Post by CherylPost by Quinn CPost by CherylPost by Quinn CThe German name Karfreitag is synchronously intransparent, but the
first element is in fact related to English "care" in its older meaning
"sorrow, grief", thus contradicting the idea that there's a cultural or
theological imperative behind not naming the day for this aspect.
Or that theological and cultural imperatives vary among schools of
theology and cultures.
In a vacuum, yes. But let's look at it in the actual historical
context.
I don't know when "Good Friday" became the most common name for the
day. so that remains to be clarified, but I can tell you that the name
"Karfreitag" clearly predates reformation, because "Kar" had already
fallen out of use at that time, and survives only in the name of the
day. So it probably stems from the time when there was as little
internal dispute as ever in The Church, the Anglo-Saxons had left
Germany just a little earlier, and the German lands were being
evangelized by Irish and English missionaries (Saint Boniface being the
most prominent one).
There was a pre-reformation period when Irish and English Christians
were quite different
I wasn't talking about "pre-reformation" days, but the early days of
Christianity in Northern and Western Europe, roughly the 8th to 10th
century.
Post by Cheryl- I think the reason was that they converted at
different times by different people from different places...
My understanding was that England was mostly evangelized from Ireland,
but I read about that a long time ago, and didn't look too much into
detail.
Post by Cheryldon't
over-estimate the lack of internal dispute and difference in
pre-reformation Christianity! I don't know off-hand if the
evangelization of the Germans came before or after the Irish and English
Christian believe became more or less aligned with each other and with
RoOme.
I know nothing about German, or the origins of "kar" in German, but I do
know that there have always been debates (and sometime wars) among
Christians over theology, right back to the beginning, and that cultures
also demonstrate great variations.
Well, maybe the Christians didn't war among themselves in the first
hundred years or so, since they were such a tiny minority at the time,
but they certain disagreed among themselves theologically. It can't have
been much after that when they forgot their own teachings enough to riot
over theological differences.
Here's my 10,000 foot view, which is a bit different: In the beginning,
there were schisms after schisms, because nothing was settled yet, and
possibly each congregation made their own rules on the fly. After a few
centuries, they brought a series of councils together that decided on
the guidelines, and those who didn't agree were thrown of the one true
church, or, if they looked like dangerous competition, possibly killed.
The Middle Ages, then, were the time when there was one central church
with limited internal dissent (partly out of fear), before it started
brewing again so much that it eventually exploded the church.
More to the point of the discussion: If theological differences were
the driver, there is no reason that different names should show up by
linguistic groups. More likely, both the English and the
German-speaking world would have several competing names.
I just answered two posts from you where you contradicted me in a
rather roundabout fashion, your reasoning being neither really on point
nor strong. This seems different from how I remember you. Is it
currently important to you to refute my position in every argument?
--
*Multitasking* /v./ Screwing up several things at once
