Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 02-21-2013, 10:19 AM

I started talking about this in another thread. Where did this strange idea come from? Here are some of the earliest heretical statements about the dove:

Quote:

Now the Dove also appeared as a body when it made its descent upon the flesh of the Logos - the Dove, which some call the Holy Spirit, but the followers of Basilides call the Servant (τὸν διάκονον), while the followers of Valentinus call it the Spirit of the Father's thought (τῆς Ἐνθυμήσεως τοῦ Πατρός). ' [Ex Theodoto 16]

First, then, he put on a seed from the Mother, not being separated but containing it by power, and it is given form little by little through knowledge. And when he came into Space Jesus found Christ, whom it was foretold that he would put on, whom the Prophets and the Law announced as an image of the Saviour. But even this psychic Christ whom he put on, was invisible, and it was necessary for him when he came into the world to be seen here, to be held, to be a citizen, and to hold on to a sensible body. A body, therefore, was spun for him out of invisible psychic substance, and arrived in the world of sense with power from a divine preparation. [ibid 59]

Therefore, ":Holy Spirit shall come upon thee" refers to the formation of the Lord's body, "and a Power of the Most High. shall overshadow thee" indicates the formation of God with which he imprinted. the body in the Virgin. [ibid 60]

That he was other than .what he received is clear from what he professes, "I am the Life, I am the Truth, I and the Father are one." But the spiritual nature, which he received, and the psychic he thus indicates, "And the child grew and advanced greatly." For the spiritual nature needs wisdom but the psychic needs size. But by the flowing out from his side he indicates that the substances having become free from passion have been saved by the flowings out of the passions from those who shared in them. And when he says "The Son of Man must be rejected and insulted and crucified," he seems to be speaking of someone else, that is, of him who has passion. And he says, "On the third of the days I will go before you into Galilee." For he goes before all and indicated that he will raise up the soul which is being invisibly saved and will restore it to the place where he is now leading the way. And he died at the .departure of the Spirit which had descended upon him in the Jordan, not that it became separate but was withdrawn in order that death might also operate on him, since how did the body die when life was present in him? For in that way death would have prevailed over the Saviour himself, which is absurd. But death was out-generalled by guile. For when the body died and death seized it, the Saviour sent forth the ray of power which had come upon him and destroyed death and raised up the mortal body which had put off passion. In this way, therefore, the psychic elements are raised and are saved, but the spiritual natures which believe receive a salvation superior to theirs, having received their souls as "wedding garments." [ibid 61]

The point is that no one can seriously believe that there was an eyewitness to the dove coming down. So the idea must have developed from something in scripture. But what?

stephan huller · 02-21-2013, 10:41 AM

Perhaps a clue to Clement's interpretation is found in a parallel to the Valentinian identification of the dove as the 'thought' ( ) of the Father. Clement says:

Quote:

The prophecies which followed the Law were accomplished through his presence, since the qualities of an upright way of life were announced to people of righteous behavior before the coming of the Law by the Word. The majority know nothing of self-discipline. They live by the body, not by the spirit. Without the spirit the body is earth and dust. The Lord condemns adultery in thought (αὐτίκα μοιχείαν ἐξ ἐνθυμήσεως κρίνει ὁ κύριος).

That's how the passage is translated by Ferguson. The primary meaning of κρίνω is 'separate, distinguishes' and it can also have the meaning 'pick out chooses.' Clement goes on to make clear that he does not mean 'pushes aside' when in what immediately follows we read:

Quote:

Well? Is it not possible to practice self-discipline within marriage without trying to pull apart "that which God has joined"? That is the sort of thing taught by the dissolvers of the marriage bond. Through them the name of Christian comes into bad repute. These people say that sexual intercourse is polluted. Yet they owe their existence to sexual intercourse! Must they not be polluted? Personally, I think that the seed coming from consecrated people is sacred too. So it is not just our spirit which ought to be consecrated. It is our character, our life, our body. What is the sense of the Apostle Paul’s words that the wife is consecrated by her husband, and the husband by his wife? What was it that the Lord said to those who questioned him about divorce, asking whether it was permissible to get rid of one’s wife on the authority of Moses? He said, "Moses wrote this with an eye to your hardheartedness. But have you not read what God said to the first-formed male: ‘You two shall come into one single flesh’? So, anyone who disposes of his wife except by reason of sexual immorality is making an adulteress of her." But "after the resurrection," he says, "they do not marry and are not given in marriage."

Now if we go back to what Theodotus wrote it would seem that the dove the 'thought' of God landed on the flesh of the Logos in order to marry itself to him. This is at the heart of Clement's interpretation of the saying in Matthew.

stephan huller · 02-21-2013, 10:56 AM

More from the Valentinians in Irenaeus

Quote:

The Father afterwards produces, in his own image, by means of Monogenes, the above-mentioned Horos, without conjunction, masculo-feminine. For they maintain that sometimes the Father acts in conjunction with Sige, but that at other times he shows himself independent both of male and female. They term this Horos both Stauros and Lytrotes, and Carpistes, and Horothetes, and Metagoges. And by this Horos they declare that Sophia was purified and established, while she was also restored to her proper conjunction (συζυγίᾳ). For her enthymesis (Ἐνθυμήσεως) having been taken away from her, along with its supervening passion (τῷ ἐπιγινομένῳ πάθει), she herself certainly remained within the Pleroma; but her enthymesis (ἐνθύμησιν αὐτῆς), with its passion, was separated from her by Horos, fenced off, and expelled from that circle. This enthymesis was, no doubt, a spiritual substance, possessing some of the natural tendencies of an AEon, but at the same time shapeless and without form, because it had received nothing. And on this account they say that it was an imbecile and feminine production.

Quote:

They moreover affirm that the Saviour is shown to be derived from all the AEons, and to be in Himself everything by the following passage: "Every male that openeth the womb." For He, being everything, opened the womb of the enthymesis of the suffering AEon (τῆς Ἐνθυμήσεως τοῦ πεπονθότος Αἰῶνος), when it had been expelled from the Pleroma. This they also style the second Ogdoad, of which we shall speak presently. And they state that it was clearly on this account that Paul said, "And He Himself is all things;"(1) and again, "All things are to Him, and of Him are all things;"(2) and further, "In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead;"(3) and yet again, "All things are gathered together by God in Christ."(4) Thus do they interpret these and any like passages to be found in Scripture.

Quote:

They have good reason, as seems to me, why they should not feel inclined to teach these things to all in public, but only to such as are able to pay a high price for an acquaintance with such profound mysteries. For these doctrines are not at all similar to those of which our Lord said, "Freely ye have received, freely give."(4) They are, on the contrary, abstruse, and portentous, and profound mysteries, to be got at only with great labour by such as are in love with falsehood. For who would not expend lull that he possessed, if only he might learn in return, that from the tears of the enthymesis of the AEon involved in passion (τῆς Ἐνθυμήσεως τοῦ πεπονθότος Αἰῶνος), seas, and fountains, and rivers, and every liquid substance derived its origin; that light burst forth from her smile; and that from her perplexity and consternation the corporeal elements of the world had their formation?

My guess is that the Valentinians saw the dove coming down from heaven as a repeat or perfection of what happened at the beginning of creation, only now not a mistake but something perfect. Still I am not making much progress.

stephan huller · 02-21-2013, 11:26 AM

Tertullian connects the dove with the Biblical story of the Flood (but notice the objection):

Quote:

At this point that most holy Spirit willingly comes down from the Father upon bodies cleansed and blessed, and comes to rest upon the waters of baptism as though revisiting his primal dwelling-place. He came down upon our Lord in the form of a dove, and thus the nature of the Holy Spirit was clearly revealed in a creature of simplicity and innocence, since even physically the dove is without gall: which is why he says, Be ye simple, like doves.3 And this too has the support of a type which had preceded: for as, after those waters of the Flood, by which the ancient iniquity was cleansed away, after the baptism (so to express it) of the world, a dove as herald announced to the earth peace from the wrath of heaven, having been sent forth of the ark and having returned with an olive-leaf4 - and towards the heathen too this is held out as a sign of peace - by the same <divine> ordinance of spiritual effectiveness the dove who is the Holy Spirit is sent forth from heaven, where the Church is which is the type of the ark, and flies down bringing God's peace to the earth which is our flesh, as it comes up from the washing after <the removal of> its ancient sins. 'But', <you object,> 'the world sinned once more, so that this equating of baptism with the flood is not valid.' <The world sinned>, and so is appointed for the fire, as also a man is when he renews his sins after baptism: so that this also needs to be accepted as a sign and a warning to us.

stephan huller · 02-21-2013, 11:30 AM

Irenaeus also seems to be aware of Bardesanes interpretation of the baptism:

Quote:

There are also some who maintain that he also produced Christ as his own proper son, but of an animal nature, and that mention was(4) made of him by the prophets. This Christ passed through Mary just as water flows through a tube; and there descended upon him in the form of a dove it the time of his baptism, that Saviour who belonged to the Pleroma, and was formed by the combined efforts of all its inhabit ants. In him there existed also that spiritual seed which proceeded from Achamoth. They hold, accordingly, that our Lord, while preserving the type of the first-begotten and primary tetrad, was compounded of these four substances,--of that which is spiritual, in so far as He was from Achamoth; of that which is animal, as being from the Demiurge by a special dispensation, inasmuch as He was formed [corporeally] with unspeakable skill; and of the Saviour, as respects that dove which descended upon Him. He also continued free from all suffering, since indeed it was not possible that He should suffer who was at once incomprehensible and invisible. And for this reason the Spirit of Christ, who had been placed within Him, was taken away when He was brought before Pilate.

compare Adamantius On the True Faith:

Quote:

MAR. We, too, admit that He was born through Mary, but not from Mary. Just as water passes through a pipe, adding nothing on the way, so also the Word passed through Mary but was not born from Mary.

Pseudo-Tertullian also attributes the teaching to Valentinus but his source is Irenaeus:

Quote:

Christ, moreover, was sent by that First-Father who is Bythus. He, moreover, was not in the substance of our flesh; but, bringing down from heaven some spiritual body or other, passed through the Virgin Mary as water through a pipe, neither receiving nor borrowing aught thence. The resurrection of our present flesh he denies, but (maintains that) of some sister-flesh. Of the Law and the prophets some parts he approves, some he disapproves; that is, he disapproves all in reprobating some. A Gospel of his own he likewise has, beside these of ours.

This reference is perhaps most interesting of all from Against the Valentinians (again the original source is Irenaeus):

Quote:

In Achamoth, moreover, there was inherent a certain property of a spiritual germ, of her mother Sophia's substance; and Achamoth herself had carefully severed off (the same quality), and implanted it in her son the Demiurge, although he was actually unconscious of it. It is for you to imagine the industry of this clandestine arrangement. For to this end had she deposited and concealed (this germ), that, whenever the Demiurge came to impart life to Adam by his inbreathing, he might at the same time draw off from the vital principle the spiritual seed, and, as by a pipe, inject it into the clayey nature; in order that, being then fecundated in the material body as in a womb, and having fully grown there, it might be found fit for one day receiving the perfect Word. When, therefore, the Demiurge commits to Adam the transmission of his own vital principle, the spiritual man lay hid, although inserted by his breath, and at the same time introduced into the body, because the Demiurge knew no more about his mother's seed than about herself. To this seed they give the name of Ecclesia (the Church), the mirror of the church above, and the perfection of man; tracing this perfection from Achamoth, just as they do the animal nature from the Demiurge, the clayey material of the body (they derive) from the primordial substance, the flesh from Matter. So that you have a new Geryon here, only a fourfold (rather than a threefold) monster.

I think the last reference is the original understanding of the Valentinians. This seems to have been manipulated and misrepresented as time went on.

outhouse · 02-21-2013, 11:32 AM

Besides digging in the OT

You may want to view Roman mythology for your answer

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/d/dove_goddess.html

According to a current interpretation, doves could be understood as embodiment (epiphany) of a divinity,

stephan huller · 02-21-2013, 11:39 AM

What exactly are you pointing to in the article?

stephan huller · 02-21-2013, 11:43 AM

Getting back to the corrupted understanding of Valentinian gnosis. If we continue to read in Tertullian's Against the Valentinians, Sophia established a spiritual seed in Adam which lay dormant until the dove came from heaven. The one who carried this seed is 'Christ.' In the Valentinian variant text, Jesus the spiritual being came upon the Christ not the other way around:

Quote:

Upon this same Christ (= the one who bears the spiritual seed), therefore, Jesus descended in the sacrament of baptism, in the likeness of a dove. Moreover, there was even in Christ accruing from Achamoth the condiment of a spiritual seed, in order of course to prevent the corruption of all the other stuffing. For after the precedent of the principal Tetrad, they guard him with four substances--the spiritual one of Achamoth, the animal one of the Demiurge, the corporeal one, which cannot be described, and that of Soter, or, in other phrase, the columbine. As for Sorer Jesus), he remained in Christ to the last, impassible, incapable of injury, incapable of apprehension. By and by, when it came to a question of capture, he departed from him during the examination before Pilate. In like manner, his mother's seed did not admit of being injured, being equally exempt from all manner of outrage, and being undiscovered even by the Demiurge himself. The animal and carnal Christ, however, does suffer after the fashion of the superior Christ, who, for the purpose of producing Achamoth, had been stretched upon the cross, that is, Horos, in a substantial though not a cognizable form. In this manner do they reduce all things to mere images--Christians themselves being indeed nothing but imaginary beings!

Notice that in this version of Irenaeus's account of the Valentinians the names have been inverted. Jesus comes down upon this 'Christ' (= the one with the spiritual seed ) where Jesus is an entirely spiritual being. This is found throughout Against the Valentinians.

stephan huller · 02-21-2013, 11:47 AM

If we read Theodotus's account carefully we find that he has the exact same understanding:

Quote:

First, then, he put on a seed from the Mother, not being separated but containing it by power, and it is given form little by little through knowledge. And when he came into Space Jesus found Christ, whom it was foretold that he would put on, whom the Prophets and the Law announced as an image of the Saviour. But even this psychic Christ whom he put on, was invisible, and it was necessary for him when he came into the world to be seen here, to be held, to be a citizen, and to hold on to a sensible body. A body, therefore, was spun for him out of invisible psychic substance, and arrived in the world of sense with power from a divine preparation. [59]

In other words, Jesus 'the Dove' comes upon the chosen Christ. The account of Tertullian is more accurate than the surviving Greek text. Irenaeus's account is totally corrupt and the names 'Christ' and 'Jesus' have been inverted.

In the original gospel of the heretics we are not dealing with a Christ who descends as a dove onto Jesus, but a Jesus who descends as a yonah or bar yonah upon someone bearing the spiritual seed called Christ. Very important. Why Peter is identified as 'bar yonah' must also be explained. So too 'the sign of the dove' referenced throughout for in Aramaic siman = 'sign, omen.' Are we dealing with a serious of corruptions perhaps deliberate to obscure the original sense of the narrative.

mountainman · 02-21-2013, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Where did this strange idea come from? ...... The point is that no one can seriously believe that there was an eyewitness to the dove coming down. So the idea must have developed from something in scripture. But what?

AFAIK the idea was developed by the Emperor Constantine and was first expressed in his monumental "Oration to the Saints of the East" at his military operated Council of Antioch. See Robin Lane Fox's "Pagans and Christians" (or via: amazon.co.uk) p.646/7. Most ancient historians are today convinced that Constantine both authored and read aloud this "document". It contains a number of novel social and political insights, and a whole string of fraudulent misprepresentations. Among the novelties we find this ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by FOX

"A dove, said Constantine, had alighted on the virgin mary,
like the dove which had flown from Noah's ark.

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

02-21-2013, 11:32 AM	#6
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	Besides digging in the OT You may want to view Roman mythology for your answer http://www.pantheon.org/articles/d/dove_goddess.html According to a current interpretation, doves could be understood as embodiment (epiphany) of a divinity,

02-21-2013, 11:39 AM	#7
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	What exactly are you pointing to in the article?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.