From: Jim West (email@example.com)
Date: Mon May 11 1998 - 09:51:26 EDT
At 02:21 PM 5/11/98 +0000, you wrote:
>PEIRASMENON DE KATA PANTA KAQ' hOMOIOTHTA CWRIS hAMARTIAS:
>What is the function of CWRIS hAMARTIA here? Is it (as it is usually
>taken) that Jesus was tempted in every respect as we are "yet without
>sin" (KJV, RSV, NIV, NASB), i.e. he was tempted but did not sin, or
>could it be something like this (paraphrased to draw out the sense):
>"tempted in every respect as we are are, except in relation to those
>temptations which proceed from sin"?
>In other words, the CWRIS hAMARTIA might be cautiously qualifying
>the PANTA, lest someone objects that Jesus could not have been
>tempted in *every* way that we are, because some of our temptations
>are the direct result of sin.
>This is not my own idea, but it belongs apparently to Montefiore --
>someone raised it in a recent class and I think it is possible.
>What do you think?
It seems a good possibility to me, Mark. First, "apart from" may not be as
restrictive in sense as it is usually taken. In fact, a look at the usage
of the preposition may demonstrate something else. I think M. is right, and
that certain presuppositions have made his position both unpopular and/or
Jim West, ThD
Quartz Hill School of Theology
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:43 EDT