Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: HILASTERION

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Daniel P. Bailey" <DanPBailey AT aol.com>
  • To: corpus-paul
  • Subject: RE: HILASTERION
  • Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:3:26


On 02/23/00, ""Stephen.Finlan" <Stephen.Finlan AT durham.ac.uk>" wrote:

From: Dan Bailey <DanPBailey AT aol.com>

Dear Stephen,

Thanks for your questions and comments, which are all very much to the
point. Prof. Dunn told me at SBL in November that he was corresponding with
an American who wanted to do research into Paul's use of atonement
traditions. Perhaps you are he? If so, I imagine that you have just moved
to Durham (forgive me if I am wrong). I hope you enjoy it.

On the matter of bibliography (which you did not indeed mention), you may
like to take a look at a new book (though I have not yet seen it):

AUTHOR: Gaukesbrink, Martin.
TITLE: Die Suhnetradition bei Paulus : Rezeption und
theologischer
Stellenwert / Martin Gaukesbrink.
PUB. INFO: Wurzburg : Echter Verlag, c1999.
DESCRIPTION: 346 p. ; 24 cm.
SERIES: Forschung zur Bibel ; Bd. 82

Of course there already exists a very detailed German dissertation on
Romans 3:25, by Wolfgang Kraus, Der Tod Jesu als Heiligtumsweihe (WMANT).
As you are probably aware, Prof. Dunn -- incidentally one of the few
English-speaking scholars who follows the German discussion of the
atonement closely (so you've chosen the right supervisor here) -- cites
Kraus often in his Theology of Paul, especially section 9.2, "A sacrifice
for sins," pp. 212-218. Unfortunately there is only one review of Kraus in
the maisntream journals, unless you read Italian (even the Germans
overlooked it in TLZ). You might want to consult this review for the
details of Kraus's argument: see my contribution in JTS n.s. 45 (1994)
247–252. For Kraus's position regarding the "Jewishness" of Paul's
atonement theology, see additionally his article on "Jom Kippur, etc." in
Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 6 (1991), 155-172.

Now, to the matters about which you wrote. I begin with the easiest, or
rather, the one I know least about (its always easy to talk when you don't
know much!). This is the problem of "supersessionism." I agree with what
you wrote and I like your definitions. I was mainly reacting to Stowers's
argument that since claiming Jesus as the new mercy seat would be
"supersessionist," and since Paul not a supersessionist (according to
Stowers), Paul cannot have thought of Jesus as the new mercy seat. I would
rather admit that Paul WAS a supersessionist (and then play with the
definition) than resort to this kind of logic, which hardly does justice to
the linguistic evidence on hILASTHRION.

Paul's theology opens up to the Gentiles a cultic type of access to God
previously associated with the Jerusalem temple and Jewish privelege. This
does seem to be a good topic to pursue further, even if you might have to
call it "supersessionist." Here are a few references on the topic of
"cultic supersession" that may help:

Cf. Stuhlmacher, “Zur neueren Exegese (Rom 3,25),” 330: “[eine]
Einsetzung…, die den Jerusalemer Kult…überbietet und ablöst”; W. Kraus, Tod
Jesu als Heiligtumsweihe, 233: “eschatologische Überbietung”; Richard Bell,
No one seeks for God, 248–50: temple sacrifice is now “invalid” and “void”;
Byrne, Romans, 127: the death of Christ “supersedes” the atoning function
of the temple.

Regarding your linguistic observations on hILASTHRION I find a lot with
which I wish to interact. But first I need to take a break to get some
other work done.

Until then, All the best,

Dan Bailey
(Milwaukee, Wisconsin)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page