[B-Greek] Matt 5.32 is part missing?
Elizabeth Kline
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Mar 11 00:02:16 EDT 2008
On Mar 10, 2008, at 4:38 PM, Mitch Larramore wrote:
> EGW DE LEGW hUMIN hOTI PAS hO APOLUWN THN GUNAIKA
> AUTOU PAREKTOS LOGOU PORNEIAS POIEI AUTHN MOICEUQHNAI
> KAI hOS EAN APOLELUMENHN GAMHSHi MOICATAI
>
> I think what this says is that if a man divorces his
> wife (by virtue of the exception clause here, the
> implication would be that he divorces his wife for
> unlawful reasons) he causes her to commit adultery.
> So, my question is this: is there an assumption that
> she will commit adultery UPON REMARRYING or does the
> divorced status itself qualify her to be an adulteress?
I do not see how this question can be answered within the published b-
greek guidelines for topicality. The debate about the exception
clause and the lack of it in Luke and Mark is primarily a question
about cultural background or the cognitive framework, that set of
assumptions which were held in common by those immersed in 'Second
Temple Judaism'. For that reason it isn't a question about language.
For a recent treatment of this I recommend reading R.T.France (Mark
NIGTC) on Mark 10:1-11.
Elizabeth Kline
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list