"At face value, Irenaeus' chronology yields Lukan priority"

[Secret Alias]

I think, thanks to you TedM, I finally figured out Marcionism and heresy. A sincere thank you!

[Secret Alias]

I think there is something here to be considered in Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans:

And after the resurrection he ate and drank with them as a being of flesh, although spiritually united with the Father.

Mετὰ δὲ τὴν ἀνάστασιν συνέφαγεν αὐτοῖς καὶ συνέπιεν ὡς σαρκικός, καίπερ πνευματικῶς ἡνωμένος (= at one with) τῷ πατρί.

Why should special attention be paid to the resurrection narrative that Jesus ate with the disciples after the resurrection? If Jesus was acknowledged to be a man of flesh before the resurrection there shouldn't be anything special about the reference. καίπερ is a concessive particle. The idea that Jesus came in flesh is not agreed by his opponents but he concedes to them that he was indeed here 'united' with the Father. His opponents must have held that he came in spirit (only now?) 'united with the Father.'

Notice at once that Eusebius and Jerome and others note that Ignatius is citing from an extra-canonical gospel. Here is Ignatius's comments in full:

For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit. And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors. And after his resurrection He ate and drank with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father.

So the point seems to be Jesus always had flesh - even after the resurrection. He told Peter to touch his body to prove that he had flesh. But special emphasis is placed on his being one with the Father too. Did Ignatius believe that Jesus was always one with the Father or only after the resurrection? Hmmm.

[Secret Alias]

Indeed the concept of Jesus being 'spiritually united' with the Father is indeed consistently put forward by Ignatius as paralleling the relationship with a subordinate minister with his superior - i.e. exactly the manner that Luke is identified as 'being inseparable' with his master Paul (demonstrating I think that Irenaeus again is the author of the expanded Ignatian material). Take a look:

Seeing, then, all things have an end, these two things are simultaneously set before us— death and life; and every one shall go unto his own place. For as there are two kinds of coins, the one of God, the other of the world, and each of these has its special character stamped upon it, [so is it also here.] The unbelieving are of this world; but the believing have, in love, the character of God the Father by Jesus Christ, by whom, if we are not in readiness to die into His passion, His life is not in us.

Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. Do all then, imitating the same divine conduct, pay respect to one another, and let no one look upon his neighbour after the flesh, but continually love each other in Jesus Christ. Let nothing exist among you that may divide you; but be united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality.

As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united (ἡνωμένος) to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavour that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled. There is one Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is more excellent. Therefore run together as into one temple of God, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is with and has gone to one.

I know this is difficult for some people to understand but orthodox ideas weren't created in a vacuum. Irenaeus CAN ALWAYS be demonstrated to have taken heretical ideas (in this case being baptized into Jesus's death and being made a son) and adapt them for doctrinal purposes. I would argue that originally the catechumen followed Jesus in 'dying,' resurrected and becoming united (ἡνωμένος) with the Father. In this way, the Church as a body commune with God the Father through the example of Jesus. The editor of the canonical gospels inserts the idea of Jesus being baptized to throw us off the scent. Now the idea of baptismal 'adoptionism' takes hold outside of the Pauline concept of baptism into the death of Jesus. Originally it was not so. And here in the new material added to the Ignatian corpus (compare the Syriac). Jesus strangely comes down into a womb IS BAPTIZED after a certain number of years, then dies on the Cross and is resurrected with his 'being at one' (ἡνωμένος) with the Father no longer tied to the resurrection. In the original understanding, Jesus was the Son, he was holy divine, coming down to earth to repent from the error that separated him and humanity by consequence from the almighty Father. So representing 'grace upon grace' according to the Prologue of John.

Irenaeus just smashes the parallel between Jesus's estrangement from the Father and our own. Now Jesus is always 'united' with the Father. He was in the beginning he never suffered a break, he comes down in a womb still united, acts united with the Father during his ministry and then is resurrected still united and goes back united with the Father. There is no parallel with human baptism at all. Only in the now-heretical original do we retain the original formula - Jesus being made 'at one' (ἡνωμένος) with the Father after the resurrection. And the same is true with us.

[Secret Alias]

Can ἡνωμένος be used to describe the Nicene understanding of the relationship between Father and Son? If we go back to the passage we are now interested in - Ignatius to the Magnesians it is noteworthy that the line about Jesus 'being united' with the Father is not present in all manuscripts. We read:

One prominent theme of the Ignatian letters is Ignatius‟ call for the people to subordinate themselves to the bishop, presbyters, and deacons as a means of obtaining unity (e.g., Magn. 7, 13; Trall. 2, 7; Phld. 7; Smyrn. 8). It makes perfect sense, within Ignatius‟ historical location of the early- to mid-second century, that he sometimes specifically calls upon the subordination of Jesus to God in order to model the importance of the people submitting to the church leadership, and in particular to the bishop (Magn. 7, 13; Phld. 7; Smyrn. 8).

The textual tradition behind Magnesians 7.1 illustrates a place within the middle recension of the Ignatian corpus where a fourth-century (or possibly later) scribe became anxious about Ignatius‟ habit of subordinating Jesus to God. Lightfoot‟s text reads, ὥσπερ οὖν ὁ Κύριος ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐδὲν ἐποίησεν [ἡνωμένος ὤν], οὔτε δἰ ἑαυτοῦ οὔτε διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων, οὕτως μηδὲ ὑμεῖς ἄνευ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων μηδὲν πράσσετε – “Therefore just as the Lord did nothing without the Father [being united], neither by himself nor through the apostles, in this manner do nothing without the bishop and without the presbyters.” Lightfoot puts ἡνωμένος ὤν– “being united” in brackets as doubtfully authentic because the reading is supported by the Greek and Latin of the middle recension. Syriac fragment one, the Armenian translation, the Greek of the long recension, and John of Damascus, however, omit the phrase. Ehrman includes the reading in his text and Holmes puts it in brackets.

We have already observed the value that Lightfoot ascribes to the Armenian translation. We have also noticed that on numerous occasions the God language is not present in the Armenian translation as it is in other textual witnesses (Eph. inscription, 1.1; Rom. inscription (2), 6.3; Trall. 7.1; Smyrn. 1.1, 10.1). I concur with Lightfoot that this is a questionable reading. Furthermore, I think the fourfold witness of the Armenian, Syriac, Greek of the long recension, and John of Damascus contains the more authentic reading.73

In light of previous textual evidence adduced and the forthcoming discussion of Magnesians 13.2, I contend that the likelihood of a scribe adding ἡνωμένος ὤν in
order to soften the subordinationist tone of the text is highly probable. https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/ ... sAllowed=y

But I think the author here has got it all wrong. The debates between the 'Arians' and the Nicene parties didn't just 'suddenly' flare up at the beginning of the fourth century. It is easy to see that they represent instead the crystalization of centuries of debate over the question of Jesus's relationship with his Father. For instance the fact that the words ἡνωμένος ὤν appear in the middle recension of the Greek but not the long recension argue for the words being cut out from rather than added to the middle recension. What is the difficulty? The difficulty is clearly that ἡνωμένος ὤν suggests that there was a time that the Son and Father were not one. Think about it for a second. The Father has to create the Son and then at some point after the creation - no matter how brief - become 'united with him.'

Indeed I think the underlying controversy between heresy and orthodoxy on the question of the resurrection and unity with God is summed up by an important passage in the latter parts of De Recta in Deum Fide. Adamantius asks his opponent (who was likely a Marcionite originally):

AD: Was God separated (κεχωρισμένος) from this matter or united (ἡνωμένος) with it?
DR: He was separated from it.
AD: Then He was united (ἡνωμένος) with Matter, for there was nothing separating them. But looked at from another angle, your statement makes God exist only in part - He cannot thus be everywhere.
EUTR: It is impossible for something to be separated from something else if there is nothing to separate them. And that which separates must needs be stronger than that which is being separated. So there will be, above all, a third part - the God who holds them all together! What do you say, then, Droserius? Is God in a part only, and not everywhere?

The heretics argued that once matter was created God separated (κεχωρισμένος) himself from it. Adamantius says that he 'united' (ἡνωμένος) himself to matter. But again it mirrors the contentious words ἡνωμένος ὤν in Magnesians which suggest that Jesus's relationship with the Father is mirrored by that of the congregation with the bishop.

Clearly the congregation was at one time 'separate' or removed from the bishop. The reason why the words ἡνωμένος ὤν have been removed from Magnesians in later copies is that it implies that there was a time when Jesus was not yet subordinated, was not yet 'united' with his Father which goes to the heart of what we have been discussing. There must have been a tradition that the Son only became united with the Father after the Resurrection. That the purpose of Jesus undergoing his Passion was to emerge in a different purified state. All of this goes to the central concept of apokatastasis in early Christianity and the discussion interestingly in the original treatise behind Adamantius, Methodius and Maximus (see other thread). http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2013/ ... t-one.html

When you look at the three copies of a lost treatise written in the late second century (which I suspect was a descendant of Irenaeus's lost treatise De Monarchia or How God is not the Cause of Evil. When you look at all the treatises side by side it becomes apparent that the original argument that lies behind our existing treatises of Adamantius, Methodius and Maximus the 'orthodox' author puts forward the case that an all powerful God might well have been once present in matter. His suggestion is that there are two types of matter - a spiritual substance and physical matter as we know it. This former type of matter might well have co-existed with the all powerful Father but we happen to live in a second type of matter which is alienated from God (undoubtedly owing to a 'first sin' or fall).

We don't seem to be very far from the gnostic idea of a fall from the aeons here. But the point that we should see is that Adamantius/Methodius/Maximus - even Origen's idea of apokatastasis might well have developed from Jesus's resurrection. If - as I would suggest - the second type of matter emerged from some sort of fall of god (or the second God as it were) then it stands to reason that this Second God wasn't even aware that he was in a fallen state until he had come to learn of a supreme being who lived in another heaven. At that point he realizes that he must undergo his Passion (in Aramaic 'reformation').

Some background on the Aramaic terminology - The term notzrim is a well established Aramaic term denoting Christians from the rabbinic literature. It is undoubtedly the original term behind the title 'Nazarene' and actually stands behind the seemingly familiar concept of the Passion of Christ.

It is my suggestion to read the term נוצרים as notsarim (root YOD-tsade-resh, nif‘al participle). I believe this deserves serious consideration. Of course there could have been a pair of terms, an exoteric term notsrim from nun-tsade-resh meaning “guardians” and an esoteric term notsarim from yod-tsade-resh meaning “re-formed”.

If we look in BDB under NUN-tsade-resh, qal, participle and go through the shades of meaning of yetser listed in Jastrow the meaning of notsarim is “those with a new yetser”.

In the same way then as the catechuman assume a new nature when they undergo their baptism into the death of Christ, Jesus himself 'led the way' by 'becoming united' with the Father through the Passion. This notion later became heretical and it was extinguished in stages. Indeed the text of Magnesians makes this manifest by demonstrating that Jesus's relationship with his Father (i.e. 'becoming united' with him) mirrors the path of the catuchemen.

[Secret Alias]

And all of us should note that this notion of Jesus 'becoming united' with the Father and the congregation 'becoming inseparable' with the bishop (the representative of the Father) is the foundation of the myth of Luke and Paul and the former's writing a gospel for the latter in Irenaeus. Moreover it pervades every aspect of orthodox forgery (= 'spiritual writing') into the third century.

The heretical notion of how the gospel was written as aforementioned is rather convention. Paul ascends up to third heaven, hears 'unspeakable things' and then writes a mystery or 'secret gospel' which is kept hidden by his followers. People were always ascending to heaven so this is pretty conventional. As noted earlier the heretics believed that there was a time when the Son was distinct from the Father but was 'reconciled' at his resurrection. But the claim must have been that only Paul 'knew' the reconciled Son, the apostles still knew him in his former state and so followed his Ten Commandments etc.

It was as the 'raised' new man fully restored to the Father that Jesus spoke to Paul in the third heaven. So it was that the gospel dictated from him preaches a new understanding which goes beyond the Ten Commandments. To this end we approach the controversy addressed by Irenaeus in Book Three chapters 13, 14 and 15 cited earlier as well as the Prescription Against the Heretics.

Irenaeus does not yet dispute (as far as I can see) the metaphor that the relationship between the catechumen and their bishop is like that of Jesus and his Father. Indeed the centrality of the claim that Luke became 'inseparable' from Paul and so could perfectly complete 'his gospel' demonstrates that Irenaeus himself claimed to be united to Polycarp and Polycarp undoubtedly 'inseparable' from his (alleged) master Ignatius.

Within orthodoxy there is at this point a strong emphasis on the pair or syzygy http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinu ... tinian.htm which I think again - just like the idea of apokatastasis suggests that Irenaeus's ideas developed from Valentinism (consider also the mystical numerological significance of the correctness of exactly 'four' gospels). To this end, even though Irenaeus rejects the specific mystical understanding of the gnostics with regards to the various aeons claimed to have existed 'before the beginning' Irenaeus puts forward nevertheless an unmistakably derived concept of the spiritual union from baptism of mystical 'pairings' of individuals.

To this end, the Son still becomes 'united' with the Father, the community mirrors this by being 'inseparable' from the bishop, Luke manifest the same mystical understanding by similarly being repeatedly identified as being 'inseparable' from Paul - all because of the pre-existent concept of baptism as a 'bridal chamber' in the neo-Valentinian community. What has happened here is that by this point in the development of Christianity Irenaeus took what was pre-existent and 'fixed' or remolded any aspect of the mystical understanding which contradicted some doctrinal understanding that he wanted to impose on the tradition.

To this end, we must imagine that the doctrine of apokatastasis was still alive and fully 'orthodox' at this stage of the development of Christianity. It was intimately connected with baptism. Jesus likely was still understood (perhaps in whispers) to have been 'united' with the Father at his Resurrection. But over time these ideas became 'heretical' because of their implication with respect to Christian being fully monarchian - i.e. reflecting a worship of one ruler all power, omni-present etc.

The orthodox however eventually had to confront the implication of 'the Son' being separate or distinct from the Father up until the Passion. Yes this mirrored the path of the catechumen - but what about it's implication on the divine monarchia BEFORE Jesus's ministry? What happened over time was various attempts to 'plug' holes in the original myth in order to bolster the claim to being compliant with monarchian dogma. So it was that we see in the fourth century another hole was plugged - there never was a time that Jesus was not one nature with the Father. Clearly the whole point of having a doctrine of apokatastasis was that we - made in the image and form of our Creator needed like him to undergo 'restoration' 'reformation' etc. But in the end, the Church couldn't emerge as an Imperial religion if it held that the ruler of all was once not 'all powerful' 'all knowing' etc. So changes to the original doctrine were made.

[Giuseppe]

So too according to the heretics, the Law was created by angels led by the Jewish god who was/were estranged from the Father until at some point the Son realizes he is not the only God, that a superior Father existed before him. At that point (according to my reconstruction of the heretical understanding) the Son repented from his sins came down to earth and was crucified in order to die and be reborn as 'inseparable' from the Father.

this would explain the Philippians hymn and would remove the strange anomaly of a docetic (hence heretic) Son that is vindicated as 'Jesus' (litt.: 'YHWH-saves'), i.e. the 'Demiurg-saves', once the Son/Demiurg recognizes he is not the unique God (but only the Son of a highest God).

But isn't there the risk of a circular argument?
If Marcion believed that the Demiurg is now converted (by becoming 'Demiurg-saves'), why did he reject all Judaism? Accordingly, a traditional Jew would be praying still today the same Jesus of Marcion. . .

[Secret Alias]

If Marcion believed that the Demiurg is now converted (by becoming 'Demiurg-saves'), why did he reject all Judaism?

E 'difficile per un uomo fare l'amore con una brutta quando aveva sposato una bellezza

[Giuseppe]

This is a very enigma! Are you saying that for Marcion the 'brutta' is the god of Jews while the 'bellezza' is his new platonic Alien God? Or viceversa?

[Giuseppe]

Where do you find the evidence precisely of the fact that the same Demiurg realizes to be himself the Son of a highest God?

The effects of your view would be revolutionary: the Gospel Jesus would be really the story of the penitence of a inferior god who atones for his sins to redeem humanity persecuted by himself.

This would explain the strange tension that I felt in past about the relationship of Paul with his Jesus: as if Jesus had to be punished because it was himself THE sinner, himself THE real murderer in this thriller from the start.

[Secret Alias]

If you were following my argument, the Son (a term never used by the Jews) discovers his Father exists in heaven (the existence of said 'Father' accounts for the new terminology) and longs to rejoin his fullness. So he undergoes his Passion providing a path to perfection for the rest of humanity created in his image and likeness. The whole business about Marcion rejecting the Jewish religion is owing to it being a reflection of things before the discovery of the Father.