I had a meeting today with John Barclay to get his thoughts on my BNTS paper on ‘glory’ in Romans. He had some good comments about methodology the difference between doing a ‘concept’ study vs. a ‘word’ study. See, James Barr’s, The Semantics of Biblical Language (who is critical of Kittel’s naive biblical theology in TDNT)–he argues that meanings are more tied up in sentences rather than words themselves. The distinction then for me was that the section of my paper that deals with the generic concept of giving glory to God really falls under a larger concept heading of giving honor to God, praising God, etc., which is not that unique. The unique piece is the more loaded aspects where there is an ontological status that is tied up. For example, in Rom 3.23: ‘All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.’ So that just means that I rearrange the sections a little and set up the distinction, but otherwise the content will stay the same.
The more important aspect is that he only asked for clarification of some of my language and that I convinced him that immortality is closely linked to glory. After seeing his critique of others when they have weaker arguments, I was expecting something like that, but the case does seem fairly straight forward. Once I clean it up some more, I’ll post sections for your feedback.