to>n qeo
ple. Based on the alleged lack of archaeological evidence for Diaspora Judaism,
MacLennan and Kraabel "strongly doubt that there ever was a large and broadly
based group of gentiles known as God-fearers" (Robert S. MacLennan and A.
Thomas Kraabel, "The God-Fearers—A Literary and Theological Invention," Bibli-
cal Archaeology Review 12 [September/October 1986]: 46–53). Archaeological finds
at Aphrodisia, however, seem to support the existence of God-fearers as does the
overwhelming evidence cited by Feldman from classical, Talmudic, and Christian
literature, from Philo to Josephus as well as from inscriptions and papyri. See
Robert F. Tannenbaum, "Jews and God-fearers in the Holy City of Aphrodite," Bib-
lical Archaeology Review 12 (September/October 1986): 55–57; Louis Feldman, "The
Omnipresence of the God–Fearers," Biblical Archaeology Review 12 (September/
October 1986): 58–69; and J. Andrew Overman, "The God-Fearers: Some Neglected
Features," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32 (February 1988): 17–26.
24 Cohen, "Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew," 14. For a complementary
discussion see Shaye J. D. Cohen, " ‘Those Who Say They Are Jews and Are Not':
How Do You Know a Jew in Antiquity When You See One?" in Diasporas in Antiq-
uity, ed. S. J. D. Cohen and E. S. Frerichs (Atlanta: Scholars, 1993): 1-45.
25 The first three forms of behavior Cohen discussed are these: (1) admiring some
aspect of Judaism, such as imitating Jewish unanimity, liberal charities, en-
durance under persecution on behalf of the Law (Josephus, Against Apion
2.39.283); (2) acknowledging the power of the God of the Jews like Helidorus (2
Mace. 3:35–39), Alexander the Great (Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 7.4–
5.329–39); (3) benefiting the Jews or being conspicuously friendly to Jews—pro-Jew-
ish—like Cyrus the Great (Ezra 1:2–4), Petronius, the Syrian governor who refused
to follow Caligula's instruction to erect a statue in the temple (Philo, Legation to
Gaius 33.245). One might also add Augustus and Agrippa (Peter Richardson,
Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans [Columbia, SC: University of
Were the Opponents at Philippi Necessarily Jewish? 47
lighting of lamps, abstention from pork, refraining from work
on the Sabbath, attendance at synagogues and public ceremonies,
and eating kosher food were perceived by non-Jews as behaving
like a Jew.26 For example during the trial of Verres—Rome's
chief administrator of Sicily (73–71 B.C.) who was accused of ex-
tortion and whom Cicero defended—a public official named Cae-
cilius who had served with Verres was believed to be Judaizing
(i]oudaiverres is the Roman word for "pig,"
Cicero joked about the allegation by saying, "What has a Jew to do
with a Verres?"27 Although Cicero's pun may be apocryphal,
Plutarch conveyed the notion that if a Gentile observed customs of
a Jew, that person was a Judaizer. For the Jew, however, the prac-
tice of Jewish rituals merely served as an outward indication that
a Gentile was behaving like a Jew.
The fifth "Judaizing" behavior by which a Gentile became
less a Gentile and more a Jew was the veneration of the God of the
Jews and the denial of pagan gods.28 More specifically, the
Gentile's religious ceremony was void of images and his worship
was limited to Israel's God. For instance, when the Persian king
(in the apocryphal Bel and the Dragon) allowed Daniel to destroy
Bel, Bel's temple, and the "great dragon which the Babylonians
revered," they charged the king with becoming a Jew: "The king
has become a Jew" ( ]Ioudai?oj ge29 According to
South Carolina Press, 1996], 226–34). For further discussion and examples see Co-
hen, "Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew," 15–20. These first three are not
as significant as the last four because they do not imply that the Gentile is
"becoming a Jew."
26 Cohen differentiates between those practices that bring a person into direct
contact with the Jewish community (i.e., attendance at synagogues and public cer-
emonies) and the other rituals that do not (Cohen, "Crossing the Boundary and Be-
coming a Jew," 20-21).
27 Stern, From Herodotus to Plutarch, 566. Compare Barclay's discussion in Jews
in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 287–91. A similar third-century example is evi-
dent in Dio Cassius. Mingled with his discussion of Pompey, Dio Cassius de-
scribed the country of Judea and the people who had been named Jews. "I do not
know how this title [ ]Iousdai?oi] came to be given them," he said, "but it applies also to
all the rest of mankind, although of alien race, who [are devoted to] their customs"
(Manahem Stern, From Tacitus to Simplicius, vol. 2 of Greek and Latin Authors on
Jews and Judaism [Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980],
430).
28 Cohen, "Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew," 21-24.
29 Bel and the Dragon, vv. 22, 26, 28; and the Septuagint of Daniel 14:22, 26, 28. Co-
hen also cites two other early examples. Second Maccabees 9:17 exemplifies Anti-
ochus Epiphanes' depiction of "being a Jew" as linked with proclaiming the power
of the God of the Jews, and Josephus depicted Izates as having venerated God be-
fore converting to Judaism and practicing Jewish laws (Josephus, The Antiquities
of the Jews 20.2.3–20.2.4.34–47). Izates' final step of conversion was circumcision.
48 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / January-March 1998
the allegation of his Gentile subjects, the king's anti-idol
behavior earned him the designation "Jew." In fact Philo argued
that "the proselyte is one who circumcises not his uncircumcision
but his desires and sensual pleasures and the other passions of the
soul.... But what is the mind of the proselyte if not alienation
from belief in many gods and familiarity with the one god and
father of all?"30 Taken in isolation, adherence to monotheism
seems to have been Philo's emphasis, not the observance of the
rituals of Jewish Law (such as circumcision). Although Philo
maintained that circumcision was important, turning from
idolatry was a significant step in behaving less like a Gentile
and more like a Jew.
Early Jewish literature emphasizes that Abraham, the
archetype of one who turned from idols to worship one God, ven-
erated God apart from observance of Jewish rituals.31 Thus
Philo's monotheistic sentiment is reinforced. Barclay points out,
however, that monotheism "obscures the significance of cultic
practice in defining acceptable or unacceptable religion."32 What
concerned the majority of Jews in the Diaspora "was not nomen-
clature so much as the worship of beings other than the one, invis-
ible Deity."33 Despite the importance of worshiping Yahweh
alone, that in itself did not make a Gentile a Jew. Thus a Gentile
who denied idolatry and paid homage only to Yahweh was
Josephus, however, also presented another perspective concerning Izates' conver-
sion and circumcision (see note 30).
30 Philo, Questions and Answers on Exodus 2.2, as translated in Cohen, "Crossing
the Boundary and Becoming a Jew," 21. Although "the presence or absence of the
foreskin was ... a wholly superficial phenomenon," Barclay points out that "Philo
knew that it counted for a lot more in the eyes of the Jewish community in Alexan-
dria than a [Jew's] profound knowledge of Greek philosophy (Migratione Abra-
hami 89-93)." Philo's concern, however, was a Jew's claim to Judaism based solely
on the absence of his foreskin (Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 91).
Nevertheless Josephus echoed a comment similar to Philo's when he recorded
Ananias telling King Izates that "the king could . . . worship God even without being
circumcised if indeed he had fully decided to be a devoted adherent of Judaism, for
it was this that counted more than circumcision" (Josephus, The Antiquities of the
Jews 20.2.4.41).
31 Abraham was said to have destroyed his father's idols (Jubilees 12:1-12; Apoca-
lypse of Abraham 1:1-8:6; Philo, On the Virtues 39.212-18) and believed in the one
true God (Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 1.7.1.154-57; Philo, On the Virtues
39.219). Job is also described as one who destroyed his idols to worship the one true
God (Testament of Job 2:1-5:3). Cohen also identifies rabbinic sources that say
"anyone who denies idolatry is called a Jew" (b. Megilla 13a). Intertestamental and
rabbinic literature vigorously denounces idolatry (Wisdom of Solomon 14:8-15:18;
b Nedarim 25a). See Cohen, "Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew," 22, n. 24.
32 Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 429 (italics his).
33 Ibid. Also see Philo, Of the Decalogue 52-65.
Were the Opponents at Philippi Necessarily Jewish? 49
branded a Jew or Judaizer by Gentiles, but for Jews it merely in-
dicated that he was behaving less like a Gentile and more like a
Jew.
Joining the Jewish community without undergoing a reli-
gious conversion (i.e., "nominal conversion"), according to Co-
hen, was the sixth Judaizing behavior that indicated a Gentile
was becoming a Jew.34 Two sorts of nominal conversions seem to
have existed. One form of nominal conversion occurred in the
institution of slavery. When a Gentile male slave was acquired,
he was circumcised, and when emancipated, he or she attained
the status of a proselyte.35 Although the Jewish community might
not grant proselyte status to a slave until after manumission,
Gentiles were inclined to view any circumcised individual
(slave or free) as a Jew.
The other form of nominal conversion occurred in the insti-
tution of marriage. For instance, Genesis 41:45 records that when
Pharaoh elevated Joseph to high office, Pharaoh gave Asenath,
daughter of the priest of On (LXX: Heliopolis), to be Joseph's wife.
That briefly mentioned marriage was "an invitation for an
imaginative literary exercise in which themes from Greek ro-
mance were combined with a detailed portrayal of Asenath's con-
version."36 Hence Joseph and Asenath was written (ca. 100 B.C.–
A.D. 100). Although Asenath's marriage to Joseph symbolized to
Egyptian Gentiles her incorporation into Judaism, the story re-
veals that during her betrothal period she was merely a nominal
convert, not a proselyte, until she turned from dead gods to the liv-
ing God (11:8; 12:5).37
A man who desired to marry a Jewess generally needed first
to be circumcised. On the one hand Azizus, king of Emesa, was
circumcised so that he might marry Drusilla,38 and Polemo,
king of Cilicia, was circumcised so that he might marry Ber-
nice.39 On the other hand Herod the Great prevented a marriage
34 Cohen, "Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew," 24-26.
35 Ibid., 24. Later rabbinic literature seems to emphasize that a slave who per-
formed ritual ablution could acquire emancipation (b. Yebamot 46a).
Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 204.
37 Ibid., 204-16, esp. 213 and then 209.
38 Drusilla, the youngest of Herod Agrippa's daughters (Josephus, The Antiqui-
ties of the Jews 18.5.4.132; 19.9.1.354), was initially promised to Epiphanes by
Agrippa, but Epiphanes was unwilling to convert to Judaism. So Drusilla was given
in marriage to Azizus by her brother, Agrippa II (ibid., 20.7.1.139). She is later
mentioned in Acts 24:24 as Felix's Jewish wife.
39 Ibid., 20.7.3.145–46. Cohen points out, however, that the sincerity of these con-
versions can be gauged by subsequent events. For instance, when Bernice aban-
50 BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / January–March 1998
from taking place between his sister Salome and Syllaeus be-
cause Syllaeus refused to be circumcised. Why? Richardson
points out that "Syllaeus's ambitions with respect to the Nabatean
throne conflicted seriously with identification as a Jew, so he re-
fused."40 Thus Gentiles equated circumcision in the case of mar-
riage with being a Jew. Jewish communities, however, consid-
ered a Gentile who was willingly circumcised as merely being
willing to separate himself from non-Jews and to integrate into
Jewish society, practice Jewish rituals, and be involved in the ex-
clusive worship of Yahweh. Although the act was a painfully sig-
nificant indication of one's openness to becoming a Jew, it
reflected a nominal commitment or nominal conversion.
The seventh step to becoming a Jew, according to Cohen, was
conversion. Despite the diversity that existed between the various
Diaspora communities in the Mediterranean area, Cohen's final
"Judaizing" behavior of conversion involved all three of the pre-
vious forms: the practice of Jewish laws (category 4), exclusive
devotion to Yahweh (category 5), and integration into the Jewish
community (category 6).41 Regardless of what the non-Jewish
community concluded, the Jews realized that a Gentile who prac-
ticed any one category in isolation was not a proselyte.
While gingerly identifying the behaviors that formed a cohe-
sive identity for all Jews of the Diaspora, Barclay lists four fea-
tures of the Jewish pattern of life that "marked off Diaspora Jews
doned Polemo, he abandoned Judaism (Cohen, "Crossing the Boundary and Becom-
ing a Jew," 25). Exceptions to requiring male circumcision before marriage existed.
One biblical example may be Timothy's father who married the Jewess Eunice (Acts
16:1; 2 Tim. 1:5). Many children of Jews in the Diaspora who married Gentiles were
assimilated among their respective Gentile communities because Jewish parents
failed to raise their children as Jews (Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Dias-
pora, 107-8).
40 Richardson, Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans, 276; cf. 44. Ho-
race (A.D. 65–68) humorously referred to "the clipped Jews." Like Horace, Persius
(A.D. 34–62), Petronius (mid-first century A.D.), and Martial (end of the first cen-
tury A.D.) were poets who viewed circumcision as an indication of Jewishness. In
fact, any circumcised person of Rome was assumed to be a Jew and liable to pay the
Jewish tax as war reparations for the revolt of A.D. 66–70. Although circumcision
was a mark of Jewishness in the west, it was not in the east because portions of
Asia Minor, Syria, Arabia, and Egypt also practiced circumcision (Cohen, "’Those
Who Say They Are Jews and Are Not,’ " 12-22). For parallel discussion see Barclay,
Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 310-17.
41 Cohen, "Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew," 26–30. Although Cohen
never specifically identifies the fact that he is limiting his discussion to the
Mediterranean area, his examples do. As a result, Barclay's discussions closely
parallel Cohen's. However, Cohen discusses what it took for a Gentile to become a
Jew, whereas Barclay discusses what it took for a Jew to remain a Jew in the
Mediterranean Diaspora.
Were the Opponents at Philippi Necessarily Jewish? 51
from their neighbors and thus gave definition to Jewish iden-
tity."42 In reverse order they are (a) the practical distinctions that
defined their social identity such as the worship of Yahweh void of
idolatry, separatism at meals, male circumcision, Sabbath ob-
servance (Cohen's first two categories); (b) social and symbolic
resources on which Diaspora Jews consistently drew such com-
munity activities, links with the temple and homeland, the Law
and Moses, and Jewish Scripture; and (c) most significantly, the
ethnic bond, which is the core of Diaspora Judaism (Cohen's third
category).43 Barclay observes that "when non-Jews adopted Ju-
daism as proselytes, they underwent such a thorough resocializa-
tion as to acquire in effect a new ‘ethnicity’ in kinship and cus-
tom."44 Although Cohen and Barclay broach the discussion from
different perspectives, they basically agree. A fourth element, ac-
cording to Barclay, was the social and symbolic resources that
drew Diaspora Jews together. Thus if one accepts Cohen's and
Barclay's corresponding definitions of Jewishness in the
Mediterranean Diaspora, and if no significant Jewish population
existed in Philippi, what reliable evidence exists in Philippians
that the opponents Paul spoke of were ethnic Jews?
PAUL'S DESCRIPTIONS OF THE OPPONENTS
Most of Paul's references to the opponents in Philippians are
vague and nondescript. Thus their identity is concealed. Never-
theless those who opposed (tw?n a]ntikeime
Philippi may be referred to in four statements in Philippians
(1:15-17; 1:27-28; 3:2-3; and 3:18-21).
PHILIPPIANS 1:15-17
One implicit reference to the opponents occurs in Philippians
1:15-17. While informing the Philippians how the gospel was
spreading in Rome (assuming a Roman confinement), Paul
digressed to review the contrasting motivations of two groups of
preachers. He wrote, "Some people [tine
42 Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 428.
43 Ibid., 399-444.
44 Ibid., 408. Barclay considers ethnicity to refer to "a combination of kinship and
custom, reflecting both shared genealogy and common behavior" (ibid., 403). Tacitus
reflected a similar grouping of events. He said distinctive customs of the Jews in-
cluded eating separately, not being involved in mixed marriages, and circumcision.
Converts learned to despise the gods, shed their patristic loyalties, and treat their
parents, children, and siblings as of little account (Histories 5.5.1—2). For a full