—————————————————————————————————————————————- 

Exam Paper                    [The Idea Of Divine Hypostasis In First Century Judaism.pdf]

THE IDEA OF DIVINE HYPOSTASIS IN FIRST CENTURY JUDAISM

Philosophy and wisdom traditions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Religious Roots of Europe, University of Bergen: Fall 2012.

– written by Ole Mads Sirks Vevle –

—————————————————————————————————————————————-

–
Assignment Text:
1.  Very likely, influence from Graeco-Roman culture alone, does not explain the various expressions that the idea of divine hypostases took in first-century Judaism. For instance, already in Gen 16:7–11 the “angel of the Lord” seems not to be an angel in the common sense of the word but God himself in his earthly manifestation. Read also Gen 18–19:1 and Dillon, “Plutarch and God,” and discuss how the biblical notion of the “angel of the Lord” on the one hand and ideas from Graeco-Roman philosophy on the other, may have contributed to the development of the idea of divine hypostases. The article by C. Hezser, “Interfaces Between Rabbinic Literature and Graeco-Roman Philosophy” (available on AULA) may help you discuss the issues of “origins” and “influence.”

2. Compare the role of Christ in Christianity, Torah in Judaism and the Quran in Islam based on three primary sources: Origen, De Principiis 1–9, Pesikta de-Rav Kahana (redacted in the 5th century) and al-Bukhari, The Book of Revelation and on the secondary literature listed below, and trace the development of these ideas back to the various forms that the idea of divine hypostases take in biblical literature (Proverbs 8), first-century Judaism (Philo, Gospel of John), early Christianity (Justin Martyr) and rabbinic Judaism (Genesis Rabbah 1:1, Targum Neofiti on Exod 12:42).

–

//p.2//

Content

1. Title Page and Assignment Text

2. Content

3. Part 1. Discussion of how the biblical notion of the «angel of the Lord» on the one hand and ideas from Graeco-Roman philosophy on the other, may have contributed to the development of the idea of divine hypostases.

4. Genesis 18-19.1

5. Attribute and/or Substance? Messenger and/or Sender?

6. The influence from Graeco-Roman philosophy

7. Part 2. a) Comparing of the role of Christ in Christianity, Torah in Judaism and the Quran in Islam based on three primary sources: Origen, De Principiis 1-9, Pesikta de-Rav Kahana and al-Bukhari, The Book of Revelation and on the secondary literature.

7. The role of Christ in Christianity based on Origen, De Prinicipiis 1-9

8. The role of Torah in Judaism based on Pesikta de-Rav Kahana

9. The role of the Quran in Islam based on al-Bukhari, the Book of Revelation

10. b) Tracing the development of these ideas back to the various forms that the idea of divine hypostases take in biblical literature (Proverbs 8), first-century Judaism (Philo, Gospel of John), early Christianity (Justin Martyr) and rabbinic Judaism (Genesis Rabbah 1:1, Targum Neofiti)

12. Summary

13. Sources

14. Footnotes

//p.3//

Part 1.

Discussion of how the biblical notion of the «angel of the Lord» on the one hand and ideas from Graeco-Roman philosophy on the other, may have contributed to the development of the idea of divine hypostases.

The idea of divine hypostases is related to the later Christian doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine is based on the preceding hypostasing (or reification) of biblical notions, such as the notion «angel of the Lord». An important early Church Father in this respect was Justin Martyr (see below), he laid much of the groundwork concerning divine hypostases, which later led to the full fledged Christian doctrine of the Trinity as formulated in the Fourth Council of the Lateran, [1] but which at an earlier stage after a series of controversies was generally agreed upon by the end of the 4th century.

Before beginning my discussion I will first present a definition of «hypostasis» (sing.):

1. the underlying or essential part of anything, as distinguished from attributes; substance, essence, or essential principle. 2. the one personality of Christ in which his two natures, human and divine are united. [2]

Important for my discussion will thus be to juggle the difference between attributes (as something intimately associated with its object, but still being subordinate to it) and substances (something separate from its object, having its own nature, but still being equal with it). Connected with this is the challenge to distinguish between how certain biblical notions, such as «angel of the Lord», have been variantly treated as attributes belonging to God (as expressed through conventional Jewish tradition), and how the same notion have been hypostazied into a substance being equal with God (as expressed through the conventional Christian tradition).

//p.4//

                                                Genesis 18-19.1

Genesis 18-19:1 is perhaps the primary biblical passage that the Christian tradition uses to back up their claim concerning the divine hypostases.

The reason Christianity have been able to make this reading is because throughout this passage their is several verses where «God» and «men» and «angels» seem to be interchangeable notions.

Genesis 18:1, «The LORD appeared to him [Abraham] in the plains of Mamre». [3] And then in the next verse,  Genesis 18:2, «Looking up, he saw three men were standing near him». Genesis 19:1, which closes the passage reads, «The two angels arrived in Sodom…»

Thus, a straight forward reading seems to be equating «the Lord», with «three men», i.e. the One Lord = 3 persons, or as Justin argues, God together with two angels (see below). The shift between «men» in several passages, and the identification of these men as «two angels», lends itself to the equating of men = angels. Following this logic you could argue that God = angel = man. That is, One God = 3 Persons. This giving way to a Christian reading where the biblical notion «angel» is being hypostazied into becoming a substance, or essence, of God.

Justin Martyr´s Dialogue with Trypho has been instrumental for this purpose. This text describes a dialogue between a Christian (Justin) and a Jew (Trypho). [4] Here Justin makes the argument that God together with two angels appeared to Abraham. [5] Justin also argues that «there exist and is mentioned in Scripture another God and Lord under the Creator of all things, who is also called an Angel.»

Thus, he differentiates between a ´Higher´ God and a ´lower´ God.

Trypho responds that the passages are to be read separately, first The Lord appears, then three men are seen in a vision and furthermore that these three men are angels. Trypho is thus arguing, that The Lord and the men are distinct from each other. [7] This argument is also in line with traditional Judaism which are based on the Oral Tradition. The Midrash identify the men respectively as the angels Gabriel, Michael and Raphael. [8]

//p.5//

Attribute and/or Substance? Messenger and/or Sender?

Trying to differentiate between an attribute and a substance we encounter philosophical and theological problems. The difference is obscure. As such they have been the source for many controversies within the early Christian Church and they opened the door to a flood of questions: are the «angel of the Lord» as a messenger a distinct entity separate from God, or is «the angel of the Lord» to be understood synonymous with «God»? Are the messenger/angel (heb. מלך meaning «messenger») separate from the one who sends the message? [9]

In Genesis 16:7-11 «the angel of the LORD» who speaks to Hagar can seem to be the same as «the LORD».  Genesis 16:11, «The angel of the LORD said to her … for the LORD has paid heed to your suffering.»

If they are separate, how are they separate? If not separate, how are they not separate? How to distinguish between them?

The many questions, and the blurring bondaries between what is an attribute and what is a substance, gives way to different answers. The orthodox Christian answer is thus distinct from the classical Jewish understanding. The difference being that in the Jewish tradition, the angel of the Lord, is exactly that, an angel (i.e. messenger) of the Lord. While the Christian solution has been to hypostase the «angel of the Lord», in a sense making the messenger equal with the one who sends the message.  As a hypostasis the claim is being made that what is two distinct notions «the angel of the Lord» and «the Lord» is one and the same. Two contradictory statements are made simultaneously. Statement 1. Yes, the «angel of the Lord» is an angel of the Lord.  Statement 2. Yes, the «angel of the Lord» is God.

//p.6//

So far, it has been established that the biblical notion of «angel of the Lord» as it is juxtaposed with «God», in both Genesis 16:7-11 and Genesis 18-19:1, lends itself to an interpretation where they are regarded as interchangeable terms referring to the same notion.

The influence from Graeco-Roman philosophy

The influence from Graeco-Roman philosophy may also have contributed to the development of the idea of divine hypostases.

Justin Martyr himself had philosophical training from several philosophical disciplines, such as Stoicism, Peripatetic, Pythagorean and especially Platonism. [10] This background seems to be evident in the way he argues in his discussion with Trypho.

In Dialogue with Trypho 56:4 (see above), where he is differentiating between a ´higher´ God («Creator of all things») and a ´lower´ God («who is also called an Angel.») is the same type of differentiation applied by Plutarch (ca. 46 -120 CE). Both Plutarch and Justin Martyr had a background in platonism and they were contemporaries.

John Dillon writes in his article «Plutarch and God»:

Plutarch´s God, after all, is a totally transcendent, immaterial, immutable entity, who cannot be directly involved in the transformations of the elements, so that the Dionysiac force at work in the world must be other than the supreme deity. [11]

It can thus seem that Justin is coping with this same philosophical problem, and that he finds a solution, his bridge so to speak, in the way he reads Genesis 18-19:1. By hypostasing «the angel of the Lord» into being equal with the Lord.

//p.7//

Part 2.

a) Comparing of the role of Christ in Christianity, Torah in Judaism and the Quran in Islam based on three primary sources: Origen, De Principiis 1-9, Pesikta de-Rav Kahana and al-Bukhari, The Book of Revelation and on the secondary literature.

The role of Christ in Christianity based on Origen, De Prinicipiis 1-9 

Origen (184/185 – 253/254 CE) is struggling with the same philosophical and theological problem as Justin Martyr and Plutarch. How can something which is Abolutely One interact with our tangible world in a manner that makes it possible for humans to relate and thus connect to the Ineffable and Utterly Transcendent Reality?

It is thus in the role as mediator between what is transcendant and what is immanent that Christ becomes of central importance in Christianity. As will be pointed out, in likewise manner the Torah and Quran also serves this function as mediators in Judaism and Islam.

Origen starts De Principiis be stressing that «in Christ there is one nature, his deity, because he is the only-begotten Son of the Father, and another human nature.» [12] Like Plutarch and Justin Martyr he is differentiating between a ´Higher´ God and a´Lower´ God. Origen then unites these in «Christ», making the Christ a carrier of himself as Christ, a ´Higher´ God and a ´Lower´ God.

For this purpose Origen uses Proverbs 8 as a proof-text,

The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works. Before he made anything, before the ages he established me. In the beginning before he made the earth, before the springs of waters came forth, before the mountains were settled, before all the hills he begets me.[13]

//p.8//

Further he quotes Paul who says about Christ that he is «the firstborn of all creation». [14] Origen specifies, «The Firstborn is not, however, by nature a different being from Wisdom, but is one and the same.» [15] Thus, Origen is equating «Christ» with «Wisdom» and «Firstborn». He continues with logically arguing in favor of the eternity of Christ, that he was never created, and as such is not subordinate to God, but that «God was always the Father of his only-begotten Son». [16] Origen´s next step is to equate «Wisdom» with «the Word». Thus he quotes John 1:1, «And the Word was God, and he was in the beginning with God». [17]

A simple reading of Proverbs 8 in its biblical context, it seems like King Salomon (who is traditionally credited as the author of Proverbs) is primarily using a literary device when he is personifying Wisdom. And that it is this personification of Wisdom that Origen is making into a divine hypostasis, together with the Word and the Christ, uniting them all together in the Godhead.

An important idea in Origen´s De Principiis 1-9 is thus the idea that Christ is the Word and the Firstborn Son and that they are equal with God.

The role of Torah in Judaism based on Pesikta de-Rav Kahana

The image that is used in the Midrashic text, Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, is that of the Torah being a marriage contract between God and Israel.

The text is clearly distinguishing between three separate notions. God, Torah and Israel. And that the Torah is the connection point, the mediator, between God and Israel. Through being loyal to what is stated in the contract, Israel have the ability to connect to God. This reasoning avoids the confusing philosophical inspired argumentation used by Origen and Justin Martyr, where mutually excluding statements (such as God being equal with the angel of the Lord and not being equal with the angel of the Lord, see above) are presented as logical and self-evident.

//p.9//

Here it is clearly delineated between the Sender (God), the message (the Torah) and the receiver (Israel).

The main idea in Pesikta de-Rav Kahana is thus of Torah as a contract between God and Israel. As such, the Torah is the mediator between God and Israel.

The role of the Quran in Islam based on al-Bukhari, the Book of Revelation

Al-Bukhari´s text tells about the Islamic prophet Muhammed´s first revelations which happens through the means of divine inspiration. This divine inspiration can be revealed in a variety of manners, either through a «ringing of a bell», «an angel in the form of a man», [18] or «dreams». [19]

Thus, divine inspiration is one phenomenon, but which is revealed/manifested in three different manners.

The first revelation is described in a rather physical language which contributes to emphazises the human nature of Muhammed, «The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more.» [20] The angel is then commanding Muhammed to read (variantly translated as «proclaim», «recite»). This is reminiscent of Isaiah 40:6, «A voice (קול) rings out: ´Proclaim (קרא)!´» The Arabic word for «read» («recite», «proclaim») is the equivalent Hebrew word being used in Isaiah 40:6, and it this word that is the basis for the word Quran, which literally means «the recitation».

Thus, the Quran is Muhammad´s recitation of Allah´s word. In other words, the Quran is Allah´s words/speech (message) to the world and these words (arabic: kalam) [21] is conveyed through divine inspiration, and Muhammed is to be the recitator (messenger) of Allah´s recitation (message). [22]

//p.10//

Here also is a clear differantiation between the Sender (God), message (the Quran) and the receiver (Muhammed). In turn Muhammed´s task is to recite the recitation to others. Later in Islam there has been much debate concerning the pre-existence of the Quran and wether or not the Quran is created or uncreated. [23]

The main idea being conveyed in al-Bukhari´s Book of Revelation is that of Muhammed receiving the Word (the Quran) from Allah and that the means which Muhammad received the Word was through the means of divine inspiration. The human nature of Muhammed is emphasized. Either way, the Quran is the mediator between Allah and Muhammed.

b) Tracing the development of these ideas back to the various forms that the idea of divine hypostases take in biblical literature (Proverbs 8), first-century Judaism (Philo, Gospel of John), early Christianity (Justin Martyr) and rabbinic Judaism (Genesis Rabbah 1:1, Targum Neofiti)

The Midrashic text Genesis Rabbah 1:1 expressively makes a connection between Wisdom and Torah, «BEGINNING referring to the Torah, as in the vers, The Lord created me at the beginning of his course. [Prov. 8:22].»

A Rabbinic interpretation, brought down by Rashi, explains that two things in the Torah are called «beginning», the Torah in Proverbs 8:22 and Israel in Jeremia 2:3. [24] This interpretation is based on equal words being used. Thus, there is a close connection between Torah and Israel, even though they are clearly separate notions, they are both called «beginning». It is these very notions of «Torah» and «Israel» that Christianity combines in the notion of «Christ». [25]

In the Hebrew bible, Israel is called God´s firstborn son (Exod. 4:22), this is also emphasized in Targum Neofite on Exod. 12:42. In this latter text we also encounter the term Memra (the Word [of the Lord]). It is these notions of Firstborn Son and the Word that Christianity appropriates and merges into the notion of «Christ». So also with several other biblical notions, «The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of

//p.11//

all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter.» [26] The divine hypostases seems by now to have become a Christian fact.

This radical shift was also made possible by the writings of Philo, a hellenized Jew living in Alexandria, and his description of «the most ancient Word» [27] being neither uncreated nor created.

Thus what exists as separate notions in Judaism, such as the notions «angel of the Lord» and «the Lord», and the notion of Wisdom being Torah and the firstborn son being Israel, is in Christianity being merged into one unity, everything being carried be the «Christ» who is «Himself this God» (see above).

Perhaps it could be said that the moment of the «Word becoming Flesh» (John 1:14) is the exact moment of divine hypostasis. This transmuting of the Word becoming an actual human person could also be said to represent the birth of the new religion Christianity. For Christianity the Torah is no longer instructions to be studied and followed, but became someone to believe in.

Thus the manifest result of the use of divine hypostasis of biblical notions is not just the birth of new ideas and concepts which are influenced by Graeco-Roman philosophy, but the very birth of a new religion.

//p.12//

Summary

Origen contributed to equating the Word with Christ. He did this by arguing philosophically  and by quoting scripture, both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testemant.  The role of Christ is equivalent to the role of Torah in Judaism and the role of Quran in Islam, they are all mediators between the divine realm and the human realm. The Christ, the Torah and the Quran are all pre-existent, but in Judaism and Islam, the Torah and the Quran, are more emphasised as a tool and/or vessel used by God in His interacting with the world, making clearer the distinction between God and the Torah, Allah and the Quran.

A shared feature is that all three religions uses the Hebrew Scripture as a proof-text in one way or the other. The terminology is biblical taken from the Hebrew Bible but the notions are being influenced by philosophical concepts.

In an article by Catherine Hezser [28] she presents the views of Susan Handelman who emphasizes the difference between rabbinic and philosophical thinking. Handelman highlights the Greek philosophical tendency «to gather various meanings into a one», «its movement toward the universal, the general, the univocal» and contrasts this with the rabbinic tendency «towards differentiation, metaphysical multiplicity, multiple meaning»

It is this philosophical tendency which can be said to be adopted by Justin Martyr and Origen in their tendency to merge separate biblical notions and through that strive towards making a general logical system.

The method of «divine hypostases» has further enabled, not just a merging of biblical notions, but a blending of Jewish concepts and Graeco-Roman concepts, this resulting in the birth of the new religion Christianity. It has thus been a divine hypostasis which have had far reaching consequences up through the ages.

The (potential) seeds for this divine hypostasis was already contained in the Hebrew bibel, later fertilized with Graeco-Roman philosophical language and methods by gardeners (such as Origen and Justin Martyr) who have a firm footing both the Hebrew biblical world and the hellenized world of the Roman empire.

//p.13//

Sources

Primary literature:

al-Bukhari, Book of Revelation

Genesis Rabbah 1:1

Gospel of John

Origen, De Principiis

Pesikta de-Rav Kahana

Philo, Who is the Heir of Divine Things? (transl. C. D. Yonge)

Proverbs 8

Slusser, M. (editor), (2003) Justin Martyr, Dialouge with Trypho. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press

Targum Neofiti on Exodus 12:42

Secondary literature:

Dillon, J. (2002) «Plutarch and God.» In: Frede and Laks (editors), Traditions of Theology. Leiden: Brill.

Herzeg, Y. (editor), (1999) Sapirstein Edition Rashi. New York: Mesorah Publications

Hezser, C.  (2000) «Interfaces Between Rabbinic Literature and Graeco-Roman Philosophy.» In: Hezser, Catherine and Schaefer, Peter, (eds.), The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture. Vol.2. Tuebingen: Mohr-Siebeck, pp. 161-187.

Scherman, N. (editor), (2000) The Stone Edition Chumash. New York: Mesorah Publications

Wolfson, H. A. (1976) The Philosophy of the Kalam. London: Harvard University Press.

Websites:

Cathechism of the Catholic Church 253. Available from: <http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P17.HTM#1FT> [Downloaded January 9. 2013]

Dictionary.com. Entry, Hypostasis. Available from: <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypostasis> [Downloaded January 9. 2013]

//p.14//

Footnotes:

1. Cathechism of the Catholic Church 253, The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the «consubstantial Trinity». The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: «The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God.» In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), «Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature.», http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P17.HTM#1FT

2. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypostasis

3. Translations from the Hebrew Bible are taken from JPS 1999 if not stated otherwise.

4. Trypho has variantly been regarded as a fictious character and to be identified with the Rabbi Tarfon, a prominent Tannaitic Rabbi. See Slusser 2003:xii

5. Dialouge with Trypho 56:1

6. ibid. 56:4

7. ibid. 56:5

8. Commentary to Genesis 18:2 in Scherman 2000:79

9. These question could also be said to having «paved the way», (or at least, touched upon some of the same questions) to contemporary linguistic and semiotic studies.

10. Dialouge with Trypho, chapter 2

11. Dillon 2002:229

12. De Principiis 1:1 in Smith 1973:15

13. Proverbs 8:22-25, quoted in ibid.:15, 1:1

14. Col. 1:15, quoted in ibid.:15, 1:1

15. ibid.:15, 1:1

16. ibid.:16, 1:2

17. ibid.:16-17, 1:3

18. al-Bukhari, Book of Revelation 1:2

19. ibid.1:3

20. ibid.:1:3

21. Compare with the Hebrew קול, kol (sing.), See Isaiah 40:6.

22. al-Bukhari, Book of Revelation 1:4

23. See Wolfson 1976, chapter III, part I and II.

24. Rashi´s commentary to Genesis 1:1 in Herczeg 1999:2-3

25. See Justin Martyr chapter 61

26. Justin Martyr, Dialouge with Trypho 61

27. Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres (Who is the Heir of Divine Things?) 205 (transl. C. D. Yonge)

28. Hezser 2000:184