Paul and Palestinian Judaism is one of the most influential books in biblical studies in the last 60 years. Hopefully, you find this video a quick (ish) summary of the main points. patreon.com/user?u=40252988&u...
Thanks for the summary, nicely done! I used this book in my own research some years back. I agree largely with your assessment and I both appreciate and highly respect Sanders’ work on this volume. He certainly approached the subject with fewer biases than any scholar before him of which I am aware. I do believe he retained one important bias, however: that Paul was outside Judaism when he wrote his epistles. You are correct to say that Paul doesn’t have a problem with Covenantal Nomism. What I found striking is that Sanders proposes a different pattern for Paul’s theology which he names “Participationist Eschatology.” In my research I demonstrated how Participationist Eschatology actually fits completely within the pattern of Covenantal Nomism, and that therefore Paul is not writing from outside Judaism but rather writing still as a Jew. My conclusion in my analysis of Sanders was that it would be better to describe Participationist Eschatology as a stream within the pattern of Covenantal Nomism which alone could be open to Gentiles *as Gentiles*, and therefore bring the Abramic Covenant to its fullest expression. Sanders failed to see this because, for all his excellent scholarship, he still approached the topic from the standpoint that Paul was somehow outside Judaism, and therefore needed to describe the pattern differently.
@@TalbotSlade Maybe do some better writing. What do you mean by "Even the NPP alleged scholars admit Ephesians and pastoral books were about good works righteousness. They claim they are not Pauline but admit works righteousness." Are you saying Ephesians and pastoral epistles were *not* about good works righteousness? First, even if Sanders and Dunn are overly liberal, that is poisoning the well of the more conservative NPP scholars like Matthew Bates and Matthew J. Thomas, and is an invalid argument. Second, Ephesians and the Epistles certainly do teach we are judged righteous only by our works, with Ephesians 2:8-9 not teaching faith alone at all, as you could see plainly the works which Paul says do not save are circumcision mere verses later (Ephesians 2:11-17). 1 Timothy, a pastoral epistle, literally says that Timothy will save himself if he continues to practice what God has called him to do (1 Timothy 4:15-16), because "godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come" after the final judgment (1 Timothy 4:8). It's too bad you don't read the Bible in context, and twist the hard things Paul wrote, ignoring when Paul says we are justified, saved, judged only by our good or bad works on judgment day (Romans 2:4-13; Romans 6:22; 1 Corinthians 5:12; Galatians 6:7-10). Peter warned, you: "Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, *be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters* when he speaks in them of these matters. *There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures* . 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability." - 2 Peter 3:14-17 (ESV)
@@IAmisMaster Don't be too hard on him. People get trained to read the Bible through modern doctrinal or cultural filters and don't even realize they are filtering. There was a book, I think called Peace Child or something like that, where missionaries were telling the gospel story for the first time to a primitive and violent tribe in New Guinea and were shocked at the end of the story when they realized that their listeners had perceived Judas as the hero of the story! Those were the cultural filters through which that tribe heard the story.
One thing to do when reading PPJ is to read it with those who critiqued him in mind (e.g. Carson JVN, Barclay PATG). i.e. Was he really saying 'Get in by grace, Stay in by obedience'? Or did he talk about the role of repentance and forgiveness for sin in these Second Temple texts?
Could you explain more about the Barthian school you think is a more convincing way to read about the relationship between the covenants? Strikes me as something New Covenant Theology says. I agree that the distinction between the two covenantal epochs in the NT is vast, as the NT’s use of the OT and its central hermeneutic capture. The NPP relies too much on saying that there is continuity between the OC and the NC-I think that is nearly impossible to reconcile with the internal mechanics of Pauline theology.
Loved the video, Caleb! Thank you for distilling these works for us normies. I would be interested to hear a summary of either/and/or "Harvesting the Fruits: Basic Aspects of Christian Faith in Ecumenical Dialogue" by Cardinal Walter Casper, and/or "Christianity in Fundamental Teachings" by The Joint Commission of Churches in Turkey. Both books attempt to find find the common ideas across the Christian Churches. Would love to hear your summaries!
I can't wait to find out what common ideas are shared by the Exclusive Brethren, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, and the Unification Church. Sounds like some fun pretzel twisting. I think there are some grave problems with a least common denominator approach to every group that considers itself Christian. At some point, "Christian" has to be defined or there will be scarcely any common ground left, and that is where, if one will pardon the expression, "the devil is in the details," because you will be forced to define Christian on some basis other than "what we all have in common," and it will always be possible to challenge the criteria you use for the definition. If I recall correctly, I think it was fourth century St. Basil the Great who said that heresy was like a goblet of fine wine to which had been added a small but lethal dose of poison. I have long been partial to the motto of both Renaissance humanists and religious reformers, "Ad fontes," to the fountainhead, or to the sources! If the faith has been "once for all delivered unto the saints," then the only reliable source for theological truth will lie in the ancient church who was closest in time and culture to the Apostolic age and who can add clarity to disputed passages of the canonical scriptures. Not that new insights may not be found from the study of history, languages, ancient cultures, etc., but if they are at odds with the "consensus patri" (which I would say the OPP clearly is, but the NPP is mostly not), they should be rejected.
Hey Caleb, thanks so much for your channel! Have you ever done or considered doing a summary and review of Doug Cambells Deliverance of God? It’s got a great acronym (TDOG). And would fall right into line with some of the things you talked about toward the end of this video.
haha the acronym alone sold me! And I think I've only read 2 things by Cambell but I've listened to a lot of interviews and talks of his on podcasts. He's a super interesting thinker. I'll take a look!
@@CalebSmith3 awesome! Thanks Caleb. No pressure. I know that book is a tome. I was thinking if you had read it I would love a summary/analysis. I always get something valuable from your book summaries!
Marcus Johnson has a book called "One with Christ." He was a professor of mine and we had group discussions about the book. He isn't the clearest writer in the world but the discussion was very impactful on my theology so I remember the book fondly. Besides that there are a few chapters in the 2nd book of the Institutes by Calvin which I think aren't only theology rich but pastorally comforting.
Well I have to take issue with one thing you said. Most, if not all of us, of course care what you personally think. We come back again and again for a reason dear friend.
In 1521, Luther, studying the Bible on his own, believed that he had "discovered" a long lost doctrine of justification by faith "alone" (a word he actually added to his translation of the NT) and thus the struggle between him and the Papacy became not primarily a struggle over clerical abuses as it started out in 1517, but a doctrinal disagreement over soteriology. Naturally, most future Protestants read Paul through this lens of Luther's and later Calvin's soteriological disputes with Rome, but it is not surprising that this perception is anachronistic. Likewise, Luther's inner angst and troubled conscience are often projected on to St. Paul, but this is very unlikely to be correct. I once read a little book, I think it was _The Wisdom of Psychopaths_ , whose author at one point argued quite persuasively that St. Paul had some of the personality traits that are typically associated with psychopaths - not that he was a psychopath, obviously not, but that he was someone who benefited from having a personality skewed in that direction, but not too far. Thus he was bold, intensely focused, indifferent to hardships, often confrontational, etc., to say nothing of having been a ruthless killer before his conversion, not at all the brooding, sensitive type that Luther was. When he was younger, Luther's confessor got tired of Luther coming so frequently to confess trivialities, whereas St. Paul's attitude was, "Your food was sacrificed to idols? Who cares? Just eat it, unless it scandalizes your brother, then don't eat it if he is looking." He went from being a bold and daring Pharisee to a bold and daring Christian who was apparently unrattled by facing near death on numerous occasions. I am sure he must have had a lower resting heart rate than Luther!
Question for you. Why did you say there at the end that the NPP has died down. I'm curious as to what makes you say that? I keep seeing scholarship related to it being published. Maybe the heat is just gone from it; like those who could be convinced have been and the entrenched got tired of fighting about it?
I think that's a good way of putting it. The lines have been drawn and everyone has made up their minds about the debates involved. There are definitely still lots of monographs and journal articles about the topic but they feel less energetic or combative than they did a few years ago. That's just my read though, maybe it's still a live debate?
@@CalebSmith3 I'm just waiting for a new "Church of the NPP" denomination to be formed around it, then we will know it has penetrated popular consciousness, LOL.
Just like Bobby Fisher, Caleb comes out of hiding and drops some videos! What does Mr. Sanders do with a verse like this? Romans 10:3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.
I'm not sure that I would agree with it being the most important piece of biblical scholarship in the past 50 years, but it was one primary source for my masters thesis.
I’m in the covenant bucket. The new covenant began with at the resurrection, the old covenant is obsolete, even though the principles can still be applied today.
Soft nudge, promote that you’re on patreon within your videos or at least in the description of each… I bet you find that you have a lot of supporters on here. I’ve purchased and read over four dozen books from the titles you’ve reviewed or mentioned on your channel. Thank you. Keep up the great work.
Thanks for the support! I'm so scared of sounding like a snake oil salesman I don't promote the patreon but thanks for the encouragement! I'll put the link on some videos and mention it more!
Terrific review. I have two questions. I have never heard a scholar or anyone defend the old perspective by claiming, "yes, Sanders is right. But, even though Judaism was a religion of grace, its adherents turned it into a religion of works. " It seems to me like a 'Paul' today would be justified in railing against Christianity for being a "religion of (fill in the blank . . . politics, works, bible worshipers, etc.)", while that is not what Christianity is at all. Fictional Paul would be railing again his perception of Christianity. Do you think that is what Paul was doing with Judaism? 2. I wonder why the New Perspective hasn't been criticized for being racist. In the OP, the big sin of the Jews was that they were legalistic and works based. In the NP, the sin of the Jews is that they think Jews get the grace of God and you have to become Jewish to experience the same grace. Am I correct? Historically accurate or not, does it not seem like the NP would be criticized for teaching that the Jews of the time were not legalistic, they just thought their race was better than everyone else's?
1. I do think Paul would have some criticisms of many trends in modern Christianity. And yes in my reading of Paul that is similar to his criticism of Judaism in his day. 2. The "Paul within Judaism" school has made exactly that critique. They have said the NP is closer to anti-semitism than the OP
1. I do not think St. Paul would rail against modern Christianity for these things, but I am sure he would for some other things, including "faith alone," which I think he would heatedly denounce as a dangerous misinterpretation of his teachings. 2. If you can "become Jewish" (and you certainly can), then that is not racist, because you can't change your race since it is biological no matter what fashionable opinion since the 1990s might say. Americans, and to varying degrees some other nationalities under US cultural influence, make everything about race, even when it obviously isn't. Americans look for "racists" like Puritan settlers in Salem looked for witches.
@@michaels4255 while you 'can' convert to Judaism, I'm not sure that you "could". The evidence we have seems to suggest that nationalism and religion were not separable for Jews. I always hate to say definites because this is not a subject I'm well versed on, but from everything I see, Judaism in ancient times didn't just mean a religion. It meant a race. As you say, the challenge is to make sure we don't read our own culture into their culture. However, I think that is more likely if we try to see race and religion as separate in the ancient world.
EP Sanders could enrich our mind and faith in Jesus Christ. I found him more interesting and stimulating than Fundamentalist and conservative scholars. NT Wright, James Dunn, and even Erhman affirm his deep scholarship. And because I'm tired of Evangelical and conservative reading of the Bible --- the liberals are more stimulating. In saying this, I remain Evangelical yet finding meaning to Sanders' "findings."
Thanks, the Jews encountered in the New Testament are seen as self righteous (e.g Luke 18), prepared to kill/stone anyone they thought blasphemed, used their own law to sneekily defraud (Korban), etc and then some were annoyed when they discovered they had "killed the Lord of Glory". To crown it all, God allowed the Temple to be destroyed in AD70.
It has nothing to do with any religion at all. It is a relationship with God=Lord Jesus Christ. During the ancient times God=Lord Jesus Christ revealed to Moses and His other prophets what to write about Him while His Holy Bible book was being completed. This includes the prophesies. The proof is in the prophesies. Which only God=Lord Jesus Christ can fulfill. He has fulfilled all of the ones in the Old Testament part of the Bible. Including the Messianic prophesy. As it was also fulfilled by God=Lord Jesus Christ as stated in the New Testament part of the Bible as well. As He will fulfill the last two remaining prophesies in it as also mentioned in Revelation in the New Testament part as well. The next prophesy being judgement day God=Lord Jesus Christ's return. That day God=Lord Jesus Christ will defeat satan and his antichrist and their world dictatorship. He will restore the war torn earth. There will be a new earth and a new heaven. He will rule Israel and all of the nations on earth like in heaven and His kingdom will never end. He will also summon both the living and the dead that day. Everyone will be present. Even you. Those that have willingly accepted God=Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior and have personally confessed to Him their wrongdoings and have repented. Those will be spared of His judgement. Those will have fellowship with Him. Those will inherit eternal life from Him. Those will be of His seed and of Abraham's seed. While those that are either unrepentant wrongdoers or disbelievers , those will be judged of their wrongdoings by God=Lord Jesus Christ and then His angels will throw the poor condemned into the lake of fire and brimstone. Which resides down beneath the dark void. It is the second death. And satan and his rebel angels will be enchained and imprisoned in the dark void for a thousand years. After a thousand years have passed , they will be let out shortly to decieve the world again for a brief time. They are going to decieve many people into attacking the Holy city of Israel and then God=Lord Jesus Christ will call out fire from Heaven to consume them all. And then He will judge satan and his rebel angels for their evil rebellion towards Him and then His angels will throw satan and his rebel angels into the lake of fire. Where they will be forever with all of the people that they decieved before. It is the final prophesy. If you didn't know then now you know.
