Mt 19:9

CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Wed May 12 17:41:47 EDT 1999



In a message dated 5/12/99 3:27:02 PM, dd-1 at juno.com writes:

<< Please note the following:

"hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIA
KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOICATAI"

Wenham in his "Jesus and Divorce" states:

	"Prepositional phrases are adverbial and normally
	qualify the verb which they follow."

Thus, his conclusion is that MH EPI PORNEIA modifies "divorce"
but not "marries another".  His conclusion, then, is that Jesus'
statement is not allowing for remarriage (to someone else) even
if the cause for the divorce is adultery.

Also, Donald Hagner in his Word Biblical Commentary on Matthew,
states:

	"Thus divorce is not allowed, except in special cases,
	and remarriage after divorce is similarly ruled out (see
	Dupont, Heth, Quesnell, Wenham [ JSNT 28 (1986) 17-
	23 ].  ...  Exegetically, Wenham is more convincing on
	this passage."

William Heth in "Another Look At The Erasmian View Of Divorce
And Remarriage", JETS Sept '82(?)  quotes Wenham:

	"Had the clause comes after "marries another", it would
	have expressly sanctioned remarriage; while placed
	before "puts away" it would have made separation
	mandatory for unchastity." -p271

as a conclusion to:

	"Prepositional phrases are adverbial in nature and
	normally follow the unit they qualify."

1)  What is the normal syntax for a phrase like MH EPI PORNEIA?

2)  Are there other examples which might be noted?

Thank you for your help.
 >

Zerwick, Biblical Greek, §442 (pp. 148-49) has an interesting note on this 
passage. "In this passage, however, MH not only may but should mean 
"exccept," not that MH = "except" is of itself admissible, but because MH is 
here dependent upon the introductory hOS AN which is equivalent to EAN TIS 
("whoever = if anyone dismiss his wife MH EPI PORNEIA
") and thus we have 
(EAN) MH ="unless,"i.e., "except." Both expressions therefore, lay down the 
same true exception; as for the interpretation of the exception cf. Verb. 
Dom. 38 (1960), 193-212."

This understanding would essentially make the statement a complex conditional 
with perhaps the following understanding: if anyone divorces his wife, if he 
does not divorce her because of immorality, and marries another, he commits 
adultery. Thus the MH EPI PORNEIA clause would simply modify APOLUSHi. This 
does not really resolve the exegetical issue. The question is does it invite 
the inference "if he divoioreces his wife because of immorality, and then 
marries another, does he commit adultery.

Charles Powell
DTS
cep7 at aol.com



More information about the B-Greek mailing list