What do you think?
Rate this book
Paul and Palestinian Judaism: 40th Anniversary Edition
This landmark work, which has shaped a generation of scholarship, compares the apostle Paul with contemporary Judaism, both understood on their own terms. E. P. Sanders proposes a methodology for comparing similar but distinct religious patterns, demolishes a flawed view of rabbinic Judaism still prevalent in much New Testament scholarship, and argues for a distinct understanding of the apostle and of the consequences of his conversion. A new foreword by Mark A. Chancey outlines Sanders's achievement, reviews the principal criticisms raised against it, and describes the legacy he leaves future interpreters.
672 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1977
95 people are currently reading
619 people want to read
About the author
E.P. Sanders
22 books72 followersEd Parish Sanders is a New Testament scholar, and is one of the principal proponents of the New Perspective on Paul. He has been Arts and Sciences Professor of Religion at Duke University, North Carolina, since 1990. He retired in 2005
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
November 6, 2011
Fortunately the exhaustive footnote references are at the bottom of each page, rather than at the end of each chapter, or even worse, the end of the book. I wasn't sure if i should even list books like this here. If you're into this sort of thing, then you already know who E.P Sanders is, and how many of his works, especially this one, challenged the prevalent Billerbeck/Kittel thinking of the time. This is NOT a Theological approach. This is a historical and cultural approach taking advantage of the abundance of Hebrew, rabbinic, and tannaitic literature, written before, during, and after the first century.
February 3, 2008
The second book in this series of outstanding books with a poignant back story associated with them is PAUL AND PALESTINIAN JUDAISM by E. P. Sanders.
A breakthrough book on the subject, it is dedicated “In memory of Susan Phillips, July 2 1947 – September 26 1975.
PAUL AND PALESTINIAN JUDAISM was so important because it was really the first major work to get both Christian and Jewish scholars focused on the deep and complex links between first century Judaism and the first century heresy of Judaism which became known as Christianity. Much New Testament scholarship by English but especially German scholars who were fluent in Greek (the so-called "High Criticsm" of the late 19th century) emphasised the radical differences between first century Judaism and Pauline theology. This emphasis both co-existed and fed a wider, diffuse, and intellectually groundless anti-Semitism, to which it seemed to lend a certain legitimacy.
By drawing attention to the many similarities between first century Judaism and the Jewish movement which became known as Christianity, Sanders began a healing process which for the last generation has led to a growing movement of scholarship, by both Christian and Jewish scholars, which has gone a long way to bridge tragic old misunderstandings.
The last paragraph of the Preface expands as follows: “The principal burden of preparing the manuscript for the press was carried by Susan Phillips. Between 1969 and late 1975 she helped organise and carry out my administrative duties so that I would have time for research and writing, typed almost countless drafts of various parts of the manuscript, conformed the footnote and manuscript style to the requirements of the press, checked the English language quotations in Chapter I and Chapter III, and finally prepared, in the first twenty days of September, 1975, an almost flawless typescript of some 1,100 pages. For these things alone I would have recorded my warmest admiration, respect and gratitude. But, when she died, we had been looking forward to a long and happy life together; this book is offered as a memorial to her and that hope.”
A breakthrough book on the subject, it is dedicated “In memory of Susan Phillips, July 2 1947 – September 26 1975.
PAUL AND PALESTINIAN JUDAISM was so important because it was really the first major work to get both Christian and Jewish scholars focused on the deep and complex links between first century Judaism and the first century heresy of Judaism which became known as Christianity. Much New Testament scholarship by English but especially German scholars who were fluent in Greek (the so-called "High Criticsm" of the late 19th century) emphasised the radical differences between first century Judaism and Pauline theology. This emphasis both co-existed and fed a wider, diffuse, and intellectually groundless anti-Semitism, to which it seemed to lend a certain legitimacy.
By drawing attention to the many similarities between first century Judaism and the Jewish movement which became known as Christianity, Sanders began a healing process which for the last generation has led to a growing movement of scholarship, by both Christian and Jewish scholars, which has gone a long way to bridge tragic old misunderstandings.
The last paragraph of the Preface expands as follows: “The principal burden of preparing the manuscript for the press was carried by Susan Phillips. Between 1969 and late 1975 she helped organise and carry out my administrative duties so that I would have time for research and writing, typed almost countless drafts of various parts of the manuscript, conformed the footnote and manuscript style to the requirements of the press, checked the English language quotations in Chapter I and Chapter III, and finally prepared, in the first twenty days of September, 1975, an almost flawless typescript of some 1,100 pages. For these things alone I would have recorded my warmest admiration, respect and gratitude. But, when she died, we had been looking forward to a long and happy life together; this book is offered as a memorial to her and that hope.”
March 9, 2021
When this book came out in 1977, it caused quite a shock wave in Pauline Studies, bringing forth a new era in the field, commonly referred to as the "New Perspective on Paul." Perhaps, though, this volume should have been titled, “Palestinian Judaism and Paul,” rather than "Paul and Palestinian Judaism," because Judaism takes center stage. In many ways, one might say that Sanders has not so much given us a new perspective on Paul—although of course he has—as he has given us a new perspective on Judaism, which is incredibly important for Paul's writings.
Sanders' writing is sometimes a bit too dry--I enjoy the writing styles of Wright and Dunn quite a bit more. I also wish that he would have included in his survey of Paul some of the writings he would consider "deutero-Pauline," especially Colossians and Ephesians--both of which he concedes seem to carry on the legacy of Paul accurately and well. Overall, though, this book is fascinating and helpfully pushes back against some presuppositions not only about Paul but primarily about Second Temple Judaism. Fundamentally, Sanders' hope is to show that Judaism is quite a bit different than how it has been characterized by Christianity since the time of the Reformation and that this has tremendous insights for how we are to also read Paul.
Sanders' writing is sometimes a bit too dry--I enjoy the writing styles of Wright and Dunn quite a bit more. I also wish that he would have included in his survey of Paul some of the writings he would consider "deutero-Pauline," especially Colossians and Ephesians--both of which he concedes seem to carry on the legacy of Paul accurately and well. Overall, though, this book is fascinating and helpfully pushes back against some presuppositions not only about Paul but primarily about Second Temple Judaism. Fundamentally, Sanders' hope is to show that Judaism is quite a bit different than how it has been characterized by Christianity since the time of the Reformation and that this has tremendous insights for how we are to also read Paul.
November 6, 2025
E. P. Sanders research = 10 out of 10
This book’s importance and impact in Pauline scholarship = 10 out of 10
The book is good, well written, and great research on first century Palestine. It’s good and definitely an important book especially in his methodology.
Edit: I read this 2 years ago. I need to reread it. I don’t think when I read it how important it was 🤓
This book’s importance and impact in Pauline scholarship = 10 out of 10
The book is good, well written, and great research on first century Palestine. It’s good and definitely an important book especially in his methodology.
Edit: I read this 2 years ago. I need to reread it. I don’t think when I read it how important it was 🤓
May 28, 2024
I feel like this should be required reading for any Christian trying to understand Paul and his theology and context.
June 29, 2011
Sanders painstakingly explores key themes in second temple Judaism from tannaitic writings, Dead Sea Scrolls and various apocryphal works. He builds up the case that Jews at the time of Paul's writings generally had a notion of covenantal nomism, that being a part of Israel puts one in the covenant and obeying the law maintains that status. Transgressions are dealt with via repentance and appropriate temple sacrifice. The concept of election is generally a corporate one including all of Israel, except in the case perhaps of the Qumran community which excluded non sectarian Israelites from election. Likewise another notable exception to these general patterns is IV Ezra which sets a very high bar for covenantal maintenance and seems to require near perfect obedience. These exceptions serve to highlight the rule however, that Jews understood God's grace and mercy perfectly well and understood that repentance was the way to deal with transgression.
Paul understood these themes perfectly well but worked from a different model altogether. Paul insisted that obedience of the law maintains one in covenant which has the wrong ends. Sanders argues that Paul starts from assuming the overarching significance of the death and resurrection of Jesus is central. He then argues that the best way to interpret Paul is from his participatory rhetoric. The key is to belong to the body of Christ, to walk in the Spirit, and maintenance of that requires basic obedience. The basic reality is those who belong to the body of Christ, and are freed from the power of sin, and those who do not and are perishing. Another key theme is the Lordship of Christ, those who belong to Christ are saved by him. Sanders argues that the German scholars, with their focus on righteousness and faith in a jurist miss what is more properly seen as the governing framework of Paul's thought. While Paul does talk about righteousness the usage is secondary. The key of faith, of believing, is that it admits one to the body of Christ, and then one is found righteous.
Sanders covers a lot of ground and by the time his analysis of Paul is reached in the last fifth of the book much of what he had discuss in its details had faded away. I would have preferred a more interactive approach, including analysis of Paul's thought throughout.
Paul understood these themes perfectly well but worked from a different model altogether. Paul insisted that obedience of the law maintains one in covenant which has the wrong ends. Sanders argues that Paul starts from assuming the overarching significance of the death and resurrection of Jesus is central. He then argues that the best way to interpret Paul is from his participatory rhetoric. The key is to belong to the body of Christ, to walk in the Spirit, and maintenance of that requires basic obedience. The basic reality is those who belong to the body of Christ, and are freed from the power of sin, and those who do not and are perishing. Another key theme is the Lordship of Christ, those who belong to Christ are saved by him. Sanders argues that the German scholars, with their focus on righteousness and faith in a jurist miss what is more properly seen as the governing framework of Paul's thought. While Paul does talk about righteousness the usage is secondary. The key of faith, of believing, is that it admits one to the body of Christ, and then one is found righteous.
Sanders covers a lot of ground and by the time his analysis of Paul is reached in the last fifth of the book much of what he had discuss in its details had faded away. I would have preferred a more interactive approach, including analysis of Paul's thought throughout.
December 2, 2012
REVIEW Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. London: SCM, 1977.
Sanders is credited for his thesis of “covenantal nomism” in the first-century Palestinian Judaism as a religion of God’s gracious election of Israel people and the promise of collective redemption.
Sanders argued that the traditional Christian interpretation that Paul’s polemics being against Rabbinic legalism was misunderstanding, and the interpretation of Paul’s doctrines was misguided by a level of individualism that was not present in Paul’s historical context. Paul’s religion was not radically different from the Jewish religion of the first-century in terms of their common pattern of covenantal nomism.
The key difference between pre-Christian Judaism and Pauline teaching resides in the principle of how a person participates in the People of God: the Jewish principle was by virtue of God’s covenant with Abraham plus one’s staying in the covenant with the keeping of the Law. But Paul’s principle was through faith in Christ, and one still in need of demonstrating God’s grace through good deeds. Paul’s version of covenantal nomism is christological.
The comprehensive examination of Sanders’ thesis has been done in Justification and Variegated Nomism (edited by Carson, D. A., Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Grand Rapids: Baker; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.) With the increasing knowledge of the early Judaism in the scholarship, Sanders remains influential in the New Perspective of Paul, however his thesis is considered inconclusive and need more qualification.
Sanders is credited for his thesis of “covenantal nomism” in the first-century Palestinian Judaism as a religion of God’s gracious election of Israel people and the promise of collective redemption.
Sanders argued that the traditional Christian interpretation that Paul’s polemics being against Rabbinic legalism was misunderstanding, and the interpretation of Paul’s doctrines was misguided by a level of individualism that was not present in Paul’s historical context. Paul’s religion was not radically different from the Jewish religion of the first-century in terms of their common pattern of covenantal nomism.
The key difference between pre-Christian Judaism and Pauline teaching resides in the principle of how a person participates in the People of God: the Jewish principle was by virtue of God’s covenant with Abraham plus one’s staying in the covenant with the keeping of the Law. But Paul’s principle was through faith in Christ, and one still in need of demonstrating God’s grace through good deeds. Paul’s version of covenantal nomism is christological.
The comprehensive examination of Sanders’ thesis has been done in Justification and Variegated Nomism (edited by Carson, D. A., Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Grand Rapids: Baker; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001.) With the increasing knowledge of the early Judaism in the scholarship, Sanders remains influential in the New Perspective of Paul, however his thesis is considered inconclusive and need more qualification.
June 28, 2016
Classic formulation of the New Perspective on Paul. Sanders offers the groundbreaking work which sets the stage for Dunn and Wright. He draws his roots from Bultmann, Schweizer, and other form critics but overturns their representation of Palestinian Judaism.
This work is a true representation of meticulous scholarship. Yet one is left wondering, at the conclusion, whether Sanders fully understood the implications of his conclusion and how that might be implemented accurately. His study of Paul leaves much to be desired and is ultimately inconclusive and his conclusion does, somewhat, seem to contradict some of his earlier work in the book.
I haven't taken the time to explore the breath of responses, reviews, and revisions of this theory so my thoughts are very inconclusive at this point. An important read for any NT student even if a bit tedious.
This work is a true representation of meticulous scholarship. Yet one is left wondering, at the conclusion, whether Sanders fully understood the implications of his conclusion and how that might be implemented accurately. His study of Paul leaves much to be desired and is ultimately inconclusive and his conclusion does, somewhat, seem to contradict some of his earlier work in the book.
I haven't taken the time to explore the breath of responses, reviews, and revisions of this theory so my thoughts are very inconclusive at this point. An important read for any NT student even if a bit tedious.
October 26, 2021
Fantastic book. Extremely insightful regarding Judaism(s) throughout the second temple period and into the second century. Sanders has some very interesting views regarding Paul, but there are few that surpass his knowledge of Jewish religion between 200 bce and 200 ce. Highly academic, somewhat long (around 600 pages), and very dense. But it is well worth the read. If you can make it through, you will easily discover why this book has been considered the biggest shift in Pauline studies within the past century.
July 8, 2012
Great book. I would rated it higher if Sanders had given some credit to other scholars who previously had published similar ideas about Paul's relationship with Judaism. A tip of the hat to R.N. Longenecker for his "Paul, apostle of liberty" published in the 60's would have seemed appropriate. Nevertheless, this is a classic work and a must read for Pauline studies.
October 29, 2014
E. P. Sanders does a good job at bringing attention to second temple sources. His thesis though of covenantal nomism is flawed. He cherry picks from the plethora of second temple sources and deals most with text that seemingly agree with his thesis that election into the people of God is by God's grace and the ability to remain saved in Gods community. overall though it is a good and easy read.
February 28, 2019
Not a light read. Sanders presents a thorough survey of Jewish soteriology and then compares it to Paul's letter while criticizing the academic norm of New Testament scholarship. I do admire his examination and agree with a lot of what he brings to light about Judaism. However, I ultimately disagree with his conclusion. A must-read for anyone seeking out Pauline studies.
September 7, 2015
I can see why this was a game-changer in Pauline studies. Incisive. As objective as one can attempt to be. Persuasive. A great and insightful challenge to our modern readings of ancient Jewish texts.
Worth your time.
NQ
Worth your time.
NQ
July 4, 2017
What am I going to do, give this book a bad review?
June 1, 2025
AN IMPORTANT AND INFLUENTIAL WORK FOR PAULINE AND NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES
Ed Parish Sanders (born 1937) was Professor of Religion at Duke University from 1990 until his retirement in 2005.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1977 book, “The present work is the result of rather a long period of research and thought… I first started to work seriously on what I then thought of as the Jewish ‘background’ of the New Testament… During this period I not only came to the obvious conclusion that Judaism must be studied in its own right, but, as I became increasingly immersed in the study of rabbinic religion, I also began to focus on a somewhat different project from the one first outlined: a comparative study limited to Palestinian Judaism and the most obvious New Testament writer, Paul. The present work is the result of that study. The more I studied Jewish sources, the more it became apparent that it would be wrong and futile to try to write as if I were not primarily a student of the New Testament… I have attempted to compare Judaism, understood on its own terms, with Paul, understood on his own terms…” (Pg. xi)
“I am trying to accomplish at least six things. The chief aims are these: --to consider methodologically how to compare two… related but different religions; --to destroy the view of Rabbinic Judaism which is still prevalent in much… New Testament scholarship; --to establish a different view of Rabbinic Judaism; --to argue a case concerning Palestinian Judaism … as a whole; --to argue for a certain understanding of Paul; --to carry out a comparison of Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Those various aims are not contradictory but complementary… It should be noted that the fourth and sixth constitute the general aim of the book…” (Pg. xii)
In the Introduction, he points out, “What is needed is a comparison which takes account of both the numerous agreements and the disagreements---not only the disagreements as stated by Paul, but those evident from the Jewish side, the discrepancy between Paul’s depiction of Judaism and Judaism as reflected in Jewish sources. What is needed, in other words, is to compare Paul on his own terms with Judaism on its own terms.” (Pg. 12)
After quoting from a Jewish commentary on Leviticus 1:2, he observes, “Nothing could show more clearly that fulfilling the commandments… is a privilege and obligation FOR THOSE IN THE COVENANT. Those outside, even if they were born ISRAELITES, are excluded from both the privilege and the responsibility. The commandments accompany the covenant. The question now arises of whether or not the covenant is earned by fulfilling the law.” (Pg. 84)
He points out, “Since the Rabbis conceived man’s side of religion to be fulfilling the commandments, and since the biblical commandments… are nevertheless difficult or even impossible fully to obey, one might expect the Rabbis to evidence severe guilt feelings. Actually, this is not so… the precise identification of what is obligatory and what not, of what is transgression and what not, of what is sufficient atonement and what not is actually a way not of increasing the neurotic feeling of guilt but of removing it. If a man is in doubt, he can get a ruling and be forgiven. If the court rules him not obligated on a certain point, he has no further responsibility.” (Pg. 115)
He notes, “If one asks how the idea that God is just and pays to each his due is to be reconciled into a doctrinal unity with the statement that God’s mercy predominates over his justice, the answer is… that this is not a doctrinal system in which every statement has a logical place… But there should be no doubt that the latter type of statement---that mercy outweighs justice---reflects the Rabbinic attitude towards God at its most basic level… The Rabbis never said that God is merciful in such a way as to remove the necessity of obeying him, but they did think that God was merciful toward those who basically intended to obey, even though their performance might have been a long way from perfect.” (Pg. 124-125)
He explains, “Rabbinic soteriology does not consist of balancing merits against demerits. The Rabbis certainly believed that God would punish transgression and reward obedience, but it is not a Rabbinic doctrine that one’s place in the world to come is determined by counting or weighing his deeds.” (Pg. 146) Later, he observes, “Thus there are two different theologies, one of works and one of grace. The same people could believe on the one hand that they had no intrinsic merit to commend them to God and that they had been chosen only by his grace, while holding on the other hand that they had to walk perfectly according to God’s ordinances and that they could achieve legal perfection.” (Pg. 292) He continued, “grace and works were not considered alternative roads to salvation. Salvation … is always by the grace of God, embodied in the covenant.” (Pg. 297)
He acknowledges, “The Qumran sectarians, like other Palestinian Jews of the period, were not systematic theologians. Various answers to various questions would be regarded as true, without examining whether or not the various answers cohered with one another.” (Pg. 265) He continues, “But why did God now choose some Israelites and not others? This problem… elicited two answers: God chose some but not others because he decided to do so; God chooses those who choose way and rejects those who despise his commandments. BOTH OF THESE ANSWERS, depending on the circumstances, could be considered to be true.” (Pg. 266)
He summarizes, “the concern to obey… turns out to show a reliance of God’s fidelity to the covenant which contains the laws, not an anxious concern to learn how, by obedience, to win God’s favor… the debates about which means of atonement atone for which sins… reveal three things: (1) that there was a means of atonement for every transgression; (2) that the Rabbis were concerned with atonement as a living religious issue; (3) that, since atonement for individual sins RESTORES the penitent sinner to the right relationship with God, he originally HAD a right relationship to God… established by God’s mercy and maintained by the individual’s obedience and repentance and by God’s forgiveness… the Rabbis… did not count and weigh merits against demerits… they believed that God has provided for the salvation of all faithful members of Israel… The best title for this sort of religion is ‘covenantal nomism.’” (Pg. 235-236)
He states, “Because of the consistency with which covenantal nomism is maintained from early in the second century BCE to late in the second century CE, it must be hypothesized that covenantal nomism was PERVASIVE in Palestine before 70. It was thus the basic TYPE of religion known by Jesus and presumably by Paul… The frequent Christian charge against Judaism … [is that] Judaism necessarily tends toward petty legalism, self-serving and deceiving casuistry, and a mixture of arrogance and lack of confidence in God. But the surviving Jewish literature is as free of these characteristics as any I have ever read. By consistently maintaining the basic framework of covenantal nomism, the gift and demand of God were kept in a healthy relationship with each other.” (Pg. 426-427)
After quoting Philippians 3:4-12, he comments, “Paul himself was aware of his own shift in the meaning of the term righteousness. There IS a righteousness which is based on works of the law. Here Paul does not… simply deny that there is any such thing… he argues… that the righteousness based on works of the law is not TRUE righteousness or the right kind of righteousness… The only proper righteousness is Christian righteousness, which … is based on faith… This means… that we must give up the view that ‘righteousness; in Paul has strictly the same ‘forensic-eschatological’ meaning which it is supposed to have in Judaism… he cannot be denying the JEWISH righteousness comes by the law; for that righteousness is DEFINED as being Torah obedience… He is rather denying that the TRUE GOAL OF RELIGION comes by the law… Paul does not know this on the basis of his analysis of human existence but on the basis of his experience of the power of Christ’s resurrection.” (Pg. 505-506)
He adds, “Thus Paul’s assurance of salvation was not assurance that his work was perfect nor that at the judgment nothing would be revealed against him for which he could be punished… the distinction between being judged on the basis of deeds… and being saved by God’s gracious election … was the general view of Rabbinic literature.” (Pg. 517)
He admits, “it is not necessarily the case that we are dealing only with intellectual differences… One may hazard the guess that the experience of being ‘in Christ’ was not the same as being ‘in Israel.’ This is a matter which is much more opaque to research … and we must be content with analyzing how religion appears in Jewish and Pauline thought.” (Pg. 549)
He concludes, “Our analysis of Rabbinic and other Palestinian Jewish literature did not reveal the kind of religion best characterized as legalistic works-righteousness. But… that charge is not the heart of Paul’s critique… the basis for Paul’s polemic against the law… was his exclusivist soteriology. Since salvation is only by Christ, the following of any other path is wrong… the law is good, even DOING the law is good, but salvation is only by Christ; therefore the entire system represented by the law is worthless for salvation… He simply saw the old dispensation as worthless in comparison with the new.” (Pg. 550-551)
This is an extremely important work, that will be “must reading” for anyone studying Jewish/Christian theology, Paul’s theology, the “New Perspective on Paul,” or the historical background for Jesus and the New Testament.
Ed Parish Sanders (born 1937) was Professor of Religion at Duke University from 1990 until his retirement in 2005.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1977 book, “The present work is the result of rather a long period of research and thought… I first started to work seriously on what I then thought of as the Jewish ‘background’ of the New Testament… During this period I not only came to the obvious conclusion that Judaism must be studied in its own right, but, as I became increasingly immersed in the study of rabbinic religion, I also began to focus on a somewhat different project from the one first outlined: a comparative study limited to Palestinian Judaism and the most obvious New Testament writer, Paul. The present work is the result of that study. The more I studied Jewish sources, the more it became apparent that it would be wrong and futile to try to write as if I were not primarily a student of the New Testament… I have attempted to compare Judaism, understood on its own terms, with Paul, understood on his own terms…” (Pg. xi)
“I am trying to accomplish at least six things. The chief aims are these: --to consider methodologically how to compare two… related but different religions; --to destroy the view of Rabbinic Judaism which is still prevalent in much… New Testament scholarship; --to establish a different view of Rabbinic Judaism; --to argue a case concerning Palestinian Judaism … as a whole; --to argue for a certain understanding of Paul; --to carry out a comparison of Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Those various aims are not contradictory but complementary… It should be noted that the fourth and sixth constitute the general aim of the book…” (Pg. xii)
In the Introduction, he points out, “What is needed is a comparison which takes account of both the numerous agreements and the disagreements---not only the disagreements as stated by Paul, but those evident from the Jewish side, the discrepancy between Paul’s depiction of Judaism and Judaism as reflected in Jewish sources. What is needed, in other words, is to compare Paul on his own terms with Judaism on its own terms.” (Pg. 12)
After quoting from a Jewish commentary on Leviticus 1:2, he observes, “Nothing could show more clearly that fulfilling the commandments… is a privilege and obligation FOR THOSE IN THE COVENANT. Those outside, even if they were born ISRAELITES, are excluded from both the privilege and the responsibility. The commandments accompany the covenant. The question now arises of whether or not the covenant is earned by fulfilling the law.” (Pg. 84)
He points out, “Since the Rabbis conceived man’s side of religion to be fulfilling the commandments, and since the biblical commandments… are nevertheless difficult or even impossible fully to obey, one might expect the Rabbis to evidence severe guilt feelings. Actually, this is not so… the precise identification of what is obligatory and what not, of what is transgression and what not, of what is sufficient atonement and what not is actually a way not of increasing the neurotic feeling of guilt but of removing it. If a man is in doubt, he can get a ruling and be forgiven. If the court rules him not obligated on a certain point, he has no further responsibility.” (Pg. 115)
He notes, “If one asks how the idea that God is just and pays to each his due is to be reconciled into a doctrinal unity with the statement that God’s mercy predominates over his justice, the answer is… that this is not a doctrinal system in which every statement has a logical place… But there should be no doubt that the latter type of statement---that mercy outweighs justice---reflects the Rabbinic attitude towards God at its most basic level… The Rabbis never said that God is merciful in such a way as to remove the necessity of obeying him, but they did think that God was merciful toward those who basically intended to obey, even though their performance might have been a long way from perfect.” (Pg. 124-125)
He explains, “Rabbinic soteriology does not consist of balancing merits against demerits. The Rabbis certainly believed that God would punish transgression and reward obedience, but it is not a Rabbinic doctrine that one’s place in the world to come is determined by counting or weighing his deeds.” (Pg. 146) Later, he observes, “Thus there are two different theologies, one of works and one of grace. The same people could believe on the one hand that they had no intrinsic merit to commend them to God and that they had been chosen only by his grace, while holding on the other hand that they had to walk perfectly according to God’s ordinances and that they could achieve legal perfection.” (Pg. 292) He continued, “grace and works were not considered alternative roads to salvation. Salvation … is always by the grace of God, embodied in the covenant.” (Pg. 297)
He acknowledges, “The Qumran sectarians, like other Palestinian Jews of the period, were not systematic theologians. Various answers to various questions would be regarded as true, without examining whether or not the various answers cohered with one another.” (Pg. 265) He continues, “But why did God now choose some Israelites and not others? This problem… elicited two answers: God chose some but not others because he decided to do so; God chooses those who choose way and rejects those who despise his commandments. BOTH OF THESE ANSWERS, depending on the circumstances, could be considered to be true.” (Pg. 266)
He summarizes, “the concern to obey… turns out to show a reliance of God’s fidelity to the covenant which contains the laws, not an anxious concern to learn how, by obedience, to win God’s favor… the debates about which means of atonement atone for which sins… reveal three things: (1) that there was a means of atonement for every transgression; (2) that the Rabbis were concerned with atonement as a living religious issue; (3) that, since atonement for individual sins RESTORES the penitent sinner to the right relationship with God, he originally HAD a right relationship to God… established by God’s mercy and maintained by the individual’s obedience and repentance and by God’s forgiveness… the Rabbis… did not count and weigh merits against demerits… they believed that God has provided for the salvation of all faithful members of Israel… The best title for this sort of religion is ‘covenantal nomism.’” (Pg. 235-236)
He states, “Because of the consistency with which covenantal nomism is maintained from early in the second century BCE to late in the second century CE, it must be hypothesized that covenantal nomism was PERVASIVE in Palestine before 70. It was thus the basic TYPE of religion known by Jesus and presumably by Paul… The frequent Christian charge against Judaism … [is that] Judaism necessarily tends toward petty legalism, self-serving and deceiving casuistry, and a mixture of arrogance and lack of confidence in God. But the surviving Jewish literature is as free of these characteristics as any I have ever read. By consistently maintaining the basic framework of covenantal nomism, the gift and demand of God were kept in a healthy relationship with each other.” (Pg. 426-427)
After quoting Philippians 3:4-12, he comments, “Paul himself was aware of his own shift in the meaning of the term righteousness. There IS a righteousness which is based on works of the law. Here Paul does not… simply deny that there is any such thing… he argues… that the righteousness based on works of the law is not TRUE righteousness or the right kind of righteousness… The only proper righteousness is Christian righteousness, which … is based on faith… This means… that we must give up the view that ‘righteousness; in Paul has strictly the same ‘forensic-eschatological’ meaning which it is supposed to have in Judaism… he cannot be denying the JEWISH righteousness comes by the law; for that righteousness is DEFINED as being Torah obedience… He is rather denying that the TRUE GOAL OF RELIGION comes by the law… Paul does not know this on the basis of his analysis of human existence but on the basis of his experience of the power of Christ’s resurrection.” (Pg. 505-506)
He adds, “Thus Paul’s assurance of salvation was not assurance that his work was perfect nor that at the judgment nothing would be revealed against him for which he could be punished… the distinction between being judged on the basis of deeds… and being saved by God’s gracious election … was the general view of Rabbinic literature.” (Pg. 517)
He admits, “it is not necessarily the case that we are dealing only with intellectual differences… One may hazard the guess that the experience of being ‘in Christ’ was not the same as being ‘in Israel.’ This is a matter which is much more opaque to research … and we must be content with analyzing how religion appears in Jewish and Pauline thought.” (Pg. 549)
He concludes, “Our analysis of Rabbinic and other Palestinian Jewish literature did not reveal the kind of religion best characterized as legalistic works-righteousness. But… that charge is not the heart of Paul’s critique… the basis for Paul’s polemic against the law… was his exclusivist soteriology. Since salvation is only by Christ, the following of any other path is wrong… the law is good, even DOING the law is good, but salvation is only by Christ; therefore the entire system represented by the law is worthless for salvation… He simply saw the old dispensation as worthless in comparison with the new.” (Pg. 550-551)
This is an extremely important work, that will be “must reading” for anyone studying Jewish/Christian theology, Paul’s theology, the “New Perspective on Paul,” or the historical background for Jesus and the New Testament.
April 15, 2023
Review this? Me? No credentials to make that possible. I can say it is accessible to the lay reader. That doesn't mean an easy read, though. It's tough. Seems quite thorough and has an enormous bib for those that would care to fact check his work. Lots of points covered, but the take away for me is that Paul was an equally good scholar to work through some of the issues that he faced. Too bad his bib material sections aren't available. Tons of tidbit info that I'm sure will pop up from time to time. I'm glad to have read this. And yes, it begs a re-read at some point.
August 17, 2025
While there are significant issues with some of his argumentation and conclusions, this book is truly deserving of the attention and honor it has received in the last 50 years. I was actually shocked at how much of his stuff on Paul in the final section of the book I agreed with - obviously not his conclusions that have given rise to the “New Perspective on Paul.”
Read
June 5, 2021Took a while but I finished!
Want to read
September 11, 2025rec: Matthew in Context, the Graduate Theological Union
January 9, 2026
Excellent study! I wish there was more side by side comparisons with Paul’s writings and the Jewish literature. Insightful, and dense.
Read
August 3, 2011Few books have impacted biblical studies in the past decades more than E. P. Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism. This groundbreaking book has been instrumental in a reevaluation of many long-held presuppositions about Judaism at the time of Paul and Jesus, and about how Paul related to that heritage. I've long heard it referred to, cited, and criticized, so I thought it was finally time that I read it for myself. And I'm extremely glad I did.
First, a word about my reading, which was a bit selective. I chose to read the conclusions he draws at the close of the first two thirds of the book, dealing with his reevaluation of Judaism and his assertion of "covenantal nomism" as the overriding framework at the turn of the era. I then read the remainder of the book, dealing specifically with Paul and his relation to the Judaism of his day as reconstructed by Sanders. I'm not competent to comment on the foundational aspect of his thesis that Judaism is typified in Paul's day by covenantal nomism, that entry into the covenant was by God's grace and that works served to maintain that relationship as a way of staying in, other than to say it is obvious that Sanders was instrumental in awakening a reappraisal of the sources and a questioning of some long-held assumptions. I have found it to be a compelling argument, even if not completely convincing on all counts.
His chapters on Paul are uniformly well written and well argued. His foundational claim is that Paul reasoned from solution to plight, and not the other way around, so that the driving force in Paul's thinking was not what was wrong with Judaism or the Law or with humanity in general, but instead by his conviction that Jesus Christ is Lord and is the only way for salvation. This basic premise causes a reevaluation of Paul's thought process and illuminates Paul's thinking in a fresh way. Instead of focusing on justification by faith as the peak of Paul's theological reasoning (his "pattern" of religion in Sanders' terminology), participation with Christ moves more toward center stage. It is the need of Jesus Christ as Lord that is the decisive factor in his distancing himself from Law observance: not that it is futile or wrong-headed or unable to attain righteousness, even if these are also his conclusions, but first and foremost that it isn't focused on Jesus Christ as Lord. His focus on the participationist stream of Paul's thinking is especially enlightening, as he shows how important the theme of dying with Christ is to Paul's understanding of salvation. In his discussion of works, Sanders asserts that "Salvation by grace is not incompatible with punishment and reward for deeds," (517) and that is the position he asserts as Paul's. With regard to covenantal nomism, he says that Paul's view of works is in perfect agreement (518) with the Judaism of his day, but (and this is an important qualifier) Paul's pattern of religion is fundamentally different than covenantal nomism. He stresses this a number of times, asserting that while there is substantial agreement, there is a basic difference (548). That difference is Christ. Paul's pattern of religion, described as "participationist eschatology," is typified by participation in Christ, a change in lordship from the lordship of the flesh or sin to Christ, and being under grace instead of under the law. It is a transfer that takes place, and that is decisive. Even though Paul does spend a good bit of time talking about the role of works, and is rightly concerned with justification by faith, which Sanders includes in his scheme, it is Christ that takes center stage, and union with Christ that is the driving force of his thought. Anything that is pointing toward a different goal is entirely useless, and thus the observance of the Law in order to obtain righteousness is not so much destructive or in need of reformation as it is working in a totally different order than union with Christ.
Even though his discussion of Paul isn't much more than a hundred pages, this short review can only scratch the surface of this seminal work. I came to it with a pretty good acquaintance with many critiques of Sanders' work, and I look forward to continuing to sift this great piece of reasoning and argument. At the very least, it is abundantly clear that he has brought to light a number of themes in Paul that are too often underplayed or subordinated (such as participation or lordship), or at least, that were until after he published this study. I look forward to continuing to study Paul's theology and soteriology, and this important work is clearly one of the indispensable stopping points along that way.
First, a word about my reading, which was a bit selective. I chose to read the conclusions he draws at the close of the first two thirds of the book, dealing with his reevaluation of Judaism and his assertion of "covenantal nomism" as the overriding framework at the turn of the era. I then read the remainder of the book, dealing specifically with Paul and his relation to the Judaism of his day as reconstructed by Sanders. I'm not competent to comment on the foundational aspect of his thesis that Judaism is typified in Paul's day by covenantal nomism, that entry into the covenant was by God's grace and that works served to maintain that relationship as a way of staying in, other than to say it is obvious that Sanders was instrumental in awakening a reappraisal of the sources and a questioning of some long-held assumptions. I have found it to be a compelling argument, even if not completely convincing on all counts.
His chapters on Paul are uniformly well written and well argued. His foundational claim is that Paul reasoned from solution to plight, and not the other way around, so that the driving force in Paul's thinking was not what was wrong with Judaism or the Law or with humanity in general, but instead by his conviction that Jesus Christ is Lord and is the only way for salvation. This basic premise causes a reevaluation of Paul's thought process and illuminates Paul's thinking in a fresh way. Instead of focusing on justification by faith as the peak of Paul's theological reasoning (his "pattern" of religion in Sanders' terminology), participation with Christ moves more toward center stage. It is the need of Jesus Christ as Lord that is the decisive factor in his distancing himself from Law observance: not that it is futile or wrong-headed or unable to attain righteousness, even if these are also his conclusions, but first and foremost that it isn't focused on Jesus Christ as Lord. His focus on the participationist stream of Paul's thinking is especially enlightening, as he shows how important the theme of dying with Christ is to Paul's understanding of salvation. In his discussion of works, Sanders asserts that "Salvation by grace is not incompatible with punishment and reward for deeds," (517) and that is the position he asserts as Paul's. With regard to covenantal nomism, he says that Paul's view of works is in perfect agreement (518) with the Judaism of his day, but (and this is an important qualifier) Paul's pattern of religion is fundamentally different than covenantal nomism. He stresses this a number of times, asserting that while there is substantial agreement, there is a basic difference (548). That difference is Christ. Paul's pattern of religion, described as "participationist eschatology," is typified by participation in Christ, a change in lordship from the lordship of the flesh or sin to Christ, and being under grace instead of under the law. It is a transfer that takes place, and that is decisive. Even though Paul does spend a good bit of time talking about the role of works, and is rightly concerned with justification by faith, which Sanders includes in his scheme, it is Christ that takes center stage, and union with Christ that is the driving force of his thought. Anything that is pointing toward a different goal is entirely useless, and thus the observance of the Law in order to obtain righteousness is not so much destructive or in need of reformation as it is working in a totally different order than union with Christ.
Even though his discussion of Paul isn't much more than a hundred pages, this short review can only scratch the surface of this seminal work. I came to it with a pretty good acquaintance with many critiques of Sanders' work, and I look forward to continuing to sift this great piece of reasoning and argument. At the very least, it is abundantly clear that he has brought to light a number of themes in Paul that are too often underplayed or subordinated (such as participation or lordship), or at least, that were until after he published this study. I look forward to continuing to study Paul's theology and soteriology, and this important work is clearly one of the indispensable stopping points along that way.
November 11, 2016
Sanders’ book is a watershed in studies on Judaism and will be remembered for a long time. In light of his work he has deepened my understanding of Judaism, consequently the Old and New Testaments.
The book is long and academic. It engages with large amounts of scholarly material. So I wouldn’t encourage mainstream Christians to read it.
That being said, I’d recommend this book to theologically educated Christians interested in getting a first-hand view of Sanders work. Too many people simply dismiss him by reading reviews of his work. I don’t think it’s fair to pass him off without reading him directly.
I don’t know much about Judaism, but even I could see he has an amazing grasp of the Jewish sources and his interaction with his academic peers is good. He has highlighted very well that scholarship can be very biased and dismissive of evidence if it conflicts with tradition.
https://thescripturesays.org/2016/06/...
The book is long and academic. It engages with large amounts of scholarly material. So I wouldn’t encourage mainstream Christians to read it.
That being said, I’d recommend this book to theologically educated Christians interested in getting a first-hand view of Sanders work. Too many people simply dismiss him by reading reviews of his work. I don’t think it’s fair to pass him off without reading him directly.
I don’t know much about Judaism, but even I could see he has an amazing grasp of the Jewish sources and his interaction with his academic peers is good. He has highlighted very well that scholarship can be very biased and dismissive of evidence if it conflicts with tradition.
https://thescripturesays.org/2016/06/...
February 28, 2023
I think I bit off more than I could chew when I decided to read this book. It is a very deep dive into the beliefs of 1st century Judaism and how Paul reacted to it. It is VERY academic and engages deeply with prior theologians (mostly German), most of who I had not heard from. This is not a book for those (like myself) without theological backing. But I learned a few things - just don't ask me what they are. I might be able to hold my own at the proverbial cocktail party, but that's it.
Regarding the rating. Goodreads apparently views the star ratings as purely subjective, but I realize that the "worth" of the book is greater than my personal enjoyment of it. Subjectively, it was OK (2 stars), but objectively this is an influential book but maybe a bit dated (4 stars). Hence the compromise of 3 stars.
Regarding the rating. Goodreads apparently views the star ratings as purely subjective, but I realize that the "worth" of the book is greater than my personal enjoyment of it. Subjectively, it was OK (2 stars), but objectively this is an influential book but maybe a bit dated (4 stars). Hence the compromise of 3 stars.
February 29, 2020
Very dense. Lots of intellectual shorthand and insider references to other work. When referring to technical terms from source material written in languages other than Enlgish, the terms were never translated which made the discussion more difficult to follow. However, the book changed my mind about Judaism and Paul's meaning. I honestly highly recommend this book.
June 12, 2018
Good Book but Don't Agree w. Conclusions
Sanders's work is a must read for anyone interested in Pauline studies. While I appreciate his work, I do not agree with his covenantal nomism. I think the forensic approach is much better.
Sanders's work is a must read for anyone interested in Pauline studies. While I appreciate his work, I do not agree with his covenantal nomism. I think the forensic approach is much better.
February 13, 2013
Very helpful book on the New Perspective on Paul.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews