Page 6 of 7
Re: The evolution of christian cultic vocabulary
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:33 am
by John2
Regardless of your efforts to trace the origin of these terms to a profane language the obvious source is Hebrew and the Jewish writings.
This is the one thing you and I agree on, Stephan. I wish we could explore this more together, I could use someone with your knowledge of languages.
I think it's worth pointing out that in the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew (and yes, I know all the reservations and uncertainties regarding all the Hebrew Matthews) Jesus rejects Jewish purity concerns only with respect to the Oral Torah of the Pharisees, not the written Torah.
There are also variants (not sure if its they're in the Shem Tov, Du Tillet or Munster versions off the top of my head) that are in agreement with Justin and other ancient Church fathers regarding "This day I have begotten you," which at least makes me go "hm."
http://jesuswordsonly.com/books/235-heb ... count.html
The only difference seems to be that you think all the NT gospels were originally combined and I think they were separated (and that only Matthew was originally in Hebrew). But I wouldn't mind knowing more of your thoughts on the possible Hebrew origin of the gospel(s) because I am very open to the idea, but I will search the forum for other threads so I don't derail spin's.
Re: The evolution of christian cultic vocabulary
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:05 pm
by John2
I wrote:
"There are also variants (not sure if its they're in the Shem Tov, Du Tillet or Munster versions off the top of my head) that are in agreement with Justin and other ancient Church fathers regarding "This day I have begotten you..."
No, these are in the Jewish Christian gospel(s) cited by Epiphanius and Jerome (like it says in the above link), not the Shem Tov, Du Tillet or Munster Hebrew Matthews. I was searching for them fruitlessly in the latter until I realized my mistake (and I see that Ben also notes these variants here:
http://www.textexcavation.com/baptismjesus.html).
Re: The evolution of christian cultic vocabulary
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:36 pm
by Secret Alias
I don't know if we have to stick to Greek but Celsus's μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας seems to me at least to derive from a Hebrew terminology for the gathering of the angels in the heavenly court:
Psalm 22:25 מֵ֥אִתְּךָ֗ תְֽהִלָּ֫תִ֥י בְּקָהָ֥ל רָ֑ב נְדָרַ֥י in the great assembly (ἐκκλησίᾳ μεγάλῃ LXX); I shall pay my vows
Psalm 35:18 א֭וֹדְךָ בְּקָהָ֣ל רָ֑ב בְּעַ֖ם in the great congregation; I will praise
Psalm 40:9 בִּשַּׂ֤רְתִּי צֶ֨דֶק ׀ בְּקָ֘הָ֤ל רָ֗ב הִנֵּ֣ה in the great congregation; Behold,
So the 'church' was modeled I think as a replica of the heavenly court.
Re: The evolution of christian cultic vocabulary
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 7:55 am
by John2
Qahal seems sensible to me, along with edah and yachad, which are also all used to describe the community in the Dead Sea Scrolls, as Finegan notes here:
...those who turn from wickedness and are cleansed form together a holy congregation [edah] ... in public gathering the "session of the many" [rabbim] is presided over by a supervisor [mebaqqer] or overseer [paqid] ... and in the Zadokite Document we likewise hear of the
mebaqqer and of the "assembly" [qahal]. All of this organizational terminology is also of interest in connection with the organization of the Christian church. The emphasis upon community [yachad] makes one think of the "fellowship" (κοινωνίᾳ) of the Jerusalem church (Ac 2:42), and at both Qumran and Jerusalem there was actual community of property. The word "congregation" ('edah) is that usually translated ... "synagogue" in the Septuagint (Ex 12:3, etc.), and this word is used for the Christian assembly in Jas 2:2. The "many" (
rabbim) of the Qumran community are designated by a word (
rab) to which in the Septuagint the term ... "multitude" often corresponds (Gen 16:10, etc.), and the latter word is used for the Christian group in Ac 6:2, 5, 15:12, 30. The two titles of supervisor (
mebaqqer) or overseer (
paqid) seem to have about the same meaning and the latter,
paqid, is translated in the Septuagint by [a Greek word I can't copy and paste so check the link] (Jug 9:28; Neh 11:19, 14, 22), while in the New Testament the same word appears in the Revised Standard Version as "guardian" (Ac 20:28; I P 2:25) and "bishop" (Phil 1:1; I Tim 3:2; Tit 1:7). As for the word "assembly" (
qahal) used in the Zadokite Document, it is usually translated by ἐκκλησία in the Septuagint (Dt 31:30, etc.), and this is the word for "church" in the New Testament.
https://books.google.com/books?id=1DsAB ... LS&f=false
Re: The evolution of christian cultic vocabulary
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 8:13 am
by Ben C. Smith
John2 wrote:[a Greek word I can't copy and paste so check the link]
The word is ἐπίσκοπος (several times translated as overseer or bishop, which is actually derived from it, in the NT).
Re: The evolution of christian cultic vocabulary
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 12:29 am
by spin
John2 wrote:Qahal seems sensible to me, along with edah and yachad, which are also all used to describe the community in the Dead Sea Scrolls, as Finegan notes here...
The Dead Sea Scrolls and Finnegan are rather inconsequential to the issue, as a trajectory between the DSS and the NT literature cannot be established. The LXX routinely translates QHL as found in the pentateuch as εκκλησια, so we have a good reason to see the notion of "assembly" with cultic overtones inherited in the earliest Jesus cult. Our problem is to understand first, when it stopped being an occasional meeting and then when it began to be used for the building as well.
Re: The evolution of christian cultic vocabulary
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:03 am
by Secret Alias
But spin, do you see the inherited bias? If you begin (unconsciously or not) to assume that Christians were a real community with a real historical Jesus you approach the terminology as if it means ordinary assembly. But I began with the earliest independent attestation for εκκλησια (Celsus) and it is quite specifically the 'great assembly.' If you start with the 'historical' assumption for Christianity (not merely in terms of 'historicity' but even the very orientation of the assembly) then the 'great' qualifier assumes that this is the 'big' or Catholic Church as opposed to the 'heresies.' But I am not so sure. εκκλησια must have had a 'profane' association associated with it that I think you need the 'great' (= ἐκκλησίᾳ μεγάλῃ) to distinguish it from something familiar and mundane, hence my argument for the original association with the angelic assembly of Psalms.
Re: The evolution of christian cultic vocabulary
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:06 am
by Secret Alias
And the same argument applies again John2 (who has this strange obsession with Qumran even though the material was likely from the first century BCE). Christianity was clearly obsessed with angels and being 'like the angels.' It was a mundane community (not at arguing whether or not the Qumran community was but just pointing out we all - and especially John2 - have preconceived notions about Qumran which influence our thoughts on Christian terminology.
Re: The evolution of christian cultic vocabulary
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:15 am
by spin
Secret Alias wrote:But spin, do you see the inherited bias? If you begin (unconsciously or not) to assume that Christians were a real community with a real historical Jesus you approach the terminology as if it means ordinary assembly.
Seriously? Whatever makes you think that I assume that there was a real historical Jesus? It's as though you have ignored most of what I have ever said.
I can only assume that this nonsense is a response to:
spin wrote:The Dead Sea Scrolls and Finnegan are rather inconsequential to the issue, as a trajectory between the DSS and the NT literature cannot be established. The LXX routinely translates QHL as found in the pentateuch as εκκλησια, so we have a good reason to see the notion of "assembly" with cultic overtones inherited in the earliest Jesus cult. Our problem is to understand first, when it stopped being an occasional meeting and then when it began to be used for the building as well.
Secret Alias wrote:But I began with the earliest independent attestation for εκκλησια (Celsus) and it is quite specifically the 'great assembly.'
Yeah, sure. Let's forget the fact that Paul uses the term with frequency. Oh, wait, you've probably got some harebrained scheme that allows you to sideline Paul along with the writers of the pseudo-Paulines, the pastorals and the various early fathers who use the term. For some reason we should forget Justin and Irenaeus. And citing Origen's Celsus makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? You seem to be throwing out a nursery with the bathwater.
Secret Alias wrote:If you start with the 'historical' assumption for Christianity (not merely in terms of 'historicity' but even the very orientation of the assembly) then the 'great' qualifier assumes that this is the 'big' or Catholic Church as opposed to the 'heresies.'
I start with the Pauline texts, rejecting the orthodox-christianizing of them. It's as though you have no short term memory.
Secret Alias wrote:But I am not so sure. εκκλησια must have had a 'profane' association associated with it that I think you need the 'great' (= ἐκκλησίᾳ μεγάλῃ) to distinguish it from something familiar and mundane, hence my argument for the original association with the angelic assembly of Psalms.
I avoided your previous non sequitur:
Happy Chappy wrote:So the 'church' was modeled I think as a replica of the heavenly court.
Jesus wept. You dig something out of an orifice and transmogrify it into a sweet little assertion that follows she does not... from the Celsus seed gem.
Oh and I haven't got a clue where Celsus talks about da big church: you didn't deign to give a proper citation.
Re: The evolution of christian cultic vocabulary
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 11:03 am
by Secret Alias
Whatever makes you think that I assume that there was a real historical Jesus? It's as though you have ignored most of what I have ever said.
Because all your assumptions in the thread assume an ordinary meaning for terminology. For instance in the case of apostle you ignore Moses as apostle and move on to profane examples from Greek. Similarly you put your finger on the scale when it comes to 'church.' It's always there, you just don't see it. By stressing the ordinary usage of terms you put the unique characteristics of Christianity (i.e. that it was a religious body first and foremost) in the background. I am not accusing you of conscious bias but unconscious bias so the fact that you have entertained 'mythicist' ideas rather than dismissing them (something I recognize) doesn't change matters. To contemplate or read about eating a habanero pepper is different that actually experiencing eating a habanero pepper first hand. In this case, have you considered what 'church' might mean to those who believed Jesus was a heavenly being. No I don't think you have.