What do you think?
Rate this book
How New Is the New Testament?: First-Century Judaism and the Emergence of Christianity
What is so new about the New Testament? Senior scholar Donald Hagner tackles the issue of how distinct early Christianity was from the first-century Judaism from which it emerged. He surveys newness in the entire New Testament canon, examining the evidence for points of continuity and discontinuity between formative Judaism and early Christianity. Hagner's accessible analysis of the New Testament text shows that despite Christianity's thorough Jewishness, from the beginning dramatic newness was an essential aspect of this early literature.
224 pages, Paperback
Published October 16, 2018
12 people are currently reading
41 people want to read
About the author
Donald Hagner
14 books6 followersDonald A. Hagner (PhD, University of Manchester) is George Eldon Ladd Professor Emeritus of New Testament and senior professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. He is the author of Encountering the Book of Hebrews, The Jewish Reclamation of Jesus, New Testament Exegesis and Research: A Guide for Seminarians, and commentaries on Matthew and Hebrews. He is also coeditor of the New International Greek Testament Commentary and an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
December 22, 2018
I have to begin this review by noting a conflict of interest: Dr. Don Hagner was my PhD supervisor at Fuller Theological Seminary. I consider him a friend and have benefited tremendously from his scholarship and insights. That doesn't mean we agree on everything, but it does mean I am favorably disposed to any new book that he publishes. This book met my expectations and solidified an argument he has been having throughout his career as a NT scholar. For many decades, Hagner has been deeply engaged in the topic of this book -- the question of the degree to which the NT can be understood as a continuous development within Judaism, rather than as a theological critique of Judaism.
Before the Holocaust, NT scholarship generally emphasized the parting of ways between Judaism and Christianity and highlighted the strands of the NT that spoke in critical terms of Judaism as a religion of works righteousness. After the Holocaust, the pendulum has been swinging ever more strongly in the opposite direction, emphasizing continuity between the two religions and acknowledging a parting of ways much later. Some Jewish scholars have been engaging in the so-called "Jewish reclamation of Jesus," arguing that most of what Jesus said could be understood as legitimately Jewish. A similar attempt has been made to understand Paul in Jewish terms. For example, E. P. Sanders and the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) have argued that Paul's quarrel with Judaism was not that it was a legalistic religion but that it simply was not Christianity. More recently, we have the NPP's more radical offshoot, the "Paul within Judaism" movement, which argues that Paul did not think of himself as a Christian, was a Torah-observant Jew who advocated Torah-observance for all fellow Jews, saw such Torah-observance as soteriologically effective for Jews (whether they believe in Jesus or not), and only opposed the attempt to make Gentiles observe Torah.
Hagner is reacting against this extreme claim that Christianity can be interpreted as a sect of Judaism, as a legitimate theological variant within Judaism. To be historically accurate, we have to be more precise. No one is denying that, at some point, the two religions parted ways--everyone agrees that this happened at least by the fourth century AD. What the parties to the debate are arguing over is the relation between their early, first-century expressions. Accordingly, Hagner speaks of "formative Judaism" and "early Christianity" to make the discussion more historically focused and precise.
Related to the relationship between Judaism and Christianity is the extent to which the NT writers, in reporting and theologizing on the new thing that they believe God had done in Christ, are conscious of a relationship to the past, particularly to the Scriptures of Israel and the ancient promises of God to his people found therein. Hagner argues that the NT documents contain a balance between continuity and discontinuity. Even as they emphasize the newness of the Christ event, they also speak of it as the fulfillment of the OT promises. The key here is promise-and-fulfillment eschatology. This captures both aspects: discontinuity with Judaism, because contra Judaism, Christianity asserts that an inaugurated eschatological realization of the promises has occurred in the death and resurrection of Jesus, in the midst of history, before the end; but at the very same time, continuity, because this eschatological realization is the fulfillment of the OT promises.
Hagner articulates this superbly: "The NT assertion of the dawning of eschatology is the primary basis for all newness. At the same time, however, that basis rests squarely upon the promise and expectation of the OT, and thus the fulfillment recorded in the NT is the climax of what has preceded and hence is a fundamental manifestation of continuity. Discontinuity and continuity accordingly belong together" (pp. 11-12).
That, in a nutshell, is the argument of the book. To make the case, he goes through the NT canon in near-canonical order, highlighting all the key passages that show both the continuity and the discontinuity, or the discontinuity in continuity, or the continuity in discontinuity. He deals with the Gospels of Mark and Matthew (ch. 2), the Gospel of Luke (ch. 3), Acts (ch. 4), the Gospel and Letters of John (ch. 5), the Pauline corpus (ch. 6), Hebrews and the Catholic Letters (ch. 7), and the Apocalypse (ch. 8).
A couple of details where I disagree. First, I disagree with his reading of "the righteousness of God" in Rom 1:17 as God's saving activity as an expression of his covenant faithfulness (p. 105 n15). My PhD dissertation addressed this topic, and I was disappointed Hagner didn't at least acknowledge my work for an alternate view (namely, that the righteousness of God is the gift of imputed righteousness that comes from God). This is a very minor scruple, however, and doesn't affect the argument of the book as a whole.
Second, I'm not in agreement with his interpretation of Romans 11:26: "And so all Israel will be saved." He takes that passage as teaching that ethnic Israel "remains the special people of God, the apple of God's eye" (p. 116) and that "Israel continues to retain a special position in God's overall plan for the end of the ages" (p. 174). To be sure, Hagner rejects "Dispensationalism's a priori bifurcation of Israel and the church" (p. 44) and affirms that the church is "the Israel of God," the new Israel (p. 104), even "an expression of God's faithfulness to Israel as a nation" (p. 174). He also strongly affirms, contra the "Paul within Judaism" movement, that for Paul the Jews cannot be saved through their "special way" (Sonderweg) apart from Christ, but only by coming to faith in Christ (p. 177). Nevertheless, I think taking "all Israel" in Rom 11:26 as the church, composed of both Jews and Gentiles, fits better with Paul's overall theology.
In sum, the New Testament is indeed quite "new" in relation to the OT and Judaism. The fundamental difference between formative Judaism and early Christianity lies in the nexus of eschatology and Christology. Whereas formative Judaism expected a purely future resurrection of the dead and national and cosmic restoration of all things, early Christianity affirmed that these things have been inaugurated in the resurrection of Christ. What could be more new than the Christian belief that Jesus has been raised as the firstfruits of those who sleep? That already in Christ's death a new covenant has been put in place? That the law has served its purpose and is no longer binding, qua covenant, on the people of God, although its moral teaching is taken up into the law of Christ? That the promises of the OT concerning national Israel, the Messiah, the land, the temple have been fulfilled in Christ? Closely connected to this is Christology, which to this day remains a major stumbling block for Jews, just as it was in the first century (consider the Gospel of John's depiction of the Jewish leaders' outraged response to Jesus' claim to be the Son of God and equal with God). Christianity cannot be viewed merely as a denominational variant within Judaism. Nevertheless, having said all of that, and without taking back one iota of these massive discontinuities, the NT writers believe and proclaim that everything they are saying about Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT Scriptures.
Before the Holocaust, NT scholarship generally emphasized the parting of ways between Judaism and Christianity and highlighted the strands of the NT that spoke in critical terms of Judaism as a religion of works righteousness. After the Holocaust, the pendulum has been swinging ever more strongly in the opposite direction, emphasizing continuity between the two religions and acknowledging a parting of ways much later. Some Jewish scholars have been engaging in the so-called "Jewish reclamation of Jesus," arguing that most of what Jesus said could be understood as legitimately Jewish. A similar attempt has been made to understand Paul in Jewish terms. For example, E. P. Sanders and the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) have argued that Paul's quarrel with Judaism was not that it was a legalistic religion but that it simply was not Christianity. More recently, we have the NPP's more radical offshoot, the "Paul within Judaism" movement, which argues that Paul did not think of himself as a Christian, was a Torah-observant Jew who advocated Torah-observance for all fellow Jews, saw such Torah-observance as soteriologically effective for Jews (whether they believe in Jesus or not), and only opposed the attempt to make Gentiles observe Torah.
Hagner is reacting against this extreme claim that Christianity can be interpreted as a sect of Judaism, as a legitimate theological variant within Judaism. To be historically accurate, we have to be more precise. No one is denying that, at some point, the two religions parted ways--everyone agrees that this happened at least by the fourth century AD. What the parties to the debate are arguing over is the relation between their early, first-century expressions. Accordingly, Hagner speaks of "formative Judaism" and "early Christianity" to make the discussion more historically focused and precise.
Related to the relationship between Judaism and Christianity is the extent to which the NT writers, in reporting and theologizing on the new thing that they believe God had done in Christ, are conscious of a relationship to the past, particularly to the Scriptures of Israel and the ancient promises of God to his people found therein. Hagner argues that the NT documents contain a balance between continuity and discontinuity. Even as they emphasize the newness of the Christ event, they also speak of it as the fulfillment of the OT promises. The key here is promise-and-fulfillment eschatology. This captures both aspects: discontinuity with Judaism, because contra Judaism, Christianity asserts that an inaugurated eschatological realization of the promises has occurred in the death and resurrection of Jesus, in the midst of history, before the end; but at the very same time, continuity, because this eschatological realization is the fulfillment of the OT promises.
Hagner articulates this superbly: "The NT assertion of the dawning of eschatology is the primary basis for all newness. At the same time, however, that basis rests squarely upon the promise and expectation of the OT, and thus the fulfillment recorded in the NT is the climax of what has preceded and hence is a fundamental manifestation of continuity. Discontinuity and continuity accordingly belong together" (pp. 11-12).
That, in a nutshell, is the argument of the book. To make the case, he goes through the NT canon in near-canonical order, highlighting all the key passages that show both the continuity and the discontinuity, or the discontinuity in continuity, or the continuity in discontinuity. He deals with the Gospels of Mark and Matthew (ch. 2), the Gospel of Luke (ch. 3), Acts (ch. 4), the Gospel and Letters of John (ch. 5), the Pauline corpus (ch. 6), Hebrews and the Catholic Letters (ch. 7), and the Apocalypse (ch. 8).
A couple of details where I disagree. First, I disagree with his reading of "the righteousness of God" in Rom 1:17 as God's saving activity as an expression of his covenant faithfulness (p. 105 n15). My PhD dissertation addressed this topic, and I was disappointed Hagner didn't at least acknowledge my work for an alternate view (namely, that the righteousness of God is the gift of imputed righteousness that comes from God). This is a very minor scruple, however, and doesn't affect the argument of the book as a whole.
Second, I'm not in agreement with his interpretation of Romans 11:26: "And so all Israel will be saved." He takes that passage as teaching that ethnic Israel "remains the special people of God, the apple of God's eye" (p. 116) and that "Israel continues to retain a special position in God's overall plan for the end of the ages" (p. 174). To be sure, Hagner rejects "Dispensationalism's a priori bifurcation of Israel and the church" (p. 44) and affirms that the church is "the Israel of God," the new Israel (p. 104), even "an expression of God's faithfulness to Israel as a nation" (p. 174). He also strongly affirms, contra the "Paul within Judaism" movement, that for Paul the Jews cannot be saved through their "special way" (Sonderweg) apart from Christ, but only by coming to faith in Christ (p. 177). Nevertheless, I think taking "all Israel" in Rom 11:26 as the church, composed of both Jews and Gentiles, fits better with Paul's overall theology.
In sum, the New Testament is indeed quite "new" in relation to the OT and Judaism. The fundamental difference between formative Judaism and early Christianity lies in the nexus of eschatology and Christology. Whereas formative Judaism expected a purely future resurrection of the dead and national and cosmic restoration of all things, early Christianity affirmed that these things have been inaugurated in the resurrection of Christ. What could be more new than the Christian belief that Jesus has been raised as the firstfruits of those who sleep? That already in Christ's death a new covenant has been put in place? That the law has served its purpose and is no longer binding, qua covenant, on the people of God, although its moral teaching is taken up into the law of Christ? That the promises of the OT concerning national Israel, the Messiah, the land, the temple have been fulfilled in Christ? Closely connected to this is Christology, which to this day remains a major stumbling block for Jews, just as it was in the first century (consider the Gospel of John's depiction of the Jewish leaders' outraged response to Jesus' claim to be the Son of God and equal with God). Christianity cannot be viewed merely as a denominational variant within Judaism. Nevertheless, having said all of that, and without taking back one iota of these massive discontinuities, the NT writers believe and proclaim that everything they are saying about Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT Scriptures.
May 2, 2019
An excellent read that covers a lot of scriptural ground. Much emphasis is put on a promise-fulfilment approach to OT and NT. Comments also on supersessionism, anti-Judaism, law, Paul-within-Judaism and so forth. Stimulating.
September 25, 2025
A good discussion of discontinuity and continuity with the old and new covenant. He reflects much on the Old Testament usage in the New Testament, going through the different human authors and books and how they discussed Jews and Gentiles.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews