New Perspective on Paul

The New Perspective on Paul (English New Perspective on Paul ) is a direction in the New Testament research, some researchers different from the traditional Lutheran idea of ​​the justification of the believer, the writings of Paul of Tarsus interpret, especially in view of his relationship to Judaism.

Development

The New Perspective on Paul ( as summarized only subsequently named in 1982 by James DG Dunn) made ​​her debut with the works of Krister Stendahl. This criticized the German exegesis, that the doctrine of justification in not Paul and Luther because of the excruciating question of individual salvation, but purely in the service of the legitimacy of the Gentile mission had arisen and that it therefore would be inappropriate to see the doctrine of justification in the center of Pauline theology.

The " New Perspective " was known in particular by the results of the work of EP Sanders, Paul and especially in Palestinian Judaism (1977). There he argued that ancient Judaism was caricatured by Christian theology as a legal religion in which the Torah must be adhered to in order to reach salvation, whereas Paul a new way of salvation - not through the observance of laws works, but through justification by faith in Christ - would have offered. Sanders demonstrated by various early Jewish texts that keeping the law in ancient Judaism a sign of the In -Bund Stay ( " staying in " ) and not just the means of salvation ( "getting in " ) was. This religion pattern he calls " covenantal ". Sanders' investigation questioned the interpretation background of Martin Luther, who coined the traditional Protestant idea of ​​the justification of the sinner as opposed to an alleged Jewish- Pharisaic self-righteousness. Even Augustine's theology, which has affected the entire Western Christianity, is provided by him in question. For, according to Sanders, Paul did not criticize his work on Judaism justice (which already presupposes Augustin in his anti-Pelagian doctrine of grace ), but only that "there is no Christianity. "

According to Sanders Albert Schweitzer has anticipated with its significant insights Paul's interpretation of the new perspective. However, Schweitzer's findings are then moved by the appearance of Rudolf Bultmann and his school in the background.

Today, the most important representative of the " New Perspective on Paul " is their namesake James Dunn. He expanded Sanders' covenantal considerations to the reference to the fact that bids in Judaism not only "identity markers ", but especially "boundary markers " were, with which the Jewish people demarcated by the Gentiles. According to whether Paul 's critique of law and the " works of the law " primarily as a critique of the determination of the Gentiles to understand, as for Paul, the question of justification that is subordinate, as even the heathen can come to salvation. So Paul does not criticize the work of justice of the Jews, but their pursuit of ethical and social distinction.

In addition to Dunn has also Nicholas Thomas Wright, Bishop Emeritus of Durham, started work by Sanders and developed the New Perspective on Paul. Here, the self of the evangelical -reformed Anglican theologian flow that were found endeavoring to Paul interpretation that comes strictly from the text hermeneutics and less on religion sociological hypotheses recourse than the (rather liberal spectrum assigned ) approaches Sanders and Dunn. He believes against the conservative evangelical criticism, to take seriously the exegetical results of the new perspective and enhanced through personal insights without abandoning the core of the Reformation understanding of justification.

From the perspective of Jewish religious philosophy Daniel Boyarin has the results of Dunn's well received any substantially and developed into its own view of Paul as a Jewish religious teacher in the context of a ( with postmodernism in terms of set ) stress field of cultural difference and commonality.

In German-speaking New Perspective has stimulated various attempts to explore the contemporary environment of early Christianity and the historical Jesus with the help of social-historical methods (including Luise Schottroff, Wolfgang Stegemann, Marlene Crüsemann and Claudia Janssen ). A central role is played by the criticism antijudaistischer Stereotypes in the Christian tradition and also in the earlier historical-critical exegesis.

Criticism

The New Perspective on Paul is often contradicted. The first contradiction German theologians against Stendahl 's thesis is by Ernst cheese man but less content grappled with Stendahl, but generally expressed the fear that as determined by the exegesis of Scripture have a negative impact on the preaching more of belief. Präzisierer criticized Eduard Lohse, the reduction of the theologian Paul on a missionary practitioners and the shortening of the doctrine of justification on a mission strategic concept.

Especially of Reformed theologians is strongly criticized that the new perspectives not dogmatic reflect the teachings of John Calvin correctly. The New Perspective on Paul, was also the subject of intense debate in evangelical circles, especially in the conservative Presbyterian churches in the United States.

The recent discussion within the new perspective between Sanders and Wright is mostly ignored by the critics. 2003 to NT Wright by Sanders and Dunn distances ". [T ] here are probably almost as many ' New Perspective ' positions as there are writers espousing it - and I disagree with most of them" published in his 2011 essay Justification: Yesterday, Today and Forever Wright strives explicitly concerned to dispel the dogmatic concerns raised by his Pauluslesart regarding the doctrine of justification.

The Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner criticized EP Sanders, Paul interpretation in the context of scientific controversy about the role of Pharisaic Judaism for the rabbinic literature that Neusner for less characteristic holding than is commonly assumed. He questioned in particular among other things, of EP Sanders developed methodology and dealing with the rabbinic sources and speaks of an untimely ( anachronistic ) collection of different fonts. Conversely looks Sanders inaccuracies and arbitrariness in Neusner Pharisaic interpretations of the discussions and decisions and keeps the conclusions drawn from them is dubious.