Check out the new Fortress Paul Pre-Pub

I've already placed my order for that and the new Fortress Press Luther Studies Collection and the Hebrew Bible Collection too. They look like good deals, especially after Baker pre-pubs starting going up for sale at the same price as what they'll eventually sell for. Good to see a solid publisher who still negotiates with Logos a good discount to offer them as pre-pubs. I want to grab what I can while that is still the case.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/106165#Comment_106165

I've already placed my order for that and the new Fortress Press Luther Studies Collection and the Hebrew Bible Collection too.

Yes, I've placed my order for the Luther Studies collection too. It contains B. Lohse's volume on Luther's theology, which I have in paper. It is a great book, and it is helpful to have an authoritive guide to his thought, which covers it both "biographically" (in the first part) and "systematically" (in the second).

They look like good deals, especially after Baker pre-pubs starting going up for sale at the same price as what they'll eventually sell for. Good to see a solid publisher who still negotiates with Logos a good discount to offer them as pre-pubs. I want to grab what I can while that is still the case.

Yep, me too.

Steve Adams

these will make an excellent resource for my dissertation on Romans 1:17 which I'm currently working on. Though i'm looking at the po-mo effect on JBF, I also must bring in the NPP view(s) and I tend to think they're plural and not unified.

thanks for the heads up.

nancy

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/106189#Comment_106189

Though i'm looking at the po-mo effect on JBF, I also must bring in the NPP view(s) and I tend to think they're plural and not unified.

thanks for the heads up.

What does JBF stand for?

And, yes, I've never met anyone who argues for a single NPP view; there is a vague consensus on certain characteristics, but basically many of the NPP writers have very different readings of Paul.

BTW: Good luck with the dissertation, and I hope these resources get into Logos in time to help you.

Thanks, I overlooked this, and have been waiting on these to be available (Dunn's would be nice, too)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/106207#Comment_106207

What does JBF stand for?

Journal of Biblical Freedom?? [:)] Nope, it's Justification By Faith.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/106221#Comment_106221

This is another example of a set which should also be offered individually. I want several of the books here, but I'm not willing to pay for the whole set.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/106220#Comment_106220

Thanks, I overlooked this, and have been waiting on these to be available (Dunn's would be nice, too)

Yes, especially Dunn's Theology of Paul, and his (revised) collection of papers, called "The New Perspective on Paul".

Obviously, Dunn's important commentaries on Romans (WBC) and Galatians (BNTC) are already available in Logos.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/106221#Comment_106221

What does JBF stand for?

Journal of Biblical Freedom?? Nope, it's Justification By Faith.

Thanks. I was confused too. I was thinking "Jonas Brothers Fans" [:P]

Steve Adams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/106229#Comment_106229

JBF = Justification by Faith

SDG,

Nancy

(Soli Deo Gloria)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/106344#Comment_106344

JBF = Justification by Faith

Phew, at least Todd wasn't right! That would be a strange dissertation to base on Romans 1:17!!

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/106229#Comment_106229

This is another example of a set which should also be offered individually. I want several of the books here, but I'm not willing to pay for the whole set.

The same with me. I wish I can choose individual books. Just too much good things this days [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/106514#Comment_106514

The same with me. I wish I can choose individual books. Just too much good things this days

I certainly sympathise; I guess I would love to see all the collections broken up and available individually, as well as in collections ... perhaps any given resource in multiple different collections so that a purchaser might get it in the collection that interests them the most. (User defined collections would be even better!!!! Hint. Hint.)

I will, however, point out that there are lots of good things in this particular collection, apart from the seminal New Perspective resources I drew attention to above. For example, there are two great commentaries based on the "social-science" approach ... one on Acts, and one on the letters of Paul. These are great for giving a "thick" ... that is, a deep, textured .... understanding of the social background to these biblical books.

Also, there are some bang up to date (2010) books, such as Pervo's on how Paul was understood by the early church. I'd only just heard about this book, and thought I would need to read it sometime ... and ... voila ... here it is almost in Logos. How cool is that!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/106750#Comment_106750

I'm really thrilled with the progress this relatively large (and hence expensive, yet nevertheless an excellent deal) pre-pub has made ... it only requires a little more push before it goes into production. Better get your bids in soon, before the price goes up! As I've said above, there are great commentaries as well as seminal books of theological analysis of Paul in this collection. Where's the bad?

That, and the great push that Journal of Biblical Literature ( http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/3625 ) pre-pub has been getting recently, makes this a good time to be a Logos user.

NetworkGeek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/108782#Comment_108782

I have pre-ordered JBL and the Fortress Paul collection, both are unbelievable deals. I could see myself wanting or needing them after publication and crying at the difference in price. I hope both make it to publication!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/106325#Comment_106325

Thanks, I overlooked this, and have been waiting on these to be available (Dunn's would be nice, too)

Yes, especially Dunn's Theology of Paul, and his (revised) collection of papers, called "The New Perspective on Paul".

Obviously, Dunn's important commentaries on Romans (WBC) and Galatians (BNTC) are already available in Logos.

Dunn's Galatians is at 30 percent of for LMM. I had had the pre-pub of that set ordered, but had to cancel. Am glad Dunn's work is in LMM. A little disappointed that it didn't get more votes, but I suspect that a) it's initial price was not great, so it doesn't seem like a great deal to people and b) some consider him a hair-tic ([;)]), so they won't vote on principle. I placed my order today.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/108854#Comment_108854

Dunn's Galatians is at 30 percent of for LMM. I had had the pre-pub of that set ordered, but had to cancel. Am glad Dunn's work is in LMM.

Yes, a very good deal.

A little disappointed that it didn't get more votes, but I suspect that a) it's initial price was not great, so it doesn't seem like a great deal to people and b) some consider him a hair-tic (), so they won't vote on principle. I placed my order today,

Well I guess I consider him a "hair-tic" too, but a very interesting one, and one that is very exegetical. He is well worth reading in my experience, and someone who deserves to be answered - that's why I bought his commentary as soon as I saw it was separated from the rest of the BNTC ... unfortunately, I did this before the March Madness deal.

Kolen Cheung

It includes the infamous "Paul and Palestinian Judaism" by E.P. Sanders, and the "Paul: Fresh Perspectives" book by the notorious (in some circles) Bishop N.T. Wright.

How infamous and notorious it is?

Thanks.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/110677#Comment_110677

It includes the infamous "Paul and Palestinian Judaism" by E.P. Sanders, and the "Paul: Fresh Perspectives" book by the notorious (in some circles) Bishop N.T. Wright.

How infamous and notorious it is?

Thanks.

Kolen, they are trying to understand what "justification" means, and they are defining it in terms that is different from what a lot of people have learned and grown up with. I frankly don't understand what all the hyperbolic fear/disdain is, that some people display against the "New Perspective of Paul." It does shake their paradigm and vocabulary a bit, but, imo, it does not diminish Christ or his supremacy. Another early force in this debate is Krister Stendahl, of Harvard. But maybe you should not listen to me, I am not an expert, and perhaps I am a heretic, too. [A]

Alan Macgregor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/106229#Comment_106229

This is another example of a set which should also be offered individually. I want several of the books here, but I'm not willing to pay for the whole set.

Couldn't agree more, Mark. I am not a Pauline scholar, so most of the titles would not interest me. But there are a couple that would be worth having. I just wish Logos/Fortress would offer them singly. Perhaps they will come time.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/110697#Comment_110697

It includes the infamous "Paul and Palestinian Judaism" by E.P. Sanders, and the "Paul: Fresh Perspectives" book by the notorious (in some circles) Bishop N.T. Wright.

How infamous and notorious it is?

Thanks.

Kolen, they are trying to understand what "justification" means, and they are defining it in terms that is different from what a lot of people have learned and grown up with. I frankly don't understand what all the hyperbolic fear/disdain is, that some people display against the "New Perspective of Paul." It does shake their paradigm and vocabulary a bit, but, imo, it does not diminish Christ or his supremacy. Another early force in this debate is Krister Stendahl, of Harvard. But maybe you should not listen to me, I am not an expert, and perhaps I am a heretic, too.

I'd heard the phrase "New Perspective on Paul" before but was totally unfamiliar with what it was. I just read a couple of summary pages on the web (e.g., at Theopedia and this Christianity Today article). I don't see what the big deal is or why people think Wright is a heretic for proposing this. Yeah, it's a new way of thinking about Paul that I'd never considered before, and it may or may not be right, but it wouldn't shake the foundations of my faith if Wright were right on this. Some people equate "We've never thought about it that way before" with "that's false," but there have been other new perspectives and paradigm shifts that have come along and have eventually been integrated into orthodox theology. We're still figuring things out after 2000 years. It's not threatening to explore a possible new idea that's different from what we thought before. I find it refreshing, while the fear of it is stifling. I trust Wright on other subjects (by reputation mostly; I have read only a couple of chapters of what he's written). I don't necessarily think everyone who is right on one thing is automatically right on everything else they say. But his methodology is trustworthy; he is a careful exegete and takes Scripture on its own terms. So his conclusions bear considering seriously, even if ultimately one rejects them.

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/110697#Comment_110697

Another early force in this debate is Krister Stendahl

...was Krister Stendahl. (RIP 15/04/2008)

Tim Hogan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/110713#Comment_110713

Rosie,

I agree with what you say about NT Wright. I was excited to see him at a ETS meeting and was treated like a heretic for liking what he said. There is no harm in adding something to a debate to make us thinkers and not just agree-ers.

Tim

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/110677#Comment_110677

Well, E.P. Sander's book is generally considered to have launched the New Perspective on Paul. He argued from looking at Rabbinic sources (and some intertestamental ones) that Second Temple Judaism was a "gracious" rather than a "legalistic" religion, and that this necessitated a new reading of Paul, as Paul could not be reacting to "works righteousness."

This book had a big impact on Pauline scholarship for decades .... not so much for his reading of Paul, but for his argument that Paul needed to be re-read in the light of this "new" insight into Judaism. So in scholarly circles it was famous, rather than infamous.

James D.G. Dunn and N.T. Wright, amonst others, took Sander's insights, and came up with new ways of understanding Paul, and especially his teaching about justification. According to Dunn and Wright, the whole Western church since Augustine got justification wrong. Given the central role that a doctrine of justification has held in Roman Catholic and Protestant systematics this is close to saying that the church has had the gospel wrong. This makes for a degree of notority in some circles!!

Actually, both Dunn and Wright would downplay that implication of their argument in some of their more concilitory writings.

Compared with some debates, traditional conservative Christians can't dismiss the New Perspective debate on "faulty skeptical presuppositions". Second Temple Judaism may have been as Sander's describes it, and Paul may have to be understood as either Sanders, Dunn or Wright argues. Only painstaking historical reconstruction and careful exegesis can determine the answer.

Wright, in particular, is a self-confessed evangelical, who has done some widely appreciated work on the "historical Jesus", and has won a hearing for New Perspective ideas in many (especially Reformed) churches.

Some people as you can see from this forum, see the New Perspective debate to be a "storm in a tea-cup", others insist that it is dealing with matters that touch the heart of the gospel ... how does one become right with God? ... and that the issues require our closest of attention.

Hope this heps to give you some idea ... not sure how else to quantify "infamy" and "notority".

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/110713#Comment_110713

Another early force in this debate is Krister Stendahl

...was Krister Stendahl. (RIP 15/04/2008)

yes, Damian, Thank you. [:)] I knew of his death, i just used faulty grammar, perhaps subliminally emphasing that his work/speeches/writing are still making an impact. I only read one of his papers/speeches late last year after my dad sent it to me. So it is still "new" to me, even though he is dead.

Dan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/110807#Comment_110807

Well, E.P. Sander's book is generally considered to have launched the New Perspective on Paul. He argued from looking at Rabbinic sources (and some intertestamental ones) that Second Temple Judaism was a "gracious" rather than a "legalistic" religion, and that this necessitated a new reading of Paul, as Paul could not be reacting to "works righteousness."

This book had a big impact on Pauline scholarship for decades .... not so much for his reading of Paul, but for his argument that Paul needed to be re-read in the light of this "new" insight into Judaism. So in scholarly circles it was famous, rather than infamous.

James D.G. Dunn and N.T. Wright, amonst others, took Sander's insights, and came up with new ways of understanding Paul, and especially his teaching about justification. According to Dunn and Wright, the whole Western church since Augustine got justification wrong. Given the central role that a doctrine of justification has held in Roman Catholic and Protestant systematics this is close to saying that the church has had the gospel wrong. This makes for a degree of notority in some circles!!

Actually, both Dunn and Wright would downplay that implication of their argument in some of their more concilitory writings.

Compared with some debates, traditional conservative Christians can't dismiss the New Perspective debate on "faulty skeptical presuppositions". Second Temple Judaism may have been as Sander's describes it, and Paul may have to be understood as either Sanders, Dunn or Wright argues. Only painstaking historical reconstruction and careful exegesis can determine the answer.

Wright, in particular, is a self-confessed evangelical, who has done some widely appreciated work on the "historical Jesus", and has won a hearing for New Perspective ideas in many (especially Reformed) churches.

Some people as you can see from this forum, see the New Perspective debate to be a "storm in a tea-cup", others insist that it is dealing with matters that touch the heart of the gospel ... how does one become right with God? ... and that the issues require our closest of attention.

Hope this heps to give you some idea ... not sure how else to quantify "infamy" and "notority".

Thank you Stephen. Very succinct and helpful. And a good perspective (the "new perspective on wright", lol!). I do understand that it may be a serious paradigm shift, but I also am in agreement with Rosie that in the end, the vitriol against Wright and others seems woefully misplaced. Similar to our wrangling of eschatology. I believe there is a generally "right and true" hermeneutical method to Revelation and other apolcalyptic writings. While I jest that I am "pan-millienial" in that it will "all pan out in the end", I think my way is more faithful to the witness of scripture. However, I suppose I could be wrong, and some of my friends may be right. And ultimately we will experience the joy of Jesus' reign, unhindered and full of life. That doesn't keep me from promoting and teaching "my" way, but it tempers how I relate to those who see it differently.

Ralph Mauch

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/110697#Comment_110697

Another early force in this debate is Krister Stendahl, of Harvard. But maybe you should not listen to me, I am not an expert, and perhaps I am a heretic, too

From Heretic to another (depending on the circle of thought) I have those all in real book form, and it would kill me to pay more to have them in my Logos ( and Tom doesn't send me a free copy of everything he writes [:)]). BUT, if they would offer "Justification and Variegated Nomisn" both volumes, I would consider spending more to have them in Logos, which I also have in print form. Reading from another offering just reduced by 30% (Logos, stop it already, your killing me and my budget) "Encountering the Book of Romans" by Moo, he rightly points to the fact that everything new isn't necessarily good, and that all things should be examined... this is also a good resource for anyone studying the New Perspective, and has a lot quotes from the various resources (Dunn, Sanders, etc).

As for me, I'll stick to the time tested old stuff[:D]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/110807#Comment_110807

According to Dunn and Wright, the whole Western church since Augustine got justification wrong.

Do they see the Byzantine and Eastern traditions as truer to the original?

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/110815#Comment_110815

Another early force in this debate is Krister Stendahl

...was Krister Stendahl. (RIP 15/04/2008)

yes, Damian, Thank you. I knew of his death, i just used faulty grammar, perhaps subliminally emphasing that his work/speeches/writing are still making an impact. I only read one of his papers/speeches late last year after my dad sent it to me. So it is still "new" to me, even though he is dead.

Dan

I wasn't sure.... He's definitely worth reading. His essay "Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West" was one of the beginning points for the "New Perspective". The collection of essays "Paul Among Jews and Gentiles" is published by Fortress and really ought be in this collection. I might even make this a suggestion...

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/111012#Comment_111012

wasn't sure.... He's definitely worth reading. His essay "Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West" was one of the beginning points for the "New Perspective". The collection of essays "Paul Among Jews and Gentiles" is published by Fortress and really ought be in this collection. I might even make this a suggestion...

I would certainly second that. Stendahl's work is seminal to this whole debate. Note only that, but from Logos' point of view, "Paul Among Jews and Gentiles" is a samll book that wouldn't cost much to convert.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/110843#Comment_110843

... BUT, if they would offer "Justification and Variegated Nomisn" both volumes, I would consider spending more to have them in Logos, which I also have in print form.

Oh, absolutely. These are fanstastic collections of scholarly papers anti- the New Perspective (more or less!), at the highest level. They are a must for Logos. Logos won't be complete until they have them (and not even then, of course!!)

As for me, I'll stick to the time tested old stuff

Yep, me too.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/110993#Comment_110993

According to Dunn and Wright, the whole Western church since Augustine got justification wrong.

Do they see the Byzantine and Eastern traditions as truer to the original?

I don't think so; like most out of a Protestant heritage, they don't interact with these traditions much [at least, in what I've read of their work]. I would characterise them more as essentially a modification of Protestantism than anything else.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/111012#Comment_111012

He's definitely worth reading. His essay "Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West" was one of the beginning points for the "New Perspective"

That is THE one I am talking about, thanks. I didn't have it at my home office and could not remember the title. I found it very interesting and plan to read it again. I am not entirely settled on the whole debate by any means. But from what I have read so far, I am still quite befuddled at the strong (and in some cases vociferous) reaction against the "new perspective." Almost makes me want to embrace NP "just because" . . . [6]

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/111128#Comment_111128

That is THE one I am talking about, thanks.

It used to be available on-line. Got pulled a couple of years ago. A great multitude of articles on all sides of the discussion (if you are not already aware of it) are available on thepaulpage.

I am still quite befuddled at the strong (and in some cases vociferous) reaction against the "new perspective."

As am I....

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/111128#Comment_111128

I am still quite befuddled at the strong (and in some cases vociferous) reaction against the "new perspective." Almost makes me want to embrace NP "just because" . . .

Don't let reactionism befuddle you. There are some excellent methodological reasons to be very careful about reading the New Testament through Sanders' reconstruction of Judaism. I would recommend reading Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner on Sanders before accepting Sanders' and Wright's methodology.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/111156#Comment_111156

I am still quite befuddled at the strong (and in some cases vociferous) reaction against the "new perspective." Almost makes me want to embrace NP "just because" . . .

Don't let reactionism befuddle you. There are some excellent methodological reasons to be very careful about reading the New Testament through Sanders' reconstruction of Judaism. I would recommend reading Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner on Sanders before accepting Sanders' and Wright's methodology.

Do you have a reference for Neusner's work to which you are referring?

Also, if anyone is interested, I have a paper I wrote introducing the NPP, and critiquing it from a traditional Reformed perspective. I will email it to anybody who would like it. (It hasn't been published or peer-reviewed, but I did get accepted as a biblical studies PhD student on the strength of it. My email address is: s.e.paynter@btinternet.com.

In response to the "vociferous" comment ... I can only say that I have not experienced that, but I suspect that it arises from relatively badly-trained pastors who are responding to a caricature of the NPP that they have been presented with. One of the reasons why it will be good for the church for this pre-pub to be available in Logos is that it will put some NPP works in more people's hands, and they will then be able to determine for themselves what the so-called "villians of the peace" have actually said.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/111156#Comment_111156

I am still quite befuddled at the strong (and in some cases vociferous) reaction against the "new perspective." Almost makes me want to embrace NP "just because" . . .

Don't let reactionism befuddle you. There are some excellent methodological reasons to be very careful about reading the New Testament through Sanders' reconstruction of Judaism. I would recommend reading Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner on Sanders before accepting Sanders' and Wright's methodology.

Do you have a reference for Neusner's work to which you are referring?

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/111166#Comment_111166

Neusner has collected his work on Sanders together in a book called also Judaic Law: From Jesus to the Mishnah: A Systematic Reply to Professor E. P. Sanders (Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1993). He's also since written a chapter in his Rabbinic Literature and the New Testament: What We Cannot Show, We Do Not Know (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1994). The opening paragraph contains the following sentences, which will give you a flavour of how Neusner feels:

In his Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 B.C.E – 66 C.E., Sanders answers every question but the important one: if this was Judaism then how come Christianity? He tends to trivialize both, and to come up with a “Judaism” that did not exist in the first or any other century of antiquity… The people who wrote the books Sanders quotes, however, would not recognize his Judaism, because it never existed in any one time, place, or circumstance except in the harmonizing and homogenizing work of Sanders himself.

If you have the Encylopaedia of Judaism in Logos, you'll find a host of articles in a similar vein, particular Judaism, Definition of and Ancient Judaisms—Modern Syntheses.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/111064#Comment_111064

wasn't sure.... He's definitely worth reading. His essay "Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West" was one of the beginning points for the "New Perspective". The collection of essays "Paul Among Jews and Gentiles" is published by Fortress and really ought be in this collection. I might even make this a suggestion...

Actually, I was just searching through the Logos products, N.T. Wright's important collection of papers, "The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology" is also published by Fortress, and would be an ideal addition to this collection. Please, nice people at Logos. Pretty-Please.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/111187#Comment_111187

Mark and Stephen, thank you both for your thoughts. As i have time and money, or access to a library, I will look at some of those resources. It is an area of interest.

I don't suppose now is a time to bring up Open Theism. . . .[;)]

Stephen, I would like your paper, thank you! dustandbreath (at) sbcglobal (dot) net

I also discovered an unofficial webpage with links to NT Wright resources. ntwrightpage (dot) com

Thanks again.

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/111220#Comment_111220

I don't suppose now is a time to bring up Open Theism. . . .

It starts to be really interesting [:)]