Re: Mt 19:9

From: Paul S. Dixon (
Date: Thu May 13 1999 - 11:42:29 EDT

On Thu, 13 May 99 14:44:47 (Ben Crick) writes:
>On Wed 12 May 99 (21:34:20), wrote:
>> I couldn't help but notice the misuse of logic here. Ben,
>> what you are affirming is the negative inference fallacy.
> Paul,
> Thanks. Yes, I have to admit that I am affirming the negative
> fallacy. But then, is not also John Wenham making as dodgy an
> If I may turn my syllogism into a polylogism:
> NOT P;
> Therefore NOT (P AND Q);
> Therefore, NOT R.
> Hmmmm.

Is Wenham really saying that if a man does not both
divorce his wife for PORNEIA and remarry, then he does
not commit adultery? If so, then he would be drawing an
invalid inference, indeed (sure would have been an easy
out for King David).

I have not read Wenham for some time, nor have I been
following the discussion here regarding his comments,
but I would be shocked to find him saying this.

Another consideration is the supposed conflict between
Mt 19:9 and Mk 10:12. But, that conflict exists only if
one assumes the negation of Mt 19:9. If the MH EPI
PORNEIAi clause is meant to merely exclude from
consideration the case of PORNEIA, then Mk 10:12
and Mt 19:9 harmonize beautifully. We do not have to
figure that Mark left something out and that Matthew
gives us the fuller picture, and/or that Mark was simply
in error.

Paul Dixon

You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

B-Greek home page:
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: []
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
To subscribe, send a message to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:26 EDT