1 Cor 6:18 Trevor and Margaret Nicholls tmjpbn at ihug.co.nz
Sat Oct 2 17:11:54 EDT 1999
Mt 5:32, 19:9, MH, EI MH, PAREKTOS 1 Cor 6:18 Hi1 Cor 6:18 FEUGETE THN PORNEIAN PAN AMARTHMA O EAN POIHSH ANQRWPOS EKTOS TOU SWMATOS ESTIN O DE PORNEUWN EIS TO IDION SWMA AMARTANEIWhat a tricky verse (apart from the first two words). I would like to ask a couple of questions.Do EKTOS and EIS give the same sense as our”external” and “internal”?Is TO IDION SWMA (“his own body”) clarifyingthe body referred to in TOU SWMATOS or is itcontrasting this with some other body?(I know many commentators see one as the”one-body-many-members” body and the other asan individual body – but it looks to me like IDIONis on the wrong body if this is so).ThanksTrevor and Margaret Nichollse-mail: tmjpbn at ihug.co.nz
Mt 5:32, 19:9, MH, EI MH, PAREKTOS1 Cor 6:18
1 Cor 6:18 Carlton Winbery winberyc at speedgate.net
Sat Oct 2 19:19:58 EDT 1999
1 Cor 6:18 1 Cor 6:18 Trevor and Margaret Nicholls wrote;>1 Cor 6:18> FEUGETE THN PORNEIAN PAN AMARTHMA> O EAN POIHSH ANQRWPOS EKTOS TOU> SWMATOS ESTIN O DE PORNEUWN EIS> TO IDION SWMA AMARTANEI> >What a tricky verse (apart from the first two words).> I would like to ask a couple of questions.> >Do EKTOS and EIS give the same sense as our>“external” and “internal”?I would think so. Some sins are not with the body (outside) and the sin offornication is within (perhaps even “against” the same body).>Is TO IDION SWMA (“his own body”) clarifying>the body referred to in TOU SWMATOS or is it>contrasting this with some other body?>(I know many commentators see one as the>“one-body-many-members” body and the other as>an individual body – but it looks to me like IDION>is on the wrong body if this is so).> I think the verse has to be broken up into three parts.1) FEUGETE THN PORNEIAN “Avoid sexual sins.”2) PAN AMARTHMA O EAN POIHSH ANQRWPOS EKTOS TOU SWMATOS ESTIN “Every(other) sin which a man commits is outside the body>”3) O DE PORNEUWN EIS TO IDION SWMA AMARTANEI “But he who commitsfornication sins within (or against) his own body.” Hence, I think that itis the same body in both instances else the contrast (DE) makes no sense.> Dr. Carlton L. WinberyFoggleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana Collegewinbery at andria.lacollege.eduwinbery at speedgate.netPh. 1 318 448 6103 hmPh. 1 318 487 7241 off
1 Cor 6:181 Cor 6:18
1 Cor 6:18 Jim West jwest at highland.net
Sat Oct 2 19:48:29 EDT 1999
1 Cor 6:18 1 Cor 6:18 At 10:11 AM 10/3/99 +1300, you wrote:>Hi> >1 Cor 6:18> FEUGETE THN PORNEIAN PAN AMARTHMA> O EAN POIHSH ANQRWPOS EKTOS TOU> SWMATOS ESTIN O DE PORNEUWN EIS> TO IDION SWMA AMARTANEI> >What a tricky verse (apart from the first two words).> I would like to ask a couple of questions.> >Do EKTOS and EIS give the same sense as our>“external” and “internal”?They can- and here they sort of point in that direction. But “outside”seems a bit better to me for ektos. And here I would render eis as “against”.> >Is TO IDION SWMA (“his own body”) clarifying>the body referred to in TOU SWMATOS or is it>contrasting this with some other body?It refers to tou swmatos.>(I know many commentators see one as the>“one-body-many-members” body and the other as>an individual body – but it looks to me like IDION>is on the wrong body if this is so).You are right to be hesitant to accept such a reading. Paul is clearlythinking on an individual level here.> >Thanks> >Trevor and Margaret Nicholls>e-mail: tmjpbn at ihug.co.nzBest, and hows the Spring there in New Zealand?Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
1 Cor 6:181 Cor 6:18
1 Cor 6:18 Trevor and Margaret Nicholls tmjpbn at ihug.co.nz
Sun Oct 3 06:31:47 EDT 1999
1 Cor 6:18 1 Cor 6:18 Hi Jim> They can- and here they sort of point in that direction. But “outside”> seems a bit better to me for ektos. And here I would render eis as“against”.So every (other) sin is outside the body? Evenpride, cursing, etc.?> Best, and hows the Spring there in New Zealand?Lovely. My deep red magnolia is just startingto blossom.Thanks for your answers
1 Cor 6:181 Cor 6:18
1 Cor 6:18 Jim West jwest at highland.net
Sun Oct 3 08:23:22 EDT 1999
Matt 19:9 Objective Genitive in Rom. 3:22 At 11:31 PM 10/3/99 +1300, you wrote:>Hi Jim>So every (other) sin is outside the body? Even>pride, cursing, etc.?In an odd sort of Platonic way, yes. If I read Paul right here he is sayingthat adultery/fornication is a sin which one commits against oneself, whileother sins are sins which one commits against another.> >> Best, and hows the Spring there in New Zealand?> >Lovely. My deep red magnolia is just starting>to blossom.I bet that is glorious to see. A neighbor down the road has a beautiful Oaktree and every year in the fall it turns the most incredible red hue. Itsmy favorite tree… but again I digress.Best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
Matt 19:9Objective Genitive in Rom. 3:22
1 Cor 6:18 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Oct 3 07:12:15 EDT 1999
1 Cor 6:18 Matt 19:9 At 11:31 PM +1300 10/3/99, Trevor and Margaret Nicholls wrote:>Hi Jim> >> They can- and here they sort of point in that direction. But “outside”>> seems a bit better to me for ektos. And here I would render eis as>“against”.> >So every (other) sin is outside the body? Even>pride, cursing, etc.?You might want to consider the implications of Gal 5:16-21, an enumerationof TA ERGA THS SARKOS, including (vs. 19) PORNEIA, AKAQARSIA,ASELGEIA–which one might reasonably understand as sexual–but thencontinues (vs. 20) to include EIDWLOLATRIA, FARMAKEIA, ECQRAI, ERIS, ZHLOW,QUMOI, ERIQEIAI, DICOSTASIAI, hAIRESEIS, (vs. 21) FQONOI, MEQAI, KWMOI KAITA hOMOIA TOUTOIS …(I remember vividly how surprised–and inwardly gratified–I was to hearSenator Sam Ervin chanting off this list in his Tarheel drawl in the courseof the Watergate hearings which he chaired a quarter of a century ago.)Of course, SARX is hardly identical with SWMA ordinarily in Pauline texts,generally meaning the alienated self or SWMA hAMARTIAS that is subservientto demonically self- and other-destructive passions. But I think that prideand cursing might fit somewhere in that list as TA hOMOIA TOUTOIS.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
1 Cor 6:18Matt 19:9
1 Cor 6:18 Moon-Ryul Jung moon at saint.soongsil.ac.kr
Tue Oct 5 09:44:55 EDT 1999
difficult text 1 Cor 6:18 On 10/03/99, “Jim West <jwest at highland.net>” wrote:> At 11:31 PM 10/3/99 +1300, you wrote:> >Hi Jim> > >So every (other) sin is outside the body? Even> >pride, cursing, etc.?> > In an odd sort of Platonic way, yes. If I read Paul right here he is saying> that adultery/fornication is a sin which one commits against oneself, while> other sins are sins which one commits against another.> > >Does Paul’s admonition imply that the sin against oneself is severer thansins against another??MoonMoon R. JungSoongsil UniversitySeoul, Korea > >> Best, and hows the Spring there in New Zealand?> >> >Lovely. My deep red magnolia is just starting> >to blossom.> > I bet that is glorious to see. A neighbor down the road has a beautiful Oak> tree and every year in the fall it turns the most incredible red hue. Its> my favorite tree… but again I digress.> > Best,> > Jim> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++> Jim West, ThD> email- jwest at highland.net> web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
difficult text1 Cor 6:18
1 Cor 6:18 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Oct 5 11:18:33 EDT 1999
1 Cor 6:18 LINOKALAMHN At 8:23 AM -0400 10/3/99, Jim West wrote:>At 11:31 PM 10/3/99 +1300, you wrote:>>Hi Jim> >>So every (other) sin is outside the body? Even>>pride, cursing, etc.?> >In an odd sort of Platonic way, yes. If I read Paul right here he is saying>that adultery/fornication is a sin which one commits against oneself, while>other sins are sins which one commits against another.For my part, I think there’s a bit too much generalization from the onestatement in a particular context in a particular letter of Paul. Even inRomans I think one ought to be careful to consider strong Paulineassertions in terms of the immediate context of what is being said. In sum,I think that the question of how Paul understands the relationship andrelative importance of sins against self and sins against others might bestbe moved to the Corpus Paulinum list, UNLESS anyone wants to talk aboutanother specifically Pauline passage and focus upon what its Greek textmeans.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
1 Cor 6:18LINOKALAMHN
1 Cor 6:18 Jim West jwest at highland.net
Tue Oct 5 10:59:58 EDT 1999
1 Cor 6:18 1 Cor 6:18 At 09:44 AM 10/5/99 +0000, you wrote:>Does Paul’s admonition imply that the sin against oneself is severer than>sins against another??> >MoonI think so. Sins against others are bad enough, but to sin against oneselfis extraordinarily vile as it destroys the very self that the sin is seekingto promote (a very intriguing paradox actually- what Freud called the “deathwish” in a sense). Sin against self is ultimately suicidal.best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
1 Cor 6:181 Cor 6:18
1 Cor 6:18 Steve Puluka spuluka at hotmail.com
Tue Oct 5 18:15:14 EDT 1999
LINOKALAMHN Matt 19:9 >From: Jim West <jwest at highland.net>>At 11:31 PM 10/3/99 +1300, you wrote:> >Hi Jim> > >So every (other) sin is outside the body? Even> >pride, cursing, etc.?> >In an odd sort of Platonic way, yes. If I read Paul right here he is >saying that adultery/fornication is a sin which one commits against >oneself, while other sins are sins which one commits against another.> I have heard others comment that this comes from a Platonic dualism as well. Do you know where in Plato’s works Paul is drawing this analogy from?Steve PulukaAdult Education InstructorByzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh______________________________________________________Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
LINOKALAMHNMatt 19:9
Pauline Thought? (was: “Re: 1 Cor 6:18”) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Oct 5 20:33:53 EDT 1999
1 Cor 6:18 Aspect & Aktionsart Once again: this is NOT a forum for a general discussion of Paul’s ethicsor any relationship between Paul’s thinking and Platonism: such adiscussion ought to be carried on either off-list or on the Corpus Paulinumlist. The focus here is on the Greek text of the Bible or the Greeklanguage of the Bible.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
1 Cor 6:18Aspect & Aktionsart
1 Cor 6:18 Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Tue Oct 5 19:39:58 EDT 1999
Matt 19:9 Pauline Thought? (was: “Re: 1 Cor 6:18”) Steve Puluka wrote:> >From: Jim West <jwest at highland.net>> >At 11:31 PM 10/3/99 +1300, you wrote:> > >Hi Jim> >> > >So every (other) sin is outside the body? Even> > >pride, cursing, etc.?> >> >In an odd sort of Platonic way, yes. If I read Paul right here he is> >saying that adultery/fornication is a sin which one commits against> >oneself, while other sins are sins which one commits against another.> >> > I have heard others comment that this comes from a Platonic dualism as well.> Do you know where in Plato’s works Paul is drawing this analogy from?> I’ll do a “Jim West” here. The answer is “nowhere”.There is no evidence whatsoever that Paul’s anthropology is that ofPlato, let alonethat he even know any of Plato’s works or shared the ontological dualismadvocated byPlato. Those who assert otherwise have not paid any real attention theanthropological terms Paul uses or what their meaning was in the firstcentury. Formore on this, see, among many works discussing the alleged parallelismof Paul withPlato, R. Jewett’s _Pau’s Anthropological Terms_ , R. Gundry’s _Soma inBiblicalTheology_, and Leonard Audet’s “What is the risen ‘spiritual body’ ?” inTheologyDigest 21 (1973) 1-4.Yours,Jeffrey Gibson–Jeffrey B. Gibson7423 N. Sheridan Road #2AChicago, Illinois 60626e-mail jgibson000 at ameritech.net
Matt 19:9Pauline Thought? (was: “Re: 1 Cor 6:18”)
1 Cor 6:18 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Wed Oct 6 05:43:46 EDT 1999
kata panda kai dia panda Adolph Schmolles, Hand Konkordanz On Tue 5 Oct 1999 (15:15:14), spuluka at hotmail.com wrote:> I have heard others comment that this comes from a Platonic dualism as> well. > Do you know where in Plato’s works Paul is drawing this analogy from? Dear Steve, Probably from /Republic/, 396, hAMARTANOUSIN EIS AUTOUS TE KAI EIS ALLOUS. Some think EIS means “against”; some that EIS means “into”, the act of copulation. ERRWSQE Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm
kata panda kai dia pandaAdolph Schmolles, Hand Konkordanz
Thank you all for your answers. I really appreciate it.
Regards,
Dmitriy Reznik
Statistics: Posted by Dmitriy Reznik — January 18th, 2018, 3:23 pm
Thank you all for your answers. I really appreciate it.
Regards,
Dmitriy Reznik
Statistics: Posted by Dmitriy Reznik — January 18th, 2018, 3:23 pm
I’d say Barry has a solid handle on it. 
I’d add to this…
Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑
January 18th, 2018, 2:54 pmεἰς of course is used with an extremely wide range of usage and careful attention has to be paid to the context. With verbs that imply hostility, such as attacking, insulting and so forth “against” is the sense. ἁμαρτάνω is considered one such verb.
The verb contributes the ‘force’ or ‘hostility’ and είς contributes the directionality and motion (i.e. ‘toward’).
Statistics: Posted by MAubrey — January 18th, 2018, 3:14 pm
Now Mike Aubrey needs to weigh in too ;->
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — January 18th, 2018, 3:00 pm
Dmitriy Reznik wrote: ↑
January 18th, 2018, 1:34 pmI have a question on 1 Cor 6:18:
φεύγετε τὴν πορνείαν πᾶν ἁμάρτημα ὃ ἐὰν ποιήσῃ ἄνθρωπος ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν ὁ δὲ πορνεύων εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα ἁμαρτάνειI wonder why all translations that I found understand εἰς as “against”. Wouldn’t it be more natural to understand it as “in” with meaning “with”? I know that normally εἰς means direction toward something, but I also remember that there are enough exceptions.
If he meant ‘”in” with meaning “with”‘, I think he would have said ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ σώματι. And that’s the natural opposite – see 2 Cor 12:2 εἴτε ἐν σώματι οὐκ οἶδα · εἴτε ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος οὐκ οἶδα. But he doesn’t say that, and I think that’s intentional.
Prepositions are funny across languages, I don’t really know how many of the ‘exceptions’ are just mismatches between Greek and English/German. Here, I do think εἰς is intended, and it’s rather like an accusative of respect, he sins with respect to his own body, and in target/trajector imagery, there’s a clear sense of direction. “Sins with respect to his own body” is strange English, so is “sins toward his own body”, but “sins against his own body” works well in English (though it loses the directionality of the Greek preposition).
As Barry points out, the verb makes a big difference in choice of preposition.
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — January 18th, 2018, 3:00 pm
Dmitriy Reznik wrote: ↑
January 18th, 2018, 1:34 pmI have a question on 1 Cor 6:18:
φεύγετε τὴν πορνείαν πᾶν ἁμάρτημα ὃ ἐὰν ποιήσῃ ἄνθρωπος ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν ὁ δὲ πορνεύων εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα ἁμαρτάνειI wonder why all translations that I found understand εἰς as “against”. Wouldn’t it be more natural to understand it as “in” with meaning “with”? I know that normally εἰς means direction toward something, but I also remember that there are enough exceptions.
If he meant ‘”in” with meaning “with”‘, I think he would have said ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ σώματι. And that’s the natural opposite – see 2 Cor 12:2 εἴτε ἐν σώματι οὐκ οἶδα · εἴτε ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος οὐκ οἶδα. But he doesn’t say that, and I think that’s intentional.
Prepositions are funny across languages, I don’t really know how many of the ‘exceptions’ are just mismatches between Greek and English/German. Here, I do think εἰς is intended, and it’s rather like an accusative of respect, he sins with respect to his own body, and in target/trajector imagery, there’s a clear sense of direction. “Sins with respect to his own body” is strange English, so is “sins toward his own body”, but “sins against his own body” works well in English (though it loses the directionality of the Greek preposition).
As Barry points out, the verb makes a big difference in choice of preposition.
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — January 18th, 2018, 3:00 pm
Dmitriy Reznik wrote: ↑
January 18th, 2018, 1:34 pmI have a question on 1 Cor 6:18:
φεύγετε τὴν πορνείαν πᾶν ἁμάρτημα ὃ ἐὰν ποιήσῃ ἄνθρωπος ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν ὁ δὲ πορνεύων εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα ἁμαρτάνειI wonder why all translations that I found understand εἰς as “against”. Wouldn’t it be more natural to understand it as “in” with meaning “with”? I know that normally εἰς means direction toward something, but I also remember that there are enough exceptions.
If he meant ‘”in” with meaning “with”‘, I think he would have said ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ σώματι. And that’s the natural opposite – see 2 Cor 12:2 εἴτε ἐν σώματι οὐκ οἶδα · εἴτε ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος οὐκ οἶδα. But he doesn’t say that, and I think that’s intentional.
Prepositions are funny across languages, I don’t really know how many of the ‘exceptions’ are just mismatches between Greek and English/German. Here, I do think εἰς is intended, and it’s rather like an accusative of respect, he sins with respect to his own body, and in target/trajector imagery, there’s a clear sense of direction. “Sins with respect to his own body” is strange English, so is “sins toward his own body”, but “sins against his own body” works well in English (though it loses the directionality of the Greek preposition).
As Barry points out, the verb makes a big difference in choice of preposition.
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — January 18th, 2018, 3:00 pm