pleroma, is said at last to have been received by them into the Pleroma, and, according to [the principle of] conjunction, to have been united to that Saviour who was formed out of all. But Judas having been once for all cast away, never returns into the number of the disciples; otherwise a different person would not have been chosen to fill his place. Besides, the Lord also declared regarding him, "Woe to the man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed;" and, "It were better for him if he had never been born;" 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 AEon, 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. For in the one case Judas was cast away, and Matthias was ordained instead of him; but in the other case the AEon is said to have been in danger of dissolution and destruction, and [there are also] her Enthymesis and passion: for they markedly distinguish Enthymesis from the passion; and they represent the AEon as being restored, and Enthymesis as acquiring form, but the passion, when separated from these, as becoming matter. Since, therefore, there are thus these three, the AEon, her Enthymesis, and her passion, Judas and Matthias, being only two, cannot be the types of them. (Irenaeus Against Heresies 2.20)

Some of these 'questions' which Irenaeus throws forward are quite easy to answer. For instance:

Quote:

How, then, can Judas, the twelfth in order, be the type and image of that AEon who occupies the thirtieth place?

Well, this is something of a no brainer. Jehudah in Hebrew has a numerical value of 30 = y (10) h (5) u (6) d (4) h (5). What I'm wondering of course is how far we can push this testimony to support the idea that the heretics were saying that Judas was crucified as Jesus.

I know people will cite the line where Irenaeus says:

Quote:

Even they themselves acknowledge that it was the suffering Christ, and not Judas, who came to passion.

But WTF does 'the passion' mean? I can't see this as being anything other than an Aramaism, i.e. a Greek translation of yetsirah (which means both 'passion' and 'form'). Irenaeus makes clear these heretics spoke Aramaic. So one might take the passion to mean the event where God 'reformed' himself or perhaps, when he and Judas became one, or he strengthened Judas. Whatever. Jesus did something to his 'chosen disciple' (cf. Tertullian Against Marcion 2.28) which made him partake of 'Christness'

When did this happen? Well Irenaeus tells us when the Passion began for these heretics too:

Quote:

They endeavour, for instance, to demonstrate that passion which, they say, happened in the case of the twelfth AEon, from this fact, that the passion of the Saviour was brought about by the twelfth apostle, and happened in the twelfth month. (AH 2.20.2)

Moreover, they affirm that He suffered in the twelfth month, so that He continued to preach for one year after His baptism (AH 2.22.2)

and then Irenaeus seems to lower the decisive blow when he adds a little later:

Quote:

And that the special month in which the passover was celebrated, and in which also the Lord suffered, was not the twelfth, but the first, those men who boast that they know all things, if they know not this, may learn it from Moses. Their explanation, therefore, both of the year and of the twelfth month has been proved false, and they ought to reject either their explanation or the Gospel; otherwise [this unanswerable question forces itself upon them], How is it possible that the Lord preached for one year only? (AH 2.22.4)

So if we return to the original formulation - Judas is the twelfth disciple, he also partook in the passion in the twelfth month, Jesus suffered too but Irenaeus dismisses the system because there is absolutely no way you can make Passover fall in the twelfth month.

However if Passover fell on the 14th of the 1st month and the disciples were in Jerusalem in the days leading up to this event, and before that we can trace a handful of events (i.e. going to Jericho etc) then this event in the Alexandrian version of the gospel according to Mark certainly seems to have fallen in the waning days of the twelfth month:

Quote:

And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.

I have always approached this story as if it were the youth who watches the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus (i.e. John or John Mark). But Clement of Alexandria throws out another name in Stromata 3:

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.(Clement Stromata 3.4)

Of course we know already know that Clement is just throwing out a name of a disciple. The text of Mark does not identify which disciple Jesus said "Let the dead bury their dead; for your part follow me" just as the secret Mark narrative does not feature a name (not Mark 14:52 for that matter). Clearly Clement is assuming that it was the same chosen disciple whom Jesus said "Let the dead bury their dead; for your part follow me" and who rose from the dead in Secret Mark. But Tertullian makes it certain that Judas not Philip was the chosen disciple of Jesus - "Nor does your god, for if he had foreknown the issue, he would not have chosen the traitor Judas."

Either Clement has a different tradition than the Marcionite one (but shares a common longer gospel of Mark with them cf. Philosophumena 7.18) or he is simply trying to obscure the importance of Judas in their common tradition, or that Judas was crucified on the cross. But I think Secret Mark's additional narrative makes explicit that the Passion began in the twelfth month because Jesus entered into the person of this 'chosen disciple.' Notice the text does not say who crossed the Jordan to go to Jericho. It only says 'he' (rather than Jesus or the disciple). The two have become one.

mountainman · 01-14-2012, 08:54 PM

Hypotheses include The Death of Julius Caesar As Model for the Passion of Christ by Author Gary Courtney.

stephan huller · 01-14-2012, 09:12 PM

What am I supposed to do with this link? It's not even connected to an argument. Does the author try and explain where the term 'the Passion' came from or is this just an attempt to introduce the Imperial conspiracy idea into the discussion. Yes the Passion appears in the title but with that qualification you could have linked to this book too:

or this:

How are any of these books going to help us understand why the Passion is so called?

mountainman · 01-14-2012, 09:37 PM

The author associates the "passions" of Julius Caesar and Jesus with their respective "deaths".

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

The Passion is the Christian theological term used for the events and suffering – physical, spiritual, and mental – of Jesus in the hours before and including his trial and execution by crucifixion.

Therefore it seems to be called 'the Passion' and not 'the Death' because of theological yabber yabber.
It would not be theologically appropriate to say that Jesus just kicked the bucket like everyone else.
The Nag Hammadi Codices contain references to Jesus "laughing at his death"
.

stephan huller · 01-14-2012, 10:06 PM

Why don't you tell us a little more about what the author says. Maybe copy out a paragraph to develop another person's ideas rather than your own. I'm sure many people here will be interested in this author's opinion. Who is he? What led him to his conclusions? Imagine you're in grade nine and your doing a 'book project' (or however they call it Down Under).

Diogenes the Cynic · 01-14-2012, 11:15 PM

The word "passion" is from a Latin word (patior) that means "to suffer," "To endure," not to die.

mountainman · 01-14-2012, 11:19 PM

It seems that the author has another similar title - Et tu, Judas? Then Fall Jesus! (or via: amazon.co.uk) and with the following book description:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMAZON Book Description

About two thousand years ago, a great man who was renowned for forgiveness and magnanimity was betrayed and slain by his compatriots who feared he would become their King. To the chagrin of his murderers, he was soon hailed as a God and the momentous events that ensued paved the way for the birth of Christianity.

The venue for this drama, however, was not Jerusalem as might be supposed, but rather the eternal city of Rome. It is a description of the founder of the Roman Empire. In a work stranger than fiction, Gary Courtney propounds that the Jesus of Nazareth that graces the pages of the New Testament is an entirely mythological personage, and presents a step by step explanation of how the beloved Saviour of the Christian religion entered the world from the wings of a stage.

Sounds like an interesting read.

stephan huller · 01-14-2012, 11:21 PM

But why did you attach this author's work to a discussion entitled 'why is it called 'the Passion?' Do you have any reason for believing that this author has anything to say about the origin of the term? I don't see anything in any of this.

mountainman · 01-14-2012, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The word "passion" is from a Latin word (patior) that means "to suffer," "To endure," not to die.

Thanks.

mountainman · 01-14-2012, 11:35 PM

The "Passion" seems to appear in Acts....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Act 1:3

To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

What is the Greek word used, and does it appear in the earliest codices?

Quote:

1:3 οἷς καὶ παρέστησεν ἑαυτὸν ζῶντα μετὰ τὸ παθεῖν αὐτὸν ἐν πολλοῖς τεκμηρίοις δι᾽ ἡμερῶν τεσσαράκοντα ὀπτανόμενος αὐτοῖς καὶ λέγων τὰ περὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ

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

01-14-2012, 08:54 PM	#2
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Hypotheses include The Death of Julius Caesar As Model for the Passion of Christ by Author Gary Courtney.

01-14-2012, 09:12 PM	#3
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	What am I supposed to do with this link? It's not even connected to an argument. Does the author try and explain where the term 'the Passion' came from or is this just an attempt to introduce the Imperial conspiracy idea into the discussion. Yes the Passion appears in the title but with that qualification you could have linked to this book too: or this: How are any of these books going to help us understand why the Passion is so called?

01-14-2012, 10:06 PM	#5
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Why don't you tell us a little more about what the author says. Maybe copy out a paragraph to develop another person's ideas rather than your own. I'm sure many people here will be interested in this author's opinion. Who is he? What led him to his conclusions? Imagine you're in grade nine and your doing a 'book project' (or however they call it Down Under).

01-14-2012, 11:15 PM	#6
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	The word "passion" is from a Latin word (patior) that means "to suffer," "To endure," not to die.

01-14-2012, 11:21 PM	#8
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But why did you attach this author's work to a discussion entitled 'why is it called 'the Passion?' Do you have any reason for believing that this author has anything to say about the origin of the term? I don't see anything in any of this.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.