NT Wright,re-evaluating Paul?

[Frogster]

Your parallel is faulty. The whole purpose of the New Perspective on Paul is to determine the original intent of the Pauline corpus. This corpus is SCRIPTURE, and therefore it is REVELATION.

You have arbitrarily decided that the translations and traditional interpretation of the Pauline texts is REVELATION, whereas NPP is "head knowledge." Yet this is the very issue that NPP wishes to open up. You have reached a conclusion without first listening to any other voice.

You are confusing the issues. The degree of intellectual climate of first century Palestine is irrelevant to how we proceed in this discussion. Yet your simplistic portrayal of "first century Jewish culture" as nothing more than a barbaric mob leaves me speechless. How on earth could you possibly make sense of, say, Galatians 2:16, with such an impoverished knowledge of the sociohistorical context?

"...nevertheless knowing that a man is not DIKAIAO by MISHPOT HATORAH but through PISTIS in Christ Jesus, even we have PISTAO in Christ Jesus, so that we may be DIKAIAO by PISTIS in Christ and not by MISHPOT HATORAH; since by MISHPOT HATORAH no SARX will be DIKAIAO." *

If you don't take for granted the established Reformation interpretation, as you can see, without an understanding of the times, it simply becomes gobbledy-[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth].


*These are only approximate transliterations whose function is to make the point of the critical nature of Paul's terminology with respect to even a rudimentary understanding of the verse.

Paul argued out of the scriptures,perhaps you can also,rather than "evaluating me'.See this is what happens when head meets heart.

 

[TheGMan]

"...nevertheless knowing that a man is not DIKAIAO by MISHPOT HATORAH but through PISTIS in Christ Jesus, even we have PISTAO in Christ Jesus, so that we may be DIKAIAO by PISTIS in Christ and not by MISHPOT HATORAH; since by MISHPOT HATORAH no SARX will be DIKAIAO."

This is a little disingenuous, no? Paul wrote in Greek, not Hebrew.

 

[Frogster]

Yes,it was a mixture.

 

[ebia]

Yes,it was a mixture.

Can you please answer the question you have been repeatedly asked - which of Tom Wright's books and papers have you actually read?

All I can find in your objections is some generalised anti-intellectualism and anti-reformationism (is that a word?) thinking.

 

[Frogster]

Can you please answer the question you have been repeatedly asked - which of Tom Wright's books and papers have you actually read?

All I can find in your objections is some generalised anti-intellectualism and anti-reformationism (is that a word?) thinking.

Have I presented views?I never said I was a devout follower.So far it is clear,he wants to re-evaluate Paul.Am I wrong?
I aw trying to find out the fullness of his beliefs on justification.So how about you speak forth his word,and i will comment on it.What say ye?

 

[Harry3142]

In the 1st century Judaism had its subcultures as well as its mainstream adherents. Some of these, such as the 'dagger men', were extremely dangerous to fellow Jews. Others harbored resentment toward Rome and its people, while still others actively collaborated with them in order to gain personal wealth and power.

For the male children education would have started early; this would have included Paul. He would have started Hebrew school at 3 years of age, learning how to read Torah at the same time as he was learning the laws contained in it. His education would have begun with Leviticus, not Genesis, so that he would be learning The Mosaic Law from the first day he started school. By the time he was 7 years old he would have known what Torah expected him to think, say and do, not only in the company of fellow Jews, but also with nonJews. His sense of morality and what constituted acceptable and unacceptable behavior was as much a part of his being by that time as his arms and legs. His indoctrination would have been complete at the age when many present-day churches state that it is to begin.

Afterwards he would have learned a trade so that he would be able to earn his own living. In Paul's case he learned tentmaking, and supported himself through this work even as he was evangelizing. He only came to rely on others after he was imprisoned and therefore could no longer do the work he had learned to do.

Because Paul's education started so early there were rules of moral conduct which he would have believed were universal. This would have been reinforced by his having been reared in Tarsus and thus having had contact with nonJews who also believed in a moral code. Had he been reared in the Jewish quarter of Corinth he would have realized that there were those who did not accept any code but the one of open license.

The study of 1st century Judaism and its effect on Paul and his teachings is a wise venture. N. T. Wright is an excellent author (I have read his book on resurrection and intend to read others by him) and an excellent teacher. He is also conservative, so there is not the concern that he will try to use the study as a pretext to attack Christianity from within.

 

[ebia]

Have I presented views?I never said I was a devout follower.

So you haven't read any of his work. You are trying to critique his views without actually knowing what they are - which is why a good deal of the time you are attacking positions that are not positions he holds. If you want to find out whether he is right or wrong, wouldn't it be a good idea to find out what he thinks before trying to critisise it?

So far it is clear,he wants to re-evaluate Paul.Am I wrong?

That's an ambigous question, so I can't answer with a yes or no without danger of being misread. What he wants to do is go back to Paul (and the rest of the New Testament, but Paul and the Synoptics are his main areas of work), reread them in the light of our improved understanding of the world in which they are written, and where necessary challenge the traditional understandings of what Paul and the Synoptics are saying.

The New Testament itself is not being challenged, just some of the ways they have been read for the last 400 years. As Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, etc rightly went back to scripture and thereby challenged some of the misreadings of their day, theologians like Tom Wright seek to do the same for the misreadings of ours. It's no different whatsoever to what the reformers were about.

I aw trying to find out the fullness of his beliefs on justification.

I've already given a one-line summary of what he takes justification by faith to mean: that faith is the badge of God's covenant people now as circumcision was in the past, that it is the mark in the present of who will be judged righteous in the future. And is thereby entirely a gift of God.

If you want the fullness you'd do far better to read one of his books.

So how about you speak forth his word,and i will comment on it.What say ye?

If you want to critique what someone says you are far better off going back to their own work than relying on a summary from me, let alone a critic.

As Harry said, +Tom is a conservative Christian. His book on the resurrection is the strongest defence of a literal, physical, historical resurrection out there. He isn't destroying the Christian faith nor casting doubt on the New Testament, he is re-examining whether certain doctines represent a good reading of the New Testament or whether they need to be rethought to come into line better with what it actually means. If we haven't been reading the phrase 'justification by faith' (for example) correctly then we need to know that and correct ourselves.

If you want to do this properly, get yourself a copy of his latest book on Justification, I'll do the same (I haven't read that one yet) and we can work through it together.

But don't go around slamming people's views without actually finding out what those views are and why they are held. That some (not you) would throw around strong words like 'heretical' without knowing what it is they calling heretical is shocking.

 

[MrPolo]

Is there anywhere in this thread actual writings of Wright quoted regarding this subject? I do not see them.

 

[ebia]

This would be a starting point (from New Dictionary of Theology), but it's rather old - 1988.

 

[Frogster]

So you haven't read any of his work. You are trying to critique his views without actually knowing what they are - which is why a good deal of the time you are attacking positions that are not positions he holds. If you want to find out whether he is right or wrong, wouldn't it be a good idea to find out what he thinks before trying to critisise it?

That's an ambigous question, so I can't answer with a yes or no without danger of being misread. What he wants to do is go back to Paul (and the rest of the New Testament, but Paul and the Synoptics are his main areas of work), reread them in the light of our improved understanding of the world in which they are written, and where necessary challenge the traditional understandings of what Paul and the Synoptics are saying.

The New Testament itself is not being challenged, just some of the ways they have been read for the last 400 years. As Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, etc rightly went back to scripture and thereby challenged some of the misreadings of their day, theologians like Tom Wright seek to do the same for the misreadings of ours. It's no different whatsoever to what the reformers were about.


I've already given a one-line summary of what he takes justification by faith to mean: that faith is the badge of God's covenant people now as circumcision was in the past, that it is the mark in the present of who will be judged righteous in the future. And is thereby entirely a gift of God.

If you want the fullness you'd do far better to read one of his books.



If you want to critique what someone says you are far better off going back to their own work than relying on a summary from me, let alone a critic.

As Harry said, +Tom is a conservative Christian. His book on the resurrection is the strongest defence of a literal, physical, historical resurrection out there. He isn't destroying the Christian faith nor casting doubt on the New Testament, he is re-examining whether certain doctines represent a good reading of the New Testament or whether they need to be rethought to come into line better with what it actually means. If we haven't been reading the phrase 'justification by faith' (for example) correctly then we need to know that and correct ourselves.

If you want to do this properly, get yourself a copy of his latest book on Justification, I'll do the same (I haven't read that one yet) and we can work through it together.

But don't go around slamming people's views without actually finding out what those views are and why they are held. That some (not you) would throw around strong words like 'heretical' without knowing what it is they calling heretical is shocking.

Calm down.You dont have to partake of the thread.Justification is more than a badge.You are welcome to presnt his views,or you dont have too.Whatever your preference is.I am trying to see exactly what the re-evaluating is.Perhaps someone more knowldgable will post the differences,so we can discuss them.Thanks.

 

[ebia]

Calm down.You dont have to partake of the thread.Justification is more than a badge.

Nobody said "justification is a badge". Start by going and reading the article I linked if you wont read a book - picking apart a one-line summary isn't going to do the business.

You start a thread attacking someone you haven't even read, and continue to refuse to read their own views before discussing them. Do you only want to talk in sound-bites?

 

[Frogster]

Nobody said "justification is a badge". Start by going and reading the article I linked if you wont read a book - picking apart a one-line summary isn't going to do the business.

You said it,and I have heard about the badge.Anyway,perhaps you could tell me what the re-evalutaion of Paul is all about?Or perhaps you can explain what the emphasis or discrepency about first century Judaism is all about.I presented my views about the barometer of the time.Is it different from Tom's? If you do not wish to,I understand,maybe someone else will be happy to explain it all.Please be sure,to keep it in my small intellectual sphere.

What I mean is this.You seem versed on the issue,and instincts tell me something is not right.So why not present some views,that you may know to be controversial.I pressume you know the argument pro or against Tom.NPP is out there,it is not like an obscure thing.I tell you I am not a Tom expert,but hunch tells me that the more I read,the more I would not be.

I have Galatians practically memorized,and would love to hear from you,the views of Tom.Again,if not maybe another would give a good dialouge on the issues.Thanks.

 

[ebia]

You said it

I did not say that justification is a badge.

,and I have heard about the badge.

Most of the problem here is your "hearing about" and not being willing to read the actual material.

Anyway,perhaps you could tell me what the re-evalutaion of Paul is all about?

I have, repeatedly. Unless you mean something by your question that is inobvious.

Or perhaps you can explain what the emphasis or discrepency about first century Judaism is all about.

As historical work advances we understand 2nd Temple Judaism generally and 1st century Judaism in particular better and better. And so we can better and better understand what Jesus words and actions and Paul's comments meant against that context. If you try to build a picture of 2nd Temple Judaism just from what you find in the N.T. you end up with distortions not because there is anything wrong with what is in the N.T., but because it doesn't contain the full picture. It was never meant to be a full description of the Judaism of the time - you were supposed to bring some of that knowledge with you, just as you were supposed to bring knowledge of what different words mean with you.

What I mean is this.You seem versed on the issue,and instincts tell me something is not right.

How can you tell whether it's right or not if you have no idea what 'it' is? Unless you come at the question with an open mind and a willingness to read things like the quite short article I posted any conversation would be a waste of time.

So why not present some views,that you may know to be controversial.

Because the thread is about Tom Wright, not my presentation of his work.

You wouldn't try to have a much of a conversation about the Epistle to the Galatians with someone who wasn't willing to read what Paul actually wrote and was only interested in hearing soundbits about it.

If you want a discussion on Galatians, start a thread on Galations, not on Tom Wright. If you want a discussion on Tom Wright I'm happy to have it, but not if you aren't prepared to look at what he has actually written.

 

[Frogster]

I did not say that justification is a badge.


Most of the problem here is your "hearing about" and not being willing to read the actual material.


I have, repeatedly. Unless you mean something by your question that is inobvious.


As historical work advances we understand 2nd Temple Judaism generally and 1st century Judaism in particular better and better. And so we can better and better understand what Jesus words and actions and Paul's comments meant against that context. If you try to build a picture of 2nd Temple Judaism just from what you find in the N.T. you end up with distortions not because there is anything wrong with what is in the N.T., but because it doesn't contain the full picture. It was never meant to be a full description of the Judaism of the time - you were supposed to bring some of that knowledge with you, just as you were supposed to bring knowledge of what different words mean with you.


How can you tell whether it's right or not if you have no idea what 'it' is? Unless you come at the question with an open mind and a willingness to read things like the quite short article I posted any conversation would be a waste of time.



Because the thread is about Tom Wright, not my presentation of his work.

You wouldn't try to have a much of a conversation about the Epistle to the Romans with someone who wasn't willing to read what Paul actually wrote and was only interested in hearing soundbits about it.

If you want a discussion on Galatians, start a thread on Galations, not on Tom Wright. If you want a discussion on Tom Wright I'm happy to have it, but not if you aren't prepared to look at what he has actually written.

Thanks for your reply.I however will presume that the first century Jewish people in scripture,are the best examples of the time zone.I will await for others to add to the thread,to understand what the heart of the controversy is all about.You may notice in the op,I asked if others knew what this is all about,and I commented on 2 facts.Re-evaluation,which makes me concerned.Also I want to learn what this "deeper understanding" of first century Judaism is all about.

We all observe things in life,and it just seems like everytime one wants to look at "Paul in a new way",there is either modernism in it,or those who dont like what he had to say.So again,nice to talk with you.I will persue this,as it is most fascinating.

 

[ittarter]

Paul argued out of the scriptures,perhaps you can also,rather than "evaluating me'.See this is what happens when head meets heart.

I have already mentioned a number of words whose meanings are controversial. I have tried to demonstrate the difficulty of interpretation when the meanings of those words are uncertain, by translating a verse but leaving the key terminology in basterized Greek.

I don't understand why you are so opposed to me "evaluating" your posts. After all, I am discussing matters with you, not Paul or N. T. Wright or anyone else. I am entitled to critique your responses to the best of my ability.

I don't believe you are treating my responses fairly or thoroughly. If you are unwilling to substantiate your "traditional" interpretation or critique my own reading, then this conversation will come to a stand-still.

 

[ittarter]

This is a little disingenuous, no? Paul wrote in Greek, not Hebrew.

Umm...

I don't see any Hebrew in my post. All I see is a smattering of poorly transliterated Greek in the midst of an English verse.

Nothing disingenuous here. Nope.

 

[ebia]

Thanks for your reply.I however will presume that the first century Jewish people in scripture,are the best examples of the time zone.

The point isn't so much about whether they are typical examples or not, as that the the NT isn't telling us some things that are useful to know.

For example, if one works from the New Testament alone one might get the idea that Son of God would be taken as a divine title, but in 2nd Temple Judaism it was not. If one works from the New Testament alone one has been inclined to think that the Jews, or at least the Pharasees, believed they could earn their convenant membership, but:

His (Paul's) polemic against ‘works of the law’ is not directed against those who attempted to earn covenant membership through keeping the Jewish law (such people do not seem to have existed in the 1st century) but against those who sought to demonstrate their membership in the covenant through obeying the Jewish law.

I dare say you would actually appreciate the results of much of Tom Wright's conclusions about Jewish beliefs because they are actually important in challenging the ideas of groups like the Jesus Seminar and defending orthodox views of Jesus life and actions, and the resurrection. He uses them to support the integrity of the New Testament, not undermine it.

I will await for others to add to the thread,to understand what the heart of the controversy is all about.You may notice in the op,I asked if others knew what this is all about,and I commented on 2 facts.

Re-evaluation,which makes me concerned.

Why does that concern you? What do you think it means? Because I think you must be assuming something other than what Tom Wright is about. He's not undermining any part of the N.T. (he has a very high view of scripture) but rather seeking to make sure we are understanding it correctly. Surely that cannot be a bad thing, unless you value your existing interpretation over and against scripture itself.

Also I want to learn what this "deeper understanding" of first century Judaism is all about.

Then go read The Challenge of Jesus or Jesus and the Victory of God or The Meaning of Jesus or almost any other of his books.

Unlike that part of scholarship that has run away from understanding 2nd Temple Judaism in case it tells us something we don't want to hear, +Tom has gone there and found that it enriches our understanding of both the Gospels and Paul.

We all observe things in life,and it just seems like everytime one wants to look at "Paul in a new way",there is either modernism in it,or those who dont like what he had to say.

Neither of those are true of +Tom. He's after understanding it correctly, wherever that goes. His conclusions are certainly not in the realm of 'wishy washy liberal', if that's what you are afraid of.

But go read some - you might find yourself enriched by it. He writes at all levels, from the highly academic like Resurrection of the Son of God to the very accessable like his ... for Everyone commentary series. If you don't want to buy anything, go to his website www.ntwrightpage.com and read some of the articles or listen to some of the lectures. You might be surprised at how orthodox he is. But do expect to also be challenged on some cherished assumptions.

 

[wayseer]

I will await for others to add to the thread,to understand what the heart of the controversy is all about.

Better still - read what Wright is talking about and you might not have to worry about what other people think what Wright is talking about - you could make up your own mind.

... Re-evaluation,which makes me concerned.

If you ever get around to actually reading Wright you will find he is NOT re-evaluating scripture as you assume. He is 're-evaluating' what other Biblical scholars have said. You might note there is some difference.

Also I want to learn what this "deeper understanding" of first century Judaism is all about.

May I recommend John Dominic Crossan - but he is even more challenging than Wright.

 

[TheGMan]

I don't see any Hebrew in my post. All I see is a smattering of poorly transliterated Greek in the midst of an English verse.

MISHPOT HATORAH looks like poorly transliterated Hebrew to my eye. The poorly transliterated Greek equivalent would be erga nomou.

 

[MrPolo]

This would be a starting point (from New Dictionary of Theology), but it's rather old - 1988.

In my understanding of what he said, he only briefly wrestles with the text of James 2:14-26, never reconciling faith without works is dead, or that faith and works are like a body and spirit. Instead he simply says faith is the crux and works later "fulfill" faith. It is unclear what he means by "fulfill" in this article, but in context, it seems he places faith primary and works secondary. Wright says works are only "necessary" to make faith "not to appear a sham." Works are thus rendered essential to justification only for the sake of "appearances."