Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T06:57:13.436Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paul and the People of Israel*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

W. D. Davies
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

To understand the Apostle Paul's attitude to his own people, it is necessary to place it in the perspective of his interpretation of the Gospel as a whole. Two main approaches to this have been taken. There are those who see Paul's point of departure in his conviction that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and in the transformation of the understanding of the messianic condition which this demanded. Others point out that in his epistles Paul seems to be most concerned, not with the messiahship of Jesus, but with the criticism of the Law, that Paul's call (misnamed a ‘conversion’) arose from a new insight into the meaning, function and weakness of the Law (and with this, the insight into the nature of the self), not from a new concept of messiahship. They claim that Judaism, always tolerant of diversity of belief even in messianic claimants, could absorb Paul's paradoxical doctrine of a crucified Messiah but could not overlook Paul's acceptance of Gentiles, sinners who did not observe the Law, as members of the people of God. This passed the limits of Jewish tolerance and brought down upon the Apostle the wrath of his own people. The two positions indicated are too polarized. The immediate cause of the Jewish opposition to Paul centred in the Law. But his understanding of the Law was inextricably bound up with the significance which he had come to ascribe to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah and with the challenge that this issued to all the fundamental symbols of Jewish life. To isolate the criticism of the Law from the total messianic situation as Paul conceived it is both to exaggerate and to trivialize it. That criticism was a derivative of the place which Paul ascribed to Jesus as the Messiah.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , October 1977 , pp. 4 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 4 note 1 Menoud, P. H., ‘Revelation and Tradition: The Influence of Paul's Conversion on his Theology’, Interpretation 7 (1953), 131–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 4 note 2 Dupont, J., ‘La conversion de Paul et son influence sur sa conception du salut par la foi’, Analecta Biblica 42 (1970), 67–88Google Scholar; discussion on pp. 88–100. An English version appeared in Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce on his 60th Birthday (ed. W.W. Gasque and R. P. Martin; Grand Rapids, 1970), pp. 176–94Google Scholar; see also Smith, Morton, ‘The Reason for the Persecution of Paul and the Obscurity of Acts’, Studies in Mysticism and Religion Presented to Gershom G. Scholem (Jerusalem, 1967), pp. 261–8.Google ScholarBornkamm, G., Paul, English translation (New York, 1969), pp. 13–25Google Scholar, finds the meaning of the ‘conversion’ in Phil. iii. 7–9 (pp. 16 ff.).Google Scholar Although he recognizes that it concerned the discovery of ‘who Jesus really was’ (p. 23), he does not deal strictly with the messiahship of Jesus. On the impropriety of using the term ‘conversion’ rather than the ‘call’ of Paul, see Stendahl, K., Paul among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia, 1976), pp. 7–23.Google Scholar For the reasons for the Jews' rejection of the Christian movement, see Hare, D. R. A., The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St Matthew, SNTS Monograph 6 (Cambridge University Press, 1967), pp. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The obvious example is Akiba's accepting Bar Kokba's messiahship and yet remaining within Judaism.

page 5 note 1 Dahl, Nils A., ‘Die Messianität Jesu bei Paulus’, Studia Paulina in honorem Johannis de Zwaan (Haarlem, 1953), pp. 83–95.Google ScholarEnglish translation in The Crucified Messiah and Other Essays (Minneapolis, 1974), PP. 37–47.Google Scholar

page 5 note 2 See my ‘From Schweitzer to Scholem: Reflections on Sabbatai Svi’, J.B.L. 95, no. 4 (1976), pp. 529–58.Google Scholar

page 5 note 3 This helps explain the comparative paucity of passages dealing directly with God in the New Testament. See Dahl, N. A., ‘The Neglected Factor in New Testament Theology’, Reflection, New Haven (November 1975), sections 5–8Google Scholar; and now Wire, A. C., Pauline Theology as an Understanding of God; The Explicit and the Implicit, Diss. Xerox, University Microfilms, Michigan, 1974.Google Scholar

page 5 note 4 See Dibelius, Martin, Paul, English translation (Philadelphia, 1963), pp. 51–2Google Scholar and my Invitation to the New Testament (New York, 1965), pp. 260–2.Google Scholar

page 5 note 5 The question of the genuineness of II Thessalonians is still open. Rigaux, B., Les épitres aux Thessaloniciens (Paris, 1965)Google Scholar, and Best, E., The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (New York, 1972) accept it.Google ScholarTrilling, W., Untersuchungen zum Zweiten Thessalonicherbrief (Leipzig, 1972), takes it to be Deutero-Pauline.Google Scholar

page 6 note 1 See especially B. Rigaux, Ibid. p. 453, and E. Best, Ibid. p. 121: the former favours the translation ‘pour la fin’ (the eschatological end) and the latter ‘finally’.

page 6 note 2 Pearson, B. A., ‘I Thessalonians 2:13–16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation’, H.T.R. 65 (1971), 79–94.Google Scholar On the literary structure of I Thessalonians as pointing to I Thess. ii.13–16 as an interpolation, Boers, Hendrikus, ‘The Form Critical Study of Paul's Letters: I Thessalonians as “a Case Study”’, N.T.S. 22 (1976), 140–58.Google ScholarMoffatt, J., An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testa-ment (Edinburgh, 1918), p. 73Google Scholar, rejecting the view that all of verses 14–16 were interpolated (his bibliographical details are valuable here), suggested that 16c was a marginal gloss, provoked by the horrors of the fall of Jerusalem. Rigaux, Ibid. p. 456, rightly rejects this.

page 7 note 1 So most recently Rigaux, Best and Coppens, J., ‘Miscellanées bibliques LXXX. Une diatribe anti-juive dans 1 Thess. 11: 13–16’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, annum 51, fasc. 1 (Mai, 1976), 90–5.Google Scholar

page 7 note 2 Michel, O., Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament, hrsg. Eckert, von W. P., Levinson, N. P., Stöhr, M. (Munich, 1967), p. 58, rightly says that our passage reflects certain experiences Paul had when a missionary to the Jewish diaspora.Google Scholar

page 7 note 3 Compare Steck, O. H., Israel and des gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zu Spätjudentum and Urchristentum (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten and Neuen Testament, Bd. 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1967), pp. 267 f.Google Scholar

page 7 note 4 Bammel, E., ‘Judenverfolgung and Naherwartung’, Zeitschriftfür Theologie and Kirche 56 (1959), 294–315.Google Scholar

page 8 note 1 See p. 5 n. 5, above.

page 8 note 2 On these terms see Schmidt, K. L., Die. Judenfrage im Lichte der Kapitel 9–11 des Römerbriefs. Theologische Studien, hrsg. Barth, von Karl, Heft 13 (Zürich, 1947), pp. 3–25Google Scholar; Georgi, D., Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief, WMANT 2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1964), pp. 51–63Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., The Second Epùtle to the Corinthians (New York, 1973), pp. 293–5.Google Scholar Georgi and Barrett understand ‘the Hebrews’ and ‘theIsraeli tes’ in a broadly similar way.The point is that Paul in I Thess. ii.13–16 does not use the term ‘Hebrews’ with the ethnic or familial connotation of a people of Palestinian origin, culture, tradition and religion nor the term ‘Israelites’ with the connotation of a people of the Jewish faith particularly, but the more generalized term ‘Jews’.Where he seeks to emphasize the specifically ethnic and religious dimensions of ‘the Jews’ he speaks of the Hebrews and the Israelites and again of the ‘seed of Abraham’. On the significance of this phrase which occurs in Gal. iii. 29, II Cor. Xi. 22, and Rom. ix. 7; xi. I, Georgi and Barrett differ, the latter being most probably to be followed.

page 8 note 3 Rom. ix.1–6. Compare the excellent study by Trocmé, E., ‘Le Christianisme primitif, un mythe historique?’ in études théologiques et religieuses, Revue Trimestrielle (Montpellier, 1974), quarante-neuvième année, I, 19.Google Scholar

page 9 note 1 Paul's dependence in I. Thess. on ‘Christian vocabulary’ is shown by Rigaux, B., ‘Vocabulaire chrétien antérieure à la première épitre aux Thessaloniciens’, in Sacra Pagina, Miscellanea Biblica, 2 vols. (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, vols. 12–13; ed. J. Coppens, A. Descamps. E. Massaux; Gembloux, 1959), II, 380–9. Riga's observations do not necessarily exclude our proposal.Google Scholar

page 10 note 1 Stendahl, K., ‘Judaism and Christianity: Then and Now’, in New Theology no. 2 edited by Marty, M. E. and Pearman, Dean G. (Macmillan, New York. no date), p. 161.Google Scholar See especially his ‘The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West’, H.T.R. 56 (1963), 199–215.Google Scholar On the emphasis on the cross in Galatians, see Gaventa, Beverly, M. Div. thesis, Union Theological Seminary, New York (1971)Google Scholar; Duncan, G. S., The Epistle to the Galatians (London, 1934), pp. xli–xliii.Google Scholar

page 10 note 2 See especially Richardson, P., Israel in the Apostolic Age, SNTS Monograph Series, 10 (Cambridge, 1969), p. 79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarHe thinks that ‘Israel of God’ in Gal. vi.16 refers to ‘an Israel [of God] within [all] Israel’ (p. 82).Google Scholar The most recent commentator, Mussner, F., Der Galaterbrief (Frieburg, 1974), ad remGoogle Scholar, questions this limitation (of Israel of God) to a part of Israel and identifies ‘Israel of God’ with πãς 'σραήλ of Rom. xi. 26 (p. 417 n. 61). But since Paul's use of Israel in Rom. ix-xi is not uniform (contrast Rom. ix. 6 to xi. 26 and to xi. 5 ff.) the decision cannot be made with certainty. Note also that Burton, E. de Witt (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. International Critical Commentary, Edinburgh, 1921)Google Scholar, when dealing with Gal. vi. 16 (like Mussner) could also refer to Rom. ix–xi, that is xi. 5, so as to get another interpretation of ‘Israel of God’ in Gal. vi. 16 (‘not… the whole Jewish nation, but…the pious Israel…including even those who had not seen the truth as Paul saw it’, p. 358); cf. Richardson.

On the other hand the interpretation of Gal. vi. 16 as referring to the church of Jews and Gentiles has recently been advocated by Luz, U., Das Geschichtsverständnis bei Paulus (Munich, 1968), p. 269Google Scholar; cf. my The Gospel and the Land; Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine (Berkeley, 1974), p. 171 n. 18. As Luz rightly says, Gal. vi. 16 is the only passage in the Pauline letters which could have the meaning ‘Israel of God’ = church of Jews and Gentiles. If this proposal were correct one would have expected to find support for it in Rom. ix–xi where Paul extensively deals with ‘Israel’.Google Scholar

page 11 note 1 See Georgi, D., op. cit., p. 8 n. 2.Google Scholar

page 11 note 2 See Davies, W. D., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge University Press, 1964), p. 179 n. 1.Google Scholar

page 12 note 1 Barrett, C. K., From First Adam to Last: A Study in Pauline Theology (London, 1962), p. 52 n. 1Google Scholar; A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (New York, 1973), pp. 110–26, 118–19.Google ScholarSee p. 38 n. 1 below for the work of Sanders, J. A..Google Scholar

page 12 note 2 See Unnik, W. C. van, ‘La conception paulinienne de la nouvelle alliance’, in Littérature et Théologie Pauliniennes, Recherches Bibliques v (Bruges, 1960), 109–26, 224 f.Google Scholar; see also his ‘H KαıνήΔıαθήκη: A problem in the early history of the Canon’, in Studia Patristica, 4, ed. Cross, F. L.Text und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 79 (Berlin, 1961).Google Scholar He notes the neglect of this theme in Pauline studies. Compare Cranfield, van Unnikowith C. E. B., ‘St Paul and the Law’. Scottish Journal of Theology 17 (1964), 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar But contrast Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘Saint Paul and the Law,’ The jurist 27 no. 1 (Washington D.C. January 1967) p. 22 n. 11.Google Scholar Emphasis on the notion of the new covenant was so strong in early Christianity that both Bonsirven, Joseph, Le Judaïsme Palestinien (Paris, 1934–1935), 1, 79 f.Google Scholar and Schoeps, H. J., Theologie und Geschichte des, judenchristentums (Tübingen, 1949), p. 90Google Scholar, claim that it led to a neglect or muting of that theme in rabbinic Judaism. Compare also Gottfried Quell, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum N.T. 2. See also Harris-ville, Roy A., The Concept of Newness in the New Testament (Minneapolis, 1960), pp. 46 ff.Google Scholar For the covenant in Judaism see the exhaustive study by Jaubert, Annie, La Notion d'Alliance dans le Judaïsme aux abords de l'ère Chrétienne (Paris, 1963).Google ScholarDrane, J. W., Paul, Libertine or Legalist (London, 1975), pp. 72–4Google Scholar, cites Hughes, P. E., Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, 1962), p. 100Google Scholar, to support his view that Paul is concerned in II Cor. iii, in his distinction between gramma and pneuma, to assert that it is here ‘the difference between the Law as externally written at Sinai on tablets of stone and the same law as written internally in the heart of the Christian believer’. We might substitute covenant for Law in this sentence.

page 12 note 3 Barrett, C. K., ‘Pauline Controversies in the Post-Pauline Period’, N.T.S. 20 (1974), 230.Google Scholar

page 13 note 1 Rom. x. 18–21. Contrast Munck, J., Christ and Israel (Philadelphia, 1967), p. 9.Google Scholar

page 13 note 2 Rom. xiii. 11–14.

page 13 note 3 For the cosmic and human rather than simply ‘Jewish’ scope of Paul's thought in Romans, see D. Georgi in a forthcoming chapter on Paul from the Greek point of view in The Cambridge History of Judaism, volume II. For the interpretation of Rom. ix–xi see below p. 14 n. 3.

page 14 note 1 The most convenient discussion is still that of J. Munck, Christ and Israel; see also U. Luz, Das Geschichtsverständnis.

page 14 note 2 It is not necessary here to enter into the literary history of various parts of the epistle (see especially Scroggs, R.), ‘Paul as Rhetorician: Two Homilies in Romans 9–11’ in Jews, Greeks and Christians, Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity (vol. xxi of Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, ed. J. Neusner), ed. R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs (Leiden, 1976), pp. 270–98.Google Scholar

page 14 note 3 The precise relation of the sections ix–xi and i–viii must be carefully considered because of the significance given to it recently by K. Stendahl. This relationship is highly problematic. The interpretations proposed for it - not here exhaustively canvassed - divide roughly as follows.

(i) There is a break between the two sections. Paul has not made this break as clear as that in iii. 1, because of his extreme sensitivity in dealing with the Jewish question (see Munck, J., Christ and Israel, p. 28Google Scholar, and especially Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 226Google Scholar). Originally ix–xi constituted a separate entity, possibly an independent sermon or homily which the apostle frequently used and gradually refined in his churches before he composed his epistle. He has here inserted it after the massive presentation of his understanding of the gospel in i–viii; viii. 39 is more naturally followed by xii. 1 than by ix. 1. Possibly Paul had it in mind to use his old ‘sermon’ as he was composing the epistle. True, ix–xi are not a merely alien interpolation, but the section can be understood in isolation. It is essentially an appendix on the Jewish question to the more central themes of i–viii. See especially Dodd, C. H., Romans, pp. 148–50.Google Scholar

(2) Chapters ix–xi are a commentary on Paul's fundamental concern, justification by faith, ex-pounded in i–viii. This doctrine is applied to the special case of the Jewish people in ix–xi. This view relates the latter more closely to i–viii than does the first interpretation and yet subordinates the Jewish question to the more central one of justification by faith. See Bornkamm, G., Paul, English translation (New York, 1971), p. 149Google Scholar, and especially Käsemann, E., An die Römer, pp. 241–4.Google Scholar Käse-mann entitles ix–xi as ‘The Righteousness of God and the Problem of Israel’, thus fully integrating it with i–viii, which deals with the righteousness of God in other connections. The issue which supplies continuity between i–viii and ix–xi is the faithfulness of God. Compare Barrett, C. K., Romans, p. 175: he writes ‘… chapters ix–xi are not at all concerned with Paul's patriotic sentiments, but with the character and deeds of God who elected the Jews and now calls the Gentiles’.Google Scholar Is not this too unqualified? Leenhardt, F. J., op. cit. p. 242Google Scholar, does justice to both the faithfulness of God to his promise and to ‘the bonds of blood’ in ix–xi. Sanday and Headlam, op. cit. pp, 225–6Google Scholar, also find the concentration in ix–xi on the rejection of the Jews, as Michel, does O., Der Brief an die Römer (Göttingen, 1955), p. 190.Google Scholar

(3) Käsemann, , op. cit. p. 242Google Scholar, points out that the emphasis on the relation between ix–xi and i–viii in terms of justification by faith understood eschatologically, which has re-emerged with force especially in recent German studies by Stuhlmacher and others, was sidetracked as early as F. C. Baur, who, placing ix–xi in the context of the struggle between universalism and particularism in early Christianity, opened the way for the separation of ix–xi from the doctrine of justification, and thus to Schweitzer's insistence on that doctrine as a secondary crater in Paulinism. This approach has been carried farther by Stendahl, K. (see Paul among Jews and Gentiles, Philadelphia, 1976).Google ScholarAssuming the national approach to ix–xi as did Sanday and Headlam, op. cit. pp. 226, 341Google Scholar, and others, that is, that Paul was there concerned, not with a multitude of individual Jews, but with the Jewish people as a totality, and dismissing what he regards as an excessive concentration on the pangs of individual conscience in Western Christianity in its understanding of justification by faith, Stendahl insists that Rom. ix–xi is not an appendix to chapters i–viii but the climax of the latter. There are of course other approaches to ix–xi, such as that by P. Minear, The Obedience of Faith, or by Robin Scroggs. The brief but illuminating treatment of the relation between i–viii and ix–xi by Bruce, F. F., Romans, pp. 181–4Google Scholar, is especially valuable because it takes into account with admirable clarity many of the considerations which emerge in the various views indicated.

Our treatment does not directly depend on the acceptance of any one of the enumerated views. We have noted these here in order to show how uncertain must be any reconstruction of Paulinism. Stendahl has dramatically reopened the discussion. It is not necessary to deny to Paul the pangs of conscience which, in whatever terms expressed, are surely human and not merely Western Christian. But Stendahl is justified in refusing to find in the justification of the individual by faith the core of Paulinism. He is also right to insist that Paul was intensely concerned with Israel as a totality, the Jewish people as such, and not with a multitude of individual Jews. But is he right in finding the essential focus of Paulinism in that concern and in the concern to justify ‘the status of Gentile Christians as honorary Jews’ (Paul among Jews and Gentiles, p. 5)? Paul's engagement with the rejection of the gospel by his own people and their ultimate destiny was a very important part of his immediate concern throughout his ‘Christian’ career. That engagement has, therefore, an inescapable prominence in his epistles, especially the polemical ones. Stendahl has enlightened us at this point. He is right in what he asserts. But polemic - including Stendahl's own - usually distorts. The centre of gravity for Paul was the messiahship of Jesus and its implications. It was this fact which ultimately gave rise to the very question of the relation between Jews and Gentiles in the church: the messiah-ship must be regarded as the central focus of his ultimate concern, of which his other concerns were secondary derivatives. Neither Paul's undeniable emphasis on justification by faith (whether under-stood in individual or other terms) nor on the question of Israel must be allowed to shift the centre of gravity for him from the act of God in Christ to redeem the totality of humankind and of nature (II Cor. v. 19; Rom. viii. 18–39). Is Stendahl in danger of failing to do justice both to a necessary, individual, personal dimension in Paul, and (although he refers to God's plan for the world, p. 27) to an altogether cosmic one because of his too isolated concentration on the Jewish-Gentile question, important as this was? That other aspects of Stendahl's immensely stimulating work need careful consideration before receiving endorsement will appear above. Stendahl warns us that he is merely being playful (p. viii). If so, one can hardly think that he is not serious in his play, and he too must be judged accordingly.

In all this I have been much helped by correspondence with Professor John Knox, although he should not be held responsible for any views here expressed. His understanding of Romans is set forth in the moving work Life in Christ; Reflections on Romans 5–8 (Greenwich, Conn., 1961)Google Scholar. He finds the heart of the epistle in those chapters. See also his commentary on Romans in the IB.

The adjective πίσℸος does not occur of God in Romans, but his faithfulness is conveyed by the insistence that his promise is firm or valid (iv. 16, 21; see especially xi. 29) and that God is άληθής (iii. 4, 7). It is impossible that God's word should prove false (ix. 6). The appeal to the patriarchs in xi. 28 looks back to chapter 4: the calling of God is irrevocable: the coming of Christ as a servant to the Jewish people is βεβαıσαı τάς έπαγγελίας τν πατέρων (xv. 8).

page 16 note 1 Cullmann, O., ‘Le caractére eschatologique du devoir missionaire et de la conscience apostolique de Saint Paul’, Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 16 (1936), 210–45Google Scholar, followed by Munck, J., Paulus and die Heilsgeschichte, Acta Jutlandica, Publications of the University of Aarhus, 36, I, Teologisk Serie 6 (Copenhagen, 1954).Google Scholar

page 16 note 2 The meaning of ‘all Israel’ has been much discussed. With most, we take it to refer to the whole people of the Jews, including the remnant, but not necessarily every individual Jew. See Munck, J., Christ and Israel, op. cit. p. 136.Google Scholar Paul is throughout sensitive to the existence and significance of those Jews who have already become Christians. This explains his careful insertion of άπο μέρονς in xi. 25. (But it is important also to note that the remnant exists for the whole.) See also iv. 16, xv. 7.

page 16 note 3 See my Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1971 edition), pp. 293–5.Google Scholar

page 17 note 1 Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York, 1957), p. 257.Google Scholar The exact translation of οτως in Rom. xi. 26 is disputed. Is it to be understood temporally as the context seems especially to suggest? (Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, , A Greek Lexicon to the New Testament, Cambridge University Press, 1952.Google Scholar) There are parallels for such a temporal use; see John iv. 6. οτως would then be the equivalent of τότε So Käsemann and many others. Luz, U., Das Geschichtsverständnis des Paulus (Munich, 1968), p. 294Google Scholar, rejects this. The οτως according to him refers to the manneroflsrael's salvation (that is, it will be under the conditions indicated by Paul) not to its chronology: Israel will be saved in an unexpected and paradoxical manner. Compare Ridderbos, H., Paulus (Wuppertal, 1970), p. 253.Google Scholar But even so, the reconciliation of Israel does come after the incoming of the Gentiles. This together with the express reference to time in xi. 25 lends probability to a temporal meaning for οτως. This does not exclude the force of what Luz urges, but is compatible with it. Compare Stuhlmacher, P., ‘Zur Interpretation von Römer 11: 25–32’ in Probleme biblischer Theologie, Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag, hrsg. Wolff, von. H. W. (Munich, 1971), pp. 560–1.Google Scholar

page 18 note 1 Reuther, Rosemary, Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism (New York, 1974), pp. 95–107, especially p. 104.Google Scholar

page 18 note 2 Paul's claim to be έκ γένους 'ίσραήλ cannot be greatly pressed: it is parallel to φνλής βενιαμίν and, referring to a people or a nation, has no ‘racial’ connotation. So Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, , A Greek Lexicon, p. 155.Google Scholar The precise nature of the hatred of Jews in the first century is highly complex. Sevenster uses the term anti-Semitism for it, The Roots of Pagan Antisemitism in the Ancient World (Leiden, 1975).Google Scholar Even so, there is a qualitative difference between its expression in the twentieth and previous centuries. See Samuel, Maurice, The Great Hatred (New York, 1940).Google Scholar For bibliography on pagan antisemitism, see Gager, J. G., Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism, SBL Monograph 16 (Nash-ville, 1972), p. 16, n. 4.Google Scholar

page 18 note 3 Käsemann, E., New Testament Questions Today, English trans. (Philadelphia, 1969), pp. 132–7.Google Scholar

page 19 note 1 See my forthcoming ‘Paul From the Semitic Point of View’, for The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 2.Google Scholar Compare Drane, J. W., Paul, Libertine or Legalist: A study in the Theology of the Major Pauline Epistles (London, 1975), pp. 132–3.Google Scholar

page 19 note 2 Davies, W. D., The Gospel and the Land; Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine (Berkeley, 1974), pp. 285–220.Google Scholar

page 19 note 3 Richardson, P., op. cit. (p. 20 n. 2), pp. 1–32 et passim.Google Scholar

page 19 note 4 Trocmé, E., op. cit. S.Google ScholarSandmel, , The Genius of Paul: A Study in History (New York, 1970) approaches Paul from a Hellenistic point of view, but agrees that to speak of the ‘Christianity’ of Paul is anachronistic (p. 21).Google Scholar Compare Clark, K. W., ‘Israel of God’, in Studies in the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, ed. Aune, D. E. (Leiden, 1972), pp. 161–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 19 note 5 Moreover, the precise translation of this word is not clear. It is not so much a reference to Juda-ism as a religion over against Christianity as to the Jewish way of life. The term is not found in the LXX, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, except at II Macc. ii. 22, viii–xiv. 38 and IV Macc. iv. 26 in the context of loyalty to the Jewish religion as it confronts Hellenistic pressures. Hengel defines it as referring to ‘both political and genetic association with the Jewish nation and exclusive belief in the one God of Israel, together with observance of the Torah given by him’. See Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, trans. Bowden, J. (London, 1974), 1, 1–2.Google Scholar The term occurs only in Gal. i. 13 in the New Testament. The view of Oepke, A., Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (Berlin, 1957), p. 30Google Scholar, and Guthrie, D., Galatians (New Century Bible, London, 1969), p. 67Google Scholar, that the term there indicates contempt for a Judaism clearly separated from Christianity must be treated very cautiously.

page 20 note 1 See the article cited in note 2, p. 5. Smith, D. Moody has suggested that first-century Judaism may have had its ‘divine men’: ‘The milieu of the Johannine Miracle Source’ in Jews, Greeks and Christians, ed. Hamerton-Kelly, R. and Scroggs, R. (Leiden, 1976), pp. 169–80.Google Scholar

page 21 note 1 Daube, D., Civil Disobedience in Antiquity (Edinburgh University Press, 1972), pp. 115–16.Google Scholar

page 21 note 2 Op. cit. pp. 77–9.Google Scholar

page 21 note 3 See my The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge University Press, 1964), pp. 256–315Google Scholar and literature cited there. The importance of the negative reaction of Jamnian Judaism to the gospel cannot be overemphasized as a factor contributing to radical separation. The separation is best understood probably less as a break-off by Christians from Jews than as one by Jews from Christians. Both parties bore responsibility for the separation. For example, the favourable presentation of the Samaritans in the New Testament is not unrelated to their disfavour among Jews. For caution regarding Jamnia see Lewis, J. P., J.B.R. 32 (1964), pp. 125–32.Google Scholar

page 21 note 4 II Peter iii. 15, 16. On all this see Sanders, J. A., ‘The Ethic of Election in Luke's Great Banquet Parable’, in Essays in Old Testament Ethics (J. P. Hyatt: In Memoriam) (New York, 1974), pp. 247–71.Google Scholar

page 22 note 1 See Cadbury, H. J. in The joy of Study, ed. Johnson, S. E. (New York, 1931), pp. 43 ff.Google Scholar; Munck, J.. Paulus and die Heilsgeschichte, pp. 87–134.Google Scholar

page 22 note 2 Compare Richardson, P., op. cit. pp. 1 ff.Google Scholar For example, I Clement has been described by some as a document of Judaism despite its Christian elements.

page 22 note 3 See pp. 29 f. Richardson, , op. cit. p. 10Google Scholar, writes of Justin that the corollary to his opposition to Judaism was ‘an unparalleled emphasis on the Gentiles as the heirs of the promises… whose “otherness” is so stressed that a Gentile exclusiveness almost replaces the former newish exclusiveness. Along with this, he implies that to accept Christianity means the abandonment of one's Jewishness’ (Dialogue with Trypho 64. 5) (our italics).

page 23 note 1 See Wolfson, H. A., Philo 2 (Cambridge, Mass., 1947), 418.Google Scholar

page 23 note 2 This is recognized (unless we misinterpret them) by Sanday, and Headlam, , Romans, I.C.C. (Edinburgh, 1911), p. 339Google Scholar, even though they read τος πάυτας.

page 23 note 3 P. Benoit in a response to Professor Flusser's review of my work The Gospel and the Land admirably points out the significance of this point: ‘[Le Professeur Flusser] reproche aux Chrétiens de réclamer des Juifs qu'ils cessent d'être des Juifs, et deviennent des Gentils dans le Christ. Je réponds à ce grief par une distinction. Le dilemme de Flusser est ambigu: it parle du Juif devenant chrétien “sans abolir le caractère et le mode qui lui sont propres, et sans renoncer aux promesses spéciales qu'il a reçues de Dieu,” ou au contraire “en abandonnant le caractère spécial et les prétentions spéciales du Juif.” L'alternative est mal proposée dans la mesure où elle ne distingue pas entre l'aspect ethnico-politique qui est en effet propre au peuple particulier d'Israël, et l'aspect proprement religieux qui devait selon le plan de Dieu s'étendre en s'élargissant à toute la communauté humaine.’ For the review by Flusser to which Prof. Benoit responds, see Christian News from Israel 25, no. 3 (1975, 136–9: see Revue Biblique, forthcoming).Google Scholar

page 24 note 1 This is the implication of Stendahl, K., op. cit. pp. 3–4. We have here attempted to carry through this implication as much as possible.Google Scholar

page 24 note 2 Nock, A. D., Conversion (Oxford, 1933), pp. 1–16, especially p. 14.Google Scholar

page 24 note 3 In I Thess. i. 9 this term is used of Gentiles turning to the Christian faith. It can be used of Jews returning to their own tradition as in Test. Dan. 6. 4. In Gal. iv. 9 it refers not strictly to the conversion of Gentiles but to their reverting to ‘the mean and beggarly spirits of the elements’; and in II Cor. iii. 16 to Moses turning to the Lord (in a quotation from Exod. xxxiv. 34). Paul never uses μεταβάλλεīν, or στρέφε.ν. Usually the dominant meaning of σω is deliverance from some binding, oppressive force or forces.

page 24 note 4 In Mark, iv. 11–12Google Scholar and parallels those who refuse the Gospel do not understand and are therefore not culpable as are the Jews in Rom. x. 19. Paul does not excuse the unbelief of Israel. But contrast Rom. x. 8 and x. 18–m21 with II Cor. iv. 4, where it is the God of this world who has blinded those who do not believe. See Barrett, C. K., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (New York, 1973), pp. 130 f.Google Scholar; and especially Munck, J., Christ and Israel, pp. 100–3.Google Scholar

page 25 note 1 To Sanders, J. A. ‘the hardening’ was for Paul ‘but a symbol of God's use of disobedience and human frailty to work out his plans…’. In a letter of 1977. See his ‘Enemy’ in IDB.Google Scholar

page 25 note 2 Stendahl, K., op. cit. p. 4Google Scholar, writes: ‘Paul does not say that when the time of God's kingdom, the consummation comes, Israel will accept Jesus as the Messiah! He says only that the time wi11 come when “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. xi. 26).’

page 25 note 3 The Old Testament usage does not lend support to a messianic reference for ò νòμενος: this form is not frequent even in Deutero-Isaiah, where the past participial form νσάμενος is more used. The N.E.B. translates Isa. lix. 20 as ‘come as the ransomer of Zion’, without capitalizing ransomer. The reference in the MT is to the ‘glory of God’ – a circumlocution for God himself? Stendahl, op. cit., finds it stunning ‘that Paul writes this whole section of Romans 10: 17–11: 36 without using the name of Jesus Christ’. Unfortunately he does not discuss the meaning of ò νòμενος. But this is to avoid the point at issue. See below p. 27. Scroggs draws no theological conclusions from the emphasis on God in Rom. i. iv; ix–xi; see below p. 26 n. 2.

page 25 note 4 Contrast with that of the N.E.B. (‘And this is the covenant I will grant them, when I take away their sins’) the translation of Sanday and Headlam (op. cit. p. 337): ‘and whensoever I forgive their sins, then shall my side of the covenant I have made with them be fulfilled’ (our italics).

page 25 note 5 So most commentators, e.g. Dodd, C. H., The Epistle to the Romans, Moffatt Commentary (London, 1936), p. 182Google Scholar; Käsemann, E., An die Römer, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 8a (Tübingen, 1974), p. 30Google Scholar; Black, M.. New Century Bible, Romans (London, 1973)Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (Grand Rapids, 1975), p. 220.Google Scholar Dodd does recognize that the new covenant is with the church as a whole and the covenant of Rom. M. 27 with Jews only. Michel, O. (Der Brief an die Römer, Göttingen, 1955, p. 251) is ambiguous.Google Scholar Does he think of a new covenant with Jews beyond that already established? He writes: ‘Die σωτηρία Israels besteht also in der Ankunft des Messias and einen neuen Gottesbund.’

page 26 note 1 Compare Richardson, P., op. cit. p. 128 n. 8.Google Scholar

page 26 note 2 On this interpretation it is understandable that the view of the two covenants urged by Rosenzweig has been compared with that of Paul. (See Stendahl, K., op. cit. p. 128 n. 8.)Google Scholar Sanday and Headlam, op. cit., strangely do not discuss the covenant noted in xi. 27 at all. Barrett, C. K., op. cit. p. 224Google Scholar, simply refers to a ‘new covenant of salvation in which Israel's sins will be done away’. He loosely refers to Jer. xxxi. 33 but does not discuss the possibility of there being two distinct covenants in view here. In our judgement, the text is not clear enough to allow us to assert the similarity of Rosenzweig's views. What is to be recognized is that in Rom. ix–xi it is God's activity and purpose that Paul emphasizes. In xi. 29–35 (we refer to the doxology later) he provides what is an explanatory commentary on what has preceded. To take these verses seriously is to see that for the apostle, through God's mercy, there is a solidarity between Christians and Jews (xi. 32). See Schmidt, K. L., op. cit. note 15, p. 35.Google Scholar Robin Scroggs has pointed to ‘the sparseness of explicit Christian language and content throughout chapters 1–4, 9–11. It is God who is emphasized in these chapters, one might even say the “Jewish God”’ (in Paul as Rhetorician …’, op. cit. p. 138).

page 26 note 3 Benoit, P., Exégèse et Théologie 11 (Paris, 1961), 339Google Scholar, in a review of K. L. Schmidt, DieJudenfrage…;Schmidt thinks of the fulfilment of salvation for the Jews as resting on an intervention by God to accomplish what the Church had been unable to achieve: ‘Doch dm alles wird Gott selbst am Ende der Tage ordnen’, p. 34 (compare K. Stendahl as cited above in n. 2, p. 25). Christoph Plag, whose work I was unable to consult, has argued against the unity of xi. 25–32 and regards 25–7 as a late interpolation, xi. 28 following directly on xi. 24. The criticism of Plag's position by P. Stuhlmacher, ‘Zur Interpretation von Römer II,: 25–32’, Probleme biblischer Theologie, Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag, hrsg. Wolff, von H. W. (Munich, 1971), p. 562Google Scholar, is convincing. Stuhlmacher deals with the German discussion illuminatingly, but in his excellent conclusion, pp. 567–70, he does not sufficiently point to the significance of the passage for the problem with which we are concerned.

page 26 note 4 See Stendahl, Krister, op. cit. p. 132.Google Scholar An objection to the view expressed in the text that Paul no longer regards it as a direct task to challenge Israel must here be met. Would he ever, it is asked, have given up trying to present the claims of Christ wherever he encountered a Jew? The answer is surely in the negative. But a distinction must be drawn between a possible personal approach to individual Jews, whom he almost certainly encountered, and a deliberate presentation of the Gospel to the Jewish people as a whole.

page 27 note 1 Behind xi. 25–7 stands the hope for the incursion of the Gentiles at the end. For the details, see especially Sanday and Headlam, , op. cit. pp. 336–7Google Scholar; Munck, J., op. cit. pp. 136–7.Google Scholar On the basis of parallels in II Thess. ii and Matt. xxiv. 10–12, Munck draws up a picture of the second coming according to Paul. The words of Luz, Geschichtsverständis bei Paulus (see p. 17 n. 1 above) are important. He points out that when dealing with the end, Paul could use a kind of shorthand: he did not need to spell out every item in the sequence of events leading to the end in detail: his readers would know the full context of his laconic, even cryptic references. Verses 25–7 of chapter xi must therefore be read over against and informed by the full richness of the Jewish eschatology which Paul inherited. From this point of view the alleged silence in xi. 25–7 about the Messiah, for example, is purely accidental. His presence at the end could be assumed and the reference to him in d AvÓisvos would be clear.

page 27 note 2 The Gospel and the Land, pp. 195–7.Google Scholar The change of the MT to the έκ of Paul in xi. 26 may be very significant. In Deutero-Isaiah God, who has shared the exile of his people, in redeeming his people comes to Zion (Isa. xlix. 56, lii. 8, Ixiii. 75). When Paul thinks of the Redeemer coming from Zion, is the implication that the eschatological procession to Zion has already taken place? God needs no longer to come to Zion but comes from Zion.

page 28 note 1 Op. Cit. p. 334Google Scholar; see also Käsemann, , An die Römer, p. 301.Google Scholar

page 28 note 2 So Stendahl, K., op. cit. p. 132.Google Scholar

page 28 note 3 See above, pp. 25 f.

page 29 note 1 Sanday, and Headlam, , op. cit. p. 336Google Scholar; their presentation of this view remains classic. Batey, R., ‘So all Israel will be saved: an Interpretation of Romans 11: 25–32’, Interpretation 20, no. 2 (1966), p. 225Google Scholar, quotes the strange thought of Luther, in Der Römerbrief, p. 183:Google Scholar ‘Christus ist also noch nicht zu den Juden gekommen, aber er wird kommen, nämlich in der letzten Zeit, wie die oben angeführten Schriftstellen zeugen [xi. 26].’

page 29 note 2 Compare Käsemann, , op. cit. p. 296.Google Scholar

page 29 note 3 Black, M., New Century Bible (London, 1973), p. 146Google Scholar, questions the view that the Gentile Christians at Rome were anti-Semitic. We agree; but they were in need of correction about their attitude to Jews.

page 29 note 4 Note Richardson's, P. point, op. cit. p. 131Google Scholar, that: ‘The obvious feature of the olive tree figure, sometimes overlooked, is that a pruned Israel retains its place in God's activity…’ His treatment on pp. 126–47 is invaluable.

page 29 note 5 See further Bartsch, Hans-Werner, Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament (1967), pp. 27–43Google Scholar on ‘Dieantisemitischen Gegner des Paulus in Römerbrief’. But it is unjustifiable to subsume the whole of Romans under the struggle over the so-called ‘Antisemitism’ of the Roman Gentile Christians as does Bartsch.

page 30 note 1 Dalman, G., Arbeit and Sitte, in Palsstina, iv (Gütersloh, 1935), 153–4.Google Scholar Oddly this point is not mentioned by Munck, J., op. cit. pp. 128–30Google Scholar, excursus 3: ‘The True Olive Tree and the Wild Olive Tree’, nor by any commentators consulted except Manson, T. W. in the new Peake's Commentary on the Bible (London, 1962), p. 949 (although his reference to Dalman is in error).Google ScholarBarrett, C. K., op. cit. p. 217Google Scholar, claims that ‘it is the root and branch metaphor which suggests to Paul the allegory of the olive tree’. But the latter is very deliberately employed and stands out as having a special significance of its own. It does not simply seem to grow out of the previous metaphors.

page 30 note 2 I develop this in a forthcoming essay in a Festschrift for Marcel Simon.

page 31 note 1 Harnack, A., Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte (Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Heft 4, Leipzig, 1911), p. 44 n. 2.Google Scholar See further Bourke, Miles, A Study of the Metaphor of the Olive Tree in Romans XI, dissertation (The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1947), PP. 80–111.Google Scholar

page 31 note 2 Op. cit. pp. 74–188; Contrast C. E. B. Cranfield (see p. 32 n. I), pp. 150, 177.Google Scholar

page 31 note 3 Op. cit. p. 82.Google Scholar

page 31 note 4 An die Römer, passim.

page 31 note 5 By privilege, I mean a favour gratuitously conferred (here by God); by advantage, a benefit which is not conferred but which emerges inevitably under certain circumstances. This is not a mere play on words, a distinction without a difference, as Whale, J. S. urged, see p. 36 n. 1.Google Scholar

page 32 note 1 Käsemann, E., An die Römer, pp. 20–1:Google Scholar ‘Paulus hat um der Kontinituät des Heilsplans willen dem Judentum eine Prävalenz eingeräumtäGottes Selbstbekundung bestimmt die gesamte Geschichte …Die Theologie des Apostels involviert eine bestimmte heilsgeschichtliche Betrachtungsweise.’ But he adds, ‘Anders als im Judentum wird freilich der Vorrang Israels nicht exklusiv verstanden.’ Compare the excellent comments of Cranfield, C. E. B., The Epistle to the Romans, I.C.C. (Edinburgh, 1975), pp. 90, 176 ff.Google Scholar In Rom. i. 16 most commentators do not do justice to the significance of Trpcbrov and of n. The latter serves to point to the equality of Jew and Gentile, the former to the priority of the Jews.

page 32 note 2 See Steiner, George, In Bluebeard's Castle: Some Notes towards the Redefinition of Culture (New Haven, 1971), pp. 36–9Google Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., op. cit., p. 179.Google Scholar

page 32 note 3 Drane, J. W.. Paul: Libertine or Legalist (London, 1975), pp. 118–19.Google Scholar He connects the Gentile reaction to the apostolic decree with the appearance of ‘Gnostic ideas’ in the Gentile churches. This must be considered speculative.

page 33 note 1 See Rubenstein, Richard, ‘The Death Camps and the Decision of Faith’, in The Contemporary Explosion of Theology, ed. Ryan, M. D. (Metuchen, N.J., 1975), pp. 140–1Google Scholar; Stendahl, K., op. cit. p. 131.Google ScholarKäsemann's, Both suspicion of ‘theologies of history’ (Perspectives on Paul, Philadelphia, 1971, p. 64) and Stendahl's condemnation of the ill effects of the interpretation of the Gospel solely in terms of justification by faith are justifiable. But Stendahl's criticism of Käsemann at this point is itself an example of polemics creating unnecessary oppositions. One might remind both scholars that the misuse of any philosophy or doctrine is no criterion of its validity.Google Scholar

page 33 note 2 This mellowness can be maintained despite Rom. xvi. 17–20 and Phil. iii. 2 ff., which are best understood as generalized warnings probably against Judaizers (possibly against Jews in Phil. iii. 2). Klijn, A. F. J., ‘Paul's opponents in Philippians III’, Novum Testament 7 (1964), 278–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also s Drane, J. W., op. cit. note 80, pp. 132–6 on development in Paul.Google Scholar

page 33 note 3 Compare Käsemann, E., Perspectives on Paul (London, 1969), pp. 102–21.Google Scholar

page 34 note 1 Maritain, Jacques has most emphasized this in ‘The Mystery of Israel’, Ransoming the Time (New York, 1941), p. 169, et passim.Google Scholar

page 34 note 2 Op. cit. pp. 174, 182.

page 35 note 1 Dinkier, E., ‘Prädestination bei Paulus’, in Festschrift far Günther Dehn zum 75. Geburtstag (ed. Scheemelcher, W.; Neukirchen, 1957), pp. 81–102Google Scholar (= Signum Crucs. Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament and zur christlichen Archäologie, Tübingen, 1967), pp. 241–66; especially p. 260 and pp. 266–9.Google Scholar

page 35 note 2 Daube, D., in jesus the Hope of the World, edd. Miller, D. G. and Hadidian, D. Y. (Pittsburgh, 1971), pp. 223–45.Google Scholar

page 35 note 3 For bibliography on this, see The Gospel and the Land, pp. 203–8.Google Scholar

page 35 note 4 In a private communication.

page 36 note 1 Chubb, Thomas, cited by R. S. Franks, A History of the Doctrine of the Work of Christ (London, 1818), II part iv, p. 174. I owe this reference to J. S. Whale in a letter of 1976.Google Scholar

page 36 note 2 Bruce, F. F., op. cit. p. 50Google Scholar, warns generally against the peril of modernizing Paul, and Luz, U.. op. cit. p. 294 f.Google Scholar particularly against taking over Paul's approach to Jews in Rom xi. and applying it directly to our twentieth-century situation. Dennis Nineham rightly rejects any over-confidence at this point. See his The Use and Abuse of the Bible, A Study of the Bible in an Age of Rapid Cultural Change (London, 1976), pp. 27–34et passim.Google Scholar On Paul see especially pp. 28–9. With their warning we agree. There is also, however, the peril of ‘archaizing’ Paul so completely that his letters have no continuing significance and become an irrelevance - unthinkable as that is.

page 38 note 1 The most illuminating recent work on the relation between early Christianity and the Law is that of Sanders, J. A. in ‘Torah and Christ’, Interpretation, 29, 4 (October 1975), 372–90Google Scholar; and a forthcoming chapter on ‘Torah and Paul’ in the Festschrift for Nils A. Dahl. In these essays Sanders, carrying further his understanding of the Old Testament as expressed in his Torah and Canon (Philadelphia, 1972, 1974)Google Scholar, applies to the New Testament the distinction he makes between the two elements which he distinguishes within Torah; mythos (gospel-story-identity-haggadah) and ethos (law-ethics-life style-halachah), see Interpretation, op. cit. p. 373. For Sanders also, as for us, the early Church up to 70 c.E. was a daughter of Judaism: only after that date did it leave its nest. After 70 C.E. ‘Rabbinic Judaism, following the emphasis of Pharisaism, stressed the ethos or halachah aspect of Torah, while Christianity emphasized the mythos or haggadah aspect.’ (Compare my article in H.T.R. LXI (1968), 87–105, ‘Torah and Dogma.: A Comment’, reprinted in Papers from the Colloquium on Judaism and Christianity held at Harvard Divinity School, Oct. 17–20, 1966, Harvard University Press, and see The Gospel and the Land, p. 390, note 1, and p. 398, a paragraph where I owe much to Professor David Daube.) Sanders writes, ‘Paul's conversion may be seen …. as a move on his part from emphasis on the ethos aspect of Torah to the mythos aspect’ (in Interpretation, op. cit. p. 375); and again, ‘It was Paul's conviction that if one read the Torah story, emphasizing it as a story of God's works of salvation and righteousness for ancient Israel, one could not escape seeing that God had wrought another salvation and committed another righteousness, in Christ, just like the ones of old but an even greater one!’ (p. 380). For Paul the Torah remains authoritative and canonical, but the interpretation of it differs in Pharisaism and in Paul because the latter has elevated the ‘story’ of Jesus to the norm of understanding it. Sanders notes this position as similar to that proposed in my Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (31971), pp. 147–76, where I urged that Christ became Torah for Paul, but he has modified, refined and enriched that claim by placing it firmly and directly in the interpretative activity of first century Judaism. He urges, in a private communication (I April 1977), that ‘Paul … was no more anti-Semitic than Amos, Micah, Hosea … etc. had been’ We are not competent to assess the cogency of Sanders' elevation of the ‘canonical principle’, consisting of the response to the need for stability and adaptability in the life of ‘Israel’, to a central place in the interpretation of the whole of the Tanak. The post-exilic documents - Proverbs, Song of Songs, Esther, Ruth, Job - can be understood, as Morton Smith has brilliantly argued, as responses, not to the need to preserve, to stabilize and to adapt ‘Israel’ to its own needs, but to the impingement upon it (not always unwelcome) of the Gentile world: not Israel's identity as such but its openness was at stake in these documents of the Persian period. The principle of ethos and mythos does not seem to be applicable to all the documents of the Tanak. Sanders himself recognizes that there were additions to what he conceives of as the essential canon in the Tanak. An attempt to apply his very persuasive distinction and ‘canonical principle’ in the Pauline epistles provokes certain reflections. The distinction between ethos and mythos, however probable and important, is almost certainly more clear to us, looking back on the struggles of early Christianity over the Law, than it was to Paul as he was pursuing his tortuous discussions with his opponents. He was probably fumbling his way towards Sanders' clear principle, not consciously or directly applying it. Paul was constantly in a maelstrom of controversy over points of detail in the interpretation of the Torah, so that his thought was probably less tidy at this point that that of his American interpreter, who has the advantage of seeing the outcome of the Apostle's struggles. However, Sanders is convincing in his insistence that ‘Each generation reads its authoritative tradition in the light of its own place in life, its own questions, its own necessary hermeneutics’ (Adaptable for Life: the Nature and Function of Canon: Festschrift for E. W. Wright, p. 34). The same was true of Paul: he read the Tanak ‘from his own place in life’ and that place he understood as a Messianic one. He looked at Christ in the light of the Tanak and at the Tanak in the light of Christ. In doing so, Sanders holds that he operated on the principle of the separation of mythos and ethos in the Torah, elevating the former and depressing the latter. To examine Paul's letters from this point of view is not possible here. However, a re-reading of II Corinthians iii with the ‘canonical principle’ of Sanders in mind is illuminating. In our treatment of II Cor. iii on p. II we underlined the word narrative: we could have there written story or mythos. Again in Romans ix–xi Paul scans the story of God's dealings with his people and rejects the understanding of those dealings in terms of ethos (to use Sanders's term) in favour of the mythos or story of God's past selective activity in history. In Rom. xi. 25 ff. he continues this past story into the future now making the selective activity of God inclusive not exclusive. In this Sanders underlines what we wrote on p. iq.: ‘Paul–s Gospel provides a particular way of under-standing and interpreting the tradition’ of his people. But here a question arises. According to Sanders, the ‘canonical principle’ was spurred into activity in a time of crisis for the identity of the people of Israel when they found themselves deprived of the traditional symbols of that identity. To put it otherwise, the canon within the canon emerged in the experience of exile: the nation was seeking that whereby it could live. Clearly we cannot speak of Paul being driven to a reinterpretation of the tradition in a quite similar situation. He was not in exile: his people were living in their own land. Nevertheless we do know that first-century Judaism was bitterly divided religiously over the Law, politically over the appropriate response to the Roman occupation, and socially between rich and poor. (See on this a forthcoming paper by my colleague F. W. Young.) There is evidence that the preaching of Christ crucified further opened up powerful revolutionary possibilities and divisions. Although it was now in its own land, Israel's future was in the balance. It was the risen Christ that was the light in whom Paul re-read the tradition of his people, so that we might superficially claim that the ‘canonical principle’ as Sanders expounds it, that is, as arising out of a direct external challenge to the identity of the people, was not directly at work in his epistles but rather only the Christological one. But, in fact, the ‘canonical principle’ indicated and Paul's Christological principle were not mutually exclusive. We saw above that Paul was concerned from first to last with the meaning of ‘Israel’ precisely because Jesus of Nazareth had come as Messiah. The crisis that faced Judaism after the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. and which led to what Sanders calls the ‘Jamnian mentality’ was different in form from the crisis that was constituted for it by the coming of the crucified Christ; but ultimately, in substance, it was not dissimilar. The crisis precipitated for Paul by the Crucified but also Risen Christ led him to give an answer different from that given later by the Sages ofJamnia. These reflections, preliminary and inadequate as they are, may serve to indicate the stimulation and importance of Sanders’ works and point to the necessity of further examination of them.