Philippians 2.5-11, Romans 13.1-7, and 1 Peter 2.13-24 revisited.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Philippians 2.5-11, Romans 13.1-7, and 1 Peter 2.13-24 revisited.

Post by Giuseppe »

Irish1975 wrote: Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:11 pm
2) The docetism of Ph 2:7 at least suggests a connection to the theology of texts such as the gospels of Peter, Philip, Judas, and Basilides, and other (sorry) "gnostic" texts, which contain docetic elements.
Jean Magne, even before Detering, argued that the Hymn is a variant of the myth of the kenosis/conversion of Sabaoth, as described in Hypostasis of Archons.


But why imagine that Jesus might have wished to usurp this equality with God?
The only reason I can see is that in the author's mind, he is identified with the gnostic Sabaoth, first in his metanoia, then in his exaltation. As Sabaoth, unlike his father Yaldabaoth, did not seek to pass himself off as God by saying ''I am God and there is no other'', but was humble enough to convert, in reward for which he was exalted, so Jesus far from seeking to usurp equality with God, demeaned and humbled himself, in reward for which he was superexalted.

(From Gnosis to Christianity, p. 177, my bold)


So Klaus Schilling:

The situation is similar in various places of Paul, such as Philippans 2:9-11. Sabaoth, while son of Sammael, can also be seen as an adopted son of the Father, the adoption occurring upon the martyrdom/resurrection or the baptise (metanoia). The NH text Hypostasis of the Archons includes the best representation of the myth of the metanoia of Sabaoth.
The judaizer should be seen in circles who deemed intertestamental texts like First Henoch (without parables) or the Testament of Levi important, if not authorative, as they use the circumscription “Great Glory” for the Tetragrammaton.
Apelles, the pet heretic of resident Roger Parvus (not to be confused with Roger Pearse or Richard Pervo), went one step farther and justified also Ialdabaoth (the creator). Two aspects of the OT god , yet both of them commissioned by The Father, would sound like an overkill, yet the development sketched by Magne provides an explanation for this: First one of them was rehabilitated, then the other.
The Catholic Church, of course, identifies The Father with the god of the OT, and the now free role of Sabaoth was transferred to an agent of this OT/NT god; and this agent was constructed to fulfil Scripture, as the new prophet like Moses, the returning Eliyah, and ultimately as the messiah. In doing so, many texts got reworked in the Judaizing sense.

(my bold)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply