An explosion of interest in Pauline studies has arrived on the shores of New Testament scholarship within the past fifty years. N. T. Wright provides an academic survey and assessment of the primary contributions to recent Pauline studies in his book Paul and His Recent Interpreters: Some Contemporary Debates.[1] Wright attempts to provide an overview that answers a question that many students may ask, which is how to make sense out of the vast array of Pauline materials published during the past several decades.

Paul and His Recent Interpreters

Without a proper understanding of the terrain, the interpreter not only risks misunderstanding certain scholars, but also misrepresenting the scholars and movements surrounding Paul’s theology. Prior to engaging various scholarly perspectives, Wright provides a brief introduction identifying the dangers surrounding anachronism and anatopism. Wright then highlights the importance of synergistically incorporating a fourfold approach to the interpretive process for all Pauline perspective, which includes history, theology, exegesis, and application.

The following essay identifies the major ideas and developments of Pauline scholarship associated with four different time periods or movements. The segments include Pauline scholarship in the late modern period, the New Perspective on Paul, the apocalyptic readings of Paul, and the social-cultural studies of Paul and his world. The examination concludes with a brief critique of the strengths and weaknesses of each segment and the identification of areas that need further attention in Pauline scholarship.

 Pauline Scholarship During the Late Modern Period

The scholarly foundation of Pauline scholarship during the late modern period, which spanned the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, was the history-of-religions school where German Protestant theologians attempted to place Paul’s religion as one among many for comparison purposes. Wright explains that the history-of-religions school asked the question, “Was his (Paul’s) ‘religion’ basically Jewish or basically hellenist?” (12). Wright then introduces his first scholar, F. C. Baur, whose two most influential works were Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ and Church History of the First Three Centuries. Bauer utilized Hegelian Idealism, and more specifically, Hegel’s concept of Absolute Spirit alongside Hegel’s unwritten paradigm of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, and then he projected the philosophy onto Paul’s ancient context (13-15). According to Wright, by the late nineteenth century, German scholarship focused on three primary initiatives: religion as a category rather than an integrative reality, the differences between Judaism and Hellenism, and the topic of justification in Hegelian terms (15-16).

The key to understanding Pauline scholarship during the late modern period is to recognize the bifurcation of Pauline thought between Judaism and Hellenism. On the one hand, the history-of-religions school emphasized Hellenistic sources to support Paul’s religion. If Paul opposed a works-based perspective of Judaism, then, according to the history-of-religions school, the Apostle must have obtained his perspective of religion from Hellenistic sources unrelated to Judaism (17-18). On the other hand, W. D. Davies’s book, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, describes Paul primarily as a Jew who ministered to the Gentiles, which led to a scholarly emphasis on Second Temple Judaism and the Dead Sea Scrolls (19-22). The remainder of Wright’s analysis of scholarship, during the late modern period, centers on whether Paul’s perspective is Jewish or Hellenistic for the purpose of understanding Paul’s theology.

Wright continues his discussion by providing a brief Reformational backdrop to scholarship. Luther’s opposition to Judaism, which reflected his own agenda against Roman Catholicism, initiated a polemic against the law (27-29). Alternatively, Calvin countered that God would not capriciously decide that the law was initially good and then change His mind (27-29). In sum, for Luther, Israel was “part of the problem,” and, for Calvin, Israel was the “start of the solution” (29). The two perspectives continue to evolve under the influence of Albert Schweitzer and Rudolph Bultmann. More aligned with Calvin, Schweitzer opposed those who viewed Paul as a Hellenizer and, instead, asserted that Paul remained Jewish (34). Schweitzer’s influential monograph, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, laid out his initiative by asserting an apocalyptic eschatology labeled “Christ-mysticism” (35). Schweitzer’s mysticism focused on Christians being in Christ, which did not make Paul a Hellenizer but did provide a framework to engage a Hellenistic society (35). Accordingly, the forensic nature of justification by faith took a backseat to Schweitzer’s apocalyptic or participatory perspective, which ultimately shapes future scholars such as E. P. Sanders, J. L. Martyn, and, more recently, Douglas Campbell (36-38).

The conversation now turns to the famous scholar Rudolph Bultmann. Bultmann was a classicist scholar who focused on the Graeco-Roman world utilizing a gnostic or Stoic framework (39-40). Unlike Schweitzer, Bultmann had little interest in Judaism or the Old Testament, and he accused the law of being part of humanity’s plight rather than the start of a solution (39-40). Bultmann’s perspective of justification included both a forensic and an eschatological understanding that reflects Israel’s Scriptures (41). Bultmann’s most influential work, New Testament Theology, brings together faith and obedience, but it assumes that obedience is “a renunciation of one’s own will” (43). Thus, per Wright, the scholar’s emphasis on gnostic categories places Paul as an “ancient version of a Lutheran existentialist” (43).

After Wright spends considerable time engaging Schweitzer and Bultmann, he now engages seven important scholars of the post-Bultmannian period. The first scholar, Gunther Bornkamm, is represented by works such as Early Christian Experience and Paul. In line with Bultmann, Bornkamm locates a Lutheran perspective within the history-of-religions school while focusing on Hellenistic sources (45). Against Schweitzer, Bornkamm asserted that Paul was “totally opposed to apocalyptic” without denying the reality of incorporation, and, simultaneously, he moves beyond Bultmann’s perspective by asserting that justification is not forensic but, instead, existential (46).

Second, Wright acknowledges the puzzling nature of Oscar Cullmann, who wrote both Christ and Time and Salvation in History. Cullmann contends that God is in control of nature and the whole of history, which seems to point to a form of hyper-sovereignty that would cause significant angst to Barth’s dialectical theology (46-47). Arising out of the relatively recent events of WWII, Cullmann’s salvation history points to an “immanent development” not only philosophically, as echoed by Bauer’s Hegelian schema, but also politically, which appears to support the rise of Marxism and Nazism (47-48). Although theoretically attempting to assert a salvation-historical perspective within a Jewish context, Wright points out that Cullmann lacks engagement with the relevant primary sources (48).]

Third, reacting against Cullmann, Ernst Käsemann rejects an evolutionary salvation-historical approach aligning with political ideology, and instead, he seems to promote a triumphalism that places man above God (50). Two relevant works by Käsemann are Perspectives on Paul and his Commentary on Romans. In line with Schweitzer, Käsemann promoted an apocalyptic version of Paul that significantly influenced later scholars such as Martyn (51). Käsemann defined apocalyptic as “imminent expectation” and linked Paul to Qumran by focusing on the cosmic impact of Christ rather than Israel’s covenantal relationship (51-52). The result of Käsemann’s initiative was an immediate break in history via the incarnation, not an evolutionary development as espoused by Cullman (52-53). In sum, Käsemann allowed for Pauline opposition to Jewish-Christian communities focused on the law as well as Christian communities with an over-realized eschatology (52-53). The irony, as Wright cynically notes, is that Käsemann lands right in line with his Lutheran tradition between Jewish legalism and Hellenistic enthusiasm (53).

Fourth, Ulrich Wilckens is another important German scholar, but unfortunately many of his works have not been translated into English. Wilckens rejects the Bultmannian notion that the law, not sin, is the problem (56-57). Instead, he asserts that Christ is the goal and termination of the law (56-57). With a more centrist Lutheran position, Wilckens believes the Spirit enables believers to fulfill the law (57).

Fifth, Hans Hübner’s monograph, Law in Paul’s Thought, attempts to address a longstanding perceived contradiction in Paul. Hübner resolves Paul’s negative view of the law in Galatians with his positive view of the law in Romans by contending that the Apostle’s views developed over time (57). Although Hübner’s answer is not popular, his question remains relevant (57). 

Sixth, Charles Cranfield’s major Pauline works include his commentary on Romans and his article, “Paul and the Law” published in the Scottish Journal of Theology. Following Calvin, Cranfield provides a positive view of the Jewish law. Cranfield bristles at the popular Marcionistic view of the law and asserts that the “gift of the spirit is the establishment of the law;” however, he is unable to adequately explain Paul’s view of the law in Galatians (59-60).

Finally, Herman Ridderbos follows a more Calvinistic perspective of the law and somewhat echoes Cullmann’s salvation-historical view (61). Ridderbos’s seminal work, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, is framed around the fundamental structure of inaugurated eschatology, which points to an apocalyptic perspective (61). The scholar argues that being in Christ is foundational to justification; thus, a forensic and participatory understanding of Paul’s soteriology are not mutually exclusive (62). Ridderbos anticipates the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) with his positive view of the law and his salvation-historical approach (62).

 The New Perspective on Paul

Although no single entity or school called the ‘New Perspective on Paul’ exists, few would disagree that the movement commenced with E. P. Sanders’s book published in 1977 entitled Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (64). Sanders’s work descends upon a long history of scholarly debate between a Hellenistic and Jewish Paul. Sanders’s greatest success revolves around his argument that the ancient Jews were not legalists who preceded and informed later medieval Catholicism as purported by Luther (70-71). Instead, by utilizing the phrase ‘covenantal nomism,’ Sanders asserts that Jewish obedience was not for ‘getting in’ a right relationship with Yahweh but for the purpose of ‘staying in;’ thus, Sanders famously states, “The intention and effort to be obedient constitute the condition for remaining in the covenant, but they do not earn it.”[2] Controversially, Sanders brings Paul in line with Judaism by contending that both Jews and Paul believe that the final judgment is somehow based on works (72-73). However, Paul believed the verdict had already been rendered “in the Messiah,” which naturally points to Sanders’s emphasis on participation (72-73). As one might expect, Wright critiques Sanders for reading a de-storied Judaism, devoid of the Old Testament’s meta-narrative, back into first-century Judaism (74-75).

Although Sanders’s main focus is covenantal nomism, a secondary initiative is that Paul did not proceed from plight to solution but from solution to plight (77). In other words, in line with apocalyptic views, Paul’s perspective did not begin with Luther’s troubled conscious as Paul was not troubled by the law (77). Instead, Sanders contends that Paul recognized that salvation in Christ changes the entire system; thus, Sanders succinctly states, “This is what Paul finds wrong in Judaism: it is not Christianity.”[3] In sum, the tectonic shift radicalizes the plight that Paul had already known, but, to Wright’s dismay, the covenant fades into the background.

Regarding the latter half of Sanders’s book, Wright accuses Sanders of moving away from the study of religion and lapsing into theology, particularly regarding Pauline soteriology (80). For Sanders, participation is first, and ‘transfer terminology’ is second (81). In other words, it appears that Sanders subsumes certain salvific concepts such as freedom, reconciliation, and especially justification within the larger participatory category (81). Accordingly, the law is not contrary to God’s purposes, but “has the function of consigning everyone to sin so that everyone could be saved by God’s grace in Christ.”[4] Wright accuses Sanders of not properly reconciling justification and participation by subsuming the former under the latter instead of recognizing that the reconciliation of the two must occur via the covenant (83-85).

Wright acknowledges that the post-Sanders debate is complex and then focuses his analysis on two important scholars: James Dunn and Richard Hays. Although Dunn wrote prolifically, one of his most relevant works was The New Perspective on Paul published in 2008. Wright recognizes Dunn’s post-Sanders exegetical prowess and then identifies three topics where Dunn made significant contributions: (1) discontinuity, (2) works of the law, and (3) pistis Christou (90-102). First, Dunn embraces certain portions of Sanders’s perspectives, but he vigorously takes exception to Sanders’s apparent discontinuity. Dunn argues that Sanders jumps arbitrarily from Judaism to Christianity by utilizing a participationist leap that leaves a discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments (90-91). Second, Dunn recognizes that Sanders contends that the law is good, but if that is the case, then why does Paul criticize the law? In opposition to the idea that works of the law are somehow followed to impress God, Dunn asserts that works of the law are followed by Jews to demonstrate their membership in God’s community (91-96). In short, works of the law, the Torah, are boundary markers and not universal principles. Accordingly, it is not so much that the works of the law are bad, but, rather, they are deemed irrelevant in light of the believer’s new reality in Christ.

Dunn has had a longstanding debate with Richard Hays, the author of The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11, which is Hays’s republished dissertation from 1983. The issue surrounds whether pistis Christou is interpreted as an objective genitive, ‘faith in Christ’ as espoused by Dunn, or the subjective genitive, the ‘faithfulness of Christ’ as espoused by Hays (96-97). The debate points to a larger issue: Hays leans into the subjective genitive as it provides the basis for the overarching covenantal narrative that Paul engages, and that, according to Wright, Dunn misses (97-98). Hays’s Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul fleshes out the idea that Paul was not attacking Jewish legalism but discovering that Christ was what Israel’s scriptural narrative was pointing to from the beginning, which was covenant fulfillment (98-99). Wright agrees.

Finally, Wright mentions one final author, Francis Watson, who wrote Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles. After Sanders, Watson initially moved toward a sociological perspective suggesting that Paul’s focus was in developing communities of ‘Messiah people’ (102-3). Watson’s direction is further explored in the final section of Wright’s book. Accordingly, the following investigates the prolonged attacks on the New Perspective on Paul.

The attacks against Sanders and the NPP arise from numerous disparate sources such as Robert Gundry’s synergistic approach to Judaism, Frank Thieleman’s protest against plight and solution, and D. A. Carson’s massive two-volume response that opposes a monolithic view of Judaism (106-8). Wright summarizes the key areas of the critique utilizing four categories. First, the NPP oversimplifies first-century Judaism by suggesting a monolithic perspective (109-10). Second, due to the diversity of Judaism, NPP misses that certain sects have differing views of the relationship between grace and works (109-10). Third, the NPP fails to recognize that some Jews did have a legalistic perspective (110). Finally, Wright contends that both covenantal nomism and the critics of NPP overlook the narrative, the historical story, where salvation exists within history (111). Prior to engaging two scholars from the old perspective, Wright takes a few moments to rant about the opposition to the NPP. Specifically, he rejects the opposition’s dismissal of the participationist perspective and repudiates the accusation that salvation and conversion is not important to the NPP (115-21).

Wright then identifies two ‘old perspective’ scholars: Peter Stuhlmacher who wrote Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective and Stephen Westerholm who wrote Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics. In support of Luther’s soteriology, Stuhlmacher contends that Dunn and Stendahl miss explaining justification in the final judgment, but, per Wright, he does not show how present justification links to the final judgement and inappropriately downplays the category of Israel (122-23). Regarding Westerholm, Wright accuses the author of misrepresenting the NPP by suggesting that it denies that all humans are sinners and that the Jewish covenant replaces salvation in Christ (123-25). Wright then attacks Westerholm for not engaging the following topics: (1) the issue of integration of juristic and participationist theology, (2) the true children of Abraham, (3) the meaning of the righteousness of God, (4) the question of imputed righteousness, and (5) the potential integration of covenant theology (125-27). Wright concludes the segment by highlighting the importance of utilizing critical realism to submit questions to evidence rather than preconceived prejudices (128-31).

 Apocalyptic Readings of Paul

The apocalyptic nature of Pauline theology, according to Wright, was re-introduced by J. Christian Beker in his book Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (135). Although scholars have historically avoided the apocalyptic concepts, Beker promotes the idea that God’s cosmic victory over the powers of evil occurred on the cross, which resulted in a believer’s new creation (135-36). The definition of apocalyptic is somewhat elusive; however, the idea represents the worldview of Jewish apocalyptic literature such as Daniel, 1 Enoch, and Revelation, while most often referring to both a current and a future age (138-40). Wright also clarifies that the term did not normally anticipate a collapse of the world or a dualistic heaven and earth reality (138-39). In sum, the apocalyptic perspective attempts to view Pauline theology from an overarching, cosmic dimension rather than focusing on the individual.

Although Beker appears to have re-introduced the apocalyptic perspective, Ernst Käsemann laid the foundation for Beker and others including the highly influential J. L. Martyn. Käsemann’s theology countered Bultmann’s by utilizing a Jewish, apocalyptic framework rather than a Hellenistic, gnostic framework (146-47). Similar to prominent Reformation theology, the ultimate result of Käsemann’s work still pointed toward a discontinuity that maintained Judaism was wrong and Christianity was right (147). The break with the Reformation occurs as Käsemann’s apocalyptic matrix asserts the subjective rather than the objective genitive perspective of δικαιοσύνη, which emphasizes God’s power to overturn the cosmic forces of evil (147-148). Wright also supports the subjective genitive view but contends that Käsemann completely misses “the Christologically redefined covenant with Israel” (148). Furthermore, Käsemann assumes that early Christians expected an imminent collapse of the world, an idea opposed by Beker and Martyn (149-50). Instead, Beker espoused an inaugurated eschatology, an “already” and “not yet” reality, whereby the newly created order had come but was yet to be consummated (150-51). Beker clarifies inaugurated eschatology as follows: “According to Paul, the cosmic dimensions of the death and resurrection is the beginning of the ontological renewal of creation that will come to completion in God’s new age.”[5] Martyn, who is likely the most popular recent apocalyptic scholar, also embraces an emphasis on the new creation.

Martyn’s work at Union Theological Seminary has ultimately led to the phrase “The Union School,” which represents apocalyptic interpretations of Paul that emphasize Jesus’s radical break into the world that brought about a believer’s new creation in Christ (155-56). An influential 1988 dissertation by Martinus de Boer laid the foundation for Martyn and future apocalyptic scholars (156). Per Wright, de Boer appropriately researched the relevant Jewish apocalyptic literature further shifting the emphasis away from Bultmann’s Hellenistic initiatives and towards a Jewish context highlighting a two-age schema (156-57). However, Wright contends that no connection appears to exist between the two-age schema and the term apocalyptic (158). Furthermore, Wright asserts that de Boer overplays his hand when bifurcating apocalypticism into two hypothetical strands: a forensic apocalyptic eschatology (FAE) and a cosmological apocalyptic eschatology (CAE) (161). Wright also contends that de Boer misses the covenantal framework, leaves certain terms undefined, lacks alignment with Jewish apocalyptic scholars, and imposes a scheme where God’s immanence trumps His transcendence (162-65).

Martyn’s landmark work is his commentary on Galatians. Martyn’s apocalyptic perspective emphasizes the inbreaking of God, which is the apocalyptic event that initiated a new cosmic reality (168). Martyn appears to root his work in de Boer’s two hypothetical strands of Jewish apocalyptic theology, where CAE represents Paul and FAE represents Paul’s opponents (168). As opposed to Käsemann’s focus on the future, Martyn’s apocalyptic perspective focuses on inaugurated eschatology as espoused by de Boer (171). However, similar to Käsemann, Martyn seems to support a discontinuity between Judaism and Christianity, which aligns with what Wright calls the old perspective or a sophisticated version of the Lutheran Paul (172-73). Accordingly, little overlap or engagement between Martyn and the NPP appears to exist. Wright documents several concerns with Martyn’s apocalyptic approach. Wright rejects Martyn’s opposition to a covenantal framework, integration of the two hypothetical strands, and the discontinuation between the flow of history between Judaism and Christianity (170-75). Further, Martyn appears, at times, to translate the abstract noun δικαιοσύνη, which represents a status, into an active noun to represent an event that de-emphasizes forensic righteousness (179-80). In sum, Paul was an apocalyptic theologian, but, for Wright, building Paul’s theology on the matrix of apocalyptic rather than covenantal theology misses the point (186).

The final book that Wright analyzes within the category of apocalyptic is Douglas Campbell’s The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Campbell attempts to prove that a significant chasm exists between Romans 1-4 and 5-8 (187). The chasm is so wide that in the first four chapters of Romans Paul utilizes an ancient literary device called prosōpopoeia to convey the message of his opponent, the Teacher, which is based on what Campbell calls the “Justification Theory” (193). Campbell then asserts that Paul’s response to the Teacher is chronicled in Romans 5-8 (193). Campbell’s concepts are not completely novel. Like Schweitzer, Romans 1-4 and 5-8 appear to emphasize different thematic initiatives; like Sanders, Romans 1-4 does seem to, at times, misdescribe Judaism during Jesus’s time; but unlike either, Campbell’s Teacher is unique (194-95). It appears that Campbell’s purpose is to undermine a modern, Western message that promotes an individualistic and rationalistic “turn or burn” form of preaching (195-96). The preaching Campbell abhors follows certain prescribed steps for salvation and, in turn, undermines God’s revelation of sovereign grace found by participating in Christ (195-96). Accordingly, Campbell has redefined the term apocalyptic into the sphere of methodology that seems to have little to do with de Boer’s two tracks or Martyn’s emphasis on cosmic powers while, simultaneously, emphasizing participation and placing justification “on another planet altogether” (188-89).

Wright commends Campbell for identifying a misinterpretation of Romans 1-4 in modern preaching. However, a wrong interpretation by preachers does not equate to a wrong message by Paul in Romans 1-4 (201-3). Wright rejects the idea that Paul was using prosōpopoeia because in ancient literature the text always introduces the voices (197). Along with Campbell, Wright rejects Romans 1-4 as a foundationalist argument, but he also contends that the solution is not a reconstruction of Paul’s dialogue (206). Instead, justification is forensic in nature and universal sin, as opposed to a foundationalist assertion, exists in light of the Messiah (205-6). Wright’s solution is a covenantal approach that holds Romans 1-8 in tension that resolves in the most apocalyptic passage of the pericope: Romans 8:19-21 (211-14). In short, Wright asserts that the terms apocalyptic and justification go hand in hand where the former is the mode and the latter is the result, which is accomplished by participating in the Messiah through the Spirit (209).

Social-Cultural Studies of Paul and His World

The final section of Wright’s book addresses the topic of social-cultural studies and its relationship to Pauline thought. The goal of social history is to inform readers of Paul’s wider community context in an attempt to avoid both anachronism and ethnocentrism (224). Scholars such as Clifford Geertz, Peter Berger, and Thomas Luckman initiated the first advance in social theories by popularizing the symbols and ethos of society, while scholars such as Martin Hengel, Emil Shurer, and E. P. Sanders initiated a second advance in social theories by focusing on the Jewish world (226-28). Several social historians have led the way. Edwin Judge in his book The Social Pattern of Christian Groups in the First Century highlights the importance of Christians seeing themselves as a distinct group from the Roman world of late antiquity (229-32). Gerd Theissen posed key sociological questions to New Testament studies and promoted a concept called love-patriarchalism that imposed certain obligations on the socially strong (233-34). Other scholars such as Bruce Malina, Robert Jewett, and a coalition of scholars called the Context Group addressed the relevance of social studies and cultural presuppositions in relationship to the New Testament (235).

Wright identifies four important tasks that come under the heading of social approaches, which include description, explanation, prediction, and application (236). The mapping and modeling of such concepts arise from scholars such as Howard Clark Lee who engaged the idea of worldview and Jonathan Z. Smith who emphasized empathetic reconstruction that places scholars in the mindset of the ancient world (243-44). Wright then summarizes various sociological initiatives under the heading of worldview models. Sect analysis versus reform movements, deviance theory, patron-client relationships, honor-shame dynamics, and conflict models all provide examples of the sociological discourse over the last generation (243-53).

Wright now digs deep into two important books reflective of the recent social-cultural studies of Paul. The first book is The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul by Wayne A. Meeks published in 1983 (258-59). Reacting against both conservative rationalism and Bultmann’s existentialist self-understanding, Meeks not only attempts to excavate a social understanding of Paul’s communities, but also uniquely correlates sociology with beliefs (259-61). The first three chapters provide a sketch of the societal nature of Paul’s urban Christianity by addressing topics such as mobility, women, the Diaspora, exclusivity and inclusivity, and Christian differentiation (262-67). According to Wright, chapter four is the least convincing as Meeks deals with Paul’s organizational structure but seems to miss rooting Paul and his ideas within an overarching covenantal narrative (269-70). Chapter five engages the impact of meaningful societal rituals such as prayer, singing, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper (270-71). However, the essence of Meeks’s genius resides in chapter six.

The focus of chapter six revolves around the correlations between the social world of Pauline communities and their patterns of belief (272). Monotheism exemplifies the essence of what Meeks is trying to accomplish. For example, the belief in one God correlates to a non-ethnic, social boundary that exists between Christians and pagans (273-74). Meeks also uses an example of the apocalyptic, which, per Wright, is less convincing (275-76). Finally, Meeks provides an example of Paul’s perspective of evil where beliefs in estrangement and reconciliation correlate to the social reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles (275-77).

Wright then summarizes Meeks’s contributions and also notes a few items that Meeks does not contribute to the conversation. First, Meeks appropriately shifts the focus from the history-of-religions school to social history and places the study of beliefs within the social construct of an ancient worldview (281). However, Meeks neither provides a development of theological insights nor does he explore the interface between Paul and the Roman Empire or ancient philosophers (282). For Wright, the benefit of Meeks’s work surpasses Sanders and Martyn because of its immersion into ancient culture (283-84).

The second book reflective of recent social-cultural studies is David Horrell’s Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics published in 2005. Horrell addresses the tension between two views of societal discourse: ‘solidarity’ or the Liberal Ideal where the goal is the agreement of uniform standards and ‘difference’ or the Communitarian Ideal where the goal is to agree to disagree (285-88). Jürgen Habermas represents the former, and Stanley Hauerwas represents the latter (285-88). Horrell’s first three chapters provide a brief literature review and summary of the contemporary debate around ethics while mapping the social-historical landscape of Pauline communities (288-89). Horrell develops his argument in chapter four where he outlines his thesis. Horrell’s thesis is that Paul’s primary moral value is corporate solidarity and that by researching the relevant social symbols the interpreter can recognize how Paul generates solidarity (290-91). Specifically, Horrell explains that Paul is not prescribing sameness, but “the kind of unanimity and shared outlook which provide the basis for solidarity, within which a circumscribed diversity may be sustained.”[6] Simply stated, for Paul, some issues demand tolerance and some do not. The final chapters tease out the concepts within the Pauline corpus and lead Horrell to make the following assertions: (1) Paul’s metanorms are corporate solidarity and ‘other-regard,’ (2) Paul’s limits of tolerance are shaped by the believer’s participation in Christ, and (3) Paul’s ethics are grounded in the story of Christ (298-300). Finally, Horrell suggests three models to appropriate Paul’s ethical perspective, which include thinking with Paul in line with the moral consensus, thinking beyond Paul by moving past contemporary standards, and thinking against Paul by extrapolating Pauline ethics into the modern world (301-2). Wright’s primary critique is that Horrell does not forcefully integrate new creation theology as the reason for Pauline ethics but concludes by complimenting Horrell’s creativity.

Personal Assessment

The following offers a brief critique of the strengths and weaknesses of the four movements addressed by Wright. However, regarding Pauline Scholarship during the Late Modern Period, the focus of the critique centers on one perspective, Albert Schweitzer’s. Positively, Schweitzer provided a corrective against the history-of-religions school’s emphasis on the Gentile origin of Pauline theology. Schweitzer asserted that Paul remained an “eschatologically-grounded and essentially Jewish thinker” (35). Further, the emphases on participation in Christ, which echoed some of Calvin’s thoughts, pointed to a present eschatological reality that seems to have been living in the shadows of the forensic nature of justification since at least the time of the Reformation. Finally, it is difficult to underestimate the timeless influence of Schweitzer’s work as the foundation for the apocalyptic school of thought brought to life by scholars such as J. L. Martyn and Douglas Campbell. Unfortunately, Schweitzer may have unnecessarily pitted participation and justification against each other. Schweitzer goes so far as to contend that the doctrine of righteousness by faith is a “subsidiary crater” (36). As Wright appropriately points out, a dichotomy between the two is not natural (36-37). Schweitzer’s emphasis on participation and recognition that Paul’s soteriology was not limited to a forensic understanding of justification is admirable, but his ability to provide a synergistic correlation between justification and participation appears to be lacking.

The strengths of the second movement, the NPP, are numerous. Keeping in mind that the NPP is quite diverse, an obvious contribution is the recognition that first-century Judaism was not strictly a legalistic religion of works. A second strength of the NPP is the emphasis placed on participatory soteriology, which ironically channels Calvin in light of an almost exclusive focus on forensic justification in certain Protestant circles. A third strength is Dunn’s assignation of meaning to the phrase ‘works of the law’ as Jewish boundary markers in order to explain the perceived discrepancy between Paul’s view of the law in Galatians and Sander’s positive perspective of the law. A fourth strength is that the NPP moved the scholarly conversation forward regarding how a juristic and a participatory perspective of Pauline theology may work together. Finally, Wright’s own contribution to the NPP appropriately highlights the critical importance of Judaism’s continuity through the biblical meta-narrative where Christ fulfills the promised covenants of God. The most significant weakness of the NPP is that the scholars, at times, overplay their hands. For example, Judaism appears to have embraced covenant nomism, but did all Jews embrace it and were these the Jews Paul opposed in his letter to the Galatians? Next, it is true that the old perspective seems to subsume all of Paul’s soteriology under a juristic category, but, at times, the NPP may go to the other extreme and either subsume all of Paul’s soteriology under a participatory category or lack the integration of the two. Similarly, Wright’s continued contribution of continuity conveyed through an overarching meta-narrative and covenant fulfillment is critical, but can one subsume all other soteriological categories under Wright’s initiative in light of the discontinuous, radical inbreaking of an eschatological reality inaugurated by Christ? It appears Wright’s reductionistic accusations of other scholars could potentially be leveled at himself. These observations and questions still remain inadequately addressed by the NPP.

The third movement, often labeled the apocalyptic perspective, appears to provide a valuable corrective to what might be considered either an overemphasis on forensic justification that echoes the Reformation or simply a proper emphasis that excludes the importance of participation. The highlighting of a new cosmic reality inaugurated by Christ Jesus whereby believers participate in an already, but not yet fully consummated new creation can hardly be overestimated. Furthermore, the result of God’s triumphant inbreaking into the world certainly points to a victory over the powers of darkness. Finally, de Boer needs commended for investigating the relevant Jewish apocalyptic literature to assist in shifting the narrative from a Hellenistic to a Jewish perspective.

Weaknesses also exist within the apocalyptic perspective. First, Käsemann unnecessarily embraces a discontinuity between Judaism and Christianity. Second, the absence of language addressing the righteousness of God in Beker’s work seems unusual considering it points to valuable apocalyptic language regarding both the covenant and creation. Next, de Boer’s two strands of apocalypticism appear forced and without strong evidence from ancient primary sources. Unfortunately, the hypothetical strands then penetrated Martyn’s work as a forgone conclusion that ultimately seemed to pit the cosmic and forensic concepts against one another. Martyn’s distinction between CAE and FAE then seems to be the fodder needed for Campbell to obliterate the notion of justification in an attempt to correct a modern misinterpretation of Romans 1-4. In sum, the apocalyptic perspective would do well to bring justification and participation into compatible and possibly egalitarian conversation partners.

The fourth movement represented by social history studies also contributes positively to the scholarly conversation. The main strength of the sociological perspective may be summed up in one word: empathy. Through cognitive immersion into the ancient world, the proponents of a social-cultural initiative not only avoid the potential anachronism and ethnocentrism of other perspectives, but also provide an opportunity for correlation through the mapping of worldview models. The strength of correlation shines in Meeks’s work where he connects the dots between the ancient beliefs of Paul’s Christian communities and the social world within which they live. Furthermore, the social historian’s shift away from the weaknesses surrounding the history-of-religions school and toward social history is refreshing. Additionally, David Horrell’s innovative work uniquely contributes to the exploration of Pauline communities by addressing the difficult issue of unity without uniformity within the context of the ancient social world. The weaknesses of the social history perspective primarily involve the current lack of integration with various forms of theology and other aspects of ancient life such as government and philosophy. Furthermore, Horrell’s lack of focus on the new creation also detracts.

Finally, certain areas of Pauline scholarship remain underexplored. From a broad perspective, the areas that need further attention surround the topic of integration and correlation. For example, how exactly do justification and participation correlate historically, theologically, and exegetically? How does the theology of the Holy Spirit integrate with justification and participation? How does the Spirit alongside justification and participation work together to inform ethics? How exactly does eschatology inform Christology and then correlate with the working of the Spirit? Finally, how would the proposals surrounding integration of these Pauline constructs existentially impact a believer’s life in areas of work, ministry, and family? How does integration impact a believer cognitively, emotionally, and behaviorally? How does correlation occur between proposals of integration to other disciplines such as psychology, counseling, and modern philosophy? Pauline studies are vast, but it appears that the field is wide open as it relates to correlative, integrative, and interdisciplinary studies of Paul.

__________________________________________

[1] N. T. Wright, Paul and His Recent Interpreters: Some Contemporary Debates (London: Fortress, 2015). Parenthetical numerals will be used to reference the book under investigation for the remainder of the analysis.

[2] E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 180 (italics original).

[3] Ibid., 552.

[4] Ibid., 457 (italics original).

[5] J. Christiaan Beker, Paul The Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 211.

[6] David G. Horrell and N. T. Wright, Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics, 2nd ed. (London: T&T Clark, 2015), 130.

Bibliography

• Beker, J. Christiaan. Paul The Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.
• Horrell, David G., and N. T. Wright. Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics. 2nd ed. London: T&T Clark, 2015.
• Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.
• Wright, N. T. Paul and His Recent Interpreters: Some Contemporary Debates. London: Fortress, 2015.