Thinking out loud

According to a recent poll, Americans (at least, those polled) are becoming disillusioned with the hopes and dreams promised to them by Obama when he ran for office.  Or, to put it more bluntly: Americans (i.e. those polled) are becoming more and more impatient in waiting for the fruits of the (overly) touted ‘change’ which so dominated Obama’s campaign.  The obvious question would be: what is causing this disillusionment?  While I have my own perspective to this question, three options should be noted first with regard to this issue of ‘change’:

1. The promised change was nothing more than a politcal claim made for the sake of winning voters.  If we honestly think that politicians do not say things in order to win an election, then we are sadly foolish. (The first half of this statement is not meant to be all-inclusive; it simply notes a general tendency which has become a part of the political landscape).  If this is the case, then the fault really goes both ways–i.e. the POTUS who duped everyone and the voters who actually believed the rhetoric of change.
2. The promised change is not what people expected.  This should be considered a likely possibility, especially since the definition of ‘change’ was both ambiguous and self-fulfilling (i.e. the definition kept changing) throughout the campaign.  Such things generally lead people to create ideas of their own, which often times end up not being in line with what actually occurs.
3. The promised change simply has not arrived yet.  It is nearly axiomatic that the effects of decisions/plans made during one administration are not often felt until the next.  Thus, the full effect of the change is still in process.

However, I wonder if the cause for the disillusionment also stands behind these three options?  The cause I have in mind is the (modern) ever-growing propensity for impatience.  Or, to come at this from another direction: the cultural fascination with ‘entitlement’ and immediate self-gratification has instilled–knowingly or not–a general attitude of impatience.  (Sadly, in some recent advertisements, this attitude of impatience is being highly praised, glorified, and depicted as normative and even virtuous).  Thus, when things do not happen when we want them to happen and not in way we want them, we throw up our arms in disgust and with feelings of betrayal–both of which typically have no justification.  And when such things happen, it is no small wonder that real progress (or, dare I say ‘change’?) becomes stymied and things of lasting value remain elusive.

Best case scenario would be the third option.  While I do not agree politically with Obama on a few issues, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt with what he plans to do.  More times than not, strategies and decisions made by individuals in ‘power’ tend to be either confusing or misunderstood by those not in ‘power’.  The cause for both the confusion and misunderstanding is the same: there is a much bigger picture to be considered, and those without a national vantage point are simply unable to see the details of that bigger picture.  Or, to change the metaphor a little: those in valley do not have the perspective of the one on a hill.  The decisions, guidance, and direction given by the one on the hill might appear to be meaningless, irrational, and even dangerous for the one in the valley; but again, the interpretation of the one in the valley is based on a limited perspective.  Patience must be exercised in the face of the seemingly meaningless, irrational, and dangerous.  Impatience makes matters worse.

Teaching opportunity

I was holding off on announcing this until I knew it would be definite.  Now that it is, here you go.

Recently, I enquired about teaching a module for the West of England Ministerial Training Course (WEMTC), which has strong connections with the University of Gloucestershire (i.e. where I’m doing my PhD).  The module deals with Pauline theology and Christian ethics, and it is broken down into two parts–one dealing with Pauline theology and the other dealing with (surprise, surprise) Christian ethics. 

Even more recently, I happily learned that my request to teach this module was granted; although, I will only be covering the first part of the course–the Christian ethics portion already has someone (far) more capable to cover that topic.  So, beginning in September, I will be teaching Pauline theology to a small group of individuals for two hours a night, one night a week, for five weeks.  While I admit my trepidation with trying to cover such a massive topic is an extremely condensed period of time, I am absolutely looking forward to it.  I’ll update the opportunity as it unfolds. 

In the meantime, here is the outline that I will be using for the course (each main point represents one week and the material to be covered):

I. BACKGROUND
A)  Paul and His World
1. Early Life
2. Changed Life
3. Missionary Life
4. Literary Life
B) Paul and His Interpreters
1. Pauline Literature–Critical Views
2. Rhetorical Criticism
3. ‘New Perspective’ on Paul

II. THESSALONIAN CORRESPONDENCE
A) Cause for Writing
B) Developing Eschatology (?)
1. Proposed Differences
2. Proposed Solutions
C) Second Coming and Resurrection
1. Analysis of 1 Thess 4.13–5.2
2. Ethical Function

III. CORINTHIAN CORRESPONDENCE
A) Cause for Writing
B) Textual Concerns
1. Number of Letters
2. Interpolations (?)
C) Love and Expression
1. Unity in Diversity
2. Gifts, Love, and Meaning

IV. EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
A) Cause for Writing
B) Theological Troubles
1. Competing Gospels
2. Impact of the Competition
C) Paul’s Response
1. Covenant Promised
2. Covenant Fulfilled

V. EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
A) Cause for Writing
B) Israel and ‘Election’
1. Jewish/Pharisaic Views
2. Pauline Views
C) ’Election’ and Grace
1. Grace and the Jews
2. Grace and the Gentiles
D) Paul’s View of ‘Works’
1. Three Types

If any of you are familiar with this territory, you will understand (or empathize with) my trepidation; if any of you are not, this sort of outline–to be covered in 10 hours!–creates just cause for such feelings.  However, again, I am truly looking forward to this opportunity and how I can be taught by it.  I am always in need of learning and growing.

Quote of the day

While speaking about the Nazi agenda between 1933 and 1945, the core this statement seems to be both indiscriminate and timeless in application:

…as soon as finite humanity wants to bring about the conditions of the infinite, of eternal peace and equality, only terrorism results.

- Hans Schwarz, Eschatology (2000), 329

Review, Article, Proposal, etc

I am in the midst of tackling multiple tasks all at once in a fairly short amount of time.  In many ways it has proven to be a wonderful mental exercise, while in other ways it has been rather exhausting.  (Lack of sleep might factor into the exhaustion bit).

One of the projects is another book review for the Stone Campbell Journal (SCJ).  This time, the review focuses on Yung-Suk Kim’s dissertation turned book, Christ’s Body at Corinth: The Politics of a Metaphor (2008).  It comes from a series of books with which I am admittedly unfamiliar: Paul in Critical Contexts; however, if Kim’s work represents the tenor of the series, it does appear to be rather interesting and worthy of consideration.  My goal is to have the review submitted to SCJ this Thursday.  Something that I failed to ask with the Gorman review was whether or not I would be allowed to provide a digital copy of the review on this blog.  This time, I will specifically ask to do so–for both Gorman and Kim.  If I am permitted to do so, I will provide an update with a link for the PDFs.

Another project is a dictionary article that I recently submitted.  The article focuses on the topic of Stoicism and its influence within the Graeco-Roman world.  The dictionary for which it was written is rather unique.  It is part of the HyperText Bible Project, which seeks to provide scholarly resources in a user-friendly web-based format.  That being the case, my article had to follow a format with which I have had minimal experience.  However, as I made my way through the article, the format and style began to make perfect sense.  Presently, the article is slotted to be reviewed by an unknown (to me) scholar who will either approve it or ask for revisions (or scrap the whole thing).  Obviously, I’m hoping for approval.

Thirdly, I have submitted the latest revision of my PhD proposal, which seems to be the one that will take.  It has been a long and arduous journey to get to this point, but I would not trade a single moment.  The hope is that the only corrections needed are typographical (if any).  I meet with the supervisors this Thursday (25-Jun) to discuss its preliminary acceptance and/or need for slight editing.  Once that meeting comes and goes, I will be able to post more details regarding the project.

Finally, I have been on the search for additional funding for this PhD program, which has proven to be rather difficult (and disheartening at times).  When Jenn and I moved to Cheltenham, we admittedly moved with a number of hopeful assumptions.  There is one really good possibility on the horizon, so I am presently writing up a “request for funding” proposal and hope to submit it by Wednesday at the latest.  Please keep us in mind and in your prayers as we pursue this opportunity and continue to search for further possibilities as well.

Quote of the day

The following is no doubt a bit long, but the argument is certainly worth pondering: 

“interpreting the philosophical tradition by means of the Hegelian schema is by now a fixture of our way of thinking. . . . [For example:] As you know, the relationship between Parmenides and Heraclitus is a controversial one.  One side tells us that Parmenides criticizes Heraclitus, another side claims that Heraclitus is a critic of Parmenides, and yet another side says that there is probably no historical relationship here at all.  Maybe the truth is that neither of the two knew anything of the other.  It would not be at all unlikely that they had no connection to each other whatsoever–at least not during their respective periods of creative activity–since, after all, the one lived in Ephesus, the other in Elea.  Why has this thesis of mine caused such a stir?  The answer is clear: to this day, Hegel has a hand in everything!  Even the historian finds it plausible that all things are bound together in the progressive development of knowledge!  This historical way of thinking, which arises in the nineteenth century and still appears plausible to us today, seems to me a convincing example of the living Hegelian legacy.”

- Hans-Georg Gadamer, The Beginning of Philosophy (1998), 21-22

Random search leads to me

A fellow blogger occasionally posts on the various search strings that ultimately lead digital surfers to his blog.  Just the other day, I had my first such experience and it has left me a bit curious.  Here is the search inquiry that led to me:

nt greek “who is the liar if not”

Not really sure how to take it, nor am I sure how that search would bring them to my blog, but oh well.  Maybe there was something in here that was of some use to them.

Easter traditions

The Easter season can be said to possess the following (typical) characteristics: a massive increase in the sales of candy and otherwise elusive plastic eggs; an elevated anticipation and excitement among children for what the Easter Bunny left them (sounds like a modified Santa Claus theory to me); a recognizable difference in church attendance; and, most notoriously, televised skepticism regarding the Christian belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus.  So far as I can tell, not much has deviated with regard to these characteristics.

As many will already know, the National Geographical Channel is televising its skepticism on 06-Apr-09.  (If you didn’t know, now you do).  The allotment will contain three floods of information for viewers to wade through in three short hours: 1) the search for the tomb of Jesus, 2) the secrets of the Knights of Templar, and 3) the scandal over who actually killed Jesus.[1]  Before dealing with these three individually, it needs to be said that shows such as this are nothing new—despite their insistence of providing the viewing public with “new” or “revealing” information.  Its newness is relative to those who encounter it; so, yes, in that sense it is new.  However, in academic circles, much of this “new” information is old hat;[2] yet, that reality is conveniently not mentioned. Now, onto the three segments.

The Search
The scope of this segment is quite obvious: the “experts” want to ascertain the legitimacy of the suspected tomb of Jesus, discovered over two decades ago, which was apparently a family tomb.  These “experts” also want to attempt to establish a “bloodline” connection between those buried within the tomb.  In short, and if you’ve been paying attention to your TV, this segment gives new life[3] to the theory of the Talpiot tomb that was televised a couple of years ago, which was spearheaded by Simcha Jacobovici.  Outside of a few fringe scholars, this theory has been proven to be completely suspect and not credible enough to be held as a viable option (see here).  However, these scholars are back in the camera’s primary focus perpetuating something that cannot be sustained.

For me, there is one fundamental problem with attempting to establish a bloodline connection between those within the Talpiot tomb: while a connection might be established between those within the tomb, a direct connection between those individuals and the Jesus of the New Testament (NT) is impossible.  The reason for the impossibility is that in order to make such a connection, one has to have a control sample against which the other samples can be compared.  Historically speaking, there are no blood samples of the historical NT Jesus; so, how these scholars assume they can make a connection will be interesting to see.  If they go simply on the name “Jesus” (or, Yeshua) inscribed on the ossuary, then they are proceeding with rather weak evidence. 

The Secret
This segment appears intriguing for the simple fact that a (supposedly) new document has been found which sets the Knights Templar in a historically modified light.  From what I know and can gather, this appears to be a presentation of “facts” that will be similar to the “facts” elucidated by Dan Brown regarding the Priory of Sion.[4]  I hesitate to make any further comments about this segment simply because the information provided is not all that helpful for forming comments.  All that is noted are the details regarding the scandalous “history” of the Knights and the potential significance of the newly discovered document. 

However, I do have one comment that is more of a curious observation: why is this segment included in this three-part series?  More specifically: what is the rhetorical effect of placing this segment between the search for the tomb and the scandal of the crucifixion?  I might have to come back to this set of questions.

The Scandal
The inherent thrust of this segment is concerned with blame and how that blame has been portrayed historically.  From the snippet given, it appears that the desire of this particular segment is to swing the critical pendulum away from the Jews as a whole—thus, avoiding anti-Semitism—and have it nip (well, okay, smash into) the nose of Pontius Pilate.[5]  The justification for this shift is rooted in the apparent scandal that the Gospel accounts have exonerated Pilate’s actions because of the Gospels’ anti-Jewish agenda.  Thus, the Gospel accounts have altered the validity of history in order to advance a socio-religious polemic against the Jews so as to maintain the comfort of the Pax Romana.  James Tabor is quoted as saying: “The Gospel writers had to convince their Roman audience that they were not enemies of Rome.”

One of the key problems with this suggestion is that it is highly debatable that the Gospel accounts were explicitly written for a “Roman audience”.  Another key problem is that the pendulum shift relies on an either-or dichotomy with regard to who is to blame—i.e. it is either the Jews or it is Pilate.  The problem is that the solution to this dilemma is not so clear-cut.  The responsibility for the death of Jesus is a massively delicate subject and it is certainly something that cannot be decided a single hour allotment.  If one wants to examine the details of this discussion and understand why it is so volatile, I highly recommend the revised PhD dissertation of Jon Weatherly—professor of NT at Cincinnati Christian University.  Dr. Weatherly handles the subject with the scholarly sharpness and clarity for which he is known.  However, I have a bad feeling that the treatment to be given in this Scandal segment is ignorant[6] of Dr. Weatherly’s arguments.  I may be wrong.

Response
First of all, I would encourage both Christians and non-Christians to watch this program (if you have that channel) when it airs on 06-Apr-09.  I say this to Christians simply because you have the responsibility of knowing what is being said about what you believe.  I would also encourage Christians to read up on the works of those who are skeptical of Christianity and/or those who wish to debunk it.  By knowing what is being said about Christianity, you will be better equipped to answer the honest questions of those who do not believe. 

To non-Christians (i.e. those who reject Christianity), my encouragement is not that you should watch this program in order to fuel your disdain for Christianity; instead, I encourage you to hear what is being portrayed by those who are skeptical to see if what they are saying makes logical sense.  I would also encourage you to read up on the works of those who have intelligibly responded to the negative treatments of Christianity and see if they make logical sense.  In other words, I simply ask you to be objective in your skepticism.

Secondly, to speak directly to the nature of these segments, the logical structure (or, rhetorical effect) of the segments appears to be quite intentional.  The scandal of the Knights Templar suggests a propensity for controversial cover-ups in order to preserve an assumed piety.  This then becomes a segue for discussing the Christian tradition regarding the death and resurrection of Jesus in order to suggest a similar propensity.  In this case, two seemingly disconnected ideas emerge: 1) the Gospel writers place the full blame on the Jews for the death of Jesus in order to preserve the sanctity of Rome; and 2) the Gospel writers have incredible tales of a resurrected Jesus in order to preserve a fundamental tenant of the Christian faith, when in “reality” the body of Jesus was simply moved to another tomb. 

The implied goal of this sort of presentation is an attempt to show that Christianity is nothing more than a religion based on scandalous theories that have no historical justification.  However, the fundamental flaw in this attempt is that in order to make such a case, the scholars and “experts” who appear on these sorts of shows are perpetuating (known) scandalous theories, and passing them off as “historical truth”, in order to show that Christianity is a scandalous theory and is therefore false.[7]  (This is why I smelled Dan Brown earlier, for Brown uses a similar methodology in his book, The DaVinci Code).  The hypocrisy of such an approach should be obvious; however, it will remain hidden because the theories promoted are generally not known by the viewing public to be not only scandalous in themselves but also historically suspect (or, false).

_________________________________________

[1] This summary is taken from this site.  The critique that follows is based on the information provided in the site, my past experiences with these sorts of issues, and (admittedly) my assumptions of what will happen and/or be said. 
[2] This is not meant to sound elitist; it’s really just how things are.  That which is found by those who interact with such data generally takes time to trickle down into popular consciousness.   
[3] Conceptual pun intended.
[4] The “facts” as detailed in his book, The DaVinci Code.
[5] Could that not be classified as anti-Romanism?
[6] I use “ignorant” in the simple sense of the term (i.e. no knowledge) and not in a pejorative sense (i.e. “you stupid moron”).
[7] Granted, there will certainly be scholars on this show who are opposed to the theories being promoted; but, I have an a posteriori feeling that their air-time will be minimal at best.

Plan-C

The meeting with my supervisors came and went, and it was both trying and illuminating. It was trying because both of my supervisors (Andrew Lincoln and Lloyd Pietersen) are deeply knowledgeable men and the calibre of work that they expect is quite high. While I admit that these meetings are at times mentally exhausting for me, they are absolutely worth it because I know that Andrew and Lloyd are wanting the best for me and from me. The meeting was illuminating because we think we have come to a conclusion regarding my research topic.  

Prior to this most recent meeting, the plan was to do an overarching survey of Paul’s understanding of how the Spirit shapes community identity and ethics. For roughly three months, that was the focus of my investigations and I was trying to find points of entry and relevance for that particular issue. However, over the past few months, we’ve come to see that such a topic would not only be too massive for a PhD thesis, it would also be difficult to say much that is revolutionary in light of the work already done by people like Gordon Fee or Wolfgang Schrage.  

As a result, we concluded that an overly specific study of a particular text was the best way to go. The text in question is 1 Corinthians 2, which, while having been dealt with in the major commentaries, has plenty room for growth and further explorations. My task for the next few weeks (which really began almost two weeks ago) is to survey recent scholarship on this particular chapter and find my point of entry–i.e. see if there are things that are not being discussed either at all or with much detail. I have already stumbled across a couple of ideas that might be fruitful, but I will have to wait until I’m done with my reading before I say anything more.

Not as strange at it might seem

I am currently trying to narrow down the focus of my PhD research topic, which has proven to be quite the endeavor.  Admittedly, part of the struggle was the lack of a “plan-B” when I learned that my original topic had to be set aside.  However, a “plan-B” quickly emerged–not only through stimulating conversations with my astute supervisors but also (quite honestly) out of necessity–and this recent “plan” is beginning to take on a nice shape.  The next few weeks will be crucial in this regard, and depending on how they go, either I will provide the details of the project here in this blog or I will announce the hunt for a “plan-C”.  

In the midst of working on my current proposed idea, I have had to explore various writings related to a buffet of scholarly issues.  One of the key issues that will most likely become relevant for my topic is the so-called “New Perspective on Paul”–NPP, for short.  (I say “so-called” simply because the framework for this perspective was established just over 30 years ago; and in the scholarly world, a 30-year-old idea is an academic Methuselah).  The inherent difficulty with this is that the amount of literature on the NPP is enormous;[1] thus, to even begin to wrestle with current scholarly positions on the NPP proves to be an undertaking in itself.  What is more, a portion of this material tends to be polemical mud-slinging; thus, the researcher occasionally will have to wade through the sloppy shrapnel in order to find clues of what was being maintained.  

A Quick Summary
The key players for the NPP are: Krister Stendahl, E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright.  (I’m going to side-step dealing with Dunn and Wright in this summary).  In the early 1970s, Stendahl[2] argued that the apostle Paul’s struggle with faith vs. Law (Torah) was being perceived through the lens of Martin Luther’s personal battle with grace/faith vs. works (of the Church).  In other words, because Luther was struggling with issues of legalism and works-righteousness being touted by the Church, Luther read Paul’s struggle (namely in Romans 7) in the same way.  Stendahl argued that this is not the proper way to understand Paul–nor is it the right way to do historical and/or theological investigations.  This then opened the door to a slew of questions about the dilemma that Paul was indeed facing between faith and Law.  The key question was: should the post-Reformation portrait of a legalistic, works-righteousness Judaism be viewed as normative, or is there something behind that portrait that needs to be seen and understood?

The work of E.P. Sanders has been viewed as the “bombshell” (Don Carson) dropped on this discussion, and it had serious implications on New Testament scholarship.  In his massive volume, Paul and Palestinian Judaism,[3] Sanders sought to reveal that the traditional views of an overly legalistic, work-righteousness Judaism were not only untrue in the main but also representative of a very small fringe of Jewish writings from a later period.  In place of this, Sanders argued that Judaism had been primarily a religion of salvation by faith/grace–because that was the nature of the covenant with Abraham–and that works of the Law were only performed for the sake of “staying in” the covenant.  (Sanders would coin the phrase, “covenantal nomism” for this notion).  In other words, an Israelite did not do the works of Torah in order to be saved (or, declared righteous); an Israelite did works of Torah in order to maintain his or her (righteous) status within the covenant.  It was only in later traditions that the idea of being saved (or, declared righteous) by works emerged–namely in texts like 2 Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch.  Thus, for Sanders, it would be more likely for the apostle Paul, as a devout Pharisee, to be in harmony with covenantal nomistic ideas within mainline Judaism.[4]  

A Perennial Concern
However, one of the major sticking points in Sanders’ expose of covenantal nomism is this statement:

It seems likely that Paul’s thought did not run from plight to solution, but rather from solution to plight. The attempts to argue that Romans 7 shows the frustration which Paul felt during his life as a practising Jew have now been mostly given up, and one may rightly and safely maintain that the chapter cannot be understood in this way.  The chapter describes, rather, the pre-Christian or un-Christian life as seen from the perspective of faith.  It may be further observed on the basis of Phil. 3 that Paul did not, while “under the law”, perceive himself to have a “plight” from which he needed salvation (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 443)

This argument from Sanders raised the obvious question: so, what then is Paul arguing for and/or against in his letters–namely, Galatians and Romans?  What is the “solution” and what is the “plight”?  The simplistic (and slightly overgeneralized) answer is: for Paul (according to Sanders), the “solution” is that faith in Christ is the only means of salvation, and the “plight” is that the Law is not that means–i.e. the Law is not faith.  The issue therefore is not faith-righteousness vs. legalistic-works-righteousness; instead, the issue is the ramifications of the new covenant established in Christ.  So, for Sanders, the “solution” is that covenant membership is brought about by faith/grace; yet, the nature of the (new) covenant is characterized by one’s relationship with Christ, which is freedom from the Law.  The “plight”, therefore, is that the nature of the former covenant–i.e. maintaining the Law–has been replaced because of the establishment of the new covenant in Christ.  

This concept has not been without its opponents.  In a fairly recent article,[5] Paul F.M. Zahl has adamantly argued that the entire notion of moving from “solution to plight” is completely foreign (or, “untrue to life” as he says).  For Zahl, this concept is not only untenable a posteriori, but it also defies basic logic.  His a posteriori argument is buttressed by the idea that those who work in helping ministries (or, professions) know that people do not deal with personal conflict in a “solution-to-plight” manner.  It just does not make (logical) sense to deal with problems in that way; thus, it does make sense to use the same logic with regard to Paul.  However, I think Zahl is being a bit hasty (I dare say, reactionary) in his critique of the NPP as a whole on this score.  Zahl may be right in what he says with regard to the specific “solution-to-plight” construction that Sanders provides; however, what Sanders establishes is not necessarily representative of how the NPP developed.  In fact, oddly enough, Zahl does not mention these developments (i.e. improvements) to Sanders’ original argument by scholars like Dunn and Wright.

Another Look
The idea of moving from “solution to plight” is not as strange as it might seem if understood properly.  Zahl’s employment of helping ministries/professions to support his argument works only if the context is relatively safe.  In an American context (particularly), a person who acknowledges Christ as Savior is relatively safe in how life is lived after that acknowledgement.  Generally speaking, there is little fear of how life will be affected as result of that that confession of faith (i.e. “solution”).  This is because the cultural context is not overly resistant to those who make such a choice. However, the American cultural context is not representative of other cultural contexts.  Ravi Zacharias has told of instances where he presented the gospel in foreign cultures (i.e. non-Christian ones) and that belief in Christ as Savior (i.e. “solution”) generated cultural struggles with how one now lives as a Christian in a pagan culture (i.e. “plight”).  While this analogy has its faults (as all analogies do), it does highlight the fact that “solution” can lead to “plight” in particular cultural contexts; thus, it is not as “untrue to life” as Zahl claims.

The better (though still limited) analogy for Paul is the logical one, which Zahl believes does not exist.  In book 7 of Plato’s Republic, we are told of a group of prisoners who are bound in a cave with only two sources of light: natural sunlight streaming in from an entrance behind them, and a fire on a large cleft above and behind them.  On the wall in front of the prisoners are shadowy-reflections of a puppet-show taking place by a group of people near the fire.  The shadows are only those of the puppets and not the ones using the puppets.  Because the prisoners see the shadows on the wall, and because they hear voices from behind, their natural conclusions is that the voices are those of the shadows and that the shadows are real people.  Then, for whatever reason, we see that one prisoner is released and allowed to leave the cave.  This prisoner comes into the sunlight where he is met by another who tells the freed prisoner about the shadows cast upon the wall (i.e. “solution”).  The freed prisoner is then confronted with the task of returning to the cave and revealing what he now knows to be true so that the other prisoners can experience the same liberating freedom.  However, in revealing such truths, the freed prisoner is battling preconditioned ideas of reality about what is seen and understood to be taking place before the eyes of the other prisoners (i.e. “plight”).  

I use Plato’s allegory of the cave not to draw exact parallels with Paul or to make inferences from the details.  I use it to highlight the overall logic of the allegory as supporting the idea that “solution to plight” is not a logically foreign concept (as Zahl asserts).  There are several “plights” and several “solutions” to be found in the allegory; but only one set makes the most sense of the story as a whole.  Therefore, the issue ultimately comes down to how one understands the terminology and which categories are being referred to by the key terms.  It also comes down to how one understands what is actually taking place with the argument itself.  For Paul, it is not so much about creating a strange logical framework in which he can make his argument; instead, it is Paul’s use of the strange framework in order to reveal the profundity and power of the argument.  To state this in another way, and to borrow from a scholar who is far more able-minded than myself: 

[Paul] rather proclaims the “solution” in his thematic opening in Romans 1.16-17 and in that proclamation presupposes the human “plight” which it addresses.  The very manner in which he announces his gospel in terms of the demand for faith, the inclusion of “the Greek,” the (paradoxical) priority of “the Jew,” and the revelation of the righteousness of God anticipates the content of his following argument and implicitly urges the acknowledgement of the human state which he subsequently describes.[6]

_______________________________________
[1] For an extensive and balanced introduction to the key issues/debates surrounding the NPP, I would highly recommend “The Paul Page.” 
[2] See his article, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Consciousness of the West,” in Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (London: SCM Press, 1976), 78-96.  
[3] Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison in Patters of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977).
[4] While some Jewish scholars are fine with this understanding of Paul in relation to 1st century Judaism, there are still some (non-Jewish) scholars who are not comfortable with this understanding.  A key figure supportive of the view is Jacob Neusner (”Comparing Judaisms,” History of Religions 18 [1978-79]: 177-91); and a key figure opposed to the view is Peter O’Brien (”Was Paul a Covenantal Nomist?”, in Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul [eds., D.A. Carson, Peter T. O'Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004], 249-96).
[5] “Mistakes of the New Perspective on Paul,” Themelios 26.3 (2001): 1-11.  I have not found anyone who has responded to Zahl’s argument in this article, which is partly the reason I am offering my response here in this post.  
[6] Mark A. Seifrid, “Unrighteous by Faith: Apostolic Proclamation in Romans 1.18–3.20,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul, 105–emphasis original.

(Soon-to-be) Published review of Michael Gorman

If all things go according to plan, I am set to have a book review published in the upcoming issue of the Stone Campbell Journal.  Because the review has not yet been published (to my knowledge), and because I am not 100% certain on the rules of republishing reviews in different venues; I will give only the highlights of my original submission.  

The book in question is the newest contribution by Michael J. Gorman–a notable professor at St. Mary’s Seminary & University (Baltimore).  The book is, Reading Paul, and it is an excellent introductory work on understanding Paul’s gospel message.  What is of primary importance for Gorman, at least at the start of the book, is the need to see Paul as a contemporary “spiritual guide” (p.2)–a guide whose influence is just as relevant today as in his own day.  However, just like in his own day, Paul, as a “spiritual guide”, is still a controversial figure and the controversy revolves around the implications of his gospel.  

The core of Gorman’s book (chapters 5-12) explores–albeit in condensed form–the main themes that run throughout the gospel message that Paul delivered during his career.  What is absolutely commendable about this portion of the book is the recognition of so many distinct theological themes working together to create a unified whole.  Two of these themes stand out in my mind: 1) justification by faith, and 2) end-times theology–or, eschatology.  Gorman handles both of these themes with incredible clarity and his arguments need to be considered with the respect they deserve.  Gorman rightly notes that all of the themes in chapters 5-12 are not meant to be read only within religious settings, for the gospel was not meant to be so confined.  The gospel, both in Paul’s day and in the modern world, speaks to the areas of theology, politics, philosophy, sociology, etc. 

For those of you who might be interested in getting a broad-brush view of Paul’s gospel, I would highly recommend this book.  Even though it is newer, I would also recommend reading this book as a sound introduction to Gorman’s other books.  These earlier works expound upon the larger implications of Paul’s gospel with a depth expected from a seasoned scholar and a scholar who is committed to living what he calls a “cruciform life” (p. 146).