Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

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

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Scholars who deny a Pauline divine-Christology
  • Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 07:07:37 -0700 (PDT)

Chris wrote:

>Are you sure that Hengel attributes a full-blown
>high Christology to Hellenistic influence? I was
>under the impression that he attributed
>this explosion to such forces as Wisdom
>Christology, OT exegesis (particularly of
>Psalm 110) and early Christian hymns.

It's been a while since I've read Hengel, but I recall
an argument of his being that first-century Palestine
wasn't insulated from Hellenic influence, which in no
small part contributed to Christology in the way that
it did. That wouldn’t necessarily preclude the other
items you mention.

[Loren]
>>Richard Bauckham,
>>as I'm sure you know, is currently working on
>>demolishing that idea -- that there was a "Big Bang"
>>of high Christology within Jewish thought from the
>>get-go, that "Jesus=God" didn't need to await
>>Hellenism; if anything, Hellenism is what started
>>causing problems for it.

[Chris]
>Actually, I don't think this is the original
>point in Richard Bauckham's thesis.

Perhaps not; admittedly I'm going by what he has
published so far (in God Crucified) and by hints and
innuendos about his upcoming two-volume publication.

>Rather, I think Bauckham's originality is
>particularly tied up with his
>notion of 'divine identity'. In fact, his
>excellent little book 'God Crucified'
>contains a lot of valuable argumentation.
>My only hesitation with
>it is that it is perhaps making certain
>distinctions within Paul's
>Christology rather to theologically subtle.
>Perhaps I should expand on that
>'hesitation' another time.

Well, this is how I understand the gist of his
argument from God Crucified. (Bear in mind I read this
book a while ago, and feel free to correct me anywhere
I need it.) Bauckham is calling into question two
(broadly speaking) reconstructions of the evolution of
Christology. (Others have done so as well.)

1. Monotheism was strict in Jewish thought such that
divinity could not have been attributed to anyone but
God; Christology evolved gradually and needed to await
a Hellenic context for the divinization of Jesus.
(Elli Elliot seems to here.)

2. Monotheism was not-so-strict in Jewish thought; it
could accommodate understandings of semi-divine angels
and priestly/prophetic figures (Melchizedek, Moses,
etc.); the (semi)divinization of Jesus happened early.


Against and with them, Bauckham says (1) monotheism
was strict and (2) Jesus was divinized from the start.
"Jesus=God" happened as a "Big Bang" (a term coined by
Leander Keck) rather than evolution; and he wasn't
just semi-divine. Angels and other intermediary
figures don't provide an adequate basis for the claims
of NT writers. But personifications (or
"hypostatizations") like wisdom, the word, and the
spirit had always been included in the divine
identity. These triggered the divinization of a human
being -- unprecedented but possible because of the
importance of "who" rather than "what" God was. (The
"identity" issue you mention.) God's identity mattered
most in Jewish thinking, not his essence or nature.

Others, as you say, have indeed pursued the issue from
similar angles. I'm put in mind of Ben Witherington's
Jesus the Sage: A Pilgrimage of Wisdom, which argues
that wisdom had become increasingly personified by the
time of the first century, and that Jesus became
Wisdom in person. But Bauckham, as I understand
matters, will be arguing most comprehensively on this
front of personifications/hypostatizations and
"identity" issues.

>Perhaps you could explain why you
>think the subjective genitive lends
>itself more easily to a 'lower
>Christology'. Part of my argument in
>my research will almost certainly
>involve examining this point in more
>detail.

For the simple reason that treating Christ as a model
or exemplar (rather than an object of faith) lends
itself to Christ being more followed/imitated than
worshipped. Hays and Johnson seem to worry that the
objective genitive lends itself to docetic
interpretations, but Esler has noted the irony: their
preference for the subjective genitive lends itself
(even more strongly) to proto-Arian interpretations
(see Conflict and Identity in Romans, p 158). Frankly,
I consider the idea that the objective case carries
docetic overtones to be a phantom menace.

>Thanks for that helpful
>comment, and indeed for all of your thoughts.

Likewise. Good luck to you.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com



__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page