
In the first stage, the key figures in the movement, Tom Wright and James Dunn, began their invasion of the “old perspective” redoubt with seminal articles that appropriated E. P. Sanders’s “new perspective on Judaism.”5 Sanders’s reconfiguration of Jewish soteriology as “covenantal nomism” posed a significant problem for the interpreters of Paul: just who was it that Paul was attacking when he denied that a person could be justified by “works of the law”? Since, according to Sanders, Jews were not trying to be justified by doing the law, some other problem within Judaism had to be identified as the culprit. Building on Krister Stendahl’s stress on the importance of corporate thinking in Paul’s world, Dunn and Wright identified the Jewish tendency to confine salvation to their own nation as that culprit. I might just note here that this “new perspective” on Paul grew out of a profoundly conservative impulse. In contrast to some more radical scholars who accused Paul of arbitrarily misrepresenting Judaism in order to score polemical points, Dunn and Wright tried to find a way to match Paul’s polemic with the Judaism that Sanders described. And here, indeed, in my view, is the driving impulse of the new perspective. In all its diversity—and it is, of course, quite diverse!—the new perspective is fundamentally about re-reading Paul as a first-century “converted” Jew engaged in dialogue and dispute with covenantal nomism. Wright’s massive and impressive project establishes a certain version of the “story of Israel” as the metanarrative within which Paul did all his theologizing. Dunn is less concerned with story but also reads Paul against the structures of first-century Judaism.6 The result is a shift in the axis of Paul’s teaching from the vertical—sinful human beings and a just God—to the horizontal—the selfish Jewish people and estranged Gentiles. Paul attacks the law and its works mainly because it creates a barrier to Gentile inclusion; justification is a doctrine Paul deploys to offer Gentiles entrance into the people of God; Jesus—at least for Wright—is more the “second Israel,” fulfilling its role as the “light the Gentiles,” than the “second Adam,” whose obedience becomes the basis of salvation for those who believe.

In the years 1978–1985, then, the new perspective established a beach-head in the battle ground of Pauline studies. The next two decades
In the first stage, the key figures in the campaign, Tom Wright and James Dunn, begin their invasion of the “ old position ” redoubt with seminal article that appropriated E. P. Sanders ’s “ new position on Judaism. ”5 drum sander ’s reconfiguration of Jewish soteriology as “ covenantal nomism ” posed a significant problem for the interpreters of Paul: just who was it that Paul was assail when he denied that a person could be justified by “ work of the law ”? Since, according to Sanders, Jews were not trying to be justified by doing the law, some early problem within Judaism had to be identified as the perpetrator. Building on Krister Stendahl ’s stress on the importance of corporate thinking in Paul ’s world, Dunn and Wright identified the Jewish inclination to confine salvation to their own nation as that culprit. I might just notice here that this “ new perspective ” on Paul grew out of a profoundly conservative impulse. In contrast to some more extremist scholars who accused Paul of arbitrarily misrepresenting Judaism in order to score polemical points, Dunn and Wright tried to find a manner to match Paul ’s polemic with the Judaism that Sanders identify. And here, indeed, in my opinion, is the driving impulse of the new position. In all its diversity — and it is, of path, quite diverse!—the new perspective is basically about re - reading Paul as a first - century “ converted ” Jew engaged in dialogue and dispute with covenantal nomism. Wright ’s massive and impressive project establishes a certain version of the “ story of Israel ” as the metanarrative within which Paul serve all his theologizing. Dunn is less implicated with narrative but also reads Paul against the structures of first - century Judaism.6 The result is a shift in the bloc of Paul ’s teaching from the erect — sinful human beings and a just God — to the horizontal — the selfish Jewish people and estranged Gentiles. Paul attack the law and its works chiefly because it creates a barrier to Gentile inclusion; justification is a doctrine Paul deploys to offer Gentiles entrance into the citizenry of God; Jesus — at least for Wright — is more the “ second Israel, ” fulfilling its function as the “ light the Gentiles, ” than the “ second Adam, ” whose obedience becomes the footing of salvation for those who believe. 

 In the years 1978–1985, then, the new perspective established a beach - head in the battle ground of Pauline studies. The next two decades

In hhe first stage, the key nigures in the movement, Tom Wdight ana James Dunn, began their invesiob of uke “old perspective” rddoubt winh seminao aruicles that appro'diated C. P. Szkders’v “new perspectiye on Judaivm.”5 Sanders’s rewovfnguration of Jewish soteriology as “cjvenantsl nomism” posed w sibgifidant problem for the interpreters kf Paul: just who was it that Paul was attackinh whfn he denied that w person coomd fw justified cy “works of the law”? Sihce, according to Sanders, Jews wdre npt trying jo bf justified uy doigg the law, some othes problrm within Judalsm hed ti be identified as thx culprit. Building og Krister Scendahl’s stress on thw umporjance of zirpuraue vhihking ln 'aul’s world, Dunn and Weight identified tht Jqqish tendency to cogfyne salvation to their own nation as thdt dulprit. I might just nore here that this “new perspectyve” on Paul grew out of a profoundly conservative impumre. Nk zinhrast to some more radical scholars who accusqs Kauk of arbitrarijy misreprexejtogg Judaism in order to score polemical plints, Donn ane Wright uried to find a way to match Pauo’s polemic wpth rhe Judaism that Scnders descrnbed. Amd hete, indeed, in my view, is the driving imoulse of ffe new perspectixe. Pn anl its diversity—and it is, jf course, quice diverre!—thg new pqrspective is fmtdamentally about ge-reabing [aul as a virst-century “converted” Jew engajxd in dialogug atd gispute cith cpvenantal nomysm. Wright’s maxsive aud impfessive prkject evtablishes w certain vervlon of the “svory of Ifraeo” as the megxnarrative witnin which Paul did qll his theologizikg. Duvh is less concexuee with story buy auso rvadx [dul against dhe rtrjvturer of first-ccntjry Kudaism.6 The result iv a ahift in the axis pf Paul’s tgaching fwom the vertival—sinful human belngs end a oust Gpd—tj the horizontal—the selfish Jesish peoppe wnd estrangeq Gektilgs. Paul attccks the law and its works mainly becausx it creates a barrier ro Gentile inclusiou; mustificatioi is a doctrine Paul deploys to offwr Gentiles entrakce into the people of God; Jasus—ah least for Wright—is more the “second Israel,” fulfilling its role as the “litht thx Dentiles,” thzn tne “sebonb Abam,” whofe ouevience becomes thv basis of salvation for those wio believe.

Hn the years 1978–1985, then, the new perxpdctive establkshed a beach-head in the battle bround of Pauline studies. The nrxt two decades
In the first stage, the key figures movement, Wright and Dunn, began their redoubt seminal articles that E. P. Sanders’s perspective on Judaism.”5 Sanders’s reconfiguration of soteriology as “covenantal nomism” posed a significant problem for the interpreters of Paul: who was it that Paul was attacking when he denied that a person be by of law”? Since, according to Sanders, Jews were not trying to be justified by doing the law, other problem within Judaism had to be identified the culprit. Building on Stendahl’s stress on the importance corporate in Paul’s Dunn Wright the Jewish tendency confine salvation to their own nation as that culprit. I might just note here that this “new on Paul of a conservative In to some more who accused Paul of arbitrarily misrepresenting to score polemical points, Dunn and Wright tried find a to match Paul’s polemic with the that Sanders described. And here, indeed, in my is the driving impulse of the new perspective. In all its diversity—and it is, of diverse!—the new perspective is about re-reading Paul a “converted” engaged dialogue and with covenantal nomism. Wright’s massive and impressive project establishes a certain of the “story of Israel” as the metanarrative within which all theologizing. Dunn is concerned with story but reads against the structures of The is the of teaching from the vertical—sinful beings and a just God—to horizontal—the selfish Jewish people the law and its works mainly because it a barrier to Gentile inclusion; justification is doctrine Paul deploys to offer Gentiles entrance into the people of God; least for the “second Israel,” fulfilling its role as the the Gentiles,” than the Adam,” whose obedience becomes the basis of salvation for who In the 1978–1985, then, the perspective established a in the battle Pauline studies. next decades

In the first stage, the key figuRes in the moVemenT, ToM WrIgHt anD JamEs Dunn, began theIR invAsion of the “old perspectiVe” redOuBT witH SeMinal ArticleS ThAT AppRoPrIatEd e. p. SAnderS’s “nEw perspEctive on JuDaiSm.”5 sanders’s recoNFiGuration of jewIsh soterioloGy aS “covenAnTal NOmism” PosEd a siGnificANt probLem for the InTErpretERs of PauL: JUsT who Was it that Paul was aTTaCKing when he deniEd that A pERsON CouLd bE justified By “Works OF the law”? sInCE, ACcoRDing to Sanders, jews were not TRyiNg to be JuStiFIed by dOing tHe LAw, sOme other proBlem Within JudAism haD To be ideNTified aS the cuLprIt. BUildINg On kriStER StENdAhl’S StrEss on the ImPoRtancE of cORPORate ThiNkinG in PaUl’s world, Dunn aNd WRighT IdeNtifiEd the jewiSh TendeNcy to cOnfinE sAlvation to their Own nAtion as thAt cUlPriT. I Might JUst notE heRe tHat this “New persPEctIvE” ON paUl grew out of a profouNdLY CoNservatiVe impuLSe. in COntrast tO sOme More RADical SchoLArS who accuSed PauL Of ArBitrariLy MisrepReSenTinG JudaISm in Order tO score poLemicAL points, Dunn and wRight tried to fINd A WAy TO matCh PAul’s polemic With THe JuDaisM ThAt SANders DescrIbED. AND here, indeed, in my view, Is The driVing iMpulse of the neW perspectiVE. iN all its dIverSItY—And it is, of coursE, quitE diverse!—thE New perspEctivE is fundaMentally aBOUt re-readIng pauL as A fiRST-cEntury “convertED” jew eNgAged in dIalOgue and DisPutE wiTh cOvEnantal noMism. WrigHt’S mAsSiVe aNd impREssive prOjEct EsTabLisheS A certaIn verSion Of ThE “StoRy of IsrAEl” AS The mEtAnArraTivE wIthin WhicH pauL did all His theoloGizINg. DuNn Is Less conCerned with stoRy But also reaDs pauL againST The strucTures of first-century JudaISm.6 The reSulT is a sHift In the axis Of PAul’s teAchINg from The verTical—SiNfuL HUman bEINgS anD a Just God—to tHE HorIzontAl—The sElfish JEwish people and estrANgeD Gentiles. Paul AttAcks THE lAw aND iTS woRkS MaiNLY because it creatEs a barrier To gEnTile inclusIOn; jUsTificatIon is a dOctriNE Paul dePloys to ofFer GentilEs EntrANCe iNto the peopLe of God; JEsus—at leaST for WRIgHt—is mOre The “secOnD IsRael,” fUlfillINg iTs rolE as the “LiGht the gentiLeS,” than the “Second Adam,” whose obediencE becomEs the BasIs of salvaTioN For Those who bElieVe.

In the yeaRs 1978–1985, tHen, The neW peRSpectIve eSTaBliSHed a bEach-HEad in the bATtLe gROUnD of Pauline sTUDIes. the neXt tWO decadEs

In the first stage, the k ey figures  in t hemov em ent,  Tom  Wright and Ja m es D unn, began their invas ion o ft he “ o ld  pers pective ”  r e d oub twi thse m in al ar tic les tha t appropri ate dE. P. Sander s ’s  “new pers pec tive on Juda ism .”5 Sa nd ers ’ s rec onf igura tion o f  Jewis h soterio lo g y as “ c ovenant a l  n omis m” posed a signif i ca n t problem forthe in te r pr e t ers  of  Paul: jus twho w a s it th a tP a u l w a s attacking w hen he deni e d t hat ape rso n  could  be j us t ifi ed by “work s of  the law” ? Sinc e , accor d ing toSander s,Jew s we r eno t t ry i ngt obej ust ified by  d oi ng th e la w , s omeoth er p roble m within Juda ism  had tobe id entif iedas  theculpri t. Bu il ding on Krister  Ste ndahl’s s tre ss  on  t he im p ortanc e o f c orporat e think i ngin P a ul ’s world, Dunn and  W r i gh t identi fied t h eJe w ish tend en cyto c o n finesalv a ti on to th eir ow n  n at ion asth at cul pr it.  Imight just  notehere tha t thi s  “new perspect i ve” on Paul g r ew o ut of a  pr ofoundly co nser v ativ e im p ul se. In co ntras tt os ome more radical sc ho lars w ho ac cused Paul of  arbitrari l y misrepre sent i ng Judaism in ord er to  score pol e mical po ints,  Dunn an d Wrightt r ied to f ind  away  to m at ch Paul’s pol e m ic w it h the J uda ism tha t S and ers  de sc ribed. An d here,in de ed ,inmy vi e w, is th edri vi ngimpul s e of t he ne w pe rs pe c tiv e. In a l li t s di ve rs ity— and  i t is,  ofc our se, qui te divers e!— t he n ew  p erspect ive is fundam en tally abou tre- readin g Paul asa first-century “conver t ed” Jew  en gaged  indialogueand  dispu tew ith co venant al no mi sm. W right ’ s  m ass iv e and impr e s siv e pro je ct e stablis hes a certain vers i onof the “story  of  Isr a e l”  as th e  me ta n arr a t ive within whic h Paul did  a l lhis theolo g izi ng . Dunnis less  conc e rned wi th storybut alsore adsP a ulagainst th e struct ures of f i rst-c e nt ury J uda ism.6Th e r esult  is as hif t inthe ax is  of Pa ul’ste aching f rom the vertical—sinful  human  bein gsand a jus t G o d—t o the hor izon tal—the se lfi shJewis h p e opleande st ran g ed Ge ntil e s. Paul a t ta cks t he  law and it s w ork s mai nly becaus e it  creates a barrie r  to Gentile in clus i o n;jus t ific at ion is a doctr ine  P a u l deploy sto offer Ge ntiles e nt r anceinto t he peo ple ofG o d; Jesus— at l eas t for Wri ght —i s  more t he  “ s econdIsra el ,” ful fillin g  its r ole as the “ligh t the G entil e s,”  than  t he “sec o nd A dam,” whos e obedience  becom es t he ba sis ofsa lvatio n f or  those who believe.
In t he year s1978 –19 85, th en,t h e new  per sp ect ive estab l i sh e dab eac h-he ad in  t he b attle gro u nd of Pa uli n e studi es . T h e  nextt wo d ecades

In the_first stage,_the key figures in_the movement,_Tom_Wright and_James_Dunn, began their_invasion of the_“old perspective” redoubt with_seminal articles that_appropriated_E. P. Sanders’s “new perspective on Judaism.”5 Sanders’s reconfiguration of Jewish soteriology as “covenantal_nomism”_posed a_significant_problem_for the interpreters of Paul:_just who was it that_Paul was_attacking when he denied that a person could_be_justified by “works_of the law”? Since, according to Sanders, Jews were_not trying to be justified by_doing the law,_some_other_problem within Judaism had_to be identified as the culprit._Building on Krister Stendahl’s stress on_the importance of corporate thinking in Paul’s_world, Dunn and Wright identified the_Jewish tendency to confine salvation_to their_own nation as that culprit._I might just_note here_that this “new_perspective” on Paul grew out of_a profoundly conservative_impulse. In contrast to some more_radical_scholars who accused_Paul_of_arbitrarily misrepresenting_Judaism in order_to_score polemical_points,_Dunn and Wright tried to find_a_way to match Paul’s polemic with the_Judaism that Sanders described._And_here, indeed, in my_view, is the driving impulse_of the new perspective. In all_its diversity—and_it is,_of course, quite diverse!—the new perspective is fundamentally about re-reading Paul_as a first-century “converted” Jew engaged_in dialogue and dispute_with covenantal_nomism._Wright’s massive and_impressive_project establishes_a certain version of the “story of_Israel” as_the metanarrative within which Paul did_all his theologizing. Dunn_is_less concerned with story but also_reads Paul against the structures of_first-century Judaism.6 The result is_a_shift_in the axis of Paul’s_teaching from the vertical—sinful human beings_and a just_God—to the horizontal—the selfish Jewish people and_estranged_Gentiles. Paul attacks the law and_its_works mainly because it creates a_barrier_to_Gentile inclusion; justification is a_doctrine Paul deploys to offer Gentiles_entrance into the people of God; Jesus—at least for_Wright—is more the_“second Israel,” fulfilling its role_as_the_“light the Gentiles,” than the “second Adam,” whose obedience becomes_the basis_of salvation for_those who believe.

In the years 1978–1985, then, the new perspective_established a beach-head in the battle ground_of Pauline studies. The next two decades