P
patrick457
Guest
So I’m back, and I’ve got something to introduce again. 
Have you guys ever heard of the so-called ‘New Perspective on Paul’? It is a movement mostly found within (but is not limited to) Protestant academia which seeks to interpret the writings of St. Paul in a ‘new’ light, sharply contrasting with the ‘old perspective’ exemplified by traditional Protestantism. According to the ever-trusty Wikipedia:
Since the Protestant Reformation (c. 1517), studies of Paul’s writings have been heavily influenced by Lutheran and Reformed views that are said to ascribe the negative attributes that they associated with sixteenth-century Roman Catholicism to first-century Judaism. The said Lutheran and Reformed views on Paul’s Writings are called the “old perspective” by adherents of the “New Perspective on Paul”. Thus, the “new perspective” is an attempt to lift Paul’s letters out of the Lutheran/Reformed framework and interpret them based on what is said to be an understanding of first-century Judaism, taken on its own terms. (Within this article, “the old perspective” refers specifically to Reformed and Lutheran traditions, especially the views descended from John Calvin and Martin Luther, see also Law and Gospel.)
Paul, especially in his Epistle to the Romans, advocates justification through faith in Jesus Christ over justification through works of the Law. In the old perspective, Paul was understood to be arguing that Christians’ good works would not factor into their salvation, only their faith. According to the new perspective, Paul was questioning only observances such as circumcision and dietary laws, not good works in general.
The movement traces its roots in 1963 in the person of the Lutheran theologian Krister Stendahl. Stendahl published a paper entitled “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” wherein he argued that the typical Lutheran view of Paul’s theology did not fit with what Paul actually wrote, and in fact was based more on mistaken assumptions about Paul’s beliefs than careful interpretation of his writings. This article, along with the later publication of the book Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (1977), conveyed a new idea in Pauline studies suggesting that scholarship dating all the way back to Augustine may have missed the real context and thesis of Paul. He specifically argued that later interpreters of Paul have assumed a hyper-active conscience when they have begun exegesis of his works. As a result, they have suggested an overly psychological interpretation of the apostle, that Paul himself would most likely not have understood at all for himself.
Another seminal figure within the movement is E.P. ‘Ed’ Sanders. His first major book was Paul and Palestinian Judaism, which he wrote in 1975 and which was published in 1977 (publication was delayed for two years because of the controversial nature of his thesis). In it Sanders argued that the traditional Lutheran understanding of the theology of Judaism and Paul were fundamentally incorrect. Again from Wiki:
Sanders argued that the traditional Christian interpretation that Paul was condemning Rabbinic legalism was a misunderstanding of both Judaism and Paul’s thought, especially since it assumed a level of individualism in these doctrines that was not present, and disregarded notions of group benefit or collective privilege. Rather, Sanders argued, the key difference between pre-Christian Judaism and Pauline teaching was to be found in ideas of how a person becomes one of the People of God. Sanders termed the Jewish belief “covenantal nomism”: one was a member of the people by virtue of God’s covenant with Abraham, and one stayed in it by keeping the Law.
Sanders claimed that Paul’s belief was one of participationist eschatology: the only way to become one of the People of God was through faith in Christ (“dying with Christ”) and the Old Covenant was no longer sufficient. But, once inside, appropriate behavior was required of the Christian, behavior based on the Jewish Scriptures, but not embracing all aspects of it. Both patterns required the grace of God for election (admission), and the behavior of the individual, supported by God’s grace. The dividing line, therefore, was Paul’s insistence on faith in Christ as the only way to election. However, Sanders stressed that Paul also “loved good deeds” and that when his words are taken in context, it emerges that Paul advocates good works in addition to faith in Christ.
…] In general, Sanders stressed the importance of historical context for a proper understanding of first century religion. He attempted to approach “Judaism on its own terms, not in the context of the Protestant-Catholic debates of the sixteenth century” in order to redefine views on Judaism, Paul, and Christianity as a whole. As Sanders said, he reads Paul in his context, which is “Palestine in the first century and especially first century Judaism.” In this spirit, one of Sanders’ articles is titled “Jesus in Historical Context.”
Have you guys ever heard of the so-called ‘New Perspective on Paul’? It is a movement mostly found within (but is not limited to) Protestant academia which seeks to interpret the writings of St. Paul in a ‘new’ light, sharply contrasting with the ‘old perspective’ exemplified by traditional Protestantism. According to the ever-trusty Wikipedia:
Since the Protestant Reformation (c. 1517), studies of Paul’s writings have been heavily influenced by Lutheran and Reformed views that are said to ascribe the negative attributes that they associated with sixteenth-century Roman Catholicism to first-century Judaism. The said Lutheran and Reformed views on Paul’s Writings are called the “old perspective” by adherents of the “New Perspective on Paul”. Thus, the “new perspective” is an attempt to lift Paul’s letters out of the Lutheran/Reformed framework and interpret them based on what is said to be an understanding of first-century Judaism, taken on its own terms. (Within this article, “the old perspective” refers specifically to Reformed and Lutheran traditions, especially the views descended from John Calvin and Martin Luther, see also Law and Gospel.)
Paul, especially in his Epistle to the Romans, advocates justification through faith in Jesus Christ over justification through works of the Law. In the old perspective, Paul was understood to be arguing that Christians’ good works would not factor into their salvation, only their faith. According to the new perspective, Paul was questioning only observances such as circumcision and dietary laws, not good works in general.
The movement traces its roots in 1963 in the person of the Lutheran theologian Krister Stendahl. Stendahl published a paper entitled “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” wherein he argued that the typical Lutheran view of Paul’s theology did not fit with what Paul actually wrote, and in fact was based more on mistaken assumptions about Paul’s beliefs than careful interpretation of his writings. This article, along with the later publication of the book Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (1977), conveyed a new idea in Pauline studies suggesting that scholarship dating all the way back to Augustine may have missed the real context and thesis of Paul. He specifically argued that later interpreters of Paul have assumed a hyper-active conscience when they have begun exegesis of his works. As a result, they have suggested an overly psychological interpretation of the apostle, that Paul himself would most likely not have understood at all for himself.
Another seminal figure within the movement is E.P. ‘Ed’ Sanders. His first major book was Paul and Palestinian Judaism, which he wrote in 1975 and which was published in 1977 (publication was delayed for two years because of the controversial nature of his thesis). In it Sanders argued that the traditional Lutheran understanding of the theology of Judaism and Paul were fundamentally incorrect. Again from Wiki:
Sanders argued that the traditional Christian interpretation that Paul was condemning Rabbinic legalism was a misunderstanding of both Judaism and Paul’s thought, especially since it assumed a level of individualism in these doctrines that was not present, and disregarded notions of group benefit or collective privilege. Rather, Sanders argued, the key difference between pre-Christian Judaism and Pauline teaching was to be found in ideas of how a person becomes one of the People of God. Sanders termed the Jewish belief “covenantal nomism”: one was a member of the people by virtue of God’s covenant with Abraham, and one stayed in it by keeping the Law.
Sanders claimed that Paul’s belief was one of participationist eschatology: the only way to become one of the People of God was through faith in Christ (“dying with Christ”) and the Old Covenant was no longer sufficient. But, once inside, appropriate behavior was required of the Christian, behavior based on the Jewish Scriptures, but not embracing all aspects of it. Both patterns required the grace of God for election (admission), and the behavior of the individual, supported by God’s grace. The dividing line, therefore, was Paul’s insistence on faith in Christ as the only way to election. However, Sanders stressed that Paul also “loved good deeds” and that when his words are taken in context, it emerges that Paul advocates good works in addition to faith in Christ.
…] In general, Sanders stressed the importance of historical context for a proper understanding of first century religion. He attempted to approach “Judaism on its own terms, not in the context of the Protestant-Catholic debates of the sixteenth century” in order to redefine views on Judaism, Paul, and Christianity as a whole. As Sanders said, he reads Paul in his context, which is “Palestine in the first century and especially first century Judaism.” In this spirit, one of Sanders’ articles is titled “Jesus in Historical Context.”
) about the different views expressed by New Perspective scholars on the subject of Atonement: