critique of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament relates not to word study per se, but “illegitimate totality transfer.”
118. Thiselton, “Semantics,” 80–82.
119. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 18.
120. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 25–26.
121. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 53–71.
122. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 64.
123. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 100–101.
124. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 178.
125. Green, “Lexical Pragmatics,” 800.
126. Green, “Lexical Pragmatics,” 803–4. For further examples of this in practice, see Wilson, “Relevance Theory,” 136–39.
127. Green, “Lexical Pragmatics,” 806–7. For discussion of the relationship between metaphor, narrowing and relevance theory, see Wilson, “Relevance Theory,” 139–42; Wilson, “Relevance and Lexical Pragmatics,” 343–60. For an analysis of ad hoc meaning see Hanks, “Word Meanings Exist,” 125–34.
128. Green, “Lexical Pragmatics,” 807–8.
129. Green, “Lexical Pragmatics,” 808–12. See also Hanks, “Word Meanings,” 133.
130. Trebilco, Self-designations, 11–13; Adams, Constructing the World, 25–28.
131. Trebilco, “Creativity at the Boundary,” 201.
132. Piñero and Peláez, Study of the New Testament, 500.
133. In that sense, this is a study of the rhetoric in, not of, the bible. For this distinction see Amador, “Word Made Flesh,” 53–55.
134. I acknowledge that this is disputed territory. Lategan, “New Testament Hermeneutics,” 65–105, summarizes the hermeneutical issues relating to a historical, structural, or reader-response approach. See also Lampe, “Rhetorical Analysis,” 21, who argues that whether Paul used rhetorical elements deliberately is irrelevant, if the focus is on what the ancient recipients could detect.
135. For critiques of this approach see, for example, Weima, “What Does Aristotle,” 458–68; Porter and Dyer, “Oral Texts,” 323–41.
136. For a reconstruction of how this may have worked, see Richards, Paul and First-century, 201–9.
137. See, for example, Gupta, “Towards a Set of Principles,” 169–71; Aasgaard, Brothers and Sisters, 23–31. See also Dawes, Body in Question, 25–78, for a fuller interaction with various authors, again highlighting the importance of interpretation in context.
138. Gupta, “Towards a Set of Principles,” 171–75.
139. For a similar approach to metaphor that does not work within an explicit methodological framework, see Longenecker, “Metaphor of Adoption,” 71–78.
2. The Meaning of ἐκκλησία
In chapter 1, I noted that the range of meaning of ἐκκλησία in the Pauline corpus was contested, and that this challenge focuses on the preservation of the root meaning of ἐκκλησία as assembly, and therefore argues against the traditional conception of the church as “local” and “universal,”140 replacing it with the idea of the church as “local” and “heavenly.” Therefore, in this chapter I will reexamine some of the evidence for the usage of the term, looking at Greek literature, and then the Septuagint and related literature. I will then summarize these findings, before Paul’s use of ἐκκλησία is examined in chapters 3 to 6. In addition, in the last section of this chapter, I will review some of the work done in recent years on the size and location of first-century churches, so that ecclesial solidarity in Paul can be examined in historical context.
Greek Literature
Argument from Greek Usage for a Local-only Usage of ἐκκλησία
A key element of the argument for a restricted range for the word ἐκκλησία in the Pauline corpus (and in the NT more widely) is that in Greek literature outside the NT, the word means an assembly, actually assembled. The almost exclusive use of the term for an assembly of citizens is noted,141 and some argue that this indicates that the assembly only existed when assembled.142 For O’Brien this is significant, as it shows that ἐκκλησία means an assembly, not an “organization” or “society.”143 Perhaps the clearest statement of this position comes from O’Brien: “Attested from the fifth century BC onwards, ekklēsia denoted the popular assembly of the full citizens of the Greek city-state. This assembly, in which fundamentally political and judicial decisions were taken (cf. Acts 19:39; at vv. 32 and 41 an unconstitutional assembly is also called an ekklēsia), was regarded as existing only when it actually assembled.”144
This understanding of Greek usage is not unique to these authors,145 but can be traced back to the influential article by Schmidt in TDNT. Schmidt states that in secular Greek, ἐκκλησία denotes a popular assembly and relates it to the Greek polis.146 Schmidt’s stance is largely followed in other dictionary articles. For example, Roloff concludes: “in classical Greek as well as in Hellenistic literature, it became a technical expression for the assembly of the people, consisting of the free men entitled to vote.”147 Roloff does note wider applications for any public assembly.148 Trebilco draws the distinction between the ἐκκλησία and the βουλή;
