Let us say that you have a limited amount of time because of, for example, your teaching responsibilities and your nine month old baby at home. And then, let us say you have an option to choose one of three books on Paul to write a five page review with your limited time. Which one do you choose and why? Here are your options:

• Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford, 1996)
• Udo Schnelle, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology (Baker Academic, 2005)
• J. Paul Sampley, Paul in the Greco-Roman World: a Handbook (Continuum, 2003).

Update: I should clarify that I’m not getting these as free review copies. It’s an assignment for a seminar and has to be one of the three.

[polldaddy poll=2036039]

This is the suggestion of Lynn Cohick in a recent post on Zondervan’s blog Koinonia. I have not come to a conclusion myself regarding the citizenship of Paul. His citizenship plays a significant role in Acts, but is nowhere mentioned in Paul’s actual letters. Historically speaking, then, I think those who argue that Acts invented Paul’s citizenship actually have a decent case (Cohick dismisses the idea as a “minority” viewpoint). But it is entirely possible that Paul could have been a Roman citizen, as the empire often used citizenship as a “carrot” or reward for individuals as I understand it. One view is that Paul’s father gained citizenship through his business dealings with the Romans (a view that Prof. Ronald Mellor recently gave in a lecture for the 300+ student course “History of Rome” at UCLA).

Cohick suggests a different take, based upon her understanding of “licit” and “illicit” relationships and the transference of citizenship to children. She suggests that it is more likely Paul’s mother was a citizen and transferred her status on to her son. I am intrigued. I suppose the question then is: how did Paul’s mother become a citizen?

Dr. Cohick is one of the three co-authors of the new textbook The New Testament in Antiquity, about which I am growing more and more excited. The textbook seems to be written from the angle of social history, which is where I am rooted in my UCLA program. This is one of the few New Testament surveys, as far as I can tell, that is both written by evangelicals (all Wheaton profs) and also seeks to incorporate social history so thoroughly.

Bartchy had his survey course, “History of Early Christians,” watch a section of a documentary film on Christianity to review. I thought I would share my own thoughts here. Part One of the film “Two Thousand Years: The History of Christianity” (1999), a section entitled “The Birth of a New Religion: 1st and 2nd Centuries,” gives a standard outline of the first two centuries of the movement later called Christianity. Interviewing many respected scholars, including Jim Charlesworth, N.T. Wright, Henry Chadwick, Paula Frederickson, and Elaine Pagels, the documentary does have its foundation in solid scholarship on the early Christian movement. The film briefly mentions the person of Jesus, while especially highlighting the event of the crucifixion and how this might have affected his followers. Though it is not thoroughly examined (and there is a humorous moment when Jim Charlesworth seems to represent the resurrected Christ), the resurrection is discussed as a defining moment for the followers of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus’ disciples are surprised by both the crucifixion and resurrection, after which they reinterpret the meaning of Jesus’ messiahship. At this point, the documentary outlines the Book of Acts (particularly the issue of Gentile inclusion) in an uncritical manner, moves into the challenges of Roman suspicion of their movement and their subsequent martyrdom in the second century, while finally ending on the crisis of Gnosticism which is quashed by Irenaeus (who is depicted as the sole canonizer of the New Testament and the original author of orthodox Christian doctrine) [catch a free preview of the bit on Irenaeus here].

We can hardly blame the filmmakers for a simplistic presentation of facts that one finds in standard introductions to Christian origins. They cannot solve in 40 minutes all of the conundrums that have confounded New Testament scholars throughout modernity. In fact, there are several quite strong points that should be highlighted, especially comments from N.T. Wright on the influence of Paul within the early movement. In perhaps the strongest articulation of the content of this movement’s ideology, Wright acknowledges that Paul established a “counter empire, a rival empire, with little cells of people giving allegiance to Jesus rather than Caesar.” Wright notes that, while this counter empire is not quite like the Roman Empire, it is “sufficiently subversive to be dangerous.”

Elsewhere in the film, however, we have little discussion of the counter-cultural nature of the Jesus movement and hardly any mention of Jesus’ actual teachings themselves. Though Wright mentions that the new movement is a “new family” created by God, we have no explanation of how this idea challenges conventional understandings of the patriarchal family within the Greco-Roman world. Even with Wright’s comment that the Jesus followers are considered subversive and dangerous, we have no explanation of how this movement is subversive or why it would be considered dangerous.

Further, Jim Charlesworth’s necessary caution that the early Jesus followers are not “Christians” and did not have “churches” is muted by the narrator’s comment that by the end of the first century, “Christianity” is born–implying that a whole monolithic and organized religion already developed within decades. This is paired with the comments of Fr. Paul Lawlor, who suggests that eucharistic meals in the second century would have looked similar to what goes on in small parish churches today. The film has some strange shots in its take on second century Christianity. With mysterious music, images of catacombs, and three people in matching robes around a table, we have the picture of a strange secretive cult (perhaps bolstering certain Roman texts against the Christians cited in the film). Such moves in the documentary are overly simplistic and somewhat careless. In sum, the film does a decent job of surveying a few of the key issues at stake in the Jesus movement, but does a poor job of giving the viewer a reliable picture of “on the ground” social realities. This, however, is a broader symptom of surveys in Christian origins more generally.

In order to share with you an observation I had in class yesterday, I have to share a little background about a certain woman who Paul praises in his letter to the Roman church. In Romans 16:7, amidst his chapter of greetings to specific people in the Roman church, Paul mentions “Junia” who he says is “outstanding” (ἐπίσημος) among the apostles (ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις). In his sermon on this passage in Romans, John Chrysostom (c.347–407) wrote, “Oh! how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!”

Yet many in church history could not conceive of a woman apostle and thus they gave her a “sex change operation” (as my advisor Bartchy likes to say). Instead of Junia, they called her “Junias,” and assumed her to be a man. Junia is actually a common female name in antiquity, while Junias is not. The explanation for this was that it is a shortened form of the common male name, Junianus. What was Occam’s Razor again? Oh yes: “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.” So, either this name is the common female name, Junia, or a strangely shortened form of Junianus. If there were no theological concern here to make sure Paul is not calling a woman an apostle, the argument about a shortened form of Junianus would never be suggested. It is illogical.

Nevertheless, as recently as the publication of the New International Version (NIV) in 1973, translators were using this faulty logic: “Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.” But notice that this “Junias” is indeed “outstanding among the apostles.”

More recently, it has become more and more difficult to defend the idea that female Junia was actually the male Junias. Even conservative scholars with a traditional understanding of female subordination to men are cautious about making such an argument nowadays. So, what’s the traditionalist to do? They can’t have a female apostle in the early church! The up and coming favorite translation of conservative evangelicals these days, the English Standard Version (ESV – published in 2001), reflects another angle on Junia: “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.”

Notice the difference between the NIV (the old conservative standard translation) and the ESV (the new conservative standard translation). In the NIV, Junia is a man (“Junias”) and is an outstanding apostle. In the ESV, Junia is indeed a woman, but she is no longer an outstanding apostle. Rather, she is simply “well known” to the apostles. I might mention that the ESV was originally published first by Crossway publishers, who are also the favored publishers of the conservative Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). In fact, the CBMW boasts on their blog that many of their team contributed to the ESV Study Bible.

This jump from NIV to ESV is what I noticed while we were discussing the issue in Bartchy seminar on sexuality yesterday. It is probably wise to save the arguments for the second change for a future post, but I will share a passage I found in one outstanding book today. For anyone interested in this topic, I highly recommend Eldon Jay Epp’s treatment in Junia: The First Woman Apostle. I will leave him with the last word here:

I note the juxtaposition of these two interpretations, though I would not presume to judge the motives, but it is interesting to observe that, over time, the male “Junias” and the female “Junia” each has his or her alternating “dance partners”–first one, then the other: first and for centuries, Junia with “prominent apostle”; then Junias with “prominent apostle.” Then for a time Junia disappears from the scene, hoping upon her return to team up once again with “prominent apostle,” only to encounter “known to the apostles” cutting in during this latest “dance.” [72]

Today is blog action day and the theme is poverty. I would like to abbreviate it BAD: Poverty. I thought it might be interesting to look at an excerpt from the book I am currently reading, The Jesus Movement by Stegemann and Stegemann, that addresses poverty in the ancient world. Here is their reflection on the “relatively poor” (penētes) in Greco-Roman society:

Martial (12.32) states that the poor are thin from hunger and cold. And for the satirist Lucian of Samosata, the living conditions of these poor were defined by high levies and debts, freezing in winter, and illness, as well as the experience of being beaten by the powerful (Cat. 15). It is this very aspect of violence–even the violent appropriation of property–that shows the poor’s lack of power and rights. Assaults of powerful, rich people against their poor neighbors appear as stereotypical complaints in ancient texts, whether it is the rich occupying the property of an orphan (Philostratus Heroikos 285) or a rich man acquiring the cottage of a poor man (Apuleius Metamorphoses 9:35ff.). The poverty of fishermen was proverbial, and Lucian of Samosata (Fug. 13, 17) says that out of hard work artisans, “bent over their work from early morning to evening, cannot earn a living from such endeavors, in spite of their effort and exertion.” The Bible confirms this perception, for the itinerent “tent maker” Paul worked longer than usual–from sunrise to sunset–but he still needed the support of others in order to maintain a minimal existence. The situation of artisan families became dramatic when the husband and father died. Here again, Lucian describes the sad conditions for us rather precisely (Hetaera Dialogues 6). After the death of a coppersmith in Piraeus, his family experienced a drastic social decline. First, the widow had to sell the work tools and then try to secure a living for the family through spinning, weaving, and sewing: finally, however, the only course left was for the daughter to contribute to the family income as a hetaera [a sophisticated sort of prostitute]. [p. 91]

That gives us a little bit of an “on the ground” picture of poverty in the Greco-Roman world. The poor struggled to make ends meet and the rich took advantage of them. Not unfamiliar.

Interestingly, I never thought much of Paul as “poor” before. He seems to stand out. Though Paul is not a philosopher and his letters are situational, he certainly engages in the sort of thought and writing that is normally reserved for the wealthy. Most poor people struggled to merely provide for themselves and would have no time or resources to engage in theological discourse. Paul worked in his trade but was also supported by churches so that he could pursue his theological mission. With that in mind, Paul seems even more extraordinary.

I have just noticed that the SBL session reviewing “Jewish Christianity” (S19-116) is available for free audio download (HT: JC Baker). I will be reflecting on the exchange between Hagner and Nanos a little later (as has Matt Barnes on his blog), but I thought that I would share Hagner’s response to Nanos’ critique here for anyone who might be interested. You should note that this is a transcription of what was spoken, so pretend you’re hearing it:

I thank the chair for the privilege of having a few minutes to respond even though I’m not on the program. My good friend, Mark–my former good friend, Mark [laughter], is as usual always interesting, always stimulating, but, at least for me, not always persuasive. He accuses me of prejudging the issues and I have to say that I think Mark has at least as much of an a priori as I have. And I think he has more of an a priori than I have, if that’s okay. Mark tends to dismiss my view as the “traditional view.” I’d like to say that because an interpretation is “traditional” does not mean it is necessarily true, but it also does not mean it is necessarily false. I think it’s interesting to ponder the fact that so many have understood Paul in the traditional way. It doesn’t mean it’s right; it’s just an interesting observation.

Next, I’d like to say that the challenge for both of us is to make some coherent sense not just of a few texts, but of all of the texts… together. And I think that leads us to the necessity of affirming tensions, nuances, subtleties, things that you tend to refer to as “contradictions,” I’m afraid. It’s also not a matter of either/or; it’s a matter of both/and. It’s not whether Paul is a Jew or a Christian. He is both: a Jew and a Christian. But these subtleties, I think, sometimes seem to escape Mark. Somehow Mark has missed my affirmation that Paul is a Jew… that Paul is a Jewish believer in Jesus, that Paul has not changed his religion, that Paul upholds the righteousness of the law, but with a new dynamic, in a new way. I emphatically deny something that he has in his written statement, namely (this is a quote from him), he says that I think Paul “is engaged in a new religion that stands against his former religion” [pg 15]. No, no, no! I do not think that. Not at all. It’s the absolute opposite of what I think, in fact. Paul is affirming the true Judaism in his own mind.

Mark wants to push me into a simple “discontinuity” between Paul and Judaism in contrast to his simple “continuity.” But again, the issue is not that easy. We have to deal with both/and, both continuity and discontinuity in this matter. Mark’s view is just a little too simplistic for me. Galatians 1:13, Paul speaks of his Ἰουδαϊσμός as something of the past and I don’t think I can read it in the way Mark does, just moving from one form of Judaism to another. The Ἰουδαϊσμός is behind him, I think. And his Philippians 3:4 and following, Paul counts his Jewish pedigree, including his blamelessness as a Pharisee as worthless. What matters is Χριστὸς.

And it’s ludicrous, by the way, I think, Mark, to say that he would have to include his apostleship in that list [see pg 8]. That’s not giving him a fair chance to say what he means to say, what he wants to say. Because Paul doesn’t use the word “Christian” does not mean that he can’t be described or shouldn’t be described as a Christian. I fail to see how Mark can deny my two nonnegotiables. Are these two statements really questionable on a reading of the authentic Pauline letters? First, that Christians are no longer under the law. Second, that righteousness remains for Paul an indispensable priority. Can we really challenge either of those statements on the basis of the Pauline letters? I don’t think so. Mark’s Paul, for me, is not the Paul of the letters. I would ask him to make better sense of the texts than I have. And I think so far, he hasn’t. Thank you.

Michael Bird has announced that he has a new book out: The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2007). From what I gather, Bird approaches the issue from a balanced perspective, trying to summarize both sides and highlight the benefits of both. This balancing act is exactly the kind of thing that I’ve been looking for. I wish I had my hands on a copy right now, so that I could use it in my final paper for my Paul and the Law class. On his post, you can read ringing endorsements such as how the book is “unmatched” in its fairness and thoroughness of coverage and that it “deserves a ‘nobel peace prize in Theology,’” by the likes of James Dunn, Robert Gundry, I. Howard Marshall, and Scot McKnight.

The book is not on Amazon yet (as soon as it is, it’ll be going on my wish list!), but it is available through Paternoster.

What does “works of the flesh” have to do with being “under the law”? That’s the question with which I’m presently wrestling. I don’t have my answer worked out yet (and I’m not sure I ever will), but here are some quotes that are helping me think about it. Dunn is, of course, from the NPP, and it appears that Russell is as well (see the top of page 182 of his article).

Walter Bo Russell, III, makes some interesting points in his article, “Does the Christian Have ‘Flesh’ in Galatians 5:13-26?” for JETS 36 (1993): 179-187. The first paragraph is from pages 180-1, the rest is from page 187:

Particularly, Paul uses sarx and pneuma in antithesis in his extended discussion of the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the Church in Galatians 3-6 and Romans 7-8. In these contexts sarx is in tandem with nomos (“law”) and is associated with the era of Israel under the Mosaic law. This is why Paul connects “flesh” and “law” in passages like Gal 5:17-18; Rom 6:12-14; 8:1-4 in a manner that is disconcerting to many commentators. He is arguing against the Jewish Christians’ advocacy of the proselyte model of Gentile incorporation and against their advocacy of the use of the Mosaic law as the primary means for constraining the Christians’ behavior. Jewish Christians were advocating an anachronistic redemptive historical model, and Paul’s response is appropriately redemptive-historical in its logic. . . .

The choice that the Galatians faced was to continue to follow the true gospel that Paul had preached to them and not to desert to a nongospel (1:6-7). Therefore they must reject becoming proselytes to Judaism and being circumcised (5:1-12). Ethically this meant they must “walk according to the rule of the Spirit” and not fulfill the desires connected with those who still live according to the rule of the flesh (5:16). To be “led according to the rule of the Spirit” is not to be “under the law” (5:18). The choice to live in the Judaizers’ “law/flesh community” will manifest itself in the behavior of that community: the deeds of the flesh (5:19-21). Conversely the choice to continue to live in the “Spirit community” will manifest itself in the fruit of the Spirit (5:22-23). This is true because Christians have crucified the sarx—that is, the mode of existence of their body being under sin’s mastery and not indwelt by God’s Spirit ended (5:24). Since they live according to the rule of the Spirit they should also corporately walk according to the rule of the Spirit (5:25).

James Dunn on defining “under the law” in his commentary on Galatians (pp. 301-2):

[On 5:18] For it denoted for [Paul] the space of the nation Israel, the Jewish people under the law as their guardian angel (see on iii.23); reference to legalistic self-righteousness (as Oepke 176), or the condemnation of the law (as Borse 196), is uncalled for and excluded by iv.4 (Barclay, Obeying 116 n. 24). To put oneself thus ‘under the law’ was to look once again for an answer to ‘the desire of the flesh’ in a written code, an outward constraint; whereas in the age of fulfilment introduced by Christ, it was the circumcision of the heart, an effective inner force which was now available. To put onself [sic] ‘under the law’, in other words, was to look in the wrong direction for salvation. Worse still, to assume that only ‘under the law’ could salvation be found was to deny the reality of Gentile as Gentile having received the Spirit. No! The reality of being led by the Spirit, that is, the Spirit of Jesus (iv.6), was independent of being ‘under the law’ and should not therefore be identified with the ethnic Jewish identity which that phrase encapsulated. In short, their experience of the Spirit thus far should be enough to convince them that to take the step of becoming a proselyte (through circumcision) was unnecessary. Implicit here also is a clear distinction between being ‘under the law’ and ‘fulfilling the law’ (v.14); the law is ‘fulfilled’ by those who are led by the Spirit (Thielman 53); not by putting oneself ‘under the law’.

[On 5:19] Paul does not hesitate to press the logic of his argument strongly. By implication, to put oneself ‘under the law’, to become a proselyte, to accept circumcision, is to think and act on the level of the flesh (see on vi.13), on that level of visibility and outwardness which is the very opposite of the inward reality of the Spirit’s work (the contrast to explicit in Rom ii.28-9). And to put oneself on the level of the flesh is to put oneself on the same level as so many of the very things which Jews (and all those of goodwill) hated and despised – the works of the flesh, the outworking of the flesh, those things which express the character of the flesh and its desires; the echo of the earlier repeated phrase, ‘the works of the law’ (ii.16, iii.3, 5, 10) is no doubt intentional. The challenge to the other missionaries is as sharp as it could be, and may well have seemed to them outrageous. Judaism, after all, was more opposed to these things than others were (particularly idolatry and sorcery), and the very thought that desire for circumcision was even on the same plane as them must have seemed ridiculous. But this is precisely Paul’s challenge: to put such weight on the fleshly rite of circumcision and on ethnic identity was actually to pitch the theological principle into the same realm as these things so widely despised; to make circumcision the test-case of eligibility for a share in Abraham’s inheritance was to make the effective working of the Spirit dependent on a work of (done in) the flesh. By linking ‘under the law’ (v.18) with ‘works of the flesh’ (both in antithesis to what the Spirit produces) Paul thus presumably hoped to jolt his readers into a recognition of the level they were thinking on and of what they might lose (see also on v.22).

As far as I can tell, Galatians 5:16-26 does not afford an opportunity to deal with the foundation of the NPP‘s views on Paul. Instead it builds on conclusions that have been made based on other passages in Galatians. One of the big questions then is how well these foundational arguments, made elsewhere, fit into this passage. I’m still working on that one.

Update (same day): I added another paragraph to Dunn’s quote. Here I think that Dunn articulates one of my primary concerns about this passage, the thing that makes me dizzy to think about: “Judaism, after all, was more opposed to these things than others were (particularly idolatry and sorcery), and the very thought that desire for circumcision was even on the same plane as them must have seemed ridiculous.” How can Paul accuse them that being “under the law” is somehow associated with these “works of the flesh” when those who follow the law would be disgusted by many of these works? It is a bold and offensive statement (to his adversaries). That is what makes me wrestle with this question.

I have decided to choose Gal 5:16-26 for my 5-6 page exegetical assignment in Paul and the Law because at first glance I really have no idea where it will fit into the whole OPP/NPP debate. I thought it would be best to do my own translation to get me going, so this is my first attempt at a mostly literal translation (and I’m not focusing too much on the individual words in the lists under “works of the flesh” and “fruit of the spirit” right now). I may try a more smooth one later. The Greek text is from the NA27. You can read little notes to myself if you hover over the dotted lined words.

Galatians 5
16 Λέγω δέ, πνεύματι περιπατεῖτε καὶ ἐπιθυμίαν σαρκὸς οὐ μὴ τελέσητε.

But I say, walk by the spirit and you shall never gratify the craving of the flesh!

17 ἡ γὰρ σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα κατὰ τῆς σαρκός,

For the flesh craves against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh,

ταῦτα γὰρ ἀλλήλοις ἀντίκειται, ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε.

for these are in opposition to one another, lest those things that you might desire, these things you actually do.

18 εἰ δὲ πνεύματι ἄγεσθε, οὐκ ἐστὲ ὑπὸ νόμον.

But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law.

19 φανερὰ δέ ἐστιν τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, ἅτινά ἐστιν πορνεία, ἀκαθαρσία, ἀσέλγεια,

The works of the flesh are obvious, they are: fornication, impurity, self-abandonment,

20 εἰδωλολατρία, φαρμακεία, ἔχθραι, ἔρις, ζῆλος, θυμοί, ἐριθεῖαι, διχοστασίαι, αἱρέσεις,

idolatry, sorcery, hatred, discord, envy, rage, selfish ambition, disunity, factions,

21 φθόνοι, μέθαι, κῶμοι καὶ τὰ ὅμοια τούτοις,

jealousy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these,

ἃ προλέγω ὑμῖν, καθὼς προεῖπον ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες βασιλείαν θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν.

[of] which I am warning you, as I said before, that those who do such things will not [inherit? obtain? acquire?] the kingdom of God.

22 ὁ δὲ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἀγάπη χαρὰ εἰρήνη, μακροθυμία χρηστότης ἀγαθωσύνη, πίστις

But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, generosity, compassion, fidelity,

23 πραΰτης ἐγκράτεια· κατὰ τῶν τοιούτων οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος.

gentleness, self-control; against these things there is no law.

24 οἱ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ [Ἰησοῦ] τὴν σάρκα ἐσταύρωσαν σὺν τοῖς παθήμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις.

But those [who are] of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh along with [its] desires and cravings.

25 Εἰ ζῶμεν πνεύματι, πνεύματι καὶ στοιχῶμεν.

If we live by the spirit, let us also conform to the spirit.

26 μὴ γινώμεθα κενόδοξοι, ἀλλήλους προκαλούμενοι, ἀλλήλοις φθονοῦντες.

Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

Initial Observations and Questions

• What most impressed me in translating this passage was just how much the passage concerns itself with how to handle interpersonal conflict. In the past, I never thought much about the list of words under “works of the flesh” and “fruit of the spirit.” Instead, they were just a bunch of bad words and good words, respectively. But the majority of both lists have something to do with how one interacts with and respects other persons (as opposed to the ones about sexual morality, etc.). Verse 26 comes back to that theme. It seems like this emphasis fits into the more sociological perspective of the NPP. But I know that the OPP wouldn’t deny the need for these things.
• What is Paul saying here? Is he saying that following the law is akin to the “works of the flesh”? Is he saying that if you follow the law, then you inadvertently fall into the “works of the flesh”? Is focusing on following the law placing your focus on what you do, rather than living by the spirit?
  <
  /li>
• Just prior to this passage, Paul says that the “whole law” is summed up in the single commandment: love your neighbor as yourself. But they should take care not to bite and devour one another. He’s referring to conflict. Who is the conflict between? Is it between those who would follow the “Judaizers” (the circumcision crowd) and those who would follow Paul (the uncircumcision crowd)? That’s what is suggested by 5:6 and 6:15, circumcision and uncircumcision don’t mean anything, but “faith working through love” and a “new creation.” These lists seem to be giving some practical reflection on what those phrases mean.
• If we look at if from a NPP angle, Paul is criticizing the schism between the two factions and preaching a new way of being, a way of including one another and serving one another. If we look at it from an OPP angle, Paul is saying that living by the spirit is so much better than living under the law.
• I’m definitely going to have to take a closer look into verse 21, but verses 18 and 23 will need some sustained reflection as well. At first glance it would seem to me that “under” the law (v. 18) is referring back to the law being the παιδαγωγὸς (3:24-25), but I will have to think through the implications of that.

That’s all for my initial thoughts. Now, I’m going to dive into some more lexicons, the relevant commentaries, and look for appropriate articles. Feel free to critique, correct, or question anything thing I have here. Also, if anyone has thoughts about how to make the Greek font look nicer, please let me know.

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!