tellville
Puritan Board Junior
I have been having a discussion with somebody in my church about NPism for a while on our church message board. I was curious at how people here would respond to his latest post. NPism isn't my forte and will definitely be an area I look into in the coming months.
tellville wrote:
Which I do. Arminianism and Pelagianism are works based systems. I am firmly and adamantly against both.
tellville wrote:
bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:
But in any case, I'm not even sure whether Judaism at that time could be properly called "a religion involving works" -- I need to read more about it. I will note, however, that Dunn pointed out a common presumptuous Jewish attitude that on the day of judgment God would condemn the wicked pagans yet show special leniency towards Jews. This special leniency and privilege cuts against the idea that the religion involved meritorious "works."
(tellville)
No it doesn´t. It shows that God freely chose his elect people the Jews (notice that God didn´t choose the Chinese? Or the Greeks? Or the Romans? They are all the wicked Pagans). Yet, did you not say that the Jews had to maintain works to remain a Jew? At the very least, Jewish males had to be circumcised, or in most cases, parents had to circumcise their young.
(bioinformaticsIsNeat)
But suppose you talk to your average Arminian, who hasn't really studied theology, and you ask them describe their faith. They'll tell you that we can't earn our salvation, but have to place our faith in Jesus Christ. If you accuse them of having a works-based religion, initially they'll probably be puzzled and confused, and then after some discussion they'll likely say that a free-will choice to accept Jesus doesn't count as a work. It's only if they really think about it and wrestle with the problem that they might become a Calvinist. So from your Calvinist point of view, Arminians have a works-based religion. But in their minds, it is not a works-based religion.
Maybe it was the same thing with most Jews in Paul's day. Whether or not they had a works-based religion (as evaluated from a Calvinist perspective), they did not consider their religion to based on works and would react with puzzlement or objections if told otherwise (this is assuming the New Perspective view is accurate, of course).
tellville wrote:
Back to NPism for a sec: I have a few questions I´ve been mulling over:
1. It seems to me that E.P. Sanders/James Dunn is teaching more of a monolith Second Temple faith then actually existed. Are They?
Not at all. Sanders has harsh words for New Testament scholars who thought of Second Temple Judaism as a monolithic faith. He points out that one of the major scholarly errors was viewing Rabbinic writings at the time as presenting a single coherent and systematic view, which led in part to a serious mischaracterization of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism.
What Sanders tried to do was look at how various forms of Judaism functioned at a basic level, to identify a common pattern of religion that they (generally) shared in common. I haven't read the details of his analysis, but I'm pretty sure he didn't find a systematic exposition of covenantal nomism laid out in the various writings. Rather, Sanders identified the pattern of covenantal nomism, which he saw as a basic assumption that was common to various forms of Judaism.
tellville wrote:
2. What exactly does E.P. Sanders mean by "œgrace". I have a sneaking suspicion his view of grace is the same as the Roman Catholic´s view of grace, which in reality, isn´t anywhere near what traditional Protestants and Reformers would say "œgrace" is.
I'm not sure; I'll need to read more of his work. Keep in mind to distinguish between Sanders' view and the view(s) he identifies in early Jewish writings.
tellville wrote:
3. What is E.P. Sanders/James Dunn view of scripture?
Sanders is a critical scholar and does not believe in the possibility of miracles. Dunn also uses critical methods, but I'm not as clear about his view of scripture. Dr. Page said he wasn't sure of Dunn's theological leanings, but thought that Dunn might consider himself evangelical.
tellville wrote:
4. Leading from the answer of the previous question: Does E.P. Sanders/James Dunn use the Gospels to determine what Second Temple Judaism believed? For example, what Jesus had to say about the Palestinian Jews probably has some bearing on what they believed (Matthew 23 immediately comes to mind). Or does Sanders/Dunn not view Jesus as a good source? Or do they not even think Jesus is accurately represented by the Gospel writers?
I forget exactly what Sanders said about this; for Dunn I'm not sure. I forget whether Sanders thinks the gospels present an inaccurate view of the Pharisees, but I think he would at least say that it was slanted or that many Christians and New Testament scholar get an imbalanced view if they only read (often misread) what is said in the gospels.
As an example to consider, if I drew my views of liberal Christianity only from what I've heard you say criticizing them, I would have a slanted or imbalanced view, even if everything that you said was true an accurate.
Where might Jesus' statements lead to a different view of Second Temple Judaism? I don't see anything in Matthew 23 that would suggest that Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees for having a works-based religion. In verse 23, Jesus does not attack their tithing of spices as a "work", but even says they should continue to do so. The problem is their neglect of "justice, mercy and faithfulness." And of course there's Matthew 5:17-20.
tellville wrote:
5. What does E.P. Sanders/James Dunn actually think Paul wrote? Do they deny that Paul wrote the pastorals (1,2 Timothy and Titus)? Ephesians? Colossians? Will not cutting the Pauline corpus in half radically change "Paul´s perspective"? It´s like these people are saying "Well Paul never really said we were saved by grace through faith alone" and I go "œExcuse me, did you lose Ephesians?!" And then they say "No, we didn´t lose it, Paul didn´t write it". This is just a shot in the dark, but maybe the reason there is a New Perspective on Paul is because there is a New Perspective on what he wrote?
Such skepticism about the authorship of certain Pauline letters is not new, but has been common in New Testament studies since the nineteenth century. It didn't stop scholars from reading Paul in the "traditional" manner. Rudolf Bultmann even thought Paul had rejected Judaism and the Jewish law, adopting many Greek ideas.
The reason for the New Perspective on Paul is really a better understanding of Second Temple Judaism. It is primarily a "New Perspective" on Judaism, and only secondarily about Paul. The main problem was that the view of Judaism in New Testament scholarship had been grossly inaccurate, a fabrication that was not based on a responsible use of the ancient Jewish sources. New Testament scholars almost universally held a view of first century Judaism as a rigid, legalistic religion based on human effort, where believers struggled in fear, uncertain as to whether they had earned enough merit to avoid God´s condemnation on the day of judgment. In 1977, Sanders published Paul and Palestinian Judaism, and it finally got the attention of New Testament scholars. Just read the first sixty pages of the book, and you'll get an idea of the poor basis for that old view of Judaism.
I'm not sure what Dunn thinks of Ephesians, but I don't think it necessarily contradicts the New Perspective on Paul. I read a passing comment by Dunn where he used Ephesians to bolster his argument about Paul's theology (I forget the exact issue), saying that the letter was written either by Paul or by one of his followers who was sympathetic to Paul's teaching.
Eph 2:8-9 sounds like an argument against "earning salvation through works," but it is a brief and compact statement that would summarize ideas explained more fully elsewhere. Verse 9 might be about boasting that God had chosen the Jews to be saved and not the Gentiles, with the "works" simply marking out who was a Jew, with the emphasis being that people (in contrast to God) could see who was favored by God. Verse 10 places emphasis on "good works", which may contrast with superficial "works" in v. 9 that did not reflect true obedience. More importantly, Eph 2:11-22 is all about how Christ has put an end to the division between the Jews and Gentiles in order to create one humanity in Christ, which according to the New Perspective is the central issue in Paul's view of the Jewish law. Verse 15 says that Christ "abolished the law," but this again is a brief statement that may be a shorthand for a more nuanced position. It is made in the context of the "dividing wall" between Jews and Gentiles, so it may refer to the misuse of the law as a boundary that would keep the blessings of God for the Jews only. Surely you would want to take into account Paul's statement in Romans 3:31 that the law is not "nullified" or "overthrown," but is "established" or "upheld". In addition, one should take into account Eph 5:5.
tellville wrote:
6. Does E.P. Sanders/James Dunn believe that Paul can contradict John? And John contradict Peter? And Peter contradicts Matthew? Etc.?
See answer to (3) above.
tellville wrote:
The answers to these questions are going to radically affect E.P. Sanders/James Dunn scholarship and anybody who then uses their scholarship. I don´t really care how respected they are by the world; if they don´t accept the Bible as having any sense of reliability I can´t put a lot of weight into their scholarship. I should be aware of it, and maybe it will open up something to me that I would have never noticed before, but if the results of their scholarship are impossible to achieve from my current presuppositions, then I can´t trust their scholarship.
Christians are not immune to bias and making mistakes. In Romans 3:9-20, Paul reminds Jew in his audience that the scriptures repeatedly tell them how sinful they have been.
Maybe instead of talking theoretically about how the letters that some scholars doubt were written by Paul, it would help to look at particular passages that might be in tension with a New Perspective reading of Paul's other letters.
tellville wrote:
Which I do. Arminianism and Pelagianism are works based systems. I am firmly and adamantly against both.
tellville wrote:
bioinformaticsIsNeat wrote:
But in any case, I'm not even sure whether Judaism at that time could be properly called "a religion involving works" -- I need to read more about it. I will note, however, that Dunn pointed out a common presumptuous Jewish attitude that on the day of judgment God would condemn the wicked pagans yet show special leniency towards Jews. This special leniency and privilege cuts against the idea that the religion involved meritorious "works."
(tellville)
No it doesn´t. It shows that God freely chose his elect people the Jews (notice that God didn´t choose the Chinese? Or the Greeks? Or the Romans? They are all the wicked Pagans). Yet, did you not say that the Jews had to maintain works to remain a Jew? At the very least, Jewish males had to be circumcised, or in most cases, parents had to circumcise their young.
(bioinformaticsIsNeat)
But suppose you talk to your average Arminian, who hasn't really studied theology, and you ask them describe their faith. They'll tell you that we can't earn our salvation, but have to place our faith in Jesus Christ. If you accuse them of having a works-based religion, initially they'll probably be puzzled and confused, and then after some discussion they'll likely say that a free-will choice to accept Jesus doesn't count as a work. It's only if they really think about it and wrestle with the problem that they might become a Calvinist. So from your Calvinist point of view, Arminians have a works-based religion. But in their minds, it is not a works-based religion.
Maybe it was the same thing with most Jews in Paul's day. Whether or not they had a works-based religion (as evaluated from a Calvinist perspective), they did not consider their religion to based on works and would react with puzzlement or objections if told otherwise (this is assuming the New Perspective view is accurate, of course).
tellville wrote:
Back to NPism for a sec: I have a few questions I´ve been mulling over:
1. It seems to me that E.P. Sanders/James Dunn is teaching more of a monolith Second Temple faith then actually existed. Are They?
Not at all. Sanders has harsh words for New Testament scholars who thought of Second Temple Judaism as a monolithic faith. He points out that one of the major scholarly errors was viewing Rabbinic writings at the time as presenting a single coherent and systematic view, which led in part to a serious mischaracterization of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism.
What Sanders tried to do was look at how various forms of Judaism functioned at a basic level, to identify a common pattern of religion that they (generally) shared in common. I haven't read the details of his analysis, but I'm pretty sure he didn't find a systematic exposition of covenantal nomism laid out in the various writings. Rather, Sanders identified the pattern of covenantal nomism, which he saw as a basic assumption that was common to various forms of Judaism.
tellville wrote:
2. What exactly does E.P. Sanders mean by "œgrace". I have a sneaking suspicion his view of grace is the same as the Roman Catholic´s view of grace, which in reality, isn´t anywhere near what traditional Protestants and Reformers would say "œgrace" is.
I'm not sure; I'll need to read more of his work. Keep in mind to distinguish between Sanders' view and the view(s) he identifies in early Jewish writings.
tellville wrote:
3. What is E.P. Sanders/James Dunn view of scripture?
Sanders is a critical scholar and does not believe in the possibility of miracles. Dunn also uses critical methods, but I'm not as clear about his view of scripture. Dr. Page said he wasn't sure of Dunn's theological leanings, but thought that Dunn might consider himself evangelical.
tellville wrote:
4. Leading from the answer of the previous question: Does E.P. Sanders/James Dunn use the Gospels to determine what Second Temple Judaism believed? For example, what Jesus had to say about the Palestinian Jews probably has some bearing on what they believed (Matthew 23 immediately comes to mind). Or does Sanders/Dunn not view Jesus as a good source? Or do they not even think Jesus is accurately represented by the Gospel writers?
I forget exactly what Sanders said about this; for Dunn I'm not sure. I forget whether Sanders thinks the gospels present an inaccurate view of the Pharisees, but I think he would at least say that it was slanted or that many Christians and New Testament scholar get an imbalanced view if they only read (often misread) what is said in the gospels.
As an example to consider, if I drew my views of liberal Christianity only from what I've heard you say criticizing them, I would have a slanted or imbalanced view, even if everything that you said was true an accurate.
Where might Jesus' statements lead to a different view of Second Temple Judaism? I don't see anything in Matthew 23 that would suggest that Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees for having a works-based religion. In verse 23, Jesus does not attack their tithing of spices as a "work", but even says they should continue to do so. The problem is their neglect of "justice, mercy and faithfulness." And of course there's Matthew 5:17-20.
tellville wrote:
5. What does E.P. Sanders/James Dunn actually think Paul wrote? Do they deny that Paul wrote the pastorals (1,2 Timothy and Titus)? Ephesians? Colossians? Will not cutting the Pauline corpus in half radically change "Paul´s perspective"? It´s like these people are saying "Well Paul never really said we were saved by grace through faith alone" and I go "œExcuse me, did you lose Ephesians?!" And then they say "No, we didn´t lose it, Paul didn´t write it". This is just a shot in the dark, but maybe the reason there is a New Perspective on Paul is because there is a New Perspective on what he wrote?
Such skepticism about the authorship of certain Pauline letters is not new, but has been common in New Testament studies since the nineteenth century. It didn't stop scholars from reading Paul in the "traditional" manner. Rudolf Bultmann even thought Paul had rejected Judaism and the Jewish law, adopting many Greek ideas.
The reason for the New Perspective on Paul is really a better understanding of Second Temple Judaism. It is primarily a "New Perspective" on Judaism, and only secondarily about Paul. The main problem was that the view of Judaism in New Testament scholarship had been grossly inaccurate, a fabrication that was not based on a responsible use of the ancient Jewish sources. New Testament scholars almost universally held a view of first century Judaism as a rigid, legalistic religion based on human effort, where believers struggled in fear, uncertain as to whether they had earned enough merit to avoid God´s condemnation on the day of judgment. In 1977, Sanders published Paul and Palestinian Judaism, and it finally got the attention of New Testament scholars. Just read the first sixty pages of the book, and you'll get an idea of the poor basis for that old view of Judaism.
I'm not sure what Dunn thinks of Ephesians, but I don't think it necessarily contradicts the New Perspective on Paul. I read a passing comment by Dunn where he used Ephesians to bolster his argument about Paul's theology (I forget the exact issue), saying that the letter was written either by Paul or by one of his followers who was sympathetic to Paul's teaching.
Eph 2:8-9 sounds like an argument against "earning salvation through works," but it is a brief and compact statement that would summarize ideas explained more fully elsewhere. Verse 9 might be about boasting that God had chosen the Jews to be saved and not the Gentiles, with the "works" simply marking out who was a Jew, with the emphasis being that people (in contrast to God) could see who was favored by God. Verse 10 places emphasis on "good works", which may contrast with superficial "works" in v. 9 that did not reflect true obedience. More importantly, Eph 2:11-22 is all about how Christ has put an end to the division between the Jews and Gentiles in order to create one humanity in Christ, which according to the New Perspective is the central issue in Paul's view of the Jewish law. Verse 15 says that Christ "abolished the law," but this again is a brief statement that may be a shorthand for a more nuanced position. It is made in the context of the "dividing wall" between Jews and Gentiles, so it may refer to the misuse of the law as a boundary that would keep the blessings of God for the Jews only. Surely you would want to take into account Paul's statement in Romans 3:31 that the law is not "nullified" or "overthrown," but is "established" or "upheld". In addition, one should take into account Eph 5:5.
tellville wrote:
6. Does E.P. Sanders/James Dunn believe that Paul can contradict John? And John contradict Peter? And Peter contradicts Matthew? Etc.?
See answer to (3) above.
tellville wrote:
The answers to these questions are going to radically affect E.P. Sanders/James Dunn scholarship and anybody who then uses their scholarship. I don´t really care how respected they are by the world; if they don´t accept the Bible as having any sense of reliability I can´t put a lot of weight into their scholarship. I should be aware of it, and maybe it will open up something to me that I would have never noticed before, but if the results of their scholarship are impossible to achieve from my current presuppositions, then I can´t trust their scholarship.
Christians are not immune to bias and making mistakes. In Romans 3:9-20, Paul reminds Jew in his audience that the scriptures repeatedly tell them how sinful they have been.
Maybe instead of talking theoretically about how the letters that some scholars doubt were written by Paul, it would help to look at particular passages that might be in tension with a New Perspective reading of Paul's other letters.