On the other hand, Wright regards as “exactly right” Dunn’s emphasis upon “works of the Law” as Jewish ethnic badges rather than “the moral works through which one gains merit” (246).5 Wright concurs that Paul’s rebuttal of “seeking to establish their own righteousness” refers to boasting in an ethnic status based on the possession of the Torah, rather than the attempt to attain a moral status through performance of the Torah (245). On the one hand, Wright finds Dunn’s “exposition of justification itself less than satisfying” (246). Wright expresses “both agreement and disagreement” with Dunn as well, resulting in twenty years of “implicit dialogue” with him (246). According to Wright, Sanders seems “muddled and imprecise” in his interpretation of Paul, “not least because his proposals lacked the exegetical clarity and rootedness that I regarded and still regard as indispensable” (246). In Wright’s opinion, Sanders’ nonlegalistic portrayal of Second Temple Judaism is “more or less established” (247).4 Yet Wright insists, “I have never embraced either Sanders’ picture of Paul or the relativistic agendas that seemed to be driving it” (246). Sanders, Dunn, and Wright may share familial traits, but they are not identical triplets. When one delves more deeply into the field, however, one recognizes that these (and other) “New Perspective” scholars do not agree among themselves, and there are in fact various “New Perspectives.” Wright himself refers to “the complexity of the so-called New Perspective” (245), and he admits his frustration at “the refusal of the traditionalists” to distinguish “the quite separate types” of variations.3 “I say all this,” explains Wright, “to make it clear that there are probably almost as many New Perspective positions as there are writers espousing it. Sanders’ interpretations of Second Temple Judaism and “covenantal nomism,”2 2) Dunn’s emphasis upon “the works of the Law” as especially “ethnic boundary markers” between Jews and Gentiles, and 3) N. Simplified surveys of the “New Perspective” tend to highlight 1) E. Dunn famously referred to the “New Perspective on Paul.”1 Within the last quarter century, this “New Perspective” has swept through evangelical institutions and publications. In his 1982 Manson Memorial Lecture at the University of Manchester, J. He will complete his analysis in the September/October issue of Faith Pulpit. Paul Hartog of Faith Baptist Bible College and Theological Seminary carefully compares two facets of the “New Perspective” on justification with a Dispensational point of view. Their thoughts and conclusions on a variety of subjects have been commonly called the “New Perspective.” In Part 1 of his article, Dr. In the past few years some men have begun rethinking major issues of the Christian faith. July-August 2008 The “New Perspective” and Justification, Part 1 Paul Hartog, Ph.D.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |