Paul and his interpreters : $b A critical historySchweitzer, Albert
Religion
Paul and his interpreters : $b A critical history
Schweitzer, Albert
Bible. Epistles of Paul -- Criticism, interpretation, etc. -- History; Paul, the Apostle, Saint
By the method which he applies, Reitzenstein is necessarily driven to
adopt this far-reaching view. He makes no effort to take into the
field of his argument the Late-Jewish eschatology, as preserved in the
post-Danielic literature, in the discourses of Jesus, and the
Apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra. Whatever is not self-explanatory, and
cannot be explained from the Old Testament, is, according to him,
derived from the world of thought associated with the
Mystery-religions.
The proper procedure would really have been to examine the conceptions
drawn from apocalyptic thought and those from the Mystery-religions
independently, and then to decide which of them rendered possible the
better explanation. The best way would have been for Reitzenstein to
discuss the matter step by step with Kabisch, who had sought to derive
the fundamental conceptions of the Pauline mysticism from eschatology.
The total neglect of eschatology forces him to some curious
conclusions. After showing, in opposition to a canonised confusion of
thought, that there is not the slightest connexion between Paul’s
doctrine of the first [pg 221] and second Adam in I Cor. xv. 45-49 and
Philo’s theory about the two accounts of the creation in Genesis,
since in that case the pneumatic heavenly man would be the first, and
the psychic earthly man the second,_(_183_)_ he comes to the
conclusion that the view set forth in I Corinthians must have
underlying it “the belief in a god ‘Anthropos,’” who came to be
identified with Christ.
This hypothesis naturally suggests itself to Reitzenstein, because in
_Poimandres_ he believes himself to have discovered a myth about
Anthropos._(_184_)_ But is this, even if it were held to be proved, of
such a character that the Pauline conception of the first and second
Adam could without more ado be derived from it? Is the complicated
hypothesis necessary?
Paul’s conception can be explained without the least difficulty on
eschatological grounds. The first Adam brought mankind under the
dominion of death. Christ is the Second Adam because He by His
resurrection becomes the founder of a new race, which in virtue of
that which has taken place in Him becomes partaker of an imperishable
life, and acquires a claim to the future possession of the pneumatic
heavenly body which He already bears. The Second Man comes from heaven
because the pre-existent Christ, in order to become the founder of the
“humanity of the resurrection,” must appear upon earth and assume
fleshly corporeity. He is “life-giving spirit” because the _pneuma_
which goes forth from Him as the glorified Christ, works in believers
as the power of the resurrection. This being so, what purpose is
served by bringing in the very doubtful myths about the god Anthropos,
especially as Paul, though he certainly thinks of his Second Adam as a
heavenly being, never anywhere speaks of Him as God.
[pg 222]
This is typical of a series of similar cases._(_185_)_
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account