Paul's New Perspective: Charting a Soteriological Journey by Garwood P. Anderson

Abstract

Reviewed by: Paul's New Perspective: Charting a Soteriological Journey by Garwood P. Anderson John Gillman garwood p. anderson, Paul's New Perspective: Charting a Soteriological Journey (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016). Pp. xvi + 439. $45. On the faculty at Nashotah House, a seminary in the Anglo-Catholic tradition, Anderson offers a learned and balanced analysis of the old and new Pauline perspectives, staking his cogently argued claim among the post-new camp. Portraying himself as a peacemaker among the oft-acrimonious polemics engaged in by defenders on both sides of the old/new divide, A. argues for a middle ground, a both/and rather than an either/or approach. He avers, mantralike, that nearly every oppositional voice is right though not at the same time. In the first five chapters A. lays out the prolegomena to the next three chapters where he articulates his thesis of Paul's progressive theological development. In the first chapter, A. rehearses and critiques the main proponents of the New Perspective (Krister Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles, and Other Essays [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976]; E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977]; James D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul [rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008]; and N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God [2 vols.; Christian Origins and the Question of God 4; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005]) and then in chap. 2 examines three battleground passages (Phil 3:1-11; Rom 3:2–4:8; Eph 2:1-22). In the third chapter A. builds on insights from post–New Perspective commentators (e.g., Michael Bird and John Barkley) and takes something from each pole of five antinomies (e.g., justification: imputation or participatory?) to set the stage for his developmental hypothesis (chap. 4). In grappling with the vexing interpretation of pistis Christou, A. opts for neither the objective nor subjective reading but rather a third way, which he translates rather generically as "Christ-faith." But then, one wonders what does this expression really mean? [End Page 725] Regarding chronology, A. argues for the southern Galatian theory and thus positions Galatians as Paul's earliest letter (ca. 49 c.e.), followed by the Thessalonian and Corinthian correspondence, then Romans and Philippians. Along with a growing minority of scholars, A. defends the Pauline authorship of Colossians and Ephesians as well as the Pastorals, which he refers to collectively as Paul's "second corpus." In chaps. 6 and 7, A. explores the "markers" of Paul's itinerary. In his earlier letters Paul used "works of the law" (referring to all that the law requires) and, in his later letters (e.g., Ephesians), "works" (referring to human actions), with Romans including both. With "charis," A. remarks that there is a development in use from the nuance of "gift" to "grace" (as opposed to works). And "justification" (a forensic notion), which figures prominently in Galatians and Romans, gives way to "salvation" (a religious term) and "reconciliation." According to A., justification, more a tributary to the larger theme of salvation, has carried more weight than it merits in Pauline studies, while, until recently (see, e.g., Wright's, Paul and the Faithfulness of God) reconciliation has not received the attention it deserves. In an effort to confirm Paul's developmental, theological itinerary, A. reprises his analysis of Galatians and Romans, written about seven years apart if one accepts his chronology. In spite of their many apparent similarities, A. calls these letters "false friends," arguing that, although they both work with common Scripture passages and the figure of Abraham, they do so very differently (chap. 8). In the conclusion, A. asserts that, contrary to the traditional "Lutheran" interpretation, justification is not the center of Paul's soteriology; rather, "the central and integrative fulcrum" (center?) of Pauline soteriology is union with Christ (p. 384). Here, there seems to be a development in A.'s own thinking, where he discloses "being highly suspicious of the whole notion of a center in the first place" (p. 10). While there is much to commend in A's analysis, a number of critical comments can be made. First, regarding the organization of the...