stephan huller

Tertullian on a group of Christians (or Jews?) who deny that Jesus was the name of Christ:

"But if the Christ," say they, "who is believed to be coming is not called Jesus, why is he who is come called Jesus Christ?" [21] Well, each name will meet in the Christ of God, in whom is found likewise the appellation160 Jesus. Learn the habitual character of your error. In the course of the appointing of a successor to Moses, Oshea161 the son of Nun162 is certainly transferred from his pristine name, and begins to be called Jesus.163 Certainly, you say. This we first assert to have been a figure of the future. [22] For, because Jesus Christ was to introduce the second people (which is composed of us nations, lingering deserted in the world164 aforetime) into the land of promise, "flowing with milk and honey"165 (that is, into the possession of eternal life, than which nought is sweeter); and this had to come about, not through Moses (that is, not through the Law's discipline), but through Joshua (that is, through the new law's grace), after our circumcision with "a knife of rock"166 (that is, with Christ's precepts, for Christ is in many ways and figures predicted as a rock167 ); therefore the man who was being prepared to act as images of this sacrament was inaugurated under the figure of the Lord's name, even so as to be named Jesus.168 For He who ever spake to Moses was the Son of God Himself; who, too, was always seen.169 For God the Father none ever saw, and lived.170 [23] And accordingly it is agreed that the Son of God Himself spake to Moses, and said to the people, "Behold, I send mine angel before thy"--that is, the people's--"face, to guard thee on the march, and to introduce thee into the land which I have prepared thee: attend to him, and be not disobedient to him; for he hath not escaped171 thy notice, since my name is upon him."172 For Joshua was to introduce the people into the land of promise, not Moses. Now He called him an "angel," on account of the magnitude of the mighty deeds which he was to achieve (which mighty deeds Joshua the son of Nun did, and you yourselves read), and on account of his office of prophet announcing (to wit) the divine will; just as withal the Spirit, speaking in the person of the Father, calls the forerunner of Christ, John, a future "angel," through the prophet: "Behold, I send mine angel before Thy"--that is, Christ's--"face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee."173 Nor is it a novel practice to the Holy Spirit to call those "angels" whom God has appointed as ministers of His power. [24] For the same John is called not merely an "angel" of Christ, but withal a "lamp" shining before Christ: for David predicts, "I have prepared the lamp for my Christ; "174 and him Christ Himself, coming "to fulfil the prophets,"175 called so to the Jews. "He was," He says, "the burning and shining lamp; "176 as being he who not merely "prepared His ways in the desert,"177 but withal, by pointing out "the Lamb of God,"178 illumined the minds of men by his heralding, so that they understood Him to be that Lamb whom Moses was wont to announce as destined to suffer. [25] Thus, too, (was the son of Nun called) Joshua, on account of the future mystery179 of his name: for that name (He who spake with Moses) confirmed as His own which Himself had conferred on him, because He had bidden him thenceforth be called, not "angel" nor "Oshea," but "Joshua." Thus, therefore, each name is appropriate to the Christ of God--that He should be called Jesus as well (as Christ). [Against the Jews 9]

Now if he caught at the name Christ, just as the pickpocket clutches the dole-basket, why did he wish to be called Jesus too, by a name which was not so much looked for by the Jews? For although we, who have by God's grace attained to the understanding of His mysteries, acknowledge that this name also was destined for Christ, yet, for all that, the fact was not known to the Jews, from whom wisdom was taken away. To this day, in short, it is Christ that they are looking for, not Jesus; and they interpret Elias to be Christ rather than Jesus. [2] He, therefore, who came also in a name in which Christ was not expected, might have come only in that name which was solely anticipated for Him.222 But since he has mixed up the two,223 the expected one and the unexpected, his twofold project is defeated. For if he be Christ for the very purpose of insinuating himself as the Creator's, then Jesus opposes him, because Jesus was not looked for in the Christ of the Creator; or if he be Jesus, in order that he might pass as belonging to the other (God), then Christ hinders him, because Christ was not expected to belong to any other than the Creator. [3] I know not which one of these names may be able to hold its ground.224 In the Christ of the Creator, however, both will keep their place, for in Him a Jesus too is found. Do you ask, how? Learn it then here, with the Jews also who are partakers of your heresy. When Oshea the son of Nun was destined to be the successor of Moses, is not his old name then changed, and for the first time he is called225 Joshua? [4] It is true, you say. This, then, we first observe, was a figure of Him who was to come. For inasmuch as Jesus Christ was to introduce a new generation226 (because we are born in the wilderness of this world) into the promised land which flows with milk and honey, that is, into the possession of eternal life, than which nothing can be sweeter; inasmuch, too, as this was to be brought about not by Moses, that is to say, not by the discipline of the law, but by Joshua, by the grace of the gospel, our circumcision being effected by a knife of stone, that is, (by the circumcision) of Christ, [5] for Christ is a rock (or stone), therefore that great man,227 who was ordained as a type of this mystery, was actually consecrated with the figure of the Lord's own name, being called Joshua. This name Christ Himself even then testified to be His own, when He talked with Moses. For who was it that talked with him, but the Spirit of the Creator, which is Christ? When He therefore spake this commandment to the people, "Behold, I send my angel before thy face, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee; attend to him, and obey his voice and do not provoke him; for he has not shunned you,228 since my name is upon him,"229 He called him an angel indeed, because of the greatness of the powers which he was to exercise, and because of his prophetic office,230 while announcing the will of God; but Joshua also (Jesus), because it was a type231 of His own future name. [6] Often232 did He confirm that name of His which He had thus conferred upon (His servant); because it was not the name of angel, nor Oshea, but Joshua (Jesus), which He had commanded him to bear as his usual appellation for the time to come. Since, therefore, both these names are suitable to the Christ of the Creator, they are proportionately unsuitable to the non-Creator's Christ; and so indeed is all the rest of (our Christ's) destined course.233 In short, there must now for the future be made between us that certain and equitable rule, necessary to both sides, which shall determine that there ought to be absolutely nothing at all in common between the Christ of the other god and the Creator's Christ. [7] For you will have as great a necessity to maintain their diversity as we have to resist it, inasmuch as you will be as unable to show that the Christ of the other god has come, until you have proved him to be a far different being from the Creator's Christ, as we, to claim Him (who has come) as the Creator's, until we have shown Him to be such a one as the Creator has appointed. Now respecting their names, such is our conclusion against (Marcion).234 I claim for myself Christ; I maintain for myself Jesus. [Against Marcion 3.16]

stephan huller

Tertullian Against Praxeas acknowledges the distinction that 'Jesus' = kurios and the Father 'theos' but denies the heretical idea of Praxeas that Christ (Chrestos?) is the Father:

and at the end

stephan huller

On Jesus = Man

Roberts translates the last line - "Some there are who have imagined that another origin must be found for the title "Son of man; "for they have had the presumption to call the Father Himself Man, by reason of the profound mystery of this title: so that what can you hope for more ample concerning faith in that God, with whom you are now yourself on a par?"

stephan huller

I wonder whether the whole mystery of Jesus = anthropos in the Pauline tradition goes back to

Did an Orthodox simply insert the name 'Jesus Christ' to obscure the original sense of the (Aramaic) letters that Jesus = anthropos?

Similarly Son = anthropos = " No man hath seen my Father except the Son,"

Interesting Theodotus anticipates Bultmann's suggestion that 'the Son of Man' wasn't Jesus:

In other words, Jesus = Man, the one who comes after him = the Son of Man. So again:

Theodotous speaks of Jesus in-carnation as 'Man in man.'

Jeffrey Gibson

Similarly? The word ἄνθρωπος does not appear in what appears to be the text you are quoting, i.e., Jn 1:18, nor does the word "my.

Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν είς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Nor does it appear in its parallel in Jn 6:46

οὐχ ὅτι τὸν πατέρα ἑώρακεν τις εἰ μὴ ὁ ὢν παρὰ [τοῦ] θεοῦ, οὗτος ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα.


You seem to be replicating the mistake Pete makes of doing your exegesis of Greek texts on the basis of English translations of them. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy -- and pause giving when it comes to wondering whether we should trust your claims.

Jeffrey

stephan huller

I didn't say that anthropos appeared in the text:

I was saying the Son is the Man who saw the Father.

stephan huller

The Marcionite text (or that of its early opponents) read 'last Lord' which I think helps explain why Tatian is recorded as saying that Adam is not saved. Jesus = the cosmic Man, Adam Kadmion who was established before Adam.

stephan huller

Jesus is thus a name for the anthropos of the order of salvation, and it was given according to the likeness and form of the anthropos who was to come down on him and who assumed and held him; he (sc. the Redeemer) is himself the anthropos and the logos, the Pater and the Arrhetos, the Sige and the Aletheia, the Ecclesia and the Zoe," Iren. 1.15.3]

Harvey translation - "He maintains, therefore, that Jesus is the name of that man formed by a special dispensation, and that He was formed after the likeness and form of that [heavenly] Anthropos, who was about to descend upon Him. After He had received that AEon, He possessed Anthropos himself, and Loges himself, and Pater, and Arrhetus, and Sige, and Aletheia, and Ecclesia, and Zoe."

stephan huller

More from the Marcosian understanding of Jesus as 'last man'

And for this reason did Moses declare that man was formed on the sixth day; and then, again, according to arrangement, it was on the sixth day, which is the preparation, that the last man appeared, for the regeneration of the first, Of this arrangement, both the beginning and the end were formed at that sixth hour, at which He was nailed to the tree. [ibid 14.6]

But when this name of six letters was manifested (the person bearing it clothing Himself in flesh, that He might come under the apprehension of man's senses, and having in Himself these six and twenty-four letters), then, becoming acquainted with Him, they ceased from their ignorance, and passed from death unto life, this name serving as their guide to the Father of truth.(5) For the Father of all had resolved to put an end to ignorance, and to destroy death. But this abolishing of ignorance was just the knowledge of Him. And therefore that man (Anthropos) was chosen according to His will, having been formed after the image of the [corresponding] power above. [15.2]

Moreover, man also, being formed after the image of the power above, had in himself that ability which flows from the one source [18.1]

They affirm that man was formed on the eighth day, for sometimes they will have him to have been made on the sixth day, and sometimes on the eighth, unless, perchance, they mean that his earthly part was formed on the sixth day, but his fleshly part on the eighth, for these two things are distinguished by them. Some of them also hold that one man was formed after the image and likeness of God, masculo-feminine, and that this was the spiritual man; and that another man was formed out of the earth. [18.2]

stephan huller

The redemptive myth itself was founded on what seems to have been a standard Jewish myth in the Second Temple period, that there existed a heavenly Anthropos who was thought to have come forth from God prior to creation.91 This tale was inspired by rereading Genesis 1:3 in Greek. Since the word phos can mean both "light" (tov fw§?") and "man" (oJ fwv"), exegetes determined that a heavenly Man of Light came forth when God said, “Let there be phos!”92 This luminous heavenly Man was portrayed as God's partner in creation.93 The Anthropos was identified further with both the Kavod and the cosmic Adam, and thus was perceived to be the Image of God. This Image, they thought, came into existence on the first day of creation and acted as a cosmogonic agent.94 Later Jewish mystical traditions, in fact, explicitly call the primordial luminous Man the Yotser Bereshith, the "creator in the beginning."95 In 3 Enoch, the heavenly Man and Kavod-like Metatron is given a crown etched with the letters of light by which "all the necessities of the world and all the orders of creation were created.”96 Christian texts, Hermetic texts and Gnostic texts, all influenced by this old Jewish mythology, also preserve reference to the demiurgic aspect of the Anthropos.97

According to this standard Jewish myth, the human being was created after the likeness of the Anthropos.98 Since the first human being was created in God's image according to the Genesis story, this meant for some thinkers that Adam must have been a reflection of the Kavod. This aspect of the myth may explain some of the Adamic traditions which depict the veneration of the created Adam.99 Be that as it may, the image of the first human being was said to have been so bright that it even surpassed the brightness of the sun.100 His body, like the cosmic Anthropos, was so immense that it filled the universe from one end to the other.101

But this radiant image or immense body either was taken away from Adam or altered as a consequence of his Fall according to this myth. 102 Aspects of this speculation were rooted in discussion about Genesis 3:21 where God made Adam and Eve "garments of skin, and clothed them." It was concluded that Adam and Eve originally must have worn garments of light that were lost as a consequence of their sin.103 This type of exegesis brought with it the consequence that the human being was in something of a predicament. Was it possible to restore this radiant image, to return the human being to his prelapsarian glory? Most early Jews and Christians thought that piety was the key to such transformation of the soul. If the person lived his or her life in obedience to the commandments (God’s and/or Jesus’), at death or the Eschaton, the glory that Adam had lost would be restored. This they taught by way of their doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, the restoration of the whole person as a glorious angelic-like body reflecting God’s Image.104

But it appears that some Jews and Christians felt that the lost Image could be restored, at least provisionally, before death, that Paradise and its fruits could be had Now. That this mythological paradigm was religiously operable outside the literary context is clear to me when we examine, for instance, the literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls or Philo’s account of the Therapeutae or Paul’s epistles. In this literature, we have first-hand accounts of communities of believers involved in religious activities to achieve mystical transformation of the body in the here and now, and the elevation of the adept to the community of angels.105 Many of the first Christians contemplated their own ascensions into heaven and bodily transformations, believing that Jesus' exaltation and transformation had opened heaven's gate for them. Paul believed that the faithful who were possessed by Christ’s spirit could start experiencing the transformation into the image of God while still on earth but that full glorification would only occur after death.106 Others Christians promoted pre-mortem flights into heaven and full transformation in the present as the result.107

This shift in thought to concentrate on the fulfillment of God’s promises in the present appears to me to have been largely a consequence of failed eschatological expectations. Since the mystical tradition was a “vertical” dimension of Jewish apocalyptic thought running perpendicular to the eschatological,108 this shift would have been easy to make. It moved the eschatological encounter with God and promises of bodies glorified from the future sphere to the present, from an external cosmic apocalyptic event to an internal apocalyptic experience. This meant that the traditional rewards reserved for the Last Day, became available to believers.

Now through personal mystical encounters with the divine, encounters that were frequently described by these esoteric Jews and Christians in terms of a heavenly journey that culminated in a vision of God or his Kavod. This visionary experience initiated the process of the person’s transfiguration whereby his or her body became “angelic” and was “glorified.”109 Since some early Christians identified Jesus with the Kavod or Doxa, they talk about visionary journeys to see Jesus as well as the Father.

The mechanism for vision apotheosis appears to me to be Greek in origin.110 It was based on an ancient physiology that suggested that the "seen" image enters the seer through his eye and transforms his soul: "The pleasure which comes from vision enters by the eyes and makes its home in the breast; bearing with it ever the image...it impresses it upon the mirror of the soul and leaves there its image.”111 This idea is as old as Plato who suggested that the vision of the object touched the eye and was transmitted to the soul. In fact, he uses the image of the soul as a block of wax upon which a vision received is imprinted like a stamp of a signet ring.112

For these mystical Jews and Christians, this must have meant that a vision of the Kavod, the Image of God, literally resulted in the "re-stamping" of God's image on the soul, restoring it to its original Form and Glory. In the ancient language of their mythology, they said that they would become "glorified," "exalted," or "angelic."113 They would be clothed in shining white garments, become "standing" angels worshiping God before his throne, be transformed into beings of fire or light, be "enthroned," regain their cosmic-sized bodies, or be invested with God's Name or Image.114

Ultimately, even their minds would surpass normal human limits of comprehension as it too became godlike. Enoch relates regarding his own transformation into the angel Metatron: “The Holy One, blessed be he, revealed to me from that time onward all the mysteries of wisdom, all the depths of the perfect Torah and all the thoughts of human hearts. All mysteries of the world and all the orders of nature stand revealed before me as they stand revealed before the Creator. From that time onward, I looked and beheld deep secrets and wonderful mysteries. Before anyone thinks in secret, I see his thought. Before he acts, I see his act. There is nothing in heaven above or deep within the earth concealed from me.” [A DeConick What is Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/definition.pdf ]