The Opponents of Paul Roy Bowen Ward It was who first decisively pointed to the importance of the opponents of Paul for the understanding of both Paul in particular and early Christianity in general.1 Even if Baur's reconstructions are open to criticism,2 he succeeded in making the question of the character of the opponents an inescapable one. Baur supposed that Paul developed his doctrine in opposition to the primi­ tive Christian community, especially in opposition to a Petrine party. Even if wrong in this particular supposition, Baur drew attention to the fact that there was variety in early Christianity and that Paul was by no means admired by all within the early church. It is not necessary to labor the point that modern studies are indebted to Baur nor to criticize again the specific theses of Baur. Nevertheless, one legacy from Baur is especially regret­ table. Baur treated the problem of Paul his opponents In a rather simplified way, viz., two parties divided over the judaizing question. Johannes Munck has noted the way in which the literary hypotheses of Baur were soon rejected, but the historical-theological reconstruc­ tion was able to linger on in current scholarship; that is, the leitmotiv in the history of early Christianity continues to be seen by many as the contrast between Gentile and Jewish Christianity.3 Hans Leitz- mann serves as a convenient example of this view. In his popular history of early Christianity Leitzmann speaks of Paul: Wherever he went, the "" followed. . . . These emis­ saries were in continual contact with Jerusalem, and they made it seem credible to the churches that James and the original Apostles stood behind them. Moreover the shadow of Peter was continually falling upon the path of Paul, whose relation­ ship with the original Apostles at last broke down completely. •4 In post-Baur research attempts have been made to qualify Baur's reconstructions, e.g., to exonerate Peter of any thoroughgoing oppo­ sition to Paul,5 or even to exonerate the leadership (James?) of the Jerusalem church in general.6 But there remains the generalized presupposition that the issue in the first three decades of early

*¥. C. Baur, "Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde," Tübinger Zeitscrift für Theologie (1831) ; Paulus der Apostel Jesu Christi (18451; 1866-672; ET 1873-75). 2Thus, inter al., Α. Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters (ET 1911; J. Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (ET 1959) and my review, RQ 6 (1962), 102-104; W. Schmithals, Paul and James (ET 1965). 3Munck, op. cit., pp. 69-86. 4H. Leitzmann, A History of the Early Church, Vol. 1 (ET 1937), p. 109. 5Cf. O. Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (ET 1953), pp. 33ff. 6C/. now Schmithals, op. cit. 185 Christianity was between Jewish Christianity (especially emanating from Jerusalem) and Gentile Christianity (especially represented by Paul) over the question of the Law of Moses. As Leitzmann sup­ poses, "Wherever he [Paul] went, the 'Judaizers' followed." The question must be raised, however, whether the letters of Paul support such a construction, or is that construction imposed upon them? As a methodological principle Munck has proposed that Paul's individual letters, and the situation that forms the background of each individual letter, must be viewed on their own merits in each case, and the material in the letters and behind these supposed situations may be unified only if such a procedure does not violate the individual nature of the particular letter and of the situation that lies behind it.7 As to method, we can but repeat R. H. Fuller's appraisal that these principles "must surely be accepted as normative by all future his­ torians of the apostolic age."8

I. The Opponents in Galatia Without question, we may denominate the opponents in Galatia as "judaizers." It is in Galatians—and only here—that Paul uses the verb ioudaizein, "to live as a Jew, to live according to Jewish cus­ tom."9 This verb occurs in the reported statement of Paul addressed to Peter, pôs ta ethnë anagkazeis ioudaizein ("how can you compel the Gentiles to live as Jews?" 2:14).10 Properly speaking, ioudaizein presupposes that it is Gentiles who desire or are compelled to "live as Jews"; Jews already live as Jews.11 Thus, in the case of the churches of Galatia, the constituents of these churches were Gentile Christians. Paul's description of them as those who formerly did not know God (ouk eidotes theon, 4:8) certainly refers to Gentiles.12 Furthermore, the crucial question of whether the Galatians should receive circumcision (5:2; 6:12f.) presupposes that they were not Jews but Gentiles. While it is clear enough that the Galatian churches were consti­ tuted of Gentile Christians, the character of those who supported the judaizing program has been a matter of dispute. It has been tradi­ tional to suppose that judaizers must be Jewish Christians and, fol­ lowing Baur, to suppose that they emanated from Jerusalem. Against this view Munck has argued that they were Gentile Christians not connected with Jerusalem at all.13 However, even before Munck's

7Munck, op. cit., p. 85. 8R. H. Fuller, review of Munck, JTS 6 (1956), 285. 9Cf. Plutarch, Oc. VII, 6; Josephus, Bell II, 454; Ignatius ad Mag. 10:3; W. Gutbrod, TWNT III, 385. 10In this case Peter's action is "indirect compulsion"; cf. Schmit­ hals, op. cit., pp. 68f. "This is similar to the use of hellënizein, to live as a Greek—that is, it is non-Greeks who are "hellenized." Cf. Libanius, Or. 11.103. 12Cf. 1 Thess. 4:5, ία ethnë ta me eidota ton theon. 13Munck, op. cit., pp. 87-134. 186 controversial work, a similar argument was advanced by J. H. Hopes14 and later by M. S. Enslin.15 Enslin dismissed the generalized pic­ ture of Jerusalem emissaries dogging the steps of Paul as an "un­ warranted surmise" unsupported by evidence. Instead he offers the hypothesis: In the Galatian churches some of the converts, although of gen­ tile origin, had become enamoured of certain Jewish practices. In this they may well have felt that they were proving faithful to Paul . . . there is no need to assume that these judaizers were of Jewish birth; certainly none to assume they were in­ truders from without Galatia.16 Enslin offers this as "only a hypothesis," but he notes that the tra­ ditional view of the judaizers as Jewish Christian emissaries from Jerusalem is also only a hypothesis with no support in fact. Munck attempts to go beyond offering simply an alternative hy­ pothesis. He finds evidence in Galatians 6:13 that the judaizers must be Gentile Christians, arguing that the present participle with the article, hoi peritemnomenoi, must mean "those who receive circum­ cision," i.e., Gentiles. But, according to 6:13b, it is hoi peritemnome­ noi who "wish you to be circumcised," i.e., to judaize. Ergo, the juda­ izers are Gentile Christians.17 The meaning of hoi peritemnomenoi has been open to some ques­ tion,18 although even W. D. Davies, who thinks it "more probable the Judaizing first arose on Palestinian soil," agrees with Munck's interpretation of hoi peritemnomenoi.19 But W. G. Kümmel, who re­ jects Munck's interpretation of hoi peritemnomenoi, then concludes, "The opponents were, therefore, doubtless Jewish Christians who preached circumcision and fulfillment of the Law."20 Non sequitur. Even if Munck's interpretation of hoi peritemnomenoi fails, on what basis is it "doubtless" that the judaizers were Jewish Christians? As Enslin noted, the hypothesis that the Galatian judaizers were Jewish Christians "has been repeated so often that it has acquired the dignity of an established fact."21 Munck charges that the tendency of modern scholarship to assume

14J. H. Ropes, The Singular Problem of the (1929). Cf. W. Lütgert, Gesetz und Geist (1919), which was influ­ ential in Ropes' work. 15M. S. Enslin, Christian Beginnings (1938), pp. 221f. 16Enslin, loc. cit. "Cf. E. Hirsch, "Zwei Fragen zu Gal. 6," ZNW 29 (1930), 192- 197. 18W. Bauer understands it to mean "those who have themselves circumcised," A Greek-English Lexicon (ET 1957), s.v. Would this refer to a Jew circumcised on the eighth day or to a Gentile? i»W. D. Davies, review of Munck, NTS 2 (1955), 69,71. 20W. G. Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament (ET 1966), p. 195. 21Enslin, op. cit., p. 221. Cf. R. H. Fuller, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament (1966), p. 28.

187 that the judaizers were Jewish Christians with some connection with Jerusalem is due to the influence of Baur. However, apart from Baur's influence there is also another factor which has served to bolster this view. Put in simple terms, modern students of Paul un­ der the influence of the Augustinian-Lutheran interpretation of Christianity find it inconceivable that Gentile Christians would be tempted to take up the requirements of the Law of Moses; only a Jew would propose a judaizing program. This view presupposes, in vary­ ing degrees, that the Law of Moses appeared generally to be a bur­ den, that the issue in Galatians is legalism, and that only Jewish Christians would propose a reversal from the freedom of Christianity to the legalism of . This doctrinaire way of dealing with Judaism and the Law, found already in Augustine's De Spiritu et Littera ad Marcellinum, played an important role in Luther's conver­ sion and theological program. In view of recent research into the nature of Judaism and the Law of Moses in New Testament times,22 it should not be necessary to argue again that the later Christian in­ terpretation of Judaism amounts to a caricature produced for intra­ Christian dogmatic purposes. Furthermore, the appeal of Judaism and her holy book was greater among Gentiles than is sometimes al­ lowed.23 In Galatians Paul does not argue against Judaism per se nor against legalism per se.24 Both Paul and his opponents are con­ cerned with how to understand the Old Testament in the light of Jesus Christ,25 and Paul's argument is an eschatological one, viz., now that the Messiah has come, the requirements of the Law of Moses are obsolete (cf. 3:23-26). So long as the judaizers in Galatia have been viewed as Jewish Christians tied to Palestinian (esp. pharisaic) Judaism, certain ele­ ments in Paul's polemic have presented problems, e.g., the cosmologi- cal references (4:9f.) and the supposed anti-libertine polemic (cf. 5:13). Lütgert and Ropes assumed there were two groups of oppo­ nents in Galatia, presuming the judaizing program to be incompatible with the cosmological-libertine position. However, Paul's letter gives no evidence of two groups.26 Schlier is on firmer ground when he notes the cosmological interests already present in certain Jewish traditions, e.g., in the Book of Jubilees and the Qumran literature.27

22A new appreciation of pharisaic Judaism began already with R. T. Herford, The Pharisees (1924), and G. F. Moore, Judaism (1927- 1930). 23F. C. Grant, Roman Hellenism and the New Testament (1962), pp. 99-112. 24Cf. my "James and Paul: Critical Review," RQ 7 (1963), 159- 164. 2sH. Köster, "GNOMAI DIAPHOROI. The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity," HTR 58 (1965), 308f. 26Cf. A. Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (19642), p. 170. 27H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater (196513), ad 4:9f. and pp. 19-24. 188 Schmithals has gone a step further characterizing the opponents as Gnostics—Jewish Christian Gnostics.28 But Schmithals fails to rec­ ognize the central role of the Law of Moses in the thought of the Galatian opponents. H. Köster does greater justice to the evidence when he describes the opponents in these terms : These Judaizers must have emphasized the spiritual implica­ tions and the cosmic dimensions of the observance of the ritual Law of the Old Testament in particular. . . . spiritual renewal of the Law was understood as a Gospel which must have as­ signed a particular role to Jesus in the context of this theo­ logical endeavor. Such a Gospel must have been a call for obe­ dience to the law as the cosmic rule of God (perhaps: revealed through Christ).29 Thus Köster can speak of the opponents' "Law mythology" which Paul demythologizes by a historical (i.e. eschatological) argument. Whereas for the opponents morality receives only a secondary em­ phasis, for Paul the Christian's task is human responsibility to an existing visible community (cf. 5:6,22; 6:2ff.). II. The Opponents in Corinth (2 Corinthians) The situation at Corinth reflected in 2 Corinthians is markedly different from that in Galatians. Whereas Galatians gives no evi­ dence that the opponents were Jewish Christians, in 2 Corinthians there can be no question that the opponents were Jewish Christians

28W. Schmithals, Paulus und die Gnostiker (1965), pp. 9-46. 2öKöster, art. cit., 307; cf. also idem., "Häretiker im Urchristen­ tum," RGG, III (19593), 17-21. 80H.-J. Schoeps, Paul (ET 1961), pp. 74ff. So also R. H. Strachan, The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1935), p. xxii; E. Käsemann, "Die Legitimatät des Apostels," ZNW 41 (1942), 33-71. In criticism of this attempt to posit a schismatic judaizing group in Jerusalem, see Schmithals, Paul and James, pp. 107f. 189 tians. This fact alone is decisive against the judaizing interpreta­ tion.31 On the other hand, the opponents have sometimes been categorized as Gnostics. Lütgert argued that these opponents were the outcome of the "Christ party" of 1 Corinthians,32 and this position has been taken up afresh in a somewhat modified form by Schmithals.38 The problem inherent in this position is that in 2 Corinthians Paul is more concerned with the issue of apostleship than with the nature of the message preached by the "false apostles."34 It is difficult, therefore, to assess how gnostic these opponents may have been. But one point is clear: The opponents in 2 Corinthians represent a sit­ uation which is markedly different from that in 1 Corinthians. Be­ tween these letters85 the situation at Corinth has changed. In 1 Co­ rinthians there are no "apostles" whom Paul could label "false apos­ tles"; certainly neither Cephas nor represents "false apos­ tles" for Paul. In fact, in 1 Corinthians no clearly defined opposi­ tion appears, although gnostic tendencies were certainly present.38 On the other hand, in 2 Corinthians we find ourselves reading one side of a full-blown controversy between Paul and certain Jewish Christians who call themselves apostles. It is most reasonable to assume that they have come into the church since Paul wrote 1 Co­ rinthians. They may have capitalized on the existing gnostic ten­ dencies, but our evidence does not allow us to say more. The most significant breakthrough in assessing the character of the opponents in 2 Corinthians has come from D. Georgi.37 Georgi rightly sees the issue as competing views of the apostleship.88 The opponents consider themselves to be (1) servants of Christ39 (dw> konoi christou), a title of honor signifying personal ambassadors to Christ; (2) apostles of Christ40 (apostoloi christou), primitive Chris­ tian missionaries; and (3) workers41 (ergatai), missionaries. The

31Munck, op. cit., pp. 171-174; Kümmel, op. cit., p. 209. 32W. Lütgert, Freiheitspredigt und Schwarmgeister in Korinth (1908). Cf. also H. Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief (1924) and Bultmann, Exegetische Probleme des Zweiten Korintherbrief es (1947). 33W. Schmithals, Die in Korinth (1956). 34D. W. Oostendorp has attempted to unveil this message, but he finds it to be judaizing rather than gnosticizing, Another Jesus (1967), pp. 80f. and passim. 85The question of the integrity of 2 Cor. is not a decisive factor at this point. Whether 2 Cor. is composed of one or more Pauline let­ ters, taken together they reveal a changed situation from that in 1 Cor. Cf. my "Paul and Corinth—His Visits and Letters," RQ 3 (1959), 158-168. 36Schmithals, op. cit.; E. Käsemann, Essays on New Testament Themes (ET 1964), pp. 108-135. 37D. Georgi, De Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief (1964). 38Thus also Käsemann, art. cit., 48ff.; Munck, op. cit., pp. 168-195. 392 Cor. 11:23; Georgi, op. cit., pp. 31ff. 402 Cor. 11:13; Georgi, op. cit., pp. 39ff. 412 Cor. 11:13; Georgi, op. cit., pp. 49ff. 190 model for these apostles is the theios anêr as developed in hellenistic- Judaism, and they consider themselves to be working together with God with divine aretë.*2 Given this glorious model for the apostle, Paul fails to measure up. He is not sufficient (hikanos—2:16); he has no "glory" of which to boast (cf. 11) ; and, when he does boast, he can boast only of his weakness (ll:21ff.). Moses may well have been the specific model for the opponents,43 but Paul argues in 3:4-18 that his ministry44 is superior even to that of Moses because of the Spirit,45 despite the fact that he is like an "earthen vessel" (4:7). Georgi goes on to argue that for these apostles Jesus appears as a theios anër (cf. 11:4, alios iësous) so that it was in the earthly life of Jesus that the Spirit was preeminently revealed (cf. 5:16).46 Such a christology may well have had its roots in early Hellenistic Chris­ tianity as evidenced by the hymn in Philippians 2:6ff. (without the Pauline gloss) and in the traditions employed by Mark.47 If so, the opponents in Corinth do not represent an insignificant segment of ^arly Christianity, even if Paul can style them as "false apostles," preachers of "another Jesus." III. The Opponents at Philippi In Philippians ch. 3 Paul polemizes against opponents who, as in the case of other letters, have been identified as judaizers. In this case Baur's work plays no direct role since he did not regard Phi­ lippians as Pauline. However, the approach taken is not unlike Baur's, and it has often been assumed that the opponents here are basically the same as those in Galatia and Corinth.48 However, as in the case of 2 Corinthians, the denomination "judaizers" is hardly applicable since there is in Philippians no indication that the oppo­ nents were demanding circumcision and law-obedience for Gentile Christians.49 Also, unlike Galatians and 2 Corinthians, Philippians shows no evidence that there was any dispute concerning apostleship per se. On the other hand, Paul's statement that "we are the true circum­ cision" (3:3) indicates that the opponents were Jewish. But does

42Georgi, op. cit., pp. 145ff.; 220ff. 43Cf. Philo's interpretation of Moses in his De Vita Mosis. 44English translations obscure the point by failing to translate diakonia as "ministry" in 3:7,9. Oostendorp fails to see that the issue in ch. 3 is the glory of the minister, rather than of the message, op. cit., p. 9. 45See the excellent exegesis of 2 Cor. 3 by W. C. van Unnik, " 'With Unveiled Face,' An Exegesis of 2 Corinthians iii.12-18," Nov Test 6 (1963), 153-169; also idem, "La conception paulienne de la nouvelle alliance," Littérature et théologie pauliniennes (1960), pp. 109-126. 46Georgi, op. cit., pp. 282ff. 47Koster, art. cit., 313. 48Thus A. H. McNeile and C. S. C. Williams, An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament (19532), p. 179. 49Thus Kümmel, op. cit., pp. 231f. 191 this mean that they were Jewish Christians or non- (or anti- ?) Christian Jews? F. W. Beare considers the opponents in 3:2ff. to be Jewish propagandists but those addressed in 3:18 to be another group of antinomian libertines.50 However, it is not convincing, methodo­ logically, to separate this polemic; if it is difficult to apply 3:18f. to Jews and 8:2ff. to libertines, one should find another alternative to describe the opponents rather than to dissect a passage which gives no evidence of being directed against two different fronts. Such an alternative has been supplied by H. Köster in his brilliant analysis of Philippians 3.51 The opponents were like those in 2 Co­ rinthians in that they were Jewish Christians who boasted of their special spiritual qualities. Their Jewishness is confirmed by Paul's statement that "we are the circumcision," and their spiritual boast­ ing is confirmed by Paul's statement that "we are . . . those who serve in the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus" (3:3).52 The opponents' claim to the Spirit makes it unlikely that they were simply Jews, but rather Jewish Christians. But the Philippian opponents are unlike the Corinthian opponents in that they claimed a perfec­ tion demonstrated by their complete fulfillment of the Law of Moses. "Perfect" (teleios) is a key word in 3:12-15, where it is synonymous to righteousness (dikaiosunë, 3:6,9) and where it designates the pos­ session of the qualities of salvation in their entirety.53 Paul employs the language of the opponents, even the language of "knowing Christ" (3:8,10), which was the goal both for Paul and for the op­ ponents. The difference, however, is that for the opponents perfec­ tion is based on a high standard (the Law) which Paul regards as out of date.54 Furthermore, for the opponents perfection is already realized, while for Paul it is still future. Paul employs an unusual formulation, ei pôs kantantësô eis tën eksanastasin tën ek nekrôn (3:11) in which uncertainty is expressed about one's own participa­ tion in the resurrection (ei pos), stress is laid on the future nature of the resurrection (kantantësô), and the presupposition for resurrec­ tion, viz. death, is stressed (ek nekrôn). Paul is obviously arguing against Jewish Christians who think of the resurrection as already achieved.55 To this extent they may be termed Gnostics.56

50F. W. Beare, The Epistle to the Philippians (1959), pp. 101, 133f.; also W. Lütgert, Die Vollkommenen in Philippi und die En­ thusiasten in Thessalonich (1909). 51H. Köster, "The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment," NTS 8 (1962), 317-332. Köster assumes that Philippians is a com­ posite letter, and he treats only the fragment in ch. 3. *Hbid., 320f. 53Here Köster differs from Schmithals, who understands the op­ ponents as Gnostic libertines espousing a spiritual perfection, Paulus und die Gnostiker, pp. 47-89. 54Köster, art. cit., 323. 55Cf. 1 Cor. 15:12ff.; 2 Thess. 2:2,3; 2 Tim. 2:18. 56Schmithals supposes that the Gnostics denied the resurrection, but the form of Paul's polemic would suggest rather that they be­ lieved the resurrection and its eschatological gifts to be a present reality for them. 192 Thus far there is no hint that these opponents were libertines. But what of 3:19, "Their end is destruction, their god is the belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things"? Köster notes that koilia is nowhere in the New Testament understood as the source of sinful sensuality. Koilia may refer to food laws, which would go well with the fact that the opponents were of Jewish origin. But koilia also (and more so for Paul) belongs to the sphere of sarks which is to pass away at the eschaton (cf. Bom. 16:18). Thus Köster concludes, "we have to assume that Paul is sneering at another catchword of the opponents, which expressed their claim of identity with the Divine: 'This, your high religious claim of Divine union, is in fact nothing but the belly, which has no part in the fu­ ture world.' "57 So also Paul's judgment that they set their minds on earthly things (ta epigeia) refers, not to immorality, but to the transient character of their concerns; they were concerned with val­ ues which will pass away. Paul's polemic concludes with his assertion that our politeuma is not here (as the opponents assert) but rather in heaven and, there­ fore, still to come (3:20). This continues Paul's earlier argument that the resurrection—and hence perfection—is still future. IV. Conclusion The current research concerning the opponents of Paul has reached the point where simple solutions will no longer suffice. The attempt to depict all opponents as judaizers (Bauer et al.) or the more recent pan-Gnostic solution (Schmithals) do not hold up when the letters of Paul are carefully investigated and judged individually on their own merits. This means that our picture of early Christianity cannot be painted in black and white but only in full color—with a spectrum wide enough to include not only Paul, Peter and James, but also the juda­ izers of Galatia, the Jewish Christian apostles at Corinth, and the Jewish Christian perfectionists at Philippi.58 Walter Bauer's epoch- making study of "orthodox and heresy" has unveiled the varieties within early Christianity, especially in the second century.59 But we must see that this variety is present already in the period of Paul's letter writing, if not before. The study of the opponents of Paul has considerable results for the understanding of Pauline . Paul frequently employs the language of his opponents and also their mode of argument, turning both around to suit his own purposes. The recognition of this fact

57Köster, art. cit., 327. 58Other hues may be added if the opponents in other Pauline let­ ters are added, plus varieties represented in other early Christian literature. Thus even if the Letter of James is not to be considered anti-Pauline, it nevertheless represents another hue. 59W. Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit und Keterzei im ältesten Christentum (1934), 2nd ed. by G. Strecker (1964). 193 makes it increasingly difficult to demonstrate a "progression" in Paul's thought since the alleged progress60 may be due to different opponents encountered at different places.61 Furthermore, the at­ tempt to systematize Pauline theology becomes, at least, more com­ plicated. A. Schweitzer had noted that Paul did not employ a "justi­ fication by faith" argument in all of his letters and that this argu­ ment was formulated as an ad hoc argument to meet specific prob­ lems.62 But in view of the different types of opponents found in Ga­ latia and Philippi, not to mention the different situation for Romans, even our understanding of "justification by faith" in Paul must be subjected to an investigation of the possible different functions of this doctrine in each letter. It has often been said that Paul was not a systematic theologian; the study of Paul's opponents and his polemic in response to them means that this statement must be taken with great seriousness. The study of the opponents of Paul also has considerable results for New Testament theology in general and particularly the question of orthodoxy and heresy. In Paul's day there was no canon of New Testament scripture to which one might appeal as authoritative. Paul's own apostleship was in question, even in churches which he had founded; thus his authority as an apostle could hardly be counted on as an easy solution to the questions of his day. What we do find in the issues between Paul and his opponents is the attempt to find criteria for Christian life and thought. When the church later rec­ ognized a canon of scripture which included thirteen letters of Paul, then the Pauline criteria were accepted among the normative cri­ teria.63 But in Paul's day the quest for criteria was in progress. It should be remembered that in every case noted above the op­ ponents of Paul believed in Jesus Christ and were baptized. Fur­ thermore, despite the invective employed by Paul, the positions taken by his opponents were not too far removed from Paul's own position. More radical differences were to appear later, e.g., the difference between Marcion and the judaizing position or certain Jewish-Chris­ tian positions in the post-70 era as compared with the Gnostic exalta­ tion of Christ. Much of the earlier research into the nature of the opponents of

60Cf. C. H. Dodd, New Testament Studies (1954), chs. 4-6. 61The demonstration of a "progression" in Pauline thought also hangs upon the question of the chronological order of the Pauline letters, not to mention the question of the authenticity of several Pauline letters. 62A. Schweitzer, The Mysticism of (ET 1931), pp. 205-226. 63Of course there was no self-evident agreement as to the interpre­ tation of these criteria as time passed. See the brilliant essay of S. Laeuchli, "The Heresy of Truth," in The Serpent and the Dove (1966), in which Laeuchli notes, "the canon led the church toward both her­ esy and the search for orthodoxy" (p. 94). 194 Paul and early heresies was occupied with historical questions as such. Ή. Köster, true to his teacher (Bultmann), has raised this question to a theological level, arguing that In the quest for criteria, the tasks of the historian and of the theologian are identical. . . . The search for the decisive cri­ terion for the distinction between true and false belief coincides with the historical quest for the essential characteristics of Early Christianity as such.64 Köster argues that the historical Jesus, who undoubtedly stands at the origin of Christianity, must be the criterion of Christian procla­ mation and theology,65 and it is this question which is the basis of the problem of orthodoxy and heresy.66 In the issues that faced Paul the christological problem appears to be the common denominator. "What think you of the Christ?" was at the beginning the funda­ mental theological question. Nor has it lost its importance down to our own day.67 Miami University

64Köster, "GNOMAI DIAPHOROI," p. 281. **Ibid., p. 282. ββΗ. Köster, "Häritiker im Urchristentum als theologisches Problem," in Zeit und Geschichte (1964), pp. 61-76, esp. pp. 70ff. 67I am indebted to the kind assistance of Mr. Bernard Scott. 195 ^s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.