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!