1
Thank you for submitting your review to the committee for evaluation. We peer
review reviews because in our view their standard has been slipping of late. Our
editorial policy regarding reviews is as follows:
1. The review should at some point provide an accurate description of the
reviewee’s position. Readers of your review ought to be able to walk away with a
fair idea of what the author is trying to say.
2. We are quite happy for reviewers to state their own positions at some point,
provided they have fulfilled their principal task enumerated under point one
above, and abide by the following constraints. Any criticisms of the reviewee’s
position ought to be based on an accurate reading of the reviewee. Otherwise of
course any criticisms will be misdirected and invalid. Criticisms ought also, for the
same reasons, to be cogent in their own right. We encourage reviewers to make
criticisms from the same point of view, i.e., not contradict themselves when they
make their criticisms. And finally we encourage reviewers to avoid assertion. If a
strong criticism is made then it ought to be supported by a piece of evidence or an
argument, however small. We appreciate that reviews impose constraints of length
upon reviewers. But there is insufficient space to sustain mere assertion, which is
academically worthless.
It might be worth noting that the foregoing is standard academic practice. But it is
also consistent with the Christian tradition’s frequent emphases on truth-telling
and interpretative charity, and warnings against bearing false witness. We
therefore especially enjoin these practices on those who advocate a “biblical”
stance in general out of concern that reviews failing to abide by these principles
will undermine and embarrass this advocacy, and result in perceptions of
hypocrisy (cf. Rom. 3:24; 1 Cor. 6:2-6).
We have evaluated your review in accordance with this policy. Please note the
following editorial comments [enclosed in square brackets in Times New Roman and coloured
red], and final evaluation, grade, and decision concerning publication.
2
You have submitted a review on:
Douglas Atchison Campbell. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of
[The committee suggests including the full title of the book in the title of your review]. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. xxx + 1,248 pp. £33.99/$60.00.
To my knowledge, there is nothing that quite matches this massive tour de force.
To be sure, Campbell takes up many of the elements of Paul’s thought that have
been the subject of debate, past and present, regularly affirming revisionist
positions [You mention the “faith of Christ” position momentarily, implying it is revisionist. This was
the translation of the disputed phrases by the AV, so the committee wonders if you are quite right to
imply what you do here]. The “faith of Christ” is Christ’s faith and faithfulness, and
likewise the manifestation of God’s righteousness (Tom Wright) [This is incorrect.
Campbell explicitly breaks with Wright’s reading of the righteousness of God and endorses one quite
close to your own—an interpretation informed by Ps 98 and divine kingship. The faithfulness of Christ
is the manifestation of God’s righteousness for him, properly interpreted, but for Wright the faithful
Christ is something a little different—the manifestation of God’s covenant faithfulness]. As the title
already suggests, “righteousness” and “justification” have to do with the saving
work of God, deliverance from the power of sin (as Käsemann, and many in his
wake rightly have insisted). Paul’s soteriology is fundamentally participationist, as
Deissmann, Schweitzer, and especially Wrede have claimed. Paul does not think in
introspective, individualistic terms (Krister Stendahl). Most of the questions that
have become part of academic debate make their appearance here. Campbell’s
work is set apart by his thorough-going dissatisfaction with virtually all the work
that has gone before him [This isn’t entirely fair and might create a false impression. He is
dissatisfied with all the previous work on Paul’s Justification texts, not on Paul in general]. No one
seems to measure up to his standards [He has high praise for J. L. Martyn, Richard Hays, and
E. P. Sanders. Perhaps you should mention this, although you will have to rephrase the claim that no one
measures up, because apparently these figures do for him]. Indeed, while he regards his work
in a sense as “deeply Protestant if not Lutheran” (p. 934), he also suggests that it
is “an important step in the recovery of the authentic and orthodox Pauline gospel”
(p. 935) [Your two comments seem at cross-purposes here. If no one measures up to his standards,
3
then he can’t recover something. Similarly, if he claims to be both Protestant and Lutheran in a certain
sense, then the same confusion obtains. Which point do you really want to make?]. Post tenebras
lux!
In exegetical terms it is Campbell’s rereading of Rom 1:18–3:20 that is of greatest
significance. The first section of this argument, Rom 1:18–32, is nothing other than
the position of a false teacher, which Paul proceeds to dismantle in what follows
(pp. 469–600). It is a novel interpretation, which ought perhaps to be considered
briefly [It isn’t a novel position. Almost all the major commentators affirm that the speaker of 2:1-4
has uttered the words of 1:18-32, and this is also suggested pretty directly by the text. Do you mean
something else then? If you do, you should say so]. But it is not likely to prevail [Campbell
provides a lot of analysis in support of this claim. In particular, he tabulates 56 problems in the
conventional reading. Should you mention this? And should you suggest how you might deal with them
so that you, rather than he, is likely to prevail?].
Beyond his clear appeal to rhetorical analysis and apocalyptic theology, it is
Campbell’s rejection of what he calls “Justification theory” (or sometimes
“Justification”) that drives his work. That “theory,” in brief, has to do with a God of
retributive justice, who condemns human beings for [You badly need to include a “not”
here] living up to the rational conclusions they can reach about the world around
them, even though as fallen human beings they are unable to do so. Salvation is
given on the condition of faith in Jesus, who paid off God for our sins, a condition
that in [Maybe include “some versions of” here, since this is actually what he says] Reformed
theology is inconsistently joined to election and divine sovereignty (pp. 11–95).
The main culprit is thus found within the Reformed tradition in “covenant
theology.” [Campbell never uses this phrase, and even seems quite explicitly to say the opposite, so
this claim of yours is deeply puzzling. He is worried about “contractual theology.” He is, following
James Torrance et al., very much in favor of “covenantal theology.” The editorial board is not quite sure
where you got this idea from—unless you think yourself that covenantal theology IS contractual
4
theology and vice versa. If so, you should make this clear. It would of course be a major claim in terms
of the tradition] Yet all Protestant theology seems more or less to share in this
“Justification theory.” [I don’t know that this claim is ever made. Campbell certainly suggests that
it is widespread. But he also seems to suggest that there is much in Protestantism that is not contractual]
Even Catholic thought, in so far as it shares in an Anselmian understanding of the
atonement as satisfaction, turns out to be defective. Rather than engaging the
traditions in depth, Campbell constructs a straw man with whom he then holds his
debate. His relatively brief discussion of Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, and
Augustine (pp. 247–83) does not deflect him from his critique of the model of
Protestant thought that he himself has constructed [You seem to have very much missed
the point here, and so misrepresented the book rather badly. Justification theory is premissed on a certain
reading of Romans 1-4, as the theory that is generated by this section of Paul’s argument as it is usually
construed. Campbell then looks quickly at various theological traditions to assess its spread, pointing out
that Luther et al. both perpetrate it at times and at times do not (fairly standard views that if you dissent
from you need to give some argument for). You have muddled things up very badly here, and despite
what the text seems to say clearly]. This abstract and artificial theological “debate” fatally
weakens his work [If your readers know the book at all well, they will think of glass houses at this
point!].
Errors in judgment unhappily abound. A single, fundamental problem may be
mentioned here. The “Justification model” that Campbell rejects “achieves its
soteriological pressure on individuals largely by arguing for the necessary prior
perception of a forensically retributive God” (p. 16). It is not at all clear that this
claim holds. Indeed, Luther’s reformational turn was precisely a rejection of a
covenant-theology that requires the human being to fulfill a minimal condition in
order to experience the otherwise overwhelming grace of God [You seem to have lost
track of the book’s argument well and truly by now. The model, as was said just above, is related to the
exegesis of Paul so it doesn’t matter if it holds in relation to Luther or not; this is completely beside the
point]. Admittedly, the Reformed thought generally takes a different structure, with
divine demand granted priority. But here, too, God’s grace and goodness more
5
than meet his demands. The real question at stake is whether it is biblical and
Pauline to speak of judgment and retributive justice in any form [You seem to be
getting increasingly confused. The real question at stake is not the one you have just supplied. It is
whether it is Pauline to speak of judgment and retribution in a prior foundational theological role.
Campbell is very clear about this. He is happy to speak of judgment in a posterior role].
According to Campbell’s alternative, we ought to speak instead of a benevolent
God who saves human beings without “coercive violence” by transforming them
through Jesus [This might confuse your readers. Campbell’s point is that God himself does not
inflict punitive violence on Christ to effect atonement. That Christ suffers violence and death is of
course both tragic and clear]. He finds this theology especially in Rom 5–8 (pp. 62–95,
931–36).
Several observations are in order. In the first place, one wonders what has
happened to the right of the Creator over the human creature living in contention
with him, as Käsemann rightly has underscored [Presumably Campbell would reply that
nothing has happened to it—nothing untoward that is]. Campbell somehow loses from view
the understanding that he himself later articulates, namely, that God’s wrath
expresses divine benevolence, the rejection of evil and the deliverance of those
oppressed by it (p. 930) [Again, your review seems muddled. If he later articulates these points,
then in what sense have they been lost from view? He seems happy to endorse these things consistently.
Perhaps then you should provide some evidence for your claim that something has been (temporarily)
lost sight of?]. “Sin” is present in this world only as it is embodied in human beings
and their deeds [Are you talking about your own position or Campbell’s here? On either view, this
sentence seems to have no point in your argument. (It does not remind the committee of the book’s
content.)]. The biblical, and consequently Christian expectation of a final judgment is
the hope for the rectification of all things [There is a worrying lack of Christology in this
statement. That there is a coming consummation and transformation seems a fair thing to claim, but
Campbell would agree with you about that, so what is the point of your statement? The review
6
committee is worried that so far this paragraph has not said anything relevant or even meaningful]. To
say that Protestant theology (in Campbell’s terms, “Justification”) can offer no
coherent protest in relation to the Holocaust (p. 206) is blatantly false [You have
switched terms up here a little dishonestly. Campbell’s claim is precisely that Justification theory can
offer no cogent protest, not that Protestant theology cannot. If you disagree with this claim then you
need to say why]. Quite the opposite: it is Campbell’s proposal of transformation
without judgment that fails the test [Campbell doesn’t propose transformation without
judgment. Where did you get this idea from?! He simply wants judgment to be conceived of in
christological terms. Presumably, as an advocate of orthodoxy, you would agree with this]. It is not
enough to hope that the perpetrators at Auschwitz should be transformed. There
has to be an accounting for their deeds. One can hardly read the Psalmists without
seeing their hope for vindication and justice. Paul has certainly done so, and richly
cites them, particularly in the catena of Rom 3:10–18 [This is a strange claim. The Psalms
that Paul cites in Romans 3 indict humanity without exception as sinful, placing those who hope
primarily for vindication and justice in an awkward position in your sentence]. The wonder of it all
is that God deigned in Christ to humble himself and become the victim of our
violence: the feet that are swift to shed blood, shed his blood (Rom 3:15, 25). In
Christ’s cross and resurrection, our violent rejection of both God and our neighbor
meet with judgment—and forgiveness. Indeed, there can be no forgiveness where
there is no judgment [I don’t think Campbell would disagree with any of this, unless you have
introduced a retributive connotation into your definition of justice here. So your claims seem to be a
little misleading. Campbell’s emphasis is consistently on transformation, not mere forgiveness, as you
seem to admit earlier on. So what exactly are you trying to suggest with this sort of claim? Are you
worried about things that someone else has said? If so, you should say so].
Similar criticisms might be directed to Campbell’s complaint about making “faith”
a condition of salvation: unless human beings are to be regarded as nothing more
than blocks of wood or stone, some accounting of human response to the Gospel
has to be rendered [There is an overt emphasis on human agency in responsive terms in Campbell,
rooted ultimately in Calvin, so this misrepresents Campbell’s position rather badly. Is your position that
7
unless humans have free will to choose then they are blocks of wood—in short, a modern Liberal
account of freedom? Perhaps you should say this. But, if so, then you also need to respond to the critique
of belief-voluntarism that Campbell utilizes, since you would be vulnerable to that]. Likewise,
Campbell’s attempt to do away with the individual dimension of Paul’s thought fails
from the start. A decided individualism, and unhealthy one at that, necessarily
must creep into his own transformationist views: all of us are transformed, but
some are more transformed than others [It’s a little hard to know where you’re going here.
The final claim seems odd in view of what precedes. That being said, Campbell invokes a trinitarian and
relational account of personhood that is personal but explicitly not "individual." So you need to do a bit
more work if you want to suggest that individualism is a necessary consequence of his transformational
position. Are you suggesting that trinitarianism necessarily leads to individualism? (Please say no
here.)].
It is truly a pity that this massive work, into which so much labor and intense study
obviously has been invested, should bear such fundamental flaws. One can only
admire Campbell’s effort and pray that in the future it might be crowned with
greater success [I’m sure that Campbell will be delighted to know that you are praying for him.
Doubtless he will reciprocate. But such pious remarks are a little risky. Given the tone of much of your
review, your readers might suspect you of insincerity at this point. They might also find this patronizing.
Most importantly, if your review has been inaccurate or unfair, they will find it odd that you pray for
someone’s success, while acting simultaneously in a way designed to undermine that. What sort of
prayers do you pray, they might ask?].
Mark A. Seifrid
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Louisville, Kentucky, USA
**************************
8
Dear Prof. Seifrid,
Now that the reviewers have returned your review marked up in this fashion, I must
inform you that it is unacceptable for publication in its present form. It is difficult to get
any sense of Campbell’s actual position from your remarks. Only someone familiar with
the book already would be able to separate your misreprentations from your correct
statements—which are remarkably few in number! So unfortunately you fail to meet
criterion one. The committee has been forced to award you a grade of D- for basic
content.
This inaccuracy continues into your attempted critique. Several times you seem to upbraid
Campbell for lacking positions that he actually holds—or at least says explicitly that he
does. A number of other criticisms that you make are based on mischaracterizations of the
book’s argument. At other moments the committee couldn’t tell what your concern was. I
don’t like to be this candid in a review of a review, but I have to ask you if you have read
the book right through. You quote mainly from the very beginning and the very end, and
seem not to have processed fairly major chunks of argument. You never mention the
engagements with Judaism, conversion, hermeneutical issues, modernity, revisionist
readings, or provenance—well over half the book’s content. At any rate, we suggest that
you reread the book rather more carefully before your next attempt to review it (and
include a bit more of the book in your review). A careless reading is after all no better than
no reading at all when it comes to a review.
Finally, a word of warning about the “straw man” argument. There are two problems here
that you might want to pay attention to.
If Campbell is just tilting at a straw man, so to speak, then you should leave things at that.
You can rest your case. He has just royally missed the point. But the sustained
misrepresentation and criticism in the rest of your piece suggest that you are actually
concerned if not a little threatened by much of what he says. Consequently these features
of your review tend to belie the plausibility of your straw man argument. Readers will
suspect that you don’t really think that Campbell is attacking a straw man; it is more a
9
case on your part of hoping that he is. This leads to a second, more serious potential
difficulty.
If you do not characterize his argument accurately—and at this point you do not—then
you run the risk of having Campbell run a straw man argument on you.
Campbell might say to you that you have constructed a straw man out of his contentions,
and have valiantly criticized a whole series of things that he does not say, and have
overlooked all the contentions that he does make. He might then go on to say that you
have therefore left yourself rather defenceless. In the face of all his challenges, you have
just gone off and railed about something else! So he will feel quite vindicated by this—by
a review that studiously misses the point. (Indeed, one is reminded a little at this point of
Campbell’s reading of Romans 1-3, where Paul cleverly catches a hypocritical teacher in
his own contentions, turning them on his own head from 2:1 onward.)
In view of all this the committee recommends that you rewrite your piece. The committee
suggests abandoning the straw man strategy (which leaves you looking vulnerable),
presenting Campbell’s arguments accurately, facing the challenges he makes squarely,
and coming up with some responses grounded in cogent evidence and argumentation.
This will be more useful to you, to your readers, and to Campbell himself. Certainly it will
do less damage to your scholarly reputation.
Good luck with your resubmission Prof. Seifrid. The committee will pray for you as you get
to work.
