『保羅新觀』連結Links on New Perspectives on Paul

(整理中)

蔡少琪

回到 華人神學園地主頁

引言:

**蔡少琪整理:保羅新觀的一些有名論點和名句(整理中)

*The New Perspective on Paul: A Bibliographical Essay (by Michael F. Bird) (October 16, 2009)提供了一些主要著作和文章

*有一系列關於保羅專題的文章,列在The Paul Page

*一些有分量的『反對』『保羅新觀』的英文文章Challenging the New Perspective

*Studies in the New Perspective on Paul: Essays and Reviews (Don Garlington) pdf

The New Perspective on Paul By James D.G. Dunn

蔡少琪整理馮陰坤在《羅馬書註釋》對保羅新觀的分析和評論的短文

真理的交鋒和爭戰是極為鋒利和重要的(因信稱義vs 保羅新觀)

提前 6:12 你要為真道打那美好的仗

Sanders森達士在近年重組猶太人對律法的觀念,直接和間接衝擊傳統基督教因信稱義的立場。他的一個主要立場是:主耶穌所描寫的法利賽人,並不是當代法利賽人的常態。並且法利賽人和當代不少猶太人並不是提出『行為稱義』的道理!

馮蔭坤指出,森達士這路線的重點是指猶太教是「約之律法主義」(covenantal nomism)

「得救是憑恩典,但審判是按行為;行為是繼續留在(約或立約群體之)『內』的條件,但行為並不賺取救恩。」但馮蔭坤指出,森所提出『某些文獻』,不能代表耶穌和保羅時代整個猶太人的宗教觀念。比如,福音書中有人問耶穌「我該作什麼事才可以承受永生」,早期教會時有猶太人信徒要求外信徒務必受割禮,保羅書信多提及此事。指出:「這些證據都顯示,有一些人所信奉的猶太教,要求人遵守律法,行出律法所要求的行為。」

此外,森達士輕看了不少猶太文獻所強調的:「絕對的順從才可以得救!」

森氏沒有足夠考慮到兩約之間這趨勢的發展。

森氏引自巴勒斯坦猶太文獻的證據無可抗拒地顯示,好行為是『留在裡面』的記號及條件;但對保羅來說,好行為只是『留在裡面』的記號(這個記號當然重要),信心則是『進入』和『留在裡面』必須和足夠的條件。

Sanders: “obedience maintains one’s position in the covenant, but it does not earn God’s grace as such. It simply keeps an individual in the group which is the recipient of God’s grace.” (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 420)

Gundry曾寫信給Sanders,並後來指出森氏兩本名書之間基本立場已經改變:

「森氏先前認為,在保羅的神學和巴勒斯坦的猶太教中,『進入』完全是靠賴神揀選的恩典;現在他認為,在猶太教以及在基督教的猶太主義分子當中,受割禮是『進入』的條件,沒有割禮的,根本不能算為有關群體的成員。」「由此看來,森氏原來的基本理論--已倒塌下來了;實質上,森達士如今承認,猶太人及基督徒的猶太主義者在『進入』此一事上是神人合作論者。」

小結:

巴列特說得好:「只有一個是否魯莽的二十世紀學者才會以為自己比保羅更了解一世紀的猶太教。」

馮陰坤有這樣的總結:「正因為保羅對猶太教有第一手的認識,我們就更宜盡量緊靠著保羅書信的經文,而不是讓森達士對一世紀猶太教的重構,控制我們對經文的解釋,使我們把不自然的解釋加諸經文之上,為要使經文與森氏的重構相符。」

馮蔭坤最後引用SeifridHagner的說法:「賽扶理認為,目前不少保羅研究一心追隨的路線,雖能喚起人的興趣,卻是不結果子的繞行之路:由於森達士所定下的路線本身是錯誤的,沿此路線而行的結果就是走進死巷裡去。同樣,哈格拿認為,雖然『保羅新釋』帶來一些正確的洞見,但此新釋本身並不構成一種突破,使我們對保羅和猶太教有更正確的評估:『這一次哥白尼及其跟隨者帶我們走的路是錯的。』」

馮蔭坤:《羅馬書註釋》,上冊,頁86929596104-107;關於談論保羅新觀,參 85-108

 

A. 部分英文網站連結

D. A. Carson on E. P. Sanders, N. T. Wright, James Dunn, & NPP (Video)

D.A. Carson - The New Perpsective On Paul: This video contains three lectures by D.A. Carson (Video)

Sanders: Is Paul's Legacy Relevant Today? (Video)

E. P. Sanders (Wikipedia) (born 18 April 1937): Paul and Palestinian Judaism 1977; Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People 1983; Jesus and Judaism 1985.

Sanders: Jesus and Judaism (Video)

An Interview with E. P. Sanders  Paul, Context, & Interpretation”

JPS: In Luther’s own use of Paul, you can see certain historical circumstances; the uses are appropriate to a certain situation. Whereas in Lutheranism, what becomes orthodox Lutheranism...

EPS: It goes downhill. Lutheranism is much farther away from the historical Paul than Luther himself, who actually was somewhat sympathetic to the mystical parts of Paul. I always hate to criticize Luther himself. He did give certain biases to his reading of Paul, but what happened was that they became solidified into dogma in later years, as you were just saying. 森達士:路德和路德宗對歷史保羅的認識是非常錯,遠離歷史的保羅!】

Historical Jesus Theories: E. P. Sanders

In Quest of the Historical Jesus (E.P. Sanders)

The main components of the mainstream view are these:

(5) He did not teach about himself, his titles, and his relationship with the Father, as he does in John. 不少不是福音派的學者,特別否定約翰福音對耶穌是基督,是道,是神的說法。

Vermes’s substantial chapters on John and Paul are immensely perceptive. It is difficult for someone who is Jewish to read John or Paul sympathetically. John demonizes the Jews as children of the Devil; Paul is for many Jews, especially including Jewish experts in Christianity, the great apostate who destroyed the Jewish message of Jesus and began his transformation into a God of the Gentiles. 不少猶太人學者看保羅是離棄猶太人信仰,將耶穌轉化成為『外人的神』!】

E. P. Sanders on the Historical Jesus

Sanders claims that some of the stories about the conflict between the Pharisees and Jesus (especially the "conflict stories" in Mark 1-2) are historically implausible. Sanders thinks all of this is implausible. His idea is that these food and Sabbath conflicts in the Gospels reflect "the situation of Christian churches after Jesus' lifetime..."森達士認為某些福音書所記載的耶穌與法利賽人的衝突是歷史上不可能的,是後來基督教教會面對問題和衝突後,加添的故事。(比如,馬可福音1-2章,洗手的爭論的第7)

New Perspectives on Paul and Why They Matter – (1) Krister Stendahl by Stuart Dauermann

Stendahl saw a variety of problems with this approach, chief among them being that Paul was NOT Augustine or Luther, and far from having an overactive and troubled conscience, Paul had a robust conscience.  Paul was able to say that as to righteousness under the Law, he was blameless. If this doesn’t sound like a troubled conscience to you, then you are right: Paul was NOT Augustine, nor was he Luther.

New Perspectives on Paul and Why They Matter – (2) E. P. Sanders by Stuart Dauermann

On Sanders: “He is best remembered for his exploration of what he terms “covenantal nomism.”  This term names his conviction that for Judaism, “obedience maintains one’s position in the covenant, but it does not earn God’s grace as such. It simply keeps an individual in the group which is the recipient of God’s grace.” (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 420) In other words: “obedience is universally held to be the behavior appropriate to being in the covenant, not the means of earning God’s grace.” (p. 421). For Sanders, “Israel’s situation in the covenant required the law to be obeyed as fully and completely as possible … as the only proper response to the God who chose Israel and gave them commandments” (p. 81).”

Dr. Peter M. Head LECTURE SEVEN: E. P. Sanders and the New Perspective on Paul

On Ed Parish Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, on Paul

a theologian but not a systematic theologian; ‘I view Paul as a coherent thinker, despite the unsystematic nature of his thought and the variations in formulation’ (p. 433).

Paul “presents an essentially different type of religiousness from any found in Palestinian Jewish literature.” (p543)

Paul’s religion is described as “participationist eschatology” (p552).

“On the assumption that a religion should be understood on the basis of its own self-presentations, as long as these are not manifestly bowdlerized, and not on the basis of polemical attacks, we must say that Judaism of before 70 kept grace and works in the right perspective, did not trivialize the commandments of God and was not especially marked by hypocrisy. The frequent Christian charge against Judaism, it must be recalled, is not that some individual Jews misunderstood, misapplied and abused their religion, but that Judaism necessarily tends towards petty legalism, self-serving and self-deceiving casuistry, and a mixture of arrogance and lack of confidence in God. But the surviving Jewish literature is as free of these characteristics as any I have ever read. By consistently maintaining the basic framework of covenantal nomism, the gift and demand of God were kept in a healthy relationship with each other, the minutiae of the law were observed on the basis of the large principles of religion and because of commitment to God, and humility before God who chose and would ultimately redeem Israel was encouraged.” (p426f)

 

B. 批判保羅新觀的部分文章

保羅新觀合乎聖經嗎?衛道(基要書室)

保羅新觀」也是很古舊的,它嘗試否定為歷歷代基督徒所接受,聖經清楚明確的教導。「保羅新觀」並不合乎聖經,而且企圖將為基督信仰的根基,聖經核心的教導重新詮釋甚至加以否定。

這個教導的中心思想是:基督徒幾百甚至千多年來都嚴重地「誤解」了保羅及其教訓,所以我們有需要對保羅有新的觀點。

保羅新觀」有四個主要教義。第一,他們相信基督徒是誤解了第一世紀的猶太教。他們說保羅不是反對猶太人自以為義及靠行為得救的宗教,法利賽人也不是律法主義者。

保羅新觀」第二的教義是:保羅不是認為當時猶太教領袖所教導的救恩觀有甚麼問題。認同的只是他們對待外人的態度,並不是他們在人如何在一位聖潔的神面前得救或稱義的看法有甚麼基本分別。

保羅新觀」第三不合聖經的教義是:福音是關於基督的主權,而不是個人得救及個人從罪的刑罰中救贖出來的信息。

最後,「保羅新觀」第四及最嚴重的錯就是:它對基督教核心及不可妥協的教義因信稱義的看法。

Is the New Perspective on Paul biblical?

賴特和保羅新觀【張逸萍譯自﹕「N.T. Wright and the New Perspective on Paulby Ligon Duncan

N.T. Wright and the New Perspective on Paul by Ligon Duncan

「保羅新觀」(New Perspective on Paul)一詞,是鄧恩(J.D.G. Dunn)在1982年首創的,用以形容他所提倡的,對保羅神學的一種新觀點。

保羅新觀這樣第一世紀的猶太教,不是一個靠立功的宗教,卻是一個因為神的恩典而有的盟約團體。他們絕不是在自省下良心受苦, 掙扎著要守律法、要藉著行為稱義;主流猶太教懂得,通過上帝的盟約,他們已經與和好了。律法不是得救之途,卻是為了能保守自己在救恩中為了適當地回應上帝盟約的憐憫,所以遵守神的律法。

保羅對猶太教的質疑,不在於她靠行為稱義,不如更正教改革宗所了解的, 而是堅持只有猶太人才能有這盟約的地位。這樣堅決主張,結果否定了耶穌就是那應許中的彌賽亞,否認應驗了舊約對猶太人和外人同得救恩的許諾。保羅用以闡明這點的,就是猶太人堅持他們民族的特權的,即是保羅新觀所明白的,保羅書信中的『行律法』就是割禮、安息日、和摩西的法規。所以 保羅肯定,加拉太的外信徒,不需要遵守這些,而仍有同等的身份。

問題是 不為立功而遵守律法,符合恩典盟約。但這想法在保羅時代的猶太教中,是否佔優勢?」多種不同觀點的學術性研究,都不同意。

康來昌牧師回應保羅新觀(是異端);簡介簡評“新保羅觀”

湯姆‧賴特(Tom Wright)的「保羅新觀」(New Perspective on Paul)是目前最受歡迎的異端,包括很多福音派也喜歡他。他痛恨路德(如同我痛恨他),因路德強調人的罪,強調人只有靠神恩得救。湯認為,人沒那麼壞,神的恩典(湯的神學其實不允許「恩典」)主要是要人彼此相愛,是要人好好做人。這些,傳統神學包括路德也講,但路德神學強調作好人(有美德)不能使人稱義。

新觀的先鋒,路德宗(可見路德宗遠離路德到什麼程度!)神學家Krister Stendahl(斯坦達)說 (見氏,“THE APOSTLE PAUL AND THE INTROSPECTIVE CONSCIENCE OF THE WEST”),舊觀(傳統基督教,路德為代表)給了西方基督教文明一大“瘟疫”—自省(introspective)的良心”。本來保羅是個自我感覺良好、坦蕩(robust conscience)的猶太人,沒有罪惡感、“此心光明”(王陽明遺言,Stendahl 的話是﹕no feelings of shortcomings),受奧古斯丁和路德的錯誤影響,西方基督徒罪惡感纏身、憂鬱不快樂,路德害莫大焉

舊約不等猶太教,舊約是神的特別啟示,猶太教是從這片啟示田中長出的稗子,這稗子的道德學問、文化素養都非常優秀,往往勝過基督徒。但再優秀,都不能在神面前稱義,因為神要的是完全17:1;太5:4819:21“達于完滿”馮象譯本;加3:10;雅2:9-10新觀說,猶太教沒有要人行事完全。對極了!猶太教是沒有,但聖經有,而我們不根據猶太教來理解神的要求,我們是根據聖經

保羅神學新釋:提供傳統立場與Sanders保羅新觀的簡單對比

 

C.支持保羅新觀的立場的文章和連結

保羅新觀恢復真正的保羅:尋回教會失落的福音信息(基督教週報,2012 7 22 日)

盧龍光牧師指出「保羅新觀」乃是「保羅舊觀」,新觀主要是恢復歷史上真正的保羅。認為現今許多信徒將馬丁路德詮釋的保羅,混淆當成真的保羅。

龍光在福建神學院解釋保羅新觀 

 

 

D. 介紹保羅新觀的文章和相關文章

新保羅觀 New Perspective on Paul

保羅神學:初探保羅新觀

本文只是簡略按照Venema保羅新觀的摘要把保羅新觀簡化為四點

1. 猶太教的救恩觀是因恩典,而不是律法主義

2. 猶太教的問題不是律法主義,而是排他主義

3. 義非救恩論,而是誰是上帝子民的教會論

4. 人因恩典進入,但卻以順服來維持盟約關係

25山道期刊:保羅新觀(20107)

第一篇乃黃福光博士的“當代猶太學者的保羅觀”,他羅列了當代3位著名猶太學者Alan Segal, Daniel BoyarinAmy-Jill Levine對保羅的研究。這再次肯定了NPP將保羅置於其猶太背景來給予詮釋的功夫。

第二篇文章則由盧龍光博士執筆,“保羅新觀對保羅研究之貢獻及其對華人基督徒的意義”。文章的題目很大,但許多篇幅還是停留在對NPP的導論,而且修訂自作者的保羅新觀:羅馬書的主題與目的一書。作者也介紹了坊間一些對NPP的誤解,並簡單給予回應主要依循James D.G. Dunn的立場)。對我而言,文章的貢獻在於點出了一些NPP可以在華人教會繼續給予發展的方向。

第三篇文章是曾思瀚博士的“反思保羅新觀的三個發展階段”。作者從Krister StendahlE. P. Sanders所宣導的“猶太教新觀”開始,到Dunn民族性關懷,再以N. T. Wright政治性面向來闡述NPP。這樣的闡述讓我們看見一個具體的“發展”,而非停留在對Sanders的論述。作者語重心長的提醒華人教會,需要用更開放的胸懷去聆聽保羅的資訊,而不要以為自己已經“掌握”了他!

楊詠解讀羅馬書的鑰匙pdf

對「保羅新觀」之評估

從學術的角度而言,「保羅新觀」的基礎並不牢固。沈達士聲稱第一世紀猶太教倚靠恩典而非律法,這說法並不完全成立。不少學者最近重新研究第一世紀前後的猶太文獻,發現猶太教原來非常多元化 既有猶太人倚靠恩典,但亦有不少猶太群體強調倚靠遵行律法得以稱義。

是的,馬丁路德對羅馬書的解釋今天顯得過分狹隘,只是著重個人「因信稱義」得救的層面,忽略了羅馬書有關猶太信徒與外信徒「合一」的重要教訓,但是畢竟馬丁路德對「因信稱義」這教義的理解仍是正確的。

此外,不少「保羅新觀」學者犯了以偏概全的毛病,認為羅馬書的主題應是「合一」,不應是「因信稱義」。甚至有部分學者認為「因信稱義」只不過是保羅謀求猶太信徒和外信徒「合一」的手段而已,只是處境性的言論,並非基督教教義。

「保羅新觀」的貢獻,在於幫助我們把保羅神學思想從「因信稱義」(justification)這個狹隘的框框,擴闊到「神的新創造(新人類)」new people of God)。

 

 

E. 更詳細的分析文章

*The New Perspective on Paul: A Bibliographical Essay (by Michael F. Bird) (October 16, 2009)提供了一些主要著作和文章

*有一系列關於保羅專題的文章,列在The Paul Page

*一些有分量的『反對』『保羅新觀』的英文文章Challenging the New Perspective

THE NEW PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL: AN APPRAISAL TWO DECADES ON (Don Garlington) pdf

有一系列關於保羅專題的文章,列在The Paul Page

Beyond Covenantal Nomism: Paul, Judiasm, and Perfect Obedience (A. Andrew Das) pdf

THE NEW PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL: ITS BASIC TENETS, HISTORY, AND PRESUPPOSITIONS (F. David Farnell) pdf

THE APOSTLE PAUL AND THE INTROSPECTIVE CONSCIENCE OF THE WEST (KRISTER STENDAHL) pdf

Paul and Judaism: The Jewish Matrix of Early Christianity: Issues in the Current Debate (DONALD A. HAGNER)pdf

The New Perspective on Paul: Calvin and N.T. Wright (Fesko)

The Attractions of the New Perspective(s) on Paul (By J. Ligon Duncan)

The Shape of Justification (N.T. Wright, Bible Review, April 2001) http://www.thepaulpage.com/the-shape-of-justification/

The New Perspective on Paul By James D.G. Dunn (internet version)(The Manson Memorial Lecture delivered in the University of Manchester on 4 November 1982.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS ON THE NEW PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL (2005)

Jesus' Perspective on Sola Fide  (John MacArthur)

Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God— A long series (By Ben Witherington)

Wright's Paul and the Faithfulness of God— Part One

But if you are going to read some thorough treatments of St. Paul, then one of those treatments (at 1700 pages in two volumes) is Tom Wright’s magnum opus entitled Paul and the Faithfulness of God.