The New Perspective on Paul

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

What is the relevance of the new perspective?

The New Perspective, at the basis (or as it seems to me), is taking Paul out of Christianity, and placing him into Judaism. Now, the argument isn't that Paul was a good Jew, or anything like that. It simply is taking Paul and putting him into his Jewish context. So instead of interpreting Paul through Christian lenses, and in particular Lutheran lenses, it interprets Paul through a more culturally accurate lens. At the same time, it paints a better picture of Judaism. Christianity, or at least certain branches (especially historically), have deemed that Judaism is a flawed or misguided religion (and usually it is much more harsh then that).

The new perspective basically asks people to reread Paul, while stripping off the centuries of traditions, and advancing beyond Martin Luther, and the Reformers. Which is why it is relevant to study of Paul. As with any field, there are problems with this new perspective, but the basis is a good start for studying Paul.

I'm not sure if I answered your question here fully, and I'm willing to expand if needed.

[fallingblood]

Instead of making multiple posts, I'm just addressing a number of people in one.

Originally Posted by outhouse

since the scholars all have different opinions on this, there is no one theme yet, its heavily criticized for this fact that scholars wont come together

almost everyone you mentioned has different theology

Not really heavily criticized, besides for some Conservatives. Also, there is a general theme. This is a relevant cite: A Summary of the New Perspective on Paul | The Paul Page

As for their being differences, you will find that in the old perspective as well. So really, it is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Vultar

Scholars tend to have different opinions on Paul as they generally don't wish to admit that he used basic psycology in order to gain a following for the then faultering religion.

Judaism wasn't faltering. That is the religion Paul was operating under. Your argument then has no basis. Also, psychologists have different opinions on Paul as well. Really, you're just voicing an opinion based from a dislike of religion. It's fine you have a problem with religion, but in a conversation about a religious topic, I would rather not have such a sidetrack.

Originally Posted by F0uad

Is the Paul portrayed in the Book of Acts the same as the Paul we encounter in the Pauline corpus? I would give you a big NO

True. There is a clear difference in Acts and Paul. The two contradict each other. Acts tries to smooth everything over. While in Paul, there is clear tension at points. The basic foundation is the same, but there are definitely distinct differences.

[outhouse]

Judaism wasn't faltering

sure it was.


It had a corrupt governement raping its own people

the hard working jews in and around the temple were fed up with the forced tithes and taxation.


even before the fall of the temple the synagogues were full of romans/gentiles, hellenization was'nt creeping in, it was taking over.



the whole governement went through a dramitic change after the fall of the temple and its leadership had to reorganize.

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by outhouse

sure it was.

If you want to discuss this, we can make a new thread. I simply won't debate it here though.

[outhouse]

The New Perspective, at the basis (or as it seems to me), is taking Paul out of Christianity, and placing him into Judaism

I dont understand what the luthren influence really is


Im not sure id have a problem as long as they keep a hellenistic view of pauls judaism, and from what im understanding, I think there trying to play pauls theology more jewish then gentile

[outhouse]

Originally Posted by fallingblood

If you want to discuss this, we can make a new thread. I simply won't debate it here though.

fair enough

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by outhouse

I dont understand what the luthren influence really is


Im not sure id have a problem as long as they keep a hellenistic view of pauls judaism, and from what im understanding, I think there trying to play pauls theology more jewish then gentile

There are some who try to make the difference less. However, the new perspective does not necessarily demand that. That is one of the criticisms that has been leveled against E.P. Sanders, that he tries to smooth things out too much.

The Lutheran influence, specifically coming from Martin Luther (and then the other reformers as well) was looking at Judaism as strictly legalistic. It wasn't though. And the way these reformers looked at Judaism were through tainted lenses. They painted Judaism in negative manners, and really took Paul out of Judaism. The new perspective is a counter to that, and instead of taking all of the tradition that has been leveled on Paul, putting Paul in a more historical context. This is not an exact science though, and we do get some problems there as well.

[outhouse]

Originally Posted by fallingblood

There are some who try to make the difference less. However, the new perspective does not necessarily demand that. That is one of the criticisms that has been leveled against E.P. Sanders, that he tries to smooth things out too much.

The Lutheran influence, specifically coming from Martin Luther (and then the other reformers as well) was looking at Judaism as strictly legalistic. It wasn't though. And the way these reformers looked at Judaism were through tainted lenses. They painted Judaism in negative manners, and really took Paul out of Judaism. The new perspective is a counter to that, and instead of taking all of the tradition that has been leveled on Paul, putting Paul in a more historical context. This is not an exact science though, and we do get some problems there as well.

it weird theres not a standard for historicity, Carrier talks about this.

For me anthropology gives this a good foundation



well you make sense with a non legalistic view

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by fallingblood

I'm not sure if I answered your question here fully, and I'm willing to expand if needed.

It strikes me as needless pedantry.

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

It strikes me as needless pedantry.

I think it was needed. The old perspective was increasingly anti-semetic. And that is understandable looking at Martin Luther, who was a proponent of such.

And by viewing Paul in a new light, one that is deemed more historically accurate, it helps strip away the anti-semitism as well. And even if one does not come to the same conclusions that the new perspective proposes, it still asks for people to question who we read Paul. Which is a good thing.