PHD_Galatians and Social Identity Theory.pdf

7/25/2019 PHD_Galatians and Social Identity Theory.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phdgalatians-and-social-identity-theorypdf 1/250

Galatians and Social Identity Theory

byDavid Paul Shaules

Claremont Graduate University2011

© Copyright David Paul Shaules, 2011All rights reserved.



UMI Number: 3449362

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3449362Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.

All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected againstunauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346



APPROVAL OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE

This dissertation has been duly read, reviewed, and critiqued by the Committee listed

below, which hereby approves the manuscript of David Paul Shaules as fulfilling the

scope and quality requirements for meriting the degree of Ph. D in New Testament

Studies.

Dennis R. MacDonald, ChairClaremont Graduate University

Professor of Religion

Gregory J. Riley

Claremont Graduate UniversityProfessor of Religion

Michael HoggClaremont Graduate University

Professor of Social Psychology



Abstract

Galatians and Social Identity Theory

By

David Paul Shaules

Claremont Graduate University: 2011

This work applies social identity theory to Galatians in order to better understand

Paul’s use of rhetoric and his manipulation of the community’s social boundaries. Social

identity theory stems from social psychology and studies the function of social identities

and the groups they create. It examines how social identities are created through

categorization and depersonalization and how this gives rise to complex group based

phenomena (i.e. self-enhancement, uncertainty reduction, group bias, group norms,

prototypes, the metacontrast principle, referent informational influence, superordinate

identities, depersonalized social attraction, leadership, etc.). This work uses social

identity theory to view the situation in Galatia as an intra-group conflict, between

individuals who believe they are all part of the same group. From this starting point, it

looks at social scientific criticism of the Bible, Jewish revolts and political turmoil,

rhetoric, the law, faith, the promise, Abraham, Christian identity, Paul’s Jewish heritage

and his sufferings (in Galatians, Philippians, and 2 Corinthians), and Paul’s leadership. In

examining the historical context, social identity theory suggests that uncertainty

concerning Jerusalem may have exacerbated the problem in Galatia, which was cause by

mixed table fellowship. It also highlights the social psychological impact that Paul’s

argument had on its audience. By manipulating key group prototypes (i.e. the law,

Abraham), Paul is able to shift the group’s boundaries, allowing for the admission of the



Gentiles. Furthermore, it underscores how Gal 3:26-29 reflects a superordinate identity,

which includes both Jews and Gentiles. Finally, it explains how Paul’s accounts of his

Jewish heritage and suffering make him more prototypical, and thus makes him a more

effective leader.



Dedicated to:

My Wife, who supported me unconditionally, wasalways there, and always listened. Who

never let me forget that she was by my

side.

&

My Father, who showed me the way and never let

me forget what I was capable of.



vi

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my committee members: Prof. Dennis R. MacDonald for his

patience and encouragement; Prof. Gregory J. Riley for his enthusiasm; and Prof.

Michael Hogg for working with me across department lines. I would also like to thankmy family: My Wife and my Dad for supporting me without measure; my Mom for

always reassuring me that everything will work out; my Brother for keeping me sane with

his constant support and friendship; my Grandmother Church for her unendingconfidence and love; and my Uncle Vince who was always interested in my work and

always pushed me to succeed. I’d also like to thank all of my friends who both tolerated

me and helped me refine my research. Particularly, I’d like to thank Dan, who wasalways there to challenge me and help me refine my ideas, and also Chris, who continued

to take an active interest in my work despite being thousands of miles away. Finally, I

would like to thank Claremont Graduate University and the School of Religion for providing me with a once in a lifetime opportunity to study and grow.



vii

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Chapter 1: Social Identity – Theoretical Model 7

Origins and Development 7

Social Identity 11

Groups 15

Prototypes, Categorization, and Entitativity 16

Social Categorization and Depersonalization 18

Accessibility and Fit 20

Social Identity Motivations 21

The Influence of Groups 22

Chapter 2: Specific Features of Social Identity Theory 27

Uncertainty-Identity Theory 27

Superordinate Identity 31

Depersonalized Social Attraction 35

Social Identity Theory of Leadership 38

Chapter 3: Social Identity and Modern Religion 44

Categorization 45

In-group Bias 48

Group Norms and Behavior 51



viii

Metacontrast Principle 54

Threatened Identity 55

Self-Enhancement 57

Uncertainty Reduction 60

Superordinate Identities 62

Identity Definition 63

Conclusion 65

Chapter 4: Social Scientific Criticism 69

History 70

Methodological Assumption 77

SIT’s Applicability to the New Testament 82

Social Scientific Criticism and SIT 84

Chapter 5: Historical and Social Context 92

Maccabean Revolt 94

Quirinius’s Census 96

The First Jewish-Roman War 98

The Bar Kokhba Revolt 100

The Overall Relationship with Rome 103

The Revolts in Light of the Social Identity Theory 103

Authorship 107

Destination 107



ix

Date 109

Mixed Table Fellowship 112

The Incident at Antioch 115

The Situation in Galatia 117

Chapter 6 Rhetoric 122

Chapter 7: Prototypical Behavior 134

Galatians 2:15-21 138

Galatians 3:1-9 144




Galatians 4:1-7 153

Paul’s Final Position 155

Chapter 8: Prototypical Figures 158

Abraham 159

Galatians 3:6-9 163




Galatians 3:29 174



x




Chapter 9: Superordinate Identities 181


Chapter 10: Prototypical Leaders 201

Leadership and Jewish Prototypes in Galatians 202


Leadership and Jewish Prototypes in Philippians 204

Leadership and the Christ Prototype in Galatia 207

Leadership and the Christ Prototype in Philippians 212

Leadership and the Christ Prototype in 2 Corinthians 216

Summary 219

Conclusion 221

Bibliography 224



1

Introduction

Scholarship, across all academic fields, has made progress over the last fifty

years. If the last fifty years are any indication, the growth of academic knowledge in this

area is exponential. Building upon the research of their predecessors, and aided by

technological tools and advances, scholars make new discovers more quickly than ever.

For better or worse, this process has lead to an increased level of specialization. Even

within a single field, scholars often bring their expertise to bear on a small portion of the

field. A literary scholar might specialize in one author, a religion scholar in one sect, a

social scientist in one model. This situation has created a fertile opportunity for

transdiciplinary dialogue, in which different areas of scholarship inform one another in a

mutually beneficial exchange.

This is the spirit in which this work is written, building upon the work and efforts

of biblical scholars who first practiced social-scientific criticism of the bible in the sixties

and seventies. This work applies the social identity theory from social psychology to

Galatians in order to determine why Paul’s rhetoric was persuasive, and to gain insights

into Paul’s choice of rhetoric. This brief overview will map everything out and hopefully

make the work easier to follow.

The first chapter covers the basics of the social identity theory (SIT). The chapter

reviews the origins and development of SIT. It also covers key concepts of social

identity, groups, prototypes, depersonalization, social categorization, social identity

motivations, and the influence of groups. The first chapter simply lays out the basic

features of SIT.



2

The second chapter then builds upon this by exploring specific features and

developments of SIT that will be applied to Galatians. The chapter examines the

uncertainty-identity theory, superordinate identity, depersonalized social attraction, and

the social identity theory of leadership. The uncertainty-identity theory provides insights

into how the civil and political unrest in Jerusalem influenced Paul’s opponents and thus

contributed to the situation in Galatia. The immediate cause of the dispute in Galatia was

a disagreement over mixed table fellowship. Uncertainty-identity theory suggests that the

uncertainty created in Jerusalem likely reinforced the opponents’ commitment to their

Jewish identity, making them all the more adamant in the face of this challenge.

The research covering superordinate identity sheds light upon the development of

the newly forming Christian identity, which is in its infancy in Galatia. A superordinate

identity encompasses other identities to form one larger group. In other words, a Muslim,

Christian, and Jew can all be American, while still belonging to their religious groups.

Research on superordinate identity explains that in order to be successful, a superordinate

identity should not threaten the subordinate identities that it subsumes. In other words,

Being American must not undermine what it means to be a Jew. By incorporating and

reinterpreting the Jewish identity in Galatians, Paul is more effectively arguing for a

superordinate identity that includes both Jews and Gentiles.

Finally, the concept of depersonalized social attraction and the social identity

theory of leadership help one understand how Paul was perceived by his audience, and

how his rhetoric shaped this perception. In essence, the more prototypical (i.e. the better a

Christian and Jew) Paul was, the more effective of a leader he would have been when

dealing with people he was not personally acquainted with.



3

The third chapter concludes this coverage of SIT with a survey of social identity

research done on modern religions. The research covered there shows that the above

principles of SIT apply to modern religious practice and that religious identities do

function as powerful social identities.

Chapter four serves as a bridge, connecting the application of SIT in the modern

day to work done on the New Testament (NT). The chapter starts by covering the origins

of social-scientific criticism in the NT. It examines some of the methodological

assumptions of social-scientific criticism, some of its advantages, and some of its

assumptions. It also looks at some of the foundational works in this area, such as the

work of Gerd Theissen, Bruce Malina, and Wayne Meeks. Finally, the chapter ends with

a survey of work that has already applied SIT to the NT, including the work of Philip

Esler, who has done significant work on Galatians. While chapter three establishes the

applicability of SIT to modern religion, chapter four establishes its applicability to the

ancient world and surveys the previous work that serves as a precedent for this approach.

Chapter five then begins the assessment. Chapter five brings SIT to bear upon the

political unrest that surrounded Jerusalem for hundreds of years. Doing so serves two

purposes. First, by using SIT to look at the causes of the various rebellions that occurred,

one can identify key aspects of the Jewish identity, which serve as boundary markers,

separating them from other groups. Second, the uncertainty-identity theory predicts that

this social unrest, and the uncertainty that it created, would have motivated people to

identify more strongly with their social identities. In other words, Jews with strong

religious ties to Jerusalem would have responded to this uncertainty by more strongly

identifying with their Jewish faith.



4

This is likely what happened with Paul’s opponents. Although they were

followers of Jesus, they had religious ties with Jerusalem, and were probably Jewish.

Therefore, the uncertainty created by the civil unrest in Jerusalem probably motivated

them to more adamantly defend the traditional Jewish practices. Thus, in response to the

immediate threat of mixed table fellowship, they adamantly defended their Jewish

identity. Finally, chapter five concludes by looking at the circumstances surrounding

Galatians, such as its authorship, date, and the reason for its composition.

Chapter six begins the transition into looking directly at Galatians by briefly

looking at the history of rhetorical analysis carried out on the letter. It notes some of the

pitfalls of research that has been done, and the inadequacy of analyzing the letter in light

of ancient rhetoric. It then examines some of the similarities and differences between a

rhetorical approach and the one taken here.

After this, chapter seven begins the analysis of Galatians in detail by looking at

the prototypical behaviors found in Galatians and how Paul modifies them. Prototypical

behaviors are those behaviors that define the group and that are adhered to by good group

members. Paul addresses the law, a set of prototypical behaviors, in Galatians in response

to his opponents and the behavior of the people in Galatia.

SIT shows that Paul’s chosen response, to emphasize faith, the spirit, and the

promise, is effective because it builds upon preexisting group prototypes. Faith, in this

case, is not a Christian concept, it is a Jewish concept. The faithfulness of the Jewish

people to God is one of their defining characteristics, and is often connected directly to

observing the law. Paul instead separates these two concepts, and emphasizes one (faith)

over the other (the law). By separating and reinterpreting preexisting group prototypes,



5

Paul is able to effectively shift the group’s boundaries. The rhetoric’s persuasive power

rests less on its logical construction than on its ability to make particular prototypes

salient (i.e. relevant and prominent).

Something similar is seen in chapter eight, which looks at Paul’s manipulation of

prototypical figures in Galatians. Like prototypical behaviors, prototypical figures outline

what it means to be a good group member. The most prominent prototypical figures in

Galatians are Abraham and Christ. SIT shows that Paul’s arguments surrounding

Abraham were persuasive because Paul was reshaping a prototypical figure. Abraham

defined the group. Thus by reshaping his audiences’ understanding of Abraham, he was

able to reshape the group’s boundaries.

Chapter nine shifts focus slightly and looks at the superordinate identity that Paul

is establishing in Galatians. SIT shows that superordinate identities are more effective

when subordinate identities are protected. Thus Paul’s attempts to establish a

superordinate identity are made more persuasive by his reinterpretation of the law and

Abraham. By reinterpreting the traditional Jewish prototypes, he is able to give the

Jewish identity (a subordinate identity) a protected and valued place within the new

superordinate identity. This made it easier for people to adopt the new identity and is one

of the reasons for Paul’s success.

Finally, chapter ten focuses on Paul’s role as a leader in the early church. The social

identity theory of leadership states that leaders who are more prototypical (i.e. more in

line with the group’s standards) will be more effective when the group’s identity is

relevent, and when the leader is dealing with people he or she does not know on a

personal level. Therefore, Paul’s declarations of his Jewish heritage and of his sufferings



6

as a follower of Christ make him a more effective leader. They make him more

prototypical, more socially attractive, and thus more effective.



7

Chapter 1: Social Identity – Theoretical Model

Origins and Development

Henri Tajfel was the first to develop social identity theory in the early 1970s.

Tajfel’s interest in social identity was driven by his experiences in the events surrounding

World War II. As a Polish Jew in Europe, Tajfel lived through the rise of the Nazis, the

Holocaust, and postwar relocation. These experiences drove his passion for

understanding prejudice, discrimination, and intergroup conflict. In the events

surrounding World War II Tajfel saw large-scale social movements and phenomena that

could not be adequately explained in terms of personality or interpersonal interactions.

Instead, he saw social forces at work behind individual actions. Tajfel’s explicit goal was

to avoid the reductionism that guided studies of group behavior at the time. He did not

want to reinterpret group phenomena as the product of personality traits, individual

differences, and interpersonal actions carried out by many people. By avoiding this

reductionism, Tajfel went against the dominant paradigm in social psychology.1

Tajfel’s research laid the foundation for work on social identity. An early paper

from 1959 focused on the way in which social pressure can change the way that people

perceive the physical world around them. In other words, an individual’s estimation of

the size, weight, or color of an object will change when social pressure is applied. Tajfel

uses this as a starting point and speculates that a similar result may occur when the issue

1 Michael A. Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," in Contemporary Social Psychological Theories, ed. Peter J.

Burke (Stanford: Stanford Social Sciences, 2006), 112.



8

at hand is abstract (e.g. beauty, pleasantness, intelligence, etc.) instead of physical.2 This

is a critical insight. It is one of the first steps taken towards understanding groups as

something other than the sum of individual personalities. Following this, Tajfel’s early

work focuses primarily on the process of categorization. Tajfel’s 1964 study focused

upon the ways in which people categorize various items (e.g. dots, lines, or shapes).

There had been significant interest in this cognitive process, but at this time it was poorly

understood. As with the study in 1959, this study focuses upon physical objects and their

categorization instead of social categories.3 He tied this work directly into his study of

prejudice and the cognitive processes behind it.

In the 1970s Tajfel’s research started to look at social categories and the influence

of a group upon behavior. For example, a 1971 study divided people into groups and then

asked them to distribute rewards and penalties. The people involved favored the group

they belonged to. Not only that, but they attempted to maximize the difference between

their group and the other group, even at the cost of other objective advantages.4 These

phenomena of group bias (favoring one’s group over another) and metacontrast

(maximizing the differences between groups) became key features of SIT.

The first studies, such as the ones just mentioned, divided people into groups

based on a seemly irrelevant criterion (e.g. esthetic preferences). In 1972, Tajfel and

Michael Billig wanted to see if the same group bias occurred when the divisions were

entirely random. Not only was it still present, but discrimination increased when the

notion of ‘group’ was introduced. It was greater than it had been in other studies where

2 Henri Tajfel, "Quantitative Judgement in Social Perception," British Journal of Psychology 50 (1959): 28.3 Henri Tajfel, Alan Richardson, and Louis Everstine, "Individual Consistencies in Categorizing: A Study

of Judgmental Behavior," Journal of Personality 32, no. 1 (1964): 90-108.4 Henri Tajfel, M. Billig, R. P. Bundy, and C. Flament, "Social Categorization and Intergroup Behaviour,"

European Journal of Social Psychology 1 (1971): 149-77.



9

the idea of a ‘group’ was never explicitly mentioned, even if those groups were decided

by some non-random criterion.5

During this period, Tajfel also played a key role in the development of the

European Association of Experimental Social Psychology and the European Journal of

Social Psychology.6 In the early 1970s, Tajfel began to collaborate with John C. Turner.

They brought together Tajfel’s ideas surrounding social categorization, ethnocentrism,

social comparison, and intergroup relations and united them under the concept of social

identity.7 Tajfel saw social identity as a combination of the individual’s knowledge of the

group and the emotional significance the individual attaches to group membership.

8

Groups are formed when people share the same social identity. These groups then

compete with one another for status. Additionally, the strategies used by group members

in competition vary depending upon their views of intergroup relations (i.e. the

relationship between different groups). This model became known as social identity

theory.9 Tajfel presented his theory in 1974 and later published it with Turner in 1979.

10

Tajfel’s contributions to both social psychology and SIT were profound. These words,

written shortly before his death, remain as true today as they were in 1982.

It seems that the future will have to be much longer than the past in the

field of intergroup behavior. The increasing global interdependence sincethe end of World War II has enormously increased the diversity and

complexity of intergroup relations. The psychological study of these

problems, which will manage to combine some of our traditional

5

Michael Billig and Henri Tajfel, "Social Categorization and Similarity in Intergroup Behaviour," European Journal of Social Psychology 3, no. 1 (1973): 27-52.6 Henri Tajfel, "Some Developments in European Social Psychology," European Journal of Social

Psychology 2, no. 3 (1972): 307-21.7 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 113.8 Tajfel, "Some Developments," 307-21.9 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 113.10 Henri Tajfel and J. C. Turner, "An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict," in The Social Psychologyof Intergroup Relations, ed. William G. Austin and Stephen Worchel (Monterey: Brooks/Cole, 1979), 33-

47.



10

preoccupations with an increased sensitivity to the nature of social

realities, is one of our most important tasks for the future.11

Tajfel’s legacy continues to this day.

Social identity research then shifted focus. During the late 1970s and early to mid

1980s Turner focused on developing “the social identity theory of the group,” which

focused on self-categorization (i.e. viewing one’s self as a group member) as the

cognitive dimension of social identity. This period also saw the further development of

referent informational influence. This model describes the ways in which people create

group norms. These norms are based upon the behavior of other prototypical in-group

members and are then internalized by the individual, who then enacts them as part of

their social identity. Also during this period, there was an increased interest in the

motivations of individuals participating in the social identity process.

By the mid-1980s social identity research had begun to spread rapidly. This rapid

growth created a lack of focus and direction, as John Turner points out in the forward of

Michael Hogg’s and Dominic Abrams’ 1988 book Social Identifications. His selective

survey describes research on a wide range of topics, including:

the effects of social categorization on intergroup relations, intergroup

conflict and ethnocentrism (including racial prejudice and inter-ethnic

contact), social change, the social psychology of language, identity and theself concept, psychological group formation, the distinction between

interpersonal and intergroup behaviour, group cohesion, social attraction,

social influence and conformity, social co-operation (e.g. ‘socialdilemmas’ and social interaction in mixed-motive settings), crowd

behaviour, group polarization, social stereotyping, attri bution theory,

equity theory and the metatheory of social psychology.12

11 Henri Tajfel, "Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations," Annual Review of Psychology 33 (1982): 32.12 Michael A. Hogg and Dominic Abrams, Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup

Relations and Group Processes (London: Routledge, 1988), XI.



11

Hogg and Abrams’ 1988 work argues in favor of an integrated social identity approach,

which would incorporate a wide range of concepts.13

Since then there has been a massive

amount of social identity research focused on developing key concepts such as

stereotyping, self-conception, motivation, collective behavior, norms and others. Social

identity theory continues to grow and has gained popularity in fields outside of social

psychology, such as sociology and organizational science.14

Social Identity

Identity remains a slippery concept. SIT draws a general distinction between

social identity and personal identity. Social identity, as defined by SIT, is centered on the

social group. A social group is a group of three or more people that share a common

identity. They evaluate themselves in the same way and share a definition of who they

are, what their characteristics are, and how they compare to and relate to people that do

not belong to their group. “Group membership is a matter of collective self-construal –

‘we’ and ‘us’ versus ‘them.’”15 Thus an individual’s social identity comes out of his or

her awareness of belonging to a group, and the importance placed upon this membership.

The groups that an individual belongs to are designated as in-groups. The groups that the

individual does not belong to are designated as out-groups. Furthermore, social identity,

as founded upon group membership, becomes the basis for in-group/out-group

distinctions. One individual’s in-group is another individual’s out-group. SIT focuses on

both how the in-group/out-group distinction arises and how it influences behavior.

13Hogg and Abrams, Social Identifications, XIII.14 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 113-14.15 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 115.



12

In contrast to social identity, personal identity focuses on the characteristics of the

individual that are not shared. “Personal identity is a self-construal in terms of

idiosyncratic personality attributes that are not shared with other people (‘I’) or personal

dyadic relationships with a specific other person (‘me’ and ‘you’).”16

Social identities

often shape the development of personal identities, friendships, and enmities. It is

important to note that people can have many different personal and social identities,

limited only by the number of social groups they belong to and personal relationships

they have.

The subjective importance, value, and accessibility of these identities vary from

person to person. The accessibility of these identities varies in both chronic accessibility,

how accessible it is in an individual’s mind, and situational accessibility, how accessible

it is in an immediate situation. An identity that is currently prominent in the mind is said

to be salient. Additionally, an individual’s sense of identity varies from situation to

situation, and it is important to note that “in any given situation only one identity is

psychologically salient to govern self-construal, social perception, and social conduct. As

the situation or context changes, so does the salient identity, or the form that the identity

takes.”17

The concepts of social and personal identity are generally accepted within the

study of SIT; athough some refinements, variations, and alternatives have been

suggested. For example, Anne Reid and Kay Deaux discuss personal attributes rather

than personal identities. They define attributes to be “the personality traits,

16 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 115.17 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 115.



13

characteristics, and behaviors that an individual uses in self-description.”18

Deaux,

working with others, also found support for different categories of social identity. Their

research suggested five categories: “personal relationships, vocations/avocations,

political affiliations, ethnic/religious groups, and stigmatized groups.”19

Rather than looking at different categories of social identity, James Cameron

examines whether social identity is a single-faceted concept or is better represented by

several separable facets.20

Cameron suggests three facets: centrality, in-group affect, and

in-group ties. Centrality refers to the enduring psychological salience of group

membership, while in-group affect reflects the value ascribed to it. Finally, in-group ties

deal with the relationships developed with other group members.21

Some scholars view the dichotomy drawn between social and personal identities

as too stark.22

For example, Marilynn B. Brewer and Wendi Gardner suggest three

categories of self: personal self, relational self, and collective self. “Personal self is the

differentiated, individuated self-concept . . . relational self is the self-concept derived

from connections and role relationships with significant others . . . [and] at the group

level is the collective self, which corresponds to the concept of social identity.”23

Brewer

also later wrote an article suggesting four categories of identity: person-based social

identities, relational social identities, group-based social identities, and collective

identities. Person-based social identities refer to social identities that are located within

18 Anne Reid and Kay Deaux, "Relationship between Social and Personal Identities: Segregation or

Integration," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71, no. 6 (1996): 1084-91.19 Kay Deaux, Anne Reid, Kim Mizrahi, and Kathleen A. Ethier, "Parameters of Social Identity," Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology 68, no. 2 (1995): 280.20 James E. Cameron, "A Three-Factor Model of Social Identity," Self and Identity 3, no. 3 (2004): 239.21 Cameron, "A Three-Factor Model," 253.22 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 116.23 Marilynn B. Brewer and Wendi Gardner, "Who Is This 'We'? Levels of Collective Identity and Self

Representations," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71, no. 1 (1996): 84.



14

the individual. These identities are aspects of the self that are heavily influenced by

membership in groups and shared socialization experiences. Relational social identities,

like the role identities mentioned by other scholars, define the self in relation to others.

This category includes a wide range of group identities such as familial relationships,

close personal relationships, occupational role relationships, work teams, social clubs,

and others. Group-based social identity is viewed in the same way as social identity in

social identity theory and Turner’s self-categorization theory. Finally, collective identity

focuses on the norms, values, and ideologies of the group and can represent the

achievement of collective efforts.

24

The concept of the relational self or relational social identity and its relationship

to the personal and social identity categories of SIT is particularly interesting. On the one

hand, when discussed in terms of dyadic relationships that separate people from the

group, as is seen in individualist cultures, relational social identities are best described as

personal identities. On the other hand, “in collectivist cultures group membership can be

defined in terms of people’s relationships to one another – your network of relationships

locates you within the group and maintains your membership. Here relational identity is

how social identity is expressed.”25

While the distinctions, refinements, and variations on the concepts of social and

personal identity presented here are important, this work will use the terms social identity

and personal identity to refer to collective self-construal and individual self-construal

respectively. These definitions reflect the basic understanding of identity found within

SIT. They are also easily applied to the NT, given that early followers of Jesus formed

24 Marilynn B. Brewer, "The Many Faces of Social Identity: Implications for Political Psychology,"

Political Psychology 22, no. 1 (2001): 119.25 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 116.



15

social identities, of collective self-construal, where groups were explicitly defined,

adhered to, and used as a point of social comparison. Unfortunately, given the nature of

historical texts, some information is absent. It is impossible to ask Paul to clarify his

arguments or discuss new topics. It is also impossible to interview members of his

congregations. In light of this, it is important to use SIT and its concept of identity

carefully in order to illuminate the subject without moving beyond either the explanatory

scope of SIT or the data provided by the NT.

Groups

While social identity is collective self-construal, and this forms the basis for a

group, it is important to look at the concept of a group in more detail. To start with, two

people do not form a group. SIT does not view dyads as groups for three main reasons.

First, the interactions within a dyad are dominated by interpersonal processes. Second,

three people are necessary for inferring group norms from others. These norms are

inferred by watching the way that other people interact within a group. If there are only

two people, it is impossible to witness two other group members interacting. Finally,

many group processes (e.g. coalition formation, majority social pressure, and deviance

processes) can’t happen. This view of dyads reflects the views of many researchers.

It is possible for two people to reflect a group if they belong to a larger social

identity. For example, a Japanese couple visiting the United States might behave in a

Japanese way, but this is not because the two people form their own group. It is because

they belong to a larger social identity, they belong to the group “Japanese.” Indeed, a



16

single individual may reflect the norms of a group and be representational of their

identity; but this is only possible because they belong to a larger group.26

While three or more people are necessary for group formation, they are not

sufficient. The key distinction, from the perspective of social identity, is that the

individuals identify with the group. Many things, such as group structure, interaction,

shared goals, etc., contribute to the distinctive and cohesive nature of a group.27

These

things may strengthen identification; but it is the underlying psychological process of

identification that is the basis of group phenomena. As a result, groups vary in ways that

reflect the variation in identity discussed earlier. One general distinction is drawn

between groups based upon interpersonal bonds and group based upon formalized and

impersonal associations. While these distinctions might be important, the SIT sees them

as secondary to the role played by group identification. A person might belong to a

group, either based upon interpersonal relationships or formalized associations, but if that

person does not identify with the group, if he or she does not define and evaluate

themselves in terms of the group, then they will not think and act like group members.28

Prototypes, Categorization, and Entitativity

As concepts, social identity and group are defined as the shared self-construal of

three or more people who identify with one another. An individual’s ability to recognize,

define, and distinguish these social identities from one another, a process of

categorization, is key. “The theory of social identity rests on an assumption that

26 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 117.27 Donald T. Campbell, "Common Fate, Similarity, and Other Indices of the Status of Aggregates of

Persons as Social Entities," Behavioral Science 3 (1958): 14-25; David L. Hamilton and Steven J. Sherman,"Perceiving Persons and Groups," Psychological Review 103, no. 2 (1996): 336-55.28 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 117.



17

categorization is the process by which people order, and render predictable, information

about the world in which they live. This process of categorization operates on objects,

other people, and oneself, and consequently people are seen as belonging to the same or

different categories as oneself.”29

Groups, and thus social identities, are fundamentally

categories of people. These categories are represented cognitively as prototypes. A

prototype is “a fuzzy set of attributes (perceptions, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors) that

are related to one another in a meaningful way and that simultaneously capture

similarities within the group and differences between the group and other groups or

people who are not in the group.”

30

The process of describing the similarities within and the differences between the

group and others maximizes entitativity. Entitativity refers to “the property of a category

that makes it appear to be a cohesive and clearly structured entity that is distinct from

other entities.”31

In other words, prototypes maximize entitativity by highlighting

similarities within the group and differences between groups. Prototypes also follow the

metacontrast principle. They highlight similarities within a group and differences

between groups, creating the largest possible contrast between the in-group and out-

groups.32

This has various consequences. First, the content of the prototype will focus on

those things which maximize metacontrast in a positive way for the in-group (i.e. a group

would not demean itself simply for the sake of entitativity). Second, because prototypes

29 Hogg and Abrams, Social Identifications, 209.30 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 118.31 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 118. For a more in depth discussion of the definition, measurement, and

implications of entitativity see Hamilton and Sherman, "Perceiving Persons," 336-55.32 Michael A. Hogg and Deborah J. Terry, Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts

(Philadelphia: Psychology Press, 2001), 5.



18

seek to maximize entitativity, they tend to describe ideal, often hypothetical, in-group

members. Such ideals highlight the distinctiveness of the group more effectively than a

prototype that reflects average and typical members. Third, prototypes vary from

situation to situation. They reflect the social context. This is because metacontrast

involves comparisons made both within the group (intragroup) and between groups

(intergroup). Finally, intragroup behavior and intergroup behavior are directly related, as

one affects the other.33

Social Categorization and Depersonalization

Social categorization is the mechanism behind prototypes and is the cognitive

basis of social identity processes. Social categorization refers to the process of

categorizing someone as a member of a group. This involves both categorizing people as

well as depersonalizing them. Depersonalization is the act of viewing a person in terms of

group membership and in comparison to group prototypes, instead of as a unique

individual. This also involves ascribing prototypical attributes to the individual.

This should not be confused with dehumanization. Dehumanization refers to the

act of viewing someone as less then human, or unworthy of humane treatment. In

contrast, depersonalization only refers to viewing someone in light of a prototype. This

often leads to a positive evaluation, particularly when dealing with in-group prototypes.

This, however, can lead to negative evaluations, particularly if the prototype comes from

an out-group. Depersonalization of out-group members is often called stereotyping.34

33 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 118.34 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 118-19.



19

The key to SIT is that this process happens not only with in-group members and

out-group members, but also with an individual’s sense of self. The individual

depersonalizes oneself. This change in self-perception is important. It brings the

perception of the self and one’s behavior in line with the relevant in-group prototypes.

One begins to behave as a member of a group, rather than as an individual. This process

“produces, for instance, normative behavior, stereotyping, ethnocentrism, positive

ingroup attitudes and cohesion, cooperation and altruism, emotional contagion and

empathy, collective behavior, shared norms, and mutual influence.”35

It is also important to look at the psychological saliency of social categories. As

mentioned above, people depersonalize themselves and others by associating individuals

with relevant prototypes. These prototypes follow the metacontrast principle and thus

serve to maximize entitativity by emphasizing intragroup similarities and intergroup

differences. Given that this process is shaped by the relevant social context, social

identities must shift in relative importance, some being more relevant to a particular

situation then others. For example, an individual’s social identity as an American may be

particularly relevant when that person is traveling in South Africa, yet fade into the

background when the individual returns to the United States. The prominence that

particular social identities carry in the mind is referred to as psychological saliency. The

cognitive system compares details of the present social context to social categories and

activates (i.e. makes salient) the social identity that frames the present context and one’s

place within it in the most meaningful way.36

35 Hogg and Terry, Social Identity Processes, 5.36 Hogg and Terry, Social Identity Processes, 7.



20

Accessibility and Fit

This application of social categories to particular situations is often talked about

in terms of accessibility and fit. The accessibility of a category refers to its availability.

Categories can be both chronically accessible and situational accessible. A category is

chronically accessible if it is considered important and frequently used. In contrast, a

category is situational if the immediate situation itself makes it particularly salient.37

The fit of a given category is often described in terms of structural (or

comparative) fit and normative fit. Structural fit refers to how relevant a category is for

describing the similarities and differences among people. In contrast, normative fit refers

to a category’s ability to account for context-specific behaviors.38

When presented with a

new social context, people examine various social categories and their relationship with

the immediate social context. Those that fit poorly, either because they fail to account for

the differences and similarities found between individuals (structural fit) or they fail to

explain the observed behavior (normative fit), lose saliency. When this happens, people

cycle through various categories (e.g. political orientation, religion, profession) until the

optimal fit is achieved.

That said, saliency is not the mechanical product of the best categorical fit and it

is not entirely automatic. For example, people prefer categories that favor their in-group.

Additionally, the process can also be social in nature with people negotiating or

competing over the saliency of different categories.39

This “social interaction involves

the motivated manipulation of symbols (e.g., through speech, appearance, behavior)

people who are strategically competing with one another to influence the frame of

by

37 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 119.38 Hogg and Terry, Social Identity Processes, 7.39 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 119.



21

reference within which accessibility and fit interact.”40

People are not willing to passively

accept whatever category naturally has the best fit. Instead they are active participants,

seeking out those categorizations that are the most meaningful and favorable for them.41

The category that emerges from this process with the best fit becomes

psychologically salient. This category then becomes the basis for prototype-based

depersonalization, group identification, and self-categorization. It forms the basis of

context-relevant intergroup behaviors by enhancing the entitativity of the group and by

highlighting in-group similarities and out-group differences.42

In this way, the

psychological saliency of social categories is the product of a dynamic process that

adjusts to fit the specific circumstances of the individual.

Social Identity Motivations

While the discussion up to this point has focused on the processes underlying

social identity, it is important to examine the motivations that lie behind the behavior.

One of the motives that SIT focuses on is self-enhancement. The other main motivation,

uncertainty reduction, will be examined in detail later. Social identities play a central role

in self-enhancement. Given a relevant social context, social categories become

psychologically salient, and thus the “self, as social identity, is defined and evaluated in

group terms, and therefore the status, prestige, and social valence of the group attaches to

oneself.”43

This causes people to promote the positive distinctiveness of their group,

40 Hogg and Terry, Social Identity Processes, 7.41 Hogg and Terry, Social Identity Processes, 7.42 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 119.43 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 120.



22

which is the belief that “we” (those belonging to the in-group) are better then “them”

(those belonging to an out-group).

This close relationship between one’s social identity and one’s sense of self has

led to the suggestion that self-enhancement and group membership may be related to an

individual’s sense of self-esteem. The self-esteem hypothesis suggests that individuals

with low self-esteem are motivated to identify with a group and that intergroup behavior

and identification raises self-esteem.44

But continued review of the self-esteem

hypothesis has yielded mixed results.45

A crucial finding is that although group

adherence can raise self-esteem, it is a relatively unreliable cause of identification. This

supports the idea that rather than motivating behavior, self-esteem is an internal

measurement, gauging the individual’s level of satisfaction. Self-esteem reflects the

degree to which other needs and motivations (e.g. the need for rewarding interpersonal

relationships) are being met. Ultimately, although the connection between self-

enhancement and social identity processes is undeniable, the link between self-est

and positive group distinctiveness is not always tight. This is also seen in the ability o

people to buffer themselves against stigmatizing group

eem

f

membership.46

The Influence of Groups

Groups can have a large impact upon both the behavior of an individual and what

they consider to be normal and acceptable behavior. We can informally experience this

44 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 120. See also: C. Sedikides and M. J. Strube, "Self-Evaluation: To Thine

Own Self Be Good, to Thine Own Self Be Sure, to Thine Own Self Be True, and to Thine Own Self Be

Better," in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. M. P. Zanna (New York: Academic Press,

1997), 209-96; Hogg and Abrams, Social Identifications.45 Dominic Abrams and Michael A. Hogg, "Comments on the Motivational Status of Self-Esteem in Social

Identity and Intergroup Discrimination," European Journal of Social Psychology 18 (1988): 317-34.46 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 120.



23

effect first hand. For example, more then once I have found myself, as a student of

religion, attending a religious service that I was unfamiliar with. In these situations I find

myself compelled to emulate the behavior I see around me. I am acting out the normal

behavior of the group in order to, at least temporarily, become a participating member of

that group. SIT has formalized the study of this process.

The study of the influence groups exert and the norms they establish is not new.47

The development of SIT provided a new theoretical framework for understanding this

influence. SIT understands the influence exerted by the group to be a product of the

relationship between group norms and the process of self-categorization. Norms are those

attitudes and behaviors that define the group. Cognitively, these norms are represented by

the group’s prototypes. As discussed above, prototypes can be either ideals to which the

group holds or can be represented by people who represent the ideal group member (e.g.

Jesus, Abraham). This is then met by the process of self-categorization and

depersonalization, in which a person sees oneself through the lens of the prototype. The

person is no longer an individual, but instead a group member, defined by and evaluated

against the group’s prototypes. This produces conformity to in-group norms because the

self is brought inline with the prototype. “Thus conformity is not surface behavioral

compliance but a deeper process whereby people’s behavior is transformed to correspond

to the appropriate self-defining group prototype.”48

The influence of groups upon the individual has been demonstrated

experimentally numerous times. Early research demonstrated both the influence that

47 George R. Goethals, "A Century of Social Psychology: Individuals, Ideas, and Investigations," in The

Sage Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. Michael Hogg and Joel Cooper (London: Sage Publications,2007), 3-23.48 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 124.



24

groups have upon the attitudes of individuals and the long term consequences of such

influence.49

It is worth looking at some specific examples. One relevant phenomenon is

group polarization. Group polarization refers to the process in which an individual’s

views become more extreme after they discuss them with other like minded individuals.

For example, five people who support same-sex marriage will support it more strongly

after discussing it with each other. This phenomenon was first observed in the 1961 by

James Stoner. Early research looked at situations in which group discussion increased

risky choices. The phenomenon was originally called the risky-shift phenomenon.

Eventually it was realized that this was incorrect. Experiments showed that the

phenomenon could lead to more cautious choices as well as riskier ones. Thus it has since

become known as group polarization.50

Explaining the cause of group polarization has been difficult, but resent research

has made progress understanding the phenomenon in light of SIT.51

According to SIT,

polarization is the consequence of an individual’s conformity to a perceived in-group

norm. Research has started to support this understanding. For example, two experiments

conducted by Diane Mackie demonstrated the importance of the group. The first

experiment found that polarization occurred when the relevant information was provided

by the individual’s in-group. The second experiment found that polarization occurred

49 T. M. Newcomb, Personality and Social Change: Attitude Formation in a Student Community (New

York: Dryden Press, 1943). Newcomb studied the views of women who attended the newly formed

Bennington College. The women, who were mostly conservative, were influenced by the more liberal

norms of the college. His follow-up study found that these changed persisted in the women for years tocome.50 David G. Myers and Helmut Lamm, "The Group Polarization Phenomenon," Psychological Bulletin 83(1976): 602-03.51 For example, Isenberg examines the social comparison and persuasive argumentation explanations in

Daniel J. Isenberg, "Group Polarization: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis," Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology 50 (1986): 1141-51. Along these lines, Abrams divides previous explanations into two

general categories, pressure to comply and reasons to agree. See Dominic Abrams and Michael A. Hogg,"Social Identification, Self-Categorization and Social Influence," European Review of Social Psychology 1

(1990): 208.



25

when individuals focused on their group membership, and it did not when they focused

on their individual performance.52

Other research also supports this understanding.53

This naturally leads towards an examination of behaviors. Research has

demonstrated that the more strongly a person identifies with a group, the more likely they

are to follow the behavioral prescriptions of the group. For example, two studies were

conducted that examined the relationship between the level of group identification and an

individual’s intention to carry out a prescribed behavior. In the first study, the behavior

was to engage in regular exercise. In the second it was to engage in sun-protective

behavior. In both cases the group norm had an effect on those individuals that identified

strongly with the group. It was also found that an individual’s attitude and the perceived

consequences of not taking action had a larger influence on those people that had a low

level of identification with the group.54

This fits with the anecdotal observation from the

field of religious studies that increased identification with a particular religious group

often correlates with an increased devotion to its teachings.

The ability for group norms to influence our behavior serves an important social

function. Namely, it combats loafers. People work collectively towards goals, and often

the outcome of the endeavor is not directly tied to an individual’s performance. For

example, people pay taxes in order to fund public schools, police forces, and fire

departments. At the same time, an individual can cheat on their taxes and still enjoy these

benefits because the group succeeds despite the individual’s failure to contribute.

52 Diane M. Mackie, "Social Identification Effects in Group Polarization," Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology 50 (1986): 702.53 Abrams and Hogg, "Social Identification," 208-12.54 Deborah J. Terry and Michael A. Hogg, "Group Norms and the Attitude-Behavior Relationship: A Role

for Group Identification," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22 (1996): 776.



26

That people loaf is well established.55

Social identities and the norms that they

establish can encourage greater participation and contribution from individuals. Research

has shown that an individual’s level of participation in collective action is influenced by

both a cost/benefit consideration and an individual’s social identity. In other words,

people are motivated both by specific extrinsic rewards and by the obligations found in

their social identity.56

While the influence of social identities upon group participation is

well established, the reason social identity has such a strong influence is less clear.

Research is beginning to shed light on the problem. One paper looked at two

possible explanations for the phenomenon. The first was the goal-transformation

hypothesis. It suggests that social identification makes the collective good more

important to the individual. The second was the goal-amplification hypothesis. It suggests

that social identification lead to a greater level of trust in the cooperation of the other

group members. The three studies conducted supported the goal-transformation

hypothesis. This suggests that social identification promotes cooperation because the

individual’s motives are transformed, shifting towards the interests of the group.57

Taken together with the research above, it becomes clear that social identities

have a clear impact upon the attitude and behavior of the individuals who adopt them.

This is the result of self-categorization and depersonalization. People see themselves as

group members, rather than individuals. Thus their attitudes shift towards those of the

group, and their behavior is influenced by the group’s norms.

55 S. J. Karau and K. D. Williams, "Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration,"

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65 (1993): 681-706.56 S. Stürmer and B. Simon, "Collective Action: Towards a Dual-Pathway Model," European Review of

Social Psychology 15 (2004): 59.57 D. De Cremer and M. Van Vugt, "Social Identification Effects in Social Dilemmas: A Transformation of

Motives," European Journal of Social Psychology 29 (1999): 871-93.



27

Chapter 2: Specific Features of Social Identity Theory

Uncertainty-Identity Theory

This chapter will highlight some specific features of SIT that will be particularly

relevant for this study of Galatians. Uncertainty-identity theory is the first specific feature

of SIT that will be examined. Alongside self-enhancement, the desire to reduce

uncertainty is one of the motivational factors that drives people to adopt and emphasis

various social identities. “When people feel uncertainty about themselves or things

reflecting on self, they ‘join’ new groups (e.g., sign up as a member of an environmental

group), identify with or identify more strongly with existing self-inclusive categories

(e.g., one’s nation), or identify with or identify more strongly with groups that they

already ‘belong’ to (e.g., one’s work team).”58

Over the last decade, the roll that

uncertainty plays within SIT has increasingly become a focus of study in and of itself.

The term uncertainty-identity theory refers to this pursuit and reflects the further

development of this motivational component of SIT.59

It is important to start by looking at uncertainty. While uncertainty motivates

people to adopt and emphasize social identities, not all uncertainties are created equal.

Feelings of uncertainty related to an individual’s sense of self are the most critical. For

example, someone may know very little about Botswana, the African country. They may

be uncertain about its location, language, and cultural customs, but this uncertainty will

not influence their sense of self and their social identity if it seems irrelevant. On the

58 Michael A. Hogg, "Uncertainty-Identity Theory," in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed.

Mark P. Zanna (San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press, 2007), 80.59 Hogg, "Uncertainty-Identity Theory," 69.



28

other hand, if the individual decides to marry a person from Botswana, move to

Botswana, and seek citizenship, suddenly this uncertainty becomes very relevant to one’s

sense of self and social identity. This type of uncertainty, self-uncertainty, is the focus of

uncertainty-identity theory and a key motivational component of SIT.60

Additionally, uncertainty-identity theory focuses on uncertainty that corresponds

to the social context surrounding an individual. This uncertainty “is produced by

contextual factors that challenge people’s certainty about their cognitions, perceptions,

feelings, and behaviours, and ultimately, certainty about and confidence in their sense of

self.”

61

Finally, it is important to note that uncertainty-identity theory examines

uncertainty-reduction, not certainty creation. Absolute certainty does not exist, and

instead of pursuing it, people seek to reduce their levels of uncertainty.62

Research has emerged to support the claims of the uncertainty-identity theory.

Early studies of uncertainty focused upon the minimal group paradigm. The minimal

group paradigm emerged from early studies in social psychology that found that people

will display intergroup biases even when placed in seemly arbitrary and meaningless

groups. The minimal conditions needed to create this effect became known as the

minimal group paradigm.

The minimal group paradigm was an appropriate starting place for three reasons.

First, the minimal group paradigm played a critical role in the creation of SIT. Second, it

seemed unlikely that self-enhancement would be the only cause behind the intergroup

discrimination in these clinical situations. Finally, research utilizing the minimal group

60 Hogg, "Uncertainty-Identity Theory," 73.61 Hogg, "Uncertainty-Identity Theory," 77.62 Hogg, "Uncertainty-Identity Theory," 73-74.



29

paradigm naturally creates uncertainty in the participants due to the novel nature of the

experience.63

The first paper examining uncertainty in this way was published in 1999. Two

experiments were conducted that manipulated the levels of uncertainty felt by the

participants and examined how this affected their intergroup biases. Beyond looking at

uncertainty’s roll, the study also examined the critical question of whether or not

categorization itself is sufficient to cause intergroup discrimination. The study found that

participants only discriminated when categorized under conditions of uncertainty. This

correlated with enhanced group identification and elevated self-esteem. Additionally it

was found that categorization, while necessary, was not sufficient to cause

discrimination. Self-categorization, motivated in this case by uncertainty, is a necessary

prerequisite for discrimination.64

Further research continues to support uncertainty-identity theory. A 2005 paper

looked at the relationship between uncertainty, group status, and prototypicality. In the

first experiment, uncertainty and group status were manipulated. As predicted, it was

found that individuals with low levels of uncertainty preferred to identify with high-status

groups, while individuals with high levels of uncertainty showed no preference between

high or low status groups. The individuals under high levels of uncertainty where more

strongly motivated to identify with a group, in order to reduce their uncertainty. Because

of this, they were more willing to associate with a group regardless of its status. In

addition to this, the strength of their group identification was higher then those

63 Hogg, "Uncertainty-Identity Theory," 81.64 Paul G. Grieve and Michael A. Hogg, "Subjective Uncertainty and Intergroup Discrimination in the

Minimal Group Situation," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25 (1999): 926.



30

experiencing low levels of uncertainty. Greater levels of uncertainty caused individuals to

identify with their groups more strongly.

A second experiment added prototypicality to the mix. The individual’s

identification with a low status group, under high uncertainty, decreased when

prototypicality was low. In other words, individuals are attracted to groups that fit

themselves.65

Prototypes play a key role in SIT, not only in uncertainty-identity theory,

but in other areas as well. Its presence will be seen in the rest of this chapter.

Over the last five years, further research of the uncertainty-identity theory has tied

uncertainty to many different phenomena observed by the SIT. A paper published in 2007

looked at the relationship between group-norms and uncertainty. The study found that

individuals under high levels of uncertainty are more likely to conform to group norms.66

Another paper published in 2007 looked at the relationship between uncertainty

and in-group entitativity. Two experiments were done, one was a field study dealing with

political parties, and the other was a done with ad hoc groups. Both experiments

supported the study’s hypothesis. Individuals identify most strongly with a group when

both their uncertainty and the group’s entitativity are high. In other words, in times of

high uncertainty, people identify with groups that are cohesive, clearly structured, and

distinct from other groups.67

Another paper, from 2009, looked at striking grocery store employees in one

experiment, and Democrats and Republicans in a second. It found that when individuals

65 Scott A. Reid and Michael A. Hogg, "Uncertainty Reduction, Self-Enhancement, and IngroupIdentification," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31 (2005): 804-17.66 Joanne R. Smith, Michael A. Hogg, Robin Martin, and Deborah J. Terry, "Uncertainty and the Influence

of Group Norms in the Attitude-Behaviour Relationship," British Journal of Social Psychology, no. 46

(2007): 769-92.67 Michael A. Hogg, David K. Sherman, Joel Dierselhuis, Angela T. Maitner, and Graham Moffitt,

"Uncertainty, Entitativity, and Group Identification," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43

(2007): 135-42.



31

are faced with a highly entitative in-group, and a high level of uncertainty, they polarize

their group’s position in relation to the out-group. In other words, when an individual

belongs to a cohesive and distinct group (e.g. Democrats), and they experience

uncertainty, they polarize their position, taking a stronger stance against their opponents

(e.g. Republicans).68

The papers presented here are representational of a growing body of research that

is beginning to tie uncertainty reduction theory into real world situations. Specifically, the

link between uncertainty and ideological positions is becoming clearer. Uncertainty,

particularly extreme cases of uncertainty, can be associated with orthodoxy, hierarchy,

extremism, and ideological belief systems. This can contribute to groups with strong

identities, following simple and highly focused beliefs. Such groups have a low tolerance

for disagreements and clear group norms which one has to follow.69

This can lead to a

polarization of positions and a strict adherence to the group’s moral and ethical standards,

creating a stronger sense of community and group identity.

Superordinate Identity

Superordinate identity is the second feature of SIT that will be examined. The

idea behind superordinate identities is straight forward. People often belong to more than

one social group. For example, someone may be both Jewish and an American. Both are

social identities, and they each become salient under different circumstances. In this

example ‘American’ can become a superordinate identity. This is because being ‘Jewish’

68 David K. Sherman, Michael A. Hogg, and Angela T. Maitner, "Perceived Polarization: Reconciling

Ingroup and Intergroup Perceptions under Uncertainty," Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 12

(2009): 95-109.69 Michael A. Hogg, "Uncertainty, Social Identity, and Ideology," in Advances in Group Processes, ed. S.

R. Thye and E. J. Lawler (New York: Elsevier, 2005), 203-29.



32

can be viewed as a subset of the category ‘American’. Just as there are Jewish-

Americans, there are also Christian-Americans, Muslim-Americans, Hindu-Americans,

Buddhist-Americans, and so on. Being American is a social identity that supersedes the

individual identities of the various groups and unites the subgroups in a larger social

identity. The formation of superordinate identities has important implications, from

corporate mergers to dealing with racism and discrimination. Because of this, it has been

the focus of a great deal of research.

Unfortunately, reducing discrimination is not as simple as creating a

superordinate identity. Studies have found a complex interaction between the

superordinate group and the subgroups. A paper published in 2000 looked at university

students (superordinate identity). Some of the students were from the humanities and

others from math and science (subgroups). The experiment manipulated their perception

of intersubgroup similarity. In other words it manipulated the perceived similarity

between humanities students and math-science students.

The experiment also manipulated the level at which students categorized

themselves, either at the superordinate level, or at the superordinate and subgroup level

simultaneously. An interesting pattern emerged. When the students were categorized

exclusively at the superordinate level, discrimination was higher against subgroups seen

as similar to their own.

At first glance, this can seem counter-intuitive and in contradiction to the

similarity-attraction hypothesis, which simply states that people are more attracted to

people similar to themselves. But when the students were categorized at the superordinate

and subgroup levels, their levels of discrimination fell in line with the similarity-



33

attraction hypothesis. The results are consistent with the SIT, which suggests that threats

to one’s identity (by being categorized only at the superordinate level) can result in

increased levels of discrimination as individuals try to maintain their identity.70

Similar results have been found in other studies.71

This principle is known as the

mutual intergroup differentiation model, which simply states that superordinate identities

can improve relations as long as the integrity of the subgroups is maintained. These

studies have profound implications for attempts to reduce discrimination outside of the

lab. Placing people in a superordinate category can cause problems if the subgroups feel

that their own distinctiveness is threatened. For example, attempts to improve relations

between different religious groups can run into problems if people feel their religious

identity is being undermined by a superordinate category (e.g. spirituality, national

identity).72

One possible tactic is to emphasis both categories at the same time.

Something like emphasizing the common nature of all religious practice while at the

same time highlighting one’s valuable Hindu heritage.

Another study, similarly set up with math-science and humanities students, was

conducted to examine the effects of status on subgroup relations. The study found that the

lower the perceived status of the subgroup, the more strongly people identify with the

superordinate group. This is consistent with the self-enhancement motive in the SIT.

People who find they belonging to a group that is viewed negatively will sometimes try

70 Matthew J. Hornsey and Michael A. Hogg, "Intergroup Similarity and Subgroup Relations: Some

Implications for Assimilation," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26 (2000): 948-58.71 Matthew J. Hornsey and Michael A. Hogg, "Subgroup Relations: A Comparison of Mutual Intergroup

Differentiation and Common Ingroup Identity Models of Prejudice Reduction," Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin 26 (2000): 242-56.72 Maykel Verkuyten, "Religious Group Identification and Inter-Religious Relations: A Study among

Turkish-Dutch Muslims," Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 10, no. 3 (2007): 341-57.



34

to adopt superordinate identities that have a higher status. This allows them to enhance

their identity, and in turn themselves.

In the second experiment of the paper, both levels of identity are reinforced and

thus status does not have an effect on subgroup bias. But status did cause bias to increase

when only the superordinate identity was emphasized. The effect is similar to the one

discussed above, with the added find that high status groups are more protective of their

identity.73

These experiments have implications for the business world as well. A paper

published in 2002 looked at negations. Some models of negation suggest that group

membership should be downplayed because it can lead to bias. Building off of the

findings mentioned above, this study instead examined the effect of highlighting group

membership at the subgroup level before entering into superordinate negotiations. As

expected, although people identified more at the subgroup level they were also more

satisfied with the negotiation process.74

The importance of social identities can be seen around the world. A study

conducted in Chile looked at political coalitions as forms of superordinate social

identities. In Chile’s multiparty system, coalitions form between the various parties. The

study conducted a survey that asked participants to judge their own party, parties within

their coalition, and parties within opposing coalitions. The parties are understood as

subgroups within the larger superordinate group of the coalition. The results are inline

with the research above. Generally speaking, identification with a coalition, as a

73 Matthew J. Hornsey and Michael A. Hogg, "The Effects of Status on Subgroup Relations," British

Journal of Social Psychology 41 (2002): 203-18.74 Rachael A. Eggins, S. Alexander Haslam, and Katherine J. Reynolds, "Social Identity and Negotiation:

Subgroup Representation and Superordinate Consensus," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28

(2002): 887-99.



35

superordinate group, correlated with positive attitudes towards allies. Specifically,

positive feelings towards one’s own party correlated with positive feelings towards

members of one’s own coalition. Additionally, one’s views of the coalition impacted

one’s views of individuals within the coalition. As in the studies mentioned above,

perceived inter-party distance and political identity threat (a threat to the subgroup) had a

negative impact on the feelings towards coalition party members.75

When these studies are all taken together it is clear that superordinate identities

are powerful tools for social change and interaction. But it is equally clear that

superordinate identities run the risk of being unproductive when they threaten subgroup

identities. Therefore, one of the most effective strategies for improving relations is to

emphasize the superordinate group while at the same time reinforcing subgroup

distinctiveness and value.

Depersonalized Social Attraction

Depersonalized social attraction is the third feature of the SIT to be examined.

People interact with one another on a daily basis. As part of this process individuals will

like some people better then others. This will happen for many different reasons, and

many different psychological approaches have been developed for understanding this

phenomenon. SIT focuses on one very specific example of attraction, which is

depersonalized social attraction.

Depersonalized social attraction occurs when individuals depersonalized

themselves and others through the process of categorization, and then are attracted to

75 Roberto González, Jorge Manzi, José L. Saiz, Brewer Marilynn, Pablo de Tezanos-Pinto, David Torres,

Maria Teresa Aravena, and Nerea Aldunate, "Interparty Attitudes in Chile: Coalitions as Superordinate

Social Identities," Political Psychology 29, no. 1 (2008): 93-118.



36

others who match the group’s prototype. In other words, when individuals view

themselves and others as group members, they do not evaluate others as individuals.

Instead they evaluate them as group members. Since prototypes set the standards for

groups, the more prototypical people are, the better they appear. In other words, a

Christian will like an outstanding Christian more than an average Christian.

This concept was developed in the early 1990s. In 1993 a paper examined this

phenomenon. Two studies were conducted that looked at the relationship between group

salience, group cohesiveness, clarity of the group prototype, and perceived

prototypicality of the members. The results clearly supported depersonalized social

attraction. When the group identity was salient and individuals were depersonalized,

individuals were more attracted to prototypical group members. The attraction was also

stronger when the group was perceived as cohesive and when the prototype was clearer.

Interpersonal attraction was also measured. Depersonalized attraction was found

to be independent from the interpersonal attraction, and the interpersonal attraction was

also unrelated to issues such as cohesiveness and prototypicality.76 These findings have

been further supported by additional research.

A paper published in 1995 added more evidence for depersonalized social

attraction. In the experiment, individuals were asked to report their attitudes towards an

individual who was either a group member, or their partner for a task. The study looked

at how prototypicality influenced attraction and the results generally supported the idea

76 Michael A. Hogg, Louise Cooper-Shaw, and David W. Holzworth, "Group Prototypicality and

Depersonalized Attraction in Small Interactive Groups," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 19

(1993): 452-65.



37

that through depersonalization people are more attracted to prototypical group

members.77

Another paper published in 1998 wanted to examine the relationships between

friendship, group identification, group cohesiveness, and groupthink. Generally speaking,

groupthink arises when a group’s striving for unanimity overrides other practical

considerations and prevents the group from realistically evaluating its situation. This can

lead to various problems, such as an unquestioned belief in the morality and

invulnerability of the group. It also leads to problems in the decision making process.

Groupthink’s impact upon politics and other social situations has made it a popular topic

for study, but the causes behind it have been less clearly understood.

Many factors can contribute to groupthink. The primary antecedent is group

cohesiveness. The 1998 paper sought to better understand how cohesiveness could lead to

groupthink by drawing a distinction between cohesion based upon personal attraction

(friendship) and cohesion based upon depersonalized social attraction. The experiment

placed people into four-person discussion groups that were formed with friends, socially

attractive people, or random strangers. Conditions were then set up to encourage group

think. The results showed that friendship was weakly or negatively related to groupthink.

Friendship based cohesiveness was not conducive for groupthink. On the other hand,

depersonalized social attraction was strongly correlated with groupthink.78

This is just

one example of the powerful role that depersonalized social attraction can play.

77 Michael A. Hogg, Elizabeth A. Hardie, and Katherine J. Reynolds, "Prototypical Similarity, Self-

Categorization, and Depersonalized Attraction: A Perspective on Group Cohesiveness," European Journal

of Social Psychology 25 (1995): 159-77.78 Michael A. Hogg and S. C. Hains, "Friendship and Group Identification: A New Look at the Role of

Cohesiveness in Groupthink," European Journal of Social Psychology 28 (1998): 323-41.



38

A paper published in 2005 provided tentative support for the idea that

prototypicality can influence the appeal of celebrities, and that media sources are able to

manipulate the perception of prototypicality and thus influence a celebrity’s appeal. The

experiment involved university students that participated voluntarily. The researchers

also collaborated with the school’s newspaper, which printed up 3 fake news stories

reporting upon the intelligence of different racial groups. The students were told that they

were being involved in a study that was looking at intelligence in order for the university

to improve its level of education.

The student’s level of racial identification was measured and used to establish an

in-group for the individuals. Then, through the fake news stories, the prototypical level of

intelligence for the in-group (i.e. different racial groups) was manipulated. The students

were then asked to evaluate various celebrities. As predicted, the more a celebrity

matched the prototypical level of intelligence for the in-group, the more socially

attractive they were. The level of prototypical embodiment was the strongest predictor for

social attraction.79 The results stress both the importance of depersonalized social

attraction and the powerful effect that media can have on people’s perception of others.

Social Identity Theory of Leadership

Leadership is the fourth feature of SIT to be examined. Over the years there has

been an increasing collaboration between social psychological research on social identity

and organizational psychological research on work groups and organizations.80

Out of

79 Dana E. Mastro, Ron Tamborini, and Craig R. Hullett, "Linking Media to Prototype Activation and

Subsequent Celebrity Attraction: : An Application of Self-Categorization Theory," Communication Research 32 (2005): 323-48.80 Hogg and Terry, Social Identity Processes, 1.



39

this dialogue, a SIT of leadership has emerged. There are many different psychological

models of leadership, focusing on different aspects of group/leader interaction. The social

identity theory of leadership studies the role that identity plays in leadership. Groups

form social identities and these social identities have a large impact upon our leadership.

Leaders play a crucial role. “We look to our leaders to express and epitomize our identity,

to clarify and focus our identity, to forge and transform our identity, and to consolidate,

stabilize, and anchor our identity.”81

Because leaders can play such a pivotal role in social identities, SIT looks at

leadership in terms of the processes that are behind the formation of social identities.

Through the process of self-categorization people adopt social identities, and through a

process of depersonalization they no longer view themselves as individuals, but instead

evaluate themselves and other in-group members against the in-group prototype. As just

discussed, this leads to depersonalized social attraction. Thus the more a leader reflects

the prototype, the more influence he is likely to have as followers are attracted to him

through depersonalized social attraction.82 This understanding of leadership has real

world consequences, particularly in the business world where corporate management and

mergers often create changing and shifting social identities.

Research has started to look at challenges facing the work place. A paper

published in 2005 surveyed 242 employees from 3 Italian companies. The study looked at

leader prototypicality and leader effectiveness as mediated by a need for closure. The

need for closure was interpreted as a desire to reduce uncertainty. Thus it was predicted

81 Michael A. Hogg, "Influence and Leadership," in The Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. S. T. Fiske,

Daniel Todd Gilbert, and Gardner Lindzey (New York: Wiley, 2010), 1195.82 Michael A. Hogg, "A Social Identity Theory of Leadership," Personality and Social Psychology Review

5 (2001): 184-200.



40

that individuals needing closure would turn to their group membership (uncertainty-

identity theory). This turning to the group would increase the importance of leader

prototypicality, therefore making a leader’s effectiveness more dependent upon

prototypicality. The results of the survey were inline with the predictions. Prototypicality

was more important for the individuals with a high need of closure than it was for the

individuals with a low need.83

Another very similar study was conducted in 2010 with 368 people from 4 Italian

companies. Rather than looking at a need for closure, this study introduced role

ambiguity in order to manipulate the level of uncertainty experienced by the subjects. The

results were inline with the previous study. Leader prototypicality was correlated to

leader effectiveness more strongly when the individuals were under higher levels of

uncertainty.84

This is not to say that leadership is a simple issue. A paper published in 2005

compared the social identity theory of leadership to the leader-member exchange theory.

While SIT looks at leadership in terms of group identity and depersonalization, the

leader-member exchange theory examines the relationships that are formed between

supervisors and subordinates. The study involved two surveys, the first was of 439

employees from organizations in Wales while the second was of 128 members of

organizations in India.

83 Antonio Pierro, Lavinia Cicero, Marino Bonaiuto, Daan van Knippenberg, and Arie W. Kruglanski,

"Leader Group Prototypicality and Leadership Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Need for Cognitive

Closure," The Leadership Quarterly 16 (2005): 503-16.84 Lavinia Cicero, Antonio Pierro, and Daan van Knippenberg, "Leadership and Uncertainty: How Role

Ambiguity Affects the Relationship between Leader Group Prototypicality and Leadership Effectiveness,"

British Journal of Management 21 (2010): 411-21.



41

The results were consistent with those presented above. Depersonalized leader-

member relations, based more upon prototypicality and social identity, were found to be

more effective with individuals for whom the group was more salient, and who identified

more strongly with the group. On the other hand, personalized leadership, based upon the

relationships between leaders and their subordinates, was preferred by individuals from

low-salience groups more than by those from high-salience groups.85

This research highlights the importance of applying theoretical models to their

appropriate context. The social identity theory of leadership provides a powerful tool for

understanding the relationship between leaders and their groups. But the social identity

and the prototypicality of a leader will only be relevant in certain circumstances,

particularly when a group’s identity becomes salient and important to its members. In

other circumstances, as illustrated in this study, other models of leadership may be more

applicable.

Further research has begun to look at the possible role that prototypicality

oriented leadership may have on discrimination. A 2006 study conducted in the lab

looked at the relationship between people’s stereotype-based impressions of their leader

and how well that matched the group norm. It was hypothesized that leader effectiveness

would increase the closer the two matched. The results followed those mentioned above.

In high salience groups, highly prototypical leaders were more effective than leaders that

were less prototypical. Similarly, the effectiveness of a prototypical leader was higher the

more salient the group’s identity.

85 Michael A. Hogg, Robin Martin, Olga Epitropaki, Aditi Mankad, Alicia Svensson, and Karen Weeden,

"Effective Leadership in Salient Groups: Revisiting Leader-Member Exchange Theory from thePerspective of the Social Identity Theory of Leadership," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31

(2005): 991-1004.



42

This research went farther and found that its original hypothesis was true. The

stereotypes attached to leaders have an impact upon how prototypical they are perceived

to be, and thus how effective they are. The study used men, women, and their

accompanying gender stereotypes. It found that people utilized these stereotypes in the

absence of explicit group prototypicality information about their leader. These findings

illuminate some of the problems that can face minorities and other stereotyped groups

within the work place.86

Finally, research published in 2008 examined the relationship between negative

actions by an out-group leader and the liking of in-group leaders. Two studies were

conducted in which people were presented with a hypothetical international situation in

which the leader from the other nation was portrayed negatively. The first study found

that individuals viewed their leader more favorably when presented with the negative

actions of the out-group leader.

The second study measured levels of national identification. It found that the

intergroup leader-enhancement effect occurred with those individuals that held a strong

national identity, but that it did not occur when individuals identified only weakly.87

This

follows the previous studies which stress the importance of group saliency. This also

helps explain the attacks that leaders often launch against the leaders of other groups. The

social identity theory of leadership provides a powerful model and tool for understanding

the relationships between leaders and their groups. The fact that it is dependent upon

86 Michael A. Hogg, Kelly S. Fielding, Daniel Johnson, Barbara Masser, Emily Russell, and Alicia

Svensson, "Demographic Category Membership and Leadership in Small Groups: A Social Identity

Analysis," The Leadership Quarterly 17 (2006): 335-50.87 Todd L. Pittinsky and Brian Welle, "Negative Outgroup Leader Actions Increase Liking for Ingroup

Leaders: An Experimental Test of Intergroup Leader-Enhancement Effects," Group Processes &

Intergroup Relations 11 (2008): 513-23.



43

groups and social identities makes it well suited for historical studies, given that historical

documents often are the product of such groups.



44

Chapter 3: Social Identity and Modern Religion

Before applying SIT to ancient religious practice, it is important to examine the

research that has applied SIT to modern religions. Religions foster naturally occurring

and common social identities, which are often ideally suited for the application of SIT.

This is because so many of the things that the SIT discusses are explicitly stated in the

sacred texts and official decrees of established religions. Things such as prototypes,

group norms (both prescribed and prohibited behaviors), and out-groups are clearly stated

and expounded upon.

This can be compared to social identities found within the business world, an area

of research that has seen recent growth.88

Businesses can, and often do, have explicitly

documented guidelines for employee behavior (i.e. group norms) that in turn describe the

ideal employee (i.e. the group prototype). Businesses can also have clearly defined rivals

(i.e. out-groups). In this way, social identities from the business world and from religions

are similar, but social identities stemming from religion take a much more prominent

place in people’s lives. Rarely does one hear of employees studying their employee

handbook weekly or wearing corporate jewelry, and there is little marketability for books

condemning corporate rivals. Yet weekly religious services, religious jewelry, and

apologetic literature are all common forms of religious expression. Religions create

powerful social identities that are prime candidates for study under SIT. Unsurprisingly,

research that has been conducted applying the SIT to religious groups has supported the

basic tenants of SIT and demonstrated the validity of its application to religion.

88 Hogg and Terry, Social Identity Processes.



45

Surprisingly, there has not been a great deal of this research. Two articles

published this year point out that religion has held a low profile in the field of social

psychology, and while a great deal of work has been done on gender and race, fewer

studies have focused upon religious identities.89

The validity of SIT for religion appears

to be assumed.90

Because of this, the majority of research on religion has been geared

towards tackling real world problems that people face (e.g. immigration, violence,

discrimination.) rather than demonstrating point by point that the tenants of SIT apply to

religion. This means that a review of recent research can seem disjointed at times, as

different situations and groups of people must be brought together under broad principles

of SIT. Thus this chapter will be divided into small sections, under which different

studies will be brought together to illustrate various tenants of SIT.

Categorization

Categorization is the cognitive process that lies behind the group behavior

described by SIT. People categorize both themselves and others. Then, through a process

of depersonalization, they evaluate themselves and others according to the prototypes set

forth by the group. Therefore, if religions establish social identities, then people should

categorize themselves and others according to their religion.

Two papers have demonstrated that this is exactly what people do. The first paper,

published in 2000, examined the process of self-categorization. Through self-

89 Michael A. Hogg, Janice R. Adelman, and Robert D. Blagg, "Religion in the Face of Uncertainty: AnUncertainty-Identity Theory Account of Religiousness," Personality and Social Psychology Review 14

(2010): 72-83. and Renate Ysseldyk, Kimberly Matheson, and Hymie Anisman, "Religiosity as Identity:

Toward an Understanding of Religion from a Social Identity Perspective," Personality and Social

Psychology Review 14, no. 1 (2010): 60-71.90 Christopher Burris and Lynne M. Jackson, "Social Identity and the True Believer: Responses to

Threatened Self-Stereotypes among the Intrinsically Religious," British Journal of Social Psychology 39,

no. 2 (2000): 257-78.



46

categorization people categorize themselves according to their religion and view

themselves as group members rather than as idiosyncratic individuals. This first paper

sought to demonstrate that people do this with religious categories. In the experiment, the

participants first reported their religious commitment. Then, at a later time, the

participants returned and received false feedback that either threatened or bolstered their

religious group membership. They then again reported upon their religious commitment

so that the consequences of the feedback could be measured. The authors of the paper

then compared the results to other studies within SIT that had looked at how people

respond to threats to their social identities.

People that identify weakly with the group will often distance themselves from

the group, whereas people that identify strongly with the group will often increase their

level of self-stereotyping, portraying themselves as an ideal group member. This is

consistent with the self-enhancing nature of group membership, as people either dedicate

themselves more firmly to the group or ‘cut their losses.’ Because people in this study

responded in the same way as other people had in other studies of social identity, the

authors conclude that religion must be an example of social identity. Thus this paper

demonstrated that people categorize and stereotype themselves according to religious

social identities in the same way that people do with the established social identities of

gender, ethnicity, and nationality.91

Instead of looking at how people categorize themselves, a paper published in

2007 examined how people use religious affiliation to spontaneously categorize others.

The authors theorized that people likely categorized others according to their religious

affiliation given the social significance of religion. The paper reported upon 3 studies.

91 Burris and Jackson, "Social Identity and the True Believer," 257-78.



47

The studies employed the statement recognition task. In this method, participants are

shown pictures of people having a discussion, with their statements being presented to the

participant. Essentially people watch a slideshow of the discussion. Later people are

required to identify which person said which statement. The mistakes that the participants

make, confusing various individuals, provide information on the way in which that

participant is categorizing the people. This approach is commonly used to measure social

categorization.

Each study supported the proposition that people categorize others according to

religious affiliation. In the first study, participants categorized the people according to

their religious affiliation but not according to a visual alternative (a colored boarder

around the photographs). In the second study, participants categorized people according

to their religious affiliation as well as according to their race. In the third and final study,

participants were provided information about which clubs they belong to, rather than an

explicit declaration of their religious affiliation. As predicted, the participants still

categorized the people according to their religious affiliation. As a result of these studies,

the authors conclude that religion is a prominent social category, similar to race and

sex.92

Because categorization and depersonalization lie behind social identities, the

findings from these two papers lay the foundation for examining religions with SIT. They

also match what one sees in various religious communities, where people often

categorize themselves and others by their religion and then evaluate them accordingly

(e.g. evangelical attitudes towards Israel as a Jewish nation).

92 Matthew Weeks and Mark A. Vincent, "Using Religious Affiliation to Spontaneously Categorize

Others," International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 17, no. 4 (2007): 317-31.



48

In-group Bias

If people categorize themselves and others according to religious affiliation, SIT

predicts that people will favor their own religious group over those of other people.

Indeed multiple studies have been published that support this hypothesis. A paper

published in 2005 looked at implicit and explicit attitudes towards Christians and

Muslims held by a sample of people from within the United States (most of whom were

Christian). Seeking to examine both implicit and explicit attitudes, the experiment

measured people’s attitudes in two ways. The participants reported their explicit attitudes.

Implicit attitudes were assessed with the Implicit Association Test, in which participants

used a computer to categorize adjectives (pleasant or unpleasant) and names (of

Christians or Muslims). The computer recorded the reaction times of the participants. The

assumption behind the Implicit Association Test is that people process closely related

concepts more quickly then concepts that are more distantly related. For example, most

white people will associate white faces with the category ‘pleasant’ more quickly than

black faces. This is usually understood as an indication of an implicit level of bias.93

Consistent with SIT, both the explicit self-reported attitudes and the implicit

attitudes showed an in-group bias favoring Christians. Surprising the correlation between

the explicit and implicit attitudes was only weakly positive, suggesting that the

93 The Implicit Association Test has recently come under some criticism. While it remains widely used to

this day, some have started to question whether it measures true prejudice or something simpler, such as

familiarity or cultural knowledge. A full discussion of the issue would be long and out of place here. As Isee it, the fact that both the explicit and implicit attitudes measured in this study show a bias makes the

issue somewhat moot.



49

relationship between implicit and explicit attitudes is not fully understood yet.94

The fact

that the people in this study showed an in-group bias based upon religious identification

provides strong evidence that religious identities function and can be examined as social

identities under SIT.

Another paper, published in 2010, also sought to examine in-group bias as it

relates to religion. The paper explored the relationship between religious identification

and one’s reaction to aggression from others. The study was conducted in Israel, a place

famous for religious conflict. 217 Jewish and Muslim young men, ages 14 – 18,

participated in the study. They were asked to respond to 12 different hypothetical

situations. In these situations the participant was to imagine that they were in an isolated

area, confronted with by an aggressive individual. The religion and gender of the

aggressor, as well as the severity of the aggression changed from one scenario to another.

At the lower level, the aggression was described as a light shove, which did not

knock one off his feet and was not painful. This was accompanied by a curse. At the

higher level, it was described as a painful slap accompanied by profuse cursing. The

study found that the participants’ responses were more moderate towards members of

their same religion than they were towards members of the opposite religion. This fits

with the predictions made by SIT, as the participants are favoring their in-group.

The author points out some of the limitations of the study. For example, by only

interviewing 217 people, the sample size was too small to be declared representational of

the whole population. Additionally, one has to be careful when drawing conclusions from

94 Wade C. Rowatt, Lewis M. Franklin, and Marla Cotton, "Patterns and Personality Correlates of Implicit

and Explicit Attitudes toward Christians and Muslims," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44, no.

1 (2005): 29-43.



50

hypothetical situations and using them to predict behavior.95

Despite these limitations,

this study is a good example of research being conducted that is designed to put SIT to

practical use tackling problems facing various people around the world.

A fascinating paper, published in 2009, sought to examine different social

identities at the same time. The paper publishes the results of two studies that looked at

the in-group bias created by different social identities (e.g. political views, nationality,

religion, kinship). They measured this bias in four different circumstances: giving money

in a dictator game, sharing an office, commuting, and working together. The first study

presented the participants with hypothetical situations and asked them to respond. The

second study was very similar, except that real money was used for the dictator game.

The results of the studies are in line with SIT. People discriminated in favor of their in-

group regardless of which social identity was being addressed. This included religion and

supports the tenet that people form social identities based upon religion.

Additionally, the studies found that people favored the in-group in all of the

hypothetical situations. Finally, the authors were able to compare the levels of bias

between the different social identities and were then able to rank them with one another.

What they found is that family and kinship are the most powerful sources of bias,

followed in descending order by political views, religion, sports-team loyalty, and music

preference.96

This is one example of the importance that religion holds in people’s lives,

but its significance becomes even more pronounced when one looks at religion in the

ancient world. As will be discussed later in detail, religion and politics in the ancient

95 Zeev Winstok, "The Effect of Social and Situational Factors on the Intended Response to Aggression

among Adolescents," The Journal of Social Psychology 150 (2010): 57-76.96 Avner Ben-Ner, Brian P. McCall, Massoud Stephane, and Hua Wang, "Identity and in-Group/out-Group

Differentiation in Work and Giving Behaviors: Experimental Evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior &

Organization 72, no. 1 (2009): 153-70.



51

world were often inseparable. Rulers were appointed by the gods and a nation’s success

militarily and economically was thought to be directly dependant upon the gods. If one

takes the list above and combines the political and religious categories, then one creates a

bias inducing category of identity that is second only to family.

Group Norms and Behavior

Another aspect of social identities is that they establish group norms that guide

the behavior of the individual group members. This is one of the aspects of religion that

people are the most familiar with. Whether a person is commanded to avoid alcohol or to

love their neighbor, such prescriptions and prohibitions are often the focuses of

conversation. Furthermore, in addition to predicting the existence of group norms, SIT

also predicts that the more strongly an individual identifies with a group, the more they

will participate in the group norm.

A paper published in 2010 examined this connection by looking at the Jewish

minority in Poland. The Jewish community in Poland is only a small fragment of what it

once was, as assimilation in the communist era and large waves of emigration have

reduced the population to an estimated five to ten thousand. The authors of the study

wanted to see if strong levels of identification with this community were correlated with

increased participation in the community. They got 150 people to fill out a questionnaire.

Members of the community tended to identify with their minority group, identifying a

little more with their Jewish identity than their Polish identity and perceiving their Jewish

Identity as moderately important to their self-definition. As predicted by SIT, the people



52

who more strongly identified with their community were more involved in the

community. This included religious forms of community participation.97

Therefore, this study is significant for a couple reasons. First, it provides further

evidence that religious identities function as other social identities under SIT. Second, it

provides an interesting example of a small ethnically and religiously unified group

maintaining their social identity while surrounded by another culture. These

circumstances are similar to those of Jews living in the Roman Empire.

Another paper, published in 2001, examined the power of religion to establish

group norms by looking at attitudes towards abortion among French Catholics. 340

individuals participated in the study. They were asked to read 1 of 8 different scenarios.

The scenarios were presented as interviews with women who had an abortion two months

prior to being interviewed. The participants were then asked to judge the abortion. The

scenarios differed in three different ways. First, some presented the woman as having

been pressured to get an abortion while others presented her as not being pressured.

Second, some scenarios presented her as being Catholic while others made no reference

to her religious social identity. Finally, some presented positive consequences of the

abortion, while others presented negative consequences.

The results of the study supported SIT. Participants with high levels of religious

identification judged the abortions more negatively than those with lower levels of

religious identification. This speaks to ability of religions to establish norms for

acceptable behavior. The stronger the identification with the group, the more devoted the

individual to the group’s norms, in this case its prohibition on abortion. In addition to

97 Michal Bilewicz and Adrian Wójcik, "Does Identification Predict Community Involvement? Exploring

Consequences of Social Identitfication Amoung the Jewish Minority in Poland," Journal of Community &

Applied Social Psychology 20 (2010): 72-79.



53

this, participants with low levels of religious identification judged Catholic women more

positively then the women with no religious identification. This reflected a relatively

straight forward in-group bias, as all the participants were catholic, even if they were low

identifiers. Interestingly, participants with a high level of religious identification judged

the Catholic women more harshly than the neutral women. This is interpreted as partial

support for a black-sheep effect.98

The black-sheep effect refers to the phenomenon by which group members will

judge in-group members more harshly then out-group members who commit the same

offense. At first glance this may seem to contradict SIT and its prediction of an in-group

bias. But when one looks at it in terms of protecting an identity, it fits well with SIT. One

possible explanation is that black-sheep threaten the metacontrast of the group. As

discussed earlier, the metacontrast principle states that groups will minimize the number

of intragroup differences (creating a more consistent and coherent group) and maximize

the number of intergroup differences, attempting to portray the in-group as distinct and

different from other groups. Black-sheep, as in-group members contradicting the norm,

threaten the distinctiveness of the group.

This is interrelated to a desire to portray one’s in-group as not just different, but as

better. Because of this, in-group members who do not follow the norms can be severely

judged by other members who see their behavior as a threat to the positive distinctiveness

of the group. In other words, in-group members who engage in negative behavior

undermine the positive group image that other in-group members have developed.99

98 Laurent Bègue, "Social Judgment of Abortion: A Black-Sheep Effect in a Catholic Sheepfold," The

Journal of Social Psychology 141, no. 5 (2001): 640-49.99 Amy Lewis and Steven J. Sherman, "Perceived Entitativity and the Black-Sheep Effect: When Will We

Denigrate Negative Ingroup Members?," The Journal of Social Psychology 150, no. 2 (2010): 211-25.



54

Taken all together, this study and the one before it provide good examples of how

religious social identities can establish group norms and guide behavior.

Metacontrast Principle

The next paper, published in 1996, demonstrates the metacontrast principle

mentioned above. The study was conducted in the Netherlands, in Amsterdam. People

living in Amsterdam were asked to fill out a questionnaire. The questionnaire asked

people to estimate the percentage of Christians living in the Netherlands. It then asked

various questions about Christians. Then it asked questions that were designed to assess

the level to which the participant identified as a Christian. Then they were asked about

the religiosity of three relatives and three friends, and then they were asked about their

own religiosity. The results of the study showed that people who identified more strongly

as Christian estimated a lower percentage of the population as being Christian.

These estimations were in turn tied to how the participants defined Christianity.

The high identifiers defined Christianity in more narrow terms than the low identifiers.

Thus their estimations of the Christian population were also lower.100

The study itself

does not examine why people who more strongly identify with the group define the group

in more narrow terms. But one can speculate that an increased level of group

identification leads to a greater devotion to the metacontrast principle, as seemed to be

the case in the previous study.

100 Willem Bosveld and Willem Koomen, "Estimating Group Size: Effects of Category Membership,

Differential Construal and Selective Exposure," European Journal of Social Psychology 26, no. 4 (1996):

523-35.



55

Threatened Identity

As implied by the last few studies mentioned, people will protect their sense of

identity if they feel it is threatened. This makes sense. Through the processes of self-

categorization and depersonalization, people no longer view themselves as an individual,

to be evaluated as such. Instead they view themselves as group members. Thus, threats

that undermine the value of the group are experienced as threats to the individual’s self

worth.

The consequences of this were also seen in the discussion above on superordinate

identities. Studies on the effects of superordinate identities have shown that they can

reduce discrimination and improve relations. On the other hand, they have also

demonstrated the importance of maintaining the distinctness of the subgroups (i.e. the

mutual intergroup differentiation model). This is because threats to the subgroup provoke

discrimination. Religion, as a form of social identity, functions in the same way. This was

already seen in the discussion of categorization at the beginning of this chapter. In that

study, people responded to threats against their religious identity by either increasing

their level of identification, or by distancing themselves from it. In other words, they

either bunkered down and defended it, or cut their losses and distanced themselves from

it.101

A paper published in 2004 extended this further by examining various visual

religious symbols and the laws that surround them. Specifically the author examined

controversies surrounding religious headgear, hair, and the kirpan, a Sikh ceremonial

dagger. Visible symbols such as these can become powerful aspects of an individual’s

religious identity. They are a bold declaration of group membership. They become

101 Burris and Jackson, "Social Identity and the True Believer," 257-78.



56

prototypical. Using them and believing in the values that they represent becomes a vivid

example of what the ideal group member is supposed to do and be.

Because visual symbols are so powerful, they can cause conflict within

communities. The author discusses various examples. One example is the kirpan. The

kirpan is a ceremonial dagger that is worn by faithful Sikh. Sikhism is a religion that

emerged in 15th

century India, and its parishioners believing that it is vital to wear the 5

Ks. The 5 Ks are the kesh (uncut hair, usually kept under a turban), the kanga (a wooden

comb), the kachchhera (shorts, usually white), kara (an iron bracelet), and the kirpan.

These adornments are considered necessary for faithful, baptized Sikhs. This caused a stir

in California when this religious practice came into conflict with policies prohibiting any

weapons on school campuses. Sikh children were told that they could not wear a kirpan

to school. This was seen as a threat to their identity. In the orthodox view, to relinquish

one’s kirpan is to forsake one’s faith. The matter went to court, and in the mid 90s a

compromise was reached.

Another example discussed in the paper pitted French identity against Muslim

Identity. In this instance, Muslim girls attending a public middle school in Creuil, France,

were required to remove their hijab. French officials interpreted the garment as violating

the separation of church and state. They also viewed it as symbolizing the gender

inferiority of women in Islamic society. Finally they viewed it as undermining the

cohesiveness of the French national identity.

Naturally, from the point of view of the Muslim immigrants the hijab is an

important symbol of their religious identity. They do not want to assimilate into French

society if it costs them their religious identity (again, remember the discussion of



57

superordinate identities and subgroups).102

As these examples demonstrate, as religious

practices become more prototypical, they become central to one’s sense of religious

identity. Prohibitions against such practices can then evoke strong responses from the

community. These two examples were oriented in visual religious symbols, but as we

have seen elsewhere (e.g. the abortion study, Burris’ study) the same thing applies to

other prototypical behavior and beliefs as well.

Self-Enhancement

As discussed previously, self-enhancement is one of the primary motivations

underlying the social identity phenomenon. If this is the case, and if religions form social

identities, then religion should be tied to self-enhancement. Indeed, research has

demonstrated the connection between religious practice and psychological well-being.

Additionally, a paper published in 2007 provided evidence that religious social identities

are the mediating process for this association.

More precisely, the study was examining the connection between more frequent

formal religious participation and psychological well-being as measured by three factors:

more positive affect, less negative affect, and more life satisfaction. The authors

hypothesized that religious social identities mediate this association. The study used data

from the 1995 National Survey of Midlife, conducted in the U.S. In all, 3,032 people

responded to the survey, ranging in age from 25 to 74. Measurements were made of the

respondents’ formal religious participation, the strength of their religious social identities,

and their psychological well-being. The results of the study supported the original

102 Alison Dundes Renteln, "Visual Religious Symbols and the Law," American Behavioral Scientist 47,

no. 12 (2004): 1573-96.



58

hypothesis. The authors acknowledge that research on the connection between religious

practice and psychological well-being suggests multiple potential explanations. But this

research supports the idea that religious social identities are an additional factor.103

Other studies have taken this general connection and applied it to specific social

situations. For example, a paper published in 1999 looked at African-American

adolescents. It wanted to see if increased commitment to a church community helped the

individuals deal with stigmatization. The study involved a total of 50 Black sophomores

and juniors selected randomly from two different high schools. Each student participated

in an hour long interview. Levels of subjective stigmatization, defined as the degree to

which an individual internalizes negative attitudes and stereotypes, were measured.

Religiosity and racial socialization, which teaches children strategies for coping with

racial discrimination, were also measured.

The study found that individuals with strong commitments to a church were more

destigmatized than those without one. This study was limited in the sense that it did not

examine the underlying mechanisms behind this correlation. 104 Still, it is another

example of how religion is connected to psychological well being. Additionally, if the

results from the previous study are applied to this study, it seems likely that religious

social identities play some role.

A third paper, published in 2002, looked at West African migrants to Britain. It

looked at the role that Pentecostalism plays in the formation and maintenance of social

identities. It has already been shown that religious identities can play an important role in

103 Emily A. Greenfield and Nadine F. Marks, "Religious Social Identity as an Explanatory Factor for

Associations between More Frequent Formal Religious Participation and Psychological Well-Being,"

International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 17, no. 3 (2007): 245-59.104 Angela G. Brega and Lerita M. Coleman, "Effects of Religiosity and Racial Socialization on Subjective

Stigmatization in African-American Adolescence," Journal of Adolescence 22, no. 2 (1999): 223-42.



59

both immigrant and minority communities. This was seen in the discussion of the Jewish

community in Poland, the Muslim immigrants in France, and the Sikh in California. It is

further supported by this study of West African migrants.

The study is based upon 50 structured interviews with members of the Redeemed

Christian Church of God, the largest church of black Pentecostalism in Britain. The

interviews lasted approximately an hour and supplemented information that was collected

through questionnaires. As was predicted by the author, religion played a key role in

developing and maintaining the social identity of the individuals.

The congregation that the participants came from is typical of the Redeemed

Christian Church of God, in that it was founded by a ‘model parish’ in Lagos, Nigeria. It

reflects a desire to evangelize to white Europeans. Despite the evangelical goals, the

congregation has won over few white converts and remains a focus of identity and

inspiration for Nigerian migrants. Additionally, its theology and values have adapted to

reflect the needs of the community.

Traditionally, black churches are seen as providing a coping mechanism for

members to deal with their disadvantaged and marginalized social positions. Interviewees

did complain of discrimination and the challenges they faced in British society. In turn,

the church provides a sense of community and identity that helps the parishioners handle

this sense of alienation. This study also showed that the social identity surrounding this

religious community does more than simple help them cope with stress. It also reflects

developments in Nigeria (e.g. evangelizing to white Europeans), and provides its

members with a strong connection to their homeland.105

This is another example of

105 Stephen Hunt, "'Neither Here nor There': The Construction of Identities and Boundary Maintenance of

West African Pentecostals," Sociology 36, no. 1 (2002): 147-69.



60

religious identities contributing to people’s well being, thus supporting the concept of

self-enhancement found in SIT and the idea that people do form social identities around

religion.

Uncertainty Reduction

The second principle motivation underlying the social identity phenomenon is

uncertainty reduction. Religions, as social identities, seem ideally suited to dealing with

uncertainty. All social groups reduce uncertainty through their group norms and belief

systems. But religions offer epistemological and ontological certainty.

106

In addition to

normative prescriptions for daily life, they address the nature of existence. This makes

them well suited for addressing feelings of uncertainty.107

Recent research has begun to examine the relationship between religious practice

and feelings of uncertainty. A paper published in 2008 reported upon a study that

examined people’s belief in a non-random world, and how this related to one’s belief in a

controlling God. In the study, 47 students were presented with different scenarios

designed to increase their level of anxiety. Half of the scenarios were also designed to

lower the individual’s belief in personal control. The authors predicted that belief in a

controlling God would be strengthened when individuals were confronted with an

uncertain and random world. The results of the experiment supported this conclusion,

suggesting that religious social identities can be a powerful tool for dealing with

106 Ysseldyk, Matheson, and Anisman, "Religiosity as Identity," 60.107 Hogg, Adelman, and Blagg, "Religion in the Face of Uncertainty," 72.



61

uncertainty.108

This may explain some of the findings mentioned previously, where

immigrants used religious identities to deal with their new found environment.

A second paper, published in 2006, examined how people defend their worldview

in times of uncertainty. The paper reported upon two studies. In the first study, 1,529

people participated in an online survey. Among other things, the survey measured the

participant’s attitudes towards uncertainty. The participant was also asked to respond to

an antireligious passage. The study found that the more concerned people were with

uncertainty, the more angrily they responded to the antireligious statement.

The second study sought to examine this phenomenon under more controlled

conditions. The second experiment was a laboratory experiment that allowed for greater

control and measurement of people’s reactions. In the second study the strength of the

individual’s religious views was assessed. Their uncertainty level was manipulated, and

anger was again provoked in response to antireligious material. As predicted, people who

held strong religious beliefs and for whom uncertainty was made salient reacted more

strongly against the antireligious material.109 Again, this is strong evidence supporting

the proposition that religions, acting as social identities, can help individuals deal w

uncertainty. This further confirms that the SIT is applicable to religious practice.

ith

Researchers are now starting to extend this further by suggesting that the SIT be

used as one tool for understanding religious fundamentalism and extremism. While

fundamentalism is a complex phenomenon, it is possible that fundamentalism is fueled

108 Kristin Laurin, Aaron C. Kay, and David A. Moscovitch, "On the Belief in God: Towards an

Understanding of the Emotional Substrates of Compensatory Control," Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology 44, no. 6 (2008): 1559-62.109 Kees van den Bos, Jitse van Ameijde, and Hein van Gorp, "On the Psychology of Religion: The Role of

Personal Uncertainty in Religious Worldview Defense," Basic & Applied Social Psychology 28, no. 4

(2006): 333-41.



62

more by intergroup tensions than by individual psychology. It is also possible that

because religious identities address both earthly and eternal threats they magnify out-

group tensions.110

Additionally, there is a substantial evidence that fundamentalism is

often associated with societal uncertainty. Fundamentalism is itself a practice in certainty.

Fundamentalist groups often attack those aspects of society that threaten the certainty and

stability of their beliefs (e.g. evolution, biblical criticism). It may be that fundamentalism

is rooted in uncertainty reduction, which is one of the key functions of social identities

and a key concept in SIT.111

Superordinate Identities

Superordinate identities, as discussed previously, unite different subgroups under

one common identity. Perhaps one of the most common examples of this is when

different people are united under one national identity (i.e. Irish-Americans, African-

Americans, and Asian-Americans are all American). A series of papers published in 2007

looked at this phenomenon in relation to Turkish-Dutch Muslims in the Netherlands. The

results of the studies match the previous discussion of superordinate identities.

For one experiment, 104 Turkish-Dutch individuals whose parents were all from

Turkey responded to questions. The questions evaluated their recent experiences in Dutch

society, their level of Turkish identification, and their level of Dutch identification. The

results show that when the Turkish-Dutch Muslims felt rejected by Dutch society they

110 Ysseldyk, Matheson, and Anisman, "Religiosity as Identity," 60-71.111 Hogg, Adelman, and Blagg, "Religion in the Face of Uncertainty," 72-83.



63

increasingly identified with their ethnic and religious identities.112

This follows what was

observed earlier. The adoption of superordinate identities is hindered when the

subgroup’s identity is threatened.

217 Turkish-Dutch individuals participated in a second study that used a

questionnaire to look at their level of national identification as well as their attitudes

towards other religious groups (Christians, Hindustanis, Jews, and non-believers). As

predicted, the results of the study were consistent with previous research on superordinate

identities. An increased level of identification with Dutch nationality did improve

relations with other religious groups that were also Dutch.This was only seen in those

people that identified the most strongly with their Muslim identity. This is consistent with

the mutual intergroup differentiation model. By maintaining a strong Muslim identity,

these participants were able to feel secure in their subgroup, and thus the superordinate

category improved their relationship with religious out-groups.113

The findings of these

studies further demonstrate the validity of using SIT to study religious groups.

Identity Definition

The definition of groups can be tricky. The boundaries of a group are established

through the group’s prototypes and its norms. Just as prototypes and group norms define

group members, by default they also define out-group members. Additionally, prototypes

are not static. They are constantly shifting and at times people actively try to change

them. This can lead to conflict as one prototype can clash with another. At this point in

112 Maykel Verkuyten and Ali Aslan Yildiz, "National (Dis)Identification and Ethnic and Religious

Identity: A Study among Turkish-Dutch Muslims," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33, no. 10(2007): 1448-62.113 Verkuyten, "Religious Group Identification," 341-57.



64

the discussion this work is not interested in the mechanisms behind the change (i.e.

minority and majority influence). Instead, this work is interested in the nature of the

conflict. Through SIT intra-religious conflicts and schisms can be understood as clashes

of identity.

This is seen in the controversy surrounding the ordination of women in the

Church of England. Two papers, one published in 1999 and the other published in 2000,

examined the nature of the conflict. The authors wanted to understand the nature of the

conflict. One of the studies examined the content of videos and booklets produced to

fight against the ordination of women. This material makes it clear that those who are

opposed to ordination feel that the very essence of the Church is being undermined. The

identity of the Church itself is believed to be under attack.114

The second paper conducted two studies looking at both sides of the debate and

comparing each side’s definition of the church. In the first study 15 prominent members

of the Church were interviewed, and in the second 185 activists participated in the study

by filling out questionnaires that examined their conception of the church. The authors of

the study conclude that the participants define the Church differently. People for and

against the ordination of women view the nature of the Church differently. Because of

this, people in favor of the ordination of women naturally see it as affirming the essence

of the Church, while people against the ordination of women see it as undermining the

114 Fabio Sani and Steve Reicher, "Contested Identities and Schisms in Groups: Opposing the Ordination of

Women as Priests in the Church of England," British Journal of Social Psychology 39, no. 1 (2000): 95-

112.



65

essence of the Church. Finally, opponents of the ordination used the belief that the

essence of the Church has changed to justify the possibility of schism.115

When these types of conflicts are viewed as struggles over identity, the nature of

the conflict becomes clearer. Struggles over seemingly insignificant doctrinal changes

make sense when viewed in light of SIT. The doctrines are prototypical. They define the

group. Thus such changes have an impact upon the social identity of the group, and are

felt keenly by the in-group members.

Conclusion

This concludes the review of SIT. The purpose of these three chapters is to

provide a solid foundation, upon which the following analysis is based. Chapter one

covered the basic aspects of SIT. Social identities and the groups that they form are

defined by mutual self-construal. In other words, a democrat is a democrat (a social

identity) because they define themselves in the same way (i.e. the same political values,

goals, and beliefs) as other democrats, who go through the same process. By defining

themselves in the same way and by identifying with each other, these people form a

social identity and group.

The cognitive process that lies behind this phenomenon is one of categorization.

Just as individuals categorize everyday objects, they also categorize people. These

categories are very familiar (e.g. Americans, Canadians, whites, African-Americans,

Jews, Christians, etc.). These categories form social identities. When categorizing people,

individuals depersonalize them. They no longer view the people as individuals, but only

115 Fabio Sani and Steve Reicher, "Identity, Argument and Schism: Two Longitudinal Studies of the Split

in the Church of England over the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood," Group Processes & Intergroup

Relations 2, no. 3 (1999): 279-300.



66

as group members. Not only that, but the individuals depersonalize themselves. They

view themselves as a group member, and not as unique human beings. In other words an

American would see himself or herself as an American, not as an individual. Similarly,

they would see another person as a Canadian, not as a unique individual.

By depersonalizing themselves, individuals attach a group’s identity to their sense

of self. This leads to individuals evaluating themselves and others according to the groups

that they belong to. The group’s status, value, and worth become the individual’s status,

value, and worth. In other words, if someone is a Zoroastrian then the reputation that

Zoroastrians have will be internalized by the individual. Thus, self-enhancement is one of

the main motivations behind the adoption of social identities. Similarly, the individual

will apply the reputation of other groups to those group members. The Zoroastrian will

apply the reputation of Christians to a Christian he or she encounters.

This process of mutual self-construal, created by categorization and

depersonalization, creates the complex set of phenomenon that was discussed in chapter

one. It creates a group bias, in which people favor their own group over others (e.g.

racism, sexism, prejudice). It gives rise to the metacontrast principle, which states that

groups will try to minimize the differences between the members and maximize their

differences with other groups. This increases the group’s entitativity (i.e. the groups

cohesion, its distinctiveness as a group). This also helps facilitate the in-group bias.

Thus groups want to be distinct, and positively contrasted with other groups. This

is where group prototypes come in. Prototypes are the behaviors and/or ideal group

members that define what it means to be a group member. “What would Jesus do?” is the

classic example. Jesus is a Christian prototype. He defines what a good group member is.



67

Therefore, all group members are evaluated against his example. The more “Christ-like”

a person is, the better the Christian. Because prototypes establish the ideal group member,

and are used when comparing one’s group to another’s, they often represent the ideals of

the Group. Ideal depictions of the group do a better job of supporting an in-group bias,

entitativity, and the metacontrast principle.

This is a great deal of information to cover, and chapter two attempted to look at

specific issues that will be critical in the analysis of Galatians. It looked at the other

motivational factor behind adopting social identities, uncertainty reduction. Basically

people identify more strongly with groups in the face of uncertainty. Because groups

have clear standards for behavior and social interaction, they function to reduce the

uncertainty that one experiences. This is probably one of the reasons that patriotism

surged after 9/11. People committed more strongly to their social identity (i.e. American)

in the face of an uncertain future.

Chapter two also looked at superordinate identities. Superordinate identities are

identities that encompass other subordinate identities, making a group out of smaller

disjointed groups. In other words, American identity is a superordinate identity that

includes the subordinate identities of Jewish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Japanese-

Americans, etc. Superordinate identities can be powerful tools in helping people get

along, but the research reviewed in chapter two made it clear that this can only happen if

the subordinate identities are not threatened. When threatened, an individual will likely

defend their subordinate identity at the expense of the superordinate identity. For

example, a Jewish-American would not want to give up his or her Jewish identity just for

the sake of being an American.



68

Chapter two concluded by looking at depersonalized social attraction and the

social identity theory of leadership. Depersonalized social attraction refers to the

phenomenon in which people are more socially attracted to prototypical group members.

Think of the ‘good Christians’ from the example above. The social identity theory of

leadership ties this principle into leadership by pointing out that leaders who are more

socially attractive (i.e. prototypical) are more effective. The catch to all of this is that it is

only true when the group’s identity is salient. That is, when it is both prominent and

relevant. The social identity theory of leadership does not apply to leadership situations

based upon personal relationships.

Finally, chapter three reviews current research in the field and shows that SIT and

its predictions apply to modern religions. This is a critical step. If SIT does not apply to

modern religion, then it would be misguided to apply it to ancient religion. Chapter four

will now go ahead and discuss how scholars can take modern theories, such as SIT, and

apply them to the ancient world.



69

Chapter 4: Social Scientific Criticism

Social scientific criticism (SSC) is one approach, among many, to the study of the

NT. Simply put, SSC applies the social sciences to the study of the NT. More precisely:

Social-scientific criticism of the Bible is that phase of the exegetical task

which analyzes the social and cultural dimensions of the text and of its

environmental context through the utilization of the perspectives, theory,models, and research of the social sciences.

116

It is critical to note that SSC complements and builds upon other methods of biblical

criticism. It is not an isolated approach to the text, and its utilization does not preclude the

use of other methods. Indeed, SSC is intricately related to the other forms of biblical

criticism, such as: textual criticism, literary criticism, historical criticism, form criticism,

redaction criticism, rhetorical criticism, etc.117

This is particularly apparent in the discussions of historical context and rhetoric

found below. SSC is just one of the tools available for understanding the text, and it is

most effective when used in conjunction with other tools. Each tool has a specific

application and purpose.

Social-scientific criticism, in its turn, studies the text as both a reflectionof and a response to the social and cultural settings in which the text was

produced. Its aim is the determination of the meaning(s) explicit and

implicit in the text, meanings made possible and shaped by the social and

cultural systems inhabited by both authors and intended audiences.118

Thus, this work is an exercise in SSC in that it seeks to apply SIT to the study of

Galatians. As a study of social behavior and interactions, SIT helps illuminate the

meanings of the text that are dependent upon this social environment. This does not

116 John Hall Elliott, What Is Social-Scientific Criticism?, Guides to Biblical Scholarship. New Testament

Series. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 7.117 Elliott, Social-Scientific Criticism, 7.118 Elliott, Social-Scientific Criticism, 8.



70

replace the valuable work that was done before by other scholars, instead it builds upon it

to develop a more complete understanding of Galatians.

History

While the formal practice of SSC emerged in the 1970s, scholars have been

examining the NT with insights from the social sciences for more than one hundred

years. It is worth mentioning a few notable examples. For example, Adolf Deissmann

was an influential German scholar from the early twentieth century, who made important

contributions to the social history of early Christianity.

119

Much of his work focused on

recently discovered papyri and he was interested in what they could tell us about the

social world of Paul and off the NT.120

Other German scholars, such as Friedrich Engels

and Karl Kautsky, were influenced by Karl Marx and this can be seen in their work.121

Finally, American interest in the sociology of early Christianity was represented by the

Chicago school.122

As one of its most prominent members, the work of Shirley Jackson

Case is representative of the school.123

Despite this early proliferation of research, the study of the social setting of early

Christianity began to decline in the 1920s. This was for a couple reasons. One reason is

that form criticism became more and more detached from the social setting of early

119 David G. Horrell, ed. Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation (Edinburgh: T & T

Clark,1999), 4.120

Gustav Adolf Deissmann, Paulus: Eine Kultur- und Religions- Geschichtliche Skizze (Tübingen: Mohr,1911); Gustav Adolf Deissmann, Licht vom Osten (Tübingen: Mohr, 1923); Gustav Adolf Deissmann,

Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco- Roman World (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1927).121 K. Marx and F. Engels, On Religion (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1957); Karl

Kautsky, Der Ursprung des Christentums. Eine historische Untersuchung (Stuttgart1908); Karl Kautsky,

Foundations of Christianity: A Study in Christian Origins (London: Orbach & Chambers, 1925).122 Horrell, ed. Social-Scientific Approaches.123 Shirley Jackson Case, The Social Origins of Christianity (Chicago1923); Shirley Jackson Case, The

Social Triumph of the Ancient Church (New York1933).



71

Christianity. Early use of form criticism tied the text to their use in specific social

situations. In the middle of the twentieth-century form criticism focused more upon the

text’s place within the church, rather than its place within the larger social context. It is

also important to note that the interests of Rudolf Bultmann, a prominent practitioner of

form criticism, developed towards a hermeneutic of demythologization and towards

formulating the word of the Gospel in existential terms.124

Thus his work became

detached from its socio-historical context.125

Another reason for the decline of interest in the social world of early Christianity

can be seen in the influential work of Karl Barth. Barth understood the revealed Word of

God to be radically ‘other’. It is entirely disconnected from human endeavor and society.

Thus it is unaffected by human patterns of social and religious behavior. This position

remains antithetical to SSC, which is based upon the assumption that social and historical

contexts shape religion.

This trend started to change in the 1960s. This shift in attitudes is probably

connected to larger cultural shifts taking place at the time. In the United States, the 1960s

saw social unrest and upheaval. This unrest encouraged a new approach to history, an

approach that looked at historical events from the perspective of the people who lived at

the time rather than from the perspective of key leaders and figures. This involves

looking at the social institutions, groups, and settings that people participated in on a

daily basis. This new approach to history was also accompanied by tremendous growth in

the social sciences. New methodologies were introduced and developed as sociology

124 Rudolf Karl Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology (New York: Scribner, 1958); Rudolf Karl

Bultmann, The New Testament and Mythology and Other Basic Writings (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1984).125 Horrell, ed. Social-Scientific Approaches, 5.



72

gained more prominence and influence in Universities. When SSC took hold in the

1970s, biblical studies was basically catching up.126

Because SSC applies the social sciences to the study of the NT, the works of SSC

are as diverse as the social sciences themselves. For this reason, a complete overview of

SSC over the past forty years is both unnecessary and impractical. On the other hand, it is

worth while to look at some of the key works of SSC that helped reestablish its place

within biblical studies. Three of the most prominent names to emerge in this period are

Gerd Theissen, Bruce Malina, and Wayne Meeks.

Theissen got the ball rolling with a series of articles published starting in 1973.

This is not to say that no one had practiced SSC before this, but Theissen’s articles had an

impact that others lacked, and his work changed the way scholars look at the NT. His first

article planted Jesus firmly in the historical and social context of his day. Theissen used

the sociology of literature to investigate the NT. As he puts it, “the sociology of literature

investigates the relations between written texts and human behavior. It studies the social

behavior of the people who make the texts, pass them on, interpret them, and adopt them.

And it analyzes this behavior under two aspects: first, as typical behavior; second, as

contingent behavior – behavior conditioned by outside circumstances.”127

He also points

out that the sociology of literature is particularly applicable to NT, as the teachings of

Jesus were originally transmitted orally. A written source can theoretically be passed on

with little consequence for, and little influence from, the surrounding social context (e.g.

dusty library books). On the other hand, the sayings of Jesus were passed down orally,

126 Horrell, ed. Social-Scientific Approaches, 6-7.127 Gerd Theissen, "The Wandering Radicals: Light Shed by the Sociology of Literature on the Early

Transmission of Jesus Sayings," in Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation, ed.

David G. Horrell (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999), 95.



73

only to be written down decades after his death. This means that their existence was

dependent upon the people, groups, and social contexts that preserved them.128

After viewing the NT in the light of the sociology of literature, Theissen

concludes that Jesus was a wandering radical, and that early Christian faith “assumed

three social forms: the radicalism of the itinerant charismatics, love patriarchalism, and

gnostic radicalism.”129

As with all scholarship, Theissen’s work has been critiqued.130

Its

importance is not in the conclusion that it comes to, but rather the methodology that it

demonstrates. It is an excellent example of SSC as it clearly and directly applies a social

scientific model to the NT. It also firmly plants Jesus and his early followers in their

social and historical context.

He has continued to use the social sciences in his work, the best known of which

is probably Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, published in 1978.131

It became

representative of his style, utilizing social scientific models eclectically in an attempt to

create the most accurate representation of the historical situation. This is in contrast with

other scholars who insist upon the use of one single ridged model. These two approaches

have sparked a debate, which will be seen again in the discussion of Galatians’ rhetoric.

The second foundational work to be examined is The New Testament World ,

published by Bruce Malina in 1981.The work brought insights from cultural

anthropology to the study of the NT. As Malina puts it, “the purpose for using

anthropological models in New Testament study is precisely to get to hear the meaning of

the texts in terms of the cultural contexts in which they were originally proclaimed. The

128 Theissen, "The Wandering Radicals," 97.129 Theissen, "The Wandering Radicals," 119.130 For a summary of the primary criticisms see: Horrell, ed. Social-Scientific Approaches, 93-95.131 Gerd Theissen, Gerd Theissen, and Gerd Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, 1st

American ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978).



74

models chosen for this book are mid-range models in the sense that they serve to explain

segments of behavior rather than the whole cultural picture of the social world of early

Christianity.”132

Thus, as with Theissen’s work, Malina’s work plants the NT firmly in its

social and cultural context. Without this context, it is impossible to understand the

meaning of the text. In order to determine the correct cultural context, Malina turned to

research that examined the modern Mediterranean.

Based upon this research, Malina created a series of values that he believes reflect

the culture of the region at the Jesus’ time. First is the honor/shame dynamic. Honor

reflects one’s standing in society, and when it is challenged it requires a response. Second

is the dyadic personality, in which a person is defined by their relationships to others.

Third is the belief in a limited good, which is the belief that there is not enough wealth to

go around. To gain wealth is to do so at the expense of others. Fourth is the importance of

kinship. Finally, there is the value placed upon purity.133

Malina’s work had a large impact upon NT studies. It highlighted the cultural

differences between modern culture and the culture of the NT world. Additionally, it

explicitly laid out the values that lie behind the biblical text. This allows the reader to

recognize the power and shock value of texts that are now taken for granted. It also

allows for more accurate interpretations of their meaning. A prominent founding

member, Malina and others formed the context group in 1986, formally organizing in

1989.134

To this day, the group has continued to practice SSC.

132 Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World : Insights from Cultural Anthropology, 3rd ed. (Louisville,

Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), xiii.133 Malina, The New Testament World , 54-55, 81-82, 112, 42-43, 81.134 Elliott, Social-Scientific Criticism, 29.



75

It is worth mentioning some of criticisms that have been brought against Malina’s

work. First, Malina’s use of modern anthropological models has been questioned. Malina

has not done the work to establish that these modern models apply to the ancient world.

He offers no non-biblical support for these models, something that is critical in order to

avoid circular reasoning. In response to this criticism, he has simply stated that culture

values change very little over time.135

While this may be true, the fact that Malina takes it

as a given is unsettling.

Additionally, it has been argued that his models homogenize Mediterranean

culture and fail to take into account the diversity of local cultures.

136

Finally he ignores

other forms of criticism in biblical studies. For example, the challenge/response

interaction seen in the gospels between Jesus and his opponents may be due to the literary

structure of the text. It could also be due to relationship between the author’s community

and the surrounding communities. It is not clear that it results from the cultural value of

honor. In the end, despite these criticisms Malina’s work remains influential. It can be

contrasted with Theissen’s work, which used an eclectic selection of models, in that

Malina’s work utilizes one social scientific approach and applies it directly to the NT.

The final example of early work in SSC is First Urban Christians by Wayne

Meeks. First published in 1983, the work looks at the urban environment and social level

of early Pauline Christians. He describes his work as a social history.

“To write social history, it is necessary to pay more attention than has

become customary to the ordinary patterns of life in the immediateenvironment within which the Christian movement was born . . . the task

of a social historian of early Christianity is to describe the life of the

135 Malina, The New Testament World , xi.136 Horrell, ed. Social-Scientific Approaches, 14-15.



76

ordinary Christian within that environment – not just the ideas or the self-

understanding of the leaders and writers.”137

His work reflects the new methods and developments that had taken place within the

social sciences. He focuses his history on the average person, instead of the historical

figure.

Meeks goes on to survey a wide range of issues facing early Christianity. He

looks at the urban environment in which Pauline communities arose. He looks at the

relationship between villages and cities, between cities and the Empire, and between the

countryside and the city. He then looks at the social level of Pauline Christians. He tries

to determine their social and economic status. He concludes that Pauline Christians

actually represents a wide range of social and economic positions. They were not merely

from the bottom of the society. “There are slaves, although we cannot tell how many. The

‘typical’ Christians, however, the one who most often signals his presence in the letters

by one or another small clue, is the free artisan or small trader. Some even in those

occupational categories had houses, slaves, the ability to travel, and other signs of

wealth.”138

Meeks goes on to cover a wide range of topics, including the formation of the

church, governance, and ritual. His work changed the way that NT scholars viewed early

Christianity. Early Christians could no longer be seen as the unwashed masses. They

came from a diverse background, and reflected a widespread social movement.

It is worth noting that Meeks adopted an eclectic approach to the social sciences.

He took bits and pieces from different social theories and combined them in an attempt to

get a fuller understanding of early Christianity. In his own words:

137 Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians : The Social World of the Apostle Paul , 2nd ed. (New

Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 2.138 Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 73.



77

“In short, the application of social science in the following chapters is

eclectic. I take my theory piecemeal, as needed, where it fits. This pragmatic approach will be distasteful to the purist; its effect will be many

rough edges and some inconsistencies. Nevertheless, given the present

state of social theory and the primitive state of its use by students of early

Christianity, eclecticism seems the only honest and cautious way to proceed.”139

His prediction proved correct. Some scholars did find his eclectic approach distasteful. It

is considered one of the biggest weaknesses of his work. Despite this, his work remains

an important contribution to both SSC and NT scholarship.

Methodological Assumptions

The premise behind SSC criticism, of applying the social sciences to biblical

studies, is deceptively simple. This simple description of SSC hides many assumptions,

upon which the validity and usefulness of SSC is based. The most thorough discussion of

these assumptions can be found in John H. Elliott’s monograph What is Social-Scientific

Criticism?. He lays out ten different assumptions that he sees as being behind SSC. These

will be reviewed now, with more attention given to some and with expanded explinations

when necessary.

The first assumption Elliot presents is the belief in the sociology of knowledge.

SSC assumes that all knowledge has a social origin.

This applies to both the knowledge of the interpreter and that of theauthors and groups under examination. Acknowledgment of this fact in no

way eliminates a concern for relative objectivity on the part of the

investigator or efforts to restrain freewheeling subjectivity. But it doesreject the possibility of complete objectivity as an unsustainable ‘myth of

objective consciousness.’ Total objectivity is illusory. There is no such

thing as ‘immaculate perception.’ Both interpreters and authors of ancient

139 Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 6.



78

texts have specific temporal, psychological, social, and cultural locations

that affect general perceptions and constructions of reality.140

Thus, it is important for scholars to be aware of their own motives, goals, and

perspectives. Additionally, this assumption makes it impossible to separate the ancient

author from his social and historical context. If all ideas and knowledge have a social

genesis, then it is impossible to understand them without a full understanding and

appreciation for the social context in which they arose. This can be contrasted with

thinkers such as Barth, briefly mentioned above, who viewed the revealed Word of God

as something separated from human endeavor.

The second assumption discussed by Elliot is the distinction between emic and

etic points of view. The terms emic and etic were taken from the field of cultural

anthropology and adopted by biblical scholars who practice SSC. Simply put, emic refers

to the situation as the original authors or community members understood it. Etic refers

to the situation as understood by modern scholars. More precisely:

Emic descriptions and explanations are those given by the natives

themselves from their experience and point of view. They describe what

and how the natives thought but not why they thought so rather thanotherwise. Etic constructs, by employing cross-cultural comparison and by

taking into account a full range of factors not mentioned or considered in

native reports, attempt to explain how native concepts and perceptions

correlate with and are influenced by a full range of material, social, andcognitive factors. They seek to explain why the native thought and

behaved so and not otherwise…Thus in the biblical world the cause of

illness is often traced to demon possession or disrupted social relations (anemic account), whereas moderns would regard illness as ‘disease’ possibly

attributable to bacterial infection and/or poor sanitation or the like (an etic

view).141

140 Elliott, Social-Scientific Criticism, 37.141 Elliott, Social-Scientific Criticism, 39.



79

This distinction is useful for a couple of reasons. First, it provides a clear way to

distinguish between the views of the researcher and the views of the researched. Second,

it also allows us to distinguish between different types of biblical research.

This work is an etic endeavor. It applies a modern conceptual framework (SIT) to

the historical situation. It is focused primarily on the social and cognitive factors of the

situation, or as Elliot puts it, the ‘why’ of the situation. Other people focus their work on

the emic perspective, on understanding the perspective of the people being studied. For

example, take the discussion of the law found below. Many people strive to understand

how Paul viewed the law. But this work is less interested in Paul’s understanding of the

law (the emic perspective) than in the role that the law played as a set of prototypical

guidelines that defined the Jewish social identity (an etic perspective).

The third assumption that Elliot discusses is the need for models. This assumption

stems from the previous two. Because scholars are fundamentally rooted and constrained

by their historical and social context, there is an unavoidable divide between emic and

etic perspectives. When left unexamined, this divide can prove problematic, leading to

anachronistic and inappropriate conclusions. Models can illuminate this divide, clarify

the position of the scholar, and even help us to understand the emic perspective of the

authors.

There is a second, more straightforward argument in favor of models. It is

impossible to not use them, so they might as well be explicit. For example, one could

argue that 1 Timothy is a relatively late letter, given that it is so concerned with the

organizational structure of the church (e.g. 1 Tim 3). While this argument may appear to

be based upon common sense, it is actually based upon implicit assumptions about the



80

routinization of charisma, in which organizational features of a movement immerge after

the original charismatic leaders have died. Therefore, it is better to make these models

explicit.

This allows for greater clarity and better dialogue between scholars, particularly

those who disagree with one another. Elliot summarizes the purpose of models well.

In the case of social phenomena, models serve as ‘cognitive maps’ for

observing, categorizing, comparing, and synthesizing elements of socialdata and drawing generalizations and conclusions about their salient,

recurrent social features. They provide the means for seeking, analyzing,

and explaining repeated behaviors, social roles, institutions, patters ofstratification, modes of social interaction and conflict, and correlations

between beliefs and behavior, social organization, and worldviews.

142

I think that these first three assumptions, the sociology of knowledge, the emic/etic

distinction, and the necessity of models, are the most critical. In order to avoid spending

to much time here, I will cover the remaining assumptions mentioned by Elliot in less

detail.

The fourth assumption mentioned by Elliot is the process of abduction. Abduction

is a line of reasoning that moves back and forth from the model to the evidence in order

to refine one’s understanding.143

This is natural, given that no one creates a model

without first looking at the available evidence, and it is impossible to examine the

evidence without some sort of model already in place. They are intertwined.

The fifth assumption that Elliot mentions is that models must be derived from the

appropriate social context.144

While Elliot is specifically referring to the process of

basing models on data from the ancient Mediterranean, I would expand this a little by

saying that models must be verified by data from the appropriate social context. For

142 Elliott, Social-Scientific Criticism, 44.143 Elliott, Social-Scientific Criticism, 48.144 Elliott, Social-Scientific Criticism, 49.



81

example, almost no social scientific models are derived directly from data on the ancient

Mediterranean, but they may still be applicable if they are found to be consistent with t

approp

he

riate data.

The sixth assumption is that language is dependent upon the shared social and

cultural systems of those trying to communicate. Words in and of themselves carry no

meaning. It is a shared framework of understanding that lets people communicate.

Biblical texts, like all texts oral or written, presuppose and encode

information regarding the social and cultural systems in which they were

produced and in which they made sense. Both the meaningscommunicated by the author(s) of these texts to their intended hearers or

readers and the texts’ persuasive power are determined by the social andcultural systems that author(s) and audiences inhabited and that enabled

meaningful communication in the first place.145

This is seen in everyday experience through miscommunications. Miscommunications

occur precisely because there is not an objective meaning to words, but instead a relevant

social and cultural context that can vary from person to person. This also means that any

study must be firmly rooted in the appropriate social, cultural, and historical context,

because this is the only way to accurately understand the meaning of the text.

The seventh assumption is that SSC is closely related to historical criticism.

While historical criticism focuses on extraordinary individuals and events, SSC

complements this by focusing on social groups and regular patterns of behavior,

providing the social and cultural context for these extraordinary events. As Elliot

describes it:

Practitioners of social-scientific criticism presume that this method is

different from but complementary to a historical orientation. The latter

tends to focus on individual or exceptional actors, extraordinary orunusual actions, independent or distinctive properties, personal rather than

societal relationships, and diachronic movement and change. These are

145 Elliott, Social-Scientific Criticism, 50.



82

always important foci of investigation, but such distinctive properties can

be perceived only when common and regular features of social life arefirst known. This latter concern is the focus of social-scientific inquiry.

Such research tends to focus on social groupings and collectivities; regular

recurrent, routinized behavior; common and typical properties; social and

systemic relations; institutionalized and structured patter ns of behaviorand relationships; and synchronic structures and process.146

Therefore, SSC and works extremely well with a historical orientation.

The eighth assumption is that religion in the ancient world was closely tied to the

institutions of kinship and politics. Thus, the only way to fully understand the religion of

the ancient world is to also look at its social and cultural setting in these institutions.147

The ninth assumption states that SSC requires a detailed knowledge of the social

scientific model being used. It is important to have a clear understanding of the model

being used, in order to use it correctly and appropriately.148

Finally, the tenth assumption stresses the importance of knowing the social and

cultural differences that separate our time from theirs. SSC “presupposes that awareness

of such differences is essential in order to avoid an anachronistic and ethnocentric

misreading and misappropriation of the Bible.”149 These assumptions provide a good

starting point for any application of SSC. It is interesting to note how these assumptions,

and Elliot’s selection of them, have been influenced by SSC’s place in history.

SIT’s Applicability to the New Testament

It is important to look at the weaknesses and limitations of SIT and at their

implications for applying SIT to the New Testament. One important limitation of SIT is

146 Elliott, Social-Scientific Criticism, 55.147 Elliott, Social-Scientific Criticism, 57.148 Elliott, Social-Scientific Criticism, 58.149 Elliott, Social-Scientific Criticism, 58.



83

its inability to explain individual differences in intergroup behavior. The internalization

of group membership and the vilification of out-group members vary in degree from

individual to individual. For example, research shows different levels of racism in whites,

sexism in men, and anti-Semitism in non-Jews.150

Additionally, individuals that tend to

discriminate against one out-group, discriminate against others.

This variation in individual behavior is also seen in individuals’ attitudes towards

the in-group. Whether social identities are religious, ethnic, or class based, they are

increasingly a matter of choice. This element of choice leads to variation, with some

individuals choosing to identify more strongly then others with a particular group.

Although this is seen in voluntary organizations (e.g. religious communities, political

parties, etc.), it is also seen in groups often defined by fixed characteristics such as race

and ethnicity.151

SIT has devoted very little attention to the development of these differences. The

widespread use of the experimental minimal-group situation, in which individuals are

assigned group membership but its internalization is rarely measured, makes it difficult to

study individual variations.152

SIT is certainly limited in its ability to look at variation on

the individual level. But this is not surprising given that SIT was developed out of the

150 On racism see J. F. Dovidio and S. L. Gaertner, "Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism: Historical

Trends and Contemporary Approaches," in Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism, ed. J. F. Dovidio and S.

L. Gaertner (Orlando: Academic Press, 1986), 1-34. On sexism see P. Glick and S. T. Fiske, "TheAmbivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism," Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology 70 (1996): 491-512. See also J. Swim, K. J. Aikin, W. S. Hall, and B. A. Hunter,"Sexism and Racism: Old-Fashioned and Modern Prejudices," Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 68 (1995): 199-214. Finally, on anti-Semitism see T. W. Smith, "Actual Trends or

Measurement Artifacts? A Review of Three Studies of Anti-Semitism; the Polls - a Review " Public

Opinion Quarterly 57 (1993): 380-93.151 Leonie Huddy, "Contrasting Theoretical Approaches to Intergroup Relations," Political Psychology 25,

no. 6 (2004): 950.152 Huddy, "Contrasting Theoretical Approaches," 954.



84

view that collective phenomena cannot be adequately explained solely by examining

individual processes and the interactions between individuals.153

Indeed, this is why SIT fits well with the historical study of the NT. With rare

exception, the specific activities and behaviors of individuals within the NT communities

are lost to the modern researcher. Even when individuals are mentioned, they are often

depersonalized and representative of group prototypes. As a result, the NT readily

provides depictions of communities, social groups, and their interactions with one

another. This fits well with SIT’s strengths, and means that SIT’s lack of applicability to

individual variation is not a problem.

A careful distinction must be made between SIT’s lack of explanatory power for

variation between individuals and SIT’s predictions concerning the behavior of

individuals. For example, were one to look at the converts to early Christianity and try to

determine why one individual converted and another did not, SIT would have little to

contribute. Of course the NT does not have the information required for such a detailed

examination of individual conversion. In contrast, were one to look at social groups, there

relationships with one another, and how this influenced the behavior of key individuals,

SIT would be able to contribute a great deal. Indeed, the NT lends itself to the latter

approach, fitting well with SIT.

Social Scientific Criticism and SIT

The SIT has found a home within NT studies. While not the most common

approach, it is one that is gaining popularity. It is worth looking at a few examples of

research applying SIT to the NT. The first example is a paper published by Jason

153 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 112.



85

Lamoreaux in 2008. His work looks at the conversion story of Paul found in Acts in light

of the anthropology of ritual and SIT. He understands Paul’s conversion experience to be

a shift in social identity, from “Judean zealot” to a member of the “Jesus group.”

Arguably, conversion by definition includes a shift in social identity; but

Lamoreaux goes further, incorporating research from the anthropology of ritual.

Anthropology of ritual examines how rituals facilitate the inclusion of new group

members and allow for the breaking of old group boundaries. He sees these two theories

expressed together in the conversion story of Paul. He concludes that “Luke utilizes

common ritual structures and altered states of consciousness to legitimate Gentile

inclusion through the character of Saul. Saul’s recruitment to the Jesus group is

punctuated by baptism, a rite that signals the breaking into a new community

(aggregation) and the change of personal as well as social identity.”154

The second example is an article written by Raimo Hakola in 2009. In the article

Hakola looks at the character of Nicodemus from the Gospel of John. Hakola starts by

establishing the ambiguous nature of the character in the Gospel of John. Some of the

portrayals are rather negative, while some of the portrayals are more positive.

Interestingly, Hakola argues that this ambiguity allowed the character of Nicodemus to

serve a critical role in maintaining the social identity of the Johannine community. “As a

Jew and a Pharisee whose faith is not quite enough despite his positive response to Jesus,

Nicodemus may have allowed the Johannine group to come to terms with Jewish groups

and individuals whose response to early Christians and Jesus was, at least to some extent,

154 Jason T. Lamoreaux, "Social Identity, Boundary Breaking, and Ritual: Saul's Recruitment on the Road

to Damascus," Biblical Theology Bulletin 38, no. 3 (2008): 132.



86

positive.”155

Hakola argues that this was necessary because any positive interaction with

non-believers would undermine the stark dualism of the Gospel, represented by light and

darkness, faith and unbelief. Thus, Nicodemus helps maintain the social identity of the

group by providing a category for people who undermine the group defining dualism of

John’s gospel.

The third example is an article written by Bernard Ukwuegbu in 2008. His article

examines Galatians 5:13-6:10 in light of SIT. The passage describes the proper life and

behavior of a follower of Jesus. Ukweugbu agrees with the traditional interpretation of

this passage, which views it as a paraenetic discourse, whose purpose is to provide rules

and regulations for ethical living. Additionally, he argues that this passage also serves a

second role. When viewed in light of SIT, this passage can be seen as helping to establish

a new social identity for the members of the community. In his view, the paraenetic

instructions are identity-defining norms. He concludes, “The paraenetic exhortations of

Galatians (5:13-6:10), rather than being an appendix or a footnote to the primary

theological concerns of the letter, serve as the zenith of Paul's argument, and as part and

parcel of the singular matter that Paul has been addressing all along: the corporate

identity of the Christian community.”156

Below, this work expands his approach by tying

the section into Paul’s view and manipulation of the law.

The last scholar to be examined is Philip Esler. Esler has done more work with the

SIT and the NT than any other scholar and was one of the first to do so. Because of this, I

will examine a few of his works. Thus, the fourth example of the application of SIT to the

155 Raimo Hakola, "The Burden of Ambiguity: Nicodemus and the Social Identity of the Johannine

Christians," New Testament Studies 55, no. 4 (2009): 454.156 Bernard O. Ukwuegbu, "Paraenesis, Identity-Defining Norms, or Both? Galatians 5:13-6:10 in the Light

of Social Identity Theory," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70, no. 3 (2008): 559.



87

NT is an article written by Esler in 2000. In this article, Esler looks at the parable of the

Good Samaritan in light of SIT. He describes the violent intergroup relationship between

Judeans and Samaritans. He then goes on to argue that this parable is designed to subvert

the connection between the Judean sense of identity and the mosaic law. This is done in

order to promote a new approach to moral behavior. He then compares this approach to

three others designed to reduce intergroup conflict (crossed categorization,

recategorization, and decategorization). Finally he concludes that the parable is relevant

to modern attempts to reduce intergroup conflict.157

This relatively early article is an

important step towards examining social identities within the NT.

The fifth example is another article written by Esler in 2003. In this article he

turns his attention towards Paul, particularly Romans chapters 12-15. Esler finds the

traditional characterization of the passage as ethics or paraenesis inadequate. He observes

that the concept of ethics applied to the NT is often anachronistic and out of place. He

also questions the appropriateness and usefulness of categorizing the text as

paraenesis.158 He then applies the SIT and attempts to place the text within its pr

context, concluding that, “this part of the letter can be interpreted both as Paul’s attempt

to outline descriptors of the new identity his addressees experience as members of th

Christ-movement, especially in relation to agapē , and as a vision of the moral life very

similar to the Aristoielian interest in the virtues as the means to promote human

oper

e

flourishing.”159

157 Philip Francis Esler, "Jesus and the Reduction of Intergroup Conflict: The Parable of the Good

Samaritan in the Light of Social Identity Theory," Biblical Interpretation 8, no. 4 (2000): 352.158 Philip Francis Esler, "Social Identity, the Virtues, and the Good Life: A New Approach to Romans 12:1-

15:13," Biblical Theology Bulletin 33, no. 2 (2003): 52-53.159 Esler, "Social Identity," 51.



88

The final example of SIT in NT studies is Galatians, written by Philip Esler in

1998. In this monograph, Esler applies SIT to the book of Galatians. This is essentially

what I

his

)

rk is naturally narrower and deeper, more

specifi

ct

uggle

sue. On the other hand,

my per

am trying to do, so it is critically important to look at what Esler has written, and

how I am both building upon what he has done and taking it in a new direction.

My work here differs from Esler’s in at least three significant ways. First, I am

incorporating recent developments within SIT that were unavailable when Esler wrote

work, particularly uncertainty-identity theory and the social identity theory of leadership.

Second, my work seeks to apply SIT to the text in a more specific and concrete way,

applying specific principles (e.g. prototypicality, metacontrast principle, social attraction

to specific verses within Galatians. While Esler does some of this, he uses the SIT more

to establish social context of the letter. I attribute this difference simply to the different

nature of our works. As a dissertation, this wo

cally focused on the details. On the other hand, Esler’s work is geared towards a

wider audience and less technical in nature.

Third, Esler views the situation in Galatia as an intergroup conflict, with distin

groups competing with one another for members.160

I view it as an intragroup str

over the group’s identity. This is a profound distinction, which leads each work in a

different direction. Each approach has its own advantages. For example, Esler’s

perspective helps one understand the ways in which Paul portrays his community as

better than the surrounding Jewish communities, an intergroup is

spective helps explain how Paul’s discussion of Abraham shifts the group’s

prototype and thus affects who is an acceptable group member.

160 Philip Francis Esler, Galatians, New Testament Readings. (London ; New York: Routledge, 1998), 42.



89

This ambiguity, as to the definition and demarcation of groups, is not unique to

the NT. It can be seen above in the studies that looked at the ordination of women in the

Anglican Church, where a case was made that the different sid

es belonged to

psycho

p

pments in SIT that were unavailable to Esler. Second, this

t

r, Esler establishes

his met ng the

large c s

commu

nd biblicism – by accepting the

need for greater self-reflexivity and the production of results through

(and non-Christian) life and theology than has traditionally been the case. I

that the reading of Galatians offered here will be capable of feeding intorses.

161

He reco

logically different groups despite belonging to the same official organization. It

can also be seen in discussions of superordinate identities, where an individual’s grou

boundaries change depending upon which identity is salient.

In summary, I find three primary distinctions between our works. First, this work

incorporates recent develo

work is more narrowly and technically focused, given that it is a dissertation. Third, this

work examines the situation in Galatia as an intragroup conflict, while Esler examines i

as an intergroup conflict.

A brief summary of Esler’s book is in order. In the first chapte

hodological approach to the text. He stresses the importance of recognizi

ultural gap that separates us from Galatia. In relation to this he discusse

nication, intercultural communication, and post modernism.

In sum, my preference remains with a strong historical emphasis, while

eschewing the sterilities of historicism a

intercultural dialogue more capable of enriching contemporary Christian

certainly do not pretend that my work is value free and write with the aim

contemporary liberative discou

gnizes the challenges posed by the cultural gap and postmodernism, but still

chooses a historical approach to the text, thinking that some construals of the biblical

world are more plausible then others.

161 Esler, Galatians, 28.



90

In the second chapter, Esler explains SIT and also lays out his understandin

the situation in Galatia. He briefly describes the historical context of Galatia and the

general issues facing the congregation, such as pressure to adopt the Mosaic Law and

be circumcised. Then, while he explains SIT, he presents his understanding of the

situation. For Esler, “Paul is concerned with maintaining the distinctive identity of his

congregations in relation to the Israelite and Gentile outgroups.”

g of

to

ing out the positive aspects of

belongi e

l

their

. He then argues that Paul created a third group when he founded the

church

s.164

table

fellows sion Esler

writes:

hibition

against Israelites engaging in table-fellowship with Gentiles of a kind

which involved the passing around between those present of bread and

162 Paul does this by

“developing the evaluative dimension through draw

ng to the ingroup which accepts his version of the gospel as compared with th

negatively evaluated outgroups.”

163

As mentioned above, this approach differs from mine

which sees the situation as an intragroup conflict.

In the third chapter, Esler reviews the history of scholarship which examines

Galatians as a work of rhetoric. He then ties this discussion into a look at the historica

context of Israelites in the Roman Empire and the rhetoric that they used to maintain

social identity

in Galatia, “Israelite and Gentile Christ-followers.” He views Paul’s primary

purpose as reinforcing the group boundary between the followers of Christ and the

Israelite

In chapter four, he brilliantly lays out the case for the problem of mixed-

hip and argues that it was at the root of the conflict in Galatia. In conclu

Accordingly, I stand by my 1987 case for the existence of a pro

.

162 Esler, Galatians, 42.163 Esler, Galatians, 43.164 Esler, Galatians, 88-91



91

wine. One plausible reason for this was that it risked the commission of

idolatry in breach of biblical commandments. That is to say, we are not

with what was perceived to be a direct breach of the Torah.

I agree with his position and examine it in the next chapter.

In the fifth chapter, Esler discusses Paul, Jerusalem, and the Antioch incident.

Again, this is something I examine in detail in the next chapter. In chapter six, Esler

proposes that Paul is establishing an identity of righteousness. As he puts it, “Paul’s aim

in this letter regarding righteousness was to sever it from the competing Israelite

outgroup where it had hitherto lodged as a most positive feature of their social identity

and to claim it for his own congregations.”

In chapter 7, Esler views Paul’s discussion of the law in a similar manner, by

seeing it as a struggle “to establish a positive social identity for his congregations in the

context of conflict with the Israelite outgroup who were naturally determined to maintain

the integrity of their ethnic boundaries.”

In the final chapter, number eight, Esler examines how Paul uses the concepts of

freedom and the spirit in order to create a sense of identity and order life within the

community. Overall, Esler’s book is impressive, thoroughly researched, and well

reasoned. In the coming chapters I reference his work in greater detail, both to build upon

the research that he has done and to establish my own position on key issues.

just dealing with a concern for the effects of too much fraternization, but165

166

167

165 Esler, Galatians, 116.166 Esler, Galatians, 175.167 Esler, Galatians, 178.



92

Chapter 5: Historical and Social Context

The situation in the community of Galatia was complex. It was a community with

multiple ethnic, religious, and national backgrounds. One way to unravel this complexity

is by looking at the historical context of the situation and by seeing how historical

developments influenced the way people saw the world and interacted with it. The lives

of Jews as emigrants in minority communities throughout the Roman Empire, along with

the political unrest and discontent found in Israel, created a situation in which Jews

struggled to maintain their identity.

The first part of this chapter uses SIT to look at the political unrest that

surrounded Jerusalem for hundreds of years. By using SIT to look at various rebellions

that occurred over the years, one can identify key aspects of Jewish identity that serve as

boundary markers, separating them from other groups. Additionally, this survey of

Jewish rebellions demonstrates that Jerusalem was often the center of political and social

unrest. According to uncertainty-identity theory, the uncertainty created by this unrest

could have been a contributing factor to the situation in Galatia. The uncertainty in

Jerusalem would have made some people more sensitive to threats that undermined their

Jewish identity. They would have been motivated to defend their Jewish identity in order

to reduce uncertainty.

This should not be misconstrued as a cause of the situation in Galatia. It is merely

a contributing factor. The immediate cause was the threat to identity posed by mixed

table fellowship, which was seen in Antioch (as recorded in Galatians) and then again in



93

the events leading up to the crisis in Galatia. The uncertainty in Jerusalem likely

exacerbated the problem, but it did not cause it.

To take a modern example, tensions between the rural communities in the South

and the urban communities in the North contributed to the American Civil War. These

tensions (created by different lifestyles and values) helped to fuel the war, but they were

not the immediate cause (e.g. slavery, state’s rights). These same tensions also

contributed to the rise of the Tea Party movement over one hundred years later. Again,

they were not an immediate cause, but merely a contributing circumstance.

Similarly, Jerusalem was in social upheaval for hundreds of years. The

uncertainty created by this upheaval contributed to many different social movements, but

was not the immediate cause. The persistence of social upheaval for hundreds of years

does not render that upheaval inconsequential, but at the same time it does speak to

secondary role that it plays. It is a contributing factor, not the immediate cause of the

situation in Galatia.

The second part of this chapter looks at the immediate circumstances surrounding

Galatians, such as its authorship, date, and the reason for its composition. Paul’s

opponents were probably Jewish followers of Jesus. Additionally, Jerusalem and the

authority there were probably a significant part of their religious identity. As a dispute

emerged surrounding mixed-table fellowship, Paul’s opponents insisted on upholding the

law and its traditional practices. The uncertainty-identity theory predicts that the social

unrest in Jerusalem, and the uncertainty that it created, would have made them sensitive

to threats that undermined their Jewish Identity. They would have been motivated to



94

identify more strongly with their Jewish identity in an attempt to reduce this uncertainty.

This uncertainty did not cause the dispute in Galatia, but likely fed into it.

Maccabean Revolt

The first revolt to be discussed is the Maccabean Revolt (167 B.C.E. – 160

B.C.E.). In the Maccabean Revolt, Jews rose up against the Seleucid Empire. The

Seleucid Empire was established after the death of Alexander the Great. Upon his death,

his empire split between his generals. One of the divisions became the Seleucid Empire

and included the land of Judea.

The revolt was sparked when Antiochus IV Epiphanes, ruler of the Seleucid

Empire, attempted to Hellenize Judea. While detailed accounts are given of the people

involved, this work is more concerned with the actions that lead to the revolt.

Specifically, Antiochus’s decrees undermined the prototypical behavior of the Jewish

people. This caused them to feel threatened and they revolted.

For example, the identity defining practice of circumcision was undermined, as

recorded in 1 Maccabees:

They went to the king, and he gave them authority to introduce the

customs of the Gentiles. And they built a gymnasium in Jerusalemaccording to the manner of the Gentiles. They also submitted themselves

to uncircumcision, and repudiated the holy covenant; yea, they joined

themselves to the Gentiles, and sold themselves to do evil. (1 Macc 1:13-15)

168

This prohibition was accompanied by a general effort to eliminate Jewish practice. In

addition to circumcision, it eliminated dietary laws along with Jewish regulations

concerning idolatry and restriction of worship to the temple.

168W. O. E. Oesterley, "1 Maccabees," in Apocrypha of the Old Testament , ed. R. H. Charles (Bellingham:

Logos Research Systems, 2004).



95

That they should (moreover) build high places, and sacred groves, andshrines for idols, and that they should sacrifice swine and (other) unclean

animals; and that they should leave their sons uncircumcized, and make

themselves abominable by means of (practicing) everything that was

unclean and profane, so that they might forget the Law, and change all the(traditional) ordinances. And whosoever should not act according to the

word of the king, should die. (1 Macc 1:47-50)169

Finally, it prohibited Jewish worship in the temple. Copies of the Jewish Scriptures were

reportedly burned, and a new altar was established in the temple.

And on the fifteenth day of Chislev in the one hundred and forty-fifth yearthey set up upon the altar an ‘abomination of desolation’, and in the cities

of Judah on every side they established high-places; and they offeredsacrifice at the doors of the houses and in the streets. And the books of the

Law which they found they rent in pieces, and burned them in the fire.

And with whomsoever was found a book of the covenant, and if he was

(found) consenting unto the Law, such an one was, according to the king’s

sentence, condemned to death. (1 Macc 1:55-57)170

The text here is unclear, but the “abomination of desolation” may have referred to an altar

dedicated to Zeus (see 2 Macc 6:1-2).

The Jews were outraged. They went to arms and fought against the Seleucid

authorities. They eventually won their independence and established the Hasmonean

dynasty, which lasted for approximately 100 years, until Judea came under Roman rule.

More importantly, the Maccabean Revolt demonstrates the central role that

prototypical behaviors and beliefs can play in people’s lives. The central values here (i.e.

circumcision, temple worship, dietary restrictions) remained important for hundreds of

years and are the same ones involved in the Bar Kokhba Revolt nearly 300 years later. It

is also no coincidence that the same issues of circumcision and dietary restrictions are at

issue in Galatia, some 200 years later. Therefore, while the Maccabean Revolt predates

169Oesterley, "1 Maccabees." 170Oesterley, "1 Maccabees."



96

both the crisis in Galatia and the other revolts discussed here by many years, it is

important in that it clearly frames the issues at stake for the Jewish people. They revolted

in order to preserve their way of life, defending prototypical behaviors that they saw a

central to their identity. It also explains why Jews fought against Greeks around the

Roman Empire (e.g. during the First Jewish-Roman War).

Quirinius’s Census

The second revolt under examination is the uprising against Quirinius’s census,

around 6 C.E. At this time Quirinius was the governor of Syria, and Coponius was the

procurator of Judea. Although Coponius ruled Judea, Judea was part of the province of

Syria. Thus it was actually Quirinius who ordered the census, which was done for

taxation.

This caused resentment among the Jews, as it brought home the fact that they

were now subjected to foreign rule.171

While the revolt itself was relatively small, it is

important for two main reasons. First, it illustrates the civil unrest that built up for years,

culminating in the First Jewish-Roman War and the destruction of the temple. Second, it

is, at least ideologically, the birth place of the zealots.

The zealots believed in using armed resistance to gain their independence from

Rome. Josephus mentions them frequently, and it is from him that we get our best

accounts of the revolt. Josephus says that many people submitted to the census

peacefully, but some resisted.

But a certain Judas, a Gaulanite from a city named Gamala, who hadenlisted the aid of Saddok, a Pharisee, threw himself into the cause of

rebellion. They said that the assessment carried with it a status amounting

171 W. O. E. Oesterley, A History of Israel , vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951), 386.



97

to downright slavery, no less, and appealed to the nation to make a bid for

independence…Some were slain in civil strife, for these men madly hadrecourse to butchery of each other and of themselves from a longing not to

be outdone by their opponents; others were slain by the enemy in war.

Then came famine, reserved to exhibit the last degree of shamelessness,

followed by the storming and razing of cities until at last the very templeof God was ravaged by the enemy’s fire through this revolt. ( Ant. 18 1.1.4-

10)172

As seen here, Josephus credits Sadduc (sometimes spelled Zadok) the Pharisee and Judas

of Galilee with starting the movement, which he sees as culminating in the temple’s

destruction.173

He goes on to describe this group as the fourth sect of Judaism. It is important to

note that he does not actually call this group zealots. He specifically talks about the

zealots in relation to the First Jewish-Roman War. The similar language used to describe

each group, and the culmination of the above passage, in which he blames them for the

destruction of the temple, suggests that the groups are one and the same. It may be that

the people did not formally call themselves zealots until the war. By the time of the war,

they had adopted the name. This is seen in this passage that describes the political turmoil

in Judea during the first war.

Their efforts were supported by the most eminent of the high priests,

Jesus, son of Gamalas, and Ananus, son of Ananus, who at their meetings

vehemently upbraided the people for their apathy and incited them againstthe Zealots; for so these miscreants called themselves, as though they were

zealous in the cause of virtue and not for vice in its basest and most

extravagant form. ( J.W. 4 3.9.160-161)174

172 Josephus: Jewish Antiquities Books XVIII - XIX , trans. Louis H. Feldman, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard

University Press, 2000).173 Judas is referred to as a Gaulanite only once, here in this passage, everywhere else in Josephus’ work he

is referred to as Judas of Galilee.174 Josephus: The Jewish War Books III-IV , trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard

University Press, 1997).



98

Whether or not the participants in the revolt against Quirinius’s census called themselves

zealots, they were the ideological forerunners of the zealots in the First Jewish-Roman

War.

They represent an ideological opposition to the Romans that would span decades.

There revolt was even mentioned in Acts 5:36-37, along with one led by Theudas that

took place around 45 C.E.175

While the revolt against Quirinius’s census was short, it set

a dangerous precedent, and sowed the seeds for the First Jewish-Roman War.176

This is

important because it demonstrates that these revolts are not isolated historical events.

Each is connected to the cultural and historical setting in which it arose. These cultural

attitudes, which embodied in-group/out-group divisions, lasted for many years.

The First Jewish-Roman War

The next conflict to be discussed is the First Jewish-Roman War. The war began

in 66 C.E. and lasted until the fall of Masada in 73 C.E. This revolt played a critical role

in history. It resulted in a siege on Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E.,

an event that had a dramatic impact upon the development of both Christianity and

Judaism. The revolt started 10-15 years after the writing of Galatians. Thus, the war’s

consequences could not influence the attitudes of the people involved in Galatia. On the

other hand, the war is significant in that it demonstrates the civil and political unrest

found within Jerusalem.

175 Luke seems to have reversed the chronological order of the events. See Loveday Alexander, "Acts," in

The Oxford Bible Commentary, ed. John Barton and John Muddiman (Oxford: Oxford University Press,2001), 1033-34.176 Oesterley, History, 386.



99

The issues leading up to the revolt are complex, and written about extensively by

Josephus (c. 37–100 C.E.).

Another incident occurred at the same time in the Temple. Eleazar, son of

Ananias the high-priest, a very daring youth, then holding the position ofcaptian, persuaded those who officiated in the Temple services to accept

no gift or sacrifice from a foreigner. This action laid the foundation of the

war with the Romans; for the sacrifices offered on behalf of that nationand the emperor were in consequence rejected. ( J.W. 2.17.409)

177

Meanwhile, Jewish fighters took Masada, a Roman fort on the Dead Sea. Support for the

war was not unanimous. Officials in Jerusalem tried to mend the relationship with Rome.

In the end, they were unsuccessful and were forced to flee Jerusalem while the revolt

spread throughout the whole country.178

The fighting was not confined simply to the Jews and Romans, or even to Judea.

Fighting broke out between many Greeks and Jews. Greeks fought against Jews in

Alexandria, and killed many of them in Caesarea Maritima and other cities. On the other

side, Jews killed many Greeks in Samaria, Galilee and the Transjordan.179

The Jewish fighters had some initial success. In the autumn of 66 C.E. Cestius

Gallus arrived from Antioch with a good-sized force and attempted to put an end to the

revolt. He had some minor success on his way to Jerusalem, where he attempted to take

the temple, but he was driven back. The Jewish fighters were encouraged and took this to

be a sign that God was on their side.180

Ultimately, their victory would be short lived. Shortly afterwards Nero appointed

Vespasian to lead the military campaign. He was very successful. In 67 C.E. he

177 Josephus: The Jewish War Books I-II , trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University

Press, 1997).178 M. A. Beek, Concise History of Israel , trans. Arnold J. Pomerans (New York: Harper & Row, 1963),

209.179 Michael Grant, The History of Ancient Israel (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1984), 240.180 Oesterley, History, 443-44.



100

controlled the region of Galilee, and in 68 C.E. he focused his attention on Judea. He then

prepared to take Jerusalem in 68 C.E., but the death of Nero forced him to suspend the

war and focus on other matters.181

Eventually he became emperor and sent Titus to finish

quelling the revolt.

Titus arrived at Jerusalem in 70 C.E. and it took him five months to take

Jerusalem, sacking it and destroying the temple. The fighting was not completely over.

Most notably the military stronghold of Masada, which was taken early on by Jewish

fighters, was finally taken by Roman solders in 73 C.E. Unrest continued for sometime in

other parts of the Empire, particularly Alexandria. “Outbreaks took place in other parts of

Egypt, in Libya, in Cyrene, were the Jews perpetrated terrible cruelties on the Gentile

population, and on the islands of Cyprus; in Mesopotamia, too, there was a rising.”182

The First Jewish-Roman War dramatically illustrates the social tensions and political

unrest between the Jewish people and the Gentiles.

The Bar Kokhba Revolt

The final revolt to be discussed is the Jewish revolt lead by Simeon Bar Kokhba,

which lasted from around 132 C.E. to approximately 135 C.E.183

This revolt took place

under the reign of Emperor Publius Aelius Hadrianus, who ruled from 117 to 138 C.E.

The revolt is well documented.184

Hadrian did two things to spark it. First, he confirmed

an edict issued by Domitian that banned castration. He also made significant additions.

181 Oesterley, History, 444-46.182 Oesterley, History, 452.183 Oesterley, History, 462.184 The primary historical account of this revolt comes from Cassius Dio, who lived at the end of the second

and beginning of the third century. A shorter account is found in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, written by Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263-339 CE). Finally, information in these accounts is confirmed by

archeological evidence, including the discovery of letters written by and addressed to Bar Kokhba.



101

He made it punishable by death and also included circumcision in the decree.185

It is

important to note that the inclusion of circumcision was probably not directed at Jews

alone, as many people practiced circumcision.186

Second, he planned to build a temple to

Jupiter in Jerusalem.187

While this may be insensitive, it was probably not mean spirited.

Jerusalem was devastated in the First Jewish-Roman War, and rebuilding the city was

probably a well intentioned endeavor. Many Jews, however, were greatly offended.

The conditions were similar to those that lead to the Maccabean Revolt, and many

Jews rose in revolt and rallied around Bar Kokhba. Letters show that his real name was

Simeon Ben Kosiba. He claimed to be the messiah and was declared the messianic king

by at least one rabbi. Thus he adopted the name Bar Kokhba, meaning “Son of a Star,” a

reference to Num 24:17.188

The revolt initially had great success. “So convinced were the

Jews that the Messianic kingdom was about to be established that coins were stamped

with the inscription: ‘Simon the Prince of Israel’, ‘For the Freedom of Jerusalem’, ‘For

the Freedom of Israel’, and others.”189

The historian Cassius Dio recounts the beginning of the war and has one of the

more detailed accounts.

At first the Romans took no account of them. Soon, however, all Judaea

had been stirred up, and the Jews everywhere were showing signs ofdisturbance, were gathering together, and giving evidence of great

hostility to the Romans, partly by secret and partly by overt acts; many

outside nations, too, were joining them through eagerness for gain, and the

185 Oesterley, History, 460.186 See Herodotus II 104 for a list that includes Egyptians, Ethiopians, Colchians, Phoenicians, the Syrians

of Palestine, the Syrians of the valleys of the Thermodon and the Parthenius, and the Macrones. Herodotus:

Books I and II , trans. A. D. Godley, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), 393.187 Dio Cassius lxix 12188 Menahem Mansoor, Jewish History and Thought: An Introduction (Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House,

1991), 130.189 Oesterley, History, 462.



102

whole earth, one might almost say, was being stirred up over the matter.

(Roman History, lxix 13)190

What started as a small matter in Judea soon became a real concern for the Romans. Of

particular interest here is the connection that Jews outside of Judea had to their homeland,

as evident in the subversion mentioned in Cassius’ account.

As Rome sent troops to deal with the situation, the conflict became very violent.

The Jewish soldiers practiced guerilla warfare.

To be sure, they did not dare try conclusions with the Romans in the open

field, but they occupied the advantageous positions in the country andstrengthened them with mines and walls, in order that they might have

places of refuge whenever they should be hard pressed, and might meettogether unobserved under ground; and they pierced these subterranean

passages fr om above at intervals to let in air and light. (Roman History,lxix 12)

191

The Jewish fighters were very successful. With the procurator of Judea unable to defeat

the revolt, Hadrian finally sent his most eminent military leader, Julius Severus. He

isolated and eliminated small areas of resistance, and thus made progress in the war.

The conflict ended with one final siege, which starved Bar Kokhba’s followers,

and resulted in their death as well as Bar Kokhba’s. Eusebius describes the end of the

conflict.

The siege lasted a long time before the rebels were driven to finaldestruction by famine and thirst and the instigator of their madness paid

the penalty he deserved. Hadrian then commanded that by a legal decree

and ordinances the whole nation should be absolutely prevented fromentering from thenceforth even the district round Jerusalem, so that not

even from a distance could it see its ancestral home.( Eusebius IV 6)192

190 Dio's Roman History: Books LXI - LXX , trans. Earnest Cary, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University

Press, 1960), 449.191 Dio's Roman History: Books LXI - LXX , 447-49.192 Eusebius: Books I - V , trans. Kirsopp Lake, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964), 313. See

also Dio Cassius lxix 13



103

The losses on both sides were great. Hadrian, when he announced the wars conclusion to

the Senate, left out the traditional opening that said he and his army were well.193

In the

end, Jerusalem was rebuilt as originally intended and populated with Gentiles.194

The Overall Relationship with Rome

It is important to point out that the preceding survey is somewhat one sided. The

relationship Jews had with Rome was in actuality a very complicated one. Jews lived

throughout the Empire, and, at least officially, they had a good relationship with the

Roman government. This is seen in there ability to worship as they saw fit, abstaining

from civic services that offended their religious sensibility.But this special treatment by

the government often created ill-will. Surrounding communities reportedly resented the

status afforded the Jewish people. This led to conflicts in regions around the Empire.

Thus the situation was complicated. Their relationship to the government was often very

good. Ironically, this often lead to a poor relationship with their neighboring

communities.195

The Revolts in Light of the Social Identity Theory

It is generally accepted that the political turmoil in Judea had an impact upon the

NT. SIT illuminates some of the specific ways in which it had an impact. In relationship

to Galatians, the SIT provides three critical insights. First, uncertainty-identity theory

predicts that people will identify more strongly with their social identities in times of

uncertainty. This happened during the revolts, and was a contributing factor to the

193 Dio Cassius lxix 14194 Oesterley, History, 462.195 Oesterley, History, 400-24.



104

situation in Galatia. Second, SIT allows one to identify prototypical behaviors and beliefs

that define one’s social identity. Many of these, such as circumcision and keeping kosher,

are seen in the revolts. It is not a coincidence that these same issues are seen in Galatia.

Third, SIT helps explain how things that undermine these prototypical behaviors and

beliefs are perceived by the group as a threat.

It is worth looking at these three issues in more detail. First, according to

uncertainty-identity theory, people identify more strongly with groups during times of

uncertainty. This is because group identification reduces feelings of uncertainty. It does

this in a few ways. Groups tell individuals who they are and prescribe specific attitudes,

beliefs, and behaviors. They also make their interactions with other people more

predictable. Finally the group continually validates one’s worldview and sense of self.

Thus groups are effective tools for reducing uncertainty.196

Furthermore, religions provide social identities ideally suited for this task. They

deal with issues related to the meaning of existence. They attempt to provide

epistemological and ontological certainty and thus have a power and scope that is rarely

seen in other groups.197

In summary:

Uncertainty-identity theory generates an integrated psychological

explanation for a range of phenomena, including the everyday experienceand influence of religion in people’s lives; the potential power of religious

leaders, religious ideologies, and religious norms; the extremism of

religiously based intergroup conflicts; the paradox wherein religions andreligious people sometimes have to justify moral hypocrisy and harm

doing; and the way that religion, and religious fervor, can be a powerful

solace in times of personal and collective uncertainty.198

196 Hogg, Adelman, and Blagg, "Religion in the Face of Uncertainty," 74.197 Ysseldyk, Matheson, and Anisman, "Religiosity as Identity," 60.198 Hogg, Adelman, and Blagg, "Religion in the Face of Uncertainty," 79.



105

This suggests that political and civil unrest in ancient Judea would have led some people

to identify more strongly with their Jewish identity.

The Dead Sea scrolls community at Qumran is probably the clearest example of

this. They isolated themselves and dramatically dedicated themselves to their religious

practice. I think that this is what is seen in Galatians. In response to mixed table

fellowship, Jewish followers of Jesus became more entrenched in their Jewish identity.

This entrenchment was fueled by the uncertainty created by the civil unrest in Jerusalem

and the incorporation of out-group Gentiles into their group. These followers, as Paul’s

opponents, are discussed in detail below. It is worth noting here that they had strong

religious ties to Jerusalem.199

Thus, even if Galatia itself was relatively peaceful, the

social unrest in Jerusalem could easily have provoked the opponents’ strict defense of

their Jewish identity.

Second, SIT allows us to identify some of the prototypical behaviors and beliefs

that defined Jewish identity. For example, a brief review of the revolts shows that

circumcision was important the Jewish people. Whether at the time of its prohibition by

Antiochus leading up to the Maccabean revolt or its prohibition by Hadrian nearly three

hundred years later, circumcision was clearly important to one’s sense of Jewish identity.

Similar trends can be seen with dietary practices and the sanctity of the temple.

Circumcision, proper diet, and proper worship were all prototypical behaviors that carried

over throughout the centuries to play some part in each of these revolts. These same

issues are at the forefront in Galatians, as Jewish followers of Jesus defined their identity

in much the same way as their forefathers.

199 Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, ed. Ralph P. Martin, vol. 41, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas:

Texas, 1990), xciv-xcv.



106

Finally, SIT helps one understand how challenges to prototypical behavior and

beliefs are understood as threats to one’s identity. For example, when Antiochus and

Hadrian prohibited circumcision, many Jewish people took this to be an attack. It

threatened their sense of self by undermining the prototypical behavior behind their social

identities. This is true of any prototypical behavior or belief, such as dietary restrictions

(in the Maccabean revolt), the sanctity of the temple (an issue in the Maccabean and Bar

Kokhba revolts), or discomfort with honoring/submitting to a foreign ruler (as in the

revolt against the Quirinius’ Census or in the First Jewish-Roman War). Critically, as

discussed below in detail, these same issues surface in Galatia. Jewish followers of Jesus

feel that their identity is being threatened, because Gentiles begin to follow Jesus and

undermine traditional prototypical behavior (i.e. the law, circumcision). These Jewish

followers of Jesus then encounter the community in Galatia and attempt to reinforce their

traditional prototypes.

Thus, in light of SIT and the historical context, some of the Jewish followers of

Jesus turned to their Jewish identity in order to deal with the threat posed by mixed table

fellowship (discussed in detail below). This defense expressed itself through mandated

circumcision and Torah observance. These practices solve the problem of mixed table

fellowship and reflect the common prototypes seen in the Jewish revolts. The uncertainty

created by the unstable political situation in Jerusalem reinforced their response and

motivated them to adamantly defend their identity.

This situation had an impact in Galatia when Jewish followers of Jesus made their

way into the community. Not everyone reacted to mixed table fellowship this way, but

the evidence in Galatians suggests that many did. This is seen in the incident at Antioch.



107

Additionally, mixed table fellowship is probably the underling issue behind the

disagreements in Galatia. This would explain why Paul brings up the incident in Antioch

and why he devotes so much time to circumcision and the law. At this time the discussion

is rather abstract and somewhat removed from the text. As the rest of this work dives into

Galatians in detail, hopefully the connection will become clearer and more concrete.

Authorship

There is general agreement that Galatians is an authentic Pauline epistle.200

Paul

himself wrote the letter. More precisely, Paul dictated the letter and then signed off,

finishing the letter with his own hand. This is seen in Galatians 6:11, Ἴδετε πηλίκοις ὑμῖν

γράμμασιν ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί (See in what large letters I write to you with my

hand).201

He goes on from here to finish the letter with some concluding remark

authorship is critical because the personal accounts presented in the letter are actual

accounts from Paul himself. Thus, Galatians provides one with a first hand account of

some of the most contentious issues in the developing Jesus movement.

s. Paul’s

Destination

There is no consensus on the destination of Galatians. In Gal 1:2 the letter is

addressed τα ῖ ς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας (to the churches of Galatia). There is some

ambiguity, because the term Galatia had two meanings. First, Galatia was a Roman

200 Gordon D. Fee, Galatians (Dorset: Deo Publishing, 2007), 2.201 All translations are my own, unless otherwise stated. Similarly, all Greek text is taken from B. Aland, K.

Aland, M. Black, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren, The Greek New Testament , 4th ed.

(Stuttgart: United Bible Society, 1993).



108

province, located in modern Turkey.202

Second, Galatians could refer to the central

plateau of Asia Minor, originally inhabited by the Gauls.203

This ambiguity has given rise

to two theories for the locations of these churches. First, if the term reflects the Roman

province, then it includes cities in the southern part of the province that Paul reportedly

traveled through. The theory that the churches mentioned were in these cities is referred

to as the South Galatian hypothesis.204

If the term refers to the ethnic populations north of

these cities, then the churches could have been there. This theory is referred to as the

North Galatian hypothesis.205

Research into Paul’s vocabulary has found that he preferred to use proper Roman

names when referencing geographical regions.206

But this has done little to settle the

debate, as the province includes the ethnic region. There is one other relevant piece of

information in Galatians. In Gal 4:13 Paul says οἴδατε δὲ ὅτι διʼ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς

εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν τὸ πρότερον (but you knew that because of a weakness of the flesh I

first preached the gospel to you). It is unclear what this illness was, and many have been

suggested. It could have been anything from an eye related problem (perhaps suggested

202 Willard H. Taylor, Galatians Ephesians, ed. William M Greathouse and Willard H. Taylor, vol. 8,

Beacon Bible Expositions (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1981), 9.203

Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Michigan, 1988), 1.204 For defenders of the South Galatian theory see: Taylor, Galatians Ephesians, 9-10. Frank J. Matera,

Galatians, ed. Daniel J. Harrington, Sacra Pagina Series (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992), 23-24.

John Bligh, Galatians: A Discussion of Paul's Epistle (London: St Paul Publications, 1969), 3-7. Fung,

Galatians, 1-3. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1982), 3-18.

Longenecker, Galatians, lxi-lxxii; Benjamin W. Bacon, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (New York:The Macmillan Company, 1909), 17-25; E. H. Askwith, The Epistle to the Galatians (London: Macmillan

and Co., 1902); Allan Wainwright, "Where Did Silas Go (and What Was His Connection with Galatians),"

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 8 (1980): 66-70. For an examination of it’s relationship to Acts,see: Christoph W. Stenschke, "Hinweise Zu Einem Wiederentdeckten Gebiet der Actaforschung (I) und Zu

Zwei Bemerkenswerten Monographien Zu Apostelgeschichte 13f und zum Galaterbrief (II)," Communio

Viatorum 41, no. 1 (1999): 65-91.205 For defenders of the North Galatian theory see: Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians, ed. Helmut Koester, et al.,

Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 3-5.206 Longenecker, Galatians, lxx.



109

in v.15 by the Galatians’ willingness to tear their eyes out) to malaria or epilepsy.207

What is significant is that Paul may have traveled to the higher regions of northern

Galatia to seek relief.208

In any case, all that can be said for sure is that the churches were

somewhere within the province of Galatia.209

Date

Just as with the question of its destination, there is no consensus on the date of

Galatians. Argued dates for the letter range from 49 C.E. to 58 C.E.210

The arguments put

forth tend to take two forms. First, many arguments are closely intertwined with one’s

position on the North Galatian vs. South Galatian theories. These arguments hinge on

how one understands the relationship between Paul’s travels mentioned in Acts and

Paul’s account of his travels in Galatians 1-2.

Second, many arguments hinge on how one sees the relationship between the

arguments put forth in Galatians and those put forth in the rest of Paul’s letters. Some

scholars see Paul’s arguments in Galatians as less refined and developed than those in his

other letters. Thus, they date Galatians early. Others take the opposite position, dating the

207 For a discussion of Paul’s illness and his ‘thorn’ see: Troy W. Martin, "Whose Flesh? What Temptation?

(Galatians 4:13-14)," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 74 (1999): 65-91; A. J. Goddard and S.A. Cummins, "Ill or Ill-Treated? Conflict and Persecution as the Context of Paul's Original Ministry in

Galatia (Galatians 4:12-20)," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 52 (1993): 93-126; D. G.

McCartney, "No Grace without Weakness," Westminster Theological Journal 61, no. 1 (1999): 1-13;

Michael L. Barré, "Qumran and The "Weakness" Of Paul," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42, no. 2 (1980):

216-27; R. Russell, "Redemptive Suffering and Paul's Thorn in the Flesh," Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 39, no. 4 (1996): 559-70; David M. Park, "Paul's Skolops T ē Sarki: Thorn or Stake (2

Cor 12:7)," Novum Testamentum 22, no. 2 (1980): 179-83; Terence Y. Mullins, "Paul's Thorn in the

Flesh," Journal of Biblical Literature 76, no. 4 (1957): 299-303; Neil G. Smith, "Thorn That Stayed: AnExposition of 2 Corinthians 12:7-9," Interpretation 13, no. 4 (1959): 409-16.208 Longenecker, Galatians, 190-91.209 Fee, Galatians, 3-4. For a detailed analysis of the northern and southern theories and their relation to

Acts see Longenecker, Galatians.210 G. N. Stanton, "Galatians," in The Oxford Bible Commentary, ed. John Barton and John Muddiman

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 1153.



110

letter late. Utilizing both lines of reasoning, scholars have reached a variety of

conclusions.211

In the end, neither line of reasoning is particularly conclusive, and nearly all

scholars warn against adopting a dogmatic position on the issue. Acts remains a

secondary source. Even if one takes it as an accurate and independent account (two

highly debated issues), it does not provide enough information for one to draw a solid

conclusion. Additionally, arguments based upon the development of Paul’s thinking face

multiple problems. For example, each letter Paul wrote was addressed to a particular

audience and situation. Naturally he tailored his argument to the specific situation. This

makes it difficult to pin down a natural progression of thought. Secondly, the proposed

chronology of theological development often hinges upon the scholar’s own opinion of

which argument is more sophisticated, powerful, or developed. While some endeavors

(e.g. a history of Paul’s thought, a history of the early church) would warrant a detailed

discussion of the issue, the date of the epistle has little bearing upon this work. Therefore

I will simply examine what we can glean from the letter itself.

Galatians narrows the time of authorship very little, but the letter is critical

because it provides the most complete autobiographical account of Paul early life within

the church. The account starts in Gal 1:11-12 with Paul’s claim that he learned the gospel

διʼ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (through a revelation of Jesus Christ). Then in 1:16-17

he explains that he went to Arabia and Damascus following this experience. The first

point of chronology is in 1:18, when Paul claims that μετὰ ἔτη τρία (after three years) he

211 For proponents of an early date see: Betz, Galatians, 11-12. Bruce, Galatians, 43-56. Longenecker,

Galatians, lxxii-lxxxviii. Taylor, Galatians Ephesians, 9-10. Fung, Galatians, 9-28; William B. Decker,"The Early Dating of Galatians," Restoration Quarterly 2, no. 3 (1958): 132-38. For proponents of a later

date see: Fee, Galatians, 4-5; Bligh, Galatians, 1.



111

went to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter. Then he went to Syria and Cilicia. He

then provides the second point of chronology in 2:1, where he says that he went to

Jerusalem again διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν (after fourteen years).

Galatians thus provides three points in time. There is Paul’s conversion, then the

first trip to Jerusalem, then the second trip to Jerusalem. It is not known if the three years

mentioned between the conversion and the first trip, and the fourteen years between the

first trip and the second trip to Jerusalem, should be taken concurrently or consecutively.

If consecutively, then there is a 17 year window between Paul’s conversion and his

second trip to Jerusalem. On the other hand, if his statement of 14 years refers back to his

original conversion and not to his first trip to Jerusalem, then there is only a 14 year

window. It is not clear which is intended.212

This gives scholars something to work with. Paul became a follower of Jesus after

his death. Jesus is generally thought to have died either in 30 C.E. or 33 C.E.213

If one

allows for a few years between Jesus’ death and Paul’s conversion, then we are left with

Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem taking place somewhere between 47 C.E. (30 + 3 + 14)

and 53 C.E. (33 + 3 + 17).214

Paul then wrote Galatians sometime after this. This helps

little in dating Galatians, but it does demonstrate that dates before the late 40s are

untenable. If I were pressed to take a position, I would date Galatians early.

212 Bruce, Galatians, 106.213 Longenecker, Galatians, lxxxii.214 Interestingly enough, Paul must have converted to Christianity before 40 CE, in order to account for his

escape from Aretas, recalled by Paul in 2 Cor 11:32.



112

Mixed Table Fellowship

Behind the situation in Galatians is a disagreement over mixed table fellowship.

Mixed table fellowship refers to the practice of Jews and Gentiles eating together, sharing

the same food and drink. It is important to distinguish this from the practice of eating

separate food in the same location, which Esler calls a meal in parallel.215

Generally

speaking, Jews were allowed to eat with Gentiles if they were eating their own food and

drink, which was strictly prepared and supervised. They were not allowed to eat the same

food as their Gentile companions.

This can be seen in a wide range of texts. For a glimpse of the general prohibition

of mixed table fellowship one can look at texts such as Dan 1:3-17, dated in its current

form to the 2nd

century B.C.E. In the passage Daniel refuses to eat and drink the king’s

food and wine. As it says in Dan 1:8, “But Daniel made up his mind that he would not

defile himself with the king’s choice food or with the wine which he drank” (NASB).

Daniel proceeds to eat vegetables and water, gaining God’s favor in the process.

A similar refusal to participate in mixed table fellowship is found in the

apocryphal additions to Esther, “And your servant has not eaten at Haman’s table, and I

have not honored the king’s feast or drunk the wine of libations” (Esther 14:17 NRSV).

Interestingly the Book of Jubilees, a popular work at Qumran, also prohibits mixed table

fellowship in 22:16, “Separate thyself from the nations, and eat not with them: and do not

215 Philip F. Esler, E. P. Sanders, and Craig Hill have had extensive disagreements over the prohibition of

mixed table fellowship that are more the product of conflating these two practices than an actually

disagreement over ancient practice. See Esler, Galatians, 93-116.



113

according to their works, and become not their associate; For their works are unclean, and

all their ways are a pollution and an abomination and uncleanness.”216

While the community at Qumran certainly does not represent the mainstream

Jewish practice of the day, its prohibition is certainly in line with the previous texts.

Other texts clearly show the practice of eating a meal in parallel. For example, Judith

1:19 shows Judith eating and drinking what her maid prepared for her, instead of the

previously prepared feast (1:10). Another example is found in Joseph and Asenath 7:1, in

which Joseph “came into the house of Pentephres and sat upon a chair. And they washed

his feet, and set a table before him separately, for that Joseph did not eat with the

Egyptians, since this was an abomination to him.”217

The text does not explain why this

was an abomination, but both the prohibition against mixed table fellowship and the

practice of having a meal in parallel are clear. Finally, in the Letter of Aristeas details the

process of hosting a meal in parallel, as the Israelites who translated the Hebrew

Scriptures into Greek are seen dining with the Egyptian King. For the meal the King

prepares everything in accordance with Jewish custom, he dispenses with the “sacred

heralds and the sacrificing priests” normally involved, and instead allows a Jewish priest

to offer a prayer ( Letter of Aristeas 180-186).218

The citations above provide strong evidence for the existence of a prohibition

against mixed table fellowship, which often resulted in the taking of a meal in parallel.

The exact reasons behind this prohibition are less clear. Writings which speak of being

216 R. H. Charles, "The Book of Jubilees," in Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament , ed. R. H. Charles

(Bellingham: Logos Research Systems, 2004).217 E. W. Brooks, Joseph and Asenath, Translation of Early Documents Series II: Hellenistic-Jewish Texts

(New York: The Macmillan Co., 1918).218 Herbert T. Andrews, "The Letter of Aristeas," in Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament , ed. R. H.

Charles (Bellingham: Logos Research Systems, 2004).



114

defiled, or of the practice as an abomination, do little to explain the situation. The

prohibition certainly reflected a concern over dietary restrictions, and a case can be made

that it also reflected concern over idolatry.219

This is hinted at in the texts above, with the reference to libations in Esther and

possibly with the reference to wine in Daniel. In other texts the connection is explicit. For

example:

But rather, you are to tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars

and cut down their Asherim — for you shall not worship any other god,

for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God — otherwise youmight make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land and they would

play the harlot with their gods and sacrifice to their gods, and someonemight invite you to eat of his sacrifice. (Exod 34:13-16 NASB)

In this passage, the connection is clear. The relationship between the risk of idolatry and

mixed table fellowship can be also be seen hundreds of years later, in the ‘Abodah Zarah,

which probably dates to the late 2nd

century C.E.220

This text, along with others from the Talmud, is particularly sensitive to the

handling of wine and strictly prohibits libations. The text warns that Gentiles should not

have access to open containers of wine, because they might offer a libation (‘Abodah

Zarah 71a-73b). For this very reason, it even warns against eating at the same table as a

Gentile with two separate containers of wine (‘Abodah Zarah 72a-73a).

Finally, the issue of eating food dedicated to idols is seen clearly in the NT, in 1

Cor 8-10. The issue is clearly causing difficulties within the community. Paul explains

that followers of Jesus are free to eat meat sacrificed to idols, because they know that the

idols are powerless (8:4). On the other hand, in 1 Cor 8:9-13 Paul warns that eating food

sacrificed to idols can bother another’s conscience. In 1 Cor 8:13, he concludes that

219 Esler, Galatians, 104-08.220 Esler, Galatians, 104.



115

διόπερ εἰ βρῶμα σκανδαλίζει τὸν ἀδελφόν μου, οὐ μὴ φάγω κρέα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἵνα μὴ

τὸν ἀδελφόν μου σκανδαλίσω (therefore, if food offends my brother, I will never eat

meat again, so that I will not offend my brother). Idolatry, in connection with food

preparation, was certainly a pressing issue in this particular Pauline community.

In summary, in the ancient Judaism there was a prohibition against mixed table

fellowship. This prohibition did not prevent Jews and Gentiles from sharing a meal in

parallel, in which both parties had their own food. But it did prohibit them from sharing

the same food. This prohibition was connected to concerns over idolatry, whether through

libations or sacrificed meat. The Eucharist was originally the sharing of one cup and one

loaf of bread (1 Cor 10:16-17). As Gentiles began to follow Jesus, the Eucharist became a

practice in mixed table fellowship. This was a critical issue, and it sparked the

controversy in Galatians.

The Incident at Antioch

Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν. πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν· ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον, ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτὸν φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς. καὶ συνυπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ [καὶ] οἱ λοιποὶ Ἰουδαῖοι, ὥστε καὶ Βαρναβᾶς συναπήχθη αὐτῶν τῇ ὑποκρίσει.

When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was

condemned. For before the coming of certain ones from James he ate with

the Gentiles, but when they came he withdrew and separated himself,fearing the ones of circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in

hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was lead astray by their hypocrisy.(Gal 2:11-13)

These verses belong to one of the most complicated passages in the NT. Prior to

this account (Gal 1:11-2:10), Paul provides the chronology of his early travels (discussed

above), distances himself from the authorities in Jerusalem (discussed below), and reports



116

that the early church leaders in Jerusalem endorsed his missionary efforts with the

Gentiles. Making the passage more complicated, the following verses (v. 14-21) raise the

issues of the law, grace, and justification (discussed below).

In order to stay on point, focus will be on Gal 2:11-13. In short, the disagreement

between Peter (called Cephas) and Paul in this passage is over mixed table fellowship.

This interpretation of the text is the most probably for two key reasons. First, the issue at

the heart of the conflict must have involved meals, given that Paul’s complains that Peter

originally ate with Gentiles, and then withdrew from them after the arrival of people from

James (v. 12). Presumably these people were Jewish followers of Jesus. Not only did they

come from James (a Jewish follower himself), but they were then joined by οἱ λοιποὶ

Ἰουδαῖοι (the rest of the Jews). Thus, Peter goes from practicing mixed table fellowship

to eating exclusively with fellow Jewish followers of Jesus.

Second, this interpretation is consistent with Paul’s acceptance in v. 9. In v. 9

James, Peter, and John approve of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. Therefore, it is unlikely

that Peter’s view in Antioch would be any different. Peter most likely still approved of

Paul’s mission. Therefore, a dispute over table fellowship makes the most sense of the

data available. It allows Peter to remain consistent in his position, approving of his

mission to the Gentiles, and still explains why Peter would withdraw himself and eat with

other Jews.

Indeed, while somewhat speculative, it seems that Peter is withdrawing from

mixed table fellowship in deference to the sensitivities of the Jews who just arrived. If so,

Peter would be taking a position similar to the Paul’s in 1 Cor 8-10, where Paul himself

declares in 1 Cor 8:13, διόπερ εἰ βρῶμα σκανδαλίζει τὸν ἀδελφόν μου, οὐ μὴ φάγω κρέα



117

εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἵνα μὴ τὸν ἀδελφόν μου σκανδαλίσω (therefore, if food offends my

brother, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not offend my brother).221

It is not that

the situations are the same, but that in each case the person abstains from a practice

which disturbs his or her spiritual sibling. In Antioch Peter withdraws from mixed table

fellowship, and in 1 Cor Paul recommends avoiding food sacrificed to idols. For these

reasons, I think that the disagreement between Paul and Peter at Antioch is over mixed

table fellowship, and this same issue is the driving the conflict in Galatia.

The Situation in Galatia

Paul wrote his letters to address specific concerns that he had and to address

specific problems that he saw. Paul’s concern in Galatians is clear. He believed that the

Galatians had departed from the true Gospel of Christ, adopting a different gospel (1:6-

9).222

This ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον (different gospel) required both circumcision and

observing the νόμος (law). Because of this, Paul spends the majority of the letter arguing

against the νόμος (law) and circumcision.

As to the agitators in Galatia, and the specifics of the situation, one can only make

educated guesses based upon what Paul writes. First, the ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον (different

221 If Paul and Peter had a previous agreement, this would also explain the apparent shift in Peter’s position.

However the nature of any agreement they might have had is uncertain. See also: William O. Walker,

"Galatians 2:7b-8 as a Non-Pauline Interpolation," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 65, no. 4 (2003): 568-87;

William O. Walker, "Galatians 2:8 and the Question of Paul's Apostleship," Journal of Biblical Literature 123, no. 2 (2004): 323-27; Larry W. Hurtado, "The Jerusalem Collection and the Book of Galatians,"

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 5 (1979): 46-62; Traugott Holtz, "Die Bedeutung desApostelkonzils Für Paulus," Novum Testamentum 16, no. 2 (1974): 110-48; Enno Edzard Popkes, ""Bevor

einer von Jakobus kam...": Anmerkungen zur Textkritischen und Theologiegeschichtlichen Problematik

von Gal 2,12," Novum Testamentum 46, no. 3 (2004): 253-64; Caroline E. Johnson Hodge, "Apostle to the

Gentiles: Constructions of Paul's Identity," Biblical Interpretation 13, no. 3 (2005): 270-88.222 David Armitage, "An Exploration of Conditional Clause Exegesis with Reference to Galatians 1,8-9,"

Biblica 88, no. 3 (2007): 365-92; Bernard Lategan, "Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians?,"

New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 411-30.



118

gospel) seems to come from people outside of the Galatian community, and not from

within the Galatians community itself. In 1:7 Paul refers to those οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς

(who trouble you) and in 5:10 to ὁ δὲ ταράσσων ὑμᾶς (the one who troubles you).

Looking at a variety of passages (e.g. 1:7-9; 3:1; 4:17; 5:7, 12; 6:12-13), Paul repeatedly

refers to the Galatians in the second person, and the agitators in the third, further

suggesting that the agitators came from outside the Galatian community.

Second, the agitators argued that followers of Jesus needed to be circumcised and

observe the νόμος (law), which Paul sees as a perversion of the Gospel (1:7). This is

Paul’s understanding, and it is reasonable to assume that Paul would have had at least a

basic knowledge of the situation in Galatia. Third, Paul’s claim in 6:12 that the agitators

seek to avoid persecution for the cross of Christ suggests that they were followers of

Jesus.

Finally, they are religiously Jewish. Thus, they are committed to a Jewish social

identity. This is strongly suggested by the focus of Paul’s arguments, on Abraham (3:6-

9), righteousness vis-à-vis the law (3:10-14), the covenant (3:15-18), and the role of the

law (3:19-4:7). Finally, this is seen in the superiority of the ἄνω Ἰερουσαλήμ (Jerusalem

above) over the earthly city of Jerusalem (4:21-31).223

If Paul’s evaluation of their motives in 6:12-13 is accurate, then they were

probably ethnically Jewish as well. Being persecuted by other Jews, Paul’s opponents

likely had close ties to the traditional Jewish community. This seems more likely if they

were ethnically Jewish. It is worth noting that the opponents do not need to have been

ethnically Jewish in order to be affected by the turmoil in Jerusalem. They only needed to

223 Longenecker, Galatians, XCV.



119

embrace a Jewish identity that held Jerusalem in high regard. In other words, they only

need to be Jewish identified.

In summary, the community in Galatia faced pressure from Jewish followers of

Jesus who were from outside of their community. They argued that the Galatians needed

to observe the νόμος (law) and be circumcised. It is difficult to be more precise than this

concerning their teachings, considering that Paul does not seem to know the agitators

personally (3:1, 5:10).224

In light of the problem with mixed-table fellowship and Paul’s recounting of the

incident in Antioch, the agitators probably viewed Gentile adherence to the νόμος (law)

as the solution to the problem of mixed table fellowship. This would have been reason

enough for them to bring their message to Galatia. It is possible that the agitators were

missionaries sent from a church in Jerusalem, but I do not think there is enough evidence

to support such a strong claim.225

On the other hand, it does seem likely that they had strong religious ties to

Jerusalem. Paul goes to great lengths in chapters one and two to distance himself from

Jerusalem and the leaders of the church there. He received the gospel through a revelation

of Jesus Christ, declaring that his gospel is not according to men, nor did he receive it

from men (1:12). After his revelation he waits to go up to Jerusalem, not consulting flesh

and blood, or the apostles that preceded him (1:16-17). When he finally does goes up to

224 For a more detailed discussion of the agitators see: T. D. Lea, "Unscrambling the Judaizers: Who Were

Paul's Opponents?," Southwestern Journal of Theology 37, no. 1 (1994): 23-29; W. Russell, "Who WerePaul's Opponents in Galatia?," Bibliotheca Sacra 147, no. 587 (1990): 329-50; J. M. G. Barclay, "Mirror-

Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31

(1987): 73-93; D. S. Dockery, "Introduction to the Epistle and Paul's Defense of His Apostleship (Galatians

1:1-2:14)," Review and Expositor 91, no. 2 (1994): 157-58; Joseph B. Tyson, "Paul's Opponents in

Galatia," Novum Testamentum 10, no. 4 (1968): 241-54; Roy Bowen Ward, "The Opponents of Paul,"

Restoration Quarterly 10, no. 4 (1967): 186-89.225 Longenecker, Galatians, XCIV.



120

Jerusalem, the so called pillars of the church add nothing to him, and extend to him the

right hand of fellowship (2:6-10). This is followed later by his emphasis of the ἄνω

Ἰερουσαλήμ (Jerusalem above) over the earthy Jerusalem in 4:25-26. The great effort

Paul puts into distancing his message and knowledge from Jerusalem and the leaders

there suggests that the agitators had religious ties to Jerusalem.226

It is not clear if they came from Jerusalem, came from James, argued that Peter

and James practice the νόμος (law) and circumcision, or merely looked to the church in

Jerusalem for guidance. But Jerusalem was probably important to both their theology and

social identity. This is the critical point that ties the civil unrest and uncertainty of

Jerusalem, discussed above, to the situation in Galatia.

The immediate cause of the crisis in Galatia and the immediate threat to the

agitators’ identity is the Gentile Gospel, which undermines their traditional prototypes. In

accordance with uncertainty-identity theory, the agitators probably identified more

strongly with the traditional Jewish prototypes (i.e. the law) in order to deal with the

uncertainty created by the situation in Jerusalem. Their efforts to get other followers of

Jesus to do the same would be an extension of this process, combating the threat posed by

mixed table fellowship.

Galatians itself provides evidence that other Jews were undergoing a similar

process. Paul mentions the agitator’s desire to avoid persecution (6:12). The agitator’s

themselves would not have seen the situation this way; but the passage speaks to the

existence of Jews persecuting other Jews for not living properly. This is also seen in

226 Longenecker, Galatians, XCV.



121

Paul’s life, where he admits that he καθʼ ὑπερβολὴν ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ

καὶ ἐπόρθουν αὐτήν (excessively persecuted the church of God and destroyed it).

This social pressure is exactly what SIT predicts would happen in Jerusalem. As

people felt uncertain about their future, they would rely more heavily upon their Jewish

social identity. This would make them less tolerant of behavior that undermined the

group’s prototype (i.e. the law). It is this pressure, coming out of the social upheaval in

Jerusalem, that is being felt in Galatia. It has been suggested that the zealots persecuted

the agitators who came to Galatia.227

Given that the zealots were active in the First

Jewish-Roman War, this would fit nicely, but without more evidence it is impossible to

make such a specific declaration.

In summary, the agitators came to Galatia and argued that followers of Jesus

should keep the νόμος (law) and be circumcised. They saw this as necessary for dealing

with the problem of mixed table fellowship. They were most likely Jewish followers of

Jesus with strong religious ties to Jerusalem. The uncertainty in Jerusalem caused them to

identify more strongly with their Jewish identity, and thus insist upon its traditional

prototypical prescriptions. This process is also seen in the persecution practiced by Paul

and in the persecution Paul mentions in (6:12).

227 Longenecker, Galatians, XCV-XCVI.



122

Chapter 6: Rhetoric

Ever since Betz’s 1979 commentary on Galatians, scholars have had to address

the relationship between Galatians and ancient rhetoric.228

Betz’s suggestion that

Galatians adhered to ancient practices of rhetoric took hold. Other scholars came forward

suggesting different interpretations, viewing Galatians through different aspects of

ancient rhetoric. Betz’s suggestion may have had such an impact because Paul is so

clearly arguing for a particular position in Galatians. He writes with purpose. He defends

a clear theological position, appealing to scripture, tradition, and logic to support it.

Because of this, understanding Galatians is largely a quest in understanding Paul’s

reasoning. Galatians is not simply about what Paul believed; it is about how he saw the

world, how he interpreted what he saw, and the logical framework upon which it all held

together. This makes Galatians a tempting target for rhetorical analysis. Indeed, it is not a

question of whether or not Galatians should be analyzed rhetorically, but of which

rhetorical framework should be used for the analysis.

Betz’s 1979 commentary opened the way with an extremely detailed analysis of

Galatians. He starts by describing the genre of Galatians:

The apologetic letter, such as Galatians, presupposes the real or fictitious

situation of the court of law, with jury, accuser, and defendant. In the caseof Galatians, the addresses are identical with the jury, with Paul being the

defendant, and his opponents the accusers. This situation makes Paul’s

Galatian letter a self apology, delivered not in person but in a writtenform.

229

228 For an overview see: Mark P. Surburg, "Ancient Rhetorical Criticism, Galatians, and Paul at Twenty-

Five Years," Concordia Journal 30, no. 1-2 (2004): 13-39. See also: James D. Hester, "The Rhetorical

Structure of Galatians 1:11-2:14," Journal of Biblical Literature 103, no. 2 (1984): 223-33; Terrance

Callan, "The Style of Galatians," Biblica 88, no. 4 (2007): 496-516; Moisés Silva, "Betz and Bruce on

Galatians," Westminster Theological Journal 45, no. 2 (1983): 371-85; Takaaki Haraguchi, "Words ofBlessing and Curse: A Rhetorical Study of Galatians," Asia Journal of Theology 18, no. 1 (2004): 33-50.229 Betz, Galatians, 24.



123

Thus, for Betz, Paul writes Galatians as though he were speaking in a court of law. This

understanding carries throughout Betz’s commentary.

According to Betz, the genre of the apologetic letter arose in the 4th

century

B.C.E., and is dependent upon the older genres of letter writing, autobiographical speech,

and apologetic speech. He points out that these genres are well established by writers

such as Plato, Isocrates, Demosthenes, Cicero, and Libanius.230

From here, Betz goes on

to provide a detailed division of the letter: epistolary prescript 1:1-5, exordium 1:6-11,

narratio 1:12-2:14, propositio 2:15-21, probatio 3:1-4:31, exhortatio 5:1-6:10, and the

epistolary postcript (conclusio) 6:11-18.

231

The first section, the epistolary prescript, conforms to that of Paul’s other

letters.232

The second section, the exordium, is an introduction and is drawn from

Aristotle’s Rhetorica, the Rhetorica ad Herennium, Cicero’s De inventione, and

Quintilian. Betz analyzes this section in light of these various authors, assigning various

verses to the styles depicted in one or the other.

For example, according to Rhetorica ad Herennium, verses 6-7 mix two different

styles of exordia.

The principium, is appropriate in addressing an audience where attention,

receptivity, and a favorable disposition can be obtained directly andwithout difficulty, while the insinuatio should be used in cases where, for

example, the audience has been won over by the previous speech of the

opponent.233

Betz notes that this mixture of types seems odd, but responds by pointing out that it fits

Paul’s situation and that Cicero seemed to be more comfortable with mixing types of

230 Betz, Galatians, 14-15.231 Betz, Galatians, 16-23.232 Betz, Galatians, 37.233 Betz, Galatians, 45.



124

exordia. Verses 8-9 are compared to Quintilian’s discussion of exordium, where he

discusses using threats against the judge when the situation is desperate. Betz views

Paul’s curse as a form of threat, and interprets the two verses in light of Quintilian.

Finally, he sees verses 10-11 as a transition into the next section, again in line with

Quintilian.234

In line with the recommendation of ancient rhetoricians, Paul’s next section is the

narratio (1:12-2:14). The narratio, or narrative, is a statement of facts. According to

Quintilian, the section is not governed by a single rule or law, instead it must adapt to the

specific circumstances of the situation. First, Betz looks at Paul’s denials in light of

Quintilian’s teaching that the denial of legal charges should not be a simple statement.

Instead it should bring facts to bear that make the denial more plausible. Betz sees this in

Paul’s insistence that he received the gospel from God, and not from men.

Second he points out that ancient rhetoricians argued that the narratio should be

brief, clear, and plausible. Thus Betz analyzes the passage from this position, taking

much guidance from Quintilian. Betz argues that Paul’s writing is certainly clear,

providing clear facts, people, and places, in accordance with Quintilian’s advice. Next he

argues that Paul is also brief, stating only the facts necessary for the case, and using

multiple shorter sentences. Finally, Betz argues that Paul establishes the plausibility of

his case by following Quintilian’s advice to portray his opponents in such a way that is

consistent with your case.235

234 Betz, Galatians, 45-46.235 Betz, Galatians, 58-61.



125

The next section, the propositio, “sums up the legal content of the narratio by this

outline of the case and provides an easy transition to the probatio.”236

Verses 2:15-21,

which Betz designates as the propositio, have been notoriously difficult to place within

the text. It is unclear whether they continue Paul’s discussion with Peter, started in verses

14-16, or if Paul’s account of the Antioch incident ended in verse 16. Betz solution is to

view the verses as a propositio that summarizes key points from the preceding verses.

Thus, verses 15-16 summarize the points of agreement between Paul and his

opponents. Verses 17-18 contain the points of disagreement, while verses 19-20 contain

the exposition in four theological theses. Finally, verse 21 concludes with a refutatio, the

denial of a charge.237

This section then leads into the probatio section, in 3:1-4:31.

In a speech, the probatio section is the most decisive of all because in it

the “proofs” are presented. This part determines whether or not the speechas a whole will succeed. Exordium and narratio are only preparatory steps

leading up to this central part. The purpose of the probatio (as Quintilian

calls it) or the confirmation (as Cicero and the Rhetorica ad Herennium call it) is to establish credibility for the defense by a system of

arguments.238

Betz admits that is it more difficult to match chapters 3 and 4 with the probatio then it

was to match the previous sections with their respective rhetorical tool. Paul often

interrupts his own arguments with sections of dialogue, examples, proverbs and

quotations, which appear to hamper his use of rhetorical techniques.

Betz argues that these inconsistencies actually help Paul’s case. He points out that

speeches run the risk of being boring (i.e. unpersuasive) if they are to rigidly bound to

logic. Thus Quintilian’s advises the speaker to diversify his rhetoric. The rhetoric should

236 Betz, Galatians, 114.237 Betz, Galatians, 114.238 Betz, Galatians, 128.



126

therefore be a mixture of logic, emotional appeal, wisdom, beauty, and some

entertainment. For Betz, this is what Paul accomplishes.239

The penultimate section, the exhortatio or parenesis, occupies 5:1-6:10. Betz

points out that the study of this section in modern scholarship has been underdeveloped,

with little consensus surrounding its definition. Additionally, the section played only a

small role in ancient handbooks on rhetoric. On the other hand, the practice appears much

more frequently in philosophical letters. Some writers even claim to include parenesis

because the traditional forms of rhetorical reasoning are too lifeless. Thus, Betz’s

discussion of this section lacks the same detailed references to ancient works found in the

previous sections.240

Finally, Betz addresses the epistolary postscript, or conclusio, of 6:11-18. He

points out that Paul’s addition of a postscript in his own hand matches epistolary

conventions of the time. It serves to summarize the main points, authenticate the letter,

and add any final points that need to be made. Rhetorically, this section is a conclusio or

peroration.

The general purpose of the peroration is twofold: it serves as a last chance

to remind the judge or the audience of the case, and it tries to make a

strong emotional impression upon them. The three conventional parts of

the peroration carry out this task: the enumeratio or recapitulatio sharpensand sums up the main points of the case, the indignatio arouses anger and

hostility against the opponents, and the conquestio stimulates pity.241

Betz sees this final section as the hermenutical key for understanding Paul’s intentions.

Thus he interprets the final verses in light of this model. For example, he draws a parallel

between the marks of Jesus born by Paul, mentioned in 6:17, and the practice of

239 Betz, Galatians, 129.240 Betz, Galatians, 253-55.241 Betz, Galatians, 313.



127

conquestio, in which the defendant’s worth is demonstrated by the battle scars that he

bares.

Taken all together, it is easy to understand why Betz’s work had such a large

impact. It applied a clear, period-appropriate model of discourse to the letter of Galatians.

This gave scholars the opportunity to look beyond the theological content of Paul’s letters

and to attempt to understand the reasoning behind Paul’s writing. It did not look at the

logic behind his arguments, but why he chose some arguments over others, and the

intended impact that these arguments were meant to have.

I think that it is more than coincidence that this work corresponded

chronologically with the emergence of SSC. It uses an explicit model in an attempt to

understand the social context (i.e. ancient rhetorical thought) surrounding the text. This

allows the particulars of Paul’s writing to stand out against the broader social

background, and also helps the modern reader to properly understand Paul’s intent.

This is not to say that Betz’s work is without serious difficulties. I, along with

others, think that his chosen model of “apologetic letter” (or as others call it, forensic

rhetoric) is inapplicable to Galatians. There is simply no reason to think that Paul is

envisioning a court room setting. But it is important to recognize the important

contributions that Betz has made to Pauline scholarship and the study of Galatians. He

paved the way for other scholars to pursue similar lines of inquiry, and certainly changed

the way in which we approach the text.

It is worth looking at some other scholars and the work they have done updating

Betz approach, and how they view Galatians rhetorically. Probably the next best known

commentary on Galatians, Richard N. Longenecker’s commentary Galatians, published



128

in 1990, is a solid source of information on Galatians.242

Longenecker has some concerns

with Betz’s interpretation of Galatians’ rhetoric. He acknowledges that chapters 1 and 2

fit well within Betz’s view of Galatians as forensic rhetoric, but points out that the model

breaks down in chapters 3-4 and 5-6.243

This is apparent when moving through Betz’s

work as examples and references to ancient rhetoricians become more and more

infrequent.

Even Betz acknowledges, when discussing chapters 3-4, that “an analysis of these

chapters in terms of rhetoric is extremely difficult.”244

He acknowledges that Paul’s

argumentative strategy is difficult to follow but suggests that this is because Paul

successfully disguises his rhetoric. He argues that this may have been done because

rhetoric loses its effectiveness when the recipient is aware of the techniques employed.245

Unfortunately for Betz, I think the more plausible explanation is that the model

does not fit the data. That is, Paul is not in this section employing forensic rhetoric.

Longenecker concludes that Betz pushed his thesis too far. He argues that while the first

two chapters reflect forensic rhetoric, the third and fourth chapters reflect Jewish

rhetorical conventions while chapters 5 and 6 are more in line with a deliberative form of

rhetoric.246

Finally, Longenecker thinks that Betz’s application of forensic rhetoric is too

strict and ridged, not allowing for the influence of other literary forms and the possibility

of indirect influence.247

Ultimately, Longenecker adopts a more eclectic approach.

242 Longenecker, Galatians.243 Longenecker, Galatians, CXI.244 Betz, Galatians, 129.245 Betz, Galatians, 129.246 Longenecker, Galatians, CXI.247 Longenecker, Galatians, CXI-CXIII.



129

The persuasive modes of the classical rhetorical handbooks had become

the common coinage of the realm in Paul’s day. One did not have to beformally trained in rhetoric to use them. Nor did rhetoricians have

proprietary rights on them. In his Galatian letter (as elsewhere in his

writings), Paul seems to have availed himself almost unconsciously of the

rhetorical forms at hand, fitting them into his inherited epistolarystructures and filling them out with such Jewish theological motifs and

exegetical methods as would be particularly significant in counters what

the Judaizers were telling his converts…It is, in fact, this combination ofHellenistic epistolary structures, Greco-Roman rhetorical forms, Jewish

exegetical procedures, and Christian soteriological confessions – together,

of course, with Paul’s own revelation experiences and pastoral concerns –that makes up Paul’s letter to the Galatians.

248

Thus, in many ways Longenecker’s approach is the mirror opposite of Betz. While Betz

attempted to adhere strictly to his chosen model, Longenecker sought different models,

different genres of ancient writing, and attempted to create a mosaic that accurately

reflected the specific situation and text of Galatians.

Which approach is best is still vigorously debated in SSC. It is worth briefly

touching on the debate here, as it both clarifies the difference between Betz and

Longenecker, and helps place this work in the proper context. Some scholars,

prominently Malina, argue for the use of clear ridged models that can be appropriately

applied to the situation. Others, such as Meeks and Theissen, argue for a more eclectic

approach that tailors multiple models to the specific circumstances under examination.

It is inappropriate to think that one must adhere to one of the two approaches. The

single model and multiple model approaches each have their strengths and weaknesses.

Single models are limited in their focus, but when appropriately applied have more

explanatory and predictive power than an eclectic set of multiple models. On the other

hand, a multifaceted approach can be further tailored to the specific situation at hand. In

this way it can explain the situation more completely. Although its explanatory and

248 Longenecker, Galatians, CXIX.



130

predictive power suffers, as potential extrapolations become hampered by the greater

complexity and ambiguity of the model.

Take, for example, the present discussion of Galatains. Betz’ model of forensic

rhetoric is specific and focused. Thus, when applied to chapters 1-2 of Galatians, it

provides a powerful tool for interpreting the text. Even if Paul is not envisioning a court

scene, Betz’s model allows one to draw parallels and tease out how the text was likely

received by the recipients. But Betz’s model does have a limited focus, and he runs into

trouble when applying it to the rest of Galatians. On the other hand, Longenecker takes

the opposite approach, piecing together multiple models in an attempt to create a more

complete picture of Galatians. He is defiantly successful, but in doing so his work

becomes more descriptive and less explanatory. That is, his model does a good job of

describing what is found within the text, but not as good of a job at explaining why it is

there, and what its function is.

The relationship between Galatians and rhetoric has not been settled. Generally

speaking, there has been an increasing realization that the letter does not fit neatly into

any single genre of classic rhetoric.249

Kern sums up the situation:

One cause for encouragement is that studies . . . are moving ever further

from linking Paul to classical oratory. When the link is completely broken(or only maintained where its validity is demonstrable) the ground will be

clear for scholarship to replace attempts to uncover classical rhetoric with

efforts to describe early Christian rhetoric, first-century Jewish rhetoricand, ultimately, Paul’s rhetoric.

250

249 Longenecker, Galatians, cxix; Stanton, "Galatians," 1153. D. Francois Tolmie, Persuading the

Galatians: A Text-Centered Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 233;

Philip H. Kern, Rhetoric and Galatians, ed. Richard Bauckham, Society for New Testament Studies:Monograph Series (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 166.250 Kern, Galatians, 165.



131

As Kern notes, Galatians is still a piece of rhetorical writing. It is attempting to persuade

its recipient. Therefore, analysis of its rhetorical nature remains a fruitful endeavor.

As already seen with Longenecker, some scholars have tried to incorporate other

models in order to get a more appropriate understanding of the letter. It is interesting to

note that some have taken the opposite approach. For example, D. Francois Tolmie looks

at the rhetoric of Galatians from within the text itself, eschewing outside models. Tolmie

argues that Galatians is a complete work of rhetoric in and of itself, and should be

analyzed as such.

I did not choose a specific rhetorical model – either ancient or modern – to‘apply’ to the text. Taking the letter itself as starting-point, I endeavoured

to reconstruct Paul’s rhetorical strategy from the text itself. I trust that Isucceeded in showing that one does not need to force rhetorical categories

on the letter in order to make sense of Paul’s persuasive strategy.251

Thus, while classic models of rhetoric are falling out of fashion, the field remains wide

open. Some scholars still stand by the use of classic rhetoric. Some look to other

contemporary literary genres. Others use modern models of rhetoric, and some shun

outside models all together. The nature of Galatians’ rhetoric is far from settled.

Finally, it is important to see how this work, with SIT, is similar to and distinct

from previous studies of Galatians’ rhetoric. As for the similarities, SIT defiantly sheds

light on Paul’s rhetoric. For example, it helps one understand the impact that Paul’s

portrayal of Abraham had on its recipients, and helps one understand why Paul chose to

discuss Abraham in the first place.

Additionally, the application of SIT is akin to Betz’s use of a single model; it has

a limited application and many aspects of the text remain unexplained. Thus, issues that

do not relate directly to SIT (i.e. uncertainty reduction, prototypicality, superordinate

251 Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians, 233.



132

identity) fall outside the scope of this study. For example, SIT does little to illuminate the

elements mentioned in 4:3, or the illness Paul faced in 4:12-15.252

These limitations are

critical, as one of the easiest mistakes to make is apply one’s model where it does not

belong.

In addition to these similarities, my approach here is different from traditional

rhetorical study in some key ways. First, the analysis does not depend on Paul’s own

theology to the same extent as traditional rhetorical analysis. For example, in relation to

SIT, the exact meaning of being justified by faith is not nearly as important as the fact

that Paul is redefining the group in terms of οἱ ἐκ πίστεως (ones of faith). The

manipulation of the group can be studied apart from some of the unresolved, complex

theological issues that plague the text.

Second, the SIT is more universally oriented. Stemming from social psychology,

it applies to everyone. It is not dependent upon a particular historical situation or ancient

school of thought. This makes it easier to apply to the text, as issues of education level,

social background, and cultural practice become less important. It also allows one to

make comparisons between Paul’s writings and other historically disconnected situations.

For example, one could use Paul as one example of early forming of a religion, and use

SIT to compare it to other religious movements.

Finally, and most critically, it explains how Paul’s rhetoric is functioning on a

social psychological level. Most scholarship focuses on what the text says. The SIT

explains why the rhetoric is effective and why it was chosen. This is perhaps the least

tangible product of this approach, but I find it to be the most promising. For example, it

252 Martinus C de Boer, "The Meaning of the Phrase Ta Stoicheia Tou Kosmou in Galatians," New

Testament Studies 53, no. 2 (2007): 204-24.



133

has been known that the law was an important part of what it meant to be Jewish, but SIT

explains that this is because it is a part of the Jewish social identity. It forms a

prototypical standard, which separates the in-group from the out-group. Through

depersonalization, this prototype becomes a part of the individual. This is why the Jewish

people felt personally threatened when rulers undermined their religious practice. Thus,

SIT explains the behavior witnessed in the revolts, and why Paul tackled the law in

Galatians.



134

Chapter 7: Prototypical Behavior

The Jewish revolts shed light on some of the prototypical behaviors that defined

ancient Jewish identity. Particular issues, such as circumcision, dietary restrictions, and

proper temple worship stand out. Paul, in his attempt to redraw the group’s boundaries,

must deal with these issues. Apart from circumcision, he does not address them

individually. Instead he discusses the νόμος (law) at great length.

Paul refers to the νόμος (law) 32 times in Galatians.253

There has been a great deal

of debate over what meaning and significance Paul ascribes to the νόμος (law).254

But its

definition is relatively straight forward. In Galatians 3:17, Paul mentions that the law

μετὰ τετρακόσια καὶ τριάκοντα ἔτη γεγονὼς (came four hundred and thirty years later),

that is four hundred and thirty years after Abraham. This is probably connected to the

tradition that the Israelites stayed for 430 years in Egypt (Exod. 12:40), which would put

430 years between Abraham and the law received by Moses.

Furthermore, Paul’s understanding of νόμος (law) is not limited to the Mosaic

Law. He also uses the term when telling the story of Abraham and his children (Gal

4:21). Outside of Galatians he uses it to refer to Isaiah (1 Cor 14:21) along with the

psalms and prophets (Rom 3:10-20).255

Thus, the term can refer to a wide range of Jewish

tradition. Whether referring primarily to the Mosaic Law or to a broader range of Jewish

tradition, the term νόμος (law) encapsulates the Jewish identity by defining prototypical

253 Galatians: 2:16 (three times), 2:19 (two times), 2:21, 3:2, 3:5, 3:10 (two times), 3:11, 3:12, 3:13, 3:17,

3:18, 3:19, 3:21(three times), 3:23, 3:24, 4:4, 4:5, 4:21 (two times), 5:3, 5:4, 5:14, 5:18, 5:23, 6:2, 6:13254 James D. G. Dunn, ed. Paul and the Mosaic Law (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,2001). Robert G. Hamerton-

Kelly, "Sacred Violence And "Works of Law": "Is Christ then an Agent of Sin?" (Galatians 2:17),"Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52, no. 1 (1990): 55-75.255 Esler, Galatians, 181.



135

behavior. The codes of conduct spelled out in the νόμος (law) form an explicit prototype.

They define what a good group member is and set out the example for others to follow.

The law’s role in defining Jewish identity has long been recognized. When

writing about Galatians, Jan Lambrecht writes, “Paul’s fight for freedom is thus certainly

a fight for a ‘Gentile’ gospel which no longer contains those Jewish ‘identity

markers.’”256

The theme also arises in Romans. Richard Hays, writing about Romans 3-4,

argues that one of the key roles of the law is to mark “off the elect people from other

nations.”257

Hays argues that Romans 3:29-30 addresses this, in that “the very fact that

the Mosaic Law serves to identify Israel as a distinctive people disqualifies it from

serving as the basis of God’s more universal setting-right ( Rechtfertigung ) of all

peoples.”258

These scholars, and others, recognize that the νόμος (law) shapes the identity

of ancient Judaism. SIT places this informal understanding into a formal model. The

νόμος (law) defines Jewish identity because it defines prototypical behavior.

It is worth looking at Philip F. Esler’s work, which applies SIT to the νόμος (law)

in Galatians. From Esler’s point of view, the νόμος (law) is “a critical arena in which

Paul struggled to establish a positive social identity for his congregations in the context of

conflict with the Israelite outgroup who were naturally determined to maintain the

integrity of their ethnic boundaries.”259

Thus, Esler focuses upon how the νόμος (law),

and Paul’s alternatives, form the basis for a positive in-group/out-group comparison.

256 Jan Lambrecht, "Paul's Reasoning in Galatians 2:11-21," in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G.

Dunn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2001), 68.257 Richard B. Hays, "Three Dramatic Roles: The Law in Romans 3-4," in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed.

James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2001), 151.258 Hays, "Three Dramatic Roles," 154.259 Esler, Galatians, 178.



136

Esler also ties this into the way in which righteousness forms a privileged

identity.260

This is a valuable insight and it also highlights the different paths our research

took, as Esler focuses on inter-group conflict and I focus on intra-group conflict. By

looking at the groups competing with the community in Galatia, Esler is able to see how

Paul is able to establish a positive social identity. On the other hand, by looking at how

the νόμος (law) affects intra-group relationships, this work examines how these

prototypical behaviors establish group boundaries.

It is the traditional prototypical standards that the agitators in Galatia are seeking

to enforce, while Paul redefines the roll of νόμος (law) in order to allow more people to

join the in-group. It is important to note that this is an etic explanation. It explains the

situation from our modern point of view. Paul’s own understanding of the situation, an

emic explanation, is dramatically different. He is defending the τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ

Χριστοῦ (Gospel of Christ, Gal 1:7) which he received through a revelation (Gal 1:12).

Scholars have written a great deal on Paul’s understanding of the νόμος (law).261

Here

the primary focus will be etic, understanding the text in light of SIT.

260 Esler, Galatians, 141-77.261 William D. Barrick, "The New Perspective And "Works of the Law" (Gal 2:16 and Rom 3:20),"

Master's Seminary Journal 16, no. 2 (2005): 277-92; J. Marcus, "'under the Law': The Background of a

Pauline Expression," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61, no. 1 (2001): 72-83; Charles H. Talbert, "Freedomand Law in Galatians," Ex Auditu 11 (1995): 17-28; Bruce C. Corley, "Reasoning "By Faith": Whys and

Wherefores of the Law in Galatians," Southwestern Journal of Theology 37, no. 1 (1994): 17-22; Gerald L.

Stevens, "Paul and the Law in Galatians," Theological Educator: A Journal of Theology and Ministry 50

(1994): 95-104; In-Gyu Hong, "Does Paul Misrepresent the Jewish Law? Law and Covenant in Gal 3:1-

14," Novum Testamentum 36, no. 2 (1994): 164-82; M. Cranford, "The Possibility of Perfect Obedience:Paul and an Implied Premise in Galatians 3:10 and 5:3," Novum Testamentum 36, no. 3 (1994): 242-58; C.

E. B. Cranfield, "'the Works of the Law' in the Epistle to the Romans," Journal for the Study of the New

Testament 43 (1991): 89-101; Andrew J. Bandstra, "The Law and Angels: Antiquities 15.136 and Galatians3:19," Calvin Theological Journal 24, no. 2 (1989): 223-40; Pheme Perkins, "Not through the Law,"

Christian Century 106, no. 19 (1989): 587; H. W. House, "A Biblical View of Women in the Ministry:

Part 3 (of 5 Parts): The Speaking of Women and the Prohibition of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra 145, no.

579 (1988): 301-18; K. Snodgrass, "Spheres of Influence: A Possible Solution to the Problem of Paul and

the Law," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32 (1988): 93-113; Wayne G. Strickland,"Preunderstanding and Daniel Fuller's Law-Gospel Continuum," Bibliotheca Sacra 144, no. 574 (1987):



137

SIT shows that Paul’s chosen response, to emphasize faith, the spirit, and the

promise, is effective because it builds upon preexisting group prototypes. Faith, in this

case, is not a Christian concept, it is a Jewish concept. The faithfulness of the Jewish

people to God is one of their defining characteristics, and is often connected directly to

observing the law. This is most clearly seen in the figure of Abraham, who is looked at in

more detail in the next chapter. He is repeatedly praised in Jewish literature (e.g. Sir

44:19-21, Jub. 23:10, 1 Macc 2:52). He is praised both because he remains faithful to

God in the face of temptation, and because he adopts circumcision. Abraham’s faith,

mentioned in Genesis 15:6, is directly connected to the covenant in Genesis 17:4-14,

which established circumcision.262

In Judaism and in the story of Abraham the concepts of faithfulness and observing

the law are interwoven. Paul instead separates these two concepts, and emphasizes one

(faith) over the other (the law). By separating and reinterpreting preexisting group

prototypes, Paul is able to effectively shift the group’s boundaries. The rhetoric’s

persuasive power rests less on its logical construction than on its ability to make

particular prototypes salient.

181-93; Linda L. Belleville, ""Under Law": Structural Analysis and the Pauline Concept of Law in

Galatians 3:21-4:11," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (1986): 53-78; Thomas R. Schreiner,"Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An Evaluation of the View of E. P. Sanders," Westminster

Theological Journal 47, no. 2 (1985): 245-78; Wilber B. Wallis, "The Pauline Conception of the OldCovenant," Prebyterion 4, no. 2 (1978): 71-83; Daniel P. Fuller, "Paul and the Works of the Law,"

Westminster Theological Journal 38, no. 1 (1975): 28-42; J Dwight Pentecost, "Purpose of the Law,"

Bibliotheca Sacra 128, no. 511 (1971): 227-33; C. H. Cosgrove, "The Mosaic Law Preaches Faith: A

Study in Galatians 3," Westminster Theological Journal 41, no. 1 (1978): 146-64; Nicole Chibici-

Revneanu, "Leben Im Gesetz: die Paulinische Interpretation von Lev 18:5 (Gal 3:12; Röm 10:5)," Novum

Testamentum 50, no. 2 (2008): 105-19.262 Longenecker, Galatians, 110.



138

Galatians 2:15-21

15

Ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί·16

εἰδότες [δὲ] ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν

ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ.

17

εἰ δὲ ζητοῦντες δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ εὑρέθημεν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἁμαρτωλοί, ἆρα Χριστὸς ἁμαρτίας διάκονος; μὴ γένοιτο.

18

εἰ γὰρ ἃ κατέλυσα ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ, παραβάτην ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω. 19 ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον, ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω. Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι·

2

ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός· ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ.

21

Οὐκ ἀθετῶ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ· εἰ γὰρ διὰ νόμου δικαιοσύνη, ἄρα Χριστὸς δωρεὰν ἀπέθανεν.

15 We, Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles,

16

knowing that a man is not justified by works of the law but through the

faith of Jesus Christ, we believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because no one

will be justified by works of the law.

17 But if while seeking to be justified in Christ we are also ourselves found

sinners, then is Christ a servant of sin? May it never be!18

For if what I

destroyed, I again build these things, I demonstrate myself a transgressor.19

For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live for God. Ihave been crucified with Christ.20

And I no longer live, but Christ lives in

me, and that which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith, that of the son of

God who loved me and who gave himself for me.21

I do not set aside thegrace of God, for if through the law [comes] righteousness, then Christ

died for nothing.

While the immediate cause of the conflict in Galatia was mixed table fellowship,

Paul saw a looming threat that undermined one’s very salvation. This can be seen in

Galatians 2:15-21, which follows immediately after the incident at Antioch. It is difficult

to determine whether the whole passage reflects Paul’s conversation with Peter in

Antioch, or if only part of it does.263

The seamlessness of the transition from the incident

263 Bruce, Galatians, 136.



139

in Antioch to the situation in Galatia speaks to the connection Paul saw between the two

events. This passage both sums up the previous conflict and prepares the way for the rest

of the letter.264

The passage can be very difficult to interpret and features the concepts of

justification, ἔργων νόμου (works of the law), and πίστεως Χριστοῦ (faith of Christ). Not

to mention that it includes Paul’s understanding of the νόμος (law) discussed above. The

concept of justification, expressed in Paul through the verb δικαιόω (to justify), the noun

δικαιοσύνη (justification), and the adjective δίκαιος (just), is a thorny issue that has

received a lot of discussion.265

Some people focus on the forensic character of the terms,

arguing that they refer to one’s right relationship and standing with God. Others have

focused upon the ethical implications, arguing that the individual is made righteous, and

lives righteously in their life.

In fact, Paul’s understanding reflects both of these positions, and is not simply

one or the other. Paul uses δικαιόω (to justify) forensically but his use of δικαιοσύνη

(justification) and δίκαιος (just) have behavioral implications.266

Paul’s references to the

ἔργων νόμου (works of the law) are an extension of this. First-century Judaism was not

legalistic in practice, and it would be a mistake to believe that first-century Jews spent

264 Longenecker, Galatians, 80-81; Betz, Galatians, 114.265 Wiard Popkes, "Two Interpretations Of "Justification" In the New Testament: Reflections on Galatians

2:15-21 and James 2:21-25," Studia Theologica 59, no. 2 (2005): 129-46; Debbie Hunn, "Ean Mē in

Galatians 2:16: A Look at Greek Literature," Novum Testamentum 49, no. 3 (2007): 281-90; A. A. Das,

"Oneness in Christ: The Nexus Indivulsus between Justification and Sanctification in Paul's Letter to theGalatians," Concordia Journal 21, no. 2 (1995): 173-86; S. K. Williams, "Justification and the Spirit in

Galatians," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (1987): 91-100; C. H. Cosgrove, "Justification inPaul: A Linguistic and Theological Reflection," Journal of Biblical Literature 106, no. 4 (1987): 653-70;

Frank J. Matera, "Galatians in Perspective: Cutting a New Path through Old Territory," Interpretation 54,

no. 3 (2000): 233-45; M. F. Bird, "Justification as Forensic Declaration and Covenant Membership: A Via

Media between Reformed and Revisionist Readings of Paul," Tyndale Bulletin 57, no. 1 (2006): 109-30; C.

A. Wanamaker, "A Case against Justification by Faith," Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 42 (1983):

37-49.266 Longenecker, Galatians, 84-85.



140

their time trying to earn God’s favor.267

But the situation in Galatia has convinced Paul

that some people are arguing that the νόμος (law) is necessary for justification. Thus,

Paul’s use of ἔργων νόμου (works of the law) carries forensic overtones.268

Finally, there has been great debate over the term πίστεως Χριστοῦ (faith of Jesus

Christ). Some argue that it is a subjective genitive, and should be read as “faith of Jesus

Christ,” while others argue that it is an objective genitive, and should thus be read “faith

in Jesus Christ.”269

Alongside the phrase, Paul makes explicit references to those who

believe (Rom 3:22, Gal 3:22), so I suspect that both meanings are at work in the text.270

Through SIT, Paul’s manipulation of prototypes and group boundaries becomes

clear. Interestingly, Don Garlington argues that ἐκ “can entail the notion of position

within or participation.”271

Thus he argues that Paul’s language could entail “belonging

to the arena of Torah-works.”272

If this is the case, then it lends a lot of support to th

argument that Paul is manipulating group boundaries. But it is important to recognize that

prototypical behaviors define groups regardless of whether or not they form explicit

statements of group identity. By establishing functioning guidelines for the group’s

e

267 A. W. F. Blunt, The Episle of Paul to the Galatians (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925), 88; Paul Owen,

"The "Works of the Law" In Romans and Galatians: A New Defense of the Subjective Genitive," Journal

of Biblical Literature 126, no. 3 (2007): 572-76. For more information see: Ian W. Scott, "Common

Ground? The Role of Galatians 2.16 in Paul's Argument," New Testament Studies 53, no. 3 (2007): 425-

35; Martinus C de Boer, "Paul's Use and Interpretation of a Justification Tradition in Galatians 2.15-21,"

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28, no. 2 (2005): 189-216.268 Longenecker, Galatians, 86; G. G. Findlay, The Epistle to the Galatians (New York: A. C. Armstrong

and Son, 1888), 140-41.269 Dennis R. Lindsay, "Works of Law, Hearing of Faith and Pistis Christou in Galatians 2:16:-3:5," Stone-

Campbell Journal 3, no. 1 (2000): 79-88; Charles R. Erdman, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966), 60; R. Barry Matlock, "The Rhetoric of Πίστις in Paul:

Galatians 2.16, 3.22, Romans 3.22, and Philippians 3.9," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30,

no. 2 (2007): 173-203; Debbie Hunn, "Pistis Xristou in Galatians 2:16: Clarification from 3:1-6," Tyndale

Bulletin 57, no. 1 (2006): 23-33; Hung-sik Choi, "Pistis in Galatians 5:5-6: Neglected Evidence for theFaithfulness of Christ," Journal of Biblical Literature 124, no. 3 (2005): 467-90.270 Longenecker, Galatians, 87-88.271 Don Garlington, "Paul's "Partisan Ἐκ " And the Question of Justification in Galatians," Journal of

Biblical Literature 127, no. 3 (2008): 567-89.272 Garlington, "Paul's "Partisan Ἐκ "," 570.



141

behavior, they form the basis for evaluating group members and distinguishing them

from outsiders. Therefore, the group remains, even if it lacks a name. In other words, the

law remains one of the defining characteristics of the group, even if Garlington is

incorrect. Furthermore, SIT shows that Paul’s manipulation of the νόμος (law) amounts

to a manipulation of the group’s boundaries.

Having covered the terminology used in the passage, it is important to examine

some specifics of the text. Verses 15 and 16 have been described as Paul’s definition of a

Jewish Christian.273

According to Paul, Jewish Christians (or Jewish followers of Jesus,

as I prefer) are Ἰουδαῖοι (Jews), contrasted with ἔθνη (Gentiles), who seek to be justified

ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ (by faith in Christ) and not ἐξ ἔργων νόμου (by works of the law).274

For Paul, followers of Jesus are defined by their faith in Christ. It is not the νόμος (law)

that separates them from others, but their πίστις (faith).

At first glance this may seem natural. But at this point in history Christianity had

yet to separate itself from Judaism. For Christianity to be a separate religion, it needed a

distinct social identity. Paul’s opponents’ concern for circumcision and the authorities in

Jerusalem are evidence that many Jewish followers of Jesus still felt Jewish. In terms of

SIT, they were Jewish. Here Paul undermines that, by arguing that πίστις (faith) is central

to a Jewish follower of Jesus, not the νόμος (law).275

Don Garlington argues that vs. 15-

16 begins a role reversal motif found throughout Galatians.276

SIT shows that Paul is not

simply reversing roles, he is redefining the group.

273 Betz, Galatians, 115.274 The reference to sinners in v. 15 probably reflects a note of irony. Longenecker, Galatians, 83.275 Joseph B. Tyson, ""Works of Law" In Galatians," Journal of Biblical Literature 92, no. 3 (423-431):

431.276 Don Garlington, ""Even We Have Believed": Galatians 2:15-16 Revisited," Criswell Theological

Review 7, no. 1 (2009): 3-28.



142

Verse 17 is notoriously difficult to interpret. I think that here Paul is answering

the natural question to arise when one is told to ignore the νόμος (law). Is not

transgressing against the νόμος (law) still a sin? If seeking to be justified in Christ leads

one to break the νόμος (law), does that mean that Christ leads people to sin?

Paul’s responds in v. 18-21 by arguing that the νόμος (law) has been replaced.

Paul’s language of life and death certainly has theological implications. On the other

hand, practically speaking it refers to the ways in which people live their lives. When

Paul says, νόμῳ ἀπέθανον, ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω (I died to the law, so that I might live for God,

v. 19), he draws a vivid contrast between living one’s life in accordance with the νόμος

(law) and living for God. The former lifestyle is according to the traditional group

prototypes and the latter demands a new set of standards.277

He then ties this to Jesus’ death. The implication is that Paul is doing what Christ

did. In doing so, Paul is setting up a powerful argument. Jesus, as the founder of his

movement, quickly became a prototypical figure after his death. Indeed, the theological

and religious figure of Christ can be understood as Jesus turned prototype. At some level,

Paul understands this, and here he turns to this newly arrived standard to undermine the

devotion people held towards traditional prototypical behavior, the νόμος (law).

The power of the νόμος (law) is seen in the revolts that were sparked by its

violation. Beyond that, the simple fact that many Jews did not follow Jesus speaks to the

power of their Jewish identity, due in large part to the group boundaries provided by the

νόμος (law). Therefore, instead of simply trying to abolish the νόμος (law), he is

attempting to substitute one prototype for another, πίστις (faith). He does this by tying the

277 Scott Shauf, "Galatians 2.20 in Context," New Testament Studies 52, no. 1 (2006): 86-101.



143

powerful Jewish prototype of faithfulness to Christ, and then interpreting them in such a

way that makes them antithetical to the law.

In verse 20 Paul continues to emphasis Christ, saying ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν

ἐμοὶ Χριστός (I no longer live, but Christ lives in me), and ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ

θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ. (I live by faith, that of the

son of God who loved me and who gave himself for me). This is the beginning of a

longer section in which Paul depicts πίστις (faith) as antithetical to the νόμος (law). It is

this πίστις (faith) that Paul is attempting to establish as an alternative guideline for

prototypical behavior.

Paul’s understanding of πίστις (faith) certainly had theological and religious

appeal, but the underlying persuasive force of the concept comes from using Christ to

bring a preexisting prototype, πίστις (faith), to prominence. Finally, Paul finishes this

section with an ultimatum. He writes, εἰ γὰρ διὰ νόμου δικαιοσύνη, ἄρα Χριστὸς δωρεὰν

ἀπέθανεν (For if through the law [comes] righteousness, then Christ died for nothing).

Here Paul is attempting to back his opponents into a corner. If they argue that

righteousness does come from the law, then they are going against Christ, the central

prototypical figure of the Jesus movement. On the other hand, if they agree with Paul,

they undermine their position that Gentiles should follow the νόμος (law).

Thus, in Galatians 2:15-21 Paul attempts to undermine the prototypical behavior

of the Jewish community, the νόμος (law). He does this by presenting it as antithetical to

Christ, a prototypical figure, and by connecting the Jewish tradition of faithfulness to

Christ, making it the most critical prototypical standard.



144

Galatians 3:1-9

1

῏Ω ἀνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ὑμᾶς ἐβάσκανεν, οἷς κατʼ ὀφθαλμοὺς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράφη ἐσταυρωμένος;

2

τοῦτο μόνον θέλω μαθεῖν ἀφʼ ὑμῶν·ἐξ ἔργων νόμου τὸ πνεῦμα ἐλάβετε ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως; 3 οὕτως ἀνόητοί

ἐστε, ἐναρξάμενοι πνεύματι νῦν σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθε;4

τοσαῦτα ἐπάθετε εἰκῇ; εἴ γε καὶ εἰκῇ.5

ὁ οὖν ἐπιχορηγῶν ὑμῖν τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἐνεργῶν δυνάμεις ἐν ὑμῖν, ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως;

6

Καθὼς Ἀβραὰμ ἐπίστευσεν τῷ θεῷ , καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην · 7

γινώσκετε ἄρα ὅτι οἱ ἐκ πίστεως, οὗτοι υἱοί εἰσιν Ἀβραάμ.8

προϊδοῦσα δὲ ἡ γραφὴ ὅτι ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοῖ τὰ ἔθνη ὁ θεὸς, προευηγγελίσατο τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ὅτι ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη · 9 ὥστε οἱ ἐκ πίστεως εὐλογοῦνται σὺν τῷ πιστῷ Ἀβραάμ.

1

O senseless Galatians, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was portrayed ashaving been crucified, who bewitched you?2 I wish to learn only this from

you, did you receive the spirit by works of the law, or by the hearing of

faith?3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by the spirit are you now

perfected by the flesh?4 Did you suffer so many things in vain, if really

indeed [it was] in vain?5 Therefore he who supplied you with the spirit

and produced mighty deeds among you, [was it] by works of the law or by

hearing faith?

6 As Abraham believed in God, and it was credited to him as

righteousness,7 you know then that ones of faith, these ones are sons of

Abraham.8 And the scriptures, having foreseen that by faith God justifies

the Gentiles, previously preached the gospel to Abraham saying “All the

nations will be blessed in you.”9 Thus, the ones of faith are blessed with

the faithful Abraham.

A new section begins in chapter 3 with, ῏Ω ἀνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ὑμᾶς ἐβάσκανεν

(O senseless Galatians, who bewitched you?).278

Paul’s efforts so far to draw a

connection between πίστις (faith) and Christ are powerful. But he faces a challenge.

Paul’s opponents see no problem in holding the νόμος (law), πίστις (faith), and Christ in

high regard simultaneously. These prototypes are in no way mutually exclusive. Modern

Christians have many prescriptions for proper behavior, and prohibitions against

278 Susan Grove Eastman, "The Evil Eye and the Curse of the Law: Galatians 3.1 Revisited," Journal for

the Study of the New Testament 83 (2001): 69-87.



145

behaviors such as rape and murder. These do not prevent them from valuing faith in

Christ. Similarly, an early Jewish follower of Jesus would not have seen a problem in

following the prescriptions of the law, in order to live a proper life, while believing in the

sacrifice of Christ and its power to save.

This is one of the challenges Paul seeks to address in chapter 3. He does this by

both bolstering the case for πίστις (faith) and by undermining the importance of the

νόμος (law). In this passage, Paul attempts to establish a dichotomy between πίστις

(faith) and the νόμος (law). He begins his argument with a rhetorical question, asking the

Galatians if they received the spirit ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως (by the hearing of faith) or ἐξ

ἔργων νόμου (by the works of the law). It is clear that, as far as Paul is concerned, they

received the πνεῦμα (spirit) through πίστις (faith). This is evident in verse 3 when Paul

refers to the Galatians’ beginnings in the πνεῦμα (spirit).

Also apparent in verse 3 is the connection that Paul draws between πίστις (faith)

and the πνεῦμα (spirit), and the νόμος (law) and the σάρξ (flesh). In verse 5, it is ἐξ

ἀκοῆς πίστεως (by hearing faith) that miracles are performed and the πνεῦμα (spirit) is

provided, not ἐξ ἔργων νόμου (by works of the law). Critically, the concepts of πίστις

(faith) and the πνεῦμα (spirit) are intertwined in Paul’s thinking. It is worth looking

ahead to see how they establish guidelines for prototypical behavior.

In Galatians 5:22-23, Paul says that the πνεῦμα (spirit) produces ἀγάπη χαρὰ

εἰρήνη, μακροθυμία χρηστότης ἀγαθωσύνη, πίστις, πραΰτης ἐγκράτεια (love, joy, peace,

patience, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, and self control). These are the guidelines

for proper living, as Paul says in Galatians 5:25, Εἰ ζῶμεν πνεύματι, πνεύματι καὶ

στοιχῶμεν (If we live by the spirit, let us also follow the spirit). This is important



146

because it shows that Paul is emphasizing a different standard of behavior. He is not

merely advocating an intellectual belief.

Returning to chapter 3, Paul continues to establish his dichotomy. At this time he

introduces Abraham, who is a prototypical figure in Judaism. His inclusion here provides

Paul with a powerful rhetorical tool. In this passage, Paul is doing two things

simultaneously. First, he is using Abraham to emphasize a different basis for prototypical

behavior (i.e. faith and the spirit). Second, he is also redefining the Abraham prototype,

thus altering the group’s boundaries. This second endeavor will be discussed in the

following chapter. Here I will focus on how Abraham gives credibility to Paul’s notions

of πίστις (faith) and the πνεῦμα (spirit).

Paul describes how Abraham had faith (ἐπίστευσεν, from πιστεύω) in God, and

was deemed righteous because of it (v. 6). Because of this, the οἱ ἐκ πίστεως (ones of

faith) υἱοί εἰσιν Ἀβραάμ (are sons of Abraham, v. 7). The sons of Abraham are,

traditionally, Jews.279

Therefore, it is shocking when Paul equates them with the οἱ ἐκ

πίστεως (ones of faith). If Paul had instead said that those who follow the law are the

sons of Abraham, no one would have cared. He would have been stating the obvious.

Instead, he has replaced the traditional behavioral prototype, the νόμος (law), for a

different one, πίστις (faith).

Suddenly the group’s boundaries shift, becoming more inclusive. No longer

limited to those that follow the νόμος (law), the group now includes those who live by

πίστις (faith), both Jews and Gentiles. Paul continues this argument in verses 8 and 9,

arguing that the scriptures foresaw this shift in the group’s prototype, or as Paul puts it,

279 Longenecker, Galatians, 131.



147

foresaw that ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοῖ τὰ ἔθνη ὁ θεὸς (by faith God justifies the Gentiles),

concluding that οἱ ἐκ πίστεως (the ones of faith) are blessed along with Abraham.

Galatians 3:10-14

1 Ὅσοι γὰρ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου εἰσίν, ὑπὸ κατάραν εἰσίν· γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει πᾶσιν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά . 11 ὅτι δὲ ἐν νόμῳ οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ θεῷ δῆλον, ὅτι ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται · 12 ὁ δὲ νόμος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ πίστεως, ἀλλʼ ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς . 13 Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα, ὅτι γέγραπται· ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου , 14 ἵνα εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ γένηται ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ

πνεύματος λάβωμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως.10

For as many as are of the works of the law, are under a curse. For it has

been written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide in all that has been

written in the book of the law, to do them.”11

That by the law no one is justified before God is clear, for “The just will live by faith.”

12And the

law is not by faith, but “he who does these things will live by them.”13

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become for us acurse, for it has been written “cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.”14

So that to the Gentiles the blessing of Abraham might come in Christ

Jesus, so that we might receive the promise of the spirit through faith

Now that Paul has bolstered the importance of πίστις (faith), by tying it to

Abraham, he undermines the importance of the νόμος (law). He starts by saying that

those who follow the νόμος (law) are under a curse. He then supports this position by

citing scripture (v. 10). Paul probably believed that no one was able to keep all of the law.

Thus, the law condemns everyone.280

Again, by undermining the νόμος (law), he is

undermining the established group prototype.

In verses 11 and 12, while citing scripture to support his position, he connects

πίστις (faith) with justification, referring to Hab 2:4 with ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται

280 Thomas R. Schreiner, "Is Perfect Obedience to the Law Possible: A Re-Examination of Galatians 3:10,"

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27, no. 2 (1984): 160.



148

(the just will live by faith). He then argues that the νόμος (law) is not by πίστις (faith),

implying that the νόμος (law) cannot lead to justification.

In verse 13, Paul ties his argument back to Christ. Paul argues that Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς

ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα (Christ redeemed

us from the curse of the law, having become for us a curse). The exact meaning of the

curse is unclear.281

But, as mentioned before, Christ is a dominant, early prototype for the

followers of Jesus. By connecting Jesus’ death to the proposition that the νόμος (law)

places us under a curse, he makes the proposition more difficult for his opponents to

deny.

The rhetorical argument is particularly powerful because it ties Paul’s proposition

directly to the act of Jesus his followers were called to emulate. In the literal sense, many

early followers of Jesus were killed. Following the Christ prototype, they were willing to

die for their beliefs. Figuratively, Christ’s death represented the humility and obedience

to God that all of Jesus’ followers were supposed to embody. Thus, Paul is pitting

prototypes against one another. He places Christ, πίστις (faith), and the πνεῦμα (spirit)

against the νόμος (law). Finally, in verse 14, he argues that Abraham’s blessing came to

281 Normand Bonneau, "The Logic of Paul's Argument on the Curse of the Law in Galatians 3:10-14,"

Novum Testamentum 39, no. 1 (1997): 60-80; Kelli S. O'Brien, "The Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.13):

Crucifixion, Persecution, and Deuteronomy 21.22-23," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29, no.

1 (2006): 55-76; Sigurd Grindheim, "Apostate Turned Prophet: Paul's Prophetic Self-Understanding andProphetic Hermeneutic with Special Reference to Galatians 3.10-12," New Testament Studies 53, no. 4

(2007): 545-65; Joel Willitts, "Context Matters: Paul's Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12," Tyndale

Bulletin 54, no. 2 (2003): 105-22; Timothy G. Gombis, "The 'Transgressor' and the 'Curse of the Law': The

Logic of Paul's Argument in Galatians 2-3," New Testament Studies 53, no. 1 (2007): 81-93; Todd A.

Wilson, "'under Law' in Galatians: A Pauline Theological Abbreviation," Journal of Theological Studies

56, no. 2 (2005): 362-92; Moisés Silva, "Abraham, Faith, and Works: Paul's Use of Scripture in Galatians

3:6-14," Westminster Theological Journal 63, no. 2 (2001): 251-67; David A. Brondos, "The Cross and the

Curse: Galatians 3.13 and Paul's Doctrine of Redemption," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 81(2001): 3-32.



149

the Gentiles in Christ, so that the promise of the πνεῦμα (spirit) might be received

through πίστις (faith).

Galatians 3:15-18

15

Ἀδελφοί, κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω· ὅμως ἀνθρώπου κεκυρωμένην διαθήκην οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεται.

16

τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ ἐρρέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ. οὐ λέγει· καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν, ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν ἀλλʼ ὡς ἐφʼ ἑνός· καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου , ὅς ἐστιν Χριστός.

17

τοῦτο δὲ λέγω· διαθήκην προκεκυρωμένην ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ μετὰ τετρακόσια καὶ τριάκοντα ἔτη γεγονὼς νόμος οὐκ ἀκυροῖ εἰς τὸ καταργῆσαι τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν.

18

εἰ γὰρ ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία, οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας· τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ διʼ ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ θεός.

15 O brothers, I speak according to man, similarly no one sets aside or adds

to a covenant that has been confirmed by man.16

Promises were spoken to

Abraham and to his seed. And it does not say “the seeds,” as concerningmany, but as concerning one, and “to your seed”, that is Christ.

17 I say

this, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not

annul the covenant previously confirmed by God, so as to abolish the promise.

18 For if by law [one receives] the inheritance, [then it is] no

longer by a promise, but God granted it to Abraham through a promise.

In this passage Paul elaborates upon the promise mentioned in 3:14. Again, Christ

is given prominence. Paul argues that the promises made to Abraham’s descendants were

made to Christ, not to Abraham’s descendants in general. His line of reasoning is that the

promise was made to Abraham’s seed, singular, not his seeds, plural. The argument

makes as little sense in the ancient world as it does today. The word σπέρμα (seed), can

refer to multiple seeds just as it can in English. Either way, Paul’s intention is clear. He

is attempting to give the Christ prototype priority over the νόμος (law), by arguing that

it was presupposed 430 years earlier (v. 17). Then he again asserts the antithetical

nature of the νόμος (law) and the promise (v. 18). By arguing that the two are

incompatible, he is attempting to undermine the position of his opponents. As Jewish



150

followers of Jesus, they saw no contradiction between the νόμος (law) and the promise.

Paul disagrees, and wants to convince the Galatians to move away from the νόμος (law)

by arguing that it is incompatible with the promise.

Galatians 3:19-26

19

Τί οὖν ὁ νόμος; τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν προσετέθη, ἄχρις οὗ ἔλθῃ τὸ σπέρμα ᾧ ἐπήγγελται, διαταγεὶς διʼ ἀγγέλων ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου. 2 ὁ δὲ μεσίτης ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν, ὁ δὲ θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν.

21

ὁ οὖν νόμος κατὰ τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν [τοῦ θεοῦ]; μὴ γένοιτο. εἰ γὰρ ἐδόθη νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος ζῳοποιῆσαι, ὄντως ἐκ νόμου ἂν ἦν ἡ δικαιοσύνη·

22

ἀλλὰ συνέκλεισεν ἡ γραφὴ τὰ πάντα ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν, ἵνα ἡ ἐπαγγελία ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ

Χριστοῦ δοθῇ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν.

23

Πρὸ τοῦ δὲ ἐλθεῖν τὴν πίστιν ὑπὸ νόμον ἐφρουρούμεθα συγκλειόμενοι εἰς τὴν μέλλουσαν πίστιν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι,

24

ὥστε ὁ νόμος παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν γέγονεν εἰς Χριστόν, ἵνα ἐκ πίστεως δικαιωθῶμεν·

25

ἐλθούσης δὲ τῆς πίστεως οὐκέτι ὑπὸ παιδαγωγόν ἐσμεν.

26

Πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ θεοῦ ἐστε διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ·

19 Why then the law? It was added for the sake of transgressions, until the

seed would come to whom it had been promised, having been ordainedthrough angels by the hand of a mediator.

20 But the mediator is not for

one [party], but God is one.

21

Then is the law against the promises ofGod? May it never be! For if a law was given, being able to give life, thenrighteousness really would be of the law.

22 But the scripture bound all

under sin, so that the promise of faith in Jesus Christ might be given to

those who believe.

23 Before the coming of faith we were imprisoned under the law, being

bound until the faith which was to be revealed later.24

As a result the law

is our guardian until Christ, so that we might be justified by faith.25

But

since the coming of faith, we are no longer under a guardian.26

For all of

you are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

In this passage Paul addresses the purpose of the νόμος (law). Although Paul is

seeking to expand the group’s boundaries by changing its prototypes, he cannot simply

throw the old prototypes out the window. This can be explained both as a result of



151

Paul’s personal experience and in terms of SIT. Paul was, by his own account in

Galatians 1:13-14 and Philippians 3:4-6, an extremely devout Jew, fully devoted and

committed to the law before he became a follower of Jesus. Therefore, he personally

had to reconcile his new understanding of the νόμος (law) within the Jesus movement

with his past personal experience of the νόμος (law). The views expressed in this

passage and the next (Gal 4:1-7) represent one of the ways that Paul reconciled the two

positions. This personal experience gave Paul an informal understanding of how such

reconciliation would be needed by others.

According to SIT, threats to one’s social identity tend to make one more

defensive and less likely to adopt alternatives. This is most clearly seen in research on

superordinate identities, which found them to be most effective when the

distinctiveness of the subgroup identity remained intact. In fact, Paul is explicitly

establishing a superordinate identity (Gal 3:27-29, discussed below). As a portion of this

endeavor, Paul’s reinterpretation of the νόμος (law) faces similar challenges. Thus, he

provides a new interpretation of the νόμος (law) that maintains a special place for the

νόμος (law) in God’s plan. This allows the νόμος (law) to retain a distinctive, important

purpose, making acceptance of the law’s new position more likely.

In this passage, Paul starts with the obvious question Τί οὖν ὁ νόμος; (Why then

the law?, v. 19). Theologically speaking, the νόμος (law) must serve some purpose. It

was given by God and defined his people for hundreds of years. This is the theological

explanation of the social scientific phenomena described above. As a group defining

prototype, the νόμος (law) remains important and cannot be easily cast aside.



152

Paul answers his own question saying, τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν προσετέθη (It was

added for the sake of transgressions. v. 19). The sentence is ambiguous. It is unclear

whether Paul is saying that the νόμος (law) was added in order to make people sin

more or that the νόμος (law) was added in order to make people aware of their sin.

Both suggestions have been argued.282 Paul most likely meant that the νόμος (law)

made people aware of their sin. This interpretation fits in more smoothly with Paul’s

references to our παιδαγωγός (guardian), ἐπίτροπος (guide), and οἰκονόμος (steward)

in 3:24-25 and 4:1-2. Therefore, the νόμος (law) maintains a special place in God’s plan

by making people aware of their sin.283

This prepares the way for the ἡ ἐπαγγελία ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (promise

of faith in Jesus Christ, v. 22). If the νόμος (law) had instead been given to make people

righteous, then Christ would no longer be needed, and the law would have been against

the promise (v. 21). Instead, συνέκλεισεν ἡ γραφὴ τὰ πάντα ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν, ἵνα ἡ

ἐπαγγελία ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοθῇ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν (the scripture bound all

under sin, so that the promise of faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who

believe).

This verse is critical for two reasons. First, it establishes a different in-group

boundary, defining the in-group as τοῖς πιστεύουσιν (those who believe). Second, it

gives the old in-group prototype a critical role in the creation of the new group. The

remaining verses in this passage (v. 23-26) reiterate this view. Paul sees us as being

imprisoned under the νόμος (law) until the coming πίστις (faith). Thus, the νόμος (law)

282 Daniel B. Wallace, "Galatians 3:19-20: A Crux Interpretum for Paul's View of the Law," Westminster

Theological Journal 52, no. 2 (1990): 225-45.283 David John Lull, ""The Law Was Our Pedagogue": A Study in Galatians 3:19-25," Journal of Biblical

Literature 105, no. 3 (1986): 481-98.



153

was our παιδαγωγός (guardian). Being under the νόμος (law) is clearly portrayed

negatively, in that it is the less desirable of the two options. But this negative state is

only a temporary position, because ἐλθούσης δὲ τῆς πίστεως οὐκέτι ὑπὸ παιδαγωγόν

ἐσμεν (since the coming of faith, we are no longer under a guardian, v. 25). Finally, in

verse 26, the new group prototype, πίστις (faith) is expressed as the new in-group

boundary, defining the υἱοὶ θεοῦ (sons of God). Πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ θεοῦ ἐστε διὰ τῆς

πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (For all of you are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus).

Galatians 4:1-7

Λέγω δέ, ἐφʼ ὅσον χρόνον ὁ κληρονόμος νήπιός ἐστιν, οὐδὲν διαφέρει δούλου κύριος πάντων ὤν, 2 ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους ἐστὶν καὶ οἰκονόμους ἄχρι τῆς προθεσμίας τοῦ πατρός.

3

οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς, ὅτε ἦμεν νήπιοι, ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου ἤμεθα δεδουλωμένοι·

4

ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον,

5

ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράσῃ, ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάβωμεν.

6

Ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν κρᾶζον· αββα ὁ πατήρ.

7

ὥστε οὐκέτι εἶ δοῦλος ἀλλὰ υἱός· εἰ δὲ υἱός, καὶ κληρονόμος διὰ θεοῦ.

1 Now I say, for as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a

slave, [despite] being the owner of everything,2 he is under guides and

stewards until the time set by his father.3 It is the same with us, when we

were children, we had been enslaved under the elements of the world.4

But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth his son, born of a

woman, born under the law,5 so that he might redeem those under the law,

so that we might receive sonship.6 Because you are sons, God sent forth

the spirit of his son into our hearts, crying, “Abba Father.”7 So that you

are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, also a heir through God.

In this passage, Paul continues to discuss the role of the νόμος (law). Here Paul

uses an analogy intended to clarify his position taken in the previous passage.284

He

argues the same point from before, that the νόμος (law) was a temporary guide, to be




154

replaced when Christ freed those under the νόμος (law). He compares the situation to a

household, against the backdrop of Greco-Roman guardianship laws.285

He points to out

that even though a child is an heir, and thus owns everything, he has no status or power

(v. 1). Instead he is placed under a ἐπίτροπος (guide) or οἰκονόμος (steward). Eventually,

when the father feels his son is ready, he is released from this supervision (v. 2).

Paul argues that we went through the same process. Originally being ὑπὸ νόμον

(under the law, v. 5), we were then redeemed by Christ ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάβωμεν

(so that we might receive sonship, v. 5), and are no longer δοῦλος ἀλλὰ υἱός (a slave but

a son, v. 7). As a clarification of the previous passage, the rhetorical purpose of this

passage is the same. It places the νόμος (law) in an important, but subservient role, thus

easing the adoption of a different group prototype.

A couple of things are worth mentioning. For one thing, Christ is γενόμενον ὑπὸ

νόμον, ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράσῃ (born under the law, so that he might redeem

those under the law, v. 4-5). Beyond establishing Christ as a transitional figure, these

versus argue that Christ’s position under the νόμος (law) was necessary for our

redemption. In other words, Christ’s adherence to the old prototype, the νόμος (law), was

a necessary precursor to the creation of the new prototype, πίστις (faith). This is critical,

as Paul’s opponents could easily argue that people should follow the νόμος (law),

because Christ followed the νόμος (law). Indeed, this argument carries a lot of weight,

285 John K. Goodrich, "Guardians, Not Taskmasters: The Cultural Resonances of Paul's Metaphor in

Galatians 4.1-2," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32, no. 3 (2010): 251-84. For furtherinformation see: Norman H. Young, "The Figure of the Paidagogos in Art and Literature," Biblical

Archaeologist 53, no. 2 (1990): 80-86; Anthony T. Hanson, "The Origin of Paul's Use of Paidagogos for

the Law," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34 (1988): 71-76; Norman H. Young, "Paidagogos:

The Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor," Novum Testamentum 29, no. 2 (1987): 150-76; Michael J.

Smith, "The Role of the Pedagogue in Galatians," Biliotheca Sacra 163, no. 650 (2006): 197-214; Richard

N. Longenecker, "The Pedagogical Nature of the Law in Galatians 3:19-4:7," Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 25, no. 1 (1982): 53-61.



155

particularly among Jewish followers of Jesus, as it combines two powerful prototypes.

Paul’s argument here counters this line of reasoning by arguing that Christ’s submission

to the νόμος (law) was only a prerequisite for things to come.

It is also worth mentioning that the new group boundaries are reaffirmed in verses

6-7. God sends τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ (the spirit of his son) so that we can be a υἱός

(son) and an κληρονόμος διὰ θεοῦ (heir through God). This imitates the language of

3:26, where we are υἱοὶ θεοῦ (sons of God).

Paul’s Final Position

The texts discussed above, from the end of chapter 2 to the beginning of chapter

4, form the heart of Paul’s argument against the νόμος (law). This is not all that he has to

say on the subject in Galatians. In the last two chapters of Galatians he reiterates his

position multiple times. For example, in 5:4-5 Paul declares, κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ,

οἵτινες ἐν νόμῳ δικαιοῦσθε, τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε. ἡμεῖς γὰρ πνεύματι ἐκ πίστεως

ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης ἀπεκδεχόμεθα (You were estranged from Christ, you who would be

justified by the law, you fell from grace. For we look forward, with the spirit and by faith,

to the hope of righteousness). Here Paul again established the law as antithetical to the

πνεῦμα (spirit) and πίστις (faith). This is a continuation of the shift in prototypical

behavior discussed above.

Additionally, in the final chapters Paul also encapsulates his view of πίστις (faith)

and the πνεῦμα (spirit) as more appropriate guidelines for prototypical behavior.

Galatians 5:22-25, which discusses the fruits of the spirit and calls us to live by them, was

discussed above. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the passage was probably written in



156

response to claims that living without the law would lead to immoral behavior. In 5:13

Paul cautions, Ὑμεῖς γὰρ ἐπʼ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἐκλήθητε, ἀδελφοί· μόνον μὴ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν εἰς

ἀφορμὴν τῇ σαρκί, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης δουλεύετε ἀλλήλοις (For you were called for

freedom, O Brothers, only not freedom as a pretext for the flesh, but through love serve

one another). This, along with 5:22-25, demonstrates Paul’s view of πίστις (faith) and the

πνεῦμα (spirit) as carrying a moral obligation to live well.286

In other words, the concepts of πίστις (faith) and the πνεῦμα (spirit) carry

prescriptions for appropriate behavior. Critically, this is necessary if they are going to set

the different standard for prototypical behavior. Paul continues in verse 14, ὁ γὰρ πᾶς

νόμος ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ πεπλήρωται, ἐν τῷ· ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν (For the

whole law has been summed up in one word, in the [saying], love your neighbor as

yourself). The Golden Rule is known well enough, and simply reinforces the previous

point. More importantly, the essence of the νόμος (law) has been reinterpreted. This

allows the νόμος (law) to be incorporated into the new standards for living proposed by

Paul. As seen earlier when Paul argued that the νόμος (law) was our guardian until

Christ, arguing that the new prototype encapsulates the old prototype protects the special

and distinct status of the νόμος (law). This makes the adoption of the new prototype more

likely.

Then, in 6:2, Paul once again puts for the new standard for behavior, Ἀλλήλων τὰ

βάρη βαστάζετε καὶ οὕτως ἀναπληρώσετε τὸν νόμον τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Bear one another’s

286 Peter Mageto, "Toward an Ethic of Shared Responsibility in Galatians 5:13-15," Evangelical Review ofTheology 30, no. 1 (2006): 80; G. M. H. Loubser, "Life in the Spirit as Wise Remedy for the Folly of the

Flesh: Ethical Notes from Galatians," Neotestamentica 43, no. 2 (2009): 354-71.



157

burdens and thus you will fulfill the law of Christ). This phrase, the law of Christ, is

critical. Richard Hays, in commenting on this phrase, says:

Paul’s ethical exhortations are grounded in Christological warrants:

Christology supplies not only the presuppositions of the Christian’sexistential situation but also the pattern for Christian conduct. Paul’s

ethical directives to the Galatians presuppose a particular understanding of

Jesus Christ as a paradigm for the life of the Christian believer and – to do justice to the full scope of Paul’s vision – for the life of the community in

Christ.287

In other words, Christ is a prototypical figure. Thus τὸν νόμον τοῦ Χριστοῦ (the law of

Christ) represents the new standard for prototypical behavior, which is derived from

Christ.

As an extension of this, Paul later mentions the τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως

(household of faith). This is clearly how Paul defines the new group, as those who are

faithful. Finally, and dramatically, in 6:15-16 Paul writes, οὔτε γὰρ περιτομή τί ἐστιν

οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις. 16 καὶ ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, εἰρήνη

ἐπʼ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ (For neither circumcision nor

uncircumcision is anything, but a new creation. And as many as will follow this rule,

peace and mercy upon them and upon the Israel of God). His reference to Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ

θεοῦ (the Israel of God) is very odd. It is a phrase that is absent from both Paul’s other

letters and contemporary literature of the time. But it is clear that Paul is redefining the

group’s boundaries. Israel is no longer defined as those who keep the law, but those who

follow this new standard.

287 Richard B. Hays, "Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ," Catholic Biblical Quarterly

49, no. 2 (1987): 273.



158

Chapter 8: Prototypical Figures

The previous chapter looked at the group prototype, as represented by guidelines

for prototypical behavior. Prototypes are also represented by ideal, often hypothetical,

group members. These prototypes follow the metacontrast principle, maximizing

intragroup similarities and intergroup differences. Thus, they are normally extra-ordinary,

representing the best of what the group has to offer.288

For example, Gandhi and Nelson

Mandela have become prototypical figures for many groups pursuing civil rights and

social justice. They are extra-ordinary members of the social justice movement, and are

seen as ideal group members. Thus they become prototypes for the group, and are used as

a standard by which other group members are measured.

Prototypical figures are not always so rooted in history. The most famous

example of this is the saying “What would Jesus do?”. Jesus is the Christian prototype.

Jesus is the ideal Christian and his theoretical actions serve as a guideline for proper

Christian behavior. Notably, while a man named Jesus lived and was crucified

approximately two thousand years ago, the Jesus behind “What would Jesus do?” is an

interpolation. It is the Jesus of faith (myth, legend, theology, etc.) that serves as the

group’s prototype. Indeed, the prototype would still stand even if the historical person

Jesus had never existed.

In this same way, the figure of Abraham, which Paul manipulates in Galatians, is

a prototype for the Jewish identity. The historicity of Abraham is irrelevant; the character

of Abraham still represents the ideal Jew. Just as religions often explicitly lay out their

288 Hogg, "Social Identity Theory," 118.



159

prescriptions for prototypical behavior, they often explicitly lay out their prototypical

figures. This makes them ideally suited for study under the SIT.

In Galatians, Abraham is one of the central features of Paul’s argument.289

Paul

changes the image of Abraham, a prototypical figure, in order to change the group’s

boundaries. He makes Abraham’s character reflect the lives of the Gentile followers of

Jesus in Galatia. Thus he shifts the group’s boundaries, making the group more inclusive

and more tolerant of Gentile membership.

Abraham

Abraham’s role as the prototypical Jew can be seen in the way he is portrayed in

various texts. For example, take Sirach 44:19-21, written sometime in the second century

B.C.E.290

Abraham, the ‘father of a multitude of nations’, Tarnished not his glory;Who kept the commandment of the most High, And entered into a

covenant with Him: In his flesh He engraved him an ordinance, And intrial he was found faithful. Therefore with an oath He promised him ‘To

bless the nations in his seed’, To multiply him ‘as the dust of the earth’,

And to exalt his seed ‘as the stars’; To cause them to inherit ‘from sea tosea, And from the River to the ends of the earth’.

291

This high praise can also be seen in Jubilees 23:10, “For Abraham was perfect in all his

deeds with the Lord, and well-pleasing in righteousness all the days of his life.”292

And

289 Scott Hahn, "Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah: Diathēk ē in Galatians 3:15-18," Catholic BiblicalQuarterly 67, no. 1 (2005): 79-100; David M. Rhoads, "Children of Abraham, Children of God:

Metaphorical Kinship in Paul's Letter to the Galatians," Currents in Theology and Mission 31, no. 4

(2004): 282-97.290 W. O. E. Oesterley and G. H. Box, "Sirach," in Apocrypha of the Old Testament , ed. R. H. Charles

(Bellingham: Logos Research Systems, 2004).291 Oesterley and Box, "Sirach."292 Charles, "Jubilees."



160

also in 1 Maccabees 2:52 “Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was

reckoned unto him for righteousness?”.293

Abraham is praised for two things. First, he remains faithful to God in the face of

temptation. Second, he adopts circumcision. These two points are repeatedly emphasized

within Jewish literature.294

Abraham’s faith, mentioned in Genesis 15:6, is directly

connected to the covenant in Genesis 17:4-14 that established circumcision.295

In

addition to the trials he overcomes, Abraham’s faithfulness is expressed through

circumcision, the very practice that Paul is fighting against in Galatia. This is because i

Judaism, to be faithful to God is to be obedie

n

nt to the law.

The antithetical relationship between faithfulness and the law that Paul attempts

to establish in Galatians runs counter to traditional Jewish thinking. Abraham, as

traditionally represented, reflects the intertwining of faithfulness and the law. In fact,

later Jewish writings, which post-date Christianity, elaborate on this connection. This is

seen in the Midrash Rabbah, particularly in the Leviticus Rabbah 2.10 where the author

argues that Abraham anticipated and kept the whole Torah, as evidenced by his

circumcision and the sacrifice he offered in the Binding of Isaac (Gen. 22:13).296

In light of these traditions, it is understandable that Paul would integrate Abraham

into his discussion of the νόμος (law). It is not simply that the traditional depiction of

Abraham undermines Paul’s argument concerning the νόμος (law). It is that they are both

representations of the group’s prototype. Abraham embodies the prototypical

293 Oesterley, "1 Maccabees."294 Richard N. Longenecker, ""Faith of Abraham" Theme in Paul, James and Hebrews: A Study in the

Circumstantial Nature of New Testament Teachings," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20,

no. 3 (1977): 204.295 Longenecker, Galatians, 110.296 Longenecker, Galatians, 111.



161

prescriptions laid out in the νόμος (law). Abraham was not the only Jewish prototype

(e.g. Moses, David), but there were good rhetorical reasons for choosing Abraham over

the others. Abraham reportedly lived before the νόμος (law), he was known for

faithfulness, and he was seen as the father of the Jewish people. All of these reasons

make him fit well within Paul’s argument. The examination here will focus on how

Abraham reflects the group’s prototype, and how Paul’s manipulation of Abraham’s

character is designed to shift the group’s boundaries, allowing for the admittance of

Gentiles.

Before examining the text, it is worth looking at how Esler’s use of SIT views

Paul’s use of Abraham. Esler views Paul’s manipulation of Abraham in much the same

way that he viewed Paul’s manipulation of the νόμος (law). Esler argues that Paul is

creating a positive social identity that is pitted against the Israelite identity, an inter-group

interaction. Because of this, he is concerned with how Abraham and the νόμος (law)

establish a positive inter-group comparison. Thus he speaks of “righteousness as

privileged identity.”297

In a later article, Esler continues this interpretation of Paul’s use

of Abraham.298

Righteousness, in this view, reflects a positive inter-group comparison. It

positively distinguishes the in-group from its out-group competitors. Thus, Esler sees

manipulations of the νόμος (law) and Abraham as attempts to gain this privileged

position. He sees the situation in terms of ‘social competition,’ which derives from SIT

and posits that subordinate groups may seek to change their status by altering the inter-

297 Esler, Galatians, 141-77.298 Philip Francis Esler, "Paul's Contestation of Israel's (Ethnic) Memory of Abraham in Galatians 3,"

Biblical Theology Bulletin 36, no. 1 (2006): 23-34.



162

group comparison in relevant ways.299

For example, in dealing with racism (a negative

inter-group comparison) African-Americans can improve their social status by shifting

the point of comparison, emphasizing positive aspects of their social identity, such as

their contributions to jazz, the blues, sports, civil rights, social justice, etc. Esler sees a

similar shift taking place in Galatians.

This is precisely Paul’s position as far as righteousness is concerned. His

opponents are arguing that the dominant Israelite group will provide forany who will join them – through circumcision and acceptance of the

Mosaic law – that prestigious asset called righteousness. Paul counters this

claim head-on by arguing that righteousness belongs with thecongregations of Christ-followers, not with the Israelites.

300

Thus, Paul is connecting the Gentiles to Abraham so that they can improve their status

and share in righteousness.

Esler sees this connection dramatically proclaimed in Galatians 3:7, when Paul

declares γινώσκετε ἄρα ὅτι οἱ ἐκ πίστεως, οὗτοι υἱοί εἰσιν Ἀβραάμ (you know then that

ones of faith, these ones are sons of Abraham).

They share an identity of kinship with this illustrious hero from the past.In terms of social identity theory set…this suggestion constitutes an

excursion into social creativity, an attempt by a subordinate in-group to

improve its actual social location vis-à-vis the dominant out-group withrespect to their respective access to scarce resources and status. Paul is

trying to reverse the position of the two groups on the salient dimension of

Abrahamic ancestry.301

Kinship was a powerful force in the ancient world, and such a declaration was not taken

lightly.302

My approach here differs, but does not disagree with Esler’s interpretation.

Certainly Paul is attempting to portray followers of Christ who do not practice the νόμος

299 Esler, Galatians, 169.300 Esler, Galatians, 169.301 Esler, Galatians, 173-74.302 Malina, The New Testament World , 117-48.



163

(law) in positive way. He is laying the groundwork for the emergence of a new social

identity (Christian), which will view itself positively when compared to relevant out-

groups (e.g. Jews, Romans). Additionally, to whatever extent such a social identity

already existed, the observations are applicable to Galatia.

In contrast, my approach views the situation in terms of an intra-group conflict.

As such, both the νόμος (law) and Abraham represent group prototypes that must be

altered in order to allow for the acceptance of Gentiles by the group. The power of

Esler’s approach lies in its ability to examine the new inter-group interactions that

emerge as Paul begins to create a new and distinct social identity. The power of my

approach lies in its ability to illuminate Paul’s use of traditional Jewish prototypes.

Paul could have left Judaism behind and tried to form an entirely new identity, an

approach that could have been successful among a Gentile audience. Instead he focuses

his efforts on shaping the Jewish identity, and applying it in a new way to the followers

of Christ. The applicability of both approaches rests on the fact that the difference

between Christianity as a transformed Jewish identity, and Christianity as a completely

new social identity, depends simply upon how many people accept the change. That is, if

all Jews had followed Jesus, then what we call Christianity would be called Judaism.

Galatians 3:6-9

6 Καθὼς Ἀβραὰμ ἐπίστευσεν τῷ θεῷ , καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην · 7 γινώσκετε ἄρα ὅτι οἱ ἐκ πίστεως, οὗτοι υἱοί εἰσιν Ἀβραάμ. 8 προϊδοῦσα δὲ ἡ γραφὴ ὅτι ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοῖ τὰ ἔθνη ὁ θεὸς, προευηγγελίσατο τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ὅτι ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη · 9 ὥστε οἱ ἐκ πίστεως εὐλογοῦνται σὺν τῷ πιστῷ Ἀβραάμ.

6 As Abraham believed in God, and it was credited to him as

righteousness,7 you know then that ones of faith, these ones are sons of



164

Abraham.8 And the scriptures, having foreseen that by faith God justifies

the Gentiles, previously preached the gospel to Abraham saying “All thenations will be blessed in you.”

9 Thus, the ones of faith are blessed with

the believing Abraham.

Here Paul introduces Abraham into his arguments. By this point in Galatians Paul

has already begun establishing the antithetical nature of the νόμος (law) and πίστις

(faith). Chapter 2 emerges from the incident at Antioch to end on this dichotomy, and the

beginning of chapter 3 continues this point, paving the way for Abraham’s introduction in

verse 6. Although there is a transition in 3:1-5, the argument of verse 6 ties directly into

the last verse of chapter 2, verse 21, Οὐκ ἀθετῶ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ· εἰ γὰρ διὰ νόμου

δικαιοσύνη, ἄρα Χριστὸς δωρεὰν ἀπέθανεν. (I do not set aside the grace of God, for if

through the law [comes] righteousness, then Christ died for nothing). Paul is using

Abraham as an example to support his argument in chapter 2.

Verse 6 is nearly an exact quote of Genesis 15:6 in the LXX. Thus Paul is using

an established Jewish example to support his view. But to stop at this point risks missing

the bigger picture. While it is tempting to say that Paul is simply adopting an appropriate

example to support his view, such a position doesn’t account for the fact that Abraham,

traditionally understood, does not support Paul’s argument.

Abraham, as discussed above, was a Jewish prototype. As such he embodied

proper living and adherence to God’s commandments. Even if one were to argue that the

Torah had not yet been received, as Paul does, Abraham received the covenant of

circumcision (Gen 17:9-14)! Also, Abraham’s faith was intricately tied to his obedience

to God’s commandments. The traditional view of Abraham works against Paul, not for



165

him. This discrepancy, between the traditional view of Abraham and Paul’s

reinterpretation has not gone unnoticed by scholars.303

SIT provides new insights into how Paul’s manipulation of Abraham allows him

to shape the group’s identity. But it is important to draw a distinction between the explicit

theological argument that Paul is making and the prototype manipulation that lies behind

it. Paul argues that those who have faith are sons of Abraham because Abraham believed

in God, and was deemed righteous. Then Paul supports his position with an appeal to

scripture. He notes that Abraham is told all nations will be blessed by him. Therefore,

Paul reasons, the scripture foresaw the coming justification of the Gentiles. The logic is

clearer in the Greek, where the same word is used to refer to both the Gentiles and the

nations, ἔθνος. Thus, Abraham blesses those of faith.

On the other hand, according to SIT, there are three prototypes at work here,

Abraham, πίστις (faith), and the νόμος (law). Two are explicit and one is notably absent.

Paul begins in verse 6 by emphasizing Abraham’s belief, and continues in verse 7

declaring that οἱ ἐκ πίστεως, οὗτοι υἱοί εἰσιν Ἀβραάμ (ones of faith, these ones are sons

of Abraham). The phrase οἱ ἐκ πίστεως (ones of faith) speaks to a new set of group

boundaries. As discussed in the previous chapter, Paul is defining the group in terms of

πίστις (faith) instead of the νόμος (law).

303 Betz, Galatians, 139-40; Longenecker, Galatians, 110-12; Jeremy Punt, "Subverting Sarah in the New

Testament: Galatians 4 and 1 Peter 3," Scriptura 96 (2007): 453-68; Jeremy Punt, "Revealing Rereading.

Part 2: Paul and the Wives of the Father of Faith in Galatians 4:21-5:1," Neotestamentica 40, no. 1 (2006):101-18; Jeremy Punt, "Revealing Rereading. Part 1: Pauline Allegory in Galatians 4:21-5:1,"

Neotestamentica 40, no. 1 (2006): 87-100. For further information see: H Wayne Johnson, "The Paradigmof Abraham in Galatians 3:6-9," Trinity Journal 8, no. 2 (1987): 179-99; D. E. Garland, "Paul's Defense of

the Truth of the Gospel Regarding Gentiles (Galatians 2:15-3:22)," Review and Expositor 91, no. 2 (1994):

165-81; Stephen E. Fowl, "Who Can Read Abraham's Story? Allegory and Interpretive Power in

Galatians," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 55 (1994): 77-95; Frank J. Matera, "Galatians and

the Development of Paul's Teaching on Justification," Word & World 20, no. 3 (2000): 243-44; Karol

Gabris, "Zur Kraft der Verheissungen : zum Gal 3:15-22," Communio Viatorum 11, no. 4 (1968): 251-64;Raik Heckl, "Ein Bezugstext Für Gal 3:21b," Novum Testamentum 45, no. 3 (2003): 260-64.



166

Here Paul is using this shift in prototypical behavior in conjunction with a change

to the prototypical figure of Abraham. He does this by equating a previously exclusive

group, the sons of Abraham, with a more inclusive prototype, οἱ ἐκ πίστεως (ones of

faith). This changes the image of Abraham and his descendants, changing the prototype.

Paul is also using Abraham to support his new interpretation of the νόμος (law)

and πίστις (faith). In verse 8 Paul builds upon the equivocation between the οἱ ἐκ πίστεως

(ones of faith) and the sons of Abraham by referring back to scripture. The blessing

mentioned in verse 8 appears multiple times in Genesis and elsewhere.304

For Paul the

blessing anticipates the justification of the Gentiles by faith. Here, Paul uses this view of

the Abraham prototype to support his reinterpretation of the νόμος (law), by arguing that

the Abraham prototype supports a πίστις (faith) based behavioral prototype. Conversely,

Paul’s understanding of πίστις (faith) shapes his interpretation of the biblical account of

Abraham.

Finally, in verse 9 Paul again mentions the οἱ ἐκ πίστεως (ones of faith),

connecting them to Abraham. The preposition σὺν (with) stresses the connection between

the οἱ ἐκ πίστεως (ones of faith) and Abraham. Additionally, πιστῷ (believing) is an

adjective and should be understood in an active sense.305

Paul is creating a powerful

connection between his community and the reinterpreted prototype of Abraham,

concluding that οἱ ἐκ πίστεως εὐλογοῦνται σὺν τῷ πιστῷ Ἀβραάμ (the ones of faith are

blessed with the believing Abraham).

This passage illustrates one of the most difficult issues surrounding the Abraham

prototype, the circular nature of Paul’s reasoning. Paul is both using Abraham to support

304 Longenecker, Galatians, 115. Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; Ps 71:17; Sir 44:21305 Longenecker, Galatians, 116.



167

his reinterpretation of πίστις (faith) and reinterpreting Abraham in light of his new

understanding of πίστις (faith) and the νόμος (law). This was less of an issue with the

νόμος (law) because Paul often talks about the νόμος (law) in Galatians without

referencing Abraham, and will be less of an issue below when Paul talks about Abraham

without mentioning the νόμος (law).

Here, on the other hand, Abraham’s relationship with πίστις (faith) and the νόμος

(law) is repeatedly emphasized. The circular nature of the argument arises out of the fact

that Paul is changing both prototypes simultaneously. Just as they are intertwined in

traditional Jewish thought, they are also intertwined in Paul’s thought. Changes in one

necessitate changes in the other. In other words, Paul would like to change his audience’s

attitude towards the νόμος (law) as well as change their understanding of Abraham. He is

attempting to do both simultaneously. As a result the two concepts are often interwoven,

making it difficult to determine which is supporting the other.

Galatians 3:13-14

13

Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα, ὅτι γέγραπται· ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου , 14

ἵνα εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ γένηται ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος λάβωμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως.

13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become for us a

curse, for it has been written “cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.”14

So that to the Gentiles the blessing of Abraham might come in Christ

Jesus, so that we might receive the promise of the spirit through faith.

After declaring that the νόμος (law) puts everyone under a curse and that the just

will live by πίστις (faith) in 3:10-12, Paul brings the discussion back to Abraham. It is

important to distinguish between the theological argument that Paul makes, and what his



168

writings tell us about the newly defined prototype of Abraham. Theologically, Paul

continues to support his claim that οἱ ἐκ πίστεως, οὗτοι υἱοί εἰσιν Ἀβραάμ (ones of faith,

these ones are sons of Abraham). In Paul’s view, the νόμος (law) is a curse, which Christ

has lifted by taking it upon himself. Paul argues that by doing this Christ allows the

blessing of Abraham to come to the Gentiles.306

This was done so that people could

receive the spirit through faith.307

From the perspective of SIT, it is clear that the strength of Paul’s argument rests

upon the interaction of four different group prototypes, Christ, Abraham, the νόμος (law),

and πίστις (faith). As discussed above, Paul pits the prototype of Christ and the prototype

of the νόμος (law) against one another. This helps to portray the νόμος (law) negatively

by appealing to the most prominent prototype within the early Jesus movement. This is

juxtaposed with τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος (the promise of the spirit) that we

receive διὰ τῆς πίστεως (through faith), which is seen both positively and as an extension

of the Christ prototype.

Additionally, Paul incorporates Abraham, specifically ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ (the

blessing of Abraham) that comes to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus. The positive connection

between Abraham and Christ is clear. This is functionally the reverse of the relationship

established between Christ and the νόμος (law). While Paul makes the νόμος (law)

antithetical to Christ, he makes ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ (the blessing of Abraham)

306 A. J. M. Wedderburn, "Some Observations on Paul's Use of the Phrases "In Christ" And "With Christ","

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25 (1985): 89.307 For further information see: S. K. Williams, "Promise in Galatians: A Reading of Paul's Reading of

Scripture," Journal of Biblical Literature 107, no. 4 (1988): 709-20; Joseph P. Braswell, ""The Blessing of

Abraham" Versus "The Curse of the Law": Another Look at Gal 3:10-13," Westminster Theological Journal 53, no. 1 (1991): 73-91; Jan Lambrecht, "Abraham and His Offspring: A Comparison of Galatians

5,1 with 3,13," Biblica 80, no. 4 (1999): 525-36.



169

complimentary to Christ. The Christ prototype supports and shapes Paul’s understanding

of Abraham.

The second cause of verse 14 completes the thought, and thus connects ἡ εὐλογία

τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ (the blessing of Abraham) with τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος (the promise

of the spirit) that we receive διὰ τῆς πίστεως (through faith). The prototype of Abraham

is positively tied to the newly established prototype of πίστις (faith). Overall, Paul

continues to reshape the Abraham prototype. He ties him positively to πίστις (faith) and

Christ while at the same time distancing him from the νόμος (law). As before, Paul is

reinterpreting the νόμος (law) and Abraham simultaneously. Paul’s image of Abraham

both supports his position on the νόμος (law) and is shaped by it. Prototypical figures

embody the ideals of the group and represent the ideal group member. By shifting the

values and ideals associated with Abraham, Paul is changing the image of the ideal group

member.

Galatians 3:15-16

15

Ἀδελφοί, κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω· ὅμως ἀνθρώπου κεκυρωμένην διαθήκην οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεται.

16

τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ ἐρρέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ. οὐ λέγει· καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν, ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν ἀλλʼ ὡς ἐφʼ ἑνός· καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου , ὅς ἐστιν Χριστός.

15 O brothers, I speak according to man, similarly no one sets aside or adds

to a covenant that has been confirmed by man.16

Promises were spoken to

Abraham and to his seed. And it does not say “the seeds,” as concerning

many, but as concerning one, and “to your seed”, that is Christ.

In order to fully understand how Paul is changing the Abraham prototype in this

passage and the ones that follow, one has to look at the concepts of διαθήκη (covenant)

and σπέρμα (seed). A great deal of effort has gone into understanding Paul’s use of the



170

term διαθήκη (covenant). One common meaning for the term was ‘will’ or ‘testament’.

Josephus, who was a contemporary of Paul’s, uses the word 32 times in his writing. In

each case it means “will” or “testament,” and never “covenant.” On the other hand, the

term is consistently used in the LXX, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, to

translate the theologically significant Hebrew term bĕ rît (covenant). It is used 270 out of

286 times.308

The LXX was certainly available to Paul. As seen above, he often uses

quotations or near quotations in his writing. The context surrounding the three uses of

διαθήκη (covenant) in Galatians (3:15, 3:17, and particularly 4:24 discussed below) show

that its use in the LXX had a large influence upon Paul’s understanding of the term.

The context behind Paul’s statement, κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω· ὅμως ἀνθρώπου

κεκυρωμένην διαθήκην οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεται (I speak according to man,

similarly no one sets aside or adds to a covenant that has been confirmed by man), is less

clear. This sentence has prompted many scholars to look for the legal example that Paul

has in mind. The problem, simply put, is that the most common wills and testaments were

changed and nullified. A great deal of work has been done, searching for examples of

wills that were irrevocable. A few cases have been found, in which a person wills his

possessions to another while he is still alive. Under such circumstances, it was impossible

for the person to take back the property from their heir.309

Ultimately it is unclear what

Paul had in mind. He could have been thinking of these specific contracts, he could have

had in mind wills after the death of their creator, or he may have been thinking of the

308 Longenecker, Galatians, 128.309 Betz, Galatians, 154-56; Longenecker, Galatians, 128-30.



171

general obligation to honor wills. In any case, his argument is clear. Once a testament has

been ratified, no one may change it or cancel it.310

The meaning of σπέρμα (seed) is more straightforward. Though singular in form,

the word was thought of as referring to multiple descendants. Think of the word seed in

English, which can refer to many seeds. Or, more appropriately, the English word sperm,

which derives from σπέρμα (sperma ), and functions in the same way. In Judaism the

“seed” in the promise of Abraham was always understood to refer to all of his

decedents, excluding only those born of Ishmael and Esau. Paul’s interpretation goes

directly against Jewish tradition.311

In the Talmud there are three examples of arguments based upon the plural or

singular form of a noun, and there are a few cases where rabbis argue that it refers to

Isaac, a position they take in an attempt to reconcile the 400 years between covenants

of Genesis 15:13 and the 430 years in Exodus 12:40.312 Thus, Paul’s interpretation of

σπέρμα (seed) here as referring to a single individual is not without its parallel.313 But

Paul’s interpretation clearly goes against the general Jewish understanding of his day,

and does not seem to be based upon any specific tradition of thought.

Indeed, in verse 29 Paul uses σπέρμα (seed), in the singular, to refer to a

collective group of people. Similarly, he uses it in the same way in Romans 4:13-18

when referring to Abraham and his promise. Therefore, his use of it here is very

specific, not only within the context of Jewish tradition, but also within Paul’s own

310 Betz, Galatians, 156.311 R. A. Pyne, "The 'Seed,' the Spirit, and the Blessing of Abraham," Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (1995): 211-

22.312 Longenecker, Galatians, 131-32.313 C John Collins, "Galatians 3:16: What Kind of Exegete Was Paul?," Tyndale Bulletin 54, no. 1 (2003):

75-86.



172

writings. The key to understanding this idiosyncratic usage is in recognizing how it

attempts to shape the group’s identity.

In verses 15-16 there are two prototypes at work, Abraham and Christ, as well as

one group designation, σπέρμα (seed). It is important to recognize that the concept of

the σπέρμα (seed) is inextricably connected to the prototype of Abraham. As mentioned

before, it refers to Abraham’s descendants, and in doing so is used to designate the

Jewish people. Therefore, Paul’s manipulation of its meaning not only has a direct

impact upon the group’s boundaries, but also changes the prototype of Abraham. It

intentionally casts Abraham in a new light, redefining the group that Abraham

represents.

In these verses Paul’s intention is clear. He is attempting to change the way his

audience understands Abraham, and thus shift his audience’s understanding of the

group. He does this by connecting two powerful prototypes. He ties together Christ and

Abraham, and in doing so is placing Christ at the center of the Jewish identity. These

verses are particularly useful because they provide the clearest example of Paul

shaping the Abraham prototype. He takes one of the defining characteristics of the

prototype, Abraham’s σπέρμα (seed), and redefines it. This is critical because it shows

Paul consciously shaping both the Abraham prototype and the νόμος (law) prototype.

In the previous passage Paul was manipulating the νόμος (law) and Abraham

simultaneously. This left open the possibility that Paul’s new Abraham was simply the

byproduct of a new understanding of the (law). But Paul’s reasoning here represents a

deliberate manipulation of the Abraham prototype. This is also seen in Galatians 4:21-

31, discussed below.



173

Galatians 3:17-18

17

τοῦτο δὲ λέγω· διαθήκην προκεκυρωμένην ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ μετὰ τετρακόσια καὶ τριάκοντα ἔτη γεγονὼς νόμος οὐκ ἀκυροῖ εἰς τὸ καταργῆσαι τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν.

18

εἰ γὰρ ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία, οὐκέτι ἐξ

ἐπαγγελίας· τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ διʼ ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ θεός. 17

I say this, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does

not annul the covenant previously confirmed by God, so as to abolish the promise.

18 For if by law [one receives] the inheritance, [then it is] no

longer by a promise, but God granted it to Abraham through a promise.

Verses 17-18 complete the thought started in 16-17. In short, Paul is using his

new understanding of Abraham to undermine the traditional understanding of the νόμος

(law). The explicit argument of verses 17-18 is fairly straightforward. The law, another

covenant, does not annul the one previously established, just as Paul says in verse 15,

ἀνθρώπου κεκυρωμένην διαθήκην οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεται (no one sets aside or

adds to a covenant that has been confirmed by man). Moreover, the νόμος (law) must not

be able to provide an inheritance, because if it did, then God’s promise to Abraham (v.

16) would be nullified. In effect, the second clause of verse 18 clarifies verse 16.

Apparently, the promise that was given to Abraham and Christ was one of inheritance.

This explains the reasoning behind verse 18, which says that inheritance received through

the (law) would nullify God’s promise.

It is important to see how Paul’s new understanding of Abraham functions in his

argument here. In Paul’s view, Abraham received righteousness though faith (v. 6) and

blesses others through his faith (v. 9). His blessing comes in Christ Jesus and the spirit

comes through faith (v. 14). Finally, promises made to Abraham, whether for the spirit

(v. 14) or the inheritance (v. 18), were made to Abraham and Christ (v. 16), thus tying

Abraham’s blessing to Christ and by association to those who follow him.



174

This understanding of Abraham is dramatically different from the traditional view

presented above. Traditionally, Abraham was revered both for his faithfulness and his

obedience. He received the covenant of circumcision and his life was thought to

foreshadow the law to come. If this traditional view of Abraham is applied to the

situation, then the arguments of verses 17-18 fall apart. The νόμος (law), appearing 430

years later does not nullify the previous covenant, which is circumcision, it complements

it. The inheritance does not come through a promise, as in v. 18b, instead it comes from

the νόμος (law).

In contrast, Paul’s Abraham supports his arguments well, and he is uses it to

diminish the importance of the νόμος (law). Abraham, and the promise he represents,

prevent the νόμος (law) from providing us with an inheritance because if it did, the prior

covenant of God’s promise would be undone (v. 17-18). This line of reasoning raises a

natural question. What is the law’s purpose? This is exactly the issue Paul tackles in v.

19-26, which was discussed in the previous chapter. Thus, Paul’s new Abraham paves the

way for his new understanding for the role of the (law). The concept of inheritance,

introduced in v. 18, becomes a central feature of his argument in the coming verses that

relegates the role of the law to that of temporary Guardian.

Galatians 3:29

29

εἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ, ἄρα τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ σπέρμα ἐστέ, κατʼ ἐπαγγελίαν κληρονόμοι.

29 If you are of Christ, then you are from the seed of Abraham, heirs,

according to the promise.



175

While not Paul’s final word on the subject, this verse encapsulates his position.

The verse completes Paul’s famous statement of subordinate identity in verse 28, which

will be discussed in the next chapter. Although the verse is short, it is densely packed. It

has two prototypical figures (Christ and Abraham), two group designations (Abraham’s

seed and heirs), and a mention of the promise. The power of this verse comes from its

ability to tie the preceding concepts together in an explicit declaration of the equivalence

between being a follower of Christ and being Abraham’s descendent.

Previously, Paul mentions the οἱ ἐκ πίστεως (ones of faith), who are sons of

Abraham (v. 7), and are blessed with the believing Abraham (v. 9). Here, those who are

of Christ are substituted for the οἱ ἐκ πίστεως (ones of faith). This is a bold statement,

which flows out of the connection drawn between Abraham’s seed and Christ in 3:16. At

this point, the discussion has moved passed a debate over the nature of Abraham’s

faithfulness.

While somewhat speculative, it is easy to image the agitators agreeing that the οἱ

ἐκ πίστεως (ones of faith) are sons of Abraham. Indeed, Abraham was known for his

faithfulness to God. The point of disagreement would then have been over the nature of

this faithfulness. While Paul describes it as living in the spirit (5:18), they may have

argued that it was best expressed in fulfilling the Law. Thus, the phrase οἱ ἐκ πίστεως

(ones of faith) is less directly confrontational than ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ (you of Christ).

Here, such room for interpretation is no longer present. The seeds of Abraham,

the heirs, are followers of Christ.314

Just as before, Paul is taking the central prototypical

figure of the Jesus movement, Christ, and placing it at the forefront. In this statement,

314 H. C. Waetjen, "The Trust of Abraham and the Trust of Jesus Christ: Romans 1:17," Currents in

Theology and Mission 30, no. 6 (2003): 452-53.



176

Christ not only defines the group, he defines the seed of Abraham. By doing so, the

Christ prototype redefines Abraham himself. It is not coincidental that this statement

comes after one of the strongest statements of identity found in the NT.

Galatians 4:21-23

21

Λέγετέ μοι, οἱ ὑπὸ νόμον θέλοντες εἶναι, τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἀκούετε;22

γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι Ἀβραὰμ δύο υἱοὺς ἔσχεν, ἕνα ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης καὶ ἕνα ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας.

23

ἀλλʼ ὁ μὲν ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται,ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας διʼ ἐπαγγελίας.

21 Tell me, those who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the

law?

22

For it has been written that Abraham had two sons, one from amaidservant and one from a freewoman.23

However, on the one hand the

one of the maidservant has been born according to flesh, on the other handthe one of the freewoman [has been born] through a promise.

The story of Abraham and the birth of his sons can be found in Gensis 16:1-16,

and 21:1-21. Abraham is having trouble conceiving a child with his wife Sarah. Sarah

urges Abraham to go and conceive with her maid, Hagar. Hagar then has Abraham’s son,

Ishmael. Years later, the covenant of circumcision is established between God and

Abraham (Gen 17). After this, God promises to give Abraham a son by his wife Sarah

(Gen 18:10). Finally, in chapter 21, Sarah gives birth to Isaac.

This leads to more conflict between Sarah and Hagar. It is the struggle between

the firstborn child of a slave (Ishmael) and the subsequently born child of the wife

(Isaac). Sarah demands that Hagar be cast out, in order to protect Isaac’s position as

Abraham’s heir (Gen 21:10). Abraham is distressed over having to cast Hagar out, but

God reassures him that his descendents will come from Isaac, and that Ishmael will also

give rise to a nation (Gen 21:12-13).



177

Paul is not unique in reinterpreting the significance of this story. Judaism has a

rich tradition of interpretation.315

Noteworthy here is how Paul uses the story for his own

ends, reinterpreting it in order to reshape the group’s boundaries. Critically, changes to

the story of Abraham mark changes in the Abraham prototype.

Here, Paul continues the line of reasoning he has been developing. He starts by

tying Ishmael to the concept of flesh, and Isaac to the concept of promise. These two

concepts are well developed in Galatians. The flesh is repeatedly connected to the law

and contrasted with the spirit (Gal 3:2-3, 5:16-18). In contrast the promise is connected to

faith, the spirit, and the blessing of Abraham (Gen 3:14). Here Paul extends this to

Abraham’s children. By connecting Sarah and Isaac to notion of the promise, Paul is

continuing his reinterpretation of Abrahams descendents that he started when discussing

the “seed” of Abraham (Gal 3:29). The effect of the argument is the same. Paul is shifting

the group boundaries away from genetic descent towards spiritual designation.

Galatians 4:24-26

24

ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα· αὗται γάρ εἰσιν δύο διαθῆκαι, μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα, ἥτις ἐστὶν Ἁγάρ. 25 τὸ δὲ Ἁγὰρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ· συστοιχεῖ δὲ τῇ νῦν Ἰερουσαλήμ, δουλεύει γὰρ μετὰ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς.

26

ἡ δὲ ἄνω Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐλευθέρα ἐστίν, ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ ἡμῶν·

24 These things are an allegory, for these are two covenants, one, from

mount Sinai, bearing children into slavery, which is Hagar.25

Hagar ismount Sinai in Arabia, and it now corresponds to Jerusalem, for she is in

slavery with her children.26

The Jerusalem above is free, which is our

mother.

Here Paul declares that these things are allegorical. To a first-century audience,

the shock of the passage comes not from the fact that Paul interpreted the passage

315 Longenecker, Galatians, 200-06.



178

allegorically. Others did that also.316

It comes from the fact that Paul’s interpretation

turns the accepted interpretation and group boundaries on their head.317

The Jewish

people believed that they were the children of Abraham. They were not just his children,

but the descendants of Isaac. In Genesis 21:12 God declares Isaac to be the source of

Abraham’s descendents, and this view prevailed.

Paul manages to both stays in line with this tradition and radically alters it. He

connects the promise to Sarah and Isaac, which keeps in line with the accepted idea that

Abraham’s true heirs come from Isaac. But he connects Jerusalem, and the law to Hagar!

This flips the traditional understanding on its head. Traditionally, the law and its practice

in Jerusalem mark the Jewish people. They mark Abraham’s descendents, and distinguish

them from others. In the words of the previous chapter, they form a behavioral prototype

that defines the group’s boundaries. But Paul has reversed the association. According to

Paul, Abraham’s true heirs come from the promise. Because Paul views the law as

antithetical to this promise, the law and Jerusalem must be associated with Hagar.

This is Paul’s line of reasoning, but the strength of Paul’s argument comes not

from its logical construction, but from its manipulation of the Abraham prototype. By

presenting a new understanding of Sarah and Hagar, Paul is really presenting a new

understanding of Abraham. The character of Abraham is defined by his story. Change the

316 Longenecker, Galatians, 200-06.317 Punt, "Subverting Sarah," 453-68; Punt, "Revealing Rereading. Part 2," 101-18; Punt, "RevealingRereading Part 1," 87-100. For additional information see: C. H. Cosgrove, "The Law Has Given Sarah No

Children (Gal. 4:21-30)," Novum Testamentum 29, no. 3 (1987): 219-35; T. D. Gordon, "The Problem at

Galatia," Interpretation 41, no. 1 (1987): 41-43; Richard N. Longenecker, "Graphic Illustrations of a

Believer's New Life in Christ: Galatians 4:21-31," Review and Expositor 91, no. 2 (1994): 183-99; C. M.

Maier, "Psalm 87 as a Reappraisal of the Zion Tradition and Its Reception in Galatians 4:26," Catholic

Biblical Quarterly 69, no. 3 (2007): 473-86; T. H. Tobin, "What Shall We Say That Abraham Found? TheControversy Behind Romans 4," Harvard Theological Review 88, no. 4 (1995): 440-41.



179

story and you change the character. It is this character, this prototypical figure of

Abraham, upon which people will base their behavior.

As with all prototypes, Paul’s new figure of Abraham follows the metacontrast

principle. First, it emphasizes the similarities found between the followers of Jesus. The

unifying commonality, of faith and the promise, is necessarily vague given the diverse

nature of the community. Second, it emphasizes the differences between the new group

standard of the promise and the previous one, the law. Finally, the prototype reflects

positively on the new group and is based on an ideal, hypothetical group member

(Abraham), two things commonly seen in prototypes.

Galatians 4:28-31

28 Ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, κατὰ Ἰσαὰκ ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα ἐστέ. 29 ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ τότε ὁ κατὰ σάρκα γεννηθεὶς ἐδίωκεν τὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα, οὕτως καὶ νῦν.3

ἀλλὰ τί λέγει ἡ γραφή; ἔκβαλε τὴν παιδίσκην καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς · οὐ γὰρ μὴ κληρονομήσει ὁ υἱὸς τῆς παιδίσκης μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἐλευθέρας.31 διό, ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἐσμὲν παιδίσκης τέκνα ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐλευθέρας.

28 And you, O Brothers, are children of the promise, like Isaac.

29 But as

then, when the one who was born of flesh persecuted the one [who was

born] of the spirit, so also now.30

But what do the scriptures say? “Castout the maidservant and her son, for the son of the maidservant will not

inherit with the son of the freewoman.”31

Therefore, O Brothers, we are

not children of a maidservant but of a freewoman.

In this final passage, Paul starts by identifying the members of the congregation as

the children of the promise, like Isaac.318

This summarizes Paul’s reinterpretation of who

Abraham’s descendents are. Interestingly this is followed by another analogy. Though

not found in the Genesis account, there is a developed tradition that tells of Ishmael’s

318 Paul’s use of ‘brothers’ may have reflected a desire to unify the community in Galatia. Troy W. Martin,

"The Brother Body: Addressing and Describing the Galatians and the Agitators as Adelphoi," Biblical

Research 47 (2002): 5-18.



180

hostility towards Isaac.319

Paul builds upon this here, declaring that the hostility

experienced by the community in Galatia mirrors that experienced by Isaac.

The call to cast out the maidservant further defines the groups, and serves as a

warning to those interested in circumcision.320

This type of reasoning can have a

profound effect upon a group. Criticism can undermine a group’s cohesion, but when that

criticism is incorporated into the group’s prototype, it can actually serve to reinforce the

group’s boundaries. This is easily seen in the NT. Jesus reportedly declared that his

followers would be hated as he was, and that if they stayed strong they would be

rewarded (e.g. Mark 13:13, Matt 10:22, John 15:18). This creates a situation in which

being criticized by an out-group makes the in-group member more prototypical. In turn,

this serves to strengthen the group’s entitativity. This can easily be seen in modern

Christian fundamentalism and other marginalized religious groups. Here, Paul is

incorporating this idea into Abraham’s narrative, further cementing his reinterpretation of

this traditional prototype. Paul ends the section with one final declaration, identifying the

congregation with the children of Sarah, and the agitators with the children of Hagar.

319 Longenecker, Galatians, 217.320 Susan Grove Eastman, "'Cast out the Slave Woman and Her Son': The Dynamics of Exclusion and

Inclusion in Galatians 4.30," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38, no. 3 (2006): 309-36.



181

Chapter 9: Superordinate Identities

A powerful method for bringing people together is the creation of superordinate

identities. Superordinate identities are overarching identities that encompass people who

belong to other social identities as well. For example, the American national identity

encompasses many people. American Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc, are all members of

the larger American social identity. The American identity can therefore bring these

people together under one unified social identity.

There are some important points to remember. First, which identity is salient (i.e.

prominent and relevant) will change depending on the social context. Thus, while people

are celebrating the 4th

of July, their American identity may dominate. They would see

everyone as part of their American group instead of categorizing them according to their

religion. The social context makes the American social identity the most relevant, and

thus salient. Conversely, at a worship service the same individual will likely categorize

others according to their religion. This context emphasizes religion, and thus makes

religious identities salient.

Second, superordinate identities are most successful when the subordinate identity

is secure. This principle is known as the mutual intergroup differentiation model. It

simply states that superordinate identities can improve relations as long as the integrity of

the subgroups is maintained. Attempts to categorize individuals on a purely superordinate

level can constitute a threat to their subordinate identities. This can lead to increased

levels of discrimination as individuals try to maintain their identity.321

These factors

come into play in Galatians as Paul attempts to establish a superordinate identity (Gal

321 Hornsey and Hogg, "Intergroup Similarity," 948-58.



182

3:28). Paul is challenged with creating a superordinate identity that both he and his

opponents can reconcile with their Jewish identities.

Unfortunately, the situation in Galatia and Paul’s attempts to create a

superordinate identity are not as clear as they might seem. The immediate problem goes

back to the difference between my approach and that of Philip Esler. I approach Galatians

as an intragroup conflict, while Esler approaches it as an intergroup conflict. For

example, Esler takes Galatians 3:28 as evidence that Paul is defending his newly created

social identity (Israelite and Gentile followers of Christ) against an out-group, the

Israelites.

The fact that Paul had converted both Israelites and Gentiles in Galatia tofaith in Christ and integrated them into the communities where there was,

ideally at least, neither Ioudaios nor Hellene, neither slave nor free, neither

male nor female, but they were all one in Christ Jesus (3.28), meant thatthere was now to be a new social and religious entity on the scene. Paul

unambiguously asserts that the Christ-followers constituted a third group,

set over against both the Judaic and Gentiles worlds:6:15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but

a new creation.6:16 Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of

God.322

Elser acknowledges that there is a question as to whether or not such an independent

identity was established by the time Paul wrote his letter.

In short, Esler’s view is that this group did not exist until Paul created it during

his missionary trips.323

Esler does note that the existence of Israelite converts created a

residual affiliation with Judaism. This leads to a weakening of the distinction between the

two groups. Thus, according to Esler, Paul’s primary purpose in Galatians is to strengthen

322 Esler, Galatians, 89.323 Esler, Galatians, 89-90.



183

the group boundaries between the followers of Jesus (both Jewish and Hellenistic) and

the Israelites.324

This position has its strengths. The early Jesus movement created an identity on

some level given that some people followed Jesus while others did not. Indeed, if Gal

3:27-28 existed independently as a baptismal statement prior to Paul’s use of it in

Galatians, then this is evidence that an early form of Christian identity already existed

before Paul wrote Galatians. This proto-Christian identity would have certainly run into

challenges when facing an established Jewish identity. When these two social groups

encountered each other, there would have been inter-group interactions, leading to in-

group bias, new prototypes, adherence to the metacontrast principle, and other

phenomena predicted by SIT. Esler’s work highlights these trends, and helps explain the

early rise of Christian identity. His work helps explain how Galatians contributed to this

rise, and how the ideas found in Galatians helped form the core of the Christian identity.

On the other hand, there are significant weaknesses with this interpretation. First,

it does not do justice to the situation in Galatia. Galatians is an intra-group conflict, not

an inter-group conflict. While the ideas in Galatians played a key role in later inter-group

conflicts between Christians and Jews, those involved in the situation at Galatia all

believed they were part of the same group, thus creating an intra-group conflict. Whether

the group is viewed as Christian, or as a Jewish group that followed Jesus, the result is

the same; the agitators and the Galatians believed they were part of the same group.

Traditional scholarship has trouble seeing past the theological disagreements. But

SIT shows that, on a social psychological level, the agitators are attempting to reinforce

the group’s prototypical behavior. It is striking how Jewish this behavior is. The agitators

324 Esler, Galatians, 91-92.



184

wanted the followers of Jesus in Galatia to be circumcised and follow the law. This is

because their Jewish identity was salient, as a result of the threat posed by mixed table

fellowship. Additionally, their cultural ties with Jerusalem and the uncertainty there

probably reinforced this defensive posture. In other words, the agitators viewed

themselves as Jewish, and felt that all followers of Jesus should be Jewish (through

circumcision and the law).

This makes it tempting to view the situation (as Esler does) as a conflict between

Judaism and Christianity. But both sides of the dispute felt that they belonged to the same

group. Although a proto-Christian identity existed, as seen in 3:27-28, it was not salient

in Galatia. This is evident not just in the presence of the agitators, but in the Jewish

practice of the Galatians (4:10). The situation speaks to a lack of distinction, a time when

the exact nature of what it meant to follow Jesus was in question, as the boundaries

between the proto-Christian identity and Judaism were unclear. Therefore, while Esler’s

approach better addressed the consequences of the letter of Galatians for the early

Christian community, this approach better addressed the immediate situation in Galatia as

an intra-group conflict in which the distinction between Christianity and Judaism was

unclear.

Second, Esler’s view does not adequately explain Paul’s manipulation of key

Jewish prototypes. Paul reinterprets the law and Abraham in such a way as to make the

Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ (Israel of God) a more inclusive group. Paul is not defending a new

group; he is reinterpreting the old one. This speaks to an identity that is in flux, an intra-

group struggle, not an inter-group conflict between competing communities.



185

As was seen with Abraham, many concepts that Paul uses to establish his new

group boundaries, such as faith and the promise, are Jewish. There is a rich tradition

within Judaism that speaks of Abraham’s faithfulness and the promises that were given to

him. Thus many of the things that initially seem to establish a separate identity for the

early followers of Jesus were in fact rooted in the Jewish social identity. This reflects the

immediate situation in Galatians.

All of that said, this is not to say that Esler’s approach is wrong, only that it

explains some things better than others. It can be useful to view the situation in Galatia as

an inter-group conflict. It lets one see the origins of Christian identity, and how this

identity was used to unite different ethnic groups. In contrast, this intra-group analysis

will focus on how Paul’s statements of superordinate identity emerge from his

understanding and reinterpretation of traditional Jewish prototypes.

Various phrases are used in Galatians to identify the true group members. The

terms are τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ (The Church of God, 1:13), οἱ ἐκ πίστεως (ones of

faith, 3:7, 9), υἱοί Ἀβραάμ (sons of Abraham, 3:7), τοῖς πιστεύουσιν (those who believe,

3:22), υἱοὶ θεοῦ (sons of God, 3:26), εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (you are one in Christ

Jesus, 3:28), ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ (you are of Christ, 3:29), τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ σπέρμα (seed of

Abraham, 3:29), κληρονόμος (heirs, 3:29, 4:7), υἱοθεσίαν (sonship, 4:5), υἱός (son, 4:6-

7), ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα (children of the promise, 4:28), τῆς ἐλευθέρας (of a freewoman,

4:31), οἱ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (ones of Christ, 5:24), τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως (the household



186

of faith, 6:10), καινὴ κτίσις (new creation, 6:15), Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ (Israel of God,

6:16).325

The terms used are telling. First, it is worth noting that there is no single

designation for the early followers of Jesus. In other words, there is no name for the

group (e.g. Christians). This is not to say that the group did not exist. The group existed

to whatever extent the early followers of Jesus engaged in mutual self-construal. But it

does suggest that the group was in its infancy, particularly when viewed through the

situation at Galatia and the argument over circumcision. Second, surprisingly few of the

designations use explicit references to Christ to define the group. Only 3 of the 20 cases,

εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (you are one in Christ Jesus, 3:28), ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ (you are of

Christ, 3:29), and οἱ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (ones of Christ, 5:24), make use of Christ.

To be fair, some of the other phrases are intricately connected to the figure of

Christ. For example, in 3:22 ἡ ἐπαγγελία ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (the promise of faith

in Jesus Christ) is given to those who believe. In 3:26, the Galatians are sons of God διὰ

τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (through faith in Christ Jesus). In 3:29, the seeds of

Abraham, the heirs, are Χριστοῦ (of Christ). Finally, the sonship expressed in 4:5-7 is

predicated upon the redemption provided by Jesus (4:4). These examples demonstrate the

difficulty in trying to do a simple numerical analysis. If one includes these references,

then half of the 20 group designations in Galatians are based upon Christ. On the other

hand, given Paul’s reinterpretation of faith, the promise, and the Abraham story, all of

these phrases connect to Christ in someway.

325 See: William S. Campbell, "Christianity and Judaism: Continuity and Discontinuity," International

Bulletin of Missionary Research 8, no. 2 (1984): 56-57; J. A. D. Weima, "Gal. 6:11-18: A Hermeneutical

Key to the Galatian Letter," Calvin Theological Journal 28, no. 1 (1993): 90-107; S. Lewis Johnson, "PaulAnd "The Israel of God": An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study," Master's Seminary Journal 20,

no. 1 (2009): 41-55.



187

Because of this, it is tempting to interpret Galatians only in light of an established

Christian identity. But this approach would miss the valuable insights provided by an

intra-group perspective. Jewish prototypes are more consistent throughout the text, and

provide a much firmer base for understanding the social identity in play at Galatia. The

phrases consistently make use of the concepts of inheritance, sonship, the promise, and

faithfulness. These ideas come explicitly from the Abraham prototype. Paul even

concludes 3:27-28, the quintessential statement of Christian identity, by writing τοῦ

Ἀβραὰμ σπέρμα ἐστέ, κατʼ ἐπαγγελίαν κληρονόμοι (you are from the seed of Abraham,

heirs, according to the promise).

The identity found in Galatians is firmly rooted in Jewish identity, and this speaks

to the saliency of Jewish prototypes and identity in Galatia. It is important to note that

this does not speak against the existence of an extant Christian identity. SIT states that

only one social identity can be salient in any given situation. In other words, when

presented with a social situation, individuals can only readily use one social identity to

make evaluations. Therefore, the dominance of Jewish prototypes in Galatians speaks

only to the salience of Jewish social identity; it does not indicate that other identities (i.e.

a proto-Christian Identity) do not exist. Ultimately, it is this salient identity that becomes

the base upon which Paul constructs his new superordinate identity.

SIT is critical in understanding how Paul goes about establishing a superordinate

identity, and Paul’s efforts here (particularly 3:26-29) bring together many of the

elements discussed previously. First, SIT defines what a social identity is. A social

identity is a mutual self-construal. This is straightforward enough, and not that far from



188

the common recognition that Jews, identifying themselves as part of a larger group and

community, created a social identity in the ancient world.

Second, and more critically, SIT explains how social identities are defined. Group

boundaries that define social identities are set by group prototypes that establish

prescriptions for normal behavior and a basis for evaluating the behavior of group

members. This allows the historian to look for the prototypical behaviors and figures in a

given group. For example, evidence from the Jewish revolts shows that circumcision and

proper worship were two critical prototypes for Jewish identity.

Third, it helps the historian trace the group’s identity through time, and see how

the group prototypes react to different historical and social contexts. It is not coincidental

that circumcision and mixed table-fellowship (i.e. proper worship) are at the heart of the

situation in Galatia. These are the same prototypical behaviors that had been at the heart

of Jewish identity for hundreds of years.

Fourth, SIT explains why people react so dramatically when their social identity

is undermined. Social identity is largely a byproduct of categorization. People

depersonalize themselves and others, evaluating individuals according to their group, and

not according to their individual idiosyncrasies. Therefore, since the individual has

internalized the group’s identity, things which undermine the group are viewed as

personally threatening. This is seen in the numerous Jewish revolts that were sparked

when rulers outlawed circumcision or attempted to establish a new god in the temple of

Jerusalem.

Up to this fourth point, SIT primarily formalizes the historian’s intuition. It

provides a formal structure for informal observations. The idea that circumcision is



189

important to Judaism and that many Jews were willing to die to defend their way of life is

not new. But SIT provides a model for understanding these behaviors. This is critical. By

applying SIT (or other social scientific models), which continues to be experimentally

tested, validated, and refined, historians can be more confident and accurate in the claims

that they make. Additionally, by using clear models historians can improve scholarly

discourse by making their assumptions and reasoning more transparent. Finally, using an

established social scientific model allows scholars to compare vary different situations

within a common framework. For example, SIT allows one to compare the birth of

Christianity to the start of other religions (Islam, Mormonism, etc.). Thus one can look

for commonalities that are otherwise obscured by historical circumstance.

Returning to Galatians for the fifth and sixth points, SIT explains why Paul chose

his topics and why his rhetoric was influential. These two questions drive the volumes of

rhetorical analysis of Galatians. Why did Paul write what he did? Why was Paul’s writing

persuasive? SIT allows us to answer these questions, at least on the social psychological

level.

Fifth, Paul wrote about the law and Abraham because they are two central Jewish

prototypes. They define the Jewish social identity. Paul, implicitly or explicitly, knew

that by manipulating these key concepts he could shift the group’s boundaries. This

would allow the Gentile followers of Jesus to join the group, to be embraced as in-group

members.

Sixth, Paul’s reasoning was persuasive (at least for some) for precisely the same

reason. He was using valued prototypes. He took established prototypes such as Christ

and Abraham, with the faithfulness and promise Abraham embodied, and used them to



190

shift people’s perception of the group. This understanding of Paul’s work also sheds light

on Paul’s creation of a superordinate identity.

SIT highlights two issues concerning Paul’s newly established identity. First, the

SIT teases out the Jewish nature of Paul’s arguement. Second, in accordance with the

mutual intergroup differentiation model, SIT explains how this preservation of Jewish

identity makes adoption of the superordinate identity more likely.

Taking the points in turn, the Jewish nature of the new identity can be seen in

both the terms of identity and the reasoning behind them. Some of the terms clearly come

from Judaism, such as υἱοί Ἀβραάμ (sons of Abraham, 3:7), τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ σπέρμα (seed of

Abraham, 3:29), and Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ (Israel of God, 6:16). This list can be further

expanded when it is set to include the terms which make reference back to descending

from Abraham, such as κληρονόμος (heirs, 3:29), ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα (children of the

promise, 4:28), τῆς ἐλευθέρας (of a freewoman, 4:31). Finally, οἱ ἐκ πίστεως (ones of

faith, 3:7, 9) are equated with the sons of Abraham and receive his blessing. This is a

challenge for interpreting the situation in Galatia as an inter-group conflict. The new

identity provided by Paul is very Jewish. It reflects the ties the Galatians must have had

to the Jewish community. In this way, it does not sound like two extant, independent

communities debating with one another. The situation is more inline with an intra-group

conflict, where the two sides are debating the nature of group membership.

Critically, this does not undermine the claim that Paul is establishing a

superordinate identity. The manipulation of existing group boundaries and the

establishment of a superordinate identity share, in this case, a common goal: the

expansion of the group to include members that had previously been excluded. In this



191

way, Paul’s attempts to establish a superordinate identity are a natural extension of his

previous efforts. This is reflected in the fact that many of the terms he uses for the group

are solidly rooted in Jewish tradition.

Secondly, SIT suggests that the perpetuation of this Jewish tradition was useful

for establishing an effective superordinate identity. The mutual intergroup differentiation

model states that people will resist a superordinate identity if they feel that their

subordinate identity is threatened. As seen in the Jewish revolts, people react defensively

when they feel that their social identity is threatened. This also happens on smaller scales,

and is a risk that Paul takes as he reinterprets and redefines Jewish identity in Galatians.

If Paul was too dismissive of Jewish tradition when he argued for bringing Jews

and Gentiles together under Christ, then Jewish followers of Jesus, let alone Jews who

did not follow Jesus, would have dismissed Paul’s argument because it threatened their

Jewish identity. In all likelihood, many of the Jewish followers of Jesus did reject Paul’s

reasoning. But, for those who did not, Paul’s efforts to give Jewish identity and tradition

a central place within the new identity was vital. It allowed the individuals to feel secure

in their Jewish identity, and thus allowed them to embrace the Gentile followers of Jesus

as fellow in-group members.

Paul probably had an informal understanding of this concept. As a Jew himself,

he would have had to reconcile his old beliefs, which lead him to persecute followers of

Jesus, with his new found devotion to Christ. Galatians shows some of the ways in which

Paul resolved this dilemma. Informally, what worked for Paul will work for others. In a

formal sense, Paul’s writing adheres to the mutual intergroup differentiation model,



192

maintaining valued and distinctive subordinate identities in order to establish a new

superordinate identity.

This is why Paul’s argument is persuasive, and it is also why he chooses to write

about Abraham, the law, faithfulness, and the promise. He is retaining the importance of

the Jewish identity. This is why the law, while largely dismissed, maintains an important

function in the development of God’s covenant, so that ὁ νόμος παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν

γέγονεν εἰς Χριστόν (the law is our guardian until Christ, 3:24). This is why Paul ends

the quintessential statement of Christian identity in 3:26-29 with, τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ σπέρμα

ἐστέ, κατʼ ἐπαγγελίαν κληρονόμοι (you are from the seed of Abraham, heirs, according

to the promise).

Galatians 3:26-29

26 Πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ θεοῦ ἐστε διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ· 27 ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε. 28 οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ·

πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 29 εἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ, ἄρα τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ σπέρμα ἐστέ, κατʼ ἐπαγγελίαν κληρονόμοι.

26 For all of you are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For

all of you who were baptized into Christ, you clothed yourself with Christ.28 There is no Jew, nor Greek, there is no slave nor free, there is no

male and female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you are of

Christ, then you are from the seed of Abraham, heirs, according to the promise.

This is one of the most famous passages in the NT, although it is sometimes

misinterpreted. At its core is a statement of identity, not a statement of equality.326

But

326 D. K. Buell, "The Politics of Interpretation: The Rhetoric of Race and Ethnicity in Paul," Journal of

Biblical Literature 123, no. 2 (2004): 235-51; T. Hopko, "Galatians 3:28: An Orthodox Interpretation," St.

Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 35, no. 2-3 (1991): 169-86; John J. Davis, "Some Reflections onGalatians 3:28, Sexual Roles, and Biblical Hermeneutics," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

19, no. 3 (1976): 202; Madeleine Boucher, "Some Unexplored Parallels to 1 Cor 11:11-12 and Gal 3:28:



193

the interpretation of the passage is greatly complicated by the fact that it is a confessional

statement from the early church that has been elaborated on by Paul. Many scholars agree

that vs. 27-28 came from an early confession given at baptism.327

The reasoning behind this conclusion is relatively straightforward. First, the

passage itself explicitly mentions baptism. This is Paul’s only explicit reference to

baptism in Galatians.328

Baptism is not at issue in Galatians. Additionally, elsewhere

when Paul uses this language, baptism is again mentioned. “It should be observed that the

pairings of Gal 3:28 and 1 Cor 12:13 appear explicitly in conjunction with the mention of

baptism… yet baptism as such is not discussed in any of these contexts. This suggests

that these pairings were originally formulated in a baptismal liturgy of the early

church.”329

This is not the only thing that seems out of place. Paul brackets this early

confessional statement with two verses that tie the statement back into Paul’s on going

argument. Verse 26 provides a bridge between Paul’s previous discussion of the law and

the confessional statement. Verse 29 finishes the bracket by bringing the conversation

The NT on the Role of Women," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31, no. 1 (1969): 50-58; B. R. Gaventa, "IsGalatians Just a 'Guy Thing'? A Theological Reflection," Interpretation 53, no. 3 (2000): 267-78; D. C.

Lopez, "Paul, Gentiles, and Gender Paradigms," Union Seminary Quarterly Review 59, no. 3-4 (2005): 92-

106; R. M. Grant, "Neither Male nor Female," Biblical Research 37 (1992): 5-14; B. Kahl, "No Longer

Male: Masculinity Struggles Behind Galatians 3.28?," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 79

(2000): 37-49. For articles on the passages modern ethical implications see: Christine Lienemann-Perrin,"The Biblical Foundations for a Feminist and Participatory Theology of Mission," International Review of

Mission 93, no. 368 (2004): 17-34; Stephen Douglas Lowe, "Rethinking the Female Status/Function

Question: The Jew/Gentile Relationship as Paradigm," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34,

no. 1 (1991): 59-75; Claire Jowitt, "'Inward' and 'Outward' Jews: Margaret Fell, Circumcision, andWomen's Preaching," Reformation 4 (1999): 139-67; John E. Alsup, "Imagining the New: Feminism,

Galatians 3:28 and the Current Interpretive Discussion," Austin Seminary Bulletin 105, no. 2 (1990): 91-

108; H. W. House, "A Biblical View of Women in the Ministry: Part 1 (of 5 Parts): 'Neither ... Male nor

Female ... In Christ Jesus,'" Bibliotheca Sacra 145 (1988): 47-56; G. L. Borchert, "A Key to PaulineThinking--Galatians 3:23-29: Faith and the New Humanity," Review and Expositor 91, no. 2 (1994): 145-

51.327 Longenecker, Galatians, 154-55; Betz, Galatians, 186; Stanton, "Galatians," 1160.328 Betz, Galatians, 186.329 Longenecker, Galatians, 155.



194

back to the question of Abraham’s true descendents and heirs. This allows Paul to return

to his analogy of the law as a guardian. Thus, vs. 27-28 stand out from the surrounding

context.

This also comes to light when looking at the three coordinates of v. 28. Only the

first one, οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην (there is no Jew, nor Greek), is immediately

relevant to Paul’s discussion as it bears directly on the question of Gentile acceptance

raised in 3:14 and continued through 3:25.

The second coordinate, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος (there is no slave nor

free), is not relevant to Paul’s theological argument. Slavery and freedom are discussed in

chapters 4 and 5, but it is spiritual slavery and spiritual freedom that are under

consideration. In contrast, 3:28 is concerned with the social distinction between slaves

and free persons. Paul clearly does not intend it to mean that there is no difference

between spiritual slavery and spiritual freedom.

Finally, the third coordinate, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ (there is no male and

female), does not relate to rest of the letter. Paul does not address the relationship

between men and women in Galatians.330

Taken together, all of these arguments strongly

suggest that these verses were predated the letter of Galatians and were incorporated into

the letter by Paul.

The independence of the statement and its subsequent use in the early church have

complicated its interpretation. The function of the passage in Galatians is often conflated

with its use in the early church and its use in modern Christian discussions of equality.

330 Longenecker, Galatians, 154. For alternative views see: Troy W. Martin, "The Covenant of

Circumcision (Genesis 17:9-14) and the Situational Antithesis in Galatians 3:28," Journal of Biblical

Literature 122, no. 1 (2003): 111-25; J Albert Harrill, "Coming of Age and Putting on Christ: The TogaVirilis Ceremony, Its Paraenesis, and Paul's Interpretation of Baptism in Galatians," Novum Testamentum

44, no. 3 (2002): 252-77.



195

Scholars recognize that unity is the primary focus of the text, and that the notions of

equality come from the text secondarily. 331

For example, this is how Longenecker takes

the text.

Taking Gal 3:27-28 to be a pre-Pauline Christian confession, either in

whole or in part, we may say, then, that when early Christians spoke of

being ‘baptized into Christ’ they also spoke of the old divisions betweenJew and Gentile, slave and free, and male and female having come to an

end. Certainly the proclamation of the elimination of divisions in these

three areas should be seen first of all in terms of spiritual relations: that before God whatever their differing situations, all people are accepted on

the same basis of faith and together make up the one body of Christ. But

these three couplets also cover in embryonic fashion all the essentialrelationships of humanity, and so need to be seen as having racial,

cultural, and sexual implications as well. And that is, as I have arguedelsewhere, how the earliest Christians saw them – admittedly, not always

as clearly as we might like, but still pointing the way toward a moreChristian personal and social ethic.

332

Thus, this statement in Galatians provides us with an early confessional statement of

identity.

Interestingly, the original function of this passage in the early (pre-Pauline/non-

Pauline) church is not so clear. As mentioned above, the most common opinion among

scholars is that the saying served a unifying role, as a statement of identity within

baptism. Dennis MacDonald, however, has proposed an alternative interpretation of this

pre-Pauline statement. In his view, the statement is not one of unity, but of putting off the

body. The “exegetical merger of Platonic anthropological dualism with Genesis 1-3

provides the best conceptual background for the Dominical Saying, inasmuch as the

images of the saying refer to the soul’s liberation from matter and sexuality as it returns

331 Fung, Galatians, 176; Wayne Walden, "Galatians 3:28: Grammar Observations," Restoration Quarterly

51, no. 1 (2009): 45-50; Doug Heidebrecht, "Distinction and Function in the Church: Reading Galatians3:28 in Context," Direction 34, no. 2 (2005): 181-93.332 Longenecker, Galatians, 157.



196

to the image of the heavenly Adam.”333

He supports this with a detailed analysis of Greek

philosophy, Philo, the Gospel of the Egyptians, Julius Cassianus, Clement of Alexandria,

2 Clement , and the Gospel of Thomas.334

This view of the passage provides a dramatically different interpretation and

function for it in the early church.

“The Dominical Saying is an early Christian baptismal saying dramatizing

the initiates putting off the body, putting on light, and returning to sexualoneness. In some communities, the prebaptismal garment was trampled as

a symbol of disdain for the body and its governing powers. One result of

this putative return was celibacy.”335

One of the appealing aspects of this interpretation is that it places the saying and ritual of

baptism within the context of religious ritual and spiritual practice. It would be

inappropriate to view one of the most sacred Christian traditions merely as serving a

sociological function, and this interpretation connects the ritual to the spirituality of early

Christians.

Furthermore, if MacDonald’s interpretation is correct then Paul’s manipulation of

the group’s identity in Galatia becomes all the more pronounced.

“Paul knew of the saying by the year 53 when he wrote Galatians. He

altered it so that putting off the garment of shame became putting on

Christ, and the two sexes’ becoming one became all social groups’

becoming one in Christ. These alterations suggest that for Paul baptismwas not the means by which the individual escaped the body and was

restored to the primordial state; rather baptism was the symbol by which

the individual expressed membership in a new creation, a unifiedcommunity.”

336

333 Dennis Ronald MacDonald, There Is No Male and Female: The Fate of a Dominical Saying in Paul and

Gnosticism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 30.334 MacDonald, No Male and Female, 23-48.335 MacDonald, No Male and Female, 62.336 MacDonald, No Male and Female, 128.



197

The passage’s place in Galatians thus becomes a power example of Paul’s rhetoric. He is

consciously shaping the text in order to be persuasive and unify the community. Even if

one disagrees with MacDonald’s conclusions, his work remains important because it

reminds scholars that the early Christian community was not uniform. Different followers

of Jesus, at different points in time, used this saying and ritual in different ways. It is

naive to think that Paul’s use in Galatians set the standard which all Christians thereafter

followed. Thus, MacDonald’s work highlights Paul’s role in the text, as he attempted to

eliminate the divisions that were facing the community.

SIT provides a new way for understanding this elimination of divisions before

God. The elimination of divisions is basically the formation of a group. The unstated

counterpart to eliminating such divisions is the creation of new ones. Instead of dividing

along old ethnic, financial, and gender lines, the new distinction is drawn between those

that follow Jesus and those that do not. This is the text’s function in Galatians. It is a

statement of identity. It contains within it a new prototypical standard and Paul is using it

to address the divisions he is encountering in Galatia.

Thus, its impact upon personal and social ethics is the result of later interpretation

and extrapolation. This understanding of the text as an identity statement helps explain

some aspects of the text. As Betz asks,

It is significant that Paul makes these statements not as utopian ideals or as

ethical demands, but as accomplished facts. The question is, therefore,

how the present tense of the phrase ‘you are’ is to be understood. Whydoes Paul make such claims? How are they related to baptism? What is the

reality of these claims?337

337 Betz, Galatians, 189.



198

The present tense makes sense given that the passage is a statement of identity, and not a

statement of theological or social equality. As revolutionary as social implications of the

text may have been, they were not being addressed in Galatians.

While it may be useful to describe the passage as a statement of identity, rather

than one of theological ‘unity’ or ‘oneness’, SIT goes further in helping one understand

Paul’s use of this early confessional. This takes the conversation back to the two guiding

questions of this work. Why did Paul write what he did, and why was it persuasive?

In Galatians, Paul is weighing in upon an ongoing debate over the nature of the

group. Because this is a debate over the nature of the group and the group’s boundaries,

prototypes become the focus of attention. This is why Paul tackles the nature of the law,

faith, the promise, and story of Abraham. He manipulated these concepts, expanding the

boundries of the group so as to include a wider array of people. This is seen in the terms

of identity that he uses to designate the group. As seen earlier, many of the terms are

deeply embedded within the Jewish tradition. Particularly striking are those that make

direct reference to Abraham, and the Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ (Israel of God, 6:16), which closes

the letter. Galatians 3:27-28 is placed directly into this context. It is intimately connected

to the on-going discussion by Paul’s bold statement in v. 29, which equates the unity

found in Christ to being of Abraham’s seed.

Why does Paul chose this confessional statement? He chooses it because it is a

statement of identity, and as such carries within it the new prototypical standard for the

group. More than that, this prototypical standard, which is expressed in being baptized

into Christ, is at the heart of the situation in Galatians. This is exactly the type of

behavior that undermines the social identity of the agitators in Galatia.



199

The agitators, as stated before, feel a strong cultural connection to Judaism, and

probably to Jerusalem as well. Their Jewish identity is salient. Thus they are seeking to

reinforce those prototypical behaviors that define the Jewish identity. But this newly

emerging prototypical standard of baptism (as expressed in 3:27-28) is undermining the

traditional prototypes of the law and circumcision. Here Paul brings the competing

prototypes together. He has been working to reinterpret both Abraham and the law, and

here he marries his own interpretation of the old prototypes to the new one.

The newly formed piece of rhetoric is persuasive for a couple of reasons. First,

and mentioned previously, is that it preserves the subordinate identity while it establishes

the new superordinate identity. Attaching Abraham to the end of the confessional

statement helps maintain the unique and important place of Judaism within the early

Jesus movement.

The confessional statement denies any distinction between Jews and Gentiles.

Taken in and of itself, this is very threatening and unsettling to individuals who value

their Jewish social identity. On the other hand, by incorporating Abraham into the

equation, Paul is able to soften the blow by basically interpreting the confessional

statement in light of Jewish tradition. In other words, he makes the lack of a distinction

between Jews and Gentiles a Jewish idea. This makes it much more likely to be accepted

by Jewish followers of Jesus.

Second, the rhetoric is persuasive because it is combining powerful prototypes

from the early Jesus movement. If the confessional was indeed attached to baptism, it

would have played a central role in the social identity of early followers of Jesus. By

combining this central pillar of identity with pivotal concepts within the Jewish identity



200

(however reinterpreted), Paul was able to create a powerful synthesis, which many people

would have found persuasive.



201

Chapter 10: Prototypical Leaders

Finally, the social identity theory of leadership provides insights on how Paul

established himself as a leader in the community. The social identity theory of leadership

states that when the group’s identity is salient, prototypical leaders will be more effective

than less prototypical leaders. This phenomenon comes out of the process of

depersonalized social attraction. Through depersonalization, people categorize

themselves and others according to their social identities. In so doing, individuals are no

longer evaluated according to their individual idiosyncrasies. They are instead evaluated

upon the basis of group prototypes, judged as group members. Thus, those members that

are more prototypical are more socially attractive than those who are less prototypical.

This is referred to as depersonalized social attraction.

Depersonalized social attraction can be contrasted with relationships between

people based upon a personal knowledge and interaction between individuals. While

depersonalized social attraction is intimately tied to the group and group behavior,

personal relationships are built upon the individuals involved and have less of an impact

upon the group. Correspondingly, depersonalized social attraction has a stronger impact

when the salience of the group is high, when the group is perceived as cohesive, and

when the prototype is clear.

The social identity theory of leadership has shown that leaders are subject to the

same social forces. The social attractiveness of leaders is important. When the group’s

identity is salient, the prototypicality of the leader is important. Thus, leaders who better

reflect the group’s prototype are more effective than those who do not, at least when the



202

group’s identity is salient. When the saliency of the group’s identity is low, the leader’s

prototypicality is less important.

This phenomenon, described by the social identity theory leadership, gives insight

into Paul’s portrayal of himself and of other leaders in the early Jesus movement. Paul’s

portrayals of himself as an excellent Jew and as a humble follower of Christ make Paul

prototypical. This makes him more social attractive to those people in Galatia who do not

know him personally, making him a more effective leader. Furthermore, Paul’s

manipulation and adaptation of the group’s prototypes coincide with Paul’s own

character, reflecting his personal theology and religious practice. Thus, the more people

are persuaded by Paul’s reasoning, the more prototypical Paul becomes, becoming more

social attractive and more effective in his position of leadership.

Conversely, Paul’s adapted prototypes make the leaders in Jerusalem less

prototypical, making them less effective leaders and undermining their authority. The

social identity theory of leadership does not address all of the issues between Paul, Peter,

John, and James, because they knew each other on a personal level and likely had a

complicated relationship. But it does explain why Paul chose to write about his life as a

Jew and his sufferings as a follower of Christ. It explains why this was a persuasive

technique, and it helps one understand the impact that Paul’s message would have had on

how others perceived the leaders in Jerusalem.

Leadership and Jewish Prototypes in Galatians

Galatians 1:13-14

13 Ἠκούσατε γὰρ τὴν ἐμὴν ἀναστροφήν ποτε ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ, ὅτι καθʼ ὑπερβολὴν ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐπόρθουν αὐτήν, 14 καὶ



203

προέκοπτον ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ ὑπὲρ πολλοὺς συνηλικιώτας ἐν τῷ γένει μου, περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων τῶν πατρικῶν μου παραδόσεων.

13 For you heard of my behavior when in Judaism, namely that I

excessively persecuted the church of God and destroyed it,

14

and I progressed in Judaism beyond many contemporaries in my nation, beingmore abundantly zealous for the traditions of my ancestors.

Given the salience of the Jewish social identity in Galatia, it is not surprising that

Paul reminded the congregation of his Jewish background. There is an informal

understanding that Paul is establishing his credibility by reminding the Galatians about

his Jewish background.338

Paul establishes the fact that he knows a great deal about

Judaism, as one of its most ardent practitioners. He was not simplistically undermining

Jewish tradition. Longenecker notes:

As for his life in Judaism (vv 13-14), he denies that he was in any way prepared for preaching a law-free gospel to Gentiles. Far from it! Rather,

he was a faithful and zealous observer of the Jewish religion and way of

life, even to the point of persecuting Christians and trying to destroy “thechurch of God.”

339

SIT, particularly the social identity theory of leadership, provides a formal way of

understanding this credibility. Here Paul is establishing his prototypicality. The Jewish

social identity was salient in Galatia. The issues at hand, such as circumcision and the

law, were central precepts of this social identity. It may be that because the prototypes are

in question, an individual’s prototypicality is critical. It is Paul’s prototypicality that

338

Morris Ashcraft, "Paul Defends His Apostleship: Galatians 1 and 2," Review and Expositor 69, no. 4(1972): 459-69; Jack T. Sanders, "Paul's Autobiographical Statements in Galatians 1-2," Journal of Biblical

Literature 85, no. 3 (1966): 335-43; Paul E. Koptak, "Rhetorical Identification in Paul's Autobiographical Narrative: Galatians 1:13-2:14," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40 (1990): 97-113; N. H.

Taylor, "Paul's Apostolic Legitimacy: Autobiographical Reconstruction in Gal. 1:11-2:14," Journal of

Theology for Southern Africa 83 (1993): 65-77; B. R. Gaventa, "Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as

Paradigm," Novum Testamentum 28, no. 4 (1986): 309-26; J. S. Vos, "Paul's Argumentation in Galatians

1--2," Harvard Theological Review 87, no. 1 (1994): 8-13; Dockery, "Paul's Defense," 153-64; J. W.

Doeve, "Paulus der Pharisäer und Galater 1:13-15," Novum Testamentum 6, no. 2-3 (1963): 170-81.339 Longenecker, Galatians.



204

establishes him as both a good group member and as someone knowledgeable concerning

the issues confronting the community. By making himself more prototypical, Paul

becomes more effective as a leader.

Leadership and Jewish Prototypes in Philippians

This is not the only place where Paul practices this technique. It is even more

pronounced in Philippians 3. The passage in Philippians 3 is particularly telling.

Although doubts have been raised about the authenticity of the chapter’s placement

within Philippians, the immediate content of the passage shows that Paul is addressing

the same issues he faces in Galatia.340

Paul makes his concern known immediately. He is again facing the issue of

circumcision and whether it is necessary for followers of Christ. Paul is responding in

Phil 3 to two related problems, “1) the necessity of circumcision and observance of the

Torah as a condition for the admission of Gentiles; 2) the subsequent problem of

commensality in mixed Jewish/Gentile communities, and the resulting need for Jewish

Christians to gentilize.”341

In Phil 3:2-3 Paul writes:

340 The most compelling reason for seeing this as a later addition is the simple reading of 3:1 and 4:4 in

succession. “Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is not trouble to me,

and it is a safeguard for you. Rejoice in the Lord always, again I will say, rejoice!” For a defense of the

letter’s unity, see: Robert Murray, "Philippians," in The Oxford Bible Commentary, ed. John Barton and

John Muddiman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 1187; Jeffrey T. Reed, "Philippians 3:1 and the

Epistolary Hesitation Formulas: The Literary Integrity of Philippians, Again," Journal of Biblical Literature 115, no. 1 (1996): 63-90. For further discussion see: Philip Sellew, " Laodiceans and the

Philippians Fragments Hypothesis," Harvard Theological Review 87, no. 1 (1994): 17-28; Paul A.

Holloway, "The Apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans and the Partitioning of Philippians," HarvardTheological Review 91, no. 3 (1998): 321-25; Philip Sellew, " Laodiceans and Philippians Revisited: A

Response to Paul Holloway," Harvard Theological Review 91, no. 3 (1998): 327-29; David Alan Black,

"The Discourse Structure of Philippians: A Study in Textlinguistics," Novum Testamentum 37, no. 1

(1995): 16-49.341 Fabian E. Udoh, "Paul's Views on the Law: Questions About Origin (Gal 1:6-2:21; Phil 3:2-11),"

Novum Testamentum 42, no. 3 (2000): 225. See also: Mikael Tellbe, "The Sociological Factors Behind



205

2

Βλέπετε τοὺς κύνας, βλέπετε τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτας, βλέπετε τὴν κατατομήν. 3 ἡμεῖς γάρ ἐσμεν ἡ περιτομή, οἱ πνεύματι θεοῦ λατρεύοντες καὶ καυχώμενοι ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες

2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the

mutilation;

3

for we are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of Godand glory in Christ Jesus and do not trust in the flesh.

The parallels to Galatians are clear. Whatever the extenuating circumstances, and

whenever it was written, Paul is again dealing with circumcision and is again arguing that

it is of no value.

The evil workers of Phil 3:2 probably parallel the agitators of Galatians as Jewish

followers of Jesus who argued in favor of circumcision.

342

Paul also contrasts the Spirit

of God with the flesh, in much the same way he contrasts the spirit and the flesh in

Galatians 5. Even the law comes into play in Phil 3:9. Given all of these similarities, in

both content and social context, it is not surprising that Paul addresses the issue the same

way he addresses it in Galatians. That is by highlighting his Jewish credentials. In Phil

3:4-6 Paul writes:

4 Εἴ τις δοκεῖ ἄλλος πεποιθέναι ἐν σαρκί, ἐγὼ μᾶλλον· 5 περιτομῇ ὀκταήμερος, ἐκ γένους Ἰσραήλ, φυλῆς Βενιαμίν, Ἑβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων,κατὰ νόμον Φαρισαῖος,

6

κατὰ ζῆλος διώκων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν , κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν νόμῳ γενόμενος ἄμεμπτος.

4 If someone else is disposed to trust in the flesh, I far more:

5 circumcised

the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrewof Hebrews; with regard to the Law, a Pharisee;

6 with regard to zeal, a

persecutor of the church; with regard to the righteousness which is in the

Law, found blameless.

This passage is a powerful account of Paul’s Jewish heritage.

Philippians 3.1-11 and the Conflict at Philippi," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 55 (1994): 97-

121.342 For alternative perspectives, see: David E. Fredrickson, "Envious Enemies of the Cross of Christ

(Philippians 3:18)," Word & World 28, no. 1 (2008): 22-28; Herbert W. Bateman IV, "Were the Opponents

at Philippi Necessarily Jewish?," Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (1998): 39-61.



206

SIT helps explain why Paul chose to talk about his Jewish background in these

cases and why it was effective. In both situations the Jewish social identity was made

salient by Jewish followers of Jesus who argued for continued adherence to traditional

Jewish practices. The social identity theory of leadership states that increased group

salience increases the role that prototypicality plays in establishing effective leadership.

Therefore, in these situations, where the Jewish identity is salient, Paul’s prototypicality

becomes increasingly important. In other words, Paul’s Jewish identity becomes more

important as Judaism itself becomes important. This is why he chooses to talk about his

Jewish background. This increases his prototypicality and thus makes him more

influential as a leader in the community.

Paul may have written about his Jewish heritage in Galatians to combat claims by

his opponents that he was not truly Jewish or that he was no longer a faithful Jew. In fact,

such attacks were written in the second, third, and fourth centuries. The Ascension of

James, Kerygmata Petrou, Homilies, and Recognitions all criticize Paul for his preaching

and his departure from traditional Jewish doctrine.343 It is unclear if the agitators in

Galatia made similar arguments, and mirror readings of the text must always be used

cautiously. But given both Paul’s statements on his Jewish heritage and the discussion of

the flesh verses the spirit in chapter 5, it is reasonable to conclude that doubts existed, and

that the argument that Paul had forsaken Judaism had been leveled at some point during

Paul’s lifetime. Whether it was specifically argued by the agitators, or Paul was merely

responding preemptively is not clear.

In either case, this argument against Paul’s teachings further demonstrates the

power that group standards and prototypes have for how leaders are viewed. The

343 Longenecker, Galatians, 26-27.



207

argument that Paul has forsaken or corrupted his Jewish heritage makes Paul less

prototypical, if not an out-group member. This would directly undermine his ability to

lead effectively. Thus, SIT explains not only why Paul proclaims his Jewish heritage, but

why his opponents, whether at Galatia or elsewhere, undermine it. It is a battle over

Paul’s status within the group. It is a battle over Paul’s prototypicality, and it has a direct

impact upon Paul’s ability to be a leader in the early Jesus movement.

This is particularly true given that Paul dealt with many people indirectly.

Research in the social identity theory of leadership shows that leadership based upon

personal relationships, which are built upon the leader and his relationship with the

individual, is less affected by prototypicality. But Paul wrote letters to many

congregations and frequently addressed situations in which he was not present and not

personally acquainted with those involved. These situations are impersonal. Paul is

attempting to persuade people with whom he does not have a personal relationship. These

are precisely the circumstances under which issues of prototypicality are going to have a

direct impact upon one’s effectiveness as a leader.

Leadership and the Christ Prototype in Galatians

Of course, the Jewish prototypes are not the only ones at work in Galatia. As seen

previously, the Christ prototype plays a central role in Paul’s arguments in Galatians.

Christ, naturally, was one of the central prototypical figures for those who followed

Jesus. Galatians reflects this. Christ’s importance as a prototypical figure can be seen in

both Paul’s use of Christ as a designation for the group, seen in the previous chapter, and



208

in Paul’s ethical prescriptions, which follow Christ’s example. Both of these can be seen

in Gal 5:24.

24 οἱ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ [Ἰησοῦ] τὴν σάρκα ἐσταύρωσαν σὺν τοῖς παθήμασιν

καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις.

24 The ones of Christ Jesus crucified the flesh along with passions and

lusts.

οἱ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (the ones of Christ) is one of the phrases that Paul uses to identify the

group of true believers in Galatia. That Christ acted as a role model, a prototypical figure

whose behavior should be emulated, is seen in the use of σταυρόω (to crucify). The

Galatians are called to crucify their flesh. While the context makes it clear that this

language is figurative, it still reflects the fact that the Galatians were called to emulate

Christ in their lives. Indeed, many early followers of Jesus literally followed in his

example, losing their lives for their beliefs.

Given that Christ was such an important prototypical figure in the early church,

one would expect Paul to highlight his Christ-like qualities in much the same way that he

highlighted his Jewish heritage. This is exactly what he does. Paul often uses the same

language of crucifixion found in Gal 5:24 when describing himself. Take, for example,

Gal 2:19-20.

19

ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον, ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω. Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι·

2

ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός· ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ.

19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live for God. I

have been crucified with Christ.20

And I no longer live, but Christ lives inme, and that which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith, that of the son of

God who loved me and who gave himself for me.



209

As a prototypical figure, Christ represented the ideal group member. His behavior set the

standard for what it meant to be a good member of the community and a follower of

Jesus.

This remains true to this day. Sermons often include calls to be Christ like, and

the ubiquitous “What would Jesus do?” slogan reflects the power that Christ holds as a

prototypical figure in the Christian community. The Christ prototype was also powerful

in the early Jesus movement, and this can be seen here. Paul begins by saying that he has

been crucified with Christ. This mirrors the language seen above and forms a common

theme throughout Galatians. The crucifixion of Christ became the defining event of his

character. His followers were called to follow in his footsteps, to be crucified themselves,

figuratively and often literally. This is not only seen when Paul says that he was crucified

with Christ, but also when he goes on to declare ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός

(and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me). Paul is placing the focus on how his life

reflects Christ.

SIT explains why Paul would write about his Christ-like life and why this is a

persuasive technique. Paul writes about his connection to Christ because it makes him

more prototypical. This matches with research that suggests Paul establishes himself as

an example for others to follow.344

This makes Paul more socially attractive, and makes

him a more effective leader.

It is the worth noting that this is an etic explanation, which is an explanation from

a modern perspective. It explains Paul’s choice in light of modern social psychology, and

what it can tell us about normal patterns of human behavior. From an emic perspective,

which is Paul’s own perspective, Paul is making a point about the law and its relationship

344 Timothy Wiarda, "Plot and Character in Galatians 1-2," Tyndale Bulletin 55, no. 2 (2004): 231-52.



210

with Christ’s crucifixion. One of the strengths of an etic approach, like the one adopted

here, is that it allows one to draw connections between texts that are unrelated on an emic

level. For example, take the previous text and Gal 1:10 where Paul describes himself as a

Χριστοῦ δοῦλος (slave of Christ). While the two texts are not directly related on an emic

level, from an etic perspective one can see that the two texts pursue the same strategy of

increasing Paul’s prototypicality. This could even be expanded to include comparisons

between Paul and other authors, or even other religions. It is one of the advantages of an

etic approach.

How Paul ends his letter is significant. Paul ends his letter with a powerful

declaration of his character. Take Gal 6:14:

14

Ἐμοὶ δὲ μὴ γένοιτο καυχᾶσθαι εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, διʼ οὗ ἐμοὶ κόσμος ἐσταύρωται κἀγὼ κόσμῳ.

14 But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord

Jesus Christ, through whom the world has been crucified to me and I tothe world.

Here Paul makes a bold declaration, placing his pride in the cross, and declaring that he

has been crucified to the world. It is important to note how the language here speaks to

the unique place that Christ holds in Paul’s life. He would never boast, except in the

cross. Paul is setting aside normal points of pride and fully embracing the new standards

established by Christ.

Paul’s talk of being crucified to the world continues this theme. It portrays Paul’s

life as antithetical to the world. This should not be taken as referring to the physical

world, but rather as Paul “no longer having ‘worldly’ or ‘fleshly’ advantages dominate

one’s thinking or living.”345

All of this language highlights Paul’s prototypicality and




211

emphasizes his connection to Christ. The language even has an “us vs. them” quality to

it; Paul as the true follower of Christ verses the world. This makes sense, as it emphasizes

Paul’s position within the group, and his adherence to the group’s prescriptions. In other

words, it emphasizes Paul’s prototypicality.

This has the same effect as the previous passage, of making Paul a more effective

leader. From an emic perspective the two passages are only indirectly related, with 2:19-

20 being focused on the law and 6:14 leading into the new creation and super ordinate

identity espoused in 6:15. On the other hand, with SIT one can see how these passages

work together to form an overall picture of Paul as a devout follower of Christ. This is

finally driven home in the penultimate verse of Galatians, in 6:17.

17

Τοῦ λοιποῦ κόπους μοι μηδεὶς παρεχέτω· ἐγὼ γὰρ τὰ στίγματα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῷ σώματί μου βαστάζω.

17 From now on let no one give me trouble, for I bear the marks of Jesus in

my body.

This is a powerful statement from Paul. The word στίγμα (mark) originally referred to

religious tattoos or slave brandings utilized in the Hellenistic world. The text thus evokes

a slave metaphor.346

This has led some to suggest that early followers of Jesus marked themselves with

tattoos. It is more likely that here Paul is referring to the scars that he received while

being persecuted for his faith.347

From an emic perspective, it is a powerful statement.

There is no self-indulgent pity here in Paul’s statement. Rather, it is a

statement that highlights Paul’s relationship to Jesus and his apostleshipestablished by Jesus. Further more, the statement gives a warning

regarding any continuing judaizing threat within his Galatian churches.

For what takes place in those churches affects him personally as the

346 Jeremy W. Barrier, "Marks of Oppression: A Postcolonial Reading of Paul's Stigmata in Galatians

6:17," Biblical Interpretation 16, no. 4 (2008): 336-62.347 Longenecker, Galatians, 299-300.



212

Galatian Christians’ apostle and evangelist. So he warns that he should not

be troubled further since he is Christ’s “marked man,” with thosemarkings suggesting, positively, that he is under Christ’s ownership and

protection, as well as, negatively, that those who try to harass him will

come under Christ’s judgment and retribution.348

But SIT, an etic approach, takes this understanding farther. Paul’s statement is a

provocative image of physical suffering that touches the core of Christ’s story. Its power

extends beyond the theological threat of judgment. It connects Paul and his life to the

prototypical standards embodied in Christ. This makes Paul more socially attractive and a

more effective leader.

SIT also allows us to connect this passage back to the ones previously mentioned

(Gal 2:19-20, 6:14). They all work together to form a coherent picture of Paul, which

establishes him as a solid member of the community worthy of leading the congregation.

That Paul develops this self image throughout Galatians is remarkable. He must have had

an understanding of how people interacted with one another and reacted to him. The

social identity theory of leadership explains that such a self image was essential for Paul,

as it allowed him to be more influential and effective in leading people who did not know

him personally.

Leadership and the Christ Prototype in Philippians

As one would expect, this is not the only place where Paul uses such rhetoric.

Paul’s other letters also show him drawing a strong connection between himself and

Christ. In Phil 3, where Paul is facing issues similar to those in Galatians, he again adopts

this strategy. Paul’s declaration of his Jewish identity in Phil 3 was already noted above.




213

Additionally, in Phil 3 he combines this with declarations of his identification with

Christ, just as he does in Galatians. Take Phil 3:7-11:

7 [Ἀλλὰ] ἅτινα ἦν μοι κέρδη, ταῦτα ἥγημαι διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν ζημίαν. 8

ἀλλὰ μενοῦνγε καὶ ἡγοῦμαι πάντα ζημίαν εἶναι διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου μου, διʼ ὃν τὰ πάντα ἐζημιώθην, καὶ ἡγοῦμαι σκύβαλα , ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδήσω

9

καὶ εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ, μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου ἀλλὰ τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει,

1

τοῦ γνῶναι αὐτὸν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ [τὴν] κοινωνίαν [τῶν] παθημάτων αὐτοῦ,συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ,

11

εἴ πως καταντήσω εἰς τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν.

7 But whatever things were profit to me, those I have considered a loss on

account of Christ.8 Moreover, I consider all things to a loss on account of

the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus, my Lord, for whom I havesuffered the loss of all things, and consider them rubbish so that I may

gain Christ,9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my

own which is of the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the

righteousness of God based upon faith,10

to know Him and the power ofHis resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to

His death;11

so that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

In the passage Paul emphatically establishes his connection to Christ. Themes of

suffering, loss, death, and resurrection are prevalent throughout the passage. From an

emic perspective, that is Paul’s own perspective, the passage is making a theological

point concerning righteousness and the resurrection. Paul has righteousness gained in

faith and not through the law, so that he may know Christ and gain resurrection. Paul

“considered his sufferings to be defined by Christ’s sufferings.349

From an etic perspective, of SIT, the passage establishes and defends Paul’s

prototypicality. This makes him more socially attractive and establishes him as a more

effective leader with those people whom he does not know on a personal level. The

349 Andrew C. Perriman, "The Pattern of Christ's Sufferings: Colossians 1:24 and Philippians 3:10-11,"

Tyndale Bulletin 42, no. 1 (1991): 79.



214

passage immediately follows Paul’s statement of his Jewish identity, which ends in v. 6.

Here Paul casts aside those things (v. 7) and firmly roots his identity in Christ.

Beyond his death and resurrection, the figure of Christ is steeped in images of loss

and suffering. Whether it is the abandonment of his disciples, or his agony on the cross,

Christ’s story is one of loss, suffering, death, and resurrection. As Christ became the

prototype for the Jesus movement, his followers were called to emulate his sacrifice. This

is seen in the gospels where he reportedly calls his followers to take up their cross (Lk

9:23), not a figurative demand at a time when crucifixions still took place. By taking up

these themes here, Paul is tying himself to Christ and making himself more prototypical.

Paul reportedly gives up everything in his quest to know Christ. In v. 8 he

declares, διʼ ὃν τὰ πάντα ἐζημιώθην, καὶ ἡγοῦμαι σκύβαλα , ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδήσω (I

have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ).

This not only reflects the example found in Christ, who reportedly sacrificed everything

in his obedience to God, but also follows the demands reportedly made by Christ of his

followers. For example, in Matt 19:21 ἔφη αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· εἰ θέλεις τέλειος εἶναι, ὕπαγε

πώλησόν σου τὰ ὑπάρχοντα καὶ δὸς [τοῖς] πτωχοῖς, καὶ ἕξεις θησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρανοῖς, καὶ

δεῦρο ἀκολούθει μοι (Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your

possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come,

follow me”).

Whether or not the saying is historically accurate is beside the point, it reflects

the figure of Christ that existed in the early church. Christ became a role model for his

followers, and he called his followers to follow in his example. Paul emulates this

prototype, and here emphasizes all that he has given up in his service to Christ. Paul



215

brings this to a point in vs. 10-11. Paul speaks of having fellowship with his sufferings

and being conformed to his death, so that he will gain resurrection. The connection

that Paul feels with Christ’s death and resurrection is clear and powerful. This is not

simply a spiritual declaration. It has a powerful rhetorical effect as it makes Paul more

prototypical and thus makes him a more influential leader.

Passages such as those found in Gal or Phil 3 are often informally described as

defending Paul’s authority or apostleship. Authority, and the concept of apostleship are

complicated issues, and SIT does not deal with every aspect of these issues. But SIT does

explain one of the ways in which these issues played out within the communities.

When dealing with people on an impersonal level, the leader’s influence is partially

determined by their level of prototypicality. In other words, the better a group member

a person is, the more influential they are.

In the early Jesus movement this is complicated by the fact that there are

competing social identities and standards for group membership. This is further

complicated by the fact that by the first century a lengthy tradition of prophets and

revelation already existed. Beyond all of this, Paul is possibly responding to the claims

made by his opponents, (either about themselves or about Paul). SIT does not fully

explain the situation, but it is useful for highlighting some key features of the text.

It explains why Paul repeatedly emphasizes both his Jewish heritage as well as

his devotion to Christ. The saliency of the Jewish identity, increased by Paul’s

opponents both in Galatians and Phil 3, requires Paul to recount his Jewish heritage.

Doing so increases his prototypicality and thus makes him a more effective leader. This

leads directly into his standing as a follower of Christ as a proto-Christian identity is



216

also forming in the community and becoming salient. This also explains why these

passages are often connected to questions of circumcision and the law. These are

prototypes, they form group boundaries. They are particularly relevant when the

group’s saliency is high, the same conditions under which a leader’s prototypicality

becomes important.

Leadership and the Christ Prototype in 2 Corinthians

Phil 3 is the clearest parallel to the developments taking place in Galatians. The

issues at stake are similar (law, circumcision), and the response from Paul is similar in

each case. He emphasizes his Jewish heritage and his dedication to Christ while

emphasizing the importance of faith. Indeed, Phil 3 has the most complete and explicit

declaration of Paul’s Jewish heritage.

But one of the clearest examples of Paul’s Christ-like life is found in 2 Cor 11. As

with Phil 3, this chapter appears to be part of a section (ch. 10-13) added to 2

Corinthians.350 The fragmentary nature of the letter makes it difficult to determine the

exact situation that Paul was responding to. Additionally, the information that can be

gleaned from the fragment does not parallel Galatians as neatly as Phil 3. But there are

some important parallels. In both cases Paul is defending his place of authority within

the early church (2 Cor 10:8, 11:5; Gal 1:15-16) against others whom Paul sees as leading

the church astray (2 Cor 11:3-4; Gal 1:7). Additionally, he uses similar techniques for

defending his authority in both letters. For example, he points out the revelation he

350 Margaret MacDonald, "2 Corinthians," in The Oxford Bible Commentary, ed. John Barton and John

Muddiman, 2 Corinthians (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 1134; Laurence L. Welborn, "TheIdentification of 2 Corinthians 10-13 with The "Letter of Tears"," Novum Testamentum 37, no. 2 (1995):

138-53.



217

received from God (2 Cor 12:1-10, Gal 1:11-12,15-16), and defends his standing in

Judaism and as a follower of Jesus.

In both situations, when his position of leadership is threatened, Paul

emphasizes his prototypicality. In 2 Cor 11, unlike Phil 3, his statement of Jewish

identity is short.

22

Ἑβραῖοί εἰσιν; κἀγώ. Ἰσραηλῖταί εἰσιν; κἀγώ. σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ εἰσιν;κἀγώ.

22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they

descendants of Abraham? So am I.

Given the uncertainty surrounding the situation in Corinth, it is difficult to know why he

spends so little time emphasizing his Jewish heritage, even less than in Gal 1:13-14. But

it is worth noting that here Paul is explicitly addressing the issue of group membership.

He asks rhetorically, are they Hebrews, Israelites, descendants of Abraham? In other

words, do they belong to this group? After each question, Paul declares his membership.

This short exchange leads into an extensive detailing of Paul’s trials as a follower of

Jesus. The theological and literary use of a weakness motif has been documented.351

SIT

shows how this functions as a measure of prototypicality.

2 Cor 11:23-28 is one of the most dramatic accounts of the trials and challenges

that Paul faced.

351 H Stephen Shoemaker, "2 Corinthians 11:1-21," Review and Expositor 86, no. 3 (1989): 407-14; J. A.

Glancy, "Boasting of Beatings (2 Corinthians 11:23-25)," Journal of Biblical Literature 123, no. 1 (2004):

99-135; David E. Garland, "Paul's Apostolic Authority : The Power of Christ Sustaining Weakness (2Corinthians 10-13)," Review and Expositor 86, no. 3 (1989): 371-89; Calvin J. Roetzel, "The Language of

War (2 Cor. 10:1-6) and the Language of Weakness (2 Cor. 11:21b-13:10)," Biblical Interpretation 17, no.1-2 (2009): 77-99; Richard F. Ward, "Pauline Voice and Presence as Strategic Communication," Semeia

65 (1994): 95-107; J. L. Sumney, "Paul's 'Weakness' : An Integral Part of His Conception of Apostleship,"

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 52 (1993): 71-91; Paul A. Mickey, "Strength in Weakness:

From Text to Sermon on 2 Corinthians 12:7-9," Interpretation 22, no. 3 (1968): 288-300; A. R. Brown,

"The Gospel Takes Place: Paul's Theology of Power-in-Weakness in 2 Corinthians," Interpretation 52, no.

3 (1998): 271-85; Jeremy W. Barrier, "Visions of Weakness: Apocalyptic Genre and the Identification ofPaul's Opponents in 2 Corinthians 12:1-6," Restoration Quarterly 47, no. 1 (2005): 33-42.



218

23

διάκονοι Χριστοῦ εἰσιν; παραφρονῶν λαλῶ, ὑπὲρ ἐγώ· ἐν κόποις περισσοτέρως, ἐν φυλακαῖς περισσοτέρως, ἐν πληγαῖς ὑπερβαλλόντως,ἐν θανάτοις πολλάκις.

24

Ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων πεντάκις τεσσεράκοντα παρὰ μίαν ἔλαβον,

25

τρὶς ἐρραβδίσθην, ἅπαξ ἐλιθάσθην, τρὶς ἐναυάγησα,

νυχθήμερον ἐν τῷ βυθῷ πεποίηκα·26

ὁδοιπορίαις πολλάκις, κινδύνοις ποταμῶν, κινδύνοις λῃστῶν, κινδύνοις ἐκ γένους, κινδύνοις ἐξ ἐθνῶν,κινδύνοις ἐν πόλει, κινδύνοις ἐν ἐρημίᾳ, κινδύνοις ἐν θαλάσσῃ,κινδύνοις ἐν ψευδαδέλφοις,

27

κόπῳ καὶ μόχθῳ, ἐν ἀγρυπνίαις πολλάκις,ἐν λιμῷ καὶ δίψει, ἐν νηστείαις πολλάκις, ἐν ψύχει καὶ γυμνότητι· 28 χωρὶς τῶν παρεκτὸς ἡ ἐπίστασίς μοι ἡ καθʼ ἡμέραν, ἡ μέριμνα πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν.

23 Are they servants of Christ? I speak as if insane, I more so; in far more

labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in

danger of death.24

Five times from the Jews I received forty minus one

[lashes].

25

Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, threetimes I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the open ocean.26

[I have been on] frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from

robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers

in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers amongfalse brethren;

27 labor and hardship, often sleepless, in hunger and thirst,

often without food, in cold and exposure.28

Apart from such external

things, there is the daily pressure on me, the concern for all the churches.

This passage also begins with a question of identity, mirroring the structure of the

previous verse. Are they servants of Christ, are they group members?

352

Paul declares

that he is more so, and what follows is an argument based upon prototypicality that

establishes his place within the community. Groups and their boundaries are defined by

the group’s prototypes. Thus, this argument here over membership revolves around living

by and up to the group’s prototypes.

More than that, it is also a question of degree. Paul is arguing that he is a better

servant of Christ, and he does this by arguing that he has suffered more for Christ than his

opponents have. Paul’s trials and sufferings follow the example established by Christ.

Paul humbles himself for the work of God and endures great hardship, suffering as Christ

352 For more discussion, see: John N. Collins, "Georgi's "Envoys" In 2 Cor 11:23," Journal of Biblical

Literature 93, no. 1 (1974): 88-96.



219

did. From an etic perspective, of SIT, this amounts to being more prototypical than his

opponents. This prototypicality makes Paul a more effective leader by making him more

socially attractive.

Summary

Returning to Galatians, Paul defends his authority in the early church by

highlighting his prototypicality, thus making himself more socially attractive. This made

him a more effective leader with people whom he did not have a personal relationship.

Paul’s declaration of his Jewish identity, found in 1:13-14, was critical given the situation

in Galatia. The nature of the debate in Galatia, over circumcision and the law, made the

Jewish social identity salient. The saliency of this identity increases the importance for

Paul, a leader in the community, to demonstrate his prototypicality. This is why Paul

discusses his Jewish heritage and this is why it was an influential tactic in the early

church.

Paul also emphasizes his Christ-like life, describing himself as a slave to Christ

(1:10), who was crucified with Christ (2:19-20) to the world (6:14). Finally he reminds

the recipients that he bears the marks of Jesus (6:17). This portrayal has the same result,

making Paul more prototypical and a more effective leader. Ultimately Paul’s portrayal

of himself in Galatians is intimately tied to the over arching arguments of the letter. On

the other hand, SIT brings out one aspect of his presentation, highlighting how it makes

Paul more prototypical and thus a more persuasive leader.

A similarly rhetorical strategy is seen in both Philippians and 2 Corinthians. The

situation of Phil 3 closely resembles that of Galatians, and the situation of 2 Cor 10-13



220

resembles it in that Paul is defending his authority. In each case Paul adopts a rhetorical

strategy similar to the one found in Galatians, defending his prototypicality and standing

as a good group member. Given the fragmentary nature of the letters, one can only

speculate as to why Paul chose a more extensive Jewish statement for Phil 3, and a more

extensive Christ-like statement for 2 Cor 11. But, SIT explains how these texts were

effective pieces of rhetoric and why they emerged when Paul faced challenges similar to

those in Galatians.



221

Conclusion

This work used SIT in order to understand Galatians. After reviewing SIT, the

work covered the origins of social-scientific criticism in the NT. It examined some of the

methodological assumptions of social-scientific criticism, some of its advantages, and

some of its assumptions. It also looked at some of the foundational works in this area,

such as the work of Gerd Theissen, Bruce Malina, and Wayne Meeks. Finally, the section

ended with a survey of work that has already applied SIT to the NT, including the work

of Philip Esler, who has done significant work on Galatians.

After this, SIT was brought to bear upon the political unrest that surrounded

Jerusalem for hundreds of years. Doing so served two purposes. First, by using SIT to

look at the causes of the various rebellions that occurred, the work identified key aspects

of the Jewish identity, which serve as boundary markers, separating them from other

groups. Second, the uncertainty-identity theory predicted that this social unrest, and the

uncertainty that it created, would have motivated people to identify more strongly with

their social identities. In other words, Jews with strong religious ties to Jerusalem would

have responded to this uncertainty by more strongly identifying with their Jewish faith.

This is likely what happened with Paul’s opponents. Although they were followers of

Jesus, they had religious ties with Jerusalem and were probably Jewish. Therefore, the

uncertainty created by the civil unrest in Jerusalem probably motivated them to more

adamantly defend the traditional Jewish practices. As a result, when they were confronted

with the immediate problem of mixed table fellowship, they responded by vigorously

defending their Jewish practice.



222

Next, there was a brief look at the history of rhetorical analysis carried out on the

letter. This work noted some of the pitfalls of research that has been done, and the

inadequacy of analyzing the letter in light of ancient rhetoric. It then examined some of

the similarities and differences between a rhetorical approach and the one taken here.

After this, the analysis of Galatians began in detail by looking at the prototypical

behaviors found in Galatians and how Paul modifies them. Paul addresses the law, a set

of prototypical behaviors, in Galatians in response to his opponents and the behavior of

the people in Galatia. SIT showed that Paul’s chosen response, to emphasize faith, the

spirit, and the promise, is effective because it builds upon preexisting group prototypes.

Faith, in this case, is not a Christian concept, it is a Jewish concept. The

faithfulness of the Jewish people to God is one of their defining characteristics, and is

often connected directly to observing the law. Paul instead separates these two concepts,

and emphasizes one (faith) over the other (the law). By separating and reinterpreting

preexisting group prototypes, Paul is able to shift the group’s boundaries. The rhetoric’s

persuasive power rests less on its logical construction than on its ability to make

particular prototypes salient.

Something similar was seen in the next chapter, which looked at Paul’s

manipulation of prototypical figures in Galatians. Like prototypical behaviors,

prototypical figures outline what it means to be a good group member. The most

prominent prototypical figures in Galatians are Abraham and Christ. SIT showed that

Paul’s arguments surrounding Abraham were persuasive because Paul was reshaping a

prototypical figure. Abraham defined the group. Thus by reshaping his audiences’

understanding of Abraham, he was able to reshape the group’s boundaries.



223

The following chapter shifted focus slightly and looked at the superordinate

identity that Paul is establishing in Galatians. SIT showed that superordinate identities are

more effective when subordinate identities are protected. Thus Paul’s attempts to

establish a superordinate identity are made more persuasive by his reinterpretation of the

law and Abraham. By reinterpreting the traditional Jewish prototypes, he is able to give

the Jewish identity (a subordinate identity) a protected and valued place within the new

superordinate identity. This made it easier for people to adopt the new identity and is one

of the reasons for Paul’s success.

Finally, the last chapter focused on Paul’s role as a leader in the early church. The

social identity theory of leadership states that leaders who are more prototypical will be

more effective when the group’s identity is salient, and when the leader is dealing with

people he or she does not know on a personal level. Therefore, Paul’s declarations of his

Jewish heritage and of his sufferings as a follower of Christ make him a more effective

leader. They make him more prototypical, more socially attractive, and thus more

effective.

Hopefully this work is a good example of the valuable insights that can be gained

from applying modern theory to the ancient world. This is in no way intended to

undermine the value and power of understanding the ancient world in its own terms. But I

think that modern scientific and social scientific discoveries are radically changing how

we understand ourselves, and our past. Soon these discoveries will be impossible to

ignore, but by combining them with an appropriate emic understanding, scholars will be

able to explain and understand our past better than every before.



224

Bibliography

Abrams, Dominic, and Michael A. Hogg. "Comments on the Motivational Status of Self-

Esteem in Social Identity and Intergroup Discrimination." European Journal of

Social Psychology 18, (1988): 317-34.

———. "Social Identification, Self-Categorization and Social Influence." European Review of Social Psychology 1, (1990): 195-228.

Aland, B., K. Aland, M. Black, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren. The

Greek New Testament . 4th ed. Stuttgart: United Bible Society, 1993.Alexander, Loveday. "Acts." In The Oxford Bible Commentary, edited by John Barton

and John Muddiman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Alsup, John E. "Imagining the New: Feminism, Galatians 3:28 and the CurrentInterpretive Discussion." Austin Seminary Bulletin 105, no. 2 (1990): 91-108.

Andrews, Herbert T. "The Letter of Aristeas." In Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament ,

edited by R. H. Charles. Bellingham: Logos Research Systems, 2004.Armitage, David. "An Exploration of Conditional Clause Exegesis with Reference to

Galatians 1,8-9." Biblica 88, no. 3 (2007): 365-92.Ashcraft, Morris. "Paul Defends His Apostleship: Galatians 1 and 2." Review and

Expositor 69, no. 4 (1972): 459-69.Askwith, E. H. The Epistle to the Galatians. London: Macmillan and Co., 1902.

Bacon, Benjamin W. The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. New York: The Macmillan

Company, 1909.Bandstra, Andrew J. "The Law and Angels: Antiquities 15.136 and Galatians 3:19."

Calvin Theological Journal 24, no. 2 (1989): 223-40.

Barclay, J. M. G. "Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31, (1987): 73-93.

Barré, Michael L. "Qumran and The "Weakness" Of Paul." Catholic Biblical Quarterly42, no. 2 (1980): 216-27.

Barrick, William D. "The New Perspective And "Works of the Law" (Gal 2:16 and Rom

3:20)." Master's Seminary Journal 16, no. 2 (2005): 277-92.Barrier, Jeremy W. "Marks of Oppression: A Postcolonial Reading of Paul's Stigmata in

Galatians 6:17." Biblical Interpretation 16, no. 4 (2008): 336-62.

———. "Visions of Weakness: Apocalyptic Genre and the Identification of Paul's

Opponents in 2 Corinthians 12:1-6." Restoration Quarterly 47, no. 1 (2005): 33-42.

Bateman IV, Herbert W. "Were the Opponents at Philippi Necessarily Jewish?"

Bibliotheca Sacra 155, (1998): 39-61.Beek, M. A. Concise History of Israel . Translated by Arnold J. Pomerans. New York:

Harper & Row, 1963.

Bègue, Laurent. "Social Judgment of Abortion: A Black-Sheep Effect in a CatholicSheepfold." The Journal of Social Psychology 141, no. 5 (2001): 640-49.

Belleville, Linda L. ""Under Law": Structural Analysis and the Pauline Concept of Law

in Galatians 3:21-4:11." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26, (1986):53-78.

Ben-Ner, Avner, Brian P. McCall, Massoud Stephane, and Hua Wang. "Identity and in-

Group/out-Group Differentiation in Work and Giving Behaviors: Experimental



225

Evidence." Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 72, no. 1 (2009): 153-

70.Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians. Edited by Helmut Koester, Harold W. Attridge, Adela

Yarbro Collins, Eldon Jay Epp, Hans-Josef Klauck and James M. Robinson,

Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

Bilewicz, Michal, and Adrian Wójcik. "Does Identification Predict CommunityInvolvement? Exploring Consequences of Social Identitfication Amoung the

Jewish Minority in Poland." Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology

20, (2010): 72-79.Billig, Michael, and Henri Tajfel. "Social Categorization and Similarity in Intergroup

Behaviour." European Journal of Social Psychology 3, no. 1 (1973): 27-52.

Bird, M. F. "Justification as Forensic Declaration and Covenant Membership: A ViaMedia between Reformed and Revisionist Readings of Paul." Tyndale Bulletin 57,

no. 1 (2006): 109-30.

Black, David Alan. "The Discourse Structure of Philippians: A Study in Textlinguistics." Novum Testamentum 37, no. 1 (1995): 16-49.

Bligh, John. Galatians: A Discussion of Paul's Epistle. London: St Paul Publications,1969.

Blunt, A. W. F. The Episle of Paul to the Galatians. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925.Boer, Martinus C de. "The Meaning of the Phrase Ta Stoicheia Tou Kosmou in

Galatians." New Testament Studies 53, no. 2 (2007): 204-24.

———. "Paul's Use and Interpretation of a Justification Tradition in Galatians 2.15-21." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28, no. 2 (2005): 189-216.

Bonneau, Normand. "The Logic of Paul's Argument on the Curse of the Law in Galatians

3:10-14." Novum Testamentum 39, no. 1 (1997): 60-80.Borchert, G. L. "A Key to Pauline Thinking--Galatians 3:23-29: Faith and the New

Humanity." Review and Expositor 91, no. 2 (1994): 145-51.Bosveld, Willem, and Willem Koomen. "Estimating Group Size: Effects of Category

Membership, Differential Construal and Selective Exposure." European Journal

of Social Psychology 26, no. 4 (1996): 523-35.Boucher, Madeleine. "Some Unexplored Parallels to 1 Cor 11:11-12 and Gal 3:28: The

NT on the Role of Women." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31, no. 1 (1969): 50-58.

Braswell, Joseph P. ""The Blessing of Abraham" Versus "The Curse of the Law":

Another Look at Gal 3:10-13." Westminster Theological Journal 53, no. 1 (1991):73-91.

Brega, Angela G., and Lerita M. Coleman. "Effects of Religiosity and Racial

Socialization on Subjective Stigmatization in African-American Adolescence." Journal of Adolescence 22, no. 2 (1999): 223-42.

Brewer, Marilynn B. "The Many Faces of Social Identity: Implications for Political

Psychology." Political Psychology 22, no. 1 (2001): 115-25.Brewer, Marilynn B., and Wendi Gardner. "Who Is This 'We'? Levels of Collective

Identity and Self Representations." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

71, no. 1 (1996): 83-93.Brondos, David A. "The Cross and the Curse: Galatians 3.13 and Paul's Doctrine of

Redemption." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 81, (2001): 3-32.



226

Brooks, E. W. Joseph and Asenath, Translation of Early Documents Series II:

Hellenistic-Jewish Texts. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1918.Brown, A. R. "The Gospel Takes Place: Paul's Theology of Power-in-Weakness in 2

Corinthians." Interpretation 52, no. 3 (1998): 271-85.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1982.

Buell, D. K. "The Politics of Interpretation: The Rhetoric of Race and Ethnicity in Paul." Journal of Biblical Literature 123, no. 2 (2004): 235-51.

Bultmann, Rudolf Karl. Jesus Christ and Mythology. New York: Scribner, 1958.

———. The New Testament and Mythology and Other Basic Writings. Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1984.

Burris, Christopher, and Lynne M. Jackson. "Social Identity and the True Believer:

Responses to Threatened Self-Stereotypes among the Intrinsically Religious." British Journal of Social Psychology 39, no. 2 (2000): 257-78.

Callan, Terrance. "The Style of Galatians." Biblica 88, no. 4 (2007): 496-516.

Cameron, James E. "A Three-Factor Model of Social Identity." Self and Identity 3, no. 3(2004): 239-62.

Campbell, Donald T. "Common Fate, Similarity, and Other Indices of the Status ofAggregates of Persons as Social Entities." Behavioral Science 3, (1958): 14-25.

Campbell, William S. "Christianity and Judaism: Continuity and Discontinuity." International Bulletin of Missionary Research 8, no. 2 (1984): 54-58.

Case, Shirley Jackson. The Social Origins of Christianity. Chicago1923.

———. The Social Triumph of the Ancient Church. New York1933.Charles, R. H. "The Book of Jubilees." In Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament , edited

by R. H. Charles. Bellingham: Logos Research Systems, 2004.

Chibici-Revneanu, Nicole. "Leben Im Gesetz: die Paulinische Interpretation von Lev18:5 (Gal 3:12; Röm 10:5)." Novum Testamentum 50, no. 2 (2008): 105-19.

Choi, Hung-sik. "Pistis in Galatians 5:5-6: Neglected Evidence for the Faithfulness ofChrist." Journal of Biblical Literature 124, no. 3 (2005): 467-90.

Cicero, Lavinia, Antonio Pierro, and Daan van Knippenberg. "Leadership and

Uncertainty: How Role Ambiguity Affects the Relationship between LeaderGroup Prototypicality and Leadership Effectiveness." British Journal of

Management 21, (2010): 411-21.

Collins, C John. "Galatians 3:16: What Kind of Exegete Was Paul?" Tyndale Bulletin 54,

no. 1 (2003): 75-86.Collins, John N. "Georgi's "Envoys" In 2 Cor 11:23." Journal of Biblical Literature 93,

no. 1 (1974): 88-96.

Corley, Bruce C. "Reasoning "By Faith": Whys and Wherefores of the Law in Galatians."Southwestern Journal of Theology 37, no. 1 (1994): 17-22.

Cosgrove, C. H. "Justification in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Reflection." Journal

of Biblical Literature 106, no. 4 (1987): 653-70. ———. "The Law Has Given Sarah No Children (Gal. 4:21-30)." Novum Testamentum

29, no. 3 (1987): 219-35.

———. "The Mosaic Law Preaches Faith: A Study in Galatians 3." Westminster

Theological Journal 41, no. 1 (1978): 146-64.

Cranfield, C. E. B. "'the Works of the Law' in the Epistle to the Romans." Journal for the

Study of the New Testament 43, (1991): 89-101.



227

Cranford, M. "The Possibility of Perfect Obedience: Paul and an Implied Premise in

Galatians 3:10 and 5:3." Novum Testamentum 36, no. 3 (1994): 242-58.Das, A. A. "Oneness in Christ: The Nexus Indivulsus between Justification and

Sanctification in Paul's Letter to the Galatians." Concordia Journal 21, no. 2

(1995): 173-86.

Davis, John J. "Some Reflections on Galatians 3:28, Sexual Roles, and BiblicalHermeneutics." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19, no. 3 (1976):

201-08.

De Cremer, D., and M. Van Vugt. "Social Identification Effects in Social Dilemmas: ATransformation of Motives." European Journal of Social Psychology 29, (1999):

871-93.

Deaux, Kay, Anne Reid, Kim Mizrahi, and Kathleen A. Ethier. "Parameters of SocialIdentity." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68, no. 2 (1995): 280-91.

Decker, William B. "The Early Dating of Galatians." Restoration Quarterly 2, no. 3

(1958): 132-38.Deissmann, Gustav Adolf. Licht vom Osten. Tübingen: Mohr, 1923.

———. Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World . London: Hodder & Stoughton,

1927. ———. Paulus: Eine Kultur- und Religions- Geschichtliche Skizze. Tübingen: Mohr,

1911.

Dio's Roman History: Books LXI - LXX . Translated by Earnest Cary, LCL. Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1960.

Dockery, D. S. "Introduction to the Epistle and Paul's Defense of His Apostleship

(Galatians 1:1-2:14)." Review and Expositor 91, no. 2 (1994): 153-64.Doeve, J. W. "Paulus der Pharisäer und Galater 1:13-15." Novum Testamentum 6, no. 2-3

(1963): 170-81.Dovidio, J. F., and S. L. Gaertner. "Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism: Historical

Trends and Contemporary Approaches." In Prejudice, Discrimination, and

Racism, edited by J. F. Dovidio and S. L. Gaertner, 1-34. Orlando: AcademicPress, 1986.

Dunn, James D. G., ed. Paul and the Mosaic Law. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

Eastman, Susan Grove. "'Cast out the Slave Woman and Her Son': The Dynamics of

Exclusion and Inclusion in Galatians 4.30." Journal for the Study of the NewTestament 38, no. 3 (2006): 309-36.

———. "The Evil Eye and the Curse of the Law: Galatians 3.1 Revisited." Journal for

the Study of the New Testament 83, (2001): 69-87.Eggins, Rachael A., S. Alexander Haslam, and Katherine J. Reynolds. "Social Identity

and Negotiation: Subgroup Representation and Superordinate Consensus."

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28, (2002): 887-99.Elliott, John Hall. What Is Social-Scientific Criticism?, Guides to Biblical Scholarship.

New Testament Series. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Erdman, Charles R. The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. Philadelphia: The WestminsterPress, 1966.

Esler, Philip Francis. Galatians, New Testament Readings. London ; New York:

Routledge, 1998.



228

———. "Jesus and the Reduction of Intergroup Conflict: The Parable of the Good

Samaritan in the Light of Social Identity Theory." Biblical Interpretation 8, no. 4(2000): 325-57.

———. "Paul's Contestation of Israel's (Ethnic) Memory of Abraham in Galatians 3."

Biblical Theology Bulletin 36, no. 1 (2006): 23-34.

———. "Social Identity, the Virtues, and the Good Life: A New Approach to Romans12:1-15:13." Biblical Theology Bulletin 33, no. 2 (2003): 51-63.

Eusebius: Books I - V . Translated by Kirsopp Lake, LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press, 1964.Fee, Gordon D. Galatians. Dorset: Deo Publishing, 2007.

Findlay, G. G. The Epistle to the Galatians. New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1888.

Fowl, Stephen E. "Who Can Read Abraham's Story? Allegory and Interpretive Power inGalatians." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 55, (1994): 77-95.

Fredrickson, David E. "Envious Enemies of the Cross of Christ (Philippians 3:18)." Word

& World 28, no. 1 (2008): 22-28.Fuller, Daniel P. "Paul and the Works of the Law." Westminster Theological Journal 38,

no. 1 (1975): 28-42.Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Michigan, 1988.

Gabris, Karol. "Zur Kraft der Verheissungen : zum Gal 3:15-22." Communio Viatorum11, no. 4 (1968): 251-64.

Garland, D. E. "Paul's Defense of the Truth of the Gospel Regarding Gentiles (Galatians

2:15-3:22)." Review and Expositor 91, no. 2 (1994): 165-81.Garland, David E. "Paul's Apostolic Authority : The Power of Christ Sustaining

Weakness (2 Corinthians 10-13)." Review and Expositor 86, no. 3 (1989): 371-89.

Garlington, Don. ""Even We Have Believed": Galatians 2:15-16 Revisited." CriswellTheological Review 7, no. 1 (2009): 3-28.

———. "Paul's "Partisan Ἐκ " And the Question of Justification in Galatians." Journal of

Biblical Literature 127, no. 3 (2008): 567-89.Gaventa, B. R. "Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm." Novum Testamentum

28, no. 4 (1986): 309-26.

———. "Is Galatians Just a 'Guy Thing'? A Theological Reflection." Interpretation 53,no. 3 (2000): 267-78.

Glancy, J. A. "Boasting of Beatings (2 Corinthians 11:23-25)." Journal of Biblical

Literature 123, no. 1 (2004): 99-135.Glick, P., and S. T. Fiske. "The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile

and Benevolent Sexism." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70,

(1996): 491-512.

Goddard, A. J., and S. A. Cummins. "Ill or Ill-Treated? Conflict and Persecution as theContext of Paul's Original Ministry in Galatia (Galatians 4:12-20)." Journal for

the Study of the New Testament 52, (1993): 93-126.

Goethals, George R. "A Century of Social Psychology: Individuals, Ideas, andInvestigations." In The Sage Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by Michael

Hogg and Joel Cooper, 3-23. London: Sage Publications, 2007.

Gombis, Timothy G. "The 'Transgressor' and the 'Curse of the Law': The Logic of Paul'sArgument in Galatians 2-3." New Testament Studies 53, no. 1 (2007): 81-93.



229

González, Roberto, Jorge Manzi, José L. Saiz, Brewer Marilynn, Pablo de Tezanos-Pinto,

David Torres, Maria Teresa Aravena, and Nerea Aldunate. "Interparty Attitudesin Chile: Coalitions as Superordinate Social Identities." Political Psychology 29,

no. 1 (2008): 93-118.

Goodrich, John K. "Guardians, Not Taskmasters: The Cultural Resonances of Paul's

Metaphor in Galatians 4.1-2." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32, no.3 (2010): 251-84.

Gordon, T. D. "The Problem at Galatia." Interpretation 41, no. 1 (1987): 32-43.

Grant, Michael. The History of Ancient Israel . London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1984.Grant, R. M. "Neither Male nor Female." Biblical Research 37, (1992): 5-14.

Greenfield, Emily A., and Nadine F. Marks. "Religious Social Identity as an Explanatory

Factor for Associations between More Frequent Formal Religious Participationand Psychological Well-Being." International Journal for the Psychology of

Religion 17, no. 3 (2007): 245-59.

Grieve, Paul G., and Michael A. Hogg. "Subjective Uncertainty and IntergroupDiscrimination in the Minimal Group Situation." Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin 25, (1999): 926-40.Grindheim, Sigurd. "Apostate Turned Prophet: Paul's Prophetic Self-Understanding and

Prophetic Hermeneutic with Special Reference to Galatians 3.10-12." NewTestament Studies 53, no. 4 (2007): 545-65.

Hahn, Scott. "Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah: Diathēk ē in Galatians 3:15-18." Catholic

Biblical Quarterly 67, no. 1 (2005): 79-100.Hakola, Raimo. "The Burden of Ambiguity: Nicodemus and the Social Identity of the

Johannine Christians." New Testament Studies 55, no. 4 (2009): 438-55.

Hamerton-Kelly, Robert G. "Sacred Violence And "Works of Law": "Is Christ then anAgent of Sin?" (Galatians 2:17)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52, no. 1 (1990):

55-75.Hamilton, David L., and Steven J. Sherman. "Perceiving Persons and Groups."

Psychological Review 103, no. 2 (1996): 336-55.

Hanson, Anthony T. "The Origin of Paul's Use of Paidagogos for the Law." Journal forthe Study of the New Testament 34, (1988): 71-76.

Haraguchi, Takaaki. "Words of Blessing and Curse: A Rhetorical Study of Galatians."

Asia Journal of Theology 18, no. 1 (2004): 33-50.

Harrill, J Albert. "Coming of Age and Putting on Christ: The Toga Virilis Ceremony, ItsParaenesis, and Paul's Interpretation of Baptism in Galatians." Novum

Testamentum 44, no. 3 (2002): 252-77.

Hays, Richard B. "Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49, no. 2 (1987): 268-90.

———. "Three Dramatic Roles: The Law in Romans 3-4." In Paul and the Mosaic Law,

edited by James D. G. Dunn, 151-64. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2001.Heckl, Raik. "Ein Bezugstext Für Gal 3:21b." Novum Testamentum 45, no. 3 (2003): 260-

64.

Heidebrecht, Doug. "Distinction and Function in the Church: Reading Galatians 3:28 inContext." Direction 34, no. 2 (2005): 181-93.

Herodotus: Books I and II . Translated by A. D. Godley, LCL. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press, 1963.



230

Hester, James D. "The Rhetorical Structure of Galatians 1:11-2:14." Journal of Biblical

Literature 103, no. 2 (1984): 223-33.Hodge, Caroline E. Johnson. "Apostle to the Gentiles: Constructions of Paul's Identity."

Biblical Interpretation 13, no. 3 (2005): 270-88.

Hogg, Michael A. "Influence and Leadership." In The Handbook of Social Psychology,

edited by S. T. Fiske, Daniel Todd Gilbert and Gardner Lindzey, 1166-207. NewYork: Wiley, 2010.

———. "Social Identity Theory." In Contemporary Social Psychological Theories,

edited by Peter J. Burke, 111-36. Stanford: Stanford Social Sciences, 2006. ———. "A Social Identity Theory of Leadership." Personality and Social Psychology

Review 5, (2001): 184-200.

———. "Uncertainty-Identity Theory." In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,edited by Mark P. Zanna, 69-126. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press, 2007.

———. "Uncertainty, Social Identity, and Ideology." In Advances in Group Processes,

edited by S. R. Thye and E. J. Lawler, 203-29. New York: Elsevier, 2005.Hogg, Michael A., and Dominic Abrams. Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of

Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. London: Routledge, 1988.Hogg, Michael A., Janice R. Adelman, and Robert D. Blagg. "Religion in the Face of

Uncertainty: An Uncertainty-Identity Theory Account of Religiousness." Personality and Social Psychology Review 14, (2010): 72-83.

Hogg, Michael A., Louise Cooper-Shaw, and David W. Holzworth. "Group

Prototypicality and Depersonalized Attraction in Small Interactive Groups." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 19, (1993): 452-65.

Hogg, Michael A., Kelly S. Fielding, Daniel Johnson, Barbara Masser, Emily Russell,

and Alicia Svensson. "Demographic Category Membership and Leadership inSmall Groups: A Social Identity Analysis." The Leadership Quarterly 17, (2006):

335-50.Hogg, Michael A., and S. C. Hains. "Friendship and Group Identification: A New Look

at the Role of Cohesiveness in Groupthink." European Journal of Social

Psychology 28, (1998): 323-41.Hogg, Michael A., Elizabeth A. Hardie, and Katherine J. Reynolds. "Prototypical

Similarity, Self-Categorization, and Depersonalized Attraction: A Perspective on

Group Cohesiveness." European Journal of Social Psychology 25, (1995): 159-

77.Hogg, Michael A., Robin Martin, Olga Epitropaki, Aditi Mankad, Alicia Svensson, and

Karen Weeden. "Effective Leadership in Salient Groups: Revisiting Leader-

Member Exchange Theory from the Perspective of the Social Identity Theory ofLeadership." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31, (2005): 991-1004.

Hogg, Michael A., David K. Sherman, Joel Dierselhuis, Angela T. Maitner, and Graham

Moffitt. "Uncertainty, Entitativity, and Group Identification." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43, (2007): 135-42.

Hogg, Michael A., and Deborah J. Terry. Social Identity Processes in Organizational

Contexts. Philadelphia: Psychology Press, 2001.Holloway, Paul A. "The Apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans and the Partitioning of

Philippians." Harvard Theological Review 91, no. 3 (1998): 321-25.



231

Holtz, Traugott. "Die Bedeutung des Apostelkonzils Für Paulus." Novum Testamentum

16, no. 2 (1974): 110-48.Hong, In-Gyu. "Does Paul Misrepresent the Jewish Law? Law and Covenant in Gal 3:1-

14." Novum Testamentum 36, no. 2 (1994): 164-82.

Hopko, T. "Galatians 3:28: An Orthodox Interpretation." St. Vladimir's Theological

Quarterly 35, no. 2-3 (1991): 169-86.Hornsey, Matthew J., and Michael A. Hogg. "The Effects of Status on Subgroup

Relations." British Journal of Social Psychology 41, (2002): 203-18.

———. "Intergroup Similarity and Subgroup Relations: Some Implications forAssimilation." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26, (2000): 948-58.

———. "Subgroup Relations: A Comparison of Mutual Intergroup Differentiation and

Common Ingroup Identity Models of Prejudice Reduction." Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin 26, (2000): 242-56.

Horrell, David G., ed. Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation.

Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999.House, H. W. "A Biblical View of Women in the Ministry: Part 1 (of 5 Parts): 'Neither ...

Male nor Female ... In Christ Jesus,'." Bibliotheca Sacra 145, (1988): 47-56. ———. "A Biblical View of Women in the Ministry: Part 3 (of 5 Parts): The Speaking of

Women and the Prohibition of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 145, no. 579 (1988):301-18.

Huddy, Leonie. "Contrasting Theoretical Approaches to Intergroup Relations." Political

Psychology 25, no. 6 (2004): 947-67.Hunn, Debbie. "Ean Mē in Galatians 2:16: A Look at Greek Literature." Novum

Testamentum 49, no. 3 (2007): 281-90.

———. "Pistis Xristou in Galatians 2:16: Clarification from 3:1-6." Tyndale Bulletin 57,no. 1 (2006): 23-33.

Hunt, Stephen. "'Neither Here nor There': The Construction of Identities and BoundaryMaintenance of West African Pentecostals." Sociology 36, no. 1 (2002): 147-69.

Hurtado, Larry W. "The Jerusalem Collection and the Book of Galatians." Journal for the

Study of the New Testament 5, (1979): 46-62.Isenberg, Daniel J. "Group Polarization: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis." Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology 50, (1986): 1141-51.

Johnson, H Wayne. "The Paradigm of Abraham in Galatians 3:6-9." Trinity Journal 8,

no. 2 (1987): 179-99.Johnson, S. Lewis. "Paul And "The Israel of God": An Exegetical and Eschatological

Case-Study." Master's Seminary Journal 20, no. 1 (2009): 41-55.

Josephus: Jewish Antiquities Books XVIII - XIX . Translated by Louis H. Feldman, LCL.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000.

Josephus: The Jewish War Books I-II . Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997. Josephus: The Jewish War Books III-IV . Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Jowitt, Claire. "'Inward' and 'Outward' Jews: Margaret Fell, Circumcision, and Women'sPreaching." Reformation 4, (1999): 139-67.

Kahl, B. "No Longer Male: Masculinity Struggles Behind Galatians 3.28?" Journal for

the Study of the New Testament 79, (2000): 37-49.



232

Karau, S. J., and K. D. Williams. "Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and

Theoretical Integration." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65,(1993): 681-706.

Kautsky, Karl. Der Ursprung des Christentums. Eine historische Untersuchung .

Stuttgart1908.

———. Foundations of Christianity: A Study in Christian Origins. London: Orbach &Chambers, 1925.

Kern, Philip H. Rhetoric and Galatians. Edited by Richard Bauckham, Society for New

Testament Studies: Monograph Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1998.

Koptak, Paul E. "Rhetorical Identification in Paul's Autobiographical Narrative: Galatians

1:13-2:14." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40, (1990): 97-113.Lambrecht, Jan. "Abraham and His Offspring: A Comparison of Galatians 5,1 with 3,13."

Biblica 80, no. 4 (1999): 525-36.

———. "Paul's Reasoning in Galatians 2:11-21." In Paul and the Mosaic Law, edited byJames D. G. Dunn, 53-74. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2001.

Lamoreaux, Jason T. "Social Identity, Boundary Breaking, and Ritual: Saul's Recruitmenton the Road to Damascus." Biblical Theology Bulletin 38, no. 3 (2008): 122-34.

Lategan, Bernard. "Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians?" New TestamentStudies 34, (1988): 411-30.

Laurin, Kristin, Aaron C. Kay, and David A. Moscovitch. "On the Belief in God:

Towards an Understanding of the Emotional Substrates of CompensatoryControl." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44, no. 6 (2008): 1559-62.

Lea, T. D. "Unscrambling the Judaizers: Who Were Paul's Opponents?" Southwestern

Journal of Theology 37, no. 1 (1994): 23-29.Lewis, Amy, and Steven J. Sherman. "Perceived Entitativity and the Black-Sheep Effect:

When Will We Denigrate Negative Ingroup Members?" The Journal of Social Psychology 150, no. 2 (2010): 211-25.

Lienemann-Perrin, Christine. "The Biblical Foundations for a Feminist and Participatory

Theology of Mission." International Review of Mission 93, no. 368 (2004): 17-34.Lindsay, Dennis R. "Works of Law, Hearing of Faith and Pistis Christou in Galatians

2:16:-3:5." Stone-Campbell Journal 3, no. 1 (2000): 79-88.

Longenecker, Richard N. ""Faith of Abraham" Theme in Paul, James and Hebrews: A

Study in the Circumstantial Nature of New Testament Teachings." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20, no. 3 (1977): 203-12.

———. Galatians. Edited by Ralph P. Martin. Vol. 41, Word Biblical Commentary.

Dallas: Texas, 1990. ———. "Graphic Illustrations of a Believer's New Life in Christ: Galatians 4:21-31."

Review and Expositor 91, no. 2 (1994): 183-99.

———. "The Pedagogical Nature of the Law in Galatians 3:19-4:7." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25, no. 1 (1982): 53-61.

Lopez, D. C. "Paul, Gentiles, and Gender Paradigms." Union Seminary Quarterly Review

59, no. 3-4 (2005): 92-106.Loubser, G. M. H. "Life in the Spirit as Wise Remedy for the Folly of the Flesh: Ethical

Notes from Galatians." Neotestamentica 43, no. 2 (2009): 354-71.



233

Lowe, Stephen Douglas. "Rethinking the Female Status/Function Question: The

Jew/Gentile Relationship as Paradigm." Journal of the Evangelical TheologicalSociety 34, no. 1 (1991): 59-75.

Lull, David John. ""The Law Was Our Pedagogue": A Study in Galatians 3:19-25."

Journal of Biblical Literature 105, no. 3 (1986): 481-98.

MacDonald, Dennis Ronald. There Is No Male and Female: The Fate of a DominicalSaying in Paul and Gnosticism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.

MacDonald, Margaret. "2 Corinthians." In The Oxford Bible Commentary, edited by John

Barton and John Muddiman, 1134-51. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.Mackie, Diane M. "Social Identification Effects in Group Polarization." Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 50, (1986): 720-28.

Mageto, Peter. "Toward an Ethic of Shared Responsibility in Galatians 5:13-15." Evangelical Review of Theology 30, no. 1 (2006): 86-94.

Maier, C. M. "Psalm 87 as a Reappraisal of the Zion Tradition and Its Reception in

Galatians 4:26." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 69, no. 3 (2007): 473-86.Malina, Bruce J. The New Testament World : Insights from Cultural Anthropology. 3rd

ed. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.Mansoor, Menahem. Jewish History and Thought: An Introduction. Hoboken: Ktav

Publishing House, 1991.Marcus, J. "'under the Law': The Background of a Pauline Expression." Catholic Biblical

Quarterly 61, no. 1 (2001): 72-83.

Martin, Troy W. "The Brother Body: Addressing and Describing the Galatians and theAgitators as Adelphoi." Biblical Research 47, (2002): 5-18.

———. "The Covenant of Circumcision (Genesis 17:9-14) and the Situational Antithesis

in Galatians 3:28." Journal of Biblical Literature 122, no. 1 (2003): 111-25. ———. "Whose Flesh? What Temptation? (Galatians 4:13-14)." Journal for the Study of

the New Testament 74, (1999): 65-91.Marx, K., and F. Engels. On Religion. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House,

1957.

Mastro, Dana E., Ron Tamborini, and Craig R. Hullett. "Linking Media to PrototypeActivation and Subsequent Celebrity Attraction: : An Application of Self-

Categorization Theory." Communication Research 32, (2005): 323-48.

Matera, Frank J. Galatians. Edited by Daniel J. Harrington, Sacra Pagina Series.

Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992. ———. "Galatians and the Development of Paul's Teaching on Justification." Word &

World 20, no. 3 (2000): 239-48.

———. "Galatians in Perspective: Cutting a New Path through Old Territory." Interpretation 54, no. 3 (2000): 233-45.

Matlock, R. Barry. "The Rhetoric of Πίστις in Paul: Galatians 2.16, 3.22, Romans 3.22,

and Philippians 3.9." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30, no. 2 (2007):173-203.

McCartney, D. G. "No Grace without Weakness." Westminster Theological Journal 61,

no. 1 (1999): 1-13.Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians : The Social World of the Apostle Paul .

2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003.



234

Mickey, Paul A. "Strength in Weakness: From Text to Sermon on 2 Corinthians 12:7-9."

Interpretation 22, no. 3 (1968): 288-300.Mullins, Terence Y. "Paul's Thorn in the Flesh." Journal of Biblical Literature 76, no. 4

(1957): 299-303.

Murray, Robert. "Philippians." In The Oxford Bible Commentary, edited by John Barton

and John Muddiman, 1179-90. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.Myers, David G., and Helmut Lamm. "The Group Polarization Phenomenon."

Psychological Bulletin 83, (1976): 602-27.

Newcomb, T. M. Personality and Social Change: Attitude Formation in a StudentCommunity. New York: Dryden Press, 1943.

O'Brien, Kelli S. "The Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.13): Crucifixion, Persecution, and

Deuteronomy 21.22-23." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29, no. 1(2006): 55-76.

Oesterley, W. O. E. "1 Maccabees." In Apocrypha of the Old Testament , edited by R. H.

Charles. Bellingham: Logos Research Systems, 2004. ———. A History of Israel . Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951.

Oesterley, W. O. E., and G. H. Box. "Sirach." In Apocrypha of the Old Testament , edited by R. H. Charles. Bellingham: Logos Research Systems, 2004.

Owen, Paul. "The "Works of the Law" In Romans and Galatians: A New Defense of theSubjective Genitive." Journal of Biblical Literature 126, no. 3 (2007): 553-77.

Park, David M. "Paul's Skolops T ē Sarki: Thorn or Stake (2 Cor 12:7)." Novum

Testamentum 22, no. 2 (1980): 179-83.Pentecost, J Dwight. "Purpose of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 128, no. 511 (1971): 227-

33.

Perkins, Pheme. "Not through the Law." Christian Century 106, no. 19 (1989): 587.Perriman, Andrew C. "The Pattern of Christ's Sufferings: Colossians 1:24 and Philippians

3:10-11." Tyndale Bulletin 42, no. 1 (1991): 62-79.Pierro, Antonio, Lavinia Cicero, Marino Bonaiuto, Daan van Knippenberg, and Arie W.

Kruglanski. "Leader Group Prototypicality and Leadership Effectiveness: The

Moderating Role of Need for Cognitive Closure." The Leadership Quarterly 16,(2005): 503-16.

Pittinsky, Todd L., and Brian Welle. "Negative Outgroup Leader Actions Increase Liking

for Ingroup Leaders: An Experimental Test of Intergroup Leader-Enhancement

Effects." Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 11, (2008): 513-23.Popkes, Enno Edzard. ""Bevor einer von Jakobus kam...": Anmerkungen zur

Textkritischen und Theologiegeschichtlichen Problematik von Gal 2,12." Novum

Testamentum 46, no. 3 (2004): 253-64.Popkes, Wiard. "Two Interpretations Of "Justification" In the New Testament:

Reflections on Galatians 2:15-21 and James 2:21-25." Studia Theologica 59, no. 2

(2005): 129-46.Punt, Jeremy. "Revealing Rereading. Part 1: Pauline Allegory in Galatians 4:21-5:1."

Neotestamentica 40, no. 1 (2006): 87-100.

———. "Revealing Rereading. Part 2: Paul and the Wives of the Father of Faith inGalatians 4:21-5:1." Neotestamentica 40, no. 1 (2006): 101-18.

———. "Subverting Sarah in the New Testament: Galatians 4 and 1 Peter 3." Scriptura

96, (2007): 453-68.



235

Pyne, R. A. "The 'Seed,' the Spirit, and the Blessing of Abraham." Bibliotheca Sacra 152,

(1995): 211-22.Reed, Jeffrey T. "Philippians 3:1 and the Epistolary Hesitation Formulas: The Literary

Integrity of Philippians, Again." Journal of Biblical Literature 115, no. 1 (1996):

63-90.

Reid, Anne, and Kay Deaux. "Relationship between Social and Personal Identities:Segregation or Integration." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71, no.

6 (1996): 1084-91.

Reid, Scott A., and Michael A. Hogg. "Uncertainty Reduction, Self-Enhancement, andIngroup Identification." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31, (2005):

804-17.

Renteln, Alison Dundes. "Visual Religious Symbols and the Law." American BehavioralScientist 47, no. 12 (2004): 1573-96.

Rhoads, David M. "Children of Abraham, Children of God: Metaphorical Kinship in

Paul's Letter to the Galatians." Currents in Theology and Mission 31, no. 4(2004): 282-97.

Roetzel, Calvin J. "The Language of War (2 Cor. 10:1-6) and the Language of Weakness(2 Cor. 11:21b-13:10)." Biblical Interpretation 17, no. 1-2 (2009): 77-99.

Rowatt, Wade C., Lewis M. Franklin, and Marla Cotton. "Patterns and PersonalityCorrelates of Implicit and Explicit Attitudes toward Christians and Muslims."

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44, no. 1 (2005): 29-43.

Russell, R. "Redemptive Suffering and Paul's Thorn in the Flesh." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39, no. 4 (1996): 559-70.

Russell, W. "Who Were Paul's Opponents in Galatia?" Bibliotheca Sacra 147, no. 587

(1990): 329-50.Sanders, Jack T. "Paul's Autobiographical Statements in Galatians 1-2." Journal of

Biblical Literature 85, no. 3 (1966): 335-43.Sani, Fabio, and Steve Reicher. "Contested Identities and Schisms in Groups: Opposing

the Ordination of Women as Priests in the Church of England." British Journal of

Social Psychology 39, no. 1 (2000): 95-112. ———. "Identity, Argument and Schism: Two Longitudinal Studies of the Split in the

Church of England over the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood." Group

Processes & Intergroup Relations 2, no. 3 (1999): 279-300.

Schreiner, Thomas R. "Is Perfect Obedience to the Law Possible: A Re-Examination ofGalatians 3:10." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27, no. 2 (1984):

151-60.

———. "Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An Evaluation of the View of E. P.Sanders." Westminster Theological Journal 47, no. 2 (1985): 245-78.

Scott, Ian W. "Common Ground? The Role of Galatians 2.16 in Paul's Argument." New

Testament Studies 53, no. 3 (2007): 425-35.Sedikides, C., and M. J. Strube. "Self-Evaluation: To Thine Own Self Be Good, to Thine

Own Self Be Sure, to Thine Own Self Be True, and to Thine Own Self Be

Better." In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, edited by M. P. Zanna,209-96. New York: Academic Press, 1997.

Sellew, Philip. " Laodiceans and Philippians Revisited: A Response to Paul Holloway."

Harvard Theological Review 91, no. 3 (1998): 327-29.



236

———. " Laodiceans and the Philippians Fragments Hypothesis." Harvard Theological

Review 87, no. 1 (1994): 17-28.Shauf, Scott. "Galatians 2.20 in Context." New Testament Studies 52, no. 1 (2006): 86-

101.

Sherman, David K., Michael A. Hogg, and Angela T. Maitner. "Perceived Polarization:

Reconciling Ingroup and Intergroup Perceptions under Uncertainty." Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 12, (2009): 95-109.

Shoemaker, H Stephen. "2 Corinthians 11:1-21." Review and Expositor 86, no. 3 (1989):

407-14.Silva, Moisés. "Abraham, Faith, and Works: Paul's Use of Scripture in Galatians 3:6-14."

Westminster Theological Journal 63, no. 2 (2001): 251-67.

———. "Betz and Bruce on Galatians." Westminster Theological Journal 45, no. 2(1983): 371-85.

Smith, Joanne R., Michael A. Hogg, Robin Martin, and Deborah J. Terry. "Uncertainty

and the Influence of Group Norms in the Attitude-Behaviour Relationship." British Journal of Social Psychology no. 46 (2007): 769-92.

Smith, Michael J. "The Role of the Pedagogue in Galatians." Biliotheca Sacra 163, no.650 (2006): 197-214.

Smith, Neil G. "Thorn That Stayed: An Exposition of 2 Corinthians 12:7-9." Interpretation 13, no. 4 (1959): 409-16.

Smith, T. W. "Actual Trends or Measurement Artifacts? A Review of Three Studies of

Anti-Semitism; the Polls - a Review " Public Opinion Quarterly 57, (1993): 380-93.

Snodgrass, K. "Spheres of Influence: A Possible Solution to the Problem of Paul and the

Law." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32, (1988): 93-113.Stanton, G. N. "Galatians." In The Oxford Bible Commentary, edited by John Barton and

John Muddiman, 1152-65. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.Stenschke, Christoph W. "Hinweise Zu Einem Wiederentdeckten Gebiet der

Actaforschung (I) und Zu Zwei Bemerkenswerten Monographien Zu

Apostelgeschichte 13f und zum Galaterbrief (II)." Communio Viatorum 41, no. 1(1999): 65-91.

Stevens, Gerald L. "Paul and the Law in Galatians." Theological Educator: A Journal of

Theology and Ministry 50, (1994): 95-104.

Strickland, Wayne G. "Preunderstanding and Daniel Fuller's Law-Gospel Continuum." Bibliotheca Sacra 144, no. 574 (1987): 181-93.

Stürmer, S., and B. Simon. "Collective Action: Towards a Dual-Pathway Model."

European Review of Social Psychology 15, (2004): 59-99.Sumney, J. L. "Paul's 'Weakness' : An Integral Part of His Conception of Apostleship."

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 52, (1993): 71-91.

Surburg, Mark P. "Ancient Rhetorical Criticism, Galatians, and Paul at Twenty-FiveYears." Concordia Journal 30, no. 1-2 (2004): 13-39.

Swim, J., K. J. Aikin, W. S. Hall, and B. A. Hunter. "Sexism and Racism: Old-Fashioned

and Modern Prejudices." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68,(1995): 199-214.

Tajfel, Henri. "Quantitative Judgement in Social Perception." British Journal of

Psychology 50, (1959): 16-29.



237

———. "Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations." Annual Review of Psychology 33,

(1982): 1-39. ———. "Some Developments in European Social Psychology." European Journal of

Social Psychology 2, no. 3 (1972): 307-21.

Tajfel, Henri, M. Billig, R. P. Bundy, and C. Flament. "Social Categorization and

Intergroup Behaviour." European Journal of Social Psychology 1, (1971): 149-77.

Tajfel, Henri, Alan Richardson, and Louis Everstine. "Individual Consistencies in

Categorizing: A Study of Judgmental Behavior." Journal of Personality 32, no. 1(1964): 90-108.

Tajfel, Henri, and J. C. Turner. "An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict." In The

Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by William G. Austin andStephen Worchel, 33-47. Monterey: Brooks/Cole, 1979.

Talbert, Charles H. "Freedom and Law in Galatians." Ex Auditu 11, (1995): 17-28.

Taylor, N. H. "Paul's Apostolic Legitimacy: Autobiographical Reconstruction in Gal.1:11-2:14." Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 83, (1993): 65-77.

Taylor, Willard H. Galatians Ephesians. Edited by William M Greathouse and WillardH. Taylor. Vol. 8, Beacon Bible Expositions. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press,

1981.Tellbe, Mikael. "The Sociological Factors Behind Philippians 3.1-11 and the Conflict at

Philippi." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 55, (1994): 97-121.

Terry, Deborah J., and Michael A. Hogg. "Group Norms and the Attitude-BehaviorRelationship: A Role for Group Identification." Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin 22, (1996): 776-93.

Theissen, Gerd. "The Wandering Radicals: Light Shed by the Sociology of Literature onthe Early Transmission of Jesus Sayings." In Social-Scientific Approaches to New

Testament Interpretation, edited by David G. Horrell, 93-121. Edinburgh: T & TClark, 1999.

Theissen, Gerd, Gerd Theissen, and Gerd Theissen. Sociology of Early Palestinian

Christianity. 1st American ed. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978.Tobin, T. H. "What Shall We Say That Abraham Found? The Controversy Behind

Romans 4." Harvard Theological Review 88, no. 4 (1995): 437-52.

Tolmie, D. Francois. Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centered Rhetorical Analysis of a

Pauline Letter . Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.Tyson, Joseph B. "Paul's Opponents in Galatia." Novum Testamentum 10, no. 4 (1968):

241-54.

———. ""Works of Law" In Galatians." Journal of Biblical Literature 92, no. 3 (423-431): 423-32.

Udoh, Fabian E. "Paul's Views on the Law: Questions About Origin (Gal 1:6-2:21; Phil

3:2-11)." Novum Testamentum 42, no. 3 (2000): 214-37.Ukwuegbu, Bernard O. "Paraenesis, Identity-Defining Norms, or Both? Galatians 5:13-

6:10 in the Light of Social Identity Theory." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70, no. 3

(2008): 538-59.van den Bos, Kees, Jitse van Ameijde, and Hein van Gorp. "On the Psychology of

Religion: The Role of Personal Uncertainty in Religious Worldview Defense."

Basic & Applied Social Psychology 28, no. 4 (2006): 333-41.



238

Verkuyten, Maykel. "Religious Group Identification and Inter-Religious Relations: A

Study among Turkish-Dutch Muslims." Group Processes & Intergroup Relations10, no. 3 (2007): 341-57.

Verkuyten, Maykel, and Ali Aslan Yildiz. "National (Dis)Identification and Ethnic and

Religious Identity: A Study among Turkish-Dutch Muslims." Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin 33, no. 10 (2007): 1448-62.Vos, J. S. "Paul's Argumentation in Galatians 1--2." Harvard Theological Review 87, no.

1 (1994): 1-16.

Waetjen, H. C. "The Trust of Abraham and the Trust of Jesus Christ: Romans 1:17."Currents in Theology and Mission 30, no. 6 (2003): 446-54.

Wainwright, Allan. "Where Did Silas Go (and What Was His Connection with

Galatians)." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 8, (1980): 66-70.Walden, Wayne. "Galatians 3:28: Grammar Observations." Restoration Quarterly 51, no.

1 (2009): 45-50.

Walker, William O. "Galatians 2:7b-8 as a Non-Pauline Interpolation." Catholic BiblicalQuarterly 65, no. 4 (2003): 568-87.

———. "Galatians 2:8 and the Question of Paul's Apostleship." Journal of Biblical Literature 123, no. 2 (2004): 323-27.

Wallace, Daniel B. "Galatians 3:19-20: A Crux Interpretum for Paul's View of the Law."Westminster Theological Journal 52, no. 2 (1990): 225-45.

Wallis, Wilber B. "The Pauline Conception of the Old Covenant." Prebyterion 4, no. 2

(1978): 71-83.Wanamaker, C. A. "A Case against Justification by Faith." Journal of Theology for

Southern Africa 42, (1983): 37-49.

Ward, Richard F. "Pauline Voice and Presence as Strategic Communication." Semeia 65,(1994): 95-107.

Ward, Roy Bowen. "The Opponents of Paul." Restoration Quarterly 10, no. 4 (1967):185-95.

Wedderburn, A. J. M. "Some Observations on Paul's Use of the Phrases "In Christ" And

"With Christ"." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25, (1985): 83-97.Weeks, Matthew, and Mark A. Vincent. "Using Religious Affiliation to Spontaneously

Categorize Others." International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 17, no. 4

(2007): 317-31.

Weima, J. A. D. "Gal. 6:11-18: A Hermeneutical Key to the Galatian Letter." CalvinTheological Journal 28, no. 1 (1993): 90-107.

Welborn, Laurence L. "The Identification of 2 Corinthians 10-13 with The "Letter of

Tears"." Novum Testamentum 37, no. 2 (1995): 138-53.Wiarda, Timothy. "Plot and Character in Galatians 1-2." Tyndale Bulletin 55, no. 2

(2004): 231-52.

Williams, S. K. "Justification and the Spirit in Galatians." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29, (1987): 91-100.

———. "Promise in Galatians: A Reading of Paul's Reading of Scripture." Journal of

Biblical Literature 107, no. 4 (1988): 709-20.Willitts, Joel. "Context Matters: Paul's Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12." Tyndale

Bulletin 54, no. 2 (2003): 105-22.



239

Wilson, Todd A. "'under Law' in Galatians: A Pauline Theological Abbreviation."

Journal of Theological Studies 56, no. 2 (2005): 362-92.Winstok, Zeev. "The Effect of Social and Situational Factors on the Intended Response to

Aggression among Adolescents." The Journal of Social Psychology 150, (2010):

57-76.

Young, Norman H. "The Figure of the Paidagogos in Art and Literature." Biblical Archaeologist 53, no. 2 (1990): 80-86.

——— "Paidagogos: The Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor " Novum Testamentum

PHD_Galatians and Social Identity Theory.pdf

Documents

Transcript of PHD_Galatians and Social Identity Theory.pdf