...don't miss the fascinating latest on 2 Cor. 2:10. Also the Latin has "in persona Christi"! Fr. Fritz' keen eye has definitely picked up an interesting phenomenon in modern translations on that one.
Pastor Weedon- Went there and read that...Hubby and I went and grabbed a Catholic Study Bible (NAB-official lectionary version)...it also says 'presence' not person. What is the deal with the Catholic version changing it? We have an old Douay Version-it says 'person.' Thanks for giving us something to obsess about today...Gotta go dig out the Greek!
As Pr. Curtis put it this morning, the question is whether the text should be read as employing a Hebraism - which is how the modern versions tend to take it. "Before the face" in that case does mean "in the presence." It is still intriguing how the old versions, though, seemed to have all run with the other rendering.
I'm not sure you are understanding how we (Lutherans) use the term "in the stead" or "in the person" of Christ. We do not mean that the pastor is somehow making up for an ABSENT Christ, but rather that Christ is at that moment present and it is HIS words that the pastor speaks. "Do you believe that my forgiveness is God's forgiveness?" we ask in private absolution. That does not mean: "God's not here; have to settle for the pastor." It means: "Do you believe that this forgiveness you're about to receive is God's through and through? That He is using my mouth to speak to you?"
Yes, I know. That's what the Catholics also tell me. What they mean, though, is access to Christ is *in and through* the priest. Thus they have still inserted a human being between God and the rest of us. I thought that's what the Reformers had (correctly) rejected withe the (misappropriated) cry, "Only One Mediator between God and man!"
Regardless of whether the Reformers really rejected this papal notion, the Orthodox certainly do. Christ Himself is the great High Priest. We believe nobody stands in Christ's place or in His stead (a downright scandalous idea to us); rather, the priest stands in his own place, which is by Christ's side, ministering together with Him, making visible that which all the while Christ Himself is accomplishing invisibly -- but nonetheless directly.
What's important is not whether anything seems to resemble Platonism, but what is the most correct, straightforward translation of the Scripture. That would be "face", here, rather than "person".
Um... I think the "orthodox" need to remember that God himself has a tendency to place people between himself and God. He raises up prophets to go and speak His message to the people. And since Jesus is God, it makes sense that he would have someone "between" himself and men, namely a pastor. The formula I've always noticed in Scipture is that God speaks to one person, and that person speaks to other people. That's just about as "in between" as you can get.
Making a move that says a priest is beside Christ rather than in between doesn't address what the obvious issue would be. Just because something is "in between" doesn't necessarily mean it's "in the way". If a pastor is in the way of what Christ told him to say, then he's really in the way and should be deposed. That would include an orthodox priest standing beside Jesus doing and saying visibly things that Jesus is NOT doing and saying invisibly.
(note: it's Sunday. I'm supposed to be incomprehensible)
I'm no Greek scholar, but as far as the proper translation of this text is concerned, I believe that Anastasia has got it right. I've always heard (from reputable sources, I believe, though I can't quite recall them at the moment) that "prosopon" had the primary meaning of "face" in the Greek language at least before Nicea, and perhaps up until Chalcedon. This is (again, so I've been told) precisely the reason that it was necessary at the aforementioned councils to define theological language clearly and precisely, and to say which words could and could not be used to express certain dogmata. I *think* it's the case that using "prosopon" for the Persons of the Trinity was disallowed (or at least looked upon with suspicion) because it suggested Modalism (the primary understand of "prosopon" at that time being "face," and thus suggesting that the three Persons are just three "facades" of one divine being). I am significantly more sure that Cyril completely disallowed (or at least was wary of) the term "prosopon" when speaking of the person of Christ in his debate with Nestorius. Cyril preferred the term "hypostasis" instead, precisely because "prosopon" had the primary meaning of "face" or "appearance," instead of indicating anything like a concretely existing "center of unified activity" (for lack of any other clear description of a "person"). In fact, I believe that Cyril insisted on this precisely because of the prior use of "prosopon" in the Trinitarian controversies I just mentioned, but I could be wrong. (See immediately below; I quite distinctly recall reading something like this.)
In fact, I could be wrong about all of this. Don't take my word for it. I believe the issue is quite explicitly discussed in John Anthony McGuckin's, "St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and Texts." I least I *think* that's the source I couldn't recall a moment ago--I believe that McGuckin draws attention to the fact that terms like "prosopon" and "hypostasis" were changing in their meaning right as the debate between Cyril and Nestorius raged (though McGuckin, unlike some other recent scholars, still concludes that Nestorius really was a Nestorian).
I realize that this thread has drifted into the past by now, but I wanted to add something because my previous comment is improperly phrased. It suggests (to say the least) that using "prosopon" to refer to the Persons of the Trinity or to the Person of Christ is unorthodox. I don't mean to suggest that. What I mean to suggest is that, prior to Nicea (and probably Chalcedon), the term "prosopon" suggested an unorthodox position, and so for that reason was perhaps regarded as improper. It is at *this* time (and so ipso facto the time of the writing of the New Testament letters) that the term "prosopon" tended to suggest "face" or "appearance." If I recall correctly, it is during (or near to) the time of the debate between Cyril and Nestorius that the language begins changing and "prosopon" (among other words) acquires a more orthodox connotation. So *now* we understand "prosopon" to mean "person," but back then I don't believe that was the case (but again, see the McGuckin book).
Pastor Weedon-
ReplyDeleteWent there and read that...Hubby and I went and grabbed a Catholic Study Bible (NAB-official lectionary version)...it also says 'presence' not person. What is the deal with the Catholic version changing it? We have an old Douay Version-it says 'person.' Thanks for giving us something to obsess about today...Gotta go dig out the Greek!
As Pr. Curtis put it this morning, the question is whether the text should be read as employing a Hebraism - which is how the modern versions tend to take it. "Before the face" in that case does mean "in the presence." It is still intriguing how the old versions, though, seemed to have all run with the other rendering.
ReplyDeleteOh, and I loved the pics of the snow!!! My inlaws were driving through that on their way back to MD today.
ReplyDelete"Before the face" in that case does mean "in the presence."
ReplyDeleteThis would be the better translation. "Face" is the first meaning of "prosopon".
"Person" is pure papal theology, in which one seeks to insert a human being (the pope, and by extension, his representatives) between God and man.
love in Christ,
Anastasia
Anastasia,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure you are understanding how we (Lutherans) use the term "in the stead" or "in the person" of Christ. We do not mean that the pastor is somehow making up for an ABSENT Christ, but rather that Christ is at that moment present and it is HIS words that the pastor speaks. "Do you believe that my forgiveness is God's forgiveness?" we ask in private absolution. That does not mean: "God's not here; have to settle for the pastor." It means: "Do you believe that this forgiveness you're about to receive is God's through and through? That He is using my mouth to speak to you?"
Yes, I know. That's what the Catholics also tell me. What they mean, though, is access to Christ is *in and through* the priest. Thus they have still inserted a human being between God and the rest of us. I thought that's what the Reformers had (correctly) rejected withe the (misappropriated) cry, "Only One Mediator between God and man!"
ReplyDeleteRegardless of whether the Reformers really rejected this papal notion, the Orthodox certainly do. Christ Himself is the great High Priest. We believe nobody stands in Christ's place or in His stead (a downright scandalous idea to us); rather, the priest stands in his own place, which is by Christ's side, ministering together with Him, making visible that which all the while Christ Himself is accomplishing invisibly -- but nonetheless directly.
love in Christ,
Anastasia
A perfectly Platonic position, as is so much of Orthodoxy. Interesting.
ReplyDeleteWhat's important is not whether anything seems to resemble Platonism, but what is the most correct, straightforward translation of the Scripture. That would be "face", here, rather than "person".
ReplyDeletelove in Christ,
Anastasia
Um... I think the "orthodox" need to remember that God himself has a tendency to place people between himself and God. He raises up prophets to go and speak His message to the people. And since Jesus is God, it makes sense that he would have someone "between" himself and men, namely a pastor. The formula I've always noticed in Scipture is that God speaks to one person, and that person speaks to other people. That's just about as "in between" as you can get.
ReplyDeleteMaking a move that says a priest is beside Christ rather than in between doesn't address what the obvious issue would be. Just because something is "in between" doesn't necessarily mean it's "in the way". If a pastor is in the way of what Christ told him to say, then he's really in the way and should be deposed. That would include an orthodox priest standing beside Jesus doing and saying visibly things that Jesus is NOT doing and saying invisibly.
(note: it's Sunday. I'm supposed to be incomprehensible)
I'm no Greek scholar, but as far as the proper translation of this text is concerned, I believe that Anastasia has got it right. I've always heard (from reputable sources, I believe, though I can't quite recall them at the moment) that "prosopon" had the primary meaning of "face" in the Greek language at least before Nicea, and perhaps up until Chalcedon. This is (again, so I've been told) precisely the reason that it was necessary at the aforementioned councils to define theological language clearly and precisely, and to say which words could and could not be used to express certain dogmata. I *think* it's the case that using "prosopon" for the Persons of the Trinity was disallowed (or at least looked upon with suspicion) because it suggested Modalism (the primary understand of "prosopon" at that time being "face," and thus suggesting that the three Persons are just three "facades" of one divine being). I am significantly more sure that Cyril completely disallowed (or at least was wary of) the term "prosopon" when speaking of the person of Christ in his debate with Nestorius. Cyril preferred the term "hypostasis" instead, precisely because "prosopon" had the primary meaning of "face" or "appearance," instead of indicating anything like a concretely existing "center of unified activity" (for lack of any other clear description of a "person"). In fact, I believe that Cyril insisted on this precisely because of the prior use of "prosopon" in the Trinitarian controversies I just mentioned, but I could be wrong. (See immediately below; I quite distinctly recall reading something like this.)
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I could be wrong about all of this. Don't take my word for it. I believe the issue is quite explicitly discussed in John Anthony McGuckin's, "St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and Texts." I least I *think* that's the source I couldn't recall a moment ago--I believe that McGuckin draws attention to the fact that terms like "prosopon" and "hypostasis" were changing in their meaning right as the debate between Cyril and Nestorius raged (though McGuckin, unlike some other recent scholars, still concludes that Nestorius really was a Nestorian).
Best,
Jason
I realize that this thread has drifted into the past by now, but I wanted to add something because my previous comment is improperly phrased. It suggests (to say the least) that using "prosopon" to refer to the Persons of the Trinity or to the Person of Christ is unorthodox. I don't mean to suggest that. What I mean to suggest is that, prior to Nicea (and probably Chalcedon), the term "prosopon" suggested an unorthodox position, and so for that reason was perhaps regarded as improper. It is at *this* time (and so ipso facto the time of the writing of the New Testament letters) that the term "prosopon" tended to suggest "face" or "appearance." If I recall correctly, it is during (or near to) the time of the debate between Cyril and Nestorius that the language begins changing and "prosopon" (among other words) acquires a more orthodox connotation. So *now* we understand "prosopon" to mean "person," but back then I don't believe that was the case (but again, see the McGuckin book).
ReplyDeleteJason