I picked up Douglas Campbell’s The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Eerdmans, 2009) from the college library yesterday, intending to read through much/most of it. I have skimmed bits and pieces of it before — after all, who has time to work through all 1,200 + pages? Well, I’m sure some of you dedicated academics do! But as of this afternoon, after skimming through a few more chapters, I gave up again. I have decided (for now) to spare myself a month’s worth of free time and to settle for reading a couple of published review articles on it instead. So, I started with Barry Matlock’s and will shortly get to Grant Macaskill’s. Both are published in JSNT 34.2 (2011). I have to say, for a quite wordy 35-or-so-page book review, Matlock’s article is thoroughly entertaining. I found myself grinning repeatedly throughout, especially as he critiqued Campbell’s caricature of “Justification theory.” Here is how Matlock summarizes his comments on Campbell’s portrait of Justification theory:
It is the most elaborately constructed straw man I have ever witnessed, and to watch Campbell parry and thrust with it across hundreds of sprawling pages is a singular and uncanny spectacle (137).
Ouch!!!
Dunelm Road 
Sunday, 4 November 2012 at 1:48 am
Regarding the strawman argument of Matlock, Schreiner in his review of Deliverance (Bulletin for Biblical Research 20.2 (2010): 289-90) says:-
‘What Campbell identifies as justification theory matches to a significant degree the view of most Protestants, especially Evangelicals, though it has considerable roots in Catholic tradition as well.’
He continues:-
‘Campbell admits that justification theory is a formidable opponent. It has stood the test of time. Despite Campbell’s qualifications, it seems that Luther and Calvin basically espoused a form of what Campbell calls justification theory. It should immediately be said, however, that Campbell’s own summary of the theory is questionable at some points. Hence, his summary does not necessarily match the view of stalwarts such as Luther and Calvin. Indeed, Campbell questions whether Luther is really a proponent of justification theory because some of his statements can be interpreted in terms of another paradigm. It seems just as plausible, however, that Luther, contrary to Campbell, saw no tension between his theology of justification and new life in the Spirit.’
He concludes with:-
‘All of us can learn from reading Campbell, but I suspect that what he calls justification theory will long outlast his own reading of Paul.’
It seems to me that although Schreiner would modify the theoretical description of JT at some points, he accepts it as being broadly representative of most Protestants, himself included…
Did he not get Matlock’s memo that Campbell has constructed a strawman? Maybe I’m misunderstanding Schreiner…
Sunday, 4 November 2012 at 8:23 pm
Yea, I’m with you, Dave (see also Moo’s review), I think the straw man argument is itself a straw man argument! To say JT does not accurately describe Luther etc., is also to misunderstand what JT is doing. You could always read my review published in JSPL! And don’t forget DC’s retort to BM and co in that volume.
Sunday, 4 November 2012 at 10:25 pm
Chris,
Thanks for reminding me to read Campbell’s rejoinder. Perhaps it is just me, but he succeeds in being much clearer (at times!) in that piece than he is (generally speaking) in the larger tome.
Sunday, 4 November 2012 at 11:15 pm
Yes, I know what you mean. I think it has clarified much for folk. Next year will be editing a collection of essays in a book called Beyond Old and New perspective on Paul, on Campbell’s work. Hopefully some of that will be enjoyable for you!
Tuesday, 6 November 2012 at 3:50 am
Although I don’t agree with a whole lot of it, Matlock’s review was one of the more entertaining book reviews I have read.
I agree that Campbell’s rejoinder was a step forward and also the lectures from conference Chris hosted in London can be downloaded (see below). In the lectures, Campbell does a good job of explaining his overall project, and as Chris recognizes this is where many get tripped up.
http://www.gci.org/media/paulconf2011
Wednesday, 12 February 2014 at 4:29 pm
[…] […]