Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Re: Scholars who deny a Pauline divine-Christology

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "John Dickson" <jdickson AT bigpond.com>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Re: Scholars who deny a Pauline divine-Christology
  • Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 13:15:48 +1000


Elli Ellliott helpfully asks of me:

1) Why would we assume that Paul's notion of Christ's divinity originates with Paul?

2) I assume that Paul's communities are predominantly gentiles and that all of this language is emerging from the mix with them. This thinking and articulation is not happening in a hermetically sealed Jewish context.

3) The passages you cite, the one from Philippians in particular, are full of language that refers to the Roman Emperor. The language of Christ's divinity needs to be examined in that context.

Thanks and all the best to Chris in your dissertation work.

Elli

Three responses:

1. Whether or not we assume Paul's high Christology originates with him (which, actually, is not a bad working assumption given the lack of evidence in another direction) my question remains: why would Paul cast his highest Christology (wherever it came from orginally) in Jewish Scriptural terms?

2. I agree there is no sealed Jewish context. But the point remains: Paul speaks about this in Jewish/Scriptural terms. Why?

3. The imperial language throughout Philippians (1:27, 2:9-11, 3:20 and elsewhere) is very easily accounted for in terms of the apologetic motif I mentioned in the previous post. This is obviously so in 1:27 and 3:20, wouldn't you agree? I am fascinated that Paul's climactic reference to Jesus' new name and lordship in 2:9-11 is a simple reworking of a profoundly monotheistic and universalistic Jewish/Scriptural text (set over and against the false KURIOI of the world). This is not even to bring in the apparent reworking of the SHEMA in 1 Cor 8:5-6.
It seems to me, therefore, that the BACKGROUND of the Christology is predominantly Jewish/Scriptural, whereas the FOREGROUND is imperial. Would you put it the other way around, perhaps, or in another way entirely? I would be keen to hear your account of these things.
Warm regards,
John

Dr. John P. Dickson
Department of Ancient History
Macquarie University, Sydney.








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page