Thanks for the comment. It’s an honour to enter into conversation with Scott McKnight. I wasn’t wanting to suggest that Sanders, Dunn and Wright were presenting the same ‘NPP’ view of Paul and Romans 7, since Dunn and Wright in their own different ways were critiquing Sanders - as far as I can see.

I’d appreciate anything further you have to say on ‘the Jewish Ego’, as I confess I can’t see how it explains Romans 7: if one assumes that the basic thought is justification as ‘sociological boundary making’. There is too much of a struggle between wanting to do the good but being unable to do so in Romans 7 - too much of a recognition of the law highlighting the power of sin (Romans 7:8-11), as a direct echo (or re-run?) of Genesis 3, which leads to Paul’s declaration “What a wretched man I am!”.

I can only think that a combination of reformed and NPP viewpoints is needed here - not ‘either/or’, but ‘both/and’ - unless there is some different definition of ‘sin’ and ‘good’ which firmly underpins the ‘sociological boundary making’ interpretation.

I do see, however, that Galatians 2:15-21 primarily has the law and Judaism in view - especially v.17-18. But here, by saying “if I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a law-breaker”, Paul is referring to attempts to combine or reintroduce Judaistic practice on top of faith in Jesus, as in Peter’s hypocritical ‘drawing back’ from the gentiles in 2:11-14. If something like that was also the case in Romans 7, the argument would be over; but where is the suggestion that this is also the thought which provides the key to Romans 7?

Maybe you give the answer in your commentary on Galatians, or The Jesus Creed, or one of the numerous other titles listed against your name!