[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #742
b-greek-digest Thursday, 8 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 742
In this issue:
Re: Porneia
Paul's concubine?
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Paul's concubine?
Re: Paul's concubine?
Re: Porneia
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: Porneia
Re: Mark 16:8
Re: third day
Re: Paul's concubine?
Paul's concubine?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 17:49:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Porneia
On Wed, 7 Jun 1995, Larry W. Hurtado wrote:
> 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).
Actually I disagree with most of Countryman's historical readings of the
NT on sexuality. If my views need "attempts at justification," I'll do it
myself.
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.
Yes. _Do_ check the references, because they will show that _porneia_
and _moikheia_ are largely interchangeable in the NT, as in Jewish Greek
in general. For the sake of argument, Mr. Hurtado, would you please
offer one (1) example of a use of _porneia_ in the New Testament with a
meaning other than "adultery" or "prostitution"?
To save some time, one place where a case is sometimes made is in 1 Cor.
5:1, where it is considered to mean "incest." But there is a Greek word
for incest, as well as a Levitical prohibition esp. for stepmothers, and
Paul uses neither. Instead he stresses "gunaika tina tou patros ekhein"
- - "someone has his father's *wife*" - that is, its adulterous dimension.
Although he is clearly scandalized by its incestuous properties, he
considers it "toiautE porneia" - "such a kind of adultery," which is
itself incest; he is not using porneia to mean a kind of incest.
Another more dubious example is Jude 7 where _porneia_ is supposed to
mean homosexuality. It could only do so under the assumption that the
author connected homosexuality with the Sodom story, rather than
heterosexuality, as in the adulterous/whoring women of Ezekiel 16 (esp.
46 ff.), used as symbols for the religious infidelity of Israel.
Elsewhere, in Paul's condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1 (if one
assumes it is) and in the use of _arsenokoit-_, the word _porneia_ is not
used to describe it.
> 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.
I used Augustine as an example because his writings (esp. Confessions)
tell us more about the ordinary details of a man's sexual life than we
will find anywhere else in antiquity, esp. as he passed through various
institutional stages of betrothal, concubinage, marriage, divorce,
self-arranged marriage, care of his son, etc. Other than that it
obviously has no bearing on NT-era Christian teachings and practices,
since he lived centuries later. But Augustine was raised in an orthodox
Christian household, and he adopted Manichaeanism, which was a form of
Christianity, not "non-Christian." And he did not end his relationship
with his concubine because it was incompatible with Christianity (it
wasn't - even priests had concubines well into the Middle Ages), it was
because (apparently) they mutually decided to part, and Augustine chose a
life of chastity as well as celibacy (the two must be kept as distinct
terms - Augustine had never married), and neither were obligatory for
ordinary Christians. You must be careful not to read the NT through the
monastic morals of later centuries - that is anachronism.
> 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.
I *know* you are not trying to accuse me of such a motive or maneuver. I
just wanted to be clear about that.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 14:50:45 -0700
Subject: Paul's concubine?
Larry Hurtado wrote:
> Thanks to Gregory Jordan for expressing his personal
> views . . . 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 I Cor 9:5 boggles
> the mind . . .
I don't know, this sounds close to what might have been the
reconstructed charge to which Paul is offering defense. The
argument would go something like this:
ACCUSATION: There are reports that Paul and
Barnabas spent money keeping women on previous
missionary journey(s).
RESPONSE (I Cor 9:3f): "My defense to those
examining me is this: Have we not authority to
eat and drink? Have we not authority to lead
about a sister, a wife, as the rest of the
apostles also, and Cephas, and the Lord's
brothers, do? Or is it only Barnabas and I
who have no authority to quit work? . . . But
we did not use this authority [with you] . . ."
There are of course other ways to reconstruct the accusation.
Perhaps less scandalously:
ACCUSATION: Paul and Barnabas are not legitimate
apostles. Not only do they not carry a seal or
any other written letters, but no church will
even fund them . . .
Or more scandalously (compare the discrepancy between 2 Thes
3:8 and Phil 4:15-16):
ACCUSATION: Paul claims he always supported himself.
That's not the stories that are coming to us from
his former church areas . . .
In any case, there may even be NT allusion to a specific
woman around whom scandal was voiced in relationship to Paul's
party. Acts 16 refers to a wealthy, independent woman who,
apparently with other women, hosted Paul's party at Philippi.
The woman was Lydia, "a seller of purple of the city of
Thyatira" (v 14).
In the letters to the seven churches of Revelation, which
otherwise display what can easily be understood as anti-Pauline
rhetoric and themes (and which should be dated to pre-70 on
other grounds), there is a particularly objectionable woman
church leader at Thyatira cited who is charged with causing
believers to commit "fornication" (porneia). She is a prophet,
a teacher, and a church leader (2:20). The author calls her
by the epithet "Jezebel" and uncharitably utters a death threat
upon her entire household (2:22-23).
It seems possible to me that these are two versions of the
same woman. The passage in Revelation need not necessarily
be any more accurate in detail than early polemics against
gnostics (or early Christian rites as perceived by outsiders).
But it should not be forgotten that many *early Christians*
believed charges against Paul (as is clearly seen both in the
NT and outside the NT). Their firsthand accounts have not
survived (except possibly Rev 2-3). The Thyatiran prophetess,
whose primary crime may have been to have been a woman, wealthy,
and without a husband (in combination), is not known to us
through firsthand letters from her point of view, as is Paul.
I think of the saying, "History is written by winners . . ."
Greg Doudna
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 18:05:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Wed, 7 Jun 1995, Larry W. Hurtado wrote:
> 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);
I guess the scholarly guild excludes Henry Chadwick, G. W. H. Lampe, H.
Koester, R. M. Grant, R. P. C. Hanson, P. Parker, etc. As far as I know,
only Jacob Neusner has declared it a fake, a typically extreme opinion
from him, and one couched in his general hostility to historical-Jesus
research.
(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;
I'm curious - what exactly do you find "heterodox" about it? The
emphasis on mystery and initiation is not necessarily Gnostic, it has
copious parallels in orthodox tradition. Many scholars assume the Secret
Gospel precedes and is used by canonical Mark - H. Koester, H. M. Schenke,
J. D. Crossan, and R. Cameron.
(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.
That's certainly true, but then, it's not the only way the letter can be
read, and it's suely not the way Clement would have read it. Still, it
would explain some things...
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 95 15:45:11 PDT
Subject: Re: Paul's concubine?
> Larry Hurtado wrote:
> > Thanks to Gregory Jordan for expressing his personal
> > views . . . 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 I Cor 9:5 boggles
Excuse me Greg? Rev 2-3 is full of anti-Pauline rhetoric? Would you
mind enlarging upon that? Furthermore, the only connections between
Lydia and the Jezebel that you have for certain or female. Acts says
Lydia is _from_ Thyatira (not there anymore) and that Jezebel is in
Thyatira (from where we don't know). That's a very tenuous connection.
I hope you have more to base this argument on than that.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 17:49:06 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Paul's concubine?
Look, as to 1 Cor 9:5, read the context, which includes 9:15. Paul's
point in the context is "I've got rights to a woman, to support from my
churches, etc.. I've not demanded these rights; but the reason is that
I've chosen not to, so this is no indication of my lesser status than
others who exercise these rights". 9:5 is a rhetorically couched
statement, and reading into it the very opposite of what it communicates
is not very good exegesis.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 17:59:53 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Porneia
On Wed, 7 Jun 1995, Gregory Jordan (ENG) wrote:
>
> Actually I disagree with most of Countryman's historical readings of the
> NT on sexuality. If my views need "attempts at justification," I'll do it
> myself.
Well, I'm encouraged, both by your view on Countryman's work, and by your
spunk!
> Yes. _Do_ check the references, because they will show that _porneia_
> and _moikheia_ are largely interchangeable in the NT, as in Jewish Greek
> in general. For the sake of argument, Mr. Hurtado, would you please
> offer one (1) example of a use of _porneia_ in the New Testament with a
> meaning other than "adultery" or "prostitution"?
Uh, Greg, how about Matt 15:19, where *both* moicheia and porneia appear
in a list of "no-nos"? Or do you claim that "porneia" here *must* =
prostitution?
Porneia is the wider-semantic range term in the NT, conveying
"improper sexual intimacy", as I've said. And the question is what kinds
of sexual intimacy are improper in the NT. And the way to settle that is
to look at what is condemned and affirmed. And the result is that
marriage-intimacy is OK. All others specified are rejected, including
adultery, prostitution, violating the Levitical law of near-relations (1
Cor 5), same-sex intimacy (Rom 1).
(By the way, Greg, the reason Paul refers to the sinful man in 1
Cor 5 as living with "his father's wife" is that this is the LXX language
for forbidden sexual relations in Lev. 17-18.).
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 18:04:20 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Wed, 7 Jun 1995, Gregory Jordan (ENG) wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Jun 1995, Larry W. Hurtado wrote:
>
> > 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);
>
> I guess the scholarly guild excludes Henry Chadwick, G. W. H. Lampe, H.
> Koester, R. M. Grant, R. P. C. Hanson, P. Parker, etc. As far as I know,
> only Jacob Neusner has declared it a fake, a typically extreme opinion
> from him, and one couched in his general hostility to historical-Jesus
> research.
Greg. Please don't be silly. Of course the above are all in the
scholarly guild, and my comment implied nothing to the contrary.
Neusner has now joined those who suspect Smith of being involved, but
others have for a long time expressed doubts about the alleged letter
from Clement without blaming Smith. Do you need some bibliog. help??
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 20:01:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Porneia
On Wed, 7 Jun 1995, Larry W. Hurtado wrote:
> Uh, Greg, how about Matt 15:19, where *both* moicheia and porneia appear
> in a list of "no-nos"? Or do you claim that "porneia" here *must* =
> prostitution?
Exactly (unless it is repeated for stress) and it must be because
there is nothing else for it to mean. Cf. Matthew 5.32 & 19.9 where
Jesus does use them interchangeably. And I *know* you know all this, I
just can't understand why you're playing this game.
You have not shown a passage whose context indicates anything that could
not be covered by "prostitution" or "adultery" - the two very exact
meanings attributed to the word in Jewish Greek and clearly derived from
its usage in the larger sphere of Greek. Moikheia was the original and
proper word for "adultery"; porneia meant "prostitution" in classical
Greek and was introduced probably for its shock value to mean the same
thing as moikheia, and in NT usage the two English meanings are
interlocked in the same Greek word. Note how easily Paul passes from
porneia (i.e., prostitution) to porneia (i.e., adultery) in 1 Cor.
6:15-7:2. This is the only thing that makes translating the word into
English difficult (for a strictly literal translation) - English usually
keeps the two concepts distinct with two different terms.
> Porneia is the wider-semantic range term in the NT, conveying
> "improper sexual intimacy", as I've said.
And as you haven't proven or shown. You assume the word was fuzzy, but
it's only your analysis that is fuzzy.
And the question is what kinds
> of sexual intimacy are improper in the NT.
Nonsense. This is begging the question. There are many sexual
behaviors/attitudes presumably condemned by NT writers, and not all of them
have to be subsumed under _porneia_. There are akatharsia, aselgeia,
epithumia, pleoneksia, etc. etc.
> (By the way, Greg, the reason Paul refers to the sinful man in 1
> Cor 5 as living with "his father's wife" is that this is the LXX language
> for forbidden sexual relations in Lev. 17-18.).
... Lev. 18.8 involves a case of adultery, as opposed to Lev. 18.7
for blood incest "askhEmosunEn mEtros sou ouk apokalupseis:
mEter gar sou estin"!
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 17:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Mark 16:8
On Wed, 7 Jun 1995, Gregory Jordan (ENG) wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jun 1995, Larry W. Hurtado wrote:
> > Uh, about "Secret Mark," the overwhelming view in the scholarly guild is
> I guess the scholarly guild excludes Henry Chadwick, G. W. H. Lampe, H.
> Koester, R. M. Grant, R. P. C. Hanson, P. Parker, etc.
Uh, Greg, this is one of the reasons I personally have a bit of a problem
with some of your posts. Please note that Larry H. wrote "the
overwhelming view of the scholarly guild". He did not say that it was a
universal opionion.
Where do Chadwick and Hanson accept Smith's thesis? I would like
chapter and verse if you don't mind.
> As far as I know,
> only Jacob Neusner has declared it a fake, a typically extreme opinion
> from him, and one couched in his general hostility to historical-Jesus
> research.
Um, well gee, you have Larry Hurtado for one, Ed HObbs for two both of
whom have intimated it on this list. ANd they are not alone.
Larry Swain
Parmly BIllings LIbrary
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 19:48:08 -0600
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
I second the request. Where are these many references to the third day in
the OT? Why should the third day of Gen 1 have any eschatological
significance? the seventh day, yes, as Hebrews argues
It is possible that the formula Paul cites in 1 Cor 15:3-5 has Hosea 6:2.
But that passage really has nothing to do with an eschatological day of
judgment. It is the attitude of Israelites who think forgiveness is easily
come by--and rejected by Hosea, God's prophet.
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: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 95 23:03:19 EDT
Subject: Re: Paul's concubine?
Larry W. Hurtado wrote:
> Look, as to 1 Cor 9:5, read the context, which includes 9:15. Paul's
> point in the context is "I've got rights to a woman, to support from my
> churches, etc.. I've not demanded these rights; but the reason is that
> I've chosen not to, so this is no indication of my lesser status than
> others who exercise these rights". 9:5 is a rhetorically couched
> statement, and reading into it the very opposite of what it communicates
> is not very good exegesis.
This is quite correct. Moreover, Paul in 9:5 explicitly mentions Peter,
whom we know to be married (Mk1:30).
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 22:14:58 -0700
Subject: Paul's concubine?
>From Larry Hurtado:
> Look, as to 1 Cor 9:5, read the context, which includes 9:15.
> Paul's point in the context is "I've got rights to a woman, to
> support from my churches, etc.. I've not demanded these
> rights; but the reason is that I've chosen not to, so this
> is no indication of my lesser status than others who exercise
> these rights". 9:5 is a rhetorically couched statement, and
> reading into it the very opposite of what it communicates is
> not very good exegesis.
I agree with you in the sense that you are accurately describing
Paul's argument in the sense that Paul is framing it. My
problem is that the way Paul frames it doesn't seem to make
sense in terms of a reasonable criticism from opponents.
CRITICISM/CHARGE: Paul is not taking our money
and therefore does not deserve status or respect.
I have difficulty imagining this as a serious accusation against
a traveling religious teacher. What I suspect is that Paul has
distorted or reframed the actual charge/criticism, for rhetorical
purposes. Do you seriously find credible that Paul is being
condemned for *not* taking money?
Greg Doudna
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #742
*****************************
** 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