Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

tc-list First church building(s)

Expand Messages
  • William L. Petersen
    ... Just a quick comment on an interesting reading in I Cor. 14:34-35. Note that there is a strict distinction made between EKKLHSIA and OIKOS. In fact,
    Message 1 of 16 , Mar 24 12:28 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Vinton Dearing wrote:

      >This is not a tc question but perhaps listers can help me answer it:
      >when and where was the first Christian church built (a question posed
      >by an attendant at my church)? The earliest I can find reference to
      >was on Sion in Jerusalem when Hadrian visited the city in 130
      >(Clemens Kopp, The Holy Places of the Gospels, p. 323). What the
      >questioner was asking for was a church not in someone's house but I
      >suppose that a building converted to a church would qualify.

      Just a quick comment on an interesting reading in I Cor. 14:34-35. Note
      that there is a strict distinction made between "EKKLHSIA" and "OIKOS." In
      fact, the words are here used in precisely (apparently) the way we would:
      "be silent *in church*, and if you have questions, ask them *at home*."
      This distinction between the "church" and the "home" seems to preclude the
      period of "house/home churches"; rather, it seems to reflect the
      understanding of a time when the "church" was a distinct place (and not a
      "home/house"), where people went for services; the "home/house" was
      elsewhere.

      This seems anachronistic for the Pauline period, and suggests that these
      verses are not genuinely Pauline. If this is so, and if one could date
      these (interpolated) verses, then one might have a fix on the date of very
      early church buildings. The echo of I Tim. 2:11-12 here has been noted by
      many commentators. If the Corinthian passage is actually derived from the
      I Timothy passage, then the date of I Tim. would be an indication of the
      date of separate church buildings.

      --Petersen, Penn State University,
      Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies.
    • Brrolan@ra.rockwell.com
      WLPeterson wrote: [Begin Snip] Just a quick comment on an interesting reading in I Cor. 14:34-35. Note that there is a strict distinction made between
      Message 2 of 16 , Mar 24 5:23 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        WLPeterson wrote:

        [Begin Snip]
        Just a quick comment on an interesting reading in I Cor. 14:34-35. Note
        that there is a strict distinction made between "EKKLHSIA" and "OIKOS." In
        fact, the words are here used in precisely (apparently) the way we would:
        "be silent *in church*, and if you have questions, ask them *at home*."
        This distinction between the "church" and the "home" seems to preclude the
        period of "house/home churches"; rather, it seems to reflect the
        understanding of a time when the "church" was a distinct place (and not a
        "home/house"), where people went for services; the "home/house" was
        elsewhere.
        [End Snip]

        From my experience, (attending Old Order Amish church services, which are
        always in members homes), "in church" in no way requires a church house.
        The distinction is as natural to them as it is to those that worship is
        dedicated buildings.

        Bret R. Rolan
        BRRolan@...
      • Juan Stam
        This makes sense to me. I understand EN EKKLESIA in Paul s early epistles as in assembly during your meetings, with no reference to the building. Cf Barth,
        Message 3 of 16 , Mar 24 6:10 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          This makes sense to me. I understand EN EKKLESIA in Paul's early epistles as
          "in assembly" during your meetings, with no reference to the building. Cf
          Barth, Leuba (INSTITUTION & EVENT) etc
          Juan Stam, Costa Rica

          At 08:23 AM 3/24/98 -0500, you wrote:
          >
          >WLPeterson wrote:
          >
          >[Begin Snip]
          >Just a quick comment on an interesting reading in I Cor. 14:34-35. Note
          >that there is a strict distinction made between "EKKLHSIA" and "OIKOS." In
          >fact, the words are here used in precisely (apparently) the way we would:
          >"be silent *in church*, and if you have questions, ask them *at home*."
          >This distinction between the "church" and the "home" seems to preclude the
          >period of "house/home churches"; rather, it seems to reflect the
          >understanding of a time when the "church" was a distinct place (and not a
          >"home/house"), where people went for services; the "home/house" was
          >elsewhere.
          >[End Snip]
          >
          >>From my experience, (attending Old Order Amish church services, which are
          >always in members homes), "in church" in no way requires a church house.
          >The distinction is as natural to them as it is to those that worship is
          >dedicated buildings.
          >
          >Bret R. Rolan
          >BRRolan@...
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Jack Kilmon
          ... The Greek word EKKLHSIA fr. EKKLEIW is to shut out or to turn out of doors and refers to a group of citizens called out of their homes. It would not,
          Message 4 of 16 , Mar 24 8:18 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            William L. Petersen wrote:
            >
            > Vinton Dearing wrote:
            >
            > >This is not a tc question but perhaps listers can help me answer it:
            > >when and where was the first Christian church built (a question posed
            > >by an attendant at my church)? The earliest I can find reference to
            > >was on Sion in Jerusalem when Hadrian visited the city in 130
            > >(Clemens Kopp, The Holy Places of the Gospels, p. 323). What the
            > >questioner was asking for was a church not in someone's house but I
            > >suppose that a building converted to a church would qualify.
            >
            > Just a quick comment on an interesting reading in I Cor. 14:34-35. Note
            > that there is a strict distinction made between "EKKLHSIA" and "OIKOS." In
            > fact, the words are here used in precisely (apparently) the way we would:
            > "be silent *in church*, and if you have questions, ask them *at home*."
            > This distinction between the "church" and the "home" seems to preclude the
            > period of "house/home churches"; rather, it seems to reflect the
            > understanding of a time when the "church" was a distinct place (and not a
            > "home/house"), where people went for services; the "home/house" was
            > elsewhere.
            >
            > This seems anachronistic for the Pauline period, and suggests that these
            > verses are not genuinely Pauline. If this is so, and if one could date
            > these (interpolated) verses, then one might have a fix on the date of very
            > early church buildings. The echo of I Tim. 2:11-12 here has been noted by
            > many commentators. If the Corinthian passage is actually derived from the
            > I Timothy passage, then the date of I Tim. would be an indication of the
            > date of separate church buildings.

            The Greek word EKKLHSIA fr. EKKLEIW is to "shut out" or "to turn
            out of doors" and refers to a group of citizens "called out of their
            homes."
            It would not, therefore, be used for a gathering at home. This
            "shutting out"
            element does not seem to be inferred by the Greek SUNAGWGH for an
            assembly
            of *men* for prayer which was the LXX for <heb>qhl or odh. What I take
            from
            this is that EKKLHSIA may have been more gender egalitarian.
            When therefore did a qhl/synagogue become an EKKLHSIA/church? Was
            it when women were allowed at the assembly, although expected to be
            silent?
            It does seem to be a natural trajectory from the men-only gathering to
            a mixed gathering but women silent. If the mixed genders is the
            defining
            factor between a synagogue and a church, when and where did this
            transition
            occur? In this respect, I think we can indeed look to Corinth and
            Paul's
            reminder for the women to keep silent, hence I don't think that this is
            a later interpolation (bringing this discussion back to a TC focus so
            the moderator doesn't beat me over the head with a box of parity bits
            <g>).
            Corinth was a turning point, I believe. The city was a hot bed
            of pagan crosscurrents that were being "innoculated" into the various
            factions. Agape meals were becoming virtual orgies necessitating four
            letters from Paul. Did the synagogue become an ekklesia in Corinth
            in 50 CE? The novelty of women at the gathering along with the
            various pagan influences may have contributed to the Corinthian
            "let's make it a party" situation that so vexed Paul. Perhaps
            Priscilla brought this practice of a mixed gender gathering back
            to Ephesus and somewhere between Corinth and Ephesus the separate
            gathering place was born...one for both sexes to attend.

            Jack

            D’man dith laych idneh d’nishMA nishMA
            Jack Kilmon (jpman@...)


            http://scriptorium.accesscomm.net
          • Ronald L. Minton
            ... I found your note very interesting and thought incourageing. They clearly met in houses (1 Cor.16:19 and Rom 16:23 indicates many house churches,
            Message 5 of 16 , Mar 24 8:26 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, William L. Petersen wrote:
              > Just a quick comment on an interesting reading in I Cor. 14:34-35. Note
              > that there is a strict distinction made between "EKKLHSIA" and "OIKOS." In
              > fact, the words are here used in precisely (apparently) the way we would:
              > "be silent *in church*, and if you have questions, ask them *at home*."
              > This distinction between the "church" and the "home" seems to preclude the
              > period of "house/home churches"; rather, it seems to reflect the
              > understanding of a time when the "church" was a distinct place (and not a
              > "home/house"), where people went for services; the "home/house" was
              > elsewhere.

              I found your note very interesting and thought incourageing. They clearly
              met in houses (1 Cor.16:19 and Rom 16:23 indicates many house churches,
              otherwise, there is no need to mention "the whole church") and there were
              likely very many of them (Acts 18:11), but they often seem to have met in
              a sort of area or city or what I call a geographical use of ekklesia ,for
              communion, special gatherings, etc. (14:23). We also read "When ye come
              together therefore into one place." (11:20) and vs 22 "have ye not houses
              to eat and to drink in"?
              Now let me see, how is this related to tc again? Oh yes, is tou kuriou in
              11:27 as in Aleph correct, or de we follow P46 B A C and the TR?

              --
              Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@... W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
              Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
            • tynell@mindspring.com
              ... TTD: Doesn t ekklesia, the abstract noun, come from the verb Kalew meaning to summon or invite ? It s been a while since my classical Greek days, but
              Message 6 of 16 , Mar 24 8:56 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                >> Vinton Dearing wrote:
                >
                > The Greek word EKKLHSIA fr. EKKLEIW is to "shut out" or "to turn
                >out of doors" and refers to a group of citizens "called out of their
                >homes."

                >Jack

                TTD: Doesn't ekklesia, the abstract noun, come from the verb "Kalew"
                meaning to "summon" or "invite"? It's been a while since my classical
                Greek days, but since then, I still remember the principle parts:

                Pres., Fut, Aorist Perf. Act Perf. Midd. Aorist Passive
                Kalew, Kaleso, ekalhsa, kekleka, keklemai, eklhthhn,

                The noun comes from the 6th priniciple part, no?

                Timothy T. Dickens
                Georgia Department of Education
                1752 Twin Towers East
                Atlanta, Georgia 30334
                (404) 656-2600 WK

                Check out my webpage at:

                http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/6099/index.html
              • Robert B. Waltz
                On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Ronald L. Minton wrote, ... Seems to me the UBS reading (omitting TOU KURIOU after ANAXIWS) is correct. The
                Message 7 of 16 , Mar 24 9:01 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, "Ronald L. Minton" <rminton@...> wrote,
                  in part:

                  >Now let me see, how is this related to tc again? Oh yes, is tou kuriou in
                  >11:27 as in Aleph correct, or de we follow P46 B A C and the TR?

                  Seems to me the UBS reading (omitting TOU KURIOU after ANAXIWS) is
                  correct.

                  The evidence is:

                  add TOU KURIOU: Aleph D** L 69 326 462 1505 1611 2423*(?) al hark Ambst

                  omit: P46 A B C D* F G K P Psi 6 33 81 104 330 365 630 876 1022 1175 1739
                  1881 2412 2464 pm latt

                  Thus the only textual grouping to unequivocally contain the questionable
                  words is family 1611, which is of minimal importance. Three of the
                  major text-types (P46/B, "Western," 1739) unequivocally omit it; so
                  do three of the four chief Alexandrian witnesses (A C 33, supported
                  by 81 1175 family 2127 etc.; only Aleph has the longer reading). Even
                  the Byzantine text has the shorter reading.

                  Nor can I see any sort of error that would lead to the omission of
                  the words. The only reason I can think of for omitting them is
                  that they are repetitious -- something that rarely bothers scribes.

                  In my apparatus, I wouldn't even mark this reading as doubtful.

                  -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                  Robert B. Waltz
                  waltzmn@...

                  Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
                  Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
                  (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
                • Matt McGill
                  Please forgive my words if they seem a bit foolish. Most of the postings to this list are over my head, I have an interest in Biblical Studies, so normally I
                  Message 8 of 16 , Mar 24 9:12 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Please forgive my words if they seem a bit foolish. Most of the postings to
                    this list are over my head, I have an interest in Biblical Studies, so normally
                    I just read.

                    I'm not sure I agree with the statements "the words are here used in precisely
                    (apparently) the way we would . . . This distinction between the "church" and
                    the "home" seems to preclude the period of "house/home churches"; rather, it
                    seems to reflect the understanding of a time when the "church" was a distinct
                    place (and not a "home/house"), where people went for services; the
                    "home/house" was elsewhere."

                    Venton's claim that these word are used "the way we would" assumes everyone
                    goes to a different building for "Church." While this is certainly the norm, it
                    is definitely not universal. When I was a little boy, I'd visit my Aunt every
                    summer for a few weeks. Sunday mornings she'd wake me up saying, "It's time to
                    get up, and get ready for church." The first time she said this, you could
                    imagine my surprise as the church was at her house! This was their custom, and
                    they always met in a member's house.

                    At the risk of placing my experience upon Paul's (?) writing: Why must these
                    two different words refer to two different physical settings.

                    We see the picture of the early church in Acts as meeting in homes. If this was
                    a common practice, then why can't the specific use of two different words refer
                    to two different "social settings?"

                    I guess my question is this: I agree that there is a "strict distinction" made
                    between these two words, but what is the true nature of that difference? To
                    leap from that assumption to define that difference as two different physical
                    places seems to go beyond the text of 1 Cor 14:34-35.

                    However, when one reads the account in Acts 18:7-11, you find that "Crispus,
                    the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of
                    the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized." (18:8). It does not
                    seem that the building used for the synagogue (18:4) became a "church" building
                    (note a new synagogue ruler in 18:17, was he the replacement for Crispus?) But
                    even the synagogue could have met in a person's house . . . but this doesn't
                    seem likely to me, because the Jewish population of Corinth was big enough that
                    they probably built a place for worship.

                    Also: Paul spent at least a year and a half in Corinth (18:11,18), perhaps he
                    gathered enough followers who build or converted a building into a "church."

                    Anyhow, thanks for listening to my thoughts,
                    Matt McGill





                    William L. Petersen wrote:

                    > Vinton Dearing wrote:
                    >
                    > >This is not a tc question but perhaps listers can help me answer it:
                    > >when and where was the first Christian church built (a question posed
                    > >by an attendant at my church)? The earliest I can find reference to
                    > >was on Sion in Jerusalem when Hadrian visited the city in 130
                    > >(Clemens Kopp, The Holy Places of the Gospels, p. 323). What the
                    > >questioner was asking for was a church not in someone's house but I
                    > >suppose that a building converted to a church would qualify.
                    >
                    > Just a quick comment on an interesting reading in I Cor. 14:34-35. Note
                    > that there is a strict distinction made between "EKKLHSIA" and "OIKOS." In
                    > fact, the words are here used in precisely (apparently) the way we would:
                    > "be silent *in church*, and if you have questions, ask them *at home*."
                    > This distinction between the "church" and the "home" seems to preclude the
                    > period of "house/home churches"; rather, it seems to reflect the
                    > understanding of a time when the "church" was a distinct place (and not a
                    > "home/house"), where people went for services; the "home/house" was
                    > elsewhere.
                    >
                    > This seems anachronistic for the Pauline period, and suggests that these
                    > verses are not genuinely Pauline. If this is so, and if one could date
                    > these (interpolated) verses, then one might have a fix on the date of very
                    > early church buildings. The echo of I Tim. 2:11-12 here has been noted by
                    > many commentators. If the Corinthian passage is actually derived from the
                    > I Timothy passage, then the date of I Tim. would be an indication of the
                    > date of separate church buildings.
                    >
                    > --Petersen, Penn State University,
                    > Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies.
                  • Ronald L. Minton
                    This is only indirectly related to tc. I know that every English translation has some literal, some dynamic equivalence, and some paraphrase renderings.
                    Message 9 of 16 , Mar 30 12:09 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      This is only indirectly related to tc. I know that every English
                      translation has some literal, some dynamic equivalence, and some
                      paraphrase renderings. However I am interested in how the newer
                      translations would be classified (using the above three categories.) For
                      example, the 1970 NASB is literal, the 1978 NIV is DE, and the 1971 Living
                      Bible is paraphrase. How would you classify those below?

                      1901 ASV
                      1952 RSV
                      1958 Phillips
                      1976 TEV
                      1982 NKJV
                      1989 NRSV
                      1993 Message
                      1995 God's Word
                      1995 CEV
                      1996 NLT
                      1996 NCV


                      --
                      Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@... W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
                      Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
                    • Ronald L. Minton
                      For those of you who are into translations, what is the World English Bible, and what are a few good sources that evaluate or review it? -- Prof. Ron Minton:
                      Message 10 of 16 , Mar 30 12:13 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        For those of you who are into translations, what is the World English
                        Bible, and what are a few good sources that evaluate or review it?

                        --
                        Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@... W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
                        Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
                      • Jim West
                        ... my .01 cent worth, anyway. Best, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Petros TN jwest@highland.net
                        Message 11 of 16 , Mar 30 12:18 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 02:09 PM 3/30/98 -0600, you wrote:
                          >This is only indirectly related to tc. I know that every English
                          >translation has some literal, some dynamic equivalence, and some
                          >paraphrase renderings. However I am interested in how the newer
                          >translations would be classified (using the above three categories.) For
                          >example, the 1970 NASB is literal, the 1978 NIV is DE, and the 1971 Living
                          >Bible is paraphrase. How would you classify those below?
                          >
                          >1901 ASV = literal
                          >1952 RSV = literal
                          >1958 Phillips = paraphrase
                          >1976 TEV = DE
                          >1982 NKJV = literal
                          >1989 NRSV = literal
                          >1993 Message = paraphrase
                          >1995 God's Word = paraphrase
                          >1995 CEV = DE
                          >1996 NLT = paraphrase
                          >1996 NCV = paraphrase/DE

                          my .01 cent worth, anyway.

                          Best,

                          Jim
                          ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                          Jim West, ThD
                          Petros TN

                          jwest@...
                        • Burkenstock
                          ... What about the REB, the followup to the NEB? I like to use that one and would consider it in-between lit and DE. What you you guys think? ... -- I will
                          Message 12 of 16 , Mar 30 1:11 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Ronald L. Minton wrote:

                            > This is only indirectly related to tc. I know that every English
                            > translation has some literal, some dynamic equivalence, and some
                            > paraphrase renderings. However I am interested in how the newer
                            > translations would be classified (using the above three categories.) For
                            > example, the 1970 NASB is literal, the 1978 NIV is DE, and the 1971 Living
                            > Bible is paraphrase. How would you classify those below?
                            >

                            What about the REB, the followup to the NEB? I like to use that one and would
                            consider it in-between lit and DE. What you you guys think?

                            > --
                            > Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@... W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
                            > Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803



                            --
                            "I will try to express myself in some mode of life or art as freely as I can and as wholly as I can, using for my defence the only arms I allow myself to use - silence, exile, and cunning.
                            - Stephen Dedalus _A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man_
                          • Robert B. Waltz
                            ... I d consider it somewhere between dynamic equivalence and paraphrase, though closer to the former. This is not to condemn it; I think the REB is a very
                            Message 13 of 16 , Mar 30 1:47 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Burkenstock <orpheus@...> wrote:

                              >What about the REB, the followup to the NEB? I like to use that one and would
                              >consider it in-between lit and DE. What you you guys think?

                              I'd consider it somewhere between dynamic equivalence and paraphrase,
                              though closer to the former.

                              This is not to condemn it; I think the REB is a very good bible for
                              reading. But it assuredly is not a literal translation!

                              -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                              Robert B. Waltz
                              waltzmn@...

                              Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
                              Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
                              (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
                            • Burkenstock
                              ... What I like to do when I do my own Biblical translation is bounce my translation off a few different, well established translations and see how it sounds.
                              Message 14 of 16 , Mar 30 6:05 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Robert B. Waltz wrote:

                                > Burkenstock <orpheus@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > >What about the REB, the followup to the NEB? I like to use that one and would
                                > >consider it in-between lit and DE. What you you guys think?
                                >
                                > I'd consider it somewhere between dynamic equivalence and paraphrase,
                                > though closer to the former.
                                >
                                > This is not to condemn it; I think the REB is a very good bible for
                                > reading. But it assuredly is not a literal translation!
                                >
                                >

                                What I like to do when I do my own Biblical translation is bounce my translation
                                off a few different, well established translations and see how it sounds. I use
                                the REB for a more contemporary sound and feel to round out some of my stilted
                                sentences. I agree with you that it is definitely not a literal translation, but
                                when most of my friends are quoting the NIV and very rarely anything else (except
                                for ye olde KJV) it's a refreshing English rendition (also I've the Oxford
                                annotated so I like the commentary and historical background).

                                Burke


                                --
                                "I will try to express myself in some mode of life or art as freely as I can and as wholly as I can, using for my defence the only arms I allow myself to use - silence, exile, and cunning.
                                - Stephen Dedalus _A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man_
                              • Harold P. Scanlin
                                The World English Bible (WEB) The World English Bible is a 1997 revision of the American Standard Version of the Holy Bible, first published in 1901. It is in
                                Message 15 of 16 , Mar 31 2:38 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  The World English Bible (WEB)

                                  The World English Bible is a 1997 revision of the American Standard Version
                                  of the Holy Bible, first published in 1901. It is in the Public Domain.

                                  For the latest information, to report corrections, or for other
                                  correspondence:

                                  Michael Paul Johnson
                                  http://www.ebible.org/bible
                                  mpj@...
                                • Mr. Helge Evensen
                                  ... Dear TCers, Let me add the following: (Just a short note for those of you who may not have turned to the WEB website yet). The WEB is a literal
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Apr 6, 1998
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Harold P. Scanlin wrote:
                                    >
                                    > The World English Bible (WEB)
                                    >
                                    > The World English Bible is a 1997 revision of the American Standard Version
                                    > of the Holy Bible, first published in 1901. It is in the Public Domain.
                                    >
                                    > For the latest information, to report corrections, or for other
                                    > correspondence:
                                    >
                                    > Michael Paul Johnson
                                    > http://www.ebible.org/bible
                                    > mpj@...


                                    Dear TCers,

                                    Let me add the following: (Just a short note for those of you who may not
                                    have turned to the WEB website yet).
                                    The WEB is a literal translation; in language it is a revision of the
                                    ASV, but in textual foundation (as to the NT) it is based on the Majority
                                    Text (not the TR). However, there are a few deviations from the MT, but
                                    they are not intentional. They will be corrected in accordance with the
                                    MT. It is still a project under development (as far as I can tell).


                                    --
                                    - Mr. Helge Evensen
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.