We are discussing Tom Wright's new book , a book that responds to John Piper's
criticism of Wright and the New Perspective (Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision
). The 2d chp of this book deals with the rules of engagement. Here is Wright's simple approach: "The rules for engagement for any debate about Paul must be, therefore, exegesis first and foremost, with all historical tools in full play, not to dominate or to squeeze the text out of shape into which it naturally forms itself but to support and illuminate a text-sensitive, argument-senstive, nuance-sensitive reading" (51).
In other words: (1) read the text (2) in its immediate, authorial, biblical context, and (3) all in their historical contexts so far as we can discern them.
John Piper counters this method by suggesting in his book that Wright gives too much credence to non-biblical sources and to novel interpretations. Piper thinks too much biblical theology has become too fascinated with historical context that is then used to reinterpret Paul's plain sense. For some reason (Piper, The Future of Justification, 34-35), Piper thinks our knowledge of the NT is more secure than our readings of non-biblical texts. This, so it seems to me, begs the question and it is simply not accurate: this all depends on text and scholar. I know plenty who know more about the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Rabbis or the Pseudepigrapha than they do about the New Testament. Still, Piper's point is of importance: there is a history of interpretation, accurate or not (is the point), that can guide us in NT reading and some bring issues from elsewhere to the NT and then reinterpret the NT and get it wrong. But Wright's point then needs to be clearly stated: that interpretive history Piper defers to may be wrong, and when it is wrong it can be stubbornly resistant to change.
This is the problem many of us have observed at times in the critique of the new perspective, and we sense it when John Piper says things like this: "The future of justification will be better served, I think, with older guides rather than the new ones" (The Future of Justification, 25). As Wright observes, Piper quotes Scott Manetsch who argues for a return to the 16th Century Reformers .... well, yes, I say to myself. But .... but ... but ... Is this even Protestant except in a traditional sense? Isn't this the very approach the Reformers themselves protested? Yes, it is.
I say, ad fontes! Back to the sources ... and that is exactly what Wright will do, and it is what Piper did in his book. The issue then is one of method. I contend that we should say it as did Wright:
1. The author's text.
2. In that author's context and in the biblical sweep of context.
3. In their historical contexts.
Now the issue will become -- Was the 1st Century context of Paul the context that animated the Protestant Reformers and the way justification has been understood in the evangelical tradition, namely as concerned first and foremost (and almost entirely) with personal salvation? That, my friends, is the question at work in the debate about the new perspective. Wed and Friday we will look at how Tom Wright understands the principle terms of debate.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Wright's book is a direct response to Piper, so it is legitimate that the focus is on Piper. Also, the critiques against Piper of being captive to the theology of the 16th century are also legitimate.
But lets not forget that there are scholarly dissents to NPP that do not fit into the Piper category. Wright, in his interview with Trevin Wax says Justification and Variegated Nomism is "a collection of fine essays by fine scholars" (of course, he isn't happy with Carson's summary of the essays!). He also says Moo is an excellent Pauline scholar who "is constantly grappling with the text...I won't always agree with his exegesis, but there is a relentless scholarly honesty about him which I really tip my hat off to."
I merely mention this to make the point that not all NPP dissenters fall into the same category as Piper. This issue [Paul and NPP] remains a legitimate scholarly debate, does it not? Or are we claiming that it is case closed because NPP dissenters are all biased Neo-Reformers?
"In other words: (1) read the text (2) in its immediate, authorial, biblical context, and (3) all in their historical contexts so far as we can discern them."
As Scot suggests, it is exactly this approach that Piper impugns in his first chapter. He interprets Paul as if the apostle wrote in a vacuum.
I've reviewed Piper's intro(s) and first three chapters on my blog.
On Method: The Reformation return "to the sources" was both a return to the biblical text and a return to the Patristic interpreters. Calvin and Luther assumed a congruence between how the Church Fathers interpreted Scripture and the original author's intent. And they went to great lengths to demonstrate their agreement with both.
Scot,
What Piper and the neo-Reformed critics of NPP will not admit is that Martin Luther was captive to his culture with its insistence on Medieval meritorious works. We are glad Luther reacted against that error. But we are not glad that Luther and other Reformers read into Paul and Jesus their 16th century issues. Wright and other NPPers clearly point out that "works of TORAH" were never viewed as meritorious toward *earning* salvation. This was not a Jewish category; it was Medieval Catholicism.
I am stunned (should I say appalled?) that Piper with one broad brush stroke writes off the interplay of lexical, historical, and cultural studies because those studies challenge his "system." I can just hear the leading Catholic scholars of Luther's day saying, "We need to pay more attention to the old guides, not these upstart rabble-rousers named Luther and Calvin." I'm sorry, but to me Piper does not demonstrate genuine biblical and theological inquiry and reflection, but a panicked, anemic defense of his entrenched Reformed tradition.
Sometimes I think N.T. Wright doesn't pay enough attention to individual salvation, like in it's beside the point with him. But when I read Paul it really does seem to be couched in terms of community and kingdom.
I do look forward to getting and reading this book!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.