OK, so there would have been Jews in Persia and elsewhere who were extremely au fait with those cultures and geographies. Of course it makes sense that there would be! (Though I will admit I had not thought about it). I guess this probably wouldn't have fed into the writing of Matthew's gospel or the book of Acts though - so in this case I probably am more interested in what Jews in Judaea would have been aware of. When Matthew says "Magi" would his readers think "Oh yes I know those Persian guys" or "Gosh I have no idea what a Ma-gi might be but it sounds mysterious and exotic"
An interesting tangent - would first-century Jews have known much of the world to the east or north beyond Persia?
Depends on who you're talking about. If you were an educated Jew in the first century you might have read Herodotus (who had much to say about the magi, both as one of the tribes of Medes and as a religious caste for the Persians) or Strabo. Most historical or geographical scholarly works of the time also doubled as sociological treatises on the people who lived in those places described. India seems to be as far east as these scholarly works are willing to describe, suggesting that as the limit of certain knowledge in that direction. The area north of the Black Sea and into the Caucuses also seems known, though better to Strabo than to Herodotus.
My fault, I should have been less imprecise. I meant something along the lines of those around me in the marketplace this morning.
Again, that also depends on who you include as a first century Jew. There were significant Jewish populations within the Persian empire. Jews within Persia probably had as good an idea (if not better) about what lay beyond their country's northern and eastern borders as any other Persian subject.
Probably by a century or so later, there would have been greater knowledge of the areas north after the establishment of Christian communities across northern Persia, in Armenia and perhaps in Afghanistan.
This line of thinking seems to spring from the idea that Jews lived only within Judea in the first century and are only of historical interest insofar as they relate to Christianity. This leads to situations where the existence of the Iraqi Jews (for example) is ignored as an irrelevancy.
And indeed, for many centuries it was in Persia that so many Jewish people lived for the next 1500 years. What I referred to was knowledge of the area north from Persia.
And indeed, for many centuries it was in Persia that so many Jewish people lived for the next 1500 years. What I referred to was knowledge of the area north from Persia.
You mean the <looks both ways furtively> Babylonian Captivity?
No, I was referring to the migration into Persia of large numbers fleeing from Roman destruction of the Jewish community. AIUI, it was much more the centre of Jewish life and culture than places such as Spain, surviving well under Moslem rule.
I'm thinking we're no longer thinking of the first 33 years of the first century?
I thought we were thinking of the writing of Matthew's Gospel, which is usually dated after the Roman destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the associated flight of Judean Jews into Persia and elsewhere. Just how much time for those refugee communities in the east to have become established does depend on exactly when the Gospel was written.
Which raises another question, to what extent was Matthew writing for Christians within Jewish communities who were in Persia, and for whom Magi would be recognised? And, if that was a large part of his audience, are the Magi in the narrative to give a "God calls people from the East, where you are" message?
Which raises another question, to what extent was Matthew writing for Christians within Jewish communities who were in Persia, and for whom Magi would be recognised? And, if that was a large part of his audience, are the Magi in the narrative to give a "God calls people from the East, where you are" message?
That would be a fascinating interpretation but alas my instinct is that the answer to the first question is "to hardly any extent at all if any". Surely most of the readers of the Gospel would have been in the Mediterranean region? And if you want to give Persian Christians-from-a-Jewish-background a 'shout-out' wouldn't it be more effective to be a bit more explicit about it? After all if the Magi are Persian they are not Persian Jews but Persian Gentiles!
Surely most of the readers of the Gospel would have been in the Mediterranean region?
I think it's easy given the weight of subsequent history and its effects on the surviving documents to underestimate just what presence early Christians had east of the Roman Empire.
Surely most of the readers of the Gospel would have been in the Mediterranean region?
I think it's easy given the weight of subsequent history and its effects on the surviving documents to underestimate just what presence early Christians had east of the Roman Empire.
Okay, what do we have on this? How do we properly estimate this? One possibly silly question - why aren't there any Epistles to such churches? Or do such exist but didn't make it into the canon?
My instinct is with TurquoiseTastic in the end result, but that we would do well to question. I definitely default to a Mediterranean centric (if not Anglo) perspective.
For a start is it possible that 'Magi' whose reputation reached Judea were disproportionately Persian-Jews (or seen as that).?
Or that some of the early Persian-christians had been Zoroastrian magi.
Matthew obviously ended up as a koine Greek text (and a synoptic gospel), so I'd expect a Mediterranean target of some sort (anything else in the text, either way?). And that still seems an unhelpfully obscure shout out.
Matthew obviously ended up as a koine Greek text (and a synoptic gospel), so I'd expect a Mediterranean target of some sort (anything else in the text, either way?).
Though, remember that Persia had been conquered by Alexander, and was a major part of the Seleucid Empire. For that period, Greek would have been the language of administration and commerce. Even after the Parthian conquest of Persia, there must still have been a role for Greek language, maybe not to the extent that Greek was the language of trade to the extent that it was in the Mediterranean region, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that Gospels and other documents written in koine would have been almost as accessible in the East as it was in the West.
I think it's easy given the weight of subsequent history and its effects on the surviving documents to underestimate just what presence early Christians had east of the Roman Empire.
Okay, what do we have on this? How do we properly estimate this? One possibly silly question - why aren't there any Epistles to such churches? Or do such exist but didn't make it into the canon?
I would have to consult my copy of MacCulloch's History of Christianity to say anything substantial.
Basically the Syriac and Nestorian Churches were well established in the Persian Empire before they (or we) broke away at the Council of Chalcedon. Most histories however treat them as a minor footnote, partly for linguistic reasons and I suppose difficulty in accessing archives. The coming of Islam wouldn't have done the archives any favours. I would expect that neglect goes quite far back.
As far as I know there aren't any epistles that we know are written to Alexandria or Damascus, for example, places where we know there was a major early Christian presence so I wouldn't put much weight on an argument from silence.
I'm thinking we're no longer thinking of the first 33 years of the first century?
I thought we were thinking of the writing of Matthew's Gospel, which is usually dated after the Roman destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the associated flight of Judean Jews into Persia and elsewhere. Just how much time for those refugee communities in the east to have become established does depend on exactly when the Gospel was written.
Which raises another question, to what extent was Matthew writing for Christians within Jewish communities who were in Persia, and for whom Magi would be recognised? And, if that was a large part of his audience, are the Magi in the narrative to give a "God calls people from the East, where you are" message?
Okay I thought we were talking about things within the text, not things in the milieu which produced and received the text.
OK, so there would have been Jews in Persia and elsewhere who were extremely au fait with those cultures and geographies. Of course it makes sense that there would be! (Though I will admit I had not thought about it). I guess this probably wouldn't have fed into the writing of Matthew's gospel or the book of Acts though - so in this case I probably am more interested in what Jews in Judaea would have been aware of. When Matthew says "Magi" would his readers think "Oh yes I know those Persian guys" or "Gosh I have no idea what a Ma-gi might be but it sounds mysterious and exotic"
I wonder how many Jews from the East would have visited the Temple in Jerusalem at least once or twice? So if you lived in Jerusalem you would be aware of them, in the same way that people in Medieval Mecca would be aware of places like Mali and Indonesia.
Talking of the text, the second reading this morning was 1 Corinthians 12. 1-11. Verse 2: You know that when you were pagans.... Sorry, I can't tell you what version of the Bible was used, it's not noted on the service sheet.
And some of the others heathens. And others gentiles (both of which relate to the distinction of the original post). The latter would mean redefining the word and
I can see why translations find that confusing/disrespectful.
If it is original to Paul, though, it makes it interesting when you note some of the other texts.
I'll look up the Greek later before.
I'm thinking we're no longer thinking of the first 33 years of the first century?
I thought we were thinking of the writing of Matthew's Gospel, which is usually dated after the Roman destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the associated flight of Judean Jews into Persia and elsewhere. Just how much time for those refugee communities in the east to have become established does depend on exactly when the Gospel was written.
Which raises another question, to what extent was Matthew writing for Christians within Jewish communities who were in Persia, and for whom Magi would be recognised? And, if that was a large part of his audience, are the Magi in the narrative to give a "God calls people from the East, where you are" message?
Okay I thought we were talking about things within the text, not things in the milieu which produced and received the text.
Are these different? Matthew wrote what he did because that addressed the needs he saw in the church at that time and place. If he knew of a variety of stories about the birth of Jesus, why did he choose the visit of the Magi and not the others (eg: the shepherds of Luke)? If there weren't stories of the birth in circulation (and, the absence of such in Mark might well suggest that birth narratives weren't known to him) and Matthew created a story to make a point then, again, that point relates to the needs of the people then, not 40 years earlier let alone at the time of the birth of Jesus.
Basically the Syriac and Nestorian Churches were well established in the Persian Empire before they (or we) broke away at the Council of Chalcedon. Most histories however treat them as a minor footnote, partly for linguistic reasons and I suppose difficulty in accessing archives. The coming of Islam wouldn't have done the archives any favours. I would expect that neglect goes quite far back.
Jewish and Christian communities continued for many centuries under Moslem rule in Persia, much as they did in Spain. Pre-and post-Islamic rulers of Persia were amazingly tolerant of the.
1 Cor. 12: 2 The Greek is ethne (long final e). Translated as 'Gentiles' in both the Bible versions I mostly use.
Didn't see that earlier.
It's a bit hard to be sure, as translation principles seem to differ (and I see why, bad Paul, bad greeks *!). But in Galatians it seems to be ethne in chapter 3. However most of the occurrences it seems could be read as ethnos=non Christian non Jew (pagan), (with Hellene being used for Christian non Jew
e.g.
1 Corinthians 12:13
King James Version
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.
(This one seems odd as the transliteration I was using toword match was ellene the KJV seems to use Greeks in such cases normally, so may be an exception)
* I assume ethnos is a literal translation of gentile, and that gentile is an Aramaic word.
If the Greeks had a proper word for what they were we could use it instead of overloading regional terms (villager, foreigner, etc)
[Broken link fixed, jay_emm embarrassed kergymania host]
ἔθνος basically means ‘nation’ or ‘people’ (cf. English ‘ethnic’). In the Bible it is often used in the plural for ‘peoples’ or ‘nations’ meaning everyone except the Jews.
‘Gentile’ derives from the Latin for ‘people’ or ‘nation’ (gens) as is clear from the article in Wikipedia
The English word gentile derives from the Latin word gentilis, meaning "of or belonging to the same people or nation" (from Latin gēns 'clan, tribe, people, family'). Archaic and specialist uses of the word gentile in English (particularly in linguists) still carry this meaning of "relating to a people or nation."
The development of the word to (principally) mean "non-Jew" in English is entwined with the history of Bible translations from Hebrew and Greek into Latin and English. Its meaning has also been shaped by Rabbinical Jewish thought and Christian theology[5] which, from the 1st century, have often set a binary distinction between "Jew" and "non-Jew."
I'm thinking we're no longer thinking of the first 33 years of the first century?
I thought we were thinking of the writing of Matthew's Gospel, which is usually dated after the Roman destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the associated flight of Judean Jews into Persia and elsewhere. Just how much time for those refugee communities in the east to have become established does depend on exactly when the Gospel was written.
Which raises another question, to what extent was Matthew writing for Christians within Jewish communities who were in Persia, and for whom Magi would be recognised? And, if that was a large part of his audience, are the Magi in the narrative to give a "God calls people from the East, where you are" message?
Okay I thought we were talking about things within the text, not things in the milieu which produced and received the text.
Are these different?
Of course these are different. If Sharon K. Penman writes about a medieval Welsh prince, then it's obvious the events in the text are different from the milieu which produced and received her text, i.e. modern readers. In the case of Matthew the two are closer together, but if he's writing about something that happened before the momentous events of AD70, written from the perspective of someone writing after AD70, then events in the text and the milieu of the writing are worlds apart, even if only a couple of years. Something that happened in 70 would not be presented as a present reality, although it could be hinted at as a future reality. Unless Matthew is a plumb idiot, and has no concept at all about what we call theory of mind (just because I know something doesn't mean other people know it too).
I'm thinking we're no longer thinking of the first 33 years of the first century?
I thought we were thinking of the writing of Matthew's Gospel, which is usually dated after the Roman destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the associated flight of Judean Jews into Persia and elsewhere. Just how much time for those refugee communities in the east to have become established does depend on exactly when the Gospel was written.
Which raises another question, to what extent was Matthew writing for Christians within Jewish communities who were in Persia, and for whom Magi would be recognised? And, if that was a large part of his audience, are the Magi in the narrative to give a "God calls people from the East, where you are" message?
Okay I thought we were talking about things within the text, not things in the milieu which produced and received the text.
Are these different? Matthew wrote what he did because that addressed the needs he saw in the church at that time and place. If he knew of a variety of stories about the birth of Jesus, why did he choose the visit of the Magi and not the others (eg: the shepherds of Luke)? If there weren't stories of the birth in circulation (and, the absence of such in Mark might well suggest that birth narratives weren't known to him) and Matthew created a story to make a point then, again, that point relates to the needs of the people then, not 40 years earlier let alone at the time of the birth of Jesus.
I find it helpful to understand the differences between the culture of the narrative written about and the culture of the people to whom the Gospel set of narratives was written.
Sandra Schneiders has proposed the helpful metaphor of three biblical “worlds”—the world behind the text, the world of the text, and the world before the text.
Jenks, Gregory C.. The Once and Future Bible: An Introduction to the Bible for Religious Progressives . Wipf & Stock, an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.
I assume that the four Gospels are written for four different "worlds behind the text" and that some of the explanatory notes within the text are because the intended audience is not familiar with some of the "world within the text". (And I find the commonly expressed view that John's Gospel was written "for everyone" to be unconvincing.)
I'm thinking we're no longer thinking of the first 33 years of the first century?
I thought we were thinking of the writing of Matthew's Gospel, which is usually dated after the Roman destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the associated flight of Judean Jews into Persia and elsewhere. Just how much time for those refugee communities in the east to have become established does depend on exactly when the Gospel was written.
Which raises another question, to what extent was Matthew writing for Christians within Jewish communities who were in Persia, and for whom Magi would be recognised? And, if that was a large part of his audience, are the Magi in the narrative to give a "God calls people from the East, where you are" message?
Okay I thought we were talking about things within the text, not things in the milieu which produced and received the text.
Are these different?
Of course these are different. If Sharon K. Penman writes about a medieval Welsh prince, then it's obvious the events in the text are different from the milieu which produced and received her text, i.e. modern readers.
But, she's still writing for a modern audience. She's not writing something to be read by medieval people. Why should she include content that would speak to medieval readers but be incomprehensible to modern readers? But, there's lots of reason to do the reverse, I don't see why she should care about whether her books would make sense to medieval readers as they'll never read them.
In the case of Matthew the two are closer together, but if he's writing about something that happened before the momentous events of AD70, written from the perspective of someone writing after AD70, then events in the text and the milieu of the writing are worlds apart, even if only a couple of years. Something that happened in 70 would not be presented as a present reality, although it could be hinted at as a future reality. Unless Matthew is a plumb idiot, and has no concept at all about what we call theory of mind (just because I know something doesn't mean other people know it too).
If, as commonly accepted, Matthew wrote his Gospel after 70AD then you're right he's writing from one side of momentous events for the people of Judea. He's writing from a world completely different to that of the world he's writing of, a divide as significant as the divide between modern and medieval Wales. Which was what I was trying to say by pointing out the context of the writing of the Gospel after 70AD. And, he's writing to people who know of those events, some of whom may have been directly involved and got caught up in the fighting or fled from it. Wouldn't stories of visitors from nations some of those people fled to be more relevant because of that? Or, of the Holy Family fleeing to take refuge in a foreign land?
I assume that the four Gospels are written for four different "worlds behind the text" and that some of the explanatory notes within the text are because the intended audience is not familiar with some of the "world within the text". (And I find the commonly expressed view that John's Gospel was written "for everyone" to be unconvincing.)
I suppose it's possible that it was indeed written "for everyone", so a sufficiently insular and narrow view of "everyone".
I'm thinking we're no longer thinking of the first 33 years of the first century?
I thought we were thinking of the writing of Matthew's Gospel, which is usually dated after the Roman destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the associated flight of Judean Jews into Persia and elsewhere. Just how much time for those refugee communities in the east to have become established does depend on exactly when the Gospel was written.
Which raises another question, to what extent was Matthew writing for Christians within Jewish communities who were in Persia, and for whom Magi would be recognised? And, if that was a large part of his audience, are the Magi in the narrative to give a "God calls people from the East, where you are" message?
Okay I thought we were talking about things within the text, not things in the milieu which produced and received the text.
Are these different?
Of course these are different. If Sharon K. Penman writes about a medieval Welsh prince, then it's obvious the events in the text are different from the milieu which produced and received her text, i.e. modern readers.
But, she's still writing for a modern audience. She's not writing something to be read by medieval people. Why should she include content that would speak to medieval readers but be incomprehensible to modern readers? But, there's lots of reason to do the reverse, I don't see why she should care about whether her books would make sense to medieval readers as they'll never read them.
Exactly. Thank you for making my point. My other point is that she wouldn't stick things into the middle ages that came later.
In the case of Matthew the two are closer together, but if he's writing about something that happened before the momentous events of AD70, written from the perspective of someone writing after AD70, then events in the text and the milieu of the writing are worlds apart, even if only a couple of years. Something that happened in 70 would not be presented as a present reality, although it could be hinted at as a future reality. Unless Matthew is a plumb idiot, and has no concept at all about what we call theory of mind (just because I know something doesn't mean other people know it too).
If, as commonly accepted, Matthew wrote his Gospel after 70AD then you're right he's writing from one side of momentous events for the people of Judea. He's writing from a world completely different to that of the world he's writing of, a divide as significant as the divide between modern and medieval Wales. Which was what I was trying to say by pointing out the context of the writing of the Gospel after 70AD.
I think we're more in agreement than not. My point was exactly that Matthew's milieu -- i.e. that of his readers -- was not the milieu that he is describing. Things in the metaworld (Matthew's) should not appear in the world of the narrative (Jesus').
Okay I thought we were talking about things within the text, not things in the milieu which produced and received the text.
Are these different?
Here you appear to think the two milieu were the same. Now you say they are not. You are confusing me. Which is it?
And, he's writing to people who know of those events, some of whom may have been directly involved and got caught up in the fighting or fled from it. Wouldn't stories of visitors from nations some of those people fled to be more relevant because of that? Or, of the Holy Family fleeing to take refuge in a foreign land?
Both the perspectives (the portrayed and composing) seem to be relevant [to some extent] to the text. They are different, but also both inform the other.
Matthew shouldn't be adding anachronisms but might be (or misunderstanding).
But also he's selective. tales of Welsh history might pick events to make Llewellyn or Owen seem romantic primitives or European aristocrats. And will betray their era with its concerns.
While obviously knowing the time, allows us to speculate on the actual actions.
Finally of course the times are not independent and better knowledge of either period will help inform the other.
I think we're more in agreement than not. My point was exactly that Matthew's milieu -- i.e. that of his readers -- was not the milieu that he is describing. Things in the metaworld (Matthew's) should not appear in the world of the narrative (Jesus').
Okay I thought we were talking about things within the text, not things in the milieu which produced and received the text.
Are these different?
Here you appear to think the two milieu were the same. Now you say they are not. You are confusing me. Which is it?
The things written in the text are written within the milieu of the time when they were written and of those originally receiving the text. For it to be otherwise the text we have contains text that had been transmitted unchanged from before the Jewish revolt and events upto and including the Tempe destruction. Which is going to come down to whether or not you think Matthew adapted the narratives he had received (whether written "proto-Gospel" or oral tradition) to his needs or if he just faithfully copied them into his Gospel, or indeed whether he created narrative to suit his purpose that didn't exist in the stories of the Church before that point.
And, he's writing to people who know of those events, some of whom may have been directly involved and got caught up in the fighting or fled from it. Wouldn't stories of visitors from nations some of those people fled to be more relevant because of that? Or, of the Holy Family fleeing to take refuge in a foreign land?
I don't understand what you're asking.
Imagine you're a first century Jew who has fled Judea to somewhere like Egypt, Persia, Syria, Asia Minor etc, or your parents had done so, or maybe you'd already moved out of Judea but know that many of your family had fled. You're one of the "people who know of those events". Do you think reading a Gospel that starts with visitors from one of those lands might catch your attention and make you think it's relevant? Or, that then continues with the Holy Family fleeing to Egypt. Would that start possibly put the Gospel into the category of something more relevant, because it includes reference to your experience, than one that starts with the baptism of John? Or, with rural shepherds in Judea?
And, he's writing to people who know of those events, some of whom may have been directly involved and got caught up in the fighting or fled from it. Wouldn't stories of visitors from nations some of those people fled to be more relevant because of that? Or, of the Holy Family fleeing to take refuge in a foreign land?
I don't understand what you're asking.
Imagine you're a first century Jew who has fled Judea to somewhere like Egypt, Persia, Syria, Asia Minor etc, or your parents had done so, or maybe you'd already moved out of Judea but know that many of your family had fled. You're one of the "people who know of those events". Do you think reading a Gospel that starts with visitors from one of those lands might catch your attention and make you think it's relevant? Or, that then continues with the Holy Family fleeing to Egypt. Would that start possibly put the Gospel into the category of something more relevant, because it includes reference to your experience, than one that starts with the baptism of John? Or, with rural shepherds in Judea?
This seems to be getting into death of the author territory; the idea that Matthew's* intentions are not relevant to whatever meaning is gleaned from the text by the reader, whether it be a first century Jew or us today.
* Yes, these works were composed anonymously but lacking any better name for the authors we'll go with the traditional ascriptions.
Comments
And indeed, for many centuries it was in Persia that so many Jewish people lived for the next 1500 years. What I referred to was knowledge of the area north from Persia.
You mean the <looks both ways furtively> Babylonian Captivity?
I think it would probably need a little thought in its op to give it independence and a kergy direction, (if that is wanted)
@Anglican Brat , was there any aspect of the Original post thats been neglected? I know the responses have been a bit "yes and no".
Which raises another question, to what extent was Matthew writing for Christians within Jewish communities who were in Persia, and for whom Magi would be recognised? And, if that was a large part of his audience, are the Magi in the narrative to give a "God calls people from the East, where you are" message?
That would be a fascinating interpretation but alas my instinct is that the answer to the first question is "to hardly any extent at all if any". Surely most of the readers of the Gospel would have been in the Mediterranean region? And if you want to give Persian Christians-from-a-Jewish-background a 'shout-out' wouldn't it be more effective to be a bit more explicit about it? After all if the Magi are Persian they are not Persian Jews but Persian Gentiles!
Okay, what do we have on this? How do we properly estimate this? One possibly silly question - why aren't there any Epistles to such churches? Or do such exist but didn't make it into the canon?
For a start is it possible that 'Magi' whose reputation reached Judea were disproportionately Persian-Jews (or seen as that).?
Or that some of the early Persian-christians had been Zoroastrian magi.
Matthew obviously ended up as a koine Greek text (and a synoptic gospel), so I'd expect a Mediterranean target of some sort (anything else in the text, either way?). And that still seems an unhelpfully obscure shout out.
Basically the Syriac and Nestorian Churches were well established in the Persian Empire before they (or we) broke away at the Council of Chalcedon. Most histories however treat them as a minor footnote, partly for linguistic reasons and I suppose difficulty in accessing archives. The coming of Islam wouldn't have done the archives any favours. I would expect that neglect goes quite far back.
As far as I know there aren't any epistles that we know are written to Alexandria or Damascus, for example, places where we know there was a major early Christian presence so I wouldn't put much weight on an argument from silence.
Okay I thought we were talking about things within the text, not things in the milieu which produced and received the text.
I wonder how many Jews from the East would have visited the Temple in Jerusalem at least once or twice? So if you lived in Jerusalem you would be aware of them, in the same way that people in Medieval Mecca would be aware of places like Mali and Indonesia.
And some of the others heathens. And others gentiles (both of which relate to the distinction of the original post). The latter would mean redefining the word and
I can see why translations find that confusing/disrespectful.
If it is original to Paul, though, it makes it interesting when you note some of the other texts.
I'll look up the Greek later before.
Jewish and Christian communities continued for many centuries under Moslem rule in Persia, much as they did in Spain. Pre-and post-Islamic rulers of Persia were amazingly tolerant of the.
It's a bit hard to be sure, as translation principles seem to differ (and I see why, bad Paul, bad greeks *!). But in Galatians it seems to be ethne in chapter 3. However most of the occurrences it seems could be read as ethnos=non Christian non Jew (pagan), (with Hellene being used for Christian non Jew
e.g.
1 Corinthians 12:13
King James Version
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.
(This one seems odd as the transliteration I was using toword match was ellene the KJV seems to use Greeks in such cases normally, so may be an exception)
Bible gateway search
* I assume ethnos is a literal translation of gentile, and that gentile is an Aramaic word.
If the Greeks had a proper word for what they were we could use it instead of overloading regional terms (villager, foreigner, etc)
[Broken link fixed, jay_emm embarrassed kergymania host]
‘Gentile’ derives from the Latin for ‘people’ or ‘nation’ (gens) as is clear from the article in Wikipedia
Of course these are different. If Sharon K. Penman writes about a medieval Welsh prince, then it's obvious the events in the text are different from the milieu which produced and received her text, i.e. modern readers. In the case of Matthew the two are closer together, but if he's writing about something that happened before the momentous events of AD70, written from the perspective of someone writing after AD70, then events in the text and the milieu of the writing are worlds apart, even if only a couple of years. Something that happened in 70 would not be presented as a present reality, although it could be hinted at as a future reality. Unless Matthew is a plumb idiot, and has no concept at all about what we call theory of mind (just because I know something doesn't mean other people know it too).
I find it helpful to understand the differences between the culture of the narrative written about and the culture of the people to whom the Gospel set of narratives was written.
I assume that the four Gospels are written for four different "worlds behind the text" and that some of the explanatory notes within the text are because the intended audience is not familiar with some of the "world within the text". (And I find the commonly expressed view that John's Gospel was written "for everyone" to be unconvincing.)
If, as commonly accepted, Matthew wrote his Gospel after 70AD then you're right he's writing from one side of momentous events for the people of Judea. He's writing from a world completely different to that of the world he's writing of, a divide as significant as the divide between modern and medieval Wales. Which was what I was trying to say by pointing out the context of the writing of the Gospel after 70AD. And, he's writing to people who know of those events, some of whom may have been directly involved and got caught up in the fighting or fled from it. Wouldn't stories of visitors from nations some of those people fled to be more relevant because of that? Or, of the Holy Family fleeing to take refuge in a foreign land?
I suppose it's possible that it was indeed written "for everyone", so a sufficiently insular and narrow view of "everyone".
Exactly. Thank you for making my point. My other point is that she wouldn't stick things into the middle ages that came later.
I think we're more in agreement than not. My point was exactly that Matthew's milieu -- i.e. that of his readers -- was not the milieu that he is describing. Things in the metaworld (Matthew's) should not appear in the world of the narrative (Jesus').
Here you appear to think the two milieu were the same. Now you say they are not. You are confusing me. Which is it?
I don't understand what you're asking.
Matthew shouldn't be adding anachronisms but might be (or misunderstanding).
But also he's selective. tales of Welsh history might pick events to make Llewellyn or Owen seem romantic primitives or European aristocrats. And will betray their era with its concerns.
While obviously knowing the time, allows us to speculate on the actual actions.
Finally of course the times are not independent and better knowledge of either period will help inform the other.
Imagine you're a first century Jew who has fled Judea to somewhere like Egypt, Persia, Syria, Asia Minor etc, or your parents had done so, or maybe you'd already moved out of Judea but know that many of your family had fled. You're one of the "people who know of those events". Do you think reading a Gospel that starts with visitors from one of those lands might catch your attention and make you think it's relevant? Or, that then continues with the Holy Family fleeing to Egypt. Would that start possibly put the Gospel into the category of something more relevant, because it includes reference to your experience, than one that starts with the baptism of John? Or, with rural shepherds in Judea?
Of course. What of it?
* Yes, these works were composed anonymously but lacking any better name for the authors we'll go with the traditional ascriptions.