By Living Waters

While at the British New Testament Conference I participated in a number of seminars focused on interpreting the New Testament in light of the literature of Second Temple Judaism. One presentation discussed positive and negative forms of “the golden rule”: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It was noted that most often the rule appears in a negative form: don’t to to others what you would not like them to do to you.

Some have proposed that the negative form is more limited since it merely discourages doing harm to others rather than doing service for them. As such, the negative version may lend itself to a more restrictive application (e.g., “hey, I didn’t hurt anyone”). Others have proposed that the two forms imply each other. I could see the positive formulation implying the negative, though the obverse is more difficult to manage (it seems to me). (more…)

Great news: I’ve been granted a spot for a seminar paper at the British New Testament Society conference this year! It will be held in early September at the University of Exeter. (more…)

In an earlier post I engaged Chris VanLandingham’s (hereafter CV) reading of the Testament of Abraham (T.Ab.) in his recently-published dissertation, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Hendrickson, 2006). He has since responded:

Kevin Bywater: With regard to the Testament of Abraham, this text is pretty clear. The T.Ab. supports my thesis primarily for two reasons: only 1 in 7000 saved at the Last Judgment at 11:12 (A) and judgment according to deeds at 13:9-14 (A),. Even the judgment of the soul with equally balanced righteous and wicked deeds in chapter 12 supports my thesis. Your post doesn’t convince me that these texts should be read differently. And, as I state, 14:15 (A), whatever it means, shouldn’t supplant the straightforward readings of these three passages.

Here I’ll remark on (i) CV’s rhetoric, (ii) the genre of T.Ab., and (iii) the 1:7000 ratio in constellation with the three judgments. (more…)

In an earlier essay (pdf download here), as well as a follow-up blog entry, I discussed the contents of the Testament of Abraham, as well as some misreadings and misuses evident in several recent monographs (by Gathercole, Das and Bird). The discussion below presupposes some familiarity with T.Ab. on the part of the reader. I have provided a summary of the work in the downloadable essay linked above, and T.Ab. may be read here.

I’ve obtained another recently published monograph: Judgment & Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Hendrickson, 2006), by Chris VanLandingham (hereafter CV). He enthusiastically describes the T.Ab. as “the best evidence for my thesis” (169). His thesis is stated earlier in the chapter:

My specific contention in this chapter is that behavior determines one’s eternal destiny. In the final analysis, it is what one does that matters. At the Last Judgment, God evaluates an individual’s behavior during his or her lifetime so that good behavior results in the reward of eternal life while bad behavior results in damnation. Often the final decision regarding an individuals eternal destiny occurs at this time of judgment; nevertheless, even when one’s eternal destiny is determined before the Last Judgment (such as at one’s death), the requital at the Last Judgment depends, nevertheless, on deeds. (66) (more…)

Anyone interested in the contemporary discussion of “the new perspective(s)” on Paul should take time to read Michael Bird’s essay, “When the Dust Finally Settles: Coming to a Post-New Perspective Perspective” (Criswell Theological Review n.s. 2/2 [Spring 2005] 57-69; available only as a downloadable pdf). This essay is an earlier version of the fifth chapter of his recent monograph, The Saving Righteousness of God (which I recently recommended here). In spite of my recent criticisms of some of Bird’s work, I very much appreciate his thoughtful approach and charitable tone. Here is the concluding paragraph of this essay:

In this essay I have urged a dialogical and irenic approach of critiquing and appropriating what the NP has to say. Lamentably, much of what I have read on the NP (particularly on the internet) has not always been insightful or gracious. N. T. Wright in particular has come under some vitriolic criticism. I do not concur with every point he raises; in fact, I find several of his exegetical conclusions unconvincing. All the same, Wright as put Paul into a thoroughly Jewish framework and forced us to look beyond our reformed lenses and to discover a whole new dimension to Paul. Wright’s studies on the historical Jesus, though contestable at points, are equally refreshing. I seriously wish scholars and students of the evangelical tradition would appreciate what a gem we have in Wright who has shown that many of the tenets of historical Christianity are not quite so passé as its detractors have thought.

As I noted in an earlier post, in his recent monograph, Michael Bird argues the thesis that, “There are instances in second-temple Jewish literature which either demand or assume that law-keeping perfection is attainable” (162). He holds that these traditions are foils for Paul’s view of justification. I have already responded to his use of Testament of Abraham 10:13 and Prayer of Manasseh 8 (see, also, my post regarding Daniel Falk’s discussion of this text), showing that neither of these texts actually affirms a sinlessness Abraham in the sense of absolute sinless perfection (as, say, some New Testament writers affirm of Jesus). Bird references several other passages to support his contention (Tob 3:14; Jub 27:18; T Iss 7:1-9; T Levi 10:2; T Zeb 1:4; 2 Bar 9:1). Here we’ll quickly look at each in turn. It is interesting how Bird refers to Testament of Abraham and Prayer of Manasseh within the text of his argument, relegating the following passages to footnote status. This may suggest a certain reluctance in claiming these texts as support.

Tobit 3:14
“You know, O Master, that I am innocent of any defilement with a man.” (NRSV)
Cf. A.A. Di Lella, trans. New English Translation of the Septuagint, available in pdf here, which reads, “…I am pure from all impurity with a man”). (more…)

This evening I decided to glance at the two-volumes of Justification and Variegated Nomism to see what I could find the Prayer of Manasseh. I found a brief discussion in the second chapter (“Psalms and Prayers”) of the first volume, a piece by Daniel Falk. At first I was fearing either that Falk has misread the work, or that I had, when I read, “In contrast to the universality of guilt assumed in Communal Confession, Prayer of Manasseh raises the prospect of sinlessness” (14). Falk elaborates: “Those who do not sin and never need repentance are the true offspring of the patriarchs, and repentance may be read as a concession for those who fail. If the repentant sinner considers himself undeserving of God’s goodness due to his sins (vv. 10, 14), does this imply that the righteous person is deserving of God’s goodness because of his righteous conduct?” (15). (more…)

On the heals of discussing several passages allegedly promoting the “sinlessness” of some people, Simon Gathercole provides the following wise observations:

So, the claims to righteousness, to lifelong obedience, and to abstinence from sin cannot merely be based on intention [here Gathercole is countering E.P. Sanders's assertion]. Of course, they do not presuppose perfection either, nor necessarily a consciousness of having done more good deeds than bad. Yet these claims do consist in concrete deeds lived out in the Jewish community and before God. However, it is extremely difficult to define with any precision what these terms – “blamelessness,” “sinlessness,” and “perfection” – or Torah-fulfillment actually meant in the minds of Jews of the Second Temple period. To answer the problem one has to resort to generalizations because the terms are never discussed at any length (let alone in any systematic way) in the texts themselves. They all relate to behavior that consists in the avoidance of certain sins, but also to positive practice, which means that they are not merely expressions of “status”: the claims expressed in these texts, therefore, are to concrete obedience. (Where Is Boasting?, 188)

I think there is a lot of wisdom here. It is true that such terms as “blameless” and “sinless” and such are not discussed and defined in the literature. This can make it difficult to discern precisely what the authors intend. Nevertheless, quite often there are comparative elements illustrating that those who are “righteous” or “sinless” are designated such vis-à-vis “sinners” or “apostates” and the like. There are discursive boundaries for how such terms are used in these texts. As such, these texts should not be read as promoting abstract sinlessness (at least not without ample warrant for doing so). Unfortunately, this is precisely what Gathercole does when he employs such texts as a foil for his exegesis of Romans 4 (Where Is Boasting?, 238). I discussed his misuse of the Testament of Abraham at some length in my earlier essay on the Testament of Abraham (see, esp., pp.9-11 in the downloadable pdf version).

In his recently published monograph, The Saving Righteousness of God, Michael Bird writes,

There are instances in second-temple Jewish literature which either demand or assume that law-keeping perfection is attainable. For example the Prayer of Manasseh assumes that the Patriarchs were sinless: “Therefore you, O Lord, God of the righteousness, have not appointed repentance for the righteous, for Abraham and Isaac an Jacob, who did not sin against you” (Pr. Man. 8). Then in the Testament of Abraham we find the statement “Abraham has not sinned” (T.Abr 10.13). Paul, in Gal. 3:10 and 5.3 , asserts that all that the law requires is to be obeyed and similar notion are found in other Jewish writings. (162)

Along the way, Bird footnotes various texts (Tob 3:14; Jub 27:18; T Iss 7:1-9; T Levi 10:2; T Zeb 1:4; 2 Bar 9:1), contrasting these with 1 Kings 8:46 (“for there is no man who does not sin”) and Romans 3:23 (“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”). He also footnotes texts he believes advocate strict obedience to every and all portions of the Law (m ‘Abot 4:2; 4 Macc 5:20-31; Sir 7.8; 1 QS 1:14; James 2:10).

In an earlier posting (“The Testament of Abraham, the NPP, and Carefully Reading Texts”), I illustrated how Bird and others (especially Simon Gathercole and A. Andrew Das) have misread the Testament of Abraham, misconstruing the offending verse (10:13) as a promotion of a sinless Abraham. I’d like to consider some of the other texts Bird notes – as time permits, of course. I uncertain of what we’ll find, as I’ve not conducted this experiment on these texts before. I know full well that the literature of Second Temple Judaism can be extremely diverse. Nevertheless, while Bird and other scholars have misread the Testament of Abraham, perhaps others of these texts will do the heavy lifting their thesis requires. Let’s begin with the Prayer of Manasseh, since both Bird and Gathercole (Where Is Boasting?, 238) coordinate it with the Testament of Abraham and draw similar inferences. (I am using the translation of J.H. Charlesworth from the two volumes he edited, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2:625-637.) (more…)

(Originally published online 3 October 2005.)

Download a PDF version here.

In many recent discussions of the “new perspective on Paul” (NPP), we are recommended to read one or more of a handful of critiques of the “new perspectivists.”* Since the NPP is as much a reading of Paul (and the rest of the New Testament) as it is a reading of the literature of Second Temple Judaism, it is not surprising to see recommended the cumbersomely-entitled, though excellent, collection, Justification and Variegated Nomism, Volume 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, edited by D.A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien and Mark A. Seifrid (WUNT 2/140; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001).

But that’s not what interests me.

What I find interesting is how some rather vocal anti-”new perspectivists” suggest that one acquire the volume (either by purchase or through a library), but then quickly note that the volume likely will be too long and too difficult to read. No worries, though, since one should simply turn to the final chapter by D.A. Carson and thus access the essential thrust of the volume. What is so interesting about this advice is that Carson’s closing summary chapter is a tendentious casting of the overall findings and tone of the actual contributions. Indeed, it so discolors the actual import of most of the other authors that a reader unaware of the contributions themselves would not gain an accurate sense of the the contributions that comprise this fine volume (not that all contributions strike the identical tone, mind you). In fact, Carson’s concluding summary so mischaracterizes the actual content of the volume that reviewers time and again have noted the same. Here is a healthy and diverse selection of such reviewers. (more…)