The New Perspective

[pneuma07]

I’d like to know opinions on the so called “New perspective on Paul”.

Everyone is welcome.

Thanks for sharing your impressions and insights.

 

[ljubim]

What is the New Persepctive?

 

[aspirant]

What is the New Persepctive?

In conversations I’ve had with people about it, a lot of it seems to be “interpretations of Paul that are new to Protestants but nothing new to Catholics.” Some Protestants who become very influenced by “new perspective” writers like N.T. Wright, like Taylor Marshall, become Catholic.

 

[Bbigam]

Here’s a quick description of it:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul

It sounds to me to be fairly close to Catholic teaching (and thus not new at all) but I’m no expert.

 

[pneuma07]

What is the New Persepctive?

Thanks Bbigam, Aspirant and Ljubim.

As far as I can tell the so called “New Perspective on Paul” (NPP) is a sort of “Quest for the historical Paul”, which has been proposed and developed for more than three decades by now within Protestantisms, starting with E.P. Sanders’ “Paul and Palestinian Judaism” in 1977.

While there is no compact school of “new perspectivists”, the focus remains on Paul’s relation with contemporary Judaism. A major point is Paul’s critique of the role of the “works of law” in justification.
According to NPP the Apostle does not charge his own original vision with a sort of *ante litteram *Pelagianism. What he points out, is rather the role of the “works of law” as badges or markers of identity of a Judaism which was faced with the challenge of being eventually absorbed into an ellenized cultural landscape. The gap between this vision, which was Saul’s own old vision, and Paul vision after Damascus, is that you do not belong to the Covenant because you follow precise rituals, but because you have faith in the crucified and resurrected Jesus.

That means in the NPP Paul does not speak against the role of individual works in the path to final salvation.
The anglican bishop and theologian N. T. Wrigth, arguably the most prominent “new perspectivist”, puts it like this within one of his own short expositions of NPP ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm, where he outlines points such as Paul’s vision of what the Gospel, the righteousness of God and justification are:

it seems that there has been a massive conspiracy of silence on something which was quite clear for Paul (as indeed for Jesus). Paul, in company with mainstream second-Temple Judaism, affirms that God’s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led – in accordance, in other words, with works. He says this clearly and unambiguously in Romans 14.10–12 and 2 Corinthians 5.10. He affirms it in that terrifying passage about church-builders in 1 Corinthians 3. But the main passage in question is of course Romans 2.1–16.

This aspect of the NPP, clearly impinges on what is often called the material principle of Reformation ie Sola Fide.
In Wright’s view, if I get it correctly, initial justification is a sort of declaration of one’s belonging to the people of the Covenant, while final justification has much to do with one’s works.
The meaning of the NT term for faith ie pistis, is also examined , within the NPP, pointing out its relation with obeying.

This sort of conclusions have been considered so seriously within Protestantisms, at least at the academia level, as to stir a whole harvest of counter-NPP works in recent years.
A source about these can be found in www.theopedia.com/New_Perspective_on_Paul

As for the NPP itself a veritable mine is offered by www.thepaulpage.com

Among the many articles to be found there, two by Edward Hamilton may probably be of special interest for us here: "What is the New Perspective ? " and “The New Perspective and Catholic-Protestant Debate”

While the NPP and the counter-NPP production are both within Protestantisms, as it has been observed by Aspirant, former anglican Taylor Marshall, who is authoring a new book on Paul, has become catholic under the influence of this approach.

Not only because we have just come out from the Pauline Year , maybe the whole thing deserves a little more attention and exploration.

So I ask informed brothers whether I am on to something with this mini-introduction of mine.
I am looking forward to insights from non catholic western christians as well as from catholics and everyone.

 

[Radical]

hello to you on this thread Pneuma07.

I must confess that I didn’t know that this matter was brewing. Perhaps it is b/c my tradition has rejected certain aspects of both Lutheranism and Reformed theology…though we seem to pick and choose bits at will and Calvinistic theology has made considerable inroads. With respect to salvation and the assurance thereof I have always looked to 1 Peter 1:

His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. 5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. 10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure.

While the NPP and the counter-NPP production are both within Protestantisms, as it has been observed by Aspirant, former anglican Taylor Marshall, who is authoring a new book on Paul, has become catholic under the influence of this approach.

This sort of reaction baffles me, unless it can be attributed to Marshall’s pre-existing Anglicanism. Marshall claims Paul is Catholic, sacramental, and hierarchical… but I don’t know how you would get to Paul being sacramental in a Catholic way, or hierarchical in a Catholic way (from the new perspective) unless you have already believed Paul was Catholic in every way but wrt certain aspects of salvation and justification. Where, for example, is Paul’s Catholic Mariology to be found using the new perspective? Where are his declarations wrt a treasury of merits or wrt the primacy of Peter?

Personally, I haven’t met (outside of the surreal world of the internet) a Protestant that believes both that salvation is by faith alone and that saving faith can exist w/o the manifestation of works. From a practical position, in considering a “believer” that lacks works, the typical Calvinist (that I have talked to) speculates that the fellow must not have ever possessed “saving faith”. When the rubber meets the road, I don’t know that there is all that much difference wrt “works” in that all think works will be present (if the person is truly saved)…but if I understand the Catholic position correctly, they require certain specific works (which wouldn’t be included in what a Mennonite would see as works evidencing the existence of a changed heart).

 

[Publisher]

One of the most interesting books I’ve read lately is “The Reluctand Parting” by Julie Galambush. She was a Baptist but converted to Judaism. She goes through the books of the NT and shows just how Jewish the writing are. There’s history and quite a bit on Paul and especially how his writings show the new Jesus messianic sect existed WITHIN Judaism for quite some time until it finally became Gentile and separated after the fall of Jerusalem as rabbinic Judaism became the “new Judaism”.

Catholics may enjoy it as she quotes from the deuterocanical books when the NT makes allusion to them.

 

[pneuma07]

I must confess that I didn’t know that this matter was brewing. Perhaps it is b/c my tradition has rejected certain aspects of both Lutheranism and Reformed theology…though we seem to pick and choose bits at will and Calvinistic theology has made considerable inroads. With respect to salvation and the assurance thereof I have always looked to 1 Peter 1:

His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. 5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. 10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure.

This sort of reaction baffles me, unless it can be attributed to Marshall’s pre-existing Anglicanism. Marshall claims Paul is Catholic, sacramental, and hierarchical… but I don’t know how you would get to Paul being sacramental in a Catholic way, or hierarchical in a Catholic way (from the new perspective) unless you have already believed Paul was Catholic in every way but wrt certain aspects of salvation and justification. Where, for example, is Paul’s Catholic Mariology to be found using the new perspective? Where are his declarations wrt a treasury of merits or wrt the primacy of Peter?

Personally, I haven’t met (outside of the surreal world of the internet) a Protestant that believes both that salvation is by faith alone and that saving faith can exist w/o the manifestation of works. From a practical position, in considering a “believer” that lacks works, the typical Calvinist (that I have talked to) speculates that the fellow must not have ever possessed “saving faith”. …I don’t know that there is all that much difference wrt “works” in that all think works will be present (if the person is truly saved)…but if I understand the Catholic position correctly, they require certain specific works (which wouldn’t be included in what a Mennonite would see as works evidencing the existence of a changed heart).

Hi on this thread Radical !

You know writing on more than one thread in the same time is what I consider somewhat of an overstretching for my own standard of participation on CAF.

I guess you mean 2 Peter here. Beautiful quotation.

I get that you and your mennonite “family” do not share the reasons that seem to compell several theologians within Protestatisms, particularly within calvinistic background, to react so severely against some positions of the NPP, in defense of what is perceived by them as orthodox reformed doctrine. It could probably be interesting going into depth in their arguments.

As for Marshall, I definetely cannot speak for him. I suspect you and he have in this context a different acceptation fo the term “catholic”.

In general it appears that Sola Fide has probably as many understandings as Sola Scriptura.
The point could be IMHO understanding each other on what adhering to Christ, unity or communion with Him, can or should mean.

Since you seem to be interested in the catholic understanding of the matter, I’d like to offer here a catechetical exposition by B16 on Saint Paul and Sola Fide.
If such a long quotation is allowed.

The relationship between Paul and the Risen One became so deep as to induce him to maintain that Christ was no longer solely his life but also his very living, to the point that to be able to reach him death became a gain (cf. Phil 1: 21). This is not to say he despised life, but that he realized that for him at this point there was no other purpose in life and thus he had no other desire than to reach Christ as in an athletics competition to remain with him for ever. The Risen Christ had become the beginning and the end of his existence, the cause and the goal of his race. It was only his concern for the development in faith of those he had evangelized and his anxiety for all of the Churches he founded (cf. 2 Cor 11: 28) that induced him to slow down in his race towards his one Lord, to wait for his disciples so they might run with him towards the goal. Although from a perspective of moral integrity he had nothing to reproach himself in his former observance of the Law, once Christ had reached him he preferred not to make judgments on himself (cf. 1 Cor 4: 3-4). Instead he limited himself to resolving to press on, to make his own the One who had made him his own (cf. Phil 3: 12).It is precisely because of this personal experience of relationship with Jesus Christ that Paul henceforth places at the centre of his Gospel an irreducible opposition between the two alternative paths to justice: one built on the works of the Law, the other founded on the grace of faith in Christ. The alternative between justice by means of works of the Law and that by faith in Christ thus became one of the dominant themes that run through his Letters: “We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law; because by works of the law no one will be justified” (Gal 2: 15-16).

TBC

 

[pneuma07]

continuing

• And to the Christians of Rome he reasserts that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rm 3: 23-24). And he adds “we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (ibid., v. 28). At this point Luther translated: “justified by faith alone”. I shall return to this point at the end of the Catechesis.

First, we must explain what is this “Law” from which we are freed and what are those “works of the Law” that do not justify. The opinion that was to recur systematically in history already existed in the community at Corinth. This opinion consisted in thinking that it was a question of moral law and that the Christian freedom thus consisted in the liberation from ethics. Thus in Corinth the term “πάντα μοι έξεστιν” (I can do what I like) was widespread. It is obvious that this interpretation is wrong: Christian freedom is not libertinism; the liberation of which St Paul spoke is not liberation from good works.So what does the Law from which we are liberated and which does not save mean? For St Paul, as for all his contemporaries, the word “Law” meant the Torah in its totality, that is, the five books of Moses. The Torah, in the Pharisaic interpretation, that which Paul had studied and made his own, was a complex set of conduct codes that ranged from the ethical nucleus to observances of rites and worship and that essentially determined the identity of the just person. In particular, these included circumcision, observances concerning pure food and ritual purity in general, the rules regarding the observance of the Sabbath, etc. codes of conduct that also appear frequently in the debates between Jesus and his contemporaries. All of these observances that express a social, cultural and religious identity had become uniquely important in the time of Hellenistic culture, starting from the third century B.C. This culture which had become the universal culture of that time and was a seemingly rational culture; a polytheistic culture, seemingly tolerant constituted a strong pressure for cultural uniformity and thus threatened the identity of Israel, which was politically constrained to enter into this common identity of the Hellenistic culture. This resulted in the loss of its own identity, hence also the loss of the precious heritage of the faith of the Fathers, of the faith in the one God and in the promises of God. Against this cultural pressure, which not only threatened the Israelite identity but also the faith in the one God and in his promises, it was necessary to create a wall of distinction, a shield of defence to protect the precious heritage of the faith; this wall consisted precisely in the Judaic observances and prescriptions.

Paul, who had learned these observances in their role of defending God’s gift, of the inheritance of faith in one God alone, saw this identity threatened by the freedom of the Christians this is why he persecuted them. At the moment of his encounter with the Risen One he understood that with Christ’s Resurrection the situation had changed radically. With Christ, the God of Israel, the one true God, became the God of all peoples. The wall as he says in his Letter to the Ephesians between Israel and the Gentiles, was no longer necessary: it is Christ who protects us from polytheism and all of its deviations; it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity within the diversity of cultures. The wall is no longer necessary; our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just.

Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14).
Paul knows that in the twofold love of God and neighbour the whole of the Law is present and carried out. Thus in communion with Christ, in a faith that creates charity, the entire Law is fulfilled. We become just by entering into communion with Christ who is Love. We shall see the same thing in the Gospel next Sunday, the Solemnity of Christ the King. It is the Gospel of the judge whose sole criterion is love. What he asks is only this: Did you visit me when I was sick? When I was in prison? Did you give me food to eat when I was hungry, did you clothe me when I was naked? And thus justice is decided in charity. Thus, at the end of this Gospel we can almost say: love alone, charity alone.

But there is no contradiction between this Gospel and St Paul. It is the same vision, according to which communion with Christ, faith in Christ, creates charity. And charity is the fulfilment of communion with Christ. Thus, we are just by being united with him and in no other way.

At the end, we can only pray the Lord that he help us to believe; really believe. Believing thus becomes life, unity with Christ, the transformation of our life. And thus, transformed by his love, by the love of God and neighbour, we can truly be just in God’s eyes.*

I hope this can help.

In Christ
P7

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I’d like to know opinions on the so called “New perspective on Paul”.

Everyone is welcome.

Thanks for sharing your impressions and insights.

It sounds to me like a quest for the “historical Paul” in much the same way there used to be a quest for the “historical Jesus”.

Yet all we have, by and large, are the New Testament documents, which can’t be changed, placed within a certain Jewish and Roman culture at the time, of which we may have some knowledge.

It always amazes me how much academic hot air can be generated from such limited resources to begin with.

 

[pneuma07]

One of the most interesting books I’ve read lately is “The Reluctand Parting” by Julie Galambush. She was a Baptist but converted to Judaism. She goes through the books of the NT and shows just how Jewish the writing are. There’s history and quite a bit on Paul and especially how his writings show the new Jesus messianic sect existed WITHIN Judaism for quite some time until it finally became Gentile and separated after the fall of Jerusalem as rabbinic Judaism became the “new Judaism”.

Catholics may enjoy it as she quotes from the deuterocanical books when the NT makes allusion to them.

Hi Publisher,

              thanks for the advice.  I didn't even know this author.

The relation early Christianity - Judaism is an issue which is gaining growing attention, and certainly deserves ours own.

It is also a connection between the present thread and the thread Radical and I are currently contributing to on “simple early days”.

In Christ
P7