Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - [Corpus-Paul] Approaches to the question of divine-Christolog

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Chris Tilling" <chris AT christilling.de>
  • To: <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Corpus-Paul] Approaches to the question of divine-Christolog
  • Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:27:14 +0200

Dear Jerry and all the rest,

Well Jerry, you really have started something with your very interesting
comments!

Jerry wrote: 'I would like to problematize the question a bit by asking
whether the term monotheism is appropriate for anyone in the 1st century.'

Hurtado has already done something very similar especially in his earlier
SBLSP (32. 1993, pages 348-68) article, "What Do We Mean by 'First-Century
Jewish Monotheism'?", although now also in his truly monumental Lord Jesus
Christ (pages 32 ff). In it he responds to the particularly bold and
provocative publications of Peter Hayman and Margaret Barker. Not only
Hurtado but also Bauckham's forthcoming works (the superb promised expansion
of God Crucified of which I have been privileged to read a draft version of
a few chapters), not to mention Rainbows contributions, indicate a strong
'monotheistic rhetoric' in second Temple Judaism. An important question,
which Jerry raises, is whether or not what we consider to be monotheism is
an accord with second Temple Jewish monotheism ...

Jerry wrote: '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)'.

At the moment I'm in the process of writing my history-of-research and so
have not the time to engage with this question in more depth - but simply to
point out the following concerns: I am not sure that things are actually a
simple as Jerry supposes. Probably a more sensitive exegesis of 1 Cor 8:4-6
is in order along with an appreciation of the force of 1 Cor 10:19-20 'What
do I imply then? That food sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol
is anything? {20} No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to
demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons.' Is the
question then simply about the existence of other gods, if they are not gods
at all but demons? If the other gods are demons, I suspect that our modern
estimations of monotheism, especially in the light of the works of Hurtado,
Bauckham, Rainbow etc. are not so far from Paul's.

Another concern I have with Jerry's line of thinking concerns his
preoccupation with the word 'theos'. Although, I think he is right that more
attention needs to be drawn to this title. 2 Cor 4:4 shows us that Paul was
happy to call satan 'ho theos' (something the Jehovah Witnesses with their
fascination with the anathrous theos in John 1:1 ought to bear in mind!).
All of this (and the evidence Jerry has cited from Philo and the DSS) goes
to show why, I suspect, Paul didn't want to give the risen Lord the title
theos (at least not very often - as of course, this depends upon one's
exegesis of Rom 9:5 and what is considered to be authentic Pauline
literature). A suggestion: The christology implied would have been
misleading and arguably not 'high' enough for Paul. As Bauckham puts it in
his online article on Pauline Christology (page 23): 'If Paul had applied
scriptural statements about 'god' to Jesus, we could have understood him to
be doing what 11QMelchizedek does with reference to Jesus, that is,
interpreting the 'god' to whom the scriptural texts refer in these
particular instances to be not YHWH, the unique Creator and Lord of all
things, but an angelic being created and ruled by YHWH. Such an exegetical
practice would not constitute what we have called a Christology of divine
identity.'

Jerry wrote: '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.'

Furthermore, I'm not sure that the sequence of questions that Jerry proposes
is altogether pertinent. I am simply not sure that the most important matter
revolves around the title theos. Bauckham's case, as is well known, is how
second Temple Judaism identified God - and this is more subtle and
complicated than simply referring to the title theos. In my research I will
be developing the significance of how second Temple Judaism and pagan
religions identified the divine identity through the human individual and
communities relation to and relationship with the divinity. However, I will
leave my comments on my research out of this discussion for now.

Jerry wrote: '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.'

Yes, I heartily agree! I note as a parallel Wright's (I think rather
strained) usage of 'god' rather than 'God' in his recent publications.

Many many thanks to you Jerry for your comments that have forced me to think
through these matters once again. I would be glad to hear your response.

I would like to respond also to Frank Jacks comments. However, as I need to
get on with my research (my conscience is already staring to tap on the
door) I will leave that to another day. Nevertheless, my main comments will
revolve around this false division: between some kind of, what he calls
"metaphysical basis of 'substance'" and worship of. Although I need to
nuance this, the two go together, I believe, in Second Temple Judaism. But I
will leave more detailed comments till later.

All the very best to you all,
Chris Tilling
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris and Anja Tilling
Schillerstrasse 32
D-72810 Gomaringen
fon. (0049) 07072 915046






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page