1.

Introduction
The term new perspective on Paul was coined by J.D.G. Dunn in 1982, during his
Manson Memorial Lecture.1 In this lecture, Dunn not only gives name to but
elaborates on the themes lifted by E.P. Sanders in his book Paul and Palestinian
Judaism (1977). Sanders himself would go on to further expound his thesis in his
more important Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (1983). Since then, N.T.
Wright has also become one of the main propagators of the new perspective on
Paul (hereafter NPP). These three authors have become the leading exponents of
the NPP, each expanding on their own view as well as presenting disagreements
with each others views. This lack of uniformity or broad consensus in coining
what exactly the NPP is raises some issues, however a basic premise tends to be
shared among its advocates: the conviction that first-century Jews were not
legalists, or that they did not believe they could earn salvation through works. As
Westerholm puts it, the new perspective on Paul is in actuality a new perspective
on first-century Judaism.2 This, in turn, brings us to a re-evaluation, and thus, a
new perspective on Paul.

2. The Modern Scholarly Consensus on Paul and First-Century Judaism

The scholarly consensus with regards to modern Pauline studies has largely been
inspired by Martin Luther. The modern Lutheran view held by most modern day
scholars holds true two key elements: the identification of first-century Jews as
legalists and the justification of the individual at the centre of Pauls theology.
This has been the general scholarly consensus for the past 450 years. In the
Lutheran view, first-century Judaism was legalistic, believing they could earn
their salvation through obedience to the law, or good works of the law. Luthers
view presupposes that when Paul condemns works, he is not encompassing
solely Jewish 'ceremonies,' but moral activity as well. With this interpretation of
works in mind, Luther argues, with Galatians 2:16 as his central text, that we
are justified by faith in Jesus Christ, not by the works we do. The Pauline letters,
therefore, become the main argument behind the theological doctrine of Sola
Fide, or justification by faith alone.

3. Sanders Argument in Favour of a New Perspective

Sanders, however, claims that the traditional Reformed view of first-century
Judaism is fundamentally inaccurate. Luther, Sanders argues, misreads Paul by
reading Paul in relation to his own sixteenth-century concerns, and not within the
historical first-century context. Subsequent scholars, according to Sanders, have
also been guilty of misreading Pauline letters, by reading Pauls works through
1
2

Lutheran eyes, rather than through the appropriate historical background of firstcentury Judaism. By presenting evidence compiled from rabbinic literature
during this period, Sanders presents his own thesis on Palestinian Judaism at the
time of Paul.
Sanders argues that in first-century Judaism obedience to the law was not a
means of coming into the covenant, but of maintaining a covenant relationship
with God.3 First-century Jews had an understanding that they had already arrived
into the covenant through Gods election, but they stayed in the covenant
through obedience, or works. Sanders called this view covenantal nomism.
(Once book arrives, elaborate on how Sanders arrived to these conclusions. Give
examples of key rabbinic literatures)

4. How the NPP Alters our Interpretation of Pauline Writings

Such a radically different view on first-century Judaism inevitably leads us to
different interpretations of Pauls writings. As previously noted, Luther held
Galatians 2:16 as the centre of his interpretation of justification by faith alone.
Traditional Lutheran views interpret Galatians 2:16 as Pauls rebuttal against
Judaizers who were attempting to persuade the Galatians toward the notion of
earning Gods acquittal through works. Hence, the Lutheran view concludes that
Pauls arguments against works of the law were in regards to salvation.
Dunn argues that Pauls words in Galatians 2:15-16, instead, are an affirmation of
an already accepted view of justification by faith amidst Jewish Christians: we
who are Jews know 4 Dunn claims that Paul is appealing to Jewish
sensibilities and that the being justified which Paul speaks of is something
Jewish, something which belongs to Jews by nature. 5 Dunn goes on to state that
in distinguishing Jews from Gentile sinners, Paul is displaying language of a
people who had been aware of their election, or covenant language. 6 To Paul
and his listeners works of law were not seen as works which earn Gods favour,
but rather as badges, given by God solely to mark and demonstrate the
covenant status of his people. Thus, the works Paul attacks in his letters do not
encompass moral activity as the Lutheran view suggests, but are solely related
to covenant works, such as circumcision and food laws. 7 Dunn concludes that
3
4
5
6
7

Pauls main argument in Galatians, therefore, is not in relation to how sinners

become righteous, but in relation to ethnic inclusion. 8 As NT Wright puts it, the
NPP shifts our perspective on Pauls words on justification from soteriology (the
doctrine of salvation) to ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church.)

5. Conclusion