"While the book is very useful, a couple more critiques must be noted. First, while the authors admit that their divisions and arrangement are not the definitive word on the numerous approaches to biblical theology, it is puzzling as to why they place the work of D.A. Carson on the spectrum as more historical in approach than that of N.T. Wright. Indeed, Wright’s work is well-known to be founded upon historical research, particularly related to Second Temple Judaism. In addition, much of his writing engages extra-biblical sources as necessary for the proper interpretation of the biblical text. While he certainly seeks to write theologically, his published works seem to be much more historical in nature and approach than that of Carson."
I will comment on the biblical theology book later in the day and give more info on the Lord's supper book. I've read the biblical theology book, but just started the Lord's supper work.
I got the Lord's Supper book to learn more about deipnon but I don't know if that will happen, but the book still looks interesting. Coutsoumpos' book endeavors to shed light on the Lord's evening meal (supper) by applying social-scientific methods to a study of the meal. The author also examines different types of meals in the ancient world; for example, there are sections about the deipnon, the Roman cena and the eranos meal.
In the "Statement of the Problem," Coutsoumpos explains that the goal of the book is to investigate why the Corinthians behaved as Paul reported in 1 Cor. 11:20ff.
I like the Understanding Theology book and would like to write a review about it one day. The book clarified my understanding of "biblical theology"; it categorizes different types of biblical theology in terms of BT1, BT2, BT3, BT4, and BT5. Keep in mind that it's an introductory text, so the book is relatively short and quite accessible.
Regarding the criticism that the authors describe D.A. Carson's method as more historical than NT Wright's I disagree with that assessment, but I could be wrong. To fully understand my objection, you'd have to read the book, but I will try to show why the reviewer seems wrong IMO.
For the authors of Biblical Theology, BT1 concentrates on the grammatical-historical (philological and critical) method; however, BT2 makes Heilsgeschichte the focus and BT3 elevates the Worldview-Story. BT3 characterizes Wright's approach and I agree with this description of Wright: he does like to present a metanarrative (sweeping story) when he undertakes biblical theology. But does this mean Carson is described as being "more historical" than Wright?
Firstly, the Biblical Theology book says Carson considers redemptive history (Heilsgeschichte) to be the criterion/most important factor for doing biblical theology. Notice, he's not saying that historical-criticism or secular history is most important, but rather the history of redemption. To be sure, Carson makes use of historical methods as one sees in his thick introduction to the NT and in the book Exegetical Fallacies. However, employing HC is usually standard fare for most Bible scholars these days. It also needs to be remembered that the Biblical Theology book categorizes Carson as an adherent to Heilsgeschichte, not history in se.
The book makes this statement about NT Wright: "Wright's method focuses on a historical reconstruction of the world-view of the biblical authors themselves, which in turn produces the narrative shape or "story-world" of the NT." Later, we read: "Hays draws attention to several examples in Wright's work where he clearly makes historical study the ultimate foundation of his understanding of the Bible's narrative coherence" (page 105).
As I consider the book review by Latham, I see his reasoning that BT1-BT5 constitute a spectrum which becomes less historical as one moves from BT1-BT5, but I'm not sure that was the writer's whole intention because BT1 uses the methods of historical-criticism, but BT2 deals with a different type/approach to history, namely, the history of redemption. The reason Wright falls in category 3 is because while he uses the methods of historical-criticism, he does not confine himself to them and he makes use of studies concerning worldviews and narratives. Overall, I don't think the book means to imply that Wright is less historical than Carson: each scholar is doing something different when he practices biblical theology.
See the book review here for Biblical Theology. Note well what it says about Wright: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/understanding-biblical-theology-a-comparison-of-theory-and-practice/
Thanks bro. Foster, that's a very interesting quote:
"The question is raised whether Wright’s dependence on historical reconstruction and seeming “methodological naturalism” (cf. C. Stephen Evans) may work against “a variety of the church’s traditional theological positions”"
Funny enough, I find the opposite problem with Wright, he uses the critical-historical methods, but within a philosophy of history framework which is is not critical-historical, and he then treats the text as though the purely historical reconstructions ARE the theological narratives, which pushes him into forcing the historical reconstructions into the theological mold and restricting the theological models to the historical narratives, he ends up basically resorting to vagueness, a thin theology, and a limited historiography.
Carson's approach I like better but I feel it ends up thinning out the theology and being insufficient.
I would much prefer, frankly, if there was just pure historical exegesis and reconstruction on one hand, and then, have a systematic theology that takes the historical exegesis, takes into account canonical inspiration, and philosophical analysis, and constructs a theology that doesn't cut any corners :).
Just to give an example, I think the general JW approach to the question of hell, although not presented in the literature in an academic way, is a great model. You have exegesis, historical reconstruction, but this is also put within the framework of considerations of the character of God, and the implications of the ransom (which are more philosophical theology), and then the whole thing is rationally synthesized given the entire canon, this is a situation where I think the issue is more clear cut, but in many cases you have to go through the whole process in order to deal with the issues in a satisfactory way.
You may some helpful observations: I would say that Wright does not want to be confined by the historical approach (what the authors call BT1), so he modifies and uses what's known as critical realism, among other things. The biblical theology book categorizes Wright as BT3 which emphasizes Worldview-Story (narrative). At times, I think this approach works brilliantly but it certainly has its limits as you point out.
There is always a risk when one tries to reconstruct a time period and contextual setting; for instance, Second Temple Judaism or the Babylonian Exile. I love how Wright reconstructs the historical setting for Philemon in one of his thick studies and his historical work on the resurrection and related ideas is informative. As you likely know, Wright believes that history, theology, and philosophy should communicate with one another (be in dialogue with one another). He develops these sweeping narratives that attempt to embrace all three disciplines and the results are mixed. One criticism Wright has received is when he tries to superimpose the Exile narrative on Second Temple Judaism: it's like Heiser seeing the divine council in everything or positing Jewish binitarianism as though Jews held to such an idea.
It sounds like you would like a combined BT1-BT5 or some modification of that schema :-)
I like eclecticism when it comes to methodology, but whichever method we choose, nothing will be perfect in this world. That's one thing I like about the academic approach to the Bible is that it takes numerous forms and none of them are perfect, but academia is supposed to thrive on point/counterpoint or giving each other constructive feedback. That's the ideal anyway.
I respect and have benefited from the way that JWs approach the Bible and subjects like hell: our goals differ from the academy since we're trying to reach the general public and not just produce material for the erudite. Witness also focus on application for today (i.e., what does the text now mean) without ignoring what the text meant to Paul or Peter in antiquity. Lastly, the Witness approach reminds me of how Brevard Childs did biblical theology (the canonical approach). Again, I favor using a variety of methods including historical theology.
I know some writers who use cross disciplinary approaches, but for the most part, I deal with qualitative research. Some use statistics in biblical studies and classics, but most of the book's don't employ math. When I teach logic or discuss Pythagoras or Euclid, those are exceptions
I have just ordered - The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism: A New Theory of People, Exile, and Israelite Identity Hardcover – 20 May 2021 by Jason A. Staples
Off the back of some of his thesis (but with some update) - https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/concern/dissertations/xk81jm155
I believe he has another book coming soon that may also be a useful read.
Just starting reading the article by Staples, but it figures that NT scholars would think "Israel" in Romans 11:26 refers to ethnic Jews despite Paul's words in Rom. 2:28-29; 9:6-8.
One has to be careful about assuming that spiritual Israel is independent of Israel and this is not to be confused with Jews, who were always only one part of it. His new book sets the ground work and the next book will bring it into the Christian era. With what I have read from his thesis I am certainly not going to dismiss him.
As noted by James M. Scott, “And Then All Israel Will Be Saved (Rom 11:26),” in Scott, Restoration, 489–526 (507), “In the OT, the expression ‘all Israel’ relates exclusively to the tribal structure of the descendants of Jacob/Israel.” See also James W. Flanagan, “The Deuteronomic Meaning of the phrase ‘kol yiśrā'ēl,’” SR 6, no. 2 (1976): 159–168.
What does the "12" apostles signify? Why does another need to be inserted after Judas to maintain the number? Note that the "nations" that Paul is apostle too, seem to have a reasonable grounding in Torah (otherwise much of his argumentation would be over their heads).
“ΕΞΕΙ ΕΚ ΣΙΩΝ Ο ΡΥΟΜΑΝΟΣ: Zur Textgestalt von Jes 59:20f. in Röm 11:26f.” Pages 201–06 in De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on his Sixty- Fifth Birthday. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox. Mississauga, ON: Benben,1984.
“And Then All Israel Will Be Saved (Rom 11:26).” Pages 489–526 in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. Edited by James M. Scott. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Thanks for the references. I'm not going to offer many comments since I have not read the entire article, but I've taught students the difference between Jews, Hebrews and Israelites for years. Jew has different meanings, but Israelite and Jew are sometimes coreferential. Regardless, Paul not only writes that the children of the promise are true Israelites, but he differentiates natural Israel from spiritual Israel. It's also hard to make sense of Revelation 7, if that account is referring to natural Israelites.
In the first century there is no evidence for ALL 12 tribes of Israel. You have 4 or 5 tribes identified by people living at most.
Also how in times past intermarriage was not restricted with all nations, only certain nations who would impede the identity of Israel. Nation who intermarried were ones willing to take on the identity of Israel (Serve Yehovah), breaking the general rule of each god to its land or place.
If "Israel" (ethnic, which does not mean blood in that ancient context or Pauls pneumatic nation or both) is to exist restored it must have twelve tribes.
Another thing that comes to mind is the fact that Joshua sent 12 spies and 2 were faithful. Does this have any relationship to the 2 and 10 tribe kingdoms?
I think that the history of "Israel" is far more fluid than is generally taught. Staples is using many extra biblical sources and arachnological inscriptions to get a broad view of its usage and just how fluid it could be.
Cf. James 1:1 (earliest general letter's composition is A.D. 44. but could be earlier), Mat 24:14. Matthew 10:5, Acts 8:14-17.
What sources indicate that all 12 tribes were not known in the first century CE? Prior to 70 CE? One thing is sure. No Israeli knows which tribe he or she belongs to now.
Intermarriage was not only forbidden to preserve the Israel's identity, but they were also warned that intermarriage to certain nations would draw them away from the living God. In general, faithful Israelites did not marry outside of the nation.
I don't have time to see the composition of the 12 spies, but it might not be too hard to determine. I know that God can work miracles but how will today's Israelis/Israelites ever find out their tribe? The records were destroyed in 70 CE, so it would take a miracle for anyone to know.
James is likely referring to spiritual tribes, not fleshly and I think the letter is later than 44 CE.
one perspective: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/twelve-tribes-in-the-diaspora-james-11/DBD353EE6A5515943B492205A0BF505E
"The records were destroyed in 70 CE" - what records exactly?
Remember that we are talking about the SECOND temple. I think the onus is on those who claim records of lineage to provide proof. The lineage of kings might be recorded to some extent, but for all?
"In general, faithful Israelites did not marry outside of the nation." - Proof?
There is proof of marriage alliances with Persians etc.
The twelve spies were one from each tribe.
Interestingly Caleb was from Judah but Hoshea was from Ephraim. Was this why Hebrews treats him so?
In any case, 2 and 10 just a coincidence?
What was the major issue with Solomon was it that they were foreign, or that he had so many?
"James is likely referring to spiritual tribes, not fleshly" - why?
"Cf. also Deut 30:3–4; Isa 11:12; 54:7; 27:13; 60:4; Jer 23:3 MT; 29:14 MT; 31:8 MT; 31:10 MT; 32:37 MT; Ezek 11:17. See Evans, “Continuing Exile," 97–98; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 98; Wright, Victory of God, 430– 31."
For Jesus and the 12 disciples:-
"Ferda, "Ingathering of the Exiles," 156; cf. Gerhard Lohfink, Wie hat Jesus Gemeinde gewollt?: Zur gesellschaftlichen Dimension des christlichen Glaubens (Frieburg: Herder, 1982), ET: Jesus and Community: The Social Dimension of Christian Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 98, 106; Wright, Victory of God, 430–31; Evans, “Continuing Exile," 91–93; Meier, “Jesus, the Twelve"; Scot McKnight, “Jesus and the Twelve,” BBR 11, no. 2 (2001): 203–231; Craig A. Evans, “The Twelve Thrones of Israel: Scripture and Politics in Luke 22:24–30,” in Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts, eds. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001), 154–170."
The Samaritans:-
"Charles H. H. Scobie, “Israel and the Nations: An Essay in Biblical Theology,” TynBul 43, no. 2 (1992): 283–305 (294). On Samaritans and Israel in Luke-Acts, see Vanmelitharayil John Samkutty, The Samaritan Mission in Acts, LNTS 328 (London: T&T Clark, 2006); David Ravens, “The Role of the Samaritans and the Unity of Israel,” in Luke and the Restoration of Israel, JSNTSup 119 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 72–106; Richard J. Coggins, “The Samaritans and Acts,” NTS 28, no. 3 (1982): 423–434; Jacob Jervell, “The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel: The Understanding of the Samaritans in Luke-Acts,” in Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972), 113–132. On the same in John, see Geyser, "Israel in the Fourth Gospel"; Zangenberg, Frühes Christentum in Samarien; Charles H. H. Scobie, “Johannine Geography,” SR 11, no. 1 (1982): 77–84; Margaret Pamment, “Is There Convincing Evidence of Samaritan Influence on the Fourth Gospel?” ZNW 73, no. 3–4 (1982): 221–230; John Bowman, “Samaritan Studies,” BJRL 40 (1958): 298–327. Cf. also Scobie, “The Origins and Development of Samaritan Christianity,” NTS 19, no. 4 (1973): 390–414."
“Close examination of how these three terms are used reveals that they are, to a large degree, interchangeable for Josephus,”275 despite the fact that “Israelites” never occurs after Book 11, as one would expect if the terms were truly interchangeable. To his credit, Miller rightly points to A.J. 11.173 as the key to understanding the shift in nomenclature, but he mistakes Josephus’ explanation as an “insistence that the name for the people changed,” not recognizing that the reason for the shift in nomenclature was that the two terms refer to different entities, only one of which returned from exile.276 Part of the problem is that even those recognizing the importance of 11.173 have tended to overlook its connection with two earlier statements that set up the transition and further clarify the reason for the shift in terminology. First, Josephus explains that the return from exile had been limited to the southern tribes: “After Cyrus announced this to the Israelites, the rulers of the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, with the Levites and priests, went in haste to Jerusalem” (A.J. 11.8) This passage marks a key transition in Josephus’ account, as Cyrus addresses the “Israelites,” but only those from Judah, Benjamin, and Levi return.277 A reader of Josephus’ account of Israel to this point should be asking why only three tribes responded to Cyrus’ decree, yet scholars have missed the subtle transition here with remarkable consistency, likely owing to the assumption that “Israelites” is synonymous with “Jews.” Spilsbury, for example, points to this passage as evidence that the terms are interchangeable, claiming, “Here this term refers specifically to the two tribes who returned from exile.”278 But a more careful reading shows that Josephus here distinguishes between those to whom Cyrus made his decree (the Israelites, a term referring only to the ten tribes or the twelve tribe totality to this point in the Antiquities) and those who actually heeded his words—only those from the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. Lest one object that this is too subtle a reading of the passage, Josephus clarifies his meaning only a few paragraphs later, answering the question of what happened to the other tribes:
…when these Ἰουδαῖοι learned of the king’s piety towards God, and his kindness towards Ezra, they loved [him] most dearly, and many took up their possessions and went to Babylon, desiring to go down to Jerusalem. But the whole [ὁ πᾶς] people of Israel remained in that land; so it came about that only two tribes came to Asia and Europe and are subject to the Romans. But the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates until now and are a boundless multitude, not to be estimated by numbers. (A.J. 11.132–33) So, according to Josephus, the reason they came to be called Ἰουδαῖοι was that they were the part associated with the southern kingdom of Judah, while the bulk of Israel (πᾶς λαὸς τῶν Ἰσραηλιτῶν) remained in exile in immense numbers.279 Thus it is not that “the name for the people changed,” 280 as Miller and others have suggested, but that the people in view changed, with the scope narrowing from the larger twelve-tribe body of Israelites to a more limited group identified with the dominant southern tribe of Judah. That is, Josephus uses a different name because the group in view is different. This fully explains why Josephus completely drops the term “Israelites” shortly after this passage: for Josephus, the Ἰουδαῖοι are only a subset of Israel, and until the rest of Israel is again in view, “Israelites” is the wrong term for the limited portion of Israel represented by the more precise term Ἰουδαῖοι."
Joel Marcus, “'The Twelve Tribes in the Diaspora' (James 1.1),” NTS 60, no. 4 (2014): 433–447. On the twelve tribes in this passage, see also Richard Bauckham, “The List of the Tribes in Revelation 7 Again,” JSNT 42 (1991): 99–115; Christopher R. Smith, “The Portrayal of the Church as the New Israel in the Names and Order of the Tribes in Revelation 7.5–8,” JSNT 39 (1990): 111–18; Ross E. Winkle, “Another Look at the List of Tribes in Revelation 7,” AUSS 27, no. 1 (1989): 53–67; Albert S. Geyser, “The Twelve Tribes in Revelation Judean and Judeo-Christian Apocalypticism,” NTS 28, no. 3 (1982): 388–399.
James wrote before Paul? That is not the consensus view and I see no good reason to believe it. For instance:
"Those who accept James the Just, brother of the Lord, as author of the epistle are obliged to date it before a.d. 62, the year of the death of James, between the governorships of Festus and Albinus. Others tend to date it anywhere from late 1st cent. to late 2nd cent., with perhaps a.d. 125 a general favorite."
See https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Epistle-James
Just became he uses the term "diaspora" does not mean that he's referring to non-Gentile addressees. A.T. Robertson gives various possibilities when discussing James' letter:
"The Readers The author addresses himself "to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion" (James 1:1). Clearly, then, he is not writing to Gentiles, unless he includes the spiritual children of Abraham in the term Diaspora as Paul does for believers (Galatians 3:29; Romans 9:6 f.). The word diaspora occurs elsewhere in the N.T. only in John 7:35; 1 Peter 1:1. It apparently has the spiritual significance in 1 Peter 1:1, but in John 7:35 the usual meaning of Jews scattered over the world. The use here of "the twelve tribes" makes the literal sense probable here. Clearly also James knew nothing of any "lost" tribes, for the Jews of the Dispersion were a blend of all the twelve tribes. It is probable also that James is addressing chiefly the Eastern Dispersion in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Babylonia as Peter writes to five provinces in the Western Dispersion in Asia Minor. It is possible that James has in mind Christian and non-Christian Jews, not wholly non-Christian Jews as some hold. He may have in mind merely Christian Jews outside of Palestine, of whom there were already many scattered since the great pentecost [sic]. The use of synagogue as a place of worship (James 2:2) like church (James 5:14) argues somewhat for this view. He presents the Mosaic law as still binding (James 2:9-11; James 4:11). As the leading elder of the great church in Jerusalem and as a devout Jew and half-brother of Jesus, the message of James had a special appeal to these widely scattered Jewish Christians."
When I mentioned 70 CE, I was referring to genealogical records. Remember when the Hebrew Bible lists family records in the post-exilic period? The records are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. Were they only for priests or kings? What about the family records in Matthew and Luke and when Paul discusses genealogies in Timothy?
I said faithful Israelites normally did not marry outside the nation. Pretty hard to disprove that claim. A faithful Israelite would have obeyed the OT commands about marrying a lover of God. Read Deuteronomy 7, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. I also said what was the norm; I realize there were aberrations or exceptions.
If the two spies did not represent Judah and Benjamin, then how does the theory stand? If one of the two spies was from Ephraim, you would seem to have your answer :)
For James 1:1 as a quick reference, see page 62 at https://www.proquest.com/openview/c8d1e827bfea822992db2fe35c8bdd62/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750
I never said that Jesus' brother did not write the book of James. Not sure if that's the impression you got or whether you were just posing a rhetorical question.
On the genealogical records, I'm sure you're aware of which books in the Hebrew Bible discuss them in the post-exilic period. I was referring to the genealogies that we find in the Tanakh.
I'm surprised that you would cast doubt on the Matthean or Lukan genealogies. The point is not whether they're "accurate" or not, but whether they show knowledge of the 12 tribes. That is why I invoked them but I do believe Matthew and Luke's accounts constitute part of God's Word, the Bible, inspired by the holy spirit. Yet the point is not totally germane to this discussion.
Again, I never said that Israelites did not marry non-Israelites, nor did I say that marriages to all non-Israelites were forbidden. Please go back and review what I wrote: I qualified my statements about ancient Israelite marriage.
On Deuteronomy 30:4, what exactly is the context? Does it still apply today to the fleshly nation of Israel?
Let's also understand Ps. 146:2 in context: why should we believe the verse applies to modern natural Israel? They certainly have not accepted God's Messiah. That point aside, verses must be read according to their context.
The Times of Israel article makes a number of fine points, but . . .
"King Solomon, David’s son, married the daughter of the Pharaoh of Egypt and hundreds of other non-Israelite women, and the Bible does not criticize him for the intermarriages, but that in his old age, his wives turned him to other gods."
The Bible actually does condemn Solomon for marrying non-worshipers of Jehovah: it wasn't just that his wives turned him to other gods. He never should have married them in the first place since the potential was always there. See Nehemiah 13:26-27 (NIV):
"Was it not because of marriages like these that Solomon king of Israel sinned? Among the many nations there was no king like him. He was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel, but even he was led into sin by foreign women. Must we hear now that you too are doing all this terrible wickedness and are being unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women?"
Moreover, was the king of Israel supposed to multiply wives? Just what did the torah say? However, my point stands that faithful Israelites normally married within the nation. You could say that they married fellow worshipers or converts as well, normally.
We must also ask why Samson married a Philistine. The article did not consider that question.
The genealogy in Matthew is clearly there for the purpose of making a point that is not fully understood yet (possibly gematria). I suggest you do some math on the idea of 14 generations between Abraham and David.
From Babylon to Jesus may be correct, but then that is second temple period. Averages would make this about 16.
You cannot assert that the genealogy is literal because it is inspired. All that claim tells us is it is there for a legitimate reason for it to be there in the thematic scheme of Matthew.
Any discussion of Solomon is a paradox on the whole idea of "wisdom". The wisdom to make political alliances to bolster wealth and power. He was not just member of a nation, he was their king. The whole idea of Solomon if fraught with difficulties.
"Does it still apply today to the fleshly nation of Israel?" - here is where you are missing the point of all of this. Modern Jews are NOT "modern Israel". They can only be part of it. There are many around the world who claim to be part of it but are not accepted by this modern state. They make judgements and decisions that are not theirs to make.just an example - https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520213234/who-are-the-jews-of-india
Matthew genealogy can make a point and still be literal: the two categories are not mutually exclusive. But I'm not saying that his record is strictly chronological, even if it's correct. However, that is not why I mentioned Matthew or Luke as I said previously. And in my opinion, gematria is a stretch. There is no reason to go there.
I mentioned Matthew and Luke and Paul to address the comment you made regarding a few tribes being known. I was not trying to argue that Matthew is strictly chronological, right or wrong, etc.
Literal has more than one meaning and again, something can be written for a purpose and still be literal. Yet the main thing for now is whether Matthew and Luke demonstrate knowledge of more than a few tribes. And according to 1 Timothy, many early Jews wanted to know about their family line and they were seeking knowledge of such things. I've always wanted to follow up on that point.
Deut. 30:4 MT and LXX are not the same. Where did I say that modern Jews are modern Israel? I was talking about Israel in general because you brought up Rom. 11:26, but I realize not all Jews live in modern Israel.
Davids, Peter H (1982). The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary (Repr. ed.). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. ISBN 0802823882. Evans, Craig A (2005). Craig A Evans (ed.). Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: John, Hebrews-Revelation. Colorado Springs, Colo.: Victor. ISBN 0781442281.
Its the whole 14 14 14 that needs addressing for Matthew. I have seen much written about it including Gematria. Also 7+7 & 7*7. But they don't hold up either since many compare with the number 42 not 49.
"devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work" - I agree ;)
Maybe the brother of Jesus did write James: we can't say for sure, but I'm not discounting it.
Whether we address the numerical part of Matthew has little to do with my main point, but much ink has been spilled on the issue. IMO, gematria is mythical or worse, but that is a side point.
And not that there is anything wrong with studying one's genealogy, as I think you realize, but the individuals Paul had in mind were letting such investigations lead them away from the faith or they let these investigations distract them from more important things.
According to dictionary.com, histography is "a treatise on or description of organic tissues."
And all history is story: historians say that history involves the res gestae and the narration of res gestae. Or Collinwood said history is "a retelling." See also Herodotus, Thucydides, and Polybius. History should be related sine ira et studio (Tacitus), but it's always narration and sometimes argumentation.
The dates for 1 Timothy and Matthew differ from scholar to scholar. I've even seen a date in the 40s for Matthew, assuming the Gospel had a Vorlage as Jerome suggested.
Just because wives are included doesn't mean there's equivalency between them, horses, and wealth. Deut. 17:16-17 stresses that the king ought to avoid things that could lead him astray. How are these categories any different from the law against coveting, which lumps together a neighbor's wife with donkeys, servants, and oxen. Deuteronomy 5:21 includes a house and field, but then makes it clear that the law applies to anything owned by one's neighbor. Exodus 20:17 has this part too. See also Acts 20:33.
The point is that mentioning wives with other things does not necessarily equate wives with one's property. However, the law indicated that the king's heart could be led astray by multiplying wives (i.e., having a harem) or material objects. That is the point of similarity between them.
Jeffrey Tigay puts the Deuteronomy verses in context, which helps explain why wealth and horses would be mentioned along with wives. I would recommend his commentary: one reference he includes is Proverbs 31:3 and he notes that some interpreted Deut. 17 to mean a king should have one wife, but the halakhah tradition placed the limitation at 18.
As for Solomon's wisdom, he initially was wise and humble, but he did not safeguard wisdom. It's much like being given a valuable inheritance but then blowing it all recklessly, like the prodigal son did.
I will read Mcconville, and I read the other verses you posted. In answer to your question, much depends on what you mean by wisdom and evidence. There is godly wisdom and worldly wisdom. A person can also be wise in certain ways, as Insight brings out. For instance, being a good judge of character, a builder or a wise business person. 1 Kings 3 & 4 give the impression that Solomon certainly had a great degree of wisdom given to him by YHWH (Jehovah). I'm not sure what other evidence you want, but I will read the article.
Edgar, There is some references I would like to see and discuss, if you have access to any of these can you post the relevant pages?
https://ernster.com/detail/ISBN-9783110193411/Bekken-Per-Jarle/The-World-is-Near-You 115-230 (if not the whole section then any that refers to Philo & Paul together?)
https://brill.com/view/title/26279 188-208 (if not the whole section then any that refers to Philo & Paul together?)
https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/paul-grace-and-freedom-9780567321527/ (any section that refers to Philo & Paul together?)
Its regarding things that Philo talks about in In Praem.
Also, Virt. 175-86, the treatise immediately preceding Praem.
Staples points out something interesting in the letter to Aristeas that I had not paid any attention to before at 47-50. The names of the tribes are never mentioned.
See http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2074-77052014000100040
I was thinking that 1st century Jews/Israelites had to know there were 12 tribes and they likely knew the names of the tribes, even if it wasn't clear who belonged to what tribe.
I've been reading 1 Corinthians 10 here lately and verse 18 stands out to me, "Look at the people of Israel. Are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?" (NET)
NET Footnote: tn Grk “Israel according to (the) flesh.”
Greek: βλέπετε τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα·
Israel according to the flesh versus Israel according to the spirit? The children of the promise versus the children according to the flesh?
"Philo called the priests κοινωνὸς του βώμου, partakers of the altar. Thus Paul is inviting each of us to take on the role of priests, as the "royal priesthood"."
Just finished my first pass of The Idea of Israel. One thing that seems clear is that second temple Judaism never claimed that Israel was ever considered reinstated in the land. When the second temple fell it did not mean as much as you might think. Many of Israel outside the land never considered it to be a legitimate temple built by "Israel" anyway.
I can see just how badly scholarship has confused Israel / Judah / Hebrew.
I am now checking references but I don't think they will change much as Staples gives all the source texts. This is a really comprehensive study. I will look forward to reading the reviews. I think that many wont like it.
On that comment about Philo, the priests weren't the only partakers of the altar, right? And whom was Paul addressing in 1 Cor. 10:18? The worshiper who offered the communion sacrifice also partook of the altar. See Lev. 7:11-18.
Also Romans 1:3; 9:3-5
https://biblehub.com/text/romans/4-1.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/romans/11-14.htm
I agree with what you say about the DSS
I'd like to see a review of Staples' book: it sounds like a solid study and worthwhile, but I disagree with his conclusions if they're as you state above.
The falling of the temple in 70 CE is a monumental event in Jewish history and look at what the Hebrew prophets said about the second temple. Reference Haggai and Zechariah.
"The people of Judah and Benjamin had enemies. They heard that the returned captives were building a Temple for YHWH, the God of Israel."..."When Xerxes became king, those enemies wrote a letter against the people of Judah and Jerusalem.".."King Artaxerxes, you remember the Jews who came to us from you"
Ezra 6:14 14 So the elders of the Jews continued to build and prosper under the preaching of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah, a descendant of Iddo. They finished building the temple according to the command of the God of Israel and the decrees of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes, kings of Persia.
On the Levitical sacrifice. In that climate, eating meat on the third day could be fatal. Nomads move there food with them as living animals and the group normally kill and eat it all on the same-day.
For Zechariah 11:14, compare 11:15-17. The fulfillment of Zechariah 10:6-10 depends on when the book was written. If it was written in the sixth century bce, Jehovah was still dealing with Israel then and had restored them to Judah.
How is Rom. 9:3-5 dealing with Judah and not all of Israel?
You can't base a widespread claim like that one 1 witness, Josephus. It verges on being an argument ex silentio. I don't have the requisite time to study this matter now, but it doesn't seem right to argue that 2 tribes returned and that's it. I'd have to see a lot more evidence to accept that claim and I've found OT scholars who agree. Furthermore, I want to check out some of the references you mention and read some of Staples. At this point, I have other projects and duties, but I will offer comment as time and energy affords.
According to Paul's own words, his brethren/race extended beyond his own tribe (Benjamin) and the verse in Rom. 9:3-5 certainly indicates a more expansive view.
"Israelites believed that they belonged to one family6 (the family of Abraham or the family of God),7 and also envisaged that they had a fictive sibling relationship with other Jews. However, Jews excluded Gentiles from this fictive brotherly bond. For instance, in Deuteronomy 17 it is written:
[Y]ou may indeed set over you a king whom the LORD your God will choose. One of your own community you may set as king over you; you are not permitted to put a foreigner ((נבָרְִי) over you, who is not your own brother (לֹא־אָחִ֖יךָ הֽוּא). (v. 5)"
I think you and Staples realize that the term "Jew" is not univocal or monosemic, but somewhat equivocal. Israelite and Jew were even conflated in antiquity by the people of Abraham themselves: three important and related terms to me are Hebrew, Israelite, and Jew.
When Paul writes about Jews and Israelites in Romans, is he trying to sharply distinguish between them? There is also evidence that Jews/Israelites called each other "brothers."
Ezra 9:4 (NET): "Everyone who held the words of the God of Israel in awe[a] gathered around me because of the unfaithful acts of the people of the exile.[b] Devastated, I continued to sit there until the evening offering."
NET note informs us that "the people" are added for "clarity"
10:6 in NET likewise relates the "infidelity of the exiles."
The WBC translation for Ezra 9:4 also renders the verse: "Then all who trembled at the words of the God of Israel gathered round me on account of the exiles’ unfaithfulness while I continued sitting in a state of severe shock until the evening offering."
One reason for understanding the unfaithfulness of the exiles is the Hebrew term in question; the second factor is context. One Catholic Bible speaks of the apostasy commited by the exiles.
Anchor Bible Commentary Rendering: "Then all those who were terror-stricken because of the words of the God of Israel on account of the disloyalty of the exiles congregated around me, while I remained sitting horrified until the evening sacrifice."
Robert Alter: "And all who trembled for the words of the God of Israel over all the betrayal of the exiles gathered by me while I was sitting desolate till the evening grain offering."
Compare Ezra 9:2 (ESV): "For they have taken some of their daughters to be wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands. And in this faithlessness the hand of the officials and chief men has been foremost."
I meant biblical and extrabiblical antiquity. Wikipedia gets this one correct. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelites
See more 7 in the article. And regarding the Bible, do you think that Paul always used Jew and Israelite with distinct meanings/referents? Just read Romans
Something else has become evident regarding the "judgment of Solomon" The chapters pre and post use the name Solomon repeatedly and frequently, but this account just says "the king".
124 comments:
Is the lord's supper study an update to the original thesis?
Yes it is, but I can't tell you to what extent they differ.
A Review of Klink & Lockett by John W. Latham:-
"While the book is very useful, a couple more critiques must be noted. First, while the authors admit that their divisions and arrangement are not the definitive word on the numerous approaches to biblical theology, it is puzzling as to why they place the work of D.A. Carson on the spectrum as more historical in approach than that of N.T. Wright. Indeed, Wright’s work is well-known to be founded upon historical research, particularly related to Second Temple Judaism. In addition, much of his writing engages extra-biblical sources as necessary for the proper interpretation of the biblical text. While he certainly seeks to write theologically, his published works seem to be much more historical in nature and approach than that of Carson."
Haven't read any of these books, whats the thesis of Paul and the Lord's supper? And what's your valuation on the Understanding biblical theology?
I will comment on the biblical theology book later in the day and give more info on the Lord's supper book. I've read the biblical theology book, but just started the Lord's supper work.
I got the Lord's Supper book to learn more about deipnon but I don't know if that will happen, but the book still looks interesting. Coutsoumpos' book endeavors to shed light on the Lord's evening meal (supper) by applying social-scientific methods to a study of the meal. The author also examines different types of meals in the ancient world; for example, there are sections about the deipnon, the Roman cena and the eranos meal.
In the "Statement of the Problem," Coutsoumpos explains that the goal of the book is to investigate why the Corinthians behaved as Paul reported in 1 Cor. 11:20ff.
I like the Understanding Theology book and would like to write a review about it one day. The book clarified my understanding of "biblical theology"; it categorizes different types of biblical theology in terms of BT1, BT2, BT3, BT4, and BT5. Keep in mind that it's an introductory text, so the book is relatively short and quite accessible.
Regarding the criticism that the authors describe D.A. Carson's method as more historical than NT Wright's I disagree with that assessment, but I could be wrong. To fully understand my objection, you'd have to read the book, but I will try to show why the reviewer seems wrong IMO.
For the authors of Biblical Theology, BT1 concentrates on the grammatical-historical (philological and critical) method; however, BT2 makes Heilsgeschichte the focus and BT3 elevates the Worldview-Story. BT3 characterizes Wright's approach and I agree with this description of Wright: he does like to present a metanarrative (sweeping story) when he undertakes biblical theology. But does this mean Carson is described as being "more historical" than Wright?
Firstly, the Biblical Theology book says Carson considers redemptive history (Heilsgeschichte) to be the criterion/most important factor for doing biblical theology. Notice, he's not saying that historical-criticism or secular history is most important, but rather the history of redemption. To be sure, Carson makes use of historical methods as one sees in his thick introduction to the NT and in the book Exegetical Fallacies. However, employing HC is usually standard fare for most Bible scholars these days. It also needs to be remembered that the Biblical Theology book categorizes Carson as an adherent to Heilsgeschichte, not history in se.
The book makes this statement about NT Wright: "Wright's method focuses on a historical reconstruction of the world-view of the biblical authors themselves, which in turn produces the narrative shape or "story-world" of the NT." Later, we read: "Hays draws attention to several examples in Wright's work where he clearly makes historical study the ultimate foundation of his understanding of the Bible's narrative coherence" (page 105).
As I consider the book review by Latham, I see his reasoning that BT1-BT5 constitute a spectrum which becomes less historical as one moves from BT1-BT5, but I'm not sure that was the writer's whole intention because BT1 uses the methods of historical-criticism, but BT2 deals with a different type/approach to history, namely, the history of redemption. The reason Wright falls in category 3 is because while he uses the methods of historical-criticism, he does not confine himself to them and he makes use of studies concerning worldviews and narratives. Overall, I don't think the book means to imply that Wright is less historical than Carson: each scholar is doing something different when he practices biblical theology.
See the book review here for Biblical Theology. Note well what it says about Wright: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/understanding-biblical-theology-a-comparison-of-theory-and-practice/
Thanks bro. Foster, that's a very interesting quote:
"The question is raised whether Wright’s dependence on historical reconstruction and seeming “methodological naturalism” (cf. C. Stephen Evans) may work against “a variety of the church’s traditional theological positions”"
Funny enough, I find the opposite problem with Wright, he uses the critical-historical methods, but within a philosophy of history framework which is is not critical-historical, and he then treats the text as though the purely historical reconstructions ARE the theological narratives, which pushes him into forcing the historical reconstructions into the theological mold and restricting the theological models to the historical narratives, he ends up basically resorting to vagueness, a thin theology, and a limited historiography.
Carson's approach I like better but I feel it ends up thinning out the theology and being insufficient.
I would much prefer, frankly, if there was just pure historical exegesis and reconstruction on one hand, and then, have a systematic theology that takes the historical exegesis, takes into account canonical inspiration, and philosophical analysis, and constructs a theology that doesn't cut any corners :).
Just to give an example, I think the general JW approach to the question of hell, although not presented in the literature in an academic way, is a great model. You have exegesis, historical reconstruction, but this is also put within the framework of considerations of the character of God, and the implications of the ransom (which are more philosophical theology), and then the whole thing is rationally synthesized given the entire canon, this is a situation where I think the issue is more clear cut, but in many cases you have to go through the whole process in order to deal with the issues in a satisfactory way.
You're welcome, Brother Montero.
You may some helpful observations: I would say that Wright does not want to be confined by the historical approach (what the authors call BT1), so he modifies and uses what's known as critical realism, among other things. The biblical theology book categorizes Wright as BT3 which emphasizes Worldview-Story (narrative). At times, I think this approach works brilliantly but it certainly has its limits as you point out.
There is always a risk when one tries to reconstruct a time period and contextual setting; for instance, Second Temple Judaism or the Babylonian Exile. I love how Wright reconstructs the historical setting for Philemon in one of his thick studies and his historical work on the resurrection and related ideas is informative. As you likely know, Wright believes that history, theology, and philosophy should communicate with one another (be in dialogue with one another). He develops these sweeping narratives that attempt to embrace all three disciplines and the results are mixed. One criticism Wright has received is when he tries to superimpose the Exile narrative on Second Temple Judaism: it's like Heiser seeing the divine council in everything or positing Jewish binitarianism as though Jews held to such an idea.
It sounds like you would like a combined BT1-BT5 or some modification of that schema :-)
I like eclecticism when it comes to methodology, but whichever method we choose, nothing will be perfect in this world. That's one thing I like about the academic approach to the Bible is that it takes numerous forms and none of them are perfect, but academia is supposed to thrive on point/counterpoint or giving each other constructive feedback. That's the ideal anyway.
I respect and have benefited from the way that JWs approach the Bible and subjects like hell: our goals differ from the academy since we're trying to reach the general public and not just produce material for the erudite. Witness also focus on application for today (i.e., what does the text now mean) without ignoring what the text meant to Paul or Peter in antiquity. Lastly, the Witness approach reminds me of how Brevard Childs did biblical theology (the canonical approach). Again, I favor using a variety of methods including historical theology.
Just got a new book today - Maths Meets Myths: Quantitative Approaches to Ancient narratives. From the Springer complexity series.
Not sure how much use this approach is going to be but thought I should investigate. Have you come across much in this cross disciplinary approach?
I know some writers who use cross disciplinary approaches, but for the most part, I deal with qualitative research. Some use statistics in biblical studies and classics, but most of the book's don't employ math. When I teach logic or discuss Pythagoras or Euclid, those are exceptions
I have just ordered - The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism: A New Theory of People, Exile, and Israelite Identity Hardcover – 20 May 2021
by Jason A. Staples
Off the back of some of his thesis (but with some update) - https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/concern/dissertations/xk81jm155
I believe he has another book coming soon that may also be a useful read.
Thanks for sharing. This book does look interesting: I also notice he teaches at NC State University and Cambridge UP published this work.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41304206
Just starting reading the article by Staples, but it figures that NT scholars would think "Israel" in Romans 11:26 refers to ethnic Jews despite Paul's words in Rom. 2:28-29; 9:6-8.
He argues that "Israel" & "Jew" are not interchangeable terms. I can see where he is going with this and I answers a number of questions I have had.
One has to be careful about assuming that spiritual Israel is independent of Israel and this is not to be confused with Jews, who were always only one part of it. His new book sets the ground work and the next book will bring it into the Christian era. With what I have read from his thesis I am certainly not going to dismiss him.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/48536709.pdf
As noted by James M. Scott, “And Then All Israel Will Be Saved (Rom 11:26),” in Scott, Restoration, 489–526 (507), “In the OT, the expression ‘all Israel’ relates exclusively to the tribal structure of the descendants of Jacob/Israel.” See also James W. Flanagan, “The Deuteronomic Meaning of the phrase ‘kol yiśrā'ēl,’” SR 6, no. 2 (1976): 159–168.
What does the "12" apostles signify? Why does another need to be inserted after Judas to maintain the number? Note that the "nations" that Paul is apostle too, seem to have a reasonable grounding in Torah (otherwise much of his argumentation would be over their heads).
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip-Du-Toit-5/publication/303822955_The_Salvation_of_All_Israel_in_Romans_1125-27_as_the_Salvation_of_Inner-Elect_Historical_Israel_in_Christ/links/5a83efb80f7e9bda86a4d890/The-Salvation-of-All-Israel-in-Romans-1125-27-as-the-Salvation-of-Inner-Elect-Historical-Israel-in-Christ.pdf
"Reading Paul's καὶ οὕτως πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται (Rom. 11:26a) in the Context of Romans" Dongsu Kim
Fung, William Chi-Chau. “Israel’s salvation: The Meaning of ‘All Israel’ in Romans 11:26.” PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2004.
“‘Only Then Will All Israel Be Saved’: A Short Note on the Meaning of καί οὕτως in Romans 11:26.” JBL 119 (2000): 521–25.
Osborne, William L. “The Old Testament Background of Paul’s ‘All Israel’ in Romans 11:26a.” The American Journal of Theology 2, no. 2 (1988): 282–293.
“ΕΞΕΙ ΕΚ ΣΙΩΝ Ο ΡΥΟΜΑΝΟΣ: Zur Textgestalt von Jes 59:20f. in Röm 11:26f.”
Pages 201–06 in De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on his Sixty- Fifth Birthday. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox. Mississauga, ON: Benben,1984.
“And Then All Israel Will Be Saved (Rom 11:26).” Pages 489–526 in Restoration:
Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. Edited by James M. Scott. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jtheointe.13.2.0168
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4125215?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Thanks for the references. I'm not going to offer many comments since I have not read the entire article, but I've taught students the difference between Jews, Hebrews and Israelites for years. Jew has different meanings, but Israelite and Jew are sometimes coreferential. Regardless, Paul not only writes that the children of the promise are true Israelites, but he differentiates natural Israel from spiritual Israel. It's also hard to make sense of Revelation 7, if that account is referring to natural Israelites.
In the first century there is no evidence for ALL 12 tribes of Israel. You have 4 or 5 tribes identified by people living at most.
Also how in times past intermarriage was not restricted with all nations, only certain nations who would impede the identity of Israel. Nation who intermarried were ones willing to take on the identity of Israel (Serve Yehovah), breaking the general rule of each god to its land or place.
If "Israel" (ethnic, which does not mean blood in that ancient context or Pauls pneumatic nation or both) is to exist restored it must have twelve tribes.
Another thing that comes to mind is the fact that Joshua sent 12 spies and 2 were faithful. Does this have any relationship to the 2 and 10 tribe kingdoms?
I think that the history of "Israel" is far more fluid than is generally taught. Staples is using many extra biblical sources and arachnological inscriptions to get a broad view of its usage and just how fluid it could be.
Cf. James 1:1 (earliest general letter's composition is A.D. 44. but could be earlier), Mat 24:14. Matthew 10:5, Acts 8:14-17.
Just a few observations.
What sources indicate that all 12 tribes were not known in the first century CE? Prior to 70 CE? One thing is sure. No Israeli knows which tribe he or she belongs to now.
Intermarriage was not only forbidden to preserve the Israel's identity, but they were also warned that intermarriage to certain nations would draw them away from the living God. In general, faithful Israelites did not marry outside of the nation.
I don't have time to see the composition of the 12 spies, but it might not be too hard to determine. I know that God can work miracles but how will today's Israelis/Israelites ever find out their tribe? The records were destroyed in 70 CE, so it would take a miracle for anyone to know.
James is likely referring to spiritual tribes, not fleshly and I think the letter is later than 44 CE.
one perspective: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/twelve-tribes-in-the-diaspora-james-11/DBD353EE6A5515943B492205A0BF505E
Compare https://catholic-resources.org/Bible/History-12Tribes.htm
The modern Jewish interpretation:-
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1741789/jewish/Isnt-Intermarriage-Only-With-Canaanites.htm
This is clearly revisionist history.
"The records were destroyed in 70 CE" - what records exactly?
Remember that we are talking about the SECOND temple. I think the onus is on those who claim records of lineage to provide proof. The lineage of kings might be recorded to some extent, but for all?
"In general, faithful Israelites did not marry outside of the nation." - Proof?
There is proof of marriage alliances with Persians etc.
The twelve spies were one from each tribe.
Interestingly Caleb was from Judah but Hoshea was from Ephraim. Was this why Hebrews treats him so?
In any case, 2 and 10 just a coincidence?
What was the major issue with Solomon was it that they were foreign, or that he had so many?
"James is likely referring to spiritual tribes, not fleshly" - why?
In any case, James is writing before Paul - You call it spiritual if you like but is is still from the Diaspora tradition, not from the gentile.
Zech 2:6 (MT 2:10)
"Cf. also Deut 30:3–4; Isa 11:12; 54:7; 27:13; 60:4; Jer 23:3 MT; 29:14 MT; 31:8 MT; 31:10 MT; 32:37 MT; Ezek 11:17. See Evans, “Continuing Exile," 97–98; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 98; Wright, Victory of God, 430–
31."
For Jesus and the 12 disciples:-
"Ferda, "Ingathering of the Exiles," 156; cf. Gerhard Lohfink, Wie hat Jesus Gemeinde gewollt?: Zur gesellschaftlichen Dimension des christlichen Glaubens (Frieburg: Herder, 1982), ET: Jesus and Community: The Social Dimension of Christian Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 98, 106; Wright, Victory of God, 430–31; Evans, “Continuing Exile," 91–93; Meier, “Jesus, the Twelve"; Scot McKnight, “Jesus and
the Twelve,” BBR 11, no. 2 (2001): 203–231; Craig A. Evans, “The Twelve Thrones of Israel: Scripture and Politics in Luke 22:24–30,” in Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts, eds. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001), 154–170."
The Samaritans:-
"Charles H. H. Scobie, “Israel and the Nations: An Essay in Biblical Theology,” TynBul 43, no. 2 (1992): 283–305 (294). On Samaritans and Israel in Luke-Acts, see Vanmelitharayil John Samkutty, The Samaritan Mission in Acts, LNTS 328 (London: T&T Clark, 2006); David Ravens, “The Role of the Samaritans and the Unity of Israel,” in Luke and the Restoration of Israel, JSNTSup 119 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 72–106; Richard J. Coggins, “The Samaritans and Acts,” NTS 28, no. 3 (1982): 423–434; Jacob Jervell, “The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel: The Understanding of the Samaritans in Luke-Acts,” in Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972), 113–132. On the same in John, see Geyser, "Israel in the Fourth Gospel"; Zangenberg, Frühes Christentum in Samarien; Charles H. H. Scobie, “Johannine Geography,” SR 11, no. 1 (1982): 77–84; Margaret Pamment, “Is There Convincing Evidence of Samaritan Influence on the Fourth Gospel?” ZNW 73, no. 3–4 (1982): 221–230; John Bowman, “Samaritan Studies,” BJRL 40 (1958): 298–327. Cf. also Scobie, “The Origins and Development of Samaritan Christianity,” NTS 19, no. 4 (1973): 390–414."
Staples thesis on Josephus:-
“Close examination of how these three terms are used reveals that they are, to a large degree, interchangeable for Josephus,”275 despite the fact that “Israelites” never occurs
after Book 11, as one would expect if the terms were truly interchangeable. To his credit, Miller rightly points to A.J. 11.173 as the key to understanding the shift in nomenclature, but he mistakes Josephus’ explanation as an “insistence that the name for the people changed,” not recognizing that the reason for the shift in nomenclature was that the two
terms refer to different entities, only one of which returned from exile.276 Part of the problem is that even those recognizing the importance of 11.173 have tended to overlook its connection with two earlier statements that set up the transition and further clarify the reason for the shift in terminology. First, Josephus explains that the return from exile had been limited to the southern tribes: “After Cyrus announced this to the Israelites, the rulers of the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, with the Levites and priests, went in haste to Jerusalem” (A.J. 11.8) This passage marks a key transition in Josephus’ account, as Cyrus addresses the “Israelites,” but only those from Judah, Benjamin, and Levi return.277 A reader of Josephus’ account of Israel to this point should be asking why only three tribes responded to Cyrus’ decree, yet scholars have missed the subtle transition here with remarkable consistency, likely owing to the assumption that “Israelites” is synonymous with “Jews.” Spilsbury, for example, points to this passage as evidence that the terms are interchangeable, claiming, “Here this term refers specifically to the two tribes who returned from exile.”278 But a more careful reading shows that Josephus here distinguishes between those to whom Cyrus made his decree (the Israelites, a term referring only to the ten tribes or the twelve tribe totality to this point in the Antiquities) and those who actually heeded his words—only those from the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. Lest one object that this is too subtle a reading of the passage, Josephus clarifies his meaning only a few paragraphs later, answering the question of what happened to the other
tribes:
…when these Ἰουδαῖοι learned of the king’s piety towards God, and his kindness towards Ezra, they loved [him] most dearly, and many took up their possessions and went to Babylon, desiring to go down to Jerusalem. But the whole [ὁ πᾶς] people of Israel remained in that land; so it came about that only two tribes came to Asia and Europe and are subject to the Romans. But the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates until now and are a boundless multitude, not to be estimated by numbers. (A.J. 11.132–33)
So, according to Josephus, the reason they came to be called Ἰουδαῖοι was that they were the part associated with the southern kingdom of Judah, while the bulk of Israel (πᾶς λαὸς τῶν Ἰσραηλιτῶν) remained in exile in immense numbers.279 Thus it is not that “the name for the people changed,” 280 as Miller and others have suggested, but that the people in view changed, with the scope narrowing from the larger twelve-tribe body of Israelites to a more limited group identified with the dominant southern tribe of Judah. That is, Josephus uses a different name because the group in view is different. This fully explains why Josephus completely drops the term “Israelites” shortly after this passage: for Josephus, the Ἰουδαῖοι are only a subset of Israel, and until the rest of Israel is again in view, “Israelites” is the wrong term for the limited portion of Israel represented by the more precise term Ἰουδαῖοι."
I think Staples 600 page Thesis has it all-
Joel Marcus, “'The Twelve Tribes in the Diaspora' (James 1.1),” NTS 60, no. 4 (2014): 433–447. On the twelve tribes in this passage, see also Richard Bauckham, “The List of the Tribes in Revelation 7 Again,” JSNT 42 (1991): 99–115; Christopher R. Smith, “The Portrayal of the Church as the New Israel in the Names and Order of the Tribes in Revelation 7.5–8,” JSNT 39 (1990): 111–18; Ross E. Winkle, “Another Look at the List of Tribes in Revelation 7,” AUSS 27, no. 1 (1989): 53–67; Albert S. Geyser, “The Twelve Tribes in Revelation Judean and Judeo-Christian Apocalypticism,” NTS 28, no. 3 (1982): 388–399.
I've got to leave shortly, so I'm being brief.
James wrote before Paul? That is not the consensus view and I see no good reason to believe it. For instance:
"Those who accept James the Just, brother of the Lord, as author of the epistle are obliged to date it before a.d. 62, the year of the death of James, between the governorships of Festus and Albinus. Others tend to date it anywhere from late 1st cent. to late 2nd cent., with perhaps a.d. 125 a general favorite."
See https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Epistle-James
Just became he uses the term "diaspora" does not mean that he's referring to non-Gentile addressees. A.T. Robertson gives various possibilities when discussing James' letter:
"The Readers The author addresses himself "to the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion" (James 1:1). Clearly, then, he is not writing to Gentiles, unless he includes the spiritual children of Abraham in the term Diaspora as Paul does for believers (Galatians 3:29; Romans 9:6 f.). The word diaspora occurs elsewhere in the N.T. only in John 7:35; 1 Peter 1:1. It apparently has the spiritual significance in 1 Peter 1:1, but in John 7:35 the usual meaning of Jews scattered over the world. The use here of "the twelve tribes" makes the literal sense probable here. Clearly also James knew nothing of any "lost" tribes, for the Jews of the Dispersion were a blend of all the twelve tribes. It is probable also that James is addressing chiefly the Eastern Dispersion in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Babylonia as Peter writes to five provinces in the Western Dispersion in Asia Minor. It is possible that James has in mind Christian and non-Christian Jews, not wholly non-Christian Jews as some hold. He may have in mind merely Christian Jews outside of Palestine, of whom there were already many scattered since the great pentecost [sic]. The use of synagogue as a place of worship (James 2:2) like church (James 5:14) argues somewhat for this view. He presents the Mosaic law as still binding (James 2:9-11; James 4:11). As the leading elder of the great church in Jerusalem and as a devout Jew and half-brother of Jesus, the message of James had a special appeal to these widely scattered Jewish Christians."
When I mentioned 70 CE, I was referring to genealogical records. Remember when the Hebrew Bible lists family records in the post-exilic period? The records are mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. Were they only for priests or kings? What about the family records in Matthew and Luke and when Paul discusses genealogies in Timothy?
I said faithful Israelites normally did not marry outside the nation. Pretty hard to disprove that claim. A faithful Israelite would have obeyed the OT commands about marrying a lover of God. Read Deuteronomy 7, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. I also said what was the norm; I realize there were aberrations or exceptions.
If the two spies did not represent Judah and Benjamin, then how does the theory stand? If one of the two spies was from Ephraim, you would seem to have your answer :)
For James 1:1 as a quick reference, see page 62 at https://www.proquest.com/openview/c8d1e827bfea822992db2fe35c8bdd62/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750
https://biblehub.com/text/1_peter/1-1.htm
Key words - παρεπιδήμοις Διασπορᾶς
James not written by the brother of Jesus?
When I said revisionist, diachronically which books say what and when?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0309089218778591
"What about the family records in Matthew" - indeed, what about them?
I ma surprised you would put that forward as an example of genuine genealogy.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270238689_From_Lists_to_History_Chronological_Aspects_of_the_Chronicler's_Genealogies
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1196&context=pubs
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-intermarriage-and-the-jews-1.5249817
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-bible-does-not-prohibit-all-intermarriages/
Deut 30:4 LXX
Psalms 146:2 lxx
I will answer a few points as time permits:
I never said that Jesus' brother did not write the book of James. Not sure if that's the impression you got or whether you were just posing a rhetorical question.
On the genealogical records, I'm sure you're aware of which books in the Hebrew Bible discuss them in the post-exilic period. I was referring to the genealogies that we find in the Tanakh.
I'm surprised that you would cast doubt on the Matthean or Lukan genealogies. The point is not whether they're "accurate" or not, but whether they show knowledge of the 12 tribes. That is why I invoked them but I do believe Matthew and Luke's accounts constitute part of God's Word, the Bible, inspired by the holy spirit. Yet the point is not totally germane to this discussion.
Again, I never said that Israelites did not marry non-Israelites, nor did I say that marriages to all non-Israelites were forbidden. Please go back and review what I wrote: I qualified my statements about ancient Israelite marriage.
On Deuteronomy 30:4, what exactly is the context? Does it still apply today to the fleshly nation of Israel?
Let's also understand Ps. 146:2 in context: why should we believe the verse applies to modern natural Israel? They certainly have not accepted God's Messiah. That point aside, verses must be read according to their context.
https://www.galaxie.com/article/gtj02-2-10
https://www.academia.edu/41195750/Matthew_s_Genealogical_Fourteens
The Times of Israel article makes a number of fine points, but . . .
"King Solomon, David’s son, married the daughter of the Pharaoh of Egypt and hundreds of other non-Israelite women, and the Bible does not criticize him for the intermarriages, but that in his old age, his wives turned him to other gods."
The Bible actually does condemn Solomon for marrying non-worshipers of Jehovah: it wasn't just that his wives turned him to other gods. He never should have married them in the first place since the potential was always there. See Nehemiah 13:26-27 (NIV):
"Was it not because of marriages like these that Solomon king of Israel sinned? Among the many nations there was no king like him. He was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel, but even he was led into sin by foreign women. Must we hear now that you too are doing all this terrible wickedness and are being unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women?"
Moreover, was the king of Israel supposed to multiply wives? Just what did the torah say? However, my point stands that faithful Israelites normally married within the nation. You could say that they married fellow worshipers or converts as well, normally.
We must also ask why Samson married a Philistine. The article did not consider that question.
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com
The genealogy in Matthew is clearly there for the purpose of making a point that is not fully understood yet (possibly gematria). I suggest you do some math on the idea of 14 generations between Abraham and David.
From Babylon to Jesus may be correct, but then that is second temple period. Averages would make this about 16.
You cannot assert that the genealogy is literal because it is inspired. All that claim tells us is it is there for a legitimate reason for it to be there in the thematic scheme of Matthew.
Deut 30:4 - is it the same as the MT? I am focusing on the words used and what they mean, which informs our understanding of the NT usage.
Any discussion of Solomon is a paradox on the whole idea of "wisdom". The wisdom to make political alliances to bolster wealth and power. He was not just member of a nation, he was their king. The whole idea of Solomon if fraught with difficulties.
"Does it still apply today to the fleshly nation of Israel?" - here is where you are missing the point of all of this. Modern Jews are NOT "modern Israel". They can only be part of it. There are many around the world who claim to be part of it but are not accepted by this modern state. They make judgements and decisions that are not theirs to make.just an example - https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520213234/who-are-the-jews-of-india
James the brother of Jesus died as a martyr in AD 62 or 69?
One thing that seem conspicuous by omission in the Epistle of James is any reference circumcision.
https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-this-new-race/9780231133357
https://academic.oup.com/jaar/article/75/3/727/710091
Matthew genealogy can make a point and still be literal: the two categories are not mutually exclusive. But I'm not saying that his record is strictly chronological, even if it's correct. However, that is not why I mentioned Matthew or Luke as I said previously. And in my opinion, gematria is a stretch. There is no reason to go there.
I mentioned Matthew and Luke and Paul to address the comment you made regarding a few tribes being known. I was not trying to argue that Matthew is strictly chronological, right or wrong, etc.
Literal has more than one meaning and again, something can be written for a purpose and still be literal. Yet the main thing for now is whether Matthew and Luke demonstrate knowledge of more than a few tribes. And according to 1 Timothy, many early Jews wanted to know about their family line and they were seeking knowledge of such things. I've always wanted to follow up on that point.
Deut. 30:4 MT and LXX are not the same. Where did I say that modern Jews are modern Israel? I was talking about Israel in general because you brought up Rom. 11:26, but I realize not all Jews live in modern Israel.
Have you read Insight on the letter of James? It states that James, the son of Zebedee was martyred around 44 CE, not James, the brother of Jesus.
James the brother of Jesus?
Davids, Peter H (1982). The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary (Repr. ed.). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. ISBN 0802823882.
Evans, Craig A (2005). Craig A Evans (ed.). Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: John, Hebrews-Revelation. Colorado Springs, Colo.: Victor. ISBN 0781442281.
Its the whole 14 14 14 that needs addressing for Matthew. I have seen much written about it including Gematria. Also 7+7 & 7*7. But they don't hold up either since many compare with the number 42 not 49.
"devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work" - I agree ;)
Maybe the brother of Jesus did write James: we can't say for sure, but I'm not discounting it.
Whether we address the numerical part of Matthew has little to do with my main point, but much ink has been spilled on the issue. IMO, gematria is mythical or worse, but that is a side point.
And not that there is anything wrong with studying one's genealogy, as I think you realize, but the individuals Paul had in mind were letting such investigations lead them away from the faith or they let these investigations distract them from more important things.
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/WTJ-NT/Scott-MatthewHistory-WTJ.pdf
History = Histography & Story.
1 Timothy 57 ce vs Matthew 80 ce
According to dictionary.com, histography is "a treatise on or description of organic tissues."
And all history is story: historians say that history involves the res gestae and the narration of res gestae. Or Collinwood said history is "a retelling." See also Herodotus, Thucydides, and Polybius. History should be related sine ira et studio (Tacitus), but it's always narration and sometimes argumentation.
The dates for 1 Timothy and Matthew differ from scholar to scholar. I've even seen a date in the 40s for Matthew, assuming the Gospel had a Vorlage as Jerome suggested.
On the "wisdom" of Solomon see Deuteronomy 17:16-17. Interesting how wives are lumped together with horses and accumulation of wealth.
Just because wives are included doesn't mean there's equivalency between them, horses, and wealth. Deut. 17:16-17 stresses that the king ought to avoid things that could lead him astray. How are these categories any different from the law against coveting, which lumps together a neighbor's wife with donkeys, servants, and oxen. Deuteronomy 5:21 includes a house and field, but then makes it clear that the law applies to anything owned by one's neighbor. Exodus 20:17 has this part too. See also Acts 20:33.
The point is that mentioning wives with other things does not necessarily equate wives with one's property. However, the law indicated that the king's heart could be led astray by multiplying wives (i.e., having a harem) or material objects. That is the point of similarity between them.
Jeffrey Tigay puts the Deuteronomy verses in context, which helps explain why wealth and horses would be mentioned along with wives. I would recommend his commentary: one reference he includes is Proverbs 31:3 and he notes that some interpreted Deut. 17 to mean a king should have one wife, but the halakhah tradition placed the limitation at 18.
As for Solomon's wisdom, he initially was wise and humble, but he did not safeguard wisdom. It's much like being given a valuable inheritance but then blowing it all recklessly, like the prodigal son did.
But what is the EVIDENCE of the "wisdom"?
See 1 kings 10:26 - 11:13. Including sequence.
See McConville "narrative and meaning," 35-38.
See - 2 Samuel 7:5-7.
See - 1 Kings 4:7-19, circumventing the traditional tribal-territorial boundaries established by Yehovah.
I will read Mcconville, and I read the other verses you posted. In answer to your question, much depends on what you mean by wisdom and evidence. There is godly wisdom and worldly wisdom. A person can also be wise in certain ways, as Insight brings out. For instance, being a good judge of character, a builder or a wise business person. 1 Kings 3 & 4 give the impression that Solomon certainly had a great degree of wisdom given to him by YHWH (Jehovah). I'm not sure what other evidence you want, but I will read the article.
Interesting to compare 1 kings 4:31 with Psalms 89:50,51. Psalms 88. 1 Chronicles 2:6 - Mahol meaning - a dance.
Song and dance.
Regarding endogamy, see Talmon, " Emergence of Jewish sectarianism," 586-587
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24953855
Edgar,
There is some references I would like to see and discuss, if you have access to any of these can you post the relevant pages?
https://ernster.com/detail/ISBN-9783110193411/Bekken-Per-Jarle/The-World-is-Near-You
115-230 (if not the whole section then any that refers to Philo & Paul together?)
https://brill.com/view/title/26279
188-208 (if not the whole section then any that refers to Philo & Paul together?)
https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/paul-grace-and-freedom-9780567321527/
(any section that refers to Philo & Paul together?)
Its regarding things that Philo talks about in In Praem.
Also, Virt. 175-86, the treatise immediately preceding Praem.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40753326
Duncan, I will see if I can help. I will get back with you today, but unfortunately, no guarantees with the Brill or Bloomsbury stuff.
Devorah Dimant, "Pseudo Ezekiel," EDSS 1:282-84 (283-84).
https://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/aristeas.htm
Staples points out something interesting in the letter to Aristeas that I had not paid any attention to before at 47-50. The names of the tribes are never mentioned.
See http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2074-77052014000100040
I was thinking that 1st century Jews/Israelites had to know there were 12 tribes and they likely knew the names of the tribes, even if it wasn't clear who belonged to what tribe.
“Goy: Israel’s Multiple Others and the Birth of the Gentile” (Oxford University Press, 2018),
I've been reading 1 Corinthians 10 here lately and verse 18 stands out to me, "Look at the people of Israel. Are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?" (NET)
NET Footnote: tn Grk “Israel according to (the) flesh.”
Greek: βλέπετε τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα·
Israel according to the flesh versus Israel according to the spirit? The children of the promise versus the children according to the flesh?
"Philo called the priests κοινωνὸς του βώμου, partakers of the altar. Thus Paul is inviting each of us to take on the role of priests, as the "royal priesthood"."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3264466
Trying to track down specific Qumran texts is not always that easy - For Q22 I have the lid of a jar, which I don't think it referring to?
https://dqcaas.com/tag/richard-j-ward/
https://biblehub.com/text/acts/2-17.htm
Just finished my first pass of The Idea of Israel. One thing that seems clear is that second temple Judaism never claimed that Israel was ever considered reinstated in the land. When the second temple fell it did not mean as much as you might think. Many of Israel outside the land never considered it to be a legitimate temple built by "Israel" anyway.
I can see just how badly scholarship has confused Israel / Judah / Hebrew.
I am now checking references but I don't think they will change much as Staples gives all the source texts. This is a really comprehensive study. I will look forward to reading the reviews. I think that many wont like it.
On that comment about Philo, the priests weren't the only partakers of the altar, right? And whom was Paul addressing in 1 Cor. 10:18? The worshiper who offered the communion sacrifice also partook of the altar. See Lev. 7:11-18.
Also Romans 1:3; 9:3-5
https://biblehub.com/text/romans/4-1.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/romans/11-14.htm
I agree with what you say about the DSS
I'd like to see a review of Staples' book: it sounds like a solid study and worthwhile, but I disagree with his conclusions if they're as you state above.
The falling of the temple in 70 CE is a monumental event in Jewish history and look at what the Hebrew prophets said about the second temple. Reference Haggai and Zechariah.
Here's another Staples production: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0142064X19855564
https://books.google.com/books?id=0E6_DwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=second+temple+judaism&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi9k8StwNzxAhVQG80KHXsGCvoQ6AF6BAgHEAI#v=onepage&q=second%20temple%20judaism&f=false
Your last comment hits one of his points on the head.
Jewish history is not the history of Israel and the documentary evidence shows it quite clearly on close examination.
I should have bought the book digitally so I could share, but I like to make notes in margins.
"The people of Judah and Benjamin had enemies. They heard that the returned captives were building a Temple for YHWH, the God of Israel."..."When Xerxes became king, those enemies wrote a letter against the people of Judah and Jerusalem.".."King Artaxerxes, you remember the Jews who came to us from you"
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbl.1382.2019.651878
Ezra 6:14 14 So the elders of the Jews continued to build and prosper under the preaching of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah, a descendant of Iddo. They finished building the temple according to the command of the God of Israel and the decrees of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes, kings of Persia.
Zech 4:10.
Zech 10:6-10, when was this prophecy fulfilled?
Zech 11:14, when was this prophecy fulfilled?
On the Levitical sacrifice. In that climate, eating meat on the third day could be fatal. Nomads move there food with them as living animals and the group normally kill and eat it all on the same-day.
For Romans 9:3-5 not that Israelites they may be but they are not Isreal. They are Judah.
It's cool, Duncan. I now have Staples's book.
For Zechariah 11:14, compare 11:15-17. The fulfillment of Zechariah 10:6-10 depends on when the book was written. If it was written in the sixth century bce, Jehovah was still dealing with Israel then and had restored them to Judah.
How is Rom. 9:3-5 dealing with Judah and not all of Israel?
"Israel then and had restored them to Judah" - that never happened, as Josephus points out.
Only 2 tribes of Judah returned, not Israel.
Ah, good, now you have the book my comments become redundant. See pg132 footnote 41.
https://biblehub.com/greek/adelpho_n_80.htm
You can't base a widespread claim like that one 1 witness, Josephus. It verges on being an argument ex silentio. I don't have the requisite time to study this matter now, but it doesn't seem right to argue that 2 tribes returned and that's it. I'd have to see a lot more evidence to accept that claim and I've found OT scholars who agree. Furthermore, I want to check out some of the references you mention and read some of Staples. At this point, I have other projects and duties, but I will offer comment as time and energy affords.
According to Paul's own words, his brethren/race extended beyond his own tribe (Benjamin) and the verse in Rom. 9:3-5 certainly indicates a more expansive view.
See note 41, page 249: https://legacy.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/Library/TynBull_2002_53_2_05_Trebilco_PastoralsSelf-Designation.pdf
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0259-94222015000200013
"Brother" was commonly used among the Israelites
Compare Micah 5:3 with Nehemiah 4:2.
I may have posted this before - https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/60fcee36-c6dc-4311-b7b6-f898967e2a92/1005452.pdf
pg. 292ff
"Israelites believed that they belonged to one family6 (the family of Abraham or the family of God),7 and also envisaged that they had a fictive sibling relationship with other Jews. However, Jews excluded Gentiles from this fictive brotherly bond. For instance, in Deuteronomy 17 it is written:
[Y]ou may indeed set over you a king whom the LORD your God will choose. One of your own community you may set as king over you; you are not permitted to put a foreigner ((נבָרְִי) over you, who is not your own brother (לֹא־אָחִ֖יךָ הֽוּא). (v. 5)"
I think you and Staples realize that the term "Jew" is not univocal or monosemic, but somewhat equivocal. Israelite and Jew were even conflated in antiquity by the people of Abraham themselves: three important and related terms to me are Hebrew, Israelite, and Jew.
When Paul writes about Jews and Israelites in Romans, is he trying to sharply distinguish between them? There is also evidence that Jews/Israelites called each other "brothers."
Ezra 2:2 and Ephesians 2:12. Jesus also reached out to Israel's lost sheep.
For Ezra see Pg156.
Also note his mention in footnote regarding "the unfaithfulness of the exile".
Ezra 9:4 (NET): "Everyone who held the words of the God of Israel in awe[a] gathered around me because of the unfaithful acts of the people of the exile.[b] Devastated, I continued to sit there until the evening offering."
NET note informs us that "the people" are added for "clarity"
10:6 in NET likewise relates the "infidelity of the exiles."
The WBC translation for Ezra 9:4 also renders the verse: "Then all who trembled at the words of the God of Israel gathered round me on account of the exiles’ unfaithfulness while I continued sitting in a state of severe shock until the evening offering."
One reason for understanding the unfaithfulness of the exiles is the Hebrew term in question; the second factor is context. One Catholic Bible speaks of the apostasy commited by the exiles.
Anchor Bible Commentary Rendering: "Then all those who were terror-stricken because of the words of the God of Israel on account of the
disloyalty of the exiles congregated around me, while I remained sitting horrified until the evening sacrifice."
10:6 is translated similarly.
Robert Alter: "And all who trembled for the words of the God of Israel over all the betrayal of the exiles gathered by me while I was sitting desolate till the evening grain offering."
Compare Ezra 9:2 (ESV): "For they have taken some of their daughters to be wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands. And in this faithlessness the hand of the officials and chief men has been foremost."
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/1/1/Ezra_9-10_PhD.pdf
"Israelite and Jew were even conflated in antiquity by the people of Abraham themselves"
Are you referring to biblical antiquity?
See nesting on pg.343-345 of staples.
Can you give me a solid example of usage that uses the terms interchangeably - only need one?
I meant biblical and extrabiblical antiquity. Wikipedia gets this one correct. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelites
See more 7 in the article. And regarding the Bible, do you think that Paul always used Jew and Israelite with distinct meanings/referents? Just read Romans
Something else has become evident regarding the "judgment of Solomon" The chapters pre and post use the name Solomon repeatedly and frequently, but this account just says "the king".
Post a Comment