Hurrah for agreement!

I think I am agreeing with you now though. Race-pride does not have to equate to xenophobia.

Well, I will say that based on my minimal sociological research (and what I’m recalling from my anthropology class in college), saying that it is not about race does not add up to them saying that the Jewish (Christian) opponents are racist. Unfortunately I don’t have a copy of Climax of the Covenant, but in Wright’s What Saint Paul Really Said, I have noticed that he is using the word “race” to talk about the “Jewish race.” And in regard to that, I’ll refer back to my comment on 1/26 at 8:06 AM, regarding the “secondary” meaning of race. Even if Wright or others use the word “race,” I still think it’s a jump to go from that understanding of race to our modern understanding of “racism.” So I’ll concede that Hagner can use the word “race,” but I still think “racism” is inappropriate and inaccurate.

So there

“What counts [in Rom 9.6-13], exactly as in Romans 3.21-4.25 or Galatians 3-4, is grace, not race” (238).

I only raise this point to show that Hagner did not invent this phrase nor is he misrepresenting the case when he says that race is important in the NPP’s conception of first-century Judaism (at least with regard to Wright’s reconstruction).

Glad we got that straightened out.

In my reading of the NPP, I was concerned with the language of “Judaism” as a whole, rather than various forms or manifestations of Judaism.

I don’t think Paul was anti-Judaic, but against a certain form of Judaism. But I agree with you that if Paul were anti-Judaic, I wouldn’t deny it because of recent historical sensitivities. I think it is a necessary avenue to explore, Jewish-Christian relations, but I think we have to be as honest as possible for those relations to work.

Thanks, Matt, for so many helpful thoughts!

My point is that it is only a small step from extreme ethnic pride and overt nationalism to racism. The birth place of genocide is often that small step.

But, more on target here, our materials present some of the Jews with which the Christ-followers debated as quite ethnically proud. I think immediately of the idea of boasting, the Good Samaritan parable, etc.

Either way, Neusner highlights the point that the NPP (represented by Dunn) has not presented us with a satisfactory picture of Judaism (at least not to this one Jewish rabbi). Like you said, one fault has been replaced with another. Neusner dislikes the way that early Christian documents set Judaism up as a straw man that is easily pushed over by the superior Christian religion.

As a corollary, Neusner also highlights the complexity of Judaism between 200 BC and AD 500. To label all of Judaism this or that is a mistake, which is why Elliot’s program in Survivors is becoming more appealing to me (he only focuses on a particular sort of Judaism instead of “normative,” “formative,” or “common” Judaism).

Regarding the idea of Jewish-Christian relations and our interpretations of (Pauline) texts: Since the Holocaust I do not imagine that scholars in the academy could get away with insensitive research. But being sensitive should not overshadow being true to our texts. If Paul was anti-Judaic, so be it. The question for us then would be: What does that mean for us today?

Thank you for such a well thought-out response. First, I’d just like to say that I think Neusner may have a good argument (and I’ll try to assess it in just a second), but my primary concern still stands: I don’t think “racism” is the correct term. Based on the definitions, I don’t think we can make the jump from “nationalistic” to “racist.” Romans 9:3 uses the term τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν συγγενῶν μου κατὰ σάρκα, literally, “my brothers, my kindred according to the flesh.” This sounds like an ethnic distinction, not racial in the “biophysical characteristics” sense.

I think that it is possible to use a secondary meaning of the term “race” to describe “the Jewish race.” But it seems to me that “racism” does not function based on the secondary meanings. To reiterate, it would appear that “racism” means that one believes 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.” Maybe you could try to make circumcision that “inherited physical trait,” but I think that’s kind of cheating. In other words, even if we allow that Judaism can be spoken of as a “race” in a secondary sense (as an ethnic group), this secondary sense cannot be used as a basis for “racism” (judgments of superiority based on inherited physical characteristics), strictly speaking. And in any regard, it is not what the NPP is saying. I will stand by my conviction (and I think sociologists would be with me here) that exclusive “nationalism” is not the same as “racism,” even if Neusner himself fails to make the distinction. I think using the term “racism” is incorrect, unhelpful, and even destructive in the debate.

Now that I have said that, I’m not ruling out that Neusner may have a good point. If I’m reading your reading of Neusner correctly, it sounds like he is saying that the Judaism of this time period did not make ethnic/nationalistic distinctions, but that Paul characterized Judaism as doing such. In response: first, this would seem to undercut the NPP argument that there must be evidence of the kind of Judaism that he is responding to, but using one of our presenters’ arguments (James?) for a different purpose, even if we grant Neusner his interpretation of the texts, I think it is possible that the literature may not show the realities “on the ground.” It’s possible that Paul may be responding to a popular reality that is not written. Furthermore, while Neusner does seem to challenge the NPP’s characterization of Judaism, he does not appear to challenge their understanding of Paul. If I’m understanding the train of thought correctly (and that’s a big “if”), Neusner is arguing for a more positive representation of Judaism.

Here I would mention again my feeling 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. . . . Along with that, implied in this critique is a good question: should Jewish-Christian relations even be a determining factor in our exegesis?”

All of that to say: Neusner’s thoughts sound interesting and worth exploring, but it doesn’t negate my basic concern that “racism” is not appropriate terminology for this debate. Not only does it not accurately describe 1st century Judaism, but it is not what the NPP is saying about 1st century Judaism. Nationalism is not the same as racism.

However, I believe that the accusation that Dunn, Wright, et al are presenting us with a first-century Judaism that is too nationalistic (i.e., racist) is true. For a nice response to this see Neusner’s article “Was Rabbinic Judaism Really Ethnic?” in CBQ 57.2 1995.

In this article Neusner makes one major claim: the idea of “Israel” in rabbinic Judaism is akin to the ideas of “church” and “the body of Christ” in the New Testament (283). In other words, Judaism was a supernatural social entity that was not particular, but in fact universal.

He makes two further claims in this article which are pertinent to our subject. First, he states a comparison of rabbinic Judaism and Paul is anachronistic (a common critique of Sanders and the NPP; 281n.1, 282n.4); and Second, he asserts that it seems that much scholarly opinion of Paul’s first-century situation has been shaped by today’s expression of Judaism, which is quite ethnic (283).

He deals with Paul, albeit briefly, by reflecting on Rom 9-11. He points out that Paul’s view of Israel as the children of the promise to Abraham is “just as spiritual” as rabbinic Judaism’s “Israel,” i.e., both systems’ ideas of “Israel” share “a single morphology,” though they are not exactly the same at every point (304). However, Neusner admits that Paul speaks of “Israel” racially in Rom 9:3 (“my kinsmen by race”) and Neusner even seems to claim later in the essay that “[i]t was Paul who introduced into the analysis of Israel the distinction that Dunn takes at face value and then imputes to rabbinic Judaism,” namely, the ethnic/universal distinction (304). He softens this indictment of Paul by saying that his writings seem this way because Dunn, and most other NT scholars as well, read Paul “in light of the later separation of Judaism from Christianity,” (304, 305).

He concludes by saying that the questions we want to answer cannot be answered using the terms and assumed contexts we are using. Unfortunately he claims not to know the answer to this conundrum. He does, however, point us to his book Children of the Flesh, Children of the Promise presumably to find the answer (305n.31).

In that book Neusner claims that not only does rabbinic Judaism not know this ethnic/religious distinction, but that Philo and the Essenes of Qumran (his phrase) do not either (17). Also, Neusner reveals that perhaps Paul drew his ethnic/religious distinction from the Torah, specifically Deut 30:6. Paul highlights this distinction in Rom 2:28-29 (the “circumcision in the flesh” vs the “circumcision in the heart). Thus, Paul harvested this idea from “an ancient and authoritative perspective of the Torah…[b]ut…other Judaisms of the same time and place made no such distinction, nor…did the Judaism that became normative and reached full expression in the Talmud of Babylonia” (18).

Thus, Neusner makes a strong case that Dunn and the NPP are wrong in their portrayal of an ethnic Judaism that is overly nationalistic and therefore racist. His arguments are convincing but his analysis of Paul is a bit lacking. In other words, I admire Neusner’s work but I have yet to make a final analysis of it.

I wouldn’t come out with both arms swinging, spewing expletives or anything, but I don’t mind challenging my fellow Fullerites (in this less confrontational blogging way) to be more gracious in their speech.