N. T. WRIGHT AND SAUL'S MORAL BOOTSTRAPS: NEWER LIGHT ON "THE NEW PERSPECTIVE"

Trinity Journal, Fall 2004 by Hamilton, James M Jr

My objective in this essay is to demonstrate that one of N. T. Wright's foundation stones is not squarely cut. The significance of this particular stone is such that building on it compromises the structure of the edifice Wright seeks to erect. The stone I have in mind was not cut by Wright himself; he took it from the quarry of E. P. Sanders. Therefore, my aim in this paper is to show that in spite of what Wright would have us think, Sanders's quarry has failed inspection. Demonstrating this will entail three things: 1) a cursory introduction to Sanders's major work;1 2) followed by a summary of two significant examinations of Sanders's thesis;2 and 3) a brief look at Galatians 3 to glimpse Paul's own estimation of his pre-conversion state.

(ProQuest Information and Learning: ... denotes formula omitted.)

I. INTRODUCTION

No fewer than ten times in less than two hundred pages, N. T. Wright reinforces his view that the Judaism that Paul knew was not "a form of the old heresy Pelagianism, according to which humans must pull themselves up by their moral bootstraps and thereby earn justification."3 Wright is careful with his words, and so we can conclude that the repeated collocation of the phrases "moral bootstraps" and "Pelagianism" is no accident. This constant repetition, it may be assumed, is meant to remind the reader of Wright's stated agreement on this point with E. P. Sanders:

Saul, I used to believe, was a proto-Pelagian, who thought he could pull himself up by his moral bootstraps. . . .

I now believe that this is both radically anachronistic (this view was not invented in Saul's day) and culturally out of line (it is not the Jewish way of thinking). To this extent, I am convinced, Ed Sanders is right: we have misjudged early Judaism, especially Pharisaism, if we have thought of it as an early version of Pelagianism.4

Among other things, this agreement with Sanders has profound implications for Wright's view of justification. For if Paul is not poking a hole in proto-Pelagianism in his letters when he asserts, for instance, that "from works of law no flesh shall be justified before him [God]" (Rom 3:20; cf. Gal 2:16),5 then Wright is correct to assert that "the discussions of justification in much of the history of the church, certainly since Augustine, got off on the wrong foot - at least in terms of understanding Paul - and they have stayed there ever since."6 Further, if Wright and Sanders are correct, then the assertion that "The legacy of Luther, and his reading of Judaism in the light of medieval Catholicism, is still very apparent"7 is on the mark and "everything we knew about Paul, or thought we knew, has to be reexamined."8

In view of such far-reaching claims, it would seem that an understanding of the thesis put forward by Sanders and taken up by Wright is in order. To this end, the first section of this paper will summarize Sanders's case that the Pharisees were not "legalists" in terms of soteriology.9 The second section of this essay is given direction by Wright's statement that Sanders

dominates the landscape, and, until a major refutation of his central thesis is produced, honesty compels one to do business with him. I do not myself believe such a refutation can or will be offered. . . . I regard his basic point as established.10

Major work has been done against Sanders's thesis, and the arguments against his paradigm that have appeared in two important dissertations will be summarized in the second section.11 Finally, in the third section of the paper, a passage that has traditionally been regarded as teaching the view that Paul did oppose, in Wright's words, "Jewish self-help moralism,"12 will be briefly examined in an attempt to discern precisely what it was that Paul opposed in the movement from which he was converted.13

II. E. P. SANDERS'S COVENANTAL NOMISM

The book that N. T. Wright says brought about "the Sanders revolution"14 is Paul and Palestinian Judaism. The book falls into two parts, one on Palestinian Judaism and one on Paul. We are mainly interested in the first part on Palestinian Judaism, for Sanders interprets Paul in light of his findings regarding the milieu in which Paul lived. More specifically, in light of his study of the sources, Sanders writes as though he has a better understanding of the disagreement between Paul and his contemporaries than Paul had. He says,

Paul himself often formulated his critique of Judaism (or Judaizing) as having to do with the means of attaining righteousness, "by faith and not by works of law," and this formulation has been held to be accurate: Paul agreed on the goal, righteousness, but saw that it should be received by grace through faith, not achieved by works. But this formulation, though it is Paul's own, actually misstates the fundamental point of disagreement.15

To understand much of the current discussion regarding this aspect of Pauline theology we must examine Sanders's arguments and conclusions. This necessity grows out of the large-scale adoption of Sanders's conclusions on Judaism by, among others, N. T. Wright and James D. G. Dunn. We turn, then, to Sanders's interpretation of the primary sources on second Temple Judaism.16 Once Sanders's fundamental tenets are on the table, we will give our attention to those who have challenged his reading of the data before looking briefly at Paul.