With these three summaries now on the table, and with some fine clarifications by others, I wish now to state what we have to do when we start talking about the \u201cNew Perspective\u201d because I\u2019m hearing lots of things that I think are gross distortions. Simon Gathercole\u2019s piece in CT<\/em> is a nice summary; I have only little quibbles with it but I have more than quibbles with what I sometimes hear. With these three summaries now on the table, and with some fine clarifications by others, I wish now to state what we have to do when we start talking about the \u201cNew Perspective\u201d because I\u2019m hearing lots of things that I think are gross distortions. Simon Gathercole\u2019s piece in CT is a nice summary; I […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":197,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1624],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3118","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-paul"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nThere is no official \u201cNew Perspective Institution\u201d or \u201cNP Denomination\u201d that filters everything through a grid to make sure it is sound. What Jimmy Dunn called \u201cthe new perspective\u201d was a trend emerging out of the re-discovery of Jewish sources and how Paul fit into how people were re-construing Judaism. But, there is a wild diversity out there of people who have plowed their own furrow. Please avoid saying the \u201cNew Perspective\u201d says \u201cX.\u201d Try to connect with a name as much as possible.
\nSecond, the only \u201cnew perspective\u201d I know that can be said to be represented across the board is a new perspective on \u201cJudaism.\u201d There is a common thread: Israel was elected by God, brought into the covenant and given the law to regulate how covenant people live. Thus, Sanders\u2019 covenantal nomism<\/em> is a common thread \u2014 even if Dunn and Wright have modifications and differences with Sanders. Dunn\u2019s and Wright\u2019s modifications are really more than that: they have both investigated the Jewish sources themselves. And on top of them are all kinds of offshoots and variations, but there seems to me to be a general consensus that Judaism \u2014 and this is not the same as the \u201cJudaizers\u201d Paul went toe-to-toe with \u2014 was not a works-based religion but a covenant-based religion in which works played a prominent, sometimes more than other times, role.
\nThird, when it comes to Paul, there is wide variation in Sanders, Dunn and Wright. It is unfair to say these three are the same when it comes to what they think about Paul. I\u2019m not sure there is such a thing as \u201cThe\u201d New Perspective on Paul. Those who say this aren\u2019t reading the books of these authors. Sometimes they are drawing unities that don\u2019t exist. To speak of a unified theory of Paul in a New Perspective is inaccurate. What I\u2019m hearing today is mostly criticism of NT Wright; what is being said about Wright would not always be applicable to Dunn and Sanders. Which means, perhaps most importantly for theological debates \u2026.
\nFourth, there is no real \u201csystematic theology\u201d at work in this New Perspective on Paul. Much of the criticism I\u2019m hearing attributes what \u201cNew Perspective\u201d folks believe at the level of systematic theology. Sanders doesn\u2019t care about this; Jimmy Dunn is not a systematician; and Wright isn\u2019t really one either \u2014 they are biblical theologians and historians. NT Wright, of course, is the Bishop of Durham and that means he\u2019s Anglican \u2014 and if anyone knows what systematic theology that is you\u2019ll have to tell us, but the 39 Articles really isn\u2019t a \u201csystematic theology.\u201d Let\u2019s not forget this. To suggest there is a systematic theology at work here, and to suggest there is one systematic theology at work, is poppycock. Most of what I hear at this level is an invention by those who infer what the systematic theology would look like if Sanders and Dunn and Wright composed one<\/em>. It is never wise to make up a theology and then criticize it.
\nFifth, the NPP does give rise to exegesis of Paul that, however, can lead to some major shifting in theology and, in particular, how to understand salvation. Tomorrow I will give a final consideration and I hope it will give us something to understand.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"