FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-28-2009, 02:54 PM   #71
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
http://www.blueletterbible.org/ (ADD this to your "favorites" list for instant access)

Then just type in the word that you are interested in.

this will tell you how many times it is found.
and give each verse with it highlighted

Click on the verse number to the left,
and it will take you to that portion of text. (context)

Six boxes will appear on the left,
click on the one marked "C" (concordance)
And it will display the text in the original language(s)
and break the verse down word by word.

To the left of each word will be its Strong's number,
click on that, and it will display every translation,
how it is pronounced.
and how many times it is used,
and list each verse the word appears in.

You will still have to examine the actual texts to see if a variant or inflected form of the root word is employed.

This ought to get you well on your way to really knowing what you are talking about.
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.

Quote:
KJV Strong's G1672 matches the Greek Ἕλλην (Hellēn).

(Gentile*) AND G1672
occurs in 6 verses in the KJV

Jhn 7:35 Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?
Rom 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
Rom 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
Rom 3:9 What then? are we better [than they]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
1Cr 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
1Cr 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Best wishes,


Pete
mountainman is offline  
Old 02-28-2009, 03:15 PM   #72
avi
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Pete sometimes fumbles and bumbles
Sometimes??? Can you show me where he's ever been right?

Quote:
but he is studying, and he is learning in his own way.
I'd very much like to see what evidence you have that documents this claim and to hear what it is you think he's learned.

Jeffrey
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.
avi is offline  
Old 02-28-2009, 03:23 PM   #73
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
I thought the problem was the meaning of the English word Hellenic.
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?
mountainman is offline  
Old 02-28-2009, 03:53 PM   #74
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
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?
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.
Toto is offline  
Old 02-28-2009, 05:12 PM   #75
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
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?
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.

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

Quote:
Hellenistic civilisation remained Greek in language, customs and above all in self-consciousness. The tacit assumption in Alexandria and Antioch, just as much as in Athens, was the superiority of Greek language and manners.

...[ ....] ...

Even in the first century the author of the Periplus maris Ertythraei cannot find a better accomplishment for a king of Ethiopia - to counterbalance his notorious greed for money - than his knowledge of Greek. The Jew Philo celebrated Augustus for extending the territory of Hellenism. (Leg. ad Gaium 147)

---- Alien Wisdom, The Limits of Hellenisation
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"?
mountainman is offline  
Old 02-28-2009, 06:01 PM   #76
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

[quote=avi;5826900]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
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,
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 is offline  
Old 02-28-2009, 06:07 PM   #77
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Much obliged. It seems that "gentile" (via Ἕλλην) is only in the NT and used sparingly
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
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 02-28-2009, 06:56 PM   #78
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Much obliged. It seems that "gentile" (via Ἕλλην) is only in the NT and used sparingly
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.
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
mountainman is offline  
Old 02-28-2009, 07:22 PM   #79
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post

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
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.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 03-01-2009, 01:49 AM   #80
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
...
It would appear that in the first century, while the non-christian authors of antiquity praised the merits of the (Roman tolerated) Greek nationalism,
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.

Quote:
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 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 ...

Quote:
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"?
This is totally confused. The NT is more of a political manifesto against the Jews, in support of the Hellenistic gentiles.
Toto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:31 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.