The Apollos Temple of Corinth: one of the places I wrote about
in the upcoming second study on Romans, based on my travel to Greece.

Life in Front of the Keyboard (III): Troubles with James D. G. Dunn (not really)

Years ago, I heard a remark made about an esteemed NT scholar James Dunn that his work is inconsistent. This gets me thinking. Although I’ve never had the great fortune of meeting the great Pauline scholar face to face, I’ve become quite familiar with his work in my own research. Moreover, his interlocutor in many a debate, Dr. R. Barry Matlock, was my Ph.D. supervisor at Sheffield. Through my own conversations with Matlock and his often heated debates with Prof. Dunn, I’ve come to realize that there is a great difference not only in theology but also philosophy of writing between the two men. Dr. Matlock, who has become quite a good friend and much admired scholar, is an introspective and circumspective man. His meticulous approach to Pauline theology and exegesis is exemplary to all. This explains why he is still working on that one (truly wonderful) book on the “faith in/faithfulness of Jesus Christ” even from the time I entered my Ph.D. more than ten years ago till now. His many articles appear in respectable journals all over Europe, but they have yet made it into book form. These two men are a study on philosophy of writing. In this blog, I’m going to talk about two philosophies of writing.

Philosophy Number One: Publish First, Check Later

Dunn is a great case study for philosophy of writing. He is open to the charge of being inconsistent because he publishes so much. When an author publishes much, he only publishes what he is thinking at the moment of his writing. As any spiritually and intellectually healthy human being would do, his thinking should evolve. Sometimes he can even sway back and forth between two different interpretations and that’s perfectly normal.

I encounter the same issue a while back when I was lecturing on NT theology and a very sharp student points out that my one book (forgot which one) seems to say something a little different. First, I was taken aback by his familiarity of my works. Then, it dawned on me that my thinking is still in evolution. I’m very flattered that some of my students are already following my progress and become quite avid readers of my work. At the same time, I feel quite responsible about what I put down on paper.

After thinking through the issue more, I realize that this phenomenon can happen to anyone. Words on paper become concretized while words spoken still take on wider scope of possible meanings. At the same time, every author is growing. Anyone who will publish more than several works will encounter the same problem.

The last example of this comes from Luther whose idea of “believing in” has evolved to “believing that” in his later years. If you don’t know what this means, you should read Luther. My point is that even the great reformer changes ideas. There may not be right or wrong about the ideas. The only certainty about scholarly writing is that there is a large degree of uncertainty. So long as the writing does not contradict our basic creeds in church history, I see no harm in it.

Philosophy Number Two: Check First, Publish Later

I look at my supervisor Dr. Matlock life, and frankly I have to say that I can’t go through as much details as he does before I go crazy. Even though he is younger than I am (surprise surprise!), I admire him to death. The evidence of his meticulous personality certainly comes out when he and I get together to discuss my dissertation years ago. I find every discussion to be extremely fruitful as he continuously challenges my work and his. The key thing is that through the discussion, he actually shows that he still checks his work to the degree of perfection. At least to this untrained eye, the articles look like perfection. Every little jot and titter as well as every dot on the “i” and every cross on the “t” get the tender treatment of his fine-tooth comb.

People who live by that philosophy often read their papers in conferences where other scholars can give reactions towards the findings. They will then publish such papers in trade journals in order to be further reviewed and adjust their work. By the time the papers turn into chapters in the book, they will be in their absolute best form. In turn, you will find footnotes of location of the conference or the journals where the chapter has been read or published.

I recall reading one of Dr. Matlock’s beautifully crafted debates with Prof. Dunn in JSNT and my jaw just dropped. My library Jean probably remembers what I said at the moment, “I wish I had Dr. Matlock’s eloquence in debating such points.” Words from that article just roll of the tongue like pearls of wisdom. Without a doubt, Dr. Matlock is one of the most thoughtful people I know about his own work, and is probably his own harshest critic. There is one drawback for his approach. He still has his manuscript on that phrase “faith in Christ” that he is trying to finish.

I look forward to the day when his work finally comes out. All the checking has to have built up such a thick body of knowledge that he will always be consistent in his work. No student of his will ever catch him out on any issue.

Conclusion

This article should be renamed, “What I need to know, I learned from my two supervisors.” Nevertheless, I ought to mention one more guy, my classmate, Dr. Joe Fantin. This article is the result of a conversation I had with my former classmate while doing our Ph.D. together. Dr. Fantin is now a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. We have both decided that these two approaches are the two extremes of publication resulting in different quality and quantity of books. You can probably guess which one I am. Quite often, I’m just one step ahead of my students, and if someone is willing to publish my musings, I’m as happy as a lark. I suppose the differences between my publishing philosophy and Dr. Matlock’s is also due to our temperaments. For me, it’s “charge ahead ... damn the torpedoes.” It is not a bad way to go (for me). Pardon me while I send off another manuscript (on Romans this time)!