4.See the preceding note.
5.Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, and Garrett, No Ordinary Angel.
6.Garrett, No Ordinary Angel, 11.
7.See the discussion of Romans 1:3–4 on pp. 218–25.
8.I should stress that even though I am calling this a “poem,” literary scholars in ancient Greece would not have done the same because it does not scan. We do not know what the nonliterary elite (that is, the common people) would have accepted or understood to be poetry—or hymns—simply because we have no record of their views. But whatever we call this unit, it clearly is written in more exalted language than the surrounding parts of the letter, and in English usage we typically consider these kinds of exalted compositions to be poems, whether they scan or not.
9.The fullest and best known is Ralph P. Martin, A Hymn of Christ: Philippians 2:5–11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1997).
10.See the discussion of James D. G. Dunn, “Christ, Adam, and Preexistence,” in Ralph P. Martin and Brian J. Dodd, eds., Where Christology Began: Essays on Philippians 2 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 74–83.
11.For a discussion of Vollenweider’s views, see the helpful article by Adela Yarbro Collins, “Psalms, Philippians 2:6–11, and the Origins of Christology,” Biblical Interpretation 11 (2002): 361–72.
12.The Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Bible, YHWH (= Yahweh), which serves as the personal name of God, was translated in the Greek version by the term Kurios, which comes into English as “Lord.” And so, when the text indicates that every tongue will confess that “Jesus is Lord,” it appears to mean that everyone will acknowledge that Jesus has the very name of Yahweh himself. It is important to note, however, that Jesus is still differentiated from God the Father, since all this is to happen to the Father’s “glory.”
13.See the fuller discussions in Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), and Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New Haven, CT: Anchor Bible, 1997).
14.A famous instance occurs in John 3, in which different translators think Jesus’s words end at 3:15 (before the famous line “For God so loved the world. . . .”), and others think they continue until 3:21. Jesus and the narrator sound so much alike that it is impossible to know for certain where one stops speaking and the other begins.
15.On the problems of using the term poem, see note 8 on p. 381. The same issues apply here as in the case of Phil. 2:6–11.
16.Among the many fine critical commentaries on the Gospel of John that deal with these issues, see especially the classic by Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, vol.1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1996).
17.See note 15 on p. 375.
18.See my discussion in Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (San Francisco: Harper-One, 2011), 112–14; for an extensive scholarly treatment, see my book Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2013), 171–82.
Chapter 8: After the New Testament: Christological Dead Ends of the Second and Third Centuries
1.See my discussion in Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2003).
2.A number of these heresies persisted in marginal groups within Christianity, and some of them reemerged at different times and places over history; but the orthodox church deemed them false paths.
3.Translation of J. H. Macmahon in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., Ante Nicene Fathers, vol.5 (reprint ed.: Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).
4.Translation of G. A. Williamson, Eusebius: The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine (London: Penguin, 1965).
5.This is the thesis of my book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).
6.All translations of Ignatius are from my edition in the Loeb Classical Library, The Apostolic Fathers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2003), vol.1.
7.The classic study of Marcion is Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God, trans. John E. Steely and Lyle D. Bierma (Durham, NC: Labyrinth, 1990; German original of the 2nd ed., 1924). For a modern overview, see my Lost Christianities, 103–9.
8.See Karen King, What Is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2003); Michael A. Williams, Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1996); and David Brakke, The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2010).
9.The traditional story of the discovery can be found in the Introduction by James M. Robinson, in James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 4th ed. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996).
10.Translation of Birger Pearson, Nag Hammadi Codex VII (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996).
11.I do not mean to say that the books that later became the New Testament which embraced such views—for example, Matthew and Mark—were considered heretical. But when exaltation Christologies were no longer acceptable, these sacred books were interpreted in such a way that they were no longer thought to contain exaltation Christologies.
12.Translation of Peter Holmes in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., Ante Nicene Fathers, vol.3 (reprint ed.: Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).
13.A view that the Father suffered was not only repugnant because it seemed illogical that the Creator of all would experience pain, but also because in ancient ways of thinking, suffering necessarily involves a personal change (one was not suffering; now one is). But God is unchangeable. And so it was unthinkable that God could suffer. My thanks to Maria Doerfler for this insight.
14.For an account of Origen’s life and teachings, see Joseph W. Trigg, Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third-Century Church (Atlanta: John Knox, 1983).
15.Translation of G. W. Butterworth, Origen: On First Principles (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1973).
16.If this notion of the preexistence of souls seems bizarre to some people today, it did not seem altogether odd for ancient thinkers, as it could be found in Greek philosophers such as Plato.
17.One of the reasons Origen’s views came to be so heartily rejected by later orthodox theologians was that his view of the preexistence and “fall” of the souls was considered highly troubling. If these souls fell and were given the chance once again to be saved through the work of Christ, what guarantee could there be that once they were saved and returned to a place in which they contemplate the glories of God forever they would not fall yet again, starting the process over? For some Christian theologians, this view created enormous uncertainties concerning the finality of salvation and the assurance that a blessed eternal life waited for those who believed in Christ.