Pride Goes Before a Fall/Destruction

Listen up I got a story to tell (bonus points if you can tell me what song that’s from)…

So I was going to my mom’s for dinner and I wanted to show her my name in print so I grabbed Chris Tilling’s Paul’s Divine Christology and was ready to go. But then I thought that I didn’t want such an expensive volume getting damaged, so I considered packing it up in a leftover box that I had from a Peeters volume I got for review. Their boxes are great since they don’t allow the book to shift. But then I thought that I wouldn’t need that much protection so I ended up sticking it in the original padded envelope that Chris sent the book in.

I handed it to my daughter for safe keeping in the car and when we arrived at my mom’s my daughter left it on the front seat. I grabbed it and when I stepped out of the car I heard a thud. I looked down and there was the book laying in the street! I had been holding the envelope upside down and the open end was on the bottom! The book slid right out! I was so mad that I wanted to curse. So now there’s damage to the spine and back cover. It’s not too severe but it’s enough to make the book look sad next to my other WUNT volumes (although a couple of them are dinged up as well).

So I guess Proverbs 16:18 had it right when it said that pride/haughtiness goes before a fall/destruction. Here’s the end result:



19 thoughts on “Pride Goes Before a Fall/Destruction

  1. Haha, this is hilarious! You know, soem might say that the better read a book, the more read it looks! Some of my favourite books look like they have been used in a fight!

  2. Chris: Trust me, it isn’t nearly as hilarious as you think! I like my books to look read on the inside. On the outside I like to trick folks into thinking that they’ve never been cracked. It’s all about appearances, you know?

    Jason: Sure thing. Right after my NA28 arrives. ;-)

  3. Benjamin: I really couldn’t be happier with Mohr’s binding. I don’t have many paperbacks that can lay open flat without me holding them down. Most of the ones that can are published by Mohr.

  4. Mohr Siebeck bindings are very good—Smyth sewn paperbacks are unusual. Too bad about the binding, but I’ve gotten worse directly from Mohr Siebeck. International shipping is hard on books : (


  5. James: You ain’t kidding! I really appreciate the packaging that Peter Lang uses. It’s not all that much different from Eisenbrauns. The key is to keep the packed book from moving while in transit, but I’m not telling you anything you don’t know already.

  6. That is terrible, Nick! My heart goes out to you in this difficult time.

    (My books don’t look used either, let alone cracked — unless, of course, I picked them up second-hand.)

  7. Benjamin: Ya know, I’m not sure they make WUNT II volumes in hardback. The original WUNT series, for sure, but I haven’t seen the second series in hardback. The binding is great regardless.

    Esteban: Thank you for your sympathy. I know if anyone understands my pain it’s you.

  8. WUNT 1 is only hardback; WUNT 2 is paperback. Some WUNT 1 titles end up showing up in WUNT 2 as paperback, but most of the WUNT 2 titles are reworked dissertations—some more reworked than others. WUNT 1 is either monographs by established scholars or edited volumes by well-known/established scholars.

  9. You seem to be highly enthusiastic about this book. But what do you make of Chris Tilling’s following comment on Page no. 260.

    “….ultimately it must be accepted that the Jesus who said ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone’ (Mk. 10:18) is unlikely to have said in the next breath, that he is ‘true God from true God’…”.

    I have never found a satisfactory explanation for Mark 10:18 that would allow some one to accept the orthodox Christology wholeheartedly from a Biblical point of view. Even after good efforts from conservative scholars to defend high Christology, when it comes to Jesus’ self understanding, such comments looks like an honest admission that Jesus wouldn’t have endorsed such views.

  10. Denish: I take Tilling’s comment to be probably correct. I wouldn’t expect a first century Jew from Palestine to speak in terms that men from different parts of the world 300 years later would speak in. But that’s not to say that Jesus had anything less than a divine self-understanding I think precisely the opposite is the case. I’d suggest Sigurd Grindheim’s recent work in this regard (you can see my reviews here & here).

    I don’t see Mark 10:18 as problematic. Jesus asks the man to think about what he’s saying when he calls him “good”; he’s not denying that he’s good. I don’t believe Tilling to be endorsing the view that Jesus didn’t think of himself as divine, but rather that he didn’t think according to different conceptual categories and express himself in later terms. That’s a completely different (and non-controversial) issue.

  11. Nick: Your response regarding Tilling’s comment does make sense.

    Regarding Mark 10:18 I think I have overstated my point. What I just mean is I have not found the standard explanations satisfactory. I believe Gospel of John explicitly supports the later orthodox Christology; so from a biblical point of view orthodox Christology can be justified. Personally I believe that Jesus’ comment (No one is good but God alone) was actually just a preemptive response to the ‘possible reply’ from the rich man so that the rich man will be prevented from saying something like “I called you good because you teach good things”.

  12. Good question, Denish, and Nick interprets me correctly. When I wrote those lines I was not as clear as I now am on what to make of divine-Christology in the “historical Jesus”. Now, in order to explain why all documents of the earliest Christians assume a divine-Christology, I need to say: “because Jesus himself made these kind of claims”. I am presently developing my line of argument for a potential future publication along these lines. Sounds extremely conservative, but, hey, I think in this case it makes good historical/theological sense!

  13. Chris: I agree. I think the historical Jesus made extraordinary claims and demanded the type of allegiance that was reserved for God alone (e.g., Matt. 10:37; Luke 14:26 cf. Matt. 22:37; Deut. 6:5), which I think this plays nicely into your emphasis on relationship.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s