Paul's Personal Relation with Earliest Christianity: A Critical Survey

Currents in Biblical Research2014, Vol. 12(2) 146 –172

© The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1476993X12467114

cbi.sagepub.com

Paul’s Personal Relation with Earliest Christianity: A Critical Survey

Hughson T. OngMcMaster Divinity College, Canada

AbstractThis essay surveys some of the key figures and their contributions to the historical development of three areas in Paul’s personal relation with earliest Christianity: Stephen and the Hellenists, his opponents, and James. The objectives are to emphasize their importance in working with Pauline theology amid the proliferation of works that follow the New (and Newer) Perspectives and Continental Philosophy trends, to highlight new methodological approaches in these surveyed areas, and to suggest how future research should go.

Keywordsearly Christianity, Hellenists, James, Paul, Stephen, theological survey

Introduction

Scholarly studies on Paul have been prolific in recent years, and it appears that this unabated trend will continue in the years to come. Yet most of these studies are concentrated on what has been commonly known as the Old (Lutheran) and New Perspectives on Paul (the bibliography here is large; for a good survey, see Westerholm 2004; Zetterholm 2009). The beginnings of the New Perspective movement can be traced in Stendahl (1963: 199-21), E. Sanders (1977), and Dunn (1990: 183-206). The advent of recent continental philosophical thinkers (e.g. Badiou 2003; Žižek 2003; Taubes and Assmann 2004; Caputo and Alcoff 2009), and the so-called Newer Perspectives or Beyond the New Perspectives advocates (e.g. Gaston 1987; Tomson 1990; Stowers 1994; Nanos 1996; Hodge 2007), may represent two different emerging trends in Pauline scholarship. Crossley (2010: 99-114) observes that in the last twenty years or so, mainstream

Corresponding author:Hughson T. Ong, McMaster Divinity College, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.Email: [email protected]

Article

Ong: Paul’s Personal Relation with Earliest Christianity 147

NT scholars are beginning to recognize that Paul has become a figure of interest among those outside of academic and biblical studies and theology, most notably among these continental philosophers. That Paul is a major political thinker of Western tradition in close connections with Marxism has been their typical asser-tion. On the other hand, Zetterholm (2009: 127-63) points out that the ‘radical new perspective scholars’ do not recognize a dichotomy between Judaism and Christianity, but treat Paul as a figure within first-century Judaism, who encour-aged Torah obedience for the Jews and faith in Christ for the Gentiles. Thus, these scholars deviate from normative Christian theology by emphasizing historical NT interpretive investigations, rather than synthesizing traditional Protestant theol-ogy and the new view of Judaism (by New Perspective scholars).

Consequently, because of these trends in Pauline scholarship, other studies, such as Paul’s personal relationships with earliest Christianity (or pre-Pauline Christianity) may eventually lag behind in working with Pauline theology, except perhaps for studies on Paul and his opponents, which in various ways continue to deserve some attention. For example, three recent Pauline surveys do not cover studies on Paul and Stephen and the Hellenists, as well as on Paul and James (e.g. Fisk 2004: 283-325; Zetterholm 2009; Given 2010). Yet pre-Pauline Christianity is an indispensable area of study for both current and future studies on Paul, since it serves as the ‘foundation’ of any Pauline scholarly work.

To this effect, this article attempts to survey and assess three previous studies on Paul’s personal relationships within earliest Christianity, namely, his connec-tion with Stephen and the Hellenists, his opponents, and James. As a preliminary caveat, I do not argue a thesis here, since my objectives are only to assess and summarize critically each surveyed area, to highlight its significance, and to give suggestions as to how future research should go based on selected works, which I believe are foundational for future studies on Pauline theology. This is not to say that other unmentioned works are not important, but I give special attention to many earlier and significant works to pinpoint the critical periods or stages in the development of each of these three fields of study.

I begin with a section that briefly explains why such a study, with reference to each of the three personal relations of Paul, is paramount in Pauline studies. This is followed by a section on Baur and his Tübingen School, for his seminal work can in various ways be seen as a critical starting point of all these discussions. The subsequent sections are individual survey and assessment of previous stud-ies of Paul and Stephen and the Hellenists, Paul and his opponents, and Paul and James. Thereafter, I give my conclusion.

Before proceeding I need to briefly state what this survey does not cover or what it is not, since there are other topics that can in one way or the other be seen as included in, or at least encroaching on, studies of Paul’s personal relations within earliest Christianity. First, I do not include Paul’s relationship with Jesus in this discussion, since Paul only encountered the heavenly Jesus briefly in his Damascus experience (Acts 9.1, 31; 22.3-16; 26.9-18) and most likely did not have any actual

148 Currents in Biblical Research 12(2)

social contact with him (more recent and important works include Furnish 1989: 17-50; Furnish 1993; Witherington 1992; Barclay 1993: 492-503; Dunn 1994: 155-78; Wenham 1995; Kim 2001: 259-92). Second, I do not cover materials on Paul’s use of hymns, creeds and confessions found in his letters, since these do not constitute a ‘personal relationship’, although this area can be categorized under Paul’s relation to earliest Christianity in tracing its background to Paul’s thought (a wealth of sources is found in Seifrid and Tan 2002: 66-72). Third, this survey con-cerning earliest Christianity’s influence on Paul should be distinguished from Paul and his influence on later Christian communities (some important works include Gager 1975; Meeks 1983; Burtchaell 1992; Ascough 1998; Still and Horrell 2009). Finally, and most importantly, this survey is different from studies of Paul’s world or background, which seek to determine and define the surrounding world in which the apostle functioned and existed. Porter notes that the investigation of Paul’s ‘world’ encompasses almost all the various phenomena, which includes the reli-gious, social, political, cultural, literary, rhetorical and linguistic environment sur-rounding Paul (see Porter 2008a: 1-3; cf. Porter 2008b, which is a collection of essays that examines Paul’s multidimensional cultural ethnic and social back-ground as a complex individual of the ancient world). In this case, this survey should be seen as an extraction of three interrelated subjects from various larger works of Paul’s personal relationship with earliest Christianity.

The Significance of Paul’s Personal Relations within Earliest Christianity

Both Stephen (Acts 6–7) and Philip (Acts 8) can be seen as intermediary figures between Jesus and his apostles’ ministry to the Jews and Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. According to Hengel and Conzelmann, Acts depicts the entire evange-listic mission of Jesus’ disciples and followers to the world after his ascension. Hengel (1983: 2; see also 1974, 1980, 1995) suggests that Acts should rather be titled ‘From Jesus to Paul’ with the subtitle ‘From Jerusalem to Rome’, as it pro-vides a clear view of a straight-line transmission of the gospel from unbelieving Israel to the Gentiles. Similarly, Conzelmann (1987: xlii-xliii) notes that Luke’s goal in Acts is to present the continuity between Israel and the church through the two major divisions of the book of Acts—‘the time of the earliest church and Paul’s mission to the world’. In many ways scholars have seen Stephen and Philip, especially Stephen and the Hellenists, as an historical and theological link between Peter and Paul or between Jesus and Paul, since they naturally serve as a bridge between the Hebrews and the Gentiles (see Dockery 1990: 423-37, esp. 425; cf. Seifrid and Tan 2002: 63). Moreover, Acts 9.29 shows a suggestive par-allel between Paul’s preaching and Stephen’s ministry, as Paul also had a conflict with the Hellenists (cf. 6.1; 11.20, where the word ‘Ελληνιστής is also used), although such a parallel may not be as straightforward, since, if Paul was a for-mer persecutor of the Christian community where Stephen belongs, an enmity


between them is not impossible (those who argue for a continuity of the work between Stephen and Paul include Knox 1932: 37; Scharlemann 1968: 109; Dockery 1990: 430). Alternatively, it could be argued that the former persecu-tor’s guilt may have led to his conversion and calling in Acts 9 (Haenchen 1971: 327; Stanley 1973: 42; cf. Fuller 1965: 192-94). This complex scenario has engendered scholars to explain how the church became an independent move-ment from the synagogue and to investigate the identities of both Stephen and the Hellenists, in order to understand their social connection to and influence on the apostle Paul. My section below on Paul and Stephen and the Hellenists sur-veys these various scholarly opinions.

Paul’s letters are occasioned responses to various situations and problems in the churches. Whether the type of opposition is raised against his person or his teachings, or has come from within or outside the churches, Paul has usually refuted them either directly or indirectly as we have seen in his letters. For this reason, scholars in the past centuries since the Reformation period have been fascinated and have devoted much attention to identifying Paul’s opponents, in order to interpret his arguments and theology with better precision. Both Barrett (1971) and Sumney (2010) acknowledge this scholarly undertaking to be crucial in understanding the New Testament and the origins of Christianity, as it informs us about the types of beliefs and practices that were accepted by Paul and the early church. My section below on Paul and his opponents reviews some of the major works in this area.

Paul’s relationship to James is one of the perennial topics in NT studies, since it bears a fundamental implication for understanding the history of the first-cen-tury church and the theology of the NT (Seifrid and Tan 2002: 75). To be more specific, McKnight (2011: 35; see further his brief excursus on pp. 259-63) points out that there is a general tendency to make James’s theology look like Paul’s soteriology, and if it does not fit neatly into it, then James’s is not really theology. Whereas most later studies perhaps have focused on the issue of the similarities and differences of Paul’s and James’s theologies, there are earlier studies that look at the traditional sources for James, which can provide signifi-cant information in getting acquainted with the theology of James’s letter. Another notable issue in this discussion concerns the differentiation of the mean-ings of δικαιόω—what it means for Paul and what it means for James. My section below on Paul and James seeks to revive these earlier studies.

F.C. Baur and the Tübingen School

Discussions on Paul’s relationship within earliest Christianity usually trace its early developments to Baur (1792–1860) and the Tübingen School. Baur sought to interpret the NT within a thesis-antithesis-synthesis framework or a Hegelian epistemology (Sumney 2005: 7-58, esp. 7-9; 2010: 56-57); a framework that is


set against the background of a battle between a Jerusalem-based, pro-law Petrine (Jewish) Christianity, and a Diaspora law-free Pauline Christianity (see Baur 1878: I, 44-184; cf. Baur 1876). Baur claims (but perhaps in the words of Käsemann) that this is the Archimedean point of early Christianity (see his semi-nal essay Baur 1835: 61-206). Throughout the history of scholarship, Baur has received severe criticisms from subsequent scholarship. For instance, Reuss points out that the conflict between Judaism and Paul was mediated by a Jewish Christian group to which the apostles belong. Along this line, Ritschl does not recognize a radical rift between Paul and the apostles; he claims that Jewish Christians and the apostles also had their own differences (for more details on the criticisms against Baur’s hypothesis, see Kümmel 1970: 144-84). Others have pointed out the issue of a faulty foundation (i.e., Hegelian philosophy), upon which all of Baur’s hypotheses were built after 1933 (see Neill 1964: 19-32; but cf. Ong forthcoming). Nevertheless, his thesis-antithesis framework is still utilized by recent scholars with varying degrees of emphases (Fisk 2004: 321; J. Scott 1975: 217-27, esp. 217).

With reference to the origin of Pauline Christianity and the problem of its relationship with Jesus and the early church, Marshall (1973: 271-87, esp. 271-72) in his useful article presents the various proponents of a two-stage (Jewish and Hellenistic) and a three-stage (Jewish, Hellenistic and Gentile) Christianity. Proponents of two-stage Christianity include Heitmüller (1912: 320-37; cf. Blank 1968: 249), Bousset (1970: 119-21, esp. 119 n. 1), Bultmann (1952), Dibelius (1971: 18-19 n. 2) and Goulder (1995: esp. ix-7). Alternatively, Hahn (1969: 11-14) suggests a further bifurcation of Hellenistic Christianity into Hellenistic Jewish Christianity and Hellenistic Gentile Christianity. And while Hahn’s threefold division is gaining wider acceptance in contemporary studies, it is not without sufficient critics (e.g. Conzelmann, Kümmel, Manson, Cullmann), according to Marshall (1973: 273).

With reference to Paul’s relations to James, Brandon (1967, 1968) perhaps comes closest to Baur, when he arguably made James instead of Peter as Paul’s antithesis. Brandon’s theory has been a frequent assumption by many scholars until today (J. Scott 1975: 217; Barnett 1993: 650-51; Sumney 2005: 11). With reference to Paul’s opponents, Sumney (2010: 57) says that despite Walter Bauer’s powerful critique in Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (1971), when he showed in his work a wider range of diversity in the early church, Baur’s two-party oppositional scheme still continues in NT scholarship.

Paul and Stephen and the Hellenists

Acts 6.1–8.3 charts how the church gradually broke with the synagogue and became an independent movement that is distinct from the ideal Jerusalem com-munity (Acts 1–5). There are four key elements to note.


The Reasons and the Processes Involved in the Break-up

Three significant views explain the reasons and the processes involved in the split. First, Porter and Pearson (2000a: esp. 84-85; 2000b: esp. 36-37) suggest that the tension began when the earliest Jesus movement expanded and spread under the leadership of Peter, James and Paul. With the increasingly growing number of non-Jewish members in the community came the inevitable shift from a predominantly Jewish Christianity to one with a large non-Jewish contingent. Based on the internal evidence found in Acts and Paul’s letters, they identify four phases of development in the split: (1) the period of ethnic identification between Jews and Christians; (2) the period of persecution of the church by the Jewish groups; (3) the period of the church’s initial independence; and (4) the period of the church’s legal and dominant status. The authors also acknowledge that many other factors would certainly have contributed to the split that has eventually led to a ‘sibling rivalry’ by the end of the fourth century. From here, they discuss three ancient theories that have attempted to explain the nature of the split: the ‘supersessionism’ theory (Christianity rendered all Jewish institutions invalid), the ‘apostasy’ theory (the Jewish equivalent of supersessionism), and the ‘Roman’ theory (legalization of Christianity as the dominant religion) (Porter and Pearson 2000b: 40-51). Hence, according to this view, the split was a consequence of an issue that concerns ethnicity and theology.

Second, Winn (1959: 144-56, esp. 151-52, 156) believes that the author of Luke-Acts is theologically motivated to pinpoint the break-up as a result of the gospel’s rejection by the Jewish nation, just as Jesus was rejected by his own people. This unfortunate rejection, along with the explosive growth of the church, was a fulfillment of God’s plan and purpose in accordance with Scripture. Corroborating Winn’s theory, Ladd (1974: 364-65) explains how a small band of Jews, who broke away from Judaism, became a Gentile fellowship in the capital city of the empire. He argues that this extension of the church can be explained by the primitive preaching and the self-understanding of the early church found in the first three chapters of Acts (Ladd 1974: 365; cf. Dodd 1936: 38-45).

A third view argues for the development of factionalism as a consequence of a growing community. For instance, J. Scott (1975: 219-20) identifies three fea-tures of Second Temple Judaism (586 bc–70/90 bce) that can be seen as the cause of differences of opinions which eventually created factionalism (cf. Goppelt 1970; Ellis 1978: 116-28). First, the emerging church gradually placed emphasis on the adherence to a clearly defined doctrine. Second, by the first-century bce Jewish legal prescriptions and ceremonial practices virtually became a ‘test’ for loyalty to the Jewish state and means of protection for racial exclusivism, instead of religious devotion. Third, matters and interpretation concerning the eschaton and the fate of the Gentiles during this period differed significantly, since follow-ers of ‘The Way’ were united and distinguished by their belief that Jesus was the Messiah. Other scholars like Cullmann and Conzelmann have focused on other


problems, such as the rigidity and authoritarianism of Jewish Christianity that resulted in multiple factions within the Jerusalem church more than simply the divide between Hebrews and Hellenists (see Cullmann 1967: 83-92; cf. 1956: 185; 1955: 213-26).

Stephen’s Identity and Role in the Break-up

The second element is the identity of Stephen and the role he played in this break-up. Luke seems to portray Stephen’s ministry and speech as a channel for differentiating the Jewish Christian Hellenists from the Jewish community (J. Scott 1975: 220). Dockery (1990: 423) suggests that Stephen’s ministry (Acts 6.1–8.3) serves a dual purpose of completing Luke’s picture of the early church from its strict confinement to Jerusalem to the food distribution issue in Acts 6.1 and of setting the stage for the later chapters that describe the church’s mission beyond Jerusalem. Similarly, Polhill (2001: 178; cf. O’Neill 1970: 85; Hengel 1983: 16-18, esp. 17 nn. 116, 148; Bruce 1954: 133) says that a universal perse-cution of the Hellenist group precipitated and drove them out of Jerusalem after Stephen’s death. But the question remains: who is Stephen? Scholars have shared various opinions.

First, that Stephen was a former Essene who became a believer later in life is the view suggested by Zeller (1851: 433-69) and Schneckenburger (1855: 498-570) in the nineteenth century, and later in the mid-twentieth century by Cullmann (1955: 213-26; 1959a: 8-12; 1959b: 39-43) based on his extensive investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Second, it has usually been understood from the account of Acts that Stephen was a Hellenist of some sort. This view is adhered to in the early to mid-nineteenth century by Davies (1962: 998), Barnard (1960: 31-45) and Haenchen (1971), who see peculiarities in the material found in Acts 7 that would link Stephen to the Hellenists, or that there is something theologically distinctive about an assumed Hellenistic group. Not all, however, would agree to this Hellenistic background of Stephen. Both E. Scott (1947: 128) and Schoeps (1949: 441) argued that Stephen’s ministry and speech are still confined to the limits of Judaism. Third, and strongly contrasting the above two views, is Spiro’s reconstruction of Stephen’s Samaritan connections, arguing that Luke drew on Samaritan-Hellenist sources for Acts 7.2-50, which constitutes a missionary tract by Stephen (Spiro 1967: 285-300). Such complex understanding of the identity and function of Stephen, along with the influence of the Greek thought and cul-ture on Palestine, should demand a reappraisal of the figure of Stephen (Scharlemann 1968: 1-3, 17-22).

The Significance of Stephen’s Speech

The third element is the significance of Stephen’s speech, which is the longest speech found in Acts. One issue to note here is the function of the speech in the


Acts narrative. Polhill (2001: 178) points out that Stephen’s speech (Acts 7.2-53) underscores the Jewish resistance to the Christian gospel and their inclusive atti-tude with respect to God’s promises; thus, it is instrumental in the missionary expansion of the church. In the same vein, others note that the speech, which took the form of historical narration of OT persons and events, serves as an apologetic for Christianity to move beyond the boundaries of Jerusalem (Ellis 1977: 199-219, esp. 212-14; cf. Longenecker 1970: 32-35). Another issue is the source(s) of Stephen’s speech upon which Luke was drawing. And opinions on this issue vary from those claiming a singular source to those who argue for mul-tiple sources. Those who argue for a singular source include Williams (1985: 116) and Dunn (1977: 270-71). Those who argue for more than one source include Hengel (1983: 3-4), who says that the distinctive and ‘unLukan’ expres-sions in the book of Acts betray a ‘bedrock of a source’. He further says that one should reckon with the possibility that there are at least two sources at Luke’s disposal, a collection of sources about Peter and the so-called Antiochene source.

The Identity of the Hellenists

The fourth and final element is the identification of the ‘Ελληνιστής group in contrast to the ‘Εβραῖος group. Sections in most surveys of the history of the Apostolic Age, studies on Paul, and commentaries on Acts and Galatians would usually take into account the internal make-up of the Jerusalem Christianity, which include an assessment of the identity of the Hellenists in Acts 6.1 (and in various occasions 9.29 and 11.20) (for a quick survey, see Hengel 1983: 4-6; Ferguson 1969: esp. 159-60; specialized studies include Sorley 1881; Schoeps 1969; Jocz 1954). The usual and prevailing interpretation of the Hellenists in Acts 6.1 and 9.29 is that they are Greek-speaking Jews in contrast to the Aramaic-speaking Jews of Jerusalem (for a list of commentaries, dictionaries and lexicons that take this view, see Ferguson 1969: 159 nn. 1-3; cf. Dockery 1990: 424). From this traditional linguistic interpretation, scholars have proposed and fol-lowed at least five different lines of interpretations, although they are not mutu-ally exclusive.

The first one can be seen as a ‘qualified’ type of linguistic interpretation, although modifications are made in varying degrees. On the one hand, Moule (1959: 100-102) believes that the Hellenists are strictly Greek-speaking Jews without knowledge of a Semitic language. On the other hand, Robinson (1960: 117-31) and, more recently, Polhill (2001: 175-78) argue that the Hellenists are Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora living in Palestine. The second type of interpretation argues for a racial distinction between the Hellenists and the Hebrews in Acts 6.1. Following Wetter who earlier claimed that the term ‘Hellenist’ is a Christian party name of the non-Jews in the Jerusalem church, Cadbury (1933: V, 59-74; see his The Making of Luke-Acts [1927], where he


coined the hyphenated phrase ‘Luke-Acts’), Lohmeyer (1937: 217-52) and Grundmann (1939: 45-73), among others, give strong arguments for identifying the Hellenists as Greeks (or Gentiles), or at least proselytes, in Blackman’s terms (1937: 524-26). The third type is the sectarian interpretation by Cullmann and Simon. As noted above, Cullmann’s investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls led him to identify Stephen as an Essene; here he maintains the same position in the case with the Hellenists. Simon (1958: 1-27), on the other hand, sees that they were a religious sect within Judaism that is opposed to the temple and its cultic sacrificial practices. The fourth type of argument is strongly advocated by Ferguson (1969: 161-80) who believes that the Hellenists were those who fol-lowed the ‘Greek manner or way of life’. He gives a number of reasons that argue against the first four views. First, he argues that ‘Hebrews’ is not normally used to refer to language, so that it is unnatural to take the word as a contrast to ‘Greek-speakers’. Second, he provides evidence that elsewhere in Acts the Jews of the Diaspora are not called Hellenists (e.g. 2.5; 18.2, 24; 21.21, 27; 24.18), and he claims that the Diaspora Jews called themselves ‘Hebrews’. Third, if Luke uses the term ‘Greeks’ elsewhere in Acts, why would he employ the term ‘Hellenists’ in these few instances if there is indeed a racial distinction. Fourth, because the Hellenists were living in Jerusalem and have disputed with Stephen (Acts 6.9) and Paul (Acts 9.29), it is unlikely for them to qualify as belonging to some radically exclusive sect within Judaism. Finally, the fifth type of interpreta-tion tries to account for the usage of the term ‘Hellenists’ according to its specific context. Bruce (1954: 151) suggests that the ‘Hellenists’ may be Christians (6.1), Jews (9.29), or pagans (11.20).

Paul and his Opponents

As noted above, studies on Paul and his opponents predate Baur and the Tübingen School. In what follows, I divide my discussion of this topic into three sections representing more or less the chronology of the history of research of Paul and his opponents. I have concenrated my discussion of this research history on the second section, which can be seen as overlapping with the third section, where I give a short remark as to how future research should perhaps be conducted based on the methodological emphases of some scholars.

From Calvin to Baur

According to Ellis, although Calvin observed some recognized groups of here-tics in Paul’s letters (e.g. 2 Cor. 11.4; Gal. 1.6-8; 1 Tim. 4.3; Tit. 1.14), most early Protestant expositors simply identified them as false teachers. It was Hammond of Oxford that broke away from this tradition with his essay de AntiChristo in 1651, where he claimed that the ‘mystery of lawlessness’ (2 Thess. 2.7) was an


allusion to Gnosticism. In the following century, the work of Mosheim of Göttingen found two heretical tendencies in first-century Christianity, one con-forming to philosophical γνῶσις and another combining with Jewish opinions. In 1773 Hammond’s Gnostic view received serious criticisms from Tittmann who responded that ‘no traces of the Gnostics are to be found in the New Testament’. Tittmann proposed that Gnosticism originated in second-century Egypt from the heresiarchs mentioned in the ancient Christian writings. Both Tittmann’s and Mosheim’s viewpoints paved the way for subsequent studies of Paul’s oppo-nents. But in 1829 the Bampton Lectures of Burton once again revived the Gnostic view of Hammond. In the wake of the nineteenth century, two continen-tal writers, Neander of Berlin and Baur of Tübingen, signaled new developments in the research. One of them established a lasting influence until today (see Ellis 1975: 264-98, esp. 264-70).

Baur and his ‘Advocates’ and Critics

The influence of Baur’s two-party theory in the permanent rift between Peter and Paul on subsequent scholarship is put aptly by Georgi (1986: 2): ‘The problem stated by Baur is still with us today despite obituaries and furious rampages to the contrary’. This is true, since recent scholars like Schmithals (1965), Barrett (1971), Thrall (1980), Lüdemann (1984), Martin (1987), and Goulder (1995), among many others, still presuppose, although perhaps unwittingly, Baur’s the-ory with modifications of the particulars of the opponents’ identity. Based on the Gnostic materials found in the discoveries of the Nag Hammadi library, and the method of investigation employed by the religionsgeschichtliche Schule, Schmithals (see Schmithals 1965: 103-107; 1983: 27-58) posits that Paul’s oppo-nents throughout the seven undisputed letters were all Gnostics. Schmithals and Baur arrived at a different two-party identification of Paul’s opponents, since, whereas Baur begins his investigation with Romans and Galatians, Schmithals looks at Paul’s pervasive discussion of ‘knowledge’ in 1 Corinthians as his start-ing point. In some respects, Lüdemann’s view is similar to Brandon’s position (see above). Lüdemann (1984: 35-63, 197-99; see also Lüdemann 1989, for a survey of the materials from the NT to Ireneaus concerning anti-Pauline attitude by both liberal and conservative Jewish Christians since 50 bce) uses Acts and Galatians 2 to modify Baur’s theory and identify Paul’s opponents as an anti-Pauline party in Jerusalem, including James as one of its supporters. A more recent advocate of Baur is Goulder (1995, 2001), who presents his case at length, arguing for the opposition between Paul and Peter as the primary reason for the debate about the law, among several other theological fields, in Christian theol-ogy. Thrall (1980: 42-57), Martin (1987: 279-89) and Barrett (1971: 233-54) also follow Baur’s two-party scheme by arguing for, in varying refinements, a dis-tinction between ‘conservative Judaism’ represented by the ‘super apostles’


(2 Cor. 11.5) and ‘liberal Judaism’ represented by the ‘false apostles’ (2 Cor. 11.13) (cf. Barnett 1993: 645; Seifrid and Tan 2002: 73). The works of these scholars certainly show the legacy of Baur’s work until the present. Yet, in my opinion, the complexities of a growing multinational community certainly involved oppositions of all sorts from various social groups, such that to see a unified anti-Paul party seems very unlikely. Thus, Baur’s two-party scheme was severely challenged since its inception in the nineteenth century.

Lightfoot (1892: 292-374) stands out as Baur’s staunchest early critic. In an appendix to his commentary on Galatians, Lightfoot (1892: 311) sets forth a devastating critique against Baur when he writes, ‘St. Paul’s career was one life-long conflict with Judaizing antagonists’ (i.e., Pharisaic Judaizers and Gnostic Judaizers). Lightfoot’s criticisms against Baur stemmed from his recognition of an incipient form of Gnosticism at Corinth based on the concept of dualism fun-damental to all Gnostic thinking and the ascetic-legalistic and libertine manifes-tations of Paul’s opponents in the Pastorals (Lightfoot 1885: 378, 586; cf. Ellis 1975: 276). In the German circles, Lütgert of Halle arrived at very similar con-clusions as Lightfoot, even though both scholars were apparently unfamiliar with each other’s works. Lütgert’s work was shared by K. Lake with reference to 2 Corinthians, by J.H. Ropes with reference to Galatians, and to some extent, by A. Schlatter and F. Büschel (see Ellis 1975: 282-83). Perhaps it is fair to say that both these scholars were the two representatives that challenged Baur’s two-party theory in the nineteenth century, with Lightfoot dominating in the English-speaking circles and Lütgert in the German-speaking world. It is also arguable that both these scholars offered a reconstruction of early Christianity that is equally as far-reaching as that of Baur, such that at the turn of the twentieth cen-tury, scholars like Bultmann (1985: 149-50, 219), Furnish (1984: 324, 532, 543), Georgi (1986: 1-9) and Schmithals (see above) would speak of Paul’s opponents as either Gnostics or pneumatics. A somewhat similar but different view is prof-fered by Gunther (1973), who finds Paul’s opponents as being ascetic, priestly and separatistic, with developed angelology. Strictly speaking, Georgi’s and Furnish’s position can be classified under another category (see Barnett 1993: 645; cf. Blanton 2010: 131). Georgi (1986) developed a novel hypothesis and suggested that Paul’s opponents in Corinth, on the basis of their gifts and signs (from a Hellenistic milieu), were θεῖοι ἄνθρωποι (divine men). By contrast, Friedrich (1963: 181-215; cf. Barnett 1993: 645-46) proposed that such gifts and signs were derived from Stephen and the Hellenists (early Christianity). However, if Friedrich is right, then the legacy of Stephen’s theology lived on in the lives of an assembly of ‘divine men’ who opposed Paul, which of course is most unlikely (Scharlemann 1968: 180-84). And it should be noted that the works of these scholars were drawn mostly from concepts and motifs found in second- and third- century sources, such that their view of Gnosticism, a second-century church phenomenon, is quite different from that of Lightfoot and Lütgert. In


other words, whereas scholars during the time of Lightfoot and Lütgert would often qualify their usage of the term to distinguish it from second-century Gnosticism, later scholars of the religionsgeschichtliche Schule began to mini-mize this distinction (Ellis 1975: 283-84; cf. Barnett 1993: 645-46). In recent times, one scholar who has seriously challenged Baur’s almost 200-year influ-ence is Bockmuehl (2006: esp. 121-36, 169). His main contention is that the historical evidence from the first century onward points to a mainstream Christian view, bordered only by Marcionites (anti-Peter) and Ebionites (anti-Paul) at both extremes. Both Peter and Paul served a similar quest, despite apparent tensions (2 Pet. 3.15-16), as their martyrdoms and sufferings were remembered together by later communities as founders of the churches in Rome and Antioch (1 Clem. 5.1-6; Ign., Rom. 4.3; Ireneaus, Against Heresies 3.1.1; 3.3.2).

Into the Fray of the Twenty-first Century

At this point, we come to an end in our discussion of Paul’s opponents from the perspective of a ‘one-size-fits-all’ type of opponent to a more nuanced reading and understanding of Paul’s opponents through the investigation of his individ-ual letters (Fisk 2004: 324). Sumney points out that it has now become a trend that interpreters, though with some exceptions of course, are being more con-scious of the intellectual culture of the historical contexts of each individual let-ter, instead of lumping together a unified type of opponent. The two studies by Troy Martin (By Philosophy and Vain Deceit: Colossians as a Response to a Cynic Critique) and Clinton Arnold (The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface between Christianity and Folk Belief in Colossae), in assessing Paul’s opponents at Colossae that Sumney (2010: 61-65) cites, prove his point. Both Martin and Arnold employ similar methodological moves, but end with different views of the Colossian opponents, since Arnold’s reconstruction draws on a different body of material from the cultural setting of the first century. Since it is beyond the scope of this paper to survey the major views suggested in the identification of Paul’s opponents in each of his letters, I mention three very important works here that provide excellent and indispensable summaries of the history of research of Paul’s opponents.

The first one is Ellis’s ‘Paul and His Opponents’ in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults (1975). This essay offers a survey of research from Calvin in the Reformation period through Baur in the nineteenth century, and from Baur through the third quarter of the twentieth century, highlighting many significant works of scholars who have made a contribution to this field of study. The essay claims that it is difficult to delineate any clear trends in the research beginning in the mid-twentieth century; therefore, from here on the author sim-ply presents the state of the issue(s) in Paul’s letters and incorporates the various contributions as they bear upon the issue(s) under consideration. The author


concludes that in between this battle of Paul and his opponents, the primary opposition came from the ‘ritually strict Hebraioi’ in the Jerusalem church whose characteristics and teachings manifested in various ways and forms, either coun-tering the Pauline mission or exerting influence on Paul’s churches.

The second one is Barnett’s article ‘Opponents of Paul’ in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (1993). The article presents a brief survey of opinions as to the identification of Paul’s opponents in 2 Corinthians and discusses the works by scholars with reference to Paul’s opponents at Corinth, Galatia, Colossae and Philippi. The article also includes three different sections on ‘Paul and the Jerusalem Apostles’, ‘Paul’s Opponents: A Profile’, and ‘The Judaizers, James and Paul’. The author does not appear to have a clear structure or chronology in presenting these various sections, but perhaps the article was meant to be pre-sented in such a way that readers can choose the exact topic they want to explore in studying Paul’s opponents. Since this is only an article in a dictionary, there is much limitation in the references and citation of sources.

The third one is a collection of essays in Porter’s Paul and His Opponents (2005). In many different ways, this volume should be seen as a clear advance-ment in the study of Paul and his opponents. The volume’s emphasis on the for-mulation of methodological principles for approaching this field of study deserves careful attention, and it is, at least to me, indicative of the way future research should go. Porter (2005: 1-4) points out that there are three critical ques-tions that one should consider in studying Paul’s opponents. The first one con-cerns the definition of the notion of opponents. The second one involves the method in defining Paul’s opponents. And the third one is the identification or classification of opponents into either a singular group or different groups that vary from letter to letter or from place to place. In relation to this methodological concern, Sumney (2010: 58-59; see also his two previous works in Sumney 1990, 1999) makes a similar remark by acknowledging the importance of distin-guishing between those who oppose Paul and those whom Paul opposes in defin-ing Paul’s opponents. He also asserts that a distinction should be made between cases where Paul is making accusation against or a description of his opponents. Sumney’s emphasis on issues of methods, however, has not come without at least one very recent criticism from Blanton (2010: 129-51, esp. 130-31, 150-51), who criticizes Sumney for his occasional lapses in applying his own meth-ods in a rigorous manner. In this volume by Porter, Sumney’s lengthy essay, ‘Studying Paul’s Opponents’, provides an excellent chronological survey of the state of the research of Paul’s opponents from Baur to the present and includes a book by book discussion of the issues raised and works contributed by scholars in the identification of Paul’s opponents in all his letters, with the exception of Philemon. The remaining seven essays focus on a particular method of defining, identifying or surveying an individual Pauline letter, with Saunders examining Paul in terms of the imperial cult and Evans assessing the significance of


language use regarding ‘works of law’ from Jewish sources and its relationship to Paul’s letters. In sum, and in the word of its editor, ‘This volume in many ways mirrors the range and proportion of discussion of Paul and his opponents that is currently being undertaken’ (Porter 2005: 5).

From this brief survey, it is noticeable that studies of Paul’s opponents can be roughly categorized into two major groups on the basis of its history of research, with a third group that emphasizes methodological principles emerging. The first group can be seen as those following Baur’s two-party scheme, which claims that Paul’s opponents are found within Judaism. The second group can be described as those who break away from Baur and have variously interpreted Paul’s opponents as either Gnostics or pneumatics or divine men. The emerging third group can be classified as those who are interested in looking at the specific context of each individual letter in the identification of Paul’s opponents.

Paul and James

Justification by faith (Rom. 3.28) or justification by works (Jas. 2.24) is arguably the linchpin in discussions concerning the relationship between Paul and James. Throughout the centuries, since Luther’s famous remark on the book of James as a ‘right strawy epistle’, scholars have tried to study the compatibility (or incom-patibility) of their theologies, especially with respect to this issue of justification by faith or works (for a quick survey on the issues of justification, faith and works in Paul and James, see Davids 1993: 458-60; Jeremias 1955: 368-71). In some sense, I personally think that this persistent issue perhaps would not have been raised in the first place if not for Luther’s remark and if not for the promi-nence of James in the first-century Jerusalem church. James’s leadership is clear from Luke’s account in Acts and Paul’s letter to the Galatians. And this must at least be one of the reasons why such a study of Paul’s relationship with James is still meritorious, since in comparison to all of Paul’s letters, of which Romans, Galatians and Philippians (ch. 3) are the typical letters considered in comparing Paul’s and James’s theologies, there is very little we can glean from the short letter of James. Needless to say, most studies are usually confined to Jas. 2.14-26 (see the bibliographical list in McKnight 2011: 259-60 n. 142). Regardless, how-ever, there is still more to be gleaned from the extra-canonical sources that high-light his leadership position in the earliest church in evaluating James’s theology (cf. Popkes 2005a: 323-54, esp. 323, who makes a similar observation).

I therefore begin with a section that discusses a particular intra-canonical approach and presents the traditional sources that can provide us with the means of reconstructing a picture of James, mentioning some of the previous works in this area. This is followed by a presentation of some of the more common views taken by scholars in interpreting Paul’s and James’s theologies. I conclude this section by referring to two works that exemplify a clear methodological approach


in comparing Paul’s and James’s theologies (other recent works that are note-worthy include Popkes 2005b: 129-46; Jenkins 2002: 62-78).

An Intra-Canonical Approach and Traditional Sources for James

There are two routes that can be taken in reconstructing a picture of James, with respect to his leadership in the earliest church. The first one is to investigate the evidence in the NT canon through the use of the so-called ‘leadership models’. Several leadership models can be used to analyze the NT. First, the ‘shepherd/flock’ model is a common one both in the OT (e.g. 1 Kgs. 22.17; Pss. 23; 80.2; Isa. 13.14; 40.11; Jer. 3.15; 23.1; 25.34; 31.10; Ezek. 34; Zech. 11.17) and the NT (e.g. Mt. 9.36; Jn. 10; 21.15-17; Acts 20.28; 1 Pet. 5.1-5). Second, in the Greco-Roman world, leadership is based on the idea of potestas, a lesser degree of ‘power through coercion’ than the imperium, which refers to an absolute mili-tary power. An example of such a kind of power can be found in Acts 25.10-11 and 26.32 when Paul appealed to Caesar. This notion is common in Plato, Cicero, Virgil and Seneca. Third, the concept of paterfamilias as the dominant and car-ing figure of his own oikonomia is also a basic leadership model in antiquity (see the Pastorals; Rom. 16.1-2). But the most common type in Jewish leadership, fourthly, is the ‘ideal figures’ model drawn from history. Jesus can be seen as an ideal figure for his followers; this is an ethical type of leadership (see Stendahl and Horsley 2000: 29-30, 81; cf. Josephus, Ant. 4.215: ‘Let those that are chosen to judge in the several cities be held in great honor, and let none be permitted to revile any others when these are present, nor to carry themselves in an insolent manner to them’).

One particular work that has done a good job of putting together various lead-ership models from the biblical, Greco-Roman and Jewish sources to analyze the leadership roles that James and Paul played in antiquity is Popkes (2005a: 323-54). Popkes’s study generally describes James’s leadership as one that seeks the ‘common good’ of the church, in order to solve her prevailing problems; James’s leadership in this case, he says, is profoundly ethical. As such, James demon-strates several similar leadership goals and qualities with Paul, such as both strived to pursue unity and harmony in the church, both emphasized the virtue of self-control, both promoted salvation as the ultimate human goal, both high-lighted the importance of leadership by example, and both fought against moti-vations for prestige and dominance. Despite these similarities, however, in some areas James and Paul can be seen to have differed because of their backgrounds. The mention of and conformity to Christ’s suffering seems to be lacking in James (Christ is only mentioned twice in Jas. 1.1; 2.1). Whereas Paul asserts his apos-tolic freedom more than that of James, James uses the notion of ‘wisdom’ more directly than Paul in clarifying the standards of Christian leadership. The author concludes that James and Paul do not differ widely with regard to leadership.


The second approach is to turn to extrabiblical sources. Scharlemann (1968: 138-43, 154-64) points out that there are only two extrabiblical sources, Hegesippus and Josephus, which are available to us. Although the so-called Protevangelium, which contains stories related to the early childhood of Jesus and purports to be written by James, exists, there is probably no historical value to it for our purposes (see James 1953: 38-49). Both in Josephus’s (Ant. 20.197, 199-203) and Hegesippus’s (in Eusebius, H.E. 2.23, 4-18) accounts, we get a picture of the ‘great righteousness’ of the man who was stoned to death because of his confession of Christ. If both accounts are accurate, James’s confession of Christ can corroborate his letter where ‘Christ’ was only twice mentioned. Nevertheless, the historical value and accuracy of both accounts have not gone unchallenged. Whereas Zahn (1881: 228-54, 301-305; see also Weiss 1937: 711-12, esp. n. 7) argues that Josephus’s reference to ‘James the Righteous’ was part of a later Christian interpolation, Schwartz (1903: 48-61) raised several prob-lems through a critical scrutiny of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History and con-cluded that the work is full of inner contradictions and apologetic concern. Regardless, that James was a significant leader of the earliest church should be beyond dispute. This is shown in the work of Martin’s commentary on James (2002), and McKnight’s essay ‘A Parting within the Way: Jesus and James on Israel and Purity’ (1999).

Martin’s section on ‘Jewish Christianity’ in his commentary provides an extensive discussion and various references to the traditional sources of James (see Martin 2002: xlii-lxii). Perhaps only Martin’s commentary provides such an extensive discussion of the traditional sources of James. Two other notable com-mentaries have virtually no section devoted to this issue (e.g., see Davids 1982; Richardson 1997). Martin begins with defining Jewish Christianity and looks at two documents, one in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the other in the Clementine literature, where James is mentioned. The former contains only one fragment that deals with James (see Hennecke et al. 1963: I, 165), and the main source of the latter is found in Recognitions 1.43-72. Following the mention of these two important pieces of information, Martin examines the character and the role James played as perceived by the churches of the early second- to the late fourth-century bce. The author then gives a review of the historical develop-ment in this time period based on the evidence found in four ecclesiastical writ-ers, Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius of Caesarea, with Epiphanius and Jerome serving as the terminal points, as both their works have shown that non-orthodox traditions about James were circulating during this period.

Similarly, arguing for the continuity of Jesus and James based on evidences of how James fits into Jesus’ vision of purity and the function of purity within that vision (esp. baptism), McKnight (1999: 83-129) contends that there is much to be said about the Jacobite tradition, not only because it is most consistent with the Jesus tradition in comparison to the Pauline tradition, but also that James is


surely a ‘towering figure’ of the Christianity he represented. For him, James embraced both the vision of Jesus and the faith of his ancestors (Judaism), although he contends that James seemed more unrelenting than Jesus when it comes to Torah observance (McKnight 1999: 84, 127). From this discussion, I believe that there is still much to consider in incorporating the personal back-ground of James in working with his theology.

Paul’s Theology vs. James’s Theology

Paul says, ‘a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law’ (Rom. 3.28; cf. Gal. 2.16). James rejoins, ‘a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone’ (Jas. 2.24). And so the perennial question remains: how do we or can we reconcile these two theologies? In evangelical terms, ‘How do we avoid making “faith” a special substitute for “works,” which is somehow a more acceptable sort of human activity’ (Thiselton 1980: 415)? There are two answers to this question, one short and another long. The short answer is that Paul and James either contradict each other (some of the commentaries that take this view include Easton 1957: 45; Laws 1980: 132; Dibelius and Greeven 1976: 165), or that they use ‘justification’ in two different senses or contexts (those who opt for this view include Reicke 1964: 34; Davids 1982: 132; Scaer 1983: 93; Johnson 1995: 242; Richardson 1997: 140-41; Moo 2000: 141; Martin 2002: 82-84). The long answer seeks to explain this tensive relationship by proposing four solutions (cf. Davids 1993: 457-58).

The first solution posits that James is arguing for both faith and works as the requirement for a sinner’s justification before God. This view claims that, whereas Paul deals with works of the OT law in Romans 4, James speaks of a general law (Jas. 2.8) required for all Christians (see Ott and Bastible 1954: 354; Plumptre 1899: 75). The second proposal by Hodges et al. (1994: 41-42, 60-72) is that Paul is concerned with eternal salvation in Romans 4, while James is addressing a physical deliverance of the body from the punishment and effects of sin. In this view, James is only referring to a justification before others in a non-salvific con-text; thus, a ‘demonstrative’ act of the genuineness of a true believer. The third solution asserts that James was directly refuting Paul’s theology in Romans 4 and Galatians 2–3 because James declared a justification by faith and works (Ropes 1916: 34-35; J. Sanders 1975: 115-18). Along this line, some see James as react-ing to an ‘early Paul’ or a distortion of Paul’s message by his early followers (see Davids 1993: 458; Moo 1996: 121; McKnight 2011: 263). This view differs from the first view in that James was not refuting Paul. The fourth view suggests that Paul and James had different purposes for different contexts even while using the same term ‘justification’. Paul was refuting legalism in Judaism, and so he con-tends that faith alone is the basis for a sinner’s justification before God (forensic declaration). James, on the other hand, was combating antinomianism by showing that one’s salvation is objectively ‘justified’ by works (universal demonstration)


(Mayor 1913: lxxxix-xciv; Mitton 1966: 98-117; Adamson 1976: 34-48, 121-37; Hiebert 1992: 157-79; Sproul 1995: 160-71).

More recently, McKnight (2011: 260) says that ‘at issue in this passage [i.e., Jas. 2.14-26] is not “faith” or “works” but “faith without works” over against “faith with works”’. There are certainly more nuances and variations in the way biblical scholars and systematic theologians handle this theological issue between Paul and James, and they vary from author to author. Unless scholars will employ new methodological approaches in handling this issue, future works will merely recount previous works by introducing some new nuances to an old view but still using the same arguments.

The Works of David R. Maxwell and Anthony Thiselton

Maxwell (2007: 375-78) brings evidence from Clement of Rome in arguing for two different meanings of δικαιόω to show that, in Paul, its meaning is ‘to impute right-eousness’, whereas in James, its meaning is ‘to show to be righteous’. He further demonstrates that, in contexts where faith and works are being contrasted, δικαιόω carries the forensic meaning. And in contexts where the comparison is between works and words, δικαιόω has the demonstrative meaning. These two senses of δικαιόω are proposed not only on the basis of the writings of Clement (1 Clem. 30.3 and 1 Clem. 32.4; 38.2), but also on answering the question, ‘When was Abraham justified?’ In Paul, Maxwell points out, Abraham was justified when he believed, since Paul asks in Rom. 4.2 whether Abraham was justified by works, and Paul answers in the negative, that is, ‘Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness’ (Rom. 4.2). By contrast, in James, Abraham was not justified when he believed, but rather, when he placed Isaac on the altar (Jas. 2.21). So the author argues, ‘Paul and James each ascribe “justification” to a different point in Abraham’s life’; therefore, each uses δικαιόω in a different sense. Along with his contention that both senses of the word are found and used by a single author, Clement, Maxwell supports the view that Paul and James did not contradict each other.

Similarly, Thiselton has argued that the meaning of δικαιόω in Paul must be understood from an eschatological context and not from an historical point of reference. Using Wittgenstein’s ‘seeing…as…’ concept, ‘What is seen remains the same; how it is seen depends on the significance or function within a given system, frame of reference, or setting of life’ (Thiselton 1980: 418), Thiselton concludes that, in Paul, faith is related to justification internally or grammatically. In other words, faith is at the same time both part of what justification is and entails, which is similar to making an analytical statement like ‘red is a color’. Contrastingly, for James, faith is related grammatically to works. Therefore, it would be wrong to compare their theologies by asking how we can account for two meanings of δικαιόω, whether it is ‘to impute righteousness’ (Paul) or to ‘show to be righteous’ (James), just as it is a mistake to ask the usual question about what faith is in the NT without a context (Thiselton 1980: 415-27).


Conclusion

A few important conclusions can be drawn from the survey of the three Pauline topics covered in this essay. One is that there is a paucity of studies of Paul’s relationship with Stephen and the Hellenists, especially from the third quarter of the twentieth century to the present. Another is that studies of Paul’s relationship with James continue to appeal to both theologians and biblical scholars, although not only is there a lack of larger works, such as monographs or collections of essays, but also the issue of methodology in the investigation should certainly be considered if we are to see new contributions to this area of study. And this is in addition to incorporating the factor of James as an influential figure from tradi-tional sources. The same is the case with studies on Paul and his opponents. What some scholars have spearheaded in terms of implementing new methodo-logical approaches should be assessed seriously and be welcomed if they deserve merit. A final observation is that while there is continuous interest in scholarly studies of Paul’s opponents, the two other areas perhaps need some revival of interest. As noted above, I have presented some alternative suggestions as to how this revival of interest can be achieved.

Bibliography

Adamson, J.B. 1976 The Epistle of James (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).Arnold, C. 1996 The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface between Christianity and Folk

Belief at Colossae (Grand Rapids: Baker).Ascough, R.S. 1998 What Are They Saying About the Formation of Pauline Churches? (New

York: Paulist).Badiou, A. 2003 Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism (Stanford: Stanford University

Press).Barclay, J.M.G. 1993 ‘Jesus and Paul’, in G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin and D.G. Reid (eds.),

Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press): 492-503.

Barnard, L.W. 1960 ‘Saint Stephen and Early Alexandrian Christianity’, NTS 7: 31-45.Barnett, P.W. 1993 ‘Opponents of Paul’, in G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin and D.G. Reid (eds.),


Barrett, C.K. 1971 ‘Paul’s Opponents in II Corinthians’, NTS 17: 233-54.Bauer, W. 1971 Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (trans. R.A. Kraft and G.

Kroedel; Philadelphia: Fortress).


Baur, F.C. 1835 Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensantz des

petrinischen und paulinischen Christenthums in der ältesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom (TZTh, Viertes Heft; Tübingen: Osiander).

1876 Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Works, His Epistles and Teach-ings (2 vols.; trans. E. Zeller; Peabody: Hendrickson).

1878 The Church History of the First Three Centuries (3rd edn; 2 vols.; trans. A. Menzies; London: Williams and Norgate).

Blackman, E.C. 1937 ‘The Hellenists of Acts 6:1’, ExpTim 48: 524-26.Blank, J. 1968 Paulus und Jesus: Eine theologische Grundlegung (SANT, 18; München:

Kösel-Verlag).Blanton, T.R. 2010 ‘Spirit and Covenant Renewal: A Theologoumenon of Paul’s Opponents in 2

Corinthians’, JBL 129: 129-51.Bockmuehl, M. 2006 Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study (Grand Rapids: Baker).Bousset, W. 1970 Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of

Christianity to Irenaeus (trans. J.E. Steely; Nashville: Abingdon).Brandon, S.G.F. 1967 Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christian-

ity (Manchester: Manchester University Press). 1968 The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church: A Study of the Effects of the

Jewish Overthrow of A. D. 70 on Christianity (2nd edn; London: SPCK).Bruce, F.F. 1952 The Acts of the Apostles (1st American edn; Chicago: InterVarsity Press). 1954 The Book of the Acts (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).Bultmann, R. 1952 Theology of the New Testament (2 vols.; New York: Scribner). 1985 The Second Letter to the Corinthians (1st English language edn; trans. R.A.

Harrisville; Minneapolis: Augsburg).Burtchaell, J.T. 1992 From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest

Christian Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Cadbury, H. 1927 The Making of Luke-Acts (New York: Macmillan). 1933 The Beginnings of Christianity. Part I of The Acts of the Apostles (ed. F.J.

Foakes-Jackson and K. Lake; 5 vols.; London: Macmillan).Caputo, J.D., and L. Alcoff 2009 St. Paul among the Philosophers (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).Carson, D.A., P.T. O’Brien and M.A. Seifrid 2001 Justification and Variegated Nomism (2 vols; WUNT, 2; Grand Rapids:

Baker).Conzelmann, H. 1987 Acts of the Apostles (trans. J. Limburg, A.T. Kraabel and D.H. Juel; Philadel-

phia: Fortress).


Crossley, J.G. 2010 Reading the New Testament: Contemporary Approaches (London: Routledge).Cullman, O. 1955 ‘Significance of the Qumran Texts for Research into the Beginnings of

Christianity’, JBL 74: 213-26. 1956 ‘Samaria and the Origin of the Christian Mission’, in A.J.B. Higgins (ed.),

The Early Church (London: SCM): 185-92. 1957 ‘The Significance of the Qumran Texts for Research into the Beginnings of

Christianity’, in K. Stendahl (ed.), The Scrolls and the New Testament (New York: Harper): 18-32.

1959a ‘A New Approach to the Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel’, ExpTim 71.1: 8-12.

1959b ‘A New Approach to the Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Continued)’, ExpTim 71.2: 39-43.

1967 ‘Dissensions within the Early Church’, USQR 22: 83-92.Davids, P.H. 1982 The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans). 1993 ‘Paul and James’, in G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin and D.G. Reid (eds.),


Davies, W.D. 1962 ‘Law in the New Testament’, in G.A. Buttrick and K.R. Crim (eds.), The

Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (New York: Abingdon): 998.Dibelius, M. 1971 From Tradition to Gospel (trans. B.L. Woolf; Cambridge: James Clark & Co.).Dibelius, M., and H. Greeven 1976 A Commentary on the Epistle of James (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress).Dockery, D.S. 1990 ‘Acts 6–12: The Christian Mission Beyond Jerusalem’, RevExp 87: 423-37.Dodd, C.H. 1936 The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (London: Hodder &

Stoughton).Dunn, J.D.G. 1977 Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of

Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Westminster). 1990 ‘The New Perspective on Paul’, in idem, Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in

Mark and Galatians (London: SPCK): 183-206. 1994 ‘Jesus Tradition in Paul’, in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Studying the

Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (Leiden: Brill): 155-78.

Easton, B.S. 1957 The Epistle of James (The Interpreter’s Bible; New York: Abingdon).Ellis, E.E. 1975 ‘Paul and His Opponents’, in M. Smith and J. Neusner (eds.), Christianity,

Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults (Leiden: Brill): 264-98. 1977 ‘How the New Testament Uses the Old’, in idem, New Testament Interpreta-

tion (Exeter: Paternoster): 199-219.


1978 ‘Those of the Circumcision and the Early Christian Mission’, in M. Hengel, J. Jeremias and M. Otto (eds.), Prophecy and Hermeneutic (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck): 116-28.

Ferguson, E. 1969 ‘The Hellenists in the Book of Acts’, ResQ 12: 159-80.Fisk, B.N. 2004 ‘Paul: Life and Letters’, in S. McKnight and G.R. Osborne (eds.), The Face of

New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research (Grand Rapids: Baker): 283-325.

Friedrich, G. 1963 ‘Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief’, in M. Otto, O. Betz, M. Hen-

gel and P. Schmidt (eds.), Abraham unser Vater: Juden und Christen im Gespräch über die Bebel (Leiden: Brill): 181-215.

Fuller, D.P. 1965 Easter Faith and History (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).Furnish, V.P. 1984 II Corinthians (AB; New York: Doubleday). 1989 ‘The Jesus–Paul Debate: From Baur to Bultmann’, in A.J.M. Wedder-

burn (ed.), Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays (Sheffield: JSOT Press): 17-50.

1993 Jesus According to Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Gager, J.G. 1975 Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity (Engle-

wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall).Gaston, L. 1987 Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press).Georgi, D. 1986 The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians: A Study of Religious Propa-

ganda in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia: Fortress).Given, M.D. 2010 Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on the Apostle (Peabody: Hendrickson).Goppelt, L. 1970 Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times (London: Black).Goulder, M.D. 1995 St. Paul versus St. Peter: A Tale of Two Missions (1st American edn;

Louisville: Westminster). 2001 Paul and the Competing Mission in Corinth (Peabody: Hendrickson).Grundmann, W. 1939 ‘Das Problem des Hellenitischens Christentums innerhalb jerusalemer

Urgemeinde’, ZNW 38: 45-73.Gunther, J.J. 1973 St. Paul’s Opponents and their Background: A Study of Apocalyptic and Jew-

ish Sectarian Teachings (NovTSup; Leiden: Brill).Haenchen, E. 1971 The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Oxford: Blackwell).Hahn, F. 1969 The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity (New

York: World).


Heitmüller, W. 1912 ‘Zum Problem Paulus und Jesus’, ZNW 13: 320-37.Hengel, M. 1974 Judaism and Hellenism (trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM). 1980 Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress). 1983 Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity

(London: SCM). 1995 Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark).Hennecke, E., W. Schneemelcher and R.M. Wilson 1963 New Testament Apocrypha (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster).Hiebert, E.D. 1992 James (rev. edn; Chicago: Moody).Hodge, C.J. 2007 If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul

(Oxford: Oxford University Press).Hodges, Z.C., A.L. Farstad and R.N. Wilkin 1994 The Epistle of James: Proven Character through Testing: A Verse by Verse Com-

mentary (Grace New Testament Commentary; Irving: Grace Evangelical Society).James, M.R. 1953 The Apocryphal New Testament: Being the Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epis-

tles, and Apocalypses (Oxford: Clarendon).Jenkins, R. 2002 ‘Faith and Works in Paul and James’, BSac 159: 62-78.Jeremias, J. 1955 ‘Paul and James’, ExpTim 66: 368-71.Jocz, J. 1954 The Jewish People and Jesus Christ: A Study in the Controversy between

Church and Synagogue (London: SPCK).Johnson, L.T. 1995 The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary

(AB, 37a; New York: Doubleday).Kim, S. 2001 Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gos-

pel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).Knox, W.L. 1932 St. Paul (Edinburgh: Peter Davies).Kümmel, G. 1970 The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems (trans.

M. Gilmour and H. C. Kee; Nashville: Broadman and Holman).Ladd, G.E. 1974 A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).Laws, S. 1980 A Commentary on the Epistle of James (BNTC; London: A & C Black).Lightfoot, J. B. 1885 The Apostolic Fathers (5 vols.; London: Macmillan). 1892 Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (London: Macmillan).Lohmeyer, E. 1937 ‘Das Abendmahl in der Urgemeinde’, JBL 56: 217-52.


Longenecker, R.N. 1970 The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (London: SCM).Lüdemann, G. 1984 Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology (Philadelphia: Fortress). 1989 Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity (trans. E.M. Boring; Minneapolis:

Fortress).Marshall, I.H. 1973 ‘Palestinian and Hellenistic Christianity: Some Critical Comments’, NTS 19:

271-87.Martin, R.P. 1987 ‘The Opponents of Paul in 2 Corinthians: An Old Issue Revisited’, in G.F.

Hawthorne and O. Betz (eds.), Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testa-ment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans): 279-89.

2002 James (WBC; Dallas: Word).Martin, T. 1996 By Philosophy and Vain Deceit: Colossians as a Response to a Cynic Cri-

tique (JSNTSup, 118; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).Maxwell, D.R. 2007 ‘Justified by Works and Not by Faith Alone: Reconciling Paul and James’,

Concordia Journal 33: 375-78.Mayor, J.B. 1913 The Epistle of St. James (London: Macmillan).McKnight S. 1999 ‘A Parting within the Way: Jesus and James on Israel and Purity’, in B. Chilton

and C. Evans (eds.), James the Just and Christian Origins (Leiden: Brill): 83-129. 2011 The Letter of James (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).Meeks, W.A. 1983 The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New

Haven: Yale University Press).Mitton, L.C. 1966 The Epistle of James (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott).Moo, D.J. 1996 The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). 2000 The Letter of James (PNTC; Leicester: InterVarsity Press).Moule, C.F.D. 1959 ‘Once More, Who Were the Hellenists’, ExpTim 70: 100-102.Nanos, M.D. 1996 The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis:

Fortress).Neill, S. 1964 The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861–1961 (London: Oxford Uni-

versity Press).O’Neill, J. C. 1970 The Theology of Acts in its Historical Setting (2nd edn; London: SPCK).Ong, H.Forthcoming ‘Ferdinand Christian Baur’s Historical Criticism and Tendenzcritik’, in S.E.

Porter and S.A. Adams (eds.), Pillars in Biblical Criticism (Biblical Studies


Series; Hamilton, ON: McMaster Divinity College Press; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock).

Ott, L., and J. Bastible 1954 Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (St. Louis: B. Herder).Plumptre, E.H. 1899 The General Epistles of St. Peter & St. Jude (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-

sity Press).Polhill, J.B. 2001 Acts (NAC; Nashville: Broadman).Popkes, W. 2001 Der Brief des Jakobus (Theologischer Handkommentar Zum Neuen Testa-

ment; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt). 2005a ‘Leadership: James, Paul, and their Contemporary Background’, in B. Chil-

ton and C. Evans (eds.), The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul: Tensions in Early Christianity (Leiden: Brill): 323-54.

2005b ‘Two Interpretations of “Justification” in the New Testament: Reflections on Galatians 2:15–21 and James 2:21–25’, ST 59: 129-46.

Porter, S.E. (ed.) 2005 Paul and His Opponents (Pauline Studies, 2; Leiden: Brill). 2008a Paul’s World (Pauline Studies, 5; Leiden: Brill). 2008b Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman (Pauline Studies, 4; Leiden: Brill).Porter, S.E., and B.W.R. Pearson 2000a ‘Why the Split? Christian and Jews by the Fourth Century’, JGRChJ 1:

82-119. 2000b ‘Ancient Understanding of the Christian–Jewish Split’, in S.E. Porter and

B.W.R. Pearson (eds.), Christian-Jewish Relations through the Centuries (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 36-51.

Reicke, B. 1964 The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude (AB, 37; New York: Doubleday).Richardson, K.A. 1997 James (NAC, 36; Nashville: Broadman and Holman).Robinson, J.A.T. 1960 ‘Destination and Purpose of St John’s Gospel’, NTS 6: 117-31.Ropes, J.H. 1916 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James (ICC; New

York: Scribner).Sanders, E.P. 1977 Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion

(London: SCM).Sanders, J.T. 1975 Ethics in the New Testament: Change and Development (Philadelphia: For-

tress).Scaer, D.P. 1983 James, the Apostle of Faith: A Primary Christological Epistle for the Perse-

cuted Church (St. Louis: Concordia).Scharlemann, M.H. 1968 Stephen: A Singular Saint (AnBib; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute).


Schmithals, W. 1965 Paul and James (Naperville: A.R. Allenson). 1983 ‘Judaisten in Galatien’, ZNW 74: 27-58.Schneckenburger, M. 1855 ‘Beiträge zur Erklärung und Kritik der Apostelgeschichte’, Theologische Stu-

dien und Kritiken: 498-570.Schoeps, H.J. 1949 Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). 1969 Jewish Christianity: Factional Disputes in the Early Church (Philadelphia:

Fortress).Schwartz, E. 1903 ‘Zur Eusebius’ Kirchengeschichte’, ZNW 4: 48-61.Scott, E.F. 1947 The Varieties of New Testament Religion (New York: Scribner).Scott, J.J. 1975 ‘Parties in the Church of Jerusalem as Seen in the Book of Acts’, JETS 18:

217-27.Seifrid, M.A., and R.K.J. Tan 2002 The Pauline Writings: An Annotated Bibliography (IBR Bibliographies;

Grand Rapids: Baker).Simon, M. 1958 St. Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church (London: Longmans,

Green).Sorley, W.R. 1881 Jewish Christians and Judaism: A Study in the History of the First Two Cen-

turies (Cambridge: D. Bell).Spiro, A. 1967 ‘Stephen’s Samaritan Background’, in J. Munck (ed.), The Acts of the Apos-

tles (New York: Doubleday): 285-300.Sproul, R.C. 1995 Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids:

Baker).Stanley, D.M. 1973 Boasting in the Lord: The Phenomenon of Prayer in Saint Paul (New York:

Paulist).Stendahl, K. 1963 ‘The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West’, HTR 56:

199-215.Stendahl, K., and R.A. Horsley 2000 Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation: Essays in

Honor of Krister Stendahl (Harrisburg: Trinity).Still, T.D., and D.G. Horrell 2009 After the First Urban Christians: The Social-Scientific Study of Pauline

Christianity Twenty-Five Years Later (London: Continuum).Stowers, S.K. 1994 A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale Uni-

versity Press).


Sumney, J.L. 1990 Identifying Paul’s Opponents: The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians

(JSNTSup; Sheffield: JSOT). 1999 ‘Servants of Satan’, ‘False Brothers’ and Other Opponents of Paul (JSNT-

Sup; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). 2005 ‘Studying Paul’s Opponents: Advances and Challenges’, in S.E. Porter (ed.),

Paul and His Opponents (Leiden: Brill): 7-58. 2010 ‘Paul and His Opponents: The Search’, in M.D. Given (ed.), Paul Unbound:

Other Perspectives on the Apostle (Peabody: Hendrickson): 55-70.Taubes, J., and A. Assmann 2004 The Political Theology of Paul (Stanford: Stanford University Press).Thiselton, A. 1980 The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Descrip-

tion with Special Reference to Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer, and Wittgen-stein (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Thrall, M.E. 1980 ‘Super-Apostles, Servants of Christ, and Servants of Satan’, JSNT 6: 42-57.Tomson, P.J. 1990 Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakah in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gen-

tiles (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).Weiss, J. 1937 The History of Primitive Christianity (2 vols.; trans. and ed. F. Grant; New

York: Wilson-Erickson).Wenham, D. 1995 Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).Westerholm, S. 2004 Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The ‘Lutheran’ Paul and His Critics

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).Williams, D.J. 1985 Acts (San Francisco: Harper & Row).Winn, A.C. 1959 ‘Elusive Mystery: The Purpose of Acts’, Int 13: 144-56.Witherington, B. 1992 Jesus, Paul, and the End of the World: A Comparative Study in New Testa-

ment Eschatology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press).Zahn, T. 1881 Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (Leipzig: A.

Deichert’sche Verlagbuchhandlung).Zeller, E. 1851 ‘Die Apostelgeschichte, ihre Composition und ihr Charakter, mit Rücksicht auf

die neueren Bearbeitungen (Schluss)’, Theologische Jahrbücher 10: 433-69.Zetterholm, M. 2009 Approaches to Paul: A Student’s Guide to Recent Scholarship (Minneapolis:

Fortress).Žižek, S. 2003 The Puppet and the Dwarf: The Perverse Core of Christianity (Cambridge:

MIT Press).

Paul's Personal Relation with Earliest Christianity: A Critical Survey

Documents

Transcript of Paul's Personal Relation with Earliest Christianity: A Critical Survey