http://www.theologicalconference.org/media/docs/pdf/2015/Dustin.pdf
A few thoughts on the paper.
1.1 Babylonian Talmud speaks of the divine foreknowledge of things, not people. It only says that God would foreknow the name of the messiah. I would concede that this means that the Jews believed that God had a plan before the founding of the world for the messiah. But this 3rd century reference, on its own, doesn't mean that Jews in general believed that people "pre-existed" in as much as they were foreknown or that they would use the language of 1st-person pre-existence ("where I was before", "the glory I had before the world was made") in connection with God's foreknowledge. In fact, Smith does not seek to demonstrate this in the paper.
1.2. I note that, although the Targum Zechariah does present the concept of God foreknowing the name of the messiah, this interpretation was preceded by Philo's interpretation of Zechariah, that the messiah would be the incarnation of the personal Logos of God.
1.3. The reference 2 Baruch establishes Jewish belief in God's foreknowledge of objects which were connected with his plan for Israel.
1.4. The Bereshit Rabbah Midrash, while mostly making reference to the foreknowledge of non-personal entities, does indeed include the possibility of God's foreknowledge of people. However, the Bereshit Rabbah was composed 400 years after the gospels. I doubt that Smith or any scholar would claim that Jewish interpretation of the TaNaK was totally static for centuries. Note too that this interpretation is esoteric even within the Bereshit Rabbah itself.
1.5. Smith here concedes the highly tentative nature of the evidence provided by the Prayer of Joseph.
1.6. The Testament of Moses describes God's foreknowledge of Moses in connection with God's plan. Paul uses similar language to describe his own commission as an apostle. (See Galatians 1:15 & Jeremiah 1:5)
1.7. Joseph and Aseneth speaks of God's choosing a people before the world came into being. However, to say that this, as well as other works, reflects Jewish "notional pre-existence theology", is to superimpose language that isn't reflected in documents themselves. These works only establish the Jewish belief in divine foreknowledge, not in a concept of "notional pre-existence".
1.8. The Manual of Discipline should give the unitarian serious pause.
"From the God of knowledge stems all there is and all there shall be. Before they existed he made all their plans and when they came into being."
If a unitarian scholar wishes to appeal to the concept of divine foreknowledge presented by the Essenes as an interpretative filter to read "pre-existence" language in the NT, then we should come to the conclusion that there is nothing exceptional concerning Jesus being presented in the New Testament "pre-existence" passages at all. I'm sure that a unitarian would be uncomfortable with that conclusion.
1.9. Smith states: "I have thoroughly demonstrated that Jews frequently spoke of both people and objects as preexisting, although this preexistence is strictly within the mind and purposes of God. In other words, this preexistence is notional rather than literal." Again, to use the word "pre-existence" in connection with these passages is merely to superimpose an interpretative strategy onto ancient Jewish writing. Of the ancient Jewish writings referenced, few would reflect the thought-world the NT writers lived in.
2.1 Smith notes Paul's theology of foreknowledge extends to the church in Ephesians 1:3-11. I will simply note here that unitarians do not often speak of their "pre-existence" from eternity in the mind of God. They do not speak of "going to where they were before" when they are resurrected. Interpreting Paul's theology of foreknowledge as an example of "notional pre-existence" is to say that there is nothing unique whatsoever about God's foreknowledge of Christ in contradistinction to his foreknowledge of us. Under this hermeneutical model, members of the church could say: "In the beginning we were. And we were with God and we were God." (John 1:1) We are legally deemed sons of God along with Christ and will be glorified in the new creation. In fact, in 2.3 Smith concludes that foreknowledge language in Paul's writings teach that our glorification exists past tense in the mind of God. This is, of course, to make all believers equal with Christ in the mind of God, all enjoy pre-existence and glorification in same sense that Jesus does. Setting aside the problem of unitarian theosis, under this hermeneutical model, any statements of unique pre-existence that stand in contrast with the church are simply tossed aside, not due to a Jewish cultural context which would have read pre-existence statements as notional, but really due to Smith's presuppositions.
There is nothing more of substance to comment on. The rest of the paper then proceeds to apply the concept of "notional pre-existence" to John's gospel by listing the article's references. Smith states: "I urge the reader to fully appreciate the need to properly interpret ancient texts within their respective contexts. This requires us to ‘remedy our ignorance’ on the subject and calls interpreters to pay heed to the work of diligent scholars in this field."
A few thoughts on the paper.
1.1 Babylonian Talmud speaks of the divine foreknowledge of things, not people. It only says that God would foreknow the name of the messiah. I would concede that this means that the Jews believed that God had a plan before the founding of the world for the messiah. But this 3rd century reference, on its own, doesn't mean that Jews in general believed that people "pre-existed" in as much as they were foreknown or that they would use the language of 1st-person pre-existence ("where I was before", "the glory I had before the world was made") in connection with God's foreknowledge. In fact, Smith does not seek to demonstrate this in the paper.
1.2. I note that, although the Targum Zechariah does present the concept of God foreknowing the name of the messiah, this interpretation was preceded by Philo's interpretation of Zechariah, that the messiah would be the incarnation of the personal Logos of God.
1.3. The reference 2 Baruch establishes Jewish belief in God's foreknowledge of objects which were connected with his plan for Israel.
1.4. The Bereshit Rabbah Midrash, while mostly making reference to the foreknowledge of non-personal entities, does indeed include the possibility of God's foreknowledge of people. However, the Bereshit Rabbah was composed 400 years after the gospels. I doubt that Smith or any scholar would claim that Jewish interpretation of the TaNaK was totally static for centuries. Note too that this interpretation is esoteric even within the Bereshit Rabbah itself.
1.5. Smith here concedes the highly tentative nature of the evidence provided by the Prayer of Joseph.
1.6. The Testament of Moses describes God's foreknowledge of Moses in connection with God's plan. Paul uses similar language to describe his own commission as an apostle. (See Galatians 1:15 & Jeremiah 1:5)
1.7. Joseph and Aseneth speaks of God's choosing a people before the world came into being. However, to say that this, as well as other works, reflects Jewish "notional pre-existence theology", is to superimpose language that isn't reflected in documents themselves. These works only establish the Jewish belief in divine foreknowledge, not in a concept of "notional pre-existence".
1.8. The Manual of Discipline should give the unitarian serious pause.
"From the God of knowledge stems all there is and all there shall be. Before they existed he made all their plans and when they came into being."
If a unitarian scholar wishes to appeal to the concept of divine foreknowledge presented by the Essenes as an interpretative filter to read "pre-existence" language in the NT, then we should come to the conclusion that there is nothing exceptional concerning Jesus being presented in the New Testament "pre-existence" passages at all. I'm sure that a unitarian would be uncomfortable with that conclusion.
1.9. Smith states: "I have thoroughly demonstrated that Jews frequently spoke of both people and objects as preexisting, although this preexistence is strictly within the mind and purposes of God. In other words, this preexistence is notional rather than literal." Again, to use the word "pre-existence" in connection with these passages is merely to superimpose an interpretative strategy onto ancient Jewish writing. Of the ancient Jewish writings referenced, few would reflect the thought-world the NT writers lived in.
2.1 Smith notes Paul's theology of foreknowledge extends to the church in Ephesians 1:3-11. I will simply note here that unitarians do not often speak of their "pre-existence" from eternity in the mind of God. They do not speak of "going to where they were before" when they are resurrected. Interpreting Paul's theology of foreknowledge as an example of "notional pre-existence" is to say that there is nothing unique whatsoever about God's foreknowledge of Christ in contradistinction to his foreknowledge of us. Under this hermeneutical model, members of the church could say: "In the beginning we were. And we were with God and we were God." (John 1:1) We are legally deemed sons of God along with Christ and will be glorified in the new creation. In fact, in 2.3 Smith concludes that foreknowledge language in Paul's writings teach that our glorification exists past tense in the mind of God. This is, of course, to make all believers equal with Christ in the mind of God, all enjoy pre-existence and glorification in same sense that Jesus does. Setting aside the problem of unitarian theosis, under this hermeneutical model, any statements of unique pre-existence that stand in contrast with the church are simply tossed aside, not due to a Jewish cultural context which would have read pre-existence statements as notional, but really due to Smith's presuppositions.
There is nothing more of substance to comment on. The rest of the paper then proceeds to apply the concept of "notional pre-existence" to John's gospel by listing the article's references. Smith states: "I urge the reader to fully appreciate the need to properly interpret ancient texts within their respective contexts. This requires us to ‘remedy our ignorance’ on the subject and calls interpreters to pay heed to the work of diligent scholars in this field."
Last edited:
