Ardel Caneday has a blog on Romans called CrossTalk which presents a fairly rigorous examination of the epistle. Highlights so far have included discussion of the ‘righteousness of God’ and arguments for a subjective genitive reading of pistis christou. Well worth reading. I look forward to hearing what he has to say about Romans 4.25!
Caneday (not pronounced Candy, so I’m told) has also written a good book with Thomas Schreiner on perseverance (The Race Set Before Us) and several interesting articles, the best one’s I’ve read have been in TrinJ and BBR. His interests, as far as I can tell, are the Gospel of Mark and Paul which are incidentally for many of my interests too. He is also known to my ‘virtual’ friend Josh Jipp.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It seems not so much "new" as "new to me"- since he has month's of archival materials. And his latest post is from *gasp!* over a month ago! You can well imagine how this came as a great shock to me. And he doesn't seem to take cognizance of any biblioblog (not, of course, that he is required to- far be it!). I mean really, he doesn't even mention Goodacre. How can anyone not know, or mention, Mark? Appalling. I'll trust you to keep an eye on him and if he posts anything of interest to let us all know.
;-)
Yes, I meant "new to me"!
Take 4:
Hi Mike!
Okay, here am I thoughts. Finally.
1) "Justified by Christ's Resurrection" looks to me like a superb paper but I'm not sure that it fits the purpose of the book (to provide a via media ...) tightly enough. In it you make some fascinating comments, and I would think that some of the thoughts could be more appropriately developed in greater detail elsewhere.
2) "Incorporated Righteousness" is perhaps my favourite of the four. However, this subject is more, as you say in the introduction, a controversy "prompted by the New Perspective". Besides, bearing in mind the via media motif, while I admire your ecumenical motives, I'm not sure that speaking of "incorporated righteousness" will satisfy those who continue to insist that they see an "imputed righteousness" in the texts. But a very engaging paper - and I totally agree with your thesis, one I've been working to myself from a rather different angel.
3) So for me it comes to a toss up between "When the Dust Finally Settles" and "Justification as Forensic Declaration and Covenant". It's a difficult one, and I like the crispness of the former, and its conclusion - particularly the last paragraph about Bultmann and Wright - was inspired! However, your argument in the latter is not only profoundly related to the purpose of your book, but also more detailed and rigorous than the former.
Therefore, if I had the choice I guess I would go for "Justification as Forensic Declaration and Covenant", but it is honestly a difficult decision!
I hope this helps Mike, and thanks for sending these papers to me -- I really enjoyed them. If you write anything in the near future on the NPP, then I would love it if you could send it my way.
I am interested to see that you're engaging with Hurtado's "Lord Jesus Christ" at the moment on your blog. This is the book that inspired my doctoral studies, and it takes pride of place in my history of research - even if I end up taking issue with his strategy - though not his conclusions regarding Paul's divine Christology.
A very happy new year to you,
Chris
Post a Comment