A Catholic Jew Pontificates

I love opinionated non-PC people. This blog is to vent my opinions on life, the universe and everything. Which is 42 which in gematria is "My Heart" (LBY) according to Rabbi Abulafia. The Divine Heart is the centre of everything.

Friday, June 22, 2018

Review of Six Pauline Studies Articles



Ian J. Elmer. “Pillars, Hypocrites and False Apostles. Paul’s Polemic against Jerusalem in Galatians”. In Polemik in der fr├╝hchrislichen Literatur. Tecte und Kontexte (2011), 123-154.



The article “Pillars, Hypocrites and False Apostles. Paul’s Polemic against Jerusalem in Galatians” by Ian Elmer proposes that the letter to the Galatians reveals the conflict in the early Church between Paul as the champion of a law-free Church and the Torah observant Jewish Christian community of Jerusalem. Elmer states that there are three hermeneutical keys or themes to understanding this perceived conflict between Pauline Christianity and Jewish Christianity to be found in Galatians. The first key or theme is Paul’s claim to a unique and divine apostleship, the second to Paul’s emphasis on the paternity of God and third theme that Paul’s gospel focuses on the efficacy of Christ’s death and perceives his opponents as following another gospel that’s focus is on Jewish law observance. Elmer links this conflict in Galatia with the events of conflict between the “Pillars” with Paul in Jerusalem and Antioch. Elmer’s approach and insights, which also make use of the higher critical school of theology, are a development of a traditional (especially Lutheran) understanding of the interchange between law and gospel or works of righteousness and faith. Elmer takes the insights of this so called older perspective on Paul to a more radical conclusion of an almost dialectical conflict or struggle between Peter, James and John and the Jewish Christians on one side and Paul and his new law-free Gentile faith on the other. [1]


Andrew Das, “‘Praise the Lord, All you Gentiles’: The Encoded Audience of Romans 15.7-13.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34, no.1 (2011): 90-110, accessed May 28, 2018, doi: 10.1177/0142064X11415327



“‘Praise the Lord, All you Gentiles’: The Encoded Audience of Romans 15.7-13”by Andrew Das proposes that the encoded audience of Romans 15: 7-13 are Gentiles. He writes from the position of accepting the scholarship that proposes that Romans was written to an all-Gentile audience rather than to an audience of Jews and Gentiles. Criticism has been made that Stanley Stowers and Richard Hays pass over this section of Romans with little supporting evidence. Das with his article seeks to remedy this perceived lack. Through this discussion he then perceives chapter 14’s references to the weak and the strong as referring to a purely Gentile paradigm rather than one in which the weak are equated with Jews and the strong with Gentile Christians. This article strengthens the position of those scholars who perceive Paul as a Torah observant Jew after his Damascus Road experience. It weakens the position of those who would hold that Paul had a negative attitude to Jewish specific Torah observance by Jewish believers in the Gospel. The obvious erudite use and knowledge of the original Biblical Greek text in demonstrating his position is also a strength of this article.[2]


Frank J. Matera. “Christ in the Theologies of Paul and John: A Study in the Diverse Unity of New Testament Theology.” Theological Studies 67, no. 2 (2006): 237-256, accessed May 28, 2018, doi: 10.1177/004056390606700201



The article “Christ in the Theologies of Paul and John: A Study in the Diverse Unity of New Testament Theology” by Frank J. Matera proposes to discuss the differences in Christology between the letters of Paul and the Gospel of John. Matera perceives that Paul’s approach to Christology is focused on the redemptive aspects of the death, resurrection and parousia of the Messiah whereas John’s approach is focused on an incarnational insight of the Word becoming flesh. For Matera Paul’s understanding of the Messiah as the eschatological Adam is central. Matera links Paul’s redemptive focused missionary style with his dramatic experience of the risen Christ. Whereas John’s foundational experience is in the life of the Messiah as one sent by the Father. The importance of this sending by the Father in John is stressed by Matera. Matera sees these different approaches as providing insights into the mystery of Christ that allows for a multifaceted understanding of Christ. Others have written about these differences in a redemptive focus and an incarnational focus in regard to the differences between Dominican and Franciscan theology and Eastern and Western theologies. Matera provides an important insight that these two approaches go right back to the days of the early Church and that reflection on these two diverse ways of doing Christology leads to an enriched unity.[3]


Paula Fredriksen, "Why Should a" Law-Free" Mission Mean a" Law-Free" Apostle?" Journal of Biblical Literature 134, no. 3 (2015): 637-650, accessed May 29, 2018. doi: 10.15699/jbl.1343.2015.2974



Paula Fredriksen in “Why Should a “Law-Free” Mission Mean a “Law-Free” Apostle?” uses the term law-free with caution. Fredriksen does not believe that Paul proposed a law-free position for pagan converts but in fact Paul and the other Jewish Christian leaders imposed more Jewish aspects than the Synagogue did for God-fearers. In the article Fredriksen discusses the attitude of the Synagogue to pagan participation in its life. Fredriksen perceives Paul and the early Church’s position as based on an eschatological motivation. She stresses that Paul’s so-called law –free approach to Gentiles says absolutely nothing at all about whether Paul himself is Torah observant or not. However Fredriksen does believe that the New Testament demonstrates that Paul was Jewishly Torah observant. This article gives an important insight into the status of pagans in the Temple and Synagogue of the first century. The discussion of just how law-free or Jewish-free that Paul’s proposal for Gentiles in the Church was, is also another fascinating aspect of this article. This article demonstrates that Paul the Apostle is not necessarily also Paul the Apostate.[4]

Michael Benjamin Cover, "Paulus als Yischmaelit?: The Personification of Scripture as Interpretive Authority in Paul and the School of Rabbi Ishmael." Journal of Biblical Literature 135, no. 3 (2016): 617-637, accessed May 29, 2018. doi: 10.15699/jbl.1353.2016.3094



Michael Benjamin Cover asks the question in "Paulus als Yischmaelit?: The Personification of Scripture as Interpretive Authority in Paul and the School of Rabbi Ishmael” about what school of the Pharisees did St Paul belong to before his embrace of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. Cover agrees with Joachim Jeremias that Paul was originally a Hillelite rather than a Shammaite as proposed by N.T Wright. Cover proposes that Paul’s approach to hermeneutics was similar to that of the Ishmaelite school within Hillelite Pharisaism as opposed to the Akiban school of interpretation. This approach is that of the personification of Scripture as a self interpreting authority. Cover discusses the importance of hearing Scripture in both Paul and Ishmael’s approaches as well as a lack of references to halakhic authorities outside Scripture itself.  Cover also mentions two collaborating features of Pauline and Ishmaelian thought in regard to universalism and mystical ascent. Cover however does caution that Paul is not always proto- Ishmaelian in his approach and he gives some examples of how Paul can be proto-Akiban. This article is very important as it helps one to get a clearer understanding of the Jewish and Pharisaic background of Paul before his “conversion” and how this background manifests in his letters after his transforming experience of the risen Messiah.[5]


Mark Nanos, “Paul’s relationship to Torah in the Light of His Strategy to become Everything to Everyone (1 Corinthians 9:1-9),” accessed May 30, 2018, http://www.marknanos.com/1Cor9-Leuven-9-4-09.pdf



The article “ Paul’s relationship to Torah in the Light of His Strategy to become Everything to Everyone (1 Corinthians 9:1-9)” by Mark Nanos examines the common interpretation of this section of Corinthians, by those who think Paul abandoned his belief in Torah and mitzvoth. They understand this to mean that Paul changes how he behaves when he is with different groups of people. Nanos points out the rather dishonest, deceptive and hypocritical nature of such behaviour. Nanos holds to the position that Paul is still a committed and observant Jew after his transformative experience of the risen Messiah. Nanos proposes that Paul is thus proposing a rhetorical adaptability rather than a lifestyle adaptability. Nanos considers this as a discursive strategy for winning others to the Messiah. He also perceives this as a more productive approach which relieves Paul of the accusations of being a liar and deceiver which will help in Jewish Christian relations. Nanos’s insights coming from a scholar who is a non-Christian Jew is a strength of this article and of his other articles. In fact he is becoming a voice for this position which some call “Paul within Judaism” which is a theological child or sibling of the so-called “New Perspective on Paul”.[6]







[1] Ian J. Elmer. “Pillars, Hypocrites and False Apostles. Paul’s Polemic against Jerusalem in Galatians”. In Polemik in der fr├╝hchrislichen Literatur. Tecte und Kontexte (2011), 123-154.
[2] Andrew Das, “‘Praise the Lord, All you Gentiles’: The Encoded Audience of Romans 15.7-13.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34, no.1 (2011): 90-110, accessed May 28, 2018, doi: 10.1177/0142064X11415327
[3] Frank J. Matera. “Christ in the Theologies of Paul and John: A Study in the Diverse Unity of New Testament Theology.” Theological Studies 67, no. 2 (2006): 237-256, accessed May 28, 2018, doi: 10.1177/004056390606700201
[4] Paula Fredriksen, "Why Should a" Law-Free" Mission Mean a" Law-Free" Apostle?" Journal of Biblical Literature 134, no. 3 (2015): 637-650, accessed May 29, 2018. doi: 10.15699/jbl.1343.2015.2974
[5] Michael Benjamin Cover, "Paulus als Yischmaelit?: The Personification of Scripture as Interpretive Authority in Paul and the School of Rabbi Ishmael." Journal of Biblical Literature 135, no. 3 (2016): 617-637, accessed May 29, 2018. doi: 10.15699/jbl.1353.2016.3094
[6] Mark Nanos, “Paul’s relationship to Torah in the Light of His Strategy to become Everything to Everyone (1 Corinthians 9:1-9),” accessed May 30, 2018, http://www.marknanos.com/1Cor9-Leuven-9-4-09.pdf

Sunday, June 10, 2018

Fairy Queens: Fair Jewish Queens of Scotand of H2 mt-dna

The Fair Jewish Queen (Malcah Bahira) was also called the Fairy Queen in Scotland

The Dynasty of the Scottish Jewish Queens known as the Fair or White Queens in English and in Hebrew Malcah Bahira and in Scottish Gaelic as Banrigh Fionn were the H2 mt-dna descendants of King Menachem of the Khazars. After a split by those who followed a more Davidic Rabbinic form of Judaism with those who followed the Tengri-Judaic form, Menachem and the followers of the Tengri-Judaic Khazar religion (Kabars) moved west to Europe in the region of Transylvania and established a new Khazar state known as Bihar. The name of Bihar was the name of one of the ancestral Khazar Khagans (king or melekh). 

Menachem or Menumarot married Princess Adiva of England the daughter of King Alfred the Great. Adiva embraced the Tengri-Judaism of the Bihar Khazars which had a great devotion to the Mother Goddess or Sabbath Queen whose presence was seen as embodied in the Khazar Sacral Queen-Empress known as the Khagan Bek or Khagana Rebeka.  Queen Adiva of Bihar was the mother of Princess Men or Mena of Bihar who married Zoltan the Duke of Hungary. Mena's daughter Mariota of Hungary and Bihar was the wife of Aaron (Aharon) II the King or Khagan of Khazaria (d.940). Aaron II's brother Prince Judah was the father of Yochabel haKhagan the ancestress of the Dark Jewish Queens of Flanders and Scotland of J1b1a1 mt-dna. Yochabel was the 1st Dark Jewish Queen of the Khazar Jews and a daughter of Sybille a Rhadanite Jewess with raven black hair and olive skin.

Aaron II's son King Joseph of Khazaria (of R1a y-dna) fled Khazaria in 968 for the British Isles.  They selected King Joseph's sister Princess Agatha Bahira to be the new sacral Queen or Khagana Rebeka. She was the first of the Bahira or Fair Khazar Jewish Queens.  These Princesses from Bihar were blonde and fair and there was a word play between Bihara (of the Clan of Bihar) and Bahira (fair). Agatha's husband was Rognvald the Prince of Polatsk in Russia and of Waterford in Ireland. Her husband was descended from the Scandinavian Royal House of Waterford in Ireland. His ancestor had moved to Russia and become the Prince of Polatsk. Agatha married him while her brother was still King of Khazaria. Her daughter Rogneda the 2nd Fair Queen of the Khazars married Vladimir I the Ruling Prince of the Rus of Kiev. Their daughter also Rogneda married her relative Ragnall II King of Waterford and she was the first of the Sacral Queens descended from Adiva to move to the Isles. 

King Joseph and his family had already moved to Scotland and the Northern Isles around 968-9. King Joseph's grandson Prince Shlomo or Solomon (b.990 in Moray Scotland) married Ragna of Waterford and Dublin, the daughter of Ragnall II and Rogneda, who became the 3rd Fair Queen. Their son Margad became the King of Dublin. Margad's sister Agatha (b.962 Moray Scotland d. 1054 London) married Prince Edward Atheling in Hungary. Agatha's parents returned to Russia where Agatha's sister Margada married her relative Bryachislav Prince of Polatsk around 1040. Agatha's father Prince Solomon of the Scottish Khazars went to Hungary to assist his relative Andrew the White in claiming the throne of Hungary. It is here in Hungary that Edward the Exile, the Atheling heir to the English throne, met Agatha and married her around 1046.  King Andrew named his son Solomon after the father of Agatha. Agatha was the mother of St Margaret of Scotland the wife of Malcolm III King of Scots.

However it was Agatha's sister Ragna the 4th Fair Queen (Banrigh Fionn or Banrion Fairy) who remained Jewish and was the Queen of Dublin and Man (her husband was King Echmarcach). Her daughter Bride (Bracha) was the 5th Fair Jewish Queen who married Prince Solomon of Dublin. Their daughter Gormflaith succeeded her mother as the 6th Fair Jewish Queen who married Olaf Magnusson a prince of Norway and Dublin. At this time the Fair Jewish Queen was also associated with the term Fairy Queen (Banrion Fairy) by the Irish. She reigned from her palace which was near the present Dublin Castle. 

Queen Gormflaith's daughter Bride was the 7th Fair Jewish Queen who married Gilli the Jewish King of the Hebrides. Their daughter Agatha was the 8th Fair Jewish Queen who married Malcolm MacEth (of M222 y-dna) a Scottish Prince who was the Earl of Ross and Moray. Agatha's daughter Bride the 9th Fair Queen married the Khazar Prince Angus of the Isles and from this time the Fair Jewish Queens reigned from either the Isles or Moray and other places in Scotland. Bride's daughter Bethoc was the 10th Fair Jewish Queen who married Prince Ruari of the Isles. Their daughter Ragnhild the 11th Jewish Queen married Prince James of the Isles. Their daughter Euphemia (Elfame) (b.1222) was the 12th Fair Jewish Queen (Fairy Queen) who married Dugall MacRuari King of Kintyre and the Hebrides. The principal Palace or Abode of these Fair Jewish Queens was at Cnoc Rhaonastil on Islay which was believed by many to have been the residence of the Fairy Queen. Another of her abodes was at Schiehallion on the Scottish mainland. The Fairy Queen and her court were known to travel from residence to residence over the course of the year.


Euphemia or Elfame's daughter Agnes was the 13th Fair Jewish Queen who married Prince Iain MacDonald of the Isles a son of Alexander I King or Lord of the Isles and his wife Juliana. Their daughter Juliana was the 14th Fair Jewish Queen followed by her daughter Amie Ruari (MacRory) [1317-1350] who married John (Iain) I MacDonald of Islay the 7th King or Lord of the Isles. Their daughter was Margaret MacDonald the 15th Fair Jewish Queen who married Lord Donald MacKay of Strathnaver a descendant of Rebecca the 13th Dark Jewish Queen of the Khazars. She was the 1st Dark Jewish Queen of Scotland. Margaret MacDonald's daughter Margaret or Mariota MacKay was the 16th Fair Jewish Queen (Banrigh Fionn) who married the Dark Jewish King Keheh II MacIsaac (Lord Hugh). The area of the Eildon Hills and Melrose had been an abode of the Fair Jewish Queens or Fairy Queens since at least the 12th century and the families of Maxwell and Scott (R1b DF27 ZZ12) were part of these crypto-Jewish or Fairy families. It is said that the fairies left Galloway and Nithsdale in 1790 which may refer to the Jewish branch of the Maxwell family. These Jewish Maxwells were protected to a certain extent by the Catholic branch of the Maxwell family who were the Earls of Nithdale until 1716.

Under Catholic rule in Scotland the Jewish communities, while low key and secretive, had a certain tolerance as many of the aristocratic families were part of this hidden Jewish network. However with the advent of Protestantism in Scotland many of these Jewish women were accused of witchcraft if they followed the ancient practices of the Tengri and matriarchal influenced Judaism of the Khazars. Many Scottish families of Jewish origin have strong spiritual gifts such as second sight or premonition which are associated with the fae or fairy and they also use traditional herbal healing remedies. These practices and beliefs were demonised by the clergy and others. The figures of the Khazar Jewish Dark King and Queen and the Fair or Fairy Queen were associated with witchcraft and satanism. John Knox and his Calvinism was anti-matriarchal and promoted a unhealthy overemphasis on patriarchy rather than a balance between the two. This produced a society in which masculine rigidity and strictness based on the letter of the law over dominated. 

The Fair Jewish Queens descended from H2 mt-dna. They originated with Princess Asenath the Beautiful (Isnetnofret) who was a daughter of King Zedekiah the last King of Judah and his Egyptian-born Queen Tzaddah. Tzaddah maternally descended from Hephzibah the Queen Mother of Judah who was also Egyptian and a descendant of Nefertiti.  Adiva's immediate maternal ancestresses were from the Royal House of Mercia in Britain descended from Queen Redburga the wife of King Egbert I of England. 

Redburga was a Scandinavian Princess descended from King Ivar the Wide Fathom's daughter Hilda. Hilda's mother was a Frankish Princess descended from a long line of Frankish Princesses and Ladies of Metz going back to Queen Bertrude of Franks the wife of King Clothaire II of Franks. Her mother was a Jewish Princess from Persia descended maternally from Jewish Persian and Armenian princesses descended from Vahan I the Wolf  of Armenia and his wife a British Jewish or Gewisse Princess. She was in turn descended maternally from Irish and Gododdin Princesses which brings this maternal lineage full circle back to Scotland. Further back this lineage descends from Zenobia the Jewish Queen of Palmyra (born 240 AD). Zenobia was a maternal descendant of Cleopatra VII and Mark Antony. The Khazar maternal House of Kedi was also H2. The Fair Queens and the House of Kedi branch off from two of the daughters of Huna III the Babylonian Exilarch of the 4th century. The House of Kedi and the Fair Queens are probably both H2a1 mt-dna. 

Mary Queen of Scots belongs to another branch of H2 mt-dna and she and the Fairy Queens both descend from two of the daughters of Lady Doda of Metz of the 7th century. The Fairy Queens from Lady Rotrud (Ruth) of Neustria (b.674) and Mary Queen of Scots from Lady Doda (Dhoude) of Neustria (b.672). Their father was Chrodobertus (Reuben) Count of Neustria (Hesbaye). Lady Doda of Neustria married Mar David a son of Mar Chasdai II the Babylonian Exilarch and Lady Rotrud of Neustria married Lievin (Levi/Luitvin) of Hesbaye the Bishop of Treves and Guardian of the Grail Platter.


see

A Jewish sub-Kingdom in Medieval Scotland: DF105 y-dna




Tuesday, May 29, 2018

St Paul of Tarsus: Proud Torah Jew or Former Jew turned antinomian Christian?



Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus transformed him so that he had an inner conversion to faith in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. This Jewish Messiah would be the light for all nations. Was this however an experience that led to his conversion to a new religion that abandoned Jewish observances or did it deepen and broaden his understandings as one who remained solidly within the framework of the Jewish religion and culture? Scholars debate on both sides of this and seem to strongly disagree with each other.[1] A part of Paul’s call was to provide a religious structure for non-Jews (Gentiles) in which they could share with the Jewish believers in Jesus without becoming fully and ethnically Jewish.[2] In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) he proclaimed his ideas of this freedom or dispensation from full Jewish Torah observance for Gentile believers and won the acceptance of the Jerusalem Church and its leaders (Galatians 2:2).[3] In this sense we can say that Paul did begin to establish a new religion for Gentiles. However it was not a new religion without any connection to Judaism.[4] Judaism was the roots and mother of this Gentile model of the Church. Some would describe this as a bilateral ecclesial Church of Jews and Gentiles.[5]

Many scholars will use Paul’s letters in the New Testament especially Galatians and Romans to work out what is Paul’s position in regards to his new Messianic faith and Judaism.[6] It is through the literary prism or icon of Acts 21 that one should read the epistles of Paul in order to evaluate Paul’s Damascus road experience (Acts 9:1-9; 22:1-21; 26:2-18) and his subsequent mission to the Jews and Gentiles. Paul under the guidance of the leaders of the Jerusalem Church set out to demonstrate that while he allows freedom from Torah observance for the new believers from among the Gentiles, he does not advocate such for believers from among the Jews.[7] This portion of Acts speaks approvingly of Jewish believers in Jesus maintaining the circumcision of their children and of them being zealous for the Torah observances (Acts 21:20-21). Paul elsewhere also affirms this when he speaks about the circumcised remaining circumcised (I Cor 7:18). In Romans he also writes that there is much value in being circumcised (Rom 3:1-2). Galatians 5:3 demonstrates that Paul believed that the one who is circumcised is called to full Torah observance.[8] Scholars such as Longnecker, Young, Lapide, Shulam and Nanos hold that Galatians 5:3 means that Jewish believers and anyone who converts to Judaism is obligated to full Jewish Torah observance.[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Thus Paul himself must have remained Jewishly Torah observant.

Campbell, Nanos, Eisenbaum and Tucker have supported the interpretation that Paul was a Torah observant Jew after his Damascus road experience.[14], [15], [16], [17] Nanos in his study of Romans states that Paul is a good practicing Jew although shaped by his conviction that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel.[18] Paul is also a Jewish mystic. Paul’s mysticism is rooted in the Pharisee’s desire to enhance Jewish domestic holiness by applying Temple sanctity into the life and home of the Jewish devotee.[19] Ephesians 2 is an example of this Pauline Jewish mystical context that alludes to mystical insights in regards to the Temple to explain the mystery of salvation. However due to the more mystical nature of Ephesians and Colossians some scholars have claimed that these letters were not written by Paul at all. However two important scholars Campbell and Wright both consider Ephesians to be written by Paul.[20], [21]

Paul in Romans 3 says that the Torah should be established or upheld (Rom 3:31). Ephesians states “He abolished the Jewish Law with its commandments and rules” (Eph 2:15, GNT). This however is better translated as “Making void the law of commandments contained in decrees” (Eph 2:15, DRA). These “commandments in decrees” (dogmasin in Greek) refer to the eighteen rabbinic decrees (gezerot in Hebrew) enacted by the Sanhedrin under the control of the Beit Shammai Pharisees.[22] These eighteen gezerot made a much stricter separation between Jews and Gentiles.[23] That these gezerot are the ‘commandments in decrees’ that has been nailed to the Cross and abolished makes much more sense than Paul saying that the Jewish Torah has been abolished.[24] [25]

 Paul using this Temple theology or analogy refers to these gezerot as a dividing wall (mesotoichon in Greek and Soreg and Cheil in Hebrew) (Eph 2:14).[26] The original Temple had a court for the Gentiles but later the Soreg was introduced as a more strict separation of Jews and Gentiles.[27] Paul using the language of dividing walls and outer and inner courts alludes to the mystical Temple of the Messiah’s Body in which the dividing walls are broken down and those in the outer courts (women and Gentiles) are brought near in the Eucharistic Sacrifice and Body of the Messiah.[28] Thus the eighteen gezerot are abolished. This is confirmed in Peter’s vision of the sheet (Acts 10:11) and later Judaism would also abolish them.[29] [30]

The more mystical understanding of salvation in Paul (Gal 3:28) may then be understood that there are no barriers to salvation between groups or people even though they still have their distinct callings. This allows for the joining of Jews and Gentiles in the one family of Abraham.[31]. Paul confirms in Romans that God’s election of the Jews is irrevocable (Rom 11:29). Thus Paul after his Damascus Road experience is truly a Jewish prophet who is called to include the Gentiles in Israel’s inheritance without converting them to Judaism. While his place for Gentiles in the people of God has roots in the teachings of Beit Hillel, Paul provides a unique way or path for Gentiles who believe in Jesus as the Messiah. He does this while himself remaining a proud observant Jew and Pharisee (Phil 3:5; Acts 22:3,23:6). In Romans 11 Paul alludes to some great spiritual resurrection for the Gentiles and the world in the eschatological future as a result of the ‘ingrafting’ of the surviving Jewish community  into the Olive Tree that is the Church.


[1] Ian J. Elmer, Paul, Jerusalem and the Judaisers: the Galatian crisis in its broadest historical context (Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 3-25.
[2] Harvey Falk, Jesus the Pharisee: A new look at the Jewishness of Jesus (Wipf and Stock Publishers: 2003): 19.
[3] The relationship of Paul with the Pillars of the Jerusalem Church is another area of scholarly debate. Depending on how the Greek of Galatians is translated can affect how one perceives this relationship.
[4] Falk, Jesus the Pharisee…, 19.
[5] Mark S. Kinzer, Searching Her Own Mystery: Nostra Aetate, the Jewish People, and the Identity of the Church, (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2015): 38, 218.
[6] Elmer, Paul, Jerusalem and the Judaisers…, 3-25.
[7] There were different levels of Torah observance among Jews. Some Jews like the Pharisees kept a more stringent form. There is nothing wrong with extra stringency when done from devotion either as individuals or as a group but should not be forced on other people or groups. Jesus often clashed with those who were trying to enforce extra stringencies on other Jews. The priests for example kept certain stringencies that were not meant to be forced on the lay Jews.
[8]Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law.” (Gal 5:3, NRSV).
[9] Richard Longenecker, Galatians, eds., Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker et al., Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990): 41:226.
[10] Brad Young, Paul the Jewish Theologian: A Pharisee among Christians, Jews and Gentiles (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 90.
[11] Pinchas Lapide and Peter Stulhmacher, Paul: Rabbi and Apostle, trans. Lawrence W. Denef (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1984), 42.
[12] Hilary Le Cornu and Joseph Shulam, A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Galatians (Jerusalem: Akademon, 2005): 327.
[13] Mark D. Nanos, The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First Century Context (Fortress Press: Minneapolis MN, 2002), 253.
[14]  William S. Campbell, Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 89-93.
[15] Mark D. Nanos, “The myth of the ‘Law-Free’ Paul standing between Christians and Jews,” Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations 4:1 (2009): 4. Accessed 30 April 2018. doi: 10.6017/scjr.v4i1.1511
[16] Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle (New York: HarperCollins, 2009), 252.
[17] Brian J. Tucker, ‘Remain in Your Calling:’ Paul and the Continuation of Social Identities in 1 Corinthians (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2011), 62-114.
[18] Mark D Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul's Letter (Minneapolis MN: Fortress Press, 1996): 9.
[19] Albert Hogeterp, Paul and God's temple: a historical interpretation of cultic imagery in the Corinthian correspondence (Dudley, MA: Peeters Publishers, 2006), 55-57.
[20] Douglas A. Campbell, Framing Paul: An Epistolary Biography (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2014), 337.
[21] Nicholas Thomas Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013), 60.
[22] Solomon Schechter and Julius H. Greenstone, Jewish Encyclopedia, “Gezerah,” 1906, accessed 28 April 2018, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6646-gezerah.
[23] Schechter and Greenstone, Jewish Encyclopedia, “Gezerah.”
[24]  Colossian 2:14 also refers to these dogmasin or gezerot which is translated as “handwriting in decrees”.
[25] Jesus saying in Matthew’s Gospel that the Torah was not abolished (Matt 5:17) seems to conflict with Ephesians saying the Law was abolished (Eph 2:15, NRSV) rather than just these rabbinic decrees being annulled when understood in its correct context.
[26] Clyde Weber Votaw, “The Temple at Jerusalem in Jesus' Day,” The Biblical World 23:3 (1904): 172-173. Accessed 1 May 2018, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/473359.
[27] The Cheil is the stone wall and this is surmounted with lattice work and together they are called the Soreg. A sign threatening the death penalty for any Gentile passing this wall was hung on the wall.
[28] Tim Hegg, “The ‘Dividing Wall’ in Ephesians 2: 14: What is it? Who made it? How was it broken down?” accessed 1 May 2018, http://www.protorah.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/12/The_Dividing_Wall_in_Ephesians_2_14.pdf.
[29] Schechter and Greenstone, Jewish Encyclopedia, “Gezerah.”
[30] This vision had nothing to do with the abolition of Kosher food laws but was referring to the 18 gezerot and their extensions of strict separation of Jews from Gentiles.
[31] Pamela Eisenbaum, “A remedy for having been born of woman: Jesus, Gentiles, and genealogy in Romans,” Journal of Biblical Literature 123:4 (2004): 671-702. Accessed 1 May 2018. doi: 10.2307/3268465