This seems to hit the nail on the head, thanks Melvyn! Jakube and Mary, thank you too! Jiri From: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Czechlist@yahoogroups.com]May 12 1 of 1View SourceThis seems to hit the nail on the head, thanks Melvyn!
Jakube and Mary, thank you too!
From: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Czechlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Melvyn
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:47 PM
Subject: [Czechlist] Re: councils of nations
I am going to beg to differ here, though I have little more to go on than my spider sense. IMHO "councils of nations" is just an old-fashioned way of referring in general terms to the advisory bodies that counselled monarchs (and so by extension nations), i.e. what are nowadays governments.
Lots of examples of this usage in old works to be found in Google books, e.g. http://archive.org/stream/lawnationsorpri01chitgoog/lawnationsorpri01chitgoog_djvu.txt
--- In Czechlist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:Czechlist%40yahoogroups.com>, "Pilucha, Jiri" <jiri.pilucha@...<mailto:jiri.pilucha@...>> wrote:
> Hello, May I have your thoughts, please, on what the author means by "councils of nations" in the text below
> Indeed, Christians had wrangled over the nature of Christ for quite as long as Muslim scholars would go on to debate the nature of Our'an. Admittedly, in the early years of the Christian faith, these arguments had hardly been such as to disturb the councils of nations; but during late antiquity, when emperors and kings started to wrestle with them too, whole empires were transformed by the arcana of such debates.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]