From: Brian Swedburg (brian@discoveryhills.org)
Date: Thu Nov 15 2001 - 02:22:50 EST
<x-html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:12 EDT
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [b-greek] matthew 19:9</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Verdana">On 11/15/01 12:17 PM, "justin rogers" <justinrogers35@hotmail.com> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana">Dear fellow Greek students, I am a bit perplexed about an issue I came across recently. In Matthew 19:9, MH is used rather than EAV MH. Many English translations use "except" in this verse. This is not a proper translation of MH. Is this something that can be justified? I also find it interesting that in Mark's parallel account of this passage, the "except clause" is left out entirely (Mk. 10:11-12). Jesus also mentions that his intent is to restore the principals from Creation. The "except clause" wasn't in God's original plan. In addition, Romans 7:2-3, a passage that obviously permits remarriage on the grounds of a spouse's death, is very clear. What is the significance of the unclear language in Matthew19:9? <BR>
<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.] <BR>
<BR>
Dear Justin and List, Greetings!<BR>
<BR>
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>
<BR>
Having recently spent a considerable time in Matthew 5; 19; Mark 10; etc... I would point out two apparent assumptions in your inquiry.<BR>
First, “Jesus also mentions that his intent is to restore the principals from Creation.” is a theological assumption that needs to be weighed, but not on the list. <BR>
<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 “third class condition” of 19:9, it seems to me that MH EPI PORNEIA modifies the protasis. 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 “except” translation may be justified when in it I read “Not in regard to PORNEIA,...”. <BR>
<BR>
Third, as may be obvious, I don’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 the syntax of Matthew 19:9. I am very comfortable letting the syntax of each of these passages accumulate to define my theology.<BR>
<BR>
Thanks for the dialogue Justin!<BR>
<BR>
Brian P. Swedburg<BR>
Student<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana"><BR>
</FONT>
---<BR>
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]<BR>
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>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>
</x-html>