Four Views on the Apostle Paul – Video

Coming out in June is Four Views on the Apostle Paul (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), edited by myself, with Luke Timothy Johnson (Catholic View), Thomas R. Schreiner (Reformed View), Mark D. Nanos (Jewish View),and Douglas Campbell (Post-New Perspective View).

Now some might be wondering why there is no “New Perspective on Paul View.” Well, there is several reasons why. First, the NPP focuses mainly on a view of soteriology in Judaism and on a few specific topics in Paul, particularly justification and works of the law – which are narrower than we wanted to go; we wanted to explore more global issues on Christ, salvation, and community. Second, along with many researchers in Pauline studies, I think we are now in a post-NPP era (essays by myself, Brendan Byrne, and others have suggested this too). I think we have learned from the NPP that one cannot regard Judaism as a stale religion of works righteousness, Judaism was diverse, Paul operates within Judaism (or at least on its margins), Paul responds not just to theological issues, but to sociological matters as well.The NPP provided a corrective towards a more chastened traditional view of Paul, or else, broke open the bank vault so we could explore a wider array of political, ethnic, and religious issues in Paul’s letters too. Third, we need to get beyond the dichotomy that Paul had a “problem” with Judaism that was either legalism or ethnocentrism. Paul’s “problem” might belong more to his interpreters than to himself.


"Well done, Michael. One other conundrum is Titus 1:12, “One of themselves, a prophet of ..."

Plenary Verbal Inspiration and its Problems
"In the first paragraph, the author says: "The Spirit of God directed the writer’s thoughts ..."

The Case for the Dynamic View ..."
"It seems to me that you're just restating the verbal plenary view with some nuanced ..."

The Case for the Dynamic View ..."
"I had thought that this article might explicitly address each of the "problems" cited in ..."

The Case for the Dynamic View ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • No biggie, but I think it comes out in July instead of June.

  • Kevin

    You really couldn’t keep yourself from making the “laser beam” comment. And the book sounds good.

    • I apologise if offense was taken.

  • I think you’re right to not include an NPP view, as its essentially a narrowly negative vision of one singular aspect of Paul–he doesn’t object to Judaism because of its legalism. Beyond that notion, nothing cohesive holds NPP interpreters together. In a sense, then, there really isn’t a “NPP view of Paul.”

    Either way, this volume will do loads of good to re-orient discussions and introduce several fruitful discussions to wider audiences. I’ve seen Nanos’s chapter and it’s a great summary of his basic take on Paul. Not many evangelicals know of him and his work.

    Looking forward to its release and may use it for a Pauline exegesis course this fall.

  • You’ve been working with too many Yanks! Your Aussie accent is greatly lessened compared to when I first heard you three years ago!

  • Mpossoff

    There seems to be different aspects of the NPP though. I’m no scholar just a layman but I do read scholarship. I do agree with what you agree with that should be included.

    What I’m most interested in is the aspect of the NPP scholarship that teaches that Christ believing Jews didn’t forsake the Law of Moses because I’m a Christ believing Jew myself. More specifically that Paul still remained a Torah observant Christ believer which doesn’t mean Paul taught non Jews they had to keep the Law of Moses. Paul was accused of teaching Jews that it’s ok to forsake the Law of Mose but those accusations were false. How important or not important is it to include this aspect of the NPP?