Moo reviews Paul and the Gift

http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/john-barclays-paul-and-the-gift-and-the-new-perspective-on-paul

The significance of this book lies in the fact that it is reorienting the debate away from the New Perspective on Paul.

Is the "Lutheran" view of justification warranted?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlujS-fH8R4

Paul and the Faithfulness of God

http://thegospelcoalition.org/book-reviews/review/paul_and_the_faithfulness_of_god

Moo on Galatians

Doug Moo's forthcoming commentary on Galatians in now available for preorder. We already have Schreiner's recent, magnificent commentary. Moo's should be another magisterial contribution. And it ought to provide an exegetically astute, up-to-date defense of sola fide.

On the possibility that Pseudonymous and Pseudipigraphical works made it into the New Testament Canon

D.A. Carson and Douglas Moo, in their “Introduction to the New Testament” (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan ©2005), discuss issues of pseudonymity and pseudipigraphy (“the practice of ascribing written works to someone other than the author”), as these issues have been brought up in connection with the canon of the New Testament. They say, “although ‘pseudonymity’ and ‘pseudepigraphy’ are today used almost synonymously, only the latter term has been traced back to antiquity…. By what criteria do scholars decide that a document makes false claims regarding its authorship?—its  bearing on New Testament interpretation arises from the fact that a majority of contemporary scholars hold that some of the New Testament books are pseudonymous. The list of ostensibly pseudonymous books varies considerably, but a broad consensus would label Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles (attributed to Paul) pseudepigraphical, as well as 2 Peter (attributed to Peter). Some would add other books: Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Peter (337).

Here are a couple of working definitions:

Pseudonymity: Works that are falsely named.

Pseudipigraphy: Works that are falsely attributed.

Literary Forgeries: Works written or modified with the intent to deceive.

Anonymity: No formal claim is made to authorship (e.g., Matthew, John, and Hebrews are all anonymous).

Even though some New Testament writings are said to be pseudepigraphical (and that case is not proven), it is clear that many scholars consider all of the potentially pseudepigraphical works in the NT to be authentic. On a case-by-case basis, there is very good attestation for each of the individual books. For example:

• The Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus): While these are held by some to have been written pseudonymously, according to Thomas Schreiner, recent commentators who have defended their authenticity include J.N.D. Kelly, Joachim Jeremias, Donald Guthrie, Gordon Fee, George Knight III, Philip Towner, L.T. Johnson, and William Mounce.

• Ephesians: Harold Hoehner traces sources historically and, as Carson and Moo say, “his detailed work demonstrates that [Raymond] Brown’s assertion that 70-80% of scholars have adopted the view that this letter was not written by Paul is impressively mistaken.”

• 2 Peter: According to Scrheiner, “if one were inclined to doubt the authenticity of any letter in the New Testament, it would be 2 Peter. … Indeed, Petrine authorship is still the most credible position,” and he begins with 16 pages of analysis to say why this letter is authentic (“1, 2 Peter, Jude”, The New American Commentary, Vol 37, Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers ©2003, pgs 260-276).

Schreiner goes further: “I am persuaded that evidence is lacking that any canonical document is actually pseudonymous” (pg 273). He cites R.L. Donelson, “Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles,” saying “there is no evidence that pseudonymous documents were ever accepted as authoritative.”

* * *

Some of what I’m about to cite from Carson and Moo has a direct relation to the process of canonization, that is, determining whether or not a writing was to be included in the Canon of the New Testament.

“About the middle of the second century AD, pseudonymous Christian works began to multiply, often associated with a great Christian leader. We are not here concerned with works that purport to tell us about esteemed Christian figures without making claims as to authorship, but only with those that are clearly pseudepigraphical. Some of these are apocalypses (e.g., the Apocalypse of Peter, the Apocalypse of Paul); some are gospels (e.g., Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, which is really no gospel at all, but mostly a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus). Several are letters claiming to be written by Paul: 3 Corinthians, Epistle to the Alexandrians, Epistle to the Laodicians. The latter was almost certainly written to provide the document mentioned in Colossians 4:16. It is a brief and rough compilation of Pauline phrases and passages (primarily from Philippians). The largest collection of pseudonymous epistles from the early period of the church’s history is the set of fourteen letters of correspondence between the apostle Paul and Seneca. They are referred to by both Jerome (De vir. ill. 12) and Augustine (Epist. 153). The Muratorian Canon (c. AD 170-200) refers to the Epistle to the Alexandrians and the Epistle to the Laodiceansas “both forged in Paul’s name (Mur. Can. 64-65) and thus will not allow them to be included (“Introduction to the New Testament,” 341).

Regarding the process of determining the Canon, the case may be pressed further. According to Schreiner:

Paul specifically criticized false writings in his name in 2 Thess 2:2 and ensured the authenticity of the letter in 2 Thess 3:17 . The author of Acts of Paul and Thecla was defrocked as bishop even though he wrote out of love for Paul (Tertullian, De Bapt. 17). In addition, Gospel of Peter was rejected in A.D. 180 in Antioch because the author claimed to be Peter and was not. Serapion the bishop said, “For our part, brethren, we both receive Peter and the other apostles as Christ, but the writings which falsely bear their names we reject, as men of experience, knowing that such were not handed down to us” (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6.12 .1-6 ). Evidence that early Christians accepted pseudepigraphic documents as authoritative Scripture is completely lacking. Some argue that Acts of Paul and Thecla and Gospel of Peter were only rejected for deviant teaching, not for pseudepigraphy. But both of the texts [cited] say otherwise, specifically indicting the writers for falsely ascribing the writings to another. Bauckham sees a parallel in Hebrews where the theology dreives from Paul but a disciple wrote it. The parallel is not apt, bof no author is named in Hebrews. The Muratorian Canon rejected Letter to the Laodicians and Letter to the Alexandrians because they were suspected to be forgeries. Origen says that he rejects Doctrine of Peter since it was “not included among the books of the Church and … not a writing of Peter nor of any one else inspired by the Spirit of God. (Schreiner, 270-271).

Most recently, Michael Kruger wrote:

Typical arguments [for pseudonymity in NT books] from literary style, vocabulary, and the like tend to be inconclusive, subjective, and, in the end, unpersuasive. It seems that there are many factors that could explain such stylistic differences other than a pseudonymous author, such as the author writing at a different time in his life, under different circumstances, and with different goals and different audiences, even drawing on earlier preformed traditions. All of these factors woud imply different vocabulary, varied themes, and a distinctive authorial tone. Moreover, there is always the possibility that authors used an amanuensis at some points and not others—which could be an additional explanation of stylistic differences. (Michael J. Kruger, “Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books”, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books © 2012).

Carson and Moo say, “all sides agree ... that pseudepigraphy was common in the ancient world.” They also cite Donelson, saying “‘No one ever seems to have accepted a document as religiously and philosophically prescriptive which was known to be forged. I do not know a single example.’ This is virulently the case in early Christian circles” (342).

The nature of the “righteousness of God”: Martin Luther was right

This is the “interpretation” of the “verse” on which the Reformation hinges. And Martin Luther got it right. The “infallible” “Church” got it wrong, and the world has never been the same.

I’m continuing to talk about Martin Luther’s “discovery” of “justification” and “the Theology of the Cross,” both of which emerged in his thinking at the same time, and which were inextricably related to each other. As McGrath (“Luther’s Theology of the Cross,” Oxford, UK: and Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, ©1985, 1990) pointed out:

There are two aspects to Luther’s discovery of ‘the righteousness of God’. The first relates to the nature of this righteousness: Luther discovered a ‘wonderful new definition of righteousness’ which stood in diametrical opposition to human understandings of iustitia. The second relates to the mode by which this righteousness comes to the individual: man cannot perform good works which are capable of earning justification on a quid pro quo basis, but he can totally abase himself, and cry out to God for grace.

McGrath considered “the second aspect of the matter,” “mode”, first. And at these two links I talked shared that discussion:

The Righteousness of God
God’s wrath is his penultimate and not his final word

Beginning his discussion now of the “nature” of this “righteousness of God”, McGrath says:

It will be clear that Luther’s early insistence upon the necessity of destroying human preconceptions of iustitia through the opus alienum Dei leads us on to consider the nature of the ‘righteousness of God’. In the opening of the scholia [commentary] of his lectures on Romans, Luther states his conviction that the letter represents a programmatic assault upon human preconceptions of wisdom and righteousness.

Remember that it was not so clear-cut at all for young Martin Luther. Consider the world in which he grew up , and what “human preconceptions of wisdom and righteousness” were like:

"Justification in Galatians"

http://static.crossway.org/excerpt/understanding-the-times/understanding-the-times-download.pdf

"Abba! Father!"

There are better commentaries available on Rom 8:15-16 and Gal 4:6 but these might offer a good starting point:

1. Rom 8:15-16: "For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, 'Abba! Father!' The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God."

a. Here's Craig Keener on Rom 8:15-16 from The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament:

"Roman adoption—which could take place at any age—canceled all previous debts and relationships, defining the new son wholly in terms of his new relationship to his father, whose heir he thus became. . . . As a legal act, Roman adoption (cf. 8:15) had to be attested by witnesses; the Spirit is here the attesting witness that God adopts believers in Jesus as his own children."

b. Here's Douglas Moo on Rom 8:14-17 from The New Bible Commentary:

"The Spirit of adoption. As ‘life’ is the ruling idea in vs 1–13, so is sonship in vs 14–17. This brief paragraph, in addition to making its own contribution to the theme of the chapter by recounting the wonderful and comforting truth that Christians have been adopted into God’s own family, provides a transition between vs 1–13 and 18–30. Being a child of God explains both why God’s Spirit confers life on us (13–14) and why it can be said that we are heirs with a glorious prospect for the future (17–18).

"To be led by the Spirit of God (14) means not to be guided by the Spirit in decision-making, but to be under the dominating influence of the Spirit (Gal. 5:18). The clause sums up the various descriptions of life in the Spirit in vs 5–9. Paul can claim that those so led by the Spirit are sons of God and so destined for life (13) because sons of God is a biblical title for the people of God (see, e.g. Dt. 14:1; Is. 43:6; cf. Rom. 9:26). But we must also recognize in the title an allusion to the sonship of Jesus himself (see vs 3 and 29); as v 15 confirms, ‘Abba’ was Jesus’ own address to God (see Mk. 14:36), one that showed especial intimacy. This same address is now one that Christians spontaneously ‘cry out’ in their own approach to God. It is the Spirit, again, who implants in us that sense of intimacy (16) and abolishes, thereby, all bondage (to ‘the law of sin and death’, v 2) and all reason to fear (15a). The Spirit, thus, is the Spirit of sonship. Paul takes the word ‘sonship’ (which could also be translated ‘adoption’—hyiothesia) from the Greco-Roman world, where it denoted the legal institution whereby one could adopt a child and confer on that child all the rights and privileges that would accrue to a natural child. But the conception is rooted in the biblical picture of God as one who graciously chooses a people to be his very own (see 8:23; 9:4; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5)."

2. Here's Gal 4:6: "And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!'"

a. Here's Craig Keener on Gal 4:6 from The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament: "Roman adoptions required a witness of the transaction: the Holy Spirit performs this function here. That the Spirit should testify is natural, because Judaism understood the Spirit especially as the one who inspired the prophets; the Spirit here inspires believers, speaking to them as he did to the prophets, to remind them of their calling as God’s children. 'Abba' is the Aramaic word for 'Papa,' a term of special intimacy rarely if ever used in Judaism to address God directly (see comment on Mk 14:36; Rom 8:15)."

b. Here's Moises Silva on Gal 4:6 from The New Bible Commentary: "At this point the apostle reintroduces the theme of the Spirit, with which he had initially appealed to the Galatians (3:3; cf. also 3:14 and possibly the reference to baptism in 3:27). Only now the significance of the Spirit is tied directly to the doctrine of sonship. Since we have received the Spirit of God’s Son, our hearts are conscious that God is our Father and that we are full heirs. Note carefully the expansion of these ideas in Rom. 8:14–17, 26–27."

Paul on hell

Douglas Moo on Paul on hell (PDF).