Cracking The Foundation Of The New Perspective On Paul

Second title in the R.E.D.S doctrine series Critiquing the New Perspective on Paul Covenantal Nomism versus Reformed Covenantal Theology

[(The New Perspective on Paul)] [By (author) James D G Dunn] published on (January, 2008) by James D G Dunn (2008).

The so-called "New Perspective on Paul" has become a provocative way of understanding Judaism as a pattern of religion characterized by "covenantal nomism," which stands in contrast to the traditional, Lutheran position that argues that the Judaism against which Paul responded was "legalistic." This "new perspective" of first-century Judaism has remarkably changed the landscape of Pauline studies, but it has done so in relative isolation from the Pastoral Epistles, which are considered by most critical scholarship to be pseudonymous. Because of this lack of interaction with the Pastoral Epistles this study seeks to test the hermeneutic of the New Perspective on Paul from a canonical perspective. This study is not a polemic against the New Perspective on Paul, but an attempt to test its hermeneutic within the Pastoral Epistles. Four basic tenets of the New Perspective on Paul, taken from the writings of E. P. Sanders, N. T. Wright, and James D. G. Dunn, are identified and utilized to choose the passages in the Pastoral Epistles to be studied to test the New Perspective's hermeneutic outside "undisputed" Paul. The four tenets are as follows: Justification/Salvation, Law and Works, Paul's View of Judaism, and the Opponents. Based on these tenets, the passages considered are 1 Tim 1:6-16; 2:3-7; 2 Tim 1:3, 8-12; and Titus 3:3-7.

A renowned scholar calls for a change of direction for the study of Jesus in the 21st century.

Paul writes that we are justified by faith apart from 'works of the law', a disputed term that represents a fault line between 'old' and 'new' perspectives on Paul. Was the Apostle reacting against the Jews' good works done to earn salvation, or the Mosaic Law's practices that identified the Jewish people? Matthew J. Thomas examines how Paul's second century readers understood these points in conflict, how they relate to 'old' and 'new' perspectives, and what their collective witness suggests about the Apostle's own meaning. Surprisingly, these early witnesses align closely with the 'new' perspective, though their reasoning often differs from both viewpoints. They suggest that Paul opposes these works neither due to moralism, nor primarily for experiential or social reasons, but because the promised new law and covenant, which are transformative and universal in scope, have come in Christ.

Can someone please explain this "New Perspective on Paul"? Where did it come from and will it help or hinder Christian interpreters to grasp the apostle's writings more clearly? In The New Perspective on Paul: An Introduction, Kent Yinger provides concise, readable, and authoritative answers to these and other questions currently exercising students of Paul.

Ranks the Apostle Paul as "one of the most powerful and seminal minds of the first or any century," and argues that we can now sketch with confidence a new and more nuanced picture of Paul and the radical way in which his encounter with Jesus redefined his life, his mission and his expectations for a world made new in Christ. Reprint.

The debate between proponents of the Old and New perspectives on Paul has been followed closely over the years, consolidating allegiances on either side. But the debate has now reached a stalemate, with defectors turning to apocalyptic and other solutions. Garwood Anderson recounts the issues and concludes that "both 'camps' are right, but not all the time." And with that teaser, he rolls up his exegetical sleeves and proceeds to unfold a new proposal for overcoming the deadlock. But in a field crowded with opinions, could anything new emerge? Anderson's interaction with Paul and his interpreters is at the highest level, and his penetrating and energetic analysis captures attention. What if Paul's own theological perspective was contextually formed and coherently developed over time? Have we asked justification to carry a burden it was never meant to bear? Would fresh eyes and a proper sequencing of Paul's letters reveal Paul's own new perspective? Might we turn a corner and find a bold and invigorating panorama of Pauline soteriology? This is a Pauline study worthy of its great theme, and one that will infuse new energy into the quest for understanding Paul's mind and letters.