New Perspective on Paul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
 Christianity Portal

The New Perspective on Paul is a significant shift in how some New Testament scholars interpret the writings of the Apostle Paul, particularly in regard to Judaism and the common Protestant understanding of Justification by Faith and Imputed Righteousness.

Contents

[edit] Development

The New Perspective rose to prominence as a result of the work of Prof. E. P. Sanders in his 1977 book Paul and Palestinian Judaism, in which he argued that the Judaism of Paul's day had been carricatured by Christian theology as a legalistic religion of "works", whereby Jews believed they had to earn their salvation by keeping the law of Moses, while Paul espoused a new way of salvation not oriented on works through "justification by faith" in Christ.

Sanders reframed the context to make adhering to the law and good works a sign of being in the Covenant (marking out the Jews as the people of God) rather than deeds performed in order to accomplish salvation. He developed the term covenantal nomism to describe the understanding of faith held by Palestinian Judaism at the time of Paul. Sander's approach questioned the interpretive framework of Martin Luther, who had coined traditional Protestant understanding of justification, and Augustine of Hippo, who influenced all of Western Christianity.

Sanders's work has since been taken up by Professor James Dunn and N.T. Wright, Bishop of Durham, significantly increasing the New Perspective's position in New Testament scholarship.

[edit] Criticism

The New Perspective has been heavily criticized by conservative scholars in the Reformed tradition, saying that it does not faithfully reflect the teachings of Calvin (as N.T. Wright had argued). It has been the subject of fierce debate between evangelicals in recent years, mainly due to N.T. Wright's increasing popularity in evangelical circles. Critics include John Piper[1][2], Sinclair Ferguson[citation needed], C. W. Powell[3], Mark Seifrid and Ligon Duncan[4]. Barry Smith of Atlantic Baptist University has claimed that the New Perspective's challenge to the traditional view of Jewish faith practice as legalistic is misplaced:

"[T]here is actually a tension in early Judaism between God as righteous judge and as merciful ... The understanding of God in the sources vacillates between God as righteous judge and God as merciful, without coming down definitively on one side to the exclusion of the other."[5]

The most fundamental, albeit implicit, criticism comes from Jacob Neusner, a scholar in rabbinic literature. He questions the very methodology employed by E.P. Sanders and others in their use of rabbinic sources, noting the anachronistic, hodge-podge appropriation of various writings.[citation needed]

The diversity within the New Perspective between Sanders and Wright is not always appreciated by its critics. In 2003, N.T. Wright, distancing himself from both Sanders and Dunn, comments that "there are probably almost as many ‘New Perspective’ positions as there are writers espousing it – and I disagree with most of them."[6]

[edit] References

  1. ^ John Piper, Open Letter to the Council of Elders and the People of Bethlehem Baptist Church, August 2, 2006.
  2. ^ John Piper, Interview with Piper on Wright, October 11, 2007.
  3. ^ C. W. Powell, Was There Legalism in First Century Judaism
  4. ^ J. Ligon Duncan, The Attractions of the New Perspective(s) on Paul.
  5. ^ Barry D. Smith, The Tension Between God as Righteous Judge and as Merciful in Early Judaism.
  6. ^ N.T. Wright, New Perspectives.

[edit] Literature

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul"
Personal tools