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: Steve Black <sdblack AT rogers.com>
  • To: dhindley AT compuserve.com, Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] The Apostle to the Greek Israelites
  • Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 08:33:06 -0500


On Feb 4, 2006, at 11:51 PM, David Hindley wrote:

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.

Although there were certainly enough house owners to be able to have house churches! In any event, the idea of a mostly slave class in Paul's churches has been out of favor ever since Meek's seminal work.


<<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'm not sure this example indicates that there was a large number of Jews who were uncircumcised. This seems like a sporadic incident.


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.

I wouldn't be surprised (not having a Greek text of Josephus in front of me) if these two men were non-Jews, perhaps proselytes to "Judaism" or "god-fearers". In any event, they do not provide the needed evidence - what we would need in an indication not of two or three uncircumcised people (such cases surely existed) to make sense of Paul's, letter, but whole communities. Less than this and his polemic is unintelligible.

[snip]

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?

Perhaps I misunderstand - but is this not an example of a convert to Judaism getting circumcised (or not)? This is certainly not an example of Jewish communities that were not circumcised, but rather a good parallel for what a conventional reading finds in Paul.

[snip]

<<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.

This latter scenario is exactly what we would need some evidence for - that is whole communities of Jews (or Judeans if we please) who were not circumcised.


<<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.

I don't think we can say whether Juvenal was speaking of ethic Jews and not Gentile adherents any more than we can with Josephus above.

In both time (a good generation or perhaps several generations later than Paul) and place (Rome - of which Paul had no direct knowledge [at least at the time of writing his various letters]) Paul and Juvenal are quite distinct. I am not sure that what Juvenal said (even if true and about "Judeans" living in Rome - as contrasted to "god-fearers, or what have you) confirms that in Galatia, Corinth, Antioch, etc there were whole communities of uncircumcised Jews in Paul's time.

In any event, this theory falters in more than just this aspect. At least in Galatians, one of the significant ideas Paul is working with is the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham that he would become the father of all nations (ethne) - a promise that is in Paul's mind fulfilled within the Galatians themselves. Did Paul think this promise was actually just to lapsed Judaens of the diaspera? That would be pretty silly. No he obviously thinks this promise was to all the nations (plural)- i.e. all the nations who are not Jewish. Put this together with the circumcision controversy and you have a pretty compelling picture that Paul was interested in actual Gentiles (sort of like he seems to be claiming...)

Hope you are well.

Steve Black
Trinity College
The Toronto School of Theology





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page