I’m honored by your comment. You are completely correct about Sanders’ critique of the bad Judaism, good Christianity reading (popular by the time of the Reformation).

However, Sanders doesn’t lay all the blame on later Christians. On page 554 of Paul and Palestinian Judaism, Sanders accuses Saint Paul of wrongly applying the curses Deuteronomy to Judaism in order to supplement Paul’s already functioning soteriology. Just a couple pages before, Sanders accususe Paul of “ignoring” and “denying” the grace of God toward Israel.

Is there good stuff in Sanders? You bet! However, I’m uncomfortable with how he casts Paul. Sanders appers to understand Judaism better than the Apostle. I just can’t buy that.

‘Sanders desires to characterize St. Paul’s pessimistic view of Judaism as a psychological justification for Paul’s conversion to Christ. Sanders would have us believe that Paul invented the idea of a covenant-cursed Israel in order to justify Paul’s existential angst over becoming a Christian. Sanders thus sees Paul creating a “good” Christianity that supercedes a “bad” Judaism – a so-called Pauline doctrine that Sanders doesn’t appreciate.’

If I recall correctly, Sanders in fact criticizes typical the typical Reformation and post-Reformation reading of Paul precisely on the basis that it asserts a “bad Judaism/good Christianity” dualism. It’s not that Paul is pessimistic about Judaism and finds in the gospel a solution; rather, he meets the risen Christ and discovers that he is wrong about the Church.

Perhaps my recollection is wrong. If so, please correct me.