Does anyone out there know of any serious post-Sanders attempt to use Paul (and a kind of mirror-reading of him) as a primary source for reconstructing first-century Pharisaism?
I’m aware that would be a risky business and need a very careful methodology. However, it seems to me that, if you are persuaded by Steve Mason’s (inter alia) argument that Josephus was not a Pharisee, then Paul is the only first-century Pharisee whose first-hand evidence we have. In just about any other area of study, no-one would ignore their sole first-hand source, however difficult the interpretation of that source might be.
So, does anyone know of serious work done exploring either the methodology or the question?
{ 6 comments }
Hi Doug
From memory, Alan Segal has some comments about using Paul as a source for 1st century Judaism in Paul the Convert. He is more interested in connections with the Merkabah traditions than Pharisaism as such, but there might be something in there.
Sean
Though I haven’t read it, you may want to read Charles Talbert (one of my teacher’s) Smyth and Helwys commentary on Romans. He does not find the New Perspective convincing, and so this would definitely at least be a ‘post-Sanders’ approach.
You might try Saldarini’s Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society.
Thanks to those who have answered so far.
Doug,
As far as the question goes, I have not seen anything recently; although, as Sean pointed out, Segal’s book is of some use. As far as the method goes, there are scattered bits that would ultimately assist such a study; Neusner’s 1992 BBR article, “Mr. Sanders’ Pharisees and Mine”, while a polemical response to Sanders, would be a decent place to start and it is especially helpful in keeping the study under control. Here is the article: http://www.ibr-bbr.org/IBRBulletin/BBR_1992/BBR-1992_09_Neusner_Pharisees.pdf.
I’ll keep my eyes open and let you know if I find anything else. Take care.
Thanks
Comments on this entry are closed.