Paul and Philo on the Politics of the Land, Jerusalem, and Temple (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.reihe)

In this study, John-Paul Harper critically compares how Paul and Philo rethought the significant Jewish symbols of Land, Jerusalem, and Temple. Drawing particular attention to their political significance, he demonstrates how these symbols offer important insights into how both Paul and Philo conceptualised authority in the local community (Temple), within the wider »people of God« (Jerusalem), and in relation to the Roman Empire (Land). The author argues that, while both conceptualised authority in charismatic terms, Philo's appropriation tended to be more individualistic and focussed on otherworldly realities, whereas Paul's tended to be more communal and focussed on this-worldly realities. Along the way, the author contributes to contemporary discussions of Paul and Philo's Jewish identity, their perspectives on community leadership and order, and their perspectives on the Roman Empire. Cover Title Preface Table of Contents Abbreviations Chapter 1: Introduction A. Topic and goal of the study B. Research problem C. Hypothesis D. Background E. Why Land, Jerusalem, and Temple? F. Why Philo? G. Paul and Philo on politics and power I. Philo’s politics II. Paul’s politics III. Paul and Philo on power H. Paul’s ἐκκλησία and Philo’s synagogue I. Methodology J. Outline of Study Chapter 2: Paul on the Land, Jerusalem, and Temple A. Introduction I. The relationship between the Land, Jerusalem, and Temple II. 1 Cor 3:5–4:5 III. Rom 15 IV. Gal 4:21–5:1 V. The politics of the Land, Jerusalem, and Temple B. The Land I. W.D. Davies and Paul’s Christological interpretation of the Land II. M. Forman and Paul’s this-worldly interpretation of inheritance in Romans III. E. McCaulley and sharing in the Son’s inheritance in Galatians IV. The challenge to the Pauline “expansion of the land” perspective V. Israel’s restoration and the Land in 1 Cor 1–4 1. Israel’s restoration in 1 Cor 1–4 2. The content of “what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor 2:9) 3. The background of “what no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived” (1 Cor 2:9) 4. The political aspects of Paul’s rhetoric in 1 Cor 1–4 VI. Conclusion C. Jerusalem I. Jerusalem and the Temple II. Paul’s ambivalent relationship to Jerusalem III. Paul’s refusal to disassociate himself from Jerusalem 1. Paul’s relationship to the Jerusalem church 2. Paul’s Jerusalem Collection 3. Jerusalem in Paul’s eschatological expectation IV. Paul’s authority not dependent on Jerusalem 1. Galatians 4:21–5:1 in recent interpretation 2. ‘Jerusalem above’ and the hope of restoration 3. ‘Jerusalem above’ and heavenly citizenship 4. ‘Jerusalem above’ as mother V. Paul and the politics of Jerusalem VI. Conclusion D. The Temple I. Paul and the Temple from H. Wenschkewitz to M. Suh II. The source domain for Paul’s Temple metaphor III. The Temple in 1 Cor 3:5–4:5 IV. The Temple and authority in 1 Cor 3:5–4:5 V. The Temple community and judgement in 1 Cor 1–4 VI. The Spirit and authority in 1 Cor 1–4 VII. The Temple community in 1 Cor 5–6 VIII. Conclusion E. Conclusion Chapter 3: Philo on the Land, Jerusalem, and Temple A. Introduction I. Philo’s place in Second Temple Judaism II. Philo’s exegesis B. The Land I. The Land in Philonic scholarship II. The Land as cosmos and the sovereignty of the wise 1. The Land as cosmos through Stoic cosmopolitanism 2. The Levitical priests who have no Land but only God as their “inheritance” III. The Land in Philo’s eschatological expectation IV. Conclusion C. Jerusalem I. Jerusalem in Philonic scholarship II. The City of God as the world and as the peaceful soul of the wise III. The authority of Jerusalem IV. Conclusion D. The Temple I. The Temple in Philonic scholarship II. Philo’s Diaspora location and the tension between the literal and symbolic III. The community as Temple and the sanctity of the synagogue IV. The function of Philo’s allegorical Temple language V. The Temple, the Spirit, and authority VI. Conclusion: God’s House – Temple or Universe? E. Conclusion Chapter 4: Paul’s ἐκκλησία and Philo’s πολιτεία in the world A. Introduction B. The Land C. Jerusalem D. The Temple E. Conclusion Chapter 5: Conclusion Bibliography Index of References Author Index Subject Index In dieser Studie vergleicht John-Paul Harper wie Paulus und Philon die bedeutenden jüdischen Symbole des Landes, Jerusalems und des Tempels neu durchdachten, wobei der Autor besonderes Augenmerk auf die politische Bedeutung legt. Er zeigt, wie diese Symbole wichtige Einblicke in die Art und Weise bieten, wie sowohl Paulus als auch Philon Autorität in der lokalen Gemeinschaft (Tempel), innerhalb des gesamten »Volkes Gottes« (Jerusalem) und in Bezug auf das Römische Reich (Land) konzeptualisierten. Der Autor argumentiert, dass beide Autorität zwar charismatisch konzeptualisierten, Philons Aneignung jedoch eher individualistisch war und sich auf das Jenseits konzentrierte, Paulus' Aneignung dabei eher gemeinschaftlich war und sich auf diesseitige Realitäten konzentrierte. Damit leistet John-Paul Harper einen Beitrag zu zeitgenössischen Diskussionen über die jüdische Identität von Paulus und Philon, ihre Perspektiven auf Gemeindeleitung und -ordnung und ihre Sicht auf das Römische Reich. "In this study, John-Paul Harper critically compares how Paul and Philo rethought the significant Jewish symbols of Land, Jerusalem, and Temple. Drawing particular attention to their political significance, he demonstrates how these symbols offer important insights into how both Paul and Philo conceptualised authority in the local community (Temple), within the wider 'people of God' (Jerusalem), and in relation to the Roman Empire (Land). The author argues that, while both conceptualised authority in charismatic terms, Philo's appropriation tended to be more individualistic and focused on otherworldly realities, whereas Paul's tended to be more communal and focused on this-worldly realities. Along the way, the author contributes to contemporary discussions of Paul and Philo's Jewish identity, their perspectives on community leadership and order, and their perspectives on the Roman Empire." --Provided by publisher