Ἰουδαῖος, αία, αῖον (Clearchus, the pupil of Aristotle, Fgm. 6 [in Jos., C. Ap. 1, 179]; Theophr., Fgm. 151 W. [WJaeger, Diokles v. Karystos ’38, 134–53: Theophrastus and the earliest Gk. report concerning the Judeans or Jews]; Hecataeus of Abdera [300 b.c.] : 264 Fgm. 25, 28, 2a Jac. [in Diod S 1, 28, 2] al.; Polyb.; Diod S; Strabo; Plut.; Epict. 1, 11, 12f, al.; Appian, Syr. 50 §252f, Mithrid. 106 §498, Bell. Civ. 2, 90 §380; Artem. 4, 24 p. 217, 13; Diog. L. 1, 9; OGI 73, 4; 74, 3; 726, 8; CIG 3418; CB I/2, 538 no. 399b τ. νόμον τῶν Εἰουδέων [on Ἰ. in ins s. RKraemer, HTR 82, ’89, 35–53]; Mitt-Wilck. I/2, 55; 56 [both III b.c.]; 57 [II b.c.]; BGU 1079, 25 [41 a.d.]; PFay 123, 16 [100 a.d.]; POxy 1189, 9; LXX; TestSol; AscIs 2:7; EpArist; SibOr; Philo, Joseph., Ar., Just., Tat. For a variety of synonyms s. Schürer III 87–91.). Gener. as description of ‘one who identifies with beliefs, rites, and customs of adherents of Israel’s Mosaic and prophetic tradition’ (the standard term in the Mishnah is ‘Israelite’). (Since the term ‘Judaism’ suggests a monolithic entity that fails to take account of the many varieties of thought and social expression associated with such adherents, the calque or loanword ‘Judean’ is used in this and other entries where Ἰ. is treated. Complicating the semantic problem is the existence side by side of persons who had genealogy on their side and those who became proselytes [on the latter cp. Cass. Dio 37, 17, 1; 67, 14, 2; 68, 1, 2]; also of adherents of Moses who recognized Jesus as Messiah [s. Gal 2:13 in 2d below; s. also 2eα] and those who did not do so. Incalculable harm has been caused by simply glossing Ἰ. with ‘Jew’, for many readers or auditors of Bible translations do not practice the historical judgment necessary to distinguish between circumstances and events of an ancient time and contemporary ethnic-religious-social realities, with the result that anti-Judaism in the modern sense of the term is needlessly fostered through biblical texts.)
Thursday, July 15, 2021
BDAG Entry for Ἰουδαῖος (From the Third Edition)
① pert. to being Judean (Jewish), with focus on adherence to Mosaic tradition, Judean, as a real adj. (Philo, In Flacc. 29; Jos., Ant. 10, 265) ἀνὴρ Ἰ. (1 Macc 2:23; 14:33) Judean Ac 10:28; 22:3. ἄνθρωπος 21:39. ἀρχιερεύς 19:14. ψευδοπροφήτης 13:6. ἐξορκισταί 19:13. γυνή (Jos., Ant. 11, 185) 16:1. χώρα Mk 1:5.—But γῆ J 3:22 is to be taken of Judea in the narrower sense (s. Ἰουδαία 1), and means the Judean countryside in contrast to the capital city. Of Drusilla, described as οὔσα Ἰουδαία being Judean or Jewish, but for the view that Ἰ. is here a noun s. 2b.
② one who is Judean (Jewish), with focus on adherence to Mosaic tradition, a Judean, Ἰουδαῖος as noun (so predom.). Since Jerusalem sets the standard for fidelity to Israel’s tradition, and since Jerusalem is located in Judea, Ἰ.
frequently suggests conformity to Israel’s ancestral belief and
practice. In turn, the geographical name provided outsiders with a term
that applied to all, including followers of Jesus, who practiced customs
variously associated with Judea (note the Roman perception Ac 18:15 [‘Judeans’ at Corinth]; 23:28).
ⓐ (ὁ) Ἰ. Judean (w. respect to birth, nationality, or cult) J 3:25; (Mitt-Wilck. I/2, 57, 5 [II b.c.] παρ’ Ἰουδαίου=from a Judean) 4:9; 18:35; Ac 18:2, 24; 19:34; Ro 1:16; 2:9f, 17, 28f (on the ‘genuine’ Judean cp. Epict. 2, 9, 20f τῷ ὄντι Ἰουδαῖος … λόγῳ μὲν Ἰουδαῖοι, ἔργῳ δ’ ἄλλο τι); 10:12; Gal 2:14; 3:28; Col 3:11.—Collective sing. (Thu. 6, 78, 1 ὁ Ἀθηναῖος, ὁ Συρακόσιος; EpArist 13 ὁ Πέρσης; B-D-F §139; Rob. 408) Ro 3:1.
ⓑ of Drusilla οὔσα Ἰουδαία being a Judean Ac 24:24, but for the simple adjectival sense s. 1 end.
ⓒ (οἱ) Ἰουδαῖοι (on the use of the art. B-D-F §262, 1; 3) the Judeans οἱ Φαρισαῖοι κ. πάντες οἱ Ἰ. Mk 7:3; τὸ πάσχα τῶν Ἰ. J 2:13; cp. 5:1; 6:4; 7:2; ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰ. (Appian, Mithrid. 117 §573 Ἰουδαίων βασιλεὺς Ἀριστόβουλος) Mt 2:2; 27:11, 29 (in these three last pass., Ἰ. is used by non-Israelites; Mt’s preferred term is Ἰσραήλ); Mk 15:2 and oft. πόλις τῶν Ἰ. Lk 23:51; ἔθνος τῶν Ἰ. Ac 10:22; λαὸς τῶν Ἰ. 12:11. χώρα τῶν Ἰ. 10:39 (Just., A I, 34, 2; cp. A I, 32, 4 ἡ γῆ Ἰουδαίων). ἄρχων τῶν Ἰ. J 3:1; συναγωγὴ τῶν Ἰ. Ac 14:1a. Cp. J 2:6; 4:22; 18:20. Ἰ. καὶ Ἕλληνες (on the combination of the two words s. B-D-F §444, 2: w. τε … καί) Judeans and Hellenes Ac 14:1b; 18:4; 19:10; 20:21; 1 Cor 1:24; 10:32; 12:13; PtK 2 p. 15, 7; ἔθνη τε καὶ Ἰ.=non-Judeans and Judeans Ac 14:5; cp. ISm 1:2. Ἰ. τε καὶ προσήλυτοι Judeans and proselytes Ac 2:11; cp. 13:43; οἱ κατὰ τὰ ἔθνη Ἰ. the Judeans who live among the nations (in the Diaspora) 21:21. Judeans and non-Judeans as persecutors of Christians MPol 12:2; cp. also 13:1; 17:2; 18:1; 1 Th 2:14 (Polytheists, Jews, and Christians Ar. 2, 1).—Dg 1.—Without the art. (cp. 19:3 φαρισαῖοι) Mt 28:15, suggesting that not all ‘Judeans’ are meant, and without ref. to Israel, or Jews, as an entity.
ⓓ a Mosaic adherent who identifies with Jesus Christ Judean Gal 2:13; cp. Ac 21:20 and eα below. On Rv 2:9; 3:9 s. Mussies 195.
ⓔ in J Ἰουδαῖοι or ‘Judeans’ for the most part (for exceptions s. a and c) constitute two groups
α. those who in various degrees identify with Jesus and his teaching J 8:52; 10:19–21; 11:45; 12:11 al.
β. those who are in
opposition to Jesus, with special focus on hostility emanating from
leaders in Jerusalem, center of Israelite belief and cult; there is no
indication that John uses the term in the general ethnic sense suggested
in modern use of the word ‘Jew’, which covers diversities of belief and
practice that were not envisaged by biblical writers, who concern
themselves with intra-Judean (intra-Israelite) differences and
conflicts: 1:19; 2:18, 20; 5:10, 15f; 6:41, 52 (a debate); 7:1, 11, 13; 9:18, 22; 10:24, 31, 33 (in contrast to the πολλοί from ‘beyond the Jordan’, 10:40–42, who are certainly Israelites) 11:8; 13:33; 18:14. S. Hdb. exc. on J 1:19 and, fr. another viewpoint, JBelser, TQ 84, 1902, 265ff; WLütgert, Heinrici Festschr. 1914, 147ff, Schlatter Festschr. 1922, 137–48; GBoccaccini, Multiple Judaisms: BRev XI/1 ’95, 38–41, 46.—J 18:20 affirms that Jesus did not engage in sectarian activity. Further on anti-Judean feeling in J, s. EGraesser, NTS 11, ’64, 74–90; DHare, RSR, July, ’76, 15–22 (lit.); Hdb. exc. on J 1:19; BHHW II 906–11, 901f, 905.—LFeldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World ’93.—MLowe, Who Were the Ἰουδαῖοι?: NovT 18, ’76, 101–30; idem Ἰουδαῖοι of the Apocrypha [NT]: NovT 23, ’81, 56–90; UvonWahlde, The Johannine ‘Jews’—A Critical Survey: NTS 28, ’82, 33–60; JAshton, ibid. 27, ’85, 40–75 (J).—For impact of Ἰουδαῖοι on gentiles s. ESmallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule fr. Pompey to Diocletian ’81; SCohen, Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew: HTR 82, ’89, 13–33; PvanderHorst, NedTTs 43, ’89, 106–21 (c. 200 a.d.); PSchäfer, Judeophobia, Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World ’97.—On the whole word s. Ἱσραήλ end. For Ἰουδαῖοι in ins s. SEG XXXIX, 1839. M-M. EDNT. TW.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
206 comments:
1 – 200 of 206 Newer› Newest»https://brill.com/view/journals/jaj/aop/article-10.30965-21967954-12340018/article-10.30965-21967954-12340018.xml
https://biblehub.com/greek/ioudaiois_2453.htm
https://www.academia.edu/45106609/Review_of_Scott_W_Hahn_All_Israel_Will_Be_Saved_The_Restoration_of_the_Twelve_Tribes_in_Romans_9_11
Here's the entry from Louw and Nida's Greek-English Lexicon:
93.172 Ἰουδαῖος, ou m: (derivative of jIouvda"a ‘Judah,’ 93.173, and jIouvda"c ‘Judah,’ 93.488)3 the ethnic name of a person who belongs to the Jewish nation - ‘a Jew’ (Mk 7.3). In NT usage the reference of the term οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι may be either the Jewish people as such, the inhabitants of Jerusalem and environs, the authorities in Jerusalem, or even the people hostile to Jesus.
In some of the examples from biblehub, the verses contrast Jews and Greeks. What does "Jew" mean in those places? Does it only refer to those belonging to the tribe of Judah?
As far as Hahn's take on Romans 11:26, I guess people will believe what they are inclined to believe. I'm not overly worried about whether all fleshly Israel will be saved or not: I tend to think not, and Paul's illustration of the olive tree makes less sense if Hahn is correct.
I noticed that Hahn also thinks that "Jew" was not (primarily) applied to Israelites who composed the ten tribes, but BDAG and the multiple sources it mentions seems to say otherwise. Hahn is just wrong in this case and apparently trying to prop up his pet ideas. Either way, all things will wash out in the eschaton.
https://brill.com/view/journals/jaj/7/2/article-p169_3.xml
https://www.ancientjewreview.com/articles/2018/10/24/ancient-jewish-identity
Debates over Jewish identity
Romans 10:12 means exactly what it says - Jews and Greeks - why shouldn't it.
https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/diaspora/jewish-rome/
Just because they are diaspora Jews dos not man that they are not from Judah especially if they are out of the second exhile.
I don't think that Staples takes either position from the brill article.
And for the second article Staples decisively destroys "insiders and outsiders" language.
https://legacy.tyndalehouse.com/Bulletin/64=2013/06_Khobnya_17.pdf
IMO Gentile is a poor translation, and why the separation of Greeks & ethnos?
Rom 11:1 variant “the people” vs. “the property/blessing”
"Benjamin, according to biblical tradition, one of the 12 tribes that constituted the people of Israel, and one of the two tribes (along with Judah) that later became the Jewish people."
So he is PART of Israel and a Jew, no argument.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/jesus-davidic-lineage-and-the-case-for-jewish-adoption/92B32A053628FD94923EA24871CCBC2C
Is Jesus the only adoptee?
See Praem 152, 172.
We'll see what the judgment is for Staples, but you say Jews means Jews in Rom. 10:12. But that is just the question. What does the term mean/what did it mean then? Why restrict the term to the tribe of Judah when plenty of evidence leans in another direction. I've given the sources: make up your own mind. As I come across more evidence, I will try to share here, but it's basic to me that "Jew/Jews" is context dependent, and it means more than one thing in antiquity as BDAG shows. To make a sharp cleavage between Jew and Israelite in Romans seems ill-advised IMO.
What Paul writes about the Israelites and Jews in Romans seems applicable to more than 2 tribes.
Jews are Israelites but only part of Israel.
How do you see Romans 9:25-26?
Cf. Lev 26:12 & 2 Sam 7:14
Hos 7:8, 8:8 LXX
“Hosea, as a prophet to the Northern Kingdom, stands out in his vision of future divine reconciliation with Ephraim. The prophets generally anticipate the ultimate salvation of Israel in a unified nation led by a Davidic monarch, i.e., one descended from Judah.” Shani L. Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran: an Exegetical Study of 4Q169 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 110; cf. also Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 200, 202.
Staple disertation page 501:-
Romans 9 marks a shift in language from οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι to “Israel” terminology. Unfortunately, the scholarly discussion is yet again complicated by the conflation of the two terms. For example, Dunn opens his treatment of Rom 9 with the statement, “Whatever is made of Paul’s talk of ‘Israel’ in v 6, it should not be forgotten that he prefaces the whole discussion with the firm statement, ’the Jews are Israelites,’”1506 curiously ignoring the fact that Paul nowhere makes such a statement. In order to understand Paul’s arguments in this tightly-integrated section, it is critical to note Paul’s precise word choices, including a consideration of what he does not say. For another example, Romans 9:3 does not say, as often glossed, “I was praying that I myself were anathema from Christ for the sake of Israel,”1507 nor does he say “for the sake of the Jews.”1508 Instead, the passage uses very specific, limited language. Paul is clear that those for whom he is grieved are in fact Israelites (οἵτινές εἰσιν Ἰσραηλῖται; 9:4)—this must never be forgotten.1509 But it is equally important to note that Paul does not say Israel stands apart from Christ but rather some Israelites, his “kin according to the flesh (συγγενῶν μου κατὰ σάρκα)” (9:3).
Moo’s observation about Rom 11:26, “Paul writes ‘all Israel,’ not ‘every Israelite’—and the difference is an important one,”1510 applies here but in the opposite direction: Paul does not write “they are Israel” but “they are Israelites”—and the difference is equally important. Indeed, after listing the blessings they should be sharing (Rom 9:4–5), Paul explains that these Israelites should not be equated with Israel as a whole, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed, for not all of those who are from Israel are Israel” (Rom 9:6).1511 Thus Paul explains at the beginning that his lament is not for Israel, which will indeed be saved through the redemptive work of the spirit (11:26), but for those disobedient Israelites who stand in danger of not participating in Israel’s salvation.1512
Lest the point be lost, my view is that "Jew" is a context dependent term: it does not always mean the same thing everytime it appears.
For Rom. 9, see vs. 24, and 27. Also think about Hosea's audience/his readers. To whom was the prophecy addressed?
As for Lev. 26:12, to whom was it directed? Compare Jeremiah 30:22; Ezek. 36:28; 37:27; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 1 Peter 2:9-10.
The above verses likewise address the Hosea references.
Hosea 1:7 (NIV): Yet I will show love to Judah; and I will save them—not by bow, sword or battle, or by horses and horsemen, but I, the Lord their God, will save them.”
Hosea 1:11: The people of Judah and the people of Israel will come together; they will appoint one leader and will come up out of the land, for great will be the day of Jezreel.
Hosea 1:11 - and that happened when?
It's strange to me that "Israelites" in Rom. 9:4 does not apply to the entire nation of Israel. Besides, Witnesses don't argue that all Israelites are/were separated from Christ. In fact, we believe that the earliest followers of Christ were Jews/Israelites. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that Paul only meant that the two tribe kingdom was separated from Christ, but I still have yet to read the entire line of argumentation by Staples.
When commenting on Romans 9:6, I hope Staples reads 9:7-8, which clarifies 9:6. Paul's language in Rom. 11:1; 2 Corinthians 11:22 is worthy of study. John 1:47 brings up questions about Nathanel. See Acts 21:28.
1584 The reference to σπέρμα in Isa 1:9 may have suggested the quotation to Paul, not only because of his arguments about “seed” in Rom 4:16–18 and again in 9:8 but also because of his immediately prior use of Hos 2:25, in which God “will sow” those who were “not my people” in the land/earth, after which he will say to them “my people.” Note the connection between Hos 2:25 and Isa 8:14, 28:16 in 1 Pet 2:6–10, which suggests Paul was not the first to interpret these passages together. On the connection with 1 Pet 2:6–10, see Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, 131–36. As noted by Starling, if the chronological sequencing followed by Paul to this point continues through the end of the chapter, it suggests Paul reads Isa 1:9 as chronologically subsequent to the Isa 10:22 quotation (Not My People, 151).
1775 Hanson, "Vessels of Wrath," 443: “though Paul normally quotes scripture in the version of the LXX known to us, he does not invariably do so. In some places he seems to have a text nearer to some of the other versions.” The citations in Rom 9:9, 13, 17, 20, 25, 27, 28; 33; 10:5, 7, 11, 15, 19, 20; 11:2, 3, 8, 9–10, 25a, and 26b–27 all differ from the LXX, while those in Rom 9:7, 20; 11:2, 11:34, 35 appear without introductory formulae. For more on Romans’ use of scripture and and the relationship between Paul’s citations and the LXX, see Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 83–184; Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, 341–352; Timothy H. Lim, Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 140–160.
Regarding Hosea 1:11, as I've said about other prophecies before, they have more than one fulfillment. Note how the early Christians applied such prophecies to themselves, but they applied to natural Israel too.
From Thomas Schreiner's Romans Commentary regarding Rom. 9:3ff:
In the last part of the verse Paul names those for whom he is almost willing to be cursed: τῶν ἀδελϕῶν μου τῶν συγγενῶν μου κατὰ σάρκα (tōn adelphōn mou tōn syngenōn mou kata sarka, my brothers and sisters, my kindred according to the flesh). These designations (cf. Rom. 16:7, 11, 21) along with the word Ἰσραηλῖται(Israēlitai, Israelites) in verse 4 clarify that the reference is to ethnic Israel. Paul is willing to be devoted to destruction for their sake, and this willingness to be cursed implies that he thinks here of his kindred who are separated from Christ, that is, unsaved Israelites. Only the prospect of their future eschatological judgment could cause Paul to desire to be cursed on their behalf. Thus it would be incorrect to appeal to the term ἀδελϕῶν in verse 3 and conclude from it that these Jews were saved, since elsewhere in Paul the term
refers to those who belong to the family of God (rightly Cranford 1993: 29–30; Fitzmyer 1993c: 544; cf. Moo 1995: 244; contra Cranfield 1979: 458–59). The context contradicts such an interpretation, for Paul is willing to be cursed and separated from Christ for the sake of “brothers and sisters” who are separated from Christ. No reason would exist for his desire to be separated from Christ on their behalf if they already belonged to the saved people of God.
Thiselton on 1 Corinthians 1:22-24:
In v. 23 the well-attested word £0veaiv, to the Gentiles (e.g., R, A, B, C*, D*, F, G, 33), is replaced by "EAAriai, to Greeks, in C3, D2, and the Textus Receptus. Hence Gentiles (NRSV, NIV, NJB, REB) is Greeks in AV/KJV. But the semantic contrast between Jew and Greek regularly denoted Jew and Gentile, so nothing of substance is at issue.
The Greek went awry in the process of pasting Thiselton's words to the blog, but I think you got the gist of his words.
The wording of Romans 3:9 stands out to me.
Who is the "we"?
Hosea 1:11, when definitively was this applied to Israel?
For the question about Hosea, see the SI book, pages 143-145, parag. 4.
Part of your question about Rom. 3:9 is answered by considering Rom. 3:1-2, 19-20.
My time on the blog today will be greatly diminished. I'm turning attention to other matters.
The more I look into circumcision, the more I realise that in the second temple period it was just not that important generally until those significant groups in Jerusalem made it an issue. Pharisees were responsible for much of it. Paul was a Pharisee and he rejecting his old position. So who is the we? Going to Jerusalem to debate it was fairly irrelevant & who was he debating with, who were these older men?
IMO the Esther LXX is part of this confusion - www.biblestudytools.com/lxx/esther/8-17.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book16.html
92 & 93
https://brill.com/abstract/journals/jsj/43/3/article-p315_2.xml
Jub. 15.11‐5, 30‐1; 16.17‐9
I'm still enjoying downtime from this blog, but I still think the "we" in Romans 3:9 is spelled out in the chapter. Was the Jerusalem event so irrelevant, and why did Paul really go there? Good question about the older men. They served with the Jewish apostles, whoever they were. I've long thought they were elders from the Jerusalem congregation.
Acts 15 is often compared/contrasted with Galatians 2. In fact, the whole book of Galatians dwells on circumcision.
See 1 Macc 1:15; Josephus, Antiquities 13.257–258, 318; Historia Augusta 14.2.
From Thomas R. Schreiner's Romans Commentary:
"Antiochus Epiphanes banned circumcision among the Jews and persecuted those practicing it (1 Macc. 1:48, 60–61; 2 Macc. 6:10). This ban provoked a counterreaction trumpeting the importance of circumcision, and Hasmonean rulers even imposed circumcision on foreigners to regularize their status as Jews (Josephus, Ant. 13.9.1 §§257–58; 13.11.3 §§318–19; cf. Esth. 8:17 LXX; Jdt. 14:10; Josephus, J.W. 2.17.10 §454; Life 23 §113). Josephus (Ant. 1.10.5 §192)
indicates that the reason for circumcision was to keep Israel distinct from other nations, thereby insuring Israel’s unique covenantal status. Even Philo, who was inclined to allegory, argued that the literal practice of circumcision should not be forsaken (Migr. Abr. 16 §§89–93). Some scholars have argued that notable
evidence exists that circumcision was not required for conversion to Judaism in all Jewish circles (McEleney 1973–74; Borgen 1980; Collins 1985). Doubtless not all Jews believed that circumcision was required for conversion. Nonetheless, the majority position was that the rite was necessary, and much of the evidence alleged to demonstrate laxity toward circumcision in Judaism is not as persuasive as is claimed (see Nolland 1981). In accord with the OT itself (cf. Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4), Paul argues that the covenantal sign of circumcision avails only if one keeps the law (Rom. 2:25)."
See also J. Nolland, (1981) “Uncircumcised Proselytes?” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 12:173–94.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/01-gen-nets.pdf
See Genesis 17:14. There is plenty of evidence that this is the original reading. I wont bother listing it, but its all out there.
Anything after the 8th day is fairly irrelevant. This is the judgment of Israel, NOT Judah.
And I still maintain that most who are being written two in Romans are diaspora.
I know that staples next book is going to be dealing with ethnos.
"They served with the Jewish apostles, whoever they were. I've long thought they were elders from the Jerusalem congregation." - hadn't the majority of apostles have moved on?
What would "older men" even mean a that time? We cannot impose modern conceptions onto this. Wasn't Jesus an "older man"? any one who was called Rabbi?
Who needs to be a "Jew" (3:1) when you can be an Israelite?
There is a sharp divide in Romans between Ἰουδαίου & Ἰσραὴλ (9 onward).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25610210
Do you mean that the apostles had moved on when Acts 15 happened? Not according to the account.
The older men were overseers, part of the Christian congregation. Why understand it any differently? Older men is a common GNT term.
I disagree about the sharp divide in Romans. What he writes in Romans 3 and 9 make little sense if we accept the sharp divide. The covenant and the promises belonged to the 12 tribes, not just 10 or 2.
To whom did the patriarchs belong? Romans 9:5
It wasn't merely to the 2 tribes.
I'm not sure that the 8 days part in Genesis. It may have been influenced by Leviticus 12. More later
My point is that when Paul argues against circumcision he refers to "Jew" but when he speaks of the history he speaks of "Israel". Don't know why you cant see the differentiation?
Romans 9:5 - so did no prophets speak against Judah, including recommending the circumcision of the heart? And 9:4 is referencing Israel.
"But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to keep the Law of Moses.” - so what where these doing at the meeting?
It does not say Ex-Pharisees & what would indicate that?
Paul was an "apostle" but not one of the twelve - what indicates this is talking about the twelve? You know all the instructions Jesus gave to them about going out.
There were OTHER "apostles" - 2 Corinthians 11:5.
You are giving the impression of a stable leadership - where is the evidence?
See Titus 2:2,3
https://brill.com/previewpdf/book/9789047419488/Bej.9789004150577.i-372_015.xml#:~:text=%E2%80%94the%20flesh%20of%20whose%20foreskin,kin%3B%20he%20has%20broken%20my
As you know, a writer can use different terms for the same group/class of people. I'm not arguing that Jew and Israelite completely overlap, but I don't agree with the sharp division you've proposed either. There are actually not enough instances of "Jew" in Romans to make the kind of determination you're making, Duncan. But I will adduce passages where the issue of circumcision is not in play, yet Paul uses a form of "Jew":
Romans 1:16; 2:9-10, 17-18; 9:24 and notice ethe use of "Israel" in 9:27.
What do the verses above have to do with circumcision?
Of course, prophets spoke against Judah, but they spoke against Israel (Samaria) too. I'm not denying Romans 9:4, but can't see why he's not talking about all 12 natural tribes. The words in 9:4 apply to both Judah and the ten tribes.
The "Pharisees" in Acts 15:5 are described as πεπιστευκότες, so they did not have to be called ex-Pharisees: they were followers of Jesus, but the verse doesn't tell us all we need to know about their status. Unfortunately, πεπιστευκότες only occurs elsewhere in Titus 3:8. But see Acts 4:4; 6:7; 8:13; 13:12; 15:36; 16:31; 18:8. Compare John 14:1.
I think it's fairly certain that the twelve are under discussion in Acts 15: the context even leads us to that understanding. Acts 2:42 speaks about the apostle's teaching that early followers of Jesus obeyed. In Acts 15:6-9, Peter (one of the twelve) makes an address to the body. James and "Simon" speak again in 15:13-14 before "the apostles and elders, with the whole church" send out men to spread the decision. Furthermore, why is the book called, "Acts of the Apostles?
Notice how "apostles" is used throughout Acts: https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/G652/apostolos.htm
Romans 1:16 - we are going to have to have to disagree as don't buy that ethnos means non Israelite.
I'm not being too facetious here, but I don't think 2 Cor. 11:5 means what you think it means :-)
Does it prove that other apostles were appointed besides the twelve and Paul? I don't think so, even if there were other apostles. But the numerous references to apostles in Acts all point to the book meaning the twelve. Later, we read about other genuinely appointed apostles, but I don't think that is Paul's point in 2 Cor. 11:5.
My evidence for a stable form of leadership in Acts is all the references to the apostles, beginning with Acts 1:5-8.
"Older men" must also be read in context like "apostles."
Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the ethnos or enter any town of the Samaritans. - all part of Israel.
For 9:24 - see John 4
James Scott on 2 Cor. 11:5:
Paul affirms his parity with the super-apostles. The sarcastic term super-apostles (tōn hyperlian apostolōn) shows that, from Paul’s perspective, the outsiders have come to Corinth in order both to subvert his own God-given apostolic authority and to usurp his God-given apostolic territory (cf. 10:13–18) by putting themselves above Paul. As we have seen throughout 2 Corinthians (1:24; 2:6–7, 15, 17; 3:1), Paul compares the opposition to Korah’s rebellion, in which Korah and his followers rebelled against Moses and Aaron in order to set themselves up as the authorities in the congregation (Num. 16–17). Despite his lack of rhetorical ability, which recalls Moses (see on 10:10; 11:6), Paul will not allow that he is inferior to his opponents who seek to arrogate to themselves apostolic power and prestige. The implicit reason for this is that Paul, like Moses, received his apostolic authority from God (cf. 3:5–6; 10:18; Num. 16:11, 28, 30). Ironically, Paul goes on to state later in the same passage that he is “not the least inferior to the ‘super-apostles,’ even though I am nothing” (2 Cor. 12:11; cf. 10:7; 11:21–22). From Paul’s perspective, therefore, the outsiders are less than nothing, despite their pretentious claims.
SEE - Romans 16:7
SEE - Corinthians 8:23
SEE - Philippians 2:25
"and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." = so they can be in all these places at once?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbl.1371.2018.344664
SEE- Amos 9:12 LXX
See Philippians 3:5.
See Acts 6:1.
The language not the tribe.
http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/jesus-and-the-forces-of-death/399984
This book has a lot to say about circumcision and uncleanness.
I don't understand your objection to my use of Rom. 1:16 since you said Paul uses "Jew" in Romans when referring to circumcision, yet Rom. 1:16 has nothing to do with the subject. And what does ethnos have to do with Rom. 1:16?
Are you saying that the ethnos in Matt 10:5 are Israelites? If so, we're definitely on opposite sides of the fence.
We likely disagree on Rom. 16:7, but let me say that I never claimed there were not other appointed apostles. My comments chiefly pertained to Acts and 2 Cor. 11:5. I'm aware that other apostles besides the twelve and Paul were part of the early ecclesia.
No disagreement with 2 Cor. 8:23: as I stated earlier, I made it clear how my earlier statements should be taken. But 2 Cor. 11:5 is dealing with the so-called "superfine apostles," not with divinely appointed ones. Scott and many other scholars make this point and so does the GB of JWs.
I will address Philippians 2:25 in detail later, but should I quote myself from the earlier discourse? I know there were other apostles. Excuse me for repeating this point, but I thought this point was clear :-)
In response to your use of 2 Cor. 11:5 above, I wrote (in part):
Does it prove that other apostles were appointed besides the twelve and Paul? I don't think so, even if there were other apostles. But the numerous references to apostles in Acts all point to the book meaning the twelve. Later, we read about other genuinely appointed apostles, but I don't think that is Paul's point in 2 Cor. 11:5.
[End quote]
The twelve apostles did venture out, but when? And did they personally have to fulfill Acts 1:8 or would others do it? But explain why Peter and James gave their input if they weren't present for the meeting in Acts 15.
We've discussed Acts 6:1 before and came to an impasse, I believe.
I just feel the conversation could have been shorter if my statements pertaining to the apostles had been given due attention. But it's all good :-)
Hebrew doesn't merely have to be the language, but can refer to the people too. Abe was a Hebrew and Paul declared himself to be a descendant of Abe.
"Are you saying that the ethnos in Matt 10:5 are Israelites?" - Why not?
Isn't he talking about Samaritans in the same breath - Israelites of ill repute (even though Jesus does not mind speaking to them elsewhere).
Probably an embellishment by Jew Matthew.
Matthew is possibly written after (according to you, I think).
Rom 1:16 was a slip up because of looking at the pesky NIV:-
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile." - If to the Jew and then the GREEK, then I have now problem with that.
As for Acts, why not say "the twelve" (the term apostles would not have even been needed)
For "Hebrew" see - Beattie and Davis, "Hebrew," 73.
https://biblehub.com/lexicon/acts/22-15.htm
A devout Jew OUTSIDE of Jerusalem tells Paul to go to the PEOPLE.
Abraham SPOKE Hebrew along with others. Paul also said he was circumcised on the 8th day.
https://www.academia.edu/9004751/What_Does_Hebrew_Mean_co_authored_with_D_R_G_Beattie_?auto=download
Obviously, I disagree with the "Aramaic" part of this. But..
Part of a reply from my communication with Staples:-
I’ve seen a good bit of the debate about whether “Hebrew” refers to Hebrew or Aramaic in the late Second Temple period and am not entirely persuaded by either side. I did my best to come out agnostic on that side of things in the chapter, but I do think I mentioned that Beattie and Davies concluded that “Hebrew” meant Aramaic, and my comment may have been fuzzy enough that it sounded like my own conclusion.
Thanks for passing along Buth’s chapter.
I look at usage: Matthew employs ethnos as a referring term for the nations/Gentiles. See Mt 6:32; 20:19; 20:25; 21:43; 24:14; 25:32; 28:19-20.
Samaritans were obviously not put in the same class as your average Israelite: to say they were Israelites of ill repute might be dressing up things a bit, but either way, ethnos probably refers to non-Israelites as the verses above suggest.
Jesus' intimate followers are called by three terms, right? The twelve, apostles, and disciples. Given the appropriate contextual details, we can figure out to which group each term applies.
Compare Mt 10:1-2, 5; 11:1; 26:14, 20; Mark 3:14, 16; John 6:70-71. Then Acts 6:2 does utilize the expression, "the twelve," then later this same group of men are called τῶν ἀποστόλων in Acts 6:6.
Abe was a Hebrew who spoke the language. It's like being Greek and speaking Greek.
Thanks for including that link and the reply from Staples. I gave up on the Hebrew/Aramaic debate a long time ago, and I'm not sure if we'll have a definite answer for that question anytime soon.
Let's start with Mt 6:32. What contextually makes this gentiles?
Jesus is talking to the people of the land with the Pharisees looking on.
All "people" are pursuing these things. People of the land would be the last to get them but the Pharisees were doing ok.
For Matthew 20:19, who was Jesus handed over too? Arrested by Jewish solders going through a Jewish court and a Roman one, but who made the final decision - the "people".
Matthew 10:6 also contrasts with 10:5.
My argument for 10:5 is the same as I said before includes Samaritans.
As for 20:25 - Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the PEOPLE lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.
What creates the need for Gentile?
https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/21-43.htm
I see no need to insert "a" into this text.
Matt 6:32-how do you know the Pharisees were looking on? Matt 5:1-2 merely states that Jesus began to teach his "disciples" who approached him on the mount. Nothing contextually leads us to believe the Pharisees were listening: only Jesus' Jewish/Israelite followers. So the contrast with the nations/Gentiles would make sense. See also Matt 4:15; 18:17.
Jesus maintained that τὰ ἔθνη were pursuing "these things," and his disciples should not imitate them. τὰ ἔθνη could be rendered "the people," but its usage elsewhere does not favor the rendering. Besides, Matt 5:1-2 makes clear whom Jesus' audience was. I'm not sure what you mean by the Pharisees doing ok, but they were not doing well spiritually, according to Matthew's Gospel.
In Luke's account of the Sermon, he adds: πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τοῦ κόσμου ἐπιζητοῦσιν
How would that description apply to "the people"?
Matt 20:19-The Jewish leaders could not have gotten Christ executed without Roman approval. Furthermore, the verse speaks of mocking and flogging: that is the thrust of the passage. Now who did the mocking and flogging?
See Matt 27:26-31.
As for Matt 20:25, I think you're imposing "people" there when another translation would be better.
If you don't believe the τῶν ἐθνῶν are Gentiles, then please tell me which geopolitical groups (plural) the Jewish/Israelite rulers were governing at the time.
Compare Luke 22:25.
Matt 21:43 contains an anarthrous noun; that doesn't mean one has to add "a," but it's what I would expect in view of the syntax.
Lastly, I wanted to add this bit from Thayer. Notice what he writes about ethnos:
in plain contradistinction to the Jews: Romans 3:29; Romans 9:24; (1 Corinthians 1:23 G L T Tr WH): Galatians 2:8, etc.; ὁ λαός (τοῦ Θεοῦ, Jews) καί τά ἔθνη, Luke 2:32; Acts 26:17, 23; Romans 15:10.
5. Paul uses τά ἔθνη even of Gentile Christians: Romans 11:13; Romans 15:27; Romans 16:4; Galatians 2:12 (opposite Galatians 2:13 to οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, i. e. Jewish Christians), Galatians 2:14; Ephesians 3:1, cf. Ephesians 4:17 (Winers Grammar, § 59, 4 a.; Buttmann, 130 (114)).
Compare Jeremiah 10:2; Joshua 23:3.
For Mat 6:32 - are the things accused peculiar to "Gentiles" Pharisees and especially Sadducees were in this category.
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0252.xml
https://biblehub.com/text/luke/12-30.htm "all the people of the world"
https://www.academia.edu/326655/Aramaic_the_Death_of_Written_Hebrew_and_Language_Shift_In_the_Persian_Period
For "galilee of the nations" see:- https://vimeo.com/130282094
From 1:51:00 not so much what Notley has to say but the first statement made after him in the questions segment.
The Hebrew term is GOY.
I have already posted a book on that.
From staples thesis and footnotes:-
Moreover, the language of “ethnic” Israel (=Jews) continues to frame the discussion with the presumption of an underlying contrast between Paul’s Christian “religion” and Jewish “ethnicity.” But this is highly problematic, as religion and ethnicity are modern categories that were not disembedded from one another in antiquity; to be a part of an ethnos meant observing cultural and cultic practices.65 To make matters worse, both categories are inconsistently defined and often nebulous in scholarly literature; what one scholar means by “ethnic” may differ from how another construes the term, with each talking past the other.66
65 In Neusner’s words, “distinguishing the ethnic from the religious aspect of Israel for the Judaism [of Paul’s day] simply defies the evidence in hand. There is no ethnic Israel that is distinct from a religious Israel at all, not in the sources that attest to the Judaism of which Dunn speaks” (Neusner, "Was Rabbinic Judaism Really 'Ethnic'?," doi:220232338). “This distinction, however, is a retrojection of contemporary sociology and politics into a theology of a Judaism of ancient times.” (“Paul's Ethnic Israel," 4–5). “Israel in Judaism forms the counterpart to the church or the nation of Islam, in Christianity and Islam, respectively, but not to the Albanians or the Italians or the
Algerians or the Swedes” (“Paul's Ethnic Israel," 6).
66 For a demonstration of a variety of definitions of ethnicity and religion among scholars discussing Jewish and Christian identities in antiquity, see David M. Miller, “Ethnicity, Religion and the Meaning of Ioudaios in Ancient ‘Judaism,’” CurBR 12, no. 2 (2014): 216–265 (234–242).
https://biblehub.com/greek/euergetai_2110.htm
This term needs more investigation before I can comment on https://biblehub.com/text/luke/22-25.htm
Since the "KINGS" appear to be under it/them.
Jeremy McInerney, “Ethnos and Ethnicity in Early Greece,” in Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, ed. I. Malkin (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), 51–73 (57).
https://vimeo.com/111429417
I listened to the first vimeo clip and they said nothing to controvert understanding ethnos as "nations" in Matt 4:15. Did I miss it? They discussed other issues, but I don't think his comments about goy overthrow taking 4:15 as a reference to non-Israelites.
See also https://books.google.com/books?id=Ts1iOKGfCgYC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=matthew+4:15+gentiles+dissertation&source=bl&ots=8_phpsDxtJ&sig=ACfU3U0n9LA1V1P1Aobx4EUzg7o7ccq4YQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjsc7Z6fTxAhVJCM0KHcvlDQYQ6AEwCHoECBsQAw#v=onepage&q=matthew%204%3A15%20gentiles%20dissertation&f=false
https://biblehub.com/lexicon/john/12-42.htm
In Luke 22:25, notice that the subject is "kings" (Οἱ βασιλεῖς). Second, τῶν ἐθνῶν modifies "kings" by delimiting their sphere. Then we have the verb telling us what the plural subjects do, κυριεύουσιν. Finally, the kings are not under those whom they govern, but "rule over them."
It's definitely "them," not it. The genitive form is plural 3rd person.
Gentiles in Matthew's Gospel
https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/45/45-1/45-1-PP073-097_JETS.pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jtheointe.13.2.0235
Again compare Luke 22:25 with Matthew 20:25. I see no reason that gentile is demanded here.
Mat 27 - “Let the responsibility for his death fall on us and on our children!”
The people. John 19:4,12
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SMj2DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1816&lpg=PA1816&dq=Matthew+27:25+parallel&source=bl&ots=nHsMXUite9&sig=ACfU3U1VvbqFp1NbG1lwcGn5DcMRsbwBFA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiolIzcmPXxAhXaTxUIHTunDdIQ6AEwCHoECAoQAw#v=onepage&q=Matthew%2027%3A25%20parallel&f=false
see the study notes, even though they still confuse Israel and Jew.
From the Baylor Handbook for the Greek text of Luke:
ὁ. Nominative subject of εἶπεν (see 1:29 on ἡ).
εἶπεν. Aor act ind 3rd sg λέγω.
αὐτοῖς. Dative indirect object of εἶπεν.
Οἱ βασιλεῖς. Nominative subject of κυριεύουσιν.
τῶν ἐθνῶν. Genitive of subordination.
κυριεύουσιν. Pres act ind 3rd pl κυριεύω.
αὐτῶν. Genitive complement of κυριεύουσιν.
οἱ ἐξουσιάζοντες. Pres act ptc masc nom pl ἐξουσιάζω (substantival). Nominative subject of καλοῦνται.
αὐτῶν. Genitive complement of ἐξουσιάζοντες.
εὐεργέται. Complement in a subject-complement double nominative construction (see 1:32 on υἱὸς).
καλοῦνται. Pres pass ind 3rd pl καλέω.
The plural form of ethnos usually denotes Gentiles/non-Israelites in the GNT and I shared LXX examples of this usage from Jeremiah and Joshua.
The verse I cited earlier specifically mentioned mocking and flogging: the Romans did those two things as the scriptures I posted earlier showed. I'm not saying that the "Jews" were not complicit in some way and maybe they took full responsibility for their actions.
Mark 15:15-So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.
See Matt 27:26 and John 19:1.
Admittedly, some of the Jewish leaders mocked and beat Jesus, but is that what Matthew meant?
The Romans soldiers-After mocking him, they stripped him of the purple cloak and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him. (Mark 15:20)
Matt 26:67-Then they spat in his face and struck him; and some slapped him,
Referring to the Jewish leaders.
One difference is that flogging was part of the Roman judicial process: even if the Jews shared in these activities, the Romans both mocked and flogged Christ.
Commenting on Matt 27:26, Robert Gundry provides sources to document the Roman legal procedure:
"On scourging as a Roman preliminary to crucifixion, see Josephus J.W 2.14.9 §§306, 308; 5.11.1 §449; Livy 22.13; Cicero Against Verres 5.62 §162. The handing over for crucifixion remains unchanged" (Gundry, page 565).
You are making a divide that I am not, Jews, Romans & Greeks are ALL people.
This is my basic point about ethnos - it is not nationality as we understand it today. That they all turn on Jesus make them the ethnos of this context.
One verse that hasn't been brought into the mix is 3 John 7 and I did not include Matt 6:7 earlier, I don't think.
R.T. France also applies Matt 27:26 to Pontius Pilate and the whole Roman system of flogging. He notes what a horrendous process it was.
Up to this point, it has not been clear how you're defining ethnos. You've called them people, but that is just one definition of ethnos; there are yet others. Now we cannot arbitrarily define Greek or Hebrew (or Latin, etc) words to our liking. Please interpret that statement in the most charitable way possible: I'm not being mean spirited. While I agree with you that ethnos did not mean what it does today (not in toto), there re certain verses where it's highly unlikely that all groups or even two groups are meant. The Greeks are certainly excluded from Matt 20:19.
Mark 11:17 probably does not include Jews/Israelites, especially if we look at the OT background of the verse.
What about Luke 21:24? How does that include the Jews? What about the contrast in Acts 4:27 between Jews and "the nations"?
Acts 10:45; 11:1, 18 applies to the Romans and other non-Jews. I would encourage a thorough study of ethnos before concluding that we have no distinction in these verses.
Acts 7:45; Galatians 2:12, 15.
Greeks are certainly excluded from Matt 20:19. - of course they are as they are not mentioned in the account. But if it had specifically said Greeks were in the crowd calling for his death then they would be included. As you say, context.
https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/19-5.htm
This "people" included Egyptians.
Nation is a poor translation and Isaiah would be referring to people from other lands and they would become worshippers by being in the land.
For the fact that Pontius Pilate met with the people, probably does not mean what you think it does and the same can be said for Israel. You have to look at what Acts 4:27 is actually telling you. Why would a Roman governor need to conspire with anyone? Pilate did not want to kill Jesus, did he? Comparing this to Matthew seems to create a significant problem. Unless people/Israel is show piece crowd who call for Jesus death.
Acts 10:45 consider http://www.ttgst.ac.kr/upload/ttgst_resources13/20124-251.pdf
My LXX references were from Jeremiah and Joshua, the point I was trying to make with them is that ethos in those cases could not refer to Israel, but referred to non-Israelites. In Acts 7:45, the word refers to Caananites, not Israelites. And my point from Acts 4:27 was the contrast between ethos and Israelite. Pilate didn't want to kill Jesus, but he was complicit in his execution and released an insurrectionist rather than let Jesus go. He also had him flogged and ignored his wife's wisdom. He conspired for political reasons. Compare Psalm 2:-1-6. Also, consider the context of Acts 4:27. That is what spurred their whole plan of action in the chapter.
In my view, Galatians presents a difficulty for the idea that ethos is not used especially for non-Israelites at times. No comment on Like 21:24? Surely it excludes Israelites or Jews.
Luke 21:24
https://biblehub.com/text/luke/21-24.htm
https://biblehub.com/greek/ethne__1484.htm
https://biblehub.com/greek/ethno_n_1484.htm
A Hebraist can see the problem here. Pick a word just one. Not both.
I'm not a Hebraist, so I likely cannot see the problem. You say choose one word or the other, but it's actually the same word with a different form (morphology) and function, not a different word per se. :)
Cambridge Greek Lexicon:
έθνος εος (ους) η. 1 group, band, body (w.gen. of people,
comrades, soldiers, the dead, or sim.) Hom. Pi. AR.
2 swarm (of bees, flies) IL; flock (of birds) II. AR.; herd (of
swine) Od.
3 group of people connected by a common attribute; race
(w.ADJ. mortal or W.GEN. ofmen, opp. immortal or of gods)
Pi. E.; sex (male or female) X. Men.
4 group of people descended from a common ancestor or
regarded as of common stock; nation, people, race A. Pi.
Hdt. Th. Ar. Att.orats. +; clan (ref. to a family) Pi. || PL. foreign
nations (opp. Greeks) Arist.; Gentiles (opp. Jews) NT.
5 group of non-humans; tribe (w.gen. of wild animals,
wolves, birds) S. Tim. Theoc.; (ref. to Erinyes) A.
6 class (of persons, defined by GEN. or adj. of charcoalburners, serfs, heralds, rhapsodes, or sim.) . PL X.;
(of citizens, in respect of their place in society) Pl. D
Also thought of how nations occurs in Deut. 32:8, distinct from the children of Israel.
Is Deut 32:8 talking about the world or Canaan. What is a "nation"? divided by the messengers of god/ the 12 tribes.
I have a new phone on which I typed a long message & tapped the wrong place on the screen and lost it all.
I am aware of the Greek usages but my point is in the translation. One as nations & two as gentiles? I would be interested to see how a Peshitta handles it, probably means anther book is on my list - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Peshitta-Holy-Bible-Translated/dp/0359404251
I think where I am going with the usages in Pauls mission is very dependant on Jeremiah 31. A reconstituted Israel.
Not a new Israel, but a rebuilt one. If someone does the works of an Israelite then they are an Israelite. Lineage was lost and it did not even matter as long as twelve tribes were united even if the names were not the same. I think staples next book will call it a DNA transplant. I don't see it in quite the same way but I know what he is driving at.
https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195133242.001.0001/acprof-9780195133240
In any case, using "nations" in many of those sections of NT may be an over statement. As many were one city of significance & not a huge territory.
I might contribute some a little later, but I undertand what you mean and hate it when my typing goes poof! It's happened many times and it's no fun. Take care: I've got to focus on righteous judging for tonight from Deuteronomy. :-)
https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj20c.pdf
From the Brill Greek Dictionary:
έθνος -εος, contr. -ους, τό [see έθος] [A] group,
multitude, host, of pers. II. 3.32, ai Od. n.34
(of the dead) Aeschl. Pers. 56 (o f soldiers)
etc. of animals (s.times - flock, herd, swarm)
II. 2.87 (of bees), 459 (of birds), 469 (of flies),
15.691 (of birds) Soph. A n t 44 (o f beasts), al
etc. [B] nation, people, stock, race Hdt. lioi,
al etc.; άνέρων έ. human race Pind. O. L66
= βρότεον έ. Pind. N. 3.74 = θνατόν έ. Pind.
N. 11.42; Λαμνιάν έ. γυναικών nation of the
women of Lemnos Pind. P. 4.252; πανδάκρυτ*
έφαμέρων έθνη miserable races of short-lived
mortals Eur. Or. 977 | of animals Plat. Tim.
92b || extern, foreign or barbarian people,
Le. not Greek Aristot. Pol 1324b 10 etc. |
“gentile” people, Le. not Jewish VT Ps. 2.1, al
NT Acts 7.45 etc. I population of a province,
s.times province (of the Rom. Empire) DCass.
36.41.1, a l DChr. 43.11 etc. [C] class (social),
order Plat. Gorg. 455b (o f artisans), a l XEN.
Symp. 3.6 (o f rhapsodes) Dio d. 17.102.7 (o f the
Brahmins) etc.; ληστάς ή κλέπτας ή άλλο τι έ.
bandits or thieves or any other similar group
Plat. Rp. 351c; έν τι έθνος ... δλη ή πόλις one
class of persons only... the whole city Plat. Rp.
420b || sex: τό έ. τό θήλυ ή τό άρρεν the female sex
or the male one Xen. Oec. 7.26.
"nations" in the OT is also problematic in Joshua.
Allusions to and reappropriations of the themes of Hosea are especially prominent in Jeremiah. Cf. Holladay, Jeremiah II, 45–47; Georg Fischer, Das Trostbüchlein: Text, Komposition und Theologie von Jer 30–31 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1993), 186–204.
Political Theology and Ethnos, Etc: https://catholic-resources.org/Bible/NT-Theology-Political.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/romans/11-25.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/13-9.htm
The wording of Galatians 2:12 is interesting, in particular, τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς.
Vide Galatians 2:9 and the contrast between ἡμεῖς εἰς τὰ ἔθνη and αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν περιτομήν.
https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789047424918/Bej.9789004171596.i-370_005.xml
The last posted Brill link reminds me of the old debate about the addressees of Galatians. Was Paul writing to North Galatians or South Galatians? Were they Jews, Gentiles or a mix of the two? While not answering these questions, I'm going to post some links myself:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9g1YDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT13&dq=to+whom+was+galatians+written%3F&ots=KOvDk4vE07&sig=Rky0BknzJcKkT1G_gT0gM3cnul4#v=onepage&q=to%20whom%20was%20galatians%20written%3F&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=m-vbDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT6&dq=to+whom+was+galatians+written%3F&ots=lcid-Um-4w&sig=padGH16YKJwcmIcHkBsg96k0yS4#v=onepage&q=to%20whom%20was%20galatians%20written%3F&f=false
https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m2967&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF
IMO the one I posted muddies the water in one respect - "Jewish Diaspora". If there was a mission, this was not it. Its all about Israel.
The Israel of God is an important focal point in Galatians.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/meeting-civilisations-mystery-china-s-celtic-mummies-5330366.html
It might be hasty to put Celts (Picts) in regions.
I read a book about them by Nora Chadwick some years ago but since written evidence is so sparse, we really don't know that much about the red headed people.
https://www.ajol.info/index.php/actat/article/view/78841/69165
I'll just briefly say that Jewish identity is fraught with ambiguity. John Collins has done some good work on the subject. One of the thickest Galatians commentaries has to be Craig Keener's work and the WBC Galatians commentary is helpful. I don't believe the South/North debate has ever been resolved and not sure that it can be this side of Armageddon, but regardless, I love the Picts. I used to collect Pictish items and got to visit a site once while returning from Perth.
See this:- https://www.houseofnames.com/law-family-crest
https://www.houseofnames.com/blogs/Boernicians
My paternal grandfather had the red hair and bushy eyebrows. Came from a village on the west coast of Scotland where nearly everyone was called Law. Not to be confused with the "del la law" from France that became shortened over time to Law.
Thanks, Duncan. I will check that out now. Glad to know you've got an interest/association with the Picts.
I don't think this book has been posted yet: https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/attitudes-to-gentiles-in-ancient-judaism-and-early-christianity-9780567663702/
Thanks, it may well be referenced in
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/goy-9780198744900?q=goy&lang=en&cc=us
This is next on my reading list & note what one reviewer says:-
The work is thorough in its review of contemporary scholarship in this area, and rightly dismisses both the tendency of scholars to project rabbinic views back to an earlier period and the common misreading of the rabbis in the light of apologetic concerns. ― Norman Solomon, University of Oxford, Journal of Jewish Studies
Goy does not automatically equal gentile in the early literature.
Zechariah 8:23 & Zechariah 8:13 are important.
Why ten men?
>>From every language<< of the nations, which is not necessarily "from the nations".
8:13 - Judah (2 tribe) and Israel (10 tribe).
Cf. 1 Corinthians 14:18-25.
Meyers and Meyers (Anchor Bible Commentary for Haggai, Zechariah 1-8) offer two possible meansings for "ten men" (1) it denotes a complote or round number; 2) It possibly signifies a sacred name composed of 7 + 3. We must consider that the counting system is based on the use of two hands. So Meyers and Meyers suggest the ten men symbolize "all mankind other than Israel (Yehud)."
Continuing, they write:
nations of all tongues. Literally “tongues of the nations,” lëSônôt haggôyim. This is the only occurrence of this expression in the Hebrew Bible though these two words occur together, but not in construct, in Isa 66:18 to denote the totality of the nonIsraelite world: “The time has come to gather all the nations (kôl haggôyim) and tongues (lëSônôt): they will come and behold my glory.” The meaning of lâSôn as “tongue” or “language” is assured here; it is parallel to gôy (“nation”) a number of times (Gen 10:5,20,31 and to cam “people”; see Neh 13:24; Est 1:22; 3:12; 8:9). Hence, the construct form here surely denotes those foreign nations outside Israel/Yehud that speak other languages. Insofar as language is a cultural phenomenon, this expression adds a nonpolitical dimension to the inherently political connotation of “nation” (gôy, cf. Note to “peoples,” 8:20).
[End Quote]
Compare Isaiah 2:1-4; Genesis 24:10.
I notice that you cited 1 Cor. 14:18-25. It seems to me that the prophecy of Zechariah was fulfilled in a minor way by the early Christian congregation. This does not exclude other possible fulfillments.
The fact that Meyers and Meyers do not posit the 10 tribes as an option speaks for itself.
Counting based on two hands? What evidence. What about Sumerian/Babylonian base 6? I don't think the Egyptians used base 10 or 5 either.
"Nations" may still not mean what many think. CF Hosea 7:8, 8:8.
"The return of some to judah does not end the exile of Israel as a whole."
See Acts 2:1-6
We've already hashed out the possible meaning of "nations," but one reason Meyers and Meyers apparently do not posit the idea that ten men = ten tribes is because of how they understand "nations." It's possible that I overlooked them suggesting the ten tribes as an option, but I personally can see why they don't. It seems that the ten men are from nations other than Israel plus the exclamation seems more fitting for non-Jews: "We will go with you people, for we have heard that God is with you people."
I'm not saying they're right about the two hands idea: I don't know enough about Hebrew numerals to adjudicate the matter, but Wikipedia has an article about Hebrew numerals and another article I saw claims that the Hebrew system is not base at all. See also https://www.jstor.org/stable/3622115?seq=3#metadata_info_tab_contents
Nations is a context dependent term. I don't believe it always means non-Jews/Israelites, but I would submit that it has that meaning in a number of cases. The truth value of the last sentence is apparently contingent on the identity of "Israel."
"take firm hold of a man a יְהוּדִ֜י (Jew)?
You are conflating Jew with Israelite.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/was-king-david-a-nomad-new-theory-sparks-storm-in-archaeology-1.10035052
With all due respect, my friend, I did not conflate Jew and Israelite. :-)
I teach this stuff every semester and I've been studying the Bible for almost 40 yerars: I know the difference and thought I explained my view above. Notice that I wrote non-Jews/Israelites. Maybe I should have explained what I meant or written it differently, but I was not trying to conflate Jew and Israelite. Normally, when I use / and two terms, I mean "or" in a disjunctive sense. For instance, Jehovah/YHWH. That means he is called Jehovah or YHWH, etc.
To quote Wikipedia:
"The slash is an oblique slanting line punctuation mark /. Once used to mark periods and commas, the slash is now most often used to represent exclusive or inclusive or, division and fractions, and as a date separator."
My view, which I stated in this very thread, is that Jew is sometimes coreferental with Israelite and sometimes it's not.
See https://www.britannica.com/topic/Jew-people
"The Jewish people as a whole, initially called Hebrews (ʿIvrim), were known as Israelites (Yisreʾelim) from the time of their entrance into the Holy Land to the end of the Babylonian Exile (538 bce)."
Insight also has an entry for Israelites, I believe.
To quote Meyer and Meyer again, who use the slah as well:
Hence, the construct form here surely denotes those foreign nations outside Israel/Yehud that speak other languages. Insofar as language is a cultural phenomenon, this expression adds a nonpolitical dimension to the inherently political connotation of “nation” (gôy, cf. Note to “peoples,” 8:20).
They employ the slah for Israel/Yehud.
So explain chapter 7:13,14 which are not separate.
https://biblehub.com/sep/zechariah/8.htm
Just because they use the slash does not make them correct.
I use it all the time in technical writing.
I'm not even going to state how long I have been studying the Bible. All I can say is that I am still learning new things all the time.
Zec 9:1, 10, 13.
The quote from Britannica is anachronistic to the period and misleading. Even today "Jewish" does not equal Israel as a people, even if that is what people call the land.
"Jewish people as a whole"
& Zechariah 10:6
I'm not saying Meyers and Meyers are correct, but I was trying to make a point about the slash and attempting to explain why I did not conflate Jew and Israel.
I did not mean to imply that I can't learn new things. I learn something new daily, even from our conversations. But my point was that I know the difference between Jew and Israel.
I disagree that Brittanica is anachronistic. Other publications show that while Israel and Jew don't always refer to the same group, sometimes they do.
I will check out the other verses later
I don't exactly understand what you want me to say about Zech. 7:13-14 since those verses don't use the operative terms, Jew or Israel. When the account refers to the desolate land, I assume it means Judah. See 7:7.
7:14 mentions the nations.
Zech 9:1, Thomas Edward McComiskey offers this remark: "The name Israel recalls the ancient heritage of postexilic Judah (see the Exposition of 2:2 [1:19])." See page 1160.
Concerning Zech 9:10, I'm sure you know that Ephraim came to stand for all ten tribes of Israel, not just the one tribe. Jerusalem was obviously the principal city in Judah, so the verse appears to juxtapose the two kingdoms. The rest of the passage discusses the unnamed king from 9:9. Zee Psalm 72.
Verse 13 again makes the same juxtaposition in reverse order (Judah . . . Ephraim) and it mentions Greece.
Here is what McComiskey offers:
"One of the beneficial results of the rule of this king will be that Yahweh will cut off the chariot from Ephraim. The tribe of Ephraim grew to become the most influential of all the tribes of the northern kingdom. Indeed 'Ephraim' became a surrogate for the name Israel itself (see the Exposition of Hos. 5:3, 5, 11). By balancing Ephraim with Jerusalem, the capital of the southern kingdom, the writer envisions the eventual union of these erstwhile kingdoms, reflecting an ideal that other prophets share."
He includes Ezek. 37:16-20 in his analysis, and explains that the verse foretells a union between the ten tribe and two tribe kingdom. McComiskey interprets Jeremiah 31:31 in similar fashion.
What is sent out into the nations? Do the become part of the nations?
Its all about the 12 tribes coming back together.
Here's a quote from the Anchor Bible Dictionary. If you want to get a feel for the whole article, please consult ABD. I'm just supplying a brief excerpt:
"Jews might appropriately be used by the gentile Demetrius in respect of the nation (1 Macc 10:23), and—as the conventional designation—representatives of Israel might themselves use the term, especially in diplomatic contents (1 Macc 8:18, 20; TDNT 3:360–61). The usage in the Diaspora appears to have
been more common as a self-designation and may refer to the people of the covenant in any part of the world (2 Macc 1:1; TDNT 3:363–65). If Israel remained the more proper name, God‘s own bestowal (Gen 32:28; TDNT 3:362), the Jews was current, especially in the Diaspora, conforming with
Hellenistic usage (TDNT 3:369–71)."
Within the context of this ABD entry, the discussion is about how the term "Jew" was applied by different sources.
See Staples Pg 166 under the heading - 1 Maccabees: an exception proving a rule.
Zech 10:6 looks like another ten tribe and two tribe juxtaposition.
I think Zech 7:7 answers what was scattered :)
When scattered, they certainly became inhabitants of the nations whence they were scattered, but they also maintained their "ethnic/religious" identity unless something happened to their religiosity.
One Witness publication says Zech 10:6 was fulfilled when the land was repatriated. The twelve tribes were unified then. But didn't we discuss this before? :-)
Well, as staples demonstrates from the literature. The second temple & other writing were still anticipating that unification. So we know more about it than they did? They did note get the memo?
Read zec 10 again & look at all the places the people would-be returning from. Not just Babylon.
When I cited the Witness publication for Zechariah 10:6, I didn't say they would just be coming from Babylon and I don't think the publication makes that claim either. Even people from Judah were sent to other places besides Babylon as Jeremiah attests.
I will eventually get around to reading Staples: I'm studying other works now. I will have to see which sources Staples is voting and so forth.
Quoting, not voting.
Did Judaism get the memo about the Messiah? because they're still waiting last I heard.
Its not when or where they were sent, it is the evidence that they returned?
"Not all the exiles returned at that time, however. In 468 B.C.E., another group of returnees accompanied the priest Ezra, who brought to Jerusalem gifts for the temple. (Ezr 7:1–8:32) Then in 455 B.C.E., Nehemiah traveled from Shushan to rebuild Jerusalem’s walls. (Ne 2:5, 6, 11) As to the exact route followed by the returnees, the Scriptures are silent. Some reasonable possibilities are shown on the map."
All well and good, but what about Egypt for example?
When was Isaiah 43 fulfilled?
There's a lot of content in Isaiah 43 and not all of those verses are prognostications, but I believe part of the prophecy was fulfilled in 537 bce. However, prophecies generally have more than one fulfillment.
I'm sure you also understand that "proving" the fulfillment of prophecy is not like proving that water is buoyant or that it's boiling point is almost 100 degrees Celsius.
That's like me asking you when Revelation 11:12 was fulfilled.
Here's another consideration: the prophets of the OT did not fill in all the details. That's an understatement. Yes, I know.
I think that proving it should not be a problem, after the fact.
The boiling point of water is dependant on altitude and/or air pressure.
On Mount Everest, pure water boils at about 154 °F (68°C)
The variables may be extensive.
"prophecies generally have more than one fulfilment" - proof please? wouldn't that make them generalisations? Patterns that become predictable because they are repeatable.
This is one thing that I would like an answer for but don't expect any time soon. What tells us that revelation is prophecy? I suppose it is like my question - what does inspired mean?
This is all rhetorical so I don't expect an answer.
Here is another point regarding how Hebrews count.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubit
Did they regularly use cubit as a measurement?
One also has to wonder why Ezekiel measures 6 cubits for a number of dimensions.
Also why the MT puts Goliath as “six cubits and a span”
I agree with what you say about water, but that doesn't change the fact that the boiling point of water is approximately 100 degrees celsius. It can be demonstrated by using empirical methods just like the freezing point for water: those are inherent properties of water.
An example of double fulfillment might be illustrated by Habakkuk 1:5. Was this prophecy fulfilled in just one way or in two ways? How was it fulfilled? Why would more than one fulfillment make them generalizations? I'm talking about a prophecy being fulfilled in different senses. According to TNK, they're predictable because God is omniscient, not because the universe is deterministic.
From what I remember, they had at least 2 values for the cubit, but the cubit obviously was not their only measurement as the NWT and Insight shows.
What if I told you that Revelation is not all prophecy? But I certainly believe the book overall is prophetic. Some preterists will try to tell you that Revelation 19-21 have already happened, but speaking of proof--prove that.
The word "inspired" mean different things to different people in variant contexts. That's why there are theories of inspiration because people interpret the concept in various ways.
Is a paraphrase equivalent to a fulfilment?
Note Acts 13:41 where nations become scorners.
This page gives 4 measures for length and comments on Ezekiel: http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/resource/WeightsAndMeasures.xhtml
The length of a cubit is not the point. It is the number of them which in the case of Ezekiel would be relevant. I think the focus is on the numbers.
BBR_2000_b_05_Wall_Hab1_5InActs.pdf - can't get a copy yet.
https://brill.com/view/title/55917
I was considering how Hab. 1:5 is applied in Acts 13:41. Why would a paraphrase/different version necessarily alter the application of the prophecy? This happens with some frequency in the GNT.
Another example of prophecy having dual fulfillment is Zechariah 11:12-13.
Admittedly, I didn't go back and read Ezekiel to see what you're talking about, but I wonder why the number of cubits in Ezekiel is significant. The website I supplied above says there are two kinds of cubits in Ezekiel alone and I'm aware of verses where he mentions cubits like in the temple vision. But I'm not sure about the point you're making for now.
I guess you're talking about verses like Ezek. 40:5 (ESV): And behold, there was a wall all around the outside of the temple area, and the length of the measuring reed in the man’s hand was six long cubits, each being a cubit and a handbreadth in length. So he measured the thickness of the wall, one reed; and the height, one reed.
What about Joel 3:1-3 lxx which is also applied in Acts?
On account of my people and heritage Israel who were dispersed among the nation's.
Judah and Jerusalem in V1 is not equivalent.
This is still talking about the 12 tribes coming together.
https://shop.btpubservices.com/title/9780874625820
Septuagintal Midrash
Dissertation about Acts 13:41 and literary features: https://cuislandora.wrlc.org/islandora/object/etd%3A82/datastream/PDF/view
I would have to look at Joel 3:1-3 more closely, but right now, I have no reason to believe that the passage applies to more than the southern kingdom per its reference. Judah is the land/kingdom and Jerusalem is the capital city. Not identical but closely interrelated and does not perforce encompass Samaria.
"Israel who were dispersed among the nations" is fairly clear.
Yeah, but as we discussed earlier, I submit that "Israel" can refer to Judah at times.
See https://bible.org/seriespage/joel-3
He writes: "In v. 2 he uses the word 'Israel' to describe Judah and Jerusalem, which are mentioned in v. 1. This shows me that we are in a post-exilic period where Israel has become the collective name for the returning people of God, not the northern ten tribes."
In the context, Jehoshaphat is mentioned and he was a king of Judah. But I'm not saying that the verses apply to him.
https://oxfordre.com/religion/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-20?rskey=q005lc&result=1
Polyvalence of the term "Israel"
Hill, D. (1972). Prophecy and Prophets in the Revelation of St John. New Testament Studies, 18(4), 401-418. doi:10.1017/S0028688500023717
Revelation 19:10; 11:18; 12:1-5; 21:1-4
Judah was the ones that had already returned.
Joel 2:28 - and it shall come to pass
This denotes prophecy.
Pitre, Jesus, 256–261; Evans, “Continuing Exile," 100; cf. Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, 29–33; Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, SP 1 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991), 72.
Fishers of Men - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2016%3A14-16&version=NASB
I've studied the continuing exile idea before: It's complex and controversial.
Joel was written prior to the exile, maybe in the 9th or 8th century bce
"giving rise or likely to give rise to controversy or public disagreement" - does not bother me in the least. I am only concerned with what can be proven.
The text of Joel has almost no temporal anchors and is difficult to date. However, some of the Bible scholars and commentaries assume that Joel was written during the Second Temple period, anywhere from 520 to 200 BCE. (See for example, Marco Treves, “The Date of Joel” Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 7, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1957), pp. 149-156.)
Joel mentions a lot of different categories of people including: priests, elders, all inhabitants of the land, children, nursing infants, the bridegroom and the bride, but never once does he mention or make reference to an Israelite king or monarchy, implying that there wasn't a functional monarchy at the time.
I like reason and evidence myself, but when you're dealing with religious/theological matters, things are not always that simple. Furthermore, there are some things we know are true/likely true but we cannot prove they're true. See Godel's incompleteness theorems and the Goldbach conjecture. Thus, evidentialism is probably false and certainly not feasible. However, I wasn't saying that our ideas don't need to be proved. On the other hand, neither should we treat ideas like the continuing exile as axioms either.
Insight likewise discusses the early and late dating for Joel. I'm sure you can find advocates for either view and it's likely nigh impossible to say with certainty what the date is, but certain factors might tip the scale in favor of the early date. I'm not dogmatic about the date for Joel.
No mention of the monarchy could be viewed as evidence for the later date, but that' no lock either. When I read the book, it seems that the prophet is either relaying events that are occurring or events yet to occur, including the judgment on Judah.
Well we are not talking about mathematical theorems, as I said evidence is all we have. You cannot build a theology and then work it backwards. It has to be from the ground up. That said, what do you think is the best single piece of evidence for an early date?
One thing that I am now fairly sure of is that the apocrypha should never have been selectively excluded from the bible. All the writings have something to teach us.
The other thing is that the book of the twelve has something to teach us as a unit.
Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Concept of Restoration in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Scott, Restoration, 203–222 (220); see also Collins, “Construction," 28; Campbell, "Essene-Qumran Origins," 148
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbl.1371.2018.222705
The 70 year exile was true & the return commenced but the restoration takes time. I see the mission of Paul as the final collection. I am not convinced that Colossians 1:23 is idiom or hyperbole. Perhaps Paul thought that all the exiles had been found. As per Jeremiah and the fisher of men, which was judgment not a collection. They had been given there chance. This left it open to the those with no lineage but did the works.
There is no such thing as bare evidence: evidence is sifted through human intellects which have preapprehensions/preconceptions and biases, etc. As I said earlier, I never spoke against evidence or reason. My whole life's work is largely evidence-based, so I am not denigrating evidence. Yet it's a pretty strong claim to say that's all there is. Moreover, Godel's theorems, while metamathematical, have broader applications. They are not simply restricted to mathematical theorems: we discuss them in logic and I've seen scientists employ them. And one thing derived from them is that some true statements cannot be proved.
As for theology, there are two basic approaches. Start from special revelation (i.e., scripture) or begin from the natural light of reason. One might also derive theological propositions by natural revelation (i.e., creation). But it's hard to derive evidence (empirically) for all theological propositions/beliefs. Much depends on how evidence is being defined.
Concerning Joel, I don't have strong evidence that it was written early or late and I'm not set on a particular date. Joel 3:21 might suggest an early date. Chapter 1 also describes a mournful time when the land is devastated. If Joel was written after the exile, why the gloomy message of the prophet? I understand that Nehemiah was sad because of Jerusalem's walls, but Joel talks about the land, which could be future.
Insight book: A date after the Babylonian exile would be indicated if Joel (2:32) quoted Obadiah (17). On the other hand, not only Obadiah but even the much earlier prophet Amos (compare Joe 3:16 with Am 1:2) may have quoted from Joel. This would mean that Joel wrote his book no later than the time of Uzziah (Am 1:1), perhaps about 820 B.C.E. Though not conclusive, the place occupied by the book of Joel in the Hebrew canon between Hosea and Amos seems to favor the earlier period.
Yes, we can learn from the Apocrypha, but I don't believe they're inspired and the last I checked, they contain manifest errors. Jerome appreciated the Apocrypha but he felt the Hebrew veritas should take precedence over those books. I can learn from the Iliad; that doesn't mean it's inspired by God and belongs in the canon. One can learn from the ANF too.
Other reasons could be added for excluding the Apocrypha, but see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2011/10/seven-reasons-for-excluding.html
You might recall:
It is a little misleading to assert that the Deuterocanonicals belonged to the early Septuagint Version. The evidence for this claim is scant: "While the New Testament writers all used the Septuagint, to a greater or lesser degree, none of them tells us precisely what the limits of its contents were. The 'scriptures' to which they appealed covered substantially the same range as the Hebrew Bible [which did not contain the apocrypha]" (F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, pp. 50ff).
See http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/33/33-1/33-1-pp075-084_JETS.pdf
But how does one explain Jude? Fictional books with no evidence of existence.
Well, it's meeting night for us. Got to get ready for that, my friend.
Post a Comment