tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post1582007746414999768..comments2024-03-27T03:32:53.817-05:00Comments on Euangelion: It’s High Time to Change our TerminologyMichael F. Birdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09713482855679578651noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-28786573823957908322008-01-15T02:27:00.000-06:002008-01-15T02:27:00.000-06:00And what about "Hebrews" as Paul uses in Phil 3?I ...And what about "Hebrews" as Paul uses in Phil 3?<BR/><BR/>I am not fully convinced by Eliott because the evidence is simply too complex for a simple answer (which goes for the insider/outsider distinction as well).<BR/><BR/>However, I do find his and your comments instructive to use more care with my language. And for that I say, "Thanks!"J. Matthew Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02599013442666547304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-24006194671287537052008-01-14T03:46:00.000-06:002008-01-14T03:46:00.000-06:00Yes in Romans 9.11, it is interesting to see a bla...Yes in Romans 9.11, it is interesting to see a blanket statement that "Israel who pursued a law law of righteousness has not attained it." The writer would have known this was not true since some 'Jews' were already 'Christians' who had obtained a righteousness as had the 'Gentiles' in 9.30. I suggest therefore that 9.30 did not originally refer to "Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness", but 'Jews' who did not pursue a law of righteouness, i.e. prophets. The contrast in 9.31 would then have been - but Jews (intead of Israel) who pursued a law of righteousnes, have not attained it. Thus I detect an original document written entirely in a Jewish context.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-1692282758445741042008-01-14T03:17:00.000-06:002008-01-14T03:17:00.000-06:00Joel,"Naomi" was actually was my wife's log-in whi...Joel,<BR/>"Naomi" was actually was my wife's log-in which I accidentally used. Gorgeous ain't she! So moi is the real interlocutor.<BR/>Mike BirdMichael F. Birdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09713482855679578651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-26634392054972888482008-01-13T22:44:00.000-06:002008-01-13T22:44:00.000-06:00Joel,It seems to me that Elliott's attempt to set ...Joel,<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that Elliott's attempt to set Judaean over against Israelite is problematic since both were emic terms that good (?) Judaeans such as Paul were comfortable using. To be sure, they have different connotations, but it only confuses matters to maintain that we should consistently adopt Israelite when speaking of Jesus when the NT refers to him as a Ioudaios.<BR/><BR/>Equally problematic is Elliott's attempt to set Judaean over against Galilean, when Judaean often includes residents of Judaea, Galilee and, say, Rome.<BR/><BR/>I respond to Elliott in more detail here: http://gervatoshav.blogspot.com/2007/12/whats-in-name-part-4-judean-vs.html<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>d. millerd. millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16844676267073730959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-9236237980485047292008-01-13T18:11:00.000-06:002008-01-13T18:11:00.000-06:00Naomi:Thank you for your response. I read April De...Naomi:<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your response. I read April DeConick's post, but it doesn't appear she actually read Elliott's article. I think Elliott makes substantial points and while I agree that we cannot complete abandon terminology that is prevasive in culture and scholarly parlance, his argument is not discredited. He is not trying to do away with Judaism in the Second Temple period. He is merely pointing out that the term is not a common self-designation among those for whom the term refers. Your first point about the so-called 'religious' sense of Jew is not as useful as Elliott's point that outsiders referred to Diaspora Israelites as Jews because of their orientation toward the geographical place with Jerusalem and Temple, etc. Thus retaining both territorial and ideological connotations. The Diaspora did adopted the name, but it doesn't appear to be their preferred self-designation. <BR/><BR/>As for Geoff's point, the terms Jew and Gentile/Greek are regularly used as pairs when comparing them and this is clearly Paul's habit. It is interesting that he changes his terminology in Rom 9-11 using Israel/Israelite primarily. This is all the more interesting since Paul doesn't use Israel/Israelite anywhere else in Romans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-31360558937163028192008-01-13T17:55:00.000-06:002008-01-13T17:55:00.000-06:00Joel1. I think SDJ Cohen is right to maintain "Jud...Joel<BR/>1. I think SDJ Cohen is right to maintain "Judean" as the default setting but still recognize that the religious sense of "Jew" could be used in the Diaspora, esp. in relation to Gentiles.<BR/>2. Before giving the thumbs up to Jack Elliott, read April DeConick's post the subseuqent discussion in the comments: http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com/2007/09/now-jesus-is-not-jewish.htmlNaomihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03492511699731101193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-16597439837659071462008-01-13T14:41:00.000-06:002008-01-13T14:41:00.000-06:00Yet strangely: "To the Jews I became like a Jew, t...Yet strangely: "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews." 1 Cor.9.20. Does this mean that 'Paul' didn't think of himself as a Jew then? I thought 'Paul' tried to win 'Jews' all over the place, i.e. those who might be regarded as Israelites or diaspora Jews. And he seems to have paid very little attention to Judean 'Jews'. There is some nonsense about the extant text. So I ask myself was there was an original different version in which the writer did indeed pay very great attention to some Judean 'Jews'. <BR/><BR/>May be the key is in the words "Though I am free" of 9.19 echoing somewhat the words "Every Good Man is Free" of Philo in relalion to 'Essenes'. Was this how 'Paul' thought of himself, as an 'Essene' or prophet? In which case 'Paul' didn't make himself like a 'Jew', but like a priest to win the priests.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.com