Paul's criticism of Judaism

In Romans 7-12, one criticism of Judaism made by Paul is that it is a religion based in law instead of faith, and holds that salvation is possible through adherence to the law and performance of good works. In many interpretations of this criticism made prior to the mid 20th century, Judaism was held to be fundamentally flawed by the sin of self-righteousness. ^[1] The issue is complicated by differences in the versions of Judaism extant at the time. Some scholars argue that Paul's criticism of Judaism are correct, others suggest that Paul's criticism is directed at Hellenistic or Palestinian Judaism, the forms with which Paul was most familiar, ^[2] rather than Rabbinic Judaism, which eschewed the militant line of Judaism which Paul embraced prior to his conversion. ^[3] There is also the question as to whom Paul was addressing. Paul saw himself as an apostle to the Gentiles, and it is unclear as to whether the text of Romans was directed to Jewish followers of Jesus (as was Paul), to Gentiles, or to both. ^[1] If adherence to Jewish law were a requirement for salvation, then salvation would be denied to Gentiles. ^[4] Krister Stendahl argues along similar lines that according to Paul, Judaism's rejection of Jesus as a savior is what allows salvation of non-Jews, that this rejection is part of God's overall plan, and that Israel will also be saved (per Romans 11:26-27). ^{[4] [1]}

Some scholars argue that the fundamental issue underlying Paul's criticism of Judaism hinge on his understanding of Judaism's relationship to Jewish law. E. P. Sanders, for example, argues that the view held by many New Testament scholars from Weber on, ^[1] represent a caricature of Judaism.and that this interpretation of Paul's criticism is thus flawed by the misunderstanding of the tenets of Judaism. ^[5] Sander's interpretation asserts Judaism is instead best understood as a "convenantal nominism", in which God's grace is given and affirmed in the covenant, to which the appropriate response is to live within the bounds established in order to preserve the relationship. ^[6] James Dunn agrees with Sanders's view that Paul would not have criticized Judaism for claiming that salvation comes from adherence to the law or the performance of good works, since those are not tenets of Judaism, but argues against Sanders that Paul's criticism of Judaism represents a rebuttal of the "xenophobic" and ethnocentric form of Judaism to which Paul had previously belonged. ^{[5] [6]} Dunn argues that Paul does not see his position as a betrayal of Judaism, but rather represents development of an open Judaism. ^[6] A similar argument is presented by George Smiga, who claims that criticism of Judaism found in the New Testament are best understood as varieties of religious polemic, intended as a call to conversion rather than criticism in the sense of common usage. ^[7]