The Figure of Hagar in Ancient Judaism and Galatians (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament, 579) 9783161617898, 9783161618550, 3161617894

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich)

Mitherausgeber/Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) · Janet Spittler (Charlottesville, VA) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

579

Ryan Heinsch

The Figure of Hagar in Ancient Judaism and Galatians

Mohr Siebeck

Ryan Heinsch, born 1985; 2008 BA, Moody Bible Institute; 2014 MDiv, Moody Theological Seminary, Michigan; 2019 PhD, University of Aberdeen; currently adjunct professor at Moody Theological Seminary, and Bible faculty at Southwest Christian High School (Chaska, MN).

ISBN 978-3-16-161789-8 / eISBN 978-3-16-161855-0 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-161855-0 ISSN 0340-9570 / eISSN 2568-7484 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2022 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed on non-aging paper by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen, and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Preface

This monograph is a slightly revised version of my doctoral thesis, which was written under the supervision of Prof. Grant Macaskill at the University of Aberdeen. A special thanks to my examiners, Dr. Matthew V. Novenson and Prof. Philip G. Ziegler, who carefully reviewed my thesis and provided insightful feedback. This project is better because of their engagement with it. And a special thanks to Prof. Jörg Frey for recommending my thesis for publication and to the team at Mohr Siebeck for accepting it. A project such as this is not completed in isolation, but in a community of support. There are a number of people to thank. First, I would like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Grant Macaskill. Your careful and constructive feedback consistently pushed me to sharpen my own thinking and argumentation. You have been a most excellent Doktorvater! Thanks to Dr. Andrew Clarke for originally agreeing to supervise this study. What I learned from you in that first year will remain with me. Thanks to Dr. J. Brian Tucker for encouraging me to pursue doctoral studies. You have been both a friend and a colleague, but most of all, a mentor. Thanks to my fellow Aberdeen peers, especially Dr. Kris Song, Dr. Jeannine Hanger, Dr. Joshua Honeycutt, Daniel Thorpe, Lisa Igram, and Melissa Tan. Your friendship and support have been an encouragement. Thanks to the students (esp. Richard Spenst), staff, and faculty of Moody Theological Seminary for the opportunity to work out some of my ideas in the classroom. Thanks to the staff and faculty at Southwest Christian High School for encouraging me to continue my scholarly pursuits; thanks to the students for your curiosity and questions; and thanks to my colleagues in the Bible department. To Dr. Donald H. Carlson, Dustin Thompson, and Brian Goldie, we are indeed the best high school Bible department in the country. Finally, thanks to my parents for encouraging and praying for me. Thanks to my wonderful children, Adelyn and Gideon. I love you both so very much. And most importantly, I want to thank my wife, Laura. The sacrifices you have made over the years are beyond my ability to repay. God has truly blessed me with a thoughtful, caring, supportive, and beautiful wife – I love you! 10 August 2022

Ryan Heinsch

Table of Contents Preface............................................................................................................... V Style and Abbreviations .................................................................................XIII Introduction .....................................................................................................XV

Part One Introductory Matters Chapter 1: Echoes of Supersessionism and the Figure of Hagar in Galatians 4:21–31 ........................................................................... 3 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Supersessionism and the Study of the New Testament ................................. 5 1.2.1 Supersessionism Traditionally Understood ........................................ 5 1.2.2 Supersessionism Reconsidered ........................................................... 8 1.2.3 The Persistence of Supersessionism in New Testament Studies ...... 11 1.3 Leading Scholarly Approaches to Galatians 4:21–31 ............................... 15 1.3.1 The Traditional Reading ................................................................... 17 1.3.2 A New Consensus............................................................................. 20 1.3.3 Alternative Approaches .................................................................... 28 1.4 Scholarly Considerations of the Portrayal of Hagar in Ancient Judaism and Paul ................................................................................ 30 1.4.1 J. B. Lightfoot ................................................................................... 31 1.4.2 Richard N. Longenecker ................................................................... 31 1.4.3 C. K. Barrett ..................................................................................... 32 1.4.4 Ben Witherington ............................................................................. 33 1.4.5 Peder Borgen .................................................................................... 34 1.4.6 Troy Miller ....................................................................................... 35

VIII

Table of Contents

1.4.7 Final Observations ............................................................................ 37 1.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 38

Chapter 2: Comparative Methodology and Reading Paul ............ 39 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 39 2.2 Comparative Methodology ......................................................................... 40 2.3 Comparative Literature: A Word on Sources ............................................. 43 2.4 Reading Paul: More New or More Jew? .................................................... 44 Excursus on Ἰουδαῖος and Ἰουδαϊσμός ............................................................. 46 2.5 A Renewed Perspective on Paul: A Proposal ............................................. 48 2.5.1 Areas of Concurrence with PwJ ....................................................... 49 2.5.2 Area of Disagreement with PwJ ....................................................... 51 2.5.3 Final Remarks: Reading Paul and Reading Galatians ...................... 52 2.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 53

Part Two The Portrayal of Hagar in Ancient Judaism Chapter 3: The Portrayal of Hagar in the LXX of Genesis .......... 56 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 56 3.2 The Story of Hagar in Genesis 16 and 21 .................................................. 57 3.2.1 The Literary Context of Genesis 16 and 21 ...................................... 58 3.2.2 Episode One: Genesis 16:1–16 ......................................................... 61 3.2.3 Interlude: Genesis 17:15–22 ............................................................. 64 3.2.4 Episode Two: Genesis 21:9–21 ........................................................ 66 3.3 Evaluating the Portrayal of Hagar in Genesis 16 and 21 .......................... 68 3.3.1 Techniques of Repetition in the Story of Hagar ............................... 69

Table of Contents

IX

3.3.2 Final Observation: Hagar as Foreigner, Outsider, and “Other” ........ 76 3.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 77

Chapter 4: The Portrayal of Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period .................................................................. 78 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 78 4.2 The Portrayal of Hagar in 1QapGen ......................................................... 79 4.3 The Portrayal of Hagar in Jubilees ............................................................ 80 4.3.1 Hagar and the Birth of Ishmael (14:21–24) ...................................... 81 4.3.2 The Expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael (17:1–14) ............................... 82 4.3.3 Understanding the Portrayal of Hagar through the Portrayal of Ishmael ............................................................................................. 83 4.4 The Portrayal of Hagar in Baruch ............................................................. 86 4.4.1 The “Wisdom Poem” (3:9–4:4) ........................................................ 86 4.4.2 The Elusive Character of Wisdom among the Nations (3:16–31) .... 88 4.4.3 The Portrayal of Hagar and Her Descendants in Baruch 3:23 .......... 88 4.5 The Portrayal of Hagar in the Works of Philo ........................................... 90 4.5.1 Hagar in the Writings of Philo .......................................................... 91 4.5.2 The Portrayal of Hagar in the Allegorical Commentary ................... 92 4.5.3 The Portrayal of Hagar in Questions and Answers on Genesis ........ 97 4.5.4 The Portrayal of Hagar in the Exposition of the Law ....................... 98 4.5.5 Making Sense of Philo’s Portrayal of Hagar .................................... 99 4.5.6 Concluding Remarks on the Portrayal of Hagar in the Writings of Philo ........................................................................................... 105 4.6 The Portrayal of Hagar in Josephus ........................................................ 106 4.6.1 Introducing Jewish Antiquities ....................................................... 106 4.6.2 Hagar in Jewish Antiquities 1.187–90 ............................................ 109 4.6.3 Hagar in Jewish Antiquities 1.214–21 ............................................ 111 4.6.4 The Portrayal of Hagar in Jewish Antiquities ................................. 114 4.7 Evaluating the Portrayal of Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period ................................................................................................ 116

X

Table of Contents

4.8 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 119

Part Three The Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians Chapter 5: Again, and Again, and Again: Framing the Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians .................................................. 122 5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 122 5.2 The Inclusion of the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah in the Argument of Galatians: The Consensus View ..................................................................... 124 5.2.1 C. K. Barrett and the Development of the Consensus View ........... 125 5.2.2 Hermeneutical Implications of the Consensus View ...................... 127 5.2.3 An Evaluation of the Consensus View ........................................... 129 5.3 Reappraising the Inclusion of the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah: Exploring the Literary Context of Galatians 4:21–31.................................... 134 5.3.1 From Sonship Back to Slavery (Gal 4:9) ........................................ 136 Excursus: The Galatians and the Influence of Anatolian Folk Beliefs ........... 147 5.3.2 From Birth Back to Birth Pains (Gal 4:19) ..................................... 150 5.3.3 From Freedom Back to Slavery (Gal 5:1) ...................................... 151 5.3.4 Summary ........................................................................................ 153 5.4 Concluding Remarks and Observations ................................................... 154

Chapter 6: “One Bears Children Away from Mount Sinai”: Examining the Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians .......................... 157 6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 157 6.2 Introducing the Figure of Hagar: Galatians 4:22–23.............................. 157 6.3 Ἀλληγορέω and the “Two Covenants” of Galatians 4:24 ........................ 161 6.3.1 The Meaning of Ἀλληγορέω........................................................... 161 6.3.2 The Two Covenants: A Survey and Assessment of Scholarship .... 166

Table of Contents

XI

6.4 A Reassessment of the Hagar Covenant in Galatians 4:24 ...................... 171 6.4.1 The Hagar Covenant as ἀπό Mount Sinai ....................................... 172 6.4.2 Who Are the Children Born ἀπό Mount Sinai into Slavery? .......... 178 6.4.3 Hagar as the Covenantal Mother of Slave-Born Gentiles ............... 185 6.5 “Cast Out the Slave Woman”: Galatians 4:30 ........................................ 187 6.6 Concluding Remarks and Observations ................................................... 190

Chapter 7: “To Be Sure, Sinai is a Mountain in Arabia”: The Text of Galatians 4:25a ....................................................................... 193 7.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 193 7.2 Establishing the Text of Galatians 4:25a ................................................. 193 7.2.1 The Texts of Galatians 4:25a .......................................................... 194 7.2.2 The Received Reading of Galatians 4:25a ...................................... 194 7.2.3 Key Syntactical Difficulties with Reading I ................................... 195 7.2.4 Key Contextual Difficulties with Reading I ................................... 196 7.2.5 Identifying the Text of Galatians 4:25a .......................................... 198 7.2.6 Summary ........................................................................................ 204 7.3 The Present Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Above: Galatians 4:25b–26 .. 204 7.3.1 A Brief Survey of Scholarship on the Meaning of “Present Jerusalem” ...................................................................................... 205 7.3.2 The Symbolic Significance of Jerusalem and Its Temple ............... 206 7.3.3 The Relationship between Mount Sinai and the Present Jerusalem ........................................................................................ 208 7.3.4 The Jerusalem above as the Mother of Gentiles ............................. 211 7.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 213

Conclusion .................................................................................. 215 Summary of Argument .................................................................................... 215 Implications .................................................................................................... 217

XII

Table of Contents

Bibliography................................................................................................... 221 Index of Ancient Sources ............................................................................... 245 Index of Authors ............................................................................................ 256 Index of Subjects ............................................................................................ 261

Style and Abbreviations For all abbreviations, footnotes, and bibliography items, this study follows the SBL Handbook of Style, 2nd edition. NTAS TGNT

New Testament after Supersessionism Tyndale Greek New Testament

Introduction In view of the sobering reality of the Holocaust, and with the emergence of the so-called “New Perspective on Paul,” much recent scholarship has sought to take Paul’s Jewishness more seriously by reading and understanding him as a first-century Jew who, in one way or another, remained within the symbolic universe of pluriform first-century Judaism. While this approach has produced fresh insight into and renewed engagement with key Pauline texts, other texts have remained more or less unaffected. One such text is the famous – or even infamous – allegory of Hagar and Sarah in Gal 4:21–31. Although recent scholarship has worked to challenge the overt anti-Judaism and naively blatant supersessionism of previous generations, other interpretations of an implicitly anti-Jewish and supersessionist sort continue to reverberate from this text. Put simply, Gal 4:21–31 continues to be read largely as a polemic against Jews, Jewish Christ-followers, and the continuing validity of the Jewish law. However, as scholarly consideration of Paul and Judaism continues to develop, offering more nuanced categories from which to consider afresh the various issues at play in the text of Gal 4:21–31, the current readings on offer need to be interrogated more carefully and alternative readings explored. One such issue at play in the text of Gal 4:21–31 is Paul’s somewhat perplexing allegorical appropriation of the figure of Hagar. To briefly state the matter: it is widely assumed that Paul links the figure of Hagar and thus slavery to key aspects of Judaism and Jewish identity (such as the Sinai covenant, Mount Sinai itself, and the city of Jerusalem) and, in one way or another, the Jewish people in order to contend for the superiority of faith in Christ and, assumedly, Christianity and Christian identity. While the exact inferences of the apparent connections Paul develops between the figure of Hagar and Judaism are debated (e.g., does Paul call for the wholesale rejection of Judaism, or is he simply critiquing a particular law observant strand of so-called “Jewish Christianity”?), what is almost universally agreed upon by scholars is that Paul appropriates the figure of Hagar in such a way as to realign her otherwise non-Jewish identity with key aspects of the Jewish symbolic universe, thus signaling the obsolescence of the Jewish law and, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the supersession of Jewish ethnic identity. However, what is often inadequately developed in or entirely missing from scholarly discussion of Gal 4:21–31 and Paul’s appropriation of the figure of

XVI

Introduction

Hagar in particular is consideration for how the figure of Hagar was appropriated by ancient Jews in the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period; and how considering Paul’s own depiction of Hagar within the context of these traditions may shed fresh light on the text of Gal 4:21–31, thus providing an alternative reading of it. In fact, it will be the primary contention of this study that situating Paul’s appropriation of the figure of Hagar squarely within the context of Second Temple Judaism has the potential to bear such exegetical and interpretive fruit. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to consider afresh Paul’s allegorical appropriation of the figure of Hagar in Gal 4:21–31 within the context of Second Temple Judaism. As such, our principal aim is to situate Paul’s portrayal of Hagar within the various streams of ancient Jewish tradition on her, with our goal being the production of an alternative and thus altogether different reading of key aspects of the text of Gal 4:21–31. To that end, the primary claim of this study is that Paul’s portrayal of Hagar can be read and understood to stand in continuity with Second Temple Judaism in that Paul, like other Jews in antiquity, depicts Hagar and likewise her descendants as non-Jews.1 In relation to Gal 4:21–31 more specifically, I will argue that Paul allegorically portrays the figure of Hagar as the covenantal mother of slave-born gentiles. Altogether, the present study contends that Gal 4:21–31 is not a polemic against Jews, Jewish Christ-followers, or the abiding significance of the Jewish law (and thus Jewish identity and practice); rather, it is an allegory principally about the experience of gentiles in general and the once pagan Galatian gentiles in particular. While several of these claims are not entirely unique to this study – a small number of scholars have drawn similarly related conclusions – I will seek to advance these claims in two key areas. First, by undertaking a detailed examination of key Jewish texts from the Second Temple period, I will seek to more fully demonstrate the way Paul’s depiction of Hagar maintains – and does not abandon – key elements found in the extant ancient Jewish traditions on her. Second, and related, I will bring this first claim to bear more knowingly on the interpretation of Gal 4:21–31. By understanding Paul’s portrayal of Hagar and her descendants as non-Jews, I will demonstrate the way this claim provides alternative solutions to several of the interpretive difficulties within the allegory itself and as related to the allegory as a whole. Thus, by applying a more nuanced set of categories in which to interrogate and interpret this text, it will be demonstrated that the allegory can be read in such a way as to illustrate the experience of non-Jewish identity in relation to Christ: both the experience of 1

As one of the primary findings of this study, Paul stands in continuity with Second Temple Judaism on this important point. This, however, is not to say that Paul does not align with Jewish traditions on Hagar in other ways. As will be demonstrated in Part Three, Paul’s appropriation of Hagar is found to be both similar to and different from the various Hagar traditions on offer in ancient Judaism.

Introduction

XVII

non-Jewish identity apart from Christ (4:22–23, 24–25, 29–30) and also in Christ (4:26–28, 31). In order to accomplish this task, this study will proceed in three parts. Part One includes two chapters addressing introductory matters. Chapter 1 establishes the way scholarly approaches to Gal 4:21–31 have long embodied and continue to embody (whether intentionally or unintentionally) various forms of supersessionism.2 While such readings cannot be ruled out a priori – nor is it the intention of this study to overtly judge the validity of these readings – it is possible that the leading scholarly approaches to the allegory of Hagar and Sarah continue to be governed by a set of interpretive patterns and categories that are overly simplistic (or narrow) and possibly even wrongheaded when applied both to Paul and this text. Thus, Chapter 1 begins by examining the concept of supersessionism, along with its continued – and often implicit – outworking in the field of New Testament studies, which is then followed by a brief survey of scholarship on Gal 4:21–31 in relation to this abiding conceptual framework. Overall, it will be found that traditional notions of supersessionism are rooted in certain convictions and claims about the obsolescence of the Jewish law and thus the superfluidity of Jewish identity: convictions and claims that continue to govern most interpretive approaches to Gal 4:21–31. I will then conclude Chapter 1 by considering the way scholars have understood the allegory in general and Paul’s portrayal of Hagar in particular in relation to the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period, and whether such considerations have provided fresh insights and alternative approaches to the text of Gal 4:21–31. Finally, Chapter 2 outlines the comparative method to be employed and establishes the way this study will read and understand Paul as a first-century Jew and apostle to the nations. Part Two consists of two chapters examining the portrayal of Hagar in ancient Jewish literature. Chapter 3 examines the portrayal of Hagar in the LXX of Genesis. The primary purpose of this chapter is to lay the comparative groundwork for what follows so as to identify the way the figure of Hagar is portrayed in different ways and for different purposes as she is variously appropriated by ancient Jewish thinkers. Chapter 4 examines the Second Temple Jewish texts of 1QapGen, Jubilees, Baruch, selected works of Philo, and Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities. It proposes that, for all of the ways these texts portray Hagar differently, they stand in continuity on two interrelated points: first, Hagar’s status as foreigner is taken for granted, and she is consistently depicted as an outsider and, in particular, a non-Jew; and second, her descendants therefore are representative of the nations – or simply put, they are gentiles. Finally, Part Three of this study contains three chapters dealing in various ways with the text of Gal 4:21–31. Chapter 5 prepares for the discussion of Chapter 6 by exploring the literary context in which the allegory is situated. It 2

A discussion and definition of supersessionism is provided in Chapter 1.

XVIII

Introduction

proposes that, based on the recurring presence of the adverb πάλιν in 4:9, 4:19, and 5:1, Paul introduces the story of Hagar and Sarah for his own rhetorical purposes, and he does so not as a polemic against Jews, Judaism, or a group of Jewish Christ-following missionaries, but as a stark reminder and illustration of the Galatian gentiles’ own experience of Hagar-like enslavement. Chapter 6 – the central chapter of this study – undertakes a detailed examination of the portrayal of Hagar in Gal 4:21–31. It proposes that Paul takes Hagar’s ethnic or non-Jewish identity seriously and allegorically portrays her as the covenantal mother of slave-born gentiles: gentiles who are symbolically born away from (ἀπό) Mount Sinai, and thus away from the presence and liberating knowledge of Israel’s God, and consequently, born into slavery (4:24). In addition, the language of expulsion in 4:30 is considered. Based on our understanding of Paul’s portrayal of Hagar in 4:24, it is argued that 4:30 is best understood as a warning rather than a command. Finally, in view of the argument of Chapter 6, Chapter 7 rounds off our study by considering the textual variant of Gal 4:25a, along with a brief consideration of the “present” and “above” Jerusalems spoken of in 4:25b–26. It proposes that many of the interpretive difficulties that surround these verses are resolved by understanding Paul’s portrayal of Hagar as the covenantal mother of slave-born gentiles. Overall, then, Paul is found to stand in continuity with the literary traditions of Second Temple Judaism in that he, like other Jews in antiquity, portrays Hagar and her descendants as nonJews.

Part One Introductory Matters

Chapter 1

Echoes of Supersessionism and the Figure of Hagar in Galatians 4:21–31 1.1 Introduction Die jüdische Deutung wird auf den Kopf gestellt. Die Traditionslinien laufen nun buchstäblich über Kreuz. Die Hagar-Ismael-Linie, die geschichtlich auf die Araber hinführt, läuft nun auf die Juden zu, die Sara-Isaak-Linie dagegen, auf der abstammungsmäßig die Juden ihren Ort haben, läuft auf die Christen zu. Begründet wird diese Umkehrung im Blick auf die Juden mit dem Argument, daß sie sich in Unfreiheit befinden.1

The above statement by Gerhard Ebeling succinctly articulates a time-honored reading of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. For centuries, interpreters widely agreed that the argument of Galatians centered on the question of Judaism visá-vis Christianity in order to contend for the superiority of Christianity and faith in Christ over against the religion of Judaism and its legalistic slaveryinducing “works of the law.”2 Moreover, in light of a text such as Gal 4:21–31, from which Ebeling’s statement is formulated, Paul’s argument was clear: due to the Christ event, there was now an unquestionable dualistic or antithetical polarity between Judaism and Christianity. According to Paul, so the argument goes, Judaism and the people belonging to it – being in the line of Hagar (Ishmael), slavery, the Sinai covenant, and the earthly Jerusalem – have been rejected by God; and alternatively, Christianity and the people belonging to it – being in the line of Sarah (Isaac), freedom, the Spirit, the new covenant, and the heavenly Jerusalem – have thus superseded his ancestral religion. In short, Christianity had replaced Judaism; the church had replaced Israel.3 1 Gerhard Ebeling, Die Wahrheit des Evangeliums: Eine Lesehilfe zum Galaterbrief (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981), 318. 2 For a brief history of interpretation of Galatians, see Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC 41 (Dallas: Word, 1990), xliii–lvii. For a more detailed account, see John Riches, Galatians through the Centuries, Blackwell Bible Commentaries (Oxford; Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008). On the use of Galatians in the early church, see Karla Pollmann and Mark W. Elliott, “Galatians in the Early Church: Five Case Studies,” in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter, ed. Mark W. Elliott et al. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 41–60. 3 When considering the context of the first century, there are inherent difficulties with applying labels such as “Christian(s),” “Christianity,” and the “Church” to the early Christmovement. Although such terms will need to be employed at various points throughout this

4

Chapter 1: Echoes of Supersessionism and the Figure of Hagar

Following this line of reasoning, the famous if not also unsettling conclusion of J. B. Lightfoot on the meaning of Gal 4:21–31 in his now classic commentary on Galatians captures the overall force of this longstanding interpretive tradition: The Law and the Gospel cannot co-exist; the Law must disappear before the Gospel. It is scarcely possible to estimate the strength of conviction and depth of prophetic insight which this declaration implies. The Apostle thus confidently sounds the death-knell of Judaism.4

Hence, for previous generations of interpreters – and even some contemporary – Paul’s letter to the Galatians, and 4:21–31 in particular, was commonly understood to reflect one of, if not the clearest expression of his polemic against, opposition to, and ultimate rejection of his ancestral faith. Paul, the so-called “Christian” and apostle to the nations, was no friend of Judaism; Paul was a supersessionist. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a survey of scholarship on Gal 4:21–31 in order to demonstrate the way this text has been traditionally read and understood to promote various forms of supersessionism; and from this, we will likewise consider the way several of even the more recent approaches to this text – while seeking alternative outcomes from that of their predecessors – continue to put forward readings of Gal 4:21–31 that remain vulnerable to charges of at least a form of implicit supersessionism by recourse to the way these more recent approaches continue to be governed by certain interpretive patterns and categories that undergird much of the supersessionistic claims and conclusions of previous generations of scholars. In relation to this, we will also consider the way these interpretative patterns and categories have largely centered on and developed from a particular understanding of Paul’s allegorical portrayal of the figure of Hagar in and for the allegory as a whole. Finally, in the latter part of this chapter, we will examine key interpreters who have sought to compare Gal 4:21–31, and Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar in particular, with the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period. The goal of which is to study, my own approach will largely follow the terminological suggestions of Anders Runesson, “The Question of Terminology: The Architecture of Contemporary Discussion of Paul,” in Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle, ed. Mark D. Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 53–77. In place of the term “Christian” I will use the term “Christ-follower(s),” while also distinguishing between Jewish and gentile individuals and groups where necessary: i.e., “Jewish Christ follower(s)” and “gentile Christ-follower(s).” In place of the term “Christianity” I will use “Christ-movement.” And, in place of the term “church” I will use “congregation,” “assembly” or ἐκκλησία. Similarly, see Paula Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement: Ideas in the Study of Christian Origins Whose Time Has Come to Go,” SR 35 (2006): 231–46. For a discussion of the terms Ἰουδαῖος and Ἰουδαϊσμός, see the excursus in Chapter 2. 4 J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians: With Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 184. Emphasis my own.

1.2 Supersessionism and the Study of the New Testament

5

determine whether, and if so to what extent, scholars have considered the various ancient Jewish traditions on Hagar for the purpose of informing their respective readings of Paul and this text, and thus the possibility of an alternative set of interpretive categories from which to draw, and whether such considerations have led to fresh interpretations of it. However, before embarking on this endeavor, I will begin by providing some clarity as to the concept of supersessionism being considered in this chapter (and at various points throughout this study) by briefly exploring the way a particular form of supersessionism continues to subtly manifest itself in prominent interpretations of the New Testament and, more specifically, Paul.

1.2 Supersessionism and the Study of the New Testament 1.2 Supersessionism and the Study of the New Testament

1.2.1 Supersessionism Traditionally Understood According to Terence Donaldson, the term “supersession” can be described as “a situation where one entity, by virtue of its supposed superiority, comes to occupy a position that previously belonged to another, the displaced group becoming outmoded or obsolete in the process.” 5 Traditionally and theologically speaking, then, “supersessionism” is the belief that Christianity (a superior entity) has replaced Judaism (an inferior entity), and thus the Christian church has replaced ethnic Israel as the people of God,6 with the term “supersessionist” often being employed to describe the posture of the Christian church – made up of largely gentiles nonetheless – toward the Jewish people for the most part of the last two thousand years. 7 5

Terence L. Donaldson, “Supersessionism and Early Christian Self-Definition,” JJMJS 1.3 (2016): 7. 6 Donaldson, “Supersessionism,” 10; see also William L. Krewson, Jerome and the Jews: Innovative Supersessionism (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2017), 2. Finally, Terence L. Donaldson, Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament: Decision Points and Divergent Interpretations (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010), 20, more fully describes supersessionism as such: “With respect to Jewish–Christian relations, ‘supersessionism’ refers to the idea that the Christian Church has superseded the Israel of the ‘Old Testament’ – in other words, that the Church has succeeded and replaced Israel as the people of God and has inherited everything of value in Israel’s tradition; that only the Christian movement has any legitimate claim to the Old Testament and the revelation it represents; that pre-Christian Israel has been rendered obsolete and that ongoing non-Christian Judaism is thus illegitimate; that Judaism has been cut off from the Scriptures and has no claim to it; and so on.” 7 In his seminal study on supersessionism, R. Kendall Soulen, The God of Israel and Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 1, describes this “theology of displacement” as having permeated the Christian church and its reading of Scripture – largely Israel’s Scripture – since as early as the second century CE. An early example of

6

Chapter 1: Echoes of Supersessionism and the Figure of Hagar

By and large, Christian forms of supersessionism are based on a certain unifying approach interpreters have taken to the narrative framework of the Protestant Christian canon, which, according to R. Kendall Soulen, teaches: God chose the Jewish people after the fall of Adam in order to prepare the world for the coming of Jesus Christ, the Savior. After Christ came, however, the special role of the Jewish people came to an end and their place was taken by the church, the new Israel.8

According to this “standard canonical narrative,” the relationship between the Old and New Testaments is governed by two central convictions. 9 First, carnal Israel has either completed (positively) or forfeited (negatively) its role as God’s chosen people, and thus the unique status of the Jewish people as the people of God has been transferred to God’s spiritual people, the church (now made up of a majority of Christ-following non-Jews and only a minority of Christ-following Jews).10 And second, the natural corollary to this transfer of status is that the church is now understood to constitute the true spiritual Israel, namely, the Israel of God (cf. Gal 6:16).11 While the above overview briefly describes and defines traditional notions of supersessionism, within the interpretive framework itself there have been and remain diverse approaches to making sense of this “hermeneutic of displacement.” Since the seminal work of Soulen, scholars and theologians have supersessionism can be found in the second-century CE work of Justin Martyr’s wellknown Dialogue with Trypho where he argues vigorously for the superiority of Christianity over against Jewish faith and practice; see Dial. 11–12, 16, 119; cf. also, Irenaeus Haer. 3.21.1; 4.18.4; 4.21.3; 4.28.3. For an overview of the history of supersessionism, see Michael J. Vlach, Has the Church Replaced Israel?: A Theological Evaluation (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010), 27–77; Gerald R. McDermott, “A History of Supersessionism: Getting the Big Story Wrong,” in The New Christian Zionism: Fresh Perspectives on Israel & the Land, ed. Gerald R. McDermott (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2016), 33–44. As Donaldson, “Supersessionism,” 7, reminds us, what has naturally (and regrettably) developed from such Christian belief is anti-Jewish rhetoric and anti-Semitic activity. 8 Soulen, God of Israel, 1–2. 9 Soulen, God of Israel, 13. Here Soulen describes the “standard canonical narrative” as “an interpretive instrument that provides a framework for reading the Christian Bible as a theological and narrative unity.” For a more recent assessment, see R. Kendall Soulen, “The Standard Canonical Narrative and the Problem of Supersessionism,” in Introduction to Messianic Judaism: Its Ecclesial Context and Biblical Foundations, ed. David Rudolph and Joel Willitts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 282–90. 10 Often the term “carnal” is employed to refer to an entity that is material rather than spiritual. In this way, it refers to how a group of spiritual people, i.e., the church, is set over against a group of carnal, fleshy people, i.e., Israel/the Jewish people; see R. Kendall Soulen, “Israel and the Church: A Christian Response to Irving Greensberg’s Covenantal Pluralism,” in Christianity in Jewish Terms, ed. Tikva Frymer-Kensky et al. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000), 171–74. 11 Vlach, Has the Church, 12.

1.2 Supersessionism and the Study of the New Testament

7

primarily discussed two forms or approaches to supersessionism: economic and punitive supersessionism.12 According to economic supersessionism, Israel’s role in redemptive history was merely preparatory and thus always meant to be temporary.13 Within God’s overall plan or “economy of redemption,” Israel’s temporary role as God’s people was to prepare for the coming of Israel’s Messiah, salvation, and ultimately the church. In this way, national Israel served as a carnal prefiguration of Christ’s spiritual Israel. However, with the advent of Christ and the establishment of the church, carnal Israel is rendered obsolete as its role in redemptive history has come to an end.14 In its place now stands the church, the true people of God: a people who are not based on ethnicity (i.e., particularism) but only spirituality, namely, faith in Christ (i.e., universalism). If economic supersessionism is to be viewed as the positive approach, its alternative, punitive supersessionism, has been described as economic’s negative counterpart due to punitive’s overtly polemical posture toward the Jewish people.15 Simply put, punitive supersessionism states that due to carnal Israel’s 12 For a full discussion, see Soulen, God of Israel, 28–31. Soulen describes a third approach called structural supersessionism; see God of Israel, 31–33. This approach is less focused on the theological question of Israel and the church, and more concerned with the way the standard canonical narrative of the Bible (as espoused by most Christians) is read in a way that presupposes and supports a supersessionist hermeneutic. Essentially, the standard model – generally recognized as creation, fall, redemption, and consummation – unifies the Christian canon in such a way that it largely renders Israel’s story and identity as the covenant people of God a non-essential aspect of the canonical narrative’s structure and unity. If Israel’s story is considered at all, it generally falls within the narrative background unit of disruption or fall, leaving Israel’s story to function as little more than an example of God’s dealings with humanity in light of his greater plan for universal redemption. However, as Matthew A. Tapie, Aquinas on Israel and the Church: The Question of Supersessionism in the Theology of Thomas Aquinas (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014), 19 n. 49, and 20 n. 56, has noted, structural supersessionism is better described as a consequence of both economic and punitive supersessionism than a form of or approach to supersessionism itself. For instance, although accomplished differently, both economic and punitive require that the Christian canon be unified and thus read in an “Israel-forgetful” manner. What eventuates from this is structural supersessionism: a hermeneutic that renders the Jewish people largely, if not entirely, superfluous for God’s redemptive and consummative activity. A point similarly noted by Soulen, God of Israel, 31 n. 6; cf. also Donaldson, Jews and Anti-Judaism, 22 n. 50. 13 See Soulen, God of Israel, 29. 14 Vlach, Has the Church, 14. 15 Vlach, Has the Church, 12, describes economic and punitive as positive and negative respectively. However, as Soulen, “Israel and the Church,” 172, points out, economic supersessionism is ultimately more problematic because “it implies that God’s covenant with the Jewish people is inherently obsolete and inferior, quite apart from whether the Jewish people are faithful or not.” Elsewhere he contends that “it logically entails the ontological, historical, and moral obsolescence of Israel’s existence after Christ”; see God of Israel, 30. Thus, while on the surface punitive appears to be more problematic, economic is ultimately more pernicious.

8

Chapter 1: Echoes of Supersessionism and the Figure of Hagar

disobedience, most explicitly demonstrated in their rejection of Jesus as their Messiah, God has in turn rejected Israel as his people. 16 Consequently, as punishment for their sins, God has revoked his covenant with the Jewish people and put the largely gentile church in their place. Thus, as William Krewson describes it, “[t]he Christian church displaces the Jews due to the largely Gentile acceptance of the Jewish messiah and thereby enjoys God’s favor, while the Jews in their rejection fall under God’s wrath.”17 Regardless of the approach one takes, however, the central conviction remains indisputable: whether economically or punitively, Christianity replaces Judaism, the church replaces Israel. 1.2.2 Supersessionism Reconsidered To this point our discussion of supersessionism has largely focused on describing the concept as it relates to a particular – and particularly pervasive – theological construal of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity and thus Israel and the church, which is often described in theological circles as “replacement theology.” As such, the term supersessionism is regularly employed to describe a primarily theological issue: one that began to emerge only after the close of the New Testament when Christianity had more knowingly and recognizably separated itself from Judaism, and vice versa.18 The 16

Soulen, God of Israel, 30. Krewson, Jerome and the Jews, 3. 18 As such, Donaldson, Jews and Anti-Judaism, 22–23, rightly cautions against the uncritical use of the term “supersessionism” in New Testament studies. This is because, as now widely acknowledged by scholars, the earliest Christ-movement was made up of a majority of Christ-following Jews and only a minority of Christ-following gentiles. Institutionally speaking, then, what we have come to know as “Christianity” initially began as a Jewish renewal or reform movement from within first-century Judaism itself. In other words, the early Christ-movement understood itself not as a so-called “Christian” movement distinct from and set over against Judaism, but as a Jewish renewal or reform movement that remained in social continuity with Judaism, along with many of its concomitant beliefs and practices; see now the recent discussion of this phenomenon in Terence L. Donaldson, Gentile Christian Identity from Cornelius to Constantine: The Nations, the Parting of the Ways, and Roman Imperial Ideology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020), 152– 93; cf. also Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 135–63; Richard Bauckham, “James and the Jerusalem Community,” in Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries, ed. Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 55–95. Finally, as recent studies on the so-called “parting of the ways” have demonstrated, it is not until much later that a decisive point of separation between Judaism and Christianity can be clearly delineated. Any such clearly marked separation is believed to be no earlier than the fourth century CE; yet even then, the exact details of a full and complete break are difficult to substantiate; see the essays in Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed, eds., The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early 17

1.2 Supersessionism and the Study of the New Testament

9

question is thus naturally raised as to whether scholars of the New Testament should be concerned with notions of supersessionism, especially when undertaking the historical study of the New Testament, and likewise whether the term retains any explanatory value when considering scholarly approaches to and interpretation of the New Testament, both past and present. To answer this question, we will need to move beyond the theological and/or institutional categories that often govern and dictate discussions of supersessionism – i.e., the relationship between the entities of Judaism and Christianity and Israel and the church – and interrogate more carefully the foundational core from which the traditional understanding of supersessionism has developed and is made manifest. In a recent study on the supersessionist theology of Thomas Aquinas, Matthew Tapie has helpfully shown that the concept of supersessionism, as traditionally understood, does not adequately account for the use of the term in its fullest historical sense. In fact, Tapie contends that the meaning of the term “supersede” and its various cognates (i.e., “supersessionism”) is relatively ambiguous because the use of these terms has become increasingly confused and blurred in much of the current theological discourse.19 As Tapie notes, while these terms have long been employed as a way of positively describing Christianity’s triumphalist position over against Judaism and the Jewish people,20 the use of these terms to describe the displacement of Judaism by Christianity as a negative phenomenon is relatively recent.21 Thus, in an attempt to bring more historical clarity to these terms, Tapie traces this more recent (i.e., negative) usage back to the work of French-Jewish historian Jules Isaac.22 According to

Middle Ages (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007); see also the overview in Krewson, Jerome and the Jews, 10–26. Also, see now Lori Baron, Jill Hicks-Keeton, and Matthew Thiessen, eds., The Ways That Often Parted: Essays in Honor of Joel Marcus, ECL 24 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2018); and Isaac W. Oliver, “The Parting of the Ways: When and How Did the Ekkl݁ҧ sia Split from the Synagogue,” in Understanding the Jewish Roots of Christianity: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Essays on the Relationship between Christianity and Judaism, Studies in Scripture and Biblical Theology, ed. Gerald R. McDermott (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2021), 65–87. Thus, to apply the term and concept of supersessionism uncritically could be liable to disregarding the advances made in scholarship as to our understanding of the formative stages of the early Christ-movement. 19 Tapie, Aquinas, 10–18. 20 See the examples in Donaldson, “Supersessionism,” 2–3; Tapie, Aquinas, 10. As an example, Donaldson cites Ferdinand Christian Baur, Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ, His Life and Work, His Epistles and His Doctrine: A Contribution to a Critical History of Primitive Christianity, 2 vols. (London: Williams and Norgate, 1875), 1.59. 21 Tapie, Aquinas, 11–12, rightly, to my mind, understands this to be the result of postHolocaust sensitivities; see also Donaldson, “Supersessionism,” 1, 3–5. 22 Tapie, Aquinas, 12; similarly Donaldson, “Supersessionism,” 3. For the work of Isaac, see especially, Jules Isaac, Jésus et Israël (Paris: Albin Michel, 1948); Jules Isaac,

10

Chapter 1: Echoes of Supersessionism and the Figure of Hagar

Tapie, the first appearance of the term “supersede” in the work of Isaac is found in the 1964 English translation of his 1962 book L’enseignement du mépris.23 Here Isaac uses the term “supersede” to specify a very particular and problematic understanding among interpreters related to how Christ is understood to have fulfilled the Jewish Law.24 Tapie describes Isaac’s concern as such: The English term supersede is used to translate Isaac’s criticism of what he viewed as the double sense of Christ’s fulfillment of the Law: “fulfilled and obsolete (dépassée)” or “fulfilled and expired (périmé).” Therefore, when “supersede” is first used to designate a problematic Christian view of Judaism in English theology it is used to name a very specific theological concept. With the coming of Christ, Jewish Law is fulfilled according to its inward spiritual intention and therefore expired according to its outer ceremonial form. It is, in short, fulfilled and therefore obsolete.25

In other words, according to its negative sense, the term supersede was used by Isaac not to refer to the replacement of one entity or institution by another (i.e., Judaism by Christianity or Israel by the church), but rather, to describe the problematic “double sense” of Christ’s fulfillment of the Jewish law, along with its associated implications: that is, with the coming of Christ the Jewish law is fulfilled and rendered obsolete. Like Isaac, Soulen describes the sine qua non or “heart” of supersessionism according to this “double sense” of fulfillment and obsolescence in relation to the Jewish law.26 When the concept of supersessionism is considered from this more foundational vantage point, Soulen rightly contends that supersessionism creates a two-fold problem that runs deeper than traditional concerns over ideas of replacement theology. First, the double sense of fulfillment language in relation to the Jewish law suggests that the preservation of Jewish identity, which is maintained through the observance of Torah, is rendered “a matter of theological indifference at best, and a mortal sin at worst.”27 Second, the natural corollary to this first problem is that the very existence of the Jewish people, which is predicated on the preservation of L’Enseignement de Méprissuivi de L’antisémitisme a-t-Il Des Racines Chrétiennes? (Paris: Fasquelle, 1962). 23 Tapie, Aquinas, 14. 24 See Jules Isaac, The Teaching of Contempt: Christian Roots of Anti-Semitism, trans. Weaver Helen (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964), 75; English translation of Isaac, L’Enseignement, 67. 25 Tapie, Aquinas, 16. Emphasis original and my own. 26 Soulen, God of Israel, 12, 19; Soulen, “Israel and the Church,” 171–72. See also Andrew Remington Rillera, “Tertium Genus or Dyadic Unity? Investigating Sociopolitical Salvation in Ephesians,” BR 65 (2020): 2 (uncorrected proofs), who remarks: “The belief that baptized Jews either should abandon torah observance or that it is a matter of indifference (adiaphora) is the sine qua non of supersessionism.” 27 Soulen, God of Israel, 2.

1.2 Supersessionism and the Study of the New Testament

11

Jewish identity via the observance of Torah, is likewise rendered “a matter of indifference to the God of Israel.” 28 Finally, the result of this two-fold problem is thus a third: namely, the regrettable possibility that carnal Israel, i.e., the Jewish people, are ultimately rendered obsolete. Tapie articulates this final concern well: The idea that the Jewish Law is obsolete because it has “done its job” by pointing to Christ’s passion is a theological problem because it throws into question God’s desire that Jews exist at all. Since God’s election of the Jewish people is expressed through Torahobservance (including circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath) the traditional claims that Christ has discontinued these practices is the equivalent of saying God no longer desires the practice of Judaism. If God no longer desires Torah-observance, God no longer desires for there to be Jews in the world.29

Altogether, then, when the concept of supersessionism is considered in relation to its foundational core – the double sense of Christ’s fulfillment of the Jewish law (i.e., fulfilled and obsolete) – a different and more nuanced picture emerges. While traditional notions of supersessionism have been understandably governed by institutional questions surrounding the relationship between Judaism and Christianity and thus Israel and the church (e.g., discussions of replacement theology), what often goes undetected or remains inadequately developed in these discussions is that this more traditional and in some respects limited understanding of supersessionism does not work in isolation; rather, it is predicated on and emerges from a particular underlying interpretive conviction: that is, with the coming of Christ the Jewish law has been superseded and rendered either a matter of indifference or, at worst, obsolete, resulting in the inevitable undermining of Jewish ethnic identity and, most regrettably, possibly even the very existence of the Jewish people.30 1.2.3 The Persistence of Supersessionism in New Testament Studies In view of the foregoing discussion, we are now able to draw out several interconnected observations in relation to the continued presence of supersessionism in the study of the New Testament and of Paul in particular, and thus the concept of supersessionism being considered herein. To begin – and to reiterate the comments made at the close of the previous section (§1.2.2) – while the term supersessionism has traditionally been em28

Soulen, God of Israel, 4; see also Tapie, Aquinas, 19–23. On this point, Michael A. Fishbane, Judaism: Revelation and Traditions (San Francisco: HarperOne, 1987), 101, helpfully reminds us, “Jewishness is … expressed not in theological abstraction, but in the ongoing acts of life, acts [i.e., Torah observance] that suffuse the order of the day and establish the tempo and content of Judaism itself.” 29 Tapie, Aquinas, 22. Emphasis my own. 30 Joel Willitts, “Jewish Fish (ΙΧΘΥΣ) in Post-Supersessionist Water: Messianic Judaism within a Post-Supersessionistic Paradigm,” HTS 72 (2016): 1.

12

Chapter 1: Echoes of Supersessionism and the Figure of Hagar

ployed to describe a specifically Christian theological conviction (i.e., the belief that Christianity has replaced Judaism and thus the church has replaced Israel), it is important to recognize that what undergirds this conviction is a particularly negative yet still quite pervasive view of the continuing validity of the Jewish law, which ultimately eventuates in the cessation of Jewish identity and possibly even the very existence of the Jewish people (thus naturally giving rise to forms of replacement theology). Moreover, it is especially important to recognize the linear and chronological development of these ideas in that one logically precedes the other: that is, what precedes traditional notions of supersessionism (i.e., replacement theology) is the implicit conviction that with the coming of Christ the Jewish law has been fulfilled and thus rendered obsolete, or, at best, it is a matter of indifference.31 Thus, we may conclude the following: traditional understandings of supersessionism are rooted in and developed from convictions and claims about the obsolescence of the Jewish law and thus the superfluity Jewish identity. From this initial observation, two closely related remarks follow. First, while much contemporary scholarship has worked to challenge and even overturn traditional claims of supersessionism, Joel Willitts has rightly observed that the sine qua non or “heart” of supersessionism continues largely unabated among interpreters and thus within the field of New Testament studies.32 In other words, the belief that with the coming of Christ the Jewish law has been super31

Similarly, see Tapie, Aquinas, 23–24. Willitts, “Jewish Fish,” 2. The scholarly concern over supersessionism has developed in part due to the recognition that traditional claims of supersessionism have given regrettable rise to much Christian anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. As Donaldson, “Supersessionism,” 7, reminds us, what has naturally (and regrettably) developed from such Christian belief is anti-Jewish rhetoric and anti-Semitic activity. Here Donaldson defines antiJudaism as “statements and formulations designed to defend and bolster Christian claims about themselves by denouncing what were perceived as Jewish counter-claims”; and antiSemitism as “hateful attitudes and actions directed toward Jewish people per se.” On the development of anti-Judaism, see Paula Fredriksen, “The Birth of Christianity and the Origins of Christian Anti-Judaism,” in Jesus, Judaism & Christian Anti-Judaism: Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust, ed. Paula Fredriksen and Adele Reinhartz (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 8–30. On the development of anti-Semitism, see John G. Gager, Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985). For a recent survey of scholarly attempts at overturning years of Christian anti-Judaism and supersessionism, see Gerald R. McDermott, “Introduction,” in Understanding the Jewish Roots of Christianity: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Essays on the Relationship between Christianity and Judaism, Studies in Scripture and Biblical Theology, ed. Gerald R. McDermott (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2021), 1–3; cf. also the collection of essays in Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, eds., Jews and Christians: People of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). For an appreciative but still critical evaluation of these various attempts, see Mark D. Nanos, Reading Paul within Judaism, Collected Essays of Mark D. Nanos (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017), 63–76. 32

1.2 Supersessionism and the Study of the New Testament

13

seded and annulled or superseded and rendered a matter of indifference continues to govern most interpretive approaches to the New Testament, and Paul in particular.33 To provide a cursory example: in his otherwise helpful and in many ways insightful treatment of Paul, Michael Bird, while expressing his own concerns with traditional manifestations of supersessionism, goes on to describe Paul’s view of the Jewish law as one in which the Torah has been in some sense repudiated.34 What this repudiation entails is made clear by Bird’s subsequent consideration of the Torah in Galatians. Here Bird describes Paul’s view of the Torah in relation to its commands as “relativized,” “temporary,” and that Paul “opposes using the law as … a source of identity” for both Jew and gentile.35 For Bird, then, due to the advent of Christ, the Torah has been superseded and thus repudiated, relativizing its ongoing validity. Second, what naturally follows from such claims about the apparent irrelevancy of the Jewish law is the question of how Jewish ethnic identity continues in any meaningful sense, especially in relation to the matrix of Christianity and so-called “Christian identity.” The answer: it often does not. This is because, as Chris Zoccali helpfully points out, interpreters often work from the implicit conviction that, with the coming of Christ, “‘Christian’ or ‘Christ community’ identity is ultimately irreconcilable with Jewish identity.”36 Returning to our example from Bird: when Bird comments on the term “under the law” in relation to Jewish identity and practice he rightly describes it as “a signature way of describing a covenant faithful Jew,” that is, a Jew who maintains their divinely inscribed ethnic identity via the observance of Torah.37 Yet, as Bird continues, he asserts, “[Jewish and gentile believers] are not, and should not be, ‘under law’.”38 This is because, as Bird understands Paul, ethnic distinctions have been, in some 33

Willitts, “Jewish Fish,” 2. Michael F. Bird, An Anomalous Jew: Paul among Jews, Greeks, and Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 4, for scattered statements on supersessionism, see 108–69. 35 Bird, An Anomalous Jew, 134, 151, 156. The example of Bird is merely representative. See e.g., the recent work of Brant Pitre, Michael P. Barber, and John A. Kincaid, Paul, A New Covenant Jew: Rethinking Pauline Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019), 48, 52, 54, who contend that Paul describes the Torah as “unnecessary,” and that Jews are “no longer under the Mosaic torah” and its “slavery”; and the commentary by Jarvis Williams, Galatians, NCCS (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2020), 141, who describes Jews who are in Christ as “free … to live freely from the law.” For a critical evaluation of such readings, see the reflections from David Rudolph, “Was Paul Championing a New Freedom from – or End to – Jewish Law?” in Understanding the Jewish Roots of Christianity: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Essays on the Relationship between Christianity and Judaism, Studies in Scripture and Biblical Theology, ed. Gerald R. McDermott (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2021), 31–47, see esp. 46–47. 36 Christopher Zoccali, Reading Philippians after Supersessionism: Jews, Gentiles, and Covenant Identity, NTAS (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017), 2. 37 Bird, An Anomalous Jew, 6. 38 Bird, An Anomalous Jew, 6. 34

14

Chapter 1: Echoes of Supersessionism and the Figure of Hagar

sense, “nullified” in Christ. More to the point, it is particularly Jewish ethnic distinctions, “those mandated ‘under the law’,” that, according to Bird’s reading of Paul, “cease to have any intrinsic and ongoing validity.”39 Consequently, as with the Jewish law and the observance of it, Jewish ethnic identity has been likewise superseded and thus rendered, at best, a matter of indifference, which raises the question of how Jewish life and practice is to be maintained in any meaningful sense, whether inside or even outside the Messianic communities of the first century and beyond. Interpretations such as Bird’s, however, are not far removed from their logical corollary: that is, if the Jewish law and thus Jewish identity are in fact superseded, Jewish identity is then assumed to be supplanted by forms of Christian identity (often of a gentile sort), all of which naturally gives rise to the eventual supersession and thus replacement of Judaism by Christianity and Israel by the church. By way of definition, then, and in line with the work of Tapie as outlined in the previous section, Joel Willitts has provided a rough definition of the concept of supersessionism with which I have attempted to highlight above and with which the present study is thus concerned: Supersessionism refers to any interpretation of the NT that, intentionally or unintentionally, would lead to the eventual disappearance of the Jewish ethnos from within the church of Jesus Messiah.40

The strength of Willitts’s definition is twofold: first, it reminds us that the term “supersessionism” should not be limited to theories of replacement theology only; but rather, it likewise encompasses the interpretive patterns and categories from which those theories are built: interpretive patterns and categories that give rise to the immediate or eventual disappearance and/or displacement of Jewish ethnic identity from within the communities of Christ believers, past and present. Second, and related, the phrase “intentionally or unintentionally” highlights the fact that the manifestation of supersessionism with which the present study is concerned is not the brazenly naive supersessionism of former generations of scholars; rather, as Willitts puts it, it is the “still prevalent … and perhaps more insidious because of its unconsciousness” interpretive posture toward the New Testament that renders the Jewish law, and by implication Jewish ethnic identity, largely superfluous if not altogether abolished; it is “the [often] unintentional interpretation of the NT

39 Bird, An Anomalous Jew, 6. As mentioned above, such remarks are not unique to Bird; rather, they are a common refrain in many corners of Pauline Studies. 40 Willitts, “Jewish Fish,” 3. Emphasis original.

1.3 Leading Scholarly Approaches to Galatians 4:21–31

15

that over time fosters the erasure again of Jewish ethnic presence within the church.”41 Yet, to develop this definition out more knowingly in relation to our above discussion of the sine qua non or “heart” of supersessionism, I propose the following definition: With traditional notions of supersessionism being rooted in convictions and claims about the obsolescence of the Jewish law and thus the superfluity of Jewish ethnic identity, supersessionism therefore refers to any interpretation of the New Testament that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, leads to the immediate or eventual disappearance of Jewish ethnic identity and possibly even existence, both from within and outside of the messianic communities of the New Testament and beyond.

Altogether, then, while most scholars today would readily denounce the overt supersessionism of previous generations, it is important to recognize that many of these same scholars continue to put forward readings of the New Testament and of Paul that continue to exhibit – often unwittingly – supersessionistic tendencies and outcomes in that their respective readings remain largely governed by key interpretive patterns and categories that undergird many of the traditional claims of supersessionism.42 As such, the sine qua non or heart of supersessionism continues largely unabated. Therefore, many of the current scholarly approaches to the New Testament and Paul remain vulnerable to charges of at least implicit supersessionism in that they unwittingly adopt an interpretive framework that continues to foster an interpretive posture toward the New Testament that presupposes the double sense of the fulfillment of the Jewish law, which results in the eventual cessation of Jewish ethnic identity and possibly even the very existence of the Jewish people, both from within and outside the Messianic communities of the first century and beyond. With our foregoing discussion of supersessionism in view, in the following section we will consider the way various forms of supersessionism have long worked themselves out, and continue to work themselves out, in the interpretive context of Gal 4:21–31.

1.3 Leading Scholarly Approaches to Galatians 4:21–31 1.3 Leading Scholarly Approaches to Galatians 4:21–31

A number of problems, and the questions raised by those problems, present several interpretive challenges in the text of Gal 4:21–31: the famous, if not

41 Willitts, “Jewish Fish,” 3. This is not to say that such forms of supersessionism are not concerning; they certainly are. Rather, it is to acknowledge that New Testament studies now largely rejects such forms of blatantly naive supersessionism. 42 See the full assessment by Willitts, “Jewish Fish.”

16

Chapter 1: Echoes of Supersessionism and the Figure of Hagar

infamous allegory of Hagar and Sarah.43 This cluster of interpretive challenges largely coalesce around a singular issue: namely, the question of the way Paul’s portrayal of Hagar is meant to be understood in and for the allegory as a whole. This singular issue, in connection with the larger enigmatic character of the passage, brings to the fore several vexing questions. For instance, who are those described as born κατὰ σάρκα/εἰς δουλείαν (4:23–24, 29) and δι᾽ἐπαγγελίας/κατὰ πνεῦμα (4:23, 29) respectively? Does Paul have a specific group of people in mind, i.e., Jew and/or gentile, or does Hagar’s offspring represent a particular mode of existence for humanity in general? Second, on what basis can Paul claim that the figure of Hagar allegorically represents a covenant (4:24)? Third, and most importantly, how does one make sense of the enigmatic connection Paul appears to create between the figure of Hagar, the Sinai covenant (the Jewish law), Mount Sinai, the present Jerusalem, and slavery (4:24–25)? To put it differently, why would, or better yet how could Paul connect these sacred Jewish symbols to Hagar, let alone slavery? Finally, toward which group is the language of expulsion (Ἔκβαλε) directed, and what is Paul suggesting (4:30)? Is this a command, a warning, or both? As noted above, the way scholars answer these questions is largely governed by the way they understand the allegorical depiction of Hagar in and for the entirety of the argument of Gal 4:21–31. By and large, scholars have understood Paul’s portrayal of Hagar in one of two ways: Hagar is either identified with Judaism and the Jewish people (i.e., the traditional reading); or she is identified with a group of Jewish Christ-following missionaries and their law-observant gentile mission (what some have deemed the “new consensus”).44 Since each approach understands this text in different ways and 43 For a survey of several of these interpretive difficulties, see Susan Elliott, Cutting Too Close for Comfort: Paul’s Letter to the Galatians in Its Anatolian Cultic Context, JSNT 248 (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2003), 16–31. 44 Two scholars stand out in their attempt to read the allegory and understand the portrayal of Hagar in view of what is believed to be the letter’s larger social-historical context. First, Susan Elliott, “Choose Your Mother, Choose Your Master: Galatians 4:21–5:1 in the Shadow of the Anatolian Mother of the Gods,” JBL 118 (1999): 661–83; Elliott, Cutting Too Close, has attempted to read the allegory in view of Galatia’s Anatolian cultic context. According to Elliott, Hagar is the Meter Sinaienē, representing a Mountain Mother familiar to the Galatians. While Elliott’s attention to the religious background of the Galatian addressees is to be commended, her overall claim has not won support due to the lack of evidence from within the letter itself. Second, Brigitte Kahl, Galatians Re-Imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010); cf. also Brigitte Kahl, “Hagar Between Genesis and Galatians: The Stony Road to Freedom,” in From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New, ed. Craig A. Evans (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 219–32; Brigitte Kahl, “Hagar’s Babylonian Captivity: A Roman Re-Imagination of Galatians 4:21–31,” Interpretation 68 (2014): 257–69, has argued that the allegory is to be understood in view of Roman Imperial subjugation. Hagar, then, represents a subjugated people. While Kahl’s reading should be commended

1.3 Leading Scholarly Approaches to Galatians 4:21–31

17

thus embodies forms of supersessionism somewhat differently, each will require brief and independent analysis followed by an evaluation. Finally, I will conclude this section by briefly considering two additional studies that have attempted to offer something of an alternative to the two interpretive approaches surveyed first. 1.3.1 The Traditional Reading For much of the last two millennia the received or traditional interpretation of Gal 4:21–31 has centered on a particular understanding of Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar. This longstanding and widespread interpretive tradition identifies Hagar with law-observant Judaism (i.e., the Sinai covenant and the present Jerusalem) and ultimately the Jewish people in order to contend for the superiority of Christianity over against Judaism – even so-called “Jewish Christianity” – and, at the same time, argue for the exclusion of the Jewish people from salvation.45 Dating as far back as the fourth century CE, the for its attempt to distance Gal 4:21–31 from supersessionism, her reading, like that of Elliott’s, suffers from minimal evidence that Roman Imperialism is the letter’s central concern. Similarly, see Davina C. Lopez, Apostle to the Conquered: Reimagining Paul’s Mission, Paul in Critical Contexts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 153–63. 45 As noted by Susan G. Eastman, “‘Cast Out the Slave Woman and Her Son’: The Dynamics of Exclusion and Inclusion in Galatians 4.30,” JSNT 28 (2006): 310. More broadly, J. Louis Martyn, “The Covenants of Hagar and Sarah: Two Covenants and Two Gentile Missions,” in Faith and History: Essays in Honor of Paul W. Meyer, ed. John T. Carroll, Charles H. Cosgrove, and E. Elizabeth Johnson (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 168–69, helpfully summarizes the main contours of the traditional reading in six points: (1) Based on the presence of the verb συστοιχέω in 4:25, the traditional reading organizes itself around the presence of several sharp dichotomies, which are arranged according to antithetical or contrasting columns of opposites. (2) This dichotomous contrast is most clearly explicated by the prepositional phrases κατὰ σάρκα (4:23, 29) and δι᾽ἐπαγγελίας/κατὰ πνεῦμα (4:23, 29), which are taken as adjectival identity markers for the purpose of describing and differentiating two existing groups of people. (3) These two groups of people are understood to be Jews and Christians respectively. The Jewish people being κατὰ σάρκα, the Christians being κατά πνεῦμα. Thus, the dichotomous contrast ultimately centers on one of Judaism vs. Christianity. (4) Judaism, because it belongs to the old covenant (Sinai), the law, and the earthly Jerusalem, is characterized as a religion of slavery, and Christianity, belonging to the new covenant, faith in Christ, and the heavenly Jerusalem, is a religion of freedom. (5) Galatians 4:29 is understood to be a description of the firstcentury persecution of the church by the synagogue: the persecution of Christians by Jews. (6) The language of expulsion in 4:30 is taken as axiomatic of God’s will: the church has superseded Israel as the people of God. Finally, it is important to note that others focused less explicitly on a Jewish and Christian binary in favor of a more general and universalizing approach, i.e., the universal experience of the bondage of religion vis-á-vis the freedom of life in Christ. However, in this more universalistic framework, Judaism continued to function as the negative foil for Paul’s argument, naturally relegating Judaism to the former category. As it relates to Martin Luther, see Brooks Schramm and Kirsi I. Stjerna,

18

Chapter 1: Echoes of Supersessionism and the Figure of Hagar

church father Jerome would write: “Nearly all of the commentators on this passage interpret it to mean that the slave woman Hagar represents the Law and the Jewish people, but that the free woman Sarah symbolizes the church, which has been assembled from the nations and is the mother of saints.” 46 Over fifteen hundred years later, J. B. Lightfoot and William Ramsay would maintain this line of reasoning. According to Paul, they would argue, Hagar and her children represent the Jewish people: those who are merely κατὰ σάρκα and thus in bondage to the observance of the Jewish law.47 Along similar lines, Ernest de Witt Burton would argue that this connection is justified because “Hagar, a slave, bore children that by that birth passed into slavery, so the Jerusalem that now is and her children, viz., all the adherents of legalistic Judaism which has its centre in Jerusalem, are in bondage to law.” 48 This too would be the assessment of much German scholarship. For instance, according to Heinrich Schlier: das “jetzige Jerusalem” “mit seinen Kindern” in der Knechtschaft unter dem Gesetz ... so wie Hagar, welche die διαθήκη vom Sinai ist, Sklavin ist und in die Sklaverei hineingebiert.49

In other words, Paul could readily align Judaism with Hagar and thus with slavery because Judaism (i.e., law-observant Judaism) was a religion of slaves.50 Finally, this interpretative tradition has been maintained by some modern scholars.51 Of note is the work of Hans Dieter Betz. According to Betz, Paul

eds., Martin Luther, the Bible, and the Jewish People: A Reader (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 59–66. 46 Andrew Cain, trans., St. Jerome: Commentary on Galatians, The Fathers of the Church 121 (Washington: Catholic University Press, 2010), 121. A similar assessment can be found in the patristic writings of Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, and Victorinus; see Riches, Galatians, 230–33. 47 See Lightfoot, Galatians, 183–85; William M. Ramsay, A Historical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1979), 430–32. 48 Ernest de Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921), 262. 49 Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 221. See also the more recent conclusions of Jürgen Becker, Paulus: Der Apostel der Völker (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 116, 492, “Israel wird der Magd Abrahams zugeordnet und sein Gottesbund als Knechtschaft bestimmt.” “Die jüdische Religion ist Knechtschaft und Gesetzesdienst (Gal 4,24f.). Gott selbst fordert im Gesetz (Gen 21,10.12 = Gal 4,30), diese Nachkommenschaft Abrahams ‘fortzujagen’,” as also cited in Michael Bachmann, Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief? Exegetische Studien zu einem polemischen Schreiben und zur Theologie des Apostels Paulus, NTOA 40 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 135–36. 50 See e.g., M.-J. Lagrange, Saint Paul: Épitre aux Galates (Paris: Gabalda, 1926), 121, “Le judaisme est ... une religion d’esclaves.”

1.3 Leading Scholarly Approaches to Galatians 4:21–31

19

had aligned Hagar with the Sinai covenant in order to “discredit the ‘old covenant’ as the pre-Christian condition before salvation came,” and to demonstrate that “[t]hose who belong to this covenant, the Torah covenant of Judaism, are in the situation of ‘slavery under the law’.”52 In Betz’s view, such an alignment was Paul’s sharpest attack on the Jews. As such, Paul had created “a dualistic polarity between ‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity’ … in order to reject it [Judaism].”53 In view of Gal 4:30, then, the language of expulsion brought the allegory to its expected conclusion. Just as Hagar and Ishmael were expelled from Abraham’s household, so too are Judaism and the Jewish people to be expelled from the community of faith in Christ.54 Burton would describe the implications of 4:30 in this way: Judaism, i.e., “Israel according to the flesh,” had been rejected by God.55 Stronger yet would be the assessment of Betz who would contend that, according to Paul, Israel’s inheritance had been given to the gentiles, and thus, “the Jews are excluded from it, and the Christians constitute the ‘Israel of God’.”56 Consequently, “Judaism is excluded from salvation altogether.”57 According to the traditional reading, then, due to the way Paul had aligned Hagar with Judaism, the Jewish law, and the Jewish people, Gal 4:21–31 provided unequivocal evidence that the death-knell of Judaism had sounded. No longer was there a place for the observance of the Jewish law and thus no place for the preservation of Jewish identity. Rather, in its place now stood a new spiritual people, the church: those marked not by legalistic slavery-inducing rituals but by the freedom made available through faith in Christ. In short,

51

See e.g., F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 218–22; Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 206–11; cf. also Douglas J. Moo, Galatians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 299–311; Jeff Hubing, Crucifixion and New Creation: The Strategic Purpose of Galatians 6.11–17, LNTS 508 (London; New York: Bloomsbury, 2015), 140–47, whose respective conclusions follow those of the traditional approach in several ways. 52 Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermenia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 244. 53 Betz, Galatians, 246. Emphasis my own. 54 See e.g., Lightfoot, Galatians, 184; Burton, Galatians, 267; Albrecht Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, 4th ed., ThHK 9 (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1979), 152; Betz, Galatians, 250–51; Fung, Galatians, 214–15; more recently, Michael Wolter, “Das Israelproblem nach Gal 4,21–31 und Röm 9–11,” ZThK 107 (2010): 1–30. For a slightly more nuanced approach, see Moo, Galatians, 311–12. 55 Burton, Galatians, 251, 168. 56 Betz, Galatians, 250. Emphasis my own. 57 Betz, Galatians, 251. Emphasis my own.

20

Chapter 1: Echoes of Supersessionism and the Figure of Hagar

Christianity had replaced Judaism; the church had replaced Israel; and Paul was a champion of supersessionism.58 1.3.2 A New Consensus 1.3.2.1 A Summary In response to the claims of the traditional reading, and with post-holocaust sensitivities in view, over the last several years scholars have sought to challenge many of the anti-Jewish claims and brazenly supersessionist conclusions of the past two millennia. 59 In doing so, one particular reading has emerged and gained widespread support, which, according to Susan Eastman, is now to be considered a “new consensus.” 60 This alternative approach inter58

In the words of Gerhard Sellin, “Hagar und Sara. Religionsgeschichtliche Hintergründe der Schriftallegorese Gal 4,21–31,” in Das Urchristentum in seiner literarischen Geschichte: Festschrift für Jürgen Becker zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Ulrich Mell and Ulrich B. Müller, BZNW 100 (Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 1999), 75, Gal 4:21–31 functions as “eine der schärfsten antijudaistischen Ausfälle im Neuen Testament.” 59 This is due in large part to the emergence of the so-called “New Perspective” on Judaism and Paul. In relation to Judaism, see E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977); in relation to Paul, see Krister Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles, and Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976); James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (London: SPCK, 1990); N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991). 60 Eastman, “Cast Out,” 311. Proponents of this view are numerous, but see in particular Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 111–18; Longenecker, Galatians, 208–17; Frank J. Matera, Galatians, SP 9 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 175–79; Ben Witherington, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 325–39; Martinus C. de Boer, “Paul’s Quotation of Isaiah 54.1 in Galatians 4.27,” NTS 50 (2004): 370–89; Susan Eastman, Recovering Paul’s Mother Tongue: Language and Theology in Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 127–60; Martinus C. de Boer, Galatians: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 285–310; A. Andrew Das, Galatians, CC (St. Louis: Concordia, 2014), 487–89, 494–511; John M. G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 411–21. This approach is largely indebted to the pioneering work of J. Louis Martyn. Over a span of 20 years, Martyn published a number of essays and articles on Galatians, and 4:21–31 in particular, which culminated in his monumental 1997 Anchor Bible Commentary on Galatians; see J. Louis Martyn, “A Law-Observant Mission to Gentiles: The Background of Galatians,” SJT 38 (1985): 307–24; J. Louis Martyn, “Apocalyptic Antinomies in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” NTS 31 (1985): 410–24; Martyn, “The Covenants”; J. Louis Martyn, “Christ, the Elements of the Cosmos, and the Law in Galatians,” in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks, ed. Michael L. White and O. Larry Yarbrough (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 16–39; see the collection of essays in J. Louis Martyn, Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (London; New York: T&T Clark, 1997); J. Louis Martyn, Galatians, AB 33A (New York: Doubleday, 1997); J. Louis Martyn, “The

1.3 Leading Scholarly Approaches to Galatians 4:21–31

21

prets Gal 4:21–31, not as a conflict between two competing religions (i.e., Judaism vs. Christianity), but as “an inner-church struggle between two Jewish-Christian missions to Gentiles: one requiring its converts to be circumcised and to keep the Mosaic law, the other imposing no such requirements.”61 In relation to the figure of Hagar, Eastman highlights the two primary claims of this approach. First, in contrast to the traditional reading, the new consensus largely identifies Hagar with the Jewish Christ-following missionaries and their law-observant mission to gentiles, with her offspring, then, representing their followers: namely, those from the Galatian congregations who have joined them.62 Second, the language of expulsion in 4:30 is therefore understood not as a condemning statement against the salvation of Judaism as a whole but as a directive to the Galatian addressees, commanding them to cast out the missionaries, their message, and their followers.63 However, for the proponents of this new consensus there remains significant disagreement concerning the way in which Judaism is understood to be implicated in Paul’s negative evaluation of the Jewish Christ-following missionaries and their law-observant gentile mission. On one side is the pioneering work of J. Louis Martyn who argues that any seemingly negative statement about Judaism is to be understood as exclusively directed toward the missionaries and their law-observant mission, and not toward Judaism as a whole.64 For Martyn, then, the connection between Hagar and the Sinai covenant (i.e., the Jewish law) with slavery is merely causative. That is, Paul does not develop a connection between Hagar, the Sinai covenant, and slavery Apocalyptic Gospel in Galatians,” Interpretation 54 (2000): 246–66. For an application of Martyn’s approach to theology, see Philip G. Ziegler, Militant Grace: The Apocalyptic Turn and the Future of Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018). However, it is important to note that several of Martyn’s claims have not gone unchallenged. For a critique of the law-observant gentile mission, see Adam Gregerman, “The Lack of Evidence for a Jewish Christian Countermission in Galatia,” CCJR 4 (2009): 1–24. On Martyn’s approach to “two covenants” and overall reading of Galatians 4:21–31, see the critique of Brendan Byrne, “Jerusalem Above and Below: A Critique of J.L. Martyn’s Interpretation of the Hagar–Sarah Allegory in Gal 4.21–5.1,” NTS 60 (2014): 215–31. Finally, for a critique of Martyn’s approach to apocalyptic, see John Anthony Dunne, “Suffering and Covenantal Hope in Galatians: A Critique of the ‘Apocalyptic Reading’ and Its Proponents,” SJT 68 (2015): 1–15; see also Loren Stuckenbruck’s essay, “Posturing ‘Apocalyptic’ in Pauline Theology: How Much Contrast to Jewish Tradition,” in The Myth of Rebellious Angels: Studies in Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Texts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 240–56; most importantly, see Nanos, Reading Paul within Judaism, 63–76; and Joel Marcus, “Lou Martyn, Paul, and Judaism,” JSPL 7 (2017): 112– 18, whose concerns will be considered more fully below. 61 Eastman, “Cast Out,” 311. 62 Eastman, “Cast Out,” 311. 63 Eastman, “Cast Out,” 311–12. 64 See Martyn, Theological Issues, 194–205; similarly Matera, Galatians, 175–79.

22

Chapter 1: Echoes of Supersessionism and the Figure of Hagar

based on his view of the Sinai covenant in and of itself, but rather, “by speaking of that covenant as it is imposed on Gentiles in the Law-observant mission.”65 He writes further, “the Hagar/Sinai covenant … Far from being a force for liberation, that covenant is now producing slaves by bearing children – founding churches among the Gentiles – into the state of slavery.”66 In relation to 4:30, then, Martyn argues that Paul commands the Galatians to expel only the teachers and their followers from their congregations. 67 While the majority of new consensus scholars agree with Martyn’s latter claim, they reject the former one. 68 That is, Martyn’s understanding of the portrayal of Hagar is believed to be much too restrictive as, according to these scholars, it overlooks Paul’s larger claims regarding the apparent irrelevancy of the Jewish law in light of the Messianic age and the dawn of new creation.69 Thus, while it is widely agreed that Hagar is primarily understood to represent the Jewish Christ-following missionaries and their law-observant gentile mission, most new consensus scholars contend that Paul’s overtly negative evaluation of key aspects of Jewish identity (i.e., the Sinai covenant 65

Martyn, Theological Issues, 205. Martyn, Galatians, 437. 67 Martyn, Galatians, 446. 68 Those who contend that the language of Gal 4:30 is directed toward only the Jewish Christ-following missionaries and their followers, and not toward Judaism as a whole, include, e.g., Franz Mussner, Der Galaterbrief, 3rd ed., HThKNT 9 (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 332; G. Walter Hansen, Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts, JSNTSup 29 (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 145–46; Hays, Echoes, 116; Longenecker, Galatians, 217; Matera, Galatians, 178; Martyn, Galatians, 446; Witherington, Galatia, 338; Jeffrey R. Wisdom, Blessing for the Nations and the Curse of the Law: Paul’s Citation of Genesis and Deuteronomy in Gal 3.8–10, WUNT II 133 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 215–19; Sam Tsang, From Slaves to Sons: A New Rhetoric Analysis on Paul’s Slave Metaphors in His Letter to the Galatians, StBibLit 81 (New York; Bern: Lang, 2005), 102–4; Matthew S. Harmon, She Must and Shall Go Free: Paul’s Isaianic Gospel in Galatians, BZNW 168 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 182–84; de Boer, Galatians, 306–8; John Anthony Dunne, Persecution and Participation in Galatians, WUNT II 454 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 62–64; Craig S. Keener, Galatians, NCBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 227. Others have suggested it is a warning and not a command, see Schlier, Galater, 227; Charles H. Cosgrove, “The Law Has Given Sarah No Children (Gal. 4:21–30),” NovT 29 (1987): 233; Eastman, “Cast Out”; Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, ECNT 9 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 306; George Lyons, Galatians: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, NBBC (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2012), 294– 95; Peter Oakes, Galatians, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 159. 69 See especially the concerns of Byrne, “Jerusalem,” 221–24; cf. also Hays, Echoes, 113–18; James D.G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, BNTC 9 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1993), 247–53, 258; Witherington, Galatia, 329–34; Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000), 133, 329 n. 8; Eastman, “Cast Out,” 315 n. 16; Schreiner, Galatians, 302; Das, Galatians, 487–89; deSilva, Galatians, 399. 66

1.3 Leading Scholarly Approaches to Galatians 4:21–31

23

and thus the Jewish law, Mount Sinai itself, and the present Jerusalem) in relation to the figure of Hagar and thus slavery suggests that law-observant Judaism stands as the target of Paul’s polemic as well. For instance, against Martyn, Eastman points out that regardless of whether the connection between the Sinai covenant and slavery is causative, “the implicit link between Sinai and slavery remains,” and thus, “its attendant disjuncture between the law of Moses and the life-giving freedom of the Spirit” is evident.70 Similarly, Ben Witherington contends that the connection Paul develops between Hagar, the Sinai covenant, and slavery cannot be limited to a critique of the Jewish Christ-following missionaries; rather, it more broadly demonstrates that “for Christians to submit to the Law is tantamount to submitting to slavery and giving up the freedom one has in Christ. It is tantamount to going back to Sinai, not on to the promised land.” 71 Finally, in an article length treatment of Martyn’s reading, Joel Marcus queries, “Can we really limit the damage done by the Hagar/Sarah allegory … to Christian Judaism, as opposed to Judaism as a whole?” 72 Marcus then goes on to conclude, “The allegory of Hagar and Sarah, therefore, is designed to show not the inferiority of one Christian mission to the other but the inferiority of the enslaving Sinaitic covenant to the new dispensation of grace brought in by Christ … it is not just Christian Judaism but Judaism in general.” 73 For the majority of new consensus scholars, then, the criticism Paul appears to level against the Jewish Christ-following missionaries would have surely implicated some, if not all aspects of law-observant Judaism. Thus, Andrew Das’s conclusion is illustrative: Although the apostle’s primary purpose is to confront the Law-observant gentile mission, the claims he makes about the salvific inefficacy of the Law have profound implications for a Judaism apart from Christ. Certainly Paul’s target is his Jewish-Christian rivals, but the modern attempt to rescue Paul from anti-Semitism must not ignore what he concretely says about the Mosaic law as an ineffective instrument for a right standing before God. 74

1.3.2.2 An Evaluation At this point, a brief evaluation is in order. To begin, the new consensus is to be commended for the work it has done in its attempt to distance Gal 4:21–31 from charges of anti-Judaism and blatant supersessionism. This is particularly evident in two ways. First, whether the allegory is about competing missions, new consensus scholars have helpfully attempted to reframe the discussion as 70

Eastman, “Cast Out,” 215 n. 16. Witherington, Galatia, 330; see also Don Garlington, An Exposition of Galatians: A Reading from the New Perspective, 3rd ed. (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2007), 272. 72 Marcus, “Lou Martyn,” 114. Emphasis original. 73 Marcus, “Lou Martyn,” 116–17. 74 Das, Galatians, 489. 71

24

Chapter 1: Echoes of Supersessionism and the Figure of Hagar

one no longer centered on a conflict between the competing religions of Judaism and Christianity. Second, this approach has attempted to provide a way forward on the troubling language of 4:30. Whether 4:30 is to be understood as a command, a warning, or both, it is no longer believed to be about the wholesale rejection and thus exclusion of the Jewish people from salvation. However, for reasons to be discussed below, the new consensus reading of Gal 4:21–31 remains vulnerable to charges of at least implicit supersessionism in that it continues to perpetuate – whether intentionally or unintentionally – negative evaluations of the continuing validity of the Jewish law, Jewish identity, and thus Judaism as a whole due to the fact that key aspects of the new consensus’s interpretive approach remain beholden to and thus governed by several of the interpretive patterns and categories that are foundational to the traditional reading’s anti-Jewish rhetoric and supersessionist outcomes. I will highlight a few of these interpretive elements below. First, from a general standpoint, the way in which many new consensus scholars approach Galatians and the text of 4:21–31 in particular follows from a preexisting interpretive framework that is foundational to the traditional reading: one that presumes notions of Christian superiority, thus fostering ideas of supersessionism. In the words of David Horrell, it is the presence of a persistent structural dichotomy whereby Christianity is set over against and portrayed as superior to Judaism.75 For the traditional reading, the structural dichotomy was and continues to be one of faith in Christ (i.e., Christianity) over against legalism and works righteousness (i.e., Judaism). For more recent approaches, and thus the new consensus, the dichotomy is one whereby an “ethnically particular or ‘exclusive’ Judaism” is set in contrast to “an open, all-embracing ‘inclusive’ Christianity.”76 While these dichotomies differ on what they emphasize, both produce negative evaluations of Judaism, as the focus of Paul’s critique has simply shifted from that of Jewish legalism to Jewish ethnocentrism.77 As Kathy Ehrensperger remarks, “even here and despite best intentions to do oth75 For the full discussion, see David G. Horrell, Ethnicity and Inclusion: Religion, Race, and Whiteness in Constructions of Jewish and Christian Identities (Grands Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020), 21–46. Similar concerns have been raised by Nanos, Reading Paul within Judaism, 63, who, while appreciative of scholarly attempts to improve otherwise negative evaluations of Judaism, states, “there is much that remains problematic in the discourse, and in the ideas upon which it depends,” which “continue to undermine the efforts to eliminate the traditional negative valuations of Judaism characteristic of the discourse in the past”; see also the assessment of Kathy Ehrensperger, That We May Be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies (New York; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 124. 76 Horrell, Ethnicity and Inclusion, 21. 77 Horrell, Ethnicity and Inclusion, 35. See also Horrell’s reference to R. Barry Matlock, “Sins of the Flesh and Suspicious Minds: Dunn’s New Theology of Paul,” JSNT 72 (1998): 86.

1.3 Leading Scholarly Approaches to Galatians 4:21–31

25

erwise, we find evidence of the traditional pattern of interpreting Paul as being in opposition to Judaism.”78 To demonstrate the persistence of this structural dichotomy from the text of Gal 4:21–31 specifically, an example can be found in the recent work of Jakob Wöhrle. In an attempt to show that the allegory does not constitute “[e]ine theologische Begründung der Verwerfung des Judentums,” Wöhrle concludes: Gal 4,21–31 zeigt somit, wie angesichts der Tatsache, dass sich mit dem Christentum eine neue Gruppe konstituiert hat, mit der die vor allem national definierten Grenzen des Judentums überschritten werden, ganz neu nach den Bedingungen zur Integration in diese Gruppe gefragt wird. Der Glaube an das Christusereignis und nicht mehr die Beschneidung ist bei Paulus nun die bestimmende Voraussetzung zur Integration in diese Gruppe. Dabei wird mit dieser Neubestimmung eine deutliche Abgrenzung vom Judentum vorgenommen.79

Although Wöhrle’s intentions appear to be well-meaning, in positioning Christianity’s apparent inclusivity over against Judaism’s Grenzen, the former’s superiority is implicitly assumed. The universalism of Christianity is, simply put, “better,” thus superseding the particularism of its predecessor. Wöhrle’s assessment, however, is far from alone. As our above survey demonstrates, new consensus scholars are largely governed by this structural dichotomy whereby a particular universalizing approach to Christian identity and practice (i.e., a Torah free life) is set over against the particularism of Jewish identity and practice (i.e., Torah observance). And while one might attempt to describe the contrast in Gal 4:21–31 as an intra-Christian affair, as new consensus scholars prefer, if they are correct in their interpretation, it is difficult to limit Paul’s negative evaluation to so-called “Jewish Christianity.” As Nanos remarks, the “negative evaluation of Christ-believing Jewishness,” here its socalled “particularism,” would “logically extend all the more (a fortiori) to the Jewishness of those who do not even share the bond of Christ-faith.”80 What is more, the logic of Nanos’s concern is made clear in relation to two additional concerns with the new consensus reading of Gal 4:21–31. These concerns are closely related. The first of these has to do with the way new consensus scholars understand the portrayal of Hagar in and for the allegory as a whole. As noted above, while proponents of this approach largely contend that Hagar is to be identified with and descriptive of the Jewish Christ-following missionaries, they likewise readily admit that, based on the connection Paul appears to develop between Hagar (i.e., slavery) and key aspects of Jewish identity (i.e., the Sinai covenant and the present Jerusalem), she appears to be, at least implicitly, identified with and descriptive of law-observant Judaism as well. In fact, this is what permits N. T. Wright and others to conclude that the 78

Ehrensperger, Mutually Encouraged, 124. Jakob Wöhrle, “Isaak und Ismael: Zum Verhältnis der beiden Abrahamsöhne nach Genesis 17 und Galater 4,21–31,” Evangelische Theologie 71 (2011): 115–32. 80 Nanos, Reading Paul within Judaism, 66. 79

26

Chapter 1: Echoes of Supersessionism and the Figure of Hagar

allegory of Gal 4:21–31 ultimately demonstrates that “the law of Sinai is quite simply out of date.”81 If, as Wright asserts, the Jewish law is in fact “out of date,” then so too is Jewish identity and practice. Put simply, the Jewish law and thus Jewish identity have been superseded. This being the case, then to our final concern: law-observant Judaism and thus Judaism as a whole is clearly understood to be implicated in with Paul’s negative (even condemning) evaluation of the Jewish Christ-following missionaries. This idea is made clear by David deSilva in his recent commentary on Galatians: Paul … gives no indication that he limits ‘the present Jerusalem’ to the Torah-observant Jewish-Christian mission. On the contrary, all the clues he does give point to his inclusion of all non-Christian Jews among those ‘born into slavery’ and thus among the children of the ‘present Jerusalem’ in his allegory. Paul ranks all who are ‘under Torah’ as slaves. 82

Or as Joel Marcus puts it, “it is not just Christian Judaism, but Judaism in general” that is found to be enslaved to the inferiority of the Sinai covenant. 83 In fact, Martyn ultimately concedes to this very point when commenting on the implications of his reading of Gal 4:21–31: “We may say that Judaism stands somewhere in the background, not least because other passages show Paul’s firm conviction that the Law is everywhere impotent to curb the enslaving power of the Evil Impulse and Sin.” 84 Taken together, then, it is important to highlight that these latter two concerns fall right in line with a crucial element of the traditional reading and its supersessionist impulse: that is, in one way or another, Hagar and thus slavery are representative of lawobservant Judaism and therefore the Jewish people, which ultimately signals the obsolescence of the Jewish law and, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the supersession of Jewish ethnic identity. Overall, then, for new consensus readings of Gal 4:21–31, vestiges of supersessionism remain in that the interpretation of this text continues to be governed by certain interpretive patterns and categories that undergird much of the anti-Jewish rhetoric and supersessionist conclusions of previous eras of scholarship. Whether that be the continued presence of a longstanding structural dichotomy that renders Christianity superior to Judaism, or the continued promotion of the obsolescence of the Jewish law and thus the superfluity of Jewish identity and practice based on a particularly narrow assessment of the connec81

N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 1140. See the similar conclusions of Eastman, Witherington, Marcus, and Das as mentioned above. 82 deSilva, Galatians, 399. Emphasis original. Similarly, see Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 416, 421 n. 75. 83 Marcus, “Lou Martyn,” 116–17. 84 Martyn, Theological Issues, 205. Emphasis original. Cf. the more nuanced and careful assessment of Matera, Galatians, 177.

1.3 Leading Scholarly Approaches to Galatians 4:21–31

27

tions Paul appears to develop between the figure of Hagar (and thus slavery) and key aspects of Jewish identity (i.e., the Sinai covenant and the present Jerusalem), it is widely taken for granted by new consensus scholars that Paul considers the maintenance of Jewish identity via the observance of the Jewish law a problem to be overcome.85 This is because, like their predecessors, new consensus scholars are governed by a particular interpretive framework that renders the Jewish law fulfilled and thus obsolete, which, in turn, renders the continued maintenance of Jewish identity via the observance of Torah, at best, adiaphora. Therefore, whether intentional or not, and like the traditional reading before it, the way Gal 4:21–31 continues to be read as a polemic against Judaism and the abiding significance of the Jewish law, and by implication Jewish identity and practice, the new consensus remains vulnerable to charges of the continual fostering of implicit forms of supersessionism.86 Before proceeding, however, two final remarks need to be made. First, the possibility needs to be acknowledged that Paul may in fact have been what we might call a supersessionist – or at least promoted a form of protosupersessionism – and thus both the traditional and new consensus readings are indeed possible readings of this text. From the standpoint of specifically historical exegesis, we must allow Paul to say what he says regardless of our own contemporary moral sensitivities and theological concerns. On the other hand, if it is possible that Paul was not a supersessionist – or even protosupersessionist – we are likewise responsible for our readings of him, and it may be that the categories from which scholars often approach this text, namely, as an allegory about Jews, Jewish Christ-followers, and/or the continuing validity of the Jewish law, are far too narrow and may not even be on the radar for understanding the details of it. In fact, based on some of the more recent work being done in relation to revisioning Paul’s relationship to his ancestral faith, new criteria are emerging from which to consider afresh a text like Gal 4:21–31.87 As such, it is very possible that the interpretive patterns and categories that have long governed the way scholars approach this text are at best too simplistic and, at worst, may even obscure the real issues at play in it. If this possibility remains, then more nuanced and alternative ways of approaching this text must be considered and, 85 Even Keener, Galatians, 220, who otherwise seeks to promote non-supersessionist readings of the New Testament, appears to succumb to the common understanding of this text. He writes, “[The law] is thus itself superseded by the coming of Christ.” Emphasis my own. 86 An example of this concern is the recent work of John Barclay, who, although quite sensitive to issues of supersessionism, is only able to describe his reading of Gal 4:21–31 as not “boldly supersessionist”; see Paul and the Gift, 421. In response, Margaret M. Mitchell, “Gift Histories,” JSNT 39 (2017): 320–22, describes Barclay’s reading as “a return to forms of Christian supersessionism or a kinder, gentler, but no less troublesome and ultimate ‘subsumptionism’.” 87 See the discussion in Chapter 2.

28

Chapter 1: Echoes of Supersessionism and the Figure of Hagar

if proven plausible, placed alongside those of the traditional and new consensus readings as viable, if not more favorable readings of the allegory of Gal 4:21– 31. One of the goals of the present study is to provide such an approach. 1.3.3 Alternative Approaches Our survey of scholarship in this section will conclude by considering two studies that attempt to interpret the portrayal of Hagar in Gal 4:21–31 in a more nuanced and thus alternative way. These include Michael Bachmann’s 1999 essay entitled “Die andere Frau. Synchrone und diachrone Beobachtungen zu Gal 4.21–5.1” and Lloyd Gaston’s 1982 essay entitled “Israel’s Enemies in Pauline Theology.” 88 Each will be briefly considered in turn below. In his book, Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief, Bachmann provides a chapter on Gal 4:21–31 in which he sets out to explicitly challenge the way this text has been used to support the superiority of one entity (Christianity/the church) over against another (Judaism/the synagogue); and, in particular, the way in which the figure of Hagar, “die andere Frau,” is taken to represent the latter.89 In short, Bachmann argues that Gal 4:21–31 is not to be read as a contrast between two entities (Christianity/the church vs. Judaism/the synagogue), nor is it a contrast between competing missions; rather, it is a contrast between “zwei Gemeinschaften, zwei Korporationen.”90 According to Bachmann, then, Hagar does not represent Judaism nor a group of Jewish Christ-following missionaries. In fact, for Bachmann, ethnicity is not in view at all. Rather, Hagar represents a community characterized by the realm of slavery, which would have included a majority of gentiles and only a minority of Jews.91 Thus, based on the Galatian gentiles’ current orientation toward the Jewish law, they are at risk of rejoining that community, with the allegory functioning as a warning for the Galatians to evade such a relapse.92 Furthermore, Bachmann contends that this explains why Paul employs specifically Jewish terminology in 4:24–25. This is due to the fact that it is not primarily Jews or Jewish Christ-followers he is 88

Consideration could also be given to the recent work of Matthew Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 73–101. However, since Thiessen does not deal with Hagar, his work will not be considered here. 89 Bachmann, Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief? Much of Bachmann’s argument has been taken up by Robert L. Brawley, “Contextuality, Intertextuality, and the Hendiadic Relationship of Promise and Law in Galatians,” ZNW 93 (2002): 99–119; and William S. Campbell, “Covenant Theology and Participation in Christ: Pauline Perspectives on Transformation,” in Paul and Judaism: Crosscurrents in Pauline Exegesis and the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations, ed. Reimund Bieringer and Didier Pollefeyt, LSNT 463 (London; New York: Bloomsbury, 2012), 43; cf. also Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 417 n. 64. 90 Bachmann, Antijudaismus, 127. Emphasis original. 91 Bachmann, Antijudaismus, 145. 92 Bachmann, Antijudaismus, 143.

1.3 Leading Scholarly Approaches to Galatians 4:21–31

29

seeking to correct, but rather, the Galatian gentiles and their current orientation toward the observance of the Jewish law.93 Bachmann writes: [Es] wird nun in unserem Passus eine Aussage über ein aktuelles Gegeneinander gemacht, in dem die Adressaten sich re-orientieren, die richtige Position finden sollen. Da diese Positionierung gerade aufgrund des Beschneidungswunsches, aufgrund von Judaisierungstendenzen nötig ist, macht es im übrigen Sinn, wenn Paulus in v. 25 für die andere Frau speziell jüdische Symbole verwendet, nämlich “Sinai” und “jetziges Jerusalem.”94

Overall, then, Bachmann concludes that, in relation to the figure of Hagar, Judaism is not primarily in view, and if it is, it is certainly not alone.95 Although Bachmann’s study requires significant consideration, for two reasons I remain unconvinced that it is able to overcome the influence of the traditional reading and thus particular strands of supersessionism. First, if the figure of Hagar is understood to represent a community characterized by the realm of slavery, and if that community includes both Jew and gentile who are oriented to the present evil age, then it follows that Paul’s inclusion of Sinai and Jerusalem on the Hagar side suggests that the observance of the Jewish law is an ill-advised orientation for not only gentiles but also Jews. This relates to my second concern: whereas Bachmann does not think the ethnic identity of Hagar is relevant for understanding Paul’s portrayal of her, one of the central claims of this study is that her identity as a non-Jew is significant for providing a more nuanced set of categories in which to consider afresh key aspects of this text.96 The second study to be considered is Gaston’s 1982 essay, “Israel’s Enemies in Pauline Theology.”97 In this essay, Gaston sets out “to read Galatians not as a polemic against Judaism or Jewish Christians or troublemakers but as the gospel of liberation of Gentile Christians, against the dark background of their previous servitude and with the warning not to fall back into that servitude.” 98 The central focus of Gaston’s essay is Gal 4:21–31. Contrary to nearly all scholarship before him, Gaston argues that, in relation to Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar, interpreters must “try to understand Paul in continuity with the 93

Bachmann, Antijudaismus, 151. Bachmann, Antijudaismus, 151. 95 Bachmann, Antijudaismus, 154. 96 Against Brawley, “Contextuality,” 114, who likewise argues that the ethnic identities of the two women are not pertinent. See Chapter 6. 97 Lloyd Gaston, Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987), 80–99; as originally published Lloyd Gaston, “Israel’s Enemies in Pauline Theology,” NTS 28 (1982): 400–423. Gaston’s approach is primarily followed by John G. Gager, Reinventing Paul (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 92–97. Cf. also the similarities with Angela Standhartinger, “‘Zur Freiheit ... Befreit’? Hagar im Galaterbrief,” EvT 62 (2002): 288–303. 98 Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 82. 94

30

Chapter 1: Echoes of Supersessionism and the Figure of Hagar

traditions of Judaism unless there are explicit grounds to the contrary.” 99 After a brief survey of select Jewish texts and traditions, Gaston argues that Hagar is not to be identified with Judaism, Jewish troublemakers, or even Jewish Christfollowing missionaries; rather, in line with Jewish tradition, Gaston contends that, in Gal 4:21–31, Hagar is to be identified as a gentile. Thus, for the purpose of the allegory, she and her descendants represent gentiles who are in slavery to the στοιχεῖα (cf. Gal 4:8).100 Based on Gaston’s essay, a few observations are in order for the purpose of this study. First, as will be demonstrated more fully in the following chapter, this study takes as its starting point the methodological suggestion that we should read and understand Paul in continuity with the literary traditions of ancient Judaism unless there is good reason to suggest otherwise. In relation to this, and second, in Part Three of this study I will build on Gaston’s claim and argue that, in Gal 4:21–31, Paul takes Hagar’s identity as a non-Jew seriously and allegorically portrays her as the covenantal mother of slave-born gentiles. However, where I seek to strengthen this claim is in two key areas. First, whereas Gaston limits his consideration of Jewish literature to a small number of texts (i.e., Jubilees), for reasons to be discussed in the next chapter, this study will seek to be as comprehensive as possible in relation to the way Second Temple Jewish literature portrays the figure of Hagar.101 In this way, my objective is to substantiate Gaston’s claim more fully. Second, whereas Gaston does little to deal exegetically with the question of how Paul can apparently align Hagar with the Sinai covenant, and likewise align Mount Sinai and the present Jerusalem with slavery, I will seek to provide an historical and exegetical way forward on these difficult questions in view of the particular understanding of Hagar that will be argued for in Part Three of this study.102

1.4 Scholarly Considerations of the Portrayal of Hagar in Ancient Judaism and Paul 1.4 Scholarly Considerations of the Portrayal of Hagar

In the previous section it was shown that for both the traditional and new consensus readings of Gal 4:21–31, interpretations that embody various forms of supersessionism continue to govern most scholarly readings of this 99

Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 85. Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 88–90. 101 See Chapters 3 and 4. 102 In fact, because Gaston does not adequately address the apparent connection between Hagar (i.e., slavery), Mount Sinai, and Jerusalem, this appears to be one of t he primary reasons scholars have largely rejected his other claims about Hagar. See e.g., the concerns of Martyn, Theological Issues, 205 n. 22; Charles E. Cruise, Writing on the Edge: Paul’s Use of Hyperbole in Galatians (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2019), 51–58. 100

1.4 Scholarly Considerations of the Portrayal of Hagar

31

text. In particular, this was seen in that scholars often understand Paul’s portrayal of Hagar in such a way as to conclude that the allegory is to be read as polemic against Jews, Jewish Christ-followers, and the continuing validity of the Jewish law, thus calling the legitimacy of Jewish identity and practice into question. However, as noted in the introduction to our study, one of the central convictions of this study is that, in order to provide an alternative reading of this text, Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar needs to be more knowingly considered within the various streams of ancient Jewish tradition on her. Therefore, in this final section I will survey some key studies that have attempted, in one way or another, to explore the way Second Temple Jewish literature might inform our understanding of Gal 4:21–31 and Paul’s portrayal of Hagar in particular, and then consider whether such attempts have provided alternative solutions to the interpretation of it. 1.4.1 J. B. Lightfoot Lightfoot’s engagement with Second Temple Jewish literature is largely limited to that of Philo’s allegorical appropriation of the Hagar-Sarah narrative.103 When Lightfoot explicitly compares Philo and Paul, he observes only one similarity: namely, they both employ allegory “and in so doing they touch upon the same points in the narrative.” 104 However, for Lightfoot, this similarity is merely surface level since Philo and Paul are referring to the same story. Otherwise, the two authors share nothing in common; rather, “in their whole tone and method they stand in direct contrast.” 105 This is because, according to Lightfoot, Philo’s reading of Gen 16–21 is unhistorical while Paul’s is historical.106 Therefore, in Lightfoot’s view, Philo adds nothing to our understanding of Gal 4:21–31 and thus nothing to our understanding of Paul’s portrayal of Hagar. 1.4.2 Richard N. Longenecker With the exception of a detailed examination of the Hagar-Sarah narrative in rabbinic literature, Longenecker’s investigation, like Lightfoot’s, is largely limited to a consideration of Philo’s and Paul’s respective readings.107 Ac103

See Lightfoot, Galatians, 198–200. Elsewhere, Lightfoot refers to Bar 3:23 and the tradition that the Arab’s were the “sons of Hagar,” and he highlights Jubilees in relation to the use of Gen 21:9 in Gal 4:29. However, these texts merely function as addendums to Lightfoot’s reading of Gal 4:21–31. 104 Lightfoot, Galatians, 199. 105 Lightfoot, Galatians, 199. 106 Lightfoot, Galatians, 199. 107 See Longenecker, Galatians, 200–6. Longenecker does note a number of Jewish traditions that identify Ishmael with gentiles, e.g., Jub. 20:13; 1 QM 2.13; Ant. 1.221; 14.19– 21.

32

Chapter 1: Echoes of Supersessionism and the Figure of Hagar

cording to Longenecker, their readings reveal a number of “striking surface similarities.”108 He describes these similarities as such: “Both depend on similar elements in the story: the contrast between slave and free; the two sons; the banishment of Hagar and Ishmael in favor of Sarah and Isaac. In both, Hagar and Ishmael represent a preliminary and preparatory state that is superseded by something greater.”109 This, however, is where the similarities stop. In Longenecker’s view, the similarities are readily accounted for in that they arise “quite naturally from the Genesis account itself,” which demonstrates “nothing more than that Paul and Philo both read Scripture.” 110 Thus, although Paul’s reading is not entirely unique, due to the ad hominem nature of his argument, as Longenecker understands it, it is highly questionable whether any Jewish influence can be found in Paul’s reading. The one exception would be the influence of the troublemakers’ own interpretation of the story, which, according to Longenecker, compels Paul to respond in the manner that he does.111 Altogether, then, Longenecker concludes that, although there are enough similarities to show that Paul’s use of the Hagar-Sarah narrative is not entirely unique, his identification of Hagar and Ishmael with Mount Sinai and the present Jerusalem demonstrates that he was not reliant on any sort of “Jewish prototype.” 112 Hence, for Longenecker, as with Lightfoot, Philo, and apparently any other known Jewish literary tradition, adds little to our understanding of Gal 4:21–31 and thus little to our understanding of Paul’s portrayal of Hagar. 1.4.3 C. K. Barrett When compared to the early work of Lightfoot and the later work of Longenecker, the work of Barrett stands out as one of the first to offer something of a more fully developed discussion on the portrayal of Hagar in Second Temple literature with that of Gal 4:21–31.113 In agreement with Lightfoot, Barrett asserts that Philo contributes little to our understanding of Paul’s allegorical reading of the Genesis narrative. 114 However, unlike Lightfoot, Barrett takes his examination of ancient Jewish literature beyond just that of Philo. After a 108

Longenecker, Galatians, 205. Longenecker, Galatians, 205. 110 Longenecker, Galatians, 205. 111 Longenecker, Galatians, 203. 112 Longenecker, Galatians, 206. 113 See C. K. Barrett, Essays on Paul (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), 161–62. The full essay was originally published in C. K. Barrett, “The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and in the Argument of Galatians,” in Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann, ed. Johannes Friedrich et al. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1976), 1–16. 114 Barrett, Essays on Paul, 169 n. 24. Overall, Barrett concludes that the similarities between Philo and Paul, while interesting, are not illuminating; cf. Bruce, Galatians, 215, who argues similarly. 109

1.4 Scholarly Considerations of the Portrayal of Hagar

33

brief review of Jub. 16:17–18, Josephus’s Ant. 1.188–189, 215, and the later rabbinic text of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Barrett concludes that the Jewish literary traditions surrounding the interpretation of the Hagar-Sarah narrative would have favored not Paul but the troublemakers and their “Judaizing argument.”115 In Barrett’s view, “no amount of palliation was able, or intended, to alter the fact that Sarah’s descendants were the Jews, and elect by God, and Hagar’s descendants were Gentiles and stood outside of the promise.” 116 In order to counter this tradition, Barrett argues that Paul was forced to reinterpret the story in a way that identified the Jewish Christians as theologically “Ishmaels” and the law-free Christians (i.e., gentiles) as “Isaacs.”117 Thus, what Barrett finds helpful about the portrayal of Hagar (and Ishmael) in Jewish literature is that it reveals a particular tradition that Paul sought to counter. In other words, ancient Jewish literary traditions on Hagar (and her descendants) add to our understanding of Gal 4:21–31 and thus Paul’s portrayal of Hagar, but only as they reflect the reading strategy Paul sought to overcome. 1.4.4 Ben Witherington In contrast to those who find little to no similarity between Paul’s reading of the Hagar-Sarah narrative and that of Second Temple literature, Witherington represents a move in the opposite direction. Witherington’s survey of Jewish literature is limited to a brief examination of Jub. 16:17–18 and selected works of Philo. Witherington agrees with the likes of Barrett that Jub. 16:17– 18 would not have found support for Paul’s argument, but that it likely represented the interpretive tradition of the troublemakers. 118 Witherington’s assessment of Philo is however much different. 119 First, Witherington challenges the hasty dismal of Philo by Barrett and contends, “only Philo and Paul in all of this Jewish literature really engage in a contemporizing of the text by means of allegorizing, and this fact alone should have caused more attention to be paid to the parallels.”120 According to Witherington, an obvious parallel is their similar appropriation of Hagar. Witherington contends that Philo’s portrayal of Hagar as encyclical paideia “symbolizes something very close to what Paul calls the στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου,”121 and thus, while Witherington agrees with Longenecker’s assessment that Philo and Paul have many notice115

Barrett, Essays on Paul, 161–62. This is followed by Hays, Echoes, 111. For an assessment of Barrett’s theory, see Chapter 5. 116 Barrett, Essays on Paul, 162. 117 Barrett, Essays on Paul, 165. 118 Witherington, Galatia, 324. 119 See Witherington, Galatia, 323–25. 120 Witherington, Galatia, 324. 121 Witherington, Galatia, 324.

34

Chapter 1: Echoes of Supersessionism and the Figure of Hagar

able similarities, he disagrees that the similarities are only surface level.122 Witherington describes the similarities as such: For one thing … in the LXX version of this story while Hagar is certainly called a slave girl, nowhere is Sarah called ἐλευθέρα. This contrast is something both Philo and Paul highlight in a way the text itself does not explicitly do. For another thing, Paul’s entire series of arguments from 3.1 up to 4.20 has been stressing that the Law is indeed among the στοιχεῖα, the elementary principles, which God’s people have now outgrown, since Christ has come and his people have gone on to true Wisdom found in him.123

In other words, just as Philo’s allegorical appropriation of the figure of Hagar focuses on the attainment of wisdom and the eventual expulsion of her and her son, so too does Paul’s, albeit in a way that renders the observance of Torah a matter of indifference. Thus, in Witherington’s view, Second Temple literature, at least in relation to Philo, should inform, to some degree, the way scholars understand the allegory of Gal 4:21–31 and Paul’s portrayal of Hagar in particular. 1.4.5 Peder Borgen In contrast to Witherington, Borgen considers Philo’s more literal interpretation of Hagar.124 In short, Borgen contends that, according to Abraham 251– 53, Philo conceived of Hagar as a convert to Judaism, i.e., a proselyte, which may help us better understand Paul’s portrayal of Hagar.125 In relation to this, Borgen states: With such exegesis of Hagar as background, Paul’s points made in Gal 4.21–5.1 receive force in the overall argument of the letter: The Judaizers who require that the Galatian 122 Witherington, Galatia, 325. In fact, Witherington finds the similarities to be not accidental. 123 Witherington, Galatia, 325. Similarly, Albert L. A. Hogetarp, “Hagar and Paul’s Covenant Thought,” in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham, ed. Martin Goodman, George H. van Kooten, and Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, TBN 13 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010), 352. Cf. also Jason M. Zurawski, “Mosaic Torah as Encyclical Paideia: Reading Paul’s Allegory of Hagar and Sarah in Light of Philo of Alexandria’s,” in Pedagogy in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Karina Martin Hogan, Matthew Goff, and Emma Wasserman, EJL 41 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017), 283–307, who appears to build on the proposal of Witherington yet does not cite him. 124 Peder Borgen, “Some Hebrew and Pagan Features in Philo’s and Paul’s Interpretation of Hagar and Ishmael,” in The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism, ed. Peder Borgen and Søren Giversen (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 151–64. 125 See Borgen, “Some Hebrew,” 154–56. Aspects of Borgen’s argument are followed by Mark D. Nanos, “What Does ‘Present Jerusalem’ (Gal 4:25) in Paul’s Allegory Have to Do with the Jerusalem of Paul’s Time, or the Concerns of Galatians?” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Central States of the SBL, St. Louis, MO, 28 March 2004), 1– 18.

1.4 Scholarly Considerations of the Portrayal of Hagar

35

converts must become Jews and follow the Laws of Moses, they copy the pattern of Hagar, the pagan slave who turned Hebrew by way of life, and was married to Abraham as a substitute for Sarah.126

For Borgen, understanding Paul’s portrayal of Hagar in relation to Jewish proselytism better accounts for the way the story of Hagar is relevant to Paul’s argument, which likewise explains the way Paul can speak of the Sinai covenant and the present Jerusalem in relation to slavery. However, for Borgen, the key distinction between Philo and Paul is that their respective portrayals of Hagar ultimately differ. Whereas Philo appropriates the figure of Hagar to demonstrate that the observance of the Jewish law leads to freedom, Paul does so in order to show that it leads only to slavery.127 Thus, Borgen concludes that their respective portrayals are “sharply different,” and so Philo adds only minimal insight to Gal 4:21–31 and Paul’s portrayal of Hagar. 128 1.4.6 Troy Miller Apart from Witherington, the interpreters surveyed thus far find little to no value in ancient Jewish traditions on Hagar for the purpose of reading and understanding Gal 4:21–31 in general and Paul’s portrayal of Hagar in particular. Furthermore, when the literature is considered, it is largely limited to that of Philo; minimal attention is given to other important works, such as Jubilees and Josephus. To this concern, Troy Miller’s essay entitled “Surrogate, Slave and Deviant? The Figure of Hagar in Jewish Tradition and Paul” deserves special consideration as it is, to my knowledge, the only available study that has attempted to consider Paul’s portrayal of Hagar in relation to a more wide-ranging examination of the various portrayals of Hagar from Second Temple Judaism.129 First, Miller’s study is unique in that it begins where most end: a survey of the portrayal of Hagar in Genesis. Miller’s examination of the Genesis narrative focuses largely on comparing the respective portrayals of Hagar and Sarah. In sum, Miller contends that, according to Gen 16 and 21, Hagar is portrayed as a “positive, yet tragic character,” while Sarah is portrayed negatively.130 Following this, Miller proceeds to examine the portrayal of Hagar in the Jewish texts of Jubilees, Genesis Apocryphon, Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities, Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities, and Philo. Miller’s consideration of these texts gives 126

Borgen, “Some Hebrew,” 156. Borgen, “Some Hebrew,” 160. 128 Borgen, “Some Hebrew,” 160. 129 See Troy A. Miller, “Surrogate, Slave and Deviant? The Figure of Hagar in Jewish Tradition and Paul (Galatians 4.21–31),” in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality, Volume 2: Exegetical Studies, ed. Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias, LNTS 392 (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 138–54. 130 Miller, “Surrogate,” 141–43. 127

36

Chapter 1: Echoes of Supersessionism and the Figure of Hagar

primary attention to the way each text either maintains or departs from his assessment of the portrayal of Hagar and Sarah in Genesis.131 Altogether, Miller contends that the Genesis tradition is the only tradition that portrays Hagar positively and Sarah negatively, and, in contrast, all other Jewish traditions on Hagar and Sarah subvert this portrayal.132 Finally, Miller concludes his study by comparing Paul’s own portrayal of Hagar with the Jewish traditions on her. In Miller’s view, these traditions likely informed Paul’s own thinking on Hagar, as his reading aligns with them in several important ways.133 However, Miller contends that Paul sharply differs from these traditions in that he recasts the ethnic identities of the two women. As Miller puts it, “The traditional ‘Sarah’ consistently reflecting covenantal Judaism as over against the nations, is now embodied in the Galatians ‘Hagar’. Hagar, in Galatians, is the group of teachers who continue to demand Torah observance even for new gentile converts. They are the Sinai covenant.”134 Thus, in Miller’s view, Paul both maintains and subverts the varying Jewish traditions on Hagar. While Miller’s study helpfully demonstrates the potential payoff of more carefully considering Paul’s portrayal of Hagar in Gal 4:21–31 in relation to ancient Jewish traditions on her, it reflects a number of shortcomings that this study will seek to address. First, because the bulk of Miller’s study ultimately focuses on comparing the portrayal of Hagar with that of Sarah, he overlooks several other important ways Hagar is portrayed in Second Temple literature. Because of this, Miller’s assessment of Hagar in Genesis and Second Temple literature is largely one-dimensional and thus slightly distorted. Second, Miller’s choice and survey of Jewish texts is somewhat questionable. For instance, he considers Biblical Antiquities, which provides little insight on Hagar beyond what the Genesis narrative itself records, yet he neglects an important text such as Baruch. Furthermore, in relation to his survey of each text, it is surprising that Miller spends comparatively little time on Philo, when Philo provides the most robust depiction of Hagar in ancient Judaism. Finally, the primary shortcoming of Miller’s study is his assertion that Paul recasts the ethnic identity of Hagar in and for the allegory. Rather than make an exegetically grounded case for this claim, Miller merely asserts that this ethnic reversal is evident. Consequently, like most scholars, Miller’s reading 131

Miller, “Surrogate,” 143–48. Miller, “Surrogate,” 148. 133 Miller, “Surrogate,” 149–52, notes four ways Paul’s reading aligns with Jewish tradition. First, by his use of allegory, Paul is clearly aligned with the allegorical tradition found in Philo. Second, Paul follows Jewish tradition in negatively characterizing the action of Ishmael toward Isaac. Third, in keeping with his positive characterization of Sarah, Paul, like other Jews, removes her voice from the source of the command in Gal 4:30. Finally, Miller finds Paul’s overall portrayal of Hagar to be similar to that of Second Temple authors and their overtly negative characterization of her. 134 Miller, “Surrogate,” 153. 132

1.4 Scholarly Considerations of the Portrayal of Hagar

37

maintains the status quo: the allegory is ultimately understood to be a polemic against Jews, Jewish Christ-followers, and the Jewish law. As noted above, however, a central claim of this study is that the way ancient Jews appropriated Hagar in relation to her ethnic identity matters greatly for offering a more nuanced and thus alternative reading of Gal 4:21–31. Overall, then, while Miller’s essay has begun to fill an important gap in scholarship, more work is needed. 1.4.7 Final Observations Based on the above overview, four observations can be made in relation to the broader objectives of this study. First, scholars who have considered Gal 4:21–31 and Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar in relation to Second Temple Jewish literature have been largely one dimensional. Understandably, Philo has been given the most consideration, with only a few studies briefly, yet dismissively, considering Jubilees and Josephus. The only exception being the work of Miller who, to date, has offered the most wide-ranging analysis of Hagar in relation to Second Temple literature and Paul; yet, as noted above, even Miller’s study is not without shortcomings. Second, scholars often find little to no similarity between ancient Jewish literary traditions on Hagar and Paul. The few who do maintain a strong level of discontinuity in other key areas, which only serves to reinforce many of the supersessionistic conclusions that have long governed the interpretation of this text – namely, Hagar and slavery as representative of the Jewish law and thus Jewish identity and practice. Third, this discontinuity is most noticeable in the way scholars contend that Paul recasts Hagar’s ethnic identity. Yet, as suggested throughout this chapter, Hagar’s identity as a non-Jew is potentially significant for providing alternative categories from which to draw and thus consider and interpret afresh the various issues at play in this text. Finally, as noted in the previous section, the only exception to the approaches surveyed above is the work of Lloyd Gaston (§1.3.3) whose claims however require further substantiation before they can be more widely accepted. Altogether, then, it is apparent that scholars working in Gal 4:21–31 have not adequately considered the way ancient Jewish traditions on Hagar may provide a way forward on many of the difficult aspects of this text, and, moreover, the way these traditions might aid us in our endeavor to provide alternative solutions to the implicitly supersessionist conclusions that often accompany scholarly understandings of it. Therefore, it is the burden of this study to work towards filling this scholarly lacuna.

38

Chapter 1: Echoes of Supersessionism and the Figure of Hagar

1.5 Conclusion In John Gager’s controversial study on Paul, he states that in order to challenge any widely accepted view one cannot simply put forward fresh ideas, but it is just as important to explain how representative views came to be and, I would add, what those views were and are. 135 This chapter has served as a foundational building block upon which much of the rest of this study proceeds. It demonstrates that, despite scholarly efforts to the contrary, interpretations of a supersessionist sort continue to govern most readings of Gal 4:21–31. This is because even the more recent approaches to this text (i.e., the new consensus) are unwittingly beholden to and thus guided by a set of interpretive patterns and categories that undergirded many of the supersessionist claims and conclusions of former generations of interpreters. We found this to be particularly evident in the way scholars both past and present understand Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar in relation to the cluster of difficult questions that arise from the allegory as a whole. Thus, it was suggested that one of the reasons various forms of supersessionism continue to develop from this text is that scholars have not paid adequate attention to the way Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar can be read and understood within the various streams of ancient Jewish tradition on her. By and large, scholars who have given some consideration to these traditions do so only minimally and often without implication; or Paul is understood to so subvert these traditions that he recasts Hagar’s ethnic identity, which only serves to further entrench many of the supersessionistic interpretive elements that have long governed the interpretation of this text. Therefore, this study aims to provide a particularly different reading of Gal 4:21–31 by more carefully considering Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar within the context of Second Temple Judaism. However, before proceeding to Part Two of this study, it will be necessary to outline the comparative method to be employed, identify the Second Temple texts to be considered, and finally, establish certain presuppositions that govern the way this study will read and understand Paul as a first-century Jew and apostle to the nations.

135

Gager, Reinventing Paul, 15–16.

Chapter 2

Comparative Methodology and Reading Paul 2.1 Introduction In the previous chapter it was demonstrated that, by and large, scholarly understandings of Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar in Gal 4:21–31, and likewise the meaning of the allegory, continue to reveal traces of what could be construed as readings that betray a supersessionist and anti-Jewish stance on the part of the apostle. It was noted that much of this difficulty stems from the fact that scholars have largely neglected to consider Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar within the various streams of ancient Jewish tradition on her. Thus, the question was implicitly raised: by considering Paul’s portrayal of Hagar within the context of Second Temple Judaism, can his appropriation of her be re-envisioned? That is, can the various ancient Jewish traditions on Hagar help us better understand Paul’s own argumentative strategy in Gal 4:21–31?1 Or, to put it differently, by placing and examining Paul’s appropriation of Hagar squarely within the context of Second Temple Judaism, can a more nuanced and thus alternative reading of key aspects of this text be put forward? Therefore, Part Two of this study will be concerned with analyzing the portrayal of Hagar in the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period in order to compare the various depictions of her found therein; and then in Part Three, we will seek to read and understand Paul’s own appropriation of Hagar within the context of those traditions. In doing so, our aim is to provide a fresh reading of key aspects of Gal 4:21–31 and, particularly, Paul’s allegorical appropriation of Hagar: a reading that understands the allegory not as a polemic against Jews or Jewish Christ-followers, nor as a disparagement of the Jewish law and thus Jewish identity and practice, but as an allegory about the experience of gentiles in general and the Galatian gentiles in particular. With that said, the task of comparison can be fraught with difficulty due to the ease in which undue parallelism may arise. Therefore, in this chapter – and before turning to Part Two – I will outline the comparative approach to be followed throughout this study so as to guard against what Samuel Sandmel fa1 This does not mean that our question is limited to discerning only what ancient Judaism can tell us about Paul, but also, what Paul can tell us about ancient Judaism. On this, see David Lincicum, Paul and the Early Encounter with Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 16.

40

Chapter 2: Comparative Methodology and Reading Paul

mously labeled, “parallelomania.”2 Moreover, since the comparative investigation to be put forward and likewise the conclusions to be drawn from it in relation to Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar will be closely related to and informed by my own understanding of the figure of Paul, I will conclude this chapter by outlining the interpretive framework within which I read and understand Paul as a first-century Jew and apostle to the nations.

2.2 Comparative Methodology 2.2 Comparative Methodology

Any discussion of comparative methodology in religious studies is indebted to the pioneering work of Jonathan Z. Smith. One of Smith’s primary concerns was to challenge the concept of “uniqueness” as it pertains to the study of the early Christ-movement in comparison with ancient religions. According to Smith, the problem with classifying something (i.e., the early Christmovement) as “unique” is that it implies that the thing being analyzed is sui generis or “an assertion of a radical difference so absolute that it becomes ‘Wholly Other’.”3 Consequently, labeling something “unique” renders the act of comparison impossible: something “unique” is incomparable.4 In order to challenge this assumption, Smith argues for a fundamental reevaluation of the comparative enterprise. Whereas previous approaches assumed that for something to be comparable it implied borrowing and diffusion (i.e., genealogy and similarity), Smith argues that the enterprise of comparison must be carried out via the conceptual standpoint of difference: “comparison requires the acceptance of difference as the grounds of it being interesting.” 5 Second, whereas previous approaches assumed that any notion of comparison implied “genealogy” and thus borrowing and diffusion, Smith argues for understanding comparison by means of analogy: comparison is analogical reasoning.6 Thus, rather than assuming all comparison is grounded in dependency, borrowing, and consequent diffusion based on some level of genealogical rela2

See Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13. For further discussion, see Michael L. White and John T. Fitzgerald, “QUOD EST COMPARANDUM: The Problem of Parallels,” in Early Christianity and Classical Culture : Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, ed. John T. Fitzgerald, Thomas H. Olbricht, and Michael L. White, NovTSup CX (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013), 13–39. 3 Jonathan Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 38. 4 Smith, Drudgery Divine, 38. 5 Jonathan Z. Smith, To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual (Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 14; cf. also Smith, Drudgery Divine, 46–47. 6 Smith, Drudgery Divine, 47. On analogical reasoning, see also Ryan S. Schellenberg, Rethinking Paul’s Rhetorical Education: Comparative Rhetoric and 2 Corinthians 10–13, ECL 10 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013), 198.

2.2 Comparative Methodology

41

tionship inherent in the texts being compared, Smith contends that neither similarity nor difference is a “given,” but rather, the very task of comparison is analogical.7 Similarity and difference arise, then, not out of the texts themselves but in the mind of the one doing the comparative investigation.8 In this way, comparison is the result of “mental operations” within the mind of the scholar; it is a hermeneutical devise used to bring greater understanding to a particular ancient text (i.e., phenomenon) by placing it within a broad spectrum of other ancient texts (i.e., phenomena).9 As Smith describes it: Comparison does not necessarily tell us how things ‘are’ … like models and metaphors, comparison tells us how things might be conceived, how they might be ‘redescribed’ … A comparison is a disciplined exaggeration in the service of knowledge. It lifts out and strongly marks certain features within difference as being of possible intellectual significance, expressed in the rhetoric of their being ‘like’ in some stipulated fashion. 10

In short, the task of comparison is not to assume any direct literary dependence between the texts being compared; but rather, as a heuristic tool, it is a hermeneutical device used by the interpreter to offer a more complete description of the text(s) under investigation, while seeking to provide plausible solutions to “intellectual problems.”11 Similar to Smith, the rationale for comparing the various portrayals of Hagar in Second Temple Jewish literature, and then situating Paul within the context of those traditions, is to “‘re-vision’ phenomena as our data so as to solve our intellectual problems.”12 In other words, by considering Paul’s appropriation of Hagar within the context of Second Temple Judaism, we are thus placing Paul squarely with the various streams of ancient Jewish tradition on Hagar so as to shed fresh light on some of the “intellectual problems” associated with Gal 4:21–31. Therefore, Part Two of this study will focus largely on the task of employing the comparative method as described above. While not assuming any direct literary dependence among the texts themselves, our analysis will focus on highlighting the way various ancient Jewish authors or texts appropriated the 7

Smith, Drudgery Divine, 46. According to Smith, Drudgery Divine, 46, the previous caution with the comparative method was that it “requires that the enterprise of comparison focus on questions of borrowing and diffusion,” which would hinder the assumed pristine autochthony of early Christianity. 8 Schellenberg, Rhetorical Education, 198. 9 Smith, Drudgery Divine, 51; see also Ronald Charles, Paul and the Politics of Diaspora, Paul in Critical Contexts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 189–90; Nicholas Ellis, The Hermeneutics of Divine Testing: Cosmic Trials and Biblical Interpretation in the Epistle of James and Other Jewish Literature, WUNT II 396 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 31, 39. 10 Smith, Drudgery Divine, 52. 11 Smith, Drudgery Divine, 39. 12 Smith, Drudgery Divine, 39.

42

Chapter 2: Comparative Methodology and Reading Paul

figure of Hagar in their own way and for their own rhetorical purposes. To that end, as Troels Engberg-Pedersen has noted, proper comparison requires that the interpreter give equal attention and interest to the sources being compared. He writes, “[t]his approach provides the only way of attaining a genuine understanding of each item on its own premises, and only on that basis will a comparison between them be genuinely fruitful; then an observer can see both similarities and differences, as it were, at the same level.”13 In other words, only after each text is considered in its own right and on its own terms will we be able to identify the similarities and differences between the various authors and texts so as to offer a proper evaluation in the service of comparison.14 Finally, in Part Three, we will work to situate and consider Paul’s own appropriation of Hagar within the context of such traditions. With that said, a few points of qualification are in order. First, whereas Smith rightly placed much of his emphasis on the importance of recognizing that all comparison is meant to be understood as analogical, it will be our working presupposition that both Second Temple texts and Paul shared a similar – albeit not the same – foundation as their point of departure for their respective awareness and appropriation of the figure of Hagar, namely, the Abraham narrative of Genesis.15 Hence, while our comparative endeavor will assume no explicit genealogical relationship between the various Second Temple texts themselves, and likewise no explicit genealogical relationship between the Second Temple texts and Paul, this study will assume that in their respective appropriations of the figure of Hagar both the Jewish texts and Paul were working from a similar foundation as their point of departure.16 Second, whereas some comparative studies emphasize either difference or similarity over against the other, the approach offered in this study will seek to

13

Troels Engberg-Pedersen, “Introduction: Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide,” in Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 2. Emphasis my own. 14 For a similar approach, see Ellis, The Hermeneutics, 31–43. 15 Here, the distinction between similar and same is crucial. It is widely recognized that there was no set scriptural “text” from which all first-century Jews read. Moreover, the certainty that most traditions were passed down by means of oral tradition complicates the matter further. Yet, due to the preservation of texts, it can be assumed that there was at least some level of uniformity to the Torah and a similar – but not the same – tradition from which these authors worked. For a brief discussion, see Eugene Ulrich, “The Jewish Scriptures: Texts, Versions, Canons,” in Early Judaism: A Comprehensive Overview, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 122–50. 16 On the significance of this, Matthew V. Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 178, rightly points out, “the scriptures are one of a very few things that any ancient Jews shared in common with all other ancient Jews.”

2.3 Comparative Literature: A Word on Sources

43

highlight both difference and similarity.17 As Ronald Charles puts it, “Comparisons, thus, are mental exercises engaged in by the researcher to find out what the similarities and differences are.”18 Being that the comparative task is a conceptual process carried out by the interpreter, it is possible to evaluate both difference and similarity without assuming any sort of borrowing among the various sources being investigated.19 Moreover, similarities or points of correspondence may in fact prove to be just as insightful as locating difference. Thus, recognizing both similarity and difference on equal ground will function as a necessary hermeneutical tool when comparing the various appropriations of Hagar in ancient Jewish literature, and then considering Paul’s own appropriation of Hagar in relation to those traditions. Before we can proceed, however, two additional questions require further attention. First, what Second Temple Jewish sources will be utilized for our comparative endeavor? And second, how is Paul to be understood for our comparative purposes in general and in relation to the comparative material in particular? To these we now turn.

2.3 Comparative Literature: A Word on Sources 2.3 Comparative Literature: A Word on Sources

Not surprisingly, the figure of Hagar is explicitly mentioned in only a limited number of extant Jewish sources from the Second Temple period. 20 As a result, the selection of sources to be analyzed appears to be straightforward. With that said, not every mention of Hagar provides valuable insight, and thus it will be necessary that we limit our comparative investigation to include only those sources deemed most significant. Therefore, for the purpose of this study we will analyze a) Jewish texts that offer a clearly developed portrayal of Hagar, which, in one way or another, modifies or even departs from her depiction when compared with that of Genesis (i.e., Jubilees, Philo, and Josephus); and b) 17 For a similar approach, see Ellis, The Hermeneutics, 39–40; Charles, Paul and the Politics, 89–95; Schellenberg, Rhetorical Education, 98. On prioritizing similarity, see Engberg-Pedersen, “Introduction,” 2; on prioritizing difference, see Bradley J. Bitner, Paul’s Political Strategy in 1 Corinthians 1:1–4:6: Constitution and Covenant, SNTS 163 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 110. 18 Charles, Paul and the Politics, 90. Emphasis my own. 19 Ellis, The Hermeneutics, 39; cf. also James Constantine Hanges, “‘Severing the Joints and the Marrow’: The Double-Edged Sword of Comparison,” RT 20 (2013): 333. 20 Considerable debate surrounds the exact dating of the Second Temple period, see John J. Collins, “Early Judaism in Modern Scholarship,” in Early Judaism: A Comprehensive Overview, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 1–29. While establishing an exact date is beyond the scope of this project, for the purpose of this study I will limit my investigation to sources believed to be written between 400 BCE and the end of the first century CE.

44

Chapter 2: Comparative Methodology and Reading Paul

Jewish sources that, although not developing the former – a clearly developed portrayal – employ the latter, namely, modifying or departing from the Genesis material (i.e., the Genesis Apocryphon and Baruch). In this way, those texts that mention Hagar but for one reason or another do not offer their own distinctive construal of her will not be considered. For instance, the Qumran text 4Q254 is a fragment that is believed to preserve a reference to Hagar. However, the fragment is so small that it is impossible to know with any certainty whether the word ‫ הגר‬is present and, if so, what is being said about her. Of more interest might be the Qumran text 4Q365. However, this text simply records the episode of Hagar’s son laughing and their subsequent expulsion (‫)גרש‬. As will become clear in the next chapter, there is nothing noteworthy about this episode that would warrant significant comment. Likewise, LAB 8.1 mentions Hagar, but only in passing, and there is nothing of note to suggest any significant modification of the Genesis material. Rather, offering an overview of Abraham’s life, the author simply reiterates that Hagar was “his [Abraham’s] maid,” and she “bore him Ishmael.” Altogether, then, the selection of texts will be limited to those that clearly mention Hagar and likewise depict her in a way that is either slightly or significantly modified when compared with that of the Genesis narrative. These texts include: the Genesis Apocryphon, Jubilees, Baruch, Philo’s Exegetical Works, and Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities.

2.4 Reading Paul: More New or More Jew? 2.4 Reading Paul: More New or More Jew?

Having established a framework for the comparative approach to be employed and the sources to be analyzed, this chapter will conclude with an outline of the reading of Paul that will be followed herein. By and large, New Testament scholarship has come a long way in its endeavor to rehabilitate Paul as a first-century Jew and thus understand him, on some level, within the context of pluriform first-century Judaism. However, until recently, this is as far as scholars were willing to go. For instance, while many have attempted to recast Paul as a first-century Jew, this re-visioning has been employed only insofar as Paul is the one who considered himself to be Jewish.21 When Paul is considered in relation to first-century Judaism, however, the figure that subsequently emerges is a novel Jewish figure who largely forsakes his Jewish identity.22 As such, Paul is not understood to be Jewish in any real sense of the term; rather, for many scholars, he is instead variously described as a

21

E.g., Rom 9:3; 11:1; Phil 3:3–6; cf. 1 Cor 9:20–22; Gal 2:15. See e.g., James D. G. Dunn, “Who Did Paul Think He Was? A Study of Jewish Christian-Identity,” NTS 45 45 (1999): 174–93; and the concerns of Nanos, Reading Paul within Judaism, 3–10. 22

2.4 Reading Paul: More New or More Jew?

45

“radical,” an “anomalous,” or an “idiosyncratic” Jew. 23 In other words, Paul is a “Jew,” but he is not Jewish; thus, he is radically unlike any other firstcentury Jew.24 Todd Penner and Davina Lopez have aptly summarized many of the dominant assumptions that accompany this approach: [Paul] is an ethnic foreigner in a dominant colonial society who manages to adapt and to assimilate to the larger culture, unlike the other Jews in his midst, perhaps even some “Jewish Christians,” who refuse to “get along” and are, at the end of the day, “stubborn.” Leaving such stubbornness behind, Paul, and “Gentile Christians” who are naturally the object of his so-called mission, evolve as a community with the seamless ties to their larger milieu. As the “fittest” in this environment, they ultimately are the ones who survive.25

In terms of comparison, then, what has emerged from this approach is a firstcentury Jewish figure who is to be labeled as nothing if not “unique.” In this way, the task of considering Paul in relation to Second Temple Judaism has often disregarded Smith’s terminological corrective. Rather, Paul is presented as, at his core, so fundamentally different that he is “wholly other.” While this has not rendered Paul entirely incomparable, more often than not he is only comparable insofar as he embodies a radical “discourse of difference.” 26 The similarities, if noted at all, often function strictly as backdrop material for his own unique eschatological or apocalyptic reappraisal of his ancestral

23 See Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994); John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 381–97; Michael F. Bird, An Anomalous Jew: Paul among Jews, Greeks, and Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016); Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 2nd ed. (London; New York: Bloomsbury, 2016), 1. 24 See the assessment of Jörg Frey, “Paul’s Jewish Identity,” in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World = Jüdische Identität in der griechisch-römischen Welt, ed. Jörg Frey, Daniel R. Schwartz, and Stephanie Gripentrog, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 72 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 285–322. According to Neil Elliott, “The Question of Politics: Paul as a Diaspora Jew under Roman Rule,” in Paul within Judaism: Restoring the FirstCentury Context to the Apostle, ed. Mark D. Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), 233, the reason for this is that for many, Paul “appears to float free of any particular ethnic heritage precisely to the extent that his identity as a Jew has been interrupted by the appearance of Christ.” 25 Todd Penner and Davina C. Lopez, “Homelessness as a Way Home,” in Holy Land as Homeland? Models for Constructing the Historical Landscape of Jesus, ed. Keith W. Whitelam, The SWBA, Second Series 7 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2011), 168. 26 A good example of this is found John Barclay’s essay entitled, “Paul and Philo on Circumcision,” in Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 78–79. For Barclay, Paul is a Jew, but one who has so “radically redefined and reprioritized his inherited tradition” that his view of circumcision “fitted no recognizable mould and matched no contemporary form of Judaism.”

46

Chapter 2: Comparative Methodology and Reading Paul

faith.27 Therefore, this approach has certainly limited the way scholars have been willing to conceptualize Paul’s Jewish context as continuing to inform his way of life, worldview, and the writings he produced. More recently, however, scholars have sought to avoid labels such as “anomalous” or “idiosyncratic” by taking Paul’s Jewishness a step further. 28 The goal of this approach has been to read and understand Paul as a Jew and thus Jewish: one who operated within and continued to be informed by the cultural milieu and symbolic universe of pluriform first-century Judaism. However, this approach does not assume that one must prove that Paul was exactly like every other Jew or that he was not an original thinker: to do so would be to reconstruct an inaccurate portrait of first-century Judaism as monolithic. In fact, as Gabriele Boccaccini has noted, if the label “original thinker” places one outside of Judaism, then “no original thinker of Second Temple Judaism should be considered ‘Jewish’.”29 Rather, Paul the Jew was a Jewish thinker, and much like Philo and Josephus he remained so even in his originality. Therefore, if Paul is to be rightly understood in this way – as one first-century Jewish thinker among others and thus not so unique that he is incomparable – and if we are to consider Paul’s appropriation of Hagar more carefully within the context of Second Temple Judaism, it will be necessary to outline the basic presuppositions that establish the interpretive framework within which we will read and understand Paul the Jew.

Excursus on Ἰουδαῖος and Ἰουδαϊσμός Excursus on Ἰουδαῖος and Ἰουδαϊσμός

Currently, there is something of an impasse among New Testament scholars regarding the proper translation of Ἰουδαῖος and Ἰουδαϊσμός in relation to the way these terms would have been understood in a first-century context. Thus, at the risk of oversimplifying the debate, something needs to be said about the way I have and will continue to employ these terms.

27

See e.g., Martyn, Theological Issues; Wright, Faithfulness of God. In response, see the broader concerns of Grant Macaskill, “History, Providence and the Apocalyptic Paul,” SJT 70 (2017): 409–26. 28 See now Mark D. Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm, eds., Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context of the Apostle (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015); Gabriele Boccaccini and Carlos A. Segovia, eds., Paul the Jew: Rereading the Apostle as a Figure of Second Temple Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016). 29 Gabriele Boccaccini, “Introduction: The Three Paths to Salvation of Paul the Jew,” in Paul the Jew: Rereading the Apostle as a Figure of Second Temple Judaism, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini and Carlos A. Segovia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016), 3.

Excursus on Ἰουδαῖος and Ἰουδαϊσμός

47

Traditionally, Ἰουδαῖος and Ἰουδαϊσμός have been translated “Jew” and “Judaism” respectively.30 More recently, Steve Mason and Philip Esler have challenged this terminology based on the inherent “religious” connotations associated with it.31 In their place, Mason and Esler contend that the more ethnically appropriate terms are “Judean” and “Judeanness” due to the way ancient ethnic identity was constructed according to a particular ethnicity’s inherent geographical relatedness.32 While there is much to commend the sensitivities of Mason and Esler, I find their terminological corrective to be ultimately misleading, as, in an attempt to highlight the geographical dimension of ethnicity, they appear to downplay that aspect of Ἰουδαῖος and Ἰουδαϊσμός that is part and parcel of the group’s cultic life. As others have noted, these terms imply both ethnicity and cult.33 Thus, rather than taking an either/or approach, Shaye Cohen, Daniel Schwartz, and John Collins are likely correct in their assessment that translating Ἰουδαῖος and Ἰουδαϊσμός as “Jew” and “Judaism” better conveys the concept of – for lack of a better term – an ethno-religion, as central to the ethnic identity of first-century Jews were particular patterns of cultic behavior informed by the Torah.34 These patterns of cultic behavior, while not “religion” in the modern sense of the term, were important and formative elements of the group’s ethnic identity.35 In addition, what may further strengthen the claim that Ἰουδαῖος and Ἰουδαϊσμός are better translated as “Jew” and “Judaism” respectively is the fact that central to the formation of an identity called Ἰουδαῖος in antiquity was the development of a cluster of diverse texts scholars commonly refer to as Second 30 See e.g., Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 69–106. 31 See Steve Mason, “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” JSJ 38 (2007): 457–512; Philip F. Esler, “Judean Ethnic Identity in Josephus’ Against Apion,” in A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Seán Freyne, ed. Zuleika Rodgers, Margaret Daly-Denton, and Anne Fitzpatrick, JSJSup 132 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 73–91. 32 For a brief yet helpful discussion on the category of ethnicity, see John J. Collins, The Invention of Judaism: Torah and Jewish Identity from Deuteronomy to Paul (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2017), 4–8; Kathy Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures: Theologizing in the Space-Between, LNTS 456 (London; New York: Bloomsbury, 2013), 47–50. 33 Collins, The Invention, 18. 34 On this point, see the recent work of Dieter Sänger, “Ἰουδαϊσμός – ἰουδαΐζειν – ἰοδαϊκῶς: Sprachliche und semantische Überlegungen im Blick auf Gal 1,13f. und 2,14,” ZNW 108 (2017): 150–85; cf. also Daniel R. Schwartz, “‘Judaean’ or ‘Jew’? How Should We Translate Ioudaios in Josephus?,” in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World, ed. Jörg Frey, Daniel R. Schwartz, and Stephanie Gripentrog, AGJU 71 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 17; Collins, The Invention, 18–19. For this view, as well as a comprehensive survey of the entire debate, see David M. Miller, “Ethnicity, Religion and the Meaning of Ioudaios in Ancient ‘Judaism’,” CBR 12 (2014): 216–65. 35 Collins, The Invention, 19.

48

Chapter 2: Comparative Methodology and Reading Paul

Temple Jewish literature. These texts were largely written to inform, define, and even correct certain views of Jewish ethnic identity in relation to the maintenance and development of particular and even contested patterns of cultic behavior.36 As such, these texts were formative of an ethno-religion. Thus, they are best described, not as “Judean” texts, but as “Jewish” texts: texts that both formed and informed, not simply “Judeanness” – i.e., strictly an ethnic identity – but the complex and pluriform symbolic universe of an ancient ethno-religion, what we are calling Judaism. Altogether, then, for the purpose of this study, the terms “Jew/Jewish” for Ἰουδαῖος and “Judaism” for Ἰουδαϊσμός will continue to be employed.37

2.5 A Renewed Perspective on Paul: A Proposal 2.5 A Renewed Perspective on Paul: A Proposal

As New Testament scholarship has rightfully distanced itself from the so-called objectivity that dominated the historical critical method, the need to identify presuppositions and state them outright has become increasingly recognized among New Testament scholars working in a post-modern era.38 Moreover, in what Joel Willitts has deemed a current “non-consensus” in Pauline studies, the need for one to be straightforward about the particular Pauline interpretive school to which they belong is vital to their overall investigation.39 Thus, in what follows, I will outline the basic presuppositions that establish the interpretive framework within which this study will read and understand Paul. The approach to Paul taken in this study may be categorized under the label “The Renewed Perspective on Paul” (hereafter: RePP).40 This approach has 36 For an example of how these texts were employed to form Jewish identity, see Collins, The Invention. 37 On the problem Ἰουδαϊσμός creates for this discussion, see the concerns of Matthew V. Novenson, “Paul’s Former Occupation in Ioudaismos,” in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter, ed. Mark W. Elliott et al. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 24–39, esp. 35–37, who argues that this term was reflective, not of the maintenance of ancestral customs in general, but of “a sectarian program for defense and promotion of those customs.” 38 See Andrew D. Clarke, A Pauline Theology of Church Leadership, LNTS 362 (London; New York: Bloomsbury, 2008), 18–19. 39 Joel Willitts, “Paul and Matthew: A Descriptive Approach from a Post-New Perspective Interpretive Framework,” in Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences, ed. Michael F. Bird, LNTS 411 (London; New York: Bloomsbury, 2011), 63– 66. 40 This approach is found in the work of, e.g., J. Brian Tucker, Remain in Your Calling: Paul and the Continuation of Social Identities in 1 Corinthians (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011); Willitts, “Paul and Matthew”; Joel Willitts, “The Re-Newed Perspective: PostSupersessionist Approach to the New Testament,” HS 57 (2016): 377–80; Justin K. Hardin, “Equality in the Church,” in Introduction to Messianic Judaism: Its Ecclesial Context

2.5 A Renewed Perspective on Paul: A Proposal

49

been largely developed out of a number of the foundational presuppositions of the so-called “Paul within Judaism” Schule (hereafter: PwJ).41 However, where RePP may distance itself from PwJ is in the area of, specifically, confessionalism. Therefore, below I will highlight the most significant points of concurrence and a point of possible disagreement between these two interpretive schools. 2.5.1 Areas of Concurrence with PwJ The first and most important area of concurrence is the belief that Paul should be read and understood as one who remained in and was thus informed by the Judaism of his day.42 This view contains a number of interrelated interpretive assumptions. First, Paul remained a Torah-observant Jew.43 Second, Paul reand Biblical Foundations, ed. David Rudolph and Joel Willitts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 224–34; David J. Rudolph, A Jew to the Jews: Jewish Contours of Pauline Flexibility in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2016). I am thankful to J. Brian Tucker for pointing me to the label “Renewed Perspective.” 41 The so-called “Paul within Judaism” perspective is largely indebted to the pioneering work of Mark Nanos, see Reading Paul within Judaism. It is largely followed by Magnus Zetterholm, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation Between Judaism and Christianity (London; New York: Routledge, 2003); Neil Elliott, Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006); Caroline Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); William S. Campbell, Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2008); Anders Runesson, “Inventing Christian Identity: Paul, Ignatius, and Theodosius I,” in Exploring Christian Identity, ed. Bengt Holmberg, WUNT 226 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 59–92; Ehrensperger, Paul; Thiessen, Paul; Paula Fredriksen, Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2017). However, as Tucker, Remain in Your Calling, 8, importantly notes, this is not a homogeneous movement but involves significant and even competing interpretive trajectories. Finally, it is important to distinguish PwJ from that of the so-called “Radical Perspective,” which is found in the work of, e.g., Gaston, Paul and the Torah; Gager, Reinventing Paul; Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle (New York: HarperOne, 2009). 42 Similarly, Tucker, Remain in Your Calling, 9. This view differs, for example, from New Perspective scholars, such as that of James Dunn and N.T. Wright. 43 The exact nature of what Torah observance meant for Paul is beyond the scope of this study. As Tucker, Remain in Your Calling, 91–92, rightly points out, Paul may have adopted a flexible halakha, but it was a halakha nonetheless. And, contrary to the representative view, Peter J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 220, rightly notes that following Christ and observing Torah should not be automatically assumed to be contradictory for Jewish Christ-followers. See also Paula Fredriksen, “Why Should a ‘Law-Free’ Mission Mean a ‘Law-Free’ Apostle?,” JBL 134 (2015): 637–50; Matthew V. Novenson, “The Legalism of the Apostle Paul” (paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, 18 November 2018).

50

Chapter 2: Comparative Methodology and Reading Paul

mained within Judaism as a member of a newly developing Jewish faction that, for heuristic purposes, might be labelled “Messianic” or “Apostolic Judaism.”44 And thus, third, Paul was not attempting to create a new movement outside the bounds of Judaism; but rather, his ministry was largely carried out to gentiles within a diaspora Jewish institutional context, namely, the synagogue.45 In direct relation to the first, the second area of concurrence is the view that “there is in Paul no explicit critique of the Law or Israel.”46 This leads to three further and interrelated assumptions. First, Paul does not discourage his Jewish brethren from maintaining Torah observance, nor does he discourage his Jewish Christ-following brethren. However, he rejects most forms of Torah observance for Christ-following gentiles.47 Second, Paul does not equate Israel with a group made up of both Jew and gentile (e.g. Gal 6:16, τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ).48 Rather, Jew and gentile remain complementary yet distinct groups within this newly formed Christ-movement otherwise called Apostolic Judaism.49 Thus, and third, Paul did not advocate for a resolute rejection of any of what James Dunn has labeled “the four pillars of Second Temple Judaism.”50 Rather, Paul upheld the belief that God – i.e., the God of Israel – is the only god worthy of worship and devotion (e.g., Gal 3:20); that God chose Israel as his special people by means of the eternal covenant God had established with them (e.g., Rom 9:4); that the proper response to God and his covenant faithfulness was to be carried out for Paul and his Jewish brethren by maintaining their divinely inscribed ethnic identity via the observance of Torah (1 Cor 7:17–24); and that the physical temple in Jerusalem remained, on some level, sacred space for the Jewish people. 44

Runesson, “Question of Terminology,” 67; cf. also Willitts, “Paul and Matthew,” 66–

67. 45

See Willitts, “Paul and Matthew,” 67. On this question more broadly, see Ralph J. Korner, “Ekklēsia as a Jewish Synagogue Term: Some Implications for Paul’s SocioReligious Location,” JJMJS 2 (2015): 53–78. 46 Tucker, Remain in Your Calling, 8, 89–114. Emphasis my own. This, however, does not mean that Paul could not be critical of first-century Judaism. Rather, the fact that Paul could be critical of Judaism is evidence that he was in fact like other first-century Jews and thus reinforces the perspective that Paul remained Jewish; see e.g., Boccaccini, “The Three Paths,” 4. 47 This claim means that Paul’s message to the gentiles was entirely “law-free”; see Markus Bockmuehl, Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003); Fredriksen, “Law-Free.” Cf. also fn. 43 above. 48 Rightly Susan G. Eastman, “Israel and the Mercy of God: A Re-Reading of Galatians 6.16 and Romans 9–11,” NTS 56 (2010): 367–95. 49 E.g., Campbell, Paul and the Creation, 49. 50 For a complete discussion of these four pillars, see James D. G. Dunn, The Parting of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity, 2nd ed. (London: SCM, 2006), 24–48.

2.5 A Renewed Perspective on Paul: A Proposal

51

The final area of concurrence is the belief that Paul’s letters are addressed primarily to a non-Jewish audience. As Willitts states, while the Pauline communities were ethnically mixed, “he [Paul] wrote letters to deal with historically contingent situations pertaining primarily to ethnically non-Jewish believers in Jesus.”51 2.5.2 Area of Disagreement with PwJ The one area of possible disagreement or uncertainty between RePP and PwJ is as follows: the question of Paul’s understanding of the significance of Jesus Christ for the Jewish people. A few scholars within PwJ appear to suggest that Pauline soteriology drew a distinction between the mode of salvation for Jew and gentile. That is, for Paul, it is argued, the Jewish people are saved through Israel’s covenant(s) and the gentile world is saved through Jesus Christ. 52 However, I remain unconvinced that this Sonderweg reading is the best way to understand Paul, and thus my contention for an explicitly renewed approach. In my view, Paul was convinced that the eschatological event of the death and resurrection of Israel’s Messiah, Jesus Christ, stood in direct continuity with what he believed to be the restorative action of Israel’s God throughout history.53 That is, Paul became convinced that the Christ-event was the beginning of the final action of Israel’s restoration and thus the restoration of the cosmos. Therefore, Paul believed that both Jew and gentile alike needed to recognize the eschatological restorative action of Israel’s God. For the Jewish people specifically, the recognition and acceptance of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Israel’s Messiah, did not require the rejection of their divinely inscribed ethnic identity and distinctiveness. Rather, their recognition and acceptance of Jesus as Messiah would serve as the utmost act of covenant faithfulness.54 Thus, even in his ministry to the nations, Paul maintained a strong concern for his Jewish brethren: that for them to remain faithful covenant members, it was compulsory upon them to respond positively to God’s most recent and definitive salvific and restorative action in Jesus Christ.55 In this way, Paul’s Jewish

51

Willitts, “Paul and Matthew,” 69. Emphasis original. This view is traditionally called the Sonderweg approach, which appears to be the conclusion of, e.g., Johnson Hodge, If Sons, 6–9. However, it is important to keep in mind that this approach is not homogenous among proponents of PwJ; see e.g., Thiessen, Paul, 120. For a critique of the Sonderweg reading, see Terence L. Donaldson, “Jewish Christianity, Israel’s Stumbling and the Sonderweg Reading of Paul,” JSNT 29 (2006): 27–54. 53 Campbell, Paul and the Creation, 11; Nanos, Reading Paul within Judaism, 20–40. 54 See Rom 10:4. On Paul’s use of χριστός as Messiah language, see Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs. 55 Although Paul was called to gentiles, wrapped up in this calling was a concern for his Jewish brethren; cf. Gal 2:8; Rom 9:3; 11:13–14. On Rom 9–11 more broadly, see Matthew V. Novenson, “The Self-Styled Jew of Romans 2 and the Actual Jews of Romans 9– 52

52

Chapter 2: Comparative Methodology and Reading Paul

framework – what might be called Apostolic Judaism – was merely one of many forms of Judaism that could reasonably be encountered in the first century. 2.5.3 Final Remarks: Reading Paul and Reading Galatians In relation to the reading of Paul that will be put forward in this study, three points emerge. First, Paul was a Torah-observant Jew who remained in and was thus informed by the symbolic universe of the Judaism of the first century. And along with a number of other first-century Jews, Paul was a member of a Christ-following Jewish voluntary association or reform movement we are calling Apostolic Judaism.56 And in view of the Christ-event, Paul was convinced that God had acted on Israel’s behalf in Israel’s Messiah, Jesus Christ, and that this was the first radical movement of God’s final act of cosmic restoration, first for the Jew and then for the nations. Therefore, Paul sought the unification of Jew and gentile in Christ while maintaining the diversity found therein. Second, related to questions of supersessionism as raised in Chapter 1, a number of significant points come to the fore that are foundational to my own understanding of Paul’s theologizing in general.57 First, God’s covenant relationship, established initially with the patriarch Abraham and then extended to the nation of Israel at Sinai, remained for Paul a present and future reality. Second, Paul was convinced that Israel maintained a distinctive role and priority in God’s redemptive and thus restorative activity in and through Jesus Christ and likewise for the nations. Third, central to any notion of ecclesiology in Paul’s thinking was the continuing and abiding distinction between Jew and gentile in Christ: Jews remain Jews, gentiles remain gentiles, and Israel’s God is the God of both. As George Howard puts it, “The gospel as Paul preached it demanded a continued ethnic distinctiveness between Jews and Gentiles in order that Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, could be conceptualized by both Jews and Gentiles as the God of all nations.”58 Finally, central to Paul’s vision was that the ethnic distinctiveness of the Jewish people was maintained through

11,” in The So-Called Jew in Paul’s Letter to the Romans, ed. Rafael Rodríguez and Matthew Thiessen (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016), 159–60. 56 On the early Christ movement as an association, see now John S. Kloppenborg, Christ’s Associations: Connecting and Belonging in the Ancient City (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2019). 57 The following points are a summary of Willitts’s description of what is called “Postsupersessionism” in “Conclusion,” in Introduction to Messianic Judaism: Its Ecclesial Context and Biblical Foundations, ed. David Rudolph and Joel Willitts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 317; see also Willitts, “Jewish Fish.” 58 George Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia: A Study in Early Christian Theology, SNTS 35 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 66.

2.6 Conclusion

53

the observance of Torah as an expression of covenant faithfulness in response to the restorative activity of Israel’s God in the person of Jesus Christ. 59 Lastly, in view of the above and in relation to Galatians particularly, the primary approach taken in this study is one that seeks to take Paul’s Jewish identity seriously, and thus the coherent and contingent theologizing that emerges from his reading of Israel’s Scriptures as it relates to the specific and contextually-bound problems that arose within his Galatian ἐκκλησίαι.60 That is, Paul, a Jew and apostle to the nations, wrote Galatians within a specific social-historical context, to a particular group that lived within a unique social and cultural milieu, in order to address particular concerns and issues that arose among his Galatian ἐκκλησίαι.61 Thus, Paul, a first-century Christ-following Jew who remained in the symbolic universe of pluriform first-century Judaism, interpreted Israel’s Scriptures accordingly, even as he applied these texts to his gentile audience. In this way, Paul should not be accused of practicing “hermeneutical jujitsu,” as has come to be the unfortunate conclusion of many scholars in relation to Paul’s portrayal of Hagar in Gal 4:21–31.62 Rather, reading and understanding Paul as a first-century Jew and considering his appropriation of Hagar more squarely within the context of Second Temple Judaism may prove to offer a way forward on many of the interpretive problems that have long plagued the interpretation of this text.

2.6 Conclusion 2.6 Conclusion

In his discussion on the use of parallels in the service of comparison, Abraham Malherbe laments the fact that, within the field of New Testament studies, the approach taken to comparison has remained largely superficial, if not altogether uncritical.63 That is to say, scholars, although frequently citing parallels, do not allow their work to be influenced by them to any significant degree. Hence, in relation to Pauline studies, Malherbe cautions, “The problems associated with hunting for parallels is accentuated when we speak of someone, say Paul, and 59 See also Willitts, “Re-Newed Perspective.” Thus, one of the prevailing difficulties with notions of supersessionism in general is that they inherently imply a form of ethnic supersessionism by now allowing for the necessary range of categories in relation to the maintenance of identities. On this, see Willitts, “Jewish Fish.” 60 Similarly, see J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 11–36. 61 On this approach in general, see Campbell, Paul and the Creation, 10–11. 62 As argued by Hays, Echoes, 112. See Chapter 5 for my critique. 63 Abraham J. Malherbe, “Hellenistic Moralists and the New Testament,” in Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays, 1959–2012, by Abraham J. Malherbe, ed. Carl R. Holladay et al., vol. 2 of NovTSup 150 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 685.

54

Chapter 2: Comparative Methodology and Reading Paul

his ‘background’. The next step is then to think of Paul as [merely] taking things from his ‘background’ and adapting them to his own circumstances and purposes.”64 In other words, the custom in Pauline studies has been to begin with a survey of ancient Jewish sources, which only serve as “background” information for the subsequent study of Paul and his explicitly “Christian” reappropriation of those traditions.65 Yet, as Malherbe rightly argues, it might in fact be more fruitful to place Paul squarely within the context of those traditions. In other words, “we should view Paul as one among them, as a coplayer within a shared ‘context’.”66 For the purposes of this study, then, we will seek to read and understand Paul, not as a later “Christian” interpreter of Scripture – one who only pulls from his Jewish background when it serves his argumentative purposes – but rather, as a first-century Jew: one of many Jewish voices within the streams of pluriform first-century Judaism, but a Jewish voice, nonetheless. Moreover, if Paul is to be read and understood as a first-century Jew, we should not assume that his allegorical appropriation of Hagar does not align, in many respects, with that of other ancient Jewish portrayals of her. In fact, as this chapter has suggested, by considering Paul’s appropriation of Hagar within the context of Second Temple Judaism, we are intentionally placing Paul within that stream of ancient Jewish thought, within the symbolic universe of pluriform first-century Judaism. Thus, although Paul is an “original” thinker, it should not be assumed ipso facto that his appropriation of Hagar is incommensurable with ancient Jewish thought; rather, it is the task of this study to demonstrate the way Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar in Gal 4:21–31 can be read and understood to stand in continuity with ancient Jewish traditions on her. Altogether, then, and to reiterate a point made above, the rationale for comparing the portrayal of Hagar in Second Temple Judaism, and then considering Paul’s own portrayal of Hagar within the context of those traditions, is to “revision” phenomena as our data in order to provide an alternative approach to many of the supersessionistic conclusions that continue to govern the interpretation of Gal 4:21–31.67 However, in order to accomplish this task, we must first establish the way Hagar is portrayed in both the Jewish Scriptures and ancient Jewish literature. It is to this task that we now turn.

64

Malherbe, “Hellenistic Moralists,” 712. Note the similar caution offered by Lincicum, Early Encounter, 15. 66 Cited by Engberg-Pedersen, “Introduction,” 1. 67 See Chapter 1. 65

Part Two The Portrayal of Hagar in Ancient Judaism

Chapter 3

The Portrayal of Hagar in the LXX of Genesis 3.1 Introduction In the previous chapter it was noted that for ancient Jews in general, and thus for an ancient Jew such as Paul, there would have been a common point of departure for their respective appropriations of the figure of Hagar: namely, the Abraham narrative of Genesis as found in the Jewish sacred text of the Torah. The purpose of this chapter, then, is to examine the portrayal of Hagar in Genesis in order to lay some comparative groundwork for the examination of the portrayal of Hagar in the chapters that follow. Particularly, this chapter will establish the way in which the Genesis narrative portrays the figure of Hagar: both as it pertains to the way she is portrayed in her own right, and the way she is portrayed in view of and in relation to the wider context of the Abraham narrative in which her story is told. With that said, this chapter will focus largely on an examination of the portrayal of Hagar in the LXX of Genesis.1 The primary rationale being that Paul appears to draw exclusively from a version of the LXX when citing Israel’s Scriptures in Gal 4:21–31.2 And since this study is ultimately interested in providing an alternative reading of key aspects of Gal 4:21–31 and of Paul, this warrants our need to pay particular attention to the way the LXX portrays the figure of Hagar. On the other hand, it is also important to recognize that the form of the LXX that is cited herein provides only one version of Hagar’s story, and that within the wider Jewish scriptural tradition minor variations were apparent. Thus, in addition, this chapter will seek to highlight certain significant variations that emerge between the LXX and the Hebrew Bible or Masoretic Text (hereafter: MT) in order to be sensitive to and likewise demonstrate the diversity in which Hagar’s story could be appropriated by ancient Israelite and Jewish thinkers. 1

Hereafter, I will simply refer to the text of the LXX of Genesis as Genesis. I will, however, make a distinction when necessary. Finally, in relation to the term “LXX,” I am aware that there was not a single Septuagint. For this and other related questions, see Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, The Invitation to the Septuagint, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015). 2 Paul quotes Scripture twice in Gal 4:21–31, first from Isa 54:1 and then later from Gen 21:10. Both closely follow the language of the LXX. In addition, the terminology he employs for Hagar is consistent with the LXX; see Chapters 6 and 7.

3.2 The Story of Hagar in Genesis 16 and 21

57

In what follows, then, this chapter will progress in two steps. First, I will survey and analyze the story of Hagar as recorded in Gen 16 and 21:9–21, respectively. Following this, and second, I will offer an overall evaluation of the portrayal of Hagar in the LXX of Genesis.

3.2 The Story of Hagar in Genesis 16 and 21 3.2 The Story of Hagar in Genesis 16 and 21

Within the LXX, the only mention of Hagar is found in the book of Genesis. 3 As in the MT, her story is divided into two parts and told across the span of two separate chapters. The first part of her story is found in chapter 16 and the second in 21:9–21.4 Thus, each episode will require independent analysis before an overall assessment and evaluation of her story can be offered. However, before commencing with our examination of Hagar’s story, it will be necessary that we first attend to the surrounding literary context in which her story is told. This wider context will provide us with the necessary framework for both recThe LXX (and the MT) also makes mention of a group called Αγαρηνοί ( ‫)הגרים‬, which in Ps 82:7 (83:6 MT) groups the Αγαρηνοί with the Ishmaelites, thus indicating a close relationship. Hence, one might presume that Hagar is the matriarch of this group, but she is not explicitly mentioned. Cf. also 1 Chr 5:19, 20. 4 Hagar is mentioned one final time in Gen 25:12 (LXX/MT). On this occasion, however, the narrator simply offers a restatement of facts previously disclosed. The significance of this will be noted below. Finally, within Hebrew Bible scholarship there remains significant debate on how the two episodes of chapter 16 and 21 relate and are understood. Since the advent of historical criticism, scholars have largely made sense of these accounts through source critical analysis. Although there remains notable variation, the theory generally understands the two accounts to be doublets. That is, 16:1–16 belongs to J, with a few editorial notes assigned to P (along with 25:12), and 21:9–21 is a parallel account assigned to E. A few examples include: H. Gunkel, “The Two Accounts of Hagar. Genesis Xvi. and Xxi., 8–21,” trans. W. H. Carruth, The Monist 10 (1900): 321–42; S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis: With Introduction and Notes (London: Methuen & Co, 1905), 180– 84, 210–13; S. E. McEvenue, “A Comparison of Narrative Styles in the Hagar Stories,” Semeia 3 (1975): 64–80; James C. Okoye, “Sarah and Hagar: Genesis 16 and 21,” JSOT 32 (2007): 163–75; Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–36: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion S. J. (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), 232–50, 336–44. Others, such as Thomas B. Dozeman, “The Wilderness and Salvation History in the Hagar Story,” JBL 117 (1998): 23–43, follow the traditional source assignments but reject the conclusion that the two accounts are doublets. Additionally, T. Desmond Alexander, “The Hagar Traditions in Genesis XVI and XXI,” VT 41 (1990): 131–48, in my judgment, argues convincingly that the two episodes should not be viewed as parallel accounts. For an example of source criticism applied specifically to the figure of Hagar, see Philip Y. Yoo, “Hagar the Egyptian: Wife, Handmaid, and Concubine,” CBQ 78 (2016): 215–35. Finally, for a brief, yet helpful overview of historical criticism, along with a number of notable concerns, see T. Desmond Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 3–21, 43–110. 3

58

Chapter 3: The Portrayal of Hagar in the LXX of Genesis

ognizing and understanding the subtleties, particularities, and complexities of Hagar’s story. 3.2.1 The Literary Context of Genesis 16 and 21 From the outset, it is important to recognize that Hagar’s story is situated within the broader context of the Abraham narrative of Genesis and thus significantly informed by it. A central feature of this larger narrative concerns the various episodes detailing God’s numerous promises to the patriarch, along with the establishment and demarcation of the covenantal relationship found therein. Thus, in order to identify the most salient aspects of Hagar’s story, we must begin by recognizing that it is conspicuously situated within this larger narrative framework. In short, the various promissory and covenantal episodes serve as a determining factor in our endeavor to properly understand how Hagar is portrayed in the Genesis narrative. 3.2.1.1 The Promissory Episodes of Genesis 12–13 Genesis 12:1–3 records Abraham’s initial encounter with God. The narrative begins with God’s call to Abraham: Abraham is called to leave his homeland, his family and his father’s house, and journey toward an unknown land (12:1). 5 Immediately following this, God commits himself to Abraham by means of a threefold promise: 1) God will make Abraham into a “great nation” (ἔθνος μέγα); 2) God will bless Abraham and make his name great; and, as a result, 3) Abraham will be a blessing to others (12:2). Finally, in 12:3, God confirms his commitment to Abraham with the following pledge: “I will bless those who bless you (εὐλογήσω τοὺς εὐλογοῦντάς σε), and I will curse those who curse you (τοὺς καταρωμένους σε καταράσομαι); and all of the people of the earth will be blessed in you (ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς).”6 Then, only a few verses later, God further specifies a central aspect of his commitment to Abraham. Abraham and his offspring would not be a landless people; rather, God promises that they will come to inherit the land of Canaan (Τῷ σπέρματί σου δώσω τὴν γῆν ταύτην; 12:7) – a promise that is later confirmed in 13:14–17. Thus, from these earliest accounts it becomes clear that a central theme of the Abraham narrative will be one of divine favor and promise: the promise of blessing, nationhood, and land for Abraham and his posterity, and, in turn, blessing for the nations.

5 Unless citing from the LXX, for the sake of ease I will use the names Abraham and Sarah throughout. 6 Unless otherwise noted, translations of the LXX are my own. The Greek text of the LXX follows Rahlfs.

3.2 The Story of Hagar in Genesis 16 and 21

59

3.2.1.2 The Covenantal Episode of Genesis 15 In spite of the commitments made and promises given throughout the opening chapters of the Abraham narrative, the first part of Abraham’s story is largely marked by disappointment: Abraham remained fatherless, and consequently, the promise of nationhood and land remained unrealized.7 Thus, at the start of chapter 15, the narrative continues by describing Abraham’s lament over the lack of an adequate heir for his house, and thus his uncertainty over precisely how the promises would be realized since God had yet to provide him with offspring of his own (Gen 15:2–3). However, Abraham’s lament is short-lived. In Gen 15:4, the narrative reports that God “immediately” (εὐθύς) responded to Abraham with a statement of unequivocal confirmation and commitment. The text states, “but the one who will issue (ἐξελεύσεται) from you, that one will be your heir (κληρονομήσει).”8 Additionally, Abraham is reminded once more that the promise of offspring would not simply involve a single child, but multiple σπέρμα: σπέρμα who will come to be as numerous as the stars of heaven (15:5; cf. 13:16). Chapter 15 then concludes with a covenant ceremony whereby God’s commitment to Abraham and his descendants is confirmed and officially ratified through the establishment of a covenant (διαθήκη): one that is confirmed by God himself for Abraham and his posterity (15:12–20). 3.2.1.3 The Covenantal Episode of Genesis 17 If chapter 15 emphasizes Abraham’s need for offspring, chapter 16 can be understood, at least initially, to underscore Sarah’s inability to produce what was promised. Thus, Sarah solicits her slave-woman, Hagar, to function as a surrogate so as to produce an offspring for Abraham; and subsequently, Hagar gives birth to a son named Ishmael. To the uninitiated reader, the birth of Ishmael appears to function, at least initially, as the fulfillment of the promise that the one who would come to inherit the promises of Abraham, and thus the one through whom the covenant would be extended and actualized, would in fact be of Abraham’s own issue. However, immediately following the events of chapter 16, a second covenant episode ensues.9 Genesis 17 opens with a reiteration of God’s promises to 7 On this concern, see Paul R. Williamson, Abraham, Israel, and the Nations: The Patriarchal Promise and Its Covenantal Development in Genesis, JSOTSup 315 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 133–34. 8 The MT employs the term ‫ מעה‬in order to capture the idea that Abraham’s child will result from his own flesh; see Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 422. HALOT 610, describes this use of ‫ מעה‬as “that part of the body through which people come into existence”; cf. e.g. 1 Sam 7:12. 9 There is some debate on whether the covenant of chapter 17 is meant to be an extension, renewal, or entirely separate covenant from that of chapter 15. For an overview of the

60

Chapter 3: The Portrayal of Hagar in the LXX of Genesis

Abraham, further delineating the details of each (17:2–14). God reminds Abraham that he will make him exceedingly numerous (πληθυνῶ σε σφόδρα; 17:2). However, for the first time in the narrative it is said that Abraham will be the father of not only a single nation but a “multitude of nations” (πλήθους ἐθνῶν; 17:4). Due to the expansion of this promise, Abraham – who up until this point in the narrative is called Abram – undergoes a name change.10 As 17:5 makes clear, this name change is “because I [God] have appointed you the father of many nations (πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν).”11 Moreover, according to 17:6, not only will nations (ἔθνη) issue forth from Abraham, but also kings (βασιλεῖς ἐκ σοῦ ἐξελεύσονται). Thus, with the full promise in view, the covenant is for the first time called a διαθήκη αἰώνιος: a covenant established by God in perpetuity with Abraham and his posterity (17:7). Finally, the sign of this covenant is circumcision. Thus, Abraham is commanded to circumcise every male in his household (17:9–14). This sign serves as a pertinent reminder to Abraham and his offspring that God is committed to them and they to him (17:11).12 Next, in 17:15, God informs Abraham that his wife Sarah – formerly Sarai – would, against all odds, bear a son for Abraham (17:16). What is more, God tells Abraham that it will be through the son born to Sarah, Isaac, and his offspring, and not through Ishmael and his offspring, that the promises would be fulfilled, and the covenant would be actualized (17:19–21b). Altogether, then, it is within this complex cluster of promise and unfulfillment, blessing and disappointment, elation and frustration that Hagar’s story is told.

debate, see Williamson, Abraham, 26–77; Benjamin Ziemer, Abram – Abraham: Kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Genesis 14, 15 und 17, BZAW 350 (Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 2005). 10 On the significance of Abraham’s name change, see Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, JPS (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 124, who states, “In light of the great importance with which the Bible invests name-giving generally, a change of name is of major significance and symbolized the transformation of character and destiny.” This observation is even more significant when one considers Hagar and Ishmael’s lack of name change at this point in the narrative; see Matthew Thiessen, Contesting Conversion: Genealogy, Circumcision, and Identity in Ancient Judaism and Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 38. 11 τίθημι is employed here as a perfect active indicative, suggesting that this promise extends into and has implications for the future. 12 See e.g., J. Gerald Janzen, Abraham and All the Families of the Earth: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis 12–50, ITC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 43; Claus Westermann, “Gen 17 und die Bedeutung von berit,” TLZ 101 (1976): 161–70. In relation to Ishmael, this will be discussed further in Chapter 5.

3.2 The Story of Hagar in Genesis 16 and 21

61

3.2.2 Episode One: Genesis 16:1–16 3.2.2.1 Scene One: Introduction, Conflict and Flight (Gen 16:1–6) Hagar is first introduced to the reader in Gen 16:1 whereby fundamental aspects of her identity are made explicit: Hagar is described as an “Egyptian” (Αἰγυπτία) and a παιδίσκη.13 Following her introduction, Sarah, being unable to bear children for Abraham, offers Hagar to Abraham as a solution to her own barrenness. Genesis 16:2 records Sarah’s words to Abraham: Look, the Lord has shut me up from bearing children (συνέκλεισέν με κύριος τοῦ μὴ τίκτειν); therefore, enter into my παιδίσκην, in order that you might bear children from her (τεκνοποιήσῃς ἐξ αὐτῆς).

Following this, Abraham concedes to Sarah’s request (16:2c) and takes Hagar, who for the second time in the span of three verses is described as an Egyptian παιδίσκη, to be his wife for the purpose of siring a child through her. 14 Genesis 16:3 states: And Sara, the wife (γυνή) of Abram, took Hagar her own Egyptian παιδίσκην … and gave her to her husband Abram to be a wife (γυναῖκα) to him.

Next, the narrative records Sarah’s plan having come to fruition. Genesis 16:4a states that Abraham went into Hagar, and she became pregnant. Nevertheless, the solution Sarah had hoped for is short-lived. According to 16:4b, when Hagar “saw that she had conceived (εἶδεν ὅτι ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχει),” Sarah was “dishonored before her (ἠτιμάσθη ἡ κυρία ἐναντίον αὐτῆς).”15 While the specifics of 13

According to GELS 519, παιδίσκη refers to a “female servant.” In this case, “one who is owned by a wife.” 14 Most scholars point to various ancient Near Eastern law codes (e.g., Code of Hammurabi §146) in order to make sense of Sarah’s action; see e.g., Hayyim Angel, “Sarah’s Treatment of Hagar (Genesis 16): Morals, Messages, and Mesopotamia,” JBQ 41 (2013): 211–18. For a general overview of these various codes, see John Van Seters, “The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel,” JBL 87 (1968): 401–8. Others, such as Frederick E. Greenspahn, When Brothers Dwell Together: The Preeminence of Younger Siblings in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 114, contend that none of the options are completely analogous. Probably, the best assessment is offered by Joseph Blenkinsopp, Abraham: The Story of a Life (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 80, “We do not know whether any of these legal stipulations were known to the author of Gen. 16 [much less those who compiled the LXX], but they at least give us ground for concluding that the situation described in Gen. 16 had legal consequences and fitted a familiar pattern of customary law.” 15 There is some ambiguity as to the subject of the verb εἶδεν. That is, is it Sarah or Hagar who sees? Based on the fact that the verbs which immediately precede (συλλαμβάνω) and follow (ἔχω) take Hagar as their subject, it is likely that Hagar is the subject of εἶδεν. Thus, the translation could be: “and Hagar became pregnant, and she [Hagar] saw that she [Hagar] had conceived, and the mistress was dishonored before her.” Moreover, this is made clear in the following verse when Sarah complains to Abraham of being dishonored

62

Chapter 3: The Portrayal of Hagar in the LXX of Genesis

Hagar’s behavior are not spelled out, the text suggests that, upon recognizing that she had conceived, Hagar’s attitude and/or behavior, possibly resulting from her newfound social status, was such that her mistress, Sarah, was no longer honored and respected by her.16 Consequently, Sarah chastises Abraham for Hagar’s behavior. Genesis 16:5 states: And Sara said to Abram, “I am being harmed because of you. I have given my παιδίσκη into your bosom (κόλπον), but when she saw that she had conceived, I was dishonored before her (ἠτιμάσθην ἐναντίον αὐτῆς).”17

According to 16:6, then, Abraham returns Hagar to Sarah. The scene then concludes by stating that Sarah mistreated Hagar, and as a result, Hagar fled and “escaped from her [Sarah’s] face (ἀπέδρα ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτῆς).” 3.2.2.2 Scene Two: Wilderness, Promise and Return (Gen 16:7–14) Upon fleeing from Sarah, Hagar finds herself in the wilderness where she is confronted by a divine messenger. Genesis 16:7 recounts: But an angel of the Lord (ἄγγελος κυρίου) found her at the spring of water in the wilderness (τῇ ἐρήμῳ): at the water spring on the road to Shur.

To where Hagar is fleeing is not clear, but she appears to be making her way back to her homeland of Egypt through the wilderness of the Sinai Peninsula. 18 At the spring the messenger is the first character in the story to speak to Hagar. The messenger does so by stating her name and identifying her social and relational status: she is Hagar the παιδίσκη of Sarah (Gen 16:8a). Next, the messenger asks Hagar two questions: “from where are you coming and where are by Hagar, at the time when Hagar ἰδοῦσα … ὅτι ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχει. Thus, not only do Sarah’s words mirror the language of 16:4b to a significant extent, but it is clear that Sarah describes Hagar as the one who “sees,” with the result being that dishonor is brought upon Sarah. 16 The verb ἀτιμάζω is used in Deut 27:16, whereby a child is said to be cursed for dishonoring their parents. BDAG 149, describes ἀτιμάζω this way: “[to] deprive someone of honor or respect, to dishonor/shame, an especially grievous offense in the strongly honorshame oriented Semitic and Gr-Rom. societies.” What exactly the offense was, the text does not state. Similarly, as will be discussed in the next chapter, Josephus describes Hagar’s actions as ὕβρις. Moreover, according to the MT, Hagar’s act of dishonor follows the same terminology found in Gen 12:3 for those who curse Abram (‫ ;קלל‬cf. Gen 27:12). In this way, Hagar’s treatment of Sarah in the MT is illustrative of that which would result in a similar curse from God if it were done to Abraham himself. See Tammi J. Schneider, Mothers of Promise: Women in the Book of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 30; Janzen, Abraham, 42–43. 17 By giving Hagar to Abraham, Sarah was aware that she was giving Hagar a place of honor, and thus elevating Hagar’s social status. Hence, κόλπος does not refer to an anatomical part of the body, but a place of honor; see BDAG 556. 18 Gordon Wenham, Genesis 16–50, WBC 2 (Dallas: Word, 1994), 9.

3.2 The Story of Hagar in Genesis 16 and 21

63

you going (πόθεν ἔρχῃ καὶ τοῦ πορεύῃ)?” Hagar acquiesces to the former but not the latter, all she states is that she is running away from Sarah (Gen 16:8b). In what at first blush appears to be a perplexing command, in 16:9 the messenger calls Hagar to “return to your mistress” and, in so doing, exchange her insolent attitude with one of humble submission (ταπεινόω) to and respect for Sarah.19 Yet, what balances this troubling command is that, immediately following it, Hagar is shown divine favor as the recipient of blessing and promise (16:10–12). In language strikingly reminiscent of texts such as Gen 13:16; 15:5; 17:2; 22:17; 26:4; and 28:3, the first promise given to Hagar is similar to the promise of posterity made to Israel’s patriarchs.20 Genesis 16:10a records the promise in this way: I will increasingly multiply your seed (Πληθύνων πληθυνῶ τὸ σπέρμα σου) and it [your seed] will not be able to be counted out of a multitude (πλήθους).

Furthermore, according to 16:11a, the promise of abundant offspring is then followed by the confirmation that Hagar had not only conceived, but that her pregnancy would result in the birth of a son whom she would call Ishmael: a promise that is said to be, on some level, prompted by the messenger’s concern to reverse Hagar’s otherwise lowly estate (ταπείνωσις; Gen 16:11b).21 The messenger then closes with a curious foreshadowing and description of Hagar’s son’s future. Genesis 16:12 states: He will be a man who dwells in the country (ἄγροικος ἄνθρωπος), whose hands will be against all (ἐπὶ πάντας), and the hands of all against (ἐπί) him,22 and he will dwell away from (κατά) the presence of all of his brothers. 23

19 See BDAG 990, which describes ταπεινόω as: “to cause to be or become humble in attitude, humble, make humble in a favorable sense”; and according to GELS 670, “to submit oneself to somebody’s authority.” Based on this, some scholars have suggested that God himself functions as an oppressive agent in the narrative; see e.g., Nina Rulon-Miller, “Hagar: A Woman with an Attitude,” in The World of Genesis: Persons, Places, Perspectives, ed. Philip R. Davies and David J. A. Clines, JSOTSup 257 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 62; Phyllis Trible, Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives, OBT 13 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 22. See, however, the assessment of Paul Overland, “Hagar,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003), 378. 20 Schneider, Mothers of Promise, 115; Trible, Texts of Terror, 16, 32 n. 27. 21 LEH 27286, describes the term ταπείνωσις as one that is related to the concept of “humiliation, abasement (as an experience),” or “humiliation, humility, low estate, low condition (as a state of being).” In relation to Hagar, whether in relation to her experience or state of being, both could explain the messenger’s concern. 22 GELS 266, describes the use of ἐπί in Gen 16:12 to be one “of hostile attitude or disposition.” 23 In this instance, κατά + accusative likely indicates isolation or separation; see BDAG 511.

64

Chapter 3: The Portrayal of Hagar in the LXX of Genesis

In this way, although Hagar is promised a son and a multitude of descendants, it is foretold that her offspring will not inherit in the same way as many of Abraham’s other offspring. Finally, the episode closes with a record of Hagar’s reverent response to the divine encounter. She describes or names the messenger “the God who watches over me (ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐπιδών με),” likely believing that the messenger is God himself.24 3.2.2.3 Scene Three: The Birth of Hagar’s Son (Gen 16:15–16) Genesis does not narrate Hagar’s return to Abraham’s household; rather, in 16:15 it is assumed that she has returned, and the narrative leaps to the initial fulfillment of the promise made to her. Hagar gives birth to a son and Abraham names him Ishmael, indicating full recognition that Ishmael is indeed his son. Thus, according to the aforementioned promise of 15:4, it appears that God has finally fulfilled the promise that an heir would indeed come from Abraham’s own issue, albeit through an unexpected source: the Egyptian παιδίσκη, Hagar. 3.2.3 Interlude: Genesis 17:15–22 At the close of chapter 16, it is evident that Hagar and her newborn son stand in somewhat of an ambiguous position. Thus, the question yet to be unequivocally answered is this: has God in fact provided Abraham’s promised offspring through the unexpected means of Hagar the Egyptian παιδίσκη? Or is the promise to be realized through other means, such as Abraham’s wife Sarah? As noted above, chapter 17 focuses on a reaffirmation of God’s promises to Abraham, and in 17:15–17, Sarah is, for the first time, explicitly mentioned in relation to these promises. In 17:15, Sarah’s name is changed from Σαρα to Σαρρα. Following this, God promises Abraham that he will bless her. Specifically, Sarah will conceive, and God will give Abraham a child through her (Gen 17:16a). Furthermore, in language reminiscent of the promises made to Abraham in 17:6, according to 17:16b the son born to Sarah will be similarly blessed: “he will be for nations (εἰς ἔθνη), and kings of nations (βασιλεῖς ἐθνῶν) will be from him.”25 Thus, if there was any uncertainty as to whether 24

On the significance of this encounter for biblical theology, Trible, Texts of Terror, 28, notes that “[Hagar] is the first person in scripture whom a divine messenger visits and the only person who dares to name the deity.” Cf. also Par Colette Briffard, “Gen 16,13: Hagar a-t-Elle vu Dieu?,” ZAW 122 (2010): 436–38, who likewise notes a parallel with the experience of Moses: “Le texte massorétique de Gen 16,13 est à comprendre comme une allusion à Ex 33,23. Pour les Massorètes, il s’agissait d’éviter l’idée que Hagar aurait été la destinataire d’une vision divine qui dépasse celle de Moïse.” 25 It is important to note that whereas the MT connects these promises directly to Sarah, the pronouns in the LXX are masculine, and not feminine. Thus, the antecedent of the pronoun αὐτόν is not Sarah; rather, it is αὐτῆς τέκνον. In other words, while Sarah will be

3.2 The Story of Hagar in Genesis 16 and 21

65

Hagar’s son would be Abraham’s legitimate heir, 17:15–17 throws that question into further doubt. Yet, the uncertainty as to who the rightful heir will be is short-lived. In 17:18, Abraham appeals to God on behalf of Ishmael.26 Abraham’s plea is forceful: “Ishmael, let this one live before you (Ισμαηλ οὗτος ζήτω ἐναντίον σου)!” Immediately following this, 17:19a records God’s somewhat surprising response: “Indeed” (Ναί).27 Yet, in the ensuing verses, God throws his exact intentions for the future of Abraham’s two sons into sharp relief: Behold, your wife Sarah will give birth to a son for you, and you will call his name Isaac, and I will establish my covenant with him for an eternal covenant (στήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου πρὸς αὐτὸν διαθήκην αἰώνιον) even with his seed (τῷ σπέρματι) after him. And concerning Ishmael, behold, I have heard you; behold, I blessed him (εὐλόγησα αὐτόν), and I will cause him to grow, and I will multiply him very much (πληθυνῶ αὐτὸν σφόδρα): he will be the father of twelve nations (δώδεκα ἔθνη), and I will make him into a great nation (ἔθνος μέγα). But I will establish my covenant with Isaac (τὴν δὲ διαθήκην μου στήσω πρὸς Ισαακ), who Sarah will give birth for you at this time in another year. (Gen 17:19b– 21)

Based on these words, two points must be noted. First, God makes it unequivocally clear that the son born to Sarah, Isaac, is the rightful son of promise. Consequently, Isaac is the one through whom God’s covenant with Abraham will be further established and extended; and thus, it will be through the posterity of Isaac that the covenant promises will be fulfilled. Second, Ishmael is not the promised son; yet he is not left without blessing. In connection with the promises made to his mother during her time in the wilderness, it is made clear from 17:20 that it will be through her son Ishmael that these promises will be realized. What is more, Ishmael’s blessing will not be limited to the promise of numerous descendants; rather, similar to but not identical with the promises made to Abraham and Isaac (cf. 17:6; 17:16), Ishmael himself will beget twelve nations (δώδεκα ἔθνη). And, like his father Abraham, Ishmael will be made into a great nation (ἔθνος μέγα; 17:20; cf. 12:2).28

blessed directly by conceiving a child, it is the son born to her who will produce nations and kings of nations. Yet, as John T. Noble, A Place for Hagar’s Son: Ishmael as a Case Study in the Priestly Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016), 74 n. 54, rightly notes, “the result is the same: multiple nations coming not only from Abraham, but even more specifically through his promised son through Sarah.” This is similar to how the promises made to Hagar are realized and actualized through her son Ishmael. 26 It is not entirely clear whether Abraham is uncertain of who the promised son is or if he simply appeals to God for compassion on behalf of Ishmael; see the discussion in Noble, A Place, 65–67. 27 Cf. the MT whereby God does not offer an immediate response to Abraham’s request. 28 On the significance of this, see Noble, A Place, 2.

66

Chapter 3: The Portrayal of Hagar in the LXX of Genesis

3.2.4 Episode Two: Genesis 21:9–21 Following a brief absence (17:1–21:8), Hagar re-emerges in 21:9. According to the opening of chapter 21, however, the Abraham narrative has been dramatically altered. The chapter opens by announcing that, just as God had promised in 17:15–22 (cf. 18:1–15), Sarah had conceived and given birth to a son for Abraham named Isaac (21:1–8). Therefore, while Hagar’s purpose in chapter 16, although ambiguous, reflected great potential, here, only a few chapters later, it is largely frustrated. 3.2.4.1 Scene One: Παίζω and Expulsion (Gen 21:9–10) When Hagar is reintroduced in chapter 21 her identification is similar to that of chapter 16. The reader is reminded that she is “Hagar the Egyptian” (Αγαρ τῆς Αἰγυπτίας; Gen 21:9a); her social status however is not stated.29 Following this, Hagar’s story appears to take a turn for the worse. Genesis 21:9b records these words: “But Sarah, when she saw (ἰδοῦσα) the son of Hagar … παίζοντα with her son Isaac.” While the details of Ishmael’s actions with Isaac are not explicated, they are such that they elicit a strong reaction from Sarah.30 Sarah’s response is recorded in 21:10 whereby clear directives are put forward:

29 At this point, the narrative appears to focus on Ishmael. Yet, throughout chapter 21, he is only referred to according to his relational status, e.g., “the son of Hagar.” Thus, Hagar continues to loom large for the narrative’s purposes. On this, see Irmtraud Fischer, Die Erzeltern Israels: Feministisch-theologische Studien zu Genesis 12–36, BZAW 222 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994), 36. Against, e.g., Philip R. Drey, “The Role of Hagar in Genesis 16,” AUSS 40 (2002): 194–95; Hamilton, Genesis: Chapter 1–17, 458. 30 Considerable debate surrounds the meaning of the verb παίζω in relation to Ishmael’s activity with Isaac. NETS translates the verb according to its generally understood meaning: “playing.” Yet, based on what follows from Ishmael’s behavior, the idea of “playing,” as in, most likely, innocent play, does not seem to capture the full force of Ishmael’s behavior. Yet, when the verb in the MT, ‫צחק‬, is compared with παίζω, it does little to solve the problem, as there is little to no consensus on how ‫ צחק‬is to be understood. In fact, the MT further complicates the matter in that it does not contain the phrase μετὰ Ισαακ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτῆς; rather, it is conspicuously silent on the question of to whom or what the activity of Ishmael is directed. Focusing then on the verb παίζω as found in the LXX, BDAG 750, describes παίζω as, “to engage in some activity for … amusement, play, amuse oneself.” Similarly, GELS 519, describes it as, “to engage in relaxed and lively activity, play, have fun’.” However, citing the LXX of Jer 15:17, LEH 21116, describes παίζω as also conveying the negative idea of “jesting” or “mocking”; cf. also Judg 16:25; Prov 26:19. Hence, when the immediate context is considered, and Sarah’s response to Ishmael’s behavior is considered, it is likely that Ishmael’s actions toward Isaac are to be understood in terms of Ishmael “jesting” or “mocking” Isaac. For this assessment, see David J. Zucker, “What Sarah Saw: Envisioning Genesis 21:9–10,” JBQ 36 (2008): 59. For a helpful overview of the various approaches, see Aron Pinker, “The Expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael (Gen 21:9–21),” Women in Judaism: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6 (2009): 1–24. For an

3.2 The Story of Hagar in Genesis 16 and 21

67

Cast out (Ἔκβαλε) this slave-woman (τὴν παιδίσκην) and her son: for the son of this slavewoman (ὁ υἱὸς τῆς παιδίσκης ταύτης) will not inherit (κληρονομήσει) with my son Isaac.

Based on this, Sarah appears to be threatened to the point that, so long as Hagar and her son remained in Abraham’s household, there was a chance that Isaac’s rightful inheritance would be compromised. What is more, Sarah’s feelings are strong enough to warrant characterizing Hagar as, for the first time in the episode of chapter 21, a παιδίσκη. This suggests that Hagar’s social status, and Ishmael being the son of a παιδίσκη, was determinative and could not be overcome.31 Thus, the term is employed by Sarah to elicit and justify their expulsion, all the while confirming their fate. 3.2.4.2 Scene Two: Abraham’s Despair and Promise (Gen 21:11–13) According to 21:11, Abraham finds Sarah’s command concerning Ishmael to be troubling. Nevertheless, he follows through with her command based on God’s directive (21:12). Yet, God does not forget Ishmael (and presumably Hagar); rather, since he too is Abraham’s σπέρμα, God reaffirms his commitment and promise to Ishmael. Genesis 21:13 states, “And, as for the son of this slave-woman (τῆς παιδίσκης), I will make him into a great nation (ἔθνος μέγα), because he is your seed (σπέρμα).”32 Thus, the promise originally made to Hagar concerning Ishmael, which is later confirmed with Abraham in chapter 17, is, for a third time in the narrative, reaffirmed. Moreover, the language employed here in 21:13 also suggests that the promise made to Abraham in 17:4–6 – that he would be the father of many nations as foretold in 12:3 – is to be realized in and through not only Isaac, but also, on some level, Ishmael. 33 3.2.4.3 Scene Three: Wilderness, Promise and Relief (Gen 21:14–19) The final scene of Hagar’s story begins in 21:14. The latter part of 21:14 states, “And having departed, she [Hagar] wandered about the wilderness (ἐπλανᾶτο

overview in relation to ancient Jewish and Rabbinic literature, see Joshua Schwartz, “Ishmael at Play: On Exegesis and Jewish Society,” HUCA 66 (1995): 203–21. Cf. Gal 4:29. 31 The significance of this is even more pronounced in the MT. See below. 32 Recently, Terence L. Donaldson, “Paul, Abraham’s Gentile ‘Offspring’, and the Torah,” in Torah Ethics and Early Christian Identity, ed. Susan J. Wendel and David M. Miller (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 135–50; and Kathy Ehrensperger, “Narratives of Belonging: The Role of Paul’s Genealogical Reasoning,” Early Christianity 8 (2017): 373– 92, have suggested that the term σπέρμα is limited to a particular strand of Abrahamic descent: namely, those who belong to Israel. However, both Donaldson and Ehrensperger overlook the fact that Gen 21:13 explicitly describes Ishmael as Abraham’s σπέρμα. 33 See Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 245; more broadly, Noble, A Place.

68

Chapter 3: The Portrayal of Hagar in the LXX of Genesis

τὴν ἔρημον) opposite the well of oath.”34 At least initially, it appears that Hagar’s second go-round in the wilderness is much different than her first. On this occasion, she is described as “wandering” (πλανάω), which likely carries the idea of “wandering about aimless” without a clear sense of direction. 35 Moreover, in 21:15–16, her wandering leads her to be concerned for the life of her son, and they begin to weep. This, however, leads to a second divine encounter. According to 21:17, God hears Ishmael’s cry and the “angel of God” (ἄγγελος τοῦ θεοῦ) addresses Hagar. The messenger offers her comfort and, for the fourth and final time in the narrative unit, affirms God’s commitment to Ishmael. Genesis 21:18 states, “for I will make him into a great nation (εἰς γὰρ ἔθνος μέγα ποιήσω αὐτόν).” Thus, the promise made to Hagar as far back as 16:10 and confirmed with Abraham in 17:20 and 21:13 is confirmed one final time with Hagar. The scene then concludes with God opening Hagar’s eyes, and she sees a “well of living water” (φρέαρ ὕδατος ζῶντος) from which to nourish Ishmael. 3.2.4.4 Conclusion (Gen 21:20–21) Finally, Hagar’s story closes with a summary of her and Ishmael’s future. According to 21:20–21, Ishmael lived in the wilderness of Paran, and through Hagar’s provision he obtained a wife from his mother’s homeland of Egypt.36

3.3 Evaluating the Portrayal of Hagar in Genesis 16 and 21 3.3 Evaluating the Portrayal of Hagar in Genesis 16 and 21

Having surveyed the story of Hagar in Gen 16 and 21, we are now able to make several observations in relation to the way she is portrayed. First, throughout Gen 16 and 21, several aspects of Hagar’s story reflect positively on her. For instance, Hagar’s twofold flight into the wilderness results in a divine encounter with a messenger of which Hagar is the first female in Scripture to experience.37 Moreover, this encounter results in the bestowal of various blessings. For instance, Hagar is the first woman in Scripture to be promised offspring; and she is the first and only woman to receive the divine promise of numerous 34

The LXX seems to suggest that Hagar has returned to the wilderness to which she originally fled and is searching for the well where she had the earlier divine encounter; cf. Gen 16:7–9. 35 See BDAG 821; LEH 22686. GELS 560, describes πλανάω as “to lead away from the right path” or “to wander about, not knowing whither heading.” For πλανάω in the LXX, cf. also Gen 37:15; Exod 14:3; 23:4; Deut 4:19. As Trible, Texts of Terror, 23, observes, the terms used by the MT to describe Hagar’s wandering is ‫תעה‬, which similarly refers to the idea of “uncertainty,” a “lack or loss of direction,” or even “destitution.” 36 On the significance of Paran, see Dozeman, “The Wilderness,” 41. 37 Trible, Texts of Terror, 28.

3.3 Evaluating the Portrayal of Hagar in Genesis 16 and 21

69

descendants: a promise that is strikingly reminiscent of the promises made to Israel’s patriarchs.38 Additionally, Hagar is the only individual in Scripture to specifically name God.39 Finally, throughout the narrative, Hagar is portrayed as a caring mother. She names her son; she is concerned for his life; and she finds a wife for him after having settled in the wilderness of Paran. Thus, Hagar’s story provides a number of features that lead to a positive portrayal of her. However, what is evident from the above survey is that Hagar is not without fault.40 First, Hagar’s attitude and/or behavior toward Sarah in 16:4 reflects negatively on her, and thus, Sarah’s concerns are, for the narrative, largely justified.41 Second, the fact that Hagar is implicated in Ishmael’s expulsion reflects poorly on her. Ishmael is not expelled on his own; his mother accompanies him. What is more, the first words out of Sarah’s mouth are not directed toward Ishmael, but toward Hagar: Ἔκβαλε τὴν παιδίσκην ταύτην. Thus, certain actions of Hagar and the actions of her son, reflect poorly on her. Altogether, then, throughout Gen 16 and 21, Hagar is portrayed both positively and negatively, albeit the former takes precedence over the latter.42 Yet, beyond these surface level observations, what more is there to be ascertained about the portrayal of Hagar in Genesis? 3.3.1 Techniques of Repetition in the Story of Hagar In the following sections I will briefly highlight the most salient aspects of Hagar’s story that contribute to an overall portrayal of her. In order to accomplish this task, I will employ insights from Robert Alter’s work on biblical narrative. Alter helpfully demonstrates that the repetition of a single word, theme, and/or type-scene functions as a significant literary device, or devices, within a biblical narrative.43 These “techniques of repetition,” although unusual to the modern reader, function intentionally and thematically within ancient texts in order to develop and establish meaning within a larger narrative unit.44 As the above overview demonstrates, within the narrative units of Gen 16 and 21, Hagar’s story is noticeably marked by the repetition of certain words, phrases or con38

Trible, Texts of Terror, 28. Trible, Texts of Terror, 28. 40 Contra Miller, “Surrogate,” 141; Phyllis Trible, “The Other Woman: A Literary and Theological Study of the Hagar Narratives,” in Understanding the Word: Essays in Honor of Bernhard W. Anderson, ed. James T. Butler, Edward W. Conrad, and Ben C. Ollenburger, JSOTSup 37 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 232. 41 Bernard P. Robinson, “Characterization in the Hagar and Ishmael Narratives,” SJOT 27 (2013): 203. 42 This, however, is not to suggest that Abraham and Sarah are without fault. Rather, as Robinson, “Characterization,” has demonstrated, none of the characters in the episodes are found to be without fault. 43 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 95–96. 44 Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 94. 39

70

Chapter 3: The Portrayal of Hagar in the LXX of Genesis

cepts, and scenes. Thus, the repetition of these various elements of the narrative will prove to be instructive for identifying the most thematically significant aspects of Hagar’s story, which will, in turn, aid us in our endeavor to establish a more fully developed understanding of the portrayal of Hagar in the LXX of Genesis. 3.3.1.1 Egyptian Slave-Woman According to Alter, the repetition of a particular word (or words) “often exhibits a frequency, a saliency, and a thematic significance” within a biblical narrative.45 Throughout the LXX of Gen 16 and 21, several terms are used to describe Hagar’s identity. For example, in 16:3 she is called Abraham’s “wife” (γυνή), and in 21:21 she is called Ishmael’s “mother” (μήτηρ). Yet, from beginning to end, the LXX consistently employs two terms for its ideal description of her: ethnically Hagar is an Αἰγύπτιος, and socially she is a παιδίσκη. Furthermore, the fact that both terms are used on more than one occasion, and that each term can be found in the respective episodes of her story, indicate their overall significance. First, the LXX employs the term Αἰγύπτιος, or “Egyptian,” on three occasions in order to describe Hagar (16:1, 3, and 21:9). What is important to note is that this term appears in each episode of her story, and on each occasion, it is employed as the leading descriptor. That is, before anything more is said about her, Hagar is firstly identified as an Egyptian (cf. 16:1; 21:9). Thus, the consistent use of this descriptor serves as a subtle reminder for the reader of a significant aspect of Hagar’s identity. Ethnically, Hagar is an Egyptian, meaning, as non-Israelite, Hagar is a foreigner.46 Furthermore, it is important to note that, for the MT, “Egyptian” (‫ )מצרי‬is likewise employed as a consistent descriptor. Not only that, but it also appears to be the MT’s only constant and thus preferred one. Whereas several terms are used throughout the MT to describe Hagar’s fluctuating domestic and social identities (i.e., “maidservant” [‫“ ;]שפח‬wife” [‫“ ;]אשה‬slave-woman” [‫;]אמה‬ “mother” [‫)]אמ‬, from beginning to end Hagar is an “Egyptian” (cf. Gen 16:1, 3; 21:9 [MT]). Moreover, when Ishmael’s genealogy is recorded in Gen 25:12, Hagar is once again identified as an Egyptian, thus making her status as a foreigner central to the MT’s portrayal of her.47 Unlike the MT, however, the term “Egyptian” is not the LXX’s favored descriptor; rather, the status-oriented descriptor παιδίσκη is just as significant, if not more so. Throughout chapters 16 and 21, Hagar is described as a παιδίσκη a total of ten times: 6x in chapter 16 (vv. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8) and 4x in chapter 21 45

Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 179. Schneider, Mothers of Promise, 105–6. 47 On the significance of this Leitwort, see Zucker, “What Sarah Saw,” 55–56; Schneider, Mothers of Promise, 106. 46

3.3 Evaluating the Portrayal of Hagar in Genesis 16 and 21

71

(vv. 10 [2x], 12, and 13). At its most basic level, the term παιδίσκη refers to a “female slave,” one who is considered to be “always of the slave class.” 48 However, according to the assessment of GELS, throughout the LXX παιδίσκη carries a less pejorative nuance when compared with that of δούλη. Thus, παιδίσκη refers to one who is of higher rank than a δούλη.49 Nevertheless, the term παιδίσκη is, at its core, meant to suggest a subservient and thus less than ideal social status, which likewise carries negative social implications. In short, although higher in rank than a δούλη, a παιδίσκη is subservient to and thus remains lower in rank than those who are family members.50 What is more, when one further compares the language of the LXX with that of the MT, the employment of this singular term to describe Hagar’s social status is suggestive. Whereas the LXX employs only the term παιδίσκη, the MT uses two separate terms: ‫ שפח‬and ‫אמה‬.51 The term ‫ שפח‬is employed throughout chapter 16 and is likely to be understood as a domestic term: one that merely describes Hagar’s role as Sarah’s maidservant.52 In chapter 21, however, the term ‫ שפח‬is no longer employed; instead, ‫ אמה‬is used in its place.53 Thus, in relation to the text’s final form, scholars have noted the likelihood that the switch from ‫ שפח‬to ‫ אמה‬in chapter 21 is intentional: namely, ‫ אמה‬is employed throughout chapter 21 in order to convey a derogatory nuance not found in ‫שפח‬.54 In other words, the MT portrays Hagar as one whose social status fluctuates, and by the end of chapter 21, it appears to have taken a turn for the worse. Hagar is no longer Sarah’s handmaiden; instead, she is categorized by the term ‫ אמה‬for the purpose of highlighting her newfound and more subservient social position in the household. Returning then to the LXX, the fact that a singular descriptor is employed throughout is suggestive. That is, from beginning to end the LXX elects to portray Hagar as a παιδίσκη. At best, she is to be viewed as maintaining a higher social status than that of a δούλη; yet, at worst, she is to be viewed as a socially 48

BDAG 750. GELS 519. 50 GELS 519; cf. Lev 25:44; Deut 5:14. 51 For an assessment according to source critical concerns, see Yoo, “Hagar the Egyptian.” 52 See the discussion in Drey, “The Role of Hagar,” 183–86; cf. also Schneider, Mothers of Promise, 103–6. 53 It is important to note that throughout Genesis, all other handmaids are referred to almost exclusively as ‫ שפח‬and not ‫ ;אמה‬cf. e.g., Gen 29:29; 30:4; 30:9; 30:18; 32:22. The only exception to this is found in 31:33. 54 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 80 n. 26; Drey, “The Role of Hagar,” 184. See, however, Schneider, Mothers of Promise, 107–8, who while noting the negative connotations ‫ אמה‬seems to carry in Gen 21:10, is careful to not assume a stable referent for each term: one which would qualify one more pejorative than the other. For further discussion, see A Jaspen, “Amah und Schiphchah,” VT 8 (1958): 293–97. 49

72

Chapter 3: The Portrayal of Hagar in the LXX of Genesis

subservient figure in perpetuity. It is likely that the reason the LXX elects to employ this stable descriptor was to dispel any concern over the question of where Hagar stood in relation to Abraham and more specifically Sarah. This can be further substantiated by the fact that in Gen 25:12, while the MT refers back to the more favorable language of ‫ שפח‬in order to describe Hagar, true to form, the LXX employs the term παιδίσκη.55 Thus, by consistently portraying Hagar as both an Egyptian and a παιδίσκη, it is likely that the LXX sought to reinforce both her ethnic and social identities. Finally, it needs to be pointed out that the two-fold description of Hagar as both an Egyptian and a παιδίσκη has certain implications for Ishmael. Recently, John Noble has observed that the respective identities of Hagar and Ishmael come to be so intertwined that “Ishmael’s life is defined by his mother’s actions.”56 Yet, it is not only Hagar’s actions that have implications for her son’s life, but her ethnic identity and social status do as well. As Sarah Schneider rightly observes, “something about the mother establishes the child’s destiny.”57 In other words, the identity descriptors that are applied to the figure of Hagar impact not only her, but also her son and his posterity.58 In this way, Hagar’s ethnic identity, coupled with her subservient social status, have direct implications for Ishmael. Ishmael is born to a foreign mother who is socially subservient. It is no wonder then that Ishmael is portrayed as never truly vying for his rights as Abraham’s first-born son and thus the legitimate heir to the promises and the covenant found therein. Instead, according to the way he is initially described in 16:12, and then later as ὁ υἱὸς τῆς παιδίκης in 21:10, Ishmael’s pedigree suggests that he would eventually find himself on the wrong side of Abraham’s covenantal lineage.59 Finally, when one considers the final act of Hagar on Ishmael’s behalf – an act that accentuates her own “otherness” – Ishmael’s status is confirmed. Schneider summarizes this point well: “Finding a wife for her son and choosing an Egyptian woman highlight the unique status of Hagar and how foreign she is … This final action brings Hagar’s story full circle because just as she is foreign, causing her son to be not of the right line to inherit the promise, so too will her descendants be foreign.”60

55

On the significance of this for the MT, see Schneider, Mothers of Promise, 105. Noble, A Place, 28. 57 Schneider, Mothers of Promise, 115. 58 Schneider, Mothers of Promise, 106. 59 Rightly, Zucker, “What Sarah Saw,” 56–57. On Ishmael’s ambiguous position among non-Israelites, see Noble, A Place; Joel S. Kaminsky, Yet I Loved Jacob: Reclaiming the Biblical Concept of Election (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007), 29–41. On the complexity of Ishmael as the first-born son, see Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 82–110. 60 Schneider, Mothers of Promise, 113. 56

3.3 Evaluating the Portrayal of Hagar in Genesis 16 and 21

73

3.3.1.2 Mother of Promise A second aspect of Hagar’s story that is crucial to understanding how she is portrayed is related to the reoccurrence of a particular theme. According to Alter, within biblical narrative a theme is “[a]n idea which is part of the valuesystem of the narrative … is made evident in some recurring pattern.”61 As Hagar’s story demonstrates, one particular theme rises to the fore: namely, the theme of promise. As noted above, the first occurrence of this theme is found in 16:10–11 whereby Hagar is given a two-fold promise. First, God promises to “increasingly multiply” Hagar’s seed so as to be innumerable; and second, Hagar is promised to give birth to a son who will be called Ishmael. While the latter promise is realized relatively quickly, the former is reaffirmed throughout the rest of the narrative unit (cf. 17:20; 21:13, 18). Based on the presence of this theme throughout, its significance should not be underestimated; rather, following insights from Jon Levenson, a number of observations can be made.62 First, and as noted above, there is something significant about the fact that the promise made to Hagar concerning her offspring is nearly identical to those made to Abraham and Israel’s later patriarchs.63 Just as Abraham is promised that his seed will be multiplied (17:2), so too is Hagar (16:10). In fact, Hagar is the only individual in Scripture who does not belong to Abraham’s lineage who can claim this promise. Moreover, when the promise made to Hagar is extended to her son Ishmael, the similarities with that of the promises made to Abraham become even more striking. For instance, in 17:2, God’s promise to Abraham is this: πληθυνῶ σε σφόδρα. Just a few verses later, nearly identical words of promise are made concerning Ishmael: πληθυνῶ αὐτὸν σφόδρα. The parallel is unmistakable. Furthermore, Ishmael is one of only a handful of individuals who, like Abraham, is promised to become an ἔθνος μέγα. In fact, Ishmael is the only non-Israelite in Scripture to receive such a promise.64 Second, the promises given to Hagar have direct implications for her role in the Abraham narrative. As Levenson has observed, the promise to grant Hagar progeny must be understood in view of the larger promissory theme that dominates the literary framework of Abraham’s story: the promise of progeny.65 As Claus Westermann has noted, one of the most significant aspects of the Abraham narrative is that Abraham is promised to become the father of not only a

61

Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 95. See Levenson, Death and Resurrection, 91–98. 63 Cf. also Okoye, “Sarah and Hagar,” 170; Schneider, Mothers of Promise, 115. 64 Cf. also Janzen, Abraham, 52; followed by Noble, A Place, 62–63. 65 Levenson, Death and Resurrection, 93. 62

74

Chapter 3: The Portrayal of Hagar in the LXX of Genesis

single nation, but a multitude of nations.66 In this way, Hagar is understood to be, on some level, one through whom a certain aspect of God’s promise to Abraham is realized. Thus, as Levenson puts it: “The point is unmistakable: Hagar does have a positive role in the providential drama centered on Abraham, and her offspring will indeed fall within the bounds of the promise to the Patriarch.”67 Finally, although the promises given to Hagar are remarkably similar to those given to Abraham, it is important to note that they are also distinct. 68 While Hagar is promised numerous decedents, this promise does not involve other covenantal aspects, specifically, that of land. Thus, as Levenson puts it: “Though Ishmael, falling within the promise to his father, will be ‘a great nation’ … he falls, nonetheless, just outside the covenant of Abraham and shall not inherit the promised land.”69 Meaning, it will be through the progeny of Sarah and not through Hagar that Abraham’s descendants will be named. 70 Thus, as the narrative makes clear, while Hagar and her son receive promises related to the covenant, they will not be recipients of or partakers in the covenant itself.71 3.3.1.3 Wilderness Wanderer The third and final aspect of Hagar’s story that is significant to her overall portrayal pertains to her wilderness experiences. Following Alter’s approach, these experiences can be classified as examples of a “type-scene.” As Alter describes it, a type-scene is “an episode occurring at a portentous moment in the career of the hero which is composed of a fixed sequence of motifs. It is often associated with certain recurrent themes.”72 Thus, the way in which the thematic significance of Hagar’s wilderness experience is related to a proper understanding of the way she is portrayed needs to be briefly considered. First, the image of Hagar and Ishmael being cast out of Abraham’s household and into the wilderness is symbolically striking. Throughout the Pentateuch, the wilderness is conceived of as a complex place. On the one hand, it is a place of banishment, danger, and punishment; on the other, it is a place of refuge, divine encounter, and forgiveness.73 Yet, in every case, the wilderness 66 Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 245; cf. also Bruce Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 260; Walter Brueggemann, “The Kerygma of the Priestly Writers,” ZAW 84 (1972): 397–414. 67 Levenson, Death and Resurrection, 93. 68 Janzen, Abraham, 47. 69 Levenson, Death and Resurrection, 97. Emphasis original. 70 Levenson, Death and Resurrection, 98. 71 Levenson, Death and Resurrection, 102. 72 Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, 96. 73 See Alison Schofield, “The Wilderness Motif in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Israel in the Wilderness: Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Tradi-

3.3 Evaluating the Portrayal of Hagar in Genesis 16 and 21

75

was, for Abraham and then later for Israel, a means to an end: the goal of the wilderness was the promise of a better land, eventuating in the promised land (cf. e.g. Gen 13:1–7; Deut 26:9). Conversely, it is in the wilderness, away from Abraham’s household and outside of the promised land, where Hagar’s destiny is to be realized.74 It is where God’s promise to Hagar about the future of her son would come to fruition (16:10–12); it is where she is said to have lived with Ishmael (21:20); and it is specifically in the wilderness of Paran where Ishmael is said to have settled (21:21).75 Thus, as foreigners, Hagar and her posterity are not counted among those who will experience the full covenant blessing. As a result, their destiny is to be realized in the wilderness and away from the promised land.76 Second, Hagar’s wilderness experience is quite different from that of Israel’s. It has been suggested by some that Hagar’s expulsion from Abraham’s household and subsequent “exodus” into the wilderness is analogous to that of Israel’s by the fact that, in relation to her second wilderness experience, she is freed.77 However, there are two reasons to suggest that Hagar does not, in fact, experience liberation of this kind. First, nowhere does the text describe the expulsion of Hagar as an act leading to liberation. In fact, her status upon banishment remains rather ambiguous.78 Hence, the LXX appears to assume that, on some level, Hagar’s social identity as that of παιδίσκη was tacitly, if not also inherently perpetual. Second, and as noted above, when the LXX speaks of Hagar one last time in 25:12, she is described not as one who was manumitted, but as a παιδίσκη. If Hagar was in fact manumitted, this appears to be lost on tions, ed. Kenneth E. Pomykala, TBN 10 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008), 43; Won W. Lee, “The Concept of the Wilderness in the Pentateuch,” in Israel in the Wilderness: Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. Kenneth E. Pomykala, TBN 10 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008), 1–16. 74 David J. Zucker and Rebecca Gates Brinton, “‘The Other Woman’: A Collaborative Jewish-Christian Study of Hagar,” in Perspectives on Our Father Abraham: Essays in Honor of Marvin R. Wilson, ed. Steven A. Hunt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 346–47. 75 To this point, Dozeman, “The Wilderness,” 41, has made an astute observation concerning the location of Paran. According to Israel’s own wilderness tradition, Paran represents the wilderness “without clear ending of conquest.” That is, unlike Israel’s experience in Kadash where they were to leave the wilderness in conquest of the promised land, Israel’s time in the wilderness of Paran is marked by complaining (Num 11), opposition (Num 12), fear (Num 13:12–13), and rebellion (Num 14). This is the location of Hagar and Ishmael’s wilderness experience. 76 Okoye, “Sarah and Hagar,” 25; see also Roger Syrén, The Forsaken Firstborn: A Study of a Recurrent Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives, LHBOTS 133 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 38. 77 This has been suggested by, e.g., Noble, A Place, 47–48; Aryeh Cohen, “Hagar and Ishmael: A Commentary,” Interpretation 68 (2014): 252; Schneider, Mothers of Promise, 103–19; Dozeman, “The Wilderness,” 30. 78 Similarly Levenson, Death and Resurrection, 97.

76

Chapter 3: The Portrayal of Hagar in the LXX of Genesis

the LXX.79 In this way, the parallel with Israel’s wilderness experience is less precise and should therefore be understood differently.80 As Phyllis Trible concludes: “Hagar knows not exodus but exile.”81 3.3.2 Final Observation: Hagar as Foreigner, Outsider, and “Other” In view of the foregoing discussion, one final observation needs to be made. That is, when all the elements of Hagar’s story are taken together, each of the three concepts outlined above coalesce around a singular underlying theme: namely, throughout the LXX of Genesis, Hagar is portrayed first and foremost as a foreigner and an outsider. In this way, she and her descendants personify the non-Israelite “other” in relation to Abraham’s household.82 This observation can be summarized as follows. As an Egyptian, Hagar’s status as an outsider is made clear by the fact that she is a foreigner and thus a non-Israelite. Moreover, her “otherness” is further accentuated by the fact that she is not only ethnically inferior but socially: she is a παιδίσκη. Furthermore, her status as an outsider appears to be largely determinative of the fact that, although the recipient of divine promise for herself and her son, she and her offspring do not experience the full range of covenant blessing; rather, because they are foreigners, they receive only that aspect of covenant blessing that does not impinge on the covenant promises made explicitly to Abraham concerning his posterity through Isaac. Finally, Hagar’s ethnic identity and status as an outsider, and likewise the overall “otherness” of her and her descendants, is firmly established by the fact that the promises made to Hagar are to be realized away from Abraham’s household. Thus, she and her descendants settle for a wilderness existence: one that is understood to be in contradistinction to the eventual dwelling of Abraham’s posterity in the promised land. Altogether, then, as a foreigner and outsider, Hagar’s “otherness” is clearly demonstrated in that she “experiences exodus without liberation … wilderness without covenant, wanderings without land … and unmerited exile without return.”83

79

See, however, the conclusion of Schneider, Mothers of Promise, 105, in relation to the MT. 80 See Levenson, Death and Resurrection, 97; Trible, Texts of Terror, 22 n. 54. 81 Trible, Texts of Terror, 23. 82 On the conceptualization of the “other” in ancient Jewish thinking, see e.g., Grant Macaskill, “Creation, Eschatology and Ethics in 4QInstruction,” in Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Gröningen, ed. Florentino García Martínez and Mladen Popović, STDJ 70 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008), 217–45; Erich S. Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010); Daniel C. Harlow et al., eds., The “Other” in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John J. Collins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011). 83 Trible, Texts of Terror, 28.

3.4 Conclusion

77

3.4 Conclusion 3.4 Conclusion

This chapter has examined the portrayal of Hagar in the LXX of Genesis. In doing so, it has laid the comparative groundwork for the examination of the portrayal of Hagar in the chapters that follow. Thus, we have highlighted key aspects of Hagar’s story that are appropriated, reappropriated, or even glossed over by later interpreters (Chapter 4). In this chapter we began by surveying the story of Hagar from Gen 16 and 21. It was found that Hagar is portrayed both positively and negatively throughout, and from this, three primary observations were made: throughout the Genesis narrative Hagar is portrayed as an Egyptian slave-woman, a mother of promise, and a wilderness wanderer. In addition, it was noted that this threefold portrayal coalesces around a particular concept and underlying theme: above all, Hagar is portrayed as a foreigner and an outsider. Thus, throughout the Genesis narrative, she and her descendants personify the non-Israelite “other” in relation to Abraham’s household. What will become particularly evident in the following chapter is that the concept of Hagar as foreigner, outsider, and “other” functions as the controlling narrative that informs the subsequent and diverse literary traditions that develop around the figure of Hagar and her descendants in the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period. To this we now turn.

Chapter 4

The Portrayal of Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period 4.1 Introduction The previous chapter examined the portrayal of Hagar in the LXX of Genesis. There it was noted that Hagar is portrayed both positively and negatively throughout, and in particular, she is portrayed as an Egyptian slave-woman, a mother of promise, and a wilderness wanderer. Finally, it was noted that a particular theme emerges from and unites around these three points: namely, Hagar is portrayed as a foreigner and outsider, and thus, she and her descendants personify the non-Israelite “other” in relation to Abraham’s household. With our understanding of the portrayal of Hagar in the LXX of Genesis in place, the purpose of this chapter is to examine the portrayal of Hagar in the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period. In doing so, our aim is twofold: first, based on our findings from the previous chapter, I will seek to demonstrate the way these ancient Jewish texts both maintain and depart from the portrayal of Hagar in Genesis and thus provide their own unique construal of her. And second, I will identify some of the key differences and similarities that emerge from our examination of these texts so as to offer an overall assessment of the portrayal of Hagar in the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period. Therefore, in what follows, I will begin by offering an individual analysis of the portrayal of Hagar in 1QapGen, Jubilees, Baruch, select works of Philo, and Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities.1 Following this, I will conclude with a comparative evaluation of these texts in relation to their respective portrayals of Hagar. Altogether, it will be shown that, for all the ways these texts portray Hagar differently, what emerges from them is a shared conviction on at least two interrelated points. First, Hagar’s ethnic identity is taken for granted, and she is consistently portrayed as an outsider, that is, a non-Jew. And second, her descendants are often understood to be representative of the nations; or simply put, they are gentiles.2 1

On the rationale for my selection of texts, see §2.3. A recent article by Ishay Rosen-Zvi and Adi Ophir, “Paul and the Invention of the Gentiles,” JQR 105 (2015): 1–41, challenges the assumed binary distinction between Jews and the nations in the early Second Temple period, suggesting instead that such widespread distinction only emerges in the rabbinic period. However, as Donaldson, Gentile Christian Identity, 108 n. 10, helpfully notes, while there is a unique aspect to the rabbinic 2

4.2 The Portrayal of Hagar in 1QapGen

79

4.2 The Portrayal of Hagar in 1QapGen 4.2 The Portrayal of Hagar in 1QapGen

The Genesis Apocryphon (hereafter 1QapGen), a text discovered in cave 1 at Qumran, is an example of rewritten Scripture so prominent within the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period.3 Specifically, 1QapGen is a first-person retelling of the patriarchal narratives.4 Like other examples of rewritten Scripture, the author paraphrases the scriptural text and offers a number of substantial modifications to it.5 Among the stories that receive the author’s more extensive elaboration is that of Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt, which parallels Gen 12:12–20. Interestingly, it is within the author’s retelling of this episode that the only mention of the figure of Hagar is found. In 1QapGen 20.31–32, the author appears to modify the Genesis tradition by claiming that Hagar was given to Abraham as a gift from Pharaoh for his stay in Egypt. The text states, “The king gave her [Sarai] much [silver and go]ld and many clothes of fine linen and purple and […] in front of her and also Hagar usage of the concept of goy, those early Jewish texts (e.g., 1 En. 83–90) that recognize goyim as distinct continue, at a fundamental level, to maintain a binary distinction between Israel/Jews and all other people groups and nations. As Donaldson, Gentile Christian Identity, 108, puts it, “Jews defined themselves fundamentally in terms of a different binary distinction, that between Jews and non-Jews, between the Jewish people and the nonJewish nations, between Jews and gentiles. In the basic Jewish map of the world, Greeks, Romans, and barbarians alike were allocated to the single undifferentiated section marked the nations.” Emphasis original. Thus, throughout this chapter and those that follow, I will use terms such as “gentile(s)” or “nations” in reference to those people or groups that would been classified by ancient Jews as belonging to the non-Jewish world. 3 Considerable debate surrounds the use of the term “rewritten Scripture” to describe this ancient literary phenomenon. Although employed at various points in this chapter, I am aware of its shortcomings. For a positive assessment of the term, see Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 1–15. For a discussion of its various shortcomings, see Jonathan S. Campbell, “Rewritten Bible: A Terminological Reassessment,” in Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years: Texts, Terms, or Techniques? A Last Dialogue with Geza Vermes, ed. József Zsengellér, SJSJ 166 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2014), 49–81. Finally, cf. James L. Kugel, “Early Jewish Biblical Interpretation,” in Early Judaism: A Comprehensive Overview, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 163, who refers to this particular literary style as “retelling.” 4 Since the introduction to 1QapGen is lacking, it is difficult to properly ascertain the purpose of the work; see James L. Kugel, A Walk through Jubilees: Studies in the Book of Jubilees and the World of Its Creation, SJSJ 156 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012), 309. For introductory matters, see George W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. Michael E. Stone, CRINT (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 104–7. For a general overview, see White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 105–27. 5 Nickelsburg, “Bible Rewritten,” 104.

80

Chapter 4: Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

(‫)הגר‬. He h[an]ded her to me, and appointed men to escort me and to … out of Egypt.”6 Although fragmented, the text clearly preserves the name of Hagar and appears to suggest that she was given to Abraham and Sarah, along with many other gifts, upon their departure from the land of Egypt. Meaning, the author of 1QapGen believed that Hagar previously belonged to the house of Pharaoh. Thus, one significant observation can be made from this very brief analysis: Hagar’s Egyptian identity appears to be significant to the author. Whether the author was developing a new tradition or working from one previously known but subsequently lost, the author takes Hagar’s Egyptian identity for granted by placing her in Pharaoh’s household. In doing so, 1QapGen offers further explanation for Hagar’s origins in relation to Abraham and Sarah. Thus, whereas the Genesis narrative does not explicate how Hagar came to be in Abraham’s household, 1QapGen appears to take her Egyptian identity as the determining factor in its placement of her in the household of Pharaoh. Hence, Hagar’s Egyptian identity is significant for the author’s construal and thus portrayal of her.

4.3 The Portrayal of Hagar in Jubilees 4.3 The Portrayal of Hagar in Jubilees

Among the works included in the so-called Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, the most developed portrayal of the figure of Hagar belongs to the second-century BCE work called Jubilees.7 The book of Jubilees offers a rewriting, or more specifically, a retelling of the scriptural narrative from Gen 1 through Exod 12.8 Following the basic structure of the Genesis narrative, Hagar is discussed on two occasions: first, in Jub. 14:21–24 (cf. Gen 16:1–16) and later in Jub. 17:1– 14 (cf. Gen 21:9–21).9 Since each episode parallels, on some level, the Genesis

6 Translated by Florentino Garcia Martinez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition (Leiden; New York: Brill, 2000), 1 (1Q1–4Q273): 43. 7 For introductory matters, along with a detailed overview, see James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, Guides to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001); cf. also Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction Ideology, and Theology, SJSJ 117 (Leiden: Brill, 2007). For a brief summary of the book’s purpose, see Kugel, A Walk through Jubilees, 307–8. 8 VanderKam, Jubilees, 11. 9 For a comparison of the text of Genesis with that of Jubilees, see Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, “Hagar in the Book of Jubilees,” in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites, ed. Martin Goodman, George H. van Kooten, and Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, TBN 13 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010), 117–38. For a more detailed assessment, see Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, Abraham in the Book of Jubilees: The Rewriting of Genesis 11:26– 25:10 in the Book of Jubilees 11:14–23:8, JSJS 161 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012), 119–36, 195–206.

4.3 The Portrayal of Hagar in Jubilees

81

account, each will be examined separately in order to ascertain the overall portrayal of Hagar in the book of Jubilees. 4.3.1 Hagar and the Birth of Ishmael (14:21–24) Hagar first appears in Jub. 14:21–24, an extremely abbreviated version of Gen 16:1–16. Due to the brevity of the episode, it is worth quoting in full: And Abram rejoiced and he told all of these things to Sarai, his wife. And he believed that he would have seed, but she did not give birth. And Sarai advised Abram, her husband, and she said to him, “Go into Hagar, my Egyptian maid. It may be that I will build seed for you from her.” And Abram heard his wife Sarai’s word and he said, “Do (it)!” And Sarai took Hagar, her Egyptian maid, and she gave her to Abram, her husband, so that she might be a wife. And he went into her. And she conceived and bore a son and he called him Ishmael.10

What is immediately clear from the above account is that the portrayal of Hagar in this first episode is, in some respects, similar to that of Genesis. Hagar is twice identified as an Egyptian slave-woman (14:22, 23); she is brought by Sarah to Abraham in order to function as a surrogate (14:23); she is called Abraham’s wife (14:23); and she gives birth to a son for him, called Ishmael (14:24). According to the surrounding context, the birth of Ishmael is closely related to the promise of descendants and land that introduce the chapter.11 However, these four verses are the extent of the account. As Jubilees records it, the episode is stripped entirely of the other significant elements of Gen 16.12 In Betsy Halpern-Amaru’s view, the primary reason for this abbreviated reconstruction is that the author is at pains to eliminate any suggestion that the actions of Sarah are less than ideal.13 Consequently, both the negative and positive aspects of Hagar’s experience in Genesis are likewise removed from the episode. There is no mention of her arrogance toward Sarah, nor an account of her flight into the wilderness; and thus, there is no mention of her encounter with the angel, and consequently, no statement of divine favor and covenant blessing (cf. Gen 16:10). Hence, whereas Gen 16 portrays Hagar both negatively and positively, Jub. 14 depicts Hagar as simply a neutral figure.14

10

Translations of Jubilees are from Wintermute, OTP. See Ruiten, “Hagar,” 121. Yet, as Miller, “Surrogate,” 143, points out, Hagar is not identified as a receipt of divine favor or blessing as she was in Genesis. 12 VanderKam, Jubilees, 49. 13 Betsy Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees, SJSJ 60 (Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 1999), 48. 14 Contra Miller, “Surrogate,” 145, who contends that Hagar’s status in Jubilees is lowered. For a positive evaluation of Hagar in Jubilees, see David Rothstein, “Text and Context: Domestic Harmony and the Depiction of Hagar in Jubilees,” JSP 17 (2008): 243–64. For an argument in favor of neither raising nor lowering her status, see Ruiten, “Hagar,” 125. 11

82

Chapter 4: Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

4.3.2 The Expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael (17:1–14) The figure of Hagar reemerges in Jub. 17:1–14, which corresponds to Gen 21:9–21. Similar to the Genesis account, the central concern of this section is Isaac’s weaning and the resultant expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael. In comparison with the Genesis account, however, minor aspects of the narrative have been modified: Ishmael is explicitly named, and a more positive assessment of both Hagar and Ishmael is put forward.15 For instance, Jub. 17:2 states, “And Ishmael, the son of Hagar the Egyptian woman, was in the presence of Abraham, his father.” Similar to the previous episode of chapter 14, Hagar is again portrayed as an Egyptian and the mother of Ishmael. But unlike the Genesis account, Abraham is said to be very happy with Ishmael (17:3). Thus, Hagar and her son are not expelled for any kind of inappropriate activity on the part of Ishmael, nor is there a concern over the social status of Hagar. In Jub. 17, Sarah does not refer to Hagar as a “maid,” but merely a “girl.” Thus, the reason for their banishment is limited to Sarah’s jealousy of Ishmael.16 Jubilees 17:4–5 states, And Sarah saw Ishmael playing and dancing and Abraham rejoicing very greatly. And she was jealous of Ishmael and she said to Abraham: “Drive out this girl and her son because the son of this girl will not be an heir with my son Isaac.”

Similar to the Genesis account, their banishment distressed Abraham greatly. However, according to Jubilees, the distress is over the prospect of losing not only Ishmael but also Hagar (cf. Gen 21:11). Jubilees 17:5 states, “And the matter was grievous in the sight of Abraham because of his maidservant and because of his son.” Thus, unlike the Genesis account where Abraham appears to be primarily concerned with the loss of Ishmael (cf. Gen 21:12), here Hagar is shown to be elevated in the mind of the patriarch.17

15

In Jubilees, Ishmael receives more attention than in Genesis. This suggests that the figure of Ishmael was, on some level, enigmatic for the author. See Roger Syrén, “Ishmael and Esau in the Book of Jubilees and Targum Psuedo-Jonathan,” in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, ed. Derek Robert George Beattie and Martin J. McNamara, JSOTSup 166 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 310–15; Michael Francis, “Defining the Excluded Middle: The Case of Ishmael in Jubilees,” JSP 21 (2012): 259–83. 16 Whether Sarah’s jealously should be viewed negatively upon her character is debated. For instance, Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment, 78–80, appears to find in Sarah’s response a form of warranted jealously as she is correcting Abraham’s perception of the two sons as “equals.” However, as Miller, “Surrogate,” 144, points out, here Jubilees qualifies the vague description offered in Genesis and explicitly states Sarah’s attitude. Overall, it appears that Sarah’s jealously is to be viewed as negative in light of Jubilees’s overall portrayal of the author’s confidence in correct genealogy. Hence, the confidence Sarah revealed in Jub. 14 appears here, in 17:4, to be waning. 17 Rothstein, “Text and Context,” 245–46. Contra Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment, 79.

4.3 The Portrayal of Hagar in Jubilees

83

Once in the wilderness, the scene is similar to that of Genesis. However, there are a few noteworthy modifications. First, according to Jubilees, the angel hears and responds to the distress and cry of Hagar (17:11) and not, as in Genesis, that of Ishmael (cf. Gen 21:17). Second, it is Hagar who is responsible for opening her own eyes and seeing the well that would nourish her son (17:12). 18 By these minor modifications, the author of Jubilees alters Hagar’s encounter with the angel.19 The angel responds to Hagar, but his own activity is minimized. Overall, then, and similar to Jub. 14, the figure of Hagar (and Ishmael) in Jub. 17 is elevated and portrayed in a more neutral and hence more positive manner than that of Genesis.20 4.3.3 Understanding the Portrayal of Hagar through the Portrayal of Ishmael At this point, one question remains: aside from the fact that Hagar is evaluated more positively than in Genesis, is there anything of significance to be ascertained about the portrayal of Hagar in Jubilees? The answer to this question may be found in an unlikely place: the portrayal of Ishmael. In a recent essay entitled “Defining the Excluded Middle,” Michael Francis suggests that Ishmael functions rather ambiguously throughout the book of Jubilees. That is, rather than being portrayed as the typical gentile, as is Esau, Ishmael appears to be viewed as a “privileged, obedient Gentile,” albeit a gentile nonetheless. 21 Whether Francis’s assessment of Jubilees’s depiction of Ishmael is entirely correct is not our concern here, but rather, his discussion of the portrayal of Ishmael in contrast to Esau, both deemed “non-Israelites,” may shed light on Jubilees’s view and thus assessment of the figure of Hagar. Broadly speaking, one of Jubilees’s primary concerns is that Israel as a people is to be categorically set apart from “non-Israelites” (i.e., nonJews/gentiles).22 Jubilees 22:16 states: And you also, my son, Jacob, remember my words, and keep the commandments of Abraham, your father. Separate yourself from the gentiles, and do not eat with them, and do not 18 The concept of opening one’s eyes may indicate a certain level of transformation; cf. 1 En. 89:40, 43–44. 19 Ruiten, “Hagar,” 137. Moreover, as VanderKam, Jubilees, 52, notes, the angel who comes to Hagar’s aid in Jubilees is not an angel of presence, but only “one of the holy ones.” 20 What is surprising is that this episode captures only the negative portrayal of Sarah. Contra Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment, 78–80. 21 Francis, “Defining the Excluded Middle,” 283. 22 Much of this has to do with the author’s view of time and creation. On the matter of time, see James M. Scott, On Earth as in Heaven: The Restoration of Sacred Time and Sacred Space in the Book of Jubilees, JSJSup 91 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2005). On the matter of creation, see Ari Mermelstien, Creation, Covenant, and the Beginnings of Judaism: Reconceiving Historical Time in the Second Temple Period, SJSJ 168 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2014), 88–132.

84

Chapter 4: Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

perform deeds like theirs. And do not become associates of theirs. Because their deeds are defiled, and all of their ways are contaminated, and despicable, and abominable.23

Earlier, and in relation to Isaac, Jub. 16:16–18 states: And we blessed him [Abraham] and we announced to him everything which was commanded for him that he would not die until he begot six more sons and he would see (them) before he died. And through Isaac a name and a seed would be named for him. And all of the seed of his sons would become nations. And they would be counted with the nations. But from the sons of Isaac one would become a holy seed and he would not be counted among the nations because he would become the portion of the Most High and all his seed would fall (by lot) into that which God will rule so that he might become a people (belonging) to the Lord, a (special) possession from all people, and so that he might become a kingdom of priests and a holy people.

In accordance with this line of reasoning, then, Jub. 15:30 makes it clear that the reason the Lord does not draw near to Ishmael and Esau, although sons of Abraham, is because they do not belong to Israel. Jubilees 15:30 states: For the Lord did not draw Ishmael and his sons and his brothers and Esau near to himself, and he did not elect them because they are sons of Abraham, for he knew them. But he chose Israel that they might be a people for himself (emphasis my own).

Thus, not only are Ishmael and Esau deemed to be non-Israelites, but they are also said to belong to those who are ultimately led “astray from following him [the Lord]” (15:31). However, as Francis has observed, although both Ishmael and Esau are categorically “non-Israelites,” it is Esau who receives much harsher treatment throughout Jubilees (cf. 19:13–16; 25:1, 9); this, in contrast to Ishmael, who appears to experience as much of the covenantal blessings as a non-Israelite could possibly experience (cf. 17:3; 20:1–10; 22:1–9). In Francis’s own words: The presentation of Esau rubber-stamps the conclusion that, according to Jubilees, the predicament of all Gentiles is hopeless. If we turn to the case of Ishmael, however, we encounter a surprise … the rewriting of Scripture in Jubilees privileges Ishmael in a manner that is foreign to Genesis.24

Thus, as Francis has astutely observed, the reason for this disparity may be due to the difference with the respective mothers of Ishmael and Esau. 25 As noted above, Jubilees identifies Ishmael’s mother, Hagar, as an Egyptian on three occasions (14:22, 23; 17:2). However, some have claimed that the au-

23 On the larger question of gentile impurity, see Christine E. Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). 24 Francis, “Defining the Excluded Middle,” 263. On the importance of proper genealogical credentials for Jubilees, see Thiessen, Contesting Conversion, 67–86. 25 Francis, “Defining the Excluded Middle,” 272.

4.3 The Portrayal of Hagar in Jubilees

85

thor of Jubilees takes little to no interest in Hagar’s Egyptian identity. 26 Insofar as her ethnicity does not portray her negatively, they are correct.27 However, due to the author’s view of both time and genealogical credential, I would suggest that it is specifically Hagar’s Egyptian identity, coupled with the timing of Ishmael’s birth and circumcision, that marks Ishmael as categorically unqualified from the start.28 As Francis put it, “he [Ishmael] does not possess the genetic equipment to function as a genuine rival to Sarah’s son (15:21).” 29 In other words, due to Hagar’s Egyptian identity or “non-Israelite” status – and aside from Sarah’s concern in 17:4 – Ishmael is deemed to be absolutely no threat to the covenant promise reserved for Isaac and then later Jacob. However, because Esau is the biological brother of Jacob, he is understood to be a threat and Jubilees intentionally marks him as such. Consequently, Ishmael is able to get by, for the most part, in an unassuming manner, as he is understood to be no real threat to his half-brother Isaac.30 For the author of Jubilees, one of the primary reasons Ishmael does not possess the necessary genealogical credentials is that his mother, an Egyptian, came from outside the family line. 31 Therefore, Hagar’s Egyptian identity is more important than scholars have previously suggested. In sum, the portrayal of Hagar in Jubilees is largely neutral and thus more positive than that of Genesis. Simply put, Hagar’s portrayal is straightforward: an Egyptian woman functioning as a surrogate who becomes Abraham’s wife and the mother of Ishmael. Many of the positive and negative aspects of her story are glossed over with only the most basic facts recapitulated. Moreover, Ishmael overshadows much of the portrayal of Hagar. Yet, when Hagar is viewed in relation to the portrayal of her son, the significance of Hagar for Jubilees comes into sharp focus. That is, Ishmael’s unthreatening status is due to the fact that his mother is an Egyptian and thus a non-Israelite. Therefore, Ishmael could experience covenant blessing, all the while never being a threat to usurp the role of Isaac as the one through whom the covenant would be extended. On the other hand, Hagar’s non-Israelite status meant that, for Jubilees, her son was a member of the nations (i.e., a gentile) and thus numbered among the non-elect of God who are ultimately destined to be led astray and destroyed (cf.15:26, 31, 34). 26

Cf. Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment, 103–4; Sarah Pearce, The Land of the Body: Studies in Philo’s Representation of Egypt, WUNT 208 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 169. 27 Cf. Kelley Coblentz Bautch, “Amplified Roles, Idealized Depictions: Women in the Book of Jubilees,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 346, n. 37. 28 Francis, “Defining the Excluded Middle,” 272; cf. Thiessen, Contesting, 75–78. 29 Francis, “Defining the Excluded Middle,” 273. 30 Francis, “Defining the Excluded Middle,” 272. 31 See Halpern-Amaru, Empowerment, 103–6.

86

Chapter 4: Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

4.4 The Portrayal of Hagar in Baruch 4.4 The Portrayal of Hagar in Baruch

Among the works belonging to the collection of writings that fall outside of the canons of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament (the deuterocanonical portion of the LXX) the so-called apocryphal work known as Baruch, or 1 Baruch, offers the only mention of Hagar and her descendants.32 Yet, Hagar and her descendants remain largely inconspicuous as they are mentioned on only one occasion: Bar 3:23, a verse that is situated within the broader context of the socalled “wisdom poem” of 3:9–4:4.33 Although at first glance this singular occurrence might appear to be inconsequential, the fact that Hagar is the only individual specifically named within the section of the wisdom poem (i.e., 3:15–31) that emphasizes the place of wisdom and its elusiveness among the nations (i.e., the gentile world) suggests that this singular mention of Hagar (and her descendants) warrants further examination.34 4.4.1 The “Wisdom Poem” (3:9–4:4) After a brief introduction whereby the author calls Israel to “hear the commandments of life” (Ἄκουε, Ισραηλ, ἐντολὰς ζωῆς) and “learn wisdom” (γνῶναι φρόνησιν; 3:9),35 the rest of the wisdom poem can be divided into two main sections, each offering an answer to the primary question and overall con-

32 For introductory matters, see David A. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 198–213. On the difficult question of the dating of Baruch, see Odil H. Steck, Das apokryphe Baruchbuch: Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration “kanonischer” Überlieferung, FRLANT 160 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 285–303; Sean A. Adams, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah: A Commentary Based on the Texts in Codex Vaticanus, Septuagint Commentary Series (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2014), 4–6. 33 Scholars generally divide Baruch into three or four parts: an introduction (1:1 –14) followed by a prayer of confession and repentance (1:15–3:8); the wisdom poem (3:9–4:4); and a prophetic poem (4:5–5:9). Although it was originally assumed to be a fragmented composition lacking unity, in more recent years, scholars have come to recognize the overall literary unity of the text. Most importantly, see Steck, Baruchbuch, 253–65. For a similar assessment, see Adams, Baruch, 7–8. 34 Cf. Karina Martin Hogan, “Elusive Wisdom and the Other Nations in Baruch,” in The “Other” in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John J. Collins, ed. Daniel C. Harlow et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 146, who describes this section as the “anti-wisdom” portion of the wisdom poem; cf. also Adams, Baruch, 101. However, “antiwisdom” may be somewhat of a misleading term as Baruch reflects not so-much “antiwisdom” in contrast to “pro-wisdom,” but the elusive nature of wisdom among the nations; see Daniel J. Harrington, S. J., Invitation to the Apocrypha (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 97; cf. e.g., 1 En. 42. 35 Unless noted, all translations of Baruch are my own.

4.4 The Portrayal of Hagar in Baruch

87

cern of the entire poem: who is able to find wisdom? 36 This question is explicitly presented in 3:15, which states, “Who has found her [wisdom’s] place, and who has entered into her [wisdom’s] treasury? (τίς εὗρεν τὸν τόπον αὐτῆς, καὶ τίς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τοὺς θησαυροὺς αὐτῆς;).” This question is followed by a twofold response whereby the first answer offered is a negative one. According to 3:16–31, wisdom is not found among the nations.37 As the concluding remarks of 3:31 clearly express, “There is no one who knows her [wisdom’s] way, nor anyone who considers her [wisdom’s] path (οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ γινώσκων τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτῆς οὐδὲ ὁ ἐνθυμούμενος τὴν τρίβον αὐτῆς).” Rather, according to the author, there is only one who knows wisdom, and that is God himself. Baruch 3:32 states, “But the one who knows all things knows her [wisdom] (ἀλλὰ ὁ εἰδὼς τὰ πάντα γινώσκει αὐτήν)”; and according to 3:36, “This is our God (οὗτος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν).”38 Thus, 3:37 offers the positive answer to the question posed in 3:15: it is God who is to be associated with wisdom, and thus it is God with whom wisdom resides.39 Furthermore, the author contends that God has graciously bestowed this wisdom to Jacob and Israel because “they were loved by him” (τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ; 3:37). Hence, the purpose of the wisdom poem is to create a stark contrast between Israel and the nations. The nations are unable to discover wisdom and consequently have perished, while Israel has been given wisdom, namely, the Torah.40

36 Hogan, “Elusive Wisdom,” 148. For a brief overview of the various proposals regarding the proper division of the wisdom poem, see Adams, Baruch, 96. 37 Adams, Baruch, 101. 38 For further discussion, see Adams, Baruch, 111–13. See also Hogan, “Elusive Wisdom,” 154, who has observed the doxological and prophetic language of Bar 3:32–37 is parallel to several prophetic texts, e.g., Isa 40–66. 39 Adams, Baruch, 113; cf. Job 28:27–28. 40 As Bar 4:1 makes clear, wisdom is equated with the Torah. On the relationship between wisdom and Torah in Baruch, see Shannon Burkes, “Wisdom and Law: Choosing Life in Ben Sira and Baruch,” JSJ 30 (1999): 253–76; Sebastian Grätz, “‘Wisdom’ and ‘Torah’ in the Book of Baruch,” in Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of “Torah” in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period, ed. Bernd U. Schipper and D. Andrew Teeter, SJSJ 163 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013), 187–201. In relation to Sirach, Karina Martin Hogan, “Baruch,” in The Apocrypha: A Fortress Commentary on the Bible Study Edition, ed. Gale A. Yee, Hugh R. Page Jr., and Matthew J.M. Coomber (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016), 1030, has argued that, whereas Baruch limits Torah-wisdom to the exclusive right of Israel over against that of the nations (Bar 4:3–4), Sirach appears to be more universal in scope (cf. 24:25–34). In contrast, James L. Kugel, “Ancient Israelite Pedagogy and Its Survival in Second Temple Interpretations of Scripture,” in Pedagogy in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Karina Martin Hogan, Matthew Goff, and Emma Wasserman, EJL 41 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017), 35–37, has, in my view, rightly pointed out that, based on Sir 24:1–8, wisdom is ultimately reserved for Israel.

88

Chapter 4: Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

4.4.2 The Elusive Character of Wisdom among the Nations (3:16–31) As previously noted, and with the above context in mind, 3:16–31 offers the negative answer to the question put forward in 3:15 concerning who is able to find wisdom; and it is within this pericope that the singular mention of Hagar and her descendants is found. The author begins 3:16 by offering a summary of those from the past who, although powerful, rich, and knowledgeable, were unable to find wisdom and, as a result, perished.41 The list begins with those who are said to be rulers of nations (οἱ ἄρχοντες τῶν ἐθνῶν) and those who have dominion. According to 3:19, despite their achievements these people have been destroyed (ἀφανίζω) and a younger generation has taken their place. However, similar to the first generation, this younger, or second generation, has not learned (γινώσκω), understood (συνίημι), nor taken hold of (ἀντιλαμβάνω) wisdom in spite of the fact that they have seen the light and dwelt on the earth (3:20–21). Finally, it is the descendants of the second generation who are said to be most “far away from their way” (οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ αὐτῶν πόρρω; 3:21); that is, this third and final generation is understood to be, in the most negative terms, even further away from the unsuccessful searching of their parents. They have stepped off the path and, metaphorically speaking, lost their way.42 Consequently, wisdom is not even heard or seen in the regions of Canaan (Χανααν) nor Teman (Θαιμαν),43 in spite of the fact that, as Ruth Henderson has observed, these latter groups are ironically made up of people from the east who were renowned for their knowledge.44 Hence, in the words of Karina Martin Hogan, “The bulk of the poem (3:15–28) is devoted to the thesis that no one from other nations, no matter how rich or powerful, has been able to acquire wisdom.”45 4.4.3 The Portrayal of Hagar and Her Descendants in Baruch 3:23 It is within the summary statements regarding this third and final generation that Hagar and her descendants are mentioned. After stating in 3:22 that wisdom is not heard in Canaan nor seen in Teman, 3:23 states, “neither [has wisdom been found with] the descendants of Hagar, those who earnestly seek understanding on earth (οὔτε υἱοὶ Αγαρ οἱ ἐκζητοῦντες τὴν σύνεσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς).” 41

Ruth Henderson, “The Inter-Textual Dialogue between Deuteronomy 4, 30 and Job 28:12–20 in Baruch 3:9–4:4,” in Studies on Baruch: Composition, Literary Relations, and Reception, ed. Sean A. Adams, DCLS 23 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016), 46. 42 Adams, Baruch, 104. Likewise Adams notes here that the triple use of ὁδός (vv. 20, 21, 23) and the double use of τρίβος (vv. 21, 23) develops the cohesiveness of this section. 43 One final group is mentioned in Bar 3:26: the famous giants (οἱ γίγαντες οἱ ὀνομαστοί). 44 Henderson, “Inter-Textual Dialogue,” 46. On the appropriateness of these regions as foils for the author’s purpose, see Adams, Baruch, 104–5. 45 Hogan, “Baruch,” 1030.

4.4 The Portrayal of Hagar in Baruch

89

It is important to note that, according to 3:23, the description of Hagar’s descendants is telling: they do not search for wisdom (σοφία), but only for σύνεσις (understanding). Consequently, it is not Hagar, but rather, it is her descendants who are categorized with those of the third generation who are understood to be even worse off than their parents in their pursuit of wisdom, or lack thereof. As Steven Fraade puts it, Hagar’s descendants, presumably the Ishmaelites, are “as lost as everyone else.”46 However, the question remains: what is to be made of Baruch’s portrayal of Hagar? Here the relationship between the various generations discussed in 3:16–21 is suggestive. As Sean Adams points out, “The sons in 3.21 are the third generation born to the young people in 3.20, who are in turn the generation following those in 3.19. These sons are far from ‘their way’ (ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ αὐτῶν).”47 Taking Adam’s observation as our point of departure, according to the author’s logic, if Hagar’s descendants belong to the third generation, then Hagar belongs to the second; that is, those in 3:20 who saw the light and lived upon the earth, yet never attained wisdom. In this way, the author portrays Hagar’s situation as only slightly better than that of her descendants; yet in the end, both have failed in their attempt to find wisdom.48 Finally, the fact that Hagar is the only individual explicitly named in connection with the lack of wisdom among the nations suggests that, for the author, the figure of Hagar, along with her descendants, may personify the experience of the nations more profoundly than any other person or group.49 In short, whereas Israel is given wisdom and thus true knowledge of God, Hagar, her descendants, and all other nations are described as those whom “God did not choose (ἐξελέξατο) … nor did he give them the way to knowledge (ὁδὸν ἐπιστήμης); and so they were destroyed (ἀπώλοντο) because they had no wisdom (φρόνησιν); they were destroyed (ἀπώλοντο) because of their folly (διὰ τὴν ἀβουλίαν αὐτῶν)” (3:27–28). Altogether, then, according to Baruch, the only way to wisdom is to be elected by God to find it. Hence, wisdom belongs to Israel alone while all other peoples and nations have fallen short in their ill-fated attempts to find it. This specifically includes Hagar and her descendants who are portrayed as those who, like all other non-Israelite peoples, have failed to obtain wisdom. For Ba46

Steven D. Fraade, “1 Baruch,” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, ed. Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2013), 1556. 47 Adams, Baruch, 103. 48 Adams, Baruch, 106. 49 Cf. Hogan, “Elusive Wisdom,” 150, who observes, “It is significant that the particular nations that are said not to have found the way of wisdom are all, with the exception of Canaan, closely related to Israel through Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael … the sons of Hagar are of course the Ishmaelites, whose nomadic lifestyle is here associated with the search for wisdom.”

90

Chapter 4: Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

ruch, then, Hagar and her descendants are understood to personify the experience of the nations who are set in contradistinction to Israel. Overall, the reason for this contrast is to urge the people of Israel to return to and follow wisdom (i.e., Torah) so as to not become like the nations (e.g., Hagar and her descendants) who lack wisdom and thus perish.50

4.5 The Portrayal of Hagar in the Works of Philo 4.5 The Portrayal of Hagar in the Works of Philo

Among the Jewish authors of the Second Temple period, the most extensive portrayal of Hagar belongs to the first-century Jewish scholar and philosopher, Philo of Alexandria. It is widely believed that Philo lived somewhere between the years of 20 BCE and 50 CE.51 He was an elite citizen of one of Rome’s three largest cities: the city of Alexandria in Egypt.52 As a Jew living in the diaspora and thus firmly situated within the cultural milieu of Hellenistic and Roman influence,53 Philo can be understood to represent the thoughts and concerns of many first-century Jews.54 Philo is best known for his impressive literary output of which is generally divided into three groups: the exegetical works, the historical-apologetic works, and the philosophical works. 55 The exegetical works, generally classified as commentaries, are concerned with the 50

Henderson, “Inter-Textual Dialogue,” 46–47. Philo offers only minimal biographical information. Thus, little is known about his personal life. For a brief overview of Philo’s life, see Gregory E. Sterling et al., “Philo,” in Early Judaism: A Comprehensive Overview, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 253–59; Daniel R. Schwartz, “Philo, His Family, and His Times,” in The Cambridge Companion to Philo, ed. Adam Kamesar (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 9–31. 52 On Philo’s citizenship, see Torrey Seland, “Philo as a Citizen: Homo Politicus,” in Reading Philo: A Handbook to Philo of Alexandria, ed. Torrey Seland (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 47–74. 53 I am not suggesting here a division between Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism that was held by previous scholarship; rather, as has been argued more recently, it is clear that the influence of Hellenism was felt by all first-century Jews, some, however, certainly more than others. In relation to Philo, see Peder Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. Michael E. Stone, CRINT (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 233. 54 Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria,” 259; see e.g., Migration 89–93. For a discussion of Philo’s Jewish identity, see Karl-Gustav Sandelin, “Philo as a Jew,” in Reading Philo: A Handbook to Philo of Alexandria, ed. Torrey Seland (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 19– 46; Ellen Birnbaum, “Two Millennia Later: General Resources and Particular Perspectives on Philo the Jew,” CBR 4.2 (2006): 243–76. 55 For an overview of Philo’s writings, see Sterling et al., “Philo,” 159–89; James R. Royse and Adam Kamesar, “The Works of Philo,” in The Cambridge Companion to Philo, ed. Adam Kamesar (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 32–64. 51

4.5 The Portrayal of Hagar in the Works of Philo

91

exposition of Scripture and consist of three large series: the Allegorical Commentary, Exposition of the Law, and the lesser known Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus.56 Since Philo’s interest in the figure of Hagar is limited to his exegetical works, these texts will be the focus of our investigation. 4.5.1 Hagar in the Writings of Philo The figure of Hagar appears in all three of Philo’s exegetical works. By and large, the most significant of Philo’s depictions of Hagar is found in the Allegorical Commentary where she is mentioned upwards of twenty-five times, with On the Preliminary Studies, a treatise devoted almost entirely to the story of Sarah and Hagar from Gen 16:1–6, making up twelve of those occurrences.57 Based on what can be ascertained from the Armenian translation of Questions and Answers on Genesis, Hagar is specifically mentioned seven times in book three and once in book four.58 Finally, although Hagar is not mentioned by name in Exposition of the Law, she is clearly alluded to in the treatise On the Life of Abraham.59 It is important to note that each of the three commentaries differ quite substantially in both form and content.60 The greatest stylistic difference lies between the Allegorical Commentary and the Exposition of the Law.61 The former offers an in-depth analysis of the allegorical dimensions of the Pentateuch in Philo’s thought, while the latter offers a more “traditionalist” 62 or literal reading that has been likened to paraphrase according to the style of rewritten Scripture.63 Therefore, due to the diversity of Philo’s exegetical works, the portrayal 56

The reason Questions and Answers is the least known of Philo’s commentaries is due to the original Greek being lost and the dependence on the sixth-century Armenian translation; see Sterling et al., “Philo,” 260–61. 57 Cf. Alleg. Interp. 3.244; Cherubim 3, 6, and 8; Sacrifices 43; Posterity 130, 137; Sobriety 8; Flight 2, 5, 202; Names 255; Dreams 1:240; and Prelim. Studies 1, 11, 20, 23–24, 71, 88, 121–22, 139, 180. 58 QG 3.19, 21, 26, 28, 34, 37, 38; 4.147. 59 Abraham 247–54. 60 David T. Runia, “Philo, Alexandrian and Jew,” in Exegesis and Philosophy: Studies in Philo of Alexandria (Aldershot: Variorum, 1990), 5. 61 Scholars contend that Questions and Answers is a mixture of both literal and allegorical. See the collection of essays in David M. Hay, Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, BJS 232 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991). 62 On the term “traditionalist,” see Adam Kamesar, “Biblical Interpretation in Philo,” in The Cambridge Companion to Philo, ed. Adam Kamesar (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 72–77. 63 See Sterling et al., “Philo,” 268–69. For an overview of Philo’s exegetical approach, see the important study by Peder Borgen, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time, NovTSup 86 (Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1997), 148; cf. also Kamesar, “Biblical Interpretation.” Due to the stylistic difference among all three of Philo’s commentaries,

92

Chapter 4: Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

of Hagar in each of the three commentaries will require independent analysis before proceeding to an overall evaluation of the portrayal of Hagar in the writings of Philo. 4.5.2 The Portrayal of Hagar in the Allegorical Commentary As noted above, Philo’s most significant portrayal of Hagar is found in a number of treatises that belong to the so-called Allegorical Commentary. Insofar as Philo’s exegesis is concerned, Hagar is to be classified as a representative example of his allegorical approach to the interpretation of the Pentateuch. 64 Philo’s understanding of the Pentateuch is largely rooted in, for him, its representation of the journey of the soul from the physical (body) to the spiritual realm. As David Runia explains, the goal of this journey is the emancipation of the “deceptive attraction of earthly existence” and a return to the Promised Land (i.e., heavenly divine existence).65 A key aspect of this journey is the acquisition of virtue, wisdom, and perfection that is to be obtained through learning, nature, or practice, the goal of which is true knowledge of God (cf. Heir 241).66 However, this objective is by no means obtainable for all; rather it is only reserved for those who are ultimately found to be of worth.67 4.5.2.1 Hagar as Ἐγκύκλιος Παιδεία Throughout much of the Allegorical Commentary the figure of Hagar symbolizes, for Philo, ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία.68 That is, on the soul’s journey from the scholars have attempted to ascertain the intended audience of each work. For instance, Christian Noack, Gottesbewußtsein: Exegetische Studien zur Soteriologie und Mystik bei Philo von Alexandria, WUNT II 116 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 18–26, has argued that the diverse form of each commentary is what allows for the identification of the Sitz em Leben and audience that is unique to each. For a similar approach, see Ellen Birnbaum, The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes, BJS 290 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 17–20. For a more restricted view, see Maren Niehoff, Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture, TSAJ 86 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 247–66. 64 Here I am following the definition of Philonic allegory as offered by Pearce, Land of the Body, 29–30. 65 Runia, “Philo,” 11. For an essay detailing the influence of classical education on Philo’s thinking, see Erkki Koskenniemi, “Philo and Classical Education,” in Reading Philo: Handbook to Philo of Alexandria, ed. Torrey Seland (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 102–28. 66 See Ellen Birnbaum, “Exegetical Building Blocks in Philo’s Interpretation of the Patriarchs,” in From Judaism to Christianity: Tradition and Transition: A Festschrift for Thomas H. Tobin, S. J., on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Patricia Walters, NovTSup 136 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010), 69–92. On learning, nature, and practice, cf. Abraham 52–53; Prelim. Studies 35–36; Dreams 1:67–68. 67 See the assessment of Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 212–38. 68 For further discussion, see Abraham P. Bos, “Hagar and the Enkyklios Paideia in Philo of Alexandria,” in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and

4.5 The Portrayal of Hagar in the Works of Philo

93

physical to the spiritual, or the irrational to the rational, Hagar represents the soul’s preparatory phase of learning or instruction. This interpretive approach is clearly laid out in the treatise Alleg. Interp. 3.244–45. Here, Philo offers a brief description of the allegorical representation of key characters in the Abraham narrative: [A] woman such as Sarah is seen to have been, even paramount virtue (ἀρετήν). The wise (σοφός) Abraham complies with her when she recommends the course to follow. For at an earlier time, when he had not yet become perfect (τέλειος) but, before his name had been changed, was still only inquiring into supramundane things, being aware that he could not beget seed out of perfect virtue, she [Sarah] advises him to beget children out of the handmaiden (ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης), that is school-learning (παιδείας τῆς ἐγκυκλίου), even Hagar. This name means “Sojourning,” (παροίκησις) for he that is studying to make his home in perfect virtue, before he is registered as a member of her city, sojourns with the subjects learned in the schools, that he may be led by these to apply his unfettered powers to virtue (ἀρετήν). Afterwards, when she sees him brought to perfection, and capable now of begetting … And if he, filled with gratitude towards the education by means of which he was brought into union with virtue, thinks it harsh to reject it, he shall be brought to compliance by an oracle of God bidding him, “In all that Sarah saith to thee listen to her voice.”69

In sum, for Philo, Sarah personifies perfect virtue; Abraham personifies the soul seeking to obtain perfect virtue; and Hagar functions as a symbolic stepping-stone in the soul’s quest for virtue. As such, Hagar is consistently juxtaposed with Sarah, the symbol of virtue (ἀρετή).70 This portrayal of Hagar is seen most explicitly in the treatise On the Preliminary Studies.71 Commenting primarily on Gen 16:1–6, Philo offers an explanation for the account of Abraham’s mating with Hagar. Philo begins this lengthy treatise with lavish praise for Sarah, the personification of virtue (ἀρετή; Prelim. Studies 2, 6–12).72 However, those who would desire to receive the “impregnation of virtue” for themselves must first mate with Sarah’s handmaiden (θεραπαινίς; Prelim. Studies 9).73 According to Philo, virtue, or wisdom’s handmaiden, is “the culture gained by primary learning (προπαιδευμάτων) of the school course” (Prelim. Studies 9). In other words, if the mind is to obtain Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham, ed. Martin Goodman, George H. van Kooten, and Jacques T.A.G.M. van Ruiten, TBN 13 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010), 163–75. 69 Greek text and translation taken from F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, Philo, LCL I–IX (London; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929–35). 70 Cf. Martina Böhm, Rezeption und Funktion der Vätererzählungen bei Philo von Alexandria: Zum Zusammenhang von Kontext, Hermeneutik und Exegese im frühen Judentum, BZNW 128 (Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 2005), 252–55, 286–306. 71 It can also be found in, e.g., Alleg. Interp. 3.244–45; Cherubim 4–6; Names 255. 72 This is due largely to the etymology of her name, which, according to Philo meant “my ruler.” On the significance of etymology for Philo’s overall allegorical approach, see David T. Runia, “Etymology as an Allegorical Technique in Philo of Alexandria,” SPhiloA 16 (2004): 101–21. 73 In this way, Philo accounts for the barrenness of Sarah.

94

Chapter 4: Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

virtue it must first begin with the lower instruction, i.e., virtue’s “handmaiden,” by undertaking and passing through the preliminary learning of “grammar, geometry, astronomy, rhetoric, music, and all other branches of intellectual study” (Prelim. Studies 11). As the stepping-stone to virtue, then, it is Hagar who, for Philo, symbolizes these various branches of preliminary learning (Prelim. Studies 11). In other words, since Abraham (i.e., the soul/mind) is not yet virtuous and made perfect, he is unable to beget children with Sarah (i.e., virtue); therefore, he must first pass-through Hagar (i.e., “encyclical studies”). In this way, Philo contends that Abraham’s mating with Hagar had nothing to do with “bodily unions,” but rather, the deeper meaning is found in understanding that “[w]hat is meant is a mating of mind (νοῦ) with virtue (ἀρετήν). Mind desires to have children by virtue, and, if it cannot do so at once, is instructed to espouse virtue’s handmaid (τὴν θεραπαινίθα), the lower instruction” (τὴν μέσην παιδείαν; Prelim. Studies 12). In other words, if Abraham (i.e., the mind) is to beget children from Sarah (i.e., virtue), he must first pass through the appropriate phase of preliminary learning, namely, Hagar.74 4.5.2.2 The Allegorical Significance of Hagar’s Identity and Name Philo’s primary justification for his allegorical interpretation of Hagar as ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία is directly related to his understanding of Hagar’s identity and name. In Prelim. Studies 20, Philo states: The primary characteristic marks of the lower education (τῆς μέσης παιδείας) are represented by two symbols giving its race (τοῦ τε γένους) and its name (τοῦ ὀνόματος). In race it is Egypt (Αἰγυπτία), but its name is Hagar, which is by interpretation “sojourning” (παροίκησις).

In other words, Philo offers two reasons in support of his allegorical interpretation of Hagar as a symbol of ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία. It is Hagar’s Egyptian origin and identity, coupled with the etymology of her name, that is indicative of Philo’s allegorical interpretation of her. For Philo, Egypt and likewise Egyptians are to be symbolically identified with the body.75 According to Sarah Pearce, “[this] dominates Philo’s interpre74 Cf. Prelim. Studies 19, whereby Philo considers this process of obtaining virtue to be similar to that of the nourishing development of the body. Just as the early stages of life require milk and “foods of infancy,” which are equivalent to the ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία, once the soul is nourished it is ready for “the virtues of grown-up food.” 75 See Pearce, Land of the Body, 174–75. Cf., e.g., Migration 77; Prelim Studies 83; Alleg. Interp. 2.59, 2.77; Agriculture 89; Posterity 62; Sacrifices 48. On the meaning of γενός in Philo, see Birnbaum, The Place, 52–58. On Philo’s view of Egypt and Egyptians in general, see Alan Mendelson, Philo’s Jewish Identity, BJS 161 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 116–22; Niehoff, Philo on Jewish Identity, 45–74. Importantly, Carlos Lévy, “‘Mais que faisait donc Philon en Égypte?’ À propos de l’identité diasporique de Philon,” in La Rivelazione in Filone di Alessandria: Natura, Legge, Storia, ed. Angela Maria Mazzanti

4.5 The Portrayal of Hagar in the Works of Philo

95

tation of Egypt and all things Egyptian in the Pentateuch.” 76 Philo views the body as that which is the temporary house or tomb of the soul (Alleg. Interp. 1.107–8). The relationship between the body and the soul is, however, indicative of the irrational part of the soul. Since the ultimate goal of the soul is the attainment of wisdom, the rational part of the soul struggles to free itself from the body in order to reach the divine realm.77 Thus, in relation to Abraham, Philo states: The votary of the school studies (ἐγκυκλίοις) [i.e., Abraham], the friend of wide learning, must necessarily be associated with the earthly and Egyptian body (σώματι); since he needs eyes to see and read, ears to listen and hear, and the other senses to unveil the several objects of sense. For the thing judged cannot be apprehended without one to judge it, and it is sense which judges the sensible, and therefore without sense it is always impossible to obtain accurate knowledge of any of the phenomena in the sensible world which form the staple of philosophy. Sense being the bodily part of the soul (τῆς ψυχῆς) is riveted to the vessel of the soul as a whole, and this soul-vessel is symbolically called Egypt. (Prelim. Studies 20–21)

In other words, as a symbol of the body and the learning associated with earthly sense perception, Egypt represents intermediate instruction (μέσος παιδεία). Namely, a necessary yet “inferior form of learning, based on knowledge acquired through the senses.”78 Immediately following this, Philo explains the relationship between Egypt, the body, and Hagar’s Egyptian identity. He states, “This, then, is one of the marks of the handmaid (θεραπαινίς) of virtue, namely, that of race (τοῦ γένους)” (Prelim Studies 22). In other words, Philo contends that it is Hagar’s Egyptian identity (i.e., γένος) that permits him to develop this symbolic identification with her. As an Egyptian, Hagar is representative of the body and μέσος παιδεία. Hence, just as it was necessary for Abraham to spend time in Egypt, he must spend time with Hagar. Elsewhere, however, Philo makes clear that, as an Egyptian, Hagar is incapable of leading the mind to true knowledge of God (cf. Dreams 1.240). Thus, since the preliminary studies are associated with the body, or the irrational part of the soul, when the student comes to obtain perfect virtue and wisdom, he (i.e., Abraham) is to leave the body (i.e.,

and Francesca Calabi, Biblioteca Di Adamantius 2 (Verucchio: Pazzini, 2004), 295–312, has argued that much of Philo’s view of Egyptians is influenced by the Pentateuch; see also Otto Kaiser, Philo von Alexandrien: Denkender Glaube – Eine Einführung, FRLANT 259 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 48. 76 Pearce, Land of the Body, 85. 77 Pearce, Land of the Body, 85–86. As Birnbaum, “Exegetical Building Blocks,” 83, notes, for Philo, both Abraham and Jacob had to follow this “middle way.” 78 Pearce, Land of the Body, 172.

96

Chapter 4: Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

Egypt or Hagar) behind in order to prepare the mind for virtue (cf. Unchangeable 55–56).79 Concerning the etymological significance of Hagar’s name, Philo assumes that there is a connection between the name of an individual and the character of that individual.80 The task of allegorical interpretation, then, is to make this connection explicit by looking for the deeper meaning of the name found in symbols.81 By relating the Hebrew word for Hagar, ‫הגר‬, to the verb ‫גור‬, meaning, “to sojourn” (παροίκησις; Prelim. Studies 20), Philo links the etymological significance of Hagar’s name to the “transitory nature” of the student’s relationship with ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία.82 Thus, Philo states: Let us now consider the nature of the other mark, that of name (τοῦ ὀνόματος). The lower education (τὴν μέσην παιδείαν) is in the position of a sojourner (παροίκου). For knowledge and wisdom and every virtue are native born, indigenous, citizens in the truest sense, and in this they are absolutely alone; but the other kinds of training, which win second or third or last prizes, are on the border-line (μεθόριοι) between foreigners (ξένων) and citizens (ἀστῶν). For they belong to neither kind in its pure form, and yet in virtue of a certain degree of partnership they touch both. The sojourner (πάροικος) in so far as he is staying in the city is on a par with the citizens, in so far as it is not his home, on a par with foreigners … Sarah, virtue, bears, we shall find, the same relation to Hagar, education, as the mistress to the servant-maid, or the lawful wife (γυνή) to the concubine (πρὸς παλλακήν), and so naturally the mind which aspires to study and to gain knowledge, the mind we call Abraham, will have Sarah, virtue, for his wife (γυνή), and Hagar, the whole range of school culture, for his concubine (παλλακή). (Prelim. Studies 22–23)

In other words, due to the etymological significance of her name, Hagar exemplifies the sojourn-like experience of the one who, through preparatory learning, seeks to gain wisdom and thus obtain virtue and perfection.83 In fact, Philo believes this step to be “entirely necessary” (πάνυ … ἀναγκαῖος; Prelim. Studies 24). Yet, although necessary, the relationship between lower education (μέσος παιδεία) and the one who desires wisdom is only meant to be temporary. According to Philo, it is likened to one’s relationship to his lawful wife in comparison with that of a concubine: it is merely a sojourn.84 Thus, the meaning of Hagar’s name, “sojourner” (παροίκησις), implies that the one who desires wisdom must not linger long with μέσος παιδεία, but merely sojourn with

79 Justin M. Rogers, “The Philonic and the Pauline: Hagar and Sarah in the Exegesis of Didymus the Blind,” in The Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, ed. David T. Runia and George E. Sterling, SPhiloA 26 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014), 67; Pearce, Land of the Body, 75. 80 On the etymology of Hagar’s name, see Pearce, Land of the Body, 173. 81 Pearce, Land of the Body, 34–35. 82 Pearce, Land of the Body, 173. 83 Cf. Alleg. Interp. 3.244; cf. Cherubim 3, 8; Drunkeness 34. 84 Pearce, Land of the Body, 173.

4.5 The Portrayal of Hagar in the Works of Philo

97

her until the appointed time when he (e.g., Abraham) is able to leave her behind.85 4.5.2.3 Summary In sum, Philo’s portrayal of Hagar throughout much of the Allegorical Commentary is understood to be both positive and negative. Allegorically, Hagar is meant to symbolize ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία. Insofar as the acquisition of preliminary learning is essential to the obtainment of wisdom, Hagar is to be viewed positively, even essential.86 As Philo puts it, “He then who gains wisdom by instruction will not reject Hagar, for the acquisition of the preliminary subjects (προπαιδευμάτων) is quite necessary” (Prelim. Studies 24). However, when the student, i.e., Abraham, is brought to perfection, he is commanded to move beyond the preliminary studies by expunging himself (ἐκβάλλω) of all aspects of preliminary learning, namely, Hagar. Thus, for Philo, Hagar the Egyptian handmaiden is unable to lead the mind to true knowledge and wisdom. 4.5.3 The Portrayal of Hagar in Questions and Answers on Genesis The portrayal of Hagar in Questions and Answers on Genesis is similar, in some respects, to that of the Allegorical Commentary.87 In this work, Philo, in sequential fashion (i.e., verse-by-verse or running commentary), offers answers to questions about the text of Gen 16:1–16. Philo’s answers, or interpretations, are found to be either completely allegorical or a mix of literal interpretation that is then followed by allegory.88 In this instance, Philo’s interpretation of Hagar belongs largely to the former category of allegory or the “deeper sense.” Similar to the Allegorical Commentary, the interpretation of Hagar’s name (i.e., “sojourning”) and Egyptian origin is of significance (QG 3.19). According to Philo, Hagar is serviceable insofar as one is “waiting on virtue” and thus not yet home. In the remaining sections of QG, however, Hagar no longer appears to represent “school learning,” but rather, she represents one on the path to virtue, whose shortcomings are representative. In QG 3.26–36, Philo explains Hagar’s flight from Sarah’s oppression and subsequent encounter with the angel of the Lord in the wilderness. According to Philo, the reason for Hagar’s flight is because she did not “gladly receive discipline” (QG 3.26). Allegorically understood, Hagar is the symbol of a soul fleeing from virtue (QG 3.27). She is to return, however, from the foolishness of her ways and continue the pursuit of truth and wisdom (QG 3.28–30). In QG 3.31–32, Philo explains that the 85

Rogers, “The Philonic,” 67. For Philo, παροίκησις is often used in conjunction with Hagar; cf. Sacrifices 43; Prelim. Studies 20. 86 As noted by Pearce, Land of the Body, 171; cf. also Böhm, Rezeption, 252. 87 See Sterling et al., “Philo,” 262. 88 Hay, Literal and Allegorical, vii.

98

Chapter 4: Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

promise of offspring for Hagar is directly related to her pursuit of virtue. That is, when one pursues virtue through learning, the seeds of wisdom are received. However, what this seed produces is yet imperfect because “those of the inferior (souls) which are still under service and in bondage are more imperfect” (QG 3.32). Thus, while Hagar’s conception of Ishmael cannot be denied, the fact that it is not a “perfect work” is evident. Ishmael’s name means “hearing God,” in contrast to “seeing God,” because hearing is of lower rank than seeing (QG 3.32). Similarly, Hagar is compared with those who have poor eyesight, thinking that they have encountered God, “the Most High One, when in reality, they have only encountered one of God’s servants” (QG 3.34–35). Altogether, then, although sharing similarities with the Allegorical Commentary, in this treatise Philo’s portrayal of Hagar is significantly more negative. Here, Philo focuses his attention on accentuating Hagar’s shortcomings. He personifies her as the soul that flees from virtue while highlighting the consequent ramifications of her foolish actions for both herself and her son. 4.5.4 The Portrayal of Hagar in the Exposition of the Law In this commentary Philo is understood to be presenting the Pentateuch “in a broader and more systematic fashion.”89 Philo’s work here is akin to that of Jubilees or 1QapGen: a rewriting or retelling of Israel’s scriptural tradition that paraphrases and expands the scriptural text as the interpretation of the author is likewise expressed.90 Thus, in contrast to the previous works discussed above where Philo interprets Hagar primarily according to the allegorical or deeper sense, here Philo offers a reading according to the text’s more “literal” sense. The only reference to Hagar in Exposition of the Law is found in the treatise On the Life of Abraham 247–54. Commenting on Gen 16:1–2, Philo’s goal is to recast Sarah’s giving of Hagar to Abraham in order to highlight Sarah’s utmost virtue. According to Philo, Sarah’s only concern is the childless state of Abraham. Abraham 250 states, “And therefore I [Sarah] shall not be backward to lead to you a bride who will supply what is lacking in myself.” Thus, Sarah’s giving of Hagar is to be understood within this framework: an act of complete selflessness.91 However, according to Gen 16:1, Hagar is both an Egyptian and a slave. As a result, Philo neutralizes both descriptors by significantly modifying Sarah’s description of Hagar. According to Philo, Sarah describes Hagar in this way: Take my handmaiden (θεράπαιναν), outwardly a slave (δούλην), inwardly of free (ἐλευθέραν) and noble race (εὐγενῆ τὴν διάνοιαν), proved and tested by me for many years

89

Royse and Kamesar, “The Works,” 45. Cf. Rewards 1–2. Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria,” 234. 91 Sarah Pearce, “Intermarriage and the Ancestors of the Jews: Philonic Perspectives,” SPhiloA 27 (2015): 10. 90

4.5 The Portrayal of Hagar in the Works of Philo

99

from the day when she was first brought to my house, an Egyptian (Αἰγυπτίαν) by birth (γένος), but a Hebrew (Ἑβραίαν) by her rule of life (προαίρεσιν).92 (Abraham 251)

Here it appears that Philo’s solution to the problematic aspects of Hagar’s identity is to transform them. Thus, during her time as Sarah’s handmaiden, and her stay in Abraham’s household, Philo depicts Hagar as one who, although outwardly a slave, lived as though she was free. More surprising is what Philo says of her Egyptian identity. He appears to suggest that Hagar had elected (προαίρεσις) to abandon her Egyptian origins in favor of a Hebrew (Ἑβραῖος) way of life.93 In sum, according to Abraham 251, while living in Abraham’s household, Philo depicted Hagar as, in some sense, living as a Jewish woman according to the customs of the Jewish people.94 It appears that here, and in contrast to his other writings, Philo portrays Hagar in an entirely positive light. She is not to be viewed as a slave or an Egyptian, but as free and of noble birth: one who possibly even lived as a “law-abiding Jew.”95 4.5.5 Making Sense of Philo’s Portrayal of Hagar As the above overview demonstrates, Philo takes considerable interest in the figure of Hagar. Not surprisingly, however, his portrayal of her throughout his various exegetical works does not appear to be altogether consistent, which then raises the question of how the portrayal of Hagar in the writings of Philo is to be understood. For instance, is Philo’s Hagar to be understood primarily as a borderline figure (Allegorical Commentary), a soul fleeing from virtue (QG), or, most strikingly, one who embodied a Jewish way of life (Abraham)? This raises the question of whether the various depictions of Hagar are best understood on an individual basis – as isolated and independent accounts that have no clearly defined relationship – or can and should Philo’s various depictions of Hagar be, on some level, harmonized for the purpose of allowing a more unified picture to emerge? Thus, it is the task of this final section to answer these questions so as to offer an overall assessment of the portrayal of Hagar in the writings of Philo. Before doing so, however, the question of methodology needs to be addressed. 4.5.5.1 Methodological Considerations To the above questions, Adam Kamesar and David Runia have offered helpful guidelines for understanding Philo’s exegetical approach on the one hand and the interpretation of it on the other. According to Kamesar, Philo’s exegetical 92

Emphasis my own. See the assessment of Borgen, “Some Hebrew,” 153–54. 94 Cf. Borgen, “Some Hebrew,” 151–64; Niehoff, Philo on Jewish Identity, 26. 95 Borgen, “Some Hebrew,” 155–56. 93

100

Chapter 4: Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

approach is such that one must start with the view that he took both the literal and allegorical levels of Scripture seriously. In this regard, the relationship between the literal and the allegorical should not be viewed as unharmonious and disjointed, as is often the case; rather, Philo’s general procedure is to accept both the literal (as sacred Scripture) and the allegorical (the deeper meaning of a sacred text), even if the former is primarily subordinated to the latter.96 As Kamesar puts it, “the relentless focus on the allegorical meaning does not always disallow or discredit the literal sense. In fact, Philo’s more common procedure … is to piece together the allegorical meaning while accepting also the literal, even if he will nearly always give prime place to the former.” 97 Hence, while the literal sense of the text has a “didactic import,” it is where one starts, not where one ends. This is because, for Philo, the literal is not sufficient in and of itself; rather, one is required to go deeper in order to uncover the full meaning and understanding of the text.98 This, however, is not to undermine the literal, which is an essential component for one to comprehend the allegorical. Altogether then, one should not be quick to separate the two levels of exegesis, and an attempt should be made to understand how Philo not only appropriated the literal in service of the allegorical, but also took seriously the literal as the foundation for the allegorical so that the allegorical could properly inform the literal. Second, in his chapter on methodological guidelines for reading and understanding Philo, Runia offers a number of helpful directives to guide the interpreter, two of which are especially significant for our purposes here.99 First, Runia contends that when pursuing a particular topic in Philo the reader should take all of the relevant data and related passages into account.100 This is because, due to the vastness of Philo’s writings, a particular topic may arise anywhere and at any point. Since many of Philo’s statements and treatments are contextually bound, focusing on only a few select “purple-passages” may result in misunderstanding Philo’s intention and overall assessment of a particular topic within the wider Philonic corpus. Thus, Runia’s warning is pertinent: “If one concentrates on a few select ‘purple-passages’, there is a good chance that 96

Kamesar, “Biblical Interpretation,” 77–85. Kamesar, “Biblical Interpretation,” 77. 98 Kamesar, “Biblical Interpretation,” 83; cf. also Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria,” 261. This is similar to the concept of macrocosm and microcosm; see Borgen, An Exegete, 218– 23; Peder Borgen, “Philo – An Interpreter of the Laws of Moses,” in Reading Philo: A Handbook to Philo of Alexandria, ed. Torrey Seland (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 81– 82. An example of macrocosm and microcosm is found in Migration 89–93, where Philo does not permit the law to be understood in a way that would separate the literal from the allegorical. 99 David T. Runia, “How to Read Philo,” in Exegesis and Philosophy: Studies in Philo of Alexandria (Aldershot: Variorum, 1990), 185–98. 100 Runia, “How to Read Philo,” 193. 97

4.5 The Portrayal of Hagar in the Works of Philo

101

the result will be one-sided, and thus in need of qualification.”101 The second guideline concerns the importance of ascertaining what a particular section of text is seeking to address. When focus is given to a particular text, the context of that text must be given special attention. 102 For Philo’s exegetical work, the biblical text almost always functions as the context and thus the basis for Philo’s exegesis. In terms of the passages surveyed above, the context for Philo’s discussion of Hagar is the biblical text of Genesis. Altogether, then, according to the methodological suggestions of Kamesar and Runia, the most responsible approach to making sense of Philo’s exegetical work is that, when dealing with a particular topic, one must take the totality of Philo’s writings into account in order to allow the disparate parts to inform the whole. This, however, requires the recognition that, more often than not, the literal meaning will be subordinated to the allegorical. Therefore, in what follows we will focus on harmonizing the depiction of Hagar in On the Life of Abraham with Philo’s allegorical treatments of her in order to bring some clarity to the portrayal of Hagar in the writings of Philo. 4.5.5.2 The Portrayal of Hagar in the Writings of Philo Returning to Philo’s depiction of Hagar in On the Life of Abraham, Peder Borgen suggests that Philo conceived of Hagar’s role in Gen 16 within the overall context of Jewish proselytism.103 Borgen contends that, as an Egyptian belonging to Abraham’s household, Philo understood Hagar to be a figure on the borderline.104 As such, Hagar could be viewed as either an outsider or an insider. Thus, in Borgen’s view: “In this passage she is brought so far into the Hebrew side that her role is largely that of a Hebrew woman.”105 In other words, Borgen understands Philo’s depiction of Hagar in Abraham 251 to be analogous to that of a proselyte: namely, a Torah observant Jewish woman.106 In general agreement with Borgen, Maren Niehoff argues that the reason behind this depiction is that it provides Philo with a solution to the problem of Israelite patriarchs procreating with non-Jewish mothers.107 Thus, for Niehoff, “he [Philo] converted the foreign mothers and raised the social status of those who were handmaids as well.”108 As such, Philo addresses the problem of Hagar’s Egyptian origin and social status by portraying her as one who had taken on a Jewish

101

Runia, “How to Read Philo,” 193. Runia, “How to Read Philo,” 193. 103 Borgen, “Some Hebrew.” 104 Borgen, “Some Hebrew,” 155. 105 Borgen, “Some Hebrew,” 155. 106 Borgen, “Some Hebrew,” 155. 107 Borgen, “Some Hebrew,” 156. 108 Niehoff, Philo on Jewish Identity, 24. 102

102

Chapter 4: Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

way of life and was thus fully incorporated into the Jewish community.109 Therefore, according to Borgen and Niehoff, Philo’s portrayal of Hagar in Abraham 251 appears to be altogether positive, yet it stands in stark contrast to his portrayal of her throughout the Allegorical Commentary. Although Borgen and Neihoff have rightly noted that Philo’s goal in Abraham 251 is to offer a modified reading of what he understood to be problematic aspects of the portrayal of Hagar in the Genesis narrative, for reasons to be discussed below, their assessment of Philo’s portrayal of Hagar in Abraham 251 – as that of an Egyptian proselyte to Judaism – has several shortcomings. First, it is not at all clear from the brief description of Hagar in Abraham 251 whether Philo has proselytism in view. In fact, as a borderline figure, Hagar could just as likely represent the sympathizer or the “godfearer.”110 Second, in line with the point just made, Sarah Pearce has noted that Philo never uses the term προαίρεσις when discussing the “choice” made by a gentile to proselytize, yet this is the term he employs to depict Hagar’s “choice” of taking on a Jewish way of life.111 Third, even if one were to entertain the idea that notions of proselytism are in view, the benefits of Hagar’s so-called “conversion” share surprisingly little to no similarity with Philo’s description of the conversion experience of other foreign mothers (e.g., Tamar, Virtues 220–21) and handmaids (e.g., Zilpah and Bilhah, Virtues 223–24). For instance, upon conversion, the handmaids Zilpah and Bilhah become proper wives of the patriarch Jacob, and naturally, the social status of their respective sons is likewise raised. In contrast, however, throughout Abraham 247–54, Philo never refers to Hagar as Abraham’s wife; rather, she is continually called a handmaiden (cf. Abraham 251, 254). And unlike the sons born to Zilpah and Bilhah, the status of the son born to Hagar remains largely ambivalent. Finally, and with the above points in mind, while Philo’s view of gentile proselytism is generally a favorable one, when it comes to Egyptians in particular, Philo demonstrates strong reservation. According to Virtues 108, an Egyptian proselyte does not fully share in the rights of the native born until the “third generation” (τρίτην γενεάν).112 Hagar, however, clearly precedes this third generation, meaning, she could never fully “convert” or belong. Therefore, when the relevant data is considered, it is unlikely that Philo had proselytism in view in relation to his portrayal of Hagar in Abraham 251.

109

Niehoff, Philo on Jewish Identity, 25–26. To be fair, Niehoff nuances her reading by noting that, in the end, Philo is not able to overcome Hagar’s marginal status as a slave and thus has her disqualified from Abraham’s house; see Philo on Jewish Identity, 27. 110 For various approaches to gentiles relating to Judaism, see Terence L. Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (to 135 CE) (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008). 111 Pearce, “Intermarriage,” 11. 112 For further discussion, see Horrell, Ethnicity and Inclusion, 272–73.

4.5 The Portrayal of Hagar in the Works of Philo

103

According to the methodological guidelines outlined above, two final points warrant comment. First, and based on Runia’s second interpretive guideline, it is important to recognize that Philo is forced to reckon with the Genesis narrative and transform Hagar’s identity and social status, not for the sake of Hagar, but only to ensure that Sarah is presented as the virtuous woman he believes and depicts her to be.113 As the overall context makes clear, Abraham 247–54 is about Sarah, not Hagar. Second, when Runia’s first guideline is employed and one considers what Philo says elsewhere about both proselytism and Hagar, it becomes apparent that the conclusion of Borgen and Neihoff is difficult to maintain. That is, by isolating the data and confining most of their interpretation to this particular text, Borgen’s and Niehoff’s respective readings do not account fully for the totality of Philo’s view of both proselytism and, most importantly, Hagar as a figure on the borderline. In fact, as will be demonstrated below, when the whole of Philo’s exegetical interpretations of Hagar is accounted for, an alternative assessment rises to the fore. Considering Philo’s depiction of Hagar in Abraham 251, three points need to be highlighted in order to make sense of Philo’s portrayal of Hagar in this particular text with what he says about her elsewhere. First, and as noted above, it is important to keep in mind that Philo’s primary concern in Abraham 247–54 is with the virtuous Sarah.114 Hagar’s Egyptian identity and social status are a problem for Philo, not because of how each characteristic portrays Hagar, but only in terms of how the characteristics might have affected the portrayal of Sarah as the one who gave Hagar to Abraham. Thus, Philo modifies the Genesis material by going beyond the scriptural tradition, and he recasts Hagar as one who underwent proper training from the virtuous Sarah in order to be a suitable option for Abraham.115 This, however, is much in line with Philo’s portrayal of Hagar throughout the Allegorical Commentary. As noted above, Hagar is depicted as necessary so long as she is needed. According to Prelim. Studies 23, Hagar is said to be like a sojourner, who, when in a particular city, is “on par with the citizens” of that city. Meaning, according to both Philo’s literal and allegorical construal of Hagar, she is a sojourner who lives according to the standards of the particular group to which she belongs. By no means, however, does Philo mean to suggest that Hagar had become a full convert to Judaism. As he states in Prelim. Studies 23, “For they [the sojourner] belong to neither kind in its pure form, and yet in virtue of a certain degree of partnership they touch both.” Thus, although Philo elevates Hagar’s social status in Abraham 251, what is important to note is that he gives no indication that her status as a sojourner has changed. Rather, and as noted above, Philo continues to refer 113

Pearce, “Intermarriage,” 11. On Philo’s overall interest in the figure of Sarah, see Maren R. Niehoff, “Mother and Maiden, Sister and Spouse: Sarah in Philonic Midrash,” HTR 97 (2004): 413–44. 115 Pearce, “Intermarriage,” 10. 114

104

Chapter 4: Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

to Hagar as a “handmaiden” (θεραπαινίς) throughout the remainder of the brief account (cf. Abraham 253–54).116 And to mention again, the status of her son is never elevated, as one would expect if Hagar had undergone genuine proselyte conversion. An additional explanation for the elevation of the portrayal of Hagar in Abraham 251 has to do with Philo’s understanding of the type of person that could belong to Abraham’s house. As Martina Böhm points out, for Philo, “zu dessen [Abraham’s] Haushalt können eben auch nur tugendhafte Personen gehört haben.”117 Returning to Prelim. Studies 22–23, then, as a figure on the borderline, Philo appears to modify the identity of Hagar while she is within Abraham’s household and thus needed. This too follows Philo’s depiction of her elsewhere. Once Hagar has served her purpose, however, Philo can just as easily set her aside. This leads to the final point: when Philo’s discussion of Hagar is removed from the context of Abraham’s household, his portrayal of her takes a sharp turn and she is consistently depicted as one who would prefer the life of sojourning to that of the pursuit of virtue. For instance, in the treatise On the Cherubim, Philo recounts the twofold departure of Hagar from Abraham’s house, as recorded in Gen 16 and 21, with significant implications for his view of Hagar as a figure on the borderline. On the first occasion, Hagar’s flight is viewed as voluntary. According to Philo, the first flight allegorically illustrates the departure of lower education from sovereign virtue: that is, Hagar personifies the one who clings to and thus prefers the “lower” to the “higher” (Cherubim 4–6). Elsewhere, Philo suggests that, as a borderline figure, Hagar straddles the fence between holy and profane, “fleeing from bad things, but not yet competent to share in the life of perfect goodness” (Flight 213). Hence, Philo suggests that Hagar’s initial flight from Abraham’s household is due to the fact that she was being pulled back to her former and profane life. However, on this first occasion, Hagar is permitted to retrace her steps and return to sovereign virtue, the person of Sarah (Cherubim 3). Reading behind the allegory, I would suggest that Philo considered Hagar’s return and pursuit of “sovereign virtue” to be on par with her pursuit of a Jewish way of life (cf. Abraham 251). This by no means implies, however, that Hagar had returned and undergone full proselyte conversion. In fact, commenting on her second departure, Philo states that, on this occasion, Hagar did not voluntarily flee from Abraham’s household, rather, she was “cast forth by God … subject to eternal banishment … [and thus] never to return” (Cherubim 3). According to Philo, the reason for her ban116 Moreover, as noted by Pearce, “Intermarriage,” 11, if Hagar had become a proselyte, Philo could have made her Abraham’s wife as the Genesis account appears to suggest. However, it is only Sarah who is called Abraham’s wife. 117 Martina Böhm, “Abraham und die Erzväter bei Philo. Überlegungen zur Exegese und Hermeneutik im frühen Judentum,” in Philo und das Neue Testament, ed. Ronald Deines and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, WUNT II 172 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 392.

4.5 The Portrayal of Hagar in the Works of Philo

105

ishment is because she was “still clinging to the particular and specific region in which the lower is preferred to the higher” (Cherubim 6). Hagar’s full and final banishment is, however, of no surprise as it follows the natural progression of preliminary studies. Thus, in Cherubim 8, Philo states, “when all this is come to pass, then will be cast forth those preliminary studies (προπαιδεύματα) which bear the name of Hagar.” In other words, and consistent with what has been noted throughout, when Abraham finally obtains the higher life of perfection, Hagar, who was once necessary, becomes fully expendable. One final and related observation is in order concerning the portrayal of Ishmael in relation to that of his mother. Throughout the Allegorical Commentary, Ishmael is consistently portrayed negatively. Moreover, this negative portrayal always appears to be the direct result of his relationship to his mother. According to Philo, since Hagar personifies preliminary studies, Ishmael is understood to be nothing more than a mere sophist (Cherubim 10; Flight 209). In this way, he is juxtaposed with Isaac. As the son of Hagar, Ishmael is depicted as a “creature of teaching” whereas Isaac “learns from no one” and is entirely “self-taught” (αὐτομαθής; Names 255). Moreover, Isaac is called the “perfect” and “legitimate” son, worthy of all Abraham’s possessions, and Ishmael is the “lowly” son who is only worthy of “small things” because he is born of Abraham’s concubine (παλλακή; Sacrifices 43). Finally, Philo rejects the notion that God directly created the offspring of Hagar. Rather, since they are not free, God could not have created them, otherwise they too would have been free since God is free; instead, “slaves are of slaves” (δούλων δὲ δοῦλοι; Flight 212). Since Hagar is a slave, so too would her descendants be slaves. Thus, in the words of Niehoff, “Hagar’s continued menial status had serious consequences for her son Ishmael … Ishmael was disqualified from the start, because he was the son of Hagar, a slave woman.”118 4.5.6 Concluding Remarks on the Portrayal of Hagar in the Writings of Philo The above overview has demonstrated that the portrayal of Hagar is largely consistent across the entire spectrum of Philo’s exegetical works. So long as Hagar remained with Abraham (and Sarah) she was to be viewed positively, even necessary. Thus, Philo can even depict her as one who chose to adopt a Jewish lifestyle: not however as a convert, but likely akin to a sympathizer or god-fearer. Allegorically, Hagar symbolizes the preliminary studies that the soul (i.e., Abraham) must undergo as a stepping-stone to the achievement of perfect virtue. Ultimately, however, as a borderline figure, Hagar is to be rejected. According to Philo, she personifies the soul that is in process; she is on the borderline between “evil” and “holy” and thus not ready to share in the life of perfect goodness (Flight 213). Moreover, as an Egyptian, she is not qualified 118

Niehoff, Philo on Jewish Identity, 27.

106

Chapter 4: Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

to see God and thus unable to lead the soul to true knowledge of him (cf. Flight 240). Thus, once the soul reaches the attainment of perfect virtue, the soul is to rid itself of preliminary studies, which are associated with the body: meaning, Hagar is to be cast out. Finally, the full implications of the negative aspects of her portrayal are directly related to her offspring, namely, Ishmael. As the son of a slave, he too is a slave and incapable of freeing himself from that which bound him to a life of sophistry.

4.6 The Portrayal of Hagar in Josephus 4.6 The Portrayal of Hagar in Josephus

The final portrayal of Hagar that will be examined in this chapter belongs to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus. By his own admission, Josephus was born in Jerusalem somewhere between the years of 37–38 CE to a prominent family of the priestly class (Life 2–5). He served as a Jewish general in the First Jewish Revolt against Rome (War 2.568) where he ultimately surrendered to Vespasian. He was then taken to Rome as a captive but later released (War 4.629). He appears to have spent his remaining years in Rome as a Roman citizen under the benefaction of some distinguished friends.119 It was during his years in Rome that he produced the three literary works for which he is known: the seven-volume Jewish War, the twenty-volume Jewish Antiquities (with The Life as an appendix), and the two-volume Against Apion.120 The figure of Hagar is found in volume one of the twenty-volume Jewish Antiquities (hereafter: Antiquities). Before proceeding to an examination of the portrayal of Hagar in Antiquities, a few introductory matters need to be considered. 4.6.1 Introducing Jewish Antiquities According to Josephus, the purpose of Antiquities is to “encompass our [the Jewish peoples] entire ancient history and constitution of the state, translated from the Hebrew writings” (1.5).121 In other words, Antiquities was written as 119

See Steve Mason, James S. McLaren, and John M. G. Barclay, “Josephus,” in Early Judaism: A Comprehensive Overview, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 290–91. 120 For an overview of Josephus’s writings, see Mason, McLaren, and Barclay, “Josephus,” 291–312; Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 55–145; Attridge, “Josephus,” 192–231. For various perspectives on understanding the work of Josephus, see the collection of essays in Steve Mason, ed., Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, JSPSup 32 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). 121 Translated by Louis H. Feldman, Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1–4, ed. Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 3 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2004) , with slight modification. Feldman’s translation is followed throughout, with, at times, minor adaption. The Greek text is taken from Flavius Josephus, The Jewish Antiquities,

4.6 The Portrayal of Hagar in Josephus

107

“a primer in Judean law and culture” in order to show “who the Jews (Ἰουδαῖοι) were from the beginning” (1.6).122 Moreover, according to Ant. 1.14, Josephus’s aim in writing was that those who read Antiquities would likewise understand: [T]hat those who comply with the will of God and do not venture to transgress laws that have been well enacted succeed in all things beyond belief and that happiness (i.e., prosperity; εὐδαιμονία)123 lies before them as a reward from God. But to the extent that they dissociate themselves from the scrupulous observance of these laws the practicable things become impracticable, and whatever seemingly good thing they pursue with zeal turns into irremediable misfortunes (εἰς συμφορὰς ἀνηκέστους).124

In other words, the one who reads (or hears) this work is to learn the moral lessons from it. Namely, those who comply with God and obey the law will find prosperity, and those who do not will meet their fate.125 Based on the stated purpose and aim, considerable debate surrounds the intended audience of Antiquities. For many, Antiquities is best understood as an apologetic, or more specifically, an example of apologetic history written for a largely gentile audience.126 The assumption is that Josephus is concerned with defending Judaism and Jewish origins against extensive defamation.127 More recently, however, Steve Mason has challenged this assumption. Mason argues that, rightly understood, Antiquities does not reflect an apologetic; rather, it is an introductory history written for Greeks and Romans who were genuinely interested in Jewish life and culture.128 In Mason’s own words, “Josephus’s aim in Antiquities/Life is to provide a handbook of Judean law, history and culture for a Gentile audience in Rome that is keenly interested in Jewish matters.” 129 Thus, Josephus wrote not to refute any falsehood, but rather, because certain

Book 1–19, trans. Henry St. J Thackeray et. al., LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930–1965). 122 Steve Mason, “‘Should Any Wish to Enquire Further’ (Ant. 125): The Aim and Audience of Josephus’s Judean Antiquities/Life,” in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, ed. Steve Mason, JSPSup 32 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 97. 123 Feldman, Flavius Josephus, 6 n. 14, notes the significance of εὐδαιμονία throughout Antiquities, which appears an estimated 75 times. 124 On refusing to obey God and the resultant συμφορά, see e.g., Ant. 1.20, 42, 110. 125 Mason, McLaren, and Barclay, “Josephus,” 301. 126 E.g., Per Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Importance, JSP 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988); Martin Goodman, “Josephus on Abraham and the Nations,” in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham, ed. Martin Goodman, George H. van Kooten, and Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, TBN 13 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010), 177–83. 127 See Mason, Josephus, 100. 128 Mason, Josephus, 102–3. 129 Mason, “Should Any,” 101.

108

Chapter 4: Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

Greeks and Romans – including Epaphroditus to whom the work is dedicated – had requested to learn more about Jewish history (1.8).130 Overall, Mason’s proposal offers a helpful explanation for why Josephus writes as he does throughout Antiquities.131 To this point, then, there are four major themes that, according to Mason, dominate the landscape of this work. The first is that Josephus is eager to demonstrate the exceptional antiquarian nature of the Jewish people and their institutions (1.5).132 Second, and related to the first, Josephus desires to emphasize the superiority of the Jewish constitution, i.e., laws,133 in order to show that, third, Jewish culture is a valid philosophy on par with and even superior to all other philosophical schools of the time (cf. 1.14, 18–19, 20, 34).134 Finally, and especially significant for our purposes, in order to achieve these objectives, Josephus offers a retelling of Israel’s history that presents a “moralizing evaluation” of its most important figures. 135 Thus, volumes 1–11 of Antiquities are an “exposition” or retelling of Israel’s history, starting with creation up through the return from Babylonian exile to the homeland of Jerusalem (1.25–26; 11.347). Hence, Josephus’s approach throughout the first part of Antiquities is similar to that of rewritten Scripture so prominent in Second Temple literature.136 That is, through paraphrase and modification of the scriptural text, Josephus comments on, subtracts from, and adds to significant aspects of Israel’s Scriptures in order to present Jewish history and culture in the most favorable light possible. With the above overview in mind, we will now turn our attention to Josephus’s portrayal of Hagar as found in 1.187–90 and 1.214–21.

130 Mason, “Should Any,” 79. Mason’s proposal offers the most plausible explanation for why a group of gentiles would be willing to sit through Josephus’s longwinded and meandering history of a foreign people. 131 While a detailed examination of why Josephus wrote the Antiquities is beyond the scope of this project, it is possible that Josephus’s purpose for writing was twofold: 1) Josephus was writing for an audience genuinely interested in learning about Jewish life and culture; 2) in doing so, Josephus was eager to confront and correct certain misunderstandings about Jewish life and culture held by that same audience. One does not require the preclusion of the other. 132 Mason, Josephus, 103–4. 133 Mason, Josephus, 105–11. 134 Mason, Josephus, 111–16. 135 Mason, Josephus, 116–21. For further examples of this, see Louis H. Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, JSJSup 58 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 1998). 136 Mason, McLaren, and Barclay, “Josephus,” 299.

4.6 The Portrayal of Hagar in Josephus

109

4.6.2 Hagar in Jewish Antiquities 1.187–90 Hagar first appears in Ant. 1.187, which corresponds to Gen 16:1–3.137 Similar to Genesis, Josephus describes Hagar as Sarah’s “handmaiden” (θεραπαινίς) who “was an Egyptian (Αἰγυπτίαν) by race (γένος).” In relation to Abraham and Sarah’s dealings with Hagar as a surrogate, however, Josephus significantly modifies the Genesis material in order to remove any hint of impropriety on their part.138 In 1.187, Josephus records these words: “Sarah, at God’s command, caused him [Abraham] to lie down with … Hagar … and procreate with her.”139 Here Josephus clearly modifies the actions of Sarah to serve his overall purpose.140 That is, rather than acting on her own accord, as Gen 16:2 appears to suggest, Sarah was merely following God’s command.141 Moreover, Abraham is likewise justified in his use of Hagar; his lying with her is depicted as an act that was in complete obedience to God’s command. Thus, as noted above, this modification of the narrative’s figures – “whitewashing” Abraham and Sarah’s behavior – will be indicative of Josephus’s approach throughout.142 Focusing on Gen 16:4–6, Josephus continues to modify the narrative; this time, however, with serious implications for his portrayal of Hagar. Antiquities 1.188 states, “And becoming pregnant, the maidservant (θεραπαινίς) dared to show insolence (ἐξυβρίζειν) to Sarah, assuming queenly airs, as though the rule would pass over to her son about to be born from her.” When compared with the Genesis account, Josephus presents Hagar’s reaction to her pregnancy with substantial modification. Whereas Genesis 16:4 simply states, “her mistress was dishonored before her (ἠτιμάσθην ἐναντίον αὐτῆς),” Josephus reworks the account by adding material that further explains Hagar’s behavior. First, Josephus highlights and intensifies Hagar’s disrespect by characterizing it as ὕβρις. According to Brigit van der Lans, in classical Greek literature, “ὕβρις entails a violation of divine and human rights, a trespassing beyond one’s own 137

Josephus’s depiction of Hagar has been discussed by, e.g., Amram Tropper, Rewriting Ancient Jewish History: The History of the Jews in Roman Times and the New Historical Method, Routledge Studies in Ancient History (London; New York: Routledge, 2016), 64–70; Birgit van der Lans, “‘Hagar, Ishmael, and Abraham’s Household in Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaicae,” in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham, ed. Martin Goodman, George H. van Kooten, and Jacques T.A.G.M. van Ruiten, TBN 13 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010), 186–89; Louis H. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, HCS 27 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 225–56; Thomas W. Franxman, Genesis and the Jewish Antiquities of Flavius Josephus (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979), 138–41. 138 See Tropper, Rewriting, 67. 139 Emphasis my own. 140 Niehoff, “Mother,” 416. 141 Miller, “Surrogate,” 146. Contra Niehoff, “Mother,” 416, who suggests that Josephus intentionally limits Sarah’s role in order to silence her. 142 Tropper, Rewriting, 67.

110

Chapter 4: Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

sphere.”143 What is more, Josephus contends that Hagar presumed to have taken Sarah’s place and, in so doing, arrogantly assumed that her son would be Abraham’s rightful heir.144 Finally, glossing over much of Gen 16:5–6 and thus omitting much of the material focused on Sarah’s mistreatment of Hagar, Josephus only briefly comments on the consequence of Hagar’s inappropriate behavior: Abraham simply returned Hagar to Sarah “for punishment” (πρὸς αἰκίαν; 1.188). Yet, as noted by Birgit van der Lans, Sarah’s mistreatment of Hagar is not to be viewed negatively; rather, as one who was guilty of ὕβρις, Hagar had divine retribution coming to her, making Sarah’s mistreatment of Hagar justified.145 In explicating Hagar’s flight from Sarah, Josephus continues to portray Hagar in a significantly more negative light than that of Genesis. Antiquities 1.188 states, “she [Hagar] planned flight, being unable to endure hardships, and she besought God to take pity on her.” Here Josephus adds two elements to the Genesis account. First, he suggests that the reason for Hagar’s flight was not because of any unnecessarily harsh treatment on the part of Sarah, but only because Hagar was unable to endure her rightful punishment.146 In this way, Josephus is able to emphasize Sarah’s overall innocence. Second, and in somewhat surprising fashion, Josephus states that Hagar prayed to God and sought mercy. This, however, appears to suggest that, whereas the Genesis account portrays the angel of God as the one responsible for initiating the encounter, here God provides the angel only after Hagar’s cry for mercy. Thus, Josephus curtails the significance of the divine messenger’s appearance. Likewise, in 1.189, Josephus considerably revises the account of Hagar’s flight into the wilderness and subsequent encounter with the angel of God. After Hagar’s cry for mercy, the angel meets Hagar in the wilderness and commands her to return to her masters. 147 Josephus, however, omits many of the promises given to Hagar in Gen 16:10–13 and significantly modifies the angel’s message. According to Josephus, the angel berated and blamed Hagar for her own troubles. Rather than being self-controlled, “she [Hagar] had been thoughtless and stubborn toward her mistress” (1.189). Thus, Hagar is given an ultimatum: if she would return to her masters, “she would attain a better life

143 van der Lans, “Hagar,” 186, citing Daniel B. Levine, “Hubris in Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities 1–4,” HUCA 64 (1993): 51–87, notes that ὕβρις is likewise connected to the idea of “dishonor.” Hence, as the LXX states, Hagar “dishonored” (ἠτιμάσθην) her mistress, which may have triggered Josephus’s use of ὕβρις. 144 Tropper, Rewriting, 67. 145 van der Lans, “Hagar,” 187; Tropper, Rewriting, 67. 146 Tropper, Rewriting, 68; Miller, “Surrogate,” 146. 147 According to Gen 16:9, Hagar is commanded to return only to her mistress (κυρία).

4.6 The Portrayal of Hagar in Josephus

111

through being self-controlled” (1.189)148; if, however, she were to disobey and continue on her way, “she would be destroyed” (1.190).149 By returning to her masters, the better life she would come to attain is specified: “she would be the mother of a son who would be king of that land” (1.190). 150 By this, however, Josephus appears to suggest that Hagar’s son is not to be confused with Abraham’s legitimate heir; rather, her son’s inheritance is to be found in the land promised specifically to him.151 Josephus then concludes by stating that Hagar heeded the warning, obeyed, and by “returning to her masters she obtained pardon” (1.190).152 Altogether, Josephus again recasts Abraham and Sarah in a more positive light as characters that, although wronged, gladly forgave Hagar and received her back.153 Finally, the episode concludes with the birth of Ishmael. 4.6.3 Hagar in Jewish Antiquities 1.214–21 Josephus reintroduces Hagar in his retelling of Gen 21:8–21. However, he also incorporates the record of Ishmael’s genealogy into the story (cf. Gen 25:12– 18). True to form, Josephus significantly elaborates the Genesis material, especially that of Ishmael’s lineage. Following Gen 21:4, Ant. 1.214 begins with a record of Isaac’s birth and his eighth-day circumcision. In order to emphasize Abraham’s unwavering obedience, Josephus adds that Isaac’s circumcision was done so “immediately” (εὐθύς).154 Josephus then proceeds to interrupt the narrative in order to juxtapose the significance of the circumcisions of the two sons: one on the eighth day (Isaac) and the other in the thirteenth year (Ishmael; cf. 1.193). According to Josephus, due to the timing of their respective circumcisions, Isaac’s is representative of the Jewish custom. He states, “from that time on the Jews have a 148

Louis H. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, HCS 27 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 238. 149 This ultimatum is strikingly similar to Ant. 1.14. See above. 150 As van der Lans, “Hagar,” 87, has observed, “Josephus seems to recast the angel’s words into one of his central themes: that obedience to God leads to happiness and disobedience to misfortune.” 151 It is interesting that Josephus uses the demonstrative pronoun ἐκεῖνος rather than οὗτος, which might suggest that Josephus was referring to the land that Hagar was returning to. However, based on what Josephus says elsewhere about Ishmael, the Arabs, and the land where they would settle, it is difficult to assume that Josephus thought the promise of Israel’s land to have been initially made to Ishmael. Moreover, in keeping with his overall approach, it seems more likely that the phrase “that land” is set in contrast to the land to which Hagar was returning. On Josephus’s view of the land, see Betsy Halpern-Amaru, Rewriting the Bible: Land and Covenant in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994), 95–115. 152 This appears to be one of the more positive aspects of Hagar’s portrayal. 153 Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation, 245. 154 Feldman, Flavius Josephus, 81 n. 656.

112

Chapter 4: Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

custom to perform circumcision after so many days” (1.214). Earlier, commenting and elaborating on Gen 17, Josephus stated that God had ordained eighthday circumcision as a way to keep Abraham and his family “unmixed” (συμφύρω) and thus distinguished from others (1.192). Hence, in 1.214, Josephus sets the distinctly Jewish timing of this custom over against that of another people group: namely, the “Arabs” (Ἄραβες). He states, “And Arabs do so after the thirteenth year.” According to Josephus, the reason for developing this contrast is because this latter group is understood to be associated with Ishmael who is the founder of the Arab people: “For Ishmael, the founder of their race, born of a concubine (ἐκ τῆς παλλακῆς) to Abraham, was circumcised at that time” (1.214; cf. 1.193).155 Thus, it appears that Josephus’s goal is to make clear that there was a significant and sharp difference between (a) Isaac and Ishmael, (b) the people who would generate from them, and (c) their respective customs. Isaac was born of Sarah, the first to be circumcised according to Jewish custom, and father of the Jewish people; Ishmael, on the other hand, was born of Abraham’s concubine Hagar, circumcised in the thirteenth year, and thus, the father of the Arab nation.156 Following this, Josephus continues to add to and thus modify the Genesis narrative. Commenting on Gen 21:9–10, Josephus omits much of the material about Hagar and adds that Sarah had a particular affection for Ishmael: an affection that is entirely absent from the Genesis narrative. According to 1.215, “Sarah at first used to feel affection (γεννηθέντα) towards Ishmael, who had been born from her slave (ἐκ τῆς δούλης) Hagar, showing no less affection than if it were her own son.” By this, Josephus intends to soften the image of Sarah as otherwise disinterested in Hagar’s child. Furthermore, Josephus omits the account of Ishmael “playing” (with Isaac) in order to offer an entirely different motive for Sarah’s opposition to Ishmael. Josephus records Sarah’s motive in 1.215: “when she herself gave birth to Isaac she did not deem it proper for Ishmael, who was older and was able to cause him harm after his father had died, to be reared with him.” In other words, according to Josephus, nothing provoked Sarah to jealousy; rather, her only concern was the thought of Ishmael hurting Isaac and thus the safety of her son.157 Moreover, unlike the Genesis narrative, Sarah’s actions appear to have no significant correlation to the idea 155

Fergus Millar, The Greek World, the Jews, & the East, Vol. 3, Rome, the Greek World, and the East, ed. Hannah M. Cotton and Guy M. Rogers (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2011), 361, contends that here Josephus makes a “decisive editorial intervention” that is unique. What Miller overlooks is that Jub. 20:11–13 makes a similar connection between Ishmael and the Arabs. See also Gruen, Rethinking to Other, 299–302; cf. Gal 4:25 (see Chapter 7). 156 In keeping with his overall aim, then, this appears to be an example of Josephus’s attempt at distinguishing the Jewish people and their unique and special practices from that of all other peoples and nations; see Thiessen, Contesting Conversion, 76. 157 van der Lans, “Hagar,” 188.

4.6 The Portrayal of Hagar in Josephus

113

that she was concerned with protecting Isaac’s inheritance. 158 Overall, while Josephus does not appear to disparage Hagar in his recounting of these events, true to form, he continues to enhance the figures of Abraham and Sarah. 159 Following Gen 21:10–21, Ant. 1.216–21 recounts and reworks the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael and their final wilderness experience. First, fearing for the safety of her son, Josephus significantly tempers Sarah’s demand for the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael and likewise heightens Abraham’s concern for them. Antiquities 1.216 states, She, therefore, kept persuading Abraham to send him away (ἐκπέμπειν) with his mother and to settle elsewhere. He [Abraham], at first, did not grant his consent to the proposals that she had pursued with zeal, considering it the most cruel of all things to sen d away a child and a woman destitute of the necessities of life.

The first observation to note here is that Josephus depicts Sarah’s request in more civil terms. Sarah does not disparage Hagar by calling her a slave (παιδίσκη; cf. Gen 21:10); but rather, she calls Hagar a mother (μήτηρ). Moreover, Josephus softens the language of Sarah’s request: Hagar and her son are only requested to be sent away (ἐκπέμπειν), rather than expelled (ἐκβάλλω; cf. Gen 21:10). And finally, Sarah’s consideration for the future of Hagar and Ishmael is amplified by suggesting that they settle elsewhere. The second observation to note is that, whereas Gen 21:11 depicts Abraham’s concern for his son (τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ), Josephus amplifies Abraham’s concern for both Ishmael and Hagar in order to improve the image of the patriarch.160 Thus, Hagar and Ishmael are only removed from Abraham’s household when it is made clear to Abraham that God “approved of the things decreed by Sarah” (1.217). However, Josephus omits any reference to the promise that Ishmael would become a great nation because Abraham was his father (cf. Gen 21:13). In his retelling of the second wilderness episode Josephus begins by highlighting Hagar’s distress over Ishmael being near death and her ensuing encounter with the angel of God. And when the necessities of life had been exhausted as she went away, she was in distress (ἐν κακοῖς), and with the water being scarce she placed the child who was at his last gasp under a certain fir-tree and proceeded further on in order that he might not give up his soul while she was present. But an angel of God met her and told her of a spring nearby and bade her to look after the nurture of the child, for great blessings (ἀγαθά) awaited her through the preservation (σωτηρίας) of Ishmael. And she took courage through these prom-

158 Adele Reinhartz and Miriam-Simma Walfish, “Conflict and Coexistence in Jewish Interpretation,” in Hagar, Sarah, and Their Children: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Perspectives, ed. Phyllis Trible and Letty M. Russell (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 103. 159 Reinhartz and Walfish, “Conflict and Coexistence,” 103. 160 van der Lans, “Hagar,” 188. Here, however, Ishmael is not called “his son” but merely a “child” (παῖς).

114

Chapter 4: Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

ises, and meeting shepherds escaped her misfortunes because of their attention . (Ant. 1.218–19)

Here, and unlike the Genesis narrative, Josephus appears to suggest that Hagar, being unable to bear the sight of her dying son, decides to leave Ishmael to die alone. Moreover, Josephus downplays the subsequent encounter between Hagar and the angel. In contrast to Genesis, the angel does not console her, nor does he open her eyes.161 The angel does, however, remind Hagar of the promises that were given to her about her son. Josephus indicates that it was this reminder that gave Hagar the courage to continue on her way. Finally, Josephus concludes his recounting of the narrative by combining and condensing much of the material from Gen 21:21 and 25:12–18. Antiquities 1.220 states that Hagar took an Egyptian wife for Ishmael since “she herself was originally from there – by whom Ishmael had twelve sons.” However, before closing out the episode, Josephus takes the opportunity to, for a second time, remind his audience that the children born to Ishmael would result in a people that would form the Arab nation: “These [Ishmael’s sons] dwelt in all the country extending from the Euphrates to the Erythrean Sea and called it Nabatene. These are the ones who call the nation of the Arabs and the tribes for themselves both because of their virtue and the renown of Abraham” (1.221; cf. 2.213).162 4.6.4 The Portrayal of Hagar in Jewish Antiquities Based on the above overview, several observations can be made regarding Josephus’s portrayal of Hagar. The first and most important observation is that the portrayal of Hagar throughout much of Antiquities is largely and even intentionally negative. This is rightly noted by Christine Sellin, who states: “Hagar is used as a foil to bring out the moral excellence and virtues of Abraham, founder of the faith, and his family.”163 As demonstrated above, throughout Antiquities the moral characteristics of Abraham and Sarah are intentionally amplified, and the figure of Hagar is intentionally diminished and even vilified. Hagar is constantly shown to be “immature, ignorant, and misguided.”164 And Josephus often depicts her as “wrong” as opposed to “wronged.”165 161

Feldman, Flavius Josephus, 82 n. 665. See Gruen, Rethinking the Other, 301–2. As Miller, The Greek World, 364, has observed, Josephus most likely derived this relationship from Ishmael’s first-born son, Nabatene; see also van der Lans, “Hagar,” 189; Feldman, Flavius Josephus, 83, n. 669, 670, 672. 163 Christine Petra Sellin, Fractured Families and Rebel Maidservants: The Biblical Hagar in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art and Literature (New York; London: Bloomsbury, 2006), 13. 164 Reinhartz and Walfish, “Conflict and Coexistence,” 103. 165 Sellin, Fractured Families, 13. 162

4.6 The Portrayal of Hagar in Josephus

115

Yet, more specifically, when one considers some of the descriptors Josephus employs to describe Hagar throughout Antiquities, they are consistent with his overtly negative portrayal of her. For instance, in 1.187, Hagar is introduced as a handmaiden (θεραπαινίς) who is of Egyptian origin. Later, Josephus refers to Hagar more specifically as a concubine (παλλακή; 1.214) and likens her social status, on this occasion, to that of a slave (δούλη; 1.215). The significance of these latter two descriptors is telling when one considers the social status of slave women and concubines in the Greco-Roman era. According to Lynn Cohick, female slaves were among the most ill-treated in the Roman Empire.166 However, as a concubine, it is possible that Hagar’s status would have been slightly elevated in the mind of the audience.167 Yet, at the same time, in characterizing her as Abraham’s concubine rather than his wife, Josephus appears to be intentional about maintaining her inferior social status.168 To this latter point, van der Lans has observed that based on these descriptors – and especially that of being a concubine – the potential implication for Ishmael was that Josephus ultimately considered him to be only Abraham’s illegitimate son. As the son of a concubine, Ishmael would have been considered the legal son of Hagar but not Abraham, and possibly not even considered Abraham’s son at all.169 Thus, as the illegitimate son of his father’s concubine, Ishmael would have been disqualified from his father’s inheritance and only qualified to inherit from his mother.170 Consequently, although the son of Abraham, Ishmael does not inherit with Isaac. Rather, as outsiders, Ishmael and his descendants must settle elsewhere, possibly in the land that was promised to Hagar in 1.190. Thus, as “marginalized children of the marginalized Hagar,” Josephus distinguishes their future and categorizes them as people who settle in a different land with different customs (cf. 1.214; 1.220–21).171 At the same time, Josephus’s portrayal of Hagar is not altogether negative. Rather, it is important to recognize that although Josephus’s goal is to present 166

Lynn H. Cohick, Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: Illuminating Ancient Ways of Life (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 257. 167 Cohick, Women in the World, 261. 168 Cohick, Women in the World, 261. See also Catherine Hezser, Jewish Slavery in Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 192–95. 169 van der Lans, “Hagar,” 189, contends that there are three reasons for this conclusion: 1) elsewhere Josephus distinguishes between children born of concubines and those born “genuinely” (γνήσιος; Ant. 1.153; 1.344; 5.33; 7.70); 2) nowhere does Josephus explicitly refer to Ishmael as Abraham’s son; 3) Isaac is referred to as Abraham’s only or unique son (μονογενής; Ant. 1.222). However, see Ant. 2.213 for a possible allusion to Ishmael being Abraham’s son. Moreover, it is difficult to make sense of Josephus’s statement about Sarah’s affection for Ishmael. According to Ant. 1.215, Sarah felt affection for Ishmael because, “he was being nurtured for the succession to the rule.” Thus, it appears that, on some level, Ishmael is considered Abraham’s rightful son. 170 See Cohick, Women in the World, 261; van der Lans, “Hagar,” 191. 171 Gruen, Rethinking the Other, 302.

116

Chapter 4: Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

Jewish history and culture in the most favorable light, it is also clear that he is careful not to utterly disparage non-Jewish identity and culture. For instance, in Ant. 1.190, Hagar personifies Josephus’s concern with those who obey God and find happiness and those who disobey God and experience “irremediable misfortune” (cf. 1.14). During her first wilderness experience, when Hagar is given the ultimatum regarding her future, she is said to have obeyed and found prosperity (1.190). In this way, she personifies the non-Jew who is able to “comply with the will of God” (1.190). Moreover, although Josephus is careful to distinguish Hagar and Ishmael from the reception of Abrahamic blessing and Jewish customs, their provision is, however, clearly noted. Hagar’s son Ishmael and his progeny come to represent a people who, although clearly distinguished from the Jewish people, are known for “their virtue (‘moral excellence’; ἀρετήν) and the renown (ἀξίωμα) of Abraham” (1.221). In sum, Josephus retells the story of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar, and in doing so, presents Abraham and Sarah in a more favorable light. Consequently, the figure of Hagar is largely and even intentionally portrayed negatively. As Sarah’s insolent maidservant, she is wrong instead of wronged; as Abraham’s concubine, she is unable to provide him with a legitimate heir; as the mother of Ishmael, her son is deemed illegitimate and unable to share in his father’s blessing. This assessment is not however surprising when one considers many of the introductory matters previously discussed. That is, if, as Mason suggests, Josephus wrote Antiquities for a group of gentiles who were interested in Jewish life and culture, he would be determined to show that his ancestral faith was on par with, if not superior to, all others. In this regard, his retelling of Israel’s history would necessitate the exoneration of all wrongdoings done by any of its most prominent figures. Thus, Hagar functions as the perfect foil for Josephus’s purposes. However, Hagar is also, at times, viewed positively. She is an outsider who, when given the opportunity, follows God’s will; and she is the matriarch of a people who, although non-Jews or gentiles, are considered virtuous due to the reputation of Abraham.

4.7 Evaluating the Portrayal of Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period 4.7 Evaluating the Portrayal of Hagar in Jewish Literature

To this point we have examined the portrayal of Hagar in the texts of 1QapGen, Jubilees, Baruch, selected works of Philo, and Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities. Before this chapter can be concluded, however, one question remains: when taken together, what is there to be ascertained about the portrayal of Hagar in the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period? Therefore, the following questions will be considered. First, in what ways do the individual works portray Hagar differently? And what is the significance of those differences for the

4.7 Evaluating the Portrayal of Hagar in Jewish Literature

117

larger question of comparison? Additionally, in what ways do these texts reveal, if at all, strands of similarity or continuity? That is, for all the ways these texts portray Hagar differently, is it possible to identify points of shared conviction among the various authors and works? To start, the above survey of texts demonstrates that when the portrayal of Hagar in the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period is compared with that of Genesis, ancient Jewish authors freely modified the Genesis narrative for their own rhetorical purposes, and thus, in each work the figure of Hagar is portrayed differently. For instance, whereas the Genesis narrative portrays Hagar both negatively and positively, Jubilees largely overlooks these negative depictions and offers a more neutral, if not more positive construal of her. In sharp contrast to Jubilees is the portrayal of Hagar in Baruch. Although not commenting on the text of Genesis, it was noted that Baruch’s brief description of Hagar is strictly and overtly negative. Somewhere between Jubilees and Baruch is the portrayal of Hagar in Philo. In fact, Philo’s portrayal of Hagar is easily the most polarizing and thus complex. Hagar is portrayed entirely positively at certain points and strictly negatively at others. In the end, however, it was found that these contrasting depictions are neither contradictory nor arbitrary; rather, Philo’s assessment of Hagar is entirely dependent on where she stands in relation to Abraham’s household. Like Philo, Josephus’s portrayal of Hagar is somewhere between Jubilees and Baruch, yet it is quite distinct from even that of Philo. While Josephus freely modifies the Genesis narrative in such a way as to portray Hagar more negatively than she is depicted in Genesis, his portrayal of her is not entirely unfavorable. In fact, Josephus goes beyond even that of Jubilees by explicitly highlighting Hagar’s positive qualities. Finally, based on the limited information from 1QapGen, the author presents Hagar neither positively nor negatively, but as a neutral character. What is more, the differences that emerge from these texts go beyond a mere positive or negative assessment. In fact, each work highlights certain details over against others in their respective portrayals of Hagar, especially as it relates to her ethnic and social identities. For instance, with the exception of Baruch, Hagar’s Egyptian identity is mentioned by all and plays a certain role in shaping the way she is portrayed. Yet not all of the texts employ her Egyptian (i.e., non-Jewish) identity for the same purpose. In 1QapGen, Hagar’s Egyptian identity is employed to connect her to the house of Pharaoh. For Jubilees, it appears to be the determining factor for the author’s view of Ishmael, and consequently, it serves to mitigate the threat Ishmael would have otherwise posed to Isaac. Philo, on the other hand, takes Hagar’s Egyptian identity as one of the primary points of departure for his allegorical interpretation of her. As an Egyptian, she represents the symbolic stepping-stone in one’s pursuit of wisdom and perfect virtue; but also, it is her Egyptian identity that justifies her eventual expulsion. For Josephus, Hagar’s Egyptian identity, although mentioned, merely identifies her as a foreigner and thus the matriarch of the Arab

118

Chapter 4: Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

people. Instead, Josephus focuses much of his attention on accentuating Hagar’s social status as a slave and concubine. Taken together, her ethnic identity and social status are what allow Josephus to downplay Ishmael as only the illegitimate son of Abraham and likewise portray him as the founder of a nonJewish people: the Arab nation. Finally, in contrast to the above, Baruch is unique in that it makes no mention of Hagar’s Egyptian identity, nor does the text speak of her social status; rather, Baruch appears to take for granted that Hagar and her descendants are non-Jews and thus representative of the nonJewish or gentile world: those who live on the earth, unable to find wisdom, and thus destined for destruction. In sum, what is clear from this brief assessment is that, within the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period, there was no set literary tradition on Hagar. Instead, what we find are varied and even multifaceted traditions whereby each author and work appropriated the figure of Hagar in their own right and for their own rhetorical purposes, thus offering their own unique construal of her. However, for all of the ways the literature portrays Hagar differently, it is important to recognize that in relation to Hagar’s ethnic identity in particular, what emerges from our examination of these texts is that they reflect a certain level of continuity – i.e., a shared conviction – on two interrelated points. First, for each of the texts surveyed above, Hagar’s identity as a foreigner is taken for granted and she is consistently portrayed as an outsider and thus a non-Israelite or a non-Jew. This is seen in several ways. For instance, in 1QapGen, Hagar’s Egyptian identity is what sets her in contradistinction to Abraham, Sarah, and the wider Israelite nation. A similar yet more explicit contrast is made by Philo and Josephus who consistently contrast Hagar with the more perfect and virtuous Sarah. This is because, as a foreigner and outsider, Hagar represents the necessary foil in their attempt to distinguish Jews from gentiles. And even when Philo comes close to depicting Hagar as a convert to Judaism and thus as one who had become ethnically Jewish, he stops short.172 Finally, with the exception of 1QapGen, in each text Hagar’s status as a foreigner and outsider is further accentuated by the fact that her offspring are not qualified to share in Israel’s inheritance, whether that be specific covenant promises or the experience of wisdom (i.e., the Torah), precisely because of their mother’s ethnic identity, social status, and/or assumed “otherness.” Thus, for Jubilees, Baruch, Philo, and Josephus, Hagar is depicted as a non-Jewish mother who gives birth to a non-Jewish son, or in the case of Baruch, nonJewish descendants, who, in turn, produce even more non-Jewish offspring.

172

See §4.5.5 for our discussion and assessment of Philo’s portrayal of Hagar in Abraham 251.

4.8 Conclusion

119

Related to this first point is the second: what is true of Hagar is true of her offspring.173 Consequently, the literature takes for granted that Ishmael and his progeny are, like Hagar, foreigners and outsiders. Thus, they are the ethnic “other” and often function as literary devices for the representation of the nonJewish or gentile world: whether that be those from the nations in general (e.g., Jubilees and Baruch) or the Arab people in particular (i.e., Josephus). For instance, according to Jubilees, Ishmael is categorically unqualified from the start because Hagar does not possess the proper genealogical credentials. As such, Ishmael and his sons are characterized as members of the nations who will be ultimately led astray and destroyed. Similarly, for Baruch, Hagar’s assumed “otherness” is taken for granted as she and her descendants represent the nations: those who are unable to find wisdom and thus perish. According to Philo, as a borderline figure (i.e., an outsider and a non-Jew) Hagar is unable to produce pure and perfect offspring. Thus, in sharp contrast to Isaac, Ishmael is born condemned because he is foolish and a sophist. Finally, for Josephus, as a foreigner, concubine, and slave, Hagar is only capable of producing Abraham’s illegitimate son. As a gentile, then, Ishmael is only able to produce a people who are themselves non-Jewish or, simply put, gentile: i.e., the Arab people.

4.8 Conclusion 4.8 Conclusion

This chapter has examined the portrayal of Hagar in the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period. It began with an individual examination of the portrayal of Hagar in the texts of 1QapGen, Jubilees, Baruch, selected works of Philo, and Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities, followed by an overall evaluation of the portrayal of Hagar that emerges from these diverse texts. Altogether, it was found that, for all the ways these texts portray Hagar differently, they also reflect a certain level of continuity, that is, a shared conviction, on two interrelated points. First, Hagar’s identity as a foreigner is taken for granted and she is consistently portrayed as an outsider and thus a non-Israelite or a non-Jew; and second, what is true of Hagar is true of her offspring. As such, Ishmael and his posterity are understood to be non-Jews or gentiles. And as members of the non-Jewish world, they are, whether individually or collectively, often portrayed as representative of those from the nations. Therefore, with our understanding of the portrayal of Hagar in the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period in place, in Part Three of this study we will consider the way Paul’s own allegorical depiction of Hagar in Gal 4:21–31 can be read and understood within the context of these traditions. As noted in Chapter 2, by situating and thus considering Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar within the context of Second Temple Judaism, we are intentionally placing 173

The only exception being 1QapGen, but only because Ishmael is not mentioned.

120

Chapter 4: Hagar in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

Paul within these streams of ancient Jewish thought, within the symbolic universe of pluriform first-century Judaism. Our aim in Part Three, then, is to demonstrate that Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar can be read and understood to stand in continuity with these traditions, in that he, like other Jews in antiquity, portrays Hagar and her descendants as non-Jews or, simply put, “gentiles.” Altogether, then, our goal is to put forward a reading of key aspects of Gal 4:21–31 that understands the allegory, not as a polemic against Jews or Jewish Christ-followers, nor as an allegory that discredits the continuing validity of the Jewish law (and thus Jewish identity and practice), but rather, as an allegory about the symbolic experience of gentiles in general and the Galatian gentiles in particular. To this we now turn.

Part Three The Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

Chapter 5

Again, and Again, and Again: Framing the Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians 5.1 Introduction 5.1 Introduction

Part Two of this study focused on an examination of the portrayal of Hagar in the LXX of Gen 16–21 (Chapter 3), along with an examination of the various portrayals of her that subsequently emerged within the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period (Chapter 4). Overall, it was found that, although the literature portrays Hagar in diverse ways, these ancient Jewish texts also reflect a certain level of continuity – i.e., a shared conviction – in relation to the figure of Hagar and her ethnic identity on two interrelated points. First, Hagar is consistently portrayed as an outsider and in particular a non-Israelite or non-Jew; and second, what is true of Hagar is true of her descendants. As such, the literature takes for granted that Ishmael and his posterity are non-Jews and thus representative of the non-Jewish or gentile world. By and large, however, scholars routinely suggest that in Gal 4:21–31 Paul’s portrayal of Hagar stands in stark contrast to that of ancient Jewish tradition. For instance, as noted in Chapter 1, Troy Miller, who otherwise identifies several points of commonality between Paul’s portrayal of Hagar and ancient Jewish depictions of her, puts it this way: Paul effects “a reversal of the ethnic identities typical to the figures in Jewish tradition.”1 Miller, however, is not alone in his assessment, as the majority of scholars widely assume that Paul reverses Hagar’s ethnic identity, thus portraying Hagar and her descendants as Jews (whether Christ-following or otherwise). Yet, it was also noted that understanding Paul’s portrayal of Hagar in this way (i.e., as ethnic reversal) both overlooks the way ancient Jewish depictions of Hagar might better inform the interpretation of Gal 4:21–31, and it has also perpetuated readings of the allegory that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, continue to embody and uphold various forms of supersessionism in that the consequence of Paul’s apparent ethnical reversal is the obsolescence of the Jewish law and thus the supersession of Jewish ethnic identity.2 Therefore, Part Three of this study will focus on an examination of the portrayal of Hagar in Gal 4:21–31. In short, I will seek to demonstrate that, while 1 2

Miller, “Surrogate,” 153. For my definition of supersessionism, see Chapter 1 §1.2.3.

5.1 Introduction

123

Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar is in some ways distinct from those surveyed in the previous chapter, he is found to stand in continuity with Second Temple Judaism in that he, like other Jews and Jewish texts from antiquity, portrays Hagar and her descendants as non-Jews. To this end, I will propose that, in Gal 4:21–31, Paul portrays Hagar as the covenantal mother of slaveborn gentiles: those who are symbolically born away from Mount Sinai, away from the presence and liberating knowledge of Israel’s God, and consequently, born into slavery.3 Therefore, the goal of Part Three of this study is to put forward a reading of key aspects of Gal 4:21–31, with particular attention given to Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar, that understands the allegory not as a polemic against Jews, Jewish Christ-followers, or the continuing validity of the Jewish law; rather, I will demonstrate that Paul introduces and develops the allegory in order to illustrate the experience of non-Jewish identity in relation to the God of Israel. In this way, I will propose that the allegory is meant to be read and understood as a narrative about the experience of gentiles in general and the Galatian gentiles in particular.4 Altogether, then, the reading put forward in Part Three of this study will seek to provide a particularly different reading of key aspects of Gal 4:21–31 by employing an alternative set of interpretive categories from which to draw and consider afresh the various issues at play in this text. However, before directly engaging this task – and in preparation for the argument of Chapter 6 – the purpose of this chapter is twofold. First, I will address the question of who was originally responsible for introducing the story of Hagar and Sarah to the Galatians. Since the way one answers this question largely governs the way the purpose and function of the allegory is to be understood, and likewise the way interpretive decisions within the allegory itself are made – particularly in relation to the cluster of concepts associated with Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar – this question requires considerable attention. In doing so, I will begin by examining the influential theory of C. K. Barrett. In contrast to Barrett, I will propose that it was Paul and not the so-called “troublemakers” who originally introduced the story of Hagar and Sarah to the Galatians.5 Following this, and second, in order to understand why Paul would have introduced this story, I will explore the wider literary context in which the allegory of 4:21–31 is situated: a context whereby Paul sought to persuade the Galatian gentiles to surrender their desire to be ὑπὸ νόμον and thus rescue them 3

Throughout Part Three of this study, I will use the term “gentile” to refer to gentiles in the more general sense of “pagan,” i.e., those who do not know Israel’s God; and I will use the term “Galatian gentiles” to refer to the gentile audience in Galatia to whom Paul writes, and thus those who are assumed to be, at least according to Paul, “in Christ.” 4 Thiessen, Paul, 87. 5 For those causing trouble in Galatia, I prefer the label “troublemakers.” See the various options outlined in Mark D. Nanos, The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in FirstCentury Context (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 113–31, 193–99.

124

Chapter 5: Framing the Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

from their potential apostatizing ways. Finally, in anticipation of Chapter 6, I will conclude this chapter by bringing together several observations in relation to the way the inclusion of the allegory of Hagar and Sarah is to be understood in view of and in relation to the wider literary context in which it is found.

5.2 The Inclusion of the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah in the Argument of Galatians: The Consensus View 5.2 The Inclusion of the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah in Galatians

The inclusion of the allegorical account of Hagar and Sarah in the argument of Galatians has confounded interpreters for centuries. In fact, a brief overview of the history of interpretation reveals the difficulty interpreters have had with understanding how this particular text fits within the overall context of letter. For instance, Martin Luther believed that Paul only included the allegory for the purpose of adding “impressiveness and beauty” to his overall argument, in spite of the fact that, for Luther, allegory was not a convincing form of argumentation.6 Largely following the conclusions of Luther, J. B. Lightfoot considered the allegory to be merely an “accessory.”7 Conversely, William Ramsay argued that, if taken in relation to the argument that preceded and followed, the allegory is essentially “weak as an argument, and not likely to advance [Paul’s] purposes.”8 Thus, Ramsay proposed that the allegory was forced on Paul by others.9 Alternatively, Ernest de Witt Burton concluded that the allegory is best understood as occurring to Paul’s mind as an afterthought. For Burton, then, it was a supplementary attempt at making the overall argument of the letter clearer and more persuasive.10 Similar to Burton, Albrecht Opeke suggested that the allegory, fitting better in chapter 3, “ist dem Apostel wohl erst nachträglich eingefallen.”11 And according to Heinrich Schlier, “Gerade das Bewusstsein von der schwierigen Situation in den galatische Gemeinden veranlasst den Apostel, noch einmal etwas zur Sache zu sagen.”12 More nuanced is the approach of Franz Mussner who argued that, although an afterthought, the allegory is related to Paul’s language of perplexity (ἀπορέω) in 4:20. Thus, “Paulus fühlt sich aus dieser ‘Not’ heraus gedrängt, nochmals von der Schrift her auf das Thema Gesetz und Verheißung zu kommen.”13 Quite differently, J. C. O’Neill found the inclusion of the allegory to be so troubling that he assumed 6 Martin Luther, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535), trans. Theodore Graebner (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1949), 98. 7 Lightfoot, Galatians, 200. 8 Ramsay, Galatians, 431. 9 Ramsay, Galatians, 431–32. 10 Burton, Galatians, 251. 11 Oepke, Galater, 147. 12 Schlier, Galater, 216. 13 Mussner, Galaterbrief, 316–17.

5.2 The Inclusion of the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah in Galatians

125

much of it to be a post-Pauline interpolation.14 In contrast to O’Neill, Herman Ridderbos believed the allegory to be the climax and capstone of Paul’s entire argument.15 And similarly, Hans Dieter Betz proposed that it was, in fact, Paul’s most powerful and concluding scriptural proof whereby he allowed the Galatians to find the truth for themselves.16 Altogether, Frank Matera captures the longstanding and general sentiment well: This is, without a doubt, one of the most puzzling and disturbing passages in the whole of Galatians. On the one hand, the very location of these verses within the argument of Galatians is puzzling … On the other hand, the passage is disturbing … a great company of exegetes protest that this is one of the most confusing passages of the New Testament.17

5.2.1 C. K. Barrett and the Development of the Consensus View To the above concerns, in 1976, C. K. Barrett put forward what has since become the consensus view among interpreters.18 In an oft quoted comment, Barrett argued that Paul’s use of the Old Testament throughout Galatians “can be best explained if we may suppose that he is taking up passages that had been used by his opponents, correcting their exegesis, and showing that their Old Testament prooftexts were on his side rather than theirs.”19 Most relevant to Barrett’s theory would be Gal 4:21–31 where he argued that the troublemakers 14

J. C. O’Neill, The Recovery of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (London: SPCK, 1972),

80. 15

Ridderbos, Galatia, 178. Betz, Galatians, 240. 17 Matera, Galatians, 172. 18 See Barrett, Essays on Paul, 154–170. James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 147 n. 98, calls it “widely accepted.” Furthermore, it appears to be the foundation for Martyn’s reading; see Galatians, 303 n. 52, 434 n. 117. Limiting the influence of Barrett’s theory to commentators, see e.g., Bruce, Galatians, 218; Fung, Galatians, 219–20; Longenecker, Galatians, 200; Matera, Galatians, 174; Dunn, Galatians, 243; Luke Timothy George, Galatians, NAC 30 (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994), 334; Scot McKnight, Galatians, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 230; Sam K. Williams, Galatians, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997), 125; Witherington, Galatia, 324; Philip F. Esler, Galatians, New Testament Readings (London; New York: Routledge, 1998), 209; François Vouga, An die Galater, HNT 10 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 114; Garlington, Galatians, 264; de Boer, Galatians, 268; Das, Galatians, 484–85; Keener, Galatians, 212–13. Others find Barrett’s theory to be possible, but not certain; see e.g., Jean-Pierre Lémonon, L’épitre aux Galates, Commentaire Biblique: Nouveau Testament 9 (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2008), 162; Moo, Galatians, 292–93; deSilva, Galatians, 393. Peter von der Osten-Sacken, Der Brief an die Gemeinden in Galatien, ThKNT 9 (Stuttgart : Kohlhammer, 2019), 219 n. 507, considers it “verlockend,” although he does not appear to be convinced enough to follow. Finally, John M. G. Barclay, “Mirror-Reading A Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case,” JSNT 31 (1987): 89, deems it plausible. 19 Barrett, Essays on Paul, 158. 16

126

Chapter 5: Framing the Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

in Galatia were appealing to the story of Hagar and Sarah, as recorded in Genesis, in support of their claim that they, the circumcised, like Isaac, were the legitimate descendants of Abraham through the free-woman, Sarah; and the uncircumcised gentiles were, like Ishmael, illegitimate children by descent from Hagar the slave-woman. Thus, the troublemakers were urging the Galatians to “legitimize themselves” by undergoing the ritual act of circumcision in order to become true members of God’s covenant people.20 According to Barrett, Gal 4:22 offered two reasons in support of his theory. First, due to Paul’s unconventional use of γέγραπται whereby he merely summarized the material of Gen 16–21 rather than offering a quotation, as was customary; and second, the anaphoric use of the article to refer to the figures of Hagar (ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης) and Sarah (ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας) respectively, reveal that “the story is already before them [the Galatians].”21 In addition, Barrett argued that, following the likes of Jubilees, Josephus, and Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, the troublemakers’ interpretation of Gen 16–21 was in line with the contemporary Jewish reading strategies of the day, and thus, theirs provided the “straightforward” and “literal” interpretation of the Genesis narrative.22 From the troublemakers’ perspective, so Barrett argued, the true descendants of Abraham are Jews and thus circumcised, and so gentiles, such as the Galatians, who want to join Abraham’s family must follow suit or face expulsion. Based on the above, Barrett argued that two implications were clear, each of which is worth stating in full due to the persuasive and pervasive influence each has had on subsequent interpretations of this text: (1) This is a part of the Old Testament that Paul would have been unlikely to introdu ce of his own accord; its value from his point of view is anything but obvious, and the method of interpretation is unusual with him. It stands in the epistle because his opponents had used it and he could not escape it. (2) Its plain, surface meaning supports not Paul but the Judaizers: the Jews, who live by the law of Moses, are the heirs of Abraham and it is to Jews that the promise applies … The Judaizers had given it its straightforward literal meaning. 23

In other words, because the so-called “straightforward literal” meaning was not in his favor, Paul was forced to deal with a passage of Scripture he would have otherwise avoided. However, since the troublemakers had forced his hand, Paul offered a reading, or better, a counter-reading of his own. In Barrett’s view, Paul turned the tables on the troublemakers by interpreting Gen 16–21 in such a way as to align Hagar and her slave children with Jews and even Jewish Christfollowers – i.e., all who are beholden to the Torah – and Sarah and her children 20

Barrett, Essays on Paul, 161. Barrett, Essays on Paul, 161. 22 See Barrett, Essays on Paul, 161–63 23 Barrett, Essays on Paul, 162–63. Emphasis my own. Similarly, Hans Hübner, Das Gesetz bei Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 17. 21

5.2 The Inclusion of the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah in Galatians

127

with freeborn Christians – i.e., “the church of justified sinners.”24 Altogether, Barrett found the implications of this reading to be clear: “It is confirmed that the Jewish Christians are, theologically Ishmaels, the law-free Christians Isaacs … the physical descendants of Sarah become the spiritual descendants of Hagar, and the physical descendants of Hagar (generalized into the Gentiles) become the spiritual descendants of Sarah, who inherit the divine promise.” 25 5.2.2 Hermeneutical Implications of the Consensus View As the above overview demonstrates, Barrett’s theory offers a possible solution to the difficulty scholars have had and continue to have with the inclusion of the story of Hagar and Sarah in the argument of Galatians. For instance, James Dunn describes the potential helpfulness of Barrett’s theory in this way: [It] would certainly help explain why Paul has left his own handling of the scriptural texts till this point: without the preceding appeals to experience and scripture his exegesis he re might seem to his readers rather forced; his concern, in other words, was not to convince his audience, but to give those already convinced a way of handling and thus countering a key scriptural argument of the other missionaries. 26

Yet, in response to Dunn’s assessment, it is telling that those who follow Barrett’s lead describe Paul’s “way of handling” the Genesis narrative in such a way as to demonstrate their own bewilderment and discomfort. This is because those who accept Barrett’s proposal are forced to draw several disconcerting conclusions about Paul’s own appropriation of the story of Hagar and Sarah based on his apparent and seemingly feeble attempt to overcome the troublemakers’ gospel and their so-called “straightforward literal” reading of the Genesis text, which likewise has negative implications for Judaism, Jews, and Jewish ethnic identity.27 Below, a few notable examples will suffice. According to Andrew Lincoln, since the Genesis narrative “does not appear especially promising” for Paul’s argument, he is forced to do some “maneuvering” so as to reinterpret the text in order to “reach the end he has in view.” 28 In stronger terms, F. F. Bruce describes Paul’s interpretation as a “forcible inversion” of the Genesis narrative that goes against the historical facts of the text. Thus, “the people of the law [Jews] belong to Hagar’s family … those who believe the gospel [Christians] are the children of Sarah, the free woman.”29 Even more troubling are the con24

Barrett, Essays on Paul, 164. Barrett, Essays on Paul, 165–68. 26 Dunn, Galatians, 243. Emphasis my own. 27 A point also made by Thiessen, Paul, 73–75. 28 Andrew T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology, SNTS 43 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 12. 29 Bruce, Galatians, 218–19; cf. also Matera, Galatians, 172. 25

128

Chapter 5: Framing the Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

clusions drawn by Karen Jobes who argues that Paul effected an “exegetical reversal” through “arbitrary assignments” by identifying “Jews as the children of Hagar [i.e., “slaves”] and Christians as the children of Sarah [i.e., free].” As such, Paul “contradicts the traditional understanding of Israel’s history.” 30 According to Richard Longenecker, this manipulation of the Genesis narrative is “a shocking realignment of personages and places in Jewish understanding.”31 Similarly, Andrew Das contends that the connection Paul supposedly develops between Mount Sinai and “Hagar and Ishmael’s covenant of slavery” would have been not only “shocking,” but that such “contortions” of the text “convey his [Paul’s] discomfort.”32 Other terms used to describe Paul’s so-called counter-reading of the Hagar-Sarah narrative include: “unusual … problematic … weak … far-fetched … unconvincing”33; “astonishing” and “daring”34; and “audacious.”35 Finally, the colorful yet troubling words of Richard Hays capture the hermeneutical implications of Barrett’s theory well: If Barrett’s proposal is correct, we see Paul in Gal 4:21–31 practicing hermeneutical jujitsu … The claim that Torah, rightly read, warrants the rejection of lawkeeping is, on its face, outrageous. No sane reader could appeal, without some flicker of irony, to the Law in order to nullify circumcision … Unless we suppose that Paul was an insane (or duplicitous) reader, we must credit him with some ironic sensibility as he flips the story on its back. The audacity of the maneuver contributes to its rhetorical effect. 36

Therefore, if Barrett’s theory is to be accepted, as most scholars conclude, Paul’s allegorical interpretation of the story of Hagar and Sarah is rightly classified as a “hermeneutical miracle,” where, by a forced attempt to put an end to the argument of the troublemakers, Paul left his audience and likewise any other first-century Jewish reader and interpreter of Scripture astonished. 37 However convincing, Paul’s counter-reading had reversed the so-called “straightforward literal” meaning of the Genesis narrative in such a way as to realign Jews and even Jewish Christ-followers with the slave-woman Hagar and Christians – and primarily gentile Christians – with the free-woman Sarah. 30 Karen H. Jobes, “Jerusalem, Our Mother: Metalepsis and Intertextuality in Galatians 4.21–31,” WTJ 55 (1993): 300; similarly, Stephen E. Fowl, “Who Can Read Abraham’s Story? Allegory and Interpretive Power in Galatians,” JSNT 55 (1994): 90. 31 Longenecker, Galatians, 213. 32 Das, Galatians, 485. 33 Mika Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis, LNTS 344 (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 157–62. 34 de Boer, Galatians, 289. 35 Moo, Galatians, 303. 36 Hays, Echoes, 112. Emphasis my own. In fact, the language of “hermeneutical jujitsu” continues to be employed to describe Paul’s apparently unconventional interpretive maneuvering; see e.g., Bird, Anomalous Jew, 159. 37 See Hays, Echoes, 112. Note also the concerns of Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation, 161, who, while following Barret, recognizes that Paul’s argument is unsound.

5.2 The Inclusion of the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah in Galatians

129

5.2.3 An Evaluation of the Consensus View As noted above, Barrett’s theory has received pride of place in Galatians scholarship, and it continues to function as the representative explanation for what is widely considered to be Paul’s somewhat arbitrary and even contradictory exegetical maneuvering in his allegorical appropriation of the story of Hagar and Sarah in Gal 4:21–31. However, in recent years, the tide has begun to turn as a small number of scholars have been less inclined to follow Barrett’s lead. 38 Early on, Lloyd Gaston challenged the methodology of Barrett’s theory on the grounds that it is predicated on an appeal to “statements of opponents which are never explicitly mentioned.”39 And, as D. Francois Tolmie points out, Barrett’s theory is built entirely on turning “a guess into a fact.”40 In relation to this, others have noted that Paul offers no indication that he is responding to an argument from another group, nor does he include the standard formulae that would indicate he is answering a question.41 Peter von der Osten-Sacken, recognizing the textual silence, queries, “Aber ob man dann nicht wenigstens einen noch so kleinen Hinweis darauf erwarten würde?”42 Finally, and most importantly, a few scholars have pointed to the fact that the reality of Ishmael’s own circumcision as recorded in Gen 17 greatly problematizes the theory that a group of troublemakers would have appealed to the story of Hagar and Sarah, along with the circumcision accounts of their respective sons, in support of their claim that gentiles must undergo circumcision in order to legitimize themselves as Abraham’s children.43 38 See e.g., Cosgrove, “The Law,” 221–23, who notes that, for Barrett’s theory to stand, Paul would have to argue in a complete circle; cf. also the concerns of, e.g., Andrew C. Perriman, “The Rhetorical Strategy of Galatians 4:21–5:1,” EQ 65 (1993): 33; Steven Di Mattei, “Paul’s Allegory of the Two Covenants (Gal 4.21–31) in Light of First-Century Hellenistic Rhetoric and Jewish Hermeneutics,” NTS 52 (2006): 111 n. 61; Mark S. Gignilliat, “Paul, Allegory, and the Plain Sense of Scripture: Galatians 4:21–31,” JTI 2 (2008): 146 n. 49; Lyons, Galatians, 278–79; Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 190. 39 Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 83. 40 D. Francois Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter, WUNT II 190 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 167. 41 Elliott, Cutting Too Close, 17, provides 1 Cor 1:11; 5:1; 6:12; 10:23; 15:23 as examples where Paul responds to an argument. She also notes that περὶ δέ + genitive would be expected if he were answering a question and cites 1 Cor 7:1; 12:1; 1 Thess 4:9; 5:1 in support; see also Jeffrey S. Siker, Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 45; Dunne, Persecution, 182. Somewhat less clear is the view of Christopher D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 130 n. 38. 42 Osten-Sacken, Galatien, 219 n. 507. 43 See Cosgrove, “The Law,” 223; Standhartinger, “Zur Freiheit,” 44; Yon-Gyong Kwon, Eschatology in Galatians, WUNT II 183 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 93 n. 54; Di Mattei, “Paul’s Allegory,” 111 n. 61; David I. Starling, Not My People: Gentiles as

130

Chapter 5: Framing the Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

Therefore, in view of this latter observation, in what follows I will demonstrate that scholars who follow Barrett’s lead have not paid sufficient attention to one very important detail found in the narrative of Gen 16–21, namely, the inconsequential nature of Ishmael’s circumcision. Building on several insights from Matthew Thiessen’s work on circumcision in ancient Judaism, I will demonstrate that when Gen 17 is read in view of the strikingly different implications for the respective circumcisions of Ishmael and Isaac, it is difficult to understand why the troublemakers would have used the story of Hagar and Sarah in support of their claim that the Galatian gentiles must undergo circumcision in order to fully legitimize their standing in Abraham’s family. In addition to this, I will suggest further that, according to the literary traditions of ancient Judaism, the respective circumcision accounts of Ishmael and Isaac were never used to encourage, let alone support the conversion of gentiles via the ritual act of circumcision. Rather, for many ancient Jews, these accounts appear to have served to differentiate the customs of Israel from those of the nations and thus reify their own exclusivist convictions. 5.2.3.1 Analyzing the Circumcision Accounts of Ishmael and Isaac According to the LXX of Gen 17:10, God required as a sign of his covenant with Abraham that “every male of yours will be circumcised (περιτμηθήσεται ὑμῶν πᾶν ἀρσενικόν)”; and consequently, according to 17:14, “And for the uncircumcised (ἀπερίτμητος) male who will not be circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin on the eighth day (τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ὀγδόῃ),44 that soul will be completely rooted out/destroyed (ἐξολεθρευθήσεται ἡ ψυχὴ ἐκείνη) from his family, because he has broken my covenant (ὅτι τὴν διαθήκην μου διεσκέδασεν).” Consistent with God’s commandment, Abraham responded accordingly. Genesis 17:23 records, “And Abraham took his son Ishmael and all the members of his household: all those purchased with silver and every male, those of the husbands which were in Abraham’s house, and he circumcised their foreskin in the time of that day (καὶ περιέτεμεν τὰς ἀκροβυστίας αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης), just as God said to him.” Similarly, following the birth of Isaac, Gen 21:4 records, “And Abraham circumcised Isaac on the eighth day (τῇ ὀγδόῃ ἡμέρᾳ) … just as God had commanded him.”45 Thus, as the Genesis narrative makes clear, Ishmael, Isaac, and every male member of Abraham’s household were circumcised according to God’s command.

Exiles in Pauline Hermeneutics, BZNW 184 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 29 n. 23. Thiessen, Paul, 88, demonstrates the way scholars who recognize Ishmael’s circumcision completely overlook the implications of it for Barrett’s theory. He highlights, in particular, Esler, Galatians, 209–10; cf. also, de Boer, “Paul’s Quotation,” 385. 44 Emphasis my own. The MT does not contain the equivalent of τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ὀγδόῃ. 45 Emphasis my own.

5.2 The Inclusion of the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah in Galatians

131

Based on these accounts, those in agreement with Barrett insist that the troublemakers were appealing to the Genesis narrative and the covenant stipulation found therein in support of their gospel; that is, in order to be a true member of Abraham’s family and God’s covenant people, the Genesis narrative was clear: the Galatian gentiles must undergo circumcision, like Isaac. Otherwise, they would find themselves cut off from the covenant altogether. However, it is the episode of the promise of Isaac’s birth as recorded in Gen 17:15–21, preceding the account of Ishmael’s circumcision in 17:23, and likewise the negative implications of Isaac’s birth for Ishmael as recorded in 21:10 that interpreters often neglect to consider.46 As noted in Chapter 3, according to the account of the promise of Isaac’s birth, a yet foreskinned Ishmael, although being Abraham’s first-born son and apparent legal heir to the promise, was not the one with whom God elected to extend his covenant; rather, it was promised to the unborn and yet to be circumcised son, Isaac. As Gen 17:18–21 makes clear, God established his covenant with Isaac, not Ishmael. Following this account, then, Ishmael was circumcised according to God’s commandment (Gen 17:25), but his circumcision is ultimately found to be of minimal, if any, covenantal significance.47 Rather, according to the Genesis narrative (cf. 21:10), and reaffirmed in the Second Temple texts of Jub. 15:20–22 and Josephus’s Ant. 1.193 and 1.214, Ishmael, although circumcised, found himself outside of God’s covenant. Recently, Matthew Thiessen has demonstrated that, in several Jewish texts from the Second Temple period, one of the distinguishing factors in the circumcision accounts of Ishmael and Isaac was the timing respective to each.48 In other words, Ishmael’s circumcision was invalid from the start because his was not completed on the eighth day, whereas Isaac’s was.49 For instance, recounting Gen 17:23–27, the author of Jubilees includes important details related to the laws of circumcision that Israel was to follow, with serious implications for someone such as Ishmael who was not circumcised on the eighth day. Jubilees 15:25–27 states: This law is for all eternal generations and there is no circumcising of days and there is no passing a single day beyond eight days because it is an eternal ordinance ordained and written in the heavenly tablets. And anyone who is born whose own flesh is not circumcised on the eighth day is not from the sons of the covenant which the Lord made for 46 On the differing implications for the respective circumcisions of Ishmael and Isaac, see Thiessen, Contesting Conversion, 18–42. 47 On this, see Matthais Köckert, “Gottes ‘Bund’ mit Abraham und die ‘Erwählung’ Israels in Genesis 17,” in Covenant and Election in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism: Studies of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism Vol. V, FAT II 79 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 1–28. 48 See Thiessen, Contesting Conversion. 49 On the significance of eighth-day circumcision in Jubilees, see Thiessen, Contesting Conversion, 67–86; Thiessen, Paul, 80–82.

132

Chapter 5: Framing the Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

Abraham since (he is) from the children of destruction. And there is therefore no sign upon him so that he might belong to the Lord because (he is destined) to be destroyed and annihilated from the earth and to be uprooted from the earth because he has broken the covenant of the Lord our God.50

Hence, according to Jubilees, in spite of the fact that Ishmael underwent circumcision (Jub. 15:23), he and his sons are not among the elect of Abraham’s posterity (Jub. 15:30); rather, they are categorically excluded from the covenant.51 Similarly, although not explicitly contrasted with Ishmael, Philo contends that Isaac was the first to undergo lawful circumcision: “Now the first of our nation who was circumcised by law and was named after the virtue of joy was called Isaac” (QG 3.38). For Philo, there was something categorically distinct about Isaac’s circumcision, and this appears to be related to the timing of it. On the significance of eighth-day circumcision, Philo states, “That nation to which was given the command to circumcise (children) on the eighth (day) is called ‘Israel’” (QG 3.49).52 Later, Philo contends that Ishmael’s circumcision, because it was done in his thirteenth year, can only produce “alien seed” in contrast to the seed of the “more perfect generation” (QG 3.61). Finally, as noted in Chapter 4, Josephus diverts from his retelling of Gen 16– 21 in order to expound on the differing implications for both Ishmael and Isaac as a result of the timing of their respective circumcisions. To reiterate the point made there, in Ant. 1.192–93, Josephus contends that God instituted eighth-day circumcision for Israel in order to keep them “unmixed with others.” Immediately following this, Ishmael is said to be circumcised “in his thirteenth year”; and later in Ant. 1.214, Josephus confirms that Isaac was in fact circumcised on the eighth day, and so the custom of the Jews followed. Isaac’s circumcision is thus contrasted with Ishmael’s. Consequently, Ishmael could not be the founder of the Jewish people; rather, for Josephus, he is the founder of the Arab people: those who follow the custom of circumcision in the thirteenth year.53 Based on these texts, it is apparent that, according to certain strands of ancient Jewish thinking, there was a clear and categorical difference between Ishmael’s and Isaac’s respective circumcisions. At the most basic level, although it is certain that both Ishmael and Isaac were circumcised, it is clear that 50

Translated by Wintermute, OTP. As argued by Thiessen, Contesting Conversion, 72–78; see also Fergus Millar, “Hagar, Ishmael, Josephus and the Origins of Islam,” JJS 44 (1993): 37; Nina E. Livesey, Circumcision as a Malleable Symbol, WUNT II 295 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 16– 21; Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, “Genesis herschreven en geïnterpreteerd in het boek Jubileeën, nader toegelicht met een vergelijking van Genesis 17 en Jubileeën 15,” NedTT 64 (2010): 32–50. 52 On Philo’s view of circumcision, see Sandelin, “Philo as a Jew,” 28–29; Barclay, Pauline Churches, 62–67. 53 For a full discussion, see Chapter 4. 51

5.2 The Inclusion of the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah in Galatians

133

their respective circumcisions were not equal. Simply put, Isaac’s was covenantal whereas Ishmael’s was not. Furthermore, and at a deeper level, for the Jewish texts surveyed above, the problematic timing of Ishmael’s circumcision likewise rendered his circumcision inconsequential. Thus, as Thiessen concludes, “Ishmael, despite being circumcised, is not circumcised according to the covenant, and therefore has no claim to a share in God’s people, or in the protection circumcision affords.”54 Returning then to the Genesis narrative, it is not surprising that Ishmael’s exclusion from the covenant is made unmistakably clear in spite of his circumcision. According to 21:10, Ishmael would not inherit with Isaac; rather, he was to be expelled from Abraham’s household. In sum, Ishmael, although circumcised according to God’s command, did not favor in God’s full covenantal blessing; rather, the covenant would be extended to Isaac and his descendants alone.55 5.2.3.2 Ishmael’s Circumcision: A Problem for the Consensus View By way of final comments, then, two observations can be offered. First, according to a so-called “straightforward literal” reading of Gen 16–21 (to use Barrett’s own terminology), Ishmael was rightly circumcised according to God’s command, yet he remained outside of God’s covenant. Thus, to argue that circumcision secured one’s place in Abraham’s covenant family, and furthermore, to suggest that Gen 16–21, and specifically chapter 17, supports this claim, would be to argue against a so-called “straightforward literal” reading of the Genesis narrative.56 In fact, as Charles Cosgrove helpfully points out, Abraham’s entire household, primarily made up of non-Israelite slaves nonetheless, was circumcised, yet covenant membership remained restricted to Isaac and his seed.57 Thus, the inconsequential nature of Ishmael’s circumcision suggests that 54

Thiessen, Contesting Conversion, 78. Emphasis original. Syrén, Forsaken Firstborn; Köckert, “Gottes,” 17–19. 56 Martyn, Galatians, 455, is one who does recognize the difficulty Ishmael’s circumcision creates for this approach, but he persists by asserting that the troublemakers had simply avoided it. 57 Cosgrove, “The Law,” 223; contra Williamson, Abraham, 315; Troy W. Martin, “The Covenant of Circumcision (Genesis 17:9–14) and the Situational Antitheses in Galatians 3:28,” JBL 122 (2003): 117. Commenting on the problem created by the circumcision of Ishmael and Abraham’s slaves, David A. Bernat, Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Priestly Tradition, SBLAIL 3 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2009), 33–34, points out, “The problem is solved with the Isaac/Ishmael, ‫ברן‬/ ‫ ברית‬dichotomy. Isaac is the elected son, recipient of the panoply of the ‫ – ברית‬promises. Ishmael, the paradigmatic foreigner, is circumcised but is never treated as a fully equal member of the community.” The fact that Ishmael was not viewed as a covenant member, but rather, the paradigmatic foreigner may explain why the Ishmaelites are portrayed negatively throughout both Israel’s Scriptures and Second Temple literature; cf. e.g., Judg 8:24; Ps 82:4–6 LXX (Ps. 83:4–6); Jdt 2:23; 1 55

134

Chapter 5: Framing the Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

an appeal to Gen 17 would have not made a particularly compelling case for those advocating the necessity of gentile circumcision as a way of legitimation. Second, if, as many scholars suggest, Gen 16–21 functions as conclusive support for Barrett’s theory, it is interesting that no ancient Jewish text prior to or contemporaneous with Paul (of which I am aware) made an appeal to the circumcision accounts of Ishmael and Isaac in order to argue for the necessity of gentile circumcision. To be sure, scholars have routinely noted that an argument for gentile circumcision was likely made in relation to the portrayal of Abraham as a model proselyte.58 Yet, based on the texts surveyed above, the circumcision accounts of Ishmael and Isaac were neither read nor understood to encourage, let alone support the inclusion of gentiles via circumcision; rather, for at least some ancient Jews, these accounts served to differentiate the importance of eighth-day circumcision over against other forms of the practice (i.e., gentile circumcision). In this way, these accounts served to reify the exclusivist conviction of many Second Temple Jews by maintaining the abiding distinction between Israel and the nations. Altogether, then, while the troublemakers in Galatia were, for whatever reason, trying to pressure the Galatian gentiles into circumcision (cf. Gal 5:2–4; 6:12–13), contra Barrett’s theory, an appeal to the story of Hagar and Sarah, along with the circumcision accounts of their respective sons, would have not made a particularly compelling case for those advocating gentile circumcision. To state the problem plainly: if circumcision did not secure Ishmael’s place in Abraham’s covenant lineage, how much less of a place for the Galatian gentiles?

5.3 Reappraising the Inclusion of the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah: Exploring the Literary Context of Galatians 4:21–31 5.3 Reappraising the Inclusion of the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah

To this point we have found that Barrett’s theory on the inclusion of allegory of Hagar and Sarah in the argument of Galatians is to be roundly rejected on the grounds that the inconsequential nature of Ishmael’s circumcision greatly problematizes the assertion that the troublemakers had introduced the Genesis narraEnoch 89:11; 1QM 2.13. Finally, Mark D. Nanos, “The Question of Conceptualization: Qualifying Paul’s Position on Circumcision in Dialogue with Josephus’s Advisors to King Izates,” in Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context of the Apostle, ed. Mark D. Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), 117, notes that the Torah does not instruct non-Israelites to undertake circumcision, with, of course, the exception of slaves, and likewise, those who desire to partake in Passover (e.g., Exod 12:48). 58 Das, Galatians, 483–84. For a broad survey of this theme, see Nancy Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism, and the People of God: The Significance of Abraham Traditions for Early Judaism and Christianity (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 6–84.

5.3 Reappraising the Inclusion of the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah

135

tive, and the circumcision accounts of Ishmael and Isaac found therein, in order to persuade the Galatian gentiles to undergo circumcision and thus legitimize themselves. In contrast, then, I believe it more likely to be the case that Paul introduced the story of Hagar and Sarah (and their sons) of his own accord, and, in doing so, he did not set out to fundamentally reinterpret that same story, nor did he disregard the text as nothing more than a pretext for his own fanciful interpretation. Rather, following the words of Francis Watson: When [Paul] asks his readers, “Tell me, you who wish to be under law, do you not hear the law?” (Gal. 4.21), he is inviting them to participate with him in a responsible interpretation of this text.59

In this way, it is my working assumption that Paul read the story of Hagar and Sarah with full historical and theological seriousness, and that he engaged in a responsible, albeit allegorical interpretation of it.60 Yet, if, as I am suggesting, it was Paul who was responsible for introducing the story of Hagar and Sarah to the Galatians, the question remains as to not only why Paul would appeal to this particular story, but how his allegorical appropriation of it is meant to be intelligible within the overall context of his argument. To state this plainly: why does Paul introduce the allegory here?61 In what follows, I would like to propose that crucial to understanding how Gal 4:21–31 fits within the overall context of Paul’s argument is found in three separate yet related statements made in Gal 4:9, 4:19 and 5:1.62 Throughout the letter, Paul argues that in their attempt to be justified by the law, the Galatian gentiles are – seemingly unbeknownst to them – actually turning away from the God who rescued them and living as if the fullness of time had never come about (5:2–4; cf. 1:4, 6; 3:1–6; 4:4–5). Thus, in 4:9, 4:19, and 5:1, Paul employs the adverb πάλιν (twice in 4:9) in order to express his overall concern: namely, that the Galatian gentiles are at risk of returning “again” (πάλιν) to their former status of spiritual slavery; or simply put, they are on the verge of apostasy (cf. 1:6–9; 3:1–5).63 Therefore, in the following sections, each of these 59

Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 190. Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 190. On allegory, see Chapter 6. 61 Similarly, Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians, 165. 62 There is some debate around how the argument of Galatians is structured. For a helpful overview of the various approaches, along with a discussion of rhetorical theory, see Das, Galatians, 48–68. Much of the discussion centers on whether 4:21–31 concludes the argumentative section of the letter, e.g., Betz, Galatians, 238; or whether it is part of the exhortatory section beginning in 4:12, e.g., Hansen, Abraham, 44–50. While I believe that the allegory is part of the argumentative section, I would contend that the argumentative section runs through 5:12; see similarly, Moo, Galatians, 64. In this way, 4:8–5:12 functions as the second part of Paul’s argument whereby he turns directly to the Galatian gentiles in order to confront and correct their current course of action. 63 For apostasy as a central concern of the letter, see e.g., Dunn, Galatians, 225–26; Witherington, Galatia, 296; Roy E. Ciampa, The Presence and Function of Scripture in 60

136

Chapter 5: Framing the Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

three verses will require independent analysis before an overall evaluation of how they relate to 4:21–31 can be offered. 5.3.1 From Sonship Back to Slavery (Gal 4:9) But now, having come to know God, or rather, be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless στοιχεῖα, to which you desire to serve as a slave once again?64 νῦν δὲ γνόντες θεόν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ θεοῦ, πῶς ἐπιστρέφετε πάλιν ἐπὶ τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα οἷς πάλιν ἄνωθεν δουλεύειν θέλετε;65

Paul’s question here in Gal 4:9 is situated within the immediate context of 4:8– 11, which is largely understood to function as somewhat of an impassioned and concluding appeal in relation to the previous argument of 4:1–7.66 Recently, several scholars have come to recognize 4:1–7 as, on some level, the theological center of the letter as it brings together a number of the letter’s major motifs: namely, the concept of heirship (4:1; cf. 3:29), the issue of slavery (4:1, 3, 7; cf. 2:4), status under the law (4:4–5; cf. 3:23–24), the reception of the Spirit (4:6; cf. 3:2, 5, 14), and the actualization of sonship (4:5, 7; cf. 3:26), with the center of the pericope outlining “the basic narrative sequence of Paul’s gospel proclamation,” i.e., the liberating activity of God’s Son, Jesus Christ (4:4–5; cf. 1:4, 16; 3:13–14; 3:24–25).67 In this way, 4:1–7 is understood to function as a Galatians 1 and 2, WUNT II 102 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 292; Todd A. Wilson, “Wilderness Apostasy and Paul’s Portrayal of the Crisis in Galatians,” NTS 50 (2004): 553; Lyons, Galatians, 255; Dunne, Persecution. 64 Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own. 65 The Greek text here and elsewhere follows NA28. 66 Dunn, Galatians, 223. 67 Wilson, “Wilderness Apostasy,” 559. See also Martinus C. de Boer, “The Meaning of the Phrase Τα Στoιχεια Τoυ Κoσμoυ in Galatians,” NTS 53 (2007): 204. On the other hand, Martyn, Galatians, 388, reserves the letter’s theological center for 4:3–5. Finally, space permits a full discussion of the most disputed aspects of 4:1–7. On the question of (1) the intended background for the illustration of 4:1–2, for a Hellenistic background, see Witherington, Galatia, 282–83; for Exodus typology, see James M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of ΥΙΟΘΕΣΙΑ in the Pauline Corpus, WUNT II 48 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992), 126–49; for the Roman legal background, see John K. Goodrich, “Guardians, Not Taskmasters: The Cultural Resonances of Paul’s Metaphor in Galatians 4.1–2,” JSNT 32 (2010): 251–84; John K. Goodrich, “‘As Long as the Heir Is a Child”: The Rhetoric of Inheritance in Galatians 4:1–2 and P.Ryl. 2.153,” NovT 55 (2013): 61–76. (2) On whether the pronominal shifts are inclusive or exclusive, see Terence L. Donaldson, “The ‘Curse of the Law’ and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians 3.13–14,” NTS 32 (1986): 94–112; John W. Taylor, “The Eschatological Interdependence of Jews and Gentiles in Galatians,” TynBul 63 (2012): 291–316; A. Andrew Das, Paul and the Stories of Israel: Grand Thematic Narratives in Galatians (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016), 33–63. And, (3) on the meaning of τὰ στοιχεῖα, see the discussion in Das, Galatians, 439–45.

5.3 Reappraising the Inclusion of the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah

137

recapitulation of the previous arguments of 3:13–14 in general and 3:22–29 in particular.68 In each of these passages, Paul emphasizes the liberating activity of Christ for the sake of both Jew and gentile (cf. 3:13–14; 3:22–29; 4:1–7), and in 3:29 and 4:6–7 he closes out each section by reminding the Galatian gentiles of their present standing in Christ. That is, due to the liberating activity of Israel’s Messiah, they are “no longer slaves” (οὐκέτι εἶ δοῦλος; 4:7), but rather, through faith, they have become “sons of God” (υἱοὶ θεοῦ; 3:26; 4:6–7), “Abraham’s seed” (τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ σπέρμα; 3:29), and “heirs according to the promise” (κατ᾽ἐπαγγελίαν κληρονόμοι; 3:29; 4:7).69 Having established the basis for their newfound status as sons of God and not slaves, in 4:8–11 Paul once again turns his attention specifically to the Galatian gentiles and, for the third time in the letter, confronts them for what he deems to be dangerous and even apostatizing activity (cf. 1:6–9; 3:1–5).70 Paul begins this confrontation with the adversative particle ἀλλά in order to highlight the sharp contrast between the description of the Galatians’ newfound status as “sons of God” and “heirs,” as outlined in 4:6–7, with that of their former status as pagans. In 4:8, Paul writes, “But formerly (Ἀλλὰ τότε), when you did not know God, you served as slaves (ἐδουλεύσατε) those who by nature are not gods (τοῖς φύσει μή οὖσιν θεοῖς).” Hence, by employing typical Jewish terminology, Paul reminds the Galatian gentiles that, prior to their encounter with the gospel of Christ, as pagans, they did they not know God, and thus they were slaves to what he describes as “non-gods.”71 This reminder, however, merely prepares the way for what follows. 68 As argued by Donaldson, “The Curse”; Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11, 2nd ed., The Biblical Resource Series (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 163–27; Jens Schröter, Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament: Studien zur urchristlichen Theologiegeschichte und zur Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons, WUNT 204 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 171–201; Taylor, “Eschatological Independence.” 69 On the “chronological mapping of the Galatians’ ‘story’,” see Eastman, Recovering, 38. 70 Wilson, “Wilderness Apostasy,” 560. 71 The belief that gentiles did not know the God of Israel is attested to throughout Israel’s Scriptures and Second Temple literature, e.g., Exod 5:2; Ps 79:6 (78:6 LXX); Job 18:21; Jer 10:25; Jdt 9:7; Wis 13:1; Bar 3:20–23; 2 Macc 1:27; Jub 16:30; cf. also 1 Thess 4:5; 1 Cor 1:21. In contrast, true knowledge of God is believed to be Israel’s unique privilege, e.g., Deut 4:39; Ps 9:10; 46:10; Isa 43:10; Dan 11:32; Hos 8:2; 13:4; Joel 2:27; 3:17; Mic 6:5; Jdt 8:20; Wis 2:13; Sir 36:5. Several of these texts are cited by commentators, e.g., Dunn, Galatians, 224; Garlington, Galatians, 245–46. The belief that gentiles were enslaved to non-gods is found in, e.g., 2 Chron 13:9; Isa 37:19; Jer 2:11; 5:7; 16:20; Wis 12:27; Ep Jer 23, 29, 51–52, 64–65, 69, 72. Several of these texts are cited by commentators, e.g., Bruce, Galatians, 201–2; Lyons, Galatians, 254. Finally, there is significant debate around whether Paul believed the τοῖς φύσει μή οὖσιν θεοῖς of 4:8 to be demons or non-existent entities. For the demonic view, see Betz, Galatians, 215; for the non-existent view, see Longenecker, Galatians, 179; finally, Dunn, Galatians, 224, thinks it cannot be

138

Chapter 5: Framing the Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

In 4:9, Paul begins by briefly reminding the Galatian gentiles of the deliverance they experienced from their former idolatrous state, and then he goes on to describe what he believes to be the consequence of their current course of action. He writes, “But now (νῦν), having come to know God, or rather, be known by God, how can you turn back again (ἐπιστρέφετε πάλιν) to the weak and worthless στοιχεῖα, to which you desire to serve as a slave once again (πάλιν ἄνωθεν δουλεύειν θέλετε).” As Betz has observed, Paul’s use of the verb ἐπιστρέφω coupled with the twofold use of the adverb πάλιν shows that, in Paul’s thinking, the Galatian gentiles are on the verge of reversing their standing in Christ and returning to paganism.72 In other words, Paul contends that, by taking on certain aspects of the Jewish law and seeking to be justified by it (cf. 5:4), the Galatian gentiles are – seemingly unbeknownst to them – on the verge of forfeiting their present status as sons of God in favor of returning again (πάλιν) to the experience of their past enslavement. Paul’s comments here, however, raise a number of difficult questions that require further attention. For instance, how can Paul depict the Galatian gentiles’ actions as “turning back again,” as if to say for a second time, to the observance of the Jewish law?73 In other words, assuming that gentiles were not previously under the Jewish law, how can Paul characterize their observance of certain aspects of the Jewish law as something they are doing “again”? 74 Second, and related to the first, how, if at all, can Paul equate the observance of certain aspects of the Jewish law with pagan idolatry? For instance, in what appears to be a critique of the Jewish calendar immediately following the rebuke of 4:9, in 4:10 Paul chastises the Galatians for “observing (παρατηρεῖσθε) days and months and seasons and years (ἡμέρας … καὶ μῆνας καὶ καιροὺς καὶ ἐνιαυτούς).” Finally, why does Paul conclude that, in all of this, the threat of apostasy is very real?

known. For a broad overview of the pervasiveness of pagan gods, see Paula Fredriksen, “The Question of Worship: Gods, Pagans, and the Redemption of Israel,” in Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context of the Apostle, ed. Mark D. Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), 175–85. 72 Betz, Galatians, 216. Furthermore, as Lightfoot, Galatians, 171, notes, the use of πάλιν ἄνωθεν is a “strong expression to describe the completeness of their relapse.” Finally, commentators routinely note that ἐπιστρέφω and its cognates are used to express socalled conversion in several NT texts (e.g., Luke 1:16; Acts 3:19; 9:35; 11:21; 1 Thess 1:9) and likewise apostasy in both the OT and the NT (e.g., Num 14:43; 1 Sam 15:11; 1 Kgs 9:6; Jer 3:19; 2 Pet 5:2–4); see Burton, Galatians, 232; Longenecker, Galatians, 180; Dunn, Galatians, 225–26; Witherington, Galatia, 301. 73 Wilson, “Wilderness Apostasy,” 561. 74 On the question of gentiles being under the law, see Brian S. Rosner, Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God, NSBT 31 (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2013), 51–59. See further the discussion in Chapter 6.

5.3 Reappraising the Inclusion of the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah

139

5.3.1.1 Gal 4:9–10: Four Interpretive Options and the Need for Refinement For the most part, scholars have found Paul’s comments in Gal 4:9 and their relationship to 4:10 difficult to harmonize.75 The two primary concerns being: a) the question of how Jewish law observance can possibly be categorized as slavery to the στοιχεῖα;76 and b) if Paul is critiquing the observance of the Jewish calendar in 4:10, why are the “cultic activities described … not typical of Judaism?”77 By and large, scholars have offered four responses. The first and most novel approach is to understand 4:8–11 as part of a larger interpolation of 4:8–20. In this way, one is able to sidestep these difficult questions by assigning them either to a different letter or to someone else altogether. 78 However, this approach assumes that 4:8–20 reflects a certain level of disunity in the letter, which has been recently shown to be untenable.79 The second approach takes the reference in 4:10 to refer not to Jewish cultic activities, but to the Imperial Cult.80 In this way, the Galatian gentiles are not turning to Jewish practices at all; rather, they are literally (and knowingly) reverting back to pagan ones.81 However, the difficulty with this approach is that 4:21, along with the verses that closely follow (i.e., 5:1–4), appear to connect the Galatians’ actions to the observance of various aspects of the Jewish law, not imperialism.82 Finally, the third and fourth options are similar and likewise the most prominent: the former equates Jewish law observance and pagan veneration of the στοιχεῖα as fundamentally the same thing,83 while the latter is slightly more nuanced and 75 As Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 409–10, rightly notes, the association Paul appears to develop has “seemed to many either impossible or nonsensical.” Emphasis my own. 76 E.g., Hays, “Galatians,” 282. 77 Betz, Galatians, 217. 78 Cf. O’Neill, Galatians, 56–60; Thomas Witulski, Die Adressaten des Galaterbriefes: Untersuchungen zur Gemeinde von Antiochia ad Pisidiam, FRLANT 193 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 67–81. 79 See Eastman, Recovering; Dunne, Persecution, 155–79; cf. also Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Our Mother Saint Paul (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 29–37. 80 Justin K. Hardin, Galatians and the Imperial Cult: A Critical Analysis of the FirstCentury Social Context of Paul’s Letter, WUNT II 237 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 116–47. 81 Cf. Troy Martin, “Apostasy to Paganism: The Rhetorical Stasis of the Galatian Controversy,” JBL 114 (1995): 437–61; Nanos, Irony of Galatians, 267; Kahl, Galatians, 218– 27; Lyons, Galatians, 252. 82 As Hardin, Galatians, 128 n. 56, concedes, 4:21–5:6 “stands as the biggest challenge to a pagan understanding of 4.10.” Yet, Hardin does nothing to address this challenge. 83 de Boer, “The Meaning”; cf. also Nancy L. Calvert, “Abraham and Idolatry: Paul’s Comparison of Obedience to the Law with Idolatry in Galatians 4.1–10,” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, JSNTSup 83 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 225; Witherington, Galatia, 286–87; Garlington, Galatians, 244–52. This has been a longstanding view, see Lightfoot, Galatians, 172–73; Burton, Galatians, 231.

140

Chapter 5: Framing the Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

thus less pejorative; it suggests that although the observance of the Jewish law and pagan worship are not the same, they are similar. The recent work of John Barclay articulates this latter approach well: [I]t appears that life under the Torah can also be characterized as enslavement to στοιχεῖα ... [Paul] is not claiming that pagan worship and Torah-observance are substantially identical ... He is simply stating (though this “simply” is shocking enough) that, from this perspective, pagan religious practice and life under the rule of the Torah may be classified in the same category of subjection to the στοιχεῖα of the world.84

There are, however, a number of difficulties with options three and four. First, the attempt by the latter group to distinguish itself from the former appears to be splitting hairs. Whether existence under the Torah and the στοιχεῖα is understood to be the same or similar, there is little to commend this distinction as both generally result in the same outcome: since the previous state of both groups is believed to have been oppressive – Jewish existence under the law is either equivalent or similar to pagan existence under the στοιχεῖα – both existences “come to an end once one is identified with the crucified and risen one.”85 As will be argued below, however, it is possible that both of these approaches have overlooked an alternative option regarding Paul’s concern with the observance of the Jewish law in this particular letter: namely, the misappropriation of Jewish law by gentiles, not the Jewish law itself. A second and related difficulty is that if the observance of the Jewish calendar is related to pagan worship, this is difficult to harmonize with what Paul says elsewhere. For instance, in 1 Cor 16:8, Paul appears to be perfectly fine with observing the Jewish calendar, and he even organizes his life according to it (cf. 1 Cor 5:8).86 Overall, then, the words of J. Louis Martyn capture the difficulty scholars have with Gal 4:9–10: Not at all easy to understand is his expectation that his inclusion of the Law among the enslaving elements of the cosmos would prove even momentarily worthy of consideration when his letter was read aloud to the Galatians. This expectation is, in fact, one of the persistent puzzles of the letter. 87 84

Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 409. Emphasis original. Cf. also Linda L. Belleville, “‘Under the Law’: Structural Analysis and the Pauline Concept of Law in Galatians 3.21 – 4.11,” JSNT 26 (1986): 69; Clinton E. Arnold, “Returning to the Domain of the Powers: ‘Stoicheia’ as Evil Spirits in Galatians 4:3,9,” NovT 38 (1996): 68; Scott J. Hafemann, “Paul and the Exile of Israel in Galatians 3–4,” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions, ed. James M. Scott, JSJSup 56 (Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1997), 347. 85 Ian W. Scott, Paul’s Way of Knowing: Story, Experience, and the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 236. 86 Rightly, J. Brian Tucker, Reading 1 Corinthians, Cascade Companions 36 (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017), 134. This is also noted by Bruce, Galatians, 205; Hardin, Galatians, 120; Lyons, Galatians, 258; Rudolph, A Jew, 75 n. 203. 87 Martyn, Galatians, 401.

5.3 Reappraising the Inclusion of the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah

141

5.3.1.2 The Misappropriation of the Jewish Law in Galatians As noted above, the crisis in Galatia centers on certain attitudes and actions of the Galatian gentiles that Paul deemed to be apostatizing. To provide a cursory overview, the evidence in the letter suggests that the Galatians are, for whatever reason, turning to a distorted view of Paul’s gospel (1:6–7), which involves taking on certain aspects of the Jewish law, what Paul calls “works of the law” (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου; 3:2, 5; cf. 2:16; 3:10), in order to be justified by those works (5:4; cf. 2:16).88 Throughout the letter, then, Paul is at pains to show that the Jewish law was not given for the purpose to which it is being (mis)used. For instance, in 2:16a, Paul employs the perfect participle εἰδότες in order to inform his readers of what both he and Peter fundamentally know to be true as Jews, namely, that the law does not procure justification: “a person is not justified by works of the law (οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου) except (ἐὰν μή) through faith in Jesus Christ.”89 What is more, at the end of 2:16 Paul reinforces this shared conviction: “no flesh (σάρξ) will be justified by works of the law” (2:16c). Later, Paul takes this point up again in relation to the question of why the law was given. In 3:19 Paul argues that one of the reasons the law was given was “because of transgressions” (τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν).90 And then in 3:21, Paul employs a second class conditional in order to fundamentally reject any notion that the Jewish law was given for the purpose of providing righteousness and life: “For if (εἰ) a law was given that could make alive (ὁ δυνάμενος ζῳοποιῆσαι),” Paul contends, “indeed, righteousness would certainly come from the law (ὄντως ἐκ νόμου ἂν ἦν ἡ δικαιοσύνη).” In other words, it would be a fundamental category mistake to believe that righteousness came from the law; rather, as Paul seeks to demonstrate throughout the letter, it is the role of the promise to impart righteousness and life, the law was not given for 88 Scholars have long debated the exact exigency which led to Paul’s writing, and thus theories abound. For numerous examples, see the collection of essays in Mark D. Nanos, ed., The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002). 89 It is possible that ἐξ ἔργων νόμου is adjectival rather than adverbial, and thus the translation would be: “a works of the law type person is not justified except through faith in Christ.” On this reading, see Joel Willitts, “Paul the Rabbi of Messianic Judaism: Reading the Antioch Incident within Judaism as an Irreducibility Story,” JSPL 6.2 (2017): 75. This may be preferred as it coheres with what Paul says later in 3:10; see Christopher Zoccali, “What’s the Problem with the Law? Jews, Gentiles, and Covenant Identity in Galatians 3:10–12,” Neotestamenica 49.2 (2015): 387–88. 90 Scholars debate the meaning of χάρις; see the discussion in Das, Galatians, 356–62. Regardless of the approach one takes, it is likely that Paul is highlighting only a particular function of the law, and not speaking of the law in its totality; see Todd A. Wilson, “The Supersession and Superfluity of the Law? Another Look at Galatians,” in Introduction to Messianic Judaism: Its Ecclesial Context and Biblical Foundations, ed. David J. Rudolph and Joel Willitts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 236–37.

142

Chapter 5: Framing the Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

this purpose.91 Therefore, according to Paul, law and promise do not stand in an antithetical relationship (3:21a); their roles are simply different. 92 It appears to be the case, however, that the Galatian gentiles are doing just what Paul is at pains to correct: they are misconstruing the fundamental role of each and thus pitting the law and the promise against each other.93 Hence, as Matthew Novenson points out, while Paul and other Christ-following Jews know that the law is not a mechanism for justification, it is the Galatian gentiles who are, for whatever reason, making this category mistake.94 Thus, by their misplaced devotion to certain aspects of the Jewish law in an attempt to procure justification before God, the Galatian gentiles are essentially misusing or misappropriating the law.95 Or, more specifically, they are treating the Jewish law just as they would their relationship to any other false god: an endeavor that Paul considers to be, in its most basic form, paganism.96 5.3.1.3 The Antioch Incident as a Test Case: Gal 2:11–14 The so-called “Antioch Incident” of Gal 2:11–14 may provide a brief example that illustrates Paul’s concern with this type of nomistic misappropriation. Here Paul narrates his confrontation with Peter over Peter’s separation from tablefellowship with gentiles in Antioch: an action that, in turn, is compelling the gentiles in Antioch to live like Jews. Thus, in 2:14, Paul rebukes Peter for his conduct. As Paul sees it, by their actions, Peter and the others are not “walking 91 See Novenson, “Paul’s Former Occupation,” 37; cf. similarly the conclusions of Mark W. Elliott, “Judaism, Reformation Theology, and Justification,” in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter, ed. Mark W. Elliott, et al. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 144. Finally, see Fredriksen, Paul, 108, who notes that Paul can say that no one is made righteous by the law, but then also suggest that “with respect to such righteousness” he himself is blameless (Phil 3:6). 92 As argued by Brawley, “Contextuality,” 108; cf. also Hilary Le Cornu and Joseph Shulam, A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Galatians (Jerusalem: Academon, 2005), 233. 93 Brawley, “Contextuality,” 104–5. However, in my view, Brawley wrongly attributes this division to the troublemakers. 94 Novenson, “Paul’s Former Occupation,” 37, makes this point well: “pagan sinners (like the gentiles in the Galatian churches) might mistakenly think that the law is a mechanism for being justified, but Jews know better than to make that category mistake.” 95 Wisdom, Blessing for the Nations, 210. 96 See Dunn, Galatians, 226; Garlington, Galatians, 255. On the influence of Anatolian folk belief, see Clinton E. Arnold, “‘I Am Astonished That You Are So Quickly Turning Away!’ (Gal 1.6): Paul and Anatolian Folk Belief,” NTS 51 (2005): 429–49. On the misappropriation of the Jewish law as paganism, see Dunne, Persecution, 156. Finally, a similar idea has been developed more fully in the recent work of Neil Martin, Regression in Galatians: Paul and the Gentile Response to the Jewish Law, WUNT II 530 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020). Unfortunately, I stumbled upon Martin’s work too late and have not been able to fully incorporate it here.

5.3 Reappraising the Inclusion of the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah

143

in-line with the truth of the gospel (ὀρθοποδοῦσιν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου).” Paul then chastises Peter by stating: “If you, although you are a Jew, live like a gentile and not like a Jew (ἐθνικῶς καὶ οὐχὶ Ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς), how is it that you compel gentiles to judaize (πῶς τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις ἰουδαΐζειν)?” By this question, interpreters often suggest that Peter had been previously eating with gentiles in a way that was either less halakhically strict or altogether non-kosher.97 In other words, Peter had been “living like a gentile,” only to revert to a stricter halakha because, according to 2:12, he “feared (φοβούμενος) those belonging to the circumcision (τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς).”98 Yet, what this often overlooks is a) the illustration says nothing about the food that was eaten;99 and, more importantly, b) the present tense verbs Paul employs in his rebuke of Peter do not focus on what Peter had done; rather, Paul’s language focuses on confronting Peter for that which he is currently doing.100 In 2:14, Paul employs the present tense form verbs ὀρθοποδέω, ζάω, and ἀναγκάζω in order to explicate Peter’s current course of action: his present avoidance of table-fellowship with gentiles.101 Paul sees the irony in Peter’s action. In breaking table-fellowship with gentiles and thus not walking according to the truth of the gospel – what Peter and the others are doing at the time of the rebuke – contrary to what he may think, Peter is not upholding the law; rather, he is (mis)using it for his own devices. As such, Paul deems Peter’s actions to be a misappropriation of the group’s newfound Messianic halakha (i.e., the full inclusion of gentiles qua gentiles into the people of God).102 Joel Willitts puts it this way: 97 For an overview of the various views, see Mark D. Nanos, “What Was at Stake in Peter’s ‘Eating with Gentiles’ at Antioch?,” in The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, ed. Mark D. Nanos (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 292–300; Bird, Anomalous Jew, 185–94. 98 On the difficulty identifying τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς, see D. A. Carson, “Mirror-Reading with Paul and against Paul: Galatians 2:11–14 as a Test Case,” in Studies in the Pauline Epistles: Essays in Honor of Douglas J. Moo, ed. Matthew S. Harmon and Jay E. Smith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 99–112. 99 See Willitts, “Paul the Rabbi,” 72; Rudolph, A Jew, 47–49. 100 See Nanos, “What Was at Stake,” 313; Rudolph, A Jew, 51. 101 Willitts, “Paul the Rabbi,” 68. I am not, however, persuaded by Willitts’s claim that the language of “living like a gentile” is mere sarcasm and hyperbole; see “Paul the Rabbi,” 73. 102 On the way the Jewish law could be viewed and appropriated differently by ancient Jews, see Karin Hedner Zetterholm’s essay, “The Question of Assumptions: Torah Observance in the First Century,” in Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context of the Apostle, ed. Mark D. Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), 79–103; and on the development of a particularly Messianic Halakha within the early Christ-movement, see Joel Willitts, “One Torah for Another. The Halakhic Conversion of Jewish Believers: Paul’s Response to Peter’s Halakhic Equivocation in Galatians 2:11–21,” in The Crucified Apostle: Essays on Peter and Paul, ed. Todd A. Wilson and Paul R. House, WUNT II 450 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 21–45.

144

Chapter 5: Framing the Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

The issue Paul takes up with Peter is halakhic. Peter’s behavior was the result … of … the wrong appropriation of their shared theology to daily life … Peter’s withdrawal and separation from the Gentiles reflected a loyalty to an authoritative halakha not derived from Jesus’s revelation, a halakha that was to now be rejected because of the arrival of the Messiah (1:11–12, 14–15) and in light of the new authoritative Messianic halakhic authority (2:20).103

Thus, in confronting Peter for his violation of the group’s newfound halakhic norms, Paul employs second person present active verbs, ζῇς and ἀναγκάζεις, in order to describe Peter’s current course of action. In Paul’s view, Peter’s actions – i.e., avoiding table fellowship with gentiles – were not in step with the truth of the gospel and consequently resulted in the misappropriation of the Messianic halakha to which the group prescribed. In other words, by breaking with the halakhic norms of the group and “compelling” (ἀναγκάζεις) gentiles to live like Jews, Peter is found guilty of misusing the law. Thus, from Paul’s perspective, Peter is “living (ζῇς) like a gentile.” The language of Paul’s rebuke, “living like a gentile,” is not, however, unique to him; rather, it is characteristic of what is understood to be language of intra-Jewish polemic or conflict.104 To provide but one example, Jub. 6:32– 38 describes the importance of properly observing the 364-day calendar: And you, command the children of Israel so that they shall guard the years in this number, three hundred and sixty-four days, and it will be a complete year. And no one shall corrupt its (appointed) time from its days and from its feasts because all (of the appointed times) will arrive in them according to their testimony, and they will not pass over a day, and they will not corrupt a feast. (Jub. 6:32)

If however the calendar is transgressed, it would result in the corruption of all “their (fixed) times, and the years will be moved from within this (order), and they will transgress their ordinances” (6:33). In fact, the slightest oversight would result in “[setting] awry all of the ordinances of the years” (6.34b). Consequently, the group would “forget the feasts of the covenant and walk in the feasts of the gentiles, after their errors and after their ignorance” (6:35c).105 As James Dunn notes, this example suggests that those Jews who may disagree with the group’s calendrical observance could be viewed as gentile-ish: “the polemical denunciation … to observe a feast on the wrong date was not to observe the feast, but to ‘forget the feasts of the covenant and walk in the feasts of the gentiles, after their errors and after their ignorance’ (6:32–35).”106 Thus, for Jubilees, any transgression or misappropriation of the calendar to which the 103

Willitts, “Paul the Rabbi,” 67, 70. Emphasis original and my own. Willitts, “Paul the Rabbi,” 71. See further, James D. G. Dunn, “Echoes of IntraJewish Polemic in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” JBL 112 (1993): 459–77. 105 Emphasis my own. 106 Dunn, “Echoes,” 471–72. Dunn cites further examples: 1En. 82:4–7; 1QS 1.14–15; CD 3.14–15. 104

5.3 Reappraising the Inclusion of the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah

145

group ascribed, even if by another Jewish group, was tantamount to living like a gentile.107 Similarly, this, in Paul’s view, is what Peter was doing in Antioch: transgressing the group’s Messianic halakha, or misappropriating the law, thus living life a gentile. Returning now to Galatians more broadly, understanding Paul’s overall concern with the Jewish law in Galatians as the misappropriation of the Jewish law may likewise offer a better explanation for why Paul’s description of the calendar in Gal 4:10 is not exclusively Jewish. In general, scholars suggest that the reason for the apparent disparity is due to the fact that Paul considered Jewish and pagan observances to be, on some level, equivalent.108 For example, in Barclay’s view, “Paul deliberately chooses such general terms as ‘days’, ‘months’ and ‘seasons’ in order to emphasize the similarities between these two forms of religion.”109 If, however, Paul’s concern is that the Galatian gentiles are misusing the Jewish calendar for their own devices, it is possible to understand the terms employed in 4:10 differently. That is, similar to Jubilees, Paul categorizes the Galatians’ misappropriation of the Jewish calendar as illegitimate and therefore non-Jewish. Furthermore, as Troy Martin points out, since the only calendrical options available to Paul and the Galatians were either Jewish, pagan, or a no time-keeping system altogether, the Galatian gentiles’ illegitimate appropriation of the Jewish calendar rendered their observance not only non-Jewish, but also gentile-ish or, simply put, pagan.110 In this way, Paul employs appropriately ambiguous terminology in order to describe the Galatian gentiles’ calendrical activity. Thus, he is not linking Judaism with paganism;111 rather, his primary concern centers on the misappropriation of the Jewish law by his Galatian gentile converts. Finally, it is important to note that the language of Gal 6:12–13 may reflect a similar line of reasoning.112 Here, Paul accuses the troublemakers of “compelling” (ἀναγκάζω) the Galatian gentiles to be circumcised. However, Paul states that the troublemakers are only doing so in hopes of making a “good showing by means of the flesh (εὐπροσωπῆσαι ἐν σαρκί) … in order that they might not be persecuted for the cross of Christ” (6:12). As such, Paul contends that the 107 As Scott, On Earth, 175 n. 37, notes, “For Jubilees, acting like other nations – an integral part of Israel’s history of infidelity (cf. Ezek 20:32) – was a thoroughly abhorrent idea (cf. e.g., Jub. 1:9; 3:31; 6:35).” 108 See e.g., Schreiner, Galatians, 289; de Boer, Galatians, 276. 109 John M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: Paul’s Ethics in Galatians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 64. 110 Troy Martin, “Pagan and Judeo-Christian Time-Keeping Schemes in Gal 4.10 and Col 2.16,” NTS 42 (1996): 108. 111 Rightly, Hardin, “Equality,” 228. 112 Barclay, “Mirror-Reading,” 76, argues that 6:12–13 “should be taken with a very large pinch of salt.” Hardin, Galatians, 96 n. 53, however, rightly notes that if Paul misrepresents the troublemakers, it would render his own argument less persuasive.

146

Chapter 5: Framing the Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

troublemakers do not themselves “keep the law” (αὐτοὶ νόμον φυλάσσουσιν; 6:13a); rather, they are simply (mis)using it for their own selfish purposes (6:13b; cf. 4:17).113 As Thiessen describes it, their own attempt at law keeping is, actually, in Paul’s view, “at the very same time a transgression of the law.”114 Taken together, then, Gal 2:11–14, 4:10, and 6:12–13 may provide evidence to suggest that Paul’s fundamental concern with the Jewish law in Galatians is not the law itself; rather, it is the misunderstanding and misappropriation of certain aspects of the Jewish law both by and in relation to the Galatian gentiles. 5.3.1.4 Concluding Remarks on Gal 4:9 Coming full circle, then, as previously noted, Paul’s primary concern throughout the letter is to confront and correct the Galatian gentiles for wrongly pursuing certain “works of the law” in order to both complete the work of the Spirit in their lives (3:3) and to be justified (5:4).115 By treating the Jewish law as a mechanism for justification, Paul contends that the Galatian gentiles are essentially misusing and likewise misunderstanding the purpose of the law (cf. 4:21). Therefore, in 4:9, when Paul reprimands the Galatian gentiles for returning “again” (παλίν) to their past pagan ways, he is suggesting that, in their attempt to take on certain aspects of the Jewish law in order to procure right standing with the God of Israel, contrary to what they might think, the Galatian gentiles are actually misusing the law as a mechanism for righteousness and thus treating the law as though their relationship to their newfound God operated in a manner similar to that of their pagan past.116 From Paul’s perspective, then, by living as if the fullness of time had never come about (cf. 4:4–7) and thus dismissing the liberating activity of Christ on their behalf, the Galatian gentiles were simply behaving like pagans once again. Consequently, they were on the verge of apostasy.

113 Taking φυλάσσουσιν as “keep” has been argued by, e.g., Alexander V. Prokhorov, “Taking the Jews Out of the Equation: Galatians 6.12–17 as a Summons to Cease Evading Persecution,” JSNT 36 (2013): 180–84; Thiessen, Paul, 95–96. Contra Hardin, Galatians, 88–89, who translates it “guard.” 114 Thiessen, Paul, 96. 115 In this way, the anti-legalistic reading of Galatians is, in some respects, correct. It is, however, incorrect when it is universally applied; see Thiessen, Paul, 100–101. 116 On this, the assessment of Martyn, Galatians, 410, is close to the truth: “Gentile observance of the Law is equivalent to Gentile ignorance of God. For observance of the Law as though that were salvific is simply one form of religious enslavement to the cosmic elements.”

5.3 Reappraising the Inclusion of the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah

147

Excursus: The Galatians and the Influence of Anatolian Folk Beliefs At this point, it is important to briefly consider how our assessment of the gentile misappropriation of the Jewish law as an act of paganism may have been borne out by the religious logic of the Galatian gentiles’ previous Anatolian folk beliefs, and how elements of those previously held beliefs may have been creeping back into their thinking and behavior, thus giving significant rise to the crisis Paul sought to avert.117 In an article entitled “‘I Am Astonished That You Are So Quickly Turning Away!’ (Gal 1.6): Paul and Anatolian Folk Belief,” Clinton Arnold offers a helpful overview of some of the Anatolian religious beliefs that the Galatian gentiles would have likely held prior to their encounter with the gospel of Christ, and how the subtle reemergence of certain elements of those beliefs may account for why groups of Christ-following gentiles in Galatia (central Anatolia) would have been so quick to turn away from Paul’s gospel for one that promoted the inclusion of certain religious requirements of their newfound God: specifically circumcision and some level of law observance.118 Arnold begins his study by surveying the religious environment of central Anatolia. According to Arnold, one of the central features of Anatolian folk religion was the belief that one must both fulfill cultic requirements and do “good works” in order to maintain a favorable standing with the deity. 119 In support of this claim, Arnold highlights a particular genre of inscriptions from Anatolia, commonly referred to as the “Lydian-Phrygian confession inscriptions,”120 which were monuments (i.e., steles) “erected to appease one or more 117 This is not to say that the below presentation accounts for the entirety of the crisis, but it is important to consider how the Anatolian religious past of the Galatian gentiles might have played a significant role in the crisis. For a more fully developed treatment, see Martin, Regression in Galatians. 118 See Arnold, “I Am Astonished,” 429, who helpfully asks, “It seems rather astonishing that groups of Gentiles in a handful of different cities in central Anatolia could suddenly become so attracted to a more Jewish and law-oriented form of the gospel than what they had initially received … Were there factors in their pre-Christian religious experience that would have inclined them to give a sympathetic hearing to the message of the missionary opponents that Paul so heatedly rejects?” Arnold is followed by Garlington, Galatians, 30–36, and, with some qualification, Frank Thielman, “Folk Belief and Persecution in Galatia: An Appreciative Response to Clinton E. Arnold” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Institute for Biblical Research, Atlanta, GA, 2003). On the ethnic identity of Israel’s God as Jewish and the customs that his people would have naturally followed from it, see Paula Fredriksen, “How Jewish Is God? Divine Ethnicity in Paul’s Theology,” JBL 137 (2018): 194–205. 119 See Arnold, “I Am Astonished,” 430–37. 120 Arnold, “I Am Astonished,” 433–34, describes these inscriptions as follows: “The propitiatory inscriptions are typically between 8 and 15 lines in length and follow the same

148

Chapter 5: Framing the Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

of the local deities who have been offended and, as a consequence, have struck the worshipper with some kind of serious malady as a punishment.” 121 According to Arnold, these inscriptions are best understood as propitiatory or appeasement inscriptions,122 and he more fully describes their significance for the religious landscape of Anatolia and, in particular, the relationship between the various deities and their adherents as such: All of the inscriptions represent the deities as austere, powerful gods who take offence at the transgressions of their worshippers. It does not matter if the sins are witting or unwitting; they still solicit the harsh response of the deity. The nature of the sins varies from cultic offenses (e.g. violating purity laws, neglecting religious obligations, failing to take part in ritual mystery initiation, failure to fulfill a vow, etc.) to social misdeeds (e.g. stealing, lying cheating, and even the use of witchcraft to bring harm to someone). The gods are quick to smite the offender … The person suffering the displeasure of the god somehow needed to appease the deity and propitiate the anger manifested toward them by the god. 123

In short, what Arnold’s study helpfully demonstrates is that a common feature of Anatolian folk religion was the belief that, in order to maintain right standing with the deity, one must carefully observe all of the deity’s cultic requirements and do good works in order to avoid their displeasure. If, however, one neglected to do these things, whether knowingly or not, they could expect to be punished for their “sin” (ἁμαρτία) and suffer the deity’s displeasure, with the only recourse being the admission of their sin(s) and the setting up of a stele in hopes that the wrath of the deity would be subdued. In relation to the Galatian gentiles, then, it is safe to assume that their thinking and behavior would have been heavily governed by these Anatolian folk beliefs. In their pagan past, they would have been accustomed to preforming certain cultic rituals or doing certain “good works,” such as “not neglecting religious obligations, keeping the appointed festival times, keeping one’s vow, and maintaining ritual purity,” in order to both maintain a good standing with the respective deity and avoid the suffering that would come as a result of the deity’s displeasure.124 Thus, when Paul initially came to Galatia and proclaimed basic structure (with some variation): 1. There is some indication of the transgression that has taken place against the deity (this often makes use of the vocabulary ἁμαρτία and ἁμαρτάνω); 2. This is followed by an indication that the person has been punished by the deity – sometimes with a description of the nature of the punishment; 3. There is then a statement that the anger of the deity has been appeased or propitiated (commonly using the language of (ἐ)ξιλάσκομαι), and 4. The texts often concludes with the praise of the deity (often using the language of εὐχαριστέω or εὐλογία).” For more on these inscriptions, see Eckhard Schnabel, “Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation: A Suggestion for the Interpretation of the Lydian and Phrygian Confession Inscriptions,” NovT 45 (2003): 160–88. 121 Arnold, “I Am Astonished,” 433. 122 Arnold, “I Am Astonished,” 433. 123 Arnold, “I Am Astonished,” 434. 124 Arnold, “I Am Astonished,” 438–49; see also Garlington, Galatians, 32.

5.3 Reappraising the Inclusion of the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah

149

a message that Jesus “gave himself for ours sins” (ἁμαρτία; 1:4), it would have been a welcome and life-giving message of “good news” for the Galatians. As Arnold puts it: “No longer would they need to fear vengeful deities striking them down for any infraction. They could live in the freedom of life in Christ.”125 Soon after Paul left, however, it appears to be the case that at least some who belonged to the Galatian congregations began to experience some level of persecution and suffering (4:29; 6:12; cf. 1:13; 1:23; 5:11). 126 The reason for this persecution – and what it exactly entailed – Paul does not make explicit, but it appears to be taking place on two or three levels (6:12–13; cf. 4:17).127 For the Galatian gentiles specifically, Paul describes their own experience as one of suffering (πάσχω; 3:4).128 Immediately following this, however, Paul accuses the Galatians of relying on “works of the law” rather than the Spirit in order to alleviate their suffering (3:6; cf. 3:2; 5:4). This raises the question, then, of why a group of Christ-following gentiles who are experiencing persecution and suffering would be so quick to turn away from Paul’s gospel for one that promulgated the observance of certain religious requirements of their newfound God, namely, circumcision. Here, and with the Galatian gentiles’ previous Anatolian religious beliefs in view, I would like to suggest the likelihood that their current experience of persecution and suffering is what has triggered the reemergence of certain elements of their previous way of thinking and behavior; but in this instance, these are manifesting themselves in mistaken ideas about their newfound God. In other words, rather than understanding and attributing their experience of suffering as an identity marker of those who belong to the crucified Christ (cf. 5:11; 6:17), the Galatian gentiles are mistakenly attributing their hardships to what they wrongly assume to be, at least in part, the divine disfavor of their

125

Arnold, “I Am Astonished,” 444. On the theme of persecution as central to the crisis in Galatia, see now Dunne, Persecution; cf. also, Todd A. Wilson, The Curse of the Law and the Crisis in Galatia: Reassessing the Purpose of Galatians, WUNT II 225 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); Ernst Baasland, “Persecution: A Neglected Feature in the Letter to the Galatians,” ST 38 (1984): 135–50. 127 Dunne, Persecution, 60, describes it as “three-tiered.” The crisis has been variously understood, but its impetus seems to be the result of a combination of social factors, e.g., Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 60, theological insecurities, e.g., Michelle Murray, Playing a Jewish Game: Gentile Christian Judaizing in the First and Second Centuries (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2004), 37, and possibly pressure from Roman imperialism, e.g., Prokhorov, “Taking the Jews”; Hardin, Galatians. 128 See Dunne, Persecution, 69–78, who to my mind convincingly demonstrates that πάσχω in 3:4 is to be taken negatively as “suffering” rather than positively as “experience”; see also Wilson, Curse of the Law, 87–89; Eastman, Recovering, 110; Schreiner, Galatians, 185. 126

150

Chapter 5: Framing the Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

newfound God.129 From the Galatians’ perspective, then, and along with pressure from the troublemakers, a possible explanation for what is triggering this divine disfavor, along with the hardship and suffering that appears to be accompanying it, is that they have neglected to observe and adhere to their newfound God’s divinely revealed requirements. Thus, in order to remedy their situation and reestablish their standing as “sons of God” who are fully justified, the Galatian gentiles have elected to submit to these divinely revealed requirements in hopes that, by taking on certain “works of the law,” they might appease their newfound God’s divine disfavor, alleviate their suffering, and ultimately, find themselves fully justified before him.130 In this way, by mistakenly attributing their current hardship and suffering to the displeasure of their newfound God, the Galatian gentiles are misusing the Jewish law by seeking to be justified by it in a way similar to their pagan past (5:4): a time when they would readily observe the necessary cultic requirements and perform “good works” in order to maintain a favorable standing with various Anatolian deities. 131 It is this type of nomistic misappropriation that Paul considers nothing more than a perilous act of paganism. 5.3.2 From Birth Back to Birth Pains (Gal 4:19) My children, for whom I am again suffering birth-pains until Christ is formed in you. 132 τέκνα μου, οὓς πάλιν ὠδίνω μέχρις οὗ μορφωθῇ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν.

In Gal 4:19, Paul continues his appeal to the Galatians, but on this occasion his appeal becomes more personal as he describes what he himself is presently experiencing as a result of their current course of action (cf. 4:8–11). Just prior to this, Paul had reminded the Galatian gentiles of the fruitful ministry he once had among them (4:13–15), and in 4:16–18 he contrasts their former acceptance of him and his ministry with their current attitude toward him. He asks: “have I become your enemy by speaking the truth to you?” Thus, in 4:19, Paul informs the Galatians of what he himself is having to experience “again” (πάλιν) on their behalf: he is having to revert back to a previous phase of his initial ministry among them, to a time when Christ had yet to be fully formed in

129

It is important to note that in Galatians Paul portrays Christ as the crucified and suffering Messiah (2:19; 3:1; 3:13) and himself as one who is persecuted for proclaiming a crucified Messiah (1:10; 2:4, 19; 4:13–14, 19, 5:11; 6:17). On this, see Dunne, Persecution, who helpfully demonstrates that, in Galatians, Paul contends that suffering functions as an identity marker for those who are in Christ. 130 Similarly, Thielman, “Folk Belief,” in his response to Arnold’s proposal, concludes that the Galatians’ experience of persecution is what is driving the reemergence of some of their previously held religious beliefs. 131 Similarly, Arnold, “I Am Astonished,” 499. 132 On the syntax of 4:19, see Eastman, Recovering, 94–95.

5.3 Reappraising the Inclusion of the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah

151

them.133 In other words, similar to his description of the Galatian gentiles in 4:9 – their own returning “again” to the experience of their past pagan enslavement – here in 4:19 Paul describes what he himself is having to experience once “again” as a consequence of their ill-advised behavior: he is having to experience once again the pains of childbirth in the consequent hope that Christ will be formed once again in the Galatian gentiles.134 Until then, he informs them that he has no other option but to treat them as if they were pagans in need of the liberating activity of Christ, for he is “perplexed” (ἀποροῦμαι; 4:20) about them. 5.3.3 From Freedom Back to Slavery (Gal 5:1) For the purpose of freedom, Christ set us free; stand firm, therefore, and do not be entangled again by a yoke of slavery. Τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν· στήκετε οὖν καὶ μὴ πάλιν ζυγῷ δουλείας ἐνέχεσθε.

Finally, immediately following the allegory, Paul prepares the way for what he has to say next by once again appealing directly to the Galatian gentiles. In 5:1, he begins by reminding them that since Christ has set them free, they are to live as free. He then calls the Galatians to respond accordingly by standing firm, and, for the fourth time within the literary context of 4:21–31, he employs the adverb πάλιν, but on this occasion he does so to command them to not return “again” to the bondage of a “yoke of slavery” (ζυγῷ δουλείας). Paul’s words here raise two important questions. First, what is meant by the term ζυγῷ δουλείας? And second, to what does Paul command the Galatians not to return to again? By and large, scholars have understood the term ζυγῷ δουλείας to be a reference to the Jewish law. For instance, Sylvia Keesmaat states, “In these verses, Paul is specifically telling the Galatians not to submit to a yoke of slavery. In the context of the letter, that yoke of slavery is the law.”135 Yet, as Keesmaat herself recognizes, this understanding is not without difficulty. For instance, commenting on the law being viewed as a “yoke,” she states, “When used in 133

Eastman, Recovering, 97; Dunne, Persecution, 175; Gaventa, Our Mother, 29–37. As Keener, Galatians, 209, suggests, “that the Galatians need to be birthed again suggests how far they have fallen”; similarly, Burton, Galatians, 248, contends that the πάλιν in 4:19 represents the Galatian gentiles as “again in the womb.” The metaphorical strength of this imagery, however, does not require that Paul thought the Galatians needed to undergo a full rebirth. Rather, his sharp language merely serves his rhetorical purpose. 135 Sylvia C. Keesmaat, “Paul and His Story: Exodus and Tradition in Galatians,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals , ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, JSNTSup 148 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 306. Emphasis my own. See also Garlington, Galatians, 295; Schreiner, Galatians 307; de Silva, Galatians, 413–14. 134

152

Chapter 5: Framing the Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

such a way, of course, this yoke was perceived to be a joy and delight.” 136 She goes on, however, to suggest that Paul is “subverting a common way of describing the law.”137 Thus, for Keesmaat, Paul no longer views the yoke of the law as something positive; rather, it is altogether negative: it represents a yoke of slavery.138 There are, however, at least two difficulties with the way the term ζυγῷ δουλείας is commonly understood here. First, and in line with Keesmaat’s point of concession above, the Jewish people viewed the law as a privileged obligation.139 For ancient Jews, the law was not a problem to be overcome (cf. Deut 10:12–13; 39:16; Josh 1:8; Ps 1:1–2; 103:17–18; 119:97; Pss. Sol. 7:9). Second, the adverb πάλιν creates a problem for those who maintain that the “yoke” spoken of in 5:1 is strictly equivalent to the Jewish law. As was shown in regard to 4:9, it is difficult to understand why Paul would warn the Galatian gentiles of submitting again, as if to say for a second time, to the observance of the Jewish law.140 As former pagans, the Galatians were not previously under the law, and thus they did not submit to it.141 Furthermore, as Todd Wilson has noted, based on the repetition of πάλιν throughout the literary context of 4:21– 31, there appears to be a verbal link and thus a clear parallel between what Paul says here in 5:1 with what he says in 4:9.142 Hence, just as Paul was not accusing the Galatian gentiles of taking on the Jewish law again in 4:9, it is likely that he is not making such an inference here either.143 Therefore, I would contend that Paul is employing the term ζυγῷ δουλείας in one of two ways. The first option is to understand the term according to the way it was often used throughout Israel’s Scriptures and Second Temple Jewish literature to describe bondage to a foreign power (e.g., Lev 26:13; Isa 9:4 [LXX 9:3]; 10:27; 1 Macc 8:18, 31; 13:41).144 This aligns well with 4:8–11 and Paul’s overall concern that the Galatian gentiles not apostatize by misappropriating the Jewish law, thus returning to the slavery of the στοιχεῖα. The second option is to understand the term as a way of referring to God’s judgment on gentiles for their sinfulness. This understanding finds support in Pss. Sol. 17:30, which states, “And he will have the gentile nations (λαοὺς ἐθνῶν) serving him under 136

Keesmaat, “Paul and His Story,” 306. Keesmaat, “Paul and His Story,” 306. 138 See Keesmaat, “Paul and His Story,” 306. See also Das, Galatians, 520. 139 Cf. Sir 51:25–26; Matt 11:29–30; Acts 15:10. This is noted by Dunn, Galatians, 263; Garlington, Galatians, 295; Das, Galatians, 520. Finally, Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 63 n. 70, suggests that the term “yoke of the Torah” has its “roots in the OT conception of the yoke of God”; cf. e.g., Jer 2:20; 5:5; Ps 2:3. 140 Wilson, “Wilderness Apostasy,” 564. 141 See n. 74 above. 142 Wilson, “Wilderness Apostasy,” 565. 143 Bachmann, Antijudaismus, 144–45. 144 Le Cornu and Shulam, Galatians, 323. 137

5.3 Reappraising the Inclusion of the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah

153

his yoke (δουλεύειν αὐτῷ ὑπὸ τὸν ζυγόν αὐτοῦ).” This statement is made within the context of God’s judgment on the nations whereby, due to their lawlessness and wickedness (17:11–18), God will expel the nations in order to cleanse Jerusalem.145 In fact, both options fit quite well with what Paul says immediately following the exhortation of 5:1. In 5:2, Paul states that if the Galatians do not heed his warning but instead accept circumcision, Christ and his redemptive work on their behalf will no longer be of any benefit to them. In fact, by misappropriating the Jewish law and seeking justification by means other than Christ, the Galatian gentiles would be placing themselves back under God’s judgment.146 Thus, in 5:4, Paul makes his strongest point his clearest: if the Galatian gentiles continue in their current course of action and accept circumcision, they will find themselves “cut off from Christ” (κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ). 5.3.4 Summary Our exploration of the literary context of Gal 4:21–31 has demonstrated that, based on the repetition of the adverb πάλιν in 4:9, 4:19, and 5:1, Paul appears to be in a very real battle for the hearts and minds of the Galatian gentiles, as he seeks to both confront and correct their potential apostatizing activity. 147 This was seen in several ways. First, after establishing the significance of Christ for the eschatological interdependence of Jew and gentile based on the actualization of Abrahamic promise, blessing, and freedom from the στοιχεῖα (3:7–4:7), in 4:9 Paul abruptly asks why the Galatian gentiles want to return again (πάλιν) to the στοιχεῖα of their past pagan enslavement. Hence, for the Galatian gentiles to take on certain aspects of the Jewish law in an attempt to procure justification was by no means an act of returning again to the Torah – something which would not make logical sense – rather, Paul appears to be equating their newfound “desire” (θέλω; cf. 4:9, 21) with an act of apostasy: a returning again to their past pagan ways. Second, only a few verses later, in 4:19, the result of the Galatians’ current activity is the accompanying birth pains experienced by Paul himself; birth pains he is not, however, undergoing on their behalf for the first time, but rather, again (πάλιν). Finally, following the conclusion of the allegory, in 5:1, Paul exhorts the Galatian gentiles to “stand firm.” Here, he reminds them of the freedom Christ has won for them, and thus he turns his question from 4:9 into a forceful command. The Galatian gentiles are to stand firm and not return again (πάλιν) to a “yoke of slavery.” In fact, as Paul goes on to make clear, by not heeding his warning and instead undergoing the ritual act of cir145

See Fredriksen, Paul, 28, who notes that Pss. Sol. 17:30 is to be understood as one of many negative views of gentiles among Jews. 146 See Dunne, Persecution, 111–12. 147 On the literary context of Gal 4:21–31 reflecting Paul’s battle for the lives of the Galatian gentiles, see Starling, Not My People, 28.

154

Chapter 5: Framing the Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

cumcision, the Galatians gentiles would not be securing a place for themselves in Abraham’s covenant lineage; rather, they would only be undoing what had already been done for them in Christ. Or, to put it bluntly, the physical cutting off of their foreskin would be the metaphorical cutting off of Christ.

5.4 Concluding Remarks and Observations 5.4 Concluding Remarks and Observations

This chapter began by demonstrating that the influential theory of C. K. Barrett on the inclusion of the allegory of Hagar and Sarah in the argument of Galatians is to be rejected on the grounds that the circumcision account of Ishmael in Gen 17 greatly problematizes the view that the troublemakers would have appealed to the story of Hagar and Sarah, along with the circumcision accounts of their respective sons, in support of their claim that the Galatian gentiles must undergo the ritual act of circumcision in order to legitimize themselves. In its place, I have argued that it is Paul who was responsible for introducing the story of Hagar and Sarah to the Galatians, and that the inclusion of it within the argument of the letter is only made intelligible by a fresh and careful exploration of the wider literary context in which it is situated: a context whereby Paul sought to persuade the Galatian gentiles to surrender their desire to be ὑπὸ νόμον and thus rescue them from their potential apostatizing activity. Therefore, having examined the literary context of Gal 4:21–31 – and in preparation for Chapters 6 and 7 – I will conclude this chapter by bringing together several interrelated observations in relation to the purpose and function of the allegory within the argument of the letter. First, as a starting point, I would like to propose that the allegory is to be read and understood in view of the wider literary context in which it is situated, and thus, the meaning of the allegory is to be governed by it. While this suggestion may appear to be straightforward, it is, in fact, rarely applied with much significance in most scholarly approaches to this text. As noted in Chapter 1, most scholars – and particularly those influenced by Barrett’s theory – understand the allegory to be primarily about and/or an argument against Paul’s socalled “opponents,” who also happen to be Jewish (whether Christ-following or otherwise). As such, the allegory is ultimately about Jews and/or Jewish Christfollowers.148 Yet, in view of the wider literary context in which it is situated, a shift to Paul’s so-called Jewish opponents appears to be somewhat abrupt and nonsensical. As John Gager rightly queries, if Paul is dealing with gentile problems both prior to and following the allegory, “How then does it happen that the argument [the allegory] suddenly turns against the Jews, against circumcision for Jews, against the covenant with Israel at Sinai?” In other words, 148

But see the approach of Eastman, Recovering, 127–36; and the alternative approach of Starling, Not My People, 28–30.

5.4 Concluding Remarks and Observations

155

“Where have all the gentiles gone?”149 Thus, the question needs to be raised as to why Paul would so abruptly shift his argument from one that is centered on confronting and correcting the particular attitudes and actions of his wayward gentile converts (cf. 4:8–9, 19, 21; 5:1, 2–4), to one that is largely focused on confronting and correcting that of another group altogether. Second, and in view of the first observation, Gager makes an important point in relation to the way the allegory is framed. He writes: “What is clear is that the entire passage is framed by 4.21 … and 5.1 … If these two verses concern Gentiles, who are in danger of losing their newfound status, then presumably the intervening material should deal with the same people and the same concerns.”150 In other words, Gager contends that just as the surrounding context is principally about the Galatian gentiles, so too should be the allegory. In view of this observation, and likewise my own understanding of the literary context as outlined above, I would like to suggest that the allegory is meant to function as an additional step in Paul’s argument whereby he seeks to convince the Galatian gentiles of the error of their ways and prepare them for the imperative that is to follow: “Stand firm, therefore, and do not be entangled again by a yoke of slavery” (5:1).151 Third, I would contend further, then, that the allegory is not to be read as an attack on Jews or Jewish Christ-followers, nor is it meant to discredit the continuing validity of the Jewish law; rather, it is an allegory about the symbolic experience of gentiles in general and the Galatian gentiles in particular.152 Thus, the allegory largely centers on explicating the experience of non-Jewish identity in relation to Christ: both the experience of gentiles apart from Christ (4:22– 23, 24–25, 29–30) and also those who are in Christ (4:26–28, 31). As such, Paul allegorically appropriates the figures of Hagar and Sarah, along with their respective offspring, in order to illustrate the contrasting experience of the Galatian gentiles’ former identity as pagans with that of their newfound status as gentiles in Christ: a contrast that is made explicit by the antithetical concepts of slavery and freedom.153 In this way, the allegory also functions to remind the 149

Gager, Reinventing Paul, 93. Emphasis my own. Gager, Reinventing Paul, 94–95. 151 Similarly, Starling, Not My People, 28, who rightly notes: “Paul’s aim in this section of the letter (4:21–5:1) is to win his readers’ obedience to the imperative with which the section closes: ‘Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery’ (5:1b)”; cf. also Thiessen, Paul, 73–74. As deSilva, Galatians, 391, describes it, “Paul’s reading of the Hagar and Sarah episodes … positions the Galatians perfectly for hearing and embracing Paul’s proposition.” 152 Similarly, Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 82; Thiessen, Paul, 87. 153 Similarly, Bachmann, Antijudaismus, 137–38; Brawley, “Contextuality,” 115. In this way, the allegory of 4:21–31 can be understood to, in some ways, reiterate and recapitulate, in narrative form, the concerns of 4:8–9; see Eastman, Recovering, 129. However, where I part ways with Eastman is her contention that Paul is recapitulating the pasts of “both himself and his converts.” 150

156

Chapter 5: Framing the Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

Galatian gentiles of the life they would be returning to if they elect to continue in their current course of action and undergo circumcision. Thus, to state the purpose and function of the allegory plainly: Paul introduces the story of Hagar and Sarah because it allegorically serves as a symbolic illustration and stark reminder of the Galatian gentiles’ previous situation of Hagar-like enslavement (4:24b–25), the prophetic announcement of their liberation (4:26–28), and yet, the very real possibility of a return to their previous state of Hagar-like enslavement (4:30) if they do not stand firm in the freedom Christ has won for them (5:1; cf. 4:31).154 Finally, this latter observation raises the question, then, of how Paul’s portrayal of Hagar is to be understood in and for the allegory. At this point, I would like to propose that if my suggestion thus far is a plausible one, that is, if the allegory is indeed about the symbolic experience of gentiles in general and the Galatian gentiles in particular, then it follows that Hagar and her children are to be understood as allegorically personifying the experience of gentile sinners: the symbolic experience of life outside of the covenant, separated from God’s presence, and enslaved to the στοιχεῖα.155 If this is indeed a possibility, then the upshot of this claim is that Paul’s portrayal of Hagar in Gal 4:21–31 would be understood to stand in line with the varied and diverse literary traditions of Second Temple Judaism in that he, like other ancient Jews, portrays Hagar and her descendants as non-Jews or, simply put, as gentiles.156 However, since the proof of the pudding is in the eating, it will be the task of the following chapters to more fully demonstrate the way the allegory, and particularly Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar and her descendants, can be read in such a way as to substantiate these claims. To this we now turn.

154 Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, 89, helpfully points to the illustrative function of the allegory whereby “Paul attempts to show that the Galatian’s attraction to circumcision and the law will achieve the very opposite of their intentions”; cf. also Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 91. However, where Calvert-Koyzis goes too far is in her claim that by rejecting such practices for gentiles, Paul is also rejecting such practices for all who are in Christ. 155 Similarly, Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 82, 89; Standhartinger, “Zur Freiheit,” 302. 156 See Chapter 4.

Chapter 6

“One Bears Children Away from Mount Sinai”: Examining the Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians 6.1 Introduction In the previous chapter, I concluded by suggesting that Paul introduces and develops the allegory of Gal 4:21–31, not as an attack on Jews or Jewish Christ-followers, nor as a polemic against the continuing validity of the Jewish law, but rather, as a symbolic illustration and stark reminder of the Galatian gentiles’ previous experience of Hagar-like enslavement (4:24b–25), the prophetic announcement of their liberation (4:26–28), and yet the very real possibility of a return to their previous state of Hagar-like enslavement (4:30) if they will not stand firm (5:1). Moreover, I concluded by briefly proposing that if my suggestion for reading the allegory is a plausible one, then it is possible to conclude that Paul’s portrayal of Hagar maintains – and does not abandon – key elements found in other ancient Jewish traditions on her, in that Paul, like other Jews in antiquity, depicts Hagar and her descendants as gentiles. Thus, the purpose of this chapter is to offer a detailed examination of the portrayal of Hagar in Gal 4:21–31 in order to further substantiate the claims of Chapter 5 and likewise the larger claims of this study. Therefore, in this chapter I will examine key verses from the allegory that either clearly speak of or allude to the figure of Hagar: namely, 4:22–23, 4:24, 4:25c, and 4:30. Altogether, I will demonstrate that Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar in these verses stands in continuity with Second Temple Judaism in that he depicts Hagar and her descendants as non-Jews or, simply put, as gentiles.

6.2 Introducing the Figure of Hagar: Galatians 4:22–23 6.2 Introducing the Figure of Hagar: Galatians 4:22–23

The first mention of the figure of Hagar in Galatians is found in 4:22–23. In these verses, Paul turns once again to the Abraham narrative of Genesis and outlines the basic elements of the story he wants the Galatian gentiles to hear and consider. On this occasion, however, he does not set out to demonstrate the fact that the Galatian gentiles are children of Abraham – a point previously

158

Chapter 6: The Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

established in 3:6–9, 3:26–29, and 4:6–71 – rather, by imploring them to “hear the law” (τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἀκούετε; 4:21), Paul asks them to reckon with an important aspect of the Abraham narrative that they had yet to consider: namely, that Abraham had not one but two sons (δύο υἱούς; 4:22a).2 Thus, in these opening verses Paul sets the stage for the allegory to follow by pointing to the fact that there is more than one way to be called Abraham’s σπέρμα.3 And in view of his wider concerns (see Chapter 5), Paul implores the Galatian gentiles to find themselves in the story he is about to tell in hopes that they will rightly decide which son they will be and which mother they will align themselves with, so as to heed his warning (4:30) and continue in their newfound status as “children …of the free-woman” (4:31; cf. 4:28).4 In Gal 4:22b–23, Paul begins by narrowing his focus to two primary points of contrast taken from the general contours of the Hagar-Sarah narrative as recorded in Gen 16–21: namely, to whom each son was born and how each son was born.5 In 4:22b, Paul begins this contrast by describing one son as “out of the slave-woman” (ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης) and the other as “out of the free (woman)” (ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας).6 Later Paul will explicitly name the slave-woman: she is Hagar (4:24c). Presumably, the free-woman is Sarah, but Paul lets this go unstated throughout.7 What is important to note at the outset is that by introducing the mothers according to the terms παιδίσκη and ἐλευθέρα, Paul’s goal is to 1 Rightly Willitts, “Isa 54, 1,” 207; contra Lincoln, Paradise, 9; Mary Callaway, Sing, O Barren One: A Study in Comparative Midrash, SBL 91 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 1986), 109; Jobes, “Jerusalem.” More broadly, see Wright, The Climax, 144. 2 Elliott, “Choose Your Mother,” 664. On the positive role Paul assigns to the Torah for his argument and the unfortunately quick dismissal of it by scholars, see Nanos, “Present Jerusalem,” 2. 3 David I. Starling, “Justifying Allegory: Scripture, Rhetoric, and Reason in Galatians 4:21–5:1,” JTI 9 (2015): 235. 4 George H. van Kooten, “Philosophical Criticism of Genealogical Claims and Stoic Depoliticization of Politics: Greco-Roman Strategies in Paul’s Allegorical Interpretation of Hagar and Sarah (Gal 4:21–31),” in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham, ed. Martin Goodman, George H. van Kooten, and Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, TBN 13 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010), 364. 5 Jason C. Meyer, The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology, NACSBT 6 (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009), 119. 6 The preposition ἐκ here denotes source or origin. On ἐκ as source, see BDAG 296; Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 271; Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: A Reference Resource for Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 103–4. 7 A possible reason that Sarah goes unnamed is that Paul does not want to claim that gentiles are physically descended from Isaac; see Pheme Perkins, Abraham’s Divided Children: Galatians and the Politics of Faith, The New Testament in Context (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2001), 91; cf. also Martyn, Galatians, 444.

6.2 Introducing the Figure of Hagar: Galatians 4:22–23

159

highlight the social status of each, as this will be both descriptive and determinative of their respective offspring (cf. 4:24c, 25c). Next, in 4:23, Paul sharpens the contrast between the two mothers by describing the birthing experience of their respective sons.8 He writes, “But on the one hand, the one out of the slave-woman (ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης) has been born (γεγέννηται) according to the flesh (κατὰ σάρκα), and on the other hand, the one out of the free-woman (ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας) through promise (δι᾽ἐπαγγελίας).” Based on these words, two questions require further consideration. First, how is the contrast between κατὰ σάρκα and δι᾽ἐπαγγελίας to be understood? Second, what is the significance of the use of the perfect active indicative γεγέννηται? First, the meaning of the terms κατὰ σάρκα and δι᾽ ἐπαγγελίας raises the question of their significance for the contrast Paul intends to develop here in 4:23. Most commentators take κατὰ σάρκα to refer to the natural means of birth as opposed to supernatural means (i.e., δι᾽ ἐπαγγελίας).9 In this way, κατὰ σάρκα is understood to be a neutral descriptor. Yet, for his rhetorical purposes, it is likely that Paul has more in view than a mere neutral term.10 For instance, in 3:3, Paul accuses the Galatian gentiles of seeking to be “perfected by/in the flesh” (σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθε) rather than “by/in the Spirit” (πνεύματι).11 Whether σάρξ is understood here as human effort12 or, more specifically, the misappropriation of the Jewish law a la gentile circumcision,13 in 3:3 Paul develops a clear contrast between the flesh and the Spirit.14 By acting in σάρξ the Galatians are behaving in line with the present evil age (cf. 1:4). As such, the flesh is negatively valued. On the other hand, the “now” (νῦν) of the Spirit is the positive corollary by/in which the Galatians are to live. 15 Thus, taking κατὰ σάρκα of 4:23 as a neutral term potentially overlooks the pejorative sense Paul may have in view here.16 8 9

Osten-Sacken, Galatien, 219. E.g., Bruce, Galatians, 217; Longenecker, Galatians, 208; Witherington, Galatia,

239. 10 E.g., Dunn, Galatians, 246–47. Cf. also Schreiner, Galatians, 299, who goes too far by suggesting that Paul has in mind “what human beings are in Adam.” This is an example of how Paul’s statements are all too quickly universalized. 11 The datives should be taken as either means or sphere. 12 E.g., Longenecker, Galatians, 103. 13 Das, Galatians, 294, takes σάρξ as a metonymy for circumcision in general. 14 This does not mean that every instance of the term σαρξ in Pauline literature is negative; rather, context must determine its intended meaning; see Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 202–15. 15 Das, Galatians, 294. 16 In fact, later in 4:30, Paul contrasts the one born κατὰ σάρκα with the one born κατὰ πνεῦμα. Harris, Prepositions, 150, points out that its close proximity to κατὰ πνεῦμα in 4:30, and the contrast that is found there between κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ πνεῦμα, suggests a clear antithesis.

160

Chapter 6: The Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

Whether Paul designates σάρξ in 4:23 as something that is “merely human,” or he relates it to the gentile misappropriation of the Jewish law, that this activity is to be negatively viewed is precisely what Paul has in mind. To be born κατὰ σάρκα is not simply a neutral evaluation describing the birth of the first son; rather, when compared to that of the one born δι᾽ἐπαγγελίας, to be born κατὰ σάρκα is to be understood as a negative descriptor 17 In fact, in the very next verse (4:24) Paul will allegorically describe the birthing experience of those from the Hagar covenant – those born κατὰ σάρκα in 4:23 – as that which is only capable of bearing children into slavery. Thus, to be born κατὰ σάρκα is best understood as a negative descriptor for Paul’s rhetorical purposes here. In contrast, then, the son born of the free-woman is born δι᾽ἐπαγγελίας. It is often the case that a διά + genitive construction implies instrumentality (cf. Gal 5:6). This particular construction, however, might suggest more, namely, Paul seems to have in mind sole agency.18 In this way, the sole cause of the birth of the son of the free-woman is strictly via God’s promise.19 This understanding sharpens the comparison Paul has in mind between the two sons and their respective mothers. Namely, Paul portrays the slave-woman (Hagar) as bearing a son largely absent of divine intervention, while the free-woman’s son is born entirely of divine initiative. Second, Paul employs the perfect form of the verb γεννάω (here: γεγέννηται) in order to make it abundantly clear that the experience of being born κατὰ σάρκα and δι᾽ἐπαγγελίας is not relegated to a bygone era; rather, it is an experience that has continued since the time of Abraham and is thus concurrent with Paul’s and the Galatian gentiles’ own day.20 Just as the historical figure of Hagar produced a son born κατὰ σάρκα, she, figuratively speaking, continues to produce the same such offspring. Likewise, the free-woman (Sarah) is concurrently producing offspring who are born δι᾽ἐπαγγελίας. Altogether, in these opening verses, and in view of the wider literary context in which they are situated, Paul puts two options before the Galatian gentiles. Will they be like Abraham’s children born κατὰ σάρκα and thus claim Hagar as their mother? In other words, will they continue in their current course of action and thus revert to their past pagan enslavement and consequently be numbered once again among those born merely κατὰ σάρκα? Or will they “stand firm” as Abraham’s children who have been freed from their pagan past: those born δι᾽ἐπαγγελίας and thus belonging to the mother who is free? With the most 17

Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 207–8. Barclay, however, wrongly attributes the σάρξ of 4:23 to Jewish identity. 18 See Harris, Prepositions, 70. 19 Dunn, Galatians, 247. Cf. also the assessment of Philo, Cherubim, 45–47, who suggests that Isaac’s birth was entirely of divine initiative. 20 On the significance of γεννάω, see Martyn, Galatians, 451–54; but consider, Lyons, Galatians, 282, who points out that Martyn slightly overstates his case based on the presence of τίκτω in Gal 4:27.

6.3 Ἀλληγορέω and the “Two Covenants” of Galatians 4:24

161

salient aspects of the story laid bare, in the following verses Paul will employ the rhetorical technique of allegory in order to show more clearly how the two mothers and their respective sons symbolically illustrate the experience of gentiles in general and that of the Galatian gentiles in particular.

6.3 Ἀλληγορέω and the “Two Covenants” of Galatians 4:24 6.3 Ἀλληγορέω and the “Two Covenants” of Galatians 4:24

Following the juxtaposition of Abraham’s two sons and their respective mothers, in 4:24 Paul states that the basic elements of the narrative just described are to be understood allegorically (ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα).21 Specifically, Paul contends that the mothers just mentioned – i.e., “these women” (αὗται) – are allegorically “two covenants” (δύο διαθῆκαι). Yet only one of the two covenants is clearly explicated. Paul allegorically portrays Hagar as a covenant that gives birth to children ἀπό Mount Sinai and into slavery. Thus, in order to more accurately ascertain the portrayal of Hagar in and for Paul’s argument, a few important questions require initial attention. First, what does Paul mean by the term and NT hapax legomenon ἀλληγορέω? And second, when Paul speaks of δύο διαθῆκαι, what covenants does he have in view, and more specifically, what covenant does the figure of Hagar represent? These questions will be examined in turn below. 6.3.1 The Meaning of Ἀλληγορέω The first question to be addressed is the meaning of the highly debated term and New Testament hapax legomenon, ἀλληγορέω. At the risk of oversimplification, scholars generally take one of three approaches to understanding this term: allegory, typology, or a combination of both.22 Each will be briefly considered below. 21 ἅτινα specifies the elements previously mentioned in 4:22–23; see Di Mattei, “Paul’s Allegory,” 110–11. 22 Those who favor allegory include, e.g., Schlier, Galater, 219–20; Boyarin, A Radical Jew, 32–36; Fowl, “Abraham’s Story”; Vouga, Galater, 115; Witherington, Galatia, 323; Anne Davis, “Allegorically Speaking in Galatians 4:21–5:1,” BBR 14 (2004): 161–74; Di Mattei, “Paul’s Allegory,” 104–8; Meyer, End, 118. For those who follow this option, the question then becomes whether Paul is understood to be “speaking” or “interpreting” allegorically; see the discussion in Di Mattei, “Paul’s Allegory,” 104–8; A. B. Caneday, “Covenant Lineage Allegorically Prefigured: ‘Which Things Are Written Allegorically’ (Galatians 4:21–31),” SBJT 14 (2010): 50–77; along with the subsequent critique of their respective readings by Das, Galatians, 479, 486 n. 40. Those who favor typology include, e.g., Lightfoot, Galatians, 180; Oepke, Galater, 148; Bruce, Galatians, 217; Hays, Echoes, 116; Eastman, Recovering, 127 n. 1; Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 190–91; Bradley R. Trick, Abrahamic Descent, Testamentary Adoption, and the Law in Galatians: Differentiating Abraham’s Sons, Seed, and Children of Promise, NovTSup 169 (Leiden; Boston: Brill,

162

Chapter 6: The Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

First, in its most basic form, the term ἀλληγορία/ἀλληγορέω is a way of saying one thing but meaning another.23 This general definition is found in the first-century work of Tryphon (De tropis 1.1) and Heraclitus (Homeric Allegories 5.2).24 As contemporary scholars often understand it, however, this involves both substitution (one word or concept for another) and also contradiction (the substitution is incongruous).25 On this understanding, it is argued that the literal figure of Hagar brings to Paul’s mind the Sinai covenant, hence, substitution and contradiction. In this way, Paul is not interested in the historical realities of the Genesis narrative (i.e., the text’s “literal” meaning) nor is he interested in the historical figure of Hagar per se; rather, it is assumed that Paul assigns meaning both to the text and the figure of Hagar that is largely, if not entirely absent from that which is found in Genesis. Second, typology is more difficult to define, but it is generally understood to mean that the interpretation largely respects and adheres to the historical elements of the narrative being interpreted. The narrative’s historical elements are considered to be types, which, in light of their corresponding antitypes, find their fulfillment and thus definitive meaning in the present time (the time concurrent with that of the author).26 In this way, the figure of Hagar functions as a type that points beyond herself and, from the standpoint of Paul, finds her corresponding significance being played out in the present situation facing both himself and the Galatian gentiles. Finally, those who favor a combination of the two suggest that, on some level, both elements are present in Paul’s appropriation of the Genesis narrative. It is believed that Paul does not entirely divorce the text from history; rather, he only employs allegory, when necessary, as an interpretive aid.27 In this way,

2016), 286–96. Those who favor a mixture include, e.g., R. P. C. Hanson, Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 82; Betz, Galatians, 239; Mussner, Galaterbrief, 319–20; Leonard Goppelt, Typos: Die typologische Deutung des Alten Testaments im Neuen, 2nd ed. (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966), 139–140; Hansen, Abraham in Galatians, 214; Cosgrove, “The Law,” 221 n. 12; Perriman, “ Rhetorical Strategy,” 27; Dunn, Galatians, 244; Patrick G. Barker, “Allegory and Typology in Galatians 4:21–31,” SVTQ 38 (1994): 209; Schreiner, Galatians, 300; Osten-Sacken, Galatien, 223. 23 Di Mattei, “Paul’s Allegory,” 105–6. 24 For further discussion, see de Mattei, “Paul’s Allegory,” 105–6; Das, Galatians, 486. 25 Davis, “Allegorically Speaking,” 166–69. A clear example of this is found in Jeremy Punt, “Revealing Rereading. Part 1: Pauline Allegory in Galatians 4:21–5:1,” Neotestamenica 40 (2006): 87–100; Jeremy Punt, “Revealing Rereading. Part 2: Paul and the Wives of the Father of Faith in Galatians 4:21–5:1,” Neotestamenica 40 (2006): 101–18. 26 See Lightfoot, Galatians, 180; Bruce, Galatians, 217. For a recent discussion of this approach, see Trick, Abrahamic Descent, 288–89. 27 Hanson, Allegory, 83; followed by Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation, 154.

6.3 Ἀλληγορέω and the “Two Covenants” of Galatians 4:24

163

Paul is typologically interested in how aspects of the narrative’s past redemptively point beyond themselves and are fulfilled in the present. While at the same time, he allegorically interprets the elements that do not adhere typologically: for instance, the enigmatic identification of Hagar with both the Sinai covenant (4:24c) and then with Mount Sinai itself (4:25a).28 More recently, however, scholars have noted that the distinction between allegory and typology is not so clearly delineated.29 In the past, the assumption that for something to be interpreted allegorically meant that it must stand in contrast to the historical and literal meaning of the text (i.e., substitution and contradiction) was taken as a priori. Allegory and typology, then, are mutually exclusive. Yet, more recently, scholars have noted that, according to evidence from around the first century CE, the noun ἀλληγορία and its verbal cognate ἀλληγορέω were not so clearly defined.30 Put simply, these terms were not used as strict technical terms for a type of non-literal/historical interpretive technique. Rather, the terms were used to describe various interpretive strategies that could involve metaphor, analogy, or trope. In other words, the general use of the term meant that something literal was being described figuratively.31 As David Starling puts it, “the verb (and its cognate noun ἀλληγορία) could be used to refer to any interpretive strategy that finds figurative elements within a text, or, more commonly, to any mode of speech or writing that makes use of figurative expression.”32 With this in mind, the question then becomes how the relationship between the literal and the allegorical or figural is to be understood. To this concern, 28

E.g., Schreiner, Galatians, 300. Scott, Paul’s Way, 239–40; Gignilliat, “Paul,” 140. 30 See Scott, Paul’s Way, 239–40. 31 Scott, Paul’s Way, 240. Scott notes a number of primary sources where the verb ἀλληγορέω denotes a figurative expression, e.g., Josephus Ant. 1.24; Ag. Ap. 2.255; Plut., Is. Os. 363d; De esu 996b; Strabo, Geogr. 1.2.7.5. This also finds support in some patristic writings, see Robert J. Kepple, “An Analysis of Antiochene Exegesis of Galatians 4:24– 26,” WTJ 39 (1977): 239–49. 32 Starling, “Justifying Allegory,” 228. Understood in this way, allegory and typology do not stand in contrast; rather, typology is a subspecies of allegory; cf. David Dawson, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), 16; Davis, “Allegorically Speaking,” 165; Starling, “Justifying Allegory,” 228. In this regard, Gignilliat, “Paul,” 140, offers a helpful description of typology, “Typology, therefore, is a figural reading that takes into account correspondences (one notes Paul’s use of another hapax legomenon here, συστοιχέω) between events or people in an eschatological framework. It is a form of allegorical reading or a subset of allegorical reading ... but is not to be opposed to allegory.” Finally, Stefan Nordgaard Svendsen, Allegory Transformed: The Appropriation of Philonic Hermeneutics in the Letter to the Hebrews, WUNT II 269 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 75, contends that the term typology should be abandoned altogether since, to modern readers, it implies too sharp of a distinction from allegory. 29

164

Chapter 6: The Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

David Dawson offers valuable insight into the relationship between the literal and figural understanding of texts and narratives.33 In short, Dawson argues that when the literal meaning of a text is extended into the figural, this by no means suggests that the figurative is nonliteral, or that the literal is disregarded in favor of the figurative (the way allegory is generally understood in NT studies). Rather, when a narrative is understood figuratively – although it may stress features that differ from the literal – the figural extension should in no way contradict that which is found in the literal meaning.34 In other words, while the figural extension of the literal text can take on new meaning, this new meaning functions to enhance the literal meaning: one that is present in the real person or event that is originally depicted in the literal text.35 Therefore, Dawson states, “literalism is preserved in the figural extension, both at the level of the one, larger story figurally produced and at the level of the individual stories of which it is composed.”36 Finally, Dawson outlines three guidelines that are to govern the relationship between the literal meaning and its figural extension: guidelines that will be followed in our own understanding of the relationship between the literal and the allegorical/figural in Paul’s appropriation of the story of Hagar and Sarah in Gal 4:21–31. First, the literal (the figure) and the figurative (the fulfillment) relate to each other in such a way that the literal is not subordinated to or disregarded in favor of the figurative. 37 Second, there must remain a clear connection between the historical reality of the figure and its fulfillment. Otherwise, the only way the figure relates to the fulfillment is through a lack of historical relatedness and thus “only by virtue of ‘meaning structure’.” 38 Dawson warns that this second point is crucial to observe because, if violated, it results in a breach of the first rule: namely, the figure is disregarded in favor of the fulfillment.39 For our purposes, this guideline is an especially important one as – a point to be demonstrated more fully below – the relationship scholars often believe Paul to have created between the figure of Hagar and the fulfillment she symbolizes is largely built on a correspondence of meaning structure alone and not, in fact, on maintaining a clear connection between the historical reality of the figure of Hagar and that which she symbolizes. The third and final guideline is that the literal meaning and its extension into the figurative must be rooted in the larger story they tell.40 33 See John David Dawson, Christian Figural Reading and the Fashioning of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), 141–85. 34 Dawson, Christian Figural Reading, 147. 35 Dawson, Christian Figural Reading, 151. 36 Dawson, Christian Figural Reading, 147. 37 Dawson, Christian Figural Reading, 148. 38 Dawson, Christian Figural Reading, 148. 39 Dawson, Christian Figural Reading, 148. 40 Dawson, Christian Figural Reading, 148.

6.3 Ἀλληγορέω and the “Two Covenants” of Galatians 4:24

165

Therefore, with Dawson’s guidelines in place, I will conclude this section by summarizing the above discussion on figural reading in relation to the way we will understand and apply Paul’s use of allegory and its relatedness to Hagar in Gal 4:21–31. First, according to his word choice, ἀλληγορέω, Paul was certainly engaging in allegory. To use this term, however, is to say nothing more than Paul wanted the Galatians to hear the story of Abraham’s two sons and their respective mothers according to the narrative’s figural sense.41 Second, Paul follows the basic conventions of allegory by which something that is said signifies something else.42 That is, the narrative says or implies one thing literally, i.e., Hagar is a παιδίσκη whose children are born κατὰ σάρκα, which signifies something else allegorically or figuratively, i.e., Hagar is a διαθήκη. This, however, says nothing about Paul’s view of the historicity of the narrative or the persons spoken of in the text; rather, Paul’s figurative reading needs to be understood as developed from and an extension of the text’s literal meaning. Or, to put it another way, the literal (i.e., the historical figure of Hagar) naturally extends into the figural (i.e., the historical figure of Hagar symbolized as a διαθήκη). In doing so, Paul by no means subordinates the literal to the figural (rule 1); rather, he maintains the historical connectedness of the literal and the figural (rule 2), along with the later story they tell (rule 3). This leads to our third and final observation: Paul’s approach to allegory is similar in many respects to that of Philo as discussed in Chapter 4. Just as Philo understood the literal to be the necessary foundation for the allegorical, so too, Paul took the literal and allegorical levels of the text seriously. As Martinus de Boer puts it, “Philo does not see his allegorical interpretation as a substitute for a literal understanding of the text, but as a supplement to it … There is no reason to think that the same observation does not also apply to the use of the Genesis narrative by Paul.”43 Thus, for both Philo and Paul, the literal was the necessary foundation for the allegorical, and so there was an organic relationship between the text’s literal and allegorical or figural sense. Altogether, then, I suggest that Paul read the Abraham narrative with full historical seriousness, yet he also understood it as a living text that was written for his own day. 44 In this way, the historical reality of the persons, places, and events is respected and maintained even as they figuratively come to represent ideas and concepts beyond themselves.45 41 Scott, Paul’s Way, 240. Recently, this approach has been taken by Gignilliat, “Paul”; Das, Galatians, 486–87; Mark S. Gignilliat, “Isaiah’s Offspring: Paul’s Isaiah 54:1 Quotation in Galatians 4:27,” BBR 25 (2015): 205–23; Starling, “Justifying Allegory”; Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 415–18. 42 Again, see Di Mattei, “Paul’s Allegory,” 105–6. 43 de Boer, Galatians, 295–96; see also Büschel, TDNT, 1:262. 44 On Jewish interpretive strategies of this sort, see Kugel, “Biblical Interpretation,” 165. 45 Caneday, “Covenant Lineage,” 55.

166

Chapter 6: The Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

6.3.2 The Two Covenants: A Survey and Assessment of Scholarship With our understanding of allegory in place, we will now turn our attention to an examination of the term δύο διαθῆκαι. Specifically, two questions will occupy our attention here. First, what covenants does Paul have in view when he says that, allegorically, “these women are two covenants”? Second, and more importantly, in identifying the figure of Hagar as a covenant, what covenant does she represent? Since the figural extension Paul develops here functions as one of, if not the main point of the allegory, the approach one takes to the two covenants, and specifically the covenant represented by Hagar, largely shapes the way the rest of the components in Gal 4:24–27 relate and are understood.46 Therefore, in what follows, I will offer a survey and assessment of the two primary approaches scholars have taken in their attempt to identify the two covenants Paul speaks of, with particular attention given to the covenant the figure of Hagar is understood to represent. By and large scholars have taken one of two approaches to identifying the respective covenants Paul has in view when he says in Gal 4:24b, “these women are two covenants.”47 The first and more traditional approach is to understand Hagar and Sarah as representing the old covenant and the new covenant respectively.48 The difficulty with this proposal, however, is twofold. First, 46 Rightly Cosgrove, “The Law,” 227; Hogetarp, “Paul’s Covenant Thought,” 354. Contra Meyer, End, 122. 47 Some have argued that Paul has only one covenant in view, see e.g., Dunn, Galatians, 249; Martyn, Galatians, 454–455. Others contend that Paul has in mind two contrasting ways of belonging to Abraham, without clearly delineating the two covenants, see Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 92; Ellen Juhl Christiansen, The Covenant in Judaism and Paul: A Study of Ritual Boundaries as Identity Markers, AGJU 27 (Leiden; New York: Brill, 1995), 240–43; Gesila Nneka Uzukwu, The Unity of Male and Female in Jesus Christ: An Exegetical Study of Galatians 3.28c in Light of Paul’s Theology of Promise, LNTS 531 (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 98–101. Interestingly, Osten-Sacken, Galatien, 223–24, favors the term “Verfügung” so as to avoid a negative evaluation of the Sinai covenant by focusing only on the giving of the law itself. Yet, to decouple the giving of the law from the Sinai covenant seems difficult to sustain. Finally, Trick, Abrahamic Descent, 253–97, has recently argued that Paul is not speaking of covenants, as such, but rather, adoptive testaments. Trick’s assertion that Paul has three groups in view in 4:21–31, however, fails to convince in view of the broader concerns and context of the letter. 48 See e.g., Lightfoot, Galatians, 181; Burton, Galatians, 261; Betz, Galatians, 243–46; Dietrich-Alex Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus, BHT 69 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 205–6; Longenecker, Galatians, 241; F. S. Malan, “The Strategy of Two Opposing Covenants: Galatians 4:21–5:1,” Neotestamenica 26 (1992): 432; Vouga, Galater, 117–18; Willitts, “Isa 54, 1,” 199 n. 30; Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation, 154. Others, such as Hafemann, “Paul and the Exile,” 365, and Schreiner, Galatians, 301, although favoring the old vs. new contrast, recognize that the distinction between the Abrahamic and new should not be exaggerated.

6.3 Ἀλληγορέω and the “Two Covenants” of Galatians 4:24

167

scholars have queried as to why Paul would elect to forgo the language of “old” (παλαιός) and “new” (καινός) if these were in fact the covenants he had in view.49 According to 2 Cor 3:6–14, Paul certainly had such terminology at hand, so it is somewhat surprising that he does not employ it here. Second, scholars have noted a temporal difficulty with the old/new contrast. That is, there is nothing in the immediate context of Gal 4:24b to suggest that the covenants spoken of stand in a linear or successive relationship.50 In fact, as the allegory is introduced and develops, it is clear that the covenants are presented as simultaneous and not successive. The respective lines of descent Paul develops from the figures of Hagar and Sarah go back to and find their origin in the Abraham narrative itself (cf. 4:22–23).51 Therefore, the supersession of and explicit contrast between the old covenant by the new covenant appears unlikely to be in view here.52 The second approach is to understand the two covenants as a reference to the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, with Hagar representing the latter and Sarah the former.53 However, there are at least three difficulties with this approach. First, when one considers the overall concept of the covenant in Paul’s thinking, there is little to commend the view that he explicitly categorized Israel’s covenantal relationship according to clearly defined and differentiated covenants whereby one or more of these covenants stood in isolation from and opposition to the other(s) – such as, for instance, a theologically constructed “Abrahamic covenant” of promise standing over against a theologically constructed “Mosaic covenant” of law.54 In fact, whether Paul viewed Israel’s cov49 Gils Bouwman, “Die Hagar- und Sara-Perikope (Gal 4,21–31): Exemplarische Interpretation zum Schriftbeweis bei Paulus,” ANRW 2.25.4 (1987): 3149–51; Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 92 n. 46; Bachmann, Antijudaismus, 146–47. 50 Peter Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church, SNTS 10 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 100; Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 89; Christiansen, The Covenant, 243; Martyn, Theological Issues, 200. 51 Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 89; Christiansen, The Covenant, 243. 52 Christiansen, The Covenant, 141–42; Martyn, Galatians, 453; Bachmann, Antijudaismus, 148; de Boer, “Paul’s Quotation,” 382 n. 51. In favor of maintaining the old/new contrast, Byrne, “Jerusalem,” 221–24, has recently offered a fairly convincing rebuttal based on Paul’s description of the “veil” in 2 Cor 3 being a concurrent/simultaneous reality with the new covenant. However, what Byrne fails to consider is that the concept of δύο διαθῆκαι in Gal 4:24b appears to originate from the Abraham narrative itself, of which Sinai legislation is markedly absent. Moreover, he does not account for the difficult connection between Hagar and the Sinai covenant. On this point, see the discussion to follow. 53 Mussner, Galaterbrief, 321; Bruce, Galatians, 218; Fung, Galatians, 206; Hays, Echoes, 114; Jobes, “Jerusalem,” 301; Fowl, “Abraham’s Story,” 89; Witherington, Galatia, 331–32; Harmon, She Must, 174; de Boer, Galatians, 286; Wright, Faithfulness of God, 1135. Garlington, Galatians, 271, finds less of a distinction as the Abrahamic covenant “flows into and finds its fulfillment in the new.” 54 See e.g., Hafemann, “Paul and the Exile,” 358 n. 59, who contends that Paul understands the Sinai covenant as, although not its fulfillment, a “legitimate extension of the

168

Chapter 6: The Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

enants as a plurality remains a debated point.55 In relation to Galatians specifically, Robert Brawley has helpfully demonstrated that, in contrast to the dominant opinion that Paul develops a sharp antithesis between promise and law and thus the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, Paul’s goal throughout chapters 3–4 of Galatians is better understood as a synthesizing of the two.56 In fact, in 3:21, Paul makes this clear: “The law (νόμος) is not against the promises of God (κατὰ τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ).” Second, there is a noticeable temporal difficulty with the Abrahamic/Mosaic contrast as well. In Gal 3:15–18, Paul is at pains to demonstrate that the promises made to Abraham take priority over the law, as the law was not given until 430 years after the promise. However, in 4:22–24, Hagar – and apparently the Mosaic covenant – appears to be given chronological preference. If this is the case, then, as James Dunn points out, Paul would be confusing the argument of 3:15–18.57 Third, the most significant difficulty with the Abraham/Mosaic contrast lies in a deceptively simple insight: that is, it is the covenant made with Abraham and not the Mosaic covenant that most clearly addresses the question and requirement of circumcision for males, whether true born Israelites or otherwise.58 According to Sinai legislation, the only mention of physical circumcision for non-Israelite males is found in Exod 12:44–48, which strictly pertains to a non-Israelite male’s partic-

Abrahamic covenants.” For various studies on the concept of the covenant in Paul’s thinking, see Christiansen, The Covenant; A. Andrew Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001); James D. G. Dunn, “Did Paul Have a Covenant Theology? Reflections on Romans 9.4 and 11.27,” in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C. R. de Roo, JSJSup 71 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 287–307; Stanley E. Porter, “The Concept of the Covenant in Paul,” in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C. R. de Roo, JSJSup 71 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2003), 269–85; Campbell, “Covenant Theology”; Thomas R. Blanton IV, “Paul’s Covenant Theology in 2 Corinthians 2.14–7.14,” in Paul and Judaism: Crosscurrents in Pauline Exegesis and the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations, LNTS 463 (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 61–71. For a broader discussion on the concept of the covenant in Second Temple Judaism, see Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C. R. de Roo, eds., The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period, JSJSup 71 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2003). 55 See especially the discussion on Rom 9:4 in Calvin Roetzel, “Διαθῆκαι in Romans 9,4,” Bib 51 (1970): 377–90; Christiansen, The Covenant, 214–28; Dunn, “Covenant Theology,” 310–5; J. Brian Tucker, Reading Romans after Supersessionism: The Continuation of Jewish Covenantal Identity, NTAS 6 (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2018), 126. 56 Brawley, “Contextuality,” 99–119, esp. 100; followed by Campbell, “Covenant Theology,” 43. 57 Dunn, “Covenant Theology,” 293, states, “if in this case the later covenant (Sarah’s freeborn child) is now to be regarded as superseding or taking higher priority than the earlier (Hagar’s slaveborn child), that would throw the previous argument into total confusion. For in 3.17 Paul argued the precise reverse.” 58 Nanos, “Present Jerusalem,” 4.

6.3 Ἀλληγορέω and the “Two Covenants” of Galatians 4:24

169

ipation in the Passover feast.59 Otherwise, the circumcision of non-Israelite males is of little to no significance for Sinai legislation. Yet, this merely reflects the overall silence on the topic of circumcision for Sinai legislation in general. On the rare instance that circumcision is mentioned, it pertains not to physical circumcision but to heart circumcision (cf. Lev 26; Deut 10:16; 30:6 [MT]).60 Thus, for interpreters who maintain that Paul constructed the allegory in such a way as to call the Galatian gentiles to reject circumcision by rejecting the Mosaic covenant, this makes little sense. In fact, it is difficult to understand why Paul would not also call them to abandon the Abrahamic covenant, which has circumcision as its principal obligation. One final observation needs to be made in relation to the approaches outlined above. Whether one takes the old/new contrast or the Abrahamic/Mosaic contrast, the covenant that Hagar is understood to represent is clearly connected to Sinai legislation and thus the Jewish law. To put it plainly, then, for both approaches Hagar represents the Sinai covenant. For instance, Scott Hafemann, a proponent of the old/new contrast, states, “the first covenant, associated with Hagar is the Sinai covenant.”61 And for Richard Hays, a proponent of the Abrahamic/Mosaic contrast: “the contrast is drawn between the old covenant at Sinai and the older covenant with Abraham.”62 Thus, when it comes to identifying the specific covenant the figure of Hagar represents, scholars make little to no distinction: whether Hagar is understood to represent the old covenant or the Mosaic covenant, both are employed as a metonymy for the Sinai covenant. This, however, raises a further difficulty for both approaches, as scholars on both sides are often puzzled as to how Paul can link the figure Hagar to the Sinai covenant and, in turn, link the Sinai covenant to slavery. As Susan Elliott remarks, the connection is “particularly difficult”63 and “the logic of the connections is hardly self-evident.”64 Furthermore, as Thomas Schreiner recognizes, “seeing a connection between Hagar and the Sinai covenant is scarcely obvious when one reads the OT narrative.”65 In order to make sense of this rather 59 For further discussion, see Bernat, Sign of the Covenant, 21–22. Furthermore, as Joel S. Kaminsky, “Israel’s Election and the Other in Biblical, Second Temple, and Rabbinic Thought,” in The “Other” in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John J. Collins, ed. Daniel C. Harlow et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 19–20, points out, this text does not presuppose that circumcision implies conversion. 60 J. C. O’Neill, “‘For This Hagar Is Mount Sinai in Arabia’ (Galatians 4.25),” in The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J.L. North, ed. Steve Moyise, JSNTSup 189 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 212. For a more detailed discussion, see Bernat, Sign of the Covenant, 97–114. 61 Hafemann, “Paul and the Exile,” 358. Emphasis my own. 62 Hays, Echoes, 114. Emphasis my own. 63 Elliott, Cutting Too Close, 19. 64 Elliott, “Choose Your Mother,” 661. 65 Schreiner, Galatians, 300.

170

Chapter 6: The Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

enigmatic connection, scholars often assert that it is based on a particular quality shared by both Hagar and the Sinai covenant: namely, their “slaveryproducing effect.”66 This assertion, however, is a primary example of Dawson’s caution that allegorical or figural readings are not to be built on meaning structure alone.67 The fact is, while the connection with slavery in relation to the figure of Hagar is self-evident, its connection to the Sinai covenant is largely, if not entirely inexplicable. Put simply, the connection scholars contend that Paul makes between the Sinai covenant (i.e., the Jewish law) and slavery is absent of any clear historical relatedness. In fact, there are at least two reasons why such a connection would be highly questionable, if not outright untenable. First, equating the observance of the Jewish law with slavery and bondage is difficult to sustain in that ancient Jews understood Torah observance quite differently.68 George Howard summarizes this point well: Proof of this is found in the multitude of biblical exhortations for man to be obedient to God’s law. Such language is hardly in keeping with the concept of law as a bondage from which there is no escape. The fact is, man’s problem never has been his enslavement to God’s requirements; often as Scripture shows, his problem is estrangement from them. 69

Howard’s assessment coheres with what Paul says elsewhere in Galatians. For instance, in 3:22, Paul argues that all things were imprisoned ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν, not ὑπὸ νόμον.70 Moreover, as Todd Wilson has demonstrated, Paul’s concern with the concept of being ὑπὸ νόμον in Galatians likely has more to do with a particular function of the law, the law’s curse (ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου; Gal 3:13), which is a direct result of being under the power of sin (cf. Gal 1:4), than with the law itself.71 In fact, throughout Galatians, Paul says nothing against the observance of the Jewish law in and of itself; rather, as demonstrated in Chapter 5, his fundamental concern appears to be the misappropriation of the Jewish law by the Galatian gentiles.72 66

Willitts, “Isa 54,1,” 202. See also Christiansen, The Covenant, 241. Dawson, Christian Figural Reading, 148. See §6.3.1. 68 See e.g., Zetterholm, “The Question of Assumptions.” 69 Howard, Paul, 75. Cf. e.g., Lev 18:4–5; 26:3; Deut 6:17; 11:8, 13–15; 28:1–15; Ps 1:1–2; 19:7–9; 119:4; Isa 48:18–19. 70 As argued with different implications by, e.g., Bellville, “Under the Law,” 56; Le Cornu and Shalum, Galatians, 332–44; Wilson, “The Supersession,” 236–37. 71 See Wilson’s full study, Curse of the Law. Cf. also the important study on the law’s spheres of influence by Klyne R. Snodgrass, “Spheres of Influence: A Possible Solution to the Problem of Paul and the Law,” JSNT 32 (1988): 93–113. Although Snodgross’s study is applied to Romans, it may have applicability to Galatians. But see the unsatisfactory attempt by A. Chadwick Thornhill, “‘Spheres of Influence’ in the Epistle to the Galatians,” HBT 36 (2014): 21–41. 72 As Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 29, helpfully puts it, “Whereas Paul’s negative statements about certain aspects of the Jewish Law have been understood by later genera67

6.4 A Reassessment of the Hagar Covenant in Galatians 4:24

171

Second, for Paul to develop a connection between the figure of Hagar and the Sinai covenant based on their shared “slavery-producing effect” would be to fundamentally undermine and blatantly disregard a central aspect of Israel’s redemptive history. According to Exod 19–24, the Exodus event was understood to be a redemptive event whereby Israel was freed from slavery and bondage. As a result, God gave Israel the Torah in order to confirm their status as his people. The Torah then was understood as a sign of Israel’s liberation, not their enslavement (cf. Exod 19:3–8; 20:2; Deut 7:6–11; cf. LAB 11:6). Sylvia Keesmaat summarizes the significance of this well: According to the exodus tradition, the law was part of the event that freed Israel from slavery. In fact, the law was a sign of freedom, the law was the way in which the Israelites could show that they were a people of freedom, the way that they themselves could image the God who had brought them out of slavery and set them free.73

Thus, any connection between the figure of Hagar and the Sinai covenant remains not only questionable, but Paul’s justification for such a connection – their apparent “slave-producing effect” – would ultimately prove to be indefensible. In fact, as scholars on both sides are quick to point out, to associate the Sinai covenant with slavery would be not only offensive but also heretical.74

6.4 A Reassessment of the Hagar Covenant in Galatians 4:24 6.4 A Reassessment of the Hagar Covenant in Galatians 4:24

The above survey and assessment of scholarship on the meaning of the two covenants spoken of in Gal 4:24b demonstrates that there remain key difficultions of Christians and scholars to target Jews, Jewish Christians, or Judaism, in the original context of the letter they were meant to correct the practices of Gentile Christians.” 73 Keesmaat, “Paul and His Story,” 309–10. Emphasis my own. Unfortunately, in line with others, Keesmaat, “Paul and His Story,” 309, concludes “the correspondence of Mt. Sinai, and therefore the giving of the law, with slavery completely reverses the story.” 74 E.g., Keesmaat, “Paul and His Story,” 309–10, writes, “Paul does not merely allude to the Hagar/Sarah story here; he identifies Hagar with Mount Sinai, a Mount Sinai which bears children into slavery, a Mount Sinai which corresponds to the present Jerusalem, which is enslaved. Paul’s identification here is an offensive one; the correspondence of Mt Sinai, and therefore the giving of the law, with slavery completely reverses the story … In Paul’s telling, the giving of the law at Sinai is identified with slavery rather than with freedom. The story of Israel is reinterpreted in a way which totally undermines one of the central features of the exodus event itself.” Emphasis my own. For a similar assessment, see Hays, Echoes, 115; Perriman, “Rhetorical Strategy,” 36; Jan Lambrecht, “Abraham and His Offspring: A Comparison of Galatians 5,1 with 3,13,” Bib 80 (1999): 528; Perkins, Abraham’s Divided Children, 90; Garlington, Galatians, 272–73; Davis, “Allegorically Speaking,” 166, 169; cf. the concerns of Matthew Y. Emerson, “Arbitrary Allegory, Typical Typology, or Intertextual Interpretation? Paul’s Use of the Pentateuch in Galatians 4:21–31,” BTB 43 (2013): 15.

172

Chapter 6: The Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

ties with both the old/new and the Abrahamic/Mosaic contrasts. Furthermore, it was found that scholars on both sides have been unable to offer a satisfactory explanation for why Paul would, let alone how he could connect Hagar and slavery to the Sinai covenant and the Jewish law. This raises the question, then, of whether the covenant the figure of Hagar represents is best understood by either of these two approaches. Therefore, if Hagar does not represent the Sinai covenant – whether that be the old covenant or the Mosaic covenant – then Paul’s allegorical identification of Hagar as a covenant requires renewed investigation. Therefore, in what follows, I will contest the above approaches and propose that Paul does not connect Hagar with the Sinai covenant – whether that be the old covenant or the Mosaic covenant. Instead, I will propose an alternative understanding of Paul’s portrayal of Hagar by suggesting that a) the preposition ἀπό and b) the description of the children born to the Hagar covenant are key to understanding Paul’s allegorical depiction of Hagar as a covenant. 6.4.1 The Hagar Covenant as ἀπό Mount Sinai Understandably, one of the strongest arguments in favor of the theory that Paul explicitly connects the figure of Hagar to the Sinai covenant – and ultimately the people belonging to that covenant – is found in the description he provides for one of the two covenants spoken of in Gal 4:24b. As previously mentioned, following the juxtaposition of Abraham’s two sons and their respective mothers, Paul goes on to say that, allegorically, “these women are two covenants.” He then proceeds to describe one of the two covenants as “ἀπό Mount Sinai,” and he assigns one of the two mothers to this same covenant: “this one,” Paul says, “is Hagar” (ἥτις ἐστὶν Ἁγάρ; 4:24d). Thus, according to Paul, the figure of Hagar allegorically personifies a covenant that is ἀπό Mount Sinai. More to the point, the belief that Paul explicitly connects the figure of Hagar with the Sinai covenant is based on a certain understanding of the Greek preposition ἀπό. Almost unanimously, scholars translate ἀπό with the English term “from” or an equivalent expression of it.75 Likewise, all English translations of

75 Limiting the evidence to commentators, see e.g., Lightfoot, Galatians, 180, “given from”; Burton, Galatians, 251, “proceeding from”; Schlier, Galater, 215, “das eine vom Berge Sinai her”; Mussner, Galaterbrief, “das eine (stammt) vom”; Betz, Galatians, 238, “from”; Bruce, Galatians, 214, “deriving from”; Fung, Galatians, 206, “the covenant that comes from”; Longenecker, Galatians, 198, “from”; Matera, Galatians, 170, “from”; Dunn, Galatians, 242, “from”; Witherington, Galatia, 321, “from”; Martyn, Galatians, 432, “from”; Vouga, Galater, 113, “die eine vom Berg Sinai”; Le Cornu, Galatians, 298, “proceeds from”; Gordon D. Fee, Galatians, Pentecostal Commentary Series (Dorset, UK: Deo, 2007), 179, “from”; Garlington, Galatians, 272, “from”; Lémonon, Galates, 156, “l’une (vient) da la montagne du Sinai”; Schreiner, Galatians, 300, “from”; de Boer, Galatians, 289, “from”; Lyons, Galatians, 284, “from”; Moo, Galatians, 296, “from”; Das,

6.4 A Reassessment of the Hagar Covenant in Galatians 4:24

173

the New Testament – of which I am aware – adopt similar such terminology (e.g., NRSV; NASB; ESV; KJV; NKJV; NIV; NET). Hence, when ἀπό is translated with the term “from,” it is often understood, and almost exclusively so in 4:24c, to denote the idea of source.76 Hence, the assumption taken for granted by nearly every interpreter of Galatians is that the covenant Hagar represents is “from,” “originates from,” or “proceeds from” Mount Sinai. 77 As such, Paul’s language is clear even though the connection remains enigmatic; Hagar allegorically represents the Sinai covenant. However, the question needs to be raised as to whether ἀπό actually conveys the idea of source here in 4:24c. To be sure, ἀπό is certainly capable of conveying this idea, and it appears to do so at other points in Galatians. For instance, three of the clearest examples are found in 1:1, 1:3, and 3:2. In 1:1, Paul says that his apostleship is not ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπων, that is, not “from men.”78 Then, in 1:3, Paul says that grace and peace come ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρός, that is, “from God our Father.”79 Finally, in 3:2, Paul states that he desires μαθεῖν ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν. That is, Paul hopes to learn “from” (ἀπό) the Galatians whether they received the Spirit by “works of the law” (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου) or by “hearing with faith” (ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως). Thus, Paul can and does employ the preposition ἀπό in Galatians in such a way as to convey the idea of source. In contrast to the idea of source, however, ἀπό can also be employed, and more naturally so, to convey the idea of separation.80 As BDAG describes it, ἀπό can function as “a maker to indicate separation from a place, whether perGalatians, 477, “from”; Keener, Galatians, 211, “from”; deSilva, Galatians, 390, “from”; Osten-Sacken, Galatien, 218, “die eine vom Berg Sinai.” 76 For this description, see BDAG 105; L&N 84.3; 90.15. 77 The only scholars – of which I am aware – who have suggested otherwise include Gerhard Jankowski, “Der Galaterbrief,” Texte und Kontexte 47/48 (1990): 91; O’Neill, “‘For This Hagar,’” 213; Lopez, Apostle, 158; and Kahl, “Hagar’s Babylonian Captivity,” 263 n. 21. 78 Commentators unanimously favor source. See the discussion in Burton, Galatians, 3– 5; Moo, Galatians, 67–69. 79 See Witherington, Galatia, 75–76. 80 As Wallace, Greek Grammar, 68, notes, in classical Greek the basic meaning of ἀπό was separation from. More broadly, Moisés Silva, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, 5 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 351, describes ἀπό as, “The earliest attested function of ἀπό – and indeed the most common – is to indicate the starting point of physical movement, thus usually transl. ‘from’ (or ‘away from’). Like the Eng. Prep, however, ἀπό is freq. used in a derived sense to indicate other kinds of separation, incl. such contexts as living apart from a person, departing from this life, doing something different from what is usual.” Emphasis original. Hence, it is important to note that even when ἀπό conveys the idea of separation, it retains a sense of origin: that is, separation from a place or point of source of origin. Finally, by the time of the NT writers, ἀπό began to encroach on the meaning of other prepositions, particularly ἐκ. Consequently, their respective meanings could be used interchangeably. See further the discussion in Harris, Preposition, 57–58.

174

Chapter 6: The Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

son or thing,” or “to indicate distance from a point.”81 Similarly, L&N describes ἀπό as a “marker of dissociation.”82 This use of ἀπό is clearly seen in Galatians as well. For instance, in 1:6, Paul rebukes the Galatian gentiles for quickly turning ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς, that is, away from the one who called them (cf. also 5:4; see below). Hence, at least here in 1:6, ἀπό clearly conveys the idea of separation rather than source.83 This raises the question then of how the ἀπό of 4:24c is to be understood. Contrary to most scholars, there are at least three reasons that, when taken together, may lend support to the claim that the ἀπό of 4:24c is better understood as conveying the idea of separation rather than source. First, the immediate context affords and may even suggest this reading. In the verses immediately preceding 4:24, vv. 22–23, Paul employs the preposition ἐκ in order to describe the origin and birthing experience (γεννάω) of each son: one is ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης (“from the slave-woman”) while the other is ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας (“from the free-woman”). What is clear from these verses is that the preposition ἐκ is employed to denote the idea of source or origin. In 4:24, then, one might assume that Paul would once again employ the preposition ἐκ in order to convey this idea in relation to the covenant the figure of Hagar represents: a covenant that is from or originates from Mount Sinai, as 4:24c is commonly translated.84 In other words, one might expect to see ἐξ ὄρους Σινᾶ.85 However, here in 4:24c, Paul employs the preposition ἀπό in order to describe the relationship between the figure of Hagar, the covenant she represents, and Mount Sinai. Hence, the Hagar covenant is not ἐξ ὄρους Σινᾶ; rather, it is ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ. At first glance, then, it appears that Paul’s shift from ἐκ to ἀπό in 4:24c may have more semantic significance than previously noted. The possible semantic significance of Paul’s shift from ἐκ to ἀπό becomes even more apparent when one compares the grammar and syntax of the respective clauses of 4:23a and 4:24c: Gal 4:23a ὁ μὲν ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται Gal 4:24c μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα 81

BDAG 105, 106. L&N 89.122. 83 See Ciampa, The Presence, 71–101, who helpfully illustrates Paul’s point in relation to the use of ἀπό to describe Israel’s apostasy. 84 To be sure, Paul can use ἐκ and ἀπό interchangeably within a few short verses to express both source and separation (e.g., Gal 1:1–8). The question, however, is whether this is what Paul is doing here. See the discussion on semantic distinction in Moisés Silva, Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 52–57. 85 It is important to note that, throughout the NT, when ἐκ is followed by ὄρος it conveys the idea of the process of coming down from a mountain and thus indicates source; cf. Matt 17:9; Mark 9:9. However, when ὄρος is preceded by ἀπό, a sense of separation from the particular mountain in question is evident; cf. Matt 8:1; Luke 9:37; Acts 1:12. 82

6.4 A Reassessment of the Hagar Covenant in Galatians 4:24

175

Based on this, a few observations can be made. First, the structural similarity of each clause is obvious. Each begins with a substantival functioning as the subject, which is immediately followed by the particle μὲν, consecutive prepositional phrases, and concludes with a form of the verb γεννάω. Second, based on the nearly identical construction of these clauses, if ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης and ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ are meant to parallel each other in some sense, and if their respective prepositions are meant to convey the idea of source, one has to wonder why Paul would shift from ἐκ to ἀπό. Rather, it appears that the shift might be intentional – note that the structure of the respective clauses appears to be quite intentional – and if so, each preposition is meant to convey something different. That is, while the ἐκ of 4:23a denotes source, the ἀπό of 4:24c might be taken to denote separation. Second, in relation to the observations just made, the possibility of a semantic distinction between ἐκ and ἀπό in 4:22–24 can be further substantiated by an examination of the surrounding literary context. It is important to note that within the literary context of Gal 4:21–31, the nearest preceding occurrence of either preposition is that of ἐκ, and it clearly denotes source. In 4:4, Paul describes the Son of God as born ἐκ γυναικός, that is, “from a woman.” However, the very next occurrence of either preposition is that of ἀπό, which is found in 5:4, just a few verses following the close of the allegory in 4:31. As noted in the previous chapter, in 5:1 Paul follows the allegory by exhorting the Galatian gentiles to “stand firm” (στήκετε) and not submit themselves again to a “yoke of slavery” (ζυγῷ δουλείας). With this command in view, Paul then warns the Galatians that if they do not stand firm, they will find themselves, ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ, that is, “away from Christ.” In other words, the ἀπό of 5:4, the closest ἀπό to 4:24, clearly conveys the idea of separation, even alienation.86 Thus, based on Paul’s use of ἐκ and ἀπό within the surrounding context of 4:21–31, it becomes even more plausible to suggest that Paul has the idea of separation in mind when he employs the preposition ἀπό in 4:24. Finally, further support for the possibility of taking the ἀπό of 4:24 as indicating separation can be demonstrated from an intertextual, contextual, and textual analysis of the grammar and syntax of Paul’s use of ἀπό as it relates to the subsequent preposition εἰς.87 According to L&N, the ἀπό ... εἰς construction is best understood as a marker of “change of state – ‘from … to, to, for’.”88 When this construction is examined within the Pauline corpus, a common feature emerges. First, in relation to Pauline intertextual examples, the three instances where ἀπό ... εἰς stand in a close syntactical relationship within the 86

The ἀπό of Gal 5:4 is the final occurrence of the preposition in the letter. BDF §211 notes that Paul can employ ἀπό in order to express the idea of alienation; cf. Rom 9:3; 1 Cor 2:20. 87 The approach of intertextual, contextual, and textual is from Rudolph, A Jew. 88 L&N 13.62.

176

Chapter 6: The Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

same clause – such as Gal 4:24c – each construction takes the preposition ἀπό to denote a sense of movement from, separation from, or alienation from a person, place, or thing. The corresponding εἰς, then, denotes either direction, i.e., “to”, “into,” or purpose, i.e., “for.”89 This is illustrated in the following chart.90 Table 1: Intertextual Examples of ἀπό ... εἰς Rom 8:21 – καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις ἐλευθερωθήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης τῶν τέκνων τοῦ θεοῦ. 2 Cor 3:18 – μεταμορφούμεθα ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν.91 2 Cor 11:3 – φθαρῇ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἁπλότητος [καὶ τῆς ἁγνότητος]τῆς εἰς τὸν Χριστόν.

And creation itself will be set free from the bondage of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. We are being transformed from glory into glory. Your mind may be led astray from sincerity and pure devotion to Christ.

Similarly, in relation to the single contextual example from Gal 1:6, Paul follows the expected pattern. Here he chastises the Galatian gentiles for turning “away from” (ἀπό) the one who called them and turning “to” (εἰς) a different gospel.92 Thus, as noted above, the ἀπό of 1:6 clearly denotes a sense of separation and the proceeding εἰς denotes direction. Table 2: Contextual Example of ἀπό ... εἰς Gal 1:6 – Θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι [Χριστοῦ] εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον.

I am astonished that you are so quickly turning away from the one who called you in the grace of Christ to a different gospel.

Finally, in relation to our textual example from Gal 4:24c, this same ἀπό ... εἰς construction is present.

89

I am limiting my investigation to the seven undisputed Pauline letters. Another example of this type of construction is Rom 6:22, which states νυνὶ δὲ ἐλευθερωθέντες ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας … εἰς ἁγιασμόν (“But now, having been freed from sin … for sanctification”). However, since the ἀπὸ ... εἰς construction is found in separate clauses, it will not be considered here. Similarly, see 2 Cor 1:16, which states, καὶ πάλιν ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς καὶ ὑφ᾿ ὑμῶν προπεμφθῆναι εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν (“And to come to you again from Macedonia and have you send me to Judea”). 91 Harris, Prepositions, 64–65, notes that it is possible the ἀπό of 2 Cor 3:18 can be understood to denote source. However, based on the context, Harris notes that this is unlikely. Paul seems to be suggesting movement from one degree of glory to another degree of glory. Hence, a common way of translating this particular phrase is that of the NRSV: “from one degree of glory to another.” See also his full discussion in The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 316–17. 92 As noted by Lopez, Apostle, 242–43 n. 124. 90

6.4 A Reassessment of the Hagar Covenant in Galatians 4:24

177

Table 3: Textual Example of ἀπό ... εἰς Gal 4:24c – μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα

One, on the one hand, bears children away from Mount Sinai into slavery.

Thus, based on our intertextual, contextual, and textual analysis, it is difficult to dismiss the possibility that the ἀπό ... εἰς construction found in Gal 4:24c should not also reflect Paul’s customary use of it. If this is the case, then, contrary to the majority of scholars, it is plausible to conclude that the ἀπό of 4:24c is meant to convey the idea of separation and not source. Therefore, when all of the evidence is considered, it is reasonable to conclude that the semantic significance of Paul’s use of ἀπό in 4:24c needs to be distinguished from his use of ἐκ in the immediately preceding verses of 4:22– 23. In fact, based on Paul’s use of the prepositions ἐκ and ἀπό in Gal 4:22–24, his use of the prepositions ἐκ and ἀπό in wider context of 4:21–31, and the intertextual, contextual, and textual significance of the ἀπό ... εἰς construction found in wider Pauline literature, the evidence suggests that the ἀπό of 4:24 should be read as semantically distinct from ἐκ, thus expressing the idea of separation rather than source.93 Thus, Gal 4:24c should be translated as follows: On the one hand, [the Hagar covenant] is away from Mount Sinai bearing children into slavery.

Or, more likely: On the one hand, [the Hagar covenant] bears children away from Mount Sinai into slavery.94

In this way, Paul is not suggesting that the figure of Hagar allegorically represents the Sinai covenant; rather, she allegorically represents a figurative covenant that gives birth to children away from Mount Sinai: children Paul describes as born “into slavery” (εἰς δουλείαν). With this in mind, we may consider one additional element in the immediate context of 4:24c that may bring further clarity to the question of the figurative covenant Hagar allegorically

93 Again, this is a minority view, but is not without precedent; it has been suggested by Jankowski, “Galaterbrief,” 91; O’Neill, “For This Hagar,” 213; Lopez, Apostle, 158; and Kahl, “Hagar’s Babylonian Captivity,” 263 n. 21. However, to my knowledge, none of these scholars have made a cumulative and exegetical case for taking the ἀπό of Gal 4:24c as separation: a case that I have made here. 94 Whether ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ is to be understood as adjectival or adverbial is up for debate. See the discussion in Das, Galatians, 429; Di Mattei, “Paul’s Allegory,” 109–10. Overall, the adverbial reading is preferred, as it does not require the addition of the verb ἐστιν.

178

Chapter 6: The Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

represents: the identity of the children Paul describes as born to the Hagar covenant. 6.4.2 Who Are the Children Born ἀπό Mount Sinai into Slavery? In the second half of Gal 4:24c, Paul describes the Hagar covenant as bearing children ἀπό Mount Sinai and “into slavery” (εἰς δουλείαν). If, as most scholars suggest, ἀπό is to be taken to denote source, and the Hagar covenant is thus equivalent to the Sinai covenant, then those to whom the Hagar covenant gives birth are understood to be Jews and/or Jewish Christ-followers who are enslaved to the law.95 As noted above, however, the connection between Hagar and the Sinai covenant ultimately fails to convince and so the accepted reading needs to be reconsidered. Here, I would like to propose that this reconsideration becomes possible if, as suggested above, the ἀπό of 4:24 is taken to convey the idea of separation rather than source. In this way, Paul is understood to describe the children of the Hagar covenant as born into slavery precisely because they are symbolically born away from Mount Sinai. This then raises the question of the identity of the children Paul speaks of. 6.4.2.1 Ishmael, Gentiles, and Mount Sinai If we begin our investigation with the most immediate candidates, the descendants of Hagar, several significant observations come to the fore. First, according to Gen 21, Hagar and Ishmael are cast out of Abraham’s household and into the wilderness (cf. Gen 21:10, 20–21). Ishmael’s rejection is then further explicated in Gen 25 (LXX) whereby he and his descendants are said to have settled ἀπό Isaac, that is, “away from Isaac,” and “eastward toward the east country” (Gen 25:6, 18). In this way, scholars have noted that Ishmael’s expulsion and subsequent settling in the east is similar to that of Adam and Cain. Adam is “expelled” from the garden (ἐκβάλλω; cf. Gal 4:30) and caused to dwell “opposite” (ἁπέναντι) of it (Gen 3:24).96 And due to the murder of Abel, Cain is said

95

E.g., Günther H. Juncker, “‘Children of Promise’: Spiritual Paternity and Patriarch Typology in Galatians and Romans,” BBR 17 (2007): 136; Cosgrove, “The Law,” 233. In contrast, Nanos, “Present Jerusalem,” 4, suggests Paul has proselytism in view. However, I remain unconvinced of Nanos’s reading for at least two reasons. First, I am not persuaded by the reconstruction of the Galatian crisis that suggests the Galatian gentiles were being pressured to become full-blown proselytes. Second, as demonstrated in Chapter 4, there is little to no evidence within the extant Jewish literature to suggest that Hagar and Ishmael were viewed as proselytes. 96 The improper preposition ἀπέναντι is made up of ἀπό, ἐν, and ἀντί. See Harris, Prepositions, 240–43.

6.4 A Reassessment of the Hagar Covenant in Galatians 4:24

179

to dwell “away from God’s presence” (ἀπὸ προσώπου; Gen 4:16).97 Thus, the experience of Ishmael and his descendants can be similarly understood. Ishmael is not chosen to be God’s elect; instead, he is expelled from Abraham’s household (Gen 21:10). Consequently, Ishmael and his offspring dwell away from Isaac, away from full Abrahamic blessing, and ultimately, away from the presence of Israel’s God (Gen 25:6, 18).98 In relation to Mount Sinai, then, J. C. O’Neill puts it well: “Ishmael was born far from the marvelous mountain where God gave his people the law. So Ishmael was destined to be a slave whereas Isaac would be free.”99 In relation to this, and second, as noted in Chapter 4, according to ancient Jewish thinking, Ishmael and his descendants came to personify the experience of those from the nations, i.e., those from the non-Jewish world who lived in ignorance and sin apart from Abrahamic blessing and divine revelation. As such, the literature often portrays Ishmael and his descendants as stand-ins for gentiles.100 According to Jubilees, the Lord did not elect to “draw Ishmael and his sons to himself” (Jub. 15:30) because he knew them. Instead, the Lord “chose Israel that they might be a people for himself. And he sanctified them and gathered them from all the sons of man” (Jub. 15:31). In contrast to Israel’s election, the Lord caused spirits to rule over all other nations “so that they [the spirits] might lead them [the nations] astray from following him” (Jub. 15:31). The “all other nations” mentioned here by Jubilees are personified by Ishmael and his posterity. Similarly, according to Baruch 3:23, Hagar’s descendants characterize those from the nations (ἔθνος; cf. Bar 3:16) who seek wisdom on the earth but never find it.101 In fact, in 3:20, they are included with those who are even further away from (ἀπό) wisdom than were their parents. As such, “God did not choose them, or give them the way to knowledge; so, they perished because they had no wisdom” (Bar 3:27–28). In contrast, wisdom, i.e., the Torah, belongs to God and is given only to Israel (Bar 3:37). As these brief examples demonstrate, for at least some ancient Jews, Ishmael and his descendants personify the experience of those from the nations, i.e., gentiles:

97 The similarity with Adam and Cain has been noted by Hafemann, “Paul and the Exile,” 357; see also Emerson, “Arbitrary Allegory,” 18–19. On the disinheritance of Ishmael, see Levenson, Death and Resurrection, 97–98. 98 As Emerson, “Arbitrary Allegory,” 18, points out, when compared with the promises made to Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac, the primary difference with those made to Hagar and Ishmael is that “Ishmael lives and dies outside the land (Gen 25), as do his descendants.” Finally, it is important to point out that, according to the language of the LXX of Gen 16, when Hagar flees from Sarah, she is described as ἀπὸ προσώπου. 99 O’Neill, “For This Hagar,” 213. 100 Bruce, “Abraham,” 73; Das, Galatians, 483. 101 Hogan, “Elusive Wisdom,” 150.

180

Chapter 6: The Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

those who are understood to be estranged from God’s special relationship with Israel and thus ignorant of Israel’s God.102 In relation to Mount Sinai, then, and particularly the Sinai theophany, nonJews/gentiles were assumed to be non-recipients of this divine act of revelation and liberation.103 An example of this conviction is articulated in Sirach 17. Whereas God had granted general wisdom to all of humanity (17:6–10), the “law of life” (νόμον ζωῆς), the “eternal covenant” (διαθήκην αἰῶνος), and the “decrees” (τὰ κρίματα; 17:11–12), which describe the giving of the Mosaic law at Sinai, were given only to those who saw the “majesty of [his] glory with their own eyes” (μεγαλεῖον δόξης εἶδον οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτῶν) and heard the “glory of his voice with their own ears” (δόξαν φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἤκουσεν τὸ οὖς αὐτῶν; 17:13).104 Hence, these privileges were given only to Israel (cf. Rom 9:4–5). The distinction between Israel and the nations is then further explicated in Sir 17:17. Similar to Jub. 15:31, God is said to appoint a leader/spirit to rule over the nations, but Israel is taken as God’s own portion (cf. Deut 32:8–9).105 102 Bruce, “Abraham,” 75, is helpful: “The Jews have received the liberating knowledge of the law; the Gentiles are in bondage to ignorance and sin.” In relation specifically to Ishmael, further evidence for this line of reasoning is found in 1QM 2.13 whereby the Ishmaelites are lumped in with the “sons of darkness.” Similarly, the Animal Apocalypse of 1 En. 89:11 portrays Ishmael as a “wild ass” who produces more “wild asses.” 103 It is important to note, however, that within various strands of ancient Jewish thinking, the Torah was understood to be first universally offered to all nations and subsequently rejected by them, only to find its rightful place with Israel, God’s chosen people. For instance, Sir 24:1–8 describes wisdom as holding sway over all nations but finding its ultimate resting place with Israel. Similarly, and to note again, Bar 3:9–4:4 describes wisdom and thus the Torah as not being found by the nations, in spite of their own searching, but being the exclusive claim of Israel; on this, see Kugel, “Ancient Israelite,” 35–37. Further examples include: Sib. Or. 3.257; 3.599–600; 3.686–88; 4 Ezra 7:37–38, 72; 2 Bar 82:2–9; on these texts, see Michael P. Theophilos, “The Portrayal of Gentiles in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature,” in Attitudes to Gentiles in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. David C. Sim and James S. McLaren, LNTS 499 (London; New York: Bloomsbury, 2015), 72–91; cf. also LAB 11:1–2; Philo, Moses 2, 17–22; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.279–80. Finally, this tradition may inform Paul’s own understanding and description of gentiles being born ἀπό Mount Sinai and thus separated from the symbolic significance of that experience. In other words, just as Hagar was originally part of Abraham’s household but then separated from it, so too, the nations were originally offered the Torah but rejected it and thus separated from the liberating knowledge of Israel’s God and the divine presence such knowledge entailed. 104 Rightly Greg Schmidt Goering, Wisdom’s Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel, SJSJ 139 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 93; Benjamin G. Wright, “Torah and Sapiential Pedagogy in the Book of Ben Sira,” in Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of “Torah” in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period, ed. Bernd U. Schipper and D. Andrew Teeter, SJSJ 163 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 162–63. 105 Mermelstien, Creation, 25, states, “God’s establishment of the covenant with Israel thus stands apart from his appointment of rulers over the other nations.” Thus, Jub. 4:26 speaks of Mount Sinai as one of the four sacred places on earth. On the significance of the

6.4 A Reassessment of the Hagar Covenant in Galatians 4:24

181

Thus, while the Sinai theophany meant one thing for Israel and the Jewish people, it meant something else entirely for the non-Jewish world. Commenting on this, Luke Timothy George describes the contrasting symbolic significance of Mount Sinai for Jews and gentiles respectively: “At Mount Sinai the Jews had received the enlightenment of the law [i.e., the liberating knowledge of Israel’s God] while the Gentiles remained in the darkness of sin, alienated from the promises of God and the commonwealth of Israel.”106 6.4.2.2 Paul, Gentile Sinners, and Mount Sinai At this point it is important to note that the above assessment of gentiles and their relatedness to the symbolic significance of Mount Sinai in particular coheres with what Paul says elsewhere about gentile identity apart from Christ. For instance, in 1 Thess 1:9, Paul describes the Thessalonian gentiles as former idolaters (ἐπεστρέψατε πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων), and later in 4:5, he describes gentiles in a general sense as those “who do not know God” (τὰ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν θεόν). In other words, like other Second Temple Jews, Paul takes for granted the belief that gentiles who do not know God are by nature idolaters who have yet to experience the liberating knowledge of Israel’s God; thus, they are gentile sinners (cf. Gal 2:15).107 In relation to Mount Sinai, then, in 2 Cor 3:7–11 Paul describes the ministry of Moses as a ministry of death (θάνατος) and condemnation (κατάκρασις). Although the exact purpose of Paul’s words here remains hotly debated, it is possible that his description of Moses’s ministry is to be understood, in one sense, in relation to the experience Sinai event, see Terence L. Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology, JSNTSup 8 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 31–35; Jon D. Levenson, Sinai & Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (New York: HarperOne, 1985), 15–86; Jeffrey J. Niehaus, God at Sinai: Covenant & Theophany in the Bible and Ancient Near East, Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 181–229. 106 George, Galatians, 334. 107 Fredriksen, Paul, 116, helpfully summarizes the ancient Jewish view of gentiles: “The ethnic-theological difference between Israel and the nations, the nations’ ignorance of the true god, is what binds all these other ethnē together into one undifferentiated mass of lumpen idolaters”; cf. also Wis 13:1, 10; 14:20–21. Commenting on the status of pagan gentiles, Le Cornu and Shulam, Galatians, 275, state, “As naturally ‘sinners’, their ‘former life’ is typically one of idolatry.” Finally, Ephesians 2:11–13 – a text either written by Paul or someone close to him – more fully describes the plight of gentiles as separation and thus alienation from Israel’s God. As Lionel J. Windsor, Reading Ephesians & Colossians after Supersessionism: Christ’s Mission through Israel to the Nations, NTAS (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017), 127, puts it, these once pagan gentiles were “excluded from Israel” and thus “excluded from any hope of the Messiah.” Similarly, for Stephen E. Fowl, Ephesians: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012), 87, 88, “Being a gentile … is about alienation from the Messiah … [b]ecause being a Gentile means alienation from the ‘commonwealth of Israel’ and ‘the covenants of promise’, it also means that gentiles are without ‘hope and without God in the world’.”

182

Chapter 6: The Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

of gentiles. For instance, Paul Duff has recently argued that, for Paul, while Moses’s ministry was glorious because of what it brought to the Jews, i.e., the Torah, it was, at the same time, a ministry that brought condemnation and death to gentiles.108 As William Campbell puts it, “The glory of God present in Moses’ activity meant death for gentiles.”109 In other words, as important and glorious as the Sinai event was and continued to be for ancient Jews – even one such as Paul – it also served as a symbolic reminder that, so long as gentiles continued in their idolatrous state, they remained in ignorance and the darkness of their sin, separated from the glorious presence and liberating knowledge of Israel’s God.110 6.4.2.3 The Galatian Gentiles and Gentile Slavery Returning to Galatians, then, and as noted in the previous chapter, in 4:8–9 Paul similarly describes the experience of the Galatian gentiles’ pagan past.111 Here he describes their pagan past as a time when they did not know God, and thus a time when they were enslaved to what he describes as “non-gods” (φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς). In other words, Paul describes the Galatian gentiles’ pagan past as not simply a time of ignorance and sin, but a time when, due to their incessant idolatry, they were separated from the divine presence and liberating knowledge of Israel’s God. As such, they lived in active slavery (δουλεύω) to the “weak and worthless” (τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχά) στοιχεῖα (Gal 4:8–9).112 At this point, it is important to recognize that, in Paul’s description of the Galatian gentiles’ pagan past, he employs the verb δουλεύω to describe their particular experience of slavery to the στοιχεῖα. While at first glance the use of this verb appears to be inconsequential, when it is compared with the verb Paul employs just a few verses earlier in 4:3, i.e., δουλόω, his use of δουλεύω in 4:8–9 may prove to be potentially illuminating for more clearly identifying the children born to the Hagar covenant in 4:24 and likewise the figurative covenant she represents. In 4:3, Paul writes, “So also we (ἡμεῖς), when we were children, we were enslaved (δεδουλωμένοι) under τὰ στοιχεῖα τού κόσμου.” Although many of the debates surrounding this verse need not detain us here, a few observations can be made. First, Paul employs the participial form of the verb δουλόω – not 108

Paul B. Duff, Moses in Corinth: The Apologetic Context of 2 Corinthians 3, NovTSup 159 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2015), 154. While Duff’s reading of 2 Cor 3 is helpful from a non-supersessionist perspective, I am not convinced that Paul is comparing the ministries of Moses and himself; rather, in line with Campbell, “Covenant Theology,” 48, “the comparison is more focused on the glory of the divine presence” in relation to their respective ministries. 109 Campbell, “Covenantal Theology,” 48. 110 Campbell, “Covenantal Theology,” 44–48. 111 See §5.3.1. 112 Witherington, Galatia, 297. See Chapter 5.

6.4 A Reassessment of the Hagar Covenant in Galatians 4:24

183

δουλεύω – to describe the enslavement of the particular “we” (ἡμεῖς) group spoken of in this verse. Second, as Justin Hardin points out, there is an important semantic distinction between δουλόω and δουλεύω, whereby “the former usually denotes being enslaved in a passive sense while the latter in an active sense.”113 Third, the significance of this semantic distinction becomes apparent if Paul is describing the slavery experience of two different groups: one in 4:3 (δουλόω) and another in 4:8–9 (δουλεύω). The question becomes, then, how these two groups are to be identified. Here I would like to suggest that when Paul describes the slavery experience of the “we” (ἡμεῖς) group in 4:3, it is likely that he is referring to the previous and more passive experience of himself and other Christ-following Jews.114 113

Hardin, Galatians, 130 n. 61. See BDAG 259, 260. Scholars are split over how the pronominal shifts employed in Gal 4:3–7 – along with the two parallel arguments of 3:13–14 and 3:23–29 – are to be understood. Those who favor the inclusive approach argue that the pronouns largely refer to the same group; see e.g., Lightfoot, Galatians, 166–67; Burton, Galatians, 215; Schlier, Galater, 190–94; Betz, Galatians, 204; E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1983), 68–69; William J. Dalton, “The Meaning of ‘We’ in Galatians,” ABR 38 (1990): 33–44; Scott, Adoption, 155; Martyn, Galatians, 388; Kwon, Eschatology, 166 n. 50; Eastman, Recovering, 48; Schreiner, Galatians, 267; Moo, Galatians, 260; Das, Stories of Israel, 33–63. Those who maintain an exclusive view argue that, by and large, the pronominal shifts suggest that Paul refers to two different groups: Jews and gent iles respectively; see e.g., Bruce, Galatians, 96; Donaldson, “The Curse,” 96; Longenecker, Galatians, 164; Dunn, Galatians, 212; Arnold, “Returning,” 60; Witherington, Galatia, 284; Le Cornu and Shulam, Galatians, 260; Hardin, Galatians, 132–38; Rodrigo J. Morales, The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel: New Exodus and New Creation Motif in Galatians, WUNT II 282 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 114–30; Taylor, “Eschatological Interdependence”; Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 418–21; Trick, Abrahamic Descent, 230–46. Although there are strong arguments on both sides, there are a number of reasons in favor of maintaining the exclusive approach. The first and most basic observation is that the inclusive approach largely renders the pronominal shifts meaningless; see Taylor “Eschatological Interdependence,” 312 n. 77. Second, and related to the first, an inclusive approach generally flattens the differentiations that appear to be discernable and even intentional throughout Paul’s argument (cf. Gal 2:15; 3:13–14); see Schröter, Von Jesus, 185; Michael Bachmann, “Zur Argumentation von Galater 3.10–12,” NTS 53 (2007): 534. Third, in 3:13, 3:23, and here in 4:5, the first-person group is said to be ὑπὸ νόμον. Outside of Galatians, however, Paul nowhere envisions gentiles to be ὑπὸ νόμον (cf. Rom 2:12; 1 Cor 9:20–21). Moreover, within Galatians itself, the only time Paul associates the Galatian gentiles with being ὑπὸ νόμον is in 4:21 and 5:18. In 4:21, Paul does not say that the Galatian gentiles are ὑπὸ νόμον, but rather, that they desire to be ὑπὸ νόμον (θέλω). In 5:18, Paul makes it clear that the Galatians gentiles are led by the πνεῦμα and not ὑπὸ νόμον. What he does not say here is that they were once ὑπὸ νόμον; see Belleville, “Under the Law,” 70; Donaldson, “The Curse,” 103; Hafemann, “Paul and the Exile,” 347; Schröter, Von Jesus, 186; cf. also Rudolph, A Jew, 194. Finally, Erin M. Heim, Adoption in Galatians and Romans: Contemporary Metaphor Theories and the Pauline Huiothesia Metaphors, BibInt 153 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2017), 158–61, has recently offered a cogent argument in favor of 114

184

Chapter 6: The Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

Thus, he employs the verb δουλόω in order to describe the “we” group as enslaved to the στοιχεῖα in a passive sense. However, when Paul shifts his attention exclusively to the Galatian gentiles in 4:8–9 by means of second person verbs (i.e., ἐδουλεύσατε, ἐπιστρέφετε, and θέλετε), he employs the verb δουλεύω in order to describe their more active experience of slavery to the στοιχεῖα: one that is thus meant to be distinguished from the more passive experience of Jews as described in 4:3.115 Michael Bachmann summarizes the significance of this point well: Übrigens werden in 4.1–7, 8–11 die Unterschiede trotz dieser Parallelisierung nicht eingeebnet: Von den Juden heißt es in 4.3 mittels des Passivs von δουλοῦν, daß sie zu Sklaven gemacht worden seien, während in 4.8–9 bei den Heiden durch die Verwendung des Verbs δουλεύειν eine aktive Untertänigkeit zum Ausdruck gebracht wird. Knechtschaft ist nach dem Galaterbrief insofern für Heiden noch kennzeichnender als für Juden. 116

6.4.2.4 The Identity of the Children Born to the Hagar Covenant Coming full circle, then, when Paul describes the children born to the Hagar covenant as “born into slavery” (εἰς δουλείαν; 4:24), it is important to recognize that he elects to employ the nominal counterpart of the verb δουλεύω in order to illustrate their particular experience of enslavement. What is more, when Paul proceeds to describe this experience in relation to the “present Jerusalem” in 4:25c (δουλεύει γὰρ μετὰ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς), he employs the verb δουλεύω itself.117 The point to be made here is this: when Paul describes the children born to the Hagar covenant as born into slavery, he employs the exact same terminology he had previously used to describe the past pagan enslavement of the Galatian gentiles in 4:8–9. What I am suggesting, then, is that when Paul describes the children born to the Hagar covenant as born into slavery, he is describing

the inclusive reading. In short, Heim contends that the difficulty in maintaining the pronominal distinction in 4:5–6 is the language of υἱοθεσίαν. While this point is well taken, Heim, like others who favor the inclusive reading, does not account for the semantic significance and distinction in relation to the verbs δουλόω and δουλεύω, and how this distinction might factor into our understanding of the pronouns. For instance, Heim, Adoption, 159, writes, “if the στοιχεῖα (elemental forces) in 4:1–9 are taken to enslave both Jews and gentiles, and if ὑπὸ νόμον (under the law) is taken as a phrase of close association, then the entire passage can be read as Paul’s grim picture of universal humanity.” This, however, overlooks the problem that nowhere else does Paul consider gentiles to be ὑπὸ νόμον, and likewise, the different types of slavery Paul envisions by his use of the semantically distinct verbs δουλόω and δουλεύω. 115 Hardin, Galatians, 130 n. 61; similarly, Bachmann, Antijudaismus, 145. 116 Bachmann, Antijudaismus, 145–46. Emphasis original. 117 On this point, see Bachmann, Antijudaismus, 145. On the syntax of Gal 4:25, see Chapter 7.

6.4 A Reassessment of the Hagar Covenant in Galatians 4:24

185

and thus illustrating the experience of gentiles. And in doing so, he is explicitly reminding the Galatian gentiles of the experience of their own pagan past. Finally, then, when this observation is coupled with our understanding of the preposition ἀπό in Gal 4:24c, three observations can be made. First, when Paul describes the children born to the Hagar covenant as born into slavery, he does so because, as gentiles who do not know God (cf. Gal 4:8–9), they symbolically illustrate the experience of being born away from the presence and liberating knowledge of Israel’s God and thus born into slavery. Second, as those who are born away from the presence and liberating knowledge of Israel’s God, Paul describes the children born to the Hagar covenant as born away from Mount Sinai. Third, by describing gentiles as born away from Mount Sinai, Paul is thus understood to be speaking not of the physical mountain itself, but rather, that which Mount Sinai symbolically and theologically represents in relation to the experience of gentile identity apart from Christ. Altogether, then, in describing the children born to the Hagar covenant as born ἀπό Mount Sinai, Paul is understood to be symbolically illustrating the experience of gentiles in general and, in particular, the previous experience of the once pagan Galatian gentiles, thus reminding them of what they would be returning to if they do not heed his warning. That is, they would be returning to the experience of being born away from Mount Sinai, away from the presence and liberating knowledge of Israel’s God, and thus, born into slavery. 6.4.3 Hagar as the Covenantal Mother of Slave-Born Gentiles Altogether, then, having considered the meaning of the preposition ἀπό in 4:24c and likewise the description of the children born to the Hagar covenant in 4:24c and 4:25c, we are now able to bring several lines of evidence together and draw some conclusions on the meaning of the two covenants spoken of in 4:24b and, in particular, the covenant the figure of Hagar is understood to represent. First, based on our assessment of scholarship on the meaning of the two covenants in Gal 4:24b, it is likely that Paul is not juxtaposing two of Israel’s historic covenants – whether that be the old and new covenants or the Abrahamic and Mosaic – rather, he employs the term “covenant” because of the historical experiences of the two women (and likewise the historical experiences of their descendants) and what those experiences allegorically represent in relation to his argument.118 In this way, John Barclay is likely correct in his assessment of the two women and the two covenants as reflective of “two very different family identities.”119 As the allegory demonstrates, the free-woman represents the birth of free-born children, i.e., Jews and gentiles in Christ; and Hagar represents the birth of slave-born children, i.e., gentiles who do not know 118 Cf. Bouwman, “die Hagar,” 3151; Christiansen, The Covenant, 244; Dunn, “Covenant Theology,” 294–95; Nanos, “Present Jerusalem,” 4; Uzukwu, The Unity, 98–101. 119 Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 92.

186

Chapter 6: The Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

the God of Israel.120 If this is indeed the case, then following the description of James Dunn, these women and the covenants they allegorically represent are best understood as, metaphorically, two childbearing covenants.121 Second, in relation to this first point, it is likely then that Paul develops the allegorical portrayal of the two women as two covenants from his own figurative reading of key aspects of the Genesis narrative.122 As demonstrated in Chapter 3, Hagar is the recipient of a covenant-like promise that her descendants would be greatly multiplied (Gen 16:10; cf. 21:18), a promise that is found to be strikingly reminiscent of the explicit covenant promise made to Abraham concerning the multiplicity of his offspring. What is more, when the covenantlike promise made to Hagar is then extended to Ishmael, it was noted that the similarities with the covenant promises made to his father Abraham are clear: both are promised to be “multiplied greatly” (Πληθυνῶ σφόδρα; 17:2, 20); it is promised that Abraham will be the “father of many nations” (πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν; 17:5), while Ishmael will beget “twelve nations” (δώδεκα ἔθνη γεννήσαι; 17:20); and most importantly, both are promised to be made into a “great nation” (ἔθνος μέγα; 12:2; 17:20; 18:18; 21:13, 18). Thus, based on these similarities, the conclusion of Lloyd Gaston is apt: “It is not unnatural to say that Hagar and Sarah have to do with different covenants for their descendants.”123 To be sure, Hagar is not the recipient of an actual covenant at any point in the Genesis narrative. Yet, at a metaphorical and thus allegorical level, it is reasonable to conclude that Paul develops the allegorical portrayal of Ha120 Similarly, Nanos, “Present Jerusalem,” 4, although he contends that Paul has proselytism in view. 121 Dunn, Galatians, 243; cf. also the assessment of Bachmann, Antijudaismus, 127, who describes the two women and the two covenants they represent as “zwei Gemeinschaften, zwei Korporationen.” Finally, see the study of R. H. Jarrell, “The Birth Narrative as Female Counterpart to Covenant,” JSOT 97 (2002): 3–18. 122 Albeit with differing implications, this has been suggested by, e.g., Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 88–89; Bouwman, “die Hagar,” 3151, Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 92; Perriman, “Rhetorical Strategy,” 36; Christiansen, The Covenant, 244; O’Neill, “For this Hagar,” 212; Dunn, “Covenant Theology,” 293–95; Nanos, “Present Jerusalem,” 4; Emerson, “Arbitrary Allegory,” 18; Uzukwu, The Unity, 99–100; cf. also the conclusions of Martyn, Galatians, 436, 454–55, who contends that only the Abrahamic covenant is in view, of which Paul then splits into two based on flesh and promise. 123 Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 88. Similarly, as Uzukwu, The Unity, 99, has observed, “Paul’s use of Genesis 17 enables him to identify Hagar and Sarah with δύο διαθήκαι.” Cf. also, Emerson, “Arbitrary Allegory,” 18–20, who argues that, since the promises made to Isaac (and Sarah) and Ishmael (and Hagar) are nearly identical, it is possible to speak of a “Hagar covenant,” yet one that is not as universal or eternal in scope; additionally, O’Neill, “For this Hagar,” 22, states, “The covenant concerning Hagar and Ishmael is presumably God’s promise that the son of the bondwoman would be a great nation.” Contra Dunn, “Covenant Theology,” 294, who, although in favor of seeing the two covenants as going back to the time of Abraham, appears to reject the notion that Paul could conceive of a covenant with Hagar.

6.5 “Cast Out the Slave Woman”: Galatians 4:30

187

gar and Sarah as figurative covenants in relation to the promise of multiple offspring made to their respective sons, albeit with strikingly different implications for the future of their respective progeny.124 Finally, then, and in relation to the figure of Hagar specifically, based on the above, it can be concluded that Paul does not portray Hagar as the Sinai covenant – whether that be the old covenant or the Mosaic covenant – nor does he portray her as giving birth to Jews or even Jewish Christ-followers; rather, for Paul, Hagar figuratively represents a childbearing covenant that gives birth ἀπό Mount Sinai and “into slavery.” Thus, for the purpose of allegory, we might say that Paul portrays the figure of Hagar as the covenantal mother of slave-born gentiles: gentile sinners who are symbolically born away from Mount Sinai, away from the presence and liberating knowledge of Israel’s God, and thus, born into slavery. In this way, Paul builds on the historical character of Hagar and the reality of her experiences as recorded in the Genesis narrative, and he develops allegorical points of correspondence to the experience of gentiles in general and the past experience of the once pagan Galatian gentiles in particular.125 That is, as the covenantal mother of slave-born gentiles, Hagar and her children (i.e., Ishmael) function in Paul’s argument as paradigmatic characters that figuratively and symbolically personify the experience of the nations: the collective experience of life outside of the covenant, separated from God’s presence, and thus enslaved to the στοιχεῖα.126 In this way, Hagar and her descendants serve as a symbolic and fitting illustration for the Galatian gentiles and the Hagar-like experience of their pagan past. What is more, Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar and her descendants serve to remind the Galatian gentiles of what they will be returning to if they continue in their current course of action. The way Paul explicitly warns the Galatian gentiles not to return to the experience of this Hagar-like enslavement – namely, their past pagan enslavement – will be considered next.

6.5 “Cast Out the Slave Woman”: Galatians 4:30 6.5 “Cast Out the Slave Woman”: Galatians 4:30

To this point I have suggested that in Gal 4:21–31 Paul allegorically portrays Hagar as the covenantal mother of slave-born gentiles, and thus Hagar and her descendants serve to symbolically illustrate the experience of non-Jewish identity apart from Christ, and in particular, the experience of the Galatian gentiles’ own pagan past. With this in mind, the only other explicit reference to the fig-

124

Similarly, see e.g., the essay by Emerson, “Arbitrary Allegory.” See also Standhartinger, “Zur Freiheit,” 302. 126 Similarly, Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 88–89. 125

188

Chapter 6: The Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

ure of Hagar in Galatians is found in 4:30.127 Here Paul cites Gen 21:10, which, in its original context, calls for the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael from Abraham’s household. Thus, before concluding this chapter, it will be necessary to briefly examine 4:30 in order to determine if our proposal thus far – that of Hagar as the covenantal mother of slave-born gentiles – offers a more satisfying explanation for this otherwise disconcerting verse. As demonstrated in Chapter 1, the interpretation of Gal 4:30 has a troubling history. For most of the last two millennia, interpreters have argued that, as the climax of the allegory, Paul calls his Galatian addressees to expel the troublemakers from their midst, which has been widely assumed to be the expulsion of a very particular other: the Jew.128 Others, however, sensitive to such a devastating critique of non-Christ-following Judaism, have argued that Paul’s critique should not be limited to non-Christ-following Jews, but it is meant to encompass all who are beholden to the Torah, which would include Torahobservant Christ-following Jews as well.129 More recently, however, scholars seeking to distance themselves from implicating non-Christ-following Jews in with Paul’s command altogether have argued that the words of 4:30 are strictly directed toward a particular group: the supposed law-observant Jewish Christfollowing missionaries in Galatia.130 In this way, the Galatian gentiles are commanded to expel only the troublemakers and their followers from their midst. In response to these approaches, Susan Eastman has made a compelling case for a particularly different reading. According to Eastman, 4:30 is not a command to cast out Jews, Jewish Christ-followers, or any of the sort. In fact, it is not to be read as a command at all; rather, it “functions as a solemn warning directed to the addressees of the allegory, the Gentile Galatian Christians.” 131 The primary support for Eastman’s claim is twofold. First, she argues that while the sons represent real people, the mothers do not.132 And second, because the imperatival verb of Gen 21:10, cited in Gal 4:30, is singular rather than plural, ἔκβαλε, the citation does not speak directly to the Galatian address127

Some manuscripts mention Hagar in 4:25a. Since the variant reading is highly debated, it will be considered in Chapter 7. 128 As described by Eastman, “Cast Out,” 310; see e.g., Lightfoot, Galatians, 184; Burton, Galatians, 262, 267–68; Betz, Galatians, 251; Moo, Galatians, 311–12. See Chapter 1. 129 E.g., Dunn, Galatians, 258; C.K. Barrett, Freedom and Obligation: A Study of the Epistle to the Galatians (London: SPCK, 1985), 29; Engberg-Pedersen, Paul, 133, 329 n. 8. 130 E.g., Hays, Echoes, 116–17; Longenecker, Galatians, 217; Martyn, Galatians, 446; Witherington, Galatia, 338. See Chapter 1. 131 Eastman, “Cast Out,” 313. She is followed by Schreiner, Galatians, 306; Lyons, Galatians, 294–95; Oakes, Galatians, 159. 132 Eastman, “Cast Out,” 313–14.

6.5 “Cast Out the Slave Woman”: Galatians 4:30

189

ees. Instead, “When the Galatians again ‘overhear’ what Scripture says to Abraham (cf. 3.8), they hear their own destiny if they persist in their reliance on the destructive nexus of the law and the flesh.”133 In sum, Eastman argues that 4:30 is not a text commanding the Galatian gentiles to expel any such opponent; rather, Paul is warning them to distance themselves from the troublemakers, otherwise their fate will be similar to that of Ishmael.134 However, John Anthony Dunne has recently argued that Eastman’s claim falters under scrutiny.135 First, Dunne asserts that when Paul asks his readers to “hear the law” in Gal 4:21, and then specifically cites Gen 21:10 (the only place where the Torah is explicitly cited), Paul is calling the Galatians to not simply “overhear” the law, but to obey it.136 Second, Dunne points to the fact that Paul elsewhere uses second person singular imperatives to address a portion of the audience, and so the similar use of a second person singular imperative is not out of the question in 4:30. In Dunne’s view, Paul employs the second person singular imperative to “enhance the individualized nature of the command.”137 Thus, against Eastman, Dunne suggests that 4:30 functions as both a warning and a command.138 While Dunne’s evaluation of Eastman’s reading is a possible response, his concerns do not provide a compelling enough case to conclude that the crux of Eastman’s reading is not still plausible. In fact, Dunne’s concerns are not critiques per se; rather, they merely reflect a different interpretive approach. To Dunne’s first point, while it is possible that the language of 4:30 relates to the question of hearing the law in 4:21, this does not require that Paul’s citation of Gen 21:10 be read as a command; rather, it is just as likely that Paul wants the Galatians to hear a warning, albeit a very strong one. To Dunne’s second point, while it is clear that Paul can address his audience with second person singular imperatives, what Dunne fails to adequately account for is the primary claim upon which Eastman’s thesis is built: namely, that Paul does not address the Galatian gentiles with second person singular imperatives at any point in Galatians itself; rather, he consistently employs either second person plural imperatives (cf. 4:12, 21; 5:1, 13, 15, 16; 6:2; note the immediately surrounding context of the allegory 4:21–5:1) or third person singular imperatives (6:4, 6, 17). Thus, despite Dunne’s concerns, Eastman’s reading remains quite plausible. 133

Eastman, “Cast Out,” 314. Eastman, “Cast Out,” 333. 135 See Dunne, Persecution, 62–64; cf. John Anthony Dunne, “Cast Out the Aggressive Agitators (Gl 4:29–30): Suffering, Identity, and the Ethics of Expulsion in Paul’s Mission to the Galatians,” in Sensitivity towards Outsiders: Exploring the Dynamic Relationship between Mission and Ethics in the New Testament and Early Christianity, ed. Jacobus (Kobus) Kok et al., WUNT II 364 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 246–69. 136 Dunne, Persecution, 63. 137 Dunne, Persecution, 63. 138 Dunne, Persecution, 64. 134

190

Chapter 6: The Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

In fact, I would like to suggest that our assessment of the portrayal of Hagar as the covenantal mother of slave-born gentiles may further strengthen Eastman’s thesis. That is, by understanding Paul’s portrayal of Hagar as such, and thus her descendants as gentiles who do not know the God of Israel, the citation of Gen 21:10 in Gal 4:30 is brought into sharp relief. Here in 4:30, Paul cites Gen 21:10 to remind the Galatian gentiles of a very important fact: that those who have Hagar as their mother and are thus sons of Abraham after the manner of Ishmael will ultimately find themselves cast out. Thus, in line with Eastman, the words of Gen 21:10 function as a warning for the Galatian gentiles. Namely, if they continue in their current course of action, Paul warns them that Scripture has already declared their fate. Hence, by seeking justification by means other than Christ, the Galatian gentiles would be returning to their previous experience of Hagar-like enslavement, and consequently, although Abraham’s children, they would be no better off than Ishmael, who, although circumcised, found himself cast out and ultimately cut off from Christ (cf. 5:4). As Matthew Thiessen puts it: “the circumcision of the Galatians would leave them separated from the covenant and reenslaved to the stoicheia of the kosmos.”139

6.6 Concluding Remarks and Observations 6.6 Concluding Remarks and Observations

In this chapter I have argued that, contrary to the majority of scholars, in Gal 4:24 Paul does not portray Hagar as the Sinai covenant – whether that be the old covenant or the Mosaic covenant – but rather, based on our assessment of the preposition ἀπό in 4:24c as conveying the idea of separation, and our subsequent analysis of the identity of the children born to the Hagar covenant as illustrating the symbolic experience of gentiles who are “born into slavery,” I have proposed that, for the purpose of the allegory, Paul portrays the figure of Hagar as the covenantal mother of slave-born gentiles: gentiles who are symbolically born away from Mount Sinai, away from the presence and liberating knowledge of Israel’s God, and thus born into slavery. Therefore, having examined the portrayal of Hagar in Gal 4:21–31, I will conclude this chapter by drawing together several important lines of connection in relation to the wider concerns of this study. First, returning to the question of Chapter 5, based on our understanding of Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar as the covenantal mother of slave-born gentiles, it has been shown that the allegory does not have to be read, nor should it be read as a polemic against Jews, Jewish Christ-followers, and/or the 139 Thiessen, Paul, 90. In fact, by dealing more squarely with the question of Hagar and the covenant she represents, the argument of this chapter may further strengthen Thiessen’s own proposal concerning the way eighth-day circumcision may factor into Paul’s overall concern.

6.6 Concluding Remarks and Observations

191

continuing validity of the Jewish law; rather, the allegory is meant to illustrate the experience of gentiles in general and the past experience of the once pagan Galatian gentiles in particular. In other words, the allegory symbolically illustrates their once collective gentile experience of life outside of the covenant, separated from God’s presence, and thus enslaved to the στοιχεῖα. Furthermore, it was found that when Paul cites Gen 21:10 in Gal 4:30, he does so to warn the Galatian gentiles that if they continue in their current course of action by seeking justification through means other than Israel’s Messiah, they will find themselves returning to the experience of their past pagan enslavement, and thus, like Ishmael before them, they will be cast out from any such inheritance and ultimately cut off from Christ (cf. Gal 5:4). Second, it is important to recognize that Paul’s allegorical depiction of Hagar as the covenantal mother of slave-born gentiles is understood to stand in significant continuity with Second Temple Judaism, at least in relation to the way Paul takes for granted and thus appropriates Hagar’s ethnic identity. As demonstrated in Chapter 4, 1QapGen, Jubilees, Baruch, Philo, and Josephus all portray Hagar and her descendants as outsiders and therefore as non-Jews. Based on our assessment of Paul’s portrayal of Hagar in Gal 4:21–31, it was found that he portrays Hagar and her descendants as non-Jews as well. Furthermore, it is important to note that Paul’s similarity with ancient Judaism is particularly striking in relation to Baruch, a point almost universally neglected by scholars. Just as Baruch portrays Hagar and her descendants as those who lack true knowledge of Israel’s God and are thus subsequently destroyed (Bar 3:27–28; cf. also Jub. 15), Paul’s own portrayal of Hagar and her descendants appears to stand very close to that of Baruch. That is to say: in allegorically portraying Hagar as the covenantal mother of slave-born gentiles, Paul portrays the children born to the Hagar covenant as gentiles who, due to the fact that they do not know the God of Israel, are born into slavery (Gal 4:24–25) and subject to expulsion (4:30). Third, where Paul is unique in his portrayal of Hagar is in his allegorical depiction of her as a childbearing covenant. Like Philo, Paul employs the rhetorical technique of allegory in order to suggest that the historical figure of Hagar points beyond herself to the concept of a covenant. As suggested above, it is likely that Paul develops this connection from the covenant-like promises made to Hagar and her son in Genesis. In fact, it appears to be the covenant-like promise made to Hagar concerning the multiplicity of her descendants that, for Paul, warrants his allegorical depiction of Hagar as a childbearing covenant and thus – at least for the purposes of the allegory – the covenantal mother of slaveborn gentiles. This is where Paul’s own depiction of Hagar is quite unique among Second Temple Jews, as, to my knowledge, he is the only Jewish thinker in antiquity to connect and figuratively develop the concept of covenant in relation to the figure of Hagar.

192

Chapter 6: The Portrayal of Hagar in Galatians

Finally, in relation to our discussion of supersessionism in Chapter 1, the approach taken to Paul’s portrayal of Hagar in this chapter provides an alternative approach to key aspects of Gal 4:21–31 and thus a fresh reading of it: one that is not constrained by certain supersessionistic patterns and categories that have long governed the interpretation of this text. Hence, by understanding Paul’s portrayal of Hagar as the covenantal mother of slave-born gentiles, and likewise her children as gentiles who are symbolically born away from Mount Sinai, away from the presence and liberating knowledge of Israel’s God, and born into slavery, the allegory of 4:21–31 is found not to be an attack on Jews, Jewish Christ-followers, or the continuing validity of the Jewish law; rather, it is an allegory about the experience of gentiles in general and the Galatian gentiles in particular. In this way, it is the Galatian gentiles who are at risk of having Hagar as their mother; it is the Galatian gentiles who are at risk of returning to their past pagan enslavement; and it is the Galatian gentiles who are at risk of being expelled and cut off from Christ if they continue on in their current course of action. Before concluding this study, however, one final issue needs to be addressed. Immediately following Paul’s description of Hagar in 4:24, in 4:25 he appears to explicitly connect the figure of Hagar to Mount Sinai itself and then to the “present” city of Jerusalem. Since these apparent connections may call the argument of this chapter into question, the way 4:25 and likewise 4:26 are made intelligible in relation to our proposal thus far will be considered in the next chapter.

Chapter 7

“To Be Sure, Sinai is a Mountain in Arabia”: The Text of Galatians 4:25a 7.1 Introduction In the preceding chapter it was argued that, in Gal 4:24, Paul allegorically portrays Hagar as the covenantal mother of slave-born gentiles. Immediately following this, however, in 4:25a, Paul appears to explicitly connect the figure of Hagar to Mount Sinai itself, which may call the argument of Chapter 6 into question and likewise the larger claims of this study. Therefore, the primary purpose of this chapter is to examine the text of Gal 4:25a. First, I will begin by offering a detailed examination and assessment of the much debated and quite puzzling textual variant in 4:25a. Building loosely on the work of Stephen Carlson, I will argue – contrary to the major critical editions of the Greek New Testament – that the term Ἁγάρ is likely not original. This, however, raises the question of why Paul would include the information about Mount Sinai’s location in Arabia, and how this information corresponds and adds meaning to the rest of 4:25b–26. Therefore, following our examination and assessment of the text of 4:25a, I will conclude this chapter by briefly considering the way Paul appropriates the present Jerusalem (4:25b) and the Jerusalem above (4:26) in view of his allegorical portrayal of Hagar as the covenantal mother of slaveborn gentiles.

7.2 Establishing the Text of Galatians 4:25a 7.2 Establishing the Text of Galatians 4:25a

In the previous chapter it was argued that, in Gal 4:24, Paul does not allegorically portray Hagar as the Sinai covenant; rather, she is portrayed as the covenantal mother of slave-born gentiles. However, it is possible that our reading of 4:24 may be called into question on the basis of what immediately follows in 4:25a, as here Paul appears to explicitly connect Hagar to Mount Sinai itself. Thus, in order for the claims of this study to stand, we must carefully consider the text of Gal 4:25a, and likewise its purpose and function.

194

Chapter 7: “To Be Sure, Sinai is a Mountain in Arabia”

7.2.1 The Texts of Galatians 4:25a In his 1977 magisterial commentary, Galatians, Hans Dieter Betz called Gal 4:25a “a real crux interpretum.”1 Betz’s assessment is shared by most scholars largely due to the fact that 4:25a is plagued by a number of variant readings; and regardless of the reading one does take, the information 4:25a provides is difficult to understand within the immediate context of the argument. 2 Mika Hietanen states the problem well: “The connection between Hagar and Mount Sinai is difficult, something reflected even on a text-critical level. None of the variants, or the explanations usually offered, are satisfactory. The exact logic behind the argument does not seem to be important in the passage.” 3 According to the textual apparatus of the most recent edition of UBS, there are four possible readings of 4:25a: δὲ Ἁγὰρ Σινᾶ (Reading I): A (V) B (IV) D (V) γὰρ Ἁγὰρ Σινᾶ (Reading II): Ψ (IX/X) 062 (V) 075 (X) 0150 (IX) δὲ Σινᾶ (Reading III): P46 (about 200CE) γὰρ Σινᾶ (Reading IV): ‫( א‬IV) C (V) F (IX) G (IX) 4

Based on the number of variants and the significant – and in some cases widespread – manuscript evidence in support of each, even the favored reading of the editorial team of NA28 and UBS5 (Reading I: to be discussed below), which is likewise the reading widely accepted by interpreters, is given only a rating of C, meaning, “the Committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text.”5 Thus, the question of which reading is to be favored and why requires further consideration. 7.2.2 The Received Reading of Galatians 4:25a As noted above, following the most widely accepted critical editions of the Greek New Testament – NA28 and UBS5 – scholars generally accept the following reading of 4:25a: τὸ δὲ Ἁγὰρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ (Reading

1

Betz, Galatians, 244. Emphasis original. See also Di Mattei, “Paul’s Allegory,” 111; Stephen C. Carlson, “‘For Sinai is a Mountain in Arabia’: A Note on the Text of Galatians 4,25,” ZNW 105 (2014): 82. 2 See e.g., the assessment of de Boer, Galatians, 299; Martyn, Galatians, 437; Schlier, Galater, 220; Burton, Galatians, 259–61. 3 Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation, 153. 4 Mussner, Galaterbrief, 322, further demonstrates the complexity among the variant options by also listing γὰρ Ἁγάρ (omitting Σινᾶ), which receives support from it d, e (Ambrosiastercomm), and Σινᾶ, which receives support from goth and Augustinus. 5 UBS5 8.

7.2 Establishing the Text of Galatians 4:25a

195

I).6 This is translated in various ways, but the NRSV is largely representative: “Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia.”7 While scholars vigorously debate the purpose and meaning of Paul’s statement here, there is widespread agreement that the external and internal evidence slightly favors this reading (Reading I).8 Thus, if Reading I is to be accepted, it greatly problematizes our own reading of 4:24c, as it appears to explicitly connect the figure of Hagar with Mount Sinai. 7.2.3 Key Syntactical Difficulties with Reading I Although Reading I has received pride of place in critical texts, English translations, and among scholars, it contains a number of interpretive difficulties that may at least call the primacy of it into question and thus open the door for the consideration of other variants. In particular, the difficulties associated with Reading I remain hotly contested due to the syntactical and contextual problems they create for the coherence of the verse itself and likewise its relation to the border context of the allegory. Scholars have noted at least three syntactical problems with Reading I.9 The first is how to account for the unusual chain of three consecutive nominative nouns, Ἁγὰρ Σινᾶ ὄρος, where one would expect to find only two.10 The majority of scholars contend that in order to make sense of the complicated syntax here, it is best to identify Ἁγάρ as the subject with Σινᾶ as an attributive of the predictive nominative ὄρος.11 Hence, Ἁγὰρ Σινᾶ ὄρος is commonly translated:

6 Cf. however the more recent TGNT, which follows a version of Reading II: τὸ γὰρ Ἄγαρ Σεινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ. 7 Followed by the ESV. Cf. similarly the NASB (“Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia”); NET (“Now Hagar represents Mount Sinai in Arabia); NIV (Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia”); NKJV (“For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia”). Carlson, “For Sinai,” 83, rightly accounts for the unexpected placement of Σινᾶ before ὄρος and translates it as: “Now this ‘Hagar’ is the Sinai mountain in Arabia.” 8 See the brief assessment of Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006), 527; Roger L. Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006), 380. Finally, although interpreters favor Reading I, they query as to its significance; e.g., de Boer, Galatians, 299, calls it “obtuse”; Dunn, Galatians, 251, considers it to be “tautologous”; Burton, Galatians, 259, thinks it has “no real value.” 9 As discussed in Carlson, “For Sinai,” 83–85. 10 Carlson, “For Sinai,” 83. 11 E.g., Carlson, “For Sinai,” 84, who notes that this follows the majority of translations. Alternatively, some suggest that Ἁγάρ functions somewhat adjectivally or attributively, and so Ἁγὰρ Σινᾶ is an amalgamation; see Dunn, Galatians, 251. However, as Di Mattei, “Paul’s Allegory,” 111, asserts, the preservation of both Hagar and Sinai as the subject “is just not an acceptable rendering of the Greek; it fails to take into account the article τό.” However, it needs to be pointed out that Di Mattei appears to misidentify the article τό. Finally, Perriman, “Rhetorical Strategy,” 37–38, takes all three nouns as adjec-

196

Chapter 7: “To Be Sure, Sinai is a Mountain in Arabia”

“Hagar is Mount Sinai.”12 Yet, this apparent solution raises further difficulties, which bring to the fore problems two and three. In terms of the second problem, scholars have noted that the word order Σινᾶ ὄρος is found nowhere in the LXX; rather, it is consistently ὄρος Σινᾶ.13 What is more, this is the exact word order Paul employs in the immediately preceding verse (ὄρους Σινᾶ: 4:24c).14 Hence, this raises the question of why Paul would alter the word order here in 4:25a. Finally, the third problem pertains to the introductory article τό. The article is neuter and so a neuter subject is expected. However, as just noted, Ἁγάρ, a feminine noun, is commonly taken as the subject.15 In order to account for this grammatical anomaly, scholars offer one of two explanations: either τό is employed in a quotative sense, which governs the entire clause, or it is strictly in reference to the name “Ἁγάρ” and not the woman.16 However, the difficulty with these explanations is that the first often neglects to consider Σινᾶ, a neuter noun, as the subject, while the second explanation runs roughshod over the significance of the historical figure of Hagar for both the preceding and ensuing aspects of the allegory. 7.2.4 Key Contextual Difficulties with Reading I If the syntactical problems surrounding Reading I are not enough, there are likewise a few key contextual issues. Simply put, it is not immediately clear how the information 4:25a provides fits within the broader context of the allegory, and thus scholars query as to why Paul would feel compelled to include it in the first place. As Martinus de Boer points out, aside from locating Mount Sinai in Arabia, 4:25a does nothing to provide new information.17 In fact, others have noted that, when considered in relation to what Paul says about Hagar and Mount Sinai in 4:24, the information 4:25a does provide appears to be redundant at best and contradictory at worst.18 tival: “the Hagar-Sinai mountain.” Yet, by his own admission, such a construction would be unusual; in agreement, see Trick, Abrahamic Descent, 260–66. 12 Burton, Galatians, 251; Schlier, Galaterbrief, 215; Betz, Galatians, 238; Longenecker, Galatians, 198; Martyn, Galatians, 437; Lémonon, Galates, 156; Schreiner, Galatians, 301; de Boer, Galatians, 298; Keener, Galatians, 212. 13 Exod 19:11, 16, 18, 20, 23; 24:16; 31:18; 34:2, 4, 32; Lev 7:38; 25:1; 26:46; 27:34; Num 3:1; 28:6; Neh 9:13. Several of these texts are cited in Carlson, “For Sinai,” 84 n. 27. Carlson’s list includes a few numbering errors, which I have corrected. 14 Carlson, “For Sinai,” 84. 15 Di Mattei, “Paul’s Allegory,” 111, somewhat confusingly and wrongly asserts, “The article clearly indicates that the subject of this phrase is the name or the word Ἁγάρ. 16 For the former proposal, see Borgen, “Some Hebrew,” 157; followed by Martyn, Galatians, 437 n. 132; Sellin, “Hagar und Sara,” 74. For the latter, see Di Mattei, “Paul’s Allegory,” 111–12. 17 de Boer, Galatians, 299. 18 Carlson, “For Sinai,” 95.

7.2 Establishing the Text of Galatians 4:25a

197

Similar to the syntactical problems noted above, if Reading I is to be accepted, the presence of Ἁγάρ creates at least two notable difficulties for the broader context of the allegory.19 The first issue relates to the way Hagar is unexpectedly reidentified in 4:25a. As noted in the previous chapter, the majority of scholars contend that in the immediately preceding verse Paul allegorically identifies Hagar with the Sinai covenant (4:24). Yet here in 4:25a, Reading I has Paul identifying Hagar, not with the Sinai covenant, but with Mount Sinai itself.20 In order to explain this unexpected move, scholars often skip over the problem and focus on the way Paul sought to make his previous connection between Hagar and the Sinai covenant explicitly clear here in 4:25a. However, what this fails to consider is that, in doing so, Paul appears to be contradicting his previous claim, as Hagar is now Mount Sinai and no longer the Sinai covenant.21 And furthermore, as the history of interpretation has clearly demonstrated, this apparent reidentification has actually proven to be more confusing than clarifying.22 As E. P. Sanders laments, “No one has discovered why Paul connects her [Hagar] with Mount Sinai.”23 The second difficulty is related to the first: it has to do with the various theories scholars have put forward in their attempt to explain Paul’s reidentification of Hagar with Mount Sinai. In other words, even if the reidentification is accepted, the question remains: how can Paul identify Hagar with Mount Sinai? 24 Some, such as Betz, suggest that Paul believed the word Ἁγάρ could be taken as a reference to Mount Sinai because it corresponds to the Arabic word for rock or cliff, ḥadjar.25 The difficulty with this theory, however, is that the Hebrew ‫ ה‬does not actually correspond to the Arabic ḥ.26 Moreover, the likelihood of this association is made even more tenuous when one considers the fact that Paul employs neither Hebrew nor Arabic in 4:25a, but only Greek. 27 Others suggest that Paul develops an etymological play-on-words with the name Ἁγάρ. As such, the word Ἁγάρ brings to Paul’s mind either the name of an Arabian town, the Nabetean center “El-Hegra,” which apparently sounds similar enough to Ἁγάρ, or the targumic rendering of Gen 16:7, which associates Hagar with 19 Longenecker, Galatians, 211, rightly notes that after one establishes whether Ἁγάρ is to be included, the next question becomes: “the meaning of the text if ‘Hagar’ is included.” 20 Carlson, “For Sinai,” 95–96. 21 Carlson, “For Sinai,” 95. 22 See Schlier, Galater, 220. 23 E. P. Sanders, Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters and Thought (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 547. 24 Longenecker, Galatians, 211, rightly identifies the importance of this question for Reading I. 25 Betz, Galatians, 245. 26 This difficulty is recognized by Betz himself; see Galatians, 245. See also the critique of Michael G. Steinhauser, “Gal 4,25a: Evidence of Targumic Tradition in Gal 4,21– 31?,” Biblica 70 (1989): 235; Longenecker, Galatians, 211. 27 This point is surprisingly made by Betz, Galatians, 245.

198

Chapter 7: “To Be Sure, Sinai is a Mountain in Arabia”

the mountain region called “Hagra” and thus Mount Sinai.28 The difficulty with these theories, however, is that they are built entirely on conjecture. There is no actual evidence to support the claim that Paul knew Arabic, or that he was aware of any such traditions.29 Moreover, it is difficult to understand how this connection would have been understandable, let alone meaningful to his Galatian audience.30 In fact, each of these theories suffer from a common difficulty. As Stephen Carlson reminds us, they attempt to explain the already obscure (Hagar = Mount Sinai) by the even more obscure (Hagar = an Arabic word, an Arabian town, or a later Targumic tradition).31 Altogether, then, if Reading I is to be accepted, Heinrich Schlier is certainly correct to conclude, “der genaue Sinn des Sätzchens V. 25a und damit der Grund und Anlaß, der es Paulus ermöglichte, Hagar mit der Diatheke vom Sinai zu verbinden, dunkel bleiben.”32 However, as the above analysis demonstrates, Reading I suffers from several difficulties, which call its plausibility and thus primacy into question. In fact, based on our analysis, one significant observation can made: the syntactical and contextual problems noted above are all related to and the result of a common denominator – the presence of the word Ἁγάρ. This raises the question, then, of whether Reading I, which includes Ἁγάρ, is the most probable reading of 4:25a. 7.2.5 Identifying the Text of Galatians 4:25a In view of the difficulties related to Reading I, the question needs to be raised as to whether Reading I is to be preferred. In what follows, I will consider the recent work of Stephen Carlson who argues against the primacy of Reading I in favor of Reading IV. After offering an evaluation and assessment of Carlson’s argument, I will build on several of his findings, while seeking to advance my own argument for the primacy of Reading III.

28

For the former view, see Hartmut Gese, “Τὸ Δὲ Ἁγάρ Σινᾶ Ὄρος Ἐστὶν Ἐν Ἀραβιᾴ (Gal. 4, 25),” in Das ferne und nahe Wort: Festschrift Leonhard Rost zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 30. November 1966 gewidmet, ed. Fritz Maass, BZAW 105 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1967), 81–94; Martin McNamara, “Τὸ Δὲ (Ἁγάρ) Σινᾶ Ὄρος Ἐστῖν Ἐν Τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ (Gal. 4, 25a): Paul and Petra,” MS 2 (1978): 24–41. For the latter, see Steinhauser, “Gal 4,25a”; Di Mattei, “Paul’s Allegory,” 111–13. 29 Carlson, “For Sinai,” 86. As G. I. Davies, “Hagar, El-Hegra and the Location of Mount Sinai: With an Additional Note on Reqem,” VT 22 (1972): 152–63, states, “It would be hazardous in the extreme to claim that any of these stories were known to the apostle Paul.” See also the concerns of Burton, Galatians, 259–61. 30 This point is conceded by Longenecker, Galatians, 212. 31 Carlson, “For Sinai,” 86. 32 Schlier, Galater, 220.

7.2 Establishing the Text of Galatians 4:25a

199

7.2.5.1 An Argument for Reading IV: γὰρ Σινᾶ In view of the difficulties related to Reading I, in a recent article entitled “‘For Sinai is a Mountain in Arabia’,” Stephen Carlson has offered a cogent argument that provides a cumulative and compelling case against the primacy of Reading I. Carlson makes his case on a detailed examination of both the external and internal evidence (both transcriptional and intrinsic). In short, Carlson argues that the evidence is actually in favor of Reading IV: γὰρ Σινᾶ. To summarize Carlson’s argument, following a brief assessment of five variant readings, Carlson turns to an examination of the external evidence and contends that the weight of the manuscript evidence is likely in favor of one of two readings: Readings I and IV (see the list above).33 However, since the external evidence for both readings is largely even, he finds the external evidence to be non-conclusive, and so the internal evidence (both transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities) is to be the deciding factor.34 Turning then to transcriptional probabilities, Carlson argues for the presence of the conjunction γάρ over δέ and the omission of Ἁγάρ as being the earliest form of 4:25a. Thus, in Carlson’s view, Reading IV is slightly more likely.35 Carlson makes his case on the basis that Readings I and IV differ only on the inclusion or omission of the letters ΔΕΑ (τὸ [δὲ Ἁ]γάρ Σινᾶ ὄρος).36 In order to demonstrate the likelihood that ΔΕΑ would have been a later insertion, rather than a later omission, Carlson offers two points in support of Reading IV. First, γὰρ Σινᾶ is the shorter reading and should be thus preferred; and second, contrary to the majority of scholars, it is actually the harder reading as well. To this latter point, Carlson demonstrates that scholars have actually misapplied the rule lectio difficilior. That is, although the inclusion of Ἁγάρ (Reading I) appears to be more difficult to the modern interpreter, the omission of Ἁγάρ would have been likely more difficult to the ancient scribe, and thus it would have been added to smooth out the reading.37 Carlson makes this point well: “Unlike reading I (τὸ δὲ Ἁγὰρ Σινᾶ), reading IV’s lack of ‘Hagar’ obscures the connection of the note in this context, so scribes would have been inclined to make explicit the implied use of ‘Hagar’, based on its placement immediately

33

See Carlson, “For Sinai,” 90–93. Carlson, “For Sinai,” 93. 35 Carlson, “For Sinai,” 93–95. 36 Carlson, “For Sinai,” 93. 37 As Allen Kerkeslager, “Jewish Pilgrimage and Jewish Identity in Hellenistic and Early Roman Egypt,” in Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt, ed. David Frankfurter, RGRW 134 (Leiden; Boston; Koln: Brill, 1998), 183–84, points out, “It is rather difficult to offer any convincing explanation for why a scribe would omit ‘Hagar’ if it were the original reading … The addition of ‘Hagar’ to an original that did not have it can be explained much more easily than its omission from an original that did have it.” 34

200

Chapter 7: “To Be Sure, Sinai is a Mountain in Arabia”

after ἥτις ἐστὶν Ἁγάρ in v. 24.”38 In support of this assertion, Carlson cites Betz, a proponent of Reading I, who concedes to this point: “The name Hagar itself can easily be interpreted as a later insertion, trying to help the argument by connecting more visibly Sinai with Jerusalem.”39 Thus, Carlson contends that when transcriptional probabilities are considered, Reading IV is slightly more likely to be original. Finally, Carlson concludes his study by examining the intrinsic probabilities: what Paul would have most likely written.40 He suggests that, on the surface, none of the available readings fit the context of Paul’s argument. In relation to Reading I, Carlson finds it to be especially egregious. Picking up on the difficulties noted above, he points out that Reading I is both redundant and contradictory as Paul has already identified Hagar with the Sinai covenant. Furthermore, the additional information about Arabia appears to be superfluous.41 However, Carlson also notes that Reading IV creates contextual difficulties of its own. First, if Ἁγάρ is omitted, the subject of the final clause of 4:25 – δουλεύει γὰρ μετὰ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς – lacks its necessary antecedent, Ἁγάρ. And second, the information about Sinai being in Arabia is similarly superfluous; it appears to be nothing more than a bald geographical statement.42 In response to these difficulties, Carlson demonstrates that, based on the structure of the allegory, the inclusion of 4:25a actually breaks the flow and structure of the larger argument of 4:24–27.43 As such, Carlson contends that “the note about Arabia sticks out like a sore thumb.”44 Thus, he concludes that 4:25a is better understood as a marginal note, one that is either original to Paul or more likely interpolated into the text at a later date.45 Carlson rounds off his argument by noting that if 4:25a is indeed a marginal note then there is no issue with its semantic and structural superfluity, and more importantly, this observation addresses the primary objection to Reading IV: that the clause of 4:25c needs to pick up Ἁγάρ and not Σινᾶ as its subject. In other words, if 4:25a is a marginal note, as Carlson suggests, it is not part of the main text, and so it does not interfere with the subject of 4:25c, which can now naturally pick up the Ἁγάρ of 4:24 without interference. Altogether, then, Carl38 Carlson, “For Sinai,” 95. See also N. T. Wright, “Paul, Arabia, and Elijah (Galatians 1:17),” JBL 115 (1996): 686 n. 12; Lightfoot, Galatians, 193. 39 Betz, Galatians, 245. Cited in Carlson, “For Sinai,” 94. 40 Carlson, “For Sinai,” 95–101. 41 Carlson, “For Sinai,” 95–96. 42 Carlson, “For Sinai,” 96. 43 On this structure, see Carlson, “For Sinai,” 96–97. For a critique of Carlson’s structure, see Christopher M. Tuckett, “The Text of Galatians 4:25a,” in Studies on the Text of the New Testament and Early Christianity Essays in Honour of Michael W. Holmes, NTTSD 50 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 376–78. 44 Carlson, “For Sinai,” 97. 45 Carlson, “For Sinai,” 97.

7.2 Establishing the Text of Galatians 4:25a

201

son concludes: “the textual evidence indicates that the earliest form of the marginal note on the text of Gal 4,25 reads τὸ γὰρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ … the text does not belong in the main text of a critical edition.” 46 7.2.5.2 A Response to Stephen Carlson and an Argument for Reading III: δὲ Σινᾶ It is important to note that I find myself in significant agreement with much of Carlson’s assessment of 4:25a, and therefore I follow him on several points. In particular, I agree with his overall assessment of Reading I as likely being a later scribal development. This observation is particularly noteworthy in relation to the numerous difficulties the presence of the word Ἁγάρ creates for the syntax of 4:25a, and likewise its relation to the overall context of the argument (see above). Additionally, I am in general agreement with his observation that 4:25a is best understood, not as an additional step in the argument, but as something of a parenthetical comment or aside.47 However, where I find myself in fundamental disagreement with Carlson is in relation to his conclusions. Simply put, I am not convinced that Reading IV is most likely to be original, and I also do not support his assertion that “the parenthetical comment about Sinai being a mountain in Arabia is undoubtedly superfluous.”48 Rather, I believe that Carlson takes his conclusion about the significance, or lack thereof, of the parenthetical comment of 4:25a too far. In fact, I would contend that Carlson’s final assessment of 4:25a as a marginal and likewise superfluous note is questionable because it is predicated on his acceptance of Reading IV. Therefore, in what follows, I will seek to build on Carlson’s work, while at the same time challenging it in a few key places so as to more clearly demonstrate the way 4:25a functions as a parenthetical aside that, although not directly related to the argument of 4:24–25, provides important information for understanding the allegorical correspondence Paul develops between Hagar, Mount Sinai, and the present Jerusalem. Based on both external and internal evidence, I find Reading III, which, in line with Reading I, favors δέ over γάρ, and, in line with Reading IV, omits Ἁγάρ, to be most probable, thus, δὲ Σινᾶ.49 Although poorly attested elsewhere, this reading finds support in the oldest extant Pauline manuscript, the thirdcentury Chester Beatty Papyrus, P46. Although this does not provide conclusive 46

Carlson, “For Sinai,” 100–1. It is important to note that this observation is not unique to Carlson; rather, several scholars have noted the likely parenthetical nature of 4:25a. See e.g., de Boer, Galatians, 299–300; Mussner, Galaterbrief, 322–24; Burton, Galatians, 259; Lightfoot, Galatians, 181. 48 Carlson, “For Sinai,” 98. 49 So Kerkeslager, “Jewish Pilgrimage,” 180–87; Mussner, Galaterbrief, 322–25; Franz Mussner, “Hagar, Sinai, Jerusalem,” TQ 135 (1955): 56–60. 47

202

Chapter 7: “To Be Sure, Sinai is a Mountain in Arabia”

evidence – Readings I and IV carry significant manuscript support – the fact that Reading III receives support from the oldest and only third-century Pauline manuscript should carry some weight. In fact, Carlson notes that when all of the external evidence is accounted for, it is possible that Reading III should be taken as the tie-breaker of Readings I and IV since it contains a key element of both and is attested in the oldest available manuscript.50 In relation to transcriptional probabilities, the likelihood that Reading III is original should be given greater consideration. Although Carlson’s case for Reading IV (γάρ Σινᾶ) is strong, he fails to adequately consider and thus account for the emergence and presence of δέ in Reading III (δὲ Σινᾶ). Moreover, since a key aspect of both Readings I (δέ) and IV (the omission of Ἁγάρ) is found in Reading III, it is possible that Readings I and IV are the result of Reading III. This creates two possibilities for the emergence of Readings I and IV. First, either the eventual insertion of Ἁγάρ into Reading III gave rise to Reading I (δὲ [Ἁγάρ] Σινᾶ), which, in turn, resulted in the subsequent omission of ΔΕΑ and the emergence of Reading IV ([δὲ Ἁ] γάρ Σινᾶ). Or, more likely, a scribe inserted a γάρ in place of δέ in order to smooth out the syntactical difficulty with Reading III, which accounts for the emergence of Reading IV (δὲ [γάρ] Σινᾶ). Readings III (δὲ Σινᾶ) and IV (δὲ [γάρ] Σινᾶ) then gave subsequent rise to reading I (δὲ [Ἁγάρ] Σινᾶ). Furthermore, there are two additional points in support of Reading III. First, Reading III, like Reading IV, can claim to be the shorter reading. And second, based on the rule of lectio difficilior, it could be argued that Reading III is actually the most difficult reading. As Allen Kerkeslager notes, the conjunction δέ creates significant difficulty for the syntax of 4:24–25.51 Thus, Reading III is actually the more difficult reading because, as noted above, γάρ would have been inserted to smooth out the problematic syntax that the δέ would have caused in light of the μεν … δε construction in relation to 4:24.52 Finally, in relation to intrinsic probabilities, I would like to propose that Reading III ultimately makes better sense of 4:25a as a parenthetical aside. This is where I simply disagree with Carlson’s assessment of 4:25a as a parenthetical comment (i.e., a marginal note) that is semantically and structurally superfluous. Rather, when Reading III is taken into consideration, the presence of δέ as opposed to γάρ may provide an alternative assessment for the function of 4:25a as a parenthetical aside: one that Paul likely provided himself.53 In relation to this, two observations need to be made. First, it is likely that δέ is functioning somewhat adversatively as opposed to providing an explicit con50

Carlson, “For Sinai,” 92. Kerkeslager, “Jewish Pilgrimage,” 183. 52 Kerkeslager, “Jewish Pilgrimage,” 183. 53 As Burton, Galatians, 259, remarks, “The use of δέ (rather than γάρ) is probably due to the fact that as a parenthesis it is felt to be additional … rather than part of the main argument.” 51

7.2 Establishing the Text of Galatians 4:25a

203

nection between the information in 4:24 and 4:25a.54 If this is the case, then the parenthetical information Paul does provide in 4:25a serves to make a concessionary point in relation to what he had previously asserted in 4:24 in relation to Hagar, the covenant she represents, and Mount Sinai. Thus, 4:25a can be translated as such: “To be sure, Sinai is a Mountain in Arabia.” 55 This raises the question, however, of why Paul would feel compelled to provide what appears to be a pointless bit of geographical information, which leads to our second observation. Scholars routinely suggest that if Ἁγάρ is omitted from 4:25a, as Reading III suggests, the information Paul provides about Sinai being a mountain in Arabia appears to be superfluous.56 This, however, is where our understanding of ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ in 4:24c brings the significance and function of 4:25a as a parenthetical comment into sharp relief. In the previous chapter, it was argued that the preposition ἀπό in 4:24c likely conveys the idea of separation rather than source. Thus, 4:24c is to be translated: “the Hagar covenant gives birth away from Mount Sinai into slavery.” Yet, when one considers the physical location of Mount Sinai, the mountain itself is, according to Paul, in Arabia. As frequently noted, Arabia was code for gentile territory in general and for the land of Hagar and her descendants in particular.57 The location of Mount Sinai in Arabia, then, raises the question of and a possible rebuttal to Paul’s claim in 4:24c that Hagar’s children, i.e., gentiles, are born away from Mount Sinai. That is, since the physical mountain is in Arabia, the land of Hagar and her descendants, how is it that Hagar’s children are born away from it? What I am suggesting here is that Paul anticipates the rebuttal and provides something of a parenthetical aside informing his hearers that, while he is aware of the fact that Sinai is indeed a physical mountain in Arabia, his allegorical appropriation of Mount Sinai in 4:24c has nothing to do with the mountain’s physical location and everything to do with a particular aspect of its symbolic and theological import in relation to gentiles: a point Paul develops further in relation to the “present” and “above” Jerusalems spoken of in 4:25b–26. In this way, the text of Gal 4:24c–25 may be illustrated as such: μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα, ἥτις ἐστὶν Ἁγάρ (τὸ δὲ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ)· συστοιχεῖ δὲ τῇ νῦν Ἰερουσαλήμ, δουλεύει γὰρ μετὰ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς. 54 Dunn, Galatians, 251, notes this possibility, but ultimately suggests that 4:25a is an afterthought. Others, such as Mussner, Galaterbrief, 223–24, and Ridderbos, Galatia, 177, appear to take the δέ of 4:25a as adversative. Although favoring reading I, Burton, Galatians, 258–61, takes 4:25a as parenthetical, and so his translation of 4:24d–25a reads: “which is Hagar (now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia) and corresponds to the Jerusalem that now is.” 55 This is similar to the translation of Mussner, Galaterbrief, 323, “freilich (=δε) liegt das Sinaigebirge in der Arabia.” 56 E.g., Bruce, Galatians, 219; Longenecker, Galatians, 211. 57 E.g., Barrett, Freedom, 8; Dunn, Galatians, 70; Das, Galatians, 134–37, 153–55; Keener, Galatians, 57; cf. Ant. 1.214; 2.23, 213.

204

Chapter 7: “To Be Sure, Sinai is a Mountain in Arabia”

Thus, contrary to Carlson’s claim, while 4:25a is to be understood as something of a parenthetical aside, it is certainly not superfluous, and moreover, it appears to be Paul’s own doing.58 7.2.6 Summary In summary, while Carlson’s argument for the primacy of Reading IV is strong, he fails to adequately consider the possibility of Reading III. Therefore, while his general assessment of 4:25a is largely persuasive, the particularities of it as a marginal and superfluous piece of commentary fail to convince. In response to this, I have argued for the likelihood of Reading III as original, and, coupled with our understanding of ἀπό in 4:24c, it may also provide a way forward on the purpose and function of 4:25a. That is, in light of what Paul says in 4:24c, he provides the parenthetical comment of 4:25a as a point of concession: namely, that the physical location of Mount Sinai is indeed in Arabia and thus gentile territory. However, when Paul speaks of Mount Sinai in 4:24c, he is not speaking of the physical mountain itself, but rather, that which Mount Sinai symbolically and theologically represents in relation to gentiles: a point that he will develop further in relation to the Jerusalems spoken of in 4:25b–26. The way Paul develops the cluster of concepts associated with the allegorical portrayal of Hagar in 4:24c in relation to the “present” and “above” Jerusalems will be briefly considered next.

7.3 The Present Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Above: Galatians 4:25b–26 7.3 The Present Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Above

Having established that 4:25a functions as something of a parenthetical comment whereby Paul concedes to the fact that the geographical location of Mount Sinai is in Arabia, in the remainder of 4:25 he goes on to describe the cluster of concepts associated with the allegorical portrayal of Hagar in 4:24c – that of a non-Jewish mother who allegorically represents a covenant that gives birth to children who are symbolically born away from Mount Sinai and into slavery – as “corresponding to the present Jerusalem” (συστοιχεῖ δὲ τῇ νῦν Ἰερουσαλήμ). The way Paul develops this correspondence, however, requires brief consideration. Specially, three questions need to be addressed. 58 The primary reason Carlson concludes that 4:25a is a marginal and superfluous note is because he assumes that Paul’s view of Arabia in Gal 1:17 is in conflict with that of 4:25a. He writes, “in Paul’s mind, Arabia is coded as Gentile territory. Yet in the allegory of Sarah and Hagar, ‘Arabia’ does not function as Gentile territory”; see “For Sinai,” 100. However, based on our assessment of 4:25a above, I would argue that Paul’s thinking on Arabia is actually quite consistent. That is, just at it functions as gentile territory in 1:17, it does so here in 4:25a as well.

7.3 The Present Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Above

205

First, when Paul speaks of the “present Jerusalem,” what does he have in view? Second, in what way does the cluster of concepts associated with the Hagar covenant correspond to the “present Jerusalem”? And finally, how does the “present Jerusalem” relate to the “Jerusalem above”? 7.3.1 A Brief Survey of Scholarship on the Meaning of “Present Jerusalem” The first question that needs to be considered is what Paul means when he speaks of the “present Jerusalem” (νῦν Ἰερουσαλήμ) in 4:25b. Over the centuries, the widely accepted view has been that the present Jerusalem is a metonymy for the religion of Judaism.59 As Burton puts it, the present Jerusalem represents “the whole legal system of Judaism, which had its world-centre in Jerusalem.”60 For this view, then, Paul places Judaism and its children (i.e., the Jewish people) in slavery (4:25c).61 Consequently, Paul is believed to be critiquing and even condemning the religion of Judaism. However, as we have demonstrated thus far, the allegory is not meant to be understood as a critique or condemnation of Judaism, and thus it is unlikely that the present Jerusalem is to be understood in this way. More recently, Martyn has proposed an alternative understanding. He argues that the present Jerusalem is not a metonymy for Judaism, but the Jerusalem ἐκκλησία.62 In this way, Paul’s criticism is specifically directed toward the law-observant gentile mission being promulgated by the Christ-following coalition in Jerusalem.63 The difficulty with this proposal, however, is that Martyn fails to account for Paul’s positive description of the Jerusalem ἐκκλησία and leadership elsewhere in the letter.64 In Gal 2:6–10, Paul seems to reflect positively on his visit with the Jerusalem leadership. In seeking the support of James, Peter, and John for his gentile mission, Paul clearly states that “they gave the right hand of fellowship (κοινωνίας) to me and Barnabas, in order that we [should go] to the ἔθνη and they to the περιτομήν” (2:9b; cf. 2:7).65 Thus, Martyn’s theory does not adequately account for why Paul would speak so favorably of the Jerusalem ἐκκλησία and its leadership at one point, only to unexpectantly change his tone and assessment at another.

59 E.g., Burton, Galatians, 261; Betz, Galatians, 246; Fung, Galatians, 209; more recently, see Moo, Galatians, 303; Das, Galatians, 499. Cf. Lightfoot, Galatians, 183, who thinks the Jewish people are in view. 60 Bruce, Galatians, 220. 61 See Burton, Galatians, 261. 62 Martyn, Galatians, 457–66. 63 In agreement, see de Boer, Galatians, 300–1. 64 See Das, Galatians, 499; Justin K. Hardin, “Galatians 1–2 Without a Mirror: Reflections on Paul’s Conflict with the Agitators,” TynBul 65 (2014): 275–303. 65 For a helpful assessment of Gal 2:1–10, see Jae Won Lee, Paul and the Politics of Difference: A Contextual Study of the Jewish-Gentile Difference in Galatians and Romans (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014), 119–20.

206

Chapter 7: “To Be Sure, Sinai is a Mountain in Arabia”

Therefore, from this brief survey of scholarship, the question remains as to what Paul has in mind when he speaks of the present Jerusalem in 4:25b. Regardless of how this has been understood, what is largely agreed upon by scholars is that the “present Jerusalem” is believed to be functioning as a figure of speech; it is used as a metonymy to speak of something else that is closely related to it. In what follows, then, I will build on this insight by suggesting that when Paul speaks of the present Jerusalem, he is evoking that which it symbolically and theologically represents. That is, by speaking of the “present Jerusalem,” Paul is evoking temple imagery, and thus, as with Mount Sinai, he is further illustrating the experience of the nations in relation to the symbolic significance of Jerusalem and its cult. 7.3.2 The Symbolic Significance of Jerusalem and Its Temple In his important study Sinai & Zion, Jon Levenson reminds us that for an ancient Jew – and thus for an ancient Jew such as Paul – the geographical was merely the physical form of the theological.66 To speak of Jerusalem, then, was not simply to speak of a physical city, but it was to evoke imagery that was infused with Zion theology.67 As Jon Berquist describes it, Zion theology is “the symbolic representation for the importance of Jerusalem.” 68 Commenting on Jerusalem’s symbolic and theological import, James Dunn describes it as such: “It was the city of God, the place where Yahweh had put his name, where the one God’s presence was manifested on earth – a religious centre and theological symbol of tremendous emotive power.”69 In relation to this, Paula Fredrikson reminds us further that Jerusalem was symbolically significant, not simply because it was the city of God, the place of God’s presence, but precisely because it housed God’s temple: his physical dwelling place on earth.70 Thus, city and temple stood together as a symbolic and powerful reminder of the physical representation of God’s heavenly dwelling place among his people; it was the place where heaven and earth came together; and most im-

66

Levenson, Sinai & Zion, 116. For a detailed examination of Zion theology, see Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, 35–83. 68 Jon L. Berquist, “Spaces of Jerusalem,” in Constructions of Space II: The Biblical City and Other Imagined Spaces, ed. Jon L. Berquist and Claudia V. Camp, OTS 409 (New York; London: T&T Clark, 2008), 44. Further evidence for this is that Jerusalem is often referred to as the “holy city.” A combination of the term ἅγιος followed or preceded by πόλις can be found in, e.g., Neh 11:1; Is 48:2; 52:1; 64:9; 66:20; Joel 4:17; Dan 3:28; 1Macc 2:7; 2 Macc 1:12; 3:1; 9:14; 15:14; Tob 13:10. 69 Dunn, The Parting, 44. Emphasis my own. 70 Fredriksen, “How Jewish is God,” 197. Moreover, as Skarsaune, In the Shadow, 88, puts it, “The key to understanding Jerusalem’s enormous significance since Old Testament times is the temple.” See also, Philo, Flaccus, 46. 67

7.3 The Present Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Above

207

portantly, it was the place where Israel most fully experienced the presence of their God.71 The close relationship between the city of Jerusalem and its temple can be illustrated further in that many Old Testament and Second Temple texts portray city and temple as so closely related that they are not always clearly distinguishable. For instance, their interdependence can be seen in that the destruction and/or rebuilding of one often implied the destruction and/or rebuilding of the other.72 The author of Tobit illustrates this well: Jerusalem will be desolate. And the temple of God in it will be burned to the ground, and it will be desolate for a while. But God will again have mercy on them … and they will rebuild the temple of God … and will rebuild Jerusalem in splendor; and in it the temple of God will be rebuilt (14:4–5; NRSV).73

The close association between Jerusalem and its temple is also seen in that certain terms appear to be used interchangeably in order to describe both city and temple.74 An example of this is found in Mic 3:12–4:2, which states: Therefore because of you Zion shall be plowed as a field; Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins, the mountain of the house as wooded height. In days to come the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised up above the hills. Peoples shall stream to it, and many nations shall come and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem (NRSV). 75

As Donaldson observes, the terminology “the mountain of the house,” “the mountain of the Lord’s house,” “the mountain of the Lord,” “the house of God,” “Zion,” and “Jerusalem” are all quite fluid and interconnected.76 Finally, a further example of this interrelatedness can be found in the Animal Apocalypse of 1 En. 89–90. In 89:50, the author describes a “house” that became “great and precious” and “a lofty building was upon it … as well as a tall and great tower.” The “house was low” and “the tower was really elevated and lofty.”77 Here the house is likely a reference to Jerusalem and the tower is a 71

Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, 38, 41; Ronald Ernest Clements, God and Temple: The Idea of the Divine Presence in Ancient Israel (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2016), 76. On God’s dwelling in Zion, see e.g., Ps 9:12; 42:3; 67:16; 73:2; 75:2. 72 David Flusser, Judaism of the Second Temple Period: The Jewish Sages and Their Literature, trans. Azzan Yadin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 2:57–58. 73 Cf. also 2 Kgs 25:9; Isa 54:1–17; Jer 31:1–14; Mic 3:12. 74 Flusser, Judaism, 2:44, 45; Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, 35; James Calvin de Young, Jerusalem in the New Testament: The Significance of the City in the History of Redemption and in Eschatology (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1960), 28–39. 75 Cf. also Is 2:3; 4:3; 10:12, 32; 24:23; 2 Kgs 19:31; Ps 102:21; Jer 4:5–6; Lam 5:11; Amos 6:1; Obad 17:21; Mic 4:7, 11. See further, de Young, Jerusalem, 32 n. 8. 76 Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, 35. 77 Translation from Isaac, OTP.

208

Chapter 7: “To Be Sure, Sinai is a Mountain in Arabia”

reference to the temple.78 However, just prior to this, in 89:36, the term “house” appears to be used in relation to the temple, and later in 90:28–29, the term “house” is used again, but this time it appears to be used in relation to both city and temple.79 According to the Animal Apocalypse, then, the term “house” appears to be employed to describe either the temple (or tabernacle), the city, or possibly both.80 Hence, the blurring of these categories is likely related to the shared symbolic significance of city and temple: to speak of one often implied the other. This brief analysis demonstrates, then, that for at least some ancient Israelites and ancient Jews, there was often no clear distinction between the city of Jerusalem and its temple; rather, the two were believed to be so closely related that to speak of one naturally assumed the other based on their shared symbolic and theological significance.81 7.3.3 The Relationship between Mount Sinai and the Present Jerusalem Having established the close relationship between Jerusalem and its temple, I would like to suggest, then, that when Paul speaks of the present Jerusalem in 4:25b, he is not referring to Jerusalem as the religious center of Judaism, nor is he referring to the Jerusalem ἐκκλησία; rather, by speaking of the “present Jerusalem,” Paul is evoking the city’s symbolic and theological significance, and thus he is, at the same time, evoking temple imagery.82 The significance of this claim becomes apparent when we consider the way Paul describes the symbolic experience of the nations in relation to the cluster of concepts associated with his allegorical portrayal of Hagar as a covenant in 4:24 – one that gives birth away from Mount Sinai – as being presently recapitulated in the city of Jerusalem. From this, three points will be considered. First, it is important to recognize that when Paul employs the verb and NT hapex legomenon συστοιχέω in 4:25b, it is likely not the case that he is intentionally seeking to engage in the construction of oppositional column making whereby he creates antithetical columns by aligning certain elements in the allegory with Hagar and others with the free-woman.83 In fact, this understand78

Flusser, Judaism, 2:44. See Michael A. Knibb, Essays on the Book of Enoch and Other Early Jewish Texts and Traditions, SVTP 22 (Boston: Brill, 2008), 376; Collins, The Invention, 75. 80 Flusser, Judaism, 2:44. 81 Flusser, Judaism, 2:44–45. 82 Others have hinted at temple imagery here, see e.g., Christiansen, The Covenant, 247; Oakes, Galatians, 156. For a broader discussion of temple imagery in Galatians, see Timothy Wardle, The Jerusalem Temple and Early Christian Identity, WUNT II 291 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 207–10; Grant Macaskill, Union with Christ in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 225–27. 83 Most scholars suggest that Paul was thinking of the Pythagorean tables, whereby columns of opposite categories are lined up in a contrasting fashion; see e.g., Dunn, Galatians, 252; Witherington, Galatia, 333; Harmon, She Must, 175; Das, Galatians, 497–98. 79

7.3 The Present Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Above

209

ing of συστοιχέω suffers from at least two key difficulties. First, if Paul was actually attempting to create columns of opposites, it is surprising that he ultimately fails to fill out the second column associated with the free-woman.84 Second, it is not clear whether this meaning of συστοιχέω would have been available to Paul. As Douglas Moo points out, “The paucity of evidence (the verb is not found elsewhere in Biblical Greek or in Josephus or Philo) makes it hard to be sure if this meaning was a ‘live’ one for Paul.”85 In light of these difficulties, then, it is more likely that when Paul employs the verb συστοιχέω, he has in mind its more basic idea of “to correspond to”: namely, the lining up or linking together of concepts based on shared themes or ideas.86 Thus, Mark Nanos is likely correct to conclude that, rather than creating oppositional columns, “Paul seems to use συστοιχέω to link themes and texts in allegorical fashion rather than to indicate elements in columns of opposites.” 87 Second, and in view of the first, there is a natural relationship and thus correspondence between Mount Sinai and the symbolic significance of Jerusalem and its cult in that the Sinai event both prefigured and anticipated the tabernacle and ultimately the temple. This can be seen in at least two ways.88 First, Sinai is called the “the mountain of God” (Exod 3:1; 18:5; 24:13), which is the name given to the temple in Jerusalem (cf. Is 2:2; Mic 4:2).89 And second, scholars have noted that the tripartite division of the tabernacle and temple is based on the tripartite division of Mount Sinai (Exod 19:12, 17, 20–24).90 Thus, Mount Sinai prefigured and provided the pattern for the building of the tabernacle, signifying God’s presence among his people (see Exod 25:9).91 This, however, merely anticipated the construction of the temple, which would come to be God’s permeant dwelling place with and among his people in Jerusalem.92 Third, and in keeping with our argument thus far, it is likely the case then that when Paul speaks of the symbolic experience of the nations in relation to Mount Sinai as being recapitulated in the present city of Jerusalem, it is the present experience of the nations in relation to the symbolic significance of both Jerusalem and its temple that Paul has in view. This can be seen in several 84

As noted by Koch, Die Schrift, 205–6; Jobes, “Jerusalem,” 317. Moo, Galatians, 303. 86 See BDAG 979; L&N 58.68. 87 Nanos, “Jerusalem,” 7. 88 These observations are indebted to G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, NSBT 17 (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2004), 105–7. 89 Beale, The Temple, 105. 90 See Carol Meyers, Exodus, NCBC (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 154; Beale, The Temple, 105. 91 Beale, The Temple, 107. For further elaboration on these concepts, see Meyers, Exodus, 222–26. 92 Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, 41. 85

210

Chapter 7: “To Be Sure, Sinai is a Mountain in Arabia”

ways. First, as briefly alluded to in Chapter 6, Mount Sinai was the place where God encountered Israel in the form of a theophany; it is where God bound himself to Israel by means of covenant; and it is where Israel was given the Torah so as to live in covenant relationship with their God.93 Thus, for an ancient Jew such as Paul, Mount Sinai was a symbol of both revelation and liberation; and most importantly, it was a symbol of God’s divine and abiding presence among his people.94 In relation to the experience of the gentile world, however, it was noted that Mount Sinai told a different story. Instead of being a symbol of revelation and liberation, Mount Sinai stood as a symbolic and stark reminder that gentiles remained in ignorance and the darkness of their sin, separated from the divine presence and liberating knowledge of Israel’s God. Thus, when Paul describes the children born to the Hagar covenant as born away from Mount Sinai and into slavery, it is this latter aspect of Mount Sinai’s symbolic import that he has principally in view. Namely, the belief that gentiles are symbolically born away from Mount Sinai and thus away from the divine presence and liberating knowledge of Israel’s God. In relation to the present Jerusalem, then, like Mount Sinai, Jerusalem stood, not only as a city, but as a powerful symbol of the divine presence of Israel’s God among his people. What is more, when one considers the fact that this reality was most fully experienced in relation to the temple, the belief that city and temple functioned together as a symbol of God’s divine presence is made quite clear. Commenting on the significance of Mount Zion and thus the Jerusalem temple for ancient Jews, Terrance Donaldson writes, “More … than just the site of the temple, Mount Zion is the place of Yahweh’s abode, the actualization of his promise to be present with his people … Zion, the holy mountain of God, became the site and sign of God’s continuing presence with his people.”95 Thus, similar to Mount Sinai, city and temple stood together as a symbol of God’s abiding presence with and among his people. In relation to the gentile world, however, and like the symbolic significance Mount Sinai, the symbolic significance of the present Jerusalem and its cult told and reinforced a different narrative. As William Dumbrell points out, whereas Jerusalem stood as a symbol of God’s divine presence with and among his people, Ps 46 and 48 served as continual reminders for first-century Jews that “outside of this centre lay the nations; undifferentiated, chaotic, exposed

93 Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, 33. On the significance of Sinai for ancient Jews, see Levenson, Sinai & Zion, 15–86. 94 As Meyers, Exodus, 145, reminds us, for ancient Jews, “Sinai becomes a concept rather than a place. To put it another way, the cosmic symbolism of the ‘mountain of the Lord’ situates the divine presence, wherever and whenever it transpires, in the center of the cosmos.” 95 Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, 38, 41. Emphasis my own.

7.3 The Present Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Above

211

and unclean, the prey of the demonic powers of the world.” 96 In relation to the temple specifically, Richard Bauckham describes the experience of gentiles as such: “As the temple was God’s gracious means of presence with the covenant people, so it defined the covenant people in distinction from others: Gentiles, who were debarred from access to his presence in the temple. The temple was the greatest, the most meaningful boundary-marker between Jew and Gentile.”97 Thus, like Mount Sinai, the Jerusalem of Paul’s day housed the temple, and thus, together, city and temple stood as a symbolic and continual reminder that the nations remained in ignorance and sin, separated from the divine presence and liberating knowledge of Israel’s God. Altogether, then, when Paul states that the symbolic experience of gentiles in relation to Mount Sinai is being recapitulated in the present city of Jerusalem, he makes this connection based on the fact that, like Mount Sinai, the present city of Jerusalem and its cult stands as a symbolic and continual reminder that the nations remain in ignorance and the darkness of their sin, separated from the divine presence and liberating knowledge of Israel’s God. Thus, by speaking of the “present Jerusalem” and, in so doing, evoking temple imagery, Paul illustrates for the Galatian gentiles just what they will be returning to if they continue in their current course of action. That is, they will be returning to the present experience of the nations who do not know God: the experience of being debarred from access to the divine presence and liberating knowledge of Israel’s God and thus prey to the demonic powers of the world. 98 7.3.4 The Jerusalem above as the Mother of Gentiles Finally, something needs to be said about the way Paul appeals to the “Jerusalem above” (ἄνω Ἰερουσαλήμ) as the mother of both himself and the Galatian gentiles. Following Paul’s introduction of the present Jerusalem, he goes on to remind the Galatian gentiles of the prophetic announcement of their liberation 96 William J. Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old Testament, The Moore Theological College Lectures 1983 (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2001), 2. 97 Richard Bauckham, The Jewish World around the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 184. Emphasis my own. See further James S. McLaren, “The Temple and Gentiles,” in Attitudes to Gentiles in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. David C. Sim and James S. McLaren, LNTS 499 (New York: Bloomsbury, 2013), 92– 108. On the exclusion of gentiles from the temple, even the restored Jerusalem, see John J. Collins, “Gentiles in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Attitudes to Gentiles in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. David C. Sim and James S. McLaren, LNTS 499 (New York: Bloomsbury, 2013), 56–59, who cites texts such as Ezek 44:6–9; Pss. Sol. 17:28; 4Q174; cf. also Isa 54:1. 98 Paula Fredriksen, “Judaizing the Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul’s Gospel,” NTS 56 (2010): 246, describes gentiles as “not suitable to be brought close to the altar of Israel’s God.”

212

Chapter 7: “To Be Sure, Sinai is a Mountain in Arabia”

by pointing them to the reality of a very different experience, one in which, as in-Christ gentiles who have turned to Israel’s God in worship, they have already partaken and should thus continue. In 4:26, Paul writes, “The Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother” (ἡ δὲ ἄνω Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐλευθέρα ἐστίν, ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ). Based on Paul’s words here, two points can be brought out. First, by evoking the language of “above” to describe this eschatological Jerusalem, it is important to note that Paul mixes spatial and temporal categories by comparing the reality of the present Jerusalem, not with a future one, but with one he describes as “above.”99 According to Paul, due to the liberating activity of Israel’s Messiah and thus the dawn of new creation, this future heavenly Jerusalem is now a present reality being experienced by the Galatian gentiles (Gal 4:4; cf. 6:15).100 Second, as Christl Maier has demonstrated, it is likely that Paul’s understanding of the Jerusalem above as the mother of gentiles grows out of the prophetic utterance of Psalm 87 (86 LXX). 101 In LXX Ps 86:4, the author lists a number of foreign peoples and nations (i.e., Ρααβ, Βαβυλῶος, ἀλλόφυλοι, Τύρος, and λαὸς Αἰθιόπων) who call Zion “mother” (μήτηρ Σιων; LXX Ps 86:5).102 As Norbert Lohfink and Erich Zenger point out, the nations are rescued through Zion as the natural corollary to the rescue of Zion itself. 103 Since this portrayal of Zion as the rescuer and mother of foreigners is quite unique,104 it is likely that Paul derives the eschatological Jerusalem as the mother of gentiles from this very text.105 In view of Psalm 87 (86 LXX), then, what Paul seeks to make clear here in Gal 4:26 is that the Galatian gentiles 99 Brawley, “Contextuality,” 116. Furthermore, it is important to note here that, in some respects, Paul’s discussion of the experience of gentiles in relation to both Mount S inai and the present Jerusalem is slightly tempered as, in spite of their negative implications for gentiles, they both anticipated the reality of a future/heavenly Jerusalem. On this see e.g., Exod 25:9, 40; Ps 11:4. See also the discussion in Levenson, Sinai & Zion, 111–42; Beale, The Temple, 105–7; William Horbury, Messianism among Jews and Christians: Biblical and Historical Studies, 2nd ed., Cornerstones (New York; London: Bloomsbury, 2016), 220–56. 100 See Macaskill, Union with Christ, 226, on the relationship between new creation, the restoration of Jerusalem/Zion, and the worship of Israel’s God by the nations. 101 See Christl M. Maier, “Psalm 87 as a Reappraisal of the Zion Tradition and Its Reception in Galatians 4:26,” CBQ 69 (2007): 473–86. 102 Maier, “Psalm 87,” 480. For further discussion, see Christl M. Maier, Daughter Zion, Mother Zion: Gender, Space, and the Sacred in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008), 205–8; Norbert Lohfink and Erich Zenger, The God of Israel and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms, trans. Everett R. Kalin (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), 123–60. On the broader concept of the table of nations in the Old Testament, Jewish tradition, and Paul, see James M. Scott, Paul and the Nations, WUNT 84 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995). 103 Lohfink and Zenger, God of Israel, 144. 104 A similar assessment is found in 2 Esd 2:40–41 where gentiles are considered to be children of Zion. 105 Maier, “Psalm 87,” 485. Similarly, Das, Galatians, 500.

7.4 Conclusion

213

have been rescued from the present evil age and thus their past pagan enslavement. As such, Hagar is no longer their figurative mother. Rather, according to Psalm 87 (86 LXX), although they remain gentiles, they are redeemed in-Christ gentiles, and thus they have been born again to a different mother: one who is free. Altogether, then, by stating that the Galatian gentiles have the Jerusalem above as their mother, Paul is creating a space for in-Christ gentiles within the Jewish symbolic universe. Obviously, much could be and has been said about the concept of an “above” or “heavenly” Jerusalem as an eschatological reality for Second Temple Jews,106 but for our purposes here, what needs to be recognized is that Paul de-centers the present Jerusalem and its cult in response to the reality that is presently taking place among the nations: they are turning to Israel’s God in worship.107 It is possible then that, for Paul, the turning of the nations to Israel’s God is taking place in line with the prophetic promises that the nations would one day turn to Israel’s God in worship: promises that he believes are being fulfilled in his own day (e.g., Isa 2:2; 49:6; 51:4–5; 52:10; 54:2–3; 55:4–5, 10; 56:6–8). Consequently, those from the nations who have abandoned the worship of idols and have come to know Israel’s God – or rather, come to be known by him (cf. Gal 4:8) – are now flocking to Jerusalem in worship. This Jerusalem is, however, not the present and physical city, but for the time being, it is the heavenly one, as Paul, along with other first-century Jews, awaits the full and final restoration of Israel, which would result in the “divine glorification of the Jerusalem on earth.”108 A restored and glorified Jerusalem where in-Christ Jews and in-Christ gentiles would together worship the God of Israel as Jews and gentiles. It is the experience of this Jerusalem that Paul calls the Galatian gentiles to not abandon.

7.4 Conclusion 7.4 Conclusion

In the previous chapter it was argued that Paul portrays Hagar, not as the Sinai covenant, but as a non-Jewish mother who allegorically represents a covenant 106 See especially the work of Lincoln, Paradise; Willitts, “Isa 54, 1”; Horbury, Messianism, 220–56. 107 In this way, for Paul, the present Jerusalem is not presently the focal point for access to the divine presence of Israel’s God: a point similarly made by Macaskill, Union with Christ, 179, in relation to Hebrews. However, it is important to note that by de-centralizing the temple, Paul does not displace it; rather, as a Jew, the temple in Jerusalem would have remained a key aspect of his symbolic universe; see Fredriksen, “Judaizing the Nations,” 250. Finally, on the important distinction between the language of “de-center” as opposed to “displace,” see Kathleen Troost-Cramer, “De-Centralizing the Temple: A Rereading of Romans 15:16,” JJMJS.3 (2016): 72–101. 108 Horbury, Messianism, 228.

214

Chapter 7: “To Be Sure, Sinai is a Mountain in Arabia”

that gives birth to children who are symbolically born away from Mount Sinai and into slavery; in short, Paul portrays Hagar as the covenantal mother of slave-born gentiles. However, in 4:25a, Paul seems to connect Hagar to Mount Sinai itself. Thus, we began this chapter by examining the textual variants of Gal 4:25a. It was argued that, due to the syntactical and contextual difficulties that arise in relation to the word Ἁγάρ, the external and internal evidence suggests that the original reading likely favors δέ over γάρ and omits Ἁγάρ: thus, δέ Σινᾶ. Following this, it was argued that Paul includes the information of 4:25a as a parenthetical comment in order to demonstrate that, while he is aware that Sinai is indeed a mountain in Arabia, he is not speaking of the mountain’s physical location, but rather, its symbolic and theological import in relation to gentiles. We proceeded, then, to briefly examine the way the correspondence between the symbolic significance of Mount Sinai and present Jerusalem is to be understood. Here it was suggested that when Paul speaks of the present Jerusalem in 4:25b, he naturally evokes temple imagery due to the shared symbolic significance of city and cult. Thus, it was concluded that the “present Jerusalem,” like Mount Sinai, is best understood in relation to that which it symbolically represents, and thus Paul correlates the symbolic experience of the nations in relation to Mount Sinai as being recapitulated in the present city of Jerusalem and its cult. That is, just as gentiles are symbolically born away from Mount Sinai and away from God’s presence, they are debarred from access to Israel’s God in the physical city of Jerusalem as well. It was noted that Paul makes this connection to remind the Galatian gentiles of the present reality that they would be returning to if they continue in their current course of action. Finally, we concluded this chapter by briefly considering Gal 4:26. It was noted that Paul does not leave the Galatian gentiles without hope; rather, he reminds them of the prophetic announcement of their liberation, and thus the reality of their redemption due to the liberating activity of Israel’s Messiah and the dawn of new creation. In doing so, Paul cites Psalm 87 (86 LXX) in order to remind the Galatian gentiles that Hagar is no longer their figurative mother, but instead, they have been born to a mother who is free: the “Jerusalem above.” This Jerusalem above is where, together, in-Christ Jews and in-Christ gentiles worship Israel’s God as they await the hope of righteousness and the full and final restoration of the cosmos.

Conclusion Summary of Argument This study has considered Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar in Gal 4:21– 31 within the context of Second Temple Judaism. Following a brief introduction, Part One began by noting that Gal 4:21–31 continues to be read in such a way as to embody various forms of supersessionism. It was found that the traditional concept of supersessionism (i.e., replacement theology) is actually rooted in certain interpretive convictions and claims about the obsolescence of the Jewish law and thus the superfluidity of Jewish identity and practice, and that these same convictions and claims continue to govern most interpretive approaches to Gal 4:21–31, thus producing readings that continue foster particular forms of supersessionism, e.g., ethnic supersessionism. In relation to this, it was then proposed that the reason such claims and conclusions continue to influence the interpretation of this text is that scholarly study of Gal 4:21–31 has not paid sufficient attention to how Paul’s use of the story – chiefly in relation to the figure of Hagar – can be located within streams of ancient Jewish tradition. Rather, Gal 4:21–31 continues to be read, in one way or another, as a polemic against Jews, Jewish Christ-followers, and the continuing validity of the Jewish law, thus calling the legitimacy of Jewish identity and practice into question, and possibly even the very existence of the Jewish people. Therefore, our purpose in this study was to consider Paul’s portrayal of Hagar squarely within the context of Second Temple Judaism in order to provide a fresh set of categories from which to interrogate the various issues at play in this text and thus offer an alternative reading of it. Part Two of this study undertook a detailed examination of the portrayal of Hagar in ancient Jewish literature. We began by examining the portrayal of Hagar in the LXX of Genesis. This was followed by an examination of the portrayal of Hagar in the Second Temple Jewish texts of 1QapGen, Jubilees, Baruch, selected works of Philo, and Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities. Overall, it was found that, for all of the ways these texts portray Hagar differently, they stand in significant continuity on two interrelated points: namely, Hagar and her descendants were understood to be foreigners and outsiders, and thus, they were consistently portrayed as non-Israelites or non-Jews.

216

Conclusion

With our understanding of the portrayal of Hagar in ancient Judaism in place, Part Three of this study brought our findings from Part Two more knowingly to bear on our reading of key aspects of Gal 4:21–31, and in particular, Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar. We began by considering the purpose and function of the allegory within the letter itself. Contrary to most scholars, and against the influential theory of C. K. Barrett, it was argued that Paul was originally responsible for introducing the story of Hagar and Sarah to the Galatians. Moreover, based on our examination and consideration of the literary context of Gal 4:21–31, it was proposed that the allegory functioned as an additional step in Paul’s argument whereby he sought to persuade the Galatian gentiles to relinquish their desire to be ὑπὸ νόμον and thus rescue them from their apostatizing ways. Building on the much-neglected work of Lloyd Gaston and John Gager, we then concluded by proposing that the allegory is not about Jews and/or Jewish Christ-followers (i.e., Paul’s so-called “opponents”), as is commonly assumed; but rather, it is about the experience of gentiles, and in particular, the once pagan Galatian gentiles. Following this, we undertook an examination of Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar in Gal 4:22–24, 4:25c, and 4:30 in order to ascertain whether, and if so to what extent, Paul can be read and understood to stand in continuity with the traditions of ancient Judaism (as discussed in Part Two). Contrary to nearly all scholars, it was found that, in 4:24, Paul does not portray Hagar as the Sinai covenant – whether that be the old covenant or the Mosaic covenant – rather, it was proposed that, for the purpose of the allegory, Paul portrays Hagar as the covenantal mother of slave-born gentiles: gentiles who are symbolically born away from Mount Sinai, and thus, away from the presence and liberating knowledge of Israel’s God, and consequently, born into slavery. This rather controversial claim was substantiated by a fresh synthesis of previous scholarly observations. First, it demonstrated that the preposition ἀπό in Gal 4:24c likely conveys the idea of separation rather than source. Thus, for Paul, the figure of Hagar allegorically represents a childbearing covenant that symbolically bears children away from Mount Sinai. And second, it was found that the language Paul employs to describe the children born to the Hagar covenant in 4:24 (εἰς δουλείαν) and 4:25c (δουλεύω) follows the same terminology used in 4:8–9 to describe the once pagan Galatian gentiles (δουλεύω). Thus, we concluded that the children born to the Hagar covenant symbolically illustrate the experience of gentiles. Taken together, then, it was proposed that, as the covenantal mother of slave-born gentiles, Hagar and her descendants symbolically illustrate the experience of gentiles, and in particular, the past experience of the once pagan Galatian gentiles. Thus, Paul’s portrayal of Hagar in Gal 4:22–24 and 4:25c was found to stand in significant continuity with the literary traditions of ancient Judaism. Finally, building on the work of Susan Eastman, it was concluded that Gal 4:30 is best understood as a warning and not a command. Here, Paul warns the Galatians of what they will be returning to (i.e., their previous

Conclusion

217

experience of Hagar-like enslavement) if they continue in their current course of action. Part Three of our study was then rounded off by considering the textual variant of 4:25a. Here, we considered the recent – and in many ways helpful – contribution of Stephen Carlson. Against Carlson, however, it was concluded that Reading III, which includes δέ and omits Ἁγάρ, is likely to be original. Thus, it was found that just as Paul does not connect Hagar to the Sinai covenant in 4:24, he does not connect her to Mount Sinai in 4:25a. Rather, it was proposed that 4:25a functions as something of a parenthetical comment, which allows Paul to explicitly connect the symbolic experience of gentiles in relation to Mount Sinai (4:24) to that of the present Jerusalem and its cult (4:25). Chapter 7 then concluded by suggesting that Paul contrasts the present Jerusalem with the Jerusalem above to remind the Galatian gentiles that they have been born to a different mother, one who is free (4:26). Thus, as children of the free-woman and not the slave-woman (4:31), the Galatians are to stand firm, relinquish their desire to be ὑπὸ νόμον (4:21), and not submit again to a yoke of slavery (5:1). Altogether, then, by considering Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar within the context of Second Temple Judaism, this study has demonstrated that Paul can be read and understood to stand in continuity with the literary traditions of ancient Judaism in that he, like other Jews in antiquity, portrays Hagar and her descendants as non-Jews.

Implications Having summarized the argument of this study, I will conclude by highlighting a few notable implications, both in relation to the present study and for future studies. First, as mentioned in Part One, while recent scholarly study of Paul has sought to take Paul’s Jewishness more seriously and thus read and understand him as a Jew who remained within the matrix of pluriform first-century Judaism, Gal 4:21–31 is one text that has remained more or less unaffected by this developing interpretive approach. However, by considering Paul’s use of the Hagar-Sarah story squarely within the context of Second Temple Judaism, we have found that Paul’s portrayal of Hagar can be read in such a way as to stand in significant continuity with the traditions of ancient Judaism concerning Hagar, the handmaid of Sarah and mother of Ishmael. Thus, one of the implications of this study is that it demonstrates the potential interpretive pay-off one may find when adequate attention is given to reading Paul as a first-century Jew who remained within and continued to be informed by the symbolic universe of pluriform first-century Judaism. This, however, is not to say that Paul was just like every other Jew, or that he was not an original thinker; rather, as this study demonstrates, Paul was certainly an original thinker in that he por-

218

Conclusion

trays Hagar rather uniquely as the covenantal mother of slave-born gentiles. This originality, however, does not render Paul any less Jewish; rather, knowing how ancient Jews thought about Hagar has allowed us to more carefully consider Paul’s own appropriation of her within the context of those traditions, and thus provide a more nuanced set of categories in which to interpret key aspects of this text. Second, and as a follow-on, by considering Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar squarely within the context of Second Temple Judaism, this study has demonstrated that Paul can be read and understood to stand in significant continuity with the traditions of ancient Judaism in that he, like other Jews in antiquity, portrays Hagar and her descendants as non-Jews. Therefore, this study has advanced the work of Troy Miller and, most importantly, Lloyd Gaston in a few key areas. First, by undertaking a detailed examination of Hagar in ancient Judaism, we have provided a more wide-ranging analysis of the way the figure of Hagar was portrayed by ancient Jews than offered by previous scholarship. Additionally, our detailed survey of Jewish texts provided us with a more complete picture from which to locate Paul’s own portrayal of Hagar within the context of those traditions. Thus, and second, by considering Paul squarely within streams of Jewish tradition, this study has more fully substantiated the way Paul’s portrayal of Hagar can be read and understood to stand in continuity with ancient Judaism. In fact, by locating Paul within this interpretive context, this study has provided fresh exegetical insight and possible ways forward on several of the more difficult interpretive issues at play in Gal 4:21–31: namely, the identity of the son born to the slave-woman, the allegorical portrayal of Hagar as a covenant, the way the Hagar covenant relates to the symbolic significance of Mount Sinai and the present Jerusalem, and finally, the function of 4:25a and the textual variant that accompanies it. Third, by locating Paul’s portrayal of Hagar squarely within the context of Second Temple Judaism, this study has likewise shown that the allegory should not be read as a polemic against Jews, Jewish Christ-followers, or the continuing validity of the Jewish law. In other words, based on our reading of Gal 4:21–31, Paul nowhere critiques Judaism or Jewish identity and practice. Rather, as this study has demonstrated, Gal 4:21–31 is better read as an allegory that symbolically illustrates the experience of gentiles, and in particular, the experience of the once pagan Galatian gentiles: namely, the collective experience of life outside of the covenant, separated from God’s presence, and thus, enslaved to the στοιχεῖα. This, however, is not to say that the present study has provided a way forward on every interpretive issue in Gal 4:21–31 (e.g., Paul’s use of Isa 54:1 in Gal 4:27, or the description of persecution in 4:29) but the reading of the allegory provided herein creates possible inroads for renewed investigation with these and other interpretive questions that surround Gal 4:21–31 and, likewise, the letter as a whole.

Conclusion

219

Fourth, it is important to note that even if one does not fully subscribe to the above conclusions, our contextual and textual examination of Gal 4:21–31 has destabilized several longstanding and widespread interpretations held by both traditional and new consensus scholars. This can be seen in three primary ways. First, as argued in Chapter 5, it has been thoroughly demonstrated that C. K. Barrett’s influential theory on the inclusion of the story of Hagar and Sarah in the argument of Galatians is to be roundly rejected. While this has been hinted at by others, this study is, to my knowledge, the first to fully demonstrate the way in which the inconsequential nature of Ishmael’s circumcision, as recorded in Gen 17, renders Barrett’s theory unlikely. In fact, based on the way the circumcision accounts of Ishmael and Isaac were taken up by Jews in antiquity, it was further demonstrated that these accounts where never used by ancient Jews to encourage, let alone support, or require, the circumcision of nonJews/gentiles: an observation that renders Barrett’s theory improbable, if not altogether impossible. Thus, scholars working in Gal 4:21–31 can no longer take Barrett’s theory for granted; rather, the question of the place and purpose of the allegory must now be engaged with renewed vigor. Additionally, our examination of the covenant the figure of Hagar is understood to represent (4:24) has destabilized the widely accepted view that Paul portrays Hagar as the Sinai covenant – whether that be the old covenant or the Mosaic covenant. Our careful consideration of these options reveals the significant issues with understanding Paul’s portrayal of Hagar in this way. Going forward, then, scholars will need to pay more careful attention to the language Paul employs to describe the Hagar covenant. In particular, based on our analysis of the grammar and syntax of Gal 4:24, scholars can no longer assume that ἀπό simply means “from,” as if to convey the idea of source, and based on Paul’s use of δουλεύω in 4:24c and 4:25c (cf. 4:8–9), it can no longer be assumed that the children born to the Hagar covenant are not, in fact, solely gentiles. Finally, based on the recent work that is being done on the textual variant of 4:25a, this study has at least provided further challenges to the acceptance of Reading I (τὸ δὲ Ἁγὰρ Σινᾶ), and, at most, it demonstrates that Reading III, which includes δὲ but omits Ἁγὰρ, is to be preferred. In this way, even if our own proposal for understanding Paul’s allegorical portrayal of Hagar as a covenant does not win the day, this study has demonstrated the inadequacy with the current scholarly approaches to this text and has therefore opened the door for renewed engagement with the interpretation of it. Fifth and finally, in relation to the question of supersessionism, in Chapter 1 it was suggested that the reason the interpretation of Gal 4:21–31 continues to embody various forms of supersessionism is that scholarly approaches to this text have not paid adequate attention to how Paul’s use of the Hagar-Sarah story, chiefly in relation to the figure of Hagar, can be located within streams of Jewish tradition. If this is indeed the case, then it is possible that the categories

220

Conclusion

that have long governed the interpretation of this text have obscured what the allegory is about. That is, by limiting the range of interpretive options to those governed by key elements undergirding traditional forms of supersessionism – i.e., as a polemic against Jews, Jewish Christ-followers, and the Jewish law – scholarly approaches to this text have failed to adequately consider other, possibly more fruitful interpretive options. By considering Paul’s use of the story of Hagar within the context of Second Temple Judaism, then, this study has brought a fresh set of questions to bear on the interpretation of this text. In doing so, we have provided an entirely different reading of Gal 4:21–31: one that is not obscured by the interpretive patterns and categories of supersessionism. As such – and contrary to nearly all previous scholarship – there is good reason to conclude that the allegory is not actually about Jews and/or Jewish Christfollowers, nor is it about the Jewish law; rather, it is an allegory about the symbolic experience of gentiles and, in particular, the once pagan Galatian gentiles in relation to symbolic significance of Mount Sinai and the divine presence of Israel’s God that is disclosed there. Therefore, while this study has not set out to explicitly judge the correctness of supersessionism, it has demonstrated that the way scholars often approach this text, due to the pervasive yet subtle influence of supersessionist categories assumed to be at work in it, have been possibly asking the wrong questions of it. If this is indeed the case, then this study has opened the door for a fresh set of questions to be brought to this otherwise troubling and difficult text. Altogether, then, by considering Paul’s portrayal of Hagar within the context of Second Temple Judaism, this study has provided a way forward on many of the interpretive difficulties that continue to plague the interpretation of Gal 4:21–31. In doing so, we have heeded the advice of Lloyd Gaston, who, more than thirty-years ago, suggested what is now only beginning to take root in Pauline studies: “it might be best to assume that [Paul] stands in continuity with the traditions of Judaism rather than in opposition to them.”1 Therefore, it is my hope that, even if to a small degree, this study has accomplished this task and thus charted new paths for present and future studies of Galatians and the firstcentury Jewish apostle, Paul.

1

Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 81.

Bibliography Adams, Sean A. Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah: A Commentary Based on the Texts in Codex Vaticanus. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2014. Alexander, T. Desmond. From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. –. “The Hagar Traditions in Genesis XVI and XXI.” VT 41 (1990): 131–48. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Angel, Hayyim. “Sarah’s Treatment of Hagar (Genesis 16): Morals, Messages, and Mesopotamia.” JBQ 41 (2013): 211–18. Arnold, Clinton E. “‘I Am Astonished That You Are So Quickly Turning Away!’ (Gal 1.6): Paul and Anatolian Folk Belief.” NTS 51 (2005): 429–49. –. “Returning to the Domain of the Powers: ‘Stoicheia’ as Evil Spirits in Galatians 4:3,9.” NovT 38 (1996): 55–76. Attridge, Harold W. “Josephus and His Works.” Pages 185–232 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by Michael E. Stone. CRINT. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Baasland, Ernst. “Persecution: A Neglected Feature in the Letter to the Galatians.” ST 38 (1984): 135–50. Bachmann, Michael. Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief? Exegetische Studien zu einem polemischen Schreiben und zur Theologie des Apostels Paulus. NTOA 40. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. –. “Zur Argumentation von Galater 3.10–12.” NTS 53 (2007): 524–44. Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE). Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. –. “Mirror-Reading A Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case.” JSNT 31 (1987): 73–93. –. Obeying the Truth: Paul’s Ethics in Galatians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988. –. Paul and the Gift. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. –. Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Barker, Patrick G. “Allegory and Typology in Galatians 4:21–31.” SVTQ 38 (1994): 193– 209. Baron, Lori, Jill Hicks-Keeton, and Matthew Thiessen, eds. The Ways That Often Parted: Essays in Honor of Joel Marcus. ECL 24. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2018. Barrett, C. K. Essays on Paul. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982. –. Freedom and Obligation: A Study of the Epistle to the Galatians. London: SPCK, 1985. –. “The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and in the Argument of Galatians.” Pages 1–16 in Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann. Edited by Johannes Friedrich, Wolfgang Pöhlmann, Peter Stuhlmacher, and Ernst Käsemann. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1976. Bauckham, Richard. “James and the Jerusalem Community.” Pages 55–95 in Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries. Edited by Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007. –. The Jewish World around the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010.

222

Bibliography

Baur, Ferdinand Christian. Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ, His Life and Work, His Epistles and His Doctrine: A Contribution to a Critical History of Primitive Christianity. 2 vols. London: Williams and Norgate, 1875. Bautch, Kelley Coblentz. “Amplified Roles, Idealized Depictions: Women in the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 338–52 in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Beale, G. K. The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. NSBT 17. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2004. Becker, Adam H., and Annette Yoshiko Reed, eds. The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Becker, Jürgen. Paulus: Der Apostel der Völker. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Beker, J. Christiaan. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Belleville, Linda L. “‘Under the Law’: Structural Analysis and the Pauline Concept of Law in Galatians 3.21–4.11.” JSNT 26 (1986): 53–78. Bernat, David A. Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Priestly Tradition. SBLAIL 3. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2009. Berquist, Jon L. “Spaces of Jerusalem.” Pages 41–51 in Constructions of Space II: The Biblical City and Other Imagined Spaces. Edited by Jon L. Berquist and Claudia V. Camp. OTS 409. New York; London: T&T Clark, 2008. Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermenia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Bilde, Per. Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Importance. JSP 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. Bird, Michael F. An Anomalous Jew: Paul among Jews, Greeks, and Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Birnbaum, Ellen. “Exegetical Building Blocks in Philo’s Interpretation of the Patriarchs.” Pages 69–92 in From Judaism to Christianity: Tradition and Transition: A Festschrift for Thomas H. Tobin, S. J., on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Patricia Walters. NovTSup 136. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010. –. The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews, and Proselytes. BJS 290. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. –. “Two Millennia Later: General Resources and Particular Perspectives on Philo the Jew.” CBR 4 (2006): 243–76. Bitner, Bradley J. Paul’s Political Strategy in 1 Corinthians 1:1–4:6: Constitution and Covenant. SNTS 163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Blanton IV, Thomas R. “Paul’s Covenant Theology in 2 Corinthians 2.14–7.14.” Pages 61–71 in Paul and Judaism: Crosscurrents in Pauline Exegesis and the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations. LNTS 463. London: Bloomsbury, 2013. Blass, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Abraham: The Story of a Life. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Boccaccini, Gabriele. “Introduction: The Three Paths to Salvation of Paul the Jew.” Pages 1–29 in Paul the Jew: Rereading the Apostle as a Figure of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini and Carlos A. Segovia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016. Boccaccini, Gabriele, and Carlos A. Segovia, eds. Paul the Jew: Rereading the Apostle as a Figure of Second Temple Judaism. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016.

Bibliography

223

Bockmuehl, Markus. Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. Böhm, Martina. “Abraham und die Erzväter bei Philo. Überlegungen zur Exegese und Hermeneutik im Frühen Judentum.” Pages 377–95 in Philo und das Neue Testament. Edited by Ronald Deines and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr. WUNT 172. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. –. Rezeption und Funktion der Vätererzählungen bei Philo von Alexandria: Zum Zusammenhang von Kontext, Hermeneutik und Exegese im Frühen Judentum. BZNW 128. Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 2005. Borgen, Peder. “Philo of Alexandria.” Pages 233–82 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by Michael E. Stone. CRINT. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. –. Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time. NovTSup 86. Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1997. –. “Some Hebrew and Pagan Features in Philo’s and Paul’s Interpretation of Hagar and Ishmael.” Pages 151–64 in The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism. Edited by Peder Borgen and Søren Giversen. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. Bos, Abraham P. “Hagar and the Enkyklios Paideia in Philo of Alexandria.” Pages 163–75 in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham. Edited by Martin Goodman, George H. van Kooten, and Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten. TBN 13. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010. Bouwman, Gils. “Die Hagar- und Sara-Perikope (Gal 4,21–31): Exemplarische Interpretation zum Schrifbeweis bei Paulus.” ANRW 2.25.4 (1987): 3135–55. Boyarin, Daniel. A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Braaten, Carl E., and Robert W. Jenson, eds. Jews and Christians: People of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Brawley, Robert L. “Contextuality, Intertextuality, and the Hendiadic Relationship of Promise and Law in Galatians.” ZNW 93 (2002): 99–119. Briffard, Par Colette. “Gen 16,13: Hagar a-t-Elle vu Dieu?” ZAW 122 (2010): 436–38. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Brueggemann, Walter. “The Kerygma of the Priestly Writers.” ZAW 84 (1972): 397–414. Büchsel, Frederich. “ἁλληγορέω.” Pages 260–63 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76. Burkes, Shannon. “Wisdom and Law: Choosing Life in Ben Sira and Baruch.” JSJ 30 (1999): 253–76. Burton, Ernest de Witt. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921. Byrne, Brendan. “Jerusalem Above and Below: A Critique of J. L. Martyn’s Interpretation of the Hagar-Sarah Allegory in Gal 4.21–5.1.” NTS 60 (2014): 215–31. Cain, Andrew, trans. St. Jerome: Commentary on Galatians. The Fathers of the Church 121. Washington: Catholic University Press, 2010. Callaway, Mary. Sing, O Barren One: A Study in Comparative Midrash. SBL 91. Atlanta: SBL Press, 1986. Calvert, Nancy L. “Abraham and Idolatry: Paul’s Comparison of Obedience to the Law with Idolatry in Galatians 4.1–10.” Pages 222–37 in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel.

224

Bibliography

Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. JSNTSup 83. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Calvert-Koyzis, Nancy. Paul, Monotheism, and the People of God: The Significance of Abraham Traditions for Early Judaism and Christianity. JSNT 273. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Campbell, Jonathan S. “Rewritten Bible: A Terminological Reassessment.” Pages 49–81 in Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years: Texts, Terms, or Techniques? A Last Dialogue with Geza Vermes. Edited by József Zsengellér. SJSJ 166. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2014. Campbell, William S. “Covenant Theology and Participation in Christ: Pauline Perspectives on Transformation.” Pages 41–60 in Paul and Judaism: Crosscurrents in Pauline Exegesis and the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations. Edited by Reimund Bieringer and Didier Pollefeyt. LSNT 463. London; New York: Bloomsbury, 2012. –. Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2008. Caneday, A. B. “Covenant Lineage Allegorically Prefigured: ‘Which Things Are Written Allegorically’ (Galatians 4:21–31).” SBJT 14 (2010): 50–77. Carlson, Stephen C. “‘For Sinai is a Mountain in Arabia:’ A Note on the Text of Galatians 4,25.” ZNW 105 (2014): 80–101. Carson, D. A. “Mirror-Reading with Paul and against Paul: Galatians 2:11–14 as a Test Case.” Pages 99–112 in Studies in the Pauline Epistles: Essays in Honor of Douglas J. Moo. Edited by Matthew S. Harmon and Jay E. Smith. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014. Charles, Ronald. Paul and the Politics of Diaspora. Paul in Critical Contexts. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014. Christiansen, Ellen Juhl. The Covenant in Judaism and Paul: A Study of Ritual Boundaries as Identity Markers. AGJU 27. Leiden; New York: Brill, 1995. Ciampa, Roy E. The Presence and Function of Scripture in Galatians 1 and 2. WUNT II 102. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Clarke, Andrew D. A Pauline Theology of Church Leadership. LNTS 362. London; New York: Bloomsbury, 2008. Clements, Ronald Ernest. God and Temple: The Idea of the Divine Presence in Ancient Israel. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2016. Cohen, Aryeh. “Hagar and Ishmael: A Commentary.” Interpretation 68 (2014): 247–56. Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Cohick, Lynn H. Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: Illuminating Ancient Ways of Life. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. Collins, John J. “Early Judaism in Modern Scholarship.” Pages 1–29 in Early Judaism: A Comprehensive Overview. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. –. “Gentiles in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 46–61 in Attitudes to Gentiles in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by David C. Sim and James S. McLaren. LNTS 499. New York: Bloomsbury, 2013. –. The Invention of Judaism: Torah and Jewish Identity from Deuteronomy to Paul . Berkeley: University of California Press, 2017. Cosgrove, Charles H. “The Law Has Given Sarah No Children (Gal. 4:21–30).” NovT 29 (1987): 219–35. Cruise, Charles E. Writing on the Edge: Paul’s Use of Hyperbole in Galatians. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2019. Dalton, William J. “The Meaning of ‘We’ in Galatians.” ABR 38 (1990): 33–44.

Bibliography

225

Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Das, A. Andrew. Galatians. CC. St. Louis: Concordia, 2014. –. Paul and the Stories of Israel: Grand Thematic Narratives in Galatians. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016. –. Paul, the Law, and the Covenant. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. Davies, G. I. “Hagar, El-Hegra and the Location of Mount Sinai: With an Additional Note on Reqem.” VT 22 (1972): 152–63. Davis, Anne. “Allegorically Speaking in Galatians 4:21–5:1.” BBR 14 (2004): 161–74. Dawson, David. Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. Dawson, John David. Christian Figural Reading and the Fashioning of Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. de Boer, Martinus C. Galatians: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011. –. “Paul’s Quotation of Isaiah 54.1 in Galatians 4.27.” NTS 50 (2004): 370–89. –. “The Meaning of the Phrase τά στoιχεία τoῦ κόσμoυ in Galatians.” NTS 53 (2007): 204– 24. deSilva, David A. Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. –. The Letter to the Galatians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018. de Young, James Calvin. Jerusalem in the New Testament: The Significance of the City in the History of Redemption and in Eschatology. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1960. Di Mattei, Steven. “Paul’s Allegory of the Two Covenants (Gal 4.21–31) in Light of FirstCentury Hellenistic Rhetoric and Jewish Hermeneutics.” NTS 52 (2006): 102–22. Donaldson, Terence L. Gentile Christian Identity from Cornelius to Constantine: The Nations, the Parting of the Ways, and Roman Imperial Ideology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020. –. Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology. JSNTSup 8. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. –. “Jewish Christianity, Israel’s Stumbling and the Sonderweg Reading of Paul.” JSNT 29 (2006): 27–54. –. Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament: Decision Points and Divergent Interpretations. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010. –. “Paul, Abraham’s Gentile ‘Offspring’, and the Torah.” Pages 135–50 in Torah Ethics and Early Christian Identity. Edited by Susan J. Wendel and David M. Miller. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. –. “Supersessionism and Early Christian Self-Definition.” JJMJS 1.3 (2016): 1–32. –. “The ‘Curse of the Law’ and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians 3.13–14.” NTS 32 (1986): 94–112. Dozeman, Thomas B. “The Wilderness and Salvation History in the Hagar Story.” JBL 117 (1998): 23–43. Drey, Philip R. “The Role of Hagar in Genesis 16.” AUSS 40 (2002): 179–95. Driver, S. R. The Book of Genesis: With Introduction and Notes. London: Methuen & Co, 1905. Duff, Paul B. Moses in Corinth: The Apologetic Context of 2 Corinthians 3. NovTSup 159. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2015.

226

Bibliography

Dumbrell, William J. The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old Testament. The Moore Theological College Lectures 1983. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2001. Dunn, James D. G. “Did Paul Have a Covenant Theology? Reflections on Romans 9.4 and 11.27.” Pages 287–307 in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C. R. de Roo. JSJSup 71. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. –. “Echoes of Intra-Jewish Polemic in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.” JBL 112 (1993): 459–77. –. Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. London: SPCK, 1990. –. The Epistle to the Galatians. BNTC 9. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1993. –. The Parting of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity. 2nd ed. London: SCM, 2006. –. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. –. “Who Did Paul Think He Was? A Study of Jewish Christian-Identity.” NTS 45 (1999): 174–93. Dunne, John Anthony. “Cast Out the Aggressive Agitators (Gl 4:29–30): Suffering, Identity, and the Ethics of Expulsion in Paul’s Mission to the Galatians.” Pages 246–69 in Sensitivity towards Outsiders: Exploring the Dynamic Relationship between Mission and Ethics in the New Testament and Early Christianity. Edited by Jacobus (Kobus) Kok, Tobias Nicklas, Dieter T. Roth, and Christopher M. Hays. WUNT II 364. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. –. Persecution and Participation in Galatians. WUNT II 454. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. –. “Suffering and Covenantal Hope in Galatians: A Critique of the ‘Apocalyptic Reading’ and Its Proponents.” SJT 68 (2015): 1–15. Eastman, Susan. Recovering Paul’s Mother Tongue: Language and Theology in Galatians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Eastman, Susan G. “‘Cast Out the Slave Woman and Her Son’: The Dynamics of Exclusion and Inclusion in Galatians 4.30.” JSNT 28 (2006): 309–36. –. “Israel and the Mercy of God: A Re-Reading of Galatians 6.16 and Romans 9–11.” NTS 56 (2010): 367–95. Ebeling, Gerhard. Die Wahrheit des Evangeliums: Eine Lesehilfe zum Galaterbrief. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981. Ehrensperger, Kathy. “Narratives of Belonging: The Role of Paul’s Genealogical Reasoning.” Early Christianity 8 (2017): 373–92. –. Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures: Theologizing in the Space-Between. LNTS 456. London; New York: Bloomsbury, 2013. –. That We May Be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies. New York; London: T&T Clark, 2004. Eisenbaum, Pamela. Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle. New York: HarperOne, 2009. Elliott, Mark W. “Judaism, Reformation Theology, and Justification.” Pages 143–58 in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter. Edited by Mark W. Elliott, Scott J. Hafemann, N. T. Wright, and John Frederick. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. Elliott, Neil. Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. Elliott, Susan. “Choose Your Mother, Choose Your Master: Galatians 4:21–5:1 in the Shadow of the Anatolian Mother of the Gods.” JBL 118 (1999): 661–83.

Bibliography

227

–. Cutting Too Close for Comfort: Paul’s Letter to the Galatians in its Anatolian Cultic Context. JSNT 248. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2003. Ellis, Nicholas. The Hermeneutics of Divine Testing: Cosmic Trials and Biblical Interpretation in the Epistle of James and Other Jewish Literature. WUNT II 396. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Emerson, Matthew Y. “Arbitrary Allegory, Typical Typology, or Intertextual Interpretation? Paul’s Use of the Pentateuch in Galatians 4:21–31.” BTB 43 (2013): 14–22. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. “Introduction: Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide.” Pages 1–16 in Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide. Edited by Troels EngbergPedersen. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. –. Paul and the Stoics. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000. Esler, Philip F. Galatians. New Testament Readings. London; New York: Routledge, 1998. –. “Judean Ethnic Identity in Josephus’ Against Apion.” Pages 73–91 in A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Seán Freyne. Edited by Zuleika Rodgers, Margaret DalyDenton, and Anne Fitzpatrick. JSJSup 132. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Fee, Gordon D. Galatians. Pentecostal Commentary Series. Dorset, UK: Deo, 2007. Feldman, Louis H. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1–4. Edited by Steve Mason. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 3. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2004. –. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. HCS 27. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. –. Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible. JSJSup 58. Atlanta: SBL Press, 1998. Fischer, Irmtraud. Die Erzeltern Israels: Feministisch-theologische Studien zu Genesis 12– 36. BZAW 222. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994. Fishbane, Michael A. Judaism: Revelation and Traditions. San Franscisco: HarperOne, 1987. Flusser, David. Judaism of the Second Temple Period: The Jewish Sages and Their Literature. Translated by Azzan Yadin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Fowl, Stephen E. Ephesians: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012. –. “Who Can Read Abraham’s Story? Allegory and Interpretive Power in Galatians.” JSNT 55 (1994): 77–95. Fraade, Steven D. “1 Baruch.” Pages 1545–64 in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture. Edited by Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2013. Francis, Michael. “Defining the Excluded Middle: The Case of Ishmael in Jubilees.” JSP 21 (2012): 259–83. Fredriksen, Paula. “How Jewish Is God? Divine Ethnicity in Paul’s Theology.” JBL 137 (2018): 193–212. –. “Judaizing the Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul’s Gospel.” NTS 56 (2010): 232–52. –. “Mandatory Retirement: Ideas in the Study of Christian Origins Whose Time Has Come to Go.” SR 35 (2006): 231–46. –. Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2017. –. “The Birth of Christianity and the Origins of Christian Anti-Judaism.” Pages 8–30 in Jesus, Judaism & Christian Anti-Judaism: Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust. Edited by Paula Fredriksen and Adele Reinhartz. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. –. “The Question of Worship: Gods, Pagans, and the Redemption of Israel.” Pages 175– 201 in Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context of the Apostle. Edited by Mark D. Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015.

228

Bibliography

–. “Why Should a ‘Law-Free’ Mission Mean a ‘Law-Free’ Apostle?” JBL 134 (2015): 637–50. Frey, Jörg. “Paul’s Jewish Identity.” Pages 285–322 in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World = Jüdische Identität in der griechisch-römischen Welt. Edited by Jörg Frey, Daniel R. Schwartz, and Stephanie Gripentrog. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 72. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Gager, John G. Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. –. Reinventing Paul. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Garlington, Don. An Exposition of Galatians: A Reading from the New Perspective. 3rd ed. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2007. Gaston, Lloyd. “Israel’s Enemies in Pauline Theology.” NTS 28 (1982): 400–423. –. Paul and the Torah. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987. Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. Our Mother Saint Paul. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007. George, Luke Timothy. Galatians. NAC 30. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994. Gese, H. “Τὸ Δὲ Ἁγάρ Σινᾶ Ὄρος Ἐστὶν Ἐν Ἀραβιᾴ (Gal. 4, 25).” Pages 81–94 in Das ferne und nahe Wort: Festschrift Leonhard Rost zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 30. November 1966 gewidmet. Edited by Fritz Maass. BZAW 105. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1967. Gignilliat, Mark S. “Isaiah’s Offspring: Paul’s Isaiah 54:1 Quotation in Galatians 4:27.” BBR 25 (2015): 205–23. –. “Paul, Allegory, and the Plain Sense of Scripture: Galatians 4:21–31.” JTI 2 (2008): 135–46. Goering, Greg Schmidt. Wisdom’s Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel. SJSJ 139. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Goodman, Martin. “Josephus on Abraham and the Nations.” Pages 177–83 in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham. Edited by Martin Goodman, George H. van Kooten, and Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten. TBN 13. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010. Goodrich, John K. “‘As Long as the Heir Is a Child’: The Rhetoric of Inheritance in Galatians 4:1–2 and P.Ryl. 2.153.” NovT 55 (2013): 61–76. –. “Guardians, Not Taskmasters: The Cultural Resonances of Paul’s Metaphor in Galatians 4.1–2.” JSNT 32 (2010): 251–84. Goppelt, Leonard. Typos: Die typologische Deutung des Alten Testaments im Neuen. 2nd ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966. Grätz, Sebastian. “‘Wisdom’ and ‘Torah’ in the Book of Baruch.” Pages 187–201 in Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of “Torah” in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period. Edited by Bernd U. Schipper and D. Andrew Teeter. SJSJ 163. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013. Greenspahn, Frederick E. When Brothers Dwell Together: The Preeminence of Younger Siblings in the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Gregerman, Adam. “The Lack of Evidence for a Jewish Christian Countermission in Galatia.” CCJR 4 (2009): 1–24. Gruen, Erich S. Rethinking the Other in Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. Gunkel, H. “The Two Accounts of Hagar. Genesis Xvi. and Xxi., 8–21.” Translated by W. H. Carruth. The Monist 10 (1900): 321–42.

Bibliography

229

Hafemann, Scott J. “Paul and the Exile of Israel in Galatians 3–4.” Pages 329–71 in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. Edited by James M. Scott. JSJSup 56. Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 1997. Halpern-Amaru, Betsy. Rewriting the Bible: Land and Covenant in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994. –. The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees. SJSJ 60. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 1999. Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. –. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Hanges, James Constantine. “‘Severing the Joints and the Marrow’: The Double-Edged Sword of Comparison.” RT 20 (2013): 331–44. Hansen, G. Walter. Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts. JSNTSup 29. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Hanson, R. P. C. Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Hardin, Justin K. “Equality in the Church.” Pages 224–34 in Introduction to Messianic Judaism: Its Ecclesial Context and Biblical Foundations. Edited by David Rudolph and Joel Willitts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013. –. “Galatians 1–2 Without a Mirror: Reflections on Paul’s Conflict with the Agitators.” TynBul 65 (2014): 275–303. –. Galatians and the Imperial Cult: A Critical Analysis of the First-Century Social Context of Paul’s Letter. WUNT II 237. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Harlow, Daniel C., Karina Martin Hogan, Matthew Goff, and Joel S. Kaminsky, eds. The “Other” in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John J. Collins. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Harmon, Matthew S. She Must and Shall Go Free: Paul’s Isaianic Gospel in Galatians. BZNW 168. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010. Harrington, S. J., Daniel J. Invitation to the Apocrypha. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Harris, Murray J. Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: A Reference Resource for Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. –. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Hay, David M. Both Literal and Allegorical: Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus. BJS 232. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. Hayes, Christine E. Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. –. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11. 2nd ed. The Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Heim, Erin M. Adoption in Galatians and Romans: Contemporary Metaphor Theories and the Pauline Huiothesia Metaphors. BibInt 153. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2017. Henderson, Ruth. “The Inter-Textual Dialogue between Deuteronomy 4,30 and Job 28:12–20 in Baruch 3:9–4:4.” Pages 43–59 in Studies on Baruch: Composition, Literary Relations, and Reception. Edited by Sean A. Adams. DCLS 23. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016. Hezser, Catherine. Jewish Slavery in Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Hietanen, Mika. Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis. LNTS 344. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2007.

230

Bibliography

Hogan, Karina Martin. “Baruch.” Pages 1027–33 in The Apocrypha: A Fortress Commentary on the Bible Study Edition. Edited by Gale A. Yee, Hugh R. Page Jr., and Matthew J. M. Coomber. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016. –. “Elusive Wisdom and the Other Nations in Baruch.” Pages 145–59 in The “Other” in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John J. Collins. Edited by Daniel C. Harlow, Karina Martin Hogan, Matthew Goff, and Joel S. Kaminsky. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Hogetarp, Albert L. A. “Hagar and Paul’s Covenant Thought.” Pages 345–59 in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham. Edited by Martin Goodman, George H. van Kooten, and Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten. TBN 13. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010. Horbury, William. Messianism among Jews and Christians: Biblical and Historical Studies. 2nd ed. Cornerstones. New York; London: Bloomsbury, 2016. Horrell, David G. Ethnicity and Inclusion: Religion, Race, and Whiteness in Constructions of Jewish and Christian Identities. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020. Howard, George. Paul: Crisis in Galatia: A Study in Early Christian Theology. SNTS 35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Hubing, Jeff. Crucifixion and New Creation: The Strategic Purpose of Galatians 6.11–17. LNTS 508. London; New York: Bloomsbury, 2015. Hübner, Hans. Das Gesetz bei Paulus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Isaac, Jules. Jésus et Israël. Paris: Albin Michel, 1948. –. L’Enseignement de Méprissuivi de L’antisémitisme a-t-Il Des Racines Chrétiennes? Paris: Fasquelle, 1962. –. The Teaching of Contempt: Christian Roots of Anti-Semitism. Translated by Weaver Helen. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964. Jankowski, Gerhard. “Der Galaterbrief.” Texte und Kontexte 47/48 (1990): 8–120. Janzen, J. Gerald. Abraham and All the Families of the Earth: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis 12–50. ITC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Jarrell, R. H. “The Birth Narrative as Female Counterpart to Covenant.” JSOT 97 (2002): 3–18. Jaspen, A. “Amah und Schiphchah.” VT 8 (1958): 293–97. Jobes, Karen H. “Jerusalem, Our Mother: Metalepsis and Intertextuality in Galatians 4.21– 31.” WTJ 55 (1993): 299–320. Jobes, Karen H., and Moisés Silva. The Invitation to the Septuagint. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015. Johnson Hodge, Caroline. If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Josephus. Translated by Henry St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965. Juncker, Günther H. “‘Children of Promise’: Spiritual Paternity and Patriarch Typology in Galatians and Romans.” BBR 17 (2007): 131–60. Kahl, Brigitte. Galatians Re-Imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010. –. “Hagar Between Genesis and Galatians: The Stony Road to Freedom.” Pages 219–32 in From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New. Edited by Craig A. Evans. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004. –. “Hagar’s Babylonian Captivity: A Roman Re-Imagination of Galatians 4:21–31.” Interpretation 68 (2014): 257–69.

Bibliography

231

Kaiser, Otto. Philo von Alexandrien: Denkender Glaube – Eine Einführung. FRLANT 259. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Kamesar, Adam. “Biblical Interpretation in Philo.” Pages 65–91 in The Cambridge Companion to Philo. Edited by Adam Kamesar. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Kaminsky, Joel S. “Israel’s Election and the Other in Biblical, Second Temple, and Rabbinic Thought.” Pages 17–30 in The “Other” in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John J. Collins. Edited by Daniel C. Harlow, Karina Martin Hogan, Matthew Goff, and Joel S. Kaminsky. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. –. Yet I Loved Jacob: Reclaiming the Biblical Concept of Election. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007. Kee, Howard Clark, eds. The Cambridge Annotated Study Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Keener, Craig S. Galatians. NCBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Keesmaat, Sylvia C. “Paul and His Story: Exodus and Tradition in Galatians.” Pages 300– 333 in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. JSNTSup 148. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Kepple, Robert J. “An Analysis of Antiochene Exegesis of Galatians 4:24–26.” WTJ 39 (1977): 239–49. Kerkeslager, Allen. “Jewish Pilgrimage and Jewish Identity in Hellenistic and Early Roman Egypt.” Pages 99–225 in Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt. Edited by David Frankfurter. RGRW 134. Leiden; Boston; Koln: Brill, 1998. Kloppenborg, John S. Christ’s Associations: Connecting and Belonging in the Ancient City. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2019. Knibb, Michael A. Essays on the Book of Enoch and Other Early Jewish Texts and Traditions. SVTP 22. Boston: Brill, 2008. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. BHT 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. Köckert, Matthais. “Gottes ‘Bund’ mit Abraham und die ‘Erwählung’ Israels in Genesis 17.” Pages 1–28 in Covenant and Election in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism: Studies of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism Vol. V. FAT II 79. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999. Kooten, George H. van. “Philosophical Criticism of Genealogical Claims and Stoic Depoliticization of Politics: Greco-Roman Strategies in Paul’s Allegorical Interpretation of Hagar and Sarah (Gal 4:21–31).” Pages 361–85 in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham. Edited by Martin Goodman, George H. van Kooten, and Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten. TBN 13. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010. Korner, Ralph J. “Ekklēsia as a Jewish Synagogue Term: Some Implications for Paul’s Socio-Religious Location.” JJMJS 2 (2015): 53–78. Koskenniemi, Erkki. “Philo and Classical Education.” Pages 102–28 in Reading Philo: Handbook to Philo of Alexandria. Edited by Torrey Seland. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014.

232

Bibliography

Krewson, William L. Jerome and the Jews: Innovative Supersessionism. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2017. Kugel, James L. A Walk through Jubilees: Studies in the Book of Jubilees and the World of Its Creation. SJSJ 156. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012. –. “Ancient Israelite Pedagogy and its Survival in Second Temple Interpretations of Scripture.” Pages 15–58 in Pedagogy in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Karina Martin Hogan, Matthew Goff, and Emma Wasserman. EJL 41. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017. –. “Early Jewish Biblical Interpretation.” Pages 151–78 in Early Judaism: A Comprehensive Overview. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Kwon, Yon-Gyong. Eschatology in Galatians. WUNT II 183. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Lambrecht, Jan. “Abraham and His Offspring: A Comparison of Galatians 5,1 with 3,13.” Bib 80 (1999): 525–36. Lans, Birgit van der. “Hagar, Ishmael, and Abraham’s Household in Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaicae.” Pages 185–99 in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham. Edited by Martin Goodman, George H. van Kooten, and Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten. TBN 13. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010. Le Cornu, Hilary, and Joseph Shulam. A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Galatians. Jerusalem: Academon, 2005. Lee, Jae Won. Paul and the Politics of Difference: A Contextual Study of the JewishGentile Difference in Galatians and Romans. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014. Lee, Won W. “The Concept of the Wilderness in the Pentateuch.” Pages 1–16 in Israel in the Wilderness: Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions. Edited by Kenneth E. Pomykala. TBN 10. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008. Lémonon, Jean-Pierre. L’épitre aux Galates. Commentaire Biblique: Nouveau Testament 9. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2008. Levenson, Jon D. Sinai & Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. New York: HarperOne, 1985. –. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993. Levine, Daniel B. “Hubris in Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities 1–4.” HUCA 64 (1993): 51–87. Lévy, Carlos. “‘Mais que faisait donc Philon en Égypte?’ À propos de l’identité diasporique de Philon.” Pages 295–312 in La Rivelazione in Filone di Alessandria: Natura, Legge, Storia. Edited by Angela Maria Mazzanti and Francesca Calabi. Biblioteca Di Adamantius 2. Verucchio: Pazzini, 2004. Lightfoot, J. B. The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians: With Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979. Lincicum, David. Paul and the Early Encounter with Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. Lincoln, Andrew T. Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology. SNTS 43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Livesey, Nina E. Circumcision as a Malleable Symbol. WUNT II 295. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.

Bibliography

233

Lohfink, Norbert, and Erich Zenger. The God of Israel and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms. Translated by Everett R. Kalin. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000. Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. WBC 41. Dallas: Word, 1990. Lopez, Davina C. Apostle to the Conquered: Reimagining Paul’s Mission. Paul in Critical Contexts. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008. Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2nd ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989. Lust, Johan, Erick Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaf, 2003. Luther, Martin. Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535). Translated by Theodore Graebner. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1949. Lyons, George. Galatians: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition. NBBC. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2012. Macaskill, Grant. “Creation, Eschatology and Ethics in 4QInstruction.” Pages 217 –45 in Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Gröningen. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Mladen Popović. STDJ 70. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008. –. “History, Providence and the Apocalyptic Paul.” SJT 70 (2017): 409–26. –. Union with Christ in the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Maier, Christl M. Daughter Zion, Mother Zion: Gender, Space, and the Sacred in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008. –. “Psalm 87 as a Reappraisal of the Zion Tradition and Its Reception in Galatians 4:26.” CBQ 69 (2007): 473–86. Malan, F. S. “The Strategy of Two Opposing Covenants: Galatians 4:21–5:1.” Neotestamenica 26 (1992): 425–40. Malherbe, Abraham J. “Hellenistic Moralists and the New Testament.” Pages 675–750 in Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays, 1959–2012, by Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by Carl R. Holladay, John T. Fitzgerald, Gregory E. Sterling, and James W. Thompson. Vol. 2 of NovTSup 150. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Marcus, Joel. “Lou Martyn, Paul, and Judaism.” JSPL 7 (2017): 112–18. Martin, Troy. “Apostasy to Paganism: The Rhetorical Stasis of the Galatian Controversy.” JBL 114 (1995): 437–61. –. “Pagan and Judeo-Christian Time-Keeping Schemes in Gal 4.10 and Col 2.16.” NTS 42 (1996): 105–19. Martin, Troy W. “The Covenant of Circumcision (Genesis 17:9–14) and the Situational Antitheses in Galatians 3:28.” JBL 122 (2003): 111–25. Martinez, Florentino Garcia, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. Vol. 1 (1Q1–4Q273). Leiden; New York: Brill, 2000. Martyn, J. Louis. “A Law-Observant Mission to Gentiles: The Background of Galatians.” SJT 38 (1985): 307–24. –. “Apocalyptic Antinomies in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.” NTS 31 (1985): 410–24. –. “Christ, the Elements of the Cosmos, and the Law in Galatians.” Pages 16–39 in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks. Edited by Michael L. White and O. Larry Yarbrough. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. –. Galatians. AB 33A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. –. “The Apocalyptic Gospel in Galatians.” Interpretation 54 (2000): 246–66.

234

Bibliography

–. “The Covenants of Hagar and Sarah: Two Covenants and Two Gentile Missions.” Pages 160–92 in Faith and History: Essays in Honor of Paul W. Meyer. Edited by John T. Carroll, Charles H. Cosgrove, and E. Elizabeth Johnson. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. –. Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul. London; New York: T&T Clark, 1997. Mason, Steve. “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History.” JSJ 38 (2007): 457–512. –. Josephus and the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. –. “‘Should Any Wish to Enquire Further’ (Ant. 125): The Aim and Audience of Josephus’s Judean Antiquities/Life.” Pages 64–103 in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives. Edited by Steve Mason. JSPSup 32. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. –, ed. Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives. JSPSup 32. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Mason, Steve, James S. McLaren, and John M. G. Barclay. “Josephus.” Pages 290–321 in Early Judaism: A Comprehensive Overview. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Matera, Frank J. Galatians. SP 9. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992. Matlock, R. Barry. “Sins of the Flesh and Suspicious Minds: Dunn’s New Theology of Paul.” JSNT 72 (1998): 67–90. McDermott, Gerald R. “A History of Supersessionism: Getting the Big Story Wrong.” Pages 33–44 in The New Christian Zionism: Fresh Perspectives on Israel & the Land. Edited by Gerald R. McDermott. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2016. –. “Introduction.” Pages 1–4 in Understanding the Jewish Roots of Christianity: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Essays on the Relationship between Christianity and Judaism. Edited by Gerald R. McDermott. Studies in Scripture and Biblical Theology. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2021. McEvenue, S. E. “A Comparison of Narrative Styles in the Hagar Stories.” Semeia 3 (1975): 64–80. McKnight, Scot. Galatians. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. McLaren, James S. “The Temple and Gentiles.” Pages 92–108 in Attitudes to Gentiles in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by David C. Sim and James S. McLaren. LNTS 499. New York: Bloomsbury, 2013. McNamara, M. “Τὸ Δὲ (Ἁγάρ) Σινᾶ Ὄρος Ἐστῖν Ἐν Τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ (Gal. 4, 25a): Paul and Petra.” MS 2 (1978): 24–41. Mendelson, Alan. Philo’s Jewish Identity. BJS 161. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Mermelstien, Ari. Creation, Covenant, and the Beginnings of Judaism: Reconceiving Historical Time in the Second Temple Period. SJSJ 168. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2014. Metzger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Meyer, Jason C. The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology. NACSBT 6. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009. Meyers, Carol. Exodus. NCBC. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Millar, Fergus. “Hagar, Ishmael, Josephus and the Origins of Islam.” JJS 44 (1993): 23– 45. –. The Greek World, the Jews, & the East, Vol. 3, Rome, the Greek World, and the East. Edited by Hannah M. Cotton and Guy M. Rogers. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2011.

Bibliography

235

Miller, David M. “Ethnicity, Religion and the Meaning of Ioudaios in Ancient ‘Judaism’.” CBR 12 (2014): 216–65. Miller, Troy A. “Surrogate, Slave and Deviant? The Figure of Hagar in Jewish Tradition and Paul (Galatians 4.21–31).” Pages 138–54 in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality, Volume 2: Exegetical Studies. Edited by Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias. LNTS 392. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2009. Mitchell, Margaret M. “Gift Histories.” JSNT 39 (2017): 304–23. Moo, Douglas J. Galatians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. Morales, Rodrigo J. The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel: New Exodus and New Creation Motifs in Galatians. WUNT II 282. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Murray, Michele. Playing a Jewish Game: Gentile Christian Judaizing in the First and Second Centuries. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2004. Mussner, Franz. Der Galaterbrief. 3rd ed. HThKNT 9. Freiburg: Herder, 1977. –. “Hagar, Sinai, Jerusalem.” TQ 135 (1955): 56–60. Nanos, Mark D. Reading Paul within Judaism. Collected Essays of Mark D. Nanos, Vol. 1. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017. –, ed. The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. –. The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002. –. “The Question of Conceptualization: Qualifying Paul’s Position on Circumcision in Dialogue with Josephus’s Advisors to King Izates.” Pages 105–52 in Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context of the Apostle. Edited by Mark D. Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015. –. “What Does ‘Present Jerusalem’ (Gal 4:25) in Paul’s Allegory Have to Do with the Jerusalem of Paul’s Time, or the Concerns of Galatians?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Central States Region of SBL. St. Louis, MO, 28 March 2004. –. “What Was at Stake in Peter’s ‘Eating with Gentiles’ at Antioch?” Pages 282–318 in The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation. Edited by Mark D. Nanos. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. Nanos, Mark D., and Magnus Zetterholm, eds. Paul within Judaism: Restoring the FirstCentury Context of the Apostle. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Nickelsburg, George W. E. “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded.” Pages 89–156 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by Michael E. Stone. CRINT. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Niehaus, Jeffrey J. God at Sinai: Covenant & Theophany in the Bible and Ancient Near East. Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. Niehoff, Maren. Philo on Jewish Identity and Culture. TSAJ 86. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. –. “Mother and Maiden, Sister and Spouse: Sarah in Philonic Midrash.” HTR 97 (2004): 413–44. Noack, Christian. Gottesbewußtsein: Exegetische Studien zur Soteriologie und Mystik bei Philo von Alexandria. WUNT II 116. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Noble, John T. A Place for Hagar’s Son: Ishmael as a Case Study in the Priestly Tradition. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016. Novenson, Matthew V. Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

236

Bibliography

–. “Paul’s Former Occupation in Ioudaismos.” Pages 24–39 in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter. Edited by Mark W. Elliott, Scott J. Hafemann, N. T. Wright, and John Frederick. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. –. “The Legalism of the Apostle Paul.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. Denver, CO, 18 November 2018. –. “The Self-Styled Jew of Romans 2 and the Actual Jews of Romans 9–11.” Pages 133–62 in The So-Called Jew in Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Edited by Rafael Rodríguez and Matthew Thiessen. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016. Oakes, Peter. Galatians. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015 Oepke, Albrecht. Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater. 4th ed. ThHK 9. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1979. Okoye, James C. “Sarah and Hagar: Genesis 16 and 21.” JSOT 32 (2007): 163–75. Oliver, Isaac W. “The Parting of the Ways: When and How Did the Ekkl‡തsia Split from the Synagogue.” Pages 65–87 in Understanding the Jewish Roots of Christianity: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Essays on the Relationship between Christianity and Judaism. Edited by Gerald R. McDermott. Studies in Scripture and Biblical Theology. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2021. Omanson, Roger L. A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. O’Neill, J. C. “‘For This Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia’ (Galatians 4.25).” Pages 210–19 in The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North. Edited by Steve Moyise. JSNTSup 189. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. –. The Recovery of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. London: SPCK, 1972. Osten-Sacken, Peter von der. Der Brief an die Gemeinden in Galatien. ThKNT 9. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2019. Overland, Paul. “Hagar.” Pages 376–79 in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003. Pearce, Sarah. “Intermarriage and the Ancestors of the Jews: Philonic Perspectives.” SPhiloA 27 (2015): 1–26. –. The Land of the Body: Studies in Philo’s Representation of Egypt. WUNT 208. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Penner, Todd, and Davina C. Lopez. “Homelessness as a Way Home.” Page 151–76 in Holy Land as Homeland? Models for Constructing the Historical Landscape of Jesus. Edited by Keith W. Whitelam. SWBA, Second Series 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2011. Perkins, Pheme. Abraham’s Divided Children: Galatians and the Politics of Faith. The New Testament in Context. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2001. Perriman, Andrew C. “The Rhetorical Strategy of Galatians 4:21–5:1.” EQ 65 (1993): 27– 42. Philo. Translated by F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, Ralph Marcus, J. W. Earp. 22 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929–1962. Pinker, Aron. “The Expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael (Gen 21:9–21).” Women in Judaism: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6 (2009): 1–24. Pitre, Brant, Michael P. Barber, and John A. Kincaid. Paul, A New Covenant Jew: Rethinking Pauline Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019. Pollmann, Karla, and Mark W. Elliott. “Galatians in the Early Church: Five Case Studies.” Pages 40–61 in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics

Bibliography

237

in Paul’s Letter. Edited by Mark W. Elliott, Scott J. Hafemann, N. T. Wright, and John Frederick. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. Porter, Stanley E. “The Concept of the Covenant in Paul.” Pages 269–85 in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C. R. de Roo. JSJSup 71. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2003. Porter, Stanley E., and Jacqueline C. R. de Roo, eds. The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. JSJSup 71. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2003. Prokhorov, Alexander V. “Taking the Jews Out of the Equation: Galatians 6.12–17 as a Summons to Cease Evading Persecution.” JSNT 36 (2013): 172–88. Punt, Jeremy. “Revealing Rereading. Part 1: Pauline Allegory in Galatians 4:21–5:1.” Neotestamenica 40 (2006): 87–100. –. “Revealing Rereading. Part 2: Paul and the Wives of the Father of Faith in Galatians 4:21–5:1.” Neotestamenica 40 (2006): 101–18. Ramsay, William M. A Historical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1979. Reinhartz, Adele, and Miriam-Simma Walfish. “Conflict and Coexistence in Jewish Interpretation.” Pages 101–25 in Hagar, Sarah, and Their Children: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Perspectives. Edited by Phyllis Trible and Letty M. Russell. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Richardson, Peter. Israel in the Apostolic Church. SNTS 10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Riches, John. Galatians Through the Centuries. Wiley-Blackwell Bible Commentaries. Oxford; Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008. Ridderbos, Herman N. The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953. Rillera, Andrew Remington. “Tertium Genus or Dyadic Unity? Investigating Sociopolitical Salvation in Ephesians.” BR 65 (2020): uncorrected proofs. Robinson, Bernard P. “Characterization in the Hagar and Ishmael Narratives.” SJOT 27 (2013): 198–215. Roetzel, Calvin. “Διαθῆκαι in Romans 9,4.” Bib 51 (1970): 377–90. Rogers, Justin M. “The Philonic and the Pauline: Hagar and Sarah in the Exegesis of Didymus the Blind.” Pages 57–77 in The Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism. Edited by David T. Runia and George E. Sterling. SPhiloA 26. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014. Rosen-Zvi, Ishay and Adi Ophir. “Paul and the Invention of the Gentiles.” JQR 105 (2015): 1–41. Rosner, Brian S. Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God. NSBT 31. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2013. Rothstein, David. “Text and Context: Domestic Harmony and the Depiction of Hagar in Jubilees.” JSP 17 (2008): 243–64. Royse, James R., and Adam Kamesar. “The Works of Philo.” Pages 32–64 in The Cambridge Companion to Philo. Edited by Adam Kamesar. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Rudolph, David J. A Jew to the Jews: Jewish Contours of Pauline Flexibility in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23. 2nd ed. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2016. –. “Was Paul Championing a New Freedom from – or End to – Jewish Law?” Pages 31–47 in Understanding the Jewish Roots of Christianity: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Essays on the Relationship between Christianity and Judaism. Edited by Gerald R.

238

Bibliography

McDermott. Studies in Scripture and Biblical Theology. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2021. Ruiten, Jacques T. A. G. M. van. Abraham in the Book of Jubilees: The Rewriting of Genesis 11:26–25:10 in the Book of Jubilees 11:14–23:8. JSJS 161. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012. –. “Genesis herschreven en geïnterpreteerd in het boek Jubileeën, nader toegelicht met een vergelijking van Genesis 17 en Jubileeën 15.” NedTT 64 (2010): 32–50. –. “Hagar in the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 117–38 in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites. Edited by Martin Goodman, George H. van Kooten, and Jacques T. A. G. M. van Ruiten. TBN 13. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010. Rulon-Miller, Nina. “Hagar: A Woman with an Attitude.” Pages 60–89 in The World of Genesis: Persons, Places, Perspectives. Edited by Philip R. Davies and David J. A. Clines. JSOTSup 257. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Runesson, Anders. “Inventing Christian Identity: Paul, Ignatius, and Theodosius I.” Pages 59–92 in Exploring Christian Identity. Edited by Bengt Holmberg. WUNT 226. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. –. “The Question of Terminology: The Architecture of Contemporary Discussion of Paul.” Pages 53–77 in Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle. Edited by Mark D. Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Runia, David T. “Etymology as an Allegorical Techinique in Philo of Alexandria.” SPhiloA 16 (2004): 101–21. –. “How to Read Philo.” Pages 185–98 in Exegesis and Philosophy: Studies in Philo of Alexandria. Aldershot: Variorum, 1990. –. “Philo, Alexandrian and Jew.” Pages 1–18 in Exegesis and Philosophy: Studies in Philo of Alexandria. Aldershot: Variorum, 1990. Sandelin, Karl-Gustav. “Philo as a Jew.” Pages 19–46 in Reading Philo: A Handbook to Philo of Alexandria. Edited by Torrey Seland. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977. –. Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters and Thought. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. –. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1983. Sandmel, Samuel. “Parallelomania.” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13. Sänger, Dieter. “Ἰουδαϊσμός – ἰουδαΐζειν – ἰοδαϊκῶς: Sprachliche und semantische Überlegungen im Blick auf Gal 1,13f. und 2,14.” ZNW 108 (2017): 150–85 Sarna, Nahum M. Genesis. JPS. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Schellenberg, Ryan S. Rethinking Paul’s Rhetorical Education: Comparative Rhetoric and 2 Corinthians 10–13. ECL 10. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Brief an die Galater. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. Schnabel, Eckhard. “Divine Tyranny and Public Humiliation: A Suggestion for the Interpretation of the Lydian and Phrygian Confession Inscriptions.” NovT 45 (2003): 160– 88. Schneider, Tammi J. Mothers of Promise: Women in the Book of Genesis. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Schofield, Alison. “The Wilderness Motif in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 37–53 in Israel in the Wilderness: Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions. Edited by Kenneth E. Pomykala. TBN 10. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008. Schramm, Brooks, and Kirsi I. Stjerna, eds. Martin Luther, the Bible, and the Jewish People: A Reader. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012. Schreiner, Thomas R. Galatians. ECNT 9. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.

Bibliography

239

Schröter, Jens. Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament: Studien zur urchristlichen Theologiegeschichte und zur Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons. WUNT 204. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Schwartz, Daniel R. “‘Judaean’ or ‘Jew’? How Should We Translate Ioudaios in Josephus?” Pages 3–27 in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World. Edited by Jörg Frey, Daniel R. Schwartz, and Stephanie Gripentrog. AGJU 71. Leiden: Brill, 2007. –. “Philo, His Family, and His Times.” Pages 9–31 in The Cambridge Companion to Philo. Edited by Adam Kamesar. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Schwartz, Joshua. “Ishmael at Play: On Exegesis and Jewish Society.” HUCA 66 (1995): 203–21. Scott, Ian W. Paul’s Way of Knowing: Story, Experience, and the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. Scott, James M. Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of ΥΙΟΘΕΣΙΑ in the Pauline Corpus. WUNT II 48. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992. –. On Earth as in Heaven: The Restoration of Sacred Time and Sacred Space in the Book of Jubilees. JSJSup 91. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2005. –. Paul and the Nations. WUNT 84. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Segal, Michael. The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction Ideology, and Theology. SJSJ 117. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Seland, Torrey. “Philo as a Citizen: Homo Politicus.” Pages 47–74 in Reading Philo: A Handbook to Philo of Alexandria. Edited by Torrey Seland. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. Sellin, Christine Petra. Fractured Families and Rebel Maidservants: The Biblical Hagar in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art and Literature. New York; London: Bloomsbury, 2006. Sellin, Gerhard. “Hagar und Sara. Religionsgeschichtliche Hintergründe der Schriftallegorese Gal 4,21–31.” Pages 59–84 in Das Urchristentum in seiner literarischen Geschichte: Festschrift für Jürgen Becker zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Ulrich Mell and Ulrich B. Müller. BZNW 100. Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 1999. Siker, Jeffrey S. Disinheriting the Jews: Abraham in Early Christian Controversy. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991. Silva, Moisés. Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. –. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014. Skarsaune, Oskar. In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002. Smith, Jonathan Z. Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. –. To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Snodgrass, Klyne R. “Spheres of Influence: A Possible Solution to the Problem of Paul and the Law.” JSNT 32 (1988): 93–113. Soulen, R. Kendall. “Israel and the Church: A Christian Response to Irving Greensberg’s Covenantal Pluralism.” Pages 167–74 in Christianity in Jewish Terms. Edited by Tikva Frymer-Kensky, David Novak, Peter Ochs, David Fox Sandmel, and Michael A. Signer. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000. –. The God of Israel and Christian Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

240

Bibliography

–. “The Standard Canonical Narrative and the Problem of Supersessionism.” Pages 282–90 in Introduction to Messianic Judaism: Its Ecclesial Context and Biblical Foundations. Edited by David Rudolph and Joel Willitts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013. Standhartinger, Angela. “‘Zur Freiheit ... befreit’? Hagar im Galaterbrief.” EvT 62 (2002): 288–303. Stanley, Christopher D. Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul. New York; London: T&T Clark, 2004. Starling, David I. “Justifying Allegory: Scripture, Rhetoric, and Reason in Galatians 4:21– 5:1.” JTI 9 (2015): 227–45. –. Not My People: Gentiles as Exiles in Pauline Hermeneutics. BZNW 184. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011. Steck, Odil H. Das apokryphe Baruchbuch: Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration “kanonischer” Überlieferung. FRLANT 160. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Steinhauser, Michael G. “Gal 4,25a: Evidence of Targumic Tradition in Gal 4,21–31?” Biblica 70 (1989): 234–40. Stendahl, Krister. Paul among Jews and Gentiles, and Other Essays. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Sterling, Gregory E., David T. Runia, Maren R. Niehoff, and Annewies van den Hoek. “Philo.” Pages 253–89 in Early Judaism: A Comprehensive Overview. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. The Myth of Rebellious Angels: Studies in Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Texts. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. Svendsen, Stefan Nordgaard. Allegory Transformed: The Appropriation of Philonic Hermeneutics in the Letter to the Hebrews. WUNT II 269. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Syrén, Roger. “Ishmael and Esau in the Book of Jubilees and Targum Psuedo-Jonathan.” Pages 310–15 in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context. Edited by Derek Robert George Beattie and Martin J. McNamara. JSOTSup 166. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. –. The Forsaken Firstborn: A Study of a Recurrent Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives. LHBOTS 133. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Tapie, Matthew A. Aquinas on Israel and the Church: The Question of Supersessionism in the Theology of Thomas Aquinas. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014. Taylor, John W. “The Eschatological Interdependence of Jews and Gentiles in Galatians.” TynBul 63 (2012): 291–316. Theophilos, Michael P. “The Portrayal of Gentiles in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature.” Pages 72–91 in Attitudes to Gentiles in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by David C. Sim and James S. McLaren. LNTS 499. London; New York: Bloomsbury, 2015. Thielman, Frank. “Folk Belief and Persecution in Galatia: An Appreciative Response to Clinton E. Arnold.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Institute for Biblical Research, Atlanta, GA, 2003. Thiessen, Matthew. Contesting Conversion: Genealogy, Circumcision, and Identity in Ancient Judaism and Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. –. Paul and the Gentile Problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Thornhill, A. Chadwick. “‘Spheres of Influence’ in the Epistle to the Galatians.” HBT 36 (2014): 21–41. Tolmie, D. Francois. Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter. WUNT II 190. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

Bibliography

241

Tomson, Peter J. Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Trible, Phyllis. Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives. OBT 13. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. –. “The Other Woman: A Literary and Theological Study of the Hagar Narratives.” Pages 221–46 in Understanding the Word: Essays in Honor of Bernhard W. Anderson. Edited by James T. Butler, Edward W. Conrad, and Ben C. Ollenburger. JSOTSup 37. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Trick, Bradley R. Abrahamic Descent, Testamentary Adoption, and the Law in Galatians: Differentiating Abraham’s Sons, Seed, and Children of Promise. NovTSup 169. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2016. Troost-Cramer, Kathleen. “De-Centralizing the Temple: A Rereading of Romans 15:16.” JJMJS 3 (2016): 72–101. Tropper, Amram. Rewriting Ancient Jewish History: The History of the Jews in Roman Times and the New Historical Method. Routledge Studies in Ancient History. London; New York: Routledge, 2016. Tsang, Sam. From Slaves to Sons: A New Rhetoric Analysis on Paul’s Slave Metaphors in His Letter to the Galatians. StBibLit 81. New York; Bern: Lang, 2005. Tucker, J. Brian. Reading 1 Corinthians. Cascade Companions 36. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017. –. Reading Romans after Supersessionism: The Continuation of Jewish Covenantal Identity. NTAS 6. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2018. –. “Remain in Your Calling”: Paul and the Continuation of Social Identities in 1 Corinthians. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011. Tuckett, Christopher M. “The Text of Galatians 4:25a.” Pages 372–88 in Studies on the Text of the New Testament and Early Christianity Essays in Honour of Michael W. Holmes. NTTSD 50. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Ulrich, Eugene. “The Jewish Scriptures: Texts, Versions, Canons.” Pages 122–50 in Early Judaism: A Comprehensive Overview. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Uzukwu, Gesila Nneka. The Unity of Male and Female in Jesus Christ: An Exegetical Study of Galatians 3.28c in Light of Paul’s Theology of Promise. LNTS 531. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Van Seters, John. “The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel.” JBL 87 (1968): 401–8. VanderKam, James C. The Book of Jubilees. Guides to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Vlach, Michael J. Has the Church Replaced Israel?: A Theological Evaluation. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010. Vouga, François. An die Galater. HNT 10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Waltke, Bruce. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001. Wardle, Timothy. The Jerusalem Temple and Early Christian Identity. WUNT II 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. 2nd ed. London; New York: Bloomsbury, 2016. Wenham, Gordon. Genesis 16–50. WBC 2. Dallas: Word, 1994. Westermann, Claus. “Gen 17 und die Bedeutung von berit.” TLZ 101 (1976): 161–70.

242

Bibliography

–. Genesis 12–36: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion S. J. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985. White Crawford, Sidnie. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. White, Michael L., and John T. Fitzgerald. “QUOD EST COMPARANDUM: The Problem of Parallels.” Pages 13–39 in Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by John T. Fitzgerald, Thomas H. Olbricht, and Michael L. White. NovTSup CX. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013. Williams, Jarvis. Galatians. NCCS. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2020. Williams, Sam K. Galatians. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997. Williamson, Paul R. Abraham, Israel, and the Nations: The Patriarchal Promise and its Covenantal Development in Genesis. JSOTSup 315. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Willitts, Joel. “Conclusion.” Pages 315–19 in Introduction to Messianic Judaism: Its Ecclesial Context and Biblical Foundations. Edited by David Rudolph and Joel Willitts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013. –. “Jewish Fish (ΙΧΘΥΣ) in Post-Supersessionist Water: Messianic Judaism within a PostSupersessionistic Paradigm.” HTS 72 (2016): 1–5. –. “One Torah for Another. The Halakhic Conversion of Jewish Believers: Paul’s Response to Peter’s Halakhic Equivocation in Galatians 2:11–21.” Pages 21–45 in The Crucified Apostle: Essays on Peter and Paul. Edited by Todd A. Wilson and Paul R. House. WUNT II 450. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. –. “Paul and Matthew: A Descriptive Approach from a Post-New Perspective Interpretive Framework.” Pages 62–85 in Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences. Edited by Michael F. Bird. LNTS 411. London; New York: Bloomsbury, 2011. –. “Paul the Rabbi of Messianic Judaism: Reading the Antioch Incident within Judaism as an Irreducibility Story.” JSPL 6.2 (2017): 63–86. –. “The Re-Newed Perspective: Post-Supersessionist Approach to the New Testament.” HS 57 (2016): 377–80. Wilson, Todd A. The Curse of the Law and the Crisis in Galatia: Reassessing the Purpose of Galatians. WUNT II 225. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. –. “The Supersession and Superfluity of the Law? Another Look at Galatians.” Pages 235– 44 in Introduction to Messianic Judaism: Its Ecclesial Context and Biblical Foundations. Edited by David J. Rudolph and Joel Willitts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013. –. “Wilderness Apostasy and Paul’s Portrayal of the Crisis in Galatians.” NTS 50 (2004): 550–71. Windsor, Lionel J. Reading Ephesians after Supersessionism: Christ’s Mission through Israel to the Nations. NTAS. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017. Wintermute, O.S. “Jubilees.” Pages 35–142 in vol. 2 of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Wisdom, Jeffrey R. Blessing for the Nations and the Curse of the Law: Paul’s Citation of Genesis and Deuteronomy in Gal 3.8–10. WUNT II 133. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Witherington, Ben. Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Witulski, Thomas. Die Adressaten des Galaterbriefes: Untersuchungen zur Gemeinde von Antiochia ad Pisidiam. FRLANT 193. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000.

Bibliography

243

Wöhrle, Jakob. “Isaak und Ismael: Zum Verhältnis der beiden Abrahamsöhne nach Genesis 17 und Galater 4,21–31.” Evangelische Theologie 71 (2011): 115–32. Wolter, Michael. “Das Israelproblem nach Gal 4,21–31 und Röm 9–11.” ZThK 107 (2010): 1–30. Wright, Benjamin G. “Torah and Sapiential Pedagogy in the Book of Ben Sira.” Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of “Torah” in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period. Edited by Bernd U. Schipper and D. Andrew Teeter. SJSJ 163. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Wright, N. T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. –. “Paul, Arabia, and Elijah (Galatians 1:17).” JBL 115 (1996): 683–92. –. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Yoo, Philip Y. “Hagar the Egyptian: Wife, Handmaid, and Concubine.” CBQ 78 (2016): 215–35. Zetterholm, Karin Hedner. “The Question of Assumptions: Torah Observance in the First Century.” Pages 79–103 in Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context of the Apostle. Edited by Mark D. Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015. Zetterholm, Magnus. The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation Between Judaism and Christianity. London; New York: Routledge, 2003. Ziegler, Philip G. Militant Grace: The Apocalyptic Turn and the Future of Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018 Ziemer, Benjamin. Abram – Abraham: Kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Genesis 14, 15 und 17. BZAW 350. Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 2005. Zoccali, Christopher. Reading Philippians after Supersessionism. NTAS. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017. –. “What’s the Problem with the Law? Jews, Gentiles, and Covenant Identity in Galatians 3:10–12.” Neotestamenica 49.2 (2015): 377–415. Zucker, David J. “What Sarah Saw: Envisioning Genesis 21:9–10.” JBQ 36 (2008): 54–62. Zucker, David J., and Rebecca Gates Brinton. “‘The Other Woman’: A Collaborative Jewish-Christian Study of Hagar.” Pages 339–83 in Perspectives on Our Father Abraham: Essays in Honor of Marvin R. Wilson. Edited by Steven A. Hunt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Zurawski, Jason M. “Mosaic Torah as Encyclical Paideia: Reading Paul’s Allegory of Hagar and Sarah in Light of Philo of Alexandria’s.” Pages 283–307 in Pedagogy in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Karina Martin Hogan, Matthew Goff, and Emma Wasserman. EJL 41. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017.

Index of Ancient Sources Hebrew Bible and Septuagint Genesis 3:24 4:16 12–13 12:1–3 12:1 12:2 12:3 12:7 12:12–20 13:1–7 13:14–17 13:16 15 15:2–3 15:4 15:5 15:12–20 16–21 16

16:1–16 16:1–3 16:1–2 16:1 16:2 16:3 16:4 16:4–6 16:5 16:5–6 16:6 16:7–14 16:7–9 16:7 16:8

178 179 58 58 58 58, 65, 186 58, 62, 67 58 79 75 58 59, 63 59 59 59, 64 59, 63 59 31, 122, 126, 130, 132–34, 158 35, 57–59, 64, 68– 71, 77, 81, 101, 104, 179 57, 61–64, 80–81, 91, 93, 97 109 98 61, 70, 98 61, 70, 109 61, 70 61–62, 69, 109 109 62, 70 110 62, 70 62–64 68 62, 197 62–63, 70

16:9 16:10 16:10–13 16:10–12 16:10–11 16:11 16:12 16:15–16 16:15 17

17:1–21:8 17:2–14 17:2 17:4–6 17:4 17:5 17:6 17:7 17:9–14 17:10 17:11 17:14 17:15–22 17:15–21 17:15–17 17:15 17:16 17:18–21 17:18 17:19–21 17:19 17:20 17:23–27 17:23 17:25 18:1–15

63, 110 63, 68, 73, 81, 186 110 63, 75 73 63 63, 72 64 64 59, 64, 67, 112, 129–30, 133–34, 154, 219 66 60 60, 63, 73, 186 67 60 60, 186 60, 64–65, 60 60 130 60 130 64–66 131 64–65 60, 64 60, 64–65 131 65 60, 65 65 65, 68, 73, 186 131 130–31 131 66

246 18:18 21 21:1–8 21:4 21:8–21 21:9–21 21:9–10 21:9 21:10–21 21:10

21:11–13 21:11 21:12 21:13 21:14–19 21:14 21:15–16 21:17 21:18 21:20–21 21:20 21:21 22:17 25 25:6 25:12–18 25:12 25:18 26:4 27:12 28:3 29:29 30:4 30:9 30:18 31:33 32:22 MT 37:15 Exodus 3:1 5:2 12:44–48 14:3 18:5

Index of Ancient Sources 186 35, 57–58, 66–71, 77, 104, 178 66 111, 130 111 57, 66–68, 80, 82 66–67, 112 31, 66, 70 113 56, 66, 71–72, 113, 131, 133, 178–79, 188–91 67 67, 82, 113 67, 71, 82 67–68, 71, 73, 113, 186 67–68, 67 68 68, 83 67, 73, 186 68, 178 75 70, 75, 114 63 178 178–79 111, 114 57, 70, 72, 75 178–79 63 62 63 71 71 71 71 71 71 68

209 137 168 68 209

19–24 19:3–8 19:11 19:12 19:16 19:17 19:18 19:20 19:20–24 19:23 20:2 23:4 24:13 24:16 25:9 25:40 31:18 34:2 34:4 34:32

171 171 196 209 196 209 196 196 209 196 171 68 209 196 209, 212 212 196 196 196 196

Leviticus 7:38 18:4–5 25:1 25:44 26 26:3 26:13 26:46 27:34

196 170 196 71 169 170 152 196 196

Numbers 3:1 11 12 13:12 – 13 14 14:43 28:6

196 75 75 75 75 138 196

Deuteronomy 4:19 4:39 5:14 6:17 7:6–11 10:12–13 10:16

68 137 71 170 171 152 169

247

Index of Ancient Sources 11:8 13–15 26:9 27:16 28:1–15 30:6 MT 32:8–9 39:16

170 170 75 62 170 169 180 152

Joshua 1:8

152

Judges 8:24 16:25

133 66

1 Samuel 7:12 15:11

59 138

1 Kings 9:6

138

2 Kings 19:21 25:9

207 207

1 Chronicles 5:19 5:20

57 57

2 Chronicles 13:9

137

Nehemiah 9:13 11:1

196 206

Job 18:21

137

Psalms 1:1–2 9:10 LXX 9:12 LXX 11:4 MT 19:7–9 LXX 42:3 LXX 46

152, 170 137 207 212 170 207 210

46:10 LXX 48 48:18–19 LXX 54:1–17 67:16 LXX 73:2 LXX 75:2 LXX 78:6 LXX 79:6 MT 82:4–6 LXX 83:4–6 MT 82:7 LXX 83:6 MT 86 LXX 86:4 LXX 86:5 LXX 87 MT 102:21 LXX 103:17–18 LXX 119:4 LXX 119:97 LXX

137 210 170 207 207 207 207 137 137 133 133 57 57 212–14 212 212 212–14 207 152 170 152

Proverbs 26:19

66

Isaiah 2:2 2:3 4:3 9:3 LXX 9:4 MT 10:12 10:27 10:32 37:19 40–66 43:10 48:2 48:18–19 49:6 51:4–5 52:1 52:10 54:1 54:2–3 55:4–5 55:10 56:6–8 64:9

209, 213 207 207 152 152 207 152 207 137 87 137 206 170 213 213 206 213 56, 218 213 213 213 213 206

248 66:20

Index of Ancient Sources 206

Jeremiah 2:11 3:19 4:5–6 5:7 10:25 15:17 16:20 31:1–14

137 138 207 137 137 66 137 207

Lamentations 5:11

207

Ezekiel 20:32

145

Daniel 3:28 11:32

206 137

Hosea 8:2 13:4

137 137

Joel 2:27 3:17 4:17

137 137 206

Amos 6:1

207

Obadiah 17:21

207

Micah 3:12 3:12–4:2 4:2 4:7 4:11 6:5

207 207 209 207 207 137

Deuterocanonical Works Tobit 13:10 14:4–5

206 207

Judith 2:23 8:20 9:7

133 137 137

Wisdom of Solomon 2:13 137 12:27 137 13:1 137, 181 13:10 181 14:20–21 181 Sirach 17 17:6–10 17:11–12 17:13 17:17

180 180 180 180 180

24:1–8 36:5 51:25–26

180 137 152

Baruch 1:1–14 1:15–3:8 3:9–4:4 3:9 3:15–31 3:15–28 3:15 3:16–31 3:16–21 3:16 3:19 3:20–23 3:20–21 3:20 3:21 3:22 3:23

86 86 86–87, 180 86 86 88 87–88, 87–88, 89 88, 179 88–89 137 88 88–89, 179 88–89 88 31, 86, 88–90, 179

249

Index of Ancient Sources 3:26 3:27–28 3:31 3:32–37 3:32 3:36 3:37 4:5–5:9

88 89, 179, 191 87 87 87 87 87, 179 86

Epistle of Jeremiah 23 29 51–52 64–65 69 72

137 137 137 137 137 137

1 Maccabees 2:7 8:18 8:31 13:41

206 152 152 152

2 Maccabees 1:12 1:27 3:1 9:14 15:14

206 137 206 206 206

2 Esdras 2:40–41

212

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2 Baruch 82:2–9

180

1 Enoch 82:4–7 83–90 89–90 89:11 89:36 89:40 89:43–44 89:50 90:28–29

144 79 207 133–34, 180 208 83 83 207 208

4 Ezra 7:37–38

180

Jubilees 1:9 3:31 4:26 6:32–38 6:32–35 6:32 6:33 6:34 6:35 14:21 – 24

145 145 180 144 144 144 144 144 144–145 80–81

14:22 14:23 14:24 15 15:20–22 15:21 15:23 15:25–27 15:26 15:30 15:31 15:34 16:16–18 16:17–18 16:30 17:1–14 17:2 17:3 17:4–5 17:4 17:5 17:11 17:12 19:13–16 20:13 21:1–10 22:1–9 22:16

81, 84 81, 84 81 191 131 85 132 131 85 84, 132, 179 84–85, 179–80 85 84 33 137 80, 82–83, 82, 84 82, 84 82 85 82 83 83 84 31 84 84 83

250 25:1 25:9

Index of Ancient Sources 84 84

Psalms of Solomon 7:9 152 17:11–18 153 17:30 152–53

Pseudo-Philo 8.1 11.1–2 11.6

44 180 171

Sibylline Oracles 3.257 3.599–600 3.686–88

180 180 180

Dead Sea Scrolls Damascus Document 3.14–15 144

War Scroll 2.13

31, 134, 180

4Q254

44

4Q365

44

Allegorical Interpretation 1.107–8 95 2.59 94 2.77 94 3:244 91, 96 3.244–45 93

212 213 240

105 104–5 106

On Agriculture 89

94

On Sobriety 8

On Dreams 1:240

91, 95

On the Change of Names 255 91, 93, 105

On Drunkenness 34

96

Genesis Apocryphon 20.31–32 79–80 Rule of the Community 1.14 – 15 144

Philo

On Flight and Finding 2 91 5 91 202 91 209 105

On Rewards and Punishment 1–2 98

91

On the Cherubim 3 91, 96, 104 4–6 93, 104 6 91, 105 8 91, 96, 105 10 105 On the Migration of Abraham 77 94

251

Index of Ancient Sources 89–93

90, 100

On the Posterity of Cain 62 94 130 91 137 91 On the Preliminary Studies 1 91 2 93 6–21 93 9 93 11 91, 94 12 94 19 94 20–21 95 20 91, 94, 96–97 22–23 96, 104 22 95 23–24 91 23 103 24 96–97 71 91 83 94 88 91 121–22 91 139 91 180 91 On the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel 43 91, 97, 105 48 94 On the Virtues 108 220–21

102 102

223–24

102

That God is Unchangeable 55–56 96 Who Is the Heir? 241

92

Questions and Answers on Genesis 3.19 91, 97 3.21 91 3.26–36 97 3.26 91, 97 3.27 97 3.28–30 97 3.28 91 3.31–32 97 3.32 98 3.34–35 98 3.34 91 3.37 91 3.38 91, 132 3.49 132 3.61 132 4.147 91 On the Life of Abraham 247–54 98, 102–3 250 98 251–53 34, 91 251 99, 101–4, 118 253–54 104 254 102 On the Life of Moses 2.17–22 180

Josephus Against Apion 2.255 2.279–80

163 180

Jewish Antiquities 1.5 106, 108 1.6 107 1.8 108

1.14 1.18–19 1.20 1.24 1.25–26 1.34 1.42 1.110

107–8, 111, 116 108 107–8 163 108 108 107 107

252 1.153 1.187–90 1.187 1.188–89 1.188 1.189 1.190 1.192–93 1.192 1.193 1.214–21 1.214 1.215 1.216–21 1.216 1.217 1.218–19

Index of Ancient Sources 115 108–11 109, 115 33 109–10 110–11 111, 115–16 132 112 111–12, 131 108, 111–14 111–12, 115, 131– 32 33, 112, 115 113 113 113 114

1.220–21 1.220 1.221 1.222 1.344 2.213 5.33 7.70 11.347 14.19–21

115 114 31, 116 115 115 114–15 115 115 108 31

Jewish War 2.568 4.629

106 106

The Life 2–5

106

New Testament Matthew 8:1 11:29–30 17:9

174 152 174

Mark 9:9

174

Luke 1:16 9:37

138 174

Acts 1:12 3:19 9:35 11:21 15:10

174 138 138 138 152

Romans 2:12 6:22 8:21 9–11 9:3 9:4–5

183 176 176 51 44, 51, 175 180

9:4 10:4 11:1 11:13–14

50, 168 51 44 51

1 Corinthians 1:11 1:21 2:20 5:1 5:8 6:12 7:1 7:17–24 9:20–21 9:20–22 10:23 12:1 15:23 16:8

129 137 175 129 140 129 129 50 183 44 129 129 129 140

2 Corinthians 1:16 3 3:6–14 3:18

176 167, 182 167 176

Index of Ancient Sources 7:3–11 11:3

181 176

Galatians 1:1–8 1:1 1:3 1:4 1:6–9 1:6–7 1:6 1:10 1:11–12 1:13 1:14–15 1:16 1:17 1:23 2:4 2:6–10 2:8 2:7 2:9 2:11–14 2:12 2:14 2:15 2:16 2:19 2:20 3–4 3:1–6 3:1–5 3:1 3:2 3:3 3:4 3:5 3:6–9 3:6 3:7–4:7 3:8 3:10 3:13–14 3:13 3:14 3:15–18 3:17 3:19

174 173 173 135–36, 159, 170 135, 137 141 135, 174, 176 150 144 149 144 136 204 149 136, 150 205 1 205 205 142, 146 143 142–43 44, 181, 183 141 150 144 168 135 135, 137 34, 150 136, 141, 149, 173 146, 159 149 136, 141 158 149 153 189 141 136–37, 183 150, 170, 183 136 168 168 141

3:20 3:21 3:22–29 3:22 3:23–29 3:23–24 3:23 3:24–25 3:26–29 3:26 3:29 4:1–9 4:1–7 4:1–2 4:1 4:3–5 4:3–7 4:3 4:4–7 4:4–5 4:4 4:5–6 4:5 4:6–7 4:6 4:7 4:8–20 4:8–11 4:8–9 4:8 4:9–10 4:9 4:10 4:12 4:13–15 4:13–14 4:16–18 4:17 4:19 4:20 4:21–5:6 4:21–5:1 4:21–31

253 50 141–42, 168 137 170 183 136 183 136 158 136–37 136–37 184 136–37, 184 136 136 136 183 136, 182–84 146 135–36 175, 212 184 136, 183 137, 158 136 136–37 139 136–37, 139, 150, 152, 184 155, 182–85, 216, 219 30, 137, 213 139–40 135–36, 138–39, 146, 151–53 138–39, 145–46 189 150 150 150 146, 149 135, 150–51, 153, 155 34, 124, 151 139 34 3–4, 15–17, 19–21, 23–39, 41, 53–54, 56, 119–20, 122–

254

4:21

4:22–24 4:22–23 4:22 4:23–24 4:23 4:24–27 4:24–25 4:24

4:25–26 4:25

4:26–28 4:26 4:27 4:28 4:29–30 4:29 4:30

Index of Ancient Sources 23, 125, 128–29, 134–36, 151–57, 164–66, 175, 177, 187, 189–92, 215– 20 135, 139, 146, 153, 155, 158, 183, 189, 217 168, 175, 177, 216 155, 157–59, 161, 167, 174, 177 126, 158 16 16–17, 159–60, 174–75 166, 200 16, 28, 155–57, 159, 201–3 16, 157–61, 163, 166–67, 171–78, 182, 184–85, 190, 192–93, 195–97, 200, 202–4, 208, 216–17, 219 193, 203–4 17, 112, 157, 163, 184–85, 188, 191– 92, 193–94, 196– 205, 208, 214, 216– 19 155–57 192, 193, 212, 214, 217 160, 218 158 155 16–17, 31, 149, 218 16–17, 19, 21–22, 24, 36, 156–59, 178, 187–91, 216

4:31

5:6 5:11 5:12 5:13 5:15 5:16 5:18 6:2 6:4 6:6 6:12–13 6:12 6:13 6:15 6:16 6:17

155–56, 158, 175, 217 139 135, 151–53, 155– 57, 175, 189, 217 134–35, 155 153 138, 141, 146, 149– 50, 153, 174–75, 190–91 160 149–50 135 189 189 189 183 189 189 189 134, 145–46, 149 146, 149 146 212 6, 50 149–50, 189

Ephesians 2:11–13

181

Philippians 3:3–6

44

1 Thessalonians 1:9 4:5 4:9 5:1

138, 181 137, 181 129 129

2 Peter 5:2–4

138

5:1–4 5:1 5:2–4 5:2 5:4

255

Index of Ancient Sources

Ancient Christian Writings Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 11–12 6 16 6 119 6

Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.21.1 4.18.1 4.21.3 4.28.3

6 6 6 6

Other Ancient Sources Tryphon De tropis 1.1

162

Heraclitus Homeric Allegories 5.2 162

Plutarch De Iside et Osiride 363d 163 De esu cranium 996b

163

Strabo Geography 1.2.7.5

163

Index of Authors Adams, S. A. 86–89 Alexander, T. D. 57, 63 Alter, R. 69–70, 73–74 Angel, H. 61 Arnold, C. E. 140, 142, 147–50, 183 Attridge, H. W. 106 Baasland, E. 149 Bachmann, M. 18, 28–29, 152, 167, 183–84 Barber, M. P. 13 Barclay, J. M. G. 20, 26–28, 45, 92, 106–8, 125, 132, 139–140, 145, 149, 152, 156, 159–160, 165–67, 183, 185–86 Barker, P. G. 162 Baron, L. 9 Barrett, C. K. 32–33, 123, 125–31, 134, 154, 188, 203, 216, 219 Bauckham, R. 8, 211 Baur, F. C. 9 Bautch, K. C. 85 Beale, G. K. 209, 212 Becker, A. H. 8 Becker, J. 18 Beker, J. C. 53 Belleville L. L. 140, 183 Bernat, D. A. 133, 169 Berquist, J. L. 206 Betz, H. D. 18–19, 125, 135, 137–39, 166, 172, 183, 188, 194, 196–97, 200, 205 Bilde, P. 107 Bird, M. F. 13–14, 45, 128, 143 Birnbaum, E. 90, 92, 94–95 Bitner, B. J. 43 Blanton IV, T. R. 168 Blenkinsopp, J. 61 Boccaccini, G. 46, 50

Bockmuehl, M. 50 Böhm, M. 93, 97, 104 Borgen, P. 34–35, 90–91, 98–103, 196 Bos, A. P. 92 Bouwman, G. 167, 185–86 Boyarin, D. 45, 161 Braaten, C. E. 12 Brawley, R. L. 28–29, 142, 155, 168, 212 Briffard, P. C. 64 Bruce, F. F. 125, 127, 137, 140, 159, 161–62, 167, 172, 179, 180, 183, 203, 205 Brueggemann, W. 74 Burkes, S. 87 Burton, E. D. 18–19, 124, 138–39, 151, 166, 172–73, 183, 194–96, 198, 201–3, 205, Byrne, B. 21–22, 167 Cain, A. 18 Callaway, M. 158 Calvert-Koyzis, N. L. 134, 139, 156 Campbell, J. S. 79 Campbell, W. S. 28, 49–51, 53, 168, 182, Caneday, A. B. 161, 165 Carlson, S. C. 193–202, 204, 217 Carson, D. A. 143 Charles, R. 41, 43 Christiansen, E. J. 166–68, 170, 185– 86, 208 Ciampa, R. E. 135, 174 Clarke, A. D. 48 Clements, R. E. 207 Cohen, A. 75 Cohen, S. J. D. 47 Cohick, L. H. 115 Collins, J. J. 43, 47, 208, 211

Index of Authors Cosgrove, C. H. 17, 22, 129, 133, 162, 166, 178 Cruise, C. E. 30 Dalton, W. J. 183 Das, A. A. 20, 22–23, 26, 125, 128, 134–36, 141, 152, 159, 161–62, 165, 168, 173, 177, 179, 183, 203, 205, 208, 212 Davies, G. I. 198 Davis, A. 161–63, 171 Dawson, J. D. 163–64, 170 de Boer, M. C. 20, 22, 125, 128, 130, 136, 139, 145, 165, 167, 173, 194– 96, 201, 205 de Roo, J. C. R. 168 deSilva, D. A. 22, 26, 86, 125, 155, 173 de Young, J. C. 207 Di Mattei, S. 129, 161–62, 165, 177, 194–96, 198 Donaldson, T. L. 5–9, 12, 51, 67, 78– 79, 102, 136–37, 181, 183, 206–7, 209–10 Dozeman, T. B. 57, 68, 75 Drey, P. R. 66, 71 Driver, S. R. 57 Duff, P. B. 182 Dumbrell, W. J. 210–11 Dunn, J. D. G. 20, 22, 44, 49–50, 125, 127, 135–38, 142, 144, 152, 159–60, 162, 166, 168, 172, 183, 185–86, 188, 195, 203, 206, 208 Dunne, J. A. 21–22, 129, 136, 139, 142, 149–50, 153, 189 Eastman, S. G. 17, 20–23, 26, 50, 137, 139, 149–50, 154–55, 161, 183, 188–90, 208, 216 Ebeling, G. 3 Ehrensperger, K. 24–25, 47, 49, 67 Eisenbaum, P. 49 Elliott, M. W. 3, 142 Elliott, N. 45, 49 Elliott, S. 16, 129, 158, 169 Ellis, N. 41–43 Emerson, M. Y. 171, 179, 186–87 Engberg-Pedersen, T. 22, 42–43, 54, 188 Esler, P. F. 47, 125, 130

257

Fee, G. D. 173 Feldman, L. H. 106–9, 111, 114 Fischer, I. 66 Fishbane, M. A. 11 Fitzgerald, J. T. 40 Flusser, D. 207–8 Fowl, S. E. 128, 161, 167, 181 Fraade, S. D. 89 Francis, M. 82–85 Fredriksen, P. 4, 12, 49–50, 138, 142, 147, 153, 181, 206, 211, 213 Frey, J. 45 Fung, R. Y. K. 19, 125, 167, 172, 205 Gager, J. G. 12, 38, 49, 154–55, 216 Garlington, D. 23, 125, 137, 139, 142, 147–48, 151–52, 167, 171, 173 Gaston, L. 29–30, 37, 49, 129, 155–56, 167, 186–87, 216, 218, 220 Gaventa, B. R. 139, 150 George, L. T. 125, 181 Gese, H. 198 Gignilliat, M. S. 129, 163, 165 Goering, G. S. 180 Goodman, M. 107 Goodrich, J. K. 136 Goppelt, L. 162 Grätz, S. 87 Greenspahn, F. E. 61 Gregerman, A. 21 Gruen, E. S. 76, 112, 114, 115 Gunkel, H. 57 Hafemann, S. J. 140, 166, 168–69, 179, 183 Halpern-Amaru, B. 81–83, 85, 111 Hamilton, V. P. 59, 66, 71 Hanges, J. C. 43 Hansen, G. W. 135, 162 Hanson, R. P. 162 Hardin, J. K. 48, 139–40, 145–46, 149, 183–84, 205 Harlow, D. C. 76 Harmon, M. S. 22, 167, 208 Harrington, D. J. 86 Harris, M. J. 158–60, 174, 176, 179 Hay, D. M. 91, 97 Hayes, C. E. 84

258 Hays, R. B. 20, 22, 33, 53, 128, 137, 139, 161, 167, 169, 171, 188 Heim, E. M. 183 Henderson, R. 88, 90 Hezser, C. 115 Hicks-Keeton, J. 9 Hietanen, M. 128, 162, 166, 194 Hogan, K. M. 86–89, 179 Hogetarp, A. L. A. 34, 166 Horbury, W. 212–13 Horrell, D. G. 24, 102 Howard, G. 52, 170 Hubing, J. 19 Hübner, H. 126 Isaac, J. 9–10 Jankowski, G. 173, 177 Janzen, J. G. 60, 62, 73–74 Jarrell, R. H. 186 Jaspen, A. 71 Jenson, R. W. 12 Jobes, K. H. 56, 128, 158, 167, 209 Johnson Hodge, C. 49, 51 Juncker, G. H. 178 Kahl, B. 16, 139, 173, 177 Kaiser, O. 95 Kamesar, A. 90–91, 98–101 Kaminsky, J. S. 72, 169 Keener, C. S. 22, 27, 125, 151, 173, 196, 203 Keesmaat, S. C. 151–52, 171 Kepple, R. J. 163 Kerkeslager, A. 199, 201–2 Kincaid, J. A. 13 Kloppenborg, J. S. 52 Knibb, M. A. 208 Koch, D. 166, 209 Köckert, M. 131, 133 Kooten, G. H. 158 Korner, R. J. 50 Koskenniemi, E. 92 Krewson, W. L. 5, 8–9 Kugel, J. L. 79–80, 87, 165, 180 Kwon, Y. 129, 183 Lambrecht, J. 171 Lans, B. 109–15

Index of Authors Le Cornu, H. 142, 152, 170, 172, 181, 183 Lee, J. W. 205 Lee, W. W. 75 Lémonon, J. 125, 173, 196 Levenson, J. D. 75–76, 179, 181, 206, 210, 212 Levine, D. B. 110 Lévy, C. 94 Lightfoot, J. B. 4, 18–19, 31–32, 124, 138–39, 161, 162, 166, 172, 183, 188, 200–1, 205 Lincicum, D. 39, 54 Lincoln, A. T. 127, 158, 213 Livesey, N. E. 132 Lohfink, N. 212 Longenecker, R. N. 3, 20, 22, 31–32, 125, 128, 137–38, 159, 166, 172, 183, 188, 196–98, 203 Lopez, D. C. 17, 45, 173, 176–77 Luther, M. 17–18, 124 Lyons, G. 22, 129, 136–37, 139–40, 160, 173, 188 Macaskill, G. 46, 76, 208, 212–13 Maier, C. M. 212 Malan, F. S. 166 Malherbe, A. J. 53–54 Marcus, J. 21, 23, 26 Martin, T. 133, 139, 145 Martyn, J. L. 17, 20–23, 26, 30, 46, 133, 136, 140, 146, 158, 160, 166–67, 172, 183, 186, 188, 194, 196, 205 Mason, S. 47, 106–8, 116 Matera, F. J. 20–22, 26, 125, 127, 172 Matlock, R. B. 24 McDermott, G. R. 6, 12 McEvenue, S. E. 57 McKnight, S. 125 McLaren, J. S. 106–8, 211 McNamara, M. 198 Mendelson, A. 94 Mermelstien, A. 83, 181 Metzger, B. 195 Meyer, J. C. 158, 161, 166 Meyers, C. 209–10 Millar, F. 112, 114, 132 Miller, D. M. 47

Index of Authors Miller, T. A. 35–37, 69, 81–82, 109, 122, 218 Mitchell, M. M. 27 Moo, D. J. 19, 125, 128, 135, 173, 183, 188, 205, 209 Morales, R. J. 183 Murray, M. 149, 171 Mussner, F. 22, 124, 162, 167, 172, 194, 201, 203 Nanos, M. D. 12, 21, 24–25, 34, 44, 46, 49, 51, 123, 134, 139, 141, 143, 158, 168, 178, 185–86, 209 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 79 Niehaus, J. J. 181 Niehoff, M. 92, 94, 99, 101–3, 105, 109 Noack, C. 92 Noble, J. T. 65, 67, 72–73, 75 Novenson, M. V. 42, 48–49, 51, 142 Oakes, P. 22, 188, 208 Oepke, A. 19, 124, 161 Okoye, J. C. 57, 73, 75 Oliver, I. W. 9 Omanson, R. L. 195 O’Neill, J. C. 124 – 25, 139, 169, 173, 177, 179, 186 Ophir, A. 78 Osten-Sacken. P. 125, 129, 159, 162, 166, 173 Overland, P. 63 Pearce, S. K. 85, 92, 94–98, 102–4 Penner, T. 45 Perkins, P. 158, 171 Perriman, A. C. 129, 162, 171, 195 Pinker, A. 66 Pitre, B. 12 Pollmann, K. 3 Porter, S. E. 168 Prokhorov, A. V. 146, 149 Punt, J. 162 Ramsay, W. M. 18, 124 Reed A. Y. 8 Reinhartz, A. 113–14 Richardson, P. 167 Riches, J. 3, 18 Ridderbos, H. N. 125, 203

259

Rillera, A. R. 10 Robinson, B. P. 69 Roetzel, C. 168 Rogers, J. M. 96–97, 112 Rosen-Zvi, I. 78 Rosner, B. S. 138 Rothstein, D. 81–82 Royse, J. R. 90, 98 Rudolph, D. J. 13, 49, 140, 143, 176, 183 Ruiten, J. 80–81, 83, 132 Rulon-Miller, N. 63 Runesson, A. 4, 49–50 Runia, D. T. 91–93, 96, 99–101 Sandelin, K. 90, 132 Sanders, E. P. 20, 183, 197 Sandmel, S. 39–40 Sänger, D. 47 Sarna, N. M. 60 Schellenberg, R. S. 40–41, 43 Schlier, H. 18, 22, 124, 161, 172, 183, 194, 196–98 Schnabel, E. 148 Schneider, T. J. 62–63, 70–73, 75–76 Schofield, A. 74 Schramm, B. 17 Schreiner, T. R. 22, 145, 149, 151, 159, 162–63, 166, 169–70, 173, 183, 188, 196 Schröter, J. 137, 183 Schwartz, D. R. 47, 90 Schwartz, J. 67 Scott, I. W. 140, 163, 165 Scott, J. M. 83, 136, 145, 183, 212 Segal, M. 80 Segovia, C. A. 46 Seland, T. 90 Sellin, C. P. 114 Sellin, G. 20, 196 Shulam, J. 142, 152, 170, 172, 181, 183 Siker, J. S. 129 Silva, M. 56, 173–74 Skarsaune, O. 8, 206 Smith, J. Z. 40–42, 45 Snodgrass, K. R. 170 Soulen, R. K. 5–8, 10–11 Standhartinger, A. 29, 129, 156, 187 Stanley, C. D. 129

260

Index of Authors

Starling, D. I. 129, 153–55, 158, 163, 165 Steck, O. H. 86 Steinhauser, M. G. 197–98 Stendahl, K. 20 Sterling, G. E. 90–91, 97 Stjerna, K. I. 17 Stuckenbruck, L. T. 21 Svendsen, S. N. 163 Syrén, R. 75, 82, 133 Tapie, M. A. 7, 9–12, 14 Taylor, J. W. 136–37, 183 Theophilos, M. P. 180 Thielman, F. 147, 150 Thiessen, M. 9, 28, 49, 51–52, 60, 84 85, 112, 123, 127, 131–33, 146, 155, 190 Thornhill, A. C. 170 Tolmie, D. F. 129, 135 Tomson, P. J. 49 Trible, P. 63–64, 68–69, 76, 113 Trick, B. R. 161–62, 166, 183, 196 Troost-Cramer, K. 213 Tropper, A. 109–10 Tsang, S. 22 Tucker, J. B. 48–50, 140, 168 Tuckett, C. M. 200

Wallace, D. B. 158, 173 Waltke, B. 74 Wardle, T. 208 Watson, F. 45, 129, 135, 161 Wenham, G. 62 Westermann, C. 57, 60, 67, 73–74 White Crawford, S. 79 White, Michael L. 40 Williams, J. 13 Williams, S. K. 125 Williamson, P. R. 59–60, 133 Willitts, J. 11–15, 48–53, 141, 143–44, 158, 166, 170, 213 Wilson, T. A. 136–38, 141, 144, 149, 152, 170 Windsor, L. J. 181 Wintermute, O. S. 81, 132 Wisdom, J. R. 22, 142 Witherington, B. 20, 22–23, 26, 33–35, 125, 135, 138–39, 159, 161, 167, 172–73, 182–83, 188, 208 Witulski, T. 139 Wöhrle, J. 25 Wolter, M. 19 Wright, B. G. 180 Wright, N. T. 20, 25–26, 46, 49, 158, 167, 200 Yoo, P. Y. 57, 71

Ulrich, E. 42 Uzukwu, G. N. 166, 185–86 Van Seters, J. 61 VanderKam, J. C. 80–81, 83 Vlach, M. J. 6–7 Vouga, F. 125, 161, 166, 172 Walfish, M. 113–14

Zenger, E. 212 Zetterholm, K. H. 143, 170 Zetterholm, M. 46, 49 Ziegler, P. G. 21 Ziemer, B. 60 Zoccali, C. 13, 141 Zucker, D. J. 66, 70, 72, 75 Zurawski, J. M. 34

Index of Subjects Abraham 35, 44, 52, 58–62, 64–70, 72– 82, 84–85, 89, 93–95, 97–99, 101–5, 109–19, 126, 130–34, 137, 154, 157–58, 160–61, 165, 168–69, 172, 178–80, 186, 189–90 Allegorical approaches/interpretation – As allegory 161–63 – As figural reading 163–64, 170 – As typology 161–63 – In Paul 4, 16–17, 29, 31–32, 34, 36– 40, 54, 119–20, 123–24, 128–29, 135, 156–57, 161, 164–65, 172, 186–87, 190–91, 193, 201, 203–4, 208–9, 215–19 – In Philo 31–32, 34, 36, 91–98, 100–1, 103, 117, 165, 191 Anatolian beliefs (Anatolia) 16, 142, 147–50 Apostasy 124, 135, 137–38, 141, 146, 153–54, 174, 216 Blessing 58, 60, 63, 65, 75–76, 81, 85, 116, 133, 153, 179 Church 3–12, 14–15, 17–22, 28, 127, 142 Circumcision (circumcise) 11, 45, 60, 85, 111–12, 126, 128–35, 143, 145, 147, 149, 153–54, 156, 159, 168–69, 190, 219 Covenant – Abrahamic 59–60, 65, 72, 74–76, 85, 130–31, 133–34, 167–69, 185–87 – As represented by Hagar 16, 22, 160– 61, 166, 169, 171–74, 177–78, 182, 184–86, 190–91, 203, 204–5, 208, 210, 213, 216, 218–19 – Blessing 75–76, 81, 85 – Childbearing 187, 191, 216 – Concept of 191 – Episode 59 – Eternal 50, 180

– Faithfulness 13, 50–51, 53 – In Jubilees 132, 144 – In Paul 167–68 – In Second Temple Judaism 168 – Lineage 134, 154 – Membership 133 – Mosaic 167–69, 172, 185, 187, 190, 216, 219 – New 3, 17, 166–67, 185 – Of God 131, 133 – Of slavery 128 – Old 17, 19, 166–67, 169, 172, 185, 190, 216, 219 – Outside of 156, 187, 190–91, 218 – People 7, 126, 211 – Promises 76, 85, 118, 186, 191 – Relationship 52, 210 – Sinai 3, 16–17, 19, 21, 23, 25–27, 30, 35–36, 162–63, 166–67, 169–73, 177–78, 187, 193, 197, 200, 213, 216–17, 219 – Two covenants 21, 161, 166–67, 171– 72, 185–86 – With Israel/the Jews 7–8, 19, 51, 154, 167, 180, 210 Curse 58, 62, 170 Faith 3–4, 6–7, 19, 24–25, 27, 46, 114, 116, 137, 141, 173 Flesh 6, 19, 59, 130–31, 141, 145, 159, 186, 189 Foreigner 45, 70, 76–78, 117–19, 133 Freedom 3, 17, 19, 23, 35, 149, 151, 153, 155–56, 171 Identity 7, 13, 17, 47, 61, 70, 72, 94, 103–4, 118–19, 149–50, 178, 184, 190, 218 – Christian 14, 25 – Egyptian 80, 85, 95, 99, 103, 117–18, – Ethnic 29, 36–38, 47–48, 50–51, 72, 76, 78, 118, 122, 147, 191

262

Index of Subjects

– Gentile (non-Jewish) 29–30, 37, 116– 17, 123, 155, 181, 185, 187 – Jewish 10–15, 19, 22, 25–27, 31, 39, 45, 47–48, 50–51, 53, 90, 120, 122, 127, 160, 215, 218 – Social 75 Imperial cult (imperialism) 16–17, 139 In-Christ gentiles 212–14 Isaac 3, 32–33, 36, 60, 65–67, 76, 82, 84–85, 89, 105, 111–13, 115, 117, 119, 126–27, 130–35, 158, 160, 178–79, 186, 219 Ishmael 19, 31–33, 36, 44, 59–60, 63– 70, 72–75, 81–85, 89, 98, 105–6, 111–19, 122, 126–35, 154, 178–80, 186–91, 217, 219 Israel (Israelite) 3, 5–8, 10–12, 14, 17, 19–20, 50–53, 56, 63, 67, 69, 73, 75–76, 79, 83–84, 86–87, 89–90, 98, 108, 111, 116, 118, 123, 128, 130– 32, 134, 137, 144–47, 152, 154, 167–68, 171, 174, 179–82, 185–87, 190–92, 207–8, 210–14,

171–74, 177–82, 185, 187, 190, 192–201, 203–4, 206, 208–12, 214, 216–20 Nations 4, 18, 36, 38, 40, 51–53, 58, 60, 64–65, 67, 74, 78–79, 84–90, 119, 130, 134, 145, 152–53, 179–81, 186–87, 206–14 Opponents (see troublemakers) Outsider 76–78, 101, 115, 118–19, 122, 191, 215 Pagan 35, 123, 138–40, 145–46, 148, 150–51, 153, 160, 181–82, 184–85, 187, 191–92, 213, 216, 218, 220 – Paganism 138, 142, 145, 147, 150 Persecution 17, 145, 149–150, 218 Promise 33, 58–60, 62–65, 67–69, 72– 78, 81, 85, 98, 111, 113, 126–27, 131, 137, 141–42, 153, 159–60, 167–68, 181, 186–87, 191, 210 Replacement theology 8, 10–12, 14, 215

Jerusalem 3, 8, 18, 29, 30, 50, 106, 108, 153, 200, 205–14, 217–18 – Above (heavenly) 3, 17, 192, 205, 211–14 – Present 16–18, 23, 25–27, 30, 32, 35, 171, 184, 192–93, 201, 203–6, 208, 210–14 Jewish law 3–4, 10–19, 21–29, 31, 33– 37, 39, 42, 47, 49–50, 52–53, 56, 87, 90, 100–1, 107–8, 118, 120, 122–23, 126–28, 131–32, 134–36, 138–47, 149–53, 155–60, 167–73, 178–182, 184, 188–89, 191–92, 205, 210, 215, 218, 220 – Gentile misappropriation or misuse of 28–29, 138, 140–42, 145–47, 150, 152–53, 159–60, 170 Justification 141–42, 146, 153, 190–91 Mosaic law (see Jewish law) Mount Sinai (Sinai) 16, 18, 23, 29–30, 32, 52, 123, 128, 154, 161, 163,

Slavery 3, 13, 16–19, 21–23, 25–30, 35, 37, 123, 128, 135–36, 139, 151–53, 155, 160–61, 169–72, 175, 177–78, 182–85, 187, 190–92, 203–5, 210, 214, 216–17 Sonship 136 Spirit 3, 23, 136, 146, 149, 159, 173, 180 στοιχεῖα 30, 33–34, 136, 138–40, 152–53, 156, 182, 184, 187, 191, 218 Supersessionism (supersessionistic, supersessionist) 4–15, 17, 20, 23–24, 26–27, 29–30, 37–39, 52–54, 122, 182, 192, 215, 219–20 Temple 50, 206–11, 213–14 Torah (see Jewish law) Troublemakers 29, 30, 32–33, 123, 125–26, 128–30, 133–34, 142, 145–46, 150, 154, 188