The Rhetorical Identification of Judaism and Gentile ...



The Rhetorical Identification of Judaism and Gentile Paganism in Paul's Letters

A Paper for the Paul Seminar of the British New Testament Conference

Exeter, September 7th 2007

This paper has been made available for a period of time electronically. It must not be cited without the permission of the author.

For permission to use please contact sean.winter@.uk

Introduction

It is generally understood that the task of describing Paul's post call/conversion understanding of his ancestral faith requires consideration of several key texts, each of which have appear to have a clearly polemical function within the context of the letters in which they are found.[1] Scholarly discussion of 'Paul's understanding of Israel' (often set within a broader consideration of Paul's role in the 'Partings of the Ways') rightly focus on texts such as 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16; Philippians 3; 2 Corinthians 3 and of course numerous sections of Galatians and Romans in order to give an account of Paul's understanding of the place and role of Israel in salvation history in the light of the Christ-event. In many cases such texts are interpreted in the light of wider perspectives on Pauline theology, perspectives that are in turn informed by various kinds of theological conviction or academic trend. Scholars agree that these texts are relevant to the important task of assessing the nature of Paul's attitude to Judaism. They also agree that allowance must be made for the polemical dimensions of these texts, located as they are in the complex world of Jewish and Christian self-definition in antiquity. But is the exegesis of the relevant texts not also (inevitably) shaped by wider convictions about the nature of Paul's theology and by scholarly assumptions about what it is or is not possible for a 1st century Jew like Paul to have said?

In this paper, I suggest that despite all of the intensive discussion about issues of continuity and discontinuity, Paul's relationship with Judaism, and these particular texts, something has been missed. I want to look again at several of the key passages that relate to these wider scholarly debates, to see if we can be more precise in identifying the kind of polemic that Paul is employing therein. A more nuanced understanding of the texts has, I believe, the potential to contribute to the bigger discussions in which we are all involved.

Specifically, I argue that Paul regularly employs an identifiable rhetorical strategy within his polemic. This strategy entails adopting language that customarily finds its home in biblical and extra-biblical anti-Gentile polemic and using this language as a part of intra-Jewish polemic. In short, I argue that Paul takes language that Jews used to describe Gentiles and reverses it thereby establishing a rhetorical identification of Judaism and Gentile paganism. This newly construed Jew-Gentile 'other' is used rhetorically in order to aid Paul's construction of his churches' self-definition as the 'new Israel'.

Below I look in some detail at three texts where I see this rhetorical strategy being employed with specific reference to non-Christian Judaism: 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16; 1 Corinthians 10.18-20 and Philippians 3.1-21. I then offer briefer comments on three other texts that bear the marks of a similar rhetorical ploy, but that are surrounded by complicating factors: Galatians 4.1-11; Romans 2.1-29 and Colossians 3.8-23. While the focus of the paper is exegetical, I conclude by offering a few illustrative parallels from Jewish texts in which the same rhetorical strategy is apparently being employed and considering how a renewed appreciation of the nature of Paul's polemic might inform the wider debates over Paul's relation to Judaism.

1 Thessalonians 2.13-16

The infamous passage in 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16 can be treated first for two reasons. First, these verses may, depending on conclusions about the relative dating of 1 Thessalonians and Galatians, be the earliest occurrence of anti-Jewish polemic in Paul. Secondly, they contain the harshest and most extreme polemical comments in relation to Judaism in the Pauline corpus.

14 u(mei=j ga_r mimhtai\ e0genh&qhte, a)delfoi/, tw~n e0kklhsiw~n tou~ qeou~ tw~n ou)sw~n e0n th|~ 0Ioudai/a| e0n Xristw|~ 0Ihsou~, o#ti ta_ au)ta_ e0pa&qete kai\ u(mei=j u(po_ tw~n i0di/wn sumfuletw~n kaqw_j kai\ au)toi\ u(po_ tw~n 0Ioudai/wn, 15 tw~n kai\ to_n ku&rion a)pokteina&ntwn 0Ihsou~n kai\ tou_j profh&taj kai\ h(ma~j e0kdiwca&ntwn kai\ qew|~ mh_ a)resko&ntwn kai\ pa~sin a)nqrw&poij e0nanti/wn, 16 kwluo&ntwn h(ma~j toi=j e1qnesin lalh~sai i3na swqw~sin, ei0j to_ a)naplhrw~sai au)tw~n ta_j a(marti/aj pa&ntote. e1fqasen de\ e0p0 au)tou_j h( o)rgh_ ei0j te/loj.

The force and focus of Paul's language here has, of course, led a number of scholars to conclude (often, one detects, with a sigh of relief) that they are a later, post-Pauline, anti-Jewish interpolation into the argument of 1 Thessalonians.[2] Other interpreters have sought to soften Paul's words by pointing out, rightly, that they are only directed against oi9 0Ioudai/oi who, in Paul's view, are guilty of the charges laid down in 2.15-16.[3] If, in addition, we take into account recent calls to stop translating oi9 0Ioudai/oi as 'the Jews' and replace this with 'the Judeans', there ought to be strong resistance, it is argued, to any attempt to universalise Paul's rhetoric.[4] Further controversy surrounds the reference to God's wrath in 2.16 which is said to have already come upon the Jewish opponents of Paul and the Judean churches.[5]

The context makes it clear that Paul is speaking of the reception of his apostolic proclamation among the Thessalonians (1 Thess 2.9, 13). In receiving the lo/gon qeou= the Thessalonian believers are then held to have imitated the churches of Judea. Paul then indicates the evidence that supports this favourable assessment: the Thessalonians have, like those in the Judean churches, also suffered u(po_ tw~n i0di/wn sumfuletw~n.[6] What is striking about this comparison, however (and in my view this is the main reason for the text's problematic reputation) is that in a letter written to Gentile Christians in Thessalonica, we would expect Paul having made the comparison with the Judean context to return his attention to the situation in Thessalonica itself. Yet the Thessalonians and their opponents fall from view in 2.15-16 as Paul dwells on the Judean churches and their opponents. This sense, that Paul is getting distracted here from the main point (to which he will return in 2.17 with the resumptive 9Hmei=j de/, a)delfoi/) is only exacerbated by the fact that Paul's construal of oi9 0Ioudai/oi takes him far beyond the fact of their opposition to the Judean churches and the Pauline mission. By the time we reach 2.15 we are in the realms of polemical hyperbole, rooted, as so many note, in Old Testament traditions of prophetic critique.[7] There is also some evidence to suggest that Paul's focus moves beyond the specific opponents mentioned in 2.14-15 and becomes more general. The charges begin in Paul's own time (the Jews who are persecuting Judean Christian communities) but quickly extends backwards to those who 'killed the Lord Jesus Christ and the prophets and drove us out'. The Jews responsible for the death of Jesus could conceivably be the same group that persecute his followers and oppose Paul. However, the accusation of 'killing the prophets' takes in a wider horizon. We should note that Paul then shifts in 2.15 to accusations in the present tense, referring not to specific events of persecution, but to more general characteristics.[8] For our present purposes, we must look in detail at four of the phrases used by Paul.

They Displease God and and Oppose Everyone: kai\ qew|~ mh_ a)resko&ntwn kai\ pa~sin a)nqrw&poij e0nanti/wn

The charge that 'they displease God' forms an obvious negative parallel to Paul's exhortation in 1 Thessalonians 4.1: kaqw_j parela&bete par0 h(mw~n to_ pw~j dei= u(ma~j peripatei=n kai\ a)re/skein qew|~, kaqw_j kai\ peripatei=te. The 0Ioudai/oi here are thus construed in such a way as to meet Paul's ultimate exhortatory goals in the letter, as negative examples.[9] The motif has its likely background in Jewish piety. Enoch, Noah, Abram all live lives that are pleasing to God, and their examples become the basis for the term being used in the Psalms to denote a life of faithfulness to God.[10] While there is no real evidence for the negative use of the word to denote unfaithful Jews or Gentiles, Romans 8.8 would suggest that it forms a part of Paul's basic separation of humanity into the categories of e0n sarki\ and e0n pneu&mati.[11] As such, 'the charge … was one that could be levelled impartially against unbelieving Jews and Gentiles'.[12]

Several scholars observe that the phrase 'contrary to all people' is a commonplace of Gentile anti-Jewish polemic.[13] It is important to note that, while there is a close similarity in conception, Paul's characterisation here is orientated to a different end.[14] Jewish antipathy towards 'all people' is manifested in their obstruction of the mission to the Gentiles (2.16).

Filling Up the Measure of Their Sins: ei0j to_ a)naplhrw~sai au)tw~n ta_j a(marti/aj pa&ntote

This aforementioned opposition to the Gentile mission is, as this phrase suggests, for Paul the latest example of a history of resistance to the purposes of God. The phrase that Paul uses here echoes those found in several other Jewish texts. Each of them is instructive in so far as each envisages a Gentile referent.

Genesis 15.16: teta&rth de\ genea_ a)postrafh&sontai w{de ou!pw ga_r a)napeplh&rwntai ai9 a(marti/ai tw~n Amorrai/wn e3wj tou~ nu~n

This text, from a passage that was of course well known to Paul, concludes YHWH's covenant promise to Abram and anticipation of the Exodus and Conquest narratives. These great events of salvation history must await the full manifestation of the wickedness of the Amorites, who stand by metonymy for all the nations of Canaan.[15]

Daniel 8.23: kai\ e0p0 e0sxa&tou th~j basilei/aj au)tw~n plhroume/nwn tw~n a(martiw~n au)tw~n a)nasth&setai basileu_j a)naidh_j prosw&pw| dianoou&menoj ai0ni/gmata

The context here is Daniel's vision of the ram. The reference is to Alexander's defeat of Media and Persia, the ongoing process of Hellenization, the rise of the Diadochi on Alexander's death, culminating in the appearance of Antiochus Epiphanes. Verse 23 states that Antiochus' coming to power will only take place when the iniquity of his predecessors has reached its fulfilment.[16]

2 Maccabees 6.14: ou) ga_r kaqa&per kai\ e0pi\ tw~n a!llwn e0qnw~n a)name/nei makroqumw~n o( despo&thj me/xri tou~ katanth&santaj au)tou_j pro_j e0kplh&rwsin a(martiw~n kola&sai ou#twj kai\ e0f0 h(mw~n e1krinen ei]nai

This text, also from the Antiochene period, offers the clearest contrast possible with Paul's rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians. In an interpretive digression, the narrator of 2 Maccabees sets out a basic contrast between God's treatment of the sins of Israel and the sins of other nations. The passage is worth quoting in full:

6.12   Now I urge those who read this book not to be depressed by such calamities, but to recognize that these punishments were designed not to destroy but to discipline our people. 13 In fact, it is a sign of great kindness not to let the impious alone for long, but to punish them immediately. 14 For in the case of the other nations the Lord waits patiently to punish them until they have reached the full measure of their sins; but he does not deal in this way with us, 15 in order that he may not take vengeance on us afterward when our sins have reached their height. 16 Therefore he never withdraws his mercy from us. Although he disciplines us with calamities, he does not forsake his own people.

In 2 Maccabees, God punishes the sins of Israel before they reach their full measure, so that final judgement might be delayed, and mercy made available in fulfilment of the covenant promise.[17] In contrast, God allows the sins of other nations to reach their full measure, so that their ultimate condemnation is brought into the present time.

In 1 Thessalonians, by contrast, Paul states that God has allowed the sins of the Jews to reach their full measure, so that eschatological condemnation is brought into the present time (i.e. e1fqasen de\ e0p0 au)tou_j h( o)rgh_ ei0j te/loj). God now treats non-believing Jews in the same way as he has treated pagan nations. Israel can no longer rely on the covenantal promise that God 'does not deal this way with us … never withdraws his mercy from us [and]…does not forsake his own people'.[18]

God's Wrath Has Overtaken Them At Last: e1fqasen de\ e0p0 au)tou_j h( o)rgh_ ei0j te/loj

As we have noted, Paul's insistence that God's wrath has already come upon the Jews is the result of specific practices whereby they oppose the new purposes of God as these come to expression in the existence of Christian communities in Judea, and the Gentile mission. These practices are consistent with past history (killing Jesus and the prophets) and are indicative of lives that are displeasing to God. Within the new eschatological framework of Paul's thought, those Jews (and by implication Judaism as a whole) are deemed to have filled up the measure of their sin, just as the Gentile nations have done in the past. For these reasons, the wrath of God has come upon them.[19]

A number of scholars have noted the close parallel between these final words, and those that occur in the Testament of Levi 6.11. The parallel has recently been examined in detail by Jeffrey Lamp in an article that proves instructive for our purposes.[20] Lamp succeeds in demonstrating the close verbal and structural parallels between 1 Thessalonians and Testament of Levi 6.[21] That chapter is a re-telling of the story of the circumcision and slaying of the Shechemites by the sons of Jacob, following the rape of Dinah.[22] In that story, Shechem, his father and brothers are tricked by the sons of Jacob into being circumcised. The Shechemites believe that their circumcision will strengthen the family bond with the sons of Jacob and thus legitimate Shechem's marriage to Dinah; as such, they appear to carry the mark of covenant identity. However the ritual serves to incapacitate them for battle, and they are slain. In the Testament of Levi version, Levi is reluctant to allow circumcision in the first place, but the end result is the same.

The point is of course, that the story is about non-Jews. Levi condemns them not only for the 'abomination that they did in Israel' (Test Levi 6.3) in raping Dinah, but also for their persecution of Abraham (6.9). Their behaviour in opposing and dishonouring the patriarchs condemns them: 'The Lord's wrath has come upon them finally' (6.11).

All of this is clearly argued by Lamp. However, he nowhere draws out the significance of his reading: that Paul in 1 Thessalonians is equating 'the Jews' with the Shechemites, as those who bear the mark of covenantal membership, but whose behaviour in opposing the covenantal people marks them out as the object for God's wrath.

To sum up: Paul in 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16 builds on his favourable assessment of the Thessalonians by including a sustained polemical description of non-Christian Jewish opposition to the gospel. Here, Jewish opposition to the gospel becomes a 'mimetic prism' for all opposition to the gospel.[23] Within this description Paul establishes a rhetorical identification of non-Christian Jews in his own time and pagan opponents of Israel within Israel's own story.

1 Corinthians 10.18-22

18 ble/pete to_n 0Israh_l kata_ sa&rka: ou)x oi9 e0sqi/ontej ta_j qusi/aj koinwnoi\ tou~ qusiasthri/ou ei0si/n; 19 Ti/ ou}n fhmi; o#ti ei0dwlo&quto&n ti/ e0stin h@ o#ti ei1dwlo&n ti/ e0stin; 20 a)ll0 o#ti a$ qu&ousin, daimoni/oij kai\ ou) qew|~ qu&ousin : ou) qe/lw de\ u(ma~j koinwnou_j tw~n daimoni/wn gi/nesqai. 21 ou) du&nasqe poth&rion kuri/ou pi/nein kai\ poth&rion daimoni/wn, ou) du&nasqe trape/zhj kuri/ou mete/xein kai\ trape/zhj daimoni/wn. 22 h@ parazhlou~men to_n ku&rion; mh_ i0sxuro&teroi au)tou~ e0smen;

1 Corinthians 10 is a chapter in which Paul is apparently drawing on Israel's stories (and Scriptures) in order to exhort the Corinthians to avoid idolatry (10.7, 14).[24] The section begins with an invitation to reflect upon the story of 'our ancestors' (oi9 pate/rej h(mw~n) in the wilderness. It then, via the hermeneutical statement of 10.7, moves to direct exhortation of the Corinthians (10.8-17). The invitation to 'Consider Israel according to the flesh' (ble/pete to_n 0Israh_l kata_ sa&rka) then returns at 10.18-22 which prepares the way for further instruction in 10.23-11.1. This ABAB structure suggests that the focus in 10.18-22 is on Israel's (negative) example in relation to the issue of idolatry.[25] This is not how most scholars take it, however. In the majority view, Paul uses the rhetorical question to set out a basic principle in 10.18 by appealing to Jewish cultic practice - namely that those who eat a sacrificial good are 'partners in the altar' (koinwnoi\ tou~ qusiasthri/ou ei0si/n)) - and then moves on in 10.19-20 to discuss pagan sacrifices. This interpretation has a long pedigree in so far as it extends back to those MS that have sought to clarify the ambiguity of an unstated subject for qu&ousin.[26]

Yet the more natural reading of v20 is to take the subject from the participle in v18. The argument would then proceed as follows: when non-Christian Jews eat sacrificial food (for example the Passover lamb), they establish a spiritual relationship with 'the altar', best understood here as a reference to the divine presence in temple and cult. Verse 19 then introduces the category of idolatry into the discussion, but it is important to note that there is no textual marker to suggest that we have moved away from a description of Jewish sacrificial practices. This verse is a reminder of the basic principles that Paul has established in 8.1-6, namely that idols do not have 'real' existence. While there may remain on earth 'many gods and lords' these have no genuine divine reality.

Paul then, in the light of this reminder, returns to discuss Jewish sacrificial practices. The natural subject for qu&ousin is the oi9 e0sqi/ontej of 10.18. These sacrifices are offered not to God, but to demons, who are of course non-gods. Behind Paul's language lies Deuteronomy 32.17, a passage condemning Israelite idolatry and alluding to the Golden Calf episode: e1qusan daimoni/oij kai\ ou) qew~| qeoi=j .[27] Paul's apparent awareness of this text and allusion to the Golden Calf story elsewhere, adds support to the idea that Paul here is condemning Jewish sacrifice as pagan idolatry.[28] Having used Israel as negative example, he then turns again in 10.20b to the Corinthians (note the emphatic contrast implied in ou) qe/lw de\ u(ma~j).

Again, we see Paul writing to a Gentile audience and encouraging them to certain kinds of attitudes and behaviour despite the challenges of their pagan environment, but using Judaism as a counter-example. Within this overall rhetorical tactic, Paul portrays Judaism in terms that establish a polemical equivalence between Jewish cultic practice and pagan idolatry.[29] The polemic does not only serve Paul's exhortatory purposes, however. It also serves to reinforce his construal of the Corinthian church's eschatological identity: they were formerly Gentiles (12.2), are the implied descendants of the patriarchs (10.1), but now in their own eucharistic practice share in the body of Christ, the Lord (10.16, 21 cf. 8.1-6).

Philippians 3.2-3, 18-19

There is not space in the present discussion for an extended consideration of the identity of Paul's 'opponents' in Philippians 3. I have discussed this issue at length elsewhere and will restrict myself here to a general point followed by more detailed consideration of the nature of Paul's polemic in these intruiging verses.[30]

The most important observation is that there is no indication that Paul in Philippians 3 is responding to a concrete set of 'opponents' who pose a threat to the Christian community in Philippi.[31] The arguments in support of this conclusion can be stated briefly. First, the threefold ble/pete of 3.2 does not mean 'beware' or any equivalent expression implying a threat which necessitates a warning.[32] It here has the meaning of 'consider' as in the ble/pete to_n 0Israh_l kata_ sa&rka of 1 Corinthians 10.18 and likewise introduces a counter-example into Paul's argument.[33] Secondly, the recognition that the context for the polemical statements of vv2-3 and vv18-19 is one in which Paul is seeking to establish the identity of the Philippian community (note the emphatic h(mei=j ga&r of 3.3 and h(mw~n ga_r of 3.20) helps us to see that (as with 1 Thessalonians 2 and 1 Corinthians 10) the polemic serves Paul's exhortatory aims. Thirdly, scholars are often too quick to import a framework for understanding Paul's polemic from Galatians and import it into other situations. Finally, if Paul were combating a specific group of opponents, we would expect him to use terms which denote the opponents' activity (cf. Galatians 1.6: tine/j ei0sin oi9 tara&ssontej u(ma~j kai\ qe/lontej metastre/yai to_ eu)agge/lion tou~ Xristou~.). Here the polemic is best understood as a reference to identity and status, rather than (Jewish or Jewish-Christian missionary activity).

Philippians 3.2-3

3.2 Ble/pete tou_j ku&naj, ble/pete tou_j kakou_j e0rga&taj, ble/pete th_n katatomh&n. 3 h(mei=j ga&r e0smen h( peritomh&, oi9 pneu&mati qeou~ latreu&ontej kai\ kauxw&menoi e0n Xristw|~ 0Ihsou~ kai\ ou)k e0n sarki\ pepoiqo&tej

Commentators on Philippians are generally agreed that with the phrase 'Consider the dogs', Paul is employing biting satire. Specifically, most agree that he is taking a term that, ordinarily, would have been used in Jewish anti-Gentile polemic and turning it back on Judaism itself. As such the term is not being used here in any kind of descriptive way; it is pure invective.

I understand the likely source of Paul's language to be the Psalms, where ku/wn / blk is used as a polemical description of Israel's enemies (see Psa 21.17, 21; 58.7, 15). It seems that these references generate a common topos in later Jewish literature. In 1 Enoch 89.41-50 the 'sheep' are being devoured by their enemies, described among other things as 'dogs'. The sentiments of the Psalms are most fully developed in the rabbinic literature where the equation of dogs and gentiles can be found in several places.[34] While much of this literature is late, we do, of course, have evidence for the equation in the NT period in Matthew 7.6 and 15.26.

Given that (in view of the contrast in Philippians 3.2-3) Paul is unlikely to be referring to Gentiles here, the best explanation is that the term does constitute an example of reverse-polemic.

With the following phrase: 'consider the evil-workers', many commentators claim that Paul is clearly referring to itinerant Jewish-Christian missionaries (often mis-named 'Judaizers').[35] Others suggest that Paul is attacking Jewish pride in 'works', a view which neglects to account for the basic insights of the New Perspective. My own reading establishes a basic continuity between this term and its predecessor. The key point is that e0rga/thj occurs rarely in the LXX and so we are justified in seeking equivalent phrases that use the associated verb, e0rga/zomai. Here we find on numerous occasions references to 'those who work evil / lawlessness / unrighteousness', not least in the Psalms (see e.g. Psa. 6.8; 13.4; 27.3). Once again, many of these references are to the enemies of the people of God. The term seems not to be a description of moral behaviour, but instead a term of community definition, once which Paul again turns on its head and uses in his polemical construal of Judaism.

This conclusion is only confirmed by consideration of the final phrase: ‘consider the mutilation’. Clearly the phrase finds its meaning within the katatomh/ / peritomh/ contrast. There is little to suggest that Paul uses this contrast to rebut the advocacy of circumcision by an external third party. The two nouns function collectively (cf the use of peritomh/ at Rom 3.30; 4.9-12; 15.8; Gal. 2.7-9, 12) as terms of community definition. Thus, by way of reinforcing his claim of the term ‘circumcision’ for the Philippians in 3.3, Paul assigns the term ‘mutilation’ to his negative example. Again, this seems clearly to be an example of reverse rhetoric based on an Old Testament construal of pagan cultic practices (see Lev. 19.28; 1 Kgs. 18.28; Hos. 7.14; Isa 15.2).[36]

In my view there is nothing in these verses that require us to posit a polemic aimed at a specific group of Jewish-Christian opponents, nor at Jewish-Christianity in general. The polemic here makes excellent sense as a deeply satirical construal of non-Christian Judaism. The fact that Paul continues to set out, and then negate the value of, his own pre-Christian Jewish status and heritage, only reinforces this general conclusion. The technique that Paul employs to this end is consistent with that used in 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16 and 1 Corinthians 10.18-22: he establishes an identification of Judaism with paganism whereby they become the enemies of new people of God.

Philippians 3.18-20

18 polloi\ ga_r peripatou~sin ou$j polla&kij e1legon u(mi=n, nu~n de\ kai\ klai/wn le/gw, tou_j e0xqrou_j tou~ staurou~ tou~ Xristou~, 19 w{n to_ te/loj a)pw&leia, w{n o( qeo_j h( koili/a kai\ h( do&ca e0n th|~ ai0sxu&nh| au)tw~n, oi9 ta_ e0pi/geia fronou~ntej. 20 h(mw~n ga_r to_ poli/teuma e0n ou)ranoi=j u(pa&rxei, e0c ou{ kai\ swth~ra a)pekdexo&meqa ku&rion 0Ihsou~n Xristo&n,

The interpretation of these verses is fraught with difficulty. I am persuaded, however, that it is possible to read them in a way consistent with that interpretation of 3.2-3 offered above. Fuller defence of this claim would require fuller discussion than is possible here. Instead, I offer the main contours of my own reading.

Enemies of the Cross of Christ: There is a basic consensus with regard to this expression, that it is aimed at Christian believers. Paul, it is claimed, would never have used the words nu~n de\ kai\ klai/wn le/gw of unbelievers, and the reference to the cross only makes sense if the people in mind claim some relationship to the cross. In confess that I find these arguments perplexing. Romans 9.2 seems to offer a clear parallel for the motif of grief over Israel’s unbelief. Furthermore, Paul’s use of the term e0xqro/j often suggests non/pre Christian identity.[37] In Romans 11.28, unbelieving Israel are deemed ‘enemies of the gospel’. Once it is seen that Paul use the term with reference to unbelieving Jews it is a short step towards recognition that this is another example of reverse polemic.[38]

Whose End is Destruction: this clause, which along with those that follow modifies tou_j e0xqrou_j, forecasts the ‘enemies’’ eschatological destruction. The phrase forms a part of Paul’s apocalyptic dualism and anticipates the contrasting sentiments of 3.20. While it is not explicitly stated that Paul is speaking of Judaism here, it is clear that, within such an apocalyptic framework, non-Christian Jews suffer the same eschatological fate as non-Christian Gentiles. Thus Paul can use a similar phrase here in the letter to that used earlier with specific reference to the pagan opponents in Philippi (see Philippians 1.28 and cf. 1 Cor. 1.18).[39]

Whose God is Their Belly (Which is Glory in Their Shame): Recalling that Paul is still operating within a polemical idiom, I now suggest that he returns to the form and focus of sarcasm familiar to us from 3.2. A few scholars have argued that with these phrases Paul is indulging in euphemistic reference to the male sexual organ. However, what is not noticed is that in doing so, Paul is implying that the circumcised penis is the equivalent of (in traditional Jewish terms) abhorrent Gentiles nakedness. The exegetical steps in support of this conclusion are that koili/a can be used in the LXX to refer to the genitalia.[40] To say that someone considers these organs to be God is, of course, to accuse them of idolatry. But this accusation receives more specific nuance in the supplementary phrase: ‘which is glory in their shame’.[41] Ai0sxunh/ is repeatedly used to denote nakedness in the LXX and is always assessed negatively.[42] In the second temple period this is not least because nakedness was largely associated with the Gentiles and contrasted with Jewish pride in circumcision.[43]

As an illustrative parallel we may consider Habakkuk 2.15-16 and its interpretation at Qumran. In Habakkuk 2.16 we read of God’s word to foreign oppressors of Israel:

You will be sated with contempt instead of glory

Drink, you yourself and be uncircumcised (MT; LXX and 1QpHab read ‘and stagger’)

The cup in the LORD’s right hand will come around to you,

and shame will come upon your glory.

The Qumran pesher on this text follows the LXX in line 2 for the quotation, but then apparently comments on the MT’s ‘and be uncircumcised’ (lr"(fh'w). It reads:

Interpreted, this concerns the Priest whose ignominy was greater than his glory. For he did not circumcise the foreskin of his heart, and he walked in the ways of drunkenness that he might quench his thirst. But the cup of the wrath of God shall confuse him, multiplying his…and the pain of …[44]

The pesher here is specifically comparing the Wicked Priest to the uncircumcised Gentiles of Habakkuk 2. While he possesses the physical mark of circumcision, this is to be deemed shameful or ignominous rather than glory because he did not circumcise the foreskin of his heart.

Their Whole Orientation is Earthly: this phrase seems again to take the specific reverse polemic of the previous phrase and set it in a wider dualistic framework, here using the e0pigeioj / e0n ou0ranoi=j contrast into 3.20. The phrase denotes non-Christian existence in general terms, but, given the force of the polemic that precedes it, clearly includes Judaism, along with Gentile paganism under this single ‘earthly minded’ category.

This discussion of Philippians 3 has been necessarily brief. However, the reading proposed here supports the overall contention of this paper: that at several points in his letters, when searching for a negative example to further support his overall exhortatory aims, Paul turns to his ancestral faith. The Thessalonians receive the gospel as the word of God; in contrast to ‘the Jews’ who oppose God’s messengers and persecute God’s new covenant people. The Corinthians flee from idol-worship and, through Christ, live in relationship with the one God of Israel; in contrast ‘Israel according to the flesh’ when they sacrifice, offer to demons and not to God. The Philippians, the true circumcision and heavenly colony, are to obey the example they have received in Paul and his co-workers; in contrast the ‘mutilation’ are now equated with the gentile dogs, their pride in circumcision now reduced to the status of Gentile nakedness. Paul’s words are not pretty, they are not subtle, and they are not objective assessments of the place of historic Israel within God’s salvific purposes. Neither are they unsurprising, for in the diverse, competitive world of first-century Judaism, such claims and counter claims are often found.[45]

Further Examples

In the exegesis offered above, I have concentrated on those texts where I believe Paul is using the strategy of a rhetorical Jew-Gentile identification with specific reference to non-Christian Israel. It is instructive to note, however, that there are clear examples of the same or similar strategies being used in contexts where the polemic seems to be aimed at the believing community itself or where we possibly enter the post-Pauline period. To discuss these texts in detail would take too long, but a few brief comments can be made.

Galatians 4.1-11

We can begin here with 4.8, where Paul explicitly refers to the idolatrous past of the Galatian believers. Recent studies have explored the possible kinds of pre-conversion religious beliefs and practices that may have been available to the Galatians.[46] For Paul, it is clear that this pre-conversion existence was one of slavery to idols (e0douleu&sate toi=j fu&sei mh_ ou}sin qeoi=j) and that their believing response to the gospel constitutes a turn from idolatry to the true God of Israel (4.9). For the Galatian Christians, now construed as ‘children’ of God and ‘heirs’ of the promise to Abraham, to now take up Jewish religious practices of observing h(me/raj kai\ mh~naj kai\ kairou_j kai\ e0niautou&j would be to return (e0pistre/fete) to their former enslaved existence under the power of ta_ a)sqenh~ kai\ ptwxa_ stoixei=a.[47] Longenecker rightly notes that ‘Paul’s lumping of Judaism and paganism together in this manner is radical in the extreme’, but we have seen how such a strategy is consistent with what Paul can say about Judaism elsewhere.[48] J. L. Martyn’s work on Galatians would also suggest that Paul’s ability to construe Jewish practice (and not simply the Galatians’ adoption of it, but his own previous adherence to it, note the 1st person plurals of 4.3) in this way derives from the all-pervasive apocalyptic shape of his theology.[49]

Romans 1-2

The situation in Romans 1-2 is both straightforward and complex. At the most basic level we may simply note that Paul’s aim in these opening chapters is to establish a basic identification between the guilt incurred by non-Jews as a result of their sinful action (1.18-32) and that incurred by Jews, despite their possession of the law and membership of the covenant (2.17-29). The complexity is the result of numerous interpretive issues that divide commentators:

1. To what extent do these verses have any polemical intention in relation to Paul’s audience in Rome? Put otherwise, does the use of the diatribe mean that Paul is talking about Judaism and Gentile paganism in purely abstract terms, or is there evidence to suggest that even here, Paul is beginning to address the conflictual situation among and within the Roman house churches?

2. Who is being addressed in 2.1? Does Paul turn here to address the Jew, who sits in judgement over Gentile sinfulness? Or are these verses addressed to ‘righteous Gentiles’? or is the identity of the a1nqrwpoj here deliberately unspecified?

3. Is the overall intention of Romans to deal with the problem with Gentile boasting (the so-called Gentile audience theory)? If so, then is Paul here, as with the texts discussed above, using Judaism in 2.17-29 as a negative example for his largely Gentile audience, thereby equating Jewish sin with that of their Gentile neighbours and relegating Jewish circumcision to a mere physical mark?

Despite these interpretive issues, it seems clear that we are here in different territory from the tone and intentions of the passages discussed above. Recent scholarship has given priority to those parts of Paul’s argument here that confirm his positive assessment of his ancestral faith, rightly so in view of 3.1-2 and chapters 9-11. However, there is still a discussion to be had about the extent to which the portrayal of Judaism in Romans is equally shaped by the contextual circumstances of the letter’s composition.

Colossians 2.8-19

Here the complicating factor is the ongoing debate over the authorship of the letter. But despite this, there is a growing body of opinion that supports the view that Judaism in is view in these verses, specifically Jewish mystical practices.[50] Could it be that the opening description of being made captive dia_ th~j filosofi/aj kai\ kenh~j a)pa&thj kata_ th_n para&dosin tw~n a)nqrw&pwn, kata_ ta_ stoixei=a tou~ ko&smou (3.8) serves to identify Jewish mystical practices with adherence to equivalent Gentile religious and philosophical traditions? N. T. Wright certainly suggests that it does:

[T]he teaching in question is not (as is often supposed) a strange amalgam Judaism and paganism. It is in fact Judaism itself, portrayed … in the guise of ‘just another religion’. [51]

I suggest that further work on these three texts, along with other parts of the Pauline corpus, will further support the basic conclusion of this paper: that Paul is, in certain contexts, capable of equating non-Christian Judaism with Gentile paganism.

Pauline Polemic in Context

James Dunn, describing the competing factions within the Judaism of Jesus' own day identifies a common theme within the literature: 'firm and unyielding claims to be the only legitimate heirs of Israel's inheritance, and sharp, hostile, often vituperative criticisms of other Jews/Judaisms.'[52] The interpretation of key texts in Paul that I have offered above seems to fit clearly within this framework. My reading adds a level of nuance to Dunn's general description, however. Paul's words raise the possibility that one specific strategy that could be employed in 'criticisms' of other Jews was the polemical claim that they, and specifically their religious practices were equivalent to pagans and paganism. While this topos is not as significant or common as the, arguably, more positive strategy of claiming that one's own faction is the true Israel (something that Paul also does in different ways), it does occur. Far from distancing him from his Jewish context, Paul's adoption of this strategy locates him firmly within it. We have seen, for example, the equivalent strategy being employed in 1QpHab. The following illustrative examples of the use of a 'jew-pagan' equation in intra-Jewish polemic, support this view.[53]

Staying with Qumran, we can reflect upon the rhetorical force of the phrase ‘men of the pit’ / tx#h y#n) in 1QS 9.16, 22; 10.19. The phrase, which in the context of the polemic of the community rule clearly refers to other Jews who are to be avoided and shunned, probably draws on the Psalms where it it used to describe Sheol (see Psa. 16.10) but also denotes the ‘pit’ that the nations prepare to ensnare the righteous (see Psa. 9.15; 35.7) but into which they are ultimately thrown (see Psa 55.24; 94.13). In the War Scroll, the opening list of the ‘sons of darkness’ ends with ‘with the violators of the covenant’, who now await the eschatological victory of the sons of light (1QM 1.1-2). Exegetical texts employ the same strategy. For example in 4QpPsa (4Q171) 2.1-12, Psalm 37.12 is interpreted so that ‘the wicked’ (Gentiles) who plot against ‘the righteous’ (Israel) now become ‘the ruthless ones of the covenant who are in the House of Judah’ who plot to destroy ‘those who observe the law, who are in the Community Council’.

The repeated use of the category of 'sinner' (My)i+@fxa / a(martwloi\) in the Psalms of Solomon clearly fits into this category. The majority of occurrences of the word in the Old Testament are references to Gentiles.[54] Within the prophetic tradition there are already signs of its polemical use against unfaithful Jews.[55] In the Psalms of Solomon the term is turned against the Hasmonean Sadducees with and glossed with additional phrases that make their identification with the Gentiles all too clear.

They stole from the sanctuary of God

as if there were no redeeming heir.

They walked on the place of the sacrifice of the Lord,

(coming) from all kinds of uncleanness;

and (coming) with menstrual blood (on them), they defiled the sacrifices

as if they were common meat.

There was no sin they left undone in which they did not surpass the gentiles.[56]

The tone and focus of the polemic here is not very far from that in 1 Corinthians 10.18-20.

A close parallel to Paul's language in Philippians 3.2 lies also to hand. In a celebration of Judas Maccabeus' early victories, 1 Maccabees 3.5-6 states that:

He searched out and pursued those who broke the law;

he burned those who troubled his people (tou_j tara&ssontaj to_n lao_n au)tou~).

Lawbreakers (a!nomoi) shrank back for fear of him;

all the evildoers (pa&ntej oi9 e0rga&tai th~j a)nomi/aj) were confounded; and deliverance prospered by his hand.

Again the reference is clearly to Jewish apostates, here described in the language used by Elijah to condemn King Ahab (1 Kings 18.17-18 cf. the enigmatic 1 Chron 2.7) and in the Psalms for the Gentile enemies of Israel.[57]

David Rhoads, in his discussion of Josephus‘ polemical accusations, notes that he employs a ‘reverse polemic’ whereby he ‘accuses the Jewish revolutionaries of the very offenses for which they blamed the Romans, and conversely he attributes to the Romans the very motives which the revolutionaries claimed for themselves’.[58]

These few examples (more work needs to be done in exploring the occurrence of the Jew-Gentile identification in the texts of the period) serve to set Paul’s polemic in context. While harsh, crude, unpleasant and unfair, ultimately, this is polemic from within, and ought to be interpreted as such.

Concluding Thoughts

W. D. Davies once aptly summarized the multiple factors that any interpreter of Paul must take into account when judging the nature of his relationship with the people of Israel:

The Messiahship of Jesus is the point of departure for Paulinism, the criticism of the law, its method. But its concern, outcome, and end became - it might well be argued from the beginning - the redefinition of the true nature of the people of God.[59]

Paul attempts this redefinition using the tools available to him from the wider culture (his rhetorical skills) and also from within his own ancestral tradition (not least its traditions of prophetic critique and eschatological judgement). These combine to create several points in Paul's argument where he establishes an identification between Israel 'according to the flesh' and Gentile paganism. Although many interpreters suggest that in individual texts, this may be the case, I have yet to come across a scholarly work that names this strategy and identifies its presence across the Pauline corpus; this paper is an initial attempt to fill that gap.

Inevitably, however, such a conclusion raises numerous questions about Paul's theology, his relationship with and post call/conversion understanding of Judaism. We have seen that one conclusion is inadmissible. Paul's employment of this strategy should not be taken as evidence for his intention to form a new religion. There is far too much evidence that points in the other direction for that conclusion to be sustained and, anyway, comparing other Jews to Gentile pagans is, ironically, one of the clearest demonstrations of Paul's immersion in the world of competing visions of Jewish faith and practice in the pre-70 period.[60] Furthermore, as someone who affirms the central claims and conclusions of the New Perspective on Paul, I believe that my exegetical conclusions find their rightful context within that framework.

Nevertheless, Paul's use of this polemical strategy does suggest that there is a clear process of identity formation going on in Paul's letters. This process, I suggest, not only leads Paul to work hard to demonstrate how the Christ-event and the emergence of Jewish and Gentile Christian communities are in continuity with God's covenantal dealings with Israel, it also leads him to occasionally re-construe Jewish faith and practice in such a way as to suggest discontinuity. The theological rationale for this reassessment lies, it seems to me, in the basic apocalyptic dualism of Paul's thought, which shapes all that he does. When applied to issues of identity and ecclesiology it means that while Paul sometimes divides humanity into Jew, Gentile and the Church (1 Cor. 1.22-23) he can also divide humanity into two categories: the church and everyone else.

It is probably impossible to trace the effects that this kind of rhetorical strategy might have had on the Gentile Christian communities to whom Paul was writing. We might conjecture, however, that Gentiles (who may have been on the receiving end of some of terms of abuse and slander from local Jewish communities) may have understood by it that, while their identity as the new covenant community was formed by means of a fundamental continuity with Israel’s story, and their inclusion within that story, so also Israel herself should be seen in a new light. Paul’s rhetoric is not aimed at securing the separation of Gentile Christian communities from their Jewish heritage, but it is hard to avoid the conclusion that it may have contributed to it. The journey that led to the parting of the ways was long and complex. In the early decades of the Christian era, Paul’s letters attempt to show, among other things, how it is that non-Jews come to be incorporated into the covenant people, but, as this paper has tried to demonstrate, this is not the whole story. In his discussion of ‘Paul’s Quarrel with Judaism’, Donald Hagner summarizes the consensus view:

Paul believed in the absolute an exclusive truth of his gospel. But he no more advocates the overthrow of Judaism and the burning of synagogues than he does of the pagan mystery religions and their sanctuaries. Not that he would ever have put the two on the same level![61]

Hagner’s formulation is only partly right. This paper does not suggest that Paul was anti-Semitic, or that his polemic represents an attack on Judaism from beyond Judaism. Nevertheless I am suggesting that Paul’s belief in the truth of the gospel rendered him capable in certain contexts of equating Judaism with pagan religion. Within the shifting rhetoric of his letters Paul constructs the basic divisions of the human race in different ways. The emphasis in the central argument of Galatians and Romans is on the basic Jew/Greek distinction which modified to incorporate Gentile believers into Israel. But this incorporation contains within it the seeds for a different construal; one in which the new Jew-Gentile community of faith stands over-against all of unbelieving humanity; a category that now includes devout, law observant Jews. Recent scholarship on Paul has rightly recovered the former emphasis, but the texts explored in this paper remind us that Paul is not free of responsibility for the latter. The later notion that the church actually formed a ‘third race’ (tertium genus) might therefore be understood as evidence for the success of both kinds of rhetorical strategy.[62]

Bibliography

Baarda, Tjitze, 'The Shechem Episode in the Testament of Levi: A Comparison with Other Traditions', in J. N. Bremmer and Florentino García Martinex (eds.), Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of A. S. van der Woude (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992), 11-73.

Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; London: Adam and Charles Black, 1968).

Best, Ernest, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (BNTC; London: A & C Black, 1972).

Bruce, F. F., 1 & 2 Thessalonians (WBC 45; Waco: Word, 1982).

Davies, W. D., 'Paul and the People of Israel', Jewish and Pauline Studies (London: SPCK, 1984), 123-152.

de Boer, Martinus C., 'The Meaning of the Phrase ta stoicheia tou kosmou in Galatians,' NTS, 53 (2006), 204-224.

Donfried, Karl P., 'Paul and Judaism: 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16 as a Test Case,' Interpretation, 38 (1984), 242-253.

Dunn, James D. G., The Partings of the Ways Between Christanity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London / Philadelphia: SCM / Trinity Press International, 1991).

---, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGNT; Grand Rapids / Carlisle: Eerdmans / Paternoster, 1996).

---, Christianity in the Making, Volume 1: Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2003).

Elliott, Susan, Cutting Too Close for Comfort: Paul's Letter to the Galatians in its Anatolian Cultic Context (JSNTSup 248; London / New York: T & T Clark International, 2003).

Esler, Philip F., Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul's Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003).

Gilliard, Frank D., 'The Problem of the Anti-Semitic Comma Between 1 Thessalonians 2:14 and 15,' NTS, 35 (1989), 481-502.

Goldingay, John, Daniel (WBC 30; Dallas: Word, 1987).

Goldstein, Jonathan A., 1 Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 41; New York: Doubleday, 1976).

Green, Gene L., The Letters to the Thessalonians (PNTC; Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002).

Hagner, Donald A., 'Paul's Quarrel with Judaism', in Craig A. Evans and Donald A. Hagner (eds.), Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 128-150.

Hays, Richard B., The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel's Scripture (Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005).

Holtz, Traugott, Der Erste Brief an die Thessalonicher (EKK 13; Zurich / Neukirchen: Benziger / Neukirchener, 1986).

Hooker, Morna D., 'Philippians: Phantom Opponents and the Real Source of Conflict', in Ismo Dunderberg, Christopher Tuckett, and Kari Syreeni (eds.), Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity: Essays in Honour of Heikki Räisänen (NovTSup 103; Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill, 2002), 377-395.

Johnson, Luke T., 'The New Testament's Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic,' JBL, 108 (1989), 419-441.

Kilpatrick, G. D., 'BLEPETE: Philippians 3:2', in Matthew Black and Georg Fohrer (eds.), In Memoriam Paul Kahle (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 146-148.

Lamp, Jeffrey S., 'Is Paul Anti-Jewish?: Testament of Levi 6 in the Interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16,' CBQ, 65 (2003), 408-427.

Longenecker, Richard N., Galatians (WBC 41; Dallas: Word, 1990).

Malherbe, Abraham. J., The Letters to the Thessalonians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 32B; New York / London / Toronto / Sydney / Auckland: Doubleday, 2000).

Martyn, J. Louis, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997).

---, Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (Studies in the New Testament and its World; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997).

Patte, Daniel, Paul's Faith and the Power of the Gospel: A Structural Introduction to Paul's Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).

Pearson, Birger A., '1 Thessalonians 2:13-16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpretation,' HTR, 64 (1971), 79-94.

Rhoads, David M., Israel in Revolution: 6-74 C.E.: A Political History based on the Writings of Josephus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976).

Richard, Earl J., First and Second Thessalonians (SP 11; Collegeville: Michael Glazier, 1995).

Rigaux OFM, B., Saint Paul: Les Épitres aux Thessaloniciens (EB?????; Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie, 1956).

Schippers, R. J., 'The Pre-Synoptic Tradition in 1 Thessalonians II 13-16,' NovT, 8 (1966), 223-234.

Schlueter, Carol J., Filling Up The Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16 (JSNTSup 98; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994).

Schrage, Wolfgang, Der Erste Brief an die Korinther (1 Kor 6.12-11,16) (EKK 7/2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger / Neukirchener, 1995).

Smith, Abraham, 'The First Letter to the Thessalonians: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections', NIB (11; Nashville: Abingdon, 2000), 673-737.

Smith, Ian, Heavenly Perspective: A Study of the Apostle Paul's Response to a Jewish Mystical Movement at Colossae (LNTS 326; London / New York: Continuum, 2006).

Still, Todd D., Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and its Neighbours (JSNTSup 183; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999).

Wanamaker, Charles A., The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGNT; Grand Rapids / Carlisle: Eerdmans / Paternoster, 1990).

Weatherly, Jon A., 'The Authenticity of 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16: Additional Evidence,' JSNT, 42 (1991), 79-98.

Winninge, Mikael, Sinners and the Righteous: A Comparative Study of the Psalms of Solomon and Paul's Letters (ConBNT; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1995).

Winter, Sean F., ''Worthy of the Gospel of Christ': A Study in the Situation and Strategy of Paul's Epistle to the Philippians', DPhil (University of Oxford, 1997).

Witherington III, Ben, 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006).

Wright, N. T., Colossians and Philemon (TNTC; Leicester / Grand Rapids: Inter-Varsity / Eerdmans, 1986).

-----------------------

[1] This is not to say that Paul's view can be gleaned from only these polemical texts. Clearly Paul's understanding of Judaism and the role of Israel in salvation history is also reflected in the central argumentative sections of Galatians and Romans that have formed the basis of so much recent discussion.

[2] While such views have an older pedigree, the article that has influenced the debate in recent times is Birger A. Pearson, '1 Thessalonians 2:13-16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpretation,' HTR, 64 (1971), 79-94. For an overview of the debate see Carol J. Schlueter, Filling Up The Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16 (JSNTSup 98; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994), 13-38 and Todd D. Still, Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and its Neighbours (JSNTSup 183; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), pp??. The most recent commentator to hold to the interpolation theory is, to my knowledge, Earl J. Richard, First and Second Thessalonians (SP 11; Collegeville: Michael Glazier, 1995), 119-127. The reasons for not accepting the interpolation theory are, to my mind, clearly set out by Schlueter and Still and I hope that my own reading of the text adds a further argument in favour of its authenticity.

[3] See e.g. James D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways Between Christanity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London / Philadelphia: SCM / Trinity Press International, 1991), 146-147. The point has particular force in relation to the 'anti-semitic' comma, introduced between 2.14 and 2.15 by the editors of NA27 (and earlier) and therefore followed in the NRSV. See Frank D. Gilliard, 'The Problem of the Anti-Semitic Comma Between 1 Thessalonians 2:14 and 15,' NTS, 35 (1989), 481-502 and Abraham. J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 32B; New York / London / Toronto / Sydney / Auckland: Doubleday, 2000), 169.

[4] This is a complex debate which I do not feel qualified to adjudicate. In general terms, I take seriously the points made by Philip Esler to the effect that translating oi9 0Ioudai/oi as 'the Jews' (with the accompanying adjective 'Jewish') removes the close connections with land, temple and cult that the term contains and tends to conflate pre-70CE and all forms of post-Mishnaic religious communities. However, I am less certain that this can be overcome by the difference in translation. 'Judean' does, as Esler recognises, suggest to most English speakers those who live in a particular geographical region, whereas oi9 0Ioudai/oi has much more to do with ethnicity and religious observance. See Philip F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul's Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 62-74 (much of this in dialogue with Shaye Cohen). In 1 Thessalonians 2.14 the combination of prepositional phrase tw~n ou)sw~n e0n th|~ 0Ioudai/a| and nominal adjective tw~n 0Ioudai/wn clearly establishes a distinction between the two groups: they both live in Judea, but only one group is named as 'the Jews'.

[5] Broadly speaking the division is between those who believe that e1fqasen suggests a specific historical event (either the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, or perhaps upheavals in Judea associated with the governorship of Cumanus, so recently Ben Witherington III, 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), 86-87 and Gene L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (PNTC; Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002), 149) and those understand it as a more general apocalyptic motif: see e.g. Karl P. Donfried, 'Paul and Judaism: 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16 as a Test Case,' Interpretation, 38 (1984), 242-253 and Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGNT; Grand Rapids / Carlisle: Eerdmans / Paternoster, 1990), 117.

[6] The ensuing comparison with Judean Christian suffering at the hands of oi9 I0oudai/oi suggests that sumfule/thj here has an ethnic, rather then geographical reference. See Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians , 168.

[7] See e.g. Donald A. Hagner, 'Paul's Quarrel with Judaism', in Craig A. Evans and Donald A. Hagner (eds.), Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 128-150, 133-134, Jon A. Weatherly, 'The Authenticity of 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16: Additional Evidence,' JSNT, 42 (1991), 79-98, 87.

[8] Best states that the present tense at 2.15 indicates 'a constant attitude of the Jews whose fundamental disposition became particularly observable in the crucifixion of Jesus, the death of the prophets and the persecution of Christians.' Ernest Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (BNTC; London: A & C Black, 1972), 116-117. Cf. B. Rigaux OFM, Saint Paul: Les Épitres aux Thessaloniciens (EB?????; Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie, 1956), 447: 'Le passage au present marque bien que Paul veut indiquer une tare permanente'.

[9] See also 1 Thess 2.4; 1 Cor. 7.32; Gal. 1.10; Col. 1.10

[10] The preferred LXX term is eu0areste/w which typically translates Klh in the MT. For Enoch see Gen 5.22, 24; Sirach 44.16; Noah: Gen 6.9; Abram: Gen 17.1; 24.40; 48.15.; Psalmist: Psa. 26.3; 35.14; 56.13; 116.9 (all LXX).

[11] The nearest equivalent is Joshua 24.15 Now if you are unwilling to serve the Lord (µ0 ´r ¼t Ásúµ¹ Q¼Ö½ »±ÄÁµ{µ¹½ ºÅÁwó) choose this day whom you will sist: Psa. 26.3; 35.14; 56.13; 116.9 (all LXX).

[12] The nearest equivalent is Joshua 24.15 Now if you are unwilling to serve the Lord (εἰ δὲ μὴ ἀρέσκει ὑμῖν λατρεύειν κυρίῳ) choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served in the region beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”

[13] F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (WBC 45; Waco: Word, 1982), 47.

[14] E.g. Still, Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and its Neighbours , 202, n.40. See Tacitus, Hist 5.5; Josephus, Contra Apionem 2.121; Philostratus, Vita Apollonii 5.33; Diodorus Siculus 34.1.1-2; Juvenal, Sat 14.96-106. We might note that these texts do not discriminate, but are aimed at the Jewish nation as a whole.

[15] So Rigaux OFM, Les Épitres aux Thessaloniciens 'la resemblance est plus verbale que réele.'

[16] The notion of Amorite wickedness can also be found in Deut 9.4-5; Lev 18.24-27; 20.22-24; 1 Kings 14.24.

[17] Here the LXX clarifies an ambiguity in the MT which reads My(i#$;p@oha Mt'hfk@;. The transgressions are those of the Diadochi who precede the ultimate opponent of God's purposes and God's people. John Goldingay concludes that even in the MT 'the rebels are Gentiles' John Goldingay, Daniel (WBC 30; Dallas: Word, 1987), 217.

[18] See also 2 Chron 2.12; Amos 9.8; Dan 3.34 and cf. Wis 26.5; 18.20; T Levi 5.6; T Dan 6.5, cited in Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians , 171.

[19] We should not exclude the possibility that Paul draws on gospel tradition for this polemical critique of his own people. See Matthew 23.32-36 (though note that there is no reference to 'sin' here). For a discussion of the close parallels between the two texts see R. J. Schippers, 'The Pre-Synoptic Tradition in 1 Thessalonians II 13-16,' NovT, 8 (1966), 223-234.

[20] So Rigaux OFM, Les Épitres aux Thessaloniciens, 456: ' Paul a pu de lui-même rependre un dicton juif appliqué originairement aux pécheurs ou aux enemis d'Israël' citing Test Levi 5.6; 1 QM 39; 1 QS 2.1; 4.11-13. He is followed by Traugott Holtz, Der Erste Brief an die Thessalonicher (EKK 13; Zurich / Neukirchen: Benziger / Neukirchener, 1986), 109

[21] Jeffrey S. Lamp, 'Is Paul Anti-Jewish?: Testament of Levi 6 in the Interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16,' CBQ, 65 (2003), 408-427

[22] Test Levi 6.11 reads e!fqasqe de\ au0tou=j h( o0rgh\ tou= qeou= / kuri/ou ei0j te/loj. For a discussion of the various theories concerning the relationship between the two texts see Tjitze Baarda, 'The Shechem Episode in the Testament of Levi: A Comparison with Other Traditions', in J. N. Bremmer and Florentino García Martinex (eds.), Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of A. S. van der Woude (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992), 11-73.

[23] Genesis 34. The story is also re-narrated in Jubilees 30, Josephus, Ant. 1.21.1-2 and by Theodotus according to Eusebius in Praep. ev. 9.22 and mentioned in Judith 9.2-4.

[24] The phrase comes from Abraham Smith, 'The First Letter to the Thessalonians: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections', NIB (11; Nashville: Abingdon, 2000), 673-737, 704. See also Daniel Patte, Paul's Faith and the Power of the Gospel: A Structural Introduction to Paul's Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 145: 'Thus this passage is not, in Paul's mind, anti-Semitic but rather "anti-persecutor"'.

[25] For Paul's use of Scripture in this passage see Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel's Scripture (Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005), pp.??

[26] As Barrett notes, Paul 'looks round for analogies to clarify' his main points, 'not arguments to prove them', C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; London: Adam and Charles Black, 1968), 235.

[27] P46vid, o) A, C and many other MSS insert ta\ e!qnh, a strategy that for Schrage is 'ein irriger sekundärer Präzisierungsversuch' Wolfgang Schrage, Der Erste Brief an die Korinther (1 Kor 6.12-11,16) (EKK 7/2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger / Neukirchener, 1995), 445, n.378. I have found no scholar who believes that the words are anything other than a secondary, clarificatory addition, although almost all then go on to say that the clarification is in line with Paul's intention.

[28] Cf Psa 116.5; Baruch 4.7.

[29] Paul also quotes or alludes to Deuteronomy 32 in Rom 9.4, 10.19; Phil 2.15. Many scholars see an allusion to the Golden Calf incident in Romans 1.23.

[30] The most recent discussion to recognise the point is Hays, Conversion , but he mentions it in passing and does not develop its significance.

[31] Much of what follows summarizes a lengthy discussion in my thesis, Sean F. Winter, ''Worthy of the Gospel of Christ': A Study in the Situation and Strategy of Paul's Epistle to the Philippians', DPhil (University of Oxford, 1997), chapter 6.

[32] See most recently Morna D. Hooker, 'Philippians: Phantom Opponents and the Real Source of Conflict', in Ismo Dunderberg, Christopher Tuckett, and Kari Syreeni (eds.), Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity: Essays in Honour of Heikki Räisänen (NovTSup 103; Leiden / Boston / Köln: Brill, 2002), 377-395.

[33] The key article is G. D. Kilpatrick, 'BLEPETE: Philippians 3:2', in Matthew Black and Georg Fohrer (eds.), In Memoriam Paul Kahle (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 146-148. The imperative requires a0po/ or a dependent clause with mh/ plus the aorist subjunctive to be a warning.

[34] The positive example here is provided by Paul and his co-workers, see Phil 3.17.

[35] m. Ned 4.3; Gen. Rab. 77.3; Exod. Rab. 9.2.

[36] The supporting evidence in favour of this view is the usage in Matt. 20.1, 2, 8; Lk 13.27; Acts 19.25; 2 Cor. 11.13. It is weak because (a) as we have seen there were no 'missionaries' in Philippi is any description and (b) most of the key texts are proverbial and fail to establish a technical sense for the term without supporting contextual information (e.g. the use of a0posto/loj in 2 Cor 11.13).

[37] All of these examples use the verb katate/mnw. The noun only occurs in Jer 31.37 (48.37 LXX) in Symmachus’ translation, and it again refers to Moabite mourning rituals.

[38] See Rom 5.10; 11.28; 1 Cor. 15.25-26; Col 1.21. Appeal is sometimes made to 2 Thess 3.15 where Paul is dealing with a Christian group, but Paul explicitly states here that the group are not to be regarded as ‘enemies’ but as ‘believers’.

[39] Note that in many Psalms (e.g. 6.9; 14.4; 22.17; 27.2) the ‘enemies’ of Israel are also described as ‘evil-doers’.

[40] While I am arguing that much of the force of the polemic against Judaism here finds a parallel in what Paul says in Romans 9-11, at this point it seems clear that Romans 11.25 envisages a different eschatological fate for Israel than that suggested here.

[41] See 2 Sam. 7.12; 16.11; 1 Chron. 17.11; 2 Chron. 32.21; Psa 132.11; Cant. 5.4, 14; 7.2; Mic. 6.7. The majority of these refer to the male sexual organs.

[42] It is clear from the overall structure of 3.18-19 that the kai\ here does not introduce a 3rd modifying clause, but further modifies the 2nd clause, perhaps in an epexegetic sense. Thus Paul is now giving his own assessment of what is really happening when someone makes their ‘belly’ their God.

[43] The source text is Genesis 2.25, but see e.g. 1 Sam. 20.30; Isa 47.3; Ezek. 16.36-38.

[44] See e.g. 1 Macc 1.14-15; 2 Macc 4.9-17; Jubilees 3.16; 7.20; 15.33-34.

[45] 1QpHab 11.12-15, translation Vermes.

[46] For a timely reminder of the importance of polemic in the New Testament world, and of the dangers of extrapolating universal conclusions from it, see Luke T. Johnson, 'The New Testament's Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic,' JBL, 108 (1989), 419-441.

[47] Susan Elliott, Cutting Too Close for Comfort: Paul's Letter to the Galatians in its Anatolian Cultic Context (JSNTSup 248; London / New York: T & T Clark International, 2003)

[48] On the identification of the stoixei=a with the pagan gods of the Galatians’ past, see the recent article by Martinus C. de Boer, 'The Meaning of the Phrase ta stoicheia tou kosmou in Galatians,' NTS, 53 (2006), 204-224.

[49] Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Dallas: Word, 1990), 181.

[50] J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997), J. Louis Martyn, Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (Studies in the New Testament and its World; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997).

[51] James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGNT; Grand Rapids / Carlisle: Eerdmans / Paternoster, 1996), N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon (TNTC; Leicester / Grand Rapids: Inter-Varsity / Eerdmans, 1986) and the recent study by Ian Smith, Heavenly Perspective: A Study of the Apostle Paul's Response to a Jewish Mystical Movement at Colossae (LNTS 326; London / New York: Continuum, 2006).

[52] Wright, Colossians and Philemon, 97

[53] James D. G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making, Volume 1: Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2003), 281.

[54] I offer here examples in which I detect the specific strategy of equating one's Jewish opponents to be or behave in a way that is functionally equivalent to non-Jewish pagans and that adopts traditional Jewish anti-Gentile/pagan language and reverses it to this end. I therefore leave out of consideration phrases which derive from a basic dualism and do not appear to be biblical or traditional ways for Jews to portray pagans, for example the use of the phrase 'men of Belial', 'sons of Belial' in the Dead Sea Scrolls, though even this term is used in Jub 15.33-34 in connection with the phrase 'made themselves like gentiles'.

[55] The people of Sodom (Gen 13.3); the Amalekites (Num 32.14); numerous examples in Psalms and Proverbs.

[56] Isaiah 33.14: 'sinners in Zion'; Amos 9.10 'sinners of my people'.

[57] Psalms of Solomon 8.11-13; cf. 1.8. For detailed study see Mikael Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous: A Comparative Study of the Psalms of Solomon and Paul's Letters (ConBNT; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1995). Cf. 1 En 82.4-7.

[58] Jonathan A. Goldstein, 1 Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 41; New York: Doubleday, 1976), 245.

[59] David M. Rhoads, Israel in Revolution: 6-74 C.E.: A Political History based on the Writings of Josephus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 166. He cites B. J. 6.99-102 as a particularly striking example.

[60] W. D. Davies, 'Paul and the People of Israel', Jewish and Pauline Studies (London: SPCK, 1984), 123-152, 124

[61] Not least, of course, in Romans 9-11, although we might note that even there Paul is capable of naming Israel as 'enemies of the gospel'.

[62] Hagner, 'Paul's Quarrel', 130.

[63] See Ep. Diog. 1, 5.; Clem. Alex. Strom 6.5; Tert. Scorp. 10.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download