Over at the CUP Blog, Harvard Theological Review articles by Joel Kaminsky/Mark Reasoner and moi about N.T. Wright and Israel are now available for free access to until 31 Dec 2020.
Jews and Christians are both united and divided by the parts of the Bible that they hold in common. Many see Paul’s innovative, at times “counter” readings of the Hebrew Bible as standing at the beginning of the process that led to the eventual separation between rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity. This has also renewed debates about Paul’s precise view of his fellow Jews, the bulk of whom did not accept Jesus as the Messiah.
In Joel Kaminsky and Mark Reasoner, “The Meaning and Telos of Israel’s Election: An Interfaith Response to N. T. Wright’s Reading of Paul,” HTR 112 (2019) 421–446, the authors review and critically assess N. T. Wright’s influential studies on Paul, focusing on questions surrounding the status of the Jewish people in Paul’s thinking. In contrast to other New Perspective scholars, Wright claims that Paul envisions God’s promises to the historic people of Israel, that is the Jewish people, as wholly transferred to those who affirm Jesus as the Messiah.
Michael Bird’s essay “N. T. Wright and Paul’s Supersessionism: A Response to Kaminsky and Reasoner,” HTR 113:4 (2020) 498–512 provides a thoughtful and trenchant critique of Kaminsky and Reasoner’s 2019 essay, in particular arguing that many of Kaminsky and Reasoner’s criticisms inaccurately represent Wright’s views, defending a missional perspective of Israel’s election, and offering some final thoughts about Wright and Jewish-Christian relations.
In turn the essay by Joel Kaminsky and Mark Reasoner, “In Quest of a Coherent Portrait of Paul: A Rejoinder to Michael Bird,” HTR 113:4 (2020) 513–527 responds to Bird’s critiques and also seeks to clarify and bolster several arguments they—as a Jew and a Christian—made in their original 2019 article critiquing Wright.