Bibliotheca Sacra 155
(January-March 1998) 39-61.
Copyright © 1998 by
WERE THE OPPONENTS
AT
NECESSARILY JEWISH?
Herbert
W. Bateman IV
Paul's
allusion in Philippians to a group or groups of oppo-
nents has resulted in a
myriad of suggestions. "One of the most
hotly debated issues in the contemporary study of
Philippians is
that of the nature and identity of the opponents to
whom Paul al-
ludes in his letter."1
Some suggest the opponents (or at least one
group of opponents) were Jews who went to
"reconvert" Gentile Christians.2 Most
writers, however, contend
they were Jewish Christian missionaries whose
mission was to
influence Gentile Christians to adopt Jewish
rituals.3 Yet should
Herbert
W. Bateman IV is Associate Professor of New Testament Studies, Grace
College and Seminary,
1 Peter T. O'Brien, The Epistle to the
Philippians (
1991),
26-27. Similar sentiments are expressed by Fee, who observed that "the
sec-
ondary literature on this
issue is second only to the huge output on 2:6-11" (Gordon
D.
Fee, Paul's Letter to the Philippians,
New International Commentary on the
New
Testament [
2 Beare
refers to them as "Jewish propagandists" (F. W. Beare,
A Commentary on
the Epistle to the Philippians, Harper's New Testament
Commentaries [New
Thessalonica
(
Press, 1969], 111-17). The Jews in Acts,
however, are generally depicted as perse-
cuting Christians, not
reconverting or proselytizing them, especially in Thessa-
lonica (17:5-9; cf. 9:1-3).
Yet this is not to deny Jewish "missionary" activity. The in-
crease of the Jewish population seems to argue that some
form of proselytizing was
taking place (Salo W. Baron,
A Social and Religious History of the
Jews [New
Opponents
in Philippians iii," Novum Testamentum 7 (1965): 278-84; Ernst
Lohmeyer, Der Brief an die Philipper (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1974),
124-26,
153; and Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians,
Word Biblical Commentary
(Dallas, TX: Word, 1983), xliv-xlvii, 122-23.
3 Ellis refers to them as
"a segment of the ritually strict Hebraioi in the Jerusa-
lem Church [who] with
variations in nuance continued to post . . . a settled and
persistent ‘other’ gospel" (Earle E. Ellis,
"Paul and His Opponents," in Christian-
ity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, ed. Jacob Neusner [
1975], 264-98, esp. 298; 280-81, 291-92, 298). Also see R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpreta-
tion of
40
BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / January—March 1998
these opponents—who are typically called "Judaizers"—be lim-
ited to Jewish Christians or
perhaps even non-Christian Jewish
"missionaries"? Is it possible that they were merely
local Gen-
tiles who sympathized with and practiced Judaistic rituals?
THE PEOPLE OF
Located
about ten miles from the
the Via Egnatia,
(Makedoni<aj po<lij, Acts 16:12).
a Greek settlement known as Krenides
(from krhnh<nde,
"spring")
and under Thracian control.4 In his
quest to strengthen Macedo-
nia's situation in the east,
Philip II (Alexander the Great's father)
managed to seize control of the flourishing
Greek gold-mining
town of
from the city, Philip promptly repopulated Krenides with Mace-
donians, renamed the city
his ever-growing Macedonian state in 356 B.C.5
Thus
earliest history indicates that it was a Greek
city-state, populated
by Greeks.6
ans (Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1961), 828–30; Jean-Francois Collange, L'epitre de
Delachaux & Niestle,
1973), 28–30, 110; O'Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians; 33;
Moises Silva, Philippians,
Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
(Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1992), 3–5, 168–71; Mikael Tellbe, "The Sociological Factors
behind Philippians 3:1–11 and the Conflict at
the New Testament 55 (1994): 97–121; and Fee, Paul's Letter to the Philippians, 9,
293–97.
4 Krenides
was founded as a result of
sixth century B.C. Paros
initially colonized
These
mainland settlements, however, were not without struggles against the
warlike Thracians. Krenides
was one such settlement (Strabo, Geography 7.34;
Diodorus, Bibliotheca
Historica 16.3.7; Michael Grant and Rachel Kitzinger, eds.,
Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1988], 215; Oswyn Murray, Early
[
5 Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica
16.8.6–7.
When Berisades, the Thracian ruler
of the Pangaion mining
area, died, his children divided their father's kingdom
among themselves. Ketriporis
received the Greek gold-mining town of
However,
a dispute arose between Ketriporis and the people of Krenides. Erring-
ton describes how "Philip executed his program
of aid for Krenides with his usual
uncompromising persistence" (R.
Malcolm Errington, A History of Macedonia
[
Philippes, ville de Macedoine
depuis ses
origines jusqu' a la fin de
l'epoque ro-
6
ing their early expansion
activities on
however, the practice was discouraged or
prohibited (Murray, Early Greece,
115).
If
this is true, it may explain Thracian carvings of the so-called Thracian Horse-
Were
the Opponents at
Although Philippi was part of the
190
years,
terminated
(Third
Macedonian War) in 168 B.C.,
Macedonian
state and eventually annexed
man province in 148 B.C.7 With its gold
mines exhausted,
ever, because of circumstances in
to a place of prominence as a Roman city. Octavian
and
who desired to avenge the assassination of Julius
Caesar (on
March
19, 44 B.C.), pursued and defeated Cassius and Brutus
(Julius
Caesar's assassins) on the plains of
a result of this victory, Octavian refounded
colony, repopulated it with retired veterans, and
named it Colonia
Victrix Philippensium. After his defeat of
B.C.,
Octavian further colonized
discharged veterans from
Colonia Julia Philippensium. In 27 B.C. when
Octavian was des-
ignated August, he once again
lengthened
Colonia Augusta Julia Philippensium. He also bestowed Roman
citizenship on the people of Philippi.9
Thus Octavian (Augustus)
man (a Horseman/Hero cult comparable to Asklepios, a Greco-Roman healing god)
on the acropolis—a hill near
cults. Abrahamsen suggests that
development" (Valerie Abrahamsen,
"Christianity and the Rock Reliefs at
began on
to the mainland. Regardless of these
archaeological findings,
speaking, Greek-populated, Greek-cultured
city-state.
7 Errington,
A History of
Although
Macedonian
War, the Battle of Cynoscephalae in 197 B.C. led to
ing a Roman province. Errington contends, "The external spheres of dominion
and
influence that had turned
the Romans took care that they were never
reestablished" (Errington, A History of
8 Plutarch, Lives 6.38.1-52.5; Cassius Dio, Roman History
47.42.1-49.4; and
Collart, Philippes, 191-219.
9 Julius Caesar and
Octavian (Augustus) are credited with establishing most of
the military colonies for veterans and civilian
settlers. Paul visited and estab-
lished churches in five such
military colonies: Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:13-50),
Lystra (14:4-20), and Troas in Asia Minor (16:8-11;
20:6-12; 2 Tim. 4:13);
Achaia (Acts 18:1-18); and Philippi in
White, Roman Society and Roman Law
in the New Testament (
Baker, 1963), 176-78. During New Testament
times Roman citizenship outside of
ited to male free (nonslave) people (Chris Scarre, Chronicles of the Roman Em-
perors: The Reign-by-Reign Record of the Rulers of Imperial
Thames & Hudson, 19951, 136-46, esp. 146). For archaeological
discussions see
42
BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / January-March
1998
transformed the ancient Greek city-state
municipality with significant rights
and privileges granted only
to Roman citizens (i.e., it possessed lex Italicum). In
essence
By the time Paul came to
populated by both Greeks and Romans. In fact the
few people
Scripture
specifically mentions in connection with the Philippian
church had Greek (
Phil.
4:2) and Roman (Clement, Phil. 4:2) names. Although the
"frequent theme of Acts," might support Schwartz's claim
that
"Paul's
accusers in
clearly indicates that no significant Jewish
population existed in
Philippi,
they went outside the city gate to the
where they expected to find a "place of
prayer" (proseuxh<, Acts
16:13a).11
Traditionally ten men were needed to establish a syna-
gogue (Pirke Abot 3.7).
seems to have been unique in that it consisted of
women only;
Luke
wrote that he and the others spoke "to the women who had as-
sembled" at the place of
prayer (16:13b). Thus the Jewish popula-
tion at
lart, Philippes,
240–41; and Marcus N. Todd, "Notes on Two Published Inscrip-
tions," Annual of the British School at Athens
23 (1918–19): 94–97.
10 Schwartz believes the
accusers in Acts 16:20–21 were Jewish. He cites three
reasons in support of this. (1) "Acts
frequently shows born Jews, who are now
Christians,
practicing and teaching non-Jewish practices (and beliefs)—and at
times attacked by Jews for doing so" (Acts
4:1–3; 5:17–18; 6:8–14; 7:52, 57–58; 8:1–4;
9:1–2,
23; 12:3; 13:6–8, 45, 50; 14:19; 17:5, 13; 18:6, 12; 19:9; 20:3; 21:11, 27;
22:22; 23:12–15,
30;
28:19). (2) "Conversion to Christianity was not forbidden by law until the
mid-
second century, well after both the incident and the
composition of Acts." (3) Paul
and Silas were charged with teaching Christianity,
not Judaism (1 Thess. 2:2). Con-
sequently Schwartz suggests
translating Acts 16:20–21 in the following manner:
"And
they brought them to the magistrates, saying: ‘Although they are Jews
(
]Ioudai?oi
u[pa<rxontej, concessive ptc),
these men are upsetting our city for (kai<)
they are teaching practices which are unlawful for
us (i.e., Jews) to accept or do, be-
ing Romans'" (Daniel
R. Schwartz, "The Accusation and the Accusers at
Biblica 65 [1984]: 357–63).
Although Schwartz's rendering of Acts 16:20–21 is gram-
matically possible, the
historical and immediate context does not support his
translation. In addition Gentile insurrection
against Paul in
lated event in Acts, as
Schwartz suggests. Gentile insurrection occurred in Eph-
esus (16:23–34) and
insulting Gentile reaction against Paul occurred in
(17:18,
32).
11 Although "place of
prayer" (proseuxh<) can mean a synagogue, Conzelmann con-
tends that "it is strange that the author then
says ou$ e]nomi<zomen, ‘where we sup-
posed there was a place of prayer.' It is even
stranger," he continues, "that only
women were there" (Hans Conzelmann,
Acts of the Apostles, Hermeneia
[
12 "To the scanty
numbers and feeble influence of the Jews," Lightfoot believes, "we
may perhaps in some degree ascribe the unswerving
allegiance of this church to
Were the Opponents at
to have been composed exclusively of women. Hence
no syna-
gogue or large population of
Jews existed in
Before Paul's visit,
Roman
Gentiles, with some Jewish women, and at least one
woman,
(sebome<nh
to>n qeo<n, v. 14). Of course the lack of a Jewish syna-
gogue, the presence of a
small Jewess population, or the mention
of only Gentile conversions in Acts 16 does not
eliminate the pos-
sibility that Paul's opponents
there were Jewish. Nevertheless it
helps to know that historical reconstructions are
necessary to
support Jewish ethnicity of the opponents
typically referred to as
Judaizers. Two reconstructions are
noted.
One reconstruction is that Jewish
missionaries followed
Paul
to either "reconvert" or to further convert Gentile Chris-
tians. However, the Jews in
Acts are depicted as following Paul
not to reconvert or proselytize Christians but to
persecute them
(14:19;
17:5-9; cf. 9:1-3). In addition Jewish Christian Judaizers,
whose supposed mission was to follow Paul and
"further convert"
Gentile
churches, seem to have limited their appearances to
Galatians
and 2 Corinthians to support the Jewish Judaizer
view-
point13 overlook the different
tones and emphases that exist be-
tween Philippians, Galatians,14
and 2 Corinthians.15
the person of the Apostle and to the true
principles of the Gospel" (J. B. Lightfoot,
St. Paul's Epistle to
the Philippians
[
Rapids: Zondervan,
1953], 53).
Also see Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of
Luke-Acts: A Literary
Interpretation (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1990), 2:196, n. 4; and
F.
F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, New International
Commentary on the New Testa-
ment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 331.
13 Several plausible
arguments have been presented to connect Galatians and 2
Corinthians with Philippians in an attempt to
identify Paul's opponents as Jewish.
See
Ellis, "Paul and His Opponents," 264–98; Fee, Paul's Letter to the Philippians,
294–97;
and O'Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, 355–56.
14 According to Lea the
teachings of the Jewish Judaizers in
as "a threat to the spiritual condition of
his converts" (6:12) and "if legal obedience
were a method of salvation, the death of Jesus was
unnecessary (Gal. 2:20–21 [sic] )"
(Thomas
D. Lea, "Unscrambling the Judaizers: Who Were
Paul's Opponents?"
Southwestern Journal of
Theology
44 [1994]: 23–29). In Philippians, however, the
opposers were not a threat to
the spiritual condition of the saints in
was their method of salvation based on obedience to
the Law. It seems that despite
their motivation for preaching Christ, Paul rejoiced
in that Christ was being
preached (Phil. 1:15–18); mentioning the
opponents' eternal doom, Paul encouraged
the saints to maintain an unwavering and unified
stance against them (1:27–28);
and Paul used them as an object lesson to encourage
the community to avoid mixing
the ritualistic practices of Judaism with
Christianity (3:2). Thus differences in
tone mitigate against identifying the opponents in
Philippians with those in Gala-
tians.
44
BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / January—March
1998
A second historical reconstruction
speculates that Paul
merely addressed a potential problem. It is argued
that Paul,
though absent at the time of his writing, prepared the
Philippians
for a potential conflict with Jewish Christian
Judaizers.16 Yet
Paul's
letters usually, if not always, addressed real—not poten-
tial—problems that required
immediate instruction or guidance.
Thus
with these and similar reconstructions many writers con-
clude that the opponents in
whether propagandists, Christian, or Gnostic17—who
followed
Paul
and sought to supplant his message.
A third historical reconstruction
less frequently argued is
that the opponents were “Gentile Judaizers.”18
Perhaps a group of
professing Christians existed in
practices (e.g., circumcision), but they were
Gentiles and hence
were local Gentile Judaizers.
This suggestion raises several
questions. How could a Gentile be circumcised or
observe Jewish
15 According to
means precise." After noting the fact that Paul
was not on the defensive in Philip-
pians and his apostleship was
not in dispute as it was in 2 Corinthians,
points out that "there is no hint of circumcision
in 2 Corinthians; nor is there any
hint in Philippians that the church has fallen prey
to intruders (see 2 Cor. 11:4) or
that they would even be received
sympathetically" (David E. Garland, "The Compo-
sition and Unity of
Philippians," Novum
Testamentum 27 [1985]: 141-73, esp. 168, n.
94).
In fact 2 Corinthians 10–13 is more of an apologetic
against clear accusations.
Again
differences in tone mitigate against identifying the
opponents in
with those in
16 Lightfoot suggests that
Paul's flow of thought was "interrupted." "He is in-
formed," Lightfoot supposes, "of some fresh
attempt of the Judaizers in the
metropolis to thwart and annoy him. What if they
should interfere at
they were doing at
With
this thought weighing on his spirit he resumes his letter" (
to the Philippians,
69–70). Fee argues, "There is no suggestion in the text that they
(i.e.
‘[apparently] Jewish Christians’) are actually present in
Paul's Letter to the
Philippians,
9, 293).
17
Koester
describes them as Jewish Christian Gnostics who preached a message
of perfectionism that was part of a
"radicalized spiritualistic eschatology" (Helmut
Koester,
"The Purpose of the Polemic of a Pauline Fragment," New Testament Stud-
ies 8 [1962]: 317–32; cf.
Ralph Martin, Philippians, New
Century Bible Commentary
[
eschatology as an "over-realized
eschatology" (Carl R. Holladay, "Paul's Opponents
in
Philippians 3," Restoration
Quarterly 12 [1969]: 77–90). Also see Joseph B.
Tyson,
"Paul's Opponents at
sion of the weaknesses of
this view see O'Brien, The Epistle to the
Philippians, 27-
29,
and Chris L. Mearns, "The Identity of Paul's
Opponents at
tament Studies (1987): 194–204.
18 Grayston
argues that they were "a Gentile semi-gnostic
group who had adopted
ritual circumcision in a manner which Paul regarded as
outrageous and shameful"
(Kenneth
Grayston, "The Opponents in Philippians 3,"
Expository Times 97 [March
1986]:
170-72).
Were the Opponents at
practices, and still be considered a Gentile?
Antiquity reveals,
however, that circumcision is not the sine qua
non for Gentile
conversion. Nor is the observance of Jewish rituals
an indication
of one's proselytism. If this is true, then what
in antiquity differ-
entiated a Jewish sympathizer or
semi-Jew from a Jewish prose-
lyte?
DEFINING JEWISHNESS
The
pervasive influence of Judaism throughout the Mediter-
ranean during the first
century cannot be ignored easily. On the
one hand Josephus lauded Judaism's influence in the
Mediter-
ranean area. "The masses
have long since shown a keen desire
to adopt our religious observances; and there is
not one city,
Greek
or barbarian, nor a single nation, to which our custom of
abstaining from work on the seventh day has not
spread, and [in
which] many of our prohibitions in the matter of food
are not ob-
served."19 On the other hand Seneca
bemoaned Judaism's im-
pact. "Meanwhile the customs of this accursed
race have gained
such influence that they are now received throughout
all the
world. The vanquished have given laws to their
victors."20 Bar-
clay points out that though they were a minority,
the Jews were not
powerless.21 The Jewish people of
antiquity worked the Roman
system efficaciously. Thus they practiced Judaism
freely and
thereby influenced many
Gentiles—"God-fearers" (Acts 13:16,
48–50; 14:1; 16:14; 17:4, 17) or Gentile Judaizers. This raises the
question of when a person of antiquity lost his
Gentile identity
and became a Jew.
As a result of his research about
conversion and intermar-
riage in antiquity, Cohen
points out that "a gentile who engaged
in ‘Judaizing’ behavior
may have been regarded as a Jew by gen-
tiles, but as a gentile by Jews. A gentile who was
accepted as a
proselyte by one community may not have been so
regarded by
another."22 Since no two
Diaspora environments were alike, Co-
19 Josephus, Against
Apion 2.38.282.
20 Menahem
Stern, From Herodotus to Plutarch,
vol. 1 of Greek and Latin Au-
thors on Jews and Judaism (
ties, 1976), 431.
21 John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From
Alexander to
Trajan (323 BCE to 117 CE) (Edinburgh: Clark,
1996), 276-81, 298-99, 318.
22 Shaye
J. D. Cohen, "Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew," Harvard The-
ological Review 82 (1989): 13-33. A similar but converse discussion occurs
in John
M.
G. Barclay's "Levels of Assimilation among Egyptian Jews" and
"Levels of As-
46
BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / January–March 1998
hen's latter statements reveal the complexity of the
issue. Never-
theless identifying behavior
that defined Jewishness in antiquity
is relevant to Luke's description of "God-fearers"
or "worshipers
of God"23 as well as those whom
Paul described in Philippians.
Cohen describes seven forms of
"Judaizing" behavior by
which a Gentile became less a Gentile and more a Jew.24
Of the
seven, the last four are of particular interest for
New Testament
studies. Cohen's fourth behavior is the
practicing of some or
many of the rituals of the Jews.25
Gentiles who practiced fasting,
similation among Diaspora Jews
outside
aspora, 103–24,
320-35. Barclay's object of study, however, is limited to the
Mediterranean
Diaspora (i.e.,
of Asia, and the city of
23 Luke used
"worshipers of God" and "God-fearers" interchangeably. He de-
scribed a group of Gentiles in Pisidian Antioch as "the ones who fear God" (oi[
fobou<menoi
to>n qeo<n, 13:16, 26) as well as "worshiping
proselytes" (tw?n
sebome<nwn
proshlu<twn, v. 43), and
"worshiping women" (ta>j
sebome<naj gunai?kaj, v. 50). While
some of the Gentile worshipers in
(v. 50). In Thessalonica, however, all the
"worshiping Greeks" (tw?n sebome<nwn
[Ellh<nwn,
17:4) seem to have accepted the gospel. Luke also named some individual
Gentiles
as worshipers of God, including Lydia of Philippi (sebome<nh to>n qeo<n,
16:14)
and Titius Justus of
centurion who was a "devout and God-fearing
man" (eu]sebh>j kai> fobou<menoj to>n
qeo<n, 10:2) and a "righteous and
God-fearing man" (a]nh>r di<kaioj kai>
fobou<menoj
to>n
qeo<n, v. 22). Some, however, question and even deny
the existence of such peo-
ple. Based on the alleged
lack of archaeological evidence for Diaspora Judaism,
MacLennan and Kraabel
"strongly doubt that there ever was a large and broadly
based group of gentiles known as God-fearers"
(Robert S. MacLennan and A.
Thomas
Kraabel, "The God-Fearers—A Literary and
Theological Invention," Bibli-
cal Archaeology Review 12 [September/October 1986]: 46–53).
Archaeological finds
at Aphrodisia, however,
seem to support the existence of God-fearers as does the
overwhelming evidence cited by
Feldman from classical, Talmudic, and Christian
literature, from Philo to Josephus as well as from
inscriptions and papyri. See
Robert F. Tannenbaum, "Jews and God-fearers in the Holy City of Aphrodite,"