becoming

Tom Wright & James Dunn on The New Perspective on Paul:

[link: St John’s Nottingham @YouTube]

In response to Simon Gathercole’s recent article on CT, Scot Mcknight has started a series to introduce the NPP (New Perspective on Paul) to common readers.

NPP, according to Scot, is “The most significant development, outside of historical Jesus studies, in biblical studies in the last 50 years.”

Be sure to read them all.

————————–

Update (Aug 10 2007): Gathercole’s article is now online. [HT: Mark Goodacre]

雖然不算是整體生活的回顧，但至少在blog和網絡之中，我會記下這些：

1. 講授加拉太書的主日學讓我深入反省NPP對了解保羅思路的貢獻。我相信，保羅的聖靈論和教會論將成為兩個纏繞我一生的題目。
2. 參加了全年唯一一個自己選擇參加的Conference — Ray Vanderlaan 的Walk As Jesus Walked。對他的熱衷和Dynamic，有很深的體會。但始終還是不太攪得通他對猶太文化的重視和保羅那種「十架後」的舊約詮釋，可怎樣接軌。
3. 坐在food-court裡，面對著一大群中學生剛剛放食飯，令我想到關於「反霸權」到「成為霸權」的事。
4. 面對著很多信徒馬虎的事奉表現，我（有點氣憤地）寫下：「不是一個人的」。
5. 意外地，竟然中獎！
6. 開始（並於十月完成）《釋我傷痕》的耶利米哀歌的系列講道。不管別人的評價怎樣，我總覺得這是一個「不講，便會遺憾一世」的題目。
7. 好友Charis和Anson的小女兒Alethia出世！
8. 一張假的十蚊紙，引發我對試探的思考。
9. 寫了一篇題為「無名火」的post，但因引起家人和朋友的不安，所以刪出了那篇，留下另一篇無關痛癢的。
10. 亦因如此，同月，開始另一個Blog，將或會引起不安的反省在另一處地方留下。
11. 看了Karen日見成熟的反省，有感而發的也來「論安逸」。
12. 七一周末，我選擇帶女兒去了Canada Day慶祝（Instead of 香港回歸十週年）。事後，有感這是一種有意識的身份宣示行動。
13. Jocelyn開始返學。
14. 作迦南團契的retreat講員。這次機會讓我對自己日後所要傳的信息有了很清楚的領受。
15. 讀侵華老兵金子安次的傳記，帶來了很久不能平復的震撼。
16. 估不到引文「失去了解的落差」，成為目前為止，引起最多迴響的post。就連原作者張小鳴也來湊熱鬧！
17. 寫了blog內第一篇Politics類的post，是關於莊德利在「三十天內的政治自殺」。
18. 在眾聖日，寫下了一直沒有機會寫下對楊牧谷牧師的追憶。真的，對他，我未敢忘懷。
19. 從女兒的一句「媽咪呢？」，我體會到思念，從來就不容易。
20. 延續「不是一個人的」，再寫了「天才•恩賜•奮進」，算是我對「老油條信徒」的解讀和抗議。

2006 Highlights
2005 Highlights

No one was able to give me any pointers on good marketing and advertising books. Anyhow, I have already picked up Unstuck and The Elements of Persuasion, and I am enjoying the read very much.

Anyhow, here is my latest amazon order:

1. The New Interpreter’s Bible : Acts – First Corinthians (Volume 10)
• I really enjoyed Hays’ volume on Galatians from the same series. The format and discussions are to-the-point and relevant. I think it is time for me to engage in Wright’s commentary on Romans. I just have too many questions to ask!
2. The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective
• Michael Bird is our veteran biblioblogger, and looking at the endorsements, it sounds too good to be true. I think if there is any sane critique on NPP, this has to be it.
3. Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire
• Keesmaat studied under Wright, and Walsh, a friend him, was my professor on Postmodernity and Christian engagement. Can you imagine that they had been writing this book ever since I studied at Wycliffe!
4. Contours of Pauline Theology: A Radical New Survey of the Influences on Pauls Biblical Writings
• Holland put strong emphasis on understanding Paul through OT, with the hoped-for New Exodus, now fulfilled in Christ, at the center of his reading strategy.
5. Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Gospel
6. Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Faith
• 2 of Goldingay’s 3-vol magnum opus, using the narrative approach to understanding Israel’s story.

Michael Bird of Euangelion has a new book coming out called The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2007). Looking at the endorsements from all camps, it seems to be a very interesting read, especially for those who are so confused about what NPP (and its criticisms) is all about.

Also, as mentioned before, Gordon Fee's Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study is out as well (sample chapter here). A must-read!

NT Wright talks about his new book Simply Christian.

Here is the lecture online!
Broadband | Dial-up

——————————

I am quite sad about people simply discard Wright's contribution in Pauline theology and Christian faith in general when what he said is not in total accord with someone else's theology on Paul, or just what Christian faith is all about. When I heard people talking about the Emerging church movement, his name is always attached (I think, for the wrong reason) in the conversation with introduction like "Do you know this Tom Wright guy? He basically saying we have it all wrong and he tries to redefine n! (feel free to substitute n with anything foundational in your belief). And then the hour-long criticism on him and the whole NPP will normally ended with phrase like "I think they just got it all wrong."

I don't know, but isn't that obvious that one doesn't have to be in total accord with someone's views on EVERYTHING in order to appreciate the signficiant contributions one brings to further the discussion on any subject? When one is criticizing Wright and other NPP writers on their views against the reformers and their focus on the whole concept of semper reformanda, do they not in actuality affirm the accusation made against them?

No, I just find it hard to understand when someone discuss any piece of text, idea or research without understanding the context of where it is coming from. It is just a puzzle to me when we are talking about a discipline that itself is all so focus on context and background.