[XTalk] Re: Eunuchery for the sake of the kingdom of heaven
- Davies wrote:
> "Jeffrey B. Gibson" wrote:Because I had to work through not only the secondary literature on the subject but
> >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?
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.
>I recognize that. But logically, whether or not it is because of a need says nothing
> > 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.
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  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.
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
- At 06:36 PM 11/7/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Your kidding right? He was wearing an undergarment under that tunic. To
> John where he takes off his garments and wraps a cloth around him.
>What was he wearing in the inbetween?
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 West, ThD
- Jim West wrote:
> At 06:36 PM 11/7/99 -0500, you wrote:Gee. No sooner do I take Jim West from the "automatic delete" file along
> > 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.
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.
- At 5:35 PM -0500 11/8/99, Davies wrote:
>Bible says "garments" plural were taken off. That would be more thanThere's an interesting lexical question amid all the sensationalism on this
>one. Outer and inner. Cf. GTh 22.
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
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!
Institute for Christian Studies
Austin, Texas, USA