If you aren’t aware, N.T. Wright recently came out with a his newest release, The Paul Debate: Critical Questions for Understanding the Apostle. I appreciate Baylor Press sending a review copy to me! Wright continues to offer thoughts at the table of Pauline studies, this time as a response to the critiques of his massive work, Paul and the Faithfulness of God.
Over at The Pneuma Review, I have just contributed a review of this recently published work. I’ll let you head over there to read the review, but here are a few thoughts from the article:
As expected, with the release of Paul and the Faithfulness of God, much scrutinization of the magnum opus followed, both criticism and praise. In an effort to briefly respond to the reviews (the book’s content weighs in at a mere 107 pages), and probably more the critical responses, Wright has offered this new Baylor Press publication, The Paul Debate. In all, the book serves as a succinct summary of his own insights into the new perspective on Paul.
In particular, the book is broken into five chapters of similar length that address particular criticisms. As he outlines in the Preface:
“The five chapters represent a response to the five most questioned elements in my book [Paul and the Faithfulness of God]… The first chapter thus takes up the question of Paul’s theological coherence, particularly the way in which his Jewish context, and the story about Israel he inherited, interacted with what he came to believe about Jesus, a christological story. Chapter 2 follows on by tackling the debate over the background, origin, and implications of Paul’s Christology. The third chapter addresses the questions of covenant and cosmos, narrative and apocalyptic. Chapter 4 focuses on the debate over Paul’s view of who constitutes the people of God; this chapter also addresses the question of whether justification belongs to Paul’s soteriology or to his ecclesiology, or somehow to both. The final chapter then traces debates about method, both Paul’s and ours, as well as questions of discovery and presentation, again, both Paul’s and ours.” (ix-x)
Head over to The Pneuma Review to read the full review.