Originally posted by Tukuler al~Takruri:
I just posted the oldest fragment of Acts 8:26.
You say there's an older one? Produce it the
same way I did with the real thing not some
thing imagined. The oldest fragment has
little to do with the age of the text itself.What you provided has neither specific detail or translation. You say it
is the oldest but don’t specify its provenance. Oldest from where?
In what language? And according to what authorities?
And what is the dating range given by these authorities?
You say you have examined the Koine Greek primary text
with critical translation. OK. Then it should be no problem
for you to provide the evidence above, including the translation.
As for the oldest fragment, it would represent the earliest
known or existing documentation on hand that can be read.
And sure, the age of a text may extend much earlier
as oral narrative, but when we have the oldest
fragment, we have early written documentation,
and that is what scholars must go by as far as written
text. Most Biblical scholars, using the earliest texts,
recognize the eunuch as a real historical personage.
See for example:
Craig S. Keener - Acts_ An Exegetical Commentary Volume 2 (3_1-14_28) (2013)
That the composition doesn't date to 1st or
early 2nd century is a strawman. Again the
two commentators predate the earliest text
fragment. How could they possibly predate
the first text copies themselves, copies they
would have had to read before commenting
on what's in them. You say the two commentators but so have not
given the names of these commentators or their
documentation in support of the argument. What two
commentators? Provide the original sources or specific
scholarly commentary on the issue and the two.
Again if as you say you have examined the Koine Greek primary
text with critical translation, then it should be no problem
for you to provide the evidence above, including the translation.
List current critical scholarship support
for historicity of this Aithiopian eunuch
literary fiction character. Your say so
needs confirming references. 3 will be fine. You say he is fictional, but most credible Biblical
scholars hold him to be real. I have listed detailed scholarship
above, but you have done nothing similar. You say he is
fictional, and that you have examined the Greek itself.
Well list your evidence and scholarship support, as I have done.
See for example:
Craig S. Keener - Acts_ An Exegetical Commentary Volume 2 (3_1-14_28) (2013)
Keener's shows well researched and footnoted evidence in huge detail. He shows
that the weight of evidence affirms the Cushite/Ethiopian as real, with
many credible details compared to fanciful tales of Africa and
Africans by ancient writers, with personages and events taking
place in real time, in real locations, not distant mythical venues.
All this only adds to the credibility of the text and the Ethiopian.
QUOTE:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Often people engaged in fanciful tales about distant lands beyond the realm
of corroboration (cf., e.g., the later Wonders beyond Thule by Antonius
Diogenes), but Luke’s account takes place in the Roman province of Syria,
not a distant land. Often people confused material about distant lands (e.g.,
the “Ethiopian” Trogodytae with northern Troglodytae, or cave dwellers),
[746] but others reported data accurately, and Luke’s report matches these
more accurate reports.
On the other side of the argument, the Candace is clearly a historical
personage (or dynastic title), in contrast to mythical Memnons and exotic
novelistic details such as appear in Heliodorus’s Ethiopica.[747] But just as
these details are known to us, they could also have been known to
Luke[748]—though Luke probably could not have known so readily which
kinds of details were historical and which were not. Further favoring the
account is its very tension with Acts 10; the church’s “official” story of the
first Gentile convert is Cornelius, and Peter’s authority behind that
conversion proves useful for Luke’s purposes (cf. 15:7–11), so that neither
Luke nor his sources would have lightly invented this account.[749] If Philip
did meet a pilgrim from Nubia, such a pilgrim might well have been a person
of means to make such a journey.[750] If Philip was Luke’s oral source, as
21:8–10 probably suggests (see introduction to 8:5–40),[751] Luke may have
known and wished to reveal to his audience an event that prefigured the
church’s official story in Acts 10...
Israel’s Scriptures often mention “Ethiopia.” Ethiopia lay at the ends of
the world (Esth 1:1; 8:9; Ezek 29:10; Zeph 3:10); God was sovereign over
Ethiopia’s history as over Israel’s (Amos 9:7).[755] The prophets spoke of
God’s people being gathered from distant nations (Isa 11:11), even beyond
Ethiopia’s rivers (Zeph 3:9–10).[756] Although the prophets may have been
thinking especially of Diaspora Jews, on first-century presuppositions this
gathering would have to include Gentile converts who had become Diaspora
Jews. Egypt and Ethiopia would also submit to Israel’s God (Pss 68:31
[67:32 LXX ];[757] 87:4 [86:4]); again, a first-century reading could apply this
to conversion and salvation reaching the nations.[758]..
In contrast to some later readings, Luke runs against the grain of his own
focus (from Jerusalem to Rome) to point out that the first Gentile convert
was an honorable official from Africa.[769] This narrative hints at future
ministry outside the empire’s borders, while also more generally introducing,
through Philip, the ministry to Gentiles that will be ratified by Peter and
carried forward through Paul.
(1) Tension between the Treasurer and Cornelius?
Some scholars do not think that the African is a Gentile here, as they
doubt that Luke would allow this tension with Cornelius’s conversion.[770]
But this is a private event unknown or relatively unknown to the church in
Jerusalem; its theological importance is that the Spirit acts ahead of the
apostles (as in Samaria, Acts 8:12, 14; and Antioch, 11:19–24), whereas the
theological importance of Cornelius’s conversion is that the Jerusalem
church knows of and comes to approve of the event (11:18; as in Samaria,
8:15–17).[771] (In Luke’s narrative, although both the eunuch and Cornelius
are God-fearers, Cornelius is also less biblically literate, hence further from
Judaism, than this Bible-reading official; see 10:25.)[772] For this African
official is the first fully Gentile convert.." Craig S. Keener - Acts_ An Exegetical Commentary Volume 2 (3_1-14_28) (2013)
-------------------------------------------------------
it's easy to talk smack about eunuchs.
Inventing whatnot because you can
produce no single confirming evidence
of any castrate in Meroe or Kush, period.
It's a fantasy.If you are going to go around pronouncing people to be non-existent,
then you need to put something credible on the table besides your own
opinion. Most scholars studying the issue say that the man did exist,
and they use the same standard applied to other people mentioned in that era:
(1) historical plausibility (such as the use of eunuchs in court admin in the
general Middle East/NoAf. region, or
--the existence of large numbers of converts to Judiasm etc),or
--the use of eunuchs among those who ruled Egypt before the era_
such as the Persians. Also the use of Nubian eunuchs in other areas of
the ancient Near East is a fact. In Assyrian tablet K1577 for example,
2 Nubian eunuchs are mentioned, men having the authority to dispatch
or send out royal bodyguards. This background shows that the existence
of Nubian or Kushite eunuchs was nothing special in the general region.
The eunuch in question did not have to be castrated in Meroe/Kush.
This historical background, in addition to (2) mention of a personage in early
written records, provide credible bases of evidence.
Re Meroe, I do not dispute that there is no direct evidence of native
castration. Sure, I’ll go with that. The record doesn’t give the man’s
detailed biography. But the use of castrated males in various governmental
positions was not uncommon in Egypt and the Middle East around
the timeline of the incident, which would be around 60-70AD, in line
with Phillip’s movements. And as Keener referenced above notes,
the eunuch did not have to be castrated in Meroe. The job could have
been done in Egypt, which had already been for centuries under foreign rule.
Eunuchs for example were nothing unusual in the Roman or Persian empire.
There are some Biblical commentaries by the way, which hold that
the Ethiopian was not necessary a castrate, but that the word “eunuch”
denotes the title of a government official. Quote:
”the word eunuch seems to have been purely a governmental title,
not necessarily applied to a castrated man.”-- KJV International Bible Lesson Commentary 2006, p 57
Others note that “eunuch” may refer to one extremely dedicated to the faith.
But in any event eunuch or non-eunuch is not directly relevant to the OP,
in which the website article writer, who is a proponent of “pre-adamite
Caucasoids” attempts to deAfricanize the Cushite. As shown herein however,
there were numbers of converts to Judaism, or Gentile God-fearers
interested in Judaism, who were in place in Palestine, Egypt and elsewhere
in the region, and who would be familiar with the core Hebrew writings
and the prophets. Meroe at the time was a major trading point in the region,
and had even signed a treaty with the Romans, allowing for plenty of interchange
in the region, in addition to the already long-standing ties between Egypt and
Meroe. A black man with that Hebrew background would thus not be some
sort of alien anomaly. Another scenario is an indigenous black resident of
Judea or Palestine.
The fact that castration was not practiced
in Meroe proves the Aithiopian eunuch is
ahistorical, an ivention. Also, his
transportation lacks conviction. The fact that castration is not an indigenous practice in Meroe
does not at all close the door to the use of eunuchs in the kingdom
for governmental purposes, as already detailed above.
As for his transportation, Keener notes that some bigger 4-wheeled
carts were sometimes called “chariots” or likened to them.
This is probably what the Cushite rode on, not a 2-wheeled
war chariot. This is actually very plausible. Who crosses the
long desert stretches in a small, thin 2 wheeled war or
ceremonial chariot? Popular art depictions usually show a
thin 2-wheel job, but there were plenty of more plausible
alternatives in use in the region. Transportation debunks
popular art, but does not make the Ethiopian non-existent or
ahistorical.
I asked for cited quotes from pre-4th cent
Christian commentators as to the ethnic
identity of this literary invention and
your last post is what I get? But you yourself have provided precious little to back your own claims.
So I must ask you to provide, as said above:
All you have done so far is post a graphic of unknown provenance.
Again, oldest from where? In what language? And according
to what authorities? Also, what is the dating range given by these
authorities?
You say he is fictional, but most credible Biblical
scholars hold him to be real. I have listed detailed scholarship
above, but you have done nothing similar. You say he is
fictional, and that you have examined the primary Greek itself.
Well list your evidence and scholarship support, as I have done.
You say the two earliest Christian commentators. OK. But you
have not even posted their names. Who? And where? What date?
What supporting reference?
And if as you say you have examined the Koine Greek primary
text with critical translation, then it should be no problem
for you to provide the evidence above, including the relevant
translations.Refusing to do the necessary research
leads to unsubstantiated speculation
and continued denial as to the Greek
author's ethnic intent, a Jew, and
against Hebrew text longing for Judaean
mothered Jews beyond the Rivers of Kush.
In addition to Zephaniah, Isaiah says
Israel's Deity knows the Diaspora in Kush.But you have provided little necessary research on your claims
making them hard to evaluate until you actually put some credible
references on the table, as requested above.
Can't have that. Authentic Hebrew descent
Jews in Africa before there were nice
white Jewish communities in Europe
for whom no one is inventing their
own 3 scenario origin hypotheses to
paint them as other than just Jews. Who says that the Kushite incident negates the
existence of Hebrews in Africa prior? To the contrary,
his existence points to the likelihood that there were probably
distinctive communities in Africa who followed the Hebrew
faith, OR that there were “god-fearers” – who were interested
in and were sympathetic to the Hebrew faith. There is also the
matter of converts already mentioned above, and well attested
to in the historical record. All of these people would have been
familiar with the Hebrew scriptures, making the existence of the
Cushite even more plausible.
Hypotheses not worded in white
supremist terms like the OP website
nonetheless proffering a 'sub-standard'
status for the black as authentic Jew.
But what prophet speaks of Diaspora
communities beyond the Valleys of
the Alps? Not accusing you, just sayin. Well you have said on more that one occasion that you
are a Jew who happens to be black, and I am sympathetic
to the many evidences of disrespect some Black Jews face,
by those who assume the mantle of purist gatekeepers where
only a white-face can be the “true Jew.”
But this has little to do with the issue at hand. In the narrative,
it is not said that the Cushite was a Jew. He may have been a
seeker/learner God-fearer type. Nothing in the text says he
was a Jew though he did possess a scroll of the prophetic
writings, something that only people with means or influence
could afford to have personally. A person with means or high
influence, perfectly describes a high governmental official of a
queen.
His familiarity with the contents and ready discussion
with Phillip, indicate a man steeped in Hebrew learning.
But still, nothing says he was a Jew. His was not a Jewish
conversion to Christianity. This debunks the OP claim that the
man was a “Judean.” Doesn’t say he was Judean, but “Ethiopian.’
If there are any (I am not saying you) who think that the
man is some sort of “second class Jew” depicted, then they
are barking up the wrong tree. He was not a Jew. The narrative
takes careful note of his difference, even naming the native title
of his queen. But this does not at all mean that there were not
Black Hebrews/Jews or Black Gentile "God-fearers" in place, around the
same time as he. Both types of people can be in place and work together.
This restating of already posted stuff.
Repeat and I'll rebutt again unless and
until you supply confirming primary docs. I too ask that you provide confirming primary docs
and supporting evidences as requested above.
Otherwise what's the diff between this
'presentation' and any other body come
posting on ESR w/no backup yet layin
down the law about Africana like that
Dog/Wolf guy w/t Ethiopic script tag. But backup was already provided previously that showed the
presence of many converts to Judaism, which debunked your attempt
to poo-poo the reality of such conversions historically.
According to the OCIA the Ethiopian Orthodox
Tewahedo Church says the Aithiopian eunuch per
their source was a Jew backed by citing one of
those two commentators I asked you for but you
keep ignoring them, was an Ethiopian Jew
grforafrica.blogspot.com/2015/08/moses-ethiopian-black-saint-teacher.html Your link says:
”in Eastern Orthodox tradition he is known as an Ethiopian Jew with the name
Simeon also called the Black, the same name he is given in Acts 13:1.[2][3] [/i]
That what SOME EASTERN ORTHODOX types say in their traditions.
But where in the official histories of the Ethiopic church does it say
he was a Jew? And if he is non-existent as you keep insisting, then
he could not have been a Jew, or anything at all, since he doesn’t exist.
Furthermore Simeon in Acts 13, is clearly an entirely different person
from the Cushite in Acts 8. They are not the same person. Your reference
is to a blog that contradicts itself, which is why again I ask that you provide
credible scholarship supporting your claim that the man did not exist, or
In any event, the earliest Biblical texts do NOT say he was a Jew. Jews
who were converted to Christianity are generally identified. To the contrary,
the texts call attention to his difference, and his queen. He may simply have
been one of the many god-fearers. But even if he was a Jew it would make
little difference. Most scholars hold that he was a real historical personage.
Churches are allowed their faith and I don't knock them.
Yet I see no secular evidence for Meroe informing Axum
Christianity. My rationality rejects Philip whisked
away equally with Elijah flying off. Meroe and Axum both were in the general Eastern tradition
and both had extensive contacts with Egyptian Christianity.
But this has little do as regards the issue at hand – the eunuch.
And if your rationality rejects things like Elijah being taken
up – OK, fair enough. Believing in the core Hebrew writings
is not a litmus test of Jewishness. There are atheists for example
who happen to be Jewish. Is your Judaism based on belief in many
of the core Jewish religious writings, such as the Most High creating
heaven and earth, or is it more secular/atheist Judaism where these
writings are just symbolic or metaphorical?
You can't solve this w/o the Greek text of
the two earlist Christian commentators on
Act 8:26 for the precise Koine words they
used ethnically IDing the character.You still haven’t named the two earliest commentators
specifically, and their specific argument that the Ethiopian
(a) did not exist, or (b) that he was not a eunuch.
Since you say you have examined the precise Greek
primary, can you list the proofs with the relevant translations,
and authorities?