It's not a folk etymology, because this is the usage of one person rather than an entire speech community.
It's not a malapropism, because "egg corn" and "acorn" are really homonyms (at least in casual pronunciation), while pairs like "allegory" for "alligator," "oracular" for "vernacular" and "fortuitous" for "fortunate" are merely similar in sound (and may also share some aspects of spelling and morphemic content).
צלמות, tzalmavet, "shadow of death" for tzalmut, "deep darkness." - is probably a true eggcornBut:
Gen. 2:23, where it says "she shall be called Woman (ishah), because she was taken out of Man (ish)." - Is surely a straightforward "folk etymology".Though, Ralph's main example:
the old understanding of בליעל, beliyya'al, "Belial," as "without worth"- may indeed be a true eggcorn.Though, of course, as Ralph points out, we cannot really know. Ah the joys and frustrations of working with such a small corpus!
Of course it is our aim to preach Christ and Christ alone, but, when all is said and done, it is not the fault of our critics that they find our preaching so hard to understand, so overburdened with ideas and expressions which are hopelessly out of touch with the mental climate in which they live. It is just not true that every word of criticism directed against contemporary preaching is a deliberate rejection of Christ and proceeds from the sirit of Antichrist. So many people come to church with a genuine desire to hear what we have to say, yet they are always going back home with the uncomfortable feeling that we are making it too difficult for them to come to Jesus. Are we determined to have nothing to do with these people? They are convinced that it is not the Word of Jesus himself that puts them off, but theIt fascinated me how varied the guesses were: Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Ryle, Spurgeon, Tozer. I have always thought that Bonhoeffer's writings (at least in translation) have an archaic sound to them! But the ideas, just hit home. I wonder if that will still be how I feel in another 20 years...
superstructure of human, institutional, and doctrinal elements in our preaching. Of course, we know all the answers to these objections, and those answers certainly make it easy for us to slide out of our responsibilities. But perhaps it would be just as well to ask ourselves whether we do not in fact often act as obstacles to Jesus and his Word.
In the study of the Hebrew Bible today, the terms "maximalism" and "minimalism" are thrown around with great abandon.So, there must be lots of others out there who had invented the term "maximalist" as a shorthand way of saying "those who oppose the ideas and conclusions of the minimalists" - at least that's how I (uncomfortably) invented it for my Genesis class.
In fact, I submit that it is impossible to define "maximalism." Even if one answered "yes" to David, Moses, and Abraham, as I do, one might still want to add "--but I don't necessarily believe every story told about him." What does that make you?I think Ralph is right to be uncomfortable with the term "maximalist" but for the wrong reasons.
Did Jesus exist?At what point on this scale does one become a "minimalist"?
Did John the Baptist exist?
Did Ezra exist?
Did King David exist?
Did Moses exist?
Did Abraham exist?
SEARCH Tim's sites