Loading...To conclude this mini-thread on Philippians, which is part of my maxi-thread Nutshell Summaries of each of the books of the New Testament, I would like to provide two posts on the passage of this small book that is discussed by scholars (far) more than any other, the “Christ-poem” of 2:6-11, where Paul indicates that Christ was first a divine being in the heavenly realm who then came to earth as a human to die for the sins of others, and then was exalted to an even higher position than before, when God made him the Lord of All.
It’s a remarkable and much-debated passage. At the least one can say that it shows that Paul –even though he is our very earliest Christian writer — held to some kind of “incarnation” Christology. Christ was a divine being who became human.
Before quoting the passage,
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
“Which means incarnation Christologies were probably around before Paul. ”
Does this mean some time after the Jesus-Movement Jews of Jerusalem but some time before Paul?
So sometime between 33CE and 49CE?
No, it means before Paul started writing his letters, or at least before he wrote Philippians. Sorry, I wasn’t very clear there.
Hey Bart,
Thanks for this. A couple of questions about the incarnation part.
Do you think Paul knew about the virgin birth narrative, but did not include it for his own literary reasons?
Likewise, do you think Mark knew about the virgin birth narrative, but did not include it for his own literary reasons?
I don’t think there’s any reason to think either Paul or Mark knew about the virgin birth narrative.
“Therefore God highly exalted him
And bestowed on him the name
That is above every name;”
It’s truly interesting—the idea that “God… bestowed on him the name.”
The name Yeshua in Aramaic means something like “God saves,” which is quite appropriate for a Savior exalted by God.
The traditional explanation for this coincidence is that “Jesus” was a very common name among first-century Jews.
That’s true; reading Josephus’ works, we find many others named “Jesus.”
But there were also many named James, Judas, John, etc.
So it remains a striking coincidence that the Savior bears the name “God saves” and not any other common first-century Jewish name.
Perhaps “Jesus” was the name bestowed on him—but not the real name of the man crucified by the Romans in Judea about 2,000 years ago.
Technically, it was Jacob, not James, that was a common name. Not sure when someone decided that James should be substituted for Jacob.
“Before the time of Jerome and the Latin Vulgate, the Greek Septuagint had been translated into Latin; in that version, Iakóbos was transliterated as Iacobus (or Jacobus)—still very close to Jacob.
In Late Latin, however, a slight change in spelling and pronunciation occurred, and the name started to be written as Iacomus (or Jacomus).
Early French adapted the Latin name and truncated it to Gemmes (or Jammes), and from there English took it as James”.
Well, in the original Greek — both in the New Testament and in Josephus — the name is Ἰάκωβος.
Interestingly, it was translated into English as both Jacob and James.
Curiously, in Spanish (my native language), Ἰάκωβος was also translated into two different names: Jacobo and Santiago.
Jesus is same name as Joshua in the Septuagint greek, as in the Joshua that led the Israelites after Moses died and has a book named after himself.
British theologian Andrew Perriman has put forward a scholarly case for Paul NOT, in fact, arguing for the divine pre-existence of Christ. It’s a controversial opinion that many will reject out of hand, but a fascinating one nonetheless.
Perriman sets out his argument in his book In the Form of a God: The Pre-existence of the Exalted Christ in Paul, and anyone who’s interested can read more about it on his blog here: https://www.postost.net/2022/11/pre-existence-exalted-christ-paul-what-books-about-and-why
Hi Bart,
Why do Paul’s early Christian writings appear largely unconcerned with the escalating Roman-Jewish political tensions that culminated in 66AD war (and Temple destruction)?
When I try to think like someone from this time and place and truly put myself in their shoes, it seems like EVERYTHING taking place from 33-66AD in the Holy Land would be consumed by such a world-shattering event. Wouldn’t the disciples and early Jewish-Christians have been EXTREMELY involved in taking sides (and fighting in?) this conflict?
We often allude to the Temple destruction (particularly for manuscript dating) I rarely see the War and its socio-cultural ramifications explored for the “characters” in the New Testament. The politics seems secondary to the more important theological discussions taking place. I’m curious your thoughts on how the War impacted (or didn’t impact!) the development of early Christianity.
It’s becaues he was writing outside of Israel years before the tensions erupted focusing on other issues..disabledupes{c62cd060f33a36c3100eb9d88037aa7f}disabledupes
Do you think there is a decent argument that this “Christ-poem” is the oldest Christian text that exists today?
If he is quoting something, then I guess the only thing that could potentially be older is one of Paul’s earlier-dated authentic letters – or a passage that fed into the gospels such as from Q, but it must be harder to have any good evidence of dating for that.
I’d say there’s no way to know when it was composed, other than than it was sometime before the mid 50’s. I would think pre-Pauline texts such as Rom. 1:3-4 were earlier.
Here’s what I don’t get…. The poem doesn’t appear in any manuscript before the 3rd or 4th century. Isn’t it plausible that it was added once belief in the divinity of Christ was accepted as orthodox?
Right. In other places, Corinthians and Romans, Paul implies that Jesus became divine at the resurrection. As I understand it, the idea that Christ existed and was divine before time originates with the author of John. 50 years after this epistle. Would that not suggest that this poem is a much later scribal insertion?
John himself is quoting an earlier text in 1:1-18; The Christ hymn appears to be a yet earlier formulatoin.
Yes, a different author doesn’t necessarily mean before. I suppose though, you could ask how dependent the surrounding text is on the poem being there, as well as ask whether and why this might be something you would want to drop in.
His pre exiistence was possibly as an angel. Rebellious angels led by Lucifer thought they were equal to God and tried to seize power. Pre-existence as a non rebellios angel was Christ.
Two questions Dr Ehrman:
1. Is there any merit to speculating whether the latter half of the poem is an apologetic interpolation, perhaps uncomfortable with Pauls Christology ending at the cross (although obviously Paul believed in the resurrection). I don’t see why Paul would feel compelled to quote the entire poem if half of it was irrelevant, especially if it was one his audience already knew.
2. You say the poem points to a pre-pauline Incarnation Christology; could Paul instead be appropriating a pre Christian poem from the Jewish apocalyptic tradition, retooling it to refer to Jesus for rhetorical purposes? The second half of the poem already does this explicitly by quoting a passage of Isaiah that his audience would have recognized as scripture. Maybe Jesus is supplanting the original subject in the first half as well, perhaps Adam or Moses or Enoch (none are a perfect fit, although I believe a post-transformation Enoch “descends” in 2 Enoch). This would fit with the idea that Paul added the reference to the cross at the end, but I suppose it also assumes the original context wasn’t describing incarnation of a primordial pre-existent divine being.
1. There doesn’t appear to be any evidence that parts one and two were originally separate.
2. We don’t know of any Jewish texts comparable to the poem applied to, say, biblical or other heroic figures. It appears to be infused with a Christian concern and interest thorughout.
Could you clarify which expert in the field of ancient music you are referring to in this text, and on what basis they argue that Philippians 2:6–11 does not qualify as a hymn or does not ‘scan’ as one? I’d be interested to know both the scholar’s identity and the specific criteria they use to reach that conclusion
Charles Cosgrove. He has talked with me at length about it and published a number of works on ancient music; Sorry to say I don’t recall offhand where he deals with this particular issue in his published works.
Professor Ehrman,
Do some non-evangelical but still Christian scholars hold a Christology in which Jesus was exalted to divine or co-equal status with God after his resurrection—even if they don’t believe the historical Jesus claimed divinity during his lifetime? For instance, might they believe Jesus was pre-existent (as in the Philippians hymn), but unaware of his status while on earth, only realizing it upon exaltation? I’m asking because I’m curious how scholars who do critical historical work but still have faith understand Jesus’ divinity.
I don’t really know, I’m sorry to say.
How likely is it that the author of the poem is contrasting Jesus with Adam? They both found themselves made in the form (image) of God and were both tempted to become like God. Adam yielded to the temptation but Jesus did not.
Yes, that is sometimes aregued. In my book How Jesus Became God I explain why I don’t think so. Among other things, if the author of the hymn wanted the readers to think of the Adam account, he would not have said that Christ was in the “form” of God but the “image” of God. Different words with very different meanings in Greek.
Professor,
Are there any accessible books that deal with this in significant detail that you would recommend?
I deal with it in my book How Jesus Became God.
Philippians 2:6 could be a Genitive of Material? (in the form of God) I’m big into learnings grammars at this time being.
I’m at a loss for words and theories on how to chronologically date the books, but John chapter 1 and 6, John 6:38 could be the earlier poem?
I don’t see how John’s passages could be earlier than the early 50s, surely the latest date possible for the Philippians him.
I am, as usual, late to the discussion – but I would second the comment above re Andrew Perriman – he makes a very cogent argument against a meaning of pre-existence. It would be enlightening to get the reflections of another expert on biblical Greek and Paul — that is, you, when you have the opportunity — on Perriman’s book, “In the Form of a God.”
I’m afraid I haven’t read it. The main line of argument among scholars is that Paul is thinking of Christ as a second-Adam, not as a pre-existent being. I considered that for a long time, but realized it actually doesn’t work for the passage.
This is not a “Second Adam” argument, but mostly a detailed examination of Paul’s words and first century Greek grammar and meaning – which is why I think you would find it interesting (and why much of it is beyond me). (He also argues against the “angel” interpretation.)
” not to look out for themselves or to their own interests, but only the interests of others. ”
St Paul was expecting Jesus to return [in his lifetime]. So was Jesus.
Jesus took off at most 35 years. St Paul was developing a new religion. So what of all the other faithful.