New Perspective on Paul

Faith & Science Conversation
43

I recently heard Craig Keener tell the story of a discussion he was having with a friend about Calvinism and Arminianism. At some point in the discusion they seemed to switch sides in the point they were arguing over. Which seems normal for disagreeing on a paradoxical (seemingly contradictory) doctrine.

1 Like
44

I think understanding npop should start with understanding the Jewish belief in the second temple at the time of Jesus. The Jews never believed that they were saved by works (Law), but by grace (sound familiar?). God chose Israel by grace, not by merit, and that was the covenant between God and Abraham. The Law was given as a rule to live by, to stay in the covenant with God, but not as means of salvation.

Thus, the Jews at the time of Jesus/Paul were not legalistic. That was the context of Paul writing. That was not the context of Luther’s understanding of Paul. He saw the Jews as legalistic as the Catholic church of his time and thus interpreted the writing of Paul in that perspective.

1 Like
45
  • Actually, he initially he recognized and affirmed that Jesus himself was a Jew and so, Luther was reasonably well disposed toward them and hoped to persuade Jews in Germany that Jesus was, in fact, a faithful Jew. Unfortunately, Luther’s evangelistic efforts failed. because the Jews that he encountered were convinced that Jesus was more likely the bastard son of a Roman soldier, i.e. Pandera, and a Jewish maiden (i.e. Mary),–thanks, no doubt, to Celsus in his 2nd century unavailable works–and rebuffed Luther’s evangelistic efforts.
  • Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera
  • Luther’s failed efforts to convert Jews embittered him, which, IMO, was an unreasonable response, even in the 1500s. And he became mean in his response.
  • Moral: Don’t try to convert Jews. Period!!!
  • The charge of “Jewish legalism” is easy to make with Paul’s words.
  • My is view simple: Jews fancy, correctly or incorrectly, as the exclusively chosen people and, therefore, in the best position to know how to please God. Therefore following Jesus, is “a stumbling block”. Get over it. Christians.
2 Likes
46

When I study the Bible, Jesus never charged the pharisees and the scribes as legalistic. Jesus had something against them for being hypocritical. Perhaps Luther saw the Jews having the same legalistic view (wrongly) as the catholic church of his time.

47
  • Maybe, maybe not.
49

N.T. Wright - Paul For Tomorrow’'s World

1 Like
50

Wright’s book Justification would be a good summary of his take on NPP.

1 Like
51
1 Like
52

Among other Greek words in Paul’s letters, πίστις, ἡ [pistis], IMO, stands out as especially important.

πίστις , ἡ, gen. εως, Ion. ιος Parm.8.12, Emp.114; dat. πίστει, Ion.

A.“πίστι_” Hdt.3.74, 9.106 : Ion. nom. and acc. pl. πίστι_ς v.l. in Id.3.8 ; dat. “πίστισι” Id.4.172: (πείθομαι):—trust in others, faith, first in Hes., “πίστιες καὶ ἀπιστίαι ὤλεσαν ἄνδρας” Op.372; “πίστει χρήματ᾽ ὄλεσσα, ἀπιστίῃ δ᾽ ἐσάωσα” Thgn.831 ; “π. ἴσχειν τινί” S.OC950 ; “τῷ θεῷ πίστιν φέροις” Id.OT1445, etc.: generally, persuasion of a thing, confidence, assurance, Pi.N.8.44 (πιστόν Sch.), etc.; ἡ βεβαιοτάτη π., ἀταραξία καὶ π. βέβαιος, Epicur.Ep.1p.19, 2p.36U.; σωφροσύνης π. ἔχειν περί τινος to be persuaded of his probity, D.18.215 ; “π. περὶ θεῶν ἔχειν” Plu.2.1101c.

  1. in subjective sense, good faith, trustworthiness, honesty, Thgn.1137, A.Pers.443, Hdt.8.105 ; “θνῄσκει δὲ π., βλαστάνει δ᾽ ἀπιστία” S.OC611.

b. of things, credence, credit, “τὰν π. σμικρὰν παρ᾽ ἔμοιγ᾽ ἔχει” E.El.737 (lyr.); “πίστιν τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔχει τινά” Arist.EN1179a17; “π. λαβεῖν” Plb.1.35.4.

c. καλῇ π., = Lat.bona fide, PGnom.180 (ii A.D.), etc.; αἱ κατὰ πίστιν γεινόμεναι κληρονομίαι, = Lat. hereditates fideicommissariae, ib.56.

  1. in a commercial sense, credit, π. τοσούτων χρημάτων ἐστί τινι παρά τισι he has credit for so much money with them, D.36.57, cf. 44; εἰς πίστιν διδόναι [τί τινι] Id.32.16; “εἰ ἕξω ἐλπίδα πίστεως” Astramps.Orac.68p.6H.

b. position of trust or trusteeship, ἐν πίστει κληρονόμος ἀπολειφθείς left in trust, as guardian, Plu.Cic.41, cf. 2c supr.; “ἐν πίστει ὤν τῷ βασιλεῖ” IG22.646.11.

  1. Theol., faith, opp. sight and knowledge, 1 Ep.Cor.13.13, etc.

II. that which gives confidence : hence,

  1. assurance, pledge of good faith, guarantee, “οὐκ ἀνδρὸς ὅρκοι π. ἀλλ᾽ ὅρκων ἀνήρ” A.Fr.394, cf. S.El.887, E.Hipp. 1055; “ὅρκοις καὶ πίστεσιν ἀναγκάξειν” Antipho 6.25 : distd. from ὅρκοι and δεξιαί, Arist.Rh.1375a10, cf. E.Med.22; “ἔμβαλλε χειρὸς πίστιν” S. Ph.813 ; δός μοι χερὸς σῆς π. Id.OC1632 ; “ὅρκους παρασχών, πίστιν οὐ σμικράν, θεῶν” E.Hipp.1037, cf. Med.414 (lyr.); πίστιν καὶ ὅρκια ποιέεσθαι make a treaty by exchange of assurances and oaths, Hdt.9.92, cf. And.1.107; “οἷσιν . . οὔτε π. ὄθ᾽ ὅρκος μένει” Ar.Ach.308 ; ποιέεσθαι τὰς πίστι_ς (Ion. for πίστεις) Hdt.3.8 ; “πίστεις ποιήσασθαι πρός τινας” Th.4.51 ; “ἀλλήλοις” X.HG1.3.12 ; πίστιν δοῦναι to give assurances, Hdt.9.91, cf. Th.4.86, 5.45 ; “ὅρκους καὶ πίστιν ἀλλήλοις δότε” Ar.Lys. 1185; ἔδοσαν πίστιν καὶ ἔλαβον interchanged them, X.Cyr.7.1.44; “πίστεις ἀλλήλοιν δεδωκέναι τε καὶ δεδέχθαι” Pl.Phdr.256d ; “π. παρά τινος λαβεῖν” Lys.12.9 ; π. πρός τινας δοῦναι c. inf., Id.19.32 ; πίστι τε λαβεῖν (or καταλαβεῖν） καὶ ὁρκίοισί τινα bind by assurances and oaths, Hdt.3.74, 9.106; “θεῶν πίστεις ὀμόσαι” Th.5.30; πίστιν ἐπιθεῖναι or προσθεῖναι, D.29.26, 49.42, 54.42 : c. gen. objecti, φόβων π. an assurance against . . , E.Supp.627 (lyr.).

  2. means of persuasion, argument, proof, φρὴν παρ᾽ ἡμέων (sc. τῶν αἰσθήσεων）“ λαβοῦσα τὰς πίστεις” Democr.125; “τοὺς δεομένους πίστεως αἰσθήσει κεκραμένης” Plot. 4.7.15 ; esp. of proofs used by orators, Antipho 5.84, 6.28, Pl.Phd. 70b, Isoc.3.8, etc.: in Arist., opp. a demonstrative proof (ἀπόδειξις）, π. ἔντεχνοι, ἄτεχνοι, Rh.1355b35, 1375a22: also, generally, “π. ἐκ τῆς ἐπαγωγῆς” APo.90b14, al.; “π. ἡ διὰ συλλογισμοῦ” Top.103b7 ; ἡ τῶν λόγων π. (cf. λόγος IV. 1) Pol.1326a29; “ὁ ἀναιρῶν ταύτην τὴν π. οὐ πολὺ πιστότερα ἐρεῖ” EN1173a1.

III. that which is entrusted, a trust, “πίστιν ἐγχειρίζειν τινί” Plb.5.41.2, cf. 16.22.2, IG7.21.12 (Megara, ii B.C.), 5 (1).26.6 (Amyclae, ii/i B.C.), BMus.Inscr.422.7 (Priene, ii B.C.); σὴ π. given in trust to thee, IG14.2012A23 (Sulp.Max.).

IV. political protection or suzerainty, Lat. fides, “Αἰτωλοὶ . . δόντες αὑτοὺς εἰς τὴν Ῥωμαίων π. . . τῷ τῆς π. ὀνόματι πλανηθέντες” Plb.20.9.10, cf. 3.30.1 ; “πάντες εἰς τὴν [τῆς συγκλήτου] π. ἐνδεδεμένοι” Id.6.17.8.

  1. in Egypt, safe-conduct, safeguard, UPZ119.32 (pl., ii B.C.); δοῦναί μοι ἔγγραπτον π. ib.124.30 (ii B.C.).

V. Pythag. name for ten, Theol.Ar.59, 60.

VI. personified, = Lat.Fides, Plu.Num.16, App. BC1.16, D.C.45.17 ; π. δημοσία, = Fides publica, D.H.2.75.

Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940.

The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.

1 Like
53

NT Wright vs. James White - St. Paul & Justification - Unbelievable? [1:23:14] February 22,2013

54

Oh, my. I thought the Giffords were a ton of work. Now Greek?!

2 Likes
55
  • My very last reference, i.e. debate between Wright and White, is a debate between two biblical scholars, both of whom have 30 years or so in the Greek New Testament and argue over each other’s understanding of Paul’s “intent” in his Greek letters.
  • In Wright’s book, Paul: A Biography, Wright uses pistis in this many places:

Screenshot 2024-05-09 at 18-25-26 Paul - Paul A Biography.pdf

  • My personnal “favorite” translation is “trust”, as in “Having been justified by (our) trust”.
2 Likes
56

They left one out: πίστις can be used to mean a system or set of teachings which can be trusted. Paul uses it this way in the term “πίστις Χριστοῦ”, literally “faith of Christ” but better “faith about Christ” or “Christ-faith”. Jude uses πίστις this way when he writes “the faith once delivered to the saints”.

1 Like
57

Ditto. I keep trying to tell militant atheists that faith is not “belief without evidence” but is “trust based on (limited) evidence”.

2 Likes
58

Is there a Cliff’s Notes for this?
I’ll try to catch up on some of the main articles, but I doubt I will have time or energy for debates about Greek. There’s a lot of life going on here.

1 Like
59
  • Just tried to outline the first Chapter of Wright’s 1997 book, “What did Saint Paul Really Say?” and realized that his quick summary, in the first Chapter called “Puzzling Over Paul”, in which he rapidly introduces his own review of writers: Albert Schweitzer, Rudolph Bultmann, W.D. Davies, Ernst Kasemann, E.P. Sanders, is the wrong way to approach Wright’s New Perspective on Paul.
  • Consider for a moment the Annotated Bibliography in What Did Saint Paul Really Say? alone: Annotated Bibliography
  • Instead, find a competent review of the New Perspective on Paul by a person who disagrees with Wright, and start outlining there. Whom would I recommend? Funny that you should ask: D.A. Carson - The New Perpsective On Paul
    • Dec 27, 2012. This video contains three lectures by D.A. Carson, who gives an overview and critique of the particular interpretation of justification known today as “The New Perspective On Paul” Lecture #2 begins at the 44:55 minute mark. Lecture #3 begins at the 1:39:28 minute mark.
2 Likes
60

Thanks, Terry.

2 Likes
61
  • Posting this essay here for myself (and anyone else interested in it).
  • Galatians 3:28 (modified): “Δεν υπάρχει πλέον Εβραίος ή Έλληνας, δεν υπάρχει πια σκλάβος ή ελεύθερος, δεν υπάρχει πλέον αρσενικό και θηλυκό. γιατί όλοι είστε ένα εν Χριστώ Ιησού. Ωστόσο, ο Άδης είναι γεμάτος ψυχές που επέμεναν στη δημοκρατία”.
62

Interesting. It defines the new perspective more narrowly than I’ve understood it.

My advisor in grad school asked on occasion how our understanding of a certain section would be alter if we took πίστις as “faithfulness” rather than as “faith”. It prompted some heavy-duty discussion! I mention it because that is how I’ve understood the new perspective, i.e. that it is by faithfulness that we remain the covenant people of God, where faithfulness is trust – recognizing that if you trust someone that will change your behavior, and thus “belief plus works” as in James makes more sense.

This faithfulness is not about following rules perfectly; the fact that the Law of Moses includes sacrifices/offerings for things that just happen normally in life demonstrates that, as does John’s declaration:

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

Note that walking in the light does not exclude sinning! John recognizes that we are going to sin, just as the old covenant did, and that sinning does not remove us from the covenant, rather that Christ’s blood cleanses us so we remain in the covenant. This is reinforce by his next statement:

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

This tells us to not try to pretend we don’t sin as well as to not stress over sinning. Denying that we sin would be walking in darkness, but if we admit it?

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

So walking in the light includes confessing our sins, which is to say that faithfulness includes confessing our sins – and that to me points to seeing Paul in the new perspective in order to fit not just James but John!

. . .

BTW, modern Greek drives me batty.

63

:wink: :rofl:

  • That’s a shame.