It is widely thought that the first few verses of Romans contain a creed that predates Paul’s 180 turnaround. It is proposed by some (including Dr. Ehrman) that this early creed communicates an adoptionist christology–that is, the architects of this creed believed that Jesus was no less human than my own grandmother and that he only achieved divinity at his resurrection.
The sentence that suggests this christology is v. 7, which says that Jesus was, “appointed (horisthentos) son of god…by his resurrection from the dead”.
Two linguistic questions
1) What verb/s in the greek or latin literature is used to describe apotheoses? Is the above verb (horizo) or a synonym or its latin equivalent ever used? It would be odd if so, since Paul uses a verb with the same root to describe his own appointment as an Apostle–a change that was functional, not ontological (he was human before and after).
2) Grammatically, what is the subject of the two participles in “…who was born of the seed of David…who was appointed son of god in power…”?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Peshitta tool, EBV, include footnotes:
Romans 1:4 – (maar) door de kracht en door de Heilige Geest die Jezus Christus, onze Heer, uit het verblijf van de doden heeft doen opstaan, geopenbaard is als de Zoon van GOD.
en wat betreft … geopenbaard is – letterlijker: ‘is bekendgemaakt’. Dit is de lezing van de Aramese Peshitta. De lezing van de Griekse NA28, MHT en TR luidt: ‘(‹maar›) verklaard is de Zoon van GOD te zijn in kracht, naar de Geest van de heiligheid door de opstanding uit de doden, Jezus Christus, onze Heer’.
google translate:
Romans 1:4 — (but) through power and through the Holy Spirit—who raised Jesus Christ, our Lord, from the realm of the dead—revealed as the Son of GOD.
and regarding … revealed — more literally: ‘made known’.
This is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta.
The reading of the Greek NA28, MHT, and TR reads: ‘(‹but›) declared to be the Son of GOD in power, according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead—Jesus Christ, our Lord’.
=======================
** you do not have permission to see this link **
(Etheridge) and is known [Or, acknowledged.] (to be) the Son of Aloha
by power,
and by the Holy Spirit,
who raised him from among the dead,
Jeshu Meshiha our Lord:
(Murdock) and was made known as the Son of God,
by power,
and by the Holy Spirit,)
who arose from the dead,
Jesus Messiah, our Lord,
=======================
** you do not have permission to see this link **
(Berean Literal)
having been declared the Son of God
in power
according to the Spirit of holiness,
by resurrection from the dead:
Jesus Christ our Lord,
(Aramaic Bible in Plain English)
And was revealed The Son of God
in power
and by the Holy Spirit,
who arose from the place of the dead,
Yeshua The Messiah, Our Lord.
=======================
3724. ὁρίζω (horizó)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Strong’s Greek: 3724. ὁρίζω (horizó) — 8 Occurrences
Luke 22:22 V-RPM/P-ANS
GRK: κατὰ τὸ ὡρισμένον πορεύεται πλὴν
NAS: as it has been determined; but woe
KJV: goeth, as it was determined: but woe
INT: according to what has been determined goes but
Acts 2:23 V-RPM/P-DFS
GRK: τοῦτον τῇ ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ καὶ
NAS: [Man], delivered over by the predetermined plan
KJV: being delivered by the determinate counsel
INT: him by the determinate plan and
Acts 10:42 V-RPM/P-NMS
GRK: ἐστιν ὁ ὡρισμένος ὑπὸ τοῦ
NAS: that this is the One who has been appointed by God
KJV: he which was ordained of God
INT: it is who has been appointed by
Acts 11:29 V-AIA-3P
GRK: εὐπορεῖτό τις ὥρισαν ἕκαστος αὐτῶν
NAS: each of them determined to send
KJV: his ability, determined to send
INT: was prospered any one determined each of them
Acts 17:26 V-APA-NMS
GRK: τῆς γῆς ὁρίσας προστεταγμένους καιροὺς
NAS: of the earth, having determined [their] appointed
KJV: of the earth, and hath determined the times
INT: of the earth having determined appointed times
Acts 17:31 V-AIA-3S
GRK: ἀνδρὶ ᾧ ὥρισεν πίστιν παρασχὼν
NAS: whom He has appointed, having furnished
KJV: whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given
INT: a man whom he appointed proof having given
Romans 1:4 V-APP-GMS
GRK: τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ
NAS: who was declared the Son of God
KJV: And declared [to be] the Son of God
INT: having been declared Son of God
Hebrews 4:7 V-PIA-3S
GRK: πάλιν τινὰ ὁρίζει ἡμέραν Σήμερον
NAS: He again fixes a certain day,
KJV: Again, he limiteth a certain day,
INT: again a certain he determines day today
In a pre-Pauline context, this is open to Adoptionist or incarnational interpretations, just as Paul’s canonical writings were be open to Adoptionist and incarnational interpretations.
Yeah, Paul clearly wasn’t a systematic theologian and it’s telling that all these categories and distinctions were constructed later during the Christological/heresy wars of the second and third centuries. I’m currently reading an interesting book entitled
“Paul” at Romans 1: 4
through the Spirit of holiness and by his resurrection from the dead, he was appointed the Son of God.
What we have
through plagiarism or some literary device, Jesus usurped the title and responsibilities of Enoch, Son of God.
Parabel of the Wicked Tenants
Well, Jesus went from Jewish Son of God
(Paul disagrees with Jesus’ ministry, first half, but Paul wasn’t even there)–
Jewish Son of God in the first person to speaking of a Gentile Son of God in the third person.
CounterArgument:
Son of God in the first person makes no sense
according to Paul
according to Romans 1:4 because Jewish Son of God happened after the resurrection.
Steefen:
So, the first part of Jesus’ ministry where Jesus was Son of God in the first person is not Paul’s claim.
That’s what you get when you have an apostle who did not know Jesus.
Romans 1:4 cannot be credible.
Basically, what we have is Jesus’ failure to address Enoch.
So, the first part of Jesus’ ministry where Jesus was Son of God in the first person is not Paul’s claim.
That’s what you get when you have an apostle who did not know Jesus.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** cannot be credible.
Steefen:
So, was there no historical Jesus (with a first half of his ministry) before Romans 1:4 was written?
That would make Romans 1:4 credible about the point being raised.
Chronologically, the gospels follow Romans 1:4 and Jesus was a literary creation of historical fiction as Romans was thought up by Paul.
Mark 9: 7
Matthew 16: 13-16
= = = =
It is not supposed to follow because I’m taking the opposing side to the original statement.
If Paul is correct, there was no first half of Jesus’ ministry and there was no Jesus (including the two verses at the top of this response, no baptism, no transfiguration).
Romans 1:4 by his resurrection from the dead, he was appointed the Son of God.
Mark 9: 7 This is my beloved Son.
Matthew 16: 16 Peter: You are the Son of the living God. Jesus: This was revealed to you by my Father in heaven.
The author of Romans 1: 4 incorrectly ignores the life of Jesus.
Robert:
It might be a different theological interpretation of Jesus’ life.
Steefen:
If Romans 1:4 is right, then Jesus could not have been the Son of God before his resurrection but he was because you want to be able to downgrade Mk 9: 7 and Mt 16:16 from history to Paul’s level, interpretation.
Can’t we all just get along? If I have to water down the biography of Jesus so we all can just get along, I’ll do that. No, Mark 9: 7 and Matthew 16: 16 are not Oral Tradition of a historical reality I’m downgrading them to interpretation. There are no contradictions in the New Testament.
Paul was not even there at the Transfiguration or at Peter’s Confession but you’re going to give Paul the power to rewrite Jesus’ biography. The gospels have multiple times and multiple attestations of Jesus being the Son of God but some stranger of questionable character (who cannot be trusted) who wasn’t even there edits reality and you’re defending that.
You have not presented a convincing response. The multiple times that Jesus is presented as the Son of God by multiple attestations is not downgraded because Paul made something up that Paul thinks it sounds good so he can exploit the pious so he can have sex with women or get gold and purple from them.
Robert said
…
So are you now believing that the writings of Paul postdate and alter the stories contained in the gospels?
On Bilby’s hypotheses, an early version of some of the Pauline epistles pre-date the earliest gospel material preserved in the canonical gospels, but the earliest versions of the Pauline epistles strongly resembling the canonical Pauline epistles postdate the earliest gospels, but do pre-date the canonical versions of the gospels.
[I don’t have their translation of their reconstruction of Apostolos at work, but when I get home, I’ll look to see if they place these verses at Apostolos or earlier, or if they place them with the canonical redactions of the Pauline epistles.]
Dr. Ehrman,
Paul / Romans 1:4
by his resurrection from the dead, he was appointed the Son of God.
Mark 9: 7 (Matthew 17:1-8, Luke 9:28-36, and 2 Peter 1: 16-18)
This is my beloved Son. (The Transfiguration)
Matthew 16: 16-17
Peter: You are the Son of the living God. Jesus: This was revealed to you by my Father in heaven.
Paul: Jesus became Son of God beginning at his resurrection
Mark and Matthew (if not Luke and John): Jesus was the Son of God before his resurrection.
Paul was neither at the transfiguration nor Peter’s assertion nor at the Resurrection meal where Jesus ate broiled fish.
Paul has his vision and later writes Jesus became an appointed Son of God after his crucifixion, by resurrection.
Question: Is Paul more aligned with the real Jesus and Oral Tradition or are the gospels more aligned with the real Jesus and Oral Tradition (multiple times–transfiguration and Peter’s assertion confirmed by Jesus and multiple attestations) ?
Steefen said
Dr. Ehrman,
Paul / Romans 1:4
by his resurrection from the dead, he was appointed the Son of God.
Mark 9: 7 (Matthew 17:1-8, Luke 9:28-36, and 2 Peter 1: 16-18)
This is my beloved Son. (The Transfiguration)
Matthew 16: 16-17
Peter: You are the Son of the living God. Jesus: This was revealed to you by my Father in heaven.
Paul: Jesus became Son of God beginning at his resurrection
Mark and Matthew (if not Luke and John): Jesus was the Son of God before his resurrection.
Paul was neither at the transfiguration nor Peter’s assertion nor at the Resurrection meal where Jesus ate broiled fish.
Paul has his vision and later writes Jesus became an appointed Son of God after his crucifixion, by resurrection.
Question: Is Paul more aligned with the real Jesus and Oral Tradition or are the gospels more aligned with the real Jesus and Oral Tradition (multiple times–transfiguration and Peter’s assertion confirmed by Jesus and multiple attestations) ?** you do not have permission to see this link **
Dr. Ehrman:
I’d say there was not a single oral tradition to be aligned with, but thousands of oral traditions, and each author is reflecting what he has heard.
Steefen:
With the “thousands of oral traditions” Matthew, Mark, and Luke heard Jesus was the Son of God before he was crucified.
Let’s say thousands or millions of people went to the Macy’s 4th of July fireworks, sure there were thousands or millions of oral testimonies but they all agree they saw fireworks. Paul did not hear anything because he wasn’t there and did not immediately go to Jerusalem after his conversion as per Galatians 1: 17-18.
You have just given equal weight to eyewitnesses and one or those who were not eyewitnesses. Just because there were thousands of people who knew what happened does not mean every piece of writing is accurate. Jesus was known to be the Son of God before he resurrected (also add Jesu’s baptism accounts) is different from Jesus was appointed to be the Son of God after he resurrected.
Steefen said
Dr. Ehrman:
I’d say there was not a single oral tradition to be aligned with, but thousands of oral traditions, and each author is reflecting what he has heard.
Steefen:
With the “thousands of oral traditions” Matthew, Mark, and Luke heard Jesus was the Son of God before he was crucified.
Let’s say thousands or millions of people went to the Macy’s 4th of July fireworks, sure there were thousands or millions of oral testimonies but they all agree they saw fireworks. Paul did not hear anything because he wasn’t there and did not immediately go to Jerusalem after his conversion as per Galatians 1: 17-18.
You have just given equal weight to eyewitnesses and one or those who were not eyewitnesses. Just because there were thousands of people who knew what happened does not mean every piece of writing is accurate. Jesus was known to be the Son of God before he resurrected (also add Jesu’s baptism accounts) is different from Jesus was appointed to be the Son of God after he resurrected.
There is no direct evidence that the anonymous works attributed to Matthew, Mark and Luke are eyewitness accounts, so the whole “you have given equal weight to eyewitnesses and those who were not eyewitnesses” fails at the lack of confirmed eyewitnesses.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)