[B-Greek] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9
rhutchin at aol.com
rhutchin at aol.com
Thu Feb 19 08:40:02 EST 2009
The issue here does not seem to be the translation but perhaps the manner in which people use the translation.? We have:
LEGW DE hUMIN hOTI hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIAi KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOIXATAI.
The force of the verse is hOTI hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOIXATAI.? If divorce were actually limited to those cases where the wife commits PORNEIAi, I suspect divorce might be rare.? Not even intimated is the case where the man commits PORNEIAi.? We see here a very severe limitation on the ability of the husband to divorce his wife.
The special case, MH EPI PORNEIAi, is not addressed here as it is excluded from discussion. The reader (especially a man who wants to divorce his wife and is looking for cause) is left asking, What happens in the case where the wife does commit fornication. Can the husband put her away? What if he does and then marries again?? Does he commit adultery in that case?? We don't know because Jesus really doesn't tell us as MH EPI PORNEIAi is an exception not for divorce but for the discussion at hand. [Is this true? Is this the effect of the MH EPI clause?]]
MH EPI is used in 1 Tim 5:19:
KATA PRESBUTEROU KATHGORIAN MH PARADEXOU EKTOS EI MH EPI DUO H TRIWN MARTURWN.
The force of the verse is, KATA PRESBUTEROU KATHGORIAN MH PARADEXOU.? The exception is MH EPI DUO H TRIWN MARTURWN or not without two or three witnesses.? This is meant to limit accusations KATA PRESBUTEROU.? However, bringing an accusation even with two or three witnesses does not, in itself, prove the accusation and condemn the accused.? It merely establishes a basic requirement for making an accusation (and then following Matthew 18, that accusation would be made in private to the accused and not in public).
The exception in Matthew 19 does not take away from the force of the verse which clearly limits the ability of a man to divorce his wife.? As a grammatical issue, the presence of the exception (MH EPI) seems to exclude that issue from discussion and does not necessarily allow, require or justify a man to divorce his wife.?
Roger Hutchinson
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:59:42 -0600
From: Will Dilbeck <will.dilbeck at gmail.com>
Subject: [B-Greek] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9
To: B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID:
<f01d65470902171359t6d833361w8e9068a7d11b844b at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hello,
I realize that this is a highly controversial issue, thus I wish to preface
this email by saying that my question is of a strictly grammatical nature.
My question is this, why do most (if not all) English versions translate the
"exception clause" of Matthew 19:9 as "except for fornication"?
In other words, I cannot see in any way how MH EPI PORNEIA could be
translated as "except for fornication". In Matthew 5:32, the clause PAREKTOS
LOGOU PORNEIAS can certainly be translated as "except for the reason of
unchasity" (NASB). But as far as I can tell, this is not equivelant to the
clause in Matthew 19:9.
I have done quite a bit of research as to this question and I have yet to
find ONE commentary that addresses this grammatical question. I have also
read a paper concerning Erasmus' addition to his 1st edition of his
Greek-Latin New Testament (he added EI to the above stated clause of Matthew
19:9, thus making it read EI MH EPI PORNEIA or "except for fornication").
This seems possible, but I again, this seems to be getting away from our
text as we have it.
Thanks in advance,
Will Dilbeck
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list