A “NoN-ETHNIC” PEoPlE? 105 There is no inherent contradiction, in other words, between notions of ethnicity, on the one hand, and universal visions of identity, on the other. When these presuppositions are brought to bear on Gal 3,26-29, traditional readings of Paul are challenged. For, according to Buell and Hodge, this passage does not portray ethnicity as something that is overcome in Christ, nor does the passage present ethnic identity as something fixed which is now irrelevant. Rather, the passage presents ethnicity and kinship as standing in a tension-filled relationship be- tween fixed and fluid. on the one hand, there seems to be a fixed and real border separating Jews from non-Jews, and Paul’s argument re- acts to that “problem”. However, on the other hand, the passage also claims that “descendant” is something that one can become through baptism. Paul’s “solution” to the problem is thus not to introduce a non-ethnic identity to replace ethnic divisions, but to point to the possibility of ethnic transformation: “Far from treating ethnicity as something merely fixed which Christ has broken, Paul portrays Christ as an agent of ethnic transformation” 13. Buell and Hodge are inspired by modern theorizing of ethnic iden- tity, but they also claim that their definition of ethnicity corresponds to ancient points of view 14. This claim is based on the observation that “ethnic” terminology is used in a variety of ways, and that it is em- ployed to construct identity also for people who did not regard them- selves as physically related. This openness is then supposed to explain why Paul could argue as he did: “His [i.e. Paul’s] argument presup- poses that his audience can imagine ethnicity and kinship as fluid, despite his oppositional distinctions between Judean and gentile” 15. The argument thus seems to be moving from the observation that ethnic terminology is used flexibly in ancient texts, via the insight that notions of ethnicity are socially constructed, to a redefined notion of ethnicity. Based on this redefined notion of ethnicity, Paul’s argument is reassessed. Their conclusion is that Paul in Gal 3,26-29 employs a rhetoric of ethnic transformation, and that his audiences are presented as sharing in a specific ethnic identity. Before turning to my critical points, it might be helpful to high- light some issues on which we seem to agree. Buell and Hodge should be commended for putting the question of ethnic language on 13 BuEll – HoDGE, “Politics of Interpretation”, 245. 14 BuEll, Why this New Race?, 6-7, draws, in particular, on the works of Ann Stoler and Gerd Baumann. 15 BuEll – HoDGE, “Politics of Interpretation”, 245.