This important work challenges the validity of the "New Perspective" on Paul and Judaism. Working with new data fom Jewish literature and a fresh reading of Romans 1–5, Simon Gathercole produces a far-reaching criticism of the current approach to Paul and points a new way forward. Building on a detailed examination of the past generation of scholarship on Paul and early Judaism, Gathercole's work follows two paths. First, he shows that while early Judaism was not truly oriented around legalistic works-righteousness, it did consider obedience to the Law to be an important criterion at the final judgment. On the basis of this reconstruction of Jewish thought and a rereading of Romans 1–5, Gathercole advances his main argument — that Paul did indeed combat a Jewish perspective that saw obedience to the Law both as possible and as a criterion for vindication at the final judgment. Paul's reply is that obedience to the Law is not a criterion for the final judgment because human nature makes obedience to the Law impossible. His doctrine of justification can therefore be properly viewed in its Jewish context, yet anthropological issues also take center stage.

This important work challenges the validity of the "New Perspective" on Paul and Judaism. Working with new data fom Jewish literature and a fresh reading of Romans 1–5, Simon Gathercole produces a far-reaching criticism of the current approach to Paul and points a new way forward. Building on a detailed examination of the past generation of scholarship on Paul and early Judaism, Gathercole's work follows two paths. First, he shows that while early Judaism was not truly oriented around legalistic works-righteousness, it did consider obedience to the Law to be an important criterion at the final judgment. On the basis of this reconstruction of Jewish thought and a rereading of Romans 1–5, Gathercole advances his main argument — that Paul did indeed combat a Jewish perspective that saw obedience to the Law both as possible and as a criterion for vindication at the final judgment. Paul's reply is that obedience to the Law is not a criterion for the final judgment because human nature makes obedience to the Law impossible. His doctrine of justification can therefore be properly viewed in its Jewish context, yet anthropological issues also take center stage.

Isaac Blois argues that Paul's focus in Philippians on the mutual boasting shared between himself and his converts draws on the mutual boasting shared between Israel and her covenant God, as apparent in both Deuteronomy and Isaiah. Using the appearance of this central theme in the pivotal passages of Phil 1:25-26 and 2:14-16 as his focus, Blois stresses the integral relation between mutual boasting and the role that it plays in Paul's exhortations to the Philippian believers, exploring its backdrop in both the biblical tradition and the cultures surrounding them. Blois demonstrates how the mutual boasting that Paul shares with his beloved community is culturally appropriate; the sharing of honor among friends and family was common in antiquity, as seen through the epistolary writing of prominent Roman authors such as Cicero, Seneca, and Fronto. In light of the Scriptural and cultural basis for this motif of shared boasting, Blois argues that the apostle is able to deploy the motif in order to motivate an appropriate response from his audience in the letter. Focusing on the prominence of mutual honor and its use for motivation in Philippians 1 and 2, Blois offers a fresh perspective on the exhortative function of the eschatological boasting that is to exist between Paul and his congregation on the day of Christ.

In addition to examining Romans IV, includes discussion of writings supporting and opposing the New Perspective position.