|
BIBLES
(See also Lesson 1 in LESSONS)
Home
Discerning students rely on the original
Hebrew and Greek manuscripts for their understanding of the Bible.
There is a presumption, of course, that students know that the
Bible, as we have it today, was not originally written in English or
any other modern language. The original languages of the Bible were
ancient Hebrew and Greek. The so-called Old Testament, or Hebrew
Bible, was written in Hebrew or earlier forms of Hebrew such as
Aramaic and Chaldee. The so-called New Testament was written in Koiné
Greek.
If students are unable to
translate the original languages into their own tongue, they must
depend on a translation that has been made by others. One of the first
English translations of the Hebrew and Greek texts was accomplished
by scholars of 17th Century England.
This English translation is known by it's revised opening page
title, The Holy Bible,
Containing The Old And New Testaments: Translated out of the
Original Toungues: and With The Former Translations Compared and
Revised, By His Majesty's Special Command.
There are misconceptions that
have arisen about this English translation of the "Original Toungues",
this English translation of the Hebrew and Greek languages. These
misconceptions have been fostered by the unlearned to such an extent
that the original purpose of this English translation has been lost.
First, "His Majesty" was James VI, King of
Scotland, and James I, King of England(1566-1625). King James did NOT
translate the original texts into English himself but commissioned
and added authority to(i.e., authorized) their translation and use
and appointed them to be read in churches. This English Bible is
commonly known as "The
Authorized, King James, Version" and also commonly
called the The King James
Bible or Authorized
Version.
Secondly, the King James
Bible, or KJV as it is abbreviated, was a revision of
earlier attempts to provide English translations of the Hebrew and Greek
texts, none of which carried the common authority of the The
King James Bible. That is, the KJV was a revised version
of earlier works. Even so, it itself was revised after its first
publication in 1611 and continues to be so revised to this day with the
aid of new information derived from the discovery of other ancient
texts, i.e., manuscripts, that were not available to the original
translators of the King James Bible that appeared in 1611.
Students should research for themselves the appearance of and
reasons for earlier English translations of the English
Bibles(earlier than 1611) such as the editions of early
Anglo-Saxon(post 597 A.D.), Wycliffe, Tyndale, Joye, Coverdale,
Rogers, Taverner, Cranmer and the Bibles that are so-called The
Great, The Geneva and The Bishop's Bibles.
Thirdly, the King James
Bible that is commonly used today is the English Revised
Version of 1881-1885. Since that time, many attempts have been
made to provide the public with translations that more closely
approximated recent scholarship and changes in the English language,
especially American/English usage. They include, for example, the American
Standard Version(ASV, 1901), the Revised Standard
Version(RSV, 1946-52), the New Revised Standard
Version(NRSV, 1989) and the New King James Version(NKJV,
1982). Those are only a few of the many attempts to translate the
original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Not one meets with universal
acceptance, possibly because each was the product of committees
whose members could not agree among themselves what was best.
Student's should be cognizant of
the fact that the 1611 King James Bible is rarely used
today in its original form, except by scholars. There are many
reasons for it. The discovery of earlier and more accurate manuscripts,
such as the Greek Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Bezae and Sinaiticus
texts, that became available to translators. Changes in English
language spellings, grammar and definitions of words prompted
revisions such as the English Revised Version, abbreviated ERV,
which appeared between 1881-1885 and in 1895 for the Apocrypha.
Also, corrections in erroneous translations caused by scribes or
copiers needed to be addressed.
In public, the English translation
commonly used today by orthodox teachers is the English Revised
Version of the King James Bible. The American Revised
Standard Version maintains some use.
The first Roman Catholic Bible
in English, the so-called Rheims Testament, was a translation
of the New Testament and was published in 1582. The Rheims
Testament was an English translation of the Latin Vulgate
of Jerome, not a translation the original Hebrew and Greek
manuscripts. The so-called Douay Bible, or Douay-Reims
Bible, was published in 1609-1610. It was a translation that
included both the Old Testament and New(Rheims)
Testament but was still based on the Latin Vulgate of
Jerome. Several later Editions of the so-called Douay Bible
were printed after 1610, the last being in circa 1728. Two editions
of the Rheims Testament were printed in 1788 and 1803. None
of these editions contained major changes in their English
translations.
Translations of the Hebrew Bible
into English were published in 1917 by the Jewish Publication Society.
Without further comment, except
for a caution that must be made to students about the so-called Jerusalem
Bible, the Septuagint and their ilk, many revised
editions have come into common use since the first editions of the
Bible occurred in English. (See Paul: The Apostle To The Jews At Rome, Volume IV, pages 113-117 for
further study of the Jerusalem
Bible and the Septuagint,
LXX.)
The King James Version (KJV) is the still the best word for word,
grammatical translation of the ancient Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek
manuscripts. Students only need to be aware of the changes in modern
spellings and definitions of words. The New King James Version
(NKJV) or Revised Standard Version (RSV) are useful
translations and do not paraphrase words in modern language as much
as other versions.
The following 3 sections are taken from Paul: The Apostle To The Jews, Volume
V, Copyright © 2006, By
Richard J. Willoughby, Sr., ISBN:
0-9651120-6-3 Published by Richard J. Willoughby, Sr., 129
East Main Street, P. O. Box 365 Bradford
, New Hampshire 03221–0365
The
Influence of The Septuagint on the Definition of “Nation”
Part
1
The translation of the Greek word ethnos in its various
grammatical forms, as the English word “Gentile”, traditionally
meaning non-Jew, is also the result of this peculiar double
translation of nation or people from ‘am and gowy.
Sometime in the past, the Greek word ethnos was
translated as “Gentile”, from the Latin word gentilis, originally
meaning “nation”, but without specificity or without a technical
connotation, such as non-Jew. The French word, gens, affected the English
interpretation of ethnos,
‘am and gowy to such an extent that
their original meanings of ethnos and gowy,
originally meaning nation or people in a geographical area, became
non-Jew/Gentile.
English translations of the Greek
Septuagint and its original translation of the Hebrew word, gowy, יוגּ,
1471, (םיוגּ
in the manuscripts) as the Greek word ethnos, which has a meaning of a
foreign nation without regard to its theological proclivities, not
non-Jew/Gentile, because there were Jews of the Dispersion in those foreign nations. In the
Septuagint, laos
, λαος,
2992, is a Greek translation of the Hebrew word ‘am, having a meaning of
“people” of Israel
.
The English word gentile is
derived from the French word gens and the Latin word gentilis,
which meant “nation” as a place without regard to the theological
beliefs of the inhabitants.
Gentile [1350–1400 AD; ME < OF gens < L gentilis
nation]
Nation
[1250–1300 AD; ME
< OF nacion, nation
< L nātiō place of birth, people]
The French word gens is derived from the
Latin word gentilis both of which have a
meaning of nation regardless of the
racial composition or theological persuasion of that nation’s
population, whether or not they be Jew or Gentile (non-Jew). There is no direct cognate link
between the Greek word ethnos
and the French word gens, thence to the Latin word gentilis, that can have a meaning of non-Jew. Ethnos is not cognate to the
English word gentile in
that sense. What seems to have escaped scholars is that there is a
vast difference between the word nation, as a geographical place, and
the modern usage of the English word gentile, as a person who is associated
with a nation but having a particular theological persuasion of its
inhabitants, i.e., non-Jew.(See nation, p. 24, and Septuagint,
p. 39.)
The
Influence of The Septuagint on the Definition of “Nation”
Part
2
“In the LXX, laos
occurs some 2000 times, seldom in the plural, and with the specific
reference to Israel
as God’s people. In most instances the Hebrew original is ‘am. The LXX’s
inclination is always to use
laos when the reference is to Israel
and to use ethnos even for ‘am when the reference is to another
people, although this is not a consistent principle.” 16 Nevertheless, according to
Bromiley’s translation, “The main Hebrew terms for “people”, ‘am
and goy (sic),
both denote human groups, but historically
(my emphasis) the former comes (came) to be used for the holy people
and the latter (in the plural)
for the Gentiles.”17 Historically, the the Hebrew
word ‘am is rendered
as the Greek word laos
and goy is rendered as the Greek
word ethnos.
The crux of the problem is the word,
“historically”, because it is evidence that strongly points to an
usurpation of the original meaning of the word Greek ethnos,
making it seem to have a meaning of “Gentile/non-Jew”, when it was
never meant to have any connotation other than nations. For
whatever reason, English translators of the Hebrew and Greek
manuscripts took the LXX meaning of ethnos,
in its various grammatical forms, to signify non-Jews/Gentiles. Any
misrepresentation of the original meaning may also lay at the feet
of the writers of the Greek Septuagint, LXX, who
copied and translated the Hebrew texts. For example, if gowy was translated as ethnos,
when it either should have been laos
or had a meaning of nation, there was a
continuation of that misrepresentation in subsequent English
translations, e.g., the so called Jerusalem Bible.
16
(Used by permission
from page 499 of the Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittle and Gerhard Friedrich,
Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Abridged in One Volume by
Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Copyright © 1985 by William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, ISBN 0–8028–2404–8)
17
(Ibid. page 201)If
Greek–to–French–to–English translators relied either on the LXX
or on subsequent French translations, rather than on the Hebrew
manuscripts, the Hebrew words ‘am and gowy would be
misrepresented too and perpetuated the LXX
mischaracterizations of gowy as ethnos as non-Jews/Gentiles,
and misunderstood gowy to mean non-Jew/Gentile rather
than nation.
Here are two examples:
According to Isaiah 42:1
He shall bring judgment to Gentiles
< gowy18,
1471 (KJV, Isaiah
42:1)
but
He shall bring justice to the nations < gowy
1471 (JPGSR,
Isaiah 42:1)
According to Acts 13:47 < Isaiah 42:6
[Paul quoted Isaiah 42:6]
As a light to the Gentiles < ethnōn, 19 1484 (KJV, Acts 13:47
)
For a light of the Gentiles < gowy 1471 (KJV, Isaiah 42:6)
but
A light of nations < ethnōn, 1484 (JPGSR,
Acts 13:47
)
A light of nations < gowy, 1471, (JPGSR,
Isaiah 42:6)
The original King James
Version, while it claimed to be a translation out of the original
tongues, also relied on former translations, including French,
English, and Latin versions. The consequence of the French and Latin
influence was the intrusion of the word “gentile” (F. gens
< L. gentilis) into the English
(Biblical lexicon) language, circa 1300, with a meaning
of non-Jew rather than the fundamental meaning of “nation”.
18 gowy,
1471, nations, an alternative spelling in Strong’s
Hebrew Dictionary
19
ethnōn, 1484, nations, in Strong’s Greek Dictionary
The preface to the 1611 KJV
read,
"THE HOLY BIBLE,
Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of
the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations (my emphasis) diligently
compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment.
Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker,
Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611."
The preface to the New Testament read,
"THE NEWE Testament of our Lord and
Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Newly Translated out of the Originall Greeke:
and with the former
Translations (my emphasis) diligently compared and revised,
by his Majesties speciall Commandment. IMPRINTED at London by Robert
Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM.
1611. Cum Privilegio."
There is ample evidence that the “THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament,
and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: &
with the former
Translations (my emphasis) diligently compared and
revised,…” relied heavily on earlier French (e.g., the 1589 English
Douay-Reims Bible < Latin Vulgate), Latin and English
translations in their quest for accuracy.
It is beyond the scope of
this work to delve deeply into the original research of the
translators of the 1611 or later versions, except to point out that
there is ample room for students to subsequently challenge the
“former Translations” of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that have
carried over into the “historically” believed hypothesis that Paul
was an apostle to non-Jews, Gentiles. In any event, the use of the
Greek word ethnos as “Gentile” is an historically
recent event stemming from at least as late as ANNO DOMINI, MCCC
– MD
The misrepresentation of the original
meaning of ‘am and gowy is, it
must be admitted, one cause for seeing Paul as an Apostle to Gentiles,
when nothing could be further from the truth. It may be
hypothesized, therefore, that the translation of Acts 13:46
was affected by the wrongful assumptions made of Acts 13:47. That
is, Paul’s words should be translated as “behold, we turn to the
nations (ethnē)”, not “we turn to
the Gentiles”. Jay P. Green, Sr. falls into this trap too. From the synagogue at Antioch
, Paul did no such thing as “turn to the Gentiles”, but, rather, he
went next to another synagogue of the Jews, that time at Iconium.
42And when they (Paul and Barnabas) went out (of the
synagogue of the Jews at Antioch
) they were invited to preach their words on the intervening
Sabbath. 43Now when the synagogue (of the Jews, not
Gentiles) had broken up, many of the Jews (Not Gentiles) and devout
proselytes (not necessarily Gentiles) followed Paul and Barnabas,
who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of
God. 44On the next Sabbath (a Jewish Sabbath) almost all
(not all) the city gathered to hear the word of God. 45But
when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with envy and, and
contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by
Paul. 46Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It
was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but
since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting
life, behold, we turn to the nations, ethnē”.
(Acts 13:42–46; Romans 1:16, 2:9,10)
Now it happened at Iconium, that they
then went together to the synagogue of the Jews … (Acts 14:1)
The final phrase of Acts 14:1 reveals
that there were Greeks, Hellēnōn, present with the Jews in their
synagogue at Iconium. It
does not axiomatically follow that those “Greeks” were Gentiles,
non-Jews, any more than they were Greek speaking Jews who worshiped
in synagogue. (abba, patēr; see page
62, The use of Abba! Patēr!
by Hellenized Jews of the Dispersion and
Romans 8:15) Paul did not purposely seek out Gentiles, but, rather,
sought out those who were the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
Jews of the Dispersion of the Greek speaking nations. When he went
to Gentiles, it was at the Gentiles behest, not his own. Recall, the
Pharisees (versed in the
law) accused Paul of teaching Jews, not Gentiles, that circumcision
was unnecessary. (Acts
15:5) It does not follow, from the Biblical facts placed into
evidence that Paul went to the synagogue of the Jews at Iconium, or
any other synagogue for that matter, solely on the (his) premise
that Gentiles would be there.
… and (they) so spoke that a great multitude both of
the Jews and of Greeks (Hellēnōn) 20 believed. But the
unbelieving Jews poisoned the minds of the nations, (ethnōn)
against the brethren. (Acts 14:1,2)
All of which begs the question, who is
a Jew and who is a Gentile, then or now? Were they or are they
descendants of the 12 tribes of Jacob/Israel, and therefore Jews in
the sense that their ancestry was out of Judea and descendants of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel or, more fundamentally, because they
are or were the descendants of Jacob/Israel through his fourth son,
Judah, but lost memory their past ancestry, throughout the
ages? This leaves aside
those were or are proselytes.
Do those who claim to be Jews today define themselves as
descendants of Judah
. Or, do they claim to be those who are descendants, one way or
another, of all the 12 tribes descended from Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob/Israel, i.e., Hebrews, and who were originally scattered from
their homeland region of Judea (or even from Israel
before it was divided into the northern kingdom
of “ Israel ”
and the southern kingdom of “
Judah ”.) The modern
nation of Israel
, although incompletely, occupies the region of the Palestine
once occupied by the twelve
tribes before their separation into northern and southern kingdoms
and their dispersion.
The Influence of the
Septuagint on the definition of “Nation”
Part 3
The evidence presented in Paul:
The Apostle To The Jews At Rome
, Volumes I–IV, revealed that Paul was an apostle
to the Jews of the Dispersion and not to Gentiles. In keeping with
that same theme students should be prepared to add to that evidence
the words of Paul as correctly translated in Romans 15:7–13. The original texts from which
Paul quoted Psalms, Isaiah and Deuteronomy in Chapter 15, Verses 7 through
13, have come from or been influenced by the Septuagint, a Greek
copy and translation of the original Hebrew texts. Whether or not that is true,
there is a problem that arises in interpreting the Septuagint,
because either Paul or the modern English translators of Paul’s
epistles or even the Septuagint itself have erred. Questions must be
asked: “Who is interpreting and translating which text, Paul or the
modern English translators of Paul’s Greek epistles?” and “Which
text is being cited by Paul, the Septuagint or the original Hebrew?
If Paul had used only the Septuagint (which seem unlikely since his
primary language was Hebrew and studied under the Hebrew scholar
Gamaliel), what did he mean in his own epistles when he used the
word ethnos? Did he mean “Gentile” or “nation”? The context of his ministry to
the Jews of the Dispersion in their synagogues would lay evidence to
his meaning “nations” and not “Gentiles” because he purposely always
went to the synagogues of the Jews of the nations!
There is another pertinent question as
well. Where, when, how and why did the English word “Gentile” come
into use in the English language, regardless of its use in
Scripture? If the etymology
of the word Gentile < ethnē and its
relationships are retraced, where when, how and why did the
equivalency of the two arise and ethnos become a technical term for
Gentiles? There are places in the Scripture where ethnos
is translated as nation, with Matthew 28:19 being the most obvious
place, without regard to the specificity of it having the meaning of
a non-Jew, a “Gentile”. In other words, why should the Greek word ethnē
be a technical term for the English word “Gentile”, especially if it
doesn’t fit the context, in this case, of Paul’s customary journeys
to the synagogues of the Jews according to Acts 9:20, 17:1–2, etc.
If ethnē is a technical term for non-Jew or
“Gentile” in English, what was the cause of its occurrence and why
was the English word “Gentile” (<French <Latin), chosen,
rather than simply saying non-Jew. Why should the English word
“Gentile” necessarily ever had, in the beginning, a meaning of
non-Jew, rather than a “nation” (< Old French, nacion
< Latin, natio, as a place of birth,
not of theological persuasion). We’re dealing with at least five languages
(Hebrew, Greek, Latin, French, English + ?) in recovering it’s basic
sense in Scripture and in Paul’s ministry as an apostle to
Jews. Further, we are
dealing with the perception of translators who were governed by
theological persuasion, denominational or otherwise. (Jay P. Green
seems to be the only well known translator who translated Acts 9:15
in keeping with Paul’s ministry to the Jew in their synagogues. The immediacy of Paul’s choice to
go to the synagogues of Damascus
after his encounter with the “voice in Hebrew by Christ” cannot be
explained simply on the basis of the fact that the Jews were to
receive the gospel first. Romans 1:16; 2:9,10 fortify, according to
Act 17:1–2, his consistent journeys to the Hellenized Jews in their
synagogues rather than Gentile assemblies.
If the English word
“Gentile” is a modern, technical word for non-Jew, it does not
necessarily follow that it was an ancient, technical word for
non-Jew when it is translated from ethnē.
Did it become a cultural or national definition rather than a
theological one? In any
event, translating ethnē as non-Jew,
Gnetile, is not consistent within the context of Paul’s journeys to
the synagogues of the Jews and, therefore, not consistent with the
way in which Acts 9:15
is traditionally translated from the Greek. (See, e.g., the
congeners of ethnos, such as
ethnē, ethnōn, ethnesin.)
Too much emphasis
has been made of the inerrancy of the Septuagint. The faults of the
Septuagint are well known and will not be belabored here, except to
say that the English translators of the Greek Septuagint erred when
translating the Greek words ethnos (nation) and lao
(people) that were originally derived from the Hebrew words gowy
(foreign nation) and ‘am (people of Israel). That is, the English translators,
without due consideration, translated ethnos/ethnē as “Gentile”,
assuming ethnos/ethnē meant gowy, thus
setting up a centuries old misconception that Paul was an apostle to
Gentiles! The original Hebrew texts should have taken precedence over
the Greek translations of the Septuagint. In Romans 15:9–12, it can
be seen that the Hebrew words cited by Paul (Psalms, Deuteronomy and
Isaiah; page 176 above) were the people of foreign nations as
geographical regions without regard to the theological proclivities
of the inhabitants (Jew or Gentile) of those nations, only that they
would become under God. The Greek words which were translated into
English by most renditions of the bible incorrectly translate ethnē
as Gentiles rather than nations, with the exception of Green and a
very few others who know better.
Romans 15:14–21
15:14Now I myself am confident concerning
you, my brethren (brother Jews) that you also are full of goodness,
filled with all knowledge, able to admonish one another. 15:15Nevertheless,
brethren, I have written more boldly to you on some points, as reminding you, because of the grace
given to me by God, 15:16that
I must be minister of Jesus Christ to the nations (ethnē),
ministering the gospel of God, that the offering of the nations (ethnōn)
might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
15:17Therefore I have reason to glory in
Christ Jesus in the things of God.
15:18For I will not dare to speak of any of
those things which Christ has not accomplished in me, in word and
deed, to make of [the] nations (ethnōn) obedience.
15:19in mighty signs and wonders, by the
power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem
and round about to Illyricum
(bordering Western Macedonia and to Achaia),
I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
15:20And so I have made it my aim to preach
the gospel, not where Christ was named, (he was not previously
“named” in the synagogues of the nations) lest I should build on
another man’s foundation. (See Acts 9:15
)
15:21But as it is written, To whom He has
not announced, they shall see. And those who have not heard shall
understand. (Isaiah 52:15)
Romans 15:14–21 provides further
evidence that Paul’s ministry was to the Jews of the Dispersion, not
Gentiles. What seems to have escaped investigators of Paul is his
statement in Romans 15:20, “I have made it my aim to preach the
gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another
man’s foundation” and the words of Acts 28:17, “And it came to pass
after three days that Paul called the leaders of the Jews together”
(at Rome). If that isn’t
clear, it should be pointed out that the reason Paul called the Jews
together at Rome , and
not Gentiles, is that the Jews had not been proselytized at Rome
. According to Acts 28:20–22, the Jews at Rome
had heard of the sect (Christians) and of Paul.
“For this reason
therefore I have called for you, to see you and speak with you,
because for the hope of Israel
I am bound with this chain.” Then they (the Jews)
said to him, “we neither received letters from Judea
concerning you, nor have any of the brethren who came reported or
spoken any evil of you. But we desire to hear from you what you
think ; for concerning this sect, we know that it is spoken against
everywhere.” (Acts 28:20–22)
Also, Priscilla and Aquila
reported that Jews, not Gentiles, had been expelled from Rome
by the Emperor Claudius. There had been apostles at Rome
before Paul (obviously) and that they had proselytized Jews, not
Gentiles, adding to the evidence that Peter and the other Apostles
went to the Jews of the circumcision and Paul to the uncircumcised Jews (who had been,
e.g., Hellen–ized or even Roman–ized and had adopted the ways of the
nations, not performing the customary circumcision). Paul went, as
was his custom, to the Jews in their synagogues. (Acts 17:1,2)
And he (Paul) found a
certain Jew named Aquila (at Corinth
), born in Pontus
, lately come from Italy
, with his wife Priscilla, because that
Claudius had commanded all Jews – not all Gentiles or Christians – to depart from Rome
. (Acts 18:2)
This adds evidence that the Apostles
had been proselytizing Jews of the circumcision at Rome
, not Gentiles. That is, there were Christians at Rome
before Paul went there under arrest. Further, the Jews to
whom Paul went had not been required to leave Rome
because they had not yet been apostle–ized
(Christian-ized). In Romans
15:14–15, Paul calls the recipients of his letter “my
brethren”. It must be
emphasized that when Paul used the word “brethren”, he was referring
to Jews and not Gentiles. Romans 9:1–5, offers further evidence.
3For I was praying a curse [on] myself
to be [separated] from Christ on behalf of My Brethren, my kinsmen according to the
flesh: 4Who are Israelites
(sons, heirs, descendants, seed of Jacob-Israel); to whom pertains
the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of
the law, and the service, and the promises. 5aOf whom the
FATHERS (Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob-Israel), and out of whom is the Christ according
to the flesh; 5bthe one God blessed over all to the
ages.(Romans 9:3–5a,b)
In addition to the use of the word ethnos
in its various grammatical forms,
ethnōn and ethnē, which have the basic meaning
of “nation”, “of nations” and “to nations”,
respectively, Paul’s words in Romans 15:20 reveal, within the
context of the Book of Acts and his epistles, his journeys, “round
about”, to those places “not where Christ” had been named before”,
that he preached where others had not been preached.
Paul’s words in Romans 15:20 reveal
that he preached where others had not been. Who were the “others”
who would have preached Christ? (The other apostles!) Where had the other apostles not
preached Christ? (In the synagogues of the Jews of the Dispersion of
the nations, specifically Macedonia
, Achaia, +++, in their synagogues!)
|
