Roger Parvus and early Christian tradents.

[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?

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....

...unless one has opined that Jewish missionaries would be unlikely to go to gentiles, which you have. If a Jewish missionary converts only Jews, and that same Jewish missionary has converted Stephen, then Stephen — logically, syllogistically — must be a Jew. (The situation would suggest that this missionary sought out Stephen precisely because he was a Jew.) Your only escape from leaving this possibility open (which you clearly do not wish to do) that I can see would be to argue either (A) that there were no Jews to convert in that area or (B) that Jews never bore Greek names. Neither of these squares with the available evidence.

Note, also, that I am not even saying that Stephen is a Jew. I am asking you why you think he could not be, in order to expose some very errant assumptions you seem to have about antiquity.

Sober up, you'll follow simple concepts better.

Facepalm all you wish, Stuart. I am not drinking; I am examining your methodology (which appears to me to consist mainly of unfounded assumptions).

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."

This makes no sense. Just because one thinks that there were Jewish communities in Asia or Achaea or Macedonia does not mean that one is committing to a particular percentage across the Empire.

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.

I believe you are grossly mistaken about the evidence for Jewish communities around the Mediterranean. There is a lot of evidence for them.

[John2]

Ben wrote (in response to Stuart):

Stuart: If it's situation (1), then we have a person with a Greek name. The natural assumption is they are Greek....

Ben: ...unless one has opined that Jewish missionaries would be unlikely to go to gentiles, which you have. If a Jewish missionary converts only Jews, and that same Jewish missionary has converted Stephen, then Stephen — logically, syllogistically — must be a Jew. (The situation would suggest that this missionary sought out Stephen precisely because he was a Jew.) Your only escape from leaving this possibility open (which you clearly do not wish to do) that I can see would be to argue either (A) that there were no Jews to convert in that area or (B) Jews never bore Greek names. Neither of these squares with the available evidence.

Note, also, that I am not even saying that Stephen is a Jew. I am asking you why you think he could not be ...

While I agree that someone with the name Stephen could be Jewish, I'm thinking that this Stephen wasn't because I am under the impression that he was converted by Paul (though I need to look into that more).

To be honest, I've never thought about 1 Cor. 16 before, and it is an interesting chapter. It's neat to picture Paul's itinerary and his interactions with the people he mentions there. Now I can see Paul in Ephesus being visited and supported (financially, I would suppose) by this Stephen.

And if Stephen was converted by Paul, would that not indicate that he was a Gentile, given what Paul says in Gal. 2:9?

And recognizing the grace that I had been given, James, Cephas and John—those reputed to be pillars—gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the Jews.

But then Paul also says in 1 Cor. 9:20-22:

To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), to win those under the law ... I have become all things to all men, so that by all possible means I might save some.

So now I'm not sure what to think. I need to establish some facts first.

1. Who converted Stephen and his household: Paul or Jewish Christians?

2. Did Paul convert (or try to convert) any Jews (as per 1 Cor. 9:20) despite what he says in Gal. 2:9? How reliable is Acts in this respect?

[John2]

1. Who converted Stephen and his household: Paul or Jewish Christians?

Ah, here is the answer, in 1 Cor. 1:16:

Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas ..."

I would suppose then that Stephen was a Gentile, in keeping with Gal. 2:9.

2. Did Paul convert (or try to convert) any Jews (as per 1 Cor. 9:20) despite what he says in Gal. 2:9?

I'm starting to think that the way to reconcile Gal. 2:9 and 1 Cor. 9:20 is that a) Paul converted Gentiles (with the blessing of Jewish Christians, as per Gal. 2:9) to the basic form of Christianity that everyone subscribed to (as outlined in 1 Cor. 15:1-17); and b) he also tried to "win" Jews (i.e., Torah-observant Jewish Christians) over to his Torah-free version of Christianity, like in Gal. 2:15-16 ("We who are Jews by birth and not Gentile ‘sinners’ know that a man is not justified by works of the law").

[John2]

My only question now would be what is the difference between "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews" and "To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), to win those under the law"? While I'm inclined to see both statements as referring to Jews, if that is the case, why does Paul put it this way? Is he making a distinction between Torah-observant and non-Torah-observant Jews? Or does the first statement refer to Jews (of all stripes) and the second refer to Torah-observant Gentiles (like in Galatians and 2 Cor. 11)?

Gal. 1:6-7:

I am amazed how quickly you are deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is not even a gospel. Evidently some people are troubling you and trying to distort the gospel of Christ.

Gal. 3:1-2:

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? ... I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?

So since Paul was trying to convert Torah-observant Gentiles (who had been influenced by Jewish Christians, as per Gal. 2:14: "how can you [Cephas] compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" and 2 Cor. 11:4-5: "if you receive ... a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it way too easily. I consider myself in no way inferior to those super-apostles"), maybe that is who he is referring to by "those under the law" as opposed to "Jews" in 1 Cor. 9:20. It seems like a curious verse, in any event.

[davidmartin]

you guys might not agree at all with this but..
what Paul is expressing could be a version of the 'gnostic' idea of Christ descending past all the powers and assuming their form to pass them by
So the redeemer spoke in the language of each type. Just as Paul is doing (The Jews I spoke like a Jew, etc...)
What I mean is, perhaps this concept was current back then and Paul riffed on it in his own way
So in this scheme he would be forced to become like things he already was in a sense (which is the contradiction your picking up on)
My basic thought is there is an underlying mythos he's basing this on and re-interpreting, which wasn't originally gnostic
Presumably this symbol was originally about Christ talking to earthly type of people not cosmic powers
An echo of this in Acts maybe "And when this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speaking in his own language"
What this basically points to is both Paul and his hearers being familiar with theological concepts current that came before, maybe back to Jesus himself. In this case Paul is not really expounding on how these were originally understood but taking them in his own direction, which is what many theologians do all the time. It shows there was an earlier phase of the Jesus movement he got stuff from even if it seems he didn't when he doesn't quote pre-existing teachings or sayings