The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon

The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text, by James D. G. Dunn. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Pp. xviii + 388. $32.00. James D. G. Dunn's well-known and formidable exegetical skills are amply displayed in his new commentary on Colossians and Philemon for the New International Greek Testament Commentary series. On both these texts Dunn offers balanced and reasonable readings that will certainly become essential moments in scholarly discussion of these texts. One of the expressed purposes of the NIGTC series is that the commentaries "interact with modern scholarship" (p. x). Few persons could manage that task as well as Dunn has here. He is consistently fair to scholars with whom he does not agree and to exegetical options he does not hold. At each point of debate, he states clearly and equitably the readings he himself does not maintain and then provides forceful argument for his own readings. This volume thus becomes a wonderful exegetical resource for at least two reasons: first, Dunn offers persuasive and plausible readings of these texts and, second, he provides a wealth of information on scholarly debate on these texts. Typical of Dunn's balance and fairness is his decision about authorship. After giving sympathetic accounts of the arguments both for and against Pauline authorship, he attempts to strike a balance between them. Colossians, he argues, was written by Timothy under Paul's direction (from either Rome or Ephesus in the mid-50s). Thus Dunn can state that "the distinction between 'Pauline' and `post-Pauline' as applied to Colossians becomes relatively unimportant" (p. 38). In some ways, this is a satisfying solution to the peculiar puzzle of the relationship of Colossians to the rest of the Pauline corpus. It is by Paul; it is not by Paul. Thus Dunn will sometimes hear Paul's own voice in a text; sometimes he will hear that of Timothy. In this way, exegetical tensions disappear, for the fact of multiple authors accounts for the multiple voices in the text. At the same time, even if this in-between position satisfies certain exegetical prob lems it creates a curious inelegance in the commentary. Dunn cannot decide how to refer to the author: Paul, Timothy, the author, or what. Furthermore, modern commentaries are normally anchored by way of the imagined center of the author's perspective. This commentary lacks that center. Perhaps that is a good thing. Perhaps it is even proper in the case of Colossians. But it does tend to dislocate the reading. Who is speaking, why, to whom? Certainly Dunn does not intend this, but at times the commentary almost feels postmodern in its readings. This decision about authorship means, perhaps more importantly, that Colossians is read through Dunn's own readings of Paul. The compressed and elusive phraseology of Colossians is grounded in the larger and more explicit arguments of other Pauline letters. Over and over again, Dunn explains a phrase or a sentence with a reading from Paul. Thus, we know what faith, love, hope, the gospel, and so on mean in Colossians because we know (with Dunn's help) what Paul means by them. Sometimes Dunn cannot make this work. For example, Colossians' use of the term flesh is not really typical of Paul. In this instance and in others like it, Dunn argues that the ideas of Timothy and not Paul are being heard. Dunn's exegetical procedures here accord with what we have seen elsewhere in his work. Dunn interprets by articulating the ideas behind the text. …