Use of Classical Greek Etymologies as an Apologetic Defense for New Testament Hellenistic Greek: A Two Edged Sword
I received two comments telling me that I was wrong on the use of the word the church (τη εκκλησια) in Matthew 18: 17.
The first was more technical by a Daniel and is quoted in full below.
“I fail to see the force of this argument, given that εκκλησια is translated "church" only in the context of the New Testament. To a contemporary Greek-speaker, however, the word would have been understood as "assembly" which isn't the same as "church," since the church as a formal institution had not yet come into existence. How "assembly" came to be what we now call "church" is easy to imagine, but the argument here seems more dependent upon the connotations of the English than upon those of the Greek.
I simply fail to see how a word's potentially dual meaning creates a textual problem. It isn't unusual for new meanings to attach themselves to old words.
Or perhaps someone can help me out and explain what I missed?”
Several weeks later, a second comment was posted by “Mattit” which supported Daniel’s position and added some further critics:
“As stated previously the problem with this view of the Greek word is that the post is attributing a meaning to it that it would not have carried. The argument as well as a few translations are anachronistic. / / The use of the word applied to a teacher's students or disciples would not be too unusual especially considering the book was initially written in Hebrew and translated to Greek. Check out the Hebrew Matthew.”
I started simply to leave my reply to both Daniel and Mattit in the comment section to my post on May 14, but I wanted to illustrate in a new post just what can happen when Christian apologists use Classical Greek etymologies to provide an apologetic defensed.
Koine(common) or Hellenistic Greek is a late development of the four main families of Classical Greek (see HW Smyth, Greek Grammar, p. 4). Plus, there is not one single word of the New Testament or Early Christianity that was not taken over directly from the Classical Hellenic world and redefined etymologically to support the new theology for the emerging world of Early Christianity and its so-called New Testament. These "pagan" Greek terms include Christ (χριστός); God (θεός); Salvation (σωτήριος); Savior (σωτήρ); Gospel (εὐαγγέλιον); Heaven (οὐρανόθεν); Hell (ᾍδης) and yes, Church (εκκλησια).
So let’s accept Daniel’s logic (as supported also by Mattit) as correct when he stated “To a contemporary Greek-speaker, however, the word would have been understood as "assembly" which isn't the same as "church," since the church as a formal institution had not yet come into existence.”
By accepting Daniel’s apologetic defense (that the term τη εκκλησια (the church) should correctly be translated “the assembly”), then the problem of Matthew 18: 17 appears resolved and we no longer have an anachronistic reading placed on Jesus’ lips.
However, Daniel has now created a very damaging problem by insisting that Matthew 18: 17 was understood by the Greeks of Asia Minor in the Classical sense as assembly. If Daniel wants to use a Classical lexicon meaning here, the he must also do so in with Hell (Hades / ᾅδῃ) in Luke 16: 23 in the very theological core of the Christian doctrine of Eternal Punishment: The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16: 19 - 31).
According to The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3 ed. (pp. 661 -2), Jesus' fiery teachings on Hell are wrong as (Hades / ᾅδῃ) is the universal destination of all the dead; both good and bad. It's not hot with fire as Jesus depicts it as being, but – like the Hebrew world of the dead (Sheol) – it's a cold, dark, damp, place filled and with groom being ruled over by Zeus’ brother Hades from which this land Down Under of all the dead gets its name.
Thus, if Daniel wants to insist on the Classical Greek etymology for assembly in Matthew 18: 17, then he must likewise continue to use the same Classical Greek meaning for Hell which totally destroys most all of the Christian theology on eternal damnation.
But Mattit further claims that my use of the world church is wrong in that “The argument as well as a few translations are anachronistic.”
OK, so let’s look at what he considers “a few translations” which “are anachronistic.”.
New International Version (©2011) “church”
New Living Translation (©2007) “church”
English Standard Version (©2001) (church)
New American Standard Bible (©1995) “church”
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) “church”
Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009) “church”
International Standard Version (©2012) “congregation”
NET Bible (©2006) “church”
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) “community”
King James 2000 Bible (©2003) “church”
American King James Version “church”
American Standard Version “church”
Douay-Rheims Bible “church”
English Revised Version “church”
Webster's Bible Translation “church”
Weymouth New Testament “Church”
Facts prove that of the 20 English translations, only 3 version use assembly: Darby Bible Translation; World English Bible; and Young's Literal Translation with a possible 4th version the Aramaic Bible in Plain English but it’s based on Aramaic and not the Greek text.
My support is founded upon the massive 2042 page unabridged Oxford Classical Greek Lexicon: A Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott defines “ἐκκλησίας” in Matthew as “2. In NT, the Church, as a body of Christians Ev. Matt. 16: 18, 1 Ep. Cor. 11: 22;” This work is supported by A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Arndt, Gingrich and Danker in referencing “ἐκκλησίας” in the New Testament as exclusively “4. Of the Christian church or congregation”. This use of “ἐκκλησίας” in the New Testament as “Church” is supported in six more extensive etymological uses in the New Testament.
Finally, Mattit stated: “The use of the word applied to a teacher's students or disciples would not be too unusual especially considering the book was initially written in Hebrew and translated to Greek. Check out the Hebrew Matthew.”
Mattit, if you want to accept the claim of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (260 -340 CE) that Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor was correct about Matthew having been originally written in Hebrew (more likely Aramaic) is one thing, but to claim this Semitic Matthew still exists is grossly wrong!
“I fail to see the force of this argument, given that εκκλησια is translated "church" only in the context of the New Testament. To a contemporary Greek-speaker, however, the word would have been understood as "assembly" which isn't the same as "church," since the church as a formal institution had not yet come into existence. How "assembly" came to be what we now call "church" is easy to imagine, but the argument here seems more dependent upon the connotations of the English than upon those of the Greek.
I simply fail to see how a word's potentially dual meaning creates a textual problem. It isn't unusual for new meanings to attach themselves to old words.
Or perhaps someone can help me out and explain what I missed?”
Several weeks later, a second comment was posted by “Mattit” which supported Daniel’s position and added some further critics:
“As stated previously the problem with this view of the Greek word is that the post is attributing a meaning to it that it would not have carried. The argument as well as a few translations are anachronistic. / / The use of the word applied to a teacher's students or disciples would not be too unusual especially considering the book was initially written in Hebrew and translated to Greek. Check out the Hebrew Matthew.”
I started simply to leave my reply to both Daniel and Mattit in the comment section to my post on May 14, but I wanted to illustrate in a new post just what can happen when Christian apologists use Classical Greek etymologies to provide an apologetic defensed.
Koine(common) or Hellenistic Greek is a late development of the four main families of Classical Greek (see HW Smyth, Greek Grammar, p. 4). Plus, there is not one single word of the New Testament or Early Christianity that was not taken over directly from the Classical Hellenic world and redefined etymologically to support the new theology for the emerging world of Early Christianity and its so-called New Testament. These "pagan" Greek terms include Christ (χριστός); God (θεός); Salvation (σωτήριος); Savior (σωτήρ); Gospel (εὐαγγέλιον); Heaven (οὐρανόθεν); Hell (ᾍδης) and yes, Church (εκκλησια).
So let’s accept Daniel’s logic (as supported also by Mattit) as correct when he stated “To a contemporary Greek-speaker, however, the word would have been understood as "assembly" which isn't the same as "church," since the church as a formal institution had not yet come into existence.”
By accepting Daniel’s apologetic defense (that the term τη εκκλησια (the church) should correctly be translated “the assembly”), then the problem of Matthew 18: 17 appears resolved and we no longer have an anachronistic reading placed on Jesus’ lips.
However, Daniel has now created a very damaging problem by insisting that Matthew 18: 17 was understood by the Greeks of Asia Minor in the Classical sense as assembly. If Daniel wants to use a Classical lexicon meaning here, the he must also do so in with Hell (Hades / ᾅδῃ) in Luke 16: 23 in the very theological core of the Christian doctrine of Eternal Punishment: The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16: 19 - 31).
According to The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3 ed. (pp. 661 -2), Jesus' fiery teachings on Hell are wrong as (Hades / ᾅδῃ) is the universal destination of all the dead; both good and bad. It's not hot with fire as Jesus depicts it as being, but – like the Hebrew world of the dead (Sheol) – it's a cold, dark, damp, place filled and with groom being ruled over by Zeus’ brother Hades from which this land Down Under of all the dead gets its name.
Thus, if Daniel wants to insist on the Classical Greek etymology for assembly in Matthew 18: 17, then he must likewise continue to use the same Classical Greek meaning for Hell which totally destroys most all of the Christian theology on eternal damnation.
But Mattit further claims that my use of the world church is wrong in that “The argument as well as a few translations are anachronistic.”
OK, so let’s look at what he considers “a few translations” which “are anachronistic.”.
New International Version (©2011) “church”
New Living Translation (©2007) “church”
English Standard Version (©2001) (church)
New American Standard Bible (©1995) “church”
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) “church”
Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009) “church”
International Standard Version (©2012) “congregation”
NET Bible (©2006) “church”
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) “community”
King James 2000 Bible (©2003) “church”
American King James Version “church”
American Standard Version “church”
Douay-Rheims Bible “church”
English Revised Version “church”
Webster's Bible Translation “church”
Weymouth New Testament “Church”
Facts prove that of the 20 English translations, only 3 version use assembly: Darby Bible Translation; World English Bible; and Young's Literal Translation with a possible 4th version the Aramaic Bible in Plain English but it’s based on Aramaic and not the Greek text.
My support is founded upon the massive 2042 page unabridged Oxford Classical Greek Lexicon: A Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott defines “ἐκκλησίας” in Matthew as “2. In NT, the Church, as a body of Christians Ev. Matt. 16: 18, 1 Ep. Cor. 11: 22;” This work is supported by A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Arndt, Gingrich and Danker in referencing “ἐκκλησίας” in the New Testament as exclusively “4. Of the Christian church or congregation”. This use of “ἐκκλησίας” in the New Testament as “Church” is supported in six more extensive etymological uses in the New Testament.
Finally, Mattit stated: “The use of the word applied to a teacher's students or disciples would not be too unusual especially considering the book was initially written in Hebrew and translated to Greek. Check out the Hebrew Matthew.”
Mattit, if you want to accept the claim of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (260 -340 CE) that Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor was correct about Matthew having been originally written in Hebrew (more likely Aramaic) is one thing, but to claim this Semitic Matthew still exists is grossly wrong!
0 comments:
Post a Comment