Monday, July 03, 2006

Defining 'divine-Christology'

My Colloquium paper went well tonight, and the members appeared to agree with my major original contributions, which is always nice.

As it turns out, I was my worst critic, and I’ll admit, I’m still not happy with the paper. I feel this subsection of my chapter on 1 Cor has the potential to be something really good, and until I’ve chiselled that ideal out, everything else will look dull to me. For those who have asked to read a copy, I am sorry for not getting back to you – I’ve just been a been, well ... frankly, a lazy git.

My thesis concerns the present debate regarding Pauline divine-Christology.

But what is ‘divine-Christology’?

I like, at least as a provisional and working definition, that suggested by Bauckham: A divine-Christology places Christ, ‘on the divine side of the line which monotheism must draw between God and creatures’ (R. Bauckham, “The Worship of Jesus in Apocalyptic Christianity,” NTS 27 [1981]: 335).

How would you define ‘divine-Christology’?


At 7/04/2006 2:58 AM, Anonymous Derek Brown said...

Excellent Chris...I'm looking forward to your further thoughts...especially your understanding of worship within early (divine-) Christology. Congrats on the success of your paper.

At 7/04/2006 6:23 AM, Anonymous Matthew D. Montonini said...

Good for you, Chris. I look forward to reading your paper

At 7/04/2006 6:02 PM, Anonymous Jonathan said...

Congrats Chris!

I'd like to read your paper too (hint hint). I'd like to see how you work through the issue of what "divine" means in the 1st C. to begin with. To take Bauckham's line is to side with those who think there was a strict line between God and the rest of reality, what do you say to those that don't think we should construe the evidence that way, that intermediaries blur the line, or we have a spectrum of divinity?

At 7/04/2006 11:36 PM, Anonymous Chris Tilling said...

I'm of the same opinion as Bauckham, though for other reasons. Second Temple Judaism drew a clear line, I think, between God an intermediary figures.

At 7/06/2006 5:33 AM, Anonymous One of Freedom said...

Would that not really just be a high-Christology?


At 7/06/2006 2:51 PM, Anonymous Chris Tilling said...

Hi Frank,
Well, some scholars, like Dunn, divide a divine-Christology as I have defined from a high Christology. Dunn would deny the former of Paul, and admitt the latter. He is, though, I am quite sure, wrong.


Post a Comment

<< Home