Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Divers Topics in NT Texts Message-ID: <2909@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 31-Jan-85 13:43:29 EST Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2909 Posted: Thu Jan 31 13:43:29 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Feb-85 00:11:11 EST References: <128@cci-bdc.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 54 In article <128@cci-bdc.UUCP> larry@cci-bdc.UUCP (Larry DeLuca) writes: >we spend a lot of time wondering whether the greek was translated >correctly...what about the other languages before it? what about the >oral tradition that surely started long before...? Oral transmission isn't nearly as important in NT texts as it is with the OT. Evidence in nearly all the Gospels indicates less than a generation between the major events and the writing of the text; the consistent use of the the first person throughout the travels of Paul indicates that Luke was a witness to much of what he describes. All the evidence suggests that the NT has always been written in Greek, and in any case, the only other language involved is Aramaic. >who's to say what was and wasn't implemented for practicality as opposed >to true objections on god's part (a good portion of the kosher laws, for >example...if you tell people they'll get sick if they eat uncooked pork >they ignore you -- tell them god will kill you for it and they listen >up real fast)... Current experience, not to mention OT testimony, indicates that the latter techinque isn't particularly effective; I might also add that the proposed explanation is unprovable rationalization. One of my orthodox friends holds that at least part of the reason for the dietary laws is to mark the jews off as a special people; one could draw an analogy to flags and other heraldic devices, where the content of the sign is important, not for its intrinsic meaning, but because it serves to identify and to differentiate. >it doesn't seem to make much sense that "a man shall not lie with a >man as with a woman. it is an abomination." should mean that male >homosexuality is inpermissible, but that there is no mention of lesbian >sexual practices (are lesbians a product of the twentieth century, or >is it the men that wrote the bible got off on watching two women go >at it, or is it just that they (being shepherds) were so busy molesting >the sheep (which is also not mentioned) that they didn't notice...? First of all, I believe bestiality is in fact specifically prohibited (although I admit that I can't cite a passage: any ideas, anyone?). Second, one obvious reason why the OT concerns itself with male homosexuality is that it had important ritual connotations in many other semetic religions. One can make a strong argument from the spirit of the law that the prohibition against male homosexuality should extend to lesbianism as well. Could we please leave "homophobia" in net.motss? One can certainly argue that the part of that one doesn't like were added later by , and are not original, but such arguments should be taken with massive blocks of salt, since they are generally not amenable to investigation. Besides, the word has consistently been used to refer to those who find homosexuality immoral in a pejorative fashion. I find this unreasonable one two grounds: (1) it interferes with intellegent argument, and (2) it incorrectly implies that the moral repugnance arises from other psychological causes. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe