Christian Texts and History • Re: Irenaeus Says the Carpocratians Referred to Jesus as a "Naked Man" (Nude Hominem)

The notion of Logos being envisaged as a ‘stark-naked’ one (γυμνὸς) is a recurring motif in Origen: it suggests the Logos not only as incorporeal but also as not being involved with, or engaging in, generating the material reality.200 On this, Philo influenced him.201 Two of the most faithful followers of Origen imbibed this trope moderately,202 but Cyril of Alexandria was obsessed with the metaphor and could not have enough of it.203 Subsequently, Maximus Confessor (who knew what Origen’s Theory of logoi was about)204 spoke not only of the ‘stark-naked Logos’, but also of the ‘stark-naked logoi’,205 meaning the incorporeal causes that give rise to all aspects of reality. The participants of the council of Ephesus employed the expression ‘stark-naked Logos’ (γυ- μνὸς Λόγος) only because Cyril had used the expression, but they had no in- kling of the fact that the Christian source of it was Origen.206 So did those who took part in a sixth-century synod,207 and the irony was that both of those assemblies treated Origen as a damned heretic while unconsciously using his legacy – a usual sixth-century phenomenon, anyway.208

201 Philo, De Opificio Mundi, 24: εἰ δέ τις ἐθελήσειε γυμνοτέροις χρήσασθαι τοῖς ὀνόμασιν, οὐδὲν ἂν ἕτερον εἴποι τὸν νοητὸν κόσμον εἶναι ἢ θεοῦ λόγον ἤδη κοσμοποιοῦντος. Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis, 83: οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ὁ λόγος αὐτῷ γεγονὼς ἀέρος πλῆξις ἀναμιγνύμενος ἄλλῳ τὸ παράπαν οὐδενί, ἀλλὰ ἀσώματός τε καὶ γυμνός.
202 Gregory Thaumaturgus, In Origenem Oratio Panegyrica, 15: γυμνὸς καὶ ἀσκεπὴς ὁ θεῖος εἰσίῃ λόγος. Gregory of Nyssa, De Deitate Filii et Spiritus Sancti, PG.46.564.50-53 (quoted also by Theodoret, Eranistes, p. 105): Κατέβη τοίνυν καὶ ἐφάνη οὐ γυμνὸς ὁ Λόγος, ἀλλὰ σὰρξ γενόμενος. Much later, Anastasius of Sinai, Sermo ii in Constitutionem Hominis Secundum Imaginem Dei, 3 (τοῦ γυμνοῦ θεοῦ λόγου); cf. Sermo i in Constitutionem Hominis Secundum Imaginem Dei, 1 (τῆς γυμνῆς θεότητος). John of Damascus, De Fide Contra Nestorianos, 19.
203 Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannem, v. 1, pp. 257; 277; 283; 489; Responsiones ad Tiberium Diaconum Sociosque Suos, pp.591-592; De Sancta Trinitate Dialogi, pp.516; De Incarnatione Unigeniti, 705; Quod Unus Sit Christus, pp. 748; 755; 764; 772; Epistulae Paschales, PG.77.568.38-39; Expositio in Psalmos, PG.69.1040.28; Commentarius in Isaiam Prophetam, PG.70.1045.1; Commentarii in Lucam, PG.72.509.41-42; Thesaurus De Sancta Consubstantiali Trinitate, PG.75.429.33-34.
204 Maximus was aware of, and inspired by, Origen’s theory of creation almost as much as Gregory of Nyssa was. The difference was that Gregory elaborated on Origen’s theory and expanded it by using philosophical exposition which we do not see in Origen’s extant works, although what Gregory said was neither new nor different. On the other hand, Maximus abode by Origen’s terminology.
205 Maximus Confessor, Quaestiones ad Thalassium, 25; 27: γυμνοὺς θεάσασθαι τοὺς λόγους τῶν αἰσθητῶν.
206 ACO, Concilium Universale Ephesenum Anno 431, v. 1.1.1, pp. 64; 66; v. 1.1.4, p. 56; v. 1.1.5, pp. 52; 59; 70; 85; v. 1.1.6, pp. 47; 63; v. 1.1.7, p. 58.
207 ACO, Synodus Constantinopolitana et Hierosolymitana Anno 536, v. 3, pp. 7; 217.
208 RCR, ‘The sixth-century Origenism’, pp. 259-321.