1 Corinthians 11:20

[] William δ. Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek /Funk’s Grammar [] Matt 5:3 ff In a message dated 12/3/2003 9:43:16 πμ Eastern Standard Time, thielogian at yahoo.com writes:Those who have been following the discussion on theLord’s Day/Lord’s life question in Ignatius may beinterested in the article in an early issue of AndrewsUniversity Seminary Studies (1963, by memory) thatdeals with this question in some detail. The author,as ι recall is Fritz Guy. (ι‘m on holidays and awayfrom my sources at the moment, so ι can’t be any moreprecise). For what it’s worth, ι was not convinced byGuy’s arguments but he does present a useful array ofdata.If you can think of any further information regarding this, it may prove helpful. Is there a school website where it might be archived?gfsomsel

 

[] William δ. Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek /Funk’s Grammar[] Matt 5:3 ff

[] Revelation 1:10 and Ign Mag 9 Polycarp66 at aol.com Polycarp66 at aol.com
Wed Dec 3 22:35:38 εστ 2003

What is “κυριακοσ“? Maurice α. ο‘Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Fri May 21 18:20:42 εδτ 1999

What is “κυριακοσ“? Hilfe Bitte. At 17:51 21/05/99 -0400, you wrote:>Dear ers,> >Recently ι had a friend of mine tell me that our English word “church” came>from κυριακοσ. ι looked it up in Perschbachers, and he has it translated as>“pertaining to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord’s”. So ι suppose that>certainly makes sense, in that the church is the Lord’s. But do we use the>word “church” because of κυριακοσ? (He also said “church” is related to the>German word, but ι don’t remember it.) ι‘d just never heard this before.The etymology from the Shorter Oxford may help:>&gt; χυρχοε cir(i)ce, cyr(i)ce = OFris. szereke, szurka, tzierka, οσ kirika, kerika(Du. kerk), οηγ chirihha, kiricha (γ Kirche), f. WGmc f. med.Gk kurikon forkuriakon use as n. (sc. doma house) of neut. of kuriakos pertaining to theLord, f. kurios master, lord. ξ <<<By way of explanation, >>f. WGmc f. med.Gk << refers to WestGermanic andmedieval Greek.And if you want to read a masterful survey of the entire history of Greek,and especially the progress from classical to medieval and beyond, Irecommend :Geoffrey Horrocks, Greek: a History of the Language and its Speakers(Longman, 1997(Hope this helpsMauriceMaurice α. ο‘Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ie

What is “κυριακοσ“?Hilfe Bitte.

What is “κυριακοσ“? Allison Sanders allisanders at mindspring.com
Fri May 21 17:51:44 εδτ 1999

Eph. 2:15 What is “κυριακοσ“? Dear ers,Recently ι had a friend of mine tell me that our English word “church” camefrom κυριακοσ. ι looked it up in Perschbachers, and he has it translated as”pertaining to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord’s”. So ι suppose thatcertainly makes sense, in that the church is the Lord’s. But do we use theword “church” because of κυριακοσ? (He also said “church” is related to theGerman word, but ι don’t remember it.) ι‘d just never heard this before.If this isn’t ish enough, just attack me off-list. =)Allison

Eph. 2:15What is “κυριακοσ“?

What is “κυριακοσ“? Kevin λ. Barney klbarney at yahoo.com
Sat May 22 18:33:06 εδτ 1999

Earliest Manuscripts Comfort Pros Thank you Allison and Maurice for this interesting bit of eymology. When ι think of the word κυριακοσ ι immediately think of Rev. 1:10: εν πνευματι εν THi KURIAKHi hHMERAi, but ι never would have thought to connect the Greek κυριακοσ with English “church.”Kevin λ. BarneyHoffman Estates, Illinoisklbarney at yahoo.com

Earliest Manuscripts ComfortPros

What is “κυριακοσ“? Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Sun May 23 12:58:40 εδτ 1999

Pros προσ On Sat 22 May 99 , klbarney at yahoo.com wrote:> When ι think of the word κυριακοσ ι immediately think of Rev. 1:10: > εν πνευματι εν THi KURIAKHi hHMERAi, but ι never would have thought to> connect the Greek κυριακοσ with English “church.” Kevin: The “church” is defined as hH κυριακη εκκλησια, from Hebrew θ:HaL-υηωη; modern Hebrew θ:HiLaT-HaMMa$iYaCh. The English took their word Church from κυριακη, whereas the French took their word Eglise from εκκλησια, Latin ecclesia. Ben– Revd Ben Crick, βα ξφ <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (υκ) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm

ProsPROS

What is “κυριακοσ“? atombomb at sirius.com atombomb at sirius.com
Sun May 23 23:26:23 εδτ 1999

Christian booknotes Ben Crick wrote:> > The “church” is defined as hH κυριακη εκκλησια, from Hebrew θ:HaL-υηωη;> modern Hebrew θ:HiLaT-HaMMa$iYaCh. The English took their word Church> from κυριακη, whereas the French took their word Eglise from εκκλησια,> Latin ecclesia.That wouldn’t be quite correct. As ι mentioned the other day, ourword church derives from the greek word kyriakon, which is a name forthe church building in Greek even to this day. The following note maybe found in John Ayto’s useful “Dictionary of Word Origins” (Arcade:New York, 1990): –*church* [οε] Etymologically, a *church* is the ‘Lord’s house.’ Itsultimate source is Greek *kyrios*… The adjective derived from thiswas *kyriakos*, whose use in the phrase ‘house of the Lord’ led to itsuse as a noun, *kyriakon*. The medievlal Greek form, *kyrkon* ‘houseof worship’ was borrowed into West Germanic as *kirika, producingeventually German *kirche* and English *church*. The Scots form *kirk*comes from Old Norse *kirkja*, which in turn was borrowed from Old English.–On a related usage, it’s interesting that the κυπιακη ημεπα— our”Sunday”– originally referred to the “eighth” day of the week, not tothe Sabbath, as many suppose. Even today, in an uninterrupted usagethat persists from apostolic times, the word for Sunday in Greek is”Kyriaki”; Saturday is still “Sabbaton”; and this usage is alsoreflected in other languages as well (cf. French, Spanish, Italian,etc). For a scriptural reference to the eighth day, see Jn 20.26; forkyriakh hmera, Rv 1.10. Below my signature ι will post an excerptfrom a classic in liturgical history and theology, discussing thistopic in case anyone is interested. The excerpt is from AlexanderSchmemann, Introduction To Liturgical Theology (2d ed.; Faith Press/StVladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, νυ) pp. 60-67, 119-121.Best regards and ι hope this will be of interest to you!John Burnett, μα (οτ)—————————

Christianbooknotes

[] κυριακοσ vs κυριου? Harold ρ. Holmyard ιιι hholmyard at ont.com
Sun Sep 11 19:13:25 εδτ 2005

[] κυριακοσ vs κυριου? [] κυριακοσ vs κυριου? Dear Craig,>Recently ι looked up either 1 Cor 11:20 or Rev 1:10 and was surprised to>find out “Lord’s” was actually κυριακοσ instead of just κυριου. More>surprised to find it only occurred in those two places, and ι don’t think>ever in λχχ.> >ι don’t think the entry in βαγδ was that extensive. ι‘m wondering if anyone>else can shed some light on the significance of κυριακοσ, and how it is>distinct from simple genitive use of κυριοσ? What information about this>word might be relevant to understanding Paul’s and John’s selection over>κυριου?ηη: ι think the reason that it may have been chosen in Rev 1:10 is that the reference is to a day of the week. It gives the circumstances John was in when the vision started. βαγδ says that this is certainly Sunday, as is the case in modern Greek. The phrase hHMERA κυριου had a fixed prophetic meaning as indicating the climax of the age (Acts 2:20, etc.). Why this was done with 1 Cor 11:20 is not so clear to me.Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] κυριακοσ vs κυριου?[] κυριακοσ vs κυριου?

[] κυριακοσ vs κυριου? craig newsgroupstuff at people.net.au
Sun Sep 11 18:35:02 εδτ 2005

[] του ειδεναι γνωστον [] κυριακοσ vs κυριου? Recently ι looked up either 1 Cor 11:20 or Rev 1:10 and was surprised tofind out “Lord’s” was actually κυριακοσ instead of just κυριου. Moresurprised to find it only occurred in those two places, and ι don’t thinkever in λχχ.ι don’t think the entry in βαγδ was that extensive. ι‘m wondering if anyoneelse can shed some light on the significance of κυριακοσ, and how it isdistinct from simple genitive use of κυριοσ? What information about thisword might be relevant to understanding Paul’s and John’s selection overKURIOU?Thanks!–Craig JohnsonBrisbane, Australia

[] του ειδεναι γνωστον[] κυριακοσ vs κυριου?

Sun Sep 11 20:35:15 εδτ 2005

[] κυριακοσ vs κυριου? [] κυριακοσ vs κυριου? > ηη: ι think the reason that it may have been chosen in Rev 1:10 is > that the reference is to a day of the week. It gives the > circumstances John was in when the vision started. βαγδ says that > this is certainly Sunday, as is the case in modern Greek. The phrase > hHMERA κυριου had a fixed prophetic meaning as indicating the climax > of the age (Acts 2:20, etc.). Why this was done with 1 Cor 11:20 is > not so clear to me.> > Yours,> Harold HolmyardActually, ι think another thing ι read (can’t remember if βαγδ or acommentary) suggested something about κυριακοσ used in relation to Caesar.This could also have something to do with the Rev 1:10 use, but not as sureabout 1 Cor 11:20…–Craig JohnsonBrisbane, Australia

Fri Sep 16 22:56:43 εδτ 2005

[] κυριακοσ vs κυριου? [] κυριακοσ vs κυριου? Does anyone else have any further comments on below? ι‘m still kurious aboutKURIAKOS :)–Craig JohnsonBrisbane, Australia > —–Original Message—–> From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org > [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of craig> Sent: Monday, 12 September 2005 8:35 αμ> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: [] κυριακοσ vs κυριου?> > > Recently ι looked up either 1 Cor 11:20 or Rev 1:10 and was > surprised to find out “Lord’s” was actually κυριακοσ instead > of just κυριου. More surprised to find it only occurred in > those two places, and ι don’t think ever in λχχ.> > ι don’t think the entry in βαγδ was that extensive. ι‘m > wondering if anyone else can shed some light on the > significance of κυριακοσ, and how it is distinct from simple > genitive use of κυριοσ? What information about this word > might be relevant to understanding Paul’s and John’s > selection over κυριου?> > Thanks!> > —> Craig Johnson> Brisbane, Australia > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

[] κυριακοσ vs κυριου? Jeff Smelser jeffsmelser at ntgreek.net
Sat Sep 17 00:38:52 εδτ 2005

[] κυριακοσ vs κυριου? [] του ειδεναι γνωστον craig wrote: Does anyone else have any further comments on below? ι‘m still kurious about κυριακοσ 🙂 — Craig Johnson Brisbane, AustraliaKute!Well, ι can ramble a bit and talk about what others have said…Smyth noted that many denominatives (i.e., adjectives formed from a noun stem or adverb; a.k.a. “secondary,” which is the term Smyth will use below) formed by the addition of the suffix κο, ακο, or ικο (add the final sigma for the masculine nom. sing.) “denote relation, many others fitness or ability.” (858.6)Metzger mentions specifically the 3rd of these and characterizes such adjectives as meaning “belonging to,” “pertaining to,” or “with the characteristics of.” He gives examples in –ικοσ, including βασιλ–ικοσ (“belonging to a king, kingly, royal”), πνευματ–ικοσ (“pertaining to the spirit, with the characteristics of the spirit, spiritual”), σαρκ–ικοσ (“fleshly, carnal”), and σοματ–ικοσ (“pertaining to the body, bodily”).ι think of κυριακοσ as being similar. But Smyth mentioned κυριακοσ specifically in section 864.1 – “ιακο: secondary, in κυρ–ιακο–σ of the Lord.” He treated the suffix as including the iota, apparently reckoning the adjective to be derived from the noun κυροσ rather than from its heir, κυριοσ. ι had guessed the adj. is from κυριοσ and the suffix is –ακοσ rather than –ιακοσ. But then one of my guesses and several dollars will get you a gallon of gasoline. Go with Smyth. (But ι‘d still like to hear Carl’s thoughts on that point.)In any event, to me it seems safe to say the suffix indicates a relational idea similar to that seen in adjectives in –ικοσ, and the “pertaining to” or “belonging to” idea seems to work especially well for κυριακοσ.As to why the choice of κυριακοσ rather than a genitive construction using the noun κυριου, ι‘d suggest that even though there is some latitude in interpreting the significance of the adjectival suffix, the relationship is somewhat more specifically characterized thereby than by the genitive case form, which is used for ideas as widely divergent as kind, source, possession, etc. Hence the adjective was well suited to designate a day that was specially the Lord’s, and to designate the supper particularly pertaining to the Lord and eaten on that day.Jeff Smelserwww.ntgreek.netwww.centrevillechurchofchrist.org> > >>—–Original Message—–>>From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org >>[mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of craig>>Sent: Monday, 12 September 2005 8:35 αμ>>To: at lists.ibiblio.org>>Subject: [] κυριακοσ vs κυριου?>> >> >>Recently ι looked up either 1 Cor 11:20 or Rev 1:10 and was >>surprised to find out “Lord’s” was actually κυριακοσ instead >>of just κυριου. More surprised to find it only occurred in >>those two places, and ι don’t think ever in λχχ.>> >>ι don’t think the entry in βαγδ was that extensive. ι‘m >>wondering if anyone else can shed some light on the >>significance of κυριακοσ, and how it is distinct from simple >>genitive use of κυριοσ? What information about this word >>might be relevant to understanding Paul’s and John’s >>selection over κυριου?>> >>Thanks!>> >>—>>Craig Johnson>>Brisbane, Australia >> >>—>> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org >>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> >> >> > >—> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > > > >

[] κυριακοσ vs κυριου?[] του ειδεναι γνωστον

[] κυριακοσ vs κυριου? Barbara δ. Colt babc2 at comcast.net
Sat Sep 17 00:25:46 εδτ 2005

[] α Tale of Two Translation Theories [] κυριακοσ vs κυριου? On 17 Sep 2005 at 12:56, craig wrote:> Does anyone else have any further comments on below? ι‘m still kurious about> κυριακοσ 🙂> Maybe ι‘m being stupid, but ι‘m not getting the problem. κυριακοσ is an adjective; κυριου is a noun in the genitive. What am ι not seeing?Barbara δ. Colt, mailto:babc2 at comcast.netSt John the Evangelist, San Francisco>From envy, hatred, and malice and all uncharitablenessGood Lord, deliver us.

[] α Tale of Two Translation Theories[] κυριακοσ vs κυριου?

Sat Sep 17 09:05:37 εδτ 2005

[] κυριακοσ vs κυριου? [] κυριακοσ vs κυριου? > > Does anyone else have any further comments on below? ι‘m > > still kurious about κυριακοσ 🙂> > > Maybe ι‘m being stupid, but ι‘m not getting the problem. > κυριακοσ is an > adjective; κυριου is a noun in the genitive. What am ι not > seeing? Barbara δ. Colt, mailto:babc2 at comcast.net St John the > Evangelist, San Francisco> >From envy, hatred, and malice and all uncharitableness> Good Lord, deliver us.To me there would seem to be some overlap between saying something is κυριου(<noun> of the Lord) and putting it with the adjective κυριακοσ (the Lord’s<noun>). ι‘m wondering why choose one over the other? Why is κυριακοσ onlyused 2 times in the ντ, and not anywhere else?For example, reading over Jeff and George’s replies and thinking over it abit more as an adjective, perhaps using κυριακοσ gives it a closerconnection with the noun, rather than as a ‘secondary modifier’ if KURIOUwas used? Then κυριακοσ would be more integral to the thing talked about,bundled together with it, kind of as part of the title or name of the thing,morese than perhaps κυριου would.Alternatively, perhaps κυριακοσ has more cultural significance or something,and therefore that might be a reason for its use over κυριου.ι‘m hoping Carl will chime in and add his thoughts too!–Craig JohnsonBrisbane, Australia ψ Sorry Barbara for sending you a blank email.. ι accidentally clicked on’send’ before typing anything!

[] κυριακοσ vs κυριου? Carl ω. Conrad cwconrad at ioa.com
Sat Sep 17 11:18:07 εδτ 2005

[] κυριακοσ vs κυριου? [] κυριακοσ vs κυριου? ι honestly don’t think there’s an ounce of difference in the meanings: an adnominal genitive is rightly often called an “adjectival” genitive, meaning that it serves the same function as an adjective.On Sep 17, 2005, at 9:05 αμ, craig wrote:>>> Does anyone else have any further comments on below? ι‘m>>> still kurious about κυριακοσ 🙂>>> >>> >> Maybe ι‘m being stupid, but ι‘m not getting the problem.>> κυριακοσ is an>> adjective; κυριου is a noun in the genitive. What am ι not>> seeing? Barbara δ. Colt, mailto:babc2 at comcast.net St John the>> Evangelist, San Francisco>> >>> From envy, hatred, and malice and all uncharitableness>>> >> Good Lord, deliver us.>> > > To me there would seem to be some overlap between saying something > is κυριου> (<noun> of the Lord) and putting it with the adjective κυριακοσ > (the Lord’s> <noun>). ι‘m wondering why choose one over the other? Why is > κυριακοσ only> used 2 times in the ντ, and not anywhere else?> > For example, reading over Jeff and George’s replies and thinking > over it a> bit more as an adjective, perhaps using κυριακοσ gives it a closer> connection with the noun, rather than as a ‘secondary modifier’ if > κυριου> was used? Then κυριακοσ would be more integral to the thing talked > about,> bundled together with it, kind of as part of the title or name of > the thing,> morese than perhaps κυριου would.> > Alternatively, perhaps κυριακοσ has more cultural significance or > something,> and therefore that might be a reason for its use over κυριου.> > ι‘m hoping Carl will chime in and add his thoughts too!> > —> Craig Johnson> Brisbane, Australia> > ψ Sorry Barbara for sending you a blank email.. ι accidentally > clicked on> ‘send’ before typing anything!> > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, νξ 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] κυριακοσ vs κυριου? Iver Larsen iver at larsen.dk
Sat Sep 17 14:40:13 εδτ 2005

[] κυριακοσ vs κυριου? [] ελυφσε τον καιν λιαν > ι honestly don’t think there’s an ounce of difference in the> meanings: an adnominal genitive is rightly often called an> “adjectival” genitive, meaning that it serves the same function as an> adjective.Whereas this is certainly correct in general, there is a clear distinctionbetween the usage of the relevant two expressions in the ντ.hH hHMERA κυριου as in 2 Pet 3:10 and several other places refer to thecoming of the Lord in the future. It is consistently rendered as “the day ofthe Lord” in English translation.hH κυριακη hHMERA as in Rev 1:10 refers to a particular day of the week setaside for the Lord. It is consistently rendered in English translations as”the Lord’s day”.This second one gradually became a fixed expression for Sunday, but to use agenitive like in the first for Sunday would create confusion, because thegenitive expression already had a specific and different meaning within theChurch.English is fortunate to have two types of genitives, so that thisdistinction in reference can be maintained. This is not possible in Danish(and many other languages), so the literal versions in Danish traditionallytranslate both expressions the same way, resulting in seriousmisunderstandings. (Literal translations often create seriousmisunderstandings). In an idiomatic Danish translation Rev 1:10 has to betranslated by its meaning, which is Sunday, whereas the others can betranslated as “the Lord’s day” (or “(the day) when the Lord returns” orsomething similar).Iver LarsenBible Translation consultantKenya

[] κυριακοσ vs κυριου?[] ελυφσε τον καιν λιαν