Early Judaism and early Christianity emerged during the Hellenistic and early Roman imperial era. They were, naturally, confronted with the Hellenistic and the Roman religion. The question therefore arose as to whether Jews or Christians were free to participate in religious activities alien to the religious heritage of their own. In his articles, Karl-Gustav Sandelin presents documentary material showing that this problem was a burning issue within Judaism from the beginning of the Hellenistic period until the end of the first century C.E. Several Jewish individuals converted to the Hellenistic or the Roman religion. Such behavior was also discussed and generally condemned, for example by the Books of Maccabees and authors such as Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus. A similar problem is to be found in the New Testament, notably in the letters of Paul, especially in the first letter to the Corinthians and in the Revelation of John.

Hidden Criticism of the Angry Tyrant in Early Judaism and the Acts of the Apostles adds to the current literature of imperial-critical New Testament readings with an examination of Luke’s hidden criticism of imperial Rome in the Acts of the Apostles and in Paul’s speech on the Areopagus in Acts 17. Focusing on discursive resistance in the Hellenistic world, Drew J. Strait examines the relationship between hidden criticism and persuasion and between subordinates and the powerful, and he explores the challenge to the dissident voice to communicate criticism while under surveillance. Strait argues that Luke confronts the idolatrous power and iconic spectacle of gods and kings with the Gospel of the Lord of all—a worldview that is incompatible with the religions of Rome, including emperor worship.

Collection of texts published previously.

Revised thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, 2002.

Much attention has been devoted to Paul's quotations from the Old Testament, but little attention has been given to Paul's use of biblical narratives. The most extensive use of scripture in 1 Corinthians involves an allusion to Israel's exodus (10:1-22), which contains only one quotation (1 Cor 10:7). Since there is much debate on how to identify scriptural allusions, Carla Works examines two passages where there is overwhelming scholarly consensus regarding the presence of exodus imagery: 1 Corinthians 5:6-8 and 10:1-22. These passages, therefore, provide an ideal place to consider how Paul is using Israel's exodus traditions to instruct a predominantly non-Jewish congregation. The author argues that the exodus tradition, a tradition used to bolster Israel's identity and to teach Israel about the identity of God, is reinterpreted by Paul in light of Christ and is employed to foster the identity formation of the Corinthians as the church of "one God and one Lord" (1 Cor 8:6).

In recent years, a growing number of New Testament scholars have questioned traditional portrayals of the Apostle Paul as a leader of a new religious movement that set faith in Christ in opposition to the Jewish tradition. Instead, they have stressed the need to interpret Paul from within the Judaism of his day, regarding him as a faithful Jew who cherished deeply his Jewish identity and saw observance of the Mosaic law or Torah among Jewish believers in Christ as a good thing. While the present work argues strongly in favor of this latter interpretation of Paul, it also seeks to delve deeper into his thought in order to explore at length the points of continuity and convergence between Paul and the Judaism(s) of his day as well as the beliefs that distinguished him from his fellow Jews who did not share his faith in Christ. Chief among these beliefs was the conviction that the identity and will of God were now to be defined primarily on the basis of his relation to Jesus his Son, through whom he had intended from the start to accomplish his purposes for Israel and the world. Yet rather than bringing Paul to reject his Jewish heritage, this conviction led him to redefine and resignify around Christ his understanding of Judaism and the way of life prescribed in the Torah, thereby filling them with new meaning, though he also continued to value and uphold them for the same reasons he had previously. According to Paul, the purpose for which God had sent his Son and delivered him up to death was not that he might atone for sins or make it possible for God to forgive sins, as later Christian thought came to affirm, but rather that through him he might establish a new community in which Jews and non-Jews would be brought to live together as one in fellowship and solidarity. While Paul expected his fellow Jews to continue to live as Jews and members of Israel within this community, which he called the ekklēsia, his conviction that those non-Jews who lived faithfully as part of the same community yet did not submit fully to the Mosaic law were equally acceptable and righteous in God’s sight led him to oppose all attempts to impose on them the observance of that law. Such attempts implied that the members of the community who observed the law were to be regarded as more righteous or as superior in some way to those who did not and thus threatened to destroy the very fabric of the communities that Paul had worked so hard to establish. Rather than running contrary to Jewish thought, Paul’s teaching that it was a life of faith rather than the observance of works of the law per se that led people to be accepted as righteous by God would have been regarded by most Jews as being fully in accordance with traditional Jewish belief. What they would have found novel was Paul’s claim that faith in the God of Israel was now to be equated with faith in Jesus as his Son or “Christ-faith” and that through such a faith non-Jews who did not observe the law could come to be as fully acceptable to God as those Jews who did. Paul’s redefinition of God and Judaism around Jesus as God’s Son would have led many of his fellow Jews to conclude that he was proclaiming a God who was distinct from the God in whom the people of Israel had believed from time immemorial, since that God was never thought to have such a Son and much less to have intended to exalt him to his right side as Lord of all after handing him over to death on a cross. From the perspective of Paul and his fellow believers in Christ, however, the God of Israel and the God and Father of Jesus Christ were one and the same.

Based on the author's doctoral dissertation. This volume investigates the text of Paul's Epistle to the Galatians and its history, how it changed over time. This wok performs a stemmatic analysis of 92 witnesses to the text of Galatians, using cladistic methods developed by computational biologists, to construct an unoriented stemma of the textual tradition. The stemma is then oriented based on the internal evidence of textual variants.

In this book, Christoph Ochs presents for the first time an extensive study of the use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jewish polemics. These often overlooked texts advance numerous exegetical arguments against Jesus' divinity, the incarnation, and the Trinity. Seven Jewish polemical key texts comprise the main sources for this inquiry: Qissat Mujadalat al-Usquf (c. 8/9th century) and Sefer Nestor ha-Komer (before 1170), Sefer Milhamot ha-Shem (c. 1170), Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne (c. 13th century), Nizzahon Vetus (13-14th century), Even Bohan (late 14th century), Kelimmat ha-Goyim (c. 1397), and Hizzuq Emunah (c. 1594). Together with the relevant passages in the original Hebrew and in translation, each text is presented with a historical and exegetical introduction. Contemporary parallels are also discussed, but in less detail. The result is a compendium of arguments against the divinity of Jesus based on the Jewish interpretation of Matthew.

Collection of texts published previously.

The death of Jesus and its interpretation present both exegetes and theologians with a puzzle. For Jesus himself seems to have left his followers few clues, and the story of his passion is ambivalent, embracing both his reluctant self-surrender in Gethsemane and his reproachful cry on Golgatha. Some of the various motifs and images used by his followers to explain this event were taken over by Paul despite the opposition he saw between the message of the cross and any human wisdom. Yet what meaning do two of the central themes of his soteriology, the corporate, representative role of Christ and the language of "righteousness" and "justification" hold for us today? Or does Paul offer just as little help here as Jesus himself did?