Gentile Christian Identity— Part Six

Last updated on: January 10, 2021 at 1:41 am by Ben Witherington

Gentile Christian Identity— Part Six 2020-12-15T14:02:34-05:00 Ben Witherington

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Q. So this matter becomes the more and more complex, the more ways you look at it?

A. I don’t see any easy way of solving this set of problems. When I want to be precise, I use “non-Jewish nations” (or ethnic people groups) and “members of non-Jewish nations” (or ethnic people groups) for the two different Jewish uses of ethnē. But these are cumbersome phrases, awkward enough in academic prose and unthinkable in full translations of ancient sources. For the purposes of this book, after a discussion of the problems involved in translating the term, I then use the transliterated form ethnē, and leave it at that.

A couple of additional points before moving on to Christian usage. In scholarly literature we frequently encounter the statement that the Greeks also used ethnē in a manner analogous to the distinctive Jewish usage—that is, to denote non-Greek nations, the nations other than the Greeks (sometimes in a pejorative way). To support this reading, appeal is usually made to the entry for ethnos in the Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon (“foreign, barbarous nations” [2b]). An investigation of the references cited in the lexicon, however, indicates that in every case the term ta ethnē is used not in an absolute sense, as in Jewish usage, but is modified in one way or another (adjective, adjectival phrase or clause; e.g., “nomadic nations”); in each case the idea of non-Greek nations is conveyed not by ta ethnē itself but by the modifier. I am not aware of any instance in Greek literature where ta ethnē by itself refers to non-Greek nations. So while non-Jews would find the Jewish use of ethnē to be odd, we shouldn’t assume that they were already familiar with an analogous negative use of the term with respect to “barbarians.” (In addition, of course, both biblical material and later Jewish literature also displays positive attitudes towards the ethnē.)

Things were a little different in Roman discourse. In Latin material, “the nations” (gentes; also nationes) often denoted the nations other than the Roman people (the populus Romanus as distinct from the gentes). Sometimes there were negative connotations—the nations as conquered or as enemies. Quite often, though, the term was used to speak of the other nations in a more positive sense. In particular, Rome prided itself not only on its conquest of the other nations, but also on civilizing the barbarian nations and drawing “all the nations” (omnes gentes) into a peaceable trans-ethnic empire. Cicero, for example, describes Rome as “the light of the whole world and the fortress of all the nations (omnes gentes).”

Further, in Rome-friendly literature written in Greek, there is some evidence that ethnos and ethnē were used to denote Roman provinces. The clearest evidence comes from the second century CE (e.g., Appian), though there are some possible first-century instances. I don’t think this is significant for Gentile Christian self-definition, but it might have a bearing on Paul’s self-understanding as the apostle to the ethnē, especially in view of his preference for provincial names with reference to his ministry (Cilicia, Asia, Macedonia, Achaia, etc.).

The third area of complexity and confusion has to do with Christian usage. As you note, Paul can use ethnē both as an identity that non-Jewish believers continue to possess (“you ethnē”) and as a term for outsiders (e.g., 1 Cor 5:1) or for what non-Jewish believers used to be (1 Cor 12:2). The ambiguity is understandable: Seen from one perspective, non-Jewish believers were certainly in a different category than other non-Jews; they were no longer ethnē in that sense. But from the other perspective, non-Jewish believers continued to be differentiated from Jews—both Jews in general and Jewish Christ-believers in particular—and thus could continue to be seen as ethnē.

So when we ask about how non-Jewish believers responded to the identifier ethnē, we need to recognize that they had some options. One of the results of my study is that we can detect a definite shift that becomes apparent in the mid-second century. Prior to that point, where ethnē appears in gentile Christian material it most commonly is used as a term for outsiders. While this might have also implied “what we used to be,” this is certainly not to the fore. But with the emergence of apologists such as Justin and the desire to present the Christian group in terms that would make sense to intelligent Greco-Romans, ethnē becomes very prominent as a self-identifying term, its prominence due to its usefulness in the competitive identity environment of the Greco-Roman world.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

January 9, 2021

Gentile Christian Identity-- Part Five

Next Post

January 11, 2021 Gentile Christian Identity--- Part Seven

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz