Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

[XTalk] Re: Eunuchery for the sake of the kingdom of heaven

Expand Messages
  • Davies
    ... I find it impossible to accept myself. It s hard enough to believe that a guy who thinks of himself as more pharisaic than the pharisees would even deign
    Message 1 of 14 , Nov 6, 1999
      Nathan McGovern wrote:

      > [His] disciples said to him, "If that is the case of a man with his
      > wife, it is better not to marry." He answered, "Not all can accept
      > [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are eunuchs
      > because they were born; some, because they were made so by other;
      > some, because they have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the
      > kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.
      > (Matthew 19:11-12)
      >
      > What I was wondering is, where does this teaching come from? Does it come
      > straight from the creative mind of Matthew? This I find hard to accept

      I find it impossible to accept myself. It's hard enough to believe that a guy who
      thinks of himself as more pharisaic than the pharisees would even deign to
      repeat the saying. But it seems to have made an impression on him. When
      he finds in Mark's gospel a passage wherein Jesus recommends hacking
      off various parts of the body, Matthew shifts it into a context of sexuality,
      as follows:

      5:27"You have heard that it was said, `Do not commit adultery.'
      28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed
      adultery with her in his heart.
      29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is
      better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown
      into hell.
      30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is
      better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into
      hell.

      The context is the significant feature because when Mt thinks of hacking parts
      off he thinks, evidently, of the part most associated with adultury, which
      modesty forbids my mentioning. It is, therefore, logically connected with
      the eunuchery passage and in this case (pace MG et al) certainly not a
      Matthean invention. It was good of Mt to eliminate the "foot" element in
      the Mk. passage for that might have given rise to unacceptable experimentations.

      > only because just one verse earlier he goes to great pains to qualify that
      > divorce is permissible in the case of "unlawful marriage."

      In chapter 5 Mt brings this up just one verse later.

      Incidentally, the translation "unlawful marriage" is an attempt by the Catholic
      to avoid allowing divorce for "adultery" to restrict it to things that
      allow for anullment. The proper English for the Gk "porneia" is "doing the
      nasty."

      > If it did not
      > come from Matthew, whom did it come from? Jesus? I find this plausible,
      > especially if one accepts that Jesus was celibate, as he is almost always
      > portrayed (except in later, obviously fictitious accounts by libertine
      > Christian groups).

      I'm not at all sure that he is EVER portrayed as not-celibate. At least
      not until our times when anything goes.

      > Is there any evidence for this, however (i.e., evidence
      > for an Aramaic basis for the saying)?

      Paul appears to be evidence at least for the metaphorical interpretation
      of eunuchery.

      Steve
    • Jim West
      ... That must be the rendering of the Revised Titillation Version. Porneia means premarital sex - and not the colloquial doing the nasty ... Nathan, man, I
      Message 2 of 14 , Nov 6, 1999
        At 08:38 PM 11/6/99 -0800, you wrote:
        >The proper English for the Gk "porneia" is "doing the
        >>nasty."

        That must be the rendering of the Revised Titillation Version. Porneia
        means "premarital sex"- and not the colloquial "doing the nasty"

        >
        >I had two things in mind when I said this. One is a gopel (of Adam, I
        >think, or perhaps Eve--I read about it a long time ago and haven't been
        >able to find it since) in which it is said that Jesus went up to a
        >mountain, had sex with Mary Magdeline, performed withdrawal, consumed his
        >own semen, and then consumed Mary's menstrual fluid. This, according to
        >the group authoring the gospel, was his institution of the Eucharist
        >(eating the body and drinking the blood--it's all really disgusting). As I
        >remember, this is a fairly old gospel (i.e., 2nd or 3rd century), but I'm
        >not sure of this.

        Nathan, man, I just had dinner- get back downstairs to the office, read my
        email, and here is this profoundly grotesque yuck....

        If you have a source for this please spill it (!) and if not, could ya maybe
        wait to find the source before ya say it?

        >
        >The other thing I had in mind is the fragment of the letter from Clement of
        >Alexandria wherein he introduces us to the Secret Gospel of Mark and talks
        >about the Carpocratians. Evidently, the Carpocratians inserted the phrase
        >"naked man lying with naked man" into the gospel, presumably to support
        >their own libertine practices.

        those crazy carpers....

        >
        >Shalom,
        >
        >Nathan "The Truth is Out There" McGovern

        is it?

        ;-)

        best,

        Jim
        ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

        Jim West, ThD
        jwest@...
        http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
      • Davies
        ... I once used to wonder ... not if this sort of thing was true, but whether evil gnostics and carpocratians said it was true. But now I m convinced that it
        Message 3 of 14 , Nov 6, 1999
          >
          > >I'm not at all sure that he is EVER portrayed as not-celibate. At least
          > >not until our times when anything goes.

          > Nathan:

          > I had two things in mind when I said this. One is a gopel (of Adam, I
          > think, or perhaps Eve--I read about it a long time ago and haven't been
          > able to find it since) in which it is said that Jesus went up to a
          > mountain, had sex with Mary Magdeline, performed withdrawal, consumed his
          > own semen, and then consumed Mary's menstrual fluid. This, according to
          > the group authoring the gospel, was his institution of the Eucharist
          > (eating the body and drinking the blood--it's all really disgusting). As I
          > remember, this is a fairly old gospel (i.e., 2nd or 3rd century), but I'm
          > not sure of this.

          I once used to wonder ... not if this sort of thing was true, but whether
          evil gnostics and carpocratians said it was true. But now I'm convinced
          that it is Orthodox propagandizing and that nobody ever said if was so.
          There are all manner of books about Catholics and Mormons etc. that
          accuse them of vile things they never even thought of, and surely that
          also was a technique used way back when.

          > The other thing I had in mind is the fragment of the letter from Clement of
          > Alexandria wherein he introduces us to the Secret Gospel of Mark and talks
          > about the Carpocratians. Evidently, the Carpocratians inserted the phrase
          > "naked man lying with naked man" into the gospel, presumably to support
          > their own libertine practices.

          That "presumably" is naive. I myself would presume that their libertine
          practices were ascribed to them in order to denigrate them. Same as
          libertine practices were ascribed to nuns to denigrate them.

          Also it was
          "naked man with naked man" without the "lying" verb. It's you who
          introduce the "lying" part for reasons we dassn't speculate upon.

          Why
          you assume they were engaged in the telling of falsehoods escapes me.
          Bear in mind anyhow that Jesus was naked during the Last Supper and
          that Peter, in one of my favorite Scripture Passages, is out floating in
          his boat, buck naked, and, when he spies Jesus on the shore, puts
          on his clothes and jumps in the lake. The nudity theme in the gospels
          hasn't been carefully studied yet IMHO.

          Steve
        • Jeffrey B. Gibson
          ... Don t throw out the NAB just yet. PORNEIA is what is used GMatt as the equivalent of the Hebrew for something unseemly which, as the discussion between
          Message 4 of 14 , Nov 6, 1999
            Nathan McGovern wrote:

            > Steve Davies wrote:
            >
            > >Incidentally, the translation "unlawful marriage" is an attempt by the
            > >Catholic
            > >to avoid allowing divorce for "adultery" to restrict it to things that
            > >allow for anullment. The proper English for the Gk "porneia" is "doing the
            > >nasty."
            >
            > Damn. That's what I get for using the New American Bible. Usually the
            > translation is pretty good, I think, but every so often they throw you for
            > a loop and pull something like this. I'm starting to think that there are
            > enough hints of secret Catholic "conspiracies" to create an X-Files
            > spin-off! <g>
            >

            Don't throw out the NAB just yet. PORNEIA is what is used GMatt as the equivalent
            of the Hebrew for "something unseemly" which, as the discussion between Hillel
            and Shammai on Deut 24 shows does not always have to have a sexual reference. In
            any case, what the translators of the NAB have done is assume that Matthew, in
            using EPI MH PORNEIA was here referring to marriages which were in violation of
            kinship bonds/consanguinuity, not adultery or even fornication -- a longstanding
            scholarly interpretation of the expression (see the literature cited in Heth and
            Wenham _Jesus and Divorce_). So "unlawful marriage" is not necessarily a bad
            translation of the expression.

            Yours,

            Jeffrey

            --
            Jeffrey B. Gibson
            7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
            Chicago, Illinois 60626
            e-mail jgibson000@...
          • Mahlon H. Smith
            ... Or perhaps because it was not until our times that scholars began to consider J really human and realized the social constraints on historical persons in
            Message 5 of 14 , Nov 6, 1999
              Steve Davies wrote:

              >
              > I'm not at all sure that he is EVER portrayed as not-celibate. At least
              > not until our times when anything goes.
              >

              Or perhaps because it was not "until our times" that scholars began to
              consider J really human and realized the social constraints on
              historical persons in antiquity. The question is where in the NT is J
              actually portrayed as celibate, as if to marry or not was a social
              option for him?

              Paul did not seem to have positive info that J was celibate. Otherwise,
              his imitatio Christi soteriology would probably have led him mention it
              in 1 Cor. Instead he says this (1 Cor 7:25-28):

              "Now concerning virgins, I have *no* prescription (EPITAGH) from the
              Lord. But *I* give *my* opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is
              trustworthy. *I* think that in view of the *present* distress it is well
              for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Don't seek to
              be free. Are you free from a wife? Don't seek marriage."

              Note 3 things in this passage:

              1. Paul claims no precedent from Jesus for his answer to the
              Corinthians' question regarding marriage. EPITAGH could be a dominical
              saying but, as is evident from his advice to the Corinthians regarding
              the Lord's supper, it could also be a reference to J's example. So Paul
              apparently had *no* information regarding the question -- What would
              Jesus say or do? Apparently the issue had never come up before.

              2. So forced to fall back on his own opinion, Paul considers his view of
              the *current* circumstances of his readers. Therefore, he makes no
              pretense to base his advice to remain unmarried on historical precedent.

              3. Paul's advise does *not* privilege celibacy but rather the status
              quo, which would mean celibacy only for those who were currently
              unmarried. In a world in which marriages were contracted by families
              while children were still young this would not have been taken as a
              prescription for general celibacy. And since he urges those who are
              married *not* to seek their independence, sexual celibacy cannot have
              been his concern. Rather, his advice is based solely on *his* opinion
              that *current* troubles did not favor the making of *new* marriage
              commitments. Since *he* viewed the time as "short" with the "form of
              this world passing away," he didn't see any sense into a social state
              designed to bring more children into "this world." So why get married,
              IF one was not already. On the other hand, he did not think that current
              conditions provided a pretext for voiding marriage vows. For on that, he
              did think he had a directive from the Lord [Jesus] (1 Cor 7:10-11).

              So Paul obviously considered marriage to be normal in "this world"
              --which was, after all, the world in which Jesus had lived "according to
              the flesh." And apparently he did not think that this fleshly Jesus who
              was born of woman under the law had himself provided any precedent for
              preferring celibacy to marriage.

              The gospels also are silent on Jesus' celibacy. So the idea that Jesus
              himself was celibate by choice or by circumstance is pure speculation
              based on silence. The high christology of the gospel writers --
              presenting Jesus as son of God or even God incarnate -- obviously
              precluded representing him as a sexual being whose personal status was
              conditioned by social conventions. And all the gospels remain Jewish
              enough to avoid portraying Jesus in a way that might lead to him being
              confused by Greek readers with a sexual god like Zeus. So one would not
              expect these writers to mention that Jesus had consummated a marriage
              even if he did.

              There are two good reasons marriage remains a historical possibility for
              HJ:

              1. The gospels only provide data for a rather brief period in J's adult
              life. Assuming that this covers a period when HJ was between 25 and 35
              years old & that he was a normal male reaching puberty about 12, there
              were at least 13 (or 23) of his adult years for which we have no
              information. A lot can happen in that time frame. Too much to take
              celibacy for granted.

              2. Celibacy was an exception in 1st c. Jewish culture, which took the
              biblical injunction to procreate as a religious & even theological
              obligation. Unless HJ was a known bastard or had been raised by the
              Essenes "among the palms" by the Dead Sea, it is likely that some
              marriage was arranged for him when quite young. If he refused to
              consummate it on reaching puberty, he probably would have been branded a
              rebellious son. For Jewish children generally did not have the option of
              annulling a parental decision. Of course, his bride-to-be could have
              died before the wedding. But in the absence of positive testimony to
              that effect, other historical scenarios are possible. His wife could
              have died in childbirth, or of any number of diseases, sometime before
              his baptism. Or she could have stayed home with the children while he
              went off to JB. Or she could have accompanied him during his itineracy,
              like Peter's wife (according to Paul) -- who BTW is also not mentioned
              in the gospels.

              But of all the possible scenarios regarding HJ's sexuality, life-long
              celibacy for a Jewish male in the 1st c. CE is the least historically
              probable. Even more so, given the testimony of Paul.

              Shalom!


              Mahlon

              --

              *********************

              Mahlon H. Smith, http://religion.rutgers.edu/mhsmith.html
              Associate Professor
              Department of Religion
              Rutgers University
              New Brunswick NJ

              Into His Own: Perspective on the World of Jesus
              http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/
            • Nathan McGovern
              ... Damn. That s what I get for using the New American Bible. Usually the translation is pretty good, I think, but every so often they throw you for a loop
              Message 6 of 14 , Nov 6, 1999
                Steve Davies wrote:

                >Incidentally, the translation "unlawful marriage" is an attempt by the
                >Catholic
                >to avoid allowing divorce for "adultery" to restrict it to things that
                >allow for anullment. The proper English for the Gk "porneia" is "doing the
                >nasty."

                Damn. That's what I get for using the New American Bible. Usually the
                translation is pretty good, I think, but every so often they throw you for
                a loop and pull something like this. I'm starting to think that there are
                enough hints of secret Catholic "conspiracies" to create an X-Files
                spin-off! <g>

                >> If it did not
                >> come from Matthew, whom did it come from? Jesus? I find this plausible,
                >> especially if one accepts that Jesus was celibate, as he is almost always
                >> portrayed (except in later, obviously fictitious accounts by libertine
                >> Christian groups).
                >
                >I'm not at all sure that he is EVER portrayed as not-celibate. At least
                >not until our times when anything goes.

                I had two things in mind when I said this. One is a gopel (of Adam, I
                think, or perhaps Eve--I read about it a long time ago and haven't been
                able to find it since) in which it is said that Jesus went up to a
                mountain, had sex with Mary Magdeline, performed withdrawal, consumed his
                own semen, and then consumed Mary's menstrual fluid. This, according to
                the group authoring the gospel, was his institution of the Eucharist
                (eating the body and drinking the blood--it's all really disgusting). As I
                remember, this is a fairly old gospel (i.e., 2nd or 3rd century), but I'm
                not sure of this.

                The other thing I had in mind is the fragment of the letter from Clement of
                Alexandria wherein he introduces us to the Secret Gospel of Mark and talks
                about the Carpocratians. Evidently, the Carpocratians inserted the phrase
                "naked man lying with naked man" into the gospel, presumably to support
                their own libertine practices.

                Shalom,

                Nathan "The Truth is Out There" McGovern

                Nathan McGovern
                Franklin and Marshall College
                nm_mcgovern@...
              • Nathan McGovern
                ... Sorry about that. I just found the web page where I orignally read about the gospel of Eve--yes, it s definitely Eve--testified to by Epiphanius:
                Message 7 of 14 , Nov 6, 1999
                  Jim West wrote:

                  >At 08:38 PM 11/6/99 -0800, you wrote:
                  >>The proper English for the Gk "porneia" is "doing the
                  >>>nasty."
                  >
                  >That must be the rendering of the Revised Titillation Version. Porneia
                  >means "premarital sex"- and not the colloquial "doing the nasty"
                  >
                  >>
                  >>I had two things in mind when I said this. One is a gopel (of Adam, I
                  >>think, or perhaps Eve--I read about it a long time ago and haven't been
                  >>able to find it since) in which it is said that Jesus went up to a
                  >>mountain, had sex with Mary Magdeline, performed withdrawal, consumed his
                  >>own semen, and then consumed Mary's menstrual fluid. This, according to
                  >>the group authoring the gospel, was his institution of the Eucharist
                  >>(eating the body and drinking the blood--it's all really disgusting). As I
                  >>remember, this is a fairly old gospel (i.e., 2nd or 3rd century), but I'm
                  >>not sure of this.
                  >
                  >Nathan, man, I just had dinner- get back downstairs to the office, read my
                  >email, and here is this profoundly grotesque yuck....
                  >
                  >If you have a source for this please spill it (!) and if not, could ya maybe
                  >wait to find the source before ya say it?

                  Sorry about that. I just found the web page where I orignally read about
                  the gospel of Eve--yes, it's definitely Eve--testified to by Epiphanius:
                  http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/gnostic.htm.
                  As a disclaimer: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, DO NOT GO TO THIS WEB SITE UNLESS
                  YOU ARE PREPARED TO READ SOMETHING EXTREMELY DISGUSTING! Believe it or
                  not, the part that I quoted (actually, I quoted it incorrectly--Jesus
                  supposedly had sex not with Mary, but with a woman he took out of his side)
                  is a bed of roses compared to the *really* nasty part.

                  Side note: This gospel of Eve also includes an interesting parallel to the
                  Hindu doctrine of the atman.

                  Shalom,

                  Nathan

                  Nathan McGovern
                  Franklin and Marshall College
                  nm_mcgovern@...
                • Nathan McGovern
                  ... Duly noted. I hadn t thought of that. ... An ex-nun once told me that she had heard a person claim that the reason that so many Catholic churches sponsor
                  Message 8 of 14 , Nov 6, 1999
                    >>
                    >> >I'm not at all sure that he is EVER portrayed as not-celibate. At least
                    >> >not until our times when anything goes.
                    >
                    >> Nathan:
                    >
                    >> I had two things in mind when I said this. One is a gopel (of Adam, I
                    >> think, or perhaps Eve--I read about it a long time ago and haven't been
                    >> able to find it since) in which it is said that Jesus went up to a
                    >> mountain, had sex with Mary Magdeline, performed withdrawal, consumed his
                    >> own semen, and then consumed Mary's menstrual fluid. This, according to
                    >> the group authoring the gospel, was his institution of the Eucharist
                    >> (eating the body and drinking the blood--it's all really disgusting). As I
                    >> remember, this is a fairly old gospel (i.e., 2nd or 3rd century), but I'm
                    >> not sure of this.
                    >
                    >I once used to wonder ... not if this sort of thing was true, but whether
                    >evil gnostics and carpocratians said it was true. But now I'm convinced
                    >that it is Orthodox propagandizing and that nobody ever said if was so.
                    >There are all manner of books about Catholics and Mormons etc. that
                    >accuse them of vile things they never even thought of, and surely that
                    >also was a technique used way back when.

                    Duly noted. I hadn't thought of that.

                    >
                    >> The other thing I had in mind is the fragment of the letter from Clement of
                    >> Alexandria wherein he introduces us to the Secret Gospel of Mark and talks
                    >> about the Carpocratians. Evidently, the Carpocratians inserted the phrase
                    >> "naked man lying with naked man" into the gospel, presumably to support
                    >> their own libertine practices.
                    >
                    >That "presumably" is naive. I myself would presume that their libertine
                    >practices were ascribed to them in order to denigrate them. Same as
                    >libertine practices were ascribed to nuns to denigrate them.

                    An ex-nun once told me that she had heard a person claim that the reason
                    that so many Catholic churches sponsor orphanages is that nuns would have
                    sex with priests in a secret underground passage connecting the convent to
                    the rectory, and they needed a place to put all the babies. This is
                    obviously not true, but many claims by young boys to having been raped by
                    priests and brothers are sadly very true. So, you're right, the
                    "presumably" is naive; we have no idea whether Clement was lying or telling
                    the truth.

                    >
                    >Also it was
                    >"naked man with naked man" without the "lying" verb. It's you who
                    >introduce the "lying" part for reasons we dassn't speculate upon.

                    I was working from memory (bad habit, but I thought the quote was short
                    enough to remember accurately). Apparently, I conflated the actual text
                    with Clement's intimation that the Carpocratians used the quote for the
                    support of libertine practices.

                    >
                    >Why
                    >you assume they were engaged in the telling of falsehoods escapes me.
                    >Bear in mind anyhow that Jesus was naked during the Last Supper and
                    >that Peter, in one of my favorite Scripture Passages, is out floating in
                    >his boat, buck naked, and, when he spies Jesus on the shore, puts
                    >on his clothes and jumps in the lake. The nudity theme in the gospels
                    >hasn't been carefully studied yet IMHO.

                    Interesting point. Which book/chapter/verse are you referring to in the
                    former example.

                    To touch back on the original subject of this thread, however, I think it
                    much more plausible that Jesus was celibate, or at least that he preached
                    celibacy. This would fit better with Jewish religious movements of the day
                    (especially the Essenes, which share many--though not all--characteristics
                    with early Christianity). That's why I wondered whether there is
                    linguistic backing for a claim that Matt. 19:11-12 goes back to Jesus.

                    Shalom,

                    Nathan

                    Nathan McGovern
                    Franklin and Marshall College
                    nm_mcgovern@...
                  • Davies
                    ... John where he takes off his garments and wraps a cloth around him. What was he wearing in the inbetween? Steve
                    Message 9 of 14 , Nov 7, 1999
                      Nathan McGovern wrote:

                      > >Bear in mind anyhow that Jesus was naked during the Last Supper and
                      > >that Peter, in one of my favorite Scripture Passages, is out floating in
                      > >his boat, buck naked, and, when he spies Jesus on the shore, puts
                      > >on his clothes and jumps in the lake. The nudity theme in the gospels
                      > >hasn't been carefully studied yet IMHO.
                      >
                      > Interesting point. Which book/chapter/verse are you referring to in the
                      > former example.

                      John where he takes off his garments and wraps a cloth around him.
                      What was he wearing in the inbetween?

                      Steve
                    • Davies
                      ... of the Hebrew for something unseemly How do you know this? How do you know what if any word in Hebrew Matthew had in mind? I concede that Jack Kilmon
                      Message 10 of 14 , Nov 7, 1999
                        "Jeffrey B. Gibson" wrote:

                        >Don't throw out the NAB just yet. PORNEIA is what is used GMatt as the >equivalent
                        of the Hebrew for "something unseemly"

                        How do you know this? How do you know what if any word in Hebrew
                        Matthew had in mind? I concede that Jack Kilmon knows these things but
                        you... how do you know?


                        > what the translators of the NAB have done is assume that Matthew, in
                        > using EPI MH PORNEIA was here referring to marriages which were in violation of
                        > kinship bonds/consanguinuity, not adultery or even fornication -- a longstanding
                        > scholarly interpretation of the expression (see the literature cited in Heth and
                        > Wenham _Jesus and Divorce_).

                        I says again, it's a longtime interp because of internal xian needs. For your
                        case you need 1st century koine examples that point to porneia being
                        properly translated this way.

                        Steve
                      • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                        ... Because I had to work through not only the secondary literature on the subject but also the Josephan, DSS, Philonic, Mishnaic, and Talmudic texts on
                        Message 11 of 14 , Nov 7, 1999
                          Davies wrote:

                          > "Jeffrey B. Gibson" wrote:
                          >
                          > >Don't throw out the NAB just yet. PORNEIA is what is used GMatt as the >equivalent
                          > of the Hebrew for "something unseemly"
                          >
                          > How do you know this? How do you know what if any word in Hebrew
                          > Matthew had in mind? I concede that Jack Kilmon knows these things but
                          > you... how do you know?
                          >

                          Because I had to work through not only the secondary literature on the subject but
                          also the Josephan, DSS, Philonic, Mishnaic, and Talmudic texts on Divorce, which like
                          Matt 19 all refer to Deut 24 and the notion of 'erwat dabar which that text allows as
                          the grounds for divorce, and who stood where and why on what that term was taken to
                          mean, when I wrote my chapter on the Divorce Question Testing in my thesis (and then
                          my book) on the Traditions of the Temptations of Jesus.

                          >
                          > > what the translators of the NAB have done is assume that Matthew, in
                          > > using EPI MH PORNEIA was here referring to marriages which were in violation of
                          > > kinship bonds/consanguinuity, not adultery or even fornication -- a longstanding
                          > > scholarly interpretation of the expression (see the literature cited in Heth and
                          > > Wenham _Jesus and Divorce_).
                          >
                          > I says again, it's a longtime interp because of internal xian needs. For your
                          > case you need 1st century koine examples that point to porneia being
                          > properly translated this way.
                          >

                          I recognize that. But logically, whether or not it is because of a need says nothing
                          about the interp's truth.

                          In any case, I did not say that **I** supported the contention -- only that it has had
                          its defenders, and good ones at that -- notably, J.A. Fitzmyer (see his "Matthean
                          Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence", TS 37 [1976] 197-226). If I had to
                          guess why the NAB chose what they did to render PORNEIA, I'd lay even money that it was
                          because they found Fitzmyer's arguments convincing and not because they were
                          constrained by doctrine to do so.

                          Yours,

                          Jeffrey


                          --
                          Jeffrey B. Gibson
                          7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
                          Chicago, Illinois 60626
                          e-mail jgibson000@...
                        • Jim West
                          ... Your kidding right? He was wearing an undergarment under that tunic. To imply that he was prancing around as a nudie in some sort of exhibitionist way is
                          Message 12 of 14 , Nov 7, 1999
                            At 06:36 PM 11/7/99 -0500, you wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > John where he takes off his garments and wraps a cloth around him.
                            >What was he wearing in the inbetween?


                            Your kidding right? He was wearing an undergarment under that tunic. To
                            imply that he was prancing around as a nudie in some sort of exhibitionist
                            way is to give in to the crassest sort of grotesque popularizing titillation
                            imaginable. Soon I suppose you will tell us that he and the disciples were
                            all gay and that they had an orgy that night- all of course without the
                            least shred of textual or historical evidence.

                            That Jewish men of the first century wore undergarments is an established
                            fact. Where do you come up with this stuff Steve? Certainly not from
                            familiarity with the evidence.

                            Jim



                            ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                            Jim West, ThD
                            jwest@...
                            http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
                          • Davies
                            ... Gee. No sooner do I take Jim West from the automatic delete file along with Christ Thomas than we get this. Back he goes. Bible says garments plural
                            Message 13 of 14 , Nov 8, 1999
                              Jim West wrote:

                              > At 06:36 PM 11/7/99 -0500, you wrote:
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > John where he takes off his garments and wraps a cloth around him.
                              > >What was he wearing in the inbetween?
                              >
                              > Your kidding right? He was wearing an undergarment under that tunic. To
                              > imply that he was prancing around as a nudie in some sort of exhibitionist
                              > way is to give in to the crassest sort of grotesque popularizing titillation
                              > imaginable. Soon I suppose you will tell us that he and the disciples were
                              > all gay and that they had an orgy that night- all of course without the
                              > least shred of textual or historical evidence.
                              >
                              > That Jewish men of the first century wore undergarments is an established
                              > fact. Where do you come up with this stuff Steve? Certainly not from
                              > familiarity with the evidence.
                              >
                              > Jim

                              Gee. No sooner do I take Jim West from the "automatic delete" file along
                              with Christ Thomas than we get this. Back he goes.

                              Bible says "garments" plural were taken off. That would be more than
                              one. Outer and inner. Cf. GTh 22.

                              Steve
                            • Jeff Peterson
                              ... There s an interesting lexical question amid all the sensationalism on this thread. In English we talk about changing clothes, and we do this even we re
                              Message 14 of 14 , Nov 10, 1999
                                At 5:35 PM -0500 11/8/99, Davies wrote:

                                >Bible says "garments" plural were taken off. That would be more than
                                >one. Outer and inner. Cf. GTh 22.

                                There's an interesting lexical question amid all the sensationalism on this
                                thread. In English we talk about changing "clothes," and we do this even
                                we're exchanging a jumpsuit for a night shirt; similarly, the term
                                "undergarments" might well refer only to a pair of briefs or boxers (more
                                plurals! -- because they have two openings for legs?) or to a corset or
                                teddy (or whatever you call those things ladies wear that combine bra and
                                panties). So was there such a usage in Greek? If so, then taking off one's
                                hIMATIA, ESQHMATA, OR AMFIBLHMATA wouldn't necessarily leave one in the
                                buff.

                                Answering this would take more time in BAGD and LSJ than I can spare
                                currently, so I'll content myself with being the gadfly -- though I cannot
                                hope to match Steve in that department!

                                Jeff

                                ------------------------------------
                                Jeffrey Peterson
                                Institute for Christian Studies
                                Austin, Texas, USA
                                ------------------------------------
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.