From: Brian Swedburg (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Oct 12 1999 - 18:00:16 EDT
<x-html><!x-stuff-for-pete base="" src="" id="0"><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<br>My response is specifically to Steven Craig Miller, and the strain
on Matt 19:9. Recall...
<p><i>I guess we could go back and forth like this forever. You've made
<br><i>point, your pastoral concerns take precedent over accepting the
<p>This was one of your exchanges made with Mr. Dixon.
<p>1. Please show us based on syntactical statistics (ie. aorist
+aorist + present = ?),
<br> or the basis of lexical data for MOICATAI, or some similar Greek
grammatical consideration, <b><u>WHY</u></b> yours is the most probable
<br>you also said
<br><i>As already noted, Mt 19:9 contains three verbs. The first two are
<br><i>the last present. Why the switch to the present tense? One cannot
<br><i>the present tense merely on the desire to make it gnomic, since
<br><i>aorist could have worked just as well. Rather, the most reasonable</i>
<br><i>interpretation IMO is that the present tense was used because the
<br><i>adultery was viewed to be ongoing!</i><i></i>
<p><i>Furthermore, what is adultery? Adultery can only take place when
<br><i>person has sexual relations with someone other than their spouse.
<br><i>unmarried people cannot commit adultery. Adultery is a violation
<br><i>marriage. Without a marriage, there cannot be adultery! The point
<br><i>Matthean Jesus' saying at Mt 19:9 (in the context of Mt 19:3-9)
is that the</i>
<br><i>first marriage (even after a divorce, although with exception) is
<br><i>binding, thus any sexual relationship with anyone else is adultery!</i>
<br><i>Implicit is that idea that it must continue to be adultery as long
<br><i>first spouse is alive. The notion that one ONLY commits adultery
<br><i>re-marriage ceremony, and that afterwards the second marriage is
<br><i>adultery, has no merit from this text.</i><i></i>
<p>In this first paragraph cited, I understand you to argue your interpretation
<b>is</b> correct because the "gnomic present" <b>need not be</b> correct,
and on the basis of a rhetorical assumption of the ongoing nature of adultery.
Again in this second paragraph, your support seems to me, primarily philosophical
rather than linguistical.
<p>So I tip my hat to your enthusiasm in this discussion, and to your greater
Greek knowledge than this little Greeker. Yet, I am unsatisfied with your
non grammatical argumentation, and your public criticism of Mr. Dixon for
having a personal concern (ie. non exegetically text related) which overshadows
his understanding of the text, when you have not convinced this reader
you are exegeting the Greek text based on a sound grammatical approach.
<br>I appreciate keeping these discussions above the belt and about the
<p>Thanks and my respect to you,
<br>M.A.E.T. Student Western Sem.</html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:42 EDT