Talk:New Perspective on Paul
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page
|
||
 |
This article is supported by the Messianic Judaism WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Messianic Judaism-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
This article should be merged as a sub section in Paul of Tarsus 194.83.157.10 12:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] NPOV?
User:24.15.75.90 disputes the neutrality of the article. Why? User:David L Rattigan 23:47 04 May 2006 BST
Excellent article. Flows well, and very NPOV in my opinion. --Colin MacLaurin 06:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Though I consult Wikipedia often, I am not familiar with how the editing process works. I'm particularly interested in asking because I feel that much of this article, while well-meaning, is pretty inaccurate. I've jotted down some notes that I believe would improve upon it, but am not familiar with the process of corresponding and reaching the consensus necessary to propose revisions. Any help would be appreciated. Mmattison (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Unclear central concept
pb1 I have to disagree with other talkers here: this is not clear to me at all. The key concept is italicized and followed by an unexplained link - neither of which help clarify the concept at all.
I recommend another paragraph which developes and clarifies the key concept, preferably with a quote and example.
Otherwise, clear and well-referenced! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.27.187.167 (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Contradictions?
This article seems to completely contradict the "New Perspective on Paul" section of the Paul of Tarsus article. Jayjg (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- The New Perspective is the name given to the scholarly view pioneered by EP Sanders, and has nothing to do with what is described in the Paul of Tarsus article. I can only assume whoever wrote that got confused. David L Rattigan 0147 2 August 2005 GMT
For what it is worth, I think this article is excellent. I commend the editor.
[edit] Clear as mud
Ummm...this article made the subject clear as mud.
There's only one sentence that comes close to defining the subject, and that is the one that starts with "Sanders reframed". The description of this "reframing" does not show a clear difference from the "old perspective" explained in the preceding paragraph. The remainder of the article only discusses consequences of this supposed change of perspective. Much more detail is needed to explain the new perspective itself.
I don't mean anything personal against the author. I'm just saying that the article did not answer my question, "What is the New Perspective on Paul?"
