Rick Sumner

Or perhaps rather not the "New Perspective," but instead it's fruits--a better understanding of Judaism in general, and first century Judaism in particular. Having recently read Gager's Reinventing Paul (or via: amazon.co.uk), and previously read several of books along a similar vein, I am convinced, quite unequivocally, that works-righteousness never existed in Judaism. The assumption that Paul, by attacking works-rightesouness, is in fact attacking the core of Judaism is the only basis for it. Deprived of that assumption it becomes painfully obvious that Judaism involved nothing of the sort. Righteousness was the product of the grace of God, not the works of man. Man would not--could not--be righteoused by works, since he could never measure up to God's rigid standards. But God would overlook that because he was merciful. A look at Judaism first and Paul second (and, more importantly, Paul in that context) makes it clear that Paul is offering substantially more a defense, than a criticism, of Judaism. He is criticizing a misunderstanding of Judaism (that righteousness came from works), not Judaism itself, which doesn't contain that sentiment.

With that in mind, I turned today to the Epistle of James. The first two chapters of James in particular are frequently compared to Jewish Wisdom literature, James has several points contrary to that assignment. For example, James lacks the simple pragmatism characteristic of the genre. Perhaps most notably, James is leading to an exegetical point, which is finally glued into place with Abrahamic proof-texting reminiscient of Paul. The ultimate point of these opening chapters is, of course, the defense of works-righteousness.

Yet as noted above, works-righteousness was not Jewish. And thus I'd suggest that James isn't either.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

There are a favorable reviews of Reinventing Paul here and here on the Paul Page, which is dedicated to the New Perspective.

There is a less favorable review here.

Chris Weimer

Rick,

Could you point out some general reasons against works-righteousness in Judaism? I'm also going to have a look through the Scrolls again tonight to see if anything catches my eye.

Chris

Peter Kirby

Rick!! Good to see you.

regards,
Peter Kirby

andrewcriddle

How far can this understanding of Judaism be justified based only on early rabbinic sources such as the Mishnah ?

IMHO it seems more based on the Talmud as a whole than on the earliest layers of rabbinic teaching.

Andrew Criddle

Rick Sumner

Sanders (who is primarily responsible for it) bases a substantial amount on the MIshnah and intertestamental literature (though, of course, there is much to be found in the Talmud in support of the position as well--eg Sifre Deut. 26). When he draws on sources generally considered later, he offers his reasons for considering it representative of an earlier tradition, or at the very least points to scholars who do so.

The Mishnah passage most in support of this interpretation is, of course, Tract Sanhedrin 10.1 ("...All Israel has a share in the world to com." compare with Rom.11.26, where Paul makes the same statement without reference to being saved by faith ("All Israel shall be saved"--a parallel, incidentally, that Gager should have seized on but seems to have neglected).

R. Ishmael writes "...So also in the future world there will be some for whome there will be redemption and there will be some for wohm there will be no redemption. For the heathen nations there will be no redemptio. . .Beloved are the Israelites, for the Holy One, blessed be He, has given the heathen nations of the world as ransom for their souls. . ."(Mek. Mishpatim 10 (286; 111, 87f. [Nezikin 10]; to 21 30, as cited by Sanders, Paul in Palestinian Judaism).

Chris: The problem isn't so much one of a wealth of sources opposing works-righteousness (though there are some), it's more one of a lack of support for works-righteousness. Passages that support it are far and few between, and of those that do, many are misread through the lens of Paul.

Peter: Good to see you too!

Regards,
Rick Sumner