Pauline Authorship Research Articles

Kinship and Leadership in 1 Timothy: A Study of Filial Framework and Model for Christian Communities in Asia Minor

This essay examines the kinship framework and lexemes in the directives for leadership in 1 Timothy, aiming to curb the influence of false teachers and to bolster internal cohesion in the communities. It explores the author’s appeal to household conduct, natural and fictive kinship, and group dynamics couched in filial parlance vis-à-vis the undisputed Pauline letters. The study sheds light on the authorial framework, and suggests that the notion of a departure from ‘love-patriarchalism’ or egalitarian Paul developing later into hierarchical kinship framework in 1 Timothy may be misleading. It becomes apparent that the letter’s kinship lexemes are consistent with what we find in the undisputed letters. Thus, the pseudonymous author, an associate of Paul, does not appeal to or use kinship lexemes any differently from the undisputed letters or elsewhere in Greco-Roman discourse. This does not establish Pauline authorship, but suggest that the notion that the kinship lexemes reflect an elevated hierarchical institutional development in a post-Pauline era, that is uncharacteristic of Paul in the authorship debate, may need to be reconsidered if not revised.

Alan J. Thompson. Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary

The Tyndale New Testament Commentary series is being revised for a third time, showing that these volumes have stood the test of time, having been read now for generations. Alan Thompson’s volume on Colossians and Philemon fits admirably with the purpose and rationale for the series as a whole, as he has written a lucid commentary on these letters, one that is familiar with scholarship but focuses on unpacking the text for pastors, teachers, and lay readers. The commentary is exegetically insightful, theologically rich, and practically applicable, and I can imagine many passing on Thompson’s insights in all kinds of venues. Thompson is relentless in unpacking the text, effectively and repeatedly drawing attention to how different parts of the letters relate to one another. He also draws connections between Colossians and Philemon in quite a few places in a way that is illuminating and instructive.The commentary centers on explaining the text and not introductory questions. Still, such questions are addressed. The authenticity of Colossians has sometimes been questioned, but Thompson presents a number of arguments in support of Pauline authorship. Some scholars have said that Colossae was an insignificant city, but evidence for this assertion isn’t decisive. The place from which Paul wrote both Colossians and Philemon is also disputed, and Thompson argues for the traditional view that they both hailed from Rome. The nature of the Colossian false teaching has been the subject of controversy for years. Thompson rejects the notion that the false teaching can be traced fundamentally to a gentile or Greek background. The false teachers have some kind of Jewish background mixed with local practices and beliefs that were legalistic in nature and ascetic in character. He identifies the stoicheia as elementary principles and regulations instead of seeing them as spiritual powers. Perhaps Thompson underestimates the role of angels and spiritual powers in contrast to other commentators. In any case, Paul responds to the alien teachers by emphasizing the sufficiency of Christ, rejecting any notion of Jesus plus theology. The Colossian believers have everything they need in Jesus Christ by whose death they have been reconciled to God.A number of different theories have also been promulgated about the situation informing Philemon. Thompson opts for a traditional reading where Onesimus fled from Philemon for some kind of malfeasance. Still, Onesimus was converted when he encountered Paul, and Onesimus’s conversion and his interaction with Paul bring us to the purpose for the letter. Paul’s main concern in writing was to encourage Philemon to welcome Onesimus just as he would welcome Paul. His main aim wasn’t to ask Philemon to send Onesimus back for ministry, nor was his purpose to request Onesimus’s freedom, although it is possible, according to Thompson, that Paul hints that such a release would be fitting. Thompson doesn’t proffer new theories in interpreting Colossians and Philemon, but I was reminded in reading this excellent commentary that the first task is always careful exegesis. We can be grateful to Thompson, then, for an excellent exposition of these two letters where we are reminded of Christ’s preeminence and sufficiency and also of the love that should characterize the relationships of believers.

Reading Ephesians and Colossians: A Literary and Theological Commentary by David I. Starling

Reviewed by: Reading Ephesians and Colossians: A Literary and Theological Commentary by David I. Starling John Gillman david i. starling, Reading Ephesians and Colossians: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Reading the New Testament; Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2020). Pp. x + 296. Paper $24. This commentary is intended for a broad readership, and its goal is to address lexical, historical, and literary matters and theological meaning. The author gives more attention to literary considerations and related Greco-Roman concepts than he does to theological themes. Starling joins a growing number of commentators who defend the Pauline authorship of both Ephesians and Colossians, suggesting that Timothy may have assisted as the amanuensis for Colossians. He holds that the three interconnected missives of Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians were written around the same time in the early sixties during Paul's house arrest in Rome. The occasion is the arrival of Epaphras, who brings news to Paul about the challenges faced by the community in Colossae. S. concurs with the scholarly majority that Colossians was composed first and that Ephesians, a more universal epistle intended as a circular homily, expands on themes of the former. It is surprising, then, that S. discusses Ephesians first and then Colossians. This tends to create confusion for the reader since his commentary on Colossians often compares its content to areas where it differs from Ephesians. The author states that the purpose of Ephesians is to confirm the identity of gentile Christians and to remind them of what they have already learned in Christ. The first half of the epistle (chaps. 1–3) addresses the character of God, and the second half (chaps. 4–6) consists of exhortations. S. finds no evidence of a polemical tone in Paul's rhetoric and holds that the we/you distinction in 1:11–14; 2:1–3 refers respectively to the Jewish Christians and gentile Christians. In 2:4–10, the "we" becomes expansive, embracing both groups. Throughout, S. provides a close reading of the text, with attention to issues of syntax and grammar as well as content. He clearly articulates diverse scholarly perspectives on disputed issues and then states his own preference. For example, he opts for reading "in Christ" in 1:3–14 in the locative. He interprets "in the Lord Jesus" in 1:15 as an objective genitive rather than a reference to the sphere in which the faith is exercised. The redefined relationship in 2:19 refers, S. argues, not to a new relationship with Israel but to the status membership within the church community. Paul writes Colossians to inform the readers about his imprisonment, to warn them about aberrant teachings, and, in light of these, to strengthen them in their identity as Christbelievers. S. divides the letter into three parts: introduction (1:1–2:5), body (2:6–4:6), and commendations (4:7–18). As to the text-critical issue in 3:6, S. opts for the longer reading as original. While he argues that there is no contradiction between the realized eschatology [End Page 513] in this letter and the future eschatology in the undisputed letters, S. does not adequately explain the tension between the two. S. reads the reference to the letter to the Laodiceans as a reference to the Ephesian missive. Regarding the contemporary significance of Ephesians, S. asserts in his introduction to the letter that the social vision Paul commends "stands out as both enticingly attractive and dauntingly difficult" for twenty-first-century readers "in a time torn apart by the tensions between a soulless globalization and the mutually antagonistic tribalisms that react against it" (pp. 15–16). I would have liked to see how the author would relate individual passages in Paul's vision to the contemporary situation. Specifically, what hermeneutical slant might S. offer for such controversial passages as the household codes (5:21–6:9)? As for the relevance of Colossians, S. assesses that today, reminiscent of Paul's warnings, there are "patterns of ministry" undermining the wisdom and the power of the gospel "with some other substitute package of piety, technique, or controlling and heavy-handed religious authority structures" (p. 183). S. does not specify whether he is...

Questioning the Pauline Authorship of Philemon: Crackpot Theory or Plausible Alternative?

In modern scholarship, Paul’s letter to Philemon, which is considered to be one of the letters that virtually all scholars agree was written by Paul, has not been subjected to the same standards of historical inquiry compared to the ‘disputed’ letters of Paul (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians and the Pastoral Epistles). This has led to double standards in how scholars treat the historical provenance of Philemon, as well as the question of Philemon’s authorship. The following article will serve to raise some important questions regarding the historical backdrop of the epistle that many scholars have been content to theorize about without much scrutiny, mainly because of the unquestioned assumption of Pauline authorship. In doing so, the hope is that this article can surface some double standards in how scholars treat Philemon compared to the other Pauline epistles and provide a fresh viewpoint in critical discussion of Philemon’s provenance and place in the Christian canon.

First and Second Thessalonians

Nathan Eubank’s commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians is a welcome contribution to the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture series. It ably meets the series goals of a scholarly work based on a historical literary method that is informed by prayerful theological reflection. Its clarity of expression ensures that its target readership (those engaged in or training for pastoral ministry, and others interested in studying Scripture) will benefit from Eubank’s thoughtful exegesis. It represents a conservative Catholic position that seeks to explain the text 1 and 2 Thessalonians in the context of both the rest of Scripture and also the tradition of the church. In particular, the use of the “Biblical Background” and “Living Tradition” sidebars locates Eubank’s exegetical decision within this wider framework in a way that enables even the lay person to understand his reasoning.The commentary proceeds in the usual manner: an introduction to the letters (pp. 16–28), an outline of the structure (pp. 29–30), and then more detailed exegetical notes on 1 Thessalonians (pp. 31–137) and 2 Thessalonians (pp. 138–94), before ending with a list of suggested resources (pp. 195–96), a glossary (p. 197) and two indexes—pastoral topics (p. 198) and sidebars (p. 199).In the introduction, Eubank outlines the cases for and against Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians before concluding that Pauline authorship is more likely. Further, he favors the traditional ordering of the epistles (1 Thessalonians precedes 2 Thessalonians), briefly explains the genre of first-century letters in order to enable understanding of Paul’s modification of the genre to meet his purposes, and outlines how the letters have been accepted and understood in the history of the church.Eubank’s exegesis is based on the New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE) but he is not afraid to discuss the underlying Greek when necessary. This is done via transliteration so that the reader who has no Greek can still grasp the discussion. The exegesis focuses on units rather than verses (although verses are indicated in the margins), and each exegetical section is followed with comments on how to apply the text. The units under consideration are keyed to significant OT, NT, and Catholic writings so readers can locate the exegesis in the broader themes of the Scriptures and the church. In order best to cater to the intended audience, footnotes and technical discussion are kept to a minimum. This in no way indicates Eubank’s disinterest in the issues but rather demonstrates his ability to make difficult things simple for the reader by cutting to the heart of the matter. In this regard, he understands Paul’s description of himself in 1 Thess 2:1–12 as a moral example to follow rather than a defense of his apostolicity, 1 Thess 2:13–16 as original and not a post-Pauline interpolation, and 1 Thess 4:3–8 to be talking about husbands, wives, and sex within marriage. In 2 Thess 2:6–7, Eubank argues that the restrained is most probably a supernatural power like an angel.The strengths of this commentary are many: it is clearly written so even the engaged layperson could read it while not being so simple that it loses its value for the seminarian or pastor. It represents a conservative Catholic understanding of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, but this does not impede its fair discussion and assessment of others’ views. However, these strengths also form part of its weaknesses. It is not a technical commentary, so researchers will not be drawn to its discussion—they will prefer Malherbe, with whom Eubank sides on most things of note. In particular, its interaction with the Greek text does not venture much beyond semantic choice so there is little discussion of syntactical decisions and their contribution to meaning. While it may be unfair to criticize Eubank on not achieving something that was never his intention, it needs to be observed in order to clarify who will use this commentary.Overall, this commentary is an excellent representation of a conservative Catholic view of 1 and 2 Thessalonians that suits an undergraduate readership. It will not find much reading in postgraduate courses or research.

First and Second Thessalonians by N. Eubank

Reviewed by: First and Second Thessalonians by N. Eubank Gertrud Tönsing Eubank, N. 2019. First and Second Thessalonians. Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. ISBN 978-0801049446. Pp. 204. Paperback. $17.51. This volume is part of the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture. Its declared aim is to "offer scholarship illumined by faith, in the conviction that the ultimate aim of biblical interpretation is to discover what God has revealed and is still speaking through the sacred text." This is a useful volume for preachers and persons active in the ministry, but also adds value to the scholarly endeavour in its summaries of the main scholarly debates and its church historical notes on interpretation history of certain texts. At 199 pages it is concise enough to be read thoroughly by busy pastors, but containing enough information to bring new insights. The author, Nathan Eubank (Ph.D., Duke University), is associate professor of New Testament at the University of Notre Dame. He is the author of Wages of Cross-Bearing and Debt of Sin: The Economy of Heaven in Matthew's Gospel (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013). The commentary begins with the background to Paul's association with the Thessalonians as recounted in Acts, and historical and geographical details on the city of Thessalonica. Then comes a general summary of main concerns of 1 Thessalonians. These Eubank sees as the following: (1) expression of affection for the congregation; (2) concern for the converts' growth in love and holiness; (3) instruction on the return of the Lord and the resurrection of the dead; and (4) instruction to expect persecution. Eubank then summarises the arguments for and against Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians briefly but fairly, and footnotes sources with more detailed arguments for and against. He comes out in defence of Pauline authorship and argues clearly as to why. This is followed by comments on ancient letter writing and 1 Thessalonians' status as the oldest NT document. The last section of the introduction is an overview of the letters to the Thessalonians in Christian interpretation through the ages and their status as "advent letters" with clues about the second coming of Christ. The main section of the book is a traditional section by section commentary on the text, including background information, meanings of words and possible implications. This section includes a wealth of information as one should expect from a scholarly commentary but in accessible language. Its stated aim is described in the editor's preface: [End Page 202] "The exegesis that follows aims to explain in a clear and engaging way the meaning of the text in its original historical context as well as its perennial meaning for Christians" (11). There are many footnotes for people wishing for more detail. The text used is that of the New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE), the translation approved for liturgical use in the United States. However there are extensive notes commenting on differences in English translations and where the author disagrees with the version in the NABRE. Immediately after the printed verses of the texts are notes on references to other relevant biblical passages, catechism sections and uses in the Roman lectionary. Each section ends with a "Reflection and Application" section. Here there are references to relevant contemporary debates and popular misunderstandings of concepts. For example, there are ancient and contemporary connotations to the word "imitate" (1 Thess 1:6) or understandings of God's wrath (1:9–10). There is a longer discussion on the use and misuse of the Pauline phrase in 2 Thess 3:10: "If anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat," which is sometimes quoted to justify cutting aid to the poor. It places this verse in the context of the Bible as a whole and also Paul's other statements on helping the poor. In both, Paul exhorts Christians to be "motivated by love of neighbor, the love that works hard not to burden others and the love that shows mercy to those in need" (192). Other discussions include ancient attitudes to sexual morality and developments in the church's attitude to Judaism. Scattered throughout the commentary are photos of relevant...

The Letters to Timothy and Titus

The Letters to Timothy and Titus

Colossians and Philemon by G. K. Beale

Reviewed by: Colossians and Philemon by G. K. Beale Philip La G. Du Toit Beale, G. K. 2019. Colossians and Philemon. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0801026676. Pp. 514. $36.79. This full-fledged commentary by G. K. Beale on Colossians and Philemon is a worthy addition to the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series. Since the commentaries in this series are targeted at both the scholar and “the motivated lay Christian” (ix), it is both technical and accessible. Having published a commentary on 1–2 Thessalonians in the IVP New Testament Commentary series (2003), one on Revelation in the New International Greek Testament Commentary series (1998), as well as a shorter commentary on Revelation (2015), Beale can be considered a proficient commentary writer. But Beale’s participation in writing a commentary on the use of the Old Testament in the New, together with D. A. Carson (2007), probably constitutes the most definitive element in Beale’s publication background that shapes his particular approach to his commentary on Colossians. Beale has a unique approach to Colossians in that his commentary has the following two aims: “(1) study the OT allusions in a more trenchant manner than previously in order to determine how they might affect the interpretation of Colossians; (2) study how Jewish exegetical tradition interpreted these same OT allusions and how such interpretation related to the use in Colossians” (xi). Since in Beale’s view “Philemon probably has no clear OT allusions” (xi), his main contribution is in his commentary on Colossians. Apart from finding allusions to texts in the OT, Beale consults an array of later Jewish documents such as the Babylonian Talmud, midrashic writings, OT pseudepigrapha and targums (xiii–xiv). It is a question, however if finding parallels in the latter writings is always useful or even legitimate, especially because of their later date (see, e.g., Beale’s reference to the concept of Shekinah from Targum to 1 Kgs 8 in connection with the fullness that dwells in Christ [126] or his reference to rabbinic writings in connection with how barbarians were perceived by Jews [285]). Beale strongly defends Colossians’ Pauline authorship. The high Christology, ecclesiology, realised eschatology and household codes are not seen as insurmountable problems in confirming authenticity. While harmonising the Christology, ecclesiology and eschatology of Colossians [End Page 399] with the authentic letters, Beale acknowledges that the household codes do not find a parallel in the authentic letters (1–5). Yet he does not see this as evidence of inauthenticity either, but leaves room that Paul could have developed “new thoughts in his own writings” (5). At the same time, Beale problematises the idea of pseudonymity in that he identifies an element of deceit in such a practice (5–7). In respect of Beale’s identification of OT allusions in Colossians, allusions to texts about the OT temple play an important role in the overall interpretation of the letter, especially its Christology. For example, in 1:9, Beale sees allusions to Exod 31:3; 35:31–32; 1 Kgs 7:14 and Isa 11:2–3. The Exodus passages and 1 Kgs 7:14 specifically involve the skill given by the Spirit to build the tabernacle and the temple respectively, whereas the text in Isaiah focuses on “my holy mountain,” which is a development of “the mountain of the house of the Lord.” In Beale’s view, Paul addresses a wrong view of the temple in 1:9–10 (55–56). In the commentary on both 1:19 and 2:9–10, a strong allusion to Ps 67:17–18 LXX (68:17–18MT) is identified, implying that Christ fulfils the role of the temple and inaugurated the end-time temple in which the fullness of God began to dwell (108–109, 176–182). Another OT motif is identified in the concept of the “mystery” in Colossians. In his commentary on both 1:26–27 and 2:2–3, Beale sees an allusion to the mystery of Dan 2:19–22 and 28–30 (147, 156), which concerns the establishment of the eschatological kingdom. The mystery, which is similar to how the same...

1 and 2 Thessalonians by Nijay K. Gupta

Reviewed by: 1 and 2 Thessalonians by Nijay K. Gupta Charles Nathan Ridlehoover nijay k. gupta, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Zondervan Critical Introductions to the New Testament 13; Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2019). Pp. 320. $44.99. Nijay K. Gupta is associate professor of New Testament at Portland Seminary, George Fox University, in Portland, Oregon. He is also an avid blogger at Crux Sola (cruxsolablog.com). The volume under review is the initial release in the newly created Zondervan Critical Introductions to the New Testament series through Zondervan Academic. In this series, the editors and authors are attempting to offer volume-length engagement on subjects such as audience, authorship, purpose, structure, history of interpretation, sociohistorical context, and so on that normally receive only short treatments in current commentaries. It is a running joke in the biblical studies guild that the world could do without two things: more Bible translations and more commentaries. G.’s newest commentary shows that it is possible to write a commentary that is novel and more than a compendium of repeated scholarship. In this volume, G. provides an indispensable read for those seeking to engage Paul’s letters to the Thessalonian church. Unlike normal commentaries, which work through the text on a verse-by-verse basis, this commentary is arranged according to topics. G. begins with 1 Thessalonians and then moves to 2 Thessalonians (a tipping of his hand to their order). Each section begins with an analysis of the text of the letter (chaps. 1 and 5). Here, G. explores the textual variations of each letter, noting significant text-critical concerns. This section on textual criticism leads to a discussion of the textual integrity of each letter and then to more traditional historical-critical issues (authorship, dating, and literary features [genre, style, structure]). In chaps. 2 and 6, G. explores the history of Thessalonica as well as the background and situation that gave rise to each respective letter. Topics include city demographics, religion in Thessalonica, and Jewish presence in the city. To avoid repetition, in chap. 6, G. discusses the much-contested topic of Pauline authorship and literary dependence of 2 Thessalonians. In chaps. 3 and 7, G. details the themes and interpretation of each book. The themes sections provide in-depth examinations of metatopics that stretch across each individual letter, while [End Page 509] the interpretive section concentrates on individual texts that are interpretive challenges, including 1 Thess 2:7b; 2:13–16; 4:4, 11; and 5:3. The study of 2 Thessalonians focuses not on individual verses but rather on key issues. G. explains his rationale for this difference in handling difficult texts. Unfortunately, because of the assumed anonymity of 2 Thessalonians, less attention has been given to the critical issues of interpretation relevant to this letter. Despite this negligence, G. analyzes God’s righteous judgment, the day of the Lord, the man of lawlessness, the identity of the restrainer, and the issue of self-appointed “apostles.” Throughout these sections, Gupta lists major studies relating to the individual topics. This running list of major studies is not limited only to chaps. 3 and 7 but can be found throughout the commentary. The last chapter of each section (chaps. 4 and 8) surveys the history of interpretation. In those cases where G. has mentioned the work of an important study in an earlier chapter, he omits further reference in his recounting of interpretation. The volume ends with a copious bibliography and helpful indexes. As many will undoubtedly comment, the layout of this new series is wonderful for researchers. It provides a one-stop-shop and ease of use for critical information. One can just turn to the desired topic and the relevant texts are gathered into one discussion. Another refreshing feature of the commentary is G.’s voice. When it is necessary, G. cuts to the chase. For example, he is straightforward in his assessment of Pauline authorship. At other times, he presents all the options and carefully notes his preference at the end. These sections will provide the greatest opportunity for disagreement but will also help the reader avoid unnecessary agnosticism on critical issues. For example, I am more optimistic about David...

Editor’s Introduction

Editor’s Introduction

Reconstructing the Historical Background of Paul’s Rhetoric in the Letter to the Colossians

Reconstructing the Historical Background of Paul’s Rhetoric in the Letter to the Colossians

An Investigation of the Mission Motif in the Letters to Timothy and Titus with Implications for the Pauline Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles

Abstract This exploration of the mission motif in the Pastoral Epistles (here called “Letters to Timothy and Titus” [LTT]) fills an often-neglected gap in scholarship on these letters. In addition, the investigation of the mission motif in the LTT serves as a case study in reexamining the plausibility of Pauline authorship. While conventional avenues of investigation—such as vocabulary and stylistic elements, theological and ecclesiological comparisons, and so on—have largely proved inconclusive, a study of the mission motif provides a fresh way of approaching the issue. Not only are these writings grounded in the Pauline mission but the strategy and missionary ethos reflected in these letters is congruent with the mission strategy in Paul’s undisputed letters (which, for purposes of this article, are identified as the other 10 Pauline letters in the NT canon) and the book of Acts, which heightens the plausibility that Paul wrote the LTT, whether personally or with the help of an amanuensis.

Paul's New Perspective: Charting a Soteriological Journey by Garwood P. Anderson

Reviewed by: Paul's New Perspective: Charting a Soteriological Journey by Garwood P. Anderson John Gillman garwood p. anderson, Paul's New Perspective: Charting a Soteriological Journey (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016). Pp. xvi + 439. $45. On the faculty at Nashotah House, a seminary in the Anglo-Catholic tradition, Anderson offers a learned and balanced analysis of the old and new Pauline perspectives, staking his cogently argued claim among the post-new camp. Portraying himself as a peacemaker among the oft-acrimonious polemics engaged in by defenders on both sides of the old/new divide, A. argues for a middle ground, a both/and rather than an either/or approach. He avers, mantralike, that nearly every oppositional voice is right though not at the same time. In the first five chapters A. lays out the prolegomena to the next three chapters where he articulates his thesis of Paul's progressive theological development. In the first chapter, A. rehearses and critiques the main proponents of the New Perspective (Krister Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles, and Other Essays [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976]; E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977]; James D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul [rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008]; and N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God [2 vols.; Christian Origins and the Question of God 4; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005]) and then in chap. 2 examines three battleground passages (Phil 3:1-11; Rom 3:2–4:8; Eph 2:1-22). In the third chapter A. builds on insights from post–New Perspective commentators (e.g., Michael Bird and John Barkley) and takes something from each pole of five antinomies (e.g., justification: imputation or participatory?) to set the stage for his developmental hypothesis (chap. 4). In grappling with the vexing interpretation of pistis Christou, A. opts for neither the objective nor subjective reading but rather a third way, which he translates rather generically as "Christ-faith." But then, one wonders what does this expression really mean? [End Page 725] Regarding chronology, A. argues for the southern Galatian theory and thus positions Galatians as Paul's earliest letter (ca. 49 c.e.), followed by the Thessalonian and Corinthian correspondence, then Romans and Philippians. Along with a growing minority of scholars, A. defends the Pauline authorship of Colossians and Ephesians as well as the Pastorals, which he refers to collectively as Paul's "second corpus." In chaps. 6 and 7, A. explores the "markers" of Paul's itinerary. In his earlier letters Paul used "works of the law" (referring to all that the law requires) and, in his later letters (e.g., Ephesians), "works" (referring to human actions), with Romans including both. With "charis," A. remarks that there is a development in use from the nuance of "gift" to "grace" (as opposed to works). And "justification" (a forensic notion), which figures prominently in Galatians and Romans, gives way to "salvation" (a religious term) and "reconciliation." According to A., justification, more a tributary to the larger theme of salvation, has carried more weight than it merits in Pauline studies, while, until recently (see, e.g., Wright's, Paul and the Faithfulness of God) reconciliation has not received the attention it deserves. In an effort to confirm Paul's developmental, theological itinerary, A. reprises his analysis of Galatians and Romans, written about seven years apart if one accepts his chronology. In spite of their many apparent similarities, A. calls these letters "false friends," arguing that, although they both work with common Scripture passages and the figure of Abraham, they do so very differently (chap. 8). In the conclusion, A. asserts that, contrary to the traditional "Lutheran" interpretation, justification is not the center of Paul's soteriology; rather, "the central and integrative fulcrum" (center?) of Pauline soteriology is union with Christ (p. 384). Here, there seems to be a development in A.'s own thinking, where he discloses "being highly suspicious of the whole notion of a center in the first place" (p. 10). While there is much to commend in A's analysis, a number of critical comments can be made. First, regarding the organization of the...

Galatians by Peter Oakes

Reviewed by: Galatians by Peter Oakes Daniel K. Darko peter oakes, Galatians (Paideia Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015). Pp. xv + 219. $30. Peter Oakes's commentary on Galatians provides an insightful and engaging analysis of the letter. O. divides the discussion into twelve sections, including the introduction and follows the threefold rubric of the Paideia series consistently in each unit, namely, (a) Introductory Matters, (b) Tracing the Train of Thought, and (c) Theological Issues. In the introduction, O. addresses authorship, date, provenance, and theological themes/issues of the letter. He dates Galatians between 46 and 61 c.e. and situates it in the social context of "south Galatia." Dismissing partition theories, the author recounts reception history in support of Pauline authorship prior to establishing his own analysis in the undisputed Pauline corpus. A review of aspects of the New Perspective on Paul in relation to Galatians, and the Lutheran reading, follows to show some appreciation of and critique of the way these views inform interpretations, especially of Galatians 2–3. O. demonstrates a good grasp of the social history of the context, especially in his reconstruction of the composition of house churches and the religious context of the letter. The accessible style, concise [End Page 342] articulation of disputable subjects, and cogent argumentation are well suited for the target audience of this commentary. In terms of substance, O. argues that Paul's opponents in his letter to the Galatians are Jewish Christ followers—referred to as "false brothers" (2:4) and those who preach a different gospel (1:6-7)—who aim to persuade gentile Christ followers to adopt Jewish practices (e.g., circumcision). Paul seeks to counteract their efforts, according to O., to the effect that succumbing to such teachings would amount to voluntary enslavement to the "works of the law." Here, the "works of the law" is taken as terminus technicus for the Torah or Jewish practices (pp. 84-87, contra James D. G. Dunn, Michael Bachman, Douglas Campbell, and others). Paul writes to defend his apostolic authority and his gospel, arguing that a deviation from his gospel would be tantamount to deserting him personally. "What Paul argues is that the way of life under Jewish law was life dependent on doing the law. The arrival of Christ opens the possibility of a new way to life based on trust in him and, in particular, as we will see, on trust in what he achieved on the cross" (p. 112). In a relatively short commentary, O. does well to engage current scholarship closely on a wide variety of debated matters. Those who are not acquainted with modern scholarship on Galatians will be well informed by the commentary, whereas experts are more likely to find points of agreement and/or disagreement, both with the New Perspective and with Lutheran readings. It is commendable that O. locates elements that are sometimes debated in isolated passages in the macro-structure of the letter in the exegetical analysis. Some concrete features and contributions are highlighted as noteworthy in the ensuing paragraphs. Oakes utilizes the translation of certain phrases and words to highlight his positions vis-à-vis interlocutors on linguistic and theological issues in Galatians. For example, he supports a modified version of the "subjective genitive" reading of pistis Christou and translates the phrase as "trust in Christ." According to O., "a reading of pistis Christou that fits with the soteriology of Galatians as a whole is likely to be one that places the expression in the interface between people and Christ (in one direction, or the other or both), rather than in the interface of between Christ and God, as [Richard B.] Hays and, partially, [Sam K.] Williams do" (p. 89). Pistis is thus rendered "trust" consistently in the commentary from Galatians 2 onward. O. posits that "pistis is, in Galatians, a new mode of human existence that comes about when Christ arrives. … Trust in Christ is, in Paul's vision, the route to uniting Jews and Gentiles in righteousness" (p. 126). Moreover, the reader may want to observe the author's rationale for translating Ioudaismos as "Judaism" to denote a way of life, Ioudaizein (2:14...

The ἄπιστοι of 2 Cor 6:14

Abstract Amongst defenders of the Pauline authorship of 2 Cor 6:14-7:1, an impasse exists between those who read the ἄπιστοι of v. 14 as a reference to the Gentile pagans of the city and those who read it as a reference to the “false apostles” of chs. 10-13. In this article I suggest a possible resolution of that impasse, based on a re-examination of the content and function of holiness concepts within 2 Corinthians. The ἄπιστοι in view are indeed the Gentile pagans of Corinth, but the principal issue over which Paul is urging the Corinthians to separate from them is the pagan σοφία σαρκική that has distorted their assessments of Paul and his opponents.

Paul's parallels: an echoes synopsis

Table of Contents Pages Introduction ACTS ROMANS 1 CORINTHIANS 2 CORINTHIANS, Written from Macedonia, 57 CE, May Represent Multiple Letters from Paul to the Corinthian Community GALACIANS, as early as 48-50 CE, possibly 54 or 55 CE, Paul wrote from Ephesus to Pagans Converts, Visited During 2nd and 3rd Missionary Journey (Acts 15, 16:6) EPHESIANS - Paul stayed with the Ephesians for an extensive period PHILLIPIANS, as early as 57 to 58 CE written from prison at Caesarea or written 59 to 63 CE from confinement in Rome. Perhaps, has segments from three letters. COLOSSIANS, Written from Prison (1:1 - 14) 1 THESSALONIANS, 50 or 51 CE 2 THESSALONIANS, 50 or 51 CE, May be Segments of More than One Letter 1 TIMOTHY, 1 and 2 TIMOTHY, Pastoral Epistles, Early 2ND Century, Not of Pauline Authorship or, By Paul, 63 TO 67 CE 2 TIMOTHY, 1 and 2 TIMOTHY, Pastoral Epistles, Pseudo-Pauline Authorship, Early 2nd Century, Pauline Authorship, 63 to 67 CE TITUS PHILEMON, 61 TO 63 CE NEW TESTAMENT MAPS SOURCES CONSULTED INDEX.

Reformation Responses to Novatianism: 16th-Century Interpretations of Hebrews 6:4–6

Abstract The text of Heb 6:4–6 has posed an ongoing problem for Christian exegetes throughout the history of the church. Ever since the Novatian heresy in the 3rd century, interpreters have offered a number of responses to this difficult pericope. Although precritical interpreters agreed that Novatian's exegesis was insufficient, they differed noticeably in their actual exposition of the passage. This is especially the case with 16th-century interpreters of this passage. Erasmus of Rotterdam, Martin Luther, and John Calvin, though all trained in humanism, came to remarkably different conclusions based on their hermeneutical approaches. Erasmus, armed with humanism but still a loyal supporter of Rome, could at once reject Pauline authorship while simultaneously relying on the tradition to solve the exegetical dilemma. Luther, who lectured on the epistle early in his career and subsequently relegated it to the four letters of the NT of "a different reputation," used the results of humanist exegesis but coupled them with his single-minded theology of God's mercy to reject Pauline authorship, thereby reading and using Hebrews selectively. Calvin, in a splendid example of what might be termed 16th-century canonical criticism, accepted the premise of authorship that Erasmus and Luther espoused yet assertively claimed the book to be canonical and interpreted the section through the lens of election and reprobation.

Reformation Responses to Novatianism: 16th-Century Interpretations of Hebrews 6:4–6

Abstract The text of Heb 6:4–6 has posed an ongoing problem for Christian exegetes throughout the history of the church. Ever since the Novatian heresy in the 3rd century, interpreters have offered a number of responses to this difficult pericope. Although precritical interpreters agreed that Novatian's exegesis was insufficient, they differed noticeably in their actual exposition of the passage. This is especially the case with 16th-century interpreters of this passage. Erasmus of Rotterdam, Martin Luther, and John Calvin, though all trained in humanism, came to remarkably different conclusions based on their hermeneutical approaches. Erasmus, armed with humanism but still a loyal supporter of Rome, could at once reject Pauline authorship while simultaneously relying on the tradition to solve the exegetical dilemma. Luther, who lectured on the epistle early in his career and subsequently relegated it to the four letters of the NT of "a different reputation," used the results of humanist exegesis but coupled them with his single-minded theology of God's mercy to reject Pauline authorship, thereby reading and using Hebrews selectively. Calvin, in a splendid example of what might be termed 16th-century canonical criticism, accepted the premise of authorship that Erasmus and Luther espoused yet assertively claimed the book to be canonical and interpreted the section through the lens of election and reprobation.

Oikonomia Theou: the Theological Voice of 1 Timothy From the Perspective of Pauline Authorship

AbstractThe point of this thought-experiment is to assess the theological character of 1 Timothy. The perspective assumed—not argued for—is that of Pauline authorship: at the very least, this means that the letter is to be read as a production of the Pauline mission under the authority of Paul himself within his lifetime.1 The reader of the present essay should constantly bear in mind that the goal here is not to demonstrate the validity of such a perspective but to use it as a way of viewing this literary composition from what is today considered an unusual angle.

Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: A Response to R. W. Wall's Response

Abstract Robert Wall and I clearly disagree regarding the priority of historical and theological criteria that determined the final canonical shape of the New Testament. Wall, while recognizing that my approach is historical, essentially brackets out such concerns and pursues theological issues. I, on the other hand, believe that theological issues then and now have played too large a role in the issue of canon, and consequently believe that historical criteria must take priority. This is necessary in order to ensure that theological conclusions are grounded in historical reality.