Re: [ematthew] Digest Number 13
- 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
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?