Paul's Reversal of Jews Calling Gentiles 'Dogs' (Philippians 3:2): 1600 Years of an Ideological Tale Wagging an Exegetical Dog?

Abstract

The commentary tradition on Philippians 3:2 (and on Matt. 15 and Mark 7 too) has been claiming at least since Chrysostom that Jews commonly called Gentiles dogs, thereby legitimating a pattern of calling Jews dogs. Contemporary commentaries indicate no awareness of the harmful legacy or the continued implications of the polemic to which it contributes when perpetuating this invective. Moreover, evidence of this supposed common prejudice is often not provided, and when it is, usually consists of sayings attributed to Jesus and the Syro-Phoenician or Canaanite womanthus available to us only in documents that post-date Paul, representing early "Christian" polemic. In addition to being anachronistic and not likely known to Paul's audience in Philippi, upon examination, it is also not clear that these Gospel sayings provide the proof supposed. Sometimes an appeal is made to Psalm 22 and other Jewish texts, but under examination, none of these substantiate the claim. Likewise, the many supposed cases in rabbinic literature-which could only provide anachronistic evidence at best-do not in fact substantiate that Jews ever called Gentiles dogs, much less that Jews commonly did so, even long after Christians habitually called Jews dogs. This essay examines the texts and challenges the interpretive tradition's claims, as well as its failure to exhibit hermeneutical distance when repeating this supposed invective against Jews and Judaism. Having exposed this ideological tale, several exegetical options worth exploring are noted.

‘One Thing’: Stoic Discourse and Paul’s Reevaluation of His Jewish Credentials in Phil. 3.1–21

“…5.6, texts that place gentiles alongside dogs). However, Nanos (2009) correctly highlights the ubiquity of this derogatory label in antiquity and the later date of these sources (see also Thiessen 2017; Collman 2021). Thus, the label 'dogs' is too vague to identify Paul's opponents, except possibly to highlight the practice of circumcision (Collman 2021: 119).…”

“…3 is one instance of a common paradox in Paul's texts: concurrent positive and negative discourse on Jewish heritage. Binary readings of this passage have often interpreted Paul's comments as a repudiation of his Jewish credentials and some recent interpreters have argued that this text's negative discourse references only gentile Judaising and not Jewish practice (Nanos 2015;Fredriksen 2017: 107-13;Collman 2021: 114). These readings struggle to account for aspects of Paul's discussion on the topic, though.…”

Crossing over; taking refuge: A contrapuntal reading

“…In dialogue with a recent study of Mark Nanos, I will explore this anomaly attentive to migration, especially long-term migration. Nanos (2009) suggests that the use of the title may indicate:…”

“Their End Is Destruction”: Reading Philippians as Philosophical Dialogue

“…There has been a strong tradition of seeing the opposition as some sort of Jewish or Judaizing perspective-not least based on the two epithets of Phil 3:2: (Engberg-Pedersen 2021, p. 18). 1 However, recent studies have challenged this view and the assumptions that lie behind it (Nanos 2009;Collman 2021;Phillips Wilson 2023). These studies suggest that it is not Judaism or legalism per se that Paul warns against; 2 rather, they suggest, it appears "the concerns of the Philippians and Paul can be interpreted within a Greco-Roman cultural and political-religious context" (Nanos 2015, p. 184).…”