COULD DISPERSED ISRAELITES ACTUALLY BE REGARDED AS “GENTILES”?
By Jason DeCosta
I keep hearing the argument that no Jew could possibly have understood people of Israelite ancestry living among the nations as “Gentiles,” “Greeks,” or people who had effectively become part of the nations.
The problem with the argument that no Israelites ever considered their lost sheep brethren to be “gentile” is that ancient Jewish literature itself gives us evidence of exactly the kind of assimilation necessary for this to happen—and a couple rabbinic sources actually say it explicitly.
Here are a half dozen or so outer biblical examples of why it’s best never to trust dishonest people without doing the research for yourself…
1. 1 MACCABEES — ISRAELITES JOIN THE GENTILES
Approx. date: late 2nd century BC
1 Maccabees describes apostate Israelites deliberately abandoning their covenant identity:
“There appeared in Israel transgressors of the law… ‘Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles all around us.’ They then adopted Gentile customs, disguised their circumcision, “abandoned the holy covenant,” and:
“allied themselves with the Gentiles.”
1 Maccabees 1:11–15
Notice who these people were: they came “from Israel.” Their ancestry didn’t magically change. What changed was their covenantal and social identity. They removed the very physical marker distinguishing them from the nations and assimilated into Gentile society.
2. 2 MACCABEES — JEWS BECOME “ANTIOCHENES”
Approx. date: late 2nd century BC
2 Maccabees describes the same Hellenizing movement. Jason received permission…
“to enroll Jerusalemites as citizens of Antioch.”
The author says he immediately introduced his fellow Jews into “the Greek way of life” and that Hellenization and foreign customs became rampant.
Then in verse 19 we encounter the remarkable designation:
“the Antiochians of Jerusalem.”
2 Maccabees 4:9–19
These people had not changed their ancestry. They were Jerusalemites—Jews—who had assumed a Greek/Hellenistic civic identity. They were now referred to not as Jews, but as Antiochians.
3. 3 MACCABEES — JEWS ENTER PAGAN RELIGION AND ALEXANDRIAN IDENTITY
Probably composed around the late Hellenistic/early Roman period 3 Maccabees describes Jews in Egypt being offered full Alexandrian civic privileges if they entered the pagan mysteries of Dionysus:
“If any of them should prefer to join those who have been initiated into the mysteries, these are to enjoy political rights equal to the Alexandrians.”
Some Jews actually accepted. The faithful Jews subsequently regarded those people as having separated themselves from their community and:
“considered those who gave in to be enemies of the Jewish nation.”
3 Maccabees 2:28–33
Again, their DNA didn’t change. Israelites/Jews could abandon their ancestral religion and become incorporated into the surrounding pagan civic and religious world. These Maccabees passages come in the generations leading up to the first century- what a context setter for the New Testament mission for an elect number of “Jews and Greeks” eh? 
4. JOSEPHUS — JEWS TRYING TO “APPEAR TO BE GREEKS”
Antiquities of the Jews, approx. AD 93–94
Josephus preserves the same Hellenization tradition. He describes Jews abandoning the Jewish way of life, following Greek customs and concealing their circumcision specifically so that, when naked in the Greek gymnasium, they could appear to be Greeks.
Josephus, Antiquities 12.239–241
Think about what that means.
A man could be genealogically Jewish/Israelite while deliberately presenting himself to the surrounding world as Greek.
Ancestry and public identity were not the same thing.
5. YEVAMOT 16b — A “GENTILE” MAY ACTUALLY DESCEND FROM THE TEN TRIBES
Rabbinic tradition preserved in the Babylonian Talmud; discussion includes early third-century rabbis
Now we get to the smoking gun.
The rabbis actually discuss the possibility that a man identified as a Gentile might really descend from the lost Ten Tribes:
“With regard to a gentile who betrothed a Jewish woman nowadays, we are concerned that the betrothal might be valid… lest he be from the ten tribes of Israel who intermingled with the gentiles.”
Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 16b
Read that carefully.
The person is called a GENTILE.
Yet the rabbis recognize the possibility that he is actually descended from the TEN TRIBES OF ISRAEL who had become intermixed among the Gentiles.
6. YEVAMOT 17a — “FULL-FLEDGED GENTILES”
Tradition attributed to Shmuel of Nehardea, early 3rd century AD; preserved in the later Babylonian Talmud
And the discussion becomes even more explicit. Regarding those connected with the assimilated Ten Tribes, Shmuel is reported as saying:
“They… rendered all of them… full-fledged gentiles.”
The Aramaic/Hebrew expression is goyim gemurim—complete/full-fledged Gentiles. 
And what Scripture does the rabbinic discussion use to explain this?
Hosea:
“They have dealt treacherously against the LORD, for they have begotten strange children.”
- Hosea 5:7
Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 17a
So Jewish tradition itself could discuss descendants of the northern tribes who had become so intermixed and assimilated among the nations that they were treated as GENTILES.
And now bring this background into the first-century New Testament on the heels of all the Greek assimilation recorded in the inter testament period…
JOHN 7:35 — THE DISPERSION AMONG THE GREEKS
Approx. late 1st century AD
When Jesus says he is going somewhere the religious Jews cannot follow, so the Jews immediately ask:
“Where does this man intend to go that we will not find him? Does he intend to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks?”
John 7:35
Look at the categories sitting right beside each other:
THE DISPERSION living AMONG THE GREEKS
and then:
“teach THE GREEKS.”
Let’s put the historical evidence together.
Long before the New Testament, Jewish writings describe Israelites abandoning the covenant, erasing circumcision, adopting Gentile customs and becoming Greek citizens.
Josephus describes Jews deliberately trying to appear Greek.
John places the Dispersion among the Greeks.
And later Jewish tradition explicitly recognizes that someone regarded as a Gentile could actually descend from the Ten Tribes, even preserving a tradition in which these assimilated descendants were considered “full-fledged Gentiles.”
So the absolute claim that “No Jew would ever call or regard dispersed Israelites as Gentiles” simply cannot stand and is another bold faced lie. (What a good Christian thing to do eh?)
The historical evidence shows something much more complicated:
Israelite ancestry did not equal Jewish identity.
An Israelite could become Hellenized.
An Israelite could abandon Torah.
An Israelite could erase circumcision.
An Israelite could enter pagan religion.
An Israelite could assume Greek civic identity.
The Tribes could become intermixed among the nations.
And Jewish tradition could eventually look at someone everybody knew as a Gentile and still ask:
What if he’s actually descended from the Ten Tribes?
