





































Microsoft Word - Snyder.docx


[Expositions 9.1 (2015) 125–137]  Expositions (online) ISSN: 1747–5376 
	

Paul Beyond the Jew/Gentile Dichotomy: A Perspective from Benjamin 

 

GLENN E. SNYDER 

Indiana University/Purdue University Indianapolis 

 

 

Pauline studies is a distinct subfield in biblical studies. Since at least the 1960s, two research 

programs have dominated Pauline studies in North America: one is a traditional Christian research 

program that studies Paul with a database of all of the thirteen letters included in the “New 

Testament,” plus the narrative in the canonized Acts of the Apostles (occasionally adding the 

epistle to the Hebrews); the other is a modern historical research program that studies only seven 

“undisputed” Pauline letters (Rom, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Gal, Phil, 1 Thess, and Phlm),1 normally with 

selective use of Acts. Each of these research programs works with its determined database of 

primary source materials, rendering its data into evidence for its observations, analyses, and 

conclusions. Circumscribed by these presuppositions, most advances in Pauline scholarship2 have 

occurred by analyzing texts materially and linguistically, locating one or more texts in the 

appropriate historical contexts, selecting and using comparative materials, and/or critiquing 

ancient or modern categories of analysis.3 For this “roundtable discussion” on biblical studies, I 

would like to reflect critically on a particular category of analysis used in Pauline studies: the 

Jew/Gentile dichotomy. 

Pauline studies is an important subfield in biblical studies, because it is one of the sites where 

scholars debate ancient and modern definitions and identities of Judaism and Christianity, Jews 

and Christians. The canonized gospels,4 as short biographies of Jesus,5 are often assumed to be the 

earliest and/or most reliable sources of data for the origins of Christianity. But the authentic letters 

of Paul would have been written between the late 40s to early 60s C.E., whereas extant forms of 

the gospels were produced no earlier than 70 C.E. The Pauline letters are therefore the earliest 

witnesses to one or more kinds of “Christianity.”6  

But who was Paul, and why do his letters matter? Formerly a “Pharisee of Pharisees,” Paul 

claimed to have seen the once-dead Jesus, an experience that changed his life. Thereafter, he 

traveled through Rome’s eastern provinces (modern day Greece and Turkey), establishing 

ekklēsiai (Greek, “assemblies,” normally translated “churches”) and communicating with them via 

visits, messengers, and letters. Of those media of communication, only Paul’s letters remain as 

evidence for who Paul was, what his experience may have been, and how and why he may have 

proclaimed “the gospel” to the peoples he visited. A traditional Christian perspective—sometimes 

labeled “Traditional,” “Old,” “Protestant,” or “Lutheran”—is that Paul converted from one 

religion (Judaism) to another religion (Christianity), and that he proclaimed his new religion 

(Christianity) as good news for all people, including both Jews and Gentiles. A perspective that 



Paul beyond the Jew/Gentile Dichotomy  126 
	

developed basically in the 1970s—sometimes labeled “the New perspective”7—is that Paul 

converted within the religion Judaism from one kind of Judaism (e.g., the Pharisees)8 to another 

(e.g., the Christians), and that he called either all people or only Gentiles to a new way of life. The 

study of Paul and his letters is thus related to and determined by the categories used by scholars, 

including “the Jew/Gentile dichotomy.” 

Scholars in Pauline studies normally assume that Paul divided humanity into two groups based 

on ethnicity, religion, geography, politics, language, and/or some other category. One of most 

common dichotomies ascribed to Paul is between “Jews” and “Gentiles,” so I am using the phrase 

“the Jew/Gentile dichotomy” to refer broadly and loosely to the division of Paul’s diverse Greek-

language terms into two categories of social groups. One category is normally labeled “Jews” (or 

“Judeans”): it is labeled according to interpretations of the masculine singular and plural terms 

Ioudaios and Ioudaioi, but it normally includes the collective singular Israēl, “Israel,” and the 

masculine singular and plural Israēlitēs and Israēlitai, “Israelite(s).” The other category is 

normally labeled “Gentiles” (or “nations”): it is labeled according to interpretations of the plural 

term ethnē, but it normally includes singular and plural terms Hellēn and Hellēnes, “Greek(s).” 

Four related terms occur only in Galatians: three are ascribed to the first category (the verb 

ioudaizō, Gal 2:14; noun Ioudaismos, 1:13, 14; and adverb Ioudaikōs, 2:14), and one to the second 

(the adverb ethnikōs, 2:14). These categories are conceived and function differently for various 

interpreters, Jewish, Christian, and otherwise. But common to practically all interpretations is the 

segregation of humans into two groups—a categorization that both describes and determines a 

scholar’s own interpretive perspective, while ascribing its dichotomy to Paul and prescribing it for 

others. 

One option has been to understand “Jews” as an ethnic category that refers genealogically to 

insiders: Jews are a “we” who (at least in theory) are descended physically from common 

ancestors. On this interpretation, the term “Jews”—normally equated with “Israelites”—refers to 

a distinct ethnic group, whereas “Gentiles” is the category that groups together all others: Gentiles 

are the “not us” of the Jews. Most Pauline scholars work with this particular form of the 

Jew/Gentile dichotomy. Scholars from an “Old” perspective view Paul primarily as a religious 

Christian who was sent to both Jews and Gentiles, whereas scholars from a “New” perspective 

view Paul primarily as an ethnic Jew who was called either to both Jews and Gentiles (similar to 

the “Old” perspective) or only to Gentiles (a so-called “Radical” new perspective, which is 

sometimes complemented with a positive valuation of Judaism as a religion for ethnic Jews).  

A related but distinct interpretive option has been to understand “Jews” as a social or cultural 

category that refers to people who identify themselves as Jewish: Jews are a “we” who have 

affiliated themselves with Israel’s ancestors, at least in story and normally also in beliefs, practices, 

socialization, etc. On this interpretation, one’s “ethnic” identity is malleable, fluid, adaptable, 



127  Snyder 
	

multiple, hybrid, or even exchangeable, so that some Gentiles (who are ethnically non-Jewish) 

may become partly or even wholly “Jews.”9 

Other interpretive options abound. Many scholars have understood “Jews” to represent 

primarily a religious category, so that “Gentiles” are by definition the people(s) who are not 

religiously Jewish.10 On this interpretation, Gentiles remain the “not us” of Jews, but since Jews 

are defined primarily by their religion, Gentiles can convert religiously to become Jews. Other 

scholars, often with reference to contemporary non-Pauline materials, have understood “Jews” to 

represent the people associated with Ioudaia, the feminine singular normally translated “Judea” 

(or “Judaea,” to approximate the Latin Iudaea). On this interpretation, “Jews”—ethnic and/or 

religious—are understood also in relation to a geographic region. Moreover, some scholars have 

argued that Ioudaios and Ioudaioi are so geographically-based that the terms should not be 

translated as “Jew(s),” because in their opinion the English term “Jew(s)” normally connotes 

ethnicity and/or religion; rather, according to these scholars, Ioudaios and Ioudaioi should more 

accurately be translated as “Judean(s),” in order to communicate that the people were historically 

associated primarily with the Roman province Ioudaia, “Judea.”11 

At least three types of arguments have been proposed for (re-)translating the Greek terms 

Ioudaios and Ioudaioi as “Judean(s)”: geopolitical, ethnographic, and religious. First of all, during 

most of the Second Temple era (516 B.C.E.–70 C.E.), neither the borders nor jurisdiction of the land 

were autonomously determined by its inhabitants.12 In particular, during the mid-first century C.E., 

the geographic region of Ioudaia was politically, legally, and economically a Roman province 

(Iudaea in Latin). Irrespective of their ethnicity and/or religion, inhabitants of Ioudaia were labeled 

by the Romans as Ioudaioi (Iudaei in Latin).Therefore, to be an Ioudaios was not necessarily to 

be a Jew ethnically or religiously; it was to inhabit or to originate from Ioudaia. According to this 

geopolitical argument, Ioudaia was either one of or was distinct from other ethnē, “nations.” 

Second, not all citizens of Ioudaia were ethnically Jewish (to use the modern category); and 

occasionally some ethnic Jews claimed to renounce their provincial citizenship, including the 

particular rights, privileges, and nomos (“custom; law”) of the land of Ioudaia.13 Hence, the labels 

Ioudaioi and Jews do not “map” each other ethnographically, even if most of the Ioudaioi were 

ethnically Jews.14 Third, it has occasionally been argued that “Judaism(s)”—at least, the kinds of 

rabbinic Judaisms represented today—did not develop to maturity until sometime after Paul: either 

after the destruction of the Israelite Temple in Jerusalem in 70 C.E., after the end of the Bar Kokhba 

uprising in 135 C.E. (when the Romans officially renamed the region Palaestina), or even later 

(e.g., in the fourth or seventh centuries).15 So if there was no religion “Judaism,” the argument 

claims, neither were there religious “Jews.” According to this argument, the translation “Jew(s)” 

is anachronistic to the religions of mid-first-century Judea. For these and other reasons (e.g., 

agendas to decrease Christian anti-Judaism), some scholars have argued for translating 

Ioudaios/Ioudaioi as “Judean(s).” 16  



Paul beyond the Jew/Gentile Dichotomy  128 
	

But the arguments for using “Judean(s)” in translation have not been received well by all, 

perhaps especially by Jewish scholars. Some scholars17 have argued against (re-)translating 

Ioudaios/Ioudaioi consistently as “Judean(s),” since many if not most of the Ioudaioi were 

ethnically and religiously Jewish—or, at least, were the biological and religious ancestors of Jews. 

To translate Ioudaioi as “Judeans,” it is argued, would be to write Jews out of early Christian 

history and hence, perhaps for some readers, to write off the anti-Jewish reception histories of 

these texts, if not also to further some contemporary forms of anti-Judaism. Others have rebutted 

these objections,18 arguing that the translation “Judeans” is no more (or less) inaccurate or 

unethical than other categories used to describe different times and/or places in Jewish history, 

such as the ancient categories of “Hebrews,” “the sons of Israel” (“Israelites”), or “Judahites,” or 

the modern category of “Israelis.”19 

Most scholars who intentionally and explicitly participate in this debate about the translation of 

Ioudaioi share two goals: accurate historical description and ethical contemporary interpretation. 

But opinions differ about whether, when, why, where, how, and by and for whom it is accurate 

and/or ethical to translate Ioudaioi as “Jews” or “Judeans.” These differences of opinion have been 

based on a variety of factors, including the historical and/or contemporary interests, questions, 

concerns, etc., of the scholars in question, as well as their own ethnic and/or religious 

identifications. For some, it is no less than the identities and relations of Judaism and Christianity, 

Jews and Christians, that are at stake. A few scholars have argued that, in order to reinscribe the 

difficulty of translation, it is preferable not to translate but to transliterate the Greek terms; some 

prefer to translate Ioudaios and Ioudaioi consistently as “Jew(s),” and others as “Judean(s)”; and 

yet others have preferred to translate the terms differently based on the contexts of particular 

occurrences.20 Many of the issues and options for these preferences are intrinsic to the art of 

interpreting and translating ancient, foreign-language texts into modern English. For, at least 

implicitly, every translation requires a reconstruction of the historical author(s) and/or reader(s); 

identification of imagined contemporary readers; determination of the scope, goals, and contexts 

for the translation; valuation of “word-for-word” versus “thought-for-thought” philosophies of 

translation, as well as preferences for the source language (an “emic” translation) or target 

language (an “etic” translation); and so forth.  

The debate about whether and how to translate Ioudaioi is also related to how to interpret other 

terms whose functions have normally been reduced to playing parts in a Jew/Gentile dichotomy. 

Normally on the same side of Ioudaios and Ioudaioi are the collective singular Israēl, “Israel,” and 

singular and plural demonyms Israēlitēs and Israēlitai, “Israelite(s).” Often these designators are 

equated sociologically, so that Israelites are Jews/Judeans and Jews/Judeans are Israelites. But 

occasionally a distinction has been made: for example, Israēlitai as an ethnic designator versus 

Ioudaioi as religious, or Israēlitai as ethnic versus Ioudaioi as geopolitical.21 Regardless, terms on 

that side of the dichotomy are often interpreted and translated in context of and by contrast to one 



129  Snyder 
	

or more terms on the other side: the plural term ethnē and/or the singular and plural terms Hellēn 

and Hellēnes, “Greek(s).” Some participants in the Paul and Politics Group of the Society of 

Biblical Literature have argued that Paul’s contrasts between Ioudaioi/Israēl(itai) and ethnē are 

evidence for a geopolitical distinction between Judea and other nations and/or for the subordination 

of all nations, including Ioudaia, under the colonizing imperium of Rome.22 Others—for example, 

select volumes in the recent Paul in Critical Contexts series by Fortress Press—have argued that, 

as part of his own postcolonial discourse, Paul portrays his own and others’ ethnic identities as 

multiple and hybridized.23 But whether Jews and Gentiles or Judeans and nations, there is a 

tendency in Pauline scholarship to dichotomize Paul’s Greek-language terms, interpreting and 

translating these terms with ancient and/or modern categories of geography, politics, religion, 

and/or ethnicity. 

How will Pauline studies be able to advance beyond its current perspectives? In my opinion, 

division of Paul’s sociological (and related) terms into a Jew/Gentile dichotomy is a practice that 

unnecessarily delimits the sociological and other historical possibilities for interpreting Paul and 

his letters. Therefore, rather than continuing a practice that is common to both research programs 

and most interpretive perspectives, I propose that further historical and comparative work should 

be done on Paul’s contrasted terms, in order to adduce categories that are more accurate for 

interpreting the authentic letters of Paul. 

In particular, I propose that the key to unlocking Paul’s sociological (and related) categories is 

to begin with his own identity-formative statements and rhetoric. For, not once does Paul explicitly 

identify himself as a Ioudaios (pace Gal 2:15);24 and 1 Cor 9:20 may even imply his denial of such 

an identity (“for the Ioudaioi I became [as] a Ioudaios”). Instead, Paul identifies himself generally 

as an Israelite and specifically as a member of the tribe of Benjamin (Rom 11:1, Israēlitēs, phylēs 

Beniamin; Phil 3:5–6, ek genous Israēl, phylēs Beniamin).25  

The perspective of the historical Paul was thus determined by his identity as a Benjaminite, a 

tribal identification that he used both to identify with a broader ethnic group (Israēl, “Israel”) and 

also to differentiate himself from another of its tribes (Ioudaia, “Judah”). According to the stories 

preserved in the Hebrew Bible,26 Benjamin was the only one of Israel’s twelve legendary tribes to 

submit to Judah’s rule after the death of David’s son, king Solomon of Yǝhûdāh (Hebrew, “Judah”; 

d. 928/922 B.C.E.). Through the Assyrian crisis (722 B.C.E.), the destruction of the southern 

kingdom (586 B.C.E.), the deportation to Babylon (586–539 B.C.E.), and the subsequent 

repatriations and reformations of the occupied territory called Yahud (Persian era, 538–332 B.C.E.), 

Ioudaia (Greek era, 332–63 B.C.E.), and also Iudaea (Roman era, 63 B.C.E.–135 C.E.), Judah had 

claimed authority over Benjamin in particular and Israel in general. But according to Paul, the 

contemporary state of Ioudaia, including its nomos (“custom; law”), was not the ideal for “Israel” 

(Hebrew Yisrā-’ēl, “God rules” or “May God rule”). For, irrespective of its Temple in Jerusalem, 

Ioudaia had been conquered by and was subordinated to Rome. Rather, Paul’s hope for Israel was 



Paul beyond the Jew/Gentile Dichotomy  130 
	

that an anastasis (Greek, “uprising”; cp. Latin superstitio) had been initiated in Jesus, whom “the 

rulers” had executed on account of political sedition but whom God resurrected. Now “anointed” 

(Christos) and declared “son of God” (huios theou) and “Lord” (kyrios), Paul proclaimed that this 

Jesus was the Davidic king whose heavenly arrival and earthly triumph would end in God’s rule, 

with justice for all who were saved from the Lord’s wrath (Rom 1; 1 Cor 15; 1 Thess 4–5). It was 

as a Benjaminite that Paul proclaimed this message to peoples outside the land of Ioudaia, in order 

to call for the reunion of “all Israel” (Rom 9–11; cp. Gal 6).27  

I have proposed this “Benjaminite perspective” as a new way to interpret the Greek-language 

terms28 formerly divided into “the Jew/Gentile dichotomy.” For, this theory explains how Paul was 

strategically positioned as a Benjaminite to affirm his affiliation with Israēl (intraethnically) but 

also to critique contemporary Ioudaioi (intertribally, including geopolitically, religiously, etc.).29 

My hope is that the Benjaminite hypothesis will advance our collective goals—as historians, Jews, 

Christians, and other interested peoples—of accurately describing and ethically interpreting the 

letters of Paul.  

 

 

Notes 

 
1. Within “the” Christian New Testament, thirteen Greek-language letters are written in the 

name of Paul (Greek Paulos, based on the Latin Paulus, “little, small”). The categories 

“disputed” and “undisputed” were invented in order to label these canonized epistles 

according to generalizations about their authenticity of authorship. Six letters were labeled 

as “disputed” based on some scholars’ valuations of the kinds, quantities, and qualities of 

arguments made against their authenticity: these are the three “deutero-Pauline” letters 

(Eph, Col, and 2 Thess), plus the three “pastoral” letters (1 Tim, 2 Tim, and Tit). The other 

seven letters were grouped together as “undisputed” (Rom, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Gal, Phil, 1 Thess, 

and Phlm). Precisely how, when, where, why, and by whom these categories were 

produced and popularized is beyond the scope of this contribution. 

2. For general studies of the subfield, see, for example, Baird 1992–2013; Zetterholm 2009; 

Given 2010; Marchal 2012; Wright 2015. 

3. Accuracy, thoroughness, precision, and innovation are the criteria most valued in 

contemporary Pauline scholarship; and most “innovation” occurs by applying the interests, 

values, questions, theories, and methods of other disciplines to Pauline studies. For an 

introduction to theories and methods for biblical studies, see, for example, Hayes 2004; 

Adam 2000; and the Guides to Biblical Scholarship series by Fortress Press. See also Given 

2010 and Marchal 2012. 



131  Snyder 
	

4. “Gospel” is an old English term for “good news,” which is a literal translation of the Greek 

noun euangelion. Originally untitled and anonymous, the four narratives later included in 

most collections of Christian Scripture have been titled “the gospel” according to Matthew, 

Mark, Luke, and John since the second century C.E. Dozens of additional “gospels” were 

composed in similar and differing genres. 

5. The Greek Iēsous is normally rendered as “Jesus” or “Joshua” in English, but it is a 

transliteration of the Hebrew Yēshūa‘, “he will save.” 

6. The term “Christianity” is anachronistic to Pauline studies. Derived from a Latin suffix (-

ianus, -a, -um), the Greek term Christianos originally referred to an alleged “partisan of 

Christos.” Within the history of Israel, occasionally someone was elected for a particular 

function or position (e.g., king, priest, prophet) through a ritual of anointing and was 

subsequently called “anointed” (Hebrew māshîach; Greek christos). Some early followers 

of Jesus understood him to be “anointed” as a prophet, priest, and/or king, and on this basis 

they were labeled—perhaps originally and pejoratively by outsiders—as “Christians” 

(Latin Christiani; Greek Christianoi). 

7. See, for example, Dunn 2007; Wright 2013; Westerholm 2004; and Nanos and Zetterholm 

2015. According to most histories of the discipline, antecedents for the development of the 

New Perspective(s) were works by Krister Stendahl and E. P. Sanders in the 1960s and 

1970s. But the New Perspective(s) was also developed to propose alternate explanations 

for what Heikki Räisänen had presented as insoluble “internal conceptual problems” within 

a Traditional Perspective: see, for example, Gager 2000. 

8. In addition to “Pharisaic,” scholars have labeled Paul’s former and/or continuing Judaism 

with terms such as rabbinic, Palestinian, Essene, Zealot, Diasporic, Hellenistic, 

apocalyptic, etc. For a helpful introduction, see Engberg-Pedersen 2001.  

9. See, in general, Cohen 1999; within Pauline studies, see especially Buell and Hodge 2004; 

Hodge 2007; Hodge 2005; Garroway 2012; Concannon 2014. 

10. A religious interpretation of “Jews” normally occasions debates about the “religions” 

Judaism and Christianity. Was “Judaism” a religion in Paul’s era? If so, how many 

Judaisms were there, and what made a religious “Jew” Jewish? Similarly, was 

“Christianity” a religion? If so, how many Christianities were there, and how did it/they 

relate to Judaism(s)? A related site for such debates is Paul’s “call” and/or “conversion.” 

Normally assuming that Judaism and/or Christianity was a religion, the debate has been: 

when Paul experienced his vision(s) of Jesus, did he stay a Jew and/or become a Christian? 



Paul beyond the Jew/Gentile Dichotomy  132 
	

11. See, for example, Esler 2012 and Mason 2007. 

12. Exceptions may have occurred during parts of the Hasmonean era (164–63 B.C.E.), part of 

the reign of Herod “the Great” (37–4 B.C.E.), and Herod Agrippa I (41–44 C.E.). 

13. Smallwood 1981; Williams 1998. Conspicuous is the case of the old man whose penis was 

inspected for the marker of circumcision by Domitian. 

14. To map the categories ethnographically, two Boolean sets would overlap. Most of the 

smaller set of Ioudaioi would be within the larger set of Jews; but part of the set labeled 

“Ioudaioi” would be outside the set “Jews,” indicating that other ethnicities may be 

Ioudaioi, and some of the set labeled “Jews” would be outside the set “Ioudaioi,” indicating 

that some ethnic Jews did not identify as Ioudaioi. (For the sake of analogy, consider an 

ethnographic model for modern Israelis and Jews: today, most Israelis are Jews, but some 

are not; and today, many Jews are not Israelis. Would it be sociographically accurate to 

substitute an original-language reference to “Israelis” with an English-language 

interpretation of “Jews”? According to this argument, such a substitution would be 

inaccurate as a general principle for translation.) 

15. See, for example, Boyarin 2004. 

16. Crossley (2014) has noted that some scholars have argued for the same retranslation with 

very different motives. For example, in several publications Bruce Malina has argued that 

in Paul’s letters (and other early Christian literature), Ioudaioi should be retranslated 

“Judeans” in order to distinguish the ancient people from modern day “Jews.” For, based 

on a form of the Khazar theory, one of Malina’s presuppositions is that many modern-day 

Jews (including Israelis) are ethnically unrelated to ancient Israelites. That theory is a 

marginal and minority opinion. 

17. See Schwartz 2011 and Levine 2006. 

18. See, for example, Mason 2014. 

19. For a recent history of scholarship, see the series of articles by David M. Miller in the 

Currents in Biblical Research (especially vols. 9.1 [2010] and 10.2 [2012], but also 12.2 

[2014]). For a representative selection of positions, see also “Jew and Judean: A Forum on 

Politics and Historiography in the Translation of Ancient Texts” (August 26, 2014), 

available at http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/jew-judean-forum/. Participants in 

Marginalia’s forum were Adele Reinhartz, Steve Mason, Daniel Schwartz, Annette 

Yoshiko Reed, Joan Taylor, Malcolm Lowe, Jonathan Klawans, Ruth Sheridan, and James 

Crossley. 



133  Snyder 
	

20. See, for example, Schwartz 2007; see also his contribution to Marginalia’s forum “Jew 

and Judean.” 

21. See, for example, Stanley 2011, especially 118–20; Staples 2011, especially 374–78. 

22. See, for example, selections in Horsley 1997; Horsley 2000; and Horsley 2004. For two 

distinct perspectives on Romans, compare the “New” perspective in Stowers 1994 and the 

“Roman imperial” perspective in Elliott 2010. 

23. In addition to some of the volumes in the Fortress Press series, see also the works cited in 

n. 9 above. 

24. See the forthcoming article by Jeremy Hultin (working title, “Who Rebuked Cephas? A 

New Interpretation of Gal 2:14–17”). Based partly on the verbs eidon and eipon (which, as 

first aorists, are morphologically either the first person singular or third person plural), 

Hultin argues that the statement “we (who are) by nature Ioudaioi” is not Paul’s claim (i.e., 

the first person singular, as normally interpreted) but rather is ascribed to the people from 

James (i.e., third person plural). 

25. For “(non-)boastful” comparison with Israēlitai, see also 2 Cor 11:22. Another lineal 

phrase used twice in “undisputed” letters is “Abraham’s seed” (Rom 11:1, ek spermatos 

Abraam; 2 Cor 11:22, sperma Abraam). Whether Paul conceived his call to include the 

non-Israelite “seed of Abraham” (i.e., the descendants of the sons of Hagar and Keturah, 

and/or the sons of Jacob’s elder twin brother Esau/Edom) is an interesting question, which 

would affiliate Paul with yet broader “ethnic” identity. 

26. Practically all of the writings collected in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh/Old Testament) 

preserve the stories of Israel from the perspectives of Judah, including some Benjaminites 

and Levites. Historically, it is uncertain to what extent these texts were coextensive with 

the nomos (“custom; law”) of Ioudaia in the mid-first century C.E., but it is clear that 

diverse opinions were represented by groups such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, 

“fourth philosophy,” sicarii, “Zealots,” etc., many of which accepted additional and/or 

different sources of authority. 

27. According to the so-called New Perspective, Paul was a Jew who was called as a prophet 

only to ethnic Gentiles (i.e., non-Jews). But according to this Benjaminite perspective, 

Paul’s call to peoples outside Ioudaia was not necessarily a call to non-Israelites: Paul’s 

call for the reunion of Israel may even have been that of a shepherd recalling his flocks, 

the dispersed, non-Judahite tribes of Israel. Using intertexts from Hosea and Jeremiah to 

interpret Rom 9–11, Staples (2011) has argued that Paul understood “Ephraim” (including 



Paul beyond the Jew/Gentile Dichotomy  134 
	

the other tribes from the former northern kingdom) to be dispersed and “intermixed” with 

other peoples, so that Paul’s gathering of ethnē was part and parcel with collecting the 

dispersed tribes of Israel. 

28. Translation is another matter. For the Benjaminite hypothesis, “Judah,” “Judahite,” and 

“Judahites” are probably the most useful translations for understanding Paul’s references 

to Ioudaia, Ioudaios, and Ioudaioi in the proposed tribal, geopolitical, and religious 

contexts. But ethnē is more difficult to interpret and to translate, as it is used variously to 

refer to peoples (geographically outside the land of Ioudaia, and in Paul’s opinion 

geopolitically outside the boundaries of its nomos) who are not in allegiance with Israel’s 

“Lord.” 

29. In the canonized Acts, Paul is portrayed even at the end of his life as a member of the 

Pharisees—one of the political parties in Ioudaia between the 150s B.C.E. and 70 C.E. But 

in the undisputed letters, particularly Gal 1 (where his former allegiance with the Pharisees 

is implicit) and Phil 3 (where it is explicit), Paul seems to have separated from the 

Pharisees. Whether Paul’s separation with the Pharisees may also imply a renunciation of 

citizenship in Ioudaia is unclear but is worth considering. 

 

 

Works Cited 

 
Adam, A. K. M., ed. 2000. Handbook of Postmodern Biblical Interpretation. St. Louis: Chalice 

Press. 

Baird, William. 1992–2013.  History of New Testament Research. 3 vols. Minneapolis: 

Fortress Press. 

Boyarin, Daniel. 2004. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: 

University of Pennsylvania Press. 

Buell, Denise Kimber, and Caroline Johnson Hodge. 2004. “The Politics of Interpretation: The 

Rhetoric of Race and Ethnicity in Paul.” Journal of Biblical Literature 123.2: 235–51. 

Cohen, Shaye J. D. 1999. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. 

Berkeley: University of California Press. 

Concannon, Cavan W. 2014. “When You Were Gentiles”: Specters of Ethnicity in Roman 

Corinth and Paul’s Corinthian Correspondence. New Haven: Yale University Press. 



135  Snyder 
	

Crossley, James. 2014. “What a Difference a Translation Makes! An Ideological Analysis of 

the Ioudaios Debate.” The Marginalia Review of Books August 26. 

http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/difference-translation-makes-ideological-analysis-

ioudaios-debate-james-crossley/. Accessed June 2, 2015. 

Dunn, James D. G. 2007. The New Perspective on Paul. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 

Elliott, Neil. 2010. The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire. 

Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 

Engberg-Pedersen, Troels, ed. 2001. Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide. Philadelphia: 

Westminster John Knox Press. 

Esler, Philip F. 2012. “Identity Matters: Judean Ethnic Identity in the First Century C.E.” The 

Bible and Interpretation. http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/esl368002.shtml. Accessed 

June 2, 2015. 

Gager, John G. 2000. Reinventing Paul. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Garroway, Joshua D. 2012. Paul’s Gentile-Jews: Neither Jew nor Gentile, but Both. New 

York: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Given, Mark D., ed. 2010. Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on the Apostle. Peabody, MA: 

Hendricksen Publishers. 

Hayes, John H. ed. 2004. Methods of Biblical Interpretation: Excerpted from the Dictionary 

of Biblical Interpretation. Nashville: Abingdon Press. 

Hodge, Caroline Johnson. 2005. “Apostle to the Gentiles: Constructions of Paul’s Identity.” 

Biblical Interpretation 13.3: 270–88. 

_____. 2007. If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul. New 

York: Oxford University Press. 

Horsley, Richard A., ed. 1997. Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial 

Society. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International. 

_____, ed. 2000. Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation: Essays in 

Honor of Krister Stendahl. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International. 

_____, ed. 2004. Paul and the Roman Imperial Order. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press 

International. 



Paul beyond the Jew/Gentile Dichotomy  136 
	

Levine, Amy-Jill. 2006. The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish 

Jesus. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. 

Marchal, Joseph A., ed. 2012. Studying Paul’s Letters: Contemporary Perspectives and 

Methods. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 

Mason, Steve. 2007. “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in 

Ancient History.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 38.4–5: 457–512. 

_____. 2014. “Ancient Jews or Judeans? Different Questions, Different Answers.” The 

Marginalia Review of Books August 26. http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/ancient-

jews-judeans-different-questions-different-answers-steve-mason/. Accessed June 2, 2015. 

Nanos, Mark D., and Magnus Zetterholm, eds. 2015. Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-

Century Context to the Apostle. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 

Schwartz, Daniel R. 2007. “‘Judean’ or ‘Jew’? How Should We Translate Ioudaios in 

Josephus?” In Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World. Eds. Jörg Frey, Daniel R. 

Schwartz, and Stephanie Gripentrog. AGJU 71. Leiden: Brill. 3–27. 

Schwartz, Seth. 2011. “How Many Judaisms Were There?: A Critique of Neusner and Smith 

on Definition and Mason and Boyarin on Categorization.” Journal of Ancient Judaism 2.2: 

208–38. 

Smallwood, E. Mary. 1981. The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian: A Study 

in Political Relations. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. 

Stanley, Christopher D. 2011. “Paul the Ethnic Hybrid? Postcolonial Perspectives on Paul’s 

Ethnic Categorizations.” In The Colonized Apostle: Paul through Postcolonial Eyes. Ed. 

Christopher D. Stanley. Paul in Critical Contexts. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 110–26. 

Staples, Jason A. 2011. “What Do the Gentiles Have to Do with ‘All Israel’? A Fresh Look at 

Romans 11:25–27.” Journal of Biblical Literature 130.2: 371–90. 

Stowers, Stanley K. 1994. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles. New Haven: 

Yale University Press. 

Westerholm, Stephen. 2004. Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and 

His Critics. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 

Williams, Margaret H. 1998. The Jews among the Greeks and Romans: A Diasporan 

Sourcebook. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 



137  Snyder 
	

Wright, N. T. 2013. Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 1978–2013. Minneapolis: Fortress 

Press. 

_____. 2015 (forthcoming). Paul and His Recent Interpreters. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 

Zetterholm, Magnus. 2009. Approaches to Paul: A Student’s Guide to Recent Scholarship. 

Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 


