Comments on: Campbell Review (final) http://www.michaeljgorman.net/2009/12/03/campbell-review-final/ Life through the lens of the cross / Biblical and theological reflections by Michael J. Gorman Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:37:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Apocalyptic Accounts of Paul « katagrapho http://www.michaeljgorman.net/2009/12/03/campbell-review-final/comment-page-1/#comment-987 Apocalyptic Accounts of Paul « katagrapho Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:59:30 +0000 http://www.michaeljgorman.net/?p=704#comment-987 [...] under Books and tagged: Apocalyptic, Fowl, Harink, Paul, TPV Given the recent discussions of the apocalyptic perspective of Paul, I found interesting the following sentence by Stephen Fowl in [...] [...] under Books and tagged: Apocalyptic, Fowl, Harink, Paul, TPV Given the recent discussions of the apocalyptic perspective of Paul, I found interesting the following sentence by Stephen Fowl in [...]

]]> By: mshedden http://www.michaeljgorman.net/2009/12/03/campbell-review-final/comment-page-1/#comment-973 mshedden Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:19:26 +0000 http://www.michaeljgorman.net/?p=704#comment-973 One thing I would be interested in though is how you see the differences between apocalyptic and covenantal. Those favoring apocalyptic seem to see them everywhere, whereas those favoring covenantal aren't quite as assertive of the differences. Given that academia often revolves around expanding differences rather than shirking them it would be interesting to see how you read this out. Obviously this is too big of task for the comments but if your lacking a blogging imagination someday it might be worth taking up. One thing I would be interested in though is how you see the differences between apocalyptic and covenantal. Those favoring apocalyptic seem to see them everywhere, whereas those favoring covenantal aren’t quite as assertive of the differences. Given that academia often revolves around expanding differences rather than shirking them it would be interesting to see how you read this out.
Obviously this is too big of task for the comments but if your lacking a blogging imagination someday it might be worth taking up.

]]> By: MJG http://www.michaeljgorman.net/2009/12/03/campbell-review-final/comment-page-1/#comment-972 MJG Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:51:55 +0000 http://www.michaeljgorman.net/?p=704#comment-972 De nada, Matt. De nada, Matt.

]]> By: mshedden http://www.michaeljgorman.net/2009/12/03/campbell-review-final/comment-page-1/#comment-971 mshedden Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:29:47 +0000 http://www.michaeljgorman.net/?p=704#comment-971 Thanks Michael! As always it is helpful to hear your thoughts. grace and peace, Matt Thanks Michael!
As always it is helpful to hear your thoughts.
grace and peace,
Matt

]]> By: MJG http://www.michaeljgorman.net/2009/12/03/campbell-review-final/comment-page-1/#comment-969 MJG Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:00:42 +0000 http://www.michaeljgorman.net/?p=704#comment-969 I read the review. While I have some issues with NTW's understanding of justification, I found this review odd in four ways. First, the summary of NTW is just sufficiently off the mark at times to be misleading. Second, it continues to drive a complete (and unnecessary) wedge between covenantal and apocalyptic theology. Third, it wrongly suggests that NTW does not believe in the material content of Romans 1-3, which describes the problem from which God's covenantal-apocalyptic grace saves us. And fourth, it ironically uses Rom 1:18-32 and all of 1-3 as an illustration of the benefits of a Campbell-like, apocalyptic approach to Paul when Campbell (not Wright) is the one who finds these chapters so unpauline! I cannot answer the question about Israel because I've not focused on that in my reading of either's work. But from what I have read carefully, I can say that the longstanding accusation that NTW is somehow anti-Semitic because of his exegesis is neither exegetically nor theologically accurate. I read the review. While I have some issues with NTW’s understanding of justification, I found this review odd in four ways. First, the summary of NTW is just sufficiently off the mark at times to be misleading. Second, it continues to drive a complete (and unnecessary) wedge between covenantal and apocalyptic theology. Third, it wrongly suggests that NTW does not believe in the material content of Romans 1-3, which describes the problem from which God’s covenantal-apocalyptic grace saves us. And fourth, it ironically uses Rom 1:18-32 and all of 1-3 as an illustration of the benefits of a Campbell-like, apocalyptic approach to Paul when Campbell (not Wright) is the one who finds these chapters so unpauline!

I cannot answer the question about Israel because I’ve not focused on that in my reading of either’s work. But from what I have read carefully, I can say that the longstanding accusation that NTW is somehow anti-Semitic because of his exegesis is neither exegetically nor theologically accurate.

]]> By: mshedden http://www.michaeljgorman.net/2009/12/03/campbell-review-final/comment-page-1/#comment-965 mshedden Mon, 07 Dec 2009 03:35:07 +0000 http://www.michaeljgorman.net/?p=704#comment-965 Dr. Gorman, I don't know if you found the article but I was thinking about this more about Dr. Harink and Wright and I keeping getting more confused. Hays makes the point in his review of his book that it seems odd for someone who justifies his interpretation of justification to take Wright to task for ending God's role with Israel. While I still find Dr. Harink's thoughts to be more compelling his view seems to leave even less room for Israel. Any idea of how he gets around this? And of course he is eclectic it's a benefit of being a theologian over biblical studies. Anyways thanks for checking it out. Dr. Gorman,
I don’t know if you found the article but I was thinking about this more about Dr. Harink and Wright and I keeping getting more confused.
Hays makes the point in his review of his book that it seems odd for someone who justifies his interpretation of justification to take Wright to task for ending God’s role with Israel. While I still find Dr. Harink’s thoughts to be more compelling his view seems to leave even less room for Israel. Any idea of how he gets around this?
And of course he is eclectic it’s a benefit of being a theologian over biblical studies.
Anyways thanks for checking it out.

]]> By: MJG http://www.michaeljgorman.net/2009/12/03/campbell-review-final/comment-page-1/#comment-961 MJG Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:11:46 +0000 http://www.michaeljgorman.net/?p=704#comment-961 Matt M--- You are welcome, and thanks. Matt S--- I was just headed to the library to get the review, so I will get back to you. In Harink's book Paul and the Postliberals he seems fairly eclectic, as I recall, drawing on various people (including me briefly), but I would need to look at it again. I think he sometimes misunderstands the good bishop, but we will see. Maybe not on justification. Matt M—

You are welcome, and thanks.

Matt S—

I was just headed to the library to get the review, so I will get back to you. In Harink’s book Paul and the Postliberals he seems fairly eclectic, as I recall, drawing on various people (including me briefly), but I would need to look at it again. I think he sometimes misunderstands the good bishop, but we will see. Maybe not on justification.

]]> By: Matthew Montonini http://www.michaeljgorman.net/2009/12/03/campbell-review-final/comment-page-1/#comment-959 Matthew Montonini Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:20:57 +0000 http://www.michaeljgorman.net/?p=704#comment-959 Mike, Hello, once again. I just wanted to let you know that I have found these posts to be extremely helpful in assessing the strengths/weaknesses of DOG. I have plugged this over at my blog. Blessings this Advent season, Matthew Mike,

Hello, once again. I just wanted to let you know that I have found these posts to be extremely helpful in assessing the strengths/weaknesses of DOG.

I have plugged this over at my blog.

Blessings this Advent season,

Matthew

]]> By: mshedden http://www.michaeljgorman.net/2009/12/03/campbell-review-final/comment-page-1/#comment-958 mshedden Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:31:45 +0000 http://www.michaeljgorman.net/?p=704#comment-958 Dr. Gorman, Thanks for posting all this. It's given a better idea of what Dr. Campbell's book is about. I was wondering if you had a chance to read Dr. Harink's review of NT Wright's newest book in Christian Century? I was wondering where you might stand in the place between those two. I have found Harink's book extremely helpful and he seems to rely on Campbell. But I am wondering if his reading of Paul requires this kind of reading of Romans or not. Thanks again. Matt Dr. Gorman,
Thanks for posting all this. It’s given a better idea of what Dr. Campbell’s book is about.
I was wondering if you had a chance to read Dr. Harink’s review of NT Wright’s newest book in Christian Century? I was wondering where you might stand in the place between those two. I have found Harink’s book extremely helpful and he seems to rely on Campbell. But I am wondering if his reading of Paul requires this kind of reading of Romans or not.
Thanks again.
Matt

]]>