paul & politics of identity

In this book, Boyarin repeatedly asserts the brilliance of Paul, and in turn, writes about him brilliantly. The author comes to the main letters of Paul from the standpoint of a post-modern Jewish Talmudic scholar. For him, the passage that provides the key to understanding the complex thought-world of the apostle to the nations is Galatians 3:28, where Paul asserts that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male and female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (this verse is printed on the cover of the book). Boyarin reads this as Paul’s attempt to resolve the tension he had experienced between the conflicting pulls of Jewish particularism and Hellenistic universalism. The solution involves a thoroughgoing allegorization, through which the emblems of particularity, especially circumcision, become signifiers of a higher, spiritual reality. In this way, “true Israel” becomes configured as those Jews and non-Jews who become followers of Jesus. The result is a moderate dualism, one “that makes room for the body, however much the spirit is more highly valued” (p. 185). At the same time, it leaves no room for Jews who choose neither to renounce their particularity nor become Christian. In subsequent centuries, this led in predominantly Christian lands to the so-called “Jewish problem” and the hideously barbaric attempts to “solve” it. Without making Paul personally responsible for this, Boyarin shows how these developments were one way Paul’s writings could be used.
Boyarin’s reading of Paul is sensible. In the course of his research, he found that at many points his understanding was a return to positions taken in the 19th century by F. C. Baur. While I found much to agree with, there are a couple of points I’m not so sure about. Toward the end of his Letter to the Galatians, Paul claims that the competing missionaries don’t themselves keep the law. Boyarin relates this charge to Paul’s lengthy account of his conflict with Peter in Gal. 2. While not maintaining that Peter is the opponent Paul has in mind throughout the letter, Boyarin asserts that the problem is the same. Rather than believing that adherence to the Torah is necessary to belong to the community of Christ-believers and thus attain salvation, theirs is a position of expediency. I will have to live with this suggestion for a while, since a more mainstream understanding makes adequate sense of chapters 3 and 4 of Galatians as well.
In another departure from current mainstream thinking on Paul, Boyarin understands him to be a proto-encratite, proclaiming the superiority of celibacy over marriage not only because of the “present distress,” but generally. In this way, Boyarin returns to the understanding of earlier centuries. His argument, based on readings of Romans 5–8, I Corinthians 6–7 and Galatians 5, is persuasive, but again, I will have to live with this for a while.
In his final chapter, Boyarin shifts from engaging with Paul’s writings and the history of their interpretation to his personal response to Paul’s claim. Boyarin rejects Paul’s program of divesting himself of particularity to become assimilated into a universal (non-Jewish) man (Paul’s call for an end to the distinction male/female has a similar effect; initially liberating for women, treated as second-class, ends by assimilating them to a male ideal). Instead, he proposes a continued dialectic of Pauline common humanity and its opposite, Rabbinic particularism: “A dialectic that would utilize each of these as antithesis to the other, correcting in the ‘Christian’ system its tendencies toward a coercive universalism and in the ‘Jewish’ system its tendencies toward contemptuous neglect for human solidarity might lead beyond both toward a better social system” (p. 235) This would have the effect of what Boyarin calls “deterritorializing Jewishness.” As he sees it, it is not possible to uphold both particularity and territoriality. Boyarin thus rejects not only Paul but also Zionism, since the particularism of a minority cannot help but become oppressive when it is combined with political hegemony. In its place, Boyarin envisions what he calls a “diasporized (multicultural) Israel.” Sounds interesting, but it’s hard for me to see how to get there from the current situation.
I found this book stimulating and thought-provoking. Boyarin’s frequent references to points he had previously made or would subsequently suggest that the book could have been better organized. Also, there are 78 pages of endnotes, more than a quarter of the book. In many of these, Boyarin engages with a wide variety of scholarship, not just Biblical. I tried flipping back and forth for the first couple of chapters, but often had difficulty finding my way into the main text again. So I stayed with the main text, sometimes turning to the back at the end of each chapter to scan the notes. I’m sure I missed some interesting material this way. There seems to be no hard and fast rule for when footnotes would be better than endnotes. I envisioned an edition of this book in which the pages were laid out like pages of the Talmud, with the body of text in the middle, surrounded by discussion in all the margins.
Most books about Paul are written with the assumption that his writings are scripture, and therefore need to be defended or debunked. For Boyarin, they are valuable documents of first-century Jewish thought. The resulting book is a worthwhile read. ( )