Galatians 1:21-24 : churches of Judea

[Jax]

Part of that quote from Josephus is still relevant, since it is one of the literary passages proffered for the existence of Godfearers: πάντων τῶν κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην Ἰουδαίων καὶ σεβομένων τὸν θεὸν ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀσίας καὶ τῆς Εὐρώπης εἰς αὐτὸ συμφερόντων ἐκ πολλῶν πάνυ χρόνων. The construction does make it look like "those who worship God" (σεβομένων τὸν θεόν) are "in addition" to (καί) "all the Jews of the habitable earth" (πάντων τῶν κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην Ἰουδαίων).

Still a bit vague though.

I agree with that. Are you looking specifically for Godfearers being organized in communities of some kind?

No. Not really. I'm sure that some people had Jewish friends and attended their festivals just as their Jewish friends attended theirs. I went to my best friend's bar mitzvah but I never was part of the Jewish religion even though I am circumcized.

I just see something that is repeated often as if it were a fact without any corroborating source evidence, perhaps distorting our understanding of the true nature of the early Christian cults.

That's all.

[Ben C. Smith]

Just sketching out some notes.

The Aphrodisias inscription is dated to late century II or early century III. I am under the impression that no earlier synagogue inscription mentions Godfearers.

It is easy enough to find evidence of individual Gentiles who supported Judaism or even became Jews after some fashion. Josephus gives the example of Izates in book 20 of the Antiquities. Philo describes Gentiles who participated in the celebration of the creation of the Septuagint in Alexandria:

Philo, Life of Moses 7.41: 41 On which account, even to this very day, there is every year a solemn assembly held and a festival celebrated in the island of Pharos, to which not only the Jews but a great number of persons of other nations sail across, reverencing the place in which the first light of interpretation shone forth, and thanking God for that ancient piece of beneficence which was always young and fresh.

Juvenal satirizes Romans who start to keep Jewish customs and worship the Jewish God (whom the Romans did not understand particularly well):

Juvenal, Satire 14.96-106: 96-106 Some who have had a father who reveres the Sabbath worship nothing but the clouds and the divinity of the heavens, and see no difference between eating swine's flesh, from which their father abstained, and that of man; and in time they take to circumcision. Having been wont to flout the laws of Rome, they learn and practice and revere the Jewish law, and all that Moses committed to his secret tome, forbidding to point out the way to any not worshipping the same rites, and conducting none but the circumcised to the desired fountain. For all which the father was to blame, who gave up every seventh day to idleness, keeping it apart from all the concerns of life.

And I already gave that quote from Josephus in book 14 of the Antiquities about Gentiles participating in supporting the Temple.

I am also not very well in tune with the direction and purpose of the original inquiry, so I am not sure exactly what kind of evidence is being sought. I do know that the traditional approach to the Godfearers has been characterized as basically taking Acts at face value and then finding supporting details from Greek, Roman, and Jewish authors. That approach is probably to be avoided. On the other hand, Gentiles who revered the Jewish God seem to have existed.

[Jax]

Just sketching out some notes.

The Aphrodisias inscription is dated to late century II or early century III. I am under the impression that no earlier synagogue inscription mentions Godfearers.

It is easy enough to find evidence of individual Gentiles who supported Judaism or even became Jews after some fashion. Josephus gives the example of Izates in book 20 of the Antiquities. Philo describes Gentiles who participated in the celebration of the creation of the Septuagint in Alexandria:

Philo, Life of Moses 7.41: 41 On which account, even to this very day, there is every year a solemn assembly held and a festival celebrated in the island of Pharos, to which not only the Jews but a great number of persons of other nations sail across, reverencing the place in which the first light of interpretation shone forth, and thanking God for that ancient piece of beneficence which was always young and fresh.

Juvenal satirizes Romans who start to keep Jewish customs and worship the Jewish God (whom the Romans did not understand particularly well):

Juvenal, Satire 14.96-106: 96-106 Some who have had a father who reveres the Sabbath worship nothing but the clouds and the divinity of the heavens, and see no difference between eating swine's flesh, from which their father abstained, and that of man; and in time they take to circumcision. Having been wont to flout the laws of Rome, they learn and practice and revere the Jewish law, and all that Moses committed to his secret tome, forbidding to point out the way to any not worshipping the same rites, and conducting none but the circumcised to the desired fountain. For all which the father was to blame, who gave up every seventh day to idleness, keeping it apart from all the concerns of life.

And I already gave that quote from Josephus in book 14 of the Antiquities about Gentiles participating in supporting the Temple.

I am also not very well in tune with the direction and purpose of the original inquiry, so I am not sure exactly what kind of evidence is being sought. I do know that the traditional approach to the Godfearers has been characterized as basically taking Acts at face value and then finding supporting details from Greek, Roman, and Jewish authors. That approach is probably to be avoided. On the other hand, Gentiles who revered the Jewish God seem to have existed.

Basically, what it boils down to is that I support cora's contention that there is far to much in the way of assumptions about early Christianity. I'm just less bombastic about it and more inclined to demand actual proof for something being assumed. No mater how reasonable it sounds on the surface.

I come from a science background. We question everything, especially things that are 'known'.

[gryan]

21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, 22 and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; 23 they only heard it said, “The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they glorified God because of me.

I hadn't thought much about this, but the more I read it the more unreasonable it seems. Here are various commentaries: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/galatians/1-22.htm

I had not thought about this much either. The part that strikes me now is the part in quotations marks: "The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy."

He seems to be saying that this was his reputation, and that it preceded him. There were people he met at various "assemblies of God" who did not know him by face, but who know him by reputation. They found his conversion story glorious, for it was a sign of God's hand at work--not the result of human persuasion, or coercion.

His reputation as a model of conversion could have become exaggerated over time; nevertheless, I find it very easy to imagine historical Paul making exactly this sort of claim.

[Jax]

21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, 22 and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; 23 they only heard it said, “The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they glorified God because of me.

I hadn't thought much about this, but the more I read it the more unreasonable it seems. Here are various commentaries: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/galatians/1-22.htm

I had not thought about this much either. The part that strikes me now is the part in quotations marks: "The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy."

He seems to be saying that this was his reputation, and that it preceded him. There were people he met at various "assemblies of God" who did not know him by face, but who know him by reputation. They found his conversion story glorious, for it was a sign of God's hand at work--not the result of human persuasion, or coercion.

His reputation as a model of conversion could have become exaggerated over time; nevertheless, I find it very easy to imagine historical Paul making exactly this sort of claim.

Good man!

[Ben C. Smith]

I come from a science background. We question everything, especially things that are 'known'.

I completely agree with this approach.

[Jax]

I come from a science background. We question everything, especially things that are 'known'.

I completely agree with this approach.

I know you do. It's one of the main reasons that I respect your research.

[rgprice]

21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, 22 and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; 23 they only heard it said, “The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they glorified God because of me.

I hadn't thought much about this, but the more I read it the more unreasonable it seems. Here are various commentaries: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/galatians/1-22.htm

I had not thought about this much either. The part that strikes me now is the part in quotations marks: "The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy."

He seems to be saying that this was his reputation, and that it preceded him. There were people he met at various "assemblies of God" who did not know him by face, but who know him by reputation. They found his conversion story glorious, for it was a sign of God's hand at work--not the result of human persuasion, or coercion.

His reputation as a model of conversion could have become exaggerated over time; nevertheless, I find it very easy to imagine historical Paul making exactly this sort of claim.

The thing is that whatever his cause for persecuting these assemblies, it seems it had nothing to do with Jerusalem. I would think that these "assemblies of God" were essentially Gentile God-fearers who worshiped the Highest God and participated in Jewish rituals and read the Jewish scriptures. They may actually have met at synagogues or at least attended them. There were several types of Jewish sympathizers. Proseletites were Gentiles who were converting to become Jews by getting circumcised and becoming full fledged members of the synagogue, and then there were various flavors of God-fearers who adhered to various aspects of Judaism but didn't undergo circumcision.

It seems that these "assemblies of God" were some sort of God-fearers who were claiming to be Jews without undergoing circumcision or something along those lines. It could also be that they taught that there were two God, the Highest God and the Lord, who was the son of God, as opposed to being one and the same with God. And these things could have been related. Of course that there was a "Highest God" implies other lesser gods.

So, it would seem that Paul lived in Asia Minor, where were "assemblies of God" in Asia Minor that were doing something he and other Jews didn't like, which seems to have involved opposition to circumcision. Paul then railed against these Jewish-wannabees for some time, but then "saw the light" and himself adopted their views.

But the thing about this is that none of this requires that these "assemblies of God" had to be a recent development. And indeed the evidence shows that such organizations existed in Asia Minor for perhaps as much as two hundred years prior to Paul, but at least by the beginning of the first century. I think many people assume that such organizations couldn't have been very mature by the time Paul came along because they assume that they wouldn't have existed prior to the "death of Jesus". But that's an incorrect assumption, if assuming that the death of a real Jesus had something with do with Paul's ministry.

Thee organizations of Jewish sympathizing God-fearers existed for along time prior to Paul and had established congregations and patterns of worship. At best, what would have happened is Jesus was killed, then people spread word to these existing groups who were sympathetic to his message. It wouldn't have been as if there were just pagans who had never heard of Judaism or had anything to do with it, and had no religious organizational structure, and then apostles came in to town and just united a bunch of disparate pagans and convinced them to worship Jesus, at which time they formed a "church" (assembly). No, no. These would have been existing assemblies, with long-standing ties to Jerusalem and the Jewish community.

Then, these Jewish-sympathizing assemblies would have been told about Jesus, and if they had contact with Paul, would have been told that they needn't worry Jewish Law or circumcision anymore. And, of course, as it happens, there had been on-going conflict and dispute over the law and circumcision within these communities for decades.

[Bernard Muller]

21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, 22 and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; 23 they only heard it said, “The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they glorified God because of me.

These churches in Judea that are in Christ are the ones founded by proto-Christians after the Greek dispersion (which I dated 35 CE).
That is in contrast to other churches NOT in Christ, as the chuch of Jerusalem.

Cordially, Bernard

[cora]

I just wanted to say that Paul always wrote ekklesia (assembly, community you often read). Translating everything with church gives the wrong impression. How should anybody in that region know what it meant? They had synagogues or temples. The name church comes from Rome. It gives the impression that in Judea, and in Turkey in Paul's time they were already actually belonging to the church of Rome all together. Peter so-called founded the church, so they all belonged together. BUT THEY DID NOT.
I know what god-fearers are, but not how much of it there were. Jews writing about numbers cannot be trusted (not even Josephus). But they have nothing at all to do with Paul's mission. Next to "of course", we have "certainly".

I have many times said that Paul is not a jew. I will try to give some reasons for this:
1. The way he speaks out against circumcision and the whole Law in Galatians, shows that he is not a jew. No jew would speak like that about his religion. Not then and not now. By that you would become an apostate.
2. He is speaking out the whole time against the Law, and in favour of Faith (trust). Against flesh, in favour of spirit. These are 2 opposite things.
3. Paul has been a member of the mystery religion of Mythra (very large in the east of Turkey), which is a Hellenistic religion, because he starts his own mystery religion, which you can only do if you have been a member yourself, because they are secret.
4. It is a dying - rising - god - saviour. And that is exactly what Paul is preaching. Never mind the rest, this is the core. If faith in the rising of the god, you yourself will get life after death (saviour). It is about a god, not about a human being. It is about rising, not about dying. And GOD THE FATHER IS THE GNOSTIC GOD. And that is where gnostic chrestianity comes from. And that is the SECOND GOD about which everybody is shouting (at least Irenaeus and Tertullianus). The church of Rome starts shouting, because they are old-testamentic. Easy to see during Marcion's visit. And remember that church comes from (greek) oikia kyriake, meaning house of the Lord (Jahweh). They want Jahweh as god of the world. And they got it per 313.

Paul did not say Jesus Christ. That is a roman forgery. Paul began a religion, a gnostic religion. Before Paul, there was NOT a new religion (in Judea impossible of course!!!). There was a written story by a reform-movement inside Judaism. Paul had it. Marcion is innocent. He is just a follower of Paul. I hope that this information comes through.

I guess by now everybody knows that someone has written in the letter. Among the interpolated subjects there are: the god becomes a human being, Paul becomes jewish, Paul becomes "converted" and many more. Paul did not write that all, Paul is dead. He is one of the most abused persons.