The above two assertions are contradictory! Harper takes note of the fact that the meaning of πορνεία differed/changed between Paul and the time of Gregory in the fourth century.
And the first assertion falls into what Harper notes is circularity.
I recommend re-reading the conclusion.
The psychological notions may have begun with Freud, but there is good medical evidence that some sexual release (last I read was once every three to four weeks) has actual health benefits.
You don’t find what someone understood about a topic by referencing later writers. The Deuterocanonical books are of far more value given that they are what the NT writers would have been familiar with. (Yes, Philo was a contemporary of Paul, but I know of no evidence that Paul drew on Philo.)
You took that out of context – read on:
but we must recognize what especially this meant in the context of the Greek city under Roman rule,
I note that most of your quotes refer to content in the LXX, which is ironic since you objected to use of the LXX to see “how the authors of the NT understood the word”.
If you read Harper’s article, and add to it the TDNT entry on the matter, you would be aware that you just referenced at least three different standards.
If you read Harper’s article, along with the TDNT entry on the topic, you’d know that there was not a consistent teaching “for thousands of years”.
Having read just about everything Lewis wrote apart from his scholarly works, I’d say the above applies to you: you are doing exactly what he warned against, namely smearing all prior use of a term into the one you use and prefer.
And how it shifts! It’s a fascinating study in how the use and meaning of words change. I like how Harper notes that a metaphorical usage spilled back to become a practical one.
Yes – it’s just bad scholarship to use Clement as indicative of Paul’s use.
BTW, in reading that Philo reference I was reminded of two essays we read in Greek back in grad school. One argued that a boy should be married once old enough to father children, with the case being made “that he not molest the slaves of his father or of his mother”, while noting that “making use” of female slaves of a (male) friend’s household was acceptable. The other was an argument in favor of slavery, that young men should have access to women without honor (which equated to women lacking a “kurios”, a master (a father or husband) so they would leave women of honor alone.
Those two items still seem very alien to me!
LOL
Rabbis argued over it!
