[B-Greek] Matt 5.32 is part missing?
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Sat Mar 15 05:08:49 EDT 2008
On Mar 14, 2008, at 10:39 PM, Gerald Ford wrote:
> Do we know that the woman mentioned in this verse is
> "necessarily" the wife of the man mentioned in the
> verse? Or, do we just assume it? Perhaps these two
> examples are given together, but not as an example of
> a particular married couple. If she is a person from
> another marriage, then she may be the instigator
> rather than the victim of a divorce.
This question seems to me to ignore the fact that the clauses under
discussion are generalizing and all-inclusive rather than specific:
PAS hO APOLUWN = PAS hOS APOLUHi -- present subjunctive in the
protasis; so also hOS EAN GAMHSHi -- aorist subjunctive in the
protasis; each of the two clauses includes "any and everyone who ... "
> --- Mitch Larramore <mitchlarramore at yahoo.com> 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?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list