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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 14 , Nov 7, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 14 , Nov 7, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 14 , Nov 8, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 14 , Nov 10, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            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.