In a recent post I mentioned a great used bookstore for theological books in Cambridge (England; Galloway & Porter). A comment was made by Andrew Bourne that I should check out another bookstore for theological books in York (which is not far from Durham where I live). Well, it just happened that I was going to York the very next day, and I did make it to BARBICAN BOOKS (not far from the Shambles). Well, Andrew was right! It had quite a good selection of commentaries and some monographs. The prices were not as attractive as I had hoped, but I did find a good deal. I picked up one book - a commentary on Philippians by A. Plummer (1919) for £2. Not bad! Thanks Andrew!

I am in Cambridge (right now at the Tyndale House) visiting David Nystrom (current PhD student at Cantab; MATR alum of Durham). Yesterday, we went book shopping in the city. After a quick stop at the Cambridge University Press shop (did you know they have the SNTS in paperback?), we went to a very special ship: Galloway & Porter LTD. They have shelves and shelves of clearance price biblical monographs and the like. I picked up three NT monographs for ₤6-8 each! If you are ever in Cambridge, find out where G & P’s is, but be warned - the prices are too good to resist!

Certainly anyone acquainted with Romans scholarship is aware of the perennial problem of determining the purpose of the letter (last will and testament, conflict resolution, practice speech for Jerusalem, ambassadorial letter, compendium of Christian doctrine, etc…).  contrast this with, let’s say, 1 Corinthians: we know how Paul knew of the problems and we basically know what problems they had.  But, what about Philippians?  Though much, much shorter than 1 Corinthians and Romans, its purpose (and even its provenance) is a bit of a mystery.  Is it a warning letter about opponents (3.2ff)?  Is it about community and unity (especially as it is addressed to the church leadership and Euodia and Syntyche are called out)?  Is it mostly just a ‘thanks’ for the gift?  Is it mostly a commendation for Epaphroditus - job well done, but this guy ain’t doin’ so well…?  Is it more or less an update on his situation?  (There seems to be more plots in here than an episode of LOST!)  Morna Hooker has recently floated the idea that Philippians may be a record of Paul’s gospel-message in light of the possibility of his demise  - not unlike some theories about Romans (as she admits).  But, I think that choosing just one of these is myopic and arguing for all at the same time is unhelpful.

There is, I think, a meta-theme that can contain all of these - ‘the faithfulness of God and the plea for a renewed faithfulness to him.’  It seems that Paul can rejoice because of the Philippians because they have been faithful to God and to him.  Even in times of difficulty and affliction, they persevered.  But, a number of issues started to chip away at their loyalty.  Outside opposition became more disconcerting and questions about their religious practices became harder to answer.  Inner factions (or divisive tendencies) began a rift in their cohesion.  And, perhaps the straw that broke the camels back - the APOSTLE PAUL is in prison and almost certainly going to die.  THE GOSPEL AGENDA HAS BEEN COMPROMISED.  The Philippians thought to themselves - what have we gotten ourselves into?  This train has de-railed.  They knew the Christ-story - his suffering, death, and resurrection.  If they believed in him, they could join in following a new Lord of Glory.  But…now what?

Paul’s response was on several levels.  First of all, his imprisonment did not hinder the progress of the gospel-mission.  In fact, it propelled it in unimaginable ways.  Second, there is no PLAN B.  The story of Christ (his suffering, death, resurrection) was still part of the plan.  In fact, it was the plan - but the Philippian believers (as well as Paul, Timothy, and Epaphroditus) had to not just enter into the story, but re-live it personally huper Christou (for Christ’s sake/on behalf of Christ; 1.29).

Paul’s imprisonment still confirms God’s faithfulness.  Their persecution does not hinder the gospel.  Even the preaching at Paul’s expense does not hinder it!  But Paul continually reminds them that God’s faithfulness is only perceptive to the trained eye (Phil 3.3).  S. Fowl underscores Paul’s repeated use of phroneo in Philippians which refers to the appropriate mindset, attitude, perspective, worldview, outlook, perception, epistemology, etc…  What the world sees as a corpse, Paul sees as a sacrifice (2.17).  What the world sees as dimwitedness, Paul sees as light (2.15).  What the world sees as utterly weak, Paul sees as inexhaustively powerful (3.8-11).

I am sure debates will continue regarding Paul’s opponents (whether real or hypothetical), his attitude towards death, his authorship/transmission of the Christ-hymn, the literary integrity of the letter, the meaning of exegetical puzzles (like the ones whose ‘god is their belly’, 3.19), etc…But, I hope some interpreters will continue to take a step back and try to get an overall picture of the letter.  This is my contribution to the ‘Philippians debate’.

I would like to continue offering suggestions for reading scholarship in Paul’s letters with a view especially towards those who (like me) are looking for a list of the most useful (well-written) pieces. In this book (Romans) in particular, I am sure my list will vary quite a lot from someone else’s. Offer it, here, just as one man’s advice.

Where to begin?

Good question. I know of no really excellent short introductions to Romans, but a few things are on the right track. First, Doug Moo’s Encountering the Book of Romans is well-written and the EBS series from Baker is geared towards students with a very text-book-like presentation. Also, Jimmy Dunn has a short commentary in the ‘People’s Bible Commentaries’ series (2001).

Introduction to Critical Scholarship

Perhaps I don’t even need to mention the frequently cited Romans Debate (ed. Donfried) which contains well-known essays on the background, theology, and structure of Romans from a plethora of important scholars: Dunn, F. Watson, R. Jewett, Bruce, Wedderburn, and more. Also, one might add to this the collection of essays in honor of Gordon Fee entitled Romans and the People of God (eds. Soderlund and Wright; 1999) which is more exegetical and theological in nature, but offers remarks on Romans from a number of eminent scholars. More recently, we have an invaluable contribution by Mark Reasoner entitled Romans in Full Circle which traces the history of interpretation of Romans ‘from Origen to Augustine, Abelard and Aquinas, Luther and Calvin, and on beyond Barth, back to holistic, communal, and narrative-based readings in the style of Origen’ - so the backcover summary goes… In any case, a must-read. One may add Das’s new Solving the Romans Debate which argues for a purely Gentile implied reader - well defended argument, but perhaps the title is a bit too presumptuous! Further back in time, consider reading Wedderburn’s The Reasons for Romans (1988, I think) which argues that there is probably no one reason for Romans, but a cluster of purposes. Consider also N.T. Wright’s Climax of the Covenant.

Commentaries

Well, there are probably more commentaries on Romans than there are on any one book in history. So, I will be very selective!

Philology: Cranfield’s ICC is still a standard for excellence in word studies and comparison with ancient sources, thought Fitzmyer (Anchor) is also good on this.

Theology: Kaesemann is one of the most influential interpreters of Romans and his work has a great impact on scholars in the field even still. I would also include Dunn’s two-volume WBC here as well as N.T. Wright’s New Interpreter’s Bible commentary.

Social Issues: Here, though not a commentary, I would draw attention to F. Watson’s latest revision of his Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles (2007; see below). Also, Jewett’s new Romans for the Hermeneia (and Dunn).

Other: I have also found useful P. Stuhlmacher’s Paul’s Letter to the Romans which is a collection of essays that form a commentary-like book, and, Leander Keck’s Romans for the small Abingdon series. I eagerly await S.E. Porter’s short commentary on Romans for Sheffield Phoenix (July 08).

Monographs

I am sure there are many great published theses out there, but I find so many of them myopic and overly dense.  Call me picky, but I only offer here a few

J. Ross Wagner, Herald of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans (2003).  Articulate and basically persuasive on the idea that Paul intentionally joined together with the prophet in thinking through and dialoguing with God’s people.

Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles (2007) - Important revision of his well-known monograph that deals with Paul’s attempt to consolidate a common Christian identity between Jewish and Gentile Christians who are in conflict in Rome.  Watson sees this unification taking place over and against allegiance to the synagogue.  Though not exclusively focused on Romans, the majority of Watson’s tome is directed towards it.

Stephen Westerholm’s Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (2004).  A book both witty and surprisingly exhaustive on matters pertaining to Paul and the law without being exhausting!  He covers Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Wesley in 80 pages and then moves on to Wrede, Schweitzer, Montefiore, Schoeps, Sanders, Kuemmel, Stendahl, Bultmann, Wilckens, Drane, Huebner, Raisanen, N.T. Wright, Dunn, T. Donaldson, Cranfield, Schreiner, Thielman, Seifrid, Laato, Thuren, Martyn, and J. Becker!

I have, for sometime now, wondered whence this ‘new school’ came that promotes ‘theological exegesis’.  It interests me because some of my favorite NT scholars (Joel Green, Beverly Gaventa, Richard Hays, M. Bockmuehl; M.J. Gorman) endorse this agenda (now represented by a journal - the Journal of Theological Intepretation).  But, what is ‘theological exegesis’?  I actually had an opportunity to ask one of the above mentioned scholars about this and he said that it was not a very concrete discipline with clear parameters and tools.  I was happy, then, to get something quotable from an article I stumbled upon.  These are the words of Stephen Fowl

‘The practice of interpreting scripture theologically is determined by the purposes for which Christians are called to read and embody scripture.  Theological interpretation of the Bible is not determined by any particular method but by the goal of growing into ever deeper communion with the triune God and with others.  This means that as Christians and Christian communities struggle to interpret and embody scripture in the contexts in which they live, they will be judged successful to the extent that they faithfully live and worship before God’ (’Knowing your Context’, Interpretation 2002: 45).

I think this new school of theological exegetes stems from a concern that NT scholarship has lost its steam  -enter Bockmuehl’s Seeing the Word.  As this school grows in size and influence, more pressure will be put on commentary writers to answer tough questions about modern application and modern contextualizing of the scriptural message.  This is already seen in the Two Horizons commentary series, though I don’t quite feel like the ‘commentary’ portion is that different than other series’ such as Pillar or NICNT; consider the thoroughgoing theological exegesis of Gordon Fee regardless of what series he is writing for!  Truly a ’scholar on fire’ (a term used in the FS for him ed. by Soderlund and Wright).  I am happy with the contributions of those who promote ‘theological exegesis’, but I am still waiting for a bit more clarity on its manner of approach before I see it as ‘the way forward’.  I am happy, though, that such scholars in this camp hail from places such as Princeton, Yale, Durham (England), and Oxford.  It, perhaps, has never been easier to be an evangelical hoping to find a voice in the larger dialog.   I am particularly fortune to be at Durham where we have at least three scholars involved in ‘theological exegesis’  - Francis Watson, Walter Moberly, and Stephen Barton (my supervisor).  They certainly do not agree on everything.  But, one gets a sense that at our weekly NT seminar, it is because of people like these that the Q & A is not just about the ancient world.  Is it coincidence that many (if not all) of those who are in the ‘theological exegesis’ camp are also heavily invested in issues of New Testament morality and modern gender, political, ecological, and sexual ethics?  I think not.

I just received this in the post and I am excited to finally have a copy.  The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies, first published in 2006, is finally available in paperback and a fraction of the original cost (was ₤85, now ₤27.50; ₤26.13 at Amazon.co.uk).

What does it contain?  In more than 800 hundred pages, you have dozens of recognized scholars giving introductions and state-of-the-discipline discussions on such topics as:

NT History of Interpretation (last 70 years; R. Morgan); Rogerson does OT

Qumran Studies (P. Davies)

Language of NT (S.E. Porter)

Israel in the second temple period (L. Grabbe)

Life of Jesus and early X (C.A. Evans)

Priesthood, Temple, Sacrifice (C.T.R. Hayward)

Law in OT (G. Wenham)

Institutions and Movements (J. Lieu)

Apocalyptic (P. Davies)

Novella (Erich Gruen)

Gospels (R. Burridge)

Letters (Lieu)

Growth of NT (J.M. Court)

Rhetorical and New Literary Criticism (M.M. Mitchell)

Social, Political, and Ideological Criticism (C. Rowland)

OT Theology (Breuggemann)

NT Theology (Dunn)

Canon (L.M. McDonald)

Historical Criticism and the Authority of the Bible (J.W. Rogerson)

I really look forward to interacting with this.  Once I have dipped into a few essays I will report more.

As I am working my way (chronologically) through Paul’s letters, I just completed 2 Corinthians and have begun on Romans. Thus, it is time to share my thoughts on this very rich, but also very controversial epistle. Where to begin?

Introductions

There are several satisfactory introductory essays or articles to allow one to ‘dip their toes’ into 2 Corinthians. I would recommend two things: Either Scott Hafemann’s ‘Letters to the Corinthians’ in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, or a short article by Gerald Borchert entitled ‘Introduction to 2 Corinthians’ in Review & Expositor (86.3; 1998 - available in PDF on ATLA if you use EBSCO).

Commentaries

Although 2 Corinthians is not as well served in terms of commentaries as the first canonical letter, there are still several very good ones.

In terms of short commentaries, I would suggest Linda Belleville’s volume in the IVPNT series. For a medium size one, Jan Lambrecht (Sacra Pagina), Scott Hafemann (NIV Application), or Ben Witherington (Socio-rhetorical). Each of these has its strengths. Lambrecht is good on dealing with a number of thorny exegetical passages and isn’t afraid to question ‘consensus’ views; also good on the letter’s theology. Hafemann’s is great especially for pastors and anyone who really wants to follow Paul’s train of thought in the letter. Witherington is great with…well, the sociology and rhetorical aspects of Paul’s writing.

Now, when it comes to the massive commentaries, I think nothing can outdo Murray Harris’ NIGTC volume. It is excellent across the board. If you had to buy one commentary, I would suggest this one. If you had money to buy two, I would say pick up Hafemann as well.

Theology of 2 Corinthians

As for the theological dynamics of this letter, several items come to mind. First, Tim Savage’s Power through Weakness - a published thesis that explores this central theme. Not too distant is Hafemann’s Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit - a piece that I have turned to time and time again for insight. And, one cannot ignore the 2nd volume of Fortress Press’s Pauline Theology that contains an important engagement between David Hay, Steven Kraftchick and Beverly Gaventa - a must read (especially Kraftchick).

Special Studies

Finally, special attention should be given to the edited volume (Bieringer) on the Corinthian Correspondence which contains a number of interesting essays:

Paul’s argument from the Old Testament and christology in 2 Cor 1-9: the salvation-history/restoration structure of Paul’s apologetic, by S Hafemann.

Dangerous boasting: Paul’s self-commendation in 2 Corinthians 10-13, by J Lambrecht.

Paul’s journey to paradise: some exegetical issues in 2 Cor 12,2-4, by M Thrall.

Paul’s use of Exodus in the Corinthian correspondence, by C Hickling.

Knowledge of Christ and knowledge of God in the Corinthian correspondence, by V Koperski.

Reconciliation and 2 Cor 5,18-21, by S Porter.

2 Cor 5,21: the interpretive key to Paul’s use of dikaiosynē theou?, by R Moore.

Final Thoughts

I found that there is still a lot of work to be done in 2 Corinthians and I hope to see more students engage in this letter. So much more attention is given to 1 Corinthians, I think because the background of the second letter is so elusive. But, let’s not give up learning! Also, though I think many have focused on 2 Corinthians 2-6 and 8-9, we could use more research on the other portions of the letter, especially chapters 1 and 10-13.

I am currently studying Romans.  The questions of why Paul wrote the letter (the so-called ‘Romans Debate’) is still wide-open and scholarship is still far from generating a consensus view. There are, though a few very popular theories and one that is continually gaining steam is that the letter is audience-centered with special attention to the matter of the weak and strong (see 14-15). I think this approach has many merits as Paul (though not the founder of the church) knew a number of people there and addresses contingent issues (especially if you accept the literary stability of the whole letter).

Wedderburn has convinced many that a search for THE ONE purpose of Romans is doomed to fail. I agree. There are probably a number of reasons, but one could easily say the same about 1 Corinthians.

That Paul is expounding upon the gospel message he regularly preaches is pretty clear (especially from 3-8). The epistolary framework of the letter draws attention to some of Paul’s personal reasons (that involve himself directly): the hope to visit them and the wish to go to Spain (as well as the delivery of the collection).

A few scholars are hinting at the idea that Paul also needed to defend his apostleship (not as polemically as in 2 Corinthians, but there are some similarities). I point to Stanley Porter’s essay on ‘opponents in Rome’ in the collection Paul and his Opponents, where he explores the neglected possibility that Paul was reacting (possible pre-emptively) to opponents and had to defend his own integrity and apostleship in the process. This is not a new contribution, but Porter applies stricter methodology to the question and is more cautious. Actually, Moo’s commentary hints at Paul having to address Romans concerns based on hearing ‘rumors’ about him. For a more extreme position (that posits a more direct threat, see Stuhlmacher’s English version of his commentary, pp. 9-10; more recently Doug Campbell [Duke]). I am hesitant to jump on an oppositional bandwagon without solid evidence, but I do think Paul some of his statement’s in Romans have an unusually hostile tone (3.8). Stuhlmacher and others specifically point to 16.17: Romans 16:17, ‘I urge you, brothers and sisters, to keep an eye on those who cause dissensions and offenses, in opposition to the teaching that you have learned; avoid them. ‘ That they were aliens (foreigners) is suggested by Paul’s call to avoid them altogether. This adds a more urgent purpose to Romans, one I think needs to be more recognized.

The particular contribution I want to make is this: Did Paul know of particular moral problems in the church in Rome? Specifically, did he know of sexual problems? Perhaps it may have been that he could assume they would struggle with such common issues, but there may be reason to believe he wished to present his gospel as a way of addressing these problems (in addition to other problems as well). What is the evidence? First of all, in 1.18-32 he narrates a down-spiral of humanity that traded God out for a lie and worshipped human creations. But, the results of this idolatry was sexual deviances (1.26ff.).  That idolater are morally wicked was something the Romans would have agreed with.  Surely even any Jew would have been able to tell the same story.  But, what does Paul say to his Jewish interlocuter: if you know his will because you are instructed by the law (2.18), do you not teach against adultery and then commit it yourself (2.22)?  If, in fact, that was not the case, certainly Paul’s line of argumentation would fail!

And, 6.12: ‘Let not sin reign in your mortal bodies that you obey its lusts (epithumia)’ (cf. 7.

Paul’s rhetoric may be simply cautionary (preventative, rather than corrective), but consider his eschatological statements: such as  Romans 13.11: ‘it is now the moment for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first became believers.’  Is this about their moral behavior?  Consider the next verses (13.12-14): ‘The night is far gone, the day is near.  Let us then lay aside the works of darkness and put on the armor of light.  Let us live honorably as in the day, not in reveling and drunkeness, not in debauchery and licentiousness, not in quarreling and jealousy.  Rather, put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.’

Could such an imperatives be ‘generic paraenesis’?   Consider also that in ROmans 12.1-2 (the most well-known ethical imperative in Paul) he talks about renewal of the mind for the discernment of God’s will (12.2).  Here he uses the same language as in 2.18, but claiming that spiritual discernment does not come from the law, but from renewal by the Spirit.  Even here he might be claiming that the law can bring knowledge of sins, but not the power to overcome Sin’s seduction.  Only the gospel of Christ can destroy Sin’s power.  This reading would support seeing Romans as a type of protrepsis (as Aune argues) which encourages the readers to adopt a certain course of life (or ethos).

I welcome comments on this and I hope this generates some thought on the purpose of Romans.

When I was applying for PhD programs, I felt that I had a decent overall preparation for further studies…except my research proposal.  I felt like I could tick the boxes under language study, exegetical method, and breadth of knowledge.  When it came to formulating a good creative project I was quite weak.  I suspect that behind my rejection letter from Oxford was the question: dare you waste our time with this proposal?! Well, Durham took a chance on me and I hope I have made them proud thus far.  In any case, I have come a long way in two years and I feel very contented with my research and where it is going.  In any case, for those of you who are in the shoes I stood in a couple of years ago (or just thinking ahead), here is some advice.

1. Begin as early as you can to narrow your interest to a book of the NT or at least a small set of books (such as the Petrine letters, or Luke-Acts).  Over-specialization can make one overly myopic, but to be able to go deep in a vast field like NT studies means one has to narrow the scope.  Right now there is a renewed interest in the non-Pauline epistles such as Hebrews, James, and 1-2 Peter.  These are great areas to do research right now.  The field is pretty open.

2. The Magic is in the Method: You probably don’t want to do another thesis on righteousness in Romans.  Its been done.  Every 5th year for the last three three centuries.  It seems that the advances in research are often propelled by the application of approaches from different disciplines such as rhetorical theories, social-sciences, anthropology, etc… Where to begin in exploring such new approaches?  Try, The Open Text: New Directions in Biblical Studies? (ed. F. Watson) with engagements in reader criticism, feminist approaches, sociology, and more.

3. Read Published theses: Not just reviews of them or the introduction.  Take a good JSNTS monograph and read it cover to cover (or WUNT or SNTSMS).   Where to begin?  Try Dan Gurtner’s The Torn Veil (Book of Matthew) or Jerry Sumney’s Servants of Satan (opponents in Paul’s Letters).

4. Go to SBL and sit in on 3-4 groups of sessions of your first topic of interest (such as Gospel of John, or, rhetorical criticism in the NT) and then sit in on 1-3 groups of sessions of topics that just sound interesting but you know relatively little about (like, what the heck is Bhaktian? Oh, sounds interesting; or, semiotics - I’ve heard of it…can I use it in a sentence???).  If you can’t go, read the abstracts on the webpage of a wide range of papers.  You can learn a lot about a subject from abstracts - even if the paper ends up being unnecessarily convoluted.  In fact, many papers fail to live up to the expectation of the abstract.  Sad reality.

5. Read the journal  Currents in Biblical Research (SAGE).

6. Read footnotes in books and articles - there are a lot of good ideas left unexplored in footnotes.

7. Pay careful attention to the final section of a published thesis that should include: ‘areas for further exploration’ - where the conversation should continue to go.  You may find interesting ideas there.

8. Be a critical reader - don’t just read biblical scholarship passively, but engage in what is being said and ask, ‘what are the assumptions in the statements made here?’  ‘From where do these assumptions arise?’  ‘Is there another angle from which one can view the problem at hand?’  For many who were (and are) like me, its not just about sitting and thinking and coming up with a really good idea.  It is simply this: the more you read in the field, the more context you have for the state of academic discussion.  This is necessary preparation.

One quick caution - it is so easy to narrow your interests too far.  Some of the most useful insights into my research have come from reading books outside of my narrow research topic.  I do book reviews to force me to read more widely, so in addition to reading about Pauline theology and his use of metaphors (my main subject area), I also read a lot in the New Testament use of the Old Testament more generally, and I have an interest in 1 Peter.  Also, I like to read introductory books on Paul, and on the NT to keep me reflecting on the ‘basic’ questions.  Where do I find time?  When my wife is getting ready for bed.  When the toddler is napping.  Sometimes if I am eating alone.  You can find time if it is important to you.

Best wishes for those who are wanting to embark on the adventure of NT research - it is a very rewarding experience and a lot of fun.

I recently finished reading Markus Bockmuehl’s Seeing the Word - a book that wishes to ‘refocus’ New Testament study.  He surveys the state of the field and finds it bewilderingly fragmented, compartmentalised, methodologically lost, and unclear about what it (the discipline) wishes to study and what it might accomplish.  He suggests that some new directions (such as canonical criticism) are illuminating, but not a centripedal force in the discipline.  He suggests two things: first, that we pay more attention to the reception history of the NT - especially to the period up to 150 AD.  Secondly, he encourages the guild to have a more direct interest in the implied readers of the texts.  These are his major points, but he also frequently makes note of the unity of the NT canon and how, in his opinion, it begs one to read it as a unified whole - even if the unification is sometimes elusive and very general.  His personification of the NT canon is at times a bit off-putting as if the guild will agree that the NT is a hoping and wishing entity.  Nevertheless, whenever a group is looking at a dismal future (as some may foresee NT studies), a prophetic message such as Bockmuehl’s will be welcomed by many.

Bockmuehl hopes, I suppose, for a coming together of scholars who can approach the text with more of a hermeneutic of trust (he does not use this terminology, but I think this is along the same lines).  I appreciate his desire, but I find it unrealistic.  There are some scholars who wish to engage in the academy for the end purpose of seeing the Word better and growing the church in maturity.  For these kinds of people (of whom I include myself) I say “amen” to Bockmuehl.  But, there are many scholars who probably once felt very excited about how ‘theology’ informs ‘faith’, but that flame is gone and they remain in the field because they find the text still interesting (but not the ‘Word’).  For this latter group, I presume they are not interested in consensus or a common cause in the pursuit of better understanding the NT texts.

I fear that Bockmuehl will mostly find cheers among evangelicals and conservative catholics (and a few ‘tweeners).  Perhaps I can be optimistic knowing that he is part of a new circle (who promote “theological interpretation”, whatever that means) such as Richard Hays, Walter Moberly, Francis Watson, Beverly Gaventa, Steven Fowl, and Joel Green who are respected in both Evangelicalism (maybe not Watson) and in the wider academy.

If you have not picked up this book - I suggest you at least borrow a copy.  Let me warn you - you will be ashamed of both how you do NT studies and what your methodological tells are.  Bockmuehl everywhere exposes the pathetic shortcuts scholars take in their research.  Be prepared for an academic audit.  Also, it is not an easy read.  He very casually spouts out idioms and references to scholars, books, movements, groups and methods that I have never heard of.  It seems his book, in one sense, is a closed conversation for those that know the history of interpretation of the NT quite well and a broad range of hermeneutical approaches and terms.  I turned to the internet for more information and ‘background’ on a number of occasions.  Yet, Bockmuehl is one of the most elegant (perhaps even magisterial) NT authors I know.  He is a model to scholars in NT.  His knowledge of scholarship past (both near past and far past) and present is outstanding and unmatched even by scholars decades older than him.  This book seems like something read aloud at SNTS to a response of thunderous applause and also some ‘humpfs’ and sneers.  All in all, it is not easy reading, but a book I think that will continue to resurface in the guild as conversations continue about where we are going in the discipline.