"Servants of Satan," "False Brothers" and Other Opponents of Paul

Abstract

-Servants of Satan, False Brothers and Other Opponents of Paul, by Jerry L. Sumney. JSNTSup 188. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999, Pp. 360. $85.00. Jerry Sumney addresses a critical issue for interpreter of Paul's letters: any interpreter will suppose or articulate a hypothesis identifying the opposition and his successors faced. To date, however, insufficient attention has been paid to employment of that conform to accepted canons of critical historical research and that conform to genre of documents involved (p. 13). Interpreters have generally begun with findings that are only appropriate as conclusions; otherwise such presuppositions influence findings beyond what is appropriate to historical enterprise. Sumney seeks to challenge common presupposition that there was an anti-- Pauline movement that purposefully sought to undermine Paul's authority and supplant his teachings, such as is found, for example, work of F. C. Baur, W. Schmithals, and G. Ludemann. He also questions those identifications dependent on set theological categories, such as Christology or soteriology, as well as those composed around heresy/ orthodoxy or heteropraxy/orthopraxy schemes. The historical controversies were not so one-dimensional; social life seldom is. Labeling opposition as heretics may skew matter, so that they are not considered apart from author's polemical context. In addition, many interpreters have an investment emphasizing distance of these from Paul's views and practices, privileging Paul's perspective because it is their own, and thus risking exaggeration of differences. Yet it may be that any difference's importance is greater to than to these opponents, who emphasize perhaps more agreement with than is readily apparent. This is how social conflict has been shown to work by certain sociological theorists and can be observed historical analogies: importance placed on difference is heightened with respect to who is significantly similar, while radically different other is more easily dismissed. The extremely useful methodology Sumney sets out to apply to letters of Pauline corpus (including those disputed as pseudo-Pauline) specifically for purpose of identifying (except Romans, Ephesians, and Philemon, where Sumney finds no opponents) is primarily a restatement of what he develops his earlier work Identifying Paul's Opponents (JSNTSup 40; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). Rather than list details of various methods or attempt a survey of every chapter, I will discuss some of results of Sumney's method and its employment his chapter on Galatians, entitled: Paul Makes Some Enemies. Be advised, however, that while this approach offers a window into details of one of his many engaging discussions, it is inadequate to communicate scope of this monograph, which addresses issue of throughout entire Pauline corpus. Sumney recognizes that any decision on rhetorical genre of Galatians as forensic or deliberative must not be made until at least explicit statements about have been examined (pp. 134-35), an important point too often overlooked current debate about such classification. However, at least three presuppositions are already recognizable Sumney's statement of case: (1) whether assignment of any one or combination of such formal rhetorical classifications is an appropriate goal, as though it is certain that this text represents any such case; (2) if pursued, ostensible exclusion of consideration of epideictic classification (presupposed because it has few advocates current debate?); and (3) prejudicing of investigation by labeling of others view as opponents prior to demonstrating that s/he or they oppose (cf. p. 136: in a letter written to combat opponents). …