A “NoN-ETHNIC” PEoPlE? 103 ther Jew nor Greek’”, and where “ethnic identity was irrelevant” 7. Barclay’s statement alludes to precisely Gal 3,26-29, a fact which suggests that this passage is a good focus of attention. This essay contributes to the debate by entering into critical dia- logue with some of Buell’s and Hodge’s main claims and premises. I begin by drawing attention to the fact that they base their case on observations that are open to an alternative interpretation, which has not been given adequate treatment by them. More specifically, I will argue 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 will 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 expla- nation 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. My claim is that this makes good sense of Paul’s argument, and that it also allows us to retain and re-articulate some of Buell’s and Hodge’s most important insights. II. Buell’s and Hodge’s Interpretation of Gal 3,26-29 A key premise in Buell’s and Hodge’s critique of the traditional view is their claim that notions of ethnicity are “social constructs” and thus “fluid”. They highlight that ethnic identity is a dynamic concept which is open to negotiation, reconstruction, and change: “instead of presupposing that ethnicity and race are fixed aspects of identity, we ap- proach these concepts as dynamic social constructs” 8. This open, dynamic and fluid notion of ethnicity has implications for how specific texts are interpreted. An implication of Buell’s and Hodge’s definition of ethnicity is that identity as a “Jew” and identity as “descendant of Abraham”, as these terms are used in Gal 3,26-29, are both ethnic identities. This conclusion is possible since they both claim that putative physical kinship should not be considered default for ethnic identity. Rather, Buell writes that ethnicity has only one “necessary criterion”, and that is a “dynamic interplay between fixity and fluidity” 9. Nota- bly, Buell allows that the “fixed” part of this “dynamic interplay” 7 J.M.G. BARClAY, “Paul among Diaspora Jews. Anomaly or Apostate?”, JSNT 60 (1995) 89-120, here 104. 8 BuEll – HoDGE, “Politics of Interpretation”, 236. 9 BuEll, Why This New Race?, 9.