From: Steve Puluka (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Oct 04 1999 - 06:12:53 EDT
<x-flowed>>From: Carlton Winbery <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>I would agree with Paul that the case of a wife who has committed adultery
>is simply excluded from this statement. That seems the most natural way to
>take the reading. MH EPI PORNEIA simply that the case of PORNEIA is
>excluded. A large number of scribes came to this conclusion also. In the
>footnotes of N-A27 B, fam 1, Bohairic Coptic, D, Fam 13, 33, the old Latin,
>Sahidic, Mid. Egyptian, plus some other mss introduced the word PAREKTOS
>into the reading. Someone needs to check and see if this reading was in the
>Stephanus text and the text behind the KJV. What led the KJV to read this
>as Escept could have been a different text.
The Jerusalem Bible renders this verse:
Now I say this to you: the man who divorces his wife-- I am not speaking of
fornication -- and marries another, is guilty of adultery.
Does this capture the sense of exclusion you are speaking of here? I have
to admit that I am having troubling understanding the practical difference
between exclusion and except. Could you elaborate on the distinction?
Adult Education Instructor
Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:41 EDT