matthew 19:9
Brian Swedburg
brian at discoveryhills.org
Thu Nov 15 02:22:50 EST 2001
On 11/15/01 12:17 PM, "justin rogers" <justinrogers35 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dear fellow Greek students, I am a bit perplexed about an issue I came across
> recently. In Matthew 19:9, MH is used rather than EAV MH. Many English
> translations use "except" in this verse. This is not a proper translation of
> MH. Is this something that can be justified? I also find it interesting that
> in Mark's parallel account of this passage, the "except clause" is left out
> entirely (Mk. 10:11-12). Jesus also mentions that his intent is to restore
> the principals from Creation. The "except clause" wasn't in God's original
> plan. In addition, Romans 7:2-3, a passage that obviously permits remarriage
> on the grounds of a spouse's death, is very clear. What is the significance
> of the unclear language in Matthew19:9?
>
> Justin Rogers [Moderator's note: New list-members please take note: BG
> Protocol requires a full-name signature to be appended to messages sent to the
> list.]
>
> Dear Justin and List, Greetings!
>
> Justin, if you go to the archives you will find plenty of dialogue on this
> passage, the use of MH, and related passages. Dig in!
>
> Having recently spent a considerable time in Matthew 5; 19; Mark 10; etc...
> I would point out two apparent assumptions in your inquiry.
> First, ³Jesus also mentions that his intent is to restore the principals
> from Creation.² is a theological assumption that needs to be weighed, but not
> on the list.
>
> Secondly, I am not sure that the use of Mh in this passage is ambiguous or
> unclear, though I agree that it is significant. When I diagram out the ³third
> class condition² of 19:9, it seems to me that MH EPI PORNEIA modifies the
> protasis. Finally, and this may be the issue you are after, how does MH
> function in modifying the protasis? According to my perusal of BAGD, the
> aorist subj can function negatively in a clause without the EAV. Thus it seems
> to me that the ³except² translation may be justified when in it I read ³Not in
> regard to PORNEIA,...².
>
> Third, as may be obvious, I don¹t see the rhetoric of the Mark 10 passage as
> limiting the Greek of Matthew 19:9. Again, I am also uncomfortable letting
> your or my theology of Romans 7 define the syntax of Matthew 19:9. I am very
> comfortable letting the syntax of each of these passages accumulate to define
> my theology.
>
> Thanks for the dialogue Justin!
>
> Brian P. Swedburg
> Student
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/20011115/5f62ae24/attachment.html
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list