© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2009, Unit 6, The Village, 101 Amies Street, London SW11 2JW [Expo. 3.2 (2009) 197–208] Expositions (print) ISSN 1747-5368 doi:10.1558/expo.v3i2.197 Expositions (online) ISSN 1747-5376 The Presence of the Past: The Scholarly Afterlife of Adversus Judaeos Rhetoric PETER SPITALER Villanova University I learned a great deal from Fredriksen’s book, and I assume other readers will equally benefit from studying her analysis of Augustine’s defense of Jews and Judaism. Of particular interest to me are the book’s early chapters. They describe the changing cultural and religious environ- ment for the equally evolving social and literary interaction between Jews and other ethno-religious groups in the centuries leading up to Augustine’s time. These descriptions, in turn, prepare the stage for Fre- driksen’s presentation of Augustine’s own dealings with Jews, rhetorical or real, in his many writings. As Fredriksen unfolds, before the reader’s eyes, the reception histo- ry of the Adversus Judaeos rhetoric that Augustine both inherited and transformed, she shows that this particular genre is embedded in, and retrievable from, literature, like artifacts strewn across the pages of the educated among Christian authors and Church leaders who dominat- ed the literary and ecclesio-political landscape of the first four centu- ries. With their prolific literary productions and reproductions, the ancients liberally disseminated Adversus Judaeos rhetoric. At times, they simply repeated the ever more readily accessible rhetorical arguments of predecessors and contemporaries. Other times, they tweaked these arguments to such a degree that subsequent generations of Christian writers were able (deliberately or not) to misinterpret the prototypical, intra-Judean arguments of first century (New Testament) authors and broadcast them—amplified and virtually unchecked until Augustine raised his pen—as stereotypical contra-Judean diatribes. Reconstructing the origins and reception history of Adversus Judaeos rhetoric necessitates interpreting the literary evidence. In this regard, contemporary scholars face the same epistemological questions as the ancients did: What can we know, and with what degree of certainty? In part, Fredriksen bases her reconstruction on a traditional presuppo- 198 Academic Roundtable © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2009 sition or hypothesis, shared by many scholars, concerning the ethno- religious identities of the recipients of Paul’s letters: namely, non- Israelite audiences residing in various cities (Rome, Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonia) and provinces (Galatia) of the Roman empire. In my opinion, this particular hypothesis is in serious need of revi- sion. If it were accurate, because Paul published attacks on his con- temporary, fellow Israelites in letters to non-Israelite audiences, we would have to assume that he intentionally aired in-group problems where they could be heard by outsiders, possibly to convince them of the accuracy of his positions and the superiority of his own rhetoric. To be sure, Paul included only those debates with fellow Judeans that portrayed him as a winner, and his personal authority vouched for the precision of his claims. Still, Paul himself would have provided the lit- erary matrix for constructing literary—rhetorical or symbolic—Judean lives and identities and deconstructing them before non-Israelite ears. These straightforward observations have far-reaching implications for our understanding of the past. First, if Paul indeed wrote to non-Israelites about his quarrels with Israelites, he would, in a moment, cease being a bystander innocent (as he is often portrayed to be) of setting in motion the Wirkungsgeschichte of Adversus Judaeos rhetoric. Rather, he would emerge as the earliest culprit of this kind of polemic popularized later on a much larger scale. Thus, if our basic assumptions about the circumstances of Paul’s liter- ary creativity are correct, distortions of Judean identities likely began sooner than Fredriksen admits. Second, next generation authors could no longer be conceived of as guilty of a dual offense: misreading Paul’s argumentation and trans- forming it into condemnations of Judaism. If the ancients reconstruct- ed the historical setting of Paul’s letters in the same way we do today (that is, in accordance with the above stated hypothesis), it would fol- low that they simply continued a rhetorical tradition legitimized and authorized by Paul: that it was rhetorically justifiable and politically opportune to attack Judeans in absentia for the purpose of strengthen- ing nascent Christian identities and theology. Consequently, on this account, we would have to say that they neither misrepresented Paul’s argumentation nor transformed intra-Judean rhetoric into contra- The Presence of the Past 199 © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2009 Judean polemic—for it was not intra-Judean to begin with. By defini- tion, an intra-Judean debate is a debate among Judeans. If Paul sent his letters to non-Israelite Jesus group members, he did not debate with Judeans but wrote to fellow Jesus group members about Judean life and identity. More precisely, he crafted and used Judean characters in his letters to debate with them rhetorically. But the real purpose would have been pedagogical: to teach non-Israelites by attacking Judeans who had no voice but Paul’s own. Is such a strategy not at the heart of Adversus Judaeos rhetoric? For some time, I have been convinced that Paul did not write to non-Israelites, and Fredriksen’s book reinforces this opinion despite her taking for granted the traditional, contrary position. The present roundtable is not the place to discuss alternatives, but her reconstruc- tion, or any scholarly work on Israelite religion for that matter, can benefit from the findings of Malina and Pilch (2006) that Paul might have attempted to preach his gospel in person and letter to fellow Israelites, Hellenized Judeans living far away from the homeland, that is, Judeans dispersed throughout the Roman empire, and not non- Israelites (“Gentiles”). According to that scenario, Paul’s letters provide evidence that he deconstructed the opinion of fellow Israelites who interfered with, or rejected, his gospel. However, his at times heated literary riposte to Israelites was not publicized for non-Israelite audi- ences; Paul actually engaged in intra-Judean debates—with Israelites before Israelites. Of course, the problem of reconstructing the beginnings of Adversus Judaeos rhetoric is more complex than identifying possible audiences for Paul’s letters. There is strong consensus among scholars (Stowers 1981; Thorsteinsson 2003) that Bultmann (1910) and others after him (Cranfield 1977; Fitzmyer 1993) got it right: Paul’s argumentation, in particular in his Letter to the Romans, exhibits the characteristic fea- tures of a literary genre known as diatribe. Using rhetorical characters for the sake of a literary debate, Paul frequently writes in the style of a “lively pedagogical discourse” or as if engaged in a “loose style of con- versation with an interlocutor, spiced up with exclamations, idioms and maxims, rhetorical questions, paradoxes, short statements, parodies, fictitious questions, antitheses and parallel phrases” (Fitzmyer 1993). 200 Academic Roundtable © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2009 In other words, second person addresses are essential elements of his letters (see, for example, “you are inexcusable, human.” Rom. 2:1; “you are called Judean,” Rom. 2:17). Whereas the genre of diatribe requires the presence of a rhetorical character in the text, diatribe makes no assumption about the histori- cal accuracy of this character’s words or actions. After all, a rhetorical character is a literary construct and may or may not exist in reality. Which raises the question: If Paul communicated with rhetorical char- acters about their conduct and the conduct of other (rhetorical or real) characters, how did and does the reader or hearer of his letters identify as factual or fictional the conduct that these characters exemplify? Put differently, diatribal characters undoubtedly are real in the text and act in the text; but to what extent are their identities and actions fiction- al beyond the text? The answer to these questions is less historical in nature than epistemological or, more accurately, steeped in interpretive choices. The literature of the first few centuries shows that its authors over and over again chose to animate rhetorical characters (mostly fashioned to be Judeans) to claim they were real factually. Presumably, early Christian writers assumed Paul accurately portrayed Judeans in his letters; they extrapolated general characteristics of Judean life from his literary portrayals. They literally “realized” them, that is, breathed life into them and gave the characters “real” identities and historical credibility. All of a sudden, literary creations became clear mirrors of historical realities. The problem was, of course, that most ancients exploited Paul’s literary critique of fellow Judeans for constructing the kind of negative moral and religious biographies, individual and cor- porate, that sustained Adversus Judaeos argumentation. We may ascribe to the ancients theological arrogance and social ignorance—but what excuses do we find for Adversus Judaeos inter- pretation bubbling to the surface of contemporary scholarly articles and commentaries on New Testament texts? Seemingly ignorant of the past, exegesis too often produces readings that echo the anti-Israelite statements of the past. Why? William Campbell (2006) suggests that “a negative image of Judaism and a corresponding antithesis with emer- gent Christianity” continues to constitute “the framework of modern critical Pauline interpretation”; Douglas Campbell (2005) diagnoses a The Presence of the Past 201 © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2009 “latent insensitivity to Judaism.” Be that as it may, Fredriksen’s book shows that situating Judaism within its historical settings remains as much a challenge as assessing Paul’s view of Judaism. How easy it remains to transform a perceived Pauline critique of Judaism into fac- tual negative portrayals of Israelites and Israelite religion! It does not come as a surprise then that contemporary scholarship continues to de- construct Israelite religion, assuming this is what Paul himself did. For example: Carras (1992) holds that Romans 2:1–29 contains “perhaps the most extensive and direct critique of Jews and Judaism in the letters of Paul.” The rhetorical questions in Romans 2:21–22 are a concrete demonstration of the moral failure of “Jews” (Tobin 2004). Being called a “Jew” (Rom. 2:17), “Jewish” self-awareness (2:19), and pride in the law (2:23) are the hallmarks of a self-righteous identity (Gager 1983). Even the positive statements of Romans 2:14, 27 concerning non-Israelites keeping the law reveal the failure of “Jews” (others did what “Jews” failed to do; Boers 1994; Pesch 1983). Lists of “Jewish” shortcomings frequently contain “Jewish” disobedience (Gager 1983); presumption about “Jewish” privilege (Lincoln 1995); proud claims of “Jewish” superiority (Seifrid 1992); the misguided religion of “the Jews” (Dunn 1998); lack of repentance (Stuhlmacher 1989); typically “Jewish” status confidence (Dunn 1998); typically “Jewish” assertions about moral superiority and national privileges (Watson 1986); boast- ing in the law (Theobald 2000); complacency based on covenantal nomism (Chae 1997). Of particular concern is the lack of recognition of positive Judean identities. In addition to calling fellow Israelites his brothers (Rom. 9:3) and chosen people (Rom. 11:5) who historically trust God’s love (Rom. 11:28; 15:7) and whose relationship with God is defined by sonship, glory, covenant, law, cult, ancestry, and promises (9:4–5), Paul portrays his people to be entrusted with “God’s oracles” (Rom. 3:2)—a law to be upheld (3:31). In contrast with non-Israelites (Rom. 2:14), Judeans have a name and are proud of God (2:17). They grow up in the law, find truth and knowledge in the law, teach others (2:18–19), and are heart-circumcised; God appreciates them (2:29). However, theses descriptions are absent from Fitzmyer’s (1993) list of positive Judean qualities. They are also not ranked among Mayordomo’s (2005) 202 Academic Roundtable © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2009 descriptions of just conduct in Romans 2; and Chae (1997) argues for the necessity of a negative interpretation of these verses. When all is said and done (that is, when we panoptically read con- temporary literature on Paul’s Letter to the Romans), we discover in his text the portrayal of a self righteously judging (Rom. 2:1.3), paradigmatically law-breaking (2:17–24) “Jewish” partner in a literary dialogue who embodies the “real” or factual problem of first-century Israelite religion. Contemporary forms of Adversus Judaeos thought are driven, not by the need to define religious and theological boundaries, but, I surmise, by longstanding theological presuppositions. I wonder if this was the case also in antiquity. For example, the theological dictum that human- kind is sinful guides many a scholar (Boers 1997) to unearth from Paul’s text hints that Judeans “also” or “especially” belonged to sinful human- ity. One commonly discovers the conclusion (Fitzmyer 1993; Watson 1986) that “universality of human sinfulness” can be established, with the help of Paul’s text, by (1) setting the perceived sinfulness of non-Is- raelites (Rom. 1:18–32) against perceived Judean sinfulness (2:1–3:8); and (2) demonstrating that among non-Jesus group members upright people living moral lives simply did not exist, despite Paul’s assertions to the contrary (Rom. 2:13,14, 25–27). His use of diatribe supposedly trivialized positive expressions of Judean conduct (“doing the good” and “doing the law” [Rom. 2:7, 10, 13]) and neutralized positive Judean identities (“being law” and “having the gestalt of truth in the law” [2:14, 20]). Put differently, scholars frequently ascribe different stages of realness to literary descriptions of immoral and moral con- duct: the former are anthropologically real or factual, the latter hypo- thetical or rhetorical. No wonder that positive Judean characters disap- pear from the text (and from history) in the interpretation processes: to comply with the above mentioned theological dictum, Judeans who “do the good” and “do the law” (Rom. 2:7, 10, 13) and “have the ge- stalt of truth in the law” (2:20) become “unreal” characters. In contrast, it remains legitimate to identify a “real” Judean behind the allegedly negative portrayal of a “rhetorical” Judean (2:17). Evaluating the socio-religious realities of first-century Judaism with the help of a perceived “Pauline critique” of Judaism is problematic. The Presence of the Past 203 © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2009 From an epistemological perspective, this mainstream approach is most unsatisfactory because it takes Paul’s own constructions of Israel- ite identities at face value. Apparently, Paul’s use of “literary” dialogue partners (characters in the text like the Judean of Rom. 2:17) is thought to convey a universal truth about “real” people (persons in the world beyond the text). Granted, Paul argues his case with the help of diatribe; and in diatribe, the distance between real audience and fictitious dia- logue partner is often minimal (Thorsteinsson 2003). However, even if one were to conclude that the diatribal figure of the Judean (Rom. 2:17) was a literary figure with negative moral characteristics, liter- ary data are lacking to support the universalization of immoral Judean conduct beyond the text (Spitaler 2008). Here, the theological dictum of universal sinfulness appears to guide attributions of factional or fic- tional realness to characters and their conduct in the text and people in the world beyond the text. The time has come to assess Paul’s charac- terizations with the same kind of suspicion that the portrayals of, for example, Pharisees in the gospel literature receive. Today, no serious scholar argues that the gospel authors’ presentation accurately reflects historical Pharisees. Presumably, contemporary scholars attempt reconstructions of the past from the vantage point of knowing that previous efforts simply were wrong, such as the ones that provided the socio-political and theological rationale, disguised as “historical,” for Adversus Judaeos rhetoric. That is to say, in post-Adversus Judaeos and post-Holocaust times, one’s assessment of Paul’s portrayal of Judeans and Judaism is never scholarly neutral. This is especially true when it comes to choos- ing labels for identifying the ancients, like the Jesus group members with their diverse ethno-religious and cultural biographies (Paul lists, among others, “Barbarians,” “Judeans,” “Israelites,” “Hellenists” [Phil. 3:5, Rom.1:14, 2:9, 10, 3:9; 1 Cor. 1:18–31]). At some point, even historical analysis is vulnerable to succumbing to the seductive power of tradition. Fredriksen’s choice—albeit informed by alternatives and therefore reluctant—of calling the earliest participants in the Jesus group (Israelites and non-Israelites) “Christians” and Israelites “Jews” is, in my opinion, evidence of the influence that tradition in general, and terminological convention in particular, has on interpretation. 204 Academic Roundtable © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2009 If the above cocktail of summary statements from contemporary lit- erature fails to reveal that first century Israelites are far too frequently labeled collectively “the Jews,” consider the following statements. a. “Rom. 2:1–5 most likely refers to the Jews because it is the Jews who would consider themselves morally superior due to posses- sion of the law.… 2:1–4 make it clear that the works of the Jews are evil” (Schreiner 1993). b. “If the structure and context of the argument of Romans 2 are considered, the argument itself requires that he who sits in judg- ment above others [2:1] is the ‘Jew’” (Carras 1992). c. In Romans 2, the “entire race of Jews” is addressed as law-break- ers (Burnett 2001). d. “The Jews attempt to fill shoes that are much too large for them, and they fail lamentably” (Blumenfeld 2001). e. “Paul is here treating a fault which was common among Jews, as a human problem” (Seifrid 2004). f. “The covenant people have become part of the problem, not the agents of the solution” (Wright 2005). g. Romans 2:17–24 reveal the “inclination of Jews” to do what is wrong in spite of circumcision (Fitzmyer 1993). Admittedly, there is little consensus about nomenclature. However, one of the important insights I gained from studying Fredriksen’s book is that, with respect to Adversus Judaeos rhetoric, one’s choice of vocabu- lary indeed matters. In a work that analyzes the Wirkungsgeschichte of this particular polemic, even an ever so cautious embrace of a labeling tradition that already many call anachronistic and inherently flawed appears to be counterintuitive and contrary to the evidence; it is, in Fredriksen’s (2008) words, just another way of endorsing the “language of the winners.” In this case, however, the winners are those who suc- ceeded in establishing a hermeneutics of historicity that embraces mis- nomers as irrefutable facts. Siding with the “winners” is not inherently problematic, but attempting to reconstruct the past with terminology that reinforces the reception history of Adversus Judaeos rhetoric is. After all, it was the repetition of Adversus Judaeos rhetoric, its concepts The Presence of the Past 205 © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2009 and argumentation, that kept it alive throughout the centuries. Argu- ably, applying anachronistic terminology to the ancients results in pre- cisely a subtle perpetuation of aspects of the Adversus Judaeos tradition. When applied to people living in the first century, the label “Jews” reduces historical “Judeans” or “Israelites” to merely rhetorical charac- ters, and the labels “Christians,” “Christian Jews,” and “pagan Christian” (Fredriksen 2008) classify as historical characters that, from the perspec- tive of the first decades of the first century, are purely rhetorical. In works on historical phenomena, any label other than “Christian” and “Jew” for the earliest Jesus group members is historically more accurate and therefore hermeneutically more desirable. For quite some time now, social scientists and others (see Malina and Pilch 2006; Esler 2003; Elliott 2007) have worked hard at dispelling the language ghosts of the past and present and developed alternative vocabulary: Judeans, Israelites, non-Israelites, Hellenists, Jesus group members, etc. Not that I think it necessary that historians pursue “activist” strategies in their writings. However, the reception history of Adversus Judaeos rheto- ric has shown one thing to be true: the written word is never neutral. Because Adversus Judaeos rhetoric is an ugly beast waiting to be unleashed and devour again, repeating the misnomers of the past is rhetorically as powerful as substituting for them historically more accurate (a factual judgment), and therefore better (a value judgment), terminology. References Blumenfeld, Bruno 2001 The Political Paul. Justice, Democracy and Kingship in a Hellenistic Frame- work. Ed. S.E. Porter. Vol. 210, Journal for the Study of the New Testa- ment Supplement Series. London: Sheffield Academic Press. Boers, Hendrikus W. 1994 The Justification of the Gentiles. Paul’s Letters to the Galatians and Romans. Peabody: Hendrikson. 1997 Agápê and Xáris in Paul’s Thought. CBQ 59: 693–713. Bultmann, R. 1910 Der Stil der paulinschen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. 206 Academic Roundtable © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2009 Burnett, Gary W. 2001 Paul and the Salvation of the Individual. Vol. 57, Biblical Interpretation Series. Leiden: Brill. Campbell, Douglas A. 2005 The Quest for Paul’s Gospel. A Suggested Strategy. Vol. 274, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series. London: T&T Clark. Campbell, William S. 2006 Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity, Library of New Testament Studies 322. London: Clark. Carras, George P. 1992. Romans 2: 1–29: A Dialogue on Jewish Ideals. Biblica 73: 183–207. Chae, Daniel Jong-Sang. 1997 Paul as Apostle to the Gentiles. His Apostolic Self-Awareness and Its Influence on the Soteriological Argument in Romans, Pater Noster Biblical and Theologi- cal Monographs. Carlisle: Pater Noster. Cranfield, C.E.B. 1977. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 1, The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Dunn, James D.G. 1998 The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Elliott, John H. 2007 Jesus the Israelite was Neither a “Jew” nor a “Christian”: On Correcting Misleading Nomenclature. Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 5(2): 119–154. doi:10.1177/1476869007079741 Esler, Philip F. 2003 Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter. Minne- apolis, MN: Fortress. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 1993 Romans: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 33, The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476869007079741 The Presence of the Past 207 © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2009 Fredriksen, Paula 2008 Augustine and the Jews. A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism. New York: Doubleday. Gager, John G. 1983 The Origins of Anti-Semitism. Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Chris- tian Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haacker, Klaus 1990 Der Römerbrief als Friedensmemorandum. New Testament Studies 36: 25–41. doi:10.1017/S0028688500010845 Lincoln, Andrew T. 1995 From Wrath to Justification. Tradition, Gospel, and Audience in the The- ology of Romans 1:18–4:25. In Pauline Theology 3: Romans, ed. D.M. Hay and E.E. Johnson. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress. Malina, Bruce J. and John J. Pilch 2006 Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul. Minneapolis: Fortress. Mayordomo, Moisés 2005 Argumentiert Paulus logisch? Eine Analyse vor dem Hintergrund antiker Lo- gik. Vol. 188, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Pesch, Rudolf 1983 Römerbrief. Vol. 6, Neue Echter Bibel NT. Würzburg: Echter. Schreiner, Thomas R. 1993 Did Paul Believe in Justification by Works? Another Look at Romans 2. Bulletin for Biblical Research 3: 131–158. Seifrid, Mark A. 1992. Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme. Vol. 68, Novum Testamentum Supplements. Leiden: Brill. 2004 Unrighteous by Faith: Apostolic Proclamation in Romans 1:18–3:20. In Justification and Variegated Nomism 2: The Paradoxes of Paul, ed. D.A. Carson, P.T. O’Brien and M.A. Seifrid. Tübingen, Grand Rapids: Mohr, Baker. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500010845 208 Academic Roundtable © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2009 Spitaler, Peter 2008. Diatribe and the Construction of a Negative Pauline Anthropology. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 84(4): 445–475. doi:10.2143/ ETL.84.4.2033454 Stowers, Stanley Kent 1981 The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Vol. 57, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series. Chico, CA: Scholars. Stuhlmacher, Robert 1989 Der Brief an die Römer. 14 ed. Vol. 6, Das Neue Testament Deutsch. Göttin- gen, Zürich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Theobald, Michael 2000 Der Römerbrief. Vol. 294, Beiträge zur Forschung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaft- liche Buchgesellschaft. Thorsteinsson, Runar M. 2003. Paul’s Interlocutor in Romans 2. Function and Identity in the Context of Ancient Epistolography. Vol. 40, Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Tobin, Thomas H. 2004 Paul’s Rhetoric in Context. The Argument of Romans. Peabody: Hendrickson. Watson, F.W. 1986 Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach. Vol. 56, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press. Wright, N.T. 2005 Paul. Fresh Perspectives. London: SPCK. http://dx.doi.org/10.2143/ETL.84.4.2033454 http://dx.doi.org/10.2143/ETL.84.4.2033454