Corpus-Paul

[Robert Kraft <kraft AT ccat.sas.upenn.edu>]

Although I see glimmers of it in the discussion, I'm missing any clear
appreciation of the eschatological centrality of Jesus' death/resurrection for
Paul. Jesus' literal death brings an end to the period of inevitable 
dominance by
sin/flesh (the passing "present age") and guarantees, through the resurrection
(as "first fruits" and "down payment" security), the ability of participating 
in
the eschatological transfer (the desired "age to come") before it literally is
completed at the individual level. Paul's "messianic body"  collective concept
(perhaps in extension of Isaiah's "suffering servant"?)  requires
symbolic/ritualized death (and corresponding assent/dependence) as the
initiation, and involves the "members" in suffering as well as ultimate
vindication/resurrection with their Lord.

I wouldn't call that a model of vicarious, substitutionary, or noble death. 
It is
more an end of the old and an entry way to the new (transitional, in some 
sense,
although not gradual), and one takes advantage of the situation by 
intentionally
participating. Neither Socrates, nor the "martyrs" of 2/4 Macc are quite 
there!

Bob Kraft, UPenn

PS. Whatever "Greek" ideas or traditions may have influenced Paul, I doubt 
that 
he got them from Tarsus. The diverse Syro-Palestinian scene (even in 
Jerusalem) would have been adequate for that task!

> Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 04:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Paul's Christ: Noble Martyr or Cultic
>       Sacrifice?
> To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> 
> Ian,
> 
> >My point was not that IV Maccabees was dated too late
> >to be a part of the picture. Rather, I was pointing
> >out that the "death for" formula did not
> >originate with Paul. It was already a traditional
> >formula when he wrote in the
> >50s. If this language was being used (as is probable)
> >in Antioch or Jerusalem
> >prior to Paul's missionary work, is it likely that
> >these communities would have been working in the
> >same sphere of thought as is IV Maccabees?
> 
> I see; and I agree with what you're getting at. It may
> be that Paul inherited a certain understanding of
> Jesus' death and re-worked it (polemically) around the
> Noble Death. 
> 
> >I think what evidence we have suggests rather that
> >these communities tended toward very traditional 
> >Jewish apocalyptic
> >thought for their central conception of 
> >Jesus' significance. So if this is the context in
> >which the language developed, and in
> >which Paul himself learned it,
> 
> Well, don't forget Paul was born in Tarsus and was no
> doubt influenced by Hellenic ideas, whatever his level
> of schooling there. Seneca says that the Noble Death
> was so commonly discussed that schoolboys were sick of
> hearing about it. 
> 
> >In 7:1-6, however, Paul emphasizes that in some sense
> 
> >the believer has *actually* died with Christ. The
> >believer is free from the jurisdiction of the law
> >because they have somehow actually died. This 
> >is not merely a metaphor or a new way of thinking.
> >The whole logic of Paul's argument
> >require that the death is a real one, but one which
> the believer 
> >underwent vicariously. This is the same logic as that
> >at work in the passage I quoted before from Gal 2.
> 
> I wouldn't disagree with the terms "actually" and
> "real" as applied to the believer's death -- I don't
> know that Seeley would either -- but certainly Jesus
> is the only one who literally dies. Here's a citation
> from Seeley:
> 
> "Jesus' death was a death to sin; therefore, so is the
> 'death' of anyone who re-enacts it in baptism. But
> this last death is not the sort whereby the individual
> ceases to function physically. Believers' bodies may
> be in some sense 'dead', as Rom 8:10 says, but they
> are still up and walking around [and yet unclothed
> with the resurrection]... Paul has mythologized the
> concept of death. It no longer means 'cease to
> function physically' but 'leave the dominion of Sin'.
> Paul has taken the process which in IV Maccabees is
> preparatory to a literal death and ascribed the sort
> of objective effects to it reserved in IV Maccabees
> for the literal." (p 102)
>  
> >what makes me wonder about his model as you describe
> >it is that there seems to be no
> >precedent in Hellenistic ideas about martyrdom
> >for this kind of real participation in another's
> >death -- a participation which has the same 
> >causal results (at least in some spheres) as if
> >one had
> >actually died oneself. This forces me, thus far,
> >to conclude that Paul's understanding of Jesus' death
> >is not shaped in its fundamental outlines by
> >Hellenistic ideas about martyrdom.
> >Whether he might use some martyr language in
> >expressing his (essentially
> >different) Christology is, however, another matter.
> 
> I'm leaning in a similar direction. Paul seems to have
> used martyr concepts/language in polemical opposition
> to the way they're normally understood. But then what
> was his central -- or perhaps "original" is a better
> word -- understanding of the vicarious nature of
> Jesus' death? I doubt it was sacrificial, for the
> mixed metaphors (passover in I Cor, atonement in Rom)
> indicate supplementary usage. Perhaps Isaiah's
> suffering servant, as you note, needs to be
> re-introduced into the discussion (though see Seeley,
> pp 39-57). Gal 1:4, 2:20; Rom 4:25, 8:32; I Cor 15:3;
> Philip 2:6-11 would be the places to start, and you've
> already discussed Gal 2:19-21. But again, Paul nowhere
> develops a suffering servant theology (anymore than a
> sacrificial theology) in the way he does
> aeon/participation theology, or in the way he does

**glimmer!

> (say) the Abraham paradigm in Gal and Rom. Perhaps
> Paul's thought had evolved enough by the time he wrote
> his letters (especially by Romans) that any original
> understanding of Christ's vicarious death had been
> "taken over" in large measure by the Noble Death. 
>  
> Loren Rosson III
> Nashua NH
> rossoiii AT yahoo.com

-- 
Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
kraft AT ccat.sas.upenn.edu
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html