There is a criticism of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) that has come up in our Paul and the Law class several times (first initiated by Dr. Hagner himself) which I find both troublesome and intriguing. It goes like this: in its attempts to absolve 1st century Judaism of a legalistic image, the NPP has instead accused Paul’s Jewish opponents of being racist.

Where does this come from? You see, the NPP understands Judaism in terms of “covenantal nomism” instead of legalism, that is, the Jews had a devotion to the law as part of their covenant with YHWH but they did not believe one must obey it to perfection in order to be “saved.” So what was Paul talking about in the “negative texts” about the law in Galatians and Romans? According to the NPP, Paul is vehemently opposed to certain “works of the law” (like circumcision) which function as “boundary markers” to the Jewish “in-crowd,” so to speak. In other words, the form of Judaism that Paul opposes is one that is exclusively “nationalistic,” in which one must perform these works to be initiated into this “nation.” Thus, the Jews of Paul’s time were not legalistic, but close-minded and nationalistic. In our class, Hagner used the word “racist” as a pedagogical tool to make it “easier to understand.”

What it does, I think, is make the antagonistic bias against the NPP “easier to understand,” not the NPP itself. There are a number of questions that make this “racism” language problematic. First, it obviously has a loaded, negative connotation in the context of US social and political history. What we think of first is the enslavement and oppression of Africans and their decedents. We think of the struggle for civil rights. We think of all our “melting pot” conflicts between Caucasian, Black/African-American, Latino/a, Asian, etc. persons (such as gang violence between Black gangs and Latino gangs). The term feels violent and bordering on vulgar. When Hagner characterizes the NPP view of Paul as calling Judaism “racist,” he is putting a very negative slant on the NPP view.

Secondly, even if we try to be objective about the term “racism,” extracting its historical baggage, does it even work descriptively? I’m no sociologist, but I’m not sure we can say that we’re talking about a hatred or antagonism against other “races.” To get some help here with definitions, I looked to some basic references. The Encyclopedia Britannica Online suggests that to use the term may even be anachronistic, Race is:

the idea that the human species is divided into distinct groups on the basis of inherited physical and behavioral differences. Genetic studies in the late 20th century denied the existence of biogenetically distinct races, and scholars now argue that “races” are cultural interventions reflecting specific attitudes and beliefs that were imposed on different populations in the wake of western European conquests beginning in the 15th century.

Furthermore, it may be defined generally more by physical characteristics:

In the United States, for example, the term race generally refers to a group of people who have in common some visible physical traits, such as skin colour, hair texture, facial features, and eye formation. Such distinctive features are associated with large, geographically separated populations, and these continental aggregates are also designated as races, as the “African race,” the “European race,” and the “Asian race.”

The Britannica article on race does go on to say that there are some secondary uses of the term, but most scholarship of the term has focused on uses regarding “biophysical characteristics.” Britannica’s entry for “racism” builds on this understanding of “race”:

any action, practice, or belief that reflects the racial worldview—the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races,” that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral features, and that some races are innately superior to others.

Perhaps one could make a case for racism existing in early Judaism, though I imagine that similar ideologies of superiority would be found in almost any group of the time period that we know of. But the question is whether this is what the NPP is arguing that Paul was saying about his opponents. I think not. It seems that they are saying that Paul is reacting against a type of Judaism which is extremely dedicated to a particular understanding of their covenant with YHWH. In this understanding, performing these “boundary marker” works of the law were necessary for inclusion in their dedicated and covenantal group. Paul says that those “boundary marker” works are not necessary for inclusion, only faith in Christ. It may be exclusivism, but it’s not racism.

I have two final comments. First, I do want to acknowledge that it is worth questioning how much ground is gained in Jewish-Christian relations if we stop accusing Judaism of one fault, but assign it another. Even if we don’t call that fault the harsh “racism” term, it’s still not very friendly. Along with that, implied in this critique is a good question: should Jewish-Christian relations even be a determining factor in our exegesis? Secondly, however, the use of this comment in our class is just one part of an overall antagonistic atmosphere opposed to the NPP. Snide and snarky jabs are made at the NPP authors every week from all over the classroom. Perhaps it is all in good fun, but the negativity grates on my conscience. I feel we should approach these issues with more openness and humility. I don’t care if the scholars we’re reading don’t seem humble in their writings; I don’t think we should stoop to polemical and pejorative language. It may be fun, but it doesn’t seem right.

Thanks for reading through my venting!

I am taking two courses this Winter that have so far had some interesting parallels, especially in regard to legalism. My “Paul and the Law” class is taught by Don Hagner, along with some very capable doctoral students giving presentations. It is an introduction for me into the New Perspective debate on Paul (I will refer to the New Perspective as the NPP and the Old Perspective as the OPP–Not to be confused with: “You down with OPP? Yeah, you know me”). I’ve had a vague sort of concept of it, but now I’m starting to learn some of the basics. The NPP is trying to say that the OPP is colored by a “Lutheran” understanding of Paul. That is, the OPP is allegedly reading too much of a Reformation-like “justification by faith” emphasis into Paul. Therefore, the OPP (typically consisting of more conservative Protestants) is projecting their negative attitude towards the Roman Catholic Church (at least as it was in the 16th Century) into their understanding of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism.

The NPP authors, as I understand, consist of something of a not well-defined historical trajectory including W. D. Davies to Krister Stendahl to E. P. Sanders to N. T. Wright to James Dunn. This group would instead argue that the primary issue in the Pauline corpus, particularly Galatians and Romans, is a reaction against a “national righteousness” consciousness or simply a “national pride” that hindered them from accepting Gentiles into their fold. Paul’s arguments on “justification by faith,” therefore, should be understood as part of the Jewish-Gentile debate and not the central core of his theology (if that can even be found!).

The OPP seeks to prove that Judaism was legalistic in the time of the NT. That way we can say that Paul was reacting against that legalism and not just a closed-minded “national identity.” Both sides use rabbinic literature to make their case, but it is notoriously difficult to determine what from rabbinic literature (Mishnah, Talmuds, Midrashim, etc.) backdates into the first century. If the rabbinic documents do lean on the legalistic side, maybe Judaism was reacting against a perceived libertarianism in Christianity. It is hard to know.

If so, it would be similar to the reaction of the early church towards the Docetic and Gnostic threats in the second century. In my class on “Early Church History,” taught by James Bradley, we are learning that though elements of “grace” can be found in the Apostolic Fathers, we see a distinct move towards legalism. Bradley suggests that this is a reaction to the perceived libertarianism in Gnosticism. If the NT documents are a reaction against legalism, can the established, orthodox church really be considered 100% orthodox when it has gone too far towards legalism? Then again, one of the complications here is that the early church does not have an established NT canon. So it is somewhat anachronistic to judge the early church against the standards of the NT documents as we understand them today.

Isn’t ironic that if the NT does indeed emphasize grace over a “covenantal nomism” that the church itself was drawn towards legalism not too long into its beginnings? The Reformation “Lutherans” no doubt saw themselves as recovering the biblical vision of grace after a much longer period of legalistic leanings had taken place. To me, though, it seems so much more messy than an either-or dichotomy. Looking at Paul (let alone the entire NT canon), even Galatians itself, we can see a concern for both grace and ethics. I wonder if it could be both the OPP and the NPP. It seems rather presumptuous for us to proclaim that there was only one characteristic of Second Temple Judaism that a Christian Jew (or Jewish Christian, as Hagner would say) like Paul is reacting against, and that we know what it is for sure.

I know that the major concern for OPP people is that it leads to a dual path for salvation for Jews and for Christians. Hagner is adamant that there is only one way. I think that starting with that theological presumption taints our reading of the material. It only proves the point for me that OPP followers are reading the NT with Luther & Augustine colored glasses. I think theology should come after our exegesis of the texts.

It should be interesting for me to think through the issue from the perspective of Anabaptism after a close reading of the relevant texts. Anabaptism has some history with legalism and my own predisposition, I think, would be for the NPP. After a brief search for articles relating directly to an Anabaptist perspective on the NPP, not much turned up. I did discover that John Toews’ commentary on Romans shares the NPP and two articles that rely on the NPP from an Anabaptist perspective can be found here and here. But I have to try not to make prejudgments here. If I do end up on the side of the NPP, I don’t want to get there uncritically.

By the way, for more on the New Perspective, check out The Paul Page.