Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re:Jesus and Death

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Eric Potts <eric AT revpotts.freeserve.co.uk>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re:Jesus and Death
  • Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 10:31:45 +0100

From: "Liz Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu>
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 11:20:45 -0400
X-Message-Number: 2

Dear Jim, I'm not talking about the historical Jesus at all. I'm simply
trying to understand Paul, and specifically Phil. 2:6ff. I'm using Dunn to
try to do it.
(Jeffrey, I wrote to Dunn, thanks. I've not heard back.)

Best to you,
Liz

In "Jesus and the Spirit," which unfortunately I don't have to hand at the moment, I seem to recall the argument that
a: Paul originally rejected the Christian message because a one-off resurrection was nonsense to a Pharisee; the belief was in the general resurrection;
b: but when he became convinced of the fact of the resurrection, after the Damascus road experience, he then saw Jesus as "the firstfruits of the resurrection from the dead;"
In other words it seems to me pointless to try to imagine what Paul would have thought about a Jesus who had not died, since if he had not died there would have been no Pauline faith!

Moreover, the nature of the death - crucifixion - seems also fundamental to Paul's understanding. Consider especially Galatians 3.13f. For Paul it seems to be the very fact that the death of Jesus was accomplished outside the law, and accursed by the law, that means that the death is evidence, nay proof, of the universality of grace without need for submission to the law.

So, again, a Pauline faith is inconceivable without both death and resurrection. All his Christology must be based on those facts and there can be no "What if" of the type suggested.

Incidentally, like many others I have long held the view that Paul either didn't know or care much about the life and teaching of Jesus, as something distinct from his death and resurrection. But now I am not so sure. Obviously any interest in the life is consequent on the conviction of the death and resurrection and not independent of it. But the more I read Romans the more I find allusions if not direct quotes to things that Jesus said and did. Romans 2.3, for example has shades of Matthew 7.1-2. Again Matthew 7.20 might well be in mind as Paul writes Romans 2.6-15. The whole passage from Romans 2.17 -24 has overtones of the Jesus-Pharisee controversies, and quite possibly the use of the Isaiah passage in 2.24 reflects the prophecy of desecration and destruction of the Temple. I also wonder whether the idea of Jesus as the hilasterion (3.25) might have been influenced by the Gospel account of the rending of the Temple curtain.

I wouldn't want to build too much on this, but I think there is enough to suggest that Paul had at least a passing acquaintance with the Sermon on the Mount and possibly much more, albeit in a proto-Gospel shape.

Regards,

Eric.





Eric Potts: Lowestoft, England.
http://www.bigfoot.com/~ericpotts


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page