5: The Sayings of Jesus

Apocrit. III.7-III.18

[Matt. 26.11; Matt. 28.20]

In a short saying attributed to him, Christ says to his disciples, "You will always have the poor among you, but me you will not always have." The occasion for the sermon is this: A certain woman takes an alabaster container filled with ointment and pours it over Jesus' head. When [his disciples] complain about the inappropriateness of the action Jesus replies, "Why trouble the woman when she has done something good for me."

The disciples caused quite a stir, wondering why the ointment, expensive as it was, had not been sold at a profit and distributed to the poor to ease their hunger. Thus Jesus' nonsensical response: Poor people there will always be; but he will not always be with them. [Odd, therefore], that elsewhere he can say with such confidence, "I shall be with you until the end of the world." [25]

[John 6.54] [26]

A famous saying of the Teacher is this one: "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will have no life in yourselves." This saying is not only beastly and absurd; it is more absurd than absurdity itself and more beastly than any beast: that a man should savor human flesh or drink the blood of a member of his own family or people -- and that by doing this he should obtain eternal life!

Tell us: in recommending this sort of practice, do you not reduce human existence to savagery of a most unimaginable sort? Rumor herself has not heard of such a weird twist on the practice of impiety. The shades of the Furies had not made such practices known even to barbarians. Even the Potideans [27] would not have stooped to such a thing had they not been starving. Thyestes' banquet became [a feast of flesh] due to a sister's grief, and Tereus the Thracian ate such food against his will. Again: Harpagus was tricked by Astyages into eating the flesh of his beloved -- also against his will. Yet no one of sound mind has ever made such a dinner!

No one learned this sort of foulness from a chef. True, if you look up Scythian [practices] in the history books, or delve into the habits of the Macrobian Ethiopians, or if you venture out to sea to lands dotted through the world, you will certainly find people who feed on roots or eat reptiles or mice -- but they stop short of eating human flesh.

And so, what does this saying mean? Even if it carries some hidden meaning, that does not excuse its appearance, which seems to suggest that men are less than animals. No tale designed to fool the simple-minded is crueler or more deceptive [than this myth of the Christians]. [28]

[Mark 16.18]

In another passage Jesus says: "These signs shall witness to those who believe: they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover. And if they drink any deadly drug, it will hurt them in no way." Well then: the proper thing to do would be to use this process as a test for those aspiring to be priests, bishops or church officers. A deadly drug should be put in front of them and [only] those who survive drinking it should be elevated in the ranks [of the church].

If there are those who refuse to submit to such a test, they may as well admit that they do not believe in the things that Jesus said. For if it is a doctrine of [Christian] faith that men can survive being poisoned or heal the sick at will, then the believer who does not do such things either does not believe them, or else believes them so feebly that he may as well not believe them. [29]

[Matt. 17.20]

A saying similar to this runs as follows: "Even if you have faith no bigger than a mustard seed, I tell you in truth that if you say to this mountain, Be moved into the sea -- even that will be possible for you." It seems to follow that anyone who is unable to move a mountain by following these directions is unworthy to be counted among the faithful. So there you are: not only the ordinary Christians, but even bishops and priests, find themselves excluded on the basis of such a saying. [30]

[Matt. 4.6-7]

Yet another saying bears mentioning: It is where the tempter tells Jesus "Cast yourself down from the temple." But he does not do it, saying [to him] instead, "You shall not tempt the Lord your God." It looks as though he said this for fear of falling. If, as you say, Jesus worked other signs and even raised the dead by the power of his command, he certainly might have been willing to demonstrate that he could deliver others by first throwing himself down from the heights without hurting himself.

And this is the more true in view of another passage in the book, which says. "Their hands shall bear you up lest you dash your foot against a stone" [which the tempter himself cites]. The honest thing for Jesus to have done would be to demonstrate to those in the temple that he was God's son and was able to deliver them as well as himself from danger. [31]

_______________

Notes:

25. Macarius is concerned in his reply to distinguish between the two "modes" of Christ's discourse, each corresponding to one of the natures: thus his words to the disciples on the occasion of the woman's extravagance [Matt. 26.11] underscore the reality of the human nature and point toward the passion, "but after the passion, having overcome death [Matt. 28.20], man had become God ... whose power is not limited by time or space, but is present always and everywhere."

26. In keeping with the dialogue format, Macarius introduces a paragraph contrived to suggest a fresh attack of the Greek upon the Christian. The incipient words in this section are doubtless those of Macarius himself.

27. The Potideans were citizens of a Corinthian colony founded ca. 600 B.C.E. for trade with Macedonia. The colonists defended their port against a number of sieges, notably one by Artabazus (480-479 B.C.E.), resorting to eating their dead as a means of survival. Porphyry's point is that cannibalism has been practiced only in time of necessity or through deceit. The Christians, however, seem to boast about their love feasts. The charge is a recapitulation of the familiar accusation against Christians; cr. the Octavius of Minucius Felix. trans. G. H. Rendell (Cambridge. Mass: Harvard University Press. 1931).

28. Scathing as is this criticism of Jesus' saying and Christian eucharistic practice, the pagan polemic had become stereotyped by Macarius' day and seems to be introduced here out of convenience rather than for its timeliness. Macarius has little trouble demolishing the literalism of his opponent's critique. in the process of advancing his own theory of the mystical presence of Christ in the eucharistic bread. For parallels to the philosopher's critique of early Christian eucharistic teaching, see especially the description offered by Marcus Cornelius Fronto (ca. 150), quoted by Minucius Felix, Octavius 9.5.6. Porphyry is evidently aware that the Christians interpret the eucharistic words of Jesus allegorically. His real complaint seems to be that the uneducated would not understand the words in their spiritual or mystical sense.

29. As elsewhere, the philosopher bases his objection on the literal meaning of the text. In doing so he is almost certainly working at some historical distance from his Christian opponent, whose response shows no sympathy for the faith-healing practices of the early church. Isolated sects such as the Ophites or Naasenes mentioned by Hippolytus (Refutation 5.7.1; cf. Irenaeus. Against Heresies 1.30). continued to attribute special significance to the serpent as a symbol of gnosis. And in gnostic exegesis (cf. Apocryphon of John 2.1.22, in Robinson. p. 111), the serpent tempts Adam to be disobedient to the world ruler. In the cult of Asklepios the snake symbolized the healing power of the god (cf. Aristophanes, Plut. 653-747), though there is no evidence that the Asclepiadae (the ancient cult of priest-physicians) used snake-handling as such in their ritual healings. The medicinal or healing value of the eucharist was a feature of some marginal Christian communities, notably the Marcosians mentioned by Irenaeus late in the second century, who used potions and philters, as well as sleight of hand, in their eucharistic rituals (Against Heresies 1.13). In the early second century, Ignatius of Antioch referred to the eucharist as the pharmakon tes zoes -- the "medicine of immortality" -- perhaps voicing a popular perception of the time as to the sacrament's healing properties (To the Ephesians 20.2).

The philosopher seems to be in touch with a transitional phase in the teaching of the church, when faith-healing and magical arts, as accoutrements of the eucharistic celebration, were being eliminated. Hence, Macarius warns that Mark 16.18 should not be taken literally, since sometimes even unbelievers recover from deadly drugs. More problematical is Macarius' suggestion that one cannot take the saying concerning laying hands on the sick literally.

30. Macarius' response to this criticism is sensitive to the context of Matt. 17.19-20, which seems to locate Jesus immediately following the Transfiguration at the foot of a mountain. Following the failure of the disciples to cure an epileptic child, Jesus is said to compare the resilience of the demon to an immovable object. Satisfied that the philosopher had misread the hyperbole, Macarius remarks sarcastically that Jesus himself is not known to have moved mountains, and that a believer would in any case be prevented from doing so by the words of Ps. 92.1 ("He made the world which shall not be shaken"). In fact, Porphyry's point is precisely the one contained in Macarius' reply: that the natural order cannot be overruled by the power that created it.

31. Macarius argues against the probative value of the temptation sequence: Jesus was not concerned to demonstrate his power but to avoid acting in concert with the tempter. To have acceded to anyone of his requests, even when they seemed to accord with prophecy, would have been to obey the power of evil.

Go to Next Page