Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 07-30-2013, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tupac chopra

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The possibility that Paul could routinely use the special κυριος for both god and Jesus with no explicit means of distinguishing them seems utterly absurd to me.

Whilst I can agree it may appear absurd (and I can agree that in our hebrew texts the difference is clear.)
). Paul's letters appear confused. I Thessalonians is a good example of his confusion or lack of clarity, at the least.
I'll give you some good evidence early resistance. Whoever translated the Syriac peshitta from Greek to Syriac, went through and repeatedly changed the Lord to our Lord, wherever it appeared confused or wrong.
Where the greek often reads the Lord, the translator of the peshitta changed it to our Lord. Including Galatians 1:19. Incredible. The translator 1700 or 1800 years ago changed Galatians 1:19 to read "our Lord".
So, whoever translated the peshitta understood precisely what you are saying.
So we would have, Paul writing the Lord in say 60 CE, and by say 200 CE (approx possibly) an eastern Syriac speaker being so uncomfortable that they changed the text to our lord.

This is stuff I should have looked at. I'm still processing the information. Most examples of Romans 16 "in the lord" have become "in our lord". Sometimes it's not translated. Sometimes it's added. It's all very curious data. The major problem is the late-ish date of the Peshitta. The presence of "lord" in 1 Cor 11:29 in almost none of the earliest Greek manuscripts strong suggesting that it was a later addition indicates a relative lateness of the Peshitta where it is found. I'll have to look more closely at the instances where it isn't changed to understand whats going on. But it's ugly to look at.

stephan huller · 07-30-2013, 07:21 AM

I am not so sure that your evidence proves that Jesus wasn't worshipped as divine. Philo identified kurios and theos as separate powers who had jurisdiction over separate 'qualities' of the godhead. Since some Christians identified Jesus as only being a god of love and mercy, he is theos rather than kurios - 'our Lord' because of the specific ritual adaptation of the 'prayer of Jacob' in LXX Genesis 35. I have pointed this out many times. Philo says that Jacob 'switched' gods at Bethel - from kurios 'the god of bad men' to theos. Here are two examples from Philo and one from Clement

Quote:

Having now, therefore, discussed the place sufficiently in which the tree flourishes, let us now, in conclusion, examine also the subject of the fruit:--Now, what the fruit is, Moses will tell us himself: "For the Lord God everlasting," says he, "called it by its Name." (Gen 21:33) Therefore the appellations already mentioned reveal the powers existing in the living God; for one title is that of Lord, according to which he governs; and the other is God, according to which he is beneficent. For which reason also, in the account of the creation of the world, according to the most holy Moses, the name of God is always assumed by him: for it was fitting that the power according to which the Creator, when he was bringing his creatures into the world, arranged and adorned them, should be invoked also by that creation. Inasmuch, therefore, as he is a ruler, he has both powers, that, namely, of doing good, and that of doing harm; regulating his conduct on the principle of requiting him who has done anything. But inasmuch as he is a benefactor, he is inclined only to one of these two courses, namely, to do good. And it would be the greatest possible advantage to the soul no longer to feel any doubt about the power of the King for both purposes, but steadily to emancipate itself from the fear, which is suspended over it, on account of the vastness of his authority, and to kindle and keep alive a most firm hope of the acquisition and enjoyment of blessings arising from his being beneficent by deliberate intention. Now the expression, "everlasting God," is equivalent to, God who bestows gifts, not sometimes giving and sometimes not, but always and incessantly; it is equivalent to, God who does good uninterruptedly; to God who, without intermission, is connecting a flow of benefits, coming one after the other; God, who pours forth blessings upon blessings, who is made up of mercies connected and united; God, who never omits any single opportunity of doing good; God, who is also the Lord, so that he is able to injure.

This also Jacob, the practiser of virtue, asked at the end of his most holy prayers. For he said, "And the Lord shall be to me as God." Which is equivalent to: He will no longer display towards me the despotic power of his absolute authority, but rather the beneficent influence of his universally propitious and saving power, utterly removing the fear with which he is regarded as a master, and filling the soul with affection and benevolence as felt towards a benefactor. What soul could ever conceive thus that the master and ruler of the universe, without changing anything of his own nature, but remaining in the condition in which he always was, is continually kind and uninterruptedly bounteous? owing to which he is, to those who are happy, the most perfect cause of unlimited and overflowing blessings. And to trust in a king who is not by reason of the magnitude of his authority elated so as to do injury to his subjects, but who, through his love to mankind, prefers that every one should enjoy happiness without fear, is the greatest possible bulwark of prosperity and security. [On the Planting of Noah 88 - 93]

Quote:

But do not fancy that it is an accidental thing here for him to be called in this place the God and Lord of Abraham, but only the God of Isaac; for this latter is the symbol of the knowledge which exists by nature, which hears itself, and teaches itself, and learns of itself; but Abraham is the symbol of that which is derived from the teaching of others; and the one again is an indigenous and native inhabitant of his country, but the other is only a settler and a foreigner; for having forsaken the language of those who indulge in sublime conversations about astronomy, a language imitating that of the Chaldaeans, foreign and barbarous, he was brought over to that which was suited to a rational being, namely, to the service of the great Cause of all things. Now this disposition stands in need of two powers to take care of it, the power that is of authority, and that of conferring benefits, in order that in accordance with the authority of the governor, it may obey the admonitions which it receives, and also that it may be greatly benefited by his beneficence. But the other disposition stands in need of the power of beneficence only; for it has not derived any improvement from the authority which admonishes it, inasmuch as it naturally claims virtue as its own, but by reason of the bounty which is showered upon it from above, it was good and perfect from the beginning; therefore God is the name of the beneficent power, and Lord is the title of the royal power. What then can any one call a more ancient and important good, than to be thought worthy to meet with unmixed and unalloyed beneficence? And what can be less valuable than to receive a mixture of authority and liberality? And it appears to me that it was because the practiser of virtue saw that he uttered that most admirable prayer that, "the Lord might be to him as God;" (Gen 28:21) for he desired no longer to stand in awe of him as a governor, but to honour and love him as a benefactor. Now is it not fitting that even blind men should become sharpsighted in their minds to these and similar things, being endowed with the power of sight by the most sacred oracles, so as to be able to contemplate the glories of nature, and not to be limited to the mere understanding of the words? But even if we voluntarily close the eye of our soul and take no care to understand such mysteries, or if we are unable to look up to them, the hierophant himself stands by and prompts us. And do not thou ever cease through weariness to anoint thy eyes until you have introduced those who are duly initiated to the secret light of the sacred scriptures, and have displayed to them the hidden things therein contained, and their reality, which is invisible to those who are uninitiated. It is becoming then for you to act thus; but as for ye, O souls, who have once tasted of divine love, as if you had even awakened from deep sleep, dissipate the mist that is before you; and hasten forward to that beautiful spectacle, putting aside slow and hesitating fear, in order to comprehend all the beautiful sounds and sights which the president of the games has prepared for your advantage. [On Dreams 1.161 - 165]

Quote:

It is essential, certainly, that the providence which manages all, be both supreme and good. For it is the power of both that dispenses salvation -- the one correcting by punishment, as supreme, the other showing kindness in the exercise of beneficence, as a benefactor. It is in your power not to be a son of disobedience, but to pass from darkness to life, and lending your ear to wisdom, to be the legal slave of God, in the first instance, and then to become a faithful servant, fearing the Lord God. And if one ascend higher, he is enrolled among the sons. But when "love (agape) covers the multitude of sins," by the consummation of the blessed hope, then may we welcome him as one who has been enriched in love, and received into the elect adoption, which is called the beloved of God, while he chants the prayer, saying, "Let the Lord be my God (γενέσθω μοι κύριος εἰς θεόν)."

δεῖ δὴ τὴν διοικοῦσαν πρόνοιαν κυρίαν τε εἶναι καὶ ἀγαθήν. ἀμφοῖν γὰρ ἡ δύναμις οἰκονομεῖ σωτηρίαν, ἣ μὲν κολάσει σωφρονίζουσα ὡς κυρία, ἣ δὲ δι' εὐποιίας χρηστευομένη ὡς εὐεργέτις. ἔξεστι δὲ μὴ εἶναι ἀπειθείας υἱόν, ἀλλὰ μεταβαίνειν ἐκ τοῦ σκότους εἰς ζωὴν καὶ παραθέντα τῇ σοφίᾳ τὴν ἀκοὴν νόμιμον εἶναι θεοῦ δοῦλον μὲν τὰ πρῶτα, ἔπειτα δὲ πιστὸν γενέσθαι θεράποντα, φοβούμενον κύριον τὸν θεόν, εἰ δέ τις ἐπαναβαίη, τοῖς υἱοῖς ἐγκαταλέγεσθαι, ἐπὰν δὲ ἀγάπη καλύψῃ πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν, μακαρίας ἐλπίδος τελείωσιν αὐξηθέντα ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐκδέχεσθαι τοῦτον ἐγκαταταγέντα τῇ ἐκλεκτῇ υἱοθεσίᾳ τῇ φίλῃ κεκλημένῃ τοῦ θεοῦ, ᾄδοντα ἤδη τὴν εὐχὴν καὶ λέγοντα· γενέσθω μοι κύριος εἰς θεόν. [Clement Stromata 1.27.173]

The point is clearly that Clement thought that Paul and Philo shared the same ideas, that Christian baptism stemmed from the desire to be 'adopted' away from the Lord and to God, and that Jesus = God not Kurios. The same can be inferred from the Marcionite interpretation of various passages in the gospel.

JoeWallack · 07-30-2013, 07:30 AM

JW:
My Lord

More support for "Lord" = Jesus here is the antecedent use of "Lord" for Jesus @ 1:3:

Galatians 1.3

Quote:

3 Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ,

God & Jesus are both labeled. Some distance from the offending verse but labeled right at the start of the Letter.

Sorry spin, but you know what they say, Counter-missionaries have the best Apologies.

Joseph

TedM · 07-30-2013, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
My Lord

More support for "Lord" = Jesus here is the antecedent use of "Lord" for Jesus @ 1:3:

Galatians 1.3

Quote:

3 Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ,

God & Jesus are both labeled. Some distance from the offending verse but labeled right at the start of the Letter.

Sorry spin, but you know what they say, Counter-missionaries have the best Apologies.

Joseph

Joe, Paul uses "the Lord Jesus Christ" over 100 times, and never uses "the Lord God". However, Spin does not seem to appreciate the similarity of "the Lord Jesus Christ" to "the Lord".

Spin is interested in "the Lord" by itself (see thread title). Paul uses "the Lord" to refer to God in quoting OT verses, but also in other verses. He also uses "the Lord" in place of "Jesus" in a few places but Spin believes those to either be interpolations or interpreted to mean "God" and not Jesus. Re-read his op for further understanding of his position.

spin · 07-30-2013, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Spin does not seem to appreciate the similarity of "the Lord Jesus" to "the Lord".

Assuming that Joe read the o.p., I certainly didn't understand what he was saying at all.

And I don't understand what you are saying here with my not appreciating the similarity between "the lord Jesus" and "the lord". If I can understand the similarity between "the lord" and "the lord of mine" (Ps 110:1 literally, "the lord said to the lord of mine"), what makes you think I don't appreciate the similarity of "the lord Jesus" to "the lord"?

spin · 07-30-2013, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I am not so sure that your evidence proves that Jesus wasn't worshipped as divine. Philo identified kurios and theos as separate powers who had jurisdiction over separate 'qualities' of the godhead.

The talk of "separate powers" seems to over-simplify Philo's statement of (two) "powers" existing within the "living god", for clearly Philo shows that they were similar to faculties or attributes of one entity.

I don't know from your first sentence whether I'm supposed to see that it involves Paul or not. If not, I was only dealing with Paul. If so, I see indication that Paul separated Christ from god and from the lord. "For who has known the mind of the lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." (1 Cor 2:16) Then there's one god, the father and one lord, Jesus Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Since some Christians identified Jesus as only being a god of love and mercy, he is theos rather than kurios - 'our Lord' because of the specific ritual adaptation of the 'prayer of Jacob' in LXX Genesis 35. I have pointed this out many times. Philo says that Jacob 'switched' gods at Bethel - from kurios 'the god of bad men' to theos. Here are two examples from Philo and one from Clement

...

Quote:

It is essential, certainly, that the providence which manages all, be both supreme and good. For it is the power of both that dispenses salvation -- the one correcting by punishment, as supreme, the other showing kindness in the exercise of beneficence, as a benefactor. It is in your power not to be a son of disobedience, but to pass from darkness to life, and lending your ear to wisdom, to be the legal slave of God, in the first instance, and then to become a faithful servant, fearing the Lord God. And if one ascend higher, he is enrolled among the sons. But when "love (agape) covers the multitude of sins," by the consummation of the blessed hope, then may we welcome him as one who has been enriched in love, and received into the elect adoption, which is called the beloved of God, while he chants the prayer, saying, "Let the Lord be my God (γενέσθω μοι κύριος εἰς θεόν)."

δεῖ δὴ τὴν διοικοῦσαν πρόνοιαν κυρίαν τε εἶναι καὶ ἀγαθήν. ἀμφοῖν γὰρ ἡ δύναμις οἰκονομεῖ σωτηρίαν, ἣ μὲν κολάσει σωφρονίζουσα ὡς κυρία, ἣ δὲ δι' εὐποιίας χρηστευομένη ὡς εὐεργέτις. ἔξεστι δὲ μὴ εἶναι ἀπειθείας υἱόν, ἀλλὰ μεταβαίνειν ἐκ τοῦ σκότους εἰς ζωὴν καὶ παραθέντα τῇ σοφίᾳ τὴν ἀκοὴν νόμιμον εἶναι θεοῦ δοῦλον μὲν τὰ πρῶτα, ἔπειτα δὲ πιστὸν γενέσθαι θεράποντα, φοβούμενον κύριον τὸν θεόν, εἰ δέ τις ἐπαναβαίη, τοῖς υἱοῖς ἐγκαταλέγεσθαι, ἐπὰν δὲ ἀγάπη καλύψῃ πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν, μακαρίας ἐλπίδος τελείωσιν αὐξηθέντα ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐκδέχεσθαι τοῦτον ἐγκαταταγέντα τῇ ἐκλεκτῇ υἱοθεσίᾳ τῇ φίλῃ κεκλημένῃ τοῦ θεοῦ, ᾄδοντα ἤδη τὴν εὐχὴν καὶ λέγοντα· γενέσθω μοι κύριος εἰς θεόν. [Clement Stromata 1.27.173]

The point is clearly that Clement thought that Paul and Philo shared the same ideas, that Christian baptism stemmed from the desire to be 'adopted' away from the Lord and to God, and that Jesus = God not Kurios. The same can be inferred from the Marcionite interpretation of various passages in the gospel.

Clement writing over a century after Paul isn't very likely to supply useful information for use to use to understand what Paul was writing about. I don't see any mention of Paul in what you posted of Clement. I see a connection with Philo.

TedM · 07-30-2013, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Spin does not seem to appreciate the similarity of "the Lord Jesus" to "the Lord".

Assuming that Joe read the o.p., I certainly didn't understand what he was saying at all.

And I don't understand what you are saying here with my not appreciating the similarity between "the lord Jesus" and "the lord". If I can understand the similarity between "the lord" and "the lord of mine" (Ps 110:1 literally, "the lord said to the lord of mine"), what makes you think I don't appreciate the similarity of "the lord Jesus" to "the lord"?

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I think you see "the Lord Jesus Christ" as a title (the Lord) followed by a name (Jesus) followed by another title (Christ). While I recognize the inclusion of titles, I see the entire phrase as an honorable way of referencing Jesus. As such I see it as a long 'name'. So for me it is a simple step to turn it into a short name which retains the title of honor: "the Lord". I understand what you are saying about Paul's usage of "the Lord" for God, but see little hindrance to using "the Lord" for Jesus if the context makes it clear that it is Jesus that is being discussed -- which in Paul's time would be the case when mentioning siblings/cousins to Jesus.

spin · 07-30-2013, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Spin does not seem to appreciate the similarity of "the Lord Jesus" to "the Lord".

Assuming that Joe read the o.p., I certainly didn't understand what he was saying at all.

And I don't understand what you are saying here with my not appreciating the similarity between "the lord Jesus" and "the lord". If I can understand the similarity between "the lord" and "the lord of mine" (Ps 110:1 literally, "the lord said to the lord of mine"), what makes you think I don't appreciate the similarity of "the lord Jesus" to "the lord"?

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I think you see "the Lord Jesus Christ" as a title (the Lord) followed by a name (Jesus) followed by another title (Christ). While I recognize the inclusion of titles, I see the entire phrase as a way of referencing Jesus in a way that honors him as both Master and Messiah. As such I see it as a long 'name'. So for me it is a simple step to turn it into a short name which retains the title of honor: "the Lord". I understand what you are saying about Paul's usage of "the Lord" for God, but see little hindrance to using "the Lord" for Jesus if the context makes it clear that it is Jesus that is being discussed -- which in Paul's time would be the case when mentioning siblings/cousins to Jesus.

You're assuming in this last sentence what you need to demonstrate. That's what the thread about my trying to get McGrath to do just that was about. You simply cannot argue from what you want it to mean without demonstrating that it means what you want. You haven't done that. (It's the subject of that thread only--until you have demonstrated what you claim.)

stephan huller · 07-30-2013, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Clement writing over a century after Paul isn't very likely to supply useful information for use to use to understand what Paul was writing about. I don't see any mention of Paul in what you posted of Clement. I see a connection with Philo.

Well it has to be said that Clement does a pretty good job of providing a summary of what Philo was about. He shows at least that he can carry water. The point here is that you've done a good job illustrating that Paul does not identify Jesus's by the name of the god used in Greek translations of the Jewish scriptures. But would that be shocking to a Marcionite? I think not. Yet the Marcionites absolutely thought that Jesus was a divine power.

Thus the Philonic two powers in heaven tradition and the Marcionite two powers in heaven tradition may help explain why Jesus is not identified as God (= kurios) in Paul.

Let's not discount the Catholic effort to reconstitute the writings of Paul either.

spin · 07-30-2013, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Clement writing over a century after Paul isn't very likely to supply useful information for use to use to understand what Paul was writing about. I don't see any mention of Paul in what you posted of Clement. I see a connection with Philo.

Well it has to be said that Clement does a pretty good job of providing a summary of what Philo was about. He shows at least that he can carry water.

My heads runs the notion that an Alexandrian quoting the work of an Alexandrian Jewish philosopher seems a reasonable act.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The point here is that you've done a good job illustrating that Paul does not identify Jesus's by the name of the god used in Greek translations of the Jewish scriptures. But would that be shocking to a Marcionite? I think not. Yet the Marcionites absolutely thought that Jesus was a divine power.

Thus the Philonic two powers in heaven tradition and the Marcionite two powers in heaven tradition may help explain why Jesus is not identified as God (= kurios) in Paul.

I guess you could be right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Let's not discount the Catholic effort to reconstitute the writings of Paul either.

Bloody nasty cathlicks.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.