Where is Boasting?: Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul's Response in Romans 1–5 [Paperback]

Simon J. Gathercole (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: October 24, 2002

This important work challenges the validity of the "New Perspective" on Paul and Judaism. Working with new data fom Jewish literature and a fresh reading of Romans 1–5, Simon Gathercole produces a far-reaching criticism of the current approach to Paul and points a new way forward.

Building on a detailed examination of the past generation of scholarship on Paul and early Judaism, Gathercole's work follows two paths. First, he shows that while early Judaism was not truly oriented around legalistic works-righteousness, it did consider obedience to the Law to be an important criterion at the final judgment. On the basis of this reconstruction of Jewish thought and a rereading of Romans 1–5, Gathercole advances his main argument — that Paul did indeed combat a Jewish perspective that saw obedience to the Law both as possible and as a criterion for vindication at the final judgment. Paul's reply is that obedience to the Law is not a criterion for the final judgment because human nature makes obedience to the Law impossible. His doctrine of justification can therefore be properly viewed in its Jewish context, yet anthropological issues also take center stage.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Simon J. Gathercole is lecturer for the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge.

Product Details

• Paperback: 318 pages
• Publisher: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (October 24, 2002)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0802839916
• ISBN-13: 978-0802839916
• Product Dimensions: 6.8 x 0.9 x 8.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12.8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (5 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,161,628 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

24 of 28 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars Very Interesting April 28, 2005

By theologicalresearcher

Format:Paperback

This work by Simon J. Gathercole is another attempt to question the merits of the so-called New Perspective on Paul. There are two major parts to this work. In the first half (pp. 37-194), Gathercole examines Jewish soteriology in the pre and post 70 A.D. situation. He notes that in all the strands of Judaism and its major literature (Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.), there is a heavy emphasis (contrary to Sanders) on the necessity of obedience/works to vindicate/justify oneself before God at the last judgment. Gathercole's main point is that contrary to Sanders and his followers early Judaism was a works-righteousness religion (though grace was not absent in Jewish soteriology). One thing I found quite interesting about this section is his discussion of Jewish soteriology in the New Testament (pp. 112-135). He argues that Jewish works-righteousness soteriology was adopted in some form by Christians in the first century as evidenced in such writings as James 2 and Revelation 20:11-15. According to Gathercole, these passages do not say that good works are merely the fruits of having received God's grace (i.e., saved) but that these good works actually DETERMINE one's eternal destiny at the last judgment (p. 135).

The second half of the work (pp. 195-262) is an exposition of Paul's response to early Judaism in Romans 1-5. What is interesting about Gathercole's take on Romans 1-3 is that contrary to traditionalist approaches to this passage, Paul was not combatting Jewish legalism but about Jewish presumptuousness! What Paul condemned was the over-confident attitude of many Jews of his time regarding their "saved" status. His polemic in Romans 1-2 was to teach Jews that they are just as guilty as Gentiles for their sins and that they have no right to claim covenantal privilege or superiority as a result. I found this conclusion by Gathercole quite interesting (however, I was not convinced). However, Gathercole agrees with traditionalist scholars that Paul opposed the law because it could not bring redemption to anyone (Gentile or Jew) who followed it and that his doctrine of justification by faith was already an essential part of his theological understanding of God and humanity (contrary to many New Perspective advocates who argue that Paul's doctrine of justification by faith arose out of situational concerns). Having said that, readers should be aware that Gathercole departs from the traditional Protestant understanding of grace and salvation on a number of points. For instance, he acknowledges that good works are determinative on where a person will spend eternity. He also denies the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believing sinners (p. 224). One can say that Gethercole presents a non-traditionalist critique of the New Perspective on Paul.

Overall, this work is a useful resource for those wanting a good understanding of early Jewish soteriology and how Paul responded to it in Romans 1-5.

7 of 7 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars A Crucial Contribution to the New Perspective on Paul Debate December 31, 2008

By S. E. Paynter

Format:Paperback

This is the published version of Simon Gathercole's PhD thesis, which
he did under the supervision of James D.G. Dunn. However, Gathercole's
conclusions are significantly more conservative than his supervisor's.
It is undoubtedly the case that this book makes a real contribution to
the `New Perspective' debate, and any history of this controversy has
to take this contribution into account.

The New Perspective on Paul was launched in 1977 with the publication
of E.P. Sander's, `Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of
Patterns of Religion'. Sander's attempted to show that Second-Temple
Palestinian Judaism was not the works-righteousness obsessed,
legalistic religion that it was often presented as being. Instead he
argued that it had a `pattern' which he called `covenantal nomism'. A
pattern of a religion was characterised by two questions - how one
`got in' to the religion, and `how one stayed in'. Sanders argued that
Judaism was a gracious rather than a legalistic religion, as one got
into the religion if one was a Jew through the gracious election of
Abraham, not by observing the Mosaic Law. Obedience to the Law was how
one stayed in the covenant.

Gathercole starts with some very helpful and important observations
concerning the slippery-ness of such terms as `self-righteousness',
`legalism', `merit-theology' and `works-righteousness'. Failure to
understand this plagues the New Perspective on Paul debate.

Gathercole then challenges Sander's concept of `pattern', arguing that
his two questions are inadequate. He suggests that they betray the
typical `liberal' downplaying of eschatology. He argues that they need
to be supplemented with the question `how one finally gets there'.

Gathercole then proceeds to reexamine the relevant literature from
Second Temple Judaism with this question in mind, and he finds that
belief in an ultimate judgment on the basis of one's observances is
widespread, suggesting that grace played a much smaller role in early
Jewish soteriology than Sanders suggested.

Gathercole then provides a fairly conservative exposition of Romans
1-5, with a particular emphasis on how Paul's gospel is designed to
make boasting before God impossible.

It is hard to over-emphasise how important the contribution is that
this thesis makes to the proper assessment of Sanders' work. It is not
the final or last word in showing the weaknesses of the New
Perspective, but it is an important element.

19 of 26 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars a response to Theologicalresearcher's review June 17, 2005

By David Wenkel

Format:Paperback

"Theologicalresearcher" gave a fairly good review. However, his review itself is VERY misleading in the area of Protestant Orthodoxy. His review notes p.224 as evidence that Gathercole denies imputation of Christ's righteousness. This is bogus. Gathercole, as far as I can tell, is simply referring to the meaning of a particular passage!! He is not denying Christ's imputation in justification!! In contrast, note p.243 n79 where Gathercole says "Paul retains a theology of `simul iustus et peccator.'" Clearly one cannot hold to that doctrine and deny imputation of Christ's righteousness. Again, on p.251 Gathercole says "[J]ustification can be seen to be... an act .. where righteousness is positively counted to the one who believes, but also an act of forgiveness, where sin is not reckoned, but covered."

Gathercole can be confusing and so can a lot of other Pauline scholars. But care should be taken when shouting "heretic!" Gathercole may even be one. But "Theologicalresearcher" hasn't proved it. Claims to departure from Orthodoxy should be done with care.