In part 1, I introduced co-authors Borg and Crossan, and in part 2, I discussed their majority view treatment of authentic Pauline letters vs pseudo-Pauline writings that came later as “correctives” to the radical Paul, in the authors’ view. Today, in part 3, I will discuss their less orthodox view that the Roman Emperor and the Empire were Paul’s veiled enemies in his writings, and this discussion will include links to a number of discussions of this issue.
Borg and Crossan are first and foremost Jesus scholars who offer a low christology that is less divine and more human, less other-worldly than here and now, more about a social reformer than an end-times avenger. Whether one agrees or disagrees is not relevant to this book, but what is important to note is their attempt to have Paul fit the same mold. This is where they part company with their scholarly peers.
Just a comment or two regarding the “anti-Jewish” polemics of Paul. In this regard, like Matthew and his “anti-Jewish” statements, it must be remembered that it is a “family” discussion – not anti-semitism, but criticism from a fellow Jew, but a follower of the Jewish Messiah. Paul’s is an “alternative” Judaism, an anti-Pharisaic understanding of what Jewishness means.
Also, there needs to be some context for Christian titles – titles such as “Lord” and “Savior” were not created ex nihilo. In the first century, that context would necessarily have been Roman imperialism. Whether Paul was anti-imperialistic or not is not really the important question; the question is whether the imperialistic cult was the backdrop for his theology – to what extent the imperial cult provided the framework for his theology, as reflected in these titles. In this way, he may even set the stage for Luke, who does seem to use these titles in this way, and who seems to contrast the imperial cult and its contempt for the “least” with the church as an alternative society in which the least are the greatest in God’s kingdom, and where the church becomes an alternative society to the Roman one.
It must also be said that Paul’s Christology does not yet approach that of John, although it is certainly higher than that of Mark, for instance. The lesson we should learn from this is that the New Testament reflects various understandings of Jesus and various levels of Christology; the fact that they were all acceptable in the early church reflects not only an on-going discussion about the meaning of Jesus and development of a Christology, but should also mean that there is room in the church today for various understandings. I doubt that many in the first century of Christianity (let alone Jesus himself) would have ascribed to “orthodox” Christianity, as established in the third and fourth centuries, with its high Christology. The viewpoints of theologians like Crossan and Borg are neither heretical nor from the margins, but should be seen as part of an on-going discussion that has existed since the very beginning of Christianity.
@Gary Roth
Thanks, Gary, for your insight.
Yes, Pauline Jewish statements must be read in their context. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case. Paul also had no expectation that his personal letters to a select group of friends would one day be accorded the status of canonical Scripture. Yet, the words are there, and it is hardly surprising that many Jewish scholars think poorly of Paul even as they look at Jesus as a long lost brother.
Early Christian titles are interesting and often misunderstood, as you suggest. Hebrew terms, “lord”, “son of God”, etc. came to be understood very differently as the church became Gentile.
I wholeheartedly agree that there were differing Christological views in the early church and today. Unfortunately, just as there were heresy hunters in the early centuries that resulted in a static orthodoxy, the same is all too true today. When we hear the haunting question, “Who do you say that I am”, we too quickly focus on stock answers as if this were a confirmation quiz–and as if we must answer correctly or face our doom. We would be better served to allow the question to engage us in an ongoing wrestling match a la Jacob at the ford of the Jabbok.