Initial Thoughts on Sergio Nebreda's Christ Identity

Sergio Rosell Nebreda, Christ Identity: A Social-Scientific Reading of Philippians 2.5-11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. ISBN 9783525532546 $138.

Sergio Rosell Nebreda, Professor of Sacred Scripture, Seminario Evangélico Unido de Teología, claims that Paul desires to form the social identity of the Christ-followers in Philippi on the basis of the Christ-hymn in Philippians 2:5-11. He suggests a new approach to Philippians 2:6-11, one that focuses “on its function as a vehicle for social communication, part and parcel of its social milieu, but aiming at transforming the Christ-following community, in search for an identity which ultimately derives from Jesus the Christ as described in the hymn” (Nebreda 2011: 27). Nebreda’s goal for his study “is to assess the apostle’s implicit strategies as well as to recognise his aims of creating a social identity based on Christ-orientation as displayed in Phil 2.6-11, which Paul himself affirms he follows (3.12-13)” (Nebreda 2011: 28). He sees “self-giving and self-humiliation as a paradigm of Christ-like identity” and this serves as a competing social identification to one that “was based on privilege and the search for honour” (Nebreda 2011: 28).

Nebreda begins by providing a thorough description of Tajfel and Turner’s social identity theory, which lays the foundation for his approach to identity formation. Next he provides an anthropological and sociological analysis of the Mediterranean basin in the first century. Here the influence of the Context Group is evident. Following this analysis, he provides a low-level abstraction of Philippi as a Roman colony and delineates a model of romanisation. Chapter 5 uncovers Paul’s identity with regard to suffering and slavery. In doing this, he brings to the fore ancient viewpoints concerning suffering and slavery. What emerges from this discussion is the centrality of suffering to Paul’s mission and identity. This reinforces the alternative nature of the Christ-like identity. The next chapter addresses key scholarly issues related to Philippians and specifically the hymn itself. The final chapter provides a thorough analysis of Philippians 2:5-11 and the way it functions in the formation of a distinct social identity in contrast to first century Mediterranean society. For Nebreda, the central point of contention is the differing social conceptions of “humility” (tapeinophrosunē) (Phil. 2:3). While, this final chapter is the primary one that focuses on the text in question, this is appropriate in that Nebreda’s primary concern is with the way “the community that received the letter would have understood the apostle’s words” (Nebreda 2011: 33).

Nebreda’s approach to identity formation emphasizes an element of discontinuity. The Christ-like identity is formed in contrast to existing cultural identities (but not completely so, see (Nebreda 2011: 345) and his recognition of a discourse of comparison). For example, he concludes that “this Christ-identity Paul proposes is based on the Christ-event, the narrative that gives birth to a new people no longer defined in ethnic origin or social merit terms” (Nebreda 2011: 344). I would suggest rather no new people are being birthed and that the Christ-movement is described in the context of their existing ethnic and social identities (Tucker 2011: 62-88). Nebreda’s stance is based on his reading of Philippians 3:5-8 and the way it seems to call into question any meaningful continuation of Paul’s Jewish identity. What I find interesting is his use of William S. Campbell’s approach. Nebreda, while recognizing Campbell’s view of the “relativization of all things in Christ” (Campbell 2008: 89), seems to not fully integrate an equally important point from Campbell, that Paul cannot serve as a model for gentile identity in Christ. Nebreda (2011: 345) quotes Campbell in order to support the view that in Philippians 3:5-8, Paul’s past in Judaism is negated and that Paul serves as a model for both Jews and gentiles in Christ. Campbell’s specific claims move in the opposite direction: (1) Paul continues to be Torah-observant and within the boundaries of Judaism; and (2) Paul does not serve as a good model for gentiles in Christ. Campbell concludes, “Paul is the paradigm for Jewish Christ-identity but not for gentile” (Campbell 2008: 156). As an intercultural mediator, Paul’s approach to identity formation builds on existing identity nodes, rather than subverting these, this is one area where I would like to see Nebreda’s work developed further. This small difference aside, Nebreda’s monograph is an important and useful work that advances the way social identity theory may be applied to Paul’s letters and his emphasis on the centrality of suffering in the formation of Christ-movement social identity echoes the fine work of Kar Yong Lim, Lecturer in New Testament Studies, Director of Postgraduate Studies, Seminari Theoloji Malaysia, Seremban, Malaysia and deserves further attention by New Testament scholars.

References:

Campbell, William S. Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity. London: T & T Clark, 2008.

Lim, Kar Yong. "The Sufferings of Christ Are Abundant in Us" (2 Corinthians 1:5) A Narrative-Dynamics Investigation of Paul's Sufferings in 2 Corinthians. London: T & T Clark, 2009.

Tucker, J. Brian. Remain in Your Calling: Paul and the Continuation of Social Identities in 1 Corinthians. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011.

John Reumann's Philippians Commentary

John Reumann. Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible Series 33B. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2008. xxiv + 805. ISBN 978-0-300-140045-3. $65.00 (cloth).

John Reumann’s methodologically eclectic commentary assumes that canonical Philippians arises from the combination of three letters into one at the end of the first century (Letters B, C, and then A). The author bases this assumption on internal considerations and does not cogently argue for this position except for his reference to Polycarp, Phil 3.2 with its allusion to epistolas (pp. 8-9). Letter A, for Reumann, includes 4:10-20 and expresses Paul’s thankfulness and joyfulness for the Philippian Christ-followers. It was written from Ephesus in A.D. 54. Letter B was written in the last part of 54 or in the early part of 55 and includes 1:1-3:1, as well as, 4:1-9, 21-23. This letter, unlike Letters A and C, indicates that Paul composed it in prison. It focuses on Epaphroditus, Paul’s situation, and the way the gospel progresses even amid opposition. The polemical Letter C includes 3:2-21 and most likely 4:1-9. It was written in A.D. 55 and is concerned with issues of doctrine, ethics, and unity (p. 3). Reumann’s partition theory requires him to comment on the text in its original Letter A, B, and C context as well as its canonical literary setting; this sometimes makes the commentary unwieldy and disjointed.

It is difficult to assess his partition theory since editorial constraints limited explicit positive arguments for his view. Furthermore, his claim for an Ephesus provenance with its attendant imprisonment is contested. This rarely impinges on the commentary proper, which follows the traditional Anchor Yale Bible format: author’s translation; extensive exegetical notes; author’s comment and personal viewpoint, and expansive sectional bibliographies. These provide a storehouse of Reumann’s decades-long research into the Philippian correspondence. However, the truncated nature of the finished product (originally planned as a two volume work) results in a commentary that is most useful as a reference work, not as a seamless presentation of Paul’s epistolary discourse. Furthermore, the notational conventions and the often elliptical discussion make the work quite useful for those already familiar with the broader field of Pauline studies but somewhat unapproachable for general readers, who form part of the commentary’s intended audience.

In a short review, it may be most useful to outline some of Reumann’s conclusions. He sees 2:6-11 as an encomium developed by the converts in Philippi for their mission. Paul redeploys it for his rhetorical purposes addressing their internal problems (p. 333). The other preachers in 1:14-18b are resentful over Paul’s use of his Roman citizenship to avoid suffering at the hands of the Roman authorities (p. 207). With regard to the perennial debate over development in Paul’s eschatology (1:23), Reumann concludes that Paul had “a consistent present-and-future position throughout [his] career” (p. 240). The episkopoi and diakonoi mentioned in 1:1 were leadership positions “invented by” the Philippians, though Reumann rightly notes the paucity of evidence for cultic activity at this early stage (p. 89). In 3:4b-11, he initially describes Paul’s understanding of the reconfiguration of his Jewish identity “in Christ” as both a contrast and a comparison (p. 505). However, Reumann’s binary formulation of “Saul the Pharisee” and “Paul in Christ” betrays his understanding of the continued salience of Paul’s Jewish identity. I contend that Paul is not denigrating his Jewish identity; rather by means of a qal wahomer form of argument, he is telling the Philippians that those aspects of their Roman social identity that they hold dear are nothing in comparison to knowing Christ (see 1 Cor 7:19). Reumann, in his comments on 3:9, continues his support for the traditional, forensic understanding of justification by faith (cf. pp. 492-98, 509). However, his consideration of the way righteousness language would have been heard in a Roman context exemplifies his skillful weaving of traditional theological concerns with the Roman imperial context in Philippi. This commentary is a testament to decades of research, and though Reumann passed away in 2008, his thoughts are thankfully here preserved for critical engagement by both present and future scholars.