the unseen world and other essays-第20章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


heistic　associations；　would　elevate　Jesus　into　a　god。　Nevertheless；　his　own　hypothesis　of　pre…existence　supplied　at　once　the　requisite　fulcrum　for　those　Gnostics　who　wished　to　reconcile　a　strict　monotheism　with　the　ascription　of　divine　attributes　to　Jesus。　Combining　with　this　notion　of　pre…existence　the　pneumatic　or　spiritual　quality　attributed　to　Jesus　in　the　writings　of　Paul；　the　Gnosticizing　Christians　maintained　that　Christ　was　an　aeon　or　emanation　from　God；　redeeming　men　from　the　consequences　entailed　by　their　imprisonment　in　matter。　At　this　stage　of　Christologic　speculation　appeared　the　anonymous　epistle　to　the　〃Hebrews；〃　and　the　pseudo…Pauline　epistles　to　the　〃Colossians；〃　〃Ephesians；〃　and　〃Philippians〃　（A。　D。　130）。　In　these　epistles；　which　originated　among　the　Pauline　Christians；　the　Gnostic　theosophy　is　skilfully　applied　to　the　Pauline　conception　of　the　scope　and　purposes　of　Christianity。　Jesus　is　described　as　the　creator　of　the　world　（Coloss。　i。　16）；　the　visible　image　of　the　invisible　God；　the　chief　and　ruler　of　the　〃throues；　dominions；　principalities；　and　powers；〃　into　which；　in　Gnostic　phraseology；　the　emanations　of　God　were　classified。　Or；　according　to　〃Colossians〃　and　〃Philippians；〃　all　the　aeons　are　summed　up　in　him；　in　whom　dwells　the　pleroma；　or　〃fulness　of　God。〃　Thus　Jesus　is　elevated　quite　above　ordinary　humanity；　and　a　close　approach　is　made　to　ditheism；　although　he　is　still　emphatically　subordinated　to　God　by　being　made　the　creator　of　the　world；an　office　then　regarded　as　incompatible　with　absolute　divine　perfection。　In　the　celebrated　passage；　〃Philippians〃　ii。　6…11；　the　aeon　Jesus　is　described　as　being　the　form　or　visible　manifestation　of　God；　yet　as　humbling　himself　by　taking　on　the　form　or　semblance　of　humanity；　and　suffering　death；　in　return　for　which　he　is　to　be　exalted　even　above　the　archangels。　A　similar　view　is　taken　in　〃Hebrews〃；　and　it　is　probable　that　to　the　growing　favour　with　which　these　doctrines　were　received；　we　owe　the　omission　of　the　miraculous　conception　from　the　gospel　of　〃Mark；〃a　circumstance　which　has　misled　some　critics　into　assigning　to　that　gospel　an　earlier　date　than　to　〃Matthew〃　and　〃Luke。〃　Yet　the　fact　that　in　this　gospel　Jesus　is　implicitly　ranked　above　the　angels　（Mark　xiii。　32）；　reveals　a　later　stage　of　Christologic　doctrine　than　that　reached　by　the　first　and　third　synoptists；　and　it　is　altogether　probable　that；　in　accordance　with　the　noticeable　conciliatory　disposition　of　this　evangelist；　the　supernatural　conception　is　omitted　out　of　deference　to　the　Gnosticizing　theories　of　〃Colossians〃　and　〃Philippians；〃　in　which　this　materialistic　doctrine　seems　to　have　had　no　assignable　place。　In　〃Philippians〃　especially；　many　expressions　seem　to　verge　upon　Docetism；　the　extreme　form　of　Gnosticism；　according　to　which　the　human　body　of　Jesus　was　only　a　phantom。　Valentinus；　who　was　contemporary　with　the　Pauline　writers　of　the　second　century；　maintained　that　Jesus　was　not　born　of　Mary　by　any　process　of　conception；　but　merely　passed　through　her；　as　light　traverses　a　translucent　substance。　And　finally　Marcion　（A。　D。　140）　carried　the　theory　to　its　extreme　limits　by　declaring　that　Jesus　was　the　pure　Pneuma　or　Spirit；　who　contained　nothing　in　common　with　carnal　humanity。

The　pseudo…Pauline　writers　steered　clear　of　this　extravagant　doctrine；　which　erred　by　breaking　entirely　with　historic　tradition；　and　was　consequently　soon　condemned　as　heretical。　Their　language；　though　unmistakably　Gnostic；　was　sufficiently　neutral　and　indefinite　to　allow　of　their　combination　with　earlier　and　later　expositions　of　dogma；　and　they　were　therefore　eventually　received　into　the　canon；　where　they　exhibit　a　stage　of　opinion　midway　between　that　of　Paul　and　that　of　the　fourth　gospel。

For　the　construction　of　a　durable　system　of　Christology；　still　further　elaboration　was　necessary。　The　pre…existence　of　Jesus；　as　an　emanation　from　God；　in　whom　were　summed　up　the　attributes　of　the　pleroma　or　full　scale　of　Gnostic　aeons；　was　now　generally　conceded。　But　the　relation　of　this　pleroqma　to　the　Godhead　of　which　it　was　the　visible　manifestation；　needed　to　be　more　accurately　defined。　And　here　recourse　was　had　to　the　conception　of　the　〃Logos；〃a　notion　which　Philo　had　borrowed　from　Plato；　lending　to　it　a　theosophic　significance。　In　the　Platonic　metaphysics　objective　existence　was　attributed　to　general　terms；　the　signs　of　general　notions。　Besides　each　particular　man；　horse；　or　tree；　and　besides　all　men；　horses；　and　trees；　in　the　aggregate；　there　was　supposed　to　exist　an　ideal　Man；　Horse；　and　Tree。　Each　particular　man；　horse；　or　tree　consisted　of　abstract　existence　plus　a　portion　of　the　ideal　man；　horse；　or　tree。　Sokrates；　for　instance；　consisted　of　Existence；　plus　Animality；　plus　Humanity；　plus　Sokraticity。　The　visible　world　of　particulars　thus　existed　only　by　virtue　of　its　participation　in　the　attributes　of　the　ideal　world　of　universals。　God　created　the　world　by　encumbering　each　idea　with　an　envelopment　or　clothing　of　visible　matter；　and　since　matter　is　vile　or　imperfect；　all　things　are　more　or　less　perfect　as　they　partake　more　or　less　fully　of　the　idea。　The　pure　unencumbered　idea；　the　〃Idea　of　ideas；〃　is　the　Logos；　or　divine　Reason；　which　represents　the　sum…total　of　the　activities　which　sustain　the　world；　and　serves　as　a　mediator　between　the　absolutely　ideal　God　and　the　absolutely　non…ideal　matter。　Here　we　arrive　at　a　Gnostic　conception；　which　the　Philonists　of　Alexandria　were　not　slow　to　appropriate。　The　Logos；　or　divine　Reason；　was　identified　with　the　Sophia；　or　divine　Wisdom　of　the　Jewish　Gnostics；　which　had　dwelt　with　God　before　the　creation　of　the　world。　By　a　subtle　play　upon　the　double　meaning　of　the　Greek　term　（logos　=　〃reason〃　or　〃word〃）；　a　distinction　was　drawn　between　the　divine　Reason　and　the　divine　Word。　The　former　was　the　archctypal　idea　or　thought　of　God；　existing　from　all　eternity；　the　latter　was　the　external　manifestation　or　realization　of　that　idea　which　occurred　at　the　moment　of　creation；　when；　according　to　Genesis；　God　SPOKE；　and　the　world　was。

In　the　middle　of　the　second　century；　this　Philonian　theory　was　the　one　thing　needful　to　add　metaphysical　precision　to　the　Gnostic　and　Pauline　speculations　concerning　the　nature　of　Jesus。　In　the　writings　of　Justin　Martyr　（A。　D。　150…166）；　Jesus　is　for　the　first　time　identified　with　the　Philonian　Logos　or　〃Word　of　God。〃　According　to　Justin；　an　impassable　abyss　exists　between　the　Infinite　Deity　and　the　Finite　World；　the　one　cannot　act　upon　the　other；　pure　spirit　cannot　contaminate　itself　by　contact　with　impure　matter。　To　meet　this　difficulty；　God　evolves　from　himself　a　secondary　God；　the　Logos；yet　without　diminishing　himself　any　more　than　a　flame　is　diminished　when　it　gives　birth　to　a　second　flame。　Thus　generated；　like　light　begotten　of　light　（lumen　de　lumine）；　the　Logos　creates　the　world；　inspires　the　ancient　prophets　with　their　divine　revelations；　and　finally　reveals　himself　to　mankind　in　the　person　of　Christ。　Yet　Justin　sedulously　guards　himself　against　ditheism；　insisting　frequently　and　emphatically　upon　the　immeasurable　inferiority　of　the　Logos　as　compared　with　the　actual　God　（gr　o　ontws　qeos）。

We　have　here　reached　very　nearly　the　ultimate　phase　of　New　Testament　speculation　concerning　Jesus。　The　doctrines　enunciated　by　Justin　became　eventually；　with　slight　modification；　the　official　doctrines　of　the　Church；　yet　before　they　could　thus　be　received；　some　further　elaboration　was　needed。　The　pre…existing　Logos…Christ　of　Justin　was　no　longer　the　human　Messiah　of　the　first　and　third　gospels；　born　of　a　woman；　inspired　by　the　divine　Pneuma；　and　tempted　by　the　Devil。　There　was　danger　that　Christologic　speculation　might　break　quite　loose　from　historic　tradition；　and　pass　into　the　metaphysical　extreme　of　Docetism。　Had　this　come　to　pass；　there　might　perhaps　have　been　a　fatal　schism　in　the　Church。　Tradition　still　remained　Ebionitish；　dogma　had　become　decidedly　Gnostic；　how　were　the　two　to　be　moulded　into　harmony　with　each　other？　Such　was　the　problem　which　presented　itself　to　the　author　of　the　fourth　gospel　（A。　D。　170…180）。　As　M。　Reville　observes；　〃if　the　doctrine　of　the　Logos　were　really　to　be　applied　to　the　person　of　Jesus；　it　was　necessary　to　remodel　the　evangelical　history。〃　Tradition　must　be　moulded　so　as　to　fit　the　dogma；　but　the　dogma　must　be　restrained　by　tradition　from　running　into　Docetic　extravagance。　It　must　be　shown　historically　how　〃the　Word　became　flesh〃　and　dwelt　on　earth　（John　i。　14）；　how　the　deeds　of　Jesus　of　Nazareth　were　the　deeds　of　the　incarnate　Logos；　in　whom　was　exhibited　the　pleroma　or　fulness　of　the　divine　attributes。　The　author　of　the　fourth　gospel　is；　like　Justin；　a　Philonian　Gnostic；　but　he　differs　from　Justin　in　his　bold　and　skilful　treatment　of　the　traditional　materials　supplied　by　the　earlier　gospels。　The　process　of　development　in　the　theories　and　purposes　of　Jesus；　which　can　be　traced　throughout　the　Messianic　descriptions　of　the　first　gospel；　is　entirely　obliterated　in　the　fourth。　Here　Jesus　appears　at　the　outset　as　the　creator　of　the　world；　descended　from　his　glory；　but　destined　soon　to　be　reinstated。　The　title　〃Son　of　Man〃　has　lost　its　original　significance；　and　become　synonymous　with　〃Son　of　God。〃　The　temptation；　the　transfiguration；　the　scene　in　Gethsemane；　are　omitted；　and　for　the　latter　is　substituted　a　Philonian　prayer。　Nevertheless；　the　author　carefully　avoids　the　extremes　of　Docetism　or　ditheism。　Not　only　does　he　represent　the　human　life　of　Jesus　as　real；　and　his　death　as　a　truly　physical　death；　but　he　distinctly　asserts　the　inferiority　of　the　Son　to　the　Father　（John　xiv。　28）。　Indeed；　as　M。　Reville　well　observes；　it　is　part　of　the　very　notion　of　the　Logos　that　it　should　be　imperfect　relatively　to　the　absolute　God；　since　it　is　only　its　relative　imperfection　which　allows　it　to　sustain　relations　to　the　world　and　to　men　which　are　incompatible　with　absolute　perfection；　from　the　Philonian　point　of　view。　The　Athanasian　doctrine　of　the　Trinity　finds　no　support　in　the　fourth　gospel；　any　more　than　in　the　earlier　books　collected　in　the　New　Testament。

The　fourth　gospel　completes　the　speculative　revolution　by　which　the　conception　of　a　divine　being　lowered　to　humanity　was　substituted　for　that　of　a　human　being　raised　to　divinity。　We　have　here　travelled　a　long　distance　from　the　risen　Messiah　of　the　genuine　Pauline　epistles；　or　the　preacher　of　righteousness　in　the　first　gospel。　Yet　it　does　not　seem　probable　that　the　Church　of　the　third　century　was　thoroughly　aware　of　the　discrepancy。　The　authors　of　the　later　Christology　did　not　regard　themselves　as　adding　new　truths　to　Christianity；　but　merely　as　giving　a　fuller　and　more　consistent　interpretation　to　what　must　have　been　known　from　the　outset。　They　were　so　completely　destitute　of　the　historic　sense；　and　so　strictly　confined　to　the　dogmatic　point　of　view；　that　they　projected　their　own　theories　back　into　the　past；　and　vituperated　as　heretics　those　who　adhered　to　tradition　in　its　earlier　and　simpler　form。　Examples　from　more　recent　times　are　not　wanting；　which　show　that　we　are　dealing　here　with　an　inveterate　tendency　of　the　human　mind。　New　facts　and　new　theories　are　at　first　condemned　as　heretical　or　ridiculous；　but　when　once　firmly　established；　it　is　immediately　maintained　that　every　one　knew　them　before。　After　the　Copernican