What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #042
Paul: A Very Short Introduction
Missionary, theologian, and religious genius, Paul is one of the most powerful human personalities in the history of the Church. E.P. Sanders, an influential Pauline scholar, analyzes the fundamental beliefs and vigorous contradictions in Paul's thought, discovering a philosophy that is less of a monolithic system than the apostle's convictions would seem to suggest. This volume offers an incisive summation of Paul's career, as well as his role in the development of early Christianity. Both lucid and judicious, it is the most compelling short introduction to Paul now available.
About the Series: Combining authority with wit, accessibility, and style, Very Short Introductions offer an introduction to some of life's most interesting topics. Written by experts for the newcomer, they demonstrate the finest contemporary thinking about the central problems and issues in hundreds of key topics, from philosophy to Freud, quantum theory to Islam.
About the Series: Combining authority with wit, accessibility, and style, Very Short Introductions offer an introduction to some of life's most interesting topics. Written by experts for the newcomer, they demonstrate the finest contemporary thinking about the central problems and issues in hundreds of key topics, from philosophy to Freud, quantum theory to Islam.
176 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1991
58 people are currently reading
725 people want to read
About the author
E.P. Sanders
22 books69 followersEd Parish Sanders is a New Testament scholar, and is one of the principal proponents of the New Perspective on Paul. He has been Arts and Sciences Professor of Religion at Duke University, North Carolina, since 1990. He retired in 2005
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews
March 7, 2025
تحلیلی مختصر و عالی از اندیشۀ پولس.
March 21, 2018
This book discusses Paul, the apostle who wrote many books in the New Testament. The first part of the book covers who paul was, who were his supporters and the tractors, and how he became involved with first the Jewish and then the Christian religious cultures.
The second part of the book discusses Pauls believes, the theology he taught in his writings, and some areas where some theologians find confusion in what he says. The author also covers the continual tensions between Paul, who mostly taught Gentiles, and the other apostles who spent much of their time teaching Jewish people in various communities. The author makes it clear that paul had enemies in both the secular and Christian communities as well as the established Jewish community in Israel. Paul had to contend with people who were false teachers as well as genuine Christians who understood Christ’s words differently in someways. Meanwhile, the priests who served some of the Roman gods and goddesses as well as emperors in Rome became angry because the message paul shared with people cause them to stop sacrificing to goddesses like Diana in Ephesus. The Jewish high priest in Israel wasn’t happy with paul either and conspired to get him executed. Paul’s life was not easy, and it was fraught with tension in many cases. He spent most of his final years in prison, and he was eventually executed for sharing his faith. During this final passage in his life, he was abandoned by many of his support workers either because they became ill, they died, they were working in other areas to spread the gospel, they had been brutally executed themselves, or sadly, a few turned away from the Lord.
Yet he writes confidently about having contentment in all things and daily experiencing the joy of the Lord in several places in his letters, especially in Philippians. He is an example of how our attitude and our choice to focus on what matters touches every aspect of our lives. If I am honest with myself, I think I would get depressed after being shipped wrecked and would probably complain about the food or rats in prison. I would like to think that eventually I would learn the lessons that Paul learned. I am going to spend a lot of time over the next couple of months reading his epistles to the churches because I have so much to learn from him. Ultimately, I hope that by feasting on God’s word, I will be changed by that word and by God‘s leading in my life. I want to become more like Paul. I don’t want it in the way that someone wants to be just like a rockstar. I want it because I know that his source is Jesus Christ, and that is what I want more of in my life.
I’m glad I read this book. I will have to admit that there were a few pages of theology that went over my head a bit. There were a few parts I didn’t really understand. Maybe I’ll understand it more after spending more time reading scripture, especially in Paul’s letters.
The second part of the book discusses Pauls believes, the theology he taught in his writings, and some areas where some theologians find confusion in what he says. The author also covers the continual tensions between Paul, who mostly taught Gentiles, and the other apostles who spent much of their time teaching Jewish people in various communities. The author makes it clear that paul had enemies in both the secular and Christian communities as well as the established Jewish community in Israel. Paul had to contend with people who were false teachers as well as genuine Christians who understood Christ’s words differently in someways. Meanwhile, the priests who served some of the Roman gods and goddesses as well as emperors in Rome became angry because the message paul shared with people cause them to stop sacrificing to goddesses like Diana in Ephesus. The Jewish high priest in Israel wasn’t happy with paul either and conspired to get him executed. Paul’s life was not easy, and it was fraught with tension in many cases. He spent most of his final years in prison, and he was eventually executed for sharing his faith. During this final passage in his life, he was abandoned by many of his support workers either because they became ill, they died, they were working in other areas to spread the gospel, they had been brutally executed themselves, or sadly, a few turned away from the Lord.
Yet he writes confidently about having contentment in all things and daily experiencing the joy of the Lord in several places in his letters, especially in Philippians. He is an example of how our attitude and our choice to focus on what matters touches every aspect of our lives. If I am honest with myself, I think I would get depressed after being shipped wrecked and would probably complain about the food or rats in prison. I would like to think that eventually I would learn the lessons that Paul learned. I am going to spend a lot of time over the next couple of months reading his epistles to the churches because I have so much to learn from him. Ultimately, I hope that by feasting on God’s word, I will be changed by that word and by God‘s leading in my life. I want to become more like Paul. I don’t want it in the way that someone wants to be just like a rockstar. I want it because I know that his source is Jesus Christ, and that is what I want more of in my life.
I’m glad I read this book. I will have to admit that there were a few pages of theology that went over my head a bit. There were a few parts I didn’t really understand. Maybe I’ll understand it more after spending more time reading scripture, especially in Paul’s letters.
September 22, 2022
This was a good example of how most people in secular theology view Paul, which is pretty similar to how you and I view the mailman. He has a lot of letters but doesn't really know anything about what they say. Essentially, Paul was a confused man. He is confused about what the Old Testament taught, being some sort of Maverick in his day juxtaposed from the Saducees and other religious leaders of his time. He is confused about who Christ is and what it means to be made righteous by faith. He is confused about his own teachings, relying on the cultural waves of his day and essentially falling in line when it aligns with what modern society wants and being a sophmoric philistine when he doesn't. Sanders is of course a proponent of the New Perspective on Paul as well as the Historic Jesus movement. Which is a lot of words to say that he has badly misunderstood Paul.
November 18, 2013
I got far more from this than I was expecting, which is both good (inasmuch as I actually think I know something about Paul and interpretations of him) and bad (inasmuch as I wanted a quick weekend read and instead got a crash course in how-to-argue-with-ancient-Christians-who-say-all-Christians-must-be-circumsized). I knew just enough about Paul and the way people understand him to feel that I knew what was going on, but be warned, this is much more academic/rigorous than most VSIs. Sanders is engaged in argument with other people just as much as he's engaged in writing to naifs like you and me. The book is, though, very well written. I wish the Further Reading had gone a bit further. But if you want to know about Paul in a few hours, highly recommended.
March 11, 2022
I knew E. P Sanders was associated with the New Perspective on Paul that has influenced my thinking, however, I had yet to actually read any Sanders work.
Honestly, what is most refreshing about this work is Sanders's scholarly and non-confessional approach. He doesn't seem to have an Anti-Paul and bias against Christianity like James Tabor; he doesn't seem to read between the lines, give things the worst possible spin and provide the least favorable interpretation like other writers. But he also writes, unlike many Christians, who feel the need to make Paul make sense and appear consistent. Sander simply can recognize when Paul clearly cherry-picks proof-text from scripture to support his case, engages in rationalizations, contradicts himself, and creates a whole host of non-sequiturs.
Paul believed he had a revelation from God on matters X, Y, and Z, but it generated a multitude of seemingly unsolvable problems, it was Paul's obligation to solve them. This led an otherwise, intelligent and reasonable fellow, to use the most tortured logic in his attempt to do so. Thus, Paul has baffled ordinary readers and theologians for almost 2,000 years. The problem for us Christians is that we assume Paul's solution to the problems MUST work and that they must actually make sense. Oceans of ink have been spilled attempting to harmonize, to force square pegs into round holes, to make rational and coherent Paul's hopelessly confused and desperate rationalizations, word-games, and rhetorical tricks.
Sanders can just let Paul be Paul, rather than trying to harmonize and make Paul a rational agent, He just charitably allows Paul to flounder, change his mind, speak nonsense, contradict himself and create tons of new problems with every problem he attempts to solve.
The reason it is so refreshing is it suggests that it is not our problem that we cannot make Paul coherent, the problem was with the apostle Paul, bless his heart.
The interesting thought for Christians, should we thus affirm that he truly received a gospel from God by revelation, seeing this as authoritative, while recognizing his attempts at solving the host of problems the revelation raised, was an utter failure; and then in doing so, continue the work by attempting the theologize like Paul, but to do so in a more reasonable manner?
Honestly, what is most refreshing about this work is Sanders's scholarly and non-confessional approach. He doesn't seem to have an Anti-Paul and bias against Christianity like James Tabor; he doesn't seem to read between the lines, give things the worst possible spin and provide the least favorable interpretation like other writers. But he also writes, unlike many Christians, who feel the need to make Paul make sense and appear consistent. Sander simply can recognize when Paul clearly cherry-picks proof-text from scripture to support his case, engages in rationalizations, contradicts himself, and creates a whole host of non-sequiturs.
Paul believed he had a revelation from God on matters X, Y, and Z, but it generated a multitude of seemingly unsolvable problems, it was Paul's obligation to solve them. This led an otherwise, intelligent and reasonable fellow, to use the most tortured logic in his attempt to do so. Thus, Paul has baffled ordinary readers and theologians for almost 2,000 years. The problem for us Christians is that we assume Paul's solution to the problems MUST work and that they must actually make sense. Oceans of ink have been spilled attempting to harmonize, to force square pegs into round holes, to make rational and coherent Paul's hopelessly confused and desperate rationalizations, word-games, and rhetorical tricks.
Sanders can just let Paul be Paul, rather than trying to harmonize and make Paul a rational agent, He just charitably allows Paul to flounder, change his mind, speak nonsense, contradict himself and create tons of new problems with every problem he attempts to solve.
The reason it is so refreshing is it suggests that it is not our problem that we cannot make Paul coherent, the problem was with the apostle Paul, bless his heart.
The interesting thought for Christians, should we thus affirm that he truly received a gospel from God by revelation, seeing this as authoritative, while recognizing his attempts at solving the host of problems the revelation raised, was an utter failure; and then in doing so, continue the work by attempting the theologize like Paul, but to do so in a more reasonable manner?
July 6, 2021
Decent introduction to Paul. Would recommend it along with Bart Ehrman's Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene. One thing sorely missing from Sanders' book is that he doesn't talk about the sources (that's Pauline epistles). It's very crucial that the readers know about which letters of Paul are judged to be his and which are considered forgeries, so we can actually sort out what Paul himself believed and not take forgers ideas for Paul's. Sanders almost exclusively cites from authentic letters (I didn't check every citation, but don't remember him citing anything from forged letters—Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus), but it would be nice if he explicitly talked about the sources and why they are problematic or not.
Sanders provoked some thoughts about how to treat history of people and ideas from the past:
There’s a tendency among some historians (and people in general) to synthesize the thoughts/opinions/views of an ancient person from surviving materials.
A lot of times these people collate arguments from multiple sources, that span an authors lifetime, into a single argument and pretend that this frankenstein of an idea existed, or even more absurd, that the ancient author had this comprehensive worldview throughout his life without change. Or if they find a person contradicting his previous views, they try to harmonize and accommodate those views.
When treating past people's ideas we should always follow these rules and make them explicit:
- Each document should stand for itself. Don't try to build a worldview from multiple documents that the author himself was unaware of. Here the sequence/chronology of the sources is of high importance to trace the evolution of ideas or changes in them. Worldviews are not static.
- Contradictions in the author's ideas doesn’t mean that there must be an overall philosophy that should accommodate them (or that the author had this overall philosophy). Maybe the author totally rejected his previous ideas during his lifetime, or improved them, or maybe they’re just contradictions because the author never actually explicitly tried to reconcile his different ideas. There are no philosophies without contradictions, because we are fallible.
Sanders provoked some thoughts about how to treat history of people and ideas from the past:
There’s a tendency among some historians (and people in general) to synthesize the thoughts/opinions/views of an ancient person from surviving materials.
A lot of times these people collate arguments from multiple sources, that span an authors lifetime, into a single argument and pretend that this frankenstein of an idea existed, or even more absurd, that the ancient author had this comprehensive worldview throughout his life without change. Or if they find a person contradicting his previous views, they try to harmonize and accommodate those views.
When treating past people's ideas we should always follow these rules and make them explicit:
- Each document should stand for itself. Don't try to build a worldview from multiple documents that the author himself was unaware of. Here the sequence/chronology of the sources is of high importance to trace the evolution of ideas or changes in them. Worldviews are not static.
- Contradictions in the author's ideas doesn’t mean that there must be an overall philosophy that should accommodate them (or that the author had this overall philosophy). Maybe the author totally rejected his previous ideas during his lifetime, or improved them, or maybe they’re just contradictions because the author never actually explicitly tried to reconcile his different ideas. There are no philosophies without contradictions, because we are fallible.
January 27, 2018
I came to this book from a humanist and rationalist viewpoint, wanting to understand more about the development of early Christian church and how it went from being an obscure Jewish sect, to a global religious power. I understood that Paul was one of the key players in this process. With this in mind, I found the book disappointing. Apparently there was a heated debate in the years after Jesus' death about whether Gentiles converting to Christianity had to become Jews too. There appear to me, to be fundamental incompatibilities between what God is supposed to have promised the tribes of Israel in the old testament, and the promises made to anyone following Jesus. Paul seems to have been heavily involved in trying to paper over these cracks in the church, using very inconsistent arguments. Even the author says "His conclusions were independent of the arguments that preceded them".
For the greater part of the book, the author goes into, a series of impenetrable, convoluted and detailed examinations of the text of Paul's alleged writings to try to justify Paul's precarious position, in another "papering over the cracks" exercise. Not a satisfying read for someone seeking logical philosophical arguments.
For the greater part of the book, the author goes into, a series of impenetrable, convoluted and detailed examinations of the text of Paul's alleged writings to try to justify Paul's precarious position, in another "papering over the cracks" exercise. Not a satisfying read for someone seeking logical philosophical arguments.
December 27, 2016
A Great Synopsis on St. Paul:
This books covers a lot of ground for understanding the Apostle Paul and the milieu that he wrote in. The first three chapters covers St. Paul's life and background, and then the rest of the book covers the fundamentals of Paul's theology.
However, this is not just a super basic book on Paul (as all VSI's go somewhat in-depth into the material). E.P Sanders takes the liberty of employing Greek terminology at times to make his point clear, especially on the chapters covering what Paul meant by being Righteoused. Also, on his chapter on Behavior, Sanders also goes in-depth in the background of Paul's contemporary world in order to contrast the Jewish code of behavior from the Graeco-Roman one.
Many people knock the work because it can be controversial for what he interprets as ultimately Paul's word on things. But I don't think the book gets so complex and detailed enough to be that controversial. Maybe with a few points here and there but nothing over the top.
Overall, a great intro into St. Paul from an amazing scholar. 5/5 stars.
This books covers a lot of ground for understanding the Apostle Paul and the milieu that he wrote in. The first three chapters covers St. Paul's life and background, and then the rest of the book covers the fundamentals of Paul's theology.
However, this is not just a super basic book on Paul (as all VSI's go somewhat in-depth into the material). E.P Sanders takes the liberty of employing Greek terminology at times to make his point clear, especially on the chapters covering what Paul meant by being Righteoused. Also, on his chapter on Behavior, Sanders also goes in-depth in the background of Paul's contemporary world in order to contrast the Jewish code of behavior from the Graeco-Roman one.
Many people knock the work because it can be controversial for what he interprets as ultimately Paul's word on things. But I don't think the book gets so complex and detailed enough to be that controversial. Maybe with a few points here and there but nothing over the top.
Overall, a great intro into St. Paul from an amazing scholar. 5/5 stars.
April 1, 2022
This was interesting from an academic perspective, but man people are still so weird for believing this stuff. I mean, I'm into my fifth decade on this planet now and I still can't seem to figure this out. Some people just feel this need to believe in something and some people don't. It's a weird thing. Anyway, there's my sofa philosophy rant.
All of that aside, if you're looking for something more in depth about Christianity this was a good place to start. Don't read this if you haven't read the Christian Bible before, seriously. Too many people I know talk about reading on in the series without finishing that book one. It's not an optional prequel.
All of that aside, if you're looking for something more in depth about Christianity this was a good place to start. Don't read this if you haven't read the Christian Bible before, seriously. Too many people I know talk about reading on in the series without finishing that book one. It's not an optional prequel.
October 7, 2021
I'm giving this book two stars with the sense of the Goodreads sense that "It was okay." I just cannot recommend this book highly. I kept finding in the middle of the good stuff a couple of pretty strong issues... I know Sanders is supposed to be a major proponent of "the new perspective on Paul" but there are a couple of important things he was not "getting" that were frustrating me as I read.
1. He's completely missing the possibility of that linguistic understanding of Paul's referring to the faith "OF" Christ, with all the accompanying theological accoutrements (which I think happen to go along quite well with, for example, a Lutheran or Episcopalian view).
2. He needs to read more Tillich and Nygren. Sanders has a very either/or perspective when it comes to certain matters, and we know that either/or thinking is one of the logical fallacies. In this book on Paul, for example, he says "Just as Paul, in common with other first-century Jews, did not see that there is a logical problem in holding together God’s providence and human choice (Ch. 5), he also did not see that the theory of natural ‘fruit’ does not harmonize well with the idea of free choice." This is very either/or thinking, especially when you consider the "Polarities" of Tillich, the second of which, as described by Bishop Robert Barron, is "freedom and destiny. The former is liberty to choose, to move, to be different, to find one’s own path. Without freedom, no living thing could possibly thrive. Tillich remarks that the uniqueness of each tree, plant, animal, and person is, to a large extent, a function of this capacity. However, freedom is in tension with destiny, by which Tillich means the substrate upon which freedom stands, the givens with which freedom works. Liberty never operates in a vacuum, nor is it capable of positing itself; rather, it works with the raw material of one’s family experience, education, language, body, and culture. Throughout life, these two poles remain in creative tension with one another, but any one-sided resolution would result in collapse: either the chaos of pure arbitrariness or the petrification of static traditionalism." And in the classic words of Anders Nygren, "The Christian's situation is more complicated than that. He really does live 'in Christ,' and so he is a member in 'the body of Christ,' but at the same time he lives 'in the flesh' (Gal. 2:20), and so is a member of Adam, of the body of the old fallen humanity." It's a matter of vision and perspective that in a way is its own gift because it is a tension that forces us out of stasis/rigidity and enables growth. Paul did not have a logical problem...rather, Sanders might have benefited from a broader perspective.
1. He's completely missing the possibility of that linguistic understanding of Paul's referring to the faith "OF" Christ, with all the accompanying theological accoutrements (which I think happen to go along quite well with, for example, a Lutheran or Episcopalian view).
2. He needs to read more Tillich and Nygren. Sanders has a very either/or perspective when it comes to certain matters, and we know that either/or thinking is one of the logical fallacies. In this book on Paul, for example, he says "Just as Paul, in common with other first-century Jews, did not see that there is a logical problem in holding together God’s providence and human choice (Ch. 5), he also did not see that the theory of natural ‘fruit’ does not harmonize well with the idea of free choice." This is very either/or thinking, especially when you consider the "Polarities" of Tillich, the second of which, as described by Bishop Robert Barron, is "freedom and destiny. The former is liberty to choose, to move, to be different, to find one’s own path. Without freedom, no living thing could possibly thrive. Tillich remarks that the uniqueness of each tree, plant, animal, and person is, to a large extent, a function of this capacity. However, freedom is in tension with destiny, by which Tillich means the substrate upon which freedom stands, the givens with which freedom works. Liberty never operates in a vacuum, nor is it capable of positing itself; rather, it works with the raw material of one’s family experience, education, language, body, and culture. Throughout life, these two poles remain in creative tension with one another, but any one-sided resolution would result in collapse: either the chaos of pure arbitrariness or the petrification of static traditionalism." And in the classic words of Anders Nygren, "The Christian's situation is more complicated than that. He really does live 'in Christ,' and so he is a member in 'the body of Christ,' but at the same time he lives 'in the flesh' (Gal. 2:20), and so is a member of Adam, of the body of the old fallen humanity." It's a matter of vision and perspective that in a way is its own gift because it is a tension that forces us out of stasis/rigidity and enables growth. Paul did not have a logical problem...rather, Sanders might have benefited from a broader perspective.
August 13, 2022
Absolute drivel, but not in the good way. Sanders is supposed to be a brilliant scholar, but this book as an introduction to the Apostle fell short in a number of ways. Instead of a general idea of Paul's life or his theology, we have Sanders' perspective on issues related to the New Perspective on Paul. While the NPP is important for modern Pauline scholarship, this introduction skips over all that and instead reads more as a summary of Sanders' other work. Without the context of that work, this book has a tendency to leave a reader bewildered about what on earth Sanders is supposed to be talking about.
His chapters on the resurrection and behavior (ethics) were particularly good, but the rest of the book was difficult to sit through. One of the biggest holes is Sander's inability to chart a "third way." He gets caught up in distinctions, like between Luther's "fictional, imputed righteousness" (why it is fictional Sanders never bothers to explain) and the "Pauline" view that righteousness is union with Christ, without ever thinking through the implications of either view by trying to piece them together or offering some other traditional Christian interpretations. Beyond the chapter on ethics, I would hesitate to recommend any part of this book to anyone.
His chapters on the resurrection and behavior (ethics) were particularly good, but the rest of the book was difficult to sit through. One of the biggest holes is Sander's inability to chart a "third way." He gets caught up in distinctions, like between Luther's "fictional, imputed righteousness" (why it is fictional Sanders never bothers to explain) and the "Pauline" view that righteousness is union with Christ, without ever thinking through the implications of either view by trying to piece them together or offering some other traditional Christian interpretations. Beyond the chapter on ethics, I would hesitate to recommend any part of this book to anyone.
April 3, 2021
E. P Sanders provides a good, well-rounded overview of Paul's writings. Given the nature of this 'very short introduction', one cannot expect a thorough handling of every aspect of Paul's first century correspondence. That being said, Sanders covers themes such as Paul's view on the law, the problem of Israel's salvation, Paul's Christology, as well as a more focused look as Galatians and Romans.
While Sanders addresses Paul's Jewishness, I do not believe he gives Paul his due credit for the rabbinic nature of his teachings. Sanders seems to make the assumption that Paul changes his mind quite a bit with regards to various theological views, and while this may be the case, I think often this can be a result of Paul consciously being aware of his specific audience and thus tailoring his teaching emphasis.
It therefore would have been good to hear Sanders' thoughts on Paul in a specific context, say just the book of Galatians, rather than a systematized overview which I believe fails to capture the true genius of one of the most influential writers of all time.
While Sanders addresses Paul's Jewishness, I do not believe he gives Paul his due credit for the rabbinic nature of his teachings. Sanders seems to make the assumption that Paul changes his mind quite a bit with regards to various theological views, and while this may be the case, I think often this can be a result of Paul consciously being aware of his specific audience and thus tailoring his teaching emphasis.
It therefore would have been good to hear Sanders' thoughts on Paul in a specific context, say just the book of Galatians, rather than a systematized overview which I believe fails to capture the true genius of one of the most influential writers of all time.
September 30, 2017
An excellent overview of Paul and the main themes in his epistles. The book covers the law, the new relationship in Christ, misalaneous topics and explains those such as the experience of the Gentiles with pornea in its particular cultural setting, and the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in a theological and redemptive perspective. I would recommend this book as a good starting point for understanding Paul's theology. It might make reading his epistles easier. He poses questions about Paul's meanings in the texts and then endeavors nicely to answer them. The book has a nice list of source explanations and suggestions for further readings on Paul and his times. I'm pretty familiar with the Pauline epistles and I learned things from this book.
February 3, 2019
This is an interesting survey of Paul's theology. It sticks closely to source material and so doesn't provide much speculation about the historical details and context of Paul's life. Some of the theological debates were confusing and too byzantine for an introductory text (e.g. debates about translations of specific Greek, Latin, and Aramaic words). Paul's major concerns--understanding his special apostleship to the Gentiles and the theological implications of the rejection of Christ by his Jewish brethren--constitute the central focus of this short introduction. There are chapters on Paul's views of right conduct, with special attention paid to how converts to Christianity were to respond to the laws of conduct, rituals, and dietary constraints of the Jewish faith.
March 23, 2021
Sanders introduces and explores a lot of the “problems” presented by the inconsistencies and logical jumps in Paul’s writings before arguing that Paul was an apostle, not a systemic theologian. He was responding to particular circumstances rather than putting together a coherent system of philosophy. Sanders ends by asking if a religion must pose consistent answers in order to be considered valid. This approach - both the argument and the final question - will stick with me. I also appreciated his clear explanation of how how so much of our understanding of Paul is based on translation. Sanders is very opposed to Luther’s interpretation - I would be curious to follow up with a scholar on the other side of this issue.
September 8, 2024
I recommend Moore College students read this. It helped me appreciate what we have (that sanders doesn't) a valid and careful way of reading Paul, rather than calling him a sarcastic, muddled, "ad-hoc theologian" who uses OT merely for proof texts, who can only think backwards from Christ (rather than have a rich biblical theology from what he knew of the whole of OT scriptures).
It also showed me the difficulties of dispensationalism theology, thankful for biblical theology which does a better job at tracing the storyline in meaningful ways.
It's only 140 small pages with some pictures too, so if you hate it, at least it is only 1 hour of your life!
P.s. my aim is to read a couple of these "very short introductions" each holiday. Yay that Moore College has lots of them!
It also showed me the difficulties of dispensationalism theology, thankful for biblical theology which does a better job at tracing the storyline in meaningful ways.
It's only 140 small pages with some pictures too, so if you hate it, at least it is only 1 hour of your life!
P.s. my aim is to read a couple of these "very short introductions" each holiday. Yay that Moore College has lots of them!
February 20, 2019
Paul was not a systematic theologian. He had an experience of the risen Christ. From this he sought to reconcile this experience with who he was as a Pharisee. His theology of an after life can be seen as developing or a fluid. Regarding Jewish practices for gentiles or participating in pagan (his word for gentiles) practices he could be open minded. When it came to sexual ethics he imposed his conservative Jewish ethic on everyone. E.P Sanders gives a brief introduction to the theology of Paul which existed in Christianity's embryonic period and went on to influence Christian Theology more than Paul could have imagined.
May 7, 2019
One of my textbooks (which says much about the class 😏), and not a very good one. Sanders is of course committed to his own original view about Paul’s thought, and he makes that clear throughout the book. The ideas that led him to academic fame are taken for granted and no time is given to the traditional view of Paul’s theology. A bit disappointed in this sense, particularly considering that 50% of the book is devoted to the controversy of “works of the law” vs. “faith”. At least it’s a good summary to keep things fresh and be reminded of Sanders’ emphasis on participation and new creation (as opposed to Luther et al’s forensic justification and imputed righteousness).
July 29, 2023
Me ha parecido una buena introducción a la figura de Pablo de Tarso, sin ser yo un experto en el tema. Cubre brevemente pero con rigor todos los temas relevantes: biografía y fuentes históricas, sus epístolas y la teología que se desprende de ellas. Sanders dedica secciones considerables a hablar de los problemas a la hora de traducir, las sutilezas de algunos términos y el contexto cultural, que es fundamental para no leer ciertos pasajes imponiéndoles creencias o suposiciones actuales.
El autor no tiene una perspectiva evangelista ni tampoco hostil, ha sido una lectura fácil aunque densa. Mi única queja es que a menudo referencia versículos sin citarlos, así que se hace necesario consultar algunas cosas aparte.
Aunque no lo recomendaría como una primera lectura sobre el tema, es verdaderamente una muy buena introducción brevísima.
El autor no tiene una perspectiva evangelista ni tampoco hostil, ha sido una lectura fácil aunque densa. Mi única queja es que a menudo referencia versículos sin citarlos, así que se hace necesario consultar algunas cosas aparte.
Aunque no lo recomendaría como una primera lectura sobre el tema, es verdaderamente una muy buena introducción brevísima.
January 12, 2018
So grateful to the friend who loaned me this book! It is “a very short introduction”, but it is also a helpful and well-researched one. As the book admits, Paul is challenging and confounding. Some of his statements are contradictory. Sanders’ scholarship is thorough. He unpacks the main premises of Paul’s theology in a clear yet detailed manner.
November 9, 2018
Amazing
I learned so much. Sanders will blow your mind. It all depends upon seeing Paul as a charismatic Jewish missionary and theologian, rather than a philosophical or systematic theologian. Paul is allowed to use images, terminology, and arguments in an ad hoc way, even if they would contradict each other if taken absolutely.
I learned so much. Sanders will blow your mind. It all depends upon seeing Paul as a charismatic Jewish missionary and theologian, rather than a philosophical or systematic theologian. Paul is allowed to use images, terminology, and arguments in an ad hoc way, even if they would contradict each other if taken absolutely.
January 28, 2018
It is a good overview one Saint Paul his life, preach and theology.
His distinction between the Jews and Gentiles was interesting.
I think it is a good VSI coming from knowing nothing about him to forming a broad idea.
His distinction between the Jews and Gentiles was interesting.
I think it is a good VSI coming from knowing nothing about him to forming a broad idea.
October 18, 2017
A good introduction to Paul’s epistles and writing style.
March 23, 2019
Fairly easy to read short book on APaul's theology. Recommended.
November 13, 2019
A good little book for not just doing what it says on the cover, but also explaining how difficulties in translation to English can change the intended meaning of the Bible’s authors
March 8, 2020
A good summary of a liberal interpretation of Paul. I disagree with his evaluation of Acts and his disregard for the disputed letters. Still, there is some good research here.
July 2, 2020
I realise in this book just how prolifically influential for better or worse St Paul is. This book makes me want to visit Karl Barth's commentary on Romans
August 15, 2020
I've been trying to read Sander's longer book on Paul for years, but this shorter book is excellent and easy to read.
March 22, 2022
I've read lots of the Past Masters/Very Short Introductions. Some are great, others not so much. This is one of the very best!
Read
October 1, 2022Nathan
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews