Abstract
Paul's famous words in Galatians 3:28 have been the subject of endless studies (see D. Francois Tolmie, “Ten-dencies in the Interpretation of Galatians 3:28 since 1990,” Acta Theologica 2 014, Suppl 19:105–29). So Neutel makes a bold claim that another study is needed. She claims that Paul's statement has often been studied with regard to contemporary questions; so she will undertake a “thor-oughly first century reading” and place the text in its “argumentative context”. It was especially end-time expectations in Greek, Roman and Jewish thought, Neu-tel argues, that were the most important context for Galatians 3:28. In a detailed but broad sweeping and well-argued study she makes good on this claim, with results that seem surprising and new in the over-worked field of studies of Galatians 3:28.
The study has four main chapters. Chapter 1, “One in Christ: The Reality of an Ideal Community,” establishes the central concept that frames the discussion of the three pairs: viz. conceptions of ideal communities in first-century thought in Greek, Roman and Jewish thought and their relations to boundaries in societies. That Neutel starts with studying the three pairs as a unity represents an intersectional approach, a new approach developed from feminist studies, in which the interaction between the different pairs is in focus.
By starting with “one in Christ” as the basis for unity and for doing away with distinctions, Neutel is able to place Paul's text within the ideal of unity in the utopian society within Greco-Roman thought, starting with Plato's Republic, and ideal communi-ties in the Early Empire, e.g. in Plutarch and other moral philosophers. Within Hel-lenistic Jewish writers the Essenes and the Therapeutae represent ideal communities. These groups were characterized by absence of hierarchy and a unified humanity, and they could also be imagined in future, utopian or eschatological communities. Since marriage created distinctions, the ideal of living together as equals and having all things in common demanded living without family connections. This chapter presents “ideal community” as the main framework for Paul's thoughts, determined above all by Paul's eschatology, sketches the implications for the three pairs of divisions, and shows how taken together they emphasize how society and marriage make up the ideal community.
The three following chapters develop the discussions of each individual pair. In Chapter 2, “Neither Jew nor Greek: Eschatological Gentiles and Jewish Cos-mopolitanism,” Paul's ideas are placed within Jewish eschatological tradition about the non-Jews as participating in end-time salvation. Neutel then estab-lishes first-century cosmopolitanism as the broader contemporary context. Chapter 3, “Neither Slave nor Free: Brothers in the Lord,” discusses this phrase in light of Paul's (few) other statements about slaves, and contemporary viewpoints that could imagine an ideal community with-out slaves. Chapter 4, “Nor Male and Female, Marriage at the End of the World,” probably represents the most unexpected reading. Neutel argues that this statement should not be taken as a declaration of gender in general, but as about gender in connection with marriage. A brief conclusion places Paul's statements about the three pairs regarding unity in Christ as a contribution to the first-century conversation about the ideal community.
It is particularly Neutel's discussion of “nor male and female” that breaks new ground. Moreover, her exegesis of “Nei-ther Jew nor Greek” presents an important correction to the debate about “the radical Paul.” The suggestion that “nor male and female” refers to an ideal of no marriage, and not to the equality between the sexes (the consensus view), requires a sustained argument. Neutel starts with the creation myth and Genesis 1:27. She criticizes Wayne Meeks' influential hypothesis of the Androgyne, and points to how, in Philo, the Gospels and in other texts in Paul, “male and female” is understood as referring to marriage and procreation. Among both Greco-Roman and Jewish authors there was a strong emphasis on marriage as the basis for society, and the former emphasized the reciprocal nature of the relationship between husband and wife. Paul shared this view on reciprocity, but did not give positive reasons for mar-riage; mutuality was expressed in rejection of marriage, or only as a protection against sexual sin. Instead of seeing Gala-tians 3:28 as an absolute contrast to other statements by Paul, Neutel's interpretation makes good sense in light of Paul's position on marriage and asceticism.
Neutel also makes an important contribution to the discussion of the first pair, “Neither Jew nor Greek.” The relations between Jews and non-Jews in Paul's thought belong to the most discussed items in recent scholarship on Paul, couched in modern terms of identity politics and eth-nicity. Central markers of this identity are circumcision, the question of who were the children of Abraham, and ultimately the issue of the applicability of the Law. Neu-tel positions herself by saying that the terms “Christian,” “Christianity” are not meaningful in the first century and that “Paul and his audience operate within the sphere of Judaism.” She introduces this chapter by referring to the works of Paula Fredriksen, Pamela Eisenbaum, and Caroline Johnson Hodge. They represent the “Radical New Perspective” on Paul, claiming that Paul's criticism concerned the situation of non-Jews, not Jews and Judaism, and that he did not criticize Judaism.
Against this background is it signifi-cant that Neutel criticizes their interpretation of many passages in Paul. She does not engage in ideological discussions, but argues on the basis of detailed exegesis and contextual readings of passages. Neu-tel emphasizes a factor that is downplayed by the “Radical New Perspective”: the importance of Christ for Paul's views and his arguments on all issues under discussion. Against Fredriksen's claim that for Paul circumcision was of no value only for gentiles, Neutel shows that his arguments about circumcision were “about faith and new creation, which have consequences for both Jew and gentile” (p. 103). Especially important is the question of the meaning of “faith” in Paul's argumentation in Romans 3:21–31. Neutel contests Eisenbaum claims that Paul holds that faith in Christ is not relevant for Jews to be justified. Summing up her discussion of Eisenbaum's interpretation of the Law, faith and circumcision, Neutel concludes:
It has become clear that Eisenbaum's ‘radical new perspective' does not provide a convincing reading of these passages, especially when it comes to Abraham and the law, but rather requires a strained interpretation that imposes a pre-conceived idea on the text [pp. 122–23].
This is a strong statement from a scholar with a great deal of sympathy for the “Radical New perspective.”