Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

robert j wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 9:02 amThere is another way to resolve this --- Paul was not a Pharisee.

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 8:06 am Just a few scattered thoughts here. Not committed to any of this.

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:30 amDespite the lack of explicit evidence for it, there were Pharisees outside Judea, in Antioch and Syria and at least as far north as Tarsus in Cilicia.

What would Matthew 23.15 mean if not something like this? Even if we grant it is an exaggeration, what would it be an exaggeration of? Staying put in the homeland and never going anywhere? Is it so metaphorical that it lacks any geographical component at all, and journeying "by land and sea" means merely, say, that they left no argument untouched in their quest for converts? It has always sounded geographical to me, not merely metaphorical.

Also, would not Jewish people of virtually any or all persuasions have found homes outside of the homeland after the destruction of Jerusalem? The more so after Simon bar Kokhba, of course. Josephus talks about Sicarii who fled to Africa, but he appears to discuss them only because of the trouble they caused once they arrived. Would there not have been other, less militant refugees moving away, as well?

He [Horace] describes Jews as a sect whose tenacious efforts to proselytize are difficult to avoid.

perseusomega9 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 6:15 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 8:06 am Just a few scattered thoughts here. Not committed to any of this.

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:30 amDespite the lack of explicit evidence for it, there were Pharisees outside Judea, in Antioch and Syria and at least as far north as Tarsus in Cilicia.

What would Matthew 23.15 mean if not something like this? Even if we grant it is an exaggeration, what would it be an exaggeration of? Staying put in the homeland and never going anywhere? Is it so metaphorical that it lacks any geographical component at all, and journeying "by land and sea" means merely, say, that they left no argument untouched in their quest for converts? It has always sounded geographical to me, not merely metaphorical.

Also, would not Jewish people of virtually any or all persuasions have found homes outside of the homeland after the destruction of Jerusalem? The more so after Simon bar Kokhba, of course. Josephus talks about Sicarii who fled to Africa, but he appears to discuss them only because of the trouble they caused once they arrived. Would there not have been other, less militant refugees moving away, as well?

While not specifically about Pharisees I was just reading

He [Horace] describes Jews as a sect whose tenacious efforts to proselytize are difficult to avoid.

Wiefel, The Romans Debate 2ed, pg 88, 1991 citing Horace Sermones 1.4.143

Difflugia wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 8:25 amThat seems to me like assuming that a sizeable Christain population anywhere would necessarily include, say, Coptic or Ethiopian Orthodox Christians.

perseusomega9 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:52 am I havent read enough NPP to really say ( I've avoided wright, meier, the later dunn, etc on Paul). A few good papers on the end of Roman's and parts of 15. I'm finding some authors, while making connections in Pauline theology between different epistles, run into difficulty as usual but that's because most think these letters are complete and full letters by Paul. A few non-connections they made I thought could be better explained by competing Pauline factions within the letters but hey, I'm no scholar so what can I possible know. Wiefel's article above has some good summaries of archeology of Judaism in Rome 100bce- 100ce, but his analysis is quasi-apologetic, or at least conservative and unimaginative. He quotes Seutonious on Chrestos and the Jewish expulsion under Claudius, thinks that has to be Christos, which magically become Jesus of Nazareth a few sentences later. I'm not even sure these scholars realize what they're doing in loading assumption after assumption into their analysis anymore.

Not a bad read, plenty of papers, and I only paid $2 for it. One good feature is these papers are specifically in dialogue with each other.

Baley wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:21 amWell, sort of. I'd assume that any sizeable emigré christian population from Southern Europe would include Catholics. In the same vein I would assume that any jewish diaspora population from Judea/Palestine would include Pharisees. They were the most popular jewish religious party of the time (more popular than Saduccees or Essenes). I have also given an example of a well known Pharisee moving to Egypt. Do you think my assumption is wrong?