Mark 8:7

Ekklesia Tony Calman tcalman at optusnet.com.au
Sun May 9 19:10:57 EDT 1999

 

dia + genitive John 5:26 I have been considering the difference between a “congregation” and a “church” (if any)? The hebrew words qahal or edah seems to be translated by the word ekklesia in the LXX, which is often translated by the english word congregation. I wonder if there is any difference. Perhaps congregation is used to describe the local church and “church” sometimes used to describe the universal church, but not always. Paul writes to the ekkesia but most bible translations used the word “church”.Any comments?Tony CalmanWestview Baptist Church”people learning to live Jesus’ way”tcalman at optusnet.com.au————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990510/ad5be87c/attachment.html

 

dia + genitiveJohn 5:26

Ekklesia Tony Calman tcalman at optusnet.com.au
Sun May 9 19:10:57 EDT 1999

 

dia + genitive John 5:26 I have been considering the difference between a “congregation” and a “church” (if any)? The hebrew words qahal or edah seems to be translated by the word ekklesia in the LXX, which is often translated by the english word congregation. I wonder if there is any difference. Perhaps congregation is used to describe the local church and “church” sometimes used to describe the universal church, but not always. Paul writes to the ekkesia but most bible translations used the word “church”.Any comments?Tony CalmanWestview Baptist Church”people learning to live Jesus’ way”tcalman at optusnet.com.au————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990510/ad5be87c/attachment.html

 

dia + genitiveJohn 5:26

Ekklesia Juan Stam jstam at una.ac.cr
Sun May 9 22:23:24 EDT 1999

 

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ? classical greek Greetings from Costa Rica after a long silence! I was off the list for some time because of computer problems.My impression is that in the early Pauline epistles “ekklesía” referred to the act or event of gathering in assembly (1 Cor 14), which I understand was the basic meaning of the term in Greek political life: a herald convoked the people to a “town meeting”.In his book THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE CHURCH, Emil Brunner insisted on this meaning of the term and argued that our modern word “Church” is so radically different from the original sense, that when we wish to refer to the original meaning we should not say “church” but “ekklesia” and save “church” only for its modern meaning.Thanks for a good question, Tony, and best wishes! Juan Stam, Costa Rica —–Original Message—– From: Tony Calman <tcalman at optusnet.com.au> To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu> Date: Sunday, May 09, 1999 8:37 PM Subject: Ekklesia I have been considering the difference between a “congregation” and a “church” (if any)? The hebrew words qahal or edah seems to be translated by the word ekklesia in the LXX, which is often translated by the english word congregation. I wonder if there is any difference. Perhaps congregation is used to describe the local church and “church” sometimes used to describe the universal church, but not always. Paul writes to the ekkesia but most bible translations used the word “church”. Any comments? Tony Calman Westview Baptist Church “people learning to live Jesus’ way” tcalman at optusnet.com.au————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990509/7de4ec30/attachment.html

 

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ?classical greek

Ekklesia Juan Stam jstam at una.ac.cr
Sun May 9 22:23:24 EDT 1999

 

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ? classical greek Greetings from Costa Rica after a long silence! I was off the list for some time because of computer problems.My impression is that in the early Pauline epistles “ekklesía” referred to the act or event of gathering in assembly (1 Cor 14), which I understand was the basic meaning of the term in Greek political life: a herald convoked the people to a “town meeting”.In his book THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE CHURCH, Emil Brunner insisted on this meaning of the term and argued that our modern word “Church” is so radically different from the original sense, that when we wish to refer to the original meaning we should not say “church” but “ekklesia” and save “church” only for its modern meaning.Thanks for a good question, Tony, and best wishes! Juan Stam, Costa Rica —–Original Message—– From: Tony Calman <tcalman at optusnet.com.au> To: Biblical Greek < at franklin.oit.unc.edu> Date: Sunday, May 09, 1999 8:37 PM Subject: Ekklesia I have been considering the difference between a “congregation” and a “church” (if any)? The hebrew words qahal or edah seems to be translated by the word ekklesia in the LXX, which is often translated by the english word congregation. I wonder if there is any difference. Perhaps congregation is used to describe the local church and “church” sometimes used to describe the universal church, but not always. Paul writes to the ekkesia but most bible translations used the word “church”. Any comments? Tony Calman Westview Baptist Church “people learning to live Jesus’ way” tcalman at optusnet.com.au————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19990509/7de4ec30/attachment.html

 

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ?classical greek

Ekklesia Ltwist Ltwist at leupold.com
Mon May 10 02:58:00 EDT 1999

 

classical greek Relationship between the Alands Hi-I’m a “lurker” and this is my first post with two suggestions:1. Read the first entry in Trench “Syn. of the GNT”. I used this tonightinour house-church.2. Look on at Vine “Expository Dict. of NT Words”.May I use this opportunity to ask for Help from the list? I’m a volunteerpolice chaplainattempting to teach a small group to read the GNT using Davis andtransitioningintoDana and Mantey. One of the group is going to Russia on a ,mission andwouldlike to take along a workbook. We are on Lesson 17 in Davis and he has Freibergs”AnalyticalGNT”.Lew TwistPO Box 1284Hillsboro, Or. 97123

 

classical greekRelationship between the Alands

Ekklesia Ltwist Ltwist at leupold.com
Mon May 10 02:58:00 EDT 1999

 

classical greek Relationship between the Alands Hi-I’m a “lurker” and this is my first post with two suggestions:1. Read the first entry in Trench “Syn. of the GNT”. I used this tonightinour house-church.2. Look on at Vine “Expository Dict. of NT Words”.May I use this opportunity to ask for Help from the list? I’m a volunteerpolice chaplainattempting to teach a small group to read the GNT using Davis andtransitioningintoDana and Mantey. One of the group is going to Russia on a ,mission andwouldlike to take along a workbook. We are on Lesson 17 in Davis and he has Freibergs”AnalyticalGNT”.Lew TwistPO Box 1284Hillsboro, Or. 97123

 

classical greekRelationship between the Alands

ekklesia Mitchell Gray shavedice at itexas.net
Sat Jul 24 18:34:51 EDT 1999

 

AKOH PISTEWS AKOH PISTEWS Dear ers,How should the Greek word “ekklesia” be translated: Church orCongregation?BestMitchell Gray

 

AKOH PISTEWSAKOH PISTEWS

ekklesia Mitchell Gray shavedice at itexas.net
Sat Jul 24 18:34:51 EDT 1999

 

AKOH PISTEWS AKOH PISTEWS Dear ers,How should the Greek word “ekklesia” be translated: Church orCongregation?BestMitchell Gray

 

AKOH PISTEWSAKOH PISTEWS

ekklesia Brian & Tina Perkins perkinsfam at geocities.com
Sun Jul 25 01:41:21 EDT 1999

 

AKOH PISTEWS ekklesia Mitchell and all,> How should the Greek word “ekklesia” be translated: Church or Congregation?Maybe neither one!Considering that the NT is replete with statements such as “we are aliens” and “you have been called out…”, I prefer the more literal gloss of “called out”.For example, look at 1 Cor. 14:23EAN OUN SUNELQH H EKKLHSIA OLH EPI TO AUTO …”if then the whole assembly assemble …”I don’t think so.More literally:”if the called-out assemble in one place…”Or, to paraphrase a little:”if the called-out [of this world’s methods and goals] people happen to meet in the same place…”My toppins worth,Brian

 

AKOH PISTEWSekklesia

ekklesia Brian & Tina Perkins perkinsfam at geocities.com
Sun Jul 25 01:41:21 EDT 1999

 

AKOH PISTEWS ekklesia Mitchell and all,> How should the Greek word “ekklesia” be translated: Church or Congregation?Maybe neither one!Considering that the NT is replete with statements such as “we are aliens” and “you have been called out…”, I prefer the more literal gloss of “called out”.For example, look at 1 Cor. 14:23EAN OUN SUNELQH H EKKLHSIA OLH EPI TO AUTO …”if then the whole assembly assemble …”I don’t think so.More literally:”if the called-out assemble in one place…”Or, to paraphrase a little:”if the called-out [of this world’s methods and goals] people happen to meet in the same place…”My toppins worth,Brian

 

AKOH PISTEWSekklesia

ekklesia Cindy Smith cms at dragon.com
Sun Jul 25 01:54:27 EDT 1999

 

ekklesia ekklesia Interestingly, ekklesia can be translated “Church” or “Gathering of people”or perhaps “Congregation,” but the word “Church” has a different originand is ultimately a corruption of kuriakos meaning “Belonging to the Lord.”Cindy Smith Spawn of a Jewish CarpenterGO AGAINST THE FLOW! __ _///_ // >IXOYE=(‘> <`)= _<< A Real Live Catholic in Georgiacms at dragon.com // /// cms at star-nets.comcms at romancatholic.org Delay not your conversion to the LORD,Put it not off from day to day Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8Read the mailing list Bible at dragon.comRead the mailing list Literature at dragon.comRead the mailing list nt-trans at dragon.com (Greek New Testament)Read the mailing list ot-trans at dragon.com (Hebrew Old Testament)

 

ekklesiaekklesia

ekklesia Cindy Smith cms at dragon.com
Sun Jul 25 01:54:27 EDT 1999

 

ekklesia ekklesia Interestingly, ekklesia can be translated “Church” or “Gathering of people”or perhaps “Congregation,” but the word “Church” has a different originand is ultimately a corruption of kuriakos meaning “Belonging to the Lord.”Cindy Smith Spawn of a Jewish CarpenterGO AGAINST THE FLOW! __ _///_ // >IXOYE=(‘> <`)= _<< A Real Live Catholic in Georgiacms at dragon.com // /// cms at star-nets.comcms at romancatholic.org Delay not your conversion to the LORD,Put it not off from day to day Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8Read the mailing list Bible at dragon.comRead the mailing list Literature at dragon.comRead the mailing list nt-trans at dragon.com (Greek New Testament)Read the mailing list ot-trans at dragon.com (Hebrew Old Testament)

 

ekklesiaekklesia

ekklesia clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Sun Jul 25 04:02:18 EDT 1999

 

ekklesia ekklesia > Mitchell and all,> >> How should the Greek word “ekklesia” be translated: Church or Congregation?> > Maybe neither one!> > Considering that the NT is replete with statements such as “we are aliens”> and “you have been called out…”, I prefer the more literal gloss of> “called out”.> Called Out? Hmm mm mm. Wonder what D. A. Carson would say about this?–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

ekklesiaekklesia

ekklesia Solomon Landers Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Sun Jul 25 06:32:35 EDT 1999

 

ekklesia ekklesia Any variety of terms are possible, but if understanding is the desired effect, someare more conducive to this than others. “Church,” unfortunately, means in commonparlance a building where Christians meet, rather than the Christians who meetthere. EKKLESIA, of course, means “those called out;” however, called out for aspecific purpose or activity, as did the Hebrew term QAHAL. It would appear thatterms such as “gathered ones”/”gathering” or “congregated ones”/”congregation” or”assembled ones”/”assembly” give a better sense of the first-century construct thandoes the word “church.”Solomon LandersMemra Institute for Biblical Researchhttp://www.memrain.orgMitchell Gray wrote:> Dear ers,> > How should the Greek word “ekklesia” be translated: Church or> Congregation?> > Best> Mitchell Gray> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: Numberup at worldnet.att.net> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu

 

ekklesiaekklesia

ekklesia Solomon Landers Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Sun Jul 25 06:32:35 EDT 1999

 

ekklesia ekklesia Any variety of terms are possible, but if understanding is the desired effect, someare more conducive to this than others. “Church,” unfortunately, means in commonparlance a building where Christians meet, rather than the Christians who meetthere. EKKLESIA, of course, means “those called out;” however, called out for aspecific purpose or activity, as did the Hebrew term QAHAL. It would appear thatterms such as “gathered ones”/”gathering” or “congregated ones”/”congregation” or”assembled ones”/”assembly” give a better sense of the first-century construct thandoes the word “church.”Solomon LandersMemra Institute for Biblical Researchhttp://www.memrain.orgMitchell Gray wrote:> Dear ers,> > How should the Greek word “ekklesia” be translated: Church or> Congregation?> > Best> Mitchell Gray> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: Numberup at worldnet.att.net> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu

 

ekklesiaekklesia

ekklesia clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Sun Jul 25 04:02:18 EDT 1999

 

ekklesia ekklesia > Mitchell and all,> >> How should the Greek word “ekklesia” be translated: Church or Congregation?> > Maybe neither one!> > Considering that the NT is replete with statements such as “we are aliens”> and “you have been called out…”, I prefer the more literal gloss of> “called out”.> Called Out? Hmm mm mm. Wonder what D. A. Carson would say about this?–Clayton Stirling BartholomewThree Tree PointP.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062

 

ekklesiaekklesia

ekklesia Jim West jwest at highland.net
Sun Jul 25 08:40:32 EDT 1999

 

ekklesia ekklesia At 05:34 PM 7/24/99 -0500, you wrote:>Dear ers,> >How should the Greek word “ekklesia” be translated: Church or>Congregation?Neither. “Assembly” is better, closer to the meaning, and more appropriate.Best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

ekklesiaekklesia

ekklesia Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Jul 25 08:40:17 EDT 1999

 

ekklesia ekklesia At 6:32 AM -0400 7/25/99, Solomon Landers wrote:>Any variety of terms are possible, but if understanding is the desired>effect, some>are more conducive to this than others. “Church,” unfortunately, means in>common>parlance a building where Christians meet, rather than the Christians who meet>there. EKKLESIA, of course, means “those called out;” however, called out>for a>specific purpose or activity, as did the Hebrew term QAHAL. It would>appear that>terms such as “gathered ones”/”gathering” or “congregated>ones”/”congregation” or>“assembled ones”/”assembly” give a better sense of the first-century>construct than>does the word “church.”I would agree in essence with the above, but I think it is useful to goeven beyond the first-century construct and note that:(a) in classical Greek, EKKLHSIA is the regular term for the (political)assembly of citizens, corresponding to an older Homeric AGORA. Of course,the etymology of EKKLHSIA points to the “summoning” (EKKALEW) of thecitizens to come to the meeting place, whether that be the AGORA, which wasthe Homeric word for assembly of citizens, or the Pnyx as in Athens.(b) The LXX used this word to convey QAHAL, the “congregation” or”assembly” of the people of Israel, and although the New Testament EKKLHSIAseems in most of the earlier instances chronologically (i.e. in the Paulineletters, which I assume do antedate the gospels) to mean “house church” orgathering of believers in a household of some patron offering that house asa meeting place, the term is probably simply carried over from LXX usage.(c) I do think that too much is sometimes made of the etymology fromEKKALEW, although the gospels do use KALEW of Jesus’ “call” or “invitation”to persons whom he accosts to join or follow him. I think that the NT usagemost probably derives from LXX usage for “congregation.” And, as has beennoted by prior respondents, there are meanings of the modern word “church”that are very misleading if we try to translate EKKLHSIA with English”church.” I think “congregation” really does better represent the sense–atleast in the Pauline letters: a gathering of believers.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/

 

ekklesiaekklesia

ekklesia Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Jul 25 08:40:17 EDT 1999

 

ekklesia ekklesia At 6:32 AM -0400 7/25/99, Solomon Landers wrote:>Any variety of terms are possible, but if understanding is the desired>effect, some>are more conducive to this than others. “Church,” unfortunately, means in>common>parlance a building where Christians meet, rather than the Christians who meet>there. EKKLESIA, of course, means “those called out;” however, called out>for a>specific purpose or activity, as did the Hebrew term QAHAL. It would>appear that>terms such as “gathered ones”/”gathering” or “congregated>ones”/”congregation” or>“assembled ones”/”assembly” give a better sense of the first-century>construct than>does the word “church.”I would agree in essence with the above, but I think it is useful to goeven beyond the first-century construct and note that:(a) in classical Greek, EKKLHSIA is the regular term for the (political)assembly of citizens, corresponding to an older Homeric AGORA. Of course,the etymology of EKKLHSIA points to the “summoning” (EKKALEW) of thecitizens to come to the meeting place, whether that be the AGORA, which wasthe Homeric word for assembly of citizens, or the Pnyx as in Athens.(b) The LXX used this word to convey QAHAL, the “congregation” or”assembly” of the people of Israel, and although the New Testament EKKLHSIAseems in most of the earlier instances chronologically (i.e. in the Paulineletters, which I assume do antedate the gospels) to mean “house church” orgathering of believers in a household of some patron offering that house asa meeting place, the term is probably simply carried over from LXX usage.(c) I do think that too much is sometimes made of the etymology fromEKKALEW, although the gospels do use KALEW of Jesus’ “call” or “invitation”to persons whom he accosts to join or follow him. I think that the NT usagemost probably derives from LXX usage for “congregation.” And, as has beennoted by prior respondents, there are meanings of the modern word “church”that are very misleading if we try to translate EKKLHSIA with English”church.” I think “congregation” really does better represent the sense–atleast in the Pauline letters: a gathering of believers.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/

 

ekklesiaekklesia

ekklesia Jim West jwest at highland.net
Sun Jul 25 08:40:32 EDT 1999

 

ekklesia ekklesia At 05:34 PM 7/24/99 -0500, you wrote:>Dear ers,> >How should the Greek word “ekklesia” be translated: Church or>Congregation?Neither. “Assembly” is better, closer to the meaning, and more appropriate.Best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest

 

ekklesiaekklesia
ekklesia Lawrence May maylg at earthlink.net
Sun Jul 25 09:14:49 EDT 1999

 

ekklesia AKOH PISTEWS I am new at Greek, but I see in the word. Out-called.Kalew probably is the english word call. We call peopleon the phone for the purpose of talking to them. We callpeople to dinner for the purpose of eating. We call pastorsto our church to teach and rule. We use theLatin word voca for the word “vocation.” So to me theword ekklesia means called out of a particular group fora special purpose.Cindy Smith wrote:> Interestingly, ekklesia can be translated “Church” or “Gathering of people”> or perhaps “Congregation,” but the word “Church” has a different origin> and is ultimately a corruption of kuriakos meaning “Belonging to the Lord.”> > Cindy Smith> Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter> GO AGAINST THE FLOW! __ _///_ //> >IXOYE=(‘> <`)= _<< A Real Live Catholic in Georgia> cms at dragon.com // /// > cms at star-nets.com> cms at romancatholic.org> > Delay not your conversion to the LORD,> Put it not off from day to day> Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8> > Read the mailing list Bible at dragon.com> Read the mailing list Literature at dragon.com> Read the mailing list nt-trans at dragon.com (Greek New Testament)> Read the mailing list ot-trans at dragon.com (Hebrew Old Testament)> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: maylg at earthlink.net> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu

 

ekklesiaAKOH PISTEWS

ekklesia Lawrence May maylg at earthlink.net
Sun Jul 25 09:14:49 EDT 1999

 

ekklesia AKOH PISTEWS I am new at Greek, but I see in the word. Out-called.Kalew probably is the english word call. We call peopleon the phone for the purpose of talking to them. We callpeople to dinner for the purpose of eating. We call pastorsto our church to teach and rule. We use theLatin word voca for the word “vocation.” So to me theword ekklesia means called out of a particular group fora special purpose.Cindy Smith wrote:> Interestingly, ekklesia can be translated “Church” or “Gathering of people”> or perhaps “Congregation,” but the word “Church” has a different origin> and is ultimately a corruption of kuriakos meaning “Belonging to the Lord.”> > Cindy Smith> Spawn of a Jewish Carpenter> GO AGAINST THE FLOW! __ _///_ //> >IXOYE=(‘> <`)= _<< A Real Live Catholic in Georgia> cms at dragon.com // /// > cms at star-nets.com> cms at romancatholic.org> > Delay not your conversion to the LORD,> Put it not off from day to day> Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 5:8> > Read the mailing list Bible at dragon.com> Read the mailing list Literature at dragon.com> Read the mailing list nt-trans at dragon.com (Greek New Testament)> Read the mailing list ot-trans at dragon.com (Hebrew Old Testament)> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: maylg at earthlink.net> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu

 

ekklesiaAKOH PISTEWS

ekklesia Carlton Winbery winberyc at popalex1.linknet.net
Sun Jul 25 14:02:29 EDT 1999

 

AKOH PISTEWS Gary Amirault/Spanish Greek Concordance Carl Conrad wrote;>(a) in classical Greek, EKKLHSIA is the regular term for the (political)>assembly of citizens, corresponding to an older Homeric AGORA. Of course,>the etymology of EKKLHSIA points to the “summoning” (EKKALEW) of the>citizens to come to the meeting place, whether that be the AGORA, which was>the Homeric word for assembly of citizens, or the Pnyx as in Athens.> >(b) The LXX used this word to convey QAHAL, the “congregation” or>“assembly” of the people of Israel, and although the New Testament EKKLHSIA>seems in most of the earlier instances chronologically (i.e. in the Pauline>letters, which I assume do antedate the gospels) to mean “house church” or>gathering of believers in a household of some patron offering that house as>a meeting place, the term is probably simply carried over from LXX usage.> >(c) I do think that too much is sometimes made of the etymology from>EKKALEW, although the gospels do use KALEW of Jesus’ “call” or “invitation”>to persons whom he accosts to join or follow him. I think that the NT usage>most probably derives from LXX usage for “congregation.” And, as has been>noted by prior respondents, there are meanings of the modern word “church”>that are very misleading if we try to translate EKKLHSIA with English>“church.” I think “congregation” really does better represent the sense–at>least in the Pauline letters: a gathering of believers.> I agree with Carl that the LXX usage is probably most influencial on Pauland that we have to be careful of making too much of etymology. Anothersource of definition would be other terms and metaphors used to depict thechurch in the NT. Paul Minear’s old book (88 diff. words and metaphors Ithink) is most helpful. One reference to the church that ought to help usemphasize that the church is people is in Galatians hOI TOU CRISTOU – theof Christ ones, probably possessive – Christ’s own.Dr. Carlton L. WinberyFoggleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana Collegewinbery at andria.lacollege.eduwinberyc at popalex1.linknet.netPh. 1 318 448 6103 hmPh. 1 318 487 7241 off

 

AKOH PISTEWSGary Amirault/Spanish Greek Concordance

ekklesia Carlton Winbery winberyc at popalex1.linknet.net
Sun Jul 25 14:02:29 EDT 1999

 

AKOH PISTEWS Gary Amirault/Spanish Greek Concordance Carl Conrad wrote;>(a) in classical Greek, EKKLHSIA is the regular term for the (political)>assembly of citizens, corresponding to an older Homeric AGORA. Of course,>the etymology of EKKLHSIA points to the “summoning” (EKKALEW) of the>citizens to come to the meeting place, whether that be the AGORA, which was>the Homeric word for assembly of citizens, or the Pnyx as in Athens.> >(b) The LXX used this word to convey QAHAL, the “congregation” or>“assembly” of the people of Israel, and although the New Testament EKKLHSIA>seems in most of the earlier instances chronologically (i.e. in the Pauline>letters, which I assume do antedate the gospels) to mean “house church” or>gathering of believers in a household of some patron offering that house as>a meeting place, the term is probably simply carried over from LXX usage.> >(c) I do think that too much is sometimes made of the etymology from>EKKALEW, although the gospels do use KALEW of Jesus’ “call” or “invitation”>to persons whom he accosts to join or follow him. I think that the NT usage>most probably derives from LXX usage for “congregation.” And, as has been>noted by prior respondents, there are meanings of the modern word “church”>that are very misleading if we try to translate EKKLHSIA with English>“church.” I think “congregation” really does better represent the sense–at>least in the Pauline letters: a gathering of believers.> I agree with Carl that the LXX usage is probably most influencial on Pauland that we have to be careful of making too much of etymology. Anothersource of definition would be other terms and metaphors used to depict thechurch in the NT. Paul Minear’s old book (88 diff. words and metaphors Ithink) is most helpful. One reference to the church that ought to help usemphasize that the church is people is in Galatians hOI TOU CRISTOU – theof Christ ones, probably possessive – Christ’s own.Dr. Carlton L. WinberyFoggleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana Collegewinbery at andria.lacollege.eduwinberyc at popalex1.linknet.netPh. 1 318 448 6103 hmPh. 1 318 487 7241 off

 

AKOH PISTEWSGary Amirault/Spanish Greek Concordance

ekklesia Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com
Mon Jul 26 10:45:12 EDT 1999

 

AKOH PISTEWS AKOH PISTEWS >> >I agree with Carl that the LXX usage is probably most influencial on Paul>and that we have to be careful of making too much of etymology. Another>source of definition would be other terms and metaphors used to depict the>church in the NT. Paul Minear’s old book (88 diff. words and metaphors I>think) is most helpful. One reference to the church that ought to help us>emphasize that the church is people is in Galatians hOI TOU CRISTOU – the>of Christ ones, probably possessive – Christ’s own.> > I too agree with Carl about the LXX, but there is something to consider.Paul could have used SUNAGOGE to designate a local meeting, the use ofEKKLHSIA is intended to point to the assembly of the entire nation ofIsrael and so to the entire body of Christ. Paul also probably wanted todistinguish the EKKLHSIA XRISTOU from the SUNAGOGE IOUDAIOU, so he used adifferent word with a similar meaning but different history andconnotations.Steve–Christian is a noun that doesn’t need an adjective.——————————————————————————-| Allegro Graphics, Inc. — Allegro Digital Media, Inc. || 4132 Industrial Drive| | Saint Peters, Missouri 63376 || 1-888-819-8166 Toll Free| —————————————————————————–|Specializing in Database-Managed Printing and Webhosting|—————————————————————————–

 

AKOH PISTEWS AKOH PISTEWS

ekklesia Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com
Mon Jul 26 10:45:12 EDT 1999

 

AKOH PISTEWS AKOH PISTEWS >> >I agree with Carl that the LXX usage is probably most influencial on Paul>and that we have to be careful of making too much of etymology. Another>source of definition would be other terms and metaphors used to depict the>church in the NT. Paul Minear’s old book (88 diff. words and metaphors I>think) is most helpful. One reference to the church that ought to help us>emphasize that the church is people is in Galatians hOI TOU CRISTOU – the>of Christ ones, probably possessive – Christ’s own.> > I too agree with Carl about the LXX, but there is something to consider.Paul could have used SUNAGOGE to designate a local meeting, the use ofEKKLHSIA is intended to point to the assembly of the entire nation ofIsrael and so to the entire body of Christ. Paul also probably wanted todistinguish the EKKLHSIA XRISTOU from the SUNAGOGE IOUDAIOU, so he used adifferent word with a similar meaning but different history andconnotations.Steve–Christian is a noun that doesn’t need an adjective.——————————————————————————-| Allegro Graphics, Inc. — Allegro Digital Media, Inc. || 4132 Industrial Drive| | Saint Peters, Missouri 63376 || 1-888-819-8166 Toll Free| —————————————————————————–|Specializing in Database-Managed Printing and Webhosting|—————————————————————————–

 

AKOH PISTEWS AKOH PISTEWS

ekklesia Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jul 26 12:48:24 EDT 1999

 

AKOH PISTEWS AKOH PISTEWS At 9:45 AM -0500 7/26/99, Steve Long wrote:>>> >>I agree with Carl that the LXX usage is probably most influencial on Paul>>and that we have to be careful of making too much of etymology. Another>>source of definition would be other terms and metaphors used to depict the>>church in the NT. Paul Minear’s old book (88 diff. words and metaphors I>>think) is most helpful. One reference to the church that ought to help us>>emphasize that the church is people is in Galatians hOI TOU CRISTOU – the>>of Christ ones, probably possessive – Christ’s own.>> >> >I too agree with Carl about the LXX, but there is something to consider.>Paul could have used SUNAGOGE to designate a local meeting, the use of>EKKLHSIA is intended to point to the assembly of the entire nation of>Israel and so to the entire body of Christ. Paul also probably wanted to>distinguish the EKKLHSIA XRISTOU from the SUNAGOGE IOUDAIOU, so he used a>different word with a similar meaning but different history and>connotations.My problem with this is that, while I agree that Paul surely is inclusivein his conception of believers incorporate EN CRISTWi as all belonging tothe SWMA CRISTOU, I have my doubts whether it is ever safe to say thatEKKLHSIA in an authentic letter of Paul (personally I’d exclude 2 Thess,Eph, Col and the pastorals) refers to more than a local house-church typeof congregation. Certainly Paul does not use SUNAGWGH, and in fact, I thinkthat word is used exclusively of the Jewish local prayer and study meeting.In fact, I’m inclined to think that the usage of EKKLHSIA for the entirebody of Christ is restricted to later-composed NT texts, but that’s not anitem for discussion in this forum. I doubt we can find a clear instance inan authentic Pauline letter of EKKLHSIA in the sense of the universal body.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/

 

AKOH PISTEWSAKOH PISTEWS

ekklesia Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jul 26 12:48:24 EDT 1999

 

AKOH PISTEWS AKOH PISTEWS At 9:45 AM -0500 7/26/99, Steve Long wrote:>>> >>I agree with Carl that the LXX usage is probably most influencial on Paul>>and that we have to be careful of making too much of etymology. Another>>source of definition would be other terms and metaphors used to depict the>>church in the NT. Paul Minear’s old book (88 diff. words and metaphors I>>think) is most helpful. One reference to the church that ought to help us>>emphasize that the church is people is in Galatians hOI TOU CRISTOU – the>>of Christ ones, probably possessive – Christ’s own.>> >> >I too agree with Carl about the LXX, but there is something to consider.>Paul could have used SUNAGOGE to designate a local meeting, the use of>EKKLHSIA is intended to point to the assembly of the entire nation of>Israel and so to the entire body of Christ. Paul also probably wanted to>distinguish the EKKLHSIA XRISTOU from the SUNAGOGE IOUDAIOU, so he used a>different word with a similar meaning but different history and>connotations.My problem with this is that, while I agree that Paul surely is inclusivein his conception of believers incorporate EN CRISTWi as all belonging tothe SWMA CRISTOU, I have my doubts whether it is ever safe to say thatEKKLHSIA in an authentic letter of Paul (personally I’d exclude 2 Thess,Eph, Col and the pastorals) refers to more than a local house-church typeof congregation. Certainly Paul does not use SUNAGWGH, and in fact, I thinkthat word is used exclusively of the Jewish local prayer and study meeting.In fact, I’m inclined to think that the usage of EKKLHSIA for the entirebody of Christ is restricted to later-composed NT texts, but that’s not anitem for discussion in this forum. I doubt we can find a clear instance inan authentic Pauline letter of EKKLHSIA in the sense of the universal body.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/

 

AKOH PISTEWSAKOH PISTEWS

ekklesia Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com
Mon Jul 26 13:56:18 EDT 1999

 

AKOH PISTEWS ekklesia > >My problem with this is that, while I agree that Paul surely is inclusive>in his conception of believers incorporate EN CRISTWi as all belonging to>the SWMA CRISTOU, I have my doubts whether it is ever safe to say that>EKKLHSIA in an authentic letter of Paul (personally I’d exclude 2 Thess,>Eph, Col and the pastorals) refers to more than a local house-church type>of congregation. Certainly Paul does not use SUNAGWGH, and in fact, I think>that word is used exclusively of the Jewish local prayer and study meeting.>In fact, I’m inclined to think that the usage of EKKLHSIA for the entire>body of Christ is restricted to later-composed NT texts, but that’s not an>item for discussion in this forum. I doubt we can find a clear instance in>an authentic Pauline letter of EKKLHSIA in the sense of the universal body.> How about 1 Corinthians 10:32: APROSKOPOI KAI IOUDAIOUIS GINESQE KAIELLHSIN KAI TH EKKLHSIA TOU QEOU?I guess its possible he’s referring to a local body but the inclusivenature of Jews and Greeks make me think he’s referring to the universalchurch. In 11:16 he refers to local bodies in the plural, so I would take10:32 as an inclusive singular.Steve–Christian is a noun that doesn’t need an adjective.——————————————————————————-| Allegro Graphics, Inc. — Allegro Digital Media, Inc. || 4132 Industrial Drive| | Saint Peters, Missouri 63376 || 1-888-819-8166 Toll Free| —————————————————————————–|Specializing in Database-Managed Printing and Webhosting|—————————————————————————–

 

AKOH PISTEWSekklesia

ekklesia Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com
Mon Jul 26 13:56:18 EDT 1999

 

AKOH PISTEWS ekklesia > >My problem with this is that, while I agree that Paul surely is inclusive>in his conception of believers incorporate EN CRISTWi as all belonging to>the SWMA CRISTOU, I have my doubts whether it is ever safe to say that>EKKLHSIA in an authentic letter of Paul (personally I’d exclude 2 Thess,>Eph, Col and the pastorals) refers to more than a local house-church type>of congregation. Certainly Paul does not use SUNAGWGH, and in fact, I think>that word is used exclusively of the Jewish local prayer and study meeting.>In fact, I’m inclined to think that the usage of EKKLHSIA for the entire>body of Christ is restricted to later-composed NT texts, but that’s not an>item for discussion in this forum. I doubt we can find a clear instance in>an authentic Pauline letter of EKKLHSIA in the sense of the universal body.> How about 1 Corinthians 10:32: APROSKOPOI KAI IOUDAIOUIS GINESQE KAIELLHSIN KAI TH EKKLHSIA TOU QEOU?I guess its possible he’s referring to a local body but the inclusivenature of Jews and Greeks make me think he’s referring to the universalchurch. In 11:16 he refers to local bodies in the plural, so I would take10:32 as an inclusive singular.Steve–Christian is a noun that doesn’t need an adjective.——————————————————————————-| Allegro Graphics, Inc. — Allegro Digital Media, Inc. || 4132 Industrial Drive| | Saint Peters, Missouri 63376 || 1-888-819-8166 Toll Free| —————————————————————————–|Specializing in Database-Managed Printing and Webhosting|—————————————————————————–

 

AKOH PISTEWSekklesia

ekklesia Ltwist Ltwist at leupold.com
Mon Jul 26 15:34:00 EDT 1999

 

ekklesia ekklesia How about translating EKKLESIA with “assembly”? Or “meeting”? I think thissort oftranslation would get us back to the germinal idea in the 1st century.Doesn’tthe word”congregation” sort of fit with SUNAGOGn?lew twistHillsboro Oregon

 

ekklesiaekklesia

ekklesia Ltwist Ltwist at leupold.com
Mon Jul 26 15:34:00 EDT 1999

 

ekklesia ekklesia How about translating EKKLESIA with “assembly”? Or “meeting”? I think thissort oftranslation would get us back to the germinal idea in the 1st century.Doesn’tthe word”congregation” sort of fit with SUNAGOGn?lew twistHillsboro Oregon

 

ekklesiaekklesia

ekklesia Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jul 26 16:05:59 EDT 1999

 

ekklesia ekklesia At 12:56 PM -0500 7/26/99, Steve Long wrote:>> >>My problem with this is that, while I agree that Paul surely is inclusive>>in his conception of believers incorporate EN CRISTWi as all belonging to>>the SWMA CRISTOU, I have my doubts whether it is ever safe to say that>>EKKLHSIA in an authentic letter of Paul (personally I’d exclude 2 Thess,>>Eph, Col and the pastorals) refers to more than a local house-church type>>of congregation. Certainly Paul does not use SUNAGWGH, and in fact, I think>>that word is used exclusively of the Jewish local prayer and study meeting.>>In fact, I’m inclined to think that the usage of EKKLHSIA for the entire>>body of Christ is restricted to later-composed NT texts, but that’s not an>>item for discussion in this forum. I doubt we can find a clear instance in>>an authentic Pauline letter of EKKLHSIA in the sense of the universal body.>> >How about 1 Corinthians 10:32: APROSKOPOI KAI IOUDAIOUIS GINESQE KAI>ELLHSIN KAI TH EKKLHSIA TOU QEOU?You do mean THi EKKLHSIAi TOU QEOU, I assume.>I guess its possible he’s referring to a local body but the inclusive>nature of Jews and Greeks make me think he’s referring to the universal>church. In 11:16 he refers to local bodies in the plural, so I would take>10:32 as an inclusive singular.Yes, this may be a legitimate instance of a universal usage; perhaps it isthe more appropriate here where it is referred to as hH EKKLHSIA QEOUrather than as CRISTOU, that it refers to “the whole congregation of God”inclusive of Israel and of Christian believers” rather than in any of thelater senses in which Christian usage speaks of the EKKLHSIA.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/

 

ekklesiaekklesia

ekklesia Theodore H Mann thmann at juno.com
Mon Jul 26 16:38:34 EDT 1999

 

ekklesia ekklesia ers:It seems to me that a problem with terms such as “assembly” or”congregation,” as translations of EKKLESIA, is that it is difficult touse them effectively in reference to the global body of Christ, unlessone wishes to apply hyphenations (e.g., “universal-congregation”). Such(un-hyphenated) terms somehow seem more applicable to local or regionalgatherings. Although “church” may not be a great translation ofEKKLESIA, it does at least seem to be equally functional in reference tothe body of Christ in its totality, as well as at the local or regionallevels. While it is true that “church” is often applied to the buildingin which Christians meet, or even to the meeting itself (“I’m going tochurch”), my experience is that most Christians (evangelicals, anyway)understand the difference. I’m all for finding a better translation ofEKKLESIA than “church,” if one is available, but I doubt that “assembly”or “congregation” will suffice.Dr. Theodore “Ted” Mannthmann at juno.comhttp://www.homestead.com/eIXQUS/index.htmlhttp://www.homestead.com/eLOGOS/index.htmlhttp://www.homestead.com/ChristianResourcesLinks/index.html

 

ekklesiaekklesia

ekklesia Theodore H Mann thmann at juno.com
Mon Jul 26 16:38:34 EDT 1999

 

ekklesia ekklesia ers:It seems to me that a problem with terms such as “assembly” or”congregation,” as translations of EKKLESIA, is that it is difficult touse them effectively in reference to the global body of Christ, unlessone wishes to apply hyphenations (e.g., “universal-congregation”). Such(un-hyphenated) terms somehow seem more applicable to local or regionalgatherings. Although “church” may not be a great translation ofEKKLESIA, it does at least seem to be equally functional in reference tothe body of Christ in its totality, as well as at the local or regionallevels. While it is true that “church” is often applied to the buildingin which Christians meet, or even to the meeting itself (“I’m going tochurch”), my experience is that most Christians (evangelicals, anyway)understand the difference. I’m all for finding a better translation ofEKKLESIA than “church,” if one is available, but I doubt that “assembly”or “congregation” will suffice.Dr. Theodore “Ted” Mannthmann at juno.comhttp://www.homestead.com/eIXQUS/index.htmlhttp://www.homestead.com/eLOGOS/index.htmlhttp://www.homestead.com/ChristianResourcesLinks/index.html

 

ekklesiaekklesia

ekklesia Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jul 26 16:05:59 EDT 1999

 

ekklesia ekklesia At 12:56 PM -0500 7/26/99, Steve Long wrote:>> >>My problem with this is that, while I agree that Paul surely is inclusive>>in his conception of believers incorporate EN CRISTWi as all belonging to>>the SWMA CRISTOU, I have my doubts whether it is ever safe to say that>>EKKLHSIA in an authentic letter of Paul (personally I’d exclude 2 Thess,>>Eph, Col and the pastorals) refers to more than a local house-church type>>of congregation. Certainly Paul does not use SUNAGWGH, and in fact, I think>>that word is used exclusively of the Jewish local prayer and study meeting.>>In fact, I’m inclined to think that the usage of EKKLHSIA for the entire>>body of Christ is restricted to later-composed NT texts, but that’s not an>>item for discussion in this forum. I doubt we can find a clear instance in>>an authentic Pauline letter of EKKLHSIA in the sense of the universal body.>> >How about 1 Corinthians 10:32: APROSKOPOI KAI IOUDAIOUIS GINESQE KAI>ELLHSIN KAI TH EKKLHSIA TOU QEOU?You do mean THi EKKLHSIAi TOU QEOU, I assume.>I guess its possible he’s referring to a local body but the inclusive>nature of Jews and Greeks make me think he’s referring to the universal>church. In 11:16 he refers to local bodies in the plural, so I would take>10:32 as an inclusive singular.Yes, this may be a legitimate instance of a universal usage; perhaps it isthe more appropriate here where it is referred to as hH EKKLHSIA QEOUrather than as CRISTOU, that it refers to “the whole congregation of God”inclusive of Israel and of Christian believers” rather than in any of thelater senses in which Christian usage speaks of the EKKLHSIA.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/

 

ekklesiaekklesia

ekklesia Mitchell Gray shavedice at itexas.net
Mon Jul 26 17:33:12 EDT 1999

 

ekklesia AKOH PISTEWS > From: Theodore H Mann <thmann at juno.com>> ers:> > It seems to me that a problem with terms such as “assembly” or> “congregation,” as translations of EKKLESIA, is that it is difficult to> use them effectively in reference to the global body of Christ, unless> one wishes to apply hyphenations (e.g., “universal-congregation”). Such> (un-hyphenated) terms somehow seem more applicable to local or regional> gatherings. Although “church” may not be a great translation of> EKKLESIA, it does at least seem to be equally functional in reference to> the body of Christ in its totality, as well as at the local or regional> levels. While it is true that “church” is often applied to the building> in which Christians meet, or even to the meeting itself (“I’m going to> church”), my experience is that most Christians (evangelicals, anyway)> understand the difference. I’m all for finding a better translation of> EKKLESIA than “church,” if one is available, but I doubt that “assembly”> or “congregation” will suffice.> > Dr. Theodore “Ted” MannWe just say “I’m going to the meeting.” So, it still works for “assembly”or “congregation.”Best,Mitchell Gray

 

ekklesiaAKOH PISTEWS

ekklesia Mitchell Gray shavedice at itexas.net
Mon Jul 26 17:33:12 EDT 1999

 

ekklesia AKOH PISTEWS > From: Theodore H Mann <thmann at juno.com>> ers:> > It seems to me that a problem with terms such as “assembly” or> “congregation,” as translations of EKKLESIA, is that it is difficult to> use them effectively in reference to the global body of Christ, unless> one wishes to apply hyphenations (e.g., “universal-congregation”). Such> (un-hyphenated) terms somehow seem more applicable to local or regional> gatherings. Although “church” may not be a great translation of> EKKLESIA, it does at least seem to be equally functional in reference to> the body of Christ in its totality, as well as at the local or regional> levels. While it is true that “church” is often applied to the building> in which Christians meet, or even to the meeting itself (“I’m going to> church”), my experience is that most Christians (evangelicals, anyway)> understand the difference. I’m all for finding a better translation of> EKKLESIA than “church,” if one is available, but I doubt that “assembly”> or “congregation” will suffice.> > Dr. Theodore “Ted” MannWe just say “I’m going to the meeting.” So, it still works for “assembly”or “congregation.”Best,Mitchell Gray

 

ekklesiaAKOH PISTEWS

ekklesia Numberup at worldnet.att.net Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Tue Jul 27 10:07:40 EDT 1999

 

Why do etymology at all? Why do etymology at all? “Congregation” for EKKLHSIA works for me, too. I haven’t been to a “church” inyears, but I have attended several “congregations.” For those familiar withcongregations and assemblies, those terms are as well understood in their local oruniversal settings as “church” may be for those who prefer that identification.Solomon LandersMemra Institute for Biblical Researchhttp://www.memrain.orgMitchell Gray wrote:> > From: Theodore H Mann <thmann at juno.com>> > > ers:> >> > It seems to me that a problem with terms such as “assembly” or> > “congregation,” as translations of EKKLESIA, is that it is difficult to> > use them effectively in reference to the global body of Christ, unless> > one wishes to apply hyphenations (e.g., “universal-congregation”). Such> > (un-hyphenated) terms somehow seem more applicable to local or regional> > gatherings. Although “church” may not be a great translation of> > EKKLESIA, it does at least seem to be equally functional in reference to> > the body of Christ in its totality, as well as at the local or regional> > levels. While it is true that “church” is often applied to the building> > in which Christians meet, or even to the meeting itself (“I’m going to> > church”), my experience is that most Christians (evangelicals, anyway)> > understand the difference. I’m all for finding a better translation of> > EKKLESIA than “church,” if one is available, but I doubt that “assembly”> > or “congregation” will suffice.> >> > Dr. Theodore “Ted” Mann> > We just say “I’m going to the meeting.” So, it still works for “assembly”> or “congregation.”> > Best,> Mitchell Gray> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: Numberup at worldnet.att.net> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu

 

Why do etymology at all?Why do etymology at all?
ekklesia Numberup at worldnet.att.net Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Tue Jul 27 10:07:40 EDT 1999

 

Why do etymology at all? Why do etymology at all? “Congregation” for EKKLHSIA works for me, too. I haven’t been to a “church” inyears, but I have attended several “congregations.” For those familiar withcongregations and assemblies, those terms are as well understood in their local oruniversal settings as “church” may be for those who prefer that identification.Solomon LandersMemra Institute for Biblical Researchhttp://www.memrain.orgMitchell Gray wrote:> > From: Theodore H Mann <thmann at juno.com>> > > ers:> >> > It seems to me that a problem with terms such as “assembly” or> > “congregation,” as translations of EKKLESIA, is that it is difficult to> > use them effectively in reference to the global body of Christ, unless> > one wishes to apply hyphenations (e.g., “universal-congregation”). Such> > (un-hyphenated) terms somehow seem more applicable to local or regional> > gatherings. Although “church” may not be a great translation of> > EKKLESIA, it does at least seem to be equally functional in reference to> > the body of Christ in its totality, as well as at the local or regional> > levels. While it is true that “church” is often applied to the building> > in which Christians meet, or even to the meeting itself (“I’m going to> > church”), my experience is that most Christians (evangelicals, anyway)> > understand the difference. I’m all for finding a better translation of> > EKKLESIA than “church,” if one is available, but I doubt that “assembly”> > or “congregation” will suffice.> >> > Dr. Theodore “Ted” Mann> > We just say “I’m going to the meeting.” So, it still works for “assembly”> or “congregation.”> > Best,> Mitchell Gray> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: Numberup at worldnet.att.net> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu

 

Why do etymology at all?Why do etymology at all?

ekklesia/Mitchell Gray Theodore H Mann thmann at juno.com
Tue Jul 27 19:25:49 EDT 1999

 

Why do etymology at all? Light summer reading…. Hi Mitch:Yes, my wife and I say the same thing, as well as “we’re meeting with thesaints,” or some such. However, if “church” is not the best translationof EKKLESIA, as a couple of people have recently suggested, then someother term needs to be used which captures both the local and globalaspects of the body of Christ. Am I mistaken in my understanding thatthe NT speaks of the EKKLESIA on both levels? Perhaps “assembly” or”congregation” are fine, in spite of my feeling that they seem to have adecidedly local flavor to them. Best.Dr. Theodore “Ted” Mannthmann at juno.comhttp://www.homestead.com/eIXQUS/index.htmlhttp://www.homestead.com/eLOGOS/index.htmlhttp://www.homestead.com/ChristianResourcesLinks/index.htmlOn Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:33:12 -0500 “Mitchell Gray” <shavedice at itexas.net>writes:>> From: Theodore H Mann <thmann at juno.com>> >> ers:>> >> It seems to me that a problem with terms such as “assembly” or>> “congregation,” as translations of EKKLESIA, is that it is difficult >to>> use them effectively in reference to the global body of Christ, >unless>> one wishes to apply hyphenations (e.g., “universal-congregation”). >Such>> (un-hyphenated) terms somehow seem more applicable to local or >regional>> gatherings. Although “church” may not be a great translation of>> EKKLESIA, it does at least seem to be equally functional in >reference to>> the body of Christ in its totality, as well as at the local or >regional>> levels. While it is true that “church” is often applied to the >building>> in which Christians meet, or even to the meeting itself (“I’m going >to>> church”), my experience is that most Christians (evangelicals, >anyway)>> understand the difference. I’m all for finding a better translation >of>> EKKLESIA than “church,” if one is available, but I doubt that >“assembly”>> or “congregation” will suffice.>> >> Dr. Theodore “Ted” Mann> >We just say “I’m going to the meeting.” So, it still works for >“assembly”>or “congregation.”> >Best,>Mitchell Gray> > >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: thmann at juno.com>To unsubscribe, forward this message to >$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to >subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> >

 

Why do etymology at all? Light summer reading….

ekklesia/Mitchell Gray Theodore H Mann thmann at juno.com
Tue Jul 27 19:25:49 EDT 1999

 

Why do etymology at all? Light summer reading…. Hi Mitch:Yes, my wife and I say the same thing, as well as “we’re meeting with thesaints,” or some such. However, if “church” is not the best translationof EKKLESIA, as a couple of people have recently suggested, then someother term needs to be used which captures both the local and globalaspects of the body of Christ. Am I mistaken in my understanding thatthe NT speaks of the EKKLESIA on both levels? Perhaps “assembly” or”congregation” are fine, in spite of my feeling that they seem to have adecidedly local flavor to them. Best.Dr. Theodore “Ted” Mannthmann at juno.comhttp://www.homestead.com/eIXQUS/index.htmlhttp://www.homestead.com/eLOGOS/index.htmlhttp://www.homestead.com/ChristianResourcesLinks/index.htmlOn Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:33:12 -0500 “Mitchell Gray” <shavedice at itexas.net>writes:>> From: Theodore H Mann <thmann at juno.com>> >> ers:>> >> It seems to me that a problem with terms such as “assembly” or>> “congregation,” as translations of EKKLESIA, is that it is difficult >to>> use them effectively in reference to the global body of Christ, >unless>> one wishes to apply hyphenations (e.g., “universal-congregation”). >Such>> (un-hyphenated) terms somehow seem more applicable to local or >regional>> gatherings. Although “church” may not be a great translation of>> EKKLESIA, it does at least seem to be equally functional in >reference to>> the body of Christ in its totality, as well as at the local or >regional>> levels. While it is true that “church” is often applied to the >building>> in which Christians meet, or even to the meeting itself (“I’m going >to>> church”), my experience is that most Christians (evangelicals, >anyway)>> understand the difference. I’m all for finding a better translation >of>> EKKLESIA than “church,” if one is available, but I doubt that >“assembly”>> or “congregation” will suffice.>> >> Dr. Theodore “Ted” Mann> >We just say “I’m going to the meeting.” So, it still works for >“assembly”>or “congregation.”> >Best,>Mitchell Gray> > >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: thmann at juno.com>To unsubscribe, forward this message to >$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to >subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> >

 

Why do etymology at all? Light summer reading….

ekklesia/Mitchell Gray Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jul 27 20:42:14 EDT 1999

 

Why do etymology at all? Light summer reading…. At 7:25 PM -0400 7/27/99, Theodore H Mann wrote:>Hi Mitch:> >Yes, my wife and I say the same thing, as well as “we’re meeting with the>saints,” or some such. However, if “church” is not the best translation>of EKKLESIA, as a couple of people have recently suggested, then some>other term needs to be used which captures both the local and global>aspects of the body of Christ. Am I mistaken in my understanding that>the NT speaks of the EKKLESIA on both levels? Perhaps “assembly” or>“congregation” are fine, in spite of my feeling that they seem to have a>decidedly local flavor to them.I’ll take a closer look at the 114 instances of EKKLHSIA in the GNT, but Ireally expect to find the great majority of them in reference to localcongregations rather than the universal body of believers. That is thechief reason why one might prefer to use “gathering,” “meeting,” or”congregation” than “church”–because it is less likely to be misleading toan English reader who tends to think of “church” in all its ambiguity.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/

 

Why do etymology at all?Light summer reading….

ekklesia/Mitchell Gray Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jul 27 20:42:14 EDT 1999

 

Why do etymology at all? Light summer reading…. At 7:25 PM -0400 7/27/99, Theodore H Mann wrote:>Hi Mitch:> >Yes, my wife and I say the same thing, as well as “we’re meeting with the>saints,” or some such. However, if “church” is not the best translation>of EKKLESIA, as a couple of people have recently suggested, then some>other term needs to be used which captures both the local and global>aspects of the body of Christ. Am I mistaken in my understanding that>the NT speaks of the EKKLESIA on both levels? Perhaps “assembly” or>“congregation” are fine, in spite of my feeling that they seem to have a>decidedly local flavor to them.I’ll take a closer look at the 114 instances of EKKLHSIA in the GNT, but Ireally expect to find the great majority of them in reference to localcongregations rather than the universal body of believers. That is thechief reason why one might prefer to use “gathering,” “meeting,” or”congregation” than “church”–because it is less likely to be misleading toan English reader who tends to think of “church” in all its ambiguity.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/

 

Why do etymology at all?Light summer reading….

ekklesia/Mitchell Gray Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net
Tue Jul 27 20:53:01 EDT 1999

 

Light summer reading…. Light summer reading…. > —–Original Message—–> From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 7:42 PM> I’ll take a closer look at the 114 instances of EKKLHSIA in the GNT, but I> really expect to find the great majority of them in reference to local> congregations rather than the universal body of believers. That is the> chief reason why one might prefer to use “gathering,” “meeting,” or> “congregation” than “church”–because it is less likely to be> misleading to> an English reader who tends to think of “church” in all its ambiguity.Actually, my recollections from a study I did some 10 years hence is thatmost all the instances of EKKLHSIA in the GNT do, or at least very possiblycan, refer to a local body. Only in Eph (1.22 et al.), and probably Mt16.18, is the reference strongly to the ‘universal body’ connotation.For this reason I join those in favor of “assembly” or “congregation”, evenin those instances where the reference is non-local. I do not find it sucha stretch to understand a spiritual sense of congregation in which we nowparticipate in heaven. It is simply metaphorical. After all, he has”raised us up with him, and seated us with him in the heavenlies” (Eph 2.6),a present reality.Joe A. FribergM.A. LinguisticsM.A. Theology studentArlington, TXJoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net

 

Light summer reading….Light summer reading….

ekklesia/Mitchell Gray Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net
Tue Jul 27 20:53:01 EDT 1999

 

Light summer reading…. Light summer reading…. > —–Original Message—–> From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 7:42 PM> I’ll take a closer look at the 114 instances of EKKLHSIA in the GNT, but I> really expect to find the great majority of them in reference to local> congregations rather than the universal body of believers. That is the> chief reason why one might prefer to use “gathering,” “meeting,” or> “congregation” than “church”–because it is less likely to be> misleading to> an English reader who tends to think of “church” in all its ambiguity.Actually, my recollections from a study I did some 10 years hence is thatmost all the instances of EKKLHSIA in the GNT do, or at least very possiblycan, refer to a local body. Only in Eph (1.22 et al.), and probably Mt16.18, is the reference strongly to the ‘universal body’ connotation.For this reason I join those in favor of “assembly” or “congregation”, evenin those instances where the reference is non-local. I do not find it sucha stretch to understand a spiritual sense of congregation in which we nowparticipate in heaven. It is simply metaphorical. After all, he has”raised us up with him, and seated us with him in the heavenlies” (Eph 2.6),a present reality.Joe A. FribergM.A. LinguisticsM.A. Theology studentArlington, TXJoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net

 

Light summer reading….Light summer reading….

ekklesia/Mitchell Gray Eric Weiss eweiss at gte.net
Wed Jul 28 00:34:11 EDT 1999

 

Light summer reading / Apostle’s Creed in Greek? translation This raises another word issue, i.e., “body.” We often use the term “body” (as in: “local body”) to refer to a local “church” or “gathering” or “assembly” of believers. But … it seems to me that the NT most often uses “body” in relation to believers in terms of the one body of Christ. If so, then I think we ought not to use “body” to refer to a local assembly or its members – even though in our day and age “body” (as in “a body of people”) can have this meaning – because a local “body” and/or its members/participants can, by association, inadvertantly come to think of itself/themselves as “the body” of Christ – and thus strive to be something in form or substance which they are not meant or able to be. (I speak by experience, having been in a group that called itself a “body” and strove to function as a “body,” almost coming to speak of or view such an achievement as God’s ultimate plan or purpose – an effort I felt was off-base because I never could understand how a single local “assembly” could constitute “a body” in the NT sense – since Christ only has one body.)Comments? (I could be wrong, you know! ;-)- Eric Weisseweiss at gte.netOn 07/27/99, “”Joe A. Friberg” <JoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net>” wrote:> > —–Original Message—–> > From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 7:42 PM> > > I’ll take a closer look at the 114 instances of EKKLHSIA in the GNT, but I> > really expect to find the great majority of them in reference to local> > congregations rather than the universal body of believers. That is the> > chief reason why one might prefer to use “gathering,” “meeting,” or> > “congregation” than “church”–because it is less likely to be> > misleading to> > an English reader who tends to think of “church” in all its ambiguity.> > Actually, my recollections from a study I did some 10 years hence is that> most all the instances of EKKLHSIA in the GNT do, or at least very possibly> can, refer to a local body. Only in Eph (1.22 et al.), and probably Mt> 16.18, is the reference strongly to the ‘universal body’ connotation.> > For this reason I join those in favor of “assembly” or “congregation”, even> in those instances where the reference is non-local. I do not find it such> a stretch to understand a spiritual sense of congregation in which we now> participate in heaven. It is simply metaphorical. After all, he has> “raised us up with him, and seated us with him in the heavenlies” (Eph 2.6),> a present reality.> > Joe A. Friberg> M.A. Linguistics> M.A. Theology student> Arlington, TX> JoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net

 

Light summer reading / Apostle’s Creed in Greek?translation

ekklesia/Mitchell Gray Eric Weiss eweiss at gte.net
Wed Jul 28 00:34:11 EDT 1999

 

Light summer reading / Apostle’s Creed in Greek? translation This raises another word issue, i.e., “body.” We often use the term “body” (as in: “local body”) to refer to a local “church” or “gathering” or “assembly” of believers. But … it seems to me that the NT most often uses “body” in relation to believers in terms of the one body of Christ. If so, then I think we ought not to use “body” to refer to a local assembly or its members – even though in our day and age “body” (as in “a body of people”) can have this meaning – because a local “body” and/or its members/participants can, by association, inadvertantly come to think of itself/themselves as “the body” of Christ – and thus strive to be something in form or substance which they are not meant or able to be. (I speak by experience, having been in a group that called itself a “body” and strove to function as a “body,” almost coming to speak of or view such an achievement as God’s ultimate plan or purpose – an effort I felt was off-base because I never could understand how a single local “assembly” could constitute “a body” in the NT sense – since Christ only has one body.)Comments? (I could be wrong, you know! ;-)- Eric Weisseweiss at gte.netOn 07/27/99, “”Joe A. Friberg” <JoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net>” wrote:> > —–Original Message—–> > From: Carl W. Conrad [mailto:cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 7:42 PM> > > I’ll take a closer look at the 114 instances of EKKLHSIA in the GNT, but I> > really expect to find the great majority of them in reference to local> > congregations rather than the universal body of believers. That is the> > chief reason why one might prefer to use “gathering,” “meeting,” or> > “congregation” than “church”–because it is less likely to be> > misleading to> > an English reader who tends to think of “church” in all its ambiguity.> > Actually, my recollections from a study I did some 10 years hence is that> most all the instances of EKKLHSIA in the GNT do, or at least very possibly> can, refer to a local body. Only in Eph (1.22 et al.), and probably Mt> 16.18, is the reference strongly to the ‘universal body’ connotation.> > For this reason I join those in favor of “assembly” or “congregation”, even> in those instances where the reference is non-local. I do not find it such> a stretch to understand a spiritual sense of congregation in which we now> participate in heaven. It is simply metaphorical. After all, he has> “raised us up with him, and seated us with him in the heavenlies” (Eph 2.6),> a present reality.> > Joe A. Friberg> M.A. Linguistics> M.A. Theology student> Arlington, TX> JoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net

 

Light summer reading / Apostle’s Creed in Greek?translation

ekklesia/Mitchell Gray Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net
Wed Jul 28 12:57:57 EDT 1999

 

Luke 1:63 etymology > —–Original Message—–> From: Eric Weiss [mailto:eweiss at gte.net]> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 7:34 PM> > This raises another word issue, i.e., “body.” We often use the> term “body”> (as in: “local body”) to refer to a local “church” or “gathering” or> “assembly” of believers. But … it seems to me that the NT most> often uses> “body” in relation to believers in terms of the one body of> Christ. If so,> then I think we ought not to use “body” to refer to a local> assembly or its> members – even though in our day and age “body” (as in “a body of> people”)> can have this meaning – because a local “body” and/or its> members/participants can, by association, inadvertantly come to think of> itself/themselves as “the body” of Christ – and thus strive to be> something> in form or substance which they are not meant or able to be.I must disagree. At least, the GNT does not use SWMA *excusively* foruniversal body of Christ.Take Rom 12.4-5: 12.3 is addressed EN hUMIN, emphasizing the *local* natureof this exhortation. (It is noted, however, that in v5 the many are hENSWMA … *EN XRISTWi*, but not explicitly the body ‘*of* Christ’.Nevertheless, “one body” *is* appropriately applied to a local assembly withits various “members” and their various “gifts” and ministries.)Again, in 1 Cor 10.16-17, the sharing of the bread of the Lord’s Supper isfirst declared a partaking of the body of Christ, by which the believersbecome one body in the ceremony. Here, with the emphasis on the table offellowship and the contrast with idol feasts, the local nature of the bodyis apparent.Again in 1 Cor 12.12-27, the longest and most developed of the body ofChrist metaphors, Paul is dealing with a very local problem and applies thebody metaphor to this local situation (cf. v25). Note particularly theclosing verse (v27): hUMEIS DE ESTE SWMA XRISTOU KAI MELH EK MEROUS, adirect and explicit application of the body metaphor which he has beendeveloping to the Corinthian assembly.Only in Ephesians and Colossiansis the body metaphor applied to theuniversal assembly/church:Eph 1.23 (his body fills all in all)Col 1.18,24 (focus on redemption of and ministry to the body at-large)Eph 2.16,3.6 (Jews and Gentiles become one body, though this body is notspecifically said to be ‘*of* Christ’)Eph 4.4,12, Col 2.19 (here the universal body has the specific applicationto the local bodyand the individual)Eph 5.23,30 (the universal body as a picture of marriage)Col 3.15 *local* emphasis againCould it be that the universal emphasis in Ephesians arose from the natureof that letter as a *encyclical* letter? That would be my suggestion.Furthermore, it appears that *chronologically*, the local application of themetaphor of the body of Christ came first, and the application to theuniversal body at-large arose as a secondary development.Finally, in several of the passages in Ephesians and Colossians, thereappears to be an interplay between the universal and local connotations ofthe body metaphor: while the universal metaphor has larger implications, italso has local applications.God bless!Joe A. FribergM.A. LinguisticsM.A. Theology studentArlington, TXJoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net

 

Luke 1:63etymology

ekklesia/Mitchell Gray Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net
Wed Jul 28 12:57:57 EDT 1999

 

Luke 1:63 etymology > —–Original Message—–> From: Eric Weiss [mailto:eweiss at gte.net]> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 7:34 PM> > This raises another word issue, i.e., “body.” We often use the> term “body”> (as in: “local body”) to refer to a local “church” or “gathering” or> “assembly” of believers. But … it seems to me that the NT most> often uses> “body” in relation to believers in terms of the one body of> Christ. If so,> then I think we ought not to use “body” to refer to a local> assembly or its> members – even though in our day and age “body” (as in “a body of> people”)> can have this meaning – because a local “body” and/or its> members/participants can, by association, inadvertantly come to think of> itself/themselves as “the body” of Christ – and thus strive to be> something> in form or substance which they are not meant or able to be.I must disagree. At least, the GNT does not use SWMA *excusively* foruniversal body of Christ.Take Rom 12.4-5: 12.3 is addressed EN hUMIN, emphasizing the *local* natureof this exhortation. (It is noted, however, that in v5 the many are hENSWMA … *EN XRISTWi*, but not explicitly the body ‘*of* Christ’.Nevertheless, “one body” *is* appropriately applied to a local assembly withits various “members” and their various “gifts” and ministries.)Again, in 1 Cor 10.16-17, the sharing of the bread of the Lord’s Supper isfirst declared a partaking of the body of Christ, by which the believersbecome one body in the ceremony. Here, with the emphasis on the table offellowship and the contrast with idol feasts, the local nature of the bodyis apparent.Again in 1 Cor 12.12-27, the longest and most developed of the body ofChrist metaphors, Paul is dealing with a very local problem and applies thebody metaphor to this local situation (cf. v25). Note particularly theclosing verse (v27): hUMEIS DE ESTE SWMA XRISTOU KAI MELH EK MEROUS, adirect and explicit application of the body metaphor which he has beendeveloping to the Corinthian assembly.Only in Ephesians and Colossiansis the body metaphor applied to theuniversal assembly/church:Eph 1.23 (his body fills all in all)Col 1.18,24 (focus on redemption of and ministry to the body at-large)Eph 2.16,3.6 (Jews and Gentiles become one body, though this body is notspecifically said to be ‘*of* Christ’)Eph 4.4,12, Col 2.19 (here the universal body has the specific applicationto the local bodyand the individual)Eph 5.23,30 (the universal body as a picture of marriage)Col 3.15 *local* emphasis againCould it be that the universal emphasis in Ephesians arose from the natureof that letter as a *encyclical* letter? That would be my suggestion.Furthermore, it appears that *chronologically*, the local application of themetaphor of the body of Christ came first, and the application to theuniversal body at-large arose as a secondary development.Finally, in several of the passages in Ephesians and Colossians, thereappears to be an interplay between the universal and local connotations ofthe body metaphor: while the universal metaphor has larger implications, italso has local applications.God bless!Joe A. FribergM.A. LinguisticsM.A. Theology studentArlington, TXJoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net

 

Luke 1:63etymology

ekklesia/Carl Conrad Theodore H Mann thmann at juno.com
Wed Jul 28 15:20:46 EDT 1999

 

Luke 1:63 (no subject) Carl:I’ll look forward to reviewing the results of your inquiry. The subjectinterests me.Dr. Theodore “Ted” Mannthmann at juno.comhttp://www.homestead.com/eIXQUS/index.htmlhttp://www.homestead.com/eLOGOS/index.htmlhttp://www.homestead.com/ChristianResourcesLinks/index.htmlOn Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:42:14 -0400 “Carl W. Conrad”<cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:>At 7:25 PM -0400 7/27/99, Theodore H Mann wrote:>>Hi Mitch:>> >>Yes, my wife and I say the same thing, as well as “we’re meeting with >the>>saints,” or some such. However, if “church” is not the best >translation>>of EKKLESIA, as a couple of people have recently suggested, then >some>>other term needs to be used which captures both the local and global>>aspects of the body of Christ. Am I mistaken in my understanding >that>>the NT speaks of the EKKLESIA on both levels? Perhaps “assembly” or>>“congregation” are fine, in spite of my feeling that they seem to >have a>>decidedly local flavor to them.> >I’ll take a closer look at the 114 instances of EKKLHSIA in the GNT, >but I>really expect to find the great majority of them in reference to >local>congregations rather than the universal body of believers. That is >the>chief reason why one might prefer to use “gathering,” “meeting,” or>“congregation” than “church”–because it is less likely to be >misleading to>an English reader who tends to think of “church” in all its >ambiguity.> > >Carl W. Conrad>Department of Classics, Washington University>Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243>cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: thmann at juno.com>To unsubscribe, forward this message to >$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to >subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> >

 

Luke 1:63(no subject)

ekklesia/Carl Conrad Theodore H Mann thmann at juno.com
Wed Jul 28 15:20:46 EDT 1999

 

Luke 1:63 (no subject) Carl:I’ll look forward to reviewing the results of your inquiry. The subjectinterests me.Dr. Theodore “Ted” Mannthmann at juno.comhttp://www.homestead.com/eIXQUS/index.htmlhttp://www.homestead.com/eLOGOS/index.htmlhttp://www.homestead.com/ChristianResourcesLinks/index.htmlOn Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:42:14 -0400 “Carl W. Conrad”<cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:>At 7:25 PM -0400 7/27/99, Theodore H Mann wrote:>>Hi Mitch:>> >>Yes, my wife and I say the same thing, as well as “we’re meeting with >the>>saints,” or some such. However, if “church” is not the best >translation>>of EKKLESIA, as a couple of people have recently suggested, then >some>>other term needs to be used which captures both the local and global>>aspects of the body of Christ. Am I mistaken in my understanding >that>>the NT speaks of the EKKLESIA on both levels? Perhaps “assembly” or>>“congregation” are fine, in spite of my feeling that they seem to >have a>>decidedly local flavor to them.> >I’ll take a closer look at the 114 instances of EKKLHSIA in the GNT, >but I>really expect to find the great majority of them in reference to >local>congregations rather than the universal body of believers. That is >the>chief reason why one might prefer to use “gathering,” “meeting,” or>“congregation” than “church”–because it is less likely to be >misleading to>an English reader who tends to think of “church” in all its >ambiguity.> > >Carl W. Conrad>Department of Classics, Washington University>Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243>cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/> >> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/>You are currently subscribed to as: thmann at juno.com>To unsubscribe, forward this message to >$subst(‘Email.Unsub’)>To subscribe, send a message to >subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> >

 

Luke 1:63(no subject)

ekklesia/Mitchell Gray Mike Sangrey mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us
Wed Jul 28 17:22:11 EDT 1999

 

etymology: WARNING EIMI — copulative or stative There’s been a lot of good discussion regarding EKKLESIA andentymology. The two discussions richly overlap.When thinking of doing word study linguistically (I’m no linguist,just know what I read) one might form an attribute tree of theword’s meaning as this meaning exists in the original language.Would EKKLESIA have a ‘local’ or ‘global’ attribute? The answer Ibelieve is neither (I’ll try to somewhat back this up in a moment.)So, I think, the discussion regarding ‘local’ versus ‘global’ isoutside the meaning; however, that is not to say the discussionhas not been helpful. In this, the discussion hovers around the’usage’ of the word and not the ‘meaning’ and that is beneficial.But, as we know, this requires great care; it is very, very easyto slide from ‘usage’ into ‘meaning’ and back again without knowingwe’ve subtlely changed focus.I think we too sloppily read the usage back into the meaning as wellas doing the same with the entymology, even though we know better.That is not to say these layers do not influence each other, theymost certainly do–a word derives its meaning from its context,whether that context is within the composition, the common usage atthe time, or the baggage brought with the word from its history.Or, even semanticly related words–EPISUNAGWGH, for example, mustbe considered when studying EKKLESIA.My thoughts related in the next paragraph are somewhat motivated byEphesians, where, I believe EKKLESIA is always used (note: usage)with a global flavor. The Ephesian discourse can be caught inthe sentence, “Christ’s effective work secures the unity of allbelievers, so live like it.” So, what I’m about to do, withoutthe detail, is apply the context of Ephesians to the meaningof the word EKKLESIA; that is, the meaning of EKKLESIA as it isused in the NT, must be consistent with the meaning of Ephesians.Thus the imperative of knowing the context, knowing the discourse,and having some feel for the relationship between the semanticlayers before we can really know the meaning of the word itself.Given the multi-level, networked nature of semantics, we will alwaysbe striving toward this and never fully achieve it.I’m of the opinion that the early believers made no distinctionin their relationships with other believers when they used theterm EKKLESIA. The idea we have today of a local gathering beingdistinct from the global gathering of believers and relationallydistinct from other local gatherings was completely foreign to them.The distinction we are trying to apply to EKKLESIA of ‘local’ versus’global’ was derived, not from the word, but from the fact that theycouldn’t all meet together. That is why the writers could use theword in a local and global sense. They considered themselves onebody. They were geographically distinct, not relationally distinct.The oneness they experienced with all believers could be expressed byEKKLESIA as well as by SWMA. In this way, ‘oneness’ is an attributeof EKKLESIA and SWMA. Also, there’s a hint of this ‘oneness’ in theprepostional prefix EK. Think of the group that somehow has an ‘out’meaning to it. The fact that EKKLESIA was used in the koine in bothlocal and global ways emphasizes both the universal and practicaloneness all believers are to have. So, ‘oneness’ is an attribute.Another attribute of EKKLESIA, I think, must be ‘separation’.The appropriate preposition certainly is used in composition here.No denying it. Whether it is ‘called out ones’ or some other’something out’, should be discussed. I understand that somebelieve KALEW has no semantic relationship to EKKLESIA. Has anyoneoffered alternatives? If so, I missed them. (EKKLEIW perhaps!!?That would change the meaning of ‘church’. 😉 )I think when doing a word study, of first importance is to uncoverthe attributes of the word as it exists in the original language.These attributes dare not contradict, indeed should support with theproper relation, all contexts, no matter what type. Then, find aword (or words) in the target language which reflects the samepattern of attributes. Easily said!! Has anyone written adescription of how to formally go about this? Perhaps what mightbe called ‘applied linguistics’? Anyone know?Using the English term ‘congregation’ has its shortcoming, for’con’ (Latin CUM) does not give any meaning of ‘out’; though Isuppose one could argue for ‘con’ the way I argued for ‘EK’ above.’Assembly’ is better. One can easily think of the large, global,assembly of God. And, just as easily, think of parts of thatassembly being referred to as ‘assemblies’. The emphasis, though,with EKKLESIA is with separation, and not on the coming together.’Assembly’ and ‘gathering’ both fall down here.Mike Sangreymike at sojurn.lns.pa.usP.S. ‘Out-gathering’ might work but Noah Webster seems to haveforgotten to include it in his book. I know!, we could use…drumroll please…ecclesia. Yeah!! That will work!!! Of course we wouldhave the same mess as BAPTISMA and DIAKONOS and those discussionsare always fun. Right? Sorry. Bad joke.Never talk about BAPTISMA on .Never talk about BAPTISMA on .Never talk about BAPTISMA on .Never talk about BAPTISMA on ….:-)— Mike Sangreymike at sojurn.lns.pa.us

 

etymology: WARNINGEIMI — copulative or stative

ekklesia/Mitchell Gray Mike Sangrey mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us
Wed Jul 28 17:22:11 EDT 1999

 

etymology: WARNING EIMI — copulative or stative There’s been a lot of good discussion regarding EKKLESIA andentymology. The two discussions richly overlap.When thinking of doing word study linguistically (I’m no linguist,just know what I read) one might form an attribute tree of theword’s meaning as this meaning exists in the original language.Would EKKLESIA have a ‘local’ or ‘global’ attribute? The answer Ibelieve is neither (I’ll try to somewhat back this up in a moment.)So, I think, the discussion regarding ‘local’ versus ‘global’ isoutside the meaning; however, that is not to say the discussionhas not been helpful. In this, the discussion hovers around the’usage’ of the word and not the ‘meaning’ and that is beneficial.But, as we know, this requires great care; it is very, very easyto slide from ‘usage’ into ‘meaning’ and back again without knowingwe’ve subtlely changed focus.I think we too sloppily read the usage back into the meaning as wellas doing the same with the entymology, even though we know better.That is not to say these layers do not influence each other, theymost certainly do–a word derives its meaning from its context,whether that context is within the composition, the common usage atthe time, or the baggage brought with the word from its history.Or, even semanticly related words–EPISUNAGWGH, for example, mustbe considered when studying EKKLESIA.My thoughts related in the next paragraph are somewhat motivated byEphesians, where, I believe EKKLESIA is always used (note: usage)with a global flavor. The Ephesian discourse can be caught inthe sentence, “Christ’s effective work secures the unity of allbelievers, so live like it.” So, what I’m about to do, withoutthe detail, is apply the context of Ephesians to the meaningof the word EKKLESIA; that is, the meaning of EKKLESIA as it isused in the NT, must be consistent with the meaning of Ephesians.Thus the imperative of knowing the context, knowing the discourse,and having some feel for the relationship between the semanticlayers before we can really know the meaning of the word itself.Given the multi-level, networked nature of semantics, we will alwaysbe striving toward this and never fully achieve it.I’m of the opinion that the early believers made no distinctionin their relationships with other believers when they used theterm EKKLESIA. The idea we have today of a local gathering beingdistinct from the global gathering of believers and relationallydistinct from other local gatherings was completely foreign to them.The distinction we are trying to apply to EKKLESIA of ‘local’ versus’global’ was derived, not from the word, but from the fact that theycouldn’t all meet together. That is why the writers could use theword in a local and global sense. They considered themselves onebody. They were geographically distinct, not relationally distinct.The oneness they experienced with all believers could be expressed byEKKLESIA as well as by SWMA. In this way, ‘oneness’ is an attributeof EKKLESIA and SWMA. Also, there’s a hint of this ‘oneness’ in theprepostional prefix EK. Think of the group that somehow has an ‘out’meaning to it. The fact that EKKLESIA was used in the koine in bothlocal and global ways emphasizes both the universal and practicaloneness all believers are to have. So, ‘oneness’ is an attribute.Another attribute of EKKLESIA, I think, must be ‘separation’.The appropriate preposition certainly is used in composition here.No denying it. Whether it is ‘called out ones’ or some other’something out’, should be discussed. I understand that somebelieve KALEW has no semantic relationship to EKKLESIA. Has anyoneoffered alternatives? If so, I missed them. (EKKLEIW perhaps!!?That would change the meaning of ‘church’. 😉 )I think when doing a word study, of first importance is to uncoverthe attributes of the word as it exists in the original language.These attributes dare not contradict, indeed should support with theproper relation, all contexts, no matter what type. Then, find aword (or words) in the target language which reflects the samepattern of attributes. Easily said!! Has anyone written adescription of how to formally go about this? Perhaps what mightbe called ‘applied linguistics’? Anyone know?Using the English term ‘congregation’ has its shortcoming, for’con’ (Latin CUM) does not give any meaning of ‘out’; though Isuppose one could argue for ‘con’ the way I argued for ‘EK’ above.’Assembly’ is better. One can easily think of the large, global,assembly of God. And, just as easily, think of parts of thatassembly being referred to as ‘assemblies’. The emphasis, though,with EKKLESIA is with separation, and not on the coming together.’Assembly’ and ‘gathering’ both fall down here.Mike Sangreymike at sojurn.lns.pa.usP.S. ‘Out-gathering’ might work but Noah Webster seems to haveforgotten to include it in his book. I know!, we could use…drumroll please…ecclesia. Yeah!! That will work!!! Of course we wouldhave the same mess as BAPTISMA and DIAKONOS and those discussionsare always fun. Right? Sorry. Bad joke.Never talk about BAPTISMA on .Never talk about BAPTISMA on .Never talk about BAPTISMA on .Never talk about BAPTISMA on ….:-)— Mike Sangreymike at sojurn.lns.pa.us

 

etymology: WARNINGEIMI — copulative or stative

ekklesia J. Kalvesmaki jdkalv at u.washington.edu
Wed Jul 28 18:06:59 EDT 1999

 

Light summer reading…. Sorting alphabetically >I’ll take a closer look at the 114 instances of EKKLHSIA in the GNT, but>I really expect to find the great majority of them in reference to local>congregations rather than the universal body of believers. That is the>chief reason why one might prefer to use “gathering,” “meeting,” or>“congregation” than “church”–because it is less likely to be misleading>to an English reader who tends to think of “church” in all its ambiguity.I am surprised that no one has mentioned that the choice of the Englishword depends upon the projected audience and their respectivetheology/ecclesiology. In my own tradition, Orthodox Christian, the term”church” does not at all preclude the meaning of the gathering of thelocal body, primarily because our ecclesiology differs from that of, say,a Catholic, Protestant, or post-Christian Westerner.Furthermore, no one has mentioned how much the tranlator’s purpose playsin the choice of word. What are you hoping to accomplish through it all?This will play a major role in what word you choose.Just an attempt to add elements to this discussion that seems lacking. Theconcept of translation is at *least* a four place relation: Person Wwrites English “meaning” X of text Y for audience Z. So far, most havepaid attention only to elements X & Y.jkJoel D Kalvesmaki University of Washington Catholic University of AmericaAlumnus, Classics and Philosophy Matriculated, Early Christian Studies

 

Light summer reading….Sorting alphabetically

ekklesia J. Kalvesmaki jdkalv at u.washington.edu
Wed Jul 28 18:06:59 EDT 1999

 

Light summer reading…. Sorting alphabetically >I’ll take a closer look at the 114 instances of EKKLHSIA in the GNT, but>I really expect to find the great majority of them in reference to local>congregations rather than the universal body of believers. That is the>chief reason why one might prefer to use “gathering,” “meeting,” or>“congregation” than “church”–because it is less likely to be misleading>to an English reader who tends to think of “church” in all its ambiguity.I am surprised that no one has mentioned that the choice of the Englishword depends upon the projected audience and their respectivetheology/ecclesiology. In my own tradition, Orthodox Christian, the term”church” does not at all preclude the meaning of the gathering of thelocal body, primarily because our ecclesiology differs from that of, say,a Catholic, Protestant, or post-Christian Westerner.Furthermore, no one has mentioned how much the tranlator’s purpose playsin the choice of word. What are you hoping to accomplish through it all?This will play a major role in what word you choose.Just an attempt to add elements to this discussion that seems lacking. Theconcept of translation is at *least* a four place relation: Person Wwrites English “meaning” X of text Y for audience Z. So far, most havepaid attention only to elements X & Y.jkJoel D Kalvesmaki University of Washington Catholic University of AmericaAlumnus, Classics and Philosophy Matriculated, Early Christian Studies

 

Light summer reading….Sorting alphabetically

ekklesia/Mitchell Gray Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Jul 28 20:02:21 EDT 1999

 

Sorting alphabetically Light summer reading…. Several interesting points are made here; I have to say honestly thatseveral points within the whole disturb me; I’ll try to focus closely onwhat seems particularly problematic to me.At 5:22 PM -0400 7/28/99, Mike Sangrey wrote:>When thinking of doing word study linguistically (I’m no linguist,>just know what I read) one might form an attribute tree of the>word’s meaning as this meaning exists in the original language.>Would EKKLESIA have a ‘local’ or ‘global’ attribute? The answer I>believe is neither (I’ll try to somewhat back this up in a moment.)>So, I think, the discussion regarding ‘local’ versus ‘global’ is>outside the meaning; however, that is not to say the discussion>has not been helpful. In this, the discussion hovers around the>‘usage’ of the word and not the ‘meaning’ and that is beneficial.>But, as we know, this requires great care; it is very, very easy>to slide from ‘usage’ into ‘meaning’ and back again without knowing>we’ve subtlely changed focus.> >I think we too sloppily read the usage back into the meaning as well>as doing the same with the entymology, even though we know better.This looks “buggy” or even “fishy” (‘ichthymology’) to me, but I supposethat ‘etymology’ was meant. What bothers me about the above is what seemsto me a rather mystical or metaphysical conception of “the word’s meaningas this meaning exists in the original language.” Then there is whatappears to be a determination to make some sharp distinction between”meaning” and “usage”–a distinction that I simply do not understand. WhileI’m willing to say that any particular word is rooted at some pointhistorically in an original derivation from an etymological root andrelated to cognates, I wouldn’t want to argue that a word’s “meaning” issomething other than its usage in a particular time and place as evidencedin recorded speech or written texts. I can relate AGORA to the verb AGEIRW,”gather”–but I have to distinguish a Homeric meaning of “assembly” fromlater classical and Hellenistic meaning of “gathering place/marketplace/market.” Nor can I imagine that EKKLHSIA (not EKKLESIA) has somemeaning other than that attested in speech or textual evidence at times andplaces within the historical continuum.>That is not to say these layers do not influence each other, they>most certainly do–a word derives its meaning from its context,>whether that context is within the composition, the common usage at>the time, or the baggage brought with the word from its history.>Or, even semanticly related words–EPISUNAGWGH, for example, must>be considered when studying EKKLESIA.This paragraph is one I’d agree with, but it seems to me to stand incontradiction to the preceding paragraphs. As for a relationship tosemantic cognates, what I’d want to know is whether EPISUNAGWGH issynonymous with or overlaps in meaning with EKKLHSIA, or if the two wordsare really quite distinct in their implications for a kind of gathering.>My thoughts related in the next paragraph are somewhat motivated by>Ephesians, where, I believe EKKLESIA is always used (note: usage)>with a global flavor. The Ephesian discourse can be caught in>the sentence, “Christ’s effective work secures the unity of all>believers, so live like it.”I would not argue with this, so far as it goes.> So, what I’m about to do, without>the detail, is apply the context of Ephesians to the meaning>of the word EKKLESIA; that is, the meaning of EKKLESIA as it is>used in the NT, must be consistent with the meaning of Ephesians.While many may believe this to be true, I personally do not, and I think itreally begs the question. It’s really based upon a hermeneutical assumptionabout either the nature of the NT corpus of documents or upon ametaphysical assumption about the nature of language and meaning. We’re nothere (on this list, at any rate) to argue hermeneutics. We do seem to behaving an argument about the nature of language. For my part, I think thatthe word SARX is used in very different ways in the gospel of John and inthe letters of Paul; I don’t think that a consistent definition of EKKLHSIAcan be derived from any one NT document and forced upon texts in otherdocuments. [material omitted]>I’m of the opinion that the early believers made no distinction>in their relationships with other believers when they used the>term EKKLESIA. The idea we have today of a local gathering being>distinct from the global gathering of believers and relationally>distinct from other local gatherings was completely foreign to them.I think this is exactly that, an opinion. The second sentence strikes me asa question begged. Indeed, my own reading of the Pauline correspondence,and most particularly of 1 Corinthians, leads me to think rather that Paulwent to great pains, with questionable success, to convince believers thatthey should even think of the local congregation as an integral body ratherthan as a conglomerate of believers. And I view his persistent effort tocollect a monetary offering for the Jerusalem church as an endeavor todemonstrate his own commitment to and urge others to share what they werenot by nature inclined to share–his notion that all believers belong to acommon fellowship. But if we want to see a universal conception of EKKLHSIAin Ephesians, I’m more inclined to be convinced by the suggestionof Joe Friberg this afternoon: that this universal conception is likely tobe related to the ‘encyclical’ nature of the Letter to the Ephesians.> . . . Also, there’s a hint of this ‘oneness’ in the>prepostional prefix EK. Think of the group that somehow has an ‘out’>meaning to it. The fact that EKKLESIA was used in the koine in both>local and global ways emphasizes both the universal and practical>oneness all believers are to have. So, ‘oneness’ is an attribute.I honestly don’t think that the prefix EK is discerned in the usage of theword EKKLHSIA at all–any more than what was once a prefix EPI- wasdiscerned in the historical verb EPISTAMAI or its cognate noun EPISTHMH (itis the initial E- that is augmented in the past indicative forms ofEPISTAMAI); I’ve heard putative etymological explanations of EPISTHMH as”under-standing”–although if it were, it ought to be hUPO-STHMH). I thinkit probable that EKKLHSIA as a political term for “popular assembly”derived originally from EKKALEW in the sense “call out” the freeborn malesentitled to what magistrates and BOULH would set before them as business,and that later usages of EKKLHSIA, including that in the LXX, areextensions of that historical sense of “assembly of the people.” Thequestion to be ascertained is: WHEN (and WHERE) did EKKLHSIA first come toconvey the sense of a “gathering of the people” OTHER than at a particulartime and place? It MAY have that meaning somewhere in the LXX, but I’d liketo be convinced. I really don’t think it comes to have that sense in theearlier NT documents, although I think it probably DOES have that sense inLATER NT documents (as in Mt 16:18, which I personally do think is a laterNT document rather than an earlier one).>Another attribute of EKKLESIA, I think, must be ‘separation’.>The appropriate preposition certainly is used in composition here.>No denying it.I would deny it. I honestly don’t see any evidence of it; I’m not aware ofany NT text where the prefix EK- can be clearly shown to be critical tounderstanding the meaning of EKKLHSIA, whereas the sense of “meeting of thepeople” seems quite sufficient as a historical background sense at work inNT usage.I’m sorry to be so negative here but I just don’t understand the philosophyof language that is being set forth here.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/

 

Sorting alphabeticallyLight summer reading….

ekklesia/Mitchell Gray Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Jul 28 20:02:21 EDT 1999

 

Sorting alphabetically Light summer reading…. Several interesting points are made here; I have to say honestly thatseveral points within the whole disturb me; I’ll try to focus closely onwhat seems particularly problematic to me.At 5:22 PM -0400 7/28/99, Mike Sangrey wrote:>When thinking of doing word study linguistically (I’m no linguist,>just know what I read) one might form an attribute tree of the>word’s meaning as this meaning exists in the original language.>Would EKKLESIA have a ‘local’ or ‘global’ attribute? The answer I>believe is neither (I’ll try to somewhat back this up in a moment.)>So, I think, the discussion regarding ‘local’ versus ‘global’ is>outside the meaning; however, that is not to say the discussion>has not been helpful. In this, the discussion hovers around the>‘usage’ of the word and not the ‘meaning’ and that is beneficial.>But, as we know, this requires great care; it is very, very easy>to slide from ‘usage’ into ‘meaning’ and back again without knowing>we’ve subtlely changed focus.> >I think we too sloppily read the usage back into the meaning as well>as doing the same with the entymology, even though we know better.This looks “buggy” or even “fishy” (‘ichthymology’) to me, but I supposethat ‘etymology’ was meant. What bothers me about the above is what seemsto me a rather mystical or metaphysical conception of “the word’s meaningas this meaning exists in the original language.” Then there is whatappears to be a determination to make some sharp distinction between”meaning” and “usage”–a distinction that I simply do not understand. WhileI’m willing to say that any particular word is rooted at some pointhistorically in an original derivation from an etymological root andrelated to cognates, I wouldn’t want to argue that a word’s “meaning” issomething other than its usage in a particular time and place as evidencedin recorded speech or written texts. I can relate AGORA to the verb AGEIRW,”gather”–but I have to distinguish a Homeric meaning of “assembly” fromlater classical and Hellenistic meaning of “gathering place/marketplace/market.” Nor can I imagine that EKKLHSIA (not EKKLESIA) has somemeaning other than that attested in speech or textual evidence at times andplaces within the historical continuum.>That is not to say these layers do not influence each other, they>most certainly do–a word derives its meaning from its context,>whether that context is within the composition, the common usage at>the time, or the baggage brought with the word from its history.>Or, even semanticly related words–EPISUNAGWGH, for example, must>be considered when studying EKKLESIA.This paragraph is one I’d agree with, but it seems to me to stand incontradiction to the preceding paragraphs. As for a relationship tosemantic cognates, what I’d want to know is whether EPISUNAGWGH issynonymous with or overlaps in meaning with EKKLHSIA, or if the two wordsare really quite distinct in their implications for a kind of gathering.>My thoughts related in the next paragraph are somewhat motivated by>Ephesians, where, I believe EKKLESIA is always used (note: usage)>with a global flavor. The Ephesian discourse can be caught in>the sentence, “Christ’s effective work secures the unity of all>believers, so live like it.”I would not argue with this, so far as it goes.> So, what I’m about to do, without>the detail, is apply the context of Ephesians to the meaning>of the word EKKLESIA; that is, the meaning of EKKLESIA as it is>used in the NT, must be consistent with the meaning of Ephesians.While many may believe this to be true, I personally do not, and I think itreally begs the question. It’s really based upon a hermeneutical assumptionabout either the nature of the NT corpus of documents or upon ametaphysical assumption about the nature of language and meaning. We’re nothere (on this list, at any rate) to argue hermeneutics. We do seem to behaving an argument about the nature of language. For my part, I think thatthe word SARX is used in very different ways in the gospel of John and inthe letters of Paul; I don’t think that a consistent definition of EKKLHSIAcan be derived from any one NT document and forced upon texts in otherdocuments. [material omitted]>I’m of the opinion that the early believers made no distinction>in their relationships with other believers when they used the>term EKKLESIA. The idea we have today of a local gathering being>distinct from the global gathering of believers and relationally>distinct from other local gatherings was completely foreign to them.I think this is exactly that, an opinion. The second sentence strikes me asa question begged. Indeed, my own reading of the Pauline correspondence,and most particularly of 1 Corinthians, leads me to think rather that Paulwent to great pains, with questionable success, to convince believers thatthey should even think of the local congregation as an integral body ratherthan as a conglomerate of believers. And I view his persistent effort tocollect a monetary offering for the Jerusalem church as an endeavor todemonstrate his own commitment to and urge others to share what they werenot by nature inclined to share–his notion that all believers belong to acommon fellowship. But if we want to see a universal conception of EKKLHSIAin Ephesians, I’m more inclined to be convinced by the suggestionof Joe Friberg this afternoon: that this universal conception is likely tobe related to the ‘encyclical’ nature of the Letter to the Ephesians.> . . . Also, there’s a hint of this ‘oneness’ in the>prepostional prefix EK. Think of the group that somehow has an ‘out’>meaning to it. The fact that EKKLESIA was used in the koine in both>local and global ways emphasizes both the universal and practical>oneness all believers are to have. So, ‘oneness’ is an attribute.I honestly don’t think that the prefix EK is discerned in the usage of theword EKKLHSIA at all–any more than what was once a prefix EPI- wasdiscerned in the historical verb EPISTAMAI or its cognate noun EPISTHMH (itis the initial E- that is augmented in the past indicative forms ofEPISTAMAI); I’ve heard putative etymological explanations of EPISTHMH as”under-standing”–although if it were, it ought to be hUPO-STHMH). I thinkit probable that EKKLHSIA as a political term for “popular assembly”derived originally from EKKALEW in the sense “call out” the freeborn malesentitled to what magistrates and BOULH would set before them as business,and that later usages of EKKLHSIA, including that in the LXX, areextensions of that historical sense of “assembly of the people.” Thequestion to be ascertained is: WHEN (and WHERE) did EKKLHSIA first come toconvey the sense of a “gathering of the people” OTHER than at a particulartime and place? It MAY have that meaning somewhere in the LXX, but I’d liketo be convinced. I really don’t think it comes to have that sense in theearlier NT documents, although I think it probably DOES have that sense inLATER NT documents (as in Mt 16:18, which I personally do think is a laterNT document rather than an earlier one).>Another attribute of EKKLESIA, I think, must be ‘separation’.>The appropriate preposition certainly is used in composition here.>No denying it.I would deny it. I honestly don’t see any evidence of it; I’m not aware ofany NT text where the prefix EK- can be clearly shown to be critical tounderstanding the meaning of EKKLHSIA, whereas the sense of “meeting of thepeople” seems quite sufficient as a historical background sense at work inNT usage.I’m sorry to be so negative here but I just don’t understand the philosophyof language that is being set forth here.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/

 

Sorting alphabeticallyLight summer reading….
Does Mark 8:7 use an ‘imperative infinitive’ ? Jay Adkins JAdkins264 at aol.com
Sat May 8 10:10:09 EDT 1999

 

Any suggestions on a good NT Lexicon? Hebrews 11:1 Dear ers,While I can find no translation to support of use of an ‘imperative infinitive’ in Mark 8:7, it seems to fit the context well. It appears to benot without support from the function of the infinitive itself. The ‘imperative infinitive’ is “especially frequent in Homer”, and while it “is not of very frequent occurrence” in the NT, “Moulton thinks that its rarity in the New Testament is a “matter for surprise”(M. 180).” {Dana & Mantey, page 216} “An infinitive may be used in a predicate structure, serving the function of a finite verb such as an imperative (commanding use). This is much more frequent in Greek outside of the NT….” {Porter, page 201}Have I missed something about the use of the infinitive as an imperative in translating:Mark 8:7 “KAI EICON ICQUDIA, KAI EULOGHSAS AUTA EIPEN KAI TAUTA PARATIQENIA”As follows;8:7 They also had a few small fish, having blessed them, He said, “Now serve these.”Jay Adkins,Very Little Greek

 

Any suggestions on a good NT Lexicon?Hebrews 11:1

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat May 8 14:15:29 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 11:1 Hebrews 11:1 At 2:09 PM -0400 5/8/99, Jay Adkins wrote:>Dear ers,> >While I can find no translation to support of use of an ‘imperative>infinitive’ in Mark 8:7, it seems to fit the context well. It appears to>be>not without support from the function of the infinitive itself.> >The ‘imperative infinitive’ is “especially frequent in Homer”, and while it>“is not of very frequent occurrence” in the NT, “Moulton thinks that its>rarity in the New Testament is a “matter for surprise”(M. 180).” {Dana &>Mantey, page 216} “An infinitive may be used in a predicate structure,>serving the function of a finite verb such as an imperative (commanding>use). This is much more frequent in Greek outside of the NT….” {Porter,>page 201}> >Have I missed something about the use of the infinitive as an imperative in>translating:> >Mark 8:7 “KAI EICON ICQUDIA, KAI EULOGHSAS AUTA EIPEN KAI TAUTA>PARATIQENIA”> >As follows;> >8:7 They also had a few small fish, having blessed them, He said, “Now>serve these.”The only problem I see is in transcription: the infinitive is PARATIQENAI(AI, not IA).Here EIPEN must be understood to have the sense EKELEUSEN, “he bade/ordered(them) to serve these also.” In English we can use “tell” this way, butGreek does not that commonly use LEGW in the sense of “order” with aninfinitive.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/

 

Hebrews 11:1Hebrews 11:1

Does Mark 8:7 use an ‘imperative infinitive’ ? Jay Adkins JAdkins264 at aol.com
Sat May 8 10:10:09 EDT 1999

 

Any suggestions on a good NT Lexicon? Hebrews 11:1 Dear ers,While I can find no translation to support of use of an ‘imperative infinitive’ in Mark 8:7, it seems to fit the context well. It appears to benot without support from the function of the infinitive itself. The ‘imperative infinitive’ is “especially frequent in Homer”, and while it “is not of very frequent occurrence” in the NT, “Moulton thinks that its rarity in the New Testament is a “matter for surprise”(M. 180).” {Dana & Mantey, page 216} “An infinitive may be used in a predicate structure, serving the function of a finite verb such as an imperative (commanding use). This is much more frequent in Greek outside of the NT….” {Porter, page 201}Have I missed something about the use of the infinitive as an imperative in translating:Mark 8:7 “KAI EICON ICQUDIA, KAI EULOGHSAS AUTA EIPEN KAI TAUTA PARATIQENIA”As follows;8:7 They also had a few small fish, having blessed them, He said, “Now serve these.”Jay Adkins,Very Little Greek

 

Any suggestions on a good NT Lexicon?Hebrews 11:1

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat May 8 14:15:29 EDT 1999

 

Hebrews 11:1 Hebrews 11:1 At 2:09 PM -0400 5/8/99, Jay Adkins wrote:>Dear ers,> >While I can find no translation to support of use of an ‘imperative>infinitive’ in Mark 8:7, it seems to fit the context well. It appears to>be>not without support from the function of the infinitive itself.> >The ‘imperative infinitive’ is “especially frequent in Homer”, and while it>“is not of very frequent occurrence” in the NT, “Moulton thinks that its>rarity in the New Testament is a “matter for surprise”(M. 180).” {Dana &>Mantey, page 216} “An infinitive may be used in a predicate structure,>serving the function of a finite verb such as an imperative (commanding>use). This is much more frequent in Greek outside of the NT….” {Porter,>page 201}> >Have I missed something about the use of the infinitive as an imperative in>translating:> >Mark 8:7 “KAI EICON ICQUDIA, KAI EULOGHSAS AUTA EIPEN KAI TAUTA>PARATIQENIA”> >As follows;> >8:7 They also had a few small fish, having blessed them, He said, “Now>serve these.”The only problem I see is in transcription: the infinitive is PARATIQENAI(AI, not IA).Here EIPEN must be understood to have the sense EKELEUSEN, “he bade/ordered(them) to serve these also.” In English we can use “tell” this way, butGreek does not that commonly use LEGW in the sense of “order” with aninfinitive.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/

 

Hebrews 11:1Hebrews 11:1

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ? Jay Adkins JAdkins264 at aol.com
Sun May 9 08:02:35 EDT 1999

 

John 5:26 Hebrews 11:1 Dear Mr. Carl W. Conrad:Please forgive my ignorance, but I am unsure I understand your response. You said;<<The only problem I see is in transcription: the infinitive is PARATIQENAI (AI, not IA).>>Sorry for the typo.<<Here EIPEN must be understood to have the sense EKELEUSEN, “he bade/ordered (them) to serve these also.” In English we can use “tell” this way, but Greek does not that commonly use LEGW in the sense of “order” with an infinitive.>>I had noticed that the other major translations seem to also agree that “he bade/ordered (them) to serve these also.”7 They also had a few small fish; and after He had blessed them, He ordered these to be served as well. (NASB)7 They had a few small fish as well; he gave thanks for them also and told the disciples to distribute them. (NIV) 7 And they had a few small fishes: and he blessed, and commanded to set them also before [them]. (KJS)The fact that none of the 18 translations I checked translated that last clause the way I did was the reason for the question in the first place. While I translate for myself first, my lack of confidence in my skills is such that I always check it against what others have done to see if there is any agreement at all. In this case I found no agreement with what I had written, but still do not understand why not. Most of the time when there is not agreement from someone else’s work, I am able to understand my mistake.So if I change from;8:7 They also had a few small fish, having blessed them, He said, “Now serve these.”To;8:7 They also had a few small fish, having blessed them, He commanded them, “Now serve these.”Would that fix the problem?Also let me ask one more question. Why “EIPEN must be understood to have the sense EKELEUSEN”? I do not question you are correct, I just want to understand why you are correct. Why not ‘He instructed them’ for example?I had considered asking this off the list so as not to further embarrass myself, but decided to put it on the list so as to encourage others like myself to be bold. It often helps me when I read others’ questions that may seem simply to many of the scholars on the list. I feel there are more ‘Little Greeks’ like me who are often hesitant to ask questions, even when they fail after doing all the research they are capable of.Jay Adkins,Little Greek

 

John 5:26Hebrews 11:1

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ? Jay Adkins JAdkins264 at aol.com
Sun May 9 08:02:35 EDT 1999

 

John 5:26 Hebrews 11:1 Dear Mr. Carl W. Conrad:Please forgive my ignorance, but I am unsure I understand your response. You said;<<The only problem I see is in transcription: the infinitive is PARATIQENAI (AI, not IA).>>Sorry for the typo.<<Here EIPEN must be understood to have the sense EKELEUSEN, “he bade/ordered (them) to serve these also.” In English we can use “tell” this way, but Greek does not that commonly use LEGW in the sense of “order” with an infinitive.>>I had noticed that the other major translations seem to also agree that “he bade/ordered (them) to serve these also.”7 They also had a few small fish; and after He had blessed them, He ordered these to be served as well. (NASB)7 They had a few small fish as well; he gave thanks for them also and told the disciples to distribute them. (NIV) 7 And they had a few small fishes: and he blessed, and commanded to set them also before [them]. (KJS)The fact that none of the 18 translations I checked translated that last clause the way I did was the reason for the question in the first place. While I translate for myself first, my lack of confidence in my skills is such that I always check it against what others have done to see if there is any agreement at all. In this case I found no agreement with what I had written, but still do not understand why not. Most of the time when there is not agreement from someone else’s work, I am able to understand my mistake.So if I change from;8:7 They also had a few small fish, having blessed them, He said, “Now serve these.”To;8:7 They also had a few small fish, having blessed them, He commanded them, “Now serve these.”Would that fix the problem?Also let me ask one more question. Why “EIPEN must be understood to have the sense EKELEUSEN”? I do not question you are correct, I just want to understand why you are correct. Why not ‘He instructed them’ for example?I had considered asking this off the list so as not to further embarrass myself, but decided to put it on the list so as to encourage others like myself to be bold. It often helps me when I read others’ questions that may seem simply to many of the scholars on the list. I feel there are more ‘Little Greeks’ like me who are often hesitant to ask questions, even when they fail after doing all the research they are capable of.Jay Adkins,Little Greek

 

John 5:26Hebrews 11:1

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun May 9 08:54:27 EDT 1999

 

John 5:26 Hebrews 11:1 At 8:45 AM -0400 5/9/99, Jay Adkins wrote:>Dear Mr. Carl W. Conrad:>Please forgive my ignorance, but I am unsure I understand your response.>You said;><<The only problem I see is in transcription: the infinitive is PARATIQENAI>(AI, not IA).>>>Sorry for the typo.><<Here EIPEN must be understood to have the sense EKELEUSEN, “he>bade/ordered (them) to serve these also.” In English we can use “tell” this>way, but Greek does not that commonly use LEGW in the sense of “order” with>an infinitive.>>>I had noticed that the other major translations seem to also agree that “he>bade/ordered (them) to serve these also.”> >7 They also had a few small fish; and after He had blessed them, He ordered>these to be served as well. (NASB)>7 They had a few small fish as well; he gave thanks for them also and told>the disciples to distribute them. (NIV)> 7 And they had a few small fishes: and he blessed, and commanded to set>them also before [them]. (KJS)> >The fact that none of the 18 translations I checked translated that last>clause the way I did was the reason for the question in the first place.>While I translate for myself first, my lack of confidence in my skills is>such that I always check it against what others have done to see if there>is any agreement at all. In this case I found no agreement with what I had>written, but still do not understand why not. Most of the time when there>is not agreement from someone else’s work, I am able to understand my>mistake.> >So if I change from;>8:7 They also had a few small fish, having blessed them, He said, “Now>serve these.”>To;>8:7 They also had a few small fish, having blessed them, He commanded them,>“Now serve these.”>Would that fix the problem?My only question is why you want to change what is an INDIRECT command inthe Greek to a DIRECT command in your version. I grant that it has the samesense, but it is altering the text to the extent that there’s a differenceof sorts between “I’m telling you to do this” and “I tell you, ‘Do this’.”Not a great difference, perhaps, but an INDIRECT command, such as isachieved by the infinitive after EIPEN or after EKELEUSEN, does not pretendto give the exact words of the command but to indicate their intent. Andthat’s what we have here in Mk 8:7. And you will note that all the versionsyou have cited are careful to preserve that INDIRECT command in the formatthat it is in in the Greek.>Also let me ask one more question. Why “EIPEN must be understood to have>the sense EKELEUSEN”? I do not question you are correct, I just want to>understand why you are correct. Why not ‘He instructed them’ for example?As I said originally, this is not at all common in older Greek but it seemsto be more common in Hellenistic Greek, to use the verb LEGW (in all itsvaried forms in different tenses) to mean not simply “say” but “tell” inthe sense of “tell somebody to do something”–in English “tell” is theequivalent of “command” in that idiomatic expression. I think that EIPEN inMk 8:47 is being used exactly like “told them to serve that also” in theEnglish versions.>I had considered asking this off the list so as not to further embarrass>myself, but decided to put it on the list so as to encourage others like>myself to be bold. It often helps me when I read others’ questions that>may seem simply to many of the scholars on the list. I feel there are more>‘Little Greeks’ like me who are often hesitant to ask questions, even when>they fail after doing all the research they are capable of.I approve. And I hope we can continue to make this a welcoming and helpfullist for learners of Greek at all levels.Regards, CarlCarl 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/

 

John 5:26Hebrews 11:1

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun May 9 08:54:27 EDT 1999

 

John 5:26 Hebrews 11:1 At 8:45 AM -0400 5/9/99, Jay Adkins wrote:>Dear Mr. Carl W. Conrad:>Please forgive my ignorance, but I am unsure I understand your response.>You said;><<The only problem I see is in transcription: the infinitive is PARATIQENAI>(AI, not IA).>>>Sorry for the typo.><<Here EIPEN must be understood to have the sense EKELEUSEN, “he>bade/ordered (them) to serve these also.” In English we can use “tell” this>way, but Greek does not that commonly use LEGW in the sense of “order” with>an infinitive.>>>I had noticed that the other major translations seem to also agree that “he>bade/ordered (them) to serve these also.”> >7 They also had a few small fish; and after He had blessed them, He ordered>these to be served as well. (NASB)>7 They had a few small fish as well; he gave thanks for them also and told>the disciples to distribute them. (NIV)> 7 And they had a few small fishes: and he blessed, and commanded to set>them also before [them]. (KJS)> >The fact that none of the 18 translations I checked translated that last>clause the way I did was the reason for the question in the first place.>While I translate for myself first, my lack of confidence in my skills is>such that I always check it against what others have done to see if there>is any agreement at all. In this case I found no agreement with what I had>written, but still do not understand why not. Most of the time when there>is not agreement from someone else’s work, I am able to understand my>mistake.> >So if I change from;>8:7 They also had a few small fish, having blessed them, He said, “Now>serve these.”>To;>8:7 They also had a few small fish, having blessed them, He commanded them,>“Now serve these.”>Would that fix the problem?My only question is why you want to change what is an INDIRECT command inthe Greek to a DIRECT command in your version. I grant that it has the samesense, but it is altering the text to the extent that there’s a differenceof sorts between “I’m telling you to do this” and “I tell you, ‘Do this’.”Not a great difference, perhaps, but an INDIRECT command, such as isachieved by the infinitive after EIPEN or after EKELEUSEN, does not pretendto give the exact words of the command but to indicate their intent. Andthat’s what we have here in Mk 8:7. And you will note that all the versionsyou have cited are careful to preserve that INDIRECT command in the formatthat it is in in the Greek.>Also let me ask one more question. Why “EIPEN must be understood to have>the sense EKELEUSEN”? I do not question you are correct, I just want to>understand why you are correct. Why not ‘He instructed them’ for example?As I said originally, this is not at all common in older Greek but it seemsto be more common in Hellenistic Greek, to use the verb LEGW (in all itsvaried forms in different tenses) to mean not simply “say” but “tell” inthe sense of “tell somebody to do something”–in English “tell” is theequivalent of “command” in that idiomatic expression. I think that EIPEN inMk 8:47 is being used exactly like “told them to serve that also” in theEnglish versions.>I had considered asking this off the list so as not to further embarrass>myself, but decided to put it on the list so as to encourage others like>myself to be bold. It often helps me when I read others’ questions that>may seem simply to many of the scholars on the list. I feel there are more>‘Little Greeks’ like me who are often hesitant to ask questions, even when>they fail after doing all the research they are capable of.I approve. And I hope we can continue to make this a welcoming and helpfullist for learners of Greek at all levels.Regards, CarlCarl 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/

 

John 5:26Hebrews 11:1

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ? Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Sun May 9 22:13:24 EDT 1999

 

classical greek Ekklesia On Sun 9 May 99 , jadkins264 at aol.com wrote:> Also let me ask one more question. Why “EIPEN must be understood to have > the sense EKELEUSEN”? I do not question you are correct, I just want> to understand why you are correct. Why not ‘He instructed them’ for> example? Well, Jay: as one little Greek to another: I sometimes find that Jerome sheds new light on a difficult Greek passage in his /Biblia Sacra Vulgata/. At Mark 8:7 Jerome translates et habebant pisciculos paucos et ipsos benedixit et iussit adponi KAI EICON ICQUDIA OLIGA­ KAI EULOGHSAS AUTA EIPEN KAI TAUTA PARATIQENAI Ignoring the finite verb /benedixit/ for the participle EULOGHSAS, we see that Jerome translates EIPEN as “commanded” or “ordered” (iussit), with the passive infinitive. Compare Luke 7:7, where the centurion says to Jesus “but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed” ALLA EIPE LOGWi, KAI IAQHTW hO PAIS MOU. Here we have the verb ERW clearly used in the sense of issuing an order. HTH ERRWSQE 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

 

classical greekEkklesia

Does Mark 8:7 use an imperative infinitive’ ? Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Sun May 9 22:13:24 EDT 1999

 

classical greek Ekklesia On Sun 9 May 99 , jadkins264 at aol.com wrote:> Also let me ask one more question. Why “EIPEN must be understood to have > the sense EKELEUSEN”? I do not question you are correct, I just want> to understand why you are correct. Why not ‘He instructed them’ for> example? Well, Jay: as one little Greek to another: I sometimes find that Jerome sheds new light on a difficult Greek passage in his /Biblia Sacra Vulgata/. At Mark 8:7 Jerome translates et habebant pisciculos paucos et ipsos benedixit et iussit adponi KAI EICON ICQUDIA OLIGA­ KAI EULOGHSAS AUTA EIPEN KAI TAUTA PARATIQENAI Ignoring the finite verb /benedixit/ for the participle EULOGHSAS, we see that Jerome translates EIPEN as “commanded” or “ordered” (iussit), with the passive infinitive. Compare Luke 7:7, where the centurion says to Jesus “but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed” ALLA EIPE LOGWi, KAI IAQHTW hO PAIS MOU. Here we have the verb ERW clearly used in the sense of issuing an order. HTH ERRWSQE 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

 

classical greekEkklesia
ekklesia/etymology George Goolde goolde at mtnempire.net
Wed Jul 28 22:42:42 EDT 1999

 

Light summer reading…. Why do etymology at all? ers,Perhaps one thing we might agree on is that words, especially taken overthe course of the history of a language, have a variety of term meaningswhich we collectively call the semantic domain of the word. Any particularusage of a word must identify its meaning by its context.We do this in English without even thinking about it. “Post” can be astake to hang a fence on, a position in a company, the place where the Armylives, breakfast cereal, to place something on a bulletin board, to take upa position, to mail a letter, or to jump up and down in the saddle of ahorse! (I never did like riding English style!)We easily identify the intended meaning by its context. Of course, that’s the challenge for we are are studying the GNT 2000 yearsafter the fact. It’s not automatic or easy, at least not for me.ISTM that ekklesia pretty clearly has more than one meaning in the GNT. Itwould appear to refer to the Body of Christ in Ephesians and perhapselsewhere. It refers to an unruly mob at Ephesus in Acts 19:32 andundoubtedly refers to local assemblies of believers in several NT passages. It is also used to refer to a congregation of Jews with Moses in thewilderness. To try to make any one of these the “standard” or “universal”meaning of ekklesia denies the entire concept that a word can have morethan one meaning and seems to me (not so humble opinion here) to torturesome of the texts, no matter which one you select as the “standard.” Thiswas my intended context in which I commented that words always get theirmeaning from context.Is this agreeable?GeorgeGeorge A. GooldeProfessor, Bible & TheologySouthern California Bible College & Seminary

 

Light summer reading….Why do etymology at all?

ekklesia/etymology George Goolde goolde at mtnempire.net
Wed Jul 28 22:42:42 EDT 1999

 

Light summer reading…. Why do etymology at all? ers,Perhaps one thing we might agree on is that words, especially taken overthe course of the history of a language, have a variety of term meaningswhich we collectively call the semantic domain of the word. Any particularusage of a word must identify its meaning by its context.We do this in English without even thinking about it. “Post” can be astake to hang a fence on, a position in a company, the place where the Armylives, breakfast cereal, to place something on a bulletin board, to take upa position, to mail a letter, or to jump up and down in the saddle of ahorse! (I never did like riding English style!)We easily identify the intended meaning by its context. Of course, that’s the challenge for we are are studying the GNT 2000 yearsafter the fact. It’s not automatic or easy, at least not for me.ISTM that ekklesia pretty clearly has more than one meaning in the GNT. Itwould appear to refer to the Body of Christ in Ephesians and perhapselsewhere. It refers to an unruly mob at Ephesus in Acts 19:32 andundoubtedly refers to local assemblies of believers in several NT passages. It is also used to refer to a congregation of Jews with Moses in thewilderness. To try to make any one of these the “standard” or “universal”meaning of ekklesia denies the entire concept that a word can have morethan one meaning and seems to me (not so humble opinion here) to torturesome of the texts, no matter which one you select as the “standard.” Thiswas my intended context in which I commented that words always get theirmeaning from context.Is this agreeable?GeorgeGeorge A. GooldeProfessor, Bible & TheologySouthern California Bible College & Seminary

 

Light summer reading….Why do etymology at all?

ekklesia/Kalvesmaki, Sangrey Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net
Thu Jul 29 02:23:06 EDT 1999

 

Why do etymology at all? could someone translate this please? Both these individuals make good points on the need to consider our*methodology* in the question of the meaning and translation of EKKLHSIA:> From: J. Kalvesmaki> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 5:07 PM> > I am surprised that no one has mentioned that the choice of the English> word depends upon the projected audience and their respective> theology/ecclesiology.> > Furthermore, no one has mentioned how much the tranlator’s purpose plays> in the choice of word.> > The> concept of translation is at *least* a four place relation: Person W> writes English “meaning” X of text Y for audience Z. So far, most have> paid attention only to elements X & Y.> From: Mike Sangrey [mailto:mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us]> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 4:22 PM> > I think when doing a word study, of first importance is to uncover> the attributes of the word as it exists in the original language.> These attributes dare not contradict, indeed should support with the> proper relation, all contexts, no matter what type. Then, find a> word (or words) in the target language which reflects the same> pattern of attributes. ….Tho I cannot claim authority in the area of semantics, I will offer thefollowing observations:The meaning of a word in context contains very distinct components of*denotation* and *connotation*. Denotation is specifically the referentialaspect of meaning, what the word points to. Connotation comprises thenuances of meaning that are associated with the denoted subject underdiscussion, and can be further subdivided into *intrinsic*–aspects ofmeaning that a word carries with it, and *attributed*–meanings applied tothe word by the context of the discourse.1. The denotation of the word EKKLHSIA may be either local or universal, agroup of people (esp. Christians), who are identified as a group whetherassembled or (sometimes) not.2. The intrinsic connotations of EKKLHSIA are debatable.-does it include ‘separation’ according to its etymology (EK)? Probablynot. Probably this connotation has been lost thru long usage (just as’highway’ has lost the connotation of ‘high’ road in Engl.).-is ‘called’ included? Not likely (same weakness of etym.)-are there political aspects? I could argue that this would be appropriate(cf. Phil 3.20, Kingdom of God, etc.), but it certainly does not seem to bebrought out in any passage I can think of.-is it a religious congregation/assembly of believers? This seems likely,seeing the uniformity of its reference; in fact it seems even more specific:Christian or OT Jewish.-is it simply an assembly? This seems to be the most plain vanilla core ofthe word, yet lacks the religious connotation above. Perhaps this was theoriginal connotation, but the religious aspect was added on either by theLXX or earliest Christians. Further, ‘assembly’ implies *presence*, whichis not always found (at least in the denotation).-is it primarily universal or local concept? All evidence points to thelocal origin; I do not see any evidence that ‘universal’ became an intrinsicconnotation until much later. (If ‘universal’ is present, it is onlyoptional.) Nevertheless, it is clear that physical presence was *not*required, for EKKLHSIA regularly refers to the scattered body, whether localor otherwise.These are difficult to sort out. Even if there were any of the morespecific aspects attached to the word when first adopted in the 4th (?)decade, by the first 6th-decade GNT writings containing the word, theseconnotations may have been (probably were?) lost due to frequent usage.Connotations change, and often change rapidly, esp. when a technical orspecialized usage is involved, as here. Furthermore, what is initially anattributed connotation may become intrinsic by frequency of use, esp. fortechnical words.One final note on the occurence of the intrinsic attributes: these are bestviewed as a gestalt, such that they can be modified in any one context, w/odestroying the entire concept as an entity. For example, a 3-legged dog isstill a dog, altho ‘4-legs’ would properly be an intrinsic attribute of thedog-gestalt. Thus, for example, in Acts 19.32, the religious connotationmay be lacking, or at least the *Christian* (or OT Jewish) aspect of it ismissing.3. The attributed connotations of EKKLHSIA I propose are:-the aspect of unity (note it must be *taught* in many passages)-the universal connotation found in certain passages.-the ‘body of Christ’-other descriptions/metaphorsNow, in translation, a word/phrase must accurately *denote* the appropriatereferent according to the context of the passage. (In some passages, thisis all that is really important to the translation.) The translationshould, as best as possible, approximate the appropriate intrinsicconnoations. Finally, it should *avoid* making merely attributedconnotations intrinsic.Satisfying all three of these aspects may be difficult or impossible. Ifimpossible, we end up having to use a descriptive phrase, or using theclosest word available and making it into a technical term which is thenfilled with meaning by contexts and teaching; but that is a poor substitutefor actual translation!So far, it seems ‘assembly’ or ‘congregation’ best meet this criteria; atthis point, I lean towards ‘congregation’ based on the religiousconnotations of that word in my dialect/subculture. However, as Kalvesmakihas pointed out, the actual choice may vary according to target audience!Joe FribergM.A. LinguisticsM.A. Theology studentArlington, TXJoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net

 

Why do etymology at all?could someone translate this please?

ekklesia/Kalvesmaki, Sangrey Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net
Thu Jul 29 02:23:06 EDT 1999

 

Why do etymology at all? could someone translate this please? Both these individuals make good points on the need to consider our*methodology* in the question of the meaning and translation of EKKLHSIA:> From: J. Kalvesmaki> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 5:07 PM> > I am surprised that no one has mentioned that the choice of the English> word depends upon the projected audience and their respective> theology/ecclesiology.> > Furthermore, no one has mentioned how much the tranlator’s purpose plays> in the choice of word.> > The> concept of translation is at *least* a four place relation: Person W> writes English “meaning” X of text Y for audience Z. So far, most have> paid attention only to elements X & Y.> From: Mike Sangrey [mailto:mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us]> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 4:22 PM> > I think when doing a word study, of first importance is to uncover> the attributes of the word as it exists in the original language.> These attributes dare not contradict, indeed should support with the> proper relation, all contexts, no matter what type. Then, find a> word (or words) in the target language which reflects the same> pattern of attributes. ….Tho I cannot claim authority in the area of semantics, I will offer thefollowing observations:The meaning of a word in context contains very distinct components of*denotation* and *connotation*. Denotation is specifically the referentialaspect of meaning, what the word points to. Connotation comprises thenuances of meaning that are associated with the denoted subject underdiscussion, and can be further subdivided into *intrinsic*–aspects ofmeaning that a word carries with it, and *attributed*–meanings applied tothe word by the context of the discourse.1. The denotation of the word EKKLHSIA may be either local or universal, agroup of people (esp. Christians), who are identified as a group whetherassembled or (sometimes) not.2. The intrinsic connotations of EKKLHSIA are debatable.-does it include ‘separation’ according to its etymology (EK)? Probablynot. Probably this connotation has been lost thru long usage (just as’highway’ has lost the connotation of ‘high’ road in Engl.).-is ‘called’ included? Not likely (same weakness of etym.)-are there political aspects? I could argue that this would be appropriate(cf. Phil 3.20, Kingdom of God, etc.), but it certainly does not seem to bebrought out in any passage I can think of.-is it a religious congregation/assembly of believers? This seems likely,seeing the uniformity of its reference; in fact it seems even more specific:Christian or OT Jewish.-is it simply an assembly? This seems to be the most plain vanilla core ofthe word, yet lacks the religious connotation above. Perhaps this was theoriginal connotation, but the religious aspect was added on either by theLXX or earliest Christians. Further, ‘assembly’ implies *presence*, whichis not always found (at least in the denotation).-is it primarily universal or local concept? All evidence points to thelocal origin; I do not see any evidence that ‘universal’ became an intrinsicconnotation until much later. (If ‘universal’ is present, it is onlyoptional.) Nevertheless, it is clear that physical presence was *not*required, for EKKLHSIA regularly refers to the scattered body, whether localor otherwise.These are difficult to sort out. Even if there were any of the morespecific aspects attached to the word when first adopted in the 4th (?)decade, by the first 6th-decade GNT writings containing the word, theseconnotations may have been (probably were?) lost due to frequent usage.Connotations change, and often change rapidly, esp. when a technical orspecialized usage is involved, as here. Furthermore, what is initially anattributed connotation may become intrinsic by frequency of use, esp. fortechnical words.One final note on the occurence of the intrinsic attributes: these are bestviewed as a gestalt, such that they can be modified in any one context, w/odestroying the entire concept as an entity. For example, a 3-legged dog isstill a dog, altho ‘4-legs’ would properly be an intrinsic attribute of thedog-gestalt. Thus, for example, in Acts 19.32, the religious connotationmay be lacking, or at least the *Christian* (or OT Jewish) aspect of it ismissing.3. The attributed connotations of EKKLHSIA I propose are:-the aspect of unity (note it must be *taught* in many passages)-the universal connotation found in certain passages.-the ‘body of Christ’-other descriptions/metaphorsNow, in translation, a word/phrase must accurately *denote* the appropriatereferent according to the context of the passage. (In some passages, thisis all that is really important to the translation.) The translationshould, as best as possible, approximate the appropriate intrinsicconnoations. Finally, it should *avoid* making merely attributedconnotations intrinsic.Satisfying all three of these aspects may be difficult or impossible. Ifimpossible, we end up having to use a descriptive phrase, or using theclosest word available and making it into a technical term which is thenfilled with meaning by contexts and teaching; but that is a poor substitutefor actual translation!So far, it seems ‘assembly’ or ‘congregation’ best meet this criteria; atthis point, I lean towards ‘congregation’ based on the religiousconnotations of that word in my dialect/subculture. However, as Kalvesmakihas pointed out, the actual choice may vary according to target audience!Joe FribergM.A. LinguisticsM.A. Theology studentArlington, TXJoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net

 

Why do etymology at all?could someone translate this please?

ekklesia/Kalvesmaki, Sangrey Numberup at worldnet.att.net Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Thu Jul 29 08:56:03 EDT 1999

 

EIMI — copulative or stative ekklesia/Kalvesmaki, Sangrey I agree that etymology is useful in casting the parameters of a word’s meaning. Evenwith changes in meaning over time, something of the origin idea usually remains, andcan be beneficial in understanding the bedrock of definition. I had recently todiscourse on DIAKONOS as it applied to Phoebe in Romans 16:1. In the context ofPaul’s time, was she a “servant,” “minister,” “helper,” or “deaconess?” It was aninteresting discussion.”Joe A. Friberg” wrote:> <snipped>> The meaning of a word in context contains very distinct components of> *denotation* and *connotation*. Denotation is specifically the referential> aspect of meaning, what the word points to. Connotation comprises the> nuances of meaning that are associated with the denoted subject under> discussion, and can be further subdivided into *intrinsic*–aspects of> meaning that a word carries with it, and *attributed*–meanings applied to> the word by the context of the discourse.> > . The attributed connotations of EKKLHSIA I propose are:> -the aspect of unity (note it must be *taught* in many passages)> -the universal connotation found in certain passages.> -the ‘body of Christ’> -other descriptions/metaphors> > Now, in translation, a word/phrase must accurately *denote* the appropriate> referent according to the context of the passage. (In some passages, this> is all that is really important to the translation.) The translation> should, as best as possible, approximate the appropriate intrinsic> connoations. Finally, it should *avoid* making merely attributed> connotations intrinsic.> > Satisfying all three of these aspects may be difficult or impossible. If> impossible, we end up having to use a descriptive phrase, or using the> closest word available and making it into a technical term which is then> filled with meaning by contexts and teaching; but that is a poor substitute> for actual translation!> > So far, it seems ‘assembly’ or ‘congregation’ best meet this criteria; at> this point, I lean towards ‘congregation’ based on the religious> connotations of that word in my dialect/subculture. However, as Kalvesmaki> has pointed out, the actual choice may vary according to target audience!> > Joe Friberg> M.A. Linguistics> M.A. Theology student> Arlington, TX> JoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net

 

EIMI — copulative or stativeekklesia/Kalvesmaki, Sangrey

ekklesia/Kalvesmaki, Sangrey Numberup at worldnet.att.net Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Thu Jul 29 08:56:03 EDT 1999

 

EIMI — copulative or stative ekklesia/Kalvesmaki, Sangrey I agree that etymology is useful in casting the parameters of a word’s meaning. Evenwith changes in meaning over time, something of the origin idea usually remains, andcan be beneficial in understanding the bedrock of definition. I had recently todiscourse on DIAKONOS as it applied to Phoebe in Romans 16:1. In the context ofPaul’s time, was she a “servant,” “minister,” “helper,” or “deaconess?” It was aninteresting discussion.”Joe A. Friberg” wrote:> <snipped>> The meaning of a word in context contains very distinct components of> *denotation* and *connotation*. Denotation is specifically the referential> aspect of meaning, what the word points to. Connotation comprises the> nuances of meaning that are associated with the denoted subject under> discussion, and can be further subdivided into *intrinsic*–aspects of> meaning that a word carries with it, and *attributed*–meanings applied to> the word by the context of the discourse.> > . The attributed connotations of EKKLHSIA I propose are:> -the aspect of unity (note it must be *taught* in many passages)> -the universal connotation found in certain passages.> -the ‘body of Christ’> -other descriptions/metaphors> > Now, in translation, a word/phrase must accurately *denote* the appropriate> referent according to the context of the passage. (In some passages, this> is all that is really important to the translation.) The translation> should, as best as possible, approximate the appropriate intrinsic> connoations. Finally, it should *avoid* making merely attributed> connotations intrinsic.> > Satisfying all three of these aspects may be difficult or impossible. If> impossible, we end up having to use a descriptive phrase, or using the> closest word available and making it into a technical term which is then> filled with meaning by contexts and teaching; but that is a poor substitute> for actual translation!> > So far, it seems ‘assembly’ or ‘congregation’ best meet this criteria; at> this point, I lean towards ‘congregation’ based on the religious> connotations of that word in my dialect/subculture. However, as Kalvesmaki> has pointed out, the actual choice may vary according to target audience!> > Joe Friberg> M.A. Linguistics> M.A. Theology student> Arlington, TX> JoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net

 

EIMI — copulative or stativeekklesia/Kalvesmaki, Sangrey

ekklesia/Kalvesmaki, Sangrey Numberup at worldnet.att.net Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Thu Jul 29 08:59:52 EDT 1999

 

ekklesia/Kalvesmaki, Sangrey Why do etymology at all? Sorry, in my just-sent response I omitted the following:Solomon LandersMemra Institute for Biblical Researchhttp://www.memrain.org

 

ekklesia/Kalvesmaki, SangreyWhy do etymology at all?

ekklesia/Kalvesmaki, Sangrey Numberup at worldnet.att.net Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Thu Jul 29 08:59:52 EDT 1999

 

ekklesia/Kalvesmaki, Sangrey Why do etymology at all? Sorry, in my just-sent response I omitted the following:Solomon LandersMemra Institute for Biblical Researchhttp://www.memrain.org

 

ekklesia/Kalvesmaki, SangreyWhy do etymology at all?

Historical Development of EKKLESIA? Glen L Naftaniel glensmail at juno.com
Mon Nov 26 13:46:20 EST 2001

 

OLXADE? Historical Development of EKKLESIA? Dear er’s,I am wondering about the development of the word EKKLESIA. I was taughtthat it literally means: “‘the called out ones.’ Thus the beginningpreposition “ek” which means to go out. and combined with “kaleo” tocall. In the NT the word was so commonly used to describe the Christianchurch that it has become the primary usage and meaning of the word. Itis used to describe an assembly; the Church, either the body, or theplace.” I have also ben told: “It’s the Greek translation of the Hebrew name ofthe book which is Qohelet. Qohelet means ‘congregations’ or’synagogues’. When the Tanakh was translated into the LXX, it wastranslated to the Greek word ‘Ecclesia’ meaning ‘churches’.”Now I am a little confused as to the historical development of the word. What is the source of the word? How much of Greek has come form Hebrew;and how close in meaning are the words which were translated into Greek?Also, I have BAG 1973, does it answer these questions? If not can anyonerecommend a good resource?Thanks in advance,Glen Naftanielglensmail at juno.com————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20011126/d6d3a2de/attachment.html

 

OLXADE?Historical Development of EKKLESIA?

Historical Development of EKKLESIA? Glen L Naftaniel glensmail at juno.com
Mon Nov 26 20:40:26 EST 2001

 

Louw & Nida for Windows? Louw & Nida for Windows? Dear Clation, Dennis, and all,Thank you for your responses on my questions about EKKLESIA. If I couldask for a little more clarification on the ORIGIN of the word it would behelpful. Did the word come from Hebrew? Or did it originate in Greek? If it did come from Hebrew, I’m a bit confused as to how a Greek word gotused in the Old Testament (or is EKKLESIA a Hebraism?) EKKLESIA is a Greek word, found in the Greek New Testament. On the otherhand, ‘Ecclesiastes’ is an English word for the Old testament book whichis based on Hebrew. I guess I am just a little confused on how thisworks. I am not so much looking for any theological significance, justto understand the language foundations and development.Thank you,Glen Naftanielglensmail at juno.com=========================Dear er’s,I am wondering about the development of the word EKKLESIA. I was taughtthat it literally means: “‘the called out ones.’ Thus the beginningpreposition “ek” which means to go out. and combined with “kaleo” tocall. In the NT the word was so commonly used to describe the Christianchurch that it has become the primary usage and meaning of the word. Itis used to describe an assembly; the Church, either the body, or theplace.” I have also ben told: “It’s the Greek translation of the Hebrew name ofthe book which is Qohelet. Qohelet means ‘congregations’ or’synagogues’. When the Tanakh was translated into the LXX, it wastranslated to the Greek word ‘Ecclesia’ meaning ‘churches’.”Now I am a little confused as to the historical development of the word. What is the source of the word? How much of Greek has come form Hebrew;and how close in meaning are the words which were translated into Greek?Also, I have BAG 1973, does it answer these questions? If not can anyonerecommend a good resource?Thanks in advance,Glen Naftanielglensmail at juno.com————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20011126/8bbfbaa6/attachment.html

 

Louw & Nida for Windows?Louw & Nida for Windows?

Historical Development of EKKLESIA? Steven Lo Vullo doulos at merr.com
Mon Nov 26 21:51:41 EST 2001

 

Louw & Nida for Windows? Louw & Nida for Windows? On Monday, November 26, 2001, at 07:40 PM, Glen L Naftaniel wrote:> Thank you for your responses on my questions about EKKLESIA.  If I > could ask for a little more clarification on the ORIGIN of the word it > would be helpful.  Did the word come from Hebrew?  Or did it originate > in Greek?  If it did come from Hebrew, I’m a bit confused as to how a > Greek word got used in the Old Testament (or is EKKLESIA a Hebraism?)No, EKKLHSIA is a Greek word with no connection to Hebrew. NIDNTT says this on its origin:”1 (a) EKKLHSIA, derived via EK-KALEW, which was used for the summons to the army to assemble, from KALEW, to call (Call). It is attested from Eur. and Hdt. onwards (5th cent. B.C.), and denotes in the usage of antiquity the popular assembly of the competent full citizens of the polis, city. It reached its greatest importance in the 5th cent. and met at regular intervals (in Athens about 30-40 times a year, elsewhere less frequently) and also in cases of urgency as an extra-ordinary EKKLHSIA. Its sphere of competence included decisions on suggested changes in the law (which could only be effected by the council of the 400), on appointments to official positions and—at least in its heyday—on every important question of internal and external policy (contracts, treaties, war and peace, finance). To these was added in special cases (e.g. treason) the task of sitting in judgment, which as a rule fell to regular courts. The EKKLHSIA opened with prayers and sacrifices to the gods of the city. It was bound by the existing laws. Every citizen had the right to speak and to propose matters for discussion, but a proposition could only be dealt with if there was an expert opinion on the matter (Aristot., Ath. Pol. 45). A decision was only valid if it won a certain number of votes. Authorization to participate, and the methods of summoning the assembly and of voting—by show of hands in Athens (Aristot., Ath. Pol., 45), by acclaim (Thuc., 1, 87), by ballot sheets or stones (Xen. Hell., 1, 7, 9)—were strictly regulated, as was the control of the assembly, which originally lay with the president of the Prytaneis and from the 4th cent. B.C. with a college of nine.”There’s much more on the historical development and usage in the LXX and NT; see NIDNTT on CHURCH, SYNAGOGUE.I think your confusion concerning the OT arises from the fact that the Hebrew text was translated into Greek and along with other documents is known as the Septuagint or LXX (seventy reflecting the tradition that the translation was done by seventy Jewish scholars). So EKKLHSIA is not Hebrew, but is found in the Septuagint as a translation of the Hebrew word qahal (“congregation”).=============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI

 

Louw & Nida for Windows?Louw & Nida for Windows?

[] Ekklesia and Caesar Jimmy Doyle jimmy at liquidthinking.org
Sat Dec 17 22:17:47 EST 2005

 

[] A Scarecrow Theory of Aspect [] Ekklesia and Caesar As some of you may know, Christian pop-author/pastor Robb Bell is teachingthat Caesar used the term ekklesia to refer to cities that pledged theirallegiance to him, and that Jesus’ (and Paul’s) use of the term ekklesia wasitself an afront to the political power of Rome. Bell has said this severaltimes, and now it appears in his book Velvet Elvis. In the book he givesreference for the first time to this claim as found in EthelbertStauffer’s Christand Caesar. The book is out of print and I can’t find any other referencessupporting this claim. Does anyone else know anything about this or where Icould find other sources to back this claim?It drives me crazy that I’m hearing this all over as people copy Bell’smaterial for use in the pulpit and teaching when it may not be historicallyvalid. It makes a good sermon about the political nature of the Christiancommunity…but is it factual?

 

[] A Scarecrow Theory of Aspect[] Ekklesia and Caesar

[] Ekklesia and Caesar Elizabeth Kline kline-dekooning at earthlink.net
Sun Dec 18 00:46:46 EST 2005

 

[] Ekklesia and Caesar [] Ekklesia and Caesar On Dec 17, 2005, at 7:17 PM, Jimmy Doyle wrote:> Does anyone else know anything about this or where I> could find other sources to back this claim?Take a look here:http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/listmania/fullview/ZVUAJGQU6FAJ/ 104-5213591-3059152?%5Fencoding=UTF8If the link is broken search on: “Christianity as sociopolitical rebuttal to Caesar’s system”Elizabeth Kline

 

[] Ekklesia and Caesar[] Ekklesia and Caesar

[] Ekklesia and Caesar George F Somsel gfsomsel at juno.com
Sun Dec 18 02:58:45 EST 2005

 

[] Ekklesia and Caesar [] John’s prologue prose or poetry? On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:17:47 -0600 Jimmy Doyle <jimmy at liquidthinking.org>writes:> As some of you may know, Christian pop-author/pastor Robb Bell is > teaching> that Caesar used the term ekklesia to refer to cities that pledged > their> allegiance to him, and that Jesus’ (and Paul’s) use of the term > ekklesia was> itself an afront to the political power of Rome. Bell has said this > several> times, and now it appears in his book Velvet Elvis. In the book he > gives> reference for the first time to this claim as found in Ethelbert> Stauffer’s Christ> and Caesar. The book is out of print and I can’t find any other > references> supporting this claim. Does anyone else know anything about this or > where I> could find other sources to back this claim?> > It drives me crazy that I’m hearing this all over as people copy > Bell’s> material for use in the pulpit and teaching when it may not be > historically> valid. It makes a good sermon about the political nature of the > Christian> community…but is it factual?_______________Personally, I have no knowledge regarding what any pop author may bewriting regarding this since I studiously avoid popular authors. LSJ hasthe following entry under EKKLHSIA EKKLHSIA hH, Thess.? EKKLEISSIA BCH?59.38 (Crannon), (EKKLHTOS) assemblyduly summoned, less general than SULLOGOS, Th.?2.22, Pl.?Grg.?456b,etc.?; applied to the Homeric Assemblies, Arist.?Pol.?1285a11; to theSamian Assembly, Hdt.?3.142; to the Spartan, Th.?1.87; to the meeting ofthe Amphictyons at Delphi, Aeschin.?3.124; at Athens, E. KURIAI opp.?SUGKLHTOI, Arist.?Ath.?43.4; KURIA E.., at Amorgos, IG?12(7).237.46; E.SUNAGEIREIN, SUNAGEIN, SULLEGEIN AQROIZEIN, call an assembly, Hdt.?3.142,Th.?2.60, 8.97, X.?HG?1.6.8; E. POIEIN Ar.?Eq.?746, Th.?1.139, al.?; E.POIEIN TINI Ar.?Ach.?169; DIDONAI TINI Plb.?4.34.6; E. GIGNETAI anassembly is held, Th.?6.8; KATASTASHS E. Id.?1.31; HN E. TOIS STRATHGOISAnd.?1.2; E. DIALUEIN, ANASTHSAI dissolve it, Th.?8.69 (Pass.?),X.?HG?2.4.42; AFIENAI Plu.?TG?16; E. ANEBLHQH was adjourned, Th.?5.45; E.PERI TINOS Ar.?Av.?1030, etc.?2. = Lat.? Comitia, E. LOXPIS, FRATRIKH, = Comitia Centuriata, Curiata,D.H.?4.20.3. = YHFISMA, ANAGIGNWSKAMENHS E. Philostr.?VS?2.1.11.II. in Lxx?, the Jewish congregation, De.?31.30, al.?2. in NT?, the Church, as a body of Christians, Ev.Matt.?16.18,1?Ep.Cor.?11.22; hH KAT’ OIKON TINO E. Ep.Rom.?16.5; as a building, Cod.Just.?1.1.5 Intr.?, etc.?, SEG?33.1272(Palestine, vi a.d.).Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). AGreek-English lexicon. “With a revised supplement, 1996.” (Rev. and augm.throughout) (509). Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford UniversityPress. georgegfsomsel___________

 

[] Ekklesia and Caesar[] John’s prologue prose or poetry?

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

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>