Talk:New Perspective on Paul

message: This article should be merged as a sub section in Paul of Tarsus
194.83.157.10 12:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: User:24.15.75.90 disputes the neutrality of the article. Why? User:David L Rattigan 23:47 04 May 2006 BST
Excellent article. Flows well, and very NPOV in my opinion. --Colin MacLaurin 06:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV?

message: pb1 I have to disagree with other talkers here: this is not clear to me at all. The key concept is italicized and followed by an unexplained link - neither of which help clarify the concept at all.
I recommend another paragraph which developes and clarifies the key concept, preferably with a quote and example.
Otherwise, clear and well-referenced! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.27.187.167 (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear central concept

message: So is this a theological/religious opinion or a historical theory? The article seems to lean towards the former when it describes it as a debate between protestant scholars but other times it reads like it is describing a scientific debate.
:It's a modern historical theory about the historical Paul. Because of Paul's prominence in modern Christianity (see Pauline Christianity), it is also a theological/religious debate. It is not a scientific debate, though historical methods and scientific methods share some overlap.75.14.215.248 (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Theology or history 

message: I suspect liberal scholars like James D. G. Dunn and E. P. Sanders would be astonished to find themselves characterized as "Evangelicals". I removed this phrase, but if anyone can show support for it, please feel free to re-insert it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physguy (talk • contribs) 01:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evangelicals 

message: The following was listed in the article under the "criticism" heading at the bottom of the section. It seems to me to be better-suited to the talk page, and if anyone wants to clean it up in a fashion that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia article be my guest. I found it both unhelpful and definitely NOT NPOV.
:- The above analysis seems to be one-sided and ignores a very basic analysis on the nature of the evidences from new perspective. For example, one of the fundation of the solid base is the works of E.P. Sanders. But this work employs an assumption that the Judaism is not legalistic based on very few Judaism works, which are after Paul (not before him.) These works are more likely belong to some special branches, rather than main-stream Judaism. All the works based on this, should be viewed with extreme care. Without this so-called solid fundation, all the arguments which build on that, should be reviewed. 
:- Though the Lutheran interpretation may have some distance from the original Paul's understanding. But without real solid evidences, the total re-establishment of the perspective should be delayed before strong evidences push the other way.   Orpheus42 (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying points? 

message: This article should be merged as a sub section in Paul of Tarsus--PerspectiveMundo (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be merged as a sub section in Paul of Tarsus 

message: See diff</ref>
A good image at the top, the rest is downhill! Needs to be kept as a separate article, but quality is very low, sentences strewn around by different editors, errors all over. Needs a rewrite. History2007 (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite needed - low quality article

message: The historical context really needs to refer to the much bigger history of justification to put the NPP in context. Alister McGrath's "Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification" would give us a good overview differentiating between the Old Testament (Heb. zedek), New Testament (Gk. Dikai), Early Church (e.g. Clement, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus), Augustinian (Catholic), Reformation (Luther, Calvin) and Modern takes on justification. I would refer to him here. The existing references to Stendahl, Sanders, Dunn and Wright are good, but will need further nuancing. --JoshmanWiki00 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development 

message: Yes it is an important topic, but the NPP is not simply about justification. The main ideas should work through the development. 
1) Introspective Conscience. Refer to Stendahl's work. Two elements should be considers. His views on Paul's 'conversion' vs. 'calling'. Also his work on the Introspective Conscience of the West tying it in with Augustine and Luther.
2) Pattern of Religion. Refer to Sanders work on Judaism. List his main points explaining the pattern of Jewish religion and how it undercuts the Reformed foundational assumptions about Judaism as legalistic. Refer to the 2 Volume book criticising him. Justification and Variegated Nomism. Then refer to critical reviews of the book. 
3) Works of law. The existing article on this is bad. We should start by breaking down the Gk. Ergo Nomos. Then discuss the different understandings of the 'law'. Then tie it in with works. Refer to Dunns views here. Then refer to Douglas Moo and Robert Rapa. They have done some work on this.
4) Righteousness of God. There is a long history of interpretation we need to refer to in this section. Alister McGrath - Augustine, Reformation, Modern. Wright actually refers to a table of them in 'What Saint Paul really Said'.
5) Justification. Early church views (Clement, Martyr, Ireneaus), Augustinian view, Reformed View, Modern views (incl. NPP). Two main understandings are involved with the debate on NPP. a) How a sinner becomes righteous in the sight of God (e.g. Rom 5.8-9). b) How one can tell a person is righteous (e.g. James 2).
6) Pistis Christou. The existing article has a lot of cites - good. But it needs more structure. First break down the greek. Then discuss the main points. Then discuss the implications. --JoshmanWiki00 (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main ideas 

message: " … Augustine is blamed by some for introducing incorrect ideas[citation needed] (some Orthodox would agree that Augustine erred on these ideas, and introduced novelties into the teachings of the Church Fathers[34])."
This is flagged as "citation needed," but there is in fact a footnote at the end of the sentence. Is there a problem with the reference cited? (e.g. does it not actually/adequately support the claim?) Otherwise I'm not sure what the problem is. 
I don't know who does or doesn't blame Augustine for anything, much less who's right, but I try to keep alert for notes like "citation needed" when I read, and this one didn't make much sense to me. LiberalArtist (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  re Augustine 

message: One cannot have an article like this in a serious encyclopedia. It is like someone writes a book in the middle of Wikipedia. I propose simply deleting it. The material doesn't need preservation, it s*x! Write your own book at home, someone!! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whattecrap!! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New Perspective on Paul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120919133747/http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/dort.htm to http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/dort.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New Perspective on Paul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160829034205/http://www.eerdmans.com/Products/6889/paul-and-the-gift.aspx to http://www.eerdmans.com/Products/6889/paul-and-the-gift.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I am adding a new section to the long talk list of this controversial page to underline the non-neutral style and content of this article. Expressions such as "theologians of the historic Lutheran and Reformed perspectives" which keep coming back all along clearly imply that Luther's and other theologians' views are now totally outdated, being overhauled by the "new perspective", which is, of course, "a significant shift in New Testament studies", not just another interpretation or school of thought. Humility doesn't belong here! And Sanders' work is described right away as "pioneering", a qualificative which is attributed... to Sanders himself and to Dunn, another proponent of the "new perspective". Is this a serious article? There is urgent need for independent sources if the aforesaid is to remain in a wikipedia article. Pensées de Pascal (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV