Читать книгу Paul Among the Gentiles: A "Radical" Reading of Romans - Jacob P. B. Mortensen - Страница 25

Mark Nanos goes straight to the point when he declares, ‘Defining who is a Jew and who is not is both simple and complex…’1 It is quite simple to merely ask, Who is circumcised and who is not? But that merely settles the question of approximately half of the persons in question, the males. What about the female Jews?2 Also, what if a person has a Gentile father, but was born to a mother who converted to Judaism? Or, if a person has a Jewish father, but was born by a Gentile mother? And what if this person was never circumcised – or indeed was circumcised, or converted at a later stage in life? Indeed, what does it mean to be or become a Jew and/or Jewish? Is it enough to be identified as a Jew (i.e. having a Jewish identity), or does behaviour also play a role (i.e. behaving like a Jew)? And does it matter whether it is a Jew or a Gentile who identifies one as Jewish? All these questions muddle the simple starting point of circumcision, and they also draw attention to the assumption that there may be Jews who are more ‘real’ Jews than other Jews, even if all are circumcised.3 Nevertheless, these kinds of questions help Mark Nanos to navigate the difficult question of how to describe the members of Paul’s associations, and how to define their ethno-religious status.

If we stick with the circumcised Jews, it is possible to distinguish – though not without overlap – between the ethnic identity of Jews as ‘Jewish people’ and behaviour that characterizes Jews (and is, thus, ethnic). The behaviour of these Jewish people may be called ‘Jewish’ (with an upper-case J). This means that they behave ‘Jewishly’, in a way characteristic of ‘Jewishness’, or they may be said to practise ‘Judaism’ (with an upper-case J).4 But what about non-Jews – could they become Jews? According to some Jews holding to the ancient tradition, only those circumcised on the eighth day qualified as ‘the sons of the covenant which the Lord made with Abraham’ (Jubilees 15:26). Consequently, by definition, the author(s) of Jubilees rules out the transformation of non-Jews into Jews. However, various ancient non-Jewish authors recognized that non-Jews could become Jews.5 Paul also seems to have agreed that non-Jews could become Jews (Gal 2:11–14; 5:2–3; 6:12–13), regardless of whether or not they actually should. And in texts from Paul’s time, Jews generally agreed that circumcision represents a decisive rite for a (male) non-Jew undertaking to become a proselyte, that is, a Jew by choice rather than birth. However, if (male) non-Jews wished to remain non-Jews but still somehow wanted to be affiliated with Judaism, Jewish behaviour, Jewish beliefs, and Jewish practices (i.e. a Jewish way of life), they would be recognized as ‘god-fearers’ (θεοσεβεῖς). These god-fearers may have behaved jewishly (with a lower-case j) and may even have been considered jewish (with a lower-case j), but they would generally have been considered non-Jews. Consequently, non-Jews could think and behave in ways described as ‘jewish’, and they could do it without being or becoming Jews, just as Jews could choose to not think or behave in these ways.

With the foregoing conceptual distinctions in place, Nanos then turns to the question of Paul’s associations, in order to test and apply the distinctions: What if a group composed of non-Jews, with some Jews as leaders, behaves jewishly? What if a group of non-Jews was founded or advised by Jews, and it functions independent of any Jews, yet bases its thinking and behaviour on Jewish Scriptures, traditions, and ways of life? How would such a group be identified – and should we use the lower-case j or the upper-case J to describe it? And what happens when Paul writes to non-Jews to dissuade them from becoming Jews (i.e. undergoing circumcision), yet argues that these uncircumcised non-Jews were full and equal members of the family of God alongside Jewish members, indeed, equally children of Abraham and co-heirs of the promises made to him and his seed, and not simply welcome guests (Rom 4; Gal 3:6–4:7)? That Paul argues thus has led many scholars to conclude that Paul also abandoned his own identity as a Jew, or that he remained a Jew ethnically, even if he no longer ascribed any value to that identity.6 These scholars often claim that Paul abandoned the practice of Judaism – that he no longer behaved Jewishly – or that he remained Jewish ethnically, but not religiously. But according to Mark Nanos, lacking from this description are distinctions and qualifications: To ‘become a Jew’ and to ‘become jewish’ (i.e. practise Judaism) are not interchangeable. There is a huge difference between dissuading Christ-believing non-Jews from ‘becoming Jews’ (i.e. undergoing circumcision), and dissuading non-Jews from thinking or behaving jewishly, or practising Judaism.7 And it is probably an even greater ironic twist, when scholars who neglect such differentiation maintain that these non-Jews then becomes ‘spiritual’ or ‘true’ Jews, usually by appealing to Rom 2:25–29.8 I consider Paul’s own identity below.

According to Mark Nanos, what Paul does is to oppose Gentiles undertaking proselyte conversion (i.e. circumcision) in order to become Jews ethnically (circumcision signifying the completion of the ‘conversion’ rite). Instead, Paul urges Gentiles to observe Judaism and to behave jewishly, so they become jewish Gentiles, or perhaps even jewishish Gentiles. Thus, Mark Nanos tries to conceptualize the behaviour and identity of Paul’s addressees by designating these Gentiles as ‘jewishish Gentiles’, as jewish non-Jews, as judaizing non-Jews (judaizers), or as jewish-like non-Jews. All these titles indicate that they were non-circumcised Gentiles affiliated with Judaism. They remained Gentiles, even though they were somehow affiliated with Judaism. Another identity to understand is the one Paul addresses in Galatians – the Jewish Gentiles. These would be circumcised Gentiles, and therefore proselytes (i.e. Jews, but not historical-ethnic Jews). But the important point to keep in mind is that Paul does not see this as a valid option for Gentiles after the Christ-event. There would have been other identities such as Jewish Jews (i.e. practising historical-ethnic Jews), and non-Jewish Jews or un-Jewish-like Jews (i.e. non-practising, apostate Jews), but these are less relevant in connection with Paul, even though they occupy a space in Paul’s conceptual world. Nevertheless, all these titles and neologisms that Mark Nanos has provided are valuable descriptive tools for exploring Paul’s letters.