 | This articlerelies excessively onreferences toprimary sources. Please improve this article by addingsecondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Paul the Apostle and Jewish Christianity" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(April 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Since the 1970s, scholars have sought to placePaul the Apostle within his historical context inSecond Temple Judaism.[2] Paul's relationship to Judaism involves topics including the status of Israel'scovenant with God and the role of works as a means to either gain or keep the covenant.[3]
The inclusion ofGentiles into the early Christian movement provoked a controversy between Paul and other Apostles over whether the gentiles' faith in Christ exempted them fromcircumcision.[3][4] Paul did not deem circumcision necessary for gentiles, because he thought that God included them into the New Covenant throughfaith inChrist.[3][4][5][6] This brought him into conflict with theJudaizers, a faction of theJewish Christians who believedMosaic Law did require circumcision for Gentile converts.[3][4][5][6][7] Eventually, adherents of Paul's view became more numerous, and this among other related developments led to the creation ofChristianity as distinct from Judaism.[3][4]
In Paul's thinking, instead of humanity divided as "Israel and the nations" which is the classic understanding of Judaism, we have "Israel after the flesh" (i.e., the Jewish people), non-Jews whom he calls "the nations," (i.e., Gentiles) and a new people called "the church of God" made of all those whom he designates as "in Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:32).
Paul's influence on Christian thinking is considered to be more significant than that of any otherNew Testament author.[4] According toKrister Stendahl, the main concern of Paul's writings on Jesus' role, and salvation by faith, is not the individual conscience of human sinners, and their doubts about being chosen by God or not, but the problem of the inclusion of Gentile (Greek) Torah-observers into God's covenant.[9][10][11][web 1][note 1]
Paul draws on several interpretative frames to solve this problem, but most importantly, his own experience and understanding.[12] Thekerygma from1 Corinthians 15:3–5 refers to two mythologies: the Greek myth of the noble dead, to which the Maccabean notion of martyrdom and dying for one's people is related; and the Jewish myth of the persecuted sage orrighteous man, c.q.[definition needed] the "story of the child ofwisdom."[13][14] The notion of 'dying for' refers to this martyrdom and persecution.[15][note 2] 'Dying for our sins' refers to the problem of Gentile Torah-observers, who, despite their faithfulness, are not Jewish by birth, and are therefore 'sinners', excluded from God's covenant.[16] Jesus'death andresurrection solved this problem of the exclusion of the Gentiles from God's covenant, as indicated byRomans 3:21–26.[17][18]
The inclusion of Gentiles into Judaism posed a problem for the Jewish-Christian identity of some of theproto-Christians,[19][20][21] since the new converts did not follow all thetenets of theMosaic Law; circumcision in particular was regarded as a token of the membership of theAbrahamic covenant, and the most traditionalist faction of Jewish Christians (i.e., convertedPharisees) insisted that Gentile converts had to be circumcised as well.[22][4][19][20][21] Paul objected strongly to the insistence on keeping all of the Jewish commandments,[4] considering it a great threat to his doctrine of salvation through faith in Jesus.[20][23] According toPaula Fredriksen, Paul's opposition to male circumcision for Gentiles is in line with the Old Testament predictions that "in the last days the gentile nations would come to the God of Israel, as gentiles (e.g.,Zechariah 8:20–23), not as proselytes to Israel."[web 4] For Paul, Gentile male circumcision was therefore an affront to God's intentions.[web 4] According toLarry Hurtado, "Paul saw himself as what Munck called a salvation-historical figure in his own right", who was "personally and singularly deputized by God to bring about the predicted ingathering (the "fullness") of the nations (Romans 11:25)."[web 4]
For Paul, the sacrifice of Jesus solved the problem of the exclusion of Gentiles from God's covenant,[17][18] since the faithful are redeemed byparticipation in Jesus' death and rising.[24] According toGalatians 2:1–10 andActs chapter 15, Pauldiscussed the issue with the leaders of the Jerusalemekklēsia, agreeing to allow Gentile converts exemption from most Jewish commandments, which opened the way for a much larger Christian Church, extending far beyond the Jewish community. Hurtado notes that Paul valued the linkage with "Jewish Christian circles inRoman Judea", which makes it likely that his Christology was in line with, and indebted to, their views.[25] Hurtado further notes that "[i]t is widely accepted that the tradition that Paul recites in1 Corinthians 15:1–17 must go back to the Jerusalem Church."[26]
E. P. Sanders introduced a new perspective on Paul with his 1977 publicationPaul and Palestinian Judaism.[2][27] According to Sanders, Western theology has misunderstood the Judaic context of Paul's religious views. Law-keeping and good works were not means to enter thecovenant (legalism), but a sign of being in, and a means of keeping, the covenant. Sanders called this pattern of religion "covenantal nomism". Sanders' perspective calls the traditionalProtestant understanding of thedoctrine of justification into serious question.
Sanders' publications, such asPaul and Palestinian Judaism in 1977 andPaul, the Law, and the Jewish People in 1983, have since been taken up by ProfessorJames D. G. Dunn, who coined the phrase "New Perspective on Paul";[2][28] and byN. T. Wright,[29] then Anglican bishop of Durham. Wright notes the apparent discrepancy between Romans and Galatians, the former being much more positive about the continuing covenantal relationship between God and his ancient people than the latter. Wright contends therefore that works are not insignificant.[30] According to Wright, Paul distinguishes between works which are signs of ethnic identity, and those which are a sign of obedience to Christ.
Within the last three decades, a number of theologians have put forward other "New Perspectives" on Paul's doctrine of justification, and even more specifically on what he says aboutjustification by faith. According to Simon Gathercole, "Justification by faith" means God accepts Gentiles in addition to Jews, since both believe in God. Paul writes in his letter to the Romans, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith".[31] Faith is the central component of Paul's doctrine of justification — meaning that Gentiles don't need to becomeIsraelites when they convert to Christianity, because God is not just the God of one nation, but Gentile and Jew alike.[32]
TheBook of Acts contains an account of Paul's travels and deeds, his conflicts withGreeks andJews during theJulio-Claudian dynasty, and his interactions with the originalApostles of Jesus. The value of the historical information inActs, however, ischallenged by some scholars. They believe that it was written from a perspective of reconciliation betweenPauline Christianity and its opponents, so portrays Paul as aLaw-abiding Jew and omits hisdispute with Peter, only briefly mentioning the split withBarnabas.[33]Irenaeus in the2nd century was the first of record to quoteActs, and he used it againstMarcion of Sinope, who rejected theHebrew Bible entirely (see alsoMarcionism).
Paul was from a devout Jewish family based in the city ofTarsus,[34] one of the largest trade centers on the Mediterranean coast.[35] It had been in existence several hundred years prior to his birth. It was renowned for its university. During the time ofAlexander the Great, who died in 323 BC, Tarsus was the most influential city inAsia Minor.[34]
Paul's family had a history of religious piety (2 Timothy 1:3).[36] Apparently the family lineage had been very attached toPharisaic traditions and observances for generations;[37] Acts quotes Paul referring to his family by saying he was "a Pharisee, born of Pharisees".[38][39] InRomans 16:7 he states that two of his relatives,Andronicus andJunia, were Christians before he was and were prominent among the Apostles. Acts says that he was anartisan involved in theleather or tent-making profession.[40][41] This was to become an initial connection withPriscilla and Aquila, with whom he would partner in tent-making[42] and later become very important teammates as fellow missionaries.[43] Paul referred to himself as an observant Jew in theletter to the Philippians:
If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of thetribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, apersecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.
While he was still fairly young, he was sent to Jerusalem to receive rabbinical education at the school ofGamaliel,[44][45][46] one of the most noted rabbis in history. Some of his family may have resided in Jerusalem, since later the son of one of his sisters saved his life there.[47][48] Nothing more is known of his biography until he takes an active part in the martyrdom ofStephen,[49] a Hellenised diaspora Jew.[50]
Although we know from his biography and from Acts that Paul could speakHebrew,[48] modern scholarship suggests thatKoine Greek was his first language.[51][52] In his letters, Paul drew heavily on his knowledge ofStoic philosophy, using Stoic terms and metaphors to assist his new Gentile converts in their understanding of the Gospel and to explain his Christology.[53]
Hellenistic Judaism was a movement which existed in theJewish diaspora and theHoly Land that sought to establish aHebraic-Jewish religious tradition within the culture and language ofHellenism. The major literary product of the contact of Judaism andHellenistic culture is theSeptuagint (begun in the 3rd century BC). Major authors arePhilo of Alexandria (died c. 50 AD),Josephus (died c.100 AD), and some would claim also Paul.[54] The decline ofHellenistic Judaism in the 2nd century AD is obscure. It may be that it was marginalized by, absorbed into, or becameEarly Christianity.
Recently,Talmudic scholarDaniel Boyarin has argued that Paul's theology of the spirit is more deeply rooted inHellenistic Judaism than generally believed. InA Radical Jew, Boyarin argues that Paul the Apostle combined the life of Jesus withGreek philosophy to reinterpret theHebrew Bible in terms of thePlatonic opposition between the ideal (which is real) and the material (which is false).
BeforePaul's conversion, Christianity was part ofSecond Temple Judaism. Gentiles who wished to join theearly Christian movement, which at the time comprised mostlyJewish followers, were expected to convert to Judaism, which likely meantsubmission to adult male circumcision for the uncircumcised, following the dietary restrictions ofkashrut, andmore. During the time period there were also "partial converts", such asgate proselytes andGod-fearers, i.e. Greco-Roman sympathizers which made an allegiance to Judaism but refused to convert and therefore retained their Gentile (non-Jewish) status, hence they were uncircumcised and it wasn't required for them to follow any of the commandments of theMosaic Law.[55] Paul insisted thatfaith inChrist (see alsoFaith or Faithfulness) was sufficient forsalvation, therefore the Mosaic Law wasn't binding for the Gentiles.[56][57][58][59]
TheEpistle to the Galatians says that, prior to hisconversion, Paul was aPharisee who "violently persecuted" the followers of Jesus.
You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors.
Galatians 1:15–17 says that after God "called me...so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles", he "did not confer with any human being". When he was inJerusalem three years later he met Cephas (Peter) andJames the Lord’s brother[60] andGalatians 2:1–2 says he did not explain "the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles" to "the acknowledged leaders" until 14 years later in a subsequent trip to Jerusalem.
According to Acts, Paul began working along the traditional Jewish line of proselytizing in the various synagogues where theproselytes of the gate and the Jews met; and only because he failed to win the Jews to his views, encountering strong opposition and persecution from them, did he turn to the Gentile world after he had agreed at a convention with the apostles at Jerusalem to admit the Gentiles into the Church only as proselytes of the gate, that is, after their acceptance of theNoachian laws.[61][62]
InGalatians 1:17–18, Paul declares that, immediately after his conversion, he went away into Arabia, and again returned to Damascus. "Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas". In Acts, no mention is made of Paul's journey into Arabia; and the journey to Jerusalem is placed immediately after the notice of Paul's preaching in the synagogues.Hilgenfeld,Wendt,Weizäcker,Weiss, and others allege here a contradiction between the writer of the Acts and Paul.
RabbiJacob Emden, in a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix toSeder Olam Rabbah,[63] gives as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to theseven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law, which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding thelaws of Moses and theSabbath.[citation needed]
Several passages in Acts describe Paul's missions toAsia Minor and the encounters he had with Diaspora Jews and with local gentile populations. InActs 13–15, the Jews fromAntioch andIconium go so far as to follow Paul to other cities and to incite the crowds there to violence against him. Paul had already been stoned and left for dead once.[64] InPhilippi, a Roman colony, Roman magistrates beat and jailed Paul and his companions on behalf of the Gentiles.[65] Clearly at this point, Paul and his companions were still considered to be Jews by those in Philippi who raised protests against them, despite Paul's attempts to tailor his teachings to his audience.[66] Later, in nearbyThessalonica, the Jews again incited the crowds and pitted the Christians against the Roman authority.[67]
Paul, who called himself "Apostle to the Gentiles,"[68][69] criticised the practice ofcircumcision, perhaps as an entrance into theNew Covenant of Jesus. In the case ofTimothy, whose mother was aJewish Christian but whose father was a Greek, Paul personally circumcised him "because of the Jews" that were in town.[70][71] Some believe that he appeared to praise its value inRomans 3:1–2, yet later in Romans 2 we see his point. In1 Corinthians 9:20–23 he also disputes the value of circumcision.
Paul made his case to the Christians at Rome[72] that circumcision no longer meant the physical, but a spiritual practice.[56][57][58][59] And in that sense, he wrote: "Is any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised" in1 Corinthians 7:18—probably a reference to the practice ofepispasm.[56][58][73][74][75][76][77] Paul was already circumcised at the time of his conversion. He added: "Is any called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised", and went on to argue that circumcision didn't matter:[56][57][58][59] "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts."[78]
%2c_c._1657.jpg)
Later Paul more explicitly denounced the practice, rejecting and condemning thoseJudaizers whopromoted circumcision to Gentile Christians.[20][56][57][58][59] He accused them of turning from the Spirit to the flesh:[56][57][58][59] "Are you so foolish, that, whereas you began in the Spirit, you would now be made perfect by the flesh?"[79] Paul warned that the advocates of circumcision were "false brothers".[80][5][20] He accused the advocates of circumcision of wanting to make a good showing in the flesh,[81] and of glorying or boasting of the flesh.[82][20][56][57][58][59] Paul instead stressed a message ofsalvation throughfaith inChrist opposed to the submission under the Mosaic Law that constituted aNew Covenant with God,[56][57][58][59][83] which essentially provides ajustification for Gentiles from the harsh edicts of the Law, a New Covenant that didn't require circumcision[56][57][58][59][83] (see alsoJustification by faith,Pauline passages supporting antinomianism,Abrogation of Old Covenant laws).
His attitude towards circumcision varies between his outright hostility to what he calls "mutilation" inPhilippians 3:2–3 to praise inRomans 3:1–2. However, such apparent discrepancies have led to a degree of skepticism about thereliability of Acts.[84]Baur, Schwanbeck,De Wette, Davidson, Mayerhoff,Schleiermacher,Bleek, Krenkel, and others have opposed the authenticity of the Acts; an objection is drawn from the discrepancy betweenActs 9:19–28 andGal. 1:17–19. Some believe that Paul wrote the entireEpistle to the Galatians attacking circumcision, saying in chapter five: "Behold, I Paul say unto you, if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."[85]
The division between the Jews who followed the Mosaic Law and were circumcised and the Gentiles who were uncircumcised was highlighted in his Epistle to the Galatians:
On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with thegospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with thegospel for the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter making him anapostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to theGentiles), and when James andCephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me theright hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to theGentiles and they to thecircumcised.
TheJudaizers were a faction of theJewish Christians, both ofJewish andnon-Jewish origins, who regarded theLevitical laws of theOld Testament as still binding on all Christians.[4][5][6][7] They tried to enforceJewish circumcision upon the Gentile converts toearly Christianity and were strenuously opposed and criticized for their behavior by theApostle Paul, which employed many ofhis epistles to refute theirdoctrinal errors.[5][6][7]
Paul was severely critical of the Judaizers within theEarly Church and harshly reprimanded them for their doctrines and behavior.[5][6][7] This conflict between Paul and his opponents may have been the reason for theCouncil of Jerusalem.[86] Here James, Paul, and the other leaders of the Early Christian movement agreed that Gentile converts needed only to follow the "three exceptions",[87] (counted by some as four) laws that roughly coincide with Judaism'sSeven Laws of Noah said to be established by God for all humankind.[88] ThisApostolic Decree, still observed by theEastern Orthodox Church, is similar to that adopted byRabbinic Judaism, which teaches that Gentiles need only follow the Noachide Laws to be assured of a place in theWorld to Come (see alsoNoahidism andDual-covenant theology).
Paul seems to have refused "to be tied down to particular patterns of behavior and practice."[1]1 Cor. 9:20–23 He does not engage in a dispute with those Corinthians who apparently feel quite free to eat anything offered to idols, never appealing or even mentioning the Jerusalem council. He rather attempts to persuade them by appealing to the care they should have for other believers who might not feel so free.
Paul himself described several meetings with theapostles inJerusalem, though it is difficult to reconcile any of them fully with the account in Acts (see alsoPaul the Apostle#Council of Jerusalem). Paul claims he "went up again to Jerusalem" (i.e., not the first time) with Barnabas andTitus "in response to a revelation", in order to "lay before them thegospel proclaimed among theGentiles",Gal. 2:2them being according to Paul "those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders":Gal. 2:6 James,Cephas andJohn. He describes this as a "private meeting" (not a public council) and notes that Titus, who was Greek, wasn't pressured to be circumcised.Gal. 2:3[2] However, he refers to "false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom[3] we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us."Gal. 2:4
Paul claims the "pillars" of the Church[89] had no differences with him. On the contrary, they gave him the "right hand of fellowship", he bound for the mission to "the uncircumcised" and they to "the circumcised", requesting only that he remember the "poor"[4]. Whether this was the same meeting as that described in Acts is not universally agreed.
According to an article in theJewish Encyclopedia, great as was the success of Barnabas and Paul in the heathen world, the authorities in Jerusalem insisted upon circumcision as the condition of admission of members into the church, until, on the initiative of Peter, and of James, the head of the Jerusalem church, it was agreed that acceptance of the Noachian Laws — namely, regarding avoidance of idolatry, fornication, and the eating of flesh cut from a living animal — should be demanded of the heathen desirous of entering the Church.[90]
SinceF.C. Baur, scholars have found evidence of various strands of thought within Early Christianity.James D. G. Dunn proposes that Peter was a "bridge-man" between the opposing views of Paul andJames the Just.
ForPeter was probably in fact and effect the bridge-man (pontifex maximus!)who did more than any other to hold together the diversity offirst-century Christianity. James the brother of Jesus and Paul, the two other most prominent leading figures in first-century Christianity, were too much identified with their respective "brands" of Christianity, at least in the eyes of Christians at the opposite ends of this particular spectrum. But Peter, as shown particularly by the Antioch episode in Gal 2, had both a care to hold firm to hisJewish heritage, whichPaul lacked, and an openness to the demands of developing Christianity, which James lacked.John might have served as such a figure of the center holding together the extremes, but if the writings linked with his name are at all indicative of his own stance he was too much of an individualist to provide such a rallying point. Others could link the developing new religion more firmly to its founding events and toJesus himself. But none of them, including the rest of the twelve, seem to have played any role of continuing significance for the whole sweep of Christianity—thoughJames the brother of John might have proved an exception had he been spared." [Italics original]
— James D. G. Dunn. "The Canon Debate," McDonald & Sanders editors, 2002, chapter 32, p. 577
Despite the agreement presumably achieved at the Council of Jerusalem as understood by Paul, Paul recounts how he later publicly confronted Peter, also called the "Incident at Antioch" over Peter's reluctance to share a meal with Gentile Christians inAntioch.[92]
Writing later of the incident, Paul recounts: "I opposed [Peter] to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong". Paul reports that he told Peter: "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that youforce Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"[93] Paul also mentions that even Barnabas (his travelling companion and fellow apostle until that time) sided with Peter.[94]
The outcome of the incident remains uncertain. TheCatholic Encyclopedia states: "St. Paul's account of the incident leaves no doubt that St. Peter saw the justice of the rebuke."[95] In contrast,L. Michael White'sFrom Jesus to Christianity states: "The blowup with Peter was a total failure of political bravado, and Paul soon left Antioch aspersona non grata, never again to return."[96]
Theprimary source for the Incident at Antioch is Paul's letter to the Galatians.[97]
As noted by New Testament scholarPieter Willem van der Horst, Paul accuses theJews of killing Jesus and the prophets in1 Thessalonians 2:14–16:
For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have been constantly filling up the measure of their sins; but God's wrath has overtaken them at last.
James P. Carroll, historian and former Catholic priest, cautions that this and similar statements in the Gospels of Matthew and John are properly viewed as "evidence not of Jew hatred but of sectarian conflicts among Jews" in the early years of the Christian church.[98]
Paul's theology of the gospel contributed to the separation of the messianic sect of Christians from Judaism, a development contrary to Paul's own intent. He wrote that faith in Christ was alone decisive in salvation for Jews and Gentiles alike, making the schism between the followers of Christ and mainstream Jews inevitable and permanent. Without Paul's campaign against thelegalists who opposed him, Christianity may have remained a dissenting sect within Judaism.[99]
He argued that Gentile converts did not need to follow Jewish customs, get circumcised, follow Jewish dietary restrictions, or otherwise observeMosaic law in order to have a share in the world to come. Teaching them to forsake idolatry forNoahidism, he insisted in hisEpistle to the Romans on the positive value of the Law (see alsoPauline passages opposing antinomianism) in its divine form.[71] Since Paul's time, the polemical contrast that he made between theold and the new way of salvation has usually been weakened, with an emphasis on smooth development (Supersessionism) rather than stark contrast (Marcionism).[citation needed] See alsoNew Perspective on Paul.
(see alsoAntinomianism in the New Testament andAbrogation of Old Covenant laws)
Pauline Christianity is a term used to refer to a branch of Early Christianity associated with the beliefs and doctrines espoused by Paul the Apostle throughhis writings. The term is generally considered a pejorative by some who believe it carries the implication that Christianity as it is known is a corruption of theoriginal teachings of Jesus, as in the doctrine of theGreat Apostasy.
Jewish interest in Paul is a recent phenomenon. Before the so-calledJewish reclamation of Jesus (as a Jew) in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, he had hardly featured in the popular Jewish imagination and little had been written about him by the religious leaders and scholars. Arguably, he is absent from theTalmud and rabbinical literature, although he makes an appearance in some variants of the medieval polemicToledot Yeshu (as a spy for the rabbis).[100] But with Jesus no longer regarded as the paradigm of gentile Christianity, Paul's position became more important in Jewish historical reconstructions of their religion's relationship with Christianity. He has featured as the key to building barriers (e.g.Heinrich Graetz andMartin Buber) or bridges (e.g.Isaac Mayer Wise andClaude G. Montefiore) in interfaith relations,[101] as part of an intra-Jewish debate about what constitutes Jewish authenticity (e.g.Joseph Klausner and Hans Joachim Schoeps),[102] and, on occasion, as a dialogical partner (e.g.Richard L. Rubenstein andDaniel Boyarin).[103] He features in an oratorio (byFelix Mendelssohn), a painting (byLudwig Meidner) and a play (byFranz Werfel),[104] and there have been several novels about Paul (byShalom Asch and Samuel Sandmel).[105] Jewish philosophers (includingBaruch Spinoza,Leo Shestov, andJacob Taubes)[106] and Jewish psychoanalysts (includingSigmund Freud andHanns Sachs)[107] have engaged with the apostle as one of the most influential figures in Western thought. Scholarly surveys of Jewish interest in Paul include those by Hagner (1980),[108] Meissner (1996),[109] and Langton (2010, 2011).[110][111][112]
Printed sources
Web sources
| Systematic |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Historical | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Practical | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| By tradition |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| See also | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Population |
| ||
| Languages (Diasporic) |
| ||
| Philosophy | |||
| Branches | |||
| Literature | |||
| Culture | |||
| Studies |
| ||
Italics indicateextinct languages | |||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
