Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Pp. 480, hardcover. $44.00.
For some time, one could speak of a lacuna of scholarly resources with regard to commentaries on Colossians. The last decade has seen the publication of numerous volumes which fill that void, not least of which, Douglas J. Moo’s volume, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon in the Pillar New Testament Commentary series. Moo is, of course, no amateur when it comes to the production of commentaries on the New Testament, having published comparable works on the book of Romans (NICNT, NIVAC), James (PNTC), and 2 Peter, Jude (NIVAC). This volume not only adds to the increasingly valuable Pillar series, but demonstrates–yet again–that Moo is a scholar worth listening to.
Among the important considerations of any commentary are issues of introduction (authorship, audience, provenance, purpose of the letter), because these issues will ultimately affect one’s exegesis. In a letter such as Colossians where scholarly opinion is quite diverse with regard to these introductory issues, Moo carefully guides the reader through the murky waters of scholarly discourse (pp. 25-71; 361-78).
With regard to Pauline authorship, Moo identifies the theological “uniqueness” of Colossians to be the most weighty argument against authenticity. Addressed in the course of topics are the letter’s teachings on authority, Christ, the church, and eschatology (p. 32). Moo dismisses the notion that Colossians represents a stage of development known as “early Catholicism” on the grounds that similar emphases could be pointed out in other Pauline letters where we find the commendation of ministry associates (e.g., Phil 2:25-29), reverence for tradition that was “handed down” (1 Cor 15:1-3), and apostolic self-acclamation (Rom 1:5-6; 15:14-33) (p.33). In other words, if Colossians represents “early Catholicism,” then many other Pauline letters do as well. The most significant question to address with regard to determining authorship of Colossians is “not whether Colossians is silent about theological points found elsewhere in Paul, but whether Colossians contradicts Paul” (p. 35). In this vein, Moo rejects the notion that Colossians is a work of pseudepigraphy (p.38) and posits that Paul used an amanuensis–possibly Timothy–in the writing of the letter (p. 40-41).
With regard to the so-called Colossian heresy, Moo is careful not to indulge in too much speculation as a result of mirror-reading. Although the identity of this false “philosophy” might come from some form of Jewish mysticism (p. 54), Judaism (p. 55), or even religious syncretism (p. 57), after laying out a series of defining characteristics of the false teaching, Moo comments that “sometimes we simply have to admit that we cannot know enough to be sure” (p.59). This type of statement is indicative of Moo’s introduction which seeks to be thorough, but not given to much speculation or inference.
Concerning the smaller letter of Philemon, which deals with slavery, Moo warns readers against anachronistically reading modern concepts of freedom and social good into the letter (p. 371). The social convention of slavery was, in fact, quite different in the first century than today. Nevertheless, Moo suggests that given the trajectory of the NT as a whole, the theological principles articulated by Paul may not have always been carried out to their logical conclusion (p. 337). Indeed, Paul seems to suggest that to call someone “dear brother” (Phlm 16) and at the same time own them, seems incredibly contradictory (p. 373).
The commentary proper is easy to follow. Each section begins with a thorough introduction to the larger logical unit and provides a bird’s eye view of that entire section (e.g., pp. 73-74, 175-76, 379, 384-85). The verse divisions are clearly marked out and make reading and using the commentary a pleasure. The only real problem with the commentary is the strange sense of audience identity crisis one gets when reading it. Just exactly who is this commentary written for? The trained scholar is subject to transliterated Greek rather than actual Greek words and the untrained pastor is forced to grapple with transliteration, something which many do not know or care to know. Aside from this small quibble, the commentary is a very profitable read and should prove useful for scholars, pastors, and educated lay persons wishing to gain greater understanding into these Pauline letters.
You can buy the book here.
No comments:
Post a Comment