tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post4253106055268933743..comments2024-03-27T03:32:53.817-05:00Comments on Euangelion: The Antioch Incident: Scot McKnightâs ViewMichael F. Birdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09713482855679578651noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-15284232523723961172008-02-04T17:37:00.000-06:002008-02-04T17:37:00.000-06:00What Paul's issue with Peter was in the diaspora t...What Paul's issue with Peter was in the diaspora the halacha with fellowshipping with Gentiles was alot more laxed that in Judea.<BR/><BR/>After the resurrection Peter made his home in Judea. Remember Peter wasn't from Judea.<BR/><BR/>When those from Judea came to visit Antioch Peter reverted back to Judean halacha. Again remember Peter was from Galilee where table fellowship was more laxed than the strict Judean halacha.<BR/><BR/>This is what Paul meant by his comment, to paraphrase....<BR/><BR/>"Peter why are you now living by Judean halacha when you are really from Galilee".<BR/><BR/>MarcMarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16968868390978871905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-44687641454521378602008-02-01T16:37:00.000-06:002008-02-01T16:37:00.000-06:00If you continue to read War 7.3.3 you will see "te...If you continue to read War 7.3.3 you will see "temple" referred to explicitly. It wasn't succeeding "kings" who "treated them after the same manner" ("them" being Jews in general), but succeeding emperors. So much so, that, "they (Jews) both multiplied to a great number, and adorned their TEMPLE gloriously by fine ornaments, and with great magnificence, in the use of what had been given them."<BR/><BR/>And here's the rub - "They also made proselytes of a great many of the Greeks perpetually, and thereby AFTER A SORT brought them to be a portion of their own body." One has to wonder what did the editor conceal in his words "after a sort"? Well how did Jews bring proselytes to be a portion of their own body? I suggest it was after circumcision. <BR/><BR/>Good quote from Josephus Richard.<BR/><BR/>The next questions are: Who was newly sailed to Syria? And who was the next "Antiochus"? - two Antiochus's in the same passage, now come on!geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-448673532547370422008-01-31T15:39:00.000-06:002008-01-31T15:39:00.000-06:00In 12 BCE, Augustus confirmed the right of Jews to...In 12 BCE, Augustus confirmed the right of Jews to send their annual Temple tax to Jerusalem. <BR/><BR/>Thus I suggest that in War 7.3.3, "Antiochus called Epiphanes" was, in Josephus' original account, Octavian called Augustus who "did restore all the donations that were made of silver" (not the editor's brass), "to the Jews of Jerusalem" (not Antioch) "and dedicated them to their temple" (not their synagogue), "and granted them equal priveleges of citizens with the Greeks" - In 6 CE, Augustus formally annexed Judaea to the Roman Empire.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-63103588793351398872008-01-30T14:50:00.000-06:002008-01-30T14:50:00.000-06:00"The Jews had the greatest multitudes in Antioch b..."The Jews had the greatest multitudes in Antioch by reason of the largeness of the city"? (War 7.3.3). Now somehow I don't think that was correct. It may have been true of Aexandria, but much more likely it was originally a reference to Rome. The 'Antioch' text of War 7.3.3 looks suspiciously like garbled anachronistic (earlier) text that was originally about Jews of Rome, especially in relation to fires in the city as during the reign of Nero.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-68350992755858640922008-01-28T18:23:00.000-06:002008-01-28T18:23:00.000-06:00Richard:Thanks as always. (1) The mention of the a...Richard:<BR/><BR/>Thanks as always. <BR/><BR/>(1) The mention of the arrival of the men from James is neutral from my reading of the text especially since Paul has shown that he is in good graces of the "pillars" in the previous context. The emphasis of the accoun is not on them really at all expect in relationship to when Peter withdrew: it was about the same time. Peter is Paul's concern and the arrival of the men from James are part of the setting, but exactly what function they play is not at all specified, so my view would be to say little about them, since Paul does. <BR/><BR/>(2) The "for the sake of arguement" comment above address your question I think. I think a consistent reading along the lines often suggested would best support a "men from James" = "circumcision group" and that would then fit your Acts 15:1 reference: Jewish believers in Jesus from Judea at the behest of James. My comment that you quote, is more a reference to the point sometimes made and made by McKnight (perhaps first suggested by Jewett, although I have not hunted this down) that Jewish nationalists (Jesus beleivers or otherwise) were being sent from Jerusalem to crack down on the Diaspora comumunities and their engagement with non-Jews. <BR/>(3) good quote from Josephus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-52973645700758688412008-01-28T17:39:00.000-06:002008-01-28T17:39:00.000-06:00Hi Joel. Thanks again. Three points/questions:1. I...Hi Joel. Thanks again. Three points/questions:<BR/><BR/>1. If the men from James were not the motivation for Peter's withdrawal, why does Paul mention them?<BR/><BR/>2. You write that you are "yet to be convinced of this hypothesis that Jewish nationalists were on the loose around the Diaspora causing trouble". Yet Acts 15:1 does show that there were Judean believers who visited Antioch and caused trouble by teaching circumcision. While we have little evidence that men from Judea caused trouble in other parts of the Diaspora by preaching circumcision, we DO have evidence for them doing so in Antioch at the time in question, don't we?<BR/><BR/>3. You are right to say that "there would have undoubtedly been regular contact between Jews and God-fearing Gentiles in the Synagogue." As I mentioned before, Josephus writes of the Jews of Antioch, "they were constantly attracting to their religious ceremonies multitudes of Greeks, and these they had in some measure incorporated with themselves" (BJ 7.45).Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.com