mountainman

Thanks Shesh,

Much obliged. It seems that "gentile" (via Ἕλλην) is only in the NT and used sparingly, whereas the "gentile" (via "Ethnos) is used in the NT and OT relatively extensively.


Best wishes,


Pete

avi

Wow.
Where to begin?
First of all, thank you Pete, for confronting so many naysayers, armed with only a modicum of knowledge of ancient Greek and Hebrew. I think your contributions represent one of the three or four most useful contributions to this forum (along with Shesh!), and I hope you don't let Jeffrey's irrelevant criticisms dissuade you.

Secondly, as far as learning is concerned, if I were instructed, by some alien force, to wave my magic wand, and remove ONLY ONE person's listings, from the forum, with the proviso that, loss of those submissions in toto (no pun intended) ought to represent those which the forum would least miss, then, notwithstanding his obvious erudition, Jeffrey's carping would be included among a small handful of candidates for removal.

Thirdly, the questions posed by Pete are candid, forthright, honest, and often, profound, notwithstanding a paucity of veneer afforded those who encapsulate their questions with proper Hebrew or Greek, as appropriate to the circumstance. Yes, Pete errs, even often, as we all do, but, unlike many of us, Pete owns up to his mistakes, while most of us attempt to conceal our errors, by blaming others, claiming misunderstanding, or misinterpretation, or even malicious intent. I am writing as the LEAST well educated of the newcomers to the forum, therefore, my own approval of Pete's efforts is potentially flawed, since my own knowledge is so minuscule, accordingly, my judgement is also suspect.

I wish that Jeffrey would redirect his obvious brilliance to focus on helping those, like Pete, who lack Jeffrey's training, education, and culture. I would profit from reading some idea of Jeffrey's which revealed how he can translate his great wisdom into a meaningful discussion of any topic of interest to him, as Pete has done so successfully, despite not possessing Jeffrey's foreign language expertise.

mountainman

One of my original questions was to what extent did the authors of the NT use the term "gentile" to refer to the Greeks (Hellenes) specifically, rather than using the more general term "nations". It appears there are the above six explicit references where "Hellene" has actually been translated as "gentile".

I am not suggesting (by the super-global-replacement exercises) that all references to "gentiles" in the NT may be direct references to "Hellenes" but I was suggesting that there is far more than just a casual association, and the results (above post) seem to confirm this. Is this a reasonable conclusion?

And secondly, it is notable that the term (gentile = Hellene) is not used in these 6 NT references without in each and every case a close juxtaposition and contrast with the "nation of Jews". In other words, the Hellenes are presented by the authors of the NT as "nations" explicitly (in these 6 refs) only in combined instances where the Jews are also presented as a nation alongside the Hellenes, and where the Jews are always placed before the Hellenes (ie: mentioned first). Is this also, a reasonable observation?

Toto

What you say sounds sort of correct, but confused at some basic level. You are saying something that seems obvious and trivial.

The word "nations" has a very different meaning today from what it meant in the first century.

mountainman

The same may well be said of the word "Hellenes". Momigliano writes:

It would appear that in the first century, while the non-christian authors of antiquity praised the merits of the (Roman tolerated) Greek nationalism, the authors of the new testament selected to make another form of political statement. The Hellenes were relegated to the outer edge of "The Other" and non-christian nations, and called by the term of "gentiles" until such time that christianity became a political tool in the fourth century, at which time the term "gentile" was openly replaced with the perjoritive term "pagan" which signified far more openly as a "non-christian" and/or "non believer of the new testament".

This may be a bit much but here goes anyway ...

Does the New Testament reveal political overtones?

To what extent can the new testament be considered a political manifesto against the Hellenes, using the Jews (and the LXX) as a springboard, written in advance of the 4th century political "conversion" of the Hellenistic eastern empire to "christianity"?

Jeffrey Gibson

[quote=avi;5826900]I wonder if you'd be kind enough to show me where Pete has ever admitted he's made a mistake in any claim he's made here, let alone owned up to all the ones that it's been pointed out to him he's actually made.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Not so. See 2 Macc 4:36; 11:2; 3 Macc 3:8; 4 Macc 18:20; Sib. Or. 5, 265; Phot., Bibl. 62, 8:219 as well as Epictetus.

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey

Thanks. But I made a mistake when I wrote that, which allows for ambiguity. What I should have stated was this:

Much obliged. Within the text of the New Testament it seems that
the "gentile" (via Ἕλλην) is only used sparingly, whereas
the "gentile" (via "Ethnos) is used relatively extensively.

Sorry for the ambiguity.
Best wishes,


Pete

Sheshbazzar

Post #47 in this thread was good enough for me, but then I really have no interest in making him grovel, wring his hands, and kiss my shoes.

Toto

What?? There was no Greek nationalism until the modern state of Greece arose in th 19th century.

There were ideas about the superiority of Greek culture.

This is confused. The Hellenes became Christians, and Christians seem to have retained a lot of respect for Greek culture. Pagan as a pejoritive term from the 4th century did not replace the term Hellene.

This may be a bit much but here goes anyway ...

This is totally confused. The NT is more of a political manifesto against the Jews, in support of the Hellenistic gentiles.