Talk:New Perspective on Paul

Untitled

This article should be merged as a sub section in Paul of Tarsus 194.83.157.10 12:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC) I disagree. The NPP is big enough to stand on its own and many people will search specifically for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshmanWiki00 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOV?

User:24.15.75.90 disputes the neutrality of the article. Why? User:David L Rattigan 23:47 04 May 2006 BST

Excellent article. Flows well, and very NPOV in my opinion. --Colin MacLaurin 06:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Though I consult Wikipedia often, I am not familiar with how the editing process works. I'm particularly interested in asking because I feel that much of this article, while well-meaning, is pretty inaccurate. I've jotted down some notes that I believe would improve upon it, but am not familiar with the process of corresponding and reaching the consensus necessary to propose revisions. Any help would be appreciated. Mmattison (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The way that the article is written is not NPOV. I get the feeling that the article is trying to convince me that the New Perspective on Paul is the correct view. (The article is a little preachy). However, if you hold to this New Perspective, you wouldn't be able to see the bias... because you also believe it to be true. The article should read more as a statement of the facts about what the New Perspective is. The article should show why people hold to this view (without trying to convince people that it is the correct position). Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.77.251 (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article is biased. It is an argument in favor of the "new perspective". Should be made more objective in tone. <Martin Book> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.236.104.239 (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What is "unbiased"? The new perspective simply makes much more sense, no matter how you put it. I think this article is pretty NPOV/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.191.37 (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Unclear central concept

pb1 I have to disagree with other talkers here: this is not clear to me at all. The key concept is italicized and followed by an unexplained link - neither of which help clarify the concept at all.

I recommend another paragraph which developes and clarifies the key concept, preferably with a quote and example.

Otherwise, clear and well-referenced! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.27.187.167 (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Contradictions?

This article seems to completely contradict the "New Perspective on Paul" section of the Paul of Tarsus article. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The New Perspective is the name given to the scholarly view pioneered by EP Sanders, and has nothing to do with what is described in the Paul of Tarsus article. I can only assume whoever wrote that got confused. David L Rattigan 0147 2 August 2005 GMT

For what it is worth, I think this article is excellent. I commend the editor.

Theology or history

So is this a theological/religious opinion or a historical theory? The article seems to lean towards the former when it describes it as a debate between protestant scholars but other times it reads like it is describing a scientific debate.

It's a modern historical theory about the historical Paul. Because of Paul's prominence in modern Christianity (see Pauline Christianity), it is also a theological/religious debate. It is not a scientific debate, though historical methods and scientific methods share some overlap.75.14.215.248 (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Clear as mud

Ummm...this article made the subject clear as mud.

There's only one sentence that comes close to defining the subject, and that is the one that starts with "Sanders reframed". The description of this "reframing" does not show a clear difference from the "old perspective" explained in the preceding paragraph. The remainder of the article only discusses consequences of this supposed change of perspective. Much more detail is needed to explain the new perspective itself.

I don't mean anything personal against the author. I'm just saying that the article did not answer my question, "What is the New Perspective on Paul?"

• Yeah, I think you're right. This article is on my list of things to do. StAnselm 22:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd definitely agree that this article needs work. I've read through it several times and still don't get what it's talking about. Lord Seth (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The topic may be too complex for wikipedia to cover. There are several good links in the external links section. 75.14.221.43 (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above writers that the article was clear as mud. I have now rewritten it virtually completely with an aim to make the subject comprehensible to non-scholars. Tercel478 (talk) 08:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

We're all indebted to Tercel478 for recent changes to make this article clearer. Even so, I felt that a few changes were in order:

• I've removed the paranthetical s from the lead. Yes, it's arguable that there are "many new perspectives", but there are also arguably many feminisms, but that doesn't stop us from talking about "feminism" or "feminists", and this matter wouldn't ordinarily be mentioned in the leading paragraphs of an article. This also resolves the paradox of referring to it as the "new perspective" in the same leading paragraph.
• I've removed or modified wording that seems to promote a particular POV.
• I've fixed a number of grammatical/orthographical errors.
• I've made other changes with citations to back them up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtSchumann (talk • contribs) 16:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I came to this article a few weeks ago having been bogged down in N. T. Wright's book of the same name and found it very clear and helpful. I think it is now an excellent reference for anyone with a basic training in NT studies. I can't comment on how much someone with no theological education at all would get from it though. --Kevin Cowtan (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Evangelicals

I suspect liberal scholars like James D. G. Dunn and E. P. Sanders would be astonished to find themselves characterized as "Evangelicals". I removed this phrase, but if anyone can show support for it, please feel free to re-insert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physguy (talk • contribs) 01:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying points?

The following was listed in the article under the "criticism" heading at the bottom of the section. It seems to me to be better-suited to the talk page, and if anyone wants to clean it up in a fashion that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia article be my guest. I found it both unhelpful and definitely NOT NPOV.

- The above analysis seems to be one-sided and ignores a very basic analysis on the nature of the evidences from new perspective. For example, one of the fundation of the solid base is the works of E.P. Sanders. But this work employs an assumption that the Judaism is not legalistic based on very few Judaism works, which are after Paul (not before him.) These works are more likely belong to some special branches, rather than main-stream Judaism. All the works based on this, should be viewed with extreme care. Without this so-called solid fundation, all the arguments which build on that, should be reviewed.

- Though the Lutheran interpretation may have some distance from the original Paul's understanding. But without real solid evidences, the total re-establishment of the perspective should be delayed before strong evidences push the other way. Orpheus42 (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This article should be merged as a sub section in Paul of Tarsus

This article should be merged as a sub section in Paul of Tarsus--PerspectiveMundo (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the earlier mention that this is a large subject to cover in one page, so sub sectioning this probably wouldn't be ideal. Since this is subjective and interpretive to each individual it's not really appropriate to put this on the Paul of Tarsus page, which is more of a historical figure page. That said, this article does only make sense if it's understood with a foreknowledge of the interpretation of Paul's so called 'polemics' against Jews. Perhaps a subsection of this page needs to introduce the 'old' perspective first. Topher anton (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite needed - low quality article

See diff</ref> A good image at the top, the rest is downhill! Needs to be kept as a separate article, but quality is very low, sentences strewn around by different editors, errors all over. Needs a rewrite. History2007 (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Development

The historical context really needs to refer to the much bigger history of justification to put the NPP in context. Alister McGrath's "Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification" would give us a good overview differentiating between the Old Testament (Heb. zedek), New Testament (Gk. Dikai), Early Church (e.g. Clement, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus), Augustinian (Catholic), Reformation (Luther, Calvin) and Modern takes on justification. I would refer to him here. The existing references to Stendahl, Sanders, Dunn and Wright are good, but will need further nuancing. --JoshmanWiki00 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Main ideas

Yes it is an important topic, but the NPP is not simply about justification. The main ideas should work through the development.

1) Introspective Conscience. Refer to Stendahl's work. Two elements should be considers. His views on Paul's 'conversion' vs. 'calling'. Also his work on the Introspective Conscience of the West tying it in with Augustine and Luther.

2) Pattern of Religion. Refer to Sanders work on Judaism. List his main points explaining the pattern of Jewish religion and how it undercuts the Reformed foundational assumptions about Judaism as legalistic. Refer to the 2 Volume book criticising him. Justification and Variegated Nomism. Then refer to critical reviews of the book.

3) Works of law. The existing article on this is bad. We should start by breaking down the Gk. Ergo Nomos. Then discuss the different understandings of the 'law'. Then tie it in with works. Refer to Dunns views here. Then refer to Douglas Moo and Robert Rapa. They have done some work on this.

4) Righteousness of God. There is a long history of interpretation we need to refer to in this section. Alister McGrath - Augustine, Reformation, Modern. Wright actually refers to a table of them in 'What Saint Paul really Said'.

5) Justification. Early church views (Clement, Martyr, Ireneaus), Augustinian view, Reformed View, Modern views (incl. NPP). Two main understandings are involved with the debate on NPP. a) How a sinner becomes righteous in the sight of God (e.g. Rom 5.8-9). b) How one can tell a person is righteous (e.g. James 2).

6) Pistis Christou. The existing article has a lot of cites - good. But it needs more structure. First break down the greek. Then discuss the main points. Then discuss the implications. --JoshmanWiki00 (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

re Augustine

" … Augustine is blamed by some for introducing incorrect ideas[citation needed] (some Orthodox would agree that Augustine erred on these ideas, and introduced novelties into the teachings of the Church Fathers[34])."

This is flagged as "citation needed," but there is in fact a footnote at the end of the sentence. Is there a problem with the reference cited? (e.g. does it not actually/adequately support the claim?) Otherwise I'm not sure what the problem is.

I don't know who does or doesn't blame Augustine for anything, much less who's right, but I try to keep alert for notes like "citation needed" when I read, and this one didn't make much sense to me. LiberalArtist (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Whattecrap!!

One cannot have an article like this in a serious encyclopedia. It is like someone writes a book in the middle of Wikipedia. I propose simply deleting it. The material doesn't need preservation, it s*x! Write your own book at home, someone!! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Perspective on Paul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120919133747/http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/dort.htm to http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/dort.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Perspective on Paul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160829034205/http://www.eerdmans.com/Products/6889/paul-and-the-gift.aspx to http://www.eerdmans.com/Products/6889/paul-and-the-gift.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

I am adding a new section to the long talk list of this controversial page to underline the non-neutral style and content of this article. Expressions such as "theologians of the historic Lutheran and Reformed perspectives" which keep coming back all along clearly imply that Luther's and other theologians' views are now totally outdated, being overhauled by the "new perspective", which is, of course, "a significant shift in New Testament studies", not just another interpretation or school of thought. Humility doesn't belong here! And Sanders' work is described right away as "pioneering", a qualificative which is attributed... to Sanders himself and to Dunn, another proponent of the "new perspective". Is this a serious article? There is urgent need for independent sources if the aforesaid is to remain in a wikipedia article. Pensées de Pascal (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)