Paul Within Ioudaismos: The Shifting Focus of Paul’s Zeal in Galatians

Abstract

This study analyzes the term ioudaismos in Second Temple literature and proposes differentiation in how this term was used in Palestine and the Diaspora, with the latter being characterized by the following: (1) seize the land; (2) persecute barbarians; (3) retain the temple; (4) liberate Jerusalem; (5) reestablish Torah. In the Diaspora, ioudaismos was modified to refer to: (1) persecuting pagans; (2) concern for the Temple; and (3) observing ancestral customs devoutly. It then analyzes how Paul’s use of the term fits within these usages of other literature of the time and how the term was later used by early Christian authors of the second century in a different manner. Paul understood his role as a messianic emissary as fitting with ioudaismos by modifying the formula slightly to attract the nations to worship Israel’s god and by refocusing the ancestral customs of the Jews upon Jesus, who Paul believed to be the messiah.

1. Introduction

The content of Gal 1 is the origin of Paul’s announcement should be understood as an eschatological proclamation of the arrival of the Jewish messiah (Martyn 1997, 2010). This is the proclamation of Jesus’ messianic candidacy and the remedy to the spiritual death of the Gentiles through the reception of his life-breath, which has the capacity to revive dead Gentiles, through idolatry and sexual immorality, and bring them back to life in Christ, being considered righteous and part of God’s covenantal family (Gal 6:16; 1 Cor 3:9–17; 12:1–31; 2 Cor 5:17; Soon 2021, p. 46; c.f. Bazzana 2020, pp. 165, 176–77; Engberg-Pedersen 2010; c.f. Gorman 2016, p. 134). Paul discusses this announcement and mentions that it is not of human origin, meaning this was an innovation on Paul’s part within the Jesus movement. Paul might have been the first to consider a mission to the Gentiles, although some scholars see this as distinctive of the Jesus movement (Dunn 2009, p. 300).

All these observations lead to a reconsideration of Paul’s autobiographical statements regarding ioudaismos in Gal. 1:13–14. This research will consider Paul’s use of the term with its known parallels in 2 Macc and 4 Macc to note how Paul’s usage of the term is slightly different, yet comparable to the use of the term in those texts. The paper presents an extension of ioudaismos as Jewish activism (Novenson 2020, p. 241) to define the parameters of said activism in both Palestinian and Diasporic contexts.

Second Maccabees focuses on a defense of the Temple as its primary referent with ioudaismos, whereas 4 Macc ties the term with observance of dietary laws, and Paul highlights the defense of the traditions of the ancestors in his use of the term. This paper proposes to read ioudaismos as Jewish activism, which can have different foci in different times and places. Paul’s past conduct in ioudaismos led to a robust defense of the traditions of the ancestors, likely referring to Pharisaic law and practice, whereas his current life in ioudaismos leads to a robust defense of Christ-devotion as the proper means of identifying with Israel’s messiah.

This reading of ioudaismos both agrees with previous scholarship and departs from it in certain points. First, ioudaismos is understood as a certain way of living as a Jew (Nanos 2015, p. 174), which Nanos understands as Paul leaving upon accepting Jesus’ messianic candidacy. Others suggest a strong nationalistic flavor to ioudaismos, which resulted in violent defense of the Torah and persecution of others (Gorman 2016, p. 65). This is certainly possible to connect with Paul’s statements in Gal 1, especially his comments vis-a-vis the persecution of the assembly of God. Thiessen (2016, p. 40) reads ioudaismos as encouraging Gentile judaizing, which does not seem to be implied in Paul’s comments or in the parallel textual witnesses (c.f. Collins 2017, p. 18). It could have been meant as referring to the broad Jewish way of life as based on the Torah in contrast to broad Hellenistic lifestyles and customs (Sim 2013, p. 12). Gil contrasts ioudaismos, as the way in which some Jews defended their ancestral customs from foreign attack, particularly circumcision and the purity laws, with judaizing, which was an action performed by Gentiles to project allegiance to the Jewish people and deity (Gil Arbiol 2021). In this reading, Paul’s former life in ioudaismos meant preserving it from compromise and was directed only at Jews and compelled them to keep these customs. Paul’s new focus after receiving the revelation was to proclaim the message of Israel’s deity among the nations, in the mold of the Hebrew prophets. Novenson (2020) rightly points out the context of Paul’s comments here about the authority of his message. He summarizes, “What is more, Greek Ioudaismos does not mean, as ‘Judaism’ does in English, the religion of Jewish people. Paul calls the religion of Jewish people ‘the ancestral traditions’ (Gal 1:14), which is what most ancient people called their respective religions, since they lacked specific names for those religions. Ioudaismos, by contrast, is what Paul calls his own exceptional activist program for the defense and promotion of those traditions (which is also what ioudaismos means in its few other instances in 2 Macc 2:21; 8:1; 14:38; 4 Macc 4:26) (pp. 241–42).” This paper will present an analysis of the ioudaismos emphases in 2 Macc and 4 Macc, which are five elements of ioudaismos activist program in Palestine: (1) seize the land; (2) persecute barbarians; (3) retain the temple; (4) liberate Jerusalem; (5) reestablish Torah. The Palestinian iteration of this program included nationalistic elements and perhaps violent undertones, especially with (1) and (3), although that is not a foregone conclusion, as 2 Macc indicates that companions were chosen who supported ioudaismos, but it is not clear if participating in ioudaismos implies that the one who is supported is violent themselves or merely supportive of violent resistance. This program was modified in the diaspora to emphasize (5) over other elements. Ioudaismos was an uncommon term, only occurring in the texts analyzed in this paper, perhaps suggesting it was an orientation not shared by many Jews but only a small subset, as the majority referred to their devotion to national customs through the term, εὐσέβεια (Spec Laws 4.147; c.f. Boyarin 2017, p. 213). The widespread consideration of εὐσέβεια indicates faithfulness to the covenant through observance and should be considered distinct from the activist program of ioudaismos (Hillel, forthcoming).

This paper takes issue with the following assertion, “When Paul met the risen Christ, he abandoned that activist program, ioudaismos, but he did not abandon his ancestral traditions, which are what we call Judaism (Novenson 2020, p. 242; c.f. Novenson 2014),” as it implies that Christ-devotion necessarily led to abandonment of ioudaismos. Instead, it will be proposed that the object of ioudaismos shifted with Paul’s adoption of Christ-devotion. That is, it proposes that the Jewish activism envisioned by the word ioudaismos should be understood as a noun with a focus or foci upon which the activism is based. In Paul’s case, the original focus of his ioudaismos was the ancestral traditions, perhaps referring to Pharisaic tradition (Ant. 13.288–298). That is, Paul’s ioudaismos consisted primarily of identifying with the Jewish messiah as the means of promoting Jewish custom.

2. The Context of Ioudaismos in Galatians

Galatians 1 is one of the few precious autobiographical statements made by Paul from which a partial reconstruction of his life before the revelation can be made. These autobiographical statements are uncharacteristic of Paul (Winger 2018, p. 107). I will rely on Murphy-O’Connell’s chronology in his book, Paul: A Critical Life. He proposes that Paul received the vision of Jesus approximately 33–35 CE, with the Jerusalem meeting occurring in 51 CE, after which Galatians could be written. This would make Paul’s experience of revelation occur quite early in the Jesus movement. Paul is based in Damascus, which indicates that the Jesus movement began and spread to Antioch in a few years between Jesus’ death and Paul’s joining of the movement. Among Jews, it probably resembled other messianic movements of the time (Allen 2023). Paul continued the teaching of Jesus in a new context (Dunn 1977).

Paul was most likely a Diaspora Greek-speaking Jew, although some suggest a Palestinian upbringing (Taylor 1998)... To be discussed later is the meaning of zealot in this portion of Galatians, which could have political connotations (Taubes and Assmann 2004). The term is also used by one of Jesus’s disciples, Simon the Zealot (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13; cf. 2 Macc 4:2). Gager posits that Paul might have been zealous in his application of Pharisaic customs and perhaps in requiring gentile circumcision (Gager 2016, p. 408; cf. Fredriksen 2022). Thiessen concurs and notes that Paul formerly promoted circumcision among the gentiles, reading Gal 1:13 in conjunction with Gal 5:11 (Thiessen 2023, p. 55). Scholarship debates Paul’s relationship to Jewish law and identity after his embrace of Christ-devotion, but his identity as a Jew is firmly established in his identification of the messiah through the Torah and Prophets (Bühner 2020; Frey 2013).

Paul’s story begins in the synagogue of Damascus, where the members rejected his announcement (Gal. 1:12–16). Paul recounts how he earlier persecuted Christ-believers, which would have occurred within the context of the synagogue in Damascus, applying the disciplinary measures of the beit din (Hultgren 1976). Paul’s affiliation with the Jesus movement in the 30s CE was likely unimportant in his own time but set the trajectory for the growth of the Jesus movement after his death.

3. Paul’s Message to the Gentiles

Paul’s announcement, or gospel, was seemingly unique to him within the early Christ-believing assemblies. What were the contents of this message?

Paul proclaimed that Jesus was the Jewish messiah, who had been raised from the dead (Rom 1:5–6; cf. Ps 18:49, LXX 17:50; cf. Jipp 2020; Kim 2022; Novenson 2012, 2017), which defeated the cosmic powers of sin and death (Rom 5:14, 17, 21). This inaugurated the kingdom of God, under the values of justice, peace, and joy (Rom 14:17; 1 Cor 4:20). To receive these divine gifts implied a change in behavior and living according to the ethics of the Mosaic law (1 Cor 6:9–10; Gal 5:21; 1 Thess 2:12; Thiessen 2023, p. 75; c.f. Morgan 2015).

Many Gentiles opposed Jews (Schäfer 1998, p. 175), but others saw it as a means of pursuing virtuous living and appreciated its distinct practices as a way of controlling passions and desires and overcoming the weakness of the flesh (4 Macc 2:8–9; 1:31–35; Aris. 169; cf. Aune and Helleman 1994; Cohen 1999).

Paul’s gospel should always be remembered as primarily a Judaizing gospel, in the sense that it is an obligation of exclusive worship of Israel’s god and adherence to Torah ethics (Fredriksen 2017, p. 112). Paul’s gospel did have ritual components: (1) the prohibition of Gentile circumcision and (2) the requirement of Gentile immersion in water (Lavender, forthcoming). Paul condemns Gentile circumcision as a form of bodily mutilation (Phil 3:2; Collman 2023; cf. Neutel 2016). Thiessen’s (2011, pp. 67–86, and in later works) argument surrounding Paul’s opposition to Gentile circumcision based on the inability of Gentiles to fulfill the law of circumcision on the eighth day (Gen 21:4) is the most compelling explanation as to why Paul opposed Gentile circumcision—although Thiessen’s connection of this opposition to essentialist or primordiality understandings of ethnicity is not as compelling (Lavender 2025).

However, the ritual problem at the core of the “Gentile problem” involves answering the question, what ritual means make Gentiles members of the Abrahamic family (Thiessen 2023, p. 101). For Paul, only the divine spirit, or pneuma, can make Gentiles into Abraham’s sons (Eisenbaum 2009, pp. 62–63), not circumcision or ethical monotheism (Novak 2011). This pneuma is available through the Messiah, and is received through faithfulness (Gal 3:1–7, 14; Tappenden 2016). Pneuma can make this genetic change because it is a perfect form of matter (Engberg-Pedersen 2010). Those with God’s pneuma are his sons and are to be revealed as such to the whole cosmos (Rom 8:14, 19; cf. Hodge 2007) and lead to the creation of a new genetic familial relation among believers, as the followers of Jesus become one pneumatic body through the Messiah (Boccaccini 2020; Gager 2002; Gaston 2006).

The prohibition of circumcision leads to the second ritual component of Paul’s gospel, which is the reception of pneuma through water immersion, which identifies the believer with the death and resurrection of the messiah and crucifies their old nature and infuses the body with pneuma by “putting on Christ” (Rom 6:3–11; 1 Cor 1:9–10; Gal 3:26–27). Immersion frees the believer from previous sinful behavior (1 Cor 1:9–10).

4. The Use of Ioudaismos in Maccabean Literature

The simple assertion that ioudaismos is not Judaism in the modern sense (Ehrensperger 2024, p. 88) is the starting point of any discussion of the appearance of this term in ancient texts (Boyarin 2017, p. 220). This occurrence of ioudaismos in 2 Macc is the first recorded use of the term in textual history, and it is possible that the author invented the term (Burns 2018, p. 110).

Second Maccabees might have a Pharisaic origin, given its hope for resurrection, only otherwise associated with Pharisees in contemporary literature (Ábel 2024, p. 60), and this might explain Paul’s familiarity with the term from that literature. The origin of both 2 Macc and 4 Macc is unknown, with debate over Diasporic or Palestinian origins. What perhaps matters more is the imagined context of 2 Macc, which presents itself as describing the actions of Palestinian Jews. Second Maccabees contains somewhat contradictory attitudes towards Gentiles within the text, both being the enemies of Jews with unacceptable behavior and being blasphemous (6:1–11; 10:4) but also being attracted to Jewish customs and joining the Jewish people (3:35–40; 4:37; 9:13–18; 14:24) (Ábel 2024, p. 60), mirroring Paul to a certain degree. Whereas in 2 Macc the contrast was between Jewish customs and practices versus Hellenistic customs and maintaining fidelity to the former, in Paul, the contrast is between fidelity to Jesus, who Paul believes is Israel’s messiah, and being against him (Ábel 2024, p. 64). Paul learned this zealous behavior as a (former?) Pharisee (Lavender 2023a).

The framing in v. 21 around a group “few in number” indicates this is not a general term for Jewish religious practice but the activities of a dedicated subgroup. Mason (2007, p. 466) notes how ioudaismos contrasts with the hellenismos movement towards Greek culture, which was introduced by Jason through promoting foreign ways in Greek education, sports, and dress (2 Macc 4:10–12). It is common to present the authorial intentions of 2 Macc to be a cultural contrast between hellenismos and ioudaismos (Boin 2014, pp. 176–77). The forced nature of compelling adoption of hellenismos is a theme in 2 Macc that led to the Maccabean revolt and the defense of correct Temple ritual per some Jewish interpretations and the ancestral traditions (p. 179). Hellenismos should be understood as a means of adopting the Greek language and culture without reference to common ancestry or connection to Greece (Miller 2014, p. 244; c.f. 1 Macc 1:11–15). However, ancestry and geographic connection were generally upheld by Greeks, even if accepting “converts” (as Miller 2014 terms it) while emphasizing common ancestry among themselves. On the other hand, conversion to ioudaismos, adopting Jewish traditions, was sometimes justified through common lineage in the case of the Idumeans (Ant. 13.258), but this genealogical connection was not absolutely necessary (Ant 20.38–39; Jud 14:10; c.f. Miller 2014, p. 246).

Burns (2018) criticizes the dichotomy sometimes envisioned by scholars between ioudaismos and hellenismos as simplistic and indicates that the author of 2 Maccabees’ “Judaism” was not a coherent ideology, noting that only Jews partake in ioudaismos in 2 Macc and there is nothing particularly surprising about Jews acting as Jews. Burns suggests that 2 Macc found hellenismos objectionable because it detracted from ioudaismos (p. 110). Ioudaismos, then, is defined by Burns as “an ideal for living a certain lifestyle… [and] not strictly a matter of conforming to ancient laws or bloodlines” (p. 110). For 2 Macc, ioudaismos involved a balancing of traditional Jewish customs with the values of hellenismos (p. 112). Ioudaismos should be identified with the common Jewish customs of the time, including both ethnic and religious components and other means of cultural identification, and Jews whose attraction to hellenismos diminished their practice of Jewish customs no longer practiced ioudaismos (p. 115).

The connection to violence is connected to the clause, τοῖς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ᾿Ιουδαϊσμοῦ φιλοτίμως ἀνδραγαθήσασιν, although the structure of the phrase does not necessarily imply that ioudaismos is by definition a violent activity. The text describes several actions in connection with ioudaismos. First is the action of seizing the whole land (ὥστε τὴν ὅλην χώραν ὀλίγους ὄντας λεηλατεῖν) and pursuing the barbarians (καὶ τὰ βάρβαρα πλήθη διώκειν). The implication of diokein is not tied to violence but to chasing away, harassing, and persecuting. This is the same word that Paul uses to describe his relationship to the Christ-believing communities before his joining the movement. V. 22 presents three separate actions, regaining the temple, liberating the city, and reestablishing the laws (καὶ τὸ περιβόητον καθ᾿ ὅλην τὴν οἰκουμένην ἱερὸν ἀνακομίσασθαι καὶ τὴν πόλιν ἐλευθερῶσαι καὶ τοὺς μέλλοντας καταλύεσθαι νόμους ἐπανορθῶσαι). If the violent elements below are to be included as part of ioudaismos, then they are only part of the meaning of ioudaismos. Based on this passage, the elements of ioudaismos could be presented as such: (1) seize the land; (2) persecute barbarians; (3) retain the temple; (4) liberate Jerusalem; (5) reestablish Torah.

Second Macc 2:19–24

The story of Judas Maccabeus and his brothers, and the purification of the greatest temple, and the dedication of the altar, and further the wars against Antiochus Epiphanes and his son Eupator, and the appearances that came from heaven to those who fought bravely for Judaism, so that though few in number they seized the whole land and pursued the barbarian hordes and regained possession of the temple famous throughout the world and liberated the city and reestablished the laws that were about to be abolished, while the Lord with great kindness became gracious to them—all this, which has been set forth by Jason of Cyrene in five volumes, we shall attempt to condense into a single book.

Mason (2021, p. 17) observes that the author of 2 Macc is fond of -ismos action nouns, perhaps explaining the appearance of this unusual term in his work.

He writes, “His apparent innovations include “arming with a breastplate” (θωρακισμός) and “eating entrails” (σπλαγχνισμός; 6.7, 21; 7.42), which more or less vanish from later literature. 28 He also introduces three cultural -ισμός words: ἀλλοφυλισμός, “foreignizing” (4.13; 6.24), ἑλληνισμός, “hellenizing” (4.13), and ἰουδαϊσμός, “judaizing” (2.21; 8.1; 14.38 [twice]). Since his programmatic statement at 4.13 speaks of a “peak of ἑλληνισμός” and an “advance in ἀλλοφυλισμός.” These two terms must refer to the actions of hellenizing and foreignizing, as one would expect from the form. No extant later author finds a use for “foreignizing” in a life-and-death cultural struggle. Given this context, it is easiest also to understand the neologism ἰουδαϊσμός in the same way, as the proper counter movement of Judaeans to the rampant foreignizing or hellenizing of their ancestral customs. These need, ironically, to be judaized in order to be restored to their proper place. Thus we read that ἰουδαϊσμός was what armed Judaean groups were doing, at the risk to their lives (8.1; 14.38), for which they could well be punished—not for being Judaeans, something they could not change, but for persisting in certain actions.”

The actions of judaizing and the noun ioudaismos are overlapping terms, to a certain extent, in that they both involve some action vis-à-vis the Jews’ ancestral customs. Following Gil Arbiol’s (2021) analysis, judaizing is an action that describes when a non-Jew adopts Jewish customs as his or her own, and ioudaismos refers to the promotion of observing ancestral customs among the Jews. Gil Arbiol’s analysis of Judaizing as a Gentile action and ioudaismos as a Jewish action is accepted, whereas the finer points of the analysis of ioudaismos are contested in this paper.

Mason (2007) also summarizes the occurrences of ioudaismos in Greek inscriptions, which also include a variety of ways of mentioning both born Jews and converts and the occasional reference to ioudaismos. There is ample evidence of related terms ioudaios and proselutos, as well as synonyms occurring in the inscriptional evidence (p. 478). One third-century CE inscription (CIJ 1.694) uses ioudaismos in conjunction with keeping a vow by Claudius Tiberius Polycharmus in maintaining a building for use by the community (c.f. Ábel 2024, p. 54). Mason (2007, pp. 511–12) summarizes that ioudaismos or Judaization was a specialized term only used to describe “movement toward or away from Judean law and life, in contrast to some other cultural pull.” Before the rise of the early Church Fathers in the second century CE and onward, ioudaismos was a rare term. Its use by Ignatius will be discussed later. However, Paul’s use of the term should become further enlightened by this use in 2 Macc and with secondary commentary on the term from scholarship, which suggests that a secondary, alternative cultural pull would be expected in use of the term ioudaismos.

It is important to note that hellenismos is not mentioned in conjunction with ioudaismos, that is, both terms are not found in the same passages of 2 Macc. While certain aspects of hellenization were opposed, especially if forced upon the people and that led to breaking the Torah, the text seems to indicate that it was the speed at which hellenization was happening that was problematic, especially given that it was leading to priests not properly serving in the temple (ἦν δ᾿ οὕτως ἀκμή τις ῾Ελληνισμοῦ καὶ πρόσβασις ἀλλοφυλισμοῦ διὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀσεβοῦς… ὥστε μηκέτι περὶ τὰς τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου λειτουργίας προθύμους εἶναι τοὺς ἱερεῖς).

The Hasmonean forces consisted of those who fought for the law (1 Macc 2:42; 14:29, 35) against the sinners among Israel who sided with Greek tradition (1 Macc 2:44). The Hasmoneans fought for their country and customs, according to the author of 2 Macc (8:21; 13:14; c.f. 1 Macc 3:21) and, importantly, the Temple (1 Macc 3:43, 59; 14:29; 2 Macc 13:14; 15:17). The author of 2 Macc understands, at least to some extent, aspects of Hellenism as incompatible with Jewish customs, perhaps Jewish monotheism contrasted too sharply with Hellenistic polytheism for the author, but the political implications of the revolt should not be understated. The Maccabean literature paints a picture of the minority adopting Hellenism (1 Macc 1:62–63) (Baran 2014, pp. 72–74).

This presentation of the negative aspects of hellenismos includes breaking some of the components of ioudaismos, including violating the temple service and the Torah’s laws.

Second Macc 4:11–17

He set aside the existing royal concessions to the Jews, secured through John, the father of Eupolemus, who went on the mission to establish friendship and alliance with the Romans, and he destroyed the lawful ways of living and introduced new customs contrary to the law. He took delight in establishing a gymnasium right under the citadel, and he induced the noblest of the young men to wear the Greek hat. There was such an extreme of Hellenization and increase in the adoption of foreign ways because of the surpassing wickedness of Jason, who was ungodly and no true high priest, that the priests were no longer intent upon their service at the altar. Despising the sanctuary and neglecting the sacrifices, they hurried to take part in the unlawful proceedings in the wrestling arena after the signal for the discus throwing, disdaining the honors prized by their ancestors and putting the highest value upon Greek forms of prestige. For this reason heavy disaster overtook them, and those whose ways of living they admired and wished to imitate completely became their enemies and punished them. It is no light thing to show irreverence to the divine laws, a fact that later events will make clear.

In 2 Macc. 8:1, Judah Maccabee gathers those who face persecution but still remain faithful to ioudaismos. Here is the full context in 8:1–4. The author reconnects the term with restoring the temple, perhaps suggesting that this was the most important of the tasks of ioudaismos, as mentioned in 2 Macc 2. Ioudaismos was connected to martyrdom, as this passage is immediately preceded by a scene of martyrdom in 7:2 “For we are ready to die rather than transgress the laws of our ancestors.” The question remains as to if ioudaismos is meant to refer to simply observing the laws or the willingness to give up one’s life in order to do so. This passage highlights the following components of ioudaismos: (1) seize the land; (2) persecute barbarians; (3) retain the temple; (4) liberate Jerusalem; (5) reestablish Torah. The people are enlisted to fight against the foreign king, chasing them away in a sense, to attempt to free the temple and Jerusalem, as well as restore law observance.

2 Macc 8:1–4

Meanwhile, Judas, who was also called Maccabeus, and his companions secretly entered the villages and summoned their kindred and enlisted those who had continued in the Jewish faith [ioudaismos], and so they gathered about six thousand. They implored the Lord to look upon the people who were oppressed by all and to have pity on the temple that had been profaned by the godless, to have mercy on the city that was being destroyed and about to be leveled to the ground, to hearken to the blood that cried out to him, to remember also the lawless destruction of the innocent babies and the blasphemies committed against his name, and to show his hatred of evil.

The passage is followed by an episode (9:17) in which Antiochus promises to restore Jerusalem and the Temple on his deathbed and even to become a Jew, shortly after the use of this term ioudaismos (Wills 2016, p. 188). Cohen (1999, pp. 93, 105–6) understands ioudaismos as the practices that distinguished Jews from other peoples and notes a shift in the meaning of the word “Jew” in the Hasmonean period from a purely ethnic term into something with broader “religious” meaning. Wills (2016) critiques Mason’s views, mentioned above, in criticizing his conceptualization of religion as a static set of doctrines, without noting the habits and rituals associated with religious belief (p. 18). Wills (2016) agrees with Cohen about a shift in meaning for the term ioudaios in the second century BCE in which the religious components of “Judaism” began to develop, such as the possibility of converting to the religious practice of the Jews (p. 190).

A third use of the term is found where a man, known as Razis “father of the Jews” risked his life for ioudaismos (14:38). The idea of martyrdom is crucial in the Maccabean literature and consists of several ideas associated with later Christianity, such as being saved by martyrdom (Boyarin 1999, p. 95). Baran rightly emphasizes the importance of martyrdom in 2 Macc and the connection between Eleazar’s martyrdom and his refusal to eat pork (2 Macc 6:18–31; Baran 2014, p. 75). Here, Razis’ action of committing suicide over being captured and humiliated is lauded by the author of 2 Macc.

5. Macc 14:37–46

A certain Razis, one of the elders of Jerusalem, was denounced to Nicanor as a man who loved his compatriots and was very well thought of, and for his goodwill was called father of the Jews. For before the days of separation, he had been accused of Judaism, and he had most zealously risked body and life for Judaism [ioudaismos]. Nicanor, wishing to exhibit the enmity that he had for the Jews, sent more than five hundred soldiers to arrest him, for he thought that by arresting him he would do them an injury. When the troops were about to capture the tower and were forcing the door of the courtyard, they ordered that fire be brought and the doors were burned. Being surrounded, Razis fell upon his own sword, preferring to die nobly rather than to fall into the hands of sinners and suffer outrages unworthy of his noble birth. But in the heat of the struggle, he did not hit exactly, and the crowd was now rushing in through the doors. He courageously ran up on the wall and bravely threw himself down into the crowd. But as they quickly drew back, a space opened and he fell in the middle of the empty space. Still alive and aflame with anger, he rose, and though his blood gushed forth and his wounds were severe, he ran through the crowd, and standing upon a steep rock, with his blood now completely drained from him, he tore out his entrails, took them in both hands, and hurled them at the crowd, calling upon the Lord of life and spirit to give them back to him again. This was the manner of his death.

4 Macc imitates 2 Macc and defends Jewish ways and customs as more reasonable as a means of controlling the passions to an audience comfortable in Hellenistic culture but who wishes to maintain their ancestral customs (Ábel 2024, pp. 64, 66). Mason (2021, p. 18) highlights how 4 Macc, possibly contemporary with Paul, is the only other text that borrows ioudaismos from 2 Macc, using it in a similar manner to valorize the behavior of Jewish ancestors in Hasmonean times. 4 Macc originates in a Diasporic context, perhaps Antioch or Asia Minor (van Henten 2023, p. 160). The Romans allowed Jews to live according to ancestral customs from the Mosaic law and allowed them to observe these unique practices in peaceful times.

The emphasis of ioudaismos is on a devout life and observance of the law, a theme in the book overall, considering the emphasis placed on Onias III. This theme is even more pronounced in 4 Maccabees, where the story of the martyrs refused to eat unclean animals, among other examples of devotion to God and Torah (Ábel 2024, p. 59). Eleazar’s martyrdom in 4 Macc 6 is the first of a series of martyrdom scenes in 4 Macc that highlight the embodied experience of martyrdom, which Castelli (2024) views as an empowered heroic resistance to the passions and emotions that the author seeks to provide a rational means of controlling.

How do the specific elements of ioudaismos fit in a diasporic context? The elements of ioudaismos include: (1) seize the land; (2) persecute barbarians; (3) retain the temple; (4) liberate Jerusalem; (5) re-establish the Torah. Given the diasporic context, (1) and (4) are diminished in relevance in 4 Macc, although hinted at in the passage, while shifting the focus to (5) and, to a lesser extent, (3). This might suggest a revised program of ioudaismos in the diaspora as: (1) persecute barbarians; (2) concern for the temple; (3) observe Torah. It is specifically the compelling of the Jews to eat “defiling foods” that leads to their renouncing of ioudaismos. The phrase (μιαρῶν ἀπογευομένους τροφῶν ἐξόμνυσθαι τὸν ιουδαϊσμόν) is translated in the NRSVue as “he himself tried through torture to compel everyone in the nation to renounce Judaism by eating defiling foods” (bolder words corresponding to the Greek). The translation is missing some nuance in the Greek, most notably in ἀπογεύω, which has the connotation of to taste, which shows the dedication of those in ioudaismos to not eating impure foods. The LSJ indicates this might have a connection to blood, suggesting perhaps that the author is referring to tasting blood or foods with blood in them as what led to turning from ioudaismos. This suggests a level of a kind of fanaticism in the author’s mind as to the extent to which Jews should be willing to sacrifice their lives for the proper observance of the Torah.

6. Macc 4:14–26

When King Seleucus died, his son Antiochus Epiphanes succeeded to the throne, an arrogant and terrible man who removed Onias from the priesthood and appointed Onias’s brother Jason as high priest. Jason agreed that if the office were conferred on him, he would pay the king three thousand six hundred sixty talents annually. So the king appointed him high priest and ruler of the nation. Jason changed the nation’s customs and altered its form of government in complete violation of the law, so that he not only constructed a gymnasium at the very citadel of our native land but also abolished the temple service. The divine justice was angered by these acts and caused Antiochus himself to make war on them. For when he was warring against Ptolemy in Egypt, he heard that a rumor of his death had spread and that the people of Jerusalem had rejoiced greatly. He speedily marched against them, and after he had ravaged them, he issued a decree that if any of them were found observing the ancestral law, they should die. When, by means of his decrees, he had not been able in any way to put an end to the people’s observance of the law but saw that all his threats and punishments were being disregarded, even to the extent that women, because they had circumcised their sons, were thrown headlong from heights along with their infants, though they had known beforehand that they would suffer this, when, I say, his decrees were despised by the people, he himself tried through torture to compel everyone in the nation to renounce Judaism by eating defiling foods.

The collection of martyrdom stories in 4 Macc serves a philosophical purpose to demonstrate Jews’ commitment to the Torah and the ability of the Jewish nation to provide victory over the passions (Boyarin 2017, p. 220). 4 Macc is one of the oldest texts devoted to martyrdom and is anonymous, with strong philosophical themes. 4 Macc offers a contribution to the then-current philosophical debate about how to control human passions, which 4 Macc answers in a form of Jewish philosophy by controlling the passions through reason and the virtues of prudence, courage, self-control, and justice (4 Macc 1:18) and proper religious piety (eusebeia). 4 Macc 5:24 defines eusebeia as worshipping the one true God in reverence. The martyrs show eusebeia through rejecting pork and not abandoning their customs (4 Macc 8:1–9:9; 5:31; 7:16; 9:6; 15:17; c.f. van Henten 2023, pp. 162–63).

7. Ioudaismos in Galatians

Paul’s letter to the Galatians is addressed to those who formerly “did not know God” (Gal 4:8), which should be read as former pagans. Paul’s followers are ex-pagan (1 Cor 12:2; c.f. Fredriksen 2017, p. 117), now following the God of Israel through the messianic candidacy of Jesus. The infusion of pneuma into Gentile bodies allows them to enter into covenantal relation with Israel’s God and call him abba (Gal 4:3—7; c.f. Lavender 2025), after abandoning a pagan, religious identity (Arnold 1996).

The immediate context of the term is Paul’s defense of his announcement as coming from divine origins (Novenson 2020). In the section preceding this term, Paul exhorts his followers not to follow any other ambassador or another announcement. After 2 Macc, Paul and 4 Macc are roughly contemporary authors who use the term ioudaismos and the term appears again in the second century in Ignatius’ writings. Its appearance in Paul’s writings is meant to emphasize his validity as an ambassador by showing his dedication to this Jewish way of life, which he did not abandon upon joining the messianic community (Boin 2014, p. 181; c.f. Lavender 2023b). His previous dedication to ioudaismos, Jewish activism, here understood as the promotion of the ancestral traditions of the Jews against pagan attack, shows his devotion to the Torah. It is from this space of devotion to the Torah that Paul experienced the revelation and his identification within the prophetic tradition (Jer 1:5; c.f. Ps 139:13–18) to validate his identity as an ambassador. Mason (2021) reads both the term ioudaismos and Paul himself as indicating conflict (p. 11). He notes how the text in 2 Macc suggests this reading, even if these terms might not have been naturally used to indicate conflict as such. He notes how it is Paul who revived this term, which might have died out if Paul had not chosen to use it in his letter to the Galatians. Mason reads Paul as essentially saying that he had been devoted to Jewish law and custom more so than his coreligionists before his calling by Christ in order to persuade the Galatians not to Judaize (pp. 18, 32).

Fairchild (1999) reads Paul as a Palestinian, relying on traditions from Jerome that Paul’s native city was Gischala and a reading of Paul’s self-description as a Hebrew of Hebrews (Phil 3.5) as referring to him being a native Judean, from Palestine, and protecting that culture against the broader Greek-speaking diasporic communities (p. 516). The issue of Paul’s linguistic proficiency is simultaneously uncontroversial and questionable. Paul was undoubtedly fully proficient in Greek, the lingua franca of the eastern Roman Empire (Concannon 2014, p. 39). Most Diaspora Jews spoke Greek, although some Aramaic speakers might have migrated to various Diaspora communities, bringing their language with them (Zetterholm 2003, p. 62). Paul’s description of himself as hebraios (Phil 3.5) likely referred to proficiency in Aramaic or Hebrew (Porter 2016, p. 67). Hebraios usually referred to Aramaic in contemporary literature (Porter 2016, p. 10). Evidence in Philo confirms this reading (Plant. 169, Sobr. 45; Conf. 68, 129, 130; Migr. 13; Congr. 37, 40, 42; Mut. 71; Somm. 1.58; 2.250; Abr. 17, 27, 28, 57; Ios. 28; Decal. 159; Spec. 2.41, 86, 145; Virt. 34), especially in comparison with the use of hebraios in Maccabean literature (2 Macc 7:31; 11:13; 15:37 and 4 Maccabees 12:7; 16:17), as well as with other sources of the time (T. Joseph 12:2–3; 13:1–3; T. Sol. 6:8; 14:7; Aris. 3, 30, 38; Acts 6:1; 21:40; 22:2; 26:14; Jn 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20; 20:16; Rev. 9:11; 16:16; c.f. Staples 2021, pp. 74–78, 81). Fairchild’s (1999) contention of the veracity of the Gischala tradition is not necessary to propose that Paul was either a native Aramaic speaker in his home or a second language speaker of Aramaic. However, Fairchild (1999) rightly considers the implications of zelotes in Paul’s description of himself in Gal 1, which he connects to the Maccabees and Josephus’ description of the Zealots. The implications of this term are towards the use of violence for the maintenance of Jewish ancestral traditions (c.f. 1 Macc 2.20–21). Zealotry resulted in violence against anyone who threatened the observance of the Torah (Fairchild 1999, p. 526).

Gal. 1:13–17

For you heard my former way of life [past conduct]1 in ioudaismos, that was beyond excellence. I was persecuting the assembly of God and was destroying it, and I was advancing in ioudaismos, beyond many contemporaries of my race, more abundantly zealous [zealot, Greek is a noun] in the traditions of my fathers. However, when God was pleased, the one who had selected me from my mother’s womb and called me, by his favor, to reveal his son in me that I might announce him among the nations. Immediately, I did not consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go to Jerusalem to the ambassadors before me, but I went to Arabia and again returned to Damascus.

However, Paul’s shift to Christ-devotion should not be considered as an abandonment of the ancestral traditions or ioudaismos, a robust advocacy for the same, in the interpretation presented in this research. Novenson’s (2020, p. 242) comments on this matter are worth presenting in full:

“Those ancestral traditions include, for instance, belief in the God of Abraham as the creator of all things (Rom 1:25; 1 Cor 8:6), reverence for the law of Moses as God’s revelation to Israel (Rom 9:4, 31; Gal 3:19, 24), cultic worship of God in his temple in Jerusalem (Rom 9:4; 1 Cor 10:18), and belief in the future resurrection of the dead (Rom 1:4; 1 Cor 15:12) and the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9–10; Gal 5:21). All of these hallmarks, and many more beside, Paul has in spades.14 Viewed from this angle, then, it is patently absurd to speak of Paul ‘abandoning Judaism’, since he shares virtually all of the essential features attested by other ancients whom we count as representing Judaism: the Qumran sect, Philo of Alexandria, Flavius Josephus, the sages of the Mishnah, and so on. The problem, if there is one, is not that Paul lacks any essential features of Judaism, but that, on top of these essential features, Paul also attests other features that later interpreters have thought put him beyond the pale. He attributes to the law of Moses a role in working wrath and effecting death (Rom 4:15; 7:5; 1 Cor 15:56). He calls all kinds of human beings, gentiles as well as Jews, sons of God (Rom 8:14; Gal 3:26). He can speak of the crucified and raised messiah Jesus as if he were divine (Phil 2:6–11; 2 Cor 4:4). That Paul makes these moves is basically undisputed; the crucial question is whether they do in fact put him beyond the pale.”

That is, Paul’s work should be understood as pertaining to the religious traditions of the Jews and not outside of it, as Novenson goes on to discuss after this citation. Paul demonstrates both common characteristics of other Jewish writings of the time and also distinctives that would mark the Jesus movement as a unique sect within Second Temple Judaism.

Related to ioudaismos, is the term ioudaios, the Greek translation of the Hebrew yehudi, referring to the inhabitants of Ioudaia (Judea), and was an ethnic-geographic term in origin. A shift occurs in the second century BCE when non–Judeans by birth begin to be referred to as ioudaioi due to their belief in Israel’s god and practicing Jewish customs (Ábel 2024, p. 56). Ábel (2024) follows Cohen as well in allowing for two meanings of ioudaioi, one political and the other cultural/religious based on common practice and belief. This context explains the appearance of ioudaismos, which is an “accumulation of all those known attributes and peculiarities, political as well as cultural, of the Ioudaioi that make them Jewish in a specific world view and way of life” (Ábel 2024, p. 57). The noun ioudaismos should be read in comparison to the verb ioudaizo in the following chapter. The Greek morpheme -ismos and corresponding verbal form, -izo, denote “going over to, adopting of, or aligning with.” In such cases, Ioudaismos occurs in contrast to other potential affiliations and can be contrasted with Hellenismos. Mason concludes that active forms should be used in the translation, resulting in “Hellenizing” and “Judaizing” and related forms (2009). This would have been understood in light of the Maccabees’ “compelling the Gentiles to judaize”, an activity that Paul ascribes to Peter (Galatians 2:14) and that he advocates for in his proclamation of the announcement of Christ. The religion of the Ioudaioi is described by Greco-Roman authors using variations of “law/custom/tradition of the Ioudaioi,” as evidenced by Josephus (Ant. 20.17, 38, 75, 139). Ancient peoples thought in terms of ethnos, nations, peoples, etc., who were thought to have distinctive traits and had a national cult with priests, temples, sacrifices, etc. It was generally thought of negatively to forsake one’s ancestral tradition for foreign ones (Mason 2009, p. 180). To live Jewishly, or ioudaizo, was to live according to Jewish customs and not according to Greek customs (Boyarin 2018, pp. 92–93). As discussed in the introduction, the broad consensus notes a nationalistic component of ioudaismos (Keener 2019, p. 79). The noun ioudaismos is understood as something practiced by Jews, whereas ioudaizo is an action practiced by Gentiles who seek to practice Jewish custom (Gil Arbiol 2021; Dunn 1993, pp. 56–67). The nationalistic impulse of ioudaismos might exist in a muted form in some of the source text material but is exaggerated by New Perspective proponents to highlight a perceived break by Paul from nationalism to universalism, as highlighted by Du Toit (2024), who cites a plethora of similar voices in the same light (De Boer 2011, pp. 89–91; Moo 2013, pp. 102, 105; Das 2014, pp. 124, 126, 128–29, 147–49; DeSilva 2018, pp. 145–46), as he reads Gal 2:15–21 as evidence that Paul did not consider Jewishness as not a privileged identity and observance of the law as incapable of justification.

How do Paul’s comments in Galatians line up with the use of ioudaismos in the earlier 2 Macc and roughly contemporaneous 4 Macc? We recall that the five elements of Palestinian ioudaismos are: (1) seize the land; (2) persecute barbarians; (3) retain the temple; (4) liberate Jerusalem; (5) reestablish Torah. An analysis of 4 Macc suggests a diasporic ioudaismos consisting of: (1) persecute barbarians; (2) concern for the Temple; (3) observing Torah or ancestral traditions. Paul explicitly connects his past conduct in ioudaismos with (1) and (3) particularly. Paul does not mention the Temple explicitly, Jerusalem features in his ministry (Gal 1:18–19; 2:1–2; Rom 15:25, 31; 1 Cor 16:1–3; c.f. Regev 2023), and he uses Temple imagery in the letters on various occasions (1 Cor 3:16–17; 2 Cor 6:16, etc.). However, we do not know explicitly what Paul’s attitude toward the Temple was or if he shared the overall positive orientation of the Jerusalem community. His reorientation to the messianic candidacy of Jesus shifted his perception of his role to the nations, which initially began as a negative orientation in which he saw his role as pushing them away from the Jewish community to preserve its unique characteristics. However, with the coming of the messiah, his role shifted now to attract the nations to worship Israel’s god within the messianic communities. His orientation vis-a-vis the ancestral traditions is also reoriented towards the Torah as understood by the messianic community and interpreted through the lens of Jesus’ teaching and considering the belief in the resurrection.

More specifically, within Galatians, Paul’s continued identity within ioudaismos, albeit framed around the messianic candidacy of Jesus leads to a more coherent understanding of Paul’s purpose in the letter. Paul’s comments about nomos throughout the letter are more understandable as an internal Jewish debate about the matter of the interpretation of the law, particularly the law of circumcision (Thiessen 2016, p. 77). It is true that nomos can refer to the actions required by people (1 QS 8.15; Pss Sol 14.1-2; Sir 45.5; Bar 4.1; 1 Macc 2.67-68; c.f. Dunn 1998, p. 132), and many see Paul as using nomos to refer to the Mosaic law (Räisänen 1987, p. 19). However, nomos can also be used in ways more similar to the modern idea of custom over law (War 1.145–147; Ant. 14. 61–63; War 2.390–394; c.f. Klawans 2012, p. 157) or to the concept of teaching (Redditt 1983). The incident is recounted in Gal. 2:11–15, with a following discussion of how to be justified by the faithfulness of Christ. This incident revolved around a halakhic dispute with reference to a proper understanding of how to behave vis-a-vis believers’ covenant identity within the contextual framework of the Christ-event (Lavender 2023b). That is, should immersed believers be considered part of the covenant without genital circumcision? Gentile affiliation with Jewish communities was an ad hoc process that did not involve any set defined rituals or results in the time period and, while circumcision was generally associated with full conversion (Fredriksen 2017, p. 59), it is not definitively the only means of identifying with the Jewish community.

The immediate context in the letter is the culmination of a series of autobiographical statements in 2:1–10 in which Paul establishes his own ambassadorial legitimacy, as one who received both a revelation from Christ and the approval of the Jerusalem pillars, although through the revelation of God (2:2). The presentation of Titus’ identity situates the broader status of Antiochene and Galatian believers’ identities at the center of the matter. Paul’s comment to Peter that he is compelling Judaization is seemingly confusing given the context of the believers’ identity, but it makes sense if the context of initiation is considered. Pagan Judaizers were active pagans (Fredriksen 2017, p. 74), meaning they worshiped both pagan gods and Israel’s god. This was contrary to Paul’s gospel and his seeing the believers as covenant members. In other words, Peter was compelling them to revert to semi-pagan behavior. The Greek used here is also used by Josephus to describe the forced circumcision of the Idumeans under the Hasmoneans (Ant. 18.257; 15.254). Josephus himself stopped his coreligionists from forcibly circumcising Gentiles (Life 113; c.f. Soon 2021, pp. 90–104, esp. 103; c.f. Lavender 2023a).

Paul’s opponents in Galatia were encouraging believers to be circumcised (Gal 6:12–13), and evidently their message was received positively by at least some of the community (Gal 4:21). This dispute likely extended beyond Galatia into other Pauline communities (Rom 2:25-9; Phil 3:2-6). That is, Paul and his opponents are debating the religious identity of the non-Jewish believers and the way they should be incorporated into the covenant of Abraham’s offspring (Gal 3:7, 29). Paul understands his followers to be full proselytes, requiring exclusive fidelity to Israel’s God and covenantal membership, even without circumcision, whereas his opponents see them as partial proselytes until completing the rite. Paul considered immersion as a replacement ritual that enacted covenant membership (Lavender, forthcoming).

8. Ioudaismos in Ignatius of Antioch

While postdating Paul by around a century, the use of the term ioudaismos by Ignatius in the second century CE should be considered. Ábel (2024) links the early Christian usage of the term with Paul’s use of the term in Galatians and proposes that Paul’s usage has some explanatory value for Ignatius’ use (p. 55). The term ioudaismos came to be used as a contrastive term to the neologism, christianismos, in the second century by Ignatius, who used this new term to describe a hybrid group drawing from different cults and ethne (Mason 2007, pp. 511–12). The term, christianismos, perhaps better translated as “Christianism” than Christianity, was seen as a hybrid between hellenismos and ioudaismos by later Church fathers, noting that it had supplanted ioudaismos (Dem. Ev. 1.2.9). In fact, it is Christian authors who (almost) exclusively use the term ioudaismos besides the occurrences in the Maccabean literature and Paul examined here (Mason 2021, pp. 16–17). Ignatius was the first to contrast ioudaismos with his own neologism christianismos, which was not a term to describe a new religion but a way of describing how Christ-believers should interact with Jewish law and custom with the intent of discouraging Christ-believers from engagement in Jewish synagogal liturgy or other Jewish customs (Boin 2014, pp. 181–82). Christianismos was considered to be different in kind from all other cultures of the world, especially Jewish culture. The distinction between Christianism and Jews is taken for granted by writers such as Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp, among other second-century writers, who see the primary division as being between believers and unbelievers, irrespective of their ethnic background. In this sense, Christians become a new type of genos (race) of people, in contrast to the Ioudaioi and the Nations. Maintaining aspects of Jewish culture, as “Jewish Christians” did, made their belief inconceivable to the Christians themselves, making Judaism and Christianism incompatible. This makes the maintenance of ethnic cultural practices of the Jews contradictory to the mission of Christianism, because Jews are only associated with one territory, language, and ancestry, whereas the Christians come from all Nations (Jackson-McCabe 2020, p. 146).

Christianismos is a second-century CE invention that did not exist in Paul’s day. However, hellenismos did exist and was prevalent. It is also crucial to recall that Paul’s mission was to the nations, i.e., the Hellenized world. The contrastive nature of the term ioudaismos is presented as an internal shift by some readers (Nanos 2015, pp. 142–43). In this reading, Paul’s reference is an internal shift in argumentation from a group of Pharisees that see the tradition of the fathers as an ultimate interpretive authority to a group of Christ-following Pharisees that saw the revelation of Christ as the ultimate interpretive authority.

Returning to Galatians after understanding the later use of ioudaismos in contrast with the new christianismos, Paul’s use of the term can be more fully understood. Paul is alluding to this contrast when he talks about his “former conduct” (ἀναστροφήν ποτε) in ioudaismos. His former anastrophen in ioudaismos probably refers to his persecution of Christ-believers, only one component of ioudaismos, based on a comparative analysis of the term in Maccabean literature. Paul does not mention the other elements of ioudaismos as being “former,” only his abandonment of the aggressive components of the behavior of some within ioudaismos to “persecute” barbarians, that is, chase away, harass, etc. In this manner, Paul’s ioudaismos has shifted to include his prophetic calling to proclaim the arrival of the messiah to the nations.

9. Conclusions

Considering this evidence, ioudaismos in Galatians 1 should be understood not as a religion Paul left behind, but as an evolving program of Jewish activism reoriented around Jesus as the Jewish messiah. The five elements of ioudaismos as originally established in 2 Macc are essentially messianic in nature, recalling those elements: (1) seize the land; (2) persecute barbarians; (3) retain the temple; (4) liberate Jerusalem; (5) reestablish Torah. While messianic thought was indeed varied at that time, some of these elements came to be associated with messianism, at least by some groups within Second Temple Judaism.

Rather than abandoning his ancestral traditions, Paul reconfigured their meaning, considering his revelatory encounter with Christ. His announcement to the Gentiles did not negate Jewish identity but extended its ethical and eschatological significance to non-Jews through Christ-devotion and pneuma-reception. Consequently, Paul represents not a break from Judaism but a reinterpretation of its activism, emphasizing a broader inclusion in God’s covenantal family without forsaking the roots of his own tradition. Referring to the elements above, many of these elements can be understood as being fulfilled in Christ, given the belief that the messianic kingdom was imminent in Paul’s day. His mission to the Gentiles was meant as a means of eschatologically incorporating them into Israel, rather than persecuting them in the original meaning of ioudaismos.