A Book Review: Navigating Paul by Jouette M. Bassler

Title: Navigating Paul: An Introduction to Key Theological Concepts
Author: Jouette M. Bassler, Professor of New Testament at Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas.
ISBN: 978-0-664-22741-8
Retail: 19.95 USD
Publisher: WJK, Louisville, Kentucky
Year: 2007

The purpose of this book is to describe in some detail key theological words or phrases in Paul's authentic letters. In the preface Bassler writes that "[t]his collection of essays is intended to orient the interested reader of Paul to the significance of these concepts and the contours of the debates" (ix). She admits that this collection cannot be comprehensive, while also endeavoring not to oversimplify any issues, instead revealing their complexities. Apparently the publishers of this book originally intended for Bassler to write a glossary of Paul's theological vocabulary but the essays are longer than a normal glossary and the breadth of topic covered is narrow. The contents of the book are as follows:

Chapter 1 - Grace: Probing the Limits
Chapter 2 - Paul and the Jewish Law
Chapter 3 - Faith
Chapter 4 - In Christ: Mystical Reality or Mere Metaphor?
Chapter 5 - The Righteousness of God
Chapter 6 - The Future of "Israel": Who Is Israel?
Chapter 7 - "The Comes the End...": The Parousia and the Resurrection of the Dead

Bassler makes use of endnotes in Navigating and her book also includes good indices of ancient sources, modern authors, and subjects. In most of the chapters Bassler outlines the nature of problem being addressed, the sources to be perused, and the general outline of the debates said passages have engendered. At times the theological implications of one side or the other of a particular debate are explored, though not often both sides (see especially the chapter "Paul and the Jewish Law" where the traditional perspective's theological implications are largely ignored in favor of those of the New Perspective).

This is probably my biggest overall critique of the book. Bassler envisions Navigating as an introduction of key issues in Paul to educated readers of Paul and yet sometimes presents one side of an argument with much more verve than the other. At times she will offer large and devastating critiques against particular interpretations (e.g., the traditional understanding of "grace" and "Law" [5-7]), while leaving other proposals largely unchallenged or defending them vociferously against supposed objections (e.g., the newer interpretation of "grace" and "Law" [7-9]). I am not claiming that all of Navigating is one sided - not at all! I am simply saying that at a few points, even a few significant ones, Bassler's positions can be seen clearly, thus moving Navigating beyond and introduction at these points. However, how can I (or anyone else) expect an author to leave his/her convictions at the door when writing a book of any kind?

As any regular reader of this blog might have guessed, I am most interested in Bassler's chapter which deals with Paul and the Law, since that is my primary area of research interest. So it should come as no surprise that the margins of this chapter are crammed with notes! Also, since Bassler is a proponent of the New Perspective and I am not (at least not en toto), there are many places where we disagree. A few examples will suffice:

• The evidence presented by E.P. Sanders in Paul and Palestinian Judaism is not adequately critiqued (Bassler admits that some question Sanders' findings [14-15] but moves over this point rather quickly). As many people have pointed out since the publication of Sanders' important book, he forces many of the texts to fit into his matrix of covental nomism. Thus, simply referring to Sanders as proof that Second-Temple Judaism was not legalistic is not adequate anymore.
  
• The most basic problem with the interpretation of "works of the Law" by those who agree with the New Perspective is that the phrase contains the word "works" in it. While I believe that the portrait previously presented of Second-Temple Judaism by NT scholars was highly skewed, there is evidence of legalistic tendencies in some corners of Judaism during the period of the NT. Thus, it is plausible that Paul himself was one of these Jews (cf. Phil 3 where Paul includes in his Jewish heritage both things into which he was born and things that he himself accomplished and his phrase "my righteousness") and/or that his opponents (especially those in Galatians and Philippians) also leaned toward legalism. This is not an indictment of all of Second-Temple Judaism, instead it is merely an admission that it was not as monolithic as is often present by both sides of the debate.
• Also, the focus on the social function of Paul's understanding of "works of the Law," namely as boundary markers separating Jews and Gentiles, championed by James Dunn, is not robustly critiqued. While some of the texts may make "works of the Law" appear to function socially, not all of them do. Also, the so-called social function of the "works of the Law" may in fact simply be a result of Paul's new view of the Law since his encounter with the risen Jesus. It seems most plausible to me that the Law was relativized in comparison to knowing Christ (Phil 3.7), and this relativization is what allowed Paul to make statements like he does in Gal 3.28. Function and definition should not be confused necessarily.
• There are many other places where I think that Bassler is too sympathetic with the New Perspective and too critical of traditional interpretations, but the three examples above should serve to illustrate my point.

One could also argue that Bassler left out some "key theological concepts" in Navigating. Due to the length of the study and the nature of the book itself, this is inevitable. However, dealing in detail with some other issues would have strengthened the book some, specifically the death of Jesus, the resurrection, the church, the function of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer, and sin. Their omission, however, is certainly understandable.

Up to this point, the reader of this review may be under the impression that I did not like this book. Nothing could be further from the truth! Navigating has many strengths that make it worth reading for those interested in Pauline theology (especially those looking for textbooks for a Pauline theology class at university, seminary, or even adult education classes in churches). One major strength of the book is that Bassler has written it with style and grace throughout. It is not a dense and slow read, instead, thanks to Bassler's writing prowess, the reader is allowed to move quickly through this very difficult terrain. Perhaps the best example of this was her coverage of pistis christou "faith in/of Christ" (27-32), in which she explored this complicated and entrenched debate with great dexterity. Also, one of Bassler's emphases throughout is that the reader of Paul should not read his/her situation onto that of Paul. This is a common critique of traditional interpreters of Paul, but this critique should always be held in the mind of every interpreter of the Bible. Also, Bassler's sensitivity in dealing with difficult issues is very pleasing to the reader. She addresses issues such as Paul and gender and Jewish-Christian relations with flexibility and care.

Overall I would recommend this book to any serious student of Paul, especially those who have already done some reading of secondary sources or those who will be guided through this territory in a classroom setting. The reason why I say this is that otherwise the uninitiated reader may be too easily convinced of some of the arguments here without giving a fair shake to the opposing opinions. However, Bassler still presents her readers with a very helpful look at a few key Pauline concepts. Four out of five stars!

Check out my other reviews here!

Philip Schaff and the Origin of "Justification by Faith" in Paul

Philip Schaff (1819-1893) was a European-born scholar who spent his career in America teaching primarily at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. He is known more for his writings regarding church history but Schaff did contribute to the study of the NT.

An excellent example of his contribution to the history of NT research can be found in his understanding of the impact of Paul's conversion and his opponents on his teaching about justification by faith. In volume three of his work entitled History of the Christian Church, Schaff argues that Paul's

whole theology, doctrinal, ethical, and practical, lies, like a germ, in his conversion; but it was actually developed by a sharp conflict with Judaizing teachers who continued to trust in the law for righteousness and salvation, and thus virtually frustrated the grace of God and made Christ's death unnecessary and fruitless" (302-303; cited in Baird, History of NT Research, 2:49)

I find Schaff's words to be remarkably like those that we read in the Paul and the Law debates of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. His emphasis on the importance of Paul's conversion would be music to the ears of traditional readers of Paul like Seyoon Kim, while Schaff's realization that the "Judaizing teachers" actually brought Paul's theology into development is right in line with many New Perspectivists.

It has been instructive and exciting to watch, retrospectively, the development of these ideas that we all take for granted today!

Blamelessness? -- Part I

In response to my friend Garrett, who asked me to share some of my research into what Paul meant by the word "blameless" in Philippians 3.6, I'll start a series of posts in which I will explore some of the things that have been haunting my waking and sleeping hours lately (and those of my wife too!).

To begin I should better frame the question that I have been exploring. I'll talk about how I became interested in this subject, the work of some scholars in relation to this issue, and then, finally, I will pose the question as I see it.

Upon coming to Fuller I basically had two research interests: ethics and eschatology in Philippians and Paul's view of the Law. My mentor, Donald Hagner, advised me against the former because it could have proven to be too large for a dissertation and, instead, urged me toward the latter. I couldn't have been happier because my reading for the previous two years had been almost solely devoted to Paul and the Law. As is well known, there is a major divide in the study of Paul and the Law -- there are the traditional interpreters (TPP) and those who have been labeled "The New Perspective on Paul" (NPP).

The TPP basically posits that Paul stood against a legalistic form of Judaism, which had even infiltrated the Church through Jewish-Christian missionaries. Thus, Paul countered this works-based salvation of his opponents with insisting that salvation came through faith in Christ alone.

Many scholars (most famously E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright; though many of their predecessors anticipated their work) found this interpretation unsatisfactory. Their primary complaint was that the TPP was not reading Paul correctly because they did not have a proper, fair, and complete understanding of first-century Judaism. If we only mirror-read Paul's letters to gain an understanding of what he was countering, then we could, conceivably, conjure up a picture of a legalistic Judaism. However, according to the NPP, first-century Judaism was not legalistic, it was nomistic (Law-centered). The Law, however, only found meaning in the context of the covenant, which was graciously bestowed upon Israel by God. The phrase that Sanders coined for this idea was "covenantal nomism."

Thus, Paul was not opposing a legalistic Judaism, he was, according to the NPP, opposing Jewish-Christian missionaries who were imposing their ethnic badges (circumcision, Sabbath, food laws) on Gentile coverts. Paul's problem was that salvation was not ethnically-based, it was based, instead, on faith in/of Christ.

So we get two very different pictures of Paul's view of the Law between the TPP and the NPP. The same is true when we talk about Paul's pre-Christian self-evaluation. The TPP argues that Paul was plagued by his conscience because of sin in his life and found a salve for this frustration on the Damascus road. As a proof-text the TPP scholars point to Romans 7 where it appears that Paul himself reveals his pre-Christian views on his personal sin, namely covetousness. (It should be duly noted that many TPP scholars either no longer hold to this view exactly or have nuanced it in response to the NPP.)

The NPP, lead by Krister Stendahl (see especially his article entitled "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West"), could not see how this reading of Romans 7 matched up with a fair reading of Philippians 3, in which Paul states that he was blameless under the Law. Thus, to compensate for this problem, much of the NPP has espoused a view that Romans 7 must not refer to Paul himself; perhaps he was utilizing a "paradigmatic I" or the section should be taken as hypothetical or something of that sort. Either way, the NPP has allowed Philippians 3 to control the reading of Romans 7. It is also important to note here that Stendahl saw in much of biblical scholarship the influence of Martin Luther, who was clearly self-dissatisfied before his "tower experience." Consequently, it has become ever-so popular for the NPP to accuse the TPP of reading Paul through Luther's glasses.

So this leads, finally, to the question at hand. What did Paul mean when he said that "according to righteousness under the Law," he was "blameless"? To put it slightly differently, has the NPP utilized and understood Philippians 3 correctly or is the TPP's view correct? Also, what impact does understanding "blameless" in Philippians 3.6 have on one's interpretation of Romans 7? Lastly, at the end of the study, has the NPP been fair in accusing the TPP of offering Lutheran readings?

Since I'm a NT student trained in the historical-critical method, I will proceed in Part II of this series by examining the immediate context of Philippians 3.6 and in Part III I'll muse on what sort of ideas about blamelessness may have been in play during Paul's time.

Blamelessness? -- Part II
Blamelessness? -- Part III A

Update and Other Stuff...

Sorry for the long (really long!) delay between posts. My project on pistis christou took much longer than I expected (I'll post more about this at a later date). Beyond that, my wife and I have been getting ready to go to Cambodia as ESL teachers for World Relief (a Christian relief agency) for the past few months as well. Needless to say, we have been very, very busy.

On a different note, a friend of mine has posted a podcast in which I participated. We talk about the New Perspective, my faith journey, Evangelical Christianity, and other things too. His name is Dan Mages and his website is called Hunger Truth. Here's the link to the podcast. Enjoy and feel free to comment about it here or at Dan's site.

Lastly, my wife and I will be gone to Cambodia until the middle of July. Feel free to pray for us (if you so choose) while we are gone. We would greatly appreciate it!