Mon Jun 17 10:56:34 1996

From owner-tc-list  Mon Jun 17 10:56:34 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA24081; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 10:55:38 -0400
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 09:52:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Theories of trans.--continued
In-Reply-To: <199606142206.WAA96492@r02n06.cac.psu.edu>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2150

Once again, we can thank Wm. Petersen for his lengthy posting about the 
textual variants at Mt. 19:16-17 and the christological issues he raised in 
his first long post.  But once again I must express a couple of small 
reservations.
1) As to the variants to be considered, in fact "theos" *is* one, in some 
witnesses at Mt. 19:17, as a consultation of NA will show.  So, I don't 
see how mentioning this is a "non liquet".
2) More seriously, as to Justin's christology, it is of course complex, 
as is the whole line of christological discussion that goes from the NT 
through the first 5 centuries, including the famous classical creeds.  
Why, otherwise, Bill, do you think it took so long??  For Justin, Jesus 
is genuinely a man, and the "Son/Logos" is (to use Justin's phrase) 
"numerically distinct" from the Father--no question.  But, Bill, the 
lengthy quote where Justin finds Christ in many OT categories/titles is 
quite beside the point of whether Justin's christology is "high" or not. 
Justin's christology has been frequently studied, of course, and it's not 
Chalcedon, because it's still 2nd cent.  But Justin clearly holds among 
his views of Christ/the Logos/Son the view that the the Son/Logos is the 
direct expression of God, worthy of worship, etc.  Justin is not an 
adoptionist, so the complexity does not hide the fact of Justin's high 
christology.
3) The same "high" tradition is reflected also in Irenaeus, and the other 
early Fathers.  So, Bill, (key point here):  If the variant "My Father in 
Heaven" = something like adoptionism, etc., why would these Fathers have 
preferred it at these points?  
4) If you look at Justin's passage in context, as I requested, you will 
see that J. is making the point of Christ's model humility/modesty, which 
shows that he is the fulfilment of OT passages (e.g., Ps 22).  In this 
context, he uses the "my Father in Heaven" variant, which helps 
illustrate Christ's exemplary humility/modesty.  Moreover, it *is* a fact 
that the variant is nearly a dead-ringer for the familiar opening of the 
Matt. version of the Lord's Prayer.

Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba 

Back