Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

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

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JERRY SUMNEY <JSUMNEY AT LEXTHEO.EDU>
  • To: 'Corpus-Paul' <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: RE: [Corpus-Paul] Approaches to the question of divine-Christolog
  • Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:52:38 -0400

Chris and all,

Thanks for the good response to my inquiry. Let me take up a few
points. First, it seems appropriate to look at the word theos in detail
given the topic. However, it is correct that such a word study does not
settle to issue. Still, without clarity on this and a recognition of the
broad range of meanings given this word, we will likely not understand as
clearly as we might what Paul thinks. Your reference to Bauckham thinking
the title 'god' is too low for Christ is certainly something to think about,
particularly in light of what I mention about Gnostics below.

Now, moving the focus to "demons" does not change anything because
daimonion does not refer to demons in our sense but to (lesser) spiritual
powers--some beneficent, some malevolent. This is particularly the case in
the Roman environment. So when Paul refers to demons he does not necessarily
refer to minions of the devil. These may be the powers that rule the
heavens, though in other contexts they may be exalted ancestors who have
some influence in the spirit world. So here again, we must be careful not
to be anachronistic on yet another score.

Further, to believe that one "being" is the source of all things
does not keep various philosophers from recognizing that there are real
beings in the realm of divinity. Emanation theories allow both sorts of
assertions--think of Philo. Of course, Gnostics (a bit later)have many
"gods" that all began with emanations from a single being. You can look at
the hymn to Isis that has one-god indications, but at the same time allows
worship of other gods. So in practice, many in the 1st century did not see
a contradiction between having one being who is source of all things and
including many beings in the category of gods or the divine. (I think this
is the point to look at most carefully.)

Would Paul distinguish the God of Israel from other gods? Yes. He
would say that the God of Israel is over and the source of all things.
Would he feel a contradiction between this and acknowledging that there are
indeed many gods? I doubt it. The tortured discussion of 1 Cor 8-10 shows
that he acknowledges the existence of many beings that can be given the rank
of god. These beings are real and may cause harm or give blessing. Still
Paul says you must not worship them. I think Frank is right that the
prophets of Israel call their fellows not to worship other gods and they
deny those beings that some worship the rank of 'god'. But if you had asked
if Baal is real, they would have said, Yes. Not to be worshipped and not as
powerful, but a god.

BTW, I think that a growing number of Jewish scholars are arguing
that there was no such thing as "monotheism" in the ancient world.

Well, there are a few more musings, or perhaps muddyings.

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Tilling [mailto:chris AT christilling.de]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 7:27 AM
To: corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [Corpus-Paul] Approaches to the question of divine-Christolog


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


_______________________________________________
Corpus-Paul mailing list
Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page