What is the function of CWRIS hAMARTIA here? Is it (as it is usually
taken) that Jesus was tempted in every respect as we are "yet without
sin" (KJV, RSV, NIV, NASB), i.e. he was tempted but did not sin, or
could it be something like this (paraphrased to draw out the sense):
"tempted in every respect as we are are, except in relation to those
temptations which proceed from sin"?
In other words, the CWRIS hAMARTIA might be cautiously qualifying
the PANTA, lest someone objects that Jesus could not have been
tempted in *every* way that we are, because some of our temptations
are the direct result of sin.
This is not my own idea, but it belongs apparently to Montefiore --
someone raised it in a recent class and I think it is possible.
What do you think?
Mark
--------------------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk
Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham
Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre.htm