Comments on: A Foretaste of my Review of Campbell’s “Deliverance of God” (1)

By: clayboy » Biblical Studies Carnival XLVIII

clayboy » Biblical Studies Carnival XLVIII — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:22:49 +0000

[...] The Deliverance of God. Michael Gorman posted some previews of his contribution in four parts, one, two, three and four, with a retrospective part five after the panel. Amomng other bloggers Chris [...]

By: MJG

MJG — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:46:43 +0000

Thanks, Andy!

By: Andy Rowell

Andy Rowell — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:02:38 +0000

Michael,
I have tried to organize some early reviews of DOG at:
http://www.andyrowell.net/andy_rowell/2009/11/reviews-of-douglas-campbells-the-deliverance-of-god-an-apocalyptic-rereading-of-justification-in-pau.html

By: MJG

MJG — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:21:43 +0000

Craig,

Thanks for these thoughts. I hope that thoughtful responses to Campbell’s work will challenge him in this area. (It’s not the focus of the panel, but it could be. WHY does he need to rule Romans 1-2 out??) He reveals his presuppositions, but he does not subject them to the same scrutiny to which he subjects the advocates of Justification theory. (OK, he subjects them to NO scrutiny!)

By: Craig Downey

Craig Downey — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:56:21 +0000

Dr. Gorman,
you make a fine point (with a very nice touch of sarcasm! ). I would entirely agree that theological concerns are inherently political concerns. I would also agree that we are certainly not observers who can approach the text from some neutral vantage point. I think our contemporary political concerns should drive us towards the text with new questions to see what light Scripture can shed on them. My worry isn’t that, but rather I’m more concerned that the exegetical tail would end up wagging the dog (as Tom Wright has said somewhere); I’m more concerned that our contemporary political concerns would, just as modern political concerns did, force an “intrusive paradigm” and “theologically unhealthy theoretical construct” (as the Amazon blurb for Campbell book says) onto the texts bending them out of shape. I guess the question then becomes how do we identify those unhealthy theological paradigms and constructs? I think Gadamer is onto something when he talks about the need to put our presuppositions into “play” with the text, and with one another, which is why I’m excited to put my presuppositions into “play” with Campbell’s book. It sounds like from your review and other that Campbell won’t allow one to be unmoved in their positions without considerable thought.

By: MJG

MJG — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:47:03 +0000

Craig,

Thanks for the response. It is clear that Douglas is driven by certain political concerns, which he also sees (rightly) as theological concerns, including (among others) issues of Christian-Jewish relations and homosexuality, both of which are addressed in distinctly postmodern ways by his reading of Romans.

As for the lecture on violence, thank you. Douglas has an excellent excursus, totally independent of my reading, that comes to very similar conclusions (see his pages 89-94), but of course he and I are not driven there by any contemporary political concerns; it’s just pure, unadulterated, correct theological exegesis.

Daniel,

I think it’s not Romans 3 that will be the main issue but 1 and 2 (maybe you meant 1-3). I think a good case can be made in support of his reading (on the whole) of chaps 5-8 AND against his reading of chaps 1-2 on his own terms. We’ll see if I’m convincing!

Israel,

“Enjoy” the read; it’s worth it. I will post another few thoughts without saying too much before SBL.

By: S.Daniel Owens

S.Daniel Owens — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:30:11 +0000

I think that most people will never accept his rereading of Rom 3 but the question is can anyone disprove it? I am going to SBL just for this discussion and will be curious to see if most argue for their understanding or against his. I wonder if the most problematic piece of his work is that he is claiming the gospel that has been preached in most churches is the other gospel?

By: Craig Downey

Craig Downey — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:49:15 +0000

I haven’t read the book yet but I was intrigued by the blurb on amazon. In light of the ways it sounds like Campbell is trying to read Romans 1.18 - 3.20 I’m curious whether he will be able to overcome falling prey to the very critique he is making against older interpretation which were driven by modern political traditions. It sounds like his interpretation might just as well be driven by contemporary political concerns. I’m excited to see whether he will make a convincing case for his reading or not. It doesn’t sound like many reviewers are very convinced. From what I can tell by all the online blog review, love it or hate it, Campbell’s volume is worth diving into and I’m looking forward to it.

While I’m thinking about it, I want to extend a thank you for your lecture last year on Paul and non-violence here at Princeton Seminary. It left me wrestling with a number of new things I hadn’t previously thought about.

While I’m thinking about it, I want to extend a thank you for you lecture last year on Paul and non-violence here at Princeton Seminary. It left me wrestling with a number of new things I hadn’t previously thought about.

By: Israel Lee

Israel Lee — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:11:24 +0000

Just got a copy of it two weeks ago. An expensive and massive tome, but your comments have generally helped me to focus on the main themes of Campbell’s argument. Thanks.