Talk:New Perspective on Paul

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

NPOV?

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)

Though I consult Wikipedia often, I am not familiar with how the editing process works. I'm particularly interested in asking because I feel that much of this article, while well-meaning, is pretty inaccurate. I've jotted down some notes that I believe would improve upon it, but am not familiar with the process of corresponding and reaching the consensus necessary to propose revisions. Any help would be appreciated. Mmattison (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unclear central concept

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).

Contradictions?

This article seems to completely contradict the "New Perspective on Paul" section of the Paul of Tarsus article. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The New Perspective is the name given to the scholarly view pioneered by EP Sanders, and has nothing to do with what is described in the Paul of Tarsus article. I can only assume whoever wrote that got confused. David L Rattigan 0147 2 August 2005 GMT

For what it is worth, I think this article is excellent. I commend the editor.

Theology or history

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.

Clear as mud

Ummm...this article made the subject clear as mud.

There's only one sentence that comes close to defining the subject, and that is the one that starts with "Sanders reframed". The description of this "reframing" does not show a clear difference from the "old perspective" explained in the preceding paragraph. The remainder of the article only discusses consequences of this supposed change of perspective. Much more detail is needed to explain the new perspective itself.

I don't mean anything personal against the author. I'm just saying that the article did not answer my question, "What is the New Perspective on Paul?"

• Yeah, I think you're right. This article is on my list of things to do. StAnselm 22:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd definitely agree that this article needs work. I've read through it several times and still don't get what it's talking about. Lord Seth (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The topic may be too complex for wikipedia to cover. There are several good links in the external links section. 75.14.221.43 (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above writers that the article was clear as mud. I have now rewritten it virtually completely with an aim to make the subject comprehensible to non-scholars. Tercel478 (talk) 08:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

We're all indebted to Tercel478 for recent changes to make this article clearer. Even so, I felt that a few changes were in order:

• I've removed the paranthetical s from the lead. Yes, it's arguable that there are "many new perspectives", but there are also arguably many feminisms, but that doesn't stop us from talking about "feminism" or "feminists", and this matter wouldn't ordinarily be mentioned in the leading paragraphs of an article. This also resolves the paradox of referring to it as the "new perspective" in the same leading paragraph.
• I've removed or modified wording that seems to promote a particular POV.
• I've fixed a number of grammatical/orthographical errors.
• I've made other changes with citations to back them up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtSchumann (talk • contribs) 16:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I came to this article a few weeks ago having been bogged down in N. T. Wright's book of the same name and found it very clear and helpful. I think it is now an excellent reference for anyone with a basic training in NT studies. I can't comment on how much someone with no theological education at all would get from it though. --Kevin Cowtan (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Evangelicals

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)

Clarifying points?

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)