fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
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)?
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)?