Another view of the Hebrews and the Hellenists, Part I

I am very much interested in Chapter 6-8 of Acts and particularly interested in identifying the “Hebrews and the Hellenists.” Todd Penner in his book, In Praise of Christian Origins, on page 71 citing in footnote 28, 2 Macc 4:10, 13,  suggest that Luke has given us no clues as to how he wants the reader to understand the identity of these two groups. In my opinion both the Hellenists and Hebrews are outsiders having been denied access to the Temple and have to rely upon the followers of Jesus for food and assistance. 

I do think that Luke does give us a major clue in Acts 8:2 in his use of two different hapax. I believe that Luke is telling us that Stephen died defending his traditional view of the faith.

In Acts 8:2, we read: “Devout men buried Stephen, and made great lamentation over him.” Initially we note that the Greek word εὐλαβεῖς for devout and the Greek word κοπετὸ for lamentation are both Lucan hapax appearing only in Acts. It may be that verses 2:5 which states “Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven” and 8:2 form an inclusio with “devout men” as the bookends. These Jews had respect for Stephen and his views and saw him as a noble and righteous man, a man like Simeon.

This Greek word εὐλαβεῖς for devout appear in the Septuagint in two places of interest. In Lev. 15:31, the LXX states: “You shall make the sons of Israel be reverent εὐλαβεῖς because of their uncleanness.” Secondly in Micah 7:2, the LXX reading says: “For the reverent εὐλαβής one are destroyed and there does not exist one keeping straight among men.” Luke suggests that Stephen was such a devout man that devout men buried and made lamentation over him. Yet other men considered Stephen to be so unclean that they stoned him.

The Greek phrase κοπετὸν μέγαν only appears in Acts 8:2 and Genesis LXX 50:10 which is part of the narrative of Joseph burying his father in the land of Canaan beyond the Jordan at the cave that Abraham had purchased as a burial site. Luke, in alluding to Genesis LXX 50:10 in Acts 8:2, with his use of the Greek phrase κοπετὸν μέγαν is telling us he is aware of the two burial site traditions and that Stephen had used a burial tradition offensive to the temple establishment. 

As noted earlier, Luke used the Greek word for lamentation which is a hapax in Acts. This Greek phrase κοπετὸν μέγαν for “great lamentation” also appears in 1 Maccabees 2:70; 4:39; 9:20 and 13:26. The death of Mattathias is described in these words: “And he died in the hundred forty and sixth year, and his sons buried him in the sepulchres of his fathers at Modin, and all Israel made great lamentation for him.” The third and fourth citations describe the death and burial at Modin of Judas and Jonathan respectively. 1 Macc 4:39 describes how the men mourned with great lamentation when “they saw the sanctuary [at Mount Zion] desolate, the altar profaned, and the gates burned.”

The Hellenizers in Maccabees and in the first century include many priests and high ranking members of the temple establishment. Just as the author of 1 Maccabees refrains from accusing the leading Hellenizers of idolatry (Goldstein), so does Luke. This is surprising in light of the strong anti-idol polemic that appears throughout Acts of the Apostles. It may however explain why many priests joined the movement. They were more conservative than the ranking members of the temple establishment.

Luke intends to direct our attention to the conflict and opposition between Hellenism and Judaism that arose in the time of the Maccabees and more particularly to his identification of the Hellenists (perhaps more accurately Hellenizers) of Acts 6 with the Hellenizers of 1 Maccabees. According to historian Elias Bickerman, the Hellenizers of 1 Maccabees wanted to preserve aspects of Judaism that fit with Greek ideals, like a universal God, but to remove those parts of Jewish practice that separated Jews from others: dietary laws, Sabbath observance, circumcision.

Stephen’s last sermon is really a dialogue with more than one group. Stephen successfully challenged the Hellenizers and they complained to the temple establishment. Both the Hellenizers and the temple establishment were happy to eliminate Stephen. Saul originally challenged the Hellenizers, but he like the temple establishment also opposed Stephen, because Stephen wanted to include within Judaism those members on the fringe who were denied access to the Temple food distribution system. 

It was an unusual dialogue!

Copyrighted © 2013

Re-dating the NT: Burned their city

John A.T. Robinson begins Chapter 2 of his masterpiece in these words: “ONE of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period - the fall of Jerusalem in ad 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple - is never once mentioned as a past fact.” It is this statement, established by a detailed analysis, that has caused many scholars to re-visit the dating of the New Testament. However, Robinson did not discuss the Parable of the Wedding Banquet.

Matthew 22:7 reads: The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and ἐνέπρησεν their city. This Greek word for “burned” appears only in Matthew in the Parable of the Wedding Banquet and nowhere else in the New Testament. None of the New Testament accounts note the separate fates of the city and the Temple. In 70 CE, the Roman general Titus destroyed the city of Jerusalem and his legion burned the Temple.

Does Matthew reveal his knowledge of the destruction with his Parable of the Wedding Banquet?

Matthew also uses the word κατακαύσει in the story of John Baptist when he informed his audience that “the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” Luke likewise uses this Greek word for burn and includes this phrase. Matthew uses κατακαύσει in his telling of the Parable of the Weeds and in its interpretation which are unique to his gospel. Matthew has clearly indicated that the weeds are the evildoers who are to be collected at the end and bind into bundles to be thrown into the fire. Consequently, we should understand the Parable of the Wedding Feast in the same way as the Parable of the Weeds and recognize that Matthew believed that the burning of the Temple represented God’s judgment against the Temple and the temple establishment for its iniquity and wickedness thus revealing his knowledge of the destruction of the city of the city and the Temple.

The inference that Matthew knew the fate of the Temple is weak and therefore does not qualify as a valid one way indicator. The inference is weak because Matthew could have been alluding to Jeremiah 52:13 wherein Jeremiah tells us that the king of Babylon came and “set on fire the house of the Lord.” The first temple and the city were destroyed by fire in 586 B.C.E. Since the Septuagint uses the Greek word ἐνέπρησεν in Jeremiah 52:13 and 11 other books of the LXX, it is not a rare word allusion since ἐνέπρησεν is a common word in the Septuagint but is a hapax in Matthew.

It is examples such as this that confirms the radical proposal of John A.T. Robinson that all of the books of the New Testament should be dated prior to the destruction of the City and Temple in 70 C.E.

Copyrighted © 2011

My Book has been published.

Who are Johanna and Theophilus?: The Irony of the Intended Audience of the Gospel of Luke is now available on Amazon.com as an e-book for only $9.99.

This book is the first comprehensive analysis of the identies of Johanna and Theophilus.