Indeed so – and part of it seems to be that, while there are fairly distinct, well-defined definitions for both terms, it’s also clear that both terms are often used in a broader (and sometimes synonymous) sense.
In Two Years Before the Mast, Dana points out that in Yankee sailor speak a “Christian” country means a “civilized” one. He never mentions pagans or heathens.
I think it’s more that it’s always true with anything language-related. It’s a product of the tiresome but incontrovertible reality that a word can have more than one sense, that the sense in which a word is used may change over time, and that a word can be used in different senses by different speakers.
Of course that’s also true. And when it comes to linguistic questions of a religious nature, all bets are off…
I know Medieval Christians sometimes referred to Muslims as “pagans” (or “paynims”, which comes from the same root) but are there any instances of Christians referring to Jews as either pagans or “paynims”? I realize that Wiktionary entry says paynim could be used to mean Jew–but, well, it’s a Wiki. I wonder if there are any more authoritative cites? (The OED gives “non-Jew”–that is “gentile”–as an obsolete meaning of “paynim”, but doesn’t really seem to support the use of paynim to mean Jew. Of course I’ve definitely seen “paynim” used to mean “Muslim” in Medieval Christian sources, however much that ignored the common roots of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.)
In modern use, I think “pagan” definitely has a connotation of “polytheist” or someone who adheres to some sort of nature-based religion. “Heathen” could mean that, but can also just mean irreligious, especially in a humorous sense: “Bob’s just some kind of heathen, I think–he sleeps in or watches a football game on Sundays, but it’s not like he goes to atheist meetings, either.” To say Bob is a “pagan” on the other hand, would to me strongly imply that he and his friends get naked on Samhain and Beltane and paint themselves blue and worship the Earth Mother and the Horned God, or something along those lines.
“Heathen” could also be used to mean–again humorously–people who do go to atheist meetings: “Atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, secular humanists, and other assorted heathens.” At least, I often use it that way. But I definitely wouldn’t use “pagan” in that sort of context at all.
I wouldn’t because I wouldn’t use heathen at all in reference to someone’s religion. But if someone else referred to a Jewish person as a heathen, it wouldn’t irritate my sprachgefühl at all. But I probably wouldn’t continue talking to that person.
My mom always called us kids and our friends “heathens”, in a lighthearted way, usually implying we were dirty, wild and uncouth. I was an adult before I realized the word normally means “unchristian” and is a synonym for “pagan”.
It’s not so much contradictory but that meanings have shifted over time. “Terrible” used to mean “inspiring terror,” and “awful” meant “inspiring awe.”
Centuries ago “heathen” and “pagan” used to have some fairly specific religious meanings. With the waning of the importance of religion in everyday life, these meanings have become much looser and imprecise. (This said, there are religious sects that may still use them in their original senses, or even expand their use.)
As has been said, “heathen” is rarely if ever used as a serious description of religion these days (except as said by some religious groups). Most people these days use it jocularly, similarly to “savage.” This accounts in part for the range of definitions people are offering for it - there is no longer a precise definition.
Likewise, “pagan” is rarely used for most polytheists, such as Hindus or African animists. Instead it is used for those who explicitly identify as pagans themselves, such as Wiccans or neo-pagans.
This may be because “Jew” is both a religious belief and a genetic background.
In the strictest interpretation, you could believe 100% of the Jewish religion, but unless your mother was a Jew, you couldn’t truly be Jewish. (Which is partly why they weren’t big on evangelizing or conversions.) So being ‘people of the book’ were just as much gentile as any other non-Jew.
This isn’t so true any more, I think (except maybe in the ultra-orthodox?). I know both converts to the Jewish faith, and genetic-born Jews who don’t practice their faith at all (just like many people who were raised Christian).
There’s also the fact that for Jews the New Testament or the Koran are about as significant as the Book of Mormon is to Roman Catholics.
This is another one of those “terminology is relative” things. To a Mormon anyone outside the LDS is a gentile, including Jewish folk.
In the Rumantsch language of Switzerland, the word for ‘human being’ is carstgàn /karsˈtɕan/, which is literally ‘Christian’.
Does anyone else have “City of Crime” going through their head now?
Middle English and Early Modern English authors used the word paynim (i.e. pagan) to mean Muslim, or as they misnamed it back then, “Mahometan.”
ETA— Of course, they were ignorant of what they were talking about. I guess that usage dropped out circa the Enlightenment, when Europeans began to actually learn about Islam.
I think the distinction goes back to the early days of Christianity when their big competition was the Greco-Roman Pantheon; Jupiter/Zeus, Juno/Hera, Mars/Ares, Neptune/Poseidon, and all of them.
Christianity was also more organized in the cities and those were the first places to convert over. Out in the countryside, however, the old religion lingered on longer. That might explain the connection of paganism being seen as a rustic religion.
When we were making arrangements for my Mother’s Methodist funeral, we explained to the Minister that death was a tragic thing for Jews, and not to be joked about at the funeral.
He called us “heathens” and made jokes at the funeral.
Unless you converted, which for thousands of years has actually been a time-consuming and difficult process. Deliberately so. But anyone who went fully through the process was considered just as Jewish as any other Jew. It wasn’t just about belief, it was also about ritual process.
Are the Three wise men (part of nativity scenes) also considered heathen and pagan ?
The only information on them in the Bible is in Matthew, who merely describes them as wise men (no number is given) who came from the East. The word magi used in the text may indicate they were Zoroastrian priests from Persia/Iran. It’s debatable whether Zoroastrianism is monotheistic or dualistic. As non-Jews, they would have been heathens; they may or may not have been pagans. With regard to Christian symbolism, they are usually depicted as coming from Europe, Asia, and Africa, and represent the non-Jewish peoples of the world recognizing Christ as Lord.