IamJoseph

The term is not relevent today because more than half the world agrees with Monotheism. At a certain period of history, the Jews were the only monotheists, thus constituting monotheists [jews] and non-monotheists [gentiles].

IamJoseph

This is an amazing verse, and can allign with numerous verses in the Hebrew bible, with a sort of spiritual mathematics:

HE CONSIDERETH THE NATURE OF MAN

HE SPEAKS IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLES

AND ABRAHAM SHALL BE THE FATHER OF MANY NATIONS.

Toto

Sorry - did I miss something? All of your examples seem to divide the world between Jews and Gentiles. Gentiles are "not Jewish" although they may be god-fearing. Where are gentiles defined as other than Jewish or Christian?

mountainman

Dear Toto,

The good news of the new testament was that the world was being divided between Jews and Gentiles and Christians. This division of the world was a division by the christians (not the gentiles or the jews) -- and in a very immanent sense.

The christian monotheism is being defined by the christians in their canonical literature as being not gentile and not jewish. The picture I see as being painted is that we have three categories of nations .... the Gentile Nation, the Jewish Nation and lo and behold, the christian nation. It is not the gentiles which are being defined. The christian canonical literature was not written to define the traditions of the gentile nation. The christian nation is being defined (by the author(s) of the NT) on the basis that they are not part of the gentile nation (and also now separate and new from the Jewish nation).

Are you familiar with the term "otherness" in a political (and/or religious sense)?
Sometimes people and groups are defined on the basis of what they are.
Sometimes people and groups are defined on the basis of what they are not.
I think the new testament uses both these types of allusions.
I am examining the second.

Also, in regard to your last question ....

Have a look at the different translations of the TF above. It appears what the english translator of Rufinius calls the gentiles, the english translator of Eusebius calls "The Greeks". What is happening between Rufinius and Eusebius over this term? To answer this question we need to layout the greek and the latin from Ben's site. And then the greek term for "gentile" as it appears in the list of 90 odd citations above.



Best wishes,


Pete

storytime

Are you sure about that? Why would the Jews in any period of history have been the only people to worship one god? The Israelites/Jews may have worshiped only their Hebrew god while other people worshiped only their own god - maybe Moloch by name or somesuch non-Hebrew god.

Toto

Please quote chapter and verse. Where in the NT is there a tripartite division? Paul only knows Jews and not-Jews.

The TF is not canonical Christian literature. It may well reflect a canonical Christian understanding, but it's still not canonical.

From the Jewish perspective, there were Jews and others - variously called Gentiles or Greeks (because the Roman Empire was culturally Greek).

You have missed the only possible support for your position - that the interpolator of the TF refers to the "tribe of Christians" and the word for tribe is EThNOS - which is otherwise translated as "nations." The Jews referred to gentiles as the "nations" and ethnos or "nation" is the basis of the term translated as gentile. (This reference to Christians as a "tribe" is part of Ken Olson's case for Eusebian interpolation, since Eusebius used that terminology. But this puts the usage well beyond the time of Paul by most reckoning.)

I am not sure what your point is here. Christians aimed at being universal, so their should not have been an outgroup - everyone is one in Christ. But, of course, that meant that those who rejected their message were worse than the other.

Didymus

That's not an assumption that you can simply "make" - or ask us to make - before you come to grips with a lot of evidence to the contrary.

The growth of Christianity during that period suggested anything but an inconspicuous, secret, hidden sect. Better start by building a case against the consensus view before making such far-fetched assumptions.

Ddms

mountainman

Dear ddms,

This thread does not relate to the veritable absence (some people like to call it "scarce" or "scanty") of archaeological evidence of the universal christian church prior to the basilica culture of the fourth century. Please be assured that I am speaking very euphemistically above. Whoever the "early christians" were in the first 3 centuries, they left no unambiguous archaeological footprint. My comments relate to the archaeological record.

Irrespective of the nature of the numbers (if any) of "early christians" this thread concerns the manner in which those "early christians" defined the "gentiles". Am not interested in "early christians" here. Am interested in the "gentiles" -- the dominant population of the greek based Roman empire's cultural heritage.

Who were these gentiles ---- if not the everyone in the Roman empire who was neither a christian or Jewish? Would Apollonius of Tyana for example be regarded as a "gentile"?


Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

So where do the gentiles fit in with "Paul"?



I am fully aware of Ken Olson's case, and his identification of Eusebius' novel use of "the tribe of christians". The Hebrews are readily identified as a nation, and it appears that "the gentiles" are the vast unwashed nation of the "Hellenes".

To simplify we have the following groups, tribes or nations in the narrative of the new testament ...

1) The Hebrews (or Jews) - Eusebius assures us the Hebrew sages had the greatest antiquity.

2) The "gentiles" who are not clearly defined. (but perhaps the Hellenes, had a idol-worshipping antiquity)

3) The "christians" who are in the process of defining themselves in history.(had a NT canon based antiquity)

In addition, the christians also tell us there were masses of a fourth group which they have labelled as "christian heretics" of various denominations, flavors, brands, types and levels. These could conceivably have been from any of the above 3 groups, but who, on hearing all about the christian religion, decided it was inappropriate for their sensibilities. So we might add in ....

4) The "gnostic heretics".

Any more groups for the stage play?

Best wishes,


Pete

IamJoseph

I agree you made a valid point - everyone believed in God, even if via different modes. However I do think the mode of an invisable God with the forbiddence of images stood out for the Hebrews.