I thought I would have time to develop a post about the gospel resurrection narratives. But predicted rain on Monday didn’t eventuate, so I stayed in the garden.
Perhaps that post will be ready for next Monday.
In the meantime, if only so I know where to find these links next year, here are links to two sermons I prepared for Good Friday and Pascha respectively.
Good Friday: https://youtu.be/Ib41pAsEGyU
Pascha: https://youtu.be/s7vdUF5jfBE
Fifth attempt to post! "Thank you for responding, Peter. The essence of my post (as far as I can remember it) was:
ReplyDelete1. Most of Campbell’s book consists of setting up an abstract “Justification Theory” without attributing it to anyone (although what he describes is clearly part of Luther’s central doctrine of justification but certainly far short of what Luther taught about being ‘in Christ’), and then attributing all the social ills under a liberal heaven to the pernicious effects of this so-called doctrine. One major reviewer of his work (Matlock) says Campbell “goes so far as to associate his opponents with [list of modern sins, redacted], not on the basis of anything they say but of his own ‘logical’ extrapolations from his ‘theoretical description’ of ‘Justification theory’. I am bound to say this part of his analysis is the most outrageous stretch of argument I have ever encountered in this field.” Reformed theologians have seen only a travesty and misrepresentation of their beliefs as Campbell depicts them. Reformed writers in general (and Luther and Calvin in particular) do not argue from ‘plight’ to ‘solution’ but look retrospectively, from what Christ has done for us to our guilty standing before God without Christ.
2. Exegetical comment on Romans 1.18-3.20
Campbell proposes (without any textual evidence) the following hypothetical scenario: Paul is planning to visit the church in Rome (which he didn’t found) but he has somehow learnt that an unnamed Jewish Christian opponent dubbed ‘the Teacher’ who holds the pernicious ‘Justification Theory’ is on his way to Rome to mess up the Romans’ (properly Pauline) beliefs about the benevolent God. Paul can’t name ‘the Teacher’ outright, so he quickly writes this letter which includes 1.18-3.20 as a reductio ad absurdum of ‘the Teacher’s’ ‘Justification Theory’ and gets Phoebe (Deliverance, pp. 532, 541) to perform it mimicking ‘the Teacher’s’ voice and gestures in a parody. There isn’t a shred of evidence for any of this uncontrolled speculation, and a closer look at the text makes this even less likely.
- 1.18 clearly parallels and continues 1.17 (apokaluptetai) and the natural way to read this as Paul’s voice, not an opponent.
- If verses 18-32 contain words that are not particularly characteristic of Paul’s own regular vocabulary, so what? Did Paul compose Phil .2.5-11 or Col 1.15-20 or quote earlier words? We know he is a great quoter of others!
- The language of worship in 1.25 would be strange and irreverent if Paul was putting these words on the lips of his supposed opponent.
- According to Campbell, 2.6 expresses ‘the Teacher’s’ doctrine of ‘retributive justice’, an idea Campbell says ‘the real Paul’ castigates. But 2.6 is actually a quotation of the Bible (Prov. 24.12), which Paul would not mock or condemn.
- 2.16 states that judgment will happen “according to my gospel through Jesus Christ”. If Paul was attacking the ‘incoherent’ and ‘reprehensible’ theological scheme of ‘the Teacher’, it seems inconceivable that he would have his opponent mention ‘my gospel’ or ‘Christ Jesus’. A far better and much more natural reading is that this is Paul’s voice we hear throughout.
- 3.9, ‘we have already made the charge that Jew and Gentiles alike are all under sin’ is best understood as Paul looking back over the preceding argument as his own – and not that of his supposed opponent.
TBC
James
ReplyDeleteContinued:
I could offer more on problems in the way that Campbell understands ‘faith’ and ‘righteousness’ but I’ll stop here with the reflection that trying to excise ‘justification’ from Paul’s thought as so much detritus to be rid of really does violence to his thought. ‘Justification’ and ‘participation’ are both vital, interrelated dimensions of Paul’s thought. And it’s vital, too, for making sense of the New Testament as a whole. Very recently Andy Angel brought out a book on ‘the teaching of Jesus’, highlighting how the uncomfortable themes of judgment and hell featured in Jesus’ actual words. If Campbell’s revisionist Paul was true, then he would have has many serious differences with the figure depicted in the Gospels.
James
Hi James
ReplyDeleteI cannot say anything in response in respect of Campbell's Deliverance and your critique of it - I have yet to read more than a few pages of Deliverance.
But I continue to be impressed by Campbell's Pauline Dogmatics! That appears to me to be orthodox to date ...
Nor have I read his Pauline Dogmatics. But if it is based on his highly idiosyncratic beliefs about Romans and Paul's thought generally, I would have serious doubts about its balance, let alone its "orthodoxy", which is a creedal-ecclesial judgment. Mark Seifrid, along with Douglas Moo, Barry Matlock and Francis Andersen, has severely criticised the assumptions, methods and outright exegetical errors in his "Deliverance", and so too has Larry Hurtado. An orthodoxy of one? Campbellisarius contra mundum?
ReplyDeleteWhat a writer fails to consider - or explains away as so much detritus - is just as telling as what he talks about. It's a fundamental failure of method. If you already know what the answer is, you will find the "evidence" quite quickly enough if you are smart enough to dismiss all the false positives. A bit like the Jesus Seminar determining what Jesus "really" said (like their stepson Bart Ehrman). Or the Victoria Police pursuing George Pell.
James
I want to add (because cold print and focusing on differences can give a wrong impression) that what I know of Campbell's ministry to prisoners seems very Christ-like to me. To reach out to reclaim those rejected by society for the harm they have done is a special work of grace.
ReplyDeleteA blessed Anzac Day to all in these strange times.
James
Thanks James!
ReplyDeleteBelated thanks, James for your perseverance and triumph in posting!
ReplyDeleteAt this late date, a few broad thoughts in reply may suffice.
(1) Personally, I am pondering arguments-- the more the merrier-- and ignoring reputations. The initial critical response to The Deliverance of God was all over the place, and many reviewers seem not to have understood the arguments as well I-- and I assume others-- now do.
That is not surprising. They reviewed the book shortly after it appeared in 2009, but ten years and other research have given us a perspective on it that they could not have had. Moreover, the book braids church history and systematics into pauline studies, but most of those reviewers were Paul scholars who were out of their depth where the book touches history and systematics. A few were prejudiced-- opposing anything that seriously engaged Ed Sanders's book Paul and Palestinian Judaism, or receptive to anything with a participative soteriology. And finally, Campbell has since made comments on the book (eg in Chris Tilling's collection Beyond Old and New Perspectives on Paul) that a curious reader would want to consider.
As opinions, the reviews are well past their shelf life, but here and there some arguments in them may still have merit.
(2) The louder voices in the print discussion have at points talked past each other. This happens especially subtly where Campbell et al apply *reason as explanation* and his critics respond with *reason as prudence*. Tacit moral considerations that we should be able to respect lie behind both preferences.
ReplyDeleteCampbell (like Wright or Sanders) prefers the strongest present explanations of data with nothing presumed in advance. So he methodically chooses speech-in-character over either interpolation or just ignoring the data to explain the five well-known anomalies in Romans 1. The strongest explanation need not be perfect; it just needs to be better than the next best explanation present. So about your objections to his reading, I think Campbell and others would rather mechanically reply that because they do not explain the five anomalies, let alone do so more probably than his reading does, they cannot feasibly govern an exegesis of Romans 1. It is reasonable to prefer the explanans that best covers the explananda of the text without assuming what is being defended.
In contrast, certain of his critics argue as though ideas that are presumed reliable can only be displaced by new ones if the arguments supporting them are impeccable, and the more consequential the idea the more flawless flawlessness must be. In print, we can see this in arguments that are content to raise objections and maybe cite the prior consensus as though those two moves alone could refute or at least push aside a new proposal. Ideas are innocent until they are proven guilty, it seems, and important ideas are more innocent than others.
One can feel very self-righteous about being reasonable in either way. This is all the more true because, to each, the other has a lower standard of proof.
Campbell has spent his career wielding a disinfectant spray against circular reasoning about both St Paul and Paul, and any advance decision to protect ideas as especially important necessarily begs that spray on its knees. To his mind, it is just because his critics are reasoning in circles about Romans 1 that they are unconcerned that they cannot understand it unless and until they account for all of its data including the five anomalies. If only they would apply the same exegetical care there that they do elsewhere they would face up to the truth.
But conversely, those who think about St Paul and read Paul in a broad deep consensus see immense value in its continuity, and folly in a style of reasoning that puts it in jeopardy with every decade's new paradigm. Not to put too fine a point on it, the Protestant gospel cannot change every ten years for the next Sanders, Wright, or Campbell.
(3) The elephant in the room is that the West now has two orthodoxies. Their readings of Paul have differed in salient respects for much more than a millennium. While one can find partisans for each who cannot cope with the other, we seem destined to make room for both.
ReplyDeleteOrthodoxy with an uppercase O has not just spread through large diasporas from Greece, Slavic lands, and the Middle East. It is also prominent in academe through a determined effort to engage the theology of the West that is similar in some ways to the also successful efforts that evangelicals began two generations ago. And Karl Barth's reliance on the Cappadocian fathers in his work on the Trinity was only the first of several Western raids across the frontier. At Princeton of all places, Bruce McCormack now finds himself supervising dissertations on SS Maximus and Gregory Palamas. Even evangelicals put Byzantine icons of Jesus on books, websites, etc.
So far as I have noticed, Campbell, who is Reformed in the Calvin-Barth-Torrance clan of that tribe, does not cite a single Greek father or Orthodox theologian in Deliverance. But the soteriology that he finds in Paul there would fit comfortably with the Orthodoxy described in a manual like John Meyendorff's Byzantine Theology.
This cuts both ways. On one hand, confessional Protestants cannot so easily appeal to tradition over against Campbell because a Tradition of at least equal weight is broadly on his side, whether he cares to invoke it or not. On the other hand, in an intra-Reformed conversation, it could seem reasonable to ask whether a gospel so close to that of the East that condemned Cyril Lucaris can be developed into one that is, in a contemporary sense, Reformed. It would not be surprising if the tribes could not agree.
BW
"Campbell (like Wright or Sanders) prefers the strongest present explanations of data with nothing presumed in advance."
ReplyDelete- not so. He presumes Romans 1.18-3.21 CANNOT be Paul's actual thinking.
"So he methodically chooses speech-in-character over either interpolation or just ignoring the data to explain the five well-known anomalies in Romans 1."
- I don't know of anyone who claims the passage is an interpolation (but Campbell makes it out to be an alien intrusion of false ideas to be ridiculed), and the history of Reformed AND Catholic exegesis - from Augustine to the present - has NOT ignored the data. For example, Catholic thinking believes strongly in Natural Law (Rom 2.14-15) and Natural Theology (Rom 1.18-20) and finds both concepts strongly evidenced in Romans 1-2. "I'm Paul of Tarsus and I approve this message." Natural Law and Natural Theology are thoroughly Jewish ideas found throughout the OT (cf. Ps 19; Amos).
"The strongest explanation need not be perfect; it just needs to be better than the next best explanation present."
- It needs to be true and evidenced. Sadly the world of NT scholarship is full of uncontrolled speculation, like Bultmann's invented "Gnostic Redeemer myth" as the supposed background to Johannine Christology. It was all invented nonsense, because Bultmann couldn't believe that first century Jews in Palestine could think and speak that way, and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls demolished his ideas.
"So about your objections to his reading, I think Campbell and others would rather mechanically reply that because they do not explain the five anomalies, let alone do so more probably than his reading does, they cannot feasibly govern an exegesis of Romans 1."
- The "five anomalies" are, in the first instance, in his mind; or secondly, in Paul's failure to write his letter in a way that is comprehensible to the questions in the mind of people living 2000 years later. Paul is not alone in that failing.
"It is reasonable to prefer the explanans that best covers the explananda of the text without assuming what is being defended."
- I am not an out & out Occamist, but I think it is more reasonable not to multiply assumptions which can never be proved and more reasonable to assume that if a writer wrote X, he means X unless there is clear evidence that he is quoting X in order to refute it. If you wish to say 'Paul wrote X but also Y and they seem to clash' (i.e. 'I find anomalies'), you can answer in these ways:
- 'Paul is confused' or
- 'X and Y do belong together when/if you see the bigger picture'
- 'I don't really understand X - and possibly Y.'
One thing I don't really care much for is working backwards using a theological 'system' or grid to 'understand' a text. I know this is inevitable to some extent but we must always be prepared to allow the text to modify our 'system' - and Campbell has a system as much as anyone. I am reminded how Barth strenuously attacked natural theology and what (to me at least) is the evident meaning of Romans 1.19-20, that there is a natural knowledge of God. Barth was so sold on his "positivism of revelation" that he would sometimes make imperious statements denying what Scripture was plainly saying. That is why I have come to think of Barth as an errant son of evangelicalism: often gloriously right but sometimes just plain wrong. Systems - and hypotheses - must never prevail over the text.
James
Hi James
ReplyDeleteOne observation: in our "reactions" to various Protestant, if not evangelical positions taken on Romans (whether a Wright or a contra-Barth, as above re natural theology), it is intriguing how close the resulting position may come to Roman Catholic soteriology! (I have seen this observed re Wright).
Could you amplify that last comment, please, Peter? I recall reading something from NTW a few years ago in which he said (or at least I think he said) something like "The future judgment on us will have been proved to be consistent with and on the basis of the kind of lives we have led"; i.e., not just 'forensic justification' (the classic 'Lutheran' position, also held by Calvin) but actual (measurable?) sanctity of living. Is that a correct summary of what NTW said was the meaning of 'justification' in Paul and is it similar to what J H Newman said in his 'Lectures on Justification'? I do not know if I could easily summarise RC soteriology in the relation between faith and 'works'.
ReplyDeleteJames
Hi James
ReplyDeleteWere you thinking of this?
https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/54/54-1/JETS_54-1_49-63_Wright.pdf
I repeat what I have always said: that the final justification, the final verdict, as opposed to the present justification, which is pronounced over faith alone, will be pronounced over the totality of the life lived. It will be, in other words, in accordance with “works,” with the life seen as a whole—not that any such life will be perfect (Phil 3:13–14) but that it will be going in the right direction, “seeking for glory and honor and immortality” (Rom 2:7). When I have spoken of “basis” in this connection, I have not at all meant by that to suggest that this is an independent basis from the finished work of Christ and the powerful work of the Spirit, but that within that solid and utterly-of-grace structure the particular evidence o6ered on the last day will be the tenor and direction of the life that has been lived.
NTW, p 12
You may recall that John Henry Newman— who himself said some interesting things about justification— made a distinction between two different types of disagreement. Sometimes, he said, we disagree about words, and sometimes we disagree about things. Sometimes, that is, our disagreements are purely verbal: we are using different words, but underneath, when we explain what we mean, we are saying the same thing. Sometimes, though, we really are disagreeing about matters of substance— even though, confusingly, we may actually be using the same words. I suspect there is something of both types of disagreement going on in current debates, and it would be helpful if we could at least get some clarity there.
NTW, p 1
BW
Hi James and Bowman
ReplyDeleteThanks Bowman for those citations!
James: I lack time for a long comment. All positions on faith/justification/sanctification are difficult to fairly summarise in a few words and I don't want to be unfair to RC theology but my understanding is that (somewhat in line with NTW above re whole of life) RC theology emphasises both faith and works (but not the "works" only approach that sometimes Prots characterise RCs as holding) - biblically reflected in the Matthew/James axis rather than the Romans 3-4; Galatians "justification by faith alone"; and has a high regard for natural theology (Aquinas etc).
So, what I am trying to say is that there is an irony when some Protestants question certain "Protestant" positions (which have a background in being a "protest" against RC positions) that these critical Protestants can end up "back" at an RC position or set of positions rather than in a "purer" Protestant position.
Not that it is easy these days to define "pure" Protestantism!
ReplyDeleteJoint Declaration on Justification of the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church
https://tinyurl.com/6ee1
BW
By "some Protestants" do you mean Wright? Or do you mean other names? Wright is on record as saying that Protestantism has been wrong about the meaning of justification for nearly 1500 years and that he, Tom Wright, correctly determined the true meaning in the late 1990s ("What St Paul really said"). Is this the "close to RC position" you were talking about? The RC position, as I understand it, is that justification is not forensic or relational but is an actual "infusion" of holiness into a person's soul, a kind of first instalment received by grace that must be added to in order to make a person fit for heaven at death; or failing that, for varying periods of purgatory until he or she is sufficiently holy for heaven. I think this is roughly the teaching of Trent.
ReplyDeleteThe Reformers complained that Rome confused justification and sanctification, and it seems - at first glance- that Wright has done something similar in his revised interpretation of the meaning of justification, explicitly repudiating Luther.
Of course, writers like Piper and Paul Helm have taken him severely to task, saying he has confused the "ordo salutis" and not done justice (!) To the way dikaio is used in the NT. I wonder if Wright has come round to believe in some kind of purgatory for Christians who never advanced much in holiness during their earthly lives. It would be only logical if his "whole of life" interpretation of "justification " is correct.
James
Hi James
ReplyDeleteWright is a lightning rod for certain Protestant criticisms of the New Perspective on Paul but all "new perspectivists" potentially push us towards a Catholic understanding of salvation (by which I am focused more on "obedience to the law of God" than on infusion/impartation (though these matters are not completely separable).
I note this, as one instance of Catholic favourability to the NPP, from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul :
"Catholic and Orthodox reactions
The "new" perspective has, by and large, been an internal debate among Protestant scholars. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox writers have generally responded favorably to new-perspective ideas,[56] seeing both a greater commonality with their own beliefs and strong similarities with the views of many of the early Church Fathers. From a Catholic point of view, the "new" perspective is seen as a step toward the progressive reality of human salvation in Christ.[clarification needed]
The increased importance new-perspective writers have given to good works in salvation has created strong common ground with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Historic Protestantism has never denied that there is a place for good and faithful works, but has always excluded them from justification, which Protestants argue is through faith alone, and to which good deeds do not contribute, whether with or without God's grace.[57][58] This has, since the Reformation, been a line of distinction between Protestantism (both Reformed[59] and Lutheran[60]) and other Christian communions."
N T Wright himself does not deign to explain what he finds in the scriptures of the C1 in terms of the doctrinal disputes of the C16. He is a Protestant. In the link above, he insists that it is precisely not Protestant-- not like Luther-- to prefer any later tradition of men to what can be found in the word of God.
ReplyDeleteTo his mind, the C1 apostolic writings should be construed as they were first understood by their C1 hearers. Insofar as time runs forward rather than backward, very few will emphasize the influence of C16 questions and nomenclature on the minds of C1 disciples of Jesus. By definition, believers in later times, including Luther's and our own, seek the teaching of the apostles as they themselves expressed that.
In the C16, and within the framework of medieval Latin theology, one could both intelligibly and intelligently ask whether justification was accomplished by works of the law. Wright affirms Luther's negative answer (see the link); he denies that the question itself was being asked or explicitly answered in the C1 (see the link). This explains his disinterest in confessional terminology.
BW
I recognise you're not a Catholic scholar, but would you say I have accurately summarised the Catholic understanding of 'justification' as 'infusing real sanctity' into a soul which must be supplemented by good works in order to gain eternal life, otherwise there will be a (lengthy?) period in purgatory to make that soul worthy of eternal life? In other words, 'justification' for RCs really means the beginning of sanctification. Is this what Wright believes and does he concomitantly believe now in purgatory? I distinctly remember hearing in my Catholic childhood that saying certain prayers or wearing medals, scapulars etc would remit X years in purgatory, and given the Catholic understanding of justification (if I have grasped it correctly), purgatory is a logical deduction, given the great differences in devotion different Christians have demonstrated in their lives.
ReplyDeleteThe Lutheran, btw, has no problem in believing that the Old Testament teaches a religion of grace that looks forward to Christ. Luther developed his understanding of dikaio first from the Psalms.
James
We must beware of chronological snobbery. Luther was perfectly capable of asking in the 16th century what Paul meant in the first century, just as Campbell in the 21st century asks the same question. Wright at least agrees with Luther that Romans 1.18-3.21 are Paul's own teaching, something which uniquely (?) Campbell is at pains to deny. Whether Wright has correctly understood how Paul meant justification- and thereby uniquely overthrown 1500 years of wrong interpretation- is another question. Wright's analysis of the dikaioo and dikaiosune tou theou texts at this stage in my reading looks pretty problematic- he is given to sweeping, rhetorical statements ("Justification doesn't mean how you get saved, rather it's God's declaration that you are part of the covenant community" etc) that don't stand up to closer analysis. I will see what I can make of his claims.
ReplyDeleteJames
The Catechism of the Catholic Church--
ReplyDeletehttps://tinyurl.com/ybt59x55
Bw
HI James
ReplyDeleteI am not a sufficiently learned scholar re Catholic theology to evaluate your summary above in relation to Romans, infusiona nd purgatory. It looks on right lines but the bit I would particularly check out is "purgatory" (which I am sure is "still on the books" noting Bowman's link to the Catechism) but which I don't hear or see much talk about these days.
Perhaps we need to get beyond "chronological snobbery"?
One the one hand, yes, I agree, all of us, from Wright to you and me should avoid (be wary of) a position which effectively discounts all previous scholarship. On the other hand, whether we are engaging with Luther, Calvin, Wright, Campbell, Barth, or (better!) reading Romans for ourselves, there is always the possibility of a new appreciation of a relentlessly profound text!
"We must beware of chronological snobbery."
ReplyDeleteIndeed. In different and possibly conflicting ways, Wright and Campbell are not so much arguing with Luther himself as with the Latin inculturation that prompted him and his opponents to read and argue as they did. Their critics tend to hear them as making blunders within that matrix rather than grounding a critique of it outside of it. A question for both revisionists and their critics is: can scholars humanly distinguish the gospel from a mere inculturation of it by exegetical debate alone? Confirmation bias is very hard to overcome.
BW
I think you are being too kind, BW. Wright and Campbell *are* indeed arguing with Luther and what he taught, and not just with "Latin inculturation" (whatever that is - do you mean scholastic theology?). As I have seen in my recent reading, Campbell is very much opposed to Lutheran doctrine - and the whole train of Reformed theology and confessions that follow from this, Calvin included). Barry Matlock, Douglas Moo, Thomas Schreiner and Francis Andersen, among others, are agreed that the whipping boy of all errors, what Campbell calls "Justification Theory", is close to a caricature of Lutheran theology. As for Wright, I have been reading a lot of his "What Saint Paul Really Said" (1997) and from his recent "biography" of Paul (2017), and in both he makes it clear that he thinks nobody bar nobody from the time of Augustine to the present has understood what Paul meant by "justification by faith" until ... Tom Wright. Yes, he is that bold (hubristic?) in his assertions. Augustine, Luther and their successors all misunderstood what Paul meant - saith Wright. He claims to have gone 'ad fontes' to give us Paul meant (as does Campbell in his own arcane way) about "justification by faith" and 'the righteousness of God'. Whether Wright's exegesis is right - as far as I can tell - I will address in another comment. But no - Wright IS attacking Luther for misunderstanding 'justification' and the 'dikaiosune tou theo' and he offers significantly different understandings of each (though Wright is not as novel as he claims to be). And Campbell IS attacking him on different grounds. More on this later.
ReplyDeleteJames
"A question for both revisionists and their critics is: can scholars humanly distinguish the gospel from a mere inculturation of it by exegetical debate alone? Confirmation bias is very hard to overcome."
ReplyDeleteA first litmus test that has not so far yielded any false positives is this one: how did exegete X respond to E P Sanders's Paul and Palestinian Judaism? There are some fine exegetes I still admire who have still not engaged this challenge in a methodical way. That is fine-- paradigm-level argument is not for everyone-- but if they opted out on Sanders then their opinions on downstream paradigmatic work by Dunn, Wright, and Campbell etc tends not to be useful. They chose checkers; others now play chess; the moves are properly different.
A second litmus test is almost as useful: how much peer-reviewed work has exegete X published on participative interpretations of Paul? Some systematicians can fairly and intelligently discuss positions that they themselves do not hold because their training has often required them to do this. Those trained only in biblical scholarship have not been tested in this way, and unsurprisingly they are much less often able to understand exegesis or argument with unfamiliar suppositions. So an exegete with a career of ignoring or opposing participative readings of Paul is not necessarily persuasive. The odds of useful comment improve when a critic (eg Grant Macaskill) has himself done work in a similar vein.
What I am hearing is a defense motion for summary dismissal of the plaintiffs' case on the grounds that several sincere and influential citizens wish that it would just go away. They make, however, adjudicable claims with urgent and weighty consequences. + Peter makes the essential point when he reminds us to read the word itself rather than relying on the reputations of men to decide what God is doing with it. We will try each argument on its merits. Motion denied.
BW
It isn't 'checkers' to engage with Dunn and Wright instead of Sanders because they are not mere acolytes of him (just as Campbell is not a mere acolyte of Wrede and Schweitzer, although obviously he builds on their radical views of Jesus and Paul, rather than Sanders'more classically liberal view of Jesus, as do other post-orthodox writers like Borg and Allison). Dunn and Wright have made equally important contributions to the "New Perspective" as Sanders has with his theory of "covenantal nomism". Dunn has argued that erga tou nomou in Paul has a very narrow Jewish focus on sabbath, circumcision and food laws; and Wright has attempted to overthrow 1500 years of exegesis on dikaioo and dikaiosune in Paul - not my definition of "checkers" (or even "chequers"). It is obvious why there has been more engagement with Dunn and Wright than with Sanders - although Carson et al produced two long volumes on "Variegated Nomism" about 17 years ago. Whatever abstract picture you draw from 200 years of texts of "Palestinian Judaism" is interesting but not all that helpful when it comes to asking questions like: did the Pharisees as depicted in Matthew's Gospel really think and act that way? Did Paul the Pharisee in Philippians 3 accurately describe how first century Pharisees thought? Did Jesus tell the truth about the actual attitudes of Pharisees in his parable in Luke 18? To put it simply, we need to contrast an "ideal type" of a religion based on texts over two centuries with how zealous people behaved in an occupied nation headed toward a very bloody war in thirty years' time. To give a crude comparison (and I'm not presaging war!), it is useful to know formal statements of Baptist theology since 1850 or so, but not so helpful for understanding what present day Baptists actually think about their own lives.
ReplyDeleteDunn and Wright are not so much "downstream" from Sanders but major rivers in their own right. Whether their exegesis of Paul is correct is, of course, an issue of much greater significance to the Church than whether "covenantal nomism" accurately described pre-70 Judaism in Israel.
A major rebuff to Dunn came from his own doctoral student Simon Gathercole whose monograph "Where Is Boasting?" bravely challenges key ideas of Dunn - and Sanders. And Charles Lee Irons' 2015 monograph on the the ZDQ and the DIK word group and how Wright has used this (building on Heinrich Cremer) makes very severe criticisms of Wright's exegesis. I wouldn't dismiss this as "checkers".
Your last paragraph, freighted in legalese, is ad hominem and unfair. Play the ball, not the man. Case continues.
James
Now I've had the chance to re-read what Wright wrote in 1997 ('What Saint Paul really said') as well as excerpts of his 'biography' of Paul (2017) and numerous other things he has written in more recent years on the meaning of 'dikaiosune theou' and justification generally in Paul; along with critiques by Simon Gathercole ('Where is Boasting?'), Charles Lee Irons, Schreiner and Westerholm and others. In brief, Wright believes:
ReplyDelete1. that the 'righteousness of God' in Paul is a calque for 'covenant-faithfulness' and not a norm describing the intrinsic character of God and his standards of justice;
2. that justification by faith (dikaioo) doesn't mean a change in status for the new believer whereby he or she, though a sinner, is imputed the moral perfection of Christ but rather is a "declaration" (to whom?) by God or a "badge of membership" in the new covenant community, i.e. the Church, that consists now of both Jews and Gentiles united by faith in the Messiah, instead of the old Jewish racial pride (ethnocentrism denoted by circumcision, Sabbath, food laws);
3. justification has two parts: the initial "declaration" or "badge of membership", and the final verdict on our lives which will be "on the basis of the whole live lived".
Wright thinks he is the first person to discover the true meaning of justification, and the whole Christian discussion - Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox - since Augustine (who thought justification meant an initial "infusion" or first instalment of actual righteousness and holy character into the baptised - and this is still the official teaching of the Catholic Church, as per its Catechism) and the Reformers (Luther and Calvin taught it meant the judicial "imputation" of the righteous character of Christ, a gift which is received through faith) has been profoundly mistaken. Post tenebras lux?
After looking carefully at the ten texts in Paul that reference 'the righteousness of God' and comparing what exegetes have said, I have to conclude that Wright's bold new proposal fails both exegetically (in the context of the verses discussed) and as a fundamental principle of biblical theology. ...
James
1. Wright thinks that 'dikaiosune theou' is a Greek calque for Hebrew expressions, chiefly in some Psalms but also in Isaiah 40-55, where God's 'zedek' is closely connected with protecting Israel as its covenant God. Heinrich Cremer (1899) proposed that 'zedek' (traditionally 'righteousness', 'justice') should be translated as 'covenant faithfulness', rather than as a norm describing God's ethical character and demands. Kaesemann adopted this idea and Wright took it from Kaesemann (and others), but does not reference the original source of the idea, Cremer.
ReplyDelete2. Irons (2015) conducted an exhaustive study of ZDK and the DIK-group in context and concluded that 'covenant faithfulness' is much too narrow an understanding of 'zedek' and moreover Cremer etc have not appreciated properly how Hebrew parallelism works: in short, Yahweh is faithful to his covenant BECAUSE he is ethically righteous - and this entails protecting/saving Israel from its enemies (in Psalms and Isaiah) AND justly punishing them. ..
James
3. In the ten Pauline texts (chiefly in Romans 1, 3, 4, 10; but also 1 Cor 1.30; 2 Cor 5.21 - an amazing text!; Phil 3.9) that refer to the 'righteousness of God' (or of Christ), Wright wants to read 'covenant faithfulness' in each of these. But this doesn't stand up to analysis. Romans 3.10, 20 is clear that 'There is no-one righteous (dikaios)' followed by the adversative in v. 21, 'But now a righteousness of God (dikaiosune theou) apart from law has been manifested...' Irons takes this to be a genitive of source - i.e. a gift from God, not a 'declaration' of 'badge of membership in the new community'. The same dynamic is clear in Phil 3.9, where Paul the onetime zealous Pharisee contrasts his own 'dikaiosunen ... ek nomou' with 'ten ek theou dikaiosunen epi te pistei'.
ReplyDeleteWe are talking about something here that is much, much larger and deeper than 'badges of (covenant) membership', as if Paul's "conversion" was no more than saying: 'Oh, guess what, folks! I've discovered that the Gentiles are part of God's people too - and they don't need to be circumcised.' Rather, the man who had devoted his whole life to being a zealous member of the covenant community found this hadn't made him a holier person closer to God - instead he had been persecuting the Messiah! Such things should make you question your fundamental ideas. Simon Gathercole puts it well: "God's act of justification is not one of recognition but is, rather, closer to creation. It is God's determination our new identity rather than a recognition of it." ..
James
4. My last point was a development of a truism expressed in an earlier post, that whatever your religion is 'on paper' may not match what it is in practice and personal understanding. It is (technically) a 'religion of grace' to thank God 'that I am not like other men' (Luke 18.11) - maybe even 'covenantal nomism'! - but the inner attitude it reveals is far from graceful. In short, "legalism" has different forms, and while it's a "hard legalism" of "works-righteousness" that says 'God owes me heaven because I lived a good life' (the default position among the minority of Kiwis who still believe in God), it is still a 'soft legalism' that says 'I'm a member of the covenant people by grace - but it's up to me to stay in by my obedience'. So the distinction Sanders drew between 'Judaism as works-righteousness' (the supposed bogey of the Reformation - Luther's target was something quite different) and 'covenantal nomism' religion is not as sharp as some might think. Avemarie, Das, Moo and others have scrutinised these claims for the first century and have modified them significantly with evidence from 4 Ezra ('you're a covenant member by grace but only scrupulous law-keeping will guarantee eternal life') , the Psalms of Solomon 3, 5 and others - and the New Testament itself. To repeat my question from above, do Matthew's and Luke's Gospels tell us accurately what many Pharisees were like and what Jesus thought of them? Dale Allison would deny this but I doubt that Wright would.
ReplyDeleteJames
5. So when Wright says that the 'second' act of justification by God (the first being the 'declaration' that you have the 'badge of covenant community membership'), viz. the verdict passed on us on the last day, will be "on the basis of the whole life lived", there is a danger (at least) of misunderstanding. Wright says this because he accepts (contra Campbell) that Romans 2.13, 16 is Paul's own teaching (and not the discredited nonsense of the scurrilous "Teacher", as per Campbell). That sounds terribly close to teaching 'salvation by electing grace plus obedient works' - which Avemarie points out is the teaching of 4 Ezra. "On the basis" is imprecise language, but I don't know that I have understood Wright correctly here. The Reformers, by contrast, are clear and careful on this point. Good works are expected in the Christian life, but as the fruit of a lively, penitent faith in Christ and his sacrificial death for us and not as the ground of our acceptance before God (as in much popular first century Judaism). Luther was not attacking a Pelagian understanding of Catholicism (as Wright seems to think) but rather a semi-Pelagian view of the Christian life in which a person becomes a Christian by the grace of baptism but thereafter in order to receive 'grace' (conceived of as a substance), he must first do "what is in him" ('quod in se est') to receive more grace.
ReplyDeleteJames
6. Overall, 'on the basis of his whole life lived', I am glad of what Wright has achieved, especially in his earlier work. In 'The New Testament and the People of God' and 'Jesus and the Victory of God' he defended the historical trustworthiness of the Gospels and their portrait of Jesus against the wilder claims of sceptics (remember the Jesus Seminar?), turning their presuppositions on their head, and strongly supporting penal substitution as a key element in Jesus's own understanding of his death (from Isaiah 53). And in 'Resurrection and the Son of God, he makes a compelling case for the historicity of the bodily resurrection. So I appreciate his work, even when I don't find some of his overarching theories (e.g.,'Israel is still in exile and Jesus announces the end of it') all that convincing. But in turning to Paul, Wright has used Cremer's widely accepted but insecurely based lexical theory to misread some key themes in the Apostle's writings (as well as misreading the Reformers, but that's another matter). Of course theology is based in the first instance on the correct (!) exegesis of texts - Luther would be the first to insist on this. But there is also a dialectic between individual texts and the larger synthesis that is biblical theology: the one informs the other. But theory cannot control exegesis, and exegesis must follow the natural and contextual meaning of words.
ReplyDeleteSat.
James