Clivedurdle

Is it not classic doctrine that Christ is eternal and co -equal? Are we not looking at the crux of a huge doctrinal discussion here? If anything was amended to fit a party's views!

As I commented elsewhere about nice baths in Constantinople!

jakejonesiv

Of course Ben. Please accept my apologies. I didn't mean to question your personal beliefs. But that Paul believed that Jesus did not preexist, that is an interesting area to persue, one I have not much investigated!

Thanks,
Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

Just for fun, here is part of the Priene calendar inscription, as transliterated and translated by C. Evans (.pdf):

Εδοξεν τοις επι της Ασιας Ελλησιν, γνωμη του αρχιερεως Απολλωνιου του Μηνοφιλου Αζανιτου· Επειδη η παντα διαταξασα του βιου ημων προνοια σπουδην εισενενκαμενη και φιλοτιμιαν το τεληοτατον τω βιω διεκοσμησεν ενενκαμενη τον Σεβαστον, ον εις ευεργεσιαν ανθρωπων επληρωσεν αρετης, ωσπερ ημειν και τοις μεθ ημας σωτηρα πεμψασα τον παυσοντα μεν πολεμον, κοσμησοντα δε παντα, επιφανεις δε ο Καισαρ τας ελπιδας των προλαβοντων ευανγελια παντων υπερεθηκεν, ου μονον τους προ αυτου γεγονοτας ευεργετας υπερβαλομενος, αλλ ουδ εν τοις εσομενοις ελπιδα υπολιπων υπερβολης, ηρξεν δε τω κοσμω των δι αυτον ευανγελιων η γενεθλιος ημερα του θεου· της δε Ασιας εψηφισμενης εν Σμυρνη.

It seemed good to the Greeks of Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: Since providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior, both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance excelled even our anticipations, surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings for the world that came by reason of him, which Asia resolved in Smyrna.

Here providence is said to have sent [πεμψασα] Augustus, the god [του θεου], as a savior [σωτηρα], at whose appearance [επιφανεις] all hopes [ελπιδας] were excelled. And the word translated as good tidings above is, of course, ευανγελιων, gospel(s).

Is this inscription an affirmation of the pre-existence of Augustus?

Ben.

Clivedurdle

We may have a teeny weeny problem because of what happened after Paul!

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/at...pistle2-1.html

Ben C Smith

Oh, not necessary. I took no offense. I just looked back at what I had written and realized that I had not been very specific.

I am not sure that wording it like that would be the best way to put it. It is not necessarily that Paul actively believed that Jesus did not exist before birth, but rather that the belief may not have yet arisen. Theologies develop over time. It is possible to be more Pauline than Paul, more Lutheran than Luther, more Calvinistic than Calvin. The doctrine of pre-existence may not yet have been available to Paul.

Ben.

jgibson000

That's good, because there is no Greek word "archons"

FYI, there is nothing anywhere in Adv. Haer Book 5 to this effect. You mean, I think, Adv. Marcionem 5.6

This may very well be what Tertullian argues in On Modesty (I have yet to look to see), but it is certainly not what he argues in Adv. Marcionem Book 5. What he argues there -- and it is hardly a quibble --is that in 1 Cor 2:6-8 the "princes (principes) of this world" (Tertullian wrote in Latin, not in Greek) that Paul there refers to as having crucified Jesus was not the Devil, but was rather Pilate and Herod (de rege Herode, etiam de Pilato, et quo maior principatus huius aevi Romana dignitas praesidebat).

But when, in reference to our glory, he adds that none of the princes of this world knew it, because if they had known it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory, the heretic argues that the princes of this world crucified the Lord, the Christ of his other god, so that this too may fall to the discredit of the Creator. Yet I have already shown him by what means our glory must be reckoned to be from the Creator, and he ought to regard it as already settled that that glory which was kept secret in the Creator was necessarily unknown even to all the virtues and powers of the Creator—because even household servants are not allowed to know the intentions of their masters—and even less was it known to those apostate angels and the leader of their transgression, the devil, all of whom I should claim were because of their crime even more thoroughly excluded from any cognizance of the Creator's ordinances. But now it is not permissible even for me to interpret the princes of this world as meaning the virtues and powers of the Creator, on the ground that to them the apostle imputes ignorance: while yet according to our gospel even the devil at the temptation knew who Jesus was, and according to the document you share with us the evil spirit knew that he was the holy one of God and was named Jesus and had come to destroy them. Also if that parable of the strong man armed, whom another stronger than he has overcome, and has taken possession of his goods,e is, as Marcion has it, taken for a parable of the Creator, in that case the Creator could no longer have remained in ignorance of your god of glory while he was being overcome by him: nor could he have hanged upon a cross that one against whom his strength was of no avail: and so it remains for me to argue that the virtues and powers of the Creator did know, and did crucify the God of glory, their own Christ, with that desperation and overflowing of wickedness with which also slaves steeped in villainy do not hesitate to murder their masters: for in the gospel as I have it, it is written that Satan entered into Judas, But according to Marcion not even the apostle in this passage permits of ignorance against the Lord of glory being ascribed to the powers of the Creator, because in effect he will not have it that they are referred to as the princes of this world. And so, as it appears that he was not speaking of spiritual princes, then it was secular princes he meant, the princely people—which was not reckoned among the nations—and its rulers, the king Herod, and even Pilate, and him in whom sat in authority the major principality of this world, the majesty of Rome. In such a way, while the argumentations of the opposite faction are pulled down, my own expositions are built up. (translation by Evans. For for the Latin of this passage, see http://www.tertullian.org/articles/e...rc_11book5.htm ).

Really? One wonders if you've actually read what Tertullian wrote.

Ascension of Isaiah?

In any case, why are you assuming, as you seem to be doing, that Marcion got it right? Is not Marcions's view derived, as Tertullian noted, more from a theological apriori than an honest and unbiased exegesis of 1 Cor. 2:6-8?

Presumably??:huh:

It's the Paulines, not the "Paulinics" -- and right now, as you yourself said, proving an historical Jesus from what Paul writes is not what is at issue.

Really? How can you say that in the light of the text above? I ask again, have you actually read Adv. Marcionem?

You know, Jake, as in the case of Ted, it might be wise if you'd first check the full text and the wording of the sources you appeal to as support for the claims you want to make before you make the claims you do, to see if they actually do say what you would have us believe they say. It might save you the sort of embarrassment that Ted has brought on himself in the past few days.

Jeffrey Gibson

Solo

....and yet he wrote, if not Carmen Christi, then at least 2 Cor 8:9, or is in that verse, like in Gal 4:4, a point of Greek grammar which makes its meaning impossible to agree on ?

JS

Ben C Smith

I have not yet read Dunn on that verse. If you have, what did you think of his argument?

Thanks.

Ben.

jgibson000

Here are his fullest remarks on the passage in his Christology in the Making (there are others). I've not included the footnotes.

Jeffrey

The other Pauline passage which could be understood to speak of the self-giving of Christ as the heavenly Man is II Cor. 8.9 - 'You know the grace of our Lord Jesus (Christ), that though he was rich, yet for your sake (DI' hUMAS) he became poor, so that (hINA) by his poverty you might become rich.' To elucidate this verse commentators regularly point out the close parallel with Phil. 2.6ff., and conclude that it speaks of the pre-existent Christ ('being rich') choosing to become incarnate ('became poor'). But once again we should be wary of assuming that the context of thought was an already established christology of incarnation. 95 Would it have been so obvious to Paul's readers that he was speaking of the incarnation or of Christ's descent from heaven?

(a) When Paul elsewhere speaks of 'grace' (= 'gracious gift", or 'gracious act') in connection with what Christ has done he was always thinking of his death and resurrection (see especially Rom. 5.15,21; Gal. 2.20f.; Eph. 1.6f.). Nowhere else does he talk of Christ's 'gracious act' as his becoming man.

(b) The salvation effecting act in earliest Christianity is always the death and resurrection of Christ. We should notice in particular the equivalent hUPER ... hINA ('for the sake of ... in order that') formulation in I I Cor. 5.2 1, Gal. 3.13f., I Peter 3.18, and the close parallels in Rom. 4.25, 8.3f., Gal. 4.4," Heb. 2.14 and I Peter 2.24 (cf Rom. 15.3; Heb.12.2). These are the closest parallels to the DIA ...hINAt formulation of 11 Cor. 8.9.

(c) We should not assume that the contrast is between spiritual wealth (pre-existence) and spiritual poverty (incarnation)." The regular contrast then current was between spiritual wealth and material poverty (Tobit 4.21; 11 Cor. 6.10; James 2.5; Rev. 2.9; cf I Cor. 1.5; 4.8; 11 Cor. 9.11), and this would have been a not unexpected sense in the context of II Cor. 8.

A reference to Jesus' own material poverty freely embraced cannot be dismissed out of hand therefore; we cannot exclude the possibility that sayings like Mark 10.28-30 and Matt, 8.20/Luke 9.58 lie behind the thought expressed in 11 Cor. 8.9 (note in the immediate context 8.2). But the parallels referred to above 'make it more likely that the allusion is to Jesus' death - the richness of his communion with God (expressed in his abba prayer and his full confidence in God - Matt. 6.25-33) set in sharp contrast with the poverty of his desolation on the cross ('My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'- Mark 15.34)." The imagery of riches/ poverty would naturally be suggested to Paul in the context of his appeal to the Corinthians that they join in 'the gracious act' of his collection for the poor in Jerusalem (11 Cor. 8-9) - as appropriate an imagery in this context as the sacrificial imagery earlier in the letter (sinless/sin - 11 Cor. 5.21),'9 and a not inappropriate association (poverty and crucifixion) in the context of the times where crucifixion was such a degrading and humiliating punishment ('Riches buy off judgment, and the poor are condemned to the cross').

Alternatively we may simply have here a variation on the Adam christology which has been the subject of this chapter - Jesus' 'being rich' (PLUSIOS WN) as the equivalent of his 'being in the form of God' (EN MORFHi QEOU hUPARCWN), and his 'becoming poor' (EPTWCEUSEN) as the equivalent of his 'emptying himself (hEAUTON hEKENWSEN). Adam's enjoyment of God's fellowship could readily be characterized as a 'being rich', just as his fall resulted in his 'becoming poor'. The rabbis certainly speculated about the contrast between Adam's created state and his state after his sin, and characterized his fall as a loss and deprivation of what he had previously enjoyed (particularly his glory, his immortality and his height). So in the language of Adam christology Jesus could be characterized as one who freely embraced the lot of fallen Adam, including above all his death, not as a punishment for any sin of his own but as a , gracious act' - in this instance the particular imagery (riches/poverty) being prompted by the context. This would seem to make better sense of 11 Cor. 8.9 within the larger context of Paul's theology than an incarnation interpretation. It would be untypically manichean for Paul if the rich/poor contrast was intended as a contrast between divinity and humanity (cf. Gosp. Thos. 2,30). Paul would not think of creatureliness as poverty over against the riches of deity. But he could readily think of Adam's fallenness as poverty over against the riches of his fellowship with God, just as the reverse antithesis, becoming rich (despite our poverty), presumably denotes a coming into fellowship with God (cf. Rom. 11.12; 1 Cor. 1.5; 4.8; 11 Cor. 6. 10; 9.11; and the not so very different profit and loss imagery in Phil. 3.7f.). Though he could have enjoyed the riches of an uninterrupted communion with God, Jesus freely chose to embrace the poverty of Adam's distance from God, in his ministry as a whole, bui particularly in his death, in order that we might enter into the full inheritance intended for Adam in the first place.

Ben C Smith

Thanks for that lengthy cite, Jeffrey. I shall have to read the book.

Ben.