Campbell Followup

Sean the Baptist has some thoughts on the SBL review, to which Douglas has responded. Sean has a link to my discussion here. Unfortunately, however, Sean has me saying that Douglas says Rom 1-3 in toto is speech-in-character, and Douglas takes his word on it in a post that accuses me of unintentional misrepresentation. So …

Douglas, Sean and all—

Just for the record: in the text of my SBL response and, therefore (I think) always on my blog, I only said that 1:18-32 (not all of Rom 1-3) was speech-in-character according to Douglas. Unless I am mistaken about the blog posts, then, Sean and Douglas are (unintentionally) mistaken here and I have NOT misrepresented Douglas.

4 Responses to “Campbell Followup”

  1. T says:

    Michael,

    Let me say I am deeply grateful to you, Douglas and the many other scholars discussing these things openly and with such care for the issues and each other. Really, it’s a great contribution.

    Douglas said, if I’ve read his comments at the Chrisendom blog correctly, that one of his concerns re: your retrospective reading of Rom. 1-3 is focus on culpability and the wrong-doers desert of death. But this culpability seems only to strengthen Paul’s argument to the believers in Rome to let their former life die, as it deserves. The culpability of that way of life seems to strengthen the call to embrace the spirituality described in Rom. 6, 7 & 8 (which you’ve coined as ‘cruciformity’). In fact, it makes sense of the Does this make sense to you or am I reading one or both of you incorrectly?

  2. T says:

    Sorry for the typos. If you can figure out what I said and asked, let me know your thoughts.

  3. MJG says:

    T—

    I agree with you. And perhaps more importantly for an apocalyptic (re)reading of Paul and justification, it is not just about culpability but also POWERLESSNESS—which requires an unexpected and liberating, life-giving raising-from-the-dead.

  4. T says:

    Yes. Fantastic.

Leave a Reply


google