The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary behind the Church’s Conservative Icon. By Marcus J Borg & JohnDominic Crossan. Pp.vi, 230. SPCK, London, 2009, d8.99.

The overblown subtitle of this jointly authored bookis unnecessarily iconoclastic but the aim is to readPaul afresh detached from later traditions. It is‘reception history’ in reverse. The book is directedat non-academic readers who are first shown how toread one of Paul’s letters in the context of other lettersof the time. We are then directed to ‘three Pauls’: theradical Paul of the seven authentic letters (on slaveryand patriarchy in particular), the conservative Paul ofthe doubtful letters, and the reactionary Paul ofEphesians and the Pastoral Epistles which are not byPaul. But the authors go further; they want to defendPaul’s understanding of the cross and sacrifice fromAnselm and Catholic tradition, and Paul’s idea ofjustification from Luther and later evangelical tradi-tion. I always look askance at any writer who saysthat everyone has misunderstood such-and-such anauthor until me, but Borg and Crossan do succeed inoffering a consistent interpretation of Paul in theround. That is, they look at the wholeness of Paul’sthinking in a concise way and they focus on Paul’sown writings, especially Romans and Galatians.The authors are particularly good at contrasting

Paul’s christology with the imperial theology ofRome that lauded the emperor as saviour, son ofgod, Lord, and a god to whom prayers and sacrificeswere to be offered. The political dimension of Paul’sgospel is brought out, in which the imperial pattern ofsalvation/peace coming through war and victory isreplaced by peace through non-violence and justice.And in which retributive justice (punishing enemiesand wrong-doers) in the empire is replaced bydistributive justice (sharing resources equitably) inthe Church. Paul’s eschatology is shown to be directlycomparable with Jesus’ vision of the kingdom whichfocus God’s great cleaning-up of this world, whichwas primarily the world of Rome. To that extent Paulhad a very dangerous message, yet his fear was notthat Christians will be killed but that they will

conform to Roman standards and themselves kill inrebellion against Rome. Borg and Crossan explainthat when Paul says we have to work out oursalvation in fear and trembling this ‘is not becauseGod will punish us if we fail, but because the worldwill punish us if we succeed’. If true, this suggests thatthere have not been enough martyrs in the Church.The authors – one Lutheran, one Catholic – think

that Luther’s presentation of justification sola fidepresents a false problem. But the reader mighthesitate over the way they try to cut through theproblem by insisting that in Paul faith means faith-with-works, while works means works-without-faith.It is all too neat and Paul does not actually say that. Itlooks as though all references to eating meals in Paulare about the Eucharist and yet when 1 Cor 11criticises those who eat and drink in an unworthymanner, failing to discern the body ‘refers to thecommunity as the body of Christ. The way the Lord’sSupper was being practiced in Corinth denied theequality of life ‘in Christ’’. When the richness ofPaul’s ‘in Christ’ language is reduced to ‘shorthandfor Paul’s vision of Christian community’ we suspectthat the multi-dimensionality of Paul is being reducedto something which is not wrong but is limited. Whatemerges is a Paul with a vision of social justice, incontradistinction to Rome’s imperium, that is con-sistent with the picture of Jesus, the crucified (but notrisen) teacher of Crossan’s earlier books. Is there lifebeyond the grave in this account of Paul? It is notclear, but probably not, despite 1 Cor 15. This is not amisconceived book on Paul; it is full of insights andadds a dimension to conventional interpretations, whilecorrecting some old misunderstandings. Some will bedrawn to its social and political dimension, others willhave some reservations, but all its readers will be madeto reflect about some of Paul’s own words.

Harrogate, UK Geoffrey Turner

Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul. By Chris VanLandingham. Pp. xvi, 384.Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts, 2006, d16.99.

‘Judgment’ in the title refers to the last judgment, forthe book deals with the question of how one might besaved according to Paul and according to Jewishliterature broadly contemporary with Paul. This inturn is related to Paul’s doctrine of justification byfaith. Lest this sounds like ‘more of the same’ in termsof recent Pauline scholarship, it should be said thatChris VanLandingham offers a challenging and, insome respects, startling interpretation of Paul.The author tells us that the impetus for the work,

originally a doctoral dissertation, was a disagreementwith E P Sanders’ understanding of Judaism as‘covenantal nomism’. In contrast to Luther’s pulling

Christianity and Judaism apart by characterisingJudaism as a (failed) religion of salvation throughmeritorious deeds and Christianity as a gospel ofsalvation through God’s grace, Sanders pushed themcloser together by emphasising the role of grace inJewish religion. For Sanders, the Rabbis do notrepresent a debased legalism. One is saved throughelection to the covenant. The law is to be kept to showthat one has not abandoned the covenant. The finaljudgment will reward or punish our relative success inobeying the law but will not fundamentally affect oursalvation. To be saved one has to be Jewish, in thecovenant, and once in one cannot fail to be saved

1028 BOOK REVIEWS

other than by abrogating one’s covenant member-ship. VanLandingham analyses a range of Jewishliterature, texts not discussed in detail by Sanders, toshow that this picture of Judaism is not true. Judaismconsistently says that one will be judged by one’sdeeds. Jews, members of the covenant community,can still be condemned if they have failed to keep thelaw effectively, Van Landingham says that most ofthe Jewish literature contemporary with Paul expectsmost of the Jews and well as the gentiles to earn God’swrath. Only the few will be saved.In criticising Sanders, VanLandingham does not

revert to a traditional Lutheranism that distinguishes aJudaism that represents law from a Christianity thatrepresents faith and grace. On justification, he thinksthat for four-hundred and more years most ofProtestantism has misunderstood Paul. He argues thatPaul maintained the common Jewish view that we willbe judged by our deeds at the last judgment. So, likeSanders, he keeps Paul and Judaism close together intheir view of how one is saved but, unlike Sanders, hethinks that both affirm a judgment according to deeds.In his reading of Paul, VanLandingham first

unhooks the language of justification/righteousnessfrom the idea of salvation. As Romans 6 shows, we aremade righteous, then made holy and then saved.Righteousness comes at the beginning of the Christianlife and is not an anticipation of the last judgment. Nordoes it guarantee salvation. Righteousness comes fromfaith in Christ but judgment is different. To that extentVanLandingham argues convincingly that justifica-tion/righteousness language in Paul is not forensic; it isnot judicial language about guilt and innocence. Forhim the language is about morality and moralcharacter and we have to do good things to becomerighteous - though what we have to do differs in Pauland other Jewish writers. VanLandingham claims thatbeing righteous is not freely given (imputed) by God,we have to do something, whether it is keeping the lawor believing, and he claims that first-century Jewishwriters even thought that Abraham first believed Godand then was made righteous as a reward.So far so well argued but this all seems to

contradict Paul in Romans 4 where righteousnesswas reckoned (logizetai) to Abraham as a gift and notsomething he earned. VanLandingham, however,argues (briefly at pages 293–5) that logizein has a

different sense: that Abraham, as it were, exchangedhis belief/trust for righteousness. There was a quid proquo with God; Abraham merited his righteousness.Here I part company with the author as I consider heloses the general sense of Romans 4.If this thesis runs counter to much recent writing on

Paul, though there is an increasing recognition thatLuther got Paul wrong on justification by faith alone,VanLandingham’s attempt to dethrone justification/righteousness in Paul’s thinking will startle some(including me). He is certainly right to say thatdikaiosune, with its background in the LXX, shouldbe translated ‘righteousness’. But he also thinks thatthe dikai- language is only in Romans because Paulfound it in the two quotations he wanted to use aboutfaith from Genesis 15.6 and Habakkuk 2.4. He isquite clear on linguistic grounds that dikai- and itscognates does not express the doctrine we have cometo know as ‘justification by faith’. But other explana-tions are possible. The righteousness of God for thoseelected to the covenant is such a widespread theme inthe OT that Paul might have had this as his centraltheme (in Romans at least) and so wondered how wecan become righteous in the new age after Christ.Genesis 15.6 and Habakkuk 2.4 would then have ledhis argument from righteousness to the idea of ‘faith’,even if in the course of his life it had come about insome other way. Dikai- might well be at the centre ofPaul’s thought after all. One might also wonderwhether being righteous is as exclusively a moralconcept as the author suggests. Being a righteousperson in the OT does necessitate a certain moralcharacter but in the first place it means being in good-standing with God and this is a matter of status,standing within the covenant. In this regard Sandersis close to the mark but he is wrong when he suggeststhis guarantees salvation at the final judgment.With his emphasis on good deeds, VanLanding-

ham tells us that ‘Righteousness . . . is the basis foracceptance with God’ (p. 311), but being righteous ISour acceptance by God, not the basis for it. Paul isquite clear that the basis for this acceptance is ourfaith. Nonetheless this is a closely argued andsubstantial and well written book that demands tobe read and engaged with.

Harrogate, UK Geoffrey Turner

Solving the Romans Debate. By A. Andrew Das. Pp. xii, 324. Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 2007, $25.00.

The broad title Solving the Romans Debate gives noindication of the very particular discussion carried onin this book, which is to identify the ethnic and social/religious group for whom Paul wrote his letter toRome. The title also has an unjustified hint of hubristhat the debate about Romans - all debate aboutRomans? - will be solved once we know that it waswritten for Christ-believing gentile God-fearers andnot for the mixed Jewish-gentile Christian church that

most assume. That said, the book presents a verydetailed argument about a long-disputed issue andthe author engages with a wide range of authors in anextensive bibliography.Das’ first move is to argue that Paul wrote all sixteen

chapters of an integrated letter. He suggests that thepurpose of the letter was to offer a self-introduction ofthe author to a church he did not know (though heknew some of its members, who he names in the last

BOOK REVIEWS 1029