[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Impartial, ksulon, origen
To the message about impartiality, what I meant was that I was not
affiliated financially (as a career, that is) with a denomination. I
have an opinion on theological matters, of course, but it's subject to
change - unlike that of a denomination or its clergy & leaders, who are
bound by creeds & dogmas more than their mere members. I think someone
reasonably questioned whether or not the "stauros" discussion was
motivated towards propaganda for a denominational stance.
On the NT use of "ksulon" (xulon, xylon), I found Acts 5.30, 10.39,
13.29, Galatians 3.13 (=Deuteronomy 21.23), and 1 Peter 2:24. But then I
checked in the Septuagint & found "ksulon" was used for all the trees in
the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2.16, 3.8, etc.). The Septuagint seems to
use several words (ksulon, ksulinon, dendron, etc.) for trees, rendering
the Hebrew word etz (ayin tzaddhe) mostly. Parallel usages include
Genesis 40.19, where a chief baker is to be hung on a tree, and Joshua
8.29, where the king of Ai is exposed by Joshua on a tree. In all cases
these are rendered ksulon. I'm wondering at the subtle semantic
boundaries operating here. It can't mean merely dead wood (a beam, which
would be a good euphemism for a cross), since it's used of live trees.
And yet it can't mean merely a live tree, since it is also used of dead
branches and boards (in the Septuagint).
On Origen - yes, but I do remember him reading that where he said
Christians should not pray to Jesus, which I find very odd (but then
Origen was one of the oddest theologians ever). :)
-Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
References: