{"id":39045,"date":"2020-11-24T15:15:00","date_gmt":"2020-11-24T15:15:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cupblog.bluefusesystems.com\/?p=39045"},"modified":"2020-11-27T16:02:20","modified_gmt":"2020-11-27T16:02:20","slug":"does-wright-get-paul-on-israel-right-continued-debate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/2020\/11\/24\/does-wright-get-paul-on-israel-right-continued-debate\/","title":{"rendered":"Does Wright Get Paul on Israel Right? Continued Debate"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

Jews and Christians are both united and divided by the parts of the Bible that they hold in common. Many see Paul\u2019s innovative, at times \u201ccounter\u201d readings of the Hebrew Bible as standing at the beginning of the process that led to the eventual separation between rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity. This has also renewed debates about Paul\u2019s precise view of his fellow Jews, the bulk of whom did not accept Jesus as the Messiah.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Joel Kaminsky and Mark Reasoner, \u201cThe Meaning and Telos of Israel\u2019s Election: An Interfaith Response to N. T. Wright\u2019s Reading of Paul,\u201d<\/a> HTR 112 (2019) 421\u2013446<\/em>, the authors review and critically assess N. T. Wright\u2019s influential studies on Paul, focusing on questions surrounding the status of the Jewish people in Paul\u2019s thinking. In contrast to other New Perspective scholars, Wright claims that Paul envisions God\u2019s promises to the historic people of Israel, that is the Jewish people, as wholly transferred to those who affirm Jesus as the Messiah.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Michael Bird\u2019s essay \u201cN. T. Wright and Paul\u2019s Supersessionism: A Response to Kaminsky and Reasoner,\u201d<\/a> HTR<\/em> 113:4 (2020) 498\u2013512<\/em> provides a thoughtful and trenchant critique of Kaminsky and Reasoner\u2019s 2019 essay, in particular arguing that many of Kaminsky and Reasoner\u2019s criticisms inaccurately represent Wright\u2019s views, defending a missional perspective of Israel\u2019s election, and offering some final thoughts about Wright and Jewish-Christian relations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In turn the essay by Joel Kaminsky and Mark Reasoner, \u201cIn Quest of a Coherent Portrait of Paul: A Rejoinder to Michael Bird,\u201d <\/a>HTR 113:4 (2020) 513\u2013527<\/em> responds to Bird\u2019s critiques and also seeks to clarify and bolster several arguments they\u2014as a Jew and a Christian\u2014made in their original 2019 article critiquing Wright.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Until 31st December 2020 enjoy free access to each of the articles from Harvard Theological Review<\/a><\/em> mentioned in this blog post.<\/p>Joel Kaminsky and Mark Reasoner, \u201cThe Meaning and Telos of Israel\u2019s Election: An Interfaith Response to N. T. Wright\u2019s Reading of Paul,\u201d<\/a> HTR 112 (2019) 421\u2013446

Michael Bird, \u201cN. T. Wright and Paul\u2019s Supersessionism: A Response to Kaminsky and Reasoner,\u201d<\/a> HTR 113:4 (2020) 498\u2013512

Joel Kaminsky and Mark Reasoner, \u201cIn Quest of a Coherent Portrait of Paul: A Rejoinder to Michael Bird,\u201d<\/a> HTR 113:4 (2020) 513\u2013527<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jews and Christians are both united and divided by the parts of the Bible that they hold in common. Many see Paul\u2019s innovative, at times \u201ccounter\u201d readings of the Hebrew Bible as standing at the beginning of the process that led to the eventual separation between rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity. This has also renewed […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":800,"featured_media":39085,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,372],"tags":[1130],"coauthors":[8211],"class_list":["post-39045","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-humanities","category-religious-studies-humanities","tag-harvard-theological-review"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39045","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/800"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39045"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39045\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39120,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39045\/revisions\/39120"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/39085"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39045"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39045"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39045"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=39045"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}