Why the New Perspective on Paul was Necessary: A Pictorial Argument
There has been much commentary on the theological implications stemming from the "New Perspective on Paul," both positive and negative, and usually focusing on the views of N.T. Wright, the most prominent spokesperson of the NPP. Some random samplings from the blogosphere, just from the last few days, can be found here, here, here, here, here, and here.
I can join in on the theological musings, analyze the pros and cons of the NPP, but I think others are better equipped to do so. What I wanted to introduce into the debate is this. The NPP was a subset of an overall shift in Christian theology to try to view the New Testament within the 1st century Jewish categories in which it was written. Again, I could ramble on for pages an pages about why that overarching paradigm shift was necessary, but I think the point is better made from a random sampling of Christian art through the centuries. This sampling concerns "the Parable of the Prodigal Son," which happens to be a particular biblical passage that cannot be fully appreciated lest it is seen in its 1st century, Middle Eastern, Jewish context (for a full discussion, I cannot recommend more strongly Kenneth Bailey's book, The Cross and the Prodigal). Take a look, and notice the real-world consequences of the old perspective:
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
I can join in on the theological musings, analyze the pros and cons of the NPP, but I think others are better equipped to do so. What I wanted to introduce into the debate is this. The NPP was a subset of an overall shift in Christian theology to try to view the New Testament within the 1st century Jewish categories in which it was written. Again, I could ramble on for pages an pages about why that overarching paradigm shift was necessary, but I think the point is better made from a random sampling of Christian art through the centuries. This sampling concerns "the Parable of the Prodigal Son," which happens to be a particular biblical passage that cannot be fully appreciated lest it is seen in its 1st century, Middle Eastern, Jewish context (for a full discussion, I cannot recommend more strongly Kenneth Bailey's book, The Cross and the Prodigal). Take a look, and notice the real-world consequences of the old perspective:
And here's one from within the matrix of the New Perspective:
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
I agree that we all ought to try and interpret the New Testament within the 1st century Jewish context that it was written... Wright is completely correct on that...
My problem is, don't you think Luther and Calvin were trying to do the same thing?
I like Wright a lot, but I do think he misses it here. he assumes Luther and Calvin did not take into account what he is now taking into account which is the context it ought to be interpreted!
Live the Word
Matt
Matt:
I appreciate your feedback. There is much I could say about Calvin and Luther, most of it out of adoration and utter respect. But specifically as to your question, I think I would put it like this. Calvin and Luther, I believe, did whatever was in their power to interpret the Scriptures from within the socio-historical context of which they were aware. But I think they lived in time and place where there simply was not as much awareness of the 1st century, Jewish context, not necessarily through any fault of their own. I don't think Wright would say that Calvin and Luther did anything but the best they could do with what they had to work with. It just happens that, nowadays, we know so much more about the New Testament writers' socio-historical setting, and if that awareness leads to perspectives that are slightly different than those that were developed when that perspective was not as visible, that is nothing short of a blessing from God. Not to say that we should uncritically accept all revisionings of doctrine that are filtered through improved socio-hisotrical awareness, but if someone comes along to re-examine doctrine as astutely as has Wright, from within a framework that we both agree is the correct one, and that re-examination leads to conclusions that disagree with those of Calvin and Luther...Like Wright says, Calvin didn't die for my sins; Luther didn't die for my sins; Jesus died for my sins.
I appreciate your take, though, and I hope we can keep up the discussion.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
Realize you are talking to someone who loves and greatly respects Wright!
I have one disagreement... Do you think that we know the culture of the 1950's better than the people of 2250 will? I definitely think soo. I do not think that we now know about the 1st century than Calvin and Luther did... If anything, we know the 1st century less accurately. We all know that through time stories change, etc...
Live the Word
Matt
Matt,
Your analogy does not hold water.
"About the 1950's"---which 1950 culture are you referring to? A Jewish person in the year 3000 may have a better chance at understanding the Jewish culture in 1950 than a Chinese village farmer from the 1950's who doesn't have access to TV or books.
You don't better understand a culture from a certain time period that you don't live in just by being closer to the "time-scale." You learn more about a culture by studying it or experiencing it. Since no one alive today "experienced" the 1st Century (xcept Jesus) the best we can do is study it (and maybe experience modern Jewish culture to supplement that study).
More information provides more insight into the culture, and there is a LOT more information which has been made available since the Reformation concerning 1st Century Judaism.
Your analogy oversimplifies the nature of how one goes about determining who is and who is not more likely to "understand" the 1st Century Jewish culture.
N.T. Wright also thinks Luther and Calvin tried their darndest to understand Paul aright (along with 1st century Jewish culture). He just thinks they got it wrong. Luther and Calvin are not inerrant, and protestants are too sensitive about people who disagree with them. Were they great guys with a great heart and many wonderful theological insights? Sure. Were they wrong about a lot of things? Sure.
One thing they were dead on about is this: The Scripture is the final authority. This is a "dangerous idea" (cf. McGrath) because it bucks our traditions and bias' with the biblical text.
Raffi,
Sweet Post.
Bradley,
Thanks for the input. I don't think I could have put it any better. Of course, time is a variable in the function of understanding, but by far not the only, or even the most significant, one. In this context specifically, I don't think its too much of an overstatement to say that there has been more study of second-Temple Judaism in the last generation than in the previous millenium.
Anyway, good discussion. I hope to hear more from you in the future.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi