[b-greek] Re: matthew 19:9

From: Brian Swedburg (brian@discoveryhills.org)
Date: Thu Nov 15 2001 - 02:22:50 EST

<TITLE>Re: [b-greek] matthew 19:9</TITLE>
<FONT FACE="Verdana">On 11/15/01 12:17 PM, &quot;justin rogers&quot; &lt;justinrogers35@hotmail.com&gt; wrote:<BR>
</FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana">Dear fellow Greek students, I am a bit perplexed about an issue I came across recently. &nbsp;In Matthew 19:9, MH is used rather than EAV MH. &nbsp;Many English translations use &quot;except&quot; in this verse. &nbsp;This is not a proper translation of MH. &nbsp;Is this something that can be justified? &nbsp;I also find it interesting that in Mark's parallel account of this passage, the &quot;except clause&quot; is left out entirely (Mk. 10:11-12). &nbsp;Jesus also mentions that his intent is to restore the principals from Creation. &nbsp;The &quot;except clause&quot; wasn't in God's original plan. &nbsp;In addition, Romans 7:2-3, a passage that obviously permits remarriage on the grounds of a spouse's death, is very clear. &nbsp;What is the significance of the unclear language in Matthew19:9? <BR>
Justin Rogers [Moderator's note: New list-members please take note: BG Protocol requires a full-name signature to be appended to messages sent to the list.] &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<BR>
Dear Justin and List, Greetings!<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Justin, if you go to the archives you will find plenty of dialogue on this passage, the use of MH, and related passages. Dig in!<BR>
&nbsp;Having recently spent a considerable time in Matthew 5; 19; Mark 10; etc... &nbsp;I would point out two apparent assumptions in your inquiry.<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;First, &#8220;Jesus also mentions that his intent is to restore the principals from Creation.&#8221; is a theological assumption that needs to be weighed, but not on the list. &nbsp;<BR>
Secondly, I am not sure that the use of Mh in this passage is ambiguous or unclear, though I agree that it is significant. When I diagram out the &#8220;third class condition&#8221; of 19:9, it seems to me that MH EPI PORNEIA modifies the protasis. &nbsp;Finally, and this may be the issue you are after, how does MH function in modifying the protasis? According to my perusal of BAGD, the aorist subj can function negatively in a clause without the EAV. Thus it seems to me that the &#8220;except&#8221; translation may be justified when in it I read &#8220;Not in regard to PORNEIA,...&#8221;. <BR>
Third, as may be obvious, I don&#8217;t see the rhetoric of the Mark 10 passage as limiting the Greek of Matthew 19:9. Again, I am also uncomfortable letting your or my theology of Romans 7 define &nbsp;the syntax of Matthew 19:9. &nbsp;I am very comfortable letting the syntax of each of these passages accumulate to define my theology.<BR>
Thanks for the dialogue Justin!<BR>
Brian P. Swedburg<BR>

B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek>
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu<BR>
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu<BR>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:12 EDT