Where Is Boasting? is a revised doctoral dissertation by Simon Gathercole, originally undertaken under the supervision of James D. G. Dunn at the University of Durham. It consists of two – slightly unequal – parts, after a lengthy introduction (pp. 1-34). Gathercole orients his discussion throughout around the motif of ‘boasting’ within Romans (see esp. 2:17-24; 3:27; 4:2-8; 5:1-11). This is, in the first instance, because the motif has been insufficiently explored within broader discussion. There is a lacuna in scholarship at this point, which is always a good thing for a doctoral dissertation to find. But what makes this dissertation so significant is, second, that this is also a useful point of pressure in relation to the ‘new perspective's’ exegesis of Rom 1-5 – Gathercole's main target. Gathercole is really concerned to rebut the reading of ‘works of law’ in Paul in terms of national Judaism and sociological ‘boundary’ concerns like the Sabbath, circumcision and the food laws – the theses in the main of J. D. G. Dunn and N. T. Wright (although Gathercole is correct to point constantly to the slightly different developments of this notion within the broader systems of these two scholars). In this relation, Gathercole is concerned, in addition, to rebut the suggestions that elements of obedience, and hence of rightful ‘earning’, ought to be eliminated from the Judaism of Paul's day as well, and hence again from Paul's talk of ‘works of law’ – some of the theses of E. P. Sanders. He holds these exclusions to be unjustified both on broad, historical, and on more narrow, exegetical grounds.

Gathercole surveys in part one the various relevant blocks of Jewish literature – the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (pp. 37-90), the DSS (pp. 91111), the relevant parts of the New Testament (pp. 112-35), and overtly post-AD 70 Jewish texts (pp. 136-60), summarising this section's findings in relation to late Second Temple Judaism as a whole (pp. 161-94). He concludes that elements of obedience and earning – in relation to which appropriate boasting can take place – are not absent from this literature but relatively widely attested. This obedience is also future oriented. This behaviour is generally assessed on the day of judgement, which clearly lies in the future, and as such inevitably involves a partly individualistic orientation as well. Hence the ‘new perspective's’ characterisations of Judaism must be corrected, although they need not be entirely abandoned. That is, as he describes and presents the sources, Judaism seems to be characterised fundamentally by a soteriological contract, although Gathercole does not use this exact language. There is of course a legitimate emphasis on the actual giving of the contract by God to Israel in the past, which was a fundamentally benevolent if not gracious action (since it offered salvation, etc.) – important emphases recovered by ‘the new perspective’. However, Gathercole points out that many of the Jewish texts still regard law-observance as the human side of this bargain that must be undertaken correctly and consistently, and this will be evaluated in the future, eschatologically. As such, human activity in this relation is partly self-interested, obedient and, if extensive, resulting in legitimate self-congratulation or mutual recognition, i.e. in boasting. It is this part of the equation that Gathercole's survey seeks to recover in part 1 of his analysis, that ‘new perspective’ accounts seem to have lost or under-emphasised. And most will agree that he has generally made his case here.

In part 2 of his argument (pp. 197-262, although anticipated in pp. 124-34 where ‘the righteous Gentile’ of Rom 2 is discussed), Gathercole then reintroduces these corrections into ‘new perspective’ exegesis of Rom 1-5, repudiating many of its assertions at the points where boasting occurs in the text. He rejects the construal of Paul's argument at these points in terms of some debate over ‘Gentile inclusion’ and the doing of the law as a demarcation of the appropriate boundary to the people of God (or not, as the case may be), and argues instead for a more traditional construal of Paul's argument. ‘Works of law’ are rejected for all, the apostle says, and refer to sheer obedience to all the commands, which Paul holds to be both mistaken and impossible. As such, Gathercole tends to endorse construals offered by the more conservative and traditional commentaries of Schreiner, Moo and Byrne at most points as against the readings offered by Dunn's commentary and the shorter studies of Wright and others. Exegesis at these points, Gathercole contends, really needs to go back to Egypt, so to speak.

This is a fine doctoral dissertation, justly published. It is generally very clear, well researched, and insightful in its argumentation. However – as Gathercole himself is well aware – much yet remains to be done. For me, there is a sense about things of ‘unfinished business’.

I found that the two phases of research did not always integrate happily with one another. While I was generally convinced that the Jewish literature supported his corrections to the description of Judaism (although the inclusion of the predestinarian DSS here is awkward and perhaps needs more thought), our new appreciation of the nature of boasting did not always translate happily into a smooth repudiation of ‘new perspective’ exegesis of Rom 1-5. Gathercole's emphasis on the accuracy of the traditional reading of 4:2-8 following 3:27-8 is certainly a helpful corrective: he simply seems right here. But the boasting that Paul speaks of in 2:17-24 seemed much more awkwardly so included. Indeed, this seemed a classic instance of more sociological concerns, as the argument's explicit orientation towards Gentile shaming of Jews in verses 23-4 indicates. I was also not entirely sure why Hays's famous reading of Rom 4:1 was wrong. Moreover, if Gathercole is right about verses 2-8 it does not seem to follow that Hays, Wright, et al. are wrong about verses 9–24. I was also not sure why Abraham himself was ungodly in 4:2-8, since the text does not explicitly say this, and Gathercole's survey of the Jewish literature would not lead us to expect this reading. (I was not even sure of David's involvement within the judgement of Ps 31:1 in verses 7-8; how do we know that ‘David’ is mentioned here by Paul as anything more than a marker of scriptural citation?) But above all I found myself asking, if Gathercole is right exegetically – and I think that in most of what he asserts he is – then how have the questions raised (as against the answers given) by ‘the new perspective’ actually been resolved? That is, I could not understand how to get, in a fair and responsible way, from Gathercole's description of Judaism – salvation through works – to Paul's traditional description of Christianity, in terms of salvation through faith alone. Is Judaism, conceived in such terms, still wrong in and of itself? Or is Paul criticising Judaism from an explicitly Christian perspective? Whichever one of these alternatives Gathercole chooses (and he seems at different times to pursue both), further issues remain for him to resolve, and I await his answers with interest.

If he chooses the former option, then it seems that his survey of the Jewish literature contradicts his own conclusion. Most Jews of Paul's day did not feel that law-observance was unreasonable. So why did Paul feel so negatively about it? Moreover, why are all the Jews, who do not agree with him, essentially so stupid? (They don't realise this and they are damned as a result; their own account of their religion is also fundamentally misguided.) And why is law-observance not now still ‘regulative’ for Christians? (as against saving). (That is, what is present within this argument that actually eliminates law-observance instead of construing it in a complementary fashion to faith – as all the contemporary Jewish sources do?) Moreover, why is Paul's perception of ‘the flesh’ so negative and also so determinative? (On what basis do we know that his pessimism is right here as against merely neurotic?) And, most importantly, why can the sin generated by the flesh not be atoned for by the usual means? Gathercole seems to speak repeatedly of an ‘unrepentant’ Jew at this point. But if this Jew repents, then presumably this problem is solved (and faith is not in sight) – and there is plenty of Jewish literature that evidences a concern with repentance. We seem, in short, to be back with the central concern of ‘the new perspective’ that Paul's account of Judaism is unfair. And part 1 of Gathercole's argument seems to confirm this, while the exegesis of part 2 gives us no way of resolving this. (We are out of the fire, but back in the frying pan.)

If the latter option is exercised, then Gathercole needs to show us how to construe Paul's texts and argumentation throughout Rom 1-5 in a thoroughgoing retrospective fashion, which of course, neither he nor the traditional commentators do. Intriguingly, Gathercole does do this when he explicates boasting in Rom 5:1-11. Paul's argument here is explicitly retrospective. But if this is a summary of the preceding argument – as seems fair to claim, at least in part – then how are we actually to read the earlier material? Gathercole's traditional exegesis of Paul at many earlier points now becomes a problem. Paul is, it would seem, confused. (So has Gathercole delivered Paul from Dunn, Sanders and Wright, only to hand him over to Räisänen?)

I assume that some of Gathercole's subsequent work has been wrestling with just these questions – questions that his doctorate raises so ably and penetratingly. And given the quality of his initial contributions, I look forward to his further arguments with great anticipation; they will doubtless be something to ponder carefully. And in the mean time, all students of Paul involved with these central debates need to do the same for the present work (if they have not already done so).