PDA

View Full Version : Handelinge 11



Ta-An
Sep 6th 2011, 07:03 PM
Handelinge 11:26 En hulle het 'n hele jaar lank in die gemeente saam vergader en aan 'n aansienlike skare onderwys gegee; en die dissipels is in Antioch vir die eerste keer Christene genoem.

.... waar die woord glo blybaar meer beteken het : "die wie se koppies raas" :o en dus 'n sielsiekte toestand beskryf het :hmm:

Francois Marais
Sep 7th 2011, 04:47 AM
Tannie., ek dink mens moet die uit 'n Joodse en wreldse oogpuntsien. Daai tyd was ditinom meer as een god te dien, en die Jode wat daai tyd deur die skrifgeleerdes vertel dat Yeshua nie opgestaan het nie, maar sy lyk gesteel is.

Ek het so tyd terug 'n program oor Rome gekyk en in die storie het die een persoon wat goed aankondig genoem dat Rome die Jode blameer oor als wat verkeerd gaan omdat hulle een G-d dien, en nie offer vir ander gode nie.

Die christen mense word gesien as mal omdat hulle die teachings van ons Rabbi gevolg het en nog meer weg beweeg van wat hulle wil h om baie gode te aanbid.

Dit gaan nou weird klink maar as mens met wrelds se ouens praat, dink hulle mens is mal om aan 'n Elohim te glo. Hulle verwerp die skepper en ook sy Seun, en volg eerder Budah en daai ander moslem, islam en chrislam... Want die mens kan mos nie meer glo wat hulle nie sien nie, maar net wat hulle kan sien....

Philip dT
Sep 7th 2011, 09:00 AM
Handelinge 11:26 En hulle het 'n hele jaar lank in die gemeente saam vergader en aan 'n aansienlike skare onderwys gegee; en die dissipels is in Antioch vir die eerste keer Christene genoem.

.... waar die woord glo blybaar meer beteken het : "die wie se koppies raas" :o en dus 'n sielsiekte toestand beskryf het :hmm:

Bedoel jy dit sarkasties of is jy teen die benaming Christene?

Die Filadelfieer
Sep 7th 2011, 09:08 AM
Bedoel jy dit sarkasties of is jy teen die benaming Christene?

Ek vermoed Ta-An bedoel dit is wat mense bedoel het in daardie tyd as hulle na Christene verwys het. :)

Ta-An
Sep 7th 2011, 09:36 AM
Bedoel jy dit sarkasties of is jy teen die benaming Christene? Ek is besig met Handelinge (Of dan Apostels soos in die OAV) ... en die kommentaar lees dat die woord Christene as a Uncomplimentary woord gebruik is... en ander wat s: Neerhalende gebruik van die naam, en selfs dat Christene na die tyd die woord ge-"Romanticize" het om sy huidige betekenis te h :o Ek het dit nie geweet nie

trudie
Sep 7th 2011, 09:43 AM
Daar is vandag nog baie wat dink "ons koppies raas" maar hulle gebruik dit meer in 'n beledigende vorm.

Ta-An
Sep 7th 2011, 12:04 PM
Ek vermoed Ta-An bedoel dit is wat mense bedoel het in daardie tyd as hulle na Christene verwys het. :) heeltemawl reg Fila, blykbaar het die 'naam' "Christ" nog nie bestaan nie, eerder Messias (Moshiach) en "Followers of the Way" soos wat die voorkom in Handelinge.... en dat die eerste verwysing nie vleiend was nie.... MAAR Philip, dit is nie wat die woord vandag beteken nie.... :D

Philip dT
Sep 7th 2011, 01:30 PM
Ek is besig met Handelinge (Of dan Apostels soos in die OAV) ... en die kommentaar lees dat die woord Christene as a Uncomplimentary woord gebruik is... en ander wat s: Neerhalende gebruik van die naam, en selfs dat Christene na die tyd die woord ge-"Romanticize" het om sy huidige betekenis te h :o Ek het dit nie geweet nie

O ek sien. Ek verstaan.

Ta-An
Sep 7th 2011, 01:58 PM
O ek sien. Ek verstaan.Het jy dit geweet??:hmm:

Kyk bietjie in jou Griekse boeke,,,, die verskil tussen "Christians" and "Chrestians" Hier is 'n soortgelyke artikel (http://ichthys.com/mail-the-name-Christian.htm)

Question #1: Dear Doctor--I have two quick questions for you: you know the word "Christian" in the bible? And it was first used in Antioch, was it not? So, is that word in the earliest and oldest and best manuscripts, and was it originally used as a term of contempt by non-Christians? The bible doesn't say anything about that part.

Response #1: Acts 11:26 is indeed the first place where the word/name "Christian" occurs in the Bible, but not the only place. The same word is used later in Acts 26:28, and also at 1st Peter 4:16. As Meyer (Commentary on Acts in loc.) points out, all three instances can be read as outsiders using this name as a reproach. To take them in reverse order, Peter says "if you are suffering as a 'Christian'", which may mean being reproached under that (not complimentary) name; Agrippa is the subject in Acts 26:28 and he is certainly not being kind when he says, "do you expect me to declare myself a Christian?"; the first passage, the one you ask about, says, variously translated, that "the disciples were first called 'Christians' in Antioch". The verb there, chrematizo (xrhmati/zw) is in the active voice, and it can mean "take the name", in which case one assumes that it would not be derogatory (since, if the sense of the verb really is active, Christians are then applying the name to themselves), or, if it were, that the brethren were wearing this (derogatory) name as a badge of honor, "sharing the reproach of Christ". However, there is good evidence for the verb, though active in form, being used in an impersonal sense as a passive equivalent (i.e., "one began to call them Christians there for the first time"), and that is the sense to preferred here (based on a parallel usage at Romans 7:3, et al.). I do not find convincing the case for identifying the suffix on the word, -ianos, as a pejorative diminutive (i.e., used disparagingly: "little Christs"), though that is frequently alleged. This suffix is most likely a gentilic possessive, often used of slaves and the household to which they belonged (i.e., "Christ's crowd", based on e.g., Herodianus, "belonging to the household of Herod). However, I think Meyer is probably right. If the name were just a description picked by Christians themselves, it likely would be more frequent in the New Testament. Although the word itself is not necessarily derisive, the fact that all three places where it occurs are in contexts that are most likely expressive of external contempt is probably not an accident.

As to the ancient manuscripts, they all have the word in all three places and their testimony is identical – with one critical exception. The best and earliest codex of all, Sinaiticus (aka Aleph, א, the ms. is now on-line; see the link: Sinaiticus), has instead of Christianoi (Xristianoi/), Chrestianoi (Xrhstianoi/) – and it has this reading in all three places where the word occurs. Therefore it is impossible, in spite of the Nestle-Aland tentative suggestion for Acts 26:28, for it to be an itacism (i.e., a popular misspelling based on third/fourth century shifts in pronunciation, something of which this manuscript is, it is true, replete). For one thing, I find no parallel for changing a long "i" (iota) to a longe "e" (eta) in this manuscript (and the unusual spelling would not have happened three times by mistake). Equally interesting is the fact that in all three cases, the right vertical stroke and the horizontal stroke of the ETA have been erased to produce an IOTA (yielding the traditional spelling). This is very unusual. Sinaiticus was corrected many times, and each generation of correctors had their own discernible "tics". But simple erasure without further comment seems to be unprecedented. Moreover, the empty space left by the erasure is, in all three cases, not filled up. This shows that without any question the scribe of Sinaiticus deliberately meant to write "Chrestian" in all three instances; it was not a mistake. The plot thickens when we consider that two of the earliest secular references to Christianity, Tacitus, Annales 15.4, where Tacitus talks about the Christians being persecuted by Nero as "Chrestians", and Suetonius, Claudius 25, referring to Claudius' expulsion of the Jews mentions a certain "Chrestus" as responsible, we find precisely the spellings one would predict if these authors (or their sources) were deriving their information from the same tradition which the spelling of Sinaiticus suggests.

Based upon this evidence, here is my own guess about what happened historically:

1) The unbelieving gentile inhabitants at Antioch took notice of this new group which was trying to convince them to join (evangelism recorded in this chapter). Not having a Jewish background, the word "Christos" meant nothing to them, so that referring to these people in terms of "the anointed One" would have been a bit too much for them when referencing this group whose activities and beliefs (to the extent they understood them or were interested in understanding them at all) seemed ridiculous. Ready at hand, however, was an excellent pun on the name that seemed to fit them to a tee. Rather than "followers of the anointed One", they were "the goody-goody bunch" or "members of the household of Goody-Goody" (Greek chrestos, xrhsto/j, often meaning "good" or "moral" in Hellenistic Greek). Besides being a good pun, this appellation caught precisely the sanctified behavior that characterizes believers and which contemporary unbelievers in particular found so odd (cf. 1Pet.4:4: "They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you").

2) This pun was so good, in fact, it caught on rapidly as the main way of identifying this new sect. Believers preferred to be called "brethren" or "disciples" after scriptural parallels, and also occasionally as "followers of the Way" (cf. Acts 24:14). As the new appellation caught on, it was apparently always used with a large measure of scorn, and believers were certainly aware of this. For that reason, they did not apply this term to themselves, except when making a point of the ostracism to which the secular world often subjected them (this accounts for both the rare use of the term in the NT and the fact that in all three instances it has this negative connotation of external abuse).

3) Eventually, Christians reacted, and began to say, in effect, "You've got that wrong! We are followers of Christ! Not of somebody named 'Goody-Goody'!" When this began to occur, the correction "Christian" for "Chrestian" most likely became a self-designation. We see the transition no doubt already accomplished by the time we get to Tertullian, writing at the turn of the next century. He actually vents his spleen against the mis-pronunciation "Chrestianus" (which may actually have been the original form changed by Christians to reflect the Lord's rightful title): "But Christian, so far as the meaning of the word is concerned, is derived from anointing. Yes, and even when it is wrongly pronounced by you "Chrestianus" (for you do not even know accurately the name you hate), it comes from sweetness and benignity" (Apology 3.5). This same attitude is to be found in Ignatius' letter to the Romans (3.2): "[I pray] that I may not only be called a 'Christian' (i.e., by others as a term of abuse), but be found as one [in truth]".

4) Later readers and correctors of the earliest manuscripts began to see the spelling Chrestianos as an error for Christianos. Oral readers in the scriptoria where manuscripts were copied sometimes consciously sometimes unconsciously made the change in pronunciation as they read resulting in the later editions showing no trace of the original ETA (the scribes never knew the difference). What happened in the case of Sinaiticus is similar. I doubt that it was a conscious effort to obliterate and cover up any trace of the earlier, correct reading. Rather it most likely struck the person who made the changes (at what point, early or very late, we cannot tell), as a mistake that needed correcting. He probably thought he was doing us all a great favor. Fortunately, the evidence has not been entirely erased, even if two thirds of the ETA has in all three passages.

What does all this mean? Are we Christians or Chrestians? While the word "Christian" might never have been coined except as a corrective, defensive mechanism, we certainly have the right to use this fine designation to describe ourselves, whether or not it originally came from the Bible. For we are in very truth, "members of the household of Christ", and proud of it.

Die Filadelfieer
Sep 8th 2011, 05:34 AM
The plot thickens when we consider that two of the earliest secular references to Christianity, Tacitus, Annales 15.4, where Tacitus talks about the Christians being persecuted by Nero as "Chrestians", and Suetonius, Claudius 25, referring to Claudius' expulsion of the Jews mentions a certain "Chrestus" as responsible, we find precisely the spellings one would predict if these authors (or their sources) were deriving their information from the same tradition which the spelling of Sinaiticus suggests.

Interesante leestof !

Philip dT
Sep 8th 2011, 07:23 AM
Ta-An. Wat presies die konnotasies is wat die eerste mense aan die titel gekoppel het, is oop vir interpretasie, en kan na enige twee kant toe gaan (af altwee - afhangende van uit watter perspektief jy kyk). Wat die lesing van Kodeks Sinatikus (Aleph) betref, sou ek s die getuienis is bietjie te min om af te lei dat dit oorspronklik Χρηστιανούς was eerder as Χριστιανούς. Beide die Textus Receptus (waarop die 1983 Afrikaans en KJV gebaseer is), en die Nestl Aland tekste bevat die lesing Χριστιανούς.

Groete

Son of the South
Sep 9th 2011, 09:06 AM
In die boek Mosques & Miracles (http://salvos.org.au/radio/light-and-life/book-mosques-and-miracles/) wat ek so rukkie gelede gelees het, s die outeur dat die naam Christen in sekere geledere slegte konnotasies het. Hy s sommige moslems koppel dit aan negatiewe geskiedkundige herinneringe van die kruistogte. Wanneer mens met hulle gesels kan jy dalk eerder s dat jy 'n volgeling van Jesus is. Ter wille van die evangelie...

Alhoewel die konnotasie dadelik gemaak sal word dat jy 'n islamiet is, sou dit nie verkeerd wees om van jouself te s dat jy 'n goeie moslem is nie, want letterlik beteken dit jy onderwerp jou aan God. Ek is 'n goeie moslem, 'n navolger van Jesus, en ek behoort aan die sekte van die Nasarener! :D