New Perspective on Paul

For about a month I was out of touch with my studies, pretty much from the time my dad entered the hospital (mid January) to his passing and funeral (Jan 29-Feb 2) until mid February as a period set aside for grief. I reserve the right to interrupt our regular blogs occasionally to honor my dad, but for the mean time I desire - almost need - to enter the swing of things once again. So without further ado, the academic topic of interest (drum roll please)…:

I have entered a potentially revolutionizing debate currently bantering back and forth in the halls of academia. Recently that debate has been trickling down into the public view as writers like John Piper are beginning to blow their horns. The debate has been called - and is often referred to as the ‘so-called’ - New Perspective on Paul.

It would seem inevitable as someone who reads N.T. Wright regularly that I would eventually pick up on the ‘New Perspective’. I read Wright’s book, Paul in Fresh Perspective, last year and to be honest I didn’t really know what he was trying to defend (never having heard of the ‘New Perspective’). Shortly thereafter I noticed John Piper (those who love this guy, usually have a disdain for Wright - I’ve observed) had written a book titled the Future of Justification, subtitled; A Response to N.T. Wright. Reading Piper’s book three things became evident to me: 1. Piper was responding to an earlier book by Wright titled What Saint Paul Really Said; 2.There were many places where what Piper said was misleading in a way that only those who adore him would not pick up on, and 3. After reading it, I still had little idea what the New Perspective actually was.

Working backwards, I got a hold of Wrights book, What Saint Paul Really Said, and quickly read it. I gathered many good and useful things out of it, but a certain amount of ambiguity coupled with what seemed to be Wright’s assumption that the reader had some knowledge of what the New Perspective was, and not to mention the haste in which I read it, led to the same problem I had with Pipers book: no clear answer as to what the New Perspective was.

About this time I came across another name, Peter Stuhlmacher, who wrote a book titled Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification, subtitled; A Challenge to the New Perspective. Also in this little book is an essay by Donald A. Hagner. Together and with great respect many of the issues were clarified and I was introduced to others who have contributed to the discussion.

Working backwards still, I picked up Krister Stendahl’s highly referenced little book titled Paul Among Jews and Gentiles. Stendahl, being a Lutheran bishop, carries a significant amount of influence in this discussion due to the fact that the New Perspective on Paul may be seen as a direct challenge (some might say, and only in some regards) to the Reformed (particularly Lutheran) doctrine of Justification by Faith (which explains why Piper is all up in a frenzy).

Of every contributor of the New Perspective out there, there is one who’s work shattered aggressively the - my term - ‘Old’ perspective, dare I say decisively! The work I speak of is E.P. Sanders critically acclaimed six hundred page mammoth of a book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, in which he states, for example, "one of the intentions of the present chapter, to put the matter clearly, is to destroy that view" p.59 ("that" being the popular view that Judaism was a work’s based religion - a sneak-peek for into the discussion that awaits.)

(I am compelled to interject at this point, not wanting to get a head of myself, it is none-the-less necessary to 'backup' my statement that "Sanders shattered the old perspective decisively" by quoting someone who stands opposed to the New Perspective and yet cannot deny Sanders research into first century Judaism: Larry Helyer says "In my opinion, Sanders and Dunn do a disservice to Paul's thought." And yet regarding Sanders research into Judaism, was it a religion of grace or law, Helyer says, "This [to read Paul against the backdrop of a Judaism of works], says Sanders, and I think correctly, is simply wrong. Judaism was very much aware that salvation was first and foremost by grace" - Larry R. Helyer, The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John; p.264; he also references his own work, Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period)

So now I have found myself at the root that started it all (I think), Sander’s book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. If three names continue to surface as the banner carriers of this debate they are E.P. Sanders, James Dunn - it is important to note that Dunn is the one who coined the phrase ‘New Perspective on Paul’, and N.T. Wright. So in turn I am currently reading Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, which will be followed by Dunn’s The New Perspective on Paul (revised edition), and then I will be in the proper place to return to Wrights’ What Saint Paul Really Said and Paul in Fresh Perspective followed by Pipers attempt at rebuttal (The Future of Justification) and in between of all this I will review Stendahl’s and Stuhlmacher’s books as time permits (I found them both helpful the first time around, how much more the second?).

I invite you then to join me on this journey as we explore the New Perspective on Paul, what it is, what merit does it hold, and how can it deepen our understanding of the scriptures.

One thing must be said before we begin: Piper warns his readers that it is easy to jump on to bandwagons of things ‘new’ or ‘revolutionizing’ and the such, and encourages his fans to stay the course (by which he means the course set for them by Luther and the Reformers - a revolutionary term to be sure!). Do not too hastily embrace such exhortation, the term "New Perspective on Paul" (not the best coin phrase I admit) is so because it seems since Luther everyone accepted the Protestant/Catholic retrojection onto the first century with Judaism taking the roll of Catholicism and Christianity taking the roll of Protestantism (to quote Helyer again, "[According to Sanders, Dunn and Wright] Luther and his successors misread what the conflict was really all about. In the process the Reformers branded Judaism in its entirety as a religion of works and saw its' contemporary reincarnation in the medieval Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, this stereotype persists, even in our own time. There is much truth in their critique." (p.265, italics added - again, I quote Helyer because he is not in favor of the New Perspective)

The New Perspective on Paul has thoroughly examined Judaism between 200 BC and 200 AD and has found Luther’s assumptions about Paul’s polemics wanting. Namely, Judaism was a ‘grace’ religion, not a ‘works’ religion as Luther assumed, thus they cannot be compared to the works religion of sixteenth century Catholicism (in which Luther’s doctrine of Justification by Faith arose). Judaism - says the New Perspective - must be examined on its' own terms, not on our Christianized terms or through the lens of Paul. Therefore we need to return to the drawing board of Paul’s statements; "by faith apart from works of the law" (Romans 3:28) and "from faith in Christ and not from works of the law" (Galatians 2:16). If he was not challenging a Jewish religion of salvation by works (because there was no such a religion - says the New Perspective), then what do these statements mean? This - I think - is where Wrights book, What Saint Paul Really Said, enters the discussion. But I’ll get to that book in due course.

For now, it’s on to E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism.

Stay Tuned

Derek