The Wikipedia article on Philippians states: “Due to its unique poetic style, Bart D. Ehrman suggests that this passage constitutes an early Christian poem that was composed by someone else prior to Paul’s writings, as early as the mid-late 30s AD and was later used by Paul in his epistle.”
It also quotes him: “The Christ poem is significant because it strongly suggests that there were very early Christians who understood Jesus to be a pre-existent celestial being, who chose to take on human form, rather than a human who was later exalted to a divine status.”
This is surprising, because much of Dr. Ehrman’s comparisons of the Gospels argue that when Mark was writing (about 10 years after Philippians) it was thought God begot Jesus at the time of his baptism, and the conceiving/begetting/adopting or whatever moved earlier and earlier until John said In The Beginning There Was The Word which was three decades later than Philippians and six decades after (maybe) the Poem.
So, was the notion of Jesus pre-existing the world original to the time of his death or shortly afterward?
It may have been written in the 50s or early 60s and may have been written Rome or Ephesus or Judea.
What it shows is that the teaching of Christ as a preexistent divine being who became human to die on the cross and was subsequently raised to be the one lord of the universe, had travelled throughout the christian world by at least the early 60s. And that attempts to understand this teaching as developing independently elsewhere in different parts of the christian world at a later date are hopelessly pointless.
The argument for it being considerably earlier is–as I understand it–essentially that, on the, disputed, assumption that it is some sort of non-Pauline poetry, not only must it have been written before Paul could quote it, it was also presumably known to the audience, which would suggest it had been around long enough to spread and become commonly known.
If I write you a letter, and of a sudden, I quote a verse from a song or a line of poetry, with no introduction or explanation, it is most likely that I expect you to know that song and to recognize the quotation. Imagine if I, without any explanation, mentioned in a letter that “freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose,” or if I casually mention “two star-crossed lovers” or I exclaimed “Father, Father why have you forsaken me?” or “Let us go then, you and I, when the evening is spread out against the sky”; I expect you to recognize the reference because the works those lines come from are so well known; but for me to expect you to know it off-hand generally requires that they have been around for a while.
Phil 2:6-11 is not just a Christology but an almost complete biography of the Jesus known to Paul. This is the Creed of that part of the Christian movement to which Jesus of Nazareth was unknown.
Well, the assumption that Christology did not develop and evolve everywhere at the same time and in the same way is correct.
On the other hand, the assumption that the knowledge of the historical Jesus was the same and common and widely accepted has no basis.
Even Paul, although he interrogated Cephas for 2 weeks, remained skeptical and did not use these stories.
What was Paul thinking when he heard these stories for the first time.
Let’s try to recreate: “I am the one who invents some personal revelation of the resurrected Jesus, and this illiterate jerk claims that he walked with him through some remote villages in Galilee. Fortune favers the bold and brazen.”
[…]
The Christ-hymn in Philippians (Phil 2:6-11), for example, contains strong echoes of the conception of the descent of the heavenly Sophia, which is first evident only in the second century and fully developed first by the Gnostic Valentinus
Detering, Hermann. The Fabricated Paul. Early Christianity In The Twilight. . Kindle Edition.
What it shows is that the teaching of Christ as a preexistent divine being who became human to die on the cross and was subsequently raised to be the one lord of the universe, had travelled throughout the christian world by at least the early 60s. And that attempts to understand this teaching as developing independently elsewhere in different parts of the christian world at a later date are hopelessly pointless.
The Christ-hymn in Philippians (Phil 2:6-11), for example, contains strong echoes of the conception of the descent of the heavenly Sophia, which is first evident only in the second century and fully developed first by the Gnostic Valentinus.
You guys need to keep up with current scholarship. First Century Judaism was thoroughly Hellenized. Paul was an apocalyptic mystic. (There’s no real reason to believe his apocalypticism post-dated his vision of Jesus. It probably informed it.) First Century Hellenized apocalyptic Judaism had a full coterie of pre-existent divine beings. This was not an innovation of early Christianity. For early Christians to have associated Jesus with figures like the ‘Son of Man’ (from Daniel) and Metatron (from the books of Enoch) is not very surprising. Metatron was the divinized human Enoch, described in some of these older apocalyptic texts as the “Second Yahweh”! Sound like anyone else you might have heard of? An early high Christology should not be surprising given the milieu.
See:
King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature by Adela Yarbro Collins
Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence by Charles Gieschen
Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse by Tinmo Eskola
Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity by Peter Shafer.
Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism by Alan Segal
If you’re serious about having a go start with Gieschen and Segal. Their books are available in relatively inexpensive paperbacks and their highly influential works are effective bookends to the discussion.
@Stephen – An early high Christology should not be surprising given the milieu –
Who’s saying its surprising? The point is that no one should look at the gospels and think they are seeing a some historical movement from low to high christologies. The high christology is the earliest form anyone knows about.
– First Century Hellenized apocalyptic Judaism had a full coterie of pre-existent divine beings –
But Paul didn’t. He believed in one god the father from whom all things and one lord Jesus christ through whom all things. Paul’s letters show us that Nicene christianity is the earliest form of christianity anyone knows about.
Who’s saying its surprising? The point is that no one should look at the gospels and think they are seeing a some historical movement from low to high christologies. The high christology is the earliest form anyone knows about.
Well, going back to the original question, it is surprising if we take Bart’s tracing of the development of development in the gospels seriously (low to high, from a very human Jesus, adopted by God at the baptism in Mark, to John’s preexistent divine Person).
And in that context I think the original question was well placed, and the answer has to be that Bart may have connected dots a little too facilely in some of his popular work.
@Robert – You seem to be ignoring a whole host of lesser divine beings, eg, angels & demons, gods, sons of god. –
Angels might be heavenly creatures but they are not divine beings. Paul believed in one son of god who was the one lord through whom all things.
– nonsense –
what part of the nicene creed is absent from Paul?
@Porphyry – Well, going back to the original question, it is surprising if we take Bart’s tracing of the development of development in the gospels seriously (low to high, from a very human Jesus, adopted by God at the baptism in Mark, to John’s preexistent divine Person) –
It shouldn’t be taken seriously because its not true. “adopted by God at the baptism” is an entirely fictious interpretation of Mark. Mark believes in a preexistent son of god who is lord of the cosmos.
John’s Jesus could be said to be the most human – he’s the only one that has Jesus cry, the only one that has Jesus talk to him mother, the only one that has Jesus make a factual error.
Well, going back to the original question, it is surprising if we take Bart’s tracing of the development of development in the gospels seriously (low to high, from a very human Jesus, adopted by God at the baptism in Mark, to John’s preexistent divine Person).
And in that context I think the original question was well placed, and the answer has to be that Bart may have connected dots a little too facilely in some of his popular work.
Porphyry
it is popular book for mass market. Revolutionary and simple thesis with simple arguments.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The point is that no one should look at the gospels and think they are seeing a some historical movement from low to high christologies. The high christology is the earliest form anyone knows about.
Anyone except historical critical scholars. That “progression” idea is old hat. (That’s an oversimplification of Ehrman’s viewpoint.) But there are clear differences in the Christologies of the gospels and Paul, none of whom were Nicene trinitarians. Interestingly none of the early church fathers seem to be either, subordinationists to a man. If Paul was a trinitarian did the Christian thinkers of the second century just forget?
what part of the nicene creed is absent from Paul?
The part about Jesus being of the same “substance” and of the same “essence” as the Father, these being Greek philosophical terms going back to Aristotle (if not further). Paul was an apocalyptic Jew. Aristotelian philosophy (without which the doctrine of the trinity could not have been formulated) would likely have been a bit abstract for him.
Sorry, Bren, but I’ve learned, at long last, that discussions with you don’t go anywhere useful.
Ah Robert, having grown up around hardcore fundamentalists has given me a bit of a masochistic streak.
My view of NT Christologies is as follows and are fairly mainstream these days.
Mark is an Adoptionist.
Matthew is an Incarnationist (but with no notion that Jesus existed prior to his biological birth.)
Luke seems to have an older Adoptionist layer subsequently adapted to a form of Incarnationism perhaps in response to Matthew.
John has more than one Christology perhaps reflecting its editing of different sources. The famous Logos passage seems to indicate that Jesus, the “Word”, was an emanation of God (like the spirit) that assumed an independent identity. Other parts of John could be read as either Adoptionist or Incarnationist.
Paul believed Jesus was a pre-existent divine being, one of God’s created angels, who was incarnated as a human being. Because of his extraordinary piety Jesus was subsequently exalted by God.
As Prof Ehrman has put it, the NT does not contain the idea of the trinity but contains passages used to create the idea of the trinity.
@Stephen – If Paul was a trinitarian did the Christian thinkers of the second century just forget?
No they were trinitarians too
Justin Martyr
“the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe in Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death. And that which was said out of the bush to Moses, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and the God of your fathers, Exodus 3:6 this signified that they, even though dead, are yet in existence, and are men belonging to Christ Himself.”
“For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water… the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God”
So Justin Martyr says christians in the second century were baptised by the ineffable name of god and by this name alone. And that this name of god is shared by the father the son and holy spirit. That the son, who was and is the word of god, was the one who delivered this name to Moses from the burning bush.
There is no other way to describe Justin Martyrs theology than as “trinitarian”.
* “The part about Jesus being of the same “substance” and of the same “essence” as the Father, these being Greek philosophical terms going back to Aristotle (if not further). Paul was an apocalyptic Jew. Aristotelian philosophy (without which the doctrine of the trinity could not have been formulated) would likely have been a bit abstract for him.” *
But Paul quotes greek philosophers – as a literate greek speaker he’s supposedly highly educated – why do you think aristotelian philosophy is a bit abstract for him?
ὁμοούσιον = the same ούσιον – derived from the greek “to be” or eimi. Supposed to indicate the essential grounding or primary essence of thing. The very quality that the supposed etymology of “YHWH” is Exodus 3 is implying. God is who he is. His grounding is in his own being, being itself gets its grounding in god.
In all four gospels Jesus claims this very grounding or essence for himself, ego eimi. This name (YHWH or ego eimi) is shared by the father the son and holy spirit. They have the same being the same grounding the same ούσιον
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)