I found this link to the Jesus Creed blog which brings N.T. Wright into the discussion with Douglas Campbell and others.
I link to it for two reasons. First, it puts J.C. Beker in a line of thinkers about Paul leading up to Douglas Campbell. Second, Douglas Campbell is very active in the comments and makes some clarifications.
Scot McKnight says this at the end:
In a footnote on the following page Wright asks “Does ‘apocalyptic,’ after all, now simply mean ‘Augustinian’?” Indeed, I have wondered that myself.
Is then, we ask, the debate between the new and the old redivivus in a new costume? Has the old been cosmologized and de-individualized and the God of grace replaced the old God? Is it not an irony to now ask Is it not the old God who alone can sit in judgment on evil?
I frankly don’t understand this. “Old God” and “New God”? That was the heretic, Marcion. I don’t see anybody going that far in this debate.
Augustine influenced Romans interpretation by his (mis)interpretation of Romans 5:12 in terms of original sin. That theology is probably behind the Young Earth Creationist insistence that Adam is a historical figure and that death of any kind could not have happened before Adam. My reading of , at least, Beker has Romans 8 and the subjection of creation to decay or futility as having more to do with an actual ontology than Romans 5 where Adam is just a “type”.
Is McKnight or Wright claiming that the Apocalyptic Perspective is just a new kind of Augustinian theology, that it has just “cosmologized” original sin? What would be an alternative reading that is neither individualist nor cosmological?
I have begun to avoid the term “apocalyptic” unless I am talking about the genre of literature. Nowadays the word pretty much means catastrophic as in post-apocalyptic Sci/Fi. But that is not what the Apocalyptic Perspective on Paul is about at all.