We invite your critical comments concerning the following thesis:
The claim of Pauline mysticism is groundless for to following reasons:
- There is no clear definition of the mysticism itself, so we do not know what we are looking for in the letters.
- The term “mysticism” does not occur in the corpus Paulinum, so there is no basis to talk about the mysticism in Paul.
- An attempt to find mysticism in Paul is the clearest example of eisegesis.
- Mysticism is a much more recent idea than the letters of Paul.
- In order to find mystical elements in Pauline writings, one has to presuppose the author to have been a mystic. There is, however, no evidence that Paul was a mystic.
Do you agree or disagree with any of these arguments? How do you support your position?
No comments:
Post a Comment