Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Professoralstad on June 10, 2015, 06:42:57 PM
-
Acts 18:24 - A Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria...
I would think that being a native of Alexandria would qualify him as Egyptian, right? I would say yes, unless someone provides a good reason why not.
-
It would. Unless someone wants to dispute that Alexandria is NOT a part of Egypt...
-
He could have easily been Roman or Greek because Rome controlled that area and Greeces did in the past too. So I'm not sure but his name was close to the
Greek god Apollo and doesn't sound Egyptian. He also could have been of Israelite descent and not just practicing the religion.
-
Let's use sound redemption logic. Prof wants it, so NO!
-
He was a Jew who came to Ephesus after living in Alexandria. I'm not sure that he's an Egyptian, as a Jew who just happened to live in that area (just like I am not sure that he is Greek for the same reason, since that language and culture was what was in Egypt at the time).
I don't like the idea of giving someone an identifier just because they were born in the land, but rather as a result of their heritage. He was a Jew born in Egypt, and if Miriam and Aaron (let's not start on Moses...) are not Egyptians even though they were born there, he should not be either.
-
Regardless of which empire may have controlled Egypt at the time, Egypt was still Egypt, so a native thereof should still be Egyptian. The only way I could see it not being the case is if Egyptian is defined as a person from the ancient Egyptian civilization, which could be defined as Egypt previous to the Ptolemaic dynasty. However, I don't see a need for such a distinction. I don't think it breaks anything to include him as one.
To Redoubter's point, we know nothing about Apollos heritage except that he was born in Alexandria, unlike the heritage of Moses and his siblings. For all we know, he could have been a Jewish convert with Egyptian heritage.
I guess what it really comes down to is a need to better define what it means to be of a certain civilization. I can certainly see the opposing viewpoint, and if it seems cleaner to define the terms in a way that excludes him from being an Egyptian, so be it. But I think it's worth consideration.
-
To Redoubter's point, we know nothing about Apollos heritage except that he was born in Alexandria, unlike the heritage of Moses and his siblings. For all we know, he could have been a Jewish convert with Egyptian heritage.
Exactly, we know nothing about him. We should have proof someone is, not require proof that someone is not, when it comes to defining things like this. We have no evidence of actual Egyptian roots, he is only described as a Jew.
I guess what it really comes down to is a need to better define what it means to be of a certain civilization. I can certainly see the opposing viewpoint, and if it seems cleaner to define the terms in a way that excludes him from being an Egyptian, so be it. But I think it's worth consideration.
On the first part, I agree, and that was discussed in the other thread (the one on Moses).
On the second part, I don't see anything to include him. Jews were from all kinds of areas (the Diaspora did not take place only after Jerusalem was destroyed), but they were still separated from their neighbors (in just about every way, from different areas of the city to keeping marriage among Jews), and considered themselves Jews above all. That we have Apollos defined only as a Jew is indicative of this fact, and there is nothing in scripture to designate an Egyptian heritage.
-
Let us not forget that after Alexander swept through a territory, Alexandria as a city name was suddenly popular and that there was at least 18 variations of Alexandria with 1 in Egypt and 4 in Turkey, the same Turkey that was/is home to Ephesus.
-
I agree that there's no way to know if Apollos actually was an egyptian, or just a Jewish guy who lived in Egypt. Additionally the fact that Luke in Acts 2 lists all the Jews that were in Jerusalem at the time of Pentecost, he specifically mentions after visitors from Rome, "both Jews and converts to Judaism," and my general feel from the style of Luke (which I know is subjective), that Luke would probably have stated if Apollos was a convert to Judaism. Either way, we can't know for sure, so I don't think he should get the identifier.
-
Let us not forget that after Alexander swept through a territory, Alexandria as a city name was suddenly popular and that there was at least 18 variations of Alexandria with 1 in Egypt and 4 in Turkey, the same Turkey that was/is home to Ephesus.
I'm with Praeceps that there is no way of knowing whether this is a reference to "Alexandria" in Egypt, or one of the many other "Alexandrias."
-
Let us not forget that after Alexander swept through a territory, Alexandria as a city name was suddenly popular and that there was at least 18 variations of Alexandria with 1 in Egypt and 4 in Turkey, the same Turkey that was/is home to Ephesus.
I'm with Praeceps that there is no way of knowing whether this is a reference to "Alexandria" in Egypt, or one of the many other "Alexandrias."
While I don't agree that he is Egyptian, I am not finding any references to him that are not pointing to Alexandria in the Egyptian province. I believe we are fairly certain on which Alexandria it is.
However, my earlier statements stand regarding my position on the ruling.
-
While I don't agree that he is Egyptian, I am not finding any references to him that are not pointing to Alexandria in the Egyptian province. I believe we are fairly certain on which Alexandria it is.
The Alexandria that was most prominent in the Post Alexander the Great world was the Egyptian one, so an unqualified statement by Luke (who was trying to be as precise as possible in his documenting of the events and could have easily said otherwise) was probably referring to that one.
More importantly we basically decided that the post Joseph Israelites living in Egypt don't count as Egyptian and the Jews living in Babylon after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar aren't Egyptian or Babylonian without another reason, so a Jew living in Egypt for a reason we don't know really shouldn't be Egyptian for that reason alone.
-
I guess the only argument I'd still use to favor the idea that he is one is that the Bible makes note that he was from Alexandria. If the verse had said "a native of Egypt" then it might be more convincing, and I think similar cards with a similar amount of background (The Amalekites Slave, for instance) have been given the identifier.
It seems the majority opinion is to go against the idea, which is ok, but I think what we really need is a more comprehensive way to determine what does and does not make a person of a particular civilization. Fortunately, I'm part of the group that will hopefully aim to do just that with the next REG update, and the thought processes used in this thread will certainly help that endeavor. So thanks everyone for your input.
-
Greetings,
Historically, Apollos was a jew who lived in Alexandria, not an Egyptian man. Also, the "Alexandria" that is referred to throughout Acts is Alexandria Egypt, which was the capital of Egypt at the time. It also housed a major jewish community which was responsible for the translation of the Septuagint, and would later be responsible for the stoning of Stephen. So, based on this, I would say that no, Apollos would not classify as an Egyptian since he was a Jew.
Jesusman
-
While I agree that Apollos shouldn't be classified as an Egyptian, saying he can't be because he's a Jew is not a valid argument imo. They aren't mutually exclusive.
-
Right, Jew is not a race it represents religious belief.
-
Right, Jew is not a race it represents religious belief.
Actually it's both, well ethnicity (which I think is a more specific category than race, but I'm not entirely sure). There are Jews that are both religious Jews and ethnic Jews, just like there are non religious Jews that are ethnic Jews and religious Jews that aren't ethnic Jews (that would be what converts to Judaism are). Now Apollos was called a Jew, but he was a Christian (if I'm remembering Acts correctly), so Luke may have been saying he was of Jewish ethnicity... however at that point the difference between Judaism and Christianity was a little fuzzy (most people assumed it was just a Jewish sect, rather than a whole new religion) and Apollos could have been a convert to Judaism from Egypt (or a son or grandson of an Egyptian convert to Judaism), but he also could just as easily (and probably much more likely) was a member of the Jewish Diaspora who happened to be living in Egypt.
-
No not really. Paul didn't write a letter to the Jews. Hebrew is ethnicity, Jew is race.
-
No not really. Paul didn't write a letter to the Jews. Hebrew is ethnicity, Jew is race.
Paul didn't write Hebrews either. Not really important to the discussion though.
-
It seems the majority opinion is to go against the idea, which is ok, but I think what we really need is a more comprehensive way to determine what does and does not make a person of a particular civilization.
My input for this eventual definition is what I am sure has already been discussed... the classification for those that live in a country but are not considered an ethnic native of that country. As modern examples:
1.) If my wife and I were in the military and lived on an Army base in Egypt, then had a child there, should my child be classified as "Egyptian?"
2.) If my wife and I worked for Nintendo and lived in Japan, and had a child there, should my child be classified as "Japanese?"
I personally feel that the answer to both of these is "no," but whatever definition we create needs to consider these possibilities.
-
My dad, who is a preacher, has a saying that he tells people when it comes to salvation.
"Going to church no more makes you a Christian than standing in a garage makes you a Chevy."
This fits with my thinking of Apollos.
He lived in a town located in Egypt, but that doesn't make him an Egyptian. Furthermore, the Bible never refers to him as an Egyptian. It refers to him as a jewish man who lived in Alexandria. It also says that he was well versed in the Old Testament, a student of John the Baptist, trained in Christianity by Priscilla and Aquilla, and became one of the most influential and vocal Christian ministers of the first century second only to Peter and Paul. These are the facts that need to be taken into account. No where is he described as an Egyptian in the Bible.
To modify my dad's saying, "Living in Egypt no more made Apollos an Egyptian than standing in a garage would make him a Chevy."
Jesusman
-
"Going to church no more makes you a Christian than standing in a garage makes you a Chevy."
Unless, of course, you are Chevy Chase. ;)
-
It seems the majority opinion is to go against the idea, which is ok, but I think what we really need is a more comprehensive way to determine what does and does not make a person of a particular civilization.
My input for this eventual definition is what I am sure has already been discussed... the classification for those that live in a country but are not considered an ethnic native of that country. As modern examples:
1.) If my wife and I were in the military and lived on an Army base in Egypt, then had a child there, should my child be classified as "Egyptian?"
2.) If my wife and I worked for Nintendo and lived in Japan, and had a child there, should my child be classified as "Japanese?"
I personally feel that the answer to both of these is "no," but whatever definition we create needs to consider these possibilities.
Contrary to your point, if two Japanese workers are touring an American Toyota plant, and the wife goes into labor, their child, being born on American soil is considered by the Executive Branch of American Government to, yes, be an American citizen.
But considering we can't check ancient citizenship laws for the most part, we should probably ignore the American anomaly :)