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'. Sanders 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.