A Wider Perspective on the New Perspective
My friend Christopher over at TaylorWest and I have been engaging in a stimulating conversation, generally about Piper's critique of N.T. Wright in The Future of Justification, but more specifically about some of the overarching methods/assumptions of Wright and other proponents of the so-called "New Perspective on Paul." Christopher threw the ball in my court with the following, and since it brings up an important point that I believe is being marginalized in the overall discussion of the NPP, I thought I'd just devote a post to it:
The issue I would have with Chris' (and Piper's) presentment with the issue, and one I find to be prevalent in much of the conversation centering on the NPP, is that it narrows the core issue beyond that which Wright, or other proponents like Dunn or Hayes, would feel comfortable. In other words, I don't think the NPP can be narrowed down to the two statements that Chris narrows them down to. We should remember that the "New Perspective," at its essence, is precisely that, a perspective, a lens, and statements like the ones Chris notes are not in themselves the defining parameters of the perspective, but more along the lines of resulting from that perspective, that lens.
As for the perspective itself, it is of course, at its core, an effort to view Paul, and the NT writers in general, from within their first-century Jewish context, about which there has probably been more study in the last generation than in the previous millennium, such that I would be hard-pressed to accept the challenge of identifying "some of the core finds" that would necessitate a rethinking of Paul; its not so much a matter of a few such finds, but of an overall atmosphere generated by thousands of "finds," insights," or whatever you want to call them. Like Wright says, "The fact, therefore, that we all live within contexts and hat some ideas are more thinkable in some places and periods than in others is no reason to despair."
And along those same lines we must also remember that first-century Judaism was more than simply a religion. It was a vibrant mixture of what we would now call religion, faith, culture and politics, though most first-century inhabitants would not recognize these distinctions.
At its best, though, the NPP does not stop with viewing Paul from a first-century, Jewish lens. That lens is imperative, even central, but Paul, apart from being a first-century Jew, was also comfortably at home within the Greek, or Hellenistic, culture that had permeated the region at the time, and he was also a Roman citizen. And (again, at its best) the NPP strives to hear Paul within these three acoustic chambers, against the backdrop of his overarching goal which was to bring all thought captive to the Messiah.
But perhaps the most definitive aspect of the NPP, certainly for Wright, is its identification of the narrative dimensions of Paul's thought. The NPP has recognized that first century Jews were not only conscious of a Scriptural narrative from creation to the call of Abraham to the Great Exodus to the exile and to their present, but that they also saw themselves as living within that great story. And the basic story that Paul was telling is that with Jesus a new chapter has opened in the story that he had believed himself to be living, and that understanding what that story is and how this chapter is a radically new moment within it provides one of the central clues to everything else he says, including the question of justification and the law upon which the NPP battles have been so often fought out.
Anyway, that's how I would respond to (or rather, define) the issue, off the top of my head.
Balls in your court, Christopher (and anyone else who wants to chime in).
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
If I’m not mistaken, the NPP can all be boiled down to these two statements:1)
We now know, through our research of Second Temple Judaism, that the Jews in
Palestine were essentially a faithful people, attempting to please God by living
obedient lives through faith in the promises of God. By in large, Israel was not
a legalistic nation that was seeking to earn God’s favor by doing the works of
the law. Rather, they acknowledged that, by God’s grace, they were in a
covenantal relationship with God that required obedience to the law. They only
obeyed the law to the degree that it demonstrated their faith in the promises
made in the covenant.2) On the basis of this new understanding of Second Temple
Judaism, we need to determine what Paul’s main problem was with the Jews of his
day. It could be that he was addressing a very small minority of legalistic
Jews, or it could be that we have totally misunderstood his writings and we need
to construct a new perspective on Paul’s writings.What Piper is saying, and I
agree with him, is that our reconstruction of Early Judaism is not nearly as
reliable as scholars make it out to be. As such, we are not forced to rethink
the way we read Paul. For my part, I think that even if it could be proved that
covenant nomism was the predominate worldview of the Jews in Paul’s day, it
could still be the case the Paul didn’t like it either and was attacking it in
his letters. Either way, I haven’t seen anything that requires a rereading of
Paul’s writings.I’m curious, since you appreciate what N.T. Wright is doing,
what are some of the core finds of Wright and other NPP folks that you think
require us to read Paul in a new way?
The issue I would have with Chris' (and Piper's) presentment with the issue, and one I find to be prevalent in much of the conversation centering on the NPP, is that it narrows the core issue beyond that which Wright, or other proponents like Dunn or Hayes, would feel comfortable. In other words, I don't think the NPP can be narrowed down to the two statements that Chris narrows them down to. We should remember that the "New Perspective," at its essence, is precisely that, a perspective, a lens, and statements like the ones Chris notes are not in themselves the defining parameters of the perspective, but more along the lines of resulting from that perspective, that lens.
As for the perspective itself, it is of course, at its core, an effort to view Paul, and the NT writers in general, from within their first-century Jewish context, about which there has probably been more study in the last generation than in the previous millennium, such that I would be hard-pressed to accept the challenge of identifying "some of the core finds" that would necessitate a rethinking of Paul; its not so much a matter of a few such finds, but of an overall atmosphere generated by thousands of "finds," insights," or whatever you want to call them. Like Wright says, "The fact, therefore, that we all live within contexts and hat some ideas are more thinkable in some places and periods than in others is no reason to despair."
And along those same lines we must also remember that first-century Judaism was more than simply a religion. It was a vibrant mixture of what we would now call religion, faith, culture and politics, though most first-century inhabitants would not recognize these distinctions.
At its best, though, the NPP does not stop with viewing Paul from a first-century, Jewish lens. That lens is imperative, even central, but Paul, apart from being a first-century Jew, was also comfortably at home within the Greek, or Hellenistic, culture that had permeated the region at the time, and he was also a Roman citizen. And (again, at its best) the NPP strives to hear Paul within these three acoustic chambers, against the backdrop of his overarching goal which was to bring all thought captive to the Messiah.
But perhaps the most definitive aspect of the NPP, certainly for Wright, is its identification of the narrative dimensions of Paul's thought. The NPP has recognized that first century Jews were not only conscious of a Scriptural narrative from creation to the call of Abraham to the Great Exodus to the exile and to their present, but that they also saw themselves as living within that great story. And the basic story that Paul was telling is that with Jesus a new chapter has opened in the story that he had believed himself to be living, and that understanding what that story is and how this chapter is a radically new moment within it provides one of the central clues to everything else he says, including the question of justification and the law upon which the NPP battles have been so often fought out.
Anyway, that's how I would respond to (or rather, define) the issue, off the top of my head.
Balls in your court, Christopher (and anyone else who wants to chime in).
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
0 Comments:
Post a Comment