Fri Jun 14 12:01:44 1996

From owner-tc-list  Fri Jun 14 12:01:44 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id MAA15134; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 12:00:11 -0400
Message-ID: <31C18CAF.527E6358@repurk.mw.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 09:00:47 -0700
From: Alan Repurk 
Organization: I do not speak for my organization
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b3 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
CC: lars@repurk.mw.com
Subject: Re: Theories of trans. (#2)
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3254

Larry W. Hurtado wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, Alan Repurk wrote:
> >
> > Also, in answer to your statement, Larry, that you don't see much
> > theological significance between the two renderings I would like to
> > relate that on more than one occasion I have used these passages
> > to attempt to show that Jesus was correcting the person that called
> > Him good to show that the title of 'good' was not to be applied to
> > himself, but only to His Father. In spite of what I think is very
> > clear language I could not get the other individual to agree to this
> > meaning.  Part of the reason is that the language as we have received
> > it is just ambiguous enough to allow for more than one interpretation.
> >
> > I do not think this would be the case with the quotes that William
> > supplied.
> 
> Well, I really can't say what your chances of apologetic/evangelistic
> success would be with this or that contemporary and this or that textual
> variant.  I don't really think that's relevant.  The issue I was speaking
> to was Wm. Petersen's suggestion that the "my father in heaven" variant
> was suppressed/replaced with "God" in the interests of high christology.
> My reasons for demurring are (1) with either variant one easily gets the
> impression of Jesus expressing some distinction between him being called
> "good" and calling "God/the Father" good.  That is, either way some level
> of distinction is there twixt Jesus &  . . . the Father/God, whatever.
> (2) Second, and a bit more telling for me, the variant which Bill
> suggests might have been seen as problemmatic christologically is freely
> used by Fathers (e.g., Justin, Irenaeus, etc.) whose christological views
> are commonly (and, I think, correctly) seen as "high" christology,
> involving some kind of real divinity of Christ (with the corollary of
> worship of Christ).  So, if the variant would have been seen as
> problematic for high christology, why would it have been used/favored in
> these passages by these fathers?
> 
> Larry Hurtado


  It is true that I see plenty of ambiguity in quotes from the Church Fathers.
I have not had the oportunity to study them in depth, but I do plan to spend
some time doing so.  I do get the feeling that their writings have been
compromised by centuries of Christological battles, yet there are quotes by some
Fathers which remain from the time period which William refered which lead me to
believe that some understood the nature of Christ to be a created being,
not equal to His Father.  Of course by the fourth century those with
that viewpoint were not popular, likely to be persecuted, and certainly their
writings have been largely destroyed.  So what we have to remember them by are
comments from their critics which certainly can not be taken as unbiased.

  Therefore, because of the evolution of thought from the time that the apostles
were alive up to the time of the fourth century when the Trinitarian Creeds were
fully developed I think that statements like 'only the Father in Heaven is good.'
may have been completely acceptable in say the second century and somewhat
embarrassing in the third century and completely unaceptable in the fourth century.

Just a lay person's, uneducated opinion,
-lars

Back