Ole Jakob Filtvedt, «A "Non-Ethnic" People?», Vol. 97 (2016) 101-120
This article engages critically with some recent re-interpretations of ethnic language in Paul, as represented by D.K. Buell and C.J. Hodge. I begin by arguing that their case against a metaphorical interpretation of Paul is weak, in that it is based on a problematic understanding of what metaphors are. Turning to Galatians, I attempt to demonstrate that, although Buell and Hodge correctly identify a paradox in Paul’s argument pertaining to his use of ethnic terminology, their own explanation of this paradox is unsatisfying. The essay ends with an attempt to approach the paradox in Paul’s argument from the perspective of a metaphorical reading of Paul.
110 olE JAKoB FIlTvEDT
suggestion that Paul could have solved the problem in Galatia by drawing
attention to how his non-Jewish audience could acquire a new ethnic
identity through a ritual of conversion.
Yet, there are also some problems with this view. If this is really
what Paul wanted to argue, one wonders why he so vehemently reject-
ed the possibility that the Galatians should undergo circumcision (5,1-
12; 6,11-18). After all, circumcision would probably have been recog-
nized as the way of including non-Jewish males into the Jewish people.
The solution Buell and Hodge attribute to Paul, i.e., that it is possible
for non-Jews to come in under a Judean umbrella via conversion, thus
seems to be curiously similar to the solution Paul in Galatians attributes
to his opponents. Moreover, had Paul wanted to argue for the solution
Buell and Hodge attribute to him, we would have expected baptism to
be a ritual that was only relevant for non-Jews. If the division between
Jews and non-Jews is overcome by non-Jews acquiring a new ethnic
identity, thereby coming in under a Judean umbrella, then the solution
to the problem would not have affected the standing of Jews 30.
There are, in fact, some Pauline scholars who have suggested that
Paul wrote only for non-Jews, and that this shaped his message 31.
Hodge explicitly endorses this view 32. However, the key question for
our purposes now is not whether or not Jews are addressed in Paul’s
letters, but whether Paul’s message has implications also for Jewish
identity. For the present purposes, the question may focus on whether
Paul seems to hold that also Jews need to be baptized. Good reasons
suggest that he did 33. The claim that because of baptism there is “nei-
30
Cf. HoDGE (If Sons, 67): “By presenting baptism as new kinship, Paul
crafts a myth of collective identity for gentiles; they can trace their beginnings
not only to their baptism into Christ but also to their ancestor, Abraham, in whose
seed they were blessed. Baptism into Christ creates an aggregative connection
between gentiles and Jews”.
31
J.G. GAGER, The Origins of Anti-Semitism. Attitudes toward Judaism in
Pagan and Christian Antiquity (New York 1983); l. GASToN, Paul and the Torah
(vancouver 1987); P. EISENBAuM, Paul was not a Christian. The original Mes-
sage of the Misunderstood Apostle (New York 2009). S. SToWERS, (A Rereading
of Romans. Justice, Jews, and Gentiles [New Haven, Conn, 1994] 21-33), distin-
guishes between the empirical reader and the encoded reader, and argues that the
encoded readers are non-Jews.
32
HoDGE, If Sons, 9-11.
33
Evidence from Acts, if it counts for anything, suggests that also Jews were
baptized within the early Jesus movement (cf. 2,36-41). Indeed, Paul himself
is also said to have been baptized directly after his encounter with Jesus on the
road to Damascus (9,18).