[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #741
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 7 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 741
In this issue:
third day
PHOBOS & NUN
unsubscribe
Re: Greek NT papyrus (sc)rolls
Re: Mark 16:8 & the Lost Ending
Re: PHOBOS & NUN- Correction
Re: Mark 16:8 & the Lost Ending
Re: Porneia
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: third day
Re: Greek NT papyrus (sc)rolls
Re: Porneia
Re: Temptation, Marcan priority (was "still curious")
Re: Temptation, Marcan priority (was "still curious")
X-Mailer: MUSIC/SP V3.1.1
unsubscribe
unsubscribe
Porneia
Re: Let's make a critical apparatus (quickly)
Re: Augustine's "relationship" (was Porneia)
Re: Augustine's "relationship" (was Porneia)
BG: Lost Verses at the End of Mark
Re: Porneia
Re: Augustine's "relationship" (was Porneia)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 01:19:56 -0400
Subject: third day
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
FROM: TIMSTER132@AOL.COM
Timster132@aol.com said
>> My understanding is that in 1 Cor 15, when Paul says
>> Jesus was raised "on the third day according to the Scripture"
>> he is speaking of the Jewish eschatological 3rd day after the
>> Judgment when God's kingdom comes in fullness. And he
>> doesn't say exactly what the witnesses saw.
then Greg Jordan, jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu, said...
>Could you please explain more about the "Jewish eschatologi-
>cal 3rd day"?
In Jewish eschatology, there were several ways of speaking of
the Day of Judgment. One way was to describe a big battle
at the end of time when evil was destroyed. It was then said that after this
battle of the End, after the 2nd day of the "eschaton", on the thrid day, the
salvation of God would come to pass, in its fullness, along with
"understanding".
This is based upon the many references to the "third day"
("on" or "after") found throughout the OT. The ancients searching
the scriptures found that in almost all the occurances mentioning
"third day", God judgment fell or God brought forth salvation
for his people/patriarch/prophet.
Some keys verses for interpreting this were Gen 1:13 (Creation's day of
Light=understanding) and Hosea 6:2.
Mark speaks of the third day and Jesus foretells his death and resurrection
three times.
Matt is probably refering to this traditional eschatological
interpretation of the third day in Mt 12:40 when Jesus refers
to Jonah 1:17.
Many have scratched their heads trying to figure out what verse
it is that Paul is referring to when he says "Christ was raised
on the third day according to the Scriptures". I believe "according
to the Scriptures" is referring to this eschatological interpretation
of the third day, which may not necessarily mean a literal "third
day".
In fact, the discrepency that Christ wasn't raised on or after three days
(in Mt 12:40 it is three days AND three nights) since Christ died on Friday
and rose on Sunday morning, may be a clue that "the third day" may have been
understood as symbolic and not literal.
I do like the traditional interpretation that Christ couldn't wait the
full three days, but in light of Jewish eschatological tradition, it seems
that the symbolic third day may be what Paul and the gospel writers had in
mind.
>For Paul there are witnesses of Jesus, although his own "vision"
>is all glory and no physicality (no eating, touching, etc., as in
>the gospels).
I have a feeling that Paul's understanding of his encounter with the
resurrected Christ and Luke's interpretation of it may be different.
Paul believes his experience is on par with that of the other
apostles and witnesses (1 Cor 15:8 "last of all, as one who was EKTRWMATI [an
aborted monster], he appeared to me.").
Since Luke adds to the resurrection an ascension of Jesus into
heaven, and since the appearance to Paul is after this ascension,
Luke apparently needs to make the appearances of Jesus to
Paul like a vision (Acts 9, et al), rather than like those of
the Lucan Long Day (Lk 24).
Grace & Peace,
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 01:19:49 -0400
Subject: PHOBOS & NUN
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
I have a couple pieces of humble to dine on. First was an error
concerning PHOBOUNTES....
Timster132@aol.com (Tim Staker) wrote:
>>> Although I am a little frustrated with the book ending with
>>>GAR, I have noticed that PHOBONTES GAR is the standard >>>reaction in Mark
to miracles. And while we usually translate
>>>PHOBOUNTO as they were afraid, there is also a sense of
>>>"awe" at the miraculous in Mark. I think the ending "for
>>>they were in awe" is appropriate for the gospel of Mark.
>>>It is a definite pointer to the resurrection.
scc@reston.icl.com (Stephen Carlson) said...
>>Are you perhaps thinking of a different verb? I can't find the
>>phrase "FOBONTES GAR" in the entire New Testament.
I mislead everyone to think I meant the phrase
"PHOBOUNTES GAR" [sic] was the Markan reaction to miracles.
What I was thinking, rather, is that the response in several
Marcan miracle stories (4:41, 5:15, 6:50, 9:6) is the word
PHOBOS (in various forms) can be translated "awe" instead
of "fear" (as found in several english translations).
I am suggesting then that EPHOBOUNTO GAR in 16:8 be
translated "for they were in awe", since we have here THE
miracle story of Mark, the resurrection.
If Mk 16:8 were translated "for they were in awe", such an
ending for Mark's gospel might not seem as inappropriate as
"for they were afraid".
Then Lynn Cooley, cooley@tower.tandem.com, said about
the omission of Nun in Psalm 119,
>Huh? I realize i'm ignorant in this area, but i do have a KJV on
>the shelf here at the office, and it at least has a Nun chapter,
>unless i'm hallucinating. Or are you using "chapter" in a more
>technical sense?
Lynn, let me assure you that you are not hallucinating. Ps 119
does have a Nun chapter in the KJV and in the Hebrew. I was
in error about which acrostic Psalm leaves the Nun chapter out.
It is not 119, but it is another one of the Psalms, but at this point
juncture, I can't remember which. I will look it up, tho.
Mea culpa, my friends.
Peace,
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: RevRussell@aol.com
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 02:47:13 -0400
Subject: unsubscribe
please unsubscribe RevRussell from b-greek
Kathryn Russell
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 03:18:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Greek NT papyrus (sc)rolls
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
Larry Hurtado, hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca, said...
>Yup. P12, P13, P18 and P22 are from scrolls--but, N.B.
>(1) these are the *only* cases of scrolls for NT papyri, and
>(2) these cases are *all* "either opisthographs or written on
>reused material" (Aland, _The Text of the NT_, 1987, p. 102).
>Consequently, as such, these do *not* serve to show *preferred*
>format for transmission of NT writings (i.e., when you have to
>resort to reusing a writing surface, you probably are not
>exercising your preference which would be for fresh writing
>material), which is consistently shown to be the codex.
Thanks for the quote from Aland. I wasn't sure whether those
papyri were from codices or were actually palimpsests or opisthographs (it
sounds like they are all opisthographs).
I remember one theory that said that Luke-Acts was written on
a scroll because the length fit of the two together fit the "standard"
scroll length. I don't know which version of Acts was believed to be used.
While the earliest mss evidence of Luke is found among papyri
(third century-- P4, P45, P69 and P75), of course it is still not known what
the original medium was.
What do you think?
Grace,
Tim Staker, Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 03:18:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8 & the Lost Ending
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
Stephen Carlson, scc@reston.icl.com, said...
>This raises an interesting question for me. If the purpose of
>the resurrection accounts, as someone has suggested, is
>to validate an apostle's mandate, and if Mark can be connected
>to Peter (certainly in tradition, but Mark's Gospel seems more
>Roman and Peter is connected to Rome), why then would Mark
>fail to describe the appearance of the risen Christ to Peter?
>Paul had no problem asserting this (1Co15:5), so why not
>Mark, especially in light of the foreshadowing that Greg brought
>up?
Stephen has brought up the most interesting question that I am surprised
has not yet surfaced in this already lengthy thread: if
Mark's gospel were truncated, then what did the lost ending say?
If it was an appearance to Peter, or whatever it was, why in the
world was this ending deleted?
It has been suggested that this happened by accident (ie, missing codex
covers), but I agree with the conclusion that this is most unlikely, that the
damaged edition was the only exemplar left.
Isn't it very possible that there was something that Mark wrote that
the church did not agree with, and intentionally truncated, and replaced with
the so-called Longer Ending?
(If you find this hard to believe, remember the history of the Pericope
Adulterae and Augustine's [wasn't it Augie?] refusal to read it publically
for fear of encouraging adultery).
The Freer Logion (the discussion of which actually BEGAN this thread) found
in W and in Jerome may be evidence of the lost ending of Mark. It is Marcan
in its theology, although not so completely in its vocabulary.
Another possibility may come from working out a chiasmus of the
whole book of Mark. (It has been done before). If the beginning of Mark is a
mirrored parallel (A <--> A' ) to the end of Mark, the missing of Mark would
look very similar to the beginning. If this is so, then the lost ending of
Mark may have Peter as the new John Baptist being sent as the Lord's
messenger.
But then again, I don't see how this would offend anyone. What could it
have been that Mark said that was seen to be so heretical or unacceptable
that it was excised?
Anyone (at least those of you who believe there IS a lost ending) have any
other theories as to what the lost ending contained?
Grace,
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 03:48:27 -0400
Subject: Re: PHOBOS & NUN- Correction
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
FROM: Timster132@aol.com
>I have a couple pieces of humble to dine on. First was an error
>concerning PHOBOUNTES....
I can't even do obeisance correctly. I meant to say "I have a couple of
pieces of humble PIE to dine on".
O well. A third piece won't hurt me.
Self-abasingly yours,
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 05:54:58 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8 & the Lost Ending
On Wed, 7 Jun 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote:
>
> Anyone (at least those of you who believe there IS a lost ending) have any
> other theories as to what the lost ending contained?
I realize that you intended no humor in this marvelously-phrased
marvelous question, Tim, but I venture to say that the answers could well
fill a volume and perhaps have. There's an immense tome dealing with
Latin lit by a French scholar named Bardon, entitled, _La litterature
latine inconnue_. I speak for myself alone, of course, but I wonder
whether we don't, in fact, talk much more about what we DON'T know than
about what we do!
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 09:18:40 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Porneia
Thanks to Gregory Jordan for expressing his personal views (for most of
which one could find some published attempts at justification in L.
Countryman's _Dirt, Greed and Sex_ study of NT sexual ethics). I should
note for general readers of this list, however, that I find Jordan's
views a good bit dubious. E.g., how in heaven's name you can attribute a
concubine to Paul on the basis of 1 Cor 9:5 boggles the mind. And there
is a perfectly suitable Greek term used in the NT for the specific sin of
violation of the marriage bond--moicheia. Careful study of the usage of
"porneia" indicates that it simply *is* a much broader term used for
sexual improprieties, sometimes including but by no means restricted to,
sins of married people. Check the refs.--e.g., Kittle, or C. Brown,
_New International Dictionary of NT Theology_ 1:499-501, etc.
Augustine had a concubine *during his non-Christian phase* and
upon conversion promptly ended the relationship *because it was rather
widely recognized as incompatible with Christian obedience/faith*. Come
on, Greg, be more careful.
It really is quite understandable that we may need to re-examine
Christian ethics for today. But let us be scrupulous about letting the
NT be what it is, and avoid trying to "massage" it into saying something
it does not.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 09:23:06 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
Uh, about "Secret Mark," the overwhelming view in the scholarly guild is
that (a) the alleged letter of Clement of Alexandria Smith claims to have
found is quite possibly a fake (but the jury is divided over who faked
it, with most thinking Smith was taken in by a forger from an earlier
century, and some indicating that Smith was himself complicit); (b) that
in any case the "Secret Mark" allegedly referred to and quoted in the
"letter" of Clement is a heterodox version of Mark, subsequent to the
canonical form of Mark; (c) that also in any case Smith reads into the
alleged letter of Clement *far* more than anybody else, especially in
attributing to Jesus esoteric sex rituals etc.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 09:26:36 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: third day
Could we have the primary texts references where the three-day
eschatological scheme that was supposedly common in Second-Temple Jewish
tradition can be found? Never run across it myself.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 09:34:29 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Greek NT papyrus (sc)rolls
On Wed, 7 Jun 1995 Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> I remember one theory that said that Luke-Acts was written on
> a scroll because the length fit of the two together fit the "standard"
> scroll length. I don't know which version of Acts was believed to be used.
> While the earliest mss evidence of Luke is found among papyri
> (third century-- P4, P45, P69 and P75), of course it is still not known what
> the original medium was.
> What do you think?
I have no way of going beyond sheer guesswork on such a question, and
that's not worth much! There are, however, already proposals out there
(e.g., Roberts, Skeat, etc.) that the appropriation of the codex *may*
have been prompted by use of it for one or more early and influential
Christian texts--e.g., perhaps Mark's Gospel, or an/the early collection
of Pauline letters (which, *may* have been produced by Paul himself
suggests David Trobisch, _Paul's Letter Collection: Tracing the
Origins_, Fortress, 1994).
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 10:34:54 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Porneia
On Wed, 7 Jun 1995, Larry W. Hurtado wrote:
> Augustine had a concubine *during his non-Christian phase* and
> upon conversion promptly ended the relationship *because it was rather
> widely recognized as incompatible with Christian obedience/faith*. Come
> on, Greg, be more careful.
This is altogether beside the point and has nothing to do with Biblical
Greek, but since the subject has been broached (as the trial lawyers
say), I cannot resist the observation: I've never been able to understand
how Augustine revered his mother so very much and made careful provisions
for his son from this relationship, but makes no mention (to my
knowledge) of ever treating this woman with any kind of respect or
concern after he decided to break with her. A's attitude toward women has
always seemed a puzzlement to me, and it doesn't really appear to have
bothered him one tiny fraction as much as did his rape of the pear tree.
Is this terribly unjust to Augustine?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emory.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 11:50:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Temptation, Marcan priority (was "still curious")
On Tue, 6 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> But again, the question must be asked: WHY in the world, if Mark KNEW
> the genealogy and birth narratives of Matthew, would he lop them off?
> What would he GAIN by doing that? For my part, it seems far more
> plausible that Mark and Luke both drew birth and infancy narratives
> from their own sources ad added them to Mark's account. What strikes
> me as especially strange here is the procedure of beginning with
> Matthew's gospel as the norm and model and assuming that Mark set out
> deliberately NOT to IMPROVE Matthew's version, but actually and
> deliberately to compose an INFERIOR GOSPEL. Why should Mark want to do
> that?
This was my reaction when I had my first paper in linguistics published.
The redactor from the journal chose to publish an inferior redaction of
my paper, in my opinion. Lopped off some really good stuff, and made
changes that resulted in a stylistically inferior product. But then, I'm
not an editor, and not a very good writer. I'd hate to hear what people
would say about anything I had edited. I agree that this question is a
good one, Carl. This answer just happened to occur to me while I was
reading a translation of Griesbach :-) .
BTW, I wonder what good stuff might have been (hypothetically speaking)
in Q that Mt and Lk left out?
Philip Graber Graduate Division of Religion
Graduate Student in New Testament 211 Bishops Hall, Emory University
pgraber@emory.edu Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 11:16:35 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Temptation, Marcan priority (was "still curious")
On Wed, 7 Jun 1995, Philip L. Graber wrote:
>
> BTW, I wonder what good stuff might have been (hypothetically speaking)
> in Q that Mt and Lk left out?
These splendid items, Phil, will enhance that volume to which I referred
earlier this morning, something like "Lost Pericopes of Mark and Q." ;-)
And I suppose we shall have to include those portions of "Secret Mark"
that are NOT cited in the letter of Clement.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: S KIRKCONNEL X0675 <BISK@atuvm.atu.edu>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 95 11:51:50 CDT
Subject: X-Mailer: MUSIC/SP V3.1.1
Please unsubscribe. I continue to receive hundreds of messages, although
I have tried to unsubscribe several times.
------------------------------
From: S KIRKCONNEL X0675 <BISK@atuvm.atu.edu>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 95 12:06:59 CDT
Subject: unsubscribe
UNSUBSCRIBE B-GREEK
------------------------------
From: Walter J Lankford <TECHWALT@tscvm.trenton.edu>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 95 13:57:43 EDT
Subject: unsubscribe
UNSUBSCRIBE B-GREEK
------------------------------
From: Steve Willis <swillis@mlc.awinc.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 95 06:21 PDT
Subject: Porneia
While you're answering the question about "porneia" I wonder if anyone might
comment on whether "marital rape" would be included in the meaning of the
word. The Heb. had a word for "ravishment" that to my knowledge was used
apart from the meaning of "porneia".
Please apply your comments to Matt. 19 allowance for divorce (and remarriage).
STEVE WILLIS
Swillis@mlc.awinc.com
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 14:48:20 -0600
Subject: Re: Let's make a critical apparatus (quickly)
>One clarification in response to Ed Krentz's comments: the Muenster
>Institute is *not* the same operation as the IGNT project. The latter is
>an Anglo-British committee project. THe bulletins of the Muenster
>Institute are excellent for keeping up with the Alands and their many
>valuable projects, but not very good for keeping up with the IGNT project.
>
>Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
Thanks, Larry. I should have more clear, clearly!
Edgar Krentz <emkrentz@mcs.com>
New Testament, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
1100 East 55th St., Chicago, IL 60615
(Voice) Home: 312/947-8105; Off.: 312-753-0752
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 15:21:50 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Augustine's "relationship" (was Porneia)
Bruce Terry just informed me that my question about Augustine was worded
in such a way as to suggest that I might be talking about an incestuous
relationship with St. Monica. No, that isn't really what I meant, but
rather I was asking whether anyone else was bothered by A's casual
references to his concubine of several years whom he seems to have
abandoned upon his conversion, although he continued to care for his son
born of that relationship (the one with the concubine).
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 1995 15:41:48 CST
Subject: Re: Augustine's "relationship" (was Porneia)
On Wed, 7 Jun 1995, Carl W Conrad wrote:
>rather I was asking whether anyone else was bothered by A's casual
>references to his concubine of several years whom he seems to have
>abandoned upon his conversion, although he continued to care for his son
>born of that relationship (the one with the concubine).
Now I will answer to the list. Yes, that bothers me too. But we must
remember that this was in a time when people were motivated more by the
cultural/philosophical value of celibacy than by what the scripture said about
how a man was to treat his woman/wife. Today I would have advised him to
marry her. But even Ambrose sent away his wife when he became a bishop. And
he was one of Augustine's heroes. His sending away his wife bothers me too.
In passing, we no doubt have values of our age that are not motivated by
scripture and which will bother those in the future, should Jesus delay His
coming long enough. May God have mercy upon us, but also give us wisdom to
see them.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 1995 15:46:49 CST
Subject: BG: Lost Verses at the End of Mark
In view of the recent questions about the possibility of verses being lost
from the end of Mark, I post the following chart which shows that it was quite
common for verses to be lost from the end of Mark.
Manuscript Date Last Verse Missing Verses Number of Verses Lost
GREEK
D V 16:14 16:15-20 6
N VI 15:41 15:42-16:20 (?) 26
P VI 15:37 15:38-16:20 (?) 30
059/0215 IV/V 15:38 (fragmentary MS)
083/0112/0235 VI/VII 16:10* 16:11-20 10
099 VII 16:18* 16:19-20 2
0184 VI 15:41 (fragmentary MS)
0212 III 15:42 (fragmentary MS)
0250 VIII 15:28 15:29-16:20 (?) 39
2386 XII 16:8 16:9-20 12
LATIN
a IV 15:14 15:15-16:20 (?) 53
b V 14:55 14:56-16:20 (?) 84
d V 16:5 16:6-20 (?) 15
e V 13:35 13:36-16:20 (?) 141
f VI 14:69 14:70-16:20 (?) 70
i V 15:40 15:41-16:20 (?) 27
n V 16:13 16:14-20** 7
r1 VII 15:31 15:32-16:20 (?) 36
Notes:
1. The single askerick on MSS 0112 and 099 indicate that these MSS also have
the shorter ending as well as part of the longer ending.
2. The MSS marked "fragmentary" are portions too small to justify saying how
much is missing at the end.
3. The missing portion (16:14-20) on Latin MS n is supplied by Latin MS o
written in the VII century.
4. Note that the minuscule MS 2386 is missing a leaf with exactly 12 verses
gone, ending at 16:8 just as Aleph and B do. Unlike them, this MS does have a
leaf missing.
5. On many of the Latin MSS it is begging the question to assume (as I have
above) that they originally contained 16:9-20, since so much of the end of
Mark is missing.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 17:06:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Porneia
On Tue, 6 Jun 1995, James D. Ernest wrote:
> > All this is not to say that pre-marital sex was not condemned in NT times
> > or among NT authors. The main concern, though, would have been the
> > virginity of the woman involved and if she were engaged.
>
> I've heard the latter said before, but I can't remember right now if
> this is derived from the NT texts or brought in from elsewhere. I
> would have thought the morality (or better, spiritual character) of
> the man's act was in view in at least some of the texts... Perhaps
> you can clarify.
My opinion is definitely that Paul is trying to appeal to broad and
general ethical principles, which is why he (unlike any Talmudic rabbi)
usually doesn't cite the OT even when it could back him up. The
background for pre-marital heterosexuality in the OT is Ex. 22:16-17,
Deut. 22:13-30. Great attention is given to the woman's betrothal
status, her virginity, and her family's wishes. There is little sense
that mere "promiscuity" is the target of such legislation. Paul is still
working within a similar kind of social system, and he emphasizes the
ethical dimension of adultery (an offense against a married man by having
sex with his wife). He seems to take for granted that even Gentiles
would consider adultery an offense, and prostitutes dishonorable, but he
goes out of his way to offer a peculiar explanation of why soliciting a
prostitute would also be wrong - 1 Cor. 6.15-20 (apparently there was a
long-standing double-standard operating, cf. Gen. 38).
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 95 15:47:52 CDT
Subject: Re: Augustine's "relationship" (was Porneia)
It seems obvious from Augustine's theology, particularly his view of sex and its
implications in his development of 'original sin', that his sexual appetites
(referred to in various contexts in his 'Confessions') were a problem to him.
As one of my profs has cogently noted, "Where Augustine blessed us, he really
blessed us... where he cursed us, boy, did he really curse us!"
I think that his putting aside of his concubine was perhaps part of his attempt
to cut himself off from this part of his sinful nature that he struggled with,
and his monastic period may have also been an attempt to put aside 'fleshly'
desires. As you say, Carl, it does seem a bit strange though.
mark_o'brien@dts.edu
- ----
"All complexity is punctilliar..."
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #741
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu