Re: Ktistai

> ***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?

Off the top of my head, AFAIK Jews arrived in the Bosporan Kimgdom from Anatolia after the conquest by Mithridates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithridates_VI_of_Pontus#Early_reign
ie. after 110 BCE.
This
http://www.xenophon-mil.org/crimea/cities/sudak/sudakhis.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taman_Peninsula
is what I could hastily find on the net on that question.

So if the two were once the same group, they split some time after 110 BCE.

From the same book as before (which I forgot to list):

Yulia Ustinova
The Supreme Gods of the Bosporan Kingdom:

'2.0.1 INTRODUCTION 1
The cult of the anonymous Most High God was apparently second in importance only to that of Aphrodite Ourama. Yet while Aphrodite Ourania Apatourou medeousa was worshipped on the Bosporus from the outset of Greek colonization, the earliest inscription in which theos Hypsistos is explicitly mentioned is dated to the early first century AD (CIRB 1316). It is followed by a series of mid-second century AD inscriptions (CIRB 1260, AD 155; 1261, AD 131/2 153/1, 1260a, AD 154/5-170/1).3 Thus, the cult of Theos Hypsistos, which emerged in the first century AD, reached its zenith in the third century AD, at least judging by the number of inscriptions left by the adherents of the cult.

The adepts of the Theos Hypsistos cult were organized in associa­tions, thiasoi and synods, active mostly in Tanais and in Panticapaeum. Although Tanais was a small semi-barbaric town on the northeast­ern frontier of the Bosporan Kingdom, provincial even in the terms of this area, its cult associations, worshipping Theos Hypsistos, attracted the attention of numerous scholars, mainly students of Jewish proselytism in the first centuries AD. A hundred years ago Schürer published his article on σεβόμενοι θε`ον ´ύψιστον in the Bosporan Κingdom, where he argued that the religion of these collegia was "neither Judaism nor paganism, but a neutralization of both" (1897. 225) Ever since, generations of writers cither simply cite Schürer's pa­per as the final authority on the issue, or return to essentially the same reasoning, reiterating the same thesis. Only a few scholars have questioned Schürer's opinion, their criticism not always convincing, since it was seldom aimed at really weak points in his argumentation.

During the past hundred years very large quantities of new epi­graphic and archaeological data have been discovered and published, shedding light on the history of the Bosporan Kingdom in general and of Tanais in particular. This evidence, which is extremely impor­tant for the proper understanding of the Theos Hypsistos cult, has been ignored by the majority of authors.

Part II therefore begins with a survey of the evidence on the cult of Theos Hypsistos in the Bosporan Kingdom, set against the back­ground of social and cultural developments during the first-fourth centuries AD. This inquiry enables a re-evaluation of different ap­proaches to the problem of the origin of the cult. The examination of the factual data and its interpretations is followed by an attempt to establish the nature of the associations of sebomenoi Theon Hypsiston and their role in the religious life of the Bosporan kingdom.

2.0.2 The Identification of the Bosporan Theos Hypsistos: A Survey of Approaches
Inscriptions from the Bosporan Kingdom attest to seven forms of designation of the anonymous god, or perhaps gods:
- θε`ος ´ύψιστος παντοκράτωρ ε`υλογητός (CIRB 1123; 1125; 1126; SEG 32.790-manumissions from Gorgippia);
- θε`ος (CIRB 71; manumission from Panticapaeum);
- θε`ος ´ύψιστος `επήκοος (CIRB 64--inscription commemorating the erection of a προσευχή by a governor of Theodosia; 1260; 1278-1280; 1287; 1289-inscriptions of the Tanais thiasotes; 1316- dedication commemorating a rescue);
- θε`ος ´ύψιστος (CIRB 1231-list of names from Gorgippia; 1260a; 1261; 1277-1286-inscriptions of the Tanais thiasotes);
- θε`ος `επήκοος (CIRB 1288-Tanais, inscription of a synod);
- θε`ος βροντω~ν `επήκοος (CIRB 942-inscription on a cult table from Cytaeum);
- θε`ος δίκαιος (CIRB 1116-an ex-voto from Gorgippia).3
The identification of the anonymous deity is controversial. Even the last two cases are not unequivocal: the manumissions, addressed to θε`ος ´ύψιστος παντοκράτωρ ε`υλογητός or θεός, which attest to the lib­eration of former slaves under the guardianship of synagogues (προ σευχή), are considered Jewish by most authors (Roberts, Skeat, and Nock 1936: 65; Nadel 1948: 204, 1958: 145; Lifrhitz l96l: 160; Levinskaya 1984; 1987; 1988; Dan'shin 1993). However, since manu­mittors swear by Zeus, Ge, and Helios, some scholars (Blawatskaya 1958; Boltunova 1971: 4; Tacheva-Hitova 1978b: 136) are reluctant to acknowledge a Jewish affiliation for these documents. Additional considerations suggest to Bij de Vaate and van Henten (1996: 25) that there are equal chances for CIRB 1123 (CIJ 690) to be either Jewish or non-Jewish. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of all the components of these texts render the Jewish attribution of these man umissions very plausible (below, 2.2.3.1).

Other cases are even less clear. In 1897 Schürer published his influential article on the associations of worshippers of the Most High God on the Bosporus, where he maintained that they had emerged under Jewish influence. His arguments may be summed up as fol­lows: the expression σεβόμενοι θε`ον ´ύψιστον was almost a technical term in the literature of the Imperial period, and was used to des­ignate non-Jews who performed some Jewish rites and professed a monotheistic religion; there were Jews in the Bosporan Kingdom; among the Tanais thiasotes there are seven persons bearing Jewish names. Nevertheless, Schürer acknowledged that the epithet hypsistos was also applied to pagan gods, such as Zeus, Attis, Sabazios, and Mithra. In his opinion, the trend toward monotheism, which was characteristic of the Imperial period, in conjunction with the Jewish propaganda, led to the emergence of the syncretic cult of Theos Hypsistos, an amalgam of paganism and Judaism. This opinion has been adopted by many scholars (Kulakovskiy 1898; Cumont 1914: 448;Juster 1914, 1: 274; Poland 1909: 179; Lake 1933: 89-93; Cook 1914 40, 1: 888; Nock 1961: 63; Gaydukevich 1949: 433-434; Lifshitz 1964; GGR 2: 664; Colpe 1967; Simon 1972: 376; Hengel 1974, 1: 308; 1980: 107). Some of Schürer's followers develop his balanced views to the extreme, claiming that Jewish proselytism was the lead­ing factor in the emergence of the Theos Hypsistos cult on the Bosporus (Goodenough 1956/57; Nadel 1966; Levinskaya 1988).1

Stefani (1874: 229) and Pomyalovskiy (1888) consider the god of Tanais thiasotes as Zeus, since some stelae were decorated with the reliefs of eagles. Buzeskul (1927: 22), Novosadkiy (1928), and Kublanov (1958) sought Christian connections for the Bosporan synods of the Most High God.

Latyshev first identified Theos Hypsistos of the Bosporus as Sabazios (comm. to IOSPE II 246), basing his opinion on the so-called Pirot inscription (below, 2.3.2); later he accepted Schürer's approach (comm. to IOSPE IV 238). Salač (1955) connects the representation of the god on CIRB 1259 with the image of the Thracian horseman and maintains that the Most High God of Tanais revealed certain traits of Dionysos-Sabazios.

Rostovtzev, following Latyshev, suggests that Theos Hypsistos was Sabazios influenced by the Iranian conception of the solar deity (ADZh 429-432). Kochelenko, Blavatskiy (Kochelenko and Blawatsky 1966: 12-13; Blavatskiy 1974: 43), Shelov (1972: 280), and Boltunova (1991: 46) assume local Iranian connections for the cult.

Some authors, in their attempts to combine all possible approaches, arrive at an extremely eclectic position. Tacheva-Hitova (1978b), on the one hand, insists on the identification of the Bosporan Theos Hypsistos with Sabazios, in much more categorical terms than Rostovtzev does, while on the other hand she admits that a certain group of the worshippers of this god was affiliated with Judaism. Solomonik (1973a: 56) assumes that Theos Hypsistos united features of Yahweh, Zeus, Sabazios, and the Sarmatian divine horseman all together.

Currently, the idea that Theos Hypsistos was essentially Zeus has been rejected. Christian affiliation of the Hypsistos-cult is extremely improbable, primarily because it is in no way suggested by the evidence on this cult, but also since the first Christian monuments of the Bosporus appeared as late as the third-early fourth century AD, when the cult of Theos Hypsistos had already been established for two centuries (Gaydukevich 1949: 465; Kublanov 1958: 67~68; Blavatskiy 1964a: 201; Kruglikova 1970: 9).

Το summarize, three approaches prevail in current research the adherents of the most widely supported approach consider Theos Hypsistos of the Bosporan inscriptions to be the god of Judaism. The second group of scholars recognizes the Thracian influence as decisive. Finally, the third direction is to search for the Iranian origins of the Most High God on the Bosporus.

1 Many ideas expounded in this part have been set forth in a note on the thiasoi of Theos Hypsistos in Tanais (Ustinova 1991).
2 The earliest Jewish manumissions from Gorgippia, addressed θεω.~ ´ύψιστω. παντοκρατορι ε`υλογητω.~, also belong to the first century AD (CIRB 1123, AD 41; CIRB 1126, AD 68[?]). CIRB 1259, from Tanais, dated to AD 104, was most probably set up by a thiasos of Theos Hypsistos, however, the god is not named there. Two tombstones, erected by synodalists (CIRB 78) in Panticapaeum and by thi­asotes (CIRB 987) in Phanagoria, are dated by the editors to the first century AD In both inscriptions no deity is mentioned. Affiliation of these associations with the Theos Hypsistos cult seems very plausible (below, 2.1.2.1)
3 Perhaps also θε`ος μέγας: the fragmentary inscription from Gorgippia (CIRB 1202) is too damaged to maintain with certainty that this great god was anonymous.
4 The recent book by L. Levinskaya, The Book of Acts in its Diaspora Setting (The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, Vol. 5. Michigan, 1996), with a chapter devoted to the identification of Theos Hypsistos with the Jewish god, remained inaccessible to me. Judging by the review of this book by Paget (1997/98), Levinskaya does not modify substantially her opinion on "god-fearers" and the cult of the Most High God. I owe this reference to the kindness of Ephrat Habas-Rubin.'

One might ask oneself what all this has to do in a group debating historical linguistics. It is this: if I want to make my latest dumb idea, that not only the German language, but also its Yiddish dialect owes their present dispersion to enterprises undertaken by individuals from the Bosporan kingdom, seem at least plausible, I will have to show that these individuals in their place of origin were not so ideologically distinct as their descendants are.

In
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabazios#Jewish_connection
the writer assumes that, based on a modern understanding, that the information given by these authors is necessarily false, since the exclusive and non-proselytizing Jews can never at any time have accepted a syncretistic interpretation, according to an interpretatio graeca, of their god and never have proselytized for such a god. That is probably not true. As for the homes Hispalus forced the Jews to go home to, they might have included the Bosporan Kingdom, given the Thracian pedigree of Sabazios.

cf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_of_early_Christianity_and_Judaism


Torsten