Last night at Introduction to the Bible at St Ebbe's we were speaking about the ten Northern Tribes of Israel. Usually they are described as 'lost' tribes: after the invasion by the Assyrians they seem to disappear from history. Certainly, there is almost no mention of them made in the Bible subsequent to their captivity and exile.
However, David raised an interesting anomoly for this theory: in Luke 2:36 the prophetess Anna is described as being of the tribe of Asher - one of the allegedly lost tribes. What gives?
Well, a litte help from NT Scholar Richard Bauckham's book 'Gospel Women' reveals that the traditional 'lost tribes' theory is not exactly true. It is thought now that certainly there were some remnants of the conquered Northern tribes remaining in the land after their conquest. Such fragmentary evidence as we have reveals that some small presence of these tribal identities continued in some way. It would have been unusual to read of a woman of the tribe of Asher being at the temple in Jerusalem, because in that region the Jews were primarily from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. But it would have been historically credible to find someone from the tribe of Asher in the story, because there were a small number of such people maintaining this identity, as far as we can tell.
15 comments:
hi,
I suppose it would make sense if there were a reminant of Israel left, since a reminant of Israel is prophesied in Hosea and elsewhere. While these prophesies ultimately find their fulfilment later in Christ, they do appear to be applicable to the Israelites who were hearing the message themseleves.
Phil
They do make a comeback (at least symbolically) in Revelation 7...
You do have to be careful as to whether 'Israel' in Hosea means the Northern Kingdom or the whole 12 tribes...
Yes they make a comeback, but why I wonder is it symbolic? The 12 tribes (along with the 12 apostles) somehow signify for posterity - e.g. Rev 21.12 and Ezekiel 48. There are points of detail - such as the absence of Dan in the Rev 7 events, which is intriguing as to why. I'll assemble some thoughts re. the 10 tribes later in week, but we could ask why it might be important?
What's with the list of tribes in Revelation 7?
Where's Dan, for a start? Why is both Joseph and Manasseh there, yet ephraim not?
Apart from the fact that she is, why do you think Luke records this detail?
Perhaps Anna is an anticipation of the Samaritan north being including or better, having a share in the gospel of God's Messiah and therefore the salvation of Israel mentioned in Acts 1:8?
Just to clear it up for everybody: the lost tribes did NOT sail to America and become the Native Americans.
Just to clear it up for everybody: the lost tribes did NOT sail to America and become the Native Americans.
I just fell away.
Just to clear it up for everybody: the lost tribes did NOT sail to America and become the Native Americans.
How ridiculous. Everyone knows they went to England...
...And then later to Australia, I presume? ;)
I readily appreciate that this thread concerning the northern tribes does seem pretty dry stuff … and irrelevant …. unless it has something to say about the astonishing constancy of God’s promises despite the passage of huge amounts of time, His faithfulness, nature of His love. Those promises to ‘the house of Israel [Jacob]’ do seem unequivocal. And is it not a reassurance to us in the Church that God’s promises to us yet remain sure? In this ‘big picture’ module 1 of the Bible being about ‘God’s gracious plan for the redemption of mankind’, it may be a resonant issue - centred on the wonder of God’s reliable character despite mankind’s unfaithfulness, and over millennia.
In case there are any doubts, I’m with Michael – we are not talking about the folklore of 10 ‘lost’ tribes ending up in Britain/America etc.
It is something I think that 700+ years after the Assyrians, James introduces his letter ‘to the twelve tribes’, and that Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles ca AD60+ is appealing to the promise of God to the twelve tribes [Acts 26.6-7ff] as if Jesus is the completion/fulfilment of the promises made specifically to them. We can learn more from OT references etc … in the mean time others might like to blog in …
I'd always presumed that the phrase 'the twelve tribes' was metonymic when it occurs in the letters?
I don't think the tribe-on-its-own-land that Bauckham posits (if I've read you correctly) needs to be true. It's perfectly legit for there to be an Asheress (is that a word?) in Jerusalem in Herod's time.
In a state next door to Israel, not wiped out by Assyria, speaking the same language and worshipping most of the same gods in similar ways, I'd expect a fair number of northerners anyway. There was fluid movement back in Naomi and Ruth's day - I can't see that lessening up to 722 BC.
When you further consider that their asylum has a claim to being The True Israelite Kingdom, their identity as Israelites-though-not-Judahites wouldn't be disputed. I assume there were tight rules over lineage/identity (cf. Ezra), so that even a truncated tribe like Asher could propagate - not so much in the pages of history as in the registry of births, deaths and marriages.
But now I'm interested, I'm going to have to read Bauckham. Hooray for December approaching and the MTC library!
Re. the use of the phrase ‘twelve tribes’ in the NT and how it should be handled – is it metonymy? I think we forget the Jewishness of the Bible. The NT is ‘a Jewish book’ [apart from Dr. Luke]. Rom 9.4-5 : ‘The adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, the promises, the patriarchs [‘fathers’] and Messiah [Christ]’ all come from the Jews and we [gentiles believers] have been grafted into Israel [the olive tree] (Rom 11.11ff). “Salvation is of the Jews” (Jesus in John 4.22). It helps a very great deal to bear this in mind in grasping what the Bible is about, and God’s use of a particular race – ‘despite everything’ - through whom He brings redemption. Its centricity is not ‘all about us’! Note Jesus’ words in Matthew 15.24 (?)
Back to the NT and ‘the twelve tribes’ - suggested reading might be Romans 9-11 in which Paul is quite passionate for his own kinsmen.
‘No one’ would suggest that the twelve tribes were still distinct ethnic entities at the time the NT was written, though some still could trace their tribal origins, particularly the Levitical priesthood [Luke 1.5] and the likes of Anna! Indeed, Jesus [albeit of southern tribe Judah] was able to authenticate His claim to be Messiah, Son of David ~ 1000 years later. The twelve tribes by the first century were very substantially intermingled [yet the Roman census of Luke 2.1-4 applied to all…?], and were by degree dispersed +/ Hellenized [xref. John 7.35], especially after the shattering of AD70. Yet they have remained largely unassimilated racially without a land to the c20th. Consider Ezekiel 20.32. Sounds unequivocal… v33ff is yet future restoration. “I will be hallowed in you before the Gentiles (v41)”. Events yet remain to be fulfilled through/in/for the house of Israel … a case of ‘watch this space’ as it were.
As we shall see - the twelve tribes still remained post-722BC and on, and are yet represented within the body of the Jewish people, the house of Israel. So in that sense it is not metonymy, because James and Paul were literally addressing/speaking of the seed of Israel in which the twelve tribes continued to be represented.
The Church began entirely Jewish, and there was some astonishment when the first gentiles received the Holy Spirit (sounds all the ‘wrong-way-round’ to a gentile Christian mindset, doesn’t it?) – nonetheless, they quickly glorified God that gentiles were included (Acts 10.44-48) - though it took the events of Ch.10 to ‘get Peter up to speed with God’s plan’ which included … imagine!... ‘us gentile lot’ too [if gentile we be].
Comments, ideas … different angles?
I haven’t read the Bauckham book so it would be good to know if I am missing something.
A brief [contained!] opener re. legacy of the 10 northern tribes - as Michael said from the ‘coat-hanger’ diagram - after Solomon’s reign things fell apart politically quite rapidly. But I wonder what we are to make of the word of the Lord [in 2 Chronicles 11.2-4] addressed to ‘the king of Judah, and to all Israel in Judah and Benjamin?’ … and the demographic movements in following verses (say up to v17)? I wonder if it doesn’t have the feel of more than just a political split ….?
Here’s the baton …
Post a Comment