Cover

Jacob P. B. Mortensen

Paul Among the Gentiles: A ‘Radical’ Reading of Romans

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag Tübingen

Inhalt

Fußnoten

Introduction

Donfried 1991a, lxix

Introduction

Some may argue that I should include the scholarly work of John Barclay and N.T. Wright. However, I have chosen to not include their work, as I do not believe it to push ‘beyond’ the new perspective. Instead, I consider their work to be firmly situated within (perhaps even mainstream) new perspective interpretations of Paul.

In 2000, John Gager wrote about ‘a new paradigm’ within Pauline studies (Gager 2000, 145). However – to my knowledge – the first scholars who spoke of ‘a radical new perspective’ are Caroline Johnson Hodge (2007, 153), Pamela Eisenbaum (2009, 250), and Magnus Zetterholm (2009, 161).

Cf. Gager 2000, 145; Nanos 2015, 1–2; Eisenbaum 2009, 250

History of research

N.T. Wright’s critique of something similar to the radical perspective, concerning Paul’s identity, and whether he still considered himself a Jew following the (Mosaic) law, misses the point. Wright brings in Gal 2 (and Rom 7:4–6,) and states that he can understand people who are concerned with Christian–Jewish relations today, and people who try to explain the passage in Gal 2 by making it a rhetorical overstatement. But he cannot understand scholars making the argument that Paul was a Torah-observant Jew without mentioning Gal 2 as a major piece of counter-evidence (Wright 2013, 1430). Wright does not consider the possibility that Paul does not speak in a universalizing way, but specifically addresses issues relevant to his Gentile addresses, and, therefore frames his argument for this purpose.

Franz Mussner, Krister Stendahl, John Gager

Cf. Donaldson 2006; Jewett 2007, 702; Gager 2000, 146; Byrne 1996, 354–355

Cf. Moo 1996, 725 n. 61

Stendahl 1976, 4; Gager 1983; Gaston 1987, 147–150

Mussner 1987, 48ff.; Mussner 1981, 211f

Stendahl 1995, 38; also cf. 1995, 40

Gager’s background does not seem to suggest a ‘two covenant’ solution in any religious way, such as interfaith relations. However, from a political or ideological perspective, his background fits a ‘two covenant’ solution very well. During his years of study, Gager was not particularly religious, but ‘observant in a casual way’ (http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/99/0503/gager.htm). He went on to divinity school, because divinity schools at that time were centres of intense intellectual and social activism. Working with the New Testament texts caught his interest in such a way that today he continues his efforts for social justice in the area of Jewish–Christian dialogue.

Sanders 1977, 75

Gager 2000, 146

Lloyd Gaston

Gaston 1987, 2

Gaston 1987, 3

Gaston 1987, 2

Gaston 1987, 4

Stanley Stowers

Cf. e.g. Peterson 1997, 50

Stowers’ exegetical energy is devoted mainly to Romans 1–4. The discussion of this part of Romans occupies more than twice as much space as is given to the rest of the letter.

I am aware that the designation ‘historical-ethnic Jews’ may seem redundant. However, the reason for using this designation concerns the highly debated issue of what it meant to be Jewish, and whether historal affiliation, ethnicity or circumcision was ‘enough’ to define a person as Jewish. I use ‘historical-ethnic’ to point to those Jews who both ethnically and historically associated with Judaism. The designation helps clarifying the distinction between two kinds of Jews: ethnic Jews and non-ethnic Jews (that is, circumcised Gentiles wanting to be Jews).

The ‘actual’ radicals

The ‘radicals’ have presented themselves in the book, Paul within Judaism, and meet officially as an SBL subgroup called ‘Paul Within Judaism’. Also, Pamela Eisenbaum refers collectively to some of these scholars as ‘the Radicals’, to distinguish them from New Perspective scholars (Eisenbaum 2005, 232–233). Also cf. Magnus Zetterholm’s description of these scholars in a chapter entitled ‘Beyond the New Perspective’ (Zetterholm 2009, 127–163), and Caroline Johnson Hodge’s reference to this ‘perspective’ (Johnson Hodge 2007, 153).

This didactic point concerns the possibility of presenting a rather uniform ‘view’ or ‘perspective’ on Paul, rather than unrelated and arbitrary, individual scholarly positions.

Cf. e.g. Fredriksen 2015

Cf. especially Magnus Zetterholm’s critique (Zetterholm 2009, 33–126). However, the radical scholars’ point of departure may be said to be much more politically or ideologically correct in these days, even if they are not related to traditional Christian theologies. Hence, the radicals may be more politically correct in their renunciation of Christian theologies, but they may be said to be even more ideologically indebted to contemporary political correctness and, hence, just as ideologically biased as denominational scholars.

Mark Nanos

Nanos is a devout Jew, and he considers his emic understanding of Judaism an advantage in his work on Paul (cf. Nanos 1996, 3–20, and his webpage: http://www.marknanos.com/).

Nanos 1996, 85–165

Nanos 1996, 239–288

Nanos 1996, 289–336

Nanos 1996, 155

Nanos 1996, 38–40

Dunn 2005, 207ff.

Paula Fredriksen

Paula Fredriksen recently published a book on Paul (Paul: The Pagan’s Apostle, 2017). The book arrived too late for me to use it here. However, from a brief look at its table of contents, the book extends Fredriksen’s previous work on Paul, and several of the articles I introduce here appear in one way or another in her book.

Fredriksen 1988; 2000

Fredriksen 1982; 2010a

Fredriksen 2009a, 28–29

Cf. Fredriksen 2011, 2

Cf. Fredriksen 2003, 14

Fredriksen 1995, 23

At some point, Paula Fredriksen converted to Judaism (Fredriksen 2009a, 29). She is well aware of the fact that some scholars consider her ‘some kind of covert operative for making Jesus Jewish, claiming him for the Jewish side’ (Fredriksen 2009a, 29). However, from her perspective there is no direct correlation between ancient Judaism and various forms of modern Judaism. She argues that no twenty-first-century person can be like a first-century person. All scholars must respect that difference, or they will incorrectly understand and present history. She argues that a scholar of ancient history will be unable to see the first-century people ‘at all’ if she or he assumes a twenty-first-century sense of self and retroject it back to the time of Paul (Fredriksen 2009a, 29). Hence, even if Fredriksen’s work is charged with religio-ideological ulterior motives, she herself argues against such an understanding.

Fredriksen 1991, 544

Runar Thorsteinsson

Cf. e.g. Thorsteinsson 2003, 139; 143

Stowers 2005, 565

Caroline Johnson Hodge

Johnson Hodge 2007, 153

Johnson Hodge 2007, 5

Johnson Hodge 2007, 43

Pamela Eisenbaum

Cf. the introduction in Eisenbaum 2009, 1–4 and in the biographical passage of her profile at Iliff School of Theology (http://www.iliff.edu/learn/your-faculty/pam-eisenbaum/). She also participates in work on ‘how to reclaim the Bible for progressives’ (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-chuck-currie/westar-institute-bible-seminar_b_1069775.html).

Eisenbaum 2009, 250; ix

Eisenbaum 2009, 251

Eisenbaum 2009, 243

Eisenbaum 2009, 244

Critical evaluation of the radical perspective: T.L. Donaldson and A. Wedderburn

Donaldson 20015, 287

Donaldson 20015, 290

LXX Gen 26:4; Deut 10:15; 1 Esd 8:67; Ps. 105 (106): 27; Isa 61:9; Wis 10:15; Ps Sol 9:9; perhaps also Jubilees 2:2–21, 15:11–14, 16:16–18, 25–26, where ‘seed’ appears without an explicit contrast to the Gentiles: LXX Esther 9:27; Ps 104 (105):6; Isa 41:8; Ezek 20:5; 4 Macc 18:1; Ps Sol 18:3; also Jub 1:7–8

Wedderburn 2004, 48

Wedderburn 2004, 54

Wedderburn 2004, 57

Wedderburn 2004, 59

Wedderburn 2004, 63

Evaluation and task

Gaston 1987, 2; Eisenbaum 2009, 255

Fredriksen 1982; 1988; 2002; 2010; Gager 1985

Introduction

These scholars share the conviction that Paul addressed Gentiles exclusively in all his letters, including in Romans.

Cf. Trebilco 2012, 3

As is well-known, the first occurrence of the term χριστιανισμός (Christianity) is found in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, dated to the early second century, either during Trajan’s or Hadrian’s reign. Χριστιανούς (Christians) occurs only three times in the New Testament writings: twice in Acts (11:26; 26:28) and once in 1 Peter (4:16); both texts postdate Paul.

Cf. Mason 2007, 476

Paul Trebilco argues that although scholars might want to emphasize the fact that they are not importing all the later associations of the term ‘Christian’ into the first century, ‘the simple use of the same term means there is some unavoidable ’spillage” back from later connotations into the first century’ (Trebilco 2012, 4).

Cf. the telling title of Pamela Eisenbaum’s book: Paul was not a Christian (2009).

Caroline Johnson Hodge

Cf. Johnson Hodge 2007; 2005; 2015

Johnson Hodge approaches the problem from a position situated contemporaneously with Paul. From the perspective of ‘Wirkungsgeschichte’ it would be legitimate to describe believers in Christ as ‘Christians’. However, this is not Johnson Hodge’s perspective, nor that of any other radical.

Johnson Hodge 2015, 154; 159

Johnson Hodge 2007, 18

Joshua Garroway

Garroway 2008, abstract.

Paula Fredriksen

E.g. Fredriksen 1991; 2005; 2014

Fredriksen 2010, 241ff.

Fredriksen 1991, 544ff.

Fredriksen 2010, 242

Mark D. Nanos

Nanos 2014, 26 n.1

For a discussion of this, cf. Cohen 2005

My use of ’historical-ethnic Jews’ is intended to point to these really ’real’ Jews.

Cf. Nanos 2014, 29

Horace, Sat. 1.9.68–70; Petronius, Sat. 102.14; Josephus, Contra Ap. 2.13.137; Epictetus, 12.2

Cf. e.g. Dunn 1999

Nanos 2014, 32

Cf. Wright 2013, 1432–1436

Paul’s (and Peter’s) identity

E.g. Dunn 1999

Cf. Johnson Hodge 2007, 122

Concluding remarks and evaluation

Paul Trebilco and Steve Mason support this point, cf. Trebilco 2012, 3–5; Mason 2007, 468–471. Even though N.T. Wright argues that his own position supports the point, I am not convinced, cf. Wright 2013, 804–815

A real letter (epistolography)

Even though both terms (letter, epistle) are widely used today, neither is an ancient Greek term, because the ancient Greeks avoided such a distinction. The distinction did not seem obvious or important to them (just as the difference between real author, pseudepigraphic author, or copyist did not seem obvious or important). Adolf Deissmann introduced the distinction between letter and epistle when he spoke of a ‘real, non-literary’ letter (‘Brief’) and an ‘artistic, literary’ one (‘Epistel’) (Deissmann 1923, 116–119).

I consider Song’s proposal rather speculative (cf. Song 2004). Song proposes that Paul wrote Rom 1:16–11:36 as a classroom diatribe. At a later point, when he needed it, he simply added the Roman recipients to the opening and a rather general paraenesis at the end.

Thorsteinsson 2003, 73

Barclay states that more than anything else in the letter, 14:1–15:6 bears witness to specific concerns of the Roman congregation, and therefore confirms that the letter is a real letter (Barclay 1996, 288).

Melanchton 1944, 69; Melanchton 1955-1983, 2.1.7

Bornkamm 1991, 16; also cf. Nygren 1949, 7

The integrity of the letter

In the upcoming exposition of the introductory questions concerning Romans, I follow the outline of Das 2007, 10ff.

Hays 1995, 76

A 14-, 15-, or 16-chapter version of Romans

Cf. Kümmel 1975, 315; Gamble 1977, 23f.; Das 2007, 13–23; Dochhorn 2015, 296–305

Gamble 1977, 16ff.

Gamble 1977, 19f.; Dochhorn 2015, 298

Gamble 1977, 99

Gamble 1977, 115ff.

Cf. Kümmel 1975, 318 n45

Manson’s 1962 article is reprinted in The Romans Debate, cf. Manson 1991, 7ff.

Lampe 1991, 217

Cf. 1 Cor 16:10–11 where Paul appends a commendation of Timothy to the Corinthians (cf. also Phil 2:25–30).

Gamble 1977, 47f.; Lampe 1991, 219f.

Cf. Acts 18:2; Suetonius Claud. 25; Cassius Dio 60.6.6-7

Gamble 1977, 51

Weima 1994, 362

Cf. Wischmeyer 2012, 2455ff.; Theobald 2013, 213ff.

Gamble 1977, 84–95; Das 2007, 22

Donfried 1991a, lxx

Concerning Rom 16:25–27 cf. Kümmel 1975, 316. Against the authenticity of 16:25–27: Collins 2002. In defence of the authenticity of 16:25–27: Schreiner 1998, 810ff.; Marshall 1999, 170ff.; Borse 1994, 173ff.

From the work of Stanley Stowers and John White concerning ancient epistolary theory we also know that from the reign of Augustus onward, letter writers began ‘to extend greetings to or from a third party (or parties) in the letter closing’ (White 1986, 202). Stowers agrees that ancient letters ‘frequently send salutations to individuals who are not the encoded readers’ (Stowers 1994, 33). Thus, the greetings in 16:3–15 suggest that the persons meant to be greeted should not be counted among those to whom Paul wrote the letter. As Thorsteinsson concludes: ‘[T]he greetings in Romans 16 say nothing conclusive about the identity of Paul’s implied audience’ (Thorsteinsson 2003, 99).

Addressees, audience, recipients: external versus internal evidence

For a comprehensive listing up to 2002 cf. Thorsteinsson 2003, 88 n5, and Christoffersson 1990, 24–28. Since 2002, others have claimed that Romans was also intended for Jews: Jewett 2007, 150; Jervis 2012, 139 n1; Johnson 2012, 158

Cf. Christoffersson 1990, 27; Das 2007, 24–25; Thorsteinsson 2003, 91

Over the years, a minority of scholars have suggested a Gentile audience (cf. e.g. Munck 1959, 200–209), but a detailed challenge to the consensus concerning a Jewish constituency in the Roman congregation did not present itself until the 1990s, specifically, the work of Stanley Stowers (1994).

Stowers 1994; Thorsteinsson 2003. Also cf. Garroway 2012; Johnson Hodge 2007, 10.

Stowers 1994, 22; Thorsteinsson 2003, 87 n2.

Cf. Das 2007, 149ff.; Jewett 2007, 55ff.; Rutgers 1995; Nanos 1996, 41ff.; Watson 2007, 167ff.

Even though I follow Stowers and Thorsteinsson in speaking of the encoded audience/reader/addressees, I also wish to push this topic further. The reason Stowers and Thorsteinsson ‘only’ argued for a Gentile identity of the encoded audience/reader was because in their scholarly context it seemed impossible to imagine a real (historical) congregation made up of Gentiles only. Thus, Stowers and Thorsteinsson took a ‘literary’ or ‘rhetorical’ short-cut, and spoke merely of the ‘encoded reader’ as a strategy within the text. However, if the encoded reader/audience in the text may be established as purely Gentile, and this identity and strategy may be coupled with questions concerning the actual problems of the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ in chapters 14–15, then it may be possible to move beyond positing a purely ‘literary’ or ‘rhetorical’ identity of the encoded reader/audience.

A Gentile audience

So argues Cranfield (1975, 67).

Cf. Das 2007, 65 which gives the references.

Cf. Engberg-Pedersen 2000, 185f. and Thorsteinsson 2003, 121 for a similar conclusion.

Stowers 1994, 288

Cf. Thorsteinsson 2003, 110, italics in original.

Some Jews after all…?

Cf. Lampe 1987

In 7:1, Paul addresses ‘those who know the law’. This statement does not imply a priori that the addressees were Jews. All that follows from this statement is that the addressees were acquainted with the Jewish (Mosaic) law. To apply the logic of close mirror-reading, in Galatians, we might conclude that there were problems between men and women, because in Gal 3:28 Paul states: ‘There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female’. But nothing in Galatians suggests that there are problems concerning gender relations in the Galatian congregations. Hence, we should be careful about referential conclusions.

Cf. Jos. Asen. 4:7; 27:1; 28:7; Josephus Ant. 1.3.1 §96; 20.8.11 §189ff.; 2 Chr 5:6. Luke may be borrowing the concept of ‘God-fearers’ from LXX (cf. Das 2007, 73).

Also cf. Acts 13:16, 26, 43 where Luke juxtaposes two distinct groups: 1) ‘Israelites’, ‘brothers’, ‘Jews’ and 2) ‘God-fearers’ and ‘proselytes’.

Martial Epigrammata 4.4; Plutarch Superst. 3.166a

Cf. Plutarch Cicero 7.6.5; Epictetus Diatr. 2.9.19ff.; Suetonius Dom. 12.2; Dio Cassius 67.14.2

Thorsteinsson 2003, 114

The Gentile identity of ‘the strong’ and ‘the weak’

Cf. Sampley 1995, 40ff.; Jewett 2007, 834; Haacker 1999, 278f.; Barclay 1996, 289

Cf. Shogren 2000, 242; Moo 1996, 827; Haacker 1999, 277f.; Barclay 2013, 192

Cf. Shogren 2000, 242; Das 2007, 108; Moo 1996, 831

For discussions of this possibility, cf. Larsen 2015, 281; Dunn 1988, 2.801; Watson 2007, 95; Ziesler 1989, 322ff.

Rauer 1923, 76ff.; Schmithals 1975, 98 n16; Wilkens 1978–1982, 3.114; Jewett 2007, 868

Cf. Daniel 1:8–16; Esther 14:17 LXX; Josephus Vita 13–14; 4 Macc 5:2–36; Judith 12:1–4

Cf. the discussion in Eisenbaum 2010, 111ff.; Cohen 2010, 337; Nanos 2014, 32ff.; Garroway 2008, 21ff.

Cf. Judith Lieu’s discussion (Lieu 2002, 50–85).

Acts 10:2, 22, 35; 13:16, 26, 43, 50; 16:14; 17:4, 17; 18:7

Cf. Watson 2007, 95ff.

Jews in chapter 16

Shogren 2000, 245; Haacker 1999, 321; Jewett 2007, 962; Keck 2005, 373; Dochhorn 2015, 296ff.

Mar 6:4; Luk 1:58; 2:44; 14:12; Johs 18:26; Act 10:24

The occasion and purpose of Romans – some preliminary insights

Cf. Donfried 1991

‘christianae religionis compendium’ (Melanchthon 1944, 69; Melanchton 1955–1983, 2.1.7).

Bornkamm 1991, 16–28

Jervell 1991, 53–64; also cf. the exposition by Christoffersson 1990, 25–26

Jervell 1991, 62ff.

Fitzmyer 1993, 725

The same objection amounts to the argument that Romans serves as Paul’s preparation for the Spanish mission (cf. Zeller 1973, 38–77; Jewett 1982, 5–20). In no way does Paul link the content of the letter with his future missionary endeavours, and the Spanish mission is not mentioned directly until the conclusion of the letter, and then only in a minor key.

Klein 1991, 29–43

Jervis 1991

Klein 1991, 41

Jervis 1991

Also cf. Weima 1994

Watson 1991, 203ff.

Watson 1991, 207

I have put Christianity in quotation marks because I do not think Christianity as a movement (or religion) had materialized yet. However, many scholars still believe that what thrived in the Roman congregation was Christianity.

Meeks 1987, 290ff.; Sampley 1995, 40–52

Sampley 1995, 42; Meeks 1987, 292

Meeks 1987, 292. Meeks further warns against excessive mirror-reading, which certainly is warranted.

Karris 1991, 65ff.

Cf. Reasoner 1999, 57

For a more elaborate critique of Karris’s position, cf. Donfried 1991b, 107ff.

I will deal more thoroughly with Paul’s actual advice to these two groups in the exegesis of chapters 14 and 15.

Paul’s educational background

Kennedy 2003, xii; Stowers 1995, 180; Anderson Jr. 1996, 62–63

Niebuhr 2013, 51; Malherbe 1977, 29–59; Stowers 1994, 17

Stowers 1995, 181

Stowers 1995

Stowers 1994, 16

Προσωποποιία

Cf. Stowers 1995, 190. Stowers deduces the point about ancient readers’ way of reading with strict and stereotyped ideas about characterization from Origen’s discussion of προσωποποιία.

Quint. Inst. Or. 11.1.41; Theon 1997, 71

Seneca even presents the scrupulousness of Augustus‘ public persona by stating that Augustus wrote down his speech before he delivered it (Apocol, 11). Suetonius witnesses this well-known biographical detail about Augustus in Life of Augustus (82). This minor detail makes the προσωποποιία of Augustus stand out as even more ‘in-character’ of the person speaking.

[115] Προσωποποιΐα ἐστὶ προσώπου παρεισαγωγὴ διατιθεμένου λόγους οἰκείους έαυτῷ τε καὶ τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις πράγμασιν ἀναμφισβητήτως (Theon 1997, 70). Also cf. Quintilian Inst. Or. 9.2.30

Cf. e.g. Nesholm 2005, 11

E.g. Stowers 1981; 1994; Song 2004; Thorsteinsson 2002, 124ff.; Garroway 2012

Stowers 1995, 187

The two exceptions to this general picture are Runar Thorsteinsson (2003) and Joshua Garroway (2012). However, neither of them looks into the diatribe more specifically, and neither of them follows the exegesis from Rom 1–4 to Rom 7

Stowers 1994, 175

Stowers 1994, 203

Stowers 1994, 252

Προσωποποιία continued

Later authors of Progymnasmata develop a conceptual distinction between these diverse positions, but these distinctions were not yet developed by Theon.

Quintilian Inst. Or. 9.2.29–31

Cf. Marrou 1964; Cribiore 1996; 2001; Morgan 2007

Quintilian Inst. Or. 9.2.31–32

Quintilian Inst. Or. 9.2.37

Quintilian Inst. Or. 9.2.37

Introduction

I am not claiming that being Jewish could be so easily defined. I endorse J.Z. Smith’s polythetic mode of classification (cf. Smith 1982, 1–18). According to Smith, inclusion in a group cannot be established through a determinate number of attributes.

Ethnic Stereotypes – a modern perspective

The following presentation is based on Hall’s explanation in Hall 2003, 223–283. Also cf. my article ‘Anthropology or Ethnic Stereotyping in Paul’ (Mortensen 2017, 135–154). The following discussion reiterates most of what is presented in my article.

Said 1979

Stereotyping in Antiquity

Cf. Malina 1996, 35–96; Pilch & Malina 1993. Also cf. the work of Jerome Neyrey (Neyrey 1990; Neyrey 1991).

Cf. Malina 2001, 58–80; also cf. Esler 2003a, 54

Malina 1996, 41

I am aware that Malina has received some criticism for his readings (cf. e.g. Lawrence 2003, 22ff.; Meggitt 1996, 215–219). However, New Testament scholars generally agree about the overall outline of Malina’s work, even though details and specifics are still contested.

Cf. Valerius Maximus 6.8; Bradley 1987, 27–29, 35

E.g. Menander Epitr. 202–211; 316–359. For the use of slavery as a metaphor in Paul’s mission and early Christianity cf. Martin 1990.

Aristotle Politics 1327b1–2

Josephus Vita §352

Josephus Contra Ap. §269

Titus 1:12

Strabo Geography 16.2.23

Strabo Geography 16.4.24

On physiognomy in antiquity cf. Barton 1994, 95–132; Evans 1969, 1–101; Rohrbacher 2010, 92–116; Malina 1992, 68–70

Ps. Aristotle Physiognomics 805a, 7–15, translation taken from Malina 1992, 70

Ps. Aristotle Physiognomics 806a, 22–23

Polemo 1893, 31–296

Galen On Prognosis pp. 100; 102

Polemo 1893, 1.268

Polemo 1893, 1.110, 1.25–112: madness; 1.164, 1.19–21 (epilepsy?); Celsus On Medicine 3.18; Caelius Aurelianus On Acute Diseases 1.4ff.; 42ff.; 3.107

Polemo 1893, 1.128

Polemo 1893, 1.194. Ps. Aristotle describes the difference between male and female thus: ‘the first division which must be made in animals is into two sexes, male and female, attaching to them what is suited to each sex. Of all the animals which we attempt to breed, the females are tamer and gentler in disposition than the males, but less powerful and more susceptible to rearing and handling. This being their character, they have less spirit than males’ (Physiognomics, 809a, 28–35). He continues by explaining that females have a more evil disposition than males, and that they are less courageous. Concerning males he writes: ‘The males are in every respect opposite to this; their nature is as a class braver and more honest, that of the female being more cowardly and less honest’ (Physiognomics 809b, 11–14). He also states that ‘… the male sex has been shown to be juster, braver, and speaking generally, superior to the female’ (Physiognomics, 814a, 9–10, translations taken from Malina 1992, 70).

Polemo 1893, 1.238

Polemo, Physiognomici, 1.238

The same applies to authors such as Hippocrates (cf. ‘Diseases of Women 1’ (1975), 572) and Soranus (cf. Gynecology, 1.3).

Cicero Prov. Cons. 5.10

Aristotle Politics 1327b1–2. According to Aristotle, slaves were human beings, but slavery was still natural. The exception was the unjust case, where someone was born a free Greek citizen, and then sold as a slave after their city had been captured. But the general rule was that slaves were born that way. Slaves were slaves by nature, no less than male and female were such by nature.

‘Us’ – the Jews

Paul’s use of ‘us/them’ language pervades his letters. Some of the most explicit examples are found in: Rom 1:18–32; Rom 5:1–10; Rom 9:4–5; Rom 11:1; Gal 2:11–16; Phil 3:5–6; 1 Cor 5:1; 1 Cor 12:2; 1 Thess 4:3–5

I am aware of the discussion among scholars concerning how to translate the Greek word Ioudaioi (Ἰουδαῖοι). Some have argued it should be translated as ‘Judaeans’ (a national and geographic aspect), whereas others have argued that it should be translated as ‘Jews’ (a religious and transnational aspect) (cf. the discussion in Malina 2002, 613ff.). I am sympathetic to Caroline Johnson Hodge’s account and discussion (Johnson Hodge 2007, 11–15), because she reflects both positions. In some of her early articles, she argued for a translation of Ἰουδαῖοι as ‘Judaeans’. However, she has come to rethink her position, and renders Ἰουδαῖοι as either ‘Jew’ or Ioudaioi. She often uses the transliterated word, in order to call attention to the problems clinging to the translation.

Sumner 1906, 12–13 cited from Reminick 1983, 7

Cf. Philo De Abr. 98, where Israel is defined as the ‘most God-loving of all nations’ (ὅλον ἔθνος καὶ ἐθνῶν τὸ θεοφιλέστατον). Israel is the centre of everything, the standard according to which everything else is measured, and all other peoples (Gentiles) are scaled and rated with reference to Israel.

An interesting collection of articles explores the religious, ethnic, and cultural roles of the Gentiles in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and their roles are thoroughly negative (cf. Holt, Kim and Mein 2015).

Mason 2007, 489ff.

Cohen 1999, 75

Strabo Hist. Hypomnemata, as preserved in Josephus Ant., 14.115

Josephus Ant. 11.173

Paul and other contemporary Jews called these common features ‘ancestral’ or ‘traditional’ (Gal 1:14 (τῶν πατρικῶν μου παραδόσεων); 3 Macc 1:3; 4 Macc 8:7; 18:5). These features included the same ancestors, the same language as the ancestors, ancestral customs, ancestral worship, and ancestral land.

Herodotus Histories 8.144.2, translation amended from Loeb. Herodotus did not include common geography or territory, because he thought in terms of an immobile population, and was uninterested in outsiders. Paul and his contemporary Jews were rather preoccupied with ties to ancestral land, because of the Israelite experiences of exile and emigration. Also cf. the ethnocentric descriptions of Europe, Italy, and Rome in Pliny’s Natural History III.i, § 5; III.v, § 39–42, and Cicero’s description of the moral virtue of Rome De Har Resp IX.19

I am aware that Paul criticizes his own former Jewish life in Phil 3:4ff. However, this strategy should be seen as an attempt to keep the Philippian Gentiles from considering full conversion to Judaism.

‘Them’ – the Gentiles

This is evident in other contemporary Jewish texts, e.g. Wisd. of Sol. 11–15; Sib. Or. 3.8–45; Philo, De Decal. 76–80; De Vit. Cont. 8f.; Abr. 135–36; Let. Arist. 134–141, 152

Translation taken from VanderKam 1989, 131–132

Scholars who see a reference to Adam or ‘the fall of man’ cf. Longenecker 1991, 173–4; Dunn 1998, 91–93; Bryan 2000, 78; Stuhlmacher 1989, 34; Haacker 1999, 46; Lohse 2003, 85. In contrast to these, Philip Esler designates the introduction of Adam into the passage as ‘flatly antipathetical’ (Esler 2003, 18).

Jewett 2007, 152, my italics.

There are several other contemporary Jewish authors who describe Gentiles similarly to Paul and Wisdom of Solomon: Philo (De Vit. Cont. 8–9, 59–64; De Decal. 76–80; Abr. 135–136; Spec. 3.37–42) Jub. 22:16–18; Sib. Or. 3.8–45; Let. Arist. 134–141, 152.

The famous German New Testament scholar, Ernst Käsemann (1906–1998), regarded Rom 1:18–32 as a universal indictment of humankind based on only the most meagre premises. However, this interpretation was widely accepted because Käsemann repeats Lutheran stereotypes of an anti-Jewish reading. Yet, Käsemann was not unaware of the obvious reference to Gentiles. He notes how ‘vv. 19–21 characterize the guilt of the Gentiles, and vv. 22–23 portrays God’s judgment’ (Käsemann 1980, 37). However, shortly thereafter, he further adds, ‘To the intensity of the judgment corresponds the totality of the world which stands under it, so that the statements about Gentiles applies to the heathen nature of mankind as such, and hence implies the guilty Jew as well’ (ibid. 38).

Luther attempted to express the permanent incongruity of grace in the believers’ life through this expression (cf. e.g. in 1533 Galatian lectures: WA 401 366.26 or LW 26.232).

Thorsteinsson 2003, 173

Continuity from chapter 1 to chapter 2

Thorsteinsson 2003, 179; Snodgrass 1986, 72; Garroway 2012, 90f.; Stowers 1994, 12; Haacker 1999, 59. This conflicts with Sanders and O’Neill, who treat Romans 2 as a non-Pauline synagogue sermon, or a missionary tract of Hellenistic Judaism (Sanders 1983, 123ff.; O’Neill 1975, 40, 53, 264).

Cf. Stowers 1994, 13

This argument contradicts Bassler (1984) and Flebbe (2008, 22 n22). Bassler and Flebbe argue that God’s impartiality is a separate and superior theme in Romans 2. Bassler argues that the conclusion in 2:11 ends one passage, and a new and different passage begins.

Romans 2:1–5

Byrne takes 2:1–11 together (1996, 79ff.). Stuhlmacher (1989, 38ff.) detects a break in 2:1.

Stowers 1994, 100; Song 2004; Thorsteinsson 2003, 123ff; Stowers 1981; Malherbe 1989, 25ff.

Song 2004, 16; Aune 1991, 93ff.; Stowers 1994, 17, 162; Moo 1996, 125.

Stowers 1994, 107; also cf. Swancutt 2001, 168ff.

For a summary of positions in the ‘διό debate’ cf. Cranfield 1975, 140f. In support of my reading cf. Song 2004, 92 and Thorsteinsson 2003, 179. Jewett (2007, 196) takes διό to draw the inference from the preceding argument (1:18–32), but he does not regard 1:18–32 as being about Gentiles, but both Jews and Gentiles, since Paul addresses ‘all impiety’ (2007, 196 his emphasis).

From the use of the vocative ἄνθρωπε in Epictetus, Thorsteinsson translates it as ‘mister’, ‘sir’, ‘fellow’, and the like (Thorsteinsson 2003, 188). Also cf. Stowers 1981, 85ff. Thus, Paul is not addressing mankind in general, but is being conversational in a dialogical style.

The fictive Gentile interlocutor should not be regarded as constituting ‘the general human being’ in an anthropological sense (contradicting Wischmeyer 2006). On the contrary, the fictive Gentile interlocutor is a historically contextualized persona exhibiting exemplary features of similar historically contextualized Gentiles – just as Theon explained a writer should proceed, when depicting a type or person – so the addressees may identify the personification and decipher the rhetoric.

Dunn identifies the interlocutor of Romans 2 as ‘the typical Jew … that is the Jew per se’ (Dunn 1988, 80). Also cf. Moo 1996, 127; Keck argues for continuity from 1:32–2:1 and regards Paul as addressing a Gentile in 2:1, but a Jew in 2:17 (Keck 2005, 74, 82); Wright also holds that Paul addresses ‘the Jew’ in 2:17 (Wright 2002, 445).

Even though Engberg-Pedersen contends that Paul’s addressees are to be identified as Gentile believers in Christ, and some passages clearly refer to Jews (185), he argues that Paul speaks of ‘every (kind of) human being who judges’ in 2:1 (Engberg-Pedersen 2000, 202 his italics).

Cranfield 1975, 137ff. Hultgren (2011, 112) does the same, regarding 2:11 as being what Paul ‘is driving at’.

Byrne (1996, 80) describes the transition from chapter 1 to 2 as though Paul were setting a trap, and consequently trying to surprise the judgemental Jew with his accusation. Bassler draws a strict boundary between chapters 1 and 2, whereby διό loses its connection to what precedes it, and has no transitional value (Bassler 1984, 44).

The vocative ἄνθρωπε may be intended to reverberate ἀνθρώπων in 1:18, thereby facilitating continuity and identity between the Gentiles (1:18–32) and the Gentile (2:1ff.).

Dunn 1988, 82f.; Thorsteinsson 2003, 191f. The same goes for Byrne 1996, 81 and Lohse 2003, 99.

Cf. Stowers 1994, 104ff.; Donaldson 1993, 94.

Judgement and justification – justice and mercy

Snodgrass 1986, 86

Cf. Sanders 1983, 105–113

Sanders 1977, 205

Even in Qumran, where perfection was highly important, allowance was made for transgression and atonement, cf. Sanders 1983, 28

Cf. the above references to Wisdom of Solomon 15:1, and 2 Macc 6:12–16, and also Rom 2:4

In my understanding, Das has missed this delicate distinction in Snodgrass’s article, in Sanders’ work, and in Paul (Das, 2001, 13). Das also allows literature and perceptions from after 70 CE and the destruction of the temple to overrule the primacy of covenantal nomism in pre-70 CE Judaism (chapter 2 in Das 2001).

The understanding of προσωπολημψία (2:11) should be taken closely with the understanding of διαστολή (3:22; 10:12). However, as my interpretation of chapters 9–11 will clarify, the impartiality of God should be restricted to God’s righteousness. There is indeed a difference between Jews and Gentiles, since Israel has the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, the promises, the patriarchs, and Christ according to the flesh (9:4–5). As the metaphor of the olive tree reveals, Paul considers Israel to be a cultivated tree, whereas the Gentiles are a wild shoot grafted onto the noble tree. Evidently, Paul firmly believes Jews have a higher rank. Consequently, the impartiality of God with respect to his righteousness must not be taken to mean evenhandedness with respect to ethnicity, the covenant, and the promises.

Linguistic, stylistic, structural, and grammatical continuity in 2:1–16

Jewett (2007, 203f.) regards 2:6–16 as continuing the diatribe style, despite the shift from second- to third-person language. I agree with such a reading.

Thorsteinsson 2003, 153

Also, the theme of judgement in 2:7–10 and the repetitive use of (forms of) δόξα and τιμή recalls 1:18–32, whereby an even larger sense of unity and consistency permeates the textual flow through chapters 1 and 2.

The difference from most scholarship does not concern the unity of 2:1–16, but the overall unity of chapter 2. However, Bassler (1984, 45 n10), Tobin 2004, 110, and Byrne (1996, 79ff.) argue for a division of paragraphs after 2:11. Also cf. Lohse 2003, 97–114 and Haacker 1999, 66ff.

Paul confirms the continuity and unity of the passage by using ‘the day’ (ἐν ἡμέρα) in 2:5 and 2:16. Furthermore, the connecting particles and conjunctions serve as structural markers, and each of vv. 7–10 is grammatically dependent on v. 6 (the relative clause), which in turn, modifies the genitive τοῦ θεοῦ in v. 5 (cf. Thorsteinsson 2003, 158; Snodgrass 1986, 80; Jewett 2007, 194). The particle γάρ connects v. 11 with the preceding verses (for God shows no partiality) as against Bassler 1984, 45.

Along with several translations (RSV, NRSV, NAB) and scholars (Bassler 1982, 121ff.; Engberg-Pedersen 2000, 212ff.; Carras 1992, 188 n. 12).

Thorsteinsson (2003, 158) formed the word-chain against Bassler’s incomplete word-chain (Bassler 1984, 50).

Cf. the discussion in Garroway (2012, 17ff.), which notes that no single characteristic may be identified as the defining element of Jewishness. Thus, it does not make sense to claim that the law was what defined a Jew from a non-Jew. On the other hand it makes sense to claim that (adherence to) the law was one of the most important characteristics that defined Jewishness. Hence, since Paul introduces the distinction between Jews and Greeks in 1:16ff., the law may be said to be implied from that point onwards.

Romans 2:17–24

The vast majority of scholars reject this view (e.g. Räisänen 1983, 97–98, 102; Stowers 1994, 37; Sanders 1983, 33; Lohse 2003, 109; Stuhlmacher 1989, 46). As far as I know, only Thorsteinsson (2003) and Garroway (2012) endorse it. Although it seems obvious (at least to me) that the apostrophe (which develops into a (diatribe) dialogue in 3:1) with the Gentile continues, Stowers tries to explain it away like this: ‘At the point we expect Paul to get to the heart of the matter, he turns away from the Greek. The apostle has just mentioned his good news and Christ Jesus (2:16) when he spots one of his competitors in the crowd, a Jew who has committed himself to teach gentiles about the Mosaic law’ (Stowers 1994, 142). Gager concurs with Stowers, even though he continually reiterates the importance of Gentiles as addressees and as Paul’s interlocutor (Gager 2000, 107f.). It is simpler to conclude that Paul continues his dialogue with a fictive Gentile, and this better fits the form and content (rhetorical flow and thematic progression).

Even Gager, one of Paul’s most radical interpreters when it comes to maintaining the Gentile perspective throughout Romans, sees Paul addressing boastful Jews in 2:17 (Gager 2000, 112). The same goes for Johnson Hodge (Johnson Hodge 2007, 86).

Das 2001, 182

Das 2001, 183

Jewett 2007, 220

When Seneca shifts to another interlocutor, there is a shift in address from second-person verbs to third-person verbs (Epistles 88, 2:348–76). Also cf. Thorsteinsson 2003, 143; Garroway 2012, 92

Plutarch Moralia 469D, 6:194; cf. Thorsteinsson 2003, 139; Garroway 2012, 92

Thorsteinsson lists ‘to be surnamed’ for the passive, and ‘to classify oneself by means of a name, title, or attribution’ or ‘claim to be’ for the middle (Thorsteinsson 2003, 197). On the possibility of Ἰουδαῖος being used as a surname, cf. Cohen 1999, 25ff.; also cf. the inscriptions CIG 9916, 9926; CIJ 530, 643 for the use of Ἰουδαῖος/Iudaeus as a surname.

E.g. Fitzmyer, Jewett, and Wright.

Fitzmyer translates, ‘But suppose you call yourself a Jew’ (Fitzmyer 1993, 314); scholars who translate this as ‘But if you call yourself a Jew’ include Byrne 1996, 95; Jewett 2007, 219; Keck 2005, 83; Hultgren 2011, 124

For discussions of the historical plausibility of the claim that Paul’s interlocutor thinks of himself as a Jew, even though he ‘is’ a Gentile, cf. Garroway 2012, 22ff. and Thorsteinsson 2003, 201ff. In ancient Jewish society, distinctions could be made according to the level of Jewishness of a proselyte or God-fearer, but for outsiders, such as Dio Cassius (150–235 CE), the only meaningful distinction was between Jews and non-Jews (Hist. Rom. 37.17.1). This paradox testifies to the modern problem of the necessary and sufficient criterion of Jewishness (being a Jew) in antiquity (cf. the methodological discussion in Smith 1982, 4ff.). The question of the rise of Christianity as something ‘Jewish-but-not-Jewish’ (a third thing) should be situated here with questions of the identity of a hyphenated ‘ethno-religious’ person.

Cf. Gorday 1983, 43ff.