Toto

It doesn't matter for this purpose. Just read the text.

No. Most scholars seem to assume that parts were written by former Jews, parts by gentiles, for various motives, including in group soloidarity, liturgy, or teaching.

Note the scare quotes.

I understand that you are trying to assert the Greeks as the Christian other, but it won't wash. The Greeks became Christian, by and large, and imported much of their culture.

You have no data contrasting Greeks with Christians, only Greeks and Jews.

That is true.

How do you think this supports you? (Hint: it doesn't.)

IamJoseph

My understanding is that Zoroastrianism is far less older than Judaism, and it did not advocate the same monotheism: this was a belief in the sun, as opposed a 'LIVING GOD WITH NO RESEMBLENCE OF ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THE UNIVERSE'.

I will be more impressed of a hard copy ancient document, as opposed later retrospective descriptions. The Hebrew bible [five Mosaic books] remains the oldest alphabetical books and the introduction of this form of monotheism. Belief which included the sun as a divinity is varied.

premjan

Zoroastrianism is likely to be a similar age as the Rigveda since the language has hardly diverged from the Vedic, so in the range 1700-1100BC.

mountainman

To what extent do you think the new testament authors present "christianity" as a nation? A religious nation? A political nation?

Sheshbazzar

Romans 15:11
And again, "Praise the Lord, all you pagans, and sing praises to him, all you peoples."

This changes the sense of of Psalm 117 which is what was being quoted.

Psalm 117:1הללו את־יהוה כל־גוים שבחוהו כל־האמים׃

"Hallelu-eth YHWH kal' goy'eem, Shab'ak' u'hu kal-ha' am'eem"

Psalm 117:1 "Praise YHWH, all ye nations: exalt him, all ye people."

"Pagans" bearing the meaning of the unbelieving, the unconverted, or the worshipers of false gods, cannot properly be substituted for "nations".
For these peoples to praise YHWH, they would not be, and could not be accounted as being "pagans", as the word is generally understood and applied.

This word goyim normally rendered as "nations" or "gentiles" appears hundreds of times in The Tanaka, and in many contexts where a substitution of "pagans" would violate the sense.

Then there is the Greek translation of "nations" and "gentiles"
ἔθνος "ethnos"
neither does this properly translate as "pagans" as can be illustrated by its usage in Revelation speaking of the heavenly city New Jerusalem which is to come down out of the new heaven. v. 1-2

Revelation 21:24
And Revelation 21:26 To posit that "ethnos" can be rendered as "pagan" would require that pagans be included as future inhabitants of the Kingdom of Heaven, and to be "pagans" they would need continue in the practices of paganism, else they would not be pagan.
It will be a tough row to hoe to prove by The Scriptures that paganisim will be acceptable in The Kingdom of Heaven.

Best just leave the term "pagan" where it belongs, outside of the Scriptures.
A 4th century derogative used by christians in contempt of the unconverted among the nations.

gentleexit

This gets down to Ethnos. Septuagint nations. I don't think NT authors thought themselves as non-Jewish in a broad sense - beyond the "nation" of Israel. Yes their use of "Jews" marked out hold-out Palestinians but it didn't make them as "non-Jews".

Um? I just read Strabo's account of the Troad. "Trojan" stands for the tribe of Priam, resident right around Troy. And it stands for those subject to Priam, many tribes all the way from south of Ida and all the way to Phrygia. Narrow and broad. What does "Trojan" mean? You need context. Jews big, Jews small. Context.

Here here. Hence titles for books like "Pagans and Christians" applied to society before 370 or so are plain stupid - though popular.

mountainman

Dear Shesh,

Thanks very much for this detailed reply. Yes, I entirely agree that the substitution of "pagans" for "gentiles" would violate the sense of the Tanaka. But my question was whether it would violate the sense of the New Testament. I cant see that it makes a great deal of difference to the NT, but I could be biased.

I appreciate this distinction. It was just an "experiment" - the replacement of terms in order to get a better idea of their boundaries, etc.

OK. Last and final "test term"

Substituting "non-christian" for "gentile"

What if we were to replace the term "gentile(s)" with the term "non-christian(s)" in the 90 odd instances it appears in the NT. Would anything substantially be altered in the good news of the new testament?

Colossians 1:27
To them God has chosen to make known among the non-christians the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

1 Thessalonians 2:16
in their effort to keep us from speaking to the non-christians so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.

1 Timothy 2:7
And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the non-christians.

etc
etc
etc

So, "The Other Nations"?


Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear gentleexit,

To follow "The Messiah" and the "New" Testament" was not Jewish. Surely the NT authors were trying to document a critical stage in the evolution of human consciousness. One minute I am a Jew. The next minute I am a Christian. Lo and behold! Viva la differance! It seems to be simple polemics for a plain and simple YES or NO type of religion. Do you believe in the HJ as specified by the NT, for example, would be one of the key questions by which the orthodox could sort out the sheep and the goats as it were.


Christian theology was sufficient for that.

There remains a paradox in the particle and its anti-particle.
"Gentiles and Christians" until 370. (Lets say Damasius)
"Pagans and Christians" after Damasius. (Pontifex Maximus christian)

The use of the term "pagan" is often (but not always) connoted as "non-christian". To what extent, and what evidence exists, to determine whether or not the term "gentile" had associated with it (before Damasius) the concept of being "non-christian" ... of course with reference to the christian literacists of this earlier epoch.

Best wishes,


Pete

Sheshbazzar

I did a very quick search Pete, and found over 30 verses in the NT where "non Christian" could not be substituted without destroying the sense of the text, or making it ridiculous.

Sorry, I understand, and I can appreciate that you truly are trying to work out a better understanding of these relationships. But the substitutions that you are suggesting, are not "translations", and in that sense are not, and cannot be supported by the actual texts.
Neither can such substitutions be accepted as being supportable "interpretations" of the text.

The term ethnos has a limited range of actual meaning, and there are a limited number of English synonyms that you can properly substitute, but even among these there is a need to choose one that is in harmony with the overall context.

mountainman

Dear Shesh,

Does this leave us with "gentiles" = "The (Other) Nations" in the NT? It's strange that the few christians saw themselves as a nation addressing and converting "all the other nations" and not as a cult, or an off-shoot of Judaism, converting "all the other cults". The NT authors were thinking on a grand and national scale it would appear. However I have seen another term used and that is "tribes". Does ethnos cover "tribes" as well as nations? I suppose it depends in the context being used. What is the context in the NT? It looks like the world -- all the nations. It does not look like a small tribal story. Too many official letters.

Best wishes,


Pete