Since that time, scholars have questioned all kinds of things in Colossians. Here are the big five:

(1) Historical plausibility – there seem to be situations and ideas that fit better into a different time (see, e.g., Baur, M. MacDonald)

(2) Vocabulary – Colossians has some unique vocabulary (this is not as serious of a concern as it used to be for scholars, because they are more willing nowadays to attribute this to the context; see Lincoln)

(3) Style – Not so much the WORDS, but the WAY the author writes and thinks is different from, e.g., Galatians or 1 Corinthians (see Dunn, Schweizer)

(4) Theology – key theological ideas are either MISSING or UNIQUELY DEVELOPED beyond what would be expected of the real Paul (so most commentators that doubt Pauline authorship)

(5) Acceptability of Pseudepigraphy – in more recent years, it has become more common to see pseudepigraphy as an acceptable (and even assumed) practice in the Greco-Roman world. Thus, the canonical and ethical obstacles seem less critical for some scholars (see Lincoln, MacDonald)

So, what can we say? Given that Colossians does not suffer from the same kind of “consensus doubt” as, for example, Titus, it is clear that this is a tough call. Scholars are evenly divided on this letter – nothing in Colossians is over-the-top anachronistic or theologically suspect.

I just finished editing and finalizing an article on the hermeneutics of authorship-analysis vis-a-vis Colossians for publication and it becomes obvious that much of the discussion ends up being subjective – there is no discipline criteria for weighing the value of certain features or issues. That makes the issue so challenging to get a handle on. Nevertheless, here I will raise some key responses to some of the issues raised above.

(1) Historical plausibility – this issue cuts both ways. I think it was Moule who suggested that it would be kind of dumb of a false-writer to be clumsy enough to include anachronistic events or issues. If it is clear that the pseudepigraphers were trying to look like Paul, why didn’t they try harder? Also, how did they fool so many people for so long? Also, Fee points out that pseudonymous theories must reckon who offering some kind of plausible alternative – something most people don’t venture to do (other than Baur, and how did that work out for him?). Dunn asks – why write to Colossae, a city not founded by Paul?

(2) Vocabulary – again, not an issue for most folks now – Harold Hoehner succeeded in making his point by facetiously making a case against the authentic Pauline authorship of Galatians, based on the criteria that scholars use to question Ephesians.

(3) Style – this is a real problem. Dunn remarks that Colossians has “fingerprint” differences – and I agree. We must be willing to conclude that Paul did not actually write or dictate this letter. But that does not mean it did not come from Paul’s authority or mind. Randolph Richards has helped us to understand the complexity of “authorship” in the GR world. It was often collaborative and sometimes the role of the amanuensis changed even throughout the course of the letter! Lincoln is suspicious of giving the secretary too much credit for Colossians – according to Lincoln, we just don’t know what secretaries did. OK, true. But it is a possibility we must consider. Also, Witherington offers a very plausible suggestion that Colossians was purposely written in a different style (Asiatic) by Paul – I am interested in seeing how new commentators react to Witherington’s proposal because I think it has good merit.

(4) Theology – This is one of the most pressing matters – is this really the mind of Paul? Barth/Blanke argue that Paul’s thought may have developed, but it could obviously still be Paul. Lincoln and others just think this is unlikely. What do we do?

(5) Pseudepigraphy – yes, we can see examples of pseudonymous writing in the ancient world, even in Jewish literature. But letters? Especially ones attributed to authors in the RECENT past? Also, how do we handle the seemingly superfluous details at the end of Colossians that have little theological value and seem like they would be only there to trick readers? Books like 1 Enoch do not suffer from this very personal problem. We need more research on this issue of currency and acceptability before we can turn to this as a default option.

Bottom Line

Clearly I could go on and on and on about this (my article is around 10,000 words!). To some degree, it comes down to the interpreter’s inclinations and intuition. That doesn’t sound very academic, but it seems true to reality. It is extremely difficult to find common method and common ground (even computer analysis of stylistic features has not convinced scholars one way or another!). When it comes to Colossians, I think the stance of Barth/Blanke is exactly right: In dubio pro reo: When in doubt, side with the accused – or, innocent until proven guilty. Given the strong patristic assumption that it is by Paul and no “obvious” piece of evidence to the contrary, this is the safest choice.

In that case, we cannot ever categorize Colossians as “deutero-Pauline.” We cannot prove it is secondary, we can only say it is doubted (by some scholars), so I much prefer the label “disputed” because that is precisely what it is.

I am reviewing this book for Interpretation and they have given me 1400 words to discuss this 550 page tome on 1 Corinthians! This has proven challenging! There is much to say!

Without repeating all the comments in my review, I will offer some basic thoughts here.

First, even though Bailey avoids calling his book a commentary (subtitle: “Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians”), he works through 1 Corinthians in a passage-by-passage manner, just like a commentary. What is unique, though, is that Bailey draws from his experience over several decades living and working in the Middle East. Also, he puts forward a rather controversial two-pronged claim.

(1) Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians is not an ad-hoc  series of responses to questions the Corinthians asked or problems he heard about. It is a carefully constructed whole, written for the benefit of all Christians, but using the Corinthians’ problems as a set of case studies in holiness and obedience to Christ.

(2) Paul’s style in 1 Corinthians owes a major debt to the rhetorical style of the Hebrew prophets. Prophets like Isaiah (especially) wrote using a series of “ring compositions” (what many of us know otherwise as chiasms) and other types of parallel styles. Paul’s letter, according to Bailey, is also set up stylistically like the poetic rhythm of the prophets, where Paul employs similar kinds of  parallels – mostly “ring composition,” but other kinds as well. Bailey works through the parallel format of each passage before engaging in commentary.

EVALUATION

When it comes to #1, I found his argument overall helpful and very possible. Emphasizing the Jewishness of, not only the content of 1 Corinthians, but also the structure is something Ciampa and Rosner emphasize as well. I have a harder time with #2. To me, call me a skeptic, but chiasms are in the eye of the beholder and they are very, very difficult to establish in such a way that encourages consensus. Besides, Bailey has to mention Paul’s modifications to chiasms whenever his paradigm doesn’t match up perfectly. It is not so much that Bailey is wrong, but that it is extremely challenging to prove that he is right. And, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I simply do not see how his structural and stylistic discussions drive his comments on any given passage – except to point out the central idea, which I think can be done in other ways most of the time.

Witherington, in his recent commentary on Philippians (Eerdmans, 2011), points out a key problem with finding chiasms in a document: “they require one to ‘see’ the structure of the document. But the vast majority of the audience would never see such a thing, as they could not read” (p. 13). Witherington is talking about whole-document chiastic structures, but I think his point works for smaller chiasms – for listeners to identify chiasm as it is being read would seem to me to be extremely challenging. Bailey suggests that Hebrews were trained to identify chiasms as a normal part of poetic communication. But how does that work for the Corinthians, esp those who were Gentile?

Have I become as cynical as Jimmy Dunn?: he writes, “one might simply observe that there seems to be an inverse ratio between the length of proposed chiasms in an individual letter and the light they shed on either the argument or the point. The vigour of Paul’s theology evidently did not allow it to be easily contained within regular grammatical and compositional structures!” (Theology of Paul, 12).

I should say, though, that even if one discounts Bailey’s structure scheme, the commentary is very much still worthwhile. He has translated almost 2 dozen Arabic, Syriac, and Hebrew translations of 1 Corinthians that come from many different periods of the churches’ life and he brings their insight to bear on the interpretation of the text.

Also, he does offer cultural insights, esp from his experience, but I would say that his comments on the text are not that much different than those of Fee or Garland or whoever. What Bailey does bring to the table is his ability to summarize and paraphrase the text and communicate its message clearly and in fresh ways. He is a master writer, and his analogies are very insightful. He also makes some comparisons with religious life in Islam, which is unique in a Pauline commentary as far as my experience goes!

So, is it a worthwhile purchase for students and pastors interested in 1 Corinthians? I would say “yes” for the many small insights, but just know that if you are as skeptical about chiasms as I am, you will end up disagreeing with Bailey’s structure approach. However, if you want to see what it looks like to exposit and engage with the text energetically and passionately, you will find it very good reading.

Here are some factors to consider.

A. Is the book a reference work (like a dictionary)? If I were asked to review a new translation of the Babylonian Talmud, I don’t think I would be expected to read it in full. So, what do you do? For dictionaries, I try to read a good  representative sample (if there are 1000 articles, I try to read, let’s say, 50-75).

B. If the book is a commentary, this fits somewhat into the reference category, but it really depends. Commentaries that are short (let’s say 500 pages or less), I tend to read in full. For really long commentaries (like Reumann’s Philippians), I read the introduction in full and very carefully, and then I chose 10-20 key passages (esp. controversial ones) that I read carefully.

C. Textbooks – again, if it is short, I would suggest reading it in full. If it is a very lengthy one, I might, again, read a very good representative sample.

D. Part of the matter has to do with the reviewing journal – for a very short review (100 words, let’s say), you are not expected to give a heavily critical analysis. So, for a long reference work, you are probably not expected to read the whole work in full. For a major journal, and if you are doing a longer review (let’s say 1500 words), it is expected, I think, that you will look it over with a very close eye. You may have to raise this question to your editor, if it is unclear. I don’t think this kind of question will be taken with offense if the book is obviously very long and is a reference work.

E. Some books naturally require a thorough read, even if it is long (Campbell’s DoG comes to mind!). So, monographs pretty much depend on a word-for-word read.

Let me say this, though I tend to err on the side of reading the whole book, if I already have a good sense for the argument or content of a chapter, I am able to read it quite fast (not “skimming,” just reading that requires little processing). Also, the more you read (well), the faster your reading speed becomes, I have noticed.

Thoughts? What are your professional book reviewing practices?

I just received David Garland’s new Luke commentary in the post (Zondervan Exegetical series). I will give a report and review later on, but I wanted to just note that it is out and can be viewed here. Garland is a really fantastic commentator – his work on Mark (NIVAC) and 1 Corinthians (BECNT) are two very fine commentaries and ones I consult regularly. I have not read a commentary on Luke before and I look forward to dipping into Garland’s contribution. My first impression is that it appears a bit too technical for the commentary series’ audience, but as a researcher and teacher I am sure appreciating it!

One of the best features of this ZECNT series is that it forces the commentator to think very deeply about the main idea of each passage, the rhetorical flow of argumentation or the narrative, and how each and every story or passage could be applied to Christian life today. No wonder the commentary is over 1000 pages and contains 76 chapters!

Thompson, essentially, tries to accomplish two things. First, he urges that Paul’s primary concern as a missionary/pastor was to shape the identity and ethos of his believing communities. Paul, thus, was not a “theologian” who taught doctrines to foster “belief” alone. Rather, he was interested in shaping these churches and he was very concerned with their behavior and lifestyle as of first importance, not just “FYI” stock exhortation.

You might say, “Duh!,” but it has been one of the effects of the Reformation to separate “faith” from “works” and, unfortunately, “ethics” has long been subsumed under “works” and, thus, scholars of previous generations had a tendency to see it as something Paul was not interested in in the first place.

The second major objective of Thompson’s book is to set Paul’s ethical thinking within the context of Hellenistic Judaism. Now, folks like Wayne Meeks have done a splendid job comparing Paul to the Greco-Roman moralists of his age, but what Thompson offers is an engagement that also sets him in conversation with Philo, Josephus, Tobit, 4 Maccabees, and other early Jewish texts when it comes to moral formation. The clear conclusion is that Diaspora Jews were very concerned with moral formation as well, and presumed the Torah to be the ultimate tool to suppress the fleshly passions. It is interesting, then, to see how Paul engages in this wider discussion of self-control (what Stowers calls “self-mastery”) and how he draws from the Christ event and the apocalyptic reality of new life as well as Scripture and the covenantal wisdom of his Jewish heritage.

Thompson is a very good communicator and has done good research, packing a lot of helpful information into a rather short book. I wish he had interacted with Gorman (which he does not at all) and reflected more on ancient models of participation in God and the matter of moral formation. Richard Hays has a nice essay on this subject  and I would have been interested in seeing this engaged in Thompson’s otherwise fine work.

In any case, if you are interested in Pauline ethics, you will find this book worthwhile and I warmly recommend it.

Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology

This announcement coincides with the release of the first 2012 issue on “Liturgy and Pentecost/Trinity Sunday.” As always, a really excellent collection of articles, but easily attractive are ones by Beverly Gaventa and Jeremy Begbie. Also, Susan Eastman (Duke Divinity) and James Dunn offer some major book reviews. See here. Somehow the articles are coming up free for me (without me logging into my university account), so maybe they are doing a free promo, so check it out soon!

UPDATE: Some of my librarian friends tell me that Sage will sell a subscription to Interpretation for $198 versus the old rate of $48. This is really unfortunate and puts libraries in a very difficult situation, having to consider eliminating journal subscriptions  - and it would be sad indeed to cancel Interpretation. I guess this is the serious downside to Sage’s take-over…

New Testament Studies is in something of a crisis today. People in the churches find much of what goes on in university departments of Theology to be irrelevant to their concerns and needs. People who study the New Testament in universities and theological colleges find that scholars are asking a baffling array of different questions, and there seems no agreement about what is important, or which approaches to studying the New Testament are right or wrong, good or bad. On the other hand, those who teach and study the New Testament professionally sometimes find statements by church leaders and members about the New Testament’s view of something to be superficial or midsleading, if not wrong. How does the discipline move forward today?

In his inaugural lecture, Professor Steve Walton will seek to address the state of New Testament Studies by focusing on what progress is in this area of study. This will involve asking:

• why studying the New Testament is important, especially in an academic setting;
• what ‘progress’ is in general and to what extent it is desirable;
• the relationship of believers’ and academic reading of the New Testament;
• what is most important in studying the New Testament;
• where New Testament Studies might go in the future.

This will be a significant attempt by a Christian practitioner of New Testament Studies to reflect on and answer a vital question.

Indeed! Oh Steve – I wish I could be there to cheer you on and hear your message. I am sure it will be published in due time (Tyndale Bulletin perhaps?). If you want to learn more about the lecture, see here. Do wish Professor Walton a hearty congrats via FB or by email, if you can!

Participation in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ was the template of Paul’s spirituality. (15)

Working from the confession in 1 Cor 15:3-8, Reeves breaks Pauline spirituality into three parts:

Paul believed the gospel was a Spirit-filled life that empowered Christ believers to sacrifice themselves (death), to rely on each other (burial), and to live as heavenly people (resurrection). (16)

The background of the book is very interesting to me and relevant to many of us who teach Paul. Rodney came to realize that normal students are not nearly as excited about the scholarly debates on Paul that we researchers get all bent out of shape over – imagine that! At the end of the day, Rodney’s students wanted to know what my students also want to know – what would it look like to follow Paul’s advice today? Was Paul right? Is Paul the model of a good Christian?

They want to take Paul’s advice seriously. It’s not enough for them to understand the historical meaning of Paul’s letters. They want to know–they must know!–if Paul’s gospel still matters today, especially since the apostle dealt with some of the same issues we face: gender battles, social contests, racial prejudice, marital struggles, sexual vices…Because Paul’s instructions are so specific, based on his experiences and ideas about what the gospel should look like in his time, we can’t help but wonder: is Paul’s timely advice timeless? (10)

The book is divided, sensibly, into three sections, focused on “crucified with Christ,” “buried with Christ,” and “raised with Christ.” The first set of chapters (under “crucified”) focuses on epistemology and cruciformity – two of my favorite subjects! These chapters are spot on, full of good wisdom. The second set of chapters, under the heading of “buried with Christ,” seem to all be about community and the social “body of Christ.” Death to self means being freed up to live and love together. The last section, “raised with Christ,” looks at themes like confession, hope, and engaging the powers of the world.

Rodney ends with a helpfully summarizing conclusion. What would it mean to be like Christ? How do we imitate Paul, imitating Christ?

He [Paul] would remind us of “his ways” in Christ Jesus, that the gospel is imitating Christ in his death, burial and resurrection, walking in the power of his Holy Spirit…To live the crucified life, to share life together as the body of Christ, to walk in the resurrection power of Christ would be good news for his time and for our time. (235)

I really enjoyed reading this book, mainly because Rodney is a skilled communicator with loads of good illustrations and a winsome style. Two things are important to keep in mind if you are interested in this book. First, I found the title a bit misleading. I don’t hear people use the language of “spirituality” very much. On the one hand, it has a classic ring to it of piety, but Reeves mentions life in the Holy Spirit, so it could be directly related to that as well. I think perhaps “Discipleship” may have worked better for the book, if only for clarity. Or he could have dedicated one whole chapter to life in the Holy Spirit.

The other thing is that this is not an academic-y, theoretical work. It is more of a pastoral work. That is not a criticism – I am excited that scholars like Rodney wish to address a broader audience. I only mention this because researchers will not find much “new” material here. Also, I had trouble working out key ideas or themes as I moved from chapter to chapter. Often, after reading a chapter, I thought to myself, “He has some really good points, but what is the chapter’s main idea or argument?” For many chapters, I could not answer that question. I will carry away from this book “trees” insights mostly, not very many “forest” ones.

If you are interested in Pauline ethics, discipleship, and/or epistemology, this is a fun and worthwhile book to read.

So what is the case? Basically, it is a critical interaction with E.P. Sanders and his understanding of Paul’s pattern of religion. For many Paulinists, this is a rather tired and boring subject now – we’ve been over this issue again and again! However, two things are striking in this regard. First, one gets the sense that Charles Talbert has been working along a consistent trajectory of study for over a decade – a masterful achievement. Thus, this collection is valuable because it is coherent and cumulatively convincing. Secondly, the chapters cover most of the books of the NT, not just Paul, so this is an excellent examination of Talbert’s argument spread across the whole NT. This brings New Perspective issues to all parts of NT study.

OK, what is Talbert arguing? In the kick-off essay, “Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionists,” Talbert argues that Sanders generous view of “covenantal nomism” does not account for some strands of Judaism that was, in fact, legalistic. Following Gathercole and Eskola, Talbert sees the problem of “works of the law” as synergism that Paul was combatting. What Sanders was focused on was getting in and staying in. The key to Talbert’s critique is that religion is more than just club membership.

One’s participation in Christ results not only in forgiveness and deliverance, but also in enablement. What is it that enables Christians’ works after their entry into Christ? It is their empowerment by God. (p. 28).

Talbert states it again later in the essay

For Paul, grace and obedience are not successive stages in religious life but are bound together in each moment as root and fruit. For the apostle, obedience is not so much motivated by gratitude for past grace as empowered by an enabling God from moment to moment. (p. 34)

Many of the essays draw from an understanding that the new covenant promise of Jeremiah expected God to empower his people to live in the ways he outlined by virtue of the covenant. Thus, Talbert et al can refer to a kind of “new covenant piety” in the NT texts.

New covenant piety then coveys the notion that post-conversion faithfulness or obedience is grounded in God’s prior and ongoing empowerment of that faithfulness or obedience (4)

The contributions in this volume are all well-researched, fair, and mostly persuasive. This brings a proper depth and complexity to the “new covenant” relationship beyond covenantal nomism. If nothing else, I will keep my eye out for other books and essays by Talbert. He is one of the most cogent critics of the New Perspective and he has made me re-think much about grace, justification, and divine power in the New Testament.

For more information, see www.lincolnchristian.edu/jesusconference.

Also, some scholarships for students are available.