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: Tim Harris <tim.harris AT stmatts.asn.au>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Re: Scholars who deny a Pauline divine-Christology
  • Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 22:23:55 +0930

Quoting John Dickson <jdickson AT bigpond.com>:

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). [snip]
| It seems to me, therefore, that the BACKGROUND of the Christology is
| predominantly Jewish/Scriptural, whereas the FOREGROUND is imperial.

I think John's way of framing this is helpful. I spent quite of bit of time on
this much discussed passage in my doctorate (on Pauline notions of humility).
There is no doubt that there are a number of currents swirling just below the
surface at this point. Given the strongly Roman character of Philippi, it
seems
to me that the imperial echoes are pointed and profoundly subversive - and
persuasively demonstrated in a number of recent studies (eg. Oakes, Cassidy,
Blumenfeld, Tellbe, Horsley and Silberman).

The main point I wanted to contribute is that the primary frame of reference
for
interpreting Philippians 2 is surely Philippians 3. I found the monograph by
Veronica Koperski, The knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: the high Christology
of Philippians 3:7-11. CBET 16 (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996) especially helpful
in
identifying the connections and implications of the Christology reflected in
Phil 3:7-11, highlighted by the more absolute statement in v.8 'I regard
*everything* as loss', when considered in comparison to 'knowing Christ Jesus
my Lord'. The 'surpassing value' of knowing Christ renders an automatic
devaluation of all else (and all other claimants to lordship), without
exception. There are many aspects to Pauline Christology, and this is one more
part of a complex and multifacted picture, blending doxological and apologetic
concerns.

Whilst on Philippians 2, I can't resist citing Markus Bockmuehl's striking
turn
of phrase in the opening words of his article [‘“The form of God” (Phil. 2:6):
variations on a theme of Jewish mysticism’, JTS 48.1 (1997) - well worth a
read]:

‘Like the proverbial vultures over a carcass, twentieth-century New Testament
scholars have tenaciously continued to congregate around the supposed ‘hymn’
of
Phil. 2:5-11. As a result, this passage is one of the most over-interpreted
texts in the New Testament… We have come to the point where none but the most
conceited would claim to have mastered the secondary literature, and none but
the dullest would find pleasure or interest in wading through it… A
comprehensive treatment of the whole passage now seems scarcely possible—or,
dare one say it, even desirable. The number of angels on the head of a pin may
be subject to dispute; but there can be little doubt about the camel loads of
interpretation on this passage which the twentieth century has thought
necessary to carry to the door of the great apostolic tentmaker and his
suppliers’ (p.1)

Cheers,
Tim Harris

Dr. Tim Harris
Senior Minister
Kensington-Norwood Anglican Ministry Team
PO Box 56, Kensington Park
South Australia, 5068




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page