當然，按照上圖的字面，大家會認為：三一神學院畢業生發文批評卡森時說了這些話。然而有趣的是，想知道 Carson 哪句話背後桶人，怎麼會看這篇文字報導呢？ Carson 的原話充滿了 personal remarks（我有錄音上載，只是華神因要販售該內容的影音版權，我不會公開發表連結）。筆記又不是逐字稿，沒有把這些內容寫進去，這卻不表示在場一千多人都沒聽到那些 personal remarks。針對這種把「摘要」當成「原文」的歸證錯誤，我想亞洲基督徒處理學術討論表達確實有點奇怪，這話誰才適用，可以再思考看看。
正如 Don Garlington （Durham大學新約博士、Dunn 直傳弟子之一）在他的書評中說的，「Carson 和這書裡面作者群（breath35註：全以福音派為主）根本明顯不同調」：
Carson’s summaries and conclusions are conspicuously at odds with the majority of the essayists enlisted by him. Most of the contributors actually affirm that “covenantal nomism” is an adequate designation of the Jewish understanding of the relationship between Israel and her God. Carson acknowledges that several authors give qualified validation to covenantal nomism, but he concludes that “the fit isn’t very good” (p. 547).
But in view of the fact that Sanders limited his corpus of documents, and since he himself recognized the diversity of expression in this varied literature,Carson’s criticisms are too severe and too polemical.
Even more remarkable is that his conclusions do not coincide with those drawn by the majority of the authors, whose critiques of Sanders are considerably more nuanced and far less aggressive than his own.
James Dunn 在他的回應書評中，更質疑Carson 是不是讀到了平行世界作者群的論文，以致於立場和他所邀來的論文作者們都對不上？
Was Carson reading a different version of the essays he then published?He complains that the phrase [“covenantal nomism”] is “too doctrinaire”. But it seems to be he himself who so regards it; I am not aware of advocates of “the new perspective” who treat it so.
…Whereas the findings of most of the contributors to his volume are [saying] in effect that “covenantal nomism” serves well as a summary phrase, so long as one recognizes the variations in emphasis, depending on different styles and circumstances—“variegated covenantal nomism”!
再來，學術社群中指出 Carson 在《稱義與多重律法主義》中捏造觀點的論文可多了。除了方才提到的 Dunn 和 Garlinton 本人，還有：
* P. Eisenbaum, “Review of Biblical Literature”(accessible at the home page of RBL)
* J. Byron, “Review of Biblical Literature” (accessible at the home page of RBL)
* I. W. Scott, “Review of Biblical Literature” (accessible at the home page of RBL)
* C. Blomberg, “Denver Journal”(accessible at the home page of Denver Seminary)
甚至就連 Carson 的老戰友 G. K. Beale 都他在 Bulletin for Biblical Research 19.1 (2009) 期刊的批判書評中跳出來協調。他在花了大篇幅歸節 Dunn 和 Carson 的後續爭議論文後，表示「雙方必須一起出來在解經上進行深度辯論」：
The only way that there will be further dialogue between the schools of thought represented by Carson and Sanders/Dunn is to engage in further in-depth exegesis of the specifically debated passages in Judaism.
It should now be obvious that I am not neutral in this debate over the new perspective. I believe this second volume of Variegated Nomism is a good response to the new perspective. Not all of the authors agree with one another (the issue of the exile is only one example), but the unanimity on almost all of the major issues is striking.
It is important to note that a theme running throughout the volume is that new perspective ideas (e.g., of the law as a ceremonial distinguishing sign or boundary marker, the issue of how Jews relate to Gentiles) are found in Paul but not to the extent often claimed.
Likewise, there is acknowledgment that Sanders’s « covenantal nomism » is found in significant parts of Judaism but not to the extent that he claims. There is also recognition that Sanders’s work has corrected a prior overemphasis that Judaism was dominantly characterized by a « works-salvation » scheme of religion.
Some contributors to the volume, such as Moo and Silva, expressed appreciation for what they called secondary-though-significant new perspective ideas (e.g., pride in the law as a boundary marker, the importance of Jew-Gentile relationships), though others were much more reserved in their judgment in this respect.
—–beginning around 37:00——- Interlocutor: Just the Bible, you said the Bible speaks that Jesus has a unique solution, a unique…he has made a unique difference toward that.
Some of the questions there being asked have to do with, well, we live in a very diverse place with lots of stories , lots of worldviews, lots of sacred texts that people believe sincerely that have to do with making the world right. So… how do we weigh those?
NTW: Yeah, every generation has been like that [i.e., plurality of worldviews]. Actually the last two hundred years we fooled ourselves in Western Europe and North America. But actually we lived in a Christian bubble [i.e., as though there was no plurality of worldviews], and that was the way that the world was.
Most of the world history—all the time, and actually, particularly the ancient world, in the first century there were dozens of different competing worldviews, and one of the reasons my book on Paul is so long is that I had to…I decided I had to do a historical sketch of Paul’s world, which turned into about three or four hundred pages, just in order to make sure that, when we are reading Paul or any of the New Testament, we are reading him in his world and not in ours, or otherwise we are just committing anachronisms.
The Jewish claim always was, despite all the myriad of worldviews there were out there at the time, there is in fact one God, and Israel is His people, and the Christian claim is the direct fulfillment of that. This is in full knowledge of the fact that this is contentious—there are other worldviews, Paul went charging around the ancient Greco-Roman world. Every city he went to had different gods, different lords, and different religious systems. ———–ending around 38:20—————-
甚至，很多人不知道「亞波羅」和「磯法」，其實沒有太多不同的神學－－鮑老師對於Lukan-Acts 使用了「以賽亞書重出埃及」範式釋經的研究專著Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus ，以及對啟示錄的解經方式（他還滿執著 Jewish apocalyptic才是解讀啟示錄的 ideal context；本人過去作為學生修課時，持更正教觀點的相關解經報告並沒有太得到他的青睞），都是跟植與貼合整個新觀思潮的貢獻（亦即自死海古卷 1947年發現，並在1970年代陸續在學界解碼流傳的帶動下，整波 post-Reformation 的“Judaism revisited” 學術成果）。
對鮑老師的學術立場有所涉獵，更會明白，他在諸位「亞洲基督徒」沒有仔細理解就極力反對的很多觀點上，都承自 Wright、贊同Wright（i.e., 路加神學中，從二殿時期continued exile 主題，推導至 Jesus’ redemptive mission，然後是 the Victory of God 以及 the church’s self understanding of her identity），希望不知者不要抱錯了大腿 。
（以上引自David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000) pp.143-145 ch.4 “Restoration of Israel”的結論部分。）
此書和Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament，都是Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible的精簡主題版，主編同樣包括 Kevin Vanhoozer 和 N.T. Wright 。希望「歸正」、「福音」的亞洲基督徒們，能夠看在「三一福音神學院」 Kevin Vanhoozer （還有 David Pao）的大名以及本書免費的份上，可以盡量用戒慎恐懼的心，認真瞭解吸收 Wright 的學術思想與解經貢獻，並一同來參與對話。
…Dr. Carson had used the chance to raise many of the old critiques against NPP with which I was already familiar through my TEDS classroom experience with him. But there are still many things I do not know how you would (or if you have) personally respond, such as the critique against your and NPP scholars’ “Greek exegesis” of justification (δικαιοσύνη) in terms of covenantal inclusion as an unfaithful semantic stretch (and so is τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου in terms of Judaizing boundary marking legal practices, which is yet another critique, though originally by Dr. Doug Moo, that got brought up this time).
I remember listening to your lecture in person in which you mentioned have responded to this critique in written form. I just wonder if you could direct me to the best literature that does exegetical justice to the view of δικαιοσύνη (and Hebrew צַדִּ֛יק) as covenantal entitlement?
至於賴特是否不懂希臘文，或在「稱義」視為「擺正關係」、「置入盟約群體」時，沒有正確地研究原文語義？賴特在 Expository Times 期刊將刊出但還未正式刊出的一篇論文〈Translating dikaiosyne: a response〉給予了最新的回應，回應對象是西澳浸信會神學院的新約教授穆爾（Dr Richard Moore），也是針對魏斯特鴻（Stephen Westerholm）《再思稱義》（Justification Reconsidered: Rethinking A Pauline Theme, 2013 ）一書第四章的回應。（至於卡森在此領域的研究，以近年學術論文發表的狀態，尚未如上述兩位福音派學者來得前延和深入。）
So how should we translate dikaiosyne? … the titles of his [Moore’s] works offer three possibilities: ‘rectification’ (the term preferred by J. L. Martyn and his followers, but I suspect with a different meaning to Moore’s), ‘justification’, and the language of ‘right relation’. I am, he may be surprised to learn, happy with ‘right relation’ – provided only that the ‘relation’ in question is precisely the covenant relationship, which is of course what he resists.
Here Paul is speaking of right (the adjective) and of setting right (the verb) in a particular relationship to God, right as it is seen from Gods perspective . This is not a usage one finds in Greek prior to the New Testament;21 Paul achieves this effect by the use of bridging prepositions which are, however, very common in everyday Greek. In doing so, however, he [Paul] creates a new concept: what is right from the divine perspective or viewpoint, what God regards as right, or who God regards as being in a right relationship with himself.
But the covenant relationship between God and his people looms large in the biblical texts Paul is quoting or echoing… « the Septuagint », where dikaiosyne and its cognates frequently render tsedaqah and its cognates. And tsedaqah regularly carries covenantal meanings of which the Greek dikaiosyne would otherwise have been innocent, but with which it is thereby regularly invested. A glance at basic dictionaries strongly confirms this, [FOOTNOTE: Seebass and Brown in NIDNTT 3.355-7, 363; Schrenk in TDNT 2.195; Hays in ADB 3.1120, 1131f.; Reumann in ABD 5.471, etc.] as does a further glance at standard secondary texts. [FOOTNOTE: e.g. Ziesler 1972, 20, 37-9, citing older studies; Eichrodt 1961, 1.241f.; von Rad 1973, 185.] Dr Moore makes no attempt to refute this widely-held position.
When Paul, with the Septuagint in his head, uses dikaiosyne, the word is capable of carrying a dense, interwoven range of meaning for which there is no single English word in sight. Hence we must paraphrase. …
But does Paul really retain the covenantal associations of LXX dikaiosyne, or has he gone in a different direction? Has he, as some in Reformed circles insist, simply used the normal meaning of ‘moral goodness’? This is of course frequent in both Testaments, and is often invoked to fund the ‘covenant of works’ view of ‘justification’ popular in some Reformed circles (‘we need “righteousness” in terms of “moral goodness”; we don’t have any; Jesus has plenty, and it gets “imputed” to us). Or has he, as I think Moore is suggesting, spoken of a ‘right relationship’, in terms either of a legal ‘standing’ or a ‘personal relationship with God’ in an existential or spiritual sense? That is how a non-covenantal and often individualistic protestant reading of Paul has taken it. This is where Moore seems to be going. But is that true to Paul?
Romans 4.3 and Galatians 3.6 both quote Genesis 15.6. But Genesis 15 is all about God’s double promise to Abraham (a huge, uncountable ‘seed’, and a territorial ‘inheritance’). These are then guaranteed by the establishment of the covenant, which also specifies that the inheritance will be gained through rescue from slavery (Genesis 15.7-21). Does Paul have this larger picture of Genesis 15 in mind? Emphatically yes. Both the ‘seed’ and the ‘inheritance’ are major themes in Romans 4 and Galatians 3. In Galatians 4.1-7, and more extensively in Romans 6—8, these are accomplished precisely through the exodus-like rescue of slaves.
But can elogisthe auto eis dikaiosynen really mean that God ‘established a covenant with him’? Again, emphatically yes. In Numbers 25.6-13 Phinehas intervenes to stop the Israelite immorality, and God establishes with him ‘a covenant of perpetual priesthood’. This is echoed exactly in ben-Sirach 45.23-25 and 1 Maccabees 2.54. But when the same episode is summarized in Psalm 106.28-31, the shorthand way of saying ‘and so God established a covenant with him’ is the same phrase that we find in Genesis 15.6. At least, the Hebrew is virtually identical; the Septuagint (Psalm 105.31) is exactly the same, kai elogisthe auto eis dikaiosynen.
The fact that the verse concludes ‘from generation to generation for ever’ indicates that this ‘reckoning of righteousness’ does indeed refer to the establishment of the covenant spoken of in Numbers and elsewhere. Granted the well-known covenantal overtones of tsedaqah, and hence of dikaiosyne when used to translate it (see the scholars quoted above), this construction, though occurring only in these two passages, is perfectly comprehensible.
[T]he traditionalists such as Dr Carson… want to preserve the ‘covenant of works’ scheme (God gave Adam a command so that he could obey it and have life; he disobeyed; Jesus obeyed instead and we benefit from his ‘righteousness’ in terms of legal/moral obedience – is that not how it goes?). This is a radical distortion of Genesis, never mind Paul; in Genesis, Adam has a VOCATION, and by his sin he fails in it; God calls Abraham and gives him the parallel vocation, only now to reverse the situation . . . etc etc. Carson and co simply don’t want to see any elements of this – though it is clear in Paul, esp in Romans – and so throw mud at people like me who are basically trying to read the text!