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

Re: tc-list First church building(s)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.