What is your take on Judas being the lone non-Galilean from the south in Kerioth. Could this epithet be the gospel writers’ subtle means of distinguishing North versus South, Judah versus Israel, and those who were scattered but regathered versus those who betrayed. Especially since the gospels seem to become more negative toward the “Jew” in the later gospels when followers were contending with persecution from their Jewish brothers. Also taking in consideration “Galilee of the Nations” and Jesus’ command the meet in Galilee following his resurrection. (Sorry for sloppiness of thought I’m thumbing this on the go).
I think they were historical figures, but there’s long been debate in the field about that. We don’t have any evidence from outside the biblical/biblically influenced tradition, so there’s no way to know for certain.
"We don’t have any evidence from outside the biblical/biblically influenced tradition [...] there’s no way to know for certain."
Are you speaking purely from an academic standpoint? How does that align with the idea of Scripture as an inspired, authoritative, and infallible text?
If we presume the Bible is entirely historical and inerrant in its representation of the historical facts, then that obviously decides the matter. But the Bible isn’t self-validating, so my statement above is the default in the absence of that presumption.
This was my first time ever reading one of your posts, very thought provoking and interesting. Will follow going forward.
Jason:
What is your take on Judas being the lone non-Galilean from the south in Kerioth. Could this epithet be the gospel writers’ subtle means of distinguishing North versus South, Judah versus Israel, and those who were scattered but regathered versus those who betrayed. Especially since the gospels seem to become more negative toward the “Jew” in the later gospels when followers were contending with persecution from their Jewish brothers. Also taking in consideration “Galilee of the Nations” and Jesus’ command the meet in Galilee following his resurrection. (Sorry for sloppiness of thought I’m thumbing this on the go).
Another really good question. There may well be something to this, though it would definitely be fairly subtle if so.
Just a query re your bracketed comment about the historicity of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - is there doubt in your view? Thanks
I think they were historical figures, but there’s long been debate in the field about that. We don’t have any evidence from outside the biblical/biblically influenced tradition, so there’s no way to know for certain.
"We don’t have any evidence from outside the biblical/biblically influenced tradition [...] there’s no way to know for certain."
Are you speaking purely from an academic standpoint? How does that align with the idea of Scripture as an inspired, authoritative, and infallible text?
If we presume the Bible is entirely historical and inerrant in its representation of the historical facts, then that obviously decides the matter. But the Bible isn’t self-validating, so my statement above is the default in the absence of that presumption.