How to Write a Perspective Essay?

a new perspective essay

Understanding the Importance of Perspective Essays

A perspective essay is a powerful tool that allows individuals to express their thoughts and opinions on a particular topic from their unique standpoint. Unlike other types of essays, a perspective essay requires a deep understanding of the subject matter and the ability to convey personal experiences, observations, and beliefs effectively. By sharing different perspectives, individuals contribute to a diverse and inclusive society where ideas are valued and respected.

Choosing a Compelling Topic

When selecting a topic for your perspective essay, it's important to choose something that you are passionate about and have a strong opinion on. Whether it's a social issue, political ideology, or personal experience, your topic should resonate with your audience and make them eager to read your insights. Research the chosen topic thoroughly to ensure you have a solid foundation of knowledge to build upon.

Gathering Evidence and Conducting Research

Before diving into writing your perspective essay, it's crucial to gather relevant evidence to support your claims and arguments. Conduct thorough research using credible sources such as books, scholarly articles, and reputable websites. Take notes, highlight important information, and carefully analyze different viewpoints to strengthen your own perspective.

Structuring Your Perspective Essay

The structure of a perspective essay is similar to other types of essays. It consists of an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. The introduction should grab the reader's attention and provide a brief overview of the topic and your stance. The body paragraphs, which are the core of your essay, should present your arguments, supporting evidence, and counterarguments. Finally, the conclusion should summarize your main points and leave the reader with a thought-provoking closing statement.

Writing with Clarity and Coherence

When writing your perspective essay, aim for clarity and coherence. Use clear, concise, and precise language to articulate your ideas. Structure your paragraphs logically, ensuring a smooth flow of thoughts. Support your arguments with relevant examples, anecdotes, or statistics to engage your audience and strengthen your position. Remember to acknowledge and address opposing viewpoints respectfully, demonstrating open-mindedness and critical thinking.

Formatting and Stylistic Considerations

While the content of your perspective essay is crucial, don't overlook the importance of formatting and style. Use appropriate heading tags, such as H2 or H3, for each section and subsection to improve readability and assist search engines in understanding the structure of your content. Enhance the visual appeal of your essay by using bullet points or numbered lists to break down complex information into digestible chunks. Incorporate relevant keywords naturally throughout the text to optimize your chances of ranking higher in search engine results.

Editing and Proofreading

Once you've completed your perspective essay, take the time to review, edit, and proofread it carefully. Pay attention to grammar, spelling, punctuation, and sentence structure. Ensure your ideas flow smoothly and coherently. Remove any unnecessary repetition or tangential information. Consider seeking feedback from peers, teachers, or online communities to gain valuable insights and improve the overall quality of your essay.

Example Perspective Essay: The Power of Empathy

The following is an example of a perspective essay on the power of empathy:

Empathy, the ability to understand and share the feelings of others, is a remarkable human trait that holds immense power. In a world filled with turmoil and division, empathy acts as a bridge, fostering understanding, compassion, and connection. It enables us to step into someone else's shoes, see the world through their eyes, and recognize their struggles and challenges.

When we embrace empathy, we break down barriers and cultivate a sense of unity. It allows us to transcend our personal biases and preconceptions, opening our minds to a multitude of perspectives. Empathy promotes inclusivity and acceptance, nurturing a society where diversity is celebrated and everyone feels valued.

One powerful aspect of empathy is its ability to spark positive change. By understanding the experiences of others, we become motivated to take action and address social injustices. Through empathy, we recognize the need for equality, justice, and human rights. It fuels our determination to create a better world for ourselves and future generations.

In conclusion, writing a perspective essay is an opportunity to express your thoughts, opinions, and experiences in a unique and compelling way. By following the steps outlined in this guide, you can confidently tackle the task of writing a perspective essay. Remember to choose a captivating topic, conduct thorough research, structure your essay effectively, and write with clarity and coherence. By sharing your perspectives, you contribute to the rich tapestry of ideas that shape our society.

a new perspective essay

Dissertation Help Service - Studybay

a new perspective essay

Cheap Coursework Writing Service - Studybay

a new perspective essay

Law Coursework Help - Studybay

a new perspective essay

How to Write a Good Discussion Paper?

a new perspective essay

Commentary Essay Example, Writing Guide, and Tips

a new perspective essay

ᐉ Coursework Help Online ☑️ Courseworks Assistance

a new perspective essay

Labeling Theory: A Detailed Overview

a new perspective essay

MBA Dissertation Writing Service - Studybay

a new perspective essay

My Most Embarrassing Moment Essay: Don't Be Shy To Tell

a new perspective essay

Write My Essay for Me ✏️ Online Essays Writing - Studybay

How to Write Perspective Essay: Bringing Your Viewpoint


Table of contents

  • 1 Understanding Perspective in Writing
  • 2 Choosing a Subject for Your Perspective Essay
  • 3 Techniques for Analyzing a Subject from Various Perspectives
  • 4.1 Introduction
  • 4.3 Conclusion
  • 5 Handling Conflicting Viewpoints in a Point-of-View Essay
  • 6.1 Perspective Essay Example: “The World Through My Window”
  • 6.2 Analysis of the Example
  • 7 Crafting Perspectives: Key Takeaways

Embarking on the path of writing a perspective essay opens a window to the soul, revealing the depth of our perceptions and the breadth of our understanding. It is an invitation to introspect and articulate, to compare and contrast our inner landscapes with the vast world outside. Delving into perspective essays can be a transformative journey for any writer. This article offers a comprehensive guide to mastering the art of perspective writing.

Here’s what we’ll cover:

  • The concept of perspective in writing highlighting its role in literature and essays.
  • Distinguishing perspective essays from other essay types, emphasizing the role of personal viewpoints.
  • How to select an engaging subject for perspective essays, with tips for unique angles.
  • A step-by-step approach to writing a perspective essay, including structure and storytelling elements.
  • We discuss methods for handling conflicting viewpoints and presenting a reasoned argument.

Continue reading to learn the secrets of creating a successful perspective essay.

Understanding Perspective in Writing


Like a kaleidoscope, shifting patterns with each turn, perspective in writing transforms the narrative landscape, offering a myriad of views and interpretations. Perspective in writing, especially in literature and essay writing, serves as a unique lens through which readers view the narrative or argument. It’s akin to wearing different glasses that change how we perceive the world in a story or essay. In literature, perspective often manifests through the eyes of the characters, influencing how the story unfolds. This concept becomes even more vital in perspective essays, as the writer’s viewpoint shapes the entire narrative.

A perspective essay differs fundamentally from other types of essays. While expository, descriptive, or argumentative essays focus on presenting facts, explaining ideas, or persuading the reader, a perspective essay dives into the writer’s personal viewpoint. It’s less about convincing the reader and offering a unique lens for viewing a topic. This type of essay enriches the reader’s understanding by showcasing a personal and subjective take on the subject matter.

Incorporating personal viewpoints and subjectivity is what sets perspective essays apart. This approach allows writers to infuse their narratives with personal experiences, beliefs, and emotions, offering a distinct flavor to the essay. It’s not just about presenting facts; it’s about weaving those facts with personal stories and insights. This style encourages readers to see the topic from a new angle, challenging their preconceptions. A well-written perspective essay example demonstrates this blend of personal insight and factual information, making it a powerful tool for expression and engagement.

When learning how to write a perspective essay, it’s crucial to understand that your viewpoint is the essay’s heartbeat. Unlike an essay on perspective that might discuss the concept, a perspective essay embodies it, giving readers a window into your world. This approach doesn’t just convey information; it invites readers into a conversation, fostering a deeper, more personal connection with the topic.

Choosing a Subject for Your Perspective Essay

Selecting a subject for a perspective essay is a crucial step that sets the tone for your entire piece. The key lies in choosing a topic that resonates with you personally, as this type of essay thrives on the depth and authenticity of your viewpoint. Start by considering issues or experiences that stir your emotions or provoke thought. It could be anything from a personal life event to a global issue you feel strongly about.

In perspective writing, the uniqueness of your angle is as important as the subject itself. Even common subjects can transform into compelling essays with a fresh viewpoint.

When considering topics, select the subjects you can explore in depth. Your essay should offer insight and depth, making a well-understood topic a safe bet.

Techniques for Analyzing a Subject from Various Perspectives

To fully grasp the essence of a subject, one must embark on a journey of exploration from every conceivable angle, peeling back layers to uncover the rich tapestry of insights beneath. Analyzing a subject from multiple perspectives requires a methodical approach, ensuring a comprehensive and balanced essay. Begin by identifying the core idea of your subject , and then examine it from different angles. This process involves looking beyond the obvious and questioning the underlying assumptions or beliefs associated with the subject .

Stepping into the shoes of others, we unlock the door to a world of varied perceptions, each offering a distinct piece of the puzzle that forms our understanding. One effective technique is to adopt various roles or personas . Imagine how individuals from different backgrounds, professions, or life experiences view your subject. For instance, a scientist, an artist, and a teacher would each bring a unique perspective to the same topic. This exercise broadens your understanding and helps uncover diverse viewpoints.

Another strategy involves historical and cultural analysis . How would your subject be perceived in a different era or culture? This approach offers depth, showing how perspectives can evolve over time or vary across societies. It’s crucial to research thoroughly to ensure accuracy and sensitivity in your analysis.

What is more, comparative analysis is also valuable. Compare and contrast your subject with similar or contrasting ideas. This method highlights the nuances of your subject, providing a richer perspective. For instance, when writing a perspective essay example about technology’s impact on communication, compare past and present communication methods to underscore the changes and their implications.

Lastly, engage with existing literature or discourse on your subject. What are experts saying? How do public opinions vary? Incorporating these into your essay adds credibility and depth. However, maintain a critical eye, assessing the validity and biases in these sources.

Applying these techniques allows you to dissect your subject comprehensively, bringing a well-rounded perspective to your essay. Remember, the goal is to present various viewpoints and weave them together coherently, offering a rich, multi-dimensional understanding of the subject.

How to Write a Perspective Essay

Writing a perspective essay is an artful balance between expressing personal views and engaging the reader with a broader understanding of the topic. This type of essay transcends mere opinion by offering a unique lens through which the subject matter is explored.


To start with your introduction, it should hook the reader and introduce the topic. Use a compelling statement or a thought-provoking question to pique interest. Clearly state your main argument or viewpoint here. This section sets the stage for your perspective and gives readers a glimpse into the essay’s focus.

Paragraph 1: Start with personal anecdotes or experiences related to your topic. These stories should be relevant and serve as a foundation for your perspective.

Paragraph 2: Next, delve into the specifics of your viewpoint. It’s crucial to expand on why you hold this perspective, linking it to broader themes, cultural contexts, or historical background.

Paragraph 3: Incorporate elements of storytelling such as descriptive language, emotional appeal, and vivid imagery. This approach enriches your essay, making abstract ideas tangible and relatable.

Paragraph 4: Acknowledge other viewpoints. Discuss how these differ from or align with your perspective.

Paragraph 5: Tie in theoretical concepts or references from external sources. This shows that your perspective, while personal, is informed and well-considered.

Conclude by summarizing your main points and restating your thesis in light of the evidence and discussions in the body. Offer a final thought or question to leave the reader pondering, adding depth to your conclusion and reinforcing your perspective’s impact.

Key Elements to Include:

  • Personal Experiences and Reflections

Share personal stories and reflections to make your viewpoint more tangible and engaging. This approach adds depth to your perspective and helps establish a connection with the reader.

  • Clarity and Focus

Be clear and focused in your writing. Avoid straying from the main point. Each paragraph should contribute to building your argument or shedding light on your perspective.

  • Contrasting Viewpoints

Including contrasting viewpoints provides a comprehensive view of the topic. It demonstrates that you have considered the subject matter from multiple angles, adding credibility to your perspective.

  • Narrative Techniques

Use descriptive language, metaphorical expressions, and emotional appeals to make your essay vivid and compelling. This not only keeps the reader engaged but also makes your essay memorable.

  • Objective Analysis

While your essay is centered on your perspective, ensure you objectively present your arguments and contrasting views. Avoid bias and ensure that your essay is fair and balanced.

  • Direct Engagement

Address the reader to create a conversational and engaging tone. This approach makes the essay more personable and relatable.

A perspective essay is a blend of personal insights and a well-rounded understanding of the topic. It requires introspection, research, and the ability to articulate thoughts in a coherent and engaging manner. By weaving personal experiences with factual information and theoretical concepts, your essay becomes a rich narrative that informs and resonates with the readers.

Handling Conflicting Viewpoints in a Point-of-View Essay

In a point-of-view essay, addressing conflicting viewpoints is essential for presenting a reasoned argument. Firstly, start by acknowledging these differing viewpoints without bias. Understanding and presenting these views demonstrates respect and depth in your analysis.

If you start with discussing opposing arguments, avoid dismissive language. Instead, analyze these views critically, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses in a balanced manner. Then, logically present your counterarguments. Use evidence and reasoning to explain why your perspective offers a more compelling or comprehensive understanding of the topic. This approach strengthens your essay point of view and enhances your credibility as a writer. It’s crucial to maintain an objective tone throughout, focusing on logical reasoning rather than emotion.

By breaking down opposing views and building a well-reasoned argument, your essay becomes a thoughtful dialogue rather than a one-sided monologue, encouraging readers to consider your perspective.

Example of Perspective Essays

Crafting a perspective essay is akin to painting a landscape with words, where each stroke offers a different hue of insight and understanding. Such essays invite readers into the writer’s world, encouraging them to view familiar scenes through new eyes. By sharing personal viewpoints, reflections, and analyses, writers can transform abstract concepts into tangible experiences. This unique form of essay writing not only fosters a deeper connection between the writer and reader but also promotes a broader understanding of the subject at hand. Let’s delve into an example of a perspective essay, exploring its nuances and the techniques that make it both compelling and enlightening.

Perspective Essay Example: “The World Through My Window”

As I sit by the window of my fourth-floor apartment, the world below unfolds like a living tapestry. From this vantage point, the bustling city street transforms into a stage where each passerby plays a role in an unwritten play. The scene may appear mundane to a casual observer: people rushing to their destinations, cars honking, and the occasional dog walker. Yet, through my eyes, each element tells a part of a larger story about connectivity and isolation in the digital age. This perspective reveals more than just the physical distance between people; it highlights the paradox of our modern world. Here, in a crowded city, individuals navigate their paths, encapsulated in their thoughts or the screens of their smartphones. This observation leads me to ponder the role of technology in shaping our interactions. While it has the power to connect us across vast distances, it also has the uncanny ability to widen the gap between us, even as we stand shoulder to shoulder. Through the lens of my window, I witness the juxtaposition of connection and solitude. The elderly man who pauses to feed pigeons every morning at 8:00 am, seemingly cherishing this simple routine amidst the urban rush, symbolizes a longing for simpler times. Meanwhile, a group of teenagers laughs together, their attention shared between the physical and digital realms as they scroll through their feeds. This scene encapsulates the dual-edged sword of technological advancement, offering both a bridge and a barrier to genuine human connection.

Analysis of the Example

Delving into the analysis of a perspective essay sheds light on the intricate dance between personal reflection and universal truth, revealing how individual insights can mirror broader societal themes. This examination is crucial, not just for understanding the writer’s viewpoint but for uncovering the layers of meaning that resonate with readers from diverse backgrounds. By dissecting the example of “The World Through My Window,” we can appreciate the nuanced craftsmanship that bridges personal experience with collective consciousness. Here is what we analysed:

Initially, the essay’s introduction draws readers into a vivid tableau, setting the stage for a deep dive into the complexities of human connection in a digitized world. Importantly, descriptive imagery serves as the backbone of this narrative, enabling readers to visualize the bustling cityscape as more than a mere backdrop but as a character in its own right. This technique ensures that the essay’s themes are not only understood intellectually but felt viscerally.

Moreover, the strategic use of the window as a framing device acts as a powerful metaphor, symbolizing the writer’s observational detachment and inherent connectedness to the scenes unfolding below. Here, the transition from mere observation to profound reflection is seamless, demonstrating how physical spaces can echo the internal landscapes of our thoughts and emotions.

Reflectively, the essay navigates through the dichotomy of connection and isolation, highlighted by the poignant examples of the elderly man and the teenagers. These vignettes serve a dual purpose: they ground the essay’s abstract concepts in tangible reality and illustrate the nuanced impact of technology on human interactions. Furthermore, the transition between these examples is smooth, each serving to build upon the last, weaving a cohesive narrative thread that draws the reader deeper into the essay’s contemplative journey.

Finally, the reflective tone of the essay invites readers to engage in a dialogue with the text, prompting them to question and consider their own experiences with technology and connection. This interactive aspect of perspective essays is pivotal, as it transforms passive reading into an active exploration of both the self and society.

In essence, this analysis underscores the artistry behind crafting a perspective essay that resonates on multiple levels. Through deliberate descriptive imagery, metaphorical framing, reflective narration, and relatable examples, the writer achieves a harmonious balance between personal anecdote and universal insight. It’s this balance that elevates the essay from a mere narrative to a reflective mirror, offering readers a lens through which to examine their own views against the backdrop of the wider world.

Crafting Perspectives: Key Takeaways

In this comprehensive guide on writing perspective essays, we’ve explored essential strategies for conveying your viewpoint. Key takeaways include the importance of a well-structured approach, starting with a captivating introduction and flowing through a thoughtful body to a reflective conclusion. Employing storytelling, addressing the reader directly, and integrating personal reflections are pivotal in adding depth and relatability. Balancing your viewpoint with contrasting perspectives ensures a rounded and credible argument. Remember, the essence of a perspective essay lies in its ability to offer unique insights and foster a deeper understanding of the subject through your personal lens.

Readers also enjoyed

Writing Synthesis Essay: Make it Easy with Our Comprehensive Guide


Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.

a new perspective essay


How to write a (great) Perspective article

Like many journals, Journal of Biogeography ( JBI ) provides a specific forum for researchers to put forward new ideas (or dismantle old ones). In JBI , this article type is the Perspective . Our Author Guidelines state that Perspective papers “should be stimulating and reflective essays providing personal perspectives on key research fields and issues within biogeography”.

Across the senior editorial board, we’re always a little surprised that we don’t get more Perspective submissions since most of the biogeographers we know are brimming with personal perspectives, many of which immediately spill out over a coffee, beer or zoom call. Of course, going from a good idea to a finished article is rarely straightforward and writing your first Perspective article can be a daunting prospect – even more so if English is not your native language.

The good news is that writing a Perspective can be exceedingly enjoyable and a refreshing change from the limitations of a standard research article. Moreover, it is not a ‘black box’; there are several general principles that can help you to craft ‘stimulating and reflective essays’. Like research articles, the best Perspectives have a clear U-shaped narrative (Figure 1) that start with a clear justification of why a research area/topic needs re-evaluating and finishing with the potential implications of your new perspective for the development of the field.

a new perspective essay

One of the best things about Perspective articles is you have enormous flexibility in how you write them. Nevertheless, when planning the article, we find it useful to divide the article into several basic components:

  • The Introduction This ought to include an engaging explanation of the problem/challenge you are addressing (this can be conceptual, practical, methodological… anything really!). Generally speaking, the more important/fundamental the problem, the harder it is to convince the referees that your new perspective is valid! But the potential rewards are also greater, so give your best idea a go! Almost by default, you need to contrast your new perspective with the standard or alternative solution/model/explanation, i.e. the “text-book explanation” that most scientists would agree with. This standard explanation needs to be carefully layed-out without creating a ‘straw man’ (e.g. misrepresenting the alternative argument to make your argument look better)! Finally, introduce your new perspective and give a convincing explanation of why you think it is needed.
  • Substantiating your new perspective It’s not enough to simply state your new perspective. You also need to provide convincing evidence in favour of, or at the very least consistent with, your argument, citing examples and demonstrating ways in which your new perspective can be applied. This does not need to be an exhaustive synthesis of relevant studies, but it should be sufficient to support your argument and to, at a minimum, demonstrate that existing approaches to the problem are insufficient.  Be careful to not cherry pick the literature such that you selectively ignore evidence contrary to your view. Instead, embrace challenging data, and use them to explore limitations and possibilities.
  • Conclusions After discussing the evidence it is important to outline the relative strengths of your new perspective as compared to the standard/alternative perspective and to discuss the potential implications of your approach for future developments in the field.

And don’t forget your figures! It’s a decent estimate that a picture is worth a thousand words. A sweet graphic demonstrating the differences between the conventional and your new improved approach will also be worth a whole pile of citations. So, having made a compelling intellectual argument in the text, don’t sell your idea short visually. Design an eye-catching intuitive graphic that’ll get included in social media, in other people’s talks, as well as future papers and text-books. (Advice on preparing figures can be found at .)  

How to get started : When planning a Perspective paper (for any journal), consider starting with a simple plan, e.g. a bullet-pointed outline, that includes: (i) the problem; (ii) the standard approach; (iii) the new perspective; (iv) the key evidence, and; (v) the main conclusion. Of course, there are many other ways to structure an argument and experienced writers will often create a compelling narrative that doesn’t fit into a standard structure. The point is, a strong structure can be a huge help if you are unsure how to start, or to help organize your thoughts.  Another tip is, if you’re unsure about the merits of an idea, write to the editorial board.  Contact an associate editor in a closely allied field and write to the Reviews Editor, Richard Ladle, and/or the editor-in-chief Michael Dawson < contacts >.  We’ll be happy to give you preliminary feedback and guidance.

We hope the short explanation above has shown you that writing a Perspective article is not fiendishly difficult or the preserve of well-seasoned biogeographers with long academic records. A new Perspective is as much about novelty and disruption as it is about experience. Here at Journal of Biogeography we believe that debate and discussion, diverse viewpoints and challenges to orthodoxy are essential if the discipline of biogeography is going to maintain its vibrancy and societal relevance. In this respect we encourage submissions from all biogeographers, but especially early stage researchers and those working in regions of the world historically under-represented in biogeography.

Written by: Richard Ladle Research Highlights Editor

Share this:

Published by

Contributing to the growth and societal relevance of the discipline of biogeography through dissemination of biogeographical research. View more posts

7 thoughts on “ How to write a (great) Perspective article ”

Can I get to see a sample of perspective type news article, it will be a great help.

Thanks Pragya

Great Post!!! your article is very helpful for me . your ideas of worth are very useful and helpful for me.all the information for worth is very valid. Great post I must admit, keep sharing more…

Thank you for the writing tips.

  • Pingback: 13 types d'articles scientifiques publiables - Methodo Recherche

Thanks for your guidance of perspective. — from a fresh neuroscientist

Very Helpful for Newbie here! Thank you! Godspeed!

  • Pingback: What’s the Difference Between Journal Writing and Journalist? (Explained)  – All The Differences

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Discover more from

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Logo for University of Oregon Libraries

3a. Synthesizing Multiple Perspectives

Synthesis: putting together different perspectives.

people holding speech bubbles

Image: Different perspectives; rawpixel, CC0

In college writing and in any situation where you have to sift through a lot of information, you will need to critically evaluate what is useful and relevant to you, as well as separate what is true from what is not true. When you have done extensive reading or research on a topic, you’ll need to present your research clearly and concisely to your readers so that they understand all sides or aspects of an issue. Synthesizing your sources into your writing allows you to:

  • demonstrate your knowledge of a topic or issue;
  • make sense of different perspectives and claims on a topic or issue;
  • present the most important claims or points from your sources;
  • put your sources into conversation with one another to give context for your point of view and come to new insights and questions;
  • and support your claim fully.

“The scholar of the first age received into him the world around; brooded thereon; gave it the new arrangement of his own mind, and uttered it again. It came into him life; it went out from him truth. It came to him short-lived actions; it went out from him immortal thoughts. It came to him business; it went from him poetry.”

~Ralph Waldo Emerson, The American Scholar

What is synthesis?

When you synthesize in your writing, you are building a relationship between different ideas or sources. Synthesis means that you:

  • bring together lots of information in a meaningful way
  • show connections between different things
  • come to new insights
  • draw intriguing conclusions
  • take in the world around you, and give back truth

You synthesize multiple perspectives (including your own) in an essay, and you often synthesize two or more perspectives in a paragraph. Thus, synthesis is a creative and interpretive act. How you put together different perspectives and sources will not be the same as how another writer puts them together.

“Make it work!”

Any Project Runway fans? The show has an “unconventional challenge” segment, where the designers put together a dress from different and unusual sets of materials. For example, for one challenge, they had to put together a dress with materials from a hardware store and a flower shop. In the example below, the designers use different candies to create a dress:

Synthesis in writing is like winning the unconventional challenge, and your essay is the beautifully finished piece you create by synthesizing various sources to support your overall goal. When facing any writing challenge in college, you can use the skills of critical inquiry and synthesis to meet any deadline and remember Tim Gunn’s motto – “Make it work!”

How do I synthesize?

Synthesizing sources into your writing is a juggling act. First, you want to figure out what your paragraph is doing: Is it providing information to the reader about a topic? Is it developing support and evidence for a particular claim you are making? Is it presenting a counterargument? Is it helping you to respond to a counterargument?

  • If you are providing information to your reader, then multiple sources will help you to present a complete picture of the topic/issue to your reader by offering different perspectives on this topic/issue or by offering several expert sources that support a single perspective.
  • If you are developing support and evidence for a particular claim or point you are making, then your sources should build upon each other. Each one should further the point of the one previously made.
  • If you are using multiple sources to develop a counterargument, you can pit your sources against each other. Use one to help acknowledge an opposing viewpoint and use another to help develop your response to that viewpoint.

It is important when you are writing several different voices into a single paragraph that your voice does not get lost in the mix. Remember, an essay is about presenting and supporting your claims and ideas. Each paragraph should always make clear where you fit into the conversation.

See the next two pages for examples of synthesis paragraphs and a synthesis table.

Synthesis: Example Paragraphs

From: “what we talk about when we talk about obesity” by catherine womack for  the conversation.

Does reframing the debate help fight obesity? Yes – in fact it’s necessary, says series lead author Christina Roberto in “Patchy progress on obesity prevention: emerging examples, entrenched barriers, and new thinking.” They suggest a variety of new or retooled strategies ranging from educating health care providers about the dangers of weight stigmatization to mobilizing citizens to demand policy changes to address obesity. Their key insights are locating problems of obesity in the interactions between individuals and their environments, and breaking the vicious cycle of unhealthy food environments that reinforce preferences for those foods. But reframing is just the first step in the process of reversing the trend of obesity. Researchers also have to ask the questions that health policy makers want to hear and act on, says food and health policy expert Kelly Brownell in a commentary, co-authored with Roberto. Historian of science Naomi Oreskes says that scientists tend to follow a supply-side model of information, assuming their results will somehow naturally reach those who need it.  Brownell and Roberto underscore this error , and strongly advise obesity researchers to frame questions and convey results in ways that understandable and relevant to policy makers’ and the public. Otherwise their work will remain unheard and unused.

From: “The Persistent Myth of the Narcissistic Millennial” by Brooke Lea Foster for  The Atlantic

             Whether it’s  Time ’s 2013 cover story “The Me, Me, Me Generation” or Jeffrey Kluger’s book  The Narcissist Next Door: Understanding the Monster in Your Family, in Your Office, in Your Bed—in Your World , the same statistics are cited as proof of Millennial narcissism. In a 2008 study published in the  Journal of Personality,  San Diego State University psychology professor Jean Twenge found that narcissistic behaviors among college students studied over a 27-year period had increased significantly from the 1970s. A second study published in 2008 by the National Institutes of Health showed that 9.4 percent of 20- to 29-year-olds exhibit extreme narcissism, compared with 3.2 percent of those older than 65. But there’s a problem with all of this evidence: The data is unreliable. “It’s incredibly unfair to call Millennials narcissistic, or to say they’re more so than previous generations,” says Jeffrey Jensen Arnett, a professor of psychology at Clark University and author of  Getting to 30: A Parent’s Guide to the Twentysomething Years .  Arnett has devoted a significant amount of time and research to disproving the statistics that San Diego State’s Twenge has built a career on . He says that her assertion that narcissistic behaviors among young people have risen 30 percent is flimsy, since she’s basing it around data collected from the 40-question Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), the results of which leave quite a bit up for interpretation. For example, does agreement with statements like “I am assertive” or “I wish I were more assertive” measure narcissism, self-esteem, or leadership?

From: “Working Out the Meaning of ‘Meaningful’ Work” by Katherine Moos for  Vitae

Adam Smith believed that work forces the worker to sacrifice “his tranquility, his freedom, and his happiness.”  Karl Marx criticized Smith’s view  and believed that labor in the form of creative problem solving could indeed provide “self-realization.” (To Marx, the problem lay not in labor itself, but in the system of wage labor that exploited workers and alienated them from the creation of the final product.) A history of economic thought shows us that the progressive scorn nowadays of the do-what-you-love motto, is actually switching sides on a very old debate. Arguing that work is inherently unpleasant reinforces one of the more insidious assumptions in mainstream economics and one of the more cynical claims in our culture: that people are merely consumers trying to maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain. That sort of thinking leads managers to assume that workers are bound to shirk responsibility whenever possible, and are only motivated by money. It breeds extremely dysfunctional work environments with high surveillance and competition among co-workers. The polymath Herbert Simon has written about how workers’ sense of  identification  with the mission of an organization explains why employees actually perform the duties necessary to promote the institution’s goals, and not just pursue their self-interest as economic theory would expect.

Worksheet – Synthesis Table

Worksheet – Synthesis Table (download here)


Writing as Inquiry Copyright © 2021 by Kara Clevinger and Stephen Rust is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

  • Featured Essay The Love of God An essay by Sam Storms Read Now
  • Faithfulness of God
  • Saving Grace
  • Adoption by God

Most Popular

  • Gender Identity
  • Trusting God
  • The Holiness of God
  • See All Essays

Thomas Kidd TGC Blogs

  • Conference Media
  • Featured Essay Resurrection of Jesus An essay by Benjamin Shaw Read Now
  • Death of Christ
  • Resurrection of Jesus
  • Church and State
  • Sovereignty of God
  • Faith and Works
  • The Carson Center
  • The Keller Center
  • New City Catechism
  • Publications
  • Read the Bible

TGC Header Logo

U.S. Edition

  • Arts & Culture
  • Bible & Theology
  • Christian Living
  • Current Events
  • Faith & Work
  • As In Heaven
  • Gospelbound
  • Post-Christianity?
  • TGC Podcast
  • You're Not Crazy
  • Churches Planting Churches
  • Help Me Teach The Bible
  • Word Of The Week
  • Upcoming Events
  • Past Conference Media
  • Foundation Documents
  • Church Directory
  • Global Resourcing
  • Donate to TGC

To All The World

The world is a confusing place right now. We believe that faithful proclamation of the gospel is what our hostile and disoriented world needs. Do you believe that too? Help TGC bring biblical wisdom to the confusing issues across the world by making a gift to our international work.

Justification and the New Perspective on Paul

Other essays.

The New Perspective on Paul argues that the traditional-Protestant understanding of justification is mistaken; rather than opposing works-righteousness, Paul is, according to the New Perspective, opposing Jewish boundary markers in the New Testament people of God. One standard view within the New Perspective on Paul is that initial justification is by faith and recognizes covenant status (ecclesiology), while final justification is partially by works, albeit works produced by the Spirit.

The New Perspective on Paul, a major scholarly shift that began in the 1980s, argues that the Jewish context of the New Testament has been wrongly understood and that this misunderstand has led to errors in the traditional-Protestant understanding of justification. According to the New Perspective, the Jewish systems of salvation were not based on works-righteousness but rather on covenantal nomism, the belief that one enters the people of God by grace and stays in through obedience to the covenant. This means that Paul could not have been referring to works-righteousness by his phrase “works of the law”; instead, he was referring to Jewish boundary markers that made clear who was or was not within the people of God. For the New Perspective, this is the issue that Paul opposes in the NT. Thus, justification takes on two aspects for the New Perspective rather than one; initial justification is by faith (grace) and recognizes covenant status (ecclesiology), while final justification is partially by works, albeit works produced by the Spirit. However, Reformed theologians argue that the New Perspective’s reconstruction of the Jewish context is not altogether correct and that it is easy to find examples of works-righteousness that Paul could have been opposing in the NT. Additionally, taking the entire witness of the NT letters (rather than only Romans, Galatians, and Philippians) points towards the traditional-Protestant understanding of justification.

Starting in the 1980s and continuing to the present, a major scholarly shift has taken place among many concerning Paul’s view of justification with the leading scholars being E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and N. T. Wright. Before this shift, most biblical scholars, even those within the various liberal/critical camps, more-or-less equated Paul’s view of justification with the traditional-Protestant view. This newer view has come to be known as the “New Perspective on Paul” with the explicit understanding that the “old” perspective, that is, the traditional-Protestant perspective, is wrong or at least needs serious modification.

This essay will critically engage the New Perspective as it relates to the doctrine of justification. This article will concentrate on explaining the rationale as to how New Perspective authors arrive at their views. This rationale will be summarized as the “five points of the New Perspective” (following Cara, Cracking the Foundation of the New Perspective on Paul , pp. 20–25). Then, several broad-brush critiques of the New Perspective will be presented. For a discussion of the traditional-Protestant (biblical!) view of justification per se, see the related articles in this Concise Theology series.

Explanation of the New Perspective Relative to Justification

The New Perspective is really two new perspectives that build upon each other. The foundation is a new perspective of the soteriological (salvation) system that existed in first-century AD Judaism.  Given this new foundation, a different view of Paul’s soteriological system must be constructed upon it. Why is the soteriology of first-century Judaism important for Paul’s view? New Perspective authors note that justification is discussed by Paul several times in contexts that include either non-Christian Jews or Christian Jews (e.g., Rom. 2; 9–11; Gal. 3–5; Phil. 3). Given this, they insist that this new view of Judaism must change our understanding Paul’s view of justification because it better explains Paul’s opponents and even Paul himself.

So what is this new perspective on first-century Judaism? Judaism in all its forms was uniformly a grace-based soteriological system; it was not a works-righteousness system. This uniform system was given the name, “covenantal nomism” by E. P. Sanders (“nomism” comes from the Greek word for law, nomos ). One enters the covenant by election/grace and stays in by obedience to the law . Sanders stressed that staying in the covenant by obedience to the law was not considered legalistic works-righteousness, at least by his definition of works righteousness.

How does this new Jewish perspective relate to Paul’s view of justification and the wrongness of the traditional-Protestant view? The New Perspective correctly understood that the traditional-Protestant view sees justification by faith as the opposite of legalistic works righteousness; one is declared righteous based on Christ’s work versus being declared righteous based on one’s own works. That is, the traditional-Protestant view sees Paul opposing two soteriological systems: justification by grace/Christ’s-work/faith (grace soteriology) versus justification by works of the law (works-righteousness soteriology). The New Perspective rejects that Paul is opposing these two systems. Why? Because according to the new view of Judaism, a works-righteousness soteriology did not exist! Therefore, Paul could not have been arguing against a non-existent works-righteousness soteriology. Therefore, the first of the “five points” is that New Perspective authors agree that Paul was not arguing against a legalistic works-righteousness view because it did not exist—that is, they accept Sanders’s covenantal nomism . And since the traditional-Protestant view of justification is at least partially understood by what it is opposes (i.e., works righteousness), then its view of justification must be wrong. Hence, the second point is that New Perspective authors agree on what justification is not—it is not the traditional-Protestant view .

The above shows what the New Perspective is against; it is against the traditional-Protestant views of works and justification based on its understanding of Judaism. But, according to the New Perspective, what does Paul mean by these terms? New Perspective authors define “works of the law” (e.g., Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16) as primarily emphasizing three Jewish boundary markers: Sabbath, circumcision, and food laws. In the first-century Greco-Roman world, these three separated Jews from Gentiles. Paul states that one is justified by faith and not by Jewish boundary markers. (Note that the New Perspective does not see these boundary markers as part of a larger category of works righteousness as the traditional-Protestant view does.) The third of the “five points” is that New Perspective authors agree that “works of the law” primarily refers to Jewish boundary markers: Sabbath, circumcision, and food laws .

Why are these boundary markers so important to Paul? New Perspective authors argue that Paul’s Gentile mission is what prompted his discussion of justification; it is not necessarily a core soteriological view for Paul. In situations where Paul wanted to ensure that Jewish Christians were accepting Gentile Christians, he discussed justification. If this was not an issue, there was no need for it. The fourth point, which builds directly on the third, is that New Perspective authors agree that Paul’s mission to the Gentiles is the context for his teaching on justification .

Finally, what is the New Perspective view of justification? Before answering, we must note that the above four points are all agreed upon by all New Perspective authors; however, the actual Pauline meaning of justification is debated among New Perspective authors. One prominent view is held by Dunn and Wright. For them, justification has two components, initial and final. Initial justification concerns who is in the church or the status of being in the covenant community (ecclesiology); it is not related to conversion (soteriology). Initial justification is related to grace, Christ’s work, and faith, but it does not relate to the imputation of Christ’s work to the believer. Final justification is partially based on one’s works, although one’s works done in the Spirit. Finally, the fifth of the five points is that New Perspective authors are not united on justification. One standard view is that initial justification is by faith and recognizes covenant status (ecclesiology), while final justification is partially by works, albeit works produced by the Spirit.

To summarize the “five points of the New Perspective”:

  • New Perspective authors agree that Paul was not arguing against a legalistic works-righteousness view because it did not exist—that is, they accept Sanders’s covenantal nomism.
  • New Perspective authors agree on what justification is not—it is not the traditional-Protestant view.
  • New Perspective authors agree that “works of the law” primarily refers to Jewish boundary markers: Sabbath, circumcision, and food laws.
  • New Perspective authors agree that Paul’s mission to the Gentiles is the context for his teaching on justification.
  • New Perspective authors are not united on justification. One standard view is that initial justification is by faith and recognizes covenant status (ecclesiology), while final justification is partially by works, albeit works produced by the Spirit.

Three Broad-Brush Critiques of the New Perspective’s View of Justification

The traditional-Protestant view has two major problems with New Perspective’s view of justification: (1) A believer’s works are included as part of final justification; that is, in the end, a believer is declared righteous (justified) based on some combination of his faith and his works; and (2) imputation of Christ’s work to the believer is denied. Given these two, justification is no longer a once-for-all declaration that by grace alone God declares sinners to be righteous in his sight based on the work of Christ alone through the instrument of faith alone (Rom. 4:5; 8:1; Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:9; Eph. 2:8; 2 Tim. 2:9; Titus 3:7).

This brief article is not the place for extended Jewish-background arguments and significant exegesis of Pauline texts. However, three broad-brush critiques of the New Perspective arguments will be provided. Since the New Perspective view of justification is strongly tied to the denial that Paul is contrasting justification with works righteousness, what follows will concentrate on works righteousness.

Jewish Documents and Works-Righteousness

As can be seen from the above discussion of the five points of the New Perspective, the logical starting point and foundation of the New Perspective is a new view of first-century Judaism, which emphasizes that legalistic works-righteousness uniformly did not exist. How did Sanders argue for this when there are numerous examples of early Jewish documents that on the surface include a works-righteousness soteriology, either a crass version (“Pelagian”) or a version that combines faith and works (“semi-Pelagian”)? Examples include 4 Ezra 7; Sirach 3:14, 30; 16:14; 2 Baruch 14:12; 24:1; 41:6; Testament of Abraham A12:12–13; A 14:2–4; Rule of the Community (1QS) I, 7–8; III, 9–12; Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab) VIII, 1–3; Miqsat Ma‘ase Ha-Torah (4QMMT) C 26–32; m. Abot 2:16; 3:15; 4:11, 22; and t. Qiddushin 1:13–16.

Part of the answer to this is Sanders’s imprecise definition of works righteousness. His own definition of “covenantal nomism” includes that staying in the covenant is done by obedience to the law. He does not see that this definition itself could easily be construed as a semi-Pelagian works-righteousness soteriology. What about some of examples where works are weighed on scales in order to determine whether one gets into heaven? Sanders answers that these documents are not written by systematic theologians and sometimes they use incentives to do good works that violate their actual soteriology. One could respond, however, that one’s incentives for good works is part of one’s overall theology.

However, not every early Jewish group and document were works-righteousness oriented; only some were. Once given that some groups were works-righteousness oriented, there is no need to deny that Paul’s opponents had these views since this is the straightforward way to take Paul’s comments. Once some documents are admitted to have works-righteousness, the inner-logic of the New Perspective’s own presuppositions should destroy its conclusions concerning the need for a new view of Pauline justification. (Note that the ultimate argument for the traditional-Protestant view must be made from Scripture. Non-canonical sources may be useful, but only as fallible aids to interpret Scripture.)

Jewish Boundary Markers and Works Righteousness

The New Perspective defines Paul’s expression “works of the law” as primarily including three Jewish boundary markers: Sabbath, circumcision, and food law. Also, it does not see that Paul is opposing two soteriological systems when he contrasts justification by faith and justification by works of the law (Rom. 4:2; Gal. 2:16). That is, “works of the law” is not considered in any way related to works-righteousness. Why not? For Paul, according to the New Perspective, OT saints were finally justified based on faith in God and works. Similarly, NT saints are finally justified based on faith in Christ and works. Both the OT and NT soteriological systems are the same, both include faith and works; Paul’s concentration on “works of the law” is simply to say that the boundary-marker aspect of works in the NT are no longer in force.

The traditional-Protestant view is that Paul realizes that his opponents’s unhealthy view of Jewish boundary markers, especially in Galatians, is part of a more basic works-righteousness soteriology. This more basic works-righteousness soteriology is shown by examples were the boundary markers could not possibly be in view, but Paul still uses the expression “works” or “works of the law.” In Romans, for example, works (in the negative sense) is used in a variety of ways that sometimes includes the Mosaic legislation and sometimes it does not. Paul discusses works related to Abraham and Isaac, and they clearly lived before Moses and the boundary markers (Rom. 4; 9:10–12). Paul’s discussion of David does not focus at all on the boundary markers (Rom. 4:6–8). In Galatians, Paul indicates that both Christ and NT Christians are “under the law” (Gal. 4:4–5) even though NT Christians are no longer under the boundary-marker aspects of the law. These examples show that for Paul, “works” and “works of the law” have a works-righteousness component that is more basic than the Jewish boundary markers because he uses these expressions when boundary markers are clearly not the issue. Hence, it may be true that for some texts in Galatians the boundary markers are in focus, but Paul is concerned to show that the opponents are functionally considering them as works done within a works-righteousness soteriology.

Ephesians 2:8–10; 2 Timothy 1:8–10; Titus 3:4–7 and Works Righteousness

On the surface, Ephesians 2:8–10; 2 Timothy 1:8–10; and Titus 3:4–7 contrast a grace soteriology with a works-righteousness soteriology. However, there is not much discussion of these three texts in pro-and-con New Perspective arguments in critical/liberal scholarship. Should not these texts be part of the analysis concerning justification in Romans, Galatians, and Philippians 3? Why are they not? Because in the critical/liberal world, most scholars believe Paul is not the author of Ephesians, 2 Timothy, and Titus.

Surprisingly, many, although not all, New Perspective authors do agree that Ephesians 2:8–10; 2 Timothy 1:8–10; and Titus 3:4–7 contrast a grace soteriology with a works-righteousness soteriology (e.g., Dunn). These New Perspective authors believe that the biblical author(s) of these three texts has moved more toward a traditional-Protestant understanding of works-righteousness and past seeing works as simply Jewish boundary markers. From a traditional-Protestant perspective, these three texts are considered to be written by Paul. Hence, they dovetail nicely with the understanding of justification in Romans, Galatians, and Philippians 3.

Admitting that the author(s) of Ephesians, 2 Timothy, and Titus were aware of the concept of works righteousness creates an internal difficulty for the New Perspective relative to its view that this concept did not exist in early Judaism. Even if one assumes that these three books are not arguing explicitly against Jews or Jewish Christians, one would have to admit that the works-righteousness concept was “in the cultural air” and Christians who were interested in the OT were aware of it.

Further Reading

Pro-New Perspective Authors

  • E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion
  • James D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul
  • Kent L. Yinger, The New Perspective on Paul: An Introduction
  • N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?
  • N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God

Anti-New Perspective Authors

  • Guy P. Waters, Justification and the New Perspective on Paul: A Review and Response
  • Robert J. Cara, Cracking the Foundation of the New Perspective on Paul: Covenantal Nomism versus Reformed Covenantal Theology
  • Stephen Westerholm, Justification Reconsidered: Rethinking a Pauline Theme
  • Thomas Schreiner, Faith Alone: The Doctrine of Justification

This essay is part of the Concise Theology series. All views expressed in this essay are those of the author. This essay is freely available under Creative Commons License with Attribution-ShareAlike, allowing users to share it in other mediums/formats and adapt/translate the content as long as an attribution link, indication of changes, and the same Creative Commons License applies to that material. If you are interested in translating our content or are interested in joining our community of translators,  please reach out to us .

Calculate for all schools

Your chance of acceptance, your chancing factors, extracurriculars, what is a perspective essay.

Hi everyone, I just came across a term 'perspective essay.' I haven't heard of this before, so can anyone give me a quick overview of what it is and how to write one? Thanks!

Hi there! A "perspective essay" refers to a type of paper that presents the writer's viewpoint or opinion on a specific topic as a form of personal reflection. The primary goal of a perspective essay is to show your unique perspective and establish a clear argument or position on the subject matter.

To write a perspective essay, follow these steps:

1. Choose a topic: Pick something you're passionate or knowledgeable about, as it makes for a more compelling read. Make sure the topic is not too broad, and it should be something that has room for debate or discussion.

2. Develop a thesis statement: This is the central point of your essay and should clearly state your perspective on the topic. Your thesis statement should be concise, well-defined, and easy to understand.

3. Organize your thoughts: Outline the structure of your essay before you start writing. This can help you ensure that your thoughts flow seamlessly from one point to the next and prevent you from drifting off-topic.

4. Write the introduction: Engage your readers by providing some context or background information about the topic. Then, present your thesis statement, which will act as the guideline for the rest of your paper.

5. Present your arguments: Use the body paragraphs to discuss your main points or arguments that support your thesis statement. Be sure to provide evidence by citing relevant sources, examples, or personal experiences to solidify your claims.

6. Address counterarguments: It's essential to offer a balanced perspective by considering opposing viewpoints. You can either dedicate a separate paragraph for counterarguments or address them throughout your body paragraphs. This allows you to demonstrate critical thinking and shows that your opinion is well-informed and well-reasoned.

7. Write the conclusion: Sum up your main points and restate your thesis in a different way. Leave your reader with a thought-provoking statement or question that encourages further discussion and reflection.

8. Revise and edit: Carefully review your essay for grammar, spelling, punctuation, and clarity. It's always helpful to have someone else proofread your work to identify any errors or areas that could be improved.

Remember that in a perspective essay, it's not about being right or wrong — it's about presenting your viewpoint effectively and persuasively. Good luck and happy writing!

About CollegeVine’s Expert FAQ

CollegeVine’s Q&A seeks to offer informed perspectives on commonly asked admissions questions. Every answer is refined and validated by our team of admissions experts to ensure it resonates with trusted knowledge in the field.

How To Write a Critical Perspective Essay

When you are faced with an essay title that incorporates the phrase “deliver a critical perspective on…”, the temptation can be to think that this means finds fault with a concept. However, in academic terms, taking a critical perspective means being able to demonstrate knowledge of different attitudes, interpretations, and viewpoints on the subject, and from this, being able to deliver a considered and informed opinion. In effect, a critical perspective essay requires to you to be able to show that there may be multiple ways to approach the main subject under discussion, but also to pick out, through analysis, which is the most viable perspective.

Sounds easy enough doesn’t it? If you follow our guide to producing the perfect critical perspective essay than yet it really is easy. An easy way to understand critical examination and thus arrive at a critical perspective is to remember that critical examination or evaluation picks out what is relevant or noteworthy to ensure understanding of how a thing (framework, hypothesis, phenomenon) works.

The aim of a persuasive essay is to convince your reader that your opinions and perspectives are correct. This can be done with a combination of emotive language and hard evidence to back up your viewpoint. You have to make the reader believe in the value of your opinion or standpoint, and sometimes to make the reader act. Fortunately, there are a number of techniques and approaches that can be used to ensure your persuasive essay presents a coherent, logical argument that cannot be denied by the reader.

In terms of structure, persuasive essays are relatively simple. Your arguments or opinions need to be clearly stated, reinforced, and backed with facts and evidence. Your summation, or conclusion should ensure that the reader is very clear about where you stand on the issue, so you need to be consistent throughout.

Planning your critical perspective essay

Stage one is identifying what it is you are being asked to critically evaluate and then take a perspective on. Typical essay titles include, “Discuss critical perspectives on the role censorship in modern music”, “Critically evaluate the main perspectives on the impact of social media on body image and state your own views on the subject”. In both cases, you are being asked to look at both sides of the argument and identify your own views.

Stage two requires identifying the key sources that will form the framework and rationale for your perspective. Whilst a critical perspective essay is essentially your own viewpoint, it is important to demonstrate how you have arrived at that view, based on research, evaluation of the evidence and an objective assessment of the facts.

Stage three draws up an outline of the arguments /points you wish to make in your essay and put them in a logical order. Chronologically works well but so does giving greater importance to key themes and then moving into sub-themes.

Writing your Critical Perspective Essay


Your introduction should be clear and unambiguous in stating the topic under question. Frequently a good essay will use either a clear statement (declarative) or a question which reflects the essay title. This tells the reader what you are discussing. The second part of the introduction should draw in your reader and motivate them to read more, as well as a clear statement of your own perspectives and how you intend to prove that they are correct (a thesis statement). Your introduction should conclude with a brief background to the topic and current views in the area. What this achieves is placing your work and perspective into a clear context for your reader.

The body text of your essay should have a focus of one paragraph per point / argument or topic so that the flow of information and argument is consistent. This is where an effective plan can help you clearly structure your essay. For each paragraph, you should introduce the main point/theme you are discussing before moving on to an explanation of your perspectives and why they are accurate in terms of the context of the work.

The explanation should then be followed by presentation of evidence that backs up your point of view. Here you can use quotes, statistics and other illustrative evidence but always ensure that your sources are credible and from trustworthy sources, as well as being correctly cited in the text and listed at the end of the work. An important element of every paragraph, and one most frequently missed by students is the linking of paragraphs, both to the opening statement and to the next point. Without linking the paragraphs an essay lacks cohesion and logical flow.

There are some key tips for critical perspective essay writing that help to reinforce the view you are trying to put across. These include repetition, which means making similar points in a range of ways, with different evidence. Repetition of points is not appropriate, but re-stating or reaffirming a perspective is crucial to ensuring that the reader comes to the same opinion as you.

A further valid approach is to indicate understanding of opposing perspectives. These should be stated, again with appropriate evidence from reliable sources. However, you should also add in reasons, backed by evidence as to why these perspectives are incorrect, which again reaffirms your own critical perspective.

The conclusion of your critical perspective essay should deliver a summation of all the points, bringing them together and reaffirming your original statement of opinion. A strong conclusion can ensure that your readers will be swayed by your arguments and thus take the same perspective on the issue that you have evidenced as being accurate.

Some Key phrases for a critical perspective essay

To ensure your essay is clearly persuasive, include some of the following words and phrases:

  • I am certain that…
  • It clearly follows that…
  • Regardless…
  • Although it may seem…
  • Considering…. this clearly indicates that …….
  • I believe that…
  • By the same token…
  • Furthermore…

You may also like

How to Write an Email to a Professor

Word by Word

  • Search Search

The New Perspective on Paul: A Bibliographical Essay

a new perspective essay

This article was originally part of The Paul Page, a site dedicated to academic study of the apostle, with special focus on the work of N.T. Wright.

About this Bibliography

This bibliography is my collection, annotation, and contribution to the growing mass of literature on the New Perspective on Paul (NPP).  It is by no means an exhaustive collection, although I hope it is far more extensive than the average bibliography you’ll find at the end of lecture notes or even at the back of a textbook.  There are works that could appear under three or four different headings (esp. when they deal with Luther, Law, Justification and Judaism rolled into one!).  I have tried to stratify the various monographs and articles in a thematic way, but some works could easily overlap under different headings.  I have also cited only a handful of materials available on the internet and I limited my selection to works which I deem to be significant to the on-going debate.

Table of Contents

Introductions to the npp, antecedents to sanders, works by e.p. sanders, justification.

  • Law and “Works of the Law”

Studies on Judaism in Light of the NPP

Commentaries that engage the npp.

  • Online Resources

Mark M. Mattison, “ A Summary of the New Perspective on Paul .”

James A.  Meek, “The New Perspective on Paul: An Introduction for the Uninitiated,”  Concordia Journal 27 (2001): 208-33.

Jay E. Smith, “The New Perspective on Paul: A Select and Annotated Bibliography,”  Criswell Theological Review 2.2 (2005): 91-111.

Michael B. Thompson,  The New Perspective on Paul (Cambridge: Grove Books Limited, 2002). Probably the best introduction to the NPP in print.   

C. G. Montefiore,  Judaism and St. Paul: Two Essays (New York: Dutton, 1915).  The Judaism that Paul knew was a cold form of Diaspora Judaism and not Rabbinic Judaism.

G. F. Moore, “Christian Writers on Judaism,”  HTR 14 (1921): 197-254.  Moore supposed that Christian writers are influenced by an apologetic desire to see in Judaism the antithesis to grace.

G. F. Moore,  Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (2 vols.; Harvard: HUP, 1927).

W. D. Davies,  Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (4th ed.;Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980 [1948]).

Samuel Sandmel,  The Genius of Paul: A Study in History (New York: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1958).

H. J. Schoeps,  Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961).

Preston M. Sprinkle, “The Old Perspective on the New Perspective: A Review of Some ‘Pre-Sanders’ Thinkers,”  Themelios 30 (2005): 21-31.  Highlights antecedents to Sanders in works by G.F. Moore, K. Stendahl, George Howard, Joseph Tyson and N.A. Dahl.

Krister Stendahl, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,”  HTR 56 (1963): 199-215; repr. in  Paul among Jews and Gentiles (London: SCM, 1976), 76-96.  The seminal article where Stendahl urges that Paul had a ‘robust conscience’ and did not wrestle with feelings of personal guilt like Augustine and Luther.

E.P. Sanders, “Patterns of Religion in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: A Holistic Method of Comparison,”  HTR 66 (1973): 455-78.

E.P. Sanders, “The Covenant as a Soteriological Category and the Nature of Salvation in Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism,” in  Jews, Greeks and Christians , eds. Robert Hamerton Kelly and RobinScroggs (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 11-44.

E. P. Sanders,  Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison in Patters of Religion (London: SCM, 1977).  The ground-breaking book by Sanders where he proposes his view of Palestinian Judaism as covenantal nomism: “Covenantal nomism is the view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression” (p. 75); “The ‘pattern’ or ‘structure’ of covenantal nomism is this: (1) God has chosen Israel and (2) given the law.  The law implies (3) God’s promise to maintain the election and (4) the requirement to obey.  (5) God rewards obedience and punishes transgression.  (6) The law provides for means of atonement, and atonement results in (7) maintenance or re-establishment of the covenantal relationship.  (8) All those who are maintained in the covenant by obedience, atonement and God’s mercy belong to the group which will be saved.  An important interpretation of the first and last points is that election and ultimately salvation are considered to be God’s mercy rather than human achievement” (p. 422).

E.P. Sanders, “On the Question of Fulfilling the Law in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism,” in  DonumGentilicum : New Testament Studies in Honour of David Daube , eds. C.K. Barrett, E. Bammel and W.D. Davies (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), 103-26.

E.P. Sanders, “Paul’s Attitude Toward the Jewish People,”  USQR 33 (1978): 175-87.

E. P. Sanders,  Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Fortress: Philadelphia, 1983).

E.P. Sanders,  Paul (Oxford: OUP, 1991).

Dale C. Allison, “Jesus and the Covenant: A Response to E.P. Sanders,”  JSNT 29 (1987): 57-78.

C. K. Barrett, “Paul and the Introspective Conscience,” in  The Bible, the Reformation and the Church: Festschrift for James Atkinson , ed. W. P. Stephens (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 36-48.

Paul Barnett, “Galatians and Earliest Christianity,”  RTR 59 (2000): 112-29.

Markus Barth, “Jews and Gentiles: The Social Character of Justification in Paul,”  JES 5 (1968): 241-67.

F. Best, “The Apostle Paul and E.P. Sanders: The Significance of Paul and Palestinian Judaism,” ResQ 25 (1982): 65-74.

Michael F. Bird, “When the Dust Finally Settles: Reaching a Post New Perspective Perspective,” Criswell Theological Review (forthcoming 2005).  Bird argues that Judaism was variegated and some strands emphasized grace and others obedience.  Merit theology (of some kind) does provide the backdrop for Paul’s formulation of law and justification.  However, Paul’s primary problem was not confronting legalism but trying to get Gentiles accepted  as Gentiles by Jews into fellowship.

Michael F. Bird, “Justification as Forensic Declaration and Covenant Membership: A  Via Media between Reformed and Revisionist Readings of Paul,” (forthcoming in  Tyndale Bulletin ).  This article contends that justification includes God’s declaration of righteousness for believers and the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God.  Paul confronts an “ethnocentric nomism” and espouses a view of justification whereby God “creates a new people with a new status in a new covenant as a foretaste of the new age”.

Brendan Byrne, “Interpreting Romans Theologically in a Post-‘New Perspective’ Perspective,”  HTR 94 (2001): 227-41.  Byrne considers himself within the NPP but still thinks that the NPP is theologically impoverished since it fails to adequately reckon with the intense exploration of human sin and alienation from God in the early part of Romans.

Brendan Byrne, “Interpreting Romans: The New Perspective and Beyond,”  Interpretation 58 (2004): 241-52.

W. S.  Campbell, “The New Perspective on Paul: Review Article.”  ExpT 114.11 (2003): 383-86. Review of Seyoon Kim,  Paul and the New Perspective , Michael B. Thompson,  The New Perspective on Paul , and Simon J. Gathercole,  Where is the Boasting? .  Campbell thinks that these works are significant but fail to abolish or refute the primary contentions of the NPP.

D. A. Campbell, “The DIAQHKH from Durham: Professor Dunn’s  The Theology of Paul the Apostle ,” JSNT 72 (1998): 91-111.

Tim Chester, “Justification, Ecclesiology and the New Perspective,”  Themelios 30 (2005): 5-20.  A critical, yet sympathetic reading of the NPP (see esp. his summary on the pros and cons of the NPP on pp. 18-19).

Michael Cranford, “The Possibility of Perfect Obedience: Paul and an Implied Premise in Galatians 3:10 and 5:3,”  NovT 36 (1994): 242-58.

Michael Cranford, “Abraham in Romans 4: The Father of All Who Believe,”  NTS 41 (1995): 71-88.

A. Andrew Das, “Beyond Covenantal Nomism: Paul, Judaism, and Perfect Obedience,”  Concordia Journal 27 (2001): 234-52.

James E. Davidson, “The Patterns of Salvation in Paul and in Palestinian Judaism,”  JRS 15 (1989): 99-118.

W. D. Davies, “Paul: from the Jewish Point of View,” in  The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 3 – The Early Roman Period, eds. William Horbury, W. D. Davies and John Sturdy (Cambridge: CUP, 1999), 3.678-730.

Terence L. Donaldson, “Zealot and Convert: The Origin of Paul’s Christ-Torah Antithesis,”  CBQ 51 (1989): 655-82.

James D. G. Dunn, “The New Perspective on Paul,”  BJRL 65 (1983): 95-122.

James D. G. Dunn, “A Man More Sinned Against than Sinning? A Response to Carl Trueman.”  Dunn’s impassioned response against Trueman’s accusation that Dunn repudiates the reformers.

James D. G. Dunn, “Did Paul have a covenant theology? reflections on Romans 9.4 and 11.27,” In Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period , Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline De-Roo, eds., (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 287-307.

James D. G. Dunn, “Paul and Justification by Faith,” in  The Road From Damascus , ed. Richard N.Longenecker (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 85-101.

James D. G. Dunn, “The Theology of Galatians: The Issue of Covenantal Nomism,”  Pauline Theology Volume 1: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon , ed. Jouette M. Bassler(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 125-146.

Pamela Eisenbaum, “A Remedy for Having Been Born of Woman: Jesus, Gentiles, and Genealogy in Romans,”  JBL 123/4 (2004): 671-7-2.

Timo Eskola, “Paul, Predestination and Covenantal Nomism – Reassessing Paul and Palestinian Judaism,”  JJS (1997): 390-412.

J. M. Espy, “Paul’s ‘Robust Conscience’ Re-examined,”  NTS 31 (1985): 161-88.

J.V. Fesko, “N.T. Wright and the Sign of the Covenant,”  SBET 23 (2005): 30-39.

Donald B. Garlington, “The New Perspective on Paul: An Appraisal Two Decades Later,”  Criswell Theological Review 2.2 (2005): 17-38.

Robert H. Gundry, “Grace, Works, and Staying Saved in Paul,”  Bib 66 (1985): 1-38.

Simon Gathercole, “After the New Perspective: Works, Justification and Boasting in Early Judaism and Romans 1-5,”  TynBul 52 (2001): 303-6.

Simon Gathercole, “Early Judaism and Covenantal Nomism: An Article-Review,” EQ 76 (2004): 153-162.

Donald A. Hagner, “Paul and Judaism: The Jewish Matrix of Early Christianity: Issues in the Current Debate,”  BBR 3 (1993): 111-130.

Donald A. Hagner, “Paul and Judaism: Testing the New Perspective,” in  Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2001), 75-105.

Donald A. Hagner, “Paul’s Quarrel with Judaism,” in  Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith , eds. Craig A. Evans and Donald A. Hagner (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 128-50.

James M. Hamilton Jr., “N.T. Wright and Saul’s Moral Bootstraps,”  TrinJ 25 (2004), 139-55. Hamilton contends that Wright over-emphasizes the lack of merit theology in Judaism.

Daniel J. Harrington, “Paul and Judaism: 5 Puzzles.”   Bible Review 9 (1993): 19-25, 52.

Roman Heiligenthal, “Soziologische Implikationen der paulinischen Rechhfertigungslehre imGalaterbrief am Beispiel der ‘Werke des Gesetzes.’ Beobachtunger zur Identitätsfindung einerfrühchristenlichen Gemeinde,” Kairos 26 (1984): 38-53.

Morna D. Hooker, “Paul and Covenantal Nomism,” in  Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C.K. Barrett , eds. M.D. Hooker and S.G. Wilson (London, 1982), 47-56.

Bruce Longenecker, “On Critiquing the ‘New Perspective’ on Paul: A Case Study,” 96  ZNW (2005): 263-271.

Donald Macleod, “How Right Are the Justified? Or, What is a  Dikaios ?”  SBET 22.2 (2004): 173-95.

Donald Macleod, “The New Perspective: Paul, Luther and Judaism,”  SBET 22 (2004): 4-31

I. Howard Marshall, “Salvation, Grace and Works in the later Writings in the Pauline Corpus,”  NTS 42 (1996): 339–58.

J. Louis Martyn, “Events in Galatia: Modified Covenantal Nomism Versus God’s Invasion of the Cosmos in the Singular gospel: A Response to J. D. G. Dunn and B. R. Gaventa,” in  Pauline Theology Volume 1: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon , ed. Jouette M. Bassler(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 160-79.

Frank J. Matera, “Galatians in Perspective: Cutting a New Path through Old Territory,”  Int 54 (2000): 233-43.

R. B. Matlock, “Sins of the Flesh and Suspicious Minds: Dunn’s New Theology of Paul,”  JSNT 72 (1998): 67-90.

R. Barry Matlock, “Almost Cultural Studies? Reflections on the ‘New Perspective’ on Paul,” in Bible/Cultural Studies: The Third Sheffield Colloquium , eds. J. Cheryl Exum and Stephen D. Moore (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 433-59.

Douglas Moo, “Excursus: Paul, ‘Works of the Law,’ and First-Century Judaism,” in  The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 211-17.

C. F. D. Moule, “Jesus, Judaism, and Paul,” in  Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis for His 60th Birthday , eds. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Otto Betz (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1987), 43-52.

Nicholas Perrin, “A Reformed Perspective on the New Perspective,”  WTJ 67 (2005): 381-89.

Charles L. Quarles, “The New Perspective and the Means of Atonement in Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period,”  Criswell Theological Review 2.2 (2005): 39-56.

Charles L. Quarles, “The Soteriology of R. Akiba and E.P. Sanders’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism,” NTS 42 (1996): 185-95.

Heikki Räisänen, “Legalism and Salvation by the Law,” in  Die Paulinische Literatur und Theologie (FS S. Pedersen; Göttingen, 1980), 63-83.

Karl Olav Sandnes, “‘Justification by Faith’ – An Outdated Doctrine?  The ‘New Perspective’ on Paul – A Presentation and Appraisal,”  Theology and Life 17-19 (1996): 127-46.

Thomas R. Schreiner, “Israel’s Failure to Attain Righteousness in Romans 9:30-10:3,”  TrinJ 12 (1991): 209-20.

Christian Stettler, “Paul, the Law and Judgement by Works,”  EQ 76 (2004): 195-215.

Mark A. Seifrid, “Blind Alleys in the Controversy over the Paul of History,”  TynBul 45 (1994): 73-96

Mark A. Seifrid, “The ‘New Perspective on Paul’ and its Problem,”  Them 25 (2000): 4-18.

Vincent M. Smiles, “The concept of ‘zeal’ in Second-Temple Judaism and Paul’s critique of it in Romans 10:2,”  CBQ 64 (2002): 282-299.

Charles H. Talbert, “Paul on the Covenant,”  RevExp 84 (1987): 299-313.

Charles H. Talbert, “Freedom and Law in Galatians,”  Ex Auditu 11 (1995): 17-28.

Charles H. Talbert, “Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionists,”  CBQ 16 (2001): 1-22.

Frank Thielman, “Paul as Jewish Christian Theologian: The Theology of Paul in the Magnum Opus of James Dunn,”  Perspectives in Religious Studies 25 (1998): 381-87.

Carl Trueman, “A Man More Sinned Against than Sinning?  The Portrait of Martin Luther in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship: Some Casual Observations of a Mere Historian.” Unpublished paper presented at Tyndale Fellowship in Cambridge in 2000. .

Gerhard H. Visscher, “New Views regarding Legalism and Exclusivism in Judaism: Is There a Need to Reinterpret Paul?”  Koinonia 18 (1999): 15-42.

Francis Watson, “Not the New Perspective,” Unpublished paper delivered to the British New Testament Conference 2001.  An excellent article by a NPP turncoat!  Watson’s taxonomy of the NPP using the Calvinistic acronym TULIPS is humorous and worth reading, not to mention the reasons for his change of mind on the issue.

Stephen Westerholm, “The Righteousness of the Law and the Righteousness of Faith in Romans,” Interpretation 55 (2004): 253-64.

N. T. Wright, “The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith,”  TynBul 29 (1978): 61-88  Synopsis: The debate between E Käsemann and K Stendahl about justification and salvation history may be resolved with the help of a new overall view of Pauline theology.  For Paul, the messiah represents his people, so that a crucified messiah means a crucified Israel. This provides Paul with his critique of Israel, aimed not at “works-righteousness” but at “national righteousness”. Paul has been distorted by various schools of NT criticism: this view combines their strong points while avoiding their weaknesses.

N.T. Wright, “Gospel and Theology in Galatians,” in  Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker , eds. L. Ann Jervis and Peter Richardson (JSNTSup 108; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 222–239.

N.T. Wright, “Two Radical Jews: a review article of Daniel Boyarin,  A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity ,”  Reviews in Religion and Theology 3 (1995): 15–23.

N.T. Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” in  Pauline Theology, Volume III , eds. David M. Hay & E. Elizabeth Johnson, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 30–67. (Republished, with minor alterations, from  SBL 1992 Seminar Papers , ed. E. H. Lovering, pp. 184–213).

N.T. Wright, “New Exodus, New Inheritance: the Narrative Substructure of Romans 3—8,” in Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday , eds. S. K. Soderlund & N. T. Wright (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 26–35.

N.T. Wright, “The Letter to the Galatians: Exegesis and Theology,” in Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology , eds. Joel B. Green & Max Turner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 205–36.

N.T. Wright, “Coming Home to St Paul? Reading Romans a Hundred Years after Charles Gore,” SJT 55 (2002): 392–407.

N.T. Wright, “Redemption from the New Perspective,” in  Redemption , eds. S.T. Davis, D. Kendall, & G. O’Collins (Oxford: OUP, 2004).

Paul F. M. Zahl, “A New Source for Understanding German Theology: Käsemann, Bultmann, and the ‘New Perspective on Paul’,”  Sewanee Theological Review 39 (1996): 413-22.

Paul F. M. Zahl, “E. P. Sanders’ Paul Versus Luther’s Paul: Justification by Faith in the Aftermath of the Scholarly Crisis,”  St. Luke’s Journal of Theology 34 (1994): 33-40.

Paul F. M. Zahl, “Mistakes of the New Perspective on Paul,”  Themelios 27 (2001): 5-11.

Michael Bachmann and Johannes Woyke,  Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive: Beiträg zueinem Schlüsselproblem der gegenwärtigen  exegetischen Diskussion (WUNT 2.182: Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2005).

John Barclay,  Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul’s Ethics in Galatians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988).

Daniel Boyarin,  A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (California: University of California Press, 1994).

Gary W. Burnett,  Paul and the Salvation of the Individual (Leiden: Brill, 2001).

W. S. Campbell,  Paul’s Gospel in an Intercultural Context: Jew and Gentile in the Letter to the Romans (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1991).

D. A. Carson,  Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Divine Perspectives in Tension (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981).

D. A. Carson, Peter O’Brien and Mark A. Seifrid, eds.,  Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul (WUNT 2.181: Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2004; Grand Rapids,MI: Baker, 2004). Essays include: Stephen Westerholm (The “New Perspective” at Twenty-Five); Mark A. Seifrid (Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language Against Its Hellenistic Background); MartinHengel (The Stance of the Apostle Paul Toward the Law in the Unknown Years Between Damascus and Antioch); Mark A. Seifrid: (Unrighteous by Faith: Apostolic Proclamation in Romans 1:18-3:20); S. J. Gathercole (Justified by Faith, Justified by his Blood: The Evidence of Romans 3:21-4:25); Douglas J. Moo (Israel and the Law in Romans 5-11: Interaction with the New Perspective); MoisésSilva (Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians); Peter T. O’Brien (Was Paul a Covenantal Nomist?); Robert Yarbrough (Paul and Salvation History); Timo Laato (Paul’s Anthropological Considerations: Two Problems); Peter T. O’Brien (Was Paul Converted?); D. A. Carson (Mystery and Fulfillment: Toward a More Comprehensive Paradigm of Paul’s Understanding of the Old and the New); Timothy George (Modernizing Luther, Domesticating Paul: Another Perspective); Henri Blocher (Justification of the Ungodly [Sola Fide]: Theological Reflections).

A. Andrew Das,  Paul, the Law, and the Covenant (Peabody, MA:  Hendrickson, 2001).

A. Andrew Das,  Paul and the Jews (Library of Pauline Studies; ed. Stanley E. Porter; Peabody,MA:  Hendrickson, 2003).

David A. DeSilva,  An Introduction to the New Testament: Context, Methods & Ministry Formation (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004).  See section: “The ‘New Perspective’ on Paul and Early Judaism” (pp. 500-1) and “Criticisms of the ‘New Perspective’” (pp. 518-19).

Terence L. Donaldson , Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997).

John W. Drane,  Paul: Libertine or Legalist? (London: SPCK, 1975).

J. Ligon Duncan,  Misunderstanding Paul? Responding to the New Perspectives (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005).

James D. G. Dunn,  Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (London: SPCK, 1990).

James D. G. Dunn,  The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays (WUNT 185; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2005).

James D. G. Dunn,  The Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Cambridge: CUP, 1993).

James D. G. Dunn and Alan M. Suggate,  The Justice of God: A fresh look at the old doctrine of justification by faith (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1993).

James D. G. Dunn,  The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1998).

James D. G. Dunn, ed.,  The Cambridge Companion to St . Paul (Cambridge: CUP, 2003).

Brad Eastman,  The Significance of Grace in the Letters of Paul (New York: Peter Lang, 1999).

Kathy Ehrensperger,  That We May Be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2004).

Neil Elliott,  The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul’s Dialogue with Judaism (JSNTSup 45; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990).

Timo Eskola,  Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline Soteriology (WUNT 2.100; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1998).  See “Excursus: The Theory of Covenantal Nomism” pp. 52-60.  He raises three main points: (1) If legalism means that keeping the law affects eschatological salvation, then covenantal nomism is legalistic nomism by definition. (2) Covenantal nomism is a synergisticnomism. (3) Sanders reduces soteriology to the categories of sociology.

Don B. Garlington,  The Obedience of Faith (WUNT 2.38; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1991).

Don B. Garlington,  Faith, Obedience, and Perseverance: Aspects of Paul’s Letter to the Romans (WUNT 79; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1994).

Don B. Garlington,  In Defense of the New Perspective on Paul: Essays and Reviews (Eugene, OR:Wipf & Stock, 2005).

John G. Gager,  Reinventing Paul (Oxford: OUP, 2000).

Simon J. Gathercole,  Where is the Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1-5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002).  Gathercole argues that Jewish boasting concerned both election and obedience to the law.

Michael J. Gorman  Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004).

Sigurd Grindheim,  The Crux of Election: Paul’s Critique of the Jewish Confidence in the Election ofIsrael (WUNT 2.202; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2005).

Martin Hengel (with R. Deines),  The Pre-Christian Paul (London: SCM, 1991).  “Although people nowadays are fond of asserting otherwise, no one understood the real essence of Pauline theology, the salvation given  sola gratia , by faith alone, better than Augustine and Martin Luther. Despite this rigorous reversal of all previous values and ideals (Phil 3.7-11), Pauline theology – and therefore also Christian theology – remains very closely bound up with Jewish theology. Its individual elements and thought-structure derive almost exclusively from Judaism. This revolutionary change becomes visible precisely in the fact that its previous theological views remain present even in their critical reversal as a negative foil, and help to determine the location of the new position.” (p. 86).

Martin Hengel & Anne M. Schwemer,  Paul Between Damascus and Antioch (London: SCM, 1997).

Martin Hengel and U. Heckel, eds.,  Paulus und das antike Judentum (WUNT 158; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1996).

Tom Holland,  Contours of Pauline Theology: A Radical New Survey of the Influences on Paul’s Biblical Writings (Mentor, 2004).

David Horrell,  An Introduction to the Study of Paul (New York: Continuum, 2000).

Philip H. Kern,  Rhetoric and Galatians: Assessing an Approach to Paul’s Epistle (Cambridge: CUP, 1998).

Seyoon Kim,  Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002).

Matthias Konradt,  Gericht und Gemeinde: Eine Studie  zur Bedeutung und Funktion vonGerichtsaussagen im  Rahmen der Paulinischen Ekklesiologie und Ethik im  1 Thess und 1 Kor (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003).

Colin G. Kruse,  Paul, the Law and Justification (Leicester: Apollos, 1996).

Kari Kuula,  The Law, the Covenant, and God’s Plan: Paul’s Polemical Treatment of the Law in Galatians (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999).

Timo Laato,  Paul and Judaism: An Anthropological Approach (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 115; Atlanta: Scholars, 1995).

Bruce W. Longenecker,  Eschatology and the Covenant: A Comparison of 4 Ezra and Romans 1-11 (JSNTSup 57; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991).

Bruce W. Longenecker,  The Triumph of Abraham’s God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998).

Richard Longenecker, ed.   The Road from Damascus: The Impact of Paul’s Converstion on His Life, Thought, and Ministry (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997).

I. Howard Marshall,  New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004) 444-50.

Mark D. Nanos,  The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996).

Mark D. Nanos,  The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002).

Mark D. Nanos, ed.,  The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson 2002).  A collection of studies on Galatians by various authors regarding the historical, rhetorical and theological issues surrounding Galatians.

Eung Chun Park, Either Jew or Gentile: Paul’s Unfolding Theology of Inclusiveness (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2003).

Alan F. Segal,  Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: YUP, 1990).

Vincent M. Smiles,  The Gospel and Law in Galatia: Paul’s Response to Jewish-Christian Separatism and the Threat of Galatian Apostacy (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1998).

Peter Stuhlmacher,  Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2001).

Thomas R. Schreiner,  Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2001).

Stanley K. Stowers,  A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven: YaleUniversity Press, 1994.

Chris Vanlandingham,  Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody,MA: Hendrickson, 2006).

Guy Prentiss Waters,  Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul: A Review and a Response (P&R Publishing, 2004).

Francis Watson,  Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach (SNTS 56; Cambridge: CUP, 1986).

Stephen Westerholm,  Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988).

Stephen Westerholm,  Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003).  Revised and updated version of Westerholm’s 1988 monograph.

N. T. Wright,  The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991).

N.T. Wright,  Paul: In Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005).

Tom Wright,  What St. Paul Really Said (London: Lion, 1997).

Tet-Lim N. Yee,  Jews, Gentiles and Ethnic Reconciliation: Paul’s Jewish Identity and Ephesians (New York: CUP, 2005).

Kent L. Yinger,  Paul, Judaism, and Judgment According to Deeds (Cambridge: CUP, 1999).

Michael F.  Bird, “Incorporated Righteousness: A Response to Recent Evangelical Discussion Concerning the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness in Justification,”  JETS 47.2 (2004): 243-75. This article contends that “union with Christ” rather than “imputation” provides the proper exegetical context for understanding justification in Paul.

Gerald Bray, “Justification: The Reformers and Recent New Testament Scholarship,”  Churchman 109 (1995): 102-26.

F. F. Bruce, “Justification by Faith in the Non-Pauline Writings of the New Testament,”  EQ 24 (1952): 13-26.

Craig B. Carpenter, “A Question of Union with Christ? Calvin and Trent on Justification,”  WTJ 64 (2002): 363-86.

D. A. Carson, “Reflections on Salvation and Justification in the New Testament,”  JETS 40 (1997): 581-608.

D. A. Carson, “The Vindication of Imputation: On Fields of Discourse and, of Course, Semantic Fields,” in  “Justification”: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates? , eds. M. A. Husbands & D. J.Treier (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004),  46-78.

Charles H. Cosgrove, “Justification in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Reflection,”  JBL 106 (1987): 653-70.

Martinus C. de Boer,  ‘Paul’s Use and Interpretation of a Justification Tradition in Galatians 2.15-21,’ JSNT 28 (2005): 189-216.

William J.  Dumbrell, “Justification in Paul: A Covenantal Perspective,”  RTR 51 (1992): 91-101.

William J.  Dumbrell, “Justification and the New Covenant,”  Churchman 112 (1998): 17-29.

James D. G. Dunn, “The Justice of God: A Renewed Perspective on Justification by Faith,”  JTS 43 (1992): 1-22.

Philip Eveson,  The Great Exchange: Justification by faith alone in light of recent thought (Kent, England: Day One Publications, 1996).

R. Y. K. Fung, “The Status of Justification by Faith in Paul’s Thought: A Brief Survey of a Modern Debate,”  Themelios 6 (1981): 4-11.

Don B. Garlington, “A Study of Justification by Faith,”  Reformation and Revival 11 (2002): 55-73.

Don B. Garlington, “Imputation or Union with Christ: A Response to John Piper,”  Reformation and Revival 12 (2003): 45-113.

Robert H. Gundry, “The Nonimputation of Christ’s Righteousness,” in  “Justification”: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates? eds. M. A. Husbands & D. J. Treier (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004), 17-45.  Gundry defends a forensic view of justification wholly apart from notions of imputation.

Richard B. Hays, “Justification,” in  Anchor Bible Dictionary , ed. David Noel Freedman (6 vols.;ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 3:1129-33.

Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier, eds.,  Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates (Leicester, England: Apollos, 2004).

Eberhard Jüngel,  Justification: The Heart of the Christian Faith (trans. Jeffrey F. Cayzer;Edinburg/New York: T&T Clark, 2001).

Jan Lambrecht and R.W. Thompson,  Justification by Faith: The Implications of Romans 3:27-31 (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1989).  Justification signifies the universality of God’s love and marks the demise of boasting in ethnocentric particularism.

Eduard Lohse, “Theologie der Rechtfertigung im kritischen Disput – zu einigen neuen Perspektivenin der Interpretation der Theologie des Apostels Paulus,”  Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 249 (1997): 66-81.

Mark C. Mattes,  The Role of Justification in Contemporary Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).

Alister McGrath,  Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge: CUP, 1986).

Alister McGrath, “Justification,” in  DPL , eds. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1993), 517-23.

Richard K. Moore,  Rectification (‘Justification’) in Paul, in Historical Perspective, and in the English Bible: God’s Gift of Right Relationship (3 vols.; Edward Mellen Press, 2002).  Moore’s massive tome argues for a relational model of Paul’s doctrine of justification.

Stephen Motyer, “Righteousness by Faith in the New Testament,” in  Here We Stand: Justification by Faith Today (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1986), 33-56.  All should note Motyer’s comment: “there is  no doctrine of justification in the New Testament, rather, there is a doctrine of righteousness ” (p. 34).

Peter O’Brien, “Justification in Paul and Some Crucial Issues of the Last Two Decades,” in  Right with God: Justification in the Bible and the World (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1992), 69-95.

John Piper,  Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002).  A robust defense of the traditional Reformed view of imputed righteousness.  The section on the pastoral significance of the doctrine of justification (pp. 27-39) is superb.  Also available electronically at the  Desiring God website.

Joseph Plevnik, “Recent Developments in the Discussion Concerning Justification by Faith,”  TJT 2 (1986): 47-62.

P. Sedgwick, “Justification by Faith: One Doctrine, Many Debates?”  Theology 93 (1990): 5-12.

Thomas R. Schreiner, “Did Paul Believe in Justification by Works? Another Look at Romans 2,” BBR 3 (1993): 131-58.

Mark A Seifrid,  Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (NovTSup 68; Leiden: Brill, 1992).

Mark A. Seifrid,  Christ, our Righteousness: Paul’s theology of justification (NSBT 9; Downers Grove: IVP, 2000).

Mark A. Seifrid, “In What Sense is ‘Justification’ a Declaration?”  Churchman 114.2 (2000): 123-36.

Mark A. Seifrid, “Paul, Luther, and Justification in Gal 2:15-21,”  WTJ 65 (2003): 215-30.

Robert Smith, “Justification in ‘the New Perspective on Paul’,”  RTR 58.1 (1999): 16-30.

Robert S. Smith,  Justification and Eschatology: A Dialogue with “The New Perspective on Paul” (Doncaster: Reformed Theological Review, 2001).

Robert Smith, “A Critique of the ‘New Perspective’ on Justification,”  RTR 58.2 (1999) 98-113.

George Vandevelde, “Justification between Scripture and Tradition,”  ERT 21 (1997): 128-148.

N.T. Wright, “Justification: The Biblical Basis and its Relevance for Contemporary Evangelicalism,” in  The Great Acquittal , ed. G. Reid (London: Collins, 1980), 13–37.

N. T. Wright, “Justification,” in  New Dictionary of Theology , eds. Sinclair B. Ferguson, David F. Wright (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1988), 359-61.

N.T. Wright, “The Shape of Justification,”  Bible Review 17 (April 2001): 8, 50. Available electronically at:  Wright’s response to Paul Barnett’s critique.

N. T. Wright, “New Perspectives on Paul.” Paper presented to 10 th Edinburgh DogmaticsConference August 2003.  Available electronically at: .

John Zeisler, “Justification by Faith in Light of the ‘New Perspective’ on Paul,”  Theology 94 (1991): 189-94.

Law and Works of the Law

Martin Abegg, “Paul, ‘Works of the Law’ and MMT,”  BAR 20.6 (1994): 52-55, 82.

M. G. Abegg, “4QMMT C 27, 31 and Works Righteousness,”  DSD 6 (1999): 139-47.

M. G. Abegg, “4QMMT,” in  DNTB , eds. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2000), 709-11.

Martin G. Abegg, “4QMMT, Paul, and ‘works of the law’,” in  Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape and Interpretation , eds. Peter W. Flint & Tae Hun Kim (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 203-16.

A. J. Bandstra, “Paul and the Law: Some Recent Developments and an Extraordinary Book,”  CTJ 25 (1990): 249-61.

Jacqueline C. R. de Roo, “The concept of ‘works of the law’ in Jewish and Christian literature,” in Christian-Jewish Relations Through the Centuries , eds. Brook W.R. Pearson & Stanley E. Porter (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 116-147.

Robert Badenas,  Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective (JSNTSup 10; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985).

M. Bachmann, “4QMMT und Galaterbrief, MIQSAT MA ‛AŚEY HA-TORAH und ERGA NOMOU,” ZNW 89 (1998): 91-113.

Otto Betz, “The Qumran Halakah Text Miqsat Ma’ase Ha-Torah (4QMMT) and Sadducean, Essene, and Early Pharisaic Tradition,” in  The Aramaic bible: Targums in Their Historical Context , eds. D.R.G. Beattie and M.J. McNamara (JSOTSS 166; Sheffield: SAP, 1994), 176-202.

C. E. B. Cranfield, “‘The Works of the Law’ in the Epistle to the Romans,”  JSNT 43 (1991): 89-101.

James D. G. Dunn, “Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Galatians 3:10-14),”  NTS 31 (1985): 523-42.

James D. G. Dunn, ed.,  Paul and the Mosaic Law (WUNT 89; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1991).

James D. G. Dunn, “Yet Once More – ‘The Works of the Law’: A Response,”  JSNT (1992): 99-117.

James D. G. Dunn, “4QMMT and Galatians,”  NTS 43 (1997): 147-53.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Paul’s Jewish Background and the Deeds of the Law,” in  According to Paul: Studies in the Theology of the Apostle (New York: Paulist, 1993), 18-35.

Lloyd Gaston,  Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987).

G. Hamerton-Kelly, “Sacred Violence and ‘Works of the law’,”  CBQ 52 (1990): 55-75.

Hans Hübner,  The Law in Paul’s Thought , trans. James C.G. Greig (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1984).

Veronica Koperski,  What are They Saying About Paul and the Law? (New York: Paulist, 2001).

Hermann von Lectenberger, “Paulus und das Gesetz,” in  Paulus und das antike Judentum , eds.Martin Hengel & Ulrich Heckel (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1991).

Bruce Longenecker, “Lifelines: Perspectives on Paul and the Law,”  Anvil 1 (1999): 125-30.

Brice L. Martin,  Christ and the Law in Paul (NovTestSup 62; Leiden: Brill, 1989).

Douglas J. Moo, “‘Law’, ‘Works of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul,”  WTJ 45 (1983): 90-100.

Douglas J. Moo, “Paul and the Law in the Last Ten Years,”  SJT (1987): 287-307.

C. Marvin Pate,  The Reverse of the Curse: Paul, Wisdom, and the Law (WUNT 2.114; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2000).

Heikki Räisänen,  Paul and the Law (WUNT 29; 2d ed.; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1986).

Robert Keith Rapa,  The Meaning of ‘Works of the Law’ in Galatians and Romans (New York: Peter Lang, 2001).

Peter Richardson, Stephen Westerholm, et. al.,  Law in Religious Communities in the Roman Period: The Debate Over Torah and Nomos in Post-Biblical Judaism and Early Christianity (SCJ 4; Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1991).

Calvin J. Roetzel, “Paul and the Law: Whence and Whither?”  CBR 3 (1995): 249-75.

Thomas R. Schreiner, “Is Perfect Obedience to the Law Possible?  A Re-examination of Galatians3:10,”  JETS 27 (1984): 151-60.

Thomas R. Schreiner, “Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An Evaluation of the view of E. P. Sanders,”  WTJ 47 (1985): 245-78.

Thomas R. Schreiner, “‘Works of the Law’ in Paul,”  NovT 33 (1991): 217-44.

Thomas R. Schreiner,  The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993).

Moises Silva, “The Law and Christianity: Dunn’s New Synthesis,”  WTJ 53 (1991): 339-53.

R.B. Sloan, “Paul and the Law: Why the Law Cannot Save,”  NovT 33 (1991): 35-60.

Klyne Snodgrass, “Spheres of Influence: A Possible Solution to the Problem of Paul and the Law,” JSNT 32 (1988): 93-113.

Frank Thielman,  From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans (NTS LXI; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1989).

Frank Thielman,  Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1994).

Lauri Thurén,  Derhetorizing Paul: A Dynamic Perspective on Pauline Theology and the Law (WUNT 2/110; Tübinen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2000).

Peter J. Tomson,  Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (CRINT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990).

Chris Alex Vlachos, “Law, Sin, and Death: An Edenic Triad? An Examination with Reference to 1 Cor 15:56.”  JETS 48 (2004): 277-98. Vlachos argues that the theological soil from which Paul derived his law problematic was the Genesis Fall narrative, where the serpent expropriated the prohibition to provoke the first transgression. Rather than being polemically motivated, or being precipitated in response to either legalistic or nationalistic tendencies, Paul’s concern with the law was thus driven by primeval considerations.

Michael Winger,  By what Law?  The Meaning of Nomos in the Letters of Paul (SBLDS 128; Atlanta: Scholars, 1992).

N. T. Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” in  Paul and the Mosaic Law , ed. J. D. G. Dunn (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1996), 131–50.

N. T. Wright, “Paul and Qumran : When Paul shuns the ‘works of the law,’ is he referring to the very works commended by the Dead Sea Scroll known as MMT?”  Bible Review 14 (1998): 18, 54.

Fredrich Avemarie,  Tora und Leben: Untersuchungen zur Heilsbedeutung der Tora in der frühen rabbinschen Literatur (TSAJ 55; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1996).

Fredrich Avemarie and Hermann Licentenberger, eds.   Bund und Tora: Zuratheologischen Begriffsgeschicgte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition (WUNT 135; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1996).

Friedrich Avemarie, “Erwählung und Vergeltung: Zur optionalen Struktur rabbinischer Soteriologie,” NTS 45 (1999): 108-26.

J. M. G. Barclay,  Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE) (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996).

Gabriele Boccaccini,  Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought, 300 B.C.E to 200 C.E. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991).

Marcus Bockmuehl,  Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000).

D. A. Carson, Peter O’Brien and Mark A. Seifrid, eds.,  Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume 1 – The Complexities of Second-Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001). Chapters include: “Psalms and Prayers (Daniel Falk); “Scripture-Based Stories” (Craig A. Evans); “Expansions of Scripture” (Peter Enns); “Didactic Stories” (Philip R. Davies); “Apocalypse” (RichardBauckham); “Testaments” (Robert A. Kugler); “Wisdom” (Donald E. Gowan); “Tannaitic Literature” (Philip S. Alexander); Targumic Themes (Martin McNamara); “Qumran” (Markus Bockmuehl); “Josephus” (Paul Spilsbury); “Philo” (David M. Hay); “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures” (Mark A. Seifrid); and “Pharisees” (Roland Deines).

Karl T. Cooper, “Paul and Rabbinic Soteriology: A Review Article,”  WJT 44 (1982): 123-39.

Ellen Juhl Christiansen,  The Covenant in Judaism and Paul: A Study of Ritual Boundaries as Identity Markers (AGAJU 27; Leiden: Brill, 1995).

James D. G. Dunn,  The Parting of the Ways Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM, 1991).

M. A. Elliott,  The Survivors of Israel: A Reconsideration of the Theology of Pre-Christian Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000).

Paul Garnet, “Qumran Light on Pauline Soteriology,” in  Pauline Studies , eds. D.A. Hagner andMurray J. Harris (FS for F.F. Bruce; Exeter: Paternoster, 1980), 19-32.

Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “Comparing Paul and Judaism: Rethinking our Methods,”  BTB 10 (1980): 37-44.

Martin Hengel and Roland Deines, “E.P. Sanders’ ‘Common Judaism’, Jesus, and the Pharisees,” JTS 46 (1995): 1-70.

Timo Laato,  Paulus und das Judentem (Ǻbo: Ǻbo Akademi, 1991).  Laato recognizes Sanders’ contribution of undoing the caricature of Judaism as “legalism” but criticizes Sanders on various points: (1) Sanders fails to adequately appropriate the late nature of rabbinic materials; (2) Sanders does not recognize the difference between Paul and Judaism as being Paul’s pessimistic outlook on the human condition; and (3) Sanders is effectively arguing for a concept of “normative Judaism” which did not exist in the first-century (see esp. 65-82).

Jacob Neusner, “Comparing Judaisms,”  History of Religions 18 (1978-79): 177-91.

Jacob Neusner, “E.P. Sanders  Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People ,” in  Ancient Judaism: Debates and Disputes (Brown Judaic Studies 64; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1994).

Jacob Neusner,  Judaic Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: A Systematic Reply to Professor E.P. Sanders (Atlanta: Scholars, 1993).

Jacob Neusner, “Mr Sanders’ Pharisees and Mine: A Response to E P Sanders,  Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah ,”  SJT 44 (1991): 73-95.

Jacob Neusner, “The Use of Later Rabbinic Evidence for the Study of Paul,” in  Approaches to Ancient Judaism , ed. W. S. Green (6 vols.; Chico: Scholars, 1980), 2:43-63.

George W. E. Nickelsburg,  Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins: Diversity, Continuity, and Transformation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003).  See chapter 2 “Torah and the Righteousness of Life” and chapter 3 “God’s Activity on Behalf of Humans” which compares and contrasts the soteriologyof Christianity and Judaism.  Nickelsburg does not think Judaism can be characterized as “works-righteousness” and the main Christian differences between the two were Christological.

George W. E. Nickelsburg and Robert A. Kraft, eds.,  Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters (SBL; Atlanta: Scholars, 1986).  See esp. “Introduction” pp. 20-21.

Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline De-Roo, eds. Concept of the Covenant in the Second TemplePeriod (Leiden: Brill, 2003).

E. P. Sanders,  The Jewish Law (London: SCM, 1990).

E. P. Sanders,  Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE – 66 CE (London: SCM, 1992).

J. J. Scott, “Crisis and Reaction: Roots of Diversity in Intertestamental Judaism,”  EQ 64 (1992): 197-212.

Mikael Winninge,  Sinners and the Righteous: A Comparative Study of the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Letters (ConBNT 26; Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995).

N. T. Wright,  The New Testament and the People of God (COQG 1; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992).

Brendan Byrne,  Romans (Sacra Pagina; Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1996).

William Dumbrell,  Romans: A New Covenant Commentary (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005).

James D. G. Dunn,  Romans 1-8 (WBC; Dallas, TX : Word, 1988).

James D. G. Dunn,  Romans 9-16 (WBC; Dallas, TX : Word, 1988).

James D. G. Dunn,  Galatians (BNTC; London: A&C Black, 1993).

Don B. Garlington,  Exposition of Galatians: A New Perspective/Reformational Reading (Eugene,Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2002).

A. Katherine Grieb,  The Story of Romans: A Narrative Defense of God’s Righteousness (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2002).

R. David Kaylor,  Paul’s Covenant Community: Jew and Gentile in Romans (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988).

Richard N. Longenecker,  Galatians (WBC; Dallas, TX: Word, 1990).  Longenecker is sympathetic to works by Sanders but maintains that Paul’s opponents were still “nomistic” and “legalistic”, see esp. pp. xcviii, 86.

Frank J. Matera,  Galatians (Sacra Pagina; Collegeville, MN: Litrugical Press, 1992).

Scot McKnight,  Galatians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995).

Peter T. O’Brien,  The Epistle to the Philippians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991).

Thomas R. Schreiner,  Romans (BECNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998).  The draw back of this commentary is that in a subsequent work ( Paul Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ ) Schreiner has changed his mind from a transformative understanding of justification to a strictly forensic view.

Charles H. Talbert,  Romans (Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 2002).

Ben Witherington,  Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004). Witherington approaches Romans through the grid of socio-rhetorical criticism and also attempting to offer a non-Reformed reading of the epistle.  The excursus on “A Closer Look: Righteousness in the LXX, Early Judaism and Paul” (pp. 52-54) and “A Closer Look: ‘Justified’ and Concepts ofCovenental Nomism” (pp. 102-7) are useful and represent a middle ground in regard to faith and obedience.

Ben Witherington,  Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998).

N. T. Wright, “Romans,” in  New Interpreter’s Bible (ed. Leander E. Keck; Nashville: Abingdon 2002), 10:395-770.

N.T. Wright,  Paul for Everyone: Romans (London: SPCK; 2004).

a new perspective essay

Michael F. Bird

Michael F. Bird (PhD University of Queensland) is Deputy Principal at Ridley College, Melbourne, Australia. He is an Anglican priest and the author of over 30 books about the New Testament and Theology.

Michael on Logos

"Logos is a software powerhouse for pastors, students, and scholars working in biblical studies and theology." —Michael F. Bird

Related articles

Image depicting the words Olivet Discourse on either side of a strong tree. An excerpt from an article is shown on the left side, representing the theological discussion of the Olivet Discourse.

The Olivet Discourse: Second Coming Prophesy or Prophetic Warning against Jerusalem?

a new perspective essay

Through the Valley: 8 Lessons from Job about Suffering & Comfort

a new perspective essay

The 16 Best Books on Ecclesiology, Selected by a Theologian

a new perspective essay

Ecclesiology: What Do We Believe about the Church?

a new perspective essay

Your email address has been added

What are your chances of acceptance?

Calculate for all schools, your chance of acceptance.

Fordham University

Your chancing factors


a new perspective essay

How to Write the Fordham University Essay 2023-2024

a new perspective essay

If you’re unsure about responding because you don’t know what to write about, don’t worry! That’s what we’re here for, as we’re going to break down each prompt for you below.

Read these Fordham essay examples to inspire your writing.

Fordham Supplemental Essay Prompts

All applicants.

You may choose to answer one (1) of the optional questions below. Keep in mind that your response is a maximum of 300 words. Choose the question that you think will help the admission committee get a better understanding of your unique perspective and potential contributions to our community.

  • Option 1: At Fordham, we expect students to care for and engage with their communities and be active citizens for positive change. Please share an experience you had that caused you to develop a new perspective, change your point of view, and/or empower you to take an action or be courageous. Your response should include examples of your personal growth (e.g., what did you learn, did your point of view change, did you develop new skills or strengths?).
  • Option 2: Fordham, as a Jesuit university, recognizes the dignity, uniqueness and potential of each person. A Fordham education is student-centered and rooted in close collaboration among students, faculty, and staff. Describe how you would contribute to our campus community as an actively engaged learner and leader. Specifically draw on your personal story, identity, experiences, strengths, and perspectives.
  • Option 3: Our motto is “New York is my campus, Fordham is my school.” New York City is a diverse and global city that provides Fordham students with a special kind of educational experience, full of both challenge and opportunity. What has prepared you to embrace the unique opportunity of living and learning in New York City?

At Fordham, we expect students to care for and engage with their communities and be active citizens for positive change. Please share an experience you had that caused you to develop a new perspective, change your point of view, and/or empower you to take an action or be courageous. Your response should include examples of your personal growth (e.g., what did you learn, did your point of view change, did you develop new skills or strengths?). (300 words)

This is a take on the classic “Diversity” essay, which also incorporates some elements of the “Community Service” archetype. You’ll want to discuss your values, viewpoints, and personal growth in relation to a specific story, preferably one that involves you actively working to make your community a better place. The important thing is to pick an anecdote that demonstrates your character and the good qualities that you will bring to Fordham. 

The prompt specifically asks for an event or experience, so though it may be tempting, you shouldn’t take this opportunity to list a variety of qualities or even a few quick examples of you demonstrating different qualities. While in theory you’re giving your reader more information with this approach than by focusing on a single story, in reality trying to fit multiple anecdotes into just 300 words often leads to the essay feeling rushed or disjointed.

Instead, you should pick a single story, as one experience, if chosen well, can actually tell your reader just as much about you as a range of experiences can. So, dive deeply into the story you choose, and think about what it tells Fordham about you. If there is a culture, organization, or movement that you have deep involvement with, this is a good time to mention it, but you’ll still want to pick a specific event from that work, rather than summarizing across a period of months or years. If you don’t have a specific cause, can you think of a time that you showed particular strength of character? Either way, here are some questions to get you thinking:

  • What qualities are you most proud of? What qualities do others admire in you? How did you develop them? Can you think of a story that showcases them especially well?
  • Describe a time that you helped someone, or a group of people. What did you do? What led you to help? What did you learn?
  • Reflect on some important beliefs that you hold. How did you come to those beliefs? Have they ever been tested? In what ways have you expressed or stood up for those beliefs?
  • Name a time that your worldview changed or expanded. What prompted this change or expansion? How did you respond?
  • Have you ever felt particularly inspired by a person or an event? What touched you about this experience? What did you do with the inspiration you felt?

Remember that the point of the essay is to set yourself apart from other applicants, so, while you of course want to be honest and share an experience that was genuinely meaningful to you, you also want to be mindful of stories that might also be told in a lot of other students’ essays.

For example, talking about making a new friend from another culture and learning about their background is a nice story, but it’s an experience that many people have had. That doesn’t mean you need to pivot to something entirely different, however. Rather, you could instead write about an argument the two of you had about something seemingly unrelated to culture, and how it helped you recognize certain cultural values that you had taken for granted.

Let’s say your friend is Muslim, and couldn’t attend your birthday party during Ramadan one year because she was fasting and didn’t want to be around so much food and activity. You could write about how you initially struggled to not be frustrated with her, and fully accept this part of her identity. By taking an unusual approach to a common story, you’ll teach admissions officers much more about yourself than if you just rehashed a story they’ve seen literally thousands of times before.

Once you’ve decided on your story, it’s time to start writing. While 300 words is medium-length for a supplement, that doesn’t mean you have all day, so you don’t want to waste words providing a bunch of background context on, for example, whether you drove or biked to the animal shelter. Just jump right in! You could start in the middle of the incident, or reflect back from present day, to make your essay dynamic and engaging from start to finish. 

However you choose to structure your response, the majority should be focused on the event itself, which you should describe with vivid, sophisticated language. Then, incorporate a thoughtful reflection on this event and what it meant to you. Remember to talk specifically about what you took away from the experience and how you carry those changes with you now. Fordham wants to understand why you’re a good fit for their school, so the connection between this experience and your potential as a college student should be clear.

Fordham, as a Jesuit university, recognizes the dignity, uniqueness and potential of each person. A Fordham education is student-centered and rooted in close collaboration among students, faculty, and staff. Describe how you would contribute to our campus community as an actively engaged learner and leader. Specifically draw on your personal story, identity, experiences, strengths, and perspectives.

This prompt is broader than the first, and allows you to explicitly connect yourself to Fordham. Rather than starting by looking backwards into the past, this option asks you to look to the future, imagining your growth over the next four years, and the contributions you would make to Fordham. 

But to describe what you’ll look like as a college student, you’ll need to explain how you got to the place you are. Once again, the best way to showcase your unique personality, attributes, and viewpoints is through a story or concrete example. That will be much more memorable to admissions committees than a bullet-pointy list of qualities you possess, or a series of identities that are important to you.

While picking your example, you have more flexibility than with the first option. You might focus on a long-term commitment you have outside the classroom, like a local book club, or the ways you consistently go above and beyond to engage in classes, like when a book you read in class intrigued you so much that you attended a talk by the author, or you continued a science project after the deadline just to see how your research continued progressing. The words you want to focus on in this prompt are active engagement , leader , and close collaboration . Do any of these spark a story for you?

Some essays that could make for a strong response to this prompt include:

  • A student who applied what she had learned in her science class to her after-school work at a daycare, where she led the older children in simple experiments.
  • A student who learned that some of his high school bandmates couldn’t afford to travel to a major competition, and worked with the band to set up fundraising efforts so they could all compete
  • A student who wrote about a local performance for her journalism class and ended up being published in her town’s newspaper
  • A student who organized carpools for his swim team to increase team cohesion and keep younger teammates, or teammates without cars, from having to walk or ride the bus to and from the pool

As you write, remember to outline the background of your story quickly, including all relevant details, and then describe the actual events in detail, focusing most on the aspects of the narrative that demonstrate the qualities you want to display. 

Finally, reflect on how you will bring what you learned from this experience to Fordham. There is an element of the classic “Why Us?” supplement here, so you want to make sure to connect your story to a niche you know exists at Fordham, to flex your knowledge of the school and show you’ll be ready to contribute as soon as you step on campus. If you’re not sure how to make this kind of specific connection, the course catalog and clubs page are great places to start.

Let’s say that learning about Picasso in your art class inspired you to look more closely at the way African and African-inspired art has been received in the Western world. You might write about your personal research into the topic, and conclude by saying that you can’t wait to bring your passion and research skills to art classes in Fordham’s Africanist Group. 

Whatever you choose to write about, make it unique, focus on you and your best qualities, and then come full circle by connecting it to Fordham! It’s only 300 words, so keep it simple, focused, and make sure to put your best foot forward.

Our motto is “New York is my campus, Fordham is my school.” New York City is a diverse and global city that provides Fordham students with a special kind of educational experience, full of both challenge and opportunity. What has prepared you to embrace the unique opportunity of living and learning in New York City?

There are some similarities between this prompt and the previous one, but here you’re being asked to picture yourself not just as part of the Fordham community, but as a resident of New York City. There are probably a million reasons why you’re excited about the prospect of living in New York, but, as we’ve noted in our breakdowns of the previous two prompts, remember that quantity over quality is the name of the game in college essays.

You also want to make sure you stand out–anyone can talk about the museums, the melting pot of cultures, or going to see Broadway shows. Although the prompt is asking you about New York, you should really be talking about yourself. So, rather than approaching this prompt from a touristy lens, and listing all the sights you want to see, think of this question as an opportunity to share what path you’re hoping to take in college, and how New York will help you along it. Consider the following example:

All my life, I’ve longed for the simplicity of a grid, and New York is the apex of griddiness. In my hometown, unplanned growth means a tangled sprawl of city streets, all with random names. My family says it’s my fault that I “can’t find my way out of a paper bag.” Maybe that’s true, but my horrendous sense of direction has helped me grow, believe it or not, even if I have accidentally ended up in the next town over when I was just trying to go to the grocery store..

I didn’t have a smartphone until I was sixteen, but was able to bike around town at age ten. That meant carrying a fold-out map in my back pocket which I was frequently (like, every block) stopping to consult. Initially, I was embarrassed by times when I pedaled in the wrong direction and added fifteen minutes to my rides, but as I matured, this insecurity shifted into a strange sense of certainty. Maybe I didn’t choose the right path at first, but I developed faith in my ability to notice my errors, reassess, and try again without breaking a sweat, unless I was at the bottom of the infamous Spring Street hill. Getting things wrong and having to backtrack stopped fazing me, and this resilience and confidence in my problem-solving skills eventually stretched beyond my treks around town, to trying new things in school, sports, and various other adventures. When people ask me how I can set off into college with such confidence, I tell them it’s not because I know I’m right; it’s because I know that I’ll be okay if I’m wrong. So I know whatever New York throws at me, I’ll be able to handle it.

This student did two things well here. First, she’s picked a seemingly surface-level aspect of New York, that most people wouldn’t think to write about. Second, she’s connected that aspect to herself in a unique, compelling way by taking a seemingly negative quality and reframing it as a positive opportunity for growth. Her creativity with both evaluating New York City and reflecting on her own experiences will both help her stand out to Fordham’s admissions committee. What unique attributes, narrative structures, or aspects of New York and yourself can you use to stand out to Fordham?

Where to Get Your Fordham University Essays Edited 

Writing essays can be tricky, especially when you’ve spent so long on them it’s hard to tell what sounds right and what doesn’t. A fresh pair of eyes can really help spot areas for improvement that might not occur to you, or other ways to make you stand out to the admissions officers at Fordham. CollegeVine has created a free Peer Review Essay Tool , where you can get feedback on your essay, and give feedback to other students just like you!

CollegeVine also offers essay review by our team of experienced advisors, who have helped hundreds of students submit successful applications to top schools. Find the right advisor for you and get the feedback you need to make your application a success!

Related CollegeVine Blog Posts

a new perspective essay

Register now

How it works

Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.

Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.

We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.

Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.

Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.

Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.

Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.

Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.

Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.

Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.

See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.

Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.

A demo is the first step to transforming your business. Meet with us to develop a plan for attaining your goals.

Request a demo

  • What is coaching?

Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.

Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.

Types of Coaching

Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.

Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.

Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.

Discover your perfect match : Take our 5-minute assessment and let us pair you with one of our top Coaches tailored just for you.

Find your Coach

Research, expert insights, and resources to develop courageous leaders within your organization.

Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.

View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.

The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.

  • BetterUp Briefing

The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.

Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.

Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance

We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.

Join us and create impactful change.

Read the buzz about BetterUp.

Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.

Find your Coach

For Business

For Individuals

How to change your perspective and change your life


Jump to section

How to change your perspective: 15 tips

Learn how to discern and change your life.

You’re in the middle of a presentation, and you notice a peer who should be paying attention checking their phone. Why are they ignoring you? Are you not engaging enough? Do they not like you?

Your feelings and inner monologue can tell you things that aren’t necessarily true. That person could be texting a sick family member or struggling to focus in a way that has nothing to do with you. If you just change your perspective and open your mind to every possibility, you can get on with the presentation without letting their distraction affect you. 

Shifting perspectives can help you thwart automatic thoughts and navigate situations with a balanced outlook. It also gives you the chance to unpack your biases , develop a growth mindset , and even reinvent yourself as a more positive person. Here’s how to change your perspective and recognize when your thoughts lead you astray.  

You don’t have control over every aspect of your life. But you can change your perspective by learning how to recognize a fixed mindset and maintain a positive outlook when it comes to the things you can’t change.

Here are 15 ways to start changing perspectives in your daily life and better control your mind :

1. Reframe 

Start listening to your thoughts to see if you typically track toward negativity. Do you usually frame the events of your life as positive or neutral, or do you start the day from a pessimistic place, dreading the things you have to do? 

Suppose your boss asks you to give a presentation . A negative perspective could cause you to immediately panic or feel like you don’t want to expend the energy because you’ll do a bad job. Instead, you could frame this task as an opportunity to prove yourself and strengthen your public speaking skills. Remind yourself that you’re capable of presenting well and might even enjoy the task.

Slow down your thoughts by reflecting on the situation at hand instead of jumping to conclusions. Many of life’s difficult moments have a lesson to teach you — and most of the time, challenging scenarios are more than just “good” or “bad.” 

Encourage reflection, either before or after a situation that made you question your perspective, by journaling . Free-write about your day, a conflict, or a negative experience. Then, see what upsides and insights you can gather. After writing your thoughts down, you might find that your perspective needs a change.


3. Turn inner monologues positive

The voice in your head may narrate negative thoughts, like “I could never get that promotion,” or, “I’ll always be alone.” This action can dampen your self-esteem and close off your mind to new experiences. 

Spark a change of perspective by affirming yourself . The next time you’re in a tense meeting, remind yourself that you have the negotiation skills to forge a solution instead of assuming that the situation is too stressful to handle. 

4. Stand in someone else’s shoes

Feelings can be all-consuming when you’re in an emotionally charged situation. A great way to gain perspective is to see a situation from a third-party point of view, like that of a friend or family member. What would they tell you? Perhaps your best friend would say you’re talented and can handle the challenge before you. Try to find that energy within yourself.

5. Assess toxic relationships 

Research shows that when someone expresses an emotion, you’re likely to feel it as well through emotional contagion . That means if you surround yourself with negative people, you might become more negative as well. People who make you feel bad about yourself — whether or not it’s their intention — can also cloud your thinking. 

If someone constantly focuses on the negative or underestimates your skills, they may influence your self-perception. Set boundaries with people who are too critical or whose bad attitudes rub off on you. Your personal and professional circles should uplift you, not bring you down. 


6. Embrace change

Change is inevitable and often offers pleasant surprises, learning moments, and opportunities. But it can also be difficult to accept. Adjusting your perspective can help you overcome the fear , stress , and anxiety of change and approach it with excitement instead. 

Practice gratitude for past lessons and focus on potential positive outcomes in the future. You may miss the tight-knit team you worked with in your previous role, but your new job provides exciting opportunities to reach your full growth potential . 

7. Stop comparing yourself

Social comparison pushes you to rank your achievements and abilities against others’, which can lead to lower self-esteem. For a perspective change, focus instead on appreciating your unique gifts. Congratulate yourself for a job well done, and cite what you did successfully without wondering how others fare and if it’s better or worse than you. Let yourself appreciate your strengths as they are.

8. Help others

A 2023 scientific review showed that volunteering boosts your social, emotional, and physical well-being . It also helps you step out of your comfort zone and gain a new perspective by empathizing with situations outside your own. 

When facing a life challenge, it’s natural to think that your circumstances are uniquely dire. When you volunteer, you help provide solutions for others who are struggling and remind yourself you’re not alone. You’ll also interact with people of all kinds of backgrounds, which can open your mind to new perspectives. 

9. Take care of yourself

Your general well-being can slip when you don’t get enough sleep , proper nutrition , or hydration . The following physical and mental fatigue can cast a negative light on your perceptions. You’ve experienced this phenomenon if you’ve ever felt “ hangry ” and lashed out at someone before mealtime. Taking care of yourself can give you the mental energy you need to seek new perspectives and see situations as they are. 


10. Let little things go 

Some issues deserve your attention. Others are distractions that keep you from focusing on your day and doing your best work. A change in perspective could mean filtering what’s worth worrying about and learning how to let things go. 

Ask yourself what the consequences would be to let a situation go instead of being confrontational or ruminating on the negative. If they’re insignificant, chances are that engaging with this minor upset will only consume energy you could channel into something more productive or enjoyable. 

11. Learn a new skill

Low self-confidence or esteem may be at the root of your negative perspective. Feeling stuck and stagnant in life can pull you into a pessimistic thought spiral and devalue your contributions, contributing to a limiting perspective. Instead, transform and empower yourself by continuing your education. 

Take a class, earn a certification, or learn a new skill — even if just for fun. If you don’t have time for a course, listen to educational podcasts and read personal growth books . You’ll remind yourself how capable you are and empathize with different perspectives. 

12. Practice gratitude

You always have something to be grateful for. But if you don’t make an effort to take stock of your gifts, you may adopt a “nothing’s working out” perspective or a scarcity mindset. Shift the narrative by practicing gratitude for what you have. 

Journaling can encourage you to reflect on the good things in your life. Use a prompt like “List three things you’re grateful for today,” or, “What do you most like about yourself?” to get the ink flowing. Instead of developing an all-or-nothing mindset , you’ll adjust your perspective to appreciate what you have. 


13. Accept yourself 

Nobody’s perfect, so when you aim for perfectionism , you fall into the trap of never feeling like you’re enough. Overcome this tendency by allowing yourself to make mistakes and learning to accept yourself. Shifting your perspective could change your mindset from, “I need to do this perfectly,” to, “I’ll do my best, and that’s enough.” 

14. Ask yourself questions

Challenge the perspectives you automatically form when something goes wrong. All emotions are valid, but that doesn’t mean they’re well-attuned to a situation. Ask yourself whether your emotions are rational, and if you catch yourself overreacting, don’t punish yourself. Explore the feelings that came up in your journal or with the help of a coach . Through that reflection, you can unpack the reasons why you hold this perspective and take steps to deconstruct them. 

15. Think big

A limited perspective can prevent you from considering all aspects of a situation. Zoom out and see the bigger picture when you encounter an issue. At work, this might look like performing an in-depth analysis to understand a problem instead of jumping to conclusions. In your personal life, it could mean asking yourself if and how the current issue impacts your life. If not, take a deep breath, let feelings go, and get back to your day.

When you learn how to change your perspective, you gain a more balanced view of your life. You shake off the rigidity of thinking that situations are positive or negative and understand that they can all help you better yourself . 

But mindset shifts don’t always happen naturally. You have to stop, assess the situation, and interrogate your feelings — and sometimes even start over . It takes work, but it’s worth it to ditch negative current perspectives and move toward a more positive mental attitude .

Transform your life

Make meaningful changes and become the best version of yourself. BetterUp's professional Coaches are here to support your personal growth journey.

Elizabeth Perry, ACC

Elizabeth Perry is a Coach Community Manager at BetterUp. She uses strategic engagement strategies to cultivate a learning community across a global network of Coaches through in-person and virtual experiences, technology-enabled platforms, and strategic coaching industry partnerships. With over 3 years of coaching experience and a certification in transformative leadership and life coaching from Sofia University, Elizabeth leverages transpersonal psychology expertise to help coaches and clients gain awareness of their behavioral and thought patterns, discover their purpose and passions, and elevate their potential. She is a lifelong student of psychology, personal growth, and human potential as well as an ICF-certified ACC transpersonal life and leadership Coach.

Finding the way back to you — 9 tips on how to find yourself

How to get your life together in 10 simple steps, bringing your whole self to work — should you, 10 tips to help you make friends and get along better with others, how being intentional can improve your life, conscious parenting: raise your children by parenting yourself, how to organize your life (and keep it that way), self-care and work-life balance: how to take care of yourself, how to reset your life in 10 ways, similar articles, how to improve emotional intelligence and your life, learned optimism can change your life. here's how, 15 questions to discover your life purpose and drive meaning, improve your life with a new outlook: 10 benefits of positive thinking, understanding cognitive distortions and how to counter them, how to better yourself: 15 tips to improve yourself everyday, 15 tips on how to be more patient and find your zen, how to be optimistic, stay connected with betterup, get our newsletter, event invites, plus product insights and research..

3100 E 5th Street, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78702

  • Platform Overview
  • Integrations
  • Powered by AI
  • BetterUp Lead™
  • BetterUp Manage™
  • BetterUp Care®
  • Sales Performance
  • Diversity & Inclusion
  • Case Studies
  • Why BetterUp?
  • About Coaching
  • Find your Coach
  • Career Coaching
  • Communication Coaching
  • Life Coaching
  • News and Press
  • Leadership Team
  • Become a BetterUp Coach
  • BetterUp Labs
  • Center for Purpose & Performance
  • Leadership Training
  • Business Coaching
  • Contact Support
  • Contact Sales
  • Privacy Policy
  • Acceptable Use Policy
  • Trust & Security
  • Cookie Preferences

Subscribe to the PwC Newsletter

Join the community, edit social preview.

a new perspective essay

Add a new code entry for this paper

Remove a code repository from this paper, mark the official implementation from paper authors, add a new evaluation result row, remove a task, add a method, remove a method, edit datasets, new perspectives on the optimal placement of detectors for suicide bombers using metaheuristics.

29 May 2024  ·  Carlos Cotta , José E. Gallardo · Edit social preview

We consider an operational model of suicide bombing attacks -- an increasingly prevalent form of terrorism -- against specific targets, and the use of protective countermeasures based on the deployment of detectors over the area under threat. These detectors have to be carefully located in order to minimize the expected number of casualties or the economic damage suffered, resulting in a hard optimization problem for which different metaheuristics have been proposed. Rather than assuming random decisions by the attacker, the problem is approached by considering different models of the latter, whereby he takes informed decisions on which objective must be targeted and through which path it has to be reached based on knowledge on the importance or value of the objectives or on the defensive strategy of the defender (a scenario that can be regarded as an adversarial game). We consider four different algorithms, namely a greedy heuristic, a hill climber, tabu search and an evolutionary algorithm, and study their performance on a broad collection of problem instances trying to resemble different realistic settings such as a coastal area, a modern urban area, and the historic core of an old town. It is shown that the adversarial scenario is harder for all techniques, and that the evolutionary algorithm seems to adapt better to the complexity of the resulting search landscape.

Code Edit Add Remove Mark official

Tasks edit add remove, datasets edit, results from the paper edit, methods edit add remove.


  1. How to Write a Perspective Essay? Example & Guide to Writing

    When writing your perspective essay, aim for clarity and coherence. Use clear, concise, and precise language to articulate your ideas. Structure your paragraphs logically, ensuring a smooth flow of thoughts. Support your arguments with relevant examples, anecdotes, or statistics to engage your audience and strengthen your position.

  2. How to Write Perspective Essay: Bringing Your Viewpoint

    A perspective essay is a blend of personal insights and a well-rounded understanding of the topic. It requires introspection, research, and the ability to articulate thoughts in a coherent and engaging manner. ... Such essays invite readers into the writer's world, encouraging them to view familiar scenes through new eyes. By sharing personal ...

  3. Analysis Of The Figures Of Speech Used In A New Perspective ...

    This is the realization that Janice E. Fein describes in her piece, "A New Perspective. " She uses a medley of imagery, figures of speech, and tone to convey her eventual understanding that her mother was cheated in life, not her. ... Feel free to use our essay and paper samples. Get inspiration for your writing task, explore essay ...

  4. How to write a (great) Perspective article

    Like many journals, Journal of Biogeography (JBI) provides a specific forum for researchers to put forward new ideas (or dismantle old ones). In JBI, this article type is the Perspective. Our Author Guidelines state that Perspective papers "should be stimulating and reflective essays providing personal perspectives on key research fields and issues within biogeography".

  5. How to Write a Perspective Essay? Example & Guide to Writing

    2. 10.15.2022. Personal experiences make for great essays. When you use a personal experience to fuel your creativity, the writing process becomes much simpler. A perspective essay is an example of these types of essays. You're drawing on yourself, so the need to research is less. It saves you a lot of time, which a writing service, like essay ...

  6. 3a. Synthesizing Multiple Perspectives

    Synthesis means that you: You synthesize multiple perspectives (including your own) in an essay, and you often synthesize two or more perspectives in a paragraph. Thus, synthesis is a creative and interpretive act. How you put together different perspectives and sources will not be the same as how another writer puts them together.

  7. How to write perspective pieces, commentaries, and opinion articles for

    Perspectives . Perspectives present a new and unique viewpoint on existing problems, fundamental concepts, or prevalent notions on a specific topic, propose and support a new hypothesis, or discuss the implications of a newly implemented innovation. Perspective pieces may focus on current advances and future directions on a topic, and may ...

  8. Justification and the New Perspective on Paul

    The New Perspective correctly understood that the traditional-Protestant view sees justification by faith as the opposite of legalistic works righteousness; one is declared righteous based on Christ's work versus being declared righteous based on one's own works. That is, the traditional-Protestant view sees Paul opposing two soteriological ...

  9. What is a perspective essay?

    A "perspective essay" refers to a type of paper that presents the writer's viewpoint or opinion on a specific topic as a form of personal reflection. The primary goal of a perspective essay is to show your unique perspective and establish a clear argument or position on the subject matter. To write a perspective essay, follow these steps: 1.

  10. Example of a Great Essay

    This essay begins by discussing the situation of blind people in nineteenth-century Europe. It then describes the invention of Braille and the gradual process of its acceptance within blind education. Subsequently, it explores the wide-ranging effects of this invention on blind people's social and cultural lives.

  11. 21 Stellar Common App Essay Examples to Inspire Your College Essay

    Common App Essay Examples. Here are the current Common App prompts. Click the links to jump to the examples for a specific prompt, or keep reading to review the examples for all the prompts. Prompt #1: Some students have a background, identity, interest, or talent that is so meaningful they believe their application would be incomplete without ...

  12. How to Write Brown's Perspective Essay

    Brown's second essay is all about being challenged by a perspective different from your own. One of the trickiest parts about this essay is to avoid focusing on presenting the two perspectives and the battle between them. This is not the point of the prompt. Brown admissions officers want to read about your perspective and your thought ...

  13. How To Write a Critical Perspective Essay

    Whilst a critical perspective essay is essentially your own viewpoint, it is important to demonstrate how you have arrived at that view, based on research, evaluation of the evidence and an objective assessment of the facts. Stage three draws up an outline of the arguments /points you wish to make in your essay and put them in a logical order.

  14. The Four Main Types of Essay

    An essay is a focused piece of writing designed to inform or persuade. There are many different types of essay, but they are often defined in four categories: argumentative, expository, narrative, and descriptive essays. Argumentative and expository essays are focused on conveying information and making clear points, while narrative and ...

  15. What Is a Perspective Essay?

    A perspective essay is different than most academic essays because it presents a unique opportunity for the writer to sound off on a particular topic. ... The conclusion should summarize the essay and restate your thesis in a new way. Since a perspective essay includes your personal experiences, it should be written in the first-person point of ...

  16. The New Perspective on Paul: A Bibliographical Essay

    Michael B. Thompson, The New Perspective on Paul (Cambridge: Grove Books Limited, 2002). Probably the best introduction to the NPP in print. Antecedents to Sanders. C. G. Montefiore, Judaism and St. Paul: Two Essays (New York: Dutton, 1915). The Judaism that Paul knew was a cold form of Diaspora Judaism and not Rabbinic Judaism.

  17. Perspective Essay Collections

    These essays, published as Perspective articles, explore the realities faced by people driven to seek a better life in a land of often-false promise. In the Shadows August 15, 2013 | H. Scornik

  18. Essay on A New Perspective

    1523 Words. 7 Pages. 8 Works Cited. Open Document. A New Perspective. Poets in American history have struggled over time to create or find a distinct American voice among the many different cultural influences and borrowed styles. Each era of poets contributed to the search in a slightly different way, but it was the modernists that really ...

  19. How to Write an Argumentative Essay

    Make a claim. Provide the grounds (evidence) for the claim. Explain the warrant (how the grounds support the claim) Discuss possible rebuttals to the claim, identifying the limits of the argument and showing that you have considered alternative perspectives. The Toulmin model is a common approach in academic essays.

  20. How to Write the Fordham University Essay 2023-2024

    Whatever you choose to write about, make it unique, focus on you and your best qualities, and then come full circle by connecting it to Fordham! It's only 300 words, so keep it simple, focused, and make sure to put your best foot forward. Option 3. Our motto is "New York is my campus, Fordham is my school.".

  21. How to Change Your Perspective: 15 Tips to Shift Your Mindset

    3. Turn inner monologues positive. The voice in your head may narrate negative thoughts, like "I could never get that promotion," or, "I'll always be alone.". This action can dampen your self-esteem and close off your mind to new experiences. Spark a change of perspective by affirming yourself.

  22. Essay On A New Perspective

    The essay "A New Perspective" is both heartwarming and heart wrenching, an essay that stands out to me above the rest. This child spends all her time wishing that she had the family life of the children who surround her. The family dinners, a parent who participates in volunteer days, a mom waiting at the end of that cold winter day to pick ...

  23. Papers with Code

    We consider an operational model of suicide bombing attacks -- an increasingly prevalent form of terrorism -- against specific targets, and the use of protective countermeasures based on the deployment of detectors over the area under threat.

  24. A new perspective on internal turbine blade cooling by perforated

    The cooling configuration, sequentially combining perforated blockages (forming blockage jets) and a pin-fin array inside the trailing-edge of a turbine blade has been perceived unsuitable due to the presumed inferior thermal performance (η < 1.0).In the present study, we provide a new perspective on this particular cooling configuration, based on fluidic mechanisms, newly established in a ...

  25. Collage is the New Writing: Exploring the Fragmentation of Text and

    The essay then employs Collage as an analytical lens to analyse the user interface design of recent AI writing tools, and as a constructive lens to inspire new design directions. Finally, a critical perspective relates the concerns that writers historically expressed through literary collage to AI writing tools.

  26. Understanding the influencing factors of energy ...

    China's economy has transtioned into the "new normal", which demands higher standards for energy utilization efficiency. Meanwhile, the spatial distribution of China's energy consumption and economic development exhibits a significant imbalance, complicating efforts to achieve Pareto optimization of regional energy allocation efficiency. Addressing this issue, this study explores the ...