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

Re: [ematthew] Digest Number 13

Expand Messages
  • MillerJimE@AOL.COM
    njfitzpatrick@eircom.net writes:
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 11, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      njfitzpatrick@... writes:
      << Jim Miller poses a very interesting problem, as is shown by the
      number of replies to his posting.
      Translations for PORNEIA in Mt 5:32include lewdness (Webster),
      fornication (AV, ASV, DBY), Loss of her virtue (BBE),
      unfaithfulness (GWT), unchastity (RSV, NRSV) and fornicatio
      (Vulgate) >>

      The porneia issue is an interesting one, but it is well covered in the
      commentaries. It does raise an important problem in relation to the gender
      differentiation of the divorce texts in Matthew.
      The porneia exception occurs only in Matthew. The Mark and Luke
      parallels do not have it. For this and other reasons most commentators
      conclude that Mark and Luke present a more primitive form of their respective
      divorce logia. These more primitive forms include both genders in a single
      prohibition on remarriage. Matthew's more developed form separates the
      genders. Which means the author of Matthew introduced gender separation (or
      read it into the logia he found).
      So, why was it important for the author of Matthew to separate the
      genders in this divorce law? Was it Matthew's attention to legal issues and
      a desire to make the divorce teaching comprehendable to Jewish readers? Was
      Matthew bucking a trend in the early church to erase gender? Other ideas?
      Jim Miller
      Independent Scholar
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.