As I continue work on my directed research project, it’s becoming more and more convincing to me that Christology in the synoptics isn’t exempt from pre-existence and divinity.
The reasons for this are twofold. If we assume the following, then it would be strongly in our favor to assume what I’m proposing to be the case.
1) Paul had great influence when it came to matters of theology on the post 67 A.D. church.
2) If we, along with the grand majority of scholars, assume that passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:47, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 1:16, Galatians 4:4, 1 Corinthians 10:4, and Philippians 2:6-11 have within them, at least pre-existence (even though divinity is clearly seen).
I think if one accepts both of these as true, then it seems consistent that the Synoptic Gospel tradition, though possibly expressing this in different literary ways (obviously, they’re stories), should contain a high Christology. If Paul did have such a great influence as we assume and there truly is divinity and pre-existence in Paul, I don’t see how it wouldn’t easily follow. This is especially the case of Luke, who was a close partner with Paul (if assuming Acts is reliable).
My questions are the following: 1) Have we allowed the scholarly consensus on Christology determine the Christology we get out of the synoptics? 2) If so, though we can’t read Paul into the synoptics, is it possible we’ve missed something so big as Jesus’ divinity?
EDIT: When I asked if “we’ve missed something so big as Jesus’ divinity”, the we I am referring to is scholarship, not the church. Moreover, I didn’t mean to include myself in this group of scholars, considering I’m not one.