1 Cor 6:18 Trevor and Margaret Nicholls tmjpbn at ihug.co.nz
Sat Oct 2 17:11:54 εδτ 1999
Mt 5:32, 19:9, μη, ει μη, παρεκτοσ 1 Cor 6:18 Hi1 Cor 6:18 φευγετε θν πορνειαν παν αμαρθμα ο εαν ποιηση ανθρωποσ εκτοσ του σωματοσ εστιν ο δε πορνευων εισ το ιδιον σωμα AMARTANEIWhat a tricky verse (apart from the first two words). ι would like to ask a couple of questions.Do εκτοσ and εισ give the same sense as our”external” and “internal”?Is το ιδιον σωμα (“his own body”) clarifyingthe body referred to in του σωματοσ or is itcontrasting this with some other body?(ι 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, μη, ει μη, PAREKTOS1 Cor 6:18
1 Cor 6:18 Carlton Winbery winberyc at speedgate.net
Sat Oct 2 19:19:58 εδτ 1999
1 Cor 6:18 1 Cor 6:18 Trevor and Margaret Nicholls wrote;>1 Cor 6:18> φευγετε θν πορνειαν παν αμαρθμα> ο εαν ποιηση ανθρωποσ εκτοσ του> σωματοσ εστιν ο δε πορνευων εισ> το ιδιον σωμα αμαρτανει> >What a tricky verse (apart from the first two words).> ι would like to ask a couple of questions.> >Do εκτοσ and εισ give the same sense as our>“external” and “internal”?ι would think so. Some sins are not with the body (outside) and the sin offornication is within (perhaps even “against” the same body).>Is το ιδιον σωμα (“his own body”) clarifying>the body referred to in του σωματοσ or is it>contrasting this with some other body?>(ι 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 ιδιον>is on the wrong body if this is so).> ι think the verse has to be broken up into three parts.1) φευγετε θν πορνειαν “Avoid sexual sins.”2) παν αμαρθμα ο εαν ποιηση ανθρωποσ εκτοσ του σωματοσ εστιν “Every(other) sin which a man commits is outside the body>”3) ο δε πορνευων εισ το ιδιον σωμα αμαρτανει “But he who commitsfornication sins within (or against) his own body.” Hence, ι think that itis the same body in both instances else the contrast (δε) makes no sense.> Dr. Carlton λ. 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 εδτ 1999
1 Cor 6:18 1 Cor 6:18 At 10:11 αμ 10/3/99 +1300, you wrote:>Hi> >1 Cor 6:18> φευγετε θν πορνειαν παν αμαρθμα> ο εαν ποιηση ανθρωποσ εκτοσ του> σωματοσ εστιν ο δε πορνευων εισ> το ιδιον σωμα αμαρτανει> >What a tricky verse (apart from the first two words).> ι would like to ask a couple of questions.> >Do εκτοσ and εισ 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 ι would render eis as “against”.> >Is το ιδιον σωμα (“his own body”) clarifying>the body referred to in του σωματοσ or is it>contrasting this with some other body?It refers to tou swmatos.>(ι 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 ιδιον>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
Sun Oct 3 06:31:47 εδτ 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 ι 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
Sun Oct 3 08:23:22 εδτ 1999
Matt 19:9 Objective Genitive in Rom. 3:22 At 11:31 πμ 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 ι 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.ι bet that is glorious to see. α 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 ι 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 ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Oct 3 07:12:15 εδτ 1999
1 Cor 6:18 Matt 19:9 At 11:31 πμ +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 ι 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 τα εργα θσ σαρκοσ, including (vs. 19) πορνεια, ακαθαρσια,ασελγεια–which one might reasonably understand as sexual–but thencontinues (vs. 20) to include ειδωλολατρια, φαρμακεια, εξθραι, ερισ, ζηλοω,θυμοι, εριθειαι, διξοστασιαι, hAIRESEIS, (vs. 21) φθονοι, μεθαι, κωμοι καιτα hOMOIA τουτοισ …(ι remember vividly how surprised–and inwardly gratified–ι 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, σαρχ is hardly identical with σωμα ordinarily in Pauline texts,generally meaning the alienated self or σωμα hAMARTIAS that is subservientto demonically self- and other-destructive passions. But ι think that prideand cursing might fit somewhere in that list as τα hOMOIA τουτοισ.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, μο, υσα 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, μο 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 εδτ 1999
difficult text 1 Cor 6:18 On 10/03/99, “Jim West <jwest at highland.net>” wrote:> At 11:31 πμ 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 ι 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 ρ. JungSoongsil UniversitySeoul, Korea > >> Best, and hows the Spring there in New Zealand?> >> >Lovely. My deep red magnolia is just starting> >to blossom.> > ι bet that is glorious to see. α 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 ι digress.> > Best,> > Jim> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++> Jim West, ThD> email- jwest at highland.net> web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
difficult text1 Cor 6:18
Tue Oct 5 11:18:33 εδτ 1999
1 Cor 6:18 λινοκαλαμην At 8:23 αμ -0400 10/3/99, Jim West wrote:>At 11:31 πμ 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 ι 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, ι think there’s a bit too much generalization from the onestatement in a particular context in a particular letter of Paul. Even inRomans ι think one ought to be careful to consider strong Paulineassertions in terms of the immediate context of what is being said. In sum,ι 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, υνλεσσ anyone wants to talk aboutanother specifically Pauline passage and focus upon what its Greek textmeans.Carl ω. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, μο, υσα 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, μο 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
1 Cor 6:18LINOKALAMHN
Tue Oct 5 10:59:58 εδτ 1999
1 Cor 6:18 1 Cor 6:18 At 09:44 αμ 10/5/99 +0000, you wrote:>Does Paul’s admonition imply that the sin against oneself is severer than>sins against another??> >Moonι 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 6:18 Steve Puluka spuluka at hotmail.com
Tue Oct 5 18:15:14 εδτ 1999
λινοκαλαμην Matt 19:9 >From: Jim West <jwest at highland.net>>At 11:31 πμ 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 ι 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.> ι 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 ω. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Oct 5 20:33:53 εδτ 1999
1 Cor 6:18 Aspect & Aktionsart Once again: this is νοτ 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 ω. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, μο, υσα 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, μο 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
1 Cor 6:18Aspect & Aktionsart
1 Cor 6:18 Jeffrey β. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Tue Oct 5 19:39:58 εδτ 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 πμ 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 ι 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.> >> > ι 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?> ι‘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, ρ. Jewett’s _Pau’s Anthropological Terms_ , ρ. Gundry’s _Soma inBiblicalTheology_, and Leonard Audet’s “What is the risen ‘spiritual body’ ?” inTheologyDigest 21 (1973) 1-4.Yours,Jeffrey Gibson–Jeffrey β. Gibson7423 ν. 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 εδτ 1999
kata panda kai dia panda Adolph Schmolles, Hand Konkordanz On Tue 5 Oct 1999 (15:15:14), spuluka at hotmail.com wrote:> ι 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 εισ αυτουσ τε και εισ αλλουσ. Some think εισ means “against”; some that εισ means “into”, the act of copulation. ερρωσθε Ben– Revd Ben Crick, βα ξφ <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (υκ) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm
kata panda kai dia pandaAdolph Schmolles, Hand Konkordanz
Thank you all for your answers. ι really appreciate it.
Regards,
Dmitriy Reznik
Statistics: Posted by Dmitriy Reznik — January 18th, 2018, 3:23 pm
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑
January 18th, 2018, 3:00 pmDmitriy Reznik wrote: ↑
January 18th, 2018, 1:34 pmDear experts,
Now Mike Aubrey needs to weigh in too ;->
ι‘d say Barry has a solid handle on it. 
ι‘d add to this…
Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑
εἰς 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
Dmitriy Reznik wrote: ↑
Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — January 18th, 2018, 3:00 pm
Dmitriy Reznik wrote: ↑
ι 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 ἁμαρτάνει
ι wonder why all translations that ι found understand εἰς as “against”. Wouldn’t it be more natural to understand it as “in” with meaning “with”? ι know that normally εἰς means direction toward something, but ι also remember that there are enough exceptions.
If he meant ‘”in” with meaning “with”‘, ι 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 ι think that’s intentional.
Prepositions are funny across languages, ι don’t really know how many of the ‘exceptions’ are just mismatches between Greek and English/German. Here, ι 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.
Dmitriy Reznik wrote: ↑
Dmitriy Reznik wrote: ↑