As we continue to look into the “big 3″ proponents of NPP, we come to James D. G. Dunn. Last class we looked at E. P. Sanders. Dunn followed Sanders’ lead. Under Satan’s Sanders’ influence, Dunn is repeatedly quoted as an authority when arguing against Jewish legalism. I wish I had as much fun putting this post together as I did with the E. P. Sanders post, but researching Dunn was a little different.You see, James D. G. Dunn was influenced by E. P. Sanders, and as we saw last time, Sanders was and is on a mission. He wants to be perceived as a triple H (head-honcho-historian) and he wants you to buy his expensive books and tell you what to preach. He’s willing to do whatever it takes to sell. He’ll even make propositional statements about how there is no absolute truth, because idiots buy them!
Not me, I can’t afford shelves full of $47 books.
I think that Dunn learned Sanders’ tricks. There is very little “free” information released by Dunn on the internet. Just about every search result is for an expensive book. Most of the information that I’ve found were book reviews. I read about 10 of them.
To give us a better idea of who James D. G. Dunn is, let’s go to a book review of: James D. G. Dunn. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Michigan/Cambridge, U. K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998. xxxvi + 808 pp.$45.00.
The book review is by Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner – The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. I picked this one because Dr. Schreiner is also a Pauline scholar who has written commentaries on Romans, 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude, and a few books on Pauline Theology. Mainly because he’s an Evangelical Protestant, like many who will read this, and a Calvinist, also like many who will read this.
So we’ll go now to the book review. My commentary begins with a hyphen ( – ).
In regards to Paul as a monotheist: “…the redrawing of monotheism in terms of Christ is not sufficiently appreciated by Dunn. He rightly says that Paul continued to be a monotheist, that Christ’s life and ministry brought glory to the Father, and that there was a sense in which the Father is primary. And yet Dunn continues to insist that no theology of pre-existence can be read out of Paul.”
“Col. 1:15-20 and Phil. 2:6-11 He insists that the wisdom terminology demonstrates that Christ is no more pre-existent than wisdom was in the OT.”
“Dunn fails to see that the fulfillment in Christ transcends wisdom, and he straitjackets what Paul says by letting the metaphor of wisdom control his Christology.”
“A similar problem emerges in Rom. 9:5, for syntactically the most natural way of reading the text is to see an ascription to Christ as God. Dunn denies the most natural reading of the text, and thus he backs away from the idea that Christ is worshiped equally with God by introducing the idea that Christ was venerated but only God was worshiped.”
“For instance, under Sanders’ influence any polemic against legalism in Paul is denied, and all of the relevant texts (Rom. 3:27-4:8; 9:30-10:8; Gal. 2:16-21; 3:10-14; Phil. 3:2-11) are read in terms of exclusivism and inclusivism. Certainly scholars in the past have exaggerated the polemic against legalism in Paul, but Dunn goes to the other extreme in seeing no polemic against legalism at all.”
“The new look on the law leads inevitably to a reassessment of justification, for theidea that Paul responded to any legalism in Judaism is rejected by Dunn.”
“It is one thing to say that God’s righteousness fulfills his covenant promises,but it is quite another to define the righteousness of God as his covenantal faithfulness.”
“His suggestion (pp. 109-110) that Paul may not have believed in the reality ofheavenly powers but referred to them to relate to his contemporaries is, however, amodern imposition upon Paul.”
“Dunn attempts to play down substitution in his exposition of the cross. As aresult his own explanation of the atonement is vague and imprecise, precisely because hebacks away from the substitution theme in Paul (2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13).” – This critical book review exposes aspects of Dunn’s overall unbiblical theology. As we get further into this course, the importance will become apparent as to how one’s presuppositions and motivations determine their interpretations and actions. This is true for me, it is true for you, and it is true for the “Big 3.” If I presuppose that predestination is true, which I do, and someone else doesn’t, when we come to the same texts will there be times when our interpretations are at odds with each other? Certainly. It is because our presuppositions are at odds that our interpretations end up at odds.
So, all we’re doing here is getting a ball park sketch of Dunn’s presuppositions from a couple of good sources, because I can’t afford all his overpriced books.
The next book review is fascinating and revealing.
I believe this may be helpful in our understanding as to why someone like Dunn would do what he does.
Let’s jump back into the time machine and go way back to 1979. I was 5 years old then. No internet, no cell phones, no sequential port fuel injection (except in maybe some European engines).
I couldn’t even find Dunn’s age online (probably in the index of a $45 book) so I don’t know how old he was in 1979. Anyhow, he was about 30 years younger. This was before his 1983 speech when he coined the phrase “the New Perspective on Paul.”
The book review is from Theology Today – Vol. 36, No. 1 – April 1979, a publication of Princeton Theological Seminary. Theology Today archives go back to 1958. Princeton’s reputation during Dunn’s day was one of influence and prestige. It would matter a whole lot to a New Testament scholar in those days what Princeton’s journal’s readers thought of him.
So lets see what Yale University’s own Wayne A. Meeks had to say, he gave the review.
To summarize the review, it was one review of two books from two authors. James D. G. Dunn was one of the authors: Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry Into the Character of Earliest Christianity – Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1977. 470pp $19.50 (even in ‘79 it was $19.50, that was like a car payment back then!), and Gerd Theissen was the other author.
Wayne A. Meeks, the reviewer from Yale, begins the review of Dunn’s expensive, long-titled (with unnecessary subtitle) by saying… “With a convert’s enthusiasm, James D. G. Dunn…”
- Now I wouldn’t mind if that were said about me. But, you know how these scholar’s egos can be hurt by this. Pride wants to hear PRAISE!!! Let’s move on and see if this can be strung together.Meeks from Yale quoted this from Dunn’s book in the review: “We must conclude therefore that there was no single normative form of Christianity in the first century.” – Just a point in passing. Wonder what THE faith was.
- But read this. Meeks takes jabs at Dunn’s crappy (according to Meeks) scholarship, and contrasts Dunn’s mediocrity with Theissen’s excellence. I believe that after this article came out, Dunn was left with a huge chip on his shoulder, and with lot’s to prove. Read it. This may be where his NPP motivation comes from, as well as from Satanas.
“Dunn’s book is a useful introduction for theological students, for whom it is intended, and for those interested in recent New Testament scholarship. The bright student may be tempted to skip over to the conclusions, since the style is not very lively, and the nature of the project lends a slightly second-hand flavor to the arguments. It is not only that Dunn is mostly summarizing other scholars’ works, nor that he is uncritical. But his criticisms are principally informed by a general common sense rather than sharp exegesis of his own.”
- I don’t think that would put a smile on the face of a prestigious NT scholar. Ouch! Bright students: skip to conclusions? Style: not very lively? Nature of project: second-hand flavor? James D. G. Dunn: mostly summarizes other scholar’s works? James D. G. Dunn NT scholar: common sense rather than sharp exegesis? OUCH!!! He was probably furious when he read this. He had to hide under a rock. He probably vowed that when he emerges, he’ll show them! He might have thought: “I need something fresh and new, an environment in which I can gain fame and recognition. I must avenge myself. Must gain approval from my peers. Must gain approval from man – at ALL costs!”
Meeks goes on to say: “Certainly his generosity of spirit will inspire ecumenically minded readers.”
- Nothing’s changed. He’s inspired them all right.
Also reviewed: Gerd Theissen book. Meeks’ tone is completely different toward Theissen. He wrote (in the same article. Remember, it was one article, 2 books from different authors) “Theissen’s book is very different.”
- But how was it different. Was it about a different subject? Was it affordable? Did it have a short title? Was it written by a saved person? Tell us Meeks, how was it different?
“One of the chief merits of Theissen’s work is the care and simplicity with which he sets forth his sociological method. He is very sophisticated in sociological theory, but he has the gift and the will to explain himself plainly.”
- That’ll stroke the ego, of Theissen that is. I bet when Dunn was reading this, his clinched fists probably turned the journal covers into two handfuls of wadded magazine ball. That was the glory he deserved. Like the prodigal son’s brother.
But listen to Meeks’ summary. He classifies Dunn’s work as being of an era in NT study that has come to an end (hint hint).
He groups Dunn’s stuff with recent research that is, well, boring. But Theissen’s; read for yourself.
“Dunn’s book provides an effective summary of a highly productive era in New Testament study that has come to an end. Most recent biblical research has been tired, repetitive, and narrow. But Theissen’s is one of a growing number of voices proposing a new approach to the historical study of early Christianity. It is provocative and daring. Though it may prove wrong in some respects, it will repay very careful study and debate in company with the few other rigorous essays in sociological interpretation of biblical history beginning to appear. Hopefully, Theissen’s essays on the Pauline congregations, even more carefully documented and argued, may soon be published in English.”
- See that? “But Theissen’s is one of a growing number of voices proposing a new approach to the historical study of early Christianity. It is provocative and daring.” Little Jimmy Dunn wanna-be, wanna be juss like Theissen. If he were a junior high girl, he’d be the one that has to dress all provocatively just to get attention from the guys. Instead of a miniskirt and a low-cut blouse, Jimmy Dunn wrote more provocative and daring books! He even puts daring prices on them. His provocative theology and new perspectives are designed to sell, and guess what: them fools be buyin’ ‘em too. Praise God I’m poor.
I could be wrong about Jimmy “the miniskirt” Dunn, but you read it for yourself. He, and many others in our day, invent crazy heretical doctrines just to sell expensive books. That is why when you read one of the only free Dunn resources out there: a response to Carl Trueman, (which by the way is part of a much larger project, currently underway, to respond to critics of the new perspective on Paul – it’ll probably sell for 5 easy payments of $49.99, but if we order now, they’ll knock of one of those payments, making it only 4 easy payments of $49.99 – plus S&H [$49], and tax) all you hear are shameless plugs to buy his works. He creates his own premeditated chaos so that he can respond to it by offering the solution: buy my books at my asking price!
So, both Dunn and Sanders want to sell books, so what? Why can’t they sell books without creating heretical unorthodox views, that they are the experts of? Why can’t the prices be reasonable. I mean, Dr. Morey sells books for $10-$15 without creating some whacky scheme to drive product. He (Morey) makes his Sunday sermons available for free online, why don’t these dingbats do so? Money baby, get the money baby. These sell-outs of NPP want the money. Stop buying, and they’ll quit writing. Men of God write continually, especially when no one’s buying, because selling isn’t the motive.
Next time [CRASH COURSE 4] we’ll look at the Trojan horse that brought the NPP heresy into the church of God: The bishop of Durham, N. T. Wright. The series on Wright may be 3 to 4 posts long, over a couple of weeks time. Keep this project in prayer, please, I ask of you, pray with me if you know Him who keeps you from apostacy.
