Acts 11:26

Christian dd-1 at juno.com dd-1 at juno.com
Sun May 23 15:49:50 EDT 1999

 

Pros Christian Denny Diehl here with a question:”the disciples were first called Christiansin Antioch” -Ac 11:26What is a good definition of “Christian”? I’ve heardChrist-like. But in the case of those who were called”Herodians”, that would not mean Herod-like, would it?___________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.htmlor call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

 

ProsChristian

Christian Kevin W. Woodruff cierpke at utc.campuscw.net
Sun May 23 16:00:23 EDT 1999

 

Christian Christian More like:”adherents to, or belonging to the party of…” Before this time they wereknown as “the Nazareans” and “the Way”Kevin W. WoodruffAt 02:49 PM 5/23/99 -0500, you wrote:>Denny Diehl here with a question:> >“the disciples were first called Christians>in Antioch” -Ac 11:26> >What is a good definition of “Christian”? I’ve heard>Christ-like. But in the case of those who were called>“Herodians”, that would not mean Herod-like, would it?>___________________________________________________________________>You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html>or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: cierpke at utc.campuscw.net>To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div.Library Director/Reference LibrarianProfessor of New Testament GreekCierpke Memorial LibraryTennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404United States of America423/493-4252 (office)423/698-9447 (home)423/493-4497 (FAX)Cierpke at utc.campuscw.net (preferred)kwoodruf at utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate)http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm

 

ChristianChristian

Christian Kevin W. Woodruff cierpke at utc.campuscw.net
Sun May 23 16:00:23 EDT 1999

 

Christian Christian More like:”adherents to, or belonging to the party of…” Before this time they wereknown as “the Nazareans” and “the Way”Kevin W. WoodruffAt 02:49 PM 5/23/99 -0500, you wrote:>Denny Diehl here with a question:> >“the disciples were first called Christians>in Antioch” -Ac 11:26> >What is a good definition of “Christian”? I’ve heard>Christ-like. But in the case of those who were called>“Herodians”, that would not mean Herod-like, would it?>___________________________________________________________________>You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html>or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: cierpke at utc.campuscw.net>To unsubscribe, forward this message to$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div.Library Director/Reference LibrarianProfessor of New Testament GreekCierpke Memorial LibraryTennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404United States of America423/493-4252 (office)423/698-9447 (home)423/493-4497 (FAX)Cierpke at utc.campuscw.net (preferred)kwoodruf at utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate)http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm

 

ChristianChristian

Christian dd-1 at juno.com dd-1 at juno.com
Sun May 23 15:49:50 EDT 1999

 

Pros Christian Denny Diehl here with a question:”the disciples were first called Christiansin Antioch” -Ac 11:26What is a good definition of “Christian”? I’ve heardChrist-like. But in the case of those who were called”Herodians”, that would not mean Herod-like, would it?___________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.htmlor call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

 

ProsChristian

Christian Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Sun May 23 16:02:04 EDT 1999

 

Christian Christian At 02:49 PM 5/23/99 -0500, you wrote:>Denny Diehl here with a question:> >“the disciples were first called Christians>in Antioch” -Ac 11:26> >What is a good definition of “Christian”? I’ve heard>Christ-like. But in the case of those who were called>“Herodians”, that would not mean Herod-like, would it?In fact the term was intentionally derisive- an insult- as it is adiminutive of “christos”. Specifically speaking, it means “little Christ”-and was intended by its coiners to make fun of the followers of Jesus whowere “little Christ’s” all around Antioch.Later it was adopted by the followers of Christ as a term of honor. Afterall, it is really quite something to be called a miniature Christ. Whoreally is? (besides Mother Theresa).Best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

ChristianChristian

Christian Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Sun May 23 16:12:39 EDT 1999

 

Christian Christian Jim West wrote:> At 02:49 PM 5/23/99 -0500, you wrote:> >Denny Diehl here with a question:> >> > “the disciples were first called Christians> > in Antioch” -Ac 11:26> >> >What is a good definition of “Christian”? I’ve heard> >Christ-like. But in the case of those who were called> >”Herodians”, that would not mean Herod-like, would it?> > In fact the term was intentionally derisive- an insult- as it is a> diminutive of “christos”. Specifically speaking, it means “little Christ”-> and was intended by its coiners to make fun of the followers of Jesus who> were “little Christ’s” all around Antioch.A term of derision, yes. “Little christs”, no. More like “smelly ones” based on theassociation of the odor of the oil thought to be used in the process by which those”of the ‘anointed’ became so.Yours,Jeffrey–Jeffrey B. Gibson7423 N. Sheridan Road #2AChicago, Illinois 60626e-mail jgibson000 at ameritech.net

 

ChristianChristian

Christian Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Sun May 23 16:12:39 EDT 1999

 

Christian Christian Jim West wrote:> At 02:49 PM 5/23/99 -0500, you wrote:> >Denny Diehl here with a question:> >> > “the disciples were first called Christians> > in Antioch” -Ac 11:26> >> >What is a good definition of “Christian”? I’ve heard> >Christ-like. But in the case of those who were called> >”Herodians”, that would not mean Herod-like, would it?> > In fact the term was intentionally derisive- an insult- as it is a> diminutive of “christos”. Specifically speaking, it means “little Christ”-> and was intended by its coiners to make fun of the followers of Jesus who> were “little Christ’s” all around Antioch.A term of derision, yes. “Little christs”, no. More like “smelly ones” based on theassociation of the odor of the oil thought to be used in the process by which those”of the ‘anointed’ became so.Yours,Jeffrey–Jeffrey B. Gibson7423 N. Sheridan Road #2AChicago, Illinois 60626e-mail jgibson000 at ameritech.net

 

ChristianChristian

Christian Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Sun May 23 16:02:04 EDT 1999

 

Christian Christian At 02:49 PM 5/23/99 -0500, you wrote:>Denny Diehl here with a question:> >“the disciples were first called Christians>in Antioch” -Ac 11:26> >What is a good definition of “Christian”? I’ve heard>Christ-like. But in the case of those who were called>“Herodians”, that would not mean Herod-like, would it?In fact the term was intentionally derisive- an insult- as it is adiminutive of “christos”. Specifically speaking, it means “little Christ”-and was intended by its coiners to make fun of the followers of Jesus whowere “little Christ’s” all around Antioch.Later it was adopted by the followers of Christ as a term of honor. Afterall, it is really quite something to be called a miniature Christ. Whoreally is? (besides Mother Theresa).Best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

ChristianChristian

Christian Jim West jwest at highland.net
Sun May 23 16:48:38 EDT 1999

 

Christian Christian At 03:12 PM 5/23/99 -0500, you wrote:> >A term of derision, yes. “Little christs”, no. More like “smelly ones”based on the>association of the odor of the oil thought to be used in the process bywhich those>“of the ‘anointed’ became so.This begs the question- did they smell any worse than any of the otherunwashed hordes? If it does signify some such thing, wouldn’t it be acompliment rather than an insult since someone being anointed would beanointed with something nice smelling… and thus they would actually smella bit better than their hog slaughtering, slack jawed, knuckle dragging,mouth breathing, filthy neighbors…best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

ChristianChristian

Christian Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Sun May 23 16:48:41 EDT 1999

 

Christian oder…. Jim West wrote:> At 03:12 PM 5/23/99 -0500, you wrote:> > >> >A term of derision, yes. “Little christs”, no. More like “smelly ones”> based on the> >association of the odor of the oil thought to be used in the process by> which those> >”of the ‘anointed’ became so.> > This begs the question- did they smell any worse than any of the other> unwashed hordes? If it does signify some such thing, wouldn’t it be a> compliment rather than an insult since someone being anointed would be> anointed with something nice smelling… and thus they would actually smell> a bit better than their hog slaughtering, slack jawed, knuckle dragging,> mouth breathing, filthy neighbors…> It begs the question less than your assumptions about the oderificiouness (isthere such a word?) of the non-Christians in Antioch. Actually, I just had alook at the article in TDNT on CHRISTOS, and while it does not support my claim(which I read somewhere, but can’t now remember where), it argues thatCHRISTIANOS cannot be construed as a diminutive.Yours,Jeffrey–Jeffrey B. Gibson7423 N. Sheridan Road #2AChicago, Illinois 60626e-mail jgibson000 at ameritech.net

 

Christianoder….

Christian Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Sun May 23 16:48:41 EDT 1999

 

Christian oder…. Jim West wrote:> At 03:12 PM 5/23/99 -0500, you wrote:> > >> >A term of derision, yes. “Little christs”, no. More like “smelly ones”> based on the> >association of the odor of the oil thought to be used in the process by> which those> >”of the ‘anointed’ became so.> > This begs the question- did they smell any worse than any of the other> unwashed hordes? If it does signify some such thing, wouldn’t it be a> compliment rather than an insult since someone being anointed would be> anointed with something nice smelling… and thus they would actually smell> a bit better than their hog slaughtering, slack jawed, knuckle dragging,> mouth breathing, filthy neighbors…> It begs the question less than your assumptions about the oderificiouness (isthere such a word?) of the non-Christians in Antioch. Actually, I just had alook at the article in TDNT on CHRISTOS, and while it does not support my claim(which I read somewhere, but can’t now remember where), it argues thatCHRISTIANOS cannot be construed as a diminutive.Yours,Jeffrey–Jeffrey B. Gibson7423 N. Sheridan Road #2AChicago, Illinois 60626e-mail jgibson000 at ameritech.net

 

Christianoder….

Christian Jim West jwest at highland.net
Sun May 23 16:48:38 EDT 1999

 

Christian Christian At 03:12 PM 5/23/99 -0500, you wrote:> >A term of derision, yes. “Little christs”, no. More like “smelly ones”based on the>association of the odor of the oil thought to be used in the process bywhich those>“of the ‘anointed’ became so.This begs the question- did they smell any worse than any of the otherunwashed hordes? If it does signify some such thing, wouldn’t it be acompliment rather than an insult since someone being anointed would beanointed with something nice smelling… and thus they would actually smella bit better than their hog slaughtering, slack jawed, knuckle dragging,mouth breathing, filthy neighbors…best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

ChristianChristian

Christian dd-1 at juno.com dd-1 at juno.com
Sun May 23 17:18:20 EDT 1999

 

oder…. Christian Denny Diehl here,Perhaps I asked the wrong question.>CHRISTIANOS cannot be construed as a diminutive.What does the suffix IAN imply? E.g., what wouldhHRWiDIANOS mean?___________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.htmlor call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

 

oder….Christian

Christian Jim West jwest at highland.net
Sun May 23 17:23:12 EDT 1999

 

Christian Christian At 03:48 PM 5/23/99 -0500, you wrote:>It begs the question less than your assumptions about the oderificiouness (is>there such a word?)I dunno- but I like it.> of the non-Christians in Antioch. Actually, I just had a>look at the article in TDNT on CHRISTOS, and while it does not support my claim>(which I read somewhere, but can’t now remember where), it argues that>CHRISTIANOS cannot be construed as a diminutive.Hmmm…… I will have to take a look. Its been years since I read TDNT onChristos- I guess I should re-read the whole thing again. Yuck.Best, as ever,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

ChristianChristian

Christian Jim West jwest at highland.net
Sun May 23 17:23:12 EDT 1999

 

Christian Christian At 03:48 PM 5/23/99 -0500, you wrote:>It begs the question less than your assumptions about the oderificiouness (is>there such a word?)I dunno- but I like it.> of the non-Christians in Antioch. Actually, I just had a>look at the article in TDNT on CHRISTOS, and while it does not support my claim>(which I read somewhere, but can’t now remember where), it argues that>CHRISTIANOS cannot be construed as a diminutive.Hmmm…… I will have to take a look. Its been years since I read TDNT onChristos- I guess I should re-read the whole thing again. Yuck.Best, as ever,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

ChristianChristian

Christian dd-1 at juno.com dd-1 at juno.com
Sun May 23 17:18:20 EDT 1999

 

oder…. Christian Denny Diehl here,Perhaps I asked the wrong question.>CHRISTIANOS cannot be construed as a diminutive.What does the suffix IAN imply? E.g., what wouldhHRWiDIANOS mean?___________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.htmlor call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

 

oder….Christian

Christian Jim West jwest at highland.net
Sun May 23 17:24:36 EDT 1999

 

Christian Christian [Annointing] At 04:18 PM 5/23/99 -0500, you wrote:>Denny Diehl here,> >Perhaps I asked the wrong question.> >>CHRISTIANOS cannot be construed as a diminutive.> >What does the suffix IAN imply? E.g., what would>hHRWiDIANOS mean?“little” i.e., a person who emulates herod. christian, a person whoemulates christ… etc.best,jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

ChristianChristian [Annointing]

Christian Jim West jwest at highland.net
Sun May 23 17:24:36 EDT 1999

 

Christian Christian [Annointing] At 04:18 PM 5/23/99 -0500, you wrote:>Denny Diehl here,> >Perhaps I asked the wrong question.> >>CHRISTIANOS cannot be construed as a diminutive.> >What does the suffix IAN imply? E.g., what would>hHRWiDIANOS mean?“little” i.e., a person who emulates herod. christian, a person whoemulates christ… etc.best,jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

ChristianChristian [Annointing]

Christian Linda Gray shavedice at itexas.net
Sun May 23 18:50:29 EDT 1999

 

Christian [Annointing] Mark 3:1 Limerick > This begs the question- did they smell any worse than any of the other> unwashed hordes? If it does signify some such thing, wouldn’t it be a >compliment rather than an insult since someone being anointed would be >anointed with something nice smelling… and thus they would actuallysmell >a bit better than their hog slaughtering, slack jawed, knuckle dragging, >mouth breathing, filthy neighbors…HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! Thats some funny stuff.Mitchell Gray

 

Christian [Annointing]Mark 3:1 Limerick

Christian Linda Gray shavedice at itexas.net
Sun May 23 18:50:29 EDT 1999

 

Christian [Annointing] Mark 3:1 Limerick > This begs the question- did they smell any worse than any of the other> unwashed hordes? If it does signify some such thing, wouldn’t it be a >compliment rather than an insult since someone being anointed would be >anointed with something nice smelling… and thus they would actuallysmell >a bit better than their hog slaughtering, slack jawed, knuckle dragging, >mouth breathing, filthy neighbors…HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! Thats some funny stuff.Mitchell Gray

 

Christian [Annointing]Mark 3:1 Limerick
Christian Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Sun May 23 22:59:15 EDT 1999

 

Mark 3:1 Limerick What is “KURIAKOS”? On Sun 23 May 99 (14:49:50), dd-1 at juno.com wrote:> “the disciples were first called Christians> in Antioch” -Ac 11:26> > What is a good definition of “Christian”? I’ve heard> Christ-like. But in the case of those who were called> “Herodians”, that would not mean Herod-like, would it? Hi Danny! IMHO the term CRISTIANOI was meant as a derisory term, because they were always going on about IHSOUS who was called hO CRISTOS. Compare the use of the pejorative term “Methodists!” which was applied to the Wesleys and Whitfield and the religious “enthusiasts” in the “Holy Club” at Oxford. [“Enthusiasm” is EN-QEWi-SIASMH, is it not?] The name stuck; and they decided to acknowledge it with pride (proper pride; not seven-deadly-sins pride). As the “Christians” of Antioch, so the “Methodists” of Oxford. Both Christians and Methodists (as a subset of Christians) have been fruitful and multiplied and filled the whole earth. EN CRISTWi Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm

 

Mark 3:1 LimerickWhat is “KURIAKOS”?

Christian Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Sun May 23 22:59:15 EDT 1999

 

Mark 3:1 Limerick What is “KURIAKOS”? On Sun 23 May 99 (14:49:50), dd-1 at juno.com wrote:> “the disciples were first called Christians> in Antioch” -Ac 11:26> > What is a good definition of “Christian”? I’ve heard> Christ-like. But in the case of those who were called> “Herodians”, that would not mean Herod-like, would it? Hi Danny! IMHO the term CRISTIANOI was meant as a derisory term, because they were always going on about IHSOUS who was called hO CRISTOS. Compare the use of the pejorative term “Methodists!” which was applied to the Wesleys and Whitfield and the religious “enthusiasts” in the “Holy Club” at Oxford. [“Enthusiasm” is EN-QEWi-SIASMH, is it not?] The name stuck; and they decided to acknowledge it with pride (proper pride; not seven-deadly-sins pride). As the “Christians” of Antioch, so the “Methodists” of Oxford. Both Christians and Methodists (as a subset of Christians) have been fruitful and multiplied and filled the whole earth. EN CRISTWi Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm

 

Mark 3:1 LimerickWhat is “KURIAKOS”?

Christian dd-1 at juno.com dd-1 at juno.com
Mon May 24 09:08:29 EDT 1999

 

Orthography rather than scripture Pros Ben, Denny Diehl here> IMHO the term CRISTIANOI was meant as a derisory termSeveral have said this, but I, for one, don’t think that is anecessary conclusion from the language. It is stated:”CRHMATISAI TE PRWTWS EN ANTIOCEIAi TOUSMAQHTAS CRISTIANOUS” -Ac 11:26CRHMATISAI is middle/passive which could give rise to either”They were called” or “They called themselves” could it not?Also, I don’t see anything historically that would give any indication that it began as a derisive term. Tacitus tells us:”Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastenedthe guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on aclass hated for their abominations, called Christiansby the populace.” -Ann xv.44But this is quite late, and I wouldn’t think this would give us anyindication as to the origination of the term “Christian”.___________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.htmlor call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

 

Orthography rather than scripturePros

Christian dd-1 at juno.com dd-1 at juno.com
Mon May 24 09:08:29 EDT 1999

 

Orthography rather than scripture Pros Ben, Denny Diehl here> IMHO the term CRISTIANOI was meant as a derisory termSeveral have said this, but I, for one, don’t think that is anecessary conclusion from the language. It is stated:”CRHMATISAI TE PRWTWS EN ANTIOCEIAi TOUSMAQHTAS CRISTIANOUS” -Ac 11:26CRHMATISAI is middle/passive which could give rise to either”They were called” or “They called themselves” could it not?Also, I don’t see anything historically that would give any indication that it began as a derisive term. Tacitus tells us:”Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastenedthe guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on aclass hated for their abominations, called Christiansby the populace.” -Ann xv.44But this is quite late, and I wouldn’t think this would give us anyindication as to the origination of the term “Christian”.___________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.htmlor call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

 

Orthography rather than scripturePros

Christian Jack Kilmon jkilmon at historian.net
Mon May 24 11:17:03 EDT 1999

 

Pros Christian dd-1 at juno.com wrote:> > Ben, Denny Diehl here> > > IMHO the term CRISTIANOI was meant as a derisory term> > Several have said this, but I, for one, don’t think that is a> necessary conclusion from the language. It is stated:> > “CRHMATISAI TE PRWTWS EN ANTIOCEIAi TOUS> MAQHTAS CRISTIANOUS” -Ac 11:26> > CRHMATISAI is middle/passive which could give rise to either> “They were called” or “They called themselves” could it not?> Also, I don’t see anything historically that would give any> indication that it began as a derisive term. Tacitus tells us:> > “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened> the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a> class hated for their abominations, called Christians> by the populace.” -Ann xv.44> > But this is quite late, and I wouldn’t think this would give us any> indication as to the origination of the term “Christian”.Mattingly treats the first use of the term “Christians” very wellin the Journal of Theological Studies 9 (1958) pp 26-37. It wasfirst applied by Antiochene non-Jews to refer to non-Jewishsectarians around 60 CE. This would conform to its having beenused, perhaps derisively, during the Neronian Persecution afew years later. Although Tacitus is writing around the beginningof the 2nd century, he was using earlier sources. Its useby Luke in Acts (11:26; 26:28) confirms the Antiochene settingpost 60 CE. Whether it was derisive or not may have dependedon who was using it but it was not fully accepted as a self-designation by gentiles Christians until the second century.Jack– ______________________________________________taybutheh d’maran yeshua masheecha am kulkonJack Kilmonjkilmon at historian.nethttp://www.historian.net

 

ProsChristian

Christian Jack Kilmon jkilmon at historian.net
Mon May 24 11:17:03 EDT 1999

 

Pros Christian dd-1 at juno.com wrote:> > Ben, Denny Diehl here> > > IMHO the term CRISTIANOI was meant as a derisory term> > Several have said this, but I, for one, don’t think that is a> necessary conclusion from the language. It is stated:> > “CRHMATISAI TE PRWTWS EN ANTIOCEIAi TOUS> MAQHTAS CRISTIANOUS” -Ac 11:26> > CRHMATISAI is middle/passive which could give rise to either> “They were called” or “They called themselves” could it not?> Also, I don’t see anything historically that would give any> indication that it began as a derisive term. Tacitus tells us:> > “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened> the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a> class hated for their abominations, called Christians> by the populace.” -Ann xv.44> > But this is quite late, and I wouldn’t think this would give us any> indication as to the origination of the term “Christian”.Mattingly treats the first use of the term “Christians” very wellin the Journal of Theological Studies 9 (1958) pp 26-37. It wasfirst applied by Antiochene non-Jews to refer to non-Jewishsectarians around 60 CE. This would conform to its having beenused, perhaps derisively, during the Neronian Persecution afew years later. Although Tacitus is writing around the beginningof the 2nd century, he was using earlier sources. Its useby Luke in Acts (11:26; 26:28) confirms the Antiochene settingpost 60 CE. Whether it was derisive or not may have dependedon who was using it but it was not fully accepted as a self-designation by gentiles Christians until the second century.Jack– ______________________________________________taybutheh d’maran yeshua masheecha am kulkonJack Kilmonjkilmon at historian.nethttp://www.historian.net

 

ProsChristian

Christian Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon May 24 12:07:03 EDT 1999

 

Christian Christian [Anointing] At 8:08 AM -0500 5/24/99, dd-1 at juno.com wrote:>Ben, Denny Diehl here> >> IMHO the term CRISTIANOI was meant as a derisory term> >Several have said this, but I, for one, don’t think that is a>necessary conclusion from the language. It is stated:> >“CRHMATISAI TE PRWTWS EN ANTIOCEIAi TOUS>MAQHTAS CRISTIANOUS” -Ac 11:26> >CRHMATISAI is middle/passive which could give rise to either>“They were called” or “They called themselves” could it not?>Also, I don’t see anything historically that would give any>indication that it began as a derisive term. Tacitus tells us:CRHMATISAI is NOT middle/passive; it’s an aorist ACTIVE infinitive.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

ChristianChristian [Anointing]

Christian Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon May 24 12:07:03 EDT 1999

 

Christian Christian [Anointing] At 8:08 AM -0500 5/24/99, dd-1 at juno.com wrote:>Ben, Denny Diehl here> >> IMHO the term CRISTIANOI was meant as a derisory term> >Several have said this, but I, for one, don’t think that is a>necessary conclusion from the language. It is stated:> >“CRHMATISAI TE PRWTWS EN ANTIOCEIAi TOUS>MAQHTAS CRISTIANOUS” -Ac 11:26> >CRHMATISAI is middle/passive which could give rise to either>“They were called” or “They called themselves” could it not?>Also, I don’t see anything historically that would give any>indication that it began as a derisive term. Tacitus tells us:CRHMATISAI is NOT middle/passive; it’s an aorist ACTIVE infinitive.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

ChristianChristian [Anointing]

Christian dd-1 at juno.com dd-1 at juno.com
Mon May 24 15:04:15 EDT 1999

 

Christian [Anointing] Christian Carl, Denny Diehl here>CRHMATISAI is NOT middle/passive; it’s an aorist ACTIVE infinitive.How many times may a person embarrass himself on this listbefore he is thrown off?<g> I guess it has been too many years.Would “they” be the subject then: They met…and taught…callingthe disciples Christians first in Antioch?___________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.htmlor call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

 

Christian [Anointing]Christian

Christian dd-1 at juno.com dd-1 at juno.com
Mon May 24 15:04:15 EDT 1999

 

Christian [Anointing] Christian Carl, Denny Diehl here>CRHMATISAI is NOT middle/passive; it’s an aorist ACTIVE infinitive.How many times may a person embarrass himself on this listbefore he is thrown off?<g> I guess it has been too many years.Would “they” be the subject then: They met…and taught…callingthe disciples Christians first in Antioch?___________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.htmlor call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

 

Christian [Anointing]Christian

Christian Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon May 24 15:45:18 EDT 1999

 

Christian Christian…suffix vs. prefix At 2:04 PM -0500 5/24/99, dd-1 at juno.com wrote:>Carl, Denny Diehl here> >>CRHMATISAI is NOT middle/passive; it’s an aorist ACTIVE infinitive.> >How many times may a person embarrass himself on this list>before he is thrown off?<g> I guess it has been too many years.> >Would “they” be the subject then: They met…and taught…calling>the disciples Christians first in Antioch?Yes; it should be noted that CRHMATIZW is a special word; something likeGerman ‘heissen’; it has middle/passive force (which is probably why youthought it was middle/passive); the sense is “have the name/title.”LSJ: III. in later writers, from Plb. downwards, the Act. chrêmatizô takessome special senses:1. to take and bear a title or name, to be called or styled so and so,chrêmatizein basileus Plb.5.57.2, au=Plb. 30.2.4, cf. Aristeas au=Plb.30.2.298=lr; Ptolemaios . . neos Dionusos ch. D.S.1.44; echrêmatizeChalkêdonios, Krêtikos, Strab. 13.1.55, App.Sic.6; nea Isis echrêmatizePlu.Ant.54; mê patrothen, all’ apo mêterôn ch. to call themselves not aftertheir fathers, but after their mothers, IDEM=Plu.Ant. =lr; ch. apo toudêmou Harp. s.v. dêmoteuomenos; ch. tous mathêtas Christianous Act.Ap.11.26; timês kai pisteôs ch. axioi to be deemed . . , App.BC2.111.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/————– next part ————–A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 1709 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990524/bab8de5c/attachment.bin

 

ChristianChristian…suffix vs. prefix

Christian Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon May 24 15:45:18 EDT 1999

 

Christian Christian…suffix vs. prefix At 2:04 PM -0500 5/24/99, dd-1 at juno.com wrote:>Carl, Denny Diehl here> >>CRHMATISAI is NOT middle/passive; it’s an aorist ACTIVE infinitive.> >How many times may a person embarrass himself on this list>before he is thrown off?<g> I guess it has been too many years.> >Would “they” be the subject then: They met…and taught…calling>the disciples Christians first in Antioch?Yes; it should be noted that CRHMATIZW is a special word; something likeGerman ‘heissen’; it has middle/passive force (which is probably why youthought it was middle/passive); the sense is “have the name/title.”LSJ: III. in later writers, from Plb. downwards, the Act. chrêmatizô takessome special senses:1. to take and bear a title or name, to be called or styled so and so,chrêmatizein basileus Plb.5.57.2, au=Plb. 30.2.4, cf. Aristeas au=Plb.30.2.298=lr; Ptolemaios . . neos Dionusos ch. D.S.1.44; echrêmatizeChalkêdonios, Krêtikos, Strab. 13.1.55, App.Sic.6; nea Isis echrêmatizePlu.Ant.54; mê patrothen, all’ apo mêterôn ch. to call themselves not aftertheir fathers, but after their mothers, IDEM=Plu.Ant. =lr; ch. apo toudêmou Harp. s.v. dêmoteuomenos; ch. tous mathêtas Christianous Act.Ap.11.26; timês kai pisteôs ch. axioi to be deemed . . , App.BC2.111.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/————– next part ————–A non-text attachment was scrubbed…Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 1709 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990524/bab8de5c/attachment.bin

 

ChristianChristian…suffix vs. prefix

Christian…suffix vs. prefix DrDRWoo at aol.com DrDRWoo at aol.com
Mon May 24 15:49:49 EDT 1999

 

Christian Eph 2:15 Dear Denny Diehl, You asked about the suffix “ian” as the suffix for “Christian” and what it might mean if it may not be a diminuitive. In this particular case, while not in all cases in the English language, you might think of it in this way: 1. When you take the “Christ” out of the word “Christian,” what do you have? 2. You are left with only “…ian.” 3. And, what it that? 4. i – I… 5. a – …am… 6. n – …nothing! This fine mnenomic example was related to me by my father, Paul Harrison Woolery, who was an elder in the Lord’s Church for many years. If it can not be used as a diminuitive, so what? It’s not the meaning of the suffix of this word that is of importance to us today…it’s the prefix, “Christ,” and that is a word that MAGNIFIES all “Christians!” Re…deemed, Dr. D. R. Woolery O.D.,O.M.D.,F.A.C.O.P.

 

ChristianEph 2:15

Christian…suffix vs. prefix DrDRWoo at aol.com DrDRWoo at aol.com
Mon May 24 15:49:49 EDT 1999

 

Christian Eph 2:15 Dear Denny Diehl, You asked about the suffix “ian” as the suffix for “Christian” and what it might mean if it may not be a diminuitive. In this particular case, while not in all cases in the English language, you might think of it in this way: 1. When you take the “Christ” out of the word “Christian,” what do you have? 2. You are left with only “…ian.” 3. And, what it that? 4. i – I… 5. a – …am… 6. n – …nothing! This fine mnenomic example was related to me by my father, Paul Harrison Woolery, who was an elder in the Lord’s Church for many years. If it can not be used as a diminuitive, so what? It’s not the meaning of the suffix of this word that is of importance to us today…it’s the prefix, “Christ,” and that is a word that MAGNIFIES all “Christians!” Re…deemed, Dr. D. R. Woolery O.D.,O.M.D.,F.A.C.O.P.

 

ChristianEph 2:15

Christian Michael Abernathy mabernat at cub.kcnet.org
Tue May 25 01:16:23 EDT 1999

 

Eph 2:15 Eph 2:15 Mike Abernathy here,Denny Diehl asked about the word Christian and after reading the responses, I thought I’d throw in my two cents. First, on the meaning of the word Christian itself. Jim West gave you a pretty standard answer on the meaning of the word; however, I am not certain that is correct. I am not a Latin scholar so if any of you can give me better information on this I will be glad to hear it. Years ago, I researched this Latin ending at a small mid-west Bible college. I could find only one reference that studied the historical usage of the word and documented the time for each usage. That work (sorry I don’t remember the source) claimed that the word was not used as a diminutive until the late third or early fourth century A.D. In the first century, the author claimed the meaning, “belonging to, slave of,” or “follower of.”The question of whether or not Christian was derogatory is bound up with the interpretation of chrêmatizein. CHRMATIZW can mean “to take and bear a title or name,” or “to be called,” or “to change or be changed” (Liddell & Scott), or “transact business” or “to give a divine command or admonition” (Thayer). In the past several commentators took the position that the name Christian was given by God. For example, Calvin wrote, “After this he adds that such a godly alliance was blessed by God. For it was no ordinary honor that the sacred name of Christians originated.” (Compare Mt. 2:12, 22; Acts 10:22; Heb. 8:5, 11:7). Note that Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon gives as the primary meaning “utter a message of God.” I’m not really certain if the shift in interpretation came from theological or linguistic grounds. Perhaps someone else can shed some light on this.————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990524/15b7a3a5/attachment.html

 

Eph 2:15Eph 2:15

Christian Michael Abernathy mabernat at cub.kcnet.org
Tue May 25 01:16:23 EDT 1999

 

Eph 2:15 Eph 2:15 Mike Abernathy here,Denny Diehl asked about the word Christian and after reading the responses, I thought I’d throw in my two cents. First, on the meaning of the word Christian itself. Jim West gave you a pretty standard answer on the meaning of the word; however, I am not certain that is correct. I am not a Latin scholar so if any of you can give me better information on this I will be glad to hear it. Years ago, I researched this Latin ending at a small mid-west Bible college. I could find only one reference that studied the historical usage of the word and documented the time for each usage. That work (sorry I don’t remember the source) claimed that the word was not used as a diminutive until the late third or early fourth century A.D. In the first century, the author claimed the meaning, “belonging to, slave of,” or “follower of.”The question of whether or not Christian was derogatory is bound up with the interpretation of chrêmatizein. CHRMATIZW can mean “to take and bear a title or name,” or “to be called,” or “to change or be changed” (Liddell & Scott), or “transact business” or “to give a divine command or admonition” (Thayer). In the past several commentators took the position that the name Christian was given by God. For example, Calvin wrote, “After this he adds that such a godly alliance was blessed by God. For it was no ordinary honor that the sacred name of Christians originated.” (Compare Mt. 2:12, 22; Acts 10:22; Heb. 8:5, 11:7). Note that Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon gives as the primary meaning “utter a message of God.” I’m not really certain if the shift in interpretation came from theological or linguistic grounds. Perhaps someone else can shed some light on this.————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990524/15b7a3a5/attachment.html

 

Eph 2:15Eph 2:15

Christian Jack Kilmon jkilmon at historian.net
Tue May 25 10:15:54 EDT 1999

 

Christian Christian Michael Abernathy wrote:Denny Diehl asked about the word Christian and after reading theresponses, I thought I’d throw in my twocents.First, on the meaning of the word Christian itself. Jim West gave you apretty standard answer on themeaning of the word; however, I am not certain that is correct. I amnot a Latin scholar so if any of you cangive me better information on this I will be glad to hear it. Yearsago, I researched this Latin ending at a smallmid-west Bible college. I could find only one reference that studiedthe historical usage of the word anddocumented the time for each usage. That work (sorry I don’t rememberthe source) claimed that the wordwas not used as a diminutive until the late third or early fourthcentury A.D. In the first century, the authorclaimed the meaning, “belonging to, slave of,” or “follower of.” *******************************************************************************The term, first used in Antioch in the 60’s was used by non-Jews torefer to the non-Jewishmembers of the sect. It is not Latin, but Greek. The first usage of itin Xian writing appearsto be by Luke in Acts (c. 95CE) and Luke appears also to have beenAntiochene. Tacitus,writing within a decade of Luke, uses the term when discussing theNeronian persecution(c. 64CE) and we can only guess whether he was using a term common atthe end of thecentury to retroject to 64CE or whether the term was from a source ofTacitus’ that wasearlier. Was it a derisive term? I think it was at first. It does notappear to have becomean “official” self-designation among non-Jewish sectarians until wellinto the 2nd century.XRISTIANOI, in the derogatory sense could have meant “a buncha littleChrist people.”The diminutive might be negotiable from an orthographic position…JimWest can probablyaddress that further.********************************************************************************MikeThe question of whether or not Christian was derogatory is bound up withthe interpretation ofchrêmatizein. CHRMATIZW can mean “to take and bear a title or name,” or”to be called,” or “to change orbe changed” (Liddell & Scott), or “transact business” or “to give adivine command or admonition”(Thayer).The word appears only 9 times in the NT with the closest usage to Acts11:26 at Romans 7:3.In this case, XRHMATISAI is undoubtedly (they) “were called” IMO.In the past several commentators took the position that the nameChristian was given by God. For example,Calvin wrote, “After this he adds that such a godly alliance was blessedby God. For it was no ordinaryhonor that the sacred name of Christians originated.” (Compare Mt.2:12, 22; Acts 10:22; Heb. 8:5, 11:7).Note that Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon gives as the primary meaning”utter a message of God.” I’m notreally certain if the shift in interpretation came from theological orlinguistic grounds. Perhaps someone elsecan shed some light on this.I think this is obviously a theological interpretation and certainly nota linguistic one. The usageof the Greek XRISTOS to translate <Heb>m$yx or <Aram>m$yx) by eitherPaul or earlierHellenistic members of the Jerusalem Assembly of believers isstraightforward and just asmall extension to describe followers of XRISTOS. XRISTAIOI would havebeen whatI would have expected, however, which makes me coast along with Jim Weston theoriginal etymology of XRISTIANOI.Just my two cents…er..shekels.Jack–______________________________________________taybutheh d’maran yeshua masheecha am kulkonJack Kilmonjkilmon at historian.nethttp://www.historian.net

 

ChristianChristian

Christian Jack Kilmon jkilmon at historian.net
Tue May 25 10:15:54 EDT 1999

 

Christian Christian Michael Abernathy wrote:Denny Diehl asked about the word Christian and after reading theresponses, I thought I’d throw in my twocents.First, on the meaning of the word Christian itself. Jim West gave you apretty standard answer on themeaning of the word; however, I am not certain that is correct. I amnot a Latin scholar so if any of you cangive me better information on this I will be glad to hear it. Yearsago, I researched this Latin ending at a smallmid-west Bible college. I could find only one reference that studiedthe historical usage of the word anddocumented the time for each usage. That work (sorry I don’t rememberthe source) claimed that the wordwas not used as a diminutive until the late third or early fourthcentury A.D. In the first century, the authorclaimed the meaning, “belonging to, slave of,” or “follower of.” *******************************************************************************The term, first used in Antioch in the 60’s was used by non-Jews torefer to the non-Jewishmembers of the sect. It is not Latin, but Greek. The first usage of itin Xian writing appearsto be by Luke in Acts (c. 95CE) and Luke appears also to have beenAntiochene. Tacitus,writing within a decade of Luke, uses the term when discussing theNeronian persecution(c. 64CE) and we can only guess whether he was using a term common atthe end of thecentury to retroject to 64CE or whether the term was from a source ofTacitus’ that wasearlier. Was it a derisive term? I think it was at first. It does notappear to have becomean “official” self-designation among non-Jewish sectarians until wellinto the 2nd century.XRISTIANOI, in the derogatory sense could have meant “a buncha littleChrist people.”The diminutive might be negotiable from an orthographic position…JimWest can probablyaddress that further.********************************************************************************MikeThe question of whether or not Christian was derogatory is bound up withthe interpretation ofchrêmatizein. CHRMATIZW can mean “to take and bear a title or name,” or”to be called,” or “to change orbe changed” (Liddell & Scott), or “transact business” or “to give adivine command or admonition”(Thayer).The word appears only 9 times in the NT with the closest usage to Acts11:26 at Romans 7:3.In this case, XRHMATISAI is undoubtedly (they) “were called” IMO.In the past several commentators took the position that the nameChristian was given by God. For example,Calvin wrote, “After this he adds that such a godly alliance was blessedby God. For it was no ordinaryhonor that the sacred name of Christians originated.” (Compare Mt.2:12, 22; Acts 10:22; Heb. 8:5, 11:7).Note that Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon gives as the primary meaning”utter a message of God.” I’m notreally certain if the shift in interpretation came from theological orlinguistic grounds. Perhaps someone elsecan shed some light on this.I think this is obviously a theological interpretation and certainly nota linguistic one. The usageof the Greek XRISTOS to translate <Heb>m$yx or <Aram>m$yx) by eitherPaul or earlierHellenistic members of the Jerusalem Assembly of believers isstraightforward and just asmall extension to describe followers of XRISTOS. XRISTAIOI would havebeen whatI would have expected, however, which makes me coast along with Jim Weston theoriginal etymology of XRISTIANOI.Just my two cents…er..shekels.Jack–______________________________________________taybutheh d’maran yeshua masheecha am kulkonJack Kilmonjkilmon at historian.nethttp://www.historian.net

 

ChristianChristian

Christian DrDRWoo at aol.com DrDRWoo at aol.com
Wed May 26 15:14:48 EDT 1999

 

PRODROMOS in Heb. 6:20 PRODROMOS in Heb 6:20 Dear Jim; Right on, Jim! Jolly good show! Actually, the Holy Bible is its own best commentary. Re…deemed, Dr. D. R. Woolery

 

PRODROMOS in Heb. 6:20PRODROMOS in Heb 6:20
Infinitives in Acts 11:26 Dick Gorski gorski at execpc.com
Tue Oct 6 09:21:48 EDT 1998

 

Accordance Error PRWTH in Luke 2:2 Friends–The second half of Acts 11:26 contains the finite verb EGENETO and threeinfinitives. The first two infinitives SUNACQHNAI and DIDAXAI look to me tobe indicating the purpose or result of Barnabas’ stay in Antioch, but thethird infinitive CRHMATISAI does not seem to function in parallel with theother two. How is this construction to be understood?Dick Gorski

 

Accordance ErrorPRWTH in Luke 2:2

Infinitives in Acts 11:26 Dick Gorski gorski at execpc.com
Tue Oct 6 09:21:48 EDT 1998

 

Accordance Error PRWTH in Luke 2:2 Friends–The second half of Acts 11:26 contains the finite verb EGENETO and threeinfinitives. The first two infinitives SUNACQHNAI and DIDAXAI look to me tobe indicating the purpose or result of Barnabas’ stay in Antioch, but thethird infinitive CRHMATISAI does not seem to function in parallel with theother two. How is this construction to be understood?Dick Gorski

 

Accordance ErrorPRWTH in Luke 2:2

Infinitives in Acts 11:26 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Oct 6 10:03:56 EDT 1998

 

Accordance Error EIS TOUTO At 8:21 AM -0500 10/6/98, Dick Gorski wrote:>Friends–> >The second half of Acts 11:26 contains the finite verb EGENETO and three>infinitives. The first two infinitives SUNACQHNAI and DIDAXAI look to me to>be indicating the purpose or result of Barnabas’ stay in Antioch, but the>third infinitive CRHMATISAI does not seem to function in parallel with the>other two. How is this construction to be understood?I think there’s something of an anacoluthon here, although there’s no realproblem understanding what is being said in the sequence as a whole.The construction opens with EGENETO AUTOIS and the first two infinitives.It would be easiest to understand the infinitives phrases as SUBJECTS ofEGENETO:KAI ENIAUTON hOLON SUNACQHNAI EN THi EKKLHSIAiKAI DIDAXAI OCLON hIKANONi.e., these are happenstances that “occurred to them” or happenings that”came to pass for them” . . .BUT the third infinitive phrase has the normal subject accusative with theinfinitive: CRHMATISAI TE PRWTWS EN ANTIOCEIAi TOUS MAQHTAS CRISTIANOUS; Ithink one might say actually that this really is a THIRD happening that”came to pass for them”; what makes it seem awkward is that TOUS MAQHTASseems to subsume the original dative AUTOIS that was used with the EGENETO.If you conveyed the sense of EGENETO AUTOIS as “And their experience wasthat …” then the three infinitive phrases can all be neatly attached:”not only that they gathered for a whole year in the congregation, but alsothat they taught a sizable number, and that the disciples in Antioch firstassumed the name ‘Christians.’Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Accordance ErrorEIS TOUTO

Infinitives in Acts 11:26 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Oct 6 10:03:56 EDT 1998

 

Accordance Error EIS TOUTO At 8:21 AM -0500 10/6/98, Dick Gorski wrote:>Friends–> >The second half of Acts 11:26 contains the finite verb EGENETO and three>infinitives. The first two infinitives SUNACQHNAI and DIDAXAI look to me to>be indicating the purpose or result of Barnabas’ stay in Antioch, but the>third infinitive CRHMATISAI does not seem to function in parallel with the>other two. How is this construction to be understood?I think there’s something of an anacoluthon here, although there’s no realproblem understanding what is being said in the sequence as a whole.The construction opens with EGENETO AUTOIS and the first two infinitives.It would be easiest to understand the infinitives phrases as SUBJECTS ofEGENETO:KAI ENIAUTON hOLON SUNACQHNAI EN THi EKKLHSIAiKAI DIDAXAI OCLON hIKANONi.e., these are happenstances that “occurred to them” or happenings that”came to pass for them” . . .BUT the third infinitive phrase has the normal subject accusative with theinfinitive: CRHMATISAI TE PRWTWS EN ANTIOCEIAi TOUS MAQHTAS CRISTIANOUS; Ithink one might say actually that this really is a THIRD happening that”came to pass for them”; what makes it seem awkward is that TOUS MAQHTASseems to subsume the original dative AUTOIS that was used with the EGENETO.If you conveyed the sense of EGENETO AUTOIS as “And their experience wasthat …” then the three infinitive phrases can all be neatly attached:”not only that they gathered for a whole year in the congregation, but alsothat they taught a sizable number, and that the disciples in Antioch firstassumed the name ‘Christians.’Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad at yancey.main.nc.usWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Accordance ErrorEIS TOUTO

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

2 thoughts on “Acts 11:26

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>