In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

9 [203–222] Metaphorical Christology in Paul Reflections on the Contribution of a Theory-of-Metaphor Approach to Christology with Reference to a Number of Christological Metaphors in the Letters of Paul 1. Metaphorical and historical Christology In the investigation of concepts and ideas that early Christianity used for the interpretation of the person of Jesus, research has occupied itself for a long time and intensively with historical and tradition-historical questions. Thus the relationship between the activity and fate of Jesus on the one hand and the emergence of the christological convictions of early Christianity on the other hand was—and is—discussed;1 moreover, the orientation to the designations of majesty applied to Jesus and their tradition-historical background have played—and play—an important role.2 By contrast, the discussion of metaphor was—which may be surprising—made less fruitful [204]. Rather, it has been conducted to a large extent within parables research3 and beyond this has left its mark in the investigation of image 1 In the nineteenth century this question played an important role in the framework of the grounding of the Christian faith in the historical personality of Jesus. Prominent here is the conception of Schleiermacher 1864, the position of C. H. Weisse developed in dispute with D. F. Strauss, and the liberal life-of-Jesus research, which for a large part also stood in dispute with Strauss. If, by contrast, the developments at the end of the nineteenth and in the early half of the twentieth century (collapse of the life-of-Jesus research, history of religions school, form criticism) shifted the accents to the post-Easter confession formation , then at present inquiry is increasingly being made again into the lines of connection between the activity and fate of Jesus and the emergence of the Christology. 2 Here the investigation of Boussett 1965 [1913]; 1970, was guiding. On this orientation cf. further—amidst all the difference of the presentations—Kramer 1963; Fuller 1965; Cullmann 1975 [1957]; 1986; Hahn 1995 [1965]; 1969. This approach brought to light important history-of-religion insights with regard to the emergence of the Christology and therefore possesses—despite the qualifications about to be named—its enduring validity. This is documented not least through more recent works that are devoted to the meaning of designations applied to Jesus. Cf., e.g., Schnelle 2000; Karrer 2002. 3 Cf. more recently the investigations of Meurer 1997; Massa 2000; Liebenberg 2001. 186 From Jesus to the New Testament fields in the New Testament4 and in the exegesis of Paul and John.5 If, however, in the presentation of the events around Jesus of Nazareth we are dealing with processes of the ascription of meanings to historical events, then these interpretations are not accessible from the historical findings in themselves—even though they can be explained in their genesis—but only from the interplay of event and interpretation. If these ascriptions of meaning —as will become increasingly clear—often possess metaphorical character , then the starting point for a metaphorical Christology lies here: as a constituent element of language, metaphor possesses reality-structuring and reality-disclosing power. The analysis of its use within Christology therefore illuminates an important area of the construction of the world of meaning of early Christian faith. The importance of historical and tradition-historical questions on the emergence of Christology is not thereby relativized. Rather, the question of the connection between the activity and fate of Jesus on the one hand and the early Christian faith statements on the other side makes plausible in their emergence aspects of early Christology that were already begun with Jesus himself.6 Recent discussion has shown that more connecting lines can be shown here than scholarship was inclined to accept for quite some time.7 One would have to mention, for example, [205] the tying of the breaking in of the rule of God to his own activity,8 the use of the Son of Man expression as a self-designation,9 and an integration of his 4 Cf. von Gemünden 1993; Zimmermann 2001. 5 As examples reference may be made to Kitzberger 1986; Röhser 1987; Martin 1990; C. G. Müller 1995; Schwankl 1995. 6 On this cf. also Schröter 2010 [2006], esp. §B. 5: Jesus and the beginnings of the Christian Faith (300–23). 7 Cf., e.g., Luz 1996, 715: “But it remains the case that the early Christian Christology is already founded in considerable parts with Jesus...

Share