The most fundamental and historical inquiry into Pauline studies in the 20th century
Why and how did we come to understand Paul as we do today?
The thread of Pauline interpretation unraveled by the greatest contemporary Pauline scholar.

Paul and His Interpreters was a book that had a great influence on 20th century Pauline studies by E.
N. P. Sanders, James Dunn, Lewis Martin, Wayne Meeks, Douglas Campbell and many other scholars have contributed.
This book contains criticisms and opinions presented by T. Wright.
By surveying several scholars who have studied Paul, the most famous figure in Christian history, Wright provides a framework for understanding the currents of thought that continue to dominate the field, and he brilliantly paints a “big picture” that captures them.
Why did the portrait of Paul we encounter in theology come to be the way it is today, and how can we properly read Paul within the seemingly complex flow of Pauline interpretation, are questions that readers who seriously seek to read and interpret Paul will likely have.
This book provides a path for anyone with a passion to explore such questions.

All of this connects to the underlying argument of this book.
First, much of what underlies modern discussions of Paul can be traced back to a 19th-century movement that proposed a so-called new interpretation of Paul, one that portrayed him differently from what people had previously thought of him.
Second, the mainstream Pauline scholarship of the time launched a similar so-called historical resistance against the thinking that had dominated the 19th century.
At the center of all these trends is Bultmann.
It is no exaggeration to say that Bultmann summarized a trend that began in the 19th century in the mid-20th century and thereby raised questions for the 21st century.
The three main currents I will examine in turn (focusing on Sanders, Martin, and Meeks) are all responses to Bultmann, although in quite different ways.
Since these more recent trends are the subject of this book, we need to understand why they arose in the 19th century and why their legacy, which remained in the early 20th century, proved historically irrelevant by the end of the century.
---From "Chapter 1: Setting the Stage"

Certainly, the early 21st century faces challenges quite different from those faced by Schweitzer before World War I or Bultmann before World War II.
But in Europe and the United States, the traces of those terrible years still remain in cultural perceptions and ethical judgments, as well as in family memories. … The various crises facing democracy today, the clumsy short-term pragmatism in international politics, the breakdown of trust in many public spheres, the uncontrollable gap between rich and poor both within and between nations—all these and more—are the chaotic legacy of the culture in which the Pauline debates were formed and fought.
---From "Chapter 2 Theological Questions"

So what was the "problem" with the Law and Judaism as a whole, and how did Paul arrive at that analysis? Sanders answers that there was no problem with the Law or Judaism.
Except that Paul discovered that 'salvation' existed 'in Christ', and that since he received this gift by such means, he therefore concluded that the gift could not exist 'in Judaism'.
This is where Sanders' famous statement comes in.
Although this statement has received much criticism, it was intended as a summary for memorization.
'The mistake Paul found in Judaism was that Judaism was not Christianity.'
---From "Chapter 3: New Perspectives and Beyond"

So what, ultimately, is the problem with the post-Sanders view of justification? In so-called post-Reformation Protestantism, especially in much of American Protestantism, the word "justification," or "justification by grace through faith," has come to refer to everything people want to claim as the core of being a Christian—everything from conversion to final salvation.
For this reason, both the questions surrounding Paul's conversion (was it a 'conversion', or simply a 'call', or something else? And whatever it was, what impact did it have on Paul's theological formation?) and the questions surrounding the final judgment (what role, if any, do 'works' play?) have become very prominent.
Despite the existence of meticulous theological concepts that subdivide the "ordo salutis" encompassing some or all of predestination, election, foreknowledge, conversion, regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification, and salvation, for the majority of Christians in the Western Protestant tradition the meaning of the word "justification" and the expression "justification by faith or grace" has been overextended, becoming a shorthand for "conversion" on the one hand and "salvation" on the other.
---From Chapter 5, "Is Older Better?"

Simply put, old analyses are highly misleading.
‘Apocalypse’ is not ‘dualistic’ in itself.
So to speak, it may or may not be so.
But the fact that some documents contain signs of a genre we might call 'apocalyptic' does not in itself suggest dualism.
Of course, it all depends on what you mean by 'dualism'.
I have previously listed at least ten meanings attributed to the word in modern writings on ancient Judaism, and our discussion would collapse if we did not demand clarity at this point.
Indeed, the hope of resurrection and new creation, so clearly expressed in some apocalyptic literature, points to the idea that the present world should be renewed, not discarded.
---From "Chapter 6: The Strange Career of 'Revelation'"

I have argued elsewhere that Paul was truly an 'apocalyptic' theologian.
In other words, Paul was a theologian who believed that God had done something radically new by sending the Messiah Jesus and by his death and resurrection, giving a fresh gift of grace, and that by doing so, the Messiah Jesus had liberated Israel from their troubles and the world from the power of evil.
But as Paul again argues, this was the original purpose of God's covenant with Israel.
This is the destination that the strange, dark, and non-immanent history of salvation has been heading towards from the beginning.
As commentators, we must challenge modern distortions by advocating for authentic historical interpretations.
So I think de Boer's historical proposal is not only unsupported, but also improbable given the difficulties de Boer himself focused on, and certainly cannot bear the weight that Martin later placed on him.
While Martin's disciples have made notable contributions in many areas, it is unclear whether the superstructure of a building can ever be more secure than its foundation.
---From Chapter 8, "The 'Union School'? De Boer and Martin"

Although justification is mentioned occasionally in the Qumran texts and the Psalms of Solomon, the theme of justification does not play the prominent role it does in Romans and Galatians.
At this point, you can ask a question.
'Why did Paul mobilize this relatively rare topic from Judaism? And why did he give it such unprecedented prominence?' Schweitzer and Wrede answered, 'Because it deals with a completely new topic (on which Campbell's book is curiously almost silent)—the incorporation of Gentiles into the people of God.'
The 'justification theory' answered that 'human sin was so serious and the Jewish solution so inadequate that God had to provide another way.'
---From "Chapter 9: An Apocalyptic Reinterpretation of Romans? Douglas Campbell"

In fact, the early Christians practiced rituals that bound them to one another and to the Lord they worshipped.
This concept of 'binding' was one of the meanings that 'religion' could have in the world at that time.
I have discussed this point in more detail elsewhere.
However, Judge is right to emphasize that the early Christians were a learning community, and the anachronism of the word "scholastic" should not obscure the historical reality to which he draws attention.
So he raised a legitimate question.
It is clear that in the context of the time, the image of the early Christians did not exactly fit with the 'religion' of the time.
(Moreover, the picture of the early Christians does not quite fit what 'religion' means to most people of our time.) Gaining that kind of critical distance is precisely the point of social scientific research.

---From "Chapter 10 Social History and Paul's Community"

So what hasn't Mix done with regard to his interpretation of Paul? First, he hasn't advanced his theological insights much.
A look at his paper reveals many suggestive passages that raise questions along other lines that are worth exploring.
However, his energies were directed more towards the ethical than the theological aspects of the early Christian world.
He presented four models of 'problems and solutions' in the Pauline letters, but did not try to pit these models against each other, as is usually the practice in Pauline scholarship.
Nor is there any attempt to show, theologically or sociologically, that these models can be components of a larger, coherent system.
I think he missed a good opportunity at that point.
As I have argued elsewhere, a Pauline reworking of what might be called a "covenant" theology would harmoniously combine different models, and it would do so with clarity within the social and cultural world.
---From Chapter 11, Social Research, Social Ethics: Mix and Horrell

Most philosophers who discuss Paul today would not accept his views on the resurrection, for example, and many scholars would not believe in the existence of a god, whether the god Paul wrote about or another god.
But in principle, it is taken for granted that thinkers from the distant past could have had something to say about the issues we raise today.
It is now common to acknowledge that ancient thinkers were a treasure trove of wisdom.
If publishers believe it's worthwhile to publish new studies of Epictetus and other scholars of Paul's time, and if they believe that these books will help people move beyond studying the ancient world to exploring the modern one, it's perhaps only natural that those seeking meaning and hope, and a way forward from the social, cultural, and political dilemmas of the modern world, will also turn to the apostle Paul.

---From "Chapter 12 Paul in the Marketplace: In a Broader Context?"