Subject: tc-list First church building(s)

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:28:33 +0200

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.

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:18:56 -0600

> 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 ([email-masked])    

 http://scriptorium.accesscomm.net

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:26:19 -0600 (CST)

> "home/house"), where people went for services;  the "home/house" was

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: [email-masked]   W (417)268-6053  H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:56:58 -0500 (EST)

>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

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:01:34 -0600

On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]> wrote,

>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
                     [email-masked]

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)

---

From: Matt McGill <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:12:14 -0800

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

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 14:09:51 -0600 (CST)

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

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 14:13:13 -0600 (CST)

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?

---

From: Burkenstock <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:11:19 -0600

> 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?

--
"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_

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:47:26 -0600

>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
                     [email-masked]

---

From: Burkenstock <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:05:49 -0600

> 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