Please get NT Wright to do a Mobile Ed on the NPP. We have his books, now it’s time for a mobile ed course by Wright himself explaining the NPP.
Thanks!
DAL
Bump
It’s not by Wright but have you seen https://www.logos.com/product/56681/mobile-ed-nt395-perspectives-on-paul-reformation-and-the-new-perspective?
I would be surprised if the Mobile Ed team produce another course on this topic - but I have no inside knowledge!
It’s not by Wright but have you seen https://www.logos.com/product/56681/mobile-ed-nt395-perspectives-on-paul-reformation-and-the-new-perspective? I would be surprised if the Mobile Ed team produce another course on this topic - but I have no inside knowledge!
Sorry for the delayed response! I try to bump this one at least once a week.
I saw the link. It seems like everybody gives their understanding of the NPP, but it'd be better to get NT Wright to actually state it and defend it in a course. Moo didn't really touch on it on his Mobile Ed on Romans and it seemed like he wasn't willing to commit to say the NPP is wrong if indeed it's wrong. He came across as saying it's good if he means this or it depends if he means something else, but wasn't really willing to say Wright was wrong. I'm sure others can give their understanding of the NPP but Wright would be the right man for the job.
Thanks, though!
PS. Bump
... PS. Bump
...
[Y]
It seems like everybody gives their understanding of the NPP, but it'd be better to get NT Wright to actually state it and defend it in a course. ... I'm sure others can give their understanding of the NPP but Wright would be the right man for the job.
Let's hear the NPP from Wright.
I haven't heard the Mobile Ed course by Moo that you refer to, but having read most of his NICNT Romans commentary (2nd ed) and having listened to some other Mobile Ed courses, I can see why he wouldn't say much about it in a Mobile Ed series on Romans.
Primarily, I think, the Mobile Ed courses are so shallow (and that's not meant to be pejorative here, just a factual observation) anything more than a few passing remarks on something that Moo doesn't think is the "main thing" to take away from Romans wouldn't make sense.
Moo interacts with Wright and Dunn and Sanders repeatedly throughout his Romans commentary when it is relevant and he has excurses on some key issues. He thinks it provides some balance in regards to the complexity of how Jews saw themselves in relation to the law and he appreciates and utilizes the salvation-historical perspective, but he argues against new perspective views of justification and the way they view key terms like "works of the law."
I'm sure others can give their understanding of the NPP but Wright would be the right man for the job.
Agreed.
And bump...
Bump!
