(23 votes, average: 4.83 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous post I began to speak about the “incarnation” Christology found famously in Paul’s letter to the Philippians, 2:6-11. There are a lot of other things I want to say about this passage, all of them relevant to the issues I’ve been discussing. The first and most important thing is that it has been widely recognized by scholars for a very long time that this passage is something that Paul appears to be quoting, that it is not simply part of the prose letter. Moreover, it is frequently called (probably wrongly) a “hymn” (that’s probably wrong because – as I’ve been told by an expert in the field of ancient music, it doesn’t actually scan as music). But in any event, it is highly structured in a balanced fashion and thus seems to be more like a poem than like prose. The reasons for thinking that Paul is quoting rather than composing it are pretty compelling, and I will get to them eventually. For now I want to point out the rhythmic structure.
To urge their service for others, the Philippians are told: “have the same mind in yourselves that was also in Christ Jesus” and then the poem/hymn about Christ begins:
If it’s a poem, does it follow any kind of known poetic structure of the time? I’m only familiar with hexameter, and it’s not that but there must have been others. And can we tell it if it was originally in Greek or translated from Aramaic?
No, it doesn’t scan. It’s just rhythmic.
And can we tell if the Philippans hymn was originally in Greek or Aramaic?
Definitely Greek. The thought behind it (“form of God,” for example) is definitely Greek.
Bart: “Each half has three stanzas and each stanza is made up of three lines.”
Are you familiar with the alternative structure defended by Joachim Jeremias, Camille Focant, and others?
On the readers’ forum, we’ve discussed why their structure of the poem makes better sense of the Greek text. If anyone is interested, there’s a new thread in the Readers Forum here:
https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/paul-and-pauline-christianity/the-philippians-poem-26-11/
Oh yes, I studied those intensely at one time. I didn’t find them persuasive, but I haven’t looked at them for many years…. (It used to be hotly debated) (This passage, btw, was the topic of my first PhD term paper; cut my teeth on this one….)
Bart: “No, it doesn’t scan. It’s just rhythmic.”
What does that mean? How is it rhythmic if it does not scan? Personally, I’m not good at scansion, but I know others who are (including my son, the Classics major), so I’m genuinely asking this question: how exactly can a poetic text not scan but still be rhythmic?
I’m also asking on behalf of Aristotle.
I’m just saying it has a nice lilt. I suppose free verse today doesn’t scan either, but it can have a kind of rhythm to it. I’m not an expert on poetry either, but I’ve been working on both Virgil and HOmer, and I understand how dactylic hexameter works. All I”m saying is it’s nothing like that, but does not read like a prose composition. It is measured and balanced. Mabye that’s what I mean instead of rhythmic.
I definitely agree the Philippians poem has quite a bit of ‘lilt’. Not sure what term Aristotle or the other Ancient Greeks used for ‘lilt’. It wasn’t rhythm, but maybe they had some other term for ‘lilt’?
My son loves Virgil’s dactylic hexameter, by the way, can’t stop talking about it. Go figure. Youth these days!
OK, get him to explain B2 caesura sometime. It’s amazing these guys could simply write like this. Or better, compose in their heads and *speak* like it, for thousands of lines…
Bart: “Oh yes, I studied those intensely at one time. I didn’t find them persuasive, but I haven’t looked at them for many years…. (It used to be hotly debated) (This passage, btw, was the topic of my first PhD term paper; cut my teeth on this one….)”
Well, if it was your very first PhD term paper, we will give you a pass. I don’t see how any experienced exegete could so easily dismiss the analysis of Jeremias in favor of Lohmeyer (Jeremias clearly understood the value of Lexical Syntax, BTW). Perhaps you really should take a look at the thread in the Readers Forum:
https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/paul-and-pauline-christianity/the-philippians-poem-26-11/#p17621
Ah, but many, many do. I have, as you might imagine, thought a good deal about the passage since I was 28…. I do not easily dismiss Jeremias’s view; I just don’t think it is persuasive.
Bart: “Ah, but many, many do. I have, as you might imagine, thought a good deal about the passage since I was 28…. I do not easily dismiss Jeremias’s view; I just don’t think it is persuasive.”
Yes, many do, and over 74 million people voted for Trump. So?
Camille Focant first presented Jeremias’ structure to me privately when I was 29, and invited me to write my thesis on this under his direction. But, alas, I wanted to write on the gospel of Mark, and, being young and inexperienced, did not yet fully realize the wisdom of writing on Paul.
Perhaps you’ve never had Jeremias’ structure presented to you as effectively as could be done by Camille Focant?
Perhaps you really should take a look at the thread in the Readers Forum:
https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/paul-and-pauline-christianity/the-philippians-poem-26-11/#p17621
Maybe the reason that Paul was comfortable with the second half of the poem is that it never occurred to him that Jesus would go to his own human death just to get a status upgrade. Yes the poem could be interpreted that way. But when we put someone on a pedestal it can be hard to imagine him or her doing things for selfish reasons.
Prof Ehrman,
Q1. Will this then present two forms of the Incarnation Christologies – 1. where God himself becomes human and is born amongst men and 2. a divine figure (angelic being not God himself) also becomes human and is born among men?
Q2. What qualifies the event at the baptism as a Christology as opposed to that which occurred at the Transfiguration?
1. Yes, those were both options promoted; the first by the Gospel of John (and later orthodox thinkers)and the second (earlier) by Paul and probably others. 2. In Luke God says that the baptism he had *begotten* Jesus as his son, at the transfiguration he identified him as already being his son.
It may also reflect Paul’s ulterior motive for his work, that being his own personal hope of “exaltation” (in some form) at the end of his life? This of course leads to some questions of whether Paul’s “mission” was truly selflessly directed toward the salvation of others, or might it rather have been a more selfish, personal salvation quest of one stricken with a guilt ridden conscience (for previous atrocities committed against early Christians)? Too cynical?
I think Paul believed that *ALL* followers of Jesus would be raised exalted just as Jesus himself had been (thus 1 Corinthians 15); he may have conducted his ministry out of guilt — hard to say — but he doesn’t indicate that he will be rewarded better in the kingdom than others as a result.
Since Paul knew of incarnation Christology, surely the author of Mark knew too? Yet he chose exaltation to describe how Jesus became divine. Why?
Yeah, it can be confusing, but people living later often embrace views of people living earlier. That is, some people today still believe in creationism, even though it is not exactly cutting edge in the sciences….
Simply time and place perhaps? That is, perhaps the Christian community in Rome c. 70 where Mark was likely written might have been more disposed to an exaltation theology, which may have been different from that in certain parts of the eastern Mediterranean c. 40-50 when Paul developed his beliefs. Then again, it’s my understanding that Phillippians may have been written by Paul when he was imprisoned in Rome (assuming this happened). If the “hymn” was familiar to him when he wrote it in that time and place, then over the next several decades the viewpoint of the community in Rome may have shifted. And yet then again, perhaps the individual writers’ views can’t necessarily be taken to reflect the several communities’ viewpoints as a whole.
Yup, that’s possible. The thing is that religious communities often have lots of people with different views – it’s almost never just one view or another — as you say.
Dr. Ehrman,
Can you suggest any books/authors/papers/anything,on the idea of Jesus being a pre- existing angel?
( I have just started to read :How Jesus became God)
The one I like most is Susan Garrett, No Ordinary Angel. She’s a terrific NT scholar.
Can you please tell us more about “the name / That is above every name”?
Which name are we talking about? Jesus? Yahweh?
It’s almost certainly Yahweh. Jesus is given the name — that is, the *authority* and *honor* — of Yahweh himself. Pretty exalted Christology!
Minor point: “The poem appears to divide in half. (I’ve separated the halves with a line).” No line is visible.
Scribal omission.
Ha! ?
Hebrews 12:2 also seems to suggest that Jesus did what was ultimately in his own best interest. It’s hard to imagine an angel giving up an eternal existence to die and remain dead for all eternity. On the other hand, there are many examples of altruistic behavior in animals, including humans, but those behaviors seem to be driven by genes, which are inducing behaviors that help ensure their own survival.
Dr. Ehrman – What is the best theological explanation you have heard that explains Jesus’ sacrifice as something other than enduring current pain for future gain?
I don’t really have a view of the the atonement, since I’m not a Christian. None of the explanations resonates with me. It’s way beyond me why God would require someone to be tortured to death so that he could forgive people. Why not just forgive them? That’s what I do with *my* kids. I don’t torture someone else first!
I wasn’t asking about atonement — just sacrifice. You mentioned that the poem Paul quotes doesn’t completely serve his purpose because it suggests that Jesus was motivated by what was ultimately in his own best interest. So, if self-interest wasn’t his motivation, what was? According to Paul’s theology, Jesus was the immortal Chief Angel, living an eternal and blissful existence, but he agreed to give up all of that to become a mortal human being. Why would he do that? We know that parents make great sacrifices for their children and will even die to protect them. But they aren’t giving up an eternal existence, and their actions are being driven by their “selfish” genes. So, from the standpoint of a theological explanation, what motivated Jesus the Chief Angel to make the ultimate sacrifice?
Ah, no I think (but am not sure) you are misinterpreting me. I was not talking about Jesus’ motivation (i.e. his actual motivation) and not about Paul’s *view* of Jesus’ motivation (which may or may not have been what Jesus himself had been thinking). I was saying that by citing this account of Jesus’ death and exaltation as a way of motivating the PHilippians to act in complete disinterested ways there is an ironic problem since the second half of the poem shows that Christ was highly exalted as a result of his selfishness, which then could make someone think that the *reason* to be selfless would be for what one could get out of it (since it would lead to even better things)
Is there any Second Temple Jewish text that describes angels as being in the “form of God”?
I suppose the high-low distinction can be framed as a view of Jesus as divine versus Jesus as a man, or alternatively as incarnational divinity versus exaltational divinity.
Since when did scholars fully appreciated the significance of Philippians 2 for the timeline of development of christology? My understanding is that in the postwar period up till late 20th century, the majority view was that all the early christologies one could critically discern from NT texts were fairly low (e.g. James Dunn writing in the early 1980s downplayed the apparent divinity claims in Philippains; Maurice Casey writing in the early 1990s held widespread worship of Jesus as God to be in tension with Jesus monotheism and was due to Gentile influence).
Even the Bible does. Psalm 82 God is “in the midst of the gods.” There was a solid Jewish tradition of a “second power” that was a second God. If you’re interested, you might check out Alan Segal’s book “Two Powers in Heaven.” I’d say the high christlogical view of Philippians has been standard since the earliest interpreters down till now. Dunn and Case were not mainstream even when they were writing.
Do any of these pre-pauline verses look like translations from Aramaic?
I”ve wondered about Rom. 1:3-4, but I’m not an Aramaicist and so would hesitate to go far with it. But the semiticism, “Spirit of holiness” is intriguing. Not Phil. 2, though: definitely composed in Greek because of hte philosophical concepts embedded in it (“form of God,” e.g.)
You say that this poem was around before the letter to the Philippians, but why does that mean that it was around before Paul and so is pre-Pauline?
Is it possible that it was composed by one of Paul’s converts, from Damascus even, which would make it pre-40CE?
Did Paul have the views expressed in this poem when he met Cephas and James on his first return to Jerusalem?
Ah, pre-Pauline does not mean before Paul was born or before it he was converted. It means it existed before it appears in Paul’s writing.
I heard this passage frequently quoted during my church days. Yet when reading “…did not regard equality with God something to be grasped after…” none of us ever stopped to ask how if Jesus was already equal with God, WAS in fact God, what sense does it make to speak of Him grasping after equality with God? Equality with Himself? And then, “…God highly exalted him…” If Jesus is God, how much higher could He go?! It now seems to me that the poem is clearly setting Jesus at a lower level than God until God hyper-exalted Him. Funny how a change in perspective can really change the way you read and understand a passage like this.
‘On heaven, and on earth, and under the earth’
Dr. Ehrman,
Can you please touch on what ‘under the earth’ mean in this passage. Is it refering to hell? Or just pit, grave or Sheol according to Jewish tradition? You’ve mentioned that dead people buried in Sheol don’t live. And so how can they kneel down and bow? Even if dead bodies coming back to life was a widespread view already, how can they, while dead, bow down when they’re still in the pit before they’re brought back to life for judgement?
I think it’s just a way to say “everything in all of creation,” but specifically it does seem to refer to the resurrection of the dead, who are “down below” in their graves.
In order for God to be able to die, he must have had a body. If God had a body, he must have been born at one time or another – or incarnated. Hence the story of Mary, more or less based on the birth of Moses in Egypt.
I believe it is possible to identify Mary, his mother, with Miriam, the sister of Moses, based on what the scripture says.
Luke 8:20-21 He was told, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see You.” He replied, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.”
I think this is a reference to when Miriam, and Aaron, criticized Moses in Numbers 12. Miriam stood outside the Tent of Meeting and received a harsh reply from God. She was told that it was Moses that “heard God’s word and put it into practice», not Miriam and Aaron!
Numbers 12:6-8 “If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, will reveal Myself to him(…) But this is not so with My servant Moses; he is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face ( Moses hears My words and put it into practice, not you Miriam ).
The idea is that if God could speak, then he must have had a mouth. If God could walk (to Abraham and Lot) then He must have had feet. If God could take Lot in his arms, then He must have had arms. If God could eat the sacrifice on the altar, then He must have had both mouth, teeth and stomach. If God could hear the cry of the Israelites, then He must have had ears. If God could see the iniquities of the Israelites, then He must have had eyes. etc.
Bart,
Is it at all possible that the last three stanzas, as well as ‘even death on a cross’, were adds and not part of the original “poem?”
Cheryl
It’s certainly possible, but one important reason for thinking they are original is that they seem to counteract the very argument Paul is citing the poem in order to advance! That is, in the context he is telling the PHilippians that they need to be more concerned about *others* than *themselves* even if it causes them to suffer; but if it turns out doing so is going to be to their own greater glory (“more highly exalted him”) then you can toss altruistic motivations out the window! Or so it is often thought.
I think this is one of the most fascinating things I’ve learned through your work. It appears to be our earliest documented connection with the beliefs of the earliest followers of the Jesus movement. Is that fair to say or is there anything earlier? I just think that it’s super cool!
Dr Ehrman, “being born in the likeness of a human” sounds perilously close to docetism. If Paul didn’t think so, later orthodox Christians must surely have disliked that particular phrase?
Yes, they had to explain it, for sure. They had to argue it didn’t mean he was “like” a human but that he was identical to every other human in major ways.
We find many references and allusions in the epistles of Jews rejecting the Christian message because of their apparently ludicrous claim that a crucified criminal is the messiah. Yet surely the Christian claim implicit in their practice of Jesus worship would have been more ludicrous, if not outright blasphemous. But we don’t find references and allusions to Jews objecting to this form of high christology until the time of the Johannine community. If Christians had been worshipping Jesus as God from the earliest times, putting him on par with the Father, wouldn’t they have been ejected from the synagogues right away?
Yes, you would think so. But they may have been: we just don’t know. Matthew talks about them being put out of synagogues, and Paul himself was kicked out. But we don’t know the actual reasons.
What you highlight here in the second half of the poem is in essence the paradox of the parable of the sheep and the goats – Mt 25:31-46. In their earthly lives, the sheep helped the old lady across the road because it was the ‘right-thing-to-do’, not because they were working on their Eagle Scout patch. In the words of Ashley Anthony Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury ‘I seek no reward from heaven for that which is reward itself’
Part of the poem was turned into a song “He is Lord”. Beautiful song regardless of your belief.
*Emptied himself* is interesting in that it’s also a very central Buddhist concept. One must empty oneself of all wants and desires in order to attain Nirvana. Or as Jesus put it: die to oneself.
Plato seems to make the same mistake. One of his characters is rewarded after death by the gods for his unselfish deeds.
Logically, if people know this is the result of unselfish behavior (being rewarded by the gods), then there is a selfish reason to engage in unselfish behavior. (I got this from a Richard Carrier post on Plato, he was not referencing this poem at all).
Perhaps this was a common mistake among greek thinking at the time.
dr bart which bible interpolation in the nt that was in it for ages until scholars found out that its not in the earliest manuscript or in the original then be taken out ?
Several of those.
dr bart did paul also see jesus as did not claim equality with god but only as an angel or only after get exlated andsome other things?
For Paul Jesus was an exalted being (possibly the great angel?) who became a human and then in reward for his faithfulness was exalted to God’s only level of majesty and glory and power.
dr bart what the textual variants that evenly divided like i see from luke 10 it said 70 or 72 diciple something like this? and also some other example luke 2:33,43 joseph and his mother marveled or his father and his mother marveled, bcz i heard that the kjv reading of this like 2:33,43 is greatly attested by earlier manuscript too, what some other example, that scholars cant really choose one?
Different scholars have different opinions about lots of the textual variants. Most of them don’t affect the meaning much. May I ask why you’re so interested in this question?
i just want to arrived at absolute conclusion that bible transmission is problematic not just with 99% only spelling error but with interpolation for ages until it taken away so we can said we dont really have the word of god exactly without scholars dissecting it also with importamt variant in new testament also with probably problem in septuagint so christian dont have place to said bible is innerant
I don’t think anyone says that the surviving manuscripts are themselves inerrant. Those who hold to inerrancy say that the Bible is without mistake in the *originals* (also called the autographs). And so to dispute that view, strictly speaking, one would have to show that there are mistakes in the originals, not in the surviving manuscripts.
wow thank dr bart you are really god sent i hope youll believe in god one day so he could bless you