Roger Parvus and early Christian tradents.

[Stuart]

I am suspicious of the first Christian evangelists being ethnic Jewish,as the first converts are not Jews, but gentiles; Romans 16:5 saying "Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert in Asia for Christ" and 1 Corinthians 15:16 "Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia". Surely wandering Jews would first find entrance into fellow Jewish households, not gentile pagan homes.

I want to highlight just this single portion as an example of how your approach and mine may differ. Stephen, to be sure, is a good Greek name, not a Jewish one. But how are you sure that it belongs to a Greek person in this epistle and not to a Jew?

The practice of early Christians seems to have been to sometimes take on Aramaic names, such as Thomas (twin) or John or Simon or Joseph, to reflect the key persons around Jesus. We see this in Muslim converts today who take on Arab names of heroes. My brother converting to Catholicism (a sham conversion for sure) requires him to pick a saint for himself (he of course picked a rather borderline heretical one). There would be no reason for a Jew to take on a pagan name converting to Christianity.

Of course the names of Christians are appellations as well. But in this instance we are looking at a family claiming prominence in a particular church, wanting to establish credentials for bishophood in the same sense as a Cohen claim in old Judaism. Religions are very similar in this respect. We cannot be 100% certain, but the likelihood is much stronger a pagan would take on a Jewish/Christian name --look how many Christians are named David, Martha, Isaac, Michael, Joseph, Ezekiel (Zeke), and so on-- than a Jew would take a pagan name upon conversion. Caveat, when one becomes a bishop we likely see the same choosing of a new name, much like popes do when ascending to the seat of Peter.

Flipped the other way. why would the names of the early converts all be pagan if the missionaries were Jews? Would we not see some Levi's, Gabriels, Moses', Judas' and such littered among the first converts? Where are they?

[Ben C. Smith]

I am suspicious of the first Christian evangelists being ethnic Jewish,as the first converts are not Jews, but gentiles; Romans 16:5 saying "Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert in Asia for Christ" and 1 Corinthians 15:16 "Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia". Surely wandering Jews would first find entrance into fellow Jewish households, not gentile pagan homes.

I want to highlight just this single portion as an example of how your approach and mine may differ. Stephen, to be sure, is a good Greek name, not a Jewish one. But how are you sure that it belongs to a Greek person in this epistle and not to a Jew?

The practice of early Christians seems to have been to sometimes take on Aramaic names, such as Thomas (twin) or John or Simon or Joseph, to reflect the key persons around Jesus. We see this in Muslim converts today who take on Arab names of heroes. My brother converting to Catholicism (a sham conversion for sure) requires him to pick a saint for himself (he of course picked a rather borderline heretical one). There would be no reason for a Jew to take on a pagan name converting to Christianity.

Of course the names of Christians are appellations as well. But in this instance we are looking at a family claiming prominence in a particular church, wanting to establish credentials for bishophood in the same sense as a Cohen claim in old Judaism. Religions are very similar in this respect. We cannot be 100% certain, but the likelihood is much stronger a pagan would take on a Jewish/Christian name --look how many Christians are named David, Martha, Isaac, Michael, Joseph, Ezekiel (Zeke), and so on-- than a Jew would take a pagan name upon conversion. Caveat, when one becomes a bishop we likely see the same choosing of a new name, much like popes do when ascending to the seat of Peter.

Flipped the other way. why would the names of the early converts all be pagan if the missionaries were Jews? Would we not see some Levi's, Gabriels, Moses', Judas' and such littered among the first converts? Where are they?

What if the author of this section of 1 Corinthians simply found someone named Stephen in Asia, converted him to his cult, and there was no name change at all? How would you know that Stephen was a gentile?

At least in Egypt, it did not take a change of religion for Jews to bear Greek, Roman, or Egyptian names:

Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, volume 2 (The Early Roman Period), pages 116-118:

The last problem connected with the Edfu ostraka is that of names. It was pointed out above (Vol. I, Introduction) that the Jews of Egypt called themselves by various names, Hebrew and non-Hebrew alike, and that a careful investigation of these names makes very important additions to our knowledge of the general cultural life of Egyptian Jewry (cf. Vol. I, pp. 27 sqq., 83 sq.). Edfu is the only place in Egypt where this problem may be studied comprehensively. The general impression is that of complete chaos. The Jews in Edfu called themselves by Hebrew, Semitic, Greek, Egyptian, and even Roman names, and no special preference for one kind of name or another can be established. The following list may illustrate the diversity of names of the Edfu Jews:

Hebrew and Semitic: Abdous, Abramos, Barnabis, Jakoubos, Jasikos, Jesous, Johannes, Josepos, Joudas, Maria, Marous, Sarra, Sambathion, Selemon, Simon.
Greek: Aischylos, Alexander, Alexion, Antipatros, Apollon, Chaireas, Damion, Demas, Didymos, Diogas, Diophanes, Dosas, Jason, Nikon, Philon, Teuphilos, Thaumasios, Thedetos, Theodotos, Tryphas.
Egyptian: Apion, Bokchoris, Pates, Pesouris, Petays, Psilychion, Thermauthos, Thermouthion.
Roman: Achillas Rufus, Akietos (= Quietus?), Marcus Anni(u)s, Antonius Rufus, Q. Caecilius, Marcus Verrius.

Even within the limits of individual families this mixture of names can be observed. One family only, evidently the most 'aristocratic', strongly maintained the Roman-Hellenistic spirit which dominated the family. The father was a Roman citizen, Antonius Rufus, probably a freedman belonging to a Roman family bearing the cognomen Rufus; his three sons have Greek names: Nikon, Theodotos, and Ptollis; one of them, Theodotos, had a Roman nickname Niger; the two sons of Nikon were Tryphas and Diophanes, and a son of Ptollis was called after his uncle Theodotos-Niger (in the receipts he is sometimes mentioned as 'Niger' only). Other families were far less snobbish. Psilychion-Alexion-Thedetos, and the three sons of the latter, Meious, Philippos, and Ptollis, reveal a mixture of Greek and Egyptian names, like the family of Jason-Philon, whose son bore the Egyptian name Pesouris and whose two grandsons were called by the Greek names Dosas and Melchion. In other families Hebrew names were frequent, though intermingled with names of different origin: Jacob-Theodotos-Jacob is one example; Jason-Joseph-Sambathion is another; and the five generations Joseph-Aischylos-Joseph-Bokchoris-Apollas are the best example of the intermingling of names of three various origins in the same family.

Do we know that it would be different in Asia or Greece? If so, how?

Flipped the other way. why would the names of the early converts all be pagan if the missionaries were Jews?

Because the Jewish missionaries were aiming to convert pagans...? I am not sure I understand the question. You seem to be assuming that a Jewish person would not aim at converting pagans; if not that, then some other assumption. What is it, and why?

[Stuart]

Because the Jewish missionaries were aiming to convert pagans...? I am not sure I understand the question. You seem to be assuming that a Jewish person would not aim at converting pagans; if not that, then some other assumption. What is it, and why?

Christian Missionaries tried to convert all. But they had more success with some than others. And the explanation I think is found not in some esoteric notion of belief systems, but in the common door to door salesman, which is what an evangelist is. Who I ask would you open the door for?

What I am saying is the ability of a Jewish person to convert a Greek or Latin is pretty low compared to their ability to convert a Jew or Semitic person, simply on the basis of having more in common with them. The threshold is much higher to convert outside your group. I liken it today to the difficulty of a Western Christian trying to convert rural Chinese (without a Chinese assistant) or Arabs or other African and Asiatic Muslims. You run into an immediate culture barrier, even beyond religious barriers. The chances of success are far less than if you are of the same ethnicity as those you are trying to convert. It's a sales pitch and like any company selling something you need to bring familiarity to the buyer, and that familiarity is yourself. (That is why you hire local sales people)

A Christian monk who grew up in a Greek household, as a Greek, with Greek friends, neighbors and schoolmates, and of course family, has an immediate in to several pagan Greek households in their region of upbringing. A Christian monk who was Jewish likewise would have that same advantage of accessibility in a Jewish community. Within the community they were raised they are familiar with the slang, the mannerisms, the lifestyle, the jokes, all the little things you need to sell.

What I am arguing is the first converts and nearly all the converts appear to be Greek and Latin speakers, pagans, not Jews. In fact Christianity hit a wall with Jews and barely made a dent. We know from records of the libellus that Christians seemed to have a lot of pagan friends who helped them out. They were from the same social group, the same ethnicity. I am saying this was the situation from the beginning. And the success of reaching this community was because the missionaries came from the same communities, the same families. You may think you nephew Jack is nuts with his new religion, but when he comes around you still take him in your house and let him talk his religion at the table and to your family. You don;t do that with Jacob the Jewish Christian you don't know. These families also provide the households for the first converts and house churches.

I am saying conversion happened much the same it does now, within the family structure. And that the threshold for access to those families is much lower for a fellow gentile preacher than for a Jewish one. The former may already be from your family.

[Ben C. Smith]

What I am saying is the ability of a Jewish person to convert a Greek or Latin is pretty low compared to their ability to convert a Jew or Semitic person, simply on the basis of having more in common with them.

Many missionaries today work to convert a handful of locals and then train them as junior missionaries, so to speak, in great part for this exact reason.

But, to return to my main question, how do you know that Stephen was not a Jew?

[Stuart]

What I am saying is the ability of a Jewish person to convert a Greek or Latin is pretty low compared to their ability to convert a Jew or Semitic person, simply on the basis of having more in common with them.

Many missionaries today work to convert a handful of locals and then train them as junior missionaries, so to speak, in great part for this exact reason.

But, to return to my main question, how do you know that Stephen was not a Jew?

Why would he be a Jew?

Why would a Jew take a pagan name when becoming Christian? What Christian hero would there have been in generation zero who was pagan?

[Ben C. Smith]

What I am saying is the ability of a Jewish person to convert a Greek or Latin is pretty low compared to their ability to convert a Jew or Semitic person, simply on the basis of having more in common with them.

Many missionaries today work to convert a handful of locals and then train them as junior missionaries, so to speak, in great part for this exact reason.

But, to return to my main question, how do you know that Stephen was not a Jew?

Why would he be a Jew?

Because Jews could bear Greek names (or Roman names, or other kinds of names). Your framing of the question in this way means that you are assuming that the name points to nationality. How do you know that was always or even typically the case? It appears very definitely not to have been the case in Egypt (which is where most of the most relevant kinds of evidence are preserved); how do you know it would have been the case elsewhere?

Why would a Jew take a pagan name when becoming Christian? What Christian hero would there have been in generation zero who was pagan?

Why does it have to be an assumed name? Why does he have to be named after a Christian hero? Why can it not be his birth name?

[Stuart]

What I am saying is the ability of a Jewish person to convert a Greek or Latin is pretty low compared to their ability to convert a Jew or Semitic person, simply on the basis of having more in common with them.

Many missionaries today work to convert a handful of locals and then train them as junior missionaries, so to speak, in great part for this exact reason.

But, to return to my main question, how do you know that Stephen was not a Jew?

Why would he be a Jew?

Because Jews could bear Greek names (or Roman names, or other kinds of names). Your framing of the question in this way means that you are assuming that the name points to nationality. How do you know that was always or even typically the case? It appears very definitely not to have been the case in Egypt (which is where most of the most relevant kinds of evidence are preserved); how do you know it would have been the case elsewhere?

Why would a Jew take a pagan name when becoming Christian? What Christian hero would there have been in generation zero who was pagan?

Why does it have to be an assumed name? Why does he have to be named after a Christian hero? Why can it not be his birth name?

Well, we are talking Achaia and Asia. Neither is known for Jewish settlement, zero archeological evidence, unlike say Alexandria, where the evidence is indisputable.

The flip side of this argument, to claim Jewishness of first converts, that Christianity first spread among lay diaspora Jews, you often see expressed in crazy claims of the Jewish population making up 10-15% of the Mediterranean people. This is absurd on many levels, and not in the least borne out by DNA results. A more realistic assessment says the Jews were significant numbers in Egypt to Cyrenia (Libya), Palestine and into Arabia and Iraq. But pretty much non-existent in modern Greece or Turkey, save perhaps a community in Athens and Ephesus as major ports. Certainly they would not be the farmers of the regions.

So yes I frame it in a way to force those who claim a Jewish converts first in places like Pontus, the Galatian valleys, Macedonia, etc, were Jews, and that Jews managed to get access to gentile homes and convert entire families.

As for the hiring of locals, that is modern, and it also assumes a generation or generations of missionary ground work. In short you are throwing out the traditional model of the itinerant preacher for one of an existing network already in cities to explain the success of itinerant preachers. There is a chicken and egg problem in there.

It is not just one component, the easy access to pagan families for conversion, but several factors --such as the lack of knowledge of Hebrew, so relying on interpretation of Greek LXX exegesis, as we see in Psalm 110:1 confusion of the two Lords, impossible for any steeped Jew-- which lead me to the conclusion that the Jewish replacement by gentiles occurred before evangelism, during the incubation period.

Ethnic barriers are significant. Islam and Christianity each had stall points when hitting such barriers. Why would we assume this would magically go away for Jews preaching Christianity in the 1st-3rd centuries? I reject that sort of special blessing argument out of hand.

[Ben C. Smith]

What I am saying is the ability of a Jewish person to convert a Greek or Latin is pretty low compared to their ability to convert a Jew or Semitic person, simply on the basis of having more in common with them.

Many missionaries today work to convert a handful of locals and then train them as junior missionaries, so to speak, in great part for this exact reason.

But, to return to my main question, how do you know that Stephen was not a Jew?

Why would he be a Jew?

Because Jews could bear Greek names (or Roman names, or other kinds of names). Your framing of the question in this way means that you are assuming that the name points to nationality. How do you know that was always or even typically the case? It appears very definitely not to have been the case in Egypt (which is where most of the most relevant kinds of evidence are preserved); how do you know it would have been the case elsewhere?

Why would a Jew take a pagan name when becoming Christian? What Christian hero would there have been in generation zero who was pagan?

Why does it have to be an assumed name? Why does he have to be named after a Christian hero? Why can it not be his birth name?

Well, we are talking Achaia and Asia. Neither is known for Jewish settlement, zero archeological evidence, unlike say Alexandria, where the evidence is indisputable.

Your argument so far requires there to be close to zero Jews in such areas. For, if Jewish missionaries could convert fellow Jews but not gentiles, and if Stephen is the convert of a Jew, then Stephen must be a Jew. The only way to eliminate this as an option is to suggest that there were too few Jews to make finding them feasible. Apparently you do this by stating that we have zero archaeological evidence for Jews settling in these areas.

I will focus on Asia for convenience:

Tituli Asiae Minoris II 612 (Tlos in Lycia, circa late century I):

Πτολεμαῖος Λευ̣-
κίου Τλωεὺς κατεσκεύασεν ἐκ
τῶν ἰδίων τὸ ἡρῷον ἀπὸ θεμελίων αὐ-
τὸς καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Πτολεμαίου βʹ
τοῦ Λευκίου ὑπὲρ ἀρχοντείας τελου-
μένας [sic] παρ' ἡμεῖν Ἰουδαίοις, ὥστε αὐ-
τὸ εἶναι πάντων τῶν Ἰουδαίων καὶ
μηδένα ἐξὸν εἶναι ἕτερον τεθῆναι
ἐν αὐτῷ. ἐὰν δέ τις εὑρεθείη τινὰ
τιθ̣ῶν, ὀφειλέσει Τλοέων... τῷ δήμῳ....

Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua VI 264 (Akmonia in Phrygia, circa late century I):

τὸν κατασκευασθέ[ν]τ̣α ο[ἶ]κον ὑπ̣ὸ̣
Ἰουλίας Σεουήρας ❦ Π̣. ❦ Τυρρώνιος Κλά-
δος ὁ διὰ βίου ἀρχισυνάγωγος καὶ
Λούκιος Λουκίου ἀρχισυνάγωγος ❦
καὶ Ποπίλιος Ζωτικὸς ἄρχων ἐπεσ-
κεύασαν ἔκ τε τῶν ἰδίων καὶ τῶν συν-
καταθεμένων καὶ ἔγραψαν τοὺς τοί-
χους καὶ τὴν ὀροφὴν καὶ ἐποίησαν
τὴν τῶν θυρίδων ἀσφάλειαν καὶ τὸν
[λυ]πὸν πάντα κόσμον, οὕστινας κα[ὶ]
ἡ συναγωγὴ ἐτείμησεν ὅπλῳ ἐπιχρύ-
σῳ διά τε τὴν ἐνάρετον αὐτῶν δ̣[ι]ά̣θ[ε̣]-
σ̣ιν καὶ τὴν π̣ρ̣ὸς τὴν συναγωγὴν εὔνο̣ι̣ά̣ν
τε και σ̣[που]δήν.

Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua IV 90 (Synnada in Phrygia, century I or II):

[{τὸν δεῖνα} ἀ]ρχισυν̣[άγωγον —?—]
[υἱὸν Ἰου]λίου Ἀρ[τέμωνος —?—].

E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule, page 507: In Smyrna a Hadrianic inscription listing citizens who had made benefactions to the city includes among the donors "former Jews," presumably Jews who had acquired Greek citizenship at the price of repudiating their Jewish allegiance and were advertising their rise in the social scale.

There is also literary evidence:

1 Maccabees 15.16-23: 16 Lucius, consul of the Romans unto king Ptolemy, greeting: 17 The Jews' ambassadors, our friends and confederates, came unto us to renew the old friendship and league, being sent from Simon the high priest, and from the people of the Jews: 18 And they brought a shield of gold of a thousand pound. 19 We thought it good therefore to write unto the kings and countries, that they should do them no harm, nor fight against them, their cities, or countries, nor yet aid their enemies against them. 20 It seemed also good to us to receive the shield of them. 21 If therefore there be any pestilent fellows, that have fled from their country unto you, deliver them unto Simon the high priest, that he may punish them according to their own law. 22 The same things wrote he likewise unto Demetrius the king, and Attalus, to Ariarathes, and Arsaces, 23 And to all the countries and to Sampsames, and the Lacedemonians, and to Delus, and Myndus, and Sicyon, and Caria, and Samos, and Pamphylia, and Lycia, and Halicarnassus, and Rhodus, and Aradus, and Cos, and Side, and Aradus, and Gortyna, and Cnidus, and Cyprus, and Cyrene.

From Cicero, For Flaccus 28: As gold, under pretense of being given to the Jews, was accustomed every year to be exported out of Italy and all the provinces to Jerusalem, Flaccus issued an edict establishing a law that it should not be lawful for gold to be exported out of Asia. And who is there, O judges, who cannot honestly praise this measure? The senate had often decided, and when I was consul it came to a most solemn resolution that gold ought not to be exported. But to resist this barbarous superstition were an act of dignity, to despise the multitude of Jews, which at times was most unruly in the assemblies in defense of the interests of the republic, was an act of the greatest wisdom. [Jewish Encyclopedia, L. Valerius Flaccus: Proconsul of Asia Minor in 62-61 B.C. He is notorious in the history of the Jews for having seized for the public treasury the Temple money intended for Jerusalem; thus, at Apamea, nearly 100 pounds of gold through the Roman knight Sextus Caesius; at Laodicea, more than 20 pounds through L. Peducaeus; at Adramyttium, an unknown sum through the legate Cnaeus Domitius; at Pergamon, a small sum, as probably not many Jews were living there at that time. Accused of extortion during his term of office, Flaccus was defended by Cicero (59), himself opposed to the Jews. Cicero justified Flaccus in reference to the Temple money by using a clever oratorical device to show that his edict, to the effect that no money should be sent out of Asia, was a law general in its application, and that the subordinates of Flaccus, who were all men of good repute, had proceeded openly and not in secret (Cicero, "Pro Flacco," § 28). The outcome of the suit is not known. It is not likely, however, that Flaccus was punished.]

From Philo, Embassy to Gaius 33: Nevertheless, though he was well acquainted with the disposition of the emperor, and how implacable and inexorable he was in his anger, he still had himself some sparks of the Jewish philosophy and piety, since he had long ago learnt something of it by reason of his eagerness for learning, and had studied it still more ever since he had come as governor of the countries in which there are vast numbers of Jews scattered over every city of Asia and Syria; or partly because he was so disposed in his mind from his spontaneous, and natural, and innate inclination for all things which are worthy of care and study. .... For in all the particulars in which men are enjoined by the laws, and in which they have it in their power to show their piety and loyalty, my nation is inferior to none whatever in Asia or in Europe, whether it be in respect of prayers, or of the supply of sacred offerings, or in the abundance of its sacrifices, not merely of such as are offered on occasions of the public festivals, but in those which are continually offered day after day; by which means they show their loyalty and fidelity more surely than by their mouth and tongue, proving it by the designs of their honest hearts, not indeed saying that they are friends to Caesar, but being so in reality. .... So that if my native land is, as it reasonably may be, looked upon as entitled to a share in your favor, it is not one city only that would then be benefited by you, but ten thousand of them in every region of the habitable world, in Europe, in Asia, and in Africa, on the continent, in the islands, on the coasts, and in the inland parts.

Josephus, Antiquities 14.7.2 §110-113: 110 And let no one wonder that there was so much wealth in our temple, since all the Jews throughout the habitable earth, and those that worshiped God, nay, even those of Asia and Europe, sent their contributions to it, and this from very ancient times. 111 Nor is the largeness of these sums without its attestation; nor is that greatness owing to our vanity, as raising it without ground to so great a height; but there are many witnesses to it, and particularly Strabo of Cappadocia, who says thus: 112 "Mithridates sent to Cos, and took the money which queen Cleopatra had deposited there, as also eight hundred talents belonging to the Jews." 113 Now we have no public money but only what appertains to God; and it is evident that the Asian Jews removed this money out of fear of Mithridates; for it is not probable that those of Judea, who had a strong city and temple, should send their money to Cos; nor is it likely that the Jews who are inhabitants of Alexandria should do so neither, since they were ill no fear of Mithridates.

You may dispose of the literary evidence if you please (though I have no idea why one would do that instead of evaluating it critically), but I doubt the number of Jews in Asia was as negligible as you seem to think.

As for the hiring of locals, that is modern, and it also assumes a generation or generations of missionary ground work.

Is it? Does it? How do we know this? (Also, I never mentioned hiring; I mentioned converting and training.)

[Ben C. Smith]

Also, I cannot find your answer to my other question about Stephen. Why does it have to be an assumed name? Why does he have to be named after a Christian hero? Why can it not be his birth name?

[Stuart]

Also, I cannot find your answer to my other question about Stephen. Why does it have to be an assumed name? Why does he have to be named after a Christian hero? Why can it not be his birth name?

Sober up, you'll follow simple concepts better.

Two scenarios: (1) a given name, (2) a name taken as a Christian convert

If it's situation (1), then we have a person with a Greek name. The natural assumption is they are Greek, and so I presume they would be. To say they are Jewish would need some explanation. The burden of proof would be on those claiming he is Jewish. And based on what? Is it possible they were Jewish? Sure, but what is the probability? For my money, while he could be Jewish, the odds are probably more than 99 to 1 the name indicates his ethnicity is other than Jewish if he was born with it.



If it's situation (2) we would have to explain why the name was assumed at conversion. This would be a first generation convert, before Acts is written. Where did he come up this Greek name to be his moniker if it is not a Christian hero? This is a problem.

I will go further, throwing up the ethnic issue. For all the fine talk of brotherhood of Christians, ethnicity always rears it's head. For this family in Achaia to claim right to bishophood and be a different ethnicity than the local congregation is asking much. For such a claim to hold it would be far easier if this family (probably a few generations later when 1 Corinthians 16:15ff was written) was the same ethnicity.

Also note the name Stephanas ("crown") is associated with Fortunatus (Latin "Fortunate one") and Achaicus (Greek "the Achaean"), and even mentioned just after Aquila (Latin "the Eagle") and Prisca (Latin "ancient" or "wise"), all of which sound like aliases or monikers. We see this among converts to ISIS, taking on names like al-Amriki ("the American"). Mind you Aquila and Priscilla are a monk and nun legend on their own and probably not part of the other families. But you can see why the names look suspiciously like new names from conversion.

I come away with no evidence of being Jewish and very little reason to believe Stephen or Fortunas or the Achaean are anything other than ethnically indigenous to Achaia. Were there even Jews there? Probably not, unless you subscribe to the absurd notion that Jews were 10-15% of the Empire's population (more than Italians, Gauls, Goths or Greeks) and thus "everywhere."

In my view you have very steep mountain to climb to demonstrate Jewishness of Stephanas. You can't flip the question, as I threw it back at you, saying there is no reason to believe he was Jewish, and all the knowledge and archeology does not support the existence of a significant Jewish community in the region. It is up to you, not me to flip the probability equation.