{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030373831775700934, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02369826435246996, 'mean_word_length': 4.958250497017892, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Constructive Conversations on Differing Pauline Perspectives

Pauline studies are in a state of flux. Viewpoints are legion, perspectives are polarised, scholars align with specific parties. The result of this fracturing is that members of separate groups often speak only to those who share the same perspective. Literature is produced that reinforces those almost sectarian positions, and there is a refusal to accept arguments that arise among those who identify with other sectors of scholarship on Paul. This volume, however, offers something new. It dares to attempt to cut through the hermetically sealed factions. It seeks to present genuine conversation in order to break new ground and to learn from the best insights regardless of where they find their origin. The volume offers five perspectives on Paul. In turn these are the Roman Catholic Perspective described by Brant Pitre (pp. 25-55), the Traditional Protestant Perspective mapped out by A. Andrew Das (pp. 83-106), the New Perspective by James D.G. Dunn (pp. 133-145), the Paul within Judaism Perspective by Magnus Zetterholm (pp. 171-193), and the Gift Perspective outlined by its proponent John M.G. Barclay (pp. 219-236). Each essay is followed by a brief response from the four other contributors and then rounded off with a response from the author of the essay in each section. While this format is not totally new, it is deployed with great effect in this discussion and does help clarify the issues at stake while at times productively advancing the debate. In the first section on the Catholic Perspective, Pitre skilfully sets out various parallels between tradition Catholic understandings of Paul and the way in which E.P. Sanders maps out the pattern of Paul’s religion. Among the respondents the greatest tension is found with Das. Here it appears that the scaffolding that surrounds the traditional Protestant views of Paul especially in regard to soteriology cannot easily accommodate Roman Catholic descriptions of the role that works or deeds might play in the life of believers after initial justification. In this respect both Das and Dunn call into question whether Pitre has placed sufficient emphasis on Paul’s understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit enabling a transformed mode of being expressed through good works. Next, Das presents the ‘Traditional Protestant Perspective on Paul’ (pp. 83-106). His starting point is to lay out three axiomatic aspects of this perspective. These are that, ‘(1) Second Temple Judaism adhered to a religion of works righteousness and legalism; (2) Paul, in response, emphasized God’s free grace over against human works; (3) that emphasis on sheer grace exclusive of works is characteristic of God’s saving, justifying activity’ (p. 83). Das states that although he is ‘representing’ the traditional Protestant position, he is ‘largely convinced by Constructive Conversations on Differing Pauline Perspectives 994390 EXT0010.1177/0014524621994390 book-review2021