RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
by C. K. Barrett, Westminster/John Knox Press
CK. Barrett has given us a helpful and concise summary of many difficult Pauline themes. The book is what it says it is: an introduction. For those involved in the so-called New Perspectives on Paul controversies, whether pro or con, Barrett’s book will cover little that is new. It’s still worth reading, though.
A few caveats: Barrett, while no liberal himself, approaches the text from a critical standpoint. He is doubtful of Pauline authorship on the later epistles (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thess., and the Pastorals). He tries to find tensions between the Paul of the Epistles and the Lukan Paul. I disagree with his conclusions, but I would rather he ask them than Bart Ehrman.
For Barrett Paul’s starting point is “Christ alone” (44). From this he draws several corollaries, most notably justification. Christ + anything is something other than the gospel.
While denying that Paul is a systematician (56), he gives us a wonderfully Pauline take on anthropology, with good discussions on “mind” and “spirit” (65). He has a nice section on the forensic nature of justification, one which Reformed folk can take to heart (92; this is particularly key since Barrett, himself a Methodist, has no Reformed stake in this discussion).
Disagreements
Barrett says Paul used the Abraham narrative as mere prooftexts against his opponents (30). I maintain, by contrast, that the Abrahamic narrative is central to Paul’s worldview. Barrett also says Paul downplayed any messianic notions to the Hebrewness of “Christos.” Instead, so Barrett reasons, Paul used “Kurios.” Methinks he sees disagreements where there are none. Paul had no problem with Christos and he saw the seed of David as the Lord of the World.
Barrett denies Pauline authorship of the Pastorals (158), but then unwittingly gives reasons against his view. If the post-apostolic world was as anti-Pauline as he says (and I have no idea whether that is true or not; I’ll pretend that it is), then why would a later Pauline disciple claim to be Paul, since such a view would actually militate against his position?
Conclusion
It is good at points, but too critical to give a hearty recommendation.
CK. Barrett has given us a helpful and concise summary of many difficult Pauline themes. The book is what it says it is: an introduction. For those involved in the so-called New Perspectives on Paul controversies, whether pro or con, Barrett’s book will cover little that is new. It’s still worth reading, though.
A few caveats: Barrett, while no liberal himself, approaches the text from a critical standpoint. He is doubtful of Pauline authorship on the later epistles (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thess., and the Pastorals). He tries to find tensions between the Paul of the Epistles and the Lukan Paul. I disagree with his conclusions, but I would rather he ask them than Bart Ehrman.
For Barrett Paul’s starting point is “Christ alone” (44). From this he draws several corollaries, most notably justification. Christ + anything is something other than the gospel.
While denying that Paul is a systematician (56), he gives us a wonderfully Pauline take on anthropology, with good discussions on “mind” and “spirit” (65). He has a nice section on the forensic nature of justification, one which Reformed folk can take to heart (92; this is particularly key since Barrett, himself a Methodist, has no Reformed stake in this discussion).
Disagreements
Barrett says Paul used the Abraham narrative as mere prooftexts against his opponents (30). I maintain, by contrast, that the Abrahamic narrative is central to Paul’s worldview. Barrett also says Paul downplayed any messianic notions to the Hebrewness of “Christos.” Instead, so Barrett reasons, Paul used “Kurios.” Methinks he sees disagreements where there are none. Paul had no problem with Christos and he saw the seed of David as the Lord of the World.
Barrett denies Pauline authorship of the Pastorals (158), but then unwittingly gives reasons against his view. If the post-apostolic world was as anti-Pauline as he says (and I have no idea whether that is true or not; I’ll pretend that it is), then why would a later Pauline disciple claim to be Paul, since such a view would actually militate against his position?
Conclusion
It is good at points, but too critical to give a hearty recommendation.
