"New perspective on Paul"?

[Guest]

I've been hearing this term quite a bit recently. Anyone know what it is?

[Guest]

What term? "Perspective"?

[Guest]

i was going to ask the same thing as paidion, ely-- i assume you mean you have been hearing the phrase "a new perspective on paul." i havent specifically heard this.. maybe you can provide some context.

thx! TK

[Guest]

I just read this description...

What is this new perspective? At its core is the recognition that Judaism is not a religion of self-righteousness whereby humankind seeks to merit salvation before God. Paul's argument with the Judaizers was not about Christian grace versus Jewish legalism. His argument was rather about the status of Gentiles in the church. Paul's doctrine of justification, therefore, had far more to do with Jewish-Gentile issues than with questions of the individual's status before God.

The scholars at the forefront of the revolution -- E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, N.T. Wright, and others

http://www.thepaulpage.com/

[_Rick_C]

I've been studying the New Perspective on Paul for a few years on & off. I've also thought about asking Steve Gregg if he's familiar with it as he seems to be in agreement with it, at least in part, in his lectures. Here's a good article about it from one of this new view's chief proponents:

New Perspectives on Paul,
an address by N.T. Wright,
Bishop of Durham, England,
2003

Lots to be said on this! For now I'll just let the Bishop speak for himself (gtg).
Rick

[Guest]

I have read 4 NT Wright books and find his work edifying.

I am a little strartled that reading Paul with a Jewish backdrop is considered a 'new perspective'. I found that reading Wright's work I was mostly reading things I already believed. Of course, he always says some things that make me re-think WHY I already believed such and such.

It seems a lot of liberal scholars/theologians were reading Paul in a very greek/roman way, ignoring the Jewish backdrop of the apostle. The new perspective seems to be a bunch of well regarded scholars departing from that stance and coming to a fresh understanding of what Jewish people like Paul actually believed prior to and as a result of Jesus life/death/resurrection.

I would agree that Steve Gregg and NT Wright would have quite a bit in common were they to sit down and chat, though they come at things from different angles.

[_Rick_C]

Hello Matt, I've seen your posts here before though I haven't posted much.

I am a little strartled that reading Paul with a Jewish backdrop is considered a 'new perspective'.

You hear lots of people say, "I use the historical-grammatical method" but it is apparent they don't. They read the Bible through their own doctrinal lenses, so to speak. The NPP (abbreviated) challenges traditional understandings of "cardinal doctrines" by showing how we may have misunderstood Paul's real meaning.

It seems a lot of liberal scholars/theologians were reading Paul in a very greek/roman way, ignoring the Jewish backdrop of the apostle. The new perspective seems to be a bunch of well regarded scholars departing from that stance and coming to a fresh understanding of what Jewish people like Paul actually believed prior to and as a result of Jesus life/death/resurrection.

Seems to me it has been the more conservative/fundamentalists who have read Paul wrongly, ignoring Paul's actual historical context. I have been accused of being a liberal simply because I read and compare first century extra-biblical (or non-canonical) writings to the Bible: DUH. N.T. Wright, in one lecture, was comparing the thought of the first century Jew: Philo of Alexandria, Egypt, to Romans. I forgot what lecture tho.

I would agree that Steve Gregg and NT Wright would have quite a bit in common were they to sit down and chat, though they come at things from different angles.

Wright seems to appeal more to first century thought than I've heard Steve do. Both question the relative merits and validity of any doctrines that emerged (or developed) since the death of the last Apostle. A great thing to do, imo.
Rick

[Guest]

Seems to me it has been the more conservative/fundamentalists who have read Paul wrongly, ignoring Paul's actual historical context.

As NT Wright would almost certainly say, both the fundamentalists and liberals have gotten it wrong!

Wright seems to appeal more to first century thought than I've heard Steve do.

Sure, Wright is basically a historian in many ways. What I mean is, they seem to end up with the same basic doctrines. In the past year there probably aren't 2 people who I've read/listened to more than Steve Gregg and NT Wright and I find much in common doctrinally.

But they come at things from very different angles. Wright is much more institutional, in a sense, though both feel free to speak their mind!

[_Rick_C]

Matt,

....both the fundamentalists and liberals have gotten it wrong!

That could be a quote from Karl Barth! ...who satirically took credit for "destroying liberalism." Barth also had certain strong differences with fundamentalists.

Sure, Wright is basically a historian in many ways. What I mean is, they seem to end up with the same basic doctrines. In the past year there probably aren't 2 people who I've read/listened to more than Steve Gregg and NT Wright and I find much in common doctrinally.

Yes, these two men seem real similar in their conclusions.

And, me too, as far as two I people I agree with with a lot. (Which is, hopefully, to say "who agree with the Bible alot")....

The only Steve Gregg I've "read" is on this forum. But I've listened to at least 3/4 of his online lectures and have 10 or 12 by Wright (and a few pro & con from the NPP page).

Related to this was Steve's exegesis of Romans 2 and 9. On chapter 9 I searched for any Arminian theologians, including Wesley, to see if they understood it like Steve. I couldn't find any! With Romans 2, I think Steve & NTW are in agreement and probably on 9 also.

But they come at things from very different angles. Wright is much more institutional, in a sense, though both feel free to speak their mind!

I can't recall which Wright lecture; it may have been "All Israel and the Church's Task." But in it NTW elaborates on Philo, contrasting current Jewish thought (that is, Paul's and Philo's). On "comparing Scripture to Scripture" NTW and Steve Gregg are in the same camp.

Are we still on topic? lol
Rick

[Guest]

Have any of you listened to N.T. Wright's "Romans in a Week" lectures? They are extraordinary (all 11 hours) and a great example of the "new perspective". Well worth the price: http://www.regentaudio.com/product_deta ... tem_id=103