So where should one go for a primer on Pauline Apocalyptic, a concise description and a balanced account of the differing views?
Well Scot McKnight is usually a reliable guide, he says,
First, the primary word is “apocalyptic” but this term is not being defined by Jewish apocalypses so much as it is almost equivalent to a cosmic, universalist redemption that has now invaded the world in Christ (the old age is shattered by the new age). Apocalyptic is associated closely with soteriology, cosmic soteriology, in this reading. God’s acting in history is heavily emphasized; the divine action is at the core of the apocalyptic Paul. It is all played on the cosmic stage in grand categories — almost abstractions.Thomas Bridges feels that Pauline Apocalyptic has the power to deliniate the all encomapassing cosmic scope of the gospel,
In a sense, the Pauline gospel contextualizes us, rather than vice-versa. But it is extremely important to note, however, that the highly contextual nature of Paul’s writings also shows that the good news inhabits and transforms multiple cultural sites in various ways, rather than calling everyone from his or her culture to a single, all-encompassing culture.
Andrew Perriman has a nine point outline too long to reproduce here which is intended to be,
I would argue—but of course, I have argued—that the theological content of Romans becomes remarkably lucid and coherent once a consistent ‘apocalyptic’ narrative is brought into view. This forward-looking narrative, which should be construed quite realistically and biblically—we might say politically and prophetically—provides the magnetic field that brings the central concepts of wrath, gospel, faith(fulness), justification, salvation, suffering, etc., into meaningful alignment and keeps them from being exploited or deformed by extrinsic theological concerns.
Andrew Wilson kindly provides a summary of a 2014 pre SBL session featuring the big guns of PA. Most notable is that the final contributor, the venerable Barclay is remembered as saying,
Eight different definitions of apocalyptic have been used this afternoon, and that’s because it’s a label we’ve invented to identify things we regard in a certain way.
And just when I think I am starting to get a handle on it Chris Tilling gives a lovely four point definition which seems to only describe good exegesis (IMHO) and have little to do with any of the above!?
So is "Apocalyptic" a helpful term? Well presumably it is or the scholars wouldn't use it, but it seems hard to me to have a fight over new perspective versus apocalyptic or narrative historical versus apocalyptic, e.g., when there is so much fighting about what apocalyptic actually is. Can a house divided against itself stand?
Well Peter Leithart seems to think that that is not the point anyway. Pauline Apocalyptic is just a part of a wider Apocalyptic discussion which represents the age old clash between Greek and Hebrew theologies:
Jenson argues that “The two theologies are contrary; the debate between them has been greatly fruitful, but it is a debate. The one is wisdom about a God whose eternity is perpendicular to time and the other is wisdom about a God whose eternity both embraces and is involved in time” (161). If that’s true, then whatever the fruits of apocalyptic theology, it cannot be all that we can or should say about God, for the Christian God’s “interventions” are always entries into a world that already lives, moves, and has its being in Him.
So that clears everything up!
Book suggestions I have picked up on my trawl through the blogs:Apocalyptic and the Future of Theology: With and Beyond J. Louis Martyn (Cascade, 2012)
Douglas Harink Paul Among the Postliberals (W&S, 2013)
Bev Gaventa (ed.), The Apocalyptic Paul: Cosmos and Anthropos in Romans 5-8 (Baylor University Press).
So any recommendations, blogs or books I have missed?