Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $3.99 shipping
+ $3.99 shipping
+ Free Shipping
Paul's New Perspective: Charting a Soteriological Journey Hardcover – October 28, 2016
|New from||Used from|
The Amazon Book Review
Author interviews, book reviews, editors picks, and more. Read it now
Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
"Garwood Anderson has mastered the literature produced by the traditional, new, and post-new perspectives on Paul. Rightly casting his lot with recent proponents of a both-and rather than an either-or approach, Anderson offers a via media with a developmental twist: an evolving soteriology as the thirteen letters were penned. Readers of this perceptive critique and set of creative proposals, presented with rhetorical dexterity, will be enlightened and challenged to rethink a range of topics in Pauline soteriology." (Michael J. Gorman, Raymond E. Brown Chair in Biblical Studies and Theology, St. Mary's Seminary & University, Baltimore)
"In the labyrinth of interminable discussions about Paul and his views on the interrelated matters of salvation, the law, covenant, grace, faith, Judaism, and early Christianity, we finally, finally have a fair and balanced guide through the new and old perspective maze. Garwood Anderson's Paul's New Perspective should be on the top of everyone's reading list. It is clear, fair, and sees the merits of both sides of the argument. It does not caricature anyone's views and it comes to sane, sober, and convincing conclusions time after time. Highly recommended." (Ben Witherington III, Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies, Asbury Theological Seminary, Scotland, author of The Paul Quest and New Testament Theology and Ethics)
"Casting scholarly timidity to the wind, Garwood Anderson's engaging book takes up the question of the 'center' of Paul's theology―and whether Paul discovered and articulated it from the beginning of his ministry or developed it over the course of many years and letters. It is normal to find books that discuss Pauline chronology, the literary and theological shape of particular passages or the texts' theological 'afterlife' in the history of the church. It is rare to find books that do all these things at once―and do them with such verve and sophistication that one is reminded yet again why wrestling with Paul is so invigorating." (Wesley Hill, assistant professor of biblical studies, Trinity School for Ministry, author of Paul and the Trinity)
"Garwood Anderson's study of Paul's soteriology charts a bold course over the troubled seas of Pauline debate and among darkened clouds of theological dispute. He successfully shows that there is a way forward in the disputes about 'justification' and 'ethnicity'―a way beyond the entrenched dogmatism and intractable polarities that have emerged. Anderson brings us to a peaceful oasis where the treasures of the old and the freshness of the new come together. Among his insights are the multidimensional nature of union with Christ and the overlooked significance of Paul's sacramental realism for informing this discussion. This book is not the final word in the debate, but it is a good word―one that hopefully moves the discussion about Paul, justification and the New Perspectives along." (Michael F. Bird, lecturer in theology, Ridley College, Melbourne, Australia)
About the Author
Garwood P. Anderson (PhD, Marquette University) is professor of New Testament and Greek at Nashotah House Theological Seminary. He formerly taught at Asbury Theological Seminary, and was area and division director for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA in Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. He has also taught as a visiting professor at Bethel Theological Seminary, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Reformed Theological Seminary, and the West African Theological Seminary in Lagos, Nigeria.
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
Top Customer Reviews
In Anderson’s eyes, “Paul’s letters show evidence of both a contextually determined diversity and also a coherent development through time” (p.7). This conviction enables him to say that “both ‘camps’ are right, but not all the time” (p.5). He begins Paul’s New Perspective with a survey of the sprawling landscape of recent books on Paul. Anderson’s impressive familiarity with the relevant works of well-known “new perspective on Paul” (NPP) luminaries like Sanders, Dunn, and Wright is evident. He also introduces readers to the more recent contributions of other scholars like Bird, Gorman, and Barclay. To call Anderson “well-read” seems like a real understatement, and his nuanced engagement with an intimidatingly large pile of Pauline literature is both helpful and at times illuminating.
Bridging Perspectives on Paul
Anderson highlights a number of themes raised by the NPP that he thinks constitute real, genuine advancements in our understanding of Paul, and he has no problem praising the NPP for these accomplishments. Nevertheless, Anderson also subjects the movement to more skeptical questions and qualifications. For example, he praises the NPP for rightly emphasizing how Paul “leveraged justification toward the reconciliation of peoples into one Abrahamic family,” but he also criticizes NPP theologians for (at times) paying insufficient attention to the vertical dimension of justification (pp.382-383). I think Anderson should be applauded for his willingness to embrace and work with the strengths of the NPP, especially since he positions himself as one of its admiring critics.
Anderson’s overarching thesis, broadly speaking, is that while the NPP gives a compelling reading of the early Pauline epistles (especially Galatians), its interpretation of Paul becomes progressively less persuasive in the Apostle’s later letters (p.384). Meanwhile, the “traditional Protestant perspective” (TPP)—his term for what many call the “old perspective”—fails to be consistently persuasive in its readings of the early epistles, but displays a more satisfactory understanding of Paul’s soteriology in his later letters. Consequently, Anderson believes the “besetting fault” of NPP scholars to be their tendency to read Romans through the lens of their interpretation of Galatians, while he thinks TPP adherents typically err by reading Romans according to their understanding of Ephesians (p.84).
In terms of the authorship and dating of the thirteen letters traditionally attributed to Paul, Anderson is persuaded by the South Galatians hypothesis, which causes him to see Galatians as the Apostle’s earliest extant letter, written around AD 49. He sides with more conventional scholarship in dating Romans to AD 56-58 (p.164). Less conventionally, Anderson accepts authentic Pauline scholarship for all of the “disputed epistles.” It should be noted that this is something of a minority position in some of the more critical quarters of Pauline scholarship, especially with the pastoral epistles. Based on these methodological conclusions, Anderson develops his argument regarding the maturing trajectory of Paul’s soteriology, working with a thirteen-letter Pauline corpus that dates “from AD 49 to the mid-60s” (p.166).
A Soteriological Journey
To flesh out the defining characteristics of his proposal, Anderson delves into a few “markers of the itinerary,” which for him demonstrate a traceable pattern of development in Paul’s soteriology over the course of his letters. First, he looks at the topic of “works” and “works of the law.” Anderson disagrees with the conventional interpretations of both the NPP and TPP because they both consider the two terms to be interchangeable, while he is convinced they are not. NPP scholars generally read “works” as a shorthand for “works of the law,” by which they primarily mean practices related to Judaism’s social boundaries (p.381). TPP proponents, on the other hand, see “works of the law” as a phrase that functions as a synecdoche for “works” in general, understood as “soteriologically deficient human effort” (p.381). Distancing himself with both of these positions, Anderson maintains that “‘works,’ used absolutely, marks an abstracting and generalizing development in Paul’s soteriology, from a remonstrance against Jewish particularity… to a more settled antithesis between works and grace” (pp.381-382).
This “settled antithesis” leads to a similar kind of argument regarding the development of “grace” in Paul’s letters. In this area, he does well to engage extensively (and mostly appreciatively) with John Barclay’s excellent recent work, Paul and the Gift. Anderson suggests that “this incongruous grace of God takes its very particular shape as the antithesis of human accomplishment increasingly throughout the Pauline corpus… specifically in Romans and patently thereafter” (p.382).
Justification in the Context of Pauline Soteriology
The final “marker of the itinerary” that Anderson examines—Paul’s evolving language for describing salvation itself—was actually the most interesting and thought-provoking for me. Looking at the Pauline corpus as a whole, Anderson notes that justification language is found most often in the context of discussions related to the common membership of Jews and Gentiles in the one family of God, especially in Galatians and Romans (pp.382-384). However, in the later letters, Anderson argues that other soteriological idioms like salvation and reconciliation come to predominate. Hence, he thinks these later letters give evidence of a Pauline soteriology that becomes progressively more abstract and expansive. He asserts that this mature version of Paul’s soteriology focuses:
[N]ot merely on the drawing of Jew and Gentile into the family of Abraham but the reconciliation of humanity to God and the cosmos to its Creator—and not only the reconciliation of humanity to God but the transformation in Christ of the Adamic race into bearers once again of the divine glory. (p.14)
In general, Anderson believes that some scholars seek to make justification do too much heavy lifting, forgetting that Paul’s soteriology “reaches extensively and intensively well beyond the bounds of justification” (p.384). This is not to say that Anderson sides with people like Albert Schweitzer, who once described justification as being a mere “subsidiary crater” in Pauline theology (p.10). Rather, he’s emphasizing the need for justification to be seen as part of a larger, more complex vision of reconciliation and salvation (pp.388-391). In regards to this part of his thesis, I’m in agreement, but I do wonder how much this conclusion can be described as being similar to the TPP’s reading of Paul. This may be an area where Anderson’s approach to Paul is relatively unique.
Interestingly, Anderson believes both that participatory union with Christ is the “red thread of Pauline soteriology” and that justification itself should nevertheless be regarded as broadly—if not strictly—forensic in nature (p.391). Hence, he calls justification “the forensic dimension of Pauline soteriology.” It’s interesting to place this dimension of Anderson’s work in conversation with the writings of Michael Gorman, another Pauline scholar who highlights the theme of participation in Christ.
Though they both regard union with Christ as a central thread, Anderson parts from Gorman by understanding reconciliation to be a fruit of justification rather than a part of it (p.327). Gorman, on the other hand, writes that, “The terms ‘justification’ and ‘reconciliation’ are… essentially synonymous for Paul” (Inhabiting the Cruciform God, p.56). It seems to me that Gorman bases this conclusion on a differing reading of Romans 5 and by placing more emphasis on the covenantal dimension of justification, among other things. The important result of this analysis, for our purposes, is that both agree that reconciliation is a relational metaphor, but differ on how that impacts the nature of justification. By viewing reconciliation as part of justification, it is obviously easier for Gorman to conclude that justification itself possesses a significant participatory dimension.
On my part, I’m still more sympathetic to Gorman’s arguments, but Anderson’s work gives thoughtful readers of Paul much to ponder. I do think it’s worth amentioning that Anderson at one point does describe “the forensic dimension of salvation, justification itself” as being “incomprehensible apart from the believer’s participation in Christ” (p.138). So in the end, maybe Anderson and I aren’t actually so far apart. Finally, he elegantly articulates something important about the centrality of union with Christ near the book:
The constant in Pauline soteriology, transcending the undisputed and disputed letters, the apologetic and constructive, the exigent and the measured, is that salvation—acquittal and vindication, incorporation and transformation—is wrought in the union of humankind with the crucified and resurrected Christ by faith, effected in sacrament, whereby his atonement and victory our made ours… For Paul, salvation is through Christ, because it is in Christ. (pp.391-392)
Regardless of disagreements I may have about other aspects of Anderson’s proposal, I think this statement hits the nail on the head.
To summarize, Anderson proposes a developmental thesis in Paul’s New Perspective. He sets out an argument that seeks to demonstrate that “the new perspective on Paul is Paul’s oldest perspective… and the ‘old’ perspective describes what would become (more or less) Paul’s settled ‘new’ perspective” (p.379). By development, he means “traceable change that happens over time, resulting in a trajectory” (p.157). I’m not the only one to make this observation, but one of the vulnerabilities of Anderson’s ambitious proposal is that it depends (maybe more than he would like to admit) on a set of presuppositions regarding the dating and authenticity of Paul’s letters.
If one doesn’t share his views on these methodological issues, his thesis becomes less plausible. To give one example of this, if the South Galatian hypothesis was demonstrated conclusively to be wrong, resulting in a noticeably later dating of Galatians, then that would make his developmental hypothesis at least somewhat less likely. I don’t think this is necessarily a fatal flaw in Anderson’s proposal, but it’s obviously worth keeping in mind. I also can’t resist adding that one notices an absence of serious engagement with the “apocalyptic” school of Pauline interpretation, though that may beyond the scope of this work.
Anderson believes that the TPP gives a better reading of Paul’s later letters, and describes himself as “almost…but not quite” convinced by the NPP (p.56). I feel the same way about his overall proposal. It’s very thorough, ambitious, and theologically rich, and I appreciate his emphasis on union with Christ as a central category for Pauline soteriology. I also am impressed with his evenhandedness and charity in how he engages with differing perspectives. Nevertheless, I remain somewhat more persuaded by the NPP than he is, for whatever it’s worth. Paul’s New Perspective truly is a fresh proposal for getting beyond the debates between the NPP and TPP, and it hopefully will at the very least cause other scholars to look afresh at the possibility for development in Paul’s theology, even if they hesitate follow all the details of Anderson’s proposal. This is definitely a book well-worth reading with much to appreciate, regardless of which Pauline camp you ultimately favor.
*Disclosure: I received this book free from IVP Academic for review purposes. The opinions I have expressed are my own, and I was not required to write a positive review.
That’s the Garwood Anderson’s thesis in Paul’s New Perspective. In this long (+400 page) but very readable book Anderson argues against those advocates of The New Perspective on Paul and those of the Traditional Protestant Perspective (sometimes called the Lutheran view) showing that neither camp really gets Paul right. Paul cannot be understood simply from the NPP nor can he be understood simply from the TPP, rather what we see in Paul is development. Paul begins with the concerns brought up by NPP advocates and by the end of his career ends with concerns of the TPP.
Paul’s developing soteriology is supposedly seen in his development from concentration on “works of the law” to works more generally. Anderson argues that Romans, is a sort of transitional letter marking the shift between Paul’s old perspective and Paul’s new perspective. In Romans we see the transition between “the largely horizontal crisis of Gentile covenant membership independent of the law to a more vertically oriented reconciliation to God gained by faith apart from works, works of any kind.” (13)
Never disparaging either the NPP or the TPP, Anderson argues that both positions get a lot about Paul right, and that both sides have helped the church understand something important about its relation to God and the world. Some figures, like Wright, get it more right than others. For instance Wright in PFG rightly describes Paul’s logic as going vertical to horizontal, however the emphasis in Wright’s work is horizontal to vertical. Similarly, Dunn has helped reveal the horizontal problems Paul was dealing with when it came to the law’s role in acting as a dividing role between Jews and Gentiles.
In order to establish the case that Paul’s “new perspective” is actually his “old perspective” and that the traditional perspective is actually Paul’s “new perspective” Anderson has to establish this chronologically from his letters. Anderson notes that this is a bit problematic, as the position he argues for is not the majority view of critical scholarship (its not idiosyncratic either).
Galatians is the Earliest Letter, dated around 49AD
Romans is dated around 56-58AD
The Thessalonian and Corinthian Correspondence fall between Galatians and Romans
Philippians was composed in Rome
Colossians, Ephesians and Philemon are authentic and written from Rome
Paul survived his Roman imprisonment, turned his attention east and wrote the Pastoral Letters.
Having established the provenance of these letters Anderson turns his attention to two topics Works/Grace and Justification/Salvation in light of his reestablished order of letters. From this new order he shows that with regards to works, his early topic of “works of the law” shifts to “works” (full stop) with Romans acting as a transition between these two positions. Grace also follows this pattern. Beginning with Romans, grace is opposed to and excludes works. Concerning justification/salvation, in his later letters Paul recedes from the language of justification and prefers to use language of salvation and reconciliation. These two sections are made up of indepth exegetical and lexical work.
So how convincing is Anderson’s argument that the New Perspective is Paul’s is actually Paul’s old perspective? I guess that comes down to one important factor, how convincing do you think Anderson’s assessment of Paul’s literary itinerary is? Do you find it plausible that Galatians is Paul’s first letter? If you think Galatians & Romans are fairly closely dated that his argument doesn’t really work. Do you buy a Roman (as opposed to Ephesian) provenance of the Prison letters? If you don’t then that throws a wrench in his entire reading of Pauline development as well. The problem with Anderson’s propsal is that you have to hold to a lot of minority positions regarding the composition of these letters. Neither the NPP or the TPP hangs upon one’s acceptance of a particular dating of Paul’s letters, but Andersons’ thesis certainly does. This doesn’t necessarily mean that Anderson’s explanation is wrong. In fact, I would argue that it has a lot going for it! It breaks down some of the false dichotomies of the NPP/TPP debate, allows the church to incorporate the best of both perspectives, and has a lot of explanatory power. (His thesis even helps explain some of the concerns brought up by Apocalyptic readings of Paul!) But the fact that his whole argument is built upon the foundation of dates makes his foundation rather feeble. If one can decisively show his dating of Paul’s letters are wrong, his argument (in my opinon) falls apart.
All in all I would say that Paul’s New Perspective is a well written and well researched book, offering a via media in a rather creative way. Students of Pauline theology would do well to pick up this book, he does a fine job charging the various debates between NPP & TPP camps. His chapter on Post-NPP authors is fine as well. I can see myself assigning these chapters to students in a Pauline theology book, helping them get aquatinted with contemporary debates in the Pauline literature. On top of all this, the summary of his position is rhetorically powerful, much like EP Sanders’ was: “covenantal nomism,” “getting in vs. staying in,” “solution to plight,” and “in short, this is what Paul finds wrong in Judaism: it is not Christianity.” Anderson’s position is quite memorable as well: “Paul’s New Perspective is Paul’s old perspective.” This catchy statement alone ensures the ideas in this book will be remembered, regardless of their staying power.
While I’m still not sure that Anderson’s proposal is convincing, it certainly is thought provoking. For that reason, I recommend you pick up this book. Its an position that deserves more thought and attention.
(Note: I received this book from IVP in exchange for an impartial review)