From: Steven Cox (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Mar 11 1998 - 08:13:00 EST
At 11:59 98/03/11 +1000, Ward Powers wrote:
>I am not sure how "flesh" in verse 23 would fit in with this. But, in
>relation to verses 7 and 8, this approach definitely appeals to me.
>However: would Jude and his readers have had such a familiarity with the
>teaching of Jesus, and his use of "flesh" in reference to marriage, that it
>would come naturally to Jude to use SARX with the one-flesh of marriage in
>mind, and would Jude's readers have seen SARX in Jude as a reflection of
Jude's readers would certainly have been familiar with
the passage in Zechariah (3:1~5) that v23 is referencing.
Interesting that SARX does occur in LXX one verse before this:
EULABEISQW PASA SARX APO PROSWPOU KURIOU (Zech2:13)
but this may mean nothing as Jude does not appear to use LXX
at all in his letter:
OUS DE SWZETE EK PUROS ARPAZONTES (23)
hWS DALOS EXESPASMENOS EK PUROS (Zech3:3)
APO THS SARKOS ESPILWMENON CITWNA (23)
TA iIMATIA TA hRUPARA (Zech3:4)
But I'm not so sure it cannot be followed further back into
the events of Ezra/Nehemiah which are the immediate basis
of Judes' reference to Zechariah. How much historical context
of Zechariah can we assume Jude's readers understood?
[Personally I think they would as 1st Century Jews(?) have
understood at least as much as we do]. In this case the
question is what does the choice of Zechariah 3:1~5, and
Zechariah's contemporary background, illustrate about
Jude's own contemporary problems?
If you are right about the marriage imagery in SARX, then
Ezra 10:18 (concerning the intermarriage of the hUIOI IHSOU
hUIOU IWSEDEK) gives immediate weight to thatsecond argument.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:09 EDT