Since this thread was active some time ago, I had a chance to take a look at the four page discussion Keener has of this precise question in his recently published 1600 page commentary on John. He squarely reads the Synoptics as supporting Christ’s divinity. It’s too long (eg 35 footnotes) to type in here, but my favorite quote is toward the end, where after highlighting passages where Mark, Luke, and Matthew all support a high Christology, he quips, “If Matthew and Luke believed Jesus to be merely a natural messiah, they did an inexplicably sloppy job of editing Q.” After reading these four pages, I’m ready to retract my earlier conclusion that John is the only one to support Jesus’ divinity. John is certainly the most explicit, but the other Synoptics definitely see Christ as divine in the OT sense of the word, that is, as God. If you don’t have access to Keener, I guess I can try and summarize his key points, but I’m bound to do them less justice than the original text.

On the first issue of her credentials, none that you list is really all that impressive, to be frank, including the fact that top LDS scholars take her seriously. But we have already agreed that this is less relevant than the actual evidence, which we can treat separately.

With all respect, I don’t think that you have really answered my objections to her argument as you have presented it. My objection is not simply with the production of the evidence, much of which I agree with (Philo, Memra, et al.), but with her interpretation of that evidence. I just don’t think that it is historically possible to trace a single tradition through a thousand year period without paying close attention to the differences in time periods.

Further, I am not exactly sure how Enoch or others demonstrate the central point of my post concerning the NT authors. I am highly skeptical that a “palestinian” background of Jesus’s divinity can be demonstrated with Philo. While she might be able to show the semantic range of certain terms, this doesn’t do much if that range cannot be shown to be used by NT authors.

The other methodological point has to do with her claim of scribal corruption. She wants to claim on the one hand that when she finds evidence of her argument that the tradition has been preserved, and where this evidence doesn’t exist, it is because the scribes have eliminated it. This is a pretty sketchy argument. Unless she can give examples where the text has been known to be emended that prove her thesis, she is just making inferences without substance. Additionally, her use of Ehrman is completely wrong. As you have presented it, she wants to argue for an early, high Christology. The problem is that Ehrman shows just the opposite, that the early Christology is low and the later Christology is high based on the textual transmission. Finally, her theory of scribal corruption makes no sense since she is arguing that the “orthodox” view of a high Christology is original! Why would scribes edit out a high Christology? Her theory depends on the argument that only John preserves the earliest Christology and that scribes have edited out all references to a high Christology out of all of the other texts.

As for the texts that she cites and the christological titles that she mentions with regard to Paul, I have already dealt with many of these extensively above, so she isn’t adding much. There are a few that I haven’t dealt with yet:

I follow the traditional view that Eph is deutero-Pauline, so I won’t treat those texts specifically as they relate to Paul’s christology, but they still don’t prove her point.

On the first set of texts wherein Yahweh is the referent for quotations from the HB:

Rom 10:13- I am not sure that we want to get into the argument that the original referent is what Paul had in mind when he quotes the text. Paul argues that Jesus is “Lord” (10:9) and that if you believe on the Lord you will be saved (10:13). However, in the quotation in 10:11 (Isa 28:16), the referent is clearly not the LORD, but the stone which the Lord will put out. So, in the span of two verses one text identifies Jesus with the Lord and the other text distinguishes Jesus from the Lord. I think that instead we have to look at how Paul is interpreting these texts rather than our interpretations. In that case, Paul thinks that Jesus is Lord, but one still has to show that for Paul “Lord” means God. Given that he consistently distinguishes God from Lord, one is put in the rather difficult position of having to argue that Paul did not think that God was Yahweh. This is manifestly wrong since he consistently refers to God as the author of the Law, God’s people, etc, all of which are clearly Yahweh. Since Paul does not think that God and the Lord are the same figures (see every proem wherein they are distinguished), he clearly does not mean “Yahweh” when he says “Lord.” This seems to be incontrovertible, so if I am unclear, I will explain it more.

Rom 4:8: ditto.

Eph. 4.8: This is actually a good text. The question here is whether the ‘descent’ (4:9) refers to the incarnation or the descent into Hades. What is meant by the “lower parts of the earth”? I think that given 4:5-6, wherein the Lord is distinguished from God again, we are on firmer ground think that this is a resurrection theology rather than a pre-existence theology.

Phil. 2.10. Again, since v.9-11 specifically distinguish God and Christ, this doesn’t prove much.

Eph. 1.21: This too is a good text. There is very clearly a high Christology of an exalted Christ. This imagery of sitting at the right hand comes from Ps 110:1, (which is a key text for Christology later as well when the two uses of kyrios in this text are used to distinguish God and Christ, but to exalt Christ). The problem, of course, is that this text is spoken to David, not to Jesus, which indicates that this doesn’t necessarily make one divine. It is certainly a messianic text, even a heavenly messiah, but I am not sure if this qualifies as making Christ divine. Again, the lack of any text that uses the word “divine” to describe Christ seems to be an important point. The insistence that the audience would infer from HB quotations that Christ was a God even though they studiously avoid actually saying it seems like a stretch.

1 Cor. 1.8; 5.5; Phil. 1.6- The claim here is that the Day of the Lord implies that Jesus is a God. No one is saying that Jesus isn’t crucially important for Paul, but this still doesn’t say that he is a God.

Col. 1.15-20: There is a good case to be made here. This is a later deutero-Pauline text, and I will have to think more about it. While again I think that the “image” of God is not the same as God, there is something Wisdom-y about this text.

2 Thess. 1.7; 2:8- this doesn’t mean that he is God.

1 Tim. 2.5- he is a mediator, not a God.

Eph. 5.21-33 cf. John 3.29 and 2 Cor. 11.2- again, he is exalted and very important, but not God.

Thanks for providing these excellent texts to work with. Again, I admit a great deal of difficulty in making sense of Pauline Christology. I am reluctant to define it in the affirmative, since it is much easier to contrast it with other Christologies than to find a clear definition that fits what Paul is doing. While I can admit to a restricted definition of God, I think that it should be clear that Paul at least shares this restricted definition. For Paul and the deutero-Paulines, Christ is very important, may have pre-existed creation, and holds a pre-eminent place in God’s court. So, what does that make him? Why does Paul restrict the term God and the adjective “divine” in such a way to make Christ separate from those things, despite his exalted Christology? I don’t know.

Were you aware that she was the President of the Society for Old Testament Study in 1999? That she was invited to write the Isaiah commentary for the Eerdman’s Commentary on the Bible? That she was invited to head up a study on the importance of the Temple for understanding Christian beginnings by an international group of scholars working out of Oxford? That her book, Temple Theology, was shortlisted for the 2007 Michael Ramsey Prize for the best theological writing for the previous two years, that prize being administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury? I personally know over a dozen top LDS scholars who not only take her seriously, but who have entered into correspondence with her. I know a couple of people who dismiss her work as “not mainstream”, but am unimpressed by appeals to the Great and Spacious consensus. The things I have published in LDS journals and books that have been taken the most seriously have been those that explored Margaret’s work. One of my personal top 10 tidbits about the Book of Mormon is that I can make a case that the prophecy in 1 Nephi 13:39-41 is specific to her work.

That said, what impresses me most is not consensus or popularity (something incompatible with being committed to a minority faith like the LDS in any case), but evidence.
If you are serious about evidence, I’d recommend reading at least The Great Angel.

“Investigation of this problem [that is, the identification of Jesus as Kyrios, the Lord], if they are not purely theological, usually centre on linguistic evidence, rather than on the literary and theological context…” (The Great Angel, 218)

Linguistically, one can invoke a possibly ambiguity in a text, and then resolve that ambiguity on the side of what ever case one chooses to assert. Such an approach should not fail to consider literary and theological contexts that may have a direct bearing on how to resolve ambiguity, and indeed, on why certain texts have become controversial and have generated variants via the Hellenistic scribes who had lost touch with the Palestine traditions and the temple.

She has followed New Testament scholarship on the state of the NT texts:

“Recent work on the transmission of the New Testament has shown convincingly that what is currently regarded as “orthodoxy” was constructed and imposed on the text of the New Testament by later scribes, “clarifying” difficult points and resolving theological problems. . . . It may be that those traditions which have been so confidently marginalised as alien to Christianity on the basis of the present New Testament text, were those very traditions which later authorities and their scribes set out to remove.” (Barker, “The Secret Tradition,” Journal of Higher Criticism 2/1 (1995): 50. She is citing Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).

Barker’s chapter on “The Evidence of the New Testament” includes the literary and theological context that she spent the previous 10 chapters (and three previous books) amassing.

A small taste, a part of one paragraph:
“Paul who had been most zealous for the traditions of his people was able to quote Old Testament Yahweh texts to describe Jesus” ‘Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord’ (Rom.10.13) was originally said of Yahweh (Joel 2.32). ‘Blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin’ (Rom .4.8) was originally said of Yahweh (Ps. 32.2). ‘When he ascended on high he led a host of captives’ (Eph. 4.8) was originally a description of Yahweh’s appearing in the holy place and then ‘returning to heaven’ (Ps. 68.18), and the allusion in Phil. 2.10, as we have seen was also originally to Yahweh. Equally unambiguous are other titles and roles of Jesus in the epistles traditionally ascribed to Paul: he is the power and wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1.14); he sits at the right hand (Eph. 1.21); he has a ‘Day’) (1 Cor. 1.8; 5.5; Phil. 1.6); he is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, he holds all things together and is the mystery now manifest (Col. 1.15-20); he is to be revealed from heaven with mighty angels to bring judgment (2 Thess. 1.7); he would kill the lawless one with the breath of his mouth (2 Thess. 2.8; originally said of the Messiah, Isa. 11.4, but then of the Man from the sea, the son of Elyon, 2 Esd. 13.10 and 32); he is the one mediator between God and men (1 Tim. 2.5); he is the bridegroom of the Church (Eph. 5.21-33 cf. John 3.29 and 2 Cor. 11.2), just as Yahweh had been the ‘husband’ of his people ((Isa. 54.5; Hos. 2.20). All of these were titles and roles of the second God…” [that is, they all come from the Palestinian background in which Christianity arose] (Barker, The Great Angel, 222-223).

Earlier in the same chapter, she compares the NT and OT uses of Redeemer, Savior, and Lord. And she has a full chapter on Philo and the Logos, as well as another chapter on Memra in the Aramic Targums.

In her introduction, Barker shows that the hidden agenda of much 20th century scholarship has been to “emphasize the humanness of Jesus, and to show that his ‘divinity’ was a later development and an unfortunate one at that.’ (Barker, 1). She points out that “long before the first Gospel was written down, Paul could quote a Christian hymn, presumably one which his readers would recognize, and therefore was widely known” and she cites Phil. 2-6-11. Of this, and of Romans 1.3-4, she observes that “all the titles are there: “Son of God, Lord, and Messiah.” She explains how these titles belong together in the “expectations and traditions of first-century Palestine.” (Barker, 2).

FWIW

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

I think it would be safe to say that there is plenty in Paul’s writings that supports the Mormon view of Jesus’ personhood. It does not force that view, I agree, but to suggest that it is inconsistent with that view does not seem correct either.

I do think that you are on to something by comparing LDS views and Paul, and I discussed this in the original post above. I think that it is fair to say that for Paul Christ is exalted, but this is not the same thing as making an ontological claim about the nature of Jesus’s person.

1. Wisdom Christology- there is no doubt that Wisdom is a divine or semi-divine figure. The only question is when she is equated with Christ.
2. Paul and wisdom christology- 1 Cor 1:30-Paul certainly calls Jesus “wisdom,” but not all references to wisdom are references to Wisdom. In this same passage, wisdom is equivalent with righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, (see also 1:24 and “power”) none of which are divine personalities, so there is no reason to assume that wisdom is a divine personality in this context. Rather, chapter 2 makes it more clear that Paul is contrasting the wisdom of God with the wisdom of the world. I think that this makes it more clear that divine wisdom is not meant because it doesn’t make sense. Rather, the wisdom of God is the gospel message.
1 Cor 8:6 explicitly says that God and Jesus are separate. It is complicated, however, and I can see the point about Jesus as involved in creation. In the end, however, I think that it is ambiguous about what is meant by “through” here. Does that mean post-easter salvation, or premortal creation? I am inclined to think of it as the former given Paul’s empahsis on the future salvation that Christ will effect for us. Additionally, this passage says that it is “from” God the Father that we exist, which points more towards him as responsible for creation in contrast with Christ who is responseible for salvation.
2 Cor 5:19- I don’t see Wisdom Christology here. Again, this passage says that God was using Christ as a separate agent.
3. The article’s author admits ambiguity here, and I agree that Wisdom Christology is far from a slam dunk. I don’t really see the claims to sonship (Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4) as solving the problem any more. One still needs to demonstrate that the Son is a divine figure, which is difficult to do. There may be some pre-existence stuff here, but I am not entirely sure what that proves either. Certainly one can assign a high christology to this, but it is not necessary.
4. The “lord” references are too many to deal with, but I will let the author’s conclusion stand that these references distinguish Christ from God much more than they demonstrate his divinity.
5. I read the final paragraph here is ulitimately agreeing with me. Christ is certainly very important for Paul, but he is not God. As 1 Cor 15:28 explains, Christ is the figure who put all things into subjection for God, and will be subject to him.

My early enthusiasm for John’s explicitness about Jesus’ divinity was not meant to suggest that John was the only one, just that he was so very in-your-face about it.

I do think there is good evidence for Paul viewing Jesus as divine. See the Anchor Bible Dictionary article on Christology, with esp reference to Paul’s Christology. To paste in one section that supports Paul calling Jesus divine, showing many references we could discuss:

————–

2. Wisdom Christology—Christ as Divine. Perhaps the most enduring development was the application of Wisdom categories to Jesus. Divine wisdom had long served as one of the most important bridge concepts for a Judaism seeking to present itself intelligibly and appealingly within the context of the wider religiophilosophic thought of the time. Within Judaism itself, Wisdom (along with Spirit and Word) was one important way of speaking of God in his creative, revelatory, and redemptive imminence (Proverbs, Sirach, Wisdom, Philo). Judaism’s distinctive claim was that this wisdom was now embodied in the Torah (Sir 24:23; Bar 4:1).
Already with Paul the equivalent association is being made between Wisdom and Christ (1 Cor 1:30)—that is, Christ as the embodiment of divine Wisdom and thus as the definitive self-expression of God (Col 1:19; 2:9). He uses Wisdom terminology boldly of Christ, particularly in speaking of his role in creation (1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:15–17). Whether he means by this that Christ himself was preexistent, as most conclude, or, more precisely, that Christ has assumed the role of preexistent Wisdom without remainder, is less clear. At all events, he has no doubt that it is Christ crucified who is the definition of divine Wisdom (1 Cor 1:24), the determinative revelation and redemptive act of God (2 Cor 5:19).
The element of ambiguity here is not resolved by other references. The concept of Jesus’ divine sonship provides an important bridge between Adam and Wisdom christologies, but the usage in Rom 8:3 and Gal 4:4 seems as close to the imagery of Mark 12:6 as to that of the Fourth Evangelist. Potentially more revealing is the title “Lord,” since it was such an important indicator of Christ’s status for Paul (note particularly Rom 10:9 and 1 Cor 12:3; well over 200 times in reference to Christ). Its use in Hellenistic religion for the cult god made it an important evangelistic and apologetic tool. Over against Hellenistic tolerant syncretism Paul claimed exclusivity for Christ’s Lordship (1 Cor 8:5–6, Phil 2:9–11, 1 Cor 15:25). In so doing he did not hesitate to apply OT texts referring to Yahweh to the Lord Christ (Rom 10:13; 1 Cor 2:16; Phil 2:10–11—using the strongly monotheistic Isa 45:22–23). Yet, at the same time, Paul evidently did not see such usage as an infringement on traditional Jewish monotheism (1 Cor 8:6; also 3:23; 11:3; 15:24, 28). To call Jesus Lord was as much a way of distinguishing Christ from the one God as of attributing him to God’s agency. Hence the frequent reference to “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 15:6; 2 Cor 1:3, 11:31; Eph 1:3, 17; Col 1:3).
The question whether Paul called Jesus “God” does not provide much help on this point. For one thing, “God,” like “son of God,” did not have such an exclusive reference at this stage, even in Jewish circles (cf. Ps 45:6; 82:6; Philo, Sacr 9; Quaes Gen II. 62). And for another, the only clear occurrence comes in the late or Deutero-Pauline literature (Tit 2:13). In the strongly Jewish context of the earlier Rom 9:5 it is unlikely that any Jew would have read the benediction as describing “the messiah” as “God over all.” The fact that Paul evidently offered his prayers to God “through Christ” (Rom 1:8, 7:25; 2 Cor 1:20; Col 3:17) confirms that for Paul Christ’s role is characteristically as mediator. In other words, neither Adam christology nor Wisdom christology should be emphasized at the expense of the other.

The author recommended Barker’s approach in The Risen Lord for contextualizing the New Testament via the First Temple traditions because it powerfully argues for an original high Christology, rather than one imposed backwards on Jesus by later theologians.

The problem, of course, is that the evidence goes the opposite way. The NT texts start out with a lower Christology and scribes make it a higher one, as you note. Erhman’s ground-breaking The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture makes this point undeniable. She can’t really argue that the scribes edited out the high Christology and cite the fact that they edited out the low Christology (esp. adoptionist) as evidence.