Re: Ktistai

>
> I see that Karaim
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaim_language
> was involved in krazna-čei, which is formed in a parallel fashion to
> knigo-čei. Perhaps both *kUneNga and krazna have a connection in the
> Bosporan kingdom, purveyor of bibliophiles and treasurers? The
> 'forestry' *kYeN- root at any rate does not seem to be necessarily
> native Slavic.

Since I keep coming back to that kingdom, here is some background of its religuous make-up:

CHAPTER TWO

THEOS HYPSISTOS AND JUDAISM

2.2.1 Jewish Sympathizers?
Schürer suggested a Jewish connection for Theos Hypsistos; later advocates of his approach have not added new arguments of substantial importance. In their opinion, the phrase σεβόμενοι θεόν ´ύψιστον designated Jewish semi- or quasi-proselytes all over the Mediterranean, disregarding the context. This conviction has, however, been challenged: the question under discussion is, using the apt words of Lake (1933: 84), "to what extent φοβούμενοι τ`ον θεόν is a technical description of the non-Jewish fringe attending the Synagogue, or is merely an honorable epithet applicable to Jew, Gentile, or Proselyte, as the context may decide."

***R  Supposedly a large percentage of pre-Turkish Anatolia belonged to a Judeo-Christian group that adhered to Jewish Law and practice but saw Jesus as the Messiah. They saw themselves as descendants of Jewish converts to Christianity. Evidently they encountered persecution and later became fervent converts to Islam as "Official Christians" disowned them for being heretics. Was this the same group?

In terms of Jewish law, the word "semi-proselyte" is senseless (Moore 1927: 326; Lake 1933: 76; Siegert 1973: 163), Feldman (1950: 200), therefore, prefers the designation "sympathizer." But what kind of reality lay behind this conventional nomination? There is no doubt that pagans came to the synagogues, attracted by their teaching and practice.1 However, there is an air of vagueness about the definition of the Jewish sympathizers, both in the classical and the rabbinical literature (Reynolds and Tannenbaum 1987: 58-59; Cohen 1989: 33).2 Gentiles interested in Judaism could simply study its teachings, adopt monotheism as a kind of philosophy, or visit the synagogue and imitate the Jewish way of life to whatever degree, observing some regulations, but not converting (Reynolds and Tannenbaum 1987: 65).3

For decades most scholars regarded the phrases σεβόμενοι (φοβούμινοι) τ`ον θεόν, θεοσεβει~ς in Greek, or metuentes in Latin as technical terms is which designated Gentiles who connected themselves with Judaism, but did not convert. For the supporters of this approach, "god-fearers" attended the synagogue, professed monotheism in the biblical sense, observed some requirements of the Law, and formed a considerable social group (Moore 1927: 323-325; Flusser 1976: 1097 1098; Avi-Yonah 1976: 37; Hengel 1974, 1: 313; Kuhn and Stegemann 1962; Lifshitz 1971; Reynolds and Tannenbaum 1987: 51; Millar 1992: 101). These Gentiles who embraced monotheism were further considered inclined to become Christians and propagate the new faith.4

The point which is crucial for the present study is not the extent of this phenomenon.3 The question is whether the phrase sebomenoi or phoboumenoi ton theon was a technical term for the designation of this category. The studies of Lake (1933), Feldman (1950), and Kraabel (1981) demonstrate that in this case we are dealing with a scientific prejudice, steadily re-appearing in handbooks and monographs.

1 The literature on the "god-fearers" is enormous. See especially: Lake 1933, Feldman 1950; 1986; 1989; 1992; 1993: 342-382; Robert 1964: 39 45; Romaniuk 1964; Siegert 1973; Stem 1974-84, 103-107; Kraabel 1981; Wilcox 1981; MacLennan and Kraabel 1986; Millar 1986; Overman 1992, Reynolds and Tannenbaum 1987; Kant 1987: 687-690. For a fuller bibliography see Feldman 1993: 569, note 1.

2 For an analysis of different aspects in "crossing the boundary and becoming a Jew," with an emphasis on the stages preceding full conversion see: Cohen 1989,

3 Indeed, during the first centuries AD) even such categories as "Jew" and "Christian" were far from being clearly defined. As Kee (1992: 184) emphasizes, "the serious modern investigator of Christian origins or pre-rabbinic Judaism cannot even responsibly use terms like 'Jew' and 'Christian' as though they had unambiguous, self-evident meaning." Cf. Kraemer 1992.

4 For a discussion see: Wilcox 1981: 102-103; Finn 1985: 75-76; Goodman 1994.

5 For a survey of this subject see: Feldman 1986; 1992: 373-375; 1993: 342-382; Will and Orrieux 1992.'

And she goes on to show, as far as I can tell, that Lake's second alternative is the right one.

Too bad Ukrainian George has left, he would have had something to say on that kingdom.

Torsten