Matt 19:9

Brian Swedburg brian at discoveryhills.org
Tue Oct 12 18:00:16 EDT 1999


Greetings.
My response is specifically to Steven Craig Miller, and the strain on
Matt 19:9. Recall...

I guess we could go back and forth like this forever. You've made your
point, your pastoral concerns take precedent over accepting the most
probable translation.

This was one of your exchanges made with Mr. Dixon.

1. Please show us based on syntactical statistics (ie.  aorist +aorist +
present = ?),
 or the basis of lexical data for MOICATAI, or some similar Greek
grammatical consideration, WHY yours is the most probable translation.

you also said
As already noted, Mt 19:9 contains three verbs. The first two are
aorist,
the last present. Why the switch to the present tense? One cannot
explain
the present tense merely on the desire to make it gnomic, since the
gnomic
aorist could have worked just as well. Rather, the most reasonable
interpretation IMO is that the present tense was used because the action
of
adultery was viewed to be ongoing!

Furthermore, what is adultery? Adultery can only take place when a
married
person has sexual relations with someone other than their spouse. Two
unmarried people cannot commit adultery. Adultery is a violation of a
marriage. Without a marriage, there cannot be adultery! The point of the

Matthean Jesus' saying at Mt 19:9 (in the context of Mt 19:3-9) is that
the
first marriage (even after a divorce, although with exception) is still
binding, thus any sexual relationship with anyone else is adultery!
Implicit is that idea that it must continue to be adultery as long as
the
first spouse is alive. The notion that one ONLY commits adultery during
the
re-marriage ceremony, and that afterwards the second marriage is free
from
adultery, has no merit from this text.

In this first paragraph cited, I understand you to argue your
interpretation is correct because the "gnomic present" need not be
correct, and on the basis of a rhetorical assumption of the ongoing
nature of adultery.  Again in this second paragraph, your support seems
to me, primarily philosophical rather than linguistical.

So I tip my hat to your enthusiasm in this discussion, and to your
greater Greek knowledge than this little Greeker. Yet, I am unsatisfied
with your non grammatical argumentation, and your public criticism of
Mr. Dixon for having a personal concern (ie. non exegetically text
related) which overshadows his understanding of the text, when you have
not convinced this reader you are exegeting the Greek text based on a
sound grammatical approach.
I appreciate keeping these discussions above the belt and about the
Greek.

Thanks and my respect to you,
Brian
M.A.E.T. Student Western Sem.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/19991012/e2c052b0/attachment.html 


More information about the B-Greek mailing list