Ole Jakob Filtvedt, «A "Non-Ethnic" People?», Vol. 97 (2016) 101-120
This article engages critically with some recent re-interpretations of ethnic language in Paul, as represented by D.K. Buell and C.J. Hodge. I begin by arguing that their case against a metaphorical interpretation of Paul is weak, in that it is based on a problematic understanding of what metaphors are. Turning to Galatians, I attempt to demonstrate that, although Buell and Hodge correctly identify a paradox in Paul’s argument pertaining to his use of ethnic terminology, their own explanation of this paradox is unsatisfying. The essay ends with an attempt to approach the paradox in Paul’s argument from the perspective of a metaphorical reading of Paul.
A “Non-Ethnic” People?
I. Engaging a Fresh Trend within New Testament Research
There is no doubt that several texts stemming from the early Jesus
movement claim that the followers of Jesus somehow constitute a
“people”. Terms like lao,j, ge,noj and e,;qnoj are occasionally used to
construct a shared sense of identity for the followers of Jesus, and
phrases like “children of God” and “descendants of Abraham” are also
sometimes used for the same purpose 1. How the use of such termino-
logy should be interpreted, however, has been the source of much dis-
agreement. Traditionally, many have assumed that ethnic terms are
employed by the followers of Jesus but not to denote an ethnic identity
— hence the title of this essay. Recent times have witnessed several
important contributions to the discussion of “ethnic reasoning” within
the early Jesus movement, which have sought to challenge this tradi-
tional view 2. This article engages this fresh trend and will focus par-
ticularly on the works of Denise K. Buell and Caroline J. Hodge 3.
1
Cf. Acts 15,14-16; Romans 4; 9,23-26; Galatians 3–4, 1 Pet 2,8-10. Note,
though, that the terms ge,noj and e,;qnoj are only used rarely in the New Testament
for followers of Jesus. Translations are from New American Bible Revised
Edition (NABRE) unless otherwise indicated.
2
The term “ethnic reasoning” has been coined by D.K. BuEll, Why This New
Race? Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity (New York 2005) 2, and signifies
a set of discursive strategies used to construe collective identity in terms of people-
hood. Another recent and important contribution to the topic of ethnic reasoning
worth mentioning is l.l. SECHREST, A Former Jew. Paul and the Dialectics of
Race (lNTS 410; london 2009).
3
Buell’s most important contribution is the monograph, Why This New Race?,
mentioned in the footnote above. However, she has also written several important
journal articles: “Constructing Early Christian Identities using Ethnic Reasoning”,
ASE 24.1 (2007) 87-101; “Race and universalism in Early Christianity”, JECS 10
(2002) 429-468; “Rethinking the Relevance of Race for Early Christian Self-
Definition”, HTR 94 (2001) 449-476; “Ethnicity and Religion in Mediterranean
Antiquity and Beyond”, RSR 26 (2000) 243-249; “Producing Descent/Dissent.
Clement of Alexandria’s use of Filial Metaphors as Intra-Christian Polemic”, HTR
90 (1997) 89-104. C.J. HoDGE, has written a monograph on the issue, focusing on
Paul: If Sons, Then Heirs. A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the letters of Paul
(oxford 2007). In addition, she has written a relevant article on Paul’s identity:
“Apostle to the Gentiles. Constructions of Paul’s Identity”, BI 13 (2005) 270-288.
BiBlica 97.1 (2016) 101-120