Danmark wrote:
Student wrote:
As for how and when
martus = witness came to mean martyr, I was going to post an extensive list of the relevant references. However I can see you have already arrived at an answer that satisfies your preconceptions / prejudices. Consequently I have neither time nor inclination to conduct what would be an exercise in futility.
I did not detect any indication Mithrae had '
already arrived at an answer that satisfies your preconceptions / prejudices' and in any event I too am interested in seeing the list you considered. The timing of the etymology would be interesting. I don't know when 'Justin Martyr' was renamed. I assumed it was because of death, rather than because he was seen as a 'witness' of sorts. In any event I would be interested in what you proposed.
I find it difficult to construe Mithraes comments as anything other than a reaffirmation of his opinions regarding the Clements supposed reference to the martyrdom of Peter. First he wrote:
Mithrae wrote:In the late 1st century Clement of Rome also wrote that "Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him," and numerous 2nd century sources state the same.
then, after my intervention, [that prior to the second century marthus meant a witness and not martyr]:
Mithrae wrote:Clement explicitly is talking about the death of Peter and Paul for their testimony
. I'm open to correction of course, but from what little I see it looks as though the use of 'witness' or 'testimony' as a Christian euphemism for martyrdom had already begun by the end of the 1st century. But even if it hadn't, it's still perfectly clear that Clement is holding up Peter and Paul as examples of pillars of the church who had been persecuted and "contended even unto death.
I can discern no difference in the opinion stated - hardly the comments of someone who has yet to make up their mind despite the throwaway Im open to correction line.
There are several scholarly works* charting the gradual change in meaning of
martus from witness to martyr, however most [if not all] are not available in electronic format. Consequently I would have to retrieve the documents, translate them [many of the most influential are only in print in German] and then transcribe their contents [ocr only goes so far!]. Given that my previous post had zero impact on Mithraes views [in common with practically all our previous encounters] I viewed the whole exercise as a monumental waste of time, so it was a case of bugger that for a game of cowboys.
*including but not limited to:
F. Kattenbusch, ZNW 4, 1903, 111ff.
K. Holl, Gesammelte Aufstze, II 1928 103ff.
A. Schlater BFChTh 19, 3, 1915, 481ff.
J. Leitzmann, Martys: Pauly-W. XIV 2, 1930 2044-52
D. W. Riddle, "From Apocalypse to Martyrology," Anglican Theological Review 9(1927):260-280.
D. W. Riddle, Hebrews, First Clement, and the Persecution of Domitian
Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 43, No. 3/4 (1924), pp. 329-348
A. A. Trites, AND MARTYRDOM IN THE APOCALYPSE
A Semantic Study, Novum Testamentum, Vol. XV,1973, 72-80.
Etc. Etc.
Trites is particularly helpful as she charts [using diachronistic semantics] the semantic change over five stages whereby the word came to mean martyr by the end of the second century:
1. Originally, meant a witness in a court of law with no expectation of death.
2. Then it came to mean a man who testified to his faith in a lawcourt and suffered death as the penalty for his witness.
3. Next, death is regarded as part of the witness.
4. becomes equivalent to martyr. Here the idea of death is uppermost, though the idea of witness is not entirely lacking.
5. The idea of witness disappears, and the words , , and are used absolutely to refer to martyrdom.
