David Lim wrote:I think you do not understand what I am getting at. If "αφιετε" is not imperative, then as I see it the only way to read the whole thing is as follows:
but you say:
if [a] man says to the father or the mother:
whatever you might have benefited from me is korban (that is, [a] gift)
you [also] no longer allow him to do anything for [his] father or [his] mother! making void the word of God by your tradition which you delivered. and you do many such like things!
David Lim wrote:Clearly the apodosis for "εαν ειπη ανθρωπος ..." is missing, because if "αφιετε" is taken as a 2nd plural indicative verb, then "[και] ουκετι αφιετε ..." cannot be part of what Jesus claimed that the scribes and Pharisees said.
I don't know that anyone holds that οὐκέτι ἀφίετε is
part of what Jesus claimed they said. There's no requirement in grammar or in sense that it should be. I'll take just one of the translations to indicate the structure; here I use the NIV:
For Moses said
--'Honor your father and your mother,'
--and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
But you say that
--if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God),
--then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother.
Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that (Mar 7:10 NIV)
It is apparent that the if
clause is answered by the then
clause (protasis and apodosis).
The sense you suggest for the apodosis, "no longer allow him to do anything for [his] father or [his] mother!" is a prohibition. As such, it requires the use of μή - on this see eg, BDF 426, 427/4; Wallace p723-4, esp 724C, or, if you prefer, Smyth 1800 (end); 1835, 1840-1841, 1919.
Earlier in the thread, David wrote,
I have now checked about 15 different translations and they all translate as an indicative but have to change the phrasing somewhat because there is then no apodosis. But it makes me very doubtful of my reading...
How do you account for the fact that the translations - unanimously, from your own checking - take the words in a sense other than yours? That sense is, in itself, inadequate; it does not enhance the force of Jesus' words but detracts from it. The rebuke Jesus is giving is to the Pharisees and teachers of the law. It is not a question of their telling unspecified others "No longer not let him ..." - introducing some proxy element by which they acted, as if they would give up their 'authority' in such a way! The force of the rebuke lies in that they who took upon themselves the position of custodians of the law were themselves the ones who prevented a person from truly honouring his parents: "You
do not allow ...".
I don't think there's any disagreement that the οὐκέτι οὐ μή in Mark 14:25 has no bearing on the understanding of these verses, and so I'll post some information on that under a separate thread.