Book Notice: The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism

John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (eds.)

The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism

Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010.

Available at Amazon.com

This is a pretty monumental reference resource on ancient Judaism that people working with Jewish and Christians texts should know about. The book contains a series of opening essays (see below) and an A-Z of dictionary articles from "Aaron" to "Zerubbabel". At a brief glance there were good articles on "election" (Simon Gathercole), "exile" (Allison Schofield), "Enoch, Similitudes" (Michael A. Knibb), "Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism" (M.H. Williams), "Luke-Acts" (David Moessner), "Mediator Figures" (Larry Hurtado), and "Purity and Impurity" (Hannah Harrington) to name a few. I couldn't think of any topics that were missing, though in some cases I found myself wanting to know more than just the facts and statistics, but what the author thought about stuff like the purpose of 1 Esdras, etc. But if you're a student and you want to know who the heck is "Metratron" or want a run down on "Tobit, Book of", this is a good place to look. Among the essays, I found Loren Stuckenbruck's on "Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha" to be the most informative, esp. on the purpose and function of pseudepigraphy.

Essays include:

Early Judaism in Modern Scholarship
John J. Collins

Jewish History from Alexander to Hadrian
Chris Seeman and Adam Kolman Marshak

Judaism in the Land of Israel
James C. VanderKam

Judaism in the Diaspora
Erich S. Gruen

The Jewish Scriptures: Texts, Versions, Canons
Eugene Ulrich

Early Jewish Biblical Interpretation
James L. Kugel

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
Loren T. Stuckenbruck

Dead Sea Scrolls
Eibert Tigchelaar

Early Jewish Literature Written in Greek
Katell Berthelot

Archaeology, Papyri, and Inscriptions
Jürgen K. Zangenberg

Jews among Greeks and Romans
Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev

Early Judaism and Early Christianity
Daniel C. Harlow

Early Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism
Lawrence H. Schiffman

Gentiles for Moses?

Over at Bible and Interpretation is my article on "'Gentiles for Moses': The Debate about the Nature and Intensity of Jewish Proselytizing Efforts in Ancient Judaism".

Paul and salvation in Judaism(s)

I've added what I think is an important paragraph to my "Salvation in Paul's Judaism" article about Paul's discontinuities as being intra or contra Judaism:

My own view is that Paul very much straddles the “contra” and “intra” Judaism fence depending on what part of his career one looks at, what we make of the gravity of his rhetoric, and contingent upon what social pressures he was facing at the time. Paul is intra-Judaism insofar as most of his community debates can normally be paralleled in halakhic discussions and they are often analogous to similar debates that took place among Jews in the Diaspora (Paul was not the first Jew to argue about food and circumcision and the Gentiles!). On the top of that, Paul’s rhetoric fits the sectarian context of second temple Judaism with rancorous polemics between sects and Paul never intended to set up a new religious entity. Yet Paul can also be seen to be contra Judaism in a very real sense as he seems to be willing to go where very few Jews would wish to follow by lowering the currency of Israel’s election in including Gentiles as part of the “Israel of God”. Indeed, Paul’s exegesis of Lev 18:5, his anthropological pessimism, the triadic link of law-sin-death that he makes, and attributing the law to angels are too raw and radical for most of his contemporaries to accept as “in-house” debates. In any case, Paul’s contrariety will depend entirely on which salvation scheme in Judaism we are talking about for it seems that Paul knew several. In Rom 1:18-32, his critique of idolatry and pagan immorality mirrors the “ethical monotheism” of Philo, Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach as Paul doubts the existence of pagan philosophers who have a soul that is on its own sojourn towards God and the heavenly Jerusalem. Paul evidently knows of a “covenantal nomism” whereby grace is embedded in the covenant and obedience is merely the appreciative response to maintain one’s election, yet his objection remains that covenantal grace is only efficacious in the context of covenantal obedience which is precisely what Israel lacks (Romans 2–3, 9–11). Paul responds most virulently to an “ethnocentric nomism” (Gal 2:1–3:24; Phil 3:1-9) whereby Christ is merely an add-on to the Sinaitic covenant so that Christ tops-up rather than displaces the salvific function of portions of the Torah. This effectively keeps the butterfly in the cocoon and locates salvation exclusively within the Jewish constituency. Paul strenuously objects that the gospel is the good news that pagans can be saved by becoming Jews. Paul also responds to a “sapiential nomism” (1 Cor 1:10–3:23) that I postulate as a scheme arising in Corinth that perceives in Christ and the Torah a means to wisdom, power and glory. Finally, Paul opposes an “apocalyptic mysticism” that locates salvation as something acquired through law-observance coupled with visionary ascents to heaven couched in the language of Hellenistic philosophy (Colossians).

Steve Mason on Josephus, Jews, and Gospel

I've enjoyed and benefitted from several of Steve Mason's works on Josephus in the past few years (evident in my forthcoming Crossing Over Sea and Land) and below I'd like to do a quick book notice on his latest publication Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Categories (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009 [Available from Alban Books in the UK]) and briefly interact with his thought provoking article in Bible and Interpretation on "Methods and Categories: Judaism and the Gospel" which is adapted from the forementioned book.

Mason's study on Ioudaismos is highly informative and I don't contest most of what he says esp. the relation of Ioudaismos to Ioudaizein. What I do find objectionable is his view that Ioudaismos only became a "system" in the minds of later Christian interpreters. I doubt that because: (1) Paul's remarks in Galatians 1 about advancing in Judaism beyond most of his contemporaries assumes his advancement in beliefs and behaviours charactistic of the Judeans. In Mason's analysis Ioudaismos becomes equivalant to zelous which I doubt. (2) Philo and others can refer to the Israelite religion as a form of national philosophy which is a system of belief, indeed, they arguably reduce it to a set of philosophical tenets with some nationalistic trimmings. (3) The existence of sects like Pharisees and Essenes requires elements of an ideological profile that differentiates them from one another (i.e. sectarianism) and but also features that they share as well (i.e. Judaism). (4) The other problem of linking Ioudaismos to Ioudaizein is that, strictly speaking, Jews don't judaize! To "judaize" is something that only a non-Jew can do. For example, in Gal 2 Paul accuses Peter of forcing Gentiles to "judaize". Usage in Josephus confirms this since in Jewish War there is the story of the Roman commander Mitellius who offered to judaize to the point of circumcision. The Gentile inhabitants of the city of Antioch had to be wary of the "judaizers" who they feared would support the Jews during inter-racial tensions in the city. (5) Similarly, I would dispute Masons' claim that the category of "religion" did not exist, because it certainly did as the words threskeia and pietas denotes one's relgious behaviour. Where Mason's point is valid is that religion was not ordinarily divorced from territorial deities or regional loyalties. In counter-point, I would maintain the appropriateness of the term Judaism for signifying ethnicity and shared custom (John Barclay's definition!).

On "gospel", Mason's lexical study is again illuminating, esp. his translation of euangelion as "announcement" which I suspect (though I need to think more on this) does work. Once more, however, I contest his findings in one particular area. He writes: "I propose, to euangelion appears to be a term characteristic of Paul’s mission. It was something that he connected only with his own work, often in strikingly proprietary terms. He was eager to associate his own converts and followers with to euangelion as a shared treasure, but he became notably reticent to associate Christ-followers of other persuasions with it—not because they were unworthy, necessarily, but simply because they were different and not part of his mission, which was called to euangelion." But Paul did not connect "gospel" exclusively to his own work since he tells the Galatians that he and the Jerusalem church agreed on the "gospel" for the circumcised and uncircumcised (Gal 2:8-9) and he told the Corinthians that they could have heard the same gospel from Peter or from the other Apostles (1 Cor 15:11). Indeed, primitive gospel summaries found in Rom 1:3-4 and 1 Cor 15:3-5 look distinctively pre-Pauline. Luke also has a redactional habit of substituting euangelion for the verbal form euangelizomai. Luke is certainly a Pauline fan, but he is also an independent thinker and using non-Pauline sources as well. Even Mark who is a Pauline disciple seems to have Petrine sympathies as well according to the content of his Gospel and in later Christian tradition. Gerd Theissen suggests that Mark's use of "gospel" is "coloured" by usage of the word in the late 60s in association with Vespasian's rise to power. In the Synoptic Gospels Jesus does proclaim a gospel which many have taken to be a wild anachronism esp. if it is freighted with Pauline connotations. Even so, Jesus never proclaims the gospel of his death and resurrection which marks a fundamental discontinuity between the Synoptic Jesus and Paul. Jesus' statement about the "gospel of God" (e.g. Mk 1:15) seem clearly at home in a Palestinian context with analagous language found in Qumran (e.g 4Q521 col. 2). Paul was undoubtedly the main distributor of term "gospel" and he popularized a particular form of the expression in the early church, but I doubt that he was the progenator of the expression or even the single conduit through which it entered the grammar of the early church.

Salvation and "Paul's Judaism"

When I say "Paul's Judaism" do you think of (a) the Judaism known to Paul, or (b) Paul's own beliefs and practices as an expression within Judaism? It is an interesting question and it was Mark Nanos who inspired the thought in me and I've been musing on this subject for a while now. Along with Mark and several others, I'm down to speak at a conference in Leuven, Belgium on New Perspectives on Paul and the Jews and I've finally completed my paper for that event. I've attached a draft here. Comments welcomed below.

Paul the Jewish Evangelist

I am currently working on an essay about "Paul's Judaism" (partly inspired by a Mark Nanos stirring paper). I hope to one day return to the subject of Paul as a missionary among the Gentiles and not just too them (see Rom. 1.5 and 1 Cor. 9.20). That I think opens up the possiblity of Paul seeing himself as having some kind of role as an evangelist to Diaspora communities as well even if only in a limited sense with his main role oriented towards non-Jews. But the subject of Jewish evangelism is often rejected in favour of a Sonderweg (special way) of salvation for Jews under the Torah and Mosaic covenant. It's also argued that Israel's "misstep" was its refusal to accept that, with the resurrection of Jesus, God had now opened up a way for Gentiles to enter the Abrahamic family through faith in Christ. The biggest problem I have is that apart from not making sense of Romans 9-11 it implies that the existence of Jewish Christianity was simply a necessary transitional phase or, even worse, a grave mistake. On Jewish evangelism in relation to Romans (esp. 10.14-21!) note the following quotations from Richard Bell and N.T. Wright:

Richard H. Bell (Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11 [WUNT 2.63; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1994], 354-55): ‘Paul’s theology demands a mission to the Jewish people. Provoking Israel to jealousy is no replacement for mission. It is just one possible precursor for mission. The gospel must be preached for it is only the gospel, God’s reconciling word, which can make someone a Christian (Rom. 10.17) … I would maintain that evangelism to Jews is not antisemitism; rather to renounce preaching the liberating gospel to Jewish people is antisemitism’.

N.T. Wright (‘Romans,’ in NIB, ed. Leander E. Keck [12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 2002], 10.697): ‘to imagine that Jews can no longer be welcomed into the family of the Messiah … [that] for Paul, would be the very height of anti-Judaism’.

See further The Berlin Declaration on the Uniqueness of Christ and Jewish Evangelism in Europe Today and the book To the Jew First: The Case for Jewish Evangelism in Scripture and History edited by Darrell Bock and Mitch Glaser.

Longenecker and Paul's Tension with Judaism

Longenecker does better than either the traditional or New Perspective in analyzing the "supposed" tension with Paul's Jewish heritage, that is at least in one place in his little book on Paul--his view on the law and the work of Christ, for example, is not consistent with this however (pp. 93-96). 

Rather than a tension with the legalistic, works-based religion of Judaism in view of the gracious message of the Gospel (traditional) or the nationalistic and ethno-centric religion of Judaism in view of the universal and transcultural Gospel (NP), Longenecker said it was a tension of eschatological fulfillment. He writes:

The primary tension of Judaism, which dominates all the Old Testament and Jewish thought generally, is that of covenant promise and anticipated fulfillment. The religion of Israel is a religion of promise, with consummation reserved for the coming of the Messiah and the Messianic Age. And it was this tension, rather than any having to do with ethics, motivation or universalism, which Paul found resolved in commitment to Jesus of Nazareth as God's promised Messiah -- the Messiah rejected, crucified, risen and now exalted. 

The Ministry and Message of Paul, p. 30.

Jews eating with Gentiles

When it comes to Jews eating with Gentiles, what were the options, and what attitudes did Jews have towards Gentile food and Gentile dining company? This is an important question for Jews living in cities of the Diaspora where kosher food was not always plentiful and they had to interact with Gentiles in order to get anywhere in the social order. Here's an overview:

Rejection of Gentile oil as impure: Josephus, Life 74; War 2.591; Ant. 12.120.
Rejection of Gentile wine: Dan. 1.8; Add. Esth. 4.17.
Bringing one’s own food and wine to a meal: Jdth. 12.1-4, 19.
Eating only vegetables: Dan. 1.8-15; Josephus, Life 14; Rom. 14.1-2.
Dispensing with prayers and libations at joint meals: Ep. Arist. 184-85.
Sitting at separate tables: Jos. and Asen. 7.1.
Not eating with Gentiles at all: Acts 10.28; 11.3; Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.

Josephus' Adiabene story and Acts 15

Anyone wanting to get a grip on the diverse beliefs within Judaism about conversion and adherence to Judaism by Gentiles (did Gentiles have to be circumcized in order to becom Jews?) have to read Josephus' account in Antiquities 20 on the conversion of the house of Adiabene. This provides an excellent background to the kind of disputes you find in Acts 15 and Galatians. A good discussion of the debate and comparison of Luke and Josephus can be found in Google Books at. Is Paul versus the Proselytizers in Galatia another version of Ananias vs. Eleazar in Adiabene?

Daniel R. Schwartz, ‘God, Gentiles, Jewish Law: On Acts 15 and Josephus’ Adiabene Narrative.’ In Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World. Edited by J. Frey, D. R. Schwartz, and S. Gripentrog. AJEC 71, Leiden: Brill, 2007., pages 263-281.

Jewish Interpretations of Paul

As a follow-up to a recent CBR article by myself and Preston Sprinkle on "Jewish Interpretations of Paul in the Last 30 Years", one of my students brought this book to my attention:

Riccardo Calimani,
Paolo, l'ebreo che fondo' il cristianesimo
= Paul, the Jew who established Christianity
(Oscar Storia, Mondadori, 2005)

I once asked Richard Bauckham how was he able to read biblical studies works written in Italian. I shall never forget his reply: "Well, if you can read Latin and Spanish, then Italian is quite easy to manage". I'm sure it is . . . but for us lesser mortals Google Language Tools will suffice in the meantime.

Being a 'Jew' or a 'Judean'

Among the on-going debate (see here from Phil Harland) as to whether or not Ioudaioi should be translated as "Jew" or "Judean", is one piece of evidence mostly overlooked from Epictetus:

‘Why, then do you call yourself a Stoic, why do you deceive the multitude, why do you act the part of a Jew, when you are a Greek? Do you not see in what sense men are severally called Jew, Sirian, or Egyptian? For example, whenever we see a man halting between two faiths, we are in the habit of saying, “he is not a Jew, he is only acting the part”. But when he adopts the attitude of mind of the man who has been baptized and made his choice, then he both is a Jew in fact and is also called one’ (Epictetus. Diss. 2.9.19-20, trans. W.A. Oldfather, LCL).

I have to ask does being a "Jew" here refer to belonging to the geography or ethnography of Judea? I don't think so. So I still find reason to think that, at some points at least, Ioudaioi can be broader than Judean. In Epictetus is seems highly religious and even related to a certain praxis.

A Definition of Mission

Later in the year I'm returing to the topic of mission or proselytism in the ancient world. I think that alot of the arguments about whether or not second-temple Judaism was a missionary religion or not comes down to a matter of the definition of mission and the differences between conversion and adherence - balancing sociological and theological factors also contributes to the definition. For example James C. Paget defines a missionary religion as ‘one which, in a variety of ways, makes it clear that conversion to that religion is a good thing’. Based on his work on mission-commitment in Judaism, John Dickson defines mission as ‘the range of activities by which members of a religious community desirous of the conversion of outsiders seek to promote their religion to non-adherents’. Martin Goodman identifies different types of missionary activity including: information, education, apologetic and proselytization. For him the latter consists of: 'Those who approved of proselytizing mission believed that, as members of a defined group, they should approve of those within their number who might choose to encourage outsiders not only to change their way of life but also to be incorporated within their group'. What started me thinking on this subject was Scot McKnight's much under read book Light Among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (1991) which is well worth checking out.

Inscriptions on Apostates

I an currently reading Stephen Wilson's Leaving the Fold: Apostates and Defectors in Antiquity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004). It includes some good epigraphic evidence for either Jewish acculuturation to pagan culture or for apostasy altogether:

Moschos, son of Moschion, a Jew, as a result of a dream [has set up this stele] at the command of the god Amphiaraos and Hygeia, in accordance with the orders of Amphiaraos and Hygeia to write these things on a stele and set [it] up by the altar.

Series of Inscriptions at the temple of the god Pan

Bless God! Theodotos [son] of Dorion, a Jew, rescued from the sea.

Ptolemaios [son] of Dionysios, a Jew, blesses the god.

And some others like this one from North Africa:

In memory [plus chi-rho symbol] of the blessed Istablicus who is also called Donatus. Installed by his brother Peregrinus, who is also called Mosattes, once a Jew.

This inscription from Italy in the fourth to fifth century implies a Jew's conversion to Christianity:

Here lies Peter, who is [also called] Papario, son of Olympus the Jew, and the only one of his family/people who has deserved to attain the grace of Christ.

See Wilson, pp. 52-65.

Chris VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification

One provocative volume on Pauline studies in recent days is by Chris VanLandingham, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006). Available in the UK and Europe through Alban Books for £16.99 and through Hendrickson in the USA for $29.99.

VanLandingham (henceforth VanL.) contests the picture of second-temple Judaism as having a soteriological structured along the lines of E.P. Sanders' "covenantal nomism" and argues that it was more works orientated than is often recognized. At the same time, VanL. advocates that Paul is in many ways equally works orientated in his view of final justification by works. In this sense VanL. argues against the grain of both revisionist and reformed readings of Paul and Judaism. He wants to reevaluate the relationship between divine grace and human rewards as they relate to the destiny of the individual in Judasm and the writings of Paul. He writes:

"My thesis is that in the letters of Paul and in much of the literature of Judaism from the Greek and Early Roman periods, a post-mortem or Last Judgment of God determines an individual's eternal destiny. Moreover, both corpora agree that an individuals' behavior during his or her lifetime provides the criterion for this judgment: good behavior is rewarded with eternal life, bad behavior with damnation . . . This book also examines the notion of divine recompense within the framework of God's grace and mercy as understood in early post-biblical Jewish texts and in Paul's letters. God's grace and mercy may be present throughout a person's life, working on his or her behalf; but one's deeds determine approbation at the final judgment. On this subject, I find no difference between Paul and his Jewish contemporaries" (p. 15).

In chapter 1 VanL. looks at the theme of the election of Israel and he finds that in accounts of Abraham's election that divine grace is remarkably absent - election is a result of Abraham's obedience. In chapter 2 VanL. examines the criteria for eternal life. VanL. maintains that in much literature it is not God's covenant with Israel but one's behaviour that determines one's destiny. VanL. shifts his focus to Paul in chapter 3 and he asserts that at the final assize God could potentially reject believers for moral failure and God's judgment is principally retributive and behaviour forms the "sole" criterion. Then in chapter 4 VanL. offers his solution to the paradox of justification by faith and judgment according to deeds. VanL. contests the forensic meaning of justification and contends that it refers to forgiveness of sins and freedom from sin at the beginning of the Christian life. He writes in his conclusion:

"What happens to the Christian initiate at the time of faith or baptism of course has an effect upon how that person will be judged by God, but he or she is not ultimately approved solely because of the work of Christ, or because of baptism, or because of faith in Jesus as Christ and Lord. The Last Judgment is not a judgment over the work of Christ or even over what the Holy Spirit has done in the believer; it is a judgment over the individual and what he or she has done. The work of Christ has made it possible to receive approbation in a judgment according to deeds, but not because God is merciful toward the Christian based on Christ's merit, nor because in God's perception Christ's death has made it as though the Christian has never sinned. Rather, the process of salvation is worked out as follows: At the time of faith, a person who has been 'made righteous' is forgiven of past sins (which then become a dead issue), cleansed from the guilt and impurity of sin, freed from the human propensity to sin, and then given the ability to obey. The Last Judgment will then determine whether a person, as an act of the will has followed through with these benefits of Christ's death. If so, eternal life will be the reward; if not, damnation"
(p. 335).

I do not have time to enter into a major discussion with VanL.'s book. But if he is right it would have tremendous repercussions for understanding Judaism and Paul. Overall, VanL. offers a very careful analysis of texts from second-temple Judaism and Paul and his case is worth listening to as he questions many assumptions, both modern and ancient, about Judaism and Paul. In the final analysis, however, I am not convinced by much of his exegesis and I hope at a later date to offer a more extensive article review and engage with his treatments of 1QS and Romans 2 in particular - But that's for another day.

The commendations include:

“With Judgment and Justification Chris VanLandingham enters the fray that is the study of the Apostle Paul against his Jewish backdrop. But rather than simply logging another entry into the catalog of oft-repeated and well-worn arguments, VanLandingham proffers a thesis sure to challenge the positions of all parties in the debate. To those who have followed and advanced the “New Perspective” on Paul first put forth by E. P. Sanders, VanLandingham marshals an impressive array of evidence culled from Jewish sources to argue that the mainstream Judaism of Paul’s day was indeed a religion that urged good works as the path to God’s favor. He radically reinterprets the doctrine of “justification by faith” by arguing that Paul himself fits well into the mold of contemporary Judaism by teaching that those who have experienced forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ must themselves produce a life of good deeds to secure a favorable judgment in the end. Not only will the arguments of this book change the landscape of Pauline studies, but they should also be heard as a contributing voice to Christian theology. This book is not just an engaging piece of scholarship; it will prove to be one of those rare scholarly works that challenge the convictions of those who read it.”
—Jeffrey S. Lamp, Associate Professor of New Testament, Oral Roberts University

“Chris VanLandingham’s stunningly provocative and well-argued thesis demands careful engagement. E. P. Sanders was simply wrong as were those who built uncritically on his foundation. Election in Second Temple Judaism was a reward for obedience. Salvation was earned as quid pro quo. The Apostle Paul, for his part, agreed with his Second Temple peers and encouraged his hearers to accrue the good works necessary for the reward of eternal life. Justification (by faith), never employed in forensic contexts, has been almost completely misconstrued. VanLandingham calls for a complete overhaul in our understanding of both Second Temple Judaism and Paul. The theological implications would be breathtaking.”
—A. Andrew Das, Niebuhr Distinguished Chair and Associate Professor of Theology and Religion, Elmhurst College

Chris VanLandingham earned his Ph.D. in Judaism and Christianity in the Greco-Roman World from the University of Iowa under the supervision of Dr. George Nickelsburg. He has served as an Assistant Professor of Ancient History at Oral Roberts University and as an Adjunct Professor of Ancient History at St. Gregory's University, both in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Pauline Myths: Judaisms and Judaizers

In the course of Pauline studies there are two terms that float around with great frequency, and yet they are little more than semantic myths, words with near technical meaning and near universal assent, but they do not match up to the reality which the word puportedly represents. What are these words?

1. Judaisms. It is often touted that second-temple was so diverse that it is more accurate to speak of Judaisms rather than a singular Judaism. What's the problem here? Well, that there was diversity in second-temple Judaism is a no-brainer, one only has to compare Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls to figure that one out. Nonetheless, despite the penchant for diversity in second-temple Judaism, authors of this period (like Paul) who were fully aware of the diversity of belief and practice among their co-religionionists always refer to Judaism (Ioudaismos) in the singular! See e.g. 2 Macc. 2.21; 8.1; 14.38; 4 Macc. 4.26; Gal. 1.13-14 (and at least one inscripton from CIJ which I cannot track down).

2. Judaizers. It is common to refer to Paul's opponents as Judaizers and where this term designates Paul's Jewish Christians opponents it is a misleading designation. Why? Well, to begin with only Gentiles can Judaize. One who judaizes is a Gentile and it means to take on, in whole or in part, Jewish customs. In Galatians 2, Paul reprimands Peter (not for judaizing himself) but for forcing Gentiles to judaize. Similarly, Josephus (Wars 2.463) points out that the Syrians in Antioch sought to attack the Jewish populace but had to be wary of the judaizers and this clearly refers to Gentile adherents/sympathizers to Judaism. Where this term designates Gentiles who follow or propagate a Jewish lifestyle (and it could arguably be used to describe certain Gentiles in Romans) it is indeed appropriate - but not for Paul's Jewish Christian adversaies in Antioch and arguably Galatia. I got this insight while reading Mark Nanos' The Irony of Galatians and wish I had applied it in my recent Paul book where I did use the term judaizers. Oh well, all the more reason for a second edition one day - Lord and Paternoster willing.