The Pastoral Epistles and the New Perspective on Paul

Daniel Wayne Roberts

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN:
  9781666714661
  9781666714678
• eBook ISBN:
  9781666714685
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

The so-called "New Perspective on Paul" has become a provocative way of understanding Judaism as a pattern of religion characterized by "covenantal nomism," which stands in contrast to the traditional, Lutheran position that argues that the Judaism against which Paul responded was "legalistic." This "new perspective" of first-century Judaism has remarkably changed the landscape of Pauline studies, but it has done so in relative isolation from the Pastoral Epistles, which are considered by most critical scholarship to be pseudonymous. Because of this lack of interaction with the Pastoral Epistles this study seeks to test the hermeneutic of the New Perspective on Paul from a canonical perspective. This study is not a polemic against the New Perspective on Paul, but an attempt to test its hermeneutic within the Pastoral Epistles. Four basic tenets of the New Perspective on Paul, taken from the writings of E. P. Sanders, N. T. Wright, and James D. G. Dunn, are identified and utilized to choose the passages in the Pastoral Epistles to be studied to test the New Perspective's hermeneutic outside "undisputed" Paul. The four tenets are as follows: Justification/Salvation, Law and Works, Paul's View of Judaism, and the Opponents. Based on these tenets, the passages considered are 1 Tim 1:6-16; 2:3-7; 2 Tim 1:3, 8-12; and Titus 3:3-7.

1

The New Perspective on Paul and the Pastoral Epistles

Problem, Thesis, and Method

Introduction

The “New Perspective on Paul,”1 though only about forty years old, has remarkably changed the landscape of Pauline studies. Beginning with E. P. Sanders’s landmark work Paul and Palestinian Judaism in 1977, then transitioning in various ways through the work of those like James D. G. Dunn and N. T. Wright, the NPP has become either a beacon of light or a shadow of turning to those who study it.2 One of the major problems that the NPP has highlighted is that much of the debate is focused around early Judaism, and only consequently, on Paul.3 What further complicates these studies is the distrust of many scholars of the NT itself with regard to accurate descriptions of Jewish belief. They feel that the polemical nature of the Gospels and Paul create a caricature rather than a properly critical, historical view of early Judaism.4 Because of this concern with early Judaism, then, only certain Pauline letters have contributed to the core of the NPP (Romans, Galatians, and Phil 3:1–11).5 In other words, the letters of Paul that take up a polemic against Judaism are the letters that have stood at the fore of recent Pauline theology. The fact that Romans is one of Paul’s most articulated, “full” theological treatments and considered by many to be Paul’s major theology further complicates the issue because it, too, deals with the clash of Paul’s theology with Judaism and the law (cf. Rom 2:12–3:9, 19–31; 7:1–23). For those like Wright, who argue that justification is not Paul’s theological center6 but that Jesus himself and the gospel is—that place is reserved for “participation in Christ” for Schweitzer and Sanders—Romans is both proof and foil. Galatians, although likely written much earlier, resembles much of the language and argumentation of Romans. However, the focus on Romans and Galatians is not new, nor is it centered around the NPP. Martin Luther himself focused his theology and study on justification, law, and grace after teaching a seminar on Romans7 and called Galatians his Katy von Bora (his wife), insinuating “Galatians was his most treasured epistle.”8 What is different is that the overly critical methods of studying the Bible have segmented the biblical material into various “canons,” with Romans, Galatians, and the other “undisputed” Pauline epistles being one such canon and the Pastoral Epistles, along with other disputed Pauline epistles, belonging to another.9

This focus on only a small portion of Pauline documents has led many scholars to consider what the NPP might look like if other letters were brought into the discussion. In the conclusion to his book, Paul and the Gift, John Barclay argues that the move from Romans (undisputed Paul) to Titus (PE) is a “contextual shift” wherein “‘works’ are refocused as moral achievements.”10 He cites Ephesians 2:8–10, 2 Timothy 1:9, and Titus 3:5 as examples. I. Howard Marshall and Robert Cara also make similar observations.11 Stephen Westerholm goes so far as to say,

No study that took Ephesians and the Pastorals into account could conclude, what proponents of the new perspective have sometimes claimed, that the Pelagian crisis or sixteenth-century controversies are the source of the ‘misreading’ of Paul that sees him excluding human works from salvation rather than particular works from the terms for Gentile admission into the people of God.12

Although this study is not able to make such a bold claim as Westerholm, his assessment segues into the second aspect of this study, the Pastoral Epistles. The Pastoral Epistles,13 though accepted as Pauline until 1807,14 have been considered pseudonymous by the majority of critical scholars in the last two hundred years. This relegation to a post-Pauline milieu has also reassigned the purpose of the PE with regard to Pauline theology. When once the PE were studied as part of Paul’s genuine thought, now they are seen as the next development in the history of the church, from a charismatic movement to an institutionalized church—from Paul to “Paulinists.”15 And, often, this development is seen in a negative light. This shift from charismatic movement to institutionalization is not understood by most as Paul’s own shift, but a shift that rose after the death of Paul, in Paul’s name, though in some ways still reliant upon Paul’s theology. Brevard Childs states something similar to this study’s stated problem with Pauline Theology with regard to the PE: “However, often as a consequence (of non-Pauline authorship) the importance of these letters has been disregarded and they continue to be designated by many as inferior in quality.”16 In contrast to the PE’s denigration, canonically speaking, the PE are Pauline documents and represent Pauline thought and should thus be considered when articulating Pauline theology. Although there may be implications concerning the authorship of the PE as a result of this study, this study is not directly concerned with authorship. Instead, what this study seeks to do is test the NPP by the theology of the Pastoral Epistles using four major characteristics of the NPP as a guide for choosing the passages to be studied.

Statement of Thesis

This project lies at the intersection of these two research trajectories.17 The first is that of the Pastoral Epistles. For the last couple of centuries, the authorship of the PE has been a debated topic.18 Generally speaking, the majority of critical scholars deny Pauline authorship while more conservat...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• Chapter 1: The New Perspective on Paul and the Pastoral Epistles
• Chapter 2: History of Research
• Chapter 3: Paul, the Law, and the “Chief of Sinners”
• Chapter 4: “Not According to Works”
• Chapter 5: Justified by Grace
• Chapter 6: Some Conclusions Regarding the New Perspective on Paul and the Pastoral Epistles
• Bibliography