The Opponents of Paul Roy Bowen Ward It was Ferdinand Christian Baur 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 New Testament 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 "Judaizers" 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 Epistle to the Galatians (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 Judaism. 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.