New Testament exegesis cannot stabilize who Paul’s adversary actually is.

Evidence

Commenting on Romans 9, Lloyd Gaston emphasizes that, exegetical history aside, the Jews are not always mentioned as the targeted adversary (Gaston, “Israel’s Enemies in Pauline Theology,” 4n). More specifically, regarding r:r8-3:20, Richard Longenecker notes that “problems begin to take form when one attempts to identify exactly who is being talked about or addressed in the passage. Is it Gentiles in 1:18-32, Jews in 2:1-5, Gentiles in 2:6-r6, then Jews again in 2:17-3:19, with a conclusion in 3:20? Or is it Gentiles in 1:18-32 and Jews in 2:1-3=19 with a conclusion pertaining to both in 3:20? Or is it humanity generally in r:r8-2:r6 and Jews (or a particular type of Jew) in 2:17-3:19, with a conclusion in 3:20? Earlier in- terpreters such as Origen, Jerome, Augustine and Erasmus wrestled with this issue, and it continues to plague commentators today” (Longenecker, “The Focus of Romans,” 51). Exegesis as the permanent possibility of war. — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab, 840

Categorization

• DEFINE: Establishes the undecidability of the enemy-figure in Paul that Anidjar’s genealogy depends on — the enemy blurs Jew and Gentile.
• SEED: The claim ‘Exegesis as the permanent possibility of war’ could seed an essay on how interpretive undecidability itself becomes the engine of persecution.