tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25676168.post3791821189019321498..comments2024-01-27T13:13:38.405-05:00Comments on Biblical Theology: The New Perspective on Paul - Part 1Matthew S. Harmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17506399043911656897noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25676168.post-61564323291312618202008-01-05T05:42:00.000-05:002008-01-05T05:42:00.000-05:00. We need to be extremely cautious about thinking ...<I>. We need to be extremely cautious about thinking that we have a better understanding of first-century Judaism almost 2,000 years removed than Paul did as one who grew up in it. I am all for taking historical background and context seriously, but I get very nervous when we take a hypothetical reconstruction of that historical context that then force us to override the plain sense of the text.</I><BR/><BR/>This appears to be an attempt to poison the well. None of use grew up 2000 years ago, so every reconstruction is hypothetical.<BR/><BR/>In addition, what school of theology has at its goal to "force us to override the plain sense of the text"? Who claims that they aren't attempting to understand the plain meaning of the text?<BR/><BR/>A former student of Carson,<BR/><BR/>LukeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25676168.post-8065016263518317552007-10-31T11:01:00.000-04:002007-10-31T11:01:00.000-04:00Today it is the reigning paradigm in NT studiesI u...<I>Today it is the reigning paradigm in NT studies</I><BR/><BR/>I underestimated its prevalence.<BR/><BR/><I>We need to be extremely cautious about thinking that we have a better understanding of first-century Judaism almost 2,000 years removed than Paul did as one who grew up in it. I am all for taking historical background and context seriously, but I get very nervous when we take a hypothetical reconstruction of that historical context that then force us to override the plain sense of the text.</I><BR/><BR/>i think that perspective is much more consistent with the humility that so many are calling for from preachers/teachers.danny2https://www.blogger.com/profile/13010556674654842010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25676168.post-8154659219098051402007-10-30T18:06:00.000-04:002007-10-30T18:06:00.000-04:00When I started reading your post, and came across ...When I started reading your post, and came across EP Sanders' name I immediately thought 'covenant(al) nomism'. I took a class on Paul last spring, and that phrase was actually an answer to a question on a test once. Haha. My professor made sure we didn't forget Sanders. (He disagreed with Sanders.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25676168.post-86136567932163469702007-10-30T13:48:00.000-04:002007-10-30T13:48:00.000-04:00Thanks Matt . . .I have been following this trend ...Thanks Matt . . .<BR/><BR/>I have been following this trend for a while, and I think DA Carson's comments are correct and his tone is appropriate (he is normally a subdued guy). We should be greatly concerned about what amounts to an attack on the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone.Keith's Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08964796812967643279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25676168.post-43643296072266379552007-10-29T18:36:00.000-04:002007-10-29T18:36:00.000-04:00Very good observations, particularily points 2 and...Very good observations, particularily points 2 and 3.<BR/><BR/>I agree that true Judaism would have believed something along the lines of "covenant nomism", and that many jews in at the time would have understood their religion along those lines (i.e. "the faithful remnant"). <BR/>However, in both the Gospels themselves (ex. Luke 18) and Paul's description of himself in verious places, along with Acts seem to show that there were certainly other attitudes and beleifs "strains" within the wide world of Jweish thought and practice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com