By Living Waters

Often it is assumed that in Romans 1:18ff Paul is working from assumptions of natural theology and natural law (a view from which I demure). C.H. Dodd, in his commentary on Romans, went so far as to argue that the wrath being revealed (v.18) is not God’s personal attitude or action against human unrighteousness and impiety but rather the natural consequences of such immoral human actions.

My suspicion is that some people – perhaps Dodd – want to guard against attributing to God attitudes and actions that might otherwise be deemed unjust. And, of course, throughout Romans, Paul is intent to show that God indeed is not unjust: e.g., “But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath upon us?” (3:5). So, in one sense, such endeavors to guard God’s reputation are laudable. Yet… (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…)

From time to time I plan to offer thoughts on the theological juggernaut of “the works of the law.” Let me begin with a few quick observations. These have primary reference to Romans 1-4, as these chapters are the focus of my current attention. So, it may be good if you were to read through these chapters prior to reading this post. (more…)

A few years ago I wrote an exploratory piece on a pseudepigraphal work called, The Testament of Abraham. When I first approached the text, I did so with a clean slate. I had absolutely no idea what to expect. No preconceptions. But I wanted to try my hand at understanding a piece of ancient literature apart from any prior knowledge. I spent quite some time simply reading and rereading the text. Then I tried my hand at an outline. Then I read some short essays on TestAb. Finally I sifted through a number of books on my shelves to see if and how people were interacting with and “using” TestAb. What I encountered was rather disappointing. Seldom was the piece referenced; but when it was referenced, it was both misread and misused. I engaged the work of Simon Gathercole and A. Andrew Das at some length. I blogged my original work and that material was linked on The Paul Page (something of a clearinghouse on all things pro- and con-NPP). Subsequently, I received a number of notes of appreciation for my work. Someday I would like to go through the same process of a couple dozen other pseudepigraphal and apocryphal works.

Periodically I run across references to TestAb, including some of the verses that I addressed at some length. Seldom do I find anyone who has carefully read TestAb, rather than simply raiding it for proof texts supporting this or that proposal. Most recently I noticed that in his most recent work, The Saving Righteousness of God, Michael Bird references TestAb 10:13 (“…Abraham has not sinned…”) in support of the proposition that, “There are instances in second-temple Jewish literature which either demand or assume that law-keeping perfection is attainable” (p.162). He proposes that Paul is counters such a perspective in, say, Romans 3:23 (“for all have sinned…”). (more…)