第17章

ThoughlongmaintainedbytheEbionitesorprimitiveChristians，itwasverysoonrejectedbythegreatbodyoftheChurch，whichassertedinsteadthatJesushadbeeninspiredbytheHolySpiritfromthemomentofhisconception。FromthisitwasbutasteptothetheorythatJesuswasactuallybegottenbyoroftheHolySpirit；anotionwhichtheHellenicmind，accustomedtothemythsofLeda，Anchises，andothers，foundnodifficultyinentertaining。AccordingtotheGospeloftheHebrews，ascitedbyOrigen，theHolySpiritwasthemotherofJesus，andJosephwashisfather。Butaccordingtotheprevailingopinion，asrepresentedinthefirstandthirdsynoptists，therelationshipwasjusttheotherway。Withgreaterapparentplausibility，thedivineaeonwassubstitutedforthehumanfather，andamythsprangup，ofwhichthematerialisticdetailsfurnishedtotheopponentsofthenewreligionanopportunityformakingthemostgrossandexasperatinginsinuations。Thedominanceofthistheorymarkstheeraatwhichourfirstandthirdsynopticgospelswerecomposed，——fromsixtytoninetyyearsafterthedeathofJesus。Intheluxuriantmythologicgrowththereexhibited，wemayyettracethevarioussuccessivephasesofChristologicspeculationbutimperfectlyblended。In“Matthew“and“Luke“wefindtheoriginalMessianictheoryexemplifiedinthegenealogiesofJesus，inwhich，contrarytohistoricprobability(cf。Matt。xxii。41-46)，butinaccordancewithatime-honouredtradition，hispedigreeistracedbacktoDavid；“Matthew“referringhimtotheroyallineofJudah，while“Luke“morecautiouslyhasrecoursetoanassumedyoungerbranch。Superposeduponthisprimitivemythologicstratum，wefind，inthesamenarratives，theaccountofthedescentofthepneumaatthetimeofthebaptism；andcrowningthewhole，therearethetwoaccountsofthenativitywhich，thoughconflictinginnearlyalltheirdetails，agreeinrepresentingthedivinepneumaasthefatherofJesus。OfthesethreestagesofChristology，thelastbecomesentirelyirreconcilablewiththefirst；andnothingcanbetterillustratetheuncriticalcharacterofthesynoptiststhanthefactthattheassumeddescentofJesusfromDavidthroughhisfatherJosephisallowedtostandsidebysidewiththeaccountofthemiraculousconceptionwhichcompletelynegativesit。Ofthisdifficulty“Matthew“isquiteunconscious，and“Luke，“whilevaguelynoticingit(iii。23)，proposesnosolution，andappearsundisturbedbythecontradiction。 ThusfartheChristologywithwhichwehavebeendealingispredominantlyJewish，thoughtosomeextentinfluencedbyHellenicconceptions。NoneofthesuccessivedoctrinespresentedinPaul，“Matthew，“and“Luke“assertorimplythepre-existenceofJesus。Atthisearlyperiodhewasregardedasahumanbeingraisedtoparticipationincertainattributesofdivinity；andthiswasasfarasthedogmacouldbecarriedbytheJewishmetaphysics。Butsoonafterthedateofourthirdgospel，aHellenicsystemofChristologyaroseintoprominence，inwhichtheproblemwasreversed，andJesuswasregardedasasemi-divinebeingtemporarilyloweredtoparticipationincertainattributesofhumanity。ForsuchadoctrineJewishmythologysuppliednoprecedents；buttheIndo-Europeanmindwasfamiliarwiththeconceptionofdeityincarnateinhumanform，asintheavatarsofVishnu，orevensufferingIIItheinterestsofhumanity，asinthenoblemythofPrometheus。TheelementsofChristologypre-existinginthereligiousconceptionsofGreece，India，andPersia，aretoorichandnumeroustobediscussedhere。AveryfullaccountofthemisgiveninMr。R。W。Mackay’sacuteandlearnedtreatiseonthe“ReligiousDevelopmentoftheGreeksandHebrews{。}“ ItwasinAlexandria，whereJewishtheologyfirstcameintocontactwithHellenicandOrientalideas，thatthewaywaspreparedforthedogmaofChrist’spre-existence。TheattempttorationalizetheconceptionofdeityasembodiedintheJehovahoftheOldTestamentgaverisetotheclassofopinionsdescribedasGnosis，orGnosticism。ThesignificationofGnosisissimply“rationalism，“——theendeavourtoharmonizethematerialisticstatementsofanoldmythologywiththemoreadvancedspiritualisticphilosophyofthetime。TheGnosticsrejectedtheconceptionofananthropomorphicdeitywhohadappearedvisiblyandaudiblytothepatriarchs；andtheyweretheauthorsofthedoctrine，verywidelyspreadduringthesecondandthirdcenturies，thatGodcouldnotinpersonhavebeenthecreatoroftheworld。Accordingtothem，God，aspurespirit，couldnotactdirectlyuponvileandgrossmatter。ThedifficultywhichtroubledthemwascuriouslyanalogoustothatwhichdisturbedtheCartesiansandthefollowersofLeibnitzintheseventeenthcentury；howwasspirittoactuponmatter，withoutceasing，protanto，tobespirit？Toevadethisdifficulty，theGnosticspostulatedaseriesofemanationsfromGod，becomingsuccessivelylessandlessspiritualandmoreandmorematerial，untilatthelowestendofthescalewasreachedtheDemiurgusorJehovahoftheOldTestament，whocreatedtheworldandappeared，clothedinmaterialform，tothepatriarchs。AccordingtosomeoftheGnosticsthislowestaeonoremanationwasidenticalwiththeJewishSatan，ortheAhrimanofthePersians，whoiscalled“theprinceofthisworld，“andthecreationoftheworldwasanessentiallyevilact。Butalldidnotshareintheseextremeopinions。Intheprevailing，theory，thislastofthedivineemanationswasidentifiedwiththe“Sophia，“orpersonified“Wisdom，“oftheBookofProverbs(viii。22-30)，whoisdescribedaspresentwithGodbeforethefoundationoftheworld。Thetotalityoftheseaeonsconstitutedthepleroma，or“fulnessofGod“(Coloss。i。20；Eph。i。23)，andinacorollarywhichbearsunmistakablemarksofBuddhistinfluence，itwasarguedthat，inthefinalconsummationofthings，mattershouldbeeliminatedandallspiritreunitedwithGod，fromwhomithadprimarilyflowed。 ItwasimpossiblethatsuchviewsastheseshouldnotsoonbetakenupandappliedtothefluctuatingChristologyofthetime。 Accordingtothe“ShepherdofHermas，“anapocalypticwritingnearlycontemporarywiththegospelof“Mark，“theaeonorsonofGodwhoexistedprevioustothecreationwasnottheChrist，ortheSophia，butthePneumaorHolySpirit，representedintheOldTestamentasthe“angelofJehovah。“Jesus，inrewardforhisperfectgoodness，wasadmittedtoashareintheprivilegesofthisPneuma(Reville，p。39)。Here，asM。Revilleobserves，thoughaGnosticideaisadopted，Jesusisneverthelessviewedasascendinghumanity，andnotasdescendingdivinity。Theauthorofthe“ClementineHomilies“advancesastepfarther，andclearlyassumesthepre-existenceofJesus，who，inhisopinion，wasthepure，primitiveman，successivelyincarnateinAdam，Enoch，Noah，Abraham，Isaac，Jacob，Moses，andfinallyintheMessiahorChrist。Theauthorprotests，invehementlanguage，againstthoseHellenistswho，misledbytheirpolytheisticassociations，wouldelevateJesusintoagod。Nevertheless，hisownhypothesisofpre-existencesuppliedatoncetherequisitefulcrumforthoseGnosticswhowishedtoreconcileastrictmonotheismwiththeascriptionofdivineattributestoJesus。Combiningwiththisnotionofpre-existencethepneumaticorspiritualqualityattributedtoJesusinthewritingsofPaul，theGnosticizingChristiansmaintainedthatChristwasanaeonoremanationfromGod，redeemingmenfromtheconsequencesentailedbytheirimprisonmentinmatter。AtthisstageofChristologicspeculationappearedtheanonymousepistletothe“Hebrews，“andthepseudo-Paulineepistlestothe“Colossians，““Ephesians，“and“Philippians“(A。D。130)。Intheseepistles，whichoriginatedamongthePaulineChristians，theGnostictheosophyisskilfullyappliedtothePaulineconceptionofthescopeandpurposesofChristianity。Jesusisdescribedasthecreatoroftheworld(Coloss。i。16)，thevisibleimageoftheinvisibleGod，thechiefandrulerofthe“throues，dominions，principalities，andpowers，“intowhich，inGnosticphraseology，theemanationsofGodwereclassified。Or，accordingto“Colossians“and“Philippians，“alltheaeonsaresummedupinhim，inwhomdwellsthepleroma，or“fulnessofGod。“ThusJesusiselevatedquiteaboveordinaryhumanity，andacloseapproachismadetoditheism，althoughheisstillemphaticallysubordinatedtoGodbybeingmadethecreatoroftheworld，——anofficethenregardedasincompatiblewithabsolutedivineperfection。Inthecelebratedpassage，“Philippians“ii。6-11，theaeonJesusisdescribedasbeingtheformorvisiblemanifestationofGod，yetashumblinghimselfbytakingontheformorsemblanceofhumanity，andsufferingdeath，inreturnforwhichheistobeexaltedevenabovethearchangels。Asimilarviewistakenin“Hebrews“；anditisprobablethattothegrowingfavourwithwhichthesedoctrineswerereceived，weowetheomissionofthemiraculousconceptionfromthegospelof“Mark，“——acircumstancewhichhasmisledsomecriticsintoassigningtothatgospelanearlierdatethanto“Matthew“and“Luke。“YetthefactthatinthisgospelJesusisimplicitlyrankedabovetheangels(Markxiii。32)，revealsalaterstageofChristologicdoctrinethanthatreachedbythefirstandthirdsynoptists；anditisaltogetherprobablethat，inaccordancewiththenoticeableconciliatorydispositionofthisevangelist，thesupernaturalconceptionisomittedoutofdeferencetotheGnosticizingtheoriesof“Colossians“and“Philippians，“inwhichthismaterialisticdoctrineseemstohavehadnoassignableplace。In“Philippians“especially，manyexpressionsseemtovergeuponDocetism，theextremeformofGnosticism，accordingtowhichthehumanbodyofJesuswasonlyaphantom。Valentinus，whowascontemporarywiththePaulinewritersofthesecondcentury，maintainedthatJesuswasnotbornofMarybyanyprocessofconception，butmerelypassedthroughher，aslighttraversesatranslucentsubstance。AndfinallyMarcion(A。D。140)carriedthetheorytoitsextremelimitsbydeclaringthatJesuswasthepurePneumaorSpirit，whocontainednothingincommonwithcarnalhumanity。 Thepseudo-Paulinewriterssteeredclearofthisextravagantdoctrine，whicherredbybreakingentirelywithhistorictradition，andwasconsequentlysooncondemnedasheretical。 Theirlanguage，thoughunmistakablyGnostic，wassufficientlyneutralandindefinitetoallowoftheircombinationwithearlierandlaterexpositionsofdogma，andtheywerethereforeeventuallyreceivedintothecanon，wheretheyexhibitastageofopinionmidwaybetweenthatofPaulandthatofthefourthgospel。 FortheconstructionofadurablesystemofChristology，stillfurtherelaborationwasnecessary。Thepre-existenceofJesus，asanemanationfromGod，inwhomweresummeduptheattributesofthepleromaorfullscaleofGnosticaeons，wasnowgenerallyconceded。ButtherelationofthispleroqmatotheGodheadofwhichitwasthevisiblemanifestation，neededtobemoreaccuratelydefined。Andhererecoursewashadtotheconceptionofthe“Logos，“——anotionwhichPhilohadborrowedfromPlato，lendingtoitatheosophicsignificance。InthePlatonicmetaphysicsobjectiveexistencewasattributedtogeneralterms，thesignsofgeneralnotions。Besideseachparticularman，horse，ortree，andbesidesallmen，horses，andtrees，intheaggregate，therewassupposedtoexistanidealMan，Horse，andTree。Eachparticularman，horse，ortreeconsistedofabstractexistenceplusaportionoftheidealman，horse，ortree。 Sokrates，forinstance，consistedofExistence，plusAnimality，plusHumanity，plusSokraticity。Thevisibleworldofparticularsthusexistedonlybyvirtueofitsparticipationintheattributesoftheidealworldofuniversals。Godcreatedtheworldbyencumberingeachideawithanenvelopmentorclothingofvisiblematter；andsincematterisvileorimperfect，allthingsaremoreorlessperfectastheypartakemoreorlessfullyoftheidea。Thepureunencumberedidea，the“Ideaofideas，“istheLogos，ordivineReason，whichrepresentsthesum-totaloftheactivitieswhichsustaintheworld，andservesasamediatorbetweentheabsolutelyidealGodandtheabsolutelynon-idealmatter。HerewearriveataGnosticconception，whichthePhilonistsofAlexandriawerenotslowtoappropriate。TheLogos，ordivineReason，wasidentifiedwiththeSophia，ordivineWisdomoftheJewishGnostics，whichhaddweltwithGodbeforethecreationoftheworld。ByasubtleplayuponthedoublemeaningoftheGreekterm(logos=“reason“or“word“)，adistinctionwasdrawnbetweenthedivineReasonandthedivineWord。TheformerwasthearchctypalideaorthoughtofGod，existingfromalleternity；thelatterwastheexternalmanifestationorrealizationofthatideawhichoccurredatthemomentofcreation，when，accordingtoGenesis，GodSPOKE，andtheworldwas。 Inthemiddleofthesecondcentury，thisPhiloniantheorywastheonethingneedfultoaddmetaphysicalprecisiontotheGnosticandPaulinespeculationsconcerningthenatureofJesus。