For me, the earliest layer of texts -- gMark and Paul's letters -- suggest that earliest Christians thought that Jesus was just a man, not pre-existent. I don't think there is anything in gMark that shows otherwise (though I may have missed something)
What about Paul? Paul calls Jesus "anthropos" (man) a couple of times. Are there passages that suggest Paul thought Jesus was pre-existent?
There is Phil 2, which I believe is an expression of Adam Christology and so treats Jesus as a man and not pre-existent. Others may disagree, and fair enough too!
One example is:
1 Cor.10: 1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Are there any other passages?
Note: I'm only looking at those letters generally regarded as written by Paul:
Romans 16
25 Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,
26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God
1 Corinthians 10
1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.
2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
3 They all ate the same spiritual food
4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
1 Corinthians 8
4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.”
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”),
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Philippians 2
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, p576
« However, in Justin (and the Christian tradition he rejects) it is not simply or primarily an academic debate over what one might make of biblical texts. Instead they explore certain theophanic accounts to confirm and celebrate Jesus’ divine status for themselves, and to persuade others to embrace him as divine. For the early Christian handling of these Old Testament texts that Justin exemplifies, the prior and essential basis is the belief that the historic Jesus was the incarnate form of the preexistent and divine Son/Word, through and with whom God created all things. This belief certainly goes back early into first-century Christianity, as attested by such passages as 1 Corinthians 8:4–6, Philippians 2:6–8, Colossians 1:15–17, Hebrews 1:1–3, and John 1:1–2. Given this belief, it was not so strange for early Christians such as Justin to look for references to the preincarnate Jesus/Son/Word in their Scriptures ».
Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, p121 « In particular, how are we to understand verses Phillipians 2:6–8, which refer to Christ being “in the form of God” and having been able to demur from exploiting for his own advantage “being equal with God”? Most scholars take these verses to reflect a belief in the personal preexistence and incarnation of Christ ».
James Waddell - A Comparative Study of the Enochic Son of Man and the Pauline Kyrios « The evidence in the Letters of Paul (LP) indicates that Paul did not just think of the messiah figure as a human being. Paul considered the messiah figure to be both human and a more-than-human preexistent heavenly messiah. The preexistence of the messiah figure in LP is an issue that has been much debated. It should not be a surprise that we find it in LP, however, since the concept did not originate with Paul. As we have already seen, preexistence is also found with reference to the human Enoch and the messiah figure in the Enochic Book of Parables ».
Bart Ehrman - How Jesus Became God ? p317
« As the Angel of the Lord, Christ is a preexistent being who is divine; he can be called God; and he is God’s manifestation on earth in human flesh. Paul says all these things about Christ, and in no passage more strikingly than in Philippians 2:6–11, a passage that scholars often call the “Philippians Hymn” or the “Christ Hymn of Philippians,” since it is widely thought to embody an early hymn or poem devoted to celebrating Christ and his incarnation (…)
But what is clear is that it is an elevated reflection on Christ coming into the world (from heaven) for the sake of others and being glorified by God as a result. And it appears to be a passage Paul is quoting, one with which the Philippians may well have already been familiar. In other words, it is another pre-Pauline tradition.
As I have said, scholars have long considered the passage to be a pre-Pauline tradition that Paul includes here in his letter to the Philippians. It is not simply something Paul composed on the spot, while writing his letter. There are several reasons for thinking this. For one thing, the passage does appear to be a self-contained unit that is poetic rather than proselike in its composition. Moreover, a number of words—including some of the key words—occur in this passage but nowhere else in Paul’s letters. This includes the word form (used twice: form of God and form of a slave) and the phrase grasped after. The absence of such important words in Paul’s writings suggests that he is quoting a passage that someone else wrote, earlier. Since the second half of the poem does not “work” very well in the context, it is almost certainly the case that this was indeed a preexistent poem that was familiar to Paul and, probably, to the Philippians as well. Paul quotes the entire poem because it is familiar to his readers and conveys the point that he wants to convey—that they should imitate Christ’s example in giving themselves up for others—even though the second half could be interpreted to undercut this point.
These, then, are some of the reasons that scholars have thought that Paul probably did not compose this poem himself while writing to the Philippians. It is a pre-Pauline tradition.
By quoting the poem Paul obviously is indicating that he agrees with its teaching about Christ. But what is that teaching exactly? I argue below that this poem presents an incarnational understanding of Christ—that he was a preexistent divine being, an angel of God, who came to earth out of humble obedience and whom God rewarded by exalting him to an even higher level of divinity as a result— »
The important passages from Paul's authentic epistles that assume a pre-existence, a divinity and a role in the creation of the world (with YHWH), are confirmed by the Deutero-Pauline letters that are certainly written not so long after Paul's authentic ones.
The Deutero-pauline letters are viewed by most critical scholars as products, not of the apostle Paul, but of Paul's followers or perhaps of a Pauline school.
You're welcome.
I studied this topic a few months ago (in correlation with the parables of Enoch) and so I just copy and paste what I put down at the time. I have other quotes from the Deutero-Pauline epistles as well.
And I can put a short study from James Waddell on the pre-existence of Jesus in the authentic letters of Paul if you need.
Sinouhe wrote: ↑Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:52 amAnd I can put a short study from James Waddell on the pre-existence of Jesus in the authentic letters of Paul if you need.
If it's simple for you to do, I'd appreciate that. Thanks!
That's great, thanks again Sinouhe! Personally I don't see any of the discussion in Waddell as showing necessarily pre-existence, which is the advantage of my total ignorance of ancient languages and scholarship (except the ones that agree with me like Dunn!) But it's useful to see others' views.
