--- tgpedersen <
tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard
> Wordingham"
> <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen"
> <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
> > > ODS says 'kirke' is borrowed from OE, so that
> seems OK (Denmark
> was
> > > partly christianised from England). But what the
> heck would pagan
> > > Germani need a church for? And if the word
> passed through Gothic,
> > why
> > > doesn't it occur, of all places, in the Bible?
> >
> > What do non-Moslems need mosques for?
> >
>
> Quite.
>
> But also, if they wanted to have a word for their
> favorite object of
> plunder, why not borrow 'ecclesia' (the Celts did)?
>
>
> And then there's the second question?
>
> Torsten
*****GK: I'm not clear on all aspects of this, but it
would seem that in the 4th century there were three
words which could be used to refer to a church
building: "kyrikion" {"belonging to the Lord"};
"basilica" (Marius indicated this kicked off ca. 313
AD); "ecclesia" (which Marius dates as of the Council
of Nicaea). I've not been able to find anything solid
as to the use of "kyrikion". On-line sources mostly
repeat each other on this, but with no actual
references, some date it to the 3rd century (The
Catholic Encyclopaedia), others to ca. 300 (I did
notice a use by Cyril of Jerusalem but that was ca.
360 AD). Since there was no Biblical context requiring
the use of "church" in the sense of building, we don't
find "kyrikion" in Wulfila's Gothic translation: just
"aikklesjon" for the other sense (congregation). It's
still not clear to me when "ecclesia" became the
totally preponderant term for "ch. building": sometime
in the 5th c. I expect.******
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com