James Dunn

Galatians 2:11-14 – The Antioch Incident

Galatians 2:11-14 describes a serious confrontation between Paul and Peter on the issue of table fellowship with Gentiles. For Paul, what Peter does is hypocrisy, and what the “men from James” do is nothing short of a breach of their agreement in the earlier private meeting described in Gal 2:1-10.

First, a chronological note. James Dunn refers to the event Paul describes in Gal 2:11-14 as the “Antioch Incident.” Since 1980 he has produced a series of articles and reflections on the problem of Gal 2:11-14. (I am following his Beginning at Jerusalem (2009), §27.4). Dunn believes that the agreement of Acts 15 takes place before the Incident, which he believes is described by Paul in Gal 2:1-10. The Antioch Incident therefore takes place after Acts 15, Peter’s behavior as well as the influence of the men from James is a breach of the agreement of Acts 15 in this reconstruction. John Polhill has a similar order of events in Paul and his Letters (105-10).

Hypocrite-FaceI disagree with this sequence of events. In my view, the agreement reached in Gal 2:1-10 was a private meeting between Paul and James, perhaps parallel to Acts 11:30. Paul established churches throughout southern Galatia (Acts 13-14), and returned to Antioch. During this time he confronted Peter on the issue of table fellowship, apparently Barnabas also broke fellowship with Paul over the issue. About the same time Paul hears that “men from James” have infiltrated his churches and were teaching that Gentiles ought to be circumcised. He first writes a letter to his churches clarifying the issue (Galatians) and then he travels to Jerusalem to confront James on the issue of circumcision (Acts 15).

Whether the event is before or after the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), the Antioch Incident has some far-ranging ramifications for Paul.

First, it forces the issue of Gentile equality out into the open. No longer will a private meeting do, Paul must go to Jerusalem to meet publicly with all the parties involved (Acts 15). As long as Paul’s ministry remains limited or focused on Gentile God-Fearers within the synagogue, there is little problem. But Paul is now targeting Gentiles outside of the synagogue, making the status of Gentiles a major question.

Second, the incident may represent a break between Paul and the Antioch church. He continues his missionary efforts, eventually spending 18 months in Corinth and three years in Ephesus. By Acts 18, the center of Gentile mission shifts from Antioch to Ephesus, as is seen by the presence of many churches in the Lycus Valley by the end of the century.

Third, the incident points out what we already know about Paul from chapter 1, he is not under the authority of the Jerusalem Pillars. Paul is commissioned by the risen Lord directly and will not be told by men allegedly from James to change his gospel.

Why does the book of Acts not record the Antioch Incident? It is possible that Luke felt that his inclusion of the Jerusalem conference in Acts 15 was sufficient to summarize the problem of Gentile salvation. Luke likes to emphasize the unity of the church, so the incident at Antioch may have been passed over in order to highlight unity of the Jerusalem conference.

The New Perspective on Paul: Works of Righteousness

By the second century B.C., Jews were becoming increasingly Hellenistic. Some even turned away from the most basic of Jewish distinctives such as circumcision and food traditions. The literature of this period are not evangelistic tracts, they are aimed at the Jewish considering further Hellenization. A text like the Letter of Aristeas is aimed at keeping the young men from leaving their ancestral faith altogether! It is for this reason that characters from the Hebrew Bible like Joshua, Phineas, Levi and Simeon become popular – they fought back against assimilation with violence!

Jewish PersonA major factor in the development of Second Temple Period Judaism was the failure of Deuteronomic Theology. The Law seems to promise that if one keeps the covenant, then blessings will follow. The ultimate blessing is the hope for Jerusalem found in the Hebrew Bible, that it would truly become the center of the world and gentiles would flock to Mount Zion to worship the God of the Jews. If the Jews are keeping the law properly, why is it that their role is shrinking on the world stage? One reaction is to drop the cultural boundary markers, or downplay them considerably. The opposite reaction is to increase the commitment to these markers, to really and truly do the Law as it was meant to be done, and the few who do will be “saved” (i.e., the Qumran community and the author of 4 Ezra.)

To survive the exile, the Jews re-emphasized their religious traditions as embodied in the Torah. John Collins emphasized the following four key elements: Monotheism, Revelation, Election, and Covenant. Monotheism and Revelation are not good boundary markers (you have a God who reveals himself to you, so does everyone else!) All of the Jewish literature of this period clearly accepts as foundational : “God is One” and the Torah is his revelation.

Dictionary Series - Religion: JewElection and Covenant can be boundary markers. You can adequately define who was elected to participate in the covenant, who is “in” and who is “out” of the covenant. Most of the literature of this period asks this sort of question – in 1 Maccabees it is Sabbath, Circumcision and dietary Laws which are clear boundaries. In Jubilees, 1 Enoch and Qumran literature proper calendar is included as a boundary marker. In Sirach it is a life of wisdom that marks out the elect. E. P. Sanders’ conception of Second Temple period Judaism under the rubric of “covenantal nomism” is an application of these last two emphases. Election is what gets one into the Covenant, if you are Israel then you are “in.” What is it that maintains that relationship with God is the performance of the boundary markers: circumcision, Sabbath and food laws.

How does this impact Pauline theology? When Paul says “works of righteous,” the New Perspective on Paul hears “boundary markers,” not Torah. The traditional view would hear “The Whole Law.” Dunn uses Galatians 3:10-14 as a “test case” (“‘Works of the Law’ and the ‘Curse of the Law,’” pages in 215-36, Jesus, Paul and the Law). A traditional reading of this text would understand the statement “everyone under the Law is under a curse” in the light of the book of Deuteronomy and the curses and blessings. Not so, says Dunn, the “works of the Law” here ought to be read in the context of Galatians, circumcision and food traditions. These are the very things that make up the “boundary markers” of Second Temple Judaism. Michael Cranford has argued that the “works of the Law” as ethnocentric boundary markers ought to be applied to Romans 4 as well (“Abraham in Romans 4: The Father of All Who Believe,” NTS, 41 [1995], 71-88).

Rather than a polemic against the whole Law, Paul is stating that Gentiles who are “in Christ” cannot take on the boundary markers of Judaism. Does this mean that the New Perspective sees Paul as embracing the Law for Christians? Not really, it would seem strange to say that Paul was rejecting the boundary markers as unnecessary and dangerous, but embracing keeping the Torah. These things are not Pharisaical traditions added to the Law (the types of things that Jesus reacted against, for example). They are at the heart of what it means to be a Jew in the Second Temple period. New Perspective writers are emphasizing what Paul emphasized, that one’s status in Christ is what matters, not keeping traditional signs of separation.

Dunn’s view of “works” in Romans 4 as nationalistic boundary markers has not gone unchallenged. In a recent monograph (Paul and Judaism Revisited, IVP 2013), Preston Sprinkle summarized the problems with reading ethnocentric boundary markers in Rom 4, although he interacts mostly with Cranford’s 1995 article. Sprinkle argues that Paul’s use of “works” in Rom 4 refers to obedience in general, rather than the boundary markers (p. 153).  For Sprinkle, the metaphor of wages/reward does not really work if the “works” are limited to the ethnic boundary markers. Sprinkle may be correct, but it may be possible that the ethnic boundary markers are in view in Galatians but not in Romans.

In summary, the New Perspective has suggested that a reading of the “works of the Law” in Paul that is consistent with Second Temple Judaism limits those works to the ethnic boundary markers. These are the practices that separate Jews from Gentiles. Gentiles are not converting to Judaism, therefore they ought not be required to keep those boundary markers.

Book Review: James Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels

Dunn, James D. G.  Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011. 201 pp. $21, pb. Link to Eerdmans

There have been a number of books on the relationship of Jesus and Paul published recently. For example, J. R. Daniel Kirk’s Jesus Have I Loved, but Paul? addresses the embarrassment of Pauline theology in some quarters of the church. It is well known that some scholars (primarily Jewish, but some Christians) consider Paul the “founder of the church” and not Jesus. James Dunn’s new book is a contribution to this conversation.

This is a collection of nine essays connecting Jesus and Paul. Each was originally a paper delivered in 2008 and 2009 at various conferences celebrating Paul’s bimillennial year or other international seminars. Five of the nine chapters were addressed to Christian audiences, the other four to Jewish audiences.

Part one contains four essays on the Gospels, although two of the four would be better described as Historical Jesus studies. Dunn presents a much abbreviated form of the main thesis of his Jesus Remembered in the first two chapters, showing that much of the gospels are historically reliable as true memories of what Jesus did and said during his ministry. He rejects the so-called criterion of dissimilarity which states that the things Jesus said which are not like later Christian theology are more likely to be authentic. Dunn’s point is that it is unwise to assume Jesus had no impact on the thinking of his followers, the source for “later Christian theology” is most likely to be Jesus. He includes a chapter on the value of John’s gospel for the study of Jesus.

Part two is a single essay which argues that there is a close connection between Jesus and Paul. In this heart of the book Dunn tries to argue against the persistent characterization of Paul as a “second founder” of Christianity. This language is found as early as Wrede, but still turns up in more contemporary writers. Dunn lists several of the common contrasts one encounters in the literature: Jesus preached the Kingdom of God, Paul preached Jesus; Jesus’ message was primarily for Israel, Paul’s mission was to the Gentiles; Jesus was a local Jewish teacher, Paul was influenced by the religions and politics of his day.

Dunn answers these objections by tracing several unique teachings in Jesus which appear in Paul as well. Jesus’ message was that God’s kingdom was present in his ministry, and that kingdom was good news for sinners and the poor. Likewise, Paul taught that God is justifying sinners now, and that this salvation is good news for Gentile sinners. These comparisons revolve around the “eschatological tension” – we are already saved but we are not yet saved. In addition, Dunn finds the foundation for ethics in both Jesus and Paul to be the same: the law of love. There is no “gulf” between Jesus and Paul, and Paul certainly did not corrupt the simple message of Jesus (p. 115).

In general I agree with Dunn, but I think that the problem is defining “church.” If we think of the church as “what Paul was planting all over Europe in the book of Acts” (i.e., Gentile churches, not practicing the Law), then Paul has to be considered the founder of the Church “as we know it.” If by church we mean “those who are trusting in Jesus for salvation,” then Paul is not the founder at all since that type of church existed before Paul even recognized Jesus as Lord.

Part three contains four essays on Paul. The first two concern Paul’s self understanding: just who did Paul think he was? This section deals with Paul as a Jew. Did he really convert from Judaism to Christianity? Dunn collects the data which shows Paul continued to live as a Jew, he is far from an apostate who corrupted Jesus’ teaching.

This book is a good introduction to themes which are covered in much more detail in Jesus Remembered or Beginning at Jerusalem. The essays introduce ideas and hint at solutions, the details are in Dunn’s larger works. Even so, this is an enjoyable read for people interested in both Jesus and Paul.

What is “the Righteousness of God”? Romans 1:17

The original meaning of the δικ- word group was “that which was customary,” but was used to describe what was right in judicial cases.  It was used in the sense of “judgement, lawsuit, trial, and penalty.”  In the Greco-Roman world, the word was used for fairness in a court of law.  One was “righteous” if one behaved in accordance with Roman Law. One is righteous in the Greco-Roman usage of the word.

Judge's GavelBut the Greek Old Testament regularly translates the Hebrew word צַדִּיק (tzadik) with δικαιοσύνη.  This word can refer to both behavior and administrative justice, and to both individuals and to groups.  Occasionally the LXX translates חֶסֶד (hesed) with righteousness (Gen 20:13, for example).  It is hard to overestimate the importance of hesed in the theology of the Hebrew Bible. The word refers to the covenant loyalty of God who keeps his promises and does “loving kindness” toward his people.  The word “righteous” in the Hebrew Bible therefore refers to a proper relationship rather than a legal status. One does righteousness in the Hebrew Bible use of the word.

Is Paul using the word as a Jewish writer might, in the light of the Hebrew Bible, or is Paul using the word the way a Greek or Roman might?  The classic view of Paul is that he is developing a legal metaphor for salvation.  Justification means that the believer is “declared righteous” legally in God’s court; legally he is made righteous.  For example, according to Cranfield, there is “no doubt” that Paul means “to acquit” rather than moral transformation by this word group (Romans 1:95).

For many representatives of the New Perspective on Paul, however, this is a good example of a case where Paul’s Jewish background is important (for example, James Dunn, Romans 1:40). Paul does not necessarily want to evoke a Roman Court scene in the minds of his readers at all.  What he wants them to hear in the word is the character of God in the Hebrew Bible as righteous and faithful.

This is far from an arcane argument among biblical scholars hoping to sell a few books. This verse is the main theme of Romans – God’s righteousness is being revealed from heaven in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  The rest of Romans is going to be an exposition of the righteousness of God.  If the traditional view is correct, then the focus of the gospel is on our legal declaration of righteousness. If Dunn and others are correct, we might read this line as saying “God’s covenant loyalty and faithfulness is being revealed.”  The Gospel is therefore about God’s character, the focus is on how he has acted in history to reveal his character.

N. T. Wright and James Dunn on the New Perspective (Video)

A few weeks ago I did a short series introducing the New Perspective on Paul.   Mason Slater from New Ways Forward pointed out a nice introduction to the New Perspective featuring N. T.  Wright and James Dunn.  This is a video produced by St. Johns Nottingham and is a part of their larger Timelines project.  Many of these videos are worth viewing.