Some Reflections On Hermeneutics And Method: A Reply To Guy Waters -- By: Nicholas Perrin

Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 68:1 (Spring 2006)
Article: Some Reflections On Hermeneutics And Method: A Reply To Guy Waters
Author: Nicholas Perrin


Some Reflections On Hermeneutics And Method:
A Reply To Guy Waters

Nicholas Perrin

Nicholas Perrin is Assistant Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School, Wheaton, Ill.

I am grateful for the remarks made and questions posed in Guy Waters’s piece, “Rejoinder to Nicholas Perrin, ‘A Reformed Perspective on the New Perspective.”‘ The issues raised in Waters’s book and in the ensuing interchange engendered by my review are important ones. Some of these issues are, I think, especially important given certain shifts presently occurring within evangelical— and by extension conservative Reformed—theology. For better or worse, the past thirty or so years have witnessed a balkanization of theological method. This together with the postmodern turn has suddenly made the evangelical movement self-conscious in regards to issues of hermeneutics (how do we get at truth?) and method (how do we relate history to theology?). I suspect that the tension between Mr. Waters and N. T. Wright is in part related to a similar hermeneutical tension occurring in the evangelical academy and the church. With the advent of the New Perspective on Paul, it is almost as if we have had a new visitor to our bridge club, one who plays with slightly different but not entirely new conventions, and the club members are somewhat divided as to whether he should be invited for membership or sent away to the bridge club down the street and on the left. Sometimes bridge players develop new conventions because they want something new; sometimes they do so because they have taken a close look at the old way of doing things and found room for improvement. But quite apart from conventions, whether the new in this case is better, Waters and I also disagree as to how to play the hand properly. Just as any bridge columnist will tell you, there is a right way and a wrong way to play the game, so too there are right methods and wrong methods when it comes to assessing the New Perspective on Paul. Despite the protests of my dialogue partner, I believe he has not got it right.

Waters has objected to my review on a number of points, not all of which properly lie within the realms of hermeneutics and method. I hope and trust that my foregoing a detailed response to each of the specific objections is not misconstrued, either as an attempt to be evasive or as a tacit statement that the rejoinder’s objections are not worthy of retort. Waters claims that my “criticisms might have been averted or tempered through a more careful reading” of Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul. But my sense is that entering into a game of “He said. .. he said,” or some version of, “But if you took the time to read what I wrote on page 54, the third footnote, you would ha...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()