The chiastic inversion in the argument of Romans 2 : 1 − 3 : 9 and the identity of the interlocutor in Romans 2 : 17 − 29

This article intends to understand the identity of the interlocutor in Romans 2:17−29 by analysing Paul’s argument design of Romans 2:1−3:9. Specifically, this work will focus on the identity of the interlocutor in Romans 2:17−29, and through structural analyses, we will more clearly understand the intention of the author regarding the interlocutor. Traditionally, the interlocutor in Romans 2:17 is considered as a ‘pretentious’ Jew (e.g. Stowers 1981:113; Tobin 2014:115; Windsor 2014:191−192), and it was believed that, in Romans 2:28–29, Paul redefines Jewishness according to the circumcision of the mind (e.g. Barclay 1998:536−556; Campbell 2009:565; Dunn 1988:109). However, a challenging view is emerging in current New Testament scholarship (e.g. Thiessen 2014:373−391; Thorsteinsson 2003). We will briefly summarise their interpretations as follows.


Introduction
This article intends to understand the identity of the interlocutor in Romans 2:17−29 by analysing Paul's argument design of Romans 2:1−3:9.Specifically, this work will focus on the identity of the interlocutor in Romans 2:17−29, and through structural analyses, we will more clearly understand the intention of the author regarding the interlocutor.Traditionally, the interlocutor in Romans 2:17 is considered as a 'pretentious' Jew (e.g. Stowers 1981:113;Tobin 2014:115;Windsor 2014:191−192), and it was believed that, in Romans 2:28-29, Paul redefines Jewishness according to the circumcision of the mind (e.g.Barclay 1998:536−556;Campbell 2009:565;Dunn 1988:109).However, a challenging view is emerging in current New Testament scholarship (e.g.Thiessen 2014:373−391;Thorsteinsson 2003).We will briefly summarise their interpretations as follows.

A challenging view
In his influential monograph, Thorsteinsson contends that the interlocutor in Romans 2:17 is not a Jew but someone who wants to be called a Jew (2003:199).He notes that, in 1 Corinthians 5:11, the verb ὀνομάζω (a cognate word for ἐπονομάζω in Rm 2:17) is used with reference not to a real brother but to the one who calls himself a brother.In this perspective, Thorsteinsson asserts that ἐπονομάζω in Romans 2:17a (εἰ δὲ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ἐπονομάζῃ) should be interpreted in terms similar to 1 Corinthians 5:11 and that Ἰουδαῖος does not refer to a real Jew but to a proselyte.Thiessen also recently argues that Ἰουδαῖος in Romans 2:17 is not a real Jew but a Gentile proselyte interlocutor.In Romans 3:1−9, Paul discusses the benefits of physical circumcision.For that reason, Thiessen (2014:381) maintains that we should not conclude that Paul denies physical circumcision and redefines Jewishness in Romans 2:28−29.Thiessen notes that Jews sometimes mention theft and adultery in the list of sins (Rm 2:21−22) as Gentile sins (e.g.Wisdom of Solomon,.Furthermore, Thiessen (2014:387) points out that the circumcision performed on the eighth day after birth is valid and contains a covenantal advantage.Ishmael was circumcised at the age of 13 but ' [Ishmael] falls outside the covenant God made with Abraham.His circumcision has no covenantal or legal benefit'.Therefore, Thiessen holds that, if a Gentile seeks to become a Jew through his circumcision, his pursuit would turn out to fail, as his circumcision is not performed on the eighth day after his birth This article intends to understand the identity of the interlocutor in Romans 2:17−29 by analysing Paul's argument design of Romans 2:1−3:9.Specifically, this work will focus on the identity of the interlocutor in Romans 2:17−29.This study detects Paul's elaborate chiastic structure in Romans 2:1−3:9, and we argue that the identity of the interlocutor should be considered in this structural context.Through our structural analysis, we will more clearly understand the intention of the author regarding the interlocutor.Contrary to the view of Thorsteinsson and Thiessen, it can be inferred that the identity of the interlocutor is not the Jewish proselytes but the Jews on the basis of our structural analysis.In Romans 2:17−29, the identity of the people of God is redefined in terms of the transformation of mind (i.e. the circumcision of the heart), and the discussions on the historical context of the transformation of the mind.

Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications:
This work challenges the previous understanding of the structural design of the Pauline texts, adding fresh insights on the identity of the interlocutor in Romans 2:17−29.It is expected that studies on the authorial design and its semantic implications are further developed through this work.
and it infringes on the Jewish cultic law. 1 Accordingly, the Gentile proselytes' circumcision cannot please God (cf.Rm 2:29).Thus, Thiessen (2014:309) concludes that the Jew (Ἰουδαῖος) in Romans 2000:17 is not a real Jew, but a socalled Jew, and that the interlocutor is simply the one who believes himself to be a Jew.
In order to understand the identity of the interlocutor in Romans 2:17−29, we need to consider the following questions.What does Paul mean by the benefits of the circumcision in Romans 3:2?If Paul denies the value of the physical circumcision, why does Paul state the advantage (ὠφέλεια) of the physical circumcision?Can this contradiction be resolved?How, then, can we interpret Romans 2:28−29?Does Paul repudiate the physical circumcision (Thiessen 2014:384)?Despite the ongoing scholarly discussions, these questions remain unresolved.Although Paul's logic concerning this issue is inevitably related to the argument design of Romans 2:17−3:9, there have been few detailed studies on Paul's argument design and structure in Romans 2:17−3:9.Moreover, Thorsteinsson and Thiessen are not interested in structural analysis.Therefore, in this article, we intend to make clear the flow of Romans 2:17−3:9 which is yet to be clarified in terms of an authorial stylistic view. 2 In particular, we will identify the chiastic structure of Romans 2:17−3:9 which has not been detected by previous interpreters, as far as we know.Thus, we will examine Paul's intention and the position of Judaism in Romans 2:1−3:9 by analysing the stylistic features including parallelistic and chiastic structures. 3This work begins with the specific analysis of Paul's elaborate chiastic inversion in Romans 2:1−3:9, as follows.

Paul's argument design of Romans 2:1−3:9
In this section, we will explore the literary context of Romans 2:1−3:9, particularly Paul's argument design.Before considering Romans 2:1−3:9, we should consider the wider literary context of the given text.It should be noted that Romans 1:18−3:18 frames one group of clusters, which deals with the issue of human sins.To put it simply, the overall structure can be organised as set out in Figure 1.
Firstly, the sinful reality of human beings is elucidated and listed in Romans 1:18−32 (A) and Romans 3:10−18 (A').Secondly, both Romans 2:1−16 (B) and Romans 3:1−9 (B') 1.Contrary to the Masoretic Text, the translator of the Septuagint describes all nations as circumcised in LXX Jeremiah 9:24−25, and in the subsequent verses, 'they [i.e.all nations] are uncircumcised in their flesh'.Thiessen, 'Paul's Argument against Gentile Circumcision', 389.Thiessen interprets that this is related to the Jewish cultic regulations which consider the circumcision performed not on the eighth day after birth to be invalid.
3.The stylistic approach has drawn little attention in New Testament scholarship.On the contrary, the linguistic approach has been attempted by several scholars.More attempts for stylistic analysis have been made in Old Testament scholarship.For instance, see Dorsey (1999) and Walsh (2001).In addition, for exceptional examples of the investigation into literary/stylistic design concerning the New Testament, see Welch (1981), Bauer (1988), Thomson (1995), Brouwer (2000) and Kim (2014).
deal with divine judgement.In the centre of the chiasm, Romans 2:17−29 (X) points out that the so-called Jews do not observe the law.Thirdly, the focus of Paul's critique is given to the Gentiles (Rm 1:18−32).The focus is transited from the Gentiles to the Jews in Romans 2:1−16, and the so-called Jews are critiqued by Paul in Romans 2:17−29.Again, the focus is transited from the Jews to the Gentiles in Romans 3:1−9, and in Romans 3:10−18 the sinful reality encompasses everybody.This chiastic structure is symmetrical, and in this chiasm, it is likely that the so-called Jew in Romans 2:17 as a fictive interlocutor refers to an ethnic Jew, not to a Gentile proselyte.In the following sections, we will more specifically discuss the chiastic structures in the sub-units in Romans 2:1−3:9 and will consider its implications for the identity of the interlocutor.

Romans 2:1−16
Romans 2:1−16 forms a chiastic structure (A−X−A'): vv.1−5 (A), vv.6−11 (X) and vv.12−16 (A').In this chiasm, A and A' are paired up, and X is located in the centre between them.The concept of divine judgement is prominent in A -A': A discusses the unavoidable judgement, and A' is concerned with the judgement upon the sinners.The concept of the judgement repeatedly appears in Romans 2:1−5 and Romans 2:12−16 (e.g.τὸ κρίμα τοῦ θεοῦ in Romans 2:2−3; κρίνει ὁ θεὸς in Romans 2:16 and its cognate words).On the contrary, these words are not used in Romans 2:6−11, which deals with God's impartiality in his reward and retribution.
A (Rm 2:1−5) can be seen as one unit: there is a parallelism in Romans 2:1−5 (ab-a'b'), and a thematic shift is found in the divine judgement upon those who judge in Romans 2:1−5 and to God's impartial compensation and judgement in Romans 2:6−11.In Romans 2:1, 'διό' shows that the paragraph 4.Paul's use of diatribe in this unit has been widely noticed by scholars, for example, Witherington (2004:75), Stowers (1981:93) and Dunn (1988:78−79).shows that there will be the judgement of God, comprising an inner, embedded chiasm (a, Rm 2:2a -b, Rm 2:2b − a', Rm 2:3a − b', Rm 2:3b). 7It seems that, in Romans 2:4 (a' of Rm 2:1−5), Paul intends a thematic shift to another theme: from the judgement to God's mercy.In a' (Rm 2:4), God's kindness (or mercy) and patience is delineated, and is contrasted with the judgement of human beings (a, Rm 2:1    In A (Rm 2:17−20), Paul discusses the pride of the so-called Jews, and this sub-unit is divided into a complex chiastic composition as a1a2a3−x−a'1a'2a'3.Particularly, the knowledge in a2−a'2 and the law in a3−a'3 repeat the conceptual stress of the pride on the law.In addition, A' (Rm 2:28−29) elucidates who is the true Jew.ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ Ἰουδαῖός is contrasted with ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖος, while ἡ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ περιτομή is in contrast to περιτομὴ καρδίας, and ἐν σαρκὶ with ἐν πνεύματι, ἐξ ἀνθρώπων with ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ.The implications on the identity of the interlocutor relating to this aspect will be discussed in a following section.
Possibly, Romans 3:9 is Paul's conclusion.We should also note that there is a logical gap between Romans 3:1−2 and 3:3−4.Romans 3:1 is Paul's question and 3:2 is Paul's answer.Yet, in Romans 3:3, Paul does not elucidate the answer of Romans 3:2 but proceeds to its arguments towards the conclusion in Romans 3:9.That is, Romans 3:1−2 is not Paul's focus in Romans 3:1−9.Rather, it seems that Romans 3:1−2 are hinge verses connecting to the discussions on the Jews in Romans 2:17−29.

The identity of the interlocutor
As shown in the previous section 'Paul's argument design of Romans 2:1−3:9', we can justify our observation that Romans 2:1−3:9 consists of three clusters (Rm 2:1−16; 2:17−29; and 3:1−9).Firstly, Romans 2:1−16 is an enclosed unit.This unit denotes that the one who judges turns out to be the one who is judged, and that divine judgement will be certainly given to him.Secondly, we do not detect the concept of divine judgement in Romans 2:17−29.Romans 2:17−29 focuses on two questions: (1) Can the Jews boast? and (2) Who are the true people of God? Thirdly, in Romans 3:1−9, Paul returns to the concept of divine judgement, while the falsehood of human beings is contrasted with the truthfulness of God.
Fourthly, each of these three paragraphs contains its complete chiasm, and they constitute their own cohesive entity.For instance, Romans 2:1−3:9 has A-X-A' structure.The theme of divine judgement in A (Rm 2:1−17) recurs in A' (Rm 3:1−19).On the contrary, the theme of divine judgement is not found in X (Rm 2:17−29), which delineates the true people of God.In A (Rm 2:1−17), the one who escapes the divine judgement is the law observer.In X, the question is given: Are the so-called Jews the law observers?If the so-called Jew does not observe the law, he or she is simply an outwardly Jew, not an inwardly Jew.In A', the Jew has some benefits.However, all human beings are fundamentally sinful, and the Jews are equal with the non-Jews in terms of divine judgement (Rm 2:6, 12).
Fifthly, in A−A', the Jews and the Gentiles alike will be under divine judgement and salvation, and the focus of X is placed upon the Jews.Whereas the issue concerning the Jews is delineated in A−A' (Rm 2:12−13; 3:1−2), the Gentiles are discussed along with the Jews.
That is to say, understanding Paul's argument design enables the readers to more clearly perceive the focus of the given text.
The identity of the interlocutor in Romans 2:27 is inevitably 12.A rhetorial question is raised in a and answered in a', while x is an emphatic, negative expression, μὴ γένοιτο.
13.As in the case of B1, 3:3−4, x is an emphatic, negative expression, μὴ γένοιτο, while a and a' are a question-answer pair.
connected to that of the interlocutor in Romans 2:1−16.
Researchers diverge on whose sins Paul is blaming in Romans 2:1−11, and their claims can be categorised in the following three perspectives: (1) Paul critiques the Jews; (2) Paul critiques the Gentiles; and (3) Paul principally critiques the Jews but also the Gentiles.
The scholars in support of the first option understand Romans 2:1−11 as Paul's criticism towards the Jews, and they argue that διό in Romans 2:1 is not connected to the sins of the Gentiles in Romans 1:21−32, but to the wrath of God in Romans 1:18−19 (e.g.Moo 1996:129;Nygren 1967:115).The second group of scholars highlights the link between Romans 2:1−11 and the previous paragraph, and contends that Paul is condemning the sins of the Gentiles, not the Jews.Elliott (2014:168−223) writes that διό in Romans 2:1 is an inferential conjunction to display the logical corollary from the preceding passage.Stowers (1981:110) also argues: 'The function of Romans 2:1−5 is to bring home, to concretize and to sharpen the indictment in Romans 1:18−32 (especially vv.28−32) for Paul's audience'.
Then, who is the interlocutor (the one who is called a Jew) in Romans 2:17?Is he a Jew or a Gentile proselyte who believes himself to be a Jew?We identify a chiasm in Paul cites Isaiah 52:5 in X (Rm 2:24, the centre of the chiastic structure), and this is also a critique towards the ethnic Jews.It is doubtful that the critique in Romans 2:24 is ascribed to merely the circumcised proselytes except for the ethnic Jews.That is, Romans 2:17−24 should be regarded as Paul's discussion about Jewish pride, and this theme is connected to Paul's statement in Romans 2:11: Οὐ γάρ ἐστιν προσωπολημψία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ.
Therefore, the contrast in Romans 2:28−29 is not the antithesis between the circumcised Jews and the uncircumcised Gentiles, but between the Jews without the circumcision of the mind and the Jews whose mind was transformed according to the new covenant.So, in contrast to many scholars' arguments, ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖος in Romans 2:29 does not refer to the Gentile Christians. 14This point is connected to Romans 9:7−8: 'not all of Abraham's children are his true descendants; but "It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named after you."This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants' (NRSV).Thus, Paul's statement in Romans 2:28−29 should be understood in terms of an intra-Jewish discussion, not of ascribing Jewishness to Gentile Christians.
The circumcision in Judaism can be viewed as the guarantee of salvation, 15 but these verses (Rm 2:28−29) should be 14.Christ lives as Jew and the Pauline letters were written when the Christian communities were parts of Judaism.Accordingly, the disputes in the Pauline letters are not controversies between religions but inner house conflict or intra-Jewish conflict (Campbell 2008:42 We should also note, in the following verse, the circumcision of the hardened mind: (LXX Deuteronomy 10:16) 'καὶ περιτεμεῖσθε τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν καὶ τὸν τράχηλον ὑμῶν οὐ σκληρυνεῖτε ἔτι'.In LXX Deuteronomy 10:16, the translator does not express the circumcision of the foreskin ‫,)תלרע(‬ but the hardened mind (σκληροκαρδία). 18In LXX Jeremiah 4:4, we detect a similar statement: 'περιτμήθητε τῷ θεῷ ὑμῶν καὶ περιτέμεσθε τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν …' As Takamitsu Muraoka (2010:514) argues, σκληροκαρδία in the LXX is related to the disobedient mind which rejects the obedience of God's will. 19So, the theme of the circumcision of the mind was connected to the theme of obedience towards the law.It can be considered as the transformation of the mind which was expected as an eschatological event.
In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the removal of the hardened mind and giving the new mind are clearly referenced.In 1QS 5:5, the circumcision of the mind refers to transforming the inclination (cf.1QS 2:11−17; see also 1QH a 7:16; CD 2:16; Wells 2014:83).The circumcision of the inclination of the mind is concerned with the transformation of the disobedient mind.In CD 1:8−10, the circumcision of the mind is fulfilled when the teacher of righteousness comes.So, in CD 1:8−10, the circumcision of the mind is an eschatological concept. 20Particularly, in CD 1:8−10, the circumcision of the mind is the special ability of the understanding of the Torah, and it was believed that the Qumran community members as the true Israel will possess the ability to understand and obey the Torah through the circumcision of the mind.
Philo of Alexandria allegorises the eschatological promise of the new mind.Yet, we are not supposed to conclude that Philo discarded the surface meaning of a text.In Philo's allegorical commentaries, the literal sense comes first, and the allegory is based on the literal meaning.For Philo, the hardness of the mind is related to the disobedience towards the Torah (De specialibus legibus 1.305−6).In particular, the circumcision of the mind is symbolically understood as the removal of the passion or desire (Legum allegoriae 3.140).
The model of the hardness of the mind is Esau, Jacob's brother (De fuga et inventione 42).Esau is irrational and a slave by nature (Legum allegoriae 3.88).The epistemological quality is innately bestowed upon Isaac (De sobrietate 8−9; De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 6; De cherubim 1−10), it is also acquired by train of thought just as Jacob (De congressueru ditionis gratia 129; De agricultura 51).In Philonic literature, the transformation of the mind is connected to the inscription of the Torah in the mind and the discernment of virtue, the capacity of the understanding and the controlling of the dominant part (ἡγεμονικόν) of the mind over the senses (De agricultura 83, De decalogo 142−46).The circumcision of the mind is related to Philo's epistemological theory.Thus, in these documents, the true Israel is redefined in terms of their ability of understanding obtained through the circumcision of the mind.
On the contrary, it should be noted that, as discussed above, Philo does not repudiate the literal meaning of the text, 21 and the literal observance of the Jewish ritual law was significant for him.Yet, it seems that Paul accepts the allegorical meaning rather than the literal meaning of the Jewish ritual law.For Paul, while the circumcision and the Jewish ritual are beneficial and meaningful in some dimensions (Rm 3:1−2), the Jewish ritual law concerning the circumcision and the calendrical regulations does not have to be obeyed.What is important for Paul is not the literal observance (the physical circumcision) of the Jewish ritual law in a superficial aspect but the transformation of the heart (the circumcision of the
As a whole, Romans 2:1−16 can be justified as one cluster.The concept of divine judgement is pivotal in Romans 2:1−16, and the main issue is transited to the transgression of the socalled Jews in Romans 2:17−29.The motif of the divine judgement is missing in Romans 2:17−29 and reappears in Romans 3. Accordingly, the demarcation of the paragraphs should be between Romans 2:16 and 2:17 in thematic terms.
interpreted in terms of the question: 'Who is the real Jew?'This point does not deny the value of the circumcision or the circumcised Jews, but it indicates that the circumcision of the mind is needed for the Jews in order to obey the law (Rm 2:27).16Thatis, the circumcised Jews also need the circumcision of their mind according to the new covenant.Then, what is the circumcision of the mind?It should be noted that membership of the true Israel was defined in terms of the circumcision of the mind.The circumcision of the mind in Romans 2:29 is related to the concept of the hard and impenitent mind (τὴν σκληρότητά σου καὶ ἀμετανόητον καρδίαν) in Romans 2:5.Further, we also find the concept of the hardness of the mind relating to the state of the Jews in Romans 11:7: ).15.For example, Jubilees 15:28−32.