Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Reconceptualising Conversion

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Zeba Crook <zcrook AT connect.carleton.ca>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Reconceptualising Conversion
  • Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:51:02 -0400

Thanks for this Loren.  It feels weird to read a description of my work.  I think you did a good job of that.  I have a few brief comments below.

Loren Rosson wrote:
. . . Christ appeared to Paul and gave him a benefaction (though what this
benefaction was, Crook doesn't venture to say) . . .

But here's my quibble: after emphasizing over and over
how important the "balance sheet" was in ancient
conversion, and providing numerous examples of
converts gaining something from the patron or deity
before reciprocating in turn with
prayer/praise/proselytizing/synkrisis, Crook refuses
to speculate on what Jesus gave to Paul. What exactly
*was* in it for Paul? Was it simply the privilege of
having a direct revelation of Israel's messianic
liberator? The promise of favored status which would
play out in the end (as the twelve are reported as
being promised in places like Mt 19:28/Lk 22:30)?
Perhaps Crook wants to leave this a mystery for others
to work on, but given that he devotes so much space to
Paul as his chief example, I felt a bit cheated here. 
I suggest that the vision itself was a benefaction, and this would be consistent with general attitudes the people had of the gods:  for a god to appear to you was in and of itself a benefaction.  The problem of course is that Paul does not explicitly claim thgat he recieved anything concrete from Goid, other than the vision.  I'm not sure anything more can or needs to be said.  It might be that you need to take up your feeling cheated with Paul, not me!
There's something else which demands comment. Crook
pulls a sly maneuver when relating patron-broker ideas
to the question of Jesus' divinity. He declares it all
but self-evident that Paul (and other NT writers) did
not portray Jesus as equal to God:

"Throughout Paul's letters and the New Testament,
Jesus is depicted solely as God's divine broker and
thus is the agent through whom salvation was now to be
attained. Since he was the deliverer of salvation,
such a grand benefaction in the eyes of Mediterranean
people, the honor that had to be directed at Jesus was
great, and because of this it became ever greater
throughout the centuries and people mistook the role
of the broker for that of the patron...The gratitude
that Paul had originally directed only at God was now
to be directed at God **and**, appropriately, at God's
broker Jesus. Both are honored and are the recipients
of Paul's words and actions of praise, gratitude and
loyalty. Significantly, however, in the letters of
Paul, Jesus the broker is always subordinate to God as
the divine patron. The confusion of the two for one is
a later theological development that, from the
perspective of patronage and benefaction, would have
appeared foreign to Paul. Paul is consistent on this:
Jesus *must* be honored -- as God's broker his
benefactions are utterly indispensable to Paul -- but
he is the broker and not therefore to be confused with
the divine patron. Indeed, such a confusion would have
been quite insulting to the patron." (pp 195-196)

But Paul is actually, infamously, inconsistent on this
point. Sometimes he subjects Jesus to God (I Cor 15)
and sometimes he equates the two (Philip 2). Crook's
claim becomes even more hazardous by bringing the
entire NT into view, since the NT as a whole
attributes more divine characteristics to Jesus than
the mere fact that he is owed "praise, gratitude, and
loyalty". The NT claims he is sovereign, exalted over
angelic powers, worshipped, and pre-existent. These
can only point to equality with God, not only by
Jewish standards, but by the conventions of
Greco-Roman patronage/benefaction. These attributes
are patronal, almost be definition, and they indicate
something much stronger than the "praise, gratitude,
and loyalty" which can be naturally given to brokers
as much as patrons. The issue cannot be settled here,
of course, but scholars (like Bauchkam, Witherington,
Esler, etc) are becoming increasingly convinced that
Paul (and most, if not all, NT authors) equated Jesus
with God. The broker *is* the patron in this case (and
Crook knows very well that brokers can be either
clients and/or patrons at the same time; see p 73).
D'oh!  That opening sentence should probably have read "Throughout Paul's letters and the synoptic Gospels. . ."  I disagree that in Phil 2 Paul equates Jesus and God as one and the same.  But I think you raise a very interesting issue with respect to brokers themselves becoming patrons.

Quibbles aside, this is a great book and mandatory
reading for everyone in the Pauline field. Thumbs up,
Zeba (if you're listening), for offering another
Context Group accomplishment which helps us understand
the ancients refreshingly on their own terms. I'm a
bit surprised the book hasn't received wider
attention, though maybe it’s still too early to have
caught on. 
Thanks again, Loren.  I think it is still too early to tell.  The book is only just now arriving at journals for review, and it's price will probably discourage many people from buying it.

Cheers,

Zeb

--
Zeba A

Zeba A. Crook

Assistant Professor

Religion and Classics

2a Paterson Hall

Carleton University

1125 Colonel By Drive

Ottawa, Ontario

K1S 5B6

613-520-2600, ext. 2276

www.carleton.ca/~zcrook





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page