Gentile (from Latin gentilis 'of or belonging to the same people or nation', from gēns 'clan; tribe; people, family') is a term that usually means 'someone who is not a Jew'.[1] Other groups that claim Israelite heritage sometimes use the term to describe outsiders.[2]
The term is used by English translators for the Hebrew גוי (goy) and נכרי (nokhri) in the Hebrew Bible and the Greek word ἔθνη (éthnē) in the New Testament. The word gentile is derived from Latin and not itself an original Hebrew or Greek word found in the Bible.
The original words goy and ethnos refer to "peoples" or "nations" and are applied to both Israelites and non-Israelites in the Bible.
Gentile" derives from Latin gentilis, which itself derives from the Latin gens, meaning clan or tribe. Gens derives from the Proto-Indo-European *ǵénh₁tis.[4] The original meaning of "clan" or "family" was extended in post-Augustan Latin to acquire the wider meaning of belonging to a distinct nation or ethnicity. Later still, the word came to refer to other nations, 'not a Roman citizen'.
In Saint Jerome's Latin version of the Bible, the Vulgate, gentilis was used in this wider sense, along with gentes, to translate Greek and Hebrew words with similar meanings when the text referred to the non-Israelite peoples. The most important of such Hebrew words was goyim (singular, goy), a term with the broad meaning of "peoples" or "nations" which was sometimes used to refer to Israelites, but most commonly as a generic label for peoples.
In the pre-exilic times the relationship between Israelites and gentiles was mostly hostile and the non-Israelites such as Babylonians, Egyptians, and Assyrians were always seen as an enemy. After the Babylonian exile, the Jewish-gentile relationship became less hostile. The books of Ruth and Jonah reject the racialization of the Israelite religion by Ezra.
Rabbinical writings often show more hostility towards gentiles due to frequent persecution of the Jews by these nations. Eliezer ben Hurcanus writes that the mind of every gentile is always intent upon idolatry.[3] He believed that gentiles only perform animal sacrifice to make a name for themselves. He further believed that gentiles have no share in the world to come.
Other rabbis show a more positive attitude towards the gentiles. Joshua ben Hananiah believed that there are righteous men amongst the gentiles who will enter the world to come. He believed that except for the descendants of the Amaleks, the rest of the gentiles will adopt monotheism and the righteous among them will escape Gehenna. There is also a story about a dialogue between Joshua ben Hananiah and the Roman emperor Hadrian in which he tries to demonstrate that God deals with Israel with greater punishment for similar crimes.
Eleazar of Modi'im wrote that Jews, when guilty of the same sin as gentiles, will not enter hell whereas the gentiles will.[3] Eleazar ben Azariah believed that the rulings performed by a gentile court are not valid for Jews. Rabbi Akiva believed that Israel's monotheism is far superior to the ever-changing beliefs of the gentiles. Jose the Galilean criticizes Israel for inconsistency compared to the faithfulness of the gentiles to their ancestral beliefs. He believed the good deeds of the gentiles will be rewarded as well.
The most famous of the anti-gentile teachers is Simeon bar Yochai. He is often quoted by antisemites in his sayings: "The best among the Gentiles deserves to be killed", "The most pious woman is addicted to sorcery" and "The best of snakes ought to have its head crushed".[3]
Judah ben Ilai suggests that the recital "Blessed be thou ... Who has not made me a gentile" should be performed daily.
Hananiah ben Akabia believed that shedding the blood of the gentiles, although not punishable in human courts, will be punished in heavenly judgement.
Jacob, the grandson of Elisha ben Abuyah, wrote that he saw a gentile binding his father and throwing him to his dog as food.
Simeon ben Eleazar does not favor social interaction between Jews and gentiles.
Rav Ashi believed that a Jew who sells a gentile property adjacent to a Jewish property should be excommunicated. The violation of Jewish women by gentile men was so frequent that the rabbis declared that a woman raped by a gentile should not be divorced from her husband, as Torah says: "The Torah outlawed the issue of a gentile as that of a beast."[3] A gentile midwife was not to be employed for fear of the poisoning of the baby. The gentiles should be dealt with caution in cases of using them as witness in a criminal or civil suit. The gentile does not honor his promises like that of a Jew. The laws of the Torah were not to be revealed to the gentiles, for the knowledge of these laws might give gentiles an advantage in dealing with Jews. Shimon ben Lakish wrote that "A gentile who observes Sabbath deserves death".
Under rabbinical law, a modern-day gentile is required only to observe the Seven Laws of Noah, while Jews are bound by Mosaic law. In periods of decreased animosity between Jews and gentiles, some of the rabbinical laws against fellowship and fraternization were relaxed; for example Maimonides himself was a physician to the Sultan. Even though most rabbinical schools do not teach the same hostility as Middle Age rabbinical teachings, some Orthodox rabbinical schools hold extreme conservative views. For example, scholars from the Zionist HaRav Kook yeshiva are schooled in the doctrine that Jews and gentiles have different kinds of souls. One of the yeshiva's scholars, David Bar-Hayim, published a paper in 1989 explaining the doctrine, entitled "Yisrael Nikraim Adam" (Jews Are Called 'Men'). In his conclusion, Bar-Chayim writes:
There is no escaping the facts: the Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as "Man," and a Gentile. This distinction is expressed in a long list of Halachic laws, be they monetary laws, the laws of the Temple, capital laws or others. Even one who is not an erudite Torah scholar is obligated to recognize this simple fact; it cannot be erased or obscured ... One who carefully studies the sources cited previously will realize the abysmal difference between the concepts "Jew" and "Gentile" -- and consequently, he will understand why Halacha differentiates between them.[5][6]
Bar-Chayim further quotes Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935), founder of the yeshiva and the first Ashkenazi chief rabbi of British Mandatory Palestine:
The difference between the Jewish soul, in all its independence, inner desires, longings, character and standing, and the soul of all the Gentiles, on all of their levels, is greater and deeper than the difference between the soul of a man and the soul of an animal, for the difference in the latter case is one of quantity, while the difference in the first case is one of essential quality.[7]
Similar anti-gentile remarks have been expressed by the late chief Sephardi Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, in which he stated in a sermon in 2010 that "The sole purpose of Gentiles is to serve Jews". He said that gentiles served a divine purpose: "Why are Gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why Gentiles were created.[8]
These remarks by Yosef were sharply criticized by many Jewish organizations such as Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and American Jewish Committee.
Some Kabbalistic writings suggest a distinction between the souls of the gentiles and the souls of the Jews. These writings describe three levels, elements, or qualities of soul:[10]
Nefesh (נפש): the lower part, or "animal part", of the soul. It is linked to instincts and bodily cravings. This part of the soul is provided at birth.
Ruach (רוח): the middle soul, the "spirit". It contains the moral virtues and the ability to distinguish between good and evil.
Neshamah (נשמה): the higher soul, or "super-soul". This separates man from all other life-forms. It is related to the intellect and allows man to enjoy and benefit from the afterlife. It allows one to have some awareness of the existence and presence of God.
Both Jewish and gentile souls are composed of these three elements. The human soul has two additional elements that are completely outside of the lower realm of existence that all humanity currently lives in. These parts of the soul are neither felt nor experienced even by a Jew who has them. It cannot be experienced by any person while they are living in the physical (lower) universe. That obviously does not mean these additional parts do not exist. They are called the Chaya and the Yechida.[11] The only distinction between a Jewish soul and a gentile soul is how it is nourished. Each part of the soul is nourished by a different aspect of fulfillment of a commandment. Gentile souls require and are completely fulfilled by more basic nourishment which comes from the Seven Laws of Noah. The Jewish soul derives additional nourishment that it requires from the proper observance of the additional commandments.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentile
Paganism (from classical Latin pāgānus "rural, rustic," later "civilian") is a term first used in the fourth century by early Christians for people in the Roman Empire who practiced polytheism. This was either because they were increasingly rural and provincial relative to the Christian population, or because they were not milites Christi (soldiers of Christ).[1][2] Alternate terms in Christian texts for the same group were hellene, gentile, and heathen.[3] Ritual sacrifice was an integral part of ancient Graeco-Roman religion[4] and was regarded as an indication of whether a person was pagan or Christian.[4]
Paganism was originally a pejorative and derogatory term for polytheism, implying its inferiority.[3] Paganism has broadly connoted the "religion of the peasantry".[3][5] During and after the Middle Ages, the term paganism was applied to any unfamiliar religion, and the term presumed a belief in false god(s).[6][7] Most modern pagan religions existing today (Modern or Neopaganism[8][9]) express a world view that is pantheistic, polytheistic or animistic; but some are monotheistic.[10]
The origin of the application of the term pagan to polytheism is debated.[11] In the 19th century, paganism was adopted as a self-descriptor by members of various artistic groups inspired by the ancient world. In the 20th century, it came to be applied as a self-descriptor by practitioners of Modern Paganism, Neopagan movements and Polytheistic reconstructionists. Modern pagan traditions often incorporate beliefs or practices, such as nature worship, that are different from those in the largest world religions.[12][13]
Contemporary knowledge of old pagan religions comes from several sources, including anthropological field research records, the evidence of archaeological artifacts, and the historical accounts of ancient writers regarding cultures known to Classical antiquity.
It is crucial to stress right from the start that until the 20th century, people did not call themselves pagans to describe the religion they practised. The notion of paganism, as it is generally understood today, was created by the early Christian Church. It was a label that Christians applied to others, one of the antitheses that were central to the process of Christian self-definition. As such, throughout history it was generally used in a derogatory sense.
— Owen Davies, Paganism: A Very Short Introduction, 2011[14]
The term pagan is derived from Late Latin paganus, revived during the Renaissance. Itself deriving from classical Latin pagus which originally meant 'region delimited by markers', paganus had also come to mean 'of or relating to the countryside', 'country dweller', 'villager'; by extension, 'rustic', 'unlearned', 'yokel', 'bumpkin'; in Roman military jargon, 'non-combatant', 'civilian', 'unskilled soldier'. It is related to pangere ('to fasten', 'to fix or affix') and ultimately comes from Proto-Indo-European *pag- ('to fix' in the same sense).[15]
The adoption of paganus by the Latin Christians as an all-embracing, pejorative term for polytheists represents an unforeseen and singularly long-lasting victory, within a religious group, of a word of Latin slang originally devoid of religious meaning. The evolution occurred only in the Latin west, and in connection with the Latin church. Elsewhere, Hellene or gentile (ethnikos) remained the word for pagan; and paganos continued as a purely secular term, with overtones of the inferior and the commonplace.
— Peter Brown, Late Antiquity, 1999[16]
Medieval writers often assumed that paganus as a religious term was a result of the conversion patterns during the Christianization of Europe, where people in towns and cities were converted more readily than those in remote regions, where old ways lingered. However, this idea has multiple problems. First, the word's usage as a reference to non-Christians pre-dates that period in history. Second, paganism within the Roman Empire centred on cities. The concept of an urban Christianity as opposed to a rural paganism would not have occurred to Romans during Early Christianity. Third, unlike words such as rusticitas, paganus had not yet fully acquired the meanings (of uncultured backwardness) used to explain why it would have been applied to pagans.[17]
Paganus more likely acquired its meaning in Christian nomenclature via Roman military jargon (see above). Early Christians adopted military motifs and saw themselves as Milites Christi (soldiers of Christ).[15][17] A good example of Christians still using paganus in a military context rather than religious is in Tertullian's De Corona Militis XI.V, where the Christian is referred to as paganus (civilian)
Paganus acquired its religious connotations by the mid-4th century.[17] As early as the 5th century, paganos was metaphorically used to denote persons outside the bounds of the Christian community. Following the sack of Rome by the Visigoths just over fifteen years after the Christian persecution of paganism under Theodosius I,[20] murmurs began to spread that the old gods had taken greater care of the city than the Christian God. In response, Augustine of Hippo wrote De Civitate Dei Contra Paganos ('The City of God against the Pagans'). In it, he contrasted the fallen "city of Man" to the "city of God" of which all Christians were ultimately citizens. Hence, the foreign invaders were "not of the city" or "rural".[21][22][23]
The term pagan is not attested in the English language until the 17th century.[24] In addition to infidel and heretic, it was used as one of several pejorative Christian counterparts to gentile (גוי / נכרי) as used in Judaism, and to kafir (كافر, 'unbeliever') and mushrik (مشرك, 'idolater') as in Islam.
In the Latin-speaking Western Roman Empire of the newly Christianizing Roman Empire, Koine Greek became associated with the traditional polytheistic religion of Ancient Greece, and regarded as a foreign language (lingua peregrina) in the west.[26] By the latter half of the 4th century in the Greek-speaking Eastern Empire, pagans were—paradoxically—most commonly called Hellenes (Ἕλληνες, lit. 'Greeks'). The word almost entirely ceased being used in a cultural sense.[27][28] It retained that meaning for roughly the first millennium of Christianity.
This was influenced by Christianity's early members, who were Jewish. The Jews of the time distinguished themselves from foreigners according to religion rather than ethno-cultural standards, and early Jewish Christians would have done the same. Because Hellenic culture was the dominant pagan culture in the Roman east, they called pagans Hellenes. Christianity inherited Jewish terminology for non-Jews and adapted it in order to refer to non-Christians with whom they were in contact. This usage is recorded in the New Testament. In the Pauline epistles, Hellene is almost always juxtaposed with Hebrew regardless of actual ethnicities.[28]
The usage of Hellene as a religious term was initially part of an exclusively Christian nomenclature, but some Pagans began to defiantly call themselves Hellenes. Other pagans even preferred the narrow meaning of the word from a broad cultural sphere to a more specific religious grouping. However, there were many Christians and pagans alike who strongly objected to the evolution of the terminology. The influential Archbishop of Constantinople Gregory of Nazianzus, for example, took offence at imperial efforts to suppress Hellenic culture (especially concerning spoken and written Greek) and he openly criticized the emperor.[27]
The growing religious stigmatization of Hellenism had a chilling effect on Hellenic culture by the late 4th century.[27]
By late antiquity, however, it was possible to speak Greek as a primary language while not conceiving of oneself as a Hellene.[29] The long-established use of Greek both in and around the Eastern Roman Empire as a lingua franca ironically allowed it to instead become central in enabling the spread of Christianity—as indicated for example by the use of Greek for the Epistles of Paul.[30] In the first half of the 5th century, Greek was the standard language in which bishops communicated,[31] and the Acta Conciliorum ("Acts of the Church Councils") were recorded originally in Greek and then translated into other languages.
Heathen comes from Old English hæðen (not Christian or Jewish); cf. Old Norse heiðinn. This meaning for the term originated from Gothic haiþno (gentile woman) being used to translate Hellene (cf. Mark 7:26) in Wulfila's Bible, the first translation of the Bible into a Germanic language. This may have been influenced by the Greek and Latin terminology of the time used for pagans. If so, it may be derived from Gothic haiþi (dwelling on the heath). However, this is not attested. It may even be a borrowing of Greek ἔθνος (ethnos) via Armenian hethanos.[33]
The term has recently been revived in the forms Heathenry and Heathenism (often but not always capitalized), as alternative names for the Germanic neopagan movement, adherents of which may self-identify as Heathens.
It is perhaps misleading even to say that there was such a religion as paganism at the beginning of [the Common Era] ... It might be less confusing to say that the pagans, before their competition with Christianity, had no religion at all in the sense in which that word is normally used today. They had no tradition of discourse about ritual or religious matters (apart from philosophical debate or antiquarian treatise), no organized system of beliefs to which they were asked to commit themselves, no authority-structure peculiar to the religious area, above all no commitment to a particular group of people or set of ideas other than their family and political context. If this is the right view of pagan life, it follows that we should look on paganism quite simply as a religion invented in the course of the second to third centuries AD, in competition and interaction with Christians, Jews and others.
— North 1992, 187–88, [34]
Defining paganism is problematic. Understanding the context of its associated terminology is important.[35] Early Christians referred to the diverse array of cults around them as a single group for reasons of convenience and rhetoric.[36] While paganism generally implies polytheism, the primary distinction between classical pagans and Christians was not one of monotheism versus polytheism. Not all pagans were strictly polytheist. Throughout history, many of them believed in a supreme deity. (However, most such pagans believed in a class of subordinate gods/daimons—see henotheism—or divine emanations.)[10] To Christians, the most important distinction was whether or not someone worshipped the one true God. Those who did not (polytheist, monotheist, or atheist) were outsiders to the Church and thus pagan.[37] Similarly, classical pagans would have found it peculiar to distinguish groups by the number of deities followers venerate. They would have considered the priestly colleges (such as the College of Pontiffs or Epulones) and cult practices more meaningful distinctions.[38]
Referring to paganism as pre-Christian indigenous religions is equally untenable. Not all historical pagan traditions were pre-Christian or indigenous to their places of worship.[35]
Owing to the history of its nomenclature, paganism traditionally encompasses the collective pre- and non-Christian cultures in and around the classical world; including those of the Greco-Roman, Celtic, Germanic, Slavic tribes.[39] However, modern parlance of folklorists and contemporary pagans in particular has extended the original four millennia scope used by early Christians to include similar religious traditions stretching far into prehistory.[40]
Paganism came to be equated by Christians with a sense of hedonism, representing those who are sensual, materialistic, self-indulgent, unconcerned with the future, and uninterested in more mainstream religions. Pagans were usually described within this worldly stereotype, especially among those drawing attention to what they perceived as the limitations of paganism.[41] Thus G. K. Chesterton wrote: "The pagan set out, with admirable sense, to enjoy himself. By the end of his civilization he had discovered that a man cannot enjoy himself and continue to enjoy anything else." In sharp contrast, Swinburne the poet would comment on this same theme: "Thou hast conquered, O pale Galilean; the world has grown grey from thy breath; We have drunken of things Lethean, and fed on the fullness of death."[42]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism
![The Alchemist7 [JG]](/data/avatars/m/1/1057.jpg?1704756197){kind=avatar}
