Yahweh, El Elyon, Margaret Barker, & the epistles.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Yahweh, El Elyon, Margaret Barker, & κυριος.

Post by spin »

Ben C. Smith wrote:[Paul']s usage of "the Lord" in 2 Corinthians 11.17 ("I am not speaking as the Lord would") could hypothetically refer either to Jesus or to God the Father, correct? (Just to make sure I am not missing something.)
The translation you use is problematic. The text simply says "according to the Lord" (κατα κυριον), whatever that indicates exactly. The use of κυριος #2 in a later linguistic context (influenced by christian acceptance of κυριος #2 for Jesus) could refer to Jesus, but could the linguistic context in which Paul was writing, ie before the establishment of a christian literary tradition? I do not see a possibility, so I can see no other conclusion than when Paul was writing his audience would have read 2 Cor 11:17's κατα κυριον to indicate "according to God", ie it is Paul's view, not his god's.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Yahweh, El Elyon, Margaret Barker, & κυριος.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

spin wrote:Let me just stick this here. It relates to the issue I deal with in the discussion of κυριος.

Start with the linguistic context. Paul for example was not writing in a literary vacuum, yet whenever he quotes HB he uses κυριος for YHWH. This is how one can see reference to YHWH in the diaspora. Paul also notes that there is one god (the father) and one lord (obviously not #2, Jesus), so he is certainly no binitarian. As a pastoral writer he does not intend to confuse his assemblies through opaque language. We have to waive later christian usage of the word and consider how the word is used in the literary/linguistic context. In doing so, I find no way that κυριος #2 can bear reference to anyone but god before Paul began writing and there is no general hint that he uses it so, except conveniently in two passages that are of questionable veracity, where κυριος has to be read as a reference to Jesus. You normally don't choose to use the same term for two distinct referents without distinguishing between the two referents through usage, though we know that later writers basically did just that due to ideology.

The thesis I am testing is just as sweeping and "clean" as yours: to wit, Paul equates Yahweh and Jesus completely; they are the same entity, and they both have a Father who is most frequently just called God.

There are passages in which the Lord and God seem to be two different entities:

2 Corinthians 8.5: 5 ...and this, not as we had expected, but they first gave themselves to the Lord and to us by the will of God.

2 Corinthians 12.8-9: 8 Concerning this I entreated the Lord three times that it might depart from me. 9 And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.

But I am sure there is wriggle room in such cases.

In other passages, when Paul seems to be referring to the same phenomenon in two different contexts, he will speak once of the Lord Jesus and again of just the Lord in the other context:

1 Corinthians 9.1: 1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

2 Corinthians 12.1: 1 Boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable; but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord.

Psalm 24 (23 LXX) calls Yahweh the "king of glory" several times. Paul quotes Psalm 24.1 (23.1 LXX) in 1 Corinthians 10.24, so we know he is aware of this psalm, which he seems to allude to elsewhere:

1 Corinthians 2.8: 8 ...the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

This also resembles:

Psalm 29.3 (28.3 LXX): 3 The voice of Yahweh [κυρίου] is upon the waters; the God of glory [δόξης] thunders; Yahweh [κύριος] is over many waters.

James 2.1: 1 My brethren, do not hold your faith in our Lord of glory Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism.

1 Enoch 63.2b: 2b Blessed is the Lord of Spirits and the Lord of kings, and the Lord of the mighty and the Lord of the rich, and the Lord of glory and the Lord of wisdom.

The imitatio Christi in Pauline thought may imply that "the Lord" all by itself is Jesus:

1 Thessalonians 1.6: 6 You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 11.1: 1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.

1 Corinthians 4.16-17: 16 I exhort you therefore, be imitators of me. 17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church.

Ephesians 5.1 does have "imitators of God," which may dilute this point, but Ephesians may well be pseudepigraphical.

Perhaps most telling is the way in which the coming of Yahweh in the Hebrew scriptures so easily becomes the coming of the Lord Jesus in Paul, to the extent that just "the Lord" by itself seems to refer to Jesus in the fourth chapter of 1 Thessalonians:

1 Thessalonians 2.19: 19 For who is our hope or joy or crown of exultation? Is it not even you, in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming [παρουσίᾳ]?

1 Thessalonians 3.11-13: 11 Now may our God and Father Himself and Jesus our Lord direct our way to you; 12 and may the Lord cause you to increase and abound in love for one another, and for all men, just as we also do for you, 13 so that He may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus [ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ] with all His holy ones [ἁγίων]. [Zechariah 14.5c: 5c Then Yahweh [κύριος] my God will come, and all the holy ones [ἅγιοι] with Him!]

1 Thessalonians 4.15-17: 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord [κυρίου], that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord [τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου], shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself [αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος] will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord [τοῦ κυρίου] in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord [κυρίῳ].

Paul always, I think, writes about the coming of Jesus, never about the coming of God the Father:

Philippians 3.20: 20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 15.23: 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming [παρουσίᾳ]....

1 Thessalonians 5.23: Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming [παρουσίᾳ] of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 4.5: 5 Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God.

So this is a case in which "the Lord" all by itself (as in 1 Thessalonians 4.15-17) has to apply to Jesus while, at the same time, "the Lord" also applies to Yahweh, based on the references to the Hebrew scriptures.

And this presses the question: are there passages in Paul which cannot be made sense of on the hypothesis that, for Paul, Jesus and Yahweh are the same entity? Does Paul ever call Jesus "the son of the Lord," for example? Is there a verse which seems to separate Jesus from the Lord (= Yahweh)? Rather, are there not many, many indications that "the Lord" is to be distinguished from God the Father and identified with Jesus?

1 Corinthians 8.6: 6 ...yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

Philippians 2.11: 11 ...and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

1 Corinthians 1.3: 3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. [Refer also to Romans 1.7; 2 Corinthians 1.2-3; Galatians 1.3; Philippians 1.2; 1 Thessalonians 1.1, 3; Philemon 1.3.]

Is "the Father" ever called Lord? If not, why not?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Yahweh, El Elyon, Margaret Barker, & κυριος.

Post by spin »

Ben C. Smith wrote:two different entities:
What about Ex 16:3 two entities or one? It is the literary context.
Ben C. Smith wrote:In other passages, when Paul seems to be referring to the same phenomenon in two different contexts, he will speak once of the Lord Jesus and again of just the Lord in the other context:

1 Corinthians 9.1: 1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

2 Corinthians 12.1: 1 Boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable; but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord.

In Gal 1:12, 15-16 Jesus was revealed to Paul. God did the revealing. The first example is simple #1 & #2. It is only post hoc christian theology that causes any confusion.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Psalm 24 (23 LXX) calls Yahweh the "king of glory" several times. Paul quotes Psalm 24.1 (23.1 LXX) in 1 Corinthians 10.24, so we know he is aware of this psalm, which he seems to allude to elsewhere:

1 Corinthians 2.8: 8 ...the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

This also resembles:

Psalm 29.3 (28.3 LXX): 3 The voice of Yahweh [κυρίου] is upon the waters; the God of glory [δόξης] thunders; Yahweh [κύριος] is over many waters.

James 2.1: 1 My brethren, do not hold your faith in our Lord of glory Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism.

1 Enoch 63.2b: 2b Blessed is the Lord of Spirits and the Lord of kings, and the Lord of the mighty and the Lord of the rich, and the Lord of glory and the Lord of wisdom.

The imitatio Christi in Pauline thought may imply that "the Lord" all by itself is Jesus:

1 Thessalonians 1.6: 6 You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 11.1: 1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.

1 Corinthians 4.16-17: 16 I exhort you therefore, be imitators of me. 17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church.

Ephesians 5.1 does have "imitators of God," which may dilute this point, but Ephesians may well be pseudepigraphical.
Jesus is God's agent or proxy in this world. Believing in Jesus equates to believing in God, following the precepts of Jesus is following the precepts of God, imitating Jesus is imitating God. Listening to Jesus's words is listening to the words of God. I don't think Eph 5:1 "dilutes this point" of yours. It shows how the notion of imitating could be used. It doesn't evince a later theology.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Perhaps most telling is the way in which the coming of Yahweh in the Hebrew scriptures so easily becomes the coming of the Lord Jesus in Paul, to the extent that just "the Lord" by itself seems to refer to Jesus in the fourth chapter of 1 Thessalonians:

1 Thessalonians 2.19: 19 For who is our hope or joy or crown of exultation? Is it not even you, in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming [παρουσίᾳ]?

1 Thessalonians 3.11-13: 11 Now may our God and Father Himself and Jesus our Lord direct our way to you; 12 and may the Lord cause you to increase and abound in love for one another, and for all men, just as we also do for you, 13 so that He may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus [ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ] with all His holy ones [ἁγίων]. [Zechariah 14.5c: 5c Then Yahweh [κύριος] my God will come, and all the holy ones [ἅγιοι] with Him!]

1 Thessalonians 4.15-17: 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord [κυρίου], that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord [τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου], shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself [αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος] will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord [τοῦ κυρίου] in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord [κυρίῳ].

Paul always, I think, writes about the coming of Jesus, never about the coming of God the Father:

Philippians 3.20: 20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 15.23: 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming [παρουσίᾳ]....

1 Thessalonians 5.23: Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming [παρουσίᾳ] of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 4.5: 5 Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God.

So this is a case in which "the Lord" all by itself (as in 1 Thessalonians 4.15-17) has to apply to Jesus while, at the same time, "the Lord" also applies to Yahweh, based on the references to the Hebrew scriptures.

And this presses the question: are there passages in Paul which cannot be made sense of on the hypothesis that, for Paul, Jesus and Yahweh are the same entity? Does Paul ever call Jesus "the son of the Lord," for example? Is there a verse which seems to separate Jesus from the Lord (= Yahweh)? Rather, are there not many, many indications that "the Lord" is to be distinguished from God the Father and identified with Jesus?
The parousia stuff has been consistently misread. Look at 1 Thes 4:14, which is essential for understanding 4:15-17. The verse is usually poorly translated because of confusion through later theology:

ουτως και ο θεος [τους κοιμηθεντας δια του ιησου] αξει συν αυτω
even so [them that are fallen asleep in Jesus] will God bring with him.

God is the agent acting in this verse. It is he who is coming, bringing those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. He's not bring all those who have fallen asleep, but specifically those who have fallen asleep through Jesus—however idiomatic δια is here. Syntactically, Jesus is attached to those fallen asleep. The "with him" refers back to the agent, ie God. This means that clearly the coming of the Lord in 4:15 specifically refers to God, who is bringing those fallen asleep through Jesus. Obviously Jesus will be coming with him as well. However, the coming of the Lord in 1 Thes 4 regards God. Paul stresses that the coming is of the Lord by the addition of "himself" αυτος in verse 16 rather than (just) his mediator.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
1 Corinthians 8.6: 6 ...yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

This verse spells out the distinction between God and Jesus, showing that Paul was not a binitarian: one god (the Father) and one lord #1 (Jesus). The father is God, not Jesus. Why then should Paul use the same nomenclature for the two?
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Philippians 2.11: 11 ...and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

1 Corinthians 1.3: 3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. [Refer also to Romans 1.7; 2 Corinthians 1.2-3; Galatians 1.3; Philippians 1.2; 1 Thessalonians 1.1, 3; Philemon 1.3.]

Is "the Father" ever called Lord? If not, why not?
"The father" is an epithet of God. κυριος #2 is a direct reference to God.
Last edited by spin on Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Yahweh, El Elyon, Margaret Barker, & κυριος.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

spin wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:two different entities:
What about Ex 16:3 two entities or one? It is the literary context.
Ben C. Smith wrote:In other passages, when Paul seems to be referring to the same phenomenon in two different contexts, he will speak once of the Lord Jesus and again of just the Lord in the other context:

1 Corinthians 9.1: 1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

2 Corinthians 12.1: 1 Boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable; but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord.

In Gal 1:12, 15-16 Jesus was revealed to Paul. God did the revealing. The first example is simple #1 & #2. It is only post hoc christian theology that causes any confusion.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Psalm 24 (23 LXX) calls Yahweh the "king of glory" several times. Paul quotes Psalm 24.1 (23.1 LXX) in 1 Corinthians 10.24, so we know he is aware of this psalm, which he seems to allude to elsewhere:

1 Corinthians 2.8: 8 ...the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

This also resembles:

Psalm 29.3 (28.3 LXX): 3 The voice of Yahweh [κυρίου] is upon the waters; the God of glory [δόξης] thunders; Yahweh [κύριος] is over many waters.

James 2.1: 1 My brethren, do not hold your faith in our Lord of glory Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism.

1 Enoch 63.2b: 2b Blessed is the Lord of Spirits and the Lord of kings, and the Lord of the mighty and the Lord of the rich, and the Lord of glory and the Lord of wisdom.

The imitatio Christi in Pauline thought may imply that "the Lord" all by itself is Jesus:

1 Thessalonians 1.6: 6 You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 11.1: 1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.

1 Corinthians 4.16-17: 16 I exhort you therefore, be imitators of me. 17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church.

Ephesians 5.1 does have "imitators of God," which may dilute this point, but Ephesians may well be pseudepigraphical.
Jesus is God's agent or proxy in this world. Believing in Jesus equates to believing in God, following the precepts of Jesus is following the precepts of God, imitating Jesus is imitating God. Listening to Jesus's words is listening to the words of God. I don't think Eph 5:1 "dilutes this point" of yours. It shows how the notion of imitating could be used. It doesn't evince a later theology.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Perhaps most telling is the way in which the coming of Yahweh in the Hebrew scriptures so easily becomes the coming of the Lord Jesus in Paul, to the extent that just "the Lord" by itself seems to refer to Jesus in the fourth chapter of 1 Thessalonians:

1 Thessalonians 2.19: 19 For who is our hope or joy or crown of exultation? Is it not even you, in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming [παρουσίᾳ]?

1 Thessalonians 3.11-13: 11 Now may our God and Father Himself and Jesus our Lord direct our way to you; 12 and may the Lord cause you to increase and abound in love for one another, and for all men, just as we also do for you, 13 so that He may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus [ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ] with all His holy ones [ἁγίων]. [Zechariah 14.5c: 5c Then Yahweh [κύριος] my God will come, and all the holy ones [ἅγιοι] with Him!]

1 Thessalonians 4.15-17: 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord [κυρίου], that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord [τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου], shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself [αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος] will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord [τοῦ κυρίου] in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord [κυρίῳ].

Paul always, I think, writes about the coming of Jesus, never about the coming of God the Father:

Philippians 3.20: 20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 15.23: 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming [παρουσίᾳ]....

1 Thessalonians 5.23: Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming [παρουσίᾳ] of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 4.5: 5 Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God.

So this is a case in which "the Lord" all by itself (as in 1 Thessalonians 4.15-17) has to apply to Jesus while, at the same time, "the Lord" also applies to Yahweh, based on the references to the Hebrew scriptures.

And this presses the question: are there passages in Paul which cannot be made sense of on the hypothesis that, for Paul, Jesus and Yahweh are the same entity? Does Paul ever call Jesus "the son of the Lord," for example? Is there a verse which seems to separate Jesus from the Lord (= Yahweh)? Rather, are there not many, many indications that "the Lord" is to be distinguished from God the Father and identified with Jesus?
The parousia stuff has been consistently misread. Look at 1 Thes 4:14, which is essential for understanding 4:15-17. The verse is usually poorly translated because of confusion through later theology:

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

God is the agent in this verse. It is he who is coming, bringing those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. He's not bring all those who have fallen asleep, but specifically those who have fallen asleep through Jesus—however idiomatic δια is here. Syntactically, Jesus is attached to those fallen asleep. The "with him" refers back to the agent, ie God. This means that clearly the coming of the Lord in 4:15 specifically refers to God, who is bringing those fallen asleep through Jesus. Obviously Jesus will be coming with him as well. However, the coming of the Lord in 1 Thes 4 regards God.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
1 Corinthians 8.6: 6 ...yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

This verse spells out the distinction between God and Jesus, showing that Paul was not a binitarian: one god (the Father) and one lord #1 (Jesus). The father is God, not Jesus. Why then should Paul use the same nomenclature for the two?
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Philippians 2.11: 11 ...and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

1 Corinthians 1.3: 3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. [Refer also to Romans 1.7; 2 Corinthians 1.2-3; Galatians 1.3; Philippians 1.2; 1 Thessalonians 1.1, 3; Philemon 1.3.]

Is "the Father" ever called Lord? If not, why not?
"The father" is an epithet of God. κυριος #2 is a direct reference to God.
Suffice it to say that I disagree with your readings in virtually every case here. The first couple I already admitted to be flimsier than the rest; but the parousia stuff you are really having to force. The nearest antecedent for "him" in 1 Thessalonians 4.14 is "Jesus", not God. And in 1 Thessalonians 3.11-13 it is the Lord Jesus who is doing what Yahweh does in Zechariah 14.5; that it is Jesus' parousia informs what is in view in 1 Thessalonians 4.14-17. I have tried in the past to get "the Lord" in that passage to mean God the Father, and not Jesus, and along much the same line of argument you have used here, but I could not make myself happy with it, sorry. It is Jesus whom Paul views as visibly descending from heaven. God will be leading the dead along with him, but it is Jesus' parousia in Paul.

You ask, "Why then should Paul use the same nomenclature for the two?" But that is my question. In my estimation, Paul does not use the same nomenclature for the two: he uses Lord for Jesus and Father for the Most High God, if you will. In your estimation, Paul uses "Lord" both for the father and for the son, with only subjective considerations to keep them apart.

And you did not really answer my question about why Paul never seems to equate the Father and Lord (and so consistently differentiates them) in undoubted Pauline texts. Your own argument depends upon "the Lord" by itself never referring to Jesus, and the two instances in which it unambiguously does you call interpolations (at least one of which I agree with). So this is the same kind of argument in reverse. Why does the Father not get called Lord at some point, or vice versa? It makes no difference that one is an epithet and the other a direct reference; the Hebrew scriptures make the equation often enough.

Finally, your observation about 1 Corinthians 8.6 sabotages your entire point!
This verse spells out the distinction between God and Jesus, showing that Paul was not a binitarian: one god (the Father) and one lord #1 (Jesus).
You had to add the #1 there; Paul certainly did not:

1 Corinthians 8.6: 6 ...yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

Let us see if this terminology works across the genuine Pauline corpus. Is there a single verse in which "Lord" has to apply to the Father or in which "God" has to apply to Jesus, or in which these two separate terminologies have to cross? God = Father; Lord = Jesus. I suggest that taking these equations literally and exclusively makes more sense of Paul's texts than going through and having to find nitpicky reasons why "Lord" cannot mean Jesus in this or that case.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Yahweh, El Elyon, Margaret Barker, & κυριος.

Post by spin »

I was still working as well! And I await your treatment on 1 Thes 4:14ff! Once we remove the post hoc theologizing on 1 Thes 4:14ff there is no reason to see Jesus as the central figure coming. It is merely fostered by the displacement of κυριος #2 onto Jesus. Just think: trinitarianism emerged as a consequence of the influence of the "pagan" use of κυριος.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Yahweh, El Elyon, Margaret Barker, & the epistles.

Post by Secret Alias »

I think this discussion highlights what was likely the Marcionite objection to the orthodox revision of their canon. Marcion was probably associated with the 'there are two powers' tradition mentioned in the mekhilta. But if you look carefully at Irenaeus and Tertullian's core criticism of Marcion it was that he argued for two powers. There is all this stuff that came later about him hating the god of the Jews and the like (or disparaging the god of the Jews). But really it is likely that spin's argumentation for a monarchian reading of this material was facilitated by slight corrections to the text. The issue wasn't 'Jew-hating' but two powers.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Yahweh, El Elyon, Margaret Barker, & κυριος.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

spin wrote:I was still working as well! And I await your treatment on 1 Thes 4:14ff! Once we remove the post hoc theologizing on 1 Thes 4:14ff there is no reason to see Jesus as the central figure coming. It is merely fostered by the displacement of κυριος #2 onto Jesus. Just think: trinitarianism emerged as a consequence of the influence of the "pagan" use of κυριος.
I did notice the end of your post was screwed up for a while. But it appears to be complete now, and I have read it all.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Yahweh, El Elyon, Margaret Barker, & the epistles.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Oh, and one more thing:
He's not bring all those who have fallen asleep, but specifically those who have fallen asleep through Jesus—however idiomatic δια is here.
This highlights yet another difficulty with your reading. "Idiomatic" indeed. The obvious difficulties with taking διὰ τοῦ Ἰησου with τοὺς κοιμηθέντας suggest the much easier alternative: take διὰ τοῦ Ἰησου with ἄξει (there is no issue with "overloading" the verb with adverbial phrases: Paul does this elsewhere, too). God is going to lead the dead through Jesus; that is, God is the actor, Jesus the mediator, just as so often elsewhere in Paul. And this keeps the parousia consistent throughout the corpus.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Yahweh, El Elyon, Margaret Barker, & κυριος.

Post by spin »

Ben C. Smith wrote:The nearest antecedent for "him" in 1 Thessalonians 4.14 is "Jesus", not God.
The syntax does not allow this. The "him" in 4:14 is the nominative in the sentence: God. Jesus is part of a sub-clause. You are crossing clausal boundaries which I tried to illustrate earlier:

ουτως και ο θεος [τους κοιμηθεντας δια του ιησου] αξει συν αυτω
even so [them that are fallen asleep in Jesus] will God bring with him.

God is doing the bringing; those who have fallen asleep through Jesus is who he is bringing with him. You can't connect "with him" to Jesus.

Think of this: "Bill brought the chocolates manufactured by Lindt with him." The nearest antecedent to "him" is Lindt, but Lindt is in a subclause and not at the same level as "him".
Ben C. Smith wrote:And in 1 Thessalonians 3.11-13 it is the Lord Jesus who is doing what Yahweh does in Zechariah 14.5;
You really have to spell out what you understand from 3:11-13. There are two entities: God and Jesus. There is a κυριος #2 reference. And there is a reference to Jesus coming with all the saints, which is clarified for you in 4:14: God will bring all those fallen asleep through Jesus, ie the "saints" (and obviously Jesus as well).
Ben C. Smith wrote:that it is Jesus' parousia informs what is in view in 1 Thessalonians 4.14-17. I have tried in the past to get "the Lord" in that passage to mean God the Father, and not Jesus, and along much the same line of argument you have used here, but I could not make myself happy with it, sorry. It is Jesus whom Paul views as visibly descending from heaven. God will be leading the dead along with him, but it is Jesus' parousia in Paul.
I can't see why not.
Ben C. Smith wrote:You ask, "Why then should Paul use the same nomenclature for the two?" But that is my question. In my estimation, Paul does not use the same nomenclature for the two: he uses Lord for Jesus and Father for the Most High God, if you will. In your estimation, Paul uses "Lord" both for the father and for the son, with only subjective considerations to keep them apart.
Why ignore Paul's HB references to the Lord, eg Rom 4:8 & 9:28? They are not coincidental, nor are they ambiguous. Paul definitely uses κυριος #2 for God.
Ben C. Smith wrote:And you did not really answer my question about why Paul never seems to equate the Father and Lord (and so consistently differentiates them) in undoubted Pauline texts. Your own argument depends upon "the Lord" by itself never referring to Jesus, and the two instances in which it unambiguously does you call interpolations (at least one of which I agree with). So this is the same kind of argument in reverse. Why does the Father not get called Lord at some point, or vice versa? It makes no difference that one is an epithet and the other a direct reference; the Hebrew scriptures make the equation often enough.
You are putting the cart before the horse. I have always argued the two interpolations on their merits. I have gone into great detail about the fact that the last supper material depends on Luke which depends on Mark. The use of κυριος #2 in the passage is linked to a post-Pauline trajectory. And I am not the first person to argue that 1 Cor 6:14 is an interpolation. I just note that κυριος #2 is used in that already argued interpolation. This is not coincidental.

You ask, "Why does the Father not get called Lord at some point, or vice versa?" Given the nature of κυριος #2, it is hard to qualify, given that its purpose seem to include that it needs no qualification. But Paul's literary context would include Deut 32:6.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Finally, your observation about 1 Corinthians 8.6 sabotages your entire point!
This verse spells out the distinction between God and Jesus, showing that Paul was not a binitarian: one god (the Father) and one lord #1 (Jesus).
You had to add the #1 there;
No, I didn't. The fact that κυριος is qualified by εις should make the point, but I added it because most readers will block out the reality of the text through later theology. It is clearly κυριος #1, isn't it?
Ben C. Smith wrote:Paul certainly did not:

1 Corinthians 8.6: 6 ...yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

Let us see if this terminology works across the genuine Pauline corpus. Is there a single verse in which "Lord" has to apply to the Father or in which "God" has to apply to Jesus, or in which these two separate terminologies have to cross? God = Father; Lord = Jesus. I suggest that taking these equations literally and exclusively makes more sense of Paul's texts than going through and having to find nitpicky reasons why "Lord" cannot mean Jesus in this or that case.
When Paul cites Ps 24:1 in 1 Cor 10:26, "the earth is the Lord's and all its fullness", do you think the subject is any different from 1 Cor 10:22 which talks of provoking the Lord to jealousy? The relation between the Lord and jealousy is very HB-ish. If both references are to God, then what about 10:22 "the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons"? Would you be helped by verse 20 which talks of "sacrifice to demons and not to God"? Paul uses κυριος #2 for God outside HB citations. I think chastening is a prerogative of God, so wouldn't you think that 1 Cor 11:32 refers to God? How about 1 Cor 14:21 which cites Isaiah 28:11-12, to which Paul appends "says the Lord": do you have any doubt that Paul intends κυριος #2 and refers to God?

You need to interact with the distinction I have made before ignoring it. God is referred to as the Lord in Paul's HB citations and elsewhere. Jesus is referred to as the Lord in two dubious passages. I start with the assured fact that Paul does use κυριος #2 for God. Show me one example of κυριος #2 used by Paul for Jesus that you feel sure is original and I'll probably show you that you are swayed by later theology. It is rather repressive in its reshaping of meanings.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Yahweh, El Elyon, Margaret Barker, & the epistles.

Post by spin »

Ben C. Smith wrote:Oh, and one more thing:
He's not bring all those who have fallen asleep, but specifically those who have fallen asleep through Jesus—however idiomatic δια is here.
This highlights yet another difficulty with your reading. "Idiomatic" indeed. The obvious difficulties with taking διὰ τοῦ Ἰησου with τοὺς κοιμηθέντας suggest the much easier alternative: take διὰ τοῦ Ἰησου with ἄξει (there is no issue with "overloading" the verb with adverbial phrases: Paul does this elsewhere, too). God is going to lead the dead through Jesus; that is, God is the actor, Jesus the mediator, just as so often elsewhere in Paul. And this keeps the parousia consistent throughout the corpus.
God is not bringing all those who have fallen asleep. δια του Ιησου is the limiting factor. Those who have fallen asleep through Jesus are the saints of 1 Thes 3:13. (There is nothing strange about idiomatic usage of prepositions. Each language that has them does it.) Nevertheless, δια του Ιησου cannot be attached to "with him": God is doing the bringing which has the "with him" attached and the only antecedent available here is the nominative of the bringing. Had δια του Ιησου preceded κοιμηθεντας it would no longer be a limiter of that verbal form, but closer to the nominative for your desired reading, but that would then seem to make the "with him" ambiguous. I just can't see access to "with him" for the Jesus phrase.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Post Reply