Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 45:2 (Fall 1983)
Article: Paul and the Tannaim: A Study in Galatians
Author: Daniel Hayden King

WTJ 45:2 (Fall 1983) p. 340

Paul and the Tannaim: A Study in Galatians

Daniel Hayden King

I. Pauline Antithetic Response in Galatians

Several years ago the Swedish writer Hugo Odeberg correctly observed that

the antithesis between Christianity and Pharisaism was a fundamental one and was so interpreted by both parties. It was an antithesis—one might properly say an enmity—which was reflected in external and peripheral matters, so that, for example, one party denied the other the right of guidance and instruction or that the antithesis had its basis in inner competition for influence upon the people. But antithesis between Jesus and the Pharisees, between Paul and Judaism, also involved the extreme basic principles, teachings, and experiences upon the recognition or denial of which the entire existence of society was dependent.1

WTJ 45:2 (Fall 1983) p. 341

The “antithesis” or “enmity” which existed between the two religions, and to which Odeberg refers, was never more obvious than in the dialectic of Paul found in his letter to the Galatians. There was, moreover, reason for his hard and fast line of demarcation, which emphasized in no uncertain terms their antithetical nature. At Galatia Pharisaic-Christian teachers had invaded Paul’s Gentile mission and brought with them a more liberal approach, or perhaps we should say, “conservative” with respect to the law. As a result, “antithesis” had given way to a moderating stance. Conflict had given way to compromise. Confrontation had been replaced by conciliation. But the conciliation was not such as could be accepted by the orthodox representatives of either group. The conciliatory view sought to make more palatable certain elements of Gentile Christianity by bringing Jewish modes to farflung Galatia. How infuriated this encroachment made Paul is everywhere evident in the stinging, denunciatory language, the castigating remarks, the heated argumentation. But it is neither reckless nor crude. Instead, it is cooly reasoned and systematically set forth. For Paul to have approached his subject otherwise would have been disastrous for his cause in the central Asia Minor province and would have had ramifications in churches both far and near. So although his emotions were at a peak in this letter, yet are his thoughts collected and careful.

The approach he takes is almost thoroughly Pharisaic in terms of method and vocabulary. In this letter we are inclined to say that we come face to face with “Paul the Pharisaic scribe,” i.e. the ghost of “Rabbi Saul of Tarsus, who received from Rabbi Gamaliel.” We meet him elsewhere in the NT epistles, particularly in Romans, but nowhere so evidently and distinctly as here. Indeed,...