NT Wright,re-evaluating Paul?

[Frogster]

Has anyone heard of this? To me it sounds like some want to "re-evaluate'" scripture.He indicates that we need to learn about first century Judaism. He believes that what Paul meant by justification was an issue of Gentile and Jewish believers getting along and accepting one another. To me that sounds like a watering down of the book of Galatians.And obscuring what justification really is.

It is called NPP,new perspective on Paul.From what I have read on sites already,I dont like the smell of it.I also dont like when a scholar is given to much credence,or is over quoted.


One note I would like to add is this.As far as the climate of the first century goes,we saw the viloence of Paul against the Christians,and then we saw that same collective violence visited upon him,after conversion.So I think that stonings and beatings,give us a good idea,of the times.I say this because Wright indicates that he thinks that there was not a big problem between unsaved Jews,and Christians.

 

[FaithGuyX]

As I posted to in another thread...it's caled The New Perspective on Paul.
It's borderline heresy IMHO, but very interesting to say the least.
It was a conversation within the presbyterian church years ago and was ultimately brushed off. It was introduced independently of denomination I must add, but heavily based within the reformed theological scope.

I personally do not want to redefine orthodoxy in the church. That is what it was in concept.

 

[ebia]

Has anyone heard of this? To me it sounds like some want to "re-evaluate'" scripture.

Of course we should re-evaluate scripture, if that means going back to scripture and checking that we have understood it correctly - which is what +Tom Wright would mean by the phrase. He certainly does not take the view that we should dismiss any of scripture, but rather that we should not be certain that traditional or reformation understandings of scripture are infallible - we need to keep going back to scripture, rereading it, bringing to bear every piece of information we can, to allow God to speak through it afresh.

He indicates that we need to learn about first century Judaism.

Of course we do. One cannot understand what Jesus or Paul meant without understanding the context in which they were operating.

He believes that what Paul meant by justification was an issue of Gentile and Jewish believers getting along and accepting one another.

That is not what Tom Wright says Paul meant by justification.

To me that sounds like a watering down of the book of Galatians.And obscuring what justification really is.

If that's what he said it would be, but it's not so it isn't.

It is called NPP,new perspective on Paul.From what I have read on sites already,I dont like the smell of it.

As +Tom and others are at pains to point out, there are as many New Perspectives as they are people writing about it. One cannot assume that one set of thoughts under the label can be applied to another theologian using the same label. If you want to know what +Tom Wright says you need to read his books.

I also dont like when a scholar is given to much credence,or is over quoted.

Anti-intellectualism?

One note I would like to add is this.As far as the climate of the first century goes,we saw the viloence of Paul against the Christians,and then we saw that same collective violence visited upon him,after conversion.So I think that stonings and beatings,give us a good idea,of the times.

That's part of what's going on, but hardly the whole of it.

I say this because Wright indicates that he thinks that there was not a big problem between unsaved Jews,and Christians.

I don't know where you are getting that idea from. He might say that such ideas are sometimes overstated.

 

[ebia]

As I posted to in another thread...it's caled The New Perspective on Paul.

It's borderline heresy IMHO,

What is? There isn't a single "New Perspective" to be heretical or otherwise.

Some of what +Tom Wright says is contraversial, but none of it is anywhere near heretical. But it challenges those who are comfortable with something the reformers would regard as heresy - that they got everything right and there is no more to be said.

I personally do not want to redefine orthodoxy in the church. That is what it was in concept.

Personally, like Tom Wright, I would like to go back and understand scripture correctly. If that confirms what currently passes for orthodoxy that's brilliant. If it reforms it then so be it. "I do not want to redefine orthodoxy" necessarly becomes "God cannot reform the church".

The church needs first rate theologians like +Tom who go back and look at scripture afresh and present what they find in accessable ways that challenge the accepted views. That's how God reformed the church in the 16th century and its how he'll reform it time and time again.

Anyone who says "it's heresy" because it challenges reformation interpretations has fallen into the same trap the reformers hoped they had done away with. They've traded the traditions the reformers purged for the reformation itself. Calvin, Cranmer, Hooker, Luther, Zwingli, etc would be aghast at anyone saying "this is how we've understood justification by faith for the last 400 years so it must be right".

And if, in the final analysis, he turns out to be wrong that doesn't automatically make it heresy. We should be careful about waving that word around for every idea we don't agree with. Let's remember, we are justified by faith [in Jesus], not justified by faith in a particular understanding of justification by faith.

 

[wayseer]

Has anyone heard of this?

Bishop Tom Wright is one of the one of the most forward looking Christian thinkers. He has a great web page - you need to check it out.

To me it sounds like some want to "re-evaluate'" scripture.

Great. Is there someone wrong with re-evaluating scripture?

He indicates that we need to learn about first century Judaism.

Wright is not alone there. Many scholars claim that without understanding Judaism we cannot properly understand Jesus or Paul. I agree.

He believes that what Paul meant by justification was an issue of Gentile and Jewish believers getting along and accepting one another.

I think you need to read a little deeper. Wright is not that 'easy'.

From what I have read on sites already,I dont like the smell of it.

Wright would congratulate you - that is his aim - to make you think a little deeper about Christianity. He does not expect everyone to agree with him.

I also dont like when a scholar is given to much credence,or is over quoted.

That may be your problem rather than Wright's. Tom Wright is a respected author whether one agrees with him or not.

I say this because Wright indicates that he thinks that there was not a big problem between unsaved Jews,and Christians.

If you are going to make claims concerning Wright it is a good idea to provide the particular reference which you use to support your claim - others then can make a balanced response.

 

[Frogster]

ebia and Wayseer.


The cross does not come by intellect does it?

1 Corinthians 1:26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;

Lets also discuss Galatians,shall we?

Lets see what a 29 year old guy can do.lets see just how much intellect is required to understand justification is by faith.

 

[MamaZ]

Never heard of it.. So now men in thier own glory need to re-evaluate scripture .. As if it has ever changed or will change?

 

[Frogster]

Never heard of it.. So now men in thier own glory need to re-evaluate scripture .. As if it has ever changed or will change?

It is easier to say,lets re-evaluate Paul,because it is not a confrontational is saying lets re-evalute the bible.

This whole notion that we have to "understand" first century Judaism is silly.Paul talked about his former friends right here,to give us a first hand historical reference of the "climate'.


Philippians 3:1-2 Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you.
2 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.

 

[Standing Up]

He's one of a long line of Restorationists, springing up in the last 200 or so years.

Messianic, LDS, SDA, Armstrong, JW, and so forth.

Nothing wrong with understanding the culture in which events took place.

One issue is, however, whether or not, like sola scriptura vs others, is Jewish oral tradition's relationship to the Bible.

 

[cyberlizard]

for the OP, which of Tom's books have you actually read from cover to cover... and remember that lying is a sin?


Steve

 

[ittarter]

The cross does not come by intellect does it?

1 Corinthians 1:26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;

Lets also discuss Galatians,shall we?

Lets see what a 29 year old guy can do.lets see just how much intellect is required to understand justification is by faith.

"Justification by faith" as we now know it was originally espoused by Luther and other reformers in the 16th and 17th centuries. Because of the controversy regarding Roman Catholic practice during that time period, the doctrine influenced by the need for a strong polemic against the Roman Catholic Church. The idea is coined by the phrase, Sola fide (faith only).

The problems of the Roman Catholic Church, however, were NOT the same as the Jewish traditions which the apostle Paul was dealing with. A key phrase in the letter to the Galatians is typically translated, "the works of the law." If you pursue this course of action, you will find that you conception of "justification" is defined by assumptions about these Pauline phrases.

In light of the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries, in which the phrase is used frequently, it does not refer to "righteousness by works" or any other sort of legalistic movement, but rather the requirements for acceptance into a sectarian group such as the so-called Qumran covenanters.

Another key word is pistis, and whether it should be translated as "faith" (suggesting an adherence to certain beliefs requisite for salvation) or "faithfulness" (suggesting a subjective commitment to a person or group).

Yet another key word is charis: free "grace," or "favor to be repaid"?

So you see, merely studying an English translation of Paul's letter to the Galatians will not help you unearth centuries of anti-legalistic rhetoric. The problem is the language of the translation itself. Whether you are 29 or 59, if you're not willing to use your intellect (which has apparently been barred from use by an overused and misunderstood verse in 1 Corinthians!) then you're just going to assume that the tradition passed down to you is a fully accurate portrayal of Paul's original intent.

 

[wayseer]

ebia and Wayseer.


The cross does not come by intellect does it?

1 Corinthians 1:26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;

Lets also discuss Galatians,shall we?

Lets see what a 29 year old guy can do.lets see just how much intellect is required to understand justification is by faith.

How much intellect does one need to understand justification by faith? Quite a bit actually which is why people like Wright do a lot of thinking and writing - to help wipe out ignorance.

This whole notion that we have to "understand" first century Judaism is silly.

You might think it 'silly' - and that is what Wright is challenging - simplistic notions.

Christianity, as does any religion, requires HARD WORK - not easy fun filled answers.

 

[ebia]

The cross does not come by intellect does it?

Did anyone say it did? But that doesn't mean we shouldn't bring all our (different) talents to bear in getting a better and better understanding of it, constantly reflecting and refining our understanding of God's purpose in and for the world.

Lets also discuss Galatians,shall we?

If you want to. What about it?

Lets see what a 29 year old guy can do.lets see just how much intellect is required to understand justification is by faith.

If you ask me, what +Tom Wright understands by the phrase justification by faith isn't a whole lot harder and is considerably more cohesive than the traditional understanding. To put it simply, that faith is the badge now by which we can see who will be declared righteous at the future judgement. As circumcision was the sign of who the people of God were in the past, faith is now.

 

[ebia]

Never heard of it.. So now men in thier own glory need to re-evaluate scripture

No-one is suggesting that scripture has changed, just that we constantly need to go back and reassess whether what we have understood from it is what it actually means.

Remember, "reevaluate scripture" is the OP's term. What scholars like +Tom do is not to cast doubt on scripture itself, but to go back to scripture and challenge us to reevalutate what we think it means. It's not scripture that's being challenged but traditional interpretations of some of it.

And that's exactly what the reformers tried to do. If you condemn +Tom for doing so, you must also condemn Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Vermigli, Cranmer, Hooker,..... for doing the same.

By all means challenge his conclusions if they need challenging - he would have it no other way - but to condemn someone for going back to scripture...!

 

[Frogster]

"Justification by faith" as we now know it was originally espoused by Luther and other reformers in the 16th and 17th centuries. Because of the controversy regarding Roman Catholic practice during that time period, the doctrine influenced by the need for a strong polemic against the Roman Catholic Church. The idea is coined by the phrase, Sola fide (faith only).

The problems of the Roman Catholic Church, however, were NOT the same as the Jewish traditions which the apostle Paul was dealing with. A key phrase in the letter to the Galatians is typically translated, "the works of the law." If you pursue this course of action, you will find that you conception of "justification" is defined by assumptions about these Pauline phrases.

In light of the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries, in which the phrase is used frequently, it does not refer to "righteousness by works" or any other sort of legalistic movement, but rather the requirements for acceptance into a sectarian group such as the so-called Qumran covenanters.

Another key word is pistis, and whether it should be translated as "faith" (suggesting an adherence to certain beliefs requisite for salvation) or "faithfulness" (suggesting a subjective commitment to a person or group).

Yet another key word is charis: free "grace," or "favor to be repaid"?

So you see, merely studying an English translation of Paul's letter to the Galatians will not help you unearth centuries of anti-legalistic rhetoric. The problem is the language of the translation itself. Whether you are 29 or 59, if you're not willing to use your intellect (which has apparently been barred from use by an overused and misunderstood verse in 1 Corinthians!) then you're just going to assume that the tradition passed down to you is a fully accurate portrayal of Paul's original intent.

How much intellect does one need to understand justification by faith? Quite a bit actually which is why people like Wright do a lot of thinking and writing - to help wipe out ignorance.



You might think it 'silly' - and that is what Wright is challenging - simplistic notions.

Christianity, as does any religion, requires HARD WORK - not easy fun filled answers.

Paul was a pharisee of pharisees...Yet he recieved the gospel by revelation,not head knowledge,which he had alot of,educated under Gamaliel.

Paul seemed to realise that the uneducated silly ones,understood,more then the scholars of his day,didn't he?

1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

And as far as the first century Jewish culture goes,when one yells out crucify him,and give us Barrabbas,I think we dont need to much intellect to understand the temperature.Actually prostitutes and drunkards understood more than the educated.

By the wat Wayseer.When you see a convert,did his salvation come by revelation,or intellect?It says the message was a light of revelalation,not heady.

Luke 2:32
a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel.”

 

[ebia]

It is easier to say,lets re-evaluate Paul,because it is not a confrontational is saying lets re-evalute the bible.

I'm guessing you haven't read much of +Tom's work and are just working from rumours.

What's the foundation for your faith - scripture or the reformation?
What happened to ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum dei (the church reformed and always being reformed according to the Word of God?).

This whole notion that we have to "understand" first century Judaism is silly.

If you want to understand what someone did and said and why they did and said it you need to understand the context in which they were operating and the self understanding of the people they said it to.

Paul talked about his former friends right here,to give us a first hand historical reference of the "climate'.

Paul is indeed one of the places one can go, but on his own you'll misunderstand a lot, as many scholars have shown. You need to look at the bigger picture as well, as theologians have always tried to do.

 

[Frogster]

He's one of a long line of Restorationists, springing up in the last 200 or so years.

Messianic, LDS, SDA, Armstrong, JW, and so forth.

Nothing wrong with understanding the culture in which events took place.

One issue is, however, whether or not, like sola scriptura vs others, is Jewish oral tradition's relationship to the Bible.

Yes,often some try to throw the thrust on oral tradition.But I see Paul,who knew the law better then most,challenging the written tradition.

He saw the law people as persecutors of those who walk in the spirit.Again,a barometer of first century Judaism,that seems to go against the view that Wright holds up.

Galatians 4:28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now.

 

[ittarter]

Paul was a pharisee of pharisees...Yet he recieved the gospel by revelation,not head knowledge,which he had alot of,educated under Gamaliel.

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.

And as far as the first century Jewish culture goes,when one yells out crucify him,and give us Barrabbas,I think we dont need to much intellect to understand the temperature.Actually prostitutes and drunkards understood more than the educated.

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.

 

[ebia]

He saw the law people as persecutors of those who walk in the spirit.Again,a barometer of first century Judaism,that seems to go against the view that Wright holds up.

Do you actually know what +Tom Wright's views are? Could you please tell us which of his books and papers you have read?

 

[Frogster]

I'm guessing you haven't read much of +Tom's work and are just working from rumours.

What's the foundation for your faith - scripture or the reformation?
What happened to ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum dei (the church reformed and always being reformed according to the Word of God?).


If you want to understand what someone did and said and why they did and said it you need to understand the context in which they were operating and the self understanding of the people they said it to.


Paul is indeed one of the places one can go, but on his own you'll misunderstand a lot, as many scholars have shown. You need to look at the bigger picture as well, as theologians have always tried to do.

Actually ,Paul knew himself best said..

1 Corinthians 2:1 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom.

And in 2 Corinthians he said a similar thought,which takes down your argument fot higher learning.

2 Cor 1:13 For we are not writing to you anything other than what you read and acknowledge and I hope you will fully acknowledge—

Jesus said the same thing.

Matt 11:25 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;

Galatians is quite clear also.Whan Paul reiterates the same thing as Peter in Acts 15,it does not take higher knowledge to understand the temperature of those who wanted to put a yoke of bondage on believers,does it?

So despite the "relationship" (Tom view)between Jew and Gentile,Paul stood against the collective mentality of the law,and the persecutors of those who would not submit to the law,did he not? He fought clearly on the object scriptural views,not the relationship of the two,unless you can post scripture that would be of any relevance.