corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
- 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:
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!. . . 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.
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.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).
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.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.
Cheers,
Zeb
--
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
-
[Corpus-Paul] Reconceptualising Conversion,
Loren Rosson, 07/05/2005
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Reconceptualising Conversion, Matthew W Mitchell, 07/06/2005
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Reconceptualising Conversion, Zeba Crook, 07/06/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.