Source01 2 A

THE SEARCH FOR THE ORIGINS OF PAUL'S DEPICTION
OF ABRAHAM IN GALATIANS AND ROMANS
Submitted by:
James D. Stacey
B.A. (Hons)
A thesis submitted in total fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
School of History;
Faculty of Humanities And Social Sciences.
aaa
Bundoora, Victoria,
3086, Australia
March, 2014
DEDICATION
愛する奥さんへ、
全部はありがとう！
綾ちゃんを愛してる。
* * *
神様に、すべての栄光です。
To my wife,
Thank you for everything!
You are a great blessing to me.
aa
* * *
aa
But always and ever: Soli Deo gloria.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
--- PART I: FIVE EXTRA-BIBLICAL ABRAHAM TEXTS ---
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. The Question Under Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Survey of Previous Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Importance of The Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
CHAPTER 2: THE BOOK OF JUBILEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2. Common Trends In Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3. An Evaluation And Alternative Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.1 Abraham As Idolater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2 Abraham As Astrologer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.3 Abraham As Ungodly Gentile Convert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.4 Abraham As The First Monotheist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4. Chapter Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
CHAPTER 3: PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.1 Abraham As Engaged In Sinful Astrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.2 Abraham As An Ungodly Gentile Convert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
3.3 Abraham As The First Monotheist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
3.4 Placing Philo's Abraham In Jubilees' Nachleben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
iii
CHAPTER 4: JOSEPHUS’ ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
3.1 Abraham The Inventor of Monotheism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
3.2 Abraham Argues Against A Vulgar Polytheism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
3.3 Abraham An Ungodly Idolater In Chaldea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
3.4 Josephus’ Abraham In Connection With Jubilees And Philo . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
CHAPTER 5: THE APOCALYPSE OF ABRAHAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
3.1 Abraham As Involved In Terah's Idolatry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
3.2 Abraham Discovers God And Rejects Idolatry Before His Call . . . . . . . . . . . 136
3.3 Criticism of Astrology in ApocAb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
3.4 Placing The Abraham of ApocAb In Jubilees' Nachleben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
CHAPTER 6: LIBER ANTIQUITATUM BIBLICARUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
2. LAB’s Portrayal of Abraham (Chapters 4-8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
3.1 Placing LAB In Jubilees' Nachleben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
3.2 LAB And The Other Abraham Texts: One Within A Set? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION TO PART I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
2. How The Five Abraham Texts Have Been Drawn-Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
3. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
3.1 The Picture of Abraham Presented By The Five Abraham Texts . . . . . . . . . . 159
3.2 Taking The Five Abraham Texts As One Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
4. A Great Common Store of Tradition? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
4.1 Paul And The Oral Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
iv
--- PART II: PAUL AND THE FIVE ABRAHAM TEXTS ---
CHAPTER 8: SITUATING SAUL AND THE FIVE ABRAHAM TEXTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
2. Situating Saul: Education, Geography, Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
3. Saul’s Relation To Philo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
4. Saul's Relation To Josephus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
5. Saul’s Relation To Jubilees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
6. Did Saul Learn Haggadot Comparable To The Abraham Texts? . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
7. Saul’s Relation To ApocAb, And LAB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
7.1 The Calm Between Two Storms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
7.2 Section Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
8. Saul Interrupted: From Pharisee To Apostle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
9. Continuity And Discontinuity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
CHAPTER 9: GALATIANS AND THE FIVE ABRAHAM TEXTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
2. Three Proposals On Paul’s Use of The Five Abraham Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
3. Evaluation of Three Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
3.1 Martyn: The ‘Teachers’ Teaching Abraham At Galatia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
3.2 Nickelsburg: Paul’s Missionary Abraham-Preaching To Gentiles . . . . . . . . . . 238
3.3 Calvert-Koyzis: Abraham Texts As Contested Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
CHAPTER 10: ROMANS AND THE FIVE ABRAHAM TEXTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
2. Four Proposals On Paul’s Use of The Five Abraham Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
3. Evaluation of Four Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
3.1 Adams: Contrasting Abraham To The Gentiles of Rom. 1:18-32 . . . . . . . . . . 282
3.2 Calvert-Koyzis: Ungodly Abraham In Light of The Jewish Texts . . . . . . . . . . 290
3.3 Kreuzer: Paul, Adjusting The Chronology of Genesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
3.4 Calvert-Koyzis: Monotheism As Primary Boundary Maker . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
5. Conclusion To Part II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
v
--- PART III: PAUL THE MAVERICK? ---
CHAPTER 11: PAUL THE MAVERICK? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
2. Influences On Paul's View of Abraham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346
2.1 Paul, Abraham, And The Jesus Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
2.2 Paul, Abraham, And Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356
2.3 Paul, Abraham, And Other Early Church Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360
CHAPTER 12: CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
2. Question 1: Parts I&II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
3. Question 2: Part III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
4. Major Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
5. Avenues For Further Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
Appendix – Cohen's Common Pool of Palestinian-Alexandrian Midrash . . . . . . . . . . 371

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
vi
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1. Roskam's Scheme of Vice, Progress, And Virtue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Figure 2. Map of Religious 'Zones' In Pre-Revolt First Century Palestine . . . . . . . . . . 199
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to a number of individuals whose beneficial influences have
assisted the formation, maturation, and completion of this thesis.
Firstly, Dr. Anne Gardner, the Old Testament Editor of the Australian Biblical Review,
deserves recognition for her role early on in the supervision of the present thesis, particularly in
helping with the selection and refinement of the question to be discussed. Her support and
enthusiasm, especially in the early stages of the project, were unflagging, and are much appreciated.
Thanks are also due to the faculty and post-graduate students of the La Trobe University
History Department. In particular, I have valued the friendship of my fellow student Steffen Jöris,
whose humour and conviviality are matched only by an interest in the academic study of the Bible.
Two members of the faculty also deserve much appreciation: Namely, Prof. Timothy Minchin, for
chairing my supervision committee, and Prof. Adrian Jones (OAM), for co-supervising, and for
always volunteering with enthusiasm to read the work.
An earlier version of the chapter on Galatians was presented at the 2011 SBL International
Meeting, in London, and in a research seminar at the University of Bonn. I am indebted to Prof. Dr.
Michael Wolter, Prof. Dr. Rudolf Hoppe, and Dr. Jochen Flebbe of the University of Bonn for their
hospitality and comments on that occasion. Although I have disagreed with Dr. Flebbe on certain
specific points, I have appreciated his work on the theology of Romans.
Many brothers and sisters at Bundoora Presbyterian Church have provided continued
encouragement over the last few years, and they deserve, and have, my gratitude. Here, my wife
and I have benefited from being able to bear some of our burdens with another thesis couple. Thank
you, Sam and Bec. In the same connection, I would like to thank Neil Chambers for reading and
commenting on the first draft.
Thanks are due also to Peter Hastie and his staff at the Presbyterian Theological College
(Melbourne) for the warmth of their welcome and assistance at various points, including providing
a venue for meetings with my principal supervisor, Dr. Bruce Winter. Bruce has done more than any
other single individual to advance the present work. As such, the greatest debt of thanks I owe is
owed to him. His continual good humour, his Christian character, and his sustained focus upon the
things of first importance has been both an example and an encouragement.
To my parents and my family: Thank you for always seeking the best for me, and helping
me whenever I have needed it. To my wife, Ayako: Thank you for your support and patience. You
are worth far more than rubies.
And, finally, thanks be to God, who so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,
that whoever should believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life, and who continues to say:
"this is the one to whom I will look; he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my
word."
James Daniel Stacey
Melbourne, Australia
March, 2014
viii
ABBREVIATIONS
For the most part, the abbreviations used in this thesis follow those set out in the SBL Handbook of
Style.1 Abbreviations not appearing in that handbook are listed below. (N.B., however, that we have
diverged from the SBL style in citing the Mishnah and Tosefta according to Neusner's headings and
numbering.)
Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement ANESS

Annales Littéraires de l'Université de Besançon ALUB
Annuaire de l'École Pratique des Hautes Études AEP
Biblical Interpretation Series BIS
Brill Reference Library of Judaism BRLJ
Brill's Studies In Intellectual History BSIH
Cahiers Sioniens CahS
Cambridge Commentaries On Writings of The Jewish And CCWJCW
Christian World, 200 BC To AD 200
Cambridge University Press CUPress
Columbia Studies In The Classical Tradition CSCT
Eos: Commentarii Societatis Philologae Polonorum Eos
Hellenistic Culture And Society HCS
Jewish And Christian Perspectives Series JCPS
Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity And Judaism JGrCJ
Library of Pauline Studies LPS
LXX Septuagint2 = Rahlfs 19353
McMaster New Testament Studies MNTS
Nathanael Nat
New Testament Monographs NTM
New Testament Tools, Studies, And Documents NTTSD
Oxford University/Clarendon Press OUPress
Pauline Studies PSt
Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series PACS
1 Patrick H. Alexander, et. al. (ed.), SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, And Early Christian
Studies, Peabody, Hendrickson, 1999.
2 We use the terms 'LXX' and 'Septuagint' in a general sense. Cf. Karen H. Jobes Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation
To The Septuagint, Grand Rapids, Baker, 2000, p. 30.
3 Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta, 2 Vols., Stuttgart, Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935.
ix
Pillar New Testament Commentary Series PNTCS
Princeton Theological Review PTR
Publications de l'Institutum Iudaicum Bruxelles PubIIB
Reflection Refl
Review of Rabbinic Judaism RevRJ
Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum SIJD
Sources For Biblical And Theological Study SBTS
SBL Early Christianity And Its Literature SBLECL
Studi e Ricerche sull'Oriente Cristiano SROC
Studia Philonica Annual SPhA
Studies On Personalities of The Old Testament SPOT
Supplements To The Journal For The Study of Judaism JSJSup
Syria Syr
Temenos Tem
The Oberlin Quarterly Review OQR
Theologische Versuche ThVer
Theologische Existenz Heute ThEx
Tohoku Philosophical Society Bulletin TPSB
Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Rostock 2. WZUR2 GS3
Jahrgang: Heft 3 der Reihe Gesellschafts- und
Sprachwissenschaften
Zygon Zyg
x
SUMMARY
The present thesis discusses the origins of Paul's view of Abraham in Galatians and Romans, asking the
question, “what influences shaped Paul's view of Abraham?” This broader question is then broken down
into two smaller ones.
Firstly, was the Abraham of Galatians and/or Romans discernibly affected by the presentations
of Abraham in the five Second Temple texts Jubilees; Apocalypse of Abraham; Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum, Josephus' Antiquities, and various treatises of Philo of Alexandria? Secondly, was Paul's
view a unique and isolated reading of Genesis, or was his personal understanding augmented from
another direction?
The majority of the study deals with the first question. The five texts discussed have often been
grouped together as texts which speak with one voice about Abraham. They are seen as one tradition.
This hypothesised tradition has then been applied to Paul, in an attempt to demonstrate how his view of
Abraham was affected by it. Prominent scholarly contributions moving in this direction have been made
by Nancy Calvert-Koyzis, George Nickelsburg, and Edward Adams, amongst others. After evaluation, it
is here concluded that Paul's Abraham was not discernibly affected by these five texts.
In relation to the second question, Roy Harrisville (III) has proposed that Paul was a 'maverick'
in disregarding prior views of Abraham. In particular, Harrisville rules out the possibility of any
influence from other understandings of Abraham found in the New Testament, since Paul's were the first
New Testament documents. Against this view, we note that the New Testament writings often preserve
material older than themselves. We then explore the real possibility that Paul's Abraham was influenced
by the teachings of such figures as John the Baptist, Jesus, or the Apostles.
xi
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this
thesis contains no material published elsewhere or extracted in
whole or in part from a thesis submitted for the award of any
other degree or diploma.
No other person's work has been used without due
acknowledgement in the main text of the thesis.
This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any
degree or diploma in any other tertiary institution.
Signed:
Dated: _20__ / _03__ / _2014__
xii
PART I
FIVE EXTRA-BIBLICAL ABRAHAM TEXTS
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Question Under Investigation
The present study deals with a question of sources: viz. what the sources were from
which the Apostle Paul derived his understanding of the Old Testament patriarch
Abraham.1 The question is essentially this: 'Where did Paul's understanding of Abraham
come from?'. Or, in Roy A. Harrisville III's concise formulation: "Whence Paul's
Abraham?".2 Several answers have been offered in the scholarly literature. They may be
divided into two main groups.
On the one hand, some have sought to argue for Paul's exclusive reliance upon
Genesis. Harrisville's work on the subject falls into this category. Having surveyed
almost every reference to Abraham in Second Temple literature, Harrisville concluded
that Paul was a "maverick" in disregarding contemporary extra-biblical traditions, and
that none of the literature which he had surveyed could have served as a literary
antecedent to Paul's view.3
On the other hand, many have suggested that Paul was indebted to extra-biblical
texts (or traditions) for at least part of his understanding of Abraham. In recent
discussion, in particular, five texts have been proposed as necessary background for
Paul's use of Abraham. Those five texts are: Jubilees; Josephus' Antiquities; various
writings of Philo; The Apocalypse of Abraham, and Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. (We
shall refer to these often hereafter collectively as the 'five Abraham texts'.)
1 'Abraham' is used throughout the present thesis; 'Abram' is not used, unless necessary for
disambiguation.
2 Roy A. Harrisville, III, The Figure of Abraham In The Epistles of St. Paul: In The Footsteps of
Abraham, San Francisco, Mellen, 1992, p. xi.
3 Harrisville, Figure, p. 182.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 2
The present study shares sympathies with both of these approaches, but charts a
third course. We agree that the sources of Paul's understanding of Abraham were more
numerous than Genesis alone, and the restriction of Harrisville's study to the search for
literary antecedents is somewhat artificial. Yet, at the same time, we question the
application of the 'five Abraham texts' to Paul. As such, our encounter with the question
"whence Paul's Abraham" will entail interaction with two sub-questions: viz. (1) was
Paul's view of Abraham significantly shaped by the 'five Abraham texts'? And (2) what
sources additional to Genesis may have played a part in shaping his understanding of the
patrarich?
1.2 Thesis of The Dissertation
In answering the two sub-questions just mentioned, the work may be logically divided
into two halves. In fact, however, discussion of the first of our two sub-questions will
take up the majority of the space available to us (Parts I and II), while much less space
(Part III) will be dedicated to answering the second of our sub-questions. In answering
these two sub-questions, two sub-theses will be developed. These two sub-theses support
the major thesis presented in Part III.
In the first place, Chapters 2-10 will advance the (sub-)thesis that Paul was not
observably influenced in his understanding of Abraham by the 'five Abraham texts'.
Significant time is devoted to this merely 'negative' sub-thesis for several reasons.
We mention only two here: Firstly, a negative proposition is harder to establish than a
positive one. As has been noted, “One glance may enable us to say there is a spider in the
room; we should need a spring-cleaning (at least) before we could say with certainty that
there wasn't.”4 As such, sustained attention is required to do justice to such a 'negative'.
Secondly, the question of whether or not Paul made use of the 'five Abraham
4 Clive Staples Lewis, An Experiment In Criticism, Cambridge, CUPress, 2012, p. 117.

texts' is a valuable one. We will discuss below (§1.4) the importance of the broader
question. However, the value of this first thesis, or of any 'negative' thesis of this sort,
cannot be underestimated. Academic study of Paul is always in danger of falling into
dogmatic slumber. Trends in interpretation can sometimes remain unexamined, having
become the assured results of a scholarly consensus. With regard to Paul's use of the 'five
Abraham texts', it is felt that the scholarly consensus may offer an example of one such
arid consensus.
After this, Part III will advance the (sub-)thesis that limiting Paul to Genesis alone
fails to do justice to his knowledge of, and interest in, the lives and teachings of such
figures as John the Baptist or Jesus, as well as artificially sequestering the Apostle to the
Gentiles from interaction with the other Apostles or other early leaders. This leads to a,
perhaps, unrealistic view of Paul's Abraham as sui generis.
At the same time, Part III goes some way to answering our fundamental question:
viz. Where did Paul's understanding of Abraham come from? It is proposed (and this is
the major thesis of the dissertation) that there were two primary influences on Paul's view
of Abraham. First, and most important, there was the Old Testament; an Old Testament
which Paul interpreted Christologically, and with all of the Apostolic authority and
creativity of his office. Thus far, we agree with Harrisville. In contrast to Harrisville,
however, we believe it likely that Paul was also influenced by the thinking of his fellow
Apostles, and/or by the nascent Church's 'Jesus tradition'.
This proposal is somewhat tentative, and further work needs to be done to
establish it more firmly. However, we hope to have both pointed the way forward, and
provided a basis for further thought and research.

1.3 Survey of Previous Literature
Since the latter part of the nineteenth century, numerous scholarly studies have been
conducted on the presentation of Abraham in diverse texts, from Genesis to the Qur'an,
such that a vast literature now exists.5 We will not be able even to mention many such
contributions. Instead, the present overview is selective, being divided into two
representative subdivisions. The first subdivision is more general, discussing literature
which addresses the presentation of Abraham in the ancient corpora, and which has some
bearing on the disscussion of an antecedent to Paul's Abraham, but which does not argue
directly for Paul's dependance upon the 'five Abraham texts'. The second subdivision is
much more specific. There, we introduce the most prominent scholarly works which have
argued for Paul's dependance upon the 'five Abraham texts'. In both subdivisions, we
proceed, more or less, chronologically.
1.3.1 Abraham In Scripture And Tradition
In the introduction to his elucidation of the life of Abraham from archaeology, ancient
history, and extra-biblical tradition, William J. Deane wrote that,
A plentiful crop of legends has, as was natural, risen around the true story of this celebrated
man. Many of these will be found in The Book of Jubilees, [published] in Ewald's
Jahrbucher... The most copious collection, however, gathered from the Talmud and other
5 Several redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien on the Abraham tradition of Genesis itself have been
conducted, as have studies on the historicity of the patriarchal narratives, and reconstructions of the
possible historical background to the patriarchal narratives. They include, for example: John Van Seters,
Abraham In History And Tradition, London, Yale University Press, 1975; Ronald E. Clements,
Abraham And David: Genesis XV And Its Meaning For Israelite Tradition, Vol. 5, Studies In Biblical
Theology: Second Series, London, SCM, 1967; Benjamin Ziemer, Abram-Abraham:
Kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Genesis 14, 15 und 17, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2005; Gard
Granerød, Abraham And Melchizedek: Scribal Activity of Second Temple Times In Genesis 14 And
Psalm 110, BZAW, Bd. 406, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2010; D. J. Wiseman, 'Abraham Reassessed', in A. R.
Millard and D. J. Wiseman (eds.), Essays On The Patriarchal Narratives, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns,
1980; André Parrot, Abraham et son temps, Cahiers d'archéologie biblique, No. 14, Neuchâtel, Éditions
Delachaux et Niestlé, 1962; David Rosenberg, Abraham: The First Historical Biography, New York,
Basic Books, 2007. Also interesting is the collection of essays by Hendel discussing aspects of
Abraham as object of multi-form rememberances: Ronald Hendel, Remembering Abraham: Culture,
Memory, And History In The Hebrew Bible, Oxford, OUPress, 2005. Furthermore, the presentation of
Abraham in Genesis has been analysed from a philosophical perspective. In this connection, we might
mention Kierkegaard. But see also, for e.g., Kiichi Tachibana, ' アブラハムは義人か ('Was Abraham
righteous?')', TPSB, Vol. 5, (1989), pp. 53-55.
sources, has been made by Beer in his Leben Abraham's...6
Hence, it appears that Bernhard Beer (1859) was, perhaps, the first scholar to seriously
attempt to gather together traditions about Abraham from around the turn of the eras.7
The manner in which he did this is echoed in later, more famous, works, such as those of
Ginzberg, and Kugel. Unfortunately, much of Beer's material was quite late (rabbinic, or
even Islamic). A few decades later, Kaufmann Kohler discussed the relationship between
the Apocalypse of Abraham and various other texts, particularly from within the rabbinic
literature.8 Then, in similar fashion to Beer, Paul Billerbeck collected a large amount of
material on Abraham.9 He was fundamentally concerned with rabbinic sources, however.
Due to the difficulty in dating these traditions, we do not consider them to be of great
help (except when taken on a case-by-case basis) in ascertaining what the antecedent of
Paul's Abraham might have been.10
Another early work is that of Salomo Rappaport. His Agada und Exegese bei
Flavius Josephus attempted to find sources for (amongst other things) Josephus' view of
Abraham. Rappaport points to Philo's De Abrahamo, the Apocalypse of Abraham, and
rabbinic texts as sources for Antiquities 1:155-156.11
Louis Ginzberg's massive work on Jewish 'legends' includes a chapter surveying
Abraham traditions from Genesis to the Talmud, but he gives only limited attention to the
6 William J. Deane, Abraham: His Life And Times, New York, Anson D. F. Randolph & Company, 1888,
p. iii.
7 Bernhard Beer, Leben Abraham's nach Auffassung der jüdischen Sage, Leipzig, O. Leiner, 1859.
8 Kaufmann Kohler, 'The Pre-Talmudic Haggada II. The Apocalypse of Abraham And Its Kindred', JQR,
Vol. 7, No. 4, (1895), pp. 581-606.
9 Paul Billerbeck, 'Abrahams Leben und Bedeutung nach Auffassung der ältern Haggada', Nat, Vol. 15,
(1899), pp. 43-179; 16 (1900), pp. 33-80. See also: Paul Billerbeck and Hermann Leberecht Strack,
Kommentar zum neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 6 Vols., München, C. H. Beck, 1922-28.
10 This point has become a common-place. It is, nevertheless, worth mentioning. Philip Alexander, for
instance, writes that, "The way in which [New Testament] scholars without more ado read back into
pre-70 Judaism post-70 Rabbinic traditions is totally unjustified." Philip S. Alexander, 'Rabbinic
Judaism And The New Testament', ZNW, Vol. 74, (1983), p. 244. We do not despair entirely of the use
of rabbinic literature. However, when one is interested in the origins of specifically haggadic content,
as we are here, the process of dating becomes particularly precarious.
11 Salomo Rappaport, Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus, Wien, Verlag der Alexander Kohut
Memorial Foundation, 1930, p. 15, and no. 80.
New Testament.12 Likewise, J. R. Lord produced a survey on Abraham in Jewish and
Christian literature. Like Ginzberg, however, he does not interact with Paul's epistles.13
James L. Kugel, in his study of such traditions includes the New Testament and certain of
the Church Fathers, but without being comprehensive (e.g. ommssion of Romans 4).14
Although short, Otto Schmitz's Abraham im Spätjudentum und im Urchristentum
is one of the most prominent early studies to have surveyed occurances of Abraham in
ancient Jewish and Christian literature.15 Unlike Beer, Billerbeck, and Ginzberg,
Schmitz's survey focussed on first century texts. This is certainly more like Paul's
immediate milieu. Yet, he does not suggest any antecedents for Paul's view amongst the
other texts that he discusses, although he does compare Paul's view with these others.
The French publication Cahiers Sioniens devoted its 1951 issue to a special
collection of nine essays focussing on the theme of Abraham as 'Père des Croyants'. Each
essay deals with a different period or corpus. Of interest here are the essays on Abraham
in: the Old Testament;16 Jewish tradition;17 the New Testament,18 and early Christianity.19
In what Sandmel called his "scant eight pages" on Abraham in Jewish tradition, de
Menasce mentions several works – including Philo, Josephus, rabbinic literature, and the
Qu'ran – but he primarily looks at Jubilees, The Apocalypse of Abraham, and The
Testament of Abraham.20 His summary that "Le rôle prééminent d’Abraham lui vient de
12 Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of The Jews, trans. H. Szold, 5 Vols., Philadelphia, The Jewish
Publication Society of America, 1909-1938, Vol. 1, pp. 183-308; Vol. 5, pp. 207-269.
13 J. R. Lord, Abraham: A Study In Ancient Jewish And Christian Interpretation, Ph. D. dissertation, Duke
University, Durham, 1968.
14 James L. Kugel, The Bible As It Was, Cambridge, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,
1997, pp. 131-148, 163-178.
15 Otto Schmitz, 'Abraham im Spätjudentum und im Urchristentum', in K. Bornhäuser (ed.), Aus Schrift
und Geschichte: Theologische Abhandlungen Adolf Schlatter zu seinem 70. Geburtstage, Stuttgart,
Calwer Vereinsbuchhandlung, 1922, pp. 99-123.
16 Jacques Guillet, 'Figure d'Abraham dans l'Ancien Testament', CahS, Vol. 5, No. 2, (1951), pp. 123-135.
17 Jean-Pierre de Menasce, 'Traditions Juives Sur Abraham', CahS, Vol. 5, No. 2, (1951), pp. 188-195.
18 Paul Démann, 'La Signification d'Abraham Dans La Perspective Du Nouveua Testament', CahS, Vol. 5,
No. 2, (1951), pp. 136-159.
19 Jean Daniélou, 'Abraham Dans La Tradition Chrétienne', CahS, Vol. 5, No. 2, (1951), pp. 160-179.
20 Samuel Sandmel, Philo's Place In Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham In Jewish Literature,
New York, KTAV, 1971, p. 29.
ce qu’il est le prototype aussi bien que l’ancêtre des monothéistes" reflects this fact.21 He
writes, "La légende le représente comme ayant cherché le vrai Dieu dès son enfance et
découvrant successivement la vanité du culte des astres et des idoles."22
In his contribution, Paul Démann stressed the difference between Paul's use of
Abraham and the use to which the patriarch is put in other (non-biblical) texts. Démann
located the primary emphases in Paul's use of Abraham as follows: “Il n’en retient que
l’essentiel: l’appel et la promesse de Dieu, et la foi par laquelle Abraham y a répondu et
en raison de laquelle il a été justifié.”23 Démann also noted that Paul did not dwell upon
the idea that monotheism was revealed to (or, we might say, discovered by) Abraham, as
did other traditions. These other traditions, "mettront en relief la foi monothéiste
d'Abraham, la révélation du Dieu unique qu'il a reçue. Rien de pareil dans le Nouveau
Testament."24 Furthermore, while the other corpora are concerned to greatly elaborate on
the life and personality of Abraham, Paul is content with the details provided by
Genesis.25 His reading of Genesis is not hagiographic, or even overly biographical, but
primarily salvation-historical.26
Christian Dietzfelbinger examined the Pauline understanding of Abraham in
connection to the Pauline themes of ejpaggeliva, pivstiV, and spevrma =Abraavm.27 He also
compared this Pauline understanding with the picture of Abraham found in the Old
Testament, and in 'Spätjudentum', where Spätjudentum was treated as essentially
21 de Menasce, 'Traditions Juives', p. 98.

22 de Menasce, 'Traditions Juives', p. 99.
23 Démann, 'La Signification d'Abraham', p. 151. One might add mention of the inclusion of the Gentiles.
24 Démann, 'La Signification d'Abraham', p. 158.
26 "Les livres apocryphes et les midrashim rabbiniques, de même qu'à leur suite la tradition islamique,
tendent à illustrer la figure, la vie, la sainteté du patriarche par mille traits particuliers, amplifications du
récit biblique ou affabulations légendaires. Rien de pareil dans le Nouveau Testament. Pas des histoires
saintes, mais une Histoire sainte, permettant de saisir dans son unité foncière et dans la continuité de
son déroulement historique le dessein divin de notre salut, avec Abraham installé à jamais au point de
départ de l'histoire du Peuple de Dieu." Démann, 'La Signification d'Abraham', pp. 158-159.
27 Christian Dietzfelbinger, Paulus und das Alte Testament: Die Hermeneutik des Paulus, untersucht an
seiner Deutung der Gestalt Abrahams, eds K. G. Steck and G. Eichholz, ThEx, Vol. 95, München, Chr.
Kaiser Verlag, 1961.
equivalent with the rabbinic literature; or, more correctly, with Billerbeck's presentation
of it. Dietzfelbinger considered Paul to be hermeneutically at home in both rabbinic and
Philonic styles of interpretation.28 As such, he noted several similarities and differences
between Paul's handling of Abraham and that of the rabbis (and, occasionally, other
Second Temple literature). Yet, Dietzfelbinger's emphasis was on Paul's appropriation
and contemporisation of the Old Testament stories of Abraham.29 His focus was not on
finding sources for Paul's view of Abraham.
E. R. Goodenough devoted part of his study of Philo to the Jewish Alexandrian's
view of Abraham. His contribution was to show how Philo, within his philosophic
scheme, viewed Abraham not simply as novmimoV but as novmoV e[myucoV.30 Goodenough's
protégé, Samuel Sandmel, adopted from his mentor the attitude that how one sees
Abraham is likely to shape the rest of one's theology. Sandmel then tried (in his
dissertation) to show where Philo fitted within the Judaism of his time. In light of what
he had learnt from Goodenough, he employed Abraham as a representative test-case. He
devoted considerable attention to contrasting the way that Philo used Abraham to the way
that the patriarch was made use of in neighbouring literature, in order to highlight Philo's
unique contribution.31
Sandmel's survey of such uses of Abraham reaches all the way forward in time to
including the views of the rabbis. When his dissertation was published as Philo's Place
In Judaism, however, the limited discussion of Christian sources which had been present
was omitted. Yet, even in the dissertation, Sandmel was not particularly interested in the
28 Dietzfelbinger, Paulus und das Alte Testament, pp. 32-26.

29 Thus, for instance, he writes: “Diese Gegenwärtigkeit des Alten Testaments will er in seiner Exegese
des Alten Testaments und damit auch der Abrahamsgeschichten ins Bewußtsein heben.” Dietzfelbinger,
Paulus und das Alte Testament, p. 40.
30 "It was apparently a common thing among the Jews of Philo's day to regard Abraham as one who
obeyed the Law, novmimoV. But Philo is not content with this conservative statement. Abraham was more
than novmimoV, he was novmoV e[myucoV, and as such a savior of men." Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, By
Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism, Amsterdam, Philo Press, 1969, p. 145.
31 Samuel Sandmel, Abraham In Normative And Hellenistic Jewish Traditions, Ph. D. dissertation, Yale
University, Connecticut, 1949.
idea of these texts serving as necessary background for Paul's understanding of the
patriarch. On the contrary, his aim was to bring out the uniqueness of Philo's Abraham by
contrasting other conceptions of the patriarch with it.32 Similarly, in his introduction to
Philo, Sandmel notes several points of similarity between Paul and Philo, but does not
suggest any connection. Rather, these similarities can be put down to a shared
'atmosphere'.33 Indeed, Sandmel saw more distinction among the ancient views of
Abraham than direct dependence would allow. Thus, he writes, “Abraham is to the rabbis
and to Philo (as well as to Paul) the foremost example of the man who did what each is
urging; but each is urging a different thing.”34
W. L. Knox, in a short article, suggested that the traditions of Abraham's
conversion arose, on the one hand, to explain God's choice of Abraham and, on the other
hand, to serve as an example to proselytes.35 Knox states, further, that Paul, whom he
considered a thorough-going predestinarian, would not have needed to make recourse to
such traditions.36 This short note by Knox has continued to be influential; it is echoed in
numerous articles on the progenitor of the Jews. Knox played an important part in the
creation of the contemporary understanding of Abraham as the prototypical proselyte.
Sandmel, in a response article, basically affirms Knox's view, while nuancing it.37
Robert Martin-Achard states that his Actualité d'Abraham is a kind of
continuation and updating of the special issue of Cahiers Sioniens which appeared in
1951, being consacré à «Abraham, père des croyants».38 The monograph is split into two
32 Sandmel, Philo's Place In Judaism, p. 30.

33 Samuel Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction, Oxford, OUPress, 1979, p. 150.
35 Wilfred Lawrence Knox, 'Abraham And The Quest For God', HTR, Vol. 28, No. 1, (1935), pp. 55-60.
See similarly: David Arthur DeSilva, 'Why Did God Choose Abraham?', BRev, Vol. 16, No. 3, (2000),
pp. 16-44.
36 Knox, 'Abraham And The Quest For God', p. 55.
37 Knox, 'Abraham And The Quest For God', pp. 137-139. At another time, in his famous discussion of
parallelomania, Sandmel comments: "Wilfred Knox's cautious listing of passages in Philo which have
some echoes in Paul seems sounder to me than Gerald Friedlander's view that Paul had necessarily read
Philo." Samuel Sandmel, 'Parallelomania', JBL, Vol. 81, No. 1, (1962), p. 8.
38 Robert Martin-Achard, Actualité d'Abraham, Bibliothèque Théologique, 44, Neuchâtel, Delachaux et
Niestlé, 1969, p. 7.
sections. The first section explores the archaeology related to the patriarchal period. The
second section surveys the varying ways in which Abraham has been presented in
Jewish, Christian, and Islamic literature. He does not come to any conclusions about
Paul's use of portraits of Abraham from without Genesis. The work is seemingly geared
towards inter-faith understanding.39
Geza Vermes, in his seminal study Scripture And Tradition In Judaism, has two
chapters dealing with the development and transmission of the haggadah of Abraham's
early life all the way up to Sefer ha-Yashar (c. 11th C. AD).40 He takes into consideration a
wide selection of sources, including Jubilees, Josephus, Philo, Pseudo-Eupolemus, the
Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon, and others. Yet, he does not connect these haggadot with
Paul. In a later chapter, by contrast, he tries to connect the haggadah on the Akedah to
Paul's view of Christ as willing and redemptive sacrifice (as Isaac was apparently
pictured in particular strains of Jewish interpretation).
Friedrich Wieser's study Die Abrahamvorstellungen im Neuen Testament, as the
name suggests, deals with Abraham in the New Testament. 41 Wieser takes note of
contemporary Jewish usage as well, however. A similar survey is presented by F. F.
Bruce, in The Time Is Fulfilled.42 William Baird has also described the various uses of
Abraham in the New Tesatment, particularly as they relate to identity in relation to the
patriarch.43 None of these authors interact with our question, however, although they
mention Paul's various uses of Genesis.
39 Thus, for example, he states that, "A une époque où nous sommes toujours plus nombreux à souhaiter
que tous ceux qui se réclament du patriarche cessent de s’entredéchirer et apprennent à faire le compte
de ce qui les unit, la confrontation de nos exégèses juive, chrétienne et musulmane se révèle
indispensable, même si elle doit d’abord nous faire prendre conscience de ce qui nous sépare." Martin-
Achard, Actualité d'Abraham, p. 8.
40 Geza Vermes, Scripture And Tradition In Judaism: Haggadic Studies, StPB, 4, Leiden, Brill, 1983.
41 Friedrich Emanuel Wieser, Die Abrahamvorstellungen im Neuen Testament, Europäische
Hochschulschriften Reihe 23, 317, Bern, Peter Lang, 1987.
42 Frederick Fyvie Bruce, 'Abraham Our Father (Romans 4:1)', The Time Is Fulfilled: Five Aspects of The
Fulfillment of The Old Testament In The New, Exeter, Paternoster, 1977, pp. 55-74.
43 William Baird, 'Abraham In The New Testament: Tradition And The New Identity', Int, Vol. 42, No. 2,
(1988), pp. 367-379.
C. K. Barrett has discussed Paul's use of Abraham in Romans and Galatians,
taking the two together, as though they were, almost, one text.44 While demonstrating a
clear awareness of various extra-biblical traditions about Abraham, including both
rabbinic and Second Temple views, Barrett nevertheless states (with particular reference
to Paul's presentation in Galatians 3) that “in his treatment of Old Testament figures
[Paul] goes back directly to the sources.”45
The most prominent of the many dictionary entries dealing with Abram/Abraham
is probably that of Joachim Jeremias, in Kittel's 'lexicon', who provides a bullet-point-
style summary of Abraham's importance in Judaism and the New Testament.46
Two essays of interest, one by Pierre-Maurice Bogaert dealing with the
presentation of Abraham in Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, and the other by Jan
Lambrecht dealing with Abraham in Paul's epistles, appeared in the 1977 publication of
the Leuven colloquium on Abraham in Scripture and tradition.47 Lambrecht examined
Abraham's place in the Pauline corpus, making many helpful observations. He speaks of
Paul's 'radical' and 'revolutionary' interpretation of Abraham which would have offended
the Judaism of his day. As he writes, "Il est certain que Paul a opéré une véritable
révolution en rompant avec certaines traditions 'dogmatiques' du judaïsme. Il s'y est
44 Charles Kingsley Barrett, From First Adam To Last: A Study In Pauline Theology, London, Adam &
Charles Black, 1962, pp. 22-45.
45 Barrett, From First Adam To Last, p. 34. Barrett has also written on Paul's allegory of Sarah and Hagar
at Galatians 4:21-31. Charles Kingsley Barrett, 'The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, And Hagar In The
Argument of Galatians', in J. Friedrich, W. Pöhlmann, and P. Stuhlmacher (eds.), Rechtfertigung:
Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1976, pp. 1-16.
46 Joachim Jeremias, '=Abraavm ktl.', TDNT, 1:8-9.
47 Thus, see: Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, 'La Figure D'Abraham Dans Les Antiquités Bibliques Du Pseudo-
Philon', in P.-M. Bogaert (ed.), Abraham Dans La Bible Et Dans La Tradition Juive, PubIIB, Bruxelles,
Institutum Iudaicum, 1977, pp. 40-61, and Jan Lambrecht, ''Abraham, Notre Père À Tous'. La Figure
D'Abraham Dans Les Ecrits Pauliniens', in P.-M. Bogaert (ed.), Abraham Dans La Bible Et Dans La
Tradition Juive, PubIIB, Bruxelles, Institutum Iudaicum, 1977, pp. 118-163. The other three essays in
this volume are: L. Dequeker, 'La Vocation D'Abraham (Gn 12,1-9)', in P.-M. Bogaert (ed.), Abraham
Dans La Bible Et Dans La Tradition Juive, PubIIB, Bruxelles, Institutum Iudaicum, 1977, pp. 1-39; H.
Jagersma, 'Quelques Remarques Sur Genèse 18,22b-33', in P.-M. Bogaert (ed.), Abraham Dans La
Bible Et Dans La Tradition Juive, PubIIB, Bruxelles, Institutum Iudaicum, 1977, pp. 62-88; A. Guigui,
'Le Sacrifice D'Isaac (Gn 22,1)', in P.-M. Bogaert (ed.), Abraham Dans La Bible Et Dans La Tradition
Juive, PubIIB, Bruxelles, Institutum Iudaicum, 1977, pp. 89-117.
opposé en polémiste acharné et radical."48 And again, that: "Il nous faut reconnaître...que
la façon dont Paul envisage la figure d’Abraham, du moins par le radicalisme de sa
présentation, diffère fondamentalement de l’image traditionnelle communément admise
en son temps."49 In one sense, then, Lambrecht approaches Harrisville in his
interpretation. Yet, he also suggests that Paul's interpretation of Abraham is idiosyncratic,
and somewhat forced.50 For Lambrecht, Paul has tied Abraham to a dichotomy of
faith/works which is absent from the Old Testament;51 has selectively omitted much of
the detail about Abraham found in Genesis,52 and forced his dichotomy onto the Old
Testament picture of the patriarch.53
Halvor Moxnes has drawn together a large number of texts which deal with the
'theme' or 'motif' of promise to Abraham.54 He begins with the Old Testament itself, and
notes several 'strata' of development within this corpus. He then moves on to Second
Temple literature. Apart from some hints in Philo, Moxnes finds a lack of emphasis being
placed on the promises to Abraham until after the time of Paul, where he finds many
more. He surveys material up to the Talmud. By suggesting that these texts, though later
than Paul, represent traditions earlier than Paul, he can conclude that it is possible that
Paul, in Romans 4:13-22, “was directly influenced by contemporary Jewish exegesis in
his use of [Genesis 15:6]”.55 What he means by this is that certain characteristics of God
– such as his being stead-fast in promise-making, and his being able to do all things –
48 Lambrecht, 'Abraham Dans Les Ecrits Pauliniens', p. 135.

50 "Paul s’est construit d’Abraham une image qui lui est personnelle", Lambrecht, 'Abraham Dans Les
Ecrits Pauliniens', p. 136.
51 "...‘la foi qui justifie’ est une idée qui reste étrangère à l’Ancien Testament et celui-ci ne connaît pas
davantage l’opposition entre la foi et les oeuvres." Lambrecht, 'Abraham Dans Les Ecrits Pauliniens',
139.
52 For e.g., Lambrecht notes: "Ce que Paul dit et ne dit pas de la promesse suffit à déformer la figure
d’Abraham et à la rendre non-traditionnelle et non-juive (anti-juive)." Lambrecht, 'Abraham Dans Les
Ecrits Pauliniens', p. 138.
54 Halvor Moxnes, Theology In Conflict: Studies In Paul's Understanding of God In Romans, Leiden,
Brill, 1980, pp. 117-206.
55 Moxnes, Theology In Conflict, p. 205.
were often discussed in association with Abraham. Thus, Paul, in Romans 4:13-22 is not
reliant upon an already existing exposition (or midrash) of Genesis 15:6, but echoes
elements of other expositions of that text.
Moxnes has not convincingly demonstrated that Paul and Philo share a common
interpretative milieu, or that the similarities in their exegesis are not explainable on the
basis of a shared Old Testament and the predications made about God therein (e.g. his
promise-faithfulness). What is more interesting is the manner in which Moxnes
prevaricates on the issue of Paul's being influenced by contemporary Jewish exegesis. He
begins by saying that:
We shall not try to establish a history of tradition by forcing Jewish material into Paul's
“background”. Instead we will point out various expressions of this process of re-
interpretation in the first century A.D. as various groups and authors grappled with the
question of what God's promise meant to them. … In different ways, these various groups
attempted to appropriate the Old Testament narratives of the promise to Abraham. And they
were roughly contemporary and almost certainly independent applications of the same
[biblical] material.56
Yet, he is quick to follow this apparently conclusive suggestion with the counter-claim
that:
Nevertheless there is a striking similarity in motifs and in composition between many of these
various interpretations. These similarities cannot be fully explained by the fact that they
could all draw upon the same passages from the Bible. There must have been a broad
tradition of interpretation that could be appropriated in addition.57
Moxnes attempts to resolve the tension he has created for himself by an appeal to the
amorphous concept of a 'broad tradition'.
Nils A. Dahl has considered the presentation of Abraham in Luke-Acts. Mention
is made also of Paul, but Dahl does not speak to a connection with the Apostle.58 Similar
to this short chapter by Dahl is the doctoral thesis of Stephen J. Lampe. Lampe's work
surveys the 'rich and diverse' presentations of Abraham in Jewish and Graeco-Roman
literature and the New Testament (chs. 2-3). The balance is applied to a study of Abraham
56 Moxnes, Theology In Conflict, p. 117.

57 Moxnes, Theology In Conflict, pp. 117-118.
58 Nils A. Dahl, 'The Story of Abraham In Luke-Acts', in L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn (eds.), Studies In
Luke-Acts: Essays Presented In Honour of Paul Schubert, Philadelphia, Fortress, 1980.
in Luke-Acts.59
Anke Mühling has examined the Rezeptionsgeschichte Abrahams within the Old
Testament and early Judaism.60 She thus discusses many of the extra-biblical Abraham
traditions, in the context of their treatment of Abraham as Identifikationsfigur. Yet, she
treats of Paul only very briefly, in an excursus, and has little to say about Paul's use of
Abraham.
Günther Baumbach's 1986 article 'Abraham unser Vater', by contrast, attempted to
trace a line of development from Paul, through Hebrews, to John's Gospel, with the
Gospel of John marking the high-water mark of the process of assimilation whereby
Abraham became an exclusive (Christian) figure.61 The piece has an ecumenical aim, and
is primarily interested in understanding the New Testament texts from this perspective,
rather than from an especially historical one.
Two studies on Abraham include chapters surveying specific loci where Abraham
appears in the extra-canonical literature. In his study of the familial and faith trials of
Abraham, Terence Fretheim focuses on Genesis 12-25, but includes a chapter on
'Abraham in Memory and Tradition'.62 Fretheim does not, however, suggest that the
extra-canonical literature was drawn on by Paul. Rather, he states that, "Paul use[d] the
Scriptures as paradigm."63 Similarly, Walter Hansen, in his study Abraham In Galatians,
devotes an appendix to 'Abraham in Jewish Literature', but is not particularly concerned
with the question of sources. He concludes, nevertheless, that comparisons of Paul's
Abraham with the Abrahams found in the Jewish literature, "serve to highlight the fact
59 Stephen J. Lampe, Abraham In Luke-Acts: The Appropriation of Lucan Theology Through Old
Testament Figures, Ph. D. dissertation, Pontificia Universita Gregoriana, Vatican City, 1993.
60 Anke Mühling, "Blickt auf Abraham, euren Vater": Abraham als Identifikationsfigur des Judentums in
der Zeit des Exils und des Zweiten Tempels, FRLANT, Vol. 236, Göttingen, V&R, 2011.
61 Günther Baumbach, 'Abraham unser Vater: Der Prozeß der Vereinnahmung Abrahams durch das frühe
Christentum', ThVer, Vol. 16, (1986), pp. 37-56.
62 Terence E. Fretheim, Abraham: Trials of Family And Faith, ed. J. L. Crenshaw, SPOT, South Carolina,
The University of South Carolina Press, 2007, pp. 144ff.
63 Fretheim, Abraham, p. 167.
that his portrait of Abraham must be seen in an entirely different category".64
Louis H. Feldman has analysed the presentation of Abraham in Josephus. He
argues that Abraham is presented by Josephus as, “the prototype of the Platonic
philosopher-king and the Stoic sage.”65 Feldman's work has been highly influential.
Günter Mayer, in a short article, discusses the picture of Abraham presented in
Philo, and Josephus (as well as other authorities appealed to within the Antiquities).
Mayer attempts to place it historically within a Jewish proselytizing and apologetic
context, where “Mission bedeutete Konkurrenz mit der Propaganda der führenden
Philosophenschulen”.66 He mentions Paul only once in this analysis.
Likewise, James Bowley deals with the suggestions made in antiquity that
Abraham had been an author.67 This essay helpfully summarises some of the ways in
which Abraham was viewed in the ancient literature, and notes that these pictures of the
great patriarch were not always complementary but sometimes conflicting. Bowley does
not, however, mention Paul, and several of the sources he uses are later than the first
century.
The collective volume Studies On The Testament of Abraham, edited by George
W. E. Nickelsburg, contains a number of contributions dealing with various questions
related to the Testament of Abraham. The two essays in this volume which are of interest
to the present work are those by D. J. Harrington, and R. B. Ward. Harrington's essay
discusses similarities and differences between the Testament of Abraham and five
examples of 'rewritten Bible': viz. Jubilees, Josephus' Antiquities, Philo's De Abrahamo,

64 G. Walter Hansen, Abraham In Galatians: Epistolary And Rhetorical Contexts, ed. D. Hill, JSNTSup,
29, Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1989, p. 199.
65 Louis H. Feldman, 'Hellenizations In Josephus' Jewish Antiquities: The Portrait of Abraham', in L. H.
Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, Detroit, Wayne State University Press,
1987, p. 150. So, elsewhere, he states, contra Sandmel that, "Josephus, for apologetic reasons, presents
his Abraham, like his Moses, as a typical national hero, such as was popular in Hellenistic times..."
Louis H. Feldman, 'Abraham The Greek Philosopher In Josephus', TAPA, Vol. 99, No. 1, (1968), p. 156.
66 Günter Mayer, 'Aspekte des Abrahambildes in der hellenistisch-jüdischen Literatur', EvT, Vol. 32,
(1972), p. 119.
67 James E. Bowley, 'The Compositions of Abraham', in J. C. Reeves (ed.), Tracing The Threads: Studies
In The Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, SBLEJL, Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1994, pp. 215-238.
The Genesis Apocryphon, and Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. He concludes that few
significant parallels are to be pointed to. “The results,” he says, “are modest.”68 Ward's
essay documents his search for possible parallels to the Testament of Abraham in early
Christian literature. He concludes that few parallels can be found. He distances Paul, in
particular, from the Testament of Abraham.69 “In summary,” he says, “we see that Paul's
use of Abraham stands almost by itself, determined by his exegesis of scripture for
particular purposes. The portrait of Abraham in Paul owes little if anything to traditions
about Abraham in post-biblical Judaism in general and in the Tabr in particular.”70
Robert L. Wilken wrote an article for the Concordia Theological Monthly
describing the way in which succeeding generations of Christians from New Testament
times forward have made Abraham their own. Wilken suggests that, “Every time people
have a fresh look at Abraham they discover new things about him.”71 This was true of the
New Testament writers, he suggests, for:
In the earliest period the writers of the New Testament discovered aspects of Abraham that
had not been seen or expressed before. By giving Abraham's faith a new point of reference in
Christ, and by spiritualizing the promise to the descendants they gave to his life and his faith
a new significance.72
Orrey McFarland has created a 'dialogue' between Paul and Philo on their
respective uses of Genesis 15:6.73 By speaking of a 'dialogue' between the two authors,
McFarland attempts to avoid minimising the distinctions between them. Unfortunately,
he does not entirely succeed, and does flatten out some differences between the two
authors.
68 Daniel J. Harrington, 'Abraham Traditions In The Testament of Abraham And In The "Rewritten Bible"
of The Intertestamental Period', in G. W. E. Nickelsburg (ed.), Studies On The Testament of Abraham,
SBLSCS, Missoula, Scholars Press, 1976, pp. 165-171.
69 Roy Bowen Ward, 'Abraham Traditions In Early Christianity', in G. W. E. Nickelsburg (ed.), Studies On
The Testament of Abraham, SBLSCS, Missoula, Scholars Press, 1976, pp. 173-184.
70 Ward, 'Abraham Traditions In Early Christianity', p. 175.
71 Robert L. Wilken, 'The Christianizing of Abraham: The Interpretation of Abraham In Early
Christianity', CTM, Vol. 43, (1972), p. 726.
72 Wilken, 'Christianizing of Abraham', p. 726.
73 Orrey McFarland, 'Whose Abraham, Which Promise? Genesis 15.6 In Philo's De Virtutibus And
Romans 4', JSJ, Vol. 35, No. 2, (2012), pp. 107-129.
Jacques T.A.G.M. Van Ruiten has published a monograph-length treatment of
Abraham in the book of Jubilees, which is sure to be influential to discussion of the
patriarch in that text.74
So too, Adolfo Roitman, in an article entitled The Traditions About Abraham's
Early Life, has contrasted the depictions of Abraham's early life as found in Philo,
Josephus, Pseudo-Philo, and Jubilees, with that of Judith 5:6-9. Roitman's project is
ambitious, since Judith 5:6-9 does not mention Abraham specifically, nor does it
distinguish between him and Lot or Terah, being, instead, simply a sub-section of the
description of Israel in 5:3-21.75 Nevertheless, Roitman contends that Judith 5:6-9 is
about Abraham, and that it establishes a pattern of conversion which “strongly resembles
the teaching of Philo, Paul, and the rabbis”.76
Jeffrey S. Siker has surveyed the few pagan sources which mention Abraham in
an article, doing for these what has variously been done for the extra-biblical Jewish
sources.77 Siker is also responsible for a monograph study (and accompanying journal
article) examining the differences between the way that Abraham is treated in the New
Testament and other, non-canonical, early church writings.78 Siker contrasts Paul's view,
in particular, with that of later writers (such as Justin Martyr), asking how it is that "while
Paul acknowledged the Jews as children of Abraham, Justin Martyr denied them this
status, reserving it for Christians alone".79 Donald Sutherland's unpublished dissertation
presaged Siker's view of Jewish exclusion, although Siker appears to have been unaware
74 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, JSJSup, Vol. 161, Leiden, Brill, 2012.
75 Cf. Fretheim's more tentative remarks: Fretheim, Abraham, pp. 152-153.
76 Adolfo Roitman, 'The Traditions About Abraham's Early Life In The Book of Judith (5:6-9)', in E. G.
Chazon, D. Satran, and R. A. Clements (eds.), Things Revealed: Studies In Early Jewish And Christian
Literature In Honor of Michael E. Stone, JSJSup, Leiden, Brill, 2004, p. 87.
77 Jeffrey S. Siker, 'Abraham In Graeco-Roman Paganism', JSJ, Vol. 18, (1987), pp. 188-208. Cf. James E.
Bowley's dissertation: James E. Bowley, Traditions of Abraham In Greek Historical Writings: Jewish
And Pagan Authors Through Josephus, Ph. D. dissertation, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, 1992.
78 Jeffrey S. Siker, Disinheriting The Jews: Abraham In Early Christian Controversy, Kentucky,
Westminster, 1991. See also: Jeffrey S. Siker, 'From Gentile Inclusion To Jewish Exclusion: Abraham
In Early Christian Controversy With Jews', BTB, Vol. 19, (1989), pp. 30-36.
79 Siker, Disinheriting The Jews, 14.
of it.80
Annette Reed has published an article dealing with Josephus' presentation of
Abraham. She begins with the assumption that Josephus is ambivalent about Abraham's
relationship to astronomy/astrology, finding Josephus both criticizing and acclaiming
Abraham's connection with the science of the stars.81
Several unpublished doctoral dissertations are worth mentioning here. Fred
Layman's thesis deals with Paul's apocalyptic, eschatological, Heilsgeschichtlich view of
history and Abraham's relation to it. Layman discusses various extra-biblical Jewish
traditions about Abraham. These are drawn, however, mostly from the rabbinic literature.
Layman contrasts Paul's view with that of the rabbis at several points: viz. (1) the rabbis
view Abraham through Moses, whereas Paul views Moses through Abraham; (2) the
rabbis expand upon the account in Genesis, whereas Paul does not; (3) the rabbis are
interested in all of Abraham's biography, whereas Paul focuses on a few specific passages
in Genesis; (4) the rabbis present Abraham in the perfect image of a rabbi, whereas Paul
places Abraham firmly in the past, as an important figure in Heilsgeschichte. According
to Layman:
Paul's use of Abraham is more narrow than the use the rabbis made of the patriarch. He shares
the traditional belief that Abraham is the father of the Jewish nation and that the nation was
elected by God at Sinai (Romans 4:1; 9:4f.). But he makes only limited use of the history of
Abraham, and he confines his discussion to a few brief references in Genesis. The Abrahamic
lore which circulated in contemporary rabbinic and apocryphal traditions is absent from Paul.
He makes no reference to Abraham's idolatrous background in Ur. Abraham is not used as an
example of acceptable religious practices or general ethics. The personal history of the
patriarch is hardly in view beyond his justification.82
Bruce Schein's dissertation surveys the images of Abraham presented in sources
80 Donald Dixon Sutherland, Genesis 15:6: A Study In Ancient Jewish And Christian Interpretation, Ph.
D. dissertation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Kentucky, 1982.
81 Annette Yoshiko Reed, 'Abraham As Chaldean Scientist And Father of The Jews: Josephus, Ant. 1.154-
168, And The Greco-Roman Discourse About Astronomy/Astrology', JSJ, Vol. 35, No. 2, (2004), pp.
119-158. See also: Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels And The History of Judaism And Christianity:
The Reception of Enochic Literature, Cambridge, CUPress, 2005; Annette Yoshiko Reed, 'The
Construction And Subversion of Patriarchal Perfection: Abraham And Exemplarity In Philo, Josephus,
And The Testament of Abraham', JSJ, Vol. 40, (2009), p. 199.
82 Fred Dale Layman, Paul's Use of Abraham: An Approach To Paul's Understanding of History, Ph. D.
dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, 1973, p. 21.
from several hundred years either side of the first century, including much rabbinic
material. Schein's study is valuable in as much as it notes where different texts present
similar motifs. His work, however, almost completely ignores chronology, leading him to
suggest, for example, that Jubilees preserves two versions of Abraham's knowledge of
God (viz. that he knew God from birth, and that he discovered God at an early age),
whilst citing only evidence later than Jubilees for these two versions.83
Phuichun Richard Choi does not believe that Paul's view of Abraham (in either
Galatians or Romans) exhibits literary dependence on earlier writings about the
patriarch.84 Yet, his thesis is only tangentially concerned with the question of literary
dependence in the Pauline corpus.85
Glenn Robertson has proposed that the notion of Abraham's having kept the Law
was wide-spread in the first century. He also suggested that Paul's opponents at Galatia
appealed to these traditions linking Abraham to the Law. This, then, explains why Paul
argues against any connection of Abraham's righteousness or the blessings of the
Abrahamic covenant with the Law (i.e. Galatians 3-4; Romans 4). Paul was responding
to the common Jewish view – most likely shared by the Judaizers in Galatia and the
Jewish-Christians in Rome – that Abraham kept (and was justified by keeping) the Law.
Robertson sees Paul's use of Abraham as 'paradigm' as similar to the general method of
the extra-biblical traditions. Yet, he comes to no definite conclusion about Paul's
relationship to the body of Abraham traditions in general, except that he argued against
Abraham's connection with the Law.86
83 Bruce Schein, Our Father Abraham, Ph. D. dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, 1972, p. 36.
84 Phuichun Richard Choi, Abraham Our Father: Paul's Voice In The Covenantal Debate of The Second
Temple Period, Ph. D., Fuller Theological Seminary, California, 1997.
85 Choi places Paul within an on-going debate between "universalists" and "provincialists" over the
significance of Abraham for nations other than Israel. While not claiming total independence for the
Apostle, Choi's stress is on Paul's difference and originality. He was a "rebel" with new ideas. E.g.
Choi, Abraham Our Father, p. 406.
86 Glenn Earl Robertson, Paul And The Abrahamic Tradition: The Background of Abraham And The Law
In Galatians 3-4 And Romans 4, Ph. D. dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Texas,
1988.
Michael Irvin's doctoral thesis surveys some of the texts dealing with Abraham in
the intertestamental literature. He concludes that Paul, “felt free to alter the text [of
Genesis] and to interpret it in his own way because the modification was required to meet
the needs of his audiences. He not only read the scriptures differently than others of his
time. He interpreted them differently according to the contingencies of the recipients.”87
In this way, he suggests that Paul's understanding of Abraham was unique. Yet, Irvin
offers no sustained consideration of Paul's relationship to the tradition.
Daniel Seyenkulo has discussed the way that Paul presents Abraham as an
ancestor, in the context of African-Christian self identity, 'inculturation', and inter-faith
dialogue.88 This is similar to the work of Israel Kamudzandu. 89 Along somewhat similar
lines again, Ik Soo Park has analysed the way that the picture of Abraham found in
Genesis was appropriated and adapted to the needs of particular groups and attendant
circumstances by different authors (Paul, in particular).90 His thesis, however, is
concerned primarily with what can be learned from such strategies of appropriation for
the process of contextualisation in modern Christian evangelism.
The following authors argue for the contingency of Paul's view of Abraham upon
extra-biblical texts or traditions: Hans Dieter Betz, in his commentary on Galatians,
provides an excursus dealing with Abraham (specifically, at Gal. 3:6-14). For Betz, the
question is whether, "this contrasting of Abraham with the Torah of Moses is Paul's own
invention or whether there were antecedents."91 He suggests, in answer, that Paul's view
87 Michael Thomas Irvin, Paul's Use of The Abraham Image In Romans And Galatians, Ph. D.
dissertation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Kentucky, 1985, p. 161.
88 Daniel Jensen Seyenkulo, Abraham As An Ancestor In Paul: Some Implications of Paul's Letter To The
Galatians For African Christian Theology, Ph. D. dissertation, Lutheran School of Theology at
Chicago, Chicago, 1999.
89 Israel Kamudzandu, Abraham As A Spiritual Ancestor In Romans 4 In The Context of The Roman
Appropriation of Ancestors: Some Implications of Paul's Use of Abraham For Shona Christians In
Postcolonial Zimbabwe, Ph. D. dissertation, Texas Christian University, Texas, 2007. Later published
as: Israel Kamudzandu, Abraham As Spiritual Ancestor: A Postcolonial Zimbabwean Reading of
Romans 4, BIS, Vol. 100, Leiden, Brill, 2010.
90 Ik Soo Park, Paul And The Abraham Tradition: A Challenge For The Church Today, Ph. D. dissertation,
Drew University, Madison, 1985.
91 Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians, ed. H. Koester (et. al.), Hermeneia, Vol. 62, Philadelphia, Fortress, 1979,
of Abraham might reflect influence from a reform movement within Hellenistic Judaism
at the time. However, he concludes that, "Because of the scarcity of the sources we can
only propose as a suggestion that Paul's contrasting of the Torah with Abraham may have
its origin with the so-called movement of the "Hellenists."."92 Thus, the proposal is
unsupportable. Presumably, Betz's view speaks not of Saul, the Pharisee from Tarsus, but
of Paul the Apostle.93 In that case, the proposal faces the problem of demonstrating the
apostolic connection to, or outgrowth from, this movement. Betz's evidence from
Galatians relies upon his understanding of Stephen's speech in Acts 7. Yet, it is unlikely
that many scholars will accept the description of Acts 7:53 as "polemic against the
Torah".94 Stephen does not condemn the Torah per se but, rather, those he is addressing
for not keeping it. Similarly, Paul does not attack the Torah per se, but merely points out
that it is powerless to save, in that it was weakened by sin (Rom. 8:3; Gal. 3:10-11, 19,
21; 6:13). Moreover, in relation to Stephen's speech, Nils Dahl has shown that Luke's
presentation of Abraham abides closely by the Old Testament; as such, he appears to
have been a conservative, not a 'reformer'.95 Meanwhile, Betz is pressed into finding
sources for Paul's view of Abraham vis-à-vis the Law, because he doesn't give adequate
weight to the change in Paul's thinking brought about by his conversion.96 These critiques
p. 139. Cf. Sandmel: "Philo and Paul have it in common that the patriarchs in Genesis are regarded as
the true norm of proper religion, and the laws in Exodus and following books needed in some way to be
related to that true norm." Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction, p. 151.
92 Betz, Galatians, p. 140.
93 If he were speaking of Paul the young Pharisee, then his proposal would be even more difficult to
reconcile with the evidence, since, as Helmut Koester states: "That the Pharisees were in some way
descendants of the Hasidim, the primary supporters of the Maccabean revolt, seems likely. But it is
difficult to establish a secure link between that movment of the 2d century BCE and the Pharisees of the
1st century CE." Helmut Koester, Introduction To The New Testament: History, Culture, And Religion of
The Hellenistic Age, 2nd Edn., Berlin, de Gruyter, 1995, p. 227.
94 Betz, Galatians, p. 139.
95 So Dahl: "Luke, if I am correct, keeps closer to the Old Testament narratives and references to Abraham
than does any other Christian or Jewish writer of his time. ... Some details in the portrait of Abraham
reflect the environment of a Hellenized, yet conservative type of Judaism." Dahl, 'Abraham In Luke-
Acts', p. 153.
96 Betz, however, does not accept this: "How did Paul, a former Pharisaic Jew," he asks, "reach such a
radically un-Jewish position with regard to the Torah? ... The fact that Paul interpreted the Christ-event
as the end of the Law is not in itself a sufficient explanation. How did he arrive at this explanation?"
Betz, Galatians, pp. 165-166.
are offered in addition to those made by Harrisville.97
Klaus Berger is responsible for the overview of Abraham 'Im Frühjudentum und
Neuen Testament' in the Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Speaking of Paul's presentation
of Abraham as righteous apart from the Law in Romans 4, Berger muses that "Dieses
Element seiner Argumentation, daß Abraham ohne Gesetz gerecht geworden sei, hat
Paulus vielleicht aus einer Art Schultradition übernommen".98 This is a passing comment
similar to that of Betz. Yet, Berger provides no evidence or clarification for this
suggestion, and has little else to say about the sources of Paul's Abraham.
Anthony Tyrrell Hanson analyses the question of how Paul could consider
Abraham as 'ungodly' in Romans 4:5. Hanson sees Paul as being influenced by
“contemporary midrash”.99 By this, he means rabbinic material, as well as Jubilees,
Philo's works, the Antiquities of Josephus, and Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. Although
he doesn't mention the Apocalypse of Abraham, Hanson is a precursor to several scholars
discussed in the second segment of this literature review. Hanson was one of the first to
suggest that Paul, under the influence of 'contemporary midrash', “thinks of Abraham as a
sinner because he was a Gentile, and was still a Gentile when God justified him for his
faith.”100
Likewise, Larry Bethune has analysed Paul's use of Genesis 15:6 in Galatians 3,
and Romans 4. Bethune argues that a comparative midrash analysis reveals “Paul's
essential continuity with other interpreters in his application of the traditions to two early
Christian communities."101 As such, Paul was not so much an originator as one
97 Harrisville, Figure, pp. 122-123.

98 Klaus Berger, 'Abraham II - Im Frühjudentum und Neuen Testament', in G. Müller, H. Balz, and G.
Krause (eds.), Theologische Realenzyklopädie, 1, Berlin, de Gruyter, 1977, p. 378. Cf. Berger's famous
essay on Abraham's place in Galatians, Romans, and 1 Corinthians, particularly in relation to the Law,
and the debate between Wilckens and Klein: Klaus Berger, 'Abraham in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen',
MTZ, Vol. 17, No. 1, (1966), pp. 47-89.
99 Anthony Tyrrell Hanson, Studies In Paul's Technique And Theology, London, SPCK, 1974, p. 60.
100 Hanson, Studies In Paul's Technique And Theology, p. 62.
101 Larry Lynn Bethune, Abraham, Father of Faith: The Interpretation of Genesis 15:6 From Genesis To
Paul (Galatians, Romans), Ph. D. dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, New Jersey, 1986, p. 1.
"combining and applying" the traditions which he had received.102
Many more references could be added to this selective sampling of the vast
literature which has been published on Abraham.103 Already, however, this overview
reveals three basic trends.
Firstly, the majority of studies have not especially addressed the question of Paul's
indebtedness (or lack thereof) to other writings or traditions, although Paul's use of
Genesis is rightly emphasised (e.g. Fretheim, Irvin).
Secondly, there are those scholars who argue for Paul's difference and
independence from other interpretations. Some do so only in passing (e.g. Barrett,
Lambrecht, Ward, Choi). The statements of others (e.g. Hansen, Sandmel, Layman) carry
relatively more weight, since they are accompanied by a fuller examination of the
sources. Nevertheless, significant argumentation is still lacking. Here, Démann's work is,
perhaps, the most significant, besides that of Harrisville. Already before Harrisville,
albeit on the basis of fewer primary materials, Démann had stressed the differences
between the picture of Abraham found in Paul and that of other literary corpora dealing
with the great patriarch. Démann's discussion is particularly helpful, as he pinpoints the
primary emphases in Paul's presentation of Abraham. The weakness of Démann's article,
from the perspective of the present study, is its inclusion of late Christian, rabbinic, or
102 Bethune, Gen. 15:6 From Genesis To Paul, p. 2.

103 The reader may further consult, amongst other works: Beate Ego, 'Abraham als Urbild der Toratreue
Israels: Traditionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen zu einem Aspekt des biblischen Abrahambildes', in F.
Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger (eds.), Bund und Tora: Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in
alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition, WUNT, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1996,
pp. 25-40; Beate Ego, 'Abraham's Faith In The One God - A Motif of The Image of Abraham In Early
Jewish Literature', in H. Lichtenberger, F. V. Reiterer, and U. Mittmann-Richert (eds.), Biblical Figures
in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2009, pp. 337-354; Beate Ego, 'The
Figure of Abraham In The Genesis Apocryphon's Re-narration of Genesis 12:10-20', in D. K. Falk et al.
(eds.), Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts From Cave 1 Sixty Years After Their Discovery: Proceedings of
The Sixth Meeting of The IOQS In Ljubljana, STDJ, Leiden, Brill, 2010, pp. 233-246; Edmond Jacob,
'Abraham et sa Signification pour la Foi Chrétienne', RHPR, Vol. 42, (1962), pp. 148-156; Ernst
Käsemann, 'The Faith of Abraham In Romans 4', Perspectives On Paul, London, SCM, 1971, pp. 79-
101; Jürgen Roloff, 'Abraham im Neuen Testament: Beobachtungen zu einem Aspekt Biblischer
Theologie', in M. Karrer (ed.), Exegetische Verantwortung in der Kirche: Aufsätze, Göttingen, V&R,
1990, pp. 231-254; Per Jarle Bekken, 'Abraham og Ånden: Paulus' anvendelse av Genesis 15:6 i
Galaterbrevet 3:6 belyst ut fra jodisk materiale', TTKi, Vol. 71, No. 4, (2000), pp. 265-276.
even Islamic material. Nevertheless, Démann addresses and challenges the idea
(proposed by the scholars listed in §1.3.2) that Paul understood Abraham as the inventor
of monotheism, and that Paul also presupposed such an understanding on the part of his
audience(s).
Thirdly, in contrast to Démann and others, certain authors see an indebtedness to
extra-biblical tradition on Paul's part. This can take the form of an assertion which is
either not significantly developed (e.g. Schein, Robertson), or else is prevaricated over
(e.g. Moxnes).104 But it can also be more forcefully argued (e.g. Betz, Berger, Hanson,
Bethune).
When we come to place Harrisville's contribution within this survey, two points
come to the fore: viz. (1) Writing in the early 1990s, Harrisville was able to appraise most
of the literature cited above (e.g. Betz, Berger, Bethune). And he succeeded in his aim of
unraveling the arguments of several scholars. He demonstrated Paul's independence from
the supposed sources they had placed into his background. Indeed, Harrisville's almost
comprehensive survey of the primary texts still stands as powerful argument against the
ascription of many texts to Paul's background.105 (2) Nevertheless, Harrisville does not
appear to have been aware of the work done on Abraham by A. T. Hanson. This is
significant, because Hanson's (apparently seminal) reading of Romans 4:5 has since
become quite common currency. Additionally, while Harrisville gave a cursory handling
of each of the 'five Abraham texts', there has been a push since that time to see those five
texts as integral to Paul's understanding of Abraham (in both Galatians and Romans). As
we shall see, by dint of the date of its publication, a limitation of Harrisville's survey of
the Second Temple literature dealing with Abraham is its lack of interaction with more
104 Schein states: "The Abraham of the New Testament writings does not appear as a creation ex nihilo."
Schein, Our Father Abraham, p. 19.
105 We say 'almost comprehensive', because there are texts which Harrisville doesn't interact with, as, for
example, 1 Enoch. On Abraham's appearance in 1 Enoch, cf. Schein, Our Father Abraham, p. 26;
George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary On The Book of 1 Enoch: Chapters 1-36; 81-
108, ed. K. Baltzer, Minneapolis, Fortress, 2001, p. 407 et passim.
recent proposals about Paul's indebtedness to the 'five Abraham texts'. We turn now to a
presentation of the most prominent recent proposals which have been made to that end.
1.3.2 The Five Abraham Texts As Background For Paul
As noted above, five Second Temple Jewish texts dealing with Abraham have frequently
been cited as containing traditions which influenced Paul's view of Abraham. These five
texts are: the book of Jubilees, various writings of Philo, Josephus' Antiquities, The
Apocalypse of Abraham, and the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. In this second section of
the literature review, we introduce the work of five recent scholars who have argued for
Paul's dependance upon the five Abraham texts. The scholars we shall discuss under this
rubric are: Nancy Calvert-Koyzis; Edward Adams; George W. E. Nickelsburg; Siegfried
Kreuzer, and Jochen Flebbe.
Nancy Calvert-Koyzis (née Calvert) is mentioned here first, since she completed
her doctoral thesis on the topic of Abraham Traditions In Middle Jewish Literature:
Implications For The Interpretation of Galatians And Romans in 1993,106 although this
was not subsequently published until 2004 as Paul, Monotheism And The People of God:
The Significance of Abraham Traditions For Early Judaism And Christianity.107
Calvert-Koyzis' analysis begins with the 'five Abraham texts'. She discusses them
in turn, concluding in each case that Abraham functioned as the ideal Jew. Each text
presents Abraham as a monotheist, and an anti-idolater/anti-astrologer (astrology being
seen as a form of idolatry) who was obedient to the Mosaic Law. She next moves on to
Galatians, where it is argued that Paul's opponents made use of the tradition of Abraham
as obedient to the Mosaic Law in order to encourage the Galatians to place themselves
under that Law. Paul then responded by associating observance of the Law with
106 Nancy L. Calvert, Abraham Traditions In Middle Jewish Literature: Implications For The
Interpretation of Galatians And Romans, Ph. D. dissertation, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, 1993.
107 Nancy Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God: The Significance of Abraham
Traditions For Early Judaism And Christianity, London, T&T Clark, 2004
idolatry/astrology, and suggesting that the Galatians should follow Abraham's example,
as also seen in the tradition, by shunning such idolatry. In this way, Paul turned the
traditions used by the Judaizers against them.
In Romans, Calvert-Koyzis argues, Paul used the figure of Abraham as seen in the
tradition to define the people of God as those who have faith like he did. Against those
who saw monotheistic faith plus observance of Torah as the necessary badges of
membership in the people of God, Paul argued for monotheistic faith alone. At the same
time, he refashioned the tradition of Abraham's monotheistic faith into faith in the God of
Christ.108
The work of Edward Adams overlaps with that of Calvert-Koyzis somewhat,
although Adams looks only at Romans. In his 1997 article Abraham's Faith And Gentile
Disobedience: Textual Links Between Romans 1 And 4, Adams argued that the depiction
of ungodly Gentiles in Romans 1 provided the inverse blue-print for Abraham's depiction
in Romans 4. So, for example, where the Gentiles do not give glory to God, Abraham
does (Rom. 1:21; 4:20). Similarly, where the dik-/ajdik- and ajseb- word groups are used
in connection with the Gentiles (Rom. 1:18), they are also used in connection with
Abraham (e.g. Romans 4:5). For Adams such lexical echoes and thematic hints alert the
reader to the connection between the two chapters. Yet, in his view, they are insufficient
by themselves to establish the point or show how Abraham serves as the counter-point to
the Gentiles' disobedience. To clarify the connection, therefore, Adams makes recourse to
the 'five Abraham texts'. These texts supposedly provide the missing link.109 Paul, in his
portrayal of Abraham in Romans 4, must have been alluding to the depictions of
108 See also: Nancy L. Calvert, 'Abraham And Idolatry: Paul's Comparison of Obedience To The Law With
Idolatry In Galatians 4.1-10', in C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders (eds.), Paul And The Scriptures of Israel,
JSNTSup, Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1993, pp. 222-237. This article overlaps significantly with the chapter
on Galatians in her dissertation.
109 For Adams, Paul's contrast, “is probably based on a Jewish tradition about Abraham, in circulation at
the time, which casts the patriarch as a former idolater who reasoned from the creation to the creator.”
Edward Adams, 'Abraham's Faith And Gentile Disobedience: Textual Links Between Romans 1 And 4',
JSJ, Vol. 65, (1997), p. 66.
Abraham as monotheist and anti-idolater. Cognisance of this allusion raises the echoes in
Romans 4 beyond the level of coincidence.
The following year (1998), an essay by George W. E. Nickelsburg appeared
dealing with the topic of Paul's missionary preaching to Gentiles.110 Nickelsburg argued
that Paul would have made use of the Abraham traditions found in the 'five Abraham
texts' in his missionary preaching. He looks to Paul's epistle to the Gentiles at Galatia to
establish this point. He focuses on Galatians 4:1-11, arguing that latent connections with
Jubilees are visible here. Paul is shocked that the Galatians, who had formerly responded
to his call for them to imitate the pattern of Abraham's conversion are now retracing their
steps in apostasy.
Siegfried Kreuzer also makes use of the 'five Abraham texts' in his analysis of
Galatians and Romans, albeit differently. In his 2002 article, Kreuzer sought to
demonstrate that Paul understood the events of Genesis 15 (particularly Gen. 15:6) as
having taken place chronologically prior to Abraham's entry into Canaan in Genesis 12.111
As such, at the moment when Abraham believes (as recorded in Gen. 15:6), he is still in
the midst of his former Gentile environment and, therefore, when Paul speaks of
Abraham as having been 'ungodly' (Rom. 4:5), Paul is not making a moral judgement but
referring to the patriarch's ethnic/covenantal status.
Jochen Flebbe has also covered some of the same ground in Romans. Flebbe
authored Solus Deus: Untersuchungen zur Rede von Gott im Brief des Paulus an die
Römer.112 In dealing with theology per se, and with Gottesaussagen, Flebbe follows
somewhat in the footsteps of Dahl and Moxnes.113 Of particular interest for the present
110 George W. E. Nickelsburg, 'Abraham The Convert: A Jewish Tradition And Its Use By The Apostle
Paul', in M. E. Stone and T. A. Bergren (eds.), Biblical Figures Outside The Bible, Harrisburg, Trinity
Press, 1998.
111 Siegfried Kreuzer, '"Der den Gottlosen rechtfertigt" (Röm 4,5) Die frühjüdische Einordnung von Gen
15 als Hintergrund für das Abrahambild und die Rechtfertigungslehre des Paulus', TBei, Vol. 33, (2002).
112 Jochen Flebbe, Solus Deus: Untersuchungen zur Rede von Gott im Brief des Paulus an die Römer, ed.
M. Wolter, et. al., BZNW, Vol. 158, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2008.
113 Nils A. Dahl, 'The Neglected Factor In New Testament Theology', Refl, Vol. 73, (1975), pp. 5-8;
Moxnes, Theology In Conflict.
study, however, is his treatment of the 'five Abraham texts'. Like Calvert-Koyzis, and
Adams, Flebbe applies these Abraham texts to Romans 4:5. After excerpting Jubilees 11,
Apocalypse of Abraham 8, Philo's Abr. 69-72, Virt. 212-216, and Josephus' Ant. 1:154ff.,
Flebbe states that the common-element in these traditions is the description of Abraham
as pagan. Thus, for Flebbe, it is absolutely certain that this tradition stands behind Paul's
statement that Abraham was 'ungodly' (Rom. 4:5). Paul does not need to explain or
defend his suggestion that Abraham was ungodly, because he can assume his readers, too,
knew that,
Abraham kommt als Heide vom Irrtum zur Wahrheit, von einem gottlosen Leben mit Götzen
zu einem Leben mit Gott. Diese Gemeinsamkeit der Texte erklärt, warum Paulus in V.5 nicht
weiter erklärt oder begründet, warum Abraham als ajsebhvV von Gott gerechtfertigt wird: weil
er davon ausgehen kann, dass seine Leser mit der Charakterisierung Abrahams als „früher
heidnisch“ vertraut sind.114
These five examples illustrate a trend towards seeing the 'five Abraham texts' as
necessary background for Paul. These works have also been influential. Their
conclusions are beginning to be taken for granted by more recent scholarship. Judith
Frishman, for example, in a study of rabbinic and early Christian interpretations of
Abraham's faith accepts, on the authority of Calvert-Koyzis, that Paul echoed Jewish
literature of the Second Temple period in emphasising Abraham's turn to monotheism
and "rejection of idolatry".115 At the same time, Paul was "ambivalent about the
significance of the law for Abraham's righteousness, tending to stress faith without the
law".116 In similar fashion, both Don Garlington and James Dunn cite Calvert-Koyzis
approvingly.117
114 Flebbe, Solus Deus, pp. 197-198.
115 Judith Frishman, ''And Abraham Had Faith': But In What? Ephrem And The Rabbis On Abraham And
God's Blessings', in E. Grypeou and H. Spurling (eds.), The Exegetical Encounter Between Jews And
Christians In Late Antiquity, JCPS, Leiden, Brill, 2009, p. 163. See also: Matthew S. Harmon, She Must
And Shall Go Free: Paul's Isaianic Gospel In Galatians, BZNW, Vol. 168, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2010, p.
133, n. 35.
116 Frishman, 'Abraham Had Faith: But In What?', p. 163.
117 E.g. Don B. Garlington, 'A "New Perspective" Reading of Central Texts In Romans 1-4', (2006), p. 35,
n. 126 (accessed 1/11/2014 at <www.thepaulpage.com/Rom1-4.pdf>). See also the positive references
to, and quotations from Calvert-Koyzis in Garlington's commentary on Galatians (Don B. Garlington,
An Exposition of Galatians: A Reading From The New Perspective, 3rd. Edn., Eugene, Wipf & Stock,
2007), and certain articles: E.g. Don B. Garlington, 'Paul's "Partisan ἐκ" And The Question of
Kreuzer's suggestion, meanwhile, is followed by Benjamin Schließer, in his
important recent study of Abraham's faith in Romans 4.118 Likewise, Nickelsburg's
suggestion is adopted by Pheme Perkins.119
To take another example, Pamela Eisenbaum in arguing that Paul saw himself "as
a kind of Abraham redivivus" accepts on the authority of Adams (and others) that the 'five
Abraham texts' made up a significant part of the Apostle's thinking about Abraham.120
According to Eisenbaum, Paul viewed his own change from Saul to Paul as similar to
Abraham's shift from Gentile idolator to worshipper of God,121 and he viewed his
commission from Christ to leave Judaism and minister the Gospel to the Gentiles as
being akin to Abraham's being sent from his homeland to sojourn amongst a people not
his own and teach them the truth.122 In this understanding of Paul as an Abrahamic figure,
Eisenbaum relies upon the assumption of Paul's having been indebted to the 'five
Abraham texts' for his view of the patriarch. In Genesis, by contrast, there is "no
evidence that Abraham seeks to convert [the Canaanites]."123 And, in Paul's letters,
Abraham is seen more as 'father' than as missionary template (e.g. Rom. 4:17; 2 Cor.
11:22; Gal. 3:7, 29; 4:31).
This example is instructive, in that it shows the importance of the question of
whether Paul's view of Abraham was significantly shaped by the 'five Abraham texts'.
Justification In Galatians', JBL, Vol. 127, No. 3, (2008). James D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective On
Paul, WUNT, Vol. 185, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2005, pp. 44, n. 186, 45, n. 189.
118 Benjamin Schließer, Abraham's Faith In Romans 4, WUNT 2. Reihe, 224, Germany, Mohr Siebeck,
2007, pp. 99, 457.
119 Pheme Perkins, Abraham's Divided Children: Galatians And The Politics of Faith, Harrisburg, Trinity
Press, 2001, pp. 28-29. Nickelsburg, in his later commentary, also reads 1 Enoch 93:5 in light of his
understanding of the 'five Abraham texts' as expressed in his earlier essay. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, p.
444, n. 22. Thus, the interpretation of an extra-biblical work is affected by a prior understanding of the
'five Abraham texts'. In this case, the statement in 1 En. 93 that in the 'third week', "a man [presumably
Abraham] will be chosen as the plant of righteous judgment" is construed as containing an implicit
reference to Abraham's "turning from paganism, and specifically idolatry" Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, pp.
434, 444.
120 Pamela Eisenbaum, 'Paul As The New Abraham', in R. A. Horsley (ed.), Paul And Politics: Ekklesia,
Israel, Imperium, Interpretation, Harrisburg, Trinity Press, 2000, pp. 136-137.
121 Eisenbaum appeals to various traditions here: Eisenbaum, 'Paul As The New Abraham', pp. 133-134.
122 Eisenbaum cites Josephus, Pseudo-Eupolemus, and Artapanus, on this point: Eisenbaum, 'Paul As The
New Abraham', pp. 134-135.
123 Walter Brueggemann, Genesis, IBC, Vol. 1, Louisville, John Knox, 1982, p. 124.
Admittance of the 'five Abraham texts' to Paul's background is likely to significantly
impact one's perception of Paul's understanding of both Abraham, and his own relation to
the patriarch.
1.4 Importance of The Question
Abraham's significance need not be doubted. He is central to the three largest
monotheistic faiths.124 Nevertheless, some explanation of the importance of the particular
question – and associated sub-questions – dealt with in the present thesis is appropriate.
To begin with, it can be said that how one understands the sources of Paul's view
of Abraham will likely affect one's understanding of Paul's view of Abraham itself. This
is, in turn, significant, because Abraham appears at key junctures in the Pauline corpus
(e.g. Rom. 4; Gal. 3-4), being essential to Paul's theology.125 As Démann expresses,
"Abraham entre comme une pièce maîtresse dans le raisonnement de Paul."126 Likewise,
Samuel Sandmel's oft-quoted dictum – that to see what a writer makes of Abraham, "is
often to see most clearly what the writer is trying to say" – applies as well to Paul as to
124 Abraham is a perennial locus of inter-religious discussion. For discussion of Abraham as he relates to
contemporary Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, see, amongst others: Bruce Feiler, Abraham: A Journey
To The Heart of Three Faiths, New York, HarperCollins, 2004; Karl-Josef Kuschel, Abraham: Sign of
Hope For Jews, Christians, And Muslims, trans. J. Bowden, New York, Continuum, 1995; Jon D.
Levenson, 'The Conversion of Abraham To Judaism, Christianity, And Islam', in H. Najman and J. H.
Newman (eds.), The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays In Honor of James L. Kugel, JSJSup,
Leiden, Brill, 2004, pp. 3-40; Frances Worthington, Abraham: One God, Three Wives, Five Religions,
Wilmette, Baha'i Publishing, 2011; Marvin R. Wilson, Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of The
Christian Faith, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1989; Joan Chittister, et. al., The Tent of Abraham: Stories of
Hope And Peace For Jews, Christians, and Muslims, Boston, Beacon, 2007; Mordechai Nisan, Identity
And Civilization: Essays On Judaism, Christianity, And Islam, Boston, University Press of America,
1999; Bruce D. Chilton, Abraham's Curse: Child Sacrifice In The Legacies of The West, New York,
Doubleday, 2008.
125 As Siker has noted, "a variety of issues central to both early Judaism and Christianity converged around
the figure of Abraham: God's covenant promises, what it means to be heirs of these promises, the
eschatological realization of the promises, law, circumcision, God's relation to non-Jewish peoples, and
the character of faith and righteousness." Siker, Disinheriting The Jews, p. 15. Similarly, Layman
writes, "The Abraham passages in Paul's writings (Romans 4 and Galatians 2 and 3) touch on most of
the major themes in his theology. Paul's doctrine of justification is the most obvious... Also Paul's view
of the law... [and his use of the Old Testament]... Finally... Paul has much to say about how the People
of God is constituted in the Abraham passages. ... These four examples are sufficient to illustrate the
central significance of Abraham for Paul's theology." Layman, Paul's Use of Abraham, pp. 1-3.
other writers.127 As such, it is important to clearly see what influences shaped Paul's view
of Abraham.
If we get Paul wrong at this point, it is possible that we may set-off an
unintentional chain-reaction of faulty understanding throughout much of the rest of
Pauline theology. Needless to say, a great deal depends upon how one interprets this
theology. And this is so not only for those millions of 'Gentile' Christians around the
world who seek to understand the Apostle to the Gentiles, so that they may be faithful to
their calling, but even for Pauline scholarship within the academy. The question “whence
Paul's Abraham”, then, is an important one.
But the question has been addressed before, so why this study? As illustrated
above, it is common for recent scholarship to answer our question with reference to the
'five Abraham texts'. As yet, however, no sustained evaluation of this theory of attribution
has appeared. Thus, there is a gap in the extant literature. Such an evaluation, moreover,
bears significance for Pauline studies generally, since conclusions drawn from
examination of the influence of the 'five Abraham texts' on Paul are often taken over into
related areas of debate, such as the New Perspective(s) on Paul.
Given the abiding significance of Harrisville's almost comprehensive survey of
the primary literature, some may question the need for further investigation into the
sources of Paul's use of Abraham. In answer to this objection, several points may be
made: Firstly, it should be noted that Harrisville's work has not had the reception which it
deserved. Indeed, in at least two important studies it is only tersely mentioned and
dismissed, while in others it is passed over altogether.128 Secondly, Harrisville's work

128 Thus, for instance, Calvert-Koyzis comments that, “Harrisville arrives at the rather surprising
conclusion that, in his use of Abraham, Paul was aligned only with Scripture, and was not aligned with
Jewish interpretations of his day or earlier.” Yet, she does not interact with the implications of
Harrisville's work for her own. She does note that Sze-kar Wan also finds Harrisville's conclusions
'surprising', but Sze-kar Wan himself provides no interaction with Harrisville's argument. Calvert-
Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 3; Sze-kar Wan, 'Abraham And The Promise of
The Spirit: Galatians And The Hellenistic-Jewish Mysticism of Philo', SBL Seminar Papers 1994,
SBLSP, Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1995, p. 6, n. 1.
appeared before the move came to apply the 'five Abraham texts' to Paul. Due to the
breadth of its compass, moreover, Harrisville's work was constrained in the depth of
analysis it could devote to each of the primary texts surveyed. As such, it is insufficient
as an appraisal of that scholarly trend, not only because of its date, but also because of
the nature of the work. Most significantly, however, in limiting the scope of his
investigation to possible literary antecedents to Paul's Abraham, Harrisville shut the door
on the possibility of Paul's having been influenced in a non-directly-literary fashion. As
we hope to show (Chapter 11), this led him to grant Paul a degree of individuality
unwarranted by the extant evidence. We believe that Paul also received influence from
his early Christian milieu. If so, Harrisville's work needs some nuancing.
1.5 Overview
The study is divided into three parts (I, II, III).
Parts I and II deal with the relationship between Paul's Abraham as found in
Galatians and Romans, and the Abraham of 'the five Abraham texts'. In order to
demonstrate that Paul was not indebted to 'the five Abraham texts' for his understanding
of Abraham, we explore each of the five extra-biblical texts in turn (Part I), before
turning to evaluate how and why certain scholars have placed them in Paul's background
(Part II).
In Part I, following the introduction, a chapter is devoted to each of 'the five
Abraham texts' (Chapters 2-6). Each text is analysed for what it has to say about
Abraham (Jubilees, Philo's corpus, Josephus' Antiquities, Apocalypse of Abraham, Liber
Antiquitatum Biblicarum). Chapter 7 then provides a synthesis of the results from
Chapters 2-6.
Part II turns to the question of whether 'the five Abraham texts' were important
influences on Paul's view of Abraham as it finds expression in Galatians and Romans.

Chapter 8 addresses the question of whether it is historically plausible to suggest that
Paul himself would likely have been familiar with 'the five Abraham texts', either in his
younger days as a Pharisee, or in his later Apostolic career. Chapters 9 and 10 are more
specific. Chapter 9 engages with scholarly suggestions as to how 'the five Abraham texts'
should be applied to Paul's Abraham in Galatians. Chapter 10 does the same for Romans.
Part III evaluates Harrisville's argument that Paul's Abraham was the product of
an isolated reading of Genesis (Chapter 11). It is argued that while Paul was not indebted
to 'the five Abraham texts' for his understanding of Abraham, he was still not quite as
much of a 'maverick' as Harrisville suggests. Indeed, Chapter 11 provides a brief foray
into those non-Pauline New Testament texts which mention Abraham, in order to posit
that Paul may well have been influenced in his portrayal of the patriarch by antecedents
in the Jesus movement, whether from John the Baptist, Jesus, or other early leaders in the
nascent Church. Finally, Chapter 12 concludes the study.

CHAPTER 2
THE BOOK OF JUBILEES
2.1 Introduction
The present chapter deals with the book of Jubilees.1 Familiarity with this text may be
assumed. Therefore, we need not introduce it in any detail here.2 However, awareness of
the following three considerations will aid the reader in understanding the rest of the
chapter:
Firstly, we follow VanderKam in estimating the date of composition to have been
between 160BC and 150BC.3
Secondly, we assume the work to have been directed against religious-
Hellenisation. VanderKam characterises the situation which is believed to have
precipitated the composition as follows: "In a time when Judeans were subject to foreign
powers who were at least interested in blending them into the surrounding culture, the
writer of Jubilees articulated a powerful argument for freedom from foreign domination
and Judean possession of their own land."4
Thirdly, we feel that it is legitimate to deal with Jubilees as it now stands. Some
have argued for the visible presence of multiple literary strata within the work,5 and
others would see it largely as a re-writing of Genesis which also compiles many small,
1 The discussion in the present chapter is based upon the critical edition of the text produced by
VanderKam, and by the translation of the same author. The reader should be aware that other
translations/editions may have different verse numbering. See: James C. VanderKam, The Book of
Jubilees: A Critical Text, CSCO, Vol. 510, Louvain, Peeters, 1989; James C. VanderKam, The Book of
Jubilees, CSCO, Vol. 511, Louvain, Peeters, 1989b.
2 For an introduction to the work, the reader may refer to: James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees,
Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 2001.
3 James C. VanderKam, 'The Origins And Purposes of The Book of Jubilees', in M. Albani, J. Frey, and
A. Lange (eds.), Studies In The Book of Jubilees, TSAJ, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1997, p. 20.
4 VanderKam, 'The Origins And Purposes of The Book of Jubilees', p. 22.
5 E.g. Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology, And Theology, JSJSup,
Vol. 117, Leiden, Brill, 2007, pp. 21ff. Cf. James L. Kugel, 'On The Interpolations In The Book of
Jubilees', RevQ, Vol. 24, (2009), pp. 215-272.
CHAPTER 2: THE BOOK OF JUBILEES 35
autonomous exegetical units.6 The reading given here is somewhat more synchronic. We
have, nevertheless, attempted to be sensitive to the fact that the author of Jubilees could
have been shaped by other opinions in his immediate milieu (e.g. about Enoch).7 We have
also borne in mind the mediated nature of the author's original composition.
Unfortunately, the sections of Jubilees which deal with Abraham's childhood have
survived, apart from a few Greek and Hebrew fragments, almost exclusively in Ethiopic.8
As such, we must assume that the process of repeated translation has led, in some
measure, to an alteration of the author's original literary timbre, and style. Even so, we
treat the work as a literary unity. With these considerations in mind, we move on to a
discussion of the text.
This chapter seeks to present a fresh reading of Jubilees' presentation of the early
life of Abraham in Mesopotamia (Jub. 11-12). To this end, we shall begin by noting
several trends in the interpretation of these sections of Jubilees. We will then evaluate
those common readings by scrutinising the narrative itself.
2.2 Common Trends In The Interpretation of Jubilees
There is a particular reading of the depiction of Abraham in Jubilees 11-12 which is
adopted by a significant proportion of contemporary scholarship. This reading sees the
original message of these chapters as follows: Abraham was once an ungodly worshipper
of idols who was also involved in the sinful practice of astrology. One day, however, he
recognised the folly of idolatry (Jub. 11). On a subsequent occasion, he also recognised
the folly of astrology (Jub. 12). So he abandoned both of them, and converted to the
6 James Kugel's recent work on Jubilees, for example, is studded with references to the exegetical 'motifs'
employed by the author. See: James L. Kugel, A Walk Through Jubilees: Studies In The Book of
Jubilees And The World of Its Creation, JSJSup, Vol. 156, Leiden, Brill, 2012.
7 Van Ruiten is probably correct to assert that literary dependency of Jubilees on 1 Enoch is uncertain.
Jacques T.A.G.M. Van Ruiten, 'A Literary Dependency of Jubilees On 1 Enoch?', in G. Boccaccini
(ed.), Enoch And Qumran Origins: New Light On A Forgotten Connection, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans,
2005, pp. 90-93.
8 VanderKam, Jubilees: A Critical Text, pp. ix-xiv.
worship of the one true God alone. His discovery of monotheism, however, necessitated
his emigration from his native land. In obedience to a summons from God, therefore, he
travelled to Canaan. The polemical purpose of this story, it is supposed, was to warn
against the dangers of idolatry and astrology.
Geza Vermes may be taken as representative of this common reading. He argues
that, while picturing Abraham as believing in one God later in life, Jubilees testifies to
his discovery of God, his conversion from idolatry and astrology, and the opposition
which made him leave.9 Some scholars, such as Calvert-Koyzis, give more prominence
to the issue of monotheism,10 and others give more prominence to astrology.11 Yet, they
share the same basic reading of these two chapters.
We wish to critique such a reading, and in the process, we shall see a different
picture emerging from the narrative. In anticipation of the succeeding Chapters, we
would note further that such scholars as we have just mentioned also tend to agree that
the image of Abraham-as-convert which they find in Jubilees is observable also in the
works of Philo, Josephus, and the author of the Apocalypse of Abraham. That is to say
that, by contrast to Pseudo-Philo who credits Abraham with belief in God throughout his
life, "the greater number of sources represent him as a convert."12 For the moment, we are
concerned only with Jubilees. We mention this fact, however, because it is important to
treat Jubilees on its own terms and not to let one's reading of other texts prejudice one's
view. However we view those other authors/texts, we should still let Jubilees speak for
itself.
9 Geza Vermes, Scripture And Tradition In Judaism: Haggadic Studies, StPB, 4, Leiden, Brill, 1983, pp.
79, 81-82, 84-85.
Traditions For Early Judaism And Christianity, London, T&T Clark, 2004, p. 17.
11 Armin Lange, 'The Essene Position On Magic And Divination', in M. J. Bernstein, F. G. Martínez, and
J. Kampen (eds.), Legal Texts And Legal Issues: Proceedings of The Second Meeting of The
International Organization For Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995: Published In Honour of Joseph M.
Baumgarten, STDJ, Leiden, Brill, 1997, p. 402.
12 Vermes, Scripture And Tradition, p. 82.
2.3 An Evaluation And Alternative Reading
In our reading of Jubilees, we shall deal with each of the following suggestions in turn:
viz. (1) that Abraham worshipped idols; (2) that he was an astrologer; (3) that he was seen
and depicted as an ungodly Gentile who converted to monotheism; (4) that he was the
first monotheist.
2.3.1 Abraham As Idolater
In relation to the first of these points, it will be argued here that Jubilees does not
describe the child Abraham as having been engaged in idolatry.
In the first instance, it may be instructive to note that the narrator does not
anywhere state that Abraham had worshipped idols. Of course, that is not the end of the
story. We must analyse the narrative to see where the author might show us nonetheless
that Abraham was an idolator. Nevertheless, it is at least interesting to note that we are
not explicitly told of Abraham's supposed idolatry.
When we approach the narrative details of Abraham's early life, we encounter a
dearth of details depicting Abraham as idolater. What we do find is a description of the
boy Abraham which pictures him as a sort of outside observer. He observes the practices
of men and understands that idolatry is wrong. He therefore scorns it and prays that God
would keep him from falling victim to it (Jub. 11:15-16).13 In commenting on these
verses, Vermes describes the child Abraham's idolatry as being "taken for granted" but
13 It is not always clear in the scholarly literature whether Abraham was first involved in idolatry and then,
subsequently, abandoned his former practices, or whether he was merely surrounded by idolatry and
refused to participate in it. We are dealing here with the claim that Abraham was involved in idolatry
from which he later converted (discussed below). We are dealing, that is to say, with an interpretation of
Jubilees which sees it as "the story of how he renounced the idols of his father's house."Daniel C.
Harlow, 'Idolatry And Alterity: Israel And The Nations In The Apocalypse of Abraham', in D. C. Harlow
et al. (eds.), The "Other" In Second Temple Judaism: Essays In Honor of John J. Collins, Grand Rapids,
Eerdmans, 2011 , p. 304 (emphasis added).
"glossed over".14 If by "glossed over", he means that it is neither mentioned nor
described, then we might agree with him, but what grounds do we have for suggesting
that it is "taken for granted"? In looking somewhat more carefully at the text, we believe
that far from being taken for granted, the possibility of Abraham's idolatry is actually
excluded.
Abraham's birth is reported in Jub. 11:15. The verse also contains an explanation
for the choice of 'Abraham' as a name (it was the name of the boy's grandfather), but the
verse essentially serves the very limited purpose of announcing the birth of the child.
Immediately following this, the next verse begins with the sentence: "And the child
[ሕፃን] began [አኀዘ is inchoative, describing a new state] to understand the errors of the
earth [ስሕተተ ፡ ምድር], that all went astray after images and after uncleanness." (Jub.
11:16). After his birth, therefore, the very first thing which the author of Jubilees reports
about Abraham is that before he even learned to read he understood the errors of the
earth, including idolatry, as it were, from the womb.15 From the earliest age and the
beginning of the narrative, then, Abraham is introduced as distinct from his idolatrous
surroundings.16
Given the proximity to the birth-announcement, it is likely that ሕፃን here should
be construed as meaning either 'infant' or 'very young child' (at least younger than
fourteen, as at 11:18; cf. Jub. 23:25; 47:7).17 Of course, this leads to the somewhat silly
15 For Testuz, it is "Dès son très jeune âge" that Abraham understood the errors of the earth. Michel
Testuz, Les Idées Religieuses Du Livre Des Jubilés, Paris, Librairie Minard, 1960, p. 63.
16 Thus, Balestier-Stengel comments that, "Le but essentiel des Jubilés est de montrer, dès le départ,
qu'Abram est unique, différent des autres, le seul fidèle à Dieu et opposé aux idoles. C'était déjà clair
dans la référence à l'enfance d'Abram: [cites Jub. 11:16-17]." Guy Balestier-Stengel, 'Un Aperçu Sur
Les Jubilés: Le Personnage D'Abram', FoiVie, Vol. 89, No. 5, (1990), pp. 66-67 (emphasis added).
17 Dillmann suggests either infans or puer. August Dillmann, Lexicon Linguae Aethiopicae Cum Indice
Latino, Leipzig, 1865, p. 138. Likewise Lambdin "infant, very young child". Thomas Oden Lambdin,
Introduction To Classical Ethiopic (Ge'ez), HSS, Vol. 24, Missoula, Scholars Press, 1978, p. 405.
Machiela sees Abraham's comprehension of the error of idolatry as coming “presumably several years
before” he turned fourteen. Daniel A. Machiela, 'On The Importance of Being Abram: Genesis
Apocryphon 18, Jubilees 10:1-13:4, And Further Thoughts On A Literary Relationship', in E. F. Mason
(ed.), A Teacher For All Generations: Essays In Honor of James C. VanderKam: Vol. 1, JSJSup, Leiden,
Brill, 2012, p. 729.
suggestion that Abraham as an infant or a very young child understood the error of
idolatry.18 Yet, that appears to be precisely the point: that Abraham was a Wunderkind.19
Indeed, Abraham himself later declares that throughout all the days of his life he hated
idols (21:2-3). Moreover, the word 'error' [ስሕተተ] here implies a theological judgement
on the young Abraham's part (cf. 41:23).20 He understands that idolatry is sin.21 This
implies an understanding of God beyond the rudimentary. From a very young age, then,
if not from birth, Abraham understands the errors of his countrymen. As such, if we are
to locate Abraham's supposed conversion from idolatry in time, we should probably place
it between verses fifteen and sixteen. One might assume that somewhere between birth
and age fourteen (cf. Jub. 11:16) Abraham underwent a conversion experience. The text
does not call for this, however. It is not essential to the story to assume that Abraham had
once worshipped idols.
At this point, comparison with the treatment of Abraham in CD 3:2-4 is
appropriate. While the narrative is much more compressed than in Jubilees, it is
noteworthy that there is no mention of Abraham's having converted. The picture is black-
and-white: the sons of Noah sinned; Abraham did not. There is no 'grey' area of an
18 Interestingly, Philo appears to disqualify the nhvpioV from any sustained rationality (e.g. Leg. 3:210).
Here, the young Abraham suffers from no such natural limitation.
19 Testuz makes the same point, but adds that Abraham was protected by God: “En ce point du récit [Jub.
11:16-17]; le Livre des Jubilés rapporte plusieurs prodiges opérés par Abram dans son jeune âge, et qui
montrent que le jeune homme était protégé de Dieu (11/18-24; 12/12).” Testuz, Les Idées Religieuses
Du Livre Des Jubilés, p. 63. Müller correctly notes that we are not told how Abraham comes to this
understanding. One is left, thus, with the impression that it was innate. Mogens Müller, 'Die Abraham-
Gestalt im Jubiläenbuch versuch einer Interpretation', SJOT, Vol. 10, No. 2, (1996), p. 247.
20 Robertson goes further, and suggests that Abraham's (at least partial) knowledge of the Law is implied
here. For Robertson, Abraham is being depicted as knowing already the Law's prohibition of idolatry
and pollution, which may be breached through association with foreigners. Glenn Earl Robertson, Paul
And The Abrahamic Tradition: The Background of Abraham And The Law In Galatians 3-4 And
Romans 4, Ph. D. dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Texas, 1988, pp. 23-24.
This is possible, but not certain. In support of such an interpretation, we might note the emphasis
Jubilees places throughout on knowledge of the Law before Sinai. Within the more immediate context,
we may also think of Abraham's burning of the idols (12:12) as compliance with the command of Deut.
7:5, as suggested by: Anke Mühling, "Blickt auf Abraham, euren Vater": Abraham als
Identifikationsfigur des Judentums in der Zeit des Exils und des Zweiten Tempels, FRLANT, Vol. 236,
Göttingen, V&R, 2011, p. 194.
21 Dillmann gives peceatum as a potential gloss, along with aberratio and error Dillmann, Lexicon, p.
330. Similarly, Lambdin has "error, sin": Lambdin, Introduction, p. 429.
Abraham who once walked after their way but later repented of it. We cannot simply put
this down to the compression of the narrative. The whole thrust of the passage is towards
a dichotomy between the faithful and the unfaithful. Moreover, having analysed the
prayers in several Aramaic documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Daniel Machiela
concludes that prayers of repentance are not generally attached to biblical heroes like the
patriarchs. So, for example, while Abraham prays in the Genesis Apocryphon, his prayer
is not one of repentance.22 The treatment of Abraham in these two documents buttresses
our interpretation of Jubilees.
Speaking theologically, the author of Jubilees was quite pessimistic about human
nature, at least that of the Gentiles. Yet, he does not appear to have held to a view of
original sin comparable to that found in the New Testament. Indeed, the opposite seems
to be suggested by Jub. 5:12-13. We need not necessarily assume, then, either that
Abraham was born in sin, or that he was born with a propensity towards idolatry or other
sin. Idolatry, in Jubilees, is largely the result of the work of Mastema (Satan) and his
demons who deceive men's minds and lead them astray. 23 Since the overwhelming
majority of individuals within the narrative world are deceived in this way, we might
think that Abraham was, too. Yet, we might equally well say that Jub. 11:15-16 functions
as a statement that this was not what happened to Abraham. Abraham's birth signals the
contradiction, not continuation, of the world's errors. In this sense, Abraham might be
compared with Enoch and Noah before him, who also remained undeceived. Support for
this view is found in Jub. 11:18-24, where Abraham is depicted as victorious over
22 Machiela concludes that, "It seems that in these writings the idealized ancestors of Israel had no need to
repent or confess guilt, and this fits a more general trend of idealizing past figures in other ancient
Jewish reworkings of authoritative texts (e.g. Jubilees) – apparently those writing these texts were
interested in providing readers with a black and white portrayal of righteousness and wickedness, the
former typified by the patriarchs of Israel and the latter by the errant Watchers, their offspring, and any
others associated with them." Daniel A. Machiela, 'Prayer In The Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls: A
Catalogue And Overview', in J. Penner, K. M. Penner, and C. Wassen (eds.), Prayer And Poetry In The
Dead Sea Scrolls And Related Literature: Essays In Honor of Eileen Schuller On The Occasion of Her
65th Birthday, STDJ, Leiden, Brill, 2012, p. 303 (of pp. 285-305).
23 Mastema's minions are interchangably called 'demons' and 'evil spirits'. For 'demon', see: 1:11; 7:27;
10:1-2; 22:17. For 'evil spirits', see: 10:3-13; 11:4-5; 12:20; 15:31-32; 19:28.
Mastema.24 We may also note Jub. 23:9-10. There we are told that due to the wickedness
of their ways, the lifespans of men began to decrease. Abraham, however, is specifically
excluded from inclusion in that greater mass of depraved humanity. Rather, we are told
that he "was perfect25 with the Lord in everything that he did – being properly pleasing
throughout all his lifetime."26
To support the above considerations further, we shall now examine Abraham's
subsequent actions: separating from his father, praying for deliverance, and burning his
father's idol shop. In our view, these actions do not depict conversion but the manifest
desire to oppose error.
When Abraham is described as 'separating' himself from his father (ወተፈልጠ ፡
እምድኅረ ፡ አቡሁ) at Jub. 11:16 (cf. 35:12), the question arises as to whether Abraham's
separation from his father implies that he had previously worshipped idols with him. We
are told that Abraham separated from his father in order that he might not give worship
with him to idols (ከመ ፡ ኢይስግድ ፡ ምስሌሁ ፡ ለጣዖት). The structure of this dependent
clause – with ከመ prefacing the negative subjunctive – is such that it may be translated
"lest he should give worship...".27 This tells us nothing about Abraham's prior
involvement (or lack thereof) in idolatry. It does not say "lest he should any longer give
worship...". It merely informs us that Abraham separated in order to avoid being
influenced by his father to commit this sin. The young Abraham, who has already
24 Likewise, Machiela sees Abraham's victory over the ravens as symbolic of his, “power to contend with,
indeed prevail upon Mastema and the powers of evil.” Machiela, 'On The Importance of Being Abram',
p. 728. Cf. Also Robertson, Paul And The Abrahamic Tradition, pp. 22-23.
25 Jubilees presents several figures as perfect in righteousness. There is, for example, a close parallel
between the way in which Noah's life is characterised and the way in which Abraham's is summarised.
Both are seen as perfectly righteous. Noah is "ፍጹም ፡ በጽድቁ" (10:17; cf. 5:19); Abraham "ፍጹም" and
"ጽድቅ" (23:10). In the same way, Jacob is viewed as perfect (ፍጹም – 27:17; 35:12), as is Leah (ፍጹም
– 36:23). A few further instances are noted by Das: A. Andrew Das, 'Paul And Works of Obedience In
Second Temple Judaism: Romans 4:4-5 As A "New Perspective" Case Study', CBQ, Vol. 71, No. 4,
(2009), p. 802.
26 This might imply his life-long proper obedience to the Law. For this possibility, cf. Jub. 23:26, where
human longevity is linked to obedience to "the right way".
27 See, for e.g., Lambdin, Introduction, p. 150.
understood the error of idolatry, separates from his father in order to avoid any negative
influence his father might have on him which could lead him to idolatry.28 The language
of separation need not imply a prior idolatry, but merely that Abraham is conscious of the
danger of not adding to his separation of character an additional outward separation.
Likewise, Abraham later commands Jacob to 'separate' (ተፈለጥ ፡ እምአሕዛብ) from the
Gentiles and not even to eat with them, because they are 'unclean' (ርኵስ; cf. 11:16-17) in
every way (Jub. 22:16). Yet, as is clear from the context, that command to separate does
not imply that Jacob was previously a companion of Gentiles.
We should probably also read Abraham's separation in light of God's earlier
statement (at 2:19) that he would 'separate' for himself a people from among all the
nations (አነ ፡ እፈልጥ ፡ ሊተ ፡ ሕዝበ ፡ እማእከለ ፡ አሕዛብየ). If we read Jub. 11:16 in
light of this earlier verse, Abraham is seen as representative of the nation of Israel which
God had chosen to be absolutely distinct and separate from the rest of the nations. 29 God's
separation of Israel from the Gentiles is begun with Abraham. This separation is probably
begun at Abraham's birth.30
Such a reading would make sense, in light of Jubilees' later claims (16:26) that
Abraham was an especial creation, provided by God in his generation out of God's good
pleasure, since God knew that he would be the seed which produced the righteous plant
Israel. This analysis suggests that Abraham was separate and distinct from his father in
God's sight even before he outwardly separated from him. Abraham's actions only
28 Cf. Mühling: “Diese Erkenntnis [Jub. 11:16] führt Abraham dazu, sich von seiner götzendienerischen
Familie abzuwenden, um sich gar nicht erst Versuchung des Götzendienstes auszusetzen. Stattdessen
wendet er sich der rechten Gottesverehrung zu.” Mühling, Blickt auf Abraham, p. 193.
29 Cf. the idea of Abraham as “Israel-in-miniature” in: Beate Ego, 'Abraham als Urbild der Toratreue
Israels: Traditionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen zu einem Aspekt des biblischen Abrahambildes', in F.
Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger (eds.), Bund und Tora: Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in
alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition, WUNT, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1996,
pp. 25-40; cited also by Simon J. Gathercole, 'Justified By Faith, Justified By His Blood: The Evidence
of Romans 3:21-4:25', in D. A. Carson, M. A. Seifrid, and P. T. O'Brien (eds.), Justification And
Variegated Nomism (Vol. 2): The Paradoxes of Paul, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2004, p. 157, n. 39.
30 Cf. 23:10 cited above – he was pleasing "all his lifetime".
illustrate the already present reality. Interestingly, even Abraham's father knew that
idolatry was error (Jub. 12:6), but it is only Abraham who acts rightly, when faced with
the decision to pay lip service to the beliefs of the Chaldeans or to reject them outright.
Another important incident in Abraham's childhood is his prayer for deliverance
(Jub. 11:17). Abraham prays that God would deliver (ድኅነ) him from the errors of
mankind.31 How shall we understand this? Is it the repentant conversion prayer of a man
asking for forgiveness and salvation from his own past error? It does not appear so. It
appears, rather, to be the anxious prayer of one who understands the ungodliness of his
Heimat and seeks God's rescue from the errors of his countrymen lest he, too, should fall
prey to such error.32
We shall have occasion to discuss this prayer more fully in relation to the parallel
prayer in Jub. 12:20. But immediately we may make several observations. First, it should
be noted that as early as age fourteen, Abraham prayed to "the creator of all". It appears
as though he is already aware that everything which exists was created by this God. At
the latest, Abraham is aware of God as creator by 12:4. Thus, long before 12:19,
Abraham is speaking about God as creator of all. Second, that Abraham's fate is
representative of the fate of the nation (as suggested above) is supported by the fact that
in both of his prayers for deliverence from error he mentions not only himself but also his
'portion' (ክፉል – 11:17), or 'seed' (ወዘርእየ – 12:20).33 In light of the parallel between these
two prayers, and the subsequent use of this first term in Jubilees, it here most likely
refers to Abraham's descendants. That the patriarch prays not only for himself but also for
his descendants further encourages the thought that this is a prayer for protection rather
31 For “ድኅነ”, Leslau provides the following glosses “be unharmed, escape safely, be spared”. Wolf
Leslau, Comparative Dictionary of Ge'ez (Classical Ethiopic), Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz, 1991, p.
128.
32 Already we see the introduction of the theme of fear, which we shall return to later.
33 ወዘርእየ is the more common term in Jubilees. This is also the term used in Genesis. The sections of
Jubilees which follow Genesis more closely seem to employ this latter term.
than of repentance.
We may return, at this point, to Vermes' statement that Abraham's idolatry is
"taken for granted" in Jubilees 11. We do not believe this statement to be accurate. Rather
than being pictured as an idolater, Abraham is shown to be an enlightened individual who
can see the vileness of idol-worship.34 He does separate from his father and pray to God
for deliverance, but these are not steps in his conversion. Instead, they represent the
revolutionary, tenacious, and independent young Abraham struggling against the
dominant cultural paradigm. The image of Abraham which is created by the author's
narration of his knowledge of God, separation from his father, and then his victory over
the ravens (in 11:18-24) is entirely positive. Thus Mühling: “Diese Ausschmückungen
gegenüber der Genesis befördern von Anfang an ein überaus positives Abraham-Bild.”35
2.3.2 Abraham As Astrologer
In connection with the second of our points mentioned above, we will now argue that
Jubilees does not present Abraham as having engaged in sinful astrology, but rather in
meteorology.
Again, the first thing to note in this connection is that Jubilees does not state that
Abraham had practiced astrology. But let us move on to an analysis of the narrative
which is supposed to illustrate Abraham's astrology.
That Abraham is depicted in Jubilees 12 as converting from pagan astrology is a
commonly accepted interpretation of the chapter. While a few are circumspect (e.g. Van
Ruiten), many scholars see Jubilees 12:16-20 as picturing Abraham's rejection of
astrology on the basis of his discovery that God is omnipotent. 36 The patriarch's prayer at
34 As Terence Fretheim has written, “Jubilees makes sure that Abraham is not understood to be an
idolater; indeed, he is a believer and rejects idols from an early age”. Terence E. Fretheim, Abraham:
Trials of Family And Faith, ed. J. L. Crenshaw, SPOT, South Carolina, The University of South
Carolina Press, 2007, p. 158.
35 Mühling, Blickt auf Abraham, p. 193.
36 Cf. the following formulation: "In the recounting of Abraham's emigration from Ur, the [author of
12:19-20 is seen as a petition for God to free him from the power of evil spirits which
had deceived him into practicing pagan astrology.37
As Armin Lange writes: "This insight [of God as almighty] caused Abraham to
abandon the heathen practice of astrology and to pray to God to ask for protection against
the evil spirits linked with astrology (Jub. 12:19-20)."38 Similarly, Segal, commenting on
Abraham's observation of the stars at night, writes:
Abraham apparently learned to predict based upon these omens from his father in Ur of the
Chaldees, and this knowledge provided the background for his astral observations in order to
forecast the weather for the coming year. Once Abraham understood that God alone controls
the world, and that he has the ability to change it at any moment, he expressed this insight in
a prayer of supplication for protection from the forces of evil in the world (vv. 19-20).39
This text does not picture Abraham as converting from astrology, however.
Rather, the whole section from 12:15 to 12:31 can be better understood from the
perspective of Abraham's growing trust in God in the midst of frightening
circumstances.40
There are four key assumptions that are made in the above citations from Lange
and Segal which we shall critique. To wit, these four are: (1) that Abraham discovers
God's omnipotence for the first time at Jubilees 12:16-20; (2) that Abraham's observation
of the heavens is akin to the sinful astrological practices of Kainan or Serug mentioned
earlier in Jubilees; (3) that Abraham prays for deliverence from the evil spirits because he
is presently under their control, having been deceived by them; (4) that these evil spirits
are in an especial measure associated with astrology. We shall examine each of these
Jubilees] places the famous lines from God, beginning "Come forth from your land..." (Jub. 12.22-24),
in response to Abraham's own repentance from his native religion, and discovery of monotheism, as he
lies under the stars one night, trying to discern the coming rain fall (Jub. 12.16-21)." Michael R.
Whitenton, 'Rewriting Abraham and Joseph: Stephen's Speech (Acts 7:2-16) and Jewish Exegetical
Traditions', NovT, Vol. 54, (2012), p. 154.
37 See, as some examples, Segal, Lange, Vermes, Reed, et. al.
38 Lange, 'The Essene Position On Magic And Divination', p. 402.
39 Segal, The Book of Jubilees, p. 260.
40 From a slightly different perspective, Lanne sees this prayer of Abraham's as a private searching for
God's will. Abraham, according to Lanne, is willing to set out, and seeking God's instruction on which
path to take, and so God responds with the words of Gen. 12:1ff. Emmanuel Lanne, 'La «Xeniteia»
d'Abraham Dans l'Oeuvre d'Irénée', Irén, Vol. 47, (1974), p. 183. This understanding of Abraham's
prayer finds some support in Jubilees 21:1-2, where Abraham describes how he has all his life sought
God's path and will for his life.
assumptions in turn, before suggesting a different approach (5).
2.3.2.1 Abraham Discovering God's Omnipotence

The suggestion that Abraham first discovers God's power at Jub. 12:16-20 is
questionable in light of Jub. 12:1-5. In the earlier passage, God's omnipotence and status
as absolute Creator is clearly seen (over against the impotence of idols). 41 Indeed,
Abraham has already testified to his father that all things, including the rains themselves,
are in the hand of the 'God of heaven' (አምልኩ ፡ አምላከ ፡ ሰማይ – 12:4). Indeed, Jub.
11:17 may be taken to indicate that Abraham had experienced an awareness of God as
Creator for more than half a century before his observation of the stars as recorded in
Jub. 12:16ff.42
2.3.2.2 Abraham's Night-Vigil As Sinful Astrology

That Abraham's observation of the heavens is to be considered an example of sinful
astrological practice comparable to that of Kainan or Serug is questionable. Jubilees
12:16-18 has been interpreted as a critique of (and conversion from) astrology. Vermes,
for instance, argues with the following logic: First, Jubilees is critical of astrology.
Second, Abraham was engaged in meteorology. Third, meteorology and astrology were
“inseparable in antiquity”.43 Thus, Abraham's meteorological observations must be seen
as an example of sinful astrology from which he converted. As such, Abraham's prayer
(12:19ff.) must be interpreted as a conversion prayer. As we shall see, Vermes' logic,
while internally coherent, does not satisfactorily explain the evidence.
First, let us consider the assertion that meteorology and astrology (let alone
astronomy) were inseparable in antiquity. A clear example which seems to show this
41 Balestier-Stengel notes that Abraham's language here is similar to certain passages in Isaiah and
Psalms: “La manière dont Abram conçoit Dieu (v. 3-5), se trouve déjà en termes proches ou semblables
en Es 44,9-20; 46,6-7; Ps 115,4-7; 135,15-18.” Balestier-Stengel, 'Un Aperçu Sur Les Jubilés', p. 66.
42 At Jub. 11:16, he is fourteen years old. By 12:16, he is in his seventies.
statement to be an over generalisation is that of Philo. For, Philo, who is by no means
enamoured with superstitious astrology, can nonetheless, praise God's creation of the
stars as 'signs' (shmei:a) marking the seasons and months, but also as meteorologically
forecasting future weather patterns (Opif. 58-59).44 To take another example, when Jesus
is portrayed, in Luke 12:54-56, as crediting the crowd with the ability to forecast the
weather, he does not suggest either that they do so by astrological means, or that their
practice is worthy of chastisement. To the contrary, he criticises them for not using the
legitimate critical faculties which they clearly possess to interpret the signs of God's
action in the world in relation to himself. We may also point to the work of the poet
Aratus, quoted by Paul in Acts 17, as another example of observational weather
forecasting which is not properly described as astrology.45 Likewise, Cicero and Pliny
both distinguished between meteorological prediction and prediction of the fate of an
individual on the basis of the stars.46 Lastly, the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries
evidence the fact that empirical, systematic observation of meteorological phenomena
was carried out in Mesopotamia. The proto-scientific investigation that this represents is
not appropriately taxonomised under the rubric of astrology. We might say, then, that
meteorology was not always linked with astrology in antiquity.
At this point, we would do well to discuss the terminology itself. We take the term
“meteorology” to refer to an attempt to predict or explain the weather on the basis of
empirical observation of patterns and a 'scientific' method. We take the term “astronomy”
44 On this, see: David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria And The "Timaeus" of Plato, Philosophia Antiqua,
Vol. 44, Leiden, Brill, 1986, pp. 224-225.
45 The Phaenomena of Aratus was a didactic, poetic work from around the third century BC which was
widely popular in the Greco-Roman period. It deals with both astronomy (Phaen. 2:1-732) and
meteorology (Phaen. 2:733-1154). "Aratus' subject," according to A. W. Bulloch, "was astronomy and
not astrology". See: Anthony W. Bulloch, 'Hellenistic Poetry: Minor Figures', in P. E. Easterling and B.
M. W. Knox (eds.), The Cambridge History of Classical Literature, Vol. 1: Greek Literature, Pt. 4: The
Hellenistic Period And The Empire, Cambridge, CUPress, 1989, pp. 58-59.
46 Hence Taub: "[Pliny] shared [Cicero's] view, that prophecy about the fate of individuals was not
possible through astronomical divination, while at the same time utilizing astronomical methods and
tools, including parapēgmata, for predicting weather phenomena and associated effects." Liba Taub,
Ancient Meteorology, London, Routledge, 2003, p. 63.
to refer to the 'scientific', empirical, observational, and often mathematical study of the
sky. Meteorology might be classified as a kind of astronomy. We take the term
“astrology” to be similar to astronomy, but to imply something much more superstitious,
mystical, and mantic. It may be deemed acceptable or not by a particular author on the
basis of what religious associations or practices are involved.47 While there is no
consistency in the terminology used by ancient writers to describe these practices, and
while the border-line between astronomy and astrology may have been blurred in certain
situations, these three practices can nevertheless be spoken of as having been separable in
antiquity.48
After conflating meteorology and astrology, Vermes simply asserts that Jubilees
12:15ff. criticises Abraham's observance of the stars. But that Jubilees views Abraham's
night-vigil as disreputable is not immediately apparent. Indeed, given that Abraham has
already demonstrated an awareness of God as the God of the heavens and the creator of
all things, the one who causes the rains to fall in his time (Jub. 12:4),49 the attempt to
discern the weather need not be an unsavoury one, as is assumed by Vermes and others. 50
47 Vermes' use of the term 'astrology' immediately prejudices the issue, due to that term's modern
connotations. The term 'astronomy', on the other hand, is both more neutral, and closer to the Greek
terminology commonly used by, for example, Philo and Josephus (ajstronomevw, ajstronomiva,
ajstronomikovV, ajstronovmoV). Such astronomy was often viewed as 'scientific', and not always confused
with astrology. We should not too quickly conflate them.
48 While not all writers would have maintained a distinction between astrology and astronomy, at least at
the terminological level (e.g. Sib. Or. 3:227-228), there "can be little doubt that in Greek literature a
clear distinction between the two sciences can often be found. And observing the movements of the
heavenly bodies need not necessarily in itself imply astrological interests." Pieter Willem van der Horst,
Hellenism - Judaism - Christianity: Essays On Their Interaction, Contributions To Biblical Exegesis
And Theology, Vol. 8, Leuven, Peeters Press, 1998, p. 96.
49 The relationship between 12:4 and 12:18 appears to have been overlooked in most of the academic
literature. As such, scholars persist in assuming that Abraham first discovers God's power over the
creation (particularly the rain) at 12:16-18: e.g. 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, JSJSup, Vol. 161,
Leiden, Brill, 2012, p. 49.
50 Abraham's exhortation to his father in Chaldea that he should worship the God of heaven comes
approximately half-a-century prior to his meteorological observations in Haran. Are we to suppose that
Abraham has lapsed into astrology during this period? We cannot say that he hasn't. We are told,
however, that in between his exhortation to his father and his meteorological observations (being
fourteen years prior to them) he burned the 'house of the idols'. This is not suggestive of spiritual
retrogradation. Meir Bar-Ilan thinks, on the contrary, that "The context is not polemical against
astrology but rather a claim, in an apologetic manner, that there is no contradiction between faith in
God and astrology." Meir Bar-Ilan, 'Astronomy And Astrology In Ancient Judaism', in J. Neusner, A. J.
Avery-Peck, and W. S. Green (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Judaism: Supplement II, Leiden, Brill, 2004,
Rather, we would propose that just as Jubilees parallels 1 Enoch in its description of
Enoch being taught by angels to observe the heavens in order to properly order the
Jewish calendar (1 En. 72-82; Jub. 4:17), so also the author of Jubilees maintained the
distinction present in Enoch between astronomy and astrology (or, we might say, the
distinction between acceptable observation of the stars and that observation which is
unacceptable).51
In Jubilees, we see two divergent trends. On the one hand, the astronomical
discoveries of Enoch are praiseworthy, as they relate to the correct form of calendrical
observation espoused by the author (Jub. 4:16-22). On the other hand, Arpachshad's son
Kainan sinned by following the Watchers' astrological practices (Jub. 8:3), as it appears
that Serug did (Jub.11:7).52 A close reading of the text reveals that there is a distinction
being made here.53
Jubilees uses the same phrase 'signs of heaven' (ተአምረ ፡ ስማይ; Gk. ejn oujranw:
shmeivwn) in connection with Enoch, Kainan, Serug/Nahor, and Abraham.54 The phrase by
pp. 2031-2032. It is not clear that an apologetic for astrology, or astronomy is being offered here.
Certainly, however, no strong polemic against astrology is made in either Jub. 11:8 or the present
context.
51 Eibert Tigchelaar warns, in relation to 1 En. 6-11, that "the author does not condemn the sciences of
astronomy and cosmology tout court, but criticizes the study or the interpretation of the ‫ נחשין‬or
shmei:a, that is, of the 'signs' and 'omens'." Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old And The Day of The
End: Zechariah, The Book of Watchers, And Apocalyptic, ed. J. de Moor, Oudtestamentische Studiën,
Leiden, Brill, 1996, p. 181. And Van Kooten supports this conclusion that while there is some good
astronomy in 1 Enoch (i.e. that revealed to Enoch), there is also bad astronomy (i.e. astrology)
associated with the Watchers. George H. Van Kooten, 'Enoch, The 'Watchers', Seth's Descendants And
Abraham As Astronomers: Jewish Applications of The Greek Motif of The First Inventor (300 BCE-CE
100)', in A. Brenner and J. W. Van Henten (eds.), Recycling Biblical Figures: Papers Read At A Noster
Colloquium In Amsterdam, 12-13 May 1997, Leiden, Deo, 1999, pp. 297-301.
52 Commenting on this verse, Kugel says that Serug taught Nahor astrology, and that Nahor, in turn,
taught Terah astrology. Kugel, A Walk Through Jubilees, p. 87. Yet, this last connection is not made in
the text. Incidentally, it is likewise unclear why Kvanvig places Jub. 12:16 in Canaan. Helge S.
Kvanvig, Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical, And Enochic: An Intertextual Reading, JSJSup, Vol.
149, Leiden, Brill, 2011, p. 463.
53 Failure to recognise this subtle distinction in both Jubilees and 1 Enoch, produces statements such as
the following from Beate Ego: "As in the Book of Watchers of the Ethiopian Enoch where astrology
belongs to the knowledge that has been revealed to mankind by the fallen angels and which only
arouses injustice and violence (ethEn 8:3), we find also a distinctive dissociation towards astrology here
[Jub. 12]." Beate Ego, 'Abraham's Faith In The One God - A Motif of The Image of Abraham In Early
Jewish Literature', in H. Lichtenberger, F. V. Reiterer, and U. Mittmann-Richert (eds.), Biblical Figures
in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2009, p. 339.
54 In Abraham's case “ተአምረ ፡ ከዋክብት” appears, but we take this to be synonymous.
itself is suggestive of nothing more than observation of the heavens. While Kainan
follows Watcher 'astrology' (i.e. ሰገለ), and Serug/Nahor engage in 'divination' and
'astrology' (i.e., oijwnw:n; manteivan at 11:8; “ለተማርዮ ፡ ወለተሰግሎ”),55 neither Enoch nor
Abraham have those negative descriptors applied to them. Moreover, where Enoch and
Abraham are spoken of in exceedingly positive terms, Kainan and Serug/Nahor are
spoken of in highly negative terms. Kainan is said to have sinned (ረስዐ) on account of his
practice of astrology (Jub. 8:3). Nahor's divination and astrology is presumably to be
associated with the sin (ኃጢአት), uncleanness (ርኵሰ); transgression (አበሳ); wickedness
(ጌጋይ); and worship of idols (ጣዖተ) which Serug and those before him had been misled
(ያስሕቱ) into by Mastema and his minion spirits (መናፍስተ – Jub. 11:4-6; cf. 9:15). It
would seem to follow, therefore, that the 'observations' of Kainan and Serug/Nahor are
dubious, while those of Enoch and Abraham are not.
Hanneken condemns Abraham's observation of the 'signs of heaven', since he
feels that observing the heavens for any other purpose than calendrical rectitude is
“strictly forbidden”. Where do we find such strict forbidding? He cites Jubilees 4:17. Yet,
it seems like an argument from silence to suggest that because Jubilees does not list
additional licit forms of astronomy in that verse it, thereby, limits “licit astronomical
observation to calendar”.56 There is no explicit circumscription taking place. Indeed, even
calendrical observations are sometimes viewed negatively by the author of Jubilees (e.g.
6:36).57 VanderKam suggests that Abraham's observance of the stars was sinful, because
55 The second practice here being related to the term used to describe Kainan – cf. Dillmann, Lexicon, pp.
169, 397.
56 Todd Russell Hanneken, The Book of Jubilees Among The Apocalypses, Ph. D. Dissertation, University
of Notre Dame, Indiana, 2008, pp. 249-250.
57 Commenting on which verse, Stuckrad inexplicably asserts that, "...nicht nur der Kalendar als Irrtum
verworfen wird, sondern die Beschäftigung mit den Sternbewegungen insgesamt, wie die Bemerkung
Jub 6, 36... deutlich macht. Man könnte sagen, in Jub wird das Kind mit dem Bade ausgeschüttet."
Kocku von Stuckrad, Das Ringen um die Astrologie: jüdische und christliche Beiträge zum antiken
Zeitverständnis, Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, 49, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2000, p. 360
(emphasis original).
he unlawfully sought to know the future as Kainan had done. 58 Yet, on the one hand, it is
not clear that knowledge of the future is inherently unlawful (cf. Enoch's passing on
knowledge of the future at Jub. 4:17-19), and, on the other hand, it is not clear that
Abraham is seeking to judge the rainfall through 'divination' rather than 'scientific'
meteorology.
Abraham has already been pictured as a technological innovator. He invents a
type of plow which buries seed (Jub. 11:18-24). These innovations also encourage the
view that Abraham's investigation of the “signs of heaven” are 'scientific' and 'licit',
rather than astrological, observations. 'Scientific' may be an anachronistic term to use.
Whichever term one wishes to employ, however, the point remains the same: viz. that
astronomy could be viewed either positively or negatively, and there is no reason why
Abraham's astronomical observations should not be seen as being, in themselves, morally
neutral. The astrology of Kainan is evil, because it derives from the Watchers (cf. 1 En.
7:1; 8:3). Likewise, Serug is led astray by evil spirits. It is unclear, however, that
Abraham's astronomy derives from such sources. As we shall see, it is not even clear that
Abraham is under the deceptive influence of Mastema's evil spirits. Indeed, Abraham is
Mastema's nemesis, as we have seen in his thwarting of Mastema's raven scheme (Jub.
11:18-24).59
The picture of Abraham in Jubilees is not so subtle as to picture the patriarch as
overcoming Mastema, on the one hand, while falling prey to demon deception in the
matter of astrology, on the other. We may still enquire as to where Abraham's knowledge
of meteorology derives from, if not from the Watchers. On this point, the text is unclear.
58 VanderKam, Jubilees (2001), p. 41.

59 Brock has suggested that a Syriac counterpart to the account of Abraham and the Ravens in Jubilees
may preserve an earlier and independent tradition. Sebastian P. Brock Brock, 'Abraham And The
Ravens: A Syriac Counterpart To Jubilees 11-12 And Its Implications', JSJ, Vol. 9, (1978), pp. 135-152.
Brock is followed by: Cory D. Crawford Crawford, 'On The Exegetical Function of The
Abraham/Ravens Tradition In Jubilees 11', HTR, Vol. 97, No. 1, (2004), pp. 91-97. Adler, however,
argues against this persuasively. William Adler, ''Abraham And The Burning of The Temple of Idols:
Jubilees' Traditions In Christian Chronography', JQR, Vol. 77, No. 2/3, (1986-1987), pp. 95-117.
Just as we are not told how Abraham came to realise that idolatry was error, or how he
developed his detailed theology of God's status as omnipotent Creator, we are not told
from whence he learned meteorology.60
While the author of Jubilees opposed astrology, then, we should notice that his
view is nuanced enough to allow for the activities of Enoch and Abraham without real
censure.61 Likewise, meteorology need not always be inseparable from astrology.
Therefore, we need not see Abraham's night-vigil as an example of sinful practice.
Abraham's prayer may be interpreted apart from such an assumption. We shall discuss
Abraham's prayer below. Here, we will simply make a few comments. First, the
immediate context is worry for the future year (and the rain needed for crop production –
cf. Jub. 20:9). Ancient Palestine experienced variable yearly weather conditions which
made precipitation adequate for crop production an uncertain event. 62 Furthermore, such
a depiction of Abraham as worried about the weather could well have derived partly from
the biblical text (e.g. Gen. 12:10).
This passage does not so much criticise Abraham for astrology as it illustrates the
progress of his understanding, as he begins more fully to rest in God's loving providence.
This seems to be the issue at stake in the following verses as well, where Abraham
60 It is possible, although we may only guess, that Abraham's meteorology derives from Enoch through
some books of his father other than those mentioned at Jub. 12:27.
61 It is still true that Jubilees does not laud Abraham's skill and prowess in the study of the stars as earlier
and later Hellenistic Jewish authors do. However, there is also no strong critique evident here, as is
often suggested. We should attempt to come to a balanced evaluation, then. It may be, along these lines,
that the author of Jubilees is not willing to disparage astronomy per se, because its use was necessary –
in some measure – to the determination of the proper Jewish calendar of feasts to be followed, and yet,
at the same time, is uncomfortable with lauding Abraham's meterological observations, due to the way
in which such study was often linked with a portrayal of the patriarch as Hellenistic hero. We shall see
in subsequent chapters how this was done by Hellenistic Jewish authors such as Eupolemus, Artapanus,
Josephus, Philo (to some extent), and others. For a discussion and dating of the first two, see: Lester L.
Grabbe, A History of The Jews And Judaism In The Second Temple Period: Volume 2. The Coming of
The Greeks: The Early Hellenistic Period (335-175 BCE), London, T&T Clark, 2008, pp. 86-90.
62 See, for e.g., the discussion in: Frank S. Frick, 'Ecology, Agriculture And Patterns of Settlement', in R.
E. Clements (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological, And Political
Perspectives, Cambridge, CUPress, 1989. Goodman observes that, “There hung above everyone in the
ancient world, to an extent difficult now for people in the developed world to appreciate, the threat of
famine when the rains did not come during hot, dry summers, and the threat was only partly alleviated
by the possibility of importing grain from elsewhere in the Mediterranean world to lessen the impact of
disaster.” Martin Goodman, Rome And Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations, New York,
Knopf, 2007, p. 92.
decides to accept God's will whatever it is, knowing that all things are in his hand (Jub.
12:21). Thus, we adopt an interpretation at the same end of the spectrum as Van Kooten,
who does not place Abraham's attempt to determine the year's rainfall on a level
comparable with the sinful astrology of Kainan (Jub. 8:3), but who, nevertheless, sees
Abraham as deciding meteorology is unnecessary since the whole creation is subject to
God's sovereign plan (citing Jub. 12:16-18).63
2.3.2.3 Abraham Deceived By Evil Spirits

The suggestion that Abraham is presently under the power of evil spirits is argued against
by a careful reading of the text. Jubilees 12 speaks of Abraham's fear of being deceived,
rather than his request for deliverence from present deception. On several occassions,
Abraham has demonstrated an awareness of the deceptiveness of the practices propagated
by the evil spirits, and the errors which they arouse. Are we to suppose that Abraham is
both partially aware and deceived at the same time? At Jub. 12:20, the force of "May
they not mislead me" (ወኢያስሕቱኒ) is injunctive, as is "May we not go astray"
(ወኢንስሐት).64 Both are best seen as pleas for prevention of a possibility, rather than for
the alteration of a present reality.
Here, as in 11:17, the broader context of human history is also in view. Men have
been led astray by evil spirits (Jub. 10:1ff.). But here the evil spirits are mentioned
directly. As referenced briefly above, preceding the flood, 'evil spirits' (መናፍስት ፡
እኩያን; or 'demons' [አጋንንት]) began to 'lead astray' (ያስሕትዎሙ) Noah's descendants.
Consequently, successive generations from Noah sinned. Abraham is, thus, rightly afraid
of the possibility of his being led astray. Indeed, it seems a real and present danger, lest
God should intervene. So he prays that God would 'deliver' (አደኅነኒ) him from the 'hands'
63 Van Kooten, 'Seth's Descendants And Abraham As Astronomers', p. 311.

64 Lambdin, Introduction, pp. 149-150.
(እምእደ) of 'evil spirits' (መናፍስት ፡ እኩያን) who lead men astray from God (ወኢያስሕቱኒ
፡ እምድኅሬከ). Abraham entrusts himself to God, since all things are in his hands, and
recapitulates that he desires to be under his dominion alone (Jub. 12:17-20). Abraham is
also concerned that he follow God's 'path' (ፍኖተ) for him and not his own path which
would be 'error' (ወኢይሖር ፡ በስሕተተ ፡ ልብየ; Jub. 12:21).
That Abraham had not heretofore strayed from God's path for him, and that he is
not presently under the sway of evil spirits, is suggested by Abraham's later reflection on
his life. To wit, in Jub. 21:2-5, he tells of how he had sought God with all of his heart
[በኵሉ ፡ ልብየ] and walked in all of God's paths [በኵሉ ፡ ፍናዊሁ] for him, all the days
of his life [በኵሉ ፡ መዋዕለ ፡ ሕይወትየ].65 Such seeking after God is in evidence here.
This confirms the apotropaic nature of the prayer over against the notion of its being
penitential.
It is also helpfully noted that Abraham's prayer in chapter 12 is similar in both
structure and content to that of other prayers in Jubilees.66 At 1:19-21, after God predicts
that the Israelites would go astray, Moses intercedes for them at Sinai, praying that they
might not be misled by the nations or by Belial (to be associated with Mastema). At 10:1-
14, Noah prays for his descendants, that they might not be led astray, as was beginning to
happen, by evil spirits/demons associated with Mastema. At 19:26-29, Abraham prays for
Jacob that he might not be led astray by spirits from Mastema. Each of these prayers echo
Abraham's prayer for his descendants at 12:20. The difference at 12:20 is that the person
praying includes himself in the prayer. Why the difference? We wish to suggest that
65 The author of Jubilees also later describes the inscription on the heavenly tablets of Abraham's status as
"friend of God" (Jub. 19:9) which status appears to be based upon his perpetual faithfulness to God
(Jub. 19:8-9).
66 Cf. Jacques T.A.G.M. van Ruiten, 'Abraham And The Nations In The Book of Jubilees', in M.
Goodman, G. H. Van Kooten, and J. T. A. G. M. Van Ruiten (eds.), Abraham, The Nations, And The
Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, And Islamic Perspectives On Kinship With Abraham, Leiden, Brill, 2010,
p. 114.
Abraham prays for himself because he is conscious of the temptation to sin with which
he is faced, especially as he is living in a pagan environment, but that his prayer is
primarily directed by the author towards his descendants, who also happen to be the
readership of the book.
That this prayer is forward-looking, such that the descendants are the focus, as in
the other prayers, is suggested by the fact that they are mentioned at all. At this point in
the story, Abraham neither has any children, nor even the prospect, let alone the promise,
of any. Thus, this passage appears to presage the later creation of the nation of Israel as
distinct from the Gentiles. It also anticipates the development of the theme of Israel's
immunity from the dominion of the evil spirits (e.g. 15:31ff.; 19:27-28). Abraham's
prayer is neither one of repentance/forgiveness (cf. 41:23), nor of exorcism, but is, rather,
apotropaic.67 It involves not so much, "the protection of an individual [as] the formation
of a new people."68 Although Abraham prays for himself, he seems largely to stand as a
representative and leader of the nation.
In large part, Abraham's latter prayer merely re-iterates his earlier prayer (11:17)
for the deliverance of his 'portion' (ክፉል). While we are not informed as to how God may
have responded to Abraham's earlier prayer, it is notable that God now acts decisively in
response, by calling him into Canaan and giving him an iron promise – for himself and
for his seed (ዘርእከ; 12:22-24).69 Thus, later on, looking back, the same term (ክፉል
67 Abraham had no need of repentance: Liora Ravid, 'Purity And Impurity In The Book of Jubilees', JSP,
Vol. 13, No. 1, (2002), pp. 72-73. And, pace Lange, this is not a prayer of self-exorcism: Lange, 'The
Essene Position On Magic And Divination', p. 403. Davies also observes that a, “tradition that Abraham
rendered sinless obedience to the law, without the need of repentance, grew up in the Jewish literature”.
Glenn Naunton Davies, Faith And Obedience In Romans: A Study In Romans 1-4, ed. D. Hill,
JSNTSup, Vol. 39, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 1990, p. 144. Yet, he notes that later rabbinic
literature came to view the patriarch somewhat less idealistically (e.g. Gen. Rab. 60:2).
68 David Lambert, 'Did Israel Believe That Redemption Awaited Its Repentance? The Case of Jubilees 1',
CBQ, Vol. 68, No. 4, (2006), p. 644.
69 Whereas some commentators see God's action here as a response of mercy to Abraham's (supposed)
prayer of confession, Martin-Achard offers a reading somewhat closer to the text: "Les épisodes
consacré à l'enfance d'Abraham lui permettent de mettre en évidence la précocité de la piété du
patriarche à laquelle Dieu répond en offrant sa bénédiction. Dès lors la déclaration de Gen. 12.1ss
n'apparaît plus comme le point de départ de la vocation du patriarche... elle est une sorte de
consécration de sa fidélité, presque une récompense." Robert Martin-Achard, Actualité d'Abraham,
'portion') re-appers in close proximity to 'ዘባልሖ' (synonymous with ድኅነ 'deliver') in the
description of Isaac as God's 'portion', born to Abraham whom he had 'delivered' out of
Mespotamia (Jub. 16:18-20).70 Therefore, the call God gives to Abraham to travel to
Canaan can be seen as an answer to his prayer of deliverance. As Van Ruiten writes, "the
call to leave his father's house to go to the land that God will show him... can be
understood as a liberation from the power of the evil spirits."71 Again, however, this
liberation is not from present deception but from ever-present danger. We should not
think, therefore, that Abraham had been engaged in sinful astrology.
Additionally, the following points might be noted: Firstly, had Abraham
committed one or more capital crimes (i.e. idolatry and/or astrology as a form of astral
worship; cf. Deut. 17:2-5), we might expect the author of Jubilees to explain why he had
not been executed, as in the cases of Reuben (ignorance, 33:16), or Judah (repentance
and rehabilitation, 41:24). Yet, none is provided. Secondly, it is interesting to note that
Abraham, later in life, warns his descendants against idolatry (20:8-9; 21:5; 22:18ff.), but
not astrology. One might have expected him to have warned against astrology also, if it
had been such a trap for him in his early life.
2.3.2.4 Evil Spirits Especially Connected To Astrology

In relation to the assumption that the evil spirits have a special connection to astrology, it
should be noted that these demons in Jubilees are responsible for any and every kind of
evil. There is no special association between them and astrology. Thus, when Abraham
prays for deliverence from them, he may not be especially worried about the temptation
to sinful astrology. He may instead have the more general category of 'error' in mind.
Bibliothèque Théologique, 44, Neuchâtel, Delachaux et Niestlé, 1969, pp. 121-122. Likewise,
VanLandingham describes Abraham's call from God as reward for his virtue and piety. Chris
VanLandingham, Judgment And Justification In Early Judaism And The Apostle Paul, Peabody,
Hendrickson, 2006, p. 24.
70 For the synonymity of these terms, see: Dillmann, Lexicon, pp. 486-487.
71 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, p. 44.
2.3.2.5 Suggestion For A Different Approach

We have argued that Abraham is not engaged in sinful astrology at Jubilees 12. So how
are we to understand this chapter (particularly 12:15ff.)? We suggest that fear is the
common thread behind each of Abraham's actions. The whole section from 12:15 to
12:31 can be best understood as Abraham's response of trust in God to certain fears.
Abraham has several fears; four stand out prominently, as follows:
Firstly, he is worried about rain. Yet, he decides that he should trust God who will
bring rain if he so desires.72 Perhaps, helpful here is the comparison of Jubilees 12 with
Jubilees 20. In the latter passage, we see Abraham, having gathered together all of his
children, exhorting them to be on their guard against all fornication, uncleanness, and
idolatry. The similarity with Abraham’s exhortation to his father in chapter 12 is evident.
Just as he had done with his father, so now with his children, he commands them to
worship God and trust in him always (‘hope upon his face at all times’ – ወተሰፈዉ ፡ ገጸ
፡ ዚአሁ ፡ በኵሉ ፡ ጊዜ).73 Such an emphasis on trust is not as common as one might
expect in Jubilees, and references to rain are even more scarcely found. While there is no
apparent direct connection between chapter 12 and chapter 20, certain similarities exist.
Abraham’s exhortation to his children that they act righteously and trust God always is
accompanied by a ከመ purpose clause expressing the results of such trust.74
One result of trusting in God is the blessing of rain. Therefore, an implication of
this text is that one should not worry about the rains, but rather focus upon trusting God
and pleasing him, in the knowledge that from those who do so rain will not be withheld.
The fact that Abraham connects trust in God with rain in Jubilees 20 strengthens the
72 Similarly, VanLandingham, "Abram realizes that there is no place for anxiety because his care is in the
hands of God. Abram's prayer [Jub. 12:19-20] portrays him as a model of piety and enlightenment."
VanLandingham, Judgment And Justification, p. 24.
73 Jub. 20:9
74 Stefan Weninger, Ge'ez: (Classical Ethiopic), ed. U. J. Lüders, Languages of The World: Materials, Vol.
1, München, LINCOM Europa, 1993, pp. 27-28.
possibility that the mention of rain in chapter 12 has to do with Abraham’s initial fear –
and final resolve – to trust in God’s caring oversight. If one is concerned about the
coming year's rainfall, one could turn to meteorology, but one need not do so. Rather, one
need only trust God and pursue righteousness and all other things will be added. Is it a
narrative coincidence that after the night-vigil incident Abraham is described as studying
the Old Hebrew books all through the six rainy months (Jub. 12:27)? Perhaps, it is
merely a temporal reference. It may also be taken as a token of God's care for Abraham.
It is likely that behind all this discussion of rain in Jubilees 12 and 20 lies the common
Old Testament theme that God sends rain upon those who trust him and act righteously,
but withholds it from those who don't.75
Secondly, he is worried about being deceived and misled by the evil spirits. He
prays for God's deliverence from this possibility. Thirdly, he is worried about his
descendants – which is interesting since they are purely hypothetical at this point. He
includes them in his petition. Fourthly, he is worried about making right, God-pleasing
choices. Particularly, he desires to know whether he should return to Chaldea. This
question may have worried him, because there could have been some hostility in Chaldea
towards him and his family (cf. Terah's fear at 12:6-8). Incidentally, Terah's fear that he
may be killed if he does not accommodate the dominant cultural practice of idolatry may
reflect the Sitz im Leben of the author and his audience, who were also faced with the
threat of violence under Antiochus Epiphanes, if they did not acquiesce to the dominant
religious-Hellenism of their day.
That fear (for the rain, for himself, and for his descendants) has been an issue for
Abraham throughout the chapter is reflected in God's answer to his prayer. Besides
recapitulating Gen. 12:1-4, Jubilees adds multiple assurances from God that Abraham
75 E.g. Deut. 11:14-17; 28:12-24; 1 Kgs 8:35-36; 17-18; 2 Chr. 6:26-27; 7:13-14; Isa. 5:6-7; Jer. 3:3; 5:24;
14:22; Amos 4:7-8; Zech. 14:17-18.
need not fear (for himself, or for his 'seed') since God will be with them (Jub. 12:25-
26).76 Abraham's night-time observations should not be taken to dominate the chapter.
Rather, the dominant theme is the fear prompted in Abraham by his Chaldean (pagan)
surroundings and God's response.
In light of the above evidence, the common reading of Jubilees 12:15ff., which
sees Abraham as one who converts from sinful astrology, appears to be questionable. We
have suggested a possible alternative: viz. his fears. The problems with the common
(astrological) reading are not dependent upon the validity of that alternative, however.
2.3.3 Abraham As Ungodly Gentile Convert
The third suggestion which is often made about the depiction of Abraham in Jubilees is
that he has been presented as an ungodly Gentile who converted to monotheism.77 This
suggestion is often predicated on seeing Abraham as an idolater and astrologer. Thus, if
Abraham is not seen as having engaged in idolatry or sinful astrology, then the evidence
for his having been ungodly is diminished. We have also had occasion to refer to several
of Jubilees' overt statements about Abraham's moral character: viz. that he was perfectly
righteous, and that he followed God all the days of his life (e.g. Jub. 21:2-5; 23:9-10).
These statements would seem to rule out the possibility of Abraham's having been an
ungodly Gentile convert to monotheism.78 Besides these considerations, however, there

76 As Machiela writes, Abraham's prayer, “is followed immediately by God's response through the Angel
of the Presence in Jub. 12:22-24... leaving no doubt that the prayer and the promise are related.”
Machiela, 'On The Importance of Being Abram', p. 730.
77 Thus, for e.g., J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, eds D. A. Hubbard and G. W. Barker, 2 Vols., Vol. 1, WBC,
38A, Dallas, Word Books, 1988, p. 205, who suggests that in Jubilees Abraham is seen as the "type of
the proselyte, the Gentile who turns away from his idolatry to the one true God". Likewise, Adams,
following Dunn, says that Jubilees characterises Abraham as having been an ungodly Gentile, "a former
idolater and polytheist". Edward Adams, 'Abraham's Faith And Gentile Disobedience: Textual Links
Between Romans 1 And 4', JSJ, Vol. 65, (1997), p. 59.
78 As with several terms which permeate the scholarly discourse of Abraham, such as 'monotheism', and
'astrology', the definition of 'conversion' needs to be considered. Here, as in subsequent chapters, we are
thinking of 'conversion' in terms of a change of religious commitments from false religion (in whatever
form) to true religion (i.e. some form of Judaism). Different Jewish authors give different prerequisites
(or entry criteria) for inclusion into the true religion. Some, for example, may require circumcision (i.e.
Josephus). Others might not (Philo?). Broadly, however, conversion involves a renunciation of one's
former involvement in idolatry or other blameworthy pagan religion, and a turning to exclusive
are other reasons for objecting to the suggestion that the author of Jubilees saw the young
Abraham (i.e. before his call at Jub. 12/Gen. 12) as an ungodly Gentile.
To be sure, it is at least possible that the author of Jubilees intended to present
Abraham as an example of Gentile conversion; such a trope would be most applicable to
a Gentile audience. It is also possible, however, that the patriarch was intended as an
example of the need for separation from Gentiles and trust in God; a message more
applicable to Jews threatened by paganism. As mentioned in the introduction to this
chapter, we believe that the Sitz im Leben for the text is the religious-Hellenisation under
Antiochus Epiphanes. As such, it is likely that our author has not attempted to encourage
Gentile conversion by his description of Abraham but, rather, to warn the 'holy seed'
about the dangers of association with Gentiles.
Internal considerations support this suggestion that Jubilees was written to warn
about the dangers of contact with Gentiles. There is, for example, a strong emphasis in
Jubilees on the notion that membership in God's people is possible only by biological
descent.79 Furthermore, as is well known, Jubilees is strongly ethnocentric. It claims that
Gentiles by nature are unclean. It also posits that God's election of one people who would
observe the Sabbath is rooted in creation. It denies circumcision to Gentiles. It bans inter-
marriage as punishable by death. It states that it is God's will for the Gentiles to be ruled
over by demons, while Israel be ruled over only by God. It gives Gentiles no place in
commitment (and obedience) to the one true God. In Nock's classic definition, conversion is a
reorientation accompanied by "a consciousness that a great change is involved, that the old was wrong
and the new is right." Arthur Darby Nock, Conversion: The Old And The New In Religion From
Alexander The Great To Augustine of Hippo, Oxford, OUPress, 1933, p. 7. The stress of this, for our
purposes, falls on the fact that the old was bad. For the reasons discussed below, we do not believe that
Abraham was a convert in this sense.
79 Adams says that the depiction of Abraham's rejection of idolatry in Jubilees "has a clear social function
– to legitimate the inclusion of Gentile proselytes in the Jewish community." Adams, 'Abraham's Faith
And Gentile Disobedience', p. 55. Yet, this suggestion seems somewhat incongruous with the attitude
towards Gentiles adopted by our author. Closer to the mark is the following comment from Müller:
"Die universalistische Perspektive, die mit der Abraham-Gestalt der Genesis verbunden ist, ist im
Jubiläenbuch in eine partikularistische Auffassung des "wahren" Israels, das allein aus den Söhnen
Jakobs besteht, hineingenommen." Müller, 'Die Abraham-Gestalt im Jubiläenbuch', p. 245.
salvation, and so on.80
In re-writing Gen. 21:33, other, later schools of Jewish thought would see
Abraham as teaching Gentiles to call upon the name of the Lord. But Hayward notes that
Jubilees not only does not do this, but specifically excludes the idea of Abraham's
association with Gentiles or of their participation with him in the most 'universal' of all
festivals: viz. Sukkoth (Jub. 16:25).81 As such, it would seem strange, to say the least, that
a writing which so strongly argues against the idea of Gentile inclusion into the people of
God, or Jewish interaction with the Gentile 'other' should present the founder, font, and
figure-head of the nation as a Gentile convert. Such inclusion would contradict the
underlying Tendenz of the book. It would imply that Gentiles may become acceptable, so
long as they follow the correct path to conversion.
Furthermore, there is an hagiographical tendency in Jubilees which makes of
Abraham a plaster saint. Our author always presents Abraham in the best possible light
as, for example, when he exculpates Abraham from any blame in the Sarah-Pharaoh
incident (13:11), or when he omits both Abraham's laughter at the thought that a son
might be born to him in his old age, and the patriarch's suggestion that God prosper
Ishmael (15:5). Even Jacob's election over Esau is credited to Abraham (19:16; cf. Rom.
9:11-13). It seems prima facie unlikely that an author who is apparently embarrassed by
the relatively minor indiscretions associated with Abraham in Genesis would not also be
80 Within Jubilees itself, see, for e.g., Jub. 1:8-11; 6:35; 9:14-15; 11:16; 12:1ff.; 15:34; 20:7-8; 21:3ff.;
22:16ff.; 25:1ff.; 30:1ff.; 31:1ff.; 36:5; 48:5. For scholarly commentary on these points, see: 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, p. 164; VanderKam, Jubilees (2001), p. 140; Christian Frevel, ''Separate Yourselves From
Gentiles' (Jubilees 22:16): Intermarriage In The Book of Jubilees', in C. Frevel (ed.), Mixed Marriages:
Intermarriage And Group Identity In The Second Temple Period, New York, T&T Clark, 2011, pp. 220-
250; Christine Elizabeth Hayes, Gentile Impurities And Jewish Identities: Intermarriage And
Conversion From The Bible To The Talmud, Oxford, OUPress, 2002, p. 77 et passim, Terence L.
Donaldson, Paul And The Gentiles: Remapping The Apostle's Convictional World, Minneapolis,
Augsburg, 1997, pp. 52-53; Matthew Thiessen, Contesting Conversion: Genealogy, Circumcision, And
Identity In Ancient Judaism And Christianity, Oxford, OUPress, 2011, p. 82ff.; Pamela Eisenbaum,
Paul Was Not A Christian: The Original Message of A Misunderstood Apostle, New York, Harper
Collins, 2009, pp. 106-107.
81 C. T. Robert Hayward, Targums And The Transmission of Scripture Into Judaism And Christianity,
Studies In The Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture, Vol. 10, Leiden, Brill, 2010, pp. 20-23.
embarrassed to present him as an ungodly, idolatrous, Gentile astrologer. The
hagiographical tendency displayed by our author makes it more likely that Abraham is
being presented as an example of perseverance under temptation and of remaining
unsullied than that he is being presented as an example of conversion.82
Evidence that Abraham's early life before his call was a test might be found in
God's claim at Jubilees 17:17 that he found Abraham faithful when he 'tested him
through his country' (አመከሮ ፡ በምድሩ); the 'country' (እምድርከ) which he was called –
and so delivered – out of at Jubilees 12:22 (cf. 17:15-18; similarly 19:3, 8).83 While
Mastema battles against Abraham, as Satan attacked Job, Mastema does not win at any
point (e.g. 11:10ff.; 17:15ff.; 19:3ff.; 22:8).84 As such, it is unlikely that Jubilees pictures
the life of Abraham as a journey from ungodliness as a result of deception by Mastema
and his demons to relationship with God through conversion as the moment of transitus.
Rather,
Abraham wird dargestellt als ein »Musterbeispiel für ein an die Tradition und die Tora
gebundenes jüdisches Leben inmitten einer heidnischen Umwelt« und wird so zur
Identifikationsfigur all derer, die den hellenistischen Herausforderungen und Versuchungen
nicht erliegen.85
Thus, all of the evidence we have seen so far points to the conclusion that, in the eyes of
the author of Jubilees, Abraham was not ungodly but godly.
82 Thus Sandmel: "He is the model for those who would stand firm against the temptation of the Greeks."
Samuel Sandmel, Philo's Place In Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham In Jewish Literature,
New York, KTAV, 1971, p. 49. Cf. Tord Fornberg, 'Abraham In The Time of Christ', SEÅ, Vol. 64,
(1999), pp. 120-121. See also: Machiela, 'On The Importance of Being Abram', p. 731.
83 It is hard, but not impossible, to see Canaan as the land through which God tested Abraham, due to the
chronology of the list of trials at Jubilees 17:17.
84 Wilckens notes the similar treatments of: Abraham, in the Apocalypse of Abraham, and Job, in the
Testament of Job. Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer: 1. Teilband, Röm 1-5, ed. J. Blank,
EKKNT, Vol. 6, Neukirchener-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1978, p. 263. Both of these texts appear
more as a story of testing and 'enlightenment' than conversion. On this point in relation to the Testament
of Job, see: Peter H. Nicholls, The Structure And Purpose of The Testament of Job, Ph. D. dissertation,
Hebrew University of Jerusalem., Jerusalem, 1982, p. 39. But cf. The comments of Cees Haas on the
Slavonic version: Cees Haas, 'Job's Perseverance In The Testament of Job', in M. A. Knibb and P. W.
Van Der Horst (eds.), Studies On The Testament of Job, SNTSMS, Cambridge, CUPress, 1989, p. 119.
85 Mühling, Blickt auf Abraham, p. 210.
2.3.4 Abraham As The First Monotheist
The final suggestion with which we have to deal is that Jubilees pictures Abraham as the
first monotheist. So, for instance, Nancy Calvert-Koyzis has written that, "In Jubilees,
Abraham's unique contribution is that he is the first to reject idolatry and embrace
monotheism."86 This is in line with her over-all conclusion that in each of the 'five
Abraham texts', the same picture of Abraham emerges,87 such that “Abraham functions as
the prototype of one who rejects idolatry for faith in the one God”.88 Thus, these five
texts, including Jubilees, evidence a “tradition of Abraham the first monotheist”.89 This
suggestion of Calvert-Koyzis' is also not unique to her. To take just one other example,
Martínez speaks of, “The explicit attribution to Abraham of the “invention” of
monotheism [which] is found for the first time in the Book of Jubilees.”90
For Calvert-Koyzis, Abraham discovers God at Jubilees 12:19-20. It is here that
we see Abraham “recognizing God as the Creator”, prompting God to respond to
“Abraham's recognition of the one God”.91 Calvert-Koyzis does not explain the tension
these statements create with her earlier comment that at 12:4, “Abraham adjures his
father to worship the God of heaven. This God is the Creator who, contrary to the mute
idols, makes everything by his word.”92 One wonders how it is that Abraham declared
God as Creator before he had discovered him to be Creator.
86 Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 17. Elsewhere she writes: "According to
the author of the Book of Jubilees (2nd cent. BCE), of all of the people of the earth, Abraham was the
first to leave behind idolatry for faith in the one God”. Nancy Calvert-Koyzis, 'Abraham: III A: Second
Temple And Hellenistic Judaism', in H.-J. Klauck (ed.), Encyclopedia of The Bible And Its Reception, 1,
Berlin, de Gruyter, 2009, p. 163.
87 As she asserts, "Although each text was written against different historical and political backgrounds,
the same traditions about Abraham continued to emerge..." Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The
People of God, p. 140.
88 Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 142.
90 Florentino García Martínez, Between Philology And Theology: Contributions To The Study of Ancient
Jewish Interpretation, eds H. Najman and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, JSJSup, 162, Leiden, Brill, 2013, p. 6.
But what of the idea that Abraham is the first monotheist? Abraham does appear
to be the first monotheist among the children of Noah, and Calvert-Koyzis supplies this
caveat, at one point.93 However, when she speaks later of the “tradition of Abraham the
first monotheist”, this caveat is forgotten.94 If Abraham is not so much the founder of
monotheism as the first to recapture it in the post-diluvian age of apostasy, then his
contribution to Jubilees is not unique.95 Rather, Abraham appears as (just) one more
example of the kind of monotheism evident in the great heroes of the early section of
Jubilees (such as Noah). Indeed, since the author of Jubilees is careful to note many firsts
in the narrative,96 had Abraham's unique contribution to the narrative of Jubilees been his
monotheism, then one might have expected the author to state as much.
For example, we are told that Enoch was the first who learned to write (Jub.
4:17). Adam was the first to be buried in the ground (Jub. 4:29). The Watchers were the
first to commit uncleanness (Jub. 7:21). Noah's descendants set up the first kingdoms
(Jub. 11:2). Even Abraham is credited with several firsts. His son, for example, was the
first to be circumcised (Jub. 16:14), and he was the first to celebrate the feast of
tabernacles (Jub. 16:21). Interestingly, however, he does not describe Abraham as the
first monotheist. Enosh, meanwhile, is said to have been the first man on the earth to call
on the Lord's name (Jub. 4:12). In Scott's view, at least, “Enosh's 'first' (calling on the
name of the Lord) introduced monotheism, the foundation of all true worship of
YHWH”.97
In Jubilees, it is Enosh in particular who introduces monotheism.98 Indeed, Scott

94 Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 136. So also in: Calvert-Koyzis,
'Abraham: III A: Second Temple And Hellenistic Judaism', p. 163.
96 Van Ruiten says that "Jubilees seems to have a predilection for the phrase: 'He was the first'." Jacques
T.A.G.M. van Ruiten, Primaeval History Interpreted: The Rewriting of Genesis 1-11 In The Book of
Jubilees, JSJSup, 66, Leiden, Brill, 2000, p. 158.
97 James M. Scott, On Earth As In Heaven: The Restoration of Sacred Time And Sacred Space In The
Book of Jubilees, JSJSup, 91, Leiden, Brill, 2005, p. 65.
98 Van Ruiten notes that in rabbinic exegesis, the phrase 'began to call upon the name of the Lord' is
connected with Enosh's generation. In Jubilees, however, it is Enosh in particular who is singled out
believes that there is a “stepwise progression” in Jubilees in which the early patriarchs
make foundational contributions “to various aspects of [the] unfolding nature of the true
worship of God” upon which later patriarchs build.99 Thus, for example, Enoch inherits
Enosh's monotheism and builds on it, adding calendrical observance. In this kind of a
development, Abraham's place might be as the first to observe certain festivals, and the
first to circumcise his children, but he comes too late in the progression to be the
narrative's foundational monotheistic figure.
These considerations make it unlikely that the author of Jubilees intended to
portray Abraham as the first monotheist. Instead, the abrupt manner in which the notion
of Abraham's praying to God is introduced into his biography (Jub. 11:17) presupposes a
knowledge of God which, in turn, seems to assume that he stands apart from the religious
degeneration of his countrymen, and in the line of religious development begun with the
earlier patriarchs (cf. Jub. 19:24). Müller is thus somewhat closer to the text, when,
having ruled out the possibility that Abraham was the first monotheist or Sabbath-
observer, he states that, “Wenn auch die wahre Gottesverehrung und Sabbatbeobachtung
bis zu Henoch zurückreicht, so bekommt sie jedoch mit Abraham einen neuen
Anfang.”100
2.4 Chapter Conclusion
This chapter has examined four common conclusions which have been drawn in the
scholarly literature about the portrayal of Abraham in Jubilees. As was noted, several
commentators have come away from analysing Jubilees with the impression that its
author sought to depict Abraham as an ungodly Gentile astrologer and worshiper of idols
who discovered God and, hence, was the first to convert to the worship of the one true
with the pronoun 'he' (ውእቱ). van Ruiten, Primaeval History Interpreted, pp. 157-158.
99 Scott, On Earth As In Heaven, p. 65.
100 Müller, 'Die Abraham-Gestalt im Jubiläenbuch', p. 247.
God. In light of a careful re-reading of the text itself, we have sought to evaluate this
impression of what the author of Jubilees was trying to communicate about Abraham's
early life. This evaluation led us to question each of the four conclusions commonly
drawn about the portrayal of Abraham. Instead of seeing Abraham as having worshiped
idols in his early days, it appears that our author took pains to distinguish between
Abraham and any kind of idolatrous practice, even from the earliest age. Similarly,
instead of seeing Abraham as involved in sinful astrology, it appears that Abraham was
involved in the neutral exercise of meteorology. After this, it was observed that the text
does not clearly present Abraham as an ungodly Gentile convert. Rather, he is presented
as a model example of godliness and the steadfast holding to right religion in the face of
strong cultural pressure. This would seem to indicate that he was a born Jew and not a
Gentile before his conversion. Lastly, rather than depicting Abraham as the first
monotheist, it appears that our author placed him within a line of godly monotheists,
begining with the great patriarchs of the antediluvian period. As such, we conclude that
the author of Jubilees did not see Abraham's early life as standing in contrast to his later,
laudatory career. His is not a tale of greatness prefaced with a reformation of character.
Rather, for our author, the whole of Abraham's life was marked by unremitting
godliness.101
101 Interestingly, later Byzantine chronogrophers who preserve something of the content of chapters 11-12
of the 'Little Genesis' (i.e. Jubilees) do not describe Abraham as being involved in ungodly astrology or
idolatry. Indeed, they see his actions as the proofs of his piety; the piety necessary for God's election.
On this, see: Adler, 'Abraham And The Burning of The Temple of Idols', pp. 95-117. However, it is also
to be noted that these inadvertant commentaries on the text are based upon only selective and
sometimes garbled episodes from the original narrative.
CHAPTER 3
PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA
3.1 Introduction
The present chapter deals with the writings of Philo of Alexandria as they touch upon
Abraham. Familiarity with these writings may be assumed. Therefore, we need not
introduce them in any great detail here.1 However, the following observations should be
helpful.
While it is difficult to give precise dates for Philo's life and writings, it is clear
that he flourished around the turn of the eras.2 In all likelihood, Philo lived his entire life
in the vibrant city of Alexandria. He came from a wealthy and probably influential
family. This favourable combination of circumstances afforded him the opportunity to
receive a sound education in subjects such as music, rhetoric, and astronomy. Beyond his
encyclical studies, however, he relished the philosophical life, and was evidently well
acquainted with the different schools of Graeco-Roman thought. At the same time, the
Jewish side of his identity was not subsumed by the Hellenistic. He likely attended
synagogue his whole life, and was well versed in the Septuagint. He displays knowledge
of a significant number of Jewish Alexandrian exegetes and authors. 3 Significantly, his
privileged position also enabled him to write, an activity simultaneously uncommon and
expensive.
1 For an introduction to these works, the reader may refer to: Samuel Sandmel, 'Philo Judaeus: An
Introduction to the Man, His Writings, And His Significance', Religion: Hellenistiches Judentum in
römischer Zeit: Philon und Josephus, ANRW, Berlin, de Gruyter, 1984; or Adam Kamesar (ed.), The
Cambridge Companion To Philo, Cambridge, CUPress, 2009.
2 Several authorities suggest Philo's life to have spanned the period from c. 20BC – c. 50AD. E.g. Kenneth
Schenk, A Brief Guide To Philo, Louisville, John Knox, 2005, p. 9.
3 E.g. Aristobulus, Pseudo-Aristeas, Ezekiel The Tragedian, and other Jewish exegetes whom he
mentions anonymously (e.g. Opif. 26, 77; Migr. 89-93). On this, see: Albert Geljon and David T. Runia,
Philo of Alexandria: On Cultivation: Introduction, Translation, And Commentary, eds G. E. Sterling
and D. T. Runia, PACS, Vol. 4, Leiden, Brill, 2012, p. iii. It is possible that some of these were not
Alexandrian.
CHAPTER 3: PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA 68
While some philosophical and apologetic treatises of Philo's have survived, the
corpus Philonicum is dominated by commentaries on Scripture. For the present purpose,
it is unnecessary to discuss the divisions into which Philo's works may be divided. More
important is to discuss his often allegorical method of interpretation. As has been noted,
the allegorical method adopted by Philo of drawing hidden meanings from narrative
movements, etymologies, or numbers was not unique or original to him. Already the
Stoics had employed similar techniques on Homer and Hesiod, as Philo himself
evidences (Prov. 2:40-41). The Stoics, for example, tended to include the traditional gods
within their one divine principle. They could do this by reading them allegorically as
cosmological powers, such as when Chrysippus identifies Rhea with land (gh:).4
Philo used allegory to achieve several ends. He could use it to interpret positively
otherwise embarassing or problematic passages, such as Adam hiding himself from God
(for it is impossible that anything be hidden from God; Det. 153-155). Philo also uses
allegory to draw contemporary Hellenistic concepts from the text of Scripture. 5 He also
frequently turns objects in the physical world into allegorical symbols for the life of the
soul. Thus, for example, the Levitical law which pronounced camels unclean was
interpreted with reference to the human soul (Agr. 131ff.).
In relation to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, we read at Praem. 61 that the biblical
account of each one of these three individuals has a symbolic meaning concealed behind
it. In Abraham's case, the over-arching allegory is of Abraham's physical migration to
Canaan as a journey of the soul in quest of God, and virtue. Abraham is a 'symbol' of that
virtue which is gained through instruction (Mut. 12; Abr. 52). Likewise, Hagar is a
'symbol' of the encyclical education which Abraham must undergo in the course of his
4 See, for example: Annewies van den Hoek, 'Allegorical Interpretation', in S. E. Porter (ed.), The
Dictionary of Biblical Criticism And Interpretation, New York, Routledge, 2007, p. 10.
5 Dawson describes this as "Philo's allegorical correlation of Hellenistic meanings with the text of
scripture". David Dawson, Allegorical Readers And Cultural Revision In Ancient Alexandria, Berkeley,
University of California Press, 1992, p. 74.
preparatory education, including study of grammar, geometry, astronomy, rhetoric,
music, and all other sorts of subjects (Congr. 11).6 In using allegory, Philo does not (for
the most part) deny the historicity of the biblical passage so interpreted, although he does
prefer the allegorical to the literal meaning.7 Rather, he seeks for the deeper, spiritual
meaning which he believes to be latent in the text, as an hidden yet integral element of
the original composition.8
3.2 Common Trends In The Interpretation of Philo
As we saw in the previous chapter, there is a certain trend in the scholarship to not only
see Jubilees as presenting Abraham as a Gentile idolater and astrologer who converted to
the worship of the one true God, but to further argue that the same basic pattern is present
in the works of other authors. The image of Abraham as ungodly Gentile convert to
monotheism, we are told, is to be found in the works of Philo, Josephus, and the author
of the Apocalypse of Abraham. The employment of a 'comparative midrash' method is
evident here, as scholars (self-consciously or otherwise) attempt to explain the
resonances between the presentation of Abraham in Jubilees and, for e.g., Philo as a
process of traditional borrowing. Thus, Nickelsburg writes that, "the pattern in Philo's
interpretation can clearly be overlaid with the narrative pattern in the older story about
Abraham in Jubilees 11-12."9 The "striking" and "significant" parallels between Jubilees
6 "En s'unissant avec Agar... Abraham se met à l'école des arts libéraux, indispensable propédeutique à
l'accession à la Sagesse. Mais il ne s'attarde pas aux connaissance encycliques: la répudiation de la
concubine est le préalable nécessaire à l'union avec Sara." Francis Schmidt, 'Traditions Relatives à
Abraham dans la Littérature Hellénistique Juive (suite)', AEP, Vol. 82, (1973), p. 192.
7 So, for example, while Philo does not entirely reject the literal sense, "he regards the allegorical
meaning of the text as far more interesting than the literal: the latter will do for the masses, but the élite
are distinguished precisely by their ability to contemplate truths stripped of the body (cf. Abr.
147,236)." John M. G. Barclay, Pauline Churches And Diaspora Jews, WUNT, 275, Tübingen, Mohr
Siebeck, 2011, p. 65. See also: John M. G. Barclay, Jews In The Mediterranean Diaspora: From
Alexander To Trajan (323 BCE - 117 CE), Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1996, pp. 165-169.
8 Maren R. Niehoff, 'Philo's Scholarly Inquiries Into The Story of Paradise', in M. Bockmuehl and G. G.
Stroumsa (eds.), Paradise In Antiquity: Jewish And Christian Views, Cambridge, CUPress, 2010, pp.
28-42.
Press, 1998, p. 162.
and (amongst other texts) Philo are taken to indicate that Jubilees' depiction of Abraham
had an ongoing life in the Jewish tradition.10 Similarly, Calvert-Koyzis states that, "Philo
uses the same traditions of Abraham as many of the Jewish authors [Jubilees, Josephus,
Apocalypse of Abraham] represented in this book."11 As she summarises, "In the works of
Philo, Abraham appears as the prototype of the proselyte who is the first to believe in the
one God and forsake idolatry in the form of astrological determinism."12 In particular, it
is suggested that,
in Philo's works, Abraham begins his life glorifying the visible world as a Chaldean who
practices idolatry particularly in the form of astrology. For example, in De Abrahamo, Philo
says about the Chaldeans, 'Thus they glorified the visible (oJratovV) existence, leaving out of
consideration the intelligible (nohtovV) and invisible (ajovratoV)... they concluded that the
world itself was God, thus profanely likening the created to the Creator' (Abr. 68-69; cf. Virt.
212-213).13
Philo's polemical purpose in refashioning and further passing on this tradition
was, we are told, two-fold. On the one hand, Philo addressed Jews. In this case, "Philo is
telling his Jewish readers not to put too much faith in the accoutrements of status
acquired in the Hellenistic world. The true Jew is to put his or her faith in the one God
who alone is worthy of that faith."14 At the same time, however, Philo was addressing
Gentiles as well. His Gentile readers, "are to see that the Creator who is responsible for
the natural law produced the law of the Jews."15 They are also to take Abraham as their
example, since he "functioned as the first Gentile to leave behind notions of idolatry in
order to follow the one God."16 In the present chapter, we will evaluate this reading,
10 Nickelsburg, 'Abraham The Convert', pp. 160, 167.

13 Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 127. As will become apparent, the
Philonic passages cited here refer to the generality of the Chaldeans, and not necessarily to Abraham in
particular.
16 Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 40. Likewise, Edward Adams has said,
inclusive of the 'five Abraham texts' that, "In a line of Jewish reflection on Abraham developing in
Paul's day, the patriarch is remembered as one who rejected idolatry and astral-worship in favour of the
worship of the creator God. The tradition has a clear social function – to legitimate the inclusion of
Gentile proselytes in the Jewish community." Edward Adams, 'Abraham's Faith And Gentile
Disobedience: Textual Links Between Romans 1 And 4', JSJ, Vol. 65, (1997), p. 55.
endeavouring to read Philo on his own terms.
In the following discussion, we shall look at the four principle tenets of the common
reading of Philo described above: viz. (1) that Abraham was engaged in the practice of
sinful astrology; (2) that he was seen and depicted as an ungodly Gentile who converted
to monotheism; (3) that he was the first monotheist; (4) that in Philo we find the tradition
of Abraham found in Jubilees.
3.3.1 Abraham As Engaged In Sinful Astrology
When one examines Philo's view of the stars, one is impressed by its complexity. For
Philo, the stars are, in some sense, living souls, comparable to animals, or even 'gods'
(Gig. 8; Opif. 73; Somn. 1:135; 2:112ff.; Spec. 1:19; QG. 1:42; 4:188). Yet, they are
without independence (Cher. 88). He appears to equivocate on the question of whether
the stars cause earthly events, once denying it (Opif. 45), but twice affirming it (QE.
2:78; Spec. 1:13ff.). He is unclear as to whether it is proper to conceive of a sympatheia
between the stars and things on earth (Opif. 113, 117; Migr. 178, 180; Somn. 1:53; Abr.
69; Spec. 1:16).17 He also sees the stars as 'signs' by which one may legitimately seek to
determine the calendar and the weather (e.g. Opif. 58-59).18 Blessed (makavrioV) are those
who see and understand the dance of the heavens, which is much to be admired (Spec.
17 At Leg. 1:8, Philo speaks of the 'sumpaqestavtou pro;V ta; ejpivgeia a[strou'. In Stoic cosmology, there
is a sympatheia within nature; “an inner connection between seemingly quite disparate events.
Divination, the study of divine signs and portents, is therefore treated as a science in Stoicism rather
than as superstition. Careful observation leads to the discovery of certain signs of those
interconnections, even if human knowledge does not fully comprehend the rationale behind the
observable order of all things. This explains why the Stoics not only supported the traditional practices
of divination, but also helped establish astrology [i.e. astronomy] as a respectable science in the Greek
and Roman world." Dorothea Frede, 'Stoic Determinism', in B. Inwood (ed.), The Cambridge
Companion To The Stoics, Cambridge, CUPress, 2003, p. 184.
18 Thus cf. Bréhier, "Philon admet enfin le principe de la divination astrologique. Dans les astres sont les
signes du futur". Émile Bréhier, Les Idées Philosophiques Et Religieuses De Philon D'Alexandrie,
Études De Philosophie Médiévale, 8, Paris, Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1950, p. 166. Josephus
likewise refers to the stars as signs of the seasons (Ant. 1:31).
4:115).19 The stars are worthy of observance; the human soul is a fragment of the same
material out of which the stars were made (Her. 283). At the same time, he vacillates
between seeing the stars as ontologically equal, or superior, to angels.20 Yet, he is against
worship of the stars (Congr. 51, 133; Her. 97; Decal. 52ff., 64-66, &c.).
Just as his view of the stars is not simple, neither is his view of their study; that is,
of ajstronomiva. Philo does not use the term ajstrologiva.21 He prefers the term
ajstronomiva ("astronomy") and related terms (e.g. ajstrologikovV; Caldai:oi;
metewrologikovV; maqhmatikovV, &c.). He can view such astronomy either negatively or
positively.22
That he is not against astronomy per se is evident from his statement that
Chaldean astronomy is the "queen of the sciences" (Congr. 50). Similarly, he can describe
astronomy as kin to philosophy, and students of astronomy as employing their study in
quest of knowledge of God's nature (Spec. 2:165). He can also criticise those who neglect
astronomy altogether (Congr. 52).23 It forms for him a legitimate part of the encyclical
curriculum (Congr. 11; Gig. 60; Leg. 1:57).24 He likely studied it himself.25 And it is
19 Cf. Walter T. Wilson, Philo of Alexandria On Virtues, eds G. E. Sterling and D. T. Runia, PACS, Vol. 3,
Leiden, Brill, 2011, p. 188.
20 Alan Scott, Origen And The Life of The Stars: A History of An Idea, Oxford, OUPress, 1991, p. 70.
21 Interestingly, Colson and Whitaker consistently translate ajstronomiva with "astrology". They seem also
to lean towards the view that astronomy is generally viewed negatively by Philo. By contrast, Yonge
not only translates ajstronomiva with "astronomy" but also seems to believe that Philo's basic opinion
of astronomy was that it was a commendable science.
22 One of the most balanced short presentations of Philo's sometimes more optimistic, sometimes more
critical – but never wholly negative – attitude towards astronomy is that of Émile Bréhier: Les Idées
Philosophiques, pp. 164-170.
23 George H. Van Kooten, 'Enoch, The 'Watchers', Seth's Descendants And Abraham As Astronomers:
Jewish Applications of The Greek Motif of The First Inventor (300 BCE-CE 100)', in A. Brenner and J.
W. Van Henten (eds.), Recycling Biblical Figures: Papers Read At A Noster Colloquium In Amsterdam,
12-13 May 1997, Leiden, Deo, 1999, pp. 311-314. As Bréhier elaborates, "Philon connaît, au moins en
partie, l'argumentation de Carnéade contre l'astrologie, et il la rejette d'une façon formelle. ... Philon a
certes à défendre contre l'astrologie la providence divine et la liberté humaine. Il est significatif que,
malgré ces raisons considérables, il n'approuve pas toujours pleinement les contradicteurs de ce genre
de divination." Bréhier, Les Idées Philosophiques, pp. 166-167.
24 Alan Mendelson, Secular Education In Philo of Alexandria, HUCM, Vol. 7, Cincinnati, Hebrew Union
College Press, 1982, pp. 69-76 esp.; also Geljon and Runia, On Cultivation, p. 99; and James
Drummond, Philo Judaeus; Or, The Jewish-Alexandrian Philosophy In Its Development And
Completion, 2 Vols., Vol. 1, London, Williams And Norgate, 1888, pp. 263-265.
25 As Bréhier, "Philon paraît avoir connu et même goûté l'astrologie." Bréhier, Les Idées Philosophiques,
p. 165.
given the privileged status of being the midwife of philosophy (Opif. 54). Astronomy can
lead to a knowledge of God.26 It is, therefore, somewhat over-simplistic to baldly state
that "Philo equates [astronomy] with idolatry".27 Rather, one must admit that while Philo
is not always overly enthusiastic about astronomy, nevertheless "L'astrologie est donc
traitée par Philon avec une grande bienveillance."28
Alan Scott has dealt with the topic of Philo's view of astronomy in greater depth
than most, producing a nuanced view which avoids generalisations.29 He details how
Philo was broadly open to, and receptive of, pagan cosmology, with two crucial
exceptions. Firstly, for Philo one must maintain a Creator/creature distinction. The
created world is not to be thought of as God. Secondly, one must not ascribe control over
earthly events to the stars, except where that control is seen to be superintended by God. 30
Given these caveats, however, the sky "is the best thing in the world for one to
contemplate. [And it] was Abram's chief occupation before he was set apart by God."31
That Philo can speak positively of Abram/Abraham's astronomy (e.g. Mut. 67-
70a) is in keeping with his underlying positive view of the subject. As such, this positive
connection between Abraham and astronomy is comparable to Philo's description of
Moses learning the science of the stars from the best of the Chaldean astronomers (Mos.
1:23-24). Philo wishes to depict his heroes of the faith as respectable, and educated men.
26 As E. E. Pasetti has written: “la contemplazione delle realtà sensibili del cielo, proprio perchè questo è
tempio, di Dio, può condurre alla conoscenza di colui che le ha create”. Emilio Ermete Pasetti, 'I temi di
Abramo "peregrinus" e "advena" (Gen. XII. 1-3; 9-10): alla ricerca di una tradizione esegetica antica',
SROC, Vol. 5, (1982), p. 33.
27 Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 28. Indeed, Philo's essential acceptance
of astronomy has been illustrated by Pasetti through comparison with two of those who come after him
and decisively reject it: viz. Origen and Ambrose (e.g. Abr. 2:3; Hex. 2:1; Exp. Luc. 2:48). See: Pasetti, 'I
temi di Abramo', pp. 13ff. On Origen's view, cf. Tim Hegedus, Early Christianity And Ancient
Astrology, ed. G. L. Bray, Patristic Studies, Vol. 6, New York, Peter Lang, 2007, pp. 329ff. Calvert-
Koyzis is not alone, however. Her view is supported by Vermes' opinion that, for Philo,
astrology/astronomy and monotheism are strictly opposed. Geza Vermes, Scripture And Tradition In
Judaism: Haggadic Studies, StPB, 4, Leiden, Brill, 1983, p. 79.
28 Bréhier, Les Idées Philosophiques, p. 167.
29 Scott, Life of The Stars, pp. 63-75.
30 Comparable is the analysis of: Kocku von Stuckrad, Das Ringen um die Astrologie: jüdische und
christliche Beiträge zum antiken Zeitverständnis, Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten,
49, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2000, pp. 224-253.
31 Scott, Life of The Stars, p. 69.
Thus, we are not surprised that Moses, who is Philo's greatest hero, and apparently
sinless, suffered no deleterious effects from his study of the stars. 32 That Philo chooses to
depict Moses as learning astronomy is significant, because Moses was not a Chaldean.
Given the popular ancient stereotype of all Chaldeans being involved in astronomy or
astrology, it is almost inevitable that Philo should deal with the connection between such
study and Abraham. When he comes to Moses, however, he is under no such constraint.
Hence, his enthusiastic ascription of astronomical learning to Moses informs us of his
predisposition towards it.
However, Philo could also be critical of the misapplication of astronomy.
Astronomy is misapplied when it leads one towards a Stoic pantheism or to any
confusion of the Creator with the creation (e.g. Virt. 212-213; Migr. 178ff.). Philo's view
of Chaldean astronomy in particular is not monolithic. Philo can view Chaldeanism both
positively and negatively.33
Abraham's involvement with astronomy, then, would not have posed any inherent
problem for Philo. The question which we must answer is this: Did Philo view the
individual celestial observations of Abraham in particular as sinful? Many would suggest
that the answer to this question is 'yes'. For instance, Calvert-Koyzis believes that, in
Philo's view, Abraham abandons idolatry, when he abandons astronomy, and, as such, "he
is the prototype of the Gentile proselyte who leaves behind his idols of wood and stone
for the worship of the one, true God."34
This view is not accurate. While Philo criticised the misuse of astronomy made by
Abraham's Chaldean countrymen, he did not impeach the patriarch along with them. To
32 See: Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism,
Amsterdam, Philo Press, 1969, p. 232ff.; Ronald Williamson, Jews In The Hellenistic World: Philo, eds
P. R. Ackroyd, A. R. C. Leaney, and J. W. Packer, 2 Vols., Vol. Vol. 2, CCWJCW, Vol. 1, Cambridge,
CUPress, 1989, p. 117; but cf. Louis H. Feldman, Philo's Portrayal of Moses In The Context of Ancient
Judaism, Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press, 2007, p. 341.
33 Chan-Kok Wong, 'Philo's Use of Chaldaioi', SPhA, Vol. 4, (1992), p. 10.
illustrate this, we turn first to Philo's treatise De Gigantibus.
3.3.1.1 De Gigantibus 58-67

Winston and Dillon, in commenting on Gig. 62 state that Abraham, “is one of those who
worships the heavenly bodies (ta; metevwra) rather than their Creator”.35 Had it been the
case that Abraham's astronomy had led him to worship the stars, Philo would have
viewed it negatively. Yet, in Gig. 58-67, Philo nowhere describes Abraham as having
worshipped the stars. We need not assume that a necessary corollary of the patriarch's
astronomy is astral worship.
Abraham's status as a 'man born of heaven' is only temporary, since he will
advance to the rank of 'man born of God'. This change of status is accompanied by a
change of name. Neither signal a conversion from astral worship, however. Rather, they
indicate progression on Abraham's part: from good to better.36 His astronomy is part of
his preparatory encyclical studies which are praised as fitting for the heavenly man (Gig.
60; cf. Cher. 97-107) to sharpen him as he focuses on what is beyond the mere outward
senses (Gig. 61). Indeed, Philo insists that the encyclical 'school' studies should precede
the higher contemplation of philosophy (e.g. Ebr. 46-51). These encyclical studies are the
smell of which philosophy is the food (e.g. Sacr. 44).
In De Gigantibus, Abraham (the 'good' man) is contrasted with Nimrod (the 'bad').
Both are representative figures. Throughout the treatise, as elsewhere in Philo, a
dichotomy is presented between those who give-in to the fleshly passions and those who
35 David Winston and John Dillon, Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria: A Commentary On De
Gigantibus And Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis, BJS, Vol. 25, Chico, Scholars Press, 1983, p. 270.
36 In a similar connection, Roskam suggests that while there is often a sharp dichotomy drawn in Philo’s
oeuvre between good (ajrethv) and bad (kakiva) as opposite poles, in the Stoic style, Philo can introduce
a middle position for the not yet perfect, that is, the learner who is improving (i.e. the prokovptwn).
Geert Roskam, On The Path To Virtue: The Stoic Doctrine of Moral Progress And Its Reception In
(Middle-)Platonism, Leuven, Leuven University Press, 2005, pp. 197-200. Even so, the individual in
this middle position is not necessarily compromised. As Roskam observes, “The prokovptwn is not
fundamentally bad, while already being much better than the utterly wicked, but is fundamentally good,
while still lacking the perfection of the sage.” Roskam, The Path To Virtue, p. 200. Whatever we may
think about the details of Roskam’s analysis of Philo’s relation to the Stoic conception, it seems clear
that while Abraham improves, he is never ranged under the negative pole of the ajrethv–kakiva
opposition.
ascend to contemplation of the divine things which are perceivable only through the eye
of the soul. Nimrod is representative of such men as are earthly and, as such, are unable
to look up to see the revolutions of the heavens (Gig. 31). The heavenly man Abraham,
by contrast, has studied the stars assiduously (Gig. 62) and so is able to progress in his
knowledge of God to become one 'born of God'.
At Gig. 62-64, Philo recapitulates a piece of exegesis about the change of names
from Abram to Abraham. It is also employed frequently by him elsewhere (e.g. Cher.
4ff.; Mut. 59ff.; Abr. 81ff.; QG. 3:43).37 A common scholarly reading of the name 'Abram'
in such passages is that it refers to one who is a sinful astrologer before his conversion
and accompanying change of name to 'Abraham'.38 Were one to look at Abr. 81ff. in
isolation (especially Abr. 84 and 88), one might interpret 'Abram' in this way. Yet, that the
greater number of name-change passages unambiguously describe 'Abram' as something
good should give us pause. 'Abram', for instance, is said to be a seeker after virtue (Cher.
6), who possesses wisdom and natural gifts (Mut. 68), and who is worthy of praise (Leg.
3:83). As Anderson points out, such characteristics "do not fit with a Chaldean astrologer
who deifies the kovsmoV."39
Further to this, we may note that 'Abram' is not only described as an astronomer
but also as a 'meteorologist' (e.g. Ebr. 94; Abr. 82 – metewrologikovV), and, in a report of
the views of others, a maqhmatikovn (e.g. Mut. 71). If we assume that the application of
'astronomer' to Abram is a condemnation of his early life, we would expect the other
terms to carry similarly negative connotations. As it turns out, however, they do not.
37 It should be noted, however, as Sandmel says, that "Philo gives a number of slightly different imports in
various treatises to the change." Samuel Sandmel, Philo's Place In Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of
Abraham In Jewish Literature, New York, KTAV, 1971, p. 161, n. 279.
38 By contrast, Carson rightly sees that if the name 'Abraham' carries an idea of election (cf. Gig. 63ff.), it
does not speak of a gracious election (in which the favour of being chosen is undeserved) but God's
acceptance of one who is worthy of favour. As he says, "If Abraham is chosen it is because he is
choice." Donald Arthur Carson, 'Divine Sovereignty And Human Responsibility In Philo: Analysis And
Method', NovT, Vol. 23, No. 2, (1981), p. 160.
39 Charles A. Anderson, Philo of Alexandria's Views of The Physical World, WUNT 2. Reihe, Vol. 309,
Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2011, p. 90.
Both of these terms carry positive connotations. In relation to 'metewrologikovV',
observe the usage of this and related terms at: Ebr. 91-92; Mut. 67-70; Somn. 2:112, and
see Opif. 58-59. Likewise, Anderson writes that Philo's usage of the term maqhmatikovn,
“is uniformly positive: Opif. 128; Cher. 4; Mos. 1.24; Spec. 2.40.”40 We should not be
surprised at this, since Philo considers Abram to have been involved in the science of
astronomy.41 In contrast to questionable soothsaying and mystical omen-making based
upon observance of the stars, Abram inquires about such things as: the size and motion of
the sun; the shape of the moon throughout its cycle, and the motion of the stars (Mut. 67).
As Philo says,
To inquire into such matters bespeaks a soul not devoid of natural gifts or unproductive, but
highly gifted and capable of engendering offspring perfect and without blemish; and therefore
he [i.e. God] called the student of the upper world “father” because he is not unproductive of
wisdom. (Mut. 68).
Reggiani makes the perceptive remark that, the migration from Chaldea is here seen,
"come il primo passo verso la traduzione in atto di una inclinazione potenziale e
congenita a individuare negli studi astronomici - non nell'astrologia - il lato positivo."42
If one takes 'Abram' to refer to the sinful astrologer, then 'Abraham' is
(presumably) the repentant convert. Yet, as we have seen, it is not transparent that
'Abram' is a negative designation. Rather, it seems that the patriarch's journey is one from
good to better, rather than from bad to good. We see this most clearly in the discussion of
Abraham's name change in De Mutatione Nominum.
40 Anderson, Philo of Alexandria's Views of The Physical World, p. 91, n. 98.

41 Thus Harl: "une science astronomique". Marguerite Harl, Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit:
Introduction, Traduction Et Notes, eds R. Arnaldez, J. Pouilloux, and C. Mondésert, PAPM (Les œuvres
de Philon d’Alexandrie), Vol. 15, Paris, Éditions du CERF, 1966, p. 47.
42 Clara Kraus Reggiani, 'La Simbologia Di Abramo In Filone Di Alessandria', in J. Driscoll and M.
Sheridan (eds.), Spiritual Progress: Studies In The Spirituality of Late Antiquity And Early
Monasticism, SA, Roma, Pontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo, 1994, pp. 24-25. However, in the same
connection, she also suggests that this is the only place in which Abraham's migration from Chaldea is
viewed as something other than an escape from Chaldean error. While most scholars would probably
not go even as far as Reggiani does, we hope to show that there is more evidence in Philo than she
realises which points to the fact that Philo viewed Abraham's migration from Chaldea not entirely as an
escape.
3.3.1.2 De Mutatione Nominum
According to this treatise, 'Abram' means “the lover of learning, the meteorologist” (Mut.
70). 'Abraham' means “the wisdom-lover” (Mut. 70). 'Abram' is clearly good, but
'Abraham' is best (Mut. 70). The problem with 'Abram' was not that he studied the
physical world, but that he was limited to this.43 Philo uses the image of a walled orchard
to illustrate his point: “some of the ancients,” he writes,
comparing the study of philosophy to a field, likened the physical part to plants, the logical to
the walls and fences, and the ethical to the fruit. They considered that the walls round the
field are built by the owners to guard the fruit and the trees grown to produce it, and that in
the same way in philosophy physical and logical research should be brought to bear on ethics
by which the character is bettered and yearns to acquire and also to make use of virtue. This is
how we have learned to regard the story of Abraham. (Mut. 74-75).
The physical-science of Abram was not so much pernicious as it was restricted. It was
necessary for the patriarch to build on the foundation of his former studies, and so to
progress to the highest level of philosophical study (ethical philosophy).44 This he did,
and so became 'Abraham'. As such, Abraham is marked by his knowledge of the Creator
and his piety, “the most splendid of possessions” (Mut. 76).
A similar conception of the relation between astronomy and the highest
philosophy is found elsewhere in Philo's writings. As QG. 3:43 says, for example, “in
wisdom is included astronomy, as is the part in the whole”. Ebr. 88-93 also lists
astronomy as a legitimate area of study for the Sage, albeit one which is superseded by
contemplation of the Uncreated (Ebr. 94).45 Hence, Abraham should not be seen as
having repented of his astronomy so much as having outgrown it in the course of his
educational enlightenment.46 Further to this, Birnbaum has demonstrated how Philo
43 Thus Harl: "une philosophie limitée au monde visible". Harl, Quis Rerum, p. 47.
44 Cf. Torrey Seland, 'The Moderate Life of The Christian paroikoi: A Philonic Reading of 1 Pet 2:11', in
R. Deines and K.-W. N. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament, WUNT, Tübingen, Mohr
Siebeck, 2004, pp. 255-256.
45 Sandmel writes: "Abraham's change in name from Abram is a transition from his preoccupation with
his lower mind to his use of his higher reason." Sandmel, Philo's Place In Judaism, p. 161.
46 As such, Philo can write at De Praem. 1:26 that Abraham was one of that select class of men; a kind
"few in number but in power so manifold and mighty that it cannot be contained by the whole compass
of the earth but reaches to Heaven, possessed with an intense longing to contemplate and for ever be in
the company of things divine. After investigating the whole realm of the visible to its very end, it
straightway proceeds to the immaterial and conceptual..."
makes use of three key moments in Abraham's career to depict his educational journey:
viz. his mating with Hagar, his migration, and his renaming.47 On this reading, the point is
not so much that Abraham experienced a religious conversion but, instead, that he
progressed from encyclical studies to the status of sage.48 Scott similarly writes that Philo
stresses man's "ability to progress and develop to higher levels of understanding, and the
recognition of the honourable position occupied by the stars was a part of this learning
process."49 The presentation of Abram's journey to becoming Abraham is illustrative of
this. Abram was an astronomer, but he progressed from this occupation to the "higher
way of the wise man and lover of God [Cher. 7]... [since] an interest in heaven for its
own sake which does not lead the individual to a higher understanding is useless."50 As
such, Philo's depiction of Abraham "does not imply a total rejection of astronomy".51
3.3.1.3 Legum Allegoriae 3:244-245

This interpretation is confirmed by an analysis of Legum Allegoriae 3:244-245. We shall
cite the passage in full, as it largely speaks for itself. Philo writes:
Quite a different woman claims our compliance, a woman such as Sarah is seen to have been,
even paramount virtue. The wise Abraham complies with her when she recommends the
course to follow. For at an earlier time, when he had not yet become perfect but, before his
name had been changed, was still only inquiring into supramundane things [ta; metevwra
ejfilosovfei],52 being aware that he could not beget seed out of perfect virtue, she advises him
to beget children out of the handmaiden, that is school-learning [paideivaV th:V
ejgkuklivou], even Hagar (Gen. xvi. 2ff.). This name means "Sojourning," 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 [toi:V ejgkuklivoiV maqhvmasi paroikei:],53
that he may be led by these to apply his unfettered powers to virtue. Afterwards, when she
sees him brought to perfection, and capable now of begetting ... And if he, filled with
47 Ellen Birnbaum, 'Exegetical Building Blocks In Philo's Interpretation of The Patriarchs', in P. Walters
(ed.), From Judaism To Christianity: Tradition And Transition: A Festschrift For Thomas H. Tobin,
S.J., On The Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, NovTSup, Leiden, Brill, 2010, pp. 76-81.
48 This is consonant with Sandmel's summary that, for Philo in his use of allegory, "Abraham [represents]
the capacity to learn". Sandmel, 'Philo Judaeus: An Introduction', p. 14.
49 Scott, Life of The Stars, p. 72.
50 Scott, Life of The Stars, pp. 72-73.
51 Karl-Gustav Sandelin, 'The Danger of Idolatry According To Philo of Alexandria', Tem, Vol. 27, (1991),
p. 114, n. 13.
52 Here, "ta; metevwra" may well refer to astronomical phenomena. Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott,
and Henry Stuart Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon: With A Revised Supplement, 9th. Edn., Oxford,
OUPress, 1996, pp. 1120-1121.
53 The term mavqhma often refers to the 'mathematical sciences', of which astronomy was one. See: Liddell,
Scott, and Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon: With A Revised Supplement, p. 1072.
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" (Gen. xxi. 12).
This text clearly states both that Abraham is to leave behind his encyclical studies, but
also that they are indispensible to his pursuit of philosophy, and that he was grateful for
them. As Bréhier writes,
...si des Juifs, épris de culture grecque, ont pu trouver, comme le frère d'Abraham qui
symbolise chez Philon celui qui est resté à l'astronomie, une satisfaction suffisante dans la
sagesse chaldéenne, Philon pense que le vrai sage doit, dans son mouvement intérieur,
dépasser le monde sensible tout entier pour aller jusqu'à l'intelligible. Sans doute les astres
sont des causes, et la «sympathie» stoïcienne est véritable; mais ils ne sont pas les causes les
plus anciennes. La véritable critique de l'astrologie et de cultes cosmique n'est pas, comme
chez un Carnéade ou un Panétius, une critique dialectique, mais elle est la description des
démarches intérieures de l'âme qui, partant du sensible, l'entraînent dans un au-delà
intelligible.54
Philo welcomes the learning of astronomy. Yet, he also encourages a certain reserve in
relation to astronomy, since its results are not always sure, but often only hypotheses.
Arriving at a level of skepticism about astronomy, as Abraham did, is thus "une
préparation à une sagesse plus élevée".55
3.3.1.4 Comparison With Plato

Philo's treatment of astronomy, then, might be compared with Plato's. Like Philo, Plato
includes astronomy as an essential part of an individual's education (Resp. 7.528b-530e).
Plato, too, criticises those who merely observe the stars without being led beyond the
visible to 'see' the more fundamental nature of the universe. For, anyone "who was an
astronomer in very truth would... when he turned his eyes upon the movements of the
stars... be willing to concede that the artisan [dhmiourgw:/] of heaven fashioned it..."
(Resp. 7.530a). The perceptible is a legitimate starting point, so long as it leads to an
apprehension of the ideal.56
One can, therefore, account for Abraham's apparent 'progress' in his knowledge of
God without positing his starting-point in astronomy to have been objectionable. Indeed,
56 Cf. Dieter Zeller, Charis bei Philon und Paulus, Stuttgart, Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990, p. 87.
Philo says that it is only natural to recognise the Creator by his creation. He writes:
Who can look upon statues or paintings without thinking at once of a sculptor or painter? ...
And when one enters a well-ordered city in which the arrangements for civil life are very
admirably managed, what else will he suppose but that this city is directed by good rulers? So
then he who comes to the truly Great City, this world, and beholds hills and plains... the sun
and the moon ruling the day and the night, and the other heavenly bodies fixed or planetary
and the whole firmament revolving in rhythmic order, must he not naturally or rather
necessarily gain the conception of the Maker... In this way we have gained the
conception of the existence of God. (Spec. 1:33-35)
We need not see Philo as following Plato directly here. Yet there is an analogy
between them. Mendelson posits that astronomy would have been studied last in the
encyclia, since it deals with "the fairest and most exact of material things" (Resp.
7.529d). "As queen of the sciences," Mendelson writes,
astronomy "compels the soul to look upward and leads it away from things here to those
higher things" [Resp. 7.529a]. Philo seems to have concurred with these views. Abraham,
Philo's exemplary student of the encyclia, moved from astronomy directly to the higher
reaches of the spirit.57
Similarly, according to van Kooten,
Philo's portrayal of Abraham's ascent, on the basis of astronomical observations, to the

paradigmatic and intelligible world shows not only the virtue, but also the limitations of
astronomy, since astronomy itself has to be transcended in a Platonic movement towards the
ideas.58
Astronomy is the common starting-point of both the Chaldeans whom Philo castigates –
such as Abraham's father (Virt. 212-213) and brother (Congr. 1:47-49) – and of the
patriarch whom he lauds. From this common starting-point, some fail to progress to
proper knowledge of God and so end by deifying the creation. Others such as Abraham,
however, make the correct next step and discern from what has been made him who
made it (cf. Her. 99).59
57 Mendelson, Secular Education In Philo of Alexandria, p. 15. It might be noted, however, that Philo can
insert an additional step between astronomy and contemplation of the Creator. Thus, in Som 1:59-60,
we see Philo inserting the allegory of Haran as a final stage in Abraham's education before he moves on
to a proper consideration of the living God.
58 Van Kooten, 'Seth's Descendants And Abraham As Astronomers', p. 314.
59 As Sandelin stresses, it is important to note that, "above all, he did not commit the mistake of deifying
the world as the Chaldaeans did (Abr. 68-70, Her. 96-99, cf. Migr. 176-195, Congr. 47-49, Mut. 15 f.)."
Sandelin, 'The Danger of Idolatry', pp. 114-115, n. 13. Yet, even those amongst Philo's audience who
have adopted the misguided Chaldean view, however, may yet come to a recognition of the Creator, if
they follow Abraham's path (e.g. Migr. 192, 194).
3.3.1.5 De Abrahamo 60-88
Thus far, we have been seeking to determine whether, in Philo's view, Abraham was
engaged in the practice of sinful astrology. In light of the evidence already presented, we
might conclude that this question has been satisfactorily answered. However, there is one
more important treatise which should be given consideration: Philo's De Abrahamo.
This is the treatise which most seems to imply that Abraham, before his departure
from Chaldea, had worshipped the stars. Along with De Virtutibus, this treatise is cited
most often by those who see the early Abraham as an ungodly pagan astrologer. 60 The
sections of this treatise which most favour such an interpretation are: (a) Abr. 70, where,
having been told that the Chaldeans likened the creation to the Creator, we read: "In this
creed Abraham had been reared, and for a long time remained a Chaldean." We then read
that Abraham came to realise, through his astronomical observations, that the world, in
fact, had a pilot presiding over it; and (b) Abr. 84, where we read that "to the
meteorologist nothing at all seems greater than the universe, and he credits it with the
causation of what comes into being."
What is clear, is that Philo views the young Abraham in this treatise as one who
did not understand that beyond the physical world there is the intelligible and invisible.
As such, Abraham did not always perceive God as the pilot of the universe. Rather, he
came to this discovery through a process of learning and through his celestial
observations.61 We might at once conclude, therefrom, that Philo pictures the young
Abraham as having been involved in ungodly astrology. However, this would be a
surprising admission for Philo, if his encomiastic bios of the great patriarch also has the
apologetic function of exonerating him from criticism.62

60 E.g. Vermes, Scripture And Tradition, pp. 79-80; Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of
God, pp. 24-28; Jochen Flebbe, Solus Deus: Untersuchungen zur Rede von Gott im Brief des Paulus an
die Römer, ed. M. Wolter, et. al., BZNW, Vol. 158, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2008, pp. 195-197; Nickelsburg,
'Abraham The Convert', pp. 161-162, &c.
61 That Abraham came to this realisation through his astronomical studies is suggested by the congruence
between Abr. 60-61 and Spec. 1:33-35 (cited above).
62 Runia points to both the encomiastic and apologetic sides of the treatise. He also states that, “the entire
We read at the beginning of Philo's discourse on Abraham that what he is about to
describe – namely, Abraham's realisation of God as pilot of the universe – is presented as
the first proof of his piety (eujsebeiva – Abr. 61). Thus, if Philo is going to picture
Abraham as an ungodly astrologer, that is (at the very least) not where his emphasis lies.
We are told in Abr. 70 that Abraham was reared in the creed of the Chaldeans and
that he remained a Chaldean for a long time. The term suntrevfw in that verse, however,
need not connote that Abraham agreed with the ideas common to his birthplace. It may
tell us no more than that he was educated in Chaldean astronomy and ideas.63 Similarly,
that he remained a 'Chaldean' for a long time may tell us no more than that he remained
for a long time an astronomer investigating the visible world. Philo does not appear to be
passing judgement on the early Abraham at this point.
It is clear, however, that young Abraham was ignorant of God as pilot of the
world (Abr. 70). As such, when he investigated the world, it seemed probable (ei\nai
dokei:) to him that materialism was a sufficient explanation for the evidence (Abr. 84).64
Yet, the narrative of De Abrahamo 60-88 does not so much picture Abraham as a convert
from false religion as one on a journey of discovery, who does not come to any
conclusions until he has arrived at the truth. 65 So, for example, we are told that he was:
"eager to follow God" (60); in a "search for the true God" (69); seeking God and
yearning to find him (87); pursuing the insight given to him (70-71); earnestly desiring to
know the king (73-74), and that God rewarded his quest by revealing himself (79-80),
leading the patriarch to reprimand himself for taking so long in coming to a clear
comprehension of God (84).
narrative account of the various incidents in Abraham's life is taken to illustrate his excellence of
character and action (aretē)” (cf. Abr. 50). David T. Runia, 'The Place of De Abrahamo In Philo's
Oeuvre', SPhA, Vol. 20, (2008), pp. 141, 148.
63 Liddell, Scott, and Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon: With A Revised Supplement, p. 1728.
64 The word "dokevw", here, is not suggestive of a settled opinion.
65 Similarly, Völker: “sein Werdegang wird als eine fortgehende philosophische Unterweisung aufgefaßt”.
Walther Völker, 'Das Abraham-Bild bei Philo, Origenes, und Ambrosius', TSK, Vol. 103, (1931), p. 200.
At the end of the discussion of this first phase of Abraham's career, Philo says:
"we have shewn both man and soul to be worthy of our affection." (Abr. 88). Abraham is
worthy of affection because he has,
ouj mevcri panto;V ajpathqei;V ejpi; th:V aijsqhth:V oujsivaV e[sth to;n oJrato;n kovsmon
uJpolabw;n mevgiston kai; prw:ton ei\nai qeovn, ajlla; ajnadramw;n tw:/ logismw:/ fuvsin
eJtevran ajmeivnw th:V oJrath:V nohth;n ejqeavsato kai; to;n ajmfoi:n poihth;n oJmou: kai;
hJgemovna.
If we take "mevcri panto;V" as belonging with "ajpathqei;V" and not as being assumed also
by "ejpi; th:V aijsqhth:V oujsivaV e[sth to;n oJrato;n kovsmon uJpolabw;n mevgiston kai;
prw:ton ei\nai qeovn", then we need not assume that Abraham at one time (but not
forever) believed that "the visible world was the Almighty and Primal God". It is clear
that Philo views the early Abraham as having been in a state of ignorance, but this does
not appear to have led to the ungodly conclusion that the world is God. Rather, while
Abraham spent a long time investigating the visible universe, he eventually came to see
the invisible pilot.
De Abrahamo does not picture Abraham as having been someone engaged in
sinful pagan astrology before his conversion.66 Rather, Abraham's journey of discovery
and enlightenment revealed his inherent zeal for piety, the highest and greatest of virtues
(Abr. 60).67 Certainly, De Abrahamo comes closer to describing the young Abraham as an
ungodly astrologer than any other of Philo's treatises. However, when considered in light
of the many parallel passages in Philo's writings which speak of Abraham's astronomy in
a neutral or positive way, we feel it valid to interpret the potentially ambiguous
presentation in De Abrahamo in light of this other evidence.68 Philo presents Abraham as
66 Although he makes the somewhat confusing comment that "Philo nowhere mentions Abraham as an
astrologer", Sze-Kar Wan rightly notes that, in relation to Abraham, Philo does not go to extremes; he
neither rejects study of the stars in toto nor uncritically accepts it without certain caveats. Sze-kar Wan,
'Abraham And The Promise of Spirit: Points of Convergence Between Philo and Paul', in E. G. Chazon,
D. Satran, and R. A. Clements (eds.), Things Revealed: Studies In Early Jewish And Christian
Literature In Honour of Michael E. Stone, JSJSup, Leiden, Brill, 2004, pp. 221-222.
67 Gregory E. Sterling, ''The Queen of The Virtues': Piety In Philo of Alexandria', SPhA, Vol. 18, (2006),
pp. 103-123.
68 The reader may have observed that we have not yet discussed the presentation of Abraham in De
Virtutibus. We deal with this treatise next.
having been engaged in a legitimate form of astronomy as a kind of encyclical study
which he eventually transcended en route to his arrival at the highest level of
philosophical contemplation: viz. ethics, and the contemplation of God. We are now well
situated to consider whether or not Philo viewed Abraham as an ungodly Gentile before
his migration from Mesopotamia.
3.3.2 Abraham As An Ungodly Gentile Convert
The suggestion that Philo viewed the pre-migration Abraham as an ungodly Gentile who
converted has been commonly propounded in the scholarly literature on Philo's Abraham.
Calvert-Koyzis, for instance, writes that "Abraham functioned as the first Gentile to leave
behind notions of idolatry".69 Similarly, Flebbe states that, "Abraham kommt als Heide
vom Irrtum zur Wahrheit, von einem gottlosen Leben mit Götzen zu einem Leben mit
Gott."70 Orrey McFarland has recently recapitulated this view in an article which deals
with Philo's treatment of the patriarch in De Virtutibus.71 McFarland claims that Philo (in
Virt. 187-227, but especially 212-219) presents Abraham as ungodly (ajsebhV).72 Philo, it
is suggested, spoke of Abraham as “being ungodly [as] a result of [his] location:
Chaldea”.73 Calvert-Koyzis also states, echoing a popular scholarly opinion, that for
70 Flebbe, Solus Deus, p. 197. See also: Vermes, Scripture And Tradition, pp. 79-80; Sandmel, Philo's
Place In Judaism, p. 141.
71 Orrey McFarland, 'Whose Abraham, Which Promise? Genesis 15.6 In Philo's De Virtutibus And
72 For McFarland, Philo's view of Abraham as ajsebhV is comparable in its severity to Paul's statement in
Romans 4:5. I have not been able to find anywhere where Philo attaches the ‘ajseb-’ word-group to
Abraham. Neither does it seem that Philo attaches any of the terms in the ‘ajdik-’ word-group to
Abraham. Indeed, Philo seems to reserve all such words for those who have hopelessly abandoned
themselves to vice. Nevertheless, the concept may be present even where the word is absent.
73 McFarland, 'Philo's De Virtutibus And Romans 4', p. 117. So also: Orrey McFarland, The God Who
Gives: Philo And Paul In Conversation, Ph. D. dissertation, Durham University, Durham, 2013, pp.
110, 144. Yet here McFarland also maintains that "God birthed Abraham as a worthy figure" with a
"worthy and virtuous nature" whose life of virtue was merely "an extention and development" of God's
natal gift of a good nature (p. 110). For McFarland Abraham's belief was a confrimation of his piety (p.
38), and of the patriarch's having been one of tou;V eujsebeivaV (p. 145). There appears to be an
unresolved tension here. Is Abraham simultaneously virtuous and ungodly, or else one and then the
other by turns? When one examines the way in which Philo describes the ungodly, it is hard to see Philo
ever relegating Abraham to that category. The ungodly, for Philo, are the worst of the worst, like Cain,
and he frequently pictures their lot as punishment, often without the possibility of return (e.g. Post. 12;
Ebr. 223; Conf. 121, 182; Praem. 69, 157). Thus, Hultgren can say that in both the LXX and Philo,
“Never, with the possible exception of Psalm 51:13 (LXX 50:15), is any hope expressed for them [i.e.
Philo, "Abraham is an exemplary figure, the prototype of the proselyte (Virt. 219; cf.
Gen. 15:6; Her. 93-95)".74
We shall seek presently to show that it is not entirely clear that this is the case in
De Virtutibus or any of Philo's other works. Far from presenting Abraham as an ungodly
Gentile, Philo might actually be interpreted as having seen Abraham as highly godly,
perfect, and even sinless. We shall then look at Virt. 219, the text most often cited as
proof that, for Philo, Abraham was the first (and prototypical) proselyte.
That Philo should consider Abraham as having been ungodly on the basis merely
of the accidents of his birth is unlikely. Indeed, Philo (in De Virtutibus at least) appears to
be advocating precisely the opposite opinion. According to Philo, Abraham should not be
considered ungodly simply because of his location (Chaldea) but, rather, virtuous on the
basis of his conduct. The context does not corrupt; and condemnation is not inherited
from one's parents. Philo certainly suggests that Abraham’s milieu was one in which God
was improperly acknowledged. But he does not indict the person of the patriarch per se.
As McFarland himself notes, the argument of Philo’s dialogue at this point is to suggest
that those with virtuous parents are not necessarily themselves virtuous and, conversely,
that those born into a context which is not virtuous yet have it within themselves to be
the ungodly].” Arland J. Hultgren, Paul's Letter To The Romans, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2011, p.
181. As McFarland himself points out (citing Mut. 265), "God is a distance removed from the ungodly
but walks with the virtuous" (p. 130). Although Abraham may be classed as 'prokovptwn', at least
initially, rather than 'tevleioV' like Moses (p. 99), this does not relegate him to the lowest category
'kakiva' (or ajsebhvV). Cf. Roskam (above), who provides the following diagram (which we have
simplified). For Roskam, at least, Abraham is not in the same category as Cain, the Sophists, or
Pharaoh, or any other of the ungodly. See: Roskam, The Path To Virtue, p. 154.
Figure 1. Roskam's Scheme of Vice, Progress, And Virtue
74 Nancy Calvert-Koyzis, 'Abraham: III A: Second Temple And Hellenistic Judaism', in H.-J. Klauck
(ed.), Encyclopedia of The Bible And Its Reception, 1, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2009, p. 163.
virtuous (Virt. 211).75
Certainly, Philo suggests that the unwitting and non-vigilant can be deceived
(ajpavth – Virt. 214) and led to believe untruths (yeudh: dovxan), if they fail to resist such
an ignoble context (dusgevneia – Virt. 219). Yet, each individual is born neutral, inheriting
neither virtue nor vice.76 Presented with such a choice, Abraham chooses to pursue virtue
and, to help him so to do, to migrate.77 Abraham escapes Chaldea before his mind can be
corrupted (Virt. 214). The Abraham of Virt. 212-216 took the path less trodden, and that,
for Philo, made all the difference. That Abraham was not only born neutral but remained
morally neutral until his call is suggested by Leg. 2:58-59: kai; =Abraa;m gumnou:tai,
o{tan ajkouvsh/` 'e[xelqe ejk th:V gh:V sou kai; ejk th:V suggeneivaV sou.'78
That man is faced with a choice between what is good and what is not, however,
does not necessarily mean that all men are born equal. Instead, Philo directs our
interpretation to a select group of individuals who were endowed from birth with a
particularly praiseworthy nature (Leg. 3:77ff.). Abraham is amongst these who have
"goodly natures" (fuvseiV ajsteivaV; Leg. 3:77) from birth. Indeed, Abram, we are told,
did nothing to merit God's call to leave his homeland. Rather, God was pleased to call
him on the basis of his character, which God had particularly created to be praiseworthy
(Leg. 3:83). Abraham, like Noah, before him (Leg. 3:77-78) and Isaac after him (Leg.
3:85-87), appears to have been born with a virtuous character.79 Abraham, then, if we take
75 “Philo’s interpretation of Abraham’s faith in Gen. 15.6 in De Virtutibus 212-19 is set in the context of
his discussion of nobility – how being noble or ignoble is not a matter of one’s lineage or ancestry but is
a result of how one’s own life is lived in relation to God.” McFarland, 'Philo's De Virtutibus And
Romans 4', p. 109.
76 Cf. Praem. 152.
77 Of course, McFarland is correct to suggest that Abraham would not have been able to do this without
God's help or 'grace' (Virt. 214-215; cf. Abr. 80). God gives him inspiration and spurs him on. Yet, it
seems that Abraham's thought and God's inspiration work together, rather than Abraham's conception of
God being exclusively the product of this inspiration: The participles labw;n and ejpiqeiavsaV being
balanced on either side of the conjunctive kai; (although, perhaps, not the only way to construe the
construction). Similarly, at Abr. 62-67, Philo strikes a balance between God's call and Abraham's desire
to go, due to his predilection for heavenly things. Further, God's grace does not appear to be 'justifying'
grace, merely 'enabling' grace.
78 Michael R. Whitenton, 'Rewriting Abraham and Joseph: Stephen's Speech (Acts 7:2-16) and Jewish
Exegetical Traditions', NovT, Vol. 54, (2012), p. 155.
79 For Williamson, this means that Abraham was one of a select group of sinless individuals. See the
this other discussion as background for De Virtutibus, was born neutral as to his record,
and in need of making good choices, but already with a good character.
Philo goes on in De Virtutibus to explain that Abraham was esteemed by man, and
by God as a lover of godliness (tou;V eujsebeivaV ejrasta;V – Virt. 218). Since there is no
discernible transition in Philo’s account from Abraham’s having first loved ungodliness
to loving godliness, we must assume that his later, highly-honoured virtue, was present,
at least in the embryonic form of unspoiled potential, if not fully expressed, even while
he was in Chaldea.80
Prior to his discussion of Abraham, Philo had talked about repentance (Virt. 175-
186).81 Yet, it is hard to find anywhere in Virt. 187-227 where such repentance is
connected with Abraham.82 Indeed, it is interesting to observe that the only Philonic
passages where the terms, 'ejpistrevfw', 'metabavllw', or 'metabolhv'83 are applied to
discussion in: Williamson, Philo, pp. 201-207.

80 Interestingly, in Abr. 60-61, Philo appears to present Abraham from the beginning as being "filled with
zeal (zhlwthvV) for piety (eujsevbeia), the highest and greatest of virtues (ajrethv), was eager (spoudavzw)
to follow God and to be obedient (katapeiqhvV) to His commands (prostavssw)", and one should
understand all of the illustrations from Abraham's life which follow in that treatise as proofs (ajpovdeixiV)
of his piety (eujsevbeia).
81 The reader should be aware that Philo's discussion of the virtue of repentance may not have originally
been attached to his discussion of the virtue of nobility (of birth). The manuscript evidence is,
unfortunately, somewhat chaotic. See, for example, the discussion in: James Ronald Royse, 'The Text of
Philo's De Virtutibus', SPhA, Vol. 18, (2006), pp. 77-81. As such, Donaldson's assurance that "The final
section of On the Virtues (187-227), in which Philo deals with nobility of birth, is tightly connected to
the preceding discussion of repentance (175-186)" is surprisingly confident. Terence L. Donaldson,
Judaism And The Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (To 135 CE), Waco, Baylor University
Press, 2007, p. 335.
82 QE. 1:15 suggests that, for Philo, repentance involves a bitterness towards one's former life,
accompanied by “weeping, sighing, and groaning” (cited also by: David Winston, 'Judaism And
Hellenism: Hidden Tensions In Philo's Thought', SPhA, Vol. 2, (1990), p. 5). It is hard to see where this
applies to Abraham in De Virtutibus. Moreover, for Philo, it is Enoch who is the great example of
repentance (e.g., Praem. 15-21). Moses' command for all men to repent and obey the Law might not
apply to Abraham; not only because he lived before the time of Moses but, more pointedly, because he
was himself a living Law. So, Lee: "Philo depicted Abraham as an "incarnated law" (novmoV e[myucoV)
or "a law and an unwritten statute" (novmoV kai; qesmo;V a[grafoV) rather than "one who obeyed the law"
(novmimoV)." Sang Meyng Lee, The Cosmic Drama of Salvation: A Study of Paul's Undisputed Writings
From Anthropological And Cosmological Perspectives, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2010, p. 215.
Similarly, Sandmel suggests that to follow the Law of Moses is to follow Abraham's example but not as
Abraham himself did. The Law is the second way to emulate Abraham, for those who lack his innate
endowments, particularly orthos logos. Sandmel, 'Philo Judaeus: An Introduction', p. 20.
83 These terms are suggested by Sterling as key terms to describe conversion in Philo: Gregory E.
Sterling, 'Turning To God: Conversion In Greek-Speaking Judaism And Early Christianity', in P. Gray
and G. R. O'Day (eds.), Scripture And Traditions: Essays On Early Judaism And Christianity In Honor
of Carl R. Holladay, NovTSup, Leiden, Brill, 2008, pp. 69-95. We did not find any examples of
'metanoevw' or 'metavnoia' being applied to Abraham.
Abraham are the name-change passages. Thus, for example, Abr. 81 speaks of the
patriarch's name-change as "th;n metabolhvn". As we saw above, these passages do not
describe the patriarch's repenting of astral worship.84 Rather, in those passages, an
incremental, if discrete, developmental step in the patriarch's enlightenment is marked by
re-naming: the terminology of change describes the shift.85
That Abraham is not presented as a convert in De Virtutibus is also not surprising,
in light of the view propounded in Abr. 26. In this passage, Philo states that, "we must not
forget that repentance holds the second place to perfection". In context, Philo is
suggesting that Enoch the penitent belonged only to the second rank of patriarchs,
whereas Noah the perfect belonged to the highest order (Abr. 27, 31). Philo clearly sees
Abraham as superior to Noah (e.g. Abr. 36-38; Post. 173-174). While Noah was
considered 'perfect', he was only perfect in a relative sense: in comparison to his
generation. Abraham, by comparison, was perfect in an absolute sense, "because [he]
possessed a happily-gifted nature and kept it unperverted, [and] did not have to shun evil
courses or indeed come into contact with them at all, but attained pre-eminence in
practicing that excellence of words and deeds with which [he] adorned [his life]." (Abr.
37).86 As such, we should be surprised if Philo had consigned Abraham to the second
rank where those who have need of repentance belong.
When we come to look at De Abrahamo (more directly), and De Migratione
84 Böhm writes: "Nachdem sich Abraham von der Sternenkunde weggewandt hat, kann ihm auch Gott
erscheinen. Philo verbindet in Abr 77-84 durch Paraphrase diesen Vorgang mit der Änderung des
Namens und damit Gen 12 und Gen 17 so, als gehörten sie unmittelbar zusammen." Martina Böhm,
Rezeption und Funktion der Vätererzählungen bei Philo von Alexandrien: zum Zusammenhang von
Kontext, Hermeneutik und Exegese im frühen Judentum, BZNW, Vol. 128, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2005, p.
299. Should we accept this reading, we still must decide what was the character of Abraham's
migration. We have argued that it was not a conversion experience.
85 Borgen suggests that Philo's De Abrahamo is an edifying panegyric biography, in which Philo wishes to
portray Abraham in the best possible light. To this end, "It omits things which might darken the
outstanding character of Abraham (Sara and Hagar, Gen 16 and 21; Abimelech, Gen 20 and 21:22-33)."
Peder Borgen, Philo, John, And Paul: New Perspectives On Judaism And Early Christianity, BJS, 131,
Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1987, p. 24.
86 The passage describes Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the same way. On Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
being more holy (o{sioV) than Enosh, Enoch, and Noah, cf. Praem. 24.
Abrahami, in relation to this issue, a similar pattern is discernable. Abraham is presented
as being taught the Chaldean(/Stoic) view of God, which is labelled 'ungodly' (Migr.
179). Yet, Philo emphasises that the patriarch showed no loyalty to this Weltanschauung,
and that he quickly and eagerly left his 'homeland' (Abr. 62-67). This is understandable in
light of Philo's claim that Canaan (symbolic of wisdom and piety) was Abraham's true
home (not Chaldea), which he can be said to have returned home from rather than
migrated to (Abr. 62).87 Indeed, he left in spirit before leaving in body (Abr. 66). And
Philo can later say that Abraham trusted practically from birth, as it were, that nothing
was impossible with God (Abr. 112).88 It does not seem, then, that Abraham was tainted
by the ungodliness of his homeland.89
Abraham is pictured as possessing godliness and virtue all his life. Along with
Isaac, and Jacob, he possessed such a level of perfection that God chose, on the basis of
the excessive virtue of his life, to give him a share in the divine appelation (Abr. 50). He
is a 'sage', and the great 'elder', the leading citizen of mankind, one who kept the Law
exhaustively (Abr. 270-276) and, in fact, was a Law unto himself (Abr. 5).90 Abraham
never stepped off the path of virtue (cf. Migr. 125-132; 149-150; 175), exhibiting piety
(eujsevbeia), and faith (pivstiV), and so drawing near to God, keeping the whole Law,
exhibiting perfection, and being an example and blessing for the whole world (Migr.
109), which would receive blessing through this virtuous (dia; to;n ajstei:on) man (Migr.
87 Similarly, Conf. 76-80 depicts heaven as Abraham's true home, where he returned following death, after
being a colonist and soujourner among earthly men. For the mind/body dualism here, cf., for e.g.,
Phaed. 64a-67b.
88 Cf. Abr. 256, where he is seen as trusting in reason as a counselor his whole life long; he was truly a
self-taught sage worthy (if the 'path of desire is to be followed') of emulation after the Platonic
conception. On this, see: Najman Hindy, 'The Quest For Perfection In Ancient Judaism', Past
Renewals: Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation And The Quest For Perfection In Jewish
Antiquity, JSJSup, Leiden, Brill, 2010, pp. 219-228.
89 Pace, for e.g., de Boissy, who speaks of "l'opinion Chaldéenne, dont Abraham avoit été infecté." Louis
Michel De Boissy, Dissertations Critiques Pour Servir d'Éclaircissements à l'Histoire Des Juifs, Avant
Et Depuis Jésus-Christ, Et De Supplément à l'Histoire De M. Basnage, 2 Vols., Vol. 1, Paris, Lagrange,
1785, p. 34. Surely the Chaldeans were in error. But Boissy does not demonstrate Abraham's infection.
90 Reggiani comments as follows on the introduction to De Abrahamo: “Filone definisce fino dall'inizio i
tre patriarchi «leggi viventi e raziocinio» (e[myucoi kai; logikoi; novmoi) in quanto vissuti in modo
perfetto, adeguandosi alle leggi di natura, prima della rivelazione del Sinai.” Reggiani, 'La Simbologia
Di Abramo In Filone Di Alessandria', p. 26.
118).
The likeliest explanation for Philo's omission of certain episodes in Abraham's life
– such as his requiring Sarah to lie about their marital status – is that he desired to present
the patriarch in as morally pristine a perspective as was possible.91 In light of these
emphases in Philo's depiction of Abraham, we would suggest that Philo does not
condemn the patriarch's Chaldean childhood and 'long sleep' (Abr. 70) as an instance of
ungodliness. Rather than desiring to present Abraham as a convert from ungodliness,
Philo delineates Abraham's character in such a manner as to make him into an ideal
Hellenistic hero.92
Finally, it may seem strange in view of Philo's apparent adherence to universal
sinfulness that Abraham can be spoken of as never having needed to repent (Abr. 36-
38).93 Yet, it is at least an open question whether Philo reserves all perfection for God
91 To take another example, in his study of De Gigantibus, Loren Stuckenbruck suggests that Philo
deliberately distances Abraham from the corrupt giants in order to avoid any suggestion that he shared
in their ajsebeiva. Loren Stückenbruck, 'To What Extent Did Philo's Treatment of Enoch And The Giants
Presuppose A Knowledge of The Enochic And Other Sources Preserved In The Dead Sea Scrolls',
SPhA, Vol. 19, (2007), p. 137.
92 This is evident in both De Virtutibus and De Abrahamo. So, for e.g., Kooten finds that Philo pictures
Abraham as a Jewish Plato: Van Kooten, 'Seth's Descendants And Abraham As Astronomers', pp. 292-
316. See also: Wilson's note on Virt. 217: Wilson, On Virtues, p. 408; Sandmel, Philo's Place In
Judaism, pp. 106-107. Cf. Louis H. Feldman, Josephus's Interpretation of The Bible, HCS, Vol. 27,
Berkeley, University of California Press, 1998, pp. 223ff. Böhm suggests of De Virtutibus that, “Sie war
für potentielle Proselyten gedacht, die sich mit den Grundlagen und Grenzen der angestrebten
Glaubensgemeinschaft befassten und die ihr Selbstverständnis innerhalb dieser Gemeinschaft
definieren mussten.” Böhm, Rezeption und Funktion der Vätererzählungen bei Philo, p. 203. If this is
correct, then it makes sense that Philo would present Abraham in the Hellenistic mould of a great
national ancestor. Similarly, Goodenough: "In presenting the life of Abraham for gentiles Philo uses all
the closing incidents of Abraham's career to show how [he manifested] the four Greek virtues, justice,
courage, self-control, and wisdom." Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, An Introduction To Philo Judaeus,
2nd ed. Edn., Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1962, p. 152.
93 While it is true that Philo does not believe that all sinned in Adam, it is yet also true that Philo suggests
on at least one occasion that there is none who is sinless (Mos. 2:147) for sin is congenital, and
elsewhere that he speaks of Man's propensity to evil (e.g. Mos. 1:184; Conf. 75). (On this, see further:
David M. Hay, 'Philo of Alexandria', in D. A. Carson, P. T. O'Brien, and M. A. Seifrid (eds.),
Justification And Variegated Nomism (Vol. 1): The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, WUNT,
Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2001, pp. 376-378.) Yet, in tension with such statements, Philo clearly
believes that "all men are at first neutral, and, before the reason is developed, lie on the border between
virtue and vice [De Praem. et poen. II.]. They thus resemble Adam in his original state of
shamelessness: a state expressly attributed by Philo to the soul of an infant, which has no share in either
virtue or vice [Leg. Alleg. II. 14.], and even to that of a child during the first seven years of its life,
which then has a pure nature comparable to a tabula rasa [Quis rer. div. haer. 59. Cf. De Cong. quaer.
Erud. 15]." Frederick Robert Tennant, The Sources of The Doctrines of The Fall And Original Sin,
Cambridge, CUPress, 2012, p. 140. A possible resolution, in Abraham's case, might be to suggest that
while he committed some unintentional sins, since he did not commit any intentional sins, he was not
ungodly. We see, for example, that Noah's unintentional sins did not engender and condemnation (Mos.
alone.94 Moreover, for all intents and purposes, Abraham is, for Philo, an exception to the
norm. As A. Andrew Das notes, while Abraham (inter alia) is presented as an example of
the ideal to which all should strive (cf. Virt. 219), his perfection is due to an exceptional
gift of grace few receive.95 Those lacking the exceptional giftedness of a Moses or an
Abraham must rely, instead, upon God's granting of forgiveness to the penitent.
In short, it is unlikely that Philo saw Abraham as ungodly. On the contrary, Philo's
hagiography of Abraham is almost unbounded. As Maren Niehoff summarises, "Philo
allowed for some development of Abraham's character (Abr. 70, 77, 82-4, 88), but
insisted that he never sinned and instead moved from lower degrees of virtue to higher
ones."96 As such, we can say that Philo viewed Abraham as a perfect paragon of virtue;
particularly of the queen of the virtues, godliness. Nevertheless, given the very
widespread use of Virt. 219 as a proof-text demonstrating that Abraham was to Philo a
prototypical proselyte, we will now discuss that text in its context.
3.3.2.1 De Virtutibus 219

In De Virtutibus, some would argue, Philo presents Abraham as a Gentile, and a
polytheist. Finny Philip, for example, points to Virt. 212-214 as evidence for this.97 He
2:59). Similarly, at Migr. 225, Philo closes with the contention that, "what is done by a person who does
wrong unintentionally, the wrong is not really his action.” We might see Abr. 6 as evidence for
Abraham's unintentional sin. Yet, we would argue with Maren Niehoff that Abr. 6 does not apply to
Abraham so much as the earlier figures from Genesis. It is probably best to simply speak of Abraham as
an exception to the wide-spread sinfulness of the human race.
94 Hindy, 'The Quest For Perfection', p. 223.
95 A. Andrew Das, Paul, The Law, And The Covenant, Grand Rapids, Hendrickson, 2001, pp. 23-31.
96 Maren R. Niehoff, Jewish Exegesis And Homeric Scholarship In Alexandria, Cambridge, CUPress,
2011, p. 99.
97 Philo does use the phrases 'oi} tou;V ajstevraV qeou;V nomivzousi', at Virt. 212, and 'th:V poluqevou
dovxhV', at Virt. 214. However, that he is characterising the Chaldeans here, as elsewhere, as Stoic
monotheistic pantheists seems clear enough from the context. As such, we should not think that he is
ascribing either statue-worship or polytheism traditionally conceived to Terah or the Chaldeans. Having
said that, the use of such plurals is somewhat anomalous. Wilson labels the Chaldeans here as "proto-
Stoics": Wilson, On Virtues, p. 405. But it is hard to know what this would mean for Philo. Moreover,
in light of the common Stoic tendency to use the singular and plural god/gods interchangably, and to
refer to the stars as 'gods', the plurals are not proof positive that Philo has polytheism in mind. In this
connection, it should be noted that Philo does not condemn either Aristotelian, Stoic, or Platonic theism
outright, but only polytheism, such as that of the Epicureans. Thus, Harry Austryn Wolfson, Philo:
Foundations of Religious Philosophy In Judaism, Christianity, And Islam, 2 Vols., Vol. 1, Cambridge,
Harvard University Press, 1962, pp. 177-179. One example of this is seen at Congr. 45ff., where Nahor
also suggests that Virt. 219 gives evidence that Abraham worshipped 'stones and stocks'.98
However, the context of Virt. 212-214, as we have seen, is a discussion by Philo about
nobleness of birth (eujgevneia) in which he stresses that children of noble parents need not
be noble and, contrawise, that children of ignoble parents may (yet) prove to be
themselves noble in character. Indeed, Abraham is one of Philo's explicit examples of this
second possibility. While his "ancestors were men of guilt", his own life was "worthy of
emulation and full of good report" (Virt. 211). A close reading of the text, therefore,
argues against the idea that Abraham was tainted by his father's error (Virt. 226-227).
What of Virt. 219, then? Philo says here of Abraham that, "ou|toV a{pasin
ejphluvtaiV eujgeneivaV ejsti; kanwvn" (Virt. 219). This has been very widely interpreted to
mean that Abraham was the prototypical proselyte from paganism to truth (Judaism).99
Supporting such a view are the twin observations that: (a) "Philo frequently uses similar
terms to describe Abraham's migration from Chaldea and the proselyte's "migration."";100
and that (b) Philo elsewhere describes Abraham as ejphluvthV or ejphvlutoV (i.e. Somn.
1:160; Mos. 1:7).101
The term "ejphluvtaiV" itself is not a terminus technicus for proselytes.102 It refers
to someone who travels from one place to another: thus a "stranger", "foreigner", or
"immigrant", as opposed to "(native born) citizen". Nevertheless, Philo can adopt such
is compared with Abraham, yet not condemned outright; merely assigned the 'second prize' (Congr. 51).
Philo makes a distinction of degrees between statue worship and worship of the celestial elements.
Statue worship is clearly worse (Decal. 65). Similarly, Stoic pantheistic monotheism is above worship
of the heavenly bodies.
98 Finny Philip, The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology, WUNT 2. Reihe, 194, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck,
2005, p. 115.
99 Myriad examples could be given from the scholarly literature. We mention just one: Philonenko, in his
Joseph Et Aséneth, writes, citing Virt. 212-219, that "Si Abraham est pour Philon le modèle des
prosélytes, Aséneth l'est pour l'auteur de notre roman." Marc Philonenko, Joseph Et Aséneth:
Introduction, Texte Critique, Traduction, Et Notes, StPB, 13, Leiden, Brill, 1968, p. 55 (emphasis
added).
100 Ellen Birnbaum, The Place of Judaism In Philo's Thought: Israel, Jews, And Proselytes, BJS, 290
101 Birnbaum, The Place of Judaism In Philo's Thought, p. 201.
102 For the classical usage, see: Liddell, Scott, and Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon: With A Revised
Supplement, p. 620.
language of migration to picture the process of conversion to Judaism. 103 The men of Virt.
219, and the women of Virt. 220, are migrants to the Mosaic 'colony' (ajpoikiva), and
'commonwealth' (politeiva), which is the best of all commonwealths (Virt. 175; cf. Spec.
1:51; 3:167). These migrants are proselytes who come over from politei:ai marked,
above all, by their ascription of divine honours to “stocks and stones” (Virt. 219). It
would seem, then, that just as the migration of these individuals was an act of conversion
to Judaism from statue-worship so, too, Abraham, in his migration, must have been a
proselyte of a similar kind so as to be a 'canon' for proselytes.104
Several factors argue against our adoption of this interpretation, however. Firstly,
it is significant that Abraham is nowhere portrayed by Philo as worshiping stocks or
stones.105 As such, the text fights against drawing a one-to-one correspondence between
Abraham and the proselytes to whom he is set up as a 'kanwvn'. We should not, that is to
say, suggest that this text tells us that Abraham was a proselyte from stocks and stones
simply because he is set up as a 'canon' for those who were.
Secondly, it seems unlikely that Philo would present Abraham as a direct pattern
of proselytism to the Mosaic politeia, since he ante-dates it both chronologically and
logically. If we define proselytism as, amongst other things, “becoming part of a new
community”, it would seem fair to suggest that a precondition for Abraham's being
considered a proselyte is the existence of a community for him to join.106 Yet, Philo
103 See: ejphluvthV (e.g. Mos. 1:7, 147; Spec. 1:52-53; 2:118-119; Virt. 102-103, 182, 219); e[phluV (e.g.
Cher. 121; Praem. 152; Flac. 54); ejphvlutoV (e.g. Cher. 120; Somn. 1:160; Spec. 1:309; 4:176-177; Virt.
104); proshvlutoV (e.g. Cher. 108, 119; Somn. 2:273; Spec. 1:51, 308; QE. 2:2). See also the discussion
in: Birnbaum, The Place of Judaism In Philo's Thought, pp. 195-201.
104 On the term 'canon', see: Liddell, Scott, and Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon: With A Revised
Supplement, p. 875. God is a canon of stability and goodness (Sacr. 59; Post. 28; Gig. 49); Moses is a
canon of good leadership (Virt. 70); reason is a canon for things reasonable (Agr. 130); law-givers
should be the canon of law-observance (Spec. 3:164).
105 In De Virt., Philo makes frequent mention of the fact that proselytes formerly gave honour ('timhv') to
such statues (e.g. Virt. 102, 179, 219, 220). Yet, Abraham is not described as giving such honour to
statues.
106 Birnbaum, The Place of Judaism In Philo's Thought, p. 197. Cf. Niehoff: "Becoming Jewish primarily
meant to become part of a specific Jewish community, or as Philo formulated it, of the Jewish politeia."
Maren R. Niehoff, Philo On Jewish Identity And Culture, TSAJ, 86, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2001, p.
26.
doesn't describe Abraham's migration(s) as ending in the joining of a new community.
Rather, he pictures Abraham as preferring the solitude of his wanderings to community
life (e.g. Abr. 85-87), and, at the same time, but more pertinently, as founding a new
community. Indeed, Philo repeatedly describes Abraham as one of the founders (along
with Isaac and Jacob) of the nation.107 This pictures him more as an innovator than as a
convert.108
Indeed, while much attention has been paid to Moses' role as lawgiver
(nomoqetikovV; nomoqevthV) and, in that sense, as 'founder' of the Jewish politeia, less
attention has been given to the part that the patriarchs might play in establishing the
politeia. They are, after all, the living laws of which the Mosaic Law is a codification
(e.g. Abr. 3). They are also the progenitors of the ethnos; and ajrchgevthV often refers to
the founder of a city.109
Thirdly, while Abraham is described as a 'canon', it should be noted that he is not
described as a canon of conversion but as a canon of nobility.110 'EujgeneivaV' here delimits
the boundaries of Abraham's role as 'kanwvn'.111 The fact that the text's focus is Abraham's
nobility is also supported by the initial phrase “tauvthn th;n eujgevneian” of the following
verse (Virt. 220).112 Abraham's situation is only analogous to that of the proselyte in that
107 Borgen, Philo, John, And Paul: New Perspectives On Judaism And Early Christianity, p. 22, n. 20.
Beyond the references provided by Borgen, see: genavrchV at Her. 279; Somn. 1:167; ajrchgevthV at Mut.
88; Abr. 276; Mos. 1:7, 34; Decal. 1; Spec. 2:3, 217; 4:181; Virt. 206; Praem. 57, 60, 166.
108 Borgen, by contrast, sees Abraham as simultaneously founder and proselyte. Peder Borgen, Philo of
Alexandria: An Exegete For His Time, NovTSup, 86, Leiden, Brill, 1997, pp. 222-223.
109 We do no more here than suggest the possibility that Abraham may play a foundational role in the
establishment of the politeia and, as such, be less likely described as a convert to it. Further
investigation would be needed to validate or disprove this line of thinking. An interesting point of
departure might be the idea espoused in the Republic that the politeia needs not so much good laws as
to be stamped with the pattern of the soul of a good founder or ruler. E.g. Eric Voegelin, The Collected
Works of Eric Voegelin, Vol. 16, Columbia, University of Missouri Press, 2000, p. 141.
110 Similarly, Abraham is the canon of 'learned wisdom' (oJ... th:V didakth:V... sofivaV kanwvn – Mos. 1:76).
111 Contrast this with Ant. 10:49, where the whole of David's life serves as a paradigm (skopw:/ kai;
kanovni) for Josiah.
112 This point is not always made clear in the literature. Choufrine, for example, cites Virt. 219 as a proof-
text, in the form, “the standard (kanwvn)... for all proselytes”. Arkadi Choufrine, Gnosis, Theophany,
Theosis: Studies In Clement of Alexandria's Appropriation of His Background, New York, Peter Lang,
2002, p. 80, n. 7. This may have been legitimately done for emphasis. Nevertheless,the ellipsis
disguises what kind of 'standard' Abraham is, for Philo, and might lead the reader to conclude that Philo
viewed Abraham as a standard of conversion.
neither received an hereditary nobility (the subject of the section). 113 As such, Abraham
provides a pattern for non-native citizens of the Mosaic politeia in-so-far as they should
imitate his nobility, which was both non-hereditary but also almost mythical in
proportion.114
Fourthly, while there is a further analogy between Abraham and the proselyte in
that both undergo a migration, their respective migrations are different in kind. The
migration of the proselyte is at the metaphorical level. The migration of Abraham,
meanwhile, works on multiple levels. On the literal/historical level, Abraham, the
founder of the nation, was an alien settler (ejphluvthV) in Canaan (Mos. 1:7). At the
allegorical level, Abraham's migration is one of learning. As such, by comparison to the
autodidact Isaac, Abraham is an alien and emigrant (metanavsth/ kai; ejphluvtw/) in the
land (Somn. 1:160). Yet, as we have attempted to demonstrate above, the character of his
learning process appears more as a transition from innocence to knowledge than from
irreligion (particularly physical idolatry) to sound worship.115 As such, both Abraham and
the proselyte are described as ejphluvthV, but for different reasons. There are certainly
similarities between Abraham's migration and that of the proselyte. However, it is not
apparent that we need equate them, particularly when Abraham's migration does not
appear to contain either former statue-worship or repentance.116

113 Note the mention of the proselytes' dusgevneia at Virt. 219.
114 Philo describes Abraham's nobility in Virt. 216-218.
115 This interpretation would align Philo with the majority view in Second Temple times that Abraham was
not in need of repentance. So, for example, in the Prayer of Manasseh, we read: "you, O' Lord, God of
the righteous, have not appointed repentance for the righteous, for Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, who
did not sin against you, but you have appointed repentance for me, who am a sinner." (Pr. Man. 8)
116 Commenting on Virt. 219, Wilson states the following: “In abandoning both the idolatry and the
associations of his youth, Abraham becomes a prototype for future proselytes... many of [Abraham's]
accomplishments mirror those of a convert to Judaism. Most important, he “amends” his way of life
(Nob. 214; cf. Paen. 183), learns the truth (Nob. 214; cf. Hum. 102), begins to worship the One God
(Nob. 213-214; cf. Hum. 102), the Existent (Nob. 215; cf. Paen. 185), and Father (Nob. 214, 218; cf.
Paen. 179), and thus travels “to a fine new home” and polity (Nob. 219; cf. Hum. 102; Paen. 175,
180).” Wilson, On Virtues, pp. 409-410. Wilson is correct that both the migration of Abraham and the
migration of the proselyte are towards the truth that God is the one, existent, father of all (Virt. 102,
179, 185, cf. 213-218). This level of similarity between Abraham’s migration and that of the proselyte
makes him a suitable example of uninherited nobilty for the proselyte (Virt. 219). However, this
similarity should not blind us to the differences between the two. As we have said, Abraham is not
described as repenting – the hallmark of the proselyte (e.g. Virt. 183). Wilson makes a comparison
Longenecker has written: “the Jews of Early Judaism looked to Abraham as the
model Jew and forefather of Jewish society, claiming for him what they considered to be
essential to their own self-identity.”117 If this statement is true for Philo's use of Abraham,
then on the Abraham-as-protoypical-proselyte view, we must understand that Philo saw
conversion to Judaism from paganism as essential to Jewish self-identity. However, even
after taking into account Philo's apparent openness to pagan proselytism to Judaism, it
does not seem likely that Philo's ideal Jew would be a former ungodly pagan. Assumed in
all of this, of course, is that Abraham could not have been born a Jew, in Philo's opinion;
or that he could not have been born righteous, in any event. It is, perhaps, to be assumed
that Abraham was born a Gentile, because he did not have Jewish parents.
But as the first Jew could not Abraham's have been a special case? An implication
of Virt. 212 may be that Abraham was born ethnically Hebrew. 118 In any event, Philo is
not entirely clear on where the Jew-Gentile boundary is to be drawn. Thus, the question
between Virt. 183 and 214 apparently on the basis of the shared lexical item meqarmovzw. He notes that
Abraham “amends” (meqarmovzw) his life, equating this with proselyte repentance. The two are not
exactly alike, however, for we cannot think that, for Philo, Abraham stood in need of repentance.
Moreover, while repentance certainly involves meqarmovzw, meqarmovzw does not necessary involve
repentance (e.g. Virt. 224). Another significant difference between 183 and 214 is that which is left
behind. Abraham does not leave behind stocks and stones, as the other proselytes in De Virtutibus do
(e.g. Virt. 102, 220-221). Neither is Abraham said to have departed from religious ‘fables’, which are
often associated with physical idolatry (e.g. Post. 165; Decal. 76; Spec. 1:56; Virt. 102, cf. 178; Legat.
77). As such, while there is some similarity between Abraham's actions at 214 and those of the
proselyte at 183, they are not indistinguishable. Finally, Wilson seeks to show that just like the
description of the proselyte (at Virt. 102, 175, 180) Abraham “travels “to a fine new home” and polity”.
Yet, his evidence for this is (at Virt. 219) the clause associated with the plural participle steilamevnoiV
whose subject is evidently ejphluvtaiV and not ou|toV; a clause which speaks about the migration of the
proselyte and not Abraham. Moreover, where the term ajpoikiva is applied to Abraham, it corresponds to
earth in general (e.g. Conf. 77-78; as opposed to Abraham's true heavenly home), or to/from Haran (e.g.
Migr. 176; Abr. 66-68, 72, 77, 85; merely a way-station), and does not directly correspond with the
Mosaic politeia. Having said this, the politeiai to which Abraham assimilates himself at Gig. 61 and
Abr. 61 are akin to the Mosaic politeia inasmuch as it is conformed to the law of nature and the
commonwealth of ideas.
117 Bruce W. Longenecker, Eschatology And The Covenant: A Comparison of 4 Ezra And Romans 1-11, Ph.
D. dissertation, Durham University, Durham, 1990, p. 202.
118 Philo's thought in Virt. 211 is that even those with bad parents may be themselves good. Albeit without
any discernible introduction, Virt. 212 seems to be offered as an example. Philo writes: "tou: tw:n
=Ioudaivwn e[qnouV oJ presbuvtatoV gevnoV me;n h\n Caldai:oV, patro;V de;..." The 'me;n...de;' construction
here is, perhaps, instructive. It were as though Philo were making a distinction between Abraham and
his father. Part of the distinction seems to be that Abraham, being the first Jew, belonged to a different
ethnos from his father: On the one hand, the eldest man of the ethnos of the Jews was born a Hebrew.
His father, on the other hand, was something else. That 'Caldai:oV' here should be read as 'Hebrew' and
not 'Chaldean' is debatable, but is suggested by the parallel with Mos. 1:5, where we read that,
"Mwush:V gevnoV mevn ejsti Caldai:oV".
how Abraham became Jewish is not easily answered. Moreover, that Abraham was born
righteous is a serious possibility, for Abraham was connected to the root of righteous
Noah (Migr. 125), and his education (“=Abraa;m a[rcetai paideuvesqai”) began at the
very zenith of Noah's accomplishments (Post. 174).
Finally, though it is difficult to say, it may be legitimate to compare the
presentation of Abraham in De Virtutibus with that of Pseudo-Eupolemus, as recorded by
Eusebius in Praep. Ev. 9:17.119 As Eusebius has preserved it, Abraham was one excelling
all in eujgevneia and sofiva; he discovered astronomy and found favour with God through
eujsevbeia.120 The similarities with the portrayal of Abraham in De Virtutibus here are
clear. Interestingly, however, no mention is made of either Abraham's repentance or
conversion.121 While significant interpretative problems accompany this passage in
Eusebius (such as authorship, time of composition, provenance, &c.), such a silence is
potentially instructive.
3.3.3 Abraham As The First Monotheist
A third common interpretation of Philo's presentation of Abraham is that he was the first
monotheist. As Martínez puts it, "he invents monotheism".122 Calvert-Koyzis shares this
common understanding.123 There are two main texts which are taken to indicate that
Abraham was the first monotheist: viz. Praem. 27 and Virt. 216.
119 See further: Ben Zion Wacholder, 'Pseudo-Eupolemus' Two Greek Fragments On The Life of Abraham',
HUCA, Vol. 34, (1963), pp. 83-113.
120 Cf. Artapanus' description of Abraham where, according to Eusebius, Abraham's astronomy is laudatory
(Praep. Ev. 9:18). Karl Mras (ed.), Eusebius Werke: Achter Band, Die Praeparatio Evangelica, Erster
Teil, Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1982, pp. 504ff. Wacholder notes that, “The phrase eujaresth:sai tw:/
qew:,/ well-pleasing to God, is the usual LXX rendition of ‫התהלך את האלהים‬, describing the piety of
Enoch, Noah and Abraham.” Wacholder, 'Pseudo-Eupolemus' Two Greek Fragments On The Life of
Abraham', p. 102.
121 +Abraa;m genea:/, eujgeneiva/ kai; sofiva/ pavntaV uJperbebhkovta, o}n dh; kai; th;n ajstrologivan kai;
Caldai&kh;n euJrei:n ejpiv te th;n eujsevbeian oJrmhvsanta eujaresth:sai tw:/ qew:/. Mras (ed.), Eusebius
Werke: Achter Band, Die Praeparatio Evangelica, Erster Teil, pp. 502ff.
122 Florentino García Martínez, Between Philology And Theology: Contributions To The Study of Ancient
Jewish Interpretation, eds H. Najman and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, JSJSup, 162, Leiden, Brill, 2013, p. 12.
3.3.3.1 De Praemiis Et Poenis

At Praem. 27, Abraham is described as passing from 'vanity' to truth. In light of Praem.
24-26, the 'vanity' (tu:foV) which Abraham abandoned seems to be a general reference to
“all that the multitudes admire”.124 Abraham is delivered from this vanity by truth, which
drives out all of the misapprehensions common to man. God is active in this defeat of
vanity by truth, but as we saw earlier, Abraham's encyclical studies are also integral to it
(e.g. 26-27). In Praem 27, Calvert-Koyzis sees Philo describing Abraham as the first
monotheist. Yet, in calling Abraham oJ prw:toV ejk tuvfou meqormisavmenoV pro;V
ajlhvqeian, Philo is likely only numbering him as the first of the holier 'trinity' mentioned
in verse 24: viz. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Just as the me;n... de; contrast at 27 establishes
Isaac as the second, and Jacob, listed after these, is later overtly described as the third
(trivtoV) of this series (Praem. 36). This interpretation is supported by the almost
identical phrase found at Praem. 58: oJ me;n ou\n prw:toV pro;V ajlhvqeian ejk tuvfou
metaqevmenoV kai; th:V ejn toi:V maqhvmasi Caldai&kh:V terqreivaV uJperidw;n e{neka
teleiotevraV o[yewV.... The context of this phrase is a discussion of the founders of the
nation (Praem. 57). De Praem., then, may not provide any direct statement on Philo's
part that Abraham was the first person ever to 'invent' monotheism. It may be that Philo
viewed certain of the primeval patriarchs as also monotheists.
3.3.3.2 De Virtutibus
At Virt. 216, we read this: "And, therefore, he is the first person spoken of as believing in
God, since he first grasped a firm and unswerving conception of the truth that there is one
Cause above all, and that it provides for the world and all that there is therein."
Immediately preceding this verse, we are told that Abraham was an ardent seeker after
knowledge of God and his providence (th:V uJpavrxewV aujtou: kai; pronoivaV). It would
124 Wilson, On Virtues, p. 111.

seem clear that, in this verse, Philo presents Abraham as the first monotheist upon the
earth. This is how the verse is cited by Calvert-Koyzis, who suggests that Philo here,
picking up on Genesis 15:6, indicates that Abraham is “the first one to believe in God”.125
While this interpretation is not necessarily erroneous, a few qualifications must be
made. In the first place, it is possible that “levgetai... prw:toV” is a statement of common
knowledge, indicating that Abraham was generally regarded as the first to believe in God.
It seems more likely, however, that Philo is referring to the fact that Genesis 15:6 is the
first place in the LXX where pisteuvw is used in description of a person's attitude towards
God.126 If this be the case, then Philo may not be denying altogether that other figures in
Genesis before Abraham were monotheists so much as drawing from his observation of
the use of pisteuvw the exegetical conclusion that Abraham's belief must have been
especially noteworthy.127 Perhaps, Abraham's 'first' was to be the first to unswervingly
understand that God is the one Cause, providential over all the universe and everything in
it. A similar emphasis on Abraham's arrival at a fully fledged and unswerving conception
of divine things is found in Migr. 148-175. As for evidence that others before Abraham
had been monotheists, we may point to Philo's description of Noah opening the eye of the
soul to see God at QG. 2:34, as well as other passages which appear to assume Noah's
knowledge of God as one over all (e.g. Deus. 106-107; Virt. 201). The distinction
between Noah and Abraham, of course, is that Noah did not achieve the kind of
perfection achieved by Abraham (e.g. Agr. 125).128

126 Cf. the following statement from Calvert-Koyzis: “Abraham is the first one to be spoken of in the LXX
and the Hebrew Bible as believing in God.” Nancy Calvert-Koyzis, 'Abraham: New Testament', in D.
G. Reid (ed.), The IVP Dictionary of The New Testament, Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 2004, p. 7.
127 One might point to the comparable exegetical manoeuvre in Cher. 40. In that passage, Philo notes that
while Adam is described as “knowing” his wife, the idiom is not applied to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
Moses, or others. It is apparent that Philo could make much of small details such as these and interpret
them in various ways. In the case of Cher. 40, the allegorical interpretation is that Moses and the
patriarchs rejected sense perception. Even more applicable, however, is comparison with Abr. 270-274.
In that passage, Philo picks up on the fact that the first occurrence of 'presbuvteroV' in the LXX is
applied to Abraham. Yet, Philo does not draw the conclusion that Abraham was chronologically the first
'elder'. Instead, he concludes that Abraham was particularly worthy of the epithet.
128 Geljon and Runia, On Cultivation, p. 15.
We may say, then, that while there is some indication that Abraham was a
particularly important example of monotheism for Philo, he is not to be seen as
absolutely the first monotheist. It is, therefore, misleading to speak of Abraham as the
'inventor' of monotheism.
3.3.4 Placing Philo's Abraham In Jubilees' Nachleben
A final aspect of the interpretation of Philo's presentation which we are querying is that it
is essentially the same as that of Jubilees. The two, so it is argued, contain the same
tradition. Calvert-Koyzis implies that Philo adopted the same tradition as is found in
Jubilees from oral tradition.129 Nickelsburg states that, “the pattern in Philo's
interpretation can clearly be overlaid with the narrative pattern in the older story about
Abraham in Jubilees 11-12.”130 Nickelsburg supplies several parallels in the hope of
establishing that Philo followed in the footsteps of Jubilees. Representatively, Geza
Vermes also sees Philo as standing – directly or indirectly – in the Nachleben of Jubilees.
Vermes offers several parallels between the two works to substantiate his claim. Because
Vermes' proposed parallels are stronger than those of Nickelsburg, we examine them
here, instead of Nickelsburg, although the same analysis could be applied to
Nickelsburg's work.
3.3.4.1 Parallels Between Jubilees And Philo

Two essays in Geza Vermes' seminal monograph Scripture And Tradition In Judaism
revolve around discussion of Abraham.131 In these essays, Vermes is concerned to bring
together diverse texts which provide haggadic elaboration on the life of Abraham and to
present them as standing in one evolutionary line of traditional borrowing and
reformulation. Vermes cites Renée Bloch's summary of procedure as his guide: to wit,
129 Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, pp. 24, 60.
130 Nickelsburg, 'Abraham The Convert', p. 162.
131 Vermes, Scripture And Tradition, pp. 67-95, 96-126.
that,
Le problème est donc de déterminer, par un travail attentif de critique historique et surtout
littéraire, et par une étude comparative, le cheminement et l'ancienneté respective des
traditions, la formation, la situation historique et l'interdépendance des écrits rabbiniques.132
Vermes' work is of great value in many respects. There are problems, however,
with his view of l'interdépendance of certain texts. This is particulary pronounced in the
first essay. Vermes' teleological focus (towards the probably sixteenth-century work,
Sefer ha-Yashar), and the tendency of his comparative midrash methodology to consider
texts as standing in dependent relationship to one-another based on relatively vague
similarities, lead him to conflate Philo's view of Abraham with that of Jubilees.
We wish here to argue that Philo does not properly belong to a stream of tradition
flowing from Jubilees. We will argue this by examining each of Vermes' proposed
parallels between Jubilees and Philo or, as he terms them, the "popular" (i.e. Jubilees,
&c.) and "philosophical" (i.e. Josephus, and Philo) "branches" of the Abraham tradition.
The parallels Vermes presents are as follows: (a) that Abraham battled against idolatry;
(b) that he was exposed to danger because of it; (c) and that he was alone in this fight.133
3.3.4.1.a
Vermes brings Philo and Jubilees together in their presentations of Abraham by arguing
that they both picture Abraham as fighting against idolatry. To this end, he defines
idolatry broadly, so that both Jubilees' polemic against idol statues, and Philo's rejection
of the Stoic view of God can be construed as analogous pictures of Abraham fighting
against 'idolatry'.134 It is true that both Philo and Jubilees oppose false religion. However,
when the Sitze im Leben and specific details differ, this general similarity hardly
132 Vermes, Scripture And Tradition, pp. 8-9.

134 While often displaying Stoic influence, Philo's "particular fondness" for the Timaeus is demonstrable:
David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria And The "Timaeus" of Plato, Philosophia Antiqua, Vol. 44, Leiden,
Brill, 1986, p. 4. It is also likely that Josephus' God-language in Ant. 1:155 derives ultimately from
Plato. Thus, Flavius Josephus, Judean Antiquities: Books 1-4: Translation And Commentary, ed. S.
Mason, trans. L. H. Feldman, pts. 1-4, Leiden, Brill, 2000, p. 56, n. 500.
demonstrates a common stream of haggadah.
In the first place, it should be noted that the Sitze im Leben are quite different. In
light of the enforced religious-Hellenisation of the time, Jubilees is concerned with the
actual practice of making and worshiping physical idols. The thrust of Jubilees' critique
is that to make images is an unenlightened religious enterprise: the idols are dumb and
immobile blocks. Jubilees also represents idolatry as characteristic of the Gentiles from
whom Israel is to be utterly separate.
Philo's Abraham, by contrast, is born into a radically different Chaldea, where
physical idols do not feature at all.135 This Chaldea represents a different sphere of
philosophical/theological discourse. Greco-Roman philosophers debate there. Philo's
Chaldea, perhaps unsurprisingly, is remarkably similar to a portion of Philo's immediate
real-world situation,136 where philosophical debate about the nature of God would have
been common, and rejection of statuary idolatry could be almost as vehement among
Gentiles as amongst Jews.137 We observe, for instance, the founder of Stoicism,138 Zeno,
in his Politeia, arguing that in an ideal state there would be neither temples nor physical
idols.139 Likewise, Posidonius of Apamea could see the similarity between the
Pentateuchal teaching against idols and the Stoic view.140 He wrote that no one of
understanding would represent God as an animal, a man, or by means of an image. 141

135 Sandmel: "The motif of Abraham in his father's idol shop is totally absent from Philo." Sandmel,
Philo's Place In Judaism, p. 133.
136 On Philo's interaction with such thinkers as Zeno cf. Prob. 53ff., and see, for e.g.: Dawson, Allegorical
Readers, pp. 83-113.
137 Guerra, with reference to the study of Edward Caird, writes: "The Greek philosophers from Plato
onwards had critiqued both the anthropomorphism and polytheism of the popular religious thought and
practice of their time." Anthony J. Guerra, Romans And The Apologetic Tradition: The Purpose, Genre
And Audience of Paul's Letter, SNTSMS, 81, Cambridge, CUPress, 1995, p. 94.
138 Philo was steeped in Stoicism. Thus, Geljon and Runia, On Cultivation, p. 29.
139 Michael Frede, 'The Case For Pagan Monotheism In Greek And Graeco-Roman Antiquity', in S.
Mitchell and P. Van Nuffelen (eds.), One God: Pagan Monotheism In The Roman Empire, Cambridge,
CUPress, 2010, p. 66.
140 Bezalel Bar-Kochva, The Image of The Jews In Greek Literature: The Hellenistic Period, Los Angeles,
University of California Press, 2010, p. 440. We are assuming that Posidonius' view is to be found in
Strabo's Geography 16.2.35-37.
141 Cited by: Martin Hengel, Judaism And Hellenism: Studies In Their Encounter In Palestine During The
Early Hellenistic Period, trans. J. Bowden, 2 Vols., Vol. 1, London, SCM, 1974, p. 258-259. See also:
Victor Tcherikover, 'Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered', Eos, Vol. 48, No. 3, (1956), p. 182.
Other examples could be provided, but these are representative.142 These views not only
agree with the fundamental critique offered by Jubilees but also imply that Jubilees' vivid
narrative of Abraham's rejection of cultic statuary would not have suited Philo's
audience(s)143 or polemical purpose.144 It seems better to understand Philo and Jubilees as
similar insofar as they have a common source (viz. the OT) and common assumptions
about, for e.g., Chaldea, but different insofar as they share no direct relationship of
dependence.
The significant narrative detail present in Jubilees is absent in Philo. Philo does
not present Mastema (i.e. Satan) and his 'angels' as a threatening force, nor do we see
Abraham as an agriculturalist, an arsonist, as agonising over how best to please God, or
as arguing with his kith and kin over the errors of idolatry. On the contrary, that Abraham
leaves without giving a second-thought to his relatives and friends is seen by Philo as a
display of unusual virtue. If Philo knew of something like Jubilees' account of Abraham's
early life in Mesopotamia, he does not repeat any of the evocative details or character-
driven storyline which make up the basic structure of that account.145 Philo's account is
much more cerebral.146 He does not so much fill-out the pre-existing narrative of Genesis
as give an hellenistically inspired allegorical commentary on it.147 As such, had they been
contemporaries, the author of Jubilees may well have viewed Philo with suspicion, as
142 See, for a further example, the discussion of Terentius Varro in: Peter Schäfer, Judeophobia: Attitudes
Towards The Jews In The Ancient World, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1997, pp. 36-37.
143 Philo's Chaldeans are Stoics in disguise. Philo attacked statuary-idolatry often with reference to Num.
23:19. According to Williamson, Philo extends the wording of that verse to speak also of the Heaven(s)
and the material universe, in order to include the Stoics in his castigation. See: Williamson, Philo, p. 83.
Clearly, the Stoics with whom Philo takes umbrage, would not have been sufficiently critiqued by
Philo's attacks against physical idolatry.
144 See, similarly: Guerra, Romans And The Apologetic Tradition, pp. 77ff.
145 Sandmel writes that Philo gives no indication of knowledge of legends about Abraham's youth.
Sandmel, Philo's Place In Judaism, p. 60., n. 222.
146 Thus Sandmel: "Philo tells us no narratives about Abraham". Sandmel, Philo's Place In Judaism, p. 30.
147 Philo's approach is not that of the 're-written Bible' school. Kamesar points out that, “the expansions [to
the biblical record] which we find in the Philonic biographies are often of a rhetorical and moral
character... They are not the extensive 'historical' additions of the type we find in Jubilees, the Liber
antiquitatum biblicarum, or in the Greek works of the minor Jewish Hellenistic historians and
Josephus.” Adam Kamesar, 'Philo, Grammatikē, And The Narrative Aggada', in J. C. Reeves and J.
Kampen (eds.), Pursuing The Text: Studies In Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder On The Occasion of His
Seventieth Birthday, JSOTSup, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 1994, p. 218, n. 9.
one who was not separated from Gentiles as much as he ought to have been.148
Philo and Jubilees take different views on Abraham's astronomy/meteorology as
well. Jubilees downplays Abraham's meteorology. By contrast, Philo makes him a
cosmopolitan, Hellenistic philosopher and man of science. In this way, Philo's approach
is similar to, for e.g., Eupolemus, Artapanus, or Cleodemus Malchus. 149 Thus, Philo and
the author of Jubilees are divided by a fundamentally different approach to Greco-Roman
culture.
3.3.4.1.b
Vermes suggests that Abraham was exposed to danger for his 'conversion'. Such danger is
hinted at in Jubilees. On the other hand, however, while this might be found in Ant.
1:157, Philo stresses (quite to the contrary) that Abraham did not leave because he had
been banished, but of his own accord (e.g. Abr. 64). Rather than a resonance between the
two texts, we find a strong dissonance, at this point.
3.3.4.1.c
Finally, Vermes speaks of Abraham's fight as a solitary one. This is correct. Taken in
isolation from the other 'parallels', however, this is not a very striking parallel,
explainable on the basis of a common Bible (since the Old Testament itself treats
Abraham as a man apart from his family), and common atmosphere in Second Temple
Judaism of Abraham veneration which saw him as an exceptional, even unique figure.
While Philo emphasises the loneliness resulting from Abraham's philosophical paradigm-
shift, Jubilees does not picture Abraham as abandoning his family. While Abraham's
148 Mühling also notes the contrast between Philo's more universal Tendenz and the strongly separatist
Jewish focus of Jubilees. Anke Mühling, "Blickt auf Abraham, euren Vater": Abraham als
Identifikationsfigur des Judentums in der Zeit des Exils und des Zweiten Tempels, FRLANT, Vol. 236,
Göttingen, V&R, 2011, p. 190.
149 Hengel, Judaism And Hellenism, p. 302, et passim. J. H. Charlesworth's earlier suggestion that Jubilees
12 was specifically directed against Jewish astrology, and the astrological outlook of the Treatise of
Shem in particular is questionable, as is Charlesworth's dating for that work. See: R. H. Charles, The
Apocrypha And Pseudepigrapha of The Old Testament In English, 2 Vols., Vol. 1, Oxford, OUPress,
1979, pp. 476-477.
ideas create some division in the family (e.g. Jub. 12:9), and his burning down of the
idol-house leads to the death of his brother (Jub. 12:15), his father does not wholly
disagree with him (Jub. 12:6). Moreover, Abraham continues to live with his family in
Haran for more than a decade, and when he does finally leave for Canaan it is on good
terms (Jub. 12:16, 29-32).
3.3.4.2 Not Totally Dissimilar, But Distinct

When noting the weaknesses of such suggested parallels, it is easy to focus on the
differences between texts and so obscure their similarities. That is not our intention. We
wish only to suggest that Philo wrote independently of any direct (or significant indirect)
influence from Jubilees. However, we do not want to say that Philo and Jubilees are
completely independent of each-other in their portrayals of Abraham. For, the fact that
both deem it necessary to expand upon the biblical record at the same point (i.e.
Abraham's call from Mesopotamia) suggests that they may have at least been motivated
by similar sorts of questions and concerns. There was a shared, and seemingly wide-
spread, impetus to elaborate on the Old Testament patriarchs. More than this, they would
have shared some of what we might call "common knowledge and assumptions" as, for
example, the ubiquitous ancient association between Chaldea and astronomy, which was
something of a cliché.150 Yet, even given that they may have possessed some common
knowledge and assumptions, and may have been responding to similar questions, their
answers to those questions are quite different and display an elaboration of the biblical
material which, beyond the common and cliched, or the possibly coincidental, is
markedly divergent. They are distinct exegeses of Abraham.
It is possible that they shared a common, antecedent tradition which they have
150 See the references in: Wilson, On Virtues, p. 404, but this connection is also observable in Vitruvius
Pollio, The Ten Books, 9.2.1; Cicero, Mur. 11.25. Cf. F. Rochberg-Halton, 'Elements of the Babylonian
Contribution to Hellenistic Astrology', JAOS, Vol. 108, No. 1, (1988), pp. 51-62. Cumont states that
'Chaldean' could have either a positive or a negative connotation: Franz Cumont, Astrology And
Religion Among The Greeks And Romans, New York, G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1912, p. 16-17.
elaborated in different directions. We can only speculate on that point. It seems more
likely, however, that what they shared was a common impetus to use Abraham as an
exemplary figure, while at the same time placing the patriarch into differing moulds. As
with his other biblical heroes, Philo's Abraham is fashioned after an Alexandrian ideal.
The author of Jubilees, by contrast, conforms Abraham to an anti-Hellenistic pattern. To
highlight the similarities between these two is to ignore the fundamental tension between
them.151 In either case, to speak of Jubilees and Philo as two "branches" in the one
tradition is to broaden the boundaries of that 'tradition' so far as to make it amorphous.
Philo's intellectual and exegetical milieu is distinct from that of the author of
Jubilees.152 For example, Gregory Sterling, starting from the presence of differences in
Philo's presentations of the imago dei, proposes that, "we should probably situate Philo's
commentaries among multiple individual efforts to interpret Scripture by means of
philosophy, throughout the history of the Alexandrian Jewish community."153 While it is
not impossible that Philo could also have been influenced by, for example, a Greek
translation of Jubilees,154 it seems more probable that Philo's major influences were
Hellenistic literature and philosophy, and philosophically and/or allegorically oriented

151 In this regard, at least, we would do well to heed Jacob Neusner's critique of Vermes' method, which he
describes as being carried on "without regard to the preferences and distinctive traits and viewpoints of
the document". See: Jacob Neusner, Rabbinic Literature And The New Testament: What We Cannot
Show, We Do Not Know, Valley Forge, Trinity Press, 1994, pp. 47-49.
152 The author of Jubilees does not appear to have been greatly affected by Hellenistic philosophy as Philo
was. Thus, the following idiosyncratic suggestion of Bickerman can be safely rejected: To wit, he writes
that Jubilees "follows a theory of Plato's and Aristotle's ... [whereby] Abraham, like Plato, deduced the
Designer from the Design. It is interesting to note that it was the steady circular movement of the
heavenly bodies that, for Plato, proved it was God who caused this motion. The author of Jubilees,
however, writing for a less sophisticated audience, made rain and its prognostication the source of
Abraham's discovery." Elias Joseph Bickerman, The Jews In The Greek Age, Cambridge, Harvard
University Press, 1988, p. 289.
153 Gregory E. Sterling, 'Different Traditions Or Emphases? The Image of God In Philo's De Opificio
Mundi', in G. A. Anderson, R. A. Clements, and D. Satran (eds.), New Approaches To The Study of
Biblical Interpretation In Judaism of The Second Temple Period And In Early Christianity, STDJ,
Leiden, Brill, 2013, p. 56. For a similar opinion, although helpfully nuanced, with reference to the
literature on the subject, see: David T. Runia, On The Creation of The Cosmos According To Moses:
Introduction, Translation, And Commentary, PACS, Leiden, Brill, 2001, pp. 29-38.
154 Fragments of Jubilees in Greek exist. It may have been translated for the benefit of those in Alexandria,
after the pattern of Ben Sirach. At least one scholar believes that such translation and sharing of
material between Palestine and Alexandria would have been the norm rather than the exception. So
Naomi G. Cohen, Philo's Scriptures: Citations From The Prophets And Writings: Evidence For A
Haftarah Cycle In Second Temple Judaism, JSJSup, Vol. 123, Leiden, Brill, 2007, p. 17 et passim.
readings of the Septuagint.155
Mack has encouraged the view that Philo was the recipient of much traditional
material.156 We would not dispute this possibility, although Mack may overstate the level
of Philo's indebtedness, or our ability to trace-out what in Philo is borrowed material. 157
Yet, even here, the suggestion is essentially limited to Alexandrian exegesis.158 Sandmel's
judgement, that there is little evidence of Philo's use of Palestinian haggadic traditions,
and his speculation that "it is not at all impossible that Philo knew [such] haggadic
anecdotes but disdained using them", may well be correct, and this could extend to
include Jubilees.159 Alternatively, Kamesar may be correct in downplaying direct
knowledge on Philo's part of Palestinian haggadot, and highlighting the manner in which
Philo side-lines the haggadic method of narrative elaboration in his works in preference
for another method.160
Philo's presentation of Abraham can be best explained on the basis of his
immediate milieu and 'sphere of influences'.161 Vermes himself speaks of Philo and
Jubilees as representing two different "branches" in the tradition.162 This betrays an
awareness on his part of the distinct nature of Jubilees' and Philo's work. We would argue
155 Philo is undoubtedly influenced, by Jewish tradition in addition to the Greek heritage. Thus we need not
state things exactly as Völker does, when he writes that, “Philo, der bei aller Abhängigkeit von
jüdischer Tradition, ...doch fast ausschließlich mit Hilfe der griechischen Philosophie sein Abraham-
Bild formte”.Völker, 'Das Abraham-Bild bei Philo, Origenes, und Ambrosius', p. 200. Nevertheless, the
tradition by which he is influenced is predominantly Alexandrian Jewish tradition, or else Palestinian
tradition filtered through an Alexandrian lens.
156 Calvert-Koyzis cites Mack and Hammerton-Kelly to support the notion that Philo was heavily indebted
to Jewish tradition. Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, pp. 23-24.
157 Runia, Philo of Alexandria And The "Timaeus" of Plato, p. 16. Other authors are more circumspect. So,
for instance, Bamberger asserts only that "Philo had a modest knowledge of Palestinian aggadic
tradition". Bernard J. Bamberger, 'Philo And The Aggadah', HUCA, Vol. 48, (1977), p. 185. Grabbe
agrees with this conclusion, yet still questions the majority of Bamberger's suggested parallels. Lester
L. Grabbe, 'Philo And Aggada: A Response To B. J. Bamberger', SPhA, Vol. 3, (1991), pp. 153-156.
158 In contrast, for instance, with Cohen's view of "a joint Palestinian-Diaspora midrashic tradition". Naomi
Goldstein Cohen, Philo Judaeus: His Universe of Discourse, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, 1995, p.
16.
159 Sandmel, Philo's Place In Judaism, p. 133. Likewise, see: David Instone Brewer, Techniques &
Assumptions In Jewish Exegesis Before 70 C. E., TSAJ, Vol. 30, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1992, p.
203ff.
160 See: Kamesar, 'Philo, Grammatikē, And The Narrative Aggada', pp. 216-242.
161 Even within his Jewish-Alexandrian milieu, Runia believes Philo to have been somewhat exceptional,
and his exegesis sui generis. Runia, On The Creation, p. 31.
that the differences are strong enough, and the similarities weak enough, that Philo
should not be considered a 'branch' of an haggadic tradition stemming from Jubilees but,
rather, as a distinct entity.163
We have hoped to demonstrate four things in this chapter. First, that Philo did not view
the young Abraham's astronomy as a sinful practice entirely unhealthy for him. Second,
that Philo did not view the pre-migration Abraham as an ungodly Gentile in need of
repentance and conversion. Third, that Philo is not concerned to present Abraham as the
first monotheist or the inventor of monotheism. Fourth, that Philo's depiction of
Abraham, if not a de novo creation of the author, was, nevertheless, an Alexandrian
creation and not apparently dependent on Jubilees, whether directly or indirectly.
In place of the first conception, we hope to have elaborated the way in which
Philo viewed astronomy as a legitimate stepping stone to higher philosophical
contemplations, and that it was only to be viewed negatively in his eyes, when it was
treated as an end in itself, or when it led to ungodly conclusions.164 In place of the second
conception, we hope to have shown that far from presenting Abraham as an example of
ungodliness and repentance, Philo actually presents Abraham as an ideal exemplar of
godliness. Certainly, Philo treats Abraham's entire career as a journey of ever-greater
discovery of God, but this does not involve a condemnation of the young Abraham. In
place of the third conception, we hope to have demonstrated that Philo does not give any
special significance to Abraham as the inventor of monotheism. In place of the fourth
conception, we have argued that the portrayals of Abraham in Jubilees and Philo,
respectively, do not belong to a common stream of tradition. Rather, it is suggested that
Vermes has emphasised the supposed parallels between these texts, to the exclusion of
the basic differences, creating an appearance of genealogical relationship which is only a
163 On the relationship between Alexandrian and Palestinian Judaism, and the degree to which they shared
a common pool of midrashic traditions, see Appendix I.
164 Cf. QG. 3:1.
chimera.
CHAPTER 4
JOSEPHUS' JEWISH ANTIQUITIES
4.1 Introduction
The present chapter looks at Josephus' Jewish Antiquities. Familiarity with this text may
be assumed. Therefore, we need not introduce it in any significant detail here.1 The
following comments, however, may be of help.
Josephus completed his Antiquities in 93/94AD.2 The place of publication was
Rome. Having spent the first half of his life in Palestine, Josephus was indelibly marked
by his Jewish heritage, and he remained committed, to some degree, to his native
Judaism throughout his life. Nevertheless, the Josephus whom we hear speaking through
his extant writings is a thoroughly Hellenised Jew comparable to Philo of Alexandria.
The audience and purpose of Josephus' Antiquities are subjects of scholarly
disagreement. The present chapter adopts the suggestions of Mason, and Feldman.3
Given Josephus' social position in Rome, his audience was most likely made up of
friends and acquaintances who were as educated and philosophically inclined as he was. 4
1 For an introduction to the work, the reader may refer to, amongst others: Emil Schürer, The History of
The Jewish People In The Age of Jesus Christ, trans. G. Vermes and F. Millar, 3 Vols., Vol. 1,
Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1973, pp. 43-63; Harold W. Attridge, 'Josephus And His Works', in M. E. Stone
(ed.), Jewish Writings of The Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian
Writings, Philo, Josephus, CRINT, Assen, Van Gorcum, 1984b, pp. 185-232; Shaye J. D. Cohen,
Josephus In Galilee And Rome: His Vita And Development As A Historian, CSCT, Vol. 8, Leiden, Brill,
2002.
2 John M. G. Barclay, Against Apion, ed. S. Mason, Flavius Josephus Translation And Commentary, Vol.
10, Leiden, Brill, 2007, p. xxvi.
3 See below, for Mason's view. Feldman suggests a double Jewish-Greek audience, but is clear that
Josephus' primary audience was non-Jewish. Louis H. Feldman, 'Use, Authority And Exegesis of Mikra
In The Writings of Josephus', in M. J. Mulder and H. Sysling (eds.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading
And Interpretation of The Hebrew Bible In Ancient Judaism And Early Christianity, CRINT 2, 1, Assen,
Van Gorcum, 1988, pp. 470-471. It is also clear that Josephus' portrayal of Abraham is aimed at this
non-Jewish audience. Louis H. Feldman, 'Abraham The Greek Philosopher In Josephus', TAPA, Vol. 99,
No. 1, (1968), p. 144.
4 See: Steve Mason, ''Should Any Wish To Enquire Further' (Ant. 1.25): The Aim And Audience of
Josephus's Judean Antiquities/Life', in S. Mason (ed.), Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives,
JSPSup, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 1998. Mason adds that, in Josephus' day, "books were normally
'published' by recitation before more or less sympathetic hearers". Mason, 'Aim And Audience', p. 67.
CHAPTER 4: JOSEPHUS 112
As Mason points out, it is also highly likely that Josephus' audience were (at least
somewhat) familiar with, and sympathetic towards, Judaism. If they had not been, it is
unlikely that they would have been willing to endure so lengthy an apologetic rendition
of Jewish history as is found in the Antiquities. Epaphrodites was one of their number
(Ant. 1:8). Stoics and Epicureans are likely to have been in the majority in this audience.5
Josephus undoubtedly shared much in common with his audience philosophically.
Nevertheless, at several points in the Antiquities, it is evident that Josephus is engaged
with the task of presenting "an alternative philosophical system".6 While it may not have
been his sole purpose, he is concerned that his readers consider Moses' view of God (e.g.
Ant. 1:15). Given such an audience, he would not have needed to argue principally
against popular forms of pagan religion. Indeed, he stresses that Moses' writings do not
present the kinds of vulgar religious fables which educated Romans rejected, or else were
compelled to interpret allegorically (e.g. Ant. 1:22-24).
The present chapter seeks to present a fresh reading of Abraham's presentation in
the Antiquities. To this end, we shall begin by noting several common trends in the
interpretation of Abraham in that work. We will then evaluate those readings.
4.2 Common Trends In The Interpretation of The Antiquities
A common reading of the depiction of Abraham by Josephus sees him presenting the
patriarch as the first to discover monotheism. In addition to this, Abraham is seen as a
convert from ungodly idolatry. Thus, for instance, Calvert-Koyzis writes that, "For
Josephus, Abraham was the first to proclaim monotheism using a popular philosophic
proof of God."7 Indeed, "Abraham recognized the one Creator God from his observation
5 Cf. Steve Mason, 'Of Audience And Meaning: Reading Josephus' Bellum Judaicum In The Context of A
Flavian Audience', in J. Sievers and G. Lembi (eds.), Josephus And Jewish History In Flavian Rome
And Beyond, JSJSup, Leiden, Brill, 2005, p. 73.
6 Mason, 'Aim And Audience', p. 80.
of the natural phenomena; and... in leaving his homeland behind Abraham also leaves
behind his former idolatry."8 She then cites John Bartlett approvingly, where he states
that Josephus used Abraham to challenge polytheism.9 Nickelsburg echoes these
sentiments, as do other commentators.10 Geza Vermes stresses that Josephus' Abraham is
a convert.11
In evaluating this kind of reading, we shall see that: (1) Abraham is not the first to
recognise God in the Antiquities; (2) that he is not so much arguing against a vulgar
polytheism as a particular kind of philosophical 'monotheism'; (3) that he is not pictured
as an ungodly idolater while still living in Chaldea, or as leaving due to conversion; (4)
and that, rather than seeing Josephus' account of Abraham's early life as fundamentally
akin to that of Jubilees, we shall attempt to demonstrate that Josephus' narrative resonates
most closely with Philo, whilst still being idiosyncratic. We shall deal with each of these
points in turn. In the process of our investigation, we shall see a different picture
emerging from the narrative of the Antiquities.
4.3.1 Abraham The Inventor of Monotheism
For Calvert-Koyzis, Josephus saw Abraham as "the first to believe in the one God", i.e.
that "Abraham was the first to recognize that God was the Creator of the universe and
that God indeed was one".12 Abraham, it is suggested, came to this realisation early in his

9 Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 60; John R. Bartlett, Jews In The
Hellenistic World: Josephus, Aristeas, The Sibylline Oracles, Eupolemus, eds P. R. Ackroyd, A. R. C.
Leaney, and J. W. Packer, 2 Vols., Vol. 1, CCWJCW, 1, Cambridge, CUPress, 1985, pp. 146-147.
Press, 1998, p. 161.
11 Geza Vermes, Scripture And Tradition In Judaism: Haggadic Studies, StPB, 4, Leiden, Brill, 1983, p.
79.
career (specifically, at Ant. 1:154-156).
Such a suggestion is in tension with the evidence from earlier sections of Book 1
of the Antiquities. When we examine the earlier sections of Book 1, we see that Josephus
has already presented Abel and the line of Seth as forerunners to Abraham. 13 Abel is
described as righteous and virtuous and as "believing that God was present in all the
things that were done by him" (Ant. 1:53). While Josephus does not tell us enough about
Abel for us to be certain that his belief in God encompassed the idea of God as Creator, it
seems natural to assume that Abel was, at least, a monotheist, not a polytheist. Likewise,
the "posterity of Seth," we are told, "continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe
[qeo;n hJgouvmenoi despovthn ei\nai tw:n o{lwn], and to have an entire regard to virtue"
(Ant. 1:72).14 Since Josephus earlier links the description of God as despovthV to his role
as creator (Ant. 1:20-21), it seems likely that the Sethites' ascription of rulership of the
cosmos to God entailed not only a conception of God's kingship but also his function as
Creator.
For Josephus, the account of creation comes first in the Mosaic law-code, because
this lifts the mind to see God as pavntwn pathvr te kai; despovthV oJ qeo;V, which is a
necessary preparation for virtue (Ant. 1:20 and context).15 Since the Sethites were both
virtuous and ones who understood that God was despovthV, one might assume that they
understood God's role as Creator, and even his uniqueness. This description of the
Sethites' orientation to God, then, might be seen to foreshadow Abraham's description of
God as the dhmiourgo;n tw:n o{lwn. As such, when one views the narrative in broad-

14 Cf. Paul Spilsbury, The Image of The Jew In Flavius Josephus' Paraphrase of The Bible, TSAJ, 69,
Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1998, pp. 51-53.
15 Similarly, David speaks of God as the father of the universe (patevra te kai; gevnesin tw:n o{lwn) and
the creator (dhmiourgovV) of human and divine things (Ant. 7:380). Philo also places God's role as
creator in apposition to his role as father (e.g. Virt. 64; QG. 2:34), and suggests a similar reason for
presaging legal discussion with consideration of creation (e.g. Mos. 2:48). Cf. Runia's comment that,
"God as pathvr on numerous occasions denotes the Hellenic idea of ontological and creative source."
David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria And The "Timaeus" of Plato, Philosophia Antiqua, Vol. 44, Leiden,
Brill, 1986, p. 110.
sweep, Abraham appears not so much as the originator of proper belief in God but rather
the first to fully return to the example of these early patriarchs in giving all due honour
(timhv) to God (Ant. 1:72, 156, 229), which is what he also exhorts his Chaldean
countrymen to do, and which is what the posterity of Seth failed to do after seven
generations (Ant. 1:72).16
Moreover, it is not altogether transparent that at Ant. 1:154-156 Abraham is
presented as the first to proclaim that God is one, à la Deut. 6:4. Having said this, we
must decide what to make of the following statement at Ant. 155a:
"th;n peri; tou: qeou: dovxan h}n a{pasi sunevbainen ei\nai kainivsai kai;
metabalei:n e[gnw prw:toV ou\n polma:/ qeo;n ajpofhvnasqai dhmiourgo;n tw:n
o{lwn e{na".
If one follows Whiston, it reads:
he determined to renew and to change the opinion all men happened then to have concerning
God, for he was the first that ventured to publish this notion, 'That there was but one God, the
Creator of the universe'.17
If one follows Thackeray, it reads:
[he] determined to reform and change the ideas universally current concerning God. He was
thus the first boldly to declare that God, the creator of the universe, is one.18
The impression that both of these translators give is that Abraham was the first to believe
that God is one: i.e. the first monotheist.19 The adjective e{na is taken to be predicative
(the copula being assumed), modifying qeo;n, to which dhmiourgo;n tw:n o{lwn stands in
apposition. Louis H. Feldman's more recent translation, however, appears to see e{na as
an attributive adjective modifying dhmiourgo;n, rather than qeo;n. He translates as

16 Incidentally, that he is able to give proper honour to God through observation of the natural world
appears to be predicated, at least partially, on his use of astronomy; a science which the early patriarchs
originated (Ant. 1:69). We will return to this point below.
17 Flavius Josephus, The New Complete Works of Josephus, trans. W. Whiston, Grand Rapids, Kregel,
1999, p. 60.
18 Henry St. John Thackeray, Flavius Josephus, 10 Vols., Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1926-
1965
19 A similar pattern is observable in certain non-English translations as well. For example, in Weill's
French, we read: "Le premier il osa montrer que Dieu, créateur de l'univers, est un..." Julien Weill,
'Antiquités Judaïques: Livres I-V', in T. Reinach (ed.), Oeuvres Complètes De Flavius Josèphe, 1, Paris,
Ernest Leroux, 1900, p. 36.
follows:
he determined to innovate and change the conception concerning God that everyone
happened to have. He therefore was the first who dared to declare that God was the one
craftsman of the universe.20
On this reading, Abraham's innovative discovery is not that God is one but that God is
the one (i.e. sole) creator, who is also the sole sustainer, and director of the universe and
the elements within it (Ant. 155b). Grammatically speaking, either translation is
possible.21 Yet, it is at least interesting to note that, if Josephus is here predicating that
'God is one', then he apparently departs here from his usual stylistic pattern for doing
so.22 Whatever we make of the matter of style, the following contextual reasons favour
Feldman's rendering.
Firstly, as we have already noted, that Josephus depicts Abel and Seth's line so
positively suggests that he is not concerned, when he comes to Abraham, to present him
as the first to discover God. If Abraham is first, he is first only in his generation.
Secondly, while ancient authors writing in Greek could use the singular and plural
forms of 'qeovV' interchangably – particularly the Stoics – it is, nevertheless, instructive to
observe that Abraham does not seek to change popular conceptions of the gods but,
rather, seeks to reform the notion all have of God: "th;n peri; tou: qeou: dovxan".23
Intramural discussion amongst 'monotheists' of different stripes is implied.24 Similarly, in

20 See similarly, Di Nòla, who states that: "[Abramo] proclamò che Dio è il creatore unico dell'universo."
Alfonso Maria Di Nòla, 'Abramo', in A. M. Di Nòla (ed.), Enciclopedia Delle Religioni, 1, Florence,
Vallecchi, 1970, p. 10.
21 Perhaps, this is an example of hyperbaton used to round off a syntactical and semantic unit. Cf. Daniel
Markovic, 'Hyperbaton In The Greek Literary Sentence', GRBS, Vol. 46, (2006), p. 131.
22 E.g. At Ant. 3:91, he writes: "qeovV ejstin ei|V"; and at 4:201, he writes: "qeo;V ga;r ei|V". Where the
predication 'God is one' is made, that is to say, we usually find – in Josephus and elsewhere – the terms
'one' (ei|V) and 'God' (qeovV) in close proximity (two words apart or fewer, with those words usually
being conjunctions or articles). (Compare Ag. Ap. 2:167 "e{na gou:n aujto;n"). It is hard to know what to
make of this observation. It is, nevertheless, interesting to note. Cf., also, an apparently similar pattern
at: Deut. 6:4 (LXX); Mal. 2:10 (LXX); Rom. 3:30; 1 Cor. 8:4, 6; Gal. 3:20; 1 Tim. 2:5; Jas. 2:19; Sib.
Or. (Prologue) 1:94; Sib. Or. 2:51; 3:11; 4:30; 5:284; 21:7, 32; Ps.-Phoc. 1:54; Ps.-Orph. 3:1; Ps.-Hec.
4:2; (in Philo) Opif. 171-172; Leg. 3:82, 105; Cher. 87; Plant. 137; Conf. 171; Somn. 1:229; Decal. 65;
Spec. 1:30, 67; Praem. 162; Legat. 115.
23 Cf. the discussion in: Henk S. Versnel, 'Thrice One: Three Greek Experiments In Oneness', in B. N.
Porter (ed.), One God Or Many? Concepts of Divinity In The Ancient World, Chebeague, Casco Bay
Assyriological Institute, 2000, pp. 79-164.
24 A comparable passage is Ant. 10:277-278, where Josephus criticises the Epicurean view of God (qeo;n),
the blessed and incorruptable Being (th:V makarivaV kai; ajfqavrtou... oujsivaV), as exercising no
his work against Apion, Josephus says that the Jews alone are united in their opinion
about God (singular), while others make contradictory statements about God (Ag. Ap.
2:179-181). By contrast, when Abraham travels to Egypt, he is interested to hear what the
Egyptian priests have to say about the gods [w|n levgoien peri; qew:n]. Similarly, Josephus
describes the death of Socrates as arising out of his violating the laws concerning the
gods (Ag. Ap. 2:262-263). These examples suggest that Josephus did not use peri; qeou:
and peri; qew:n type constructions interchangably. Rather, he understood that amongst
different groups the discussion would be of either the many traditional gods of
polytheism, or else of the one God of the philosophers and the Jews. In the Egyptian
cultic, and classical Athenian legal, contexts, the existence of many gods was assumed. In
Abraham's Chaldean context, monotheism, of one sort or another, seems to have been the
prevailing assumption.
Thirdly, when Isaac blesses Jacob mistakenly instead of Esau at Ant. 1:272, he
prays to the "Lord of all time and creator [dhmiourge;] of the totality of all things". This
suggests that Josephus wanted to repeat the point he had made earlier: that the Jews
believe in a God who made everything and controls all things. If this was Josephus' aim,
it was an aim shared by Philo.
A similar concern to present God as the sole demiurge is present in Philo's De
Opificio Mundi. At the conclusion of that treatise (Opif. 170-171), Philo summarises
what has been learned, listing five points. Firstly, to the atheists, he teaches that God
exists. Secondly, to the polytheists, he teaches that God is one. Thirdly, he shows that the
world is not eternal, but created. Fourthly, "we learn that the world also which was thus
providence (provnoian) over creation. Here, the discussion is not one of monotheism versus polytheism
but discussion of the nature of the highest being; specifically, whether he exercises providence (cf. Ag.
Ap. 2:180). Interestingly, in both Ant. 1:156 and Ant. 10:278-279, the world is pictured as inherently
unstable (comparable to a pilotless ship, or a driverless chariot), and in need of a guiding-hand to order
it. At Ant. 10:277-278, Josephus is arguing the basic point that there is such guidance to begin with; at
Ant. 1:155-156, Josephus deals with the more subtle question of whether God alone controls the course
of affairs or whether other things/beings share this control without it first being delegated to them by
God (see below §4.3.2).
created is one, since also the Creator is one [ei|V oJ dhmiourgo;V]". Fifthly, we learn that
God exerts loving providence over the world which he has made. For Philo, it is
important that everything was created by one creator alone. God is the tou: suvmpantoV
kovsmou dhmiourgovV worthy of all honour (timhv – Spec. 2:165). At De Virtutibus 216,
God is said to be the "e}n ai[tion".
Philo can also use the term poihthvV, to describe this one creator (e.g. Conf. 144 –
to;n e{na poihth;n kai; patevra tw:n o{lwn).25 The exception to this rule is the creation of
man, which was oujc eJni; dhmiourgw:/ (Opif. 72). Although, having said this, God alone is
the one creator (ei|V oJ movnoV qeo;V dhmiourgovV) of the truly human part of man, viz. the
mind (Fug. 71).26 These Philonic passages indicate that Philo was concerned to stress that
God alone is dhmiourgovV. Josephus seems to have shared this concern to present God as
the sole creator by whose ultimate control all things are governed, whatever intermediate
causes might be involved.
In light of these considerations, we would favour Feldman's translation over those
of Whiston or Thackeray. We do not see Josephus depicting Abraham as the first
monotheist at Ant. 1:154-155. Rather, as we shall presently discuss, he pictures Abraham
as a philosopher who presents a new theological-cosmological theory about the relation
of the supreme divine principle to the world.
4.3.2 Abraham Argues Against A Vulgar Polytheism
We come now, then, to the second point for discussion in this chapter: viz. the suggestion
that Abraham is not so much arguing against a popular polytheism as a particular kind of
philosophical monotheism.
Goodenough points out that, "Monotheism in the sense that the ultimate principle
25 Runia lists as synonyms: plavsthV, ktivsthV, poihthvV. See: Runia, Philo of Alexandria And The
"Timaeus" of Plato, p. 108.
26 We cannot here do justice to the discussion of Philo's view of the demiurge and his relation to the
cosmologies of his day, or to his doctrine of creation. For further consideration, the reader may consult,
in the first instance: Runia, Philo of Alexandria And The "Timaeus" of Plato, pp. 107ff.
and true God is One was a familiar and accepted notion in most philosophic systems of
the Greeks."27 We saw something of this already (above) in our discussion of Philo. Philo
himself also bears witness to this fact (e.g. Spec. 2:165). The Stoic conception of God, in
particular, can be legitimately described as a form of 'monotheism'. Chrysippus of Soli,
for instance, can be seen to clearly propound a kind of monotheism. 28 Frede details how
this is so. He notes that the Stoics can talk both of God in the singular and gods in the
plural. Yet, these 'gods' are not to be associated with the traditional gods of popular belief
and cultic worship. Rather, these 'gods' are things like the stars, which they understand to
be “wise, benevolent, rational living beings.”29 Since they speak of plural 'gods',
it would seem obvious that they must be polytheists. [Yet], appearances to the contrary
notwithstanding, we should think of them as monotheists. For they believe in a god who is
monotheistic, and if they also call other beings 'gods', they are called 'gods' in a sense which
does not compromise the Stoics' monotheism.30
Josephus' audience in Rome would likely have been made up of individuals
educated in just such Greek philosophy. What message would Josephus have wished to
convey to such an audience through his presentation of Abraham? It is unlikely that he
would have felt the need to critique a crass polytheism by presenting Abraham's great
discovery as the singularity of the ultimate principle, God. Feldman has put forward a
more convincing suggestion.
Feldman proposes that Josephus is arguing in Ant. 1:154-157 not so much for God
27 Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, An Introduction To Philo Judaeus, 2nd Edn., Oxford, Basil Blackwell,
1962, p. 38. Seán Freyne describes a parallel trend: "One of the effects of the emergence of the Persian
and Greek world empires was the move towards a syncretistic monotheism in which various local gods,
Greek and Oriental alike, were seen as different expressions of the one supreme being who guided the
universe." Seán Freyne, Galilee From Alexander The Great To Hadrian, 323BCE to 135CE: A Study of
Second Temple Judaism, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1998, p. 264.
28 Michael Frede, 'The Case For Pagan Monotheism In Greek And Graeco-Roman Antiquity', in S.
Mitchell and P. Van Nuffelen (eds.), One God: Pagan Monotheism In The Roman Empire, Cambridge,
CUPress, 2010, pp. 70-75.
29 Frede, 'The Case For Pagan Monotheism In Greek And Graeco-Roman Antiquity', p. 71.
30 Frede, 'The Case For Pagan Monotheism In Greek And Graeco-Roman Antiquity', p. 71. Likewise, Vogt
writes, “It has often been observed that, for the ancients to to speak both of god and the gods is less
difficult than it would seem to us. But Stoic theology does not just go back and forth between a singular
and plural notion of god and the gods. The problematic aspect lies elsewhere: Stoic physics makes the
singular notion of god so fundamental to all of Stoic philosophy that, comparatively speaking, talk
about several gods appears to be merely metaphorical.” Katja Maria Vogt, Law, Reason, And The
Cosmic City: Political Philosophy In The Early Stoa, Oxford, OUPress, 2008, p. 138.
per se, as for his freedom, over-against the Stoic view of God in which he was, as it
were, held captive by the regularity of the elements.31 Abraham is critiquing the
Chaldeans (Stoics in disguise) for viewing the creation as having any power independent
of that borrowed from the creator/controller. For the Stoics, according to Philo, "ascribed
to the world powers of action which [they] regarded as causes."32 In Josephus' view, the
dhmiourgovV is the sole wielder of providence in the universe and does not rely upon, but
may utilise, other agents (or 'gods') for the maintainance of order.
The Stoics argued for a creator on the basis of a teleological argument from the
regularity of the elements. Josephus has Abraham give a unique twist on this argument,
arguing instead from the irregularity of the elements. The arguments are parallel in as
much as they both provide logical 'proof' for the existence of a creator. Abraham's version
of the argument, however, is an improvement for Josephus, because it frees God from
captivity within the inherent orderliness of the universe, establishing him as the governor
who brings order to an otherwise chaotic realm. This, again, indicates that Josephus does
not so much wish to present Abraham as the first monotheist as one who, in the world of
the narrative, refines and corrects the monotheistic understanding of his Chaldean (Stoic)
homeland. In the real world, Josephus may be speaking through Abraham. Josephus
aligned himself with the Stoics (Vita 12); but he also may have wished to revise the Stoic
conception of God.33
In the narrative world, Abraham attempts not to convert polytheists but innovate
the 'monotheism' of his native land.34 An interpretation along these lines makes sense of:
the description of God in the singular (qeovV); the insistence on there being but one creator
31 Flavius Josephus, Judean Antiquities: Books 1-4: Translation And Commentary, ed. S. Mason, trans. L.
H. Feldman, pts. 1-4, Leiden, Brill, 2000, p. 58, n. 504. Cf. Feldman, 'Abraham The Greek', 147. Cf.
Bartlett, Josephus, p. 147.
32 Harry Austryn Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy In Judaism, Christianity, And
Islam, 2 Vols., Vol. 1, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1962, p. 177.
33 On Josephus' sympathy with Stoicism, see: Bartlett, Josephus, pp. 81-84.
34 Pace Martínez, who claims "Abraham as the inventor of monotheism." Florentino García Martínez,
Between Philology And Theology: Contributions To The Study of Ancient Jewish Interpretation, eds H.
Najman and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, JSJSup, 162, Leiden, Brill, 2013, p. 13.
(dhmiourgovV), and the statement that if any other being contributes to man's happiness it
does so under God's authority and not autonomously (Ant. 1:155b). It also explains the
suggestion that the sun, moon, and stars do not have any inherent authority or power (as
their lack of regularity shows) but are under the power of God their commander (Ant.
1:156). This last point contrasts with the Stoic view that the planets are semi-independent
agents which affect circumstances on earth through a sympatheia that exists between the
two.35
In this connection, comparing Josephus' description of Abraham to that of Moses
at Ag. Ap. 2:168-169 is instructive. As with Abraham, Moses is bold, and unafraid to
offend people with his distinctive views on God; and as with Abraham, Moses is
mentioned as part of a wider theistic conversation present amongst the Greeks. On the
other hand, there is a point of possible tension between these two texts, because if Moses
was the first to proclaim monotheism (Ag. Ap. 2:167-168), then his predecessor Abraham
could not have been.
Antiquities 1:155 might be taken to indicate that there were no monotheists of any
kind around in Abraham's time, but it might also mean that while there were
'monotheists', none of them as yet had a satisfactory conception of God. The term
'kainivsai', in this context, could refer to bringing unheard of ideas, but in association
with 'metabalei:n' it is more likely to refer to a renewal, revival, or reformation of
existing ideas.36 We might also translate ajpofaivnw as 'demonstrate (by reason)', cf. Ant.
1:166. Abraham, it seems, was the first to demonstrate that God is the sole creator and
35 E.g. Abr. 69. Also, Bréhier: "Toutes les parties du monde sont dans une société et une sympathie
mutuelles. Les choses visibles existent seules; c’est en elles qu’il faut chercher le Dieu suprême qui est
soit le monde, soit l’âme du monde, soit le destin et la nécessité. Les mouvements circulaires des astres
sont la cause de tous les biens et de tous les maux chez les mortels." Émile Bréhier, Les Idées
Philosophiques Et Religieuses De Philon D'Alexandrie, Études De Philosophie Médiévale, 8, Paris,
Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1950, p. 165. It also contrasts with the notion that God needed helpers
in the creation. Cf. Josephus' statement at Ag. Ap. 2:192, that God made everything but ou[ tinwn
sunergasomevnwn ejpidehqeivV, and Barclay's comments: Barclay, Against Apion, p. 278.
36 Cf. Nancy Calvert-Koyzis, 'Abraham: III A: Second Temple And Hellenistic Judaism', in H.-J. Klauck
(ed.), Encyclopedia of The Bible And Its Reception, 1, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2009, p. 164.
independent providential carer of the world. Indeed, as Spilsbury notes, it is significant
that, while Abraham conveys mathematics and astronomy to Egypt, he is not described as
planting monotheism there.37 This suggests that Josephus was more concerned to present
Abraham as an innovative philosopher than as a convert from polytheism.
4.3.3 Abraham An Ungodly Idolater In Chaldea
We come, then, to our third point: viz. that the young Chaldean Abraham is not depicted
in the Antiquities as an ungodly idolater, who leaves his homeland after converting from
polytheistic idolatry. When analysing Josephus' Abraham, Vermes places his conversion
at Ant. 154-155. These verses supposedly depict Abraham converting from idolatry to
"belief in God".38 We would like to suggest, however, that it is not immediately apparent
that Josephus wishes to present Abraham as having converted from an ungodly pagan
idolatry.39
We might think that by naming his birthplace as Chaldea, Josephus was
automatically enrolling Abraham under the rubric of ungodly paganism which involves
the worship of statues. We might think, for example, of the characterisation of Chaldeans
in Joshua 24:2-3 (cf. Hab. 1, &c.). However, Josephus (like Philo) never states that
Abraham was an idolater.40 Furthermore, he does not himself characterise the Chaldeans
in such a way. Instead, he pictures them as cultured philosophers and astronomers (e.g.
Ant. 1:158, 168; 10:187, 194; Ag. Ap. 1:8, 14, 129), who are kin to the Jews (Ag. Ap.
37 Spilsbury, Image of The Jew, p. 64.

39 Cf. Spilsbury, "Abraham is portrayed by Josephus as the epitome of wisdom, hospitality and piety."
Paul Spilsbury, 'God And Israel In Josephus: A Patron-Client Relationship', in S. Mason (ed.),
Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, JSPSup, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 1998, p. 186.
40 Louis Michel de Boissy (1725-1793), in his essay 'De l'Idolâtrie d'Abraham Avant Sa Vocation',
discusses the presentation of Abraham in a wide selection of ancient texts (including the rabbinic
literature, Philo, Josephus, and others). He concludes in almost every case that Abraham was presented
as an idolater before his call. To judge from Boissy's work, the question of Abraham's involvement in
idolatry is not a new one. Immediately instructive for the present purposes, however, is his concession
that, "Joseph ne dit point si Abraham avoit été idolâtre, avant qu'il eut enseigné la doctrine de l'unité
d'un Dieu." Louis Michel De Boissy, Dissertations Critiques Pour Servir d'Éclaircissements à l'Histoire
Des Juifs, Avant Et Depuis Jésus-Christ, Et De Supplément à l'Histoire De M. Basnage, 2 Vols., Vol. 1,
Paris, Lagrange, 1785, p. 35.
1:71), and who share historical knowledge with them (Ag. Ap. 1:128, 160). It would
seem, thus, that to be a Chaldean was not entirely reprehensible in Josephus' eyes.
Josephus does attack statuary-idolatry, in the narrative of the Antiquities, but not
until much later, when the biblical story-line which he is following more naturally lends
itself to such a discussion.41 If we do not have already in our minds an idea of what
Josephus' Abraham should look like based upon our interpretation of other Second
Temple literature, then it is hard to find any textual support for the view that Josephus
desired to portray the progenitor of the Jews as an ungodly Chaldean idolater. From the
very beginning, his description of the patriarch is laudatory. And his final encomium (at
Ant. 1:256), summarising the lesson of Abraham's life, is close to the positive description
of Abraham in the Testament of Abraham, where we are told that the patriarch abstained
from every evil.42
We might think that the astronomy of the Chaldeans was equal to an ungodly
astrology. Yet, Josephus is quite positive about both astronomy in general and Abraham's
astronomy in particular.43 Indeed, it is partly through the science of astronomy that
Abraham is able to make his determination about the demiurge. The astronomy of his
Chaldean countrymen is, presumably, no less scientific. And, while he migrates,
Abraham does not entirely reject his Chaldean heritage; "even after his 'conversion',
Abraham is nevertheless portrayed as the transmitter of Chaldean astronomy to the
Egyptians".44 In the same way, Josephus enthusiastically cites an independent authority –
41 See, for e.g., Richard Liong Seng Phua, Idolatry And Authority: A Study of 1 Corinthians 8.1-11.1 In
The Light of The Jewish Diaspora, Library of New Testament Studies, Vol. 299, London, T&T Clark,
2005, pp. 68-76.
42 This comparison is made by Feldman in his commentary. The passage in Testament of Abraham
referred to is in the longer recension (chapter 4).
43 For example, Josephus describes God allowing virtuous individuals shortly after the creation to live
exceedingly long lives so as to facilitate their astronomical (ajstronomiva) and geometrical (gewmetriva)
discoveries (Ant. 1:106). There are also traces of Josephus' own knowledge of astronomy/astrology
discernable in his writings – e.g. Ant. 2:16; 3:186. Cf. Feldman, 'Abraham The Greek', p. 156.
44 George H. Van Kooten, 'Enoch, The 'Watchers', Seth's Descendants And Abraham As Astronomers:
Jewish Applications of The Greek Motif of The First Inventor (300 BCE-CE 100)', in A. Brenner and J.
W. Van Henten (eds.), Recycling Biblical Figures: Papers Read At A Noster Colloquium In Amsterdam,
12-13 May 1997, Leiden, Deo, 1999, p. 311.
in the person of Berosos – to prove that Abram, the Chaldean, was a righteous man and
great astronomer (divkaioV ajnh;r kai; mevgaV kai; ta; oujravnia; Ant. 1:158).
It does not seem that the young Abraham is presented as an idolater, then; neither
does it seem that Abraham's astronomy is viewed negatively. As such, we must ask
whether Josephus portrays Abraham as a convert. We may approach the question of
Abraham's potential status as a 'convert' from two perspectives: viz. the Greco-Roman
and the Jewish. From the Greco-Roman perspective, Mason sees Josephus' Abraham as a
philosophic convert. That is, a convert from one school of philosophical theism to
another. Yet, since Abraham is the originator of this school, and not the fruit of any lovgoV
protreptikovV, perhaps the term 'convert' is somewhat infelicitous. Instead, we might
describe him as an innovator and reformer, rather than as a convert. 45 In this way,
Abraham was for Josephus, not an example of one who converted from polytheism to
belief in one God, but a noble philosophical ancestor for the Jewish people, the better to
win for them respect from a Roman audience (cf. Ag. Ap. 2:136).46
One function of these early Abraham stories for Josephus' account is to defend
Judaism against her cultured despisers. As Christopher Begg develops, Josephus'
rewriting of Genesis – here and elsewhere – aims at countering negative stereotypes
about the Jews. It had been alleged, for instance, that the Jews were a people without
cultural achievements and insular; "Josephus' distinctive portrayal of Abraham as a font
of mathematical, astronomical, and theological knowledge who is eager to dialogue with
the Egyptians about this (see 1.154-155, 161, 166-168) serves to refute both
allegations."47 Moreover, if Abraham functions as an exemplum, it is also likely that he
would have been presented as an example of virtuous action for emulation (rather than of
45 Cf. Feldman, 'Abraham The Greek', pp. 149-150.

46 Described as a "character sketch" by: Thomas W. Franxman, Genesis And The "Jewish Antiquities" of
Flavius Josephus, BibOr, 35, Rome, Biblical Institute Press, 1979, p. 119.
47 Christopher T. Begg, 'Genesis In Josephus', in C. A. Evans, J. N. Lohr, and D. L. Petersen (eds.), The
Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, And Interpretation, VTSup, Leiden, Brill, 2012, p. 326.
vice to be avoided).48 Indeed, if Abraham is an exemplum, it is unlikely that Josephus
would have presented him as an an exemplum of repentance from statuary idolatry to his
Roman audience. The Greco-Roman world did not much emphasise repentance as a
virtue.49
From the Jewish perspective, it is unlikely that Josephus views Abraham as a
convert at all. Here the work of Shaye Cohen is enlightening. Firstly, Cohen finds seven
instances of conversion in the Antiquities, but Abraham is not one of them.50 Secondly, he
points out that neither in War or in Antiquities does Josephus describe conversion as "the
rejection of the pagan gods and exclusive loyalty to the Jewish God."51 Thirdly, he
stresses the fact that, for Josephus, circumcision is the defining moment at which
conversion takes place.52 Thus, adoption of Jewish Laws and customs – preeminently
circumcision – is more determinative than rejection of pagan Gods or allegiance to the
one God. As such, since Abraham's circumcision is not described until Ant. 1:193, it is
unlikely that his departure from Chaldea signals his conversion. One must note, however,
that Abraham may be something of a special case. If so, however, it is more likely that he
was seen as Jewish from birth than that he became Jewish as a result of his departure
from Chaldea.
4.3.4 Josephus' Abraham In Connection With Jubilees And Philo
Having considered Josephus' account of Abraham's early life, we come now to consider
the relationship between Josephus' account and those of Jubilees, and Philo. As we have
48 See the suggestive comments of: Steve Mason, 'Figured Speech And Irony In T. Flavius Josephus', in J.
Edmondson, S. Mason, and J. Rives (eds.), Flavius Josephus And Flavian Rome, Oxford, OUPress,
2005, pp. 271-272.
49 Ronald Williamson, Jews In The Hellenistic World: Philo, P. R. Ackroyd, A. R. C. Leaney, and J. W.
Packer (eds.), 2 Vols., Vol. 1, Part 2, CCWJCW, Cambridge, CUPress, 1989, p. 251. Adam Kamesar
(ed.), The Cambridge Companion To Philo, Cambridge, CUPress, 2009, pp. 251-252. Cf. Guy D. Nave,
The Role And Function of Repentance In Luke-Acts, Academica Biblica, Vol. 4, Leiden, Brill, 2002, pp.
42-43.
50 Shaye J. D. Cohen, 'Respect For Judaism By Gentiles According To Josephus', HTR, Vol. 80, No. 4,
(1987), p. 419.
51 Cohen, 'Respect For Judaism By Gentiles According To Josephus', p. 411.
52 Cohen, 'Respect For Judaism By Gentiles According To Josephus', pp. 59-60.
said, it is often suggested that the 'five Abraham texts' represent different manifestations
of the one tradition. Thus, despite their differences, they contain the same essential
tradition.53 In seeking to align the various Second Temple texts which deal with
Abraham's early life in this way, it may be that Vermes, for example, has constructed a
"synthesis" not entirely dissimilar from the kind he criticised Ginzberg for creating.54
Likewise, Nickelsburg interprets Josephus' Abraham in light of his reading of Jubilees.55
Yet, the points of similarity between Antiquities 154ff. and Jubilees 11-12 are minimal,
making it unclear that the two text sections contain shared traditional material.56
Nickelsburg lists three elements which are parallel in Josephus' account and
Jubilees: namely, (a) Abraham is the first to proclaim God's oneness in both Josephus and
Jubilees; (b) in both texts "God's creative power is evident in the divine control over the
universe and its elements"; and (c) in Josephus "Abraham is driven out of Babylon, a
notion that is consonant with the story of his burning of the idolatrous temple."57 The first
of these, we have argued against already. Abraham is not the first monotheist in either
Jubilees or the Antiquities (cf. §§ 2.3.4 and 4.3.1).58
The second, which states that God controls the natural phenomena, might be
considered a basic feature of the Jewish worldview. When we get down to the level of
53 E.g. Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, pp. 59-60.
55 Calvert-Koyzis states that, "many of the non-scriptural details in Josephus' rendition of the biblical text
are paralleled in various re-writings of Scripture from the Second Temple period, such as Jubilees and
the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum." Yet, she does not provide any examples. Calvert-Koyzis, Paul,
Monotheism And The People of God, p. 53.
56 Pace Betsy Halpern-Amaru, 'Flavius Josephus And The Book of Jubilees: A Question of Source',
HUCA, Vol. 72, (2001), pp. 15-44. Whatever the validity of Halpern-Amaru's overall thesis, the
material with which we are concerned in Josephus does not appear to come from Jubilees. Cf. the
comment of Christopher Begg that, "one should be cautious about positing Josephus' direct dependence
on the works of earlier, postbiblical Jewish writers, works of which – in contrast to his handling of
pagan authors – he generally makes no mention and whose many differences with Josephus'
presentation also need to be kept in mind." Begg, 'Genesis In Josephus', pp. 307-308.
58 Similarly, Halpern-Amaru states that Jub. 12:16ff. and Ant. 1:155-157 are parallel in that both report
how, "Abram came to recognize the existence of God through observation of the heavens." Halpern-
Amaru, 'Flavius Josephus And The Book of Jubilees: A Question of Source', p. 33. However, this
viewpoint, while found frequently, is in striking contradiction to the presentation in Jubilees, at least in
its current form, since there Abraham's initial cogniscence of God's existence clearly ante-dates his
actions in 12:16ff. (e.g. Jub. 11:17; 12:4).
detail, however, a difference emerges. While Josephus certainly has Abraham drawing
deductions about God from his observation of the natural phenomena, in Jubilees
Abraham engages in no such reasoning process. He merely predicates things about God
without any logical demonstration or philosophical 'proof'. More than this, each text
speaks of the natural phenomena for a different reason. In Jubilees, God's control of the
natural phenomena is invoked to demonstrate that he is the real and living God, over
against mute idols. In Josephus' account, Abraham's discussion of God's control of the
natural phenomena is unrelated to mute idols. In short, Jubilees does not credit Abraham
with the kind of Greco-Roman philosophical reasoning evident in Ant. 1:156.
The third detail by itself is not enough to suggest either that Josephus used
Jubilees or that they shared a common source. It should also be noted that there are
striking dissonances between the two accounts.59 Primarily, where Jubilees is rabidly
anti-Hellenistic, Josephus is transparently pro-Hellenistic. More specifically, Josephus
does not depict Abraham as destroying the ancestral cults of Gentiles or separating from
them.60 It does not seem, then, that Josephus was fundamentally aligned with the
presentation of Abraham in Jubilees.61
We may consider, then, the connection between Josephus and Philo. Upon first
investigation, it would seem that a strong case could be made for Josephus' having
borrowed from Philo's presentation of Abraham.62 Like Philo, Josephus came from a
59 Calvert-Koyzis lists some of these: Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, pp. 59-
60.
60 "This contrasts with Jubilees' portrait of the one who burns down the traditional gods of the Chaldeans.
It is not difficult to see how Josephus in Rome, writing to persuade Romans of the trustworthiness and
venerability of the Jewish religion, should want to make this change of emphasis." John K. Riches,
Conflicting Mythologies: Identity Formation In The Gospels of Mark And Matthew, T&T Clark,
Edinburgh, 2000, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 2000, p. 42. This indicates that the narrative and
accompanying emphases in Jubilees would not have suited Josephus' purpose and, as such, would not
have been made use of by him, at least to any significant degree.
61 Interestingly, Rappaport does not mention Jubilees as a source behind Ant. 1:155ff., although he does
mention several other rabbinic works, Philo, and the Apocalypse of Abraham. See: Salomo Rappaport,
Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus, Wien, Verlag der Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation,
1930, pp. 101-102.
62 Sterling has recently restated, but also tempered, his earlier enthusiasm for the thesis that Josephus had
read (at least some of) the works of Philo. See: Gregory E. Sterling, '"A Man of The Highest Repute":
Did Josephus Know The Writings of Philo?', SPhA, Vol. 25, (2013), pp. 101-113. Cf. Gregory E.
relatively privileged and wealthy background.63 The two authors would have been
similarly educated in Hellenistic culture and philosophy, although Josephus likely did not
reach the philosophical heights of Philo.64 Josephus mentions Philo by name approvingly
(Ant. 18:259-260). Feldman lists several points of striking simmilarity between the two
authors' works.65 Sufficient time could have elapsed for Josephus to have read some of
Philo's work. Josephus' privileged Roman context makes this possibility more likely,
since Josephus' frequent citations from literary sources suggest that he had access to
various kinds of written material during the production of his Antiquities.66
Three factors make it unlikely that Josephus' Abraham is merely a recapitulation
or alteration of Philo's, however. Firstly, the distiguishing mark of Philo's exegesis – his
allegorical interpretation – is all but absent from Josephus' Antiquities.67 Secondly,
Josephus cites several sources in support of his picture of Abraham, and it may be that his
account is indebted more to these explicitly acknowledged sources than to Philo.68 Of
course, it must be observed that Josephus is reticent – presumably for apologetic reasons
– to cite Jewish authors. Thus, he may have been influenced by Philo without mentioning
him and, at the same time, attempted to mislead his readers by citing other works as his
'sources'. Even so, it is not as though the sources he cites exhibit no similarity to his own
depiction of the patriarch. So, for example, just as Josephus has Abraham teaching the
Sterling, 'Recherché Or Representative? What Is The Relationship Between Philo's Treatises And
Greek-Speaking Judaism?', SPhA, Vol. 11, (1999), pp. 1-30.
63 Josephus' Vita is obviously self-aggrandising. However, it is assumed that there is some truth to it. So,
for example, as to his priestly lineage, see Vita 1ff.
64 For a discussion of Josephus' Greek education, see: Catherine Hezser, Jewish Literacy In Roman
Palestine, eds M. Hengel and P. Schäfer, TSAJ, Vol. 81, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2001, pp. 90-91.
65 Louis H. Feldman, Josephus's Interpretation of The Bible, HCS, Vol. 27, Berkeley, University of
California Press, 1998, pp. 52-54.
66 See, for example, James E. Bowley, 'Josephus's Use of Greek Sources For Biblical History', in J. C.
Reeves and J. Kampen (eds.), Pursuing The Text: Studies In Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder On The
Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, JSOTSup, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 1994, pp. 202-215.
67 See the other points of criticism made against the theory that Josephus borrowed from Philo by: Seth
Schwartz, Josephus And Judean Politics, CSCT, Vol. 18, Leiden, Brill, 1990, pp. 51-54.
68 Attridge, for instance, states that "some of the non-biblical details about Abraham in Josephus may
ultimately derive from [Pseudo-Hecataeus]". Harold W. Attridge, 'Historiography', in M. E. Stone (ed.),
Jewish Writings of The Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian
Writings, Philo, Josephus, CRINT, Assen, Van Gorcum, 1984a, p. 170.
Egyptians astronomy, so does (Pseudo) Hecataeus, whom he cites (Ant. 1:108; 159).
Thirdly, Holladay has observed that Josephus casts each of his biblical heroes (Abraham,
Moses, David, &c.) in a strikingly uniform mould.69 The characteristics that Josephus
attributes to them, reflect either those of the stereotypical Stoic sage, or else "are indebted
to popular, semi-philosophical ethics".70 Many of the details of Josephus' portrait of
Abraham may have arisen as a result of this kind of approach. There is also no scholarly
agreement on the relationship between Philo and Josephus. Thus, Zuleika Rodgers can
say that, while there have been many studies done in this area, they "have not proved
conclusively direct or indirect dependence... of Josephus on Philo".71
While it is unlikely that Josephus is following Jubilees, then, it is not impossible
that he has been influenced somewhat by Philo.72 Nevertheless, we should not discount
Josephus' popular-ethical mold, or his adaptation of those written sources which he cites.
In sum, just as it is best to speak of Philo as representing a different stream of Abraham
tradition than Jubilees so, too, Josephus stands apart from Jubilees, and can't be
considered a different manifestation of the same basic traditional exegesis.
With such evidence to work with as to Josephus' sources for his view of Abraham,
it is surprising that scholars have been sometimes quite vague in this regard. Calvert-
Koyzis, for instance, speaks undecidedly about "extra-biblical traditions from [Josephus']
Palestinian Jewish upbringing or from his Diaspora context".73 She also equivocates
between "either oral or written traditions",74 and is content to posit an un-named "variety
of oral and written sources".75 Calvert-Koyzis here betrays the fact that she is unclear
how (as per her view) Jubilees, Philo, and Josephus all came to utilise the same tradition
69 Feldman, Josephus's Interpretation of The Bible, p. 55.
70 Feldman, Josephus's Interpretation of The Bible, p. 55.
71 Zuleika Rodgers, 'Josephus's Biblical Interpretation', in M. Henze (ed.), A Companion To Biblical
Interpretation In Early Judaism, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2011, p. 444.
72 See, for e.g., David T. Runia, Philo In Early Christian Literature: A Survey, CRINT, Vol. 3, Assen, Van
Gorcum, 1993, p. 13, and the references cited by him in note 53.
about Abraham. Presumably, the 'parallels' between the texts are enough to demonstrate a
genealogical relationship. This tendency is witnessed elsewhere in the scholarly literature
and suggests that the the comparative midrash method does not give sustained concern to
each text's historical situatedness or distinctive characteristics. The present work
endeavours to avoid this pitfall.
This chapter evalutated a common reading of Jospehus' presentation of Abraham in the
Antiquities. That common reading sees Abraham as having been an ungodly, polytheistic
idolater who was the first to discover that God is one and then to worship him,
converting to monotheism. This picture of Abraham, it is thought, is related to the
presentation of Abraham in Jubilees. We have found that the arguments made to support
such a reading were tenuous. Instead, we propose that Josephus sought to present
Abraham as an hellenistic philosophical hero who did all things well, including devising
a better philosophical monotheism than that prevalent in his day: namely, Stoic
'monotheism'. Moreover, it appears that Josephus stood closer in outlook to Philo, and the
Hellenistic (or Jewish-Hellenistic) sources which he cites than to the author of Jubilees.
As such, if one were to situate Josephus within any particular 'stream' of Abraham
haggadah, it would be the Philonic rather than that flowing from Jubilees. Indeed,
Josephus and Jubilees present quite different pictures of the patriarch. They are properly
considered as different traditional interpretations.

CHAPTER 5
THE APOCALYPSE OF ABRAHAM
5.1 Introduction
The present chapter looks at the Apocalypse of Abraham. For an introduction to the text,
the reader may refer to the work of Rubinkiewicz.1
ApocAb survives in only a handful of Slavonic manuscripts, six of which are
primary, dating from the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries. These six do not always
agree. In fact, there are "wide variations in the extant Slavonic texts of the Apocalypse".2
Thus, to take just one example, there is a vacillation between the use of the first and third
persons in the narrative, making it unclear whether the story is being told by or about
Abraham.3 Codex Sylvester is "the oldest and the only independent manuscript containing
the full text of ApAb." Unfortunately, it is also, "the most obscure and is considered
"extremely faulty" ... abundant "in errors major and minor"".4 Four of the five other
manuscripts, "are integrated into the Palaea Interpretata".5 The Palaea Interpretata
represents a compendium of biblical stories combined with various, sometimes quite
divergent, extra-biblical elaborations and interpretations. As such, the transmission of the
text of ApocAb may have been affected by its location within this larger amalgamated
whole.6 In particular, Rubinkiewicz states that chapter seven, "appears to be inserted from
1 Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, 'The Apocalypse of Abraham: A New Translation And Introduction', in J. H.
Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1, Peabody, Hendrickson, 1983, pp. 681-705.
2 A. Pennington, 'The Apocalypse of Abraham', in H. F. D. Sparks (ed.), The Apocryphal Old Testament,
Oxford, OUPress, 1984, p. 365.
3 Pennington, 'The Apocalypse of Abraham', p. 365.
4 Alexander Kulik, Retroverting Slavonic Pseudepigrapha: Toward The Original of The Apocalypse of
Abraham, ed. J. R. Adair, Text-Critical Studies, 3, Atlanta, SBL, 2004, p. 3.
5 Kulik, Retroverting Slavonic Pseudepigrapha, p. 3.
6 As Pennington explains: "The Palaea is a compendium of miscellaneous items collected together
primarily to show how the Old Testament was fulfilled in the New. Individual items vary not a little
from MS to MS. The basic collection is thought to have been made in Greek in the 8 th or 9th cents. And
to have been translated into Slavonic in the 10 th cent.: over the years it was much enlarged and
expanded." Pennington, 'The Apocalypse of Abraham', p. 364, n. 5. ApocAb was combined with other
works dealing with Abraham in the Palaea. In this context, Philonenko-Sayar and Philonenko suggest,
CHAPTER 5: THE APOCALYPSE OF ABRAHAM 132
the legend of Abraham found in the Palaia."7 Beyond this, several other interpolations in
the document are likely. As Rubinkiewicz states, "Certains récits ont été insérés dans
notre apocryphe à date plus tardive."8
Behind the Slavonic text stood a Greek Vorlage. The language of first
composition, from which the Greek derived, is likely to have been either Aramaic or,
more probably, Hebrew.9 The original text is dated to between c. 70AD and 150AD. That
the destruction of the Temple is discussed provides a terminus a quo; that the work is
alluded to in the Clementine Recognitiones 32-33 provides a terminus ad quem. Within
this range, Rubinkiewicz has proposed a possible date of 79-81 AD.10 However, this is less
than certain, and a second-century dating is not unreasonable.11
The authorship of ApocAb is essentially unknown, as is the Sitz im Leben of the
work. It is very likely a Jewish work with a Palestinian origin. Like 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch,
the destruction of the Temple in 70 is an important consideration in the text. Beyond this,
however, the suggestion which was made first by Box of a specifically Essene milieu is
uncertain.12 While styled an apocalypse, ApocAb begins with eight chapters of what
"Elle perd de son autonomie..." Marc Philonenko and Belkis Philonenko-Sayar, 'L'Apocalypse
D'Abraham', Sem, Vol. 31, (1981), p. 10.
7 Rubinkiewicz, 'The Apocalypse of Abraham: A New Translation And Introduction', p. 684. Likewise, he
writes: "Le récit d'Ap. Abr. 7 a été inséré dans le corps de l'Apocalypse d'Abraham par un éditeur slave
de la Palaea interprétée." And several pages later: "Ce chapitre provient du texte de la Palaea
interprétée et il a été inséré dans l'Apocalypse d'Abraham parce qu'il cadrait bien avec le récit d'Ap.
Abr. 1-6." Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, L'Apocalypse D'Abraham En Vieux Slave: Introduction, Texte
Critique, Traduction Et Commentaire, Lublin, Société des Lettres et des Sciences de l'Université
Catholique de Lublin, 1987, p. 46, n. 10, and p. 63. Elsewhere, Rubinkiewicz notes that this chapter
was treated as a separate entity by some of the compilers of the Palaea: "Le rédacteur de la Palaea
distinguait... avec précision entre le texte de la légende d'Abraham et le texte de l'Apocalypse
d'Abraham qu'il traitait comme deux œuvres distinctes. Il n'y a donc maintenant aucun doute que le
contenu du chapitre VII ait été inséré postérieurement dans le texte de la version slave de notre
apocryphe." Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, 'La Vision De L'Histoire Dans L'Apocalypse D'Abraham', in W.
Haase (ed.), ANRW II.19.1, Berlin, de Gruyter, 1979, p. 142. Cf. The arguments for including the
chapter in: Kenneth R. Jones, Jewish Reactions To The Destruction of Jerusalem In A.D. 70:
Apocalypses And Related Pseudepigrapha, JSJSup, Vol. 151, Leiden, Brill, 2011, p. 248, n. 4.
8 Rubinkiewicz, 'L'Apocalypse D'Abraham', p. 139.
9 Kulik, Retroverting Slavonic Pseudepigrapha, p. 1. Cf. Arie Rubenstein, 'Hebraisms In The Slavonic
Apocalypse of Abraham', JJS, Vol. 5, No. 3, (1954), pp. 132-135.
10 Rubinkiewicz, En Vieux Slave, p. 75.
11 Cf. Jacob Licht, 'Apocalypse of Abraham', Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nd. Edn., 1, Detroit, Macmillan,
2007, pp. 288-289.
12 George Herbert Box and J. I. Landsman, The Apocalypse of Abraham, London, SPCK, 1918, p. xxi;
Kulik, Retroverting Slavonic Pseudepigrapha, p. 3.
might be best described as haggadah. From chapter nine onwards, the apocalyptic genre
dominates. The first eight chapters of ApocAb present the early life of Abraham and his
questioning of the validity of idolatry.
5.2 Common Trends In The Interpretation of ApocAb
The Abraham of ApocAb is seen as having been an ungodly Gentile formerly involved in
his father's idolatry (ApocAb 1-6) before he deduced the existence and primacy of the one
God from nature (ApocAb 7). As such, he is to be seen as a convert from idolatry to
monotheism. Perhaps, he was even the first monotheist. Moreover, while the patriarch is
not explicitly depicted as having been involved in astrology, his line-of-reasoning in
chapter 7 nevertheless contains a latent critique of astrological practice.13
Nickelsburg, for example, states that chapters 1-8 of ApocAb, "recount a series of
events in which Abraham moves from the idolatry of his father to the worship of the true
God."14 Similarly, in Calvert-Koyzis' opinion, the author of ApocAb "clearly reveals
Abraham as rejecting idols and believing in the one, Creator God."15 The polemical
purpose of the story, according to her, is to promote the idea that "the rejection of idolatry
for monotheism after the example of Abraham is the ultimate and distinctive criterion for
those who are faithful to God."16
Those in favour of such a reading invariably also consider it important that the
Apocalypse of Abraham (particularly the seventh chapter) be seen as a recapitulation of
the same extra-biblical tradition as Philo, and Jubilees preserve.17 ApocAb is usually not
Press, 1998, p. 164. Cf. Nancy Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God: The
Significance of Abraham Traditions For Early Judaism And Christianity, London, T&T Clark, 2004, p.
73.
17 Nickelsburg, 'Abraham The Convert', pp. 164-165; Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People
of God, pp. 72-73.
treated in isolation but is used, instead, in connection with Jubilees or Philo, as evidence
for the continuing distribution of the Jubilees type Abraham-tradition.18
In our reading of ApocAb, we shall deal with each of the following suggestions in turn:
(1) that the Abraham is to be seen as an ungodly Gentile involved in his father's idolatry
(ApocAb 1-6); (2) that Abraham renounced idolatry before God's appearance to him
(ApocAb 8), as a result of his discovery of the one true God from nature (ApocAb 7); (3)
that ApocAb criticises astrology; (4) that ApocAb should be seen as a refashioning and
recapitulation of the presentation of Abraham in Jubilees, or Philo.
5.3.1 Abraham As Involved In Terah's Idolatry
In the preceding three chapters, we examined the presentations of Abraham made by
three authors: viz. Jubilees' author, Philo, and Josephus. Since much has already been
written on the presentation of Abraham by these authors, our examination was
coordinated with a simultaneous evaluation of some of the common trends in the
scholarly literature on how Abraham functions within the primary texts. One feature
which the secondary literature ascribed to Abraham in each of these texts was that of
being involved in idolatry. Yet, in each case, it was seen that the evidence should
probably be interpreted differently. Far from being an example of ungodly involvement
in idolatry, Abraham, in Jubilees, was lauded as an exemplar of godly avoidance of
idolatry, and in Philo and Josephus statuary idolatry was not significant in Abraham's pre-
call life.
When we come to look at ApocAb, however, the situation is somewhat different.
For here it does indeed seem that Abraham is to be understood as having been actively
18 See, for instance, Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, pp. 72-73.
involved in his father's idolatry.19 At the same time, there is a tension in the narrative
between Abraham's involvement and the recurring questions which arise in his mind as to
how lifeless statues can be worthy of worship. A brief overview of the first six chapters
brings this out.
ApocAb opens with Abraham among the gods of his father Terah and those of his
brother Nahor, testing them to see which is the strongest (1:1). Immediately, we see
Abraham's incipient scepticism about such statues. Yet, at the same time, we are told that
he served before these gods (1:2-3).20 Thus, Abraham is clearly portrayed as being
involved in his father's idolatry, and yet, at the same time, he is not entirely convinced,
and his doubts grow as the narrative progresses.21 This tension is captured in the
uncertainty of wording behind 1:1; the first thing we see Abraham doing may be either
'destroying' (ejpikeivrw) or 'carving' (ejpixevw/ejpixuvw) his father's gods.22 These elements
(of involvement, and doubt) are held in tension throughout the narrative, but all the time,
Abraham encounters more examples of the impotence of his father's idols, which make
his doubts about them grow.
In chapter one, he is surprised that the stone god which his father had carved,
19 As such, Orlov's formulation that Abraham was, "a reluctant witness of the idolatrous practices of his
immediate family" is probably not quite accurate. Andrei A. Orlov, ''The Gods of My Father Terah':
Abraham The Iconoclast And The Polemics With The Divine Body Traditions In The Apocalypse of
Abraham', JSP, Vol. 18, No. 1, (2008), p. 37. Cf. Andrei A. Orlov, 'Praxis of The Voice: The Divine
Name Traditions In The "Apocalypse of Abraham"', JBL, Vol. 127, No. 1, (2008), p. 56, a very similar
article, where Abraham is described as a "reluctant helper". We might better say that Abraham was an
increasingly reluctant participant. Likewise, it is surprising to read the following statements from
Rubinkiewicz: "G. Vermes a distingué deux traditions juives concernant ce sujet [viz. Abraham arrive à
la connaissance de Dieu]. Selon l'une, Abraham crut en un seul Dieu dès le commencement; selon
l'autre, il se convertit au monothéisme. Le contenu d'Ap. Abr. 1-6.8 se lie à la première..."; and,
commenting on ApocAb 1:1, "Notons qu'Abraham n'est pas présenté par l'auteur comme un prosélyte."
Rubinkiewicz, En Vieux Slave, pp. 43, 101. Cf. Philonenko and Philonenko-Sayar's summary of
ApocAb 1-8: "C'est une légende où se trouve rapporté comment Abraham, fils de Térah, le fabricant
d'idoles, se convertit au Dieu créateur." Philonenko and Philonenko-Sayar, 'L'Apocalypse D'Abraham',
p. 22.
20 Orlov makes the same observation if, perhaps, taking it somewhat too far. See: Andrei A. Orlov,
'Arboreal Metaphors And The Divine Body Traditions In The Apocalypse of Abraham', HTR, Vol. 102,
No. 4, (2009), p. 440.
21 So Frey: "Tharé, le père d'Abraham, est fabricant d'idoles. Son fils qui l'aide dans ses travaux,
commence à avoir des doutes sur la légitimité du culte des dieux." Jean Baptiste Frey, 'L'Apocalypse
d'Abraham', Dictionaire De La Bible Supplement, 1, Paris, Letouzey Et Ane, 1928-1966, p. 28
(emphasis added).
22 Kulik, Retroverting Slavonic Pseudepigrapha, p. 9.
Mar-Umath, could not stand up on its own, after falling over. In chapter two, Abraham
saddles five gods to his donkey, to take them to market, but when, in a start, the donkey
throws off the idols and they break, Abraham marvels at the fact that they cannot save
themselves. In chapter three, Abraham begins to wonder to himself about these foregoing
events. He wonders how the gods could save a man, if they cannot save themselves. In
chapter four, Abraham shares his doubts with his father, but his father is angered by his
suggestion that the gods are powerless. In chapter five, Abraham sets a wooden statue
next to his fire to tend it while he is out. But when he returns, he finds to his amusement
that the god had succeeded only in being consumed by the fire. In chapter six, Abraham
once again confronts his father, asking: "How can a statue made by my father [ever] be
his helper?" (6:2). In addition, he states that his uncle's gods of gold and silver must be
more honourable than his father's gods, since the latter were only produced out of wood
and stone.
While there is a tension, then, between Abraham's involvement with, and his
questioning of, his father's idols, the fact that ApocAb so vividly portrays Abraham's
involvement with such an errant practice sets it apart from the other three portrayals of
Abraham which we have examined so far. We now come to a discussion of the proposal
that Abraham renounced idolatry before God's appearance to him, as a result of his
discovery of the one true God from nature.
5.3.2 Abraham Discovers God And Rejects Idolatry Before His Call
A second common suggestion made is that Abraham reasoned his way to the existence of
God (ApocAb 7) prior to – and, indeed, inducing – God's appearance to him (ApocAb 8).
As with the first suggestion evaluated above, this reading of the text is a straightforward
one. At least, it is a straightforward reading of the text as it now stands. For, in the
seventh chapter of ApocAb, Abraham certainly does reason his way to God, along the
following lines: Fire is subject to water; water is absorbed by earth; earth is dried by the
sun; but even the sun is obscured by night; likewise the moon and the stars by day. But,
by contrast with these things, God has made everything. And yet, Abraham thinks that it
is best for God to reveal himself, rather than to be found in nature. So the chapter ends
with Abraham waiting for God's self-revelation. And chapter eight is the fulfilment of
Abraham's desire. God reveals himself by destroying Terah's house with fire and calling
Abraham to leave his country. As noted above, however, there is doubt about the
authenticity of this portion of the work. If, on the other hand, one omits the seventh
chapter, then a different pictures emerges.
On this second reading, Abraham has spent the first six chapters doing the work
of his father in the statuary idol trade, whilst at the same time having doubts about the
potency of wooden and stone statues. Then, while Abraham is still pondering how
idolatry can be anything less than folly, God steps onto the stage (8:1). After killing Terah
for his idolatry, God provides the interpretation of the preceding narrative, and issues
Abraham with a call to leave his father's house, saying: "In the wisdom of your heart you
are searching for the God of gods and the Creator. I am he! Leave Terah your father, and
leave the house, so that you too are not slain for the sins of your father's house!" (8:3-4).
God invades the narrative and plucks Abraham out of Chaldea. With the omission of
chapter seven, God is only known by Abraham when he reveals himself. As such, God's
words to Abraham "you are searching for the God of gods" are still relevant, at the time
of their being spoken, rather than describing something of a fait accompli.
Longenecker has delineated how the addition of chapter seven fundamentally
alters the narrative of the first eight chapters.23 Without chapter seven, God appears as
one who invades Abraham's life, when he is conscious of no more than that idols of wood
23 Bruce W. Longenecker, Rhetoric At The Boundaries: The Art And Theology of The New Testament
Chain-Link Transitions, Waco, Baylor University Press, 2005, pp. 79-81.
and stone seem to be powerless and unworthy of worship. With the addition of the
seventh chapter, by contrast, Abraham comes into view as one searching for God, and
God's role is reduced to acting in response to Abraham's quest. In Longenecker's view, it
makes more sense to see chapter seven as an addition, since it appears to defy the
narrative patterns evident in chapters 1-6 and 8.24 Longenecker's arguments, in tandem
with those of Rubinkiewicz, make it highly unlikely that the text should be taken as it
now stands. Instead, the seventh chapter should probably be treated as a much later
interpolation. When this is done, the themes of Abraham's discovery of God from nature,
and his rejection of idolatry before God's appearance to him disappear.
Interestingly, Calvert-Koyzis concedes that the seventh chapter "is probably a
much later redaction."25 Yet, she includes it in her analysis. 26 In her view, even if the
chapter properly belongs to another author, and "was inserted at a much later time, it
[still] provides evidence for the continued widespread popularity of the tradition in which
Abraham discerns God from the natural phenomena."27 It should be noted, however, that
this much later interpolation was likely inserted centuries after the original composition,
and so has little to tell us about the kinds of traditions which were prevalent around the
time of Paul.28 Box, for instance, excerpting two rabbinic texts (Gen. Rab. 38:13; Midr.
HaGadol), states that the seventh chapter evinces "a marked parallelism with the
Rabbinical accounts".29 It may be that it owes something to these accounts – the first of
24 For details of Longenecker's argument, see: Longenecker, Rhetoric At The Boundaries, pp. 79-80.
27 Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 73
28 As Robertson writes, “The style of the legend in the Apocalypse of Abraham is closer to the later
rabbinic legends on Abraham than to the legends of earlier pseudepigrapha. The details of the rabbinic
legends are more developed than in the early pseudepigrapha. For example, some details, such as
Abraham selling and smashing idols (Apoc. Abr. 2. 1-9), are found in rabbinic legends but not in
Jubilees.” Glenn Earl Robertson, Paul And The Abrahamic Tradition: The Background of Abraham And
The Law In Galatians 3-4 And Romans 4, Ph. D. dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological
Seminary, Texas, 1988, p. 108. Collins also sees ApocAb 1-8 as closer to the rabbinic literature than to
Jubilees, Josephus, and Philo. John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction To Jewish
Apocalyptic Literature, 2nd Edn., Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1998, p. 226.
29 Box and Landsman, The Apocalypse of Abraham, p. 93.
which is commonly dated to c. 450AD,30 and the other to the fourteenth century.31 Box
refers to the fact that these rabbinic accounts closely parallel ApocAb 7 in presenting
Abraham as rejecting the qualifications of either the physical elements or the heavenly
luminaries to be God, since they must compete with other elements, terrestrial or
celestial. Even if the time gap between the original composition and the interpolation
were not so great as Box suggests, the interpolated passage is properly treated as the
product of another author.
5.3.3 Criticism of Astrology In ApocAb
There is no direct criticism of astrology in ApocAb 1-8. Indeed, astrology does not play
any significant part in the presentation of Abraham here. As noted above, Nickelsburg
detects an indirect and underlying hostility towards astrology in the speech Abraham
gives in ApocAb 7. Since we have already ruled out the usefulness of this chapter for our
understanding of the text, however, we need not evaluate the suggestion further.
5.3.4 Placing The Abraham of ApocAb In Jubilees' Nachleben
We come, then, to consider whether ApocAb should be seen as a recapitulation of the
presentation of Abraham in Philo or Jubilees.
Nickelsburg states of ApocAb that, "A number of features in it parallel the stories
in Jubilees."32 He lists the following: (a) Terah's involvement with idolatry; (b)
Abraham's involvement with idolatry; (c) Abraham's working through a mental process
of searching for "the God of gods" in which he gradually concludes that idols are not true
deities; (d) both narratives feature a difference of opinion between father and son; (e)
both develop a connection between idolatry and astrology; (f) in both texts Abraham
30 Jacob Neusner, Persia And Rome In Classical Judaism, Lanham, University Press of America, 2008, p.
33.
31 Günter Stemberger and Hermann Leberecht Strack, Introduction To The Talmud And Midrash,
Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1991, p. 354.
concludes that God has ultimate control over all cosmic and earthly phenomena, and it is
this realisation that leads to Abraham's call by God; (g) a final common element between
the two texts is fire.33
Calvert-Koyzis also suggests some of the same parallels as Nickelsburg.34 In
addition, she argues that Abraham's speech in chapter seven about the supremecy of God
is "based upon extra-biblical tradition in which Abraham rejects idolatry based upon his
discerning from the natural world that the true God is not contained within the creation
but instead creates and controls the cosmos."35 This tradition, she continues, "is familiar
from our previous study of work by Philo (Abr. 69-70) and the author of Jubilees (Jub.
12.16-18)."36
The listing of parallels by Nickelsburg (and Calvert-Koyzis) seems weighty at
first. Upon closer examination, however, the similarities between ApocAb and Jubilees
are not as great as one might think:
(a) That Terah is involved with idolatry is a commonality, but each text may have
derived this independently from Josh. 24:2. Certainly, each text represents both Terah and
his idolatry differently.
(b) A striking feature of the Apocalypse of Abraham is the way in which the
author has so closely associated Abraham with his father's idolatry. Abraham serves
before his father's idols and sells them. He appears, thus, to be an idolater himself, albeit
one with doubts about the validity of the family's practices. This sets ApocAb off some
distance from the other texts which we have so far considered (Jubilees, Philo, Josephus),
33 Orlov also sees ApocAb as a development of Jubilees. Orlov appears to blur the distinctions between
the narratives somewhat, however, such as when he speaks of the Abraham of Jubilees as being
"involved in extensive disputations with his father in an attempt to persuade Terah to abandon his
abominable practices of manufacturing and serving idols." Orlov, 'Abraham The Iconoclast', p. 38
(emphasis added). Abraham never rebukes his father for manufacturing idols in Jubilees. At the same
time, Orlov helpfully recognises that ApocAb is unique in-so-far as, “the many peculiar details of the
Slavonic text, including the references to the enigmatic names of various idols manufactured by Terah
and their elaborate portrayals appear to be preserved only here.” Orlov, 'Abraham The Iconoclast', p. 39.
34 E.g. Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 74.
for none of those texts involve Abraham with idolatry. The author of Jubilees, in
particular, takes pains to make clear that Abraham, from the youngest age, is not to be
implicated in his father's idolatry (Jub. 11:16). Thus, Nickelsburg's parallel is
unconvincing.
(c) Nickelsburg futher suggests that both narratives picture Abraham working
through a mental process of searching for "the God of gods". Yet, while this may be the
case in ApocAb, in Jubilees we are not told how Abraham came to know God. We are
merely abruptly informed of the fact that he began to pray to the Creator of all things
from a young age (11:17). Abraham's later commentary on God's relationship to the
creation is not so much discovery as proclamation.
(d) Nickelsburg suggests that both narratives feature a difference of opinion
between father and son. This suggestion, perhaps, qualifies as a partial parallel. In both
narratives, to be sure, Abraham and his father disagree. However, where in ApocAb this
disagreement is sharp, in Jubilees Terah is depicted as essentially agreeing with Abraham
(12:6), and even eventually converting to his opinion (12:28ff.).
(e) The suggestion is further made that both texts develop a connection between
idolatry and astrology. Nickelsburg bases this assessment on the seventh chapter of
ApocAb, which we have considered to be a later interpolation. Even if one retains that
chapter, however, it is not entirely clear that it connects idolatry with astrology. One may
worship the sun or the stars without being an astrologer. At the very least, in any case,
astrology is not tackled head-on in that chapter.
(f) Nickelsburg proposes that in both texts Abraham concludes that God has
ultimate control over all cosmic and earthly phenomena. This is true of Jubilees, but is
really only found in the non-original seventh chapter of ApocAb.
(g) Finally, both Nickelsburg and Calvert-Koyzis suggest that a parallel exists in
the use of fire by the two texts. In Jubilees, Abraham burns the temple of idols in his
town (12:12). Haran entered the temple to save the gods but died in the process (12:13-
14). In the fifth chapter of the Apocalypse of Abraham, Abraham lights a fire while
making a meal for his father. He sets one of his father's wooden idols to tend the fire, but
it cannot. Instead, the idol is itself consumed by the fire. In the seventh chapter, fire is
listed as one of the elements, along with water and earth. In the eighth chapter, God
reveals himself to Abraham as a fire. He lets Abraham escape but burns Terah and his
house with fire from heaven.
There are both similarities and differences in the manner in which these texts
employ fire.37 In both texts, idolaters and their idols perish by fire. In Jubilees, the idols
are deliberately burnt, while Haran is not. In ApocAb, however, Terah (perhaps with
others) is deliberately burnt in God's judgment of fire from heaven, while the wooden
idol Barisat is not. Indeed, Haran does not appear in ApocAb 1-8.38 In ApocAb, God is
manifested in fire. In Jubilees, he is not. We might conclude, then, that fire is a partial
resonance between these two texts; both employ it even though each does so differently.
Additionally, it might be noted that both texts could be independently borrowing the
common fire imagery of the Old Testament. To take just the Pentateuch as an illustration,
we see there God manifested in fire; we see God consuming sinners with fire, and we see
God commanding that idols be burnt by fire.39 Such Pentateuchal imagery is echoed
throughout the Old Testament. So, for example, in Psalm 97:3, we read that "Fire goes
37 Thierry Legrand comments more broadly, and somewhat understatedly, that, "L'épisode de la mort de
Haran est raconté de manière assez différente dans plusieurs écrits anciens: en Genèse Rabba XXXVIII,
le récit est plus nettement ordalique; en Jubilés 12,12-14, Abraham met le feu aux idoles de son père,
Haran meurt brûlé en tentant d'éteindre le feu de la maison des idoles; en Apocalypse d'Abraham V-VII,
Haran n'apparaît plus, mais son père Tèrah et toute sa maison (les idoles) seront consumés par le feu du
ciel." Thierry Legrand, 'Le Thème Du Feu Dans Les Traditions Targumiques Du Pentateuque', in F.
Vion-Delphin and F. Lassus (eds.), Les Hommes Et Le Feu De l'Antiquité à Nos Jours: Du Feu
Mythique Et Bienfaiteur Au Feu Dévastateur, ALUB, Besançon, Presses Universitaires De Franch-
Comté, 2007, p. 35, n. 38. (It should be noted that idols are not mentioned as being burnt in ApocAb 8.)
38 Certain late, interpolated, and incomplete (Russian) versional manuscripts (Pr, K, and Mil.) appear to
insert the story of Abraham's setting fire to the village idols and Haran's subsequent death from
Jubilees. See the discussion in: Émile Turdeanu, 'L'Apocalypse D'Abraham En Slave', JSJ, Vol. 3, No.
2, (1972), pp. 164-166.
39 See, for e.g., Gen. 19:24; Ex. 3:2; 9:23-24; 13:21-22; 19:18; 24:17; Lev. 9:24; 10:2; Num. 11:1-3;
16:35; Deut. 4:24; 7:5, 25; 9:3, 21; 12:3; 33:2.
before him [God] and burns up his adversaries all around." This description of God leads
on to the idea that by God, "All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their
boast in worthless idols" (Ps. 97:7). The similarity to the depiction of God in ApocAb is
easy to see.40
This consideration of the parallels suggested by Nickelsburg leads us to conclude
that while he amasses supposed parallels, the list is not strong enough to persuade us that
the author of the Apocalypse of Abraham knew of (directly or indirectly), or made use of,
Jubilees. Indeed, at least one commentator suggests that the author of ApocAb 1-8 was
ignorant of Jubilees, and so fails to include certain of its details.41 Rather, the similarities
between these two texts may be seen as incidental, likely the product of a shared outlook
and common Old Testament.
Finally, while Calvert-Koyzis suggests a parallel between the seventh chapter of
ApocAb and Philo's De Abrahamo 69-70, it can be pointed out that the only parallel
between these two texts is in the way in which she characterises them: viz. as texts which
depict Abraham's reasoning to God on the basis of his observation of the natural
phenomena. The contents of the passages are not obviously parallel in any of their
respective details. Neither is Philo's portrayal of Abraham similar to that of the
Apocalypse of Abraham in other respects. In Philo, Abraham is clothed in an Hellenistic
garb; he is interpreted allegorically, and he is linked with a discussion of the virtues and
the encyclica. Each of these elements is absent from the Apocalypse of Abraham.
In light of these considerations, we do not see the Apocalypse of Abraham as
having refashioned or recapitulated a tradition inherited from either Jubilees or Philo,
40 For a quite different interpretation of the fire in ApocAb, see: Orlov, 'Abraham The Iconoclast', pp. 43-
48. According to Orlov, fire in ApocAb has more connection with Ezekiel and Daniel, than with
Jubilees. Whether or not Orlov is correct. The divergence of interpretation illustrates the fact that such
generic narrative elements as the presence of fire can be variously interpreted.
41 Viz. Frey, who writes: "Dans notre apocryphe, la légende revêt une forme plus simple et plus primative
que dans les écrits rabbiniques; elle ignore même certains détails que rapportent les Jubilés (XI-XII)."
Frey, 'L'Apocalypse d'Abraham', pp. 30-31.
whether directly or indirectly.42 Rather, the presentation in ApocAb is its own story. As
such, we concur with Box's opinion, that the narrative is "quite independent" from other
'haggadot' about Abraham's early life, particularly those of Jubilees and Philo.43
We have attempted to demonstrate two things in this chapter. First, that in the Apocalypse
of Abraham, Abraham does not so much discover God as get discovered by God.
Abraham, to be sure, has his doubts about statuary idolatry, but he is nowhere near to
either monotheism, in general, or to a personal knowledge of the God of gods, in
particular, when God suddenly bursts into his life. God called him to leave his father's
house, lest he also perish for the sins of his father's house.
Second, we have hoped to show that the first eight chapters of the Apocalypse of
Abraham are not merely a recapitulation of an earlier, received tradition which is also
evident in Philo and Jubilees. Rather, ApocAb is an independent compilation which
exhibits important dissimilarities from those other texts. Indeed, amongst the texts we
have so far considered, ApocAb is unique in the degree to which it treats Abraham as
ignorant of the things of God, involved in idolatry, and as passive object of his revelation.
Although we have not discussed the depiction of Abraham beyond the first eight
chapters, it would be possible to see the patriarch, even here, as functioning in the role of
the apocalyptic seer.44 More research is required in this direction.
42 Cf. also Bonwetsch, who sees ApocAb as picking up on the same tradition as is found in Jubilees,
Josephus, and Philo (amongst other Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions). Gottlieb Nathanael
Bonwetsch, Die Apokalypse Abrahams, Leipzig, Scientia Verlag Aalen, 1897, pp. 41-55.
43 Box and Landsman, The Apocalypse of Abraham, p. 93.
44 Hence, in Collins' terminology, Abraham is the "human recipient" of God's revelation. John J. Collins,
'Introduction: Toward The Morphology of A Genre', Semeia, Vol. 14, (1979), p. 9. Rubinkiewicz notes
that a particular element of the apocalyptic genre is attribution to one of the great heroes of antiquity.
He then suggests that ApocAb chose Abraham, because of his association with the work's main theme:
viz. the covenant. If this is the case, then the first eight chapters serve as background to God's revelation
to Abraham and introduction of the covenant. Rubinkiewicz, En Vieux Slave, pp. 40-41. Perhaps, in his
role as seer, Abraham represents the nation, who stand in need of someone to open up their vision and
tell them how to respond.
For our purposes, it is enough to observe that the depiction of Abraham in
ApocAb differs from that of the three previous Abraham texts. Nevertheless, the
difference in genre between ApocAb and these other texts may have played a role in
shaping that difference, even in the preferatory 'haggadic' chapters.

CHAPTER 6
LIBER ANTIQUITATUM BIBLICARUM
6.1 Introduction
The present chapter looks at the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. For an introduction to
the text, the reader may refer to Jacobson's commentary, or to the work of Bruce Fisk.1
To introduce a work such as LAB is fraught with difficulties. That it belongs to the
genre of 're-written Bible' seems clear enough, given its contents: LAB reworks the
biblical history up to around the end of Judges. However, there is no unambiguous
evidence as to the date, provenance, authorship, or ideological tendency of the work. 2
More than this, questions remain over issues such as why LAB ends where it does (with
the death of Saul), and what kind of Old Testament text-type was used by the author. It is,
therefore, impossible to be certain about the Sitz im Leben of the text.3 In introducing the
text here, we shall limit ourselves to two select but pertinent comments.
Firstly, we assume a Palestinian provenance, as this is the overwhelming majority
consensus of contemporary scholarship on the document. Yet, since the Latin text which
has come down to us is a translation of a translation of a text whose original freely cited
or else paraphrased the biblical text upon which it was based, we do not feel that we can
discover which Hebrew OT text-type the author knew. As such, we do not propose 100 AD
as a necessary terminus ad quem, as some have.4

1 Howard Jacobson, A Commentary On Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum: With Latin Text
And English Translation, 2 Vols., Vol. 1, AGJU, Vol. 31, Leiden, Brill, 1996; Bruce Norman Fisk, Do
You Not Remember?: Scripture, Story And Exegesis In The Rewritten Bible of Pseudo-Philo, Sheffield,
Sheffield Academic, 2001.
2 Thus, attempts to tie the text to certain groups – such as Mühling does with the Pharisees – are
problematic. Anke Mühling, "Blickt auf Abraham, euren Vater": Abraham als Identifikationsfigur des
Judentums in der Zeit des Exils und des Zweiten Tempels, FRLANT, Vol. 236, Göttingen, V&R, 2011,
p. 286.
3 Fisk, in particular, highlights the uncertainty in each of these areas. Fisk, Do You Not Remember?, pp.
34ff.
4 Jacobson, Commentary On Pseudo-Philo, p. 210.
CHAPTER 6: LIBER ANTIQUITATUM BIBLICARUM 147
Secondly, we adopt the majority view that LAB was composed after 70AD,
because this represents the current scholarly consensus, albeit an uncertain one. Since the
trauma of the loss of the Temple is not evident in the text, we do not feel that it could
have been composed immediately after that event. At the same time, Jacobson gives
evidence which suggests that the text evinces a time of dispirited Weltschmerz.5 As such,
we would follow his suggestion of positioning the text chronologically either in the
period of Hadrianic persecutions or else after the Bar-Kochba revolt, with an assumed
terminus ad quem of about 150AD.6
In the foregoing chapters, we have evaluated several scholarly conclusions about
the presentation of Abraham in each text. Given the general consensus on the
presentation of Abraham in LAB, however, it will not be necessary to do that to the same
extent. We shall, therefore, limit ourselves to a discussion of the portrayal of Abraham in
LAB, before considering the view which places LAB in the Nachleben of Jubilees, and
which sees LAB as a settled member of the 'set' of five texts we have called the 'five
Abraham texts'.
6.2 LAB's Portrayal of Abraham (chs. 4-8)
Abraham's portrayal in LAB is highly (and uniformly) laudatory.7 We see this from the
first mention of Abraham at 4:11, where, in the post-deluvian genealogical record from
Shem, we read this:
Reu took as his wife Melcha the daughter of Ruth, and she bore to him Serug. When the day
of delivery came, she said, "From this one there will be born in the fourth generation one who
will set his dwelling on high and will be called perfect and blameless; and he will be the
father of nations, and his covenant will not be broken, and his seed will be multiplied
5 Cf. Halvor Moxnes, Theology In Conflict: Studies In Paul's Understanding of God In Romans, Leiden,
Brill, 1980, p. 166, who sees the text as trying to rebuild confidence in God's promises after the
shattering events of 70AD.
6 Jacobson, Commentary On Pseudo-Philo, p. 209.
7 Our analysis is essentially based upon the Latin text. However, no variation significant for the present
study is to be found in the Hebrew texts presented by: Daniel J. Harrington, The Hebrew Fragments of
Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum Preserved In The Chronicles of Jerahmeel, Texts And
Translations 3, Pseudepigrapha Series 3, Missoula, SBL, 1974, pp. 16-35.
forever.8
Even before his birth, it is certain that Abraham will be "perfect" (perfectus) and
"blameless" (inmaculatus).9
In the time of Serug, we are told, the inhabitants of the world "began to gaze at
the stars and started to prognosticate by them and to perform divination and to pass their
sons and daughters through fire. But Serug and his sons did not walk in accord with
them" (4:16). In the 133 years from the birth of Serug to the birth of Abraham, the line of
Serug remained steadfast and did not follow the sins of those around them. In this way,
before even discussing the career of Abraham, LAB has already established his
righteousness and distinguished him from the ungodly who surround him. Indeed,
Pseudo-Philo sees Abraham as standing in a line of godly men which includes Noah, in
particular, but also Shem, Serug, and Joktan. 10 It may even be that these godly men are
viewed as Jews, in some sense. Certainly, there is no hint that Abraham was ever a
Gentile.
Rhonda Burnette-Bletsch points out that both Noah and Abraham are
distinguished from the rest of humanity by their righteousness (LAB 1:20; 3:4; 4:11; 7:4).
She also argues that,
the repeated thematic and linguistic connections between Noah and Abraham in L.A.B. 1-8
suggest that the former in some sense prefigures the latter. Pseudo-Philo understands Noah,
like Abraham, as an early ancestor of Israel whose 'blameless' character sets him apart from
the rest of sinful humanity.11
Abraham's career begins in earnest, in the narrative of LAB, as part of the story of the
Tower of Babel. When the inhabitants of the earth had begun to build the Tower, twelve
8 In Latin: "Ragau autem accepit sibi mulierem Melcham filiam Ruth, et genuit ei Seruch. Et cum factus
fuisset dies partus eius dixit: Ex isto nascetur in quarta generatione qui ponat habitationem super
excelsa, et perfectus vocabitur et inmaculatus, et pater gentium erit, et non dissolvetur testamentum
eius, et semen eius in seculum multiplicabitur." Jacobson, Commentary On Pseudo-Philo, p. 6.
9 Frederick J. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting The Bible, Oxford, OUPress, 1993, p. 38.
10 This feature of the narrative distinguishes LAB from Jubilees, Philo, ApocAb, and, to some extent,
Josephus. In all of those texts, Abraham's immediate forefathers are viewed negatively.
11 Rhonda J. Burnette-Bletsch, 'The Reception of Genesis In Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum', in C. A. Evans, J. N. Lohr, and D. L. Petersen (eds.), The Book of Genesis: Composition,
Reception, And Interpretation, VTSup, Leiden, Brill, 2012, p. 466.
men refused: viz. Abram, Nahor, Lot, Ruge, Tenute, Zaba, Armodat, Jobab, Esar,
Abimahel, Saba, and Aufin (6:3). They said: "We know only the Lord, and him we
worship. Even if you throw us into the fire with your bricks, we will not assent to you."
(6:4). This refusal, although not entirely transparent, may be based upon the desire to
avoid idolatry, but it is certainly not clear that such is the case.12
Even so, the rest of the people arrested Abraham and the other conscientious
objectors. After Joktan intercedes for them, they are given seven days in prison to repent.
During this time, Joktan plans an escape. Eleven of the men accept his plan, but Abraham
refuses, highlighting Abraham's unique steadfastness. He says, "If there be any sin of
mine such that I should be burned, let the will of God be done." (6:11). At the end of the
seven days, Abraham is thrown into the furnace, but God rescues him à la the
deliverance of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in Daniel (6:17-18). Shortly after this,
Abraham's loyalty to God leads to God's choosing him as a covenant partner (7:4). Bruce
Fisk summarises the thrust of this section as follows: "...the Babel story as rewritten in
LAB is essentially a subset of the Abraham narrative... By thus combining elements of
Genesis 11 and 12, the patriarch stands even further removed from sinful humanity (LAB
4.11; 6.3, 11, 17; 7.3-4; 8.1-3)."13

12 It is evident from LAB 6:4 that the twelve men refuse on the basis that it will somehow hinder their
worship of God. Idolatry, however, is never explicitly in view. Calvert-Koyzis writes: “Why this [act of
helping construct the tower] would be construed as idolatry is not clear in the text”. Nancy Calvert-
Koyzis, 'Abraham: III A: Second Temple And Hellenistic Judaism', in H.-J. Klauck (ed.), Encyclopedia
of The Bible And Its Reception, 1, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2009, p. 164. It may be that the construction of
the Tower is to be seen more as an act of rebellion than idolatry, as it is in the biblical text. So Jacobson,
Commentary On Pseudo-Philo, p. 356. Similarly, since each person is to contribute one brick with their
name written on it, it may be that Abraham and the others are reacting to a kind of humanism which
glorifies man and his accomplishments. Engler's close analysis of the text leads to the (probably
correct) conclusion that, "No good evidence supports the commonly cited claim that the writing of the
names on the bricks was an act of idolatry." Erich Engler, Reward And Punishment In Pseudo-Philo's
Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, Ph. D. dissertation, McMaster University, Hamilton, 2012, p. 87.
Bogaert, meanwhile, makes the somewhat idiosyncratic proposal that Abraham’s refusal to inscribe his
name on a brick is a refusal to participate in magical practices of some sort: “Abraham a refusé de
participer aux rites magiques préludant à la construction de la Tour de Babel.” Pierre-Maurice Bogaert,
'La Figure D'Abraham Dans Les Antiquités Bibliques Du Pseudo-Philon', in P.-M. Bogaert (ed.),
Abraham Dans La Bible Et Dans La Tradition Juive, PubIIB, Bruxelles, Institutum Iudaicum, 1977, p.
45. It is not clear what magical practices are being referred to. All of which leads us to the conclusion
that it would be unwise to dogmatically claim that idolatry is especially at issue in the building of the
tower.
13 Fisk, Do You Not Remember?, pp. 146-147.
After these events, the narrative of LAB speeds through the events of the rest of
Genesis, hurrying on to the birth of Moses. Abraham is mentioned a few more times in
LAB, however. At 23:4-5, LAB recounts Joshua's address to the people at Shechem (Josh.
24). Here we read Joshua's words: “When the inhabitants of the land were led astray,
each after his own devices, Abraham believed in me and was not led astray with them.”
LAB has here altered the content of Joshua's speech to make it unambiguous that
Abraham was never engaged in idolatry.14
At 32:1, we hear much the same report repeated, but it is added that the angels
were jealous of Abraham. Because of the angels' jealousy, God tests Abraham with the
command to sacrifice his son. This test was not for God's benefit, but to prove Abraham's
righteousness to all of his doubters. Thus God intervenes at the last moment, with the
command,
Do not slay your son, do not destroy the fruit of your belly. For now I have made you known
to those who do not know you and have shut the mouths of those who always malign you
Your memory will be before me always, and your name and his from generation to
generation. (32:4).15
In sum, the portrayal of Abraham in LAB is shorter than that of Genesis, and
unlike the Genesis account, it is unambiguously positive.16 It is prophesied that Abraham
will be perfect. When he is born, he is perfect. And he provides the perfect beginning to
the nation loved by God, an example which they can look back to. He epitomises virtue –
over-against the lack of virtue to be found among the peoples around.17

14 Cf. Terence E. Fretheim, Abraham: Trials of Family And Faith, ed. J. L. Crenshaw, SPOT, South
Carolina, The University of South Carolina Press, 2007, p. 160.
15 Likewise, at 18:5, God connects the Akedah with angels.
16 Note, however, that Murphy interprets Abraham's statement at 6:11 as an admission of sinfulness on the
patriarch's part: "Most striking is that both Abraham and Kenaz explicitly admit that they are sinners."
Murphy, Rewriting The Bible, p. 248. Abraham's comments seem rather to to be a defiance; he is
assuming that there is no sin in him worthy of death and that God will rescue him. At the same time, he
acknowledging that God is the judge. This tells us nothing about whether Abraham felt there was sin in
him worthy of a lesser punishment. Cf. Simon J. Gathercole, Where Is Boasting?: Early Jewish
Soteriology And Paul's Response In Romans 1-5, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2002, p. 177, n. 57. Cf. also
the comments of: Chris VanLandingham, Judgment And Justification In Early Judaism And The
Apostle Paul, Peabody, Hendrickson, 2006, p. 32.
17 Thus Bogaert writes: "La signification du personnage d'Abraham dans les Antiquités Bibliques ressort
essentiellement du contraste établi aux chapitres 6 à 8 entre Abraham et ses contemporains. Abraham a
recevoir de Dieu aux termes de la promesse ce que ses contemporains idolâtres veulent conquérir sur
6.3 Common Trends In The Interpretation of LAB
In the previous chapters, we have evaluated common readings of the handling of
Abraham in Jubilees, Philo, Josephus, and ApocAb. Repeatedly in the secondary
literature, suggestions were made about Abraham's having been an ungodly pagan
idolater or astrologer before his conversion to monotheism. No such suggestions are
made in connection with LAB. Undoubtedly, this is because such features are not part of
the presentation of Abraham in LAB, as our foregoing discussion will have made clear.
Yet, LAB is still commonly seen as perpetuating a Jubilees type paradigm of
Abraham, and as belonging with the other four Abraham texts. We might wonder why,
when LAB does not share significant features with the other four texts. We shall approach
the topic in two ways.
Firstly, as was observed to be the case with the Apocalypse of Abraham, LAB is
seldom afforded an independent treatment by those who place it in Paul's background.
Instead, it is utilised as evidence for the continuing distribution of Jubilees' Abraham-
tradition. As with ApocAb, this trend is seen in the work of G. W. E. Nickelsburg,
amongst others. Nickelsburg states that several elements in LAB's depiction of Abraham
“parallel” Jubilees 11-12.18 He lists the following parallels: (a) At the risk of his life,
Abraham rejects the idolatry of his compatriots; (b) a great fire is associated with the
Babylonian idolatry; (c) as a result of his rejection of idolatry, Abraham is chosen by God
and sent forth from Mesopotamia to the land of Canaan. These parallels, it is suggested,
“could very well indicate that the author of Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum knew a
tradition about Abraham that associated him with a conflagration that was, in turn, related
Dieu." Bogaert, 'La Figure D'Abraham Dans Les Antiquités Bibliques Du Pseudo-Philon', p. 51.
Press, 1998, p. 163.
to his rejection of idolatry.”19 At the very least, LAB's chronology – placing Abraham in
the time of the Tower of Babel – is to be seen as a borrowed traditional element,
evidenced already in Wisdom of Solomon 10:5.20 We shall briefly discuss the parallels
between LAB and Jubilees suggested by Nickelsburg.
Secondly, LAB is often grouped with the other four Abraham texts. After
examining LAB's relation to Jubilees, we shall consider the inclusion of LAB within the
'five Abraham texts' more generally.
6.3.1 Placing LAB In Jubilees' Nachleben
We consider now Nickelsburg's three main points of convergence between LAB's account
of Abraham and that found in Jubilees:
(a) The first of Nickelsburg's parallels might be better described as an incidental
similarity. Certainly, in both texts Abraham faces danger. Yet, as noted above, in LAB this
danger need not be associated with idolatry. Furthermore, even assuming that idolatry is
at issue in LAB's account of the Tower of Babel, one must still contend with the fact that
none of the narrative details are the same. There is no furnace in Jubilees, Abraham is not
imprisoned in Jubilees, and so on. Indeed, the accounts are in tension at certain points.
For instance, in LAB (6:3) Nahor resists the tower-builders along with Abraham, whereas
in Jubilees Nahor is angry against Abraham (12:8). As such, while there may be some
resonance at this point, the dissonances discount any true concordance.
(b) The second of Nickelsburg's parallels – that fire is mentioned in both texts –
seems also to be incidental. In Jubilees, Abraham burns down the local idol temple. In
LAB no physical idols are mentioned at all, let alone destroyed by fire. Indeed, in LAB,
Abraham does not light the fire, but is himself put into it. LAB, that is to say, appears to

20 "When the nations were confounded because of [their] wicked agreement, [Wisdom] recognized the
righteous one and preserved him blameless before God..." Cited by: Nickelsburg, 'Abraham The
Convert', p. 164.
follow the pattern of Daniel's account of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in
Nebuchadnezzar's furnace (Dan. 1-3), not the account of Jubilees. Of course, we should
not be surprised that fire occurs frequently in Second Temple literature, since it is
common both in the Old Testament, and in life generally. Indeed, it might be noted that
since LAB's association of Abraham with a fiery furnace is unique amongst five Abraham
texts, it serves not as evidence for LAB's dependance on Jubilees but quite the opposite.21
(c) Nickelsburg's third parallel is also weak. In LAB, God chooses Abraham on the
basis of his steadfast devotion. Again, as noted above, in the case of the Tower of Babel
incident, this may be steadfastness under the threat of idolatry, but it need not have any
reference to idolatry. Even if one assumes that, in LAB, God chooses Abraham on the
basis of his rejection of idolatry, it is not clear in Jubilees that Abraham's call by God is
prompted by his rejection of idolatry. Rather, as we have attempted to show in our
chapter on Jubilees, God's call to Abraham comes long after his rejection of idolatry, but
in the immediate context of his fears regarding his future and that of his descendants.
At this point, it may be worth noting that while Nickelsburg can come to the
conclusion that LAB perpetuates the Abraham tradition of Jubilees, M. R. James could
claim that while aware of the existence of Jubilees, LAB, if anything, intentionally
avoided “the ground traversed by that book.”22 That two such eminent scholars can come
to diametrically opposed positions on the relationship between the same two texts should
give us pause. Moreover, Feldman, in his prolegomenon to the reprinting of James' work,
disagrees with James about LAB's dependence upon Jubilees.23 Other examples could be
given, but these would seem to highlight the subjective nature of this inquiry.
21 Cf. Glenn Earl Robertson, Paul And The Abrahamic Tradition: The Background of Abraham And The
Law In Galatians 3-4 And Romans 4, Ph. D. dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary,
Texas, 1988, p. 93, n. 2.
22 Montague Rhodes James and Louis H. Feldman, The Biblical Antiquities of Philo, ed. H. M. Orlinsky,
New York, KTAV, 1971, pp. 45-46. Strugnell reiterates that LAB's "additions and omissions [to/from
Genesis] are so distinct from those of Jubilees that it has been suggested that Pseudo-Philo was
correcting and supplementing that book." John Strugnell, 'Philo (Pseudo-)', Encyclopaedia Judaica
2nd. Edn., 16, Detroit, Macmillan, 2007, p. 59.
23 James and Feldman, The Biblical Antiquities of Philo, pp. lii-liii.
Finally, there is Wis. 10:5 to consider. While this text places Abraham in the
general time period of the Tower, it does not unambiguously position Abraham amongst
the tower building generation. Instead, the author may be considering Genesis 12:1 to be
a protective response – on the part of Wisdom – to the effects of Genesis 11:1-9. In any
case, whatever we make of the parallel between LAB and Wisdom of Solomon,
Nickelsburg's suggestion that LAB retains traditional material also to be found in Jubilees
is only very weakly evidenced.
It is probably best to view LAB's account of the life of Abraham as an independent
creation. As Vermes notes, LAB is the earliest evidence we possess of an author placing
Abraham in a situation akin to that of Daniel 1-3. As such, rather than being irrigated by
a stream of inherited traditional material, LAB may have been the headwaters of a
different stream.24 As Fisk points out, a distinction between Abraham and the sinful
nations occurs in each of the following authors: the author of Jubilees, Josephus, and
Philo. Yet, Abraham is not associated with the Babel generation by any of them.25
6.3.2 LAB And The Other Abraham Texts: One Within A Set?
As we have progressed through Jubilees, Philo, Josephus, and the Apocalypse of
Abraham, in the previous chapters, several themes kept recurring in the secondary
literature. The Abrahams of Philo, Josephus, and ApocAb, we were told, all belonged to
one tradition stemming from Jubilees; a tradition with certain defining characteristics:
viz. to view the patriarch as the foundational monotheist, as an ungodly Gentile who
converted from idolatry, as a former astrologer, and so on. LAB, too, is often included in
this set.
24 Geza Vermes, Scripture And Tradition In Judaism: Haggadic Studies, StPB, 4, Leiden, Brill, 1983, p.
90.
25 Two passages in Jubilees (10:18-19; 11:1-9) "locate the Babel episode in the life time of Peleg and Reu,
in the fifth and fourth generations before Abraham. … [Meanwhile,] Josephus's Babel episode antedates
Abraham's generation; Nimrod/Nebrodes, grandson of Ham (Gen. 10.6-10; Ant. 1.113-15), was
responsible for the rebellion." Fisk, Do You Not Remember?, pp. 146-147, n. 34.
LAB is an ill-fitting inclusion, however. When we look at LAB it doesn't seem to
meet the criteria for entry into the set of five. Abraham, in LAB, is not a foundational
monotheist. His fathers were monotheists too. He is not an ungodly Gentile convert. He
is not a former astrologer; and so on.
Even if one were to restrict the criteria for entry into the set to just two features –
viz. rejection of idolatry, and rejection of astrology – it would not be apparent that LAB
should be included. LAB does not describe Abraham as having been engaged in
astronomy, astrology, or meteorology. It is also not especially clear that Abraham battles
against idolatry in LAB. At the very least, he does not have to deal with statues of wood
or stone.
We may grant that Abraham is an anti-idolater in LAB. Yet, it will not very well
do to say that just because a text possesses one of the features said to be characteristic of
the set then this feature alone qualifies that text for entry. If one did that, one would have
to admit the several texts beyond the 'five Abraham texts' which link the patriarch to
some form or other of astronomy/astrology (e.g. Pseudo-Eupolemus). Indeed, if the
characteristic of rejection of idolatry being associated with Abraham is the sole criterion
for inclusion in the set, then one must ask why other writings outside of the 'five
Abraham texts' which exhibit this feature are not included. 4 Maccabees, for example,
credits those who resist idolatry as possessing Abrahamic character (e.g. 4 Macc. 6:17,
22; 13:17; 14:20; 15:28).26
Merely rejecting idolatry is insufficient a level of affinity between the
presentations of Abraham in LAB and, for example, Jubilees. Emphasis on this single
similarity between LAB and the other four Abraham texts obscures the uniqueness of
LAB's handling of the patriarch. For instance, where LAB connects Abraham to the
26 One might also cite Judith 5:6-10 as an example of Abraham rejecting idolatry, although it is not
entirely clear that Abraham is particularly in view here.
building of the Tower of Babel, and has him placed in a blazing-hot furnace, as in the
biblical story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, neither of these details – which
make up the heart of LAB's Abraham narrative – are present in the other Abraham texts or
in any other text before the time of LAB. Likewise, the prediction made about Abraham
before his birth is unique to LAB.27 Indeed, one could multiply such differences between
LAB and the other texts. As such, to say that LAB belongs to the same 'Abraham tradition'
as the other Abraham texts seems to take the evidence further than is warranted.
In this chapter, we hope to have introduced the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,
demonstrating that its view of Abraham is straightforward and wholly positive, not
describing Abraham's involvement in religious error of any kind, and not taking up the
topics of idolatry or astrology. We have also evaluated the notion that the text is
organically connected to Jubilees. In addition, we assessed the validity of the manner in
which LAB is commonly placed into the 'five Abraham texts' set. In relation to the last
two points, we concluded that it is unlikely that LAB belongs in Jubilees' Nachleben, or
that it fits readily into the five-text set.
27 Cf. Engler, Reward And Punishment, p. 82, n. 68.

CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION TO PART I
7.1 Introduction
In the foregoing five chapters (Chapters 2-6), we have analysed the presentation of
Abraham in five texts/authors. In each chapter, we evaluated common interpretations of
Abraham's representation in the text under consideration and evaluated whether an
alternative reading seemed to be required by the primary material. In the present chapter,
we will begin by doing something similar. Here, however, instead of evaluating the
scholarly reading of a particular text, we shall be evaluating the manner in which these
texts have often been drawn-together and collocated on the basis of their ostensible
kinship. The 'five Abraham texts', that is to say, are frequently viewed from the
perspective of what features they appear to share. Scholars viewing the texts from this
perspective attempt to demonstrate that they should be grouped together, by arguing that
there is a common core of tradition shared by, and present in, all.
First, then, we shall summarise what the 'common core' of tradition is seen to be
in the scholarly literature (§7.2). We will then evaluate this scholarly suggestion (§7.3).
Our evaluation will consist of two parts. In the first part, we will examine how well this
increasingly accepted view comports with the evidence of the texts themselves (§7.3.1).
In the second part of the evaluation, we shall discuss the manner in which the 'five
Abraham texts' have been grouped together into a single 'set' – as only slightly dissimilar
expressions of one tradition (§7.3.2). After this, consideration will be given to the
apparent methodological underpinnings which facilitate such a grouping of texts.

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION TO PART I 158
7.2 How The Five Abraham Texts Have Been Drawn-Together
As we have worked through the 'five Abraham texts' and their handling in the secondary
literature, it became apparent that scholars emphasise their points of perceived similarity.
The 'five Abraham texts' are treated as merely variations on a theme, something like
Elgar's Enigma variations. Each was said to present a slightly different version of an
essentially coordinate understanding of Abraham. The core of this understanding may be
summarised as follows: Abraham was the first proselyte to monotheism. He began life as
an ungodly Gentile involved in idolatry and sinful astrology, but he discovered God and
so came to true religion. Some scholars also emphasise that it was through observance of
the natural phenomena that Abraham discovered God. It is also often said that part of the
core of the tradition was Abraham's adoption of the Law.1
Nickelsburg, for example, sees each of our texts as displaying striking parallels to
Jubilees, indicating that the stories of Abraham in Jubilees 11-12 had an ongoing life in
the Jewish tradition.2 He then summarises them collectively as depicting Abraham
converting from, and rejecting, his former idolatry and astrology to turn to the worship of
the one, true God.3 Similarly, Jochen Flebbe sees the 'five Abraham texts' picturing the
patriarch as the first proselyte, “der sich von den Götzen zu Gott bekehrte, und damit ein
Heide im heidnischen Umfeld, der – als erster – den Gott Israels entdeckt, erkannt und
anerkannt hat.”4 Calvert-Koyzis summarises the 'five Abraham texts' as seeing in

1 In the later rabbinic literature, Abraham is depicted as reasoning to God from nature (cf. ApocAb 7). He
is also depicted as a convert, and a missionary. He is sometimes said to have embraced astronomy, and
sometimes said to have rejected it. And there are other traditions about him in that literature. See, for
e.g., Alfonso Maria Di Nòla, 'Abramo', in A. M. Di Nòla (ed.), Enciclopedia Delle Religioni, 1,
Florence, Vallecchi, 1970, pp. 9-11. As such, several of the features which are supposedly present in the
presentation of Abraham in the 'five Abraham texts' are present in the later rabbinic literature. And
scholarship of the past often read the Second Temple literature (in toto) and the later rabbinic literature
together as one body of organically connected and evolving tradition. But we are interested in what the
'five Abraham texts' themselves have to say, and do not wish to colour them with hues from a later
period.
Press, 1998, p. 160.
4 Jochen Flebbe, Solus Deus: Untersuchungen zur Rede von Gott im Brief des Paulus an die Römer, ed.
Abraham one who converted from idolatry to obedience to the Law when he discovered
the one God, discerning his existence from observance of the natural phenomena. As
such, “Although the authors wrote in different circumstances and political situations, the
same traditions about Abraham continued to reappear in the early Jewish literature [i.e.
the 'five Abraham texts']”.5
In line with these authors, Adams treats our texts as an homogenous cluster of
essentially similar reflections on Abraham. Thus, he speaks of “this Jewish tradition
concerning the patriarch”, and “the tradition” of Abraham as model proselyte who leaves
behind his family and religion to follow the true God;6 an interpretation of Gen. 11:27-
12:9 based on Josh 24:2-3, “where it is implied that God brought Abraham out of
idolatry.”7 Likewise, Eisenbaum, who follows Adams (and others), gives the following
summary of 'the' tradition:
Abraham turns from idolatry to worship of the one true God. In other words, Abraham is
widely considered to be the first monotheist. Often this tradition includes a description of
Abraham's original family as idolatrous and thus the reason for Abraham's separation from his
people. Numerous texts can be mustered to illustrate this image of Abraham: [Jub.; LAB, and
Ant. are cited].8
We shall now evaluate how well these views comport with the evidence of the
'five Abraham texts' themselves.
7.3 Evaluation
7.3.1 The Picture of Abraham Presented By The Five Abraham Texts
The reading just illustrated appears to be somewhat questionable. Indeed, the view of
Abraham as ungodly Gentile idolater and/or astrologer who discovers God in nature and
M. Wolter, et. al., BZNW, Vol. 158, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2008, p. 194.
6 Edward Adams, 'Abraham's Faith And Gentile Disobedience: Textual Links Between Romans 1 And 4',
JSJ, Vol. 65, (1997), p. 59 (emphasis added).
7 Adams, 'Abraham's Faith And Gentile Disobedience', p. 55.
8 Pamela Eisenbaum, 'Paul As The New Abraham', in R. A. Horsley (ed.), Paul And Politics: Ekklesia,
so converts to monotheism does not satisfactorily explain all of the evidence, and,
indeed, goes against some of it. Thus, it is questionable whether each of the 'five
Abraham texts' presents the kind of co-ordinate view of the patriarch which has been
suggested.
The common reading contains four main elements, as follows: (1) it sees
Abraham as having been involved in idolatry; (2) it sees Abraham as having been
involved in sinful astrology; (3) it sees Abraham as having discovered the one true God;
(4) it sees Abraham as having been an ungodly Gentile before his conversion.
7.3.1.1 Idolater Abraham

The view which sees Abraham as having been involved in idolatry finds support in
ApocAb, where Abraham is depicted as having been intimately involved in his father's
idolatry. However, ApocAb is the exception which proves the rule, for none of the other
four Abraham texts implicate Abraham in such idolatry. Indeed, they are often at pains to
exemplify how Abraham was distinct from such practice. Worthy of particular mention in
this connection are Jubilees and LAB. In the former, Abraham is depicted as recognising
the error of idolatry from the earliest age, and not participating with his father in it. In the
latter, Abraham stands in a reputable line of descendants none of whom are imprecated in
idolatry. The patriarch was presented instead as an anti-idolater.9
9 This lack of physical idols in Josephus and Philo is all too often ignored, as the distinctions between the
'five Abraham texts' are blurred. So, for example, Daniel Harlow writes as follows, "In both early and
rabbinic Jewish literature [Abraham] is literally an iconoclast – a smashher of idols. His reputation in
this regard is rooted in the story of how he renounced the idols of his father's house. The story was
evidently quite popular in the Second Temple period, showing up in various forms in the book of
Jubilees, the writings of Philo and Josephus, Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities, and the Apocalypse of
Abraham." Daniel C. Harlow, 'Idolatry And Alterity: Israel And The Nations In The Apocalypse of
Abraham', in D. C. Harlow et al. (eds.), The "Other" In Second Temple Judaism: Essays In Honor of
John J. Collins, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2011, p. 304 (emphasis added). It is hard to know what might
explain this belief that Philo and Josephus portray Abraham as an iconoclast, except that under the
influence of other texts (cited by Harlow, for e.g., are Gen. Rab. 38:19; Tanna debe Eliyahu 2:25, Midr.
ha-Gadol, various patristic sources, and the Qur'an), the depictions of Abraham in two earlier authors
are being homogenised to the normative view as reconstructed by modern scholarship.
7.3.1.2 Astrologer Abraham
The view which sees Abraham as having been involved in sinful astrology finds only
dubious support in the literature. Astrology is not mentioned at all in LAB in connection
with Abraham. It is mentioned only once in ApocAb 1-8, but that mention comes in the
interpolated seventh chapter. In Josephus' narrative, a plain reading indicates both that
Josephus himself was not against astronomy, and that his view of Abraham's astronomy
was entirely positive.
Jubilees presents a somewhat more nuanced view of the study of the stars. For the
author of Jubilees there exist both acceptable and unacceptable ways of studying the stars
(i.e. astronomy, and astrology). Yet, our analysis has shown that Abraham belongs to the
first category. The same may be said, mutatis mutandis, for Philo's view of Abraham's
astronomy.
Instead of seeing Abraham as having been involved in sinful astrology, therefore,
it would be more accurate to say that the 'five Abraham texts' either do not discuss the
topic, or else view Abraham's astronomy positively (to one degree or other).
7.3.1.3 Abraham Discovers God

The view which sees Abraham as the discoverer of God from nature, and the first
monotheist, has something to commend it. Yet, it is not entirely satisfactory. In the works
of Philo and Josephus, Abraham's study of nature (through astronomy) leads him to
progressively greater understanding of God. Yet, it would, perhaps, be going too far to
suggest that Abraham discovers God in this way. Likewise, in ApocAb, while Abraham's
observations of the physical world – and the inanimate nature of idols, in particular –
leads him to question the power of idol-statues, it would be going too far to suggest that
Abraham comes to an understanding of God in this way. In the narrative of ApocAb that
must await God's invasion of the story-line in chapter eight. In Jubilees, and LAB,
meanwhile, there is no description of a process of discovering God at all. Instead, in

these texts, Abraham's knowledge of God appears either to have been inherited (i.e.
LAB), or else innate (i.e. Jub. 11:15-16).
It is not clear that 'Abraham's discovery of God' is a defining feature of these
works. Similarly, it is not clear that each – or any – of the 'five Abraham texts' seeks to
present Abraham as inventing monotheism.
Instead of seeing Abraham as the discoverer of God or pioneer of monotheism, it
would be better to describe Abraham as having been one who continued the godliness of
previous generations – whether that means immediately preceding generations, as in
LAB, or earlier generations whose positive religion had been lost (e.g. the religion of
Enosh, in particular, in Jubilees; of Noah, in Philo; of the Sethites, in Josephus). At the
same time, however, one must acknowledge that ApocAb presents a somewhat different
picture, in this regard.
7.3.1.4 Abraham As Ungodly Gentile Convert

The view which sees Abraham as having been an ungodly Gentile before his (supposed)
conversion finds some support in our texts: viz. in ApocAb. Insofar as ApocAb depicts
Abraham as involved in his father's idolatry (ApocAb 1:1-3), and clearly labels that
idolatry as sin (ApocAb 8:4), then it is correct to say that ApocAb depicts Abraham as
having been an ungodly, pagan Gentile.
In the greater majority of the 'five Abraham texts', however, Abraham is not only
not presented as ungodly, but he is, in fact, shown to have been quite godly – and not only
after his 'conversion'. In Jubilees, Abraham is described as having followed in the Lord's
paths for him all of his life (cf. §2.3.3 above). In Philo, Abraham is born with a good
nature (Leg. 3:77ff.), and presented as an example of godliness, his bios being
constructed by Philo to illustrate this fact (e.g. Abr. 60-61; cf. §3.3.2). In Josephus,
Abraham is imaged as a man “of incomparable virtue, and honoured by God in a manner
agreeable to his piety toward him” (Ant. 1:256). In LAB, finally, Abraham not only stands
in a line of godly ancestors, but it is even predicted of him before his birth that he will be
perfect (perfectus) and blameless (inmaculatus), and he is explicitly exculpated from the
charge of involvement in the errors of his time (LAB 23:4-5).
It is common to hear Abraham described as a prototype of proselytism to Judaism
in the Second Temple literature.10 Yet, we have found little to suggest that Abraham was
perceived as a proselyte or convert. If he was seen as a 'convert' at all, it was not in the
modern sense of the term. Whether Abraham was born a Jew or a Gentile is less easily
answerable, since our texts are not concerned to spell this out. However, since Abraham
is simultaneously seen as distinct from the ungodly Gentiles and the progenitor of the
Jews, it would appear that several of our authors may have viewed him as having been
born Jewish.
Thus, instead of seeing Abraham as having been an ungodly Gentile who
converted, it appears that the 'five Abraham texts' actually celebrated the patriarch's
perceived piety and godliness. The author of ApocAb is something of an anomaly. He is
less encomiastic than the other authors. If we take these four aspects of the presentation
of Abraham as a four-fold litmus test for the popular scholarly view of a 'core tradition' of
Abraham as ungodly convert, it does not appear that this view comports particularly
closely with the primary evidence.11
10 E.g. Das: "Second Temple Jewish texts also promote Abraham as a type of proselytism (Jub. 12:1-21;
Apocalypse of Abraham 1-8; Josephus A.J. 1.7.1 §155)." A. Andrew Das, 'Paul And Works of
Obedience In Second Temple Judaism: Romans 4:4-5 As A "New Perspective" Case Study', CBQ, Vol.
71, No. 4, (2009), p. 809.
11 Indeed, one would have to say, even more generally, that Second Temple literature before 70 regarding
Abraham is uniformly laudatory. It may be that this laudatory atmosphere serves as the background for
the Testament of Abraham's playful satire of Abraham as perfect in every way. Annette Yoshiko Reed,
'The Construction And Subversion of Patriarchal Perfection: Abraham And Exemplarity In Philo,
Josephus, And The Testament of Abraham', JSJ, Vol. 40, (2009). Jared W. Ludlow, Abraham Meets
Death: Narrative Humor In The Testament of Abraham, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 2002, pp. 48-
72.
7.3.1.5 Similarities And Differences
The findings of our own study of the 'five Abraham texts' contrast at several points with
the view(s) just evaluated. We find not only similarities between the texts but also
differences. And we find different similarities to those suggested by the scholars
discussed above. We may briefly summarise the similarities and differences detected in
our study as follows. On the one hand, there are the similarities.
Firstly, all of the texts, except ApocAb, treat Abraham as having been 'godly' from
the earliest age.12 In each text, except for LAB, Abraham is also seen as distinct from his
immediate ancestors insofar as he was not marked by their ungodliness. Secondly, three
of the five (Jubilees, Philo, Josephus; but not ApocAb or LAB) closely connect Abraham
with astronomy/meteorology. Such study of the stars, moreover, is viewed either entirely
positively (Josephus), or else a nuanced view is taken (Jubilees, Philo). Thirdly, Abraham
is depicted (in all but ApocAb) as having held strong, occasionally even innovative,
monotheistic convictions.
On the other hand, certain differences among the texts are evident. Firstly, LAB
appears to be a quite different work from the other four. Secondly, the Hellenistic
emphasis in Philo, and Josephus may be set-off from the other three texts, especially
Jubilees. Thirdly, ApocAb is somewhat distinct from the other texts, in representing
Abraham as having served before his father's idols and been involved in their sale.
Fourthly, since Abraham's observance of the Law is not found explicitly in Josephus,
ApocAb 1-8, or LAB, there is somewhat of a distinction between these texts and Jubilees
and Philo, where Abraham is shown as having not only observed the Law but also
contributed to its later development and publication.13 We will discuss these differences
12 Cf. the conclusions of de Roo, who sees in the primary literatuer that Abraham, "was the epitome of
piety due to his perfect or, at least, close to perfect obedience to God's will, as revealed in his good
moral actions as well as in his impeccable performance of Mosaic rituals. Abraham's piety is viewed as
the basis of his divine election." Jacqueline C. R. De Roo, 'Works of The Law' At Qumran And In Paul,
NTM, 13, Sheffield, Phoenix Press, 2007, p. 109.
13 Some have seen hints in Josephus which point to Abraham's having kept the Law, but Sandmel is closer
to the mark: "Josephus says not one thing about Abraham's relationship to the Law..." Samuel Sandmel,
below.
7.3.2 Taking The Five Abraham Texts As One Tradition
As the quotations cited above (§7.2) indicate, in tandem with the move to see the
Abraham of the 'five Abraham texts' as an ungodly Gentile convert, interpreters often
simultaneously take the 'five Abraham texts' as representing one unified tradition. Such a
manoeuvre is most evident in, but not exclusive to, Nickelsburg's essay. Nickelsburg
concludes, through the drawing of parallels between Jubilees and the other Abraham
texts, that it is likely that each of these texts continued the tradition of Jubilees 11-12. In
light of our earlier examination of the parallels suggested by Nickelsburg, we feel it
appropriate to question the legitimacy of this interpretative move. It must be recognised,
of course, that there is an element of subjectivity involved in any such evaluation of
ostensible 'parallels', and the reader will have to make the ultimate adjudication.
Nevertheless, we feel that with a few qualifications Nickelsburg's essay exhibits
somewhat of a tendency in the direction of what Samuel Sandmel termed
“parallelomania”.14
Sandmel defined “parallelomania” as: "that extravagance among scholars which
first overdoes the supposed similarity in passages and then proceeds to describe source
and derivation as if implying literary connection flowing in an inevitable or
predetermined direction".15 We would not say that Nickelsburg's essay has entirely fallen
into this trap, since it is not prepared to be dogmatic about the derivation of the other
Philo's Place In Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham In Jewish Literature, New York, KTAV,
1971, p. 75.
14 Samuel Sandmel, 'Parallelomania', JBL, Vol. 81, No. 1, (1962), pp. 1-13. At the same time, we are
aware of the possibility of pushing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction, and falling prey to
what has been called "parallelophobia". Cf. Donald Arthur Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction
To The New Testament, 2nd Edn., Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2005, p. 69. It is true, after all, that, "if
wielded in an uncritical way, the charge of 'parallelomania' can be used to stifle any discussion of
historical context". James R. Harrison, Paul And The Imperial Authorities At Thessalonica And Rome:
A Study In The Conflict of Ideology, ed. J. Frey, WUNT, 273, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2011, p. 7.
15 Sandmel, 'Parallelomania', p. 1.
Abraham texts from Jubilees.16 And yet, that is its working hypothesis. Moreover, in
describing similarities between the treatment of Abraham in Jubilees and passages in
other texts, it appears that elements of only partial resemblance, such as the presence of
fire in both Jubilees and ApocAb, are too-readily accepted as 'parallels'. Furthermore,
stringing together numerous ostensible 'parallels' in a short space may do no more than
create out of several individually questionable similarities an impressive array of
apparent points of contact so as to effect a sort of optical illusion.17
Finally, because Nickelsburg focuses his attention on comparing each of the texts
he canvasses to Jubilees, the other Abraham texts are not directly compared with one
another. When this is done, however, the appeal to a single tradition – a single set
bounding the 'five Abraham texts' – begins to look less certain. We observed in the
previous chapter the extent to which LAB is a restless and unwilling participant in the 'set'
of the 'five Abraham texts'.
We might speak, instead, of the 'four Abraham texts': viz. Jubilees, Philo,
Josephus, and ApocAb. Even this, however, could risk disguising the differences between
those works. ApocAb, for example, with its portrayal of Abraham as having been
involved in the service and sale of idols stands in definite contrast to the depictions of
Jubilees, Philo, and Josephus. Therefore, we may question the suitability of its inclusion
in the (now restricted) set of four texts.
Again, we may speak of the 'three Abraham texts': viz. Jubilees, Philo, and
Josephus. But we would not want to minimise the differences between the thoroughly
Hellenistic works of Philo and Josephus, on the one hand, and Jubilees, with its anti-
Hellenistic stance, on the other.
16 Indeed, it seems only fair to point out that Nickelsburg himself, at least for a time, expressed a
reluctance to publish the essay. Nickelsburg, 'Abraham The Convert', p. 151.
17 Compare the similar comments of: Henry Chadwick, 'St. Paul And Philo of Alexandria', BJRL, Vol. 48,
(1965-66), p. 306. In contrast to Chadwick's own view of the relation between Philo and Paul, see
further: David T. Runia, Philo In Early Christian Literature: A Survey, CRINT, Vol. 3, Assem, Van
Gorcum, 1993, pp. 63-73.
The 'five Abraham texts' do not reflect a single, tightly bound, Abraham tradition.
We might think three traditions are discernible: viz. the Jubilees-ApocAb type, where
Abraham encounters physical idols;18 the Philo-Josephus type, where Abraham is the
epitome of the Greco-Roman sage or philosopher-king; and the LAB type, where
Abraham is something of a precursor to certain figures in Daniel. Yet, even this is
probably too neat a categorisation of what are quite different presentations of Abraham
from different times and places, reflecting different circumstances. Surely it would be
unwise to flatten-out the distinctions between, for example, the Abraham of Philo and
that of Josephus, even though these share much more in common than either has with, for
instance, ApocAb. It may not be advisable, therefore, to treat the 'five Abraham texts' as
sharing one, monolithic understanding of Abraham or as representing a single 'tradition'.
Since there are both resonances and dissonances among the 'five Abraham texts',
one must use some historical and exegetical intuition to decide whether the resonances or
the dissonances are determinative for the question of whether these five texts form one
common tradition. In our opinion, it is not impossible that some relationship existed
between the texts. At the same time, however, we do not believe that it is “deutlich” or
“virtually certain” that the 'five Abraham texts' should be drawn together into a single
stream of tradition available to Paul.19
At any rate, we might say parenthetically that if the 'five Abraham texts' are to be
taken together as one tradition, our (foregoing) analysis of the primary materials has (it is
hoped) demonstrated that if such a tradition existed, it would not have been one which
18 The depiction of Abraham destroying his father's idols in ApocAb is often linked by those who employ a
comparative approach with the narration of Abraham's setting-alight the temple of idols in Jubilees 12.
For example, Philonenko and Philonenko-Sayar state that, "La légende d'Abraham, destructeur des
idoles, s'enracine dans la vieille haggadah juive, telle qu'elle est anciennement racontée dans le livre des
Jubilés." Marc Philonenko and Belkis Philonenko-Sayar, 'L'Apocalypse D'Abraham', Sem, Vol. 31,
(1981), p. 24. On Philonenko's comparative approach, see also: André Lemaire, 'Qumran Research In
France', in D. Dimant (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls In Scholarly Perspective: A History of Research,
STDJ, Leiden, Brill, 2012, p. 438. See also: Ryszard Rubinkiewicz, L'Apocalypse D'Abraham En Vieux
Slave: Introduction, Texte Critique, Traduction Et Commentaire, Lublin, Société des Lettres et des
Sciences de l'Université Catholique de Lublin, 1987, p. 47.
19 Flebbe, Solus Deus, p. 197; Eisenbaum, 'Paul As The New Abraham', p. 135 (see below §7.4.1).
pictured the patriarch as an ungodly Gentile astrologer and idolater who converted to
monotheism. If there was such a single tradition, it likely would have been the kind of
tradition which saw the patriarch as a godly astronomer and ancestor of the Jews whose
rejection of idolatry was not preceded by a former participation, and whose monotheism
was marked, even innovative, but not original or unique. If there was one tradition, it is
more likely that it looked something like this than what has been suggested in the
secondary literature.
That parenthesis aside, we would do well to consider the possible methodological
underpinnings to the view which takes the 'five Abraham texts' as being different
manifestations of the one tradition. Before doing so, however, it will be worthwhile to
briefly consider the significance of the findings which have been reached so far from our
analysis of the 'five Abraham texts'.
7.3.2.1 The Significance of These Findings

Scholars have often warned against that procedure which begins by collecting ostensible
parallels to Paul among Second Temple literature and then proceeds to use the 'parallels'
to domesticate the Pauline epistles, allowing them to say only what the parallels say.
Sandmel, for instance, points out that, "The knowledge on our part of the parallels may
assist us in understanding Paul; but if we make him mean only what the parallels mean,
we are using the parallels in a way that can lead us to misunderstand Paul."20 Likewise, E.
P. Sanders writes that, "Parallels are often illuminating, as long as one does not jump
from 'parallel' to 'influence' to 'identity of thought.'".21 Hypothetically, it could be that
Calvert-Koyzis, Nickelsburg, Adams, Kreuzer, and Flebbe use the parallels to Paul's
Abraham they find in the 'five Abraham texts' to domesticate Paul's picture of the
patriarch. This is as may be. Having yet to examine Galatians and Romans themselves,
20 Sandmel, 'Parallelomania', p. 5.
21 Ed Parish Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, London,
Fortress, 1977, p. 11.
we cannot comment one way or the other. Our findings so far, however, have revealed
what appears to be a deeper issue. The parallels which have been suggested between Paul
and the 'five Abraham texts' rely for their validity upon the accuracy of a certain reading
of those five texts themselves. Yet, our findings bring the accuracy of those readings into
question. As such, even before we come to look at Paul, it would seem that there are
potential problems with the manner in which the 'five Abraham texts' have been placed in
Paul's background. Having seen this, we move on to a discussion of methodological
underpinnings.
7.4 A Great Common Store of Tradition?
Sandmel's criticism of 'parallelomania', it should be noted, was directed, in its day,
primarily at the positing of literary relationships of influence and derivation between
texts. Contemporary scholarship, however, is more likely to assume that parallels
between texts are to be explained on the basis of a common store of oral interpretation
or, at least, a common intermediary text.
James Kugel has been at the forefront of this methodological shift. In Kugel's
historical imagination, once an interpretative solution had been found to a particular
exegetical problem arising from the biblical text it was circulated over a large
geographical area.22 Thus, he writes:
Once propounded, interpretations circulated widely, passed on largely by word of mouth.

Presented by authoritative teachers as insights into the particulars of the biblical text, these
interpretations soon acquired an authority of their own: they were repeated and repeated, often
combined with other bits of interpretation, sometimes modified in the process, sometimes
misunderstood by later transmitters, and passed on further.23
How widely, we might ask? Kugel does not give specific details. However, given the
22 The phrase 'historical imagination' is used here in an historiographical and not polemical sense.
23 James L. Kugel, Traditions of The Bible: A Guide To The Bible As It Was At The Start of The Common
Era, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1998, p. 27. Likewise, in James L. Kugel, The Ladder of
Jacob: Ancient Interpretations of The Biblical Story of Jacob And His Children, Woodstock, Princeton
University Press, 2006, p. 5, we are told that: "The explanations of biblical verses embodied in these
[exegetical] motifs were passed on orally, from person to person and from generation to generation, as
an accompaniment to the biblical text itself."
chronological and geographical distribution of the texts which he cites, we must assume
that he means to suggest that once propounded an interpretation made in Palestine, for
example, would spread across the Roman world. Kugel can, thus, speak of, "a great
common store of interpretations in antiquity [which] was widely known to interpreters
and their audiences."24
Supposing the existence of such a great common store of interpretations has the
effect of raising oral transmission to the role of deus ex machina.25 One need not
demonstrate any direct or tight relationship between, for example, Jubilees and the works
of Philo, if they both participate in a great common store of interpretation.26 They may
represent individual expressions of a common interpretation of Abraham, the kernel of
which is to be found in the oral tradition(s), and which serves as the silver thread
connecting various disparate texts. The problem, of course, is finding empirical evidence
for such a giant pool of interpretative traditions common to the various strands of
Judaism.27
The reality of the situation on the ground may have been more complex than
Kugel's system leads one to believe. In the first place, it appears to suggest that Judaism
24 Kugel, Traditions of The Bible, p. 38.
25 In this understanding of oral tradition as deus ex machina, I am following Peter Schäfer. In responding
to Chaim Milikowsky's proposal that stemmatic analysis could determine the Urtext of certain rabbinic
materials, Schäfer suggests that oral tradition is the deus ex machina in Milikowsky's system, solving
all problems. Schäfer further argues that such a recourse to oral tradition “is unscientific because it is
neither verifiable nor falsifiable.” Peter Schäfer, 'Once Again The Status Quaestionis of Research In
Rabbinic Literature: An Answer To Chaim Milikowsky', JJS, Vol. 40, No. 1, (1989), p. 91.
26 To illustrate this point, we might reference Renée Bloch's view that all literature of the kind we have
been dealing with, “springs from the preaching done in the synagogue every Sabbath and festival day,
after the reading of the Torah, on that section of Scripture which had just been read.” This translation
comes from: Renée Bloch, 'Methodological Note For The Study of Rabbinic Literature', in W. S. Green
(ed.), Approaches To Ancient Judaism 1: Theory And Practice, BJS, Missoula, Scholars Press, 1978, p.
60. For the French, see: Renée Bloch, 'Note Methodologique Pour l'Étude de la Literature Rabbinique',
RSR, Vol. 43, (1955), pp. 194-227. To which approach, Neusner responded that “The Sitz im Leben of
all stories will not demand acute analysis, if it is essentially one: namely, synagogal. Though asserted
from the time of Zunz, that proposition still awaits systematic demonstration.” Jacob Neusner,
Comparative Midrash: The Plan And Program of Genesis Rabbah And Leviticus Rabbah, BJS, 111,
27 Thus, for example, following Schäfer, but broadening-out his critique to cover non-rabbinic materials,
Annette Reed criticises, "the scholarly recourse to oral tradition as deus ex machina, particularly when
ungrounded and unverifiable appeals to oral transmission result in an ahistorical view of the circulation
of religious traditions." Annette Yoshiko Reed, Fallen Angels And The History of Judaism And
Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature, Cambridge, CUPress, 2005, p. 11.
was monolithic (across both time and space). In the second place, Kugel appears to
envisage a world without the internet, but which was comparably inter-connected in the
exchange of information and ideas.
Indeed, Kugel's methodology has been criticised for involving a lack of
concentration on the historical situatedness of each text, and for relying on the rather
amorphous conception of a common stock of exegetical motifs present across time and
context which results, according to Fraade, in an "ahistorical blending of sources".28
Jacob Neusner has similarly criticised Kugel's understanding as being, "ahistorical,
ignoring all issues of specific time, place and context; unitary, homogenizing all
documents".29 Neusner's reading of Kugel has itself been criticised.30 However, at least as
far as he claimed Kugel's work to be ahistorical, Neusner's criticism seems valid, since
Kugel has not produced an historical study providing empirical evidence for how the
dissemination of his 'great common store of interpretations' worked in practice.
Kugel's methodology is not explicitly adopted by those who place the 'five
Abraham texts' in Paul's background.31 However, those texts are treated in such a manner
that it appears that, albeit without reference to Kugel, they are being placed in just such a
hypothetical great common store of interpretations. The assumption that the paradigm of
Abraham (supposedly) presented in the 'five Abraham texts' was readily available in such
a 'pool' gives scholars the confidence to argue that the tradition was a 'live option' for
Paul, and his audiences, as we shall presently see.32
28 Steven D. Fraade, 'Rabbinic Midrash And Ancient Jewish Biblical Interpretation', in C. E. Fonrobert
and M. A. Jaffee (eds.), Cambridge Companion To The Talmud And Rabbinic Literature, Cambridge,
CUPress, 2007, p. 120, n. 22.
29 Jacob Neusner, Midrash As Literature: The Primacy of Documentary Discourse, Lanham, University
Press of America, 1987, p. xiii.
30 See, for example, the discussion in: Carol Bakhos, 'Method(ological) Matters In The Study of Midrash',
in C. Bakhos (ed.), Current Trends In The Study of Midrash, JSJSup, Leiden, Brill, 2006, p. 168, n. 25.
31 See, however, Eisenbaum's appeal to Kugel's work in: Eisenbaum, 'Paul As The New Abraham', pp.
133-134.
32 Alternative terminology to that employed by Kugel may be used, of course. One writer, for example,
speaks of exegetical traditions as being “in the air”. Michael R. Whitenton, 'Rewriting Abraham and
Joseph: Stephen's Speech (Acts 7:2-16) and Jewish Exegetical Traditions', NovT, Vol. 54, (2012), pp.
150, 161, 165, n. 61, 167. This is another way of describing, “the existence of a common body of
7.4.1 Paul And The Oral Pool
While, again, Kugel's methodology is not explicitly adopted by the scholars with whom
we are primarily concerned here, a similar presupposition seems to exist, and a similar
procedure is clearly followed. So, for example, Eisenbaum has this to say:
I do not wish to argue for Paul's direct dependence upon any of the postbiblical sources cited
above. [But I do wish to argue that:] Because the traditions I have cited [i.e. the 'five Abraham
texts'] appear in a wide variety of sources and are therefore commonplace understandings, it
is virtually certain that Paul was familiar with at least some of them.33
Similarly, Calvert-Koyzis, following the approach of Terence Donaldson, proposes that if
a tradition of Abraham is documented, "in more than one sociological strand of Judaism,
and in time periods both before and after that of Paul, [it may be taken] to be one of the
live options in Paul's own situation."34 Flebbe, meanwhile, after referring to the Abraham
texts, says:
Diese Gemeinsamkeit der Texte erklärt, warum Paulus in V.5 nicht weiter erklärt oder
begründet, warum Abraham als ajsebhvV von Gott gerechtfertigt wird: weil er davon ausgehen
kann, dass seine Leser mit der Charakterisierung Abrahams als „früher heidnisch“ vertraut
sind.35
exegetical traditions in Hellenistic Jewish groups.” Whitenton, 'Rewriting Abraham', p. 163. To say that
such 'airy' language is vague is not an overstatement. However, the real problem, is that Whitenton's
argument for Luke's use of the Abraham traditions presupposes Luke's knowledge (and acceptance) of
them; a fact which is not demonstrated. The claim that something was 'in the air' functions, either
intentionally or unintentionally, as a magic wand which waved over the question in order to make it
disappear. Whitenton's analysis is comparable to that of: Nancy Calvert-Koyzis, 'Abraham: New
Testament', in D. G. Reid (ed.), The IVP Dictionary of The New Testament, Downers Grove,
InterVarsity, 2004, p. 5, and Daniel Marguerat, Les Actes Des Apôtres (1-12), Genève, Labor Et Fides,
2007, p. 240. Each of these writers, however, could profitably have engaged with Scharlemann's
treatment of the Stephen speech, and his argument that it contains none of the “embellishments” of
writers such as Philo, Josephus, or the author of Jubilees. Martin H. Scharlemann, Stephen: A Singular
Saint, AnBib, Vol. 34, Rome, Pontifical Institute, 1968, p. 63.
33 Eisenbaum, 'Paul As The New Abraham', p. 135.
34 Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 85. Donaldson notes that the procedure
he employs for determining the 'live options' for Paul is akin to the "criterion of multiple attestation"
used in historical Jesus research to determine the authenticity of Gospel sayings or events. A distinction
between Donaldson's work and that of Calvert-Koyzis, however, is that Calvert-Koyzis' is much more
specific. She is seeking to determine Paul's knowledge of the particular details of a particular haggadic
tradition. Donaldson, by contrast, is seeking to determine Paul's knowledge of different kinds of Jewish
attitudes towards the Gentiles; a much broader question of convictions, which does not assume Paul's
knowledge of any particular manifestation or manner of expressing such convictions. See: Terence L.
Donaldson, Paul And The Gentiles: Remapping The Apostle's Convictional World, Minneapolis,
Augsburg, 1997, p. 51.
35 Flebbe, Solus Deus, pp. 197-198 (emphasis added).
For Flebbe, the sheer fact that we have five texts (supposedly) depicting Abraham as an
ungodly Gentile before his migration to Canaan means that such a tradition must have
been widespread, and Paul needs merely to use the word 'ungodly' in relation to Abraham
to allude to this tradition, since he can assume knowledge of it on the part of his
audience(s).
In this fashion, each of these authors appears to assume some kind of common
store of traditions universally available (including to Paul). At the very least, we can say
that it is axiomatic for these scholars that if a certain tradition is found in four or five
ancient Jewish texts then those texts are to be understood as testifying to a very widely, if
not universally, known tradition. The confidence that Paul had a knowledge of this
tradition is predicated on this conclusion that the 'five Abraham texts' represent a single
tradition.
Calvert-Koyzis' analysis is the most sophisticated. Operating on a balance of
probabilities, she suggests that if an interpretation was present across time and
sociological strata then it is to be taken as common, and a live option for Paul (and, by
implication, his audiences). Interestingly, however, Calvert-Koyzis does not seek to
establish what Paul's own sociological setting (or Sitz im Leben) would have been, or
where he might have come across the Abraham tradition; nor does she try to correlate any
of the individual Abraham texts to that time and setting. As such, her interpretation that
the 'Abraham tradition' found in the 'five Abraham texts' was a live option for Paul relies
upon the assumption that each of those five texts contains the same tradition, and that
they each contain the same tradition because it was ubiquitous; viz. as part of the great
common store of traditions. Yet, as we have suggested, it is not immediately apparent that
the 'five Abraham texts' should be taken together in this way.36

36 Hays gives seven tests for hearing echoes in Paul, in Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture In The
Letters of Paul, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1989, pp. 29-32. He begins with "availability",
since surely a text (or tradition) cannot be alluded to or echoed unless it is known; and it cannot very
well be alluded to or echoed by an author for the purposes of communicating a message to a particular
Indeed, Calvert-Koyzis tacitly assumes not only knowledge of the tradition on the
part of Paul (and his audiences) but also acceptance of it as valid commentary on the
biblical text. This must be the case, for, as we shall see, Calvert-Koyzis' proposal is not
that Paul explicitly quotes from or directly alludes to the tradition, but only that it is
lurking behind (or underneath) the text of his epistles, such that it would have taken an
intimate knowledge of, and esteem for, the tradition for Paul's audiences to have detected
his use of it.37
Moreover, it is surely a short-coming of this type of study that it does not look at
the particulars of Paul's Sitz im Leben in detail, and try to determine whether these
overlap with the Sitze im Leben of the Abraham texts. Where this is not done, two related
dangers arise: firstly, the danger of homogenising Second Temple Judaism and, secondly,
the danger of pigeonholing Paul as an unexceptional example of such Judaism without
having explicitly examined his relationship to the other expressions of Judaism of the
time with which one is concerned.
In the next chapter, therefore, we shall examine the young Paul's relationship to
each of the other expressions of Judaism represented by the 'five Abraham texts'. In that
chapter, we shall investigate the social setting of the Pharisee (i.e. where he fitted within
the Judaism of the time), to determine what degree of overlap there may have been
between his Sitz im Leben, and those of the other Abraham texts/authors. Following this,
audience, unless that audience can reasonably be expected to have the requisite knowledge to discern
the allusion. One wonders whether the availability of the 'five Abraham texts' (or the tradition which
they are taken to represent) to Paul and his audiences could not have been fruitfully further discussed
by, for e.g, Calvert-Koyzis, who spends only three short paragraphs on the question of the availability
of these texts to Paul, under the heading "Moving From Early Judaism To Paul". See: Calvert-Koyzis,
Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 85. She could at least have also mentioned Paul's
audiences in Galatia and Rome.
37 Cf., for example, Phil. 1:19, where Paul alludes to LXX Job 13:13-18. While Paul may have been
deliberately alluding to the similarity between his situation in prison and that of Job, it is impossible to
say with confidence whether the Philippians would have discerned the allusion. Hays, Echoes, p. 22, n.
79. Only our (and, perhaps, Paul's) expectation that the Philippians were well versed in, and accepting
of, the LXX gives us any confidence here at all. As such, for Calvert-Koyzis' argument to work, she
must assume such knowledge (and acceptance) of the tradition on the part of both Paul and his
audiences. Yet, how is such confidence to be achieved? It would appear, through the positing of a great
common store of tradition common to the different branches of Judaism.
we will analyse possible traces of Paul's use of the 'five Abraham texts' in his epistles to
Galatia, and Rome.

PART II
PAUL AND THE FIVE ABRAHAM TEXTS
CHAPTER 8
SITUATING SAUL AND THE FIVE ABRAHAM TEXTS
8.1 Introduction
In Part I, we examined the presentations of Abraham in five texts (Chapters 2-6), and saw
how those texts have been commonly taken together as preserving different forms of
what was essentially a single Abraham tradition (Chapter 7). We also saw that confidence
in the knowledge of this tradition on the part of Paul and his audiences was predicated on
this conclusion that the five texts represent one tradition. We were concerned to evaluate
both the readings offered of the individual texts themselves, but also the way in which
they have been grouped together.
In Part II, we come to Paul. The main interest of this second part of the thesis will
be to assess the relationship between the 'five Abraham texts' and Paul's letters to Galatia,
and Rome. Before coming to consider the letters themselves, we will take time to
consider the early years of Paul's life, leading up to and briefly considering his
conversion/call. It were not as though Paul's early life is necessarily determinative for his
later thought; certainly, it is possible that his views could have changed over time, and his
letters should be read on their own terms, in light of what they themselves have to say.
An examination of the early years of Paul's life, however, will help to give us a fuller
picture of the Apostle. Furthermore, if the later writings of Paul are indebted to Jewish
tradition, then it seems (a priori but not necessarily) more likely that he would have
encountered such traditions in the course of his Jewish 'youth' than during the unfolding
of his Christian ministry.
The present chapter, therefore, is devoted to an examination of the early life of the
Apostle to the Gentiles, before he was called to that Apostleship, and a brief discussion of
CHAPTER 8: SITUATING SAUL AND THE FIVE ABRAHAM TEXTS 177
his conversion. We compare the respective Sitz im Leben of the young Pharisee with the
Sitze im Leben of the other authors/texts. Such an examination is necessary to clarify the
strand of Judaism out of which the Apostle came, its relationship to other strands, and
their respective views of Abraham. Given the focus here on the early years of Paul's life,
but the inclusion of discussion of his call, we shall, for the sake of clarity, distinguish
between Saul the Pharisee and Paul the Apostle.1
8.2 Situating Saul: Education, Geography, Theology
How Saul should be situated historically is a controversial question. In particular, there is
debate about the kind of education which he would have received and where he would
have received it. Crucial here is one's handling of the evidence of Acts, which some see
as spurious.2 Unfortunately, a thorough discussion of the questions related to this issue is
beyond the scope of the present work. We will be able to do little more than point to the
direction we take, and note some of our reasons for doing so.
While much investigation into Saul’s early life and education has been conducted,
there is no agreement. Those interested in Greco-Roman rhetoric tend to envision a
thorough-going Hellenistic education for the boy, and emphasise his ability in Greek, and
his place of birth, while de-emphasising the record of Acts which mentions his facility in
Aramaic/Hebrew (Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14) and his study under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3).3
1 It is recognised that both the Hebrew name (Saul) and the Roman cognomen (Paul) were used of Paul
subsequent to his Damascus Road experience (e.g. Acts 13:2, 13). However, we will use 'Saul'
exclusively to refer to the Pre-Christian Paul, and 'Paul' in reference to his Christian life. It is also
recognised that Paul, in some senses, remained a Pharisee even after his Apostolic call. Yet, it is felt that
the distinction in terminology will be helpful nonetheless.
2 Lüdemann, for example, speaks about the “Unvereinbarkeit” between Acts and Saul/Paul, at least as far
as theology and chronology are concerned. Gerd Lüdemann, Paulus, der Heidenapostel: Band I,
Studien zur Chronologie, Forschungen zur Religion und Literature des Alten und Neuen Testaments,
Vol. 123, Göttingen, V&R, 1980, p. 46, et passim. And yet, critical scholarship seldom interacts with
the evidence for the account's accuracy. Similarly, Du Toit speaks of “the tendentious nature of Luke's
presentation” Andrie B. Du Toit, 'A Tale of Two Cities: 'Tarsus Or Jerusalem' Revisited', NTS, Vol. 46,
No. 3, (2000), p. 389. On the methodologies at play here, see: Moisés Silva, 'The Place of Historical
Reconstruction In New Testament Criticism', in D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge (eds.),
Hermeneutics, Authority And Canon, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press, 1986, pp. 131-133.
3 Ronald F. Hock, 'Paul And Greco-Roman Education', in J. P. Sampley (ed.), Paul In The Greco-Roman
Contrariwise, those who see validity in the biographical information of Acts, understand
Saul's primary period of education as having been that under Gamaliel in Jerusalem
where he lived and was 'brought up' (perhaps, as ajnatrevfw may suggest,4 from a young
age).5 In some sense, the question "Tarsus or Jerusalem?" may be moot, since it is
conceivable that Saul might have experienced Pharisaic education in Tarsus or Greek
education in Jerusalem.6 What is certain is that Saul staunchly considered himself to be a
Pharisee,7 zealous for the 'traditions of the fathers' (e.g. Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:5 cf. Acts
22:3),8 a 'Hebrew' (2 Cor. 11:22), and not a philosopher.9 This would seem to point
World: A Handbook, Harrisburg, Trinity Press, 2003, pp. 198-227; according to Sanders, Paul, "seldom
shows knowledge of the Hebrew text of the Bible where it differs from the Greek translation, and he
shows no knowledge of the specifically Pharisaic mode of biblical interpretation." Ed Parish Sanders,
'Paul Between Judaism And Hellenism', in J. D. Caputo and L. M. Alcoff (eds.), St. Paul Among The
Philosophers, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 2009, p. 77.
4 But compare with: Du Toit, 'Two Cities', pp. 375-385.
5 Pace Morton S. Enslin, 'Paul And Gamaliel', JR, Vol. 7, No. 4, (1927), pp. 360-375. Against Enslin is
can be said that there are no good reasons for denying the suggestion that Saul studied under Gamaliel.
Indeed, while we hear directly about Saul's study under Gamaliel only from Acts, the fact of Saul's
having been born in Tarsus is also only reported to us in Acts.
6 E. A. Judge expresses this idea: "To have been brought up in Tarsus need not have committed Paul to a
full rhetorical education let alone a philosophical one, while being brought up in Jerusalem need not
have excluded him from at least a general acquaintance with the Greek cultural tradition." Cited by:
Bruce W. Winter, Philo And Paul Among The Sophists: Alexandrian And Corinthian Responses To A
Julio-Claudian Movement, 2nd. Edn., Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2002, p. 247. Cf. Philip H. Kern,
Rhetoric And Galatians: Assessing An Approach To Paul's Epistle, ed. R. Bauckham, SNTSMS, 101,
Cambridge, CUPress, 1998, p. 215.
7 Thus Du Toit: “According to Paul's own statements, his ideological world was formed by the Jewish
religion of his day, more specifically by Pharisaism.” Du Toit, 'Two Cities', p. 398.
8 For e.g.s, Frederick Fyvie Bruce, Paul, Apostle of The Heart Set Free, Cumbria, Paternoster, 1977, p.
43; Heinrich Meyer is quite right to point out that we actually don't know anything about Saul's
youthful training in Tarsus. Yet, he accepts the mention of training in Jerusalem, and so suggests that his
first training in Tarsus was "probably conducted by his Pharisaic father in entire accordance with
Pharisaic principles (Phil. iii. 5; Gal. i. 14), so that the boy was prepared for a Pharisaic rabbinical
school at Jerusalem." Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, The Epistle To The Romans, ed. W. P. Dickson,
trans. J. C. Moore, Vol. 1, Critical And Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament, 4, Edinburgh,
T&T Clark, 1881, p. 2.
9 "Though he might occasionally allude to popular Greek philosophy or quote a Greek poet, Paul was not
a philosopher, not even in the sense in which Philo, the famous Alexandrian Jew who lived at the
beginning of the first century, was a philosopher. Philo tried to prove that the law of Moses embodied
true philosophy. Paul deliberately rejected philosophical argumentation and rhetorical polish as vehicles
of his message. His sole intention was to proclaim "the word of the cross," the folly of God which put
the wisdom of men to shame." Nils A. Dahl, Studies In Paul: Theology For The Early Christian
Mission, Minneapolis, Augsburg, 1977, p. 1. So also: Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul's Gospel, Grand
Rapids, Eerdmans, 1981, pp. 32-50; Martin Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul, trans. J. Bowden, London,
SCM, 1991, p. 37. Certain ancient writers seem also to have rejected the notion that Paul was a
philosopher. Chrysostom, for instance, remarks that, "Plato was cast out not by another philosopher of
more skill but by unlearned fishers." Gerald L. Bray (ed.), 1-2 Corinthians, ed. T. C. Oden, ACCS, Vol.
7, Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 2006, p. 14.
towards the basic validity of the biographical information proffered by Luke.
Having been born in Tarsus,10 Saul likely moved to Palestine at an early age to
study Torah there.11 How long he continued there is unclear, but it is there again that he
next appears, persecuting Christians. This would place Saul's Pharisaic development in
an essentially Palestinian milieu. Having said that, he seems to have been a citizen of two
worlds, and he may have maintained not only a close personal connection to Tarsus but
also an academic one as well. Furthermore, to what extent the Pharisees resisted
Hellenisation is debated.12 Moreover, Saul is likely to have spent a significant amount of
time in Jerusalem, which was both a Jewish as well as, in some respects, a Greco-Roman
city. As such, it is unwise to draw too sharp a distinction between Palestinian Pharisaic
Judaism and the various expressions of Judaism to be found in the Diaspora.
Nevertheless, we believe it legitimate to follow in the footsteps of scholars such as
Sanders and Goodspeed in suggesting that Saul would not have been thoroughly versed
in the philosophers or much interested in other forms of Greek literature.13
In the remainder of this chapter, we seek to determine whether the interpretations
of Abraham in Philo, Jubilees, and the other three Abraham texts would have been
known to or authoritative for Saul the Pharisee.
10 This might explain the references to Greek thinking and poetry in Acts 17 and 1 Cor. 15. Alternatively,
Paul may have acquired knowledge of such Hellenistic platitudes either in Jerusalem or in his
missionary travels.
11 Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul, pp. 18-39.
12 For a discussion of this point, see: Raymond A. Martin, Studies In The Life And Ministry of The Early
Paul And Related Issues, Mellen, Lampeter, 1993, pp. 35ff. Perhaps, the designation 'Pharisee' derives
from the idea of being a 'separated one'. In which case, it may, perhaps, also be that what the Pharisees
of the first two centuries BC wished to separate from was pagan influence. On this, see: Roland Deines,
'The Pharisees Between "Judaisms" And "Common Judaism"', in D. A. Carson, P. T. O'Brien, and M. A.
Seifrid (eds.), Justification And Variegated Nomism (Vol. 1): The Complexities of Second Temple
Judaism, WUNT, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2001, p. 495. As such, it could be that Saul the Pharisee
would have been resistant to Philo's form of Judaism, had he come across it.
13 E. J. Goodspeed was of the opinion that "Greek literature in general would have little interest for a boy
of Pharisaic upbringing". Cited by: Martin, The Early Paul, p. 43. Likewise, Sanders argues that Paul
would not have had much exposure to Greek literature: Sanders, 'Paul Between Judaism And
Hellenism', p. 79. Hengel also states that, “it is questionable whether the young Paul in Tarsus acquired
any of the Greek education that flourished there.” Martin Hengel, 'The Pre-Christian Paul', in J. Lieu, J.
North, and T. Rajak (eds.), The Jews Among Pagans And Christians In The Roman Empire, New York,
Routledge, 1992, p. 30. Cf. Kern, Rhetoric, pp. 243, 253.
8.3 Saul's Relation To Philo
Placing Saul in the kind of Pharisaic Palestinian context which we have done has
implications for the likelihood that he was acquainted with the writings of Philo.14 Firstly,
under this reconstruction, he would fit more readily within the 'literal' school of exegesis
than the 'philosophical-allegorial'.15 Galatians 4:21-31 may be offered as criticism of such
a reading, but it is the only obvious exception. We might say that it is the exception
which proves the rule. In any case, the observations of Lightfoot and others are salient
here.16
Secondly, but closely related to the first point, Saul may not have been much
interested in Philo's works had he come across them, due to their marked philosophical,
14 The following observations bear on Guerra's heavy reliance upon Philo in his interpretation of Romans
(particularly Romans 4). Anthony J. Guerra, Romans And The Apologetic Tradition: The Purpose,
Genre And Audience of Paul's Letter, SNTSMS, 81, Cambridge, CUPress, 1995.
15 Saul's Pharisaic hermeneutic would likely have been 'literal': viz. one which paid attention to Old
Testament context, without being atomistic, and which may have been guided by the kinds of rules of
interpretation ascribed to Hillel. David Instone Brewer has done the most to show that this was the
general pattern of interpretation in Palestine prior to 70AD. On this, see: David Instone Brewer,
Techniques & Assumptions In Jewish Exegesis Before 70 C. E., TSAJ, Vol. 30, Tübingen, Mohr
Siebeck, 1992. Philo's exegesis, by contrast, was, for want of a better word, focussed on
demythologising the text through allegorical interpretation. Thus, Longenecker writes: “In his
endeavour to vindicate Jewish theology before the court of Greek philosophy and in his desire to
contemporize the sacred writings so as to make them relevant to present circumstances and experience,
Philo usually treated the Old Testament as a body of symbols given by God for man’s spiritual and
moral benefit, which must be understood other than in a literal and historical fashion. The prima facie
meaning must normally be pushed aside, even counted as offensive, to make room for the intended
spiritual meaning underlying the obvious – though, as noted above, at times he seems willing to
consider literal and allegorical exegesis as having “parallel legitimacy.” Richard N. Longenecker,
Biblical Exegesis In The Apostolic Period, 2nd. Edn., Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1999, p. 31.
16 Joseph Barber Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle To The Galatians, 7th Edn., London, Macmillian, 1881,
pp. 198-200. Additionally, it can be noted that Paul's exposition of Sarah and Hagar in Galatians is
neither philosophically driven allegory of the kind represented by Philo, nor is it representative of his
exegesis in general, or of Abraham in particular. Moisés Silva, 'Galatians', in G. K. Beale and D. A.
Carson (eds.), Commentary On The New Testament Use of The Old Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker,
2007, p. 808. Finally, there is good evidence that Paul's allegory comes out of his reading of Genesis
through the interpretative lens of Isaiah. On this, see: Karen H. Jobes Jobes, 'Jerusalem, Our Mother:
Metalepsis And Intertextuality In Galatians 4:21-31', WTJ, Vol. 55, (1993); cf. J. Ross Wagner, 'Isaiah
In Romans And Galatians', in S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken (eds.), Isaiah In The New Testament,
London, T&T Clark, 2005, pp. 129-130. See also: Charles Kingsley Barrett, 'The Allegory of Abraham,
Sarah, And Hagar In The Argument of Galatians', in J. Friedrich, W. Pöhlmann, and P. Stuhlmacher
(eds.), Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck,
1976, p. 11, n. 24.
Atticising, and Alexandrian character.17 In his Christian life, as was touched on briefly in
our discussion of Josephus, Paul appears to have preferred the wisdom of Christ to the
wisdom of the philosophers, and the plain presentation of the Gospel to the trappings of
Hellenistic rhetoric and persuasive speech. Something of this kind of attitude towards the
fineries of Hellenistic culture may already have been present in the young Pharisee. And
Saul may have been regarded by Philo as one of those poor, uninsightful literalists who
fail to see the deeper meaning of Scripture.18 In any event, Pohlenz's observation is still
valid that “Paulus war aus ganz anderem Holze geschnitzt als der Alexandriner Philon,
der sich des griechischen Geistesgutes bemächtigen wollte”.19
Thirdly, Saul's method, to judge by the writings of Paul, would have been
different from that of Philo who often (but not always) interpreted texts atomistically,
apparently without reference to their contexts, as he interpreted them allegorically. 20 Paul,
by contrast, does not ignore the original context of the Old Testament passages which he
cites, for the purpose of making the Scriptures relevant for his audiences. 21 Where he
17 Pace Haacker, who thinks that Saul might have read Philo because of the latter's great fame. He down-
plays the implications of placing Saul within a Palestinian Pharisaic context. To wit, he writes:
"Although Paul’s religious education under Gamaliel will have been more conservative than that of
Philo, the fame of this learned man and creative thinker may have induced Paul to read some of his
writings." Klaus Haacker, The Theology of Paul's Letter To The Romans, New Testament Theology,
Cambridge, CUPress, 2003, p. 105. Cf. Samuel Sandmel, 'Philo Judaeus: An Introduction to the Man,
His Writings, And His Significance', Religion: Hellenistiches Judentum in römischer Zeit: Philon und
Josephus, ANRW, Berlin, de Gruyter, 1984, pp. 38-39. See also the references in: Kern, Rhetoric, pp.
252-253.
18 E.g. Somn. 1:39.
19 Max Pohlenz, 'Paulus und die Stoa', ZNW, Vol. 42, (1949), p. 69.
20 Lester L. Grabbe, 'Philo And Aggada: A Response To B. J. Bamberger', SPhA, Vol. 3, (1991), p. 164.
See also: Instone Brewer, Techniques & Assumptions In Jewish Exegesis Before 70 C. E., p. 213, who
also notes a general distinction between Philo's method of interpretation and the “Peshat” of the
Pharisees (p. 223).
21 Pace Dietzfelbinger, who stresses that Paul is concerned to actualise the Old Testament (“...im Willen
zur Vergegenwärtigung des alttestamentlichen Schriftwortes...”), even against the Old Testament
context. See: Christian Dietzfelbinger, Paulus und das Alte Testament: Die Hermeneutik des Paulus,
untersucht an seiner Deutung der Gestalt Abrahams, eds K. G. Steck and G. Eichholz, ThEx, Vol. 95,
München, Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1961, pp. 33ff. Pace also Enslin: “It is perhaps not too rash to say that in
nearly if not in every case where Paul quotes the Old Testament, he does it with complete indifference
to the original meaning of the section. … Atomistic interpretation and not historical exegesis was the
order of the day...” Enslin, 'Paul And Gamaliel', p. 367. It must be said that the question of Paul's regard
for the contexts of the Old Testament passages which he cites or echoes is a contentious issue. On this,
see, for e.g., Steve Moyise, 'Quotations', As It Is Written: Studying Paul's Use of Scripture, Atlanta,
SBL, 2008, p. 22. We favour the view that he was sensitive to context.
does assume the relevance of a particular Old Testament passage for the new situation
created by the advent of the Christ without first demonstrating this from the Old
Testament context, he most likely does so on the basis of accepted assumptions within
nascent Christianity, as Peter and the other New Testament writers do. 22 It is likely that
the young Pharisee's approach was analogous. Furthermore, Tomson notes that, in
contradistinction to Philo, “Paul displays a natural familiarity with the language and
imagery of apocalyptic”.23
Of course, one may point to similarities between Philo and Paul as well. Both
Paul and Philo focus a lot of their attention on the Pentateuch, and Genesis in particular. 24
Yet, even here there are differences. Paul often reads the Pentateuch in light of the
Prophets (particularly Isaiah) and the Psalms, whereas Philo takes recourse to the later
sections of the Old Testament much less frequently.25 Similarly, Paul pays careful
attention to chronology and the placing of individual persons or events within the
unfolding story-line of the biblical narrative, whereas Philo treats a figure such as
Abraham by ignoring chronology or narratival sequence.26
We may also ask whether Saul bought or read many books – from Alexandria or
elsewhere. While it is hard to know whether he came from a wealthy background, he
would have had to have been amongst the particularly wealthy to afford many volumes. 27
22 C. H. Dodd, According To The Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology, London,
Nisbet, 1952, pp. 22-23.
23 Peter J. Tomson, Paul And The Jewish Law: Halakha In The Letters of The Apostle To The Gentiles,
CRINT 3.1, Assen, Van Gorcum, 1990, p. 52. Runia notes that Philo shows absolutely no interest in
history or apocalyptic. David T. Runia, 'Philo, Alexandrian And Jew', Exegesis And Philosophy: Studies
On Philo of Alexandria, Variorum, Hampshire, 1990, p. 12.
24 On Philo, see: Clara Kraus Reggiani, 'La Simbologia Di Abramo In Filone Di Alessandria', in J.
Driscoll and M. Sheridan (eds.), Spiritual Progress: Studies In The Spirituality of Late Antiquity And
Early Monasticism, SA, Roma, Pontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo, 1994, p. 16.
25 Cf., amongst many others: John Joseph Collins, Seers, Sibyls, And Sages In Hellenistic-Roman
Judaism, Leiden, Brill, 1997, p. 10; Naomi G. Cohen, Philo's Scriptures: Citations From The Prophets
And Writings: Evidence For A Haftarah Cycle In Second Temple Judaism, JSJSup, Vol. 123, Leiden,
Brill, 2007, p. 1.
26 E.g. Reggiani, 'La Simbologia Di Abramo In Filone Di Alessandria', p. 18.
27 For a discussion of this point, see: Hengel, 'The Pre-Christian Paul', pp. 15-17. Hezser estimates that a
short work on papyrus would cost about five to six drachmas. Catherine Hezser, Jewish Literacy In
Roman Palestine, eds M. Hengel and P. Schäfer, TSAJ, Vol. 81, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2001, p. 145.
As Starr points out, “not many people owned books”.28 Having said that, there may have
been a public library in Jerusalem between 0-30AD, but there is no clear evidence for
this.29 Thus, it is probably best to imagine the medium of Saul's religious education as
being primarily oral rather than literary, and the locus of this education at the feet of
Gamaliel rather than in the reading-room. On this reconstruction, Saul would have given
his labours over to memorisation of Scripture, and the traditions of the fathers, rather
than to Philo's allegories.
We may further question: (a) whether Philo would have desired his writings to
have been read by people unknown to him; and (b) whether his writings would have been
popular and/or distributed outside of Egypt.
In relation to the first point, Wolfson discusses the interplay in Philo's oeuvre
between literal and allegorical interpretation. He finds evidence here that Philo may have
desired a restricted circulation of (at least some of) his writings.30 More recently, Royse
has argued that Philo's works were likely intended for a private circle (probably of
students), and not 'published' by the Alexandrian per se.31 Indeed, in relation to
Jerusalem, while emphasising the symbolic value of the Jewish mhtrovpoliV, it is not
clear that he himself visited there more than once, since he mentions the fact only in
28 Raymond J. Starr, 'The Circulation of Literary Texts In The Roman World', CQ, Vol. 37, No. 1, (1987),
p. 221.
29 There probably was no such library. See, for e.g., the discussion in: Hezser, Jewish Literacy, pp. 160-
161.
30 Wolfson discusses these two methods of interpretation, suggesting that "Philo found it necessary to
restrict the teaching of the philosophic interpretation of Scripture to properly qualified and properly
equipped students." Harry Austryn Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy In Judaism,
Christianity, And Islam, 2 Vols., Vol. 1, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1962, p. 57.
31 Drawing on Sterling's earlier work (Gregory E. Sterling, ''The School of Sacred Laws': The Social
Setting of Philo's Treatises', VC, Vol. 53, No. 2, (1999), pp. 148-164), Royse proposes that Philo's
works were intended for a school devoted to the study of Scripture of which Philo was the leader. He
makes the comparison with Aristotle's school of philosophy and the unpublished books written by him
for use within that context. Indeed, Royse believes that Philo's works were not 'published' in the sense
of being broadly distributed until the latter part of the second century. James Ronald Royse, 'Did Philo
Publish His Works?', SPhA, Vol. 25, (2013), pp. 98-99. Royse does, however, urge caution, given the
nature of the evidence. Even if his reconstruction is not completely accurate, however, it seems high
time nonetheless, for scholarship to abandon that image of Philo which treats him as an internationally
renowned pop-star figure whose works were widely distributed and read in his own life-time, or shortly
thereafter.
passing, attaching little significance to it (Prov. 2:64).32 On the other hand, in relation to
the second point, Jewish pilgrims coming up to Jerusalem for the feasts may have
brought the latest writings and ideas from Alexandria with them.33 In this vein, it has
been suggested that cities such as Alexandria should be considered "porous", in relation
to the movement of people and ideas.34 More than this, the presence of Greek texts at
Qumran may indicate the influence of Hellenistic-Jewish ideas/texts in Palestine.35
Nevertheless, given the limitations of ancient book publishing, it seems unlikely that
Philo's works would have been distributed en masse during his lifetime outside of
Egypt,36 if at all.37 Equally unclear is whether Philo was considered necessary reading by
32 Maren R. Niehoff, Philo On Jewish Identity And Culture, TSAJ, 86, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2001, p.
33, n. 53. Indeed, from Spec. Leg. 1:69-70, it appears as though the aim of such pilgrimage was, for
Philo, a kind of holiday-taking, and relaxation. On the (relative lack of) importance of the Temple for
Philo, see: Jacob Neusner, 'Judaism In A Time of Crisis: Four Responses To The Destruction of The
Second Temple', Neusner On Judaism: Vol. 1: History, Hampshire, Ashgate, 2004, p. 400.
33 Peder Borgen thinks that the picture given in Spec. 1:69 (cf. J. W. 6:420-425) indicates that, “Jerusalem
to some extent served as a pool of information and a place of exchange of traditions and news about
Jews from Judea and from the various Diaspora communities.” Peder Borgen, Philo, John, And Paul:
New Perspectives On Judaism And Early Christianity, BJS, 131, Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1987, p. 275.
See also: Martin Goodman, Rome And Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations, New York,
Knopf, 2007, p. 67.
34 E.g. Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, ed. D. A. Carson, PNTCS,
Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2010, pp. 69-70.
35 Gathercole: “Palestine was neither isolated from Egyptian literary products nor incapable of producing
Greek texts of its own.” Simon J. Gathercole, Where Is Boasting?: Early Jewish Soteriology And Paul's
Response In Romans 1-5, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2002, p. 27.
36 As regards the reading of Philo's works within Egypt, Tcherikover's comments on ancient book sales,
publishing, and distribution are pertinent. See: Victor Tcherikover, 'Jewish Apologetic Literature
Reconsidered', Eos, Vol. 48, No. 3, (1956), pp. 171-174. In particular, he notes that people were
primarily interested in established classics rather than the latest writings of contemporary authors; “the
wide reading public in Egypt was interested in famous writers of previous generations, and not in
modern writers.” (p. 172, n. 6.)
37 Referring to the situation which prevailed in the second century David Runia states that, "the survival
of Philo's writings was entirely dependent on the intervention of the Christian authors. Pagans were not
greatly interested in his thought; Jews either ignored him or condemned him to silence." David T.
Runia, Philo In Early Christian Literature: A Survey, CRINT, Vol. 3, Assem, Van Gorcum, 1993, p. 17.
We cannot assume, of course, that the situation was the same in the first century. Jews both within and
without Alexandria may have been interested in Philo's approach to Scripture. And, indeed, given his
position in society, Philo would certainly have had the money and connections to have published his
own works relatively broadly, had he so desired. Nevertheless, given the uncertainty surrounding
Philo's intended readership and the nature of book publishing at the time, it seems to us unlikely that
Philo would have been read widely outside of his own social circles and outside of Egypt. Had Philo's
works become popular outside of Egypt, it would seem a priori likely that such a process would have
taken some time. Would this process have been rapid enough to give reasonable probability to the idea
that Paul, Philo's contemporary, would have been reading him in Tarsus or Jerusalem? On ancient
'publishing', see: Starr, 'The Circulation of Literary Texts In The Roman World', pp. 216-217 esp.;
István Czachesz, 'Rewriting And Textual Fluidity In Antiquity: Exploring The Socio-Cultural And
Pharisees in Palestine during the period circa 0-30AD,38 or elsewhere outside of
Alexandria.39
Hengel points out that Palestinian writings were translated into Greek and read in
the Diaspora.40 And it is probable that some Diaspora writings were read in Palestine.
Unfortunately, a question mark remains here as to the extent and frequency of such a
procedure.41 In sum, Sandmel's feeling that relatively few Jews would have read Philo's
Psychological Context of Earliest Christian Literacy', in J. N. Bremmer et al. (eds.), Myths, Martyrs,
And Modernity: Studies In The History of Religions In Honour of Jan N. Bremmer, SHR, Leiden, Brill,
2010, pp. 425-429 esp. Ogilvie is also instructive. It is noteworthy, for example, that the first public
library in Rome was not founded until 39BC. Robert Maxwell Ogilvie, Roman Literature And Society,
Brighton, Harvester, 1980, pp. 479-496. Many scholars do not seem to have grappled with questions
arising from our uncertain knowledge of the cost, availability, and distribution of texts in the classical
world, and particularly the first century. Certainly Josephus, Pseudo-Philo, and the author of the
Apocalypse of Abraham all write after Paul's time. Yet, would he have been influenced by Philo's
roughly contemporary works stemming from Alexandria, a location to which he does not appear to have
ever travelled? Could Paul have heard of or read Jubilees, while in Jerusalem (was there a library in the
city, other than the Temple which held the OT but not, according to Schniedewind's reading of
Josephus, “profane works”? See: W.M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The
Textualization of Ancient Israel, Cambridge, CUPress, 2005, p. 182. It certainly used to be common to
associate Jubilees with the Pharisees, but more modern scholarship has actually reversed this position,
claiming that Jubilees was irreconcilably at odds with Pharisaism (e.g. Gabriele Boccaccini, 'From A
Movement of Dissent To A Distinct Form of Judaism: The Heavenly Tablets In Jubilees As The
Foundation of A Competing Halakah', in G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba (eds.), Enoch And The Mosaic
Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2009, pp. 206ff.). More broadly, Catherine
Hezser has suggested that, “In antiquity texts tended to be unevenly distributed in the public and private
domain. Only very few individuals are likely to have possessed Torah scrolls, which must have been
very expensive because of the preciousness of the material and the special care taken in writing them.”
Hezser, Jewish Literacy, p. 110. It seems clear that such 'historical' questions are important, and should
inform one's interpretation of Paul's theology. Where it remains unclear that Paul ever came into contact
with these traditions, or that he ever alludes to them, or that he would have accepted many of their
emphases as helpful for his purposes (e.g. the emphasis in Jubilees on Jewish self-sequestration from
Gentiles), or that he would have accepted them as authoritative, or that he could have assumed that his
audience would be familiar with them, it seems to me that some thought should be given to such
questions.
38 Mendelson writes: "Since the needs of Alexandrian Jews differed from those of contemporary Jews
living in Palestine, Philo presents us with a distinctive view of the Jewish faith." Alan Mendelson,
Philo's Jewish Identity, BJS, Vol. 161, Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1988, p. 1. Barclay notes how
mainstream opinion at the close of the last century held that Philonic and other Diaspora Judaism
cannot be assumed to be "congruent with the thought and practice of Jews in Palestine". John M. G.
Barclay, Jews In The Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander To Trajan (323 BCE - 117 CE),
Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1996, p. 8.
39 Given that the rapid and wide-spread distribution of Christian writings beginning, at least, in the second
century, prompted by a thirsty audience, was an apparently unknown phenomenon in the ancient world,
we assume that Philo's works were not transported as readily as those of, for e.g., Irenaeus, or as
popular as those of, for e.g., Augustine. On the distribution of the works of these two authors, see:
Harry Y. Gamble, Books And Readers In The Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts, New
Haven, Yale University Press, 1995, pp. 82, 140, esp.
40 Martin Hengel, The 'Hellenization' of Judaea In The First Century After Christ, trans. J. Bowden,
London, SCM, 1989, p. 29.
41 Hengel, The 'Hellenization' of Judaea In The First Century After Christ, pp. 28-29.
works probably applies to Saul.42 Moreover, it is at least as likely, a priori, that Saul,
rather than being himself influenced by ideas carried from Alexandria by pilgrims
coming up for the feast(s) was himself instrumental – as Hengel conjectures – in
attempting to persuade them to a more Pharisaic understanding of the Law.43
One might posit that a significant amount of Philo's thinking/exegesis was
transmitted from his native city to Jerusalem orally. This would overcome the limitations
of ancient book distribution. However, here we enter upon a world of speculation, since
we desire not only to know the probability of Philo's thought having penetrated the walls
of Jerusalem, but the more particular probability of its having found a home in the
thought-world of Saul the Pharisee. The above considerations argue against this. All that
we know about the young Pharisee or may venture to guess from our reconstructed
knowledge of first-century Palestinian Pharisaism, argues against the notion that Saul
was Stoically or Platonically inclined.
In relation to Abraham in particular, Bosch's comparison of Philo and Paul is
helpful. Bosch points out the most striking similarities between the two authors in their
thinking about Abraham,44 whilst not obscuring the fact that, “Pablo se distingue
radicalmente de Filón porque tiene un evangelio que anunciar, habla de un cambio
profundo en la situación salvífica del hombre, mientras que Filón reflexiona sobre la
realidad (considerada) eterna del hombre a la luz del Antiguo Testamento.”45
8.4 Saul's Relation To Josephus
In his presentation of Abraham, Josephus stands closest to Philo. Indeed, whilst not
42 Sandmel, 'Philo Judaeus: An Introduction', p. 5.
43 Hengel, 'The Pre-Christian Paul', p. 42.
44 E.g. the importance of Gen. 15:6 to both authors; the centrality of the figure of Abraham to both; the
importance to both of Abraham as an example of faith; the importance of the paternity of Abraham in
the thought of both.
45 Jorge Sánchez Bosch, 'La Figura de Abrahán en Pablo y en Filón de Alejandría', in D. M. León (ed.),
Salvación En La Palabra: Targum, Derash, Berith: En Memoria Del Profesor Alejandro Díez Macho,
Madrid, 1986, p. 681.
merely parroting the Alexandrian's perspective, Josephus is close enough to him in
outlook, that many of the elements of Philo's view of Abraham which would have made it
unappealing to Saul can be said to have likely made Josephus' view of Abraham similarly
unappealing to the young Pharisee.46 Josephus shares with Philo, for instance, the desire
to make of Abraham an Hellenistic sage. In their own ways, both Josephus and Saul were
men of Jerusalem. Yet, the twilight of Josephus' life was spent in Rome, where his
Antiquities was likely written for a Roman audience. We should not be surprised, then, if
the post-war Josephan concern to present Jewish history in the guise of Hellenism to an
educated Roman audience was not shared by his pre-war contemporary. Josephus'
Abraham may not have been offensive to Saul, but it likely would have been irrelevant to
his daily concerns.47
8.5 Saul's Relation To Jubilees
Placing Saul in such a Pharisaic Palestinian context also has implications for the
likelihood that he was acquainted with Jubilees. Due to the shared literal method and
Palestinian setting, it is more likely that Saul read Jubilees than Philo. Having said that,
several considerations militate against the possibility that Saul was an avid reader of
Jubilees.
Firstly, there is no persuasive evidence that Jubilees was still in widespread
circulation by the early first century.48 Jubilees was adopted by the Qumran sectarians.
46 Mason applies similar observations to those given above about ancient book 'publishing' to Josephus'
audience, suggesting that he wrote for a particular class of educated Romans in Rome. Steve Mason,
'Of Audience And Meaning: Reading Josephus' Bellum Judaicum In The Context of A Flavian
Audience', in J. Sievers and G. Lembi (eds.), Josephus And Jewish History In Flavian Rome And
Beyond, JSJSup, Leiden, Brill, 2005, pp. 71-100.
47 So, for example, Tobin notes that Paul was not interested in presenting Abraham either as a bringer of
culture or as ancestor to particular Gentile nations. Josephus, by contrast, is interested in both of these
things. See: Thomas H. Tobin, 'What Shall We Say That Abraham Found? The Controversy Behind
Romans 4', HTR, Vol. 88, No. 4, (1995), p. 448, n. 23.
48 Outside of Qumran, as Nickelsburg points out, Jubilees is unattested until the fourth century, when it is
cited by Epiphanius (Pan. 39.6.1-7; De Mens. Et Pond. 22) and Jerome (Epist. 78). George W. E.
Nickelsburg, 'Abraham The Convert: A Jewish Tradition And Its Use By The Apostle Paul', in M. E.
Beyond this, however, there is little evidence for its popularity in other segments of
Second Temple Judaism.49 One might point to the fact that manuscripts of Jubilees have
been found outside of Qumran itself. Yet, Jackson notes that, “while copies of so-called
“non-sectarian” works such as Jubilees or Testament of Levi have been found in locations
other than the Qumran caves – the Cairo Genizeh or Masada – it is worth noting that they
have not been found in any setting in which a sectarian text has not also been located.”50
Eyal Regev has reconstructed the likely life of Jubilees after its initial production.
Regev suggests that Jubilees experienced a process of isolation, until its influence was
finally limited to Qumran. Having been initially produced in the heady days of the
second century BC by a non-sectarian reform group desirous of a wide influence, this
group withdrew and became sectarian when their message was not broadly accepted by
the Jewish leadership.51 Whatever the validity of Regev's reconstruction, Jubilees appears
to have been accepted at Qumran as an authoritative text, while there is no clear evidence
for this elsewhere.52
Stone and T. A. Bergren (eds.), Biblical Figures Outside The Bible, Harrisburg, Trinity Press, 1998, p.
167, n. 51. Charlotte Hempel, 'The Place of The Book of Jubilees At Qumran And Beyond', in T. Lim et
al. (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls In Their Historical Context, London, T&T Clark, 2004, p. 195. Anke
Mühling comments on Jubilees that, “Es war relativ weit verbreitet”. Anke Mühling, "Blickt auf
Abraham, euren Vater": Abraham als Identifikationsfigur des Judentums in der Zeit des Exils und des
Zweiten Tempels, FRLANT, Vol. 236, Göttingen, V&R, 2011, p. 190. Similarly, Eisenbaum says that
Jubilees "appears to have enjoyed fairly wide circulation." Unfortunately, she does not provide the
reader with the evidence which leads her to this conclusion. Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not A
Christian: The Original Message of A Misunderstood Apostle, New York, Harper Collins, 2009, p. 285,
n. 8. Similarly unpersuasive is the line of argumentation in: Andrew Brunson, Psalm 118 In The Gospel
of John: An Intertextual Study On The New Exodus Pattern In The Theology of John, WUNT 2. Reihe,
Vol. 158, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2003, pp. 295-297.
49 This is, of course, an argument from silence, and may, therefore, carry little weight with some
interpreters. That sword cuts both ways, however. Such that, while the argumentum ex silentio may not
be as strong as others, it, nevertheless, is instructive, in this instance, to see that it is against a lack of
evidence that many reach the conclusion that Jubilees was widespread and broadly popular.
50 David R. Jackson, 'Demonising Gilgameš', in J. Azize and N. Weeks (eds.), Gilgameš And The World of
Assyria, ANESS, Leuven, Peeters, 2007, p. 108.
51 Eyal Regev, 'From Enoch To John The Essene - An Analysis of Sect Development: 1 Enoch, Jubilees,
And The Essenes', in E. G. Chazon, B. H. Amaru, and R. A. Clements (eds.), New Perspectives On Old
Texts: Proceedings of The Tenth International Symposium of The Orion Center For The Study of The
Dead Sea Scrolls And Associated Literature, 9-11 January 2005, STDJ, Leiden, Brill, 2010, pp. 67-96.
52 The unusually high number of manuscripts – fifteen – of Jubilees discovered at Qumran, "may be seen
as an indication that the [book was] held in high esteem, and possibly even considered "authoritative"
(CD 16:3-4), by the members of the community." Matthias Henze, 'Daniel And Jubilees', in G.
Boccaccini and G. Ibba (eds.), Enoch And The Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees, Grand Rapids,
On the other hand, there is some evidence that the features of Jubilees which
made it appealing to the sectarians, would have lessened its attractiveness to those
outside of the Qumran community. For example, the very hostile stance which Jubilees
takes towards Gentiles may not have been accepted by the likes of Gamaliel.53 More
significantly, Schiffman sees Jubilees as following the "Zadokite” or “Sadducean"
approach to issues of halakhah, oral-versus-written Torah, and calendrical observance. In
each of these areas, Jubilees is in opposition to a kind of "Pharisaic-Rabbinic"
approach.54 Jubilees also appears to deny a bodily resurrection.55 The specific Zadokite-
Pharisee distinction thus drawn may be unhelpful. Nonetheless, Jubilees transparently
exhibits theological positions antithetical to those of the Pharisees.56 As such, Lester
Grabbe refers to it as “the non-Pharisaic book of Jubilees”.57 Such being the case, it is
unlikely that Saul, as a card-carrying member of that party, would have spared much time
for the work, had he come across it.58
8.6 Did Saul Learn Haggadot Comparable To The Abraham Texts?
Saul's allegiance to Pharisaism, therefore, lessens the likelihood that he was influenced
by the portrayals of Abraham to be found in either Philo or Jubilees. We might ask,
Eerdmans, 2009, p. 53.

53 Gamaliel I is often pictured among Gentiles in the Mishnaic sources. Thus Bruce D. Chilton and Jacob
Neusner, 'Paul And Gamaliel', RevRJ, Vol. 8, No. 1, (2005), p. 152. These may not be historically
accurate accounts. Nevertheless, if they have any truth to them at all, it would seem that Gamaliel's
attitude towards Gentiles was not the same as that of Jubilees: viz. violent rejection and utter
segregation.
54 Lawrence H. Schiffman, 'The Book of Jubilees And The Temple Scroll', in G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba
(eds.), Enoch And The Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2009, pp. 99-
115.
55 Emil Schürer, The History of The Jewish People In The Age of Jesus Christ, trans. G. Vermes, F. Millar,
and M. Goodman, 3 Vols., Vol. 3.1, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1973, p. 313.
56 Ellis Rivkin, 'The Book of Jubilees: An Anti-Pharisaic Pseudepigraph', ErIsr, Vol. 16, (1982), pp. 193-
198; James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 2001, p. 143; James L.
Kugel, A Walk Through Jubilees: Studies In The Book of Jubilees And The World of Its Creation,
JSJSup, Vol. 156, Leiden, Brill, 2012, pp. 219-220; Boccaccini, 'From A Movement of Dissent To A
Distinct Form of Judaism: The Heavenly Tablets In Jubilees As The Foundation of A Competing
Halakah', pp. 206-207. Also Schürer, History 3.1, p. 313.
57 Grabbe, 'Philo And Aggada: A Response To B. J. Bamberger', p. 163.
58 Cf. Deines, 'The Pharisees Between "Judaisms" And "Common Judaism"', pp. 478-479.
however, whether the Pharisees did not teach Abrahamic haggadot similar to the
portrayals of Abraham in Philo and Jubilees. Certainly, “As a trained Pharisee, Paul
inherited a rich tradition of oral biblical interpretation”.59 And we can well agree with
Leenhardt that, “Celui que la piété juive appelait le Père des croyants occupait à coup sûr
déjà une place de premier rang dans la pensée que le zélé pharisien Saul de Tarse
nourrissait avant sa conversion”.60 But what interests us here is whether Saul's
interpretative heritage included an understanding of Abraham equivalent to that of either
Philo or Jubilees. So far, we have considered the possibility of Saul's having read
Jubilees or Philo's works on Abraham. We should also consider the possibility that while
not having read these texts directly he, nevertheless, became acquainted indirectly with
their basic contents through his Pharisaic learning. Perhaps, he learned at the feet of
Gamaliel Pharisaic versions of the Abraham traditions found in Jubilees and Philo. This
possibility prompts us to turn to both the New Testament, and to the earliest rabbinic
literature.
In the case of the New Testament, the evidence suggests, if it is at all
representative of Pharisaic belief in the early first century, that the Pharisees saw
Abraham as a national hero and descent from Abraham as a special privilege (e.g. Matt.
3:9).61 Yet, we are not told whether they taught haggadot about the patriarch's early life,
or what these might have looked like. So far as the Gospels go, the Pharisees appear to be
exclusively concerned with halakhah.
When we turn to the earliest rabbinic literature – viz. the Mishnah – we find that
59 Bruce N. Fisk, 'Paul Among The Storytellers: Reading Romans 11 In The Context of Rewritten Bible',
in C. D. Stanley (ed.), Paul And Scripture: Extending The Conversation, SBLECL, Atlanta, SBL, 2012,
p. 55.
60 Franz Jehan Leenhardt, 'Abraham et la Conversion de Saul de Tarse, Suivi d'une Note Sur 'Abraham
Dans Jean VIII'', RHPR, Vol. 53, (1973), p. 331.
61 There has been great debate about the validity of the New Testament evidence for a reconstruction of
first century Pharisaism. See, for e.g., the discussion of this debate in: Silva, 'The Place of Historical
Reconstruction In New Testament Criticism', pp. 112ff.
this literature does mention Abraham.62 Most of the references to Abraham in this
(relatively) early rabbinic literature are incidental, or otherwise have little bearing on the
present topic. Two exceptions are noteworthy, however. Firstly, mention is made of
Abraham's having kept the entire Law even before it was given.63 Secondly, in a
discussion in m.Aboth which is structured around the notion that the number ten is
significant, we are told that "Ten trials were inflicted upon Abraham, our father, may he
rest in peace, and he withstood all of them, to show you how great is His love for
Abraham, our father, may he rest in peace." (m.Aboth 5:3).64
The first of these two passages resonates with both Philo and Jubilees. Just as
they teach that Abraham observed the Law, so does the Mishnah. Indeed, within a
Weltanschauung fixated upon fulfillment of the Law, it is not surprising that Gen. 26:5
was interpreted as referring to Abraham's having observed the Mosaic Torah (rather than
some other form of instruction/torah). We would not be surprised if several first century
(or earlier) exegetes arrived at this same conclusion independently. 65 They might also
have independently specified that Abraham observed the Law completely – since the
great forefather did all things superlatively – whilst providing divergent solutions to the
62 m.Taanith 2:4-5; m.Nedarim 3:11; m.Qiddushin 4:14; m.Baba Qamma 8:6-7; m.Baba Metzia 7:1;
m.Aboth 3:11; 5:2-19; 6:10; m.Sotah 7:5. Abraham appears also at various points in the Tosefta –
particularly in t.Sotah – but the material there does not bear directly on the present topic.
63 “We find that the patriarch Abraham kept the entire Torah even before it was revealed, since it says,
Since Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws
(Gen. 26:5).” (m.Qiddushin 4:14). The discussion of circumcision in m.Nedarim would fall under this
broader canopy.
64 Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1988, p. 685.
65 An emphasis on Abraham's observance of the Law is also to be found in such texts as: Sir. 44:20; 2 Bar.
57:1-2; Qidd 4:4; cf. also 1 Macc. 2:26; 4 Macc. 6:22; CD 3:2-4; T. Benj. 10:3-6. Indeed, the picture of
Abraham as Law-observant was relevant in different settings for different reasons at different times.
Thus, for instance, Beate Ego: “Auf die Funktion dieses Motivs von Abrahams Gesetzestreue wurde
gelegentlich hingewiesen: Bereits in vormakkabäischer Zeit galt es, als Gegengewicht zu
hellenisierenden Tendenzen die Motivation für einen Gesetzesgehorsam durch das Beispiel der Väter zu
unterstützen. ... Auch für das rabbinische Zeitalter ist die Relevanz der Vorstellung offensichtlich: Nach
der Zerstörung des Tempels rückte die Tora in das Zentrum des religiösen Lebens; sie wurde zur alles
bestimmenden Wirklichkeit des Denkens und Handelns schlechthin, und die Verbindung mit den Vätern
Israels konnte deren Gültigkeit und Bedeutung noch weiteren Nachdruck verleihen.” Beate Ego,
'Abraham als Urbild der Toratreue Israels: Traditionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen zu einem Aspekt des
biblischen Abrahambildes', in F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger (eds.), Bund und Tora: Zur
theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition,
WUNT, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1996, p. 26.
problem of how it was possible for Abraham to fulfill the Law: viz. whether by nature
(Philo), or special revelation (Jubilees).66 Thus, we can say that Saul's Pharisaic learning
probably included some mention of Abraham's observance of the Law and his superlative
righteousness in this regard. Yet, this does not necessitate his knowledge of either Philo
or Jubilees in particular.
The second of these passages also resonates with Jubilees, if not Philo. Jubilees
also speaks about Abraham's having endured ten trials.67 This correspondence is
particularly interesting, because the notion of Abraham's having experienced ten trials in
particular is found in the surviving literature only in Jubilees and the later rabbinic
writings.68 That Abraham was tried by God a number of times is a common idea, likely
derived from Genesis 22:1 where God is said to have 'tested' (‫ )נסה‬Abraham. As such,
several texts refer to the Akedah as a trial, and may mention other 'trials' but they do not
enumerate that Abraham experienced ten trials specifically.69 The idea of ten trials may
have derived from an awareness of the ten trials the wilderness generation put God
through.70 If so, Abraham might function as something like a positive foil to Israel's
disobedience. Alternatively, since the number ten was often taken as signifying
completeness or perfection, Abraham's trials might have been numbered as ten on the
basis that he was found perfectly faithful under a complete regime of testings. One
suspects that we can only guess here.
In any case, it is hard to know what to make of this resonance. While it is striking
66 Philo posits that Abraham kept the Law by nature. Jubilees sees Abraham as having received special
revelation.
67 So also: Jeremias, '=Abraavm', 1:8-9.
68 "There is a second-century reference to the 'Ten Trials of Abraham' in m. Ab. 5.3 and several references
in later centuries (e.g. b. San. 89b; Ex. R. 30.16; Num. R. 14.11; 15.12)." David Instone-Brewer, 'James
As A Sermon On The Trials of Abraham', in P. J. Williams et al. (eds.), The New Testament In Its First
Century Setting: Essays On Context And Background In Honour of B. W. Winter On His 65th Birthday,
Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2004, p. 256, n. 24.
69 Pace Instone-Brewer, 'James As A Sermon On The Trials of Abraham', pp. 250-268, who sees in all
references to the Akedah as a 'trial' an allusion to the ten-trials motif.
70 In Num. 14:22, God is said to have barred the wilderness generation from entry into the Promised Land
due to their testing (‫ )נסה‬him ten times.
that both Jubilees and the Mishnah enumerate Abraham's trials as having been ten,
unfortunately the Mishnah does not list what Abraham's trials were. Different authors
give different trials.71 Without knowing whether both Jubilees and the Mishnah ascribe
the same ten trials to Abraham, it is hard to verify the strength (or weakness) of the
resonance between them at this point. The Mishnah may here preserve a pre-70 Pharisaic
teaching comparable to that of Jubilees with which Saul was acquainted. It is hard to
know. This would, however, be assuming a lot, particularly when one takes into
consideration that this portion of the Mishnah seems to derive from the early Ushan
period (after the Bar Kochbah revolt), rather than being credited to a pre-70 authority.
Thus, as Hengel puts it, “The great unknown is the question of what Pharisaic
study of the Law looked like in the first half of the [first] century in Jerusalem, and what
'theology' was taught there at that time.”72 While advances have been made in the area of
pre-70 halakhot, locating haggadot to the period before 70 is still a particular difficult
process.73 If Paul had ever informed us that, as a young man, he was a theological
eclectic, or even that he studied the different schools of Jewish thought, as Josephus
claims to have done (Vita 10), then we might be justified in finding echoes of the
teachings of such other schools of Judaism in his writings. But when our problem is to
decide whether Saul knew anything at all about, for e.g, Philo or Jubilees, uncertain
literary parallels become even more questionable.
Unfortunately, this is as far as the evidence of the Mishnah goes. We cannot be
sure, therefore, whether Saul would have learned other extra-biblical details about
Abraham which resonate with those of either Philo or Jubilees. In particular, we have no
evidence to suggest that Saul's Pharisaic education included tales of Abraham's
conversion from idolatry and/or astrology, or of his propagation of sound doctrine. On

71 Compare, for example, the trials Abraham experiences in Jubilees with those at Pirqe R. El. 26-27.
72 Hengel, 'The Pre-Christian Paul', p. 39.
73 E.g. David Instone-Brewer and Philip A. Harland, 'Jewish Associations In Roman Palestine: Evidence
From The Mishnah', JGrCJ, Vol. 5, (2008), p. 207, n. 21.
the other hand, given how much we do not know about his early education, an argument
from lack of evidence goes only so far here. Nevertheless, we may at least state that there
is little direct evidence that the Pharisees of Saul's day were transmitting a Pharisaised
form of either Philo's or the author of Jubilees' view of Abraham.
8.7 Saul's Relation To ApocAb, And LAB
Thus far, we have not considered the possibility that the later two Abraham texts ApocAb,
and LAB contain traditions which ante-date them. We turn now to that consideration.
If one were to consider as possible sources for Saul's view of Abraham only those
writings which are chronologically anterior to him, one would have to suggest that of the
five Abraham texts – as they have been dated in the preceding chapters – only Jubilees
and Philo could serve as possible sources. Of course, such a procedure would lack
sensitivity, in as much as it would neglect the possibility that later texts may yet preserve
traditional material older than their literary expression. Nevertheless, it is important to
emphasise that those texts which are chronologically anterior are still to be treated as far
more likely sources for a later author's view than texts posterior to him/her. In this
connection, we note that the two texts below discussed each derive from the late first or
early second centuries AD.
What makes these later texts significant for those who place the 'five Abraham
texts' in Paul's background is that they are cited as evidence for the on-going life of a
Jubilees-type tradition of Abraham as anti-idolater. If the Palestinian texts ApocAb and
LAB preserve essentially the same tradition as Jubilees, then surely (so the argument
goes) it is reasonable to assume that in the intervening period such a paradigm of
Abraham as anti-idolater would have been wide-spread and popular. If so, then it may be
assumed that such an understanding of Abraham was a 'live option' for Saul (or Paul). To
put it another way, because there is a general similarity between Jubilees and ApocAb
(and possibly LAB, depending on whether one sees idolatry as primarily at stake in the
Babel incident) as Palestinian texts which portray a separation between Abraham and
pagan idolatry, it might be suggested that between Jubilees (c. 160-150BC) and ApocAb
(c. 80-150AD) there was in Palestine an ongoing, widespread ascription to Abraham of
the role of anti-idolater. This suggestion would rely upon an a priori assumption that the
picture of Abraham as anti-idolater was as prevalent in Saul's day as in the periods before
(Jubilees) and after (ApocAb, LAB) it, since it is not demonstrable, due to a lack of
linking texts available to bridge the centuries-wide chronological gap between Jubilees
and the later sources. In the following paragraphs, we consider an alternative possibility.
While a proposal of this kind is possible, in the following paragraphs, we present an
alternative possibility: viz. that such polemics appeared in response to particular
historical circumstances within Palestine (of Jew-Gentile tension) and, as such, would not
necessarily have enjoyed a perpetual popularity but may have been more 'topical' pieces.
8.7.1 The Calm Between Two Storms: Against A Persistant Emphasis

On Abraham As Anti-idolater In Palestine Between 167BC And 70AD.
We shall argue as follows: (1) While the rejection of idolatry was perennial in all forms
of Judaism, a distinction of degree can be made between Palestine and the Diaspora. In
the Diaspora, the threat of Jewish influence from paganism and apostasy to idolatry was
ever-present, standing in need of and eliciting frequent Jewish response. In Palestine, by
contrast, the degree of need for such anti-pagan/anti-idol polemic was determined by
frequently changing socio-political circumstances.
(2) The threat of paganism in Palestine (particularly idolatry) was grave in the
days of Antiochus Epiphanes leading to the production of Jubilees.
(3) During the first half of the first century no threat of such a severity existed. As
such, in Palestine there was no call for the production or widespread dissemination of
anti-pagan (particularly anti-idolatry) polemical texts such as Jubilees.
(4) After the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, such a threat (whether merely
perceived or actual), albeit perhaps not as severe as under Antiochus, returned, leading to
the production of LAB and ApocAb.
(5) As such, it may be best to consider Jubilees, LAB, and ApocAb as products of
their own times and not as presenting a paradigm of Abraham which would have been
particularly apposite for, or widely circulated in, the Palestine of Saul's day, because of
the lack of extant evidence, and because of the apparently different situation. We shall
now expand on each of these points.
8.7.1.1 Paganism A Threat In The Diaspora

Diaspora Jewry, almost by definition, was constantly confronted with paganism.74 This
perpetual pressure from paganism took its toll, and lead some individuals to apostatise
(e.g. Spec. 2:256; Praem. 162; 3 Macc. 7:10-16).75 This situation is reflected in the
literature of the Diaspora, where a consistent polemic against idolatry is observable
across time.76 During certain periods, the situation in Palestine was comparable, if not
worse – such as under Antiochus Epiphanes. At other times, however, it was significantly
74 That contact with non-Jews led some Diaspora Jews to apostatise is clear. How common this was is
debated. We feel that Stephen Wilson's presentation of the evidence leads to the conclusion that
apostasy from Judaism within Diaspora Jewry while not the norm was, nevertheless, more common
than has often been supposed. See: Stephen G. Wilson, Leaving The Fold: Apostates And Defectors In
Antiquity, Minneapolis, Fortress, 2004, pp. 23-65. In relation to Philo's context in particular, Runia has
written that: “For the Jews of Alexandria, surrounded on all sides by the proud achievements of the
dominant (and prestigious) Hellenistic culture, the preservation of their ethnic and cultural identity was
not something that could be taken for granted. Assimilation and apostasy were ever-present dangers.”
David T. Runia, 'How To Read Philo', Exegesis And Philosophy: Studies On Philo of Alexandria,
Hampshire, Variorum, 1990, p. 189. Likewise, Earle Hilgert states that, “there was the ever present
threat of assimilation by the ambient culture.” Earle Hilgert, 'Philo Judaeus Et Alexandrinus: The State
of The Problem', in J. P. K. Kenney (ed.), The School of Moses: Studies In Philo And Hellenistic
Religion; In Memory of Horst R. Moehring, BJS, Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1995, p. 14.
75 See, for example, Richard Liong Seng Phua, Idolatry And Authority: A Study of 1 Corinthians 8.1-11.1
In The Light of The Jewish Diaspora, Library of New Testament Studies, Vol. 299, London, T&T Clark,
2005, pp. 50-90.
76 Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties, HCS, Vol. 31,
Berkeley, University of California Press, 2001, p. 152, n. 40.
better – such as under the Hasmoneans.
8.7.1.2 Paganism A Threat In Palestine Under Antiochus IV

In the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, the threat of paganism in Palestine was particularly
severe. We have already discussed our dating Jubilees to this period. We need not
reiterate our earlier comments, except to note that Jubilees seems to have been penned as
a response to the then current crisis.
8.7.1.3 Religious Liberty In Palestine In Saul's Day

By Saul's day, the situation which provoked Jubilees had passed away. The Hasmoneans
had ousted the Seleucids, leading to a time of Jewish independence. Indeed, the
Hasmoneans not only regained Jewish independence, but they also expanded Jewish
borders, by conquering neighbouring Hellenistic cities. They also enforced observance of
Judaism (e.g. Ant. 13:257-258).77 In particular, they sought to eradicate foreign cults and
the idolatry associated with them (e.g. 1 Macc. 2:45). In contrast to the religious-
Hellenisation of Antiochus Epiphanes, then, the roughly one-hundred-year rule of the
Hasmoneans was a period marked by a vigorous return to Judaism. It is to this period, for
example, that Schiffman locates the sections of the Temple Scroll dealing with idolatry.
For, as he notes, the author had little need to add to the Torah's own idolatry-legislation,
since the context was one in which “idolatrous practice by Jews was not a substantial
problem... as the Hasmoneans had extirpated idolatry, both Jewish and non-Jewish, from
the Land of Israel.”78
The Hasmoneans had been, in turn, displaced by the Romans (and their client
kings). Beginning already with Pompey, under Roman rule many 'Greek' cities which had
77 E.g. Kai Trampedach, 'The War of The Hasmoneans', in G. Signori (ed.), Dying For The Faith, Killing
For The Faith: Old-Testament Faith-warriors (1 And 2 Maccabees) In Historical Perspective, BSIH,
Leiden, Brill, 2012, pp. 61-78. But cf. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness, pp. 109-139.
78 Lawrence Harvey Schiffman, The Courtyards of The House of The Lord: Studies On The Temple Scroll,
STDJ, Vol. 75, Leiden, Brill, 2008, p. 486.
formerly been ruled by the Hasmoneans were 'liberated' and reverted back to being
Greek.79 This diminished the boundaries of Jewish religious control. Nevertheless, Judea
and Galilee remained religiously Jewish 'zones' prior to 70AD, as the following figure
illustrates (see fig. 2 on the next page).80 While there were areas of heavy Gentile
presence (the coastal plain, the Decapolis), there were also areas which were almost
exclusively Jewish, and devoid of Gentile cities (Galilee, Judea). 81 Thus, at least in the
Jewish heart-land (Judea-Galilee), the challenge of pagan religion (particularly idolatry)
was not so acute as in the Diaspora.82
79 Millar lists the following: Along the coast (Raphia, Gaza, Anthedon, Azotos, Iamnia, Ioppe, Stratonos,
Purgos [the later Caesarea], Apollonia, and Dora); within Samaria (Samaria, which later became
Sebaste); in the Decapolis (Hippos, Gadara, Dion, and Pella). Fergus Millar, The Roman Near East, 31
B.C.–A.D. 337, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1993, p. 353.
80 Cited by: Nicole Belayche, Iudaea-Palaestina: The Pagan Cults In Roman Palestine (Second To
Fourth Century), H. Cancik and J. Rüpke (eds.), Religion der Römischen Provinzen: Band 1, Tübingen,
Mohr Siebeck, 2001, p. 52
81 Thus Ed Parish Sanders, 'Jesus' Galilee', in I. Dunderberg, C. C. M. Tuckett, and K. Syreeni (eds.), Fair
Play: Pluralism And Conflicts In Early Christianity: Essays In Honour of Heikki Räisänen, NovTSup,
Leiden, Brill, 2002, p. 38. For Galilee, see, in particular: Mark A. Chancey, The Myth of A Gentile
Galilee: The Population of Galilee And New Testament Studies, SNTSMS, Vol. 118, Cambridge,
CUPress, 2002. See also specific studies as, for e.g., Idan Shaked and Dina Avshalom-Gorni, 'Jewish
Settlement In The Southeastern Hula Valley In The First Century CE', in D. R. Edwards (ed.), Religion
And Society In Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New Approaches, New York, Routledge, 2004, pp. 28-
36.
82 Cf. Aryeh Kasher, who argues that the Hellenistic Cities of Eretz-Israel nourished a hatred of the Jews,
desiring “to attack, persecute, and even annihilate the Jews.” Aryeh Kasher, Jews And Hellenistic Cities
In Eretz-Israel: Relations of The Jews In Eretz-Israel With The Hellenistic Cities During The Second
Temple Period (332 BCE - 70 CE), M. Hengel and P. Schäfer (eds.), TSAJ, Vol. 21, Tübingen, Mohr
Siebeck, 1990, p. 314. For the period 6-66AD, his primary evidence comes from the cities of the coastal
plain (Jamnia, Ascalon, Caesarea, Dora). Within the Galilee-Judea region, he emphasises every instance
of religious insensitivity of the procurators, and ascribes to the auxilia of Caesarea and Sebaste an anti-
semitism desirous of perpetual expression.
Figure 2. Map of Religious 'Zones' In Pre-Revolt First Century Palestine
Neither were Jews there under significant pressure to assimilate to Roman religious
norms.83 The Roman presence was certainly resented for its accompanying loss of
political self-determination, but the religious liberty of the population remained largely
unhindered.84
Andrea Berlin's examination of the material culture of Galilee-Gaulanitis
documents the shift, at least in that area, during the first two centuries BC and the early
first century AD from cultural interaction with the surrounding pagan environment to
83 A list of the ways in which the Romans were sensitive to Jewish customs and religious beliefs is given
in: Emil Schürer, The History of The Jewish People In The Age of Jesus Christ, trans. G. Vermes and F.
Millar, 3 Vols., Vol. 1, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1973, pp. 379-381.
84 See, for example, the discussion of Jewish semi-autonomy in: Shmuel Safrai, 'Jewish Self-government',
in S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People In The First Century: Historical Geography,
Political History, Social, Cultural And Religious Life And Institutions, 1, Assen, Van Gorcum, 1974, pp.
377-419. Of course, the political and the religious cannot be so easily separated. Nevertheless, the
distinction is helpful in distinguishing between, for example, the 'political' aspirations of the Zealots (to
have no king but God), and questions of Jewish Law with which, for example, the Pharisees would
have been much more interested.
ethnic separation.85 She proposes a non-reactionary separation on the part of the Jews of
this region from their pagan environs in the early first century, which, nevertheless,
turned into a violent rejection in the immediate lead-up to the first Jewish War. If her
reading of the evidence is correct, then in the period of Saul there would have been little
call for the kind of violently anti-pagan, anti-idolatry message of Jubilees or the later
Abraham texts.
This situation seems to be reflected in the programme of the Pharisees, who could
take for granted a basic attitude of biblical conservatism and move on to the ritual
sanctification of everyday life.86 An examination of the period 63BC–66AD reveals a great
amount of political turmoil, but a fairly consistent sensitivity to Jewish religion from the
Roman side, with paganism and idolatry presenting as a possible threat only at certain
tense moments. If the overthrow of Hasmonean rule meant somewhat of a step
backwards for certain Jewish aspirations, Palestinian Jews under Rome could
nevertheless look back to Antiochus Epiphanes and see that they lived, “in better times,
in which Roman power deterred assaults by neighbouring peoples and left Jews at liberty
to worship as their forefathers had.”87
8.7.1.3.a Religious Sensitivity From Pompey To Herod (63-37BC)

The usual Roman practice in conquered territory was to show sensitivity to local
religions, and to leave the temples of conquered peoples untouched.88 Such an attitude is
85 Andrea M. Berlin, 'Identity Politics In Early Roman Galilee', in M. Popović (ed.), The Jewish Revolt
Against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, JSJSup, Leiden, Brill, 2011, pp. 69-106.
86 E.g. Jacob Neusner, Early Rabbinic Judaism, Leiden, Brill, 1975, p. 44. Cf. Daniel R. Schwartz,
Studies In The Jewish Background of Christianity, WUNT, Vol. 60, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1992, pp.
57-80.
87 Goodman, Rome And Jerusalem, p. 580.
88 The first-century author Valerius Maximus writes: "The Romans gradually developed an official policy
towards the Jews living within their empire. ...when Judaea came under direct Roman rule... the unique
nature of this ethnic and religious group was acknowledged and granted special protection. Despite its
exclusive monotheism, Judaism was given the status of a religio licita and the Jews were accorded
special privileges of maintaining their ancestral cult and lifestyle wherever they lived." Cited by:
Douglas R. Edwards, Religion And Power: Pagans, Jews, And Christians In The Greek East, Oxford,
OUPress, 1996, p. 22.
illustrated in Pompey's actions after the conquest of Jerusalem in 63 BC. The Romans
made continual political reorganisations in their newly acquired territory, but it was
essentially religiously autonomous during this early stage. This situation, in line with
Caesar's general good will towards Jewish groups (e.g. Ant. 14:213-216), is reflected in
the appointment of Hyrcanus in 47BC to be High Priest and Ethnarch, having the right to
observe the “ancestral customs” (Ant. 14:194-195).89 An understanding of the sabbatical
seventh year is also evident here (Ant. 14:202-203).
8.7.1.3.b Herod's Dual Religious Sensitivity (37BC-4BC)

With the advent to power of Herod the Great in 40-37BC, a period of relative political
stability ensued. Throughout Herod's reign, he exhibited what we might term a 'dual
sensitivity'. On the one hand, he showed favour to Greco-Roman culture and religion
outside of Jewish territory.90 At the same time, however, he was sensitive to Jewish
religious practice, and did not introduce religious hellenisation into Jewish religious
zones.91 If Herod was somewhat Janus faced, he nevertheless displayed an understanding
of Jewish religious sensitivities.
Palestine certainly became more Hellenised – architecturally, linguistically, and in
other ways – under Herod's rule. Martin Hengel has documented the spread of this non-
directly-religious hellenisation.92 However, Hengel also emphasises the sensitivity to
Jewish religious practice of this “half-Jew”, and points out that beyond the more Greek
89 Schürer, The History of The Jewish People In The Age of Jesus Christ, p. 275.
90 E.g. Antiquities 15:328-329.
91 One might point to Herod's placing a sculpted eagle in the Temple grounds as evidence of his
introduction of images into the region. This is certainly how Josephus presents the affair. Yet, Josephus
may have his own reasons for doing so. And, as Rocca elaborates, Herod most likely did not attach
religious but, rather, political significance to the symbol. Samuel Rocca, Herod's Judaea: A
Mediterranean State In The Classical World, TSAJ, Vol. 122, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2008, p. 42.
The symbol, in turn, may have been torn down as a political (rather than religious) statement against
Herod. Albert I. Baumgarten, 'Herod's Eagle', in A. M. Maeir, J. Magnes, and L. H. Schiffman (eds.),
'Go Out And Study The Land' (Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies In Honor
of Hanan Eshel, JSJSup, Leiden, Brill, 2012, pp. 7-22.
92 Likewise, Collins points to the high degree of Hellenisation without religious-Hellenisation: John J.
Collins, Jewish Cult And Hellenistic Culture: Essays On The Jewish Encounter With Hellenism And
Roman Rule, J. J. Collins (ed.), JSJSup, Vol. 100, Leiden, Brill, 2005, pp. 40-43.
cities of the region, "In the territory really inhabited only by Jews there was neither
emperor worship nor alien cults, nor were there human representations in the form of
statues and pictures – as would have been quite natural in a Greek city."93 The wide-
spread use of Greek in Judea-Galilee does not necessarily indicate a religious shift, since
such acculturation need not necessitate accommodation.
8.7.1.3.c Judea And Galilee (4BC-41AD)

After Herod's death, his territory was divided. Galilee and Peraea passed into the control
of his son Herod Antipas, who was equally as Janus-faced as his father. He supported
both Rome, and Greek culture, founding the city of Tiberias in honour of the Emperor,
and decorating his own palace there with animal imagery. Yet, at the same time, “Like
Herod before him, he did not dare to enter into open conflict with traditional Judaism and
so, for instance, avoided the use of images on his coins.”94
Initially, Judea was ruled by another of Herod's sons, Archelaus. However, before
long, he was deposed due to his violent and inept rulership. In the wake of Archelaus, the
Romans established direct Roman rule in Judea. The province was governed by
successive procurators.95 Each new procurator, colouring the political, economic, and
religious scene with a different light. Yet, certain generalisations may be made. It is
evident that the Romans could not maintain the level of economic or political stability
achieved by Herod. This led to a degree of discontent amongst the native population.
93 Hengel, The 'Hellenization' of Judaea In The First Century After Christ, pp. 34-35.
94 Peter Schäfer, The History of The Jews In The Greco-Roman World, New York, Routledge, 2003, p.
103. Freyne writes that, “This is in striking contrast to Antipas' brother Philip, who in the pagan
Trachonitis and Batanaea had no scruple in having both his own and the emperor's image on his coins.”
Seán Freyne, Galilee From Alexander The Great To Hadrian, 323BCE to 135CE: A Study of Second
Temple Judaism, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1998, p. 144. Additionally, while there was a synagogue in
Tiberias, there were no pagan temples until after 70. David Flusser, 'Paganism In Palestine', in S. Safrai
and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People In The First Century: Historical Geography, Political History,
Social, Cultural, And Religious Life And Institutions, CRINT, 2, Amsterdam, Van Gorcum, 1988, p.
1086.
95 Or “prefects” – Coponius (6-9AD); Marcus Ambibulus (9-12AD); Annius Rufus (12-15AD); Valerius
Gratus (15-26AD); Pontius Pilate (26-36AD); Marcellus (36-37AD); Marullus (37-41AD). See the
discussion in: Schäfer, The History of The Jews In The Greco-Roman World, p. 108.
Additionally, unlike either Herod Antipas in Galilee or his father before him, the Roman
procurators in Judea did not possess the kind of understanding of Jewish religious
sensitivities which would have enabled them to govern without giving offense at certain
points. If we are to believe Josephus, the procurators before Pilate were sensitive to the
Jewish ban on images (Ant. 18:56).96
Pilate himself (26-36AD), however, is portrayed in quite a negative light by both
Josephus and Philo (e.g. Ant. 18:55-62; Legat. 299ff.). In particular, Pilate offended
Jewish sensitivities by having his troops enter Jerusalem carrying their standards, which
bore the Emperor's image. Nevertheless, Pilate did respond to Jewish protests by
removing the images. This example from Pilate's procuratorship indicates both the
religious offense which the procurators could cause, but also their essential policy of
sensitivity to local custom. If we jump forward in time to the procuratorship of Ventidius
Cumanus (48-52AD), we can see the pattern repeated. At that time, a Roman solider
burned a Torah scroll. Yet, to appease the offense this caused to the Jews, the soldier was
put to death (War. 2:229-231).
Pilate is sometimes presented as an anti-Semite who deliberately provoked the
Jews. The evidence of the Antiquities supports this picture. For, there, Josephus says that
it was Pilate's intention to abolish the laws of the Jews (Ant. 18:55). Yet, a somewhat
different picture of Pilate emerges in the Jewish War.97 The Gospels also present Pilate in
a manner divergent from that of the Antiquities.98 Moreover, Philo, while sharply critical
96 Smallwood writes, “The paucity of Josephus' information about the first decade of the history of the
province of Judaea suggests that it was reasonably peaceful and that therefore the early governors were
moderate enough in their behaviour to be acceptable to their subjects.” Mary Smallwood, The Jews
Under Roman Rule: From Pompey To Diocletian, Studies In Judaism In Late Antiquity, Vol. 20, Leiden,
Brill, 1976, p. 156.
97 Bond argues, against the presentation of the Antiquities, that Pilate was flexible and not unduly
aggressive or anti-Jewish. Helen Katharine Bond, Pontius Pilate In History And Interpretation,
SNTSMS, Vol. 100, Cambridge, CUPress, 1998, p. 93.
98 Smallwood notes, for example, that, “He is shown working in reasonable harmony with the Jewish
authorities and respecting the requirements of their religion by meeting them outside his residence
instead of making them incur defilement at Passover-time by entering a pagan building to present their
case [John 18:28-29, 38].” Smallwood, Jews Under Roman Rule, p. 170.
of Pilate, does not mention the incident with the standards nor, indeed, charge Pilate with
religious insensitivity in particular. In light of this earlier evidence, Josephus' account is,
most likely, in need of some tempering. Such a need is also suggested by Josephus'
seemingly dramatised account of the Jewish response.99 By contrast, Smallwood
heightens the Josephan view by suggesting that Pilate may have been in league with
Sejanus.100 This argument, however, relying both on inference and the much later opinion
of Eusebius is less than compelling.101 In Judea, then, if not in Galilee, somewhat of a
step backwards occurred under the procurators. Nevertheless, a considerable measure of
religious autonomy was extended to the local population, “Jewish religious customs were
respected and the Jews were exempted from emperor-worship”.102
At the Imperial level, Tiberius transparently continued the policy adopted by both
Caesar and Augustus before him of respecting Jewish customs (e.g. Legat. 298, 301).
Nevertheless, the greatest moment of religious insensitivity before the outbreak of war in
66 (and in this instance surely deliberate) came towards the end of this period when, in
40, the deranged Caligula ordered that a statue of himself be erected in the Temple (Ant.
18:261). This Imperial departure from the pattern of Jewish toleration begun by Julius
Caesar could have engendered disastrous consequences in Judea. Yet, it should be noted
that, on the advice of the governor of Syria, Publius Petronius, and at the pleading of his
friend Agrippa I, Caligula rescinded the order. 103 Caligula's actions, then, are exceptional,
in a period marked by the continuation of the Roman extension of privileges to Jews. 104
99 E.g. Ant. 18:59, where the Jews at Caesarea bare their throats in heroic, martyr-like, defiance of Pilate.
100 Smallwood, Jews Under Roman Rule, p. 165ff.
101 For arguments against the view that Pilate received directives from Sejanus to provoke the Jews, see:
Bond, Pontius Pilate In History And Interpretation, pp. 21-23.
102 Schäfer, The History of The Jews In The Greco-Roman World, p. 107.
103 Philo alone reports that Caligula later returned to the idea. Even if this be the case, however, his
assassination in January 41 averted the disastrous consequences which would have followed.
104 Parallels might be suggested between this incident and the enforced religious-Hellenisation of
Antiochus Epiphanes. The differences are crucial, however. Firstly, Gaius' order was never enacted.
Secondly, the lack of any apparent unrest which the Syrian governor would need to quell indicates that
the incident remained essentially at the level of an idea. James S. McLaren, Power And Politics In
Palestine: The Jews And The Governing of Their Land 100BC-AD70, ed. D. Hill, JSNTSup, Vol. 63,
Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 1991, p. 124. Thirdly, there is no evidence that a significant segment of
In keeping with the pattern which we have so far observed, Caligula's offense was
quickly followed by the reconciliatory actions of Claudius. Finally, it should be pointed
out that the procurators were not alone in their governance of Judea. Instead, the
governor of Syria was responsible for the ultimate oversight of the region.105 Mention of
their oversight is a propos, in the present context, since the evidence we have suggests
that they were particularly tolerant of (even sympathetic towards) the Jews. Petronius is
credited by Philo with having studied Judaism in order to know how best to govern an
area with a large population of Jews (Legat. 243-245). Similarly, Petronius' predecessor,
Lucius Vitellius, was especially tolerant.106
8.7.1.3.d Agrippa (41AD-44AD)

Claudius issued edicts in the Empire declaring his toleration of Jewish religious customs
and commanding the same (e.g. Ant. 19:280-292).107 He continued the Jewish exemption
from military service, and afforded partial self-determination under Herod Agrippa I.
Agrippa was installed as king over all Palestine (Ant. 19:274). Like the Herods before
him, he identified as Jewish in Jerusalem and Greek in Cesarea. Nevertheless, he is
commended by both Josephus (Ant. 19:331) and the Mishnah (m.Sot. 7:8; m.Bikk. 3:4)
for his piety. That his policy was to protect Jewish interests against both pagans and
Christians is apparent in the sources (e.g. Ant. 19:300-312; Acts 12:2-3).
8.7.1.3.e Roman Rule (44AD-66AD)

After Agrippa's death, the rulership of procurators was begun again. This time, however,
the local Jewish population was in favour of the plan (cf. 1 Macc. 1:11-13).
105 See, in particular, the discussion of Menahem Stern, 'The Province of Judaea', in S. Safrai and M. Stern
(eds.), The Jewish People In The First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social,
Cultural And Religious Life And Institutions, Vol. 1, Assen, Van Gorcum, 1974, pp. 311-315.
106 Even Kasher admits this. He notes how Vitellius on one occasion acceded to Jewish requests for his
troops to take a detour so as not to pass through Jewish territory with their standards. On another
occasion, Vitellius made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and sacrificed to the God of Israel. Vitellius was
also considerate of Jewish religious feelings in Jamnia, when they reacted against a pagan alter being
erected in that city. On these points, see: Kasher, Jews And Hellenistic Cities, pp. 235-236.
107 Cf. Victor A. Tcherikover and Alexander Fuks (eds.), Corpus Papyrorum Judaicorum, Vol. 2,
Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1960, pp. 36-55.
they ruled over much more than Judea – essentially the entire territory of Agrippa.
Josephus says that the first two procurators in this period, Cuspius Fadus (44-46AD), and
after him Tiberius Alexander (46-48AD), made “no alterations of the ancient laws, [and
so] kept the nation in tranquility.”108 The Alexandrian Jew Alexander had apostatised
from his native religion, in order to further his career as a Roman civil servant. This may
not have endeared the Jews of Palestine to him. However, it would have given him
significant insight into their mentality and customs which “enabled him to avoid giving
offence by either voluntary or involuntary infringement of the Law.”109 After Alexander,
the situation deteriorated.
Beginning already with Ventidius Cumanus (48-52AD), but especially with Felix
(52-60AD), the period from 48-66 was marked by an apparently inexorable decline in
Roman-Jewish relations, leading to the Jewish revolt.110 In particular, economic decline
and the violence of the procurators encouraged the Jewish desire to be free of the Roman
dominion and reinstate a theocracy. Yet, the Roman policy of “stalling ethnic and
religious confrontations” continued even in this period.111 In particular, the Roman
procurators were careful not to introduce images into Jewish 'zones'. Certainly, there was
miss-management by the Roman procurators, and sporadic insensitivity to Jewish
religious sentiment leading up to the revolt.112 However, while the causes of the revolt
might be said to have been numerous and varied, Roman insensitivity to Jewish religious
practice was not a principal factor, even though a Jewish religio-national (particularly
108 J. W. 2:220; cf. Claudius' reaffirmation of the Jews' right to practice their own religion at Ant. 20:11ff.
109 Smallwood, Jews Under Roman Rule, pp. 258-259.
110 Schürer, The History of The Jewish People In The Age of Jesus Christ, p. 458. Schürer says that, in
contrast to the earlier procurators since the death of Agrippa I, “under Felix [52-58] rebellion became
permanent.” Schürer, The History of The Jewish People In The Age of Jesus Christ, p. 460.
111 Belayche, Iudaea-Palaestina, pp.49-51. So, for e.g., Ant. 20:193-195.
112 Josephus gives the impression of continual strife. Yet, as Goodman writes, “Josephus is concerned... to
enumerate and deplore all the incidents of violence that might be seen as having led to the
conflagration... When one considers the length of time, sixty years, the list he provides is not extensive,
and the small number of troops sufficient to suppress occasional disturbances shows them to have been
of little significance.” Goodman, Rome And Jerusalem, pp. 402-403.
messianic) hope was involved.113
8.7.1.3.f Palestinian Literature For The Period 63BC-66AD

Throughout the period of Roman rule leading up to the first Jewish revolt, then, we can
say that, aside from certain flash-points (Pilate bringing standards into Jerusalem; the
Caligula crisis) there would not have been any wide-spread call for anti-idolatry polemic
in the Jewish heart-land.114
This situation appears to be reflected in the literature. There is, for instance,
relatively little mention of idolatry in the literature originating in Qumran. 115 Where it
occurs, it is often only as a recapitulation of the Old Testament polemic, and does not
necessarily reflect a pointed contemporary concern.116 It is occasionally used to define the
inter-Jewish boundary between those within and without the community, but it "is not
reconfigured in any significant way in these texts, nor... is it used very extensively".117
This characteristic of the literature at Qumran may be explained by the fact that the
community there was isolationist in some measure, but one may also point to the fact that
they were insulated from Gentile influence by the Judean 'buffer-zone' surrounding them.
Comparably, there is a marked absence of polemic against idolatry in the Gospels,
although Jesus is asked whether Jews should be subservient to the Emperor (e.g. Mark
113 The evidence for strong anti-Jewish sentiment amongst Romans before the revolt is not strong. So
Martin Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of The Jewish Revolt Against Rome, A.D.
66-70, Cambridge, CUPress, 1993, p. 236. For his part, Goodman suggests that considerable blame for
the revolt should be laid at the feet of the Judean elite. He also highlights the apparent military
incompetence of Cestius Gallus. Goodman, Rome And Jerusalem, p. 580.
114 Feldman cites evidence from Josephus and Tacitus to suggest that the Jews resisted idolatry during the
period of direct Roman rule. See: Louis H. Feldman, Jew And Gentile In The Ancient World: Attitudes
And Interactions From Alexander To Justinian, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1993, pp. 41-42.
115 Cf. 11QT 54:8-55:21; 59:3-4; 60:16-21; 62:16; 1QM 14:1; 4Q216 2:4-5; 1Q22 1:7; 1QpHab 12:10-15;
13:3.
116 One exceptional example might be 1QpHab 6:4. Although hard to date, the 'kittim' here may refer to the
Romans around the time of Pompey. If so, this text could critique Roman idolatry in the form of
military-standard-worship. So Timothy H. Lim, Pesharim, Companion To The Qumran Scrolls, Vol. 3,
Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 2002, p. 66. On the difficulties of dating the text, see: Bernstein J.
Moshe, 'Pesher Habakkuk', in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of The Dead
Sea Scrolls, 2, Oxford, OUPress, 2000, pp. 647-650.
117 Judith M. Lieu, Christian Identity In The Jewish And Graeco-Roman World, Oxford, OUPress, 2004, p.
114.
12:17). No doubt this reflects the fact that Jesus' ministry was primarily conducted within
the Jewish religious 'zones' of Judea and Galilee. 118 Flusser also notes the absence of
information about the primitive Church in Palestine having to relate to pagans or
paganism.119
The argument here is not that Palestinian Jewish authors would not have made
any mention of idolatry, or that they would not have been offended by the incidences of
idolatry which they did encounter (in particular from Caligula). Rather, the argument is
that Palestinian Jews were not, during this period, being forced into, or even significantly
tempted towards, idolatry. As such, there was not the same need for literature designed to
warn the native population against assimilation to the pagan and idolatrous practices of
the Gentiles living in their land. In the aftermath of the first Jewish revolt, however, this
situation would change.
8.7.1.4 Paganism A Threat In Palestine After 70

With the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70AD, everything changed.120 (a) The
religious homogeneity of Judea and Galilee was disturbed by an influx of pagans,
transforming formerly Jewish religious 'zones' into areas characterised by a mixture of
religions; (b) as part of this, there was a marked rise in the occurrence of images and
statues in Judea and Galilee; (c) Roman sensitivity to Jewish customs was, if not entirely
repealed, significantly diminished; (d) the drastically altered situation in Palestine would
likely have prompted a not insignificant percentage of the population to assimilate to
Roman culture and religion.
118 Cf. Hengel, The 'Hellenization' of Judaea In The First Century After Christ, p. 43, n. 222.
119 Flusser, 'Paganism In Palestine', p. 1095.
120 Catherine Hezser characterises the change from the later Rabbinic perspective: “Rabbinic sources
represent post-70 Jerusalem as a place of desolation and idolatry which had lost its holiness. …
Jerusalem without a Temple had lost its significance as the political, social, economic, and religious
center of Palestinian Judaism...” Catherine Hezser, Jewish Travel In Antiquity, TSAJ, Vol. 144,
Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2011, p. 52.
8.7.1.4.a An Influx of Pagans
Before the war, no Roman legion was assigned to Palestine. Only locally recruited
auxiliary troops were stationed in Palestine, and about half of these were quartered
outside of Judea-Galilee. After 70, the Tenth Legion was stationed on the ruins of
Jerusalem. Josephus also reports that Vespasian settled eight-hundred veterans at Motza
(J. W. 7:216-217).121 A garrison seems to have been retained at Masada.122 Additionally, a
second legion was stationed in Galilee before the Second Revolt,123 leading to almost
unprecedented interaction between the local Jewish population and the Roman military. 124
In total, approximately 25,000 troops were stationed in Palestine; that is, 8% of Rome's
military forces in 1% of its territory.125 These soldiers were cultural ambassadors and
instruments of Romanisation.126 However, at the religious level, any paganisation of the
Jewish population which they effected would have been incidental to their normal
activities and the change of circumstances of the Jewish population after the war rather
than as a direct act of enforced apostasy as had occurred during the period of the
Maccabees.
The impact of this influx of pagans into Judea-Galilee would undoubtedly have
been heightened by the corresponding decline in the Jewish population as a result of the
heavy casualties suffered during the war. This situation may have brought Jews in
Palestine into almost as frequent contact with paganism as was encountered in the
Diaspora. Safrai points out that we find, in the Tannaitic literature of the time, "frequent
121 Less significantly, Caesarea Maritima was also repopulated with Roman veterans, in place of its former
Jewish residents. Goodman, Rome And Jerusalem, p. 460, n. 15.
122 Millar, The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.–A.D. 337, p. 77.
123 Benjamin H. Isaac, The Near East Under Roman Rule: Selected Papers, Leiden, Brill, 1998, p. 99. And
Chancey: "Some evidence suggests that the Legio II Traiana was briefly stationed in Galilee prior to the
VI Ferrata [in 120]"; Chancey, The Myth of A Gentile Galilee, p. 59, n. 164.
124 Chancey points out that, “Rabbinic materials contain hundreds of reports of encounters between
Galileans and Roman troops.” Chancey, The Myth of A Gentile Galilee, p. 60.
125 Zeev Safrai, 'The Roman Army In The Galilee', in L. I. Levine (ed.), The Galilee In Late Antiquity, New
York, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992, pp. 104, 107. This concentration of troops
should not be viewed from the point of view of frontier border protection but, rather, as an army of
occupation. So Millar, The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.–A.D. 337, p. 76.
126 Belayche, Iudaea-Palaestina, p. 54.
and bitter reference to the ‘oppressors’ – the conductores who had taken over the land in
many parts of the country.”127 Moreover, in addition to this influx, Vespasian supported
and rebuilt Neapolis,128 the government of which, along with Sepphoris,129 and Tiberias,
Hadrian would transfer to pagans.130 The evidence from Samaritan areas here provides
additional support to the argument that after 70, there was an increased Gentile presence
and control in areas which had formerly been largely Jewish/Samaritan religious 'zones'.
8.7.1.4.b A Marked Rise In Images

Unsurprisingly, after 70, displays of pagan imagery were more common within Judea-
Galilee. More surprising is the evidence which indicates a comparable rise in the Jewish
production of such imagery.
While Pilate removed the standards of his soldiers from Jerusalem, the standards
of the Tenth Legion (whose emblem was the boar) stationed around Jerusalem after the
revolt would have suffered no such displacement due to the offense they would cause
pious Jews.131 Indeed, it is possible that as early as the time of Titus the Romans
provocatively placed a sculptured marble boar near Jerusalem to demonstrate Rome's
power over the Jews.132 The numismatic evidence is also instructive here, for the coinage
which had previously shown some sensitivity to Jewish views regarding images, was
127 Shmuel Safrai, 'Part IV: The Era of The Mishnah And Talmud (70-640)', in H. H. Ben-Sasson (ed.), A
History of The Jewish People, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1976, p. 315.
128 Millar notes that the city had the title 'Flavia'. However, as he further states, what we cannot tell, "is
whether the appearance of this new Greek city meant the creation of a new social and cultural
formation for an existing population, or the introduction of new settlers, or a combination of both."
Millar, The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.–A.D. 337, p. 368.
129 After 70, pro-Roman cities such as Sepphoris and Tiberias (under Trajan-Hadrian) grew in importance
and had their status increased. Freyne notes this trend, and that as early as 68AD Sepphoris was allowed
to strike its own coins with the inscriptions NERWNIAS and EIRENOPOLIS. Freyne, Galilee From
Alexander The Great To Hadrian, pp. 89-90.
130 Isaac, The Near East Under Roman Rule: Selected Papers, p. 100.
131 Cf. J. W. 6:316. Indeed, Isaac has suggested that the Roman camp may have been on the Temple mount
itself. Benjamin H. Isaac, The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army In The East, 2nd. Edn., Oxford,
OUPress, 1992, p. 427.
132 Roland Deines, 'How Long? God's Revealed Schedule For Salvation And The Outbreak of The Bar
Kokhba Revolt', in A. Lange, K. F. Diethard Römheld, and M. Weigold (eds.), Judaism And Crisis:
Crisis As A Catalyst In Jewish Cultural History, SIJD, Göttingen, V&R, 2011, pp. 211-212.
now minted in either disregard for Jewish religious opinion, or in spite of it. 133 Likewise,
Agrippa II minted coins bearing images of both Vespasian and Titus together, along with
the symbol of victory as early as 74AD.134
Additionally, it seems unlikely that prior to the revolt the Jews would have been
forced to pay for the building of a pagan temple to Jupiter, but this was effectively what
happened, in the imposition of the fiscus Judaicus. Safrai describes this move as a kind of
"compulsive idolatry" which the Romans imposed because they believed that their god(s)
had defeated the God of the Jews.135 Under Domitian, this tax may have provided certain
Jews with added impetus to separate from Judaism.136 Goodman has hypothesised that the
tax was temporary suspended by Nerva between late 96 and mid 98AD.137 If so, then the
reintroduction of the tax would likely have led to even more bitterness on the Jewish
side.
While one must take into consideration the paucity of archaeological evidence for
the period before 70AD and the possibility that such a transition will not have happened
immediately, the flourishing of Jewish pictorial and statuary art in Palestine after that
date – often in the pagan style – argues for an increase in Jewish adoption of pagan
religious imagery if not belief as well.138 Likewise, a growth in the use of statuary and
133 As Roland Deines writes, "The Jewish special path (Sonderweg) in minting was no longer supported."
Deines, 'How Long?', p. 210.
134 Freyne, Galilee From Alexander The Great To Hadrian, p. 144. Chancey has noted that there was an
initial reluctance, in the early years of Roman dominance in Palestine, to mint coins with the emperor's
portrait on them. He notes, however, this contrasts with the second and third centuries, when such
depictions were standard. He concludes that, “Civic coins thus reflect the process of Romanization in
the region, a process that would speed up all the more with the heightened Roman military presence of
the second and third centuries.” Mark A. Chancey, 'City Coins And Roman Power In Palestine: From
Pompey To The Great Revolt', in D. R. Edwards (ed.), Religion And Society In Roman Palestine: Old
Questions, New Approaches, New York, Routledge, 2004, pp. 103-112.
135 Safrai, 'Part IV: The Era of The Mishnah And Talmud (70-640)', p. 317. See also War 7:218.
136 Wilson, Leaving The Fold, pp. 43-44.
137 Martin Goodman, 'The Meaning of 'Fisci Iudaici Calumnia Sublata' On The Coinage of Nerva', in S. J.
D. Cohen and J. J. Schwartz (eds.), Studies In Josephus And The Varieties of Ancient Judaism: Louis H.
Feldman Jubilee Volume, Leiden, Brill, 2007, pp. 81-89.
138 So Fine: "Unlike the period from the Hasmonians through 70... when idolatrous imagery became a
serious issue of communal identity, most late antique Jews do not seem to have publicly raised the
banner of "anti-idolism" in relations with Rome. ... A sense of acquiescence (if not tolerance) toward
images... came to dominate" Steven Fine, Art And Judaism In The Greco-Roman World: Toward A New
imagery in Jewish magic is observable.139 As such, even Feldman writes:
The archaeological evidence indicates that during the Hasmonean-Herodian period (150
B.C.E.–70 C.E.) the Jews were so completely under the spiritual domination of the Pharisees,
who were so careful in the observance of both the written and the oral law (Josephus, Ant.
18.12), that they refrained from any attempt at painting and sculpture, religious or secular,
whereas after that date rabbinical control ceased to be as effective both in the Diaspora and in
Palestine.140
8.7.1.4.c Decreasing Religious Sensitivity

In addition to the flourishing of 'imagery', there are further signs that Roman sensitivity
to Jewish customs was, if not entirely repealed, significantly diminished, in the period
after 70.
At the highest level, it does not appear that Rome's official policy of tolerating
Jewish customs was repealed.141 This may have been the result of a distinction being
made between Palestinian and Diaspora Judaism. Nevertheless, in Palestine itself, Roman
sensitivity to Jewish customs was significantly diminished, both at the administrative142
and grass-roots levels.143 Similarly, contempt for Judaism appears to have increased
Jewish Archaeology, Cambridge, CUPress, 2005, p. 122; James H. Charlesworth, 'Jewish Astrology In
The Talmud, Pseudepigrapha, The Dead Sea Scrolls, And Early Palestinian Synagogues', HTR, Vol. 70,
No. 3/4, (1977), pp. 197-198 esp.
139 Naama Vilozny, 'The Rising Power of The Image: On Jewish Magic Art From The Second Temple
Period To Late Antiquity', in D. R. Schwartz and W. Zeev (eds.), Was 70 CE A Watershed In Jewish
History? On Jews And Judaism Before And After The Destruction of The Second Temple, AGJU,
Leiden, Brill, 2012, pp. 243-276.
140 Louis H. Feldman, Jew And Gentile In The Ancient World: Attitudes And Interactions From Alexander
To Justinian, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1996, pp. 39-40.
141 It may be observed that many of the Jewish privileges were not revoked in the Diaspora, even after the
first revolt. Nevertheless, "any pretense of a patron-client relationship between Romans and Jews was
shattered", and one cannot overlook the negative consequence the revolt of 66-73 had on Diaspora
Jewery. See: Allen Kerkeslager, 'The Jews In Egypt And Cyrenaica, 66-c. 235 CE', in S. T. Katz (ed.),
The Cambridge History of Judaism: Vol. 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, Cambridge, CUPress,
2006, pp. 55ff. Further to this, the Diaspora Jews, as they had taken no significant part in the rebellion,
were undoubtedly treated better than their brethren in Palestine.
142 Safrai believes that for a long time after the revolt the Jews would have been considered dediticii and,
as such, would have lost their former rights. "While Rome was generally tolerant of the religions of
conquered peoples, the long war with the Jews had created considerable resentment and was followed
by oppressive measures that were as much religious as political in nature and which were explicitly
decreed or at least condoned by the higher authorities." Safrai, 'Part IV: The Era of The Mishnah And
Talmud (70-640)', p. 318. Likewise, Safrai, 'The Jewish People In The First Century', p. 405.
143 We learn from Josephus, for example, how at least some Roman soldiers acted towards Jewish religious
beliefs during the revolt; they both sought to compel their Jewish captives to blaspheme or eat
forbidden food (J.W. 2:152-153; 6:316).
amongst Roman writers after the revolt.144
The former official Roman magnanimity had been contingent upon the
compliance of its recipients. The indignation of Titus at the Jewish ingratitude for Rome's
largesse which Josephus reports may be taken as representative of the Roman feeling.145
The (at least partial) withdrawal of this magnanimity, and the suppression of Jewish
religious practice insofar as it was seen to prompt rebelliousness might be seen in the
post-war Roman hunting down of members of “the family of David”.146 More broadly,
Safrai pictures the death or dispersion of the national leadership, and the collapse of
national institutions such as the Sanhedrin, due to harsh Roman rule which “included
religious persecution and action against certain people who had participated in the revolt
or who were regarded by the Roman authorities as leaders of the national aspirations”.147
It may also be seen in the total destruction of Jerusalem, and in the subsequent closure of
the Temple at Leontopolis, after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.148
Josephus' explanation that the Temple was only accidentally destroyed by Titus,
on the other hand, is not convincing. It is more likely that Titus planned to destroy the
Temple in order to crush the religious nationalism associated with it.149 This view is in
144 Pearce cites Tacitus (Hist. 5.2-5) and Juvenal (Sat. 14.96-106) as evidence; Sarah Pearce, 'Judaea Under
Roman Rule 63 BCE–135 CE', in J. Barton (ed.), The Biblical World, 1, London, Routledge, 2002, p.
475. But compare: Erich S. Gruen, 'Roman Perspectives On The Jews In The Age of The Great Revolt',
in A. M. Berlin and J. A. Overman (eds.), The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, And Ideology,
New York, Routledge, 2002, pp. 27-42.
145 J. W. 6:333-336.
146 Smallwood notes that, according to Christian tradition, this occurred three times between 70 and the
end of Trajan's reign. Smallwood, Jews Under Roman Rule, p. 351. It should be noted, however, that
the evidence for this is late.
147 This is likely, even if the sources he cites are a little weak. See: Safrai, 'The Jewish People In The First
Century', p. 404, n. 4.
148 Jan Sevenster comments that, "The Roman authorities probably tried as far as possible to eradicate all
traces of Jewry, including spiritual ones, after the bloody suppression of the revolt. The measures taken
put an end to the part played by Jerusalem as centre of Jewry in Palestine and elsewhere. Romanisation
implied hellenisation... But one can hardly suppose that the Jews welcomed such an enforced
hellenisation in the years after 70." Jan N. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek?: How Much Greek Could
The First Jewish Christian Have Known?, Leiden, Brill, 1968, p. 179.
149 Miriam Ben Zeev, 'From Toleration To Destruction: Roman Policy And The Jewish Temple', in S. Fine
and L. H. Feldman (eds.), The Temple of Jerusalem: From Moses To The Messiah: In Honor of
Professor Louis H. Feldman, BRLJ, Leiden, Brill, 2011, p. 57-68. See also: Gedalyahu Alon, Jews,
Judaism And The Classical World: Studies In Jewish History In The Times of The Second Temple And
Talmud, trans. I. Abrahams, Jerusalem, The Magnes Press, 1977, pp. 252-268. A similar post-revolt
line with Titus' looting of the Temple furniture and their display in Rome as symbolic war
booty. It also explains the soldiers sacrificing to their standards in the Temple courts as a
“desecration of the Jewish sanctuary.”150 Likewise, Jerusalemites were forced into slavery
or executed or sent to slay each other in gladiatorial combat as a means of Roman
entertainment.151 Roman propaganda was also clear that Judea had been subdued. 152
Moreover, it is significant to note not only that the Temple was destroyed, but that
permission for its rebuilding was not granted.153 Vespasian and Titus, or several Emperors
after them, could have had the Temple rebuilt. They chose not to. According to
Goodman, the Roman refusal, “may reasonably be seen as a major cause of the sixty-five
years of conflict to come.”154 Indeed, this refusal may reveal a special prejudice against
the Jews founded upon the Flavian need of grist for the propaganda mill, so as to
establish the legitimacy of their regime.155
This situation in Palestine can be placed within the broader context of the 'Greek
East', as Douglas Edwards construes it. He has argued that while Jewish privileges were
protected throughout the Julio-Claudian period, the Flavian period "marked a significant
change in attitude on the part of the Roman leadership."156 Official policy fostered the
resurgence of local elites, who acquired greater prominence, and stressed their own
traditions. As a result, Jews throughout the region were left in an awkward position.
attack on the native religion of a rebellious group can be seen in Rome's handling of the Gauls at
around the same time as the first Jewish war. Thus, Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea, pp. 239-
240.
150 J. W. 6:316. Smallwood, Jews Under Roman Rule, p. 325.
151 Schürer, The History of The Jewish People In The Age of Jesus Christ, p. 509.
152 Evident in the Roman coinage minted to celebrate the victory, bearing inscriptions such as "Judea
Capta".
153 Goodman writes that, “It was not standard Roman practice to glory in the destruction of enemy temples.
On the contrary, the ritual of evocatio, through which a Roman general offered to the patron deity of the
enemy a better form of worship in Rome if the deity consented to cross to the Roman side, seems still
to have been practiced by Roman generals in Asia Minor in the wars of the first century BCE. The ritual
presupposed that war was waged against human communities, not against their gods.” Goodman, Rome
And Jerusalem, p. 452.
155 Goodman argues along these lines, and notes that subsequent Emperors had reasons for maintaining the
anti-Jewish prejudice. See, for e.g., Goodman, Rome And Jerusalem, p. 581.
156 Edwards, Religion And Power, p. 22.
While still officially recognised, they were suspect and liable to hostility. At the same
time, Jewish elites in Palestine did not experience resurgence. The kind of apologetic for
Judaism which Josephus' works represent becomes, therefore, eminently
understandable.157
Likewise, Safrai argues that the situation prevailing in Palestine after 70 was
equivalent to that of Antioch at the same time.158 In Antioch, as Josephus reports it,
positive attitudes towards Jews had prevailed since shortly after the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes (J. W. 7:41ff.). Yet, around the time of Vespasian, the Jews had begun to be
persecuted; some of them apostatising or capitulating to the attempts of their Greek
neighbours to make them break the Sabbath and commit idolatry.
Between 117 and 132, Hadrian pushed a policy of Romanisation in Palestine
(urbanisation and hellenisation). In this period leading up to the Bar Kokhba revolt, it is
possible both that a ban on circumcision was made, and that the building of a pagan
temple to Jupiter on the Temple mount was begun as part of the foundation of the pagan
replacement city Aelia Capitolina.159
8.7.1.4.d Reactions of Despair

The return from Babylonian Exile saw some in the nation zealous for the Torah and some
inter-marrying. Enforced religious-Hellenisation in the Seleucid era brought division
between those who let go of the Torah and those who clung onto it ever more tightly. We
157 Edwards, Religion And Power, p. 26.
158 Safrai, 'Part IV: The Era of The Mishnah And Talmud (70-640)', pp. 318-319.
159 Hadrian's building of Aelia Capitolina was an attempt to crush Jewish rebelliousness, according to
Martin Goodman. He writes: "It is important to stress that Aelia Capitolina... was not a new Greek
polis, but a Roman colonia. It was not intended to appeal to hellenized or hellenizing Jews. What was
involved was not the conferment of an honorary title on an existing community, as was to become
common in the Roman Near East in the Severan age. No Jew, however acculturated into Greek or
Roman society, can have greeted the new colonia with any pleasure, for it was explicitly intended for
the settlement of foreign races and foreign religious rites (Dio 69.12.2). These rites were deliberately
Roman. Aelia Capitolina was to be the last of the Roman colonies which involved the transplantation of
a new population to populate the city. Within Hadrian's great policy of urban reconstruction, with the
foundation of many cities, Aelia Capitolina is unique in its use of the new colony not to flatter but to
suppress the natives." Martin Goodman, 'Trajan And The Origins of The Bar Kokhba War', in P. Schäfer
(ed.), The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered, TSAJ, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2003, pp. 28-29.
might propose that, in the same way, while many responded to the failure of the Jewish
revolt with one form or other of renewed allegiance to the Torah, there were also those
who drifted away from it.160 In contrast to the pre-70 period, there was a marked increase
in Jewish hostile feeling towards Rome from 70 to 135, but particularly after 135.161 Yet,
it is likely that a segment of the population responded to the tragedy of 70 by
accommodating to the culture of the victor.
In this vein, Peter Schäfer has suggested that there may have been an element
within Palestinian Judaism leading up to the Bar Kokhba revolt which sought to get on in
the new circumstances of Roman occupation by culturally assimilating.162 Particularly,
Schäfer sees in Jerusalem “eine größere Gruppe...von assimilierten römerfreundlichen
Juden”.163 He also draws several parallels between this period and the earlier situation
under Antiochus Epiphanes. If he is correct, then the Bar Kokhba revolt was not simply a
Jewish-Roman conflict, “sondern auch eines innerjüdischen Konfliktes”.164
In particular, Schäfer has analysed Jewish responses to the Hadrianic policy of
Romanisation. He proposes that the Jewish response was mixed and varied. It is his
contention that a segment of the population, perhaps predominantly city dwellers, were
assimilationist and supported the Hadrianic policy. He offers several lines of evidence to
support this suggestion. We do no more than list them here: (a) he notes that there is no
concrete evidence that the erection of Hadrianeia in Caesarea and Tiberias or the minting
of pagan coins were resisted by the Jewish population;165 (b) he argues that the fifth book
160 Writing about the religio-political goal of the Bar Kokhba revolt, Ya'akov Meshorer (cited by Deines)
writes that the, “aim of the war was to overthrow the Roman authorities that not only represented
oppressive foreign rule but also the pagan world whose influence had begun to penetrate into the
disappointed Jewish community.” Deines, 'How Long?', p. 210.
161 E.g. Goodman, Rome And Jerusalem, pp. 501ff.
162 Peter Schäfer, Der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand: Studien Zum Zweiten Jüdischen Krieg Gegen Rom, TSAJ,
Vol. 1, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1981, pp. 46-50.
163 Schäfer, Der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand, p. 48
164 Schäfer, Der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand, p. 48.
165 Peter Schäfer, 'Hadrian's Policy In Judaea And The Bar Kokhba Revolt: A Reassessment', in P. R.
Davies and R. T. White (eds.), A Tribute To Geza Vermes: Essays On Jewish And Christian Literature
And History, JSOTSup, Sheffield Academic, Sheffield, 1990, p. 287.
of the Sibylline Oracles reflects an attitude amongst Jews of active support for Hadrian's
policy of peace. Of course, he adds, “it would be extremely naive to assume that all the
Jews of Judaea celebrated Hadrian as resitutor and sōtēr, but equally unrealistic is the
assumption that his policy was rejected by the Jews of Judaea as a whole.”166 Then (c) he
states that the “most important evidence for assimilatory tendencies within Judaism in
Judaea before the Bar Kokhba revolt remains the text from t. Shab. 15 (16),9, which I
have discussed at length in my book on the Bar Kokhba revolt”;167 (d) and he points to
the participation of Jewish soldiers on the side of the Romans during the first revolt.
These lines of evidence, “illustrate that a rather considerable part of the Jewish
population in Judaea had indeed imbibed the 'Zeitgeist'.”168
An analogy might be found here also in certain Christian responses to the
upheaval and tumult of the revolt. Matthew 24:10, especially, speaks of many 'stumbling'
in the aftermath of the Temple's destruction; a probable reference to apostasy.169
Seth Schwartz has argued that, after the events of 70AD, Judaism was entirely
"shattered".170 Similarly, Goldenberg argues that, "many must have reacted to the
catastrophe with despair and total abandonment of Judaism."171 Schwartz and Goldenberg
166 Schäfer, 'Hadrian's Policy', p. 292.
169 Thus, for e.g., David L. Turner, Matthew, BECNT, Grand Rapids, Baker, 2008, p. 574; Craig S. Keener,
A Commentary On The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1999, p. 570. For parallels
between Matthew's account and Jewish fears regarding apostasy during persecution, see: Craig S.
Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2009, p. 571.
170 As per the oversimplification of Seth Schwartz, Imperialism And Jewish Society: 200 B.C.E. to 640
C.E, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2001, p. 15. See also: Seth Schwartz, 'Political, Social, And
Economic Life In The Land of Israel, 66–c. 235', in S. T. Katz (ed.), The Cambridge History of
Judaism: Vol. 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, Cambridge, CUPress, 2006, pp. 23-52. Klawans
rightly responds to Schwartz's position. It appears, however, that Klawans responds with a pendulum
swing in the other direction which makes it seem as if the destruction of the Temple was easily
accounted for and led to no great emotional or religious turmoil at the grass-roots level. See: Jonathan
Klawans, Josephus And The Theologies of Ancient Judaism, Oxford, OUPress, 2012, pp. 180-209. A
tertium quid would seem to be appropriate, albeit one slightly more in Schwartz's direction.
171 Robert Goldenberg, 'The Destruction of The Jerusalem Temple: Its Meaning And Its Consequences', in
S. T. Katz (ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 4, The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period,
Cambridge, CUPress, 2006, p. 198. Likewise, Adiel Schremer points out that in the rabbinic traditions
there is evidence for, "a theological and existential crisis with which many Jews of the time were
confronted, namely, the possibility that Rome's victory meant the obliteration of God Himself." Adiel
Schremer, 'The Lord Has Forsaken The Land: Radical Explanations of The Military And Political
may overstep the evidence, in positing mass apostasy from Judaism. On the other hand,
Belayche's strident statement (albeit dealing primarily with the period between 135-
400AD) that, "the Jewish community did not suffer any "paganisation""172 appears to be
an oversimplification in the other direction,173 even if one posits improvement and
stabilisation in the situation after the "Hadrianic persecutions".174
A more satisfactory via media proposes that the devastation probably elicited
diverse responses from different groups and individuals. Certainly, as Martin Goodman
notes, one should not generalise any one piece of evidence from the period after 70, as it
may not be either broadly representative or, indeed, relevant at all.175 Nevertheless, in the
immediate aftermath of the Temple's destruction – and, perhaps, for many decades – "for
most Jews, misery, despair and gloom were the natural reactions."176 It seems likely that
at least some Jews "will have lost their faith".177 A portion of these might well have taken
the next step and seen the Roman gods as being more worthy of worship than the God of
Israel. Even if no Jews at all apostasised, the threat of (and temptation to) apostasy
would have been much greater in the changed circumstances of the period than at any
other time in the interval since 167BC.178

Defeat of The Jews In Tannaitic Times', JJS, Vol. 59, No. 2, (2008), pp. 183-200. A slightly less bleak
assessment is given by Safrai: "The feeling of deflation that followed the high pitch of expectancy
during the revolt might well have jolted the nation's belief in its way of life and its future." Safrai, 'Part
IV: The Era of The Mishnah And Talmud (70-640)', p. 318.
172 Belayche, Iudaea-Palaestina, p. 293.
173 Bowersock makes a similar remark in his review: Glen W. Bowersock, '[Review:] Iudaea-Palaestina.
The Pagan Cults In Roman Palestine (Second To Fourth Century), Religion der römischen Provinzen,
Band I, by Nicole Belayche', Syr, Vol. 82, (2005), p. 384.
174 Saul Liebermann, 'Jewish Life In Eretz Yisrael As Reflected In The Palestinian Talmud', in M. Davis
(ed.), Israel: Its Role In Civilization, New York, Harper, 1956, pp. 82ff.
175 Martin Goodman, 'Religious Reactions To 70: The Limitations of The Evidence', in D. R. Schwartz and
W. Zeev (eds.), Was 70 CE A Watershed In Jewish History? On Jews And Judaism Before And After
The Destruction of The Second Temple, AGJU, Leiden, Brill, 2012, pp. 509-516.
176 Goodman, Rome And Jerusalem, p. 425. Safrai speaks of “spiritual collapse and confusion”. Safrai,
'The Jewish People In The First Century', p. 404.
178 Feldman validly criticises Schwartz's thesis that Jews apostatised en masse after the Temple's
destruction. Whether this means that no Jews apostatised is another question. Louis H. Feldman,
Judaism And Hellenism Reconsidered, JSJSup, Vol. 107, Leiden, Brill, 2006, pp. 10ff. The reader must
decide for themselves. Yet, Feldman may be criticised for oversimplifying the history, in his effort to
counter lacrymose interpretations of Judaism during this period. Meanwhile, David Flusser's suggestion
that from the Persian period forward, "the Jewish people in Palestine and elsewhere had become
James S. McLaren has questioned the validity of Josephus' description (and the
frequent modern acceptance of it) of the first Jewish war as the inevitable result of the
continually turbulent times leading up to it. McLaren urges the modern historian to
rethink these two 'poles' of Josephus' account, concluding that it may be necessary to
view 70AD less as the end-point and more as the starting-point; more the spark than the
culmination. As he writes, “The 'dark age' of the first century CE (70-100 CE) may be, in
fact, the time of increased turmoil and tension in Jewish-Roman relations, in which the
ideological edge to the way Jews related to the Roman overlords was defined.”179 His
concern was not to flesh out this possibility. That task has been begun by others (such as
those whom we have cited). But we do well to take seriously his suggestion.
This reconstruction is reinforced by the literary evidence. The theodicy which was
called forth by the destruction of the Temple implies a questioning of God during this
period within the Jewish communities of Palestine.180 Indeed, so much confidence in God
had been lost that Michael Stone refers to the renewed hope of the protagonist of 4 Ezra
as a process of (re)conversion; as it were, back to Judaism from despair about God.181
Likewise, Ken Jones has set 4 Baruch in its (probably) late first-century context. He
argues that the book presents criticism of Jewish accommodation to, and cooperation
with, the Roman conquerors, and calls for separation. In the narrative world of 4 Baruch
the Jews exiled in Babylon cannot return to Jerusalem until they rid themselves of their
foreign wives and foreign gods. By analogy, the author believes that a total separation
from Rome must occur.182 Jones points to some examples of inter-marriage with Romans
completely immune to the attractions of ... paganism" must be considered somewhat of a generalisation.
Flusser, 'Paganism In Palestine', p. 1090.
179 James S. McLaren, Turbulent Times?: Josephus And Scholarship On Judaea In The First Century CE,
eds L. L. Grabbe and J. H. Charlesworth, JSPSup, Vol. 29, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 1998, p. 294.
180 Michael E. Stone, 'Reactions To Destructions of The Second Temple: Theology, Perception, And
Conversion', JSJ, Vol. 12, No. 2, (1981), p. 196.
181 Stone, 'Reactions To Destructions of The Second Temple', p. 203.
182 Due to Babylonian (i.e. Roman) pressure, people have begun to worship other gods (4 Bar. 7:23-32),
even when Jeremiah commands them to avoid the pollutions of the Gentiles of Babylon. They are also
inter-marrying with the Babylonians (4 Bar. 7.32).
among the Herodians; however it is not clear that 4 Baruch reflects a real-world situation
in which large numbers of Jews were inter-marrying or taking up idolatry. Nevertheless,
it is instructive to note that the author feels such a strong need to denounce
accommodation with the Romans as idolatry, whatever form that might most commonly
have taken.183
Again, according to the Apocalypse of Abraham certain Jews had committed the
evil of idolatry.184 The Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum seems to have been addressed to a
situation in which the threat of idolatry was pressing. 185 Even if the warnings against
'idolatry' in these texts are somewhat symbolic, referring to the danger of religio-cultural
assimilation more broadly, such a danger appears to be much more pointedly felt after
70.186
Thus, the texts of the period suggest that the idol-spurning Abraham of Jubilees
may have been more relevant after 70 than before, either as a criticism of Jews who were
turning to idolatry, or as a warning against it, or simply as a criticism of the now more
183 Kenneth R. Jones, Jewish Reactions To The Destruction of Jerusalem In A.D. 70: Apocalypses And
Related Pseudepigrapha, JSJSup, Vol. 151, Leiden, Brill, 2011, pp. 157-172. While the early Jewish-
Christian church in Palestine may have been attracting adherents from main-stream Judaism in the
aftermath of the Temple's destruction (Richard Bauckham, Jude And The Relatives of Jesus In The
Early Church, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1990, pp. 116, 375), it is instructive to note, here, that the threat
warned against by the author of 4 Baruch is a specifically Roman/pagan one.
184 Jones, Jewish Reactions To The Destruction of Jerusalem, pp. 267-268.
185 Jacobson writes: "Throughout LAB there is repeated condemnation of idolatry. LAB is clearly
concerned with the corrupting influence that pagan society will have on the Jews and seeks to have
Jews avoid adopting the ways of the gentiles. In the period after 70 and even more so after 135 Jewish
contact in Palestine with non-Jews increased, largely because of Jews working with or for or near non-
Jews. Along with this went increased anxiety about ill effects, moral and religious, that such
socialization could entail. Thus, Jewish attacks on idolatry markedly increased in this period (see E.E.
Urbach, Erets Yisrael 5 [1959], 192, 198, 200f.). Thus, again LAB suits a post-70 date." Howard
Jacobson, A Commentary On Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum: With Latin Text And
English Translation, 2 Vols., Vol. 1, AGJU, Vol. 31, Leiden, Brill, 1996, p. 208. Similar are the
comments of Murphy, although he prefers to keep the exact time-frame vague (sometime within the
first century). Murphy writes: “If the author emphasizes idolatry because of the conflict with Rome...
then one may also see the author as particularly upset about those Jews who are being “seduced” by the
foreigners. … Skepticism about the divine status of the law, about the holiness of God's Temple, about
God's ability to punish evildoers and those who oppress Israel may be things that he observes in his
own community. Fascination with the power of the Romans may imply fascination with their gods...”
Frederick J. Murphy, 'Retelling The Bible: Idolatry In Pseudo-Philo', JBL, Vol. 107, No. 2, (1988), p.
286.
186 E.g. Jones, Jewish Reactions To The Destruction of Jerusalem, p. 270.
immediately felt Gentile presence.187
8.7.2 Section Conclusion
If the preceding reconstruction of the Sitz im Leben in Palestine between the production
of Jubilees and that of ApocAb and LAB is accurate, then it may be best to consider
Jubilees, LAB, and ApocAb as products of their own times and not as particular
manifestations of a generic tradition which was circulating widely in Palestine in Saul's
day. We can speculate about what the young Pharisee learned about Abraham precisely
because we have no direct access to such knowledge. However, we hope to have shown
that it is unlikely that stories of Abraham burning the idols of his father would have been
as prevalent then as in the time either of the author of Jubilees, or in the period after 70
and, as such, are not likely to have been integral to Saul's understanding of Abraham.
Some may wish to suggest that ApocAb and LAB pick up on the themes present in
Jubilees. We would certainly disagree that LAB does so. However, the possibility cannot
be entirely ruled-out for ApocAb. Even if such were the case, however, this would not
change the overall picture which we have painted. The later author of ApocAb, facing a
time of trial similar to that of the author of Jubilees, may have self-consciously picked up
on the earlier author's work, if he had been aware of it. Assuming that such was the case,
however, we are still not pressed into concluding either that the intervening period was a
period of similar trial, or that the Abraham-emphases appealed to in such moments of
trial were prevalent during the intervening period, when it is likely that an intermezzo of
different emphases differentiated the interlude from the moments of acute crisis book-
ending it.
Having considered the social world of Saul the Pharisee, we shall presently
187 See, for e.g., Jones, Jewish Reactions To The Destruction of Jerusalem, pp. 245-270. Other writings of
the period also censure those who forsake the Law: e.g. 2 Bar. 41:4. One might also cite Ant. 4:126-155,
but this is a less obvious example.
consider the shift in Saul's life which took him out of one social world and into another:
viz. out of a 'former life in Judaism' and into the nascent Church.
8.8 Saul Interrupted: From Pharisee To Apostle
Somewhere between 30-33AD, Jesus was crucified.188 Between eighteen months and three
years later, Paul the Pharisee was transformed from persecutor of the nascent Church to
Apostle to the Gentiles by an encounter with the risen Christ.189 This experience has been
studied by Seyoon Kim, who argues against the idea that Paul's gospel was the composite
sum of various Hellenistic and Jewish influences which should be construed as various
contributing parts.190 He contends that Paul's Gospel was grounded in this experience (of
both conversion and call).191 In addition to the theological revelation which he received
there, however, Kim notes that Paul also relied upon the early church kerygma, the Jesus
tradition, and his own Scriptural interpretation, "for mutual interpretation and
confirmation".192
188 See the discussion in: Darrell L. Bock, Studying The Historical Jesus: A Guide To Sources And
Methods, Grand Rapids, Baker, 2002, pp. 68-78.
189 Hengel writes: “The opening of 1 Corinthians 15, according to which Paul's vision of the Risen Christ
is the last one, makes an interval of many years improbable. This brief interval of between eighteen
months and three years makes speculations about supposed 'pre-Pauline tradition' very difficult. Only in
Jerusalem can we look for a 'Hellenistic community' before Paul.” Hengel, 'The Pre-Christian Paul', pp.
43-44.
190 In his words, from "any exegetical semi-divinity of the ancient world". Kim, The Origin of Paul's
Gospel, p. 1, et passim. John Gager, though from a different orientation, comes to a surprisingly similar
conclusion, that: “it is not enough to explain Pauline theology by pointing to parallels in Philo, the
Rabbis or Jewish apocalyptic. For parallels are just that – parallels. Left to themselves, they never meet.
What one needs is an explanation of Paul’s affinity for these particular ideas rather than others. That
affinity, I have argued, derives from the particular nature of his conversion experience.” John G. Gager,
'Some Notes On Paul's Conversion', NTS, Vol. 27, No. 5, (1981), p. 703. Cf. Schoeps' view
(summarised by Westerholm) that "none of the main intellectual forces of Paul's day can be discounted
as an influence on his [Paul's] thought." Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old And New On Paul: The
"Lutheran" Paul And His Critics, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2004, p. 124.
191 We consider both 'conversion' and 'call' as acceptable terms to describe Paul's Damascus-road
experience. Yet, the paradigm which we favour – in the call vs. conversion debate – is one of
conversion. Thus, agreeing with: Moisés Silva, Philippians, 2nd. Edn., BECNT, Grand Rapids, Baker,
2005, p. 156.
192 Seyoon Kim, Paul And The New Perspective: Second Thoughts On The Origin of Paul's Gospel, Grand
Rapids, Eerdmans, 2002, p. 296. Longenecker also notes the importance of direct personal revelation in
Paul's career additional to his Damascus-road experience. See: Richard N. Longenecker, Studies In
Hermeneutics, Christology, And Discipleship, Sheffield, Phoenix Press, 2004, pp. 57-63.
At Damascus, and then subsequently in Jerusalem, Paul would have had the
chance to learn the kerygma and the Jesus tradition from members of the Jesus
movement.193 And, pace Bultmann's suggestion, we should not limit Paul's knowledge to
"a condensed kerygma of a few lines" only.194 Rather, upon his entrée into the new
movement, Paul was instructed in the the words and deeds of Jesus, as well as the
significance of his death and resurrection (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:1-11).195 Such teaching might be
considered to represent the community's collective memory of Jesus, 196 but would also
likely have been accompanied by instruction in the contemporary relevance of Jesus and
his connection to the Old Testament.197 Most importantly, Paul undoubtedly learned much
from the Apostles themselves, with whom he was acquainted (e.g. 1 Cor. 1, 3, 9, 15; Gal.
193 In this sense, Paul experienced the kind of instruction which he would himself later pass on to his
congregations. It is widely acknowledged, that is to say, that Paul assumes such knowledge of Jesus
tradition in his epistles. As such, while Paul does not retell the story in his letters “he alludes to it
constantly” assuming “that his readers know the gospel story”. Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus
Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11, 2nd Edn., SBLDS, 56, Grand Rapids,
Eerdmans, 2002, p. 6 (p. 5 in the 1983 edition); Likewise, Dunn writes that “much the best way to make
sense of the allusiveness of Paul’s use of Jesus tradition is that substantial amounts of this tradition
were already part of the earliest churches’ store of foundation tradition.” James D. G. Dunn, The
Theology of Paul The Apostle, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 16-17. Just as he had learned about
the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and its salvific significance (kerygma), so he, in turn, taught
this to his congregations.
194 Harald Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition, trans. E. M. Rowley and R. A. Kraft, Philadelphia, Fortress,
1970, pp. 188-189.
195 Bruce, Paul, Apostle of The Heart Set Free, pp. 95ff.; James D. G. Dunn, 'Jesus Tradition In Paul', in B.
Chilton and C. A. Evans (eds.), Studying The Historical Jesus: Evaluations of The State of Current
Research, NTTS, Leiden, Brill, 1998, pp. 155-178; Paul Barnett, Paul: Missionary of Jesus, Grand
Rapids, Eerdmans, 2008, pp. 17ff.; Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus And The Gospels: An Introduction And
Survey, 2nd. Edn., Nashville, B&H Publishing, 2009, pp. 441-442. We need not adopt the scepticism of
someone like Soards, at this point. See: Marion L. Soards, The Apostle Paul: An Introduction To His
Writings And Teaching, New Jersey, Paulist Press, 1987, pp. 173ff.
196 E.g. Georgia Masters Keightley, 'Christian Collective Memory And Paul's Knowledge of Jesus', in A.
Kirk and T. Thatcher (eds.), Memory, Tradition, And Text: Uses of The Past In Early Christianity,
SemeiaSt, Atlanta, SBL, 2005, pp. 129-150.
197 One plausible suggestion for how this might have worked-out in practice is that the nascent Church
compiled testimonia. Dodd, According To The Scriptures. Cf. Martin C. Albl, And Scripture Cannot Be
Broken: The Form And Function of The Early Christian Testimonia Collections, NovTSup, Vol. 96,
Leiden, Brill, 1999. Dodd's contribution was to show (amongst other things) that such testimonia would
not have been made up of mere collections proof-texts but would have taken into account the Old
Testament contexts of the passages cited, and that all the main portions of the New Testament would
have held the same understanding of the way in which the Old Testament related to the “gospel facts”.
Dodd, According To The Scriptures, p. 126 et passim. This is in contrast, for example, to the view that
Paul was an atomistic interpreter: e.g. Enslin, 'Paul And Gamaliel', p. 367. Besides the possible use of
testimonia, the New Testament authors should also be seen as original theologians involved in the
interpretation of the Old Testament as a whole. These two suggestions, of course, are not mutually
exclusive.
1, 2).198 In Arabia and Cilicia, meanwhile, it is likely that he studied the Scriptures for
himself anew, daily examining them to see how these things were true; reading them with
Christ as the interpretative key. 199 Paul also appears to have begun preaching the good
news (e.g. Gal. 1:23).
This transition in Paul's life was drastic, so we must consider carefully how to
conceive of it. In particular, we will want to ask what points of continuity and
discontinuity were there between the two?
8.9 Continuity And Discontinuity
On the one hand, there appear to have been many points of continuity. Paul's Pharisaic
training, for example, may be seen in his apparent use of the Gezera Sheva (for e.g. at
Rom. 4), or other of the hermeneutical principles (middoth) attached to the school of
Hillel.200 His apparent adoption of the Cynic-Stoic diatribe, meanwhile, points to the
influence of certain Greco-Roman forms on Paul to some extent.201 Since Paul desired to
198 These Apostles, as Gerhardsson elucidates, made up what might be thought of as "the college of
Apostles in Jerusalem". Birger Gerhardsson, Memory And Manuscript: Oral Tradition And Written
Transmission In Rabbinic Judaism And Early Christianity; With, Tradition And Transmission In Early
Christianity, trans. E. J. Sharpe, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1998, p. 306.
199 Ed Parish Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, London,
Fortress, 1977, pp. 555-556; Dunn, The Theology of Paul The Apostle, pp. 725-726; Morna D. Hooker,
'Beyond The Things That Are Written? Saint Paul's Use of Scripture', in G. K. Beale (ed.), The Right
Doctrine From The Wrong Text? Essays On The Use of The Old Testament In The New, Grand Rapids,
Baker, 1994, pp. 292-293; Robert Badenas, Christ The End of The Law: Romans 10:4 In Pauline
Perspective, JSNTSup, Vol. 10, Sheffield, JSOT, 1985, p. 149. Beale also notes how the New Testament
authors followed Jesus' redemptive-historical hermeneutic in this respect: Gregory K. Beale, Handbook
On The New Testament Use of The Old Testament: Exegesis And Interpretation, Grand Rapids, Baker,
2012, p. 102.
200 Joachim Jeremias, 'Paulus als Hillelit', in E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox (eds.), Neotestamentica et Semitica,
Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1969, pp. 88-94.
201 Seminally, for instance: Rudolf Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische
Diatribe, FRLANT, Vol. 13, Göttingen, V&R, 1910. Also, Stanley K. Stowers, The Diatribe And Paul's
Letter To The Romans, SBLDS, Vol. 57, Chico, Scholars Press, 1981. Although, we would suggest that
the applicability of rhetorical categories in the study of Paul has been overplayed by some. As, for
example, certain of the commentaries of Witherington, and Betz's commentary on Galatians. On this,
see the more balanced assessment of: Janet Fairweather, 'The Epistle To The Galatians And Classical
Rhetoric: Parts 1&2', TynBul, Vol. 45, No. 1, (1994), pp. 1-38; Janet Fairweather, 'The Epistle To The
Galatians And Classical Rhetoric: Part 3', TynBul, Vol. 45, No. 2, (1994), pp. 213-243. See also: James
D. G. Dunn, 'Prolegomena To A Theology of Paul', NTS, Vol. 40, No. 3, (1994), pp. 414-415; Richard
N. Longenecker, Galatians, ed. R. P. Martin, WBC, 41, Waco, Word Books, 1990, p. cxi.
be all things to all men, we should not be surprised at such things (1 Cor. 9:22). These
features of his writings, however, speak largely to form rather than content. 202 More
importantly, Paul considered himself even long after his conversion to be a Jew (e.g.
Rom. 9:1-5).
On the other hand, the theological discontinuity between the Pharisee and the
Apostle is seismic in proportion. In his approaches to Christ, circumcision, and the Law,
if nowhere else, Paul broke decisively with Pharisaism (e.g. 1 Cor. 9:20; Gal. 1:13-14;
Phil. 3:1-12).203 One may even say, with Barclay, that from the point of view of the
majority of his Jewish contemporaries, Paul would have been seen to have apostatised,
placing himself outside of the bounds of Judaism altogether and not merely transferring
from one Jewish sect to another.204
Of particular importance for our study, however, is his relation, as Apostle, to the
Pharisaic tradition which he had formerly learned (i.e. the “traditions of the fathers”). In
this regard, it is likely that Paul sought deliberately to replace (and displace) his former
traditional outlook with a new one. Birger Gerhardsson expounds upon the nature of this
change vis-à-vis the traditions of the elders:
After his conversion... Paul broke deliberately with the "tradition of the elders", and with the
Pharisaic interpretation of the Scriptures. This is part of that which he counted as loss for the
sake of Christ, [Phil. 3:7f.]. It is not impossible that Paul went so far as to take deliberate
measures to free himself from that knowledge which he now considered to be misleading. We
know that the Rabbis occasionally did so... There has been much speculation as to what Paul
did during the three years he spent in Arabia... the most likely possibility is that he spent the
time in a new and intensive study of the Scriptures, working with the word of God in the light
of the new conditions, and on the basis of the new knowledge he had "received", both by way
of revelation and of teaching. ... Paul without reservation considered the Scriptures to possess
undiminished validity, provided that they were interpreted christologically. … Paul, having
broken with the tradition of the elders, knows and recognizes, transmits and interprets
another tradition. Alongside the Scriptures he has an authoritative doctrinal substance which
202 Thus Dietzfelbinger: “nicht in der Anwendung der Methode unterscheidet sich Paulus von den
Rabbinen, sondern in dem Ergebnis, in dem Telos, auf das hin er die Methode gebraucht, und in den
Inhalten, die er mit Hilfe dieser Methode im Alten Testament finden und nachweisen will.”
Dietzfelbinger, Paulus und das Alte Testament, p. 33.
203 With regard to the Law, in particular, Beate speaks of, “die Vorstellung des gesetzesfrommen Abraham,
die den paulinischen Ausführungen in Röm 4 mit ihrer Betonung des Glaubens des Patriarchen
diametral entgegensteht...”. Ego, 'Abraham als Urbild', p. 26.
204 John M. G. Barclay, 'Paul Among Diaspora Jews: Anomaly Or Apostate?', JSJ, Vol. 60, (1995), pp. 118-
119.
we must regard, though with certain reservations, as being the equivalent of the oral Torah.205
At least at the level of halakha, Jesus had already questioned the validity of the
“traditions of the fathers”. Moreover, he had taught his disciples not to observe them,
bringing down Isaiah 29:13 on the heads of any who would (e.g. Matt. 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-
13).
We should not be surprised, then, to find Paul doing the same. Indeed, such a
conclusion seems to be necessitated by the fact that Paul's letters betray very little
Pharisaic influence.206 But what of haggadah?
Unfortunately, we have little explicit evidence about the kinds of haggadot which
Saul may have learned as a Pharisee (cf. §8.6 above). Yet, a priori it does not seem likely
that Paul would have viewed his former haggadic learning any differently to his halakhic
instruction. Both would have been rejected as part of the now defunct “traditions of the
fathers”.207 As such, while an analysis of the comparative Sitze im Leben of Saul and the
'five Abraham texts' makes it unlikely that his view of Abraham was materially shaped by
theirs, it hardly seems more likely that Saul's entry into the nascent Church would have
precipitated his adoption of non-Pharisaic Jewish Abraham haggadot. Indeed, given the
lack of discernible influence from Pharisaic theology in Paul's letters quite the contrary
seems likely. Just as Paul, in his Christian life, likely followed Jesus' example in
repudiating the halakhic requirements of his former Pharisaism, it is (a priori) likely that
he also repudiated any Pharisaic haggadot about Abraham which he might previously
have learned as part of the “traditions of the elders”. Indeed, when the old wineskins of
205 Gerhardsson, Memory And Manuscript, pp. 289-290. Likewise: Herman N. Ridderbos, Redemptive
History And The New Testament Scriptures, trans. R. B. Gaffin, Philipsburg, Presbyterian and Reformed
Pub. Co., 1988, pp. 17ff.; Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition, pp. 16-18.
206 As one scholar has written, “If Paul really was a Pharisee and studied with Pharisaic masters, extremely
little of concrete, identifiable Pharisaic teaching is evident in his letters.” William Scott Green, 'What
Do We Really Know About The Pharisees, And How Do We Know It?', in J. Neusner and B. Chilton
(eds.), In Quest of The Historical Pharisees, Waco, Baylor University Press, 2007, p. 414.
207 Cf. Oscar Cullmann, 'The Tradition', in A. J. B. Higgins (ed.), The Early Church, London, SCM, 1956,
p. 63.
tradition included such assumptions as the necessity for Abraham to observe the Torah
(e.g. m.Qidd. 4:14; cf. Jubilees, Philo), or the unity of works and faith, it is hard to see
how they could have contained the Apostle's new wine.208
In recent decades, Bultmann's emphasis on Hellenistic backgrounds as an
explanation for Paul has been rightly replaced with an emphasis on the Jewish roots of
both Paul, in particular, and of Christianity, more generally.209 Yet, having established this
broad context, numerous studies proceed as if Paul were merely an unexceptional
example of the Judaism of the first century.210 This seems to fail to do justice to the
dramatic character of his conversion and subsequent life and thought, as well as leaving
little place for Paul's own originality.211 Paul was an exceptional Jew. It is likely that his
view of Abraham was exceptional, too.
Nevertheless, we must exercise caution here. For just as it would be over-
simplistic to assert Paul's adoption of all kinds of Jewish traditions merely because he
was a Jew; so, too, it would be over-simplistic to make a blanket denial of the possibility
that some traditions either did make it through the 'conversion filter', or else were
adopted subsequent to the encounter on the Damascus Road. We shall proceed, then,
208 Cf. Roloff, who characterises “die jüdische Interpretation der Abraham-Geschichte” as a “fundamental
Synthese von Glaube und Gesetz”. Jürgen Roloff, 'Abraham im Neuen Testament: Beobachtungen zu
einem Aspekt Biblischer Theologie', in M. Karrer (ed.), Exegetische Verantwortung in der Kirche:
Aufsätze, Göttingen, V&R, 1990, p. 252.
209 See, for e.g., the brief survey of scholarship in: David Edward Aune, 'Recent Readings of Paul Relating
To Justification By Faith', Jesus, Gospel Tradition And Paul In The Context of Jewish And Greco-
Roman Antiquity, WUNT, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2013, pp. 474-479. And compare this with a
statement such as the following from N. T. Wright: “[Paul] rethought the entire world-view of ancient
Judaism, not least his own former Pharisaism, without the slightest suggestion that in doing so he was
selling out to, or borrowing indiscreetly from, the surrounding pagan environment.” Nicholas Thomas
Wright, 'Romans And The Theology of Paul', in D. M. Hay and E. E. Johnson (eds.), Pauline Theology:
Volume III: Romans, Minneapolis, Fortress, 1995, p. 66.
210 Aune proposes that it was W. D. Davies' book Paul And Rabbinic Judaism, in tandem with the
discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which influenced a generation to read Paul “in the context of
Judaism.” Aune, 'Recent Readings of Paul', p. 478. For Aune, however, it appears illegitimate to view
Paul as too sharply contrasting with the Judaism of his day – perhaps, because this would lead to a
negative evaluations of Judaism.
211 By contrast, Hays leaves room for both Paul's originality and his disjunction with his own religious
heritage: “In Paul we encounter a first-century Jewish thinker who, while undergoing a profound
disjuncture with his own religious tradition, grappled his way through to a vigorous and theologically
generative reappropriation of Israel's Scriptures.” Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture In The Letters
of Paul, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1989, p. 2 (emphasis added).
without either assuming Paul to have been an unexceptional example of Second Temple
Judaism, or presupposing that he was a maverick in regards to his views on Abraham.
Instead, we shall defer any final judgment on the influence of the 'five Abraham texts' on
Galatians, and Romans until we have consulted those texts, as we shall do in the next two
chapters (Chapters 9 and 10).
A possible objection should be considered first, however: viz. do 1 Corinthians
10:4, and Galatians 3:19 evidence a wide-scale adoption, on Paul's part, of Jewish
traditions? Peter Enns, amongst others, has suggested that the Apostle Paul's 'Old
Testament' was not made up simply of “the words on the page” but included also certain
Second Temple Jewish “interpretative traditions”.212 Evidence for this is found in Paul's
apparent willingness to adopt such exegetical traditions as are preserved in: 1 Corinthians
10:4; Galatians 3:19, and 2 Timothy 3:8.213 In light of debate over the authenticity of
Second Timothy, we leave consideration of it aside here. 214 This leaves us with 1
Corinthians 10:4, and Galatians 3:19.
Whatever else we may say about these examples, we cannot say that they are
particularly numerous. More importantly, however, there are good reasons for
interpreting each of them as evidence for something other than a tendency in the
Apostle's writings to interpret Scripture in parallel with additional Jewish “interpretative
traditions”. 1 Corinthians 10:4 does not clearly demonstrate Paul's dependence on Jewish
tradition, since Enns cites only texts posterior to Paul, and several arguments can be
212 "It is not just the words on the page but the interpretative traditions as well that made up Paul's Old
Testament." Peter Enns, Inspiration And Incarnation: Evangelicals And The Problem of The Old
Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker, 2005, p. 151.
213 Enns, Inspiration And Incarnation, pp. 143ff.; Peter Enns, 'The "Moveable Well" In 1 Cor 10:4: An
Extrabiblical Tradition In An Apostolic Text', BBR, Vol. 6, (1996), pp. 23-38.
214 Although, assuming the authenticity of the pastorals, we might note that Paul's mention of the two
figures does not necessitate his trust in the tradition. W. Lock's view, for instance, as summarised by
Johannes Tromp, was that "since the author's opponents were themselves fond of Jewish myths and
genealogies (cf. 1 Tim 1,4; 4,7; 2 Tim 4,4; Titus 1,14), he is treating them here to one of their own
fables, thereby showing them how such people come to their end." Johannes Tromp, 'Jannes And
Jambres (2 Timothy 3,8-9)', in A. Grupner and M. Wolter (eds.), Moses In Biblical And Extra-Biblical
Traditions, BZAW, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2007, p. 214. See also: Edward Earle Ellis, Paul's Use of The
Old Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker, 1981, p. 55, n. 3.
made against Paul's use of such texts.215 Galatians 3:19 is understandable as Paul's
rhetorical reversal of a tradition used by his Judaizing opponents in Galatia.216
While we should remain open, then, to the possibility of Paul's view of Abraham
having been conditioned by his knowledge of Second Temple Jewish interpretative
traditions, we should also keep in sight the fact that subsequent to the encounter upon the
Damascus road, there were many elements of his former Judaism which Paul considered
skuvbala (Phil. 3:8), and had the young Saul known of them, the view(s) of Abraham
found in the 'five Abraham texts' may have been among these.
In the foregoing chapter, we began by seeking to locate Saul in time and place, and
theological milieu. Having done so, we were able to compare our findings with the Sitze
im Leben of the other Abraham texts and/or their authors. In each case, Saul was seen to
be quite at odds with the other writers/writings. In relation to Philo, both his thought and
method were seen to be quite distinct from those of Saul. Neither his philosophy nor his
allegorical process are likely to have been influential upon the young Pharisee. Similar
considerations apply to Josephus.
In relation to Jubilees, it was observed that several of the theological emphases of
the work would have clashed with the young Saul's Pharisaic perspective; not least of
which would be the adoption of the solar calendar. In addition, a brief review was made
215 See, as the best example: Ellis, Paul's Use of The Old Testament, pp. 66ff. Gregory Beale also suggests
that one of his doctoral students is writing on the topic: Gregory K. Beale, 'Myth, History, And
Inspiration: A Review Article of Inspiration And Incarnation By Peter Enns', JETS, Vol. 49, No. 2,
(2006), p. 307, n. 36.
216 As Silva notes, it is unlikely that Paul is himself asserting that the Law was mediated through angels as
though this point had some great significance for him. Rather, it is likely that he has taken a claim made
by the Judaizers about the involvement of angels in the giving of the Law and turned it back against
them. Silva, 'Galatians', p. 805. Ellis also writes pertinently that the occurrence of this mentioning of
angels "in the LXX and the Psalms points to a very ancient interpretation of the passage [in Deut.] and
obviates any reference on Paul's part to Jewish writings. Both got it from a common source, the OT..."
Ellis, Paul's Use of The Old Testament, p. 66.
of the New Testament and the Mishnah, in an attempt to determine whether evidence
could be derived from these corpora which would indicate that Saul may have learned
teaching about Abraham similar to that found in either Philo's works or Jubilees but
stripped of any of those characteristic details which would have been, from a Pharisaic
perspective, unattractive. Limited similarities were pointed out. On the whole, however,
this analysis did not encourage the idea that Saul may have learned a Pharisaic version of
either Philo's or Jubilees' presentation of Abraham.
The second half of the chapter was devoted to a delineation of the threat of
idolatry in Palestine from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes to the destruction of the
Second Temple, with the conclusion that idolatry was not as pressing an issue in Saul's
day in Palestine (Judea-Galilee) as it either had been in the time of Antiochus IV or
would be in the dispiriting aftermath of the destruction of the Temple. This conclusion, in
turn, suggested that the paradigm of Abraham as heroic anti-idolater may not have been
as prevalent or pertinent in Saul's day as in the periods either-side of it. As such, even if
one were to determine that ApocAb and Jubilees present strikingly similar pictures of
Abraham, the severity and tempestuousness of the situations which precipitated their
production and the comparative calm of Saul's day – in short, the different situation faced
by Saul – would argue against a too hasty designation of the anti-idolatry-Abraham as an
important motif for him.
Even so, this reconstruction has only been able to deal in probabilities. We cannot
exclude the possibility that the young Pharisee knew haggadic stories of Abraham similar
to those found in Jubilees, Philo, Josephus, the Apocalypse of Abraham, or Liber
Antiquitatum Biblicarum. Even so, the foregoing analysis makes it unlikely that Saul the
Pharisee learned traditions of Abraham comparable to those of the 'five Abraham texts'.
Having concluded as much in relation to the young Saul, we gave a brief
description of Saul's conversion/call. Here we delineated the way in which Saul, at his
conversion, would likely have abandoned his former Pharisaic learning and the 'traditions
of the fathers' for a new kind of understanding and tradition. It was suggested that this
likely included also any Pharisaic understanding of Abraham which Saul might have
held. Yet, it was acknowledged that to determine with any certainty whether or not
Galatians, and Romans were indebted to the 'five Abraham texts' those epistles would
have to be examined.
At this point, it should be repeated that whether or not Saul the Pharisee knew of,
or was sympathetic towards, the picture of Abraham in the 'five Abraham texts', is a
consideration somewhat distinguishable from the question of whether Galatians, and
Romans exhibit influence from those texts. That latter question may only be satisfactorily
answered by an examination of the letters themselves on their own terms. In the
following two chapters we shall make just such an examination. Our investigation has
not, so far, given us any reason to suspect that we will find manifest influence from the
'five Abraham texts' in those letters. Nevertheless, we would do well to defer any
judgment on the matter until our analysis of Galatians, and Romans is complete. In this
light, we eagerly move forward to that analysis.

CHAPTER 9
GALATIANS AND THE FIVE ABRAHAM TEXTS
9.1 Introduction
For an introduction to Paul's letter to the churches in the region of Galatia, the reader
may refer to the introductory material in the commentaries of Longenecker and Bruce.1
There is no substantive dispute that Galatians was written by its putative author:
viz. the Apostle Paul. On several other key issues, however, much debate continues. We
shall briefly mention where we stand on each of these. Firstly, without arguing the case
here, we assume that the churches to which Paul writes were situated in South Galatia. 2
This does not necessitate the letter's having been penned before the Jerusalem Council (c.
49AD) mentioned in Acts 15.3 Indeed, we assume that Acts 15 describes the same event as
Paul mentions in Galatians 2.4 Thus, secondly, we see 49-50AD as the terminus a quo for
the epistle. Finding a terminus ante quem is considerably less straight-forward, but few
would place the epistle later than Lightfoot does (i.e. 57-58AD).5 Thus, we suggest a
probable date of 50-57AD, without being more specific than this.
Given the above considerations, we can suggest, thirdly, that the recipients of
Paul's epistle were those Galatians in the south of the (Roman) province whom he and
Barnabas had evangelised on their first missionary journey through that region (recorded
1 Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, ed. R. P. Martin, WBC, 41, Waco, Word Books, 1990; Frederick
Fyvie Bruce, The Epistle To The Galatians, I. H. Marshall and W. W. Gasque (eds.), NIGTC, Grand
Rapids, Eerdmans, 1982. The reader may see now also the recently released work of Douglas Moo:
Douglas J. Moo, Galatians, Grand Rapids, Baker, 2013, pp. 1-64.
2 We note, in particular, that only Acts 16:6 and 18:23 give any hint of missionary activity in the less
easily accessible and more back-water North of Galatia. For a recent overview of the options, see: Moo,
Galatians, pp. 1-18.
3 On this point, see: Moisés Silva, Interpreting Galatians: Explorations In Exegetical Method, 2nd Edn.,
Grand Rapids, Baker, 2001, pp. 129ff.
4 Again, see: Silva, Interpreting Galatians, pp. 132ff.
5 Joseph Barber Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle To The Galatians, 7th Edn., London, Macmillian, 1881, p.
40.
CHAPTER 9: GALATIANS AND THE FIVE ABRAHAM TEXTS 233
in Acts 13-14). These were predominantly Gentiles, as both the Acts narrative and the
evidence of the epistle itself seem to make clear. Paul revisited these churches on his
second missionary journey (recorded in Acts 15:36ff.). This reconstruction assumes much
about the historicity of the Acts narrative. Some will disagree with this approach, but we
feel it valid. Nevertheless, the historicity of Acts is not fundamental to the argument of
the present chapter, and essentially the same argument could be made, mutatis mutandis,
without recourse to Acts.
Fourthly, we do not believe that Galatians is most fruitfully examined through the
prism of a classical rhetorical handbook. As Philip Kern has observed, in the composition
of Galatians, "Immediacy of purpose transcends the stylistic concerns and subject
restrictions of classical oratory."6 And it is his general conclusion, with which we agree,
that, "Paul wrote Galatians independently of the rules of Graeco-Roman rhetoric, which
ought to discourage analysis based on the handbooks."7
Fifthly, we assume the traditional view of the 'agitators' as 'Judaizers'.8 This
identification is paired with an understanding of the 'problem' which Paul wrote to
address as one of distrust of the Apostle's message and the usurpation of the affections of
the Galatians by another gospel. Paul, therefore, wrote to defend the truth of the Gospel
(cf. 1 Cor. 2:2; 15:1-11; Gal. 3:1).
Paul's response to these new teachings was not an exercise in ecumenical
dialogue. Rather, he strongly insisted that his apostleship was not from any man but from
Jesus alone (1:1 et passim); he denied that he was either subordinate to those at Jerusalem
or that he was fundamentally at odds with them (2:9, 11); and he forcefully argued that
not only were circumcision and observance of the Law not essential to salvation but,
6 Philip H. Kern, Rhetoric And Galatians: Assessing An Approach To Paul's Epistle, ed. R. Bauckham,
SNTSMS, 101, Cambridge, CUPress, 1998, p. 257.
7 Kern, Rhetoric, pp. 257-258.
8 See, for e.g., Walter B. Russell, 'Who Were Paul's Opponents In Galatia?', BSac, Vol. 147, (1990), pp.
329-350.
quite to the contrary, to employ them toward such an end was to fall away from Christ
(5:4).
Lastly, given the persistence of the term stoicei:a in the present chapter, it will be
helpful for the reader to known up-front that while emphasising that the usage Paul
makes of this term is enigmatic, if pressed to adopt one of the semantic options suggested
by the context, we favour the 'basic teaching' interpretation (more on this below).
Paul operates in Galatians with pairs of antitheses. The first of which is the
opposition between freedom and slavery (e.g. freedom: 2:4; 3:13, 28; 4:5, 22-23, 26, 30-
31; 5:1, 13; slavery: 4:1, 7, 9, 24-25; 5:1). To Paul, for the 'free' Galatians to accept the
position of the Judaizers was to revert to slavery (4:8-10; 5:1). A second antithesis is
between the old 'age' and the new. This is a fundamentally salvation-historical distinction.
In the old era, the Law had a valid role in the life of God's people, being a 'guardian' until
the coming of the Messiah (3:24). In the new era, however, the Law has been superseded
(3:25-26; 4:1-5). The old era was one of adolescence, the new is one of maturity and
fulness. To Paul, for the mature sons to revert to adolescence is akin to their reverting to
slavery, since the child, though he is heir of all things, is little better than a slave until he
comes of age (4:1). Paul cannot understand why they would desire to do such a thing.
Thus, when he hears that the Galatians are observing the Jewish calendar (as we interpret
4:10), he is perplexed. As has been said, it were as though "advanced scholars were
deliberately returning to the kindergarten ABC, to the elementary lessons which no doubt
once had their rightful place, but had long ago been superseded in God's plan".9 Thus,
when Paul speaks of the stoicei:a to which the Galatians are becoming enslaved (4:9), he
does not seem to be referring to "'elemental powers', much less to forces of evil, as the
cause of their trouble or the object of their worship. It is the immaturity and futility of
9 R. Alan Cole, The Letter of Paul To The Galatians, ed. L. L. Morris, 2nd. Edn., TNTC, Vol. 9,
Leicester, InterVarsity, 1989, p. 26.
these observances to which Paul draws attention in this context."10
9.2 Three Proposals On Paul's Use of The Five Abraham Texts
Many suggestions have been made as to the sources beind Paul's use of Abraham in
Galatians (or that of his opponents).11 A relatively recent trend in the interpretation of
Galatians has been to see the five extra-biblical texts mentioned in the preceeding
chapters as important background for understanding Paul's epistle.12 Three scholars
representative of this trend are: James Louis Martyn; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, and Nancy
Calvert-Koyzis. They believe (respectively) that the extra-biblical Jewish texts are
important background for Galatians as it relates: (1) to the teaching of the Judaizers at
Galatia; (2) to Paul's own missionary preaching to Gentiles; (3) and, to Paul's
understanding of the people of God.
9.3 Evaluation of Three Proposals
We present here a response to each of these suggestions in turn, and a fresh reading of the
import of Abraham in Galatians. We take each in turn, in the following order: James
Louis Martyn; George W. E. Nickelsburg; Nancy Calvert-Koyzis.
9.3.1 Martyn: The 'Teachers' Teaching Abraham At Galatia
James Louis Martyn believes that these five texts can be used to reconstruct part of the
'gospel' of the Judaizers (he calls them 'Teachers'). 13 He believes, that is to say, that “the
10 Cole, Galatians, p. 26.
11 E.g. Wilhelm Koepp, 'Die Abraham-Midraschimkette des Galaterbriefes als das vorpaulinische
heidenchristliche Urtheologumenon', WZUR2 GS3, (1952-53), pp. 181-187; but cf. Hans Dieter Betz,
Galatians, ed. H. Koester (et. al.), Hermeneia, Vol. 62, Philadelphia, Fortress, 1979, p. 138, n. 9.
12 At least as early as R. H. Charles, it was suggested that Paul had read Jubilees. The collocation of the
five texts, however, is a more recent academic phenomenon. See: Robert Henry Charles, The Book of
Jubilees Or The Little Genesis, London, Adam & Charles Black, 1902, pp. lxxxiii-lxxxv. For responses
to Charles, cf. James C. VanderKam, 'The Book of Jubilees', in M. De Jonge (ed.), Outside The Old
Testament, CCWJCW, Cambridge, CUPress, 1985, p. 602; Larry R. Helyer, has also juxtaposed these
views in: Larry R. Helyer, Exploring Jewish Literature of The Second Temple Period: A Guide For New
Testament Studies, Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 2002, p. 135.
13 This would be important as a means of determining what Paul is responding to in Galatians.
Teachers made extensive use of traditions that present Abraham as the first Gentile to
come to the true knowledge of God, being thus the paradigmatic proselyte",14 and that
"by coordinating data in the letter with comparable data in the [tradition], we can
reconstruct with a reasonable degree of probability a sermon on descent from Abraham
that the Teachers would have included in the proclamation of their gospel to the
Galatians".15
This sermon on Abraham begins as follows:
Listen, now! It all began with Abraham. Looking beyond the fascinating movements of the
heavenly bodies, he was the first to discern that there is but one God. Because of that
perception, he turned from the service of dumb idols to the worship of that true God.
Therefore, God made him the father of our great nation Israel.16
This portion of the sermon, Martyn reconstructs with reference to "Philo de Abr. 69-70;
Josephus Ant. 1.155-156; Jub. 11:16-17; Hebrew Testament of Naphtali 9".17 If Abraham
is the great discoverer of monotheism, then his example most naturally applies to
polytheistic pagans. For Martyn, however, the Judaizers would have equated the spiritual
state of Paul's uncircumcised converts with that of Abraham's early ignorance of God.
Therefore, they would have made use of the early-Abraham story in exhorting the
Galatians to adopt circumcision.18
More than this, "they will not have overlooked the traditions in which the
patriarch is said to have made the journey to the knowledge of God by an astrological
contemplation of the elements, being the first to observe the holy feasts at the correct
times (e.g., Jubilees 16)."19 The Judaizers will have used this tradition to promote
observance of the Jewish calendar by the Galatians. Seeing that the Galatians, who had
initially worshipped the heavenly bodies, no longer did so, they would have commented
14 James Louis Martyn, Galatians, AB, 33A, New York, Doubleday, 1997, p. 400.
15 Martyn, Galatians, p. 303.
17 Martyn, Galatians, p. 303, n. 54.
something like this:
In making the ascent from the pagan contemplation of the elements to the true knowledge of
God, you follow in the steps of Abraham, for he did the same. You become, indeed,
Abraham's true, Law-observant descendants, knowing for the first time why the constantly
changing elements cause the turning of the seasons. As servants of God, they do that to enable
us to observe at the correct time the holy feasts ordained by God (Gal 4:10).20
In Martyn's view, it was the Judaizers who first mentioned the stoicei:a (tou: kovsmou),
as part of their 'ladder theology' that one could move up to knowledge of God through
contemplation of the natural world, and Paul's use of this terminology is only cleared up
by recognising its place in the Judaizing theology to which he is responding (Gal. 4:3,
9).21
Martyn may be correct. Perhaps, the Judaizers did make use of the five texts with
which we are concerned. We do not wish here to deny the validity of this suggestion.
However, it can be noted that his thesis is far from certain. The principal objection which
might be made against him is his over-dependence on mirror-reading. In addition to this,
the validity of his use of our five texts seems to rely on two shaky premises: The first is
that the Judaizers would not have accepted that Paul's Galatian converts had already left
paganism behind and were, as such, in need of hearing about Abraham the first convert
from paganism. The second is that one can establish from Gal. 4:1-10 that the Galatians
had worshipped the stars.22 Lastly, the depth of detail in which Martyn reconstructs the
message of the Judaizers means that he must rely upon a significant amount of
speculation. Yet, it is not always clear where he is speculating freely, and where he feels
that the evidence is more solid. Nevertheless, we do not mention Martyn's thesis to
critique it so much as to use it to illustrate a common trend.

21 Martyn, Galatians, p. 398 and context.
22 On this point, Hansen's comment is apt, that the term (stoicheia), “is so notoriously difficult to interpret
that it can hardly be used as a clear indication of any aspect of the opponents' theology” G. Walter
Hansen, Abraham In Galatians: Epistolary And Rhetorical Contexts, ed. D. Hill, JSNTSup, 29,
Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1989, p. 170. Indeed, De Boer calls into question whether it was the “Teachers”
who first mentioned the stoicheia at all. See: Martinus C. De Boer, Galatians, eds C. C. Black and J. T.
Carroll, NTL, Louisville, John Knox, 2011, p. 257, n. 383.
9.3.2 Nickelsburg: Paul's Missionary Abraham-Preaching To Gentiles
Martyn, as we have seen, suggested that the Judaizers made use of the five Abraham-
texts in their missionary preaching. G. W. E. Nickelsburg has proposed something quite
similar, but with one important difference. Where Martyn saw the Judaizers as using the
five Abraham-texts in their preaching, Nickelsburg sees Paul as using Abraham in his
missionary preaching – specifically to Gentiles. We shall now discuss Nickelsburg's
thesis.
Nickelsburg's argument centers around the book of Jubilees and the (supposed)
account therein of Abraham's conversion from paganism and idolatry to the worship of
the one true God. “These events in Mesopotamia,” he writes, “which are only sketched in
Gen 11:20-12:5, are recounted at some length in the book of Jubilees...”23 Relevant for us
is his answer to the following question: “How did these traditions continue to be used by
later Jews and their Christian contemporaries [namely, Paul]?”24 Nickelsburg answers this
question in two parts. Firstly, he surveys our five texts (viz. Josephus' Antiquities; Philo's
works, esp. De Mig. and De Abr.; LAB; ApocAb), before moving on to consider Paul.
About the Jewish texts, he concludes that,
Several Jewish texts from the first or early second century C.E. display striking parallels with
the stories in Jubilees 11-12 and indicate that the older stories [had] an ongoing life in the
Jewish tradition. … In these texts Abraham rejects idolatry and astrology and turns to the
worship of the one, true God. ... It remains uncertain whether the authors of the various first-
century C.E. texts knew Jubilees or drew on a common tradition...25
We have already examined these alleged parallels in the foregoing chapters. We need not
repeat the earlier discussion, except to note that many of Nickelsburg's parallels are
23 If, by “only sketched”, Nickelsburg means, 'not mentioned at all', then he is correct. For, Genesis makes
no mention of Abraham as an idolater, or to the nature of his relationship to God prior to his call
(referenced in Genesis 12:1). It can not, for instance, be said that astrology is mentioned here, unless
one assumes that such practice is implied by the place of Abraham's birth – Chaldea (as, for e.g., Philo
in Migr. 178). Certainly, later writings (e.g. Joshua 24) speak of Abraham's having grown up amidst
idolatry, but idolatry was common-place and not always accompanied by astrology.
Press, 1998, p. 152.
25 Nickelsburg, 'Abraham The Convert', pp. 160, 167.
weaker than he supposes.
Assuming, however, for the sake of argument, that Paul did know of such texts, or
of similar traditions of Abraham's conversion, would he not have made use of them?
Nickelsburg contends that he did, seeking to demonstrate that, “...the apostle Paul used
these traditions in his missionary preaching among the Gentiles.”26 More recently, but
without any explanation, Pheme Perkins has echoed this sentiment, suggesting that, “Paul
probably introduced his converts to these stories in his initial preaching.”27 If Halvor
Moxnes was correct to suggest that the Jews commonly made use of Abraham in their
“missionary propaganda to Non-Jews (in the Diaspora) in the first century”, then the
suggested practice of Paul using Abraham in his missionary preaching might be
analogous.28
Nickelsburg looks foremost to Galatians for evidence in support of his thesis, and
presents three basic lines of argumentation, as follows:
9.3.2.1 From Whom Did The Familiarity With Abraham Needed For Gal. 3-4 Come?
Firstly, he points out that, in Galatians 3:6, Paul introduces Abraham to his Gentile
audience without explanation of who the patriarch was. He asks: “How would they have
been sufficiently familiar with the Abraham stories that Paul could launch into a detailed
exegesis with no explanation or introduction?”29
We might think that the spread of diasporic Judaism throughout the Roman
27 Pheme Perkins, Abraham's Divided Children: Galatians And The Politics of Faith, Harrisburg, Trinity
Press, 2001, p. 66.
28 Halvor Moxnes, Theology In Conflict: Studies In Paul's Understanding of God In Romans, Leiden,
Brill, 1980, p. 130. This suggestion of Moxnes' resembles, of course, Georgi's view of the importance
of Abraham for Jewish missionary activity, and Georgi's attempt to show that Paul's opponents in 2
Corinthians took Abraham as a missionary example: Dieter Georgi, The Opponents of Paul In Second
Corinthians, J. Riches (ed.), Studies of The New Testament And Its World, Edinburgh, T & T Clark,
1986, pp. 49-60.
29 Nickelsburg, 'Abraham The Convert', pp. 167-168. This is a good question, and I will want to look at
how others have answered it. One interesting, if short, discussion is given by Ben Witherington, who
suggests that Paul's Galatian audience was probably made up mostly of uncircumcised God-fearers.
This would explain both their Gentileness and the pressure on them to be circumcised, as well as their
apparent knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures (to the extent that Paul can make quite detailed allegories
of Sarah and Hagar!). Cf. Ben Witherington III, Grace In Galatia, London, T&T Clark, 2004, pp. 7ff.
Empire had made Abraham a commonly known figure, but this seems not to have been
the case.30 Jeffrey Siker, in particular, has surveyed the Greco-Roman texts which
mention Abraham (e.g. Apollonius Molon, Alexander Polyhistor, Vettius Valens, or the
Emperor Julian) and concluded that: “He is not widely known, although many may well
have recognized his name as having something to do with astrology and/or magic.” 31
Specifically, we have evidence for Abraham's being mentioned by only eleven Greco-
Roman authors over a period of some 800 years – from 400BC to 400AD.32 By contrast,
Greco-Roman authors demonstrate relatively frequently an understanding of Moses
which goes beyond the vague notions attached to Abraham, and associate Judaism most
closely with him.33 Yet, for Paul's audience to understand his exegesis, they would have
needed to be familiar with the figure of Abraham. So, where did they gain such
familiarity?
It is possible that Paul's opponents in Galatia could have introduced Abraham to
the Galatians. However, it is equally possible, suggests Nickelsburg, that Paul's Galatian
audience was familiar with Abraham because Paul had taught them of the patriarch “as a
30 Moses was more widely known. Yet, even of Moses, Philo can say that he was not well known amongst
the Greeks, and that those who had heard of him misunderstood him (Mos. 1:1). This matches the
picture we have of Abraham's reception amongst the Greeks. Of course, one must interpret Philo's
comments in the light of his interpretative agenda. Nevertheless, his comment should not be considered
entirely inaccurate.
31 Jeffrey S. Siker, 'Abraham In Graeco-Roman Paganism', JSJ, Vol. 18, (1987), p. 208. Abraham is
mentioned in several of the Greek magical papyri, but it is not apparent that the magicians know who
Abraham is. See: Hans Dieter Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri In Translation, Including The Demotic
Spells: Second Edition, Vol. 1, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1992, pp. 62, 110, 171, 191, 268,
310, 336.
32 Siker: “Among the vast writings of the Graeco-Roman era there is only evidence that Abraham was
mentioned explicitly by eleven Graeco-Roman authors, covering a time span of approximately 800
years.” Siker, 'Abraham In Graeco-Roman Paganism', p. 189.
33 John Gager writes that, “pagan authors of Hellenistic and Roman imperial times knew more about
Moses than one might commonly expect. … the amount and quality of information varied considerably,
ranging from garbled bits of rumor to firsthand familiarity with biblical and other Jewish writings. At
the same time we should note that … our evidence comes from the lettered elite. What, if any,
knowledge of Moses existed outside these rather limited circles is altogether unknown. If we ask why
Moses captured the attention of the pagan world to the almost complete exclusion of other Jewish
figures, the answer must be twofold. One obvious reason is that he was already established as the hero
par excellence within Judaism of the post-exilic period. ... A second reason is that once he had become
established in pagan eyes as the representative of Judaism, his position was further enhanced by virtue
of his particular role as the lawgiver of the Jews. From the perspective of pagan historiography and
ethnography, this role marked him immediately as the key figure of Jewish history.” John G. Gager,
Moses In Greco-Roman Paganism, SBLMS, Vol. 16, Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1972, pp. 162-163.
central feature in his [missionary] instruction.”34
Since Abraham features so prominently, both in Galatians and in the broader
Pauline corpus, it seems reasonable to assume that Paul might have made reference to
Abraham in his missionary preaching (whether in Galatia or elsewhere), even if he wasn't
the first (or the only) person to discuss Abraham with them.35
Nickelsburg, however, appears to imply that, because Paul taught about Abraham
he must have taught about the extra-canonical Abraham. Yet, there is no such logical
necessity here. The several references to Genesis indicate that Paul taught about the
Abraham of Genesis, but to assume from this fact that he must also have taught about the
extra-canonical Abraham is a non sequitur. On the contrary, while absence of evidence is
not the same thing as evidence of absence, that Paul is (at least ostensibly) silent about
the extra-canonical Abraham in his epistle to the Galatians might suggest that Paul did
not make use of the extra-canonical Abraham traditions in his missionary preaching.
Indeed, Paul seems almost exclusively to have limited himself to discussion of
canonical Old Testament texts. Thus, it might be suggested that it would have been
somewhat outside of his custom to refer to such extra-canonical traditions as those found
in the Jubilees tradition. At least, as E. E. Ellis has suggested, “Paul's use of non-
canonical Jewish literature is very doubtful at best … in no case has a direct use of
writings of the diaspora been established.”36
9.3.2.2 Stories of Convert Abraham Suited To Paul's Missionary Preaching

Nickelsburg makes a second line of argumentation. He feels that,
35 If Paul's letter to the Romans is considered to represent what he would have said to them, had the way
been opened for him to go there, then it might provide evidence that he used Abraham in his preaching
to Gentiles. On the other hand, of course, it is evident that there are Jews in the Christian community at
Rome. Moreover, Romans assumes a detailed knowledge of the Old Testament, at every point where
Abraham is mentioned. Indeed, it might be argued that, in Romans, the Abraham-sections are directed
more pointedly at the Jewish than the Gentile Roman Christians.
36 As cited by: Brian S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture & Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5-7, Leiden, Brill,
1994, p. 138. A reference which comes originally from: Edward Earle Ellis, Paul's Use of The Old
Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker, 1981, pp. 77, 83.
It would have been natural that, in his preaching to the Gentiles, Paul should have recounted
stories about Abraham, the enlightened prototypical gentile convert, who turned from the
errors of idolatry and astrology to the worship of the one true God. [Because,] Common
elements in the narrative worlds of these stories would have offered familiar points of contact
with the real world of the Gentiles to whom Paul preached.37
The argument would have been put, by Paul, something like this:
'There was once a man named Abraham who was a Gentile idolater and
astrologer like you, but he became enlightened and, having gained wisdom,
understood the folly of worshiping idols and discovered instead the one true God
who holds all things together. So, if you want to be enlightened too, and if you
also are lovers of wisdom, then follow his example.'
Is it not likely that Paul would have argued along such lines? That is, along
similar lines to Josephus who, in the Antiquities, tries to make an apologetic for Jewish
history and belief for a Roman audience by noting that the Jews were descended from the
laudably philosophic, and almost Greek, figure Abraham (e.g. Ant. 1:154).38 As Nancy
Calvert-Koyzis has said, “Josephus' portrayal of Abraham was that which would have
spoken best to his Hellenistic, non-Jewish readers.”39 Alternatively, he could have
pictured Abraham as the embodiment of wisdom (sofiva), as Philo does, and as is echoed
37 Nickelsburg, 'Abraham The Convert', p. 168. Cf. the following comment from Bianchini: "Inoltre
l’Apostolo segue, con molta probabilità, la tradizione giudaica secondo la quale Abramo è il primo a
passare dalla conoscenza degli idoli all’adorazione dell’unico Dio (ad es. Filone, Abramo, 60-88; Flavio
Giuseppe, Antichità giudaiche, 1, 155; Giubilei 12) collegando opportunamente la situazione del
patriarca con quella degli etnico-cristiani e, in particolare, dei Galati." Francesco Bianchini, Lettera Ai
Galati, Roma, Città Nuova, 2009, p. 74.
38 For the apologetic character of the works of Josephus, in general, see: Shaye J. D. Cohen, Josephus In
Galilee And Rome: His Vita And Development As A Historian, CSCT, Vol. 8, Leiden, Brill, 2002, pp.
121ff.
Traditions For Early Judaism And Christianity, London, T&T Clark, 2004, p. 68. More specifically,
Louis H. Feldman has suggested that the philosophical arguments for monotheism which Josephus puts
into Abraham's mouth are derived from popular Stoic and Platonic reasoning, while the particular
terminology he uses is Stoic. Josephus, however, does not argue from the regularity and order of
celestial phenomena, but rather from certain observable irregularities in these phenomena. This twist
on the popular proof was unique to Josephus apparently, as several of the details of Josephus' portrayal
of Abraham appear to be. Thus, we need not see Josephus as merely inheriting his Abrahamic material.
See: Louis H. Feldman, Studies In Josephus' Rewritten Bible, JSJSup, Vol. 58, Leiden, Brill, 1998, p.
567; Louis H. Feldman, Josephus's Interpretation of The Bible, HCS, Vol. 27, Berkeley, University of
California Press, 1998, p. 229.
in Pseudo-Eupolemus, and in the Wisdom of Solomon.40 The Greeks, after all, according
to Herodotus, were highly philosophical; “zealous for every kind of learning”.41
9.3.2.2.a An Hellenistic Abraham Would Have Ill-Suited Paul's Purpose

That Paul followed the example of Josephus or Philo is, of course, possible, and, a priori,
we might even think it likely, since these traditions somewhat fit the Hellenistic Sitz im
Leben of Paul's audience, to the limited extent to which it can be reconstructed.42
However, Paul's Gospel preaching does not seem to have been delivered in the kind of
rhetoric used by the Greeks (e.g. 1 Cor. 1:17),43 neither does it appear to have been an
exhortation to the kind of philosophic and cultural wisdom popular at the time and which
authors such as Josephus and Philo appeal to.44 This "would be more credible if Paul had
been a philosophically inclined Jew prior to conversion. Unlike Philo and Josephus,
however, Paul had not been an interpreter of Judaism in Greco-Roman terms. He had
been a Pharisee who persecuted the Greek-speaking church [cf. Gal. 1:13-14; Phil. 3:4-
6]".45 Indeed, as Paul himself notes in the first epistle to the Corinthians, “Jews demand
40 So, see, for e.g., Cher. 45; Praep. Ev. 9.17.2–9; and Wis. 10:15.
41 Cited in relation to 1 Corinthians 1:22-23 by: Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle To The Corinthians, ed.
F. F. Bruce, 2nd Edn., NIBCNT, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1987, pp. 74-75.
42 For the Gentileness of Paul's Galatian audience, see: the commentaries by Betz, Bruce, Lührmann,
Witherington, &c. For the evidence that the Galatians were idol-worshipers, see, for e.g., Justin Hardin:
who notes that there was a “traditional celtic temple to Mên and Cybele from the pre-Roman
generation...” Justin K. Hardin, Galatians And The Imperial Cult: A Critical Analysis of The First-
Century Social Context of Paul's Letter, WUNT 2. Reihe, 237, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2008, p. 41.
Note, also, Paul's explicit exhortation in the letter for the Galatians to abstain from idolatry (Gal. 5:20).
43 See the discussion of oujk ejn sofiva/ lovgou at 1 Cor. 1:17 as meaning “without rhetorical skill” in:
Bruce W. Winter, Philo And Paul Among The Sophists: Alexandrian And Corinthian Responses To A
Julio-Claudian Movement, 2nd. Edn., Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2002, pp. 187-188.
44 Both Josephus and Philo, in defending Judaism before the court of Greco-Roman virtues, picture
Judaism as philosophical. In Josephus, this can be seen in his depiction of Abraham. In Philo, see
particularly: Mos. 2:211-216; Contempl. 26; Mut. 39, 223; Legat. 23, 33, 156, 245; Somn. 2:18, 127.
45 John L. White, The Apostle of God: Paul And The Promise of Abraham, Peabody, Hendrickson, 1999,
p. 230. White is responding to the suggestion that Paul slackened the requirements of the Law for
Gentiles, because he was an Hellenistic Jew. The comment, however, applies equally to the present
discussion. Additionally, of course, it must be noted that: (a) according to Acts 22, Paul was educated in
Jerusalem; (b) Paul saw himself as a Hebrew of the Hebrews (Phil. 3:5); (c) Paul's gospel was in accord
with that of Peter and James (cf. Gal. 2:2), pace Ferdinand Christian Baur, The Church History of The
First Three Centuries: 2 Vols., trans. A. Menzies, London, Williams & Norgate, 1878-1879. Cf. the
manner in which Acts 14ff. depicts Paul's normal activity as the preaching of the Gospel, yet nowhere
elaborates on the content of Paul's message: “The reader is left to assume that they preached the same
good news to these Gentiles as Peter preached to Cornelius and as was proclaimed in Antioch (Acts
11:20).” Christoph W. Stenschke, Luke's Portrait of Gentiles Prior To Their Coming To Faith, WUNT
2. Reihe, 108, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1999, p. 178.
miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom [sofiva], but we preach Christ crucified: a
stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles...” (1 Cor. 1:22-23).46 He states
something similar also in 2 Cor. 1:12 – viz. that he and his associates conducted
themselves in their missionary activities oujk ejn sofiva/ sarkikh:/.47
Thus, while Paul claimed his Gospel to be “the wisdom of God”, it seems clear
that he was also aware that, to the Gentile ear, it lacked 'wisdom' or persuasive appeal. 48
Yet, he did not change his method or message to be more appealing to an Hellenistic
audience. Thus, he had to defend his message to the Corinthians, who came to consider
him a third-rate orator,49 and “a third-rate philosopher and found his teaching over-
simple”.50 Yet, it is instructive to see that he does not do so by suggesting that he has
philosophical (or even popular) arguments which will be persuasive to such as seek those
46 Indeed, Paul does not even claim wisdom or eloquence for himself (e.g. 1 Cor. 2:4, &c.).
47 One might object, at this point, that we have not discussed Galatians directly. And, moreover, when one
comes to that epistle is it not the case that Paul has carefully followed the "apologetic letter" genre, as
Betz argues? Betz, Galatians, p. 14. Betz' suggestion is as may be. A few considerations upon Galatians
as rhetoric are in order, however. Firstly, while Betz assigns Galatians to the "apologetic letter" genre,
he nowhere clearly articulates what kind of training Paul had in rhetoric, or whether the Apostle had
first-hand knowledge of the handbooks. Secondly, that Galatians was written carefully is undeniable,
but that Paul, in the heat of the moment, would have taken the time to construct a perfect example of
the "apologetic letter" is questionable. Thirdly, Betz himself, in discussion of Galatians 3, admits that he
has been unable to describe Paul's rhetorical method. This, of course, does not invalidate his approach,
but it may be telling; especially when one considers the centrality of that chapter to the letter as a
whole. Fourthly, and most importantly for our purposes, Betz himself, in commenting on Gal. 1:10,
notes that Paul was opposed to the use of 'persuasion'. Yet, he nowhere reconciles this with Paul's
supposed use of the method in his correspondence. As Betz writes: "The former phrase, "persuade men"
(ajnqrwvpouV peivqw) is, as the parallels show, a definition of rhetoric. Since Plato philosophers and
others have regarded the "art of persuasion" (hJ piqanourgikh; tevcnh) as something rather negative and
unfitting. Rhetoric became identified with deception, slander, and even sorcery. Paul as well as other
Christian writers shares this view." Betz, Galatians, pp. 54-55.
48 While some will dismiss the value of Acts at this point, we find it instructive that in the clearest
example we have of Paul in discussion with Greek philosophers about the Gospel, he is not recognised
by them as one with themselves but, rather, as a “spermolovgoV” (Acts 17:18). Of course, this may be
the polemical hyperbole of a rival school of philosophy (cf. Legat. 203). Alternatively, however, it may
indicate that Paul's manner of speech was not rhetorically refined, and the content of his presentation
un-philosophical. Cf. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, ed. F. W. Danker, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 937. If not
preserving the ipsissima verba of Paul's philosophical critics in Athens, it seems unlikely that the author
of Acts would have invented de novo such a negative evaluation of the Apostle to the Gentiles. In a
more neutral vein, Paul is described as a kataggeleuvV who announced the good news (eujaggelivzw),
and this fits with Paul's own apparent self-understanding (e.g. Acts 15:36; 17:3, 23; 1 Cor. 2:1-2; Col.
1:27-29, &c.).
49 Following: Winter, Philo And Paul Among The Sophists: Alexandrian And Corinthian Responses To A
Julio-Claudian Movement.
50 Cited by: Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle To The Corinthians, NIGTC, Grand Rapids,
Eerdmans, 2000, p. 291, n. 351.
proofs;51 he rather declares to them the eschatological reality as it has been revealed in
history.52 In Colossians 2:8, too, we see Paul warning against one form or other of human
philosophy (blevpete mhv tiV uJma:V e[stai oJ sulagwgw:n dia; th:V filosofivaV...).53 As
such, according to David Garland, “Paul did not believe that Christ simply offered a
greater wisdom that could be added to the wisdom of this world. He thought the wisdom
of Christ invalidated the wisdom of this world.”54 Paul's message, by contrast, is
absolutely valid, as it is the very message of God (cf. 1 Thess. 2:13), being conveyed
through God's appointed messenger (cf. 1 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1 et passim).55
We are assuming here, along with Richard Hays, that Paul's use of “sophia”
language in the Corinthian correspondence is subtle and multivalent, covering several
ideas.56 On the one hand, the term “sophia” can carry technical shades of meaning,
51 He has given them neither a philosophical nor an oratorical ajpovdeixiV. The only 'ajpovdeixiV' they receive
is that of the Spirit and power (1 Cor. 2:4). Just as Paul at Corinth did not give an ajpovdeixiV so, too, we
are arguing that he did not think it fit to credit Abraham's knowledge of God to such an ajpovdeixiV on
the patriarch's behalf – as Josephus (Ant. 1:154-157; and note the terms applied to Abraham there, such
as piqanovV, and cf. Col. 2:3-4), and Philo, and (to some extent) other Second Temple texts do.
Fairweather has also observed the absence in Paul of arguments from probability. Though present in
Philo (as indicated by 360 occurrences of eijkoV in his corpus), Paul rejects the Piqanologiva (Col. 2:4).
Janet Fairweather, 'The Epistle To The Galatians And Classical Rhetoric: Part 3', TynBul, Vol. 45, No. 2,
(1994), p. 239.
52 One can see, therefore, how Paul's approach contrasts with that of, for e.g., Josephus. Where Paul calls
upon his hearers to change their world-view to suit his message, Josephus repackages Jewish
monotheism so as to make it palatable (and, hopefully, persuasive) within an Hellenistic (Platonic?)
frame-work of values. Thus, he gives them a philosophical proof for there being, so to speak, a 'pilot'
behind creation. Paul, on the other hand, calls for faith in the kerygma. Of course, Paul was not being
feideistic. He was quite happy to give empirical proof of Christ's resurrection (cf. 1 Cor. 15).
Nevertheless, one must trust the proclamation of what that resurrection signifies in the invisible world,
just as one cannot perceive with human senses, or conclude on the basis of human reasoning, that the
crucifixion of Christ was a great victory. Thus Chrysostom, while, perhaps, somewhat underestimating
the Apostles, aptly states that, “To believe in the one who was crucified and buried and to be fully
convinced that he rose again does not need more reasoning but faith alone. The apostles themselves
were converted not by wisdom but by faith. Once they had that, they surpassed the heathen wise men in
both wisdom and intellectual depth.... Plato was cast out not by another philosopher of more skill but by
unlearned fishers.” Gerald L. Bray (ed.), 1-2 Corinthians, ed. T. C. Oden, ACCS, Vol. 7, Downers
Grove, InterVarsity, 2006, p. 14.
53 Paul might almost as well have said that the Colossians had been led astray by the wisdom of men,
since this philosophy was kata; ... ajnqrwvpwn ... ou; kata; Cristovn.
54 David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, NAC, Vol. 29, Nashville, B&H, 1999, p. 91.
55 Janet Fairweather makes a similar point in relation to Galatians: “Paul's appeals to a divinely sanctioned
apostolic authority, here and elsewhere, seem part of an effort to set himself apart from the assembly-
orator of the Greek pagan city, who reckoned to sway his hearers chiefly by standard arguments based
on human rationality.” Fairweather, 'The Epistle To The Galatians And Classical Rhetoric: Part 3', p.
222.
56 Hays writes: “Throughout this passage we must bear in mind that the term “wisdom” in the Corinthian
setting can refer both to the possession of exalted knowledge and to the ability to express that
knowledge in a powerful and rhetorically polished way. Much of the controversy at Corinth may have
referring to oratorical ability (as demonstrated by Winter). At the same time, however,
Paul's critique covers more than just Corinthian rhetoric. 57 He employs the same
terminology to denote the Greek national characteristic (to generalise) of being desirous
of every kind of knowledge and human philosophy (e.g. 1 Cor. 1:22),58 as well as
creating a contrast between human wisdom (surely broadly conceived, encompassing not
just rhetorical ability but also intellectual understanding), on the one hand, and the
wisdom of God, on the other (1 Cor. 1:24-25).59 Just as the world in its 'wisdom' rejects
the testimony to God in creation (Rom. 1:22), so the world's wisdom considers the cross
foolishness (1 Cor. 1:18, 23). Although prompted by a particular problem of sophism,
Paul's argument is far-reaching. In essence, his claim is that God’s ways are higher than
human ways; God’s thoughts are not like human thoughts. Thus, as Hays states: “Another
way to put Paul’s point is that the truth about God is revealed not through philosophy but
through prophecy, not through rhetoric but by revelation.”60
This is not to suggest that Paul made no use of logic, but simply that his starting-
point was revelation and not the autonomous human individual, as was the starting-point
of the philosophers. Paul does not attempt to persuade his hearers of monotheism through
philosophical inference. Rather, he declares the fact. Paul arrived at his conception of
monotheism not by reasoning up to God, as we are told that Josephus presents Abraham
as doing, but on the basis of God’s condescending self-disclosure in history and Scripture
been stirred up by the tendency for the new Christians to regard Paul and other Christian preachers as
rhetors competing for public attention and approval alongside other popular philosophers. Paul’s
forceful rebuttal is designed to reframe the categories of the debate and to put the gospel in a category
apart from other varieties of “wisdom” on offer in the popular marketplace of ideas.” Richard B. Hays,
First Corinthians, IBC, Louisville, John Knox, 2011, p. 27.
57 Paul was not trying to replace Sophistry with one school or other of philosophy (e.g. Cynicism, as has
been suggested by some ), but rather sought to replace all forms of human 'wisdom' with revealed
knowledge, and a kerygma about God (cf. Acts 17:23). In this sense, the goal of Paul's Corinthian
correspondence differs from that of Dio of Prusa's Alexandrian Oration, where Dio encouraged the
Alexandrians to be led by philosophers rather than sophists. Cf. Winter, Philo And Paul Among The
Sophists: Alexandrian And Corinthian Responses To A Julio-Claudian Movement, pp. 40-58.
58 Fee, The First Epistle To The Corinthians, pp. 74-75.
59 Fairweather includes in the reference at 1 Cor. 1:20 to the “wisdom of the world” both “philosophical
and rhetorical presuppositions” Fairweather, 'The Epistle To The Galatians And Classical Rhetoric: Part
3', p. 230.
60 Hays, First Corinthians, p. 46.
(e.g. Deut. 6:4; 1 Kgs 18:36-39). Indeed, Josephus exhibits a wide-spread tendency, in his
retelling of the Old Testament, to diminish the activity of God in favour of promoting the
activity, virtue, and initiative-taking of the main human protagonists and heroes of the
drama (e.g. Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, &c.).61 By contrast with this, Paul neither
suppresses the Old Testament's emphasis that, at every major turning point in
Heilsgeschichte it is God who takes the initiative, nor lauds human agency.62
In the same way, Paul does not set Abraham up as an example of 'wisdom' (or
virtue), but rather pictures the patriarch as epitomising the value of faith in the revealed
promises of God (pivstiV – e.g. Romans 4; Galatians 3:6ff.). Paul does not picture
religion as a process of human striving to reach God but, rather, God's condescending
kindness in revealing himself to helpless individuals. The initiative is with God, and the
movement down from above. The opposite of such true religion, for Paul, is the religion
of men, which seeks to “be like God” (Gen. 3:5), to reach up to heaven (Gen. 11:4-5). to
establish it's own righteousness by the Law, such that God be a debtor to it (Rom. 4;
&c.).
What, then, of the possible similarity between Josephus' supposed presentation of
Abraham reasoning his way to God from his observation of the world and Paul's claim in
Romans 1 that God is discernable from creation? Is there a possible parallel in attitudes
61 So, at Ant. 1:96, instead of God unilaterally promising not to send another flood; Noah persuades God
not to send another flood. At Ant. 2:276 Josephus tells us that Moses had hopes of saving his people,
whereas Exodus 4 pictures him as being full of apprehension. Similarly, at Ant. 2:320-323, while
acknowledging that the Israelites took the route out of Egypt which they took during the Exodus
because God had directed them to Mt. Sinai, Josephus adds another, parallel explanation: viz. Moses'
great strategic thinking. Examples of this kind could be offered for all of the major biblical figures
whom Josephus turns into Hellenistic heroes. In relation to Abraham, we see Josephus both accepting
the biblical account that it was God who called Abraham out of Mesopotamia (Ant. 1:154), and yet, at
the same time, providing a parallel alternative: viz. that Abraham, having autonomously reasoned his
way to monotheism and having been rebuffed by his country-men for sharing this new insight, decided
on his own to move to Canaan. This time, God is not the initiator of the enterprise but merely a helper
in it (Ant. 1:157). Paul does not mention the call of Abraham directly. Nevertheless, his handling of the
Genesis material about Abraham is such that one would not expect him to credit the initiative to
Abraham. Rather, one expects that Paul would have recognised God's initiative (along with Gen. 12:1;
Josh. 24:3; Neh. 9:7; Is. 29:22, 51:2; Acts 7:3; Heb. 11:8).
62 Though not making the point specifically about Paul, compare: Donald Arthur Carson, The God Who Is
There: Finding Your Place In God's Story, Grand Rapids, Baker, 2010, p. 76.
here between the two authors? Not exactly.
Josephus portrays Abraham as “the first who dared to declare that God was the
one craftsman of the universe” (Ant. 1:155).63 The picture is that a proper conception of
God can be deduced from nature but that none immediately prior to Abraham had fully
done so. In contrast, Paul declares not only that God can be properly discovered from
nature but that God, in fact, is known to all. God has revealed himself to the
consciousnesses of all mankind who, precisely because they have obtained knowledge of
God through nature, are without excuse for their suppression of this truth about God
(Rom. 1:19-21).64 Josephus' focus is Abraham as breaking new ground, whereas Paul's
emphasis is on God as self-revealing (Rom. 1:19). For Josephus, Abraham is exceptional
in understanding and accepting the testimony of nature to God; for Paul, all have
suppressed the truth. One surface difference is that Paul does not specifically speak of
God's being the one craftsman of the universe, as Josephus does. Thus, we might
question whether “monotheism”, so to speak, is part of the knowledge God has disclosed
to all people. To which question we should probably respond in the affirmative. We are
told that people turn away from the God they know is there and fashion for themselves
other gods (Rom. 1:23). We are also told, however, that they know that this practice of
idolatry is rightly condemned by God (Rom. 1:32). Therefore, they must know –
although such knowledge is deeply suppressed, and their hearts are darkened – that
worship of any other God than the one God revealed in nature is guilt-worthy.
Paul's answer to this situation is not for people to seek wisdom – like Plato
seeking after the true forms. Paul, therefore, is not interested in presenting Abraham as an
example of how one can (re)discover God. Rather, he sees Abraham as an example of
63 Flavius Josephus, Judean Antiquities: Books 1-4: Translation And Commentary, ed. S. Mason, trans. L.
H. Feldman, pts. 1-4, Leiden, Brill, 2000, p. 56.
64 Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle To The Romans, ed. G. D. Fee, NIBCNT, Vol. 6, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans,
1996, p. 105: “Some [commentators] think that Paul is asserting only that people have around them the
evidence of God's existence and basic qualities; whether people actually perceive it or become
personally conscious of it is not clear. But Paul's wording suggests more than this.”
response in faith to that 'special-revelation' which is supplementary to 'general-
revelation'.
It seems clear, then, that Paul would not have followed Josephus or Philo in his
presentation of Abraham to Gentiles. In the same way, it is unlikely that Paul would have
imitated Jubilees. In the first instance, it should be noted that Jubilees was written for a
Jewish audience. Thus, Paul could not have followed Jubilees' example directly in
preaching to Gentiles. Yet, it is not likely that he followed it at all.
9.3.2.2.b A Jewish, Law-Observant Abraham Would Have Ill-Fit Paul's Purpose

Paul's New-Covenant emphasis on justification through faith-like-Abraham's, which he
sees as being freely available to both Jews and Gentiles, stands in sharp contrast to
Jubilees,65 which pictures Abraham as the example par excellence of Torah-observant,
Mosaic Judaism,66 and which emphasizes Jewish national separation from the Gentiles. 67
Abraham, for example, is pictured by Jubilees as having been circumcised; as having
observed festivals such as Shavuot (Jubilees 6:19), and as having separated himself from
even his own family, due to their idolatry (Jubilees 11:17).68 Thus, were Paul to have
used the story of Abraham as it is found in the Jubilees tradition, he would have had to so
65 The Apocalypse of Abraham is similar to this, although with less emphasis placed on the Law and more
on the apocalyptic future of the world/Israel. Thus, while Israel Kamudzandu has suggested that,
“Abraham is presented as a man who knew the law. His knowledge of the law is implied in his vision,
because the vision is established on the precepts of the law. Thus, he becomes the mediator of hidden
things to Israel (Apoc. Ab. 29.21).” Israel Kamudzandu, Abraham As Spiritual Ancestor: A Postcolonial
Zimbabwean Reading of Romans 4, BIS, Vol. 100, Leiden, Brill, 2010, pp. 143-144. It yet remains
unclear whether the Apocalypse of Abraham sought to connect Abraham to observance of the Law. So,
Calvert-Koyzis has said, “While Abraham is not explicitly associated with the Mosaic Law in the
Apocalypse of Abraham, he does receive revelation from God on Mt. Horeb/Mt. Sinai. Whether or not
this is significant is not clear.” Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 83.
66 So, Ernest De Witt Burton, A Critical And Exegetical Commentary On The Epistle To The Galatians,
ICC, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1980, p. 154.
67 In Philo, it is interesting to note that 'Abraham' is never mentioned alongside 'faith', as in Galatians 3:7
and elsewhere – while he is said to have kept the Law (e.g. Migr. 130, quoting Gen. 26:5). Having said
this, the contexts in which Abraham appears in Josephus and the Apocalypse of Abraham are less
clearly oriented towards Torah-observance.
68 Jubilees retrojects observance of the Mosaic Law back as far as the beginning of creation. As
Nickelsburg puts it, “Other passages in Jubilees [i.e. other than the Abraham ones] warn against idolatry
and are part of the author's concern that readers maintain their Jewish religious identity in a gentile
world.” Nickelsburg, 'Abraham The Convert', p. 172. It is no surprise, therefore, to find that Abraham is
also depicted as observing the Law. Indeed, it is almost certainly intimated in Jubilees 12:27 that
Abraham read the Torah in Hebrew from “the books of his fathers”.
alter it, and divorce it from its original narratival context, in order to subvert it into
serving his polemical purpose, as to almost entirely empty it of content. Certainly, he
could have kept the skeletal narrative and core message of conversion from idolatry, and
discarded the pro-legal and anti-Gentile elements, but if that were the case, he could just
as well have proclaimed conversion from idolatry without making reference to this
tradition at all.
Indeed, whilst one can readily understand why “Jewish literature commonly
appealed to Abraham [the patriarch with whom all Jews would have identified] and other
heroes of the faith to inspire the Jews to adhere to tradition and resist [hellenization]...”69
one must remember that Abraham was largely unknown to the Gentiles and, as such,
would have carried less cachet with them as a figure to be revered or emulated. Thus, if
Paul were to have kept only the core of the tradition, then he would have needed also to
explain who Abraham was, so as to give authority to the patriarch's example, yet he could
only have safely done this by recourse to the Old Testament, since the Jubilees material
was so thoroughly 'Mosaic'.
Thus, one must seriously question the utility of Jubilees for Paul, or its
applicability to an audience not already familiar with and favorably disposed towards
Abraham.
On the contrary, due to the Jubilees traditions' being characterised by this 'Mosaic'
quality, we might suggest that, at least in Galatia, these traditions would have better
served the purposes of the Judaizers (or even Jewish missionaries) than they would have
served Paul's purpose. Indeed, as we have seen, Martyn has suggested just that. 70 Thus,
69 As Mathews has said, “Jewish literature commonly appealed to Abraham and other heroes of the faith
to inspire the Jews to adhere to tradition and resist the increasing hellenization of the day.” Kenneth A.
Mathews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, Vol. 1B, NAC, Nashville, B&H, 2005, p. 95.
70 Martyn, Galatians, pp. 303-304. Similar to this is Lührmann, who says: “Israel called itself “Abraham's
children.” But Paul questions the right of this appeal to the father Abraham even more fundamentally
than John the Baptist had done (cf. Luke 3:8/Matt. 3:9) and calls Abraham the father of believers only,
not of those who live by the law. For the Jewish mission to the Gentiles, however, Abraham was the
very model of the one who converted from paganism to the true God and to the law. To this extent
Abraham could have also been an attractive preaching theme for the Galatian opponents, an awe-
we can agree with Francis Watson that it would have been more logical for the Judaizers
to make use of Jubilees than for Paul, because “For the Judaizers, being a son of
Abraham meant submission to the law. [Whereas,] In opposition to this, Paul in Gal. 3 is
concerned to drive a wedge between sonship of Abraham and obedience to the law.”71
Thus we can see that neither the 'Hellenistic' (Philo, Jospehus) nor the 'Mosaic'
(Jubilees) varieties of extra-canonical Abraham traditions would have suited Paul's
missionary purpose very well. It may seem a priori likely that Paul would have made use
of such traditions in his missionary preaching to Gentiles, because “Common elements in
the narrative worlds of these stories would have offered familiar points of contact with
the real world of the Gentiles to whom Paul preached.”72 However, the evidence which
we have does not confirm this idea.
9.3.2.2.c The Evidence of Acts As To Paul's Missionary Preaching To Gentiles

So far, we have been discussing Nickelsburg's suggestion about the content of Paul's
missionary preaching to Gentiles. Interestingly, however, Nickelsburg does not mention
the Book of Acts. Yet, should one choose to accept it, we have in the book of Acts the
only remaining direct examples of Paul's missionary preaching to purely Gentile
audiences.73 We shall now consider the evidence of Acts.
Paul's general custom seems to have been travelling around and preaching in
synagogues,74 to those already familiar with the Old Testament (whether Jews or Gentile
God-fearers) and here he references the patriarch (e.g. Acts 13:26), just as Peter and
Stephen are depicted as doing (Acts 3:12-13, 25-26; 7:2ff.).75 However, Paul does not
inspiring figure from the distance past whom one could read about in the law and whose significance
was that one should hold to his God.” Dieter Lührmann, Galatians, Minneapolis, Fortress, 1992, p. 56.
71 Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism, And The Gentiles: A Sociological Approach, SNTSMS, 56, Cambridge,
CUPress, 1989, p. 70.
73 We should be careful about generalising from the example of Paul's speech to the Areopageous, of
course, since the audience addressed was a very particular one: viz. philosophically inclined and
educated Athenians/Greeks.
74 So, see, for e.g., Acts 14:1: “Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue”.
75 Note the similarity of address by both Peter and Paul. They both begin, “men...” (a[ndreV) and then
mention Abraham to purely Gentile audiences: viz. in Acts 14, when he is mistaken for
Hermes, or Acts 17, when he addresses the Areopagus.
Granted, Acts gives very little evidence as to the content of Paul's evangelism.
And one would not want to argue from silence. However, it is at least interesting to note
that, in the two examples we have there of Paul's preaching to Gentiles, Abraham is not
mentioned.76 This becomes more instructive, when we note that in Acts 14, Paul is in
South Galatia, the very place where Nickelsburg believes the Abraham stories to have
been used by Paul.
The issue at stake here, moreover, is idolatry – the same as that dealt with in
Jubilees. So, what does Paul have to say about it?
The basic outlines of Paul's message against idolatry are presented in Acts 14 and
elaborated in Acts 17.77 Like the Jewish authors here discussed, he announces that idols
are worthless things (mataivwn) which the Gentiles should turn away from (e.g. note the
use of conversion language such as ejpistrevfein at Acts 14:15), because there is only one
God, maker of heaven and earth, who controls the seasons and all things. Unlike them,
however, he does not provide philosophical reasonings for these statements, but merely
declares them (thus, note the use of kataggevllw at Acts 17:23); neither does he mention
Abraham as an example of such conversion. The 'five Abraham texts', on the other hand,
can depict Abraham as someone whose view of God is tied to philosophical processes
(e.g. eijkavzetai [he inferred] at Ant. 1:156; or the way in which Abraham, in the
speak of God first sending the message of salvation to Israel, even though it was Israel who killed
Jesus.
76 Barclay thinks that, in contrast to his synagogue preaching, Paul deliberately refrained from mentioning
the Scriptures or figures from Jewish history in his preaching to purely Gentile audiences, since "He
knew that it would be futile to talk about a history which no one knew and to quote from a book which
no one had read, and the authority of which no one would accept." William Barclay, 'A Comparison of
Paul's Missionary Preaching And Preaching To The Church', in W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin (eds.),
Apostolic History And The Gospel: Biblical And Historical Essays Presented To F. F. Bruce On His
60th Birthday, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1970, p. 166.
77 Cf. the possible echo of Paul's first preaching at Thessalonica in 1 Thess. 1:9-10. The question is, thus,
not whether Paul spoke against idolatry, but whether he used the 'five Abraham texts' to do so. On the
content of Paul's missionary preaching, see also: Graham N. Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth In New
Testament Preaching, ed. M. Black, SNTSMS, Vol. 27, Cambridge, CUPress, 1974, pp. 110-116.
Apocalypse of Abraham 7, infers from the subordinate nature of other things one to
another that there must be something higher than them all).
Now, again, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Yet, in
the evidence we have, Abraham is not mentioned, neither does Paul appeal to Greek
philosophical proofs for monotheism or otherwise parallel the Hellenistic elements in the
later Abraham traditions. So, if Paul did use the Abraham traditions as an example for
Gentile imitation in his preaching, we must look elsewhere for evidence of this.
9.3.2.3 Idolatry And Idol-Spirits: Parallels To Jubilees 11-12 In Gal. 4:8-10

We come, then, to consider Nickelsburg's third line of reasoning: Nickelsburg's third line
of argumentation is to suggest that Galatians 4:8-10 parallels elements which also occur
in Jubilees. This indicates, to him, not only a knowledge of Jubilees on Paul's part, but
also his having applied the account of Abraham found in Jubilees to his Galatian
churches.
Nickelsburg sees Galatians 4:8-10 as summarising the Galatians' spiritual journey.
They once were pagans who worshipped idols. They then turned away from this. Yet,
subsequently, they were enslaved to the spirit beings which 'stand behind' those idols.
From this position of slavery, Paul calls them to be removed. Nickelsburg argues that this
parallels Abraham's experience in Jubilees. Abraham, too, was once a pagan worshipping
idols. Then he turned away from such behaviour. Yet, subsequently, he became enslaved
to spirit beings. From this position of slavery, he prayed to God for release and was saved
a second time (Jub. 12:20). We shall argue now that Nickelsburg is wrong to place these
texts in parallel, since they are not truly similar.
Idolatry was a common-place of the ancient pagan world and, so, was certainly
present also in Galatia.78 Indeed, Paul warns against it (Gal. 5:20 – eijdwlolatriva). And
78 For e.g., there was a “traditional celtic temple to Mên and Cybele from the pre-Roman generation...”
Hardin, Galatians And The Imperial Cult, p. 41.
it is quite possible that this is what Paul was referring to in Gal. 4:8. That both Paul and
Jubilees speak of idolatry, then, seems clear enough. Yet, this is not particularly
remarkable, since idolatry was ubiquitous. Furthermore, unlike the Galatians, we have
already argued that Abraham did not worship idols in Jubilees. So, the shared mention of
idolatry alone would not be basis enough to claim a parallel. As such, Nickelsburg's
argument requires the validity of his second proposed parallel: viz. that both texts speak
of idol-spirits. The validity of this second parallel, however, is dubious, for several
reasons.
9.3.2.3.a Doubtful That Abraham Is Enslaved To Evil Spirits In Jubilees 11-12

Firstly, as we have already attempted to demonstrate, it is doubtful that Abraham in
Jubilees is enslaved to evil spirits. More than this, however, Nickelsburg has not
demonstrated that Abraham's prayer concerns release from spirits which lead people
towards idolatry or from spirits which stand behind idols. Instead, the immediate context
of Abraham's prayer in Jubilees is his attempt to predict the weather for the coming year
from the stars. Thus, it is most likely the practice of meteorology which is being
commented on by the author of Jubilees, and not the concept of idol-spirits; a concept
which does not obviously appear in Jubilees 11-12 (as it does, for e.g., in 1 Cor. 10:20).79
9.3.2.3.b Stoicei:a At Gal. 4:8-10 Not Evidently Idol-Spirits

At Galatians 4:8-10, Paul asserts that the Galatians first turned from idolatry to the
worship of the true God but now are turning back, so as to be enslaved to some things
called stoicei:a. Nickelsburg asserts that, “Paul evidently equates these [stoicheia] with
the spirit beings that stand behind the idols...”80 and further suggests that the stoicei:a are
79 It is interesting that James C. VanderKam, in his commentary on Jubilees, does not mention idolatry in
his commentary on this verse. See: James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, Sheffield, Sheffield
Academic, 2001, p. 47.
80 Nickelsburg, 'Abraham The Convert', p. 169 (emphasis added).
a corollary of the “evil spirits” ( E ) mentioned in Jubilees 12:20.81 Yet,
this is not so evident.
Firstly, it is not clear that 'stoicei:a' should be seen as synonymous with '
E '. Unfortunately, very little of the Greek of Jubilees survives. What little remains
does not allow us to see what Greek term(s) stood behind the Ethiopic at Jubilees 12:20.
However, we may gain an indication that 'stoicei:a' should not be seen as synonymous
with ' E ' from elsewhere. For example, when E occurs in
1 Enoch 99:7 it is not a translation of stoicei:a but pneuvmasin ponhroi:V. Similarly, in 1
Enoch 15:9, we see E (twice) translating pneuvmata ponhra;.82 And,
conversely (though here due to the topic of discussion) when stoicei:a occurs in an
extant Greek fragment of Jubilees 2:8 it is not translated by E .
Additionally, in Greek, pneu:ma ponhrovV and daimovnion can be used as synonyms.83
Likewise, አጋንንት and E are used as synonyms in Enoch and Jubilees.84
Furthermore, these usages correspond in translation. Thus, in Enoch, daimovnia is
translated with አጋንንት, and pneuvmata ponhra is translated with E . As
such, if we were to attempt to retrovert the Greek text of Jubilees 12:20, it would seem
likely that pneuvmata ponhra, or possibly daimovnia, stood behind E , but
it is unlikely that stoicei:a did.85
In Jubilees, the demons/evil spirits are responsible for all kinds of evil. One area
81 Pamela Eisenbaum echoes this point, saying, "...in Galatians 4:3, 9, Paul's mention of the "elemental
spirits" to which Gentiles were formerly enslaved functions... as an allusion to Abraham's life before his
conversion to monotheism, when he was merely a Chaldean stargazer who looked to the movements of
celestial bodies to find divine guidance." Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not A Christian: The Original
Message of A Misunderstood Apostle, New York, Harper Collins, 2009, p. 204. Eisenbaum also makes
these citations in her endnote: “Martyn, Galatians, 399-400 [op. cit.]; Yoshiko Reed, “Abraham as
Chaldean Scientist” [op. cit.]”.
82 Ephraim Isaac, 'New Light Upon The Book of Enoch From Newly-Found Ethiopic Mss', JAOS, Vol.
103, No. 2, (1983), p. 409.
83 E.g. Tob. 6:8; 1 En. 99:7; Ant. 6:166, 214 compared with LXX 1 Sam. 16:14-23; Lk. 4:33; 8:2, cf. Lk.
8:29; 9:42; Rev. 16:14; 18:2.
84 E.g. 1 En. 99:7, cf. 69:12; Jub. 10:1-5, 13, cf. 12:20; 22:17, cf. 1:11.
85 Cf. the discussion of retroverting Jubilees into Greek and Hebrew in: Michael A. Knibb, Translating
The Bible: The Ethiopic Version of The Old Testament, Oxford, OUPress, 1999, pp. 85-86.
in which they are involved is in leading men towards idolatry (Jub. 11:4-5; 12:20; 22:17,
cf. 1:10-11). In a similar way, Paul also believes that demons are involved in the practice
of idolatry (e.g. 1 Cor. 10:19-21; ei[dwlon).86 Unsurprisingly, Paul uses the term
daimovnion to refer to such demons (e.g. 1 Cor. 10:19-21; cf. 1 Tim. 4:1). Hence, both the
concept of demons being involved in idolatry, and the vocabulary to refer to such demons
appear to be common to Paul and Jubilees, so far as we know or can retrovert the Greek
terminology of Jubilees.87
Thus, if Paul, at Galatians 4, had been speaking of demons involved in the
practice of idolatry, it would seem unusual that he should not employ the standard
terminology for this but, instead, have used 'stoicei:a'.88 If Paul had conveyed the story of
Abraham found in Jubilees 11-12 to the Galatian Gentiles during his missionary
preaching, he would most likely, at that time, have used the Greek words ei[dwlon and
daimovnion. Why would he now change his vocabulary, in writing to them? Thus, while
Nickelsburg wishes to see Paul's stoicei:a as a corollary of the E
mentioned in Jubilees 12:20, he has not demonstrated that 'stoicei:a' is synonymous with
'daimovnia', which latter term would be the more natural rendering. It would seem natural
that, should Paul have desired to speak of idol or other malignant spirits, he would have
used the kind of common Greek vocabulary used elsewhere to describe such beings just
as Enoch does (e.g. Judg. 9:23; 1 Sam. 16:14-23; 19:9; Tob. 6:8; Hos. 12:2; Matt. 12:45;
Luke 7:21; 8:2; 11:26; Acts 19:12-16).
86 For ei[dwlon in Jubilees, cf. Jub. 12:12. This translates O, which is also found at, for e.g., 11:7, 16;
12:2. is closely synonymous with O (e.g., Jub. 1:11). See: August Dillmann, Lexicon Linguae
Aethiopicae Cum Indice Latino, Leipzig, 1865, p. 1442.
87 The association of demons with idolatry was not new. It is found in the Old Testament and maintained
thereafter. The demons associated with idolatry are referred to as daimovnia or ‫שׁד‬. ֵ Stückenbruck cites:
Deut. 32:16-17; Pss. 96[95]:5a; 106[105]:37, Isa. 65:11, Jub. 1:11; 22:17-18; 4Q243 13.2 par. 4Q244
12.2; T. Jud. 23:1; T. Job. 3:6; Sib. Or. 8.47, 381-394 and Frg. 1.20-22; 1 Bar. 4:7; 1 Cor. 10:20; Rev.
9:20. Loren T. Stückenbruck, 1 Enoch 91-108, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2007, p. 401.
88 Incidentally, the Ethiopic translation of Galatians 4 is interpretative. It does not interpret the stoicei:a as
'evil spirits', however. The stoicei:a, at least according to the manuscript evidence available to Platt, are
associated with theological error and with idols. Thomas Pell Platt, Novum Testamentum Domini Nostri
Et Salvatoris Jesu Christi Aethiopice, London, Richard Watts, 1830.
Again, Nickelsburg claims that “Paul evidently equates these [stoicheia] with the
spirit beings that stand behind the idols...”89 His interpretation here seems to assume that
Paul's use of the term stoicei:a is undisputed. Yet, exactly the opposite is true. It should
be noted, that is to say, that the term stoicei:a is one of the most hotly debated words in
the New Testament. In addition to the debates between commentary writers, a significant
number of articles, monographs, and unpublished dissertations have been written which
give special attention to the New Testament usage of this term and its intended meanings
in Galatians and Colossians.90 Yet, no consensus has been reached. Thus, what Paul refers
90 Tim Hegedus, in his study Early Christianity And Ancient Astrology adopts the argument that 'stoicheia'
refers to astral spirits. Interestingly, however, he does not present any new argumentation towards the
validity of this position. Having studied ancient astrology/astronomy in Judaism and early Christianity,
one would hope that he might have some special insight to share, or new evidence to present. However,
Hegedus' view is, instead, disappointingly derivative, relying on Betz and Martyn. See: Tim Hegedus,
Early Christianity And Ancient Astrology, ed. G. L. Bray, Patristic Studies, Vol. 6, New York, Peter
Lang, 2007, pp. 223-229. Aside from the commentaries, a small sampling of other works addressing the
question of the meaning of the term are: Andrew John Bandstra, The Law And The Elements of The
World, Kampen, J. H. Kok, 1964; J. Louis Martyn, 'Christ And The Elements of The Cosmos',
Theological Issues In The Letters of Paul, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1997, pp. 125-140; Clinton E.
Arnold, 'Returning To The Domain of The Powers: "Stoicheia" As Evil Spirits In Galatians 4:3, 9',
NovT, Vol. 38, No. 1, (1996), pp. 55-76; David R. Bundrick, 'Ta Stoicheia Tou Kosmou (Gal 4:3)',
JETS, Vol. 34, No. 3, (1991), pp. 353-364; Martinus C. De Boer, 'The Meaning of The Phrase τὰ
στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσµου in Galatians', NTS, Vol. 53, (2007), pp. 204-224; Eduard Schweizer, ''Die
Elemente der Welt' Gal. 4:3-8; Kol. 2:8-20', in O. Böcher and K. Haacker (eds.), Verborum Veritas:
Festschrift für Gustav Stählin zum 70. Geburtstag, Wuppertal, Theologischer Verlag Brockhaus, 1970,
pp. 245-259; Eduard Schweizer, 'Slaves of The Elements And Worshippers of Angels: Gal 4.3,9 and Col
2.8, 18, 20', JBL, Vol. 107, No. 3, (1988), pp. 445-468; Derek R. Moore-Crispin, 'Galatians 4:1-9: The
Use And Abuse of Parallels', EvQ, Vol. 60, No. 3, (1989), pp. 203-223; Philipp Vielhauer,
'Gesetzesdienst und Stoicheiadienst im Galaterbrief', in J. Friedrich, W. Pöhlmann, and P. Stuhlmacher
(eds.), Rechtfertigung. Festscrift für Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck,
1976, pp. 543-555; Josef Blinzler, ''Lexicalisches zu dem Terminus stoicheia tou kosmou bei Paulus',
Studiorum Paulinorum Congressus Biblicus Catholicus 1961, AnBib, 2, Rome, Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1963, pp. 429-443; Gerhard Delling, 'stoicheion', in G. Kittel (ed.), Theologisches Wörterbuch
zum Neuen Testament, 7, Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer, 1971, pp. 666-687; Walter Wink, 'The Elements of
The Universe In Biblical And Scientific Perspective', Zyg, Vol. 13, No. 2, (1978), pp. 225-248; Walter
Wink, Naming The Powers, Philadelphia, Fortress, 1984, pp. 67-77; Lawrence Edward Scheu, Die
Weltelemente beim Apostel Paulus: Gal. 4,3.9 und Kol. 2,8.20, Washington, Catholic University of
America, 1933, pp. 102-121; Albert Willem Cramer, Stoicheia Tou Kosmou: Interpretatie van een
nieuwtestamentische term, Nieuwkoop, B. de Graaf, 1961; Dietrich Rusam, 'Neue Belege zu den
στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσµου (Gal 4,3.9; Kol 2,8.20)', ZNW, Vol. 83, (1992), pp. 119-125; Richard E. DeMaris,
'Element, Elemental Spirit', in D. N. Freedman (ed.), ABD, 2, New York, Doubleday, 1992, p. 445;
Linda L. Belleville, ''Under Law': Structural Analysis And The Pauline Concept of Law In Galatians
3.21-4.11', JSJ, Vol. 26, (1986), pp. 53-87; Joe B. McMinn, An Historical Treatment of The Greek
Phrase 'Ta Stoicheia Tou Kosmou', Ph. D dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,
Kentucky, 1951; Jeffrey G. Hayes, Solving Stoicheia: Elements of Paul's Argument In Galatians 4:1-11
And Their Relation To Euhemerism In Hellenistic Jewish Traditions, M.T.S., Emory University, Atlanta,
1995; Robinson Radjagukguk, τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσµου And Life With Christ: An Exegetical Study of Col
2:6-3:4, Th.D dissertation, Lutheran School of Theology, Chicago, 1991. Readers may now consult
Moo's interpretation of the phrase in his recent commentary on Galatians. See: Moo, Galatians, pp.
260ff. Moo takes the phrase as referring to “the basic material building blocks of the universe” (p. 277).
to, by his use of stoicei:a is anything but "evident".
We have not the space here to canvas the debate, except in the broadest terms. In
this connection, it should be noted that there are three prevalent understandings of the
term which have been suggested: (a) In the first instance, it is taken to refer to basic
principles or teachings (as, for e.g., in Heb. 5:12). (b) Secondly, it can be taken to refer to
the physical elements of the world, or atmosphere (e.g. earth, water, fire, wind, stars, as,
for e.g., in 2 Pet. 3:10-12; Wis. 7:17). This is how Philo often uses the phrase stoicei:a
tou: kovsmou (e.g. Aet. 1:109; cf. Opif. 52; Her. 134, 140, 226; Virt. 73). (c) Thirdly, it is
possible that it could carry a 'personal cosmological' sense, as, for example, if one were
to consider the stars to be gods. Such astral worship is not infrequently suggested to have
been involved in the divination of the four physical elements.91
This last 'personal comological' interpretation has gained enough favour in
modern debate to lead J. D. G. Dunn to assert that,
The long debate about the reference of stoicheia should almost certainly be regarded as
settled in favour of the elemental substances of which the cosmos was usually thought to be
composed (earth, water, air, and fire). The point here is that these substances were also
commonly divinized (mythologized or personified) as divine spirits or deities.92
In like manner, Schmithals earlier asserted that, "Nowadays it may be acknowledged as
proved that in ta; stoicei:a tou: kovsmou we have to do with personal angelic powers."93
It seems that Nickelsburg is in good company, then, when he takes the third ('personal
Before Christ, the Jews were under these 'blocks' in the form of the requirement laid upon them to
observe the physical elements for calendrical purposes. Before Christ, the gentiles were under these
'blocks' in the form of “the religions the Galatians practiced in their pre-Christian past” which were
associated with them (p. 277). Moo does not clearly state, however, what kind of religions the Galatians
emerged from or how those religions were associated with the “material building blocks of the
universe” (but cf. p. 22, n. 28).
91 De Boer, for example, writes that, “while the stoicheia tou kosmou are not the stars as such, Paul's
reference to them in v. 3 does imply the worship of stars (or other heavenly bodies) as gods.” De Boer,
Galatians, p. 256, n. 381. Similarly, Betz writes, “The Greco-Roman (and Jewish) syncretism of the
time of Paul is characterized by a very negative view of the world; the kovsmoV (“world”) was thought to
be composed of four or five “elements,” which are not simply material substances, but demonic entities
of cosmic proportions and astral powers which were hostile towards man.” Betz, Galatians, pp. 204-
205.
92 James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul The Apostle, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1998, p. 108.
93 Walter Schmithals, Paul And The Gnostics, trans. J. E. Steely, Nashville, Abingdon, 1972, p. 45, n. 91.
cosmological') view and suggests that the referent of stoicheia in Galatians 4:9 is “the
spirit beings that stand behind the [Galatians'] idols”.94 Yet, one feels that Schmithals and
Dunn protest too much. It may be true that Dunn represents the majority opinion of
current scholarship on the issue.95 Yet, even such a majority as this view may be said to
enjoy is not an overwhelming majority, let alone a consensus. The view does not enjoy
universal support amongst leading commentators, nor is it obviously preferable to the
view which it has supplanted: viz. that held widely from the time of the Reformation
through to the twentieth century, that the term stoicei:a should be seen as referring to
“basic teachings” of some kind, or the fundaments of a Weltanschauung in tension with
Christ.96 Indeed, as Douglas Moo states, “the meaning of the phrase Paul uses [in
Colossians and Galatians], ta stoicheia tou kosmou (the elements of the world), is one of
the most intractable problems in the New Testament”.97
This lack of consensus in the modern scholarship, and in the translations, is
matched by the lack of consensus evident in the writings of the Church Fathers. 98 Thus,
Jerome writes (about Gal. 4:3) that Paul,99
...has used the name elements of the world for those whom he called tutors and overseers
above. … Some hold that these are angels that preside over the four elements. … Many think
that it is the heaven and earth with their inhabitants that are called the elements of the world,
because the wise Greeks, the barbarians and the Romans, the dregs of all superstition,
95 Cf. Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle To The Galatians, ed. F. F. Bruce, NIBCNT, Grand Rapids,
Eerdmans, 1988, p. 189, n. 109, who provides a representative sample.
96 See: Radjagukguk, Exegetical Study, p. 6. In support of the 'basic principles' view is Lagrange, who
writes: “les éléments du monde sont des principes de conduite naturels, fort inférieurs à la vie dans le
Christ”. In witness to the consensus of his time, he then adds that “Cette solution qui est celle de
Jérôme, Gennadius, pseudo-Primasius, Lightfoot, Sieffert, Schaefer, paraît certaine.” Marie-Joseph
Lagrange, Saint Paul Épitre Aux Galates, 3rd. Edn., Paris, Gabalda, 1926, p. 99.
97 Douglas J. Moo, The Letters To The Colossians And To Philemon, ed. D. A. Carson, PNTCS, Grand
Rapids, Eerdmans, 2008, p. 187. Earlier is Ellicott: “It is very difficult to decide on the exact meaning
of these words. … From the combination of both words a great variety of interpretations have arisen...”
Charles John Ellicott, St. Paul's Epistle To The Galatians, 4th Edn., London, Longmans, 1867, p. 75.
98 A small sampling of translations suggests that translators are divided between three main options: viz. 1,
the “basic teachings” option (Eng.: NIV; ESV; NJB; Fr.: Louis-Segond; Ger.: Schlachter; Luther); 2.
the “spiritual forces” option (TNIV; RSV; NAB; Fr.: BFC); 3. the “elements” option (KJV; NKJV;
CSB; NAU; NET; YLT; Sp.: CAB; LBA). The first two of these are decisively interpretive, the third is
vague and latinate, echoing the Vulgate's “sub elementis mundi”.
99 E. Y. Hincks' early article catalogues further interpretations throughout history. See: E. Y. Hincks, 'The
Meaning of The Phrase τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσµου In Gal. 4. 3 And Col. 2. 8', JBL, Vol. 15, No. 1/2,
(1896), pp. 183-192.
venerate the sun, the moon, … from which we are liberated by Christ's coming, knowing
them to be creatures and not divinities. Others interpret the elements of the world as the law
of Moses and the utterances of the prophets, because, commencing and setting out with these
letters, we imbibe the fear of God, which is the beginning of wisdom. … The Mosaic law and
the prophets can be taken as the elements of writing, because through them syllables and
names are put together, and they are learned not so much for their own sake as for their
usefulness to others. … Regarding our interpretation of the law and the prophets as the
elements of the world, “world” is customarily taken to signify those who are in the world.100
At least as early as the fourth century, then, we can see a lack of consensus among the
ancient writers.101 Analysis of various individual writings from the fourth-century Fathers
brings this out more clearly, but we have seen enough already to establish the point. 102
Indeed, even as early as the third century, Tertullian seems to have found it necessary to
specify that Paul, in Galatians, was not referring to astral idolatry by his use of
“stoicheia/elementa” but rather was speaking of the Law (Marc. 5:4).103 This may suggest
that, even as early as the first decade of the third century, Paul's intended purpose for the
term stoicei:a was debated.104
100 Mark J. Edwards, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, ed. T. C. Oden, ACCS, Vol. 8, Downers Grove,
InterVarsity, 1999, p. 54.
101 One may object at this point that recourse to the Latin-speaking Church Fathers helps us little to
understand the intended meaning of Paul's Greek term. That is true, to a certain extent. Nevertheless,
our intention is simply to show how ancient and wide-spread is the controversy over Paul's intended
meaning at Gal. 4:3, and 4:9. Interestingly, Jaroslav Pelikan states that the Cappadocian Fathers used
the term in classical fashion to refer to the four physical elements. As such, they would have been likely
to adopt such a reading for Paul. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Christianity And Classical Culture: The
Metamorphosis of Natural Theology In The Christian Encounter With Hellenism, New Haven, Yale
University Press, 1993, pp. 104-105.
102 For further writings from the fourth-century Fathers on Paul's use of stoicheia in Gal. 4:3 and 4:9, see:
Edwards, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, pp. 53-54; 59-60. Lightfoot also discusses patristic views,
listing the various interpretations adopted by the fathers. Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 167.
103 A little later (at Marc. 5:19) He also alludes to Paul's use of 'stoicheia' in Colossians, and suggests that
Paul is referring to the traditions and teachings of men: “Now when he warns them to be on guard
against subtle speech and philosophy, as a vain deceit which is in accordance with the elements of the
world—not speaking in terms of heaven and earth but of secular literature—and in accordance with the
tradition—he means of men of subtle speech, and philosophers—it would be tiresome indeed, and it
belongs to a different treatise, to show how by this statement all heresies are under condemnation,
because all of them take their stand upon the resources of subtle speech and the principles of
philosophy. ”
104 Whether or not either Marcion or Tertullian were speaking from a Greek text at this point is unclear.
The principle text for either, or both, of them in this controversy may have been a Latin one. See, for
e.g.: Geoffrey D. Dunn, Tertullian, The Early Church Fathers, New York, Routledge, 2004, pp. 20-21.
Nevertheless, it is clear that Tertullian was familiar with both languages. Moreover, classical
dictionaries of both Greek and Latin provide very similar glosses for the terms 'stoicheia/elementa'.
Compare, for example, Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary: Founded On
Andrews' Edition of Freund's Latin Dictionary, Oxford, OUPress, 1879, p. 637 and Langenscheidt's
Latin-English Dictionary, Berlin-Schöneberg, Druckhaus Langenscheidt, 1955, p. 120, with Henry
George Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon: With A Revised
Supplement, 9th. Edn., Oxford, OUPress, 1996, p. 1647.
Though relying predominantly on the Latin, it is also of some value to note that
the medieval commentators also reflect differing suggestions on how one might interpret
Paul’s use of stoicei:a at Galatians 4:3 and 4:9.105 Thus, Erasmus aptly states, in giving
consideration to the word in Greek and Latin and to certain views of the early church
fathers, “Latina vox elementi anceps est, quemadmodum & stoicei:a apud Græcos...”106
It is disputable, then, whether stoicei:a refers to spiritual beings/forces. Even if it
is to be taken in such a way, it is still not clear that these spiritual beings/forces are
specifically 'idol-spirits'. Any enterprise, therefore, which seeks to build a theory of the
content of Paul's missionary preaching and his use of extra-biblical Abraham traditions
must be considered of dubious value, if it rests on the uncertain assumption that when
Paul uses the term stoicei:a the term is intended to refer to 'idol-spirits'; to do such is to
build hypothesis upon hypothesis. Rather, precisely because of its uncertain referent,
“...we should be wary of reading too much into the phrase [stoicheia tou kosmou].”107
As we have shown, the intended meaning of stoicei:a is highly contested. As
such, no interpretation of Paul's use of the term is evident. Nevertheless, the ground upon
105 Thus, see the views of Haimo of Auxerre, Bruno the Carthusian, and Nicholas of Lyra, in: Ian
Christopher Levy, (trans. & ed.), The Letter To The Galatians, The Bible In Medieval Tradition, Vol. 1,
Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2011, pp. 77, 107, 161, 163-164, 246-249. F. J. Barnett also notes, in his
study of the possible meaning of 'element' in an Old French poem in light of its Latin usage and the
usage of stoicheion in Greek, that the poem's author, “could not have failed to know it from Gal. iv. 3
and 9, controversial passages which were much discussed by the commentators.” In this connection, he
cites Tertullian, Marius Victorinus, Jerome, Augustine, Sedulus Scotus, Claudius Taurinensis, Florus
Lugdunensis, Rabanus Maurus, and Walafridus Strabo. F. J. Barnett, 'Some Notes To The Sequence of
Saint Eulalia', in E. A. Francis (ed.), Studies In Medieval French: Presented To Alfred Ewert In Honour
of His Seventieth Birthday, Oxford, OUPress, 1961, pp. 15-16. The controversy was continued a little
later by Luther (Martin Luther, Commentary on The Epistle To The Galatians, trans. T. Graebner, Grand
Rapids, Zondervan, 1949, pp. 147ff.) and Calvin (John Calvin, Commentaries On The Epistles of Paul
To The Galatians And Ephesians, trans. W. Pringle, Edinburgh, The Calvin Translation Society, 1854,
pp. 117ff.). Erasmus' view was that stoicheia referred to 'rudimentary forms of religion'. He derives this
from Ambrosiaster and Jerome. So, see: Desiderius Erasmus, Paraphrases On Romans And Galatians,
ed. R. D. Sider, trans. J. B. Payne, A. Rabil, and W. S. Smith, Collected Works of Erasmus, Vol. 42,
Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1984, p. 165. Charles J. Ellicott, in his nineteenth century
commentary also notes the difficulty and the possibility of multiple interpretations: Ellicott, Galatians,
p. 75.
106 Anne Reeve and Michael Andrew Screech (eds.), Erasmus' Annotations On The New Testament:
Galatians To The Apocalypse: Facsimilie of The Final Latin Text With All Earlier Variants, Studies In
The History of Christian Thought, Leiden, Brill, 1993, p. 581.
107 Frank Thielman, From Plight To Solution: A Jewish Framework For Understanding Paul's View of The
Law In Galatians And Romans, NovTSup, 61, Leiden, Brill, 1989, p. 83.
which the 'personal cosmological' argument stands is more precarious than most.
The most significant problem with suggesting that stoicei:a, in Galatians, refers
to astral bodies which were worshipped as gods is a lexical one. There is, that is to say,
no clear evidence for stoicheia meaning "elementary spirits" until about the third or
fourth century.108 Moo makes a similar comment: “The main problem with this [the
personal cosmological] view is lexical: as we noted above, there is no evidence that the
word stoicheia was used to refer to spiritual beings until the third century A.D."109 Yet, he
adds that, "Advocates of this view... rightly note that the move from stoicheia as a
reference to physical elements to stoicheia as a reference to spiritual beings would have
been an easy one in the context of the ancient worldview.”110 On the other hand, we are
not so much interested in what would have been easy for Paul to do as in what Paul did,
and “Paul himself nowhere numbers the stoicheia with the principalities and powers.”111
Arnold responds by arguing that the later texts preserve earlier traditions.112
However, even if the later texts preserve earlier ideas (or whole traditions), it does not
necessarily follow that a later text has preserved that older idea (or tradition) in the exact
108 Bundrick states: “The Testament of Solomon contains the first explicit identification of stoicheia with
demonic spirits. … [And yet, against Conybeare's dating it] as early as A.D. 100, most scholars reject
this early dating. McCown argues for an early third-century date for the original compilation.”
Bundrick, 'Ta Stoicheia Tou Kosmou (Gal 4:3)', p. 359. Some evidence has been suggested from Paul's
time (or before), such as Wisdom of Solomon 7:17-19, of which Calvert-Koyzis says, "stoicheia is used
in connection with both the traditional elements like fire and water, but also with the heavenly bodies."
Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 108. Yet, "connection" is a misleading
term; "proximity" might be better. The author of Wisdom is not referring to the stars with the term
stoicei:a but to the four constituent elements of which the world is composed. He does subsequently
mention the stars, but separately, as another item in his list of things about which God has given him
knowlege. Thus, the stars far from being equated with the stoicei:a are clearly distinct from them in
this text. On the next page, Calvert-Koyzis writes, "The only place in Jewish literature before the time
of Paul where we find the words stoicei:a and its modifying genitive kovsmou alluding to the heavenly
bodies is in the Sybilline Oracles 3.80". However, a similar situation pertains here. The term 'elements'
refers to the four elements (here named as air, earth, sea, and fire), and the sky is only mentioned in the
following sentence.
109 Moo, The Letters To The Colossians And To Philemon, p. 189. Belleville writes, “The use... of ta;
stoicei:a for the planetary bodies appears to be a second-century development (e.g. ta; oujravnia
stoicei:a, Justin, Apol. II, 5.2; cf. Dial. 23.3; Theophilus, Ad Autol. 2.35). Nor is there in the Pauline or
pre-Pauline period an equation of astral bodies with demonic forces.” Belleville, 'Structural Analysis', p.
65.
110 Moo, The Letters To The Colossians And To Philemon, p. 189.
111 G. R. Beasley-Murray, 'The Second Chapter of Colossians', RevExp, Vol. 70, No. 4, (1973), p. 472.
112 Arnold, 'The Domain of The Powers', pp. 57-59.
idiom in which it had been originally expressed. We should not be surprised if certain
particular descriptive terms had been added or altered over the course of a few hundred
years of transmission. Arnold also contends that,
In Gal. 4:8, Paul compares the stoicheia with beings that the pagans regard as gods. [As such,
in light of 1 Cor. 8:5, 10:19-20...] We may therefore suggest the following equation that
seems to reflect Paul's thinking on this matter: the stoicei:a = "those called gods"/"those who
by nature are not gods" = daimovnia.113
Yet, if the stoicei:a, to which the Galatians are now turning, are identical with the
daimovnia which they formerly worshipped, then Paul is here presenting them as
returning to paganism. However, such does not seem likely, given that they elsewhere
appear to be turning to circumcision and the Law.
A second problem with (at least one form of) the 'personal cosmological'
argument is that there is no unambiguous evidence that the recipients of Paul's letter had
been formerly involved in astral worship or even astrology.114 This is partly due to our
ignorance of which of the various cults present in the region the Galatians had formerly
given their religious allegiances to; a situation compounded by the fact that we are not
sure from which towns in the province Paul's converts predominantly came.
An investigation of the region's religious milieu reveals that many gods were
worshipped there. As Arnold points out, "Zeus, Mēn (Meis), Magna Mater, Apollo,
Artemis, and Anaitas are all attested in Galatia."115 While Apollo could be associated
(amongst other things) with the Sun, most interesting for the present discussion is the
presence in this list of Mên, a god associated with the moon.116 It is possible that Mên's
113 Arnold, 'The Domain of The Powers', p. 60.

114 Brendan Byrne writes, "The Galatians' pagan past may well have involved worship of astral deities
(sun, moon, stars) believed to regulate times and seasons." Brendan J. Byrne, Galatians And Romans,
Collegeville, Liturgical Press, 2010, p. 33. Martyn writes, “This text [Wis. 13:1-5] forms a helpful
background for Paul's charge that in their native religious life the Galatians worshipped the elements as
Gods (Gal 4:8).” Martyn, Galatians, p. 398.
115 Clinton E. Arnold, ''I Am Astonished That You Are So Quickly Turning Away!' (Gal 1.6): Paul And
Anatolian Folk Belief', NTS, Vol. 51, (2005), p. 436.
116 See: Eugene N. Lane, 'Men: A Neglected Cult of Roman Asia Minor', in W. Haase (ed.), ANRW II.18.3,
Berlin, de Gruyter, 1990, pp. 2161-2174.
cult involved astronomical or calendrical observations, although we are unaware of
evidence for this. It is further possible that some of Paul's converts were formerly
adherents of this cult. However, Lane suggests that Mên's was an upper-class cult, and
not one "of an excessively 'popular' nature."117 Lane also provides numismatic evidence
which could be interpreted as indicating that such worship was most prevalent in areas of
Asia Minor to the West of 'South Galatia'. Additionally, Hardin has argued that this cult
was progressively replaced in importance by the imperial cult, noting that "the imperial
temples in Ancyra, Pessinus, and Pisidian Antioch all took pride of place over the
traditional cultic temples of Mên and Cybele from pre-Roman generations".118
We might also consider the Magna Mater (or 'Mother of the gods') cult.119 It has
been suggested by Martyn (and following him De Boer) that this cult involved the
worship of the elements.120 Yet, the evidence is not strong here. Martyn's principal piece
of evidence is a second century text that describes the Mother as ruling over the
elements. As he observes, in the fictional comic tale Metamorphoses, the second century
writer Apuleius, “identifies Isis [associated with the Mother] as elementorum omnium
domina... (Metam. 11.5; cf. 11.25)”.121 Transparently, such a description neither equates
the god with the elements nor implies Galatian worship of the elements. Moreover, it
must again be observed that it is hard to know whether Paul's converts were formerly
involved in this cult. They could have been involved more with, for example, the cult of
Zeus (cf. Acts 14:12-13), or the Emperor cult, which was the most socially and
geographically unified.122 As such, while it is possible that some of Paul's converts had
117 Lane, 'Men: A Neglected Cult of Roman Asia Minor', p. 2163.
118 Hardin, Galatians And The Imperial Cult, p. 41.
119 Susan Elliott has suggested this worship of the Mother of the gods as important background for
Galatians. Susan Margaret Elliott, 'Choose Your Mother, Choose Your Master: Galatians 4:21-5:21 In
The Shadow of The Anatolian Mother of The Gods', JBL, Vol. 118, (1999), pp. 661-683.
120 Martyn, Galatians, p. 396; De Boer, Galatians, pp. 255-256.
121 Martyn, Galatians, p. 396. While it has proven quite hard "to pin a date on the donkey", it is likely that
the Metamorphoses was written in the latter half of the second century. On this, see: Richard G.
Summers, 'A Note On The Date of The Golden Ass', AJP, Vol. 94, (1973), pp. 375-383.
122 Hardin has suggested that the Emperor Cult is a more important piece of background than that of the
'Mother'. He writes: “Although the worship of the emperor was often closely connected with the
formerly worshipped celestial bodies, it is not clear that this was a practice ubiquitous
amongst Paul's diverse Galatian churches, or that it was combined with calendrical or
astronomical observances.
More fundamental than these considerations of the socio-religious background,
however, is the lack of obvious evidence within the letter itself to support such a reading.
It can be noted, for instance, that Paul does not include astrology amongst his list of
works of the flesh in Gal. 5:20, although he does include 'magic/alchemy'. Moreover,
aside from the contested opening verses of the fourth chapter, it is hard to see where
astrology is a flash-point in Galatians (or in the corpus Paulinum more broadly).123
Calendrical observances are mentioned, but this does not automatically equate to
reference to astrology or astral worship. Witherington draws this point out:
It must be pointed out that astronomy and astrology were not necessarily one and the same in
antiquity. Astrology certainly involved astronomical observances and calculations, but not all
astronomical observances led to or entailed the worship of star gods, or the heavenly host and
the like. This point has recently been forcefully made... by the classics scholar K. M. Irwin...
[Hence,] it cannot simply be assumed that because Paul mentions calendrical observances in
vs. 10 that he had in mind cosmic spirits or star gods... when he refers to the stoicei:a...124
A third reason to doubt Nickelsburg's interpretation that Paul evidently equates
the stoicei:a with the spirit-beings that stand behind the idols arises out of the close
association between Galatians 4:9 and 4:3. Paul's use of stoicei:a in Galatians 4:9,
corresponds to his use of the same term in Galatians 4:3. Thus, however one understands
the term at 4:9 must be compatible with one's understanding of the term at 4:3. The
earlier usage refers to the situation of the Jews before the coming of Christ. Paul suggests
worship of the Greek and Roman gods, many of the traditional cults were superseded in priority and in
magnificence, as we found with the cult to the Mother goddess in Pessinus. The dominating presence of
the worship of the emperor, with its games, festivals, and processions, was felt throughout the civic
environment.” Hardin, Galatians And The Imperial Cult, p. 149.
123 As a consequenc, the rule of maximal redundancy is likely applicable here. Moisés Silva deals with this
principle in: Moisés Silva, Biblical Words And Their Meaning: An Introduction To Lexical Semantics, 2
Edn., Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1994, pp. 153ff. The point, in the present instance, is that interpreting
stoicei:a to mean something like 'elements of religion' tends to disturb the context less than suggesting
that the term refers to astral worship or the like. Indeed, the latter type of proposal often requires
elaborate explanation – in this case, of how extra-biblical traditions of Abraham are hidden underneath
a passage which makes no explicit mention of Abraham.
124 Witherington III, Grace In Galatia, p. 297, n. 4.
that, before that time, they were enslaved to the stoicei:a, and "in the immediate context
existence uJpo; ta; stoixei:a tou: kovsmou is equated with existence uJpo; novmon (vv.
4f.)."125 If the term in 4:9 evidently refers to idol-spirits, then, to what does it refer in 4:3?
Nickelsburg suggests that it there refers to the angels who mediated the Law at
Sinai.126 On this interpretation, angels ruled over the Jews through the Law (4:3), and
demons ruled over the Galatians through idolatry (4:9). And both may be given the same
designation: viz. stoicei:a. Yet, it seems prima facie highly unlikely that Paul would
have, in Nickelsburg's words, “equated, if not identified,” the angels of God with idol-
spirits, even rhetorically.127 Likewise, since it is clear that the Galatians are adopting the
Law, for Paul to claim that they were "returning again to the domain of the powers
[namely, evil spirits]" would be to equate the Law with such evil spirits.128 Thus, as Lyu
writes:
Auch wenn wir die These von Arnold akzeptieren, dass die Stoicheia am besten als »evil
spirits« zu verstehen sind, haben wir uns noch zu fragen, wie die Judaisierung mit »return to
the domain of the powers« verknüpft werden könnte. Wie kann das von Gott verliehene
Gesetz mit dämonischen Geistern identifiziert werden?129
Of course, we cannot here definitively reject this possibility, but the point is that such an
interpretation of this most enigmatic passage from Galatians is far less than evident. As
such, this passage cannot be convincingly proposed as a parallel or “allusion to
Abrahamic traditions”.130
Although, it is unwise to be dogmatic, at this point, we would favour the "basic

125 Bruce, Galatians, p. 194.
126 Belleville notes that while such recourse to angels is common, it is also problematic. “The association
of angels with astral bodies is a development subsequent to Paul's day. Also, association and
identification are not the same thing. Moreover, it is difficult to understand in what way being 'under
law' (an impersonal concept) can be equal to being 'under angels' (a personal concept). … Moreover,
since Paul does not elsewhere speak explicitly of being in bondage or subjection to angels it seems
unlikely that this would be his meaning in either Gal. 3.19 or 4.3.” Belleville, 'Structural Analysis', pp.
66-67.
128 The title of Clinton E. Arnold's article on the subject. See: Arnold, 'The Domain of The Powers', pp. 55-
76.
129 Eun-Geol Lyu, Sünde und Rechtfertigung bei Paulus, WUNT 2. Reihe, 318, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck,
2011, pp. 225-226.
principles" interpretation over the "personal cosmological". Longenecker, for instance,
explains how,
The object of the Galatians' attention had become Torah observance, which Paul here calls
“the weak and miserable basic principles” –– carrying on the epithet ta stoicheia (“basic
principles”) used for the Mosaic law in v. 3 and adding highly uncomplimentary adjectives
asthene (“weak,” “powerless,” “feeble,”) and ptocha (“poor,” “beggarly,” “miserable”
“impotent.”) The use of palin (“again,” “once more”) that appears here and in the appended
relative clause points up the fact that Paul lumped the pre-Christian religious experiences of
both Jews and Gentiles under the same epithet, that of being ta stoicheia or “basic
principles.” For though qualitatively quite different, both have been superseded by the
relationship of being “in Christ.131
Similarly, Ridderbos, after noting that the meaning of this much-discussed word is not
clear, suggests that it “has reference to definite principles or axioms (cf. Heb. 5:12),
according to which men lived before Christ, without finding redemption in them.”132
Moore-Crispin has helpfully traced the Hellenistic legal background of the terms for
adoption, inheritance, guardianship, and so on, in Galatians 4:1-9. In his estimation, to
interpret the 'elements of the world' in a cosmological sense is to miss the correlation
with 'immaturity' found in nhvpioV.133
9.3.2.4 Conclusion
As we stated at the beginning of our discussion of Nickelsburg's work, it is his contention
that Paul made use of the five Abraham texts in his missionary preaching to Gentiles. He
offered three lines of argumentation to support this assertion:
Firstly, that for Paul's Galatian readers to have been able to follow his epistle, they
would have needed a detailed knowledge of Abraham, and it is likely that Paul imparted
such a knowledge to them through use of the Abraham texts. We have argued that while
Galatians assumes a great knowledge of the biblical account of Abraham, it does not
transparently assume any knowledge of extra-biblical tradition.
131 Longenecker, Galatians, p. 180.

132 Herman N. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul To The Churches of Galatia, trans. H. Zylstra, London,
Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1954, p. 153.
133 Moore-Crispin, 'Galatians 4:1-9: The Use And Abuse of Parallels', pp. 203-223. See also: Witherington
III, Grace In Galatia, pp. 284-287.
Secondly, Nickelsburg argued that it is likely that Paul made use of (for e.g.)
Jubilees, because elements within the narrative world of the text would have resonated
with the Galatians' own real-world experience, providing them with an excellent example
of conversion. We have argued that the texts would not have suited Paul's purposes, since
they either promote the Law and Jewish exclusion from Gentiles (Jubilees), or else a kind
of rhetorical/philosophical approach to evangelism/apologetics which Paul repudiated
(Philo, Josephus).
Thirdly, Nickelsburg argued that Galatians 4:8-10 was parallel to Jubilees 11-12.
Particularly, he felt that the 'evil spirits' mentioned in Jubilees were equivalent to Paul's
'elements', which Nickelsburg interpreted to be idol-spirits. We have argued that the
evidence does not support Nickelsburg's case. In particular, Paul's usage of the term
'elements' is far from being perspicuous or immediately apparent.
In conclusion, then, we can suggest that it is doubtful, and somewhat speculative,
to suggest that Paul made use of the Jewish traditions of Abraham's conversion from
idolatry in his missionary preaching among the Gentiles or that he used Abraham as a
model for Gentiles of one who turned from idolatry to the living and true God, because
there is simply no clear evidence in support of such an hypothesis.
9.3.3 Calvert-Koyzis: Abraham Texts As Contested Authority
In the foregoing discussion, we have observed, on the one hand, how Martyn believed
that the Judaizers in Galatia made use of the five Abraham texts in their missionary
preaching and, on the other hand, how Nickelsburg argued that it was Paul who made use
of the Abraham texts in his missionary preaching. We will now consider the argument put
forward by Nancy Calvert-Koyzis that both the Judaizers and Paul made use of these
texts. To be more specific, the Judaizers employed the five Abraham texts in their appeals
to the Galatians, and then Paul, in his response, turned them back on the Judaizers. We
shall examine first how the Judaizers employed these texts, and then what the nature of
Paul's response was.
9.3.3.1 Abraham's Observance of The Law As A Contravention of Monotheism

According to Calvert-Koyzis, when the Judaizers were appealing to the Galatians to be
circumcised and to observe the Law, they made use of the five Abraham texts. 134 In
particular, the Judaizers were suggesting that for the Galatians to be truly Abraham's
children, they would have to supplement their faith in God with circumcision, and
obedience to the Law as Abraham had done. The Judaizers, she writes, "were probably
citing Abraham as the foundational example of faith plus obedience to the Mosaic Law
before it was given."135 We find an indication that this was key to the opponents'
argument when Paul, "argues vociferously that Abraham could not have been obedient to
the Mosaic Law (3.15-18) as if he were arguing against a tradition that his opponents
were using."136
This kind of mirror-reading is less than self-evident. Is Paul really arguing against
a view that Abraham observed the Law by stating that Abraham could not have been
obedient to the Mosaic Law due to the anachronism of the suggestion? If this had been
Paul's point, would we not expect him to say something more akin to his statement at
Romans 4:10? Instead, rather than focussing particularly on Abraham and his observance
of the Law (or otherwise), Paul seems to be arguing more broadly about the distinction
between the Abrahamic promise and the Mosaic covenant, as two periods in salvation
134 More specifically, they must have made use of Jubilees or Philo, since as Calvert-Koyzis notes
elsewhere, only these texts (of the five) really picture Abraham obeying the Law. See: Nancy L.
Calvert, 'Abraham And Idolatry: Paul's Comparison of Obedience To The Law With Idolatry In
Galatians 4.1-10', in C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders (eds.), Paul And The Scriptures of Israel, JSNTSup,
Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1993, p. 235.
136 Likewise, she concludes the section by stating: "Because Paul is using Abraham to argue against
observance of the law, it is reasonable to assume that his opponents are using Abraham in their
arguments to convince the Gentiles that they must be obedient to the Mosaic Law, and that the
opponents are aware of the tradition of Abraham's obedience to the law and probably also the tradition
of Abraham's monotheistic faith and are making use of those traditions." Calvert-Koyzis, Paul,
Monotheism And The People of God, pp. 94, 99.
history. Certainly, a logical implication of this is that Abraham would not have observed
the Law, but Paul does not seem to be specifically highlighting Abraham's lack of
observance of the Law.
Paul argues on the basis that the Law only appeared in the time of Moses; that is,
long after the appearance of the Abrahamic promise, and it does not appear that he
expects this point to be controversial for he does not support it further. If the Judaizers
had been depicting Abraham as observant of the Law, however, such an argument would
surely have been controversial, requiring further comment from the Apostle.137 It seems
unlikely, therefore, that the Judaizers were suggesting that the Law had appeared already
in the time of the patriarchs. Nevertheless, as we noted above in connection with
Martyn's argument, it is not our intention to deny the possibility that the Judaizers may
have made use in some way of extra-canonical texts relating to Abraham.
In reading Calvert-Koyzis' analysis, we understand that Paul turned the Abraham
traditions back on the Judaizers with two main arguments against the view that the
Galatians should observe the Law. Firstly, "In Gal. 3.20, using the opponents' own
contentions and the popular traditions which linked Abraham to monotheism and law,
Paul demonstrates that the law actually is secondary when compared to God's promises
to Abraham."138 Unfortunately, Calvert-Koyzis does not elaborate on how, exactly,
Galatians 3:20 refers to extra-canonical Jewish traditions.139 Nevertheless, her main

137 In his review, Percer comments that, "Nowhere does Paul develop the idea that Abraham was once a
Torah-observant Jew, an item that Paul would no doubt have mentioned if his opponents were using the
traditions defined by [Calvert-Koyzis]." Leo R. Percer, 'Review: Paul, Monotheism And The People of
God: The Significance of Abraham Traditions For Early Judaism And Christianity', PRSt, Vol. 33, No.
4, (2006), p. 517.
138 Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, 102.
139 She repeats the same argument elsewhere, but the alternative rendition is equally difficult to follow: "It
was noted above that popular traditions of Abraham found in Jewish literature included the notion that
Abraham was the first monotheist and that he obeyed the Law before it was given. If these traditions
were also held by Paul's opponents, their appeal to the example of Abraham probably had something to
do with his monotheism and obedience to law. In Galatians 3:20, using the opponents' contentions and
the popular traditions that linked Abraham to monotheism and law, Paul demonstrates that the Law is
second-rate when compared with God's promises to Abraham. Consquently, if the promises are superior
to the Law, and if it is through the promises to Abraham that the inheritance comes to those united in
Christ... the Law becomes superfluous. Not only does being a descendant of Abraham no longer mean
that one has to follow Jewish law, but also obedience to the Law, which is based upon a plurality, is
contention is clear: viz. that Paul's argument in Galatians 3:19-22 was intended to convey
the notion that "obedience to the law which is based upon a plurality ('the mediator is
more than one') is now [that Christ has come] a contradiction of the oneness of God."140
To observe the Law, that is to say, is to cease to be a monotheist. Thus, Abraham's true
children are those who follow his example of monotheistic faith but who also avoid
observance of the Law, since it would compromise that monotheism. Again, Calvert-
Koyzis' logic is not perspicuous, at this point. In particular, it is unclear why observance
of the Law should only become a contradiction of monotheism 'now' (after the advent of
Christ), if that denial is founded upon God's eternal attribute of one-ness and the fact
(unchanged by the coming of Christ) that the Law was mediated. Thus, it remains unclear
how the Law was not a contradiction of monotheism when it was first given/mediated?
9.3.3.2 Observance of The Law Akin To Idolatrous Astrology

Paul's second major argument, as Calvert-Koyzis proposes it, is easier to follow. At
Galatians 4:1-11, Paul was arguing that while the Judaizers had said that the Galatians
must observe the Law to be true children of Abraham (since Abraham is described in the
Abraham texts as having observed the Law), Paul thinks the Galatians should avoid the
Law to be Abraham's true children.141 Paul's argument would run as follows:
1. The extra-biblical texts show Abraham rejecting idolatry (both statuary and
astrological).
2. Abraham's children should do this too, since Abraham's true children follow his
now a contradiction of the oneness of God." Nancy Calvert-Koyzis, 'Abraham: New Testament', in D.
G. Reid (ed.), The IVP Dictionary of The New Testament, Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 2004, pp. 8-9. It
is not clear here how a plurality of mediators is equivalent to a plurality of gods and, hence, a denial of
monotheism.
140 Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, 102.
141 This section was published, in an altered form, as: Calvert, 'Abraham And Idolatry', pp. 222-237. There
she writes, "Although an investigation of Abraham in Gal. 4.1-10 may seem odd, since he is not
explicitly mentioned in the text, my purpose is to show how the understanding of the traditions of
Abraham contemporary to Paul lead to the conclusion that the figure of Abraham is indeed implicit in
and necessary for a full understanding of Gal. 4.1-10." Calvert, 'Abraham And Idolatry', p. 222.
example.
3. The Law is tantamount to, and to be equated with, idolatry/astrology.
4. Ergo, Abraham's true children are those who avoid observance of the Law.
Thus, Calvert-Koyzis is suggesting that the Abraham-as-rejecter-of-idolatry/astrology
motif in the texts is employed by Paul to counter the Abraham-as-observer-of-the-Law
motif found in the same texts and promoted by the Judaizers.142 As she writes, "All those
who were true children of Abraham should shun the law, just as Abraham was known to
have shunned idolatry, particularly in the form of astrology, which was believed to
control the lives and actions of human beings"143 In this way, "Paul has used the Abraham
traditions for his own ends."144
This argumentation suffers from three disquieting weaknesses. In the first
instance, as we have attempted to demonstrate, in our discussion of the primary texts, it is
not clear that any of these texts present Abraham as rejecting astrology. In Josephus,
Abraham's knowledge of astronomy is applauded. In Jubilees, while Abraham's
meteorology is not applauded, he is not depicted as rejecting either it or, in Calvert-
Koyzis' terms, astrology. In Philo's works, we see Abraham transcending his encyclical
studies (of which astronomy formed a part), but these are never seen as inherently evil.
And astrology simply does not feature in either LAB or ApocAb. Additionally, it is not
clear that astrology is in view in Galatians. Calvert-Koyzis' claim that astrology is in
view in Galatians 4:1-11 is based upon her interpretation of the term stoicei:a as
142 Incidentally, the reader may observe that only two of the five Abraham texts speak obviously of
Abraham's having observed the Law (viz. Jubilees, and Philo); the other three do not. Yet, as we saw in
Chapter 7, Calvert-Koyzis' confidence that Paul, Paul's audiences, and even Paul's Judaizing opponents
were all familiar with the one Abraham tradition of the 'five Abraham texts' was founded upon her
conclusion that each of those texts contained the same tradition about Abraham. At least with respect to
the Law, this seems not to have been the case. Thus, her argument, as expressed by her, is weakened. Of
course, she might have appealed to other texts which connect Abraham with Law-observance, but those
other texts may not contain the motif of 'Abraham and astrology', which is equally important for her
argument.
143 Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 113. Likewise, elsewhere she states:
"Now that the Christians in Galatia are also children of Abraham by virtue of being 'in Christ', the
idolatry which they are to avoid is obedience to the law." Calvert, 'Abraham And Idolatry', p. 237.
referring to the stars.145 Yet, such a 'personal cosmological' argument is not a solid
foundation upon which to build, as we have attempted to show.146
The second weakness of this argument is in the claim that, for Paul, observance of
the Law is equal to idolatry.147 Several reviewers of Calvert-Koyzis' monograph have
noted how bald this suggestion is, and how it seems to ignore the very positive
statements Paul makes elsewhere about the Law.148 For example, while restricting
ourselves to a discussion of Galatians and Romans, we may observe the following
references: After spending several chapters opposing the legal requirements of the
Judaizers, Paul can yet exhort the Galatians to love their neighbours in fulfillment of the
Law (Gal. 5:14). A similar exhortation is found in Romans 13:8-10. Earlier in Galatians,
Paul had noted that the Law is not opposed to the promises of God (Gal. 3:21). This
resonates with his statement at Romans 3:21. Paul did not wish to destroy the Law, which
he considered holy, righteous, good, spiritual, and to be delighted in (Rom. 7:12, 14, 16,
22, 25). Thus, Paul desired, in his way, to uphold the Law (Rom. 3:31), which was not
inherently sinful as idolatry was (Rom. 7:7).
Furthermore, Calvert-Koyzis is not always careful in handling the Pauline
evidence relating to the Law. For example, in Romans 7, Paul seems to rule out the
possibility that the Law produces sin (except indirectly), and yet Calvert-Koyzis states
145 Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, pp. 104-110.
146 Pace Denys Edward Hugh Whiteley, The Theology of St. Paul, Oxford, OUPress, 1964, pp. 23ff.
147 Don Garlington has made a similar claim. Don B. Garlington, An Exposition of Galatians: A Reading
From The New Perspective, 3rd. Edn., Eugene, Wipf & Stock, 2007, pp. 244-251. See also his
discussion of the Law as idolatry in: Don B. Garlington, Faith, Obedience And Perseverance: Aspects
of Paul's Letter To The Romans, Vol. 79, WUNT, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1994, pp. 32-43.
148 Mark Nanos that: "This seems to be a Paul who would hardly write that Torah is spiritual (Rom 7:14) or
that faith in the one God works through love of the neighbor, which exemplifies the very essence of
Torah (Gal 5:6, 13-14)..." Mark D. Nanos, 'Review: Paul, Monotheism and the People of God: The
Significance of Abraham for Early Judaism and Christianity', JBL, Vol. 124, No. 4, (2005), p. 5. Very
similarly, Leo Percer remarks in his reivew: "These explanations...overlook some of Paul's apparently
positive language about the Torah (Romans 7:14; Galatians 5:6, 13-14)." Percer, 'Review: Paul,
Monotheism And The People of God', p. 517. To these references could be added the comments of
Thomas Schreiner: "Certain texts in Paul suggest that since the coming of Christ the law is now
abolished (Gal. 3.15-4.7; Rom. 6.14; 7.1-6; 10.4; 2 Cor. 3.4-18 . . . ). On the other hand, Paul also
speaks positively about fulfilling the law (Gal. 5.14; 1 Cor. 7.19; Rom. 2.25f1; 3.31; 8.4; 13.8-10)."
Thomas R. Schreiner, 'The Abolition And Fulfillment of The Law In Paul', JSJ, Vol. 35, (1989), p. 47.
without further explanation or nuancing that it "produces transgressions".149 Similarly,
Calvert-Koyzis does not distinguish between observance of the Law as a personal scruple
and observance of the Law for the specific purpose of seeking to achieve justification
thereby. Paul appears to be happy for Jewish-Christians to continue to observe the
Sabbath, food laws, and so on, so long as they do not make the requirements of the Law
binding on others and necessary for salvation.150 Another example is given by
MacDonald, who writes that Calvert-Koyzis' "readings of Paul's epistles can be strongly
at odds with the text, as when [she] tells us that 'the law is a curse', citing Gal. 3:13 (p.
110). Paul, however, speaks of the 'curse of the law' (th:V katavraV tou: novmou), with the
genitive capable of a number of different construals."151 Calvert-Koyzis' interpretation is
at odds with the more common interpretation: that the Law is not itself a curse, as though
God had cursed his people by giving them the Law, but that the Law pronounces a curse
on those who fail to keep its requirements.152 Thus, even before we begin to examine
150 Thus, we might say that Paul is not opposed to the Law in the sphere of sociology but only in the sphere
of soteriology. Needless to say, this distinction is not a new one. Augustine relates it. Paula Fredriksen,
Augustine And The Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews And Judaism, New York, Doubleday, 2008, pp.
237-238. So, too, Aquinas relates the view that in the apostolic period, "the ceremonies were dead, as
having no effect or binding force, but not deadly, since Jewish converts to Christianity could lawfully
observe them, provided that the did not place thier hope in them as necessary to salvation, as though
faith in Christ could not justify without the ceremonies of the Law." St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologiae, trans. D. Bourke, Vol. Vol. 29, Cambridge, CUPress, 2006, p. 249.
151 He also expresses expresses "grave doubts about Calvert-Koyzis's law–monotheism contrast". Nathan
MacDonald, 'Review: Paul, Monotheism And The People of God: The Significance of Abraham
Traditions For Early Judaism And Christianity', JTS, Vol. 57, No. 2, (2006), p. 661. A lack of
carefulness is equally evident in her statement elsewhere that Genesis 26:5 states that Abraham obeyed
the Mosaic law. The text, by contrast, is plural (‫)ותורתי‬, and does not specify the Mosaic legislation in
particular. She writes: "The second way that Abraham functions in these texts [extra-biblical Jewish
Abraham traditions] is that he is obedient to the law even before the law is given to Moses. It should be
noted that in the Old Testament this... is mentioned only in passing when Abraham is said to have been
obedient to the law in Gen. 26:5." Calvert, 'Abraham And Idolatry', p. 226.
152 See, for e.g.: Fung, The Epistle To The Galatians, pp. 148-149; Longenecker, Galatians, p. 121; Bruce,
Galatians, pp. 166-167. Dunn writes that the Law, "entails a curse, the curse of the covenant God on the
covenant-breaker"; James D. G. Dunn, A Commentary On The Epistle To The Galatians, ed. H.
Chadwick, BNTC, London, A&C Black, 1993, p. 176. Also, Moisés Silva has dealt with this issue of
the 'curse of the Law'. Essentially, he sees that the Law itself is not bad, but that all who rely on
observance of the Law for justification are under a curse, because no one can keep the Law. In this vein,
he concludes by quoting St. Thomas Aquinas approvingly, where he says: "And it should be noted that
the Apostle does not say, "As many as observe the works of the Law are under a curse," because this is
false when applied to the time of the Law. He says rather: as many as are of the works of the Law,
i.e., whosoever trust in the works of the Law and believe that they are made just by them are under a
curse. For it is one thing to be of the works of the Law and another to observe the Law. The latter
consists in fulfilling the Law, so that one who fulfills it is not under a curse. But to be of the works of
Galatians 4:1-11 itself, Calvert-Koyzis' contention is jarring.
As we come to look at the passage itself, we note that Paul's (supposed)
declaration that the Law is equal to astrology/idolatry does not arise out of the five
Abraham texts, which speak of his observance of the Law before it was given. Thus, the
crucial point in the argument is established independent of the Abraham tradition. 153 Yet,
this removes the need to see the Abraham tradition as implicit in the text, since the
Galatians would not have needed Abraham's example of rejection of idolatry to know
that they must reject the Law if they can accept on Paul's say-so that it is tantamount to
idolatry. Paul, by stating that the Law was idolatry would have given reason enough to
dissuade his audience from adopting it. He would not have needed to make the further
step of linking this to Abraham's rejection of idolatry/astrology. Thus, since it is not
necessary that Abraham be implicit in Gal. 4:1-11 for the text to make sense, Ockham's
razor would seem to apply.154
Calvert-Koyzis rightly observes that Paul, in some measure, compares the
Galatians' desire to put themselves under the Law to a return to their former paganism.
Similarly, Burton states that Paul could compare the Law with paganism in so far as
"Both were at bottom legalistic, without clear perception of ethical principles and
destitute of dynamic to make possible the realisation of them in life."155 As such, while in
the phrase 'ta; ajsqenh: kai; ptwca; stoicei:a', the Law, to which the Galatians were
turning, is specifically in mind, at the same time, the Galatians' former paganism,
the Law is to trust in them and place one's hope in them. And they that are of the Law in this way are
under a curse, ... therefore, inasmuch as the Law begets a knowledge of sin and offers no help against
sin, they are said to be under a curse, since they are powerless to escape it by those works." Cited by:
Moisés Silva, 'Abraham, Faith, And Works: Paul's Use of Scripture In Galatians 3:6-14', WTJ, Vol. 63,
(2001), pp. 266-267 (bold original).
153 Calvert-Koyzis does not clearly delineate on what basis Paul declares the Law to be idolatry.
154 Mark D. Nanos, writes in his review: "I do not see where Paul treats Abraham as Torah-observant... and
thus nowhere that he treats Torah-observance as analogous to idolatry. Rather, he deals with Abraham
as pre-Mosaic legislation, as should be those who join Abraham's family from among the nations other
than Israel, to whom alone the Mosaic covenant applies." Nanos, 'Review: Paul, Monotheism and the
People of God', p. 4.
155 Burton, Galatians, p. 231.
"included under the stoicei:a by implication of the repeated pavlin, is also thereby
stigmatised as ajsqenh: kai; ptwcav."156 However, to say that the one is exactly equal to
the other is too strong an identification. It were not as though observance of the Law is
itself idolatry, but that it is no more able to justify than the Galatians' former paganism,
and so is weak and beggarly. For the Galatians to turn to reliance upon their observance
of the Law, will jeopardise their salvation in the same way as turning back to idolatry
would do.
In parallel to this, Paganism and the Law are also similar in that neither could
make the Galatians mature heirs. It might have been suggested by the Judaizers that the
Law could serve this function (Gal. 3:3), but Paul argues that the Law was not able to
make the Jews mature heirs (Gal. 4:1), only immature captives to guardians (Gal. 4:2).
Paganism and the Law are also similar in that both belong to the old age (prior to Christ).
This division of ages into old and new; pre and post Christ is closely related to two
spheres established by Paul; namely of being 'in Christ' (e.g. Gal. 3:26) or 'not in Christ'.
Pagans are 'not in Christ'; those who trust wholly in the cross are 'in Christ'; those who
add circumcision and/or observance of the Law to faith in Christ as playing a role in
justification are not 'in Christ'. As such, for the Galatians, having begun in the Spirit (Gal.
3:3), having been known by God (Gal. 4:9), having believed the Gospel which they had
heard from Paul (Gal. 3:2), to add such legal observance (e.g. Gal. 4:10) would be to fall
away from Christ (Gal. 5:4) and, as such, would profit them as much as returning to
paganism. Yet, for Paul to point to the weaknesses common to the two religious systems
is not to equate them, for that would be to erase the distinguishing features of each and
the distinctiveness of the divine origin of the Law, in particular. Even though the son is
no better than a slave before his coming of age (Gal. 4:1-2), and even though God
chooses to adopt former-slaves, bringing them into his household as equal members (4:6-
156 Burton, Galatians, p. 231.

7, cf. 4:1-5), there is still a distinction to be made between former pagans and former
Jews.
The third weakness of Calvert-Koyzis' argument is simply that Abraham is not
mentioned in Galatians 4:1-11, making it difficult to see the patriarch as an integral part
of Paul's presentation there.157 As Silva counsels, "the more an interpretation depends on
inferences as opposed to explicit propositions in the text, the less persuasive it is. And if
some of the inferences are themselves built on inferences, the greater the scholar's burden
to come up with probative data."158
9.3.3.3 Conclusion
Having considered Calvert-Koyzis' suggestion as to how Paul made use of the Abraham
texts, we find her arguments wanting. It may be that the Judaizers made use of the
Abraham texts in their preaching to the Galatians, but it is doubtful and speculative, to
suggest that Paul implicitly and without any direct interaction with the Judaizers' use of
the traditions turned them back upon the Judaizers.
Calvert-Koyzis, who writes as an advocate of the New Perspective on Paul,
believes that, for the Judaizers, to be part of the people of God one must not only have
monotheistic faith like Abraham's but also obey the Law. Paul, on the other hand,
contends that monotheistic faith like Abraham's is the foundational boundary marker for
the people of God, and the Law must be avoided as idolatry. 159 In as much as this
argument about membership in the people of God rests upon her argument for Paul's use
of the Abraham texts, however, it is unconvincing.

157 Cf. Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, ed. C. E. Arnold, et. al., Zondervan Exegetical Commentary,
Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2010, p. 269, n. 21.
158 Silva, Interpreting Galatians, p. 107.
159 Thus, she concludes her discussion of Galatians with the following statement: "Paul uses the Abraham
traditions for his own ends, providing a new definition of the people of God who are guided not by law,
but by the Spirit, and whose faith rests in the one God through whom the promise of Abraham that he
would be a blessing to all the nations is brought to fruition in Jesus Christ. The foundational boundary
marker for the people of God in Christ is monotheistic faith and the true monotheists are those who
reject the law as necessary for membership in God's people just as Abraham rejected idolatry." Calvert-
Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, pp. 113-114.
We have noted how the uncertain term stoicei:a plays a decisive role in each of the
interpretations discussed here. And we have tried to show that this is an unstable
enterprise. As John Barclay might say, it is methodologically dubious to latch onto
particular words or phrases as direct echoes of the opponents' vocabulary and then build
an entire thesis on that basis.160
It may be that Martyn is correct in seeing the Judaizers as having made use of the
'five Abraham texts' in their agitations amongst the Galatians. Yet, we have not been
prepared to make any decisive conclusions on this question, since the particularities of
the message of the Judaizers is something which we can only see through a glass darkly.
In relation to Nickelsburg's thesis that Paul made use of the 'five Abraham texts' in
his missionary preaching to Gentiles, we have attempted to demonstrate that while this
thesis is possible the evidence which he supplies in support of it is less than compelling.
In addition, the little evidence which we have of Paul's missionary preaching to Gentiles,
from Acts and elsewhere, leads in a somewhat different direction: viz. towards an
understanding of Paul's missionary preaching as having both avoided the trappings of
Greco-Roman oratory and philosophy with which Abraham is entangled by Philo and
Josephus, and also Jewish traditions such as those of Jubilees which Gentiles would
neither have been aware of nor related to. Instead, Paul appears to have focused on the
'things of first importance': viz. the significance of God's action in history in the person of
Jesus, in his life, death, and resurrection.
Finally, we examined Calvert-Koyzis' suggestion that both the Judaizers and Paul,
in his response to them, used the 'five Abraham texts' as leverage to try to displace the
160 Cf. John M. G. Barclay, 'Mirror-Reading A Polemical Letter: Galatians As A Test Case', JSJ, Vol. 31,
(1987), pp. 81-82.
arguments of the other. We noted as weaknesses her reliance upon mirror-reading, and
her emphasis upon an interpretation of the semantic possibilities present in the term
stoicei:a. Most unpersuasive, however, was her conclusion that, for Paul, observance of
the Law was tantamount to idolatry.
The present chapter has, in this way, contributed to the argument of the whole by
evaluating – and, ultimately, choosing not to follow – the arguments which have been put
forward to the effect that the 'five Abraham texts' should be seen as essential background
to an understanding of Paul's use of Abraham in Galatians and in his missionary
preaching to Gentiles. Having concluded as much for Galatians, we shall next turn to
Romans. An analysis of Romans may either support or contest the conclusion drawn here
about Galatians. As such, we do well to examine the similar suggestions which have been
put forward in relation to that epistle.

CHAPTER 10
ROMANS AND THE FIVE ABRAHAM TEXTS
10.1 Introduction
For an introduction to Paul's letter to the Romans, the reader may refer to the prefatory
material in the commentaries by Dunn and Moo.1
There is overwhelming agreement that the letter was written by the Apostle Paul
from Corinth somewhere between 50-60AD, and likely betwen 55-58AD.2 There is some
debate over the originality of 16:25-27, but no longer much debate over the originality of
the sixteen chapter form in general.3 There is some debate over the ethnic make-up of the
recipients of the epistle, but it is generally accepted that there were both Jews and
Gentiles in Paul's Roman audience, with Gentiles being likely in the majority.4 The
liveliest debate is over Paul's purpose in writing.
Paul does not clearly state his aim. The only direct statement to such an effect is
15:15-16. Scholars, therefore, have tended to take one or other of the indications in the
letter as to what Paul's purpose may have been and make much of it. This has lead to an
over-emphasis on certain points, which cannot explain all of the evidence.5 To take what
is, perhaps, the most prominent example, it is hard to see how Paul's alleged severe need
for assistance in his missionary trip to Spain (mentioned only in passing at 15:24, 28) can
satisfactorily explain all of Romans without bringing other 'purposes' under the umbrella
of the Spanish trip.
1 J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, eds D. A. Hubbard and G. W. Barker, 2 Vols., Vol. 1, WBC, 38A, Dallas,
Word Books, 1988; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle To The Romans, ed. G. D. Fee, NIBCNT, Vol. 6, Grand
Rapids, Eerdmans, 1996.
2 E.g. Dunn, Romans 1-8, pp. xliii-xliv.
3 Arland J. Hultgren, Paul's Letter To The Romans, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2011, p. 23; Colin G.
Kruse, Paul's Letter To The Romans, ed. D. A. Carson, PNTCS, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2012, p. 14.
4 E.g. Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. liv; Moo, Romans, pp. 12-13.
5 Kruse provides a lengthy list of proposed purposes for the letter. Kruse, Romans, pp. 6-11.
CHAPTER 10: ROMANS AND THE FIVE ABRAHAM TEXTS 281
Realising that no single purpose for the writing of Romans explains the totality of
the evidence of the epistle, several scholars propose that Paul had multiple goals in mind
as he wrote. Longenecker, for instance, suggests the following five purposes: (a) that the
Romans would better understand Paul's gospel; (b) that the Romans assist him in his
missionary journey to Spain, becoming his new Antioch; (c) to defend himself against
certain criticisms; (d) to give counsel regarding the dispute between the 'strong' and the
'weak'; (e) to give counsel as to how the Roman Christians should relate to their political
masters.6 One might argue about the relative importance of these points. One might also
wish to add more. However, these cover the major purposes of the letter. Finally,
however, it is well worth noting that Paul appears to be fighting on two fronts in Romans.
On the one hand, there are Jewish-Christians who appear to be still yoked to the Mosaic
Law. On the other hand, there is Gentile anti-Semitism (of some sort), which deprecates
Judaism.7
10.2 Four Proposals On Paul's Use of The Five Abraham Texts
A relatively recent trend in the interpretation of Romans has been to see the five extra-
biblical texts mentioned in the preceeding chapters as necessary background for
understanding Paul's use of Abraham in the epistle. The following applications of the
Abraham texts to Romans are noteworthy: (1) Edward Adams has suggested that the
Abraham texts are necessary background to an understanding of Paul's contrast between
the rebellious Gentiles of Romans 1:18-32 and obedient Abraham, in Romans 4. (2)
Adams also touches upon a major trend in recent discussion, which has been to see the
Abraham texts as helping explain how it is that Paul could have referred to Abraham as
'ungodly' at Romans 4:5. Calvert-Koyzis presents the most sustained argument for this
6 Richard N. Longenecker, Introducing Romans: Critical Issues In Paul's Most Famous Letter, Grand
Rapids, Eerdmans, 2011, pp. 157-160.
7 Moo, Romans, p. 21.
position. (3) Related to the second point, Siegfried Kreuzer has suggested that a number
of the Abraham texts place the events of Genesis 15 in Mesopotamia, thus suggesting
that Abraham's justification was not so much that of a morally guilty person but of a
Gentile in a Gentile environment. On this reading, the Abraham texts provide evidence
for a common chronological adjustment to the time-line of Genesis which is necessary to
a correct interpretation of Paul's view of Abraham's justification. (4) Finally, as with
Galatians, so also in Romans, Calvert-Koyzis sees the Abraham texts as important
background to Paul's delimitation of what identity badges mark out the people of God.
10.3 Evaluation of Four Proposals
We present here a review of each of these suggestions in turn, and a rereading of the
import of Abraham in Romans. We take each in turn, in the following order: Edward
Adams; Nancy Calvert-Koyzis; Siegfried Kreuzer; Nancy Calvert-Koyzis (cont.).
10.3.1 Adams: Contrasting Abraham To The Gentiles of Rom. 1:18-32
In his article 'Abraham's Faith And Gentile Disobedience: Textual Links Between
Romans 1 And 4', Edward Adams argues that the 'five Abraham texts' are necessary
background for understanding Paul's use of Abraham in Romans 4.
Adams begins by recapitulating the common observation that the statement at
Romans 4:20 that Abraham "gave glory to God" is similar to the negative statment at
Romans 1:21 (where God is not given glory). 8 Yet, he contends that three other "echoes"
are observable between the two chapters. 9 These are as follow: first, the collocation of
ajsevbeian and ajdikivan in 1:18 is strikingly similar to the phrase to;n dikaiou:nta to;n
ajsebh: in 4:5; second, the theme of God as creator is present in both 1:20, 25 and 4:17b,
8 Edward Adams, 'Abraham's Faith And Gentile Disobedience: Textual Links Between Romans 1 And 4',
JSJ, Vol. 65, (1997), p. 47.
9 He uses the term after the manner of Hays. Cf. Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture In The Letters of
Paul, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1989, pp. 18-19.
and third, the term duvnamiV in 1:20 presages dunatovV in 4:21.10
For Adams, these textual echoes link the two sections of the letter, the latter
alluding to the former. The result is that this "textual linkage functions to establish a
structural pattern of contrast between Abraham and the rebellious Gentiles, and between
Abraham's faith and the Gentiles' disobedience."11 Adams speaks of a contrast between
Abraham as a Gentile and the other Gentiles, because, in his estimation, in Romans 1:18-
32 Paul is speaking only of Gentiles (not mentioning Jews until the second chapter)12
and, likewise, Abraham, although a pattern for both Jews and Gentiles in Romans 4 is
seen, essentially, as a Gentile.13
Having noted these "echoes", Adams points out that,
For a contrast such as this to be rhetorically effective there must be a sufficient degree of
similarity between the characters set in opposition so that the differences can stand out. But
one struggles to find any significant points of comparison between the situations of Abraham
and the rebellious Gentiles.14
Instead of finding points of comparison, points of difference arise: viz. (a) Romans 1
connects Gentiles with idolatry, while Abraham is not directly connected with idolatry; 15
(b) Romans 1 speaks about Gentiles rejecting God's general revelation, while Abraham is
confronted with special revelation.16 We may question, then, whether Paul is really
making a contrast between the Gentiles of Romans 1 and Abraham. Yet, the echoes seem
to indicate this. In Adams' view, the tension between these divergent evidences is only
resolved, if one sees Paul as assuming that his audience will read into Romans 4 the
Jewish Abraham texts.17
10 Adams, 'Abraham's Faith And Gentile Disobedience', pp. 51ff.

12 Adams, 'Abraham's Faith And Gentile Disobedience', pp. 48-49.
13 Adams, 'Abraham's Faith And Gentile Disobedience', p. 63. "Abraham indicates how God justifies
Gentiles while they remain Gentiles."
15 In so far as all sins constitute forms of idolatry, Abraham, as sinner, was an idolater. Nevertheless, no
connection is made with statuary idolatry.
17 Thus, the "answer to this anomaly [or tension]... lies not in the text of Romans 4 but in a tradition lying
under the text, presupposed and alluded to by it." Adams, 'Abraham's Faith And Gentile Disobedience',
p. 55.
Adams summarises the texts:
In these texts, common themes emerge: Abraham is reared in an idolatrous context, he

realizes the error and folly of idolatry (and astrology), he rejects idolatry, and he arrives at a
knowledge of the existence and providential power of the creator through sensory perception
(specifically through observation of the celestial phenomena) and/or deductive reason.18
As he contends, "this contrast pattern assumes and builds upon a tradition about Abraham
which is known to have been in existence at the time, namely, the tradition of Abraham's
rejection of idolatry and discovery of the creator".19
Adams further writes that:
[an] awareness of the tradition of Abraham turning from idolatry to the one true God on the
part of both Paul and at least some of his Jewish readers does seem to be presupposed in 4.5.
The characterization of Abraham as an ungodly Gentile is most readily understood against the
background of this tradition, insofar as it makes Abraham a former idolater and polytheist. It
is noteworthy that Paul asserts rather than argues for Abraham's prior ungodliness. Paul
evidently does not expect this point to be either an alien or a particularly controversial one for
his readers, but appears to assume their familiarity with the notion.20
Adams' article represents of a very common view: viz. that one cannot fully understand
Romans 4 without making recourse to the 'five Abraham texts'. In particular, a large
number of scholars have adopted the reading that sees these texts as necessary
background to Paul's statement in Romans 4:5. We cite Adams in particular here because
he has (so far as we are aware) made the strongest case for this interpretation.
Nevertheless, several problems with Adams' argument remain. Firstly, it is not
clear that Paul limits his comments at Romans 1:18-32 to Gentiles exclusively. The term
ajnqrwvpwn is never clearly used by Paul in any of his epistles to refer to Gentiles
specifically. Rather, it most commonly connotes mankind in general.21 Moreover, Adams
claims that Paul only begins to condemn the Jews at Romans 2:1-16. 22 Yet, if this is the

20 Adams, 'Abraham's Faith And Gentile Disobedience', pp. 59-60, citing Dunn who makes a similar
point: Romans 1-8, p. 205.
21 The standard lexica may be consulted on this point. We may further note, however, that 'e[qnoV' is not
synonymous with 'a[nqrwpoV'. Thus, they are not mutually interchangeable. Rather, 'e[qnoV' is a
hyponym of 'a[nqrwpoV'. Of course, Paul may have used the more general term in place of the
particular. His usage of these terms throughout the epistle argues against this, however. Cf. Moisés
Silva, Biblical Words And Their Meaning: An Introduction To Lexical Semantics, 2 Edn., Grand Rapids,
Zondervan, 1994, pp. 126ff.
case, then it would seem that Paul refers also to the Jews with the term a[nqrwpoV (e.g.
Rom. 2:1, 3). And it seems quite clear that, at Romans 2:9, Paul enrols both Jews and
Greeks under the banner of 'mankind'. Indeed, according to Calvert-Koyzis:
It is also clear that just as [Paul] used a[nqrwpoV (human being) in Rom. 1.18 to express the
people, both Jews and Gentiles, against whom the wrath of God is revealed, in Rom. 3.28 he
uses a[nqrwpoV to describe all people, both Jews and Gentiles, who are made righteous by
faith.23
Adams also suggests that the Jews were judged only by the Law and not by general
revelation (and vice versa).24 Yet, he does not demonstrate this point. Indeed, as Schreiner
states:
[Rom. 1:23] alludes clearly to both Ps. 106:20 and Jer. 2:11, but both of these verses describe
the idolatry of Israel. It seems forced, therefore, to confine the address to Gentiles. Moreover,
the passage as a whole is redolent of the fall of Adam, suggesting a reference to all
humanity.25
While, therefore, Paul's condemnatory remarks in Romans 1:18-32 would have
more pointedly applied to Gentiles, it is not clear that those remarks were directed solely
against Gentiles.26 If such had been Paul's purpose, we would expect him to use terms
such as "Gentiles" or "Greeks", as is his usual practice. We should not be too quick, then,
to dismiss the exegetical understanding of many significant commentators that Paul
includes Jews in the discussion of Romans 1:18-32.27

Traditions For Early Judaism And Christianity, London, T&T Clark, 2004, p. 132. Calvert-Koyzis is
here in tension with her earlier understanding that Romans 1:18-32 is targeted at Gentiles. See: Calvert-
Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 124.
25 Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, ed. M. Silva, BECNT, Vol. 6, Grand Rapids, Baker, 1998, p. 81.
26 Further to this, Das suggests that "Paul frames 1:16-2:10 with an inclusio that emphasizes God's
impartial relations with all humanity." A. Andrew Das, 'Paul And Works of Obedience In Second
Temple Judaism: Romans 4:4-5 As A "New Perspective" Case Study', CBQ, Vol. 71, No. 4, (2009), p.
807. Whether we should detect an intentional inclusio here or not, Das' point is valid; Paul is dealing
with all humanity.
27 E.g. Dunn, Romans 1-8, pp. 51ff.; Robert Jewett, Romans, ed. E. J. Epp, Hermeneia, Minneapolis,
Fortress, 2007, p. 152; Joseph Barber Lightfoot, Notes On Epistles of St Paul From Unpublished
Commentaries, London, Macmillan, 1895, p. 251; C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical And Exegetical
Commentary On The Epistle To The Romans, eds J. A. Emerton and C. E. B. Cranfield, 2 Vols., Vol. 1,
ICC, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1987, p. 105; Moo, Romans, pp. 92, 97; Leon Morris, The Epistle To The
Romans, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1988, p. 74; Ernst Käsemann, Commentary On Romans, trans. G.
W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1980, p. 33; C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul To The Romans,
ed. J. Moffatt, MNTC, London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1941, pp. 18-19; John Calvin, Romans, trans. J.
Owen, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1947, p. 68; Robert H. Mounce, Romans, NAC, Vol. 27, Nashville,
B&H, 1995, p. 75; Kruse, Romans, p. 82; Hays, Echoes, pp. 72-73, and, to some extent, Brendan
Byrne, Romans, ed. D. J. Harrington, SP, 6, Collegeville, The Liturgical Press, 1996, p. 66. These
Secondly, we can observe that it is equally unclear that Paul presents Abraham, in
Romans 4, as a specifically Gentile character. As Benjamin Schließer has written,
“[while] Adams concentrates on the “structural pattern of contrast between Abraham and
the rebellious Gentiles”… one has to take into account the contrast between the
rebellious Jews and Abraham as well.”28 Paul's sustained argument from 1:18 onwards is
designed to show that all (both Jews and Greeks) have fallen short of the glory of God
and that, as such, there is no difference between the two in regards to God's wrath. All
have angered God, and all stand equally in need of an acceptable propitiation. Jesus is the
necessary propitiatory sacrifice in which/whom all must trust. Abraham exemplifies that
kind of trust. Is Abraham, then, primarily an example of Gentile faith, albeit one which
the Jews may also emulate? Does Paul use Abraham, “to make the Gentile route to God
the standard and rule”?29 It does not appear so.30
Besides such statements as Romans 1:16 (“=Ioudaivw/ te prw:ton kai; {Ellhni”), if
both come by means of the same faith and the same propitiation, it does not seem valid to
align Abraham more closely with Gentile believers. 31 In the matter of forgiveness, the
playing-field is even, with racial and legal distinctions making no difference. Indeed,
David is brought in at Romans 4:6 to support the point being made by the example of
Abraham. Are we to see David also as making the Gentile route to God the standard and
commentators see the Gentiles as the primary focus of Romans 1:18-32, but they also include Jews
within the critique. As such, Jews are not out of sight in the passage.
28 Benjamin Schließer, Abraham's Faith In Romans 4: Genesis 15:6 And Its History of Reception In
Second Temple Judaism And Paul. A Contribution To The Pauline Concept of Faith, Ph. D. dissertation,
Fuller Theological Seminary, California, 2006, p. 347, n. 927.
29 Adams, 'Abraham's Faith And Gentile Disobedience', p. 63. Cf. Wright's comment that, "Abraham is
actually more like believing Gentiles than he is like believing Jews." Nicholas Thomas Wright, 'The
Letter To The Romans', in L. E. Keck (ed.), Acts; Introduction to Epistolary Literature; Romans; 1
Corinthians, NIB, Nashville, Abingdon Press, 2002, p. 492.
30 Cf. Calvin: "There is no variety of roads to righteousness, and so Abraham is called 'the father of all
them that believe', (Romans 4:11), because he is a pattern adapted to all; nay, in his person has been laid
down to us the universal rule for obtaining righteousness." John Calvin, Commentaries On The Epistles
of Paul To The Galatians And Ephesians, trans. W. Pringle, Edinburgh, The Calvin Translation Society,
1854, p. 83.
31 Adams, for example, writes that, “such are the Gentile believers' points in common with Abraham that
they can more readily identify with him than Jewish believers!” Adams, 'Abraham's Faith And Gentile
Disobedience', p. 63.
rule? It seems more likely that the ethnic status of Abraham and David is not primary at
this point.32
Tobin helpfully delineates several features of Romans 4 which suggest the equal
applicability of Abraham's example to Jews and Gentiles but, if anything, a slight priority
for the Jews. So, for example, he points out that the way Paul phrases the question of 4:9
assumes Jewish inclusion and asks whether Gentiles are to be included also (h] kai;):
“The very framing of the question assumes that Abraham's righteousness through faith
had significance for the Jewish people.”33 The question is whether it has significance for
Gentiles also. As just one more example, Tobin notes how the structure and phraseology
of Paul's presentation in Romans 4:11-12 “explains Abraham's significance for Jews and
for Gentiles in a rhetorically balanced way”.34 Abraham is significant not only (oujk...
movnon) for the Jews, but also (ajlla; kaiv), and equally well, for Gentiles. The point is
that, in a balanced way, “Abraham is meant to be a model of faith for both Jewish and
Gentiles believers.”35 If Tobin is correct, then it would seem to make little sense to
suggest that Paul uses Abraham to make the Gentile route to God normative.
Adams elsewhere speaks of Abraham as a kind of new Adam. He wants to see
Abraham as both a universal figure (a new Adam), and as more a Gentile than a Jew. He
writes:
In rejecting their creaturely estate, the gentiles repeated Adam's core error. Abraham, in this
display of faith, not only reverses the rebellion of the gentiles but also that of Adam. Abraham
is negatively the counterimage of Adam and positively 'the pattern of man as he was created
to be'.36
This interpretation would make Abraham an exception to the argument of Romans 5:12-
32 Simon J. Gathercole, Where Is Boasting?: Early Jewish Soteriology And Paul's Response In Romans 1-
5, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2002, p. 246.
33 Thomas H. Tobin, 'What Shall We Say That Abraham Found? The Controversy Behind Romans 4',
HTR, Vol. 88, No. 4, (1995), p. 446.
34 Tobin, 'The Controversy Behind Romans 4', p. 446.
35 Tobin, 'The Controversy Behind Romans 4', p. 450.
36 Edward Adams, 'Paul's Story of God And Creation: The Story of How God Fulfils His Purposes In
Creation', in B. W. Longenecker (ed.), Narrative Dynamics In Paul: A Critical Assessment, Louisville,
John Knox, 2002, p. 35.
21, but it is not clear why this should be. Moreover, if Adams is correct in this
interpretation, then Abraham is being presented, in Romans 4, as a better Adam. Yet,
Adam, for Paul, is a universal figure, not an ethnically marked one (Rom. 5; 1 Cor. 15).
Adam is representative of 'mankind' in general not Gentiles in particular. As such, if
Abraham is a new Adam, and “a figure with whom both Jewish and Gentile believers can
identify”, then it is not clear that Paul desires to present him as standing in closer affinity
to Gentiles than Jews.37
Thirdly, Adams also errs in his characterisation of the extra-biblical Abraham
texts as presenting one unified picture of Abraham.38 Each of them, as he sees it, speak of
Abraham in the same way. Yet, when we deconstruct his summary, we find it to be
lacking. He makes four basic points:
(a) That Abraham was raised in an idolatrous context. This statement is fairly
accurate. Yet, it is not clear that Josephus wishes to present the Chaldeans as idolaters.
LAB too is somewhat unclear here.
(b) That Abraham rejects statue worship. This statement reflects Jubilees and
ApocAb, where statue worship are described, but it is unclear that statue-idols play any
part in the narratives of either Josephus or Philo. Indeed, even in ApocAb, we would want
to qualify this statment by noting that it is not so much Abraham who rejects idolatry as
God who delivers him from it.39
(c) That Abraham comes to a knowledge of the creator through his observation of
the celestial phenomena (or deductive reasoning). This point does not accurately reflect
ApocAb, Jubilees, or Josephus. On the other hand, it is clear that reason plays a part in
Philo's narrative.
(d) That Abraham rejects astrology as folly. Astrology does not feature in ApocAb.
38 See: Adams, 'Abraham's Faith And Gentile Disobedience', pp. 58-59.
39 Here we are assuming the seventh chapter of ApocAb to be a later redaction of little help in our
understanding of the text as it would have stood in the late first/early second century.
In Josephus, Abraham's astronomy is lauded.40 In Philo, Abraham's astronomy is a
necessary stepping-stone and not considered inherently evil. In Jubilees, Abraham's
meteorology is not condemned per se, although his fear is, to some extent.
Thus, it can be seen that the four texts which Adams cites do not present a
singular, monolithic picture of the patriarch, as Adams' argument requires.
Fourthly, as we saw above, Adams contends that an "awareness of the tradition of
Abraham turning from idolatry to the one true God on the part of both Paul and at least
some of his Jewish readers does seem to be presupposed in 4.5."41 This point is held in
common by both Adams and Calvert-Koyzis, as well as a number of others. Since
Calvert-Koyzis gives a fuller defence of the reading, we shall delay discussing the point
here, except to note that we do not believe that it supports Adams' argument.42
Does Paul set up a contrast between the “rebellious Gentiles” of Romans 1:18-32
and Abraham? Perhaps, to some extent, he does. However, if one does not see Romans
4:5 as an allusion to Romans 1:18, then the three remaining “echoes” are inconclusive.
That Abraham glorifies God has been long noted, and the mention of God's power is
merely an aspect of this, but this may be as far as the contrast goes. Meanwhile, that God
as “creator” is in view in Romans 1 and 4 may be no more than incidental, as with other
places in Romans where God's role as Creator is important (e.g. in Rom. 8, 9).
Adams, it should be noted, displays a keen awareness of the fact that Paul's
argument in Romans 4 is based upon his exposition of Genesis 15:5-6 and 17:1-18:15
rather than on Genesis 11:27-12:9 or "the tradition which grew out of it."43 For Paul,
Genesis 15:6 was the defining moment of Abraham's faith, not the Jewish traditional
40 Josephus uses the term ajstronomiva. See, for e.g., Ant. 1:106, 167; Ag. Ap. 1:129.
42 At this point, we should make a distinction. It may well be, that is to say, that Paul sees Abraham as
having been involved in idolatry. We are neither affirming nor denying that possibility here. But we are
suggesting that if Paul saw Abraham as an idolater, this view did not arise out of familiarity with the
'five Abraham texts'.
elaborations of Abraham's call.44 Yet, Adams sees the extra-biblical texts as equally
fundamental to an understanding of Romans 4. It is this last contention which we feel is
insufficiently supported by the available evidence. Provisionally, then, we can conclude
that we have not found the four Abraham texts cited by Adams to be necessary
background for understanding Romans 4.
Yet, we must now consider the case of Romans 4:5 in particular.
10.3.2 Calvert-Koyzis: Ungodly Abraham In Light of The Jewish Texts
10.3.2.1 An Increasingly Common Interpretation: ajsebhvV As Gentile

As noted above, Adams, in speaking of Romans 4:5 touches upon a major trend in recent
discussion, which has been to see the Abraham texts as helping explain how it is that Paul
could have referred to Abraham as 'ungodly' at Romans 4:5. While it will be readily
admitted that in extra-biblical literature Abraham is generally treated as perfect (or near
to), the five Abraham texts with which we are concerned are cited as the exceptions
which allow for Paul's characterisation of Abraham as ungodly. 45 This suggestion is not a
novel one. At least as early as 1846, it had been proposed that Paul, in describing
Abraham as ungodly (Rom. 4:5), might have had his former life of idolatry in mind, as is
testified to in sources such as Philo and Josephus. 46 In recent times, however, the
interpretation has become increasingly prevalent.
In his seminal commentary on Romans, Dunn argues that Paul's statement at 4:5
would not have been “entirely strange to Jewish ears”, since “Abraham was already seen
as the type of the proselyte, the Gentile who turns away from his idolatry to the one true
45 Cf. de Roo, who considers a wide variety of texts, including our five Abraham texts, and yet concludes
(in our opinion, correctly) that, "During the intertestamental period, Jews had a tendency to elevate the
patriarch above any other Jew. Some sources try to exculpate him from any guilt by embellishing the
biblical stories which put him in a somewhat negative light..." Jacqueline C. R. De Roo, 'Works of The
Law' At Qumran And In Paul, NTM, 13, Sheffield, Phoenix Press, 2007, p. 128.
46 Thus see: J. Morgan, 'Select Passages of Scripture Considered: Remarks On Romans 4:5', OQR, Vol. 2,
(1846), pp. 128-131.
God (Jub. 12.1-21; Josephus, Ant. 1.155; Apoc. Abr. 1-8; Str-B, 3:195...).”47 As we have
seen, this line of thinking was adopted and elaborated by Adams. Others have followed
suit, including: N. T. Wright,48 Pamela Eisenbuam;49 Neil Elliot;50 Brendan Byrne;51
Michael Cranford;52 John Ziesler;53 Kent Yinger;54 Krister Stendahl,55 Dieter Zeller;56
Andrew T. Lincoln,57 and even Roy Harrisville.58 Perhaps, the fullest treatment, however,
has come from Nancy Calvert-Koyzis. We will largely limit ourselves to a discussion of
47 Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. 205.
48 Wright, in his commentary on Romans, says that: "Jewish tradition knew of Abraham's background in
idolatry and tended to regard him as the first one to protest against this and to worship the one true God
instead. Paul does not entirely dissent from this tradition." Abraham "believed in the God who justifies
the "ungodly," i.e., the Gentile idolaters, the outsiders." Paul followed the regular rabbinic exegesis by
believing that Abraham obeyed the Law before it was given. See: Wright, 'Romans', pp. 492, 495, 637.
Recently, however, he has changed his view of Rom. 4:5. He now suggests that the term 'ungodly' is not
being applied to Abraham at all, but to his descendants. This new view is unconvincing, however. To
begin with Wright's claim that Romans 4:4 "carries no weight in the passage as a whole" is facile and
unpersuasive. Nicholas Thomas Wright, 'Paul And The Patriarch: The Role of Abraham In Romans 4',
JSJ, Vol. 35, No. 3, (2013), p. 216. Secondly, that the misqovV metaphor emerges from Genesis 15:1 and
not from "an underlying implicit second-Temple Jewish soteriology of 'doing good works' to earn God's
favour, an idea for which there is scant evidence..." (p. 216) overlooks Josephus' presentation of
Abraham as one who earns God's favour. Indeed, at Ant. 1:183, Josephus interprets Genesis 15:1 as
God's commendation of Abraham's virtue: "And God commended his virtue, and said, 'You shall not,
however, lose the rewards you have deserved to receive by such your glorious actions.'” See now also
the response article from Lambrecht: Jan Lambrecht, 'Romans 4: A Critique of N. T. Wright', JSJ, Vol.
36, No. 2, (2013), pp. 189-194.
49 Eisenbaum suggests that, "Paul alludes to the image of Abraham as former idolater and polytheist when
in Romans 4:5 he calls the patriarch "ungodly," the same word he uses to describe idolatrous Gentiles in
Romans 1:18." Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not A Christian: The Original Message of A
Misunderstood Apostle, New York, Harper Collins, 2009, pp. 203-204. Elsewhere, she draws on the
work of Edward Adams, saying, "Scholars have observed that Paul sometimes describes Abraham and
Gentiles similarly. For example, Paul essentially labels Abraham a "former idolater and polytheist"
when in Rom. 4:5 he indirectly calls the patriarch "ungodly" (asebes), a word commonly used of
Gentiles and which Paul himself uses to emphasize the idolatrous state of Gentiles in Rom. 1:18."
Pamela Eisenbaum, 'Paul As The New Abraham', in R. A. Horsley (ed.), Paul And Politics: Ekklesia,
Israel, Imperium, Interpretation, Harrisburg, Trinity Press, 2000, p. 137.
50 Elliott follows Eisenbaum: Neil Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Paul In The Shadow of
Empire, Minneapolis, Fortress, 2010, p. 136.
51 Byrne suggests, without providing any philological evidence, that: "In the Jewish tradition the Greek
term asebēs also has the connotation of "conventional sinner," one excluded from the covenant simply
by his or her social and ethnic situation, a fortiori, therefore, the Gentile. To speak of God's action in
regard to Abraham in this respect is less shocking in view of the tradition that looked upon Abraham as
the first pagan to come to belief in the true God and hence the archetypal proselyte (cf. Jub. 12:1-8, 12-
14, 16-20; Apoc. Abr. 1-8; Josephus, Ant. 1.155; Philo, Virt. 219...) In this "ethnic/social" sense
Abraham was an asebēs when God's address came to him." Byrne, Romans, p. 149.
52 Cranford writes: "...the term asebes, which must be seen as denoting those who are excluded from the
covenant, a form of address which would typically be applied to Gentiles. ... Abraham was justified at a
point where he was as yet uncircumcised, and therefore one of the ungodly." Michael Cranford,
'Abraham In Romans 4: The Father of All Who Believe', NTS, Vol. 41, (1995), p. 82.
53 Ziesler actually doesn't believe that Abraham is still in view at Rom. 4:5. Yet, he writes, "it is possible
that, if there is still a reference to Abraham, he is being seen as ungodly, i.e. a Gentile." John Ziesler,
Paul's Letter To The Romans, eds H. C. Kee and D. Nineham, London, SCM, 1989, p. 125.
54 Kent L. Yinger, Paul, Judaism, And Judgment According To Deeds, ed. R. J. Bauckham, SNTSMS, 105,
Cambridge, CUPress, 1999, p. 187.
55 Krister Stendahl, Final Account: Paul's Letter To The Romans, Minneapolis, Fortress, 1993, p. 76.
her presentation of the evidence. But the investigation here could as well be applied to
the proposals of these other commentators.
10.3.2.2 Calvert-Koyzis On Romans 4:5

In her discussion of Romans 4:5, Calvert-Koyzis builds upon the work of Edward
Adams. Recalling Adams, she writes that, "the use of ajsevbeia and ajdikiva in 1.18 is
strikingly similar to the collocation of dikaiovw (to justify) and ajsebhvV (ungodly) in 4.5
where Paul speaks of God's justifying the ungodly who trusts in him." 59 She suggests that
ajsebhvV is a word "packed with implicit meaning"; i.e. it implicitly refers to Gentiles.60
For Calvert-Koyzis, since the word ajsebhvV strongly implies Gentileness, the description
of Abraham as ajsebhvV at Romans 4:5 suggests that Paul sees Abraham primarily as a
Gentile. "Paul represents Abraham as a justified Gentile sinner", she writes.61 As Gentiles
are primarily in view in 1:18, the upshot of this is that, for Paul, "Abraham symbolizes
the Gentile sinner, [who] is reckoned righteous because of his faith."62 If this much is
clear, then we can say, further, that Paul was most likely influenced in his depiction of
Abraham as an ungodly Gentile by the extra-biblical traditions of Abraham's origins in
pagan Chaldea. Abraham is also said to provide a positive foil to the Gentile idolatry and
failure to glorify God in Romans 1. In contradistinction to the rest of the Gentiles,
Abraham believes in God (4:3) and gives glory to him (4:20). 63 Thus, if "we consider the
traditions about Abraham as the first to reject idolatry for monotheistic faith, he provides
a clear contrast to those Gentiles who have rejected faith in the Creator God for
56 Dieter Zeller, Der Brief an die Römer: Übersetzt und erklärt, Regensburger Neues Testament,
Regensburg, Pustet Verlag, 1985, p. 100.
57 Andrew T. Lincoln, 'Abraham Goes To Rome: Paul's Treatment of Abraham In Romans 4', in M. J.
Wilkins and T. Paige (eds.), Worship, Theology And Ministry In The Early Church: Essays In Honour
of Ralph P. Martin, JSNTSup, Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1992, p. 173.
58 We will discuss and evaluate Harrisville's particular position at another point.
60 See the discussion at: Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 125.
63 Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, pp. 128-129 especially.
idolatry."64
We shall examine this line of argumentation, beginning with the suggestion that
ajsebhvV is a word "packed with implicit meaning".
10.3.2.3 ajsebhvV Not A Terminus Technicus For 'Gentile Sinners'

The term aJmartwlovV has been described by Dunn as a term which by the first century
came to carry a technical sense. The term could be used not only to refer to any kind of
sin, but also as "a technical term for someone who either broke the law or did not know
the law".65 It thus came to be closely associated with ajnomiva. This is evident in the
context of Galatians 2:15, 17, where 'transgression' (of the Law) is also in view. This
technical sense applied especially to Gentiles, because they were, per definitionem,
people outside of the Law covenant. As such, in this restricted technical understanding of
aJmartwlovV, they were 'sinners'.66 They were sinners legally rather than morally. They
were sinners, that is to say, first of all in a legal sense, although this may have been
accompanied by morally dubious attitudes or actions.
Burton has also noted this usage, and demonstrates its diachronic development.67
The term aJmartwlovV, then, is a word packed with implicit meaning in its technical
usage. Non-technically, the term appears in Homer with a 'physical' sense, such as an
arrow missing a target. More pertinent is Burton's mention of the non-technical 'moral'
sense, whereby the term is employed to refer broadly to sin or the sinner. This broader
meaning allows Paul to ask, at Romans 7:7, whether the Law is 'sin' without the odd
implication that someone might think the Law to be lawless.
In this broader sense, aJmartwlovV/aJmartiva shares some semantic overlap with

65 James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, And The Law: Studies In Mark And Galatians, Louisville, John Knox,
1990, p. 150.
66 Dunn, Studies In Mark And Galatians, p. 151.
67 Ernest De Witt Burton, A Critical And Exegetical Commentary On The Epistle To The Galatians, ICC,
Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1980, pp. 119, 436-443.
ajsevbeia/ajsebhvV.68 Yet, we may question whether ajsebhvV is also used as a terminus
technicus for transgression of the Law or as a label for (lawless) Gentiles. In Dunn's
assessment, ajsebhvV is synonymous with the technical usage of aJmartwlovV, denoting
"disregard for the law and its prescriptions"69 In essence, that is what Calvert-Koyzis
contends, too, although she does not state as much.70 The difference is that Calvert-
Koyzis does not argue overtly from the basis of an interpretation of the e[rga of Rom. 4:2
as Dunn does, rather, she focuses on providing examples of the terms' application to
Gentiles.71
For the purposes of her argument, Calvert-Koyzis desires to suggest that the term
ajsebhvV connotes an ungodly Gentile. As such, she cites examples from the LXX 72 in an
attempt to demonstrate that the term predominantly refers to ungodly Gentiles. 73
Unfortunately omitted from her discussion is other evidence from the LXX indicating
that the term ajsebhvV is itself a neutral term which the LXX applies as commonly to the
Jews as to Gentiles, not a terminus technicus used to refer solely (or even primarily) to
Gentiles as transgressors of the Law (or simply as lawless).74 Indeed, in recapitulating the
68 This would appear to be obvious from the usage in Romans 5:6-8, where the terms are used somewhat
in parallel (which fact we shall discuss further below). Kolenkow treats ajsebhvV separately from
ajsevbeia. This is an overly simplistic and erroneous methodological move, however. Anitra Kolenkow,
'The Ascription of Romans 4:5', HTR, Vol. 60, No. 2, (1967), pp. 228-230. On Kolenkow's thesis that
Rom. 4:5 refers to Abraham's intercession for sinners, cf. Schreiner, Romans, p. 214, n. 6.
69 Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. 228, but see also 205-206, 229.
70 As Isaac Watts noted in his day, "some suppose the ungodly, Rom. iv. 5. and Rom. v. 6. to signify the
gentiles" Isaac Watts, Sermons, Discourses And Essays, On Various Subjects, Vol. 2, London, T.
Longman, 1753, p. 457.
71 In contrast to Dunn's view, Jacqueline C. R. de Roo writes: "Dunn contends that the word e[rga in v. 2 is
a shorthand for e[rga novmou found in Rom. 3.20, 28 and that Paul is saying here that Abraham was
justified by God 'apart from any covenant ritual or obligation'. However, the fact that v. 5 speaks of God
'who justifies the ungodly' strongly suggests that Abraham's lack of works were not merely a lack of
ritual actions, but that this insufficiency clearly has a moral content and denotes the patriarch's
sinfulness. Dunn wrongly believes that the word 'ungodly' simply means 'ungodly in the terms used by
the devout Jew', as if it were merely a synonym for 'Gentiles'. I believe that the 'ungodly' are those who
are sinful in God's eyes, as opposed to sinful in the eyes of devout Jews..." De Roo, 'Works of The Law'
At Qumran And In Paul, p. 69.
72 The following dicussion of 'the' LXX is based on Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta, 2 Vols., Stuttgart,
Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935. Further investigation of the Greek versions was deemed to be
beyond the scope of the present analysis. However, it is recognised that an avenue for further
investigation exists here.
74 See below. Paul himself says something similar to this, when he suggests that Gentiles might
concievably be seen as righteous in God's sight, if they follow their consciences and so act righteously.
final chapters of 2 Chronicles, 1 Esdras describes the 'ungodliness' of Israel as exceeding
that of the nations.75 'Ungodliness', thus, does not appear to be the limited preserve of the
Gentiles in the view of the LXX, nor are all Gentiles automatically to be considered
'ungodly' merely on the basis of their being outside of the Law covenant.76 Thus, that
Abraham is described as 'ungodly' at Romans 4:5 does not necessarily imply that Paul
pictures him in any especial measure as a Gentile.
In giving specific examples, Calvert-Koyzis cites Deut. 8:19-9:5 and Prov. 1:7 as
evidence that Gentiles are described as 'ungodly'. 77 One imagines that these are
representative rather than exhaustive. In any case, one might well add to them additional
examples of the application of the terminology of ungodliness to Gentiles. At points,
indeed, Abraham himself describes certain ‘Gentiles’ as ‘ungodly’.78 So, for example,
Abraham suggests that in Sodom and Gomorrah there are those who are ‘ungodly’
(ajsebou:V; Gen. 18:23).79 Similarly, Abraham suggests that he passed Sarah off as his
sister among Abimelech’s people (and one might stretch this to Egypt as well), because
“oujk e[stin qeosevbeia ejn tw:/ tovpw/ touvtw/” (Gen. 20:11). It is in a similar vein that God
declares to the Israelites, in Deut. 9:5, that he is giving them the land of Canaan, “dia;
th;n ajsevbeian tw:n ejqnw:n touvtwn”. Yet, in all of these instances, particular groups are
This is the case, for Paul, even though they are ethnically outside Israel, and even though they do not
have the Law (so, Rom. 2:14-15). Similarly, the Jews may sin and so bring upon themselves the epithet
'ungodly'. A man is not a sinner, therefore, because he is a Gentile. Neither is a man a Gentile, simply
because he is a sinner!
75 In this regard, note 1 Esd. 1:22 (kai; ta; kat= aujto;n de; ajnagevgraptai ejn toi:V e[mprosqen crovnoiV
peri; tw:n hJmarthjovtwn kai; hjsebhskovtwn eijV to;n kuvrion para; pa:n e[qnoV kai; basileivan kai; a}
ejluvphsan aujto;n ejn aijsqhvsei kai; oiJ lovgoi tou: kurivou ajnevsthsan ejpi; Israhl), but especially 1
Esd. 1:47: kai; oiJ hJgouvmenoi de; tou: laou: kai; tw:n iJerevwn polla; hjsevbhsan kai; hjnovmhsan uJpe;r
pavsaV tavV ajkaqarsivaV pavntwn tw:n ejqnw:n kai; ejmivanan to; iJero;n tou: kurivou to; aJgiazovmenon ejn
IerosoluvmoiV.
76 Likewise Gathercole: “the category of the “ungodly” is not restricted to Gentiles. The “ungodly,” as
commentators recognize, includes Israel as well as Gentiles”. Simon J. Gathercole, 'Justified By Faith,
Justified By His Blood: The Evidence of Romans 3:21-4:25', in D. A. Carson, M. A. Seifrid, and P. T.
O'Brien (eds.), Justification And Variegated Nomism (Vol. 2): The Paradoxes of Paul, Tübingen, Mohr
Siebeck, 2004, p. 158.
78 Does this designation of Abraham's suggest that, at least in his own self-understanding by the time of
Genesis 18, he did not see himself as an ungodly Gentile?
79 At the same time, he also seems to suggest that there might be some ‘righteous’ in the city. Probably,
Abraham was thinking of Lot (cf. 2 Pet. 2), however.
in view, and reference is not made to the ‘Gentiles’ en masse.80
Psalm 9:5 (LXX – 9:6) stands in contrast to the references just cited in as much as
it broadens the description of ‘ungodliness’ (oJ ajsebhvV) to the ‘nations’ in general. Yet,
even here, the nations in view are, specifically, “all the nations that forget God” (9:17).81
Gentiles, therefore, are not considered ipso facto as ungodly. Rather, they are ungodly
insofar as they act in an ungodly manner. Furthermore, it is often overlooked that David
elsewhere describes himself as 'ungodly' (i.e., LXX Ps. 31:5).82 But surely no one would
assert that David was claiming himself to be either a Gentile, or a lawless man, or an
habitual transgressor of the Law – rather, he was one who had broken the Law.83
We may also comment on the opposite of 'ungodliness'. Here we find that, outside
of the LXX, the language of godliness is sometimes applied to Gentiles. Philo sees
godliness in certain non-Jews (e.g. Virt. 221; Aet. 10; Legat. 245, 280, 297, 319).84 And
one might take Abr. 60-61 to imply that one need not come under the Mosaic Law as
such to be godly, so long as one learns from nature and the example of good men to
80 So, in both the Pentateuch and the prophets, it is always some particular group of Gentiles that are in
view: i.e. the Canaanites in Deut. 9:5. It is not correct to suggest that texts such as Deut. 9:5, therefore,
though often sighted to such an end, can support the claim that the Gentiles in general were considered
'ungodly' ipso facto. Similarly, the suggestion by Benjamin Schließer that, "In Ant 20,45 Josephus calls
the state of "not-being-circumcised" ajsevbeia." (Benjamin Schließer, Abraham's Faith in Romans 4:
Paul's Concept of Faith in Light of the History of Reception of Genesis 15:6, WUNT 2. Reihe, 224,
Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2007, p. 352, n. 961) is not addressed to Gentiles in general. Rather, the
proselyte Izates is specifically in view, and the charge of 'ungodliness' made against him by Eleazar the
Galilean, arises not so much out of his being Gentile and so uncircumcised per se but, rather, out of his
avoiding circumcision for politically expedient reasons whilst still claiming to be placing himself under
the strictures of the Law. Thus, this passage is not an invective against Gentiles in general but is
directed towards a specific situation of proselytising. If one were to become a Jew, one must be
circumcised. The passage says nothing about Gentiles who do not desire to proselytise, however.
Perhaps, Eleazar would have afforded them the opportunity to avoid 'ungodliness' by observing the
Noahide Laws (Jubilees 7:20-21?). This passage is not determinative either way.
81 Cf. Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 13; 2:1; Isa. 13:11, et passim.
82 Schließer, Abraham's Faith in Romans 4, p. 352, n. 956.
83 Amos is a particularly good illustration of how ungodliness can be a characteristic of Jews as much as
of Gentiles. In Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 13; 2:1, 4, 6; 3:14; 5:12 the ungodliness of the Gentiles is described
and condemned (1:1-2:1), this is followed, however, by a parallel condemnation of the ungodliness of
Israel/Judah (2:4ff.). It were as though the ungodliness of both Israel and the nations was of one cloth.
So Foester: "the crimes of the surrounding nations (mostly in war), the idolatry and despising of the
Law in Judah and the social injustice of Israel are all called ajsevbeiai (plur. = ‫)פּ ָשׁ ִעים‬ ְ in similarly
constructed statements." Werner Foester, 'ajsebhvV ktl.', TDNT, 7:188.
84 We adopt Colson's translations of Aet. 10 here: "Aristotle surely showed a pious [eujsebw:V] and
religious spirit...". Yet, it is not entirely clear to us how "mhvpot=" should be understood in this sentence.
follow the law of nature. In opposing mere ceremonialism, Philo also appears to suggest
that godliness is more a matter of the disposition of an individual than of his fulfillment
of such things as sacrifices (e.g. Cher. 96; Det. 20-21; Plant. 107 Mos. 2:108; cf. Ebr.
18). Having said this, for Philo, Jewish neglect of the Sabbatical year is an expression of
ungodliness (Praem. 157).
In the New Testament, Acts (10:2, 7; 17:23) might be said to provide further
evidence for the possibility of the characteristic of godliness being applied to non-Jews.
Similarly, Josephus thinks of Pythagoras, amongst others, as godly, and that without any
mention of his having become a Jew or having adopted Jewish customs (Ag. Ap. 1:162;
see also: Ag. Ap. 2:130-131; Ant. 11:120, 132; 13:242-244; 14:72; 20:37, 48, 75). These
examples would seem to distance ungodliness from being too closely related to
transgression of the Law, or to Gentileness per se.
It seems, then, that those people are described as ‘ungodly’ who fail to properly
relate to God, by not treating him as he should be treated, and not responding to him as
he should be responded to. BDAG bears this meaning out.85 Of course, the Gentiles
almost universally do this, but so do many Jews. Thus, ‘ungodly’ should not be seen as
being formally synonymous with ‘Gentile’ or as connoting Gentileness in terms
transgression of the Law in the same way as aJmartolovV can. The number of the Gentiles
85 The definition of ajsebhvV in BDAG is as follows: It is that sin which fails to recognise God or relate to
him properly; or put negatively, as BDAG does, it is that behaviour which “violate[s] the norms of a
proper or professed relation to diety” Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature, ed. F. W. Danker, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 141.
Cf. Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon: With A
Revised Supplement, 9th. Edn., Oxford, OUPress, 1996, p. 255: "ungodly, unholy, profane,
sacrilegious"; Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller, Analytical Lexicon To The Greek
New Testament, Victoria, Trafford, 2005, p. 77: "ungodly, irreverent, godless"; Joseph Henry Thayer, A
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, New York, American Book Co., 1889, p.79: "destitute of
reverential awe toward God, contemning God, impious"; Johannes E. Louw and Eugene A. Nida,
Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament: Based On Semantic Domains, New York, UBS, 1989,
which lists the term under the domain of "religious practice", "pertaining to living without regard for
religious belief or practice, ungodly". Sanday and Headlam comment that the word is "strong". William
Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, The Epistle To The Romans, 5th Edn., Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1902, p.
101. Robert Mounce writes: "ajsebhvV is a strong term designating the one who lives without any regard
whatsoever for God. H. C. G. Moule calls ajsebhvV "a word intense and dark" that describes "not the
sinner only, but the open, defiant sinner" (The Epistle to the Romans [London: Pickering & Inglis, n.d.],
109)." Mounce, Romans, p. 123, n. 45.
who are ‘ungodly’ are ungodly, because they ‘forget’ God, and act in an irreligious,
ungodly manner, not merely because they are Gentiles.86
Thus, even the Jews can be described as ‘ungodly’ at times, because they too may
fail to properly relate to God, even though they are Jews, as is witnessed in a large
number of LXX texts.87 The LXX, then, does not seem to treat 'ungodly' as a terminus
technicus for Gentiles, who are outside the covenant. Ungodliness is quite possible
within the covenant.
Nor does Paul seem to make such a Jew/Gentile distinction in relation to
ungodliness. He sees himself as being 'ungodly' before his justification (Rom. 5:6).88
Such 'ungodliness' evidently carries moral overtones, and not merely covenantal ones.89
As such, Paul's usage of the term at Romans 4:5 fits the context, since Paul is not simply
arguing that God can justify those outside the covenant, but that God declares people
divkaioV who, in fact, are not divkaioV (who are not even eujsebhvV), and have no works to
boast about or on the basis of which to expect righteousness to be credited to them.90
This evidence argues against the idea that by labelling Abraham as 'ungodly' at
Romans 4:5, Paul is viewing him as a Gentile and insofar as ungodly in a legal sense.
The term is not being used to refer to Abraham's standing in the covenant community or
86 Indeed, particularly in the first century, many Gentiles were seen as 'god fearers' (e.g. Acts 13:16 – oiJ
fobouvmenoi to;n qeovn) or 'god worshipers' (e.g. Acts 13:50; 17:4, 17 – oiJ sebovmenoi). The second of
these was, "a term applied to former polytheists who accepted the ethical monotheism of Israel and
attended the synagogue, but who did not obligate themselves to keep the whole Mosaic law; in
particular, the males did not submit to circumcision" Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 918.
87 E.g. Judg. 20:13; Hos. 7:13; 8:1; 10:13; 12:1; 14:10; Amos 2:4, 6; 3:14; 4:4; 5:12; Mic. 1:5, 13; 3:8;
6:7, 12; Hab. 1:3, 4, 13; 2:17; Zeph. 3:11; Isa. 33:14; Jer. 2:29; Lam. 3:42; Ezek. 12:19; Dan. 9:5, et
passim.
88 Jonathan Edwards writes against the suggestion that Paul here "speaks only of the Gentiles in their
heathen state, yet puts himself with them, because he was the apostle of the Gentiles." For his
discussion of the idea, see: Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, 2 Vols., Vol. 1, London,
Ball, Arnold & Co., 1840, p. 197.
89 In this vein, Moo states, “adikia (“unrighteousness”) and adikos (“unrighteous”) are generally used of
humans, with moral force”. Moo, Romans, p. 88, but see the whole excursus on righteousness language
in Paul at: Moo, Romans, pp. 79-90 (emphasis added). Cf. this statement also to that of Klaus Haacker
that Paul's, "use of dikaiosyne is only partly ethical (the other part being soteriological), the negative
terms adikia and adikos testify to the importance of the ethical idea of righteousness (see e.g., Rom.
1:18, 29; 2:8; 3:5; 6:13; 9:14." Klaus Haacker, The Theology of Paul's Letter To The Romans, New
Testament Theology, Cambridge, CUPress, 2003, p. 66.
90 Jewett, Romans, pp. 307-315.
to his ethnic identity but, rather, to his moral standing before God.91
Visscher provides several more considerations which militate against the common
position assumed by Calvert-Koyzis.
Firstly, he suggests that, if Paul had desired to describe Abraham as a Gentile,
then he had a word available to him to do that: viz. 'e[qnh'.92 To which we would add that
Galatians 2:15 seems to indicate that had Paul wished to talk about “Gentile sinners”, he
would have used this term (e[qnh) to specify about whom exactly he was speaking.93
Indeed, even though it is generally accepted that Paul, in Galatians 2:15, repeats a
common Jewish expression which might suggest that the term aJmartiva could be used
even on its own as a terminus technicus to refer to lawless Gentiles,94 this does not mean
91 Robert Jewett argues that the primary cause of division amongst the Roman Christians was 'boasting'.
As such, he denies that ajsebhvV should be limited to a reference to Gentile justification. To wit, he says,
"In view of Paul's prior use of ajsebeiva in 1:18 and his subsequent use of ajsebhvV in the confessional
citation of 5:6, both of which refer to a universal human condition of arrogant rebellion against God, it
seems inappropriate to construe it here as "idolatry" or "sinner" in the technical sense of violating the
Torah. Either of these options would restrict the bearing of Abraham's example to either the Gentile
Christian or the Jewish Christian side of the Roman congregations." Jewett, Romans, p. 314.
92 Gerhard H. Visscher, Romans 4 And The New Perspective On Paul: Faith Embraces The Promise,
Studies In Biblical Literature, Vol. 122, New York, Peter Lang, 2009, p. 178.
93 At Gal. 2:15, Paul writes: “hJmei:V fuvsei =Ioudai:oi kai; oujk ejx ejqnw:n aJmartwloiv.” Longenecker lists
Matt. 26:45 as evidence that 'aJmartwloiv' was used as a synonym for “Gentiles”. Surely, however, the
referent of aJmartwlw:n at Matt. 26:45 includes both the Romans who executed Jesus and the Jewish
leaders who handed him over to Pilot, rather than simply the (Gentile) Romans alone. If so, this
example illustrates that it was not only the Gentiles who could be categorised as aJmartwlovV but Jews
also and that, therefore, when a writer wished to refer to Gentile sinners specifically, this had to be
pointed-up in some way – whether by context or lexical additions (primarily 'e[qnh'). One might, of
course, refer to the “Gentiles” and assume the word “sinners” (e.g. Matt. 5:46-47), but one could not
refer to “sinners” alone and have “Gentiles” be assumed necessarily, unless already established by the
context. Longenecker also cites Luke 6:32-33. Here, however, it seems unlikely that Luke wished his
readers to understand 'aJmartwloi;' as referring to sinful Gentiles (in contrast to Jesus' Jewish hearers),
for Luke's tendency is not to alienate the Gentiles in his audience. Indeed, it seems that Luke has
replaced (so-to-speak) Matthew's direct reference to Gentiles with a more general term that, without
further qualification, would encompass both Jews and Gentiles, or at least be ambiguous (cf. Robert H.
Stein, Luke, NAC, Vol. 24, Nashville, B&H, 1992, p. 208. See also: Dwayne H. Adams, The Sinner In
Luke, Evangelical Theological Society Monograph Series, 8, Eugene, Wipf & Stock, 2008, pp. 136ff.)
Longenecker also lists Isa. 14:5 as an example of ““sinners” [serving] as a synonym for Gentiles”. Yet,
in the context of Isaiah 14, it appears that the king of Assyria alone is in view (despite the plural form)
as “sinner” in contrast to the nations whom he oppresses (Isa. 14:6). Even if one were to interpret Isa.
14:5 in broad terms, then, one could hardly say more than that God is committed to breaking the rule of
sinful Gentile rulers; not that all Gentile rulers are sinful, much less that the term “sinners” has all the
Gentiles in view. See: Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, ed. R. P. Martin, WBC, Vol. 41, Waco, Word
Books, 1990, p. 83. For some discussion of possible reasons for the use of the plural (“sinners”) at Isa.
14:5, see: Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 13-39, trans. R. A. Wilson, Old Testament Library, Philadelphia,
Westminster Press, 1974, p. 34.
94 See, for e.g., the article by K. H. Rengstorf, 'aJmartwlovV', TDNT, 1:325-328; Dunn, Studies In Mark
And Galatians, pp. 73ff., 150-151. The argument is that hamartia came to be associated with
transgression of the Law to such an extent that to call someone a 'sinner' suggested that they were
that ajsebhvV (though semantically overlapping with, and found in some contexts together
with, aJmartiva)95 was commonly used as such a terminus technicus.96 Undoubtedly all
kinds of polemical epithets would have been applied by Jews to their Gentile neighbours,
but not all of these can be considered to have reached the level of the terminus
technicus.97
Secondly, he notes that Paul also, elsewhere in Romans, characterises Israel as
'ungodly' (11:26), and even describes himself as 'ungodly' prior to his conversion (5:6;
noted above).98 This usages help clarify that ajsebhvV is not used in Romans 4:5 in a
technically restricted sense of 'Gentile' or 'one outside of the covenant'.
Romans 5:6-8 is particularly illuminating. Here we see ajsebhvV placed in an
essentially parallel relation with several other terms. The ajsebw:n are also ajsqenw:n; they
are the opposite of dikaivou and ajgaqou:, and they are aJmartwlw:n. If we begin by
reading aJmartwlovV in its technical sense, we might read this meaning into the other
words as well. Yet, the absence of an accompanying 'ejqnw:n'; the obvious inclusion of
Paul amongst the ungodly, and the presence of the specifically moral designation ajgaqovV
in this list strongly suggests that each of these terms carries a moral flavour, and that
aJmartwlovV occurs in its non-technical sense.
Now, Calvert-Koyzis is aware of these last two occurrences of ajsebhvV.
Nevertheless, it is decisive for her that while in both Romans 1 and 4 'dik-' and 'ajseb-'
outside the in-group of those who faithfully keep Torah. By extension, the Gentiles were thus 'sinners',
since they didn't even possess the Law. As such, in this nomos-oriented usage of the term, 'sinners'
could be used to refer to either: (a) Gentiles, or (b) Jews who were outside of the pale of faithful Torah
observance from the perspective of another Jewish group (e.g. Pharisees condemning those who failed
to observe the Pharisaic halakhot, even if such should observe the written Torah).
95 For the two terms as synonyms, see: Richard Chenevix Trench, Synonyms of The New Testament,
London, 1880, p. 242; George Ricker Berry, A Dictionary of New Testament Greek Synonyms, Grand
Rapids, Zondervan, 1979, pp. 13-14.
96 To the best of my knowledge, the identification which developed between 'aJmartiva' and non-
observance of the Law was not accompanied by a parallel identification of 'ajsebhvV' with non-
observance of the Law. Thus, it is doubtful that 'ajsebhvV' would have been used as a terminus technicus
in a manner comparable to that of 'aJmartiva'.
97 Schließer writes that non-Jews were “characteristically” designated as 'lawless', 'ungodly', and 'sinners'.
He cites Deut. 9:4-5 and Ant. 20:45 as evidence for the second designation. Schließer, Abraham's Faith
in Romans 4, p. 352, n. 961.
98 Visscher, Romans 4 And The NPP, pp. 178, 180. See, similarly, the discussion below.
words occur together, this is the only time that this happens in Romans.99 This is an
attempt to sequester the instances of 'ajseb-' at Rom. 5:6 and 11:26 from affecting the
interpretation of Romans 4:5. The attempt is unconvincing.
In the first place, while 'dikaivou', at Romans 5:7, does not appear in exactly the
same verse as the 'ajsebw:n' of 5:6, does this closely related second verse not count as part
of the immediate context?100 Thus, is it factually accurate to say that ajsebhvV occurs at
Rom. 5.6 “without the addition of a dik- or adik- word”?101 On the contrary, several
features of Romans 5:6-8 suggest the verses are closely related: Firstly, the repetition of
'ajpoqnhv/skw' in all three verses; secondly, the repetition of 'e[ti'; thirdly, the repetition of
'uJpevr' in all three verses; fourthly, roughly parallel structure of the three sentences in vv.
6-7, strung together with the repeated 'gavr', and then brought to a climax in verse 8, with
the introductory 'de;'. These linguistic factors indicate that the same theme is being
discussed throughout: viz. (Christ's) voluntary substitutionary death. Thus, while Romans
4:5 mentions explicitly God's justification of the ungodly and 5:6 does not explicitly
mention justification or include a 'dik-' or 'ajdik-' word, surely the same concept is in
sight in the latter verse. Christ 'dies' for the 'ungodly' in Rom. 5:6. And for what does
Christ die? Is it not as a propitiation to justify the ungodly (cf. Rom. 3:21-26; 4:25)?
If we turn our attention to Romans 11:26, we will first note that no 'dik-' or
'ajdik-' words occur in the immediate context. We may still argue, nevertheless, that the
concept of justification is present. The 'unrighteous' in 11:26, we are told, will be 'saved'
(swv/zw). Surely this salvation will involve justification (cf. Rom. 10:9-10).102 Thus, it is
99 "While dikaiovw and ajdikiva are common in Pauline texts," she writes, "ajsebhvV and ajsevbeia are not,
occurring only at [Rom. 4:5, and at] Rom. 5.6 and 11.26 in the undisputed Pauline epistles, and without
the addition of a dik- or adik- word in either case." Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People
of God, p. 125.
100 One must bear in mind, of course, that the verse divisions did not form part of the Apostle's original
composition.
101 We might ask the same question of the appearance of 'dikaiwqevnteV' in 5:9.
102 As Moo notes, Paul most often uses sw/zw to refer to future eschatological salvation. Moo, Romans, p.
310, n. 91. However, he does also occasionally use the term to refer to the believers justification (e.g.
Rom. 8:24; Eph. 2:5, 8). Fung comments that justification, for Paul, occurs in the present, whereas
salvation is eschatological. Hence, justification and salvation are "differentiated from each other".
instructive to note that in both instances Jews are in view (along with Gentiles in 5:6, and
solely in 11:26), and the concept of justification is present. Consequently, it seems
illegitimate to imply that the occurrences of 'ajseb-' at 5:6 and 11:26 cannot be cited as
support for the view that the term is not restricted to Gentiles at 4:5. Indeed, it seems
likely that both Jews and Gentiles are in view in Rom. 4:5 and in Romans 1.103
Finally, if Moo is correct in suggesting that Paul uses asebeia and adikia as
synonyms in Rom. 1:18 (so that the two are used together for rhetorical effect more than
to distinguish two particular activities) then Abraham, the asebes, might, thereby, also be
seen as a[dikoV.104 If it is acceptable to consider Abraham as a[dikoV, then, an equal
affinity might be seen to exist between Abraham and those Jews who are seen as a[dikoV
in 3:5 as exists between the patriarch and the asebeis in 1:18. Indeed, if none is divkaioV
(3:10), then all are a[dikoV. Surely, then, Abraham's justification cannot point to Gentiles
more than it points to Jews, since all are equally sinful, and all are justified in the same
way.105 And, as such, ouj ejstin diastolhv (3:22; cf. 10:12).
Visscher, thirdly, borrows from Benjamin Schließer approvingly, where, as he
summarises, Schließer suggests, with reference to Romans 4, that “[t]he concern of Paul
Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle To The Galatians, ed. F. F. Bruce, NIBCNT, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans,
1988, p. 225. In this instance, perhaps both are combined, since the salvation spoken of is certainly
future, but it seems unlikely that such salvation will comes without a prior justification. So, Moo
comments on Rom. 11:26: "...the absence of the name of Christ in Rom. 11 [cannot] justify the
conclusion that this faith need not be faith in Christ. Paul has defined the faith he is talking about here
quite adequately in the first ten chapters of the letter: it is faith in Jesus Christ (see esp. 3:22, 26; 10:4-
13). As Paul has made clear in the immediately preceeding chapter, faith is inextricably tied to Jesus
and his resurrection victory (10:9), and it is this faith that brings salvation to Gentile and Jew alike
(10:10-13)." Moo, Romans, p. 726.
103 Cf. the discussion by Das (Das, 'Romans 4:4-5 As A "New Perspective" Case Study', p. 807), who
notes: "Nothing in 4:4-5 indicates that ajsebhvV should be taken in a narrower sense of idolatry or a
specific violation of Torah."
104 Moo notes that, while the words are etymologically distinct, a distinction in meaning is not usually
maintained in post-classical usage. He cites evidence both from the LXX and Paul. See: Moo, Romans,
p. 102, n. 50. Other evidence could also be deduced to demonstrate the same point. So, for example,
compare Romans 1:18 with the similar construction (ajsevbeian kai; ajdikivan) at Praem. 105. Cf.
BDAG; “in general ajsevbeia is understood vertically as a lack of reverence for deity... its corollary
ajdikiva refers horizontally to violation of human rights”. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 141.
105 Several further statements in Romans 1-3 imply the universal scope of Paul's argument. So, for
example, as noted by Visscher, Paul speaks in 3:19 about "every mouth" (pavn stovma) and "the whole
world" (pa:V oJ kovsmoV tw:/ qew:/). Visscher, Romans 4 And The NPP, p. 245.
is not to define certain moments in Abraham's life when he sinned. Instead, it is a matter
of Abraham being in the general, human condition: weak, ungodly, and sinful, as Paul
has described in the opening chapters of his letter.”106
We can conclude from the foregoing that it is inaccurate to suggest that Gentiles
are exclusively (or even primarily) in view at Rom. 4:5. More than this, however, it is
actually “important to emphasize that the category of the “ungodly” is not restricted to
Gentiles. The “ungodly,” as commentators recognize, includes Israel as well as
Gentiles...”107 To limit the applicability of Abraham's example to either Jews or Gentiles
is to miss the basic nature of Paul's sweeping argument.
Again, to accept Calvert-Koyzis' interpretation one has to do violence to the
immediately preceding (and parallel) reference to David, seeing it as somehow not
including a reference to David himself as a forgiven sinner (or Jews in general) but,
rather, as further describing the justification of Abraham the Gentile. Yet, this, we see, is
precisely her line of reasoning. So, she says,
...if we understand that Paul has been speaking about Abraham the ungodly (4.5), lawless
(4.3) Gentile, we see that by citing Ps. 32.1-2, he is still referring primarily to Abraham who
was reckoned righteous 'apart from works', whose sins were covered and not reckoned to him.
Paul represents Abraham as a justified Gentile sinner.108
The ajnqrwvpou of 4:6 is a generic singular, referring to people in general (whether

106 Visscher, Romans 4 And The NPP, p. 180. I, too, would agree with Schließer at this point. As he says,
helpfully, “…ungodliness needs to be conceived of as [an] anthropological-ontological term, denoting
one’s existence and being apart from God’s righteousness. Here, the question: “Did Abraham really
commit sins?” is not as much in view as his being in the general, “natural-human” state of weakness,
ungodliness, and sinfulness (cf. 5:6.8).” Yet, one must also note that Schließer follows this comment by
ascribing Paul's description of Abraham to his reading of certain of the Jewish traditions of Abraham's
conversion. As such, whereas I would suggest that Paul sees Abraham in Rom. 4:5 as a ‘man’ (cf. Rom.
1:18) and insofar as 'ungodly' (irrespective of his ethnicity, since immediately preceding the
introduction of Abraham, Paul has stated so emphatically that “there is no difference” Rom. 3:23),
Schließer states that Abraham was seen by Paul, “as Gentile and insofar as “ungodly.”” See: Schließer,
Abraham's Faith in Romans 4, pp. 348-349.
107 Gathercole, 'Justified By Faith, Justified By His Blood: The Evidence of Romans 3:21-4:25', p. 158.
108 Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 126. An alternative version of Calvert-
Koyzis' position could be prodcued by applying the suggestion that Abraham is representative of
Gentiles and David of Jews. Otfried Hofius hints at such a bifurcation: “Den gottlosen Heiden Abraham
stellt Paulus in 4,6–8 den gottlosen Juden David an die Seite – als einen, der wie Abraham sola gratia
„gerechtfertigt“ wurde.” Otfried Hofius, Paulusstudien, 2 Vols., Vol. Vol. 2, WUNT, Vol. 143,
Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2002, pp. 54-56. This suggestion seems unlikely, however, given the fact that
Paul applies Abraham's example to both Jews (to whom he is inextricably connected as their father
'kata sarka'; Rom. 4:1) and Gentiles. Abraham is the 'father' of both (Rom. 4:16).
Jew or Gentile), including Abraham, certainly, but not limited to him in an exclusive
sense; including David also, for that matter.109 Further to this, the point of Rom. 4:9
seems to be that Abraham's example of faith is applicable to Jews as well as Gentiles.
Thus, whatever we say about Paul's use of Psalm 32, does he not have both Jews and
Gentiles in view in 4:5?110
10.3.2.4 An Awareness of The Jewish Texts Assumed By Romans 4:5?

Having argued that Romans 4:5 pictures Abraham as a Gentile sinner, Calvert-Koyzis
next proposes, following Adams, that 4:5 implicitly refers to the Abraham texts which, it
is supposed, refer to Abraham as a Gentile idolater who converts to belief in God.
Calvert-Koyzis cites the two arguments made by Adams, to argue for this point:
viz. (a) that Paul's designation of Abraham as an ungodly Gentile makes best sense when
interpreted against the background of the Abraham texts; (b) that since Paul assumes –
rather than argues for – the designation of Abraham as ungodly, he evidently expects the
notion of Abraham as an ungodly Gentile to be both familiar and acceptable to his
audience.111
In relation to the first point, it can be questioned whether the description of
Abraham as 'ungodly' makes sense as a summary of the five Abraham texts. The opposite
it actually true. With the possible exception of ApocAb, the Abraham texts actually
picture Abraham as being godly, and that clearly in a moral sense. This point should be
109 Cf. the a[nqrwpoV at Gal. 2:15-16

110 We may note, at this point, that some do not see a reference to Abraham at all in Romans 4:5. Hodge,
for example, comments as follows: “Paul speaks of God as justifying the ungodly... not with any special
reference to Abraham, as though he was the ungodly person whom God justified...” Charles Hodge,
Commentary On The Epistle To The Romans, Philadelphia, Alfred Martien, 1873, p. 177. Interestingly,
however, Hodge suggests that Abraham is not in view in particular, because Paul is speaking about all
men in general. Thus, the singular is used, “because every man must believe for himself. God does not
justify communities.” Hodge, Romans, p. 177. We do not adopt this position, that Abraham has slipped
out of view in Romans 4:5, but the result is largely the same, in that Hodge believes that both Jews and
Gentiles are in frame. Davies cites further examples of commentators who do not see Romans 4:5 as
describing Abraham directly: Glenn Naunton Davies, Faith And Obedience In Romans: A Study In
Romans 1-4, ed. D. Hill, JSNTSup, Vol. 39, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 1990, p. 160, n. 1.
111 Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 126; Adams, 'Abraham's Faith And
Gentile Disobedience', pp. 59-60.
sufficiently clear from our earlier discussion of those texts (cf. §7.3).112 Indeed, far from
ajsevbeia being ascribed to Abraham, one may observe the repeated application of
eujsevbeia to the patriarch in the Jewish literature, as in Philo,113 and Josephus.114
Jubilees, and LAB are similarly laudatory, while not using the words 'godly' or
'God-fearing'.115 LAB is equally keen to distinguish Abraham from the ungodly. 116 Indeed,
Pseudo-Philo sees Abraham as standing in a line of godly men which includes Noah,
112 This point is made by Horn, who states that, "in der Abrahamerzählung und in der jüdischen
Überlieferung Abraham nicht als ajsebhvV bezeichnet wird" Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, 'Juden und Heiden:
Aspekte der Verhältnisbestimmung in den paulinischen Briefen, Ein Gespräch mit Krister Stendahl ', in
M. Bachmann and J. Woyke (eds.), Lutherische und neue Paulusperspektive: Beiträge zu einem
Schlüsselproblem der gegenwärtigen exegetischen Diskussion, WUNT, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2005,
p. 35.
113 In particular, see: Abr. 60, Migr. 132, Somn. 1:194. Cf. Francis Watson, Paul And The Hermeneutics of
Faith, London & New York, T&T Clark, 2004, p. 244. Incidentally, Pseudo-Eupolemus and the author
of 4 Maccabees also see Abraham as 'godly' or 'God-fearing' (so, Praep.-Ev. 9:17-18; and [qeosebhvV] 4
Macc. 15:28). In 4 Macc. 15:29, Abraham's 'daughter' appears to take after him; being described with
the synonym 'eusebeia'. And if one were to extend one's field of vision to include other texts, it would
become apparent that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, Jewish authors in antiquity viewed
Abraham positively, not in any way approximating the label 'ungodly'. Many examples could be given.
We shall be content to point to only one interesting example: viz. that of Zenda Watanabe, who sees the
depiction of Abraham in Judith and the Testaments of The Twelve Patriarchs as presenting Abraham as
a virtuous example: "アブラハムは。。。高潔なる人格として描かれてい " ("Abraham is depicted as a
man of great virtue."). Zenda Watanabe, Watanabe Zenda's Complete Works, Tokyo, Kirisuto, 1966, p.
243.
114 Josephus refers to Abraham's godliness and virtue (e.g. Ant. 1:256; 2:196) Paul Spilsbury writes that:
"Abraham is portrayed by Josephus as the epitome of wisdom, hospitality and piety. ... It is important to
note the connection between Abraham's piety and [God's] good will. In Ant. 1.183, for example, the
latter is dependent upon the former: 'God commended his virtue and said, "Nay thou shalt not lose the
rewards that are thy due (misqoi; ou}V ejstin de) for such good deeds".'" ... In fact, the relationship
between God and Abraham is represented as distinctively contractual. ... As W. C. van Unnik has
pointed out, this is a formulation of the relationship betweeen God and humanity with which a
hellenistic audience would have been quite familiar. Piety is rewarded with divine favour which elicits a
response of gratitude and further acts of piety..." Paul Spilsbury, 'God And Israel In Josephus: A Patron-
Client Relationship', in S. Mason (ed.), Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, JSPSup,
Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 1998, pp. 186-187. In this connection, we see a remarkable contrast
between Jospephus' presentation and Paul's description of Abraham at Romans 4:4-5, where he opposes
just these two conceptions of Abraham – as one worthy of reward, or one simply receiving grace. For
the close connection between 'virtue' and 'piety' in Josephus, see, for e.g.: Ant. 1:6, 100; 6:160; 8:196;
9:236; 14:72; 18:117; Ag. Ap. 2:159, 170. Cf. Annette Yoshiko Reed, 'The Construction And Subversion
of Patriarchal Perfection: Abraham And Exemplarity In Philo, Josephus, And The Testament of
Abraham', JSJ, Vol. 40, (2009), p. 199.
115 Thus, Jubilees describes Abraham as faithful to God's command and so perfectly righteous (Jub. 17:18;
23:9-10). See also Dodd: Dodd, The Epistle of Paul To The Romans, pp. 67-68. Dodd cites Jub. 23:10;
Sir. 44:20-21; 2 Bar. 57:2; and the rabbis, to show that Abraham was often exegeted as having been
perfect. So also, for Baumbach, Paul's assertion at 4:5 is, “im schroffen Gegensatz zur jüdischen
Tradition (vgl. Sir 44,19-21; Jub 23,10; 24,11 u. ö.)”. Günther Baumbach, 'Abraham unser Vater: Der
Prozeß der Vereinnahmung Abrahams durch das frühe Christentum', ThVer, Vol. 16, (1986), p. 42.
116 So, for example, Bruce Fisk writes that Abraham stands "removed from sinful humanity (LAB 4.11; 6.3,
11, 17; 7.3-4; 8.1-3)." Fisk then adds that while the "distinction between Abraham and the sinful nations
occurs throughout Jewish literature, Abraham is not always associated with the Bable generation per se.
" Bruce Norman Fisk, Do You Not Remember?: Scripture, Story And Exegesis In The Rewritten Bible of
Pseudo-Philo, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 2001, pp. 146-147.
Shem, Serug, and Joktan.117
As such, Ulrich Wilckens, comments:
Zwar sieht auch die jüdische Überlieferung dort, wo sie in Abraham das Urbild des
Proselyten erkennt, seine Rechtfertigung als die des ersten bekehrten Heiden. Niemals aber
zeichnet sie ihn vor seiner Bekehrung als heidnischen Sünder, sondern als einen Heiden, der
sich dadurch aus seiner gesamten götzendienerischen Umwelt heraushebt, daß er den einen,
wahren Gott suchte und entgegen der heimischen polytheistischen Verirrung nach ihm fragte
(Jub 11f). … Paulus dagegen versteht die Rechtfertigung Abrahams als iustification impii;
Abraham war zuvor faktisch Sünder. In VV 4f geschieht also nicht anderes als das
Zerbrechen des jüdisch-geläufigen Verständnisses der Rechtfertigung Abrahams und eine
völlig neue, spezifisch christliche Deutung tritt an ihre Stelle.118
Thus, one must seriously question whether Paul's view of Abraham's 'ungodliness'
could really have been derived from portraits of Abraham like those found in Philo,
Josephus, Jubilees, or the Antiquities. This is not to confuse Abraham's pre-call state with
his post-call state, but it is to suggest that descriptions of his godliness are applied to his
whole life. In such cases, it seems that Abraham is 'godly' before his 'conversion' and not
necessarily as a result of it. As Horn notes, “Innerhalb der jüdisch-hellenistischen
Literatur ist ajsebhvV, ajsevbeia, ajsebevw auch nicht wirklich mit heidnischer Existenz
konnotiert.”119
117 Rhonda Burnette-Bletsch points out that both Noah and Abraham are distinguished from the rest of
humanity by their righteousness (LAB 1:20; 3:4; 4:11; 7:4). She also argues that, "the repeated thematic
and linguistic connections between Noah and Abraham in L.A.B. 1-8 suggest that the former in some
sense prefigures the latter. Pseudo-Philo understands Noah, like Abraham, as an early ancestor of Israel
whose 'blameless' character sets him apart from the rest of sinful humanity." Rhonda J. Burnette-
Bletsch, 'The Reception of Genesis In Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum', in C. A. Evans, J.
N. Lohr, and D. L. Petersen (eds.), The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, And Interpretation,
VTSup, Leiden, Brill, 2012, p. 466. Abraham is also called 'perfect'. Frederick J. Murphy, Pseudo-
Philo: Rewriting The Bible, Oxford, OUPress, 1993, p. 38.
118 Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer: 1. Teilband, Röm 1-5, ed. J. Blank, EKKNT, Vol. 6,
Neukirchener-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1978, p. 263. Likewise, although they are not of primary
concern here, it is interesting to note that the rabbinic writings also picture Abraham's faith not as the
faith of an ungodly person, but as the believing of a friend of God. Thus Dietzfelbinger, citing Dibelius:
“...im Spätjudentum der Glaube Abrahams nicht der Glaube des Sünders ist, der im Glauben den Weg
zu Gott findet, „sondern der Glaube des Gerechten, der mit Gott in engstem, freundschaftlichstem
Verhältnis steht“. … [Paulus] von der Sicht des Spätjudentums zu lösen und Abraham zu schildern als
den Glaubenden, der in der ajsevbeia die dikaiosuvnh empfängt.” Christian Dietzfelbinger, Paulus und
das Alte Testament: Die Hermeneutik des Paulus, untersucht an seiner Deutung der Gestalt Abrahams,
eds K. G. Steck and G. Eichholz, ThEx, Vol. 95, München, Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1961, p. 17, n. 44.
119 Horn, 'Juden und Heiden', p. 36, n. 71. Indeed, it is worthwhile noting that nowhere in the Jewish
traditions cited by Calvert-Koyzis is Abraham described as ajsebhvV. The closest one comes to finding
such a usage is in Alexander Polyhistor's quotation of an Hellenistic source that speaks of Abraham's
finding favour with God: "In the tenth generation in Camarina, a city of Babylon which some call Ur,
Abraham was born in the thirteenth generation, excelling all in noble birth and wisdom, who discovered
astrology and Chaldaism (th;n Caldaikh;n) and seeking to attain to eujsebeiva found favour with God."
(cited by: Wilfred Lawrence Knox, 'Abraham And The Quest For God', HTR, Vol. 28, No. 1, (1935), p.
56.) Not only does this source not describe Abraham as ajsebhvV, but it is also highly unlikely that Paul
Hence, we can conclude with Watson that,
from a Pauline perspective, the other interpretations of Genesis are in the last resort
surprisingly similar. All of them are concerned to present Abraham as an exemplary figure or
role model for human conduct in relation to God. … Abraham's acts of obedience are
heightened and celebrated, and actions about which questions might be raised are rewritten to
ensure that such questions are not raised. In contrast to this eulogizing and hagiography, Paul
sounds a very different note when he insists on taking Genesis 15.6 at face value: Abraham's
righteousness is constituted merely by his acceptance of God's promise...120
If pressed, these writers (Philo, Josephus, &c.) might have admitted some
modicum of sinfulness to have existed in Abraham, for only God is perfect in holiness. 121
Practically speaking, however, they view him as without blemish.
Then there is Calvert-Koyzis' second point, it can be said that while Paul assumes
at Romans 4:5 – rather than argues there for – the designation of Abraham as ungodly,
this does not necessarily imply that he assumes knowledge of the extra-biblical texts at
that point. Instead, we may suggest that Paul's assumption is best understood against the
background of Romans 1-5, that is, within its immediate context. On this reading, an
appeal to the extra-biblical texts is both doubtful and redundant.
Calvert-Koyzis believes that Paul would have drawn his conception of Abraham
as ungodly from the Jewish texts. She suggests that Paul did not need to explain how
Abraham could be considered 'ungodly', because both Paul himself and his readers were
familiar with the extra-canonical traditions of Abraham the sinner being converted. In
light of the fact that Paul has just spent the best part of the immediately preceding three
chapters describing the universality of sin (e.g. Rom. 3:22-23), however, it is a curious
would have alluded to Alexander Polyhistor as a somehow authoritative source of information about
Abraham in disputation with Jewish-Christians focused on observance of the Law. Josephus might well
have cited Polyhistor, but the situation in (and to) which he wrote was different.
120 Watson, Paul And The Hermeneutics of Faith, p. 268. Similarly, Ernst Käsemann points out how
different Paul's treatment of Abraham is from that of contemporary Jewish tradition. In his opinion, this
“shows that we are dealing here not with an extension or modification of the Jewish view but with its
contrast. But this means that in fact the ground is cut away from under the feet of the Jewish tradition
and the Jewish interpretation of the scriptures...” Ernst Käsemann, 'The Faith of Abraham In Romans 4',
Perspectives On Paul, London, SCM, 1971, pp. 79-80.
121 Having said this, at Virt. 177, Philo seems to leave the door open for some very special man to be
sinless: tavca de; kai; qeivou ajndrovV. Also, Williamson's study is instructive in demonstrating that Philo
regarded the divine attribute of sinlessness as one of the communicable attributes of God. Ronald
Williamson, Jews In The Hellenistic World: Philo, eds P. R. Ackroyd, A. R. C. Leaney, and J. W.
Packer, 2 Vols., Vol. Vol. 2, CCWJCW, Vol. 1, Cambridge, CUPress, 1989, p. 215 especially.
exegetical step to assume recourse to texts not cited or directly alluded to by Paul is
necessary. The description of Abraham as 'ungodly', when read in context, seems like a
natural continuation of his argument, not something noteworthily exceptional.122 It may
still have come as a shock to Jewish ears, but one which Paul has, in some sense, been
arguing for in a sustained way for three chapters. Moreover, since Paul is writing to a
Christian audience – and not to unconverted Jews – one may assume that such a Christian
understanding of the universality of sin was already part of their understanding of
humanity and, in so far, of Abraham. Additionally, should Romans 4:5 have come as too
much of a shock, the subsequent discussion of all being sinful in Adam provides an
adequate explanation for how Paul can speak as he does of Abraham (e.g. 5:12, 15, &c.).
Thus, Ockham's Razor should certainly be applied to the suggestion that to understand
Paul's description of Abraham as 'ungodly' one needs to take the circuitous route of
assuming knowledge of extra-biblical traditions on the parts of both Paul and his
audience and that Paul is alluding to such. Abraham's condition was not unique but an
illustration of the plight of all humanity (whether Jew or Gentile). And it is in this way
that Abraham is the 'father' of all who believe (Jew and Gentile alike – Rom. 4:11-12). As
Horn argues:
Die Wendung dikaiw:n to;n ajsebh: geht wohl auf die LXX zurück [vgl. Ex 23,7; Jes 5,23;
Prov 24,24]. … Da in der Abrahamerzählung und in der jüdischen Überlieferung Abraham
nicht als ajsebhvV bezeichnet wird, kann man durchaus mit Joseph Fitzmyer fragen, ob die
paulinische Argumentation hier einen gewissen Sprung macht, um eine grundsätzliche
Gottesaussage anzubringen. Diese wiederum hat im unmittelbaren Kontext eventuell in der
Kombination der Schriftzitate Gen 15,6 und Ps 32(31), 1f., vor allem aber in Röm 5,6... und
5,8... eine weitere Abstützung. Das rechtfertigende Handeln Gottes gründet im Tod Christi
und kommt dem Frevler bzw. den Sündern zugute. Abraham wird daher in Röm 4,5 eben
nicht als Heide, oder – in Entsprechung zur jüdischen Überlieferung – als erster Proselyt
angesprochen, sondern als Frevler und Sünder.123
10.3.2.5 Romans 4:5 True To Genesis?

We have seen how Paul's declaration of Abraham's ungodliness is unlikely to have
122 As Otfried Hofius exclaims: "Der „Gottlose“ (oJ ajsebhvV) Röm 4,5 ist der Mensch von Röm 1,18–3,20!"
Hofius, Paulusstudien, p. 54.
123 Horn, 'Juden und Heiden', pp. 35-36.
derived from the extra-biblical texts, since those texts depict the patriarch as exemplary
in godliness. We have further seen how such recourse to extra-biblical texts is
unnecessary in light of Paul's view of universal sinfulness, which is given forceful
expression in the immediate context of Romans 4: viz. in Romans 1-5. A final
consideration to make, at this point, is whether Paul's interpretation of Abraham as
ungodly could have derived from Genesis, or whether Paul has departed from his
putative source at this point. This question arises, because Genesis does not explicitly
label Abraham as ungodly.124
Roy Harrisville has claimed that Paul does not misinterpret the Genesis account
of Abraham's life, in labeling him as ungodly and, as such, that he believed in a God who
justifies the ungodly. He argues that we cannot,
deny any reference to a belief in a God who justifies the ungodly in the text of Genesis since
if, in following the Old Testament thought, we classify the uncircumcised Abraham as
ungodly and then note that he believed in God who, in turn, justified this same Gentile man.
Therefore we may safely say that Abraham did believe in a God who justifies the ungodly!125
As evidence of such OT thought, he cites two passages where “Gentiles are described as
ungodly”, viz. Deut. 9:4-5 and Ps. 9:5.126 It is evident, here, that Harrisville is essentially
following the interpretation which sees Abraham's ungodliness stemming directly from
his Gentile status. Given the above considerations, however, we would not follow this
line of argumentation.127 We must ask, then, whether there are other grounds in the
narrative of Genesis for Paul's statement. We believe that there are.

124 So Schließer: “Nowhere does Scripture call Abraham (anything like) “ungodly,”…” Schließer,
Abraham's Faith in Romans 4, p. 345. Likewise Siegfried Kreuzer, “Diese Aussage ist so nicht im Alten
Testament zu finden und muss angesichts der Bedeutung Abrahams im Judentum, gelinde gesagt,
befremdlich gewirkt haben.” Siegfried Kreuzer, '"Der den Gottlosen rechtfertigt" (Röm 4,5) Die
frühjüdische Einordnung von Gen 15 als Hintergrund für das Abrahambild und die
Rechtfertigungslehre des Paulus', TBei, Vol. 33, (2002), p. 208.
125 Roy A. Harrisville, III, The Figure of Abraham In The Epistles of St. Paul: In The Footsteps of
Abraham, San Francisco, Mellen, 1992, p. 158.
126 Harrisville, Figure, p. 279, n. 97.
127 Perhaps, although debatable, it does not make sense – from the point-of-view of Genesis – even to speak
of a Jew-Gentile divide before the nation of Israel more fully comes into being and is mentioned as
such: i.e. sometime after the entry into Egypt (cf. God's statement to Jacob at Gen. 46:3, and the Old
Testament usage of 'Jacob'/'Israel' for the nation and not 'Abraham'). Since, after all, the Jew-Gentile
divide is a national divide between the nation of Israel and all the other nations (‫ ;גוים‬ta; e[qnh; cf. Num.
23:9).
In Genesis, one may observe both the sinful behaviour of Abraham himself, and
the wide-spread human decline into sinfulness which Genesis depicts. Recently,
Gonzales has highlighted both of these features of the Genesis account, in his discussion
of the depiction of the spread of sin after the fall. He observes that “a careful exegetical
and theological analysis reveals an equal if not greater emphasis on the pervasiveness of
human sin in the patriarchal narrative than that found in the primeval narrative.”128
Genesis illustrates and shows the reader Abraham’s moral failures, such as his
deceitfulness in relation to Sarah.129 Moreover, Genesis 20:9 all but directly declares
Abraham to have been guilty of sin (‫ ;חטאה‬which the LXX translates with aJmartiva).
Indeed, Abraham, in his sinning against Abimelech, is contrasted, in that passage with
Abimelech, who did not sin against Abraham. Thus, the unmistakable conclusion is that
Abraham sinned. If Abraham is considered to have sinned here, however, then surely his
actions towards Pharaoh at Genesis 12 were also sinful. Thus, both before and after his
stated justification, Abraham sinned. Strikingly, moreover, the same term for sinfulness
which is descriptive of Abraham in Genesis 20:9 is used earlier to describe the sin of the
Amorites (Gen. 15:16) and the wickedness of those at Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen.
18:20). Additionally, it is interesting that Genesis 17:1 recounts God calling on Abraham
to be blameless. About this verse, James McKeown writes that, “Since Abram is called
upon to attain this blameless life, we may assume that he has not yet reached this
standard.”130 In this way – and other examples might be adduced – it can be seen that
128 Robert R. Gonzales, Where Sin Abounds: The Spread of Sin And The Curse In The Book of Genesis
With Special Focus On The Patriarchal Narratives, Eugene, Wipf & Stock, 2009, p. 9.
129 Thus Goldingay writes as follows: "the narratives in Genesis relate without comment a number of
incidents that it is hard to see the narrator expecting readers not to see as unsavory or wayward, such as
Abraham and Isaac's imperiling of their wives... They [the narratives] share such an assumption with
Amos and Paul, who write on the basis that human being are well aware of God's fundamental moral
expectations (see Amos 1-2; Rom 1-2). You need a special revelation to tell you to circumcise baby
boys... You do not need a special revelation to tell you that those other actions of Abraham, Lot and
Isaac were wrong, even if the three men had managed to rationalize their way into their action..." John
E. Goldingay, Old Testament Theology: Israel's Life, 3 Vols., Vol. 3, Downers Grove, InterVarsity,
2009, p. 47.
130 James McKeown, Genesis, eds J. G. McConville and C. Bartholomew, The Two Horizons Old
Testament Commentary, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2008, p. 99.
Genesis, while not expressly labelling Abraham as sinful/ungodly comes very close to
doing just that. Thus, Paul’s statement in Romans 4:5 is only to be considered very
surprising if one begins from the standpoint of the Jewish hagiographic traditions about
Abraham. It is true that Abraham's actions in regard to his wife and others “im
Frühjudentum nicht als moralisches Versagen kritisiert worden.”131 Yet, there is no reason
to constrain Paul's view of Abraham in Romans to interpretations common in Early
Judaism.
As a careful reader of scripture, it is likely that Paul would have picked up on
both the patriarch's virtues and his flaws. Indeed, in as much as they attempt to cover
over and explain-away Abraham's vices, the Abraham texts tacitly display an awareness
of the potential for the Abraham narrative in Genesis to be interpreted as less than
completely laudatory. What is striking about Paul's appraisal of the patriarch is that rather
than covering over Abraham's apparent iniquities, he accepts them as reflective of reality.
To suggest that Abraham's life, as recorded in Genesis, displays only minor indiscretions
unworthy of the damning description 'ungodly' is to not share in Paul's view of the
severity of sin. For Paul, Abraham's sin was comparable to David's murderous adultery
(e.g. Rom. 4:6-9, kaqavper...). Just as Paul's view of sin owes more to his Christian
understanding than to his Pharisaic past, it is likely that Paul's reading of Genesis, at this
point, is at odds with that found in Early Judaism, because Paul himself has changed.
Further to his general thesis, Gonzales argues that Paul's characterisation of
Abraham as ungodly cannot be limited to his pre-call state. Instead, that Paul bases his
portrayal of Abraham on Genesis 15:6, a text from some time after the initial call,
131 Klaus Haacker, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen
Testament, Band 6, Leipzig, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1999, p. 102. This sort of debarring of the
question of morality from discussion of Abraham in Romans 4 is, of course, standard amongst
advocates of the New Perspective. Wright, for example, believes that Romans 4 deals with the question
of Abraham's role as father not with whether or not Abraham was a good moralist. Nicholas Thomas
Wright, 'Romans And The Theology of Paul', in D. M. Hay and E. E. Johnson (eds.), Pauline Theology:
Volume III: Romans, Minneapolis, Fortress, 1995, p. 41. Yet, the two may not be mutually exclusive.
suggests that while Abraham may have been justified before his act of trust at 15:6, that
simple act remained paradigmatic of his first justifying faith. Moreover, according to
Gonzales, the accreditation of righteousness mentioned at 15:6 continues to contemplate
his state as ungodly, in the same way that David's words in Psalm 32 speak of a post-
conversion experience. Gonzales, therefore, believes that Paul's characterisation of
Abraham as ungodly is not based merely on his pre-call life but embraces the totality of
the Genesis depiction of his career.132
Those who wish to see the Abraham of Genesis 15:6 as a Gentile sinner would not
accept this conclusion from Gonzales. Yet, they face the problem of explaining how
Abraham can still be considered an ungodly Gentile by the time of Gen. 15:6, when he
has already displayed obedience to God by leaving his native land, and God has already
made him covenantal promises (Gen. 11-14). One solution offered to this problem is to
suggest that, for Paul, the events of Genesis 15 took place not in Canaan but in
Mesopotamia, and the passage functions as a kind of flash-back. Siegfried Kreuzer
reflects this sort of approach. We turn now to consider his proposal.
10.3.3 Kreuzer: Paul, Adjusting The Chronology of Genesis
Siegfried Kreuzer has suggested that Paul, in Galatians 3:17, evidences the fact that he
knew of the common Jewish calculations which placed the events of the covenant of
Genesis 15 in Mesopotamia, that is, prior to Genesis 12. As he says, “Gal 3,17 mit dem
Hinweis auf 430 Jahre Abstand zwischen der Verheißung und dem Gesetz setzt dieses
Verständnis – immerhin für die Mitte des 1. Jahrhundrets – als im Judentum bekannt und
verbreitet voraus.”133 And again,

132 Gonzales, Where Sin Abounds, p. 261, n. 11.
133 Kreuzer, '"Der den Gottlosen rechtfertigt" (Röm 4,5)', p. 215. Likewise, Deissmann had suggested that
Paul's 430 years here were derived from rabbinic tradition. See: Adolf Deissmann, Paul: A Study In
Social And Religious History, trans. W. E. Wilson, London, Hodder And Stoughton, 1926, p. 103.
Diese Auslegungstradition hatte er … in Gal 3,17 herangezogen, denn die dortige Aussage
über einen Abstand von 430 Jahren zwischen der Verheißung und dem Gesetz ist nicht aus Ex
12,40 herleitbar, sondern nur aus der Kombination mit Gen 15 und der Datierung der
Verheißung und des Bundesschlusses von Gen 15 auf 430 Jahre vor dem Exodus bzw. der
Sinaioffenbarung.134
(Kreuzer sees this chronological adjustment as having been wide-spread, being found in
the rabbis, several NT passages, and in the Abraham texts: viz. Philo, Josephus, Jubilees,
ApocAb.)
On the basis of this conclusion derived from Galatians 3:17, Kreuzer approaches
Romans 4:5 with the assumption that Paul had the chronology of this Jewish tradition in
mind and not the (prima facie) chronology of Genesis.135 This leads Kreuzer to suggest
that, since the events of Gen. 15 happened in Mesopotamia, then it follows that Abraham
was justified (Gen. 15:6) on the basis of the trust which he exhibited while he was yet in
Mesopotamia, that is, in a pagan environment.136 In Romans 4:3-5, then, Paul pictures
Abraham as having been 'ungodly' (Rom. 4:5) in as much as he was a Gentile in a pagan
environment, rather than in a directly moral sense (“...gottlos nicht in einem moralischen
Sinn, sondern als Heide inmitten einer heidnischen Umwelt”).137 To be sure, Paul refers
to Abraham as 'ungodly', but not in a way that would offend Jewish sensibilities. After
all, it is suggested, iconoclasm would not have fit the Kommunikationssituation of
134 Kreuzer, '"Der den Gottlosen rechtfertigt" (Röm 4,5)', pp. 218-219.
135 Kreuzer appears to have been unaware of the earlier suggests made by, for e.g., Hansen (G. Walter
Hansen, Abraham In Galatians: Epistolary And Rhetorical Contexts, ed. D. Hill, JSNTSup, 29,
Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1989, p. 208) and Daube (David Daube, The New Testament And Rabbinic
Judaism, London, Athlone, 1956, pp. 439ff.) about Paul's awareness of the rabbinic explanation of the
discrepancy between the number of years at Gen. 15 and Ex. 12. Daube thinks that placing the events
depicted in Genesis 15 before Abraham's call in Genesis 12 was a straight-forward procedure for the
Rabbis, since this was simply another case of the last Middah recorded by Eliezer ben Jose: viz. “The
before that comes after in the Biblical sections.” Daube, The New Testament And Rabbinic Judaism, pp.
409-410. According to Daube, Paul simply followed this model. However, Paul's argumentation from
chronology both in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 suggests that he would not have been comfortable with
such a procedure.
136 One might ask, of course, why Canaan would not also be considered a pagan environment.
137 "Die Aussage von Röm 4,5, dass Gott den Gottlosen rechtfertigt, ist ebenfalls eine am Abrahambild
gewonnene Aussage. Abraham kann als gottlos bezeichnet werden, weil er – nach der
vorauszusetzenden Einordnung von Gen 15 – tatsächlich als Gottloser berufen wurde; gottlos nicht in
einem moralischen Sinn, sondern als Heide inmitten einer heidnischen Umwelt und auch ohne jegliche
Voraussetzungen eines schon irgendwie begonnenen Weges." Kreuzer, '"Der den Gottlosen rechtfertigt"
(Röm 4,5)', p. 219.
Romans.138 In using Romans 4:5 in this way, what's more, Paul would be providing
justification for his missionary activity amongst the Gentiles, since Abraham was a
Gentile convert, who was justified by his faith while in a pagan environment.139
Kreuzer refers to Klaus Haacker for his understanding of the
Kommunikationssituation. The following comments from Haacker are probably what
Kreuzer is primarily referring to, although he doesn't specify as much:
[Paulus] möchte die römischen Gemeinden besuchen und von dort aus (mit der Unterstützung
der Christen von Rom) zu einer neuen Pioniermission in Spanien aufbrechen (vgl. 15,24). Der
Brief soll ihm dafür in Rom den Boden bereiten und vor allem etwaige Hindernisse
ausräumen, die seinem Wirken dort und von dort aus im Wege stehen könnten oder sich
bereits abzeichnen. Dieser »missionsstrategische« Ansatz ist geeignet, die breite Darstellung
paulinischer Theologie und die Ausführlichkeit im Eingehen auf Einwände und
Gegenpositionen verständlich zu machen: mit bloßen Ausdrücken der Entrüstung und
Appellen an den früheren Konsensus konnte Paulus vielleicht die von ihm gegründeten
galatischen Gemeinden beeindrucken, nicht aber die römischen Gemeinden, die ihn
großenteils noch nicht kannten und sicher auch Negatives über ihn gehört hatten (vgl. 3,8).140
Paul required the assistance of the Roman Church, and so he required their acceptance of
him, and so, inseparably, his theology. This was a particular “communicative and
argumentative situation” which called for persuasion and conviction more than “rejection
and conflict”.141 That is, “...er – angesichts der Kommunikationssituation im Römerbrief
– seine Leser gewiss nicht verärgern oder irritieren, sondern gewinnen und überzeugen
will.”142 Kreuzer rejects the idea that Paul's statement at Romans 4:5 could have been
highly polemical.143 Since, for Paul to so upset the applecart of popular opinion about
Abraham current in Rome, would have been to risk losing the necessary Roman support
138 “...verwendet Paulus nun einmal nicht nur die Gestalt Abrahams, sondern eben auch diese
Charakterisierung im Rahmen seiner Argumentation für die Glaubensgerechtigkeit, wobei er –
angesichts der Kommunikationssituation im Römerbrief – seine Leser gewiss nicht verärgern oder
irritieren, sondern gewinnen und überzeugen will.” Kreuzer, '"Der den Gottlosen rechtfertigt" (Röm
4,5)', p. 208.
139 "Paulus in dieser Weise auf Abraham bzw. das zeitgenössische Abrahambild bezieht, rechtfertigt er
nicht nur seine Botschaft, sondern zugleich auch sein heidenmissionarisches Wirken." Kreuzer, '"Der
den Gottlosen rechtfertigt" (Röm 4,5)', p. 219.
140 Haacker, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, pp. 12-13.
141 Benjamin Schließer, Abraham's Faith In Romans 4, WUNT 2. Reihe, 224, Germany, Mohr Siebeck,
2007, p. 346.
142 Kreuzer, '"Der den Gottlosen rechtfertigt" (Röm 4,5)', p. 208.
143 Contrast with the statment of Stuhlmacher: "Röm. 4,5 ist, gerade weil die Stelle theologisch spricht, die
polemische Mitte der paulinischen Rechtfertigungslehre" Cited by: Halvor Moxnes, Theology In
Conflict: Studies In Paul's Understanding of God In Romans, Leiden, Brill, 1980, p. 110, n. 12.
for his Spanish mission. This suggestion that Romans 4:5 cannot have been polemical is
contrary to the majority of commentators.144
The view that the letter was a Missionsdokument is not uncommon.145 Amongst
those who have supported such a view are: Gottlob Schrenk;146 Werner Kümmel;147 Dieter
Zeller,148 Leon Morris,149 and Robert Jewett.150 And, certainly, at least one of Paul's
purposes in writing his epistle to the Romans was missiological.151 Nevertheless, we do
not believe that this hypothesis alone can satisfactorily explain all of the evidence of the
epistle,152 nor should Paul's desire for support from the Roman congregations be seen as
controlling, constricting, or circumscribing what he is free to write.153 Paul, indeed,
consistently demonstrates that his theology was not tied to his financial situation, and that
he, in large measure, was self-sufficient.154 Moreover, such a suggestion assumes much
144 E.g. Schreiner states: “Paul departs from the flow of Jewish tradition in describing Abraham as
“godless” (ajsebh:, asebē).” Schreiner, Romans, p. 217. Käsemann speaks of: “Paul's radical and
obviously polemical formulation”. Käsemann, Romans, p. 111. Cf. James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of
Paul The Apostle, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2006, p. 367, and n. 134.
145 That is, an epistle intended to commend Paul to the Romans so as to elicit their support for his planned
missionary activity in Spain.
146 Gottlob Schrenk, 'Der Römerbrief als Missionsdokument', Aus Theologie und Geschichte der
reformierten Kirche: Festgabe für E. F. Karl Müller-Erlangen zu dessen 70. Geburtstag, Neukirchen,
Neukirchener Verlag, 1933, pp. 39-72.
147 Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction To The New Testament: Rev. Ed., ed. H. C. Kee, trans. H. C. Kee,
Nashville, Abingdon, 1975, pp. 312-313.
148 Dieter Zeller, Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus: Studien zür Römerbrief, Stuttgart, Verlag
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1976, pp. 75-77.
149 Leon Morris, The Epistle To The Romans, PNTCS, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1988, p. 17.
150 Robert Jewett, 'Ecumenical Theology For The Sake of Mission', in D. M. Hay and E. E. Johnson (eds.),
Pauline Theology, Vol. III: Romans, Minneapolis, Fortress, 1995, pp. 89-108. For a response to, and
devastating critique of, Jewett's view with relevance also to Kreuzer's proposal, see the accompanying
essay in the same volume by: J. Paul Sampley, 'Romans In A Different Light', in D. M. Hay and E. E.
Johnson (eds.), Pauline Theology, Vol. III: Romans, Minneapolis, Fortress, 1995, pp. 109-129.
151 The 'propemfqh:nai' of Rom. 15:24 being most-likely a technical term for aid in the journey to Spain.
Even so, Schreiner is too speculative in stating that Paul “knew such support would not be forthcoming
unless they had a firm grasp of the Pauline gospel.” Schreiner, Romans, p. 774.
152 As Sampley writes: "At least this much is clear, Paul's stated purpose in writing is to help the Romans
recover something which they seem to have lost from their memory. That is a purpose quite different
from getting them to the point where they can understand something new such as joining in Paul's
efforts toward Spain.” Sampley, 'Romans In A Different Light', p. 129. Comparably, Longenecker has
reservations about the ability of the thesis of Romans as a missions document to explain all of the
evidence. Longenecker, Introducing Romans, p. 110.
153 In relation to Romans 4:5, as a particular example of how this has been done, we agree with Horn that,
“die Aussage weit über eine ausschließlich missiologische Interpretation hinausgeht.” Horn, 'Juden und
Heiden', p. 36, n. 71.
154 The most obvious example being Paul's 'tent-maker' approach in various cities such as Corinth, where
he specifically does not accept a salary from the Corinthians because he does not want his gospel
confused with profiteering (cf. 1 Thess. 2:9). On this, see: Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle To The
Corinthians, ed. F. F. Bruce, 2nd Edn., NIBCNT, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1987, p. 416, n. 11. Even
about the temper of the Roman Christian community which, by the very nature of the
evidence, cannot be decisively demonstrated.155
That Paul, even in the Kommunikationssituation of Romans, should use
Abraham's example, and Genesis 15:6 in particular, in a manner different to that expected
by his audience, due to its being different from the prevailing Jewish interpretation of his
time, is hardly surprising, since Paul often used scriptural texts polemically and in ways
different from, or even contradictory to, those of his contemporaries. 156 Indeed, unless we
allow to Paul a certain degree of antagonism to conservative Jewish tradition, then we
will need to ingeniously rethink not only Romans 4:5 but many other of Paul's statements
in Romans which are similarly iconoclastic. 157 Take, for example, Romans 9:6-9.158 As
when dealing with communities from which Paul accepted sporadic monetary support, he was careful
to note that he did not require anything of them, having learned how to be content in want (e.g. Phil.
4:11-12). On this, see: Moisés Silva, Philippians, 2nd. Edn., BECNT, Grand Rapids, Baker, 2005, pp.
200ff. One could argue, of course, that Romans represents a different situation. Even so, it should be
asked: how much money or support could Paul have needed, anyway? If the Romans had not agreed to
help him, would this really have fundamentally jeopardised his Spanish mission? Could he not have
obtained support from elsewhere (cf. Rom. 16:1-16, 21-23)? Is it not invalid to domesticate the text on
the basis of an a priori assumption about Paul's needs?
155 In this connection, Leander Keck helpfully advises that ""occasion" should be distinguished from
"purpose" instead of regarding each as the obverse of the other. Concretely, the unique constellation of
factors in Paul's situation, symbolized by Jerusalem, Rome, and Spain, undoubtedly did provide the
occasion for Paul to write this letter. But there is no clear evidence that these factors, whether singly or
in concert, determined Paul's actual purpose in writing or the specific content of what he did send to
Rome." Leander E. Keck, 'What Makes Romans Tick?', in D. M. Hay and E. E. Johnson (eds.), Pauline
Theology, Vol. III: Romans, Minneapolis, Fortress, 1995, pp. 22-33.
156 It is questionable, but we might see Paul's statement that he had written "boldly" (tolmhrovteron) on
some points as a self-admission that certain sections of his epistle to the Romans were polemical. Even
so, we couldn't be sure that this boldness encompassed Romans 4. Nevertheless, for the general
tendency of Paul's use of scripture, cf: Moisés Silva, 'Abraham, Faith, And Works: Paul's Use of
Scripture In Galatians 3:6-14', WTJ, Vol. 63, (2001), p. 257.
157 That is not to say that Paul was antagonistic to the Jewish people per se. Contrary to such a line of
thinking is Romans 9:1-5. Additionally, it should be noted that Paul is quite quick to rebuke his Gentile
addressees for arrogance and pride (e.g. Rom. 11:18-22). He even goes so far as to warn them about
despising the Jewish vine into which they have been grafted. He certainly uses strong language, when
addressing these Gentile readers. One wonders whether this fit with the Kommunikationssituation
which called for 'persuasion' (and sweet-talking?) more than 'conflict'.
158 Dunn states that Romans 4:5 would have, "come as a shock to Paul's Jewish readers". Dunn, Romans 1-
8, p. 228; cf. the very similar comments of: Kruse, Romans, p. 206. Likewise, Robert Mounce writes,
"Paul's designation of God as one who "justifies the wicked" would come as a shock to his Jewish
readers." Mounce, Romans, p. 123. Gathercole says, "Paul, in shocking terms, defines Abraham's
justification as the justification of the ungodly." Gathercole, 'Justified By Faith, Justified By His Blood:
The Evidence of Romans 3:21-4:25', p. 181. Other passages in Romans are equally shocking, however.
See, for e.g., Dunn's comments on Rom. 2:25. Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. 126; Kruse's comments on Rom.
2:28-29. Kruse, Romans, p. 155, n. 257; Witherington's comments on Rom. 3:22. Ben Witherington III
and Darlene Hyatt, Paul's Letter To The Romans, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2004, pp. 101-102; John
Stott's comments on Rom. 5:20. John R. W. Stott, The Message of Romans: God's Good News For The
World, ed. J. R. W. Stott, The Bible Speaks Today, Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 1994, p. 38; and Stott's
such, we should not be too quick to assume that his use of Genesis 15:6 here must
conform to theirs or else be unintelligible or 'unconvincing'.159
Kreuzer also leans too heavily on his (necessarily uncertain) reconstruction of the
Kommunikationssituation. While Paul might have had to deal with certain criticisms
which had been levelled against him (perhaps that he was 'anti-Jewish' or 'antinomian'), 160
he was not writing to a group of conservative Jews comparable to the authors of Jubilees
or LAB,161 but to a Christian community consisting, according to Haacker,162 mostly of
Gentile-Christians, who may not have held the view of Abraham's piety so close to their
hearts.163 Thus, Paul's Roman audience may not have been as shocked by his statement in
comments on Paul's treatment of the Law elsewhere (i.e. Rom. 7). Stott, The Message of Romans:
God's Good News For The World, pp. 93, 157, 190, 218; cf. the similar comments of Schreiner.
Schreiner, Romans, pp. 350, 372; even Haacker allows that Paul's treatment of the Law in Romans 7
would have been considered "outrageous", and "shocking for readers with a Jewish background".
Haacker, The Theology of Paul's Letter To The Romans, p. 126. Not only could Paul be shocking and
unconventional, then, but he sometimes even intended to. At Rom. 11:31, for example, Dunn claims
that Paul hoped to “shock his fellow Jews”. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9-16, eds D. A. Hubbard and
G. W. Barker, 2 Vols., Vol. 2, WBC, Vol. 38B, Dallas, Word Books, 1988, p. 695. Finally, it should be
pointed out that Paul's entire Gospel rested upon the claim that the crucified Jesus was the Messiah; a
claim 'unconvincing' to Jews, and shocking to the sensibilities of Gentiles; cf. Luke Timothy Johnson,
Reading Romans, Macon, Smyth & Helwys, 2001, pp. 26, 53.
159 Cranford suggests that if Paul had interpreted Genesis 15:6 in a manner different from that of his Jewish
contemporaries, his argument in Romans 4:5 would have been 'unconvincing' (cf. below).
160 Thus, for example, see Romans 3:8.
161 Note, for instance, how, in the following statement, Kreuzer implicitly pictures Paul's Roman audience
as holding to the views of main-stream Judaism. To wit, he writes: “Eine nicht nur merkwürdige,
sondern geradezu befremdliche Aussage ist die Aussage in Röm 4,5, wo Gott im Blick auf sein Handeln
an Abraham als der bezeichnet wird, „der den Gottlosen rechtfertigt“, womit de facto Abraham – denn
mit ihm argumentiert Paulus – als gottlos bezeichnet wird. Diese Aussage ist so nicht im Alten
Testament zu finden und muss angesichts der Bedeutung Abrahams im Judentum, gelinde gesagt,
befremdlich gewirkt haben.” Kreuzer, '"Der den Gottlosen rechtfertigt" (Röm 4,5)', p. 208 (emphasis
added). Although Kreuzer takes his view of the Kommunikationssituation from Klaus Haacker, it may
be helpfully noted that this suggestion is similar to that of Cranford. Both scholars imagine Paul
addressing an essentially Jewish audience. Cranford claims that, “Abraham was not ungodly in a moral
sense, nor would such a claim have been convincing to a Jewish listener, who could recount the many
tests of Abraham's obedience prior to Genesis 15. The term 'ungodly' must refer not to Abraham's
sinfulness but to his status as an uncircumcised Gentile.” Cranford, 'Romans 4: The Father of All', p. 82,
n. 45 (emphasis added). As with Kreuzer, “The effort by Cranford... to downplay this radicalism in
order to avoid anti-Judaism is not convincing.” Jewett, Romans, p. 314, n. 82.
162 “Allgemein wird heute davon ausgegangen, daß die christlichen Gemeinden in Rom vom Judenedikt
des Jahres 49 bis zum Tode des Kaisers im Herbst 54 n. Chr. weitgehend aus Heidenchristen bestanden,
was sich erst allmählich unter Nero geändert haben kann. Dazu paßt die Anrede der Leserschaft als »ihr
Heiden« (d. h. Nichtjuden) in 11,13.” Haacker, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, p. 11.
163 Having said this, it is probable that many of the first 'Gentile' Christians at Rome were originally
attached to the Synagogue in some capacity as 'God-fearers'. Thus, they may have held Abraham in
special honour, even if they didn't consider him their father in the same way that the Jews did. Talmudic
evidence points to a debate amongst the later rabbis as to whether proselytes could legitimately refer to
Abraham as 'our father'. The rabbis are divided on this point. Yet, it seems unlikely that any of them
would have accepted mere God-fearers (as opposed to full, circumcised, Torah-observant, proselytes)
claiming Abraham as 'our father'. On this debate, see in particular: Maureen W. Yeung, Faith In Jesus
4:5 as Kreuzer supposes. Having said this, there undoubtedly was a Jewish-Christian
segment in the community at Rome.164 Nevertheless, we cannot be sure exactly how
shocked they might have been by 4:5. They may already have encountered and been won
over to a view of sin so sweeping that it could include even the pious patriarchs.165
Similarly, does Paul not already have some degree of acceptance amongst the
Roman Church through those he knows there, who may also have been influential figures
in the Roman community (e.g. Prisca and Aquila, who were close associates of Paul)?166
He certainly greets a significant number of people by name, at the end of his epistle. 167 Or
And Paul: A Comparison With Special Reference To 'Faith That Can Remove Mountains' And 'Your
Faith Has Healed/Saved You', WUNT 2. Reihe, Vol. 147, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2002, pp. 271-273.
It is difficult to know whether this later debate echoes earlier Jewish opinion. Certainly, Philo calls for
proselytes to be welcomed as virtuous imitators of Abraham, having left their family and former life
(e.g., Virt. 219). However, he is not clear as to whether the Gentile proselyte has the same prerogative
as the born Jew does to address Abraham as 'my father'. Following Mayer, Schließer contests that Paul's
assertion that Abraham was ungodly would have been as shocking to Gentile-Christian ears as to
Jewish-Christian, due to the incredible importance attached to Abraham in Jewish missions. Schließer,
Abraham's Faith In Romans 4, p. 345, n. 916. Given the uncertainty that surrounds the extent of Jewish
missionary activity at this time, however, one should be cautious at this point. See, for e.g., James P.
Ware, The Mission of The Church In Paul's Letters To The Philippians In The Context of Ancient
Judaism, NovTSup, 120, Leiden, Brill, 2005, pp. 23-56. See also: A. Thomas Kraabel, 'Immigrants,
Exiles, Expatriates, And Missionaries', in L. Bormann, K. D. Tredici, and A. Standhartinger (eds.),
Religious Propaganda And Missionary Competition In The New Testament World: Essays Honoring
Dieter Georgi, NovTSup, Leiden, Brill, 1994, pp. 71-88. Kraabel details how Georgi's view of an
energetic Jewish mission amongst the Gentiles making use of Abraham has fallen out of favour. More
specific to the Roman context is the fact that we cannot be sure how many of the Gentile-Christians in
Rome had at one time been influenced by Jewish missionary activity, since we do not know what
proportion of the total Gentile-Christian population at Rome was constituted by prior God-fearers or
proselytes to Judaism.
164 Moo suggests (citing 14:1-15:13) that Paul had to contend with both the Jewish-Christian element at
Rome – who were holding too tightly to the Law and national identity – and the Gentile-Christian
element – who scorned all things Jewish. Moo, Romans, p. 21.
165 Romans 15:14-15 might suggest that Paul's Roman audience were already somewhat familiar with what
he had to say in his epistle.
166 Heinrich Meyer argues that the church at Rome stood in a "special relation" to the Apostle "through its
Pauline founders and teachers, and through the many friends and fellow-labourers whom he possessed
in the city (ch. xvi.), claimed his ardent and loving interest." Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, The
Epistle To The Romans, ed. W. P. Dickson, trans. J. C. Moore, Vol. 1, Critical And Exegetical
Commentary On The New Testament, 4, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1881, p. 29.
167 Moo explains that Paul may have met these Roman Christians, during the time of their 'exile' from
Rome, after the expulsion under Claudius, when several of them evidently headed out into the eastern
Roman Empire. Moo, Romans, pp. 8-9. Murray, suggests that Prisca and Aquila would have been,
"ardently desirous that Paul should go to Rome and [that] we may reasonably suppose that this desire
was expressed to and concurred in by the Christian community in the imperial city. There may have
been urgent communications to that effect. Hence the assurance of desire and purpose in chapter 1,
reiterated and expanded in chapter 15." John Murray, The Epistle To The Romans: The English Text
With Introduction, Exposition And Notes, 2 Vols., Vol. 2, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1997, pp. xi-xii.
Paul, that is to say, writes in Romans 1:8-13 (and later in chapter 15) to reassure the Roman Christians
of his desire to visit them, to assuage their desire to have him visit them. If this were the case, then we
should consider the Roman community to be already favourably disposed towards Paul, even before the
writing of his epistle to them. It should be noted, of course, that Murray's reconstruction of the situation
else, could he not rely somewhat on his status as an Apostle,168 in addition to his attempt
at close and persuasive exegesis of Scripture, to ensure their acceptance of the difficult
portions of his theology (cf. Rom. 1:5-6, and note that he does not have to defend his
claim to apostleship as, by contrast, at Gal. 1:1)?169 Too many questions remain, then, for
us to share Kreuzer's confidence at this point.
Having said all of this, there is certainly an element of truth in Kreuzer's
suggestion. Paul is more diplomatic in Romans than in some of his other correspondence.
In Romans, we do not see him demanding to be heard on the basis of his Apostolic
authority (as in Galatians).170 Moreover, in the more personal opening and closing
sections of the letter, Paul's words could be interpreted as including an element of
diplomatic flattery (e.g. Rom. 1:12; 15:15). Nevertheless, we should not read too much
is somewhat speculative, but not more so than that of Kreuzer. Thus, Murray's proposal carries an
equivalent plausibility.
168 Which he has insisted upon in the letter opening, and may reassert at its closing. Cf. Jeffrey A. D.
Weima, 'Sincerely, Paul: The Significance of The Pauline Letter Closings', in S. E. Porter and S. A.
Adams (eds.), Paul And The Ancient Letter Form, PSt, Leiden, Brill, 2010, p. 335, who argues that Paul
felt he had the support of all the churches East of Rome behind him. Thus Byrne, on Rom. 1:1-7: "by
presenting himself as instrument of the gospel to the Gentiles, backed by the authority of the risen Lord,
Paul sets in motion a powerful claim upon the community of Gentile believers in Rome." Byrne,
Romans, p. 41.
169 Paul certainly was seeking for agreement with the Roman Christians and their aid in his missionary
endeavor to Spain. However, to think of Paul as limiting himself to speaking about only what he
considered would be palatable to his Roman audience and not scandalous to their ears is to paint a very
different picture of the apostle than we see in the sweep of his letters (and, should one choose to accept
it, in the record of Acts). It is more likely that Paul would have required the Roman Christians to accept
his theology (based, as it was, on his apostolic authority – Rom. 1:1-6) and so that he would have been
willing to forfeit their assistance, if they could not accept it, than that he would have (sycophantically?)
ameliorated his views to suit his audience. What we find in Romans, as everywhere in Paul, is the
gospel, which he felt constrained to preach (cf. 1 Cor. 9:16) – the gospel, "...wie Paulus es nicht anders
verkündigen kann und darf" (Wilckens, cited by: Moo, Romans, p. 29, n. 100) – as well as a display of
authority not incompatible with persuasion (note the prevalence of imperatives in the latter sections of
Romans: e.g. Rom. 11:18, 20, 22; 12:2, 14, 16, 19ff; 13:1, 3f, 7f, 14; 14:1, 3, 5, 13, 15f, 20, 22; 15:2, 7;
16:17 – Daniel Wallace writes: “Technically, … it is not best to call [the imperative] the mood of
command because it may be used for other than a command. But... volitional force is nevertheless still
lurking beneath the surface, even when the speaker is not barking orders.” Daniel B. Wallace, Greek
Grammar Beyond The Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan,
1996, p. 485. Having said this, no less a scholar than Ernst Käsemann considers Paul, in Romans, to be
engaged in a desperate wrangling for acceptance. Thus, Romans is said to be, “the record of an
existence struggling for recognition and of an apostolicity called into question.” Käsemann, Romans, p.
20.
170 Although we might notice that Paul twice refers to his Apostleship as God's grace to him (Rom. 1:5;
15:15), which Aquinas suggests, in his Romans lectures at Rom. 15:15, might be intended to subtly
convey that since it was by grace it was not from man: "...quasi diceret: non ab hominibus. Ad Gal. I, 1:
Paulus apostolus non ab hominibus, neque per hominem." St. Thomas Aquinas, In Omnes D. Pauli
Apostolis Epistolas Commentaria, Leodii, H. Dessain, 1857, p. 276.
into these verses. Paul's message in Romans was not dictated to him by the expectations
of his audience, nor does the fact that Paul did not found the church at Rome mean that
his authority was unrecognised there (or, at least, that he acted as though it would/should
be recognised there).171
Beyond these considerations, however, the fundamental problem with the
suggestion that Paul (in Rom. 4:5) places Genesis 15:6 in Mesopotamia, is that it is hard
to point to any allusion or echo of such chronological calculations in Romans 4. Paul
nowhere states that anything which he talks about in that chapter happened in
Mesopotamia. So, for example, Fred Layman says, “The Abrahamic lore which
circulated in contemporary rabbinic and apocryphal traditions is absent from Paul. He
makes no reference to Abraham's idolatrous background in Ur. ... The personal history of
the patriarch is hardly in view beyond his justification.”172 And the tradition cannot be
demonstrated to have been so wide-spread in the Judaism of Paul's day as to be near-
universal.173 Paul could not simply assume it, therefore. And if he had desired to discuss
such chronology, surely he would have done so at Rom. 4:10, when he points out that
Abraham's faith (Gen. 15) preceded his circumcision (Gen. 17).174 Why not, at this point,
make explicit reference to the apparently crucial fact that all this must have happened in
Mesopotamia? Moreover, how can Paul maintain consistency, in arguing on the basis of
171 Moo makes a balanced assessment: "however much Paul might want to tiptoe around the Romans'
sensibilities, he will not surrender his right to address them, and to address them with authority." Moo,
Romans, p. 889. Against Moo, however, who asks “if their knowledge of the faith is so extensive, why
has Paul bothered to write them so long a letter?”, we would note that several New Testament writings
appear to have been 'reminders' (e.g. 1 Cor. 4:17; 15:1; Phil. 3:1; 2 Pet. 1:12-13; 3:1-2; 1 John 2:21;
Jude 1:5; 2 Tim. 1:6; 2:14). In light of these other parallels, Paul might be simply, and genuinely –
without any flattery – noting that he is reminding them of things which they already know. It may be
that they have forgotten or wrongly applied their knowledge. As such, this need not suggest that Paul
desires to flatter the Roman Christians in order to win their support. So correctly Wright: “There is... no
reason to suggest that a verse like this one, or its predecessor at 1:8, is not meant seriously.” Wright,
'Romans', p. 753.
172 Fred Dale Layman, Paul's Use of Abraham: An Approach To Paul's Understanding of History, Ph. D.
dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, 1973, p. 21.
173 Indeed, the only direct evidence for the tradition comes in later rabbinic sources.
174 Paul relies on the chronology of Genesis, when he says that Abraham was justified before his
circumcision (Rom. 4:10-11), and that this faith preceded, and so looked forward to, the birth of Isaac
(Rom. 4:21-22).
the chronology of the Genesis account, if, at the same time, he is willing to accept
emendations to that chronology?
Finally, it should be noted that Kreuzer presents no direct evidence from Romans
to substantiate the point that Paul was utilising Jewish chronological traditions but relies,
instead, on the analogy with Galatians. It is appropriate for us, then, to now turn to a
consideration of that passage (Gal. 3:17).
Galatians 3:17 admits multiple interpretative possibilities. As such,
It is plausible that “Paul was probably following what was a common rabbinic explanation in
his own time as well as later,” namely, that “the covenant with Abraham was made thirty
years before Isaac's birth” (King, “Tannaim,” 366), from which event the lesser number,
which applied to Abraham's offspring, is reckoned (Dahl, Studies, 169, n. 17).175
Nevertheless, this is far from obvious. And, at least three other possibilities exist. Leon
Morris notes two: One: “It may be that Paul is simply giving good measure – the
Israelites were in Egypt for this period of time and the patriarchs lived before it
began.”176 On this reading, Paul is speaking in very general terms, when he speaks of the
time between the promise and the Law. This reading allows for Paul to have followed the
MT reading of Ex. 12:40 (or its Greek equivalents), where it is stated, without the
addition of the words “and in Canaan”, that the Israelites were 430 years in Egypt.
Two: “Another suggestion is that we should bear in mind that the promise to
Abraham was confirmed to Jacob (Gn. 28:14), and date Paul's words from this, for it was
in Jacob's time that the people went into Egypt.”177 This reading is preferable to the
preceding, in as much as it brings in the mention of the promise to Abraham. Yet, there is
little in Galatians 3 to substantiate this reference to Jacob. (3) A third, much simpler
possibility, is that Paul was following an LXX reading of Ex. 12:40, which adds “and in
Canaan” to the Masoretic Text's “in Egypt”. If this is the case, then Paul could simply be
175 Fung, The Epistle To The Galatians, p. 157, n. 26.

176 Leon Morris, Galatians: Paul's Charter of Christian Freedom, Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 1996, p.
111.
177 Morris, Galatians, p. 111.
talking about the period between Abraham's call to migrate to Canaan (accompanied by
the promise) and the Exodus (with the giving of the Law three months later) which, on
the basis of LXX Ex. 12:40, he would have taken to be about 430 years.178 Paul does not
reconcile the 430 years of Ex. 12:40 and the 400 of Gen. 15:13, nor does he need to,
because, however one arranges the figures, the Promise still comes a long way before the
Law. Commentaries agree that the exact number of years is not important to Paul's
argument.179 Two considerations argue against Paul's use of the rabbinic calculations at
Galatians 3:
First, Paul does not mention Mesopotamia, nor does he specify that he is counting
the 430 years to be the time between Genesis 15 and Exodus 12:40-41; 19:1ff. He does
speak of God’s promise to Abraham as a ‘covenant’, and this might point one in the
direction of Genesis 15, since this is the first place where covenant language proper
occurs in the Abraham narrative. Moreover, Paul quotes from Genesis 15:6 at Galatians
3:6. Nevertheless, the important point is that Abraham was promised a ‘seed’ who would
bless the whole world. This clearly refers to Genesis 12. Indeed, ejpaggeliva occurs eight
times in Galatians 3, and diaqhvkh only twice. Moreover, according to Matera, the two
178 This position is apparently taken by several scholars: e.g. Martinus C. De Boer, Galatians, eds C. C.
Black and J. T. Carroll, NTL, Louisville, John Knox, 2011, p. 221, n. 318; Dieter Lührmann, Galatians,
Minneapolis, Fortress, 1992, p. 70; Longenecker, Galatians, p. 133.
179 Morris, Galatians, p. 111. Betz suggests that, “the chronology itself is of no particular interest to Paul”.
Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians, ed. H. Koester (et. al.), Hermeneia, Vol. 62, Philadelphia, Fortress, 1979,
p. 158. Longenecker says, “The exact figure.... is of no great importance for Paul's argument”.
Longenecker, Galatians, p. 133. Burton writes, “For the apostle's argument the length of the period has,
of course, no significance, save that the longer the covenant had been in force, the more impressive is
his statement”. Burton, Galatians, p. 184. Schreiner notes, “The difference in time is of no consequence
for the substance of Paul's argument.”. Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, ed. C. E. Arnold, et. al.,
Zondervan Exegetical Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2010, p. 231, n. 37. Fung comments,
“this does not in the least affect Paul's argument here”. Fung, The Epistle To The Galatians, p. 157, n.
26. Dunn says that the, “precise totals are irrelevant to the case at this point”. James D. G. Dunn, A
Commentary On The Epistle To The Galatians, ed. H. Chadwick, BNTC, London, A&C Black, 1993, p.
185. Lightfoot goes further and suggests that, “The difficulties which attend both systems of
chronology [i.e. the long or short stay in Egypt] need not be considered here, as they do not affect St.
Paul's argument and cannot have entered into his thoughts”. Joseph Barber Lightfoot, Saint Paul's
Epistle To The Galatians, 7th Edn., London, Macmillian, 1881, p. 144. Duncan comments that, “In
stating as he does that the Promise antedated the Law by no fewer than 430 years, Paul adds
impressiveness to his argument, but the correctness or incorrectness of the figure has importance in no
other way … he is here in substantial agreement with the Greek Bible...”. George S. Duncan, The
Epistle Of Paul To The Galatians, ed. J. Moffatt, MNTC, London, Hodder And Stoughton, 1934, p.
109.
are interchangeable;180 or, perhaps, we might better say that the covenant was a
certification of the promise previously made.181 Thus, the thrust of the reference,
particularly in the immediate context of Gal. 3:17, is to Genesis 12 – that is to the first
scripturally recorded giving of the promise and, roughly speaking, to the start of
Abraham's time in Canaan. This makes sense, since Genesis 15 speaks about the promise
of land and descendants (a son to come from Abraham’s body to be his heir), and only
thus, in referential manner, to the fact that that seed would bless the whole world (with
which promise Paul is here primarily concerned). Hence, Paul, in Galatians 3:17, seems
to suggest that the Law came 430 years after the promise of Genesis 12 – rather than the
covenant of Genesis 15. This being the case, then one wonders whether Paul, in
apparently following the LXX of Ex. 12:40, really had the traditional calculations (which
placed the events of Genesis 15 in Mesopotamia, before those of Genesis 12) in mind.
Moreover, second, one might dispute Kreuzer's confidence in the ubiquity, at
Paul's time, of the calculations represented in the later rabbinic writings. He cites several
places where such calculations are 'assumed', but these are not all equally persuasive. A
number of texts suggest an initial call of Abraham occurring in Ur (Acts 7:2; Philo, Abr.
68-72, Migr. 176ff.; Josephus, Ant. 1:154-157; ApocAb 9-11, and 4Q252 appears to
specify that Abraham was seventy years old, when he arrived at Haran [2:8-10]). And so
Kreuzer suggests that these texts 'assume' the rabbinic chronology. Specific to Kreuzer's
argument, however, is that Genesis 15 is seen as happening in Ur. Yet, only the rabbis
suggest this. The possible exception being the Apocalypse of Abraham, which is, in any
case, still later than Paul. The other texts either describe the call of Gen. 12 as coming to
Abraham in Ur (Acts), or else suggest a call to migrate to Haran which is not specified as
either the call of Gen. 12 or the encounter of Gen. 15 (Philo, Josephus). Thus, even
180 Frank J. Matera, Galatians, ed. D. J. Harrington, SP, Vol. 9, Collegeville, Liturgical Press, 1992, p. 127.
181 Cf. Murray, "the covenant is the certification of promise". Murray, Romans, p. 205.
Schließer, who accepts Kreuzer's argument,182 distances himself somewhat from
Kreuzer's overconfidence, stating that there is room to "argue about the circulation of this
exegetical tradition".183
10.3.4 Calvert-Koyzis: Monotheism As Primary Boundary Marker
We saw in the previous chapter how Calvert-Koyzis argued for Paul's use of the Abraham
texts in Galatians. Her argument there was that while the Judaizers saw membership in
the people of God as requiring both a committment to monotheism and observance of the
Law, Paul required only monotheistic faith and turned observance of the Law into the
idolatry which God's people must now avoid. In her discussion of Romans, she angles
towards a similar conclusion. She sees the 'weak' of Romans 14-15 as employing the
Abraham texts to argue that the Christian Gemeinde at Rome must have not only
182 Schließer wants to place the justification of Abraham (Gen. 15:6) before Genesis 12, because he wants
to place Abraham's justification prior to any exhibition, on Abraham's part, of faith in, or obedience to,
God, because he feels that if one were to accept the chronology of Genesis, then it can't make sense to
describe Abraham, at the moment of his justification as being 'ungodly', due to his demonstrated
antecedent faith/obedience. And this, Schließer assumes must have troubled Paul also, and so Paul must
be thinking of the events of Genesis 15 as actually having taken place prior to Abraham's exit from
Haran. Of course, Schließer has no direct evidence that Paul was thinking anything of the sort, but the
question which troubles him is, nonetheless, a legitimate one. The issues here are more complex than
we have space to do justice to. However, the following points should suffice to show that Abraham
could have been justified as 'ungodly', even after having previously demonstrated some obedience to
God (and, if we read Rom. 4:5 in light of Heb. 11:8ff., faith concomitant with that obedience). Firstly, it
should be noted that Abraham's response to God in Gen. 12:1-4 need not be viewed as a display of
complete trust or obedience on Abraham's part (thus Andrew G. Vaughn, '"And Lot Went With Him":
Abraham's Disobedience In Genesis 12:1-4a', in B. F. Batto and K. L. Roberts (eds.), David And Zion:
Biblical Studies In Honour of J. J. M. Roberts, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 2004, pp. 111-123).
Secondly, it can be noted that, in some respects, Schließer is animated, at this point, by the same
concern which animated the Sandemanians. To which Andrew Fuller provided an answer to the idea
that “in the Lord's justifying the ungodly, that they are ungodly until justified”, writing that: “before any
conclusion can be drawn from these words [Rom. 4:5], it is necessary to ascertain the meaning of them,
particularly of the term 'ungodly.' This term I apprehend is not designed, in the passage under
consideration, to express the actual state of mind which the party at the time possesses, but the
character under which God considers him, in bestowing the blessing of justification upon him.
Whatever be the present state of a sinner's mind; whether he be a haughty pharisee, or a humble
publican; if he possess nothing which can in any degree balance the curse which stands against him, or
at all operate as a ground of acceptance with God, he must be justified, if at all, as unworthy, ungodly,
and wholly out of regard to the righteousness of the Mediator.” Andrew Gunton Fuller, The Complete
Works of Rev. Andrew Fuller, 2 Vols., Vol. 2, Boston, Lincoln, Edmands & Co., 1833, p. 823. Compared
with Schließer's solution to the problem, this account comports with Paul's apparent desire to retain the
chronology of the Genesis account.
183 Schließer, Abraham's Faith In Romans 4, p. 142. Jochen Flebbe also follows Kreuzer: Jochen Flebbe,
Solus Deus: Untersuchungen zur Rede von Gott im Brief des Paulus an die Römer, ed. M. Wolter, et.
al., BZNW, Vol. 158, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2008, pp. 200ff.
monotheistic faith but also observance of the Law for membership in the people of God.
Paul stands against this position, as he did in Galatia. As at Galatia, he “takes the biblical
narrative and popular traditions about Abraham and twists them to make his own
point.”184 He counters the 'weak' Judaizers at Rome who required observance of the Law
by demonstrating, in Romans 3-4, that commitment to the Law actually denies the
oneness of God. As such, he shows that “their obedience to the law becomes a kind of
idolatry in and of itself.”185
10.3.4.1 The 'Strong' And The 'Weak', Romans 4 & 14-15

Calvert-Koyzis begins her analysis of Romans by spending several pages reconstructing
the background for the Christian community at Rome. In this task, she mostly presents
widely accepted conclusions. In several respects, however, she presents somewhat more
idiosyncratic views. Firstly, she suggests that large numbers of the Gentile Christians at
Rome would have been 'God-fearers' before believing in Christ; people who did not want
to go to the extent of full proselytisation to Judaism including keeping the whole Law
and being circumcised.186 Secondly, she pictures a situation where those Jews who
accepted Christ would have maintained a connection to the synagogues of the Jews who
had rejected Christ and so been influenced towards a position of 'faith in Christ plus

186 She makes this suggestion on the back of the assertion that "Many Gentiles in Rome were either
sympathetic towards Judaism or became full proselytes of Judaism." (Calvert-Koyzis, Paul,
Monotheism And The People of God, p. 120). Her argument, at this point, relies on: (1) the Jews having
been very active in making converts and attracting 'God-fearers' at Rome, and (2) these 'God-fearers'
and/or converts subsequently converting to Christianity. The first of these ideas has been challenged by,
amongst others, Shaye Cohen (Shaye J. D. Cohen, 'Was Judaism In Antiquity A Missionary Religion?',
The Significance of Yavneh And Other Essays In Jewish Hellenism, TSAJ, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck,
2010, pp. 299-308), and L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte (L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, Paul The Missionary,
Contributions To Biblical Exegesis & Theology, Vol. 34, Leuven, Peeters, 2003, pp. 19-54 esp.). John
Dickson suggests that commitment to missions was variegated among Jews: John Dickson, Mission-
Commitment In Ancient Judaism And In The Pauline Communities, WUNT 2. Reihe, 159, Tübingen,
Mohr Siebeck, 2003, pp. 50 et passim. Ultimately, Calvert-Koyzis may be correct. There is no
concensus on this point. But it seems that she draws conclusions at a level of specificity which the
evidence simply does not allow. Whether the Jews were, in general, missionary, there is not enough
evidence to be sure about the Roman situation in particular.
Torah observance'.187
She develops this background as preperation for her argument that the 'strong' in
faith at Rome would have been predominantly Gentile Christians who had simply
transferred into their Christian lives their earlier reluctance, as 'God-fearers', to be
circumcised or observe the Law, and that the 'weak' in faith were Jewish-Christians who
desired to carry into their Christian lives observance of the Law as a requirement of
participation in the covenant community. Thus, thirdly, she sees the 'weak' at Rome as
Jewish-Christians who believed that Torah-observance, after the example of Abraham in
the extra-biblical texts, was required, in addition to faith in Christ, for justification and so
membership in the people of God.188 Hence, she seeks to demonstrate how, "the 'weak' in
[Rome] used Abraham to define God's people", and how Paul responded to this definition
with a "law-free" gospel in which Abraham exemplifies the person justified apart from
law.189 Essentially, the 'weak' at Rome play the same role in Romans as the Judaizers do
in Galatians. And Paul responds, as he did in Galatians, by using the extra-biblical texts
to show that Abraham's true children avoid the Law.
187 See: Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, pp. 118-119, 121. She never explains
exactly what this 'relationship' would have consisted of. She does, however, citing Brown, assert that "it
is also possible that the 'dominant Christianity at Rome had been shaped by the Jerusalem Christianity
associated with James and Peter, and hence was a Christianity appreciative of Judaism and loyal to its
customs'.". Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 118. Although this suggestion
is not integral to the argument of her thesis, it should be noted that the problems here are manifold.
Briefly, it can be stated that without granting the authority of the Petrine epistles, one would have a hard
time defining what Peter's particular theology was, except one admit that it was homogenous with that
of the rest of the apostolic church (cf. J.B. Green, 1 Peter, Eerdmans, 2007, p. 7). Yet, if one does admit
the authorship of the Petrine epistles (or even of First Peter alone), then one finds that Peter's Gospel
was fundamentally the same as that of Paul and so not one comparable to that of the Galatian Judaizers.
And, at least in the case of 1 Peter, the burden of proof remains on those who suppose pseudonimy.
W.E. Mills and R.F. Wilson, Mercer Commentary on the New Testament, Mercer University Press,
2003, p. 1295.
188 So she writes, "The 'weak' were probably primarily Jewish Christians, although some could have been
former Gentile proselytes to Judaism who still maintained adherence to the law. The strong were
probably primarily Gentile Christians but included perhaps some Jewish Christians who did not
maintain adherence to the Mosaic Law.". Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p.
137. And that, "the weak were arguing that Abraham was obedient to law...and that the new people of
God in Christ should follow that example. ... The early Christian attachment to the synagogue, and
especially to Palestinian Judaism, may have meant that the weak based their position on the law from
traditions of Abraham in which he was not only separate from Gentiles, but also obedient to the law."
Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, pp. 138-139.
Calvert-Koyzis' argument for the identity and function of the 'weak' is not based
on the context of 14-15 alone. Rather, she seeks to bring Romans 4 to bear on the
situation at 14-15. The discussion of Abraham at Romans 4 is relevant to 14-15, she
suggests, because Paul wrote Romans 4 (at least, in part) to address the situation of 14-
15. This is evidenced by the the verbal paralells between Romans 4 and Romans 14-15.190
For example, she notes that Abraham's faith is described as being 'strong' (Rom. 4:19-
20), and contends that this is comparable to the 'strong' faith of those at 15:1.191
Abraham and the other 'strong' are contrasted with the 'weak' in faith at 14:1, and
Paul is concerned for the believers in Rome, particularly the 'weak', to have faith in the
way that Paul pictures Abraham as doing.192 Paul is on the side of the 'strong', law-free
group193 who have faith like Abraham's,194 and he requires that the 'weak' imitate this faith
by abandoning the Law.195 If they do, then they, too, may 'glorify' God (which is Paul's
hope for them – 15:6-7, 9) as Abraham did (4:20).196
Indeed, Calvert-Koyzis suggests that the situation behind 14-15 can be taken as
the principle purpose for the letter, and as a controlling concern in Paul's mind as he
develops his Gospel leading up to the 'weak'/'strong' discussion. As such, this,
190 Here, Calvert-Koyzis follows Lincoln. For e.g., see: Lincoln, 'Abraham Goes To Rome', pp. 174-175.
Lincoln notes other parallels. Both passages speak of faith and doubt, and so they are similar in that
sense. However, it is not clear that Paul writes Romans 4 to set up for his argumentation at Romans 14-
15. Beyond the obvious distance between those two passages, and the lack of any direct mention of
Abraham as Paul addresses the situation at Rome (in Romans 14-15), there is the issue of their different
subjects. Romans 4 speaks of the kind of faith which justifies (and Paul seems to bring his discussion to
application in that same passage – e.g. Rom. 4:23-25), whereas the issue between the 'strong' and the
'weak' is not one of justifying faith but one of Christian liberty. It were not as though the truths of
Romans 4 are irrelevant to the concerns dealt with in the latter portion of Romans, but it does not
appear that Paul has those concerns specifically in mind in the earlier passage.
193 Who are mostly Gentiles.
194 Whom Paul is supposed to have depicted as a Gentile in ch. 4 (see below).
195 So Calvert-Koyzis says that, "Paul is siding with those who are probably primarily Gentiles of the law-
free persuasion. ... Implicit in Paul's argumentation, adherence to the law meant that there were two
ways of justification: one by law and one without the law." Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The
People of God, p. 123. Cf. her earlier suggestion that, "at least one of the issues to which Paul is
presently responding in his letter to the Romans may indeed be whether the law was necessary for the
members of the emerging people of God." Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God,
p. 119.
196 The word behind 'glorify' in both instances is dovxa.
...explains why Paul spends so much time arguing over obedience to the law in a letter that
appears to address a majority of Gentile believers. ... Paul is writing to both Jewish and
Gentile Christians who have had and still have some attachment to the synagogue and who
are struggling over the place of the law for the people of God.197
We shall not deal with these parallels in detail, but it might be noted that, while
she shows an awareness of Moo's commentary on Romans, Calvert-Koyzis fails to rebut
Moo's points against those who would see the basic argument and structure of the letter
as contingent upon the dispute behind Romans 14-15. He is unconvinced that the
connections between 14-15 and the rest of the letter, "are numerous or specific enough to
justify the thesis that Rom. 1-13 (or even 12-13) has as its main purpose preparing the
ground for Rom. 14:1-15:13."198 One might add that an unappealing corollary of Calvert-
Koyzis' suggestion is that it forces the reader to read backwards from Romans 14-15 to
Romans 4.
The fundamental weakness of this reading is the manner in which it contends that
the 'weak' saw observance of the Law as necessary for justification(/inclusion in the
people of God). Whereas the context clearly bears-out that Paul neither sees the 'weak' as
being outside of the 'people of God' nor criticises them for promoting a different
definition of who is in the covenant.199 The 'weak', that is to say, were not requiring Law
197 Cf. her earlier suggestion that, "at least one of the issues to which Paul is presently responding in his
letter to the Romans may indeed be whether the law was necessary for the members of the emerging
people of God." Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 119.
198 Moo, Romans, p. 832. Moo is not alone here: Leo Percer, in reviewing Calvert-Koyzis' argument at this
point, states that, "In Romans, Paul's presentation of Abraham and the Law in chapters 3 and 4 seem
only tangentially related to his discussion of the weak and strong in chapter 14. The connection to the
traditions about Abraham seems a little forced in this regard." Leo R. Percer, 'Review: Paul,
Monotheism And The People of God: The Significance of Abraham Traditions For Early Judaism And
Christianity', PRSt, Vol. 33, No. 4, (2006), p. 517. Having said this, Paul's answer to the situation
expressed in Romans 14-15 does flow naturally out of his presentation of the Gospel in earlier chapters.
The point, however, is that this situation was not the only (or even primary) occasion for his
presentation of the Gospel. Instead of seeing Paul as writing chs. 1-13 of Romans as a response to the
situation at Rome expressed in 14-15, then, one should see Paul's presentation of the Gospel as having a
broader occasion and then being specifically applied to the situation in Rome at Rom. 14-15. Only this
explanation, in my opinion, explains the lack of reference to the controversy at Rome before ch. 14. The
omission of such a mention is particularly conspicuous in the opening and closing sections of the letter,
where Paul seems to present the occasion for his letter as a general obligation to Greeks and non-
Greeks (1:14-15) and to garner support for his planned missionary journey to Spain (15:23-24).
199 Indeed, at 14-15, the 'strong' are urged to recieve (proslambavnw) the 'weak' into that intimate
fellowship of 'the people of God in Christ', that is, the community of the justified Christians; the saved.
As Moo notes, "To "receive" the "weak" is not simply to accord them official recognition as church
members. The verb means "receive or accept into one's society, home, circle of acquaintace" (BAGD),
observance as a necessary covenantal boundary marker.200 The 'weak' at Rome were not
promoting another gospel as the Judaizers in Galatia had done. If they had been, Paul
would not have urged the strong to humour and accept them. Rather, he would have
proclaimed an anathema on them.201
There is no indication that Paul sees the 'weak' in faith in 14-15 as outside of the
covenant community. Yet, when Romans 4:1-5:11 uses the language of 'weak' and
'strong', the difference is clearly between those who have faith and are justified and those
who do not have faith and so remain under the wrath of God in their unjustified state.
Thus, for example, Romans 5:6 equates 'weakness' with 'ungodliness' (e[ti ga;r Cristo;V
o[ntwn hJmw:n ajsqenw:n e[ti kata; kairo;n uJpe;r ajsebw:n ajpevqanen).202 As such, while
there are two groups in Rom. 14-15: viz. the 'weak' and the 'strong', both groups are
'strong' in the sense of Rom. 4-5 where Abraham was said to be 'strong'.203 One wonders
how Calvert-Koyzis would resolve the tension this creates between the text and her
argument.204 Indeed, in light of the fact that she is so concerned about the "[s]ignificant
verbal similarities" between 4 and 14-15, it is a glaring omission that she fails to take into
and implies that the Roman Christians were not only to "tolerate" the "weak" but that they were to treat
them as brothers and sisters in the intimate fellowship typical of the people of God." Moo, Romans, p.
835.
200 That Calvert-Koyzis could foist upon the text such a paradigm suggests a severe lack of sensitivity to
the text.
201 Schaff puts the matter succinctly, in his History of The Christian Church. As he observes, "In the
Roman church the legalists were weak brethren rather than false brethren, and no personal enemies of
Paul, who treats them much more mildly than the Galatian errorists." Philip Schaff, History of The
Christian Church, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1978, p. 359. Likewise, see: C. Marvin Pate, The Reverse
of The Curse: Paul, Wisdom, And The Law, WUNT 2. Reihe, Vol. 114, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2000,
p. 273; Cranfield, Epistle To The Romans, pp. 694-697.
202 Furthermore, one cannot defend Calvert-Koyzis' position on the basis that the discussion of Abraham as
'strong' in faith is unrelated to the shortly proceeding discussion of the 'weak', since the discussion in
chapter 4 informs the statements in chapter 5 (note, for e.g., the ou\n at 5:1).
203 Since both the 'strong' and the 'weak' at Rom. 14-15 are 'strong' in the Rom. 4-5 sense, the designations
'strong' and 'weak' represent degrees of strength within the general sphere of faith. Thus, while Paul
sides to some extent with the 'strong' and probably desires to see the 'weak' come to a stronger faith
which will allow them to enjoy the same liberties that he enjoys with respect to eating meat, drinking
wine, and observing days, he accepts them, finding fault with those who would despise the 'weak' for
their weakness in these things, and pointing out that "to his own master each stands or falls" (14:4).
204 One might suggest that the reason for the difference between Paul's aggressive response to Judaizing in
Galatia and Calvert-Koyzis' supposed Judaizing behind Rom. 14-15 is that in Galatia circumcision and
Torah-observance were considered necessary for justification and reception of the promise given to
Abraham, whereas in Rom. 14-15, while observance of certain parts of the Law are being practiced,
Torah-observance is not being suggested as necessary for justification.
consideration (or even mention) the description of 'weakness' at 5:6.205
In sum, then, it is doubtful that at Romans 14-15, Paul is primarily addressing
Jewish-Christians and exhorting them to depart from the Law. Indeed, Paul's exhortation
is primarily to the strong, that they not require the weak to give up their scruples as a
basis of shared fellowship.206 As such, it is unlikely that the 'weak' were Judaizing in a
manner comparable to the Judaizers in Galatia. It is, therefore, also unlikely that the
'weak' were making use of the extra-biblical Abraham texts to suggest that the Roman
Christians must observe the Law as Abraham did. With this conclusion in mind, we turn
now to a discussion of Calvert-Koyzis' interpretation of Abraham in Romans 3-4.
10.3.4.2 Abraham In Romans 3:27-4:25: Abraham's Faith, 'Specific' vs. 'General'

In Calvert-Koyzis' view, at Romans 3:27-4:25, Paul is responding to the position of the
Jewish-Christian Roman Judaizers (i.e. the 'weak') discussed above. In her exegesis of
the passage, she seeks to show that Abraham's faith was an assertion of monotheism or
'faith in the Creator'. This was the 'general' content of Abraham's faith; the 'specific'
content being his trust in God's revealed promise (e.g. Gen. 15:6).
She begins by agreeing with Dunn's argument that Romans 3:30 presents
justification as being available through faith in the Creator, while the idea that Christ is
the object of faith is diminished and backgrounded. 207 As Dunn argues, faith is what is
required of all but,
In the light of 1:18ff. faith must be another word for that responsive dependance on God as
Creator which man has failed to give; and this indeed is how Paul goes on to define it in 4:18-
21. … Now it can also be described as faith in Jesus, because his death both confirms that
God is Redeemer as well as Creator and opens the scope of that redemption beyond Israel...
But here [Rom. 3:30] it is described simply as “faith” since it is the basic trust-reliance of
205 As she states, "Significant verbal similarities exist between ch. 4 and the latter two chapters of the
epistle; this may suggest that Paul used the figure of Abraham in order to provide instructions for the
situation at hand." Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 137.
206 Schreiner, Romans, p. 19.
207 As Francis Watson writes, “On this account [of Dunn's], faith is defined as dependence on the Creator,
and its christological reference is secondary.” Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism, And The Gentiles:
Beyond The New Perspective, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2007, p. 254.
creature on the only Creator which is in view.208
Jan Lambrecht critiques Dunn's interpretation on the basis of the syntax of verses
29-30 of Romans 3. Lambrecht notes that verse 30b (o}V dikaiwvsei peritomh;n ejk
pivstewV kai; ajkrobustivan dia; th:V pivstewV), is considered by Dunn a corollary of
verse 30a (ei[per ei{V oJ qeovV).209 In Dunn's view, God will justify, because he is one.
Calvert-Koyzis adds that the faith which justifies is faith in God as one. 210 On this
reading, “v. 30a not only grounds v. 29a (because God is one he is also the God of the
Gentiles), but equally, and rather strangely, v. 30b (because God is one he will justify not
only the Jews but also the Gentiles).”211 In contrast, Lambrecht suggests that so far as
content is concerned, the relative clause of verse 30b “can be considered very close to the
statement of v. 28... [which is itself not a new idea.] Rather it is the basic insight that was
reached by the lengthy exposition of Rom 1:16-3:26 and more particularly 3:21-26.”212
As such, verse 30b speaks of faith in Christ and not of a commitment to monotheism.
Calvert-Koyzis defends Dunn's interpretation against the penetrating criticism of
Lambrecht not by engaging with his exegesis of Romans 3, but by merely pointing to the
208 Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. 189. After the pattern of Dunn also is: Adams, 'Abraham's Faith And Gentile
Disobedience', p. 35. In contrast to this interpretation of the faith language at Romans 3:27-31, Moo
suggests that, "The simple references to "faith" in 3:28 and 3:30 are abbreviations of the "faith in
Christ/Jesus" that is enunciated in 3:22 and 26 (cf. v. 25)." Moo, Romans, p. 225. Similarly, Watson
critiques Dunn's view as follows: “It is not clear why, in this context [of Dunn's], Paul needs Christ, and
why a recovery of the universal relationship of the creature to the Creator would not fully meet his
concerns. Is Christ simply an empty symbol for universalistic monotheism? Or has Paul failed to
integrate his christological convictions with his doctrine of justification by faith?” Watson, Paul,
Judaism, And The Gentiles, p. 255.
209 Jan Lambrecht, 'Paul's Logic In Romans 3:29-30', JBL, Vol. 119, No. 3, (2000), p. 526.
210 Similar is Guerra's argument that Paul's use of the "topos" ei{V oJ qeovV and the figure of Abraham make
him derivative of the Hellenistic Jewish "One God" topos and the use of Abraham to legitimise the
inclusion of Gentiles into the Jewish community. See especially: Anthony J. Guerra, Romans And The
Apologetic Tradition: The Purpose, Genre And Audience of Paul's Letter, SNTSMS, 81, Cambridge,
CUPress, 1995, pp. 76, 84, 101, 109-110. (See also his journal article: Anthony J. Guerra, 'Romans 4 As
Apologetic Theology', HTR, Vol. 81, No. 3, (1988), pp. 251-270.) Guerra follows Peterson in arguing
that Paul could not be borrowing from the Shema in Romans. (Peterson: “Die LXX hat in Deut. 6, 4
nicht etwa ei|V qeovV, wie man nach Clermont-Ganneaus's Ausführungen erwarten müste, sondern ei|V
kuvrioV.” Erik Peterson, ΕΙΣ ΘΕΟΣ: Epigraphische, formgeschichtliche und religionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchungen, Göttingen, V&R, 1926, p. 293. Yet, Waaler both refutes the arguments given for why
Paul could not be employing the Shema in a Christological direction and also gives reasons why it is
likely that Paul was making use of what was part of every Jew's quotidian devotional life. See, for e.g.,
Erik Waaler, The Shema And The First Commandment In First Corinthians, WUNT 2. Reihe, Vol. 253,
Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2008, pp. 245-246.
211 Lambrecht, 'Paul's Logic In Romans 3:29-30', p. 527.
212 Lambrecht, 'Paul's Logic In Romans 3:29-30', p. 527.
manner in which she thinks Paul defines Abraham's faith in chapter four (particularly
4:24-25).213 She sees that Paul is going to present Abraham as the epitome of the kind of
faith spoken about in 3:30. And since, in her interpretation, Paul will present Abraham as
the first monotheist, just as he is presented in the extra-biblical texts, it makes sense to
see a commitment to monotheism spoken of in 3:30 as well. Although the “specific
content” of Abraham's faith is trust in God's promise (Rom. 4:18-21), Calvert-Koyzis
believes that the "traditions of Abraham, who as the first proselyte rejected idolatry for
faith in the one God, assist us in establishing the larger content of the faith that is alluded
to in 3.30".214 The accuracy of this interpretation relies upon the accuracy of Calvert-
Koyzis' understanding of Abraham's faith in Romans 4. We shall turn, then, to a
discussion of her exegesis of that chapter. Before doing so, however, it is worthwhile to
point to the place of 3:30 in its context (both specific and broad).
Specifically, in the context of Romans 1-3, as Lambrecht notes, when Paul speaks
of being justified ejk pivstewV, this is almost anaphoric, abbreviating the idea of being
justified dia; pivstewV =Ihsou: Cristou:. And, as Watson elaborates, “There is no reason
to suppose that ejk pivstewV =Ihsou: means something fundamentally different from ejk
pivstewV, with the former referring to “faith in Jesus,” the latter to “trust-dependence on
the Creator God.”215 More broadly, a survey of the places in Romans where Paul specifies
the object or content of faith supports the notion that the object at 3:30 is no different. A
survey reveals that faith, in Romans, may be directed either to God or to Christ, but
wherever it is directed to God (with the possible exception of 15:13), it assumes either
God's work in/through Christ or the close relationship between God and Christ. So, for
instance, Romans 3:22 and 3:26 speak directly of faith in Christ. Romans 3:25 refers to
faith in Christ's blood. Romans 9:33 states that whoever believes in the stone laid in Zion

215 Watson, Paul, Judaism, And The Gentiles, pp. 255-256.
(Christ) will never be put to shame. Romans 4:24 and 10:9, 11 speak to faith in the God
who raised Jesus from the dead; not in Christ per se, but the significance of Jesus'
resurrection was that in Christ's death and resurrection justification was provided (4:25).
Thus, one may come to peace with God through faith, but that peace is only ever
achieved 'through' Christ (cf. 5:1). As such, one can assume that it must be through faith
in Christ or, at least, faith in the promise of Christ, or faith in God in as much as he has
worked through Christ. In none of these instances, does Dunn's conception of mere 'faith
in God as Creator' appear to be clearly articulated. Thus, Watson is almost certainly
correct to suggest that the faith spoken of in Rom. 3:30 is faith in Christ.216 As Schließer
writes: “Generally, Paul's idea of faith is saturated with christological connotations, and it
is strictly and unconditionally related to the Christ-event.”217 Having observed this, we
turn to an examination of Calvert-Koyzis' exegesis of Romans 4.
10.3.4.3 Abraham In Romans 4: Abraham's Faith As An Expression of Monotheism

Having surveyed faith in Romans generally, what shall we say of Abraham's faith in
particular? Abraham, we are told, “believed God” (4:3, 5, 17). In Calvert-Koyzis' view,
this specifically means that Abraham trusted the promises God had made to him, but the
more general content of this faith was monotheism. Thus, Abraham primarily serves as
an example of monotheism. Undoubtedly, there may be a small element of belief in God
as creator present in Romans 4.218 Yet, several factors argue against the idea that Abraham
216 As Bruce notes, in his commentary on 1 Thessalonians, for Gentiles to turn to God from idols (or,
alternatively, for pagans to turn from polytheism to monotheism) to serve the living and true God (1
Thess. 1:9-10) would certainly have been something. But even such a conversion would only suggest
that such a pagan had moved from the sphere of paganism into the realm of being a "God-fearer" or, at
most, a convert to Judaism. Yet, Paul would not be content with such a shift. Instead he desires them to
go even further, to having faith in Christ, and all the christological corollaries that that involves. So, as
Bruce says, "Turning to God from idols to serve a living and true God would characterize proselytes
from paganism to Judaism as much as converts to Christianity: it is the words that follow, about Jesus
the Son of God, that impart a distinctively Christian note to the formula." F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2
Thessalonians, ed. R. P. Martin, WBC, 45, Waco, Word Books, 1982, p. 18.
217 Schließer, Abraham's Faith In Romans 4, p. 411.
218 Cf. Moo's discussion. He notes that the language of Rom. 4:16-17, "is quite close to [certain] Jewish
creatio ex nihilo tradition[s]", and so the idea of God as Creator might be intended. However, he also
expresses reservations about this conclusion, noting in particular that, if this were the case, one would
expect more explicit language of calling into being or 'creating'. Moo, Romans, p. 282.
is primarily presented in Romans 4 as an example of monotheistic faith.
To begin with, it is not merely incidental that Paul delineates the 'specific content'
of Abraham's faith. Paul understands the promise in salvation-historical terms, as
messianic (cf. Rom. 15:8-9; 2 Cor. 1:20; Gal. 3:8). Thus, he describes Abraham's faith in
the promise in some detail, while no-where explicitly speaking of Abraham's having
believed that God was 'one'.219 Having delineated the universal sinfulness of mankind and
our collective standing under the wrath of God, Paul turns to Abraham not only as an
example of faith in a general sense, but because the locus of salvation, for Paul, is the
Abrahamic promise and it was this promise in which Abraham believed. 220 Thus, for
Paul, there is a strong connection between Abraham's faith and Christian faith. Indeed, in
some sense, Abraham believed the Gospel beforehand (Gal. 3:8; cf. John 8:56).
In contrast to this Pauline emphasis on the importance of the promise stands
Philo, who was concerned more to depict Abraham as 'godly' than to develop the
meaning of the promise given to him, and who, in his account of Abraham's migration,
has Abraham's obedience to the divine command in primary focus (Gen. 12.1; Abr. 62-
71), and who largely ignores, or treats separately, the promises that follow (e.g. Gen.
12.2-3).221 While Calvert-Koyzis wishes to diminish the importance of the 'specific
content' of Abraham's faith in Romans 4, it is instructive to note that the specific contents
of the tradition Paul is supposed to be making use of in that chapter are absent.
While Paul transparently alludes to Genesis, there is a total absence of allusions to
Abraham rejecting false gods (in the form either of idolatry or astrology) or of
discovering God through a process of reason or observation of the natural phenomena. It
seems, then, that that 'specific content' of Abraham's faith is what is primarily in view,
and that this faith is christologically tinged. Monotheism may be assumed for Abraham,
219 Gathercole states: "Paul defines Abraham's faith in some detail in 4:19-21". Gathercole, Where Is
Boasting?, p. 242.
220 Moo, Romans, p. 215.
221 Watson, Paul And The Hermeneutics of Faith, p. 244.
but that is hardly the point that Paul is driving at. If Paul is here taking the momentous
step of redefining the boundary of the covenant community by establishing monotheism
as the essential boundary marker, then he does so in an unusually indirect fashion.
Secondly, Calvert-Koyzis points to the "paucity of references to Christ in 3.27-
4.25".222 She suggests that Paul changes from a Christocentric focus in chapters 1-3 to a
Theocentric focus in Romans 4.223 While she is statistically correct, since 3:27-31 directly
follows 3:21-26 (pou: ou\n), it is debatable whether 3:27-4:25 should be rigidly divided
from what immediately precedes it.224 Nevertheless, the implication of making such a
division is that Paul does not see Abraham's faith as Christocentric. Rather, in Calvert-
Koyzis' view, Paul knew the Abraham traditions which made monotheism plus
observance of the Law the foundational boundary markers, but in Romans 4 he redefined
the faith of Abraham to be monotheism-apart-from-the-Law.225 Against this
interpretation, however, several more cogent explanations for the theocentric character of
Romans 4 can be pointed to:
One may adopt Watson's interpretation that:

223 Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 134. Siker also suggests a 'theocentric'
focus in Romans 4, but he qualifies this statement, saying: "This observation is not meant to imply that
Paul thinks one can believe in the God who raised Jesus from the dead without believing in Jesus."
Jeffrey S. Siker, Disinheriting The Jews: Abraham In Early Christian Controversy, Kentucky,
Westminster, 1991, p. 62. (Yet, that seems to be exactly what Calvert-Koyzis desires to imply.) This
question echoes a concern of Dunn's. Dunn sees a tension between Paul's call for christocentric faith,
and the fact that he uses Old Testament examples to support this call (as, for e.g., Abraham). He, thus,
speaks of the, "tension between the christocentric faith for which Paul's Gospel calls and the fact that he
is able to document, define and justify that faith from OT precedents and texts." James D. G. Dunn, 'In
Quest of Paul's Theology: Retrospect And Prospect', in E. E. Johnson and D. M. Hay (eds.), Pauline
Theology, Vol. 4: Looking Back, Pressing On, Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1997, p. 111. Cf. Francis B.
Watson, 'The Triune Divine Identity: Reflections On Pauline God-language In Disagreement With J. D.
G. Dunn', JSJ, Vol. 80, (2000), pp. 99-124; Gathercole, 'Justified By Faith, Justified By His Blood: The
Evidence of Romans 3:21-4:25', pp. 147-184, and Schließer, Abraham's Faith In Romans 4, pp. 410ff.
These last commentators are three prominent opponents of Dunn's (and so Calvert-Koyzis') view that
Paul's understanding of Abraham's faith was strictly theocentric and not analogous to the faith of New
Testament believers.
224 Cranfield, Epistle To The Romans, p. 219; Käsemann, Romans, p. 102, &c.
225 As she concludes, “Chapter 4 contains its theocentric emphasis because Paul, knowing the tradition of
Abraham the first monotheist, explains how it is that the monotheistic faith of Abraham which brought
him righteousness has, now that Christ has come, found its fulfillment and ultimate definition in faith in
'him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord' (4:25).” Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The
People of God, p. 136.
The “christological reticence” of Romans 1:16-4:25 is to be explained not by Paul's desire to
get back to an allegedly more basic relationship of creature to Creator, but rather by his
attempt to develop a soteriology on the basis of scripture: for in texts such as Habakkuk 2:4
and Genesis 15:6, scripture foreshadows God's definitive saving act without naming Jesus
Christ as its agent. Thus in Romans 4 Abraham's faith corresponds not to his abstract
creaturehood but to his concrete existence as addressee of the divine promise of universal
salvation – a salvation realized in Christ (cf. vv. 24-25).226
One may observed how Paul closely associates Christ and God, so that mention of
one almost certainly involves the other.227 The two are infrangibly united.228 Indeed, from
the very beginning of the epistle, Paul has closely associated discussion of God with
discussion of Christ. So, for example, the Gospel (which is the theme of the entire letter)
can be described in the same breath as 'the Gospel of God' (Rom. 1:1) and the Gospel of,
and regarding, Christ (Rom. 1:3, 9). Paul's Christology and his theology are inseparable.
So, for example, Paul can, on the one hand, proclaim that Christians are not controlled by
the 'flesh', “if the Spirit of God” (Rom. 8:9) lives in them (that is, “the Spirit of him who
raised Jesus from the dead” – Rom. 8:11; cf. Rom. 4:24),229 and, at the very same time,
equate the “Spirit of God” with the “Spirit of Christ” (Rom. 8:9; cf., interestingly, 2 Cor.
13:14).230 Similarly, at Romans 5:8, we can see that the God whose wrath is revealed
from heaven (Romans 1:18ff.) is the God who has loved us in Christ. For Christ's self-
sacrificial death represents God's own love (th;n eJautou: ajgavphn). Passages such as
these would seem to call for us to understand Paul's view of the relationship between
226 Watson, Paul, Judaism, And The Gentiles, pp. 255-256.

227 Stephen Finlan has written, "inasmuch as it is God who is worshipped, who is all-powerful, who raised
Jesus from the dead, and who thus provided the means of salvation, Paul's gospel can be called
theocentric. Yet it is also obvious that the central role of Christ would be apparent to anyone hearing
Paul preach... The salvific role of Christ's death and resurrection utterly distinguishes his gospel from
other manifestations of Judaism, even from other Christian forms where the death of Christ is not made
the central saving event (e.g., The Gospel of Thomas)." Stephen Finlan, The Background And Content
of Paul's Cultic Atonement Metaphors, Academia Biblica, Vol. 19, Leiden, Brill, 2004, p. 3.
228 Paul prayed to God, but also to Jesus (e.g. 1 Cor 1:2; 1 Thess 3:11-13; &c.); Paul worshipped God, but
also Jesus (e.g. 1 Cor. 12:3); Paul places not only God but also Jesus in the role of eschatological judge
(e.g. 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Thess 2:7-9). "Equally telling," according to Moo, "are the ways in which Paul
develops an implicit binitarianism in the way he associates Jesus with God. The "wish prayers" in his
salutations always include Jesus with God – as, for example, 2 Cor 1:2... Likewise, he can shift from
phrases such as "the gospel of God" to "the gospel of Christ" without comment (cf. 1 Thess 2:2, 8, 9
with 3:2)." Douglas J. Moo, 'The Christology of The Early Pauline Letters', in R. N. Longenecker (ed.),
Contours of Christology In The New Testament, MNTS, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2005, p. 190.
229 Compare Romans 4:24 (“to;n ejgeivranta =Ihsou:n to;n kuvrion hJmw:n ejk nekrw:n”) with Romans 8:11
(“to; pneu:ma tou: ejgeivrantoV to;n =Ihsou:n ejk nekrw:n”).
230 Compare Rom. 1:1 with 1:9; 8:34; 9:5; &c.
God and Christ as being 'binatarian' (trinitarian questions aside). If this be the case, God
and Christ are absolutely inseparable. Benjamin Warfield argued that such a 'binatarian'
view is evident even in the standardised greeting which Paul and other early Christian
writers use: viz. “God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”. 231 This formula, he argues,
was quite early, and quite significant, in its assumption of the identity of the two persons
mentioned in it.232
At the very least, Christ is God's uiJovV (Rom. 1:4 et passim), the kuvrioV233 of the
whole creation (1 Cor. 8:6; cf. Col. 1:15-20; Phil. 2:5-11, and cf. incidentally the later
statement of John 1:3),234 the one who sits at God's right hand (Rom. 8:34), and “the
image [eijkwvn] of God” (2 Cor. 4:4; cf., incidentally, Hebrews 1:1-4).235 It is fair to say
231 Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, 'God Our Father And The Lord Jesus Christ', PTR, Vol. 15, No. 1,
(1917), pp. 1-20.
232 Warfield writes that, "It would not be easy to exaggerate the closeness with which the two names are
knit together in this formula. The two persons brought together are not, to be sure, absolutely identified.
They remain two persons, to each of whom severally there may be ascribed activities in which the
other does not share. ... But their equalization is absolute. And short of thoroughgoing identification of
persons the unity expressed by their conjunction seems to be complete." Warfield, 'God Our Father And
The Lord Jesus Christ', pp. 5-6.
233 Oscar Cullmann's contribution here should not be underestimated. He argues persuasively for Jesus'
identification with the Father in the New Testament as a whole. In relation to Paul specifically, his
comments on the designation of Jesus as kurios are highly pertinent. He writes: "Actually, the passages
which confer upon Jesus the title Kyrios, the name of God, are at least as important as those in which he
is directly addressed as 'God' – and in some cases the former are even more important. We have seen
that on the basis of the designation Kyrios early Christianity does not hesitate to transfer to Jesus
everything the Old Testament says about God. It is surprising that scholars do not give more
consideration to such an important fact." Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of The New Testament,
trans. S. C. Guthrie and C. A. M. Hall, Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1959, p. 307.
234 David Garland, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, comments at 1 Cor. 8:1-6 that, "Paul creatively
christianizes the foundational Jewish monotheistic confession: "The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut.
6:4; see additional note). He glosses the reference to Lord and God in that confession so that "God"
refers to the Father and "the Lord" refers to Christ." David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, ed. M. Silva,
BECNT, Grand Rapids, Baker, 2003, p. 375. From this verse in 1 Corinthians 8, N. T. Wright derives
the term "Christological Monotheism". He suggests that, "we should read the poem [of 1 Cor. 8] as an
expression of what [he calls] christological monotheism, intending by that term the phenomenon, of
which this passage is not the only example in the New Testament, of an explicitly monotheistic
statement, of the Jewish variety (i.e. creational/covenantal monotheism, as opposed to pantheism or
Deism), in which we find Christ set within the monotheistic statement itself. ... Paul has modified
Jewish monotheism so as to place Jesus Christ within the description, almost the definition, of the one
God." Nicholas Thomas Wright, The Climax of The Covenant: Christ And The Law In Pauline
Theology, New York, T&T Clark, 1993, pp. 114-115. Similarly, Richard Bauckham writes, "The early
Christian movement, very consciously using [a] Jewish theological framework, created a kind of
christological monotheism by understanding Jesus to be included in the unique identity of the one God
of Israel." Richard Bauckham, Jesus And The God of Israel: God Crucified And Other Studies On The
New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2008, p. 184.
235 In connection with the phrase in 2 Corinthians, Capes writes: "...it is likely that [Paul] would identify
Christ as Yahweh manifest and therefore readily quote Yahweh texts and apply them to Christ." David
B. Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts In Paul's Christology, WUNT 2. Reihe, Vol. 47, Tübingen, J. C.
that Calvert-Koyzis has not grappled with the radical proximity of Christ to God in Paul's
thought.236 We should be careful, therefore, about being too quick to follow her
suggestion that simply because the word 'CristovV' does not occur in Romans 4, and
'=Ihsou:V' occurs only once, that this means that Christ has dropped entirely off of Paul's
radar. Rather, Morris, in commenting on Romans 4:5, has the following to say:
[Paul has spoken of faith in Christ (3:22, 26); now he speaks of faith in God. Both, of course,
are objects of faith for the Christian, and the fact that faith may be directed to Christ as to the
Father with no appreciable difference in meaning tells us something about the way Paul
regarded Christ.237
Paul had a problem with those who sought to be saved by observance of the Law,
whether Jews or Jewish-Christians. More fundamentally, however, the problem with non-
Christian Jews, from Paul's perspective, is not so much their observance of the Law but
their rejection of Jesus as God's Messiah and Son.
Lastly, one may observe how Paul readily associates faith in God and faith in
Christ.238 Benjamin Schließer's discussion of this point is forceful.239 And we adopt his
conclusion that,
in 5:6 Paul says that “Christ died for the ungodly,” referring back to 4:5 through the key-word
ajsebhvV and implying that God has presented himself even to Abraham as the God who
justifies the ungodly, namely, through Christ (cf. 4:25). All this means that only a one-sided,
B. Mohr, 1992, p. 176.
236 Andrews Pitts, in his review of Calvert-Koyzis' book, states: "I remain unconvinced that monotheism is
the central element in Paul's understanding of the identity of the people of God. Though this is clearly
fundamental, Paul's emphasis seems to be more christocentric than the picture she paints, an emphasis
that often gets lost in her persistence in highlighting his advocacy of monotheistic faith." Andrew W.
Pitts, 'Review: Calvert-Koyzis: Paul, Monotheism', JGrCJ, Vol. 7, (2010), p. R17. The great difference
between Paul's Gospel and the Judaism of his time, Calvert-Koyzis suggests, was that Paul required
monotheism-apart-from-the-Law, whereas Jews demanded monotheism-plus-Torah-observance. This is
to reduce the importance of Christology both to Paul’s theology per se, and in his disagreement with
Judaism.
237 Morris, The Epistle To The Romans, p. 198, n. 21.
238 In this vein is Theobald, who writes that, "Paul met constamment en relation pivvstiV/pisteuvein avec le
titre christologique (oJ) cristovV." Cited by: Schließer, Abraham's Faith In Romans 4, p. 411, n. 153.
Paul's comment in 1 Corinthians 2:2 that he intended to know nothing but Christ and him crucified
speaks to his desire for Christ to be all-pervasive in his thinking. Similarly, Charles Cousar can
comment, on the question of whether Israel's predicted salvation in Romans 11 will be 'theocentric' or
'christocentric', that, "it may be a mistake in Pauline interpretation to drive too sharp a wedge between
theocentric and christocentric construals of salvation. Faith in "him who raised Jesus our Lord from the
dead" (Rom. 4:24) and faith in Christ are hard to distinguish. The way Paul takes the faith of Abraham
in Romans 4 as a model for Christian faith blurs the distinction." Charles B. Cousar, 'Paul And
Multiculturalism', in W. Brueggemann and G. W. Stroup (eds.), Many Voices, One God: Being Faithful
In A Pluralistic World: In Honor of Shirley Guthrie, Louisville, John Knox, 1998, p. 54.
239 See: Schließer, Abraham's Faith In Romans 4, pp. 410-416.
isolated exegesis of Romans 4 can assert that the pivstiV-concept in this chapter is without
christological implication.240
Beyond these considerations, however, a fundamental problem with Calvert-
Koyzis' thesis that Paul redefines the Jewish tradition which presents Abraham as the first
monotheist is finding this motif in the Abraham texts. As became clear in our discussion
of those texts, Abraham is not presented as “the first monotheist”.241 In ApocAb 1-8, one
might see Abraham as the first monotheist. However, since the story begins with, and
focuses almost exclusively on Abraham, it is hard to say what came before him. In
Josephus' narrative, it is clear that others believed in God before Abraham. Indeed, it
appears that Abraham's countrymen were monotheists, albeit of a Stoic cast. Thus,
Abraham is not so much the first monotheist as one who revolutionises an existing
concept. In Jubilees, it appears that Enosh is the first monotheist. In LAB, while Abraham
has more courage in his convictions than either Joktan or his compatriots, he is,
nevertheless, not the first nor the only monotheist (6:3-4).242 In Philo's oeuvre, Abraham
stands out as Philo's premier example of proper belief in God. Nevertheless, even here,
we have seen how Noah is a monotheist and partial precursor to Abraham's faith. Thus, it
seems unlikely that there was a tradition whose Tendenz was to portray Abraham as the
first monotheist, or the 'inventor' of monotheism.243

240 Schließer, Abraham's Faith In Romans 4, pp. 411-412.
241 Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 136, but see also, pp. 113, 119, 121, 127,
134-136, 140-141, et passim.
242 Jacobson sees "unum Dominum" at 6:4 as a monotheistic assertion. Howard Jacobson, A Commentary
On Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum: With Latin Text And English Translation, 2 Vols.,
Vol. 1, AGJU, Vol. 31, Leiden, Brill, 1996, p. 358.
243 One scholar who appears to have realised the inaccuracy of describing Abraham as the inventor of
monotheism in the four texts cited by him (viz. ApocAb, De Virtutibus, Josephus' Antiquities, Jubilees)
is Richard Bauckham. He represented the main-line view that Abraham was the first ever monotheist,
writing: “Abraham was widely regarded as the first to worship the only true God” (Richard Bauckham,
'The Throne of God And The Worship of Jesus', in C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila, and G. S. Lewis (eds.),
The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers From The St. Andrews Conference On The
Historical Origins of The Worship of Jesus (1998), JSJSup, Leiden, Brill, 1999, p. 46). More recently,
however, though around the same time, he has supplied the caveat "after the primeval history". Thus:
“Abraham was widely regarded as (after the primeval history) the first monotheist”. Richard
Bauckham, James, London, Routledge, 1999, p. 122. It should be noted that we are here replying to the
suggestion that Abraham was the first monotheist or the inventor or discoverer of monotheism, because
this is almost universally how the idea is framed in the literature. So, for instance, aside from those
examples already mentioned, Guerra writes of "the tradition that Abraham was the first to believe in the
One God." Guerra, Romans And The Apologetic Tradition, pp. 109-110. It may be that Abraham was
This observation informs our analysis of Calvert-Koyzis' thesis that,
[Romans 4] contains its theocentric emphasis because Paul, knowing the tradition of
Abraham the first monotheist, explains how it is that the monotheistic faith of Abraham
which brought him righteousness has, now that Christ has come, found its fulfillment and
ultimate definition in faith in 'him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord' (4.25).244
In light of the absence of such a tradition, it seems disadvantageous to adopt Calvert-
Koyzis' explanation of the reason for the theocentric character of Romans 4. As a
consequence, we also are led to dispense with her suggestion that Romans 3:30 speaks of
faith in God as creator without reference to Christ.
Finally, Calvert-Koyzis' contention is that the ungodly Gentile Abraham was
justified and included in the people of God through merely believing in the one Creator
God. Following this, it should also be noted that, if Calvert-Koyzis is correct, then it
would appear that Paul included in the community of the people of God all ungodly
Gentile philosophers who believed that there was one Creator God. She sees
monotheistic faith as the foundational boundary marker for the people of God. Yet, with
this as the sole ground of acceptance into the covenant, many non-Christian Gentile
philosophers, who were monotheists in the sense in which Calvert-Koyzis defines the
term, would have to be included.245 Yet, certainly, Paul would not have included such
widely regarded as a great example of monotheism after the primeval history, but that is not the
question at issue in the literature.
244 Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God, p. 136. Cf. Origen's comment that Rom.
4:24 does not assert a mere faith in monotheism. See: Gerald Lewis Bray, Romans, ed. T. C. Oden, 2nd
Edn., ACCS, 6, Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 2005, pp. 119-120.
245 She defines monotheism as, "the doctrine or belief that there is only one God" (Calvert-Koyzis, Paul,
Monotheism And The People of God, p. 3). Under this definition, many Greek thinkers were
monotheists. Even assuming a more defined view of monotheism, movement towards monotheism
amongst pagans as early as the time of the classical Greek thinkers is clear, as with, for instance,
Aristotle's ouj kinouvmenon kinei: (Metaphysics 12.7; 1072a 23-26). Thus, Gilbert Murray could write
that, "It is curious how near to monotheism, and to monotheism of a very profound and impersonal
type, the real religion of Greece came in the sixth and fifth centuries. Many of the philosophers,
Xenophanes, Parmenides, and others, asserted it clearly or assumed it without hesitation. Aeschylus,
Euripides, Plato, in their deeper moments point the same road." Gilbert Murray, Five Stages of Greek
Religion, Mineola, Dover Publications, 2002, p. 67. By the first century, furthermore, various kinds of
'monotheism' had been developed by Greco-Roman thinkers, particularly amongst the Neo-Platonists,
and Stoics. Moreover, in Paul's day, 'pagan' monotheism was not simply a philosophical construct
devoid of quotidian religious significance. Rather, it was deemed important that the work of
philosophical/theological thinkers affect religious practice. On this, see: Peter Van Nuffelen, 'Pagan
Monotheism As A Religious Phenomenon', in S. Mitchell and P. Van Nuffelen (eds.), One God: Pagan
Monotheism In The Roman Empire, Cambridge, CUPress, 2010, pp. 26-27.
'Greeks' within the 'covenant community' on this basis alone.246 Calvert-Koyzis thus
reduces Abraham's faith to assent to monotheism. This was not enough for James (Jas.
2:19), and we suggest that it would not have been enough for Paul either.
10.3.4.4 Summary
In her discussion of Romans, Calvert-Koyzis pictures a situation in Rome where
Judaizers (i.e. 'the weak') similar to those at Galatia are contending that one must be
circumcised and obey the Law to be members of God's covenant community. Paul writes
in opposition to these 'weak'. Paul uses Abraham, in 3:27-4:25, to demonstrate that, now
that Christ has come, membership in God's people only requires belief that there is one,
Creator God. Thus, she writes that, for Paul, “Abraham is a Gentile who is made
righteous by believing in the one, Creator God”.247
We have hoped to demonstrate that each major link in Calvert-Koyzis' argument
is tenuous. (a) Romans 4:5 does not picture Abraham as specifically an ungodly Gentile;
(b) Romans 4:5 is not based on extra-biblical traditions – since those traditions actually
present the patriarch as godly; (c) the 'weak' at Romans 14-15 are not Judaizers; (d) faith
in Romans 3:27-30 is faith in Christ; (e) the 'theocentric' nature of Romans 4 does not
lead to the understanding that Abraham is presented as an example of justification
through a bare belief in monotheism; (f) Paul could not have used an extra-biblical
tradition of Abraham as the first monotheist derived from the five Abraham texts, since
they do not present the patriarch as the first monotheist or the 'inventor' of monotheism.
As with the previous chapter, this chapter has sought to evaluate the application of the
246 See: Jewett, Romans, pp. 300-301. Jewett says, "The Greco-Roman theory of religion tended to favor
the unity of God and to be critical of the popular polytheism... This was sometimes acknowledged even
in the Jewish community... Nevertheless, Paul does not follow this line of argument that grants access
to Gentiles on the basis of their conformity to monotheistic belief."
'five Abraham texts' to a Pauline epistle. In this case, the epistle was Romans, rather than
Galatians. As was the case in the last chapter, however, we have found again that the
arguments put forward for the necessity of reading Paul's handling of Abraham against
the background of influence from the Abraham texts are less than compelling. We have
canvassed here four such suggestions. Certain common elements kept reappearing in the
discussion. Romans 4:5, in particular, cropped up again-and-again. Similarly prevalent
was the thought that Abraham, for Paul, was to be considered as a pagan, and/or
contrasted with, pagans; either those of Romans 1 or, more generically, those of his
youthful Heimat. Finally, Calvert-Koyzis maintained that Abraham, as the first
monotheist, exemplified, for Paul, the ideal example of what defined the people of God:
viz. those who followed the patriarch's example of monotheistic faith.
As we have seen, the arguments put forward for Paul's indebtedness to the
Abraham texts labour under many difficulties. Perhaps, the greatest, however, is the fact
that these suggestions assume Paul to have adopted from the Abraham texts views which
they do not espouse. So, for instance, the idea that Paul drew his view of Abraham as
ungodly from the five texts is hampered by the fact that those texts (with the exception of
ApocAb) do not portray the patriarch as ungodly. (In fact, quite the reverse is true.)
Again, while it is suggested that Paul adopted the tradition of Abraham as the first
monotheist, we have seen that the five Abraham texts do not actually depict Abraham as
pioneering monotheism. Thus, questions must be raised about the validity of applying the
'five Abraham texts' to Paul in the manner in which this has been done, before one even
gets to the text of Romans itself. When one does come to the text itself, even more
questions arise as to the validity of the suggestions put forward by the above interpreters.
To take just one representative example, it is not clear that a[nqrwpoV in Romans 1:18-32
refers exclusively to Gentiles and that, therefore, in Romans 4 Abraham serves as the
balancing Gentile counter-point whose example is only derivatively relevant for Jews.
We need not, then, read the Abraham of Romans in light of the 'five Abraham texts'. The
contribution of the present chapter to the argument of the whole is to establish this point.
10.5 Conclusion To Part II
At this stage, we may make some brief concluding remarks for Part II. Firstly, we should
note that our conclusion here in relation to Romans supports our conclusion about
Galatians (and vice versa). Both of these chapters also support the conclusion of Chapter
8. Taken together, these three chapters (8, 9, and 10), particularly in light of the earlier
analysis in Part I, lead us to the conclusion that Paul's view of Abraham was not
significantly shaped by the 'five Abraham texts' (cf. §1.1). Paul, that is to say, was not
materially dependent upon any of these five texts for his view of Abraham (cf. §1.2), or
upon a common core of tradition underlying each of them. Having arrived at this
conclusion, we have now to consider whether any sources additional to Genesis may
have played a part in shaping Paul's understanding of Abraham and, if so, what these may
have been. We move on to that consideration in the next chapter. As noted in the
introduction (cf. §1.2), our treatment of this question will, perforce, be little more than
exploratory. However, a brief probing of the issue is in order, to test the hypothesis
advanced by Harrisville that Paul's Abraham was one-of-a-kind.

PART III
PAUL THE MAVERICK?
CHAPTER 11
PAUL THE MAVERICK?
11.1 Introduction
In the introduction, we noted that we are concerned with a question of sources. In
particular, we are concerned with the sources of Paul's view of Abraham. One recent
trend is to see Paul's view of Abraham as having been significantly affected by the 'five
Abraham texts' or the extra-documentary 'tradition' which is preserved in them. We have
seen, however, that while this interpretative trend has produced a bumper crop of
scholarly publications it is, in fact, unfruitful.
Paul's Abraham was not observably affected by the 'five Abraham texts'. And so
we do not come any closer to understanding Paul's use of Abraham by forcing such
texts/traditions into his background. Indeed, Paul's Abraham was at odds with the 'five
Abraham texts'. His handling of the patriarch was unconventional. We were able to deal
with only a handful of texts in detail, but the work of Roy Harrisville (III) has dealt more
broadly with Jewish representations of Abraham, showing that Paul's Abraham was
radically different from the Jewish main-stream.1 To this extent, our conclusions agree
with and buttress those of Harrisville.
It should be noted, however, that Harrisville framed his inquiry in such a way as
to exclude any real consideration of the possibility that Paul's view of Abraham was
affected by factors within the nascent Church. By asking specifically whether there were
any literary antecedents to Paul's view of Abraham, and thus restricting the discussion
exclusively to the documentary level, Harrisville effectively passed-over the possibility
1 See Harrisville's near exhaustive survey of Second Temple Jewish views of Abraham: Roy A.
Harrisville, III, The Figure of Abraham In The Epistles of St. Paul: In The Footsteps of Abraham, San
Francisco, Mellen, 1992.
CHAPTER 11: PAUL, CONTINUITY AND DISCONTINUITY 346
that Paul's Abraham may have been impacted by influences from within the nascent
Church. Harrisville's reasoning runs as follows: (1) Paul's epistles are different from the
Jewish texts in their treatment of Abraham, (2) and earlier than the rest of the New
Testament writings. (3) Ergo, Paul was a maverick in his view of Abraham, standing
alone.
While agreeing that Paul's view of Abraham was radical in relation to
contemporary Judaism, we would like to re-open the question of Paul's Abraham in
relation to the nascent Church. Harrisville's conclusion here may stand in need of some
nuancing.
We shall begin by looking at Paul's use of the Old Testament, then his relationship
to the Gospels and the Jesus tradition, before considering his relationship to the rest of
the New Testament writings.
11.2 Influences On Paul's View of Abraham
In the first instance, Paul's view of Abraham was drawn from the Old Testament. In
particular, it derived from Genesis.2 This is evident from his explicit citations (e.g. Gal.
3:6; Rom. 4:3), and from his careful attention to the details of the biblical text (e.g. Rom.
4:10). Saul the Pharisee would, doubtless, have been likewise familiar with the Old
Testament image of Abraham. Yet, after his conversion, Paul interpreted the Scriptures in
light of the Christ he had encountered, whom he came to see as the 'Yes' to every promise
of God (2 Cor. 1:19-20).3 This interpretative key alone would have facilitated his
designation of Christ as the 'seed' promised to Abraham (Gal. 3:16), and his
understanding of the blessing of the nations through Abraham as fulfilled in the Gospel
preached amongst the Gentiles who thus received the Spirit and adoption; a Gospel
2 As Ellis puts it, “The starting-point of his thought is the story of Abraham...” Edward Earle Ellis, Paul's
Use of The Old Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker, 1981, p. 124.
3 So elsewhere Paul speaks of the Scriptures as pointing forward to Christ: e.g. Rom. 1:1-2; 3:21; 1 Cor.
15:3-4.
which was delivered beforehand to Abraham (Gal. 3:8, 14, 29).4
Moreover, Paul's Gentile mission was grounded in his call/conversion on the
Damascus road. This mission, in turn, compelled Paul to rethink the relationship between
the Law and the Abrahamic promise. Paul's encounter with Christ impacted his
understanding of Abraham.5 This encounter provided the catalyst for his innovative
rethinking of the Old Testament. Thus far, we agree with Harrisville.
But is it also necessary to take Paul's re-reading of Abraham in isolation, and to
see Paul as a maverick or lone-ranger? It may not be. Instead, it is likely that Paul was
also influenced by the nascent Church in his understanding of Abraham. We may posit
two related, but somewhat differentiable, potential sources of influence: viz. the 'Jesus
tradition' which Paul would have learned from those who were in Christ before him (cf.
§§ 8.8-9), and the thinking of the other Apostles and early leaders of the movement. We
shall examine each in turn.
11.2.1 Paul, Abraham, And The Jesus Tradition
Abraham is mentioned in each of the Gospels. By examining the way the patriarch is
handled in these texts, we may at least see where Paul's Abraham stands in relation to
certain of his Christian contemporaries. If we further presuppose, however, that these
Gospels reflect something of the same Jesus tradition which Paul would have learned,
then they may be profitably examined as containing ideas which could have influenced
Paul's view of Abraham.6 We are not asking whether Paul's Abraham shows signs of
literary dependence on these Gospels, but whether their view of Abraham is similar to
4 Cf. Ellis, who suggests the facilitation of the blessing-Christ connection in Galatians 3 through the
interpretation of one passage from an analogous passage. Thus, “The prophecy in Gen 12:3 that all
nations shall be blessed in Abraham may, in the light of the analogous passage in Gen 22:18, be
understood of Abraham's offspring and thus of Messiah (Gal 3:8, 16).” Edward Earle Ellis, The Old
Testament In Early Christianity: Canon And Interpretation In The Light of Modern Research, WUNT,
Vol. 54, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1991, p. 90.
5 Cf. Steve Moyise, Paul And Scripture: Studying The New Testament Use of The Old Testament, Grand
Rapids, Baker, 2010, p. 45.
6 Richard Bauckham, Jesus And The Eyewitnesses: The Gospels As Eyewitness Testimony, Grand Rapids,
Eerdmans, 2006, p. 266.
Paul's and, if so, whether it may have pre-dated Paul.
Matthew opens with the words, “BivbloV genevsewV =Ihsou: Cristou: uiJou: Daui;d
uiJou: =Abraavm.” This declaration not only provides the title for the work but also gives
important insight into the author's view of the pedigree of Jesus. He is the Christ, that is,
the promised Davidic Messiah. In this sense, he is the 'son of David'. However, he is also
the 'son of Abraham'. The least that this means is that Jesus was physically descended
from Abraham.7 Yet, Matthew likely intends more, presaging and counterpointing his
later depiction of certain other physical descendants of Abraham who are not 'true' (or
'spiritual') sons of Abraham as Jesus is (e.g. 3:9; 8:11-12).8
Further to this, as is well-known, a particular emphasis of Matthew's is the
fulfillment of the Old Testament.9 In keeping with this emphasis, is his description of
Jesus as son of Abraham. The title links Jesus with the promises made to Abraham, and is
suggestive of the idea that they find their fulfillment in him.10
Another Matthean motif is the inclusion of the Gentiles.11 In contrast to Luke
(13:28-29), Matthew places Jesus' saying about the many from the four points of the
compass who will join Abraham in the kingdom in a setting which heightens its reference
to Gentile inclusion.12 Matthew, that is to say, includes the statement in his discussion of
the centurion at Capernaum, prefaced with the dominical comment, “truly, I tell you, with
7 There is no good reason to limit 'son of Abraham' to modifying 'David'.

8 It is, thus, somewhat curious to read that, in the Synoptic Gospels, “keine theologischen Reflexionen
über Abraham und Abrahamskindschaft geboten werden”. Günther Baumbach, 'Abraham unser Vater:
Der Prozeß der Vereinnahmung Abrahams durch das frühe Christentum', ThVer, Vol. 16, (1986), p. 37.
9 E.g. R. T. France, The Gospel According To Matthew, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1985, p. 68.
10 Craig S. Keener, A Commentary On The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1999, p. 74. So
also Leenhardt: “L'évangéliste Matthieu, selon son penchant à présenter la nouvelle alliance à la
lumière de l'ancienne, inaugure la généalogie de Jésus par la mention d'Abraham; au-delà d'Abraham, il
n'y a rien! C'est Abraham qui fonde la légitimité du ministère messianique de Jésus et qui, en quelque
sorte, en fixe la finalité: accomplir la promesse antique faite à Abraham.” Franz Jehan Leenhardt,
'Abraham et la Conversion de Saul de Tarse, Suivi d'une Note Sur 'Abraham Dans Jean VIII'', RHPR,
Vol. 53, (1973), pp. 331-332.
11 This theme may already be hinted at in the genealogy, by the prominent inclusion of Gentiles within
Jesus' ancestry.
12 On the element of Gentile inclusion here, see also: Jürgen Roloff, 'Abraham im Neuen Testament:
Beobachtungen zu einem Aspekt Biblischer Theologie', in M. Karrer (ed.), Exegetische Verantwortung
in der Kirche: Aufsätze, Göttingen, V&R, 1990, p. 232.
no one in Israel have I found such faith” (8:10). In this way, Matthew suggests that, for
Jesus, physical descent from Abraham is not a saving characteristic. Instead, one must
have faith in him who is son of Abraham par excellence to join Abraham in the kingdom.
The similarity here with John's rebuke at 3:9 is not hard to see. Both passages deny that
physical descent from Abraham spares one from judgement. What is interesting,
however, is that Matthew does not abrogate the category of 'child of Abraham', as the
genealogy indicates. Rather, he simply shifts the point of focus away from physicality
and onto repentance (metavnoia) and faith (pivstiV), perhaps opening up the possibility
that Gentiles may bear the designation 'child of Abraham'.
Comparison of Matthew's use of Abraham with that of Paul is instructive. As with
Paul, Matthew connects Jesus closely with Abraham. As with Paul also, Matthew
distances Jews who are resistant to Jesus from Abraham, and brings Gentiles who are
receptive to Jesus into proximity with the patriarch.13 Finally, it may be proposed that,
“Matthew's stress on Gentiles (e.g., Matt. 2:1; 4:15; 8:5; 15:22; 27:54) implies that in
Jesus the promise is fulfilled that all nations would be blessed through Abraham (Gen.
12:1-3).”14 If so, this would match a key emphasis in Paul. Davies and Allison write:
we find Paul representing Abraham as the true father of all who have faith, Jew and Gentile
alike (Rom 4.1-25; Gal 3.6-29). Matthew may have held a similar conception. [See Matt. 3:9
and 8:11-12...] Matthew, we may think, believed that God had in fact raised up from the
Gentiles new children to Abraham and that Jesus as the 'son of Abraham' had brought them
salvation.15
We should be careful, however, to note that Matthew is not so explicit. Thus, we need not
flatten out the distinction between Matthew and Paul. Nevertheless, there is an evident
sympathy of thought between the two. Matthew does not speak of Abraham as much as
Paul. Thus, many of the features of Paul's view of Abraham are not echoed in Matthew.
13 Indeed, it may be that Paul is indebted to John for the notion that Gentile Christians may become
children of Abraham. J. Ramsey Michaels, 'Paul And John The Baptist: An Odd Couple?', TynBul, Vol.
42, No. 2, (1991), pp. 245-260, esp. 258-259.
14 David L. Turner, Matthew, BECNT, Grand Rapids, Baker, 2008, p. 57.
15 W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical And Exegetical Commentary On The Gospel According To
Saint Matthew, Vol. 1, London, T&T Clark, 1988, p. 158.
Yet, where Matthew does speak of Abraham, there is a resonance and coherence with
Paul. Significantly, the shared resonances stand over-against the main-stream Jewish
view, which would have balked at the idea of Gentiles being brought near to Abraham, or
of Jesus being the fulfillment of Abrahamic promises. We defer for the moment
considering whether any of the Abrahamic understanding in Matthew could have pre-
dated Paul.
In Mark 12:26, Jesus refers to Abraham in rebutting the view of the Sadducees
that there is no resurrection. Since Paul does not appear to connect Abraham with the
doctrine of resurrection in this way, the passage is not significant for us. We may say the
same thing about the parallels in Matthew 22:32, and Luke 20:37.16 This also illustrates
that there are usages of Abraham in the Gospel material which do not strongly resonate
with Paul.
In Luke, we find further mention of Abraham.17 Aside from the comments shared
with Matthew and Mark, and the mention of Abraham in the Lukan Genealogy (e.g. Luke
3:8, 34; 13:28; 20:37), there are a number of additional comments about the patriarch in
the third Gospel.
In Luke 1:55, we find Abraham explicitly connected to Jesus by Mary. Likewise,
in 1:73, Abraham is connected to Jesus by Zechariah. These passages both evidently
speak of Jesus as the one who fulfills the Abrahamic promises.18 At this point in Luke-
Acts, the emphasis rests on God's visitation of national Israel.19 Thus, the allusion to Gen.
16 Interestingly, however, Jesus depicts Abraham as a participant in the resurrection. Now, resurrection is a
benefit of believing the Gospel. As such, it might be argued that there is somewhat of a resonance
between this passage and Paul's discussion in Galatians 3.
17 On Abraham in Luke-Acts, see: Nils A. Dahl, 'The Story of Abraham In Luke-Acts', in L. E. Keck and
J. L. Martyn (eds.), Studies In Luke-Acts: Essays Presented In Honour of Paul Schubert, Philadelphia,
Fortress, 1980, pp. 139-158.
18 Johnson comments that, “As with Paul in Gal 3:6-18, the covenant with Abraham is more fundamental
than the Mosaic covenant.” Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, ed. D. J. Harrington, SP, Vol.
3, Collegeville, The Liturgical Press, 1991, p. 46.
19 Johnson believes that Luke-Acts was written to answer the question of how the faith of the Gentile
church may be valid, when so many Jews have not believed. Thus Luke seeks, as Paul had in Romans
9-11, to defend God's work in history: “By telling how events happened 'in order' (kathexēs), Luke
shows how God first fulfilled his promises to Israel, and only then extended these blessings to the
22:16-17 at Luke 1:55, 73-74. Nevertheless, it is likely that, in Luke's mind, this
fulfillment of Gen. 22:16-17 will lead inevitably to the fulfillment of Gen. 22:18 (cf. Acts
3:25).20 Beyond this, Joel Green has argued that the whole of Luke's narrative from 1:5 to
2:52 is influenced by his reading of the Abraham stories in Genesis.21
In Luke 13:16 and 19:9, we find two instances of Jesus calling someone a child
('son' or 'daughter') of Abraham. It is possible that, in these passages, Jesus refers only to
the physical descent of those he so describes. But that would be to overlook Luke's
concern (shared with Matthew) to negate the prestige accorded to such ethnic status by
Jesus' contemporaries. Apparently, some of these contemporaries held to a notion of
inherited salvation (or, at least, privilege, and leniency in the judgment; cf. 3:8). In this
context, it is quite possible that Jesus' words carry a greater significance.
Likewise, in the case of the woman bent-over for eighteen years, it may be that
she expressed faith in Jesus as part of (or a result of) her healing (cf. 13:13). It may also
be that the bondage to Satan which Jesus' loosed was more than physical. If so, then
Jesus' appellation “daughter of Abraham” may signify her status within the people of
God on the basis of her attitude towards Jesus.22
The second passage more clearly points in this direction. Here it is obvious that
Zacchaeus is interested in Jesus (19:1-7); that he is a sinner (from multiple perspectives;
19:2, 7, 10); that he is repentant (19:8), and that he experiences the salvation which Jesus
brings (19:9-10; cf. 1:77).23 Interestingly, as is clear from kaqovti, Jesus does not say that
Gentiles.” Johnson, Luke, p. 10. Cf. Stein, who lists both the parallel with Romans 9-11, but further
points out that Luke-Acts has to wrestle with the question of how Gentile believers related to the
promises made to Israel, just as Paul had done (e.g. Rom. 9-11; Gal. 3-4). Robert H. Stein, Luke, NAC,
Vol. 24, Nashville, B&H, 1992, pp. 40-42.
20 Longenecker divides the 'Abrahamic covenant' into several parts, with the 'blessing of Abraham' (e.g.
Gen. 12:3) being the last. In the terms of this nomenclature, Gen. 18:18; 22:18; 26:4, and 28:14 all
reassert the 'blessing of Abraham' (cf. also Sir. 44:21). Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, ed. R. P.
Martin, WBC, 41, Waco, Word Books, 1990, p. 115.
21 Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NIBCNT, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1997, pp. 55-56 and context.
22 “She and other children of Abraham in the Lukan narrative evidence how God's promise to Abraham is
fulfilled through the activity of Jesus and how the recipients of liberation through Jesus' ministry are
thus confirmed as Abraham's children.” Green, Luke, pp. 525-526.
23 That Zacchaeus experiences salvation could inform our understanding of his status as a son of Abraham
because Zacchaeus was saved therefore he was a son of Abraham. Rather, he says that
because he was a son of Abraham, therefore he was saved. Evidently, what marked him,
in Jesus' eyes, as a son of Abraham was not race but character: viz. his bringing forth fruit
in keeping with repentance and his faith in the one whose advent fulfills the promises to
Abraham.24
We find another Lukan mention of Abraham in Jesus' parable of the rich man and
Lazarus (16:19-31). Here, three points are worth mentioning. Firstly, while it may be
wrong to give microscopic analysis to the passage – it is a parable, after all – it does seem
significant that the rich man refers to Abraham as “father”. Perhaps, the rich man felt that
he might cash-in on his special connection to Abraham, or that Abraham would treat him
kindly because of their familial relationship. If so, this note in the parable would comport
with Luke's presentation elsewhere of the contemporary Jewish attitude towards descent
from Abraham. Secondly, the image of heaven as including being with Abraham
comports with Luke 13:28. Thirdly, Abraham is given a living voice, as he speaks from
heaven. He is, thus, in some sense, an 'eschatological' figure (cf. 13:28; 20:37).
While it should be kept in mind that Luke and Acts belong together, we may
already compare Luke's use of Abraham with that of Paul. As with Paul, Luke's Gospel:
(1) sees Jesus as fulfilling the promises to Abraham; (2) negates the association between
physical descent from Abraham and salvation; (3) calls the repentant and those of faith
children of Abraham; (4) considers Abraham as an 'eschatological' figure.
Again, we need not flatten out the distinctions between Luke and Paul. However,
as was the case with Matthew, there are obvious resonances between Paul and Luke in
in a number of ways. It could be that as a son of Abraham (i.e. as one of the lost sheep of the house of
Israel) Jesus came to save his kind, even publicans. However, it is probably better to follow Morris
who, commenting on 19:9-10, writes: "A son of Abraham will mean a true Jew, one who follows the
faith of Abraham (cf. Rom. 4:12), and not simply a lineal descendant of the patriarch. All Jews could
claim this, but not all Jews were saved. The reason for this man's salvation 'is not Zacchaeus' act of
penance but his solidarity with Abraham, that is, God's free grace' (Schweizer). There may possibly also
be a reference to Zacchaeus as a true member of Abraham's family against slanders that he was a
renegade." Leon Morris, Luke, TNTC, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1988, pp. 298-299.
24 Cf. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC, Vol. 3, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1978, p. 698.
relation to Abraham. More than this, some of the same similarities present between
Matthew and Paul are found in Luke also. Likewise, these shared resonances contrast
with the Jewish main-stream. Yet, again, we defer for now consideration of whether any
of this pre-dated Paul.
In John's Gospel, discussion of Abraham is essentially limited to one locus: viz.
John 8:31-59.25 Here, as we have seen earlier in Matthew and Luke, there is a Jewish
reliance upon descent from Abraham. In this passage, Jesus makes a distinction between
being a lineal descendant of Abraham (spevrma =Abraavm – vv. 33, 37) and being one of
Abraham's children (tevkna tou: =Abraavm – v. 39). Many are Abraham's physical
descendants, but only those who do as he did does Jesus consider Abraham's 'children'.
The similarities between this passage and Paul's use of Abraham are immediately
apparent. The idea that not all Abraham's children are true sons of Abraham is found in
Paul (e.g. Rom. 9:6-8; cf. Gal. 3:7).26 More specifically, the very language here echoes
that of Paul in Romans. Note, for instance, the contrast between spevrma and tevkna at
Romans 9:7 (oujd= o{ti eijsi;n spevrma =Abraa;m pavnteV tevkna – cf. Rom. 11:1; 2 Cor.
11:22).
Jesus is also presented by John as the one who fulfills the Abrahamic promise.
This matches another Pauline emphasis. Jesus further suggests that Abraham looked
forward to the messianic 'day'. 27 The parallel is not exact, but this bears some
resemblance to Paul's claim that the Gospel was preached beforehand to Abraham. In
both instances, Abraham is credited with a good deal of knowledge about the future –
either of the Gospel of Christ, or else of Christ's 'day' (John 8:56; Gal. 3:8).28 Of course, it
may be that Jesus refers simply to Gen. 17:17, when Abraham saw the beginning of
25 There is a likely, but inconsequential, reference to Abraham at John 7:22.
26 George R. Beasley-Murray, John, 2nd Edn., WBC, Vol. 36, Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 1999, p. 134.
27 Donald Arthur Carson, The Gospel According to John, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1991, p. 357.
28 Cf. Miller: “like John, Paul also ascribes to Abraham foreknowledge of Christ (Gal 3:8).” Paul Miller,
'"They Saw His Glory And Spoke of Him": The Gospel of John And The Old Testament', in S. E. Porter
(ed.), Hearing The Old Testament In The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2006, p. 141, n. 49.
God's fulfillment of his promise. However, both Jesus and Paul speak in such a way as to
make it appear almost as if Abraham had already seen Jesus' day with clarity, or
understood the Gospel in its fullness.
Jerome Neyrey reads John 8:31-37 as Jesus alluding to the fact that his
interlocutors are not sons of Abraham by Isaac but, instead, slave sons by Ishmael. 29 On
this interpretation, John 8 is brought even closer to Galatians (particularly 4:21-31). Such
an interpretation is, thus, appealing, in the present context. Nevertheless, the connection
is unconvincing, and need not be made.30 Jesus knows both that the Jews claim to be
physically descended from Abraham (through Isaac and Jacob) and that they, in fact, are
so descended. Thus, he is not refuting their standing in the line of Abraham-Isaac (cf. v.
37) by claiming a real or metaphorical descent through Ishmael. Instead, he is suggesting
that the only sonship of Abraham which truly matters is that which emulates the
patriarch's disposition towards God's revelation.31 Because they do not share this
disposition, they do not recognise Christ. Yet, there is no hint in Jesus' language that this
makes them sons of Ishmael.32
This, however, leads us to the question of what it was, exactly, which Abraham
did that Jesus condemns his interlocutors for failing to do. The answer, of course, is that
he believed. The fourth Gospel's emphasis on believing (note the ninety-eight
occurrences of pisteuvw) is also central in our passage. The focus is on the faith of Jesus'
29 Jerome H. Neyrey, The Gospel of John In Cultural And Rhetorical Perspective, Grand Rapids,
Eerdmans, 2009, p. 236.
30 Dozeman makes some similar comments about a parallel between John 8 and Gal. 4:21-31. See:
Thomas B. Dozeman, 'Sperma Abraam In John 8 And Related Literature: Cosmology And Judgment',
CBQ, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 355-356. But see the valid criticisms of Dozeman's article made by: Jeffrey S.
Siker, Disinheriting The Jews: Abraham In Early Christian Controversy, Kentucky, Westminster, 1991,
pp. 238-239, n. 25. Theobald also rejects the notion that Jesus' interlocutors in John 8 should be, “mit
den judaisierenden Gegnern des Paulus vermengen”. Michael Theobald, Studien zum Corpus
Iohanneum, WUNT, Vol. 267, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2010, p. 298; Michael Theobald, 'Abraham-
(Isaak-) Jakob: Israels Väter im Johannesevangelium', in M. Labahn, K. Scholtissek, and A. Strotmann
(eds.), Israel und seine Heilstraditionen im Johannesevengelium: Festgabe für Johannes Beutler SJ
zum 70. Geburtstag, Paderborn, Ferdinand Schöningh, 2004, p. 174.
31 Jesus exhorts them to imitate Abraham "qui n'a pas rejeté les envoyés divins." Edmond Jacob,
'Abraham et sa Signification pour la Foi Chrétienne', RHPR, Vol. 42, (1962), p. 154.
32 For further unlikely suggestions on how the Abraham narratives in Genesis inform the debate between
Jesus and his interlocutors, see: Leenhardt, 'Abraham et la Conversion de Saul', pp. 350-351.
interlocutors as it compares with the faith of Abraham.33 But what sort of an example of
faith is Abraham?
In Isaiah 51:1-3, the prophet speaks words of comfort and exhortation to those
who are seeking righteousness. He encourages them to trust God's plan in history, even
when things look less than promising. They are exhorted to consider the witness of
history. When, in Abraham's day, it seemed nigh-on impossible that Sarah should bring
forth a son in her old age, she did. God is able to keep his promises. What is needed,
then, is faith like Abraham's which trusts that God will bring to pass what he has
purposed.34
In our passage, the situation is similar. Jesus may not look promising to his
interlocutors. The appropriate response, nonetheless, is faith in what God is doing in
history. This was Abraham's response to the promise. Jesus, by implication, is calling
Abraham's 'seed' to look to their father and emulate his example of faith by believing in
God's Christ. The resonances here with Paul are evident (e.g. Rom. 4:18-22). 35 In
Matthew, Luke, and John, then, we find several obvious resonances (and few
dissonances) with Paul's use of Abraham.
But can we say that any of this pre-dates Paul? One might suppose, after all, that
Paul influenced the Gospels which were produced later.
Maureen Yeung, however, has argued for the authenticity of both John the
Baptist's (e.g. Matt. 3:7; Luke 3:8) and Jesus' (e.g. Matt. 8:11; Luke 13:28; John 8:39-40)
teachings on the value of physical descent from Abraham.36 Yeung finds it likely that
33 Andreas J. Köstenberger, 'Hearing The Old Testament In The New: A Response', in S. E. Porter (ed.),
Hearing The Old Testament In The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2006, p. 279. The
discussion of Abraham in relation to faith is, of course, a commonplace of New Testament theology.
34 John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66, NIBCOT, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1998, pp.
333-335.
35 Cf. Ellis, who, picking up on the mention of Abraham's 'works' at John 8:39 (ta; e[rga tou: =Abraa;m),
draws the connection with Paul (Gal. 3:7) and James (Jas. 2:23) that, “In the epistles this involves
'works' resting in and proceeding from Abraham's faith.” Ellis, Paul's Use of The Old Testament, p. 87.
36 Maureen W. Yeung, Faith In Jesus And Paul: A Comparison With Special Reference To 'Faith That Can
Remove Mountains' And 'Your Faith Has Healed/Saved You', WUNT 2. Reihe, Vol. 147, Tübingen,
Mohr Siebeck, 2002, pp. 275-281.
Paul's presentation of Abraham as the father of every believer, Gentile or Jew (e.g. Rom.
4:11-12; Gal. 3:7-8), was founded upon John the Baptist's and Jesus' redefinition of what
it means to be descended from Abraham.
Moreover, it is significant that the tradition ascribes to both John and Jesus a
criticism of the idea that mere physical descent from Abraham secures any kind of
blessing, since while Paul shares a similar emphasis such a criticism is barely present, if
at all, in other literature of the time. Hence, as she concludes, “it is unlikely that Paul
would have developed his concept of the sons of Abraham in a vacuum. It is more likely
that he chewed over the teachings of John the Baptist and Jesus”.37
One might not share Yeung's optimism that certain of the teachings of John the
Baptist and Jesus as they are encountered in the Gospels go back to the historical figures
themselves. Even so, it still seems likely that at least some of the emphases in the
Gospels which resonate with Paul's use of Abraham were prevalent in the nascent Church
in or before Paul's day and could well have influenced his portrayal of the patriarch.
Perhaps, although one may only speculate at this point, some elements of the treatment of
Abraham found in the Gospels pre-dated Paul, influenced him, and he, in turn, influenced
the later literary form of the Gospels.38 What seems clear is that Harrisville's procedure,
which dismisses the non-Pauline New Testament writings when considering the sources
of Paul's view of Abraham, is less sensitive than may be desired.
11.2.2 Paul, Abraham, And Acts
When considering Acts, one must begin by noting the theme which links the end of Luke
to the beginning of Acts. That theme is Jesus' prediction of the pouring out of the Spirit
on the day of Pentecost. The language used here is interesting, for it appears that Luke,
37 Yeung, Faith In Jesus And Paul, pp. 280-281. This supports Ellis' substantially earlier claim along the
same lines. See: Ellis, Paul's Use of The Old Testament, pp. 86-87.
38 This is particularly likely to have been the case in Luke-Acts, which double-work was, at least
ostensibly, composed by a traveling companion of Paul's.
like Paul (Gal. 3:14, 16, 18; Rom. 4:13-14; 15:8), associates the idea of 'promise' with the
Abrahamic 'blessing' (Gen. 12:3; Acts 2:39; 3:24-26; 13:32; 26:6). Luke then proceeds to
identify the reception of the Spirit as manifesting this blessing39 (Gal. 3:14; Luke 24:49;
Acts 2:33).40 This provides a unique resonance between Luke and Paul, and one which
finds no clear predecessor in Early Judaism or in other extant writings of the nascent
Church.41 It may be that the author of Luke-Acts, a traveling companion of Paul, has been
influenced by Paul's formulation at this point.42 Besides this, Abraham is mentioned
directly in Acts 3:13, 25; 7:2, 16-17, 32; 13:26. Abraham, that is to say, is found on the
lips of Peter, Stephen, and Paul.43
In Acts 3, Peter, in his preaching in the Temple, speaks of Old Testament
prophecies fulfilled in Jesus or awaiting fulfillment by him (e.g. 18, 21). One of the Old
Testament oracles which has been fulfilled is the promise to Abraham that all the families
of the earth would be blessed (v. 25). If Wilcox is correct in seeing a word-play linking
verse 26 to the previous scriptural allusions in Peter's speech (especially from Gen. 12:3
and 22:18 in Acts 3:25), then it may well be that the 'seed' of Abraham mentioned in 3:25
39 As noted by Harmon, however, one should not reduce the promise to merely the reception of the Spirit,
“since Abraham is introduced in 3:6 in reference to justification” Matthew S. Harmon, She Must And
Shall Go Free: Paul's Isaianic Gospel In Galatians, BZNW, Vol. 168, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2010, 200, n.
232.
40 Johnson, Luke, p. 403; James D. G. Dunn, Baptism In The Holy Spirit: A Re-Examination of The New
Testament Teaching On The Gift of The Spirit In Relation To Pentecostalism Today, London, SCM,
1970, p. 47. Cf. the discussion of: Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative
Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11, 2nd Edn., SBLDS, 56, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2002, pp. 181-
183. In either or both cases, a reading of Isaiah 44:3 may have informed this association. Cf. Joseph
Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40-55, AB, Vol. 19, New York, Doubleday, 2002, pp. 116-117; Oswalt, Isaiah 40-
66, pp. 166-167.
41 Wan admits this: Sze-kar Wan, 'Abraham And The Promise of Spirit: Points of Convergence Between
Philo and Paul', in E. G. Chazon, D. Satran, and R. A. Clements (eds.), Things Revealed: Studies In
Early Jewish And Christian Literature In Honour of Michael E. Stone, JSJSup, Leiden, Brill, 2004, p.
224.
42 We are assuming, of course, that the author of Luke-Acts was present with Paul during the “we”
passages of the narrative. This view has been repeatedly drawn into question. However, no convincing
alternative has yet been proposed, whilst numerous divergent suggestions have been made. See the
discussion in: Sean A. Adams, 'The Relationships of Paul And Luke: Luke, Paul's Letters, And The
"We" Passages of Acts', in S. E. Porter and C. D. Land (eds.), Paul And His Social Relations, PSt,
Leiden, Brill, 2012, pp. 135-184.
43 Unless the speeches in Acts are de novo creations of the author, this curious fact that Abraham keeps
reappearing in the discourse of the early leaders of the Church suggests that Paul's heavy use of
Abraham may not have been exceptional. It also heightens the possibility that Paul may have been
influenced by other early Christians in his view of Abraham.
is to be identified with Christ (cf. pai:V at Acts 3:13).44 This interpretation is supported by
Bock, who states that, “In Acts, Jesus is seen as the specific seed who fulfills the
covenant.”45 If so, this would be consonant with the Pauline interpretation at Galatians
3:16.
To be sure, many scholars will not accept any connection between this speech in
Acts 3 and the historical Peter. If it were accepted that Acts 3 preserves an accurate
summary of a speech actually delivered by Peter himself, however, then one might see
here a pre-Pauline use of Abraham with significant resonances with the Pauline
employment of the patriarch. The Lukan linguistic colouring, of course, would still need
to be taken into consideration.
Stephen's speech, as recorded in Acts 7, is a recounting of Israel's history up to the
speaker's present. This speech emphasises the working out in history of God's promises
to Abraham.46 Nils Dahl contends that one function of the speech is to note how, at each
stage of redemptive history, certain individuals in Israel opposed God's work in the
world, and that a rejection of Jesus constituted analogous behaviour.47 If Dahl is further
correct that those who reject Jesus “disinherit themselves from God's promise to the
offspring of Abraham”, then one might note a point of comparison with Paul's
reconfiguration of the paternity of Abraham to the exclusion of the patriarch's
unbelieving lineal descendants (e.g. 9:1ff.).48 This comparison is strengthened, if one
accepts the view that another function of Stephen's speech is to relativise the importance
of the possession of the land in comparison to true worship wherever it may be conducted
– and by whomever it may be carried out – which was God's purpose in giving his people
44 Max Wilcox, 'The Promise of The 'Seed' In The New Testament And The Targumim'', JSJ, Vol. 2, No. 5,
(1979), pp. 12-13.
45 Darrell L. Bock, Proclamation From Prophecy And Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology,
JSNTSup, Vol. 12, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 1987, p. 195.
46 Robert L. Brawley, 'Abrahamic Covenant Traditions And The Characterization of God In Luke-Acts', in
J. Verheyden (ed.), The Unity of Luke-Acts, Leuven, Peeters, 1999, p. 128.
47 Dahl, 'Abraham In Luke-Acts', pp. 147-148.
48 Dahl, 'Abraham In Luke-Acts', p. 148.
the promise of land through Abraham (e.g. 7:7).49
Stephen's speech bears comparison further with Paul's speech at Pisidian Antioch
(Acts 13:16ff.). Paul's speech also begins with, and is controlled by, the Abrahamic
promise, although Abraham is not initially named, since Paul's reference to God's
election of the fathers at Acts 13:17 includes Abraham.50 As in Acts 7, so here also, Jesus
is the one who fulfills the promises to Abraham (13:32-33). And Siker notes that, as Peter
in Acts 3, Paul calls for repentance on the part of his hearers. For rejection of this gospel
is a rejection of God's fulfillment in the present of his past promises to Abraham and, as
such, a dissolution of one's identity as a true (or 'spiritual') child of Abraham.51
Conversely, the movement of Acts at this point (especially 13:46-48) intimates that when
the Gentiles accept the Gospel, they become spiritual children of Abraham. Interestingly,
however, within this very context, Paul can still use the name of the patriarch to specify
those in his audience who are ethnically Jewish (i.e. 13:26; cf. Rom. 4:1).
Stephen's speech may, thus, provide evidence that 'Pauline' emphases in relation
to Abraham were present before Paul's conversion. However, we must again note that
many will object to such a use of Stephen's speech, as it would assume its historicity, at
least in basic outline.
And so we see, interestingly, that in Luke-Acts, virtually all of the references
made to Abraham are on the lips of characters within the narrative and are not direct
authorial statements. Some will want to consider these speeches as Lukan creations ex
nihilo, after the (supposed) style of Thucydides.52 Even so, given the number and
diversity of those whom Luke cites as mentioning Abraham (Mary, Zechariah, John,
Jesus, Peter, Stephen, Paul), it would seem fair to suggest that we may, at least, conclude
49 Siker, Disinheriting The Jews, p. 124. Cf. John Kilgallen, The Stephen Speech: A Literary And
Redactional Study of Acts 7:2-53, AnBib, 67, Rome, Biblical Institute Press, 1976, p. 37.
50 Brawley, 'Abrahamic Covenant', pp. 128-129.
51 Siker, Disinheriting The Jews, pp. 125-126.
52 See, for e.g., the discussion and references in: Frederick Fyvie Bruce, The Acts of The Apostles, 3rd
Edn., Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1990, pp. 34-40.
that Abraham was a talking-point amongst the first followers of Christ.53
11.2.3 Paul, Abraham, And Other Early Church Leaders
So far we have seen ways in which Paul's view of Abraham may have been both
influenced (e.g. by the tradition about John the Baptist, and Jesus), and influential (e.g.
on Luke's understanding of the promise of the Spirit). In this way, Paul's view of
Abraham was affected by the Apostles and other early leaders, at least in so far as he
learned Jesus tradition from them. These early leaders may have had a more direct impact
on Paul's understanding of the patriarch, however, in conversation with Paul over his
importance.
Thus, in addition to suggesting that Paul was influenced by the Jesus tradition, we
may posit that Paul's view was influenced by the Apostles, or other early leaders as well
(e.g. Peter, James, John). While Paul may have first come to some of his understanding
of Abraham in Damascus-Arabia, it is probable that he confirmed his learning and
subsequent thinking at Jerusalem.54
Unfortunately, we cannot with certainty say much more than this about how
Paul's view of Abraham may have been shaped by his conversations with the Apostles
and leaders of the early Church, since Acts proves such a contentious source, and since
Abraham is mentioned only fleetingly in 1 Peter, and James.55 Nevertheless, without
denying to Paul any originality, it seems reasonable to suppose that his Abraham bore
53 Discussion of Abraham in Hebrews may be mentioned here, as well, although it is hard to be sure how
that writing should be dated and where it should be placed within the nascent Church. As such, we give
it no sustained discussion here.
54 Cf. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Paul Between Damascus And Antioch: The Unknown
Years, trans. J. Bowden, London, SCM, 1997, pp. 116-120, 292. Hengel and Schwemer suppose that
most of Paul's theology of Abraham (particularly the inclusion of Gentiles as Abraham's 'seed') was
worked out already in Damascus (and Arabia) and later in Cilicia and Syria.
55 At 1 Peter 3:6, we find a reference to Abraham. This verse, however, is primarily concerned with Sarah
rather than Abraham. Moreover, where Paul speaks of marriage, he does not appear to echo Peter's use
of these Old Testament characters as examples (e.g. 1 Cor. 7; Eph. 5). Thus, whatever the date or
authorship of this epistle, it would appear to have little bearing on our concerns. Allison observes the
limited similarity that, “If, in John and Paul, those who believe and act rightly are the children of
Abraham, here women who behave properly... are daughters of Sarah.” Dale C. Allison, 'Abraham: II.
New Testament', in H.-J. Klauck (ed.), Encyclopedia of The Bible And Its Reception, 1, Berlin, de
Gruyter, 2009-, p. 162.
some of the hues not only of a Jesus or a John the Baptist, but also, for e.g., of a Peter or
a John. So far as this goes, further research might provide more assured results.
At this point, however, we must consider two potential objections. Firstly, if
Paul's understanding of Abraham was developed in the context of the nascent Church,
then is not his claim to have received his gospel directly from Christ compromised (e.g.
Gal. 1:12)? Secondly, if Paul was influenced in his view of Abraham by the likes of
James, then why do their presentations of the patriarch appear to differ?
To answer the first question, one may point to the apparent discrepancy between
Galatians 1:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-3. Clearly, unless the Apostle is involved here
in hopeless self-contradiction, Paul felt himself indebted in his understanding to both the
Damascus revelation, and the tradition of the Church. Several solutions have been
offered as to how exactly the tension between Paul's two statements is to be resolved. 56
For our purposes, it will be enough to note that while Paul claims independent Apostolic
authority, he does not suggest that he was a theological island.57 Instead, he claims to
have received certain traditions, and to have compared his understanding with those at
Jerusalem. Paul may even have clarified his understanding of Abraham, particularly in
relation to the Gentile mission, with Peter, James, and John, if not also other early leaders
(Gal. 1:18-19; 2:9).58
Even so, if Paul's view of Abraham was potentially influenced by the Jerusalem
'Pillars', what are we to make of the different uses to which Abraham is put by James and
Paul? Firstly, if James was the product of a late first century or early second century
56 See: George Eldon Ladd, 'Revelation And Tradition In Paul', in W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin (eds.),
Apostolic History And The Gospel: Biblical And Historical Essays Presented To F. F. Bruce On His
60th Birthday, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1970, pp. 223-230; Ronald Y. K. Fung, 'Revelation And
Tradition: The Origins of Paul's Gospel', EvQ, Vol. 57, No. 1, (1985), pp. 23-41; Knox Chamblin,
'Revelation And Tradition In The Pauline Euangelion', WTJ, Vol. 48, (1986), pp. 1-16; Moisés Silva,
'Systematic Theology And The Apostle To The Gentiles', TJ, Vol. 15, No. 1, (1994), pp. 3-26.
57 Cf. Daniel H. King, 'Paul And The Tannaim: A Study In Galatians', WTJ, Vol. 45, (1983), pp. 361-69.
58 Paul's acquaintance with James, for example, makes it likely that they discussed Abraham at some
point. Gal. 1:18-19; 2:9, 12; Acts 15:12-13; 21:17-26. See also: Scot McKnight, The Letter of James,
NIBCNT, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2011, p. 260-261.
person or group, as some have suggested, then it would obviously have no bearing on the
present discussion. That is not a satisfactory explanation, however. Instead, it is best to
see James the brother of Jesus as the likely author, and to date the epistle to within the
lifetime of Paul.59
Secondly, it can be said that if James' view of Abraham's justification is
equivalent to that of 1 Macc. 2:52, as has been suggested, then there would be strong
tension between James and Paul on Abraham.60 But it is unlikely that James' view of
Abraham was exactly the same as this non-Christian Jewish view. Similarly, if James
“heard Paul's view on Abraham and faith in person when Paul arrived in Jerusalem in 56”
but subsequently penned his epistle to combat that view, then it would make little sense
to suggest that Paul may have been influenced in his understanding of the patriarch by
James.61 However, while it is likely that Paul and James discussed Abraham, it is unlikely
that James wrote to oppose Paul's view. Rather, as has been amply demonstrated, Paul's
and James' views of Abraham and justification are not incompatible. 62 We need not see a
contradiction between the ways in which Paul and James handle Abraham. As Martin
observes, James' opponent “is not indicative of a Judaizing trend [such as Paul was often
faced with] but of a false credalism or outward profession that failed to express itself in
practical action.”63 We do not find evidence here, then, that our two authors were in
fundamental disagreement over Abraham.
Nevertheless, we must grapple with the differences between them. To say that
59 On this, see: Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James, TNTC, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1985, p. 20. For
the view of a two-stage production of the letter, where material from James is combined by one of his
disciples, see Ralph P. Martin, James, WBC, Vol. 48, Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 1988, p. lxxvii.
60 Thus Siker, Disinheriting The Jews, p. 100. Cf. Irving Jacobs, 'The Midrashic Background For James II.
21-23', NTS, Vol. 22, No. 4, (1976), pp. 461-462.
61 Vasiliki Limberis, 'The Provenance of The Caliphate Church: James 2.17-26 And Galatians 3
Reconsidered', in C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders (eds.), Early Christian Interpretation of The Scriptures
of Israel: Investigations And Proposals, JSNTSup, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 1997, pp. 402, 404.
62 E.g. Bo Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, And Jude, AB, Vol. 37, New York, Doubleday, 1964, p.
34. Pace, for e.g., Soards, who sees James as contraverting Paul's dichotomy between faith and works.
Marion L. Soards, 'The Early Christian Interpretation of Abraham And The Place of James Within That
Context', IBS, Vol. 9, (1987), p. 25.
63 Martin, James, p. lxxii.
there are Abraham-emphases in Paul which we do not find in James is not saying much,
considering the brevity of the epistle. More significantly, however, we do not find Paul
speaking of the Akedah as an outworking of Abraham's faith as James does. Nor does
Paul speak of Abraham in, for example, Romans 6, or Galatians 5:6, when he discusses
the necessity for faith to express itself in action. It seems, then, that James and Paul were
individuals whose respective handlings of Abraham were not identical. But this does not
mean that they never discussed the patriarch in conversation, or that there was not
agreement between their views which is all but hidden from our sight.
The epistle of James, therefore, does not call into question the possibility that
Paul could have grown in his understanding of Abraham through discussion with the
Apostles and leaders of the nascent Church. However, it does suggest that while Paul's
view may have been shaped somewhat by those who were in Christ before him, there
were some differences of emphasis in the nascent Church's employment of the patriarch,
and that these need not be flattened-out. Paul himself appears to have been a creative
theologian, and his understanding of Abraham was surely innovative, if not entirely
original to him.
In this chapter, we have sought to argue that setting Paul apart in his treatment of
Abraham from the Jewish main-stream (and particularly the 'five Abraham texts') does
not have to entail the conclusion that Paul was a 'maverick' whose depiction of Abraham
was entirely idiosyncratic. We have been responding in particular to the work of
Harrisville, who essentially limits Paul to Genesis and maximises Paul's originality, and
the uniqueness of his understanding of the patriarch. We would like to suggest that, while
Harrisville is not wrong to emphasise both Paul's use of Genesis and his creativity as an
original theologian, Paul's perception of Abraham was also conditioned by his interaction
with members of the nascent Church. As Paul came into contact with the Jesus tradition,
and with other important leaders of the early movement, it seems likely that he picked up
something of his understanding of Abraham along the way.
A Christological re-reading of Abraham in the Old Testament was foundational to
the Apostle's understanding, and doubtless set the Abraham of Paul apart from the
Abraham of Saul the Pharisee. Yet, it may also be somewhat unnecessary to suggest that
Paul was not at all aided in such a Christological interpretation of Abraham in the Old
Testament by his contemporaries in the Jesus movement or by his knowledge of Jesus
tradition, even as Paul may have been reciprocally influential.
Only the briefest exploration of a substantial question has been possible in this
chapter. More investigation could shed further light on this issue. However, we hope to
have been able to sketch the broadest outlines of an answer to the question of whether
Paul was a 'maverick' who was limited to Genesis. In so far as we have been successful at
so doing, it is felt that our conclusions in this chapter support those reached in Chapter 10
about Paul's relation to the 'five Abraham texts'.
In responding to Harrisville's suggestion, we have also seen that there were likely
two great tributaries to Paul's stream of Abraham thought. On the one hand, there was the
Old Testament, interpreted by Paul with Apostolic authority and originality. On the other
hand, Paul likely experienced some influence from the teachings of Jesus and/or John the
Baptist, and/or from other leaders in the nascent Church.

CHAPTER 12
CONCLUSION
12.1 Introduction
At the beginning of this thesis, we set out to determine what the sources were from which
Paul derived his understanding of Abraham (cf. §1.1). This question was then broken
down into two smaller sub-questions: viz. (1) Was Paul influenced in his understanding of
Abraham by the 'five Abraham texts', as a number of scholars have proposed (cf. §1.3.2);
or (2) was Paul's view of Abraham sui generis, as suggested by Harrisville? The first of
these questions was dealt with in Parts I and II; the second was handled in Part III. This
conclusion offers a number of summary observations about the analyses in these sections.
It then outlines the major thesis of the dissertation. Finally, we end by considering
potential areas for further investigation.
12.2 Question 1: Parts I&II
Firstly, it can be said that questionable interpretations have often been advanced as to
how the 'five Abraham texts' understood Abraham. As dealt with in detail in Part I, these
texts are often interpreted as presenting Abraham as an ungodly Gentile idolater and
sinful astrologer who discovered monotheism and so became the first Jew through
conversion. Yet, in almost every case (the Apocalypse of Abraham being an exception), it
is not clear that this (highly unflattering) understanding of the patriarch was the message
which the authors of those texts wished to convey to their original audiences. Rather, at
least four of our authors are quite laudatory. Although their treatments of Abraham differ
substantially, a very positive attitude towards the patriarch is common to all. From cradle
CHAPTER 12: CONCLUSION 366
to grave, Abraham's life is one of heroism in the cause of virtue. The 'five Abraham texts'
do not handle Abraham in the manner commonly claimed for them.
Secondly, Part I also questioned whether one should perceive a common core of
tradition lying behind each of the 'five Abraham texts'. The texts do not preserve varying
manifestations of an essentially coordinate underlying tradition. Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum, in particular, is quite distinct from the other four texts. Yet, even for the
remaining four texts, the most one might hypothesise is that they preserve two traditions:
viz. the Philo-Josephus-type, and the Jubilees-Apocalypse-of-Abraham-type. This
conclusion undermines the commonly made argument that runs as follows: (1) since the
'five Abraham texts' all preserve the same tradition, (2) therefore that tradition must have
been ubiquitous in Paul's day and well known to both the Apostle and his audiences. The
argument is built upon a faulty premise. While the possibilty of Paul's having been
influenced by the 'five Abraham texts' or a tradition underlying (any one of) them is not,
thereby, ruled-out, the too-hasty ascription to Paul of knowledge of a tradition which he
nowhere cites or clearly alludes to is called into question.
Thirdly, as explored in Chapter 8 of Part II, the young Paul (the Pharisee) would
not likely have been influenced by any of the 'five Abraham texts'. At least, there is
insufficient extant evidence to establish that he was so influenced. In any case, however,
had the young Pharisee's view of Abraham been shared with any of the 'five Abraham
texts' or their authors (or an underlying tradition), he would likely have revised his view
of the patriarch as part of the post-conversion revolution in his thinking. This revolution
saw him make a shift in allegiances more striking than merely moving between Jewish
sects; a move which would likely have involved rejection of both the halakhic and
haggadic sides of the 'tradition of the fathers', and their replacement by a new 'tradition'.
Fourthly, the attempts of Nickelsburg, and Calvert-Koyzis to establish that Paul's
view of Abraham in Galatians was affected by the 'five Abraham texts' are flawed. It is
not clear that Paul made use of the 'five Abraham texts' (or a similar tradition) in his
missionary preaching to Gentiles. Not only is there evidence against this suggestion, but
the evidence for it is unconvincing – as, for example, the requirement to interpret
Galatians 4:1-10 as being pervaded by Abraham, when there is no straightforward
evidence for this. Likewise, it is not clear either that the Judaizers made use of the 'five
Abraham texts' in their efforts to persuade the Galatians to be circumcised and adhere to
the Law (although this is possible), or that Paul used a tradition of Abraham's conversion
from astrology to combat the arguments of the Judaizers.
Fifthly, the attempts of Adams (Edward), Calvert-Koyzis, Kreuzer, and Flebbe to
see the 'five Abraham texts' as an integral background to Paul's use of Abraham in
Romans are equally implausible. Romans 4:5 has provided the most popular point-of-
entry for such scholars to suggest that Paul winked in the direction of the 'five Abraham
texts' in his treatment of Abraham in that epistle. Yet, it has been shown that Paul was not
there alluding to a common Jewish understanding of Abraham as ungodly. He was, in
fact, treating the patriarch unconventionally, if not scandalously. The claim made in the
scholarship for the 'five Abraham texts' is that they picture Abraham as idolatrous or
involved in sinful astrology. The argument seems to be one of guilt by association (with
Terah, &c.). Such a reading, however, ill fits texts whose authors are at pains to stress
Abraham's separation from, and superiority to, the pagans amongst whom he is born (e.g.
Jub. 11:16; Abr. 65-66; Ant. 1:155). Paul, by contrast, does tarr Abraham by 'association'
– not with Terah, but rather with Adam, and the rest of humanity.
As such, one must question the historical plausibility of those reconstructions
which see Paul's view of Abraham as having been observably impacted in important
ways by the 'five Abraham texts'. The answer to our first sub-question is, thus, a simple
'No'.
12.3 Question 2: Part III
The second of our questions, handled in Part III, was whether or not Paul was a
'maverick', or lone-ranger in his view of Abraham. To put it another way, we asked
whether Paul's view of Abraham was sui generis, as suggested by Harrisville. It was
observed that Harrisville's methodology – of seeking only for literary antecedents – was
somewhat artificial, and unnecessarily delimited discussion of Paul's post-conversion
milieu. This focus on later textuality overlooked how that milieu may have contributed to
his conception of Abraham. Upon scrutinity (albeit limited) of possible sources of
influence from within this milieu, it was observed that Paul could well have been
influenced in his understanding of Abraham by either (or both) his knowledge of the
Jesus/John the Baptist tradition, as well as by his dealings with other members of the
nascent Church. As such, the answer to our second sub-question was also 'No'.
12.4 Major Thesis
All of this clears the ground for our major thesis. While Paul's foundation was Genesis,
and while he certainly built upon this foundation creatively, from a christological
perspective, out of the resources of his own theological insight and Apostolic experience,
it, nevertheless, appears to be the case that certain bricks in Paul's edifice were borrowed,
either from others in the nascent Church, or else from the teachings of Jesus and John the
Baptist as they had been handed down. This, seems to be the only plausible answer to the
major question of this thesis, which satisfactorily accounts for all of the extant evidence.
Those who favour the 'five Abraham texts' approach forcibly incorporate foreign
elements into Paul's understanding of the patriarch. Harrisville does not go far enough in
searching out Paul's sources. We have attempted to avoid the first kind of approach, and
to nuance the second. However, as noted in the introduction (§1.2), our presentation of
this major thesis is somewhat tentative. While our answers to the two sub-questions
above may be considered established, further work would be needed to establish the
major thesis more fully.
12.5 Avenues For Further Possible Investigation
Finally, then, we may consider some possible avenues for further investigation. While the
following avenues fall somewhat outside of the purview of the dissertation, they all arise
out of the discussion therein.
Firstly, we can re-iterate that further research on Paul's connection to the nascent
Church and the Jesus tradition in relation to Abraham could well prove fruitful.
Secondly, it has been observed before that the 'comparative midrash' method
(such as that of Kugel or Vermes) tends towards homogenisation. Our limited
investigation, for example, seems to suggest that while in the pre-70 period authors were
almost always highly laudatory of the patriarch, after this date a more playful, even
sardonic, appreciation (e.g. in ApocAb, or some of the rabbinic literature) begins to
encroach upon an earlier uniform tendency towards hagiography (e.g. Jubilees, Philo,
Josephus, LAB).1 Could it be, for example, that the template sometimes found in the
rabbinic writings of Abraham as convert has been overlaid onto pre-70 texts by
contemporary scholarship, even by those who are otherwise leery of the value of these
later texts for the reconstruction of Paul's background? A specific case-study could
helpfully be made of the ways in which (if any) knowledge of post-70 views of Abraham
has affected the interpretation of pre-70 texts
Finally, while we have dealt with Philo's view of Abraham at some length, and
have attempted to take into account everything which Philo has to say about the
patriarch, it is to be appreciated that the question is complex. In particular, while we have
1 Something similar has been observed by Glenn N. Davies in his Faith And Obedience In Romans.
given Philo the benefit of the doubt, it is possible that he is not everywhere completely
consistent in his presentation of Abraham. That Philo repeats in several places the same
observations about the patriarch argues that his view was as consistent as it was positive.
Nevertheless, further investigation could be conducted on whether Philo's view of
Abraham is thoroughly consistent across his entire oeuvre, and on the degree to which (if
any) his understanding of the patriarch may have shifted over time. Also important would
be the question of how much of Philo's reshaping of the Abraham story was indebted to
Jewish thinking, and how much to Greek philosophy, which undoubtedly played a major
role in his hermeneutic.

APPENDIX
NAOMI COHEN'S THEORY OF A COMMON

POOL OF PALESTINIAN-ALEXANDRIAN MIDRASH
In Chapter 3, we analysed the specific parallels suggested by Geza Vermes between the
portrayals of Abraham in Jubilees and Philo. Discussion of such possible parallels,
however, naturally fits within a broader discussion of how Palestinian and Alexandrian
Judaism were related on the level of information exchange and influence. Clearly the two
were not totally dissociated from one another. Nevertheless, it is common to see
Alexandrian Judaism as somewhat divergent from the forms of Judaism common in the
mother country.1
In contrast to this approach, Naomi Cohen espouses a view which, in effect,
flattens out the distinctions between the Alexandrian and Palestinian Jewish
communities, so as to see no significant discontinuity between them. Her use of the
phrase “normative Judaism” is symptomatic here. She follows Vermes, Bamberger, and
Belkin2 in positing, “an ancient common midrashic store which was already traditional in
Philo's day”,3 and which lead to “a fundamental unity in the exegetical tradition of inter-
testamental Judaism.”4 While caveats are supplied and the presence of differences
accepted, the overall effect of her study is to make of Philo a rabbinic sage. Indeed, in her
monograph Philo Judaeus, the emphasis falls heavily on finding parallels between Philo
1 See, further the discussion in: Earle Hilgert, 'Philo Judaeus Et Alexandrinus: The State of The Problem',
in J. P. K. Kenney (ed.), The School of Moses: Studies In Philo And Hellenistic Religion; In Memory of
Horst R. Moehring, BJS, Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1995, pp. 10-13.
2 She thus goes further than Stein, and opposes Heinemann. On this, see: Hilgert, 'Philo Judaeus Et
Alexandrinus: The State of The Problem', pp. 7-10.
3 Cohen, Philo Judaeus, p. 33.
4 Cohen, Philo Judaeus, p. 35.
APPENDIX 372
and the rabbis.5 This can be problematic, however, when the rabbinic material discussed
is sometimes as late as the eighth or ninth century.6
We mention this thesis here as an excursus, because one of the ramifications of its
acceptance would be the increased likelihood of Philo having borrowed from Jubilees.
Even though the particular focus of Cohen's work is the rabbinic literature, her project
encompasses other corpora as well. We do not revise our earlier analysis, however,
because we believe that it is questionable that Cohen's reading of Philo takes completely
enough into account the significant diversity within the Judaism of the time.
Cohen's view, moreover, does not seem adequate to explain the important
divisions within the Jewish community at Alexandria itself.7 There were those who
favoured total acculturation to the surrounding Hellenistic culture (as Philo's nephew
might illustrate), and those who circumscribed the limits of such acculturation.8 There
were those who took such an allegorical view of Scripture that the literal observance of
the commandments could be abrogated, whilst others (such as Philo) saw both the
allegorical and the literal planes of observance as important (e.g. Migr. 89-93). Still
others rejected the allegorical altogether. The Therapeutae, for instance, may represent
further divisions within Alexandrian/Egyptian Judaism. Therefore, we should not
consider Alexandrian Judaism as monolithic, let alone Palestinian-Alexandrian Judaism.9

5 She makes the following remark, however, which should not be ignored: “the thesis put forth... is not a
direct relationship between Philo and extant [Rabbinic] midrashic traditions, but that they are
dependent upon a common source. [And] it is from this common ancient midrashich pool that Philo, the
Sages, and the later midrashic compendia all freely drew.” Cohen, Philo Judaeus, p. 37.
6 Cohen's point-of-departure is, "the conviction that the name with which a midrashic tradition is
associated is usually that of its immediate tradent" rather than its originating author. (Cohen, Philo
Judaeusp. 37). Yet, it appears that the association between an individual and a tradition is only to be
questioned when that individual is later than the period with which Cohen is interested. When, by
contrast, the late eighth or ninth century Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer credits R. Levitas with knowledge of a
tradition, we are to see this late document as having faithfully recorded that tradition, and accurately
associated it wtih the Sage. Cohen, Philo Judaeus, p. 44.
7 As Clauss, who speaks of "diese gewiß weder homogene noch sonderlich ruhige jüdische Welt...",
states, "Möglicherweise war die Judenschaft in Alexandria so facettenreich wie diejenige Judäas, wo
man Pharisäer, Sadduzäer, Essener, Zeloten, Sikarier und Hellenisten antraf." Manfred Clauss,
Alexandria: Schicksale einer antiken Weltstadt, Stuttgart, Klett-Cotta, 2003, p. 151.
8 Barclay, The Mediterranean Diaspora, pp. 105ff.
9 We agree here with Sterling who notes that while there was a core binding together various forms of
Judaism, the manner in which this Judaism came to expression would vary by region, and could even
APPENDIX 373
There were also important socio-political divisions within Alexandrian Judaism.10
Philo was almost certainly in touch with both contemporary and traditional
Alexandrian exegesis. Thus, for example, Runia writes that, “Many scholars have come
to the conclusion that Philo must have had important predecessors, and that it is very
likely that his work continues a long tradition of allegorical exegesis in the Jewish
community of Alexandria.”11 However, while the evidence calls for placing Philo within
such an Alexandrian exegetical matrix, it is less clear to what extent he was in significant
contact with Palestinian interpretations. There was undoubtedly some intellectual cross-
fertilisation between the Jewish communities in Palestine and Alexandria. However, it is
likely that such an exchange was concerned more with political issues, issues common to
Judaism at large (particularly the Temple), and halakhah than with the exchange of
haggadot or allegorical interpretations.
It is important to distinguish between the kind of reconstruction which allows for
a modest interchange of ideas between Palestine and Alexandria and one which
essentially eliminates any distinction between the two communities.12 Cohen's argument
is of the latter variety. She takes the minimal extant evidence of texts being translated
from Hebrew/Aramaic into Greek for publication in the diaspora and extrapolates
exponentially. She takes the even more modest evidence of what synagogue preaching
looked like and envisages frequent international travel for Palestinian preachers
vary appreciably within a given locale. See: Gregory E. Sterling, 'The Place of Philo of Alexandria In
The Study of Christian Origins', in R. Deines and K.-W. N. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue
Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen, WUNT, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2004, p. 28.
10 Tcherikover, 'Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered', pp. 190-191 et passim; Miriam Pucci Ben
Zeev, 'New Perspectives On The Jewish-Greek Hostilities In Alexandria During The Reign of Emperor
Caligula', JSJ, Vol. 21, No. 2, (1990), pp. 234-235.
11 David T. Runia, 'Philo, Alexandrian And Jew', Exegesis And Philosophy: Studies On Philo of
Alexandria, Variorum, Hampshire, 1990, p. 13.
12 When comparing individual texts, moreover, such as Jubilees and certain works of Philo, Tcherikover
gives a sage warning. He writes: "Let us try to understand Alexandrian Jewry through its literature and
to see it as an integral part of the Jewish nation which at the same time preserved its own particular
character as an independent unit." And, a little later: "We must assume a priori that in every part of the
dispersion there were particular local conditions for the development of the Jewish community, and it
follows that the literary works composed in different places and under different conditions ought not to
be treated alike." Tcherikover, 'Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered', pp. 186-187.
APPENDIX 374
(“darshanim”), who would have encountered no unfamiliarity in any of the Diaspora
synagogues which they visited, since all were of one character and animated by the same
Zeitgeist.13 She describes 'midrash' as the universal Jewish interpretative technique of the
day and so places Philo's exegetical endeavor in parallel with that of synagogue
preachers in Palestine. Yet, the term is too vague (and multiply defined) to be helpfully
descriptive. Finally, it should be noted that Philo was an individual, and his “voice is
distinct and to some extent even unique.”14
In short, Cohen goes beyond the strictures of the limit of the evidence. As such,
many scholars remain unconvinced by her work at several points; notably of the validity
of her assumption of the existence of a common Palestinian-Alexandrian pool of not only
halakhic but also haggadic tradition upon which Philo depended.15
13 She cites Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, Tiberias, and Jerusalem. Naomi Goldstein Cohen, 'Philo And
Midrash', Judaism, Vol. 44, No. 2, (1995), pp. 196, 203-204.
14 Niehoff, Philo On Jewish Identity And Culture, p. 9.
15 E.g. Hay, 'Philo of Alexandria', p. 376; Ellen Birnbaum, '[Review:] Philo Judaeus: His Universe of
Discourse By Naomi G. Cohen', SPhA, Vol. 8, (1996), pp. 189-196; Kaare Sigvald Fuglseth, '[Review:]
Philo Judaeus: His Universe of Discourse By Naomi G. Cohen', JSJ, Vol. 27, No. 3, (1996), pp. 338-
342. Runia is more reserved, if still somewhat skeptical: Runia, On The Creation, p. 31. Winston, in a
review article notes the difficulty of establishing that there were such common midrashic traditions but
comments that Cohen largely bypasses the discussion by beginning with the assumption that there were.
Winston's primary concern is then to dispute the individual parallels adduced by Cohen. See: David
Winston, '[Review:] Philo Judaeus: His Universe of Discourse By Naomi G. Cohen', JQR, Vol. 86, No.
3/4, (1996), pp. 510-515. Martens disputes the idea that Philo refers to the 'Oral Law' in Spec. Leg.
4:149-150. See: John W. Martens, One God, One Law: Philo of Alexandria On The Mosaic And Greco-
Roman Law, Studies In Philo of Alexandria And Mediterranean Antiquity, 2, Leiden, Brill, 2003, pp.
182ff. Kovelman points out that Cohen's characterisation of Philo as a rabbi comes twenty years after
Jacob Neusner suggested that we should not assume that Philo was a rabbi. Arkady Kovelman, Between
Alexandria And Jerusalem: The Dynamic of Jewish And Hellenistic Culture, BRLJ, 21, Leiden, Brill,
2005, p. 69. Neusner's comments come from: Jacob Neusner, 'Method And Substance In The History of
Judaic Ideas: An Exercise', in R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs (eds.), Jews, Greeks, And Christians:
Religious Cultures In Late Antiquity: Essays In Honor of William David Davies, Leiden, Brill, 1976, pp.
95-96.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, D. H., The Sinner In Luke, Evangelical Theological Society Monograph Series, 8, Eugene,
Wipf & Stock, 2008.
Adams, E., 'Abraham's Faith And Gentile Disobedience: Textual Links Between Romans 1 And 4',
JSJ, Vol. 65, (1997), pp. 47-66.
, 'Paul's Story of God And Creation: The Story of How God Fulfils His Purposes In
Creation', in B. W. Longenecker (ed.), Narrative Dynamics In Paul: A Critical Assessment,
Louisville, John Knox, 2002, pp. 19-43.
Adams, S. A., 'The Relationships of Paul And Luke: Luke, Paul's Letters, And The "We" Passages
of Acts', in S. E. Porter and C. D. Land (eds.), Paul And His Social Relations, PSt, Leiden,
Brill, 2012, pp. 125-142.
Adler, W., ''Abraham And The Burning of The Temple of Idols: Jubilees' Traditions In Christian
Chronography', JQR, Vol. 77, No. 2/3, (1986-1987), pp. 95-117.
Albl, M. C., And Scripture Cannot Be Broken: The Form And Function of The Early Christian
Testimonia Collections, NovTSup, Vol. 96, Leiden, Brill, 1999.
Alexander, P. H., et. al. (ed.), SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, And
Early Christian Studies, Peabody, Hendrickson, 1999.
Alexander, P. S., 'Rabbinic Judaism And The New Testament', ZNW, Vol. 74, (1983), pp. 237-246.
Allison, D. C., 'Abraham: II. New Testament', in H.-J. Klauck (ed.), Encyclopedia of The Bible And
Its Reception, 1, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2009-, pp. 156-162.
Alon, G., Jews, Judaism And The Classical World: Studies In Jewish History In The Times of The
Second Temple And Talmud, trans. I. Abrahams, Jerusalem, The Magnes Press, 1977.
Anderson, C. A., Philo of Alexandria's Views of The Physical World, WUNT 2. Reihe, Vol. 309,
Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
Aquinas, S. T., In Omnes D. Pauli Apostolis Epistolas Commentaria, Leodii, H. Dessain, 1857.
Aquinas, S. T., Summa Theologiae, trans. D. Bourke, Vol. 29, Cambridge, CUPress, 2006.
Arkadi, C., Gnosis, Theophany, Theosis: Studies In Clement of Alexandria's Appropriation of His
Background, New York, Peter Lang, 2002
Arnold, C. E., ''I Am Astonished That You Are So Quickly Turning Away!' (Gal 1.6): Paul And
Anatolian Folk Belief', NTS, Vol. 51, (2005), pp. 429-449.
, 'Returning To The Domain of The Powers: "Stoicheia" As Evil Spirits In Galatians 4:3,
9', NovT, Vol. 38, No. 1, (1996), pp. 55-76.
Attridge, H. W., 'Historiography', in M. E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of The Second Temple
Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, CRINT,
Assen, Van Gorcum, 1984a, pp. 157-184.
Attridge, H. W., 'Josephus And His Works', in M. E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of The Second
Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus,
CRINT, Assen, Van Gorcum, 1984b, pp. 185-232.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 376
Aune, D. E., 'Recent Readings of Paul Relating To Justification By Faith', Jesus, Gospel Tradition
And Paul In The Context of Jewish And Greco-Roman Antiquity, WUNT, Tübingen, Mohr
Siebeck, 2013, pp. 472-523.
Badenas, R., Christ The End of The Law: Romans 10:4 In Pauline Perspective, JSNTSup, Vol. 10,
Sheffield, JSOT, 1985.
Baird, W., 'Abraham In The New Testament: Tradition And The New Identity', Int, Vol. 42, No. 2,
(1988), pp. 376-379.
Bakhos, C., 'Method(ological) Matters In The Study of Midrash', in C. Bakhos (ed.), Current
Trends In The Study of Midrash, JSJSup, Leiden, Brill, 2006, pp. 161-187.
Balestier-Stengel, G., 'Un Aperçu Sur Les Jubilés: Le Personnage D'Abram', FoiVie, Vol. 89, No. 5,
(1990), pp. 61-71.
Bamberger, B. J., 'Philo And The Aggadah', HUCA, Vol. 48, (1977), pp. 153-185.
Bandstra, A. J., The Law And The Elements of The World, Kampen, J. H. Kok, 1964.
Bar-Ilan, M., 'Astronomy And Astrology In Ancient Judaism', in J. Neusner, A. J. Avery-Peck, and
W. S. Green (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Judaism: Supplement II, Leiden, Brill, 2004, pp.
2031-2044.
Bar-Kochva, B., The Image of The Jews In Greek Literature: The Hellenistic Period, Los Angeles,
University of California Press, 2010.
Barclay, J. M. G., 'Mirror-Reading A Polemical Letter: Galatians As A Test Case', JSJ, Vol. 31,
(1987), pp. 73-93.
, 'Paul Among Diaspora Jews: Anomaly Or Apostate?', JSJ, Vol. 60, (1995), pp. 89-120.
, Against Apion, ed. S. Mason, Flavius Josephus Translation And Commentary, Vol. 10,
Leiden, Brill, 2007.
, Jews In The Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander To Trajan (323 BCE - 117 CE),
Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1996.
, Pauline Churches And Diaspora Jews, WUNT, 275, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
Barclay, W., 'A Comparison of Paul's Missionary Preaching And Preaching To The Church', in W.
W. Gasque and R. P. Martin (eds.), Apostolic History And The Gospel: Biblical And
Historical Essays Presented To F. F. Bruce On His 60th Birthday, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans,
1970, pp. 165-175.
Barnett, F. J., 'Some Notes To The Sequence of Saint Eulalia', in E. A. Francis (ed.), Studies In
Medieval French: Presented To Alfred Ewert In Honour of His Seventieth Birthday, Oxford,
OUPress, 1961, pp. 1-25.
Barnett, P., Paul: Missionary of Jesus, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2008.
Barrett, C. K., 'The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, And Hagar In The Argument of Galatians', in J.
Friedrich, W. Pöhlmann, and P. Stuhlmacher (eds.), Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst
Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1976, pp. 1-16.
, From First Adam To Last: A Study In Pauline Theology, London, Adam & Charles Black,
1962.
Bartlett, J. R., Jews In The Hellenistic World: Josephus, Aristeas, The Sibylline Oracles,
Eupolemus, eds P. R. Ackroyd, A. R. C. Leaney, and J. W. Packer, 2 Vols., 1, CCWJCW, 1,
BIBLIOGRAPHY 377
Cambridge, CUPress, 1985.
Bauckham, R., 'The Throne of God And The Worship of Jesus', in C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila, and
G. S. Lewis (eds.), The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers From The St.
Andrews Conference On The Historical Origins of The Worship of Jesus (1998), JSJSup,
Leiden, Brill, 1999, pp. 43-69.
, James, London, Routledge, 1999.
, Jesus And The Eyewitnesses: The Gospels As Eyewitness Testimony, Grand Rapids,
Eerdmans, 2006.
, Jesus And The God of Israel: God Crucified And Other Studies On The New Testament's
Christology of Divine Identity, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2008.
, Jude And The Relatives of Jesus In The Early Church, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1990.
Bauer, W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed.
F. W. Danker, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Baumbach, G., 'Abraham unser Vater: Der Prozeß der Vereinnahmung Abrahams durch das frühe
Christentum', ThVer, Vol. 16, (1986), pp. 37-56.
Baumgarten, A. I., 'Herod's Eagle', in A. M. Maeir, J. Magnes, and L. H. Schiffman (eds.), 'Go Out
And Study The Land' (Judges 18:2): Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies In
Honor of Hanan Eshel, JSJSup, Leiden, Brill, 2012.
Baur, F. C., The Church History of The First Three Centuries: 2 Vols., trans. A. Menzies, London,
Williams & Norgate, 1878-1879.
Beale, G. K., 'Myth, History, And Inspiration: A Review Article of Inspiration And Incarnation By
Peter Enns', JETS, Vol. 49, No. 2, (2006), pp. 287-312.
, Handbook On The New Testament Use of The Old Testament: Exegesis And
Interpretation, Grand Rapids, Baker, 2012.
Beasley-Murray, G. R., 'The Second Chapter of Colossians', RevExp, Vol. 70, No. 4, (1973), pp.
469-479.
, John 2nd Edn., WBC, Vol. 36, Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 1999.
Beer, B., Leben Abraham's nach Auffassung der jüdischen Sage, Leipzig, O. Leiner, 1859.
Begg, C. T., 'Genesis In Josephus', in C. A. Evans, J. N. Lohr, and D. L. Petersen (eds.), The Book
of Genesis: Composition, Reception, And Interpretation, VTSup, Leiden, Brill, 2012, pp.
303-329.
Bekken, P. J., 'Abraham og Ånden: Paulus' anvendelse av Genesis 15:6 i Galaterbrevet 3:6 belyst ut
fra jodisk materiale', TTKi, Vol. 71, No. 4, (2000).
Belayche, N., Iudaea-Palaestina: The Pagan Cults In Roman Palestine (Second To Fourth
Century), eds H. Cancik and J. Rüpke, Religion der Römischen Provinzen: Band 1,
Belleville, L. L., ''Under Law': Structural Analysis And The Pauline Concept of Law In Galatians
3.21-4.11', JSJ, Vol. 26, (1986), pp. 53-78.
Ben Zeev, M. P., 'New Perspectives On The Jewish-Greek Hostilities In Alexandria During The
Reign of Emperor Caligula', JSJ, Vol. 21, No. 2, (1990), pp. 227-235.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 378
, 'From Toleration To Destruction: Roman Policy And The Jewish Temple', in S. Fine and
L. H. Feldman (eds.), The Temple of Jerusalem: From Moses To The Messiah: In Honor of
Professor Louis H. Feldman, BRLJ, Leiden, Brill, 2011.
Berger, K., 'Abraham II - Im Frühjudentum und Neuen Testament', in G. Müller, H. Balz, and G.
Krause (eds.), Theologische Realenzyklopädie, 1, Berlin, de Gruyter, 1977, pp. 372-382.
, 'Abraham in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen', MTZ, Vol. 17, No. 1, (1966), pp. 47-89.
Berlin, A. M., 'Identity Politics In Early Roman Galilee', in M. Popović (ed.), The Jewish Revolt
Against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, JSJSup, Leiden, Brill, 2011.
Berry, G. R., A Dictionary of New Testament Greek Synonyms, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1979.
Bethune, L. L., Abraham, Father of Faith: The Interpretation of Genesis 15:6 From Genesis To
Paul (Galatians, Romans), Ph. D. dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, New Jersey,
1986.
Betz, H. D., Galatians, ed. H. Koester (et. al.), Hermeneia, Vol. 62, Philadelphia, Fortress, 1979.
, The Greek Magical Papyri In Translation, Including The Demotic Spells: Second
Edition, Vol. 1, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Bianchini, F., Lettera Ai Galati, Roma, Città Nuova, 2009.
Bickerman, E. J., The Jews In The Greek Age, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1988.
Billerbeck, P. and Strack, H. L., Kommentar zum neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 6
Vols., München, C. H. Beck, 1922-28.
, 'Abrahams Leben und Bedeutung nach Auffassung der ältern Haggada', Nat, Vol. 15,
(1899), pp. 43-57, 118-128, 137-157, 161-179.
Birnbaum, E., '[Review:] Philo Judaeus: His Universe of Discourse By Naomi G. Cohen', SPhA,
Vol. 8, (1996), pp. 189-196.
, 'Exegetical Building Blocks In Philo's Interpretation of The Patriarchs', in P. Walters
(ed.), From Judaism To Christianity: Tradition And Transition: A Festschrift For Thomas H.
Tobin, S.J., On The Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, NovTSup, Leiden, Brill, 2010.
, The Place of Judaism In Philo's Thought: Israel, Jews, And Proselytes, BJS, 290 Atlanta,
Scholars Press, 1996.
Blenkinsopp, J., Isaiah 40-55, AB, Vol. 19, New York, Doubleday, 2002.
Blinzler, J., ''Lexicalisches zu dem Terminus stoicheia tou kosmou bei Paulus', Studiorum
Paulinorum Congressus Biblicus Catholicus 1961, AnBib, 2, Rome, Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1963.
Bloch, R., 'Methodological Note For The Study of Rabbinic Literature', in W. S. Green (ed.),
Approaches To Ancient Judaism 1: Theory And Practice, BJS, Missoula, Scholars Press,
1978, pp. 51-75.
, 'Note Methodologique Pour l'Étude de la Literature Rabbinique', RSR, Vol. 43, (1955),
pp. 194-227.
Blomberg, C. L., Jesus And The Gospels: An Introduction And Survey 2nd. Edn., Nashville, B&H
Publishing, 2009.
Boccaccini, G., 'From A Movement of Dissent To A Distinct Form of Judaism: The Heavenly
BIBLIOGRAPHY 379
Tablets In Jubilees As The Foundation of A Competing Halakah', in G. Boccaccini and G.
Ibba (eds.), Enoch And The Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees, Grand Rapids,
Eerdmans, 2009.
Bock, D. L., Proclamation From Prophecy And Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology,
JSNTSup, Vol. 12, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 1987.
, Studying The Historical Jesus: A Guide To Sources And Methods, Grand Rapids, Baker,
2002.
Bogaert, P.-M., 'La Figure D'Abraham Dans Les Antiquités Bibliques Du Pseudo-Philon', in P.-M.
Bogaert (ed.), Abraham Dans La Bible Et Dans La Tradition Juive, PubIIB, Bruxelles,
Institutum Iudaicum, 1977, pp. 40-61.
Böhm, M., Rezeption und Funktion der Vätererzählungen bei Philo von Alexandrien: zum
Zusammenhang von Kontext, Hermeneutik und Exegese im frühen Judentum, BZNW, Vol.
128, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2005.
Bond, H. K., Potius Pilate In History And Interpretation, SNTSMS, Vol. 100, Cambridge, CUPress,
1998.
Bonwetsch, G. N., Die Apokalypse Abrahams, Leipzig, Scientia Verlag Aalen, 1897.
Borgen, P., Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete For His Time, NovTSup, 86, Leiden, Brill, 1997.
, Philo, John, And Paul: New Perspectives On Judaism And Early Christianity, BJS, 131,
Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1987.
Bosch, J. S., 'La Figura de Abrahán en Pablo y en Filón de Alejandría', in D. M. León (ed.),
Salvación En La Palabra: Targum, Derash, Berith: En Memoria Del Profesor Alejandro
Díez Macho, Madrid, 1986, pp. 677-688.
Bowersock, G. W., '[Review:] Iudaea-Palaestina. The Pagan Cults In Roman Palestine (Second To
Fourth Century), Religion der römischen Provinzen, Band I, by Nicole Belayche', Syr, Vol.
82, (2005), pp. 383-384.
Bowley, J. E., 'Josephus's Use of Greek Sources For Biblical History', in J. C. Reeves and J.
Kampen (eds.), Pursuing The Text: Studies In Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder On The
Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, JSOTSup, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 1994, pp.
202-215.
, 'The Compositions of Abraham', in J. C. Reeves (ed.), Tracing The Threads: Studies In
The Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, SBLEJL, Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1994, pp. 215-238.
, Traditions of Abraham In Greek Historical Writings: Jewish And Pagan Authors
Through Josephus, Ph. D. dissertation, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, 1992.
Box, G. H. and Landsman, J. I., The Apocalypse of Abraham, London, SPCK, 1918.
Brawley, R. L., 'Abrahamic Covenant Traditions And The Characterization of God In Luke-Acts', in
J. Verheyden (ed.), The Unity of Luke-Acts, Leuven, Peeters, 1999, pp. 109-132.
Bray , G. L. (ed.), 1-2 Corinthians, ed. T. C. Oden, ACCS, Vol. 7, Downers Grove, InterVarsity,
2006.
, Romans, ed. T. C. Oden 2nd Edn., ACCS, 6, Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 2005.
Bréhier, É., Les Idées Philosophiques Et Religieuses De Philon D'Alexandrie, Études De
Philosophie Médiévale, 8, Paris, Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1950.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 380
Brock, S. P. B., 'Abraham And The Ravens: A Syriac Counterpart To Jubilees 11-12 And Its
Implications', JSJ, Vol. 9, (1978), pp. 135-152.
Bruce, F. F., 'Abraham Our Father (Romans 4:1)', The Time Is Fulfilled: Five Aspects of The
Fulfillment of The Old Testament In The New, Exeter, Paternoster, 1977, pp. 55-74.
, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, ed. R. P. Martin, WBC, 45, Waco, Word Books, 1982.
, Paul, Apostle of The Heart Set Free, Cumbria, Paternoster, 1977.
, The Acts of The Apostles 3rd Edn., Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1990.
, The Epistle To The Galatians, eds I. H. Marshall and W. W. Gasque, NIGTC, Grand
Brueggemann, W., Genesis, IBC, Vol. 1, Louisville, John Knox, 1982.
Brunson, A., Psalm 118 In The Gospel of John: An Intertextual Study On The New Exodus Pattern
In The Theology of John, WUNT 2. Reihe, Vol. 158, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Bulloch, A. W., 'Hellenistic Poetry: Minor Figures', in P. E. Easterling and B. M. W. Knox (eds.),
The Cambridge History of Classical Literature, Vol. 1: Greek Literature, Pt. 4: The
Hellenistic Period And The Empire, Cambridge, CUPress, 1989, pp. 58-81.
Bultmann, R., Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe, FRLANT, Vol.
13, Göttingen, V&R, 1910.
Bundrick, D. R., 'Ta Stoicheia Tou Kosmou (Gal 4:3)', JETS, Vol. 34, No. 3, (1991), pp. 353-364.
Burnette-Bletsch, R. J., 'The Reception of Genesis In Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum', in C. A. Evans, J. N. Lohr, and D. L. Petersen (eds.), The Book of Genesis:
Composition, Reception, And Interpretation, VTSup, Leiden, Brill, 2012, pp. 447-468.
Burton, E. D. W., A Critical And Exegetical Commentary On The Epistle To The Galatians, ICC,
Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1980.
Byrne, B. J., Galatians And Romans, Collegeville, Liturgical Press, 2010.
, Romans, ed. D. J. Harrington, SP, 6, Collegeville, The Liturgical Press, 1996.
Calvert-Koyzis, N., 'Abraham: III A: Second Temple And Hellenistic Judaism', in H.-J. Klauck
(ed.), Encyclopedia of The Bible And Its Reception, 1, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2009, pp. 162-168.
, 'Abraham: New Testament', in D. G. Reid (ed.), The IVP Dictionary of The New
Testament, Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 2004, pp. 1-16.
, Paul, Monotheism And The People of God: The Significance of Abraham Traditions For
Early Judaism And Christianity, London, T&T Clark, 2004.
, 'Abraham And Idolatry: Paul's Comparison of Obedience To The Law With Idolatry In
Galatians 4.1-10', in C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders (eds.), Paul And The Scriptures of Israel,
JSNTSup, Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1993, pp. 222-237.
, Abraham Traditions In Middle Jewish Literature: Implications For The Interpretation of
Galatians And Romans, Ph. D. dissertation, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, 1993.
Calvin, J., Commentaries On The Epistles of Paul To The Galatians And Ephesians, trans. W.
Pringle, Edinburgh, The Calvin Translation Society, 1854.
, Romans, trans. J. Owen, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1947.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 381
Capes, D. B., Old Testament Yahweh Texts In Paul's Christology, WUNT 2. Reihe, Vol. 47,
Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr, 1992.
Carson, D. A. and Moo, D. J., An Introduction To The New Testament 2nd Edn., Grand Rapids,
Zondervan, 2005.
, 'Divine Sovereignty And Human Responsibility In Philo: Analysis And Method', NovT,
Vol. 23, No. 2, (1981), pp. 148-164.
, The God Who Is There: Finding Your Place In God's Story, Grand Rapids, Baker, 2010.
, The Gospel According to John, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1991.
Chadwick, H., 'St. Paul And Philo of Alexandria', BJRL, Vol. 48, (1965-66), pp. 286-307.
Chamblin, K., 'Revelation And Tradition In The Pauline Euangelion', WTJ, Vol. 48, (1986), pp. 1-
16.
Chancey, M. A., 'City Coins And Roman Power In Palestine: From Pompey To The Great Revolt',
in D. R. Edwards (ed.), Religion And Society In Roman Palestine: Old Questions, New
Approaches, New York, Routledge, 2004.
, The Myth of A Gentile Galilee: The Population of Galilee And New Testament Studies,
SNTSMS, Vol. 118, Cambridge, CUPress, 2002.
Charles, R. H., The Apocrypha And Pseudepigrapha of The Old Testament In English, 2 Vols., 1,
Oxford, OUPress, 1979.
, The Book of Jubilees Or The Little Genesis, London, Adam & Charles Black, 1902.
Charlesworth, J. H., 'Jewish Astrology In The Talmud, Pseudepigrapha, The Dead Sea Scrolls, And
Early Palestinian Synagogues', HTR, Vol. 70, No. 3/4, (1977), pp. 183-200.
Chilton, B. D. and Neusner, J., 'Paul And Gamaliel', RevRJ, Vol. 8, No. 1, (2005), pp. 113-162.
, Abraham's Curse: Child Sacrifice In The Legacies of The West, New York, Doubleday,
2008.
Chittister, J., et. al., The Tent of Abraham: Stories of Hope And Peace For Jews, Christians, and
Muslims, Boston, Beacon, 2007.
Choi, P. R., Abraham Our Father: Paul's Voice In The Covenantal Debate of The Second Temple
Period, Ph. D., Fuller Theological Seminary, California, 1997.
Ciampa, R. E. and Rosner, B. S., The First Letter to the Corinthians, ed. D. A. Carson, PNTCS,
Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2010.
Clauss, M., Alexandria: Schicksale einer antiken Weltstadt, Stuttgart, Klett-Cotta, 2003.
Clements, R. E., Abraham And David: Genesis XV And Its Meaning For Israelite Tradition, 5,
Studies In Biblical Theology: Second Series, London, SCM, 1967.
Cohen, N. G., 'Philo And Midrash', Judaism, Vol. 44, No. 2, (1995), pp. 196-207.
, Philo Judaeus: His Universe of Discourse, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, 1995.
, Philo's Scriptures: Citations From The Prophets And Writings: Evidence For A Haftarah
Cycle In Second Temple Judaism, JSJSup, Vol. 123, Leiden, Brill, 2007.
Cohen, S. J. D., 'Respect For Judaism By Gentiles According To Josephus', HTR, Vol. 80, No. 4,
(1987), pp. 409-430.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 382
, 'Was Judaism In Antiquity A Missionary Religion?', The Significance of Yavneh And
Other Essays In Jewish Hellenism, TSAJ, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2010, pp. 299-308.
, Josephus In Galilee And Rome: His Vita And Development As A Historian, CSCT, Vol. 8,
, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties, HCS, Vol. 31,
Berkeley, University of California Press, 2001.
Cole, R. A., The Letter of Paul To The Galatians, ed. L. L. Morris 2nd. Edn., TNTC, Vol. 9,
Leicester, InterVarsity, 1989.
Collins, J. J., 'Introduction: Toward The Morphology of A Genre', Semeia, Vol. 14, (1979), pp. 1-20.
, Jewish Cult And Hellenistic Culture: Essays On The Jewish Encounter With Hellenism
And Roman Rule, ed. J. J. Collins, JSJSup, Vol. 100, Leiden, Brill, 2005.
, Seers, Sibyls, And Sages In Hellenistic-Roman Judaism, Leiden, Brill, 1997.
, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction To Jewish Apocalyptic Literature 2nd
Edn., Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1998.
Cousar, C. B., 'Paul And Multiculturalism', in W. Brueggemann and G. W. Stroup (eds.), Many
Voices, One God: Being Faithful In A Pluralistic World: In Honor of Shirley Guthrie,
Louisville, John Knox, 1998, pp. 46-64.
Cramer, A. W., Stoicheia Tou Kosmou: Interpretatie van een nieuwtestamentische term, Nieuwkoop,
B. de Graaf, 1961.
Cranfield, C. E. B., A Critical And Exegetical Commentary On The Epistle To The Romans, eds J.
A. Emerton and C. E. B. Cranfield, 2 Vols., 1, ICC, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1987.
Cranford, M., 'Abraham In Romans 4: The Father of All Who Believe', NTS, Vol. 41, (1995), pp.
71-88.
Crawford, C. D. C., 'On The Exegetical Function of The Abraham/Ravens Tradition In Jubilees 11',
HTR, Vol. 97, No. 1, (2004), pp. 91-97.
Cullmann, O., 'The Tradition', in A. J. B. Higgins (ed.), The Early Church, London, SCM, 1956,
pp. 59-99.
, The Christology of The New Testament, trans. S. C. Guthrie and C. A. M. Hall,
Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1959.
Cumont, F., Astrology And Religion Among The Greeks And Romans, New York, G. P. Putnam's
Sons, 1912.
Czachesz, I., 'Rewriting And Textual Fluidity In Antiquity: Exploring The Socio-Cultural And
Psychological Context of Earliest Christian Literacy', in J. N. Bremmer, et al. (eds.), Myths,
Martyrs, And Modernity: Studies In The History of Religions In Honour of Jan N. Bremmer,
SHR, Leiden, Brill, 2010, pp. 425-441.
Dahl, N. A., 'The Neglected Factor In New Testament Theology', Refl, Vol. 73, (1975), pp. 5-8.
, 'The Story of Abraham In Luke-Acts', in L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn (eds.), Studies In
Luke-Acts: Essays Presented In Honour of Paul Schubert, Philadelphia, Fortress, 1980, pp.
139-158.
, Studies In Paul: Theology For The Early Christian Mission, Minneapolis, Augsburg,
1977.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 383
Daniélou, J., 'Abraham Dans La Tradition Chrétienne', CahS, Vol. 5, No. 2, (1951), pp. 68-77 (160-
179).
Das, A. A., 'Paul And Works of Obedience In Second Temple Judaism: Romans 4:4-5 As A "New
Perspective" Case Study', CBQ, Vol. 71, No. 4, (2009), pp. 795-812.
, Paul, The Law, And The Covenant, Grand Rapids, Hendrickson, 2001.
Daube, D., The New Testament And Rabbinic Judaism, London, Athlone, 1956.
Davies, G. N., Faith And Obedience In Romans: A Study In Romans 1-4, ed. D. Hill, JSNTSup, Vol.
39, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 1990.
Davies, W. D. and Allison, D. C., A Critical And Exegetical Commentary On The Gospel According
To Saint Matthew, 1, London, T&T Clark, 1988.
Dawson, D., Allegorical Readers And Cultural Revision In Ancient Alexandria, Berkeley,
University of California Press, 1992.
De Boer, M. C., 'The Meaning of The Phrase τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσµου in Galatians', NTS, Vol. 53,
(2007), pp. 204-224.
, Galatians, eds C. C. Black and J. T. Carroll, NTL, Louisville, John Knox, 2011.
De Boissy, L. M., Dissertations Critiques Pour Servir d'Éclaircissements à l'Histoire Des Juifs,
Avant Et Depuis Jésus-Christ, Et De Supplément à l'Histoire De M. Basnage, 2 Vols., 1,
Paris, Lagrange, 1785.
de Menasce, J.-P., 'Traditions Juives Sur Abraham', CahS, Vol. 5, No. 2, (1951), pp. 96-103 (188-
195).
De Roo, J. C. R., 'Works of The Law' At Qumran And In Paul, NTM, 13, Sheffield, Phoenix Press,
2007.
Deane, W. J., Abraham: His Life And Times, New York, Anson D. F. Randolph & Company, 1888.
Deines, R., 'How Long? God's Revealed Schedule For Salvation And The Outbreak of The Bar
Kokhba Revolt', in A. Lange, K. F. Diethard Römheld, and M. Weigold (eds.), Judaism And
Crisis: Crisis As A Catalyst In Jewish Cultural History, SIJD, Göttingen, V&R, 2011, pp.
201-234.
, 'The Pharisees Between "Judaisms" And "Common Judaism"', in D. A. Carson, P. T.
O'Brien, and M. A. Seifrid (eds.), Justification And Variegated Nomism (Vol. 1): The
Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, WUNT, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2001, pp. 443-
504.
Deissmann, A., Paul: A Study In Social And Religious History, trans. W. E. Wilson, London, Hodder
And Stoughton, 1926.
Delling, G., 'stoicheion', in G. Kittel (ed.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, 7,
Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer, 1971, pp. 666-687.
Démann, P., 'La Signification d'Abraham Dans La Perspective Du Nouveua Testament', CahS, Vol.
5, No. 2, (1951), pp. 44-67 (136-159).
DeMaris, R. E., 'Element, Elemental Spirit', in D. N. Freedman (ed.), ABD, 2, New York,
Doubleday, 1992.
Dequeker, L., 'La Vocation D'Abraham (Gn 12,1-9)', in P.-M. Bogaert (ed.), Abraham Dans La
Bible Et Dans La Tradition Juive, PubIIB, Bruxelles, Institutum Iudaicum, 1977, pp. 1-39.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 384
DeSilva, D. A., 'Why Did God Choose Abraham?', BRev, Vol. 16, No. 3, (2000), pp. 16-44.
Di Nòla, A. M., 'Abramo', in A. M. Di Nòla (ed.), Enciclopedia Delle Religioni, 1, Florence,
Vallecchi, 1970, pp. 6-19.
Dickson, J., Mission-Commitment In Ancient Judaism And In The Pauline Communities, WUNT 2.
Reihe, 159, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Dietzfelbinger, C., Paulus und das Alte Testament: Die Hermeneutik des Paulus, untersucht an
seiner Deutung der Gestalt Abrahams, eds K. G. Steck and G. Eichholz, ThEx, Vol. 95,
München, Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1961.
Dillmann, A., Lexicon Linguae Aethiopicae Cum Indice Latino, Leipzig, 1865.
Dodd, C. H., According To The Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology, London,
Nisbet, 1952.
, The Epistle of Paul To The Romans, ed. J. Moffatt, MNTC, London, Hodder &
Stoughton, 1941.
Donaldson, T. L., Judaism And The Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (To 135 CE), Waco,
Baylor University Press, 2007
, Paul And The Gentiles: Remapping The Apostle's Convictional World, Minneapolis,
Augsburg, 1997.
Dozeman, T. B., 'Sperma Abraam In John 8 And Related Literature: Cosmology And Judgment',
CBQ, Vol. 42, No. 3 pp. 342-358.
Drummond, J., Philo Judaeus; Or, The Jewish-Alexandrian Philosophy In Its Development And
Completion, 2 Vols., 1, London, Williams And Norgate, 1888.
Du Toit, A. B., 'A Tale of Two Cities: 'Tarsus Or Jerusalem' Revisited', NTS, Vol. 46, No. 3, (2000),
pp. 375-402.
Duncan, G. S., The Epistle Of Paul To The Galatians, ed. J. Moffatt, MNTC, London, Hodder And
Stoughton, 1934.
Dunn, G. D., Tertullian, The Early Church Fathers, New York, Routledge, 2004.
Dunn, J. D. G., 'In Quest of Paul's Theology: Retrospect And Prospect', in E. E. Johnson and D. M.
Hay (eds.), Pauline Theology, Vol. 4: Looking Back, Pressing On, Atlanta, Scholars Press,
1997.
, 'Jesus Tradition In Paul', in B. Chilton and C. A. Evans (eds.), Studying The Historical
Jesus: Evaluations of The State of Current Research, NTTS, Leiden, Brill, 1998.
, 'Prolegomena To A Theology of Paul', NTS, Vol. 40, No. 3, (1994), pp. 407-432.
, A Commentary On The Epistle To The Galatians, ed. H. Chadwick, BNTC, London,
A&C Black, 1993.
, Baptism In The Holy Spirit: A Re-Examination of The New Testament Teaching On The
Gift of The Spirit In Relation To Pentecostalism Today, London, SCM, 1970.
, Jesus, Paul, And The Law: Studies In Mark And Galatians, Louisville, John Knox, 1990.
, Romans 1-8, eds D. A. Hubbard and G. W. Barker, 2 Vols., 1, WBC, 38A, Dallas, Word
Books, 1988.
, Romans 9-16, eds D. A. Hubbard and G. W. Barker, 2 Vols., 2, WBC, Vol. 38B, Dallas,
BIBLIOGRAPHY 385
Word Books, 1988.
, The New Perspective On Paul, WUNT, Vol. 185, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
, The Theology of Paul The Apostle, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1998.
Edwards, D. R., Religion And Power: Pagans, Jews, And Christians In The Greek East, Oxford,
OUPress, 1996.
Edwards, J., The Works of Jonathan Edwards, 2 Vols., 1, London, Ball, Arnold & Co., 1840.
Edwards, M. J., Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, ed. T. C. Oden, ACCS, Vol. 8, Downers Grove,
InterVarsity, 1999.
Ego, B., 'Abraham als Urbild der Toratreue Israels: Traditionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen zu
einem Aspekt des biblischen Abrahambildes', in F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger (eds.),
Bund und Tora: Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer
und urchristlicher Tradition, WUNT, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1996, pp. 25-40.
, 'Abraham's Faith In The One God - A Motif of The Image of Abraham In Early Jewish
Literature', in H. Lichtenberger, F. V. Reiterer, and U. Mittmann-Richert (eds.), Biblical
Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2009, pp. 337-354.
, 'The Figure of Abraham In The Genesis Apocryphon's Re-narration of Genesis 12:10-20',
in D. K. Falk, et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 1 Revisited: Texts From Cave 1 Sixty Years After
Their Discovery: Proceedings of The Sixth Meeting of The IOQS In Ljubljana, STDJ,
Leiden, Brill, 2010, pp. 233-246.
Eisenbaum, P., 'Paul As The New Abraham', in R. A. Horsley (ed.), Paul And Politics: Ekklesia,
, Paul Was Not A Christian: The Original Message of A Misunderstood Apostle, New
York, Harper Collins, 2009.
Ellicott, C. J., St. Paul's Epistle To The Galatians 4th Edn., London, Longmans, 1867.
Elliott, N., The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Paul In The Shadow of Empire, Minneapolis,
Fortress, 2010.
Elliott, S. M., 'Choose Your Mother, Choose Your Master: Galatians 4:21-5:21 In The Shadow of
The Anatolian Mother of The Gods', JBL, Vol. 118, (1999), pp. 661-683.
Ellis, E. E., Paul's Use of The Old Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker, 1981.
, The Old Testament In Early Christianity: Canon And Interpretation In The Light of
Modern Research, WUNT, Vol. 54, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1991.
Engler, E., Reward And Punishment In Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, Ph. D.
dissertation, McMaster University, Hamilton, 2012.
Enns, P., 'The "Moveable Well" In 1 Cor 10:4: An Extrabiblical Tradition In An Apostolic Text',
BBR, Vol. 6, (1996), pp. 23-38.
, Inspiration And Incarnation: Evangelicals And The Problem of The Old Testament,
Grand Rapids, Baker, 2005.
Enslin, M. S., 'Paul And Gamaliel', JR, Vol. 7, No. 4, (1927), pp. 360-375.
Erasmus, D., Paraphrases On Romans And Galatians, ed. R. D. Sider, trans. J. B. Payne, A. Rabil,
and W. S. Smith, Collected Works of Erasmus, Vol. 42, Toronto, University of Toronto
BIBLIOGRAPHY 386
Press, 1984.
Fairweather, J., 'The Epistle To The Galatians And Classical Rhetoric: Part 3', TynBul, Vol. 45, No.
2, (1994), pp. 213-243.
, 'The Epistle To The Galatians And Classical Rhetoric: Parts 1&2', TynBul, Vol. 45, No. 1,
(1994), pp. 1-38.
Fee, G. D., The First Epistle To The Corinthians, ed. F. F. Bruce 2nd Edn., NIBCNT, Grand Rapids,
Eerdmans, 1987.
Feiler, B., Abraham: A Journey To The Heart of Three Faiths, New York, HarperCollins, 2004.
Feldman, L. H., 'Abraham The Greek Philosopher In Josephus', TAPA, Vol. 99, No. 1, (1968), pp.
143-156.
, 'Hellenizations In Josephus' Jewish Antiquities: The Portrait of Abraham', in L. H.
Feldman and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, Detroit, Wayne State
, 'Use, Authority And Exegesis of Mikra In The Writings of Josephus', in M. J. Mulder and
H. Sysling (eds.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading And Interpretation of The Hebrew Bible
In Ancient Judaism And Early Christianity, CRINT 2, 1, Assen, Van Gorcum, 1988, pp. 455-
518.
, Jew And Gentile In The Ancient World: Attitudes And Interactions From Alexander To
Justinian, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1996.
, Josephus's Interpretation of The Bible, HCS, Vol. 27, Berkeley, University of California
Press, 1998.
, Judaism And Hellenism Reconsidered, JSJSup, Vol. 107, Leiden, Brill, 2006.
, Philo's Portrayal of Moses In The Context of Ancient Judaism, Notre Dame, University
of Notre Dame Press, 2007.
, Studies In Josephus' Rewritten Bible, JSJSup, Vol. 58, Leiden, Brill, 1998.
Fine, S., Art And Judaism In The Greco-Roman World: Toward A New Jewish Archaeology,
Finlan, S., The Background And Content of Paul's Cultic Atonement Metaphors, Academia Biblica,
Vol. 19, Leiden, Brill, 2004.
Fisk, B. N., 'Paul Among The Storytellers: Reading Romans 11 In The Context of Rewritten Bible',
in C. D. Stanley (ed.), Paul And Scripture: Extending The Conversation, SBLECL, Atlanta,
SBL, 2012, pp. 55-94.
, Do You Not Remember?: Scripture, Story And Exegesis In The Rewritten Bible of
Pseudo-Philo, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 2001.
Flebbe, J., Solus Deus: Untersuchungen zur Rede von Gott im Brief des Paulus an die Römer, ed.
M. Wolter, et. al., BZNW, Vol. 158, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2008.
Flusser, D., 'Paganism In Palestine', in S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People In The First
Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural, And Religious Life And
Institutions, CRINT, 2, Amsterdam, Van Gorcum, 1988, pp. 1065-1100.
Foester, W., 'ajsebhvV ktl.', in G. Kittel (ed.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, 7,
Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer, 1971, p. 188.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 387
Fornberg, T., 'Abraham In The Time of Christ', SEÅ, Vol. 64, (1999), pp. 115-123.
Fraade, S. D., 'Rabbinic Midrash And Ancient Jewish Biblical Interpretation', in C. E. Fonrobert and
M. A. Jaffee (eds.), Cambridge Companion To The Talmud And Rabbinic Literature,
Cambridge, CUPress, 2007, pp. 99-120.
France, R. T., The Gospel According To Matthew, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1985.
Franxman, T. W., Genesis And The "Jewish Antiquities" of Flavius Josephus, BibOr, 35, Rome,
Biblical Institute Press, 1979.
Frede, D., 'Stoic Determinism', in B. Inwood (ed.), The Cambridge Companion To The Stoics,
Frede, M., 'The Case For Pagan Monotheism In Greek And Graeco-Roman Antiquity', in S.
Mitchell and P. Van Nuffelen (eds.), One God: Pagan Monotheism In The Roman Empire,
Fredriksen, P., Augustine And The Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews And Judaism, New York,
Doubleday, 2008.
Fretheim, T. E., Abraham: Trials of Family And Faith, ed. J. L. Crenshaw, SPOT, South Carolina,
The University of South Carolina Press, 2007.
Frevel, C., ''Separate Yourselves From Gentiles' (Jubilees 22:16): Intermarriage In The Book of
Jubilees', in C. Frevel (ed.), Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage And Group Identity In The
Second Temple Period, New York, T&T Clark, 2011, pp. 220-250.
Frey, J. B., 'L'Apocalypse d'Abraham', Dictionaire De La Bible Supplement, 1, Paris, Letouzey Et
Ane, 1928-1966, pp. 28-33.
Freyne, S., Galilee From Alexander The Great To Hadrian, 323BCE to 135CE: A Study of Second
Temple Judaism, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1998.
Friberg, T., Friberg, B., and Miller, N. F., Analytical Lexicon To The Greek New Testament, Victoria,
Trafford, 2005.
Frick, F. S., 'Ecology, Agriculture And Patterns of Settlement', in R. E. Clements (ed.), The World of
Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological, And Political Perspectives, Cambridge,
CUPress, 1989, pp. 67-93.
Frishman, J., ''And Abraham Had Faith': But In What? Ephrem And The Rabbis On Abraham And
God's Blessings', in E. Grypeou and H. Spurling (eds.), The Exegetical Encounter Between
Jews And Christians In Late Antiquity, JCPS, Leiden, Brill, 2009, pp. 163-179.
Fuglseth, K. S., '[Review:] Philo Judaeus: His Universe of Discourse By Naomi G. Cohen', JSJ,
Vol. 27, No. 3, (1996), pp. 338-342.
Fuller, A. G., The Complete Works of Rev. Andrew Fuller, 2 Vols., 2, Boston, Lincoln, Edmands &
Co., 1833.
Fung, R. Y. K., 'Revelation And Tradition: The Origins of Paul's Gospel', EvQ, Vol. 57, No. 1,
(1985), pp. 23-41.
, The Epistle To The Galatians, ed. F. F. Bruce, NIBCNT, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1988.
Gager, J. G. G., 'Some Notes On Paul's Conversion', NTS, Vol. 27, No. 5, (1981), pp. 697-704.
, Moses In Greco-Roman Paganism, SBLMS, Vol. 16, Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1972.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 388
Gamble, H. Y., Books And Readers In The Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts, New
Haven, Yale University Press, 1995.
Garland, D. E., 1 Corinthians, ed. M. Silva, BECNT, Grand Rapids, Baker, 2003.
, 2 Corinthians, NAC, Vol. 29, Nashville, B&H, 1999.
Garlington, D. B., 'A "New Perspective" Reading of Central Texts In Romans 1-4', (2006).
, 'Paul's "Partisan ἐκ" And The Question of Justification In Galatians', JBL, Vol. 127, No.
3, (2008), pp. 567-589.
, An Exposition of Galatians: A Reading From The New Perspective 3rd. Edn., Eugene,
Wipf & Stock, 2007.
, Faith, Obedience And Perseverance: Aspects of Paul's Letter To The Romans, 79,
WUNT, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1994.
Gathercole, S. J., 'Justified By Faith, Justified By His Blood: The Evidence of Romans 3:21-4:25',
in D. A. Carson, M. A. Seifrid, and P. T. O'Brien (eds.), Justification And Variegated
Nomism (Vol. 2): The Paradoxes of Paul, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2004, pp. 147-184.
, Where Is Boasting?: Early Jewish Soteriology And Paul's Response In Romans 1-5,
Geljon, A. and Runia, D. T., Philo of Alexandria: On Cultivation: Introduction, Translation, And
Commentary, eds G. E. Sterling and D. T. Runia, PACS, Vol. 4, Leiden, Brill, 2012.
Georgi, D., The Opponents of Paul In Second Corinthians, ed. J. Riches, Studies of The New
Testament And Its World, Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1986.
Gerhardsson, B., Memory And Manuscript: Oral Tradition And Written Transmission In Rabbinic
Judaism And Early Christianity; With, Tradition And Transmission In Early Christianity,
trans. E. J. Sharpe, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1998.
Ginzberg, L., The Legends of The Jews, trans. H. Szold, 5 Vols., Philadelphia, The Jewish
Publication Society of America, 1909-1938.
Goldenberg, R., 'The Destruction of The Jerusalem Temple: Its Meaning And Its Consequences', in
S. T. Katz (ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 4, The Late Roman-Rabbinic
Period, Cambridge, CUPress, 2006, pp. 191-205.
Goldingay, J. E., Old Testament Theology: Israel's Life, 3 Vols., 3, Downers Grove, InterVarsity,
2009.
Gonzales, R. R., Where Sin Abounds: The Spread of Sin And The Curse In The Book of Genesis
With Special Focus On The Patriarchal Narratives, Eugene, Wipf & Stock, 2009.
Goodenough, E. R., An Introduction To Philo Judaeus 2nd Edn., Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1962.
, By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism, Amsterdam, Philo Press,
1969.
Goodman, M., 'Religious Reactions To 70: The Limitations of The Evidence', in D. R. Schwartz and
W. Zeev (eds.), Was 70 CE A Watershed In Jewish History? On Jews And Judaism Before
And After The Destruction of The Second Temple, AGJU, Leiden, Brill, 2012, pp. 509-516.
, 'The Meaning of 'Fisci Iudaici Calumnia Sublata' On The Coinage of Nerva', in S. J. D.
Cohen and J. J. Schwartz (eds.), Studies In Josephus And The Varieties of Ancient Judaism:
Louis H. Feldman Jubilee Volume, Leiden, Brill, 2007, pp. 81-89.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 389
, 'Trajan And The Origins of The Bar Kokhba War', in P. Schäfer (ed.), The Bar Kokhba
War Reconsidered, TSAJ, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2003, pp. 23-30.
, Rome And Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations, New York, Knopf, 2007.
, The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of The Jewish Revolt Against Rome, A.D. 66-
70, Cambridge, CUPress, 1993.
Grabbe, L. L., 'Philo And Aggada: A Response To B. J. Bamberger', SPhA, Vol. 3, (1991), pp. 153-
166.
, A History of The Jews And Judaism In The Second Temple Period: Volume 2. The
Coming of The Greeks: The Early Hellenistic Period (335-175 BCE), London, T&T Clark,
2008.
Granerød, G., Abraham And Melchizedek: Scribal Activity of Second Temple Times In Genesis 14
And Psalm 110, BZAW, Bd. 406, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2010.
Green, J. B., 1 Peter, Eerdmans, 2007.
, The Gospel of Luke, NIBCNT, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1997.
Green, W. S., 'What Do We Really Know About The Pharisees, And How Do We Know It?', in J.
Neusner and B. Chilton (eds.), In Quest of The Historical Pharisees, Waco, Baylor
Gruen, E. S., 'Roman Perspectives On The Jews In The Age of The Great Revolt', in A. M. Berlin
and J. A. Overman (eds.), The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, And Ideology, New
York, Routledge, 2002, pp. 27-42.
Guerra, A. J., 'Romans 4 As Apologetic Theology', HTR, Vol. 81, No. 3, (1988), pp. 251-270.
, Romans And The Apologetic Tradition: The Purpose, Genre And Audience of Paul's
Letter, SNTSMS, 81, Cambridge, CUPress, 1995.
Guigui, A., 'Le Sacrifice D'Isaac (Gn 22,1)', in P.-M. Bogaert (ed.), Abraham Dans La Bible Et
Dans La Tradition Juive, PubIIB, Bruxelles, Institutum Iudaicum, 1977, pp. 89-117.
Guillet, J., 'Figure d'Abraham dans l'Ancien Testament', CahS, Vol. 5, No. 2, (1951), pp. 31-43
(123-135).
Haacker, K., Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen
Testament, Band 6, Leipzig, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1999.
, The Theology of Paul's Letter To The Romans, New Testament Theology, Cambridge,
CUPress, 2003.
Haas, C., 'Job's Perseverance In The Testament of Job', in M. A. Knibb and P. W. Van Der Horst
(eds.), Studies On The Testament of Job, SNTSMS, Cambridge, CUPress, 1989, pp. 117-
154.
Halpern-Amaru, B., 'Flavius Josephus And The Book of Jubilees: A Question of Source', HUCA,
Vol. 72, (2001), pp. 15-44.
Handford, S. A., Langenscheidt's Latin-English Dictionary, Berlin-Schöneberg, Druckhaus
Langenscheidt, 1955.
Hanneken, T. R., The Book of Jubilees Among The Apocalypses, Ph. D. Dissertation, University of
Notre Dame, Notre Dame, 2008.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 390
Hansen, G. W., Abraham In Galatians: Epistolary And Rhetorical Contexts, ed. D. Hill, JSNTSup,
29, Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1989.
Hanson, A. T., Studies In Paul's Technique And Theology, London, SPCK, 1974.
Hardin, J. K., Galations And The Imperial Cult: A Critical Analysis of The First-Century Social
Context of Paul's Letter, WUNT 2. Reihe, 237, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Harl, M., Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit: Introduction, Traduction Et Notes, eds R. Arnaldez, J.
Pouilloux, and C. Mondésert, PAPM (Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie), Vol. 15, Paris,
Éditions du CERF, 1966.
Harlow, D. C., 'Idolatry And Alterity: Israel And The Nations In The Apocalypse of Abraham', in D.
C. Harlow, et al. (eds.), The "Other" In Second Temple Judaism: Essays In Honor of John J.
Collins, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2011, pp. 302-330.
Harmon, M. S., She Must And Shall Go Free: Paul's Isaianic Gospel In Galatians, BZNW, Vol.
Harrington, D. J., 'Abraham Traditions In The Testament of Abraham And In The "Rewritten Bible"
of The Intertestamental Period', in G. W. E. Nickelsburg (ed.), Studies On The Testament of
Abraham, SBLSCS, Missoula, Scholars Press, 1976, pp. 165-171.
, The Hebrew Fragments of Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum Preserved In
The Chronicles of Jerahmeel, Texts And Translations 3, Pseudepigrapha Series 3, Missoula,
SBL, 1974.
Harrison, J. R., Paul And The Imperial Authorities At Thessalonica And Rome: A Study In The
Conflict of Ideology, ed. J. Frey, WUNT, 273, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
Harrisville, R. A., III, The Figure of Abraham In The Epistles of St. Paul: In The Footsteps of
Abraham, San Francisco, Mellen, 1992.
Hay, D. M., 'Philo of Alexandria', in D. A. Carson, P. T. O'Brien, and M. A. Seifrid (eds.),
Justification And Variegated Nomism (Vol. 1): The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism,
WUNT, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2001, pp. 357-380.
Hayes, C. E., Gentile Impurities And Jewish Identities: Intermarriage And Conversion From The
Bible To The Talmud, Oxford, OUPress, 2002.
Hayes, J. G., Solving Stoicheia: Elements of Paul's Argument In Galatians 4:1-11 And Their
Relation To Euhemerism In Hellenistic Jewish Traditions, M.T.S., Emory University,
Atlanta, 1995.
Hays, R. B., Echoes of Scripture In The Letters of Paul, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1989.
, First Corinthians, IBC, Louisville, John Knox, 2011.
, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11 2nd Edn.,
SBLDS, 56, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2002.
Hayward, C. T. R., Targums And The Transmission of Scripture Into Judaism And Christianity,
Studies In The Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture, Vol. 10, Leiden, Brill, 2010.
Hegedus, T., Early Christianity And Ancient Astrology, ed. G. L. Bray, Patristic Studies, Vol. 6, New
York, Peter Lang, 2007.
Helyer, L. R., Exploring Jewish Literature of The Second Temple Period: A Guide For New
Testament Studies, Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 2002.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 391
Hempel, C., 'The Place of The Book of Jubilees At Qumran And Beyond', in T. Lim, et al. (eds.),
The Dead Sea Scrolls In Their Historical Context, London, T&T Clark, 2004, pp. 187-196.
Hendel, R., Remembering Abraham: Culture, Memory, And History In The Hebrew Bible, Oxford,
OUPress, 2005.
Hengel, M. and Schwemer, A. M., Paul Between Damascus And Antioch: The Unknown Years,
trans. J. Bowden, London, SCM, 1997.
, 'The Pre-Christian Paul', in J. Lieu, J. North, and T. Rajak (eds.), The Jews Among
Pagans And Christians In The Roman Empire, New York, Routledge, 1992.
, Judaism And Hellenism: Studies In Their Encounter In Palestine During The Early
Hellenistic Period, trans. J. Bowden, 2 Vols., 1, London, SCM, 1974.
, The 'Hellenization' of Judaea In The First Century After Christ, trans. J. Bowden,
London, SCM, 1989.
, The Pre-Christian Paul, trans. J. Bowden, London, SCM, 1991.
Henze, M., 'Daniel And Jubilees', in G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba (eds.), Enoch And The Mosaic
Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2009, pp. 52-66.
Hezser, C., Jewish Literacy In Roman Palestine, M. Hengel and P. Schäfer (eds.), TSAJ, Vol. 81,
, Jewish Travel In Antiquity, TSAJ, Vol. 144, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
Hilgert, E., 'Philo Judaeus Et Alexandrinus: The State of The Problem', in J. P. K. Kenney (ed.), The
School of Moses: Studies In Philo And Hellenistic Religion; In Memory of Horst R.
Moehring, BJS, Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1995, pp. 1-15.
Hincks, E. Y., 'The Meaning of The Phrase τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσµου In Gal. 4. 3 And Col. 2. 8', JBL,
Vol. 15, No. 1/2, (1896), pp. 183-192.
Hindy, N., 'The Quest For Perfection In Ancient Judaism', Past Renewals: Interpretative Authority,
Renewed Revelation And The Quest For Perfection In Jewish Antiquity, JSJSup, Leiden,
Brill, 2010, pp. 219-234.
Hock, R. F., 'Paul And Greco-Roman Education', in J. P. Sampley (ed.), Paul In The Greco-Roman
World: A Handbook, Harrisburg, Trinity Press, 2003, pp. 198-227.
Hodge, C., Commentary On The Epistle To The Romans, Philadelphia, Alfred Martien, 1873.
Hofius, O., Paulusstudien, 2 Vols., Vol. 2, WUNT, Vol. 143, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2002.
Hooker, M. D., 'Beyond The Things That Are Written? Saint Paul's Use of Scripture', in G. K. Beale
(ed.), The Right Doctrine From The Wrong Text? Essays On The Use of The Old Testament
In The New, Grand Rapids, Baker, 1994, pp. 279-294.
Horn, F. W., 'Juden und Heiden: Aspekte der Verhältnisbestimmung in den paulinischen Briefen,
Ein Gespräch mit Krister Stendahl ', in M. Bachmann and J. Woyke (eds.), Lutherische und
neue Paulusperspektive: Beiträge zu einem Schlüsselproblem der gegenwärtigen
exegetischen Diskussion, WUNT, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
Hultgren, A. J., Paul's Letter To The Romans, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2011.
Instone Brewer, D., Techniques & Assumptions In Jewish Exegesis Before 70 C. E., TSAJ, Vol. 30,
BIBLIOGRAPHY 392
, and Harland, P. A., 'Jewish Associations In Roman Palestine: Evidence From The
Mishnah', JGrCJ, Vol. 5, (2008), pp. 200-221.
, 'James As A Sermon On The Trials of Abraham', in P. J. Williams, et al. (eds.), The New
Testament In Its First Century Setting: Essays On Context And Background In Honour of B.
W. Winter On His 65th Birthday, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2004, pp. 250-268.
Irvin, M. T., Paul's Use of The Abraham Image In Romans And Galatians, Ph. D. dissertation, The
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Kentucky, 1985.
Isaac, B. H., The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army In The East 2nd. Edn., Oxford, OUPress,
1992.
, The Near East Under Roman Rule: Selected Papers, Leiden, Brill, 1998.
Isaac, E., 'New Light Upon The Book of Enoch From Newly-Found Ethiopic Mss', JAOS, Vol. 103,
No. 2, (1983), pp. 399-411.
Jackson, D. R., 'Demonising Gilgameš', in J. Azize and N. Weeks (eds.), Gilgameš And The World
of Assyria, ANESS, Leuven, Peeters, 2007, pp. 107-114.
Jacob, E., 'Abraham et sa Signification pour la Foi Chrétienne', RHPR, Vol. 42, (1962), pp. 148-156.
Jacobs, I., 'The Midrashic Background For James II. 21-23', NTS, Vol. 22, No. 4, (1976), pp. 457-
464.
Jacobson, H., A Commentary On Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum: With Latin Text
And English Translation, 2 Vols., 1, AGJU, Vol. 31, Leiden, Brill, 1996.
Jagersma, H., 'Quelques Remarques Sur Genèse 18,22b-33', in P.-M. Bogaert (ed.), Abraham Dans
La Bible Et Dans La Tradition Juive, PubIIB, Bruxelles, Institutum Iudaicum, 1977, pp. 62-
88.
James, M. R. and Feldman, L. H., The Biblical Antiquities of Philo, ed. H. M. Orlinsky, New York,
KTAV, 1971.
Jeremias, J., 'Paulus als Hillelit', in E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox (eds.), Neotestamentica et Semitica,
, '=Abraavm ktl.', in G. Kittel (ed.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, 1,
Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer, 1971, pp. 8-9.
Jewett, R., 'Ecumenical Theology For The Sake of Mission', in D. M. Hay and E. E. Johnson (eds.),
Pauline Theology, Vol. III: Romans, Minneapolis, Fortress, 1995, pp. 89-108.
, Romans, ed. E. J. Epp, Hermeneia, Minneapolis, Fortress, 2007.
Jobes, K. H. J. and Silva, M., Invitation To The Septuagint, Grand Rapids, Baker, 2000.
, 'Jerusalem, Our Mother: Metalepsis And Intertextuality In Galatians 4:21-31', WTJ, Vol.
55, (1993), pp. 299-320.
Johnson, L. T., Reading Romans, Macon, Smyth & Helwys, 2001.
, The Gospel of Luke, ed. D. J. Harrington, SP, Vol. 3, Collegeville, The Liturgical Press,
1991.
Jones, K. R., Jewish Reactions To The Destruction of Jerusalem In A.D. 70: Apocalypses And
Related Pseudepigrapha, JSJSup, Vol. 151, Leiden, Brill, 2011.
Josephus, F., Judean Antiquities: Books 1-4: Translation And Commentary, ed. S. Mason, trans. L.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 393
H. Feldman, pts. 1-4, Leiden, Brill, 2000.
, The New Complete Works of Josephus, trans. W. Whiston, Grand Rapids, Kregel, 1999.
Kaiser, O., Isaiah 13-39, trans. R. A. Wilson, Old Testament Library, Philadelphia, Westminster
Press, 1974.
Kamesar, A. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion To Philo, Cambridge, CUPress, 2009.
, 'Philo, Grammatikē, And The Narrative Aggada', in J. C. Reeves and J. Kampen (eds.),
Pursuing The Text: Studies In Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder On The Occasion of His
Seventieth Birthday, JSOTSup, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 1994.
Kamudzandu, I., Abraham As A Spiritual Ancestor In Romans 4 In The Context of The Roman
Appropriation of Ancestors: Some Implications of Paul's Use of Abraham For Shona
Christians In Postcolonial Zimbabwe, Ph. D. dissertation, Texas Christian University, Texas,
2007.
, Abraham As Spiritual Ancestor: A Postcolonial Zimbabwean Reading of Romans 4, BIS,
Vol. 100, Leiden, Brill, 2010.
Käsemann, E., 'The Faith of Abraham In Romans 4', Perspectives On Paul, London, SCM, 1971.
, Commentary On Romans, trans. G. W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1980.
Kasher, A., Jews And Hellenistic Cities In Eretz-Israel: Relations of The Jews In Eretz-Israel With
The Hellenistic Cities During The Second Temple Period (332 BCE - 70 CE), M. Hengel and
P. Schäfer (eds.), TSAJ, Vol. 21, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1990.
Keck, L. E., 'What Makes Romans Tick?', in D. M. Hay and E. E. Johnson (eds.), Pauline Theology,
Vol. III: Romans, Minneapolis, Fortress, 1995, pp. 3-29.
Keener, C. S., A Commentary On The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1999.
, The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2009.
Keightley, G. M., 'Christian Collective Memory And Paul's Knowledge of Jesus', in A. Kirk and T.
Thatcher (eds.), Memory, Tradition, And Text: Uses of The Past In Early Christianity,
SemeiaSt, Atlanta, SBL, 2005, pp. 129-150.
Kerkeslager, A., 'The Jews In Egypt And Cyrenaica, 66-c. 235 CE', in S. T. Katz (ed.), The
Cambridge History of Judaism: Vol. 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, Cambridge,
CUPress, 2006, pp. 53-67.
Kern, P. H., Rhetoric And Galatians: Assessing An Approach To Paul's Epistle, ed. R. Bauckham,
SNTSMS, 101, Cambridge, CUPress, 1998.
Kilgallen, J., The Stephen Speech: A Literary And Redactional Study of Acts 7:2-53, AnBib, 67,
Rome, Biblical Institute Press, 1976.
Kim, S., Paul And The New Perspective: Second Thoughts On The Origin of Paul's Gospel, Grand
, The Origin of Paul's Gospel, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1981.
King, D. H., 'Paul And The Tannaim: A Study In Galatians', WTJ, Vol. 45, (1983), pp. 361-369.
Kittel, G. and Friedrich, G. (eds.), Theological Dictionary of The New Testament, trans. G. W.
Bromiley, 10 Vols., Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1964-1976.
Klawans, J., Josephus And The Theologies of Ancient Judaism, Oxford, OUPress, 2012.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 394
Knibb, M. A., Translating The Bible: The Ethiopic Version of The Old Testament, Oxford, OUPress,
1999.
Knox, W. L., 'Abraham And The Quest For God', HTR, Vol. 28, No. 1, (1935), pp. 55-60.
Koepp, W., 'Die Abraham-Midraschimkette des Galaterbriefes als das vorpaulinische
heidenchristliche Urtheologumenon', WZUR2 GS3, (1952-53), pp. 181-187.
Koester, H., Introduction To The New Testament: History, Culture, And Religion of The Hellenistic
Age 2nd Edn., Berlin, de Gruyter, 1995.
Kohler, K., 'The Pre-Talmudic Haggada II. The Apocalypse of Abraham And Its Kindred', JQR, Vol.
7, No. 4, (1895), pp. 581-606.
Kolenkow, A., 'The Ascription of Romans 4:5', HTR, Vol. 60, No. 2, (1967).
Köstenberger, A. J., 'Hearing The Old Testament In The New: A Response', in S. E. Porter (ed.),
Hearing The Old Testament In The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 255-
294.
Kovelman, A., Between Alexandria And Jerusalem: The Dynamic of Jewish And Hellenistic
Culture, BRLJ, 21, Leiden, Brill, 2005.
Kraabel, A. T., 'Immigrants, Exiles, Expatriates, And Missionaries', in L. Bormann, K. D. Tredici,
and A. Standhartinger (eds.), Religious Propaganda And Missionary Competition In The
New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi, NovTSup, Leiden, Brill, 1994, pp.
71-88.
Kreuzer, S., '"Der den Gottlosen rechtfertigt" (Röm 4,5) Die frühjüdische Einordnung von Gen 15
als Hintergrund für das Abrahambild und die Rechtfertigungslehre des Paulus', TBei, Vol.
33, (2002), pp. 208-219.
Kruse, C. G., Paul's Letter To The Romans, ed. D. A. Carson, PNTCS, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans,
2012.
Kugel, J. L., 'On The Interpolations In The Book of Jubilees', RevQ, Vol. 24, (2009), pp. 215-272.
, A Walk Through Jubilees: Studies In The Book of Jubilees And The World of Its Creation,
JSJSup, Vol. 156, Leiden, Brill, 2012.
, The Bible As It Was, Cambridge, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1997.
, The Ladder of Jacob: Ancient Interpretations of The Biblical Story of Jacob And His
Children, Woodstock, Princeton University Press, 2006.
, Traditions of The Bible: A Guide To The Bible As It Was At The Start of The Common
Era, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1998.
Kulik, A., Retroverting Slavonic Pseudepigrapha: Toward The Original of The Apocalypse of
Abraham, ed. J. R. Adair, Text-Critical Studies, 3, Atlanta, SBL, 2004.
Kümmel, W. G., Introduction To The New Testament: Rev. Ed., H. C. Kee (ed.), trans. H. C. Kee,
Nashville, Abingdon, 1975.
Kuschel, K.-J., Abraham: Sign of Hope For Jews, Christians, And Muslims, trans. J. Bowden, New
York, Continuum, 1995.
Kvanvig, H. S., Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical, And Enochic: An Intertextual Reading,
JSJSup, Vol. 149, Leiden, Brill, 2011.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 395
Ladd, G. E., 'Revelation And Tradition In Paul', in W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin (eds.), Apostolic
History And The Gospel: Biblical And Historical Essays Presented To F. F. Bruce On His
60th Birthday, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1970, pp. 223-230.
Lagrange, M.-J., Saint Paul Épitre Aux Galates 3rd. Edn., Paris, Gabalda, 1926.
Lambdin, T. O., Introduction To Classical Ethiopic (Ge'ez), HSS, Vol. 24, Missoula, Scholars Press,
1978.
Lambert, D., 'Did Israel Believe That Redemption Awaited Its Repentance? The Case of Jubilees 1',
CBQ, Vol. 68, No. 4, (2006), pp. 631-650.
Lambrecht, J., ''Abraham, Notre Père À Tous'. La Figure D'Abraham Dans Les Ecrits Pauliniens', in
P.-M. Bogaert (ed.), Abraham Dans La Bible Et Dans La Tradition Juive, PubIIB, Bruxelles,
Institutum Iudaicum, 1977, pp. 118-163.
, 'Paul's Logic In Romans 3:29-30', JBL, Vol. 119, No. 3, (2000), pp. 526-528.
, 'Romans 4: A Critique of N. T. Wright', JSJ, Vol. 36, No. 2, (2013), pp. 189-194.
Lampe, S. J., Abraham In Luke-Acts: The Appropriation of Lucan Theology Through Old Testament
Figures, Ph. D. dissertation, Pontificia Universita Gregoriana, Vatican City, 1993.
Lane, E. N., 'Men: A Neglected Cult of Roman Asia Minor', in W. Haase (ed.), ANRW II.18.3,
Berlin, de Gruyter, 1990, pp. 2161-2174.
Lange, A., 'The Essene Position On Magic And Divination', in M. J. Bernstein, F. G. Martínez, and
J. Kampen (eds.), Legal Texts And Legal Issues: Proceedings of The Second Meeting of The
International Organization For Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995: Published In Honour of
Joseph M. Baumgarten, STDJ, Leiden, Brill, 1997.
Lanne, E., 'La «Xeniteia» d'Abraham Dans l'Oeuvre d'Irénée', Irén, Vol. 47, (1974), pp. 163-187.
Layman, F. D., Paul's Use of Abraham: An Approach To Paul's Understanding of History, Ph. D.
dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, 1973.
Lee, S. M., The Cosmic Drama of Salvation: A Study of Paul's Undisputed Writings From
Anthropological And Cosmological Perspectives, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
Leenhardt, F. J., 'Abraham et la Conversion de Saul de Tarse, Suivi d'une Note Sur 'Abraham Dans
Jean VIII'', RHPR, Vol. 53, (1973), pp. 331-351.
Legrand, T., 'Le Thème Du Feu Dans Les Traditions Targumiques Du Pentateuque', in F. Vion-
Delphin and F. Lassus (eds.), Les Hommes Et Le Feu De l'Antiquité à Nos Jours: Du Feu
Mythique Et Bienfaiteur Au Feu Dévastateur, ALUB, Besançon, Presses Universitaires De
Franch-Comté, 2007, pp. 29-40.
Lemaire, A., 'Qumran Research In France', in D. Dimant (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls In Scholarly
Perspective: A History of Research, STDJ, Leiden, Brill, 2012.
Leslau, W., Comparative Dictionary of Ge'ez (Classical Ethiopic), Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz,
1991.
Levenson, J. D., 'The Conversion of Abraham To Judaism, Christianity, And Islam', in H. Najman
and J. H. Newman (eds.), The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays In Honor of James L.
Kugel, JSJSup, Leiden, Brill, 2004, pp. 3-40.
Levy, I. C., (trans. & ed.), The Letter To The Galatians, The Bible In Medieval Tradition, Vol. 1,
BIBLIOGRAPHY 396
Lewis, C. S., An Experiment In Criticism, Cambridge, CUPress, 2012.
Lewis, C. T. and Short, C., A Latin Dictionary: Founded On Andrews' Edition of Freund's Latin
Dictionary, Oxford, OUPress, 1879.
Licht, J., 'Apocalypse of Abraham', Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nd. Edn., 1, Detroit, Macmillan, 2007,
pp. 288-289.
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., and Jones, H. S., A Greek-English Lexicon: With A Revised Supplement
9th. Edn., Oxford, OUPress, 1996.
Liebermann, S., 'Jewish Life In Eretz Yisrael As Reflected In The Palestinian Talmud', in M. Davis
(ed.), Israel: Its Role In Civilization, New York, Harper, 1956.
Lieu, J. M., Christian Identity In The Jewish And Graeco-Roman World, Oxford, OUPress, 2004.
Lightfoot, J. B., Notes On Epistles of St Paul From Unpublished Commentaries, London,
Macmillan, 1895.
, Saint Paul's Epistle To The Galatians 7th Edn., London, Macmillian, 1881.
Lim, T. H., Pesharim, Companion To The Qumran Scrolls, Vol. 3, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic,
2002.
Limberis, V., 'The Provenance of The Caliphate Church: James 2.17-26 And Galatians 3
Reconsidered', in C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders (eds.), Early Christian Interpretation of The
Scriptures of Israel: Investigations And Proposals, JSNTSup, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic,
1997, pp. 397-420.
Lincoln, A. T., 'Abraham Goes To Rome: Paul's Treatment of Abraham In Romans 4', in M. J.
Wilkins and T. Paige (eds.), Worship, Theology And Ministry In The Early Church: Essays
In Honour of Ralph P. Martin, JSNTSup, Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1992, pp. 163-179.
Longenecker, B. W., Eschatology And The Covenant: A Comparison of 4 Ezra And Romans 1-11,
Ph. D. dissertation, Durham University, Durham, 1990.
, Rhetoric At The Boundaries: The Art And Theology of The New Testament Chain-Link
Transitions, Waco, Baylor University Press, 2005.
Longenecker, R. N., Biblical Exegesis In The Apostolic Period 2nd. Edn., Grand Rapids, Eerdmans,
1999.
, Galatians, ed. R. P. Martin, WBC, 41, Waco, Word Books, 1990.
, Introducing Romans: Critical Issues In Paul's Most Famous Letter, Grand Rapids,
Eerdmans, 2011.
, Studies In Hermeneutics, Christology, And Discipleship, Sheffield, Phoenix Press, 2004.
Lord, J. R., Abraham: A Study In Ancient Jewish And Christian Interpretation, Ph. D. dissertation,
Duke University, Durham, 1968.
Louw, J. E. and Nida, E. A., Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament: Based On Semantic
Domains, New York, UBS, 1989.
Lüdemann, G., Paulus, der Heidenapostel: Band I, Studien zur Chronologie, Forschungen zur
Religion und Literature des Alten und Neuen Testaments, Vol. 123, Göttingen, V&R, 1980.
Ludlow, J. W., Abraham Meets Death: Narrative Humor In The Testament of Abraham, Sheffield,
Sheffield Academic, 2002.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 397
Lührmann, D., Galatians, Minneapolis, Fortress, 1992.
Luther, M., Commentary on The Epistle To The Galatians, trans. T. Graebner, Grand Rapids,
Zondervan, 1949.
Lyu, E.-G., Sünde und Rechtfertigung bei Paulus, WUNT 2. Reihe, 318, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck,
2011.
MacDonald, N., 'Review: Paul, Monotheism And The People of God: The Significance of Abraham
Traditions For Early Judaism And Christianity', JTS, Vol. 57, No. 2, (2006), pp. 660-662.
Machiela, D. A., 'On The Importance of Being Abram: Genesis Apocryphon 18, Jubilees 10:1-13:4,
And Further Thoughts On A Literary Relationship', in E. F. Mason (ed.), A Teacher For All
Generations: Essays In Honor of James C. VanderKam: Vol. 1, JSJSup, Leiden, Brill, 2012,
pp. 715-736.
, 'Prayer In The Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls: A Catalogue And Overview', in J. Penner, K.
M. Penner, and C. Wassen (eds.), Prayer And Poetry In The Dead Sea Scrolls And Related
Literature: Essays In Honor of Eileen Schuller On The Occasion of Her 65th Birthday,
STDJ, Leiden, Brill, 2012, pp. 285-305.
Marguerat, D., Les Actes Des Apôtres (1-12), Genève, Labor Et Fides, 2007.
Markovic, D., 'Hyperbaton In The Greek Literary Sentence', GRBS, Vol. 46, (2006), pp. 127-146.
Marshall, I. H., The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC, Vol. 3, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1978.
Martens, J. W., One God, One Law: Philo of Alexandria On The Mosaic And Greco-Roman Law,
Studies In Philo of Alexandria And Mediterranean Antiquity, 2, Leiden, Brill, 2003.
Martin-Achard, R., Actualité d'Abraham, Bibliothèque Théologique, 44, Neuchâtel, Delachaux et
Niestlé, 1969.
Martin, R. A., Studies In The Life And Ministry of The Early Paul And Related Issues, Mellen,
Lampeter, 1993.
Martin, R. P., James, WBC, Vol. 48, Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 1988.
Martínez, F. G., Between Philology And Theology: Contributions To The Study of Ancient Jewish
Interpretation, H. Najman and E. J. C. Tigchelaar (eds.), JSJSup, 162, Leiden, Brill, 2013.
Martyn, J. L., 'Christ And The Elements of The Cosmos', Theological Issues In The Letters of Paul,
, Galatians, AB, 33A, New York, Doubleday, 1997.
Mason, S., ''Should Any Wish To Enquire Further' (Ant. 1.25): The Aim And Audience of
Josephus's Judean Antiquities/Life', in S. Mason (ed.), Understanding Josephus: Seven
Perspectives, JSPSup, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 1998, pp. 64-103.
, 'Figured Speech And Irony In T. Flavius Josephus', in J. Edmondson, S. Mason, and J.
Rives (eds.), Flavius Josephus And Flavian Rome, Oxford, OUPress, 2005, pp. 243-288.
, 'Of Audience And Meaning: Reading Josephus' Bellum Judaicum In The Context of A
Flavian Audience', in J. Sievers and G. Lembi (eds.), Josephus And Jewish History In
Flavian Rome And Beyond, JSJSup, Leiden, Brill, 2005, pp. 71-100.
Matera, F. J., Galatians, ed. D. J. Harrington, SP, Vol. 9, Collegeville, Liturgical Press, 1992.
Mathews, K. A., Genesis 11:27-50:26, 1B, NAC, Nashville, B&H, 2005.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 398
Mayer, G., 'Aspekte des Abrahambildes in der hellenistisch-jüdischen Literatur', EvT, Vol. 32,
(1972), pp. 118-127.
McFarland, O., 'Whose Abraham, Which Promise? Genesis 15.6 In Philo's De Virtutibus And
, The God Who Gives: Philo And Paul In Conversation, Ph. D. dissertation, Durham
University, Durham, 2013.
McKeown, J., Genesis, J. G. McConville and C. Bartholomew (eds.), The Two Horizons Old
Testament Commentary, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2008.
McKnight, S., The Letter of James, NIBCNT, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2011.
McLaren, J. S., Power And Politics In Palestine: The Jews And The Governing of Their Land
100BC-AD70, ed. D. Hill, JSNTSup, Vol. 63, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 1991.
, Turbulent Times?: Josephus And Scholarship On Judaea In The First Century CE, eds L.
L. Grabbe and J. H. Charlesworth, JSPSup, Vol. 29, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 1998.
McMinn, J. B., An Historical Treatment of The Greek Phrase 'Ta Stoicheia Tou Kosmou', Ph. D
dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Kentucky, 1951.
Mendelson, A., Philo's Jewish Identity, BJS, Vol. 161, Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1988.
, Secular Education In Philo of Alexandria, HUCM, Vol. 7, Cincinnati, Hebrew Union
College Press, 1982.
Meyer, H. A. W., The Epistle To The Romans, ed. W. P. Dickson, trans. J. C. Moore, 1, Critical And
Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament, 4, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1881.
Michaels, J. R., 'Paul And John The Baptist: An Odd Couple?', TynBul, Vol. 42, No. 2, (1991), pp.
245-260.
Millar, F., The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.–A.D. 337, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1993.
Miller, P., '"They Saw His Glory And Spoke of Him": The Gospel of John And The Old Testament',
in S. E. Porter (ed.), Hearing The Old Testament In The New Testament, Grand Rapids,
Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 127-151.
Mills, W. E. and Wilson, R. F., Mercer Commentary on the New Testament, Mercer University
Press, 2003.
Moo, D. J., 'The Christology of The Early Pauline Letters', in R. N. Longenecker (ed.), Contours of
Christology In The New Testament, MNTS, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2005, pp. 169-192.
, Galatians, Grand Rapids, Baker, 2013.
, The Epistle To The Romans, ed. G. D. Fee, NIBCNT, Vol. 6, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans,
1996.
, The Letter of James, TNTC, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1985.
, The Letters To The Colossians And To Philemon, ed. D. A. Carson, PNTCS, Grand
Moore-Crispin, D. R., 'Galatians 4:1-9: The Use And Abuse of Parallels', EvQ, Vol. 60, No. 3,
(1989).
Morgan, J., 'Select Passages of Scripture Considered: Remarks On Romans 4:5', OQR, Vol. 2,
(1846), pp. 128-131.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 399
Morris, L., Galatians: Paul's Charter of Christian Freedom, Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 1996.
, Luke, TNTC, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1988.
, The Epistle To The Romans, PNTCS, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1988.
Moshe, B. J., 'Pesher Habakkuk', in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of
The Dead Sea Scrolls, 2, Oxford, OUPress, 2000, pp. 647-650.
Mounce, R. H., Romans, NAC, Vol. 27, Nashville, B&H, 1995.
Moxnes, H., Theology In Conflict: Studies In Paul's Understanding of God In Romans, Leiden,
Brill, 1980.
Moyise, S., 'Quotations', As It Is Written: Studying Paul's Use of Scripture, Atlanta, SBL, 2008, pp.
15-28.
, Paul And Scripture: Studying The New Testament Use of The Old Testament, Grand
Rapids, Baker, 2010.
Mras, K. (ed.), Eusebius Werke: Achter Band, Die Praeparatio Evangelica, Erster Teil, Berlin,
Akademie Verlag, 1982.
Mühling, A., "Blickt auf Abraham, euren Vater": Abraham als Identifikationsfigur des Judentums in
der Zeit des Exils und des Zweiten Tempels, FRLANT, Vol. 236, Göttingen, V&R, 2011.
Müller, M., 'Die Abraham-Gestalt im Jubiläenbuch versuch einer Interpretation', SJOT, Vol. 10, No.
2, (1996), pp. 238-257.
Murphy, F. J., 'Retelling The Bible: Idolatry In Pseudo-Philo', JBL, Vol. 107, No. 2, (1988), pp. 275-
287.
, Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting The Bible, Oxford, OUPress, 1993.
Murray, G., Five Stages of Greek Religion, Mineola, Dover Publications, 2002.
Murray, J., The Epistle To The Romans: The English Text With Introduction, Exposition And Notes,
2 Vols., 2, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1997.
Nanos, M. D., 'Review: Paul, Monotheism and the People of God: The Significance of Abraham for
Early Judaism and Christianity', JBL, Vol. 124, No. 4, (2005), pp. 775-778.
Nave, G. D., The Role And Function of Repentance In Luke-Acts, Academica Biblica, Vol. 4,
Neusner, J., 'Judaism In A Time of Crisis: Four Responses To The Destruction of The Second
Temple', Neusner On Judaism: Vol. 1: History, Hampshire, Ashgate, 2004, pp. 399-413.
, 'Method And Substance In The History of Judaic Ideas: An Exercise', in R. Hamerton-
Kelly and R. Scroggs (eds.), Jews, Greeks, And Christians: Religious Cultures In Late
Antiquity: Essays In Honor of William David Davies, Leiden, Brill, 1976, pp. 89-111.
, Comparative Midrash: The Plan And Program of Genesis Rabbah And Leviticus
Rabbah, BJS, 111, Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1986.
, Early Rabbinic Judaism, Leiden, Brill, 1975.
, Midrash As Literature: The Primacy of Documentary Discourse, Lanham, University
Press of America, 1987.
, Persia And Rome In Classical Judaism, Lanham, University Press of America, 2008.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 400
, Rabbinic Literature And The New Testament: What We Cannot Show, We Do Not Know,
Valley Forge, Trinity Press, 1994.
, The Mishnah: A New Translation, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1988.
Neyrey, J. H., The Gospel of John In Cultural And Rhetorical Perspective, Grand Rapids,
Eerdmans, 2009.
Nicholls, P. H., The Structure And Purpose of The Testament of Job, Ph. D. dissertation, Hebrew
University of Jerusalem., Jerusalem, 1982.
Nickelsburg, G. W. E., 'Abraham The Convert: A Jewish Tradition And Its Use By The Apostle
Paul', in M. E. Stone and T. A. Bergren (eds.), Biblical Figures Outside The Bible,
Harrisburg, Trinity Press, 1998.
, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary On The Book of 1 Enoch: Chapters 1-36; 81-108, ed. K.
Baltzer, Minneapolis, Fortress, 2001.
Niehoff, M. R., 'Philo's Scholarly Inquiries Into The Story of Paradise', in M. Bockmuehl and G. G.
Stroumsa (eds.), Paradise In Antiquity: Jewish And Christian Views, Cambridge, CUPress,
2010.
, Jewish Exegesis And Homeric Scholarship In Alexandria, Cambridge, CUPress, 2011.
, Philo On Jewish Identity And Culture, TSAJ, 86, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2001.
Nisan, M., Identity And Civilization: Essays On Judaism, Christianity, And Islam, Boston,
University Press of America, 1999.
Nock, A. D., Conversion: The Old And The New In Religion From Alexander The Great To
Augustine of Hippo, Oxford, OUPress, 1933.
Ogilvie, R. M., Roman Literature And Society, Brighton, Harvester, 1980.
Orlov, A. A., ''The Gods of My Father Terah': Abraham The Iconoclast And The Polemics With The
Divine Body Traditions In The Apocalypse of Abraham', JSP, Vol. 18, No. 1, (2008), pp. 33-
53.
, 'Arboreal Metaphors And The Divine Body Traditions In The Apocalypse of Abraham',
HTR, Vol. 102, No. 4, (2009), pp. 439-451.
, 'Praxis of The Voice: The Divine Name Traditions In The "Apocalypse of Abraham"',
JBL, Vol. 127, No. 1, (2008), pp. 53-70.
Oswalt, J. N., The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66, NIBCOT, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1998.
Park, I. S., Paul And The Abraham Tradition: A Challenge For The Church Today, Ph. D.
dissertation, Drew University, Madison, 1985.
Parrot, A., Abraham et son temps, Cahiers d'archéologie biblique, No. 14, Neuchâtel, Éditions
Delachaux et Niestlé, 1962.
Pasetti, E. E., 'I temi di Abramo "peregrinus" e "advena" (Gen. XII. 1-3; 9-10): alla ricerca di una
tradizione esegetica antica', SROC, Vol. 5, (1982), pp. 13-46, 103-124, 141-155.
Pate, C. M., The Reverse of The Curse: Paul, Wisdom, And The Law, WUNT 2. Reihe, Vol. 114,
Pearce, S., 'Judaea Under Roman Rule 63 BCE–135 CE', in J. Barton (ed.), The Biblical World, 1,
London, Routledge, 2002, pp. 452-484.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 401
Peerbolte, L. J. L., Paul The Missionary, Contributions To Biblical Exegesis & Theology, Vol. 34,
Leuven, Peeters, 2003.
Pelikan, J. J., Christianity And Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology In The
Christian Encounter With Hellenism, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1993.
Pennington, A., 'The Apocalypse of Abraham', in H. F. D. Sparks (ed.), The Apocryphal Old
Testament, Oxford, OUPress, 1984, pp. 363-392.
Percer, L. R., 'Review: Paul, Monotheism And The People of God: The Significance of Abraham
Traditions For Early Judaism And Christianity', PRSt, Vol. 33, No. 4, (2006), pp. 514-517.
Perkins, P., Abraham's Divided Children: Galatians And The Politics of Faith, Harrisburg, Trinity
Press, 2001.
Peterson, E., ΕΙΣ ΘΕΟΣ: Epigraphische, formgeschichtliche und religionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchungen, Göttingen, V&R, 1926.
Philip, F., The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology, WUNT 2. Reihe, 194, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck,
2005.
Philonenko, M. and Philonenko-Sayar, B., 'L'Apocalypse D'Abraham', Sem, Vol. 31, (1981), pp. 1-
117.
, Joseph Et Aséneth: Introduction, Texte Critique, Traduction, Et Notes, StPB, 13, Leiden,
Brill, 1968.
Phua, R. L. S., Idolatry And Authority: A Study of 1 Corinthians 8.1-11.1 In The Light of The Jewish
Diaspora, Library of New Testament Studies, Vol. 299, London, T&T Clark, 2005.
Pitts, A. W., 'Review: Calvert-Koyzis: Paul, Monotheism', JGrCJ, Vol. 7, (2010), pp. R14-R17.
Platt, T. P., Novum Testamentum Domini Nostri Et Salvatoris Jesu Christi Aethiopice, London,
Richard Watts, 1830.
Pohlenz, M., 'Paulus und die Stoa', ZNW, Vol. 42, (1949), pp. 69-104.
Radjagukguk, R., τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσµου And Life With Christ: An Exegetical Study of Col 2:6-3:4,
Th.D dissertation, Lutheran School of Theology, Chicago, 1991.
Rahlfs, A., Septuaginta, 2 Vols., Stuttgart, Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935.
Rappaport, S., Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus, Wien, Verlag der Alexander Kohut
Memorial Foundation, 1930.
Ravid, L., 'Purity And Impurity In The Book of Jubilees', JSP, Vol. 13, No. 1, (2002), pp. 61-86.
Reed, A. Y., 'Abraham As Chaldean Scientist And Father of The Jews: Josephus, Ant. 1.154-168,
And The Greco-Roman Discourse About Astronomy/Astrology', JSJ, Vol. 35, No. 2, (2004),
pp. 119-158.
, 'The Construction And Subversion of Patriarchal Perfection: Abraham And Exemplarity
In Philo, Josephus, And The Testament of Abraham', JSJ, Vol. 40, (2009), pp. 185-212.
, Fallen Angels And The History of Judaism And Christianity: The Reception of Enochic
Literature, Cambridge, CUPress, 2005.
Reeve, A. and Screech, M. A. (eds.), Erasmus' Annotations On The New Testament: Galatians To
The Apocalypse: Facsimilie of The Final Latin Text With All Earlier Variants, Studies In
The History of Christian Thought, Leiden, Brill, 1993.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 402
Regev, E., 'From Enoch To John The Essene - An Analysis of Sect Development: 1 Enoch, Jubilees,
And The Essenes', in E. G. Chazon, B. H. Amaru, and R. A. Clements (eds.), New
Perspectives On Old Texts: Proceedings of The Tenth International Symposium of The Orion
Center For The Study of The Dead Sea Scrolls And Associated Literature, 9-11 January
2005, STDJ, Leiden, Brill, 2010, pp. 67-96.
Reggiani, C. K., 'La Simbologia Di Abramo In Filone Di Alessandria', in J. Driscoll and M.
Sheridan (eds.), Spiritual Progress: Studies In The Spirituality of Late Antiquity And Early
Monasticism, SA, Roma, Pontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo, 1994, pp. 13-28.
Reicke, B., The Epistles of James, Peter, And Jude, AB, Vol. 37, New York, Doubleday, 1964.
Rengstorf, K. H., 'aJmartwlovV', in G. Kittel (ed.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament,
1, Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer, 1971, pp. 325-328.
Riches, J. K., Conflicting Mythologies: Identity Formation In The Gospels of Mark And Matthew,
T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 2000, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 2000.
Ridderbos, H. N., Redemptive History And The New Testament Scriptures, trans. R. B. Gaffin,
Philipsburg, Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1988.
, The Epistle of Paul To The Churches of Galatia, trans. H. Zylstra, London, Marshall,
Morgan & Scott, 1954.
Riesenfeld, H., The Gospel Tradition, trans. E. M. Rowley and R. A. Kraft, Philadelphia, Fortress,
1970.
Rivkin, E., 'The Book of Jubilees: An Anti-Pharisaic Pseudepigraph', ErIsr, Vol. 16, (1982), pp. 193-
198.
Robertson, G. E., Paul And The Abrahamic Tradition: The Background of Abraham And The Law
In Galatians 3-4 And Romans 4, Ph. D. dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological
Seminary, Texas, 1988.
Rocca, S., Herod's Judaea: A Mediterranean State In The Classical World, TSAJ, Vol. 122,
Rochberg-Halton, F., 'Elements of the Babylonian Contribution to Hellenistic Astrology', JAOS,
Vol. 108, No. 1, (1988), pp. 51-62.
Rodgers, Z., 'Josephus's Biblical Interpretation', in M. Henze (ed.), A Companion To Biblical
Interpretation In Early Judaism, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2011.
Roitman, A., 'The Traditions About Abraham's Early Life In The Book of Judith (5:6-9)', in E. G.
Chazon, D. Satran, and R. A. Clements (eds.), Things Revealed: Studies In Early Jewish
And Christian Literature In Honor of Michael E. Stone, JSJSup, Leiden, Brill, 2004, pp. 73-
87.
Roloff, J., 'Abraham im Neuen Testament: Beobachtungen zu einem Aspekt Biblischer Theologie',
in M. Karrer (ed.), Exegetische Verantwortung in der Kirche: Aufsätze, Göttingen, V&R,
1990, pp. 231-254.
Rosenberg, D., Abraham: The First Historical Biography, New York, Basic Books, 2007.
Roskam, G., On The Path To Virtue: The Stoic Doctrine of Moral Progress And Its Reception In
(Middle-)Platonism, Leuven, Leuven University Press, 2005.
Rosner, B. S., Paul, Scripture & Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5-7, Leiden, Brill, 1994.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 403
Royse, J. R., 'Did Philo Publish His Works?', SPhA, Vol. 25, (2013), pp. 75-100.
, 'The Text of Philo's De Virtutibus', SPhA, Vol. 18, (2006), pp. 73-101.
Rubenstein, A., 'Hebraisms In The Slavonic Apocalypse of Abraham', JJS, Vol. 5, No. 3, (1954).
Rubinkiewicz, R., 'La Vision De L'Histoire Dans L'Apocalypse D'Abraham', in W. Haase (ed.),
ANRW II.19.1, Berlin, de Gruyter, 1979, pp. 137-151.
, 'The Apocalypse of Abraham: A New Translation And Introduction', in J. H.
Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1, Peabody, Hendrickson, 1983, pp.
681-705.
, L'Apocalypse D'Abraham En Vieux Slave: Introduction, Texte Critique, Traduction Et
Commentaire, Lublin, Société des Lettres et des Sciences de l'Université Catholique de
Lublin, 1987.
Runia, D. T., 'How To Read Philo', Exegesis And Philosophy: Studies On Philo of Alexandria,
Hampshire, Variorum, 1990, pp. 185-198.
, 'Philo, Alexandrian And Jew', Exegesis And Philosophy: Studies On Philo of Alexandria,
Variorum, Hampshire, 1990, pp. 1-18.
, 'The Place of De Abrahamo In Philo's Oeuvre', SPhA, Vol. 20, (2008), pp. 133-150.
, On The Creation of The Cosmos According To Moses: Introduction, Translation, And
Commentary, PACS, Leiden, Brill, 2001.
, Philo In Early Christian Literature: A Survey, CRINT, Vol. 3, Assen, Van Gorcum, 1993.
, Philo of Alexandria And The "Timaeus" of Plato, Philosophia Antiqua, Vol. 44, Leiden,
Brill, 1986.
Rusam, D., 'Neue Belege zu den στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσµου (Gal 4,3.9; Kol 2,8.20)', ZNW, Vol. 83,
(1992), pp. 119-125.
Russell, W. B., 'Who Were Paul's Opponents In Galatia?', BSac, Vol. 147, (1990), pp. 329-350.
Safrai, S., 'Jewish Self-government', in S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People In The
First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural And Religious Life
And Institutions, 1, Assen, Van Gorcum, 1974.
, 'Part IV: The Era of The Mishnah And Talmud (70-640)', in H. H. Ben-Sasson (ed.), A
History of The Jewish People, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1976, pp. 305-384.
Safrai, Z., 'The Roman Army In The Galilee', in L. I. Levine (ed.), The Galilee In Late Antiquity,
New York, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992, pp. 103-114.
Sampley, J. P., 'Romans In A Different Light', in D. M. Hay and E. E. Johnson (eds.), Pauline
Theology, Vol. III: Romans, Minneapolis, Fortress, 1995, pp. 109-129.
Sanday, W. and Headlam, A. C., The Epistle To The Romans 5th Edn., Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1902.
Sandelin, K.-G., 'The Danger of Idolatry According To Philo of Alexandria', Tem, Vol. 27, (1991),
pp. 109-150.
Sanders, E. P., 'Jesus' Galilee', in I. Dunderberg, C. C. M. Tuckett, and K. Syreeni (eds.), Fair Play:
Pluralism And Conflicts In Early Christianity: Essays In Honour of Heikki Räisänen,
NovTSup, Leiden, Brill, 2002, pp. 3-42.
, 'Paul Between Judaism And Hellenism', in J. D. Caputo and L. M. Alcoff (eds.), St. Paul
BIBLIOGRAPHY 404
Among The Philosophers, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 2009.
, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, London, Fortress,
1977.
Sandmel, S., 'Parallelomania', JBL, Vol. 81, No. 1, (1962), pp. 1-13.
, 'Philo Judaeus: An Introduction to the Man, His Writings, And His Significance',
Religion: Hellenistiches Judentum in römischer Zeit: Philon und Josephus, ANRW, Berlin,
de Gruyter, 1984, pp. 3-46.
, Abraham In Normative And Hellenistic Jewish Traditions, Ph. D. dissertation, Yale
University, Connecticut, 1949.
, Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction, Oxford, OUPress, 1979.
, Philo's Place In Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham In Jewish Literature, New
York, KTAV, 1971.
Schäfer, P., 'Hadrian's Policy In Judaea And The Bar Kokhba Revolt: A Reassessment', in P. R.
Davies and R. T. White (eds.), A Tribute To Geza Vermes: Essays On Jewish And Christian
Literature And History, JSOTSup, Sheffield Academic, Sheffield, 1990, pp. 281-303.
, 'Once Again The Status Quaestionis of Research In Rabbinic Literature: An Answer To
Chaim Milikowsky', JJS, Vol. 40, No. 1, (1989), pp. 89-94.
, Der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand: Studien Zum Zweiten Jüdischen Krieg Gegen Rom, TSAJ,
Vol. 1, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1981.
, Judeophobia: Attitudes Towards The Jews In The Ancient World, Cambridge, Harvard
University Press, 1997.
, The History of The Jews In The Greco-Roman World, New York, Routledge, 2003.
Schaff, P., History of The Christian Church, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1978.
Scharlemann, M. H., Stephen: A Singular Saint, AnBib, Vol. 34, Rome, Pontifical Institute, 1968.
Schein, B., Our Father Abraham, Ph. D. dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, 1972.
Schenk, K., A Brief Guide To Philo, Louisville, John Knox, 2005.
Scheu, L. E., Die Weltelemente beim Apostel Paulus: Gal. 4,3.9 und Kol. 2,8.20, Washington,
Catholic University of America, 1933.
Schiffman, L. H., 'The Book of Jubilees And The Temple Scroll', in G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba
(eds.), Enoch And The Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans,
2009, pp. 99-115.
, The Courtyards of The House of The Lord: Studies On The Temple Scroll, STDJ, Vol. 75,
Schließer, B., Abraham's Faith in Romans 4: Paul's Concept of Faith in Light of the History of
Reception of Genesis 15:6, WUNT 2. Reihe, 224, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
, Abraham's Faith In Romans 4: Genesis 15:6 And Its History of Reception In Second
Temple Judaism And Paul. A Contribution To The Pauline Concept of Faith, Ph. D.
dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, California, 2006.
Schmidt, F., 'Traditions Relatives à Abraham dans la Littérature Hellénistique Juive (suite)', AEP,
Vol. 82, (1973), pp. 191-194.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 405
Schmithals, W., Paul And The Gnostics, trans. J. E. Steely, Nashville, Abingdon, 1972.
Schmitz, O., 'Abraham im Spätjudentum und im Urchristentum', in K. Bornhäuser (ed.), Aus Schrift
und Geschichte: Theologische Abhandlungen Adolf Schlatter zu seinem 70. Geburtstage,
Stuttgart, Calwer Vereinsbuchhandlung, 1922, pp. 99-123.
Schniedewind, W. M., How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel,
Schreiner, T. R., 'The Abolition And Fulfillment of The Law In Paul', JSJ, Vol. 35, (1989), pp. 47-
74.
, Galatians, ed. C. E. Arnold, et. al., Zondervan Exegetical Commentary, Grand Rapids,
Zondervan, 2010.
, Romans, ed. M. Silva, BECNT, Vol. 6, Grand Rapids, Baker, 1998.
Schremer, A., 'The Lord Has Forsaken The Land: Radical Explanations of The Military And
Political Defeat of The Jews In Tannaitic Times', JJS, Vol. 59, No. 2, (2008), pp. 183-200.
Schrenk, G., 'Der Römerbrief als Missionsdokument', Aus Theologie und Geschichte der
reformierten Kirche: Festgabe für E. F. Karl Müller-Erlangen zu dessen 70. Geburtstag,
Neukirchen, Neukirchener Verlag, 1933.
Schürer, E., The History of The Jewish People In The Age of Jesus Christ, trans. G. Vermes and F.
Millar, 3 Vols., Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1973.
Schwartz, D. R., Studies In The Jewish Background of Christianity, WUNT, Vol. 60, Tübingen,
Mohr Siebeck, 1992.
Schwartz, S., 'Political, Social, And Economic Life In The Land of Israel, 66–c. 235', in S. T. Katz
(ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism: Vol. 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period,
, Imperialism And Jewish Society: 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E, Princeton, Princeton University
Press, 2001.
, Josephus And Judean Politics, CSCT, Vol. 18, Leiden, Brill, 1990.
Schweizer, E., ''Die Elemente der Welt' Gal. 4:3-8; Kol. 2:8-20', in O. Böcher and K. Haacker (eds.),
Verborum Veritas: Festschrift für Gustav Stählin zum 70. Geburtstag, Wuppertal,
Theologischer Verlag Brockhaus, 1970.
, 'Slaves of The Elements And Worshippers of Angels: Gal 4.3,9 and Col 2.8, 18, 20', JBL,
Vol. 107, No. 3, (1988).
Scott, A., Origen And The Life of The Stars: A History of An Idea, Oxford, OUPress, 1991.
Scott, J. M., On Earth As In Heaven: The Restoration of Sacred Time And Sacred Space In The
Book of Jubilees, JSJSup, 91, Leiden, Brill, 2005.
Segal, M., The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology, And Theology, JSJSup, Vol.
117, Leiden, Brill, 2007.
Seland, T., 'The Moderate Life of The Christian paroikoi: A Philonic Reading of 1 Pet 2:11', in R.
Deines and K.-W. N. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament, WUNT, Tübingen,
Mohr Siebeck, 2004, pp. 241-264.
Sevenster, J. N., Do You Know Greek?: How Much Greek Could The First Jewish Christian Have
Known?, Leiden, Brill, 1968.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 406
Seyenkulo, D. J., Abraham As An Ancestor In Paul: Some Implications of Paul's Letter To The
Galatians For African Christian Theology, Ph. D. dissertation, Lutheran School of Theology
at Chicago, Chicago, 1999.
Shaked, I. and Avshalom-Gorni, D., 'Jewish Settlement In The Southeastern Hula Valley In The
First Century CE', in D. R. Edwards (ed.), Religion And Society In Roman Palestine: Old
Questions, New Approaches, New York, Routledge, 2004, pp. 28-36.
Siker, J. S., 'Abraham In Graeco-Roman Paganism', JSJ, Vol. 18, (1987), pp. 188-208.
, 'From Gentile Inclusion To Jewish Exclusion: Abraham In Early Christian Controversy
With Jews', BTB, Vol. 19, (1989), pp. 30-36.
, Disinheriting The Jews: Abraham In Early Christian Controversy, Kentucky,
Westminster, 1991.
Silva, M., 'Abraham, Faith, And Works: Paul's Use of Scripture In Galatians 3:6-14', WTJ, Vol. 63,
(2001), pp. 251-267.
, 'Galatians', in G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (eds.), Commentary On The New Testament
Use of The Old Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker, 2007, pp. 785-812.
, 'Systematic Theology And The Apostle To The Gentiles', TJ, Vol. 15, No. 1, (1994), pp.
3-26.
, 'The Place of Historical Reconstruction In New Testament Criticism', in D. A. Carson
and J. D. Woodbridge (eds.), Hermeneutics, Authority And Canon, Leicester, Inter-Varsity
Press, 1986, pp. 105-133.
, Biblical Words And Their Meaning: An Introduction To Lexical Semantics 2 Edn., Grand
Rapids, Zondervan, 1994.
, Interpreting Galatians: Explorations In Exegetical Method 2nd Edn., Grand Rapids,
Baker, 2001.
, Philippians 2nd. Edn., BECNT, Grand Rapids, Baker, 2005.
Smallwood, M., The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey To Diocletian, Studies In Judaism In
Late Antiquity, Vol. 20, Leiden, Brill, 1976.
Soards, M. L., 'The Early Christian Interpretation of Abraham And The Place of James Within That
Context', IBS, Vol. 9, (1987), pp. 18-26.
, The Apostle Paul: An Introduction To His Writings And Teaching, New Jersey, Paulist
Press, 1987.
Spilsbury, P., 'God And Israel In Josephus: A Patron-Client Relationship', in S. Mason (ed.),
Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, JSPSup, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 1998,
pp. 172-191.
, The Image of The Jew In Flavius Josephus' Paraphrase of The Bible, TSAJ, 69,
Stanton, G. N., Jesus of Nazareth In New Testament Preaching, ed. M. Black, SNTSMS, Vol. 27,
Starr, R. J., 'The Circulation of Literary Texts In The Roman World', CQ, Vol. 37, No. 1, (1987), pp.
213-223.
Stein, R. H., Luke, NAC, Vol. 24, Nashville, B&H, 1992.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 407
Stemberger, G. and Strack, H. L., Introduction To The Talmud And Midrash, Edinburgh, T&T Clark,
1991.
Stendahl, K., Final Account: Paul's Letter To The Romans, Minneapolis, Fortress, 1993.
Stenschke, C. W., Luke's Portrait of Gentiles Prior To Their Coming To Faith, WUNT 2. Reihe,
108, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1999.
Sterling, G. E., ''The Queen of The Virtues': Piety In Philo of Alexandria', SPhA, Vol. 18, (2006), pp.
103-123.
, ''The School of Sacred Laws': The Social Setting of Philo's Treatises', VC, Vol. 53, No. 2,
(1999), pp. 148-164.
, '"A Man of The Highest Repute": Did Josephus Know The Writings of Philo?', SPhA,
Vol. 25, (2013), pp. 101-113.
, 'Different Traditions Or Emphases? The Image of God In Philo's De Opificio Mundi', in
G. A. Anderson, R. A. Clements, and D. Satran (eds.), New Approaches To The Study of
Biblical Interpretation In Judaism of The Second Temple Period And In Early Christianity,
STDJ, Leiden, Brill, 2013, pp. 41-56.
, 'Recherché Or Representative? What Is The Relationship Between Philo's Treatises And
Greek-Speaking Judaism?', SPhA, Vol. 11, (1999), pp. 1-30.
, 'The Place of Philo of Alexandria In The Study of Christian Origins', in R. Deines and
K.-W. N. Niebuhr (eds.), Philo und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen,
WUNT, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2004, pp. 21-52.
, 'Turning To God: Conversion In Greek-Speaking Judaism And Early Christianity', in P.
Gray and G. R. O'Day (eds.), Scripture And Traditions: Essays On Early Judaism And
Christianity In Honor of Carl R. Holladay, NovTSup, Leiden, Brill, 2008.
Stern, M., 'The Province of Judaea', in S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People In The First
Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural And Religious Life And
Institutions, Vol. 1, Assen, Van Gorcum, 1974, pp. 308-376.
Stone, M. E., 'Reactions To Destructions of The Second Temple: Theology, Perception, And
Conversion', JSJ, Vol. 12, No. 2, (1981), pp. 195-204.
Stott, J. R. W., The Message of Romans: God's Good News For The World, ed. J. R. W. Stott, The
Bible Speaks Today, Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 1994.
Stowers, S. K., The Diatribe And Paul's Letter To The Romans, SBLDS, Vol. 57, Chico, Scholars
Press, 1981.
Strugnell, J., 'Philo (Pseudo-)', Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nd. Edn., 16, Detroit, Macmillan, 2007, pp.
58-59.
Stückenbruck, L. T., 1 Enoch 91-108, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2007.
, 'To What Extent Did Philo's Treatment of Enoch And The Giants Presuppose A
Knowledge of The Enochic And Other Sources Preserved In The Dead Sea Scrolls', SPhA,
Vol. 19, (2007), pp. 131-142.
Summers, R. G., 'A Note On The Date of The Golden Ass', AJP, Vol. 94, (1973), pp. 365-383.
Sutherland, D. D., Genesis 15:6: A Study In Ancient Jewish And Christian Interpretation, Ph. D.
dissertation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Kentucky, 1982.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 408
Tachibana, K., ' アブラハムは義人か ('Was Abraham righteous?')', TPSB, Vol. 5, (1989), pp. 53-55.
Taub, L., Ancient Meteorology, London, Routledge, 2003.
Tcherikover, V. A. and Fuks, A. (eds.), Corpus Papyrorum Judaicorum, Vol. 2, Cambridge, Harvard
University Press, 1960.
, 'Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered', Eos, Vol. 48, No. 3, (1956), pp. 169-193.
Tennant, F. R., The Sources of The Doctrines of The Fall And Original Sin, Cambridge, CUPress,
2012.
Testuz, M., Les Idées Religieuses Du Livre Des Jubilés, Paris, Librairie Minard, 1960.
Thackeray, H. S. J., Flavius Josephus, 10 Vols., Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1926-1965.
Thayer, J. H., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, New York, American Book Co.,
1889.
Theobald, M., 'Abraham- (Isaak-) Jakob: Israels Väter im Johannesevangelium', in M. Labahn, K.
Scholtissek, and A. Strotmann (eds.), Israel und seine Heilstraditionen im
Johannesevengelium: Festgabe für Johannes Beutler SJ zum 70. Geburtstag, Paderborn,
Ferdinand Schöningh, 2004, pp. 158-183.
, Studien zum Corpus Iohanneum, WUNT, Vol. 267, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
Thielman, F., From Plight To Solution: A Jewish Framework For Understanding Paul's View of The
Law In Galatians And Romans, NovTSup, 61, Leiden, Brill, 1989.
Thiessen, M., Contesting Conversion: Genealogy, Circumcision, And Identity In Ancient Judaism
And Christianity, Oxford, OUPress, 2011.
Thiselton, A. C., The First Epistle To The Corinthians, NIGTC, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2000.
Tigchelaar, E. J. C., Prophets of Old And The Day of The End: Zechariah, The Book of Watchers,
And Apocalyptic, ed. J. de Moor, Oudtestamentische Studiën, Leiden, Brill, 1996.
Tobin, T. H., 'What Shall We Say That Abraham Found? The Controversy Behind Romans 4', HTR,
Vol. 88, No. 4, (1995), pp. 437-452.
Tomson, P. J., Paul And The Jewish Law: Halakha In The Letters of The Apostle To The Gentiles,
CRINT 3.1, Assen, Van Gorcum, 1990.
Trampedach, K., 'The War of The Hasmoneans', in G. Signori (ed.), Dying For The Faith, Killing
For The Faith: Old-Testament Faith-warriors (1 And 2 Maccabees) In Historical
Perspective, BSIH, Leiden, Brill, 2012, pp. 61-78.
Trench, R. C., Synonyms of The New Testament, London, 1880.
Tromp, J., 'Jannes And Jambres (2 Timothy 3,8-9)', in A. Grupner and M. Wolter (eds.), Moses In
Biblical And Extra-Biblical Traditions, BZAW, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2007.
Turdeanu, É., 'L'Apocalypse D'Abraham En Slave', JSJ, Vol. 3, No. 2, (1972), pp. 153-180.
Turner, D. L., Matthew, BECNT, Grand Rapids, Baker, 2008.
Van den Hoek, A., 'Allegorical Interpretation', in S. E. Porter (ed.), The Dictionary of Biblical
Criticism And Interpretation, New York, Routledge, 2007.
Van der Horst, P. W., Hellenism - Judaism - Christianity: Essays On Their Interaction,
Contributions To Biblical Exegesis And Theology, Vol. 8, Leuven, Peeters Press, 1998.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 409
Van Kooten, G. H., 'Enoch, The 'Watchers', Seth's Descendants And Abraham As Astronomers:
Jewish Applications of The Greek Motif of The First Inventor (300 BCE-CE 100)', in A.
Brenner and J. W. Van Henten (eds.), Recycling Biblical Figures: Papers Read At A Noster
Colloquium In Amsterdam, 12-13 May 1997, Leiden, Deo, 1999, pp. 292-316.
Van Nuffelen, P., 'Pagan Monotheism As A Religious Phenomenon', in S. Mitchell and P. Van
Nuffelen (eds.), One God: Pagan Monotheism In The Roman Empire, Cambridge, CUPress,
2010, pp. 16-33.
Van Ruiten, J. T. A. G. M., 'A Literary Dependency of Jubilees On 1 Enoch?', in G. Boccaccini
(ed.), Enoch And Qumran Origins: New Light On A Forgotten Connection, Grand Rapids,
Eerdmans, 2005, pp. 90-93.
, 'Abraham And The Nations In The Book of Jubilees', in M. Goodman, G. H. Van Kooten,
and J. T. A. G. M. Van Ruiten (eds.), Abraham, The Nations, And The Hagarites: Jewish,
Christian, And Islamic Perspectives On Kinship With Abraham, Leiden, Brill, 2010, pp.
105-116.
, Abraham In The Book of Jubilees: The Rewriting of Genesis 11:26-25:10 In The Book of
Jubilees 11:14-23:8, JSJSup, Vol. 161, Leiden, Brill, 2012.
, Primaeval History Interpreted: The Rewriting of Genesis 1-11 In The Book of Jubilees,
JSJSup, 66, Leiden, Brill, 2000.
Van Seters, J., Abraham In History And Tradition, London, Yale University Press, 1975.
VanderKam, J. C., 'The Book of Jubilees', in M. De Jonge (ed.), Outside The Old Testament,
CCWJCW, Cambridge, CUPress, 1985.
, 'The Origins And Purposes of The Book of Jubilees', in M. Albani, J. Frey, and A. Lange
(eds.), Studies In The Book of Jubilees, TSAJ, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1997, pp. 3-24.
, The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text, CSCO, Vol. 510, Louvain, Peeters, 1989.
, The Book of Jubilees, CSCO, Vol. 511, Louvain, Peeters, 1989b.
, The Book of Jubilees, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 2001.
VanLandingham, C., Judgment And Justification In Early Judaism And The Apostle Paul, Peabody,
Hendrickson, 2006.
Vaughn, A. G., '"And Lot Went With Him": Abraham's Disobedience In Genesis 12:1-4a', in B. F.
Batto and K. L. Roberts (eds.), David And Zion: Biblical Studies In Honour of J. J. M.
Roberts, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 2004, pp. 111-123.
Vermes, G., Scripture And Tradition In Judaism: Haggadic Studies, StPB, 4, Leiden, Brill, 1983.
Versnel, H. S., 'Thrice One: Three Greek Experiments In Oneness', in B. N. Porter (ed.), One God
Or Many? Concepts of Divinity In The Ancient World, Chebeague, Casco Bay
Assyriological Institute, 2000, pp. 79-164.
Vielhauer, P., 'Gesetzesdienst und Stoicheiadienst im Galaterbrief', in J. Friedrich, W. Pöhlmann,
and P. Stuhlmacher (eds.), Rechtfertigung. Festscrift für Ernst Käsemann zum 70.
Geburtstag, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1976.
Vilozny, N., 'The Rising Power of The Image: On Jewish Magic Art From The Second Temple
Period To Late Antiquity', in D. R. Schwartz and W. Zeev (eds.), Was 70 CE A Watershed In
Jewish History? On Jews And Judaism Before And After The Destruction of The Second
Temple, AGJU, Leiden, Brill, 2012, pp. 243-276.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 410
Visscher, G. H., Romans 4 And The New Perspective On Paul: Faith Embraces The Promise,
Studies In Biblical Literature, Vol. 122, New York, Peter Lang, 2009.
Voegelin, E., The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, 16, Columbia, University of Missouri Press,
2000.
Vogt, K. M., Law, Reason, And The Cosmic City: Political Philosophy In The Early Stoa, Oxford,
OUPress, 2008.
Völker, W., 'Das Abraham-Bild bei Philo, Origenes, und Ambrosius', TSK, Vol. 103, (1931), pp.
199-207.
Von Stuckrad, K., Das Ringen um die Astrologie: jüdische und christliche Beiträge zum antiken
Zeitverständnis, Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, 49, Berlin, de Gruyter,
2000.
Waaler, E., The Shema And The First Commandment In First Corinthians, WUNT 2. Reihe, Vol.
253, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Wacholder, B. Z., 'Pseudo-Eupolemus' Two Greek Fragments On The Life of Abraham', HUCA,
Vol. 34, (1963), pp. 83-113.
Wagner, J. R., 'Isaiah In Romans And Galatians', in S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken (eds.), Isaiah In
The New Testament, London, T&T Clark, 2005, pp. 117-132.
Wallace, D. B., Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of The New Testament,
Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1996.
Wan, S.-k., 'Abraham And The Promise of Spirit: Points of Convergence Between Philo and Paul',
in E. G. Chazon, D. Satran, and R. A. Clements (eds.), Things Revealed: Studies In Early
Jewish And Christian Literature In Honour of Michael E. Stone, JSJSup, Leiden, Brill,
2004, pp. 209-226.
, 'Abraham And The Promise of The Spirit: Galatians And The Hellenistic-Jewish
Mysticism of Philo', SBL Seminar Papers 1994, SBLSP, Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1995, pp.
6-22.
Ward, R. B., 'Abraham Traditions In Early Christianity', in G. W. E. Nickelsburg (ed.), Studies On
The Testament of Abraham, SBLSCS, Missoula, Scholars Press, 1976, pp. 173-184.
Ware, J. P., The Mission of The Church In Paul's Letters To The Philippians In The Context of
Ancient Judaism, NovTSup, 120, Leiden, Brill, 2005.
Warfield, B. B., 'God Our Father And The Lord Jesus Christ', PTR, Vol. 15, No. 1, (1917), pp. 1-20.
Watanabe, Z., Watanabe Zenda's Complete Works, Tokyo, Kirisuto, 1966.
Watson, F. B., 'The Triune Divine Identity: Reflections On Pauline God-language In Disagreement
With J. D. G. Dunn', JSJ, Vol. 80, (2000), pp. 99-124.
, Paul And The Hermeneutics of Faith, London & New York, T&T Clark, 2004.
, Paul, Judaism, And The Gentiles: A Sociological Approach, SNTSMS, 56, Cambridge,
CUPress, 1989.
, Paul, Judaism, And The Gentiles: Beyond The New Perspective, Grand Rapids,
Eerdmans, 2007.
Watts, I., Sermons, Discourses And Essays, On Various Subjects, 2, London, T. Longman, 1753.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 411
Weill, J., 'Antiquités Judaïques: Livres I-V', in T. Reinach (ed.), Oeuvres Complètes De Flavius
Josèphe, 1, Paris, Ernest Leroux, 1900.
Weima, J. A. D., 'Sincerely, Paul: The Significance of The Pauline Letter Closings', in S. E. Porter
and S. A. Adams (eds.), Paul And The Ancient Letter Form, PSt, Leiden, Brill, 2010, pp.
307-346.
Weninger, S., Ge'ez: (Classical Ethiopic), ed. U. J. Lüders, Languages of The World: Materials, Vol.
1, München, LINCOM Europa, 1993.
Westerholm, S., Perspectives Old And New On Paul: The "Lutheran" Paul And His Critics, Grand
White, J. L., The Apostle of God: Paul And The Promise of Abraham, Peabody, Hendrickson, 1999.
Whiteley, D. E. H., The Theology of St. Paul, Oxford, OUPress, 1964.
Whitenton, M. R., 'Rewriting Abraham and Joseph: Stephen's Speech (Acts 7:2-16) and Jewish
Exegetical Traditions', NovT, Vol. 54, (2012), pp. 149-167.
Wieser, F. E., Die Abrahamvorstellungen im Neuen Testament, Europäische Hochschulschriften
Reihe 23, 317, Bern, Peter Lang, 1987.
Wilckens, U., Der Brief an die Römer: 1. Teilband, Röm 1-5, ed. J. Blank, EKKNT, Vol. 6,
Neukirchener-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1978.
Wilcox, M., 'The Promise of The 'Seed' In The New Testament And The Targumim'', JSJ, Vol. 2,
No. 5, (1979), pp. 2-20.
Wilken, R. L., 'The Christianizing of Abraham: The Interpretation of Abraham In Early
Christianity', CTM, Vol. 43, (1972), pp. 723-731.
Williamson, R., Jews In The Hellenistic World: Philo, eds P. R. Ackroyd, A. R. C. Leaney, and J. W.
Packer, 2 Vols., Vol. 2, CCWJCW, Vol. 1, Cambridge, CUPress, 1989.
Wilson, M. R., Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of The Christian Faith, Grand Rapids,
Eerdmans, 1989.
Wilson, S. G., Leaving The Fold: Apostates And Defectors In Antiquity, Minneapolis, Fortress,
2004.
Wilson, W. T., Philo of Alexandria On Virtues, eds G. E. Sterling and D. T. Runia, PACS, Vol. 3,
Wink, W., 'The Elements of The Universe In Biblical And Scientific Perspective', Zyg, Vol. 13, No.
2, (1978), pp. 225-248.
, Naming The Powers, Philadelphia, Fortress, 1984.
Winston, D. and Dillon, J., Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria: A Commentary On De Gigantibus
And Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis, BJS, Vol. 25, Chico, Scholars Press, 1983.
, '[Review:] Philo Judaeus: His Universe of Discourse By Naomi G. Cohen', JQR, Vol. 86,
No. 3/4, (1996), pp. 510-515.
, 'Judaism And Hellenism: Hidden Tensions In Philo's Thought', SPhA, Vol. 2, (1990), pp.
1-19.
Winter, B. W., Philo And Paul Among The Sophists: Alexandrian And Corinthian Responses To A
Julio-Claudian Movement 2nd. Edn., Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2002.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 412
Wiseman, D. J., 'Abraham Reassessed', in A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman (eds.), Essays On The
Patriarchal Narratives, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 1980, pp. 141-160.
Witherington III, B. and Hyatt, D., Paul's Letter To The Romans, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2004.
, Grace In Galatia, London, T&T Clark, 2004.
Wolfson, H. A., Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy In Judaism, Christianity, And Islam, 2
Vols., Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1962.
Wong, C.-K., 'Philo's Use of Chaldaioi', SPhA, Vol. 4, (1992), pp. 1-14.
Worthington, F., Abraham: One God, Three Wives, Five Religions, Wilmette, Baha'i Publishing,
2011.
Wright, N. T., 'Paul And The Patriarch: The Role of Abraham In Romans 4', JSJ, Vol. 35, No. 3,
(2013), pp. 207-241.
, 'Romans And The Theology of Paul', in D. M. Hay and E. E. Johnson (eds.), Pauline
Theology: Volume III: Romans, Minneapolis, Fortress, 1995, pp. 30-67.
, 'The Letter To The Romans', in L. E. Keck (ed.), Acts; Introduction to Epistolary
Literature; Romans; 1 Corinthians, NIB, Nashville, Abingdon Press, 2002, pp. 393-770.
, The Climax of The Covenant: Christ And The Law In Pauline Theology, New York, T&T
Clark, 1993.
Yeung, M. W., Faith In Jesus And Paul: A Comparison With Special Reference To 'Faith That Can
Remove Mountains' And 'Your Faith Has Healed/Saved You', WUNT 2. Reihe, Vol. 147,
Yinger, K. L., Paul, Judaism, And Judgment According To Deeds, ed. R. J. Bauckham, SNTSMS,
105, Cambridge, CUPress, 1999.
Zeller, D., Charis bei Philon und Paulus, Stuttgart, Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990
, Der Brief an die Römer: Übersetzt und erklärt, Regensburger Neues Testament,
Regensburg, Pustet Verlag, 1985.
, Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus: Studien zür Römerbrief, Stuttgart, Verlag
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1976.
Ziemer, B., Abram-Abraham: Kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Genesis 14, 15 und
Ziesler, J., Paul's Letter To The Romans, H. C. Kee and D. Nineham (eds.), London, SCM, 1989.

Source01 2 A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Source01 2 A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Source01 2 A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE SEARCH FOR THE ORIGINS OF PAUL'S DEPICTION

OF ABRAHAM IN GALATIANS AND ROMANS

A thesis submitted in total fulfillment

But always and ever: Soli Deo gloria.

--- PART I: FIVE EXTRA-BIBLICAL ABRAHAM TEXTS ---

CHAPTER 2: THE BOOK OF JUBILEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

CHAPTER 3: PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

CHAPTER 5: THE APOCALYPSE OF ABRAHAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

CHAPTER 6: LIBER ANTIQUITATUM BIBLICARUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION TO PART I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

CHAPTER 8: SITUATING SAUL AND THE FIVE ABRAHAM TEXTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

CHAPTER 9: GALATIANS AND THE FIVE ABRAHAM TEXTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

CHAPTER 10: ROMANS AND THE FIVE ABRAHAM TEXTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

CHAPTER 11: PAUL THE MAVERICK? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345

CHAPTER 12: CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365

Appendix – Cohen's Common Pool of Palestinian-Alexandrian Midrash . . . . . . . . . . 371

Figure 1. Roskam's Scheme of Vice, Progress, And Virtue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

James Daniel Stacey

Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement ANESS

into two smaller ones.

Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this

thesis contains no material published elsewhere or extracted in

whole or in part from a thesis submitted for the award of any

other degree or diploma.

No other person's work has been used without due

acknowledgement in the main text of the thesis.

degree or diploma in any other tertiary institution.

Dated: _20__ / _03__ / _2014__

1.1 The Question Under Investigation

divided into two main groups.

almost every reference to Abraham in Second Temple literature, Harrisville concluded

that Paul was a "maverick" in disregarding contemporary extra-biblical traditions, and

antecedent to Paul's view.3

1.2 Thesis of The Dissertation

the major thesis presented in Part III.

observably influenced in his understanding of Abraham by the 'five Abraham texts'.

there wasn't.”4 As such, sustained attention is required to do justice to such a 'negative'.

4 Clive Staples Lewis, An Experiment In Criticism, Cambridge, CUPress, 2012, p. 117.

cannot be underestimated. Academic study of Paul is always in danger of falling into

dogmatic slumber. Trends in interpretation can sometimes remain unexamined, having

perhaps, unrealistic view of Paul's Abraham as sui generis.

Apostles, and/or by the nascent Church's 'Jesus tradition'.

This proposal is somewhat tentative, and further work needs to be done to

provided a basis for further thought and research.

1.3 Survey of Previous Literature

representative subdivisions. The first subdivision is more general, discussing literature

proceed, more or less, chronologically.

1.3.1 Abraham In Scripture And Tradition

history, and extra-biblical tradition, William J. Deane wrote that,

material on Abraham.9 He was fundamentally concerned with rabbinic sources, however.

Paul's Abraham might have been.10

Abraham. Rappaport points to Philo's De Abrahamo, the Apocalypse of Abraham, and

rabbinic texts as sources for Antiquities 1:155-156.11

Louis Ginzberg's massive work on Jewish 'legends' includes a chapter surveying

Although short, Otto Schmitz's Abraham im Spätjudentum und im Urchristentum

découvrant successivement la vanité du culte des astres et des idoles."22

l’essentiel: l’appel et la promesse de Dieu, et la foi par laquelle Abraham y a répondu et

Christian Dietzfelbinger examined the Pauline understanding of Abraham in

Testament, and in 'Spätjudentum', where Spätjudentum was treated as essentially