Interpreting Pauline Paradox
A Response to Gorman’s Cruciformity Concept
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21476957 |
|---|---|
| Authors | B G White (Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies, Chair of Religious and Theological Studies, The King’s College New York, NY USA, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 44 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 172-194 |
| Publication date | 2022-07-29 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Horizons in Biblical Theology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0195-9085 • E-ISSN: 1871-2207 |
| Publisher | Walter de Gruyter GmbH (PUBLISHER • DE) |
| DOI | 10.1163/18712207-12341452 |
| OpenAlex | W4289529702 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 7 |
Michael Gorman’s ‘cruciformity’ concept (recently re-articulated as ‘resurrectional cruciformity’) is commonly used to interpret Paul’s paradox of strength in weakness (e.g., 2 Cor. 4:7, 12:9–10). However, Gorman never discusses the current conceptions of Pauline paradox. An analysis and summary of this literature – with reference to 2 Cor. 12:9–10 – reveals that Gorman’s approach fails to produce a technical articulation of paradox, largely due to its underdeveloped congruence between strength and weakness (cf., v. 9a, 10b). This leaves his work vulnerable to theological distortion, including masochism. In response, it is argued that ‘strength in weakness’ involves two opposed realities occurring simultaneously and mutually qualifying one another, without conflation or isolation – i.e., a coinherent paradox. This model offers a generative, rather than kenotic, reading of strength in weakness, in which the paradox increases human potential. It also offers connections with early Christology that set the paradox in a fresh theological frame
Conflation · Epistemology · Generative grammar · Linguistics · Political science · Sociology · Weakness · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Christian Theology and Mission · Computer Science · Law · Philosophy · Theology and Philosophy of Evil
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |