A “NoN-ETHNIC” PEoPlE? 109 Iv. Describing the Problem: The Paradox in Paul’s Argument Before we can discuss whether the solution is a reworked notion of ethnicity, as Buell and Hodge propose, or a metaphorical reading of Paul, as I will propose, we need to describe the problem these propos- als are supposed to solve. Buell and Hodge helpfully describe the problem in terms of a paradox in Paul’s argument, pertaining to the fact that Paul seems to articulate both the problem and the solution in terms of kinship and ethnicity. The division between Jews and Greeks represents a problem for Paul, something that needs to be overcome. However, Paul paradoxically frames the solution to this problem in terms of ethnicity and kinship — what matters is being a son of God and a descendant of Abraham. Buell and Hodge interpret this paradox as implying that the Galatians were able to imagine kinship and eth- nicity as both fixed and fluid, and that Paul could thus appeal to both the fixity and fluidity of ethnic identity in one and the same argument. The alleged ambivalence in the very concept “ethnicity” — its capac- ity to embody ideas about both fixity and fluidity — is thus called upon as the explanation of the paradox. In evaluating this solution, I find it pertinent to start by emphasizing that I agree that a good definition of “ethnicity” should be able to account for the phenomenon of conversion. Buell and Hodge argue persuasively that in antiquity conversion to the Jewish people should be understood as a social and collective phenomenon, and not in individualistic terms. It is thus plausible to interpret the possibility of conversion to the Jewish people in terms of acquired kinship. one is adopted, as it were, into a new people group, and there one receives a new collective identity 28. It is thus misleading to think of conversion to the Jewish people as merely a religious phenomenon, which gave birth to a non-ethnic identity 29. There thus seems initially to be some probability to Buell’s and Hodge’s Christian claims to peoplehood as “mere metaphor is not to take these texts seri- ously” (SToWERS, review of BuEll, 729). 28 I do not think that this implies that one has to leave behind an understand- ing of ethnicity that foregrounds putative shared physical kinship. It seems pos- sible to argue that physical descent is the default criterion of membership, while conversion represents the exception which proves the rule. Analogously to the way in which the possibility of adoption does not invalidate the importance of physical kinship for family ties, I would argue that the same holds with regard to conversion in relation to ethnic identity. 29 With BuEll (Why this New Race?, 158-164). Contra S.J.D. CoHEN, The Beginnings of Jewishness. Boundaries, varieties, uncertainties (Berkeley, CA 1999) 109-110.