Review of David J. Rudolph's A Jew to the Jews

David J. Rudolph, A Jew to the Jews. (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 304) Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,  2011). xii + 290 pp., £69 (sewn paper), ISBN  978-3-16-149293-8.

The chameleon is the quintessential image for a constantly changing individual. Proteus was an early sea-god who would change his shape in order to avoid capture. These images resonate with aspects of the scholarly consensus with regard to Paul’s claim that he became ‘all things to all people’. He remained Torah-observant among Jews but not among the non-Jews. Since the New Testament does not explicitly describe Paul engaging in such diverse practices, scholars fill in the gaps in the textual record with claims that Paul was just such a protean figure, one whose behaviors would change depending on his context. This raises an important interpretive question: is this a valid understanding of Paul and his mission practice among non-Jews? Was Paul a chameleon? 

In A Jew to the Jews, David J. Rudolph sets out to problematize the consensus view with regard to Paul’s lack of continued Torah-observance in his gentile mission. He sets out two parallel research paths for himself: (1) to show that 1 Cor 9.19-23 may not be irrefutable evidence for Paul’s lack of continued Torah-observance; and (2) to provide a constructive reading of this passage that results in understanding Paul as one who continued to be Torah-observant in his mission. This monograph is a revision of Rudolph’s 2007 Cambridge University Ph.D. thesis, which was supervised by Markus Bockmuehl. Revised theses often only account for subsequent scholarship at a minimal level; however, Rudolph’s revisions, when compared to the 2007 thesis version, are substantial and result in a thoroughly up-to-date work that engages scholarship as late as 2010, making this work that much more significant, and a good model for recent Ph.D. graduates who might be tempted not to make important revisions to their work before publication.

Chapter 1 introduces Rudolph’s argument by providing an overview of the case for the traditional reading of 1 Cor 9.19-23. He surveys contemporary scholarship with regard to the intertextual, contextual, and textual arguments that are marshalled in defence of the consensus interpretation. He then points out four areas in which the traditional view reflects interpretive inadequacies with regard to Paul’s context: (1) the practical impossibility of being ‘all things to all people’; (2) the presentation of Jews as ‘simpletons’; (3) the lack of evidence that Paul employed this strategy; and (4) the dismissal of both the Pauline and Lukan texts that present Paul as one who continues to be Torah observant (12-13). This final factor is central to Rudolph’s argument. Next, he briefly notes three other scholars who have read Paul in ways similar to himself: Peter Tomson, Mark Nanos, and Mark Kinzer. Rudolph establishes differences between his approach and theirs and suggests there is sufficient warrant for a reassessment of the scholarly framework with regard to whether 1 Cor 9.19-23 ‘precludes a Torah-observant Paul’ (17). This last phrase is an important qualifier in that Rudolph is not trying to prove that Paul remained Torah-observant; rather, his goal is to point out that scholars overstate their claim when they read 1 Cor 9.19-23 as indisputable evidence that Paul ceased to be Torah observant. The rest of the monograph addresses the intertextual, contextual, and textual arguments alluded to earlier in the introduction, and then it concludes with a proposed interpretation of 1 Cor 9.19-23 that fulfils Rudolph’s secondary goal of providing a reading of this passage that could allow for it to be understood ‘as the discourse of a Torah-observant Jew’ (18).

Chapter 2 surveys the key scriptural texts that are alluded to in the broader debate over the salience of Paul’s Jewish identity. The first part of the chapter addresses whether Paul’s Jewishness is inconsequential now that he is in Christ. Rudolph argues that Timothy’s circumcision, referenced in Acts 16.3, and the controverted phrase dia tous Ioudaious addresses timing issues and not circumcision itself. Next he addresses the putative erasure discourse in Paul’s writings and provides a series of convincing non-erasure readings for the following: (1) ‘circumcision is nothing’ (1 Cor 7.19; Gal 5.6; 6.15); (2) ‘no longer Jew or Greek’ (Gal 3.28); (3) third entity language (1 Cor 10.32); (4) ‘weak in faith’ discourse (Rom 14); (5) ‘former way of life’ and ‘rubbish’ language (Gal 1.13; Phil 3.8); and (6) ‘live like a gentile and not like a Jew’ discourse (Gal 2.14). Rudolph concludes that these verses do not indicate that Paul no longer considered himself a Jew; rather, he understood his Jewish identity as an ongoing calling in Christ. The second half of this chapter provides a constructive reading of Acts 21.17-26; Gal 5.3; Rom 2.25, 4.11-12, 16, 11.29, and 1 Cor 7.17-24 to suggest that Paul remained a Torah-observant Jew (89). Based on chapter 2, though the dominant segment of New Testament scholars would suggest otherwise, the label ‘Paul the Chameleon’ would be entirely inappropriate for the apostle, and Rudolph’s arguments are quite persuasive in this regard, especially his reading of Romans 14, 1 Cor 7.17-24. Those who seek to continue to view Paul as one whose Jewishness ceases to be significant will have to engage Rudolph’s arguments for those two passages.

Chapter 3 focuses more properly on the text of 1 Corinthians. Rudolph provides a contextual analysis of 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 that establishes Paul’s instruction concerning food offered to idols and the way these chapters may be understood as not being the teaching of one who has broken the boundaries of pluriform Second Temple Judaism. Rudolph addresses four issues that New Testament scholars have focused on with regard to this section: (1) the compositional unity of the passage; (2) the presence of the strong and the weak in the passage; (3) the situational permission with regard to eating idol food; and (4) the relationship of Paul’s teaching here with the apostolic decree in Acts 15. The most important findings are that, although Christ-followers were not permitted to eat idol food in cultic contexts, indeterminate food was permitted outside those contexts. However, idol food was still not permitted once it was known to be such, even outside the cultic context. So, Paul’s localized, contextualized teaching here is quite in line with the non-situational apostolic decree (101). This teaching, argues Rudolph, was quite Jewish in its orientation. He provides several reasons for his claim, the most substantial being the use of skandalizō two times in 1 Cor 8.13, a term that connects Paul’s teaching with Lev 19.14, thus placing Paul’s discourse within proper ‘Jewish ethical categories of thought and legal traditions surrounding Leviticus 19’ (104). So, rather than seeing Paul in 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 as one arguing in a non-Jewish fashion, he may be seen as one applying the principles of Jewish teaching and learning discourse in a flexible manner for gentiles in Christ. Rudolph concludes his contextual discussion by briefly noting the function of 1 Cor 9 within the literary unit of 1 Cor 8.1-11.1. He rightly sets aside the idea that Paul was defending his apostleship here; rather, ‘the central point of 1 Cor 9 is Paul’s renunciation of all rights (even those rights provided by Mosaic law and the Lord Jesus’ command) for the sake of the gospel’ (107-8).

Chapter 4 focuses in on the textual issues in 1 Cor 9.19-23. Rudolph begins by addressing possible contextual frameworks for Paul’s accommodation discourse. He concludes that there are no explicit references to Greco-Roman philosophical traditions nor any allusions convincing enough to accept the claim that Paul is working within an accepted accommodation topoi. Rudolph then surveys Second Temple texts to see if they provide insight into the adaptation language evident in Paul’s teaching. He concludes that there is evidence for similarities with regard ‘to the mindset of a first-century Jewish guest who seeks to please his host in everything’ (147). Next Rudolph considers whether the gospel traditions provide a proper framework for understanding Paul’s adaptation principle. He affirms Kim’s (2003) overall approach to the presence of an imitatio Christi discourse in 1 Cor 9.19-23, though he rightly sets aside Kim’s rather explicit supersessionist understanding of Mark 7.19b. This will be an important part of Rudolph positive reading in chapter 5, a reading that places Rudolph firmly in the post-supersessionist approach to New Testament interpretation. Finally, he concludes chapter 4 with detailed discussions of the semantic variations of the language in 1 Cor 9.19-23. Rudolph’s conclusions here form the basis of his reading that Paul may be understood in these verses to be a Torah-observant Jew. As Part I of A Jew to the Jews comes to a close, it is now clear that Rudolph does not think that Paul was a chameleon in any sense of the word. He was one who, it could be argued, maintained Torah observance not as missional adaptation, rather as a valid expression of covenant fidelity to the God of Israel.

Chapter 5 provides Rudolph’s understanding of Paul as a Jew who continued to faithfully observe Torah throughout his mission among the nations by ‘imitating Christ’s accommodation and open table-fellowship’ (173). He views the flexibility evident in 1 Cor 9.19-23 as an expression of Paul’s belief that his Jewishness is a calling that continues in Christ, and that this passage can be understood ‘as the discourse of a Jew who remained within the bounds of pluriform Second Temple Judaism’ (173). He reads 1 Cor 9.19-23 as an expression of Paul’s imitation of Jesus’ interchange and accommodation-oriented table-fellowship with all. Rudolph argues that Paul was aware of Jesus’ rule of adaptation evident in the words ‘eat what is set before you’ (Luke 10.7-8). This rule originally focused primarily on ‘clean food of doubtful or defiled status’, but Paul expands it to apply to the questions relating to idol-food in Corinth (190).

Rudolph frames Paul’s statement ‘all things to all people’, not as a claim that Paul ceased to be Torah-observant, rather as an example of the way he applied Jesus’ adaptability rule, Jesus who likewise remained Torah-observant (Mark 5.17-20). Rudolph summarizes his view: ‘As Jesus became all things to all people through eating with ordinary Jews, Pharisees and sinners, Paul became “all things to all people” through eating with ordinary Jews, strict Jews (those “under the law”) and Gentile sinners’ (190). Paul’s halakhah with regard to commensality was flexible, and he adjusted it, as a bi-cultural mediator, based on his context (1 Cor 10.25-30).

Concerning the continued relevance of Paul’s Jewish identity, Rudolph understands Paul to be one who argued for the continuation of Jewish identity within the Christ-movement. He builds his case on 1 Cor 7.17-24, which teaches that Jews ‘in Christ’ should continue Torah observance as a vital expression of their calling from God. With regard to the claim that Jewish identity and Torah observance were inconsequential to Paul since the coming of Christ, Rudolph thinks that Paul kept his ‘rule in all the churches’ as one who ‘was “not without the law of God” (1 Cor 9.21)’ (212). Rudolph’s study is masterful, an argumentative tour de force that requires serious engagement by those contending that Jewish identity is no longer relevant for Jews ‘in Christ’. It will most likely be looked at as a seminal work among New Testament scholars engaged in post-supersessionist interpretation.

While it is clear that Paul should not be labelled a chameleon, and in this Rudolph’s study remains quite convincing, it is still hard to determine if it is possible to avoid the charges of hypocrisy that would be levelled against Paul for even these adaptable practices. Rudolph’s study rightly focuses on the behaviours evident in the text, but Paul may also be continuing his discussion of the way previous identities are transformed ‘in Christ’. Thus, I would suggest that 1 Cor 9.20-21 may evidence Paul’s principle of social identity adaptation. This is only a slight adjustment to Rudolph, taking into consideration the claims of duplicity mentioned by Nanos (2009) but still follows Rudolph and Tomson (1990) in seeing 1 Cor 9.20-21 as evidence of a relaxed halakhah with regard to the idolatrous intentions of the gentiles. Thus, this passage connects with Paul’s mission among the gentiles and his teaching concerning mission as social identification for those in Corinth (see Tucker 2011).

If we extend the metaphor we began with, Paul is not a chameleon who changes his color, i.e., one who picks up and sets down his Jewish identity (even if that would have been possible) in order to take the gospel to the nations. However, we might describe him as the ‘Chameleon Paul’ if by that we mean one who was comfortable in diverse cultural environments, able to socially identify (but not integrate) with non-Jews as an expression of his theologizing. His focus on the negotiation of the practicalities of life within the Christ-movement would have been familiar to the Jews but new to gentiles in Christ (Ehrensperger 2011: 18). This metaphor is especially apropos since chameleons really cannot change their color in the first place; rather, they react to changing environmental situations and thus only appear to change. Maybe it is time to revisit scholarly misconceptions with regard to Paul’s so-called lifestyle adaptability. Rudolph’s monograph, A Jew to the Jews, provides a helpful starting point for addressing a number of these long-held and deeply-engrained views on Paul, his identity, and his mission.

References:

Ehrensperger, K. 2011. ‘All Things are Lawful but Not All Things are Helpful—All Things are Lawful but not All Things Build Up (1 Cor 10.23)—Identity Formation in the Space Between.’ Paper presented at the SNTS General Meeting, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY.

Kim, S. 2003. ‘Imitatio Christi (1 Corinthians 11:1): How Paul Imitates Jesus Christ in Dealing with Idol Food (1 Corinthians 8-10).’ Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.2: 193-206.

Nanos, M. 2009. ‘Paul’s Relationship to Torah in Light of His Strategy “to Become Everything to Everyone” (1 Corinthians 9:19–23).’ Paper presented at New Perspectives on Paul and the Jews: Interdisciplinary Academic Seminary, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, Belgium.

Tomson, P. J. 1990. Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Tucker, J. B. 2011. Remain in Your Calling: Paul and the Continuation of Social Identities in 1 Corinthians. Eugene, OR: Pickwick.

Review of Paul as Missionary

Paul as Missionary: Identity,Activity, Theology, and Practice. Edited by Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner. Library of New Testament Studies 420.  London: T&T Clark, 2011, xi+276 pp., $130.00, hardcover.

Trevor J. Burke, Professor of Bible at Moody Bible Institute, and Brian S. Rosner, Senior Lecturer in New Testament and Ethics at Moore Theological College, contend that while Paul’s missionary activity has been the focus of scholarly attention, this focus is normally directed towards Acts. This collection of essays looks at what Paul thought about his own missionary activity and identity. Part 1, which focuses on Paul’s identity, begins with Seyoon Kim’s essay on Paul as an eschatological herald. Kim argues that Paul sees himself as one who fulfills the eschatological pilgrimage texts in his gentile mission; the Jerusalem collection is the most explicit expression of this identity. James Thompson lays out points of contact between Acts and Paul’s letters with regard to Paul’s missionary identity. However, he concludes that focusing primarily on the letters brings out Paul’s distinct pastoral concern with the spiritual growth and development of his congregations. James Thompson’s essay argues that Paul’s mission involves continual pastoral care. Though the term pastor is not used to describe Paul’s identity, his activities and his concern for the transformation of the Christ-followers suggest that Paul could be described as a missionary pastor. James Miller’s essay on Paul and ethnicity contends that the binary categories of continuity and discontinuity do not fully account for Paul’s complex and situationally-specific approach to ethnicity. He claims that Paul did not leave his Jewish ethnic identity in the past once he was in Christ; rather, the various comments about his Jewish identity reflect the normal negotiation and contextualization that contemporary ethnicity studies indicate are part of the identity-forming process. Richard Gibson contends that Paul, in Rom 15:16, presents himself as a Levitical priest as described in Isa 61:6. This understanding clarifies Paul’s role as subordinate to the Servant-Christ, even as he seeks to extend the Servant’s mission through the agency of the same Spirit (cf. Isa 49:6; 61:6; Rom 15:8-21).

Part 2 covers Paul’s missionary activity. It begins with Beverly Roberts Gaventa resituating Paul’s missionary activity within God’s mission. She brings to the fore the agency of others within the Christ-movement and concludes that God’s own mission of rescuing the new humanity from the power of Sin and Death must be accounted for. Daniel Hays provides a third ethnicity reading of Paul’s activity. He argues that Paul sought to form a new ethnicity for those in Christ, an identity that replaces existing ethnic identities. This, Hays contends, allows for unity within the Christ-movement. Ayodeji Adewuya’s contribution looks at the centrality of suffering in Paul’s theology and mission. Building on the rhetoric of 2 Corinthians, Adewuya sees Paul’s sufferings re-deployed in the text for the benefit the Corinthians. Paul Barnett argues that Paul’s use of the phrase “righteousness of God” coheres quite closely with Jesus’ teaching on the “kingdom of God.” This provides a conceptual bridge between Paul and Jesus, in that both of these phrases were “grace-based and ritual-free” (p. 111).

Part 3 discusses Paul’s mission theology, beginning with Arland Hultgren’s contention that Paul’s Christophany at his commissioning accounts for much of Paul’s gentile mission. The content of this revelation includes the following elements: (1) Jesus is the universal messiah who moves beyond the law of Moses; (2) Jesus of Nazareth is the same as the risen Christ, the one who was known to minister to those not Torah-observant. While some of latter could have come from his pre-apostolic past, Hultgren concludes that the eschatological pilgrimage texts did come from that experience and serve as a key to Paul’s vocation as an apostle to the gentiles. Karl Olav Sandnes argues that 1 Cor 9:19-23 is an example of Paul’s asymmetrical approach to accommodation in the context of seeking to win Jews and gentiles. His adaptability applies, however, only to sub-identities (e.g., gender, ethnicity, culture) and not to what he viewed as one’s primary identity—being in Christ. Trevor Burke contends that the work of the Spirit is central to Paul’s mission and that the Spirit’s agency is often overlooked by scholars. Burke surveys 1 Thessalonians to show the way the Spirit functioned by empowering, converting, energizing, sanctifying, instructing, and directing the worship life of the community. Burke concludes that Paul’s mission activity cannot be fully understood without an appropriate appreciation for the work of the Spirit within his communities. Brian Rosner maintains that the glory of God is central to Paul’s mission theology. This is often a discounted subject among scholars, but building on Romans 15 and its use of Isaiah 66, Rosner views the glory of God as the final aim in Paul’s missionary endeavors. Stanley Porter outlines a key aspect of Paul’s highly contextualized missionary theology—the message of reconciliation. It serves as the basis for Christian proclamation in 2 Cor 5:18-21 and provides its essential component in Rom 5:8-11. Roy Ciampa navigates the difficulties of distilling Paul’s theology of the gospel and describes it thus: “God has acted and is acting through Christ’s life, death, resurrection/exaltation and present reign as Lord over all creation to set all things right to the glory of his name” (p. 190). This message is central to Paul’s missionary identity and allows for contextualization among diverse gentile audiences.

Part 4 discusses Paul’s missionary practice. It begins with William S. Campbell’s essay that argues that universalism and particularism are both present in Paul’s missionary practice. In fact, the coordination of the two is central to his vision and activity. Thus, Paul is not seen as one who seeks to obliterate Jewish identity. In Christ, Jews relate to God as Jews, and gentiles relate to God as gentiles, although they are not included in God’s covenant, which remains with Israel (p. 202 n. 25). James Ware contends that Paul’s gospel was one of resurrection, and that he expected the Philippians to be involved in an active mission of holding forth the word of life (Phil 2:15-16). Steven Walton argues that Paul’s differing financial dealings with the Philippians and the Corinthians are examples of the way he sought to revise existing patronage structures. Michael Barram asks whether Paul expected the Corinthians to be involved in mission. He suggests that Paul’s missonal goal for the Corinthians was to live with a “salvific intentionality” (p. 243). Randolph Richards discusses the misunderstandings of cultural translation in Paul’s original mission (1 Cor 5:9-13) and suggests that many contemporary western readings of Paul have likewise misread him because of their frames of reference.

Burke and Rosner have done both Pauline and missiological studies a great service in gathering these essays. Additional instructive essay(s) might have considered in a more overt manner the material remains as a context for Paul’s mission. This is only a slight criticism; Burke and Rosner themselves note the need to include more (p. 6); however, these would have provided a more concrete context for Paul and his mission.  Nevertheless, Burke and Rosner provide a nuanced and even-handed reading of Paul, with the essays by Miller, Sandnes, and Campbell deserving special attention for moving forward the traditional understanding of Paul’s approach to missional formation. This collection is recommended for missions, intercultural, and Pauline theology courses and is accessible to upper-level undergraduates and seminary students

The Corinthian Christ-followers and the Civic Authorities

The Corinthian correspondence provides evidence for significant contact with outsiders; however, there is also a lack of evidence for significant conflict with those same outsiders. The Corinthian correspondence provides insight into the relations that the Christ-followers had with the broader civic community in Corinth. Their relationship with those outside the Christ-following community provided opportunities for extending the Pauline mission; however, this relationship also created a number of the problems within the assembly. Paul ultimately presents this relationship as helpful but provides, in the Corinthian correspondence, guidelines for how these relationships should proceed. Paul’s writing in the Corinthian correspondence should be seen as a continuation of his missional vocation which included initial evangelism, community formation, and ongoing nurture (1 Cor 3:1-2; 4:15; Barram 2006: 10).

In 1 Cor 4:8-13 Paul describes their experience as lacking many of the difficulties that Paul himself, had experienced. In Corinth, a person’s wealth and status were highly valued. This was similar to other cities in the Roman east, however, the demographic makeup of the colony, including the freedmen and retired military may have contributed to this community value (1 Cor 4:8, 2 Cor 8:14). The Corinthian Christ-followers were also confident in the court system. In 1 Cor 6:1-11, Paul argues that they were putting too much confidence in this human institution. The courts were not accessible to the majority of individuals in the Roman Empire so the fact that the Corinthians were engaged in litigious activity argues for individuals of some financial means. Paul chastised the Christ-followers for allowing those on the outside to adjudicate their disputes when their confidence should be in the believing community and their ability to rule on problems, or more importantly, they should be willing to be wronged because of their transformed identity in Christ (Campbell 2005: 307; May 2004: 81-91; Horrell 2000: 343).

The Corinthians' good social relations may also be seen in their willingness to participate in the cultic meals in the various temples in Corinth (1 Cor 8:7-13). The civic identity of the colony was indistinguishable from its religious identity. This fact may be the reason that many of the Corinthians did not see a problem with continuing the practices mentioned in 1 Cor 8. The difference in economic and social status among the Christ-followers in Corinth may have reinforced this practice. Paul, however, understands that this practice may have broader implications for his mission, so he takes a conciliatory stance on this issue. As an extension of the previous argument, the Corinthians also dined with outsiders in their homes and in other communal settings (1 Cor 10:27-11:1). If the Christ-followers in Corinth were not involved in the civic life of the community, one would not expect this to be a significant issue. The Corinthians did not sense the need to change their approach to their civic life once they had accepted Paul’s gospel (Schnabel 2005: 195). Paul ultimately argues they may continue their practice; however, their social ethics should seek the benefit of others and not only for themselves.

Paul also notes that outsiders were visiting the houses that were being used for community gatherings (1 Cor 14:1-25). This fact appears to be important in terms of their openness to those who do not believe in Paul’s gospel. Who would these outsiders include? They could be unbelievers, spouses, or guests, either way; Paul addresses their sense of social-standing and suggests that they present themselves in an orderly way, so that the outsiders may not think they are ‘mad’ (Gehring 2004: 157-66). Paul presents the relationships that the Corinthian Christ-followers have with outsiders, on the whole, as good and provides guidance on how to interact with those individuals. Paul sees in this relationship of social integration an opportunity for mission and encourages certain behaviors that will further Paul’s mission in Corinth. How did this type of relationship occur in Corinth? The transitional nature of the Corinthian civic identity was one reason for this openness among these Christ-followers, especially in comparison to Thessalonica where such openness did not exist (Barclay 1993: 514; Tellbe 2001: 135; Oakes 2005: 321).

So, do you buy the argument that the Corinthian Christ-followers did not experience significant external pressure from the civic authorities? If not, what kind of evidence would you want to see?

References
John Barclay, “Conflict in Thessalonica,” CBQ 55 (1993): 512-30.

Michael D. Barram, Mission and Moral Reflection in Paul (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2006).

William S. Campbell, “Perceptions of Compatibility between Christianity and Judaism in Pauline Interpretation,” BibInt 8.3 (2005): 298-316.

Roger W. Gehring, House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004).

David G. Horrell, “‘No Longer Jew or Greek’ Paul’s Corporate Christology and the Construction of Christian Community,” in Christology, Controversy and Community: New Testament Essays in Honour of David R. Catchpole, ed. David G. Horrell and Christopher M. Tuckett (Leiden: Brill, 2000): 321-44.

Alistar Scott May, ‘The Body for the Lord’: Sex and Identity in 1 Corinthians 5-7 (JSNTSS 278; London: T&T Clark, 2004).

Peter Oakes, “Re-mapping the Universe: Paul and the Emperor in 1 Thessalonians and Philippians,” JSNT 27.3 (March 2005): 301-22.

Eckhard J. Schnabel, “The Objectives of Change, Factors of Transformation, and the Causes of Results: The Evidence of Paul’s Corinthian Correspondence,” TRINJ 26NS (2005): 179-204.

Mikael Tellbe, Paul Between Synagogue and State: Christians, Jews and Civic Authorities in 1 Thessalonians, Romans, and Philippians (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2001).