Jump to content

New Perspective on Paul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from New Perspectives)
"New Perspective" redirects here. For the song by Panic! at the Disco, see New Perspective (song).
Valentin de Boulogne: Saint Paul Writing His Epistles (c. 1618–1620), Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, Texas. Nowadays, biblical scholars believe that the Apostle Paul actually dictated his letters to a secretary[1] (e.g., Romans 16:22).

The "New Perspective on Paul" is an academic movement within the field of biblical studies concerned with the understanding of the writings of the Apostle Paul. The "New Perspective" movement began with the publication of the 1977 essay Paul and Palestinian Judaism by E. P. Sanders, an American New Testament scholar and Christian theologian.[2][3]

Historically, the old Protestant perspective claims that Paul advocates justification through faith in Jesus Christ over justification through works of the Mosaic Law. During the Protestant Reformation, this theological principle became known as sola fide ("faith alone"); this was traditionally understood as Paul arguing that good works performed by Christians would not factor into their salvation; only their faith in Jesus Christ would save them. In this perspective, Paul dismissed 1st-century Palestinian Judaism as a sterile and legalistic religion.[4]

According to Sanders, Paul's letters do not address good works but instead question Jewish religious observances such as circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath laws, which were the "boundary markers" that set the Jews apart from other ethno-religious groups in the Levant.[5] Sanders further argues that 1st-century Palestinian Judaism was not a "legalistic community", nor was it oriented to "salvation by works". As God's "chosen people", they were under his covenant. Contrary to Protestant belief, following the Mosaic Law was not a way of entering the covenant but of staying within it.[5]

Development

[edit]

In 1963 Krister Stendahl, a Swedish New Testament scholar and Christian theologian, who served as professor emeritus at Harvard Divinity School[6] and is considered by modern biblical scholarship to have been as influential as E. P. Sanders in the development of the "New Perspective on Paul",[7]: 63  published a paper arguing that the typical Lutheran view of Paul's theology did not align with statements in Paul's writings, and in fact was based on mistaken assumptions about Paul's beliefs rather than careful interpretation of his writings.[8] Stendahl warned against imposing modern Western ideas on the Bible, and especially on the works of Paul.[8] In 1977 E. P. Sanders, an American New Testament scholar and Christian theologian, published the essay Paul and Palestinian Judaism.[9]

Sanders continued to publish books and articles in this field, and was soon joined by James D. G. Dunn, a British New Testament scholar and Wesleyan theologian who served as President of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas in 2002. Dunn reports that N. T. Wright, a British New Testament scholar and Anglican theologian who served as bishop of Durham from 2003 to 2010, was the first to use the term "New Perspective on Paul" in his 1978 Tyndale lecture.[10] The term became more widely known after being used by Dunn as the title of his 1982 Manson Memorial lecture, where he summarized and affirmed the movement.[11][12] The work of these writers inspired a large number of scholars to study, discuss, and debate the relevant issues. Many books and articles dealing with the issues raised have since been published. N.T. Wright has written a large number of works aimed at popularising the "new perspective" outside of academia.[13]

The "New Perspective" movement is closely connected with a surge of recent scholarly interest in studying the Bible in its historical and geopolitical context and in comparison with other ancient texts through the use of social-scientific methods. Scholars affiliated with The Context Group[14][15][16] have called for various reinterpretations of biblical texts based on studies of the ancient world.

Main ideas

[edit]

It is often noted that the singular title "New Perspective" gives an unjustified impression of unity.[17] In 2003 N. T. Wright, distancing himself from both Sanders and Dunn, commented that "there are probably almost as many 'new' perspective positions as there are writers espousing it – and I disagree with most of them".[18]

Works of the Law

[edit]

The writings of the Apostle Paul contain a substantial amount of criticism regarding the "works of the Law".[19][20]

By contrast, "New Perspective" scholars see Paul as talking about "badges of covenant membership" or criticizing Gentile believers who had begun to rely on the Torah to reckon Jewish kinship.[21] It is argued that in Paul's time, Israelites were being faced with a choice of whether to continue to follow their ancestral customs, the Torah, or to follow the Roman Empire's trend to adopt Greek customs (Hellenization, see also Antinomianism, Hellenistic Judaism, and Circumcision controversy in early Christianity). The new-perspective view is that Paul's writings discuss the comparative merits of following ancient Israelite or ancient Greek customs. Paul is interpreted as being critical of a common Jewish view that following traditional Israelite customs makes a person better off before God, pointing out that Abraham was righteous before the Torah was given. Paul identifies customs he is concerned about as circumcision, dietary laws, and observance of special days.[19][20][22]

Craig A. Evans argues that a text of the Dead Sea Scrolls known as 4QMMT employs the expression "works of the Law" to refer solely to purity laws like avoiding eating with Gentiles, which he argues shows that Paul's criticism of salvation through "works of the Law" was meant that Gentiles need not adopt Jewish purity laws in order to be justified.[23]

Recent studies of the Greek word pistis have concluded that its primary and most common meaning was faithfulness, meaning firm commitment in an interpersonal relationship.[24][25][26][27]

Grace, or favor

[edit]

Writers with a more historic Protestant perspective have generally translated the Greek word charis as "grace" and understood it to refer to the idea that there is a lack of human effort in salvation because God is the controlling factor. Proponents of the New Perspective argue that "favor" is a better translation, as the word refers normally to "doing a favor". In ancient societies, there was the expectation that such favors be repaid, and this semi-formal system of favors acted like loans.[28] Gift giving corresponded with the expectation of reciprocity.[29] Therefore, it is argued that when Paul speaks of how God did us a "favor" by sending Jesus, he is saying that God took the initiative, but is not implying a lack of human effort in salvation, and is in fact implying that Christians have an obligation to repay the favor God has done for them. Some argue that this view then undermines the initial "favor"—of sending Jesus—by saying that, despite his life, death and resurrection, Christians still have, as before, to earn their way to heaven. However, others note this is the horns of a false dilemma (all grace versus all works). Many new-perspective proponents that see "charis" as "favor" do not teach that Christians earn their way to heaven outside of the death of Christ. Forgiveness of sins through the blood of Christ is still necessary to salvation. But, that forgiveness demands effort on the part of the individual (cf. Paul in Phil. 3:12–16).[30]

Atonement

[edit]
Main article: Atonement in Christianity

To writers of the historic Protestant perspectives, the penal substitution atonement theory and the belief in the "finished work" of Christ have been central. "New Perspective" scholars have regularly questioned whether this view is really of such central importance in Paul's writings. Generally, "New Perspective" scholars have argued that other theories of the atonement are more central to Paul's thinking, but there has been minimal agreement among them as to what Paul's real view of the atonement might be.

The following is a broad sample of different views advocated by various scholars:

  • E. P. Sanders argued that Paul's central idea was that we mystically spiritually participate in the risen Christ and that all Paul's judicial language was subordinate to the participatory language.[9]
  • N. T. Wright has argued that Paul sees Israel as representative of humanity and taking onto itself the sinfulness of humanity through history. Jesus, in turn, as Messiah is representative of Israel and so focuses the sins of Israel on himself on the cross. Wright's view is thus a "historicized" form of Penal Substitution.[31]
  • Chris VanLandingham has argued that Paul sees Christ as having defeated the Devil and as teaching humans how God wants them to live and setting them an example.[32]
  • David Brondos has argued that Paul sees Jesus as just a part in a wider narrative in which the Church is working to transform lives of individuals and the world, and that Paul's participatory language should be understood in an ethical sense (humans living Christ-like lives) rather than mystically as Sanders thought.[33]
  • Pilch and Malina take the view that Paul holds to the Satisfaction theory of atonement.[34]
  • Stephen Finlan holds that Paul uses numerous different metaphors to describe the atonement; "justified by his blood" (Rom 5:9) means that a cultic substance has a judicial effect. Paul also taught the transformation of believers into the image of God through Christ (Theosis).[35]

Criticism

[edit]

The "New Perspective on Paul" has been a controversial subject and has drawn strong arguments and recriminations from both sides of the debate.[36]

In 2003 Steve Chalke, after being influenced by "New Perspective" scholars, published a book targeted at a popular audience which made comments that were interpreted as being highly critical of the penal substitution theory of the atonement.[37] This caused an extensive and ongoing controversy among conservative Evangelicals in the United Kingdom, with a strong backlash from laypeople and advocates of the historic Protestant traditions.[38]

The continuing controversy led to the Evangelical Alliance organising a symposium in July 2005 to discuss the issue. A record of this symposium includes a chapter by Chalke and his views are also contained in "the atonement debate".[39][40][41] A group of three conservative Evangelical theologians responded to Chalke with their book, Pierced for our Transgressions (Crossway Publishing, 2007), which strongly criticised Chalke's position as inconsistent with some evangelical confessions of faith.[42][43] However, N. T. Wright endorsed Chalke and spoke out against the latter book, commenting, for instance, that 'despite the ringing endorsements of famous men, it [Pierced For Our Transgressions] is deeply, profoundly, and disturbingly unbiblical.'[44]

The most outspoken critics of the "New Perspective on Paul" include Douglas Moo,[45] Tom Schreiner,[46] Wayne Grudem,[47] Robert J Cara,[48] John Piper,[49] Sinclair Ferguson,[50] C. W. Powell,[51] Tom Holland,[52] and Ligon Duncan.[53] In 2015, John M.G. Barclay published Paul and the Gift which re-frames Paul's theology of grace and, in doing so, provides a nuanced critique of the "New Perspective".[54] The book has been praised for keeping grace at the center of Paul's theology while illuminating how grace, understood in light of ancient theories of gift, demands reciprocity and thus the formation of new communities based not on ethnicity but the unqualified Christ-gift (much like the "New Perspective").[55][56]

Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox reactions

[edit]

The "New Perspective on Paul" has, by and large, been an internal debate among Protestant biblical scholars. Many Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scholars have responded favorably to the "New Perspective", seeing a greater commonality with certain strands of their own traditions.[57]

Historical Protestantism has never denied that there is a place for good works, but has always excluded them from the doctrine of justification, which Protestant Christians argue is through faith alone, and to which good deeds do not contribute, whether with or without God's grace.[58][59] Since the Protestant Reformation, this has been a line of distinction between Reformed[60] and Lutheran[61] churches.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Roetzel, Calvin J. (2015) [2009]. "Chapter 3: The Anatomy of the Letters". The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context (6th ed.). Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 84. ISBN 9780664257828. LCCN 2015009075.
  2. ^ Sanders, E. P. (1977). Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. ISBN 978-0-8006-1899-5.
  3. ^ Dunn, James D. G. (1990). Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 1–7. ISBN 0-664-25095-5.
  4. ^ Yoon Jr., Paul (2006). In Defense of Sola Fide: A Refutation of N.T. Wright's view of Justification. Master's Seminary.
  5. ^ a b Dunn, James D. G. (2005). The New Perspective on Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co. ISBN 978-0-8028-4562-7.
  6. ^ Martin, Douglas (2008-04-16). "Krister Stendahl, 86, Ecumenical Bishop, Is Dead". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-09-12.
  7. ^ Seifrid, Mark A. (1992). "The Place of Justification by Faith in Paul's Thought: Basic Lines of Interpretation". Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme. Novum Testamentum. Vol. 68. Leiden: Brill Publishers. pp. 1–77. doi:10.1163/9789004267015_002. ISBN 90-04-09521-7. ISSN 0167-9732.
  8. ^ a b Stendahl, Krister (1963). "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West". Harvard Theological Review. 56 (3). Cambridge University Press: 199–215. doi:10.1017/S0017816000024779. JSTOR 1508631. S2CID 170331485.
  9. ^ a b Sanders, EP (1977), Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
  10. ^ N. T. Wright, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision, p. 11–2, at Google Books. SPCK, 2009. ISBN 978-0-281-06090-0
  11. ^ Richard N. Longenecker, Introducing Romans: Critical Issues in Paul's Most Famous Letter, p. 327, at Google Books. Eerdmans, 2011. ISBN 978-0-80286619-6
  12. ^ Dunn, James D. G. (1983). "The New Perspective on Paul". Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester. 65 (2): 95–122. doi:10.7227/BJRL.65.2.6.
  13. ^ For example, Wright, NT (1997), What Saint Paul Really Said, Eerdmans, chapter 4 (pp 63-75).
  14. ^ Esler, Philip F. Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul's Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
  15. ^ Malina, Bruce J. & Neyrey, Jerome H., Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality, Louisville: John Knox Press, 1996.
  16. ^ Neyrey, Jerome H., Paul, in Other Words: A Cultural Reading of His Letters. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990.
  17. ^ Nanos, Mark D.; Zetterholm, Magnus, eds. (2015). Paul within Judaism: restoring the first-century context to the apostle. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press. pp. 277–278. ISBN 978-1-4514-9428-0.
  18. ^ N. T. Wright, New Perspectives.
  19. ^ a b Dunn, James D. G. (Autumn 1993). Reinhartz, Adele (ed.). "Echoes of Intra-Jewish Polemic in Paul's Letter to the Galatians". Journal of Biblical Literature. 112 (3). Society of Biblical Literature: 459–477. doi:10.2307/3267745. ISSN 0021-9231. JSTOR 3267745.
  20. ^ a b Thiessen, Matthew (September 2014). Breytenbach, Cilliers; Thom, Johan (eds.). "Paul's Argument against Gentile Circumcision in Romans 2:17-29". Novum Testamentum. 56 (4). Leiden: Brill Publishers: 373–391. doi:10.1163/15685365-12341488. eISSN 1568-5365. ISSN 0048-1009. JSTOR 24735868.
  21. ^ For "badges of covenant membership", see N. T. Wright, Paul for Everyone: Romans part one (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 35–41. 5. For reliance on the Torah to reckon Jewish kinship, see Eisenbaum, Pamela (Winter 2004). "A Remedy for Having Been Born of Woman: Jesus, Gentiles, and Genealogy in Romans" (PDF). Journal of Biblical Literature. 123 (4). The Society of Biblical Literature: 671–702. doi:10.2307/3268465. JSTOR 3268465. Retrieved 2008-10-26.
  22. ^ Dunn, James D. 'The New Perspective on Paul', 104, 2005.
  23. ^ Evans, Craig A. (2020). "James and Paul on the Works of the Law and the Pure Food of 4QMMT". In Ferda, Tucker; Frayer-Griggs, Daniel; Johnson, Nathan C. (eds.). "To Recover What Has Been Lost": Essays on Eschatology, Intertextuality, and Reception History in Honor of Dale C. Allison Jr. BRILL. pp. 236–253. ISBN 978-90-04-44401-0.
  24. ^ Douglas A. Campbell, "The Quest For Paul's Gospel: A Suggested Strategy", 2005, pp. 178–207
  25. ^ Hay, D. M. (1989). "Pistis as "Ground for Faith" in Hellenized Judaism and Paul". Journal of Biblical Literature. 108 (3): 461–476. doi:10.2307/3267114. JSTOR 3267114.
  26. ^ Howard, G. (1974). "The 'Faith of Christ'". The Expository Times. 85 (7): 212–5. doi:10.1177/001452467408500710. S2CID 170874320.
  27. ^ Pilch and Malina, "Handbook of Biblical Social Values", 1998, pg 72–75
  28. ^ David A.deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture, 2000, pg 117
  29. ^ B. J. Oropeza, "The Expectation of Grace," Bulletin for Biblical Research 24.2 (2014) 207-226
  30. ^ Wright, N. T. (1995). "Romans and the Theology of Paul" (PDF). Pauline Theology. 3 (3). Minneapolis: Fortress: 30–67. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-22.
  31. ^ Wright, N.T. (1996). Jesus and the Victory of God. Fortress Press. pp. 379–382.
  32. ^ Chris VanLandingham, "Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul", Hendrickson 2006[page needed]
  33. ^ David Brondos, "Paul on the Cross: Reconstructing the Apostle's Story of Redemption", Fortress Press, 2006[page needed]
  34. ^ Bruce J. Malina and John J. Pilch, "Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul" Augsburg Fortress 2006[page needed]
  35. ^ Stephen Finlan, Problems with Atonement: The Origins of, and Controversy about, the Atonement Doctrine, Liturgical Press 2005, pp. 58–59, 120–23.
  36. ^ Gathercole, Simon (10 August 2007). "What Did Paul Really Mean?". Christianity Today.
  37. ^ Chalke, Steve; Mann, Alan (2003), The Lost Message of Jesus, Zondervan.[page needed]
  38. ^ Ashworth, Pat. "Atonement row gets personal as Evangelical partnership splits", 'Church Times', 27 April 2007.
  39. ^ Derek Tidball, David Hilborn, Justin Thacker. the atonement debate. p. 34 to 45.
  40. ^ "Joint Evangelical Alliance – London School Of Theology Atonement Symposium". Evangelical Alliance. 2005-07-08. Archived from the original on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2007-08-26.
  41. ^ Stephen, Jonathan (February 2005). "Chalkegate". Evangelical Times. Retrieved 2011-11-25.
  42. ^ Jeffery, Steve; Mike Ovey; Andrew Sach (2007). Pierced for our Transgressions – Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution. Inter-Varsity Press. ISBN 978-1-84474-178-6.
  43. ^ "Pierced for our Transgressions – Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution". Retrieved 2007-08-26.
  44. ^ Wright, NT (April 2007). "The Cross and the Caricatures – a response to Robert Jenson, Jeffrey John, and a new volume entitled Pierced for Our Transgressions". Fulcrum. Retrieved 2014-08-19.
  45. ^ Moo, Douglas (2001–2004). Justification and variegated nomism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. p. 2:188. ISBN 978-0801027413.
  46. ^ Thomas R. Schreiner (28 June 2014). "Another Look at the New Perspective". Southern Equip. Retrieved 16 September 2023.
  47. ^ Archived at Ghostarchive and the Wayback Machine: "Wayne Grudem on Justification and the New Perspective on Paul | Systematic Theology, 2nd Edition". YouTube. 28 January 2021.
  48. ^ "Justification and the New Perspective on Paul".
  49. ^ John Piper, Interview with Piper on Wright, October 11, 2007.
  50. ^ Sinclair Ferguson, What Does Justification Have to do with the Gospel?
  51. ^ Was There Legalism in First Century Judaism Or: Was Jesus and Paul Shooting at Phantoms? basketoffigs.org Retrieved 17 April 2023
  52. ^ Contours of Pauline Theology tomholland.org.uk Retrieved 17 April 2023
  53. ^ J. Ligon Duncan, The Attractions of the New Perspective(s) on Paul.
  54. ^ Barclay, John M. G. "Paul and the Gift". Eerdmans. Archived from the original on 2016-08-29. Retrieved 2016-08-31.
  55. ^ "Paul and the Gift: Prologue". What You Think Matters. Retrieved 2016-08-31.
  56. ^ "John Barclay's Paul and the Gift and the New Perspective on Paul". Themelios. The Gospel Coalition. Retrieved 2016-08-31.
  57. ^ Despotis, A. 2014, Die "New Perspective on Paul" und die griechisch-orthodoxe Paulusinterpretation, [VIOTh 11], St. Ottilien: EOS-Verlag, ISBN 978-3-8306-7705-5
  58. ^ "Augsburg Confession". Book of Concord. Article XX. Retrieved 8 September 2012.
  59. ^ Calvin, John. "Commentary on James: Chapter 2: James 2:18–19". Commentary on the Catholic Epistles. Retrieved 8 September 2012.
  60. ^ "Canons of Dort". First head: Paragraph 3. Archived from the original on 19 September 2012. Retrieved 9 September 2012.
  61. ^ "Augsburg Confession". Book of Concord. Article XII. Retrieved 8 September 2012.

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Look up πίστις in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=New_Perspective_on_Paul&oldid=1282792471"