Incarnation (or the lack thereof) in the Philippian hymn (revisited).

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
FransJVermeiren
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2016 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Incarnation (or the lack thereof) in the Philippian hymn (revisited).

Post by FransJVermeiren » Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:57 am

At one specific moment in the history of 1st century CE Palestine there was a visible bidirectional staircase to/from heaven. When the Romans destroyed Jerusalem by fire, a huge column of smoke rose high into the sky above Jerusalem, topped by an also enormous smoke cloud. This staircase could be used by an ascending as well as by a descending messiah.

At least in the Synoptic Apocalypse the messiah is going down this smoke staircase (Mk 13:26): And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.

The effects of the burning of Jerusalem are described in the two previous verses (24 and 25): But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
www.waroriginsofchristianity.com

The practical modes of concealment are limited only by the imaginative capacity of subordinates. James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance.

Steven Avery
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

hymn theory

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:15 am

My concern in this brief paper is a modest one: primarily I want to call into question the whole matter of the passage as a hymn, which, despite most scholarship to the contrary, it almost certainly is not ...

Philippians 2:5-11: Hymn or Exalted Pauline Prose? (1992)
Gordon D. Fee
https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ ... ns_fee.pdf

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8079
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: hymn theory

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Dec 24, 2018 7:38 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:15 am
My concern in this brief paper is a modest one: primarily I want to call into question the whole matter of the passage as a hymn, which, despite most scholarship to the contrary, it almost certainly is not ...

Philippians 2:5-11: Hymn or Exalted Pauline Prose? (1992)
Gordon D. Fee
https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ ... ns_fee.pdf
I wrote a while back:
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:08 am
Paul has little pockets like that elsewhere, as well. Sometimes these little pockets are suggested as hymns (as is Philippians 2.6-11), but I am not sure I would press the case that far (though it is certainly possible, and I use the term "hymn" because the passage has been called that so often). The main point for me is that such passages show a deliberate spacing and rhythm, lofty and proud in their own way.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12539
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Incarnation (or the lack thereof) in the Philippian hymn (revisited).

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Dec 24, 2018 9:19 am

I just want to say - as a hobby horse enthusiast - that the parallels with Philo in this section (how is "Jesus" properly understood to be a "slave" from the gospel narrative?) are perhaps the strongest suggestions that (a) the nomen sacrum (referenced in the "hymn") goes back to and read as the Hebrew ish and (b) the notion of IS being a "slave" points back to examples (= Eliezar) of the ish being a slave OUTSIDE the gospel. In other words Paul isn't only thinking of "Jesus" in the gospel or alleged CONTEMPORARY sightings of the IS but older references too (= and the Rock was Christ).
“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

Stuart
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Incarnation (or the lack thereof) in the Philippian hymn (revisited).

Post by Stuart » Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:25 pm

late night post withdrawn
Last edited by Stuart on Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

Maestroh
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: hymn theory

Post by Maestroh » Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:16 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:15 am
My concern in this brief paper is a modest one: primarily I want to call into question the whole matter of the passage as a hymn, which, despite most scholarship to the contrary, it almost certainly is not ...

Philippians 2:5-11: Hymn or Exalted Pauline Prose? (1992)
Gordon D. Fee
https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ ... ns_fee.pdf
Your concern - as always - is apologetics that sees an inerrant KJV.

(Note to reader: despite the arrogant and snide proclamation contrary to "most scholarship," the individual in question has never studied Greek (does not even know the alphabet, cannot parse a verb) and yet wishes to be taken seriously by quoting what OTHERS say about the Greek in this passage).

Steven Avery
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

the Philippian hymn ??

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:36 pm

And I wonder if Bill Brown wants to offer anything of substance to the hymn discussion.

What Gordon Fee wrote was quite sensible, and worth quoting.
And Ben noted his previous comment along t he same line.

The fact that a Pauline text has a section with "deliberate spacing and rhythm" by no means indicates that Paul was quoting some earlier hymn. The whole idea is quite unlikely. And if Paul did quote a hymn, the expectations is that he would indicate that source.

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5415
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Incarnation (or the lack thereof) in the Philippian hymn (revisited).

Post by Peter Kirby » Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:46 pm

Talbert wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:01 pm
The first line of the second strophe reads: ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος. How should this language be understood? It has been noted that wherever Christ is designated ἄνθρωπος in Paul’s letters (Rom 5:12ff; 1 Cor 15:20–40; Phil 2:7b–8), a contrast with Adam is intended.23 It is certainly the case in Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15. Philippians 2:6–11, however, is a non-Pauline hymn. Should it be interpreted in the same way as Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15. Two observations about Rom 5:12–14 incline us to view ἄνθρωπος used of Jesus in Phil 2 as another indication of the Adam/Christ typology. First, in Romans Paul is writing to a church which is independent of his influence. Throughout Romans the apostle takes pains to speak in terms of tradition which they have in common (1:3–4; 4:25; 6:3–5; 8:28–30, for example). In 5:12–14 there is no indication that the Adam/Christ parallel was new to the Romans. .... Indeed, in Hellenistic churches which used the LXX, such a reference to Jesus as second Adam would naturally have been made with the term ἄνθρωπος. Second, Rom 5:19 may possibly contain an echo of Isa 53:11 from the Hebrew text. This would point to the traditional character of the reference since Paul used the LXX. Since 5:19 is a unit, the reference to Isaiah which is tradition would have been made in the context of a contrast between the one man Adam and the one man Christ. In this case, the use of ἄνθρωπος in an Adam/Christ typology is clearly pre-Pauline. In the light of these two considerations, it seems entirely legitimate to see here in Phil 2:7b–8 the contrast between Adam and Christ indicated by the use of ἄνθρωπος for Christ.

Note, however, that the phrase does not say that Christ, like Adam, was in God’s image. Rather it says that Christ was ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων. This can be understood in terms of the Adam/Christ parallel, however, if we reflect upon Gen 5:1–3. In v. 1b the passage speaks of God’s creation of Adam in his own image. In the Hebrew Bible the context makes it clear that Adam (man) is plural (men or mankind). In the LXX the Hebrew is understood in this sense, as v. 2 shows: ἄρσεν καὶ πῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς, καὶ εὐλόγησεν αὐτούς. καὶ ἐπωνόμασεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῶν Ἀδάμ, ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς. Then the passage says that Adam had a son, Seth, who was “in his own likeness” (בדמותו), “after his image” (כצלמו). Thus, the passage tells of one who is a son of Adam (plural) and is in his likeness. Though the LXX of Gen 5:1b translates בדמות by κατ’ εἰκόνα and 5:3 translates בדמותו by κατὰ τὴν εἰδέαν αὐτοῦ, that ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων is a perfectly legitimate translation of בדמותו in Gen 5:3 may be seen from passages like 2 Kgs 16:10 where the LXX renders את־דמות by τὸ ὁμοίωμα and 2 Chr 4:3 where ודמות is rendered by καὶ ὁμοίωμα. It seems probably, therefore, that the phrase ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος is a part of the Adam/Christ typology and is intended to speak of Christ as son of Adam.
Talbert seems to have interpreted himself into saying that either Paul or his source viewed Christ as the "son of Adam" i.e. "son of Man." While it is possible that there is a source that Paul is quoting and that it viewed this figure as a "son of Adam," it seems strange to think that Paul would view Christ as a "son of Adam" or "son of Man," given the frequent observation that Paul lacks the language about Jesus as "son of Man." Accordingly, if Paul at least agreed with his source and if Paul didn't view Christ as "son of Adam" or "son of Man," then something is a little off with Talbert's interpretation.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5415
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Incarnation (or the lack thereof) in the Philippian hymn (revisited).

Post by Peter Kirby » Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:11 pm

Philippians wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:01 pm
in the likeness of humans having become,
and, having been found in shape as a human
The quote explains the first part above as describing Christ as the son of Adam/Man, which I found doubtful, as I said. I didn't see where the quote discussed the second part above.

The phrase "having been found in shape as a human" implies that there were other possibilities -- we would never say this of someone that was necessarily and alway a human -- and that having been "found" this way is related to the choice(s) that Christ has made in this passage. Which would imply that one of those choices was whether he could be found in shape as a human. Which implies that, even as one of those choices was to be obedient unto death, another one of those choices was to be found in shape as a human.

From there you can deduce that either the "shape" changed or that the conditions for "finding" changed. Which is to say, that this is not a person who came into existence by being born on earth as a man. If he were always (in the likeness of) a man, he was not always on earth (where he could easily be found). For example, he was in the heavenly spheres and moved.

I agree that it doesn't necessarily claim that Christ changed form/likeness into a man. The passage may be claiming that Christ accepted the arduous plan for his death, instead of trying to usurp equality or take it by force/stealthily. Of course it could also be saying that the likeness changed, as it's a natural reading. But what definitely changed was how he could be "found" in the likeness of man and, then, be put to death. He had a way of preventing his death, which he didn't use, which is related to not being found in the likeness of man, as the sequence is described in the passage.

But all men born on earth and all sons of Adam are cursed to die, without God's intervention, so this Christ (who obediently accepted death by choice) wasn't born on earth and isn't a son of Adam.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8079
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Incarnation (or the lack thereof) in the Philippian hymn (revisited).

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:31 pm

Peter Kirby wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:11 pm
Philippians wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:01 pm
in the likeness of humans having become,
and, having been found in shape as a human
The quote explains the first part above as describing Christ as the son of Adam/Man, which I found doubtful, as I said. I didn't see where the quote discussed the second part above.
Given Talbert's overall argument in the chapter, I am not sure I follow your "son of man" argument, but I agree it is a weakness of his case that Talbert does not more fully discuss the phrase καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος. His only comment there seems to be that this phrase is parallel to ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply