James D. G. Dunn

Unity and diversity in the New Testament : an inquiry into the character of earliest Christianity

Unity and Diversity in the New Testament is a thorough investigation into the canon of the New Testament, and Christianitys origins. It assumes the reader is familiar with the basic question of who wrote the books, when, why etc and it moves on to look in detail at what were the various emphases in the gospel proclaimed by Jesus, Luke, Paul and John. It also examines primitive Christianitys preaching and teaching, confessional formulae, oral traditions, organisation and worship, concepts of ministry and community, and ritual acts. In the second half of the book, the author maps out the scope of the diversity he found in the fist halfs investigation. Here he identifies and traces the major currents within the stream of first and second generation Christianity which includes a study of Jewish Christianity, Hellenistic Christianity, Apocalyptic Christianity and Early Catholicism. The book concludes with a consideration of the repercussions of such findings, for how Christians understand the New Testament, and what it means to be Christian, today. This new edition is further enhanced with the authors consideration of these same themes, 25 years after he first wrote about them. The final chapter is the authors critical refinement of the ideas and issues that remain relevant and important for any realistic theology of canon to be considered today.

Altering the Default Setting: Re-envisaging the Early Transmission of the Jesus Tradition

The literary mindset (‘default setting’) of modern Western culture prevents those trained in that culture from recognizing that oral cultures operate differently. The classic solution to the Synoptic problem, and the chief alternatives, have envisaged the relationships between the Gospel traditions in almost exclusively literary terms. But the earliest phase of transmission of the Jesus tradition was without doubt predominantly by word of mouth. And recent studies of oral cultures provide several characteristic features of oral tradition. Much of the Synoptic tradition, even in its present form, reflects in particular the combination of stability and flexibility so characteristic of the performances of oral tradition. Re-envisaging the early transmission of the Jesus tradition therefore requires us to recognize that the literary paradigm (including a clearly delineated Q document) is too restrictive in the range of possible explanations it offers for the diverse/divergent character of Synoptic parallels. Variation in detail may simply attest the character of oral performance rather than constituting evidence of literary redaction.

The Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem according to Galatians 1 and 2

1. What does Gal. 1–2 tell us about the relationship between Paul and the Jerusalem apostles during the ‘tunnel’ period between his conversion and his earliest correspondence? That is one of the key questions relating to the beginnings of Christianity which has never achieved a completely satisfactory resolution. It is clear enough that in Galatians itself Paul is striving to assert his independence from Jerusalem – that is hardly to be disputed. But that explanation has always left a number of puzzling loose ends. It is certainly a necessary explanation but has proved insufficient in itself to explain all that Paul says. We may think, for example, of the admission in 2. 2 that the decision of the Jerusalem apostles regarding Pauls gospel could have rendered his missionary work useless; and the awkward syntax of 2. 3–5 has given rise to various theses at odds with the clear overall thrust of these two chapters.

Paul’s life

Opinions of Paul have always been divided. He had been a man of conflict before his sudden conversion on the road to Damascus, bitterly opposed to the Jesus movement. He remained a subject of controversy after that event not only among his conservative Jewish countrymen but also within the early church. In modern times generations of scholars have hailed or blamed him as the true founder of Christianity, granting that Jesus himself had not crossed the borders of ancient Judaism. Obviously the apostle of the Gentiles was and is a challenge that leaves little room for indifference. Nevertheless sound scholarship must aim at balanced views that have a chance of convincing a majority of those who are ready and able to dig deeper and listen to the sources rather than to the praise or disdain of modern friends or foes. Positive or negative judgments on Paul are usually based upon some well-known doctrinal statements of his, isolated from the argument of their context and quoted without regard to the circumstances of his life and times. Instead of such more or less arbitrary opinions, to do justice to the person and work of the apostle demands a careful consideration of the character of our sources and an interpretation of his teaching as conditioned by his social and religious background and as part of his ministry of founding and fostering young churches in the Mediterranean world outside Judaea.

Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.10–14)

The two most recent studies of Paul and the law both show a large measure of agreement in criticizing Pauls treatment of the law as inconsistent and self-contradictory. E. P. Sanders argues that Pauls ‘break’ with the law gave rise to different questions and problems, and that his ‘diverse answers, when set alongside one another, do not form a logical whole’. 1 So, in particular, Pauls ‘treatment of the law in chapter 2 (of Romans) cannot be harmonized with any of the diverse things which Paul says about the law elsewhere’; in Romans 2 ‘Paul goes beyond inconsistency or variety of argument and explanation to true self-contradiction’. 2 More thoroughgoing is H. Raisanen, who can see only one way to handle what Paul says: ‘contradictions and tensions have to be accepted as constant features of Pauls theology of the law’. 3 Again and again he finds himself driven to the conclusion that Paul contradicts himself. So, for example, with Rom 13. 8–10: ‘Paul seems here simply to have forgotten what he wrote in ch. 7 or in 10. 4’; ‘(Romans) 2.14–15,26–27 stand in flat contradiction to the main thesis of the section’; Paul puts forward ‘artificial and conflicting theories about the law’. 4 The artificiality and tension is evident not least in Gal 3. 10–12, where Raisanen finds the argument of 3. 10 to be at odds with the argument of 3. 11–12. 5

WHO DID PAUL THINK HE WAS? A STUDY OF JEWISH–CHRISTIAN IDENTITY

The question of Pauls identity is raised by his history as a diaspora Jew, then Pharisee, who became a believer in Messiah Jesus and apostle to the gentiles. How did he think of himself? The essay focuses on the categories ‘Jew’, ‘(in) Judaism’, ‘Hebrew’ and ‘Israel(ite)’, with particular reference to Rom 2.28–9, 1 Cor 9.20–1, Gal 1.13–14, 2 Cor 11.22, Phil 3.4–7 and Rom 11.1. It also contrasts Pauls devaluation of circumcision and food laws with his continued and characteristically Jewish hostility to idolatry and sexual licence. Pauls identity was evidently in transition, both rooted in his Jewish heritage and responding to fresh revelation, thus reflecting the emerging identity of Christianity.

4QMMT and Galatians

The occurrence of the phrase in 4QMMT had already been exciting comment for some years prior to the official publication of the scroll fragments. In one of the first reflections on the official publication, Martin Abegg has suggested that Pauls use of the same phrase, ἔργα ν⋯μον, in Galatians and Romans (Gal 2.16; 3.2, 5,10; Rom 3.20, 28) indicates that Paul was ‘rebutting the theology of documents such as MMT … that Paul was reacting to the kind of theology espoused by MMT, perhaps even by some Christian converts who were committed to the kind of thinking reflected in MMT’. As we shall see below, Abegg has given some further reasons for seeing a parallel or even connection between the thought of 4QMMT and Pauls argumentation in Galatians in particular, but even he does not seem to have appreciated all the points of possible connection. At this early stage in assessing the significance of 4QMMT for New Testament study (‘nothing short of revolutionary’, concludes Abegg), it may be of value simply to summarize what these points of possible connection amount to.

On History, Memory and Eyewitnesses: In Response to Bengt Holmberg and Samuel Byrskog

I am most grateful to Bengt Holmberg (BH) and Samuel Byrskog (SB) for the care they have taken in offering their critiques of my Jesus Remembered (JR). The initial drafts of their critiques were prepared for the ‘Historical Jesus’ Seminar at the Bonn meeting of Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas in July/August 2003, although delay in the publication of JR meant that they had little enough time to read through the nearly 900 pages prior to that meeting. The Seminar was a challenging time for the author of JR, though I found it more enjoyable than I had anticipated: the testing and refining of one’s insights and suggestions is one way to prove and improve such worth as they have. But the finished form of the BH/SB critiques, in the preceding two articles,1 has given me further stimulus and opportunity to craft a more considered response. So I am happy to acknowledge once again my debt to them and appreciation for their remarks, both the positive commendations and the constructive criticisms. Hopefully they have helped me to clarify and to sharpen up some key features of the theses of JR, and so the dialogue may be of value to others interested in the quest of the historical Jesus. It is a particular pleasure to have critiques from two Scandinavians, since, as SB reminds us (p. 461), interest in oral tradition has been a particularly Scandinavian preoccupation in biblical scholarship. Some of the two critiques overlap, and certainly they are quite comple-

Spirit-Baptism and Pentecostalism

Within Christianity down through the centuries there has always been a strain of teaching which holds that salvation, so far as it may be known in this life, is experienced in two stages: first the event of becoming a Christian; then, as a later and distinct event, some special and distinctive operation or gift of the Holy Spirit. In the history of Christian thought this disjointedness was first clearly formulated in the Catholic sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation. According to A. J. Macdonald, the idea that Confirmation confers the gift of the Spirit was held without question until the time of Wyclif. And today in anglo-catholic tradition, although the episcopal laying on of hands is commonly thought of as bestowing a strengthening gift of the Spirit, some continue to speak as though the Spirit is first received at that time. Indeed, since the question was reopened by F. W. Puller in 1880, it has been regularly argued, often with great weight, though not infrequently with greater ingenuity, that far greater significance (in terms of the Spirit) should be attributed to Confirmation than to Baptism.

Paul’s ethics

Throughout his career Paul was confronted with a number of complex moral and practical problems in the fledgling Christian communities which threatened their very survival. The early church regularly struggled with questions concerning Jews and Gentiles, male and female roles, sex and marriage, rich and poor, church order and worship, politics and slavery. To put it simply, the study of Pauls ethics considers his responses to these issues. These can in the main be found in the form of three types of paraenesis or moral exhortation scattered throughout his letters: traditional paraenesis, involving general moral themes such as holiness and love (e.g. Rom. 12:1-13:14); situational paraenesis, consisting of advice and exhortation on specific matters of pressing concern (e.g. 1 Cor. 5:1-11:1); and ecclesiastical paraenesis, directed to the institutional needs of the church and the ministry (e.g. 1 Cor. 11:2-14:40). Paul’s moral teaching, however, cannot be isolated from the rest of his instruction. Doctrine and ethics are intimately related in Paul’s letters. It is commonly observed that some of the letters exhibit a basically two-fold structure (e.g. Romans, Galatians, Colossians, Ephesians), the first predominantly pertaining to matters of belief, the second primarily to Christian conduct. However, this is an oversimplification, for application is not postponed until the second half of Romans, for instance, being implicit in the exposition in chs. 1–2 and explicit in chs. 6 and 8.