{"title":"On Kierkegaard’s “The Difference between a Genius and an Apostle”","authors":"P. Hart","doi":"10.1163/15743012-02603001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In “The Difference Between a Genius and an Apostle,” Kierkegaard deploys the figure of Paul as the archetype of an apostle, who “does not develop in such a way as he gradually becomes what he is [according to potentiality].” This claim would seem at odds with much contemporary Pauline scholarship, which understands Paul’s writings as an ad hoc, developing, quasi-guerrilla sort of theology. While this may be the case, Kierkegaard’s essay is nonetheless deserving of attention, for it highlights an issue that arguably remains a tacit foundation of Pauline studies – namely, the identification and resulting allure of Paul as an inherently authoritative figure in early Christianity.","PeriodicalId":41841,"journal":{"name":"Religion and Theology-A Journal of Contemporary Religious Discourse","volume":"64 1","pages":"310-337"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Religion and Theology-A Journal of Contemporary Religious Discourse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15743012-02603001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In “The Difference Between a Genius and an Apostle,” Kierkegaard deploys the figure of Paul as the archetype of an apostle, who “does not develop in such a way as he gradually becomes what he is [according to potentiality].” This claim would seem at odds with much contemporary Pauline scholarship, which understands Paul’s writings as an ad hoc, developing, quasi-guerrilla sort of theology. While this may be the case, Kierkegaard’s essay is nonetheless deserving of attention, for it highlights an issue that arguably remains a tacit foundation of Pauline studies – namely, the identification and resulting allure of Paul as an inherently authoritative figure in early Christianity.