Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Approaches to the question of divine-Christolog y in the NT

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Frank Jacks <cfjacks AT comcast.net>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Approaches to the question of divine-Christolog y in the NT
  • Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:25:12 -0400

Let second Jerry's motion by adding what I learned in graduate school from courses with Samuel Terrien, who always insisted that the OT was never "monotheistic" but "monolatrist," meaning that Israel was to worship "YHWH only" not because he was the only "real" or "true" or existing god but the only one FOR THEM, because of the Horeb/Sinai contract/covenant. I dare say that by the Hellenistic era that some Jews did draw upon Greek metaphysics and its monism to justify/validate this "exclusivity" but to attribute this philosophically based rationale as common to most (much less all) Jews strikes me as rather over-reaching. I would go further and suggest that Paul was quite clear that Jesus had been given all of YHWH's powers and authority [albeit for a specific and hopefully brief period of time] to exercise in HIS stead but I find little to support that Paul sought to justify this on any metaphysical basis of "substance" or any other philosophical categories, which I do feel we are getting into whenever the topic of "monotheism" comes up.

As an aside, my thanks to Jerry for "speaking up" since it emboldened me to add my own "two cents," something I had been wondering whether or not to contribute and had been "holding off"!

Frank

Clive F. Jacks
Professor of Religion, Emeritus
Pikeville College
Pikeville, KY

(but now happily retired back home in the metro Atlanta area!)



JERRY SUMNEY wrote:

Chris and all,
I would like to problematize the question a bit by asking whether the term monotheism is appropriate for anyone in the 1st century. I don't think our meaning of the term suits Paul, who recognizes other beings that many people call gods. He says only that they are not "god" to him and fellow believers (1 Cor 8). This opens the question of the meaning of /theos/ for 1st century folks. There are good Jews (e.g., Philo) who can speak of the logos as a second god (Philo in QG 2.62 and Somn 1.229-230). The DSS call angels /elim /and /elohim/. I would recommend a look at M. Meye-Thompson's book on /theos/ in John for the broad meaning of the term and how it might be understood in that period. Given these things, I think maybe the first question might be, What might it mean to exalt someone to the status of a /theos/? Then we can ask about whether Paul did and what it might mean to him and his communities. Then we can ask whether various strands of Judaism could make such claims about a person being a /theos/. Well, all of this may already be taken into account, but I think these questions have to be asked regularly so that our question does not become something about whether Paul affirms what 21st century people mean by the terms God and monotheism. All the best,
Jerry

Jerry L. Sumney
Professor of Biblical Studies
Lexington Theological Seminary
631 S. Limestone
Lexington, KY 40508
859-252-0361
jsumney AT lextheo.edu







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page