I'm looking for a work(s) that critique The New Perspective on Paul that is offered in the L4 format.
spelling = Covenantal
Have you seen this: http://www.logos.com/product/6290/fortress-press-paul-collection ?
It contains the book that started the Covenantal Nomism conversation (Sanders) along with one of N.T. Wright's contributions to the discussion and an appraisal of the debate (which I haven't read yet) by Zetterholm. Looks to be shipping soon.
This collection: http://www.logos.com/product/4545/pauline-studies-collection needs a few more orders to go into production, but it includes 'The Saving Righteousness of God', Michael Bird's evaluation of the New Perspective debate.
If you have the Theological Journals library, you could search them for "New Perspective on Paul". I found the information I needed there. YMMV
Are these pro-EP Sanderism or are they more along the lines of an appraisal of Covenantal Nomism. What I'm looking for are resources that align themselves with the two-volume series Justification and Variegated Nomism - eds. Carson, O'Brien, Seifrid.
I haven't read volume 2 of JVN yet, so I can't really say who lines up with whom. I wouldn't accuse any of these authors of 'Sanderism'.The publisher's blurb for the Bird volume includes "The burden of the volume is to demonstrate that both Reformed and new readings of Paul are indispensable to attaining a full understanding of Paul's soteriology." I'm looking forward to reading that one. The Zetterholm book is a historical survey with contributions from a lot of different authors - many of whom are recognized names in Paul debates, but (though I haven't read this) I don't think the whole book can be classified as pro- or anti-Sanders.
If you haven't read Sanders, he is worth reading. The vast majority of his book Paul and Palestinian Judaism is about the later (Palestinian Judaism) and the implications for how that affects his reading of Paul almost form an appendix - something like the last 60 pages. Even folk who don't like Sanders' take on Paul's theology can learn a lot from Sanders' re-evaluation of Palestinian Judaism. One of the things that stood out to me was how often JVN1 actually agrees with Sanders when evaluating the same texts. The methodology behind JVN is quite different, and it spends a lot of time evaluating texts that are not in the scope of Palestinian Judaism (Hellenistic authors like Philo, etc.), and thus not in the scope of Sanders' theory. I'd have to read volume 2 to learn if they succeed in making the case that the wider scope is necessary and relevant to understanding Paul. In any event, if you plan to read JVN, you'll get more out of it if you read Sanders first anyway, so you can understand what they are evaluating.
(For some reason I thought the Fortress Press collection had a volume from Wright, wrongly. But his Paul: Fresh Perspectives is available in this collection.)
Thanks Vincent. Excellent reply. I have read Sander' books along with those who have been influenced by his deductions. I appreciate the scholarly response from your goodself and I'll have to re-read Vol. 1 of JVN a bit more closely. One the books I have appreciated has been by Guy Prentiss Waters - Justification and the New Perspective of Paul; P&R Publishing (2004). I think I'll suggest this book.
Once again thanks for the good reply.
Are these pro-EP Sanderism or are they more along the lines of an appraisal of Covenantal Nomism.
These journals contain articles that are both pro and con New Perspective. I did the research and decided that I was not interested in pursuing the subject any further. YMMV (Since I believe you are Canadian, I guess Your Mileage May Vary needs alteration [:D])
What I'm looking for are resources that align themselves with the two-volume series Justification and Variegated Nomism - eds. Carson
Have you listened to Carson's lectures on NPP?
http://pjtibayan.wordpress.com/2006/10/17/d-a-carson-audio-sermonslectures/
I too will buy the JVN volumes when/if they are available in Logos. It would be nice to know if Logos plans to produce them.
Edited.
Scott. Thanks for the link. I'll have to check it out. Thanks again.
