Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] The Apostle to the Greek Israelites

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>
  • To: "'Corpus-Paul'" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] The Apostle to the Greek Israelites
  • Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 23:51:32 -0500

From: Steve Black
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 4:13 PM

<<This would imply that Paul is only speaking to slaves when he speaks of
circumcision. The rest of his Jewish audience would have
been scratching their heads wondering why Paul was making such a big deal
over something that only related to limited number of
people in the assemblies.>>

I said "mostly." Since the issue of circumcision is such a major element in
the Pauline letters, the majority of Paul's associates
may have actually been slaves of Jews or lower class retainers of Jewish
patrons. If Malina and Pilch are correct, then he was
reaching out to those who had fallen outside of the covenant, either by
accident, or by their father's or their own actions. It
would be sort of like the relationship between the Am ha Eretz and Pharisees
in Judea, only in a city setting.

<<If this were a issue that had any weight of importance, we would expect to
find something about the need for Jews to be
circumcised in either Philo or Josephus, I would think. Is there any such
interest in this issue with these authors.>>

Presumably you mean the issue of Judean Israelites vs. Greek Israelites? Yes,
I would think so.

Josephus does mention "two great men, who were under the jurisdiction of the
king [Agrippa, who] came to me [to Sepphoris in
Galilee] out of the region of Trachonitis, bringing their horses and their
arms, and carrying with them their money also; and when
the Jews [Ioudaiwn] would force them to be circumcised, if they would stay
among them, I would not permit them to have any force put
upon them, but said to them, 'Everyone ought to worship God according to his
own inclinations, and not to be constrained by force;
and that these men, who had fled to us for protection, ought not to be so
treated as to repent of their coming here.' And when I had
pacified the multitude, I provided for the men that were come to us whatever
it was they wanted, according to their usual way of
living, and that in great plenty also." [Life 1:112-113]

I suppose that the two "great men" of Agrippa who came from Trachonitis could
have been "Greek Israelites" and the "Ioudaiwn" were
"Judean Israelites" who had come with Josephus. On the other hand, by this
time Josephus seemed to have collected a personal
bodyguard of Galileans rather than fellow Judeans, so who would be forcing
anyone to accept circumcision if not the residents of
Sepphoris, who would not, technically, be Judeans, and who were actually
inclined to remain loyal to Rome? Yet on this list many
electrons have been spilled arguing that Judeans and Galileans were like oil
and water, like night and day. Now must they be treated
as the same!?

The other case I can think of off-hand, besides the forced circumcision of a
Roman officer in Jerusalem at the start of the war of
66 CE, is the conversion of King Izates, of the royal family of Adiabene,
shortly after his accession to the throne in the late 20's
CE. Here I do not think there can be any doubt that Izates was neither a
Judean Israelite or a Greek Israelite, however this might
be termed (unless one follows Eisenman here, that some folks of that region
already thought of themselves as children of Ishmael).
However, it appears that he would have been considered an "Ioudaios" had his
tutor Ananias not stopped him from having himself
circumcised. It would make for odd terminology had the term only referred to
Judean Israelites! Even the separate *Galilean*
teacher, Eleazar, who later convinces him to go through with the rite is
called an Ioudaios. Are Galileans to be treated, again, as
Judeans? If Galileans, why not residents of Trachonitis, as this was also
supposed to have been a part of David & Solomon's ancient
kingdom?

This kind of difference of opinion among Jews, such as lenient Ananias and
strict Eleazar, about circumcision and the righteousness
before God of these non Jewish/Judean converts, seems to best explain the
problems that Paul had to deal with and the opposition he
encountered. After all, if one makes conversion *too* easy, those who adopt a
harder position may feel that the others are
cheapening the value of their privileges. It is clear that despite a fair
amount of Greek and Roman prejudice against Judeans and
their ilk, the Jews/Judeans had won an impressive degree of tolerance and
respect from the Roman rulers in matters of self
regulation of their affairs and the practice their ancestral customs. They
were not subject to military conscription. They could
assemble in large numbers for worship. If *anybody* could be a Jew/Judean
just by worshiping their God, all that could just as
easily be taken away as unnecessary, as no other people were allowed that
degree of freedom.

<<It is fairly easy to construct plausible scenarios - they key to getting
these scenarios accepted is, of course, evidence!>>

That is why I am quoting sources.

<<What evidence is there about Jewish communities in Galatia? In Antioch? In
Damascus? In Corinth? These are the Jews that Paul
would have been addressing, many of whom were not and had likely never been
slaves!>>

That would be slaves of Jewish masters and free clients of Jewish patrons. I
did not say the slaves were Jews who needed to be
circumcised, although I concede that there may have been a significant number
of uncircumcised descendants of Judeans. Those would
be living in these districts on account of resettlement colonies sponsored by
Syrian kings, or by normal immigration by those
seeking better lives, but whose parents had lapsed into native or Greek ways
due to lack of numbers to reinforce their determination
to retain ancestral customs.

<<As far as Juvenal goes, I'm not sure that he can bring to light the
situation of Paul's time.>>

Maybe not. Late 1st century to about 127 CE, I believe. However, if he can
know of (or at least pretend to know of) families that
had practiced some degree of Judean customs for generations in his time,
after the terrible war of 66-70 CE, which probably did not
endear many Romans to Judean religion, can not this sort of adoption of
Judean customs be assumed to have been even more prevalent
before that war? If these were actually Romanized individuals of Judean
descent, the valiant examples of the bravery and convictions
of their brethren in Judea may have spurred the younger generation to take up
their traditions in earnest.

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio USA

Antiquities of the Jews 20:17-47 17 About this time it was that Helena,
queen of Adiabene, and her son Izates, changed their
course of life, and embraced the Jewish customs, and this on the occasion
following:-- 18 Monobazus, the king of Adiabene, who had
also the name of Bazeus, fell in love with his sister Helena, and took her to
be his wife, and begat her with child. ... 22b he sent
Izates, with many presents, to Abennerig, the king of Charax-Spasini, and
that out of the great dread he was in about him, lest he
should come to some misfortune by the hatred his brothers bore him; and he
committed his son's preservation to him. ... 34 Now,
during the time Izates abode at Charax-Spasini, a certain Jewish [Ioudaios]
merchant, whose name was Ananias, got among the women
that belonged to the king, and taught them to worship God according to the
Jewish religion. 35 He, moreover, by their means, became
known to Izates, and persuaded him, in like manner, to embrace that religion;
he also, at the earnest entreaty of Izates,
accompanied him when he was sent for by his father to come to Adiabene; it
also happened that Helena, about the same time, was
instructed by a certain other Jew and went over to them. ... 38 And when he
perceived that his mother was highly pleased with the
Jewish customs, he made haste to change, and to embrace them entirely; and as
he supposed that he could not he thoroughly a Jew
[Ioudaios] unless he were circumcised, he was ready to have it done. 39 But
when his mother understood what he was about to do, she
endeavoured to hinder him from doing it, ... his subjects, ... would never
bear to be ruled over by a Jew [Ioudaiou]. 40 This it
was that she said to him, and, for the present, persuaded him to forbear. And
when he had related what she had said to Ananias, he
confirmed what his mother had said; ... and he said, that he might worship
God without being circumcised, even though he did resolve
to follow the Jewish law entirely, which worship of God was of a superior
nature to circumcision. 42 He added, that God would
forgive him, though he did not perform the operation, while it was omitted
out of necessity, and for fear of his subjects. So the
king at that time complied with these persuasions of Ananias. 43 But
afterward, as he had not quite abandoned his desire of doing
this thing, a certain other Jew [Ioudaios] that came out of Galilee[!!],
whose name was Eleazar, and who was esteemed very skilful
in the learning of his country, persuaded him to do the thing; 44 for as he
entered into his palace to greet him, and found him
reading the law of Moses, he said to him, 'You do not consider, O king! that
you unjustly break the principal of those laws, and are
injurious to God himself [by omitting to be circumcised]; for you ought not
only to read them, but chiefly to practice what they
enjoin you. 45 How long will you continue uncircumcised? but if you have not
yet read the law about circumcision, and do not know
how great impiety you are guilty of by neglecting it, read it now.' 46 When
the king had heard what he said, he delayed the thing
no longer, but retired to another room, and sent for a surgeon, and did what
he was commanded to do. He then sent for his mother,
and Ananias his tutor, and informed them that he had done the thing; 47 upon
which they were presently struck with astonishment and
fear, and that to a great degree, lest the thing should be openly found out
and censured, and the king should hazard the loss of his
kingdom, while his subjects would not bear to be governed by a man who was so
zealous in another religion; and lest they should
themselves run some hazard, because they would be supposed the occasion of
his so doing.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page