Jewish Identity in the

Greco-Roman World

Jüdische Identität in der griechisch-römischen Welt

edited by

Jörg Frey, Daniel R. Schwartz& Stephanie Gripentrog

LEIDEN • BOSTON

2007

PAUL’S JEWISH IDENTITY1

J F

I. P J C

Scarcely, if ever, has classical Judaism reacted to the figure of Paul.2

Whenever the apostle was mentioned in later times, he was viewedmore as an apostate, not as a rabbi or a brother. Polemically it wasstated that Paul had abolished the Torah3 and that he—and not Jesus—was the real founder of Christianity.4 In Jewish statements of the thand the first part of the th century, the primary paradigm for viewing

1 For my colleague Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr in Jena on the occasion of his fiftiethbirthday on February, rd, . In its main parts, this article resumes some aspectsof a more detailed argument, in “Das Judentum des Paulus”, in O. Wischmeyer(ed.), Paulus. Leben–Umwelt–Werk–Briefe, Tübingen , –. For valuable assistancein research and critical discussion of the argument I am grateful to Dr. Enno EdzardPopkes and Juliane Schlegel. For reading and polishing my English text, I owe thanksto Dr. Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer. The contact and collaboration with my colleague andfriend Daniel R. Schwartz has been more important for shaping my views than thepresent article shows.

2 Cf. S. Meißner, Die Heimholung des Ketzers. Studien zur jüdischen Auseinandersetzung mitPaulus (WUNT II/), Tübingen , – and the literature mentioned there. Therelevant passages are critically discussed in J. Maier, Jüdische Auseinandersetzung mit demChristentum in der Antike (EdF ), Darmstadt , –. A critical stance againstPaul is visible only in groups which are close enough to Christianity, especially theso-called ‘Judeo-Christian’ circles; cf. the reports of the Church Fathers on Ebionites,Encratites and Elchasaites in Irenaeus (Haer. III ,), Origen (Cels. V ; Hom. Jer.:–), and Eusebius (Hist. eccl. IV ,) and the criticism in the sources of the Pseudo-Clementines. Cf. G. Lüdemann, Paulus der Heidenapostel, vol. : Antipaulinismus im frühenChristentum (FRLANT ), Göttingen ; see the texts in A.F.J. Klijn & G.J. Reinink(eds.), Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects (NT.S ), Leiden .

3 S. Meißner, Heimholung (see note ), , mentions the controversial writings ofSaadja Gaon in the th, Al-Qirqisani in the th, and Isaac b. Moses ha-Levi, calledProfiat Duran, or Efodi in the th/ th century. On Efodi and his major controversialwork Kelimmat ha-Goyim cf. E.I.J. Rosenthal, “Jüdische Antwort”, in K.H. Rengstorf & S.von Kortzfleisch (eds.), Kirche und Synagoge. Handbuch zur Geschichte von Christen und Juden,vol. , Stuttgart , – (–).

4 Thus, e.g., the Karaite teachers Al-Qirqisani and Isaak Troki. On Troki cf.E.I.J. Rosenthal, “Jüdische Antwort” (see note ), –, and, most recently, R. Siev-ert, Isaak ben Abraham aus Troki im christlich-jüdischen Gespräch der Reformationszeit (Münster-aner judaistische Studien ), Münster .

Paul was still critical and apologetic: Authors of that period understoodthe apostle largely as a heretic or an apostate who had abandonedJudaism and invented a new religion.5 Not unexpectedly, these viewscorrespond largely with the ideas developed by contemporary Christian(mostly Protestant) scholarship. More or less these Jewish authors wereinspired by the developing historical-critical perspectives: by the con-structions of the Tübingen school of Ferdinand Christian Baur, wherethe history of earliest Christianity was interpreted by the antagonismbetween ‘Paulinism’ and ‘Judeo-Christianity’, by the criticism of Paul’schristological and soteriological teachings as expressed by liberal the-ologians who were convinced that Paul had abandoned the religion ofJesus in favor of a more mythological view of Jesus, and, finally, bythe religio-historical constructions as developed by the members of theHistory-of-Religions School, who interpreted Paul’s teaching primarilyagainst the background and influence of pagan Hellenism.6

During the last or years, however, a growing number of Jewishinterpreters has been ready to acknowledge the basically Jewish char-acter of Paul’s background and teaching and to reintegrate the tem-porarily ‘lost son’ back home into their common Jewish heritage.7 Paulis then viewed as “Brother Paul” (Richard Rubenstein),8 as a “radicalJew” (Daniel Boyarin),9 as a “convert” from one type of Judaism toanother (Alan F. Segal),10 or as “a Rabbi of Tarsus” (Pinchas Lapide).11

5 Thus S. Meißner, Heimholung (see note ), , in the summary of his survey ofnumerous authors from the th and early th century (cf. pp. – on the positiontaken by scholars such as Samuel Hirsch, Heinrich Graetz, Kaufmann Kohler, ClaudeGoldsmith Montefiore, Joseph Klausner, Martin Buber and the early Leo Baeck).

6 Cf., among others, W. Wrede, Paulus (Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher I,–),Halle ; H. Böhlig, Die Geisteskultur von Tarsus im augusteischen Zeitalter mit Beurteilungder paulinischen Schriften (FRLANT ), Göttingen ; W. Heitmüller, “Zum ProblemPaulus und Jesus”, ZNW (), –; W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos. Geschichte desChristusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaeus, Göttingen . Most recently,Gert Lüdemann, after his conversion to the rejection of his former Christian views, hasdescribed Paul in terms of the religio-historical school: G. Lüdemann, Paul: The Founderof Christianity, Amherst .

7 This tendency is described by S. Meißner, Heimholung (see note ), – whodiscusses the positions of the late Leo Baeck, Hans Joachim Schoeps, Samuel Sandmel,Schalom Ben-Chorin, David Flusser, Alan Segal, Daniel Boyarin and others.

8 R.L. Rubenstein, My Brother Paul, New York .9 D. Boyarin, A Radical Jew. Paul and the Politics of Identity, Berkeley . Cf. ibid., :

“a Jewish cultural critic”.10 A.F. Segal, Paul the Convert. The Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee, New Haven .11 P. Lapide, “Der Rabbi von Tarsus”, in P. Lapide, P. Stuhlmacher, Paulus. Rabbi und

Apostel, Stuttgart/Calwer/München , –.

’

Not only Paul’s calling-vision but also his Christology and eschatologyare interpreted in Jewish terms by those authors, and even his teachingon the law is viewed as an attempt to solve (Diaspora-) Jewish problemsby means of basically Jewish approaches.12

It is most important that the tendency for rediscovering and reeval-uating Paul’s Jewish identity is also shared by a growing number ofChristian (or non-Jewish) scholars. To a large extent this is due to theincreased awareness of traditional anti-Jewish patterns in Christian the-ology and to the numerous attempts to overcome those views. In somestatements, especially within the context of the so-called ‘New perspec-tive on Paul’,13 this is linked to a criticism of the Reformers’ interpre-tation of Pauline soteriology that has often been blamed for fosteringanti-Jewish attitudes.For other exegetes such as, e.g., William D. Davies14 or Martin Hen-

gel15 the reevaluation of Paul’s Jewishness is just the more appropriateapproach historically compared with the interpretations of the adher-ents of the History-of-Religions school or the Bultmann School. Animportant factor in favor of such a rediscovery of the Jewish elementsin Paul’s teaching has been the extended range of sources from first-

12 Cf. the summary in S. Meißner, Heimholung (see note ), –; see also the moreextensive discussion of the topics ibid., –. A notable exception is the positiontaken by Hyam Maccoby whose view of Paul as “the mythmaker” and inventor ofChristianity (H. Maccoby, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, London; idem, Paul and Hellenism, London/Philadelphia ) not only continues alongthe lines of the religio-historical school but rather appears as a backdrop into thepolemical antagonism of that period (cf. S. Meißner, Heimholung [see note ], –).Maccoby even doubts Paul’s Jewish origins, but he uncritically accepts the polemicalinformation of late Jewish-Christian fragments. This has aptly been criticized as “flyin the face of sound critical scholarship and simple common sense” (thus E. Rivkin,“Paul’s Jewish Odyssey” [Review of H. Maccoby, The Mythmaker], Judaism [],– [], quoted in S. Meißner, Heimholung [see note ], ). But his is clearly aminority position.

13 Cf. the report by S. Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul. The ‘Lutheran’ Pauland His Critics, Grand Rapids/Cambridge .

14 W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, London 2; cf. idem, “Paul: From theJewish Point of View”, in W. Horbury, W.D. Davies, J. Sturdy, The Cambridge History ofJudaism, vol. , Cambridge , –.

15 M. Hengel (in collaboration with R. Deines), The Pre-Christian Paul; M. Hen-gel, A.M. Schwemer, Paul between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years, London; cf. the extended German versions: M. Hengel (unter Mitarbeit von R. Deines),“Der vorchristliche Paulus”, in M. Hengel (ed.), Paulus und Jakobus: Kleine Schriften III(WUNT ), Tübingen , –; M. Hengel, A.M. Schwemer, Paulus zwischenDamaskus und Antiochien: Die unbekannten Jahre des Apostels (WUNT ), Tübingen .

century Judaism (chiefly from the Qumran library) which became ac-cessible during the last decades and led to an improved understandingof the internal diversity of Judaism in antiquity. Numerous phrases ormotifs that earlier interpreters had considered as un-Jewish, Hellenisticor even Gnostic, could now be interpreted within the variety of Jew-ish language and thought.16 Consequently, the relation between Pauland contemporary Palestinian Judaism had to be considered anew.17

Christian scholars representing a wide range of theological positionshave ventured to call Paul a Jew18 or even a “good Jew”,19 a “Rabbi”20

or—as Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr has aptly phrased the tension in Paul’sministry—the “apostle to the Gentiles from Israel”.21

Whereas in earlier periods of scholarship the Jewish views of Paulwere largely dependent on the contemporary Christian exegesis, thesituation is now quite different. Christian exegetes attempting at betterunderstanding of Paul’s Jewishness now fruitfully consider the sugges-tions made by Jewish historians of religion, not only regarding the inter-pretation of the relevant Jewish sources but also regarding their viewof Paul’s language and thought. Jewish scholars such as David Flusser,Geza Vermes, Alan F. Segal, Daniel Boyarin and Mark Nanos haveentered the debate on New Testament interpretation, and, likewise,the New Testament is included among the sources for reconstructing

16 Cf. J. Frey, “The Relevance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for New Testament Interpre-tation. With a bibliographical appendix”, AcT / (), –; more extensivelyidem, “The Impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls on New Testament Interpretation: Pro-posals, Problems and Further Perspectives”, in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Bible and theDead Sea Scrolls, vol. : The Scrolls and Christian Origins, Waco , –; on Paul s. alsoJ.A. Fitzmyer, “Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls”, in P.W. Flint & J.C. VanderKam (eds.),The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years, vol. , Leiden , –; H.-W. Kuhn, “Qumranund Paulus. Unter traditionsgeschichtlichem Aspekt ausgewählte Parallelen”, in U. Mell& U.B. Müller (eds.), Das Urchristentum in seiner literarischen Geschichte, FS Jürgen Becker(BZNW ), Berlin/New York , –; T. Lim, “Paul, Letters of ”, L.H. Schiff-man, J.C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, vols., Oxford ,–.

17 See, e. g., E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, London ; P. Tomson,Paul and the Jewish Law. Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (CRINT III,),Assen/Minneapolis ; M. Hengel, U. Heckel (eds.), Paulus und das antike Judentum(WUNT ), Tübingen .

18 Cf. K. Stendahl, Der Jude Paulus und wir Heiden. Anfragen an das abendländischeChristentum, München .

19 Thus M. Barth, “Der gute Jude Paulus”, in A. Baudis et al. (eds.), Richte unsere Füßeauf den Weg des Friedens, FS Helmut Gollwitzer, München , –.

20 B. Chilton, Rabbi Paul. An Intellectual Biography, New York et al. .21 Thus K.-W. Niebuhr, Heidenapostel aus Israel (WUNT ), Tübingen .

’

the history and religion of Second Temple Judaism.22 Such a dialogueresulting in a mutual illumination of texts and perspectives seems to bethe most promising progress in scholarship.

II. P’ J— L

But how Jewish was Paul really? To what extent and in which way didhe uphold his Jewish identity even as an apostle of Jesus Christ? Thereare still influential voices vigorously denying that the Apostle was still aJew: According to Jürgen Becker, Paul had pushed off his former Jewishlife almost completely mentioning it only as a dark background againstwhich his new Christian convictions shone up brightly.23 Even morestrongly the late Georg Strecker concluded from Gal :ff. and Phil: that Paul viewed himself in fundamental separation from Judaism.24

But such a verdict can only be phrased on the basis of a one-sidedselection and interpretation of texts, especially those passages in whichPaul highlights the contrast between his present values and his formerlife for polemical reasons, i.e. in his debate with Judaizing Christianteachers. If the whole range of autobiographical passages is considered,we come to a quite different conclusion.25

In Cor :, Paul compares his ministry and background withthat of other Jewish-Christian missionaries and declares: “They are

22 D. Boyarin, A Radical Jew (see note ), , programmatically formulates his intention“to reclaim Pauline studies as an important, even an integral part of the study ofJudaism in the Roman period and late antiquity”. Similarly, A.F. Segal, Paul the Convert(see note ), , states: “Paul’s texts provide information about first-century Judaismand Jewish mysticism, as important as the Jewish texts that have been found to establishthe meaning of Christian texts. Indeed, Paul’s letters may be more important tothe history of Judaism than the rabbinic texts are to the interpretation of ChristianScriptures.”

23 J. Becker, Paulus. Der Apostel der Völker, Tübingen 3, : His life is divided“aufgrund seiner Berufung in zwei Hälften, wobei der Christ Paulus seine jüdischeLebensperiode fast ganz abgestoßen hat”. “Der jüdische Lebensabschnitt (…) dient nurab und an sporadisch und typisisert mit wenigen eng begrenzten Aussagen als dunkleFolie und als hart gezeichneter Kontrast zum Beginn des zweiten und eigentlichenLebens.”

24 G. Strecker, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, ed. by F.W. Horn, Berlin/New York, , explicitly rejects the view that the Christian Paul was still a Jew: Againstthis, Strecker infers “daß Paulus sich als Apostel an die Heiden verstanden hat unddurch seine Berufung zum Heidenapostel, die zugleich seine Bekehrung einschließt,nach eigenem Verständnis sich fundamental vom Judentum geschieden wußte” (italics J.F.).

25 Cf. the most thorough investigation by K.-W. Niebuhr, Heidenapostel (see note ).See also M. Hengel, R. Deines, The Pre-Christian Paul (see note ), –.

Hebrews. So am I! They are Israelites? So am I! They are the seedof Abraham. So am I!” Even more clearly, and without any polemicalundertone, he states his continuing affiliation with Israel in Rom ::“Has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite,from the seed of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.” In applyingthe idea of the ‘remnant’ of Israel, Paul’s own Israelite affiliation servesas a guarantee for the truth of the conviction that Israel as a whole isnot rejected by God and that God has preserved a remnant for him-self.26 Without any limitation Paul declares himself to be an Israelite,an offspring of Abraham and—what even Luke does not tell—a sonof the honorable tribe of Benjamin. Similarly he calls the Israelites inRom :– his “brethren”, and his “kinsmen according to the flesh”,and introduces a lengthy catalogue of Israel’s privileges according toBiblical tradition: the sonship,27 the revelation of the divine glory,28 thecovenants,29 the gift of the Law, the temple worship and the promises,the fathers (cf. Rom ; :–) and the physical descent of the Christ30

who is “first and foremost the Messiah of Israel”.31 And, as Rom :finally confirms, these blessings and gifts are Israel’s permanent andirrevocable property. Even though Paul was aware that the majority ofhis fellow-Jews stood apart from the salvation revealed in Christ, he felthimself in a constant and permanent solidarity with Israel as a whole, insuffering (Rom :), intercession (Rom :), exemplary existence (Rom:) and eschatological expectation (Rom :–).This solidarity with his Jewish brethren was never abandoned and

is presupposed even in passages such as Gal :– and Phil :, inwhich Paul expresses the contrast between his former and his presentlife for polemical purposes. Therefore, these passages cannot serve asa proof of the idea that Paul had rejected Judaism or abandoned hisJewish identity after having been called to the apostleship. In spite ofthe polemical reduction of the values of his former life, even those

26 On the argument, see K.-W. Niebuhr, Heidenapostel (see note ), –, andmost recently, S. Grindheim, The Crux of Election. Paul’s Critique of the Jewish Confidence inthe Election of Israel (WUNT II/), Tübingen , f.

27 Cf. Exod :; Hos :; Isa : etc. The term denotes sonship by adoption ratherthan natural sonship and is therefore related to the election of Israel; cf. J.D.G. Dunn,Romans – (WBC B), Dallas , .

28 Cf. Exod :; :; :, ; :; :– etc.29 The plural form seems to indicate that more covenants are meant, at least the

covenant with the fathers and that on Mt. Sinai.30 Cf. Rom :; Luke :–; John :.31 Thus J.D.G. Dunn, Romans – (see note ), .

’

passages can serve as additional witness for Paul’s thoroughly Jewishbackground:From Phil :– (and similarly from Cor :) we can see that

Paul’s background was a form of Judaism thoroughly aware of its tra-dition: In accordance with the customs he had been circumcised onthe eighth day, and his name Shaul characterized him as offspring ofthe tribe from which the first king of Israel had come. Although bornin the diaspora, he calls himself “a Hebrew born of Hebrews”, whichprobably means that he was not a normal diaspora Jew, but grew upin a family in which Palestinian traditions and probably the Hebrewand/or Aramaic language was preserved.32 His attitude towards theTorah is characterized as Pharisaic, and the zeal by which he had per-secuted the enemies of the law is also part of the Palestinian-Jewishtradition since the Maccabean crisis.33 In a similarly polemical perspec-tive, Paul characterizes his life before his calling as \ΙïυδαϊσµÞς (Gal:). But we should not anachronistically misinterpret the term as if itreferred to a religious community or expressed a religion opposed to‘Christianity’.34 Paul never abandoned ‘Judaism’ in order to join ‘Chris-tianity’. In Gal : \ΙïυδαϊσµÞς describes Paul’s Jewish lifestyle beforehis call, more precisely his commitment to the defense of the law andthe religious traditions inherited from the Fathers. Paul’s activity as apersecutor, therefore, appears as part of an inner-Jewish struggle for therecognition of the Torah against its alleged opponents.35 Thus, whenPaul describes his ‘former’ way of life in commitment to \ΙïυδαϊσµÞς

there is no reason for assuming that his calling or ‘conversion’ leadhim to reject his Jewish identity or his solidarity with the elected peo-ple of Israel in order to see himself as ‘fundamentally separated fromJudaism’.36 At least the non-polemical passages in Rom :– and :clearly stand against such a construction which seems to be basicallyinspired by the later ‘parting of the ways’ between Judaism and Chris-

32 Cf. K.-W. Niebuhr, Heidenapostel (see note ), –. The first time \ΙïυδαϊσµÞς

is used in contrast with ÌριστιανισµÞς is more than years later, in Ignatius (Magn.: and Philad. :).

33 On this cf. M. Hengel, The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement inthe Period from Herod I until A.D. , translated by David W. Smith, Edinburgh, ;M. Hengel, R. Deines, The Pre-Christian Paul (see note ), –.

34 This is suggested by numerous Bible translations when the term is translated with‘Judaism’, ‘Judentum’ etc.

35 Cf. K.-W. Niebuhr, Heidenapostel (see note ), .36 Cf. the view of G. Strecker quoted above n. .

tianity and by traditional patterns of anti-Jewish reading, but cannot besustained in a close reading of the texts.This is also confirmed by the information from Acts. Of course,

Luke’s account is, strictly speaking, merely a secondary source com-pared with the authentic letters of Paul. But, under the influence of thehistorical constructions of the Tübingen School and the existentialisthermeneutics of the Bultmann School, Luke was too often condemnedas an author who had crudely misunderstood Paul’s Gospel37 or drawnan ideal and completely unreliable picture of the earliest Christianity.38

Even if it is true that Luke’s theological views differ from Paul’s the-ology and his account is directed at a later audience, the historicalvalue of the traditions adopted in Luke-Acts should not be underesti-mated.39 Only from Luke we learn that Paul was born in the Cilician‘metropolis’ Tarsus (Acts :; :; :; cf. :; :). In his authen-tic letters, Paul never mentions his birthplace, and his later activity inthe province of Syria and Cilicia is only mentioned quite briefly in Gal:. It is remarkable that this piece of information was hardly ever crit-icized as fictional, possibly because it fit well into the overall view ofthe Apostle to the Gentiles as strongly influenced by Hellenistic cul-ture. On the other hand, the information on Paul’s close relationshipwith Jerusalem, on his Pharisaic studies under the leading teacher of his

37 Thus many authors of the Bultmann School, including E. Käsemann, H. Conzel-mann, E. Haenchen and, most polemically, Ph. Vielhauer, “Zum Paulinismus derApostelgeschichte”, in idem, Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (Theologische Bibliothek ),München , –. Cf. the account of research and the careful withdrawal from for-mer overcritical views of Luke-Acts in E. Gräßer, “Studien zur Acta-Forschung. Rück-blick und Ausblick”, in idem, Forschungen zur Apostelgeschichte (WUNT ); Tübingen, – (–).

38 This is often implied in the suggestions of a relatively late date of Luke-Acts.Against this, cf. recently M. Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ,London , –, who clearly demonstrates the chronological priority of Lukeagainst Matthew. The differences between Paul and Luke can be explained by thetime-span of about – years between the Pauline epistles and the writing of Luke-Acts.

39 Cf., basically, M. Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, translatedby John Bowden, London , idem, “The Geography of Palestine in Acts”, inR. Bauckham (ed.), The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting (The Book of Acts in itsFirst Century Setting ), Grand Rapids , –; M. Hengel, A.M. Schwemer, Paulbetween Damascus and Antioch (see note ), –.–. On historical traditions in Acts seealso the thorough discussion in G. Lüdemann, Early Christianity According to the Traditionsin Acts: A Commentary, London/Minneapolis , and in the recent commentaries byJ. Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte (KEK ), Göttingen and Ch.K. Barrett, Acts of theApostles, vols., Edinburgh /.

’

time, Gamaliel I (Acts :), and some of his later journeys to Jerusalemwere often rejected as a mere result of Luke’s tendency to construct aninitial harmony between Pauline Christianity and the Jerusalem originsof the church.40 But not every detail unconfirmed by Paul’s own wordsis necessarily an invention of Luke. Recent scholarship has adducedstrong arguments for the assumption that, e.g., Luke’s account of Paul’sRoman citizenship and his appeal to the Cesar is historically plau-sible.41 Notably, even Paul’s birth name Shaul (Acts :..; :.;:) which perfectly fits his Benjaminite descent (Rom :), is onlyreported by Luke, not by the Apostle himself who always introduceshimself by the use of the Greek name or cognomen Πα�λïς. Therefore,the information from Acts should be included critically into our viewof Paul and his Jewish roots. In fact, there is a remarkable coherencebetween Paul’s own hints at his Jewish identity and the informationgiven in Paul’s speeches in Acts: According to Luke, Paul is a Jew (Acts:), a member of a traditional Pharisaic family, educated accordingto the meticulous teaching of the ancestral laws (Acts :; cf. :).This fits perfectly to Paul’s own accounts. There is only reason to ques-tion whether Paul really grew up in Jerusalem (as Acts : claims) orhad his basic education in Tarsus.42 But his fundamental relation withJerusalem, which is presumably based on family traditions43 and on histime of higher education, is also confirmed by several elements of hislate activity. In Rom :b, he describes his mission as describing acircle from Jerusalem to Illyricum, so the Holy City appears to be thestarting point of his missionary work. Paul’s efforts to collect money forthe “poor among the saints” (Rom :) in Jerusalem and his willing-ness to travel to Jerusalem to deliver the support personally in spite ofthe dangers he had to face in Jerusalem (Rom :–) demonstratethe continuous importance of Jerusalem for Paul’s identity and for the

40 According to the argument of F. Chr. Baur and his followers, the link withJerusalem and Gamaliel seemed to be coherent with Luke’s image of Paul whereasthe note on Tarsus seemed to contradict the Lukan ‘Tendenz’ and, therefore, was heldto be reliable. The methodological problem is that the supposed tendency of an authorcannot be the only decisive argument regarding the historicity of the traditions andinformations he mentions.

41 Cf. M. Hengel, R. Deines, The Pre-Christian Paul (see note ), –; most exten-sively see H. Omerzu, Der Prozeß des Paulus: Eine exegetische und rechtshistorische Untersuchungder Apostelgeschichte (BZNW ), Berlin/New York .

42 Cf. the discussion in M. Hengel, R. Deines, The Pre-Christian Paul (see note ),–.

43 Acts : even mentions the family of a sister of Paul living in Jerusalem.

whole of his missionary work. Notably, Jerusalem is mentioned morefrequently and has a more prominent position in Paul’s letters thanDamascus, Antioch, not to mention Tarsus.

III. P J

Therefore, the fact that Paul was born and basically educated in thediaspora is no reason to downplay his Jewish identity or to interpret thelater views of the apostle as a product of his education in a largelyassimilated type of Judaism where many of the traditional values hadalready been abandoned.44 The evidence points rather to the oppo-site: The Jewish diaspora in Asia Minor (including Tarsus) consistedof strong and self-confident communities45 with an honorable traditionand peculiar privileges. So, it must be assumed that not wide-rangingassimilation46 but the awareness of the religious otherness and the culti-vation of a strong diaspora-Jewish identity were decisive for the climatein which the young Paul grew up and got his primary education. Hereare the roots of the strong rejection of any kind of iconic and polythe-istic cults and the emphatic monotheism, which was no less character-istic for the later Apostle.47 His skillful use of the Greek koine, his inti-mate knowledge of the Septuagint and his familiarity with motifs andforms of Hellenistic-Jewish preaching48 also originate in this context.

44 Thus, e.g., H.-J. Schoeps, Paulus: die Theologie des Apostels im Lichte der jüdischen Reli-gionsgeschichte (unveränd. Reprogr. Nachdr. der Ausg. ), Darmstadt , who seesPaul as a “den väterlichen Glaubensvorstellungen weithin entfremdeten Assimilationsju-den der hellenistischen Diaspora” () and explains Paul’s ‘distorted image’ (ibid.) of theJewish law against that background.

45 On the diaspora in Asia Minor, see E. Schürer, G. Vermes, F. Millar, The Historyof the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol. ., Edinburgh , –; P. Trebilco,Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (SNTSMS ); Cambridge ; J.M.G. Barclay, TheJews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan, Edinburgh , –; onTarsus and its Jewish community cf. M. Hengel, A.M. Schwemer, Paul between Damascusand Antioch (see note ), –; cf. also Acts : and Philo, Legat. . On the Jewishinscriptions from Asia Minor (most of which are from later periods), cf. now thecompendium by W. Ameling (ed.), Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis : Kleinasien (TSAJ ),Tübingen .

46 This was the suggestion by, e.g., H. Böhlig, Die Geisteskultur von Tarsos (see note ),which had a strong influence on numerous exegetes not only from the History-of-Religions School.

47 On Paul’s monotheistic position even within his later Christology see L.W. Hur-tado, Lord Jesus Christ. Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, Grand Rapids , –.

48 Cf., e.g., Thess :–.

’

Only Paul’s diaspora-Jewish background can explain that he was ableto cross so many ethnic and cultural boundaries in his later missionarywork.On the other hand, Paul himself emphatically states that he was edu-

cated and formerly lived as a Pharisee (Phil :; cf. Acts :). Therefore,numerous scholars conjectured that Paul’s family belonged to a kind of‘diaspora Pharisaism’.49 Such an assumption is especially attractive forexegetes who consider the tradition of Paul’s earlier visit to and highereducation in Jerusalem a mere fiction of Luke. If Paul had never beenin Palestine before his Damascus experience, and if he had never been adisciple of a teacher like Gamaliel I. (or others), he must have receivedhis Pharisaic learning in the diaspora. But such a construction posesmore problems than it can solve. The most important point is that thereare no clear sources for Pharisees living permanently in the diaspora,let alone for Pharisaic schools outside of Palestine before CE.50 Forthe time after CE, Matt : only demonstrates that scribes trav-eled to the diaspora where they did not live permanently. And froman earlier period, we know of Pharisees who had fled from AlexanderJannaeos and who tried to return to Eretz Israel as quickly as possiblebecause of the dangers of impurity outside.51 From its beginnings, thePharisaic movement was strongly linked to Eretz Israel, and there is noreason to assume that it ever developed a firm institutional basis in thediaspora. Probably it only existed in single families who adhered to thePharisaic tradition and, as a consequence, were oriented towards themother country, as far as ever possible. Interestingly, our first informa-tion about Pharisaic (or better, Rabbinic) Torah schools outside Judeacomes “from the time after the destruction of the temple, in the sec-ond century: their foundation was a consequence of the catastrophesof and –CE”.52 From earlier times, we know of the famousproselyte king Izates of Adiabene who sent ten of his sons to Jerusalem

49 Cf., basically, H.-J. Schoeps, Paulus (see note ) pp. ff.; later J. Becker, Paulus(see note ), –; G. Strecker, “Befreiung und Rechtfertigung. Zur Stellung derRechtfertigungslehre in der Theologie des Paulus”, J. Friedrich et al. (eds.), Rechtferti-gung, FS Ernst Käsemann, Tübingen/Göttingen , – ( n. ), and alsoK. Berger, “Jesus als Pharisäer und frühe Christen als Pharisäer”, NovT (), – (–).

50 Cf. M. Hengel, R. Deines, The Pre-Christian Paul (see note ), –; s. alsoG. Stemberger, Pharisäer, Sadduzäer, Essener (SBS ), Stuttgart , ; K.-W. Niebuhr,Heidenapostel (see note ), .

51 Jos., B.J. I §.52 M. Hengel, R. Deines, The Pre-Christian Paul (see note ), –.

so that they should learn the Hebrew language and the Torah.53 Thisdatum may confirm our information on Paul as an offspring of a dias-pora family with a strong traditional orientation. And if an adequatehigher education in Jewish tradition and law could only be obtained inIsrael, at best in Jerusalem, the information given by Luke is at leastplausible. On the other hand, Paul’s own remark in Gal : that hehad been personally unknown to the earliest ‘Christian’ communitiesin Judea is certainly no sufficient argument for completely dismissingLuke’s account of an earlier stay in Jerusalem.54 Moreover it would bedifficult to explain Paul’s activity as a persecutor of the earliest Jesus cir-cles in Judea and even in Damascus if he had never been in Jerusalembefore his Damascus experience.55 In my view, we cannot escape thefact that Paul was raised in the Jewish diaspora and received his higherJewish education from Pharisaic teachers in Jerusalem. This is moreplausible than all the ‘critical’ constructions mentioned.The problem of the character and relevance of the Pharisaic move-

ment in the period before CE cannot be discussed here. We shouldnot ignore, however, that in Josephus and the New Testament the Phar-isees are the most frequently mentioned Jewish group and that espe-cially Josephus states that they had a considerable influence on theordinary people (cf. A.J. XVIII § ). In contrast to a widespread ten-dency in scholarship to marginalize the Pharisees in comparison witha type of temple-oriented ‘Common Judaism’,56 I would like to suggestthat this construction is the product of a harmonizing interpretation

53 Jos., A.J. XX §.54 The argument from Gal : is quite central for all scholars who want to maintain

a greater distance between Paul and Jerusalem. One of the most important articles ofthe History-of-Religions School is W. Heitmüller, “Zum Problem Paulus und Jesus”,ZNW (), –, which was also quite influential for the religio-historicalconstructions of W. Bousset’s Kyrios Christos (see note ). Almost all attempts to establisha wide gap between Jesus and Paul or between Paul and Palestinian Judaism draw onthis far-fetched and unconvincing argument.

55 Cf. M. Hengel, R. Deines, Pre-Christian Paul (see note ), –.56 Cf. especially the works of E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, Philadelphia

; idem, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People, London ; idem, Jewish Law from Jesusto the Mishnah, London/Philadelphia , idem, Judaism: Practice and Belief BCE –CE, London/Philadelphia , and the important critical review by M. Hengel,R. Deines, “E.P. Sanders’ ‘Common Judaism’, Jesus and the Pharisees”, JTS (),–. Ibid., : “At almost every turn, Sanders has underestimated the influence ofthe Pharisees in Jewish society during the period he covers. (…) As a consequence ofthis marginalizing of the Pharisees, there emerges what might be called a ‘Sadduceantendency’ in Sanders’ presentation of ‘common Judaims’ as a religion of the temple andthe priesthood.” On the history of scholarship, see the massive account by R. Deines,

’

of the sources, and that the differences and controversies between thedifferent religious movements are quite evident, e.g., from the Qumrantexts.57 Even though Josephus and also the early Christian authors showdifferent tendencies in their views of the Pharisees,58 these sources aswell as others, e.g. from Qumran,59 indicate that the Pharisaic move-ment was a fundamental and influential movement in the time beforeCE.60

The relevance of this for the study of Paul is that he did not belong toan irrelevant faction at the margins of contemporary Judaism but to amovement that was dedicated to practice and promotion of Jewish life.This is confirmed by the way Paul himself claims that he had practicedand advocated Jewish life (Gal :). Therefore, even his critical positionagainst the law or against some aspects of Jewish piety cannot beexplained by the assumption that he had crudely misunderstood ormisinterpreted the views of his fellow Jews. It is better to suppose thatPaul knew quite well what he was talking about.Paul never abandoned his Jewish identity, and some of the convic-

tions he held as a Pharisee remained influential for his work as an apos-tle. Mention must be made of centrality of the law, the notion of theresurrection of the dead and, possibly, certain aspects of his anthropol-ogy that may point to his Pharisaic and insofar Palestinian Jewish roots:

Die Pharisäer. Ihr Verständnis im Spiegel der christlichen und jüdischen Forschung seit Wellhausen undGraetz (WUNT ), Tübingen .

57 A most important point is the idea of the covenant which may be similar indifferent religious factions. On the other hand, the fact that the Qumran group viewstheirs as the true covenant excludes others in a way which makes it quite difficultto see one common kind of ‘covenantal nomism’. For criticism of the harmonizingtendency mentioned above, cf., e. g., the collection of article by D.A. Carson & P.T.O’Brien & M.A. Seifrid (eds.), Justification and Variegated Nomism. The Complexities of SecondTemple Judaism (WUNT II/), Tübingen . On the Pharisees see R. Deines, “ThePharisees Between ‘Judaisms’ and ‘Common Judaism’”, ibid., –.

58 On Josephus see S. Mason, Josephus on the Pharisees, Leiden and P. Schäfer,“Der vorrabbinische Pharisäismus”, in M. Hengel & U. Heckel (eds.), Paulus und dasantike Judentum (WUNT ), Tübingen , –. In the Gospels, especially inMatthew (cf. Matt : etc.), the Pharisees are increasingly depicted as the adversariesof Jesus. This points to growing disputes between the early Jesus momevent and thePharisaic movement and also to the relevance of the Pharisees as representatives ofimportant Jewish positions before and after CE.

59 Generally, the adversaries described in the Qumran texts as “seeking smooththings” are identified with the Pharisaic movement.

60 R. Deines, “The Pharisees Between” (see note ), even calls Pharisaism“the fundamental and most influential religious movement within Palestinian Judaismbetween B.C. and A.D. ”.

a) Due to his Pharisaic education and orientation, the young sagewas dedicated to the careful study of the law, to the struggle for its‘righteousness’ and its accurate fulfillment (Phil :). God’s law andIsrael’s call to fulfill his commandments made up the theme of his life.With regard to this biographical background, it is easily conceivablethat the later apostle reflects the matters of the law and its righteousnessmore fundamentally than any other early Christian author. Especiallythe fact that he was called precisely when zealously acting in defense ofthe law must have shaken his convictions fundamentally. Therefore, hisreflection on the relevance of circumcision and law must have startedquite early after his Damascus experience, when he began to preachthe new message to the communities in Arabia or Syria and Cilicia(Gal :, ), at the latest with the programmatic mission to paganaddressees. It is hardly plausible that these fundamental reflectionswere only caused by the conflicts of his later missionary work, inAntioch, Galatia or elsewhere, even though the language of justificationis documented only in his letters to the Galatians and to the Romans.

b) A second element of Paul’s Pharisaic heritage is his view of theresurrection of the dead.61 Originally formed in apocalyptic circles (Isa:–; En. ) and stimulated by the Maccabean crisis (Dan :–; Macc. ), the belief in the resurrection of the dead was popularizedamong the Pharisees whereas the Sadducees denied it62 and possiblythe Essenes63 also remained skeptical. It is particularly important tonote that the writings of the Jewish diaspora remain rather restrainedtowards any kind of cosmic or collective hope. The language of resur-rection is scarcely used in Philo, Wisdom and Joseph and Asenath, and itis completely avoided in Maccabees.64 Paul’s views, e.g. of Jesus’ resur-rection as the beginning of the common resurrection of the dead (Cor:), presuppose the collective notion of resurrection shared by Pales-tinian Jewish circles and especially the Pharisees. The formula “God

61 Cf. K. Haacker, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (THKNT ), Leipzig , .62 Cf. Jos., B.J. II § ; A.J. XVIII § ; Mark :–; Acts :–; :.63 On the Essenes cf. H. Lichtenberger, “Auferstehung in den Qumranfunden”, in

F. Avemarie & H. Lichtenberger (eds.), Auferstehung—Resurrection (WUNT ), Tübingen, –.

64 An exception is Maccabees. Cf. U. Fischer, Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung im hel-lenistischen Diasporajudentum (BZNW ), Berlin , see also M. Hengel, “Das Begräb-nis Jesu bei Paulus und die leibliche Auferstehung aus dem Grabe”, in F. Avemarie &H. Lichtenberger (eds.), Auferstehung—Resurrection (WUNT ), Tübingen , –(esp. –).

’

who raises the dead” (Rom :) reminds us of the second benedictionof the Shmone Esre, and the notion of God “who has raised Jesus fromthe dead” (Rom :; :) adopts the traditional liturgical languagewith reference to Jesus.65 Finally, Paul’s efforts in Cor :– to com-municate the bodily character of the resurrection demonstrate that Paulcould not imagine a final separation between body and soul or betweena material and a spiritual part of the human being.66

c) This points clearly to an anthropology which is shaped more by theholistic view of the Hebrew Bible than by Hellenistic thought. Accord-ing to Paul, the human being not only possesses a body but is body(cf. Cor :–).67 The negative view of the body as a minor part ofthe human being which is so common in Hellenistic authors, e.g. inPhilo, is not shared by Paul. These peculiarities of his anthropology arealso explained most easily by his acquaintance with Palestinian Jewishanthropological traditions.68

IV. J

’

. Paul’s conception of himself, his piety and missionary strategy

Paul’s Jewish roots are clearly visible in numerous aspects of his life,piety and missionary strategy:

a) One of the most significant expressions of Paul’s conception of him-self is that he is the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom :) who is commissionedto preach the ‘gospel to the foreskin (�κρïâυστÝα)’ (cf. Gal :). In thefundamental division of the world between Jews and Gentiles (Rom

65 Cf. K. Haacker, Paulus. Der Werdegang eines Apostels (SBS ), Stuttgart , .66 Cf. M. Hengel, “Das Begräbnis Jesu” (see note ), .67 On the interpretation of Paul’s anthropological terms, cf. U. Schnelle, Neutesta-

mentliche Anthropologie (Biblisch-Theologische Studien ), Neukirchen-Vluyn , ff.;idem, Paulus. Leben und Denken, Berlin/New York , –.

68 Cf., for another example, J. Frey, “Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian JewishSapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts. An Inquiry into the Background ofPauline Usage”, in Ch. Hempel, A. Lange & H. Lichtenberger (eds.), The Wisdom Textsfrom Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought. Studies in Wisdom at Qumran and itsRelationship to Sapiential Thought in the Ancient Near East, the Hebrew Bible, Ancient Judaism andthe New Testament (BETL ), Leuven , –.

:; :; Gal :) or between Jews and Greeks (Rom :; :–;:; Cor :ff.; :–; :; :; Gal :) or circumcisionand foreskin (Gal :), Paul is strongly dependent on the Jewish perspective.The gospel is proclaimed not to an undivided humanity, nor to aworld of Greeks and Barbarians, but to a world that basically consistsof Jews and Non-Jews or ‘nations’ (\Ιïυδα�ïι and �©νη). Only from aJewish perspective can the Gentile world be viewed as generally sinfulas in Rom :ff. Thus, in addressing Peter in Gal :, Paul statesemphatically: “We are Jews by birth, not sinners from the nations.” TheJewish distinction between Israel and the nations is the fundamentalstarting point of the world-view of the apostle “to the Gentiles”.

b) The contents of Paul’s gospel and even more the idea that the salvificmessage is also addressed to the nations, is drawn from Israel’s Scriptures,chiefly from the Prophets or other texts interpreted in a propheticmanner. Paul’s use of the Scriptures is dominated by a thoroughly Jewish

technique of interpretation: They are read as eschatological proclamationsthat point to their fulfillment in the present. Such an eschatologicalexegesis was developed in Palestinian Judaism, and its closest parallelscan be seen in the Pesharim, the commentaries on the Prophets andPsalms from the Qumran community.

The scriptural basis of Paul’s ministry as the apostle to the Gentiles is formedby several passages, chiefly from the book of Isaiah.69 In Isa –, read as acoherent unity, Paul finds a prophetic view of his own missionary task: In Rom:, he quotes Is :, relating the notion of God’s revelation to those whohad not heard before with the proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles. InRom :– he uses Is : to demonstrate that the revelation to the Gentilesand the rejection of Christ by the majority of Israel are in accordance with theScriptures. In the allegory of Sarah and Hagar Paul quotes the promise to theinfertile Lady Zion from Isa : to prove that the ‘upper’ Jerusalem shouldhave numerous children (Gal :).

In Paul’s view, not only the eschatological acceptance of the Gentilesbut also his own ministry are prophesied by Biblical texts: When hedescribes his calling, he uses language of the Biblical prophetic callingnarratives,70 and his own apostolic ministry is described my means of

69 Cf. F. Wilk, Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus (FRLANT ); Göttingen ,.

70 Thus, e. g., in Gal :, where Isa :, and Jer : are alluded to; cf. K.O. Sand-nes, Paul—One of the Prophets (WUNT II/), Tübingen , .

’

the imagery of the prophetic messenger who proclaims the ε�αγγÛλιïν

of God’s universal salvation among the nations,71 thereby participatingin God’s eschatological salvific activity.

c) Numerous elements of Paul’s personal piety might go back to his pre-Christian Pharisaic lifestyle. This is not only true for his use of theScriptures, his participation in synagogal prayer and in Jewish festivals(Cor :: Shavuot) but also for his personal prayer as mentioned inmost of his epistles. Such a regular, or steady (πÀντïτε, cf. Rom :;Cor :; Phil :; Thess :; Philm ) prayer was most certainlyshaped by the Jewish regular times of prayer.72 Mention should alsobe made of particular forms of prayer such as doxologies and eulogies(cf. Rom :; :; Gal :), the use of the response formula �µÜν (Cor:) and, generally, the adoption of the language of the Psalms.73

d) In his missionary strategy, Paul was aware of the principle that the sal-vation was offered ‘first to the Jews, then to the Greeks’. The formulaused in Rom : is not only shaped by the experience of the rejectionof the Gospel by many of Paul’s fellow Jews. It fundamentally reflectsIsrael’s priority in salvation history (cf. Rom :), and it might also cor-respond to the earliest history of Paul’s missionary work in Arabia (Gal:) and Syria/Cilicia (Gal :), where he most certainly addressedJewish communities, but at least in Syria and Cilicia he might haveaddressed a greater number of god-fearers from a gentile backgroundwho participated in the life of the synagogue. Possibly they were thefirst gentile addressees of the proclamation of the Gospel. The accountof Acts, even though it may be rather schematic, generally confirms theprinciple mentioned in Rom :: According to Acts, Paul consistentlypreached among the Jews (cf. Acts :; :ff.: :; :; : f., f.;:; :) and only turned toward the Gentiles when facing opposi-tion from the Jews (Acts :). Thus, Paul’s missionary strategy alsoconfirms the enduring primacy of Israel.

71 Cf. the quotation of Isa : (ε�αγγελιúÞµενïς) in Rom :.72 Cf. already G. Harder, Paulus und das Gebet (NTF I,), Gütersloh , ff., and

more recently K.-H. Ostmeyer, “Das immerwährende Gebet bei Paulus”, TBei (), – ( f.).

73 There is some uncertainty about fasting, which was one of the elements ofPharisaic piety (cf. Luke :; Pss. Sol :). Paul mentions fasting in the catalogue of hissufferings (Cor :; :), but in Rom – fasting seems to be quite irrelevant.

e) In preaching to the Gentiles, Paul seems to have adopted basic ele-ments and terms of the preaching of the diaspora synagogue.74 Ele-ments of Jewish conversion language can be seen in Thess : wherePaul mentions the conversion from the idols toward the living and trueGod.In accordance with all the Jewish groups Paul has a strongly nega-

tive view of the pagan cults: Their gods are nothing at all (Cor :),they are even demons (Cor :),75 and in his view, the participationin pagan cultic meals is impossible for members of the Christian com-munities. Generally, Paul never ceased to adhere to a strongly exclu-sivist monotheism. Of course, within the Christian community Christis worshipped by acclamations, prayers and hymns, but in Paul’s viewthe worship of Christ fully remains within the framework of Jewishmonotheism with its rejection of all pagan or iconic cults.76

f) The geographical framework of the Pauline mission goes back toBiblical and Early Jewish concepts. In Rom : Paul says that he hascompleted the gospel “in a circle” (κàκλÿω) from Jerusalem to Illyricum,so he is now able to come to Rome and further on to Spain (Rom :,). This statement implies that Paul intended to spread the Gospel tothe whole world, but the geographical concept seems to be influencedby the table of nations from Gen and its early Jewish reception.77

In this perspective, Zion is the navel of the world (Ezek :; cf. En. : ;Jub. :),78 and the nations are positioned around it according to their relationwith the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth. It is remarkable that Paul

74 There is some debate whether there was an active ‘mission’ of the diasporasynagogue (cf. L.H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World, Princeton , –) or whether there was merely the general attractivity of Jewish monotheism andethics (cf. M. Goodman, Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History of theRoman Empire, Oxford ); R. Riesner, “A Pre-Christian Jewish Mission?”, in J. Ådna& H. Kvalbein (eds.), The Misssion of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (WUNT ),Tübingen , –. On the discussion see J.P. Dickson, Mission-Commitment inAncient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities (WUNT II/), Tübingen , –.

75 Cf. most recently J. Woyke, Götter, ‘Götzen’, Götterbilder. Aspekte einer paulinischen ‘The-ologie der Religionen’ (BZNW ), Berlin/New York .

76 According to Larry H. Hurtado, this type can be called ‘binitarian monotheism’;cf. L.H. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, Grand Rapids , ff. and –.

77 On this, see J.M. Scott, Paul and the Nations (WUNT ), Tübingen , ff.78 In Gen , Israel is the center, and the nations are arranged around it. This

perspective is adopted in Chron :–:; Deut :; Ezek :; cf. also J. Frey, “ZumWeltbild im Jubiläenbuch”, in M. Albani & J. Frey & A. Lange (eds.), Studies in the Bookof Jubilees (TSAJ ), Tübingen , – ( f.); and J.M. Scott, Paul and the Nations

’

never travels to the sons of Ham in Egypt. Instead, the area of his mission isthe region of the sons of Japheth where also Tarsus, the place of his birth, waslocated.79

When Paul writes that through his ministry he prepared the offering(πρïσæïρÀ) of the Gentiles for God (Rom :), this might point toIsa :– where the offering (δ�ρïν) of the Jewish remnant amongall nations is mentioned and the table of nations is also adopted.80

From these observations we have to conclude that Paul’s view of hismission among the nations was strongly influenced by (Palestinian-)Jewish geographical concepts.

g) In spite of the tensions between Paul and parts of the Jerusalemcommunity, Jerusalem plays a central role in Paul’s thought. This is notonly due to the fact that Paul had stayed there for his education inJewish law. Possibly the links with Jerusalem are based in his family’srelations with Eretz Israel, and most certainly they are rooted in histheological and eschatological views: Jerusalem is not only the start-ing point of the gospel but also the place where eschatological comple-tion is to be expected (Rom : f.). In spite of the distancing remarksin Galatians , it is not without relevance for Paul that Jerusalem isthe place where Christ was crucified and where those who were apos-tles before him were located (cf. Cor :–). Therefore Paul mademany efforts to maintain unity with the Jewish-Christian community inJerusalem:81 He negotiated the agreement at the apostles’ meeting (Gal:), he organized the collection for the poor in the Jerusalem commu-nity, and finally he personally traveled to Jerusalem to deliver the gifteven though he was well aware that his life was threatened (Rom :).This confirms most clearly that Paul never abandoned the connectionwith Jerusalem and, even more, that the basic concept of his mission

(see note ), –. In Rom :, κàκλÿω refers to the centrality of Jerusalem (J.M. Scott,p. ).

79 According to Josephus, the part of Japheth is located between the Taurus moun-tains and Gadir/Gadeira near the Straights of Gibraltar (A.J. I § ; cf. Jub. :, ;,; cf. J.M. Scott, Paul and the Nations [see note ], ).

80 Cf. J.M. Scott, Paul and the Nations (see note ), f.; R. Riesner, Die Frühzeit desApostels Paulus (WUNT ), Tübingen , –; R.D. Aus, “Paul’s Travel Plans toSpain and the ‘Full Number of the Gentiles’ of Rom. xi.”, NT (), –.

81 Cf. on the relation between Paul and the Jerusalem apostles J. Frey, “Paulus unddie Apostel”, in E.-M. Becker & P. Pilhofer (eds.), Biographie und Persönlichkeit des Paulus(WUNT ), Tübingen , – (–).

was thoroughly shaped by the Jewish view of the everlasting centralityof the Holy City.

h) That even as an apostle Paul did not cease to view himself asa member of the Jewish community is most clearly visible from thesynagogue floggings he suffered at least five times (Cor :). Unlikeother conflicts which he could not always avoid when he preachedpublicly, he would have been able to avoid being beaten by strokeshad he abandoned his relation with the synagogue. But obviously hedid not. And this is true not only for his early ministry in Syria andCilicia in which the floggings possibly happened82 but also for thelater period: Ultimately Paul lost his freedom and later on also hislife because of his dedication to showing his solidarity with the Jewish-Christian community in Jerusalem.

. Jewish traditions and concepts of thought in Paul’s letters

Furthermore, the impact of Jewish traditions and concepts of thought isobvious from numerous aspects of Paul’s letters. In the present context,I can only mention some of the most important aspects:

a) As far as we can see, Paul was the first Christian author who usedthe genre of community letters to lead and counsel the communities hehad founded. Basically, he adopts a genre which was common in theHellenistic world. But since his letters formally hold a medium posi-tion between private letters of friendship and philosophical letters, withnumerous elements of individual variation of the formal patterns, wecan see that Paul deliberately created his own style of letter writing.On the other hand there was already a Jewish tradition of official letters to

communities83 which Paul certainly knew from Biblical and Post-Biblicaltexts. This might have been a source of inspiration for his own epis-tolographic activity. Be that as it may, the use of the so-called oriental

prescript84 points to Palestinian Jewish patterns, and the blessing formula

82 Cf. M. Hengel & R. Deines, The Pre-Christian Paul (see note ), , note .83 Cf. I. Taatz, Frühjüdische Briefe. Die paulinischen Briefe im Rahmen der offiziellen religiösen

Briefe des Frühjudentums (NTOA ), Freiburg/Göttingen , . Cf. Macc :–;Macc :–:; Ep Jer; Bar. –; Par Jer :–; :–; see also the Bar-Kochba-Letters from the Judean Desert Makk ,–; Makk ,–,; Ep Jer; Bar–; Par Jer ,–; ,–; cf. also H.-J. Klauck, Die antike Briefliteratur und das NeueTestament, Paderborn , –.

84 For the salutatio, see Dan :, Theodotion; Bar. : and bSanhedrin b.

’

øÀρις καd ε�ρÜνη may also be taken from those patterns or (like them-selves) be inspired by Jewish liturgical forms.85

b) In his use of the Scriptures, Paul generally draws on the LXX. Adirect use of the Hebrew text can not be demonstrated.86 But in somecitations, chiefly from the books of Job and Isaiah where the LXXdiffers widely from the MT, there is reason to assume that Paul hada recension closer to the Hebrew text.87 Possibly he had been involvedin some efforts to revise the Greek text of the Bible according to theHebrew Scriptures.88

In his exegesis, Paul adopts numerous presuppositions and methods ofcontemporary Jewish exegesis.89 Even when refuting the views of fellowJews, he does so “with the methods that he had learned in the Pharisaicschool”.90 In Paul we can discern some of the exegetical rules which areknown as the ‘Seven Middot’, e. g. the qal-wa-.homer in Rom : f., , ;:, ; Cor :, , and the reverse argument in Rom : and :,the gezera schawa in Rom :– and the conclusion from the general tothe particular (or reverse) in Rom : and Gal :.91 In Rom (andGal :–) Paul uses Midrashic exegesis, in Cor :– he providesa typological interpretation of the story of the wilderness, and in Gal:– he can even use the allegorical method.

85 On the formula see I. Taatz, Frühjüdische Briefe (see note ), , and U. Heckel,Der Segen im Neuen Testament (WUNT ), Tübingen , .

86 Thus already O. Michel, Paulus und seine Bibel (BFCT II,), Gütersloh , :Even if Paul was able to read the Hebrew text, he lives and works only with his GreekBible.

87 Thus D.-A. Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums (BHTh ), Tübingen ,–. Cf. also F. Wilk, Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuchs (see note ), ; for the detailedanalysis of the citations pp. –. An early example of recensions is the Scroll of theTwelve Prophets from Na .hal .Hever ( .HevXII).

88 Thus M. Hengel, R. Deines, The Pre-Christian Paul (see note ), and note .

89 Cf. the survey by D. Instone Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesisbefore CE (TSAJ ), Tübingen and already O. Michel, Paulus und seine Bibel (seenote ), –.

90 Thus M. Hengel, R. Deines, The Pre-Christian Paul (see note ), . The problemis, however, that we do not have contemporary parallels of Pharisaic exegesis. So, wecan only draw conclusions from later Rabbinic and from Non-Pharisaic texts (Qumran,Pseudepigrapha etc.).

91 Cf. the observations by J. Jeremias, “Paulus als Hillelit”, in E.E. Ellis & M. Wilcox(eds.), Neotestamentica et Semitica. Studies in Honour of Matthew Black, Edinburgh , –(); K. Haacker, Paulus. Der Werdegang eines Apostels (see note ), , and W.D. Davies,“Paul: From the Jewish Point of View” (see note ), – ( f.).

c) Remarkably Paul adopts numerous traditions and motifs paralleled inPalestinian Jewish apocalypticism. Although exegetes have often stressedthe distance between Paul and the apocalyptics, the parallels lead to theconclusion that Paul’s world view was considerably influenced by Jewishapocalyptic thought and that his theology including his Christologylargely drew on apocalyptic elements.92

At first, mention should be made of the idea of the Parusia as it isdescribed in the apocalyptic scenario in Thess :– (cf. Cor :–). Even though Paul himself does not stress the cosmic details andonly focuses on the idea that the “we shall be with the Lord forever”,the passage demonstrates most clearly Paul’s knowledge of apocalypticideas and their relevance for his eschatological argument. Accordingto Thess : Christ shall come with his holy ones (i.e. angels), andeven in his latest letter, in Phil : he refers to the expectation of thesavior from the Heavens (Phil :). All these elements, even thoughmentioned only in passing, point to the fundamentally apocalypticworld view of the apostle.

The expectation of the Parusia is closely connected with the notion of theday of the Lord (�µÛρα κυρÝïυ) or the day of Christ (Cor : f.; :; Cor :;Phil :, ; :; Thess :) which is about to appear suddenly like a thief(Thess :). In Rom : Paul mentions the “day of wrath when the righteousjudgment of God will be revealed”, and in Cor : the “day” is linked withthe fire of judgment. All these phrases and ideas as used in Paul’s letters pointmost clearly to the background of Jewish apocalyptic thought.

According to Thess : and Cor :–, Paul expected the Paru-sia of Christ and the end of the world even during his lifetime. Sucha concept of time and eschatology is conceivable only within the frameworkof Palestinian Jewish apocalypticism: The present is end time (cf. Cor:), it is “compressed” (Cor :) and full of tribulations and suffer-ing. In Rom :–, the cosmic dimension of the present sufferings is

92 Cf. the argument by M. Hengel, “Paulus und die frühjüdische Apokalyptik”,Paulus und Jakobus. Kleine Studien III (WUNT ), Tübingen , –; H.H. Schae-de, Apokalyptische Christologie bei Paulus (GTA ) Göttingen 2; J.C. Beker, Paul’sApocalyptic Gospel. The Triumph of God, Philadelphia 4. On the history of researchs. R.B. Matlock, Unveiling the Apocalyptic Paul. Paul’s interpreters and the rhetoric of criticism(JSNTSup ), Sheffield . According to S. Vollenweider, “Zeit und Gesetz. Erwä-gungen zur Bedeutung apokalyptischer Denkformen bei Paulus”, in Horizonte neutesta-mentlicher Christologie (WUNT ), Tübingen , – (), the apocalyptic hori-zon is strongly linked with the Pharisaic theology of Bar.

’

expressed by means of the apocalyptic image of childbirth which con-veys the notion that the present pains are a sign of the coming salvation.

Other passages in Paul point to the apocalyptic pattern of the “two worlds”(cf. Ezra :): In “this (evil) aeon” (Gal :; cf. Rom :; Cor :) therulers of the world (Cor :) or even Satan as “the God of this aeon” (Cor:) exercise their power. But this world is passing away (Cor :) and willbe substituted by the coming aeon, by the reign of God. In Cor :–Paul even adopts an apocalyptic order of events (τÀêις) according to whichthe resurrection of Christ, the Parusia and the resurrection of all believers areclosely linked. This passage is most clearly paralleled in apocalyptic texts suchas Rev – and Ezra :ff.

Generally, Paul’s view of the resurrection indicates a fundamentally apoc-alyptic (or Pharisaic) background: The phrase that God has raised Jesusfrom the dead (Rom :; :) is only a variation of the fundamentalJewish confession that God “raises the dead” (as Paul quotes in Rom:; Cor :). The resurrection of Jesus is not envisaged as an indi-vidual act but only as part of the general resurrection of the dead, sothat in his resurrection the general resurrection has begun and will cer-tainly be completed (Cor :, ). This view clearly differs from theconcepts common in Hellenistic Judaism (Wisdom, Philo) where salva-tion was conceived of in a more individualistic manner, and the bodilydimension of resurrection was almost irrelevant. Conversely, Paul couldonly understand the resurrection of Jesus and the eschatological resur-rection in bodily terms,93 and in Cor :– he takes great pains toexplain this to his Hellenistic addressees who had severe problems withunderstanding his ideas.Other items of apocalyptic thought can only be mentioned briefly:

Paul adopts a variety of concepts and images of eschatological judgment

in which the continuity of apocalyptic thought is most clearly visible94

even though they are focused and modified according to his soteriology.Another proof of Paul’s apocalyptic knowledge is his account of hisheavenly journey in which he briefly mentions an ascent to the “thirdheaven” and to paradise (Cor :–). This brief remark, only in

93 On these aspects, cf. M. Hengel, “Das Begräbnis Jesu bei Paulus” (see note ).94 Cf. L. Mattern, Das Verständnis des Gerichtes bei Paulus (ATANT ), Zürich ;

E. Synofzik, Die Gerichts- und Vergeltungsaussagen bei Paulus (GTA ), Göttingen ;M. Konradt, Gericht und Gemeinde. Eine Studie zur Bedeutung und Funktion von Gerichtsaus-sagen im Rahmen der paulinischen Ekklesiologie und Ethik in Thess und Kor (BZNW ),Berlin/New York .

passing, not only gives a glimpse to Paul’s visionary piety but also showshis acquaintance with apocalyptic cosmological concepts with closeparallels in the traditions of Jewish throne and merkaba mysticism.95

Other terms in Pauline usage, such as µυστÜριïν,96 or the idea of the“new creation”97 could also be mentioned.In numerous cases, Paul reshapes the apocalyptic traditions he

adopts according to his view of the salvation in Christ. But this kindof reception only confirms how strongly he is influenced by traditionsoriginating in apocalyptic circles (and possibly mediated by Pharisaism).

d) The relevance of Palestinian Judaism for the theology of the apostleis also confirmed by a number of parallels from the Qumran library. Eventhough we cannot assume that Paul was directly influenced by the‘Essene’ movement or that he had access to the ‘sectarian’ texts (i.e. thetexts originating in the Qumran community),98 the Qumran finds havebrought out a number of phrases and ideas which are clearly parallelto passages in Paul’s letters and can demonstrate the Palestinian-Jewishroots of Pauline thought or, at least, of some of its elements.99

The most significant example might be the expression “works of thelaw” (�ργα νÞµïυ)100 which was unparalleled before the Qumran finds.But now the exact parallel äøåúä éùòî in the Halachic work QMMT101

demonstrates that the Pauline usage of “works of the law” draws on abroader discussion within Palestinian Judaism on the deeds prescribedby the law.102 The Qumran finds have also unveiled the first exactlinguistic parallel for the Pauline phrase “the righteousness of God”(δικαιïσàνη ©εï�)103 in QS : and XI: (cf. QM :), so that we

95 Cf. A.F. Segal, Paul the Convert (see note ) f.96 Cf. R.E. Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term ‘Mystery’ in the New Testament,

Philadelphia ; M.N.A. Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism andPauline Christianity (WUNT II/), Tübingen .

97 Cf. U. Mell, Neue Schöpfung: eine traditionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Studiezu einem soteriologischen Grundsatz paulinischer Theologie (BZNW ), Berlin ;C. Hoegen-Rohls, Neuheit bei Paulus (WUNT), Tübingen (in prepariation).

98 This is most certainly precluded by the rules as documented in QS : f.; : f.;: f. and also in Josephus (B.J. II § ).

99 Cf. the literature mentioned in n. above.100 Cf. Gal :; :, , ; Rom :, .101 QMMTe (Q) – ii f. (= C f.). Cf. also the slightly different phrase “his

deeds in the law” (äøåúá åéùòî) in QS : and :.102 Cf. J.A. Fitzmyer, “Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls” (see note ), f.; H.-

W. Kuhn, “Qumran und Paulus” (see note ), .103 Rom :; :, , ; : and Cor :.

’

can now say that “Paul did not invent the phrase but rather derived itfrom a genuine Palestinian tradition.”104

Numerous other parallels could be mentioned which are more orless significant for determining the background of Paul’s thought. Mostinteresting—especially in view of the Qumran texts—are the dualisticexpressions in the Pauline epistles. In Thess : Christians are called“Sons of Light” and “Sons of the Day.” The phrases make use of theSemitic construction “sons of ” (éðá) for the designation of “Christians”as a class of human beings. Such a bifurcation of humanity is unpar-alleled in the Hebrew Bible but frequent in the sectarian writings ofQumran (cf. QS .–). Whereas earlier scholarship was inclined toexplain the ‘dualistic’ elements in Paul’s theology from Hellenistic oreven Gnostic sources, the Qumran texts have shown that such ideas arealso conceivable within Palestinian Judaism.This is especially significant for some elements of Paul’s anthropol-

ogy: When Paul uses the word σÀρê with the meaning “sinful flesh”(Gal :; Rom :–), which is also unparalleled in the Hebrew Bible,we can now point to the closest parallels in the Qumran texts, not onlyin ‘sectarian’ documents105 but also from sapiential documents whichoriginate at the time before the formation of the ya.had.106 So the Paulineusage may be explained by the idea that he shared Palestinian Jewishwisdom traditions which might have been discussed in the circles of thesages in Palestine but have been preserved only within the library ofQumran.

e) Numerous other elements of Paul’s teaching should also be takeninto consideration. True, there are motifs which most clearly point to aHellenistic background such as, e. g., the idea of Christ as ε�κñν ©εï� orthe idea of the ‘inner �ν©ρωπïς’ (Cor :) which is known from Platoand well documented in Hellenistic Judaism.107 Paul crosses the bor-ders and combines the different backgrounds he knew. But—as MartinHengel aptly states—“by far the greater part of Pauline theology”108

104 J.A. Fitzmyer, “Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls” (see note ), .105 Cf. QS :– and some passages from the Hodayot.106 On these aspects, cf. the extensive discussion in J. Frey, “Flesh and Spirit” (see

note ).107 Cf. T.K. Heckel, Der innere Mensch (WUNT II/), Tübingen ; C. Markschies,

“Innerer Mensch”, Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, vol. , Stuttgart , cols. – (–).

108 M. Hengel, R. Deines, The Pre-Christian Paul (see note ), .

can be explained from Jewish Palestinian thought or, more precisely,from his Pharisaic background. On the other hand, there is a remark-able “difference from the typically Hellenistic-Jewish literature com-posed outside Palestine, mostly with a marked philosophical stamp—from Aristobulus and the Letter of Aristeas through II–IVMaccabeesto the Sibylline Oracles, Philo and even Josephus”.109

V. T

Paul’s Jewish identity is also visible in the peculiar manner in whichhe struggles with the most important identity markers of contemporaryJudaism, law and circumcision. The problems he has to solve are notunknown to (diaspora) Judaism, so one might say that he tackles Jewishproblems in a Jewish way. Even in his ‘critique of the Torah’ he doesnot utilize pagan or ‘enlightened’ arguments. Instead, he adopts motifsof the Jewish discussion on the relevance and interpretation of the lawand applies them to the situation of his Christian communities and thequestions which were posed in their context.

. Circumcision110

This is obvious regarding circumcision: Since the Babylonian exile,and most clearly since the Maccabean crisis, circumcision had becomethe most important “nota Iudaica”111 which was never abandoned evenin strongly Hellenized diaspora circles.112 By being circumcised, maleconverts accepted the obligation to keep the Torah as a whole, whereasGod-fearers who remained uncircumcised were only required to keepthe law as far as possible, to avoid idolatry and to behave in an ethicalmanner.The problems arose as soon as the proclamation of Jesus as Mes-

siah and Lord addressed not only Jews but also God-fearers and sym-pathizers from a gentile background: Now the question was whether

109 M. Hengel, R. Deines, The Pre-Christian Paul (see note ), .110 On circumcision see most extensively A. Blaschke, Beschneidung (TANZ ), Tübin-

gen/Basel .111 Ibid., .112 Cf. Philo, Migr. §– and, regarding proselytes, Quaest. in Ex. :. Disregard of

circumcistion can be seen among the radical allegorists in Alexandria against whomPhilo argues in Migr. §–, but they seem to be a rather radical exception. Cf.A. Blaschke, Beschneidung (see note ), –.

’

they should be circumcized when they came to believe in Christ or,rather, could remain in the ‘legal status’ of God-fearers even thoughthey were now assured to have full part in salvation through Christ.Probably quite early the missionaries did without circumcising thosegentile converts,113 for practical reasons rather than on the basis of the-ological consideration.114 It is well conceivable that this practice encour-aged God-fearers to adopt the new way of salvation and increased thesuccess of the new ‘Messianic’ mission. On the other hand, this couldbecome the source of various conflicts: Synagogal communities becameworried by the success of the new mission which was particularly activeamong their sympathizers and sponsors, who might be drawn awayfrom the life of the community. But also within the earliest ‘Christian’groups tensions could arise between Jewish members who felt obligedto keep the dietary and purity laws and gentile converts who were notrequired to keep the law and, therefore, could be seen as a sourceof impurity within the community’s life and particularly at the com-munal meals. The development also provided difficulties for the rela-tions between the communities in Judea and those abroad. Due to thepolitical developments in Palestine between and CE, the Jewish-Christian communities in Jerusalem and Judea became suspect for theirfellow Jews as they had relations with obscure communities in the dias-pora in which the boundaries of Israel were obviously opened and thepractice of communal meals could lead to a neglect of purity laws.To solve these problems, the activity of those who criticized the

practice of the mission in Antioch and elsewhere (Acts ,.; Gal ,;cf. also Gal ,. f.; ,–) aimed at circumcising all gentile convertssince this would also impose on them the obligation to keep the Torahcompletely. In his rejection in Galatians, Paul consequently counterstheir argument by a thorough reflection on the relevance and functionof the law.To understand Paul’s position, it is important to see first that he

was circumcized himself (Phil :), that he quite probably accepted andeven practiced the circumcision of born Jews (cf. Acts :)115 and that

113 Cf. F.W. Horn, “Der Verzicht auf die Beschneidung im frühen Christentum”, NTS (), –.

114 The need for further reflexion emerged only later, when the number of convertedpagans had grown.

115 Herein he is “a Jew to the Jews” (Cor :). On the historicity of the circumcisionof Timotheus, see A. Blaschke, Beschneidung (see note ), –. The idea that hehad advised Jewish Christians not to circumcise their children (thus the rumor Acts

he also accepted the proclamation of the gospel to the Jews in a wayin which the practice of circumcision and the observance of the lawwere maintained (cf. Gal :). Paul acknowledges that circumcision isa sign of God’s care for Israel (Rom :; : f.). But Israel’s historicalprimacy is not necessarily a soteriological profit: When it comes tosalvation or judgment, being circumcized is valuable only if the personalso observes the law (Rom :). Doing the law is the decisive factorin judgment.116 But since all humans have actually sinned (Rom :–), circumcision as such has no value at all. It is no undeniable signof sharing in salvation and no reason for ‘boasting’ (Rom :). Inview of God’s creative action in Christ the soteriological relevance ofbeing circumcised or not is nil (cf. Gal :; :), and consequently, anychange of status by additional circumcision or by the restitution of theforeskin is unnecessary. Moreover, an additional circumcision of thosewho have come to faith in Christ would mean that they regard theirfaith or the work of Christ as insufficient or ineffective (Gal :). In itslast consequence, such a negation of Christ would even cause the lossof salvation (Gal :). Therefore, Paul fights with extreme sarcasm117

against the people who propagate additional circumcision of the gentileconverts.But how can Paul argue against the validity of circumcision? One

first argument that should not be underestimated is the autobiograph-ical experience in his calling (Phil :ff.). In retrospect Paul’s own per-fect Jewish descent, his circumcision on the eighth day and all the otherelements of distinction could appear as worthless in view of the over-whelming revelation of Christ or of God’s salvific act which happenednot according to the law but in reversal of the curse uttered by thelaw (Gal :). Moreover, Paul was converted by the vision of Christjust when he was zealously defending the elements of Jewish life. Thismight have influenced his reflection on the law quite strongly.But the argument is much more Jewish than the mere hint at his call-

ing or ‘conversion’ might suggest. The ‘Judaizing’ counter-missionariesin Galatia might not have told their addressees that they were obligedto obey the whole law with all consequences if they were circum-

:; cf. Barn. :) is quite improbable (see A. Blaschke, Beschneidung [see note ], f.).

116 Conversely, if the one who is not circumcised, keeps the law, he is as if he werecircumcised (Rom : f.).

117 Cf. Gal :.

’

cised ‘additionally’. They possibly acted according to a more ‘prag-matic’ position, even if they ‘used’ circumcision to make the converts‘true’ Jews and to cause them to keep at least some most essentiallaws on food and purity. But their interest was more in the integrityof Israel and the inclusion of the gentile converts into the ‘body’ ofIsrael, not the precise ethical and soteriological consequences circumci-sion would have for them. Paul, instead, follows a more rigorous inter-pretation of circumcision which is, however, fully in accordance withJewish tradition. For him, being circumcised has severe consequences,and as a learned ‘theologian’ he considers them much more clearlythan the missionaries who influenced the Galatians. Moreover, his posi-tion seems to be connected with a more rigorous eschatological viewthat in judgment it is not election or circumcision as such but only thefulfillment of God’s will that will lead to eternal salvation.In his argument, Paul draws on a number of ideas which are deeply

rooted in Jewish tradition. The most important argument is that believ-ers in Christ, regardless of their Jewish or pagan descent, are circum-cised in a metaphorical way: Their circumcision is not in the flesh (�ν

σαρκÝ) but a circumcision of the heart (περιτïµc καρδÝας), not visible out-wardly (�ν τÿ� æανερÿ�) but inwardly (�ν τÿ� κρàπτÿω), not in the letter (�ν

γρÀµµατι) but in the spirit (�ν πνεàµατι) and not for the praise of humansbut of God (Rom :–; cf. Phil :). This idea of the circumcision ofthe heart (Rom :) draws on numerous biblical and post-biblical par-allels.118 But we cannot deny that Paul uses the idea quite differently. Heactually establishes a new definition of who truly is a ‘Jew’ (Rom :)or a member of ‘God’s Israel’ (Gal :). In this respect, the outwardcircumcision is not the decisive factor, it even is of no account in viewof the disobedience and sin of all human beings.The soteriological invalidity of circumcision is also demonstrated on

the basis of Scripture by use of the example of Abraham (Rom ): Hiscircumcision (Gen ) happened only after the statement that he wasconsidered as righteous because he had faithfully believed in God’spromise (Gen :). So his circumcision is actually the “seal of righ-teousness of the faith which he had while he was in the state of notbeing circumcized” (Rom :). In this interpretation, Scripture con-firms the idea of justification without works (or: without being circum-cized).

118 Cf. Ezek :, ; Jer : f.; Philo, QE II.; QG III. etc.

It is easily conceivable that such a radical relativization of the Jewishidentity marker circumcision must have offended many of Paul’s fellowJews. But even though the consequences may even be seen as a threat tothe traditional identity and integrity of Israel, Paul’s argument largelyremains within the context of Jewish questions and Jewish traditions:

a) Not only in his ‘Midrash’ on Abraham Paul takes his argumentfrom Scripture using the methods of contemporary Jewish interpreta-tion. Even the idea that “all have sinned” (Rom :) which is mostimportant for the proof of the invalidity of circumcision as such is takenfrom Scripture, as the catena of quotations in Rom :– shows.

b) Paul also draws on the fundamental Halachic difference betweenJews and Gentiles. Only Jews (and Proselytes) are obliged to observethe Torah. Those who are not circumcised are not obliged to do so.This is presupposed in the argument in Galatians (cf. Gal : etc.).119

c) In agreement with contemporary Judaism120 Paul presupposes theconnection of circumcision and Torah: Circumcision is not a comple-mentary act that could be added without further consequences, butimplies the obligation of Jews and Proselytes to observe not only partsof the Torah but the Torah as a whole.121 Paul differs from his opponentsonly in his more thorough or more radical view of the consequences ofsuch an additional circumcision. The only non-Jewish argument in thiscontext is that for those who have once come to salvation in Christ, anadditional circumcision would be an act of unbelief.

d) The issue of the full participation of the gentiles (or gentile con-verts) in the salvation in Christ draws and takes up in the Christiancommunities similar discussions within Diaspora Judaism. In the Jewishdiaspora there was also the question how and to what extent gentilescould enter Israel. Paul does not accept the ‘God-fearers’ pattern of areduced form of membership and obligations. Instead, in analogy tothe Jewish ‘proselytes pattern’, they should be regarded as full members

119 Cf. P.J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law. Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to theGentiles (CRINT III,), Assen/Maastricht/Minneapolis , .

120 Cf. Jos. A.J. XIII, f. f.; XX,.121 Of course, Paul’s opponents might have known that when they wanted to make

the pagan converts Jewish.

’

of the community without any reservation just as they were grantedfull salvation in Christ. If such a full membership is possible withoutcircumcision and without the obligation to observe the law, there is aredefinition of the requirements for the Gentiles to be included in the benefitsof the promise or a ‘reconfiguration’ of basically Jewish convictions andcategories.122

. The Jewish Law

The issue of circumcision is related to central problems of Paul’s view ofthe law which was the other essential identity marker of contemporaryJudaism.123

From his Pharisaic background and education, Paul had not only athorough knowledge of the Torah and its interpretation but also theexperience of living according to the law and defending it against itsopponents. From Paul’s biography we can conclude that the issue of thelaw and its relevance was a decisive issue for him and that this issue wasundoubtedly important not only before his calling but also afterwardsand in his work as an apostle. He could not do without reflecting theissue of the further relevance and practice of the law in light of his newexperience of Christ, and he most plausibly started to do so as soonas he first started preaching the new message to his fellow Jews and—probably quite early—also to gentile ‘God-fearers’.The practice and preaching of the ‘Apostle to the Gentiles’ obviously

caused conflicts with other Jewish or rather Jewish-Christian preachersand groups, and most of these conflicts were focused on the issue ofthe Law, its true interpretation and its further meaning for Jewish andGentile Christians. To Jewish contemporaries, Paul could appear as adubious figure who dissolved the law and jeopardized the identity ofthe Jews. So if it is true that Paul never abandoned his Jewish identity,we should also be able to confirm this on the basis of the intention andargument of his ‘Torah-criticism’.

122 Cf. also T.L. Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles. Remapping the Apostle’s ConvictionalWorld, Minneapolis , especially –. The reasons for this reconfiguration aresoteriological (the death of Jesus as a saving event), pneumatological (the experiencethat the spirit was given to non-circumcised people) and exegetical (priority of thepromise over the law; the believers as children of Abraham). Cf. on this A. Blaschke,Beschneidung (see note ), .

123 This is true, even though different Jewish groups did not agree on its interpreta-tion and practice.

A closer look at Paul’s statements on the Torah shows that even inhis polemical passages against ‘Judaizing’ opponents Paul never adoptselements of pagan or ‘enlightened’ criticism of the Jewish law but stayswithin the context of inner-Jewish debates.124 He draws on fundamentalaspects of the Jewish view of the Torah which he also presupposes forhis addressees:

Generally, Paul shares the view that the Torah is God’s gift to Israel (Rom :),God’s word (Rom :) and the exposition of his will (Rom : f.). It is “holy,righteous and good” (Rom :), and it can even be called “spiritual”125 (Rom:).

In accordance with numerous Jewish traditions, Paul also relates the Torahto the pre-existent order of the world126 which is also poured out into theconscience of gentiles (Rom : and : f.). Paul also knows and utilizes thetradition127 that already in the garden Adam faced the commandment of theTorah (cf. Rom :–).

In accordance with numerous Jewish traditions128 Paul regards the Torah asthe decisive norm in the Last Judgment (Rom :ff., f.; Gal :–). There-fore, the issue of its correct interpretation and true fulfillment is discussed ina forensic context.129 Even though this is often overlooked in contemporaryresearch, especially within the so-called ‘New Perspective on Paul’,130 it is fun-damental for the interpretation of Paul and it is an important aspect of agree-ment between Paul and Jewish apocalyptic thought.

124 This is correctly stated by the Jewish historian A.F. Segal, “Paul’s Jewish Presup-positions”, in J.D.G. Dunn (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul, Cambridge ,– ().

125 This is even without analogies in contemporary Judaism, cf. H. Lichtenberger, DasIch Adams und das Ich der Menschheit (WUNT ), Tübingen , –.

126 On the ‘ontology of Torah’ cf., M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus (WUNT ),Tübingen 3, ff.; on its preexistence see G. Schimanowski, Weisheit und Messias(WUNT II/), Tübingen , ff. and ff.

127 Cf. Targum Neofiti I and Jerushalmi I on Gen :; see also Jos., A.J. I §–;Philo, Legat. All I, ff.; Esra :; :. On the God’s commandments for Adam in thegarden see H. Lichtenberger, Das Ich Adams (see note ), –.

128 On the Torah as criterion in the judgment cf. Esra :, –; Bar :,–, f. According to QMMT C the “works of the law” shall be “reckonedas righteousnes”. According to K.-W. Niebuhr, “Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehrein der gegenwärtigen exegetischen Diskussion”, in T. Söding (ed.), Worum geht es in derRechtfertigungslehre? (QD ), Freiburg , – () righteousness is continuouslyrelated to the Torah.

129 This is emphasized correctly in P. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testa-ments, vol. , Göttingen , f.

130 Cf. the criticism by P. Stuhlmacher, “‘Christus Jesus ist hier, der gestorben ist,ja vielmehr der auch auferweckt ist, der zur Rechten Gottes ist und uns vertritt’”, in

’

Of course, there are also significant differences between the views ofthe apostle and the views of his fellow Jews:In accordance with his fellow Jews, Paul can say that the law was

given to protect Israel’s life131 (cf. Rom :), and he never denies itspositive intention. However, in view of the revelation of Christ, Paulis also aware of a negative effect of the law: In fact, it has increasedsin (Rom :; :ff.) and finally brought about death. There is nolaw that could bring life (Gal :). In this regard—and in comparisonwith the gospel—the law is weak and incapable (Rom : f.). This isa statement which goes beyond what most of Paul’s fellow Jews wouldhave accepted.There is an even greater difference regarding the fulfillment of the

law: Most Jewish views (except, e. g. the Essene position) presupposethat in spite of their weakness and sinfulness human beings are ableto choose the good and to keep the law.132 As an apostle, Paul takes adifferent position: No one truly fulfils the law, all human beings are sin-ners (Rom :–, ), and even the intention to do the good may leadinto the power of sin (cf. Rom :ff.). In this ‘pessimistic’ anthropol-ogy Paul differs from most of the contemporary Jewish positions.133 Butthis does not mean that his position is ‘un-Jewish’ or that he merely hasconcluded from the solution in Christ back to the alleged problem. Theobservation that some texts from Qumran attest to a similar view ofthe sinfulness of the human nature134 leads to the conclusion that suchan anthropological position could also be developed within the Jewishframework.

Some authors have pointed at unresolved tensions within Paul’s statements onthe law,135 but it does not seem very helpful to accuse the apostle of simply

F. Avemarie & H. Lichtenberger (eds.), Auferstehung—Resurrection (WUNT ), Tübingen, –.

131 Cf. Sir :; Pss. Sol. :; Bar :.132 Cf. Sir :; Pss. Sol. :–; Esra :–; m. Avot :. Cf. also the Paul’s view

before his calling als reported in Phil : f. (see also Rom :–).133 This is emphasized by T. Laato, Paul and Judaism. An Anthropological Approach,

Atlanta .134 Cf., e.g. QS : f.; QM :; :; QHa V f. (numbering according to

Hartmut Stegemann). Cf. the fundamental study by J. Becker, Das Heil Gottes (SUNT ),Göttingen ; see also J. Frey, “Flesh and Spirit” (see note ).

135 These were emphasized chiefly by H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law (WUNT ),Tübingen 2.

being illogical,136 neither can the assumption of a ‘development’ in Paul’s ideas(e. g. from Galatians to Romans) solve the numerous difficulties of his theol-ogy.137 In my view, Paul’s position on the law can only be understood againstthe biographical background of his Pharisaic education138 and the fundamen-tal experience of his calling.139 Furthermore, the differences regarding situa-tion and argument of the epistles must be considered: Of course, some issues(e.g. the circumcision of Gentile converts) were raised by the ongoing missionand its conflicts, and some aspects can be interpreted only in the respectivepolemical context. But basically we should assume that Paul was able to reflectthe relation between Christ and the Torah more fundamentally than othermissionaries and that he needed to consider the matters quite soon after hisDamascus experience.

The main issue is whether and in which way the Torah is still validafter the ‘fulness of time’ (Gal :) and the appearance of Christ andhow the relation between the law and the crucified and risen Christ canbe determined. In the present context we cannot discuss the numerousproblems of Paul’s position in greater detail.In view of his biography, one aspect is of fundamental relevance:

From his calling experience Paul had to see that the community ofthose whom God regards as ‘righteous’ had been redefined by Godhimself, more precisely: by his eschatological act of the resurrection of

136 Cf. the criticism of Räisänen’s position by T.E. van Spanje, Inconsistency in Paul?(WUNT II/), Tübingen .

137 The view that the Pauline position on law and justification is a late develop-ment (and therefore only marginal) was already put forward by W. Wrede, Paulus (seenote ), ff. The view was renewed more recently, e.g., by G. Strecker, “Befreiung undRechtfertigung. Zur Stellung der Rechtfertigungslehre in der Theologie des Paulus”,in J. Friedrich et al. (eds.), Rechtfertigung, FS Ernst Käsemann, Tübingen/Göttingen, –; H. Hübner, Das Gesetz bei Paulus. Ein Beitrag zum Werden der paulinischenTheologie (FRLANT ), Göttingen ; U. Schnelle, Wandlungen im paulinischen Denken(SBS ), Stuttgart . A thorough criticism of that view can be found in F. Hahn,“Gibt es eine Entwicklung in den Aussagen über die Rechtfertigung bei Paulus?”, inStudien zum Neuen Testament, vol. (WUNT ), Tübingen , –; R. v. Bende-mann, “‘Frühpaulinisch’ und/oder ‘spätpaulinisch’? Erwägungen zu der These einerEntwicklung der paulinischen Theologie am Beispiel des Gesetzesverständnisses”, EvT (), –. See also note .

138 Gal : mentions the tradition of the Fathers; cf. also Mark :–. Here we cansee traces of Pharisaic thought (cf. Jos., A.J. XIII § and f.).

139 Cf. M. Hengel, “The Stance of the Apostle Paul Toward the Law in the UnknownYears Between Damascus and Antioch”, in D.A. Carson, P.T. O’Brien & M.A. Seifrid(eds.), Justification and variegated nomism. Vol. : The paradoxes of Paul (WUNT II/),Tübingen , –. The relevance of the biographical aspects is most recentlystressed also by U. Schnelle, “Paulus und das Gesetz”, in E.-M. Becker & P. Pilhofer(eds.), Biographie und Persönlichkeit des Paulus (WUNT ), Tübingen , –.

’

the crucified one. According to Paul’s new insight, God exalted andenthroned precisely the one who had been under the curse of the Law.Thus, the legitimate judgment on the crucified one appeared to beannulled, the curse was now revoked, and Paul had to adopt a com-pletely new view of Jesus as the Lord. Moreover, Paul himself was calledwithout any reference to his life according to the Law, he was evenstopped and ‘converted’ at the precise moment when he was activelydefending God’s Law against its alleged enemies. And he was com-missioned despite the fact that he obviously had fought against God’seschatological will. So he could find himself as an enemy (Rom :)who was considered righteous “without the law”. Consequently, the“works according to the law” had to be considered irrelevant for sal-vation in the light of his Damascus experience. For the former per-secutor, “the encounter with the Resurrected One near Damascus setbefore him the question of the law or Christ in the form of a soteriolog-

ical alternative”.140 This is true, even if this alternative is phrased onlyin his later epistles.141 Thus, the overwhelming experience of the ‘rev-elation of Christ’ caused a fundamental ‘reconfiguration’ of the wholesystem of Paul’s religious convictions. This is the basis of Paul’s rela-tivization of circumcision and the root of his later critical statements onthe Torah.On the other hand it is important to see that there is no abroga-

tio legis. The Torah is still the document of God’s holy will, it has tobe observed (Rom :) and it will remain the norm in the Last Judg-ment. And even though Paul can refer to love as “the fulfillment ofthe law” (Rom :) he would not accept the reduction of the lawto merely one single principle.142 Neither does Paul introduce a criti-cal distinction within the Law, e.g. between ethical and cultic dimen-sions or between Halakhot that should be observed literally and otherswhich can only be understood allegorically. For Paul, the Law is—andremains—a whole, and it still has to be observed. But on the otherhand, Paul can say that “Christ is the end of the Law so that theremay be righteousness for everyone who believes” (Rom :). The apo-ria remains: In what respect has the Law come to an end? One answer

140 Thus M. Hengel, “The Stance of the Apostle Paul” (see note ), .141 On the problem of the chronology of Paul’s letters and the difficulty of recon-

structing a development in his thought cf. also M. Hengel and A.M. Schwemer, PaulBetween Damascus and Antioch (see note ), –.

142 On this view, which has often been held by Protestant interpreters, cf. F. Hahn,Theologie des Neuen Testaments, vol. , Tübingen 2, f.

may be, that it cannot serve any more as a means of separation betweenJews and Gentiles, since in Christ “ther is neither Jew nor Greek (…)”(Gal :).It is remarkable that Paul obviously accepts the observance of the

Law (as he accepts circumcision) by Jewish Christians. This is true,even though he might have been able to disregard the Halakha inhis own encounter with Gentiles.143 He only objects when the legalpractice of Jewish Christians questions or even threatens the unlimitedmembership of Gentile Christians in the undivided community. Butjust as Paul in Galatians defends their full right to participate in thecommunal life, he also advocates the full right of Jewish Christians tomaintain their way of life (by vegetarianism and observing the Sabbath)in Romans –. It has often been overlooked that the Apostle to theGentiles not only defends the rights of the Gentiles but also protects theJewish Christians’ practice of their lifestyle without being discriminatedagainst or condemned by other ‘stronger’ Christians.144 He does so,even though he is convinced that the observance of days and the purityof food is soteriologically irrelevant. For Paul, “the ritual law becamean adiaphoron”. “He could keep it for the sake of love”,145 but he feltfree from it and from the ‘boundary markers’ such as circumcision andpurity in the missionary work among Gentiles. Therefore, “his priorJewish friends and confederates in the Greek-speaking synagogues”probably “regarded him as an apostate”.146

In ‘mixed’ communities in which Jewish Christians lived togetherwith an increasing number of Gentile Christians, Paul’s own viewsand his missionary practice inevitably provided a serious challenge,especially for those Jewish Christians who were still convinced thatas circumcised people they had to observe the Law. When they wereexpected to accept the Gentile converts as equal members of the com-munity and to set aside the restrictions which normally ruled the rela-tions between Jews and Gentiles, they were actually challenged to con-sider the ritual law as an adiaphoron. For Paul, the unity of the commu-nity from Jews and Gentiles was the most essential aspect, and the legalpractice of Jewish Christians, the boundaries marked by circumcision

143 Cf. the principle ‘to the Jews a Jew and to the gentiles a gentile’ (Cor : f.).144 On the issue of the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ in Romans cf. most recently V. Gäckle,

Die Starken und die Schwachen in Korinth und Rom (WUNT II/), Tübingen .145 Thus M. Hengel, The Stance of the Apostle Paul (see note ), .146 M. Hengel, The Stance of the Apostle Paul (see note ), .

’

and purities, were inferior. However, the aporia could not be resolved.Freedom from the Law for Gentile Christians on the one hand andunity with Jewish Christians in community life and meals on the othercould not be maintained, although Paul had struggled for both. TheAntioch incident (Gal :–) was the turning point. Since then, Paulwas quite lonely in his work, and the subsequent conflicts in Galatiaand elsewhere only demonstrate the increasing problems of his positionwith regard to the Jewish Law.

VI. C

Paul never converted from ‘Judaism’ to ‘Christianity’. If—in spite ofPaul’s preference for the calling terminology—the term ‘conversion’may be used for his Damascus experience, it may be seen as a con-version from one type of Judaism to another.147 On the other hand,by the experience and revelation of Christ, the Pharisee was led to aradical ‘reconfiguration’ of the criteria of salvation. Soteriologically theparticular identity markers of Israel, law and circumcision, had becomeworthless. Consequently they have also lost their ‘ecclesiological’ mean-ing and their separating power in the new community of believers fromIsrael and the nations.From the Jewish perspective this was certainly a fundamental rela-

tivization of the most important aspects of Jewish identity which couldnot be accepted by the majority of his fellow Jews (and Jewish Chris-tians). The aporia is aptly phrased by W.D. Davies: “To Jews and Jew-ish Christians he doubtless appeared as an apostate from Judaism, buthe himself thought of himself as a Hebrew from the Hebrews.”148 Eventhough Paul relentlessly worked for the unity of Jewish and GentileChristians, it may well be the case that he actually contributed moreto the later split between the increasingly Gentile church and JewishChristianity.

147 Thus A.F. Segal, Paul the Convert (see note ).148 W.D. Davies, “Paul: From a Jewish Point of View”, (see note ), ; cf. J.M.G.

Barclay, “Paul among Diaspora Jews: Anomaly or Apostate?”, JSNT (), –.