1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The New Perspective on Paul

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by fallingblood, Apr 26, 2012.

  1. fallingblood

    fallingblood Agnostic Theist

    Messages:
    9,822
    The issue of the New Perspective on Paul (supported by scholars such as E.P. Sanders, James D G Dunn, and N.T. Wright) has come up in a couple of threads now. The claims or implication is that it is a minority view, that is no mainstream, and not credible.

    I don't quite get the logic behind a dismissal of this new perspective though. Wright, Dunn, and Sanders are all respected scholars who have produced some great scholarship on the subject of Paul, which many others follow and cite. So I think an outright dismissal is not logical here.

    From my point of view, this new perspective is similar to the developing perspectives on Jesus. It seems like a natural thing to do in scholarship, to update views based on present information. So I don't understand the harsh backlash agains it that some have voiced.

    Basically then, for those interested in the study of Paul, is this new perspective something that should be dismissed, or accepted (at least in part)?
     
  2. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    29,769
    Religion:
    Judaism
    What is the relevance of the new perspective?
     
  3. outhouse

    outhouse Atheistically

    Messages:
    27,027

    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
     
  4. Vultar

    Vultar New Member

    Messages:
    473
    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.
     
  5. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    29,769
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Please don't further pollute the thread with this type of mindless drivel. You have zero appreciation of current scholarship and even less with regards to its intent.
     
  6. Vultar

    Vultar New Member

    Messages:
    473
    Not my fault if you can't handle the truth. Sorry I don't take all day to make my points convoluted to make them sound more intelligent.
     
  7. disciple

    disciple Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,632

    Care to explain how he used basic psychology to gain followers?
     
  8. F0uad

    F0uad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,401
    I think the majority of RF is used to him ''Trolling'' around he mostly has nothing to contribute so that why he likes to go on a attack at religion. Clearly the person was abused or beaten up by Rabbi, Priest and a Imam. ;)



    Back to the subject:

    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
     
  9. Vultar

    Vultar New Member

    Messages:
    473
    Well there is the one part where he uses the peoples "generic" god that they had so they didn't forget any of them and told the people that this was representive of his god in order to use the peoples own beliefs against them. Basic psychology is to use peoples beliefs against them to get your desired effect.

    Note: I am in no way a scholar so am free to actually see the simple truth behind things.
    People spend way too much time and effort to try to prove the ridiculous. I too actually have a viewpoint on certain things that some would call "crazy", however, everything fits into it, so I know my experiences are true.

    ___________________

    Disclaimer: I don't expect anyone to believe what I write.... I'm just a messenger.... :D
     
  10. outhouse

    outhouse Atheistically

    Messages:
    27,027

    while there are differences the overall picture is simular
     
  11. fallingblood

    fallingblood Agnostic Theist

    Messages:
    9,822
    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.
     
  12. fallingblood

    fallingblood Agnostic Theist

    Messages:
    9,822
    Instead of making multiple posts, I'm just addressing a number of people in one.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  13. outhouse

    outhouse Atheistically

    Messages:
    27,027
    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.
     
  14. fallingblood

    fallingblood Agnostic Theist

    Messages:
    9,822
    If you want to discuss this, we can make a new thread. I simply won't debate it here though.
     
  15. outhouse

    outhouse Atheistically

    Messages:
    27,027
    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
     
  16. outhouse

    outhouse Atheistically

    Messages:
    27,027
    fair enough
     
  17. fallingblood

    fallingblood Agnostic Theist

    Messages:
    9,822
    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.
     
  18. outhouse

    outhouse Atheistically

    Messages:
    27,027
    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
     
  19. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    29,769
    Religion:
    Judaism
    It strikes me as needless pedantry.
     
  20. fallingblood

    fallingblood Agnostic Theist

    Messages:
    9,822
    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.
     
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted