Just noticed this: Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Roman Empire in the Writings of Paul and Luke by Seyoon Kim, due out by Eerdmans in Sept 2008. In light of recent personal wrestlings with N. T. Wright's understanding of the gospel, I hope Kim can help me. At this point in my development, I think Wright sets as a controlling analogy ("gospel" in Greco-Roman usage; i.e., the proclamation of who is lord) what is undeniably present but ought to be placed in the background, and passages such as Isa 52:7 in the foreground, of Paul's concept of "gospel."
When Wright is asked for his down-and-dirty definition of the gospel, reduced to its core, 15 words or less, footnotes and caveats aside, he goes to Rom 1 and defines the gospel as "Jesus is Lord" (see interview below, Apr 23, for an instance of this). I would go to 1 Cor 15 and define it as "Christ died for our sins."
I continue to fail to understand how the proclamation of Jesus as Lord is good news to those who know themselves (as I do) to be treasonous rebels against that Lord (as I am). Jesus as Lord is only good news to me if the lordship that he exercises is lordship on my behalf, a kingdom of which I am a citizen, and that can only be the case if a still more fundamental problem is dealt with: sin.