Matthew 19:9

Posted on May 5, 2017February 12, 2018 by ProBible

Mt 19:9 Paul S. Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Wed May 12 21:34:20 EDT 1999

Mt 19:9 Mark 3.1 On Wed, 12 May 99 23:00:59 ben.crick at argonet.co.uk (Ben Crick) writes:>On Wed 12 May 99 (13:54:50), dd-1 at juno.com wrote:>> Please note the following:>> >> “hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIA>> KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOICATAI”> > Dear Danny:> > Yes, I am familiar with Wenham’s take on this issue. To me, it seems> that we have a “logical conjunction” here; two propositions conjoined> with the Boolean operator AND. So we have {[P] AND [Q]} = R :> > {[hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIA]> KAI> [GAMHSHi ALLHN]}> MOICATAI> > So on these grounds I would disagree with Wenham. IF someone divorces> another BECAUSE OF adultery, and marries another: THEN s/he does NOT> commit adultery.> > IF (P AND Q) THEN R; IF NOT-P AND Q THEN NOT-R. IYSWIM.> > ERRWSQE> BenI couldn’t help but notice the misuse of logic here. Ben, what you are affirming is the negative inference fallacy.If P, then Q does not imply, if not P, then not Q. If a manis a resident of Oregon, then he is a resident of the USA.This does not imply, if a man is not a resident of Oregon,then he is not a resident of the USA.Likewise, if (P and Q), then R does not imply if not P and Q,then not R. That is, if a man is a resident of Oregon and doesnot beat his wife, then he is a resident of the USA. Thisdoes not imply that if he is a resident of Oregon and beatshis wife, then he is not a resident of the USA.No, we must not infer from Mt 19:9 that if a man divorceshis wife because she commits adultery, then remarries, then he does not commit adultery himself. It is not validto infer this, and the text does not say it.For more read my paper, “Negative Inference Fallacies”http://users.aol.com/dixonpsPaul Dixon___________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.htmlor call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Mt 19:9Mark 3.1

Mt 19:9 Paul S. Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Wed May 12 21:34:20 EDT 1999

Mt 19:9Mark 3.1

Mt 19:9 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Wed May 12 23:00:59 EDT 1999

Mark 3.1 Mt 19:9 On Wed 12 May 99 (13:54:50), dd-1 at juno.com wrote:> Please note the following:> > “hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIA> KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOICATAI” Dear Danny: Yes, I am familiar with Wenham’s take on this issue. To me, it seems that we have a “logical conjunction” here; two propositions conjoined with the Boolean operator AND. So we have {[P] AND [Q]} = R : {[hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIA] KAI [GAMHSHi ALLHN]} MOICATAI So on these grounds I would disagree with Wenham. IF someone divorces another BECAUSE OF adultery, and marries another: THEN s/he does NOT commit adultery. IF (P AND Q) THEN R; IF NOT-P AND Q THEN NOT-R. IYSWIM. ERRWSQE Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm

Mark 3.1Mt 19:9

Mt 19:9 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Wed May 12 23:00:59 EDT 1999

Mark 3.1Mt 19:9

Mt 19:9 Stephen C. Carlson scarlson at mindspring.com
Thu May 13 00:00:05 EDT 1999

Mt 19:9 Mt 19:9 At 09:34 PM 5/12/99 EDT, Paul S. Dixon wrote:>I couldn’t help but notice the misuse of logic here. Ben, >what you are affirming is the negative inference fallacy.[…]>No, we must not infer from Mt 19:9 that if a man divorces>his wife because she commits adultery, then remarries, >then he does not commit adultery himself. It is not valid>to infer this, and the text does not say it.Actually, the text does. One reason why we should acceptthe conclusion from Mt 19:9 that “if a man divorces hiswife because she commits adultery, then remarries, thenhe does not commit adultery himself” is the common sensenotion that people intend for every word they use to meansomething, especially when formulating rules. This principleis so well established that it has been recognized as acanon of statutory construction, that “every word, phrase,and clause must be given effect.”Therefore, to decide that if a man divorces his wife thenremarries, he always commits adultery, is to assume thatthe words MH EPI PORNEIAi have no meaning whatsoever inMt 19:9. Since this is absurd, the conclusion that BenCrick expressed should be upheld (but not, however, hisstated reasoning with the Ps and Qs).As I wrote in previous post last year:What I reject is the apparent argument that an authornever implies anything beyond what logically followsfrom his explicit statements.Although this conclusion does not logically follow from onlythe explicit words of Mt19:9 (it is not contradicted either), itis a proper deduction from implicit premises about why peoplebother to say anything at all: words are used to communicate.Stephen Carlson–Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson at mindspring.comSynoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/”Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words.” Shujing 2.35

Mt 19:9Mt 19:9

Mt 19:9 Stephen C. Carlson scarlson at mindspring.com
Thu May 13 00:00:05 EDT 1999

Mt 19:9Mt 19:9

Mt 19:9 Paul S. Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Thu May 13 01:25:27 EDT 1999

Mt 19:9 Greek Vocabulary Builder/Greek Fonts On Thu, 13 May 1999 00:00:05 -0400 “Stephen C. Carlson”<scarlson at mindspring.com> writes:>At 09:34 PM 5/12/99 EDT, Paul S. Dixon wrote:>>I couldn’t help but notice the misuse of logic here. Ben, >>what you are affirming is the negative inference fallacy.>[…]>>No, we must not infer from Mt 19:9 that if a man divorces>>his wife because she commits adultery, then remarries, >>then he does not commit adultery himself. It is not valid>>to infer this, and the text does not say it.> >Actually, the text does. One reason why we should accept>the conclusion from Mt 19:9 that “if a man divorces his>wife because she commits adultery, then remarries, then>he does not commit adultery himself” is the common sense>notion that people intend for every word they use to mean>something, especially when formulating rules. This principle>is so well established that it has been recognized as a>canon of statutory construction, that “every word, phrase,>and clause must be given effect.”> >Therefore, to decide that if a man divorces his wife then>remarries, he always commits adultery, is to assume that>the words MH EPI PORNEIAi have no meaning whatsoever in>Mt 19:9. No, the words MH EPI PORNEIAi can mean simply thatthis case is being excluded from consideration at this point.In other words, all Christ is addressing in verse 9 is the caseof the man who divorces his wife for non-adulterous reasons,without saying anything about the case of adultery.The translation might better be, “not for immorality,” insteadof the usual “except for the cause of immorality” (which seemsto suggest the negation). It is interesting to note that this isthe only place MH without an accompanying EI or EAN is translated “except.”The question then becomes, why would He exclude thatcase from consideration at this point? Possibly because Hehad just discussed it in the immediately preceding verses(assuming the sexual offense in Deut 24 is PORNEIA). If so,then He thoroughly covers all cases. Divorce for PORNEIAand remarriage was suffered by Moses, but from the beginningit has not been so (OU GEGONEN OUTWS), v. 8. Then in verse 9, divorce for any other reason and remarriage constitutesadultery.Paul Dixon___________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.htmlor call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Mt 19:9Greek Vocabulary Builder/Greek Fonts

Mt 19:9 Paul S. Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Thu May 13 01:25:27 EDT 1999

Mt 19:9Greek Vocabulary Builder/Greek Fonts

Mt 19:9 dd-1 at juno.com dd-1 at juno.com
Thu May 13 08:59:52 EDT 1999

Greek Vocabulary Builder/Greek Fonts Acts 1:10 Ben, Denny Diehl hereIn response to my question on Mt 19:9> IF (P AND Q) THEN R; IF NOT-P AND Q THEN NOT-R. Alright, you watch your P’s and Q’s <g> (extra points for thosewho know what P and Q stand for!) Is the following possible:Divorce, except for Adultery + Remarry = AdulteryorDivorce = AdulteryRemarry = AdulteryIs there any determinate in Mt 19:9 to suggest either one to bethe case?Also, thanks to Charles Powell for suggesting the followingverses: Mk 9:42, Lk 16:31, Jn 3:12 etc. However, I don’t seethe construction of the ones you suggest as being parallel tothe construction of Mt 19:9. Have I missed it?___________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.htmlor call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Greek Vocabulary Builder/Greek FontsActs 1:10

Mt 19:9 dd-1 at juno.com dd-1 at juno.com
Thu May 13 08:59:52 EDT 1999

Greek Vocabulary Builder/Greek FontsActs 1:10

Mt 19:9 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Thu May 13 14:44:47 EDT 1999

Funny Greek Word Mt 19:9 On Wed 12 May 99 (21:34:20), dixonps at juno.com 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 inference fallacy. But then, is not also John Wenham making as dodgy an inference? If I may turn my syllogism into a polylogism: IF (P AND Q) THEN R; NOT P; Therefore NOT (P AND Q); Therefore, NOT R. Hmmmm. Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm

Funny Greek WordMt 19:9

Mt 19:9 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Thu May 13 14:44:47 EDT 1999

Funny Greek WordMt 19:9

FW: Mt 19:9 Paul, Doug Doug.Paul at GSC.GTE.Com
Wed May 19 15:14:40 EDT 1999

Grammatical errors in RevelationI agree with Jim that Revelation uses poor grammar, but I would point toJohn Hurtgen’s 1991 PhD dissertation, entitled something like”Anti-language in the Book of Revelation” for a discussion of why thegrammar is bad. Machen’s Greek NT Answer Key. On Thur, 13 May 99 Paul Dixon writes:>On Wed, 12 May 99 23:00:59 ben.crick at argonet.co.uk (Ben Crick) writes:>>On Wed 12 May 99 (13:54:50), dd-1 at juno.com wrote:>>> Please note the following:>>> >>> “hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIA>>> KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOICATAI”>> >> Dear Danny:>> >> Yes, I am familiar with Wenham’s take on this issue. To me, it seems>> that we have a “logical conjunction” here; two propositions conjoined>> with the Boolean operator AND. So we have {[P] AND [Q]} = R :>> >> {[hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIA]>> KAI>> [GAMHSHi ALLHN]}>> MOICATAI>> >> So on these grounds I would disagree with Wenham. IF someone divorces>> another BECAUSE OF adultery, and marries another: THEN s/he does NOT>> commit adultery.>> >> IF (P AND Q) THEN R; IF NOT-P AND Q THEN NOT-R. IYSWIM.>> >> ERRWSQE>> Ben>I couldn’t help but notice the misuse of logic here. Ben, >what you are affirming is the negative inference fallacy.>If P, then Q does not imply, if not P, then not Q. If a man>is a resident of Oregon, then he is a resident of the USA.>This does not imply, if a man is not a resident of Oregon,>then he is not a resident of the USA.>Likewise, if (P and Q), then R does not imply if not P and Q,>then not R. That is, if a man is a resident of Oregon and does>not beat his wife, then he is a resident of the USA. This>does not imply that if he is a resident of Oregon and beats>his wife, then he is not a resident of the USA.>No, we must not infer from Mt 19:9 that if a man divorces>his wife because she commits adultery, then remarries, >then he does not commit adultery himself. It is not valid>to infer this, and the text does not say it.>For more read my paper, “Negative Inference Fallacies”>http://users.aol.com/dixonps>Paul DixonThe logic being described is true unless the author is forming a definitionor saying two things are equivalent. That is, if I make the statement: “if I am sailing in Lake Superior then I am sailing in the Great Lakes” that is true but the opposite is not true (i.e. the statement “not Superiorimplies not Great Lakes” is false). However if I make the statement: “if I am sailing in Lake Superior or Lake Michigan or Lake Huron or LakeErie or Lake Ontario then I am sailing in the Great Lakes” the opposite in this case is true. The structure of the sentence is thesame yet the validity of the negative inference is different. The reason isof course that this list of lakes is equivalent to the term Great Lakes butyou have to know this outside of the two statements made.So, getting back to biblical greek are there syntactic constructions whichmake the author’s intention plain in the greek at the point of thestatement? Is there a unique syntax that means the author is making adefinition or saying two things are equal?Doug Pauldoug.paul at gsc.gte.com

FW: Mt 19:9 Paul, Doug Doug.Paul at GSC.GTE.Com
Wed May 19 15:14:40 EDT 1999

FW: Mt 19:9 Paul S. Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Wed May 19 22:07:37 EDT 1999

hINA + infinitive Bad Greek On Wed, 19 May 1999 15:14:40 -0400 “Paul, Doug” <Doug.Paul at GSC.GTE.Com>writes:> <snip>>The logic being described is true unless the author is forming adefinition>or saying two things are equivalent. That is, if I make the statement:> >“if I am sailing in Lake Superior then I am sailing in the Great >Lakes” that is true but the opposite is not true (i.e. the statement“not >Superior implies not Great Lakes” is false). However if I make thestatement: > >“if I am sailing in Lake Superior or Lake Michigan or Lake Huron or >Lake Erie or Lake Ontario then I am sailing in the Great Lakes” >the opposite in this case is true. The structure of the sentence is >the same yet the validity of the negative inference is different. The >reason is of course that this list of lakes is equivalent to the termGreat >Lakes but you have to know this outside of the two statements made.> >So, getting back to biblical greek are there syntactic constructionswhich>make the author’s intention plain in the greek at the point of the>statement? Is there a unique syntax that means the author is making a>definition or saying two things are equal?> Doug:You are not suggesting that the protasis is identical withthe apodosis in Mt 19:9, are you? Yes, if they were, thenwe would have a bi-conditional and the negation would bea valid inference.But, are you ready to say that if a man commits adultery,then he divorces his wife not for (MH EPI) fornication andremarries?No, there is no indication from the text that the apodosisis identical with the protasis. Therefore, it is not valid toinfer the negation.Paul Dixon___________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.htmlor call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

hINA + infinitiveBad Greek

FW: Mt 19:9 Paul S. Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Wed May 19 22:07:37 EDT 1999

hINA + infinitiveBad Greek

FW: Mt 19:9 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu May 20 06:22:23 EDT 1999

Pronounciation of Iesous Bad Greek: THREAD HALTED Quite some time ago we ruled that we were not going to carry on extendeddiscussions of logic on ; I had thought that the present discussionhad run its course quickly and that a reminder was not called for, but itappears to keep rearing its head at sporadic intervals. Would you who wishto continue this discussion please do so privately, i.e., OFF-LIST? Thanks.Carl W. ConradCo-Chair, ListDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Pronounciation of IesousBad Greek: THREAD HALTED

FW: Mt 19:9 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu May 20 06:22:23 EDT 1999

Pronounciation of IesousBad Greek: THREAD HALTED

Mt 19:9 CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Fri May 14 00:52:35 EDT 1999

Newbie Acceptable Pseudonymity? In a message dated 5/13/99 12:19:28 PM, dd-1 at juno.com writes:<< Also, thanks to Charles Powell for suggesting the followingverses: Mk 9:42, Lk 16:31, Jn 3:12 etc. However, I don’t seethe construction of the ones you suggest as being parallel tothe construction of Mt 19:9. Have I missed it? >>The point with the parallels cites is that you have a construction with two protases. One of those protases modifies the conditional statement as a whole. In Matt 19:9, MH EPI PORNEIA (with EAN implied from hOS AN) modifies the entire hOS AN construction, protasis and apodosis

NewbieAcceptable Pseudonymity?

Mt 19:9 CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Fri May 14 00:52:35 EDT 1999

NewbieAcceptable Pseudonymity?

Matt 19:9 & the Gnomic Present Tense dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Tue Oct 12 15:40:55 EDT 1999

To save bandwidth? (was: Re: Exegetical Considerations) To save bandwidth? (was: Re: Exegetical Considerations) On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:11:03 -0500 Steven Craig Miller<scmiller at www.plantnet.com> writes:<snip>> I don’t believe that the saying at Mt 19:9 was intended to present a > course of action for a divorced person who had remarried, rather itsintent > was to state that remarriage (with one exception) was unacceptable tothe > Matthean Jesus. Agreed. Divorce and remarriage results in adultery. It should not bedone. That is the point.> I find it ironic that anyone could read Mt 19:3-9 and come > away thinking that being remarried was acceptable to the MattheanJesus. If you assume your interpretation, then you might find it ironic.But, if you don’t assume it, there is no irony.The question is: does the use of the present tense MOICATAI inMt 19:9 denote a habitual living in adultery?<snip>> But just because > you find the Matthean Jesus’ ethics difficult, that is not a serious > historical argument against the translation “lives in adultery.” This is an assumption you are making. I have never argued thatyour interpretation should be rejected because of the difficult ethicsinvolved. > For anyone to suggest they were NOT “living in adultery” merely > because they asked God to forgive them for remarrying, appears> to be nothing more than special pleading.I have never said nor suggested this. Our difference pertains only to your view that the present tenseof MOICATAI denotes habitual or characteristic activity translatedinto an on-going adulterous relationship.In my view this is not necessitated. There are alternativeinterpretationsof the present tense. Is your view probable? That is the question I would like to see addressed. Is the fact that two aorist tenses arefound in the protasis (understood conditional thought here) sufficientreason for suggesting the present tense in the apodosis should berendered characteristically/habitually? If so, why?Perhaps we should go off-line on this.Paul Dixon

To save bandwidth? (was: Re: Exegetical Considerations)To save bandwidth? (was: Re: Exegetical Considerations)

Matt 19:9 Brian Swedburg brian at discoveryhills.org
Tue Oct 12 18:00:16 EDT 1999

To save bandwidth? (was: Re: Exegetical Considerations) Singular or Plural? Greetings.My response is specifically to Steven Craig Miller, and the strain onMatt 19:9. Recall…I guess we could go back and forth like this forever. You’ve made yourpoint, your pastoral concerns take precedent over accepting the mostprobable translation.This was one of your exchanges made with Mr. Dixon.1. Please show us based on syntactical statistics (ie. aorist +aorist +present = ?), or the basis of lexical data for MOICATAI, or some similar Greekgrammatical consideration, WHY yours is the most probable translation.you also saidAs already noted, Mt 19:9 contains three verbs. The first two areaorist,the last present. Why the switch to the present tense? One cannotexplainthe present tense merely on the desire to make it gnomic, since thegnomicaorist could have worked just as well. Rather, the most reasonableinterpretation IMO is that the present tense was used because the actionofadultery was viewed to be ongoing!Furthermore, what is adultery? Adultery can only take place when amarriedperson has sexual relations with someone other than their spouse. Twounmarried people cannot commit adultery. Adultery is a violation of amarriage. Without a marriage, there cannot be adultery! The point of theMatthean Jesus’ saying at Mt 19:9 (in the context of Mt 19:3-9) is thatthefirst marriage (even after a divorce, although with exception) is stillbinding, thus any sexual relationship with anyone else is adultery!Implicit is that idea that it must continue to be adultery as long asthefirst spouse is alive. The notion that one ONLY commits adultery duringthere-marriage ceremony, and that afterwards the second marriage is freefromadultery, has no merit from this text.In this first paragraph cited, I understand you to argue yourinterpretation is correct because the “gnomic present” need not becorrect, and on the basis of a rhetorical assumption of the ongoingnature of adultery. Again in this second paragraph, your support seemsto me, primarily philosophical rather than linguistical.So I tip my hat to your enthusiasm in this discussion, and to yourgreater Greek knowledge than this little Greeker. Yet, I am unsatisfiedwith your non grammatical argumentation, and your public criticism ofMr. Dixon for having a personal concern (ie. non exegetically textrelated) which overshadows his understanding of the text, when you havenot convinced this reader you are exegeting the Greek text based on asound grammatical approach.I appreciate keeping these discussions above the belt and about theGreek.Thanks and my respect to you,BrianM.A.E.T. Student Western Sem.————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991012/e2c052b0/attachment.html

To save bandwidth? (was: Re: Exegetical Considerations)Singular or Plural?

Matt 19:9 Tombivins at aol.com Tombivins at aol.com
Wed Oct 13 06:35:04 EDT 1999

Singular or Plural? Smooth breathings Dear Paul,This is not a trap. Because we are dealing with a legal text here in the framework of a Pharisaic debate, does it not deserve a legalistic reading? The term Jesus uses for divorcein the adulterous sense is APOLUW, lit. “send away.” APOLUW, however, is onlyhalf of the legal term for divorce the Pharisees used in their question. In verse7, they define Mosaic divorce as GRAFW BIBLION APOSTASIOU + APOLUW. Moses, thePharisees are saying, laid down a two-step divorce process. Step one is filing for the requisite papers (acertificate of divorce)” which then allows you to proceed to step two which is the “sendingaway” the wife (APOLUW). Pursuing such a reading, we see that Jesus in 19:9 is not condemning those whohave followed the official two-step divorce process, but simply those who fail toadhere to the Mosaic statute. This is not much different from the legal situationtoday, by which a bigamist is defined as someone with 2 marriage certificates andno BIBLION APOSTASIOU. What is often read as a global condemnation of divorce(and all divorcees) is, if we give the passage the halakic reading it is due, anappeal to follow proper procedures when the human tragedy of divorce becomesnecessary. To get out of the trap, all the person has to do is to complete the process and give the divorce paperwork. Tom BivinsOrlando, Florida

Singular or Plural?Smooth breathings

Matt 19:9 dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Wed Oct 13 12:05:14 EDT 1999

To save bandwidth? (was: Re: Exegetical Considerations) Smooth breathings On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 06:35:04 EDT Tombivins at aol.com writes:> Dear Paul,> This is not a trap. Because we are dealing with a legal text here inthe > framework of a Pharisaic debate, does it not deserve a legalistic > reading? The term Jesus uses for divorce> in the adulterous sense is APOLUW, lit. “send away.” APOLUW, > however, is only half of the legal term for divorce the Pharisees usedin their > question. In verse 7, they define Mosaic divorce as GRAFW BIBLION> APOSTASIOU + APOLUW. Moses, the Pharisees are saying, laid down > a two-step divorce process. Step one is Filing for the requisitepapers (a> certificate of divorce)” which then allows you to proceed to step > two which Is the “sending way” the wife (APOLUW). > > To get out of the trap, all the person has to do is to complete the > process and give the divorce paperwork. I must admit, I had never heard this one. What you are saying is that since since Christ did not includeBIBLION APOSTASIOU in v. 9, then this verse pertains only tothe situation where the man has put his wife away withoutgiving her a bill of divorcement. The implication is that if he gives her such, then he does not commit adultery. RIght?I have two concerns. First, this still falls into the trap of affirmingthe negation (negative inference fallacy). The text simply doesnot say if a man writes a bill of divorcement and puts his wifeaway because of PORNEIA and remarries, then he does not commitadultery. Furthermore, this cannot be properly inferred.Second, there is an assumption here of a two-step process(writing of a bill of divorcement + sending away) which impliesone can exist without the other. It may be that they are referringto the same thing and were not meant to be taken separately.If so, then Christ’s use of the latter only (APOLUSHi) in v. 9 wouldinclude the idea of the writing of a BIBLION APOSTASIOU.Paul Dixon.

To save bandwidth? (was: Re: Exegetical Considerations)Smooth breathings
Matt 19:9 Jim Poulsen jp at accglobal.net
Fri Oct 1 11:35:40 EDT 1999

Accessing the Archives Triglot Question I don’t want to engage a discussion on divorce and remarriage, but I thoughtthis Greek translation that someone sent me was a little off the wall.Carson, in EBC takes 5 pages to discuss alternative interpretations of Matt19:9 but doesn’t offer this suggestion.The only other parallel I could find is in 1 Tim 5:19, where MN EPI precedestwo or three witnesses and seems to have the same force as Matt 19:9.Any comments ?— Jim Poulsen>With regard to the book, the reference is B. Ward Powers, “Marriage and> Divorce, The New Testament Teaching” (Concord, NSW, Australia: Family> Life Movement in Australia, 1987), p.175.> The quote reads:> “The new piece of information is this: in the so-called exceptive> clause, “except for porneia,” the word “except” is a mistranslation.> There is no word “except” in the Greek text of this verse. The word> which occurs here is MH, the ordinary word for “not.” It occurs more> than a thousand times in the New Testament, and not once is it> translated “except” – except in this one place. There are numerous> places in the New Testament, however, where one can find a grammatical> parallel to MH EPI PORNEIA, the phrase that we have here, i.e. a phrase> introduced by MH. Some examples: Matthew 26:5//Mark 14:2; Luke 13:14;> John 13:9; John 18:40. They are rendered “Not during the festival,” “Not> on the sabbath day,” “Lord, not my feet only,” “Not this man, but> Barabas.” Why then in Matthew 19:9 should the normal word for “not” be> rendered as “except”? The phrase is NOT stating an exception; it is> simply a negative phrase, “not for porneia.”

Accessing the ArchivesTriglot Question

All-in-one Bible Search Page Mark Goodacre M.S.GOODACRE at bham.ac.uk
Fri Oct 15 14:09:08 EDT 1999

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA word order I have been working for some time on an all-in-one Bible Resources Search Page, the aim of which is to make available for searching on one page some of the best Biblical resources on the internet. I now have a Preview Version ready and would be grateful for any comments. I would be particularly grateful for comments about layout, user-friendliness etc. There are still several resources to be added, but I have decided to release a Preview Version at this stage. I will then revise the site and release a new version at the end of the next week. The URL is:http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre/multibib.htmThere is also a simple V3 URL, come.to/biblesearch.Thanks in advance for feedbackMark————————————–Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre at bham.ac.uk Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512 University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866 Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdomhttp://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre The New Testament Gateway Mark Without Q Aseneth Home Page

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIAword order

Question on Matthew 19:9 Maxey maxey at zianet.com
Thu Apr 27 05:03:06 EDT 2000

Previous message: Txt Crit query Next message: Question on Matthew 19:9 I would like to ask a question concerning the significance of the presenttense for “commits adultery” in the Matthew 19:9 passage. Some suggest thatsince this term appears in the present tense that this suggests ongoingaction. In other words, the second union is a *continuous* action ofadultery (characterized by some as “living in sin”). Can such a view besustained by an appeal to the present tense in this passage?And further, can the present tense in Greek be used to signify somethingother than continuous action, and if so are there examples of such in the NTwritings?Any information you can give me on this would be of tremendous help. Thankyou!Al Maxey”Nothing in the world is more dangerous thansincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”http://www.zianet.com/maxeyhttp://www.zianet.com/maxey/CubaAve.htm

Previous message: Txt Crit queryNext message: Question on Matthew 19:9 More information about the mailing list

Question on Matthew 19:9 Trevor & Julie Peterson spedrson at thesimpsons.com
Thu Apr 27 06:22:18 EDT 2000

Previous message: Question on Matthew 19:9 Next message: Fronting & Constituent Order I’m sure others will be able to give you more complete answers with specificexamples, but the short answer is, no, it cannot be sustained from thepresent tense. The confusion is a common one, especially in older grammars,between aspect (German, Aspekt) and what we typically call by the Germanterm Aktionsart (in English, something like “kind of action”). Whether anaction is ongoing or not is a factor of more than just the inflection of theverb. It can include that, but it also relates to things like context andthe semantic range (definition) of the word itself. When we talk about thepresent tense having a “continuous” aspect, what we mean is that the actionis portrayed from a perspective that allows us to see internal progression.If you have access to Dan Wallace’s “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics,” hischapter on introducing tenses would probably be quite helpful to look at.He goes on in the next chapter to discuss a number of different ways thatthe present tense form can function, including instantaneous, progressive,extending-from-past, iterative, customary, gnomic, historical, perfective,conative, futuristic, and as retained in indirect discourse. Some of thesefunctions would fit what you have described, but some would not. So thetense itself allows for plenty of options.Trevor Peterson> —–Original Message—–> From: Maxey [mailto:maxey at zianet.com]> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 5:03 AM> To: Biblical Greek> Subject: Question on Matthew 19:9> > > I would like to ask a question concerning the significance of the present> tense for “commits adultery” in the Matthew 19:9 passage. Some> suggest that> since this term appears in the present tense that this suggests ongoing> action. In other words, the second union is a *continuous* action of> adultery (characterized by some as “living in sin”). Can such a view be> sustained by an appeal to the present tense in this passage?> > And further, can the present tense in Greek be used to signify something> other than continuous action, and if so are there examples of> such in the NT> writings?> > Any information you can give me on this would be of tremendous> help. Thank> you!> > Al Maxey> “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than> sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”> http://www.zianet.com/maxey> http://www.zianet.com/maxey/CubaAve.htm> > > —> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: spedrson at thesimpsons.com> To unsubscribe, forward this message to> $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> > >

Previous message: Question on Matthew 19:9Next message: Fronting & Constituent Order More information about the mailing list

Question on Matthew 19:9 Dennis Hukel hukel at bhiinc.com
Thu Apr 27 11:17:31 EDT 2000

Previous message: TOU in 2 John 9 Next message: Question on Matthew 19:9 (tense or aspect) Dear Mr. Maxey,The Present tense “basically” emphasises the action rather than giving it as a mere reference (aorist) or emphasisingthe results (perfect). In emphasising the action, the present tense in Greek and English views the action internallyand on-going (continuous), generally with the begtinning and ending of the action out of view (although one or theother may be contextually obvious). The context plays a more significant roll when the action is known to be one ofshort duration, in which the Present tense only emphasises the action itself. In the case of “committing adultery”, thepresent tense would signify an on-going action (that is, still being repeated as is understood in the phrase “living insin”).That’s all I can give you for now.Dennis Hukelhukel at bhiinc.com

Previous message: TOU in 2 John 9Next message: Question on Matthew 19:9 (tense or aspect) More information about the mailing list

Question on Matthew 19:9 (tense or aspect) Wayne Leman wleman at mcn.net
Thu Apr 27 12:05:48 EDT 2000

Previous message: Question on Matthew 19:9 Next message: one, two, or three … or just one? And FWIW, these are actually *aspect* categories rather than tense. “Tense”is a misnomer which was applied to Greek aspect many years ago and hascontinued on in Greek grammar and syntax books. Tense refers to the *time*something occurred (e.g. past, far past, present, or will occur in the caseof a future tense). Aspectrefers to the quality of the action, such as whether it occurred at a pointin time (aorist, also known as punctiliar; imperfective–no end point infocus, etc.). It’s OK, for purposes of discussion to continue using thelabel “tense” as long as we recognize that Greek tense is really not tense,but aspect. Stanley Porter has done extensive research and publication onGreek aspect and other Greek scholars have written about it also.A rose by any other name is still a rose, but since we do have accuratelinguistic labels for two related, but different, verb categories, tense andaspect (a third, related, category is mode or mood), we might as well usethe term which is most accurate.I’m sure this is old information for many of you on the list and I’m sureit’s been mentioned many times in the past, but it doesn’t hurt to mentionit again. Eventually, Greek professors will get the terminology straight onthis one since many profs have been alert to progress in Greek studies andpedagogy.WayneBible translation discussion list (new address):http://www.egroups.com/group/bible-translation>Dear Mr. Maxey,> >The Present tense “basically” emphasises the action rather than giving itas a mere reference (aorist) or emphasising>the results (perfect). In emphasising the action, the present tense inGreek and English views the action internally>and on-going (continuous), generally with the begtinning and ending of theaction out of view (although one or the>other may be contextually obvious).<snip>

Previous message: Question on Matthew 19:9Next message: one, two, or three … or just one? More information about the mailing list

matthew 19:9 justin rogers justinrogers35 at hotmail.com
Wed Nov 14 23:17:13 EST 2001

Question About 1st Declension Nouns matthew 19:9 An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20011114/7267ecac/attachment.html

Question About 1st Declension Nounsmatthew 19:9

matthew 19:9 Brian Swedburg brian at discoveryhills.org
Thu Nov 15 02:22:50 EST 2001

matthew 19:9 LXX idea On 11/15/01 12:17 PM, “justin rogers” <justinrogers35 at hotmail.com> wrote:> 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?> > 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.] > > Dear Justin and List, Greetings!> > 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!> > Having recently spent a considerable time in Matthew 5; 19; Mark 10; etc…> I would point out two apparent assumptions in your inquiry.> First, ³Jesus also mentions that his intent is to restore the principals> from Creation.² is a theological assumption that needs to be weighed, but not> on the list. > > 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 ³third> class condition² 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 ³except² translation may be justified when in it I read ³Not in> regard to PORNEIA,…².> > Third, as may be obvious, I don¹t 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.> > Thanks for the dialogue Justin!> > Brian P. Swedburg> Student> > > > ————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20011115/5f62ae24/attachment.html

matthew 19:9LXX idea

Matthew 19:9 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Thu Nov 15 13:29:16 EST 2001

Vaticanus OT images added Intermediate Greek Course On Wed 14 Nov 2001 (22:17:13), justinrogers35 at hotmail.com wrote in an HTML attachment:> 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? Dear Justin, You’ll find a whole lot about this in the Archives. But briefly, regardless of which doctrinal position you wish to espouse, you need to compare Matthew 5:31-32. hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU, DOTW AUTHh *APOSTASION*. EGW DE LEGW hUMIN hOTI PAS hO APOLUWN THN GUNAIKA AUTOU *PAREKTOS LOGOU PORNEIAS* POIEI AUTHN MOICEUQHNAI, KAI hOS EAN APOLELUMEMHN GAMHSHi MOICATAI. The APOSTASION is that mentioned in Deuteronomy 24:1, SeFeR K:RiYThuTh or BIBLION APOSTASIOU (verse 3 in LXX). The LOGOU PORNEIAS is the phrase `eRWaTh DaBaR in the same verse, ASCHMON PRAGMA in LXX. The Hebrew phrase means roughly “the nudity word”, a neat euphemism for sexual infidelity, and corresponding precisely with LOGOU PORNEIAS. Compare MH EPI PORNEIAi (Matthew 19:9) with PAREKTOS LOGOU PORNEIAS (Matthew 5:32). Jerome puts /nisi ob fornicationem/ for MH EPI PORNEIAi. So that is where the King James and many other English versions get “except…” from. See also Bruce Metzger’s note in his /A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament/, 2nd edition, UBS, 1994, p 38. ERRWSQE Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm

Vaticanus OT images addedIntermediate Greek Course

Matthew 19:9 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Fri Nov 16 02:29:00 EST 2001

last round up for E-Lister’s meeting at SBL Matthew 19:9 Ben Crick said:<snip>> you need to compare Matthew> 5:31-32. hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU, DOTW AUTHh *APOSTASION*.> EGW DE LEGW hUMIN hOTI PAS hO APOLUWN THN GUNAIKA AUTOU *PAREKTOS LOGOU> PORNEIAS* POIEI AUTHN MOICEUQHNAI, KAI hOS EAN APOLELUMEMHN> GAMHSHi MOICATAI.> > The APOSTASION is that mentioned in Deuteronomy 24:1, SeFeR K:RiYThuTh or> BIBLION APOSTASIOU (verse 3 in LXX). The LOGOU PORNEIAS is the phrase> `eRWaTh DaBaR in the same verse, ASCHMON PRAGMA in LXX. The Hebrew phrase> means roughly “the nudity word”, a neat euphemism for sexual infidelity,> and corresponding precisely with LOGOU PORNEIAS.Thanks Ben, for a helpful response.Just an additional comment on the difference between Matthew and Mark/Lukefrom a linguistic and communications viewpoint.It is a basic fact that a writer/speaker shapes what he says to what hethinks is most relevant to his audience. Matthew wrote to a Jewish audience,whereas Mark and Luke wrote to a general, Gentile audience. I am aware thisquestion is wider than Biblical Greek, but the general principle ofrelevance to the audience is a very important aspect for understanding anutterance, espoused in the branch of linguistics/pragmatics called RelevanceTheory.Ben has interpreted the ASCHMMON PRAGMA as a euphemism for sexualinfidelity. That makes good sense but we can imagine that the interpretationwould have been a hotly debated issue among Jewish Rabbis. The Pharisees arelikely to have had a conservative interpretation and the Sadducees a muchmore liberal view. Did it mean only adultery or did it have a wider meaningas anything indecent?It seems that the Pharisees tried to test Jesus by forcing him to make achoice between interpretations. Both Matt 19:3 and Mark 10:2 said that thePharisees came to test Jesus with this question. It is clearest in Matthew19:3:KAI PROSHLQON AUTWi FARISAIOI PEIRAZONTES AUTON KAI LEGONTESEI EXESTIN ANQRWPWi APOLUSAI THN GUNAIKA AUTOU KATA PASAN AITIAN;Jesus then goes on to compare Deut 24:1-4 with Genesis 2:24, and he takesthe more conservative interpretation. It is a question of speaking into aRabbinic debate.Since this Rabbinic debate was not considered particularly relevant tonon-Jews, Mark leaves out the answer to a question that was not asked andkeeps the general teaching about divorce and hardness of heart. This iscarefully done in several places in the passage Mark 10:1-12:1) He leaves out KATA PASAN AITIAN2) The quote from Deut 24:1 is way down in Matt 19:7. Every Rabbi would knowthat this was the passage in question so Matthew does not need to refer toit here. Mark clarifies for his readers that this was the passage inquestion by moving it up to v. 3. He also greatly reduced the content ofMatt 19:7-9 into a summary of about one third in size. In doing so he leavesout the bone of contention, i.e. what is the correct interpretation of`eRWaTh DaBaR, equivalent to MH EPI PORNEIAi.3) Mark says that the disciples were still wondering about this contentiousissue after they came home, so they asked Jesus again. I don’t think thatMark leaves out the phrase because he disagrees with it. He only chooses toleave out a detail he thinks is not sufficiently relevant to his audience.Sometimes, when you answer a question the audience did not ask, you confusethem more than you help them.Luke does the same as Mark in his brief statement in Luke 16:18. Paul doesthe same for his Corinthian audience when he comments on the same issue in 1Cor 7:10. (I assume Paul had access to Matthew’s Gospel or at least apossible Hebrew forerunner to it, since he quotes a saying of Jesus.)Iver Larsen

last round up for E-Lister’s meeting at SBLMatthew 19:9

Matthew 19:9 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Fri Nov 16 12:00:32 EST 2001

Matthew 19:9 FYI Only: Proposed revision of BG-FAQ On Fri 16 Nov 2001 (08:29:00 +0100), iver_larsen at sil.org wrote:> Ben has interpreted the ASCHMMON PRAGMA as a euphemism for sexual> infidelity. That makes good sense but we can imagine that the> interpretation would have been a hotly debated issue among Jewish> Rabbis. The Pharisees are likely to have had a conservative> interpretation and the Sadducees a much> more liberal view. Did it mean only adultery or did it have a wider> meaning as anything indecent?> It seems that the Pharisees tried to test Jesus by forcing him to make> a choice between interpretations. Both Matt 19:3 and Mark 10:2 said that> the Pharisees came to test Jesus with this question. It is clearest in> Matthew 19:3:> KAI PROSHLQON AUTWi FARISAIOI PEIRAZONTES AUTON KAI LEGONTES> EI EXESTIN ANQRWPWi APOLUSAI THN GUNAIKA AUTOU KATA PASAN AITIAN;> Jesus then goes on to compare Deut 24:1-4 with Genesis 2:24, and he takes> the more conservative interpretation. It is a question of speaking into> a Rabbinic debate.> [goodies snipped] Dear Iver, Thanks for your extended treatment of the Discourse material. In my brief reply to Justin I was primarily concerned with the remarks assigned to Jesus. The schools of Hillel and Shammai would have loved to have had the verdict of the Man from Nazareth on their side; but Jesus refused, ISTM, to be drawn. He goes back to the Torah, and leaves the learned rabbis to draw their own conclusions from basic principles. And us to draw ours. With regard to ASCHMON PRAGMA (LXX). That is more of a paraphrase, whereas Jesus’ LOGOU PORNEIAS is more like a literal translation of the Hebrew, for what it’s worth. In either case, it’s a euphemism. ERRWSQE Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm

Matthew 19:9FYI Only: Proposed revision of BG-FAQ

Matthew 19:9 Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Fri Nov 16 17:04:05 EST 2001

FYI Only: Proposed revision of BG-FAQ Manuscript Facsimiles > With regard to ASCHMON PRAGMA (LXX). That is more of a> paraphrase, whereas> Jesus’ LOGOU PORNEIAS is more like a literal translation of the> Hebrew, for> what it’s worth. In either case, it’s a euphemism.In order to try to check whether PORNEIA could be a literal translation ofthe Hebrew nakedness word, I looked up the parallel versions I have of theLXX and the Hebrew text. As far as I could find out, this Hebrew word isnever translated by anything like PORNEIA, but often with words that arecognate to ASCHMON.Based on this, I find it difficult to see PORNEIA as a translation of theHebrew word. ASCHMON PRAGMA appears to be a better and also more literaltranslation. Of course we don’t know which Hebrew word Jesus used, assuminghe spoke in Hebrew, but I would expect he would use the word that isnormally translated with Greek PORNEIA, that is the root ZNH.Therefore, it seems to me that Jesus is not directly quoting or translatingthis phrase, but interpreting the intended meaning of it. Fornication ismuch more specific than “indecent” and I would not call it a euphemism.I am not a Hebrew scholar, so I am may be wrong. I am relying on how the LXXtranslated it.Iver Larsen

FYI Only: Proposed revision of BG-FAQManuscript Facsimiles

Matthew 19:9 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Fri Nov 16 20:54:05 EST 2001

Intervocalic Sigma in third declension nouns Intervocalic Sigma in third declension nouns On Fri 16 Nov 2001 (23:04:05 +0100), iver_larsen at sil.org wrote:> I am not a Hebrew scholar, so I am may be wrong. I am relying on how> the LXX translated it.> Dear Iver, Nor am I a scholar; I only have a Bachelor’s. And I have a great regard for the Summer Institute and the Wyclif Bible Translators. Thanks for your input. ERRWSQE Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick at argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm

Intervocalic Sigma in third declension nounsIntervocalic Sigma in third declension nouns

[] Matthew 19:9 – Could “epi porneia” be adjectival? dschm89 at netzero.com dschm89 at netzero.com
Tue Jul 29 01:17:16 EDT 2003

[] Re: Is “EN ARCH” different than “EN TH ARCH” – John 1:1 [] Matthew 19:9 – Could “epi porneia” be adjectival? I’m not completely convinced that EPI PORNEIA refers to the verb for “dismisses” in Matthew 19:9, because EPI usually means “upon”, “on”, or “in”. The definitions for the Strong’s number for EPI doesn’t even list “for” at all. Matthew uses EPI 95 other times and not once does it mean “for”. Matthew uses a preposition meaning “for” 35 other times, usually EIS or DIA.I’m thinking that EPI PORNEIA is an adjectival prepositional phrase referring to “wife” such as a “wife in fornication” meaning an unlawful wife. This would make the translation of Matthew 19:9 something like this: whosoever dismisses his wife, not an unlawful wife, and marries another commits adultery. In Matthew 19:9, Jesus could be giving those involved in illegimate marriages (ie. those married to a divorced person, those living with someone, or those in an incestual or homosexual marriage) the permission to divorce and remarry. I’ve often heard the argument that “fornication” refers to an unlawful marriage, but I’ve rarely seen this argument based on EPI PORNEIA being adjectival. Also, the prepositional phrase is much closer in the sentence to the word for “wife” than it is to the word for “dismisses”. Perhaps I’m missing something?Just how rare are adjectival PP’s in Greek anyway? I know of an example in 2 Tim 3:15 translated “faith in Christ Jesus”. I’ve also seen that EPI is used in adjectival PP’s in Phil 3:6, Heb 9:10 and Heb 9:15. Is it possible that many translators go too far in trying to make EPI PORNEIA adverbial in Matthew 19:9? Thanks in advance for any responses,– Dan SchmudeHuntsville, Alabama (USA)

[] Re: Is “EN ARCH” different than “EN TH ARCH” – John 1:1[] Matthew 19:9 – Could “epi porneia” be adjectival?

[] Matthew 19:9 – Could “epi porneia” be adjectival? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jul 29 08:05:02 EDT 2003

[] Matthew 19:9 – Could “epi porneia” be adjectival? [] Matthew 19:9 – Could “epi porneia” be adjectival? At 5:17 AM +0000 7/29/03, Dan Schmude <dschm89 at netzero.com> wrote:>I’m not completely convinced that EPI PORNEIA refers to the verb for>“dismisses” in Matthew 19:9, because EPI usually means “upon”, “on”, or>“in”. The definitions for the Strong’s number for EPI doesn’t even list>“for” at all. Matthew uses EPI 95 other times and not once does it mean>“for”. Matthew uses a preposition meaning “for” 35 other times, usually>EIS or DIA.Are you depending on Strong’s # information for understanding the Greektext here? If you’re basing your conception of whether EPI can mean “for”on that sort of correspondence as is indicated in the Strong’s definitions,you’re not very likely to grasp the nuances of the Greek prepositions. Inthis instance, a very common usage of EPI is involved: “on the basis of” or”because of”–which in some instances might be most simply Englished as”for”. BDAG glosses it in sense #6 (6. marker of basis for a state ofbeing, action, or result, on, w. dat. (Hom. et al.) in sub-sense (a) lists:a. EP’ ARTWi ZHN live on bread Mt 4:4; Lk 4:4 (both Dt 8:3. cp.Ps.-Pla., Alcib. 1, 105c; Plut., Mor. 526d; Alciphron 3, 7, 5; SibOr 4,154). EPI TWi hRHMATI SOU depending on your word Lk 5:5. OU SUNHKAN EPITOIS ARTOIS they did not arrive at an understanding (of it) (by reflecting)on (the miracle of) the loaves Mk 6:52 (cp. Demosth. 18, 121 TI SAUTON OUKELLEBORIZEIS EPI TOUTOIS [sc. LOGOIS];=why do you not come to anunderstanding concerning these words?). EPI THi PISTEI on the basis offaith Ac 3:16; Phil 3:9. EP’ ELPIDI on the basis of hope, supporting itselfon hope Ac 2:26 (? s. ELPIS 1ba); Ro 4:18; 8:20; 1 Cor 9:10; Tit 1:2.-Ac26:6 EP’ ELPIDI gives the basis of the trial at law, as does EPIEUERGESIAi 4:9. APOLUEIN THN GUNAIKA EPI PORNEIAi Mt 19:9 (cp. Dio Chrys.26 [43], 10 APOLUEIN EP’ ARGURIAi; Ath. 2, 3 KRINESQAI … MH EPI TWiONOMATI, EPI TWi ADIKHMATI). GUNAIKOS EPI POLLAIS hAMARTIAIS DIABLHQEISHSPapias (2:17). On the basis of the testimony of two witnesses (cp. Appian,Iber. 79 §343 HLEGCON EPI MARTUSI) Hb 10:28 (Dt 17:6); sim. use of EPI TINIon the basis of someth.: 8:6; 9:10, 15 (here it may also be taken in thetemporal sense; s. 18 below), 17. hAMARTANEIN EPI TWi hOMOIWMATI THSPARABASEWS ADAM Ro 5:14 (hOMOIWMA 1). DAPANAN EPI TINI pay the expenses forsomeone Ac 21:24. ARKEISQAI EPI TINI be content w. someth. 3J 10.>I’m thinking that EPI PORNEIA is an adjectival prepositional phrase>referring to “wife” such as a “wife in fornication” meaning an unlawful>wife. This would make the translation of Matthew 19:9 something like this:>whosoever dismisses his wife, not an unlawful wife, and marries another>commits adultery. In Matthew 19:9, Jesus could be giving those involved in>illegimate marriages (ie. those married to a divorced person, those living>with someone, or those in an incestual or homosexual marriage) the>permission to divorce and remarry. I’ve often heard the argument that>“fornication” refers to an unlawful marriage, but I’ve rarely seen this>argument based on EPI PORNEIA being adjectival. Also, the prepositional>phrase is much closer in the sentence to the word for “wife” than it is to>the word for “dismisses”. Perhaps I’m missing something?> >Just how rare are adjectival PP’s in Greek anyway? I know of an example in>2 Tim 3:15 translated “faith in Christ Jesus”. I’ve also seen that EPI is>used in adjectival PP’s in Phil 3:6, Heb 9:10 and Heb 9:15. Is it possible>that many translators go too far in trying to make EPI PORNEIA adverbial>in Matthew 19:9?Phil 3:6 KATA ZHLOS DIWKWN THN EKKLHSIAN, KATA DIKAIOSUNHN THN EN NOMWiGENOMENOS AMEMPTOS. Here KATA ZHLOS is adverbial with DIWKWN, and KATADIKAIOSUNHN is adverbial with GENOMENOS AMEMPTOS; EN NOMWi is adjectival,but it is marked as such by the article THN showing that it belongs withDIKAIOSUNHN.2 Tim 3:15 KAI hOTI APO BREFOUS [TA] hIERA GRAMMATA OIDAS, TA DUNAMENA SESOFISAI EIS SWTHRIAN DIA PISTEWS EN CRISTWi IHSOU. Here APO BREFOUS isadverbial with OIDAS, EIS SWTHRIAN is adverbial with SOFISAI, DIA PISTEWScould be understood as adjectival in relationship to SWTHRIAN, but in factI would be more inclined to say that it’s adverbial in that it qualifiesthe verbal notion in SWTHRIAN. Finally there’s EN CRISTWi IHSOU, theexample you cite above: this is very much like DIA PISTEWS: you could callit adjectival as qualifying PISTEWS, but I think it would be moreappropriate to call it adverbial qualifying the verbal notion in PISTEWS.Heb 9:9-10 … KAQ’ hHN DWRA TE KAI QUSIAI PROSFERONTAI MH DUNAMENAI KATASUNEIDHSIN TELEIWSAI TON LATREUONTA, 10 MONON EPI BRWMASIN KAI POMASIN KAIDIAFOROIS BAPTISMOIS, DIKAIWMATA SARKOS MECRI KAIROU DIORQWSEWS EPIKEIMENA.I suppose you want to consider EPI BRWMASIN KAI POMASIN KAI DIAFOROISBAPTISMOIS adjectival here and claim that they construe with DWRA TE KAIQUSIAI; I would prefer, however, to understand them with PROSFERONTAI andcall them adverbial.Heb 9:15 … QANATOU GENOMENOU EIS APOLUTRWSIN TWN EPI THi PRWTHi DIAQHKHiPARABASEWN … Here indeed EPI THi PRWTHi DIAQHKHi functions adjectivallywith APOLUTRWSIN, but as in Phil 3:6 its adjectival usage is indicated bythe article TWN showing that it belongs within the group TWN … PARABASEWn.One notorious passage is sometimes cited as an instance of an adjectival PPqualifying a noun, the text cited from Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17: it is said thatEK PISTEWS in the cited verse, hO DE DIKAIOS EK PISTEWS ZHSETAI, isadjectival and qualifies hO DIKAIOS, as “the one who through faith isrighteous.” However, it would be much clearer that that is what paulintended if he had written hO EK PISTEWS DIKAIOS so that EK PISTEWS isincluded within the article governing DIKAIOS. As the text stands, it isbetter to understand EK PISTEWS as construing with the verb ZHSETAI: “willlive on the basis of faith/believing.” So, while I would not want to assertthat PP’s are invariably adverbial, I’d say that they are most commonly soand that when they are used adjectivally to qualify nouns, they generallyare indicated as doing so by being marked with an article in agreement withthe noun in question.If it is not clear from what I’ve already said, I think that the phrase MHEPI PORNEIAi in Mt 19:9 is indeed adverbial as it is usuallyunderstood–and that it does indeed qualify APOLUSHi.– Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] Matthew 19:9 – Could “epi porneia” be adjectival?[] Matthew 19:9 – Could “epi porneia” be adjectival?

[] Matthew 19:9 – Could “epi porneia” be adjectival? accuratebibles at ozemail.com.au accuratebibles at ozemail.com.au
Tue Jul 29 08:20:09 EDT 2003

[] Matthew 19:9 – Could “epi porneia” be adjectival? [] Correction! Hi Dan,I don’t have the Greek text in front of me as I am at someone else’s computer. You have got the noun mixed up with the verb here, as I am not sure what you mean about connecting PORNEIA (noun usually translated as “fornication” in Bible versions)with the verb APOLUW which you give as “dismiss”.EPI commonly means “on the grounds of” which in English is often simply translated as “for” – thus (using your vocab.)”…dismisses his wife not on the grounds of PORNEIA” = “dismisses his wife not for PORNEIA”. EPI governs 3 cases – here with the dative it’s very common for on the ground of an accusation/charge, emotion or action. EPI is often used as “for” as a legal term. I wouldn’t reply on Strongs so much – better to pick up a basic book on Greek grammar if you are going to take into consideration what books/concordances say about Greek.To point out an anachronism – living with someone was just as legal as written marriage – there was no difference, unlike today – written and unwritten (that is, a couple living together) marriages were completely equally valid, and most certainly morally so, the only difference was that people had a written marriage if there was a dowry or property concerns with heirs. However, polygamy was regularly practiced by Jews in Palestine in the first century.Hope that helps,Ann Nyland> > From: dschm89 at netzero.com> Subject: [] Matthew 19:9 – Could “epi porneia” be adjectival?> Date: 29/07/2003 15:17:16> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> > > I’m not completely convinced that EPI PORNEIA refers to the verb for “dismisses” in Matthew 19:9, because EPI usually means “upon”, “on”, or “in”. The definitions for the Strong’s number for EPI doesn’t even list “for” at all. Matthew uses EPI 95 other times and not once does it mean “for”. Matthew uses a preposition meaning “for” 35 other times, usually EIS or DIA.> > I’m thinking that EPI PORNEIA is an adjectival prepositional phrase referring to “wife” such as a “wife in fornication” meaning an unlawful wife. This would make the translation of Matthew 19:9 something like this: whosoever dismisses his wife, not an unlawful wife, and marries another commits adultery. In Matthew 19:9, Jesus could be giving those involved in illegimate marriages (ie. those married to a divorced person, those living with someone, or those in an incestual or homosexual marriage) the permission to divorce and remarry. I’ve often heard the argument that “fornication” refers to an unlawful marriage, but I’ve rarely seen this argument based on EPI PORNEIA being adjectival. Also, the prepositional phrase is much closer in the sentence to the word for “wife” than it is to the word for “dismisses”. Perhaps I’m missing something?> > Just how rare are adjectival PP’s in Greek anyway? I know of an example in 2 Tim 3:15 translated “faith in Christ Jesus”. I’ve also seen that EPI is used in adjectival PP’s in Phil 3:6, Heb 9:10 and Heb 9:15. Is it possible that many translators go too far in trying to make EPI PORNEIA adverbial in Matthew 19:9? > > Thanks in advance for any responses,> — Dan Schmude> Huntsville, Alabama (USA) > > —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au

[] Matthew 19:9 – Could “epi porneia” be adjectival?[] Correction!

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 Will Dilbeck will.dilbeck at gmail.com
Tue Feb 17 16:59:42 EST 2009

[] PHOS [] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 Hello,I realize that this is a highly controversial issue, thus I wish to prefacethis email by saying that my question is of a strictly grammatical nature.My question is this, why do most (if not all) English versions translate the”exception clause” of Matthew 19:9 as “except for fornication”?In other words, I cannot see in any way how MH EPI PORNEIA could betranslated as “except for fornication”. In Matthew 5:32, the clause PAREKTOSLOGOU PORNEIAS can certainly be translated as “except for the reason ofunchasity” (NASB). But as far as I can tell, this is not equivelant to theclause in Matthew 19:9.I have done quite a bit of research as to this question and I have yet tofind ONE commentary that addresses this grammatical question. I have alsoread a paper concerning Erasmus’ addition to his 1st edition of hisGreek-Latin New Testament (he added EI to the above stated clause of Matthew19:9, thus making it read EI MH EPI PORNEIA or “except for fornication”).This seems possible, but I again, this seems to be getting away from ourtext as we have it.Thanks in advance,Will Dilbeck

[] PHOS[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Tue Feb 17 17:14:53 EST 2009

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 [] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 Will,> > I realize that this is a highly controversial issue, thus I wish to preface> this email by saying that my question is of a strictly grammatical nature.> > My question is this, why do most (if not all) English versions translate the> “exception clause” of Matthew 19:9 as “except for fornication”?> > In other words, I cannot see in any way how MH EPI PORNEIA could be> translated as “except for fornication”. In Matthew 5:32, the clause PAREKTOS> LOGOU PORNEIAS can certainly be translated as “except for the reason of> unchasity” (NASB). But as far as I can tell, this is not equivelant to the> clause in Matthew 19:9.> > I have done quite a bit of research as to this question and I have yet to> find ONE commentary that addresses this grammatical question. I have also> read a paper concerning Erasmus’ addition to his 1st edition of his> Greek-Latin New Testament (he added EI to the above stated clause of Matthew> 19:9, thus making it read EI MH EPI PORNEIA or “except for fornication”).> This seems possible, but I again, this seems to be getting away from our> text as we have it.> HH: You can’t see “in any way” how “not for fornication” could imply “except for fornication.” Just put the phrase in the context and try to get a meaning out of it. The thought that clearly comes to mind is “except.”:And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife–not for sexual immorality–and marries another, commits adultery.””Not for sexual immorality” gives the one reason for divorce that would not lead to Jesus’ conclusion. So it is an exception.Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 Will Dilbeck will.dilbeck at gmail.com
Tue Feb 17 17:25:00 EST 2009

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 [] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 Harold,Thanks for your response. However, I did not say “I can’t see anyway how’not for fornication’ could *imply *’except for fornication.'” I said, “Icannot see in any way how MH EPI PORNEIA could be *translated* as ‘exceptfor fornication’. It seems to me the translaters went above mere translationwhen they introduced an implication into the clause. I recoginize that thishappens a lot in translation.Thanks again,WillOn Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Harold Holmyard<hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>wrote:> Will,> >> > I realize that this is a highly controversial issue, thus I wish to> preface> > this email by saying that my question is of a strictly grammatical> nature.> >> > My question is this, why do most (if not all) English versions translate> the> > “exception clause” of Matthew 19:9 as “except for fornication”?> >> > In other words, I cannot see in any way how MH EPI PORNEIA could be> > translated as “except for fornication”. In Matthew 5:32, the clause> PAREKTOS> > LOGOU PORNEIAS can certainly be translated as “except for the reason of> > unchasity” (NASB). But as far as I can tell, this is not equivelant to> the> > clause in Matthew 19:9.> >> > I have done quite a bit of research as to this question and I have yet to> > find ONE commentary that addresses this grammatical question. I have also> > read a paper concerning Erasmus’ addition to his 1st edition of his> > Greek-Latin New Testament (he added EI to the above stated clause of> Matthew> > 19:9, thus making it read EI MH EPI PORNEIA or “except for fornication”).> > This seems possible, but I again, this seems to be getting away from our> > text as we have it.> >> > HH: You can’t see “in any way” how “not for fornication” could imply> “except for fornication.” Just put the phrase in the context and try to> get a meaning out of it. The thought that clearly comes to mind is> “except.”:> > And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife–not for sexual> immorality–and marries another, commits adultery.”> > “Not for sexual immorality” gives the one reason for divorce that would> not lead to Jesus’ conclusion. So it is an exception.> > Yours,> Harold Holmyard> > > > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 Jeff Smelser jeffsmelser at ntgreek.net
Tue Feb 17 18:24:35 EST 2009

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 [] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 Will,Without getting into the translation issue (something that ventures toward the fringe of the guidelines for discussion as I understand it), I’ll mention something that won’t answer your question, but is related and interesting.In Mt. 19:9, I think of MH EPI (perhaps unimaginatively) as “not upon.” Some years ago I spent some time looking for EPI in contexts where it might serve to introduce the grounds for divorce and had no luck. Mainly, I remember looking through the pre-nups and divorce agreements in volume 1 of Select Papyri in the Loeb series. (If I’m misremembering and it’s so used therein, someone let me know!) However, I recently noticed that in Plutarch’s “Roman Questions,” he mentions one Spurius Carvilius, whom Plutarch understood to be the first (in Rome??) to divorce his wife. Plutarch explained the reason for the divorce:EXEBALE GUNAIKA SPORIOS KARBILIOS EP’ ATEKNIAiἐξέβαλε γυναῖκα Σπόριος Καρβίλιος ἐπ’ ἀτεκνίᾳThat is, he divorced his wife /”upon childlessness,”/ or /”for infertility.”/ It seems to me that Plutarch used EPI there as as did Matthew in Mt. 19:9.Jeff Smelserwww.ntgreek.netWill Dilbeck wrote:> Harold,> > Thanks for your response. However, I did not say “I can’t see anyway how> ‘not for fornication’ could *imply *’except for fornication.'” I said, “I> cannot see in any way how MH EPI PORNEIA could be *translated* as ‘except> for fornication’. It seems to me the translaters went above mere translation> when they introduced an implication into the clause. I recoginize that this> happens a lot in translation.> > Thanks again,> Will> >

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9
Matt 19:9 Ed Gorham aekalm at a-znet.com
Sat Oct 2 07:47:17 EDT 1999

Brenton’s LXX Matt 19:9 BDF cites the use of MH as a way if indicating exception. Also, EPI used with the dative often has the sense of “on the basis of”. Combined with the negative particle, I would think that an acceptable translation would be “not on the basis of” adultery, which is a more literal way to say “except for”. I’ll be interested to see the Big Greek responses to your question.-Ed Gorhamaekalm at a-znet.com

Brenton’s LXXMatt 19:9

Matt 19:9 Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Sat Oct 2 11:24:39 EDT 1999

Matt 19:9 Matt 19:9 Ed Gorham wrote:> BDF cites the use of MH as a way if indicating exception. Also, EPI used> with the dative often has the sense of “on the basis of”. Combined with the> negative particle, I would think that an acceptable translation would be> “not on the basis of” adultery, which is a more literal way to say “except> for”.> I’ll be interested to see the Big Greek responses to your question.This issue was thrashed out in some detail between Ward, Carl, andmyself some timeago and should be available in the archives.But I note here that my position on this was that the expressionfunctions as theequivalent to “not even on the basis of PORNEIA”. That is to say, ratherthanallowing an exception to a prohibition on divorce, Jesus in Mattundercuts and willnot acknowledge as legitimate the one reason (PORNEIA — howeverinterpreted — seeM. Git) that all parties in the Judaisms of the first century allowed asajustification of divorce. And thus, instead of contradicting what Mk 10has Jesus sayon the issue of whether divorce was ever legitimate, Matthew actuallyunderscoresthis teaching.Yours,Jeffrey–Jeffrey B. Gibson7423 N. Sheridan Road #2AChicago, Illinois 60626e-mail jgibson000 at ameritech.net

Matt 19:9Matt 19:9

Matt 19:9 dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Sat Oct 2 11:52:10 EDT 1999

Matt 19:9 Who On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 7:47:17 “Ed Gorham” <aekalm at a-znet.com> writes:> BDF cites the use of MH as a way if indicating exception. Also, EPI > used with the dative often has the sense of “on the basis of”. Combined> with the negative particle, I would think that an acceptabletranslation > would be “not on the basis of” adultery, which is a more literal way tosay > “except for”.MH by itself (no accompanying particle, like EI or EAN) occurs over 500 times in the GNT. Nowhere else is it translated, “except.” Onlywhenit is accompanied by EI or EAN is it rendered so.Since neither particle exists in MT 19:9, in order to get the exceptionidea some have posited an ellipsis of either EI or EAN.If we assume an ellipsis, however, we still make a huge leap ofblind faith if we conclude the negation, that is, if a man divorceshis wife and she committed PORNEIA, and he subsequentlyremarries, then he does not commit adultery himself in so doing.No one, to my knowledge, has ever shown that such a constructionas found in Mt 19:9 calls for this kind of conclusion. We are betteroff going with the conclusion of the early church fathers (e.g.,Augustine)and see this as simply a preterition where the case of the wifewho committed PORNEIA is being excluded from discussion atthe point. Why so, one might ask. If for no other reason than thefact the Christ has just discussed this case in the immediately precedingverses.Paul Dixon.

Matt 19:9Who

Matt 19:9 Carlton Winbery winberyc at speedgate.net
Sat Oct 2 13:22:33 EDT 1999

deute Matt 22:4 Mt 5:32, 19:9, MH, EI MH, PAREKTOS Paul Dixon replied;>On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 7:47:17 “Ed Gorham” <aekalm at a-znet.com> writes:> >> BDF cites the use of MH as a way if indicating exception. Also, EPI>> used with the dative often has the sense of “on the basis of”. Combined> >> with the negative particle, I would think that an acceptable>translation>> would be “not on the basis of” adultery, which is a more literal way to>say>> “except for”.> >MH by itself (no accompanying particle, like EI or EAN) occurs over>500 times in the GNT. Nowhere else is it translated, “except.” Only>when>it is accompanied by EI or EAN is it rendered so.Paul>>>Since neither particle exists in MT 19:9, in order to get the exception>idea some have posited an ellipsis of either EI or EAN.> >If we assume an ellipsis, however, we still make a huge leap of>blind faith if we conclude the negation, that is, if a man divorces>his wife and she committed PORNEIA, and he subsequently>remarries, then he does not commit adultery himself in so doing.> >No one, to my knowledge, has ever shown that such a construction>as found in Mt 19:9 calls for this kind of conclusion. We are better>off going with the conclusion of the early church fathers (e.g.,>Augustine)>and see this as simply a preterition where the case of the wife>who committed PORNEIA is being excluded from discussion at>the point. Why so, one might ask. If for no other reason than the>fact the Christ has just discussed this case in the immediately preceding>verses.> I would agree with Paul that the case of a wife who has committed adulteryis simply excluded from this statement. That seems the most natural way totake the reading. MH EPI PORNEIA simply that the case of PORNEIA isexcluded. A large number of scribes came to this conclusion also. In thefootnotes 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 PAREKTOSinto the reading. Someone needs to check and see if this reading was in theStephanus text and the text behind the KJV. What led the KJV to read thisas Escept could have been a different text.Dr. Carlton L. WinberyFoggleman Professor of ReligionLouisiana Collegewinbery at andria.lacollege.eduwinbery at speedgate.netPh. 1 318 448 6103 hmPh. 1 318 487 7241 off

deute Matt 22:4Mt 5:32, 19:9, MH, EI MH, PAREKTOS

Matt 19:9 CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Sun Oct 3 02:16:41 EDT 1999

1 Cor 6:18 1 Cor 6:18 In a message dated 10/2/99 10:51:32 AM, dixonps at juno.com writes:<< MH by itself (no accompanying particle, like EI or EAN) occurs over 500 times in the GNT. Nowhere else is it translated, “except.” Onlywhenit is accompanied by EI or EAN is it rendered so.Since neither particle exists in MT 19:9, in order to get the exceptionidea some have posited an ellipsis of either EI or EAN.If we assume an ellipsis, however, we still make a huge leap ofblind faith if we conclude the negation, that is, if a man divorceshis wife and she committed PORNEIA, and he subsequentlyremarries, then he does not commit adultery himself in so doing.No one, to my knowledge, has ever shown that such a constructionas found in Mt 19:9 calls for this kind of conclusion. We are betteroff going with the conclusion of the early church fathers (e.g.,Augustine)and see this as simply a preterition where the case of the wifewho committed PORNEIA is being excluded from discussion atthe point. Why so, one might ask. If for no other reason than thefact the Christ has just discussed this case in the immediately precedingverses. >>I might as well put my two denarii in here too.Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples, §442 has some helpful comments: “Can MH mean «except»? The question has a certain importance in connection with the «divorce clauses»; for it is obviously likely that the two expressions (Mt 5.32 and 19.9) have the same meaning i. e. that MH EPI PORNEIAi means the same thing as the previous PAREKTOS LOGOU PORNEIAS. The meaning would of course be the same if MH could mean «except», but this is with good reason denied by many scholars. In this passage, however, MH not only may but should mean «except», not that MH = «except» is of itself admissible, but because MH is here dependent upon the introductory hOS AN which is equivalent to EAN TIS («whoever = if anyone dismiss his wifeMH EPI PORNEIAi») and thus we have (EAN) MH= «unless», i. e. «except». Both expressions therefore, lay down the same true exception” This raises the question of the syntax of MH EPI PORNEIAi. If MH EPI PORNEIAi is an abbreviation for EAN TIS APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIAi/, then what is the apodosis. There are four possibilities: (1) the apodosis is hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU; (2) ) the apodosis is hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN; (3) MOICATAI is the apodosis; and (4) the entire indefinite relative clause through MOICATAI is the apodosis. The overarching rule for complex noncoordinating protases is that the protasis-apodosis construction must make sense and form a complete thought independently of other protases, apodoses, or modifiers. With respect to option (1), the understanding would: “if anyone does not divorce his wife because of immorality, he divorces his wife.” This does not make sense. It is an incomplete thought. The same is true of option (2): “if anyone does not divorce his wife because of immorality, he divorces his wife and remarries another.” Option (3) would see MH EPI PORNEIAi in an equal adversative relation with APOLUSHi and GAMHSHi ALLHN with an asyndeton of the conjunction and the ellipsis of a second APOLUSHi. The three conditions are individually necessary and jointly sufficient, although one is adversative to the other two. The sense would be: “if anyone divorces his wife, although/but/and he does not divorce her for immorality, and marries another commits adultery. The implication of this option is that all three protases must be present in order for the apodosis to be true. If any of the protases are not fulfilled, then adultery does not occur. This is possible and is similar, in sense to option (4). The reasoning behind option (4) is thatMH EPI PORNEIAi stands closest to APOLUSHi because EAN TIS APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU are all implied in the clause. The other verbs of the protasis and the apodosis are not implied. A man divorces because of immorality, he does not remarry because of it. A rearrangement of the clauses might make the syntax clearer and retain the same sense: if anyone (whoever) divorces his wife and marries another, he commits adultery, if he does not divorce her because of immorality. With this arrangement, the syntax is clearer; the exception clause modifies the entire statement. If this is the sense of the syntax, then it seems that it does invite the inference “if he divorces because of immorality, and marries another, he does not commit adultery. There seems to be no reason for Matthew to add the exception clause unless he wanted to invite this inference. Also, the logical equivalent would seem to be: if he does not commit adultery, then he divorced his wife because of immorality, if he divorced his wife and married another. A choice between the (3) AND (4) is difficult. The syntax of both is a bit awkward, but they yield good sense, unlike options (1) and (2). Option (3) should probably be slightly favored, although there is little difference in sense from option (4). Any comments on Zerwick’s suggestion would be most appreciated.Charles PowellDTS

1 Cor 6:181 Cor 6:18

Matt 19:9 dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Sun Oct 3 19:51:41 EDT 1999

Matt 19:9 Matt 19:9 The question is, did the early church fathers understand theMH EPI PORNEIA of Mt 19:9 as denoting preterition (as excludingfrom consideration the case of PORNEIA) or as denoting thenegation, that is, if a man divorced his wife because of PORNEIA,and remarried, then he did not commit adultery in so doing?I don’t see anything in the translations cited below that suggestsanything other than the preterition view.Paul Dixon<snip>> The referances are listed in Chronological order.> > Shepard of Hermas Book Two Commandment Four> “And I said to him “What then sir is the husband to do, if his wife > continues the vicious practices?” And he said, the husband should > put her > away and remain by himself. but if he put his wife away and marry > another > he commits adultery.”> > Athenagoras of Alexandria A Plea for Christians Chapter 33> “be content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only > specious > adultery. ‘For whosoever puts away his wife,’ says he, ‘and marries > another > commits adultery.’ Not permitting a man to send her away whose > virginity he > has brought to an end, nor marry again.”> > Clement of Alexandria Stormanta Chapter 23> “‘He that takes a woman that has been put away’ it is said, ‘commits > > adultery; and if one puts his wife away he makes her an adultress.’ > That > is, compels her to commit adultery.”> > Tertullian, Of Patience Chapter 12> (Patience is personified as a woman)> “When on a disjunction of wedlock (for that cause, I mean, which > makes it > lawful, whether for husband or wife, to persist in the observance of > > widowhood), she (patience) waits for, she yearns for, she persuades > by her > entreaties, repentance in all who are one day to enter salvation? > How great > a blessing she confers on such! The one she prevents from becoming > an > adulterer; the other she amends.”> > Augustine, The Good of Marriage, Paragraph 3> “Therfore, concerning the good of marriage, which the Lord also > confirmed in > the Gospel, not only in that He forbade to put away a wife, save > because of > fornication, ubt also in that He came by invitation to a marriage, > there is > good ground to inquire for what reason it be a good.”> > Augustine, Of Holy Virginity, Paragraph 15> “For it is not lawful to put away a wife, save because of > fornication, as > the Lord Himself saith in the Gospel. But that, which he added, > ‘Thou art > loosed from a wife, seek not a wife,’ is a sentence of counsel, not > of > command; therfore it is lawful to do, but it is better not to do.”> > Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book 19 Paragraph 29> “For when the Jews relplied, ‘Why did Moses then command to give a > writing > of divorcement, and to put her away?’ Christ said unto them, > ‘Mosese, > because of your heart, suffered you to put away your wives.’ The > hardness > must have been great indeed which could not be induced to admit the > restoration of wedded love, even though by means of writing an > opportunity > was afforded for advice to be given to this effect by wise and > upright men.”> > Augustine, Sermon on the Mount, Chapter 14> “‘But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving > for the > cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever > shall > marry her that is loosed from her husband committeth adultery.'”> > Augustine, On the Gospel of John, Tractate IX Chapter 2> “And they that are well instructed in the catholic faith know that > God > instituted marriage; and as the union of man and wife is from God, > so > divorce is from the devil. But in the case of fornication it is > lawful for > a man to put away his wife, because she first chose to be no longer > wife in > not preserving conjugal fidelity to her husband.”> > Chrysostom, The Gospel of Matthew, Homily 17, section 4> “And not thus only, but in another way also He hath lightened the > senactment: forasmuch as even for himHe leaves on manner of > dismissal, when > He saith, ‘Except for the cause of fornication;’ since the matter > had else > come round again to the same issue. For if He had commanded to keep > her in > the house, thogh defiling herself with many, He would have made the > matter > end again in adultery.”> > Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily 19> “Because it is a law expressly appointed by Christ which he is about > to read > to them about the ‘not putting away a wife without fornication;’ > therefore > he says, ‘not I.’ True it is what was before spoken though it were > not > expressly stated, yet it also is his decree.”> > Jerome, Letter 77 to Oceanus, Paragraph 3> “So terrible then were the faults imputed to her former husband that > not > even a prostitute or a common slave could have put up with them. If > I were > to recount them, I should undo the heroism of the wife who chose to > bear the > blame of a separation rather than to blacken the character and > expose the > stains of him who was one body with her. I will only urge this one > plea > which is sufficient to exonerate a chaste matron and a Christian > woman. The > Lord has given commandment that a wife must not be put away’except > it be for > fornication, and that, if put away, she must remain unmarried.’ Now > a > commandment which is given to men logically applies to women also.”> > Basil, Letter 188 to Amhilochius, concerning the Canons.> “The sentence of the Lord that it is unlawful to withdraw from > wedlock, save > on account of fornication, applies, according to the argument, to > men and > women alike. Custom, however, does not so obtain.”> > Basil, The Canons of Basil, Canon IX> “Our Lord is equal, to the man and woman forbiding divorce, save in > case of > fornication; but custom requires women to retain their husbands, > though they > be guilty of fornication. The man deserted by his wife may take > another, > and though he were deserted for adultery, yet St. Basil will be > positive, > that the other woman who afterward takes him is guilty of adultery; > but the > wife is not allowed this liberty. And the man who deserts an > innocent wife > is not allowed to marry.”> > First Nicean Council, Canon 51> “Bishops shall not allow the separation of a wife from her husband > on > account of discord.”> > Canon 66> “If any priest or deacon shall put away his wife on account of her > fornication, or for other cause as aforesaid, ….let him be > deposed.”> > ______________________________________________________> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com> > —> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: dixonps at juno.com> To unsubscribe, forward this message to > $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to > subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> >

Matt 19:9Matt 19:9

Matt 19:9 dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Sun Oct 3 20:27:30 EDT 1999

Matt 19:9 Matt 19:9 On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 02:16:41 EDT CEP7 at aol.com writes:> > I might as well put my two denarii in here too.> > Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples, §442 has some > helpful comments: > “Can MH mean «except»? The question has a certain importance in > connection with the «divorce clauses»; for it is obviously likely thatthe two > expressions (Mt 5.32 and 19.9) have the same meaning i. e. that MH > EPI PORNEIAi means the same thing as the previous PAREKTOS LOGOU > PORNEIAS. The meaning would of course be the same if MH could mean«except», but > this is with good reason denied by many scholars. In this passage,however, > MH not only may but should mean «except», not that MH = «except» is of > itself dmissible, but because MH is here dependent upon theintroductory > hOS AN which is equivalent to EAN TIS («whoever = if anyone dismiss his> wifeMH EPI PORNEIAi1») and thus we have (EAN) MH= «unless», i. e.«except». > Both expressions therefore, lay down the same true exception1″ > <snip>> Any comments on Zerwick’s suggestion would be most appreciated.If the MH of Mt 19:9 should be rendered “except” because of the parallelwith Mt 5:32, then what does “except” mean? Does it mean the negation,that is, if a man divorces his wife because of PORNEIA and remarries,then he does not commit adultery?Even if the construction in Mt 19:9 somehow denotes the negation of theprotasis, the negation of the apodosis screams for assertion. It simplycannot be assumed, as apparently Zerwick does.Paul Dixon

Matt 19:9Matt 19:9

Matt 19:9 CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Mon Oct 4 00:28:52 EDT 1999

Matt 19:9 Romans 5:12 In a message dated 10/3/99 7:26:25 PM, dixonps at juno.com writes:<< If the MH of Mt 19:9 should be rendered “except” because of the parallelwith Mt 5:32, then what does “except” mean? Does it mean the negation,that is, if a man divorces his wife because of PORNEIA and remarries,then he does not commit adultery?Even if the construction in Mt 19:9 somehow denotes the negation of theprotasis, the negation of the apodosis screams for assertion. It simplycannot be assumed, as apparently Zerwick does. >>That is the implication when you have multiple protases that are in equal parallel relationship. Each protasis is a necessary condition for the realization of the apodosis. Therefore, if the condition of MH EPI PORNEIAi is not met, then the apodosis does not follow. Thus, he does not commit adultery. The negative inference applies if necessary conditions are involved.Charles

Matt 19:9Romans 5:12

Matt 19:9 Steve Puluka spuluka at hotmail.com
Mon Oct 4 06:12:53 EDT 1999

Romans 5:12 Matt 19:9 >From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc at speedgate.net>>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?Steve PulukaAdult Education InstructorByzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh______________________________________________________Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Romans 5:12Matt 19:9

Matt 19:9 Steve Puluka spuluka at hotmail.com
Mon Oct 4 06:20:47 EDT 1999

Matt 19:9 Romans 5:12 >From: dixonps at juno.com>To: spuluka at hotmail.com>CC: at franklin.oit.unc.edu>Subject: Re: Matt 19:9>Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 16:51:41 -0700> > >The question is, did the early church fathers understand the>MH EPI PORNEIA of Mt 19:9 as denoting preterition (as excluding>from consideration the case of PORNEIA) or as denoting the>negation, that is, if a man divorced his wife because of PORNEIA,>and remarried, then he did not commit adultery in so doing?> >I don’t see anything in the translations cited below that suggests>anything other than the preterition view.> >Paul DixonI’m not clear on this distinction, but perhaps we are on the same page. I read the Patristic evidence as permiting the divorce only for fornication, but not any further marriages for either party.Beyond that I really can’t speak to the grammer distinction on negation or exclusion. Could you elaborate on this please?Steve PulukaAdult Education InstructorByzantine Catholic Archeparcy of Pittsburgh______________________________________________________Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Matt 19:9Romans 5:12

Matt 19:9 TonyProst at aol.com TonyProst at aol.com
Mon Oct 4 11:32:04 EDT 1999

Romans 5:12 Archaeology In a message dated 10/4/99 3:13:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time, spuluka at hotmail.com writes:<< 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. >> I take this rendering to mean that not only is fornication adultery, but also divorce and remarriage. This seems to be different from the readings proposed before.REgards,Tony ProstAll Nonnos All Dayhttp://nonnos.iscool.net

Romans 5:12Archaeology

Matt 19:9 Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com
Mon Oct 4 11:56:24 EDT 1999

Archaeology Fwd: : FW: Microsoft and AOL Merger ><<> 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.> >>> I’m not sure I like this rendering, it seems to remove the force of EPI.When I read MH EPI PORNEIA, EPI indicates to me an instance of PORNEIA,rather than the entire subject. ‘Not upon (the instance of) fornication.The adverbial phrase limits the preceding phrase, excluding it from thediscussion at hand. But maybe some big Greeks have a better handle on theforce of EPI as used here.SteveSteve LongAllegro Digital Media, Inc.Print Host — Order your printing online!http://www.printhost.com/Kinja — What is it? You’ll never know, unless you go.http://www.kinja.com/

ArchaeologyFwd: : FW: Microsoft and AOL Merger

Matt 19:9 dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Mon Oct 4 13:25:29 EDT 1999

Fwd: : FW: Microsoft and AOL Merger FW: Microsoft and AOL Merger On Mon, 04 Oct 1999 03:20:47 PDT “Steve Puluka” <spuluka at hotmail.com>writes:> >From: dixonps at juno.com> >To: spuluka at hotmail.com> >CC: at franklin.oit.unc.edu> >Subject: Re: Matt 19:9> >Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 16:51:41 -0700> >> >> >The question is, did the early church fathers understand the> >MH EPI PORNEIA of Mt 19:9 as denoting preterition (as excluding> >from consideration the case of PORNEIA) or as denoting the> >negation, that is, if a man divorced his wife because of PORNEIA,> >and remarried, then he did not commit adultery in so doing?> >> >I don’t see anything in the translations cited below that suggests> >anything other than the preterition view.> >> >Paul Dixon> > I’m not clear on this distinction, but perhaps we are on the same > page. I read the Patristic evidence as permiting the divorce only for > fornication, but not any further marriages for either party.No, we are not on the same page. The preterition view says that theMH EPI PORNEIA is simply indicating that the case of PORNEIA isbeing excluded from consideration at this point and nothing saidor implied about such. It might be rendered paraphrastically as: he who divorces hiswife (excluding the case of fornication, which see elsewhere fordiscussion) and marries another commits adultery.What many conclude, however, is that MH EPI PORNEIA suggestsor even demands an implied negational thought, such as:he who divorces his wife because of or upon fornication andmarries another does not commit adultery. The early church fathers seem definitely opposed to this line ofthinking. Your citations seem to confirm this. But, if they concludethat divorce for fornication is justifiable, though not remarriage, because of Mt 19:9, then they have gone beyond the preteritionview and still end up affirming an unstated negation, that is, thatdivorce is justiable because of fornication.Paul Dixon> > Beyond that I really can’t speak to the grammer distinction on > negation or exclusion. Could you elaborate on this please?I hope I have.Paul Dixon

Fwd: : FW: Microsoft and AOL MergerFW: Microsoft and AOL Merger

Matt 19:9 Daniel L Christiansen dlc at multnomah.edu
Tue Oct 5 19:11:07 EDT 1999

1 Cor 6:18 1 Cor 6:18 Carlton Winbery wrote:> > 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 readthis> as Escept could have been a different text. Indeed, it does. The 1550 TR reads EI MH instead of MH, a readingwhich ispeculiar to the TR, and not to the Majority Text as a whole. Of course,that doesnot settle the larger issue, which is whether the simple MH is able tosupport anexceptive force.–Daniel L. ChristiansenDepartment of BibleMultnomah Bible College8435 NE Glisan StreetPortland, OR 97220(Also Portland Bible College, Prof of Biblical Languages)e-mail: dlc at multnomah.edu

1 Cor 6:181 Cor 6:18

Matt 19:9 & the Present Tense CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Mon Oct 11 10:24:26 EDT 1999

John 6:29 & the Present Tense Matt 19:9 & the Present Tense In a message dated 10/11/99 8:57:45 AM, scmiller at www.plantnet.com writes:<< If the Matthean Jesus wanted to suggest that the act of adultery was apunctiliar act as opposed to a linear act, why didn’t he keep to the aoristtense, why the switch to the present tense? The statement seems very clearto me. The Greek verb translated as “divorces” is in the aorist tensebecause it is viewed as a punctiliar act. The Greek verb translated as”marries” is in the aorist tense because it is viewed as a punctiliar act.But the verb translated as “lives in adultery” (or “commits adultery”) isin the present tense because it is viewed as a linear act. Why else theswitch to the present tense? >>Your view of the aorist tense verbs seems to be correct, although I’m not sure about the present tense verb. MOICATAI may be gnomic present, i.e., this is generally, or always the case when someone divorces and remarries.Charles PowellDTS

John 6:29 & the Present TenseMatt 19:9 & the Present Tense

Matt 19:9 & the Present Tense dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Mon Oct 11 18:03:06 EDT 1999

To save bandwidth? (was: Re: Exegetical Considerations) Matt 19:9 & the Present Tense On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:20:22 -0500 Steven Craig Miller<scmiller at www.plantnet.com> writes:> > > PD: << Again, the present tense may denote what you are arguing for > here, but it does not have to. It may denote a progressive nuance (is > committing adultery in the act of remarriage). Or, it may be a gnomicpresent, > often referred to as the aorist present, something that is timeless in > reality, true of all time (compare the use of SPEIRETAI in 1 Cor15:42ff). > The point is you simply can not prove your thesis by an appeal to theuse of > the present tense here. >>> > I suspect that outside mathematics or modern logic, it is impossible > to prove anything beyond all doubt. The issue as I see it is not what > can be proven beyond all doubt, but rather what is MOST probable (given> what we know).Yes, of course. We are dealing with likelihood or probabilities here,notwith proof. Sorry for communicating otherwise. But, it may be goodfrom time to time to be reminded of possible alternatives, and of thereality that what one believes may not be as sure as he thinks.> As I see it, the present tense of MOICATAI (at Mt 19:9) > creates the presumption that it refers to linear action (as opposed to > punctiliar action) unless there is some evidence to the contrary.Without any > evidence to the contrary, then the BEST translation would appear to be:> “lives in adultery.” I concede the fact that I have not PROVEN my casebeyond > all doubt, but I do humbly suggest that taking MOICATAI to refer to > linear action is the MOST probable interpretation of the passage.The question does not pertain to linear action, as the possibilitiesI have posited denote such. The question, rather, pertains to theparticular nuance of that linear action. You cannot argue that yourposition is correct because it denotes linear action and mine arenot because they do not denote such action. They do.The only argument you might raise would pertain to probabilitiesat this point. Is it more probable that MOICATAI is habitual than any other nuance? If so, why?By the way, the fact that the translations do not typically render itlike you suggest (like they do in 1 Jn 3:9, for example) might cautionus to opt for a less interpretive translation. I personally feel themodern translations do a fine job of communicating the somewhatuncertain nuance of the present tense.If I am coming across as antagonistic to your view, please keepin mind I am speaking as a pastor. I have seen far too many timespeople unfairly bruised and put on guilt trips, especially in this area. I am not suggesting that such remarriage does not constitute on-going adultery. All I am saying here is that we may be going beyondthe text if we affirm it is saying so. It may just as easily be sayingsomething else, like the man who divorces his wife, not for fornication,and remarres commits adultery. He certainly is committing (progressive)adultery in so doing. The gnomic truth is also true. But, are wejustified in going beyond and saying the present tense denoteshabitual and characteristic activity here? If so, why? Just becauseit is a present tense? Of course not. Paul Dixon

To save bandwidth? (was: Re: Exegetical Considerations)Matt 19:9 & the Present Tense

Matt 19:9 & the Present Tense CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Mon Oct 11 18:58:02 EDT 1999

Matt 19:9 & the Present Tense Matt 19:9 & the Present Tense In a message dated 10/11/99 5:14:00 PM, dixonps at juno.com writes:<< The question does not pertain to linear action, as the possibilitiesI have posited denote such. The question, rather, pertains to theparticular nuance of that linear action. You cannot argue that yourposition is correct because it denotes linear action and mine arenot because they do not denote such action. They do.The only argument you might raise would pertain to probabilitiesat this point. Is it more probable that MOICATAI is habitual than any other nuance? If so, why?By the way, the fact that the translations do not typically render itlike you suggest (like they do in 1 Jn 3:9, for example) might cautionus to opt for a less interpretive translation. I personally feel themodern translations do a fine job of communicating the somewhatuncertain nuance of the present tense.If I am coming across as antagonistic to your view, please keepin mind I am speaking as a pastor. I have seen far too many timespeople unfairly bruised and put on guilt trips, especially in this area. I am not suggesting that such remarriage does not constitute on-going adultery. All I am saying here is that we may be going beyondthe text if we affirm it is saying so. It may just as easily be sayingsomething else, like the man who divorces his wife, not for fornication,and remarries commits adultery. He certainly is committing (progressive)adultery in so doing. The gnomic truth is also true. But, are wejustified in going beyond and saying the present tense denoteshabitual and characteristic activity here? If so, why? Just becauseit is a present tense? Of course not. >>One of the issues of resolving the use of the present tense here is how it would affect other divorce texts. If the use of the present text was habitual or progressive, the solution to ceasing adulterous actions would be to divorce one’s current wife/husband, and in the case of the wife, return to her former husband, if possible. However, this is expressly what Deut 24:1-4 forbids: When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another mans wife, 3 and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance. This suggests that it is not the habitual use Jesus has in mind, but the gnomic use of the present.Charles PowellDTS

Matt 19:9 & the Present TenseMatt 19:9 & the Present Tense

Matt 19:9 & the Present Tense Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Mon Oct 11 19:22:45 EDT 1999

Matt 19:9 & the Present Tense GAR in Phil. 1:8 To: Paul Dixon,<< By the way, the fact that the translations do not typically render itlike you suggest (like they do in 1 Jn 3:9, for example) might caution usto opt for a less interpretive translation. I personally feel the moderntranslations do a fine job of communicating the somewhat uncertain nuanceof the present tense. >>I’ve seen no real justification for considering it “somewhat uncertain.”Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I suspect that the idiom “living in sin,” fromwhich I patterned the translation “living in adultery” was not common inthe 17th century when the Authorized translation was made, and moderntranslators have been afraid to use such a colloquial translation, in partbecause such an ethic is so distasteful to many people.<< If I am coming across as antagonistic to your view, please keep in mindI am speaking as a pastor. I have seen far too many times people unfairlybruised and put on guilt trips, especially in this area. >>You seem to dislike my translation based on your personal reasons, whichhave little to do with a historical assessment of the text! By this, Idon’t mean to suggest that I don’t have any sympathy for your situation. Mypastor (ELCA) claims that every time he preaches on this text that nomatter how strongly he states that (from his theological POV) Christiansare not bound by such archaic rules that nonetheless someone usually leavesin a huff thinking that he has condemned them personally. But is the factthat many people do not like such an ethic a justification for obfuscatinga text?<< I am not suggesting that such remarriage does not constitute on-goingadultery. All I am saying here is that we may be going beyond the text ifwe affirm it is saying so. It may just as easily be saying something else,like the man who divorces his wife, not for fornication, and remarriescommits adultery. He certainly is committing (progressive) adultery in sodoing. The gnomic truth is also true. But, are we justified in goingbeyond and saying the present tense denotes habitual and characteristicactivity here? If so, why? Just because it is a present tense? Of coursenot. >>I don’t think we are going beyond the text. Of course, every translation isin part an interpretation. One could just as well ask, what right do youhave to obfuscate a text which is clear enough in the original Greek?I guess we could go back and forth like this forever. You’ve made yourpoint, your pastoral concerns take precedent over accepting the mostprobable translation.-Steven Craig Miller (scmiller at www.plantnet.com)

Matt 19:9 & the Present TenseGAR in Phil. 1:8

Matt 19:9 & the Gnomic Present Tense dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Tue Oct 12 11:26:11 EDT 1999

Matt 19:9 & the Gnomic Present Tense John 6:29 & the Present Tense & 6.30 Nonnos Paraphrase On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:07:27 -0500 Steven Craig Miller<scmiller at www.plantnet.com> writes:> Furthermore, what is adultery? Adultery can only take place when a > married person has sexual relations with someone other than theirspouse. > Two unmarried people cannot commit adultery. Adultery is a violation of> a marriage. Without a marriage, there cannot be adultery! The point of > the Matthean Jesus’ saying at Mt 19:9 (in the context of Mt 19:3-9) is > that the first marriage (even after a divorce, although with exception)is > still binding, thus any sexual relationship with anyone else isadultery!> Implicit is that idea that it must continue to be adultery as long > as the first spouse is alive. The notion that one ONLY commits adultery> during the re-marriage ceremony, and that afterwards the secondmarriage is > free from adultery, has no merit from this text. The reasoning at Mt19:3-9 is > very clear, namely a divorced remarried person “lives in adultery” > (because it violates the first marriage).If, then, a man divorces his wife, not for fornication, and remarries,then he is living in adultery as long as he is remarried (accordingto your view). If so, then what should he do to correct this? Leavethe second marriage (it is that, according to Deut 24) and go backto his true wife? As Charles pointed out, this is forbidden in thesame passage (v. 4).Should he leave the second wife and remain single? The Deut 24passage seems to recognize the second marriage (if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, v. 3). If so, then the laws of divorce apply here as well. He is forbidden from divorcing her.Where does that leave us? Apparently trapped in an adulterousrelationship with no rightful course of action.I don’t think so.Paul DixonI think we are agreed that the man who divorces his wife, not forfornication, should not remarry. If he does, he commits adultery.

Matt 19:9 & the Gnomic Present TenseJohn 6:29 & the Present Tense & 6.30 Nonnos Paraphrase

Matt 19:9 & the Gnomic Present Tense Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Tue Oct 12 13:11:03 EDT 1999

John 6:29 & the Present Tense & 6.30 Nonnos Paraphrase To save bandwidth? (was: Re: Exegetical Considerations) To: Paul Dixon,SCM: << … what is adultery? Adultery can only take place when a marriedperson has sexual relations with someone other than their spouse. Twounmarried people cannot commit adultery. Adultery is a violation of amarriage. Without a marriage, there cannot be adultery! The point of theMatthean Jesus’ saying at Mt 19:9 (in the context of Mt 19:3-9) is that thefirst marriage (even after a divorce, although with exception) is stillbinding, thus any sexual relationship with anyone else is adultery!Implicit is that idea that it must continue to be adultery as long as thefirst spouse is alive. The notion that one ONLY commits adultery during there-marriage ceremony, and that afterwards the second marriage is free fromadultery, has no merit from this text. The reasoning at Mt 19:3-9 is veryclear, namely a divorced remarried person “lives in adultery” (because itviolates the first marriage). >>PD: << If, then, a man divorces his wife, not for fornication, and remarries,then he is living in adultery as long as he is remarried (according to yourview). If so, then what should he do to correct this? Leave the secondmarriage (it is that, according to Deut 24) and go back to his true wife?As Charles pointed out, this is forbidden in the same passage (v. 4).Should he leave the second wife and remain single? The Deut 24 passageseems to recognize the second marriage (if the latter husband detests herand writes her a certificate of divorce, v. 3). If so, then the laws ofdivorce apply here as well. He is forbidden from divorcing her.Where does that leave us? Apparently trapped in an adulterous relationshipwith no rightful course of action. I don’t think so. >>I don’t believe that the saying at Mt 19:9 was intended to present a courseof action for a divorced person who had remarried, rather its intent was tostate that remarriage (with one exception) was unacceptable to the MattheanJesus. I find it ironic that anyone could read Mt 19:3-9 and come awaythinking that being remarried was acceptable to the Matthean Jesus. One canonly guess how the Matthean Jesus might have handled this issue if pressedfor an answer. Perhaps he would have suggested that one should divorceone’s second spouse and remain celibate. The second divorce might beallowed, either because it was thought never to have been binding in thefirst place, or because it was thought that being previously marriedimplied infidelity towards any subsequent marriage. But just because youfind the Matthean Jesus’ ethics difficult, that is not a serious historicalargument against the translation “lives in adultery.” For anyone to suggestthat the Matthean Jesus would have thought that divorced-remarried personswere NOT “living in adultery” merely because they asked God to forgive themfor remarrying, appears to be nothing more than special pleading.IMO, my last point settles the issue. How is remarrying adultery? It isadultery because the first marriage is thought to be still binding. That isthe only way it could be deemed adultery! Is the first marriage some howannulled because the remarried person asks for forgiveness? Of course not.There cannot be any serious doubt that the Matthean Jesus held that thefirst marriage continues to be binding. Thus it is absolutely clear thatthe translation “lives in adultery” reflects the thought of the MattheanJesus. For as long as the first marriage is thought to be binding, thesecond marriage would be thought to be adultery!-Steven Craig Miller (scmiller at www.plantnet.com)

John 6:29 & the Present Tense & 6.30 Nonnos ParaphraseTo save bandwidth? (was: Re: Exegetical Considerations)
Mt 19:9 dd-1 at juno.com dd-1 at juno.com
Wed May 12 14:54:50 EDT 1999

Mark 3.1 Mark 3.1 Denny Diehl here with a question on Mt 19:9Please note the following:”hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIAKAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOICATAI”Wenham in his “Jesus and Divorce” states:”Prepositional phrases are adverbial and normallyqualify the verb which they follow.”Thus, his conclusion is that MH EPI PORNEIA modifies “divorce”but not “marries another”. His conclusion, then, is that Jesus’statement is not allowing for remarriage (to someone else) evenif the cause for the divorce is adultery.Also, Donald Hagner in his Word Biblical Commentary on Matthew,states:”Thus divorce is not allowed, except in special cases,and remarriage after divorce is similarly ruled out (seeDupont, Heth, Quesnell, Wenham [ JSNT 28 (1986) 17-23 ]. … Exegetically, Wenham is more convincing onthis passage.”William Heth in “Another Look At The Erasmian View Of DivorceAnd Remarriage”, JETS Sept ’82(?) quotes Wenham:”Had the clause comes after “marries another”, it wouldhave expressly sanctioned remarriage; while placedbefore “puts away” it would have made separationmandatory for unchastity.” -p271as a conclusion to:”Prepositional phrases are adverbial in nature andnormally follow the unit they qualify.”1) What is the normal syntax for a phrase like MH EPI PORNEIA?2) Are there other examples which might be noted?Thank you for your help.___________________________________________________________________You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.htmlor call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Mark 3.1Mark 3.1

Mt 19:9 dd-1 at juno.com dd-1 at juno.com
Wed May 12 14:54:50 EDT 1999

Mark 3.1Mark 3.1

Mt 19:9 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 12 16:44:26 EDT 1999

Mark 3.1 Mt 19:9 At 1:54 PM -0500 5/12/99, dd-1 at juno.com wrote:>Denny Diehl here with a question on Mt 19:9> > >Please note the following:> >“hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIA>KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOICATAI”> >Wenham in his “Jesus and Divorce” states:> >“Prepositional phrases are adverbial and normally>qualify the verb which they follow.”> >Thus, his conclusion is that MH EPI PORNEIA modifies “divorce”>but not “marries another”. His conclusion, then, is that Jesus’>statement is not allowing for remarriage (to someone else) even>if the cause for the divorce is adultery.> >Also, Donald Hagner in his Word Biblical Commentary on Matthew,>states:> >“Thus divorce is not allowed, except in special cases,>and remarriage after divorce is similarly ruled out (see>Dupont, Heth, Quesnell, Wenham [ JSNT 28 (1986) 17->23 ]. … Exegetically, Wenham is more convincing on>this passage.”> >William Heth in “Another Look At The Erasmian View Of Divorce>And Remarriage”, JETS Sept ’82(?) quotes Wenham:> >“Had the clause comes after “marries another”, it would>have expressly sanctioned remarriage; while placed>before “puts away” it would have made separation>mandatory for unchastity.” -p271> >as a conclusion to:> >“Prepositional phrases are adverbial in nature and>normally follow the unit they qualify.”> >1) What is the normal syntax for a phrase like MH EPI PORNEIA?> >2) Are there other examples which might be noted?There’s considerable stuff in the archives on this; searching back only tothe beginning of 1997, I found:Paul Dixon – Ladd Hill Bible Church1/26/976Re: K.S. Wuest on 2Thes 2:3Paul Dixon – Ladd Hill Bible Church6/7/972Grammar, Logic, Mt 19:9Jeff Smelser6/7/975Re: Grammar, Logic, Mt 19:9Paul Dixon – Ladd Hill Bible Church6/8/975Re: Grammar, Logic,Mt 19:9CEP7 at aol.com6/9/971Re: Grammar, Logic, Mt 19:9Paul Dixon – Ladd Hill Bible Church6/10/973Mt 19:9, MH EPI PORNEIACEP7 at aol.com6/12/972Re: Mt 19:9, MH EPI PORNEIAJeffrey Gibson10/5/977Re: Matt. 5 – porneiaWard Powers10/4/979Re: Matt. 5 – porneiaWard Powers10/8/9719Re: Matt. 5 – porneiaWard Powers10/10/973Re: Matt. 5 – porneiaWard Powers10/10/976Re: Matt. 5 – porneiaWard Powers8/9/989Re: 1 Corinthians 7:27,28Paul S. Dixon8/19/985Re: Women in the ChurchPaul S. Dixon9/21/983Re: Grice and conditionals (long, no Greek)CEP7 at aol.com9/21/982Re: Grice and conditionals (long, no Greek)Not that there’s any objection to renewing the discussion; but it might begood to check back over what’s been said on this before.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

Mark 3.1Mt 19:9

Mt 19:9 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed May 12 16:44:26 EDT 1999

Mark 3.1Mt 19:9

Mt 19:9 CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Wed May 12 17:41:47 EDT 1999

Mt 19:9 Mt 19:9 In a message dated 5/12/99 3:27:02 PM, dd-1 at juno.com writes:<< Please note the following:”hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIAKAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOICATAI”Wenham in his “Jesus and Divorce” states:”Prepositional phrases are adverbial and normallyqualify the verb which they follow.”Thus, his conclusion is that MH EPI PORNEIA modifies “divorce”but not “marries another”. His conclusion, then, is that Jesus’statement is not allowing for remarriage (to someone else) evenif the cause for the divorce is adultery.Also, Donald Hagner in his Word Biblical Commentary on Matthew,states:”Thus divorce is not allowed, except in special cases,and remarriage after divorce is similarly ruled out (seeDupont, Heth, Quesnell, Wenham [ JSNT 28 (1986) 17-23 ]. … Exegetically, Wenham is more convincing onthis passage.”William Heth in “Another Look At The Erasmian View Of DivorceAnd Remarriage”, JETS Sept ’82(?) quotes Wenham:”Had the clause comes after “marries another”, it wouldhave expressly sanctioned remarriage; while placedbefore “puts away” it would have made separationmandatory for unchastity.” -p271as a conclusion to:”Prepositional phrases are adverbial in nature andnormally follow the unit they qualify.”1) What is the normal syntax for a phrase like MH EPI PORNEIA?2) Are there other examples which might be noted?Thank you for your help. >Zerwick, Biblical Greek, §442 (pp. 148-49) has an interesting note on this passage. “In this passage, however, MH not only may but should mean “exccept,” not that MH = “except” is of itself admissible, but because MH is here dependent upon the introductory hOS AN which is equivalent to EAN TIS (“whoever = if anyone dismiss his wife MH EPI PORNEIA”) and thus we have (EAN) MH =”unless,”i.e., “except.” Both expressions therefore, lay down the same true exception; as for the interpretation of the exception cf. Verb. Dom. 38 (1960), 193-212.”This understanding would essentially make the statement a complex conditional with perhaps the following understanding: if anyone divorces his wife, if he does not divorce her because of immorality, and marries another, he commits adultery. Thus the MH EPI PORNEIA clause would simply modify APOLUSHi. This does not really resolve the exegetical issue. The question is does it invite the inference “if he divoioreces his wife because of immorality, and then marries another, does he commit adultery.Charles PowellDTScep7 at aol.com

Mt 19:9Mt 19:9

Mt 19:9 CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Wed May 12 17:41:47 EDT 1999

Mt 19:9Mt 19:9

Mt 19:9 CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Wed May 12 23:58:55 EDT 1999

Mt 19:9 Mt 19:9 In a message dated 5/12/99 4:48:11 PM, CEP7 at aol.com writes:<< Zerwick, Biblical Greek, §442 (pp. 148-49) has an interesting note on this passage. “In this passage, however, MH not only may but should mean “exccept,” not that MH = “except” is of itself admissible, but because MH is here dependent upon the introductory hOS AN which is equivalent to EAN TIS (“whoever = if anyone dismiss his wife MH EPI PORNEIA”) and thus we have (EAN) MH =”unless,”i.e., “except.” Both expressions therefore, lay down the same true exception; as for the interpretation of the exception cf. Verb. Dom. 38 (1960), 193-212.”This understanding would essentially make the statement a complex conditional with perhaps the following understanding: if anyone divorces his wife, if he does not divorce her because of immorality, and marries another, he commits adultery. Thus the MH EPI PORNEIA clause would simply modify APOLUSHi. This does not really resolve the exegetical issue. The question is does it invite the inference “if he divorces his wife because of immorality, and then marries another, does he commit adultery. >>I would like to make a qualification on this discussion I made earlier. It may be that the MH EPI PORNEIA clause does not simply modify APOLUSHi. The reason I think this that it does not make sense with the APOLUSHi clause alone. Therefore, it is more likely that it modifies the entire sentence as a whole. It stands closest to APOLUSHi because that is the verb that is implied in the clause. A rearrangement of the clauses might make the syntax clearer and retain the same sense: if anyone (whoever) divorces his wife and marries another, he commits adultery, if he does not divorce her because of immorality. With this arrangement the syntax is clearer; the “exception clause modifies the entire statement. You have this type of phenomena where a conditional clause modifies a conditional statement as a whole in Mark 9:42; Luke 16:31; John 3:12; 13:17; Rom 11:15; 2 Cor 2:2; Heb 2:2-3, although the syntax is not as complicated in those examples as in this one. If this is the sense of the syntax, then it seems that it does invite the inference “if he does divorce because of immorality and marries another, he does not commit adultery. There seems to be no reason for Matthew to add the exception clause unless he wanted to invite this inference. Also the logical equivalent would seem to be:If he does not commit immorality, then he divorced his wife because of immorality, if he divorce his wife and married another. Any comments are welcomed.Charles PowellDTScep7 at aol.com

Mt 19:9Mt 19:9

Mt 19:9 CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Wed May 12 23:58:55 EDT 1999

Mt 19:9Mt 19:9

Mt 19:9 Paul S. Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Thu May 13 11:42:29 EDT 1999

Mt 19:9 Great site for Bible scholars On Thu, 13 May 99 14:44:47 ben.crick at argonet.co.uk (Ben Crick) writes:>On Wed 12 May 99 (21:34:20), dixonps at juno.com 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 >inference> fallacy. But then, is not also John Wenham making as dodgy an >inference?> > If I may turn my syllogism into a polylogism:> > IF (P AND Q) THEN R;> 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 doesnot commit adultery? If so, then he would be drawing aninvalid inference, indeed (sure would have been an easy out for King David).I have not read Wenham for some time, nor have I beenfollowing the discussion here regarding his comments,but I would be shocked to find him saying this.Another consideration is the supposed conflict betweenMt 19:9 and Mk 10:12. But, that conflict exists only ifone assumes the negation of Mt 19:9. If the MH EPIPORNEIAi clause is meant to merely exclude from consideration the case of PORNEIA, then Mk 10:12and Mt 19:9 harmonize beautifully. We do not have tofigure that Mark left something out and that Matthewgives us the fuller picture, and/or that Mark was simplyin 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 http://www.juno.com/getjuno.htmlor call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Mt 19:9Great site for Bible scholars

Mt 19:9 Paul S. Dixon dixonps at juno.com
Thu May 13 11:42:29 EDT 1999

Mt 19:9Great site for Bible scholars

Matt 19:9 MH EPI PORNEIA Roger Birch roger at gil.com.au
Fri Sep 17 06:25:36 EDT 1999

Synoptic Concordance? Gal 6:16 Dear FriendsMatt 19:9 MH EPI PORNEIAiI having been enjoying the content of this group for a little while now,and want to venture in with my first question. I hope this is notrepeating something which has been covered, although I cannot find aresponse to this specific question in the archives, even though therehave been some which are very similar.I have recently read a comment in a book on marriage and divorce whichclaims that the translation of MH in the exception clause in Matthew19:9 as except (e.g. in KJV, NASB, NIV, Amp, etc.) is incorrect. Thebook claims this is the only place in the whole of the NT where MH is sotranslated. The hypothesis proposed is that the clause is really sayingnot even for porneia rather than except for porneia.I am aware that the words used in Matt 5:32 would support thetranslation of except for.. and also that there are variant readingsof Matt 19:9 to bring it in line with Matt 5:32. I also seem to recallreading in the Word Commentary on this passage that not even for..would be MHDE rather than MH.However, if the Matt 19:9 text is in fact MH EPI PORNEIAi, is thereanything in the grammar alone to support the hypothesis of not evenfor.. rather than except for..Thank you,Roger BirchSunnybank,QueenslandAustraliaroger at gil.com.au

Synoptic Concordance?Gal 6:16

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Fri Feb 20 11:47:07 EST 2009

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 [] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 rhutchin at aol.com wrote:> Given the choice between > > (1) those who say that the exception clause has the effect of excluding> the one case from discussion here (so that Mark 10 provides instruction> in the case of the exception) and > > > (2) those who say that the mere presence of porneia by the wife excludes the man from penalty (which would then carry over to Mark 10), you side with (2).> > > > > The issue, then, is whether the grammatical structure of the sentence> actually points to one conclusion (either 1 or 2) or if the grammar is> silent on the issue and the reader is left to figure it out himself> (allowing one to choose between (1) and (2)).> > > > Following your argument above, the exception clause (recognizing the> differences) in 1 Timothy tells us that the mere presence> of the witnesses is sufficient to condemn (although you seemed to allow> that this was not the whole story (i.e., they had to be valid witnesses) and perhaps you might even allow for the accused to offer a defense (perhaps putting into doubt the final outcome) reducing the force of the exception clause as a vehicle to condemn).> > > > > > > > As to the question marks, I send through AOL and they just insert themselves somewhere along the way. > > Roger Hutchinson> > > ——————————> > > Message: 4> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:07:54 -0600> From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>> Subject: Re: [] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9> To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Message-ID: <499D83DA.7000104 at earthlink.net>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed> > Roger,> > Your post has question marks after periods in many sentences, even when > the sentence cannot really be taken as a question.> > > >> The special case, MH EPI PORNEIAi, is not addressed here as it is excluded >> > from discussion. > > HH: Despite some naysayers, the obvious intent of Jesus’ words in the > exception clauses of Matt 5:32 and 19:9 is to exclude divorces on the > basis of “porneia” and subsequent remarriages from the status of > involving adultery. There have to be both conditions in order for > adultery to exist, so the exception concerns the entire statement.> > HH: So that is why Jesus made the exception for sexual immorality. The > woman would have been dead on strict observance of the OT law, so the > man would have been free to remarry. Sexual immorality violated the > marriage covenant and received a commensurate penalty in the law. Jewish > practice had apparently softened so that often the guilty partner often > did not die but was divorced. Yet that did not change the reality that > the marriage covenant was broken by the sexual immorality, and an > assumed right to remarry existed, just as it would if the woman had been > killed for the crime.> > HH: Yes, the exception is not subject to the status of adultery. When > someone divorces his wife because of her sexual immorality and then > remarries, there is no adultery on his part.> > >> MH EPI is used in 1 Tim 5:19:>> >> KATA PRESBUTEROU KATHGORIAN MH PARADEXOU EKTOS EI MH EPI DUO H TRIWN MARTURWN.>> >> > HH: It’s slightly different because it is EI MH, but EKTOS with EI MKN > seems similar to PAREKTOS in Matt 5:32.> >> The force of the verse is, KATA PRESBUTEROU KATHGORIAN MH PARADEXOU.?>> The exception is MH EPI DUO H TRIWN MARTURWN or not without two or three >> > witnesses.? This is meant to limit accusations KATA PRESBUTEROU.? However, > bringing an accusation even with two or three witnesses does not, in itself, > prove the accusation and condemn the accused.? It merely establishes a basic > requirement for making an accusation (and then following Matthew 18, that > accusation would be made in private to the accused and not in public).> > HH: This is an accusation that Timothy is to receive, and he was serving > as pastor. PARADEXOMAI means “receive, accept, acknowledge (as > correct).” Paul could have meant PARADEXOMAI in that last sense > (“acknowledge as correct”) and then would have been assuming that the > witnesses were valid witnesses. But even if he meant PARADEXOMAI as > “receive” or “accept,” it was conceivably a matter that had gone beyond > the private stage of Matthew 18 and had been brought to the church. > Timothy would have represented the church.> >> The exception in Matthew 19 does not take away from the force of the verse >> > which clearly limits the ability of a man to divorce his wife.? As a grammatical > issue, the presence of the exception (MH EPI) seems to exclude that issue from > discussion and does not necessarily allow, require or justify a man to divorce > his wife.? > >> >> > > HH: Yes, the exception allows the man to divorce his sexually immoral > wife and marry another woman without incurring the status of being an > adulterer. And Jesus was speaking of the way God regarded the matter.> > Yours,> Harold Holmyard> > > > ——————————> > > > > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9

Matt 19:9 dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Fri Oct 1 11:42:22 EDT 1999

Triglot Question Triglot Question For more on this see my article on negative inference fallacies at:http://users.aol.com/dixonpsPaul Dixon.On Fri, 1 Oct 1999 08:35:40 -0700 “Jim Poulsen” <jp at accglobal.net>writes:> I don’t want to engage a discussion on divorce and remarriage, but I > thought> this Greek translation that someone sent me was a little off the > wall.> > Carson, in EBC takes 5 pages to discuss alternative interpretations > of Matt> 19:9 but doesn’t offer this suggestion.> > The only other parallel I could find is in 1 Tim 5:19, where MN EPI > precedes> two or three witnesses and seems to have the same force as Matt > 19:9.> > Any comments ?> > — Jim Poulsen> > > >With regard to the book, the reference is B. Ward Powers, > “Marriage and> > Divorce, The New Testament Teaching” (Concord, NSW, Australia: > Family> > Life Movement in Australia, 1987), p.175.> > The quote reads:> > “The new piece of information is this: in the so-called exceptive> > clause, “except for porneia,” the word “except” is a > mistranslation.> > There is no word “except” in the Greek text of this verse. The > word> > which occurs here is MH, the ordinary word for “not.” It occurs > more> > than a thousand times in the New Testament, and not once is it> > translated “except” – except in this one place. There are numerous> > places in the New Testament, however, where one can find a > grammatical> > parallel to MH EPI PORNEIA, the phrase that we have here, i.e. a > phrase> > introduced by MH. Some examples: Matthew 26:5//Mark 14:2; Luke > 13:14;> > John 13:9; John 18:40. They are rendered “Not during the > festival,” “Not> > on the sabbath day,” “Lord, not my feet only,” “Not this man, but> > Barabas.” Why then in Matthew 19:9 should the normal word for > “not” be> > rendered as “except”? The phrase is NOT stating an exception; it > is> > simply a negative phrase, “not for porneia.”> > > > > —> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: dixonps at juno.com> To unsubscribe, forward this message to > $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to > subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu> >

Triglot QuestionTriglot Question

Matt 19:9 Steve Puluka spuluka at hotmail.com
Sun Oct 3 17:47:28 EDT 1999

Objective Genitive in Rom. 3:22 Matt 19:9 Matt 19:9 usage in Patristic writings.I am fascinated by the grammer issues raised in this post and can only vaguely follow the line of reasoning. I still struggle with the simple double negative being a reinforcement.But when you ask what the Patristic literature held on this verse I am in my element. Below are quotations that are indexed to Matthew 19:9 in Patristic writings. I have listed the author, name of work and chapter for those who wish to read any in context. Most of these are also available at the Ecole Initiative web sitehttp://cedar.evansville.edu/~ecoleweb/index.htmlThe readings appear to support the “except” reading of this verse. Some are not specific on the issue. The Latin writers universially support except. Among the Greeks, Antiochian writers universally read except and the Alexandrines are silent on any exceptions. Basil of Capadocia supports the exception.This was not a major issue for Patristic writers. The listing below may appear long, but this represents the total of the citations in over 40 volumes of Patristic writings I have on hand. This issue was not a major concern for the early Church.At the end of the quotations I list two canons from the First Nicean Council on the issue.Steve PulukaAdult Education InstructorByzantine Catholic Archeparchy of PittsburghThe referances are listed in Chronological order.Shepard of Hermas Book Two Commandment Four”And I said to him “What then sir is the husband to do, if his wife continues the vicious practices?” And he said, the husband should put her away and remain by himself. but if he put his wife away and marry another he commits adultery.”Athenagoras of Alexandria A Plea for Christians Chapter 33″be content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only specious adultery. ‘For whosoever puts away his wife,’ says he, ‘and marries another commits adultery.’ Not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor marry again.”Clement of Alexandria Stormanta Chapter 23″‘He that takes a woman that has been put away’ it is said, ‘commits adultery; and if one puts his wife away he makes her an adultress.’ That is, compels her to commit adultery.”Tertullian, Of Patience Chapter 12(Patience is personified as a woman)”When on a disjunction of wedlock (for that cause, I mean, which makes it lawful, whether for husband or wife, to persist in the observance of widowhood), she (patience) waits for, she yearns for, she persuades by her entreaties, repentance in all who are one day to enter salvation? How great a blessing she confers on such! The one she prevents from becoming an adulterer; the other she amends.”Augustine, The Good of Marriage, Paragraph 3″Therfore, concerning the good of marriage, which the Lord also confirmed in the Gospel, not only in that He forbade to put away a wife, save because of fornication, ubt also in that He came by invitation to a marriage, there is good ground to inquire for what reason it be a good.”Augustine, Of Holy Virginity, Paragraph 15″For it is not lawful to put away a wife, save because of fornication, as the Lord Himself saith in the Gospel. But that, which he added, ‘Thou art loosed from a wife, seek not a wife,’ is a sentence of counsel, not of command; therfore it is lawful to do, but it is better not to do.”Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book 19 Paragraph 29″For when the Jews relplied, ‘Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?’ Christ said unto them, ‘Mosese, because of your heart, suffered you to put away your wives.’ The hardness must have been great indeed which could not be induced to admit the restoration of wedded love, even though by means of writing an opportunity was afforded for advice to be given to this effect by wise and upright men.”Augustine, Sermon on the Mount, Chapter 14″‘But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is loosed from her husband committeth adultery.'”Augustine, On the Gospel of John, Tractate IX Chapter 2″And they that are well instructed in the catholic faith know that God instituted marriage; and as the union of man and wife is from God, so divorce is from the devil. But in the case of fornication it is lawful for a man to put away his wife, because she first chose to be no longer wife in not preserving conjugal fidelity to her husband.”Chrysostom, The Gospel of Matthew, Homily 17, section 4″And not thus only, but in another way also He hath lightened the senactment: forasmuch as even for himHe leaves on manner of dismissal, when He saith, ‘Except for the cause of fornication;’ since the matter had else come round again to the same issue. For if He had commanded to keep her in the house, thogh defiling herself with many, He would have made the matter end again in adultery.”Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily 19″Because it is a law expressly appointed by Christ which he is about to read to them about the ‘not putting away a wife without fornication;’ therefore he says, ‘not I.’ True it is what was before spoken though it were not expressly stated, yet it also is his decree.”Jerome, Letter 77 to Oceanus, Paragraph 3″So terrible then were the faults imputed to her former husband that not even a prostitute or a common slave could have put up with them. If I were to recount them, I should undo the heroism of the wife who chose to bear the blame of a separation rather than to blacken the character and expose the stains of him who was one body with her. I will only urge this one plea which is sufficient to exonerate a chaste matron and a Christian woman. The Lord has given commandment that a wife must not be put away’except it be for fornication, and that, if put away, she must remain unmarried.’ Now a commandment which is given to men logically applies to women also.”Basil, Letter 188 to Amhilochius, concerning the Canons.”The sentence of the Lord that it is unlawful to withdraw from wedlock, save on account of fornication, applies, according to the argument, to men and women alike. Custom, however, does not so obtain.”Basil, The Canons of Basil, Canon IX”Our Lord is equal, to the man and woman forbiding divorce, save in case of fornication; but custom requires women to retain their husbands, though they be guilty of fornication. The man deserted by his wife may take another, and though he were deserted for adultery, yet St. Basil will be positive, that the other woman who afterward takes him is guilty of adultery; but the wife is not allowed this liberty. And the man who deserts an innocent wife is not allowed to marry.”First Nicean Council, Canon 51″Bishops shall not allow the separation of a wife from her husband on account of discord.”Canon 66″If any priest or deacon shall put away his wife on account of her fornication, or for other cause as aforesaid, ….let him be deposed.”______________________________________________________Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Objective Genitive in Rom. 3:22Matt 19:9

Matt 19:9 & the Present Tense Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Mon Oct 11 09:59:45 EDT 1999

John 6:29 & the Present Tense John 6:29 & the Present Tense To: Paul Dixon,SCM: << FWIW … the passages I’ve always wondered about are the divorcetexts in the Synoptic gospels. E.g. the NRSV translates Mt 19:9 as: “And Isay to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marriesanother commits adultery.”The English translation “commits adultery” might give some the impressionthat the sin is committed only during the marriage ceremony. I wonder ifthe present tense might be better translated as: “living in adultery”? Onemight translate Mt 19:9 as:”And I say to you, whoever divorces his woman, except for infidelity [or:prostitution [?]), and marries another lives in adultery.” I reckon thatthe idea is too unpopular to be adopted by any major translation. Andalthough I would not personally approve of such an ethic, it seems to methat is what the text is saying. >>PD: << The problem is that the present tense may denote a progressivenuance, that is, “is committing adultery (in the act of remarriage)”. This,of course, addresses the issue made by some over whether remarriageconstitutes an on-going act of adultery. This cannot be proved by the useof the present tense. The nuance may bemerely progressive. >>I find it interesting that at Matthew 19:9 we have three verbs, two areaorist and one is present tense.”And I say to you, whoever divorces [aorist] his woman, except forinfidelity [or: prostitution [?]), and marries [aorist] another lives inadultery [present].” If the Matthean Jesus wanted to suggest that the act of adultery was apunctiliar act as opposed to a linear act, why didn’t he keep to the aoristtense, why the switch to the present tense? The statement seems very clearto me. The Greek verb translated as “divorces” is in the aorist tensebecause it is viewed as a punctiliar act. The Greek verb translated as”marries” is in the aorist tense because it is viewed as a punctiliar act.But the verb translated as “lives in adultery” (or “commits adultery”) isin the present tense because it is viewed as a linear act. Why else theswitch to the present tense?-Steven Craig Miller (scmiller at www.plantnet.com)

John 6:29 & the Present TenseJohn 6:29 & the Present Tense

Matt 19:9 & the Present Tense Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Oct 11 10:55:04 EDT 1999

Matt 19:9 & the Present Tense “you” in replies At 8:59 AM -0500 10/11/99, Steven Craig Miller wrote:>I find it interesting that at Matthew 19:9 we have three verbs, two are>aorist and one is present tense.> >“And I say to you, whoever divorces [aorist] his woman, except for>infidelity [or: prostitution [?]), and marries [aorist] another lives in>adultery [present].”> >If the Matthean Jesus wanted to suggest that the act of adultery was a>punctiliar act as opposed to a linear act, why didn’t he keep to the aorist>tense, why the switch to the present tense? The statement seems very clear>to me. The Greek verb translated as “divorces” is in the aorist tense>because it is viewed as a punctiliar act. The Greek verb translated as>“marries” is in the aorist tense because it is viewed as a punctiliar act.>But the verb translated as “lives in adultery” (or “commits adultery”) is>in the present tense because it is viewed as a linear act. Why else the>switch to the present tense?hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU … KAI GAMHSHI ALLHN, MOICATAI. It seemsto me that this is not really a “switching” of aspects but rather a matterof how the actions are conceived aspectually: the divorcing and remarryingare efficaciously conclusive actions, while the adultery is not an act buta continuing condition or state: it’s not really “commits adultery” butindeed “is engaged in (ongoing) adultery, or, as you say, “lives inadultery.”Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu

Matt 19:9 & the Present Tense”you” in replies

Matt 19:9 & the Present Tense dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Mon Oct 11 11:28:41 EDT 1999

“you” in replies Matt 19:9 & the Present Tense On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:59:45 -0500 Steven Craig Miller<scmiller at www.plantnet.com> writes:> > The English translation “commits adultery” might give some the > impression that the sin is committed only during the marriage > ceremony. I wonder if the present tense might be better translated> as: “living in adultery”? > PD: << The problem is that the present tense may denote a > progressive nuance, that is, “is committing adultery (in the act of > remarriage)”. This, of course, addresses the issue made by some> over whether remarriage constitutes an on-going act of adultery. > This cannot be proved by the use of the present tense. The nuance> may be merely progressive. >>> > I find it interesting that at Matthew 19:9 we have three verbs, two > are aorist and one is present tense.> > “And I say to you, whoever divorces [aorist] his woman, except for> infidelity [or: prostitution [?]), and marries [aorist] another > lives in adultery [present].” > > If the Matthean Jesus wanted to suggest that the act of adultery was > a punctiliar act as opposed to a linear act, why didn’t he keep to the > aorist tense, why the switch to the present tense? The statement> seems very clear to me. The Greek verb translated as “divorces” is > in the aorist tense because it is viewed as a punctiliar act. TheGreek > verb translated as “marries” is in the aorist tense because it isviewed> as a punctiliar act.> But the verb translated as “lives in adultery” (or “commits > adultery”) is in the present tense because it is viewed as a linearact. Why else > the switch to the present tense?Again, the present tense may denote what you are arguing for here, but it does not have to. It may denote a progressive nuance (is committing adultery in the act of remarriage).Or, it may be a gnomic present, often referred to as the aorist present,something that is timeless in reality, true of all time (compare theuse of SPEIRETAI in 1 Cor 15:42ff).The point is you simply can not prove your thesis by an appeal tothe use of the present tense here.Paul Dixon.

“you” in repliesMatt 19:9 & the Present Tense

Matt 19:9 & the Present Tense Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Mon Oct 11 17:20:22 EDT 1999

Matt 19:9 & the Present Tense Exegetical Considerations To: Paul Dixon,SCM: << The English translation “commits adultery” might give some theimpression that the sin is committed only during the marriage ceremony. Iwonder if the present tense might be better translated as: “living inadultery”? >>PD: << The problem is that the present tense may denote a progressivenuance, that is, “is committing adultery (in the act of remarriage)”. This,of course, addresses the issue made by some over whether remarriageconstitutes an on-going act of adultery. This cannot be proved by the useof the present tense. The nuance may be merely progressive. >>SCM: << I find it interesting that at Matthew 19:9 we have three verbs, twoare aorist and one is present tense. “And I say to you, whoever divorces[aorist] his woman, except for infidelity [or: prostitution [?]), andmarries [aorist] another lives in adultery [present].” If the MattheanJesus wanted to suggest that the act of adultery was a punctiliar act asopposed to a linear act, why didn’t he keep to the aorist tense, why theswitch to the present tense? The statement seems very clear to me. TheGreek verb translated as “divorces” is in the aorist tense because it isviewed as a punctiliar act. The Greek verb translated as “marries” is inthe aorist tense because it is viewed as a punctiliar act. But the verbtranslated as “lives in adultery” (or “commits adultery”) is in the presenttense because it is viewed as a linear act. Why else the switch to thepresent tense? >>PD: << Again, the present tense may denote what you are arguing for here,but it does not have to. It may denote a progressive nuance (is committingadultery in the act of remarriage). Or, it may be a gnomic present, oftenreferred to as the aorist present, something that is timeless in reality,true of all time (compare the use of SPEIRETAI in 1 Cor 15:42ff). The pointis you simply can not prove your thesis by an appeal to the use of thepresent tense here. >>I suspect that outside mathematics or modern logic, it is impossible toprove anything beyond all doubt. The issue as I see it is not what can beproven beyond all doubt, but rather what is MOST probable (given what weknow). As I see it, the present tense of MOICATAI (at Mt 19:9) creates thepresumption that it refers to linear action (as opposed to punctiliaraction) unless there is some evidence to the contrary. Without any evidenceto the contrary, then the BEST translation would appear to be: “lives inadultery.” I concede the fact that I have not PROVEN my case beyond alldoubt, but I do humbly suggest that taking MOICATAI to refer to linearaction is the MOST probable interpretation of the passage.I know that this can be an emotional issue for some people. And Ipersonally don’t mean to suggest that anyone is doing anything wrong bybeing divorced and remarried. But it does seem to me to have been the pointof the Matthean Jesus at Mt 19:9. Furthermore, it is hard for me to imagineany 1st century Jewish or Christian religious leader claiming that ONLY theact of getting remarried is wrong, but BEING remarried is all right (onceone has been forgiven for getting remarried). Frankly, I feel that theburden of proof is on anyone who would want to claim that such a scenariowas what the Matthean Jesus had in mind at Mt 19:9.-Steven Craig Miller (scmiller at www.plantnet.com)

Matt 19:9 & the Present TenseExegetical Considerations

Matt 19:9 & the Gnomic Present Tense Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Tue Oct 12 10:07:27 EDT 1999

Ezek 37.9 Matt 19:9 & the Gnomic Present Tense To: the participants of ,The suggestion has been made (perhaps by more than one participant) thatMOICATAI (at Mt 19:9) might be a gnomic present. Buist M. Fanning, in his”Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek” (1990:208), writes about “the gnomicor proverbial present” and states:<< As the name implies, this use of the present occurs in proverbialstatements or general maxims about what occurs at ‘all’ times. >>Fanning also accepts MOICATAI at Mt 19:9 to be a gnomic present. He alsocites an article entitled “The Present Indicative in Matthew 19:9″(Restroration Quarterly 24[1981]:193-203) by Carroll D. Osburn, who arguesfor the gnomic present here (I haven’t read the article.)But accepting MOICATAI as a gnomic present would not tell us whether or not”commits adultery” would be a better translation than “lives in adultery,”for both translations could be gnomic! After all, there is also the gnomicuse of the aorist and the gnomic use of the perfect.As already noted, Mt 19:9 contains three verbs. The first two are aorist,the last present. Why the switch to the present tense? One cannot explainthe present tense merely on the desire to make it gnomic, since the gnomicaorist could have worked just as well. Rather, the most reasonableinterpretation IMO is that the present tense was used because the action ofadultery was viewed to be ongoing!Furthermore, what is adultery? Adultery can only take place when a marriedperson has sexual relations with someone other than their spouse. Twounmarried people cannot commit adultery. Adultery is a violation of amarriage. Without a marriage, there cannot be adultery! The point of theMatthean Jesus’ saying at Mt 19:9 (in the context of Mt 19:3-9) is that thefirst marriage (even after a divorce, although with exception) is stillbinding, thus any sexual relationship with anyone else is adultery!Implicit is that idea that it must continue to be adultery as long as thefirst spouse is alive. The notion that one ONLY commits adultery during there-marriage ceremony, and that afterwards the second marriage is free fromadultery, has no merit from this text. The reasoning at Mt 19:3-9 is veryclear, namely a divorced remarried person “lives in adultery” (because itviolates the first marriage).-Steven Craig Miller (scmiller at www.plantnet.com)

Ezek 37.9Matt 19:9 & the Gnomic Present Tense

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 17 18:29:09 EST 2009

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 [] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 The goal of the translator is to make an understandable translation (though this forum is not really about translation). One may quibble regarding whether the translation represents the original with 100% accuracy sytactically (which is the disagreement regarding “formal equivalency” and more free “meaning based” translations), but in either case precise syntactic accuracy is not always the objective. The objective is comprehensibility. georgegfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus_________ ________________________________From: Will Dilbeck <will.dilbeck at gmail.com>To: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 5:25:00 PMSubject: Re: [] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9Harold,Thanks for your response. However, I did not say “I can’t see anyway how’not for fornication’ could *imply *’except for fornication.'” I said, “Icannot see in any way how MH EPI PORNEIA could be *translated* as ‘exceptfor fornication’. It seems to me the translaters went above mere translationwhen they introduced an implication into the clause. I recoginize that thishappens a lot in translation.Thanks again,WillOn Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Harold Holmyard<hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>wrote:> Will,> >> > I realize that this is a highly controversial issue, thus I wish to> preface> > this email by saying that my question is of a strictly grammatical> nature.> >> > My question is this, why do most (if not all) English versions translate> the> > “exception clause” of Matthew 19:9 as “except for fornication”?> >> > In other words, I cannot see in any way how MH EPI PORNEIA could be> > translated as “except for fornication”. In Matthew 5:32, the clause> PAREKTOS> > LOGOU PORNEIAS can certainly be translated as “except for the reason of> > unchasity” (NASB). But as far as I can tell, this is not equivelant to> the> > clause in Matthew 19:9.> >> > I have done quite a bit of research as to this question and I have yet to> > find ONE commentary that addresses this grammatical question. I have also> > read a paper concerning Erasmus’ addition to his 1st edition of his> > Greek-Latin New Testament (he added EI to the above stated clause of> Matthew> > 19:9, thus making it read EI MH EPI PORNEIA or “except for fornication”).> > This seems possible, but I again, this seems to be getting away from our> > text as we have it.> >> > HH: You can’t see “in any way” how “not for fornication” could imply> “except for fornication.” Just put the phrase in the context and try to> get a meaning out of it. The thought that clearly comes to mind is> “except.”:> > And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife–not for sexual> immorality–and marries another, commits adultery.”> > “Not for sexual immorality” gives the one reason for divorce that would> not lead to Jesus’ conclusion. So it is an exception.> > Yours,> Harold Holmyard> > > > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> — home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at comcast.net
Tue Feb 17 19:21:08 EST 2009

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 [] Gloss of Participles & Perfect Participles Will Dilbeck wrote:> I have done quite a bit of research as to this question and I have yet to> find ONE commentary that addresses this grammatical question. What commentaries have you looked in? And what periodical literature have you consulted? Have you looked at Craig Keener’s _And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament?_Jeffrey

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9[] Gloss of Participles & Perfect Participles

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 Will Dilbeck will.dilbeck at gmail.com
Tue Feb 17 19:12:09 EST 2009

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 [] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 Thanks for all the responses. I certainly did not intend to make this atranslation issue. I am sorry if my question veered us in that direction.I guess my question then is must MH EPI PORNEIA be understood as “except forfornication”?On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:29 PM, George F Somsel <gfsomsel at yahoo.com> wrote:> The goal of the translator is to make an understandable translation> (though this forum is not really about translation). One may quibble> regarding whether the translation represents the original with 100% accuracy> sytactically (which is the disagreement regarding “formal equivalency” and> more free “meaning based” translations), but in either case precise> syntactic accuracy is not always the objective. The objective is> comprehensibility.> george> gfsomsel> > > … search for truth, hear truth,> learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,> defend the truth till death.> > > – Jan Hus> _________> > ——————————> *From:* Will Dilbeck <will.dilbeck at gmail.com>> *To:* Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>> *Cc:* < at lists.ibiblio.org>> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 17, 2009 5:25:00 PM> *Subject:* Re: [] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9> > Harold,> > Thanks for your response. However, I did not say “I can’t see anyway how> ‘not for fornication’ could *imply *’except for fornication.'” I said, “I> cannot see in any way how MH EPI PORNEIA could be *translated* as ‘except> for fornication’. It seems to me the translaters went above mere> translation> when they introduced an implication into the clause. I recoginize that this> happens a lot in translation.> > Thanks again,> Will> > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Harold Holmyard> <hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>wrote:> > > Will,> > >> > > I realize that this is a highly controversial issue, thus I wish to> > preface> > > this email by saying that my question is of a strictly grammatical> > nature.> > >> > > My question is this, why do most (if not all) English versions> translate> > the> > > “exception clause” of Matthew 19:9 as “except for fornication”?> > >> > > In other words, I cannot see in any way how MH EPI PORNEIA could be> > > translated as “except for fornication”. In Matthew 5:32, the clause> > PAREKTOS> > > LOGOU PORNEIAS can certainly be translated as “except for the reason of> > > unchasity” (NASB). But as far as I can tell, this is not equivelant to> > the> > > clause in Matthew 19:9.> > >> > > I have done quite a bit of research as to this question and I have yet> to> > > find ONE commentary that addresses this grammatical question. I have> also> > > read a paper concerning Erasmus’ addition to his 1st edition of his> > > Greek-Latin New Testament (he added EI to the above stated clause of> > Matthew> > > 19:9, thus making it read EI MH EPI PORNEIA or “except for> fornication”).> > > This seems possible, but I again, this seems to be getting away from> our> > > text as we have it.> > >> >> > HH: You can’t see “in any way” how “not for fornication” could imply> > “except for fornication.” Just put the phrase in the context and try to> > get a meaning out of it. The thought that clearly comes to mind is> > “except.”:> >> > And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife–not for sexual> > immorality–and marries another, commits adultery.”> >> > “Not for sexual immorality” gives the one reason for divorce that would> > not lead to Jesus’ conclusion. So it is an exception.> >> > Yours,> > Harold Holmyard> >> >> >> >> >> > —> > home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> > mailing list> > at lists.ibiblio.org> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >> —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> >

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 Will Dilbeck will.dilbeck at gmail.com
Tue Feb 17 19:56:46 EST 2009

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 [] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 Harold,Thanks for that explanation.WillOn Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Harold Holmyard<hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>wrote:> Will ,> > Thanks for all the responses. I certainly did not intend to make this a> > translation issue. I am sorry if my question veered us in that direction.> >> > I guess my question then is must MH EPI PORNEIA be understood as “except> for> > fornication”?> >> > HH: I think you can also take it literally with a meaning like “for any> reason besides”:> > And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife not for sexual> immorality and marries another, commits adultery.”> > HH: Matthew would be indicating a category by its exclusions and so would> be saying what he means, but it is clumsy English. This kind of phrasing can> work all right in some English contexts:> > Whoever marries not for love makes a big mistake.> > The person would mean, “Whoever marries for any reason other than love.”> > Yours,> Harold Holmyard> > > > > > —> home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Tue Feb 17 19:26:39 EST 2009

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 [] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 Will ,> Thanks for all the responses. I certainly did not intend to make this a> translation issue. I am sorry if my question veered us in that direction.> > I guess my question then is must MH EPI PORNEIA be understood as “except for> fornication”?> HH: I think you can also take it literally with a meaning like “for any reason besides”:And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife not for sexualimmorality and marries another, commits adultery.”HH: Matthew would be indicating a category by its exclusions and so would be saying what he means, but it is clumsy English. This kind of phrasing can work all right in some English contexts:Whoever marries not for love makes a big mistake.The person would mean, “Whoever marries for any reason other than love.”Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 rhutchin at aol.com rhutchin at aol.com
Thu Feb 19 08:40:02 EST 2009

[] FW: POLLES DE ASITIAS [] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 The issue here does not seem to be the translation but perhaps the manner in which people use the translation.? We have:LEGW DE hUMIN hOTI hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIAi KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOIXATAI.The force of the verse is hOTI hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOIXATAI.? If divorce were actually limited to those cases where the wife commits PORNEIAi, I suspect divorce might be rare.? Not even intimated is the case where the man commits PORNEIAi.? We see here a very severe limitation on the ability of the husband to divorce his wife.The special case, MH EPI PORNEIAi, is not addressed here as it is excluded from discussion. The reader (especially a man who wants to divorce his wife and is looking for cause) is left asking, What happens in the case where the wife does commit fornication. Can the husband put her away? What if he does and then marries again?? Does he commit adultery in that case?? We don’t know because Jesus really doesn’t tell us as MH EPI PORNEIAi is an exception not for divorce but for the discussion at hand. [Is this true? Is this the effect of the MH EPI clause?]]MH EPI is used in 1 Tim 5:19:KATA PRESBUTEROU KATHGORIAN MH PARADEXOU EKTOS EI MH EPI DUO H TRIWN MARTURWN.The force of the verse is, KATA PRESBUTEROU KATHGORIAN MH PARADEXOU.? The exception is MH EPI DUO H TRIWN MARTURWN or not without two or three witnesses.? This is meant to limit accusations KATA PRESBUTEROU.? However, bringing an accusation even with two or three witnesses does not, in itself, prove the accusation and condemn the accused.? It merely establishes a basic requirement for making an accusation (and then following Matthew 18, that accusation would be made in private to the accused and not in public). The exception in Matthew 19 does not take away from the force of the verse which clearly limits the ability of a man to divorce his wife.? As a grammatical issue, the presence of the exception (MH EPI) seems to exclude that issue from discussion and does not necessarily allow, require or justify a man to divorce his wife.? Roger HutchinsonMessage: 2Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:59:42 -0600From: Will Dilbeck <will.dilbeck at gmail.com>Subject: [] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9To: at lists.ibiblio.orgMessage-ID: <f01d65470902171359t6d833361w8e9068a7d11b844b at mail.gmail.com>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1Hello,I realize that this is a highly controversial issue, thus I wish to prefacethis email by saying that my question is of a strictly grammatical nature.My question is this, why do most (if not all) English versions translate the”exception clause” of Matthew 19:9 as “except for fornication”?In other words, I cannot see in any way how MH EPI PORNEIA could betranslated as “except for fornication”. In Matthew 5:32, the clause PAREKTOSLOGOU PORNEIAS can certainly be translated as “except for the reason ofunchasity” (NASB). But as far as I can tell, this is not equivelant to theclause in Matthew 19:9.I have done quite a bit of research as to this question and I have yet tofind ONE commentary that addresses this grammatical question. I have alsoread a paper concerning Erasmus’ addition to his 1st edition of hisGreek-Latin New Testament (he added EI to the above stated clause of Matthew19:9, thus making it read EI MH EPI PORNEIA or “except for fornication”).This seems possible, but I again, this seems to be getting away from ourtext as we have it.Thanks in advance,Will Dilbeck

[] FW: POLLES DE ASITIAS[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Thu Feb 19 11:07:54 EST 2009

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 [] ] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9: Thread closed Roger,Your post has question marks after periods in many sentences, even when the sentence cannot really be taken as a question.> The issue here does not seem to be the translation but perhaps the manner in which people use the translation.? We have:> > LEGW DE hUMIN hOTI hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIAi KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOIXATAI.> > The force of the verse is hOTI hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOIXATAI.? If divorce were actually limited to those cases where the wife commits PORNEIAi, I suspect divorce might be rare.? HH: That was exactly the point. Jesus wanted divorce to be very rare among the people who trusted him.> Not even intimated is the case where the man commits PORNEIAi.? We see here a very severe limitation on the ability of the husband to divorce his wife.> HH: Most sexual laws in the OT were stated in terms of the husband and his rights. But they sometimes could apply equally to the wife. So the reader in such cases could make the necessary changes and draw the same conclusions. The law allowed divorce for the wife at this time. So presumably the same thing would be true if the roles were reversed. There is one place where Jesus discussed a wife divorcing:CSB Mark 10:12 Also, if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”HH: This is the more common form of Jesus’ expression in its lack of exception. Jesus stated things in the broadest way, not even dealing with exceptions:CSB Mark 10:11 And He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.HH: Mark 10:12 is just the role-reversed verse of 10:11, suggesting that what was true in one direction was true in another. So if the exception is added, I don’t see that the exception changes anything in that regard.> The special case, MH EPI PORNEIAi, is not addressed here as it is excluded from discussion. HH: Despite some naysayers, the obvious intent of Jesus’ words in the exception clauses of Matt 5:32 and 19:9 is to exclude divorces on the basis of “porneia” and subsequent remarriages from the status of involving adultery. There have to be both conditions in order for adultery to exist, so the exception concerns the entire statement.> The reader (especially a man who wants to divorce his wife and is looking for cause) is left asking, What happens in the case where the wife does commit fornication. HH: In Jesus’ time he would not be left asking that. Jewish law was quite clear about that. The law said that the woman was to die by stoning. That would free up the man for remarriage, wouldn’t it? She could die even if the fornication occurred before the marriage. For example:, the first passage below talks about a man who finds on his wedding night that his wife was not a virgin:Deut 22:20 But if the accusation is true and the young woman was not a virgin, 21 the men of her city must bring the young woman to the door of her father’s house and stone her to death, for she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by behaving like a prostitute while living in her father’s house. In this way you will purge evil from among you.HH: Another case involved sex discovered while the woman was engaged, which likewise earned the death penalty:Deut 22:23 If there is a young woman who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man encounters her in the city and has sex with her, 24 you must take the two of them out to the gate of that city and stone them to death– the young woman because she did not cry out in the city and the man because he has violated his neighbor’s fiancée. You must purge the evil from you.HH: And the plain case of adultery deserved the death penalty for the woman:Deut 22: 22 “If a man is discovered having sexual relations with another man’s wife, both the man who had sex with the woman and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.HH: So that is why Jesus made the exception for sexual immorality. The woman would have been dead on strict observance of the OT law, so the man would have been free to remarry. Sexual immorality violated the marriage covenant and received a commensurate penalty in the law. Jewish practice had apparently softened so that often the guilty partner often did not die but was divorced. Yet that did not change the reality that the marriage covenant was broken by the sexual immorality, and an assumed right to remarry existed, just as it would if the woman had been killed for the crime.> Can the husband put her away? HH: Yes, he could put her away. That would be more merciful than stoning her.> What if he does and then marries again?? Does he commit adultery in that case?? HH: No, that is the exception that Jesus names.> We don’t know because Jesus really doesn’t tell us as MH EPI PORNEIAi is an exception not for divorce but for the discussion at hand. [Is this true? Is this the effect of the MH EPI clause?]]> HH: Yes, the exception is not subject to the status of adultery. When someone divorces his wife because of her sexual immorality and then remarries, there is no adultery on his part.> MH EPI is used in 1 Tim 5:19:> > KATA PRESBUTEROU KATHGORIAN MH PARADEXOU EKTOS EI MH EPI DUO H TRIWN MARTURWN.> HH: It’s slightly different because it is EI MH, but EKTOS with EI MKN seems similar to PAREKTOS in Matt 5:32.> The force of the verse is, KATA PRESBUTEROU KATHGORIAN MH PARADEXOU.?> The exception is MH EPI DUO H TRIWN MARTURWN or not without two or three witnesses.? This is meant to limit accusations KATA PRESBUTEROU.? However, bringing an accusation even with two or three witnesses does not, in itself, prove the accusation and condemn the accused.? It merely establishes a basic requirement for making an accusation (and then following Matthew 18, that accusation would be made in private to the accused and not in public).HH: This is an accusation that Timothy is to receive, and he was serving as pastor. PARADEXOMAI means “receive, accept, acknowledge (as correct).” Paul could have meant PARADEXOMAI in that last sense (“acknowledge as correct”) and then would have been assuming that the witnesses were valid witnesses. But even if he meant PARADEXOMAI as “receive” or “accept,” it was conceivably a matter that had gone beyond the private stage of Matthew 18 and had been brought to the church. Timothy would have represented the church.> > The exception in Matthew 19 does not take away from the force of the verse which clearly limits the ability of a man to divorce his wife.? As a grammatical issue, the presence of the exception (MH EPI) seems to exclude that issue from discussion and does not necessarily allow, require or justify a man to divorce his wife.? > HH: Yes, the exception allows the man to divorce his sexually immoral wife and marry another woman without incurring the status of being an adulterer. And Jesus was speaking of the way God regarded the matter.Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9[] ] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9: Thread closed

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 rhutchin at aol.com rhutchin at aol.com
Fri Feb 20 08:37:58 EST 2009

[] XWMAREIM [] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 Given the choice between (1) those who say that the exception clause has the effect of excludingthe one case from discussion here (so that Mark 10 provides instructionin the case of the exception) and (2) those who say that the mere presence of porneia by the wife excludes the man from penalty (which would then carry over to Mark 10), you side with (2).The issue, then, is whether the grammatical structure of the sentenceactually points to one conclusion (either 1 or 2) or if the grammar issilent on the issue and the reader is left to figure it out himself(allowing one to choose between (1) and (2)).Following your argument above, the exception clause (recognizing thedifferences) in 1 Timothy tells us that the mere presenceof the witnesses is sufficient to condemn (although you seemed to allowthat this was not the whole story (i.e., they had to be valid witnesses) and perhaps you might even allow for the accused to offer a defense (perhaps putting into doubt the final outcome) reducing the force of the exception clause as a vehicle to condemn).As to the question marks, I send through AOL and they just insert themselves somewhere along the way. Roger Hutchinson——————————Message: 4Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:07:54 -0600From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>Subject: Re: [] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Message-ID: <499D83DA.7000104 at earthlink.net>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowedRoger,Your post has question marks after periods in many sentences, even when the sentence cannot really be taken as a question.> The special case, MH EPI PORNEIAi, is not addressed here as it is excluded from discussion. HH: Despite some naysayers, the obvious intent of Jesus’ words in the exception clauses of Matt 5:32 and 19:9 is to exclude divorces on the basis of “porneia” and subsequent remarriages from the status of involving adultery. There have to be both conditions in order for adultery to exist, so the exception concerns the entire statement.HH: So that is why Jesus made the exception for sexual immorality. The woman would have been dead on strict observance of the OT law, so the man would have been free to remarry. Sexual immorality violated the marriage covenant and received a commensurate penalty in the law. Jewish practice had apparently softened so that often the guilty partner often did not die but was divorced. Yet that did not change the reality that the marriage covenant was broken by the sexual immorality, and an assumed right to remarry existed, just as it would if the woman had been killed for the crime.HH: Yes, the exception is not subject to the status of adultery. When someone divorces his wife because of her sexual immorality and then remarries, there is no adultery on his part.> MH EPI is used in 1 Tim 5:19:> > KATA PRESBUTEROU KATHGORIAN MH PARADEXOU EKTOS EI MH EPI DUO H TRIWN MARTURWN.> HH: It’s slightly different because it is EI MH, but EKTOS with EI MKN seems similar to PAREKTOS in Matt 5:32.> The force of the verse is, KATA PRESBUTEROU KATHGORIAN MH PARADEXOU.?> The exception is MH EPI DUO H TRIWN MARTURWN or not without two or three witnesses.? This is meant to limit accusations KATA PRESBUTEROU.? However, bringing an accusation even with two or three witnesses does not, in itself, prove the accusation and condemn the accused.? It merely establishes a basic requirement for making an accusation (and then following Matthew 18, that accusation would be made in private to the accused and not in public).HH: This is an accusation that Timothy is to receive, and he was serving as pastor. PARADEXOMAI means “receive, accept, acknowledge (as correct).” Paul could have meant PARADEXOMAI in that last sense (“acknowledge as correct”) and then would have been assuming that the witnesses were valid witnesses. But even if he meant PARADEXOMAI as “receive” or “accept,” it was conceivably a matter that had gone beyond the private stage of Matthew 18 and had been brought to the church. Timothy would have represented the church.> > The exception in Matthew 19 does not take away from the force of the verse which clearly limits the ability of a man to divorce his wife.? As a grammatical issue, the presence of the exception (MH EPI) seems to exclude that issue from discussion and does not necessarily allow, require or justify a man to divorce his wife.? > HH: Yes, the exception allows the man to divorce his sexually immoral wife and marry another woman without incurring the status of being an adulterer. And Jesus was speaking of the way God regarded the matter.Yours,Harold Holmyard——————————

[] XWMAREIM[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Fri Feb 20 11:47:22 EST 2009

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9 [] How to Progress from First-Year Grammar to Reading? Roger,> Given the choice between > > (1) those who say that the exception clause has the effect of excluding> the one case from discussion here (so that Mark 10 provides instruction> in the case of the exception) and > > > (2) those who say that the mere presence of porneia by the wife excludes the man from penalty (which would then carry over to Mark 10), you side with (2).> I will respond offlist since Carl closed this thread. He wrote:[] ] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9: Thread closedDiscussion in this thread has passed beyond exploration of the Greek phrase in Matthew 19:9 into doctrinal and broader hermeneutical matters. Please let’s have no more of it.Carl W. ConradCo-Chair, ListYours,Harold Holmyard> >

[] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9[] How to Progress from First-Year Grammar to Reading?

Matthew 19:9 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Thu Oct 14 21:53:05 EDT 1999

PEMPTAIOI in Acts 20:6 D PEMPTAIOI in Acts 20:6 D To: Michael Abernathy,<< 4. Jesus was forbidding divorce for the purpose of remarriage. BradYoung argues that the force of the Hebrew would have linked the divorce andremarriage together in one continuous motion thus, translating, “Everyonewho divorces his wife [in order] to marry another commits adultery.” ( SeeJesus the Jewish Theologian [1995] p. 115). >>Unless Brad Young is suggesting that Matthew’s gospel was originallywritten in Hebrew, what he would be presenting is not an interpretation ofthe saying of the Matthean Jesus at Mt 19:9, but a hypotheticalreconstruction of this saying’s supposed predecessor. If so, that is not aninterpretation of Mt 19:9. Not that there is anything wrong with that, butit is just a different issue.You might also want to take into consideration the textual critical issues,for we don’t have just one text of Mt 19:9, D.C. Parker, in his “The LivingText of the Gospels” (1997: 85-86) lays out eight different variantreadings of Mt 19:9!-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com

PEMPTAIOI in Acts 20:6 DPEMPTAIOI in Acts 20:6 D

Matthew 19:9 Michael Abernathy mabernat at cub.kcnet.org
Thu Oct 14 23:56:19 EDT 1999

PEMPTAIOI in Acts 20:6 D Matthew 19:9 While I am interested in the discussion of how to interpret the Matthean passage on divorce, I feel that the recent discussions have overlooked some possibilities. Most of us are acquainted with the two most common interpretations:1. Jesus forbids remarriage after divorce for any reason.2. Jesus forbids remarriage after divorce for any reason except porneia with porneia being equated either with adultery or some form of marriage that would be illegal according to Jewish law.A less common interpretation was suggested by Tom Bivins in a recent posting. 3. Jesus was not forbidding divorce and remarriage but the abominable practise of sending away a wife without benefit of divorce. (While this interpretation has some problems, it does harmonize with the Aramaic translation of Mt. 5:32 & Lk. 16:18 where the woman is not divorced but merely sent away. [For those who don’t know Aramaic, see Lamsa’s translation of the Four Gospels.] It would also harmonize with the Caesarean and Western variants of Mark 10:12 which describes the woman as one who has left but not divorced her husband.)4. Jesus was forbidding divorce for the purpose of remarriage. Brad Young argues that the force of the Hebrew would have linked the divorce and remarriage together in one continuous motion thus, translating, “Everyone who divorces his wife [in order] to marry another commits adultery.” ( See Jesus the Jewish Theologian p. 115).5. Jesus was that divorce and remarriage were not a part of God’s ideal plan for mankind. Therefore, all divorce and remarriage falls short of perfection, but God because of His love and grace recognized man’s fallen condition and allowed for both divorce and remarriage. Thus, divorce and remarriage are allowed but they are not encouraged. (See David Daube, “Concessions to Sinfulness in Jewish Law,” The Journal of Jewish Studies vol 10, no 1-2 (1959).Let me know if I have missed any major interpetations. Personally, I lean to a combination of 4 and 5. 4 fits the context of the Jewish leaders testing Jesus in the same area where John the Baptist was arrested for denouncing the illegal divorce and marriage of Herodias. Michael AbernathyLock Haven, PA————– next part ————–An HTML attachment was scrubbed…URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19991014/37881a6b/attachment.html

PEMPTAIOI in Acts 20:6 DMatthew 19:9

Matthew 19:9 dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Fri Oct 15 01:16:04 EDT 1999

Matthew 19:9 1 Cor 7:12-16 On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 20:56:19 -0700 “Michael Abernathy”<mabernat at cub.kcnet.org> writes:> While I am interested in the discussion of how to interpret the > Matthean passage on divorce, I feel that the recent discussions > have overlooked some possibilities. Most of us are acquainted with > the two most common interpretations:> > 1. Jesus forbids remarriage after divorce for any reason.> 2. Jesus forbids remarriage after divorce for any reason except > porneia with porneia being equated either with adultery or some form > of marriage that would be illegal according to Jewish law.> > A less common interpretation was suggested by Tom Bivins in a recent > posting. > > 3. Jesus was not forbidding divorce and remarriage but the > abominable practise of sending away a wife without benefit of > divorce. > > (While this interpretation has some problems, it does harmonize with > the Aramaic translation of Mt. 5:32 & Lk. 16:18 where the woman is > not divorced but merely sent away. [For those who don’t know > Aramaic, see Lamsa’s translation of the Four Gospels.] It would also > harmonize with the Caesarean and Western variants of Mark 10:12 > which describes the woman as one who has left but not divorced her > husband.)> > 4. Jesus was forbidding divorce for the purpose of remarriage. > > Brad Young argues that the force of the Hebrew would have linked the > divorce and remarriage together in one continuous motion thus, > translating, “Everyone who divorces his wife [in order] to marry > another commits adultery.” ( See Jesus the Jewish Theologian p. > 115).> > 5. Jesus was that divorce and remarriage were not a part of God’s > ideal plan for mankind. Therefore, all divorce and remarriage falls > short of perfection, but God because of His love and grace > recognized man’s fallen condition and allowed for both divorce and > remarriage. Thus, divorce and remarriage are allowed but they are > not encouraged. (See David Daube, “Concessions to Sinfulness in > Jewish Law,” The Journal of Jewish Studies vol 10, no 1-2 (1959).> > Let me know if I have missed any major interpetations. Personally, > I lean to a combination of 4 and 5. 4 fits the context of the Jewish > leaders testing Jesus in the same area where John the Baptist was > arrested for denouncing the illegal divorce and marriage of > Herodias. A significant view already discussed here, but omitted in your listingof major views, is the preterition position. It is the view that seesMH EPI PORNEIA as merely excluding the case of the wife’sPORNEIA from consideration. Under this view Christ is saying nothing about that case. He isaddressing only the case of the man who divorces his wife forany other reason and remarries. The one who does this commitsadultery.Going for the view are the following considerations:1. The case of the man who divorces his wife for PORNEIA isconsidered in the preceding verses; hence, no need to say anythingmore about that here. Verse 9 is covering all other cases.2. There is no conflict with Mk 10:11. The Markan passage, ofcourse, is universal and knows no exception. If Matthew’s accountis preteritive, then Mark’s account can stand unchallenged.3. The fact that the type of construction as found in Mt 19:9(A+B=C) has never been shown to imply or mean the negation(nA+B=nC, in this case). In other words, there is no basis forconcluding form Mt 19:9 that if a man divorces his wife becauseof PORNEIA and he remarries, then he does not commit adultery.Paul Dixon.

Matthew 19:91 Cor 7:12-16

Matthew 19:9 TonyProst at aol.com TonyProst at aol.com
Fri Oct 15 11:47:03 EDT 1999

Architectural Lexicon Architectural Lexicon You have missed the Jerusalem Bible which someone cited earlier, which seems to say that not only is porneia adultery, but also remarriage after divorce.Regards,Tony ProstAll Nonnos All Dayhttp://nonnos.iscool.net

Architectural LexiconArchitectural Lexicon

Matthew 19:9 Steve Puluka spuluka at hotmail.com
Fri Oct 15 12:34:50 EDT 1999

the signifance of TOU toward the end of Matt. 2:13 1 Timothy 2:11 >From: TonyProst at aol.com>You have missed the Jerusalem Bible which someone cited earlier,>which seems to say that not only is porneia adultery, but also remarriage >after divorce.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.This seems to support the sense of putting aside the case of adultery rather than making an exception for adultery. More poor head still hurts trying to puzzle out the practical difference between exclusion and except. But I think I am starting to turn the corner.Perhaps if those with differing points of veiw on the issue could offer their own or their preffered translation of the verse I could see the distinction better?Steve PulukaAdult Education InstructorByzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh______________________________________________________Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

the signifance of TOU toward the end of Matt. 2:131 Timothy 2:11

Matthew 19:9 dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Fri Oct 15 13:07:46 EDT 1999

1 Timothy 2:11 1 Cor 7:12-16 On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:34:50 PDT “Steve Puluka” <spuluka at hotmail.com>writes:> >From: TonyProst at aol.com> >You have missed the Jerusalem Bible which someone cited earlier,> >which seems to say that not only is porneia adultery, but alsoremarriage > >after divorce.> > 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.Yes, I like this translation very much. It avoids the problematic”except” (no lexical basis) and the consequent charge of misleadingthe reader into thinking the text is saying something it is not, thatis, if a man divorces his wife for fornication and remarries, thenhe is not committing adultery himself. > This seems to support the sense of putting aside the case of > adultery rather than making an exception for adultery. More poor > head still hurts trying to puzzle out the practical difference between > exclusion and except. But I think I am starting to turn the corner.> > Perhaps if those with differing points of veiw on the issue could > offer their own or their preffered translation of the verse I could see> the distinction better?The only alternative translation you will find, I believe, willinclude the word “except,” inasmuch as all other interpretations(and so translations, unfortunately) presuppose an inferrednegation.Paul Dixon

1 Timothy 2:111 Cor 7:12-16

Matthew 19:9 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Fri Oct 15 13:40:50 EDT 1999

1 Cor 7:12-16 Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA To: Steve Puluka,<< 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.” >>The NJB reads: “Now I say this to you: any one who divorces his wife — I am not speaking of an illicit marriage — and marries another, is guilty of adultery” (Mt 19:9 NJB).In a footnote it is suggested that here PORNEIAi refers to incestuous marriages. The NJB writes:<< Such unions contracted legally between gentiles or tolerated by the Jews themselves between proselytes must have made difficulties in legalistic Judaeo-Christian circles like that of Mt, when people were converted; hence the instruction to break off such irregular unions which were no true marriages. >>Indeed, even today, the Roman Catholic Church does not allow divorce and remarriage, rather to remarry one needs to have one’s previous marriage annulled.<< Perhaps if those with differing points of view on the issue could offer their own or their preferred translation of the verse I could see the distinction better? >>Davies and Allison (3:16) suggest that “MH EPI PORNEIAi is the equivalent of PAREKTOS LOGOU PORNEIAS” of Mt 5:32. At Mt 5:32 Davies and Allison suggest that “PORNEIA has generally been understood to have one of three meanings — ‘fornication,’ ‘incest,’ ‘adultery'” (1:529). They hold that ‘fornication’ is “the least likely to be correct,'” and that the last two are almost a toss up, although they hold that the last is the most probable.The basic meaning of PORNEIA is “prostitution.” It seems to be used here (and elsewhere in the NT) as an abusive metaphor, somewhat similar to referring to a woman as a “whore.”Perhaps one might translate Matthew 19:9 as follows:”I say to you: whoever divorces his woman (except for divorcing whores) and marries another lives in adultery.”-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com

1 Cor 7:12-16Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Fri Oct 15 13:43:40 EDT 1999

Matthew 19:9 All-in-one Bible Search Page On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:47:03 EDT TonyProst at aol.com writes:> You have missed the Jerusalem Bible which someone cited earlier, > which seems to say that not only is porneia adultery, but alsoremarriage after > divorce.How do we get that PORNEIA here is adultery? A case can be made forits meaning being other than that. Lawfully, and that is the questionhere (EI EXESTIN), adultery was punishable by death by stoning. Therefore, it would not have been lawful to divorce a wife for adultery. The backdrop appears to be Deut 24:1ff where Moses suffered (not commanded, as pointed out by Christ) a man to put away hiswife for some uncleanness, indecency (literally, nakedness of a thing). Surely, the question of the Pharisees pertained to the interpretation of this uncleanness. If so, then PORNEIA in thiscontext (v. 9) refers to something less than adultery. Such caseis brought up by the Pharisees in verse 7 and answered byChrist in verse 8. The upshot is that PORNEIA in v. 9 here does not mean or includeadultery. Thus, what Christ is saying is that divorce andremarriage, excluding the case of sexual indecency of thewife as per Deut 24 and already discussed here, results inadultery on the part of the husband. This apparently includesthe case where the wife had committed adultery.Paul Dixon.

Matthew 19:9All-in-one Bible Search Page

Matthew 19:9 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Fri Oct 15 17:00:15 EDT 1999

1 Cor 7:12-16 1 Timothy 2:11 To: Maurice A. O’Sullivan,SCM: << The basic meaning of PORNEIA is “prostitution.” It seems to be used here (and elsewhere in the NT) as an abusive metaphor, somewhat similar to referring to a woman as a “whore.” >>MAO: << Harrington suggests otherwise: [ Harrington, Daniel J. The Gospel of Matthew. Sacra Pagina 1. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991.] Hw writes on p.273-4: ” The term PORNEIA may refer to: (1) sexual misconduct on the woman’s part or (2) marriage within the degree of kinship forbiden by Lv. 18:6-18″ However, there is an extensive treatment of this and related topics in an article included in both the first and second editions of: Fitzmyer, Joseph A. To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies. Second edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. (article “The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence” pp.79-111 ) >>The first definition which Liddell-Scott-Jones-McKenzie gives for PORNEIA is “prostitution.” And the first definition which Bauer-Arndt-Gringrinch-Danker gives for PORNEIA is also “prostituation.”It also seems to me that you have misunderstood Daniel J. Harrington [1991] here. There is nothing in that quotation which might suggests that the basic meaning of PORNEIA is not prostitution.And as for Fitzmyer, it appears you didn’t read him too carefully, since he supports my point. Fitzmyer [1981:88] writes:<< Etymologically, it [PORNEIA] means “prostitution, harlotry, whoredom,” being an abstract noun related to ‘porne,’ ‘harlot,’ and to the verb ‘porneuein,’ “to act as a harlot.” >>-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com

1 Cor 7:12-161 Timothy 2:11

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Fri Oct 15 18:01:35 EDT 1999

1 Timothy 2:11 Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA To: Paul Dixon,<< How do we get that PORNEIA here is adultery? A case can be made for its meaning being other than that. >>You are correct that many interpretations are here possible. But Davies and Allison [1988:531] state:<< ‘Adultery’ is a well-attested meaning for PORNEIA … >>And they cite BAGD, Lampe, and Lovestram. I don’t have the last two, but BAGD cites Sirach 23:23 and Hermas Mandate 4.1.5.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com

1 Timothy 2:11Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Fri Oct 15 18:27:02 EDT 1999

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA Steven Craig Miller wrote:> To: Paul Dixon,> > << How do we get that PORNEIA here is adultery? A case can be made for its> meaning being other than that. >>> > You are correct that many interpretations are here possible. But Davies and> Allison [1988:531] state:> > << ‘Adultery’ is a well-attested meaning for PORNEIA … >>> > And they cite BAGD, Lampe, and Lovestram. I don’t have the last two, but> BAGD cites Sirach 23:23 and Hermas Mandate 4.1.5.> The problem here, as I see it, is that, as Matt. 5:27 shows, Matthew was not onlyquite aware of another word for adultery which was less ambiguous than PORNEIA, butthat he uses this other word when he wants to signify “adultery”.Furthermore, against the Deuteronomic background in which the challenge to Jesus inMatt 19 is set, and as the roughly contemporary Rabbinic discussion of theDeuteronomic material shows, the meaning of PORNEIA can hardly be limited to”adultery”, even if it does include that signification. It is “something unseemly”which, most likely was sexual deviance, but not necessarily so. See M. Git. 9.10 (b.Git 90a).Yours,Jeffrey–Jeffrey B. Gibson7423 N. Sheridan Road #2AChicago, Illinois 60626e-mail jgibson000 at ameritech.net

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIAMatthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Fri Oct 15 20:55:51 EDT 1999

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA Another articular infinitive To: Jeffrey B. Gibson,<< The problem here, as I see it, is that, as Matt. 5:27 shows, Matthew was not only quite aware of another word for adultery which was less ambiguous than PORNEIA, but that he uses this other word when he wants to signify “adultery”. Furthermore, against the Deuteronomic background in which the challenge to Jesus in Matt 19 is set, and as the roughly contemporary Rabbinic discussion of the Deuteronomic material shows, the meaning of PORNEIA can hardly be limited to “adultery”, even if it does include that signification. It is “something unseemly” which, most likely was sexual deviance, but not necessarily so. See M. Git. 9.10 (b. Git 90a). >>I would concur with you, that is why I think the primary referent for PORNEIA at Mt 19:9 should be seen to be prostitution, and it is being used as such by the Matthean Jesus as an abusive metaphor. Thus I’ve suggested the following translation:”I say to you: whoever divorces his woman (except for divorcing whores) and marries another lives in adultery.”This translation leaves it unclear what a wife might have done to justify being called a “whore.”-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIAAnother articular infinitive

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Sat Oct 16 01:14:41 EDT 1999

1 JOHN 4:7b “May” and “Might” in purpose clauses (was: “Re: The anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the Subjunctive”) Steven Craig Miller wrote:> To: Jeffrey B. Gibson,> > << The problem here, as I see it, is that, as Matt. 5:27 shows, Matthew was> not only quite aware of another word for adultery which was less ambiguous> than PORNEIA, but that he uses this other word when he wants to signify> “adultery”. Furthermore, against the Deuteronomic background in which the> challenge to Jesus in Matt 19 is set, and as the roughly contemporary> Rabbinic discussion of the Deuteronomic material shows, the meaning of> PORNEIA can hardly be limited to “adultery”, even if it does include that> signification. It is “something unseemly” which, most likely was sexual> deviance, but not necessarily so. See M. Git. 9.10 (b. Git 90a). >>> > I would concur with you, that is why I think the primary referent for> PORNEIA at Mt 19:9 should be seen to be prostitution, and it is being used> as such by the Matthean Jesus as an abusive metaphor. Thus I’ve suggested> the following translation:> > “I say to you: whoever divorces his woman (except for divorcing whores) and> marries another lives in adultery.”> > This translation leaves it unclear what a wife might have done to justify> being called a “whore.”> But the problem here is that “prostitution” is not what the Deuteronomicand/or themore contemporary Rabbinic discussion (which seems to inform the debatebehind Matt19) envisages, nor does it seem a common enough situation (a man’s wifeengaging in”prostitution”) in 1st cent CE Palestine to be the issue at stake. If itwere, wecould have, I think, seem it asserted in the Rabbinic discussion as anexample –indeed a paramount example– of the “unseemly thing” which PORNEIArepresents in thatdiscussion.I am still inclined to see that what Jesus is saying here is that eventhe reasonthat ordinarily, and according to the Mosaic Law, was recognized asgrounds fordivorce, is not to be considered so, i.e., that there is no cause forwhich a man maydivorce his wife PORNEIA included.After all, the issue at stake here, as the use of PEIRAZW here shows, isnot thedetermination of which side of the Shammai Hillel debate on what theunseemly thingin a wife is that might justify divorce (even her being “uglier thananother woman orher burning the soup was considered legitimate grounds). Those whoquestion Jesus arenot seeking advice from him or appealing to him as one who might solve athornyproblem. They are his enemies and they are trying to do him in. Andtheir question isa test of his faithfulness not his knowledge of Torah.Yours,Jeffrey–Jeffrey B. Gibson7423 N. Sheridan Road #2AChicago, Illinois 60626e-mail jgibson000 at ameritech.net

1 JOHN 4:7b”May” and “Might” in purpose clauses (was: “Re: The anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the Subjunctive”)

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Sat Oct 16 08:28:19 EDT 1999

“May” and “Might” in purpose clauses (was: “Re: The anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the Subjunctive”) 1 JOHN 4:7b To: Jeffrey B. Gibson,SCM: << I’ve suggested the following translation: “I say to you: whoever divorces his woman (except for divorcing whores) and marries another lives in adultery.” >>JBG: << But the problem here is that “prostitution” is not what the Deuteronomic and/or the more contemporary Rabbinic discussion (which seems to inform the debate behind Matt 19) envisages, nor does it seem a common enough situation (a man’s wife engaging in “prostitution”) in 1st cent CE Palestine to be the issue at stake. >>I’m not suggesting that “prostitution” was a real problem, only that the term PORNEIA was used as an abusive metaphor. This to me, if I may be allowed to speak so bold, is a point which I believe most scholars have missed!JBG: << I am still inclined to see that what Jesus is saying here is that even the reason that ordinarily, and according to the Mosaic Law, was recognized as grounds for divorce, is not to be considered so, i.e., that there is no cause for which a man may divorce his wife PORNEIA included. >>So, how would you translate Mt 19:9? From my point of view, I would concede that MH EPI PORNEIi (of Mt 19:9) is a problem. I don’t claim to personally have any new solution to this problem. But I do believe that my translation (quoted above) is consistent with mainstream scholarship, especially the interpretation argued for in Davies and Allison’s commentary on Matthew.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com

“May” and “Might” in purpose clauses (was: “Re: The anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the Subjunctive”)1 JOHN 4:7b

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Sat Oct 16 11:24:08 EDT 1999

Refresh Your Greek NT Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 19:55:51 -0500 Steven Craig Miller<scmiller at www.plantnet.com> writes:> <snip>> > I would concur with you, that is why I think the primary referent for > PORNEIA at Mt 19:9 should be seen to be prostitution, and it is > being used as such by the Matthean Jesus as an abusive metaphor. > Thus I’ve suggested the following translation:> > “I say to you: whoever divorces his woman (except for divorcing > whores) and marries another lives in adultery.”While PORNEIA can mean or include prostitution, its meaninghere can hardly be that. If the law is consistent, then the uncleanness or indecency of theoffending wife in the Deut 24 backdrop cannot be adultery orprostitution, since the lawful punishment for such is death bystoning. This is why PORNEIA in Mt 19:9 must be interpreted in light ofthe immediately preceding verses which are promted by theDeut 24 passage. PORNEIA here does not include adultery.It refers to some other sexual uncleanness, not legally punishable by death, unless the law is in conflict.Paul Dixon

Refresh Your Greek NTMatthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Sat Oct 16 12:07:26 EDT 1999

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA To: Paul Dixon,SCM: << I think the primary referent for PORNEIA at Mt 19:9 should be seen to be prostitution, and it is being used as such by the Matthean Jesus as an abusive metaphor. Thus I’ve suggested the following translation: “I say to you: whoever divorces his woman (except for divorcing whores) and marries another lives in adultery.” >>PD: << While PORNEIA can mean or include prostitution, its meaning here can hardly be that. >>You seem to have misunderstood what I have written, perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I should have been. My suggestion is that PORNEIA is being used here as an ABUSIVE METAPHOR. Like all metaphors, it does NOT MEAN its primary referent, but rather it MEANS something else! When you write: << While PORNEIA can mean or include prostitution, its meaning here can hardly be that >> I concur with you completely! The translation: << I say to you: whoever divorces his woman (except for divorcing whores) and marries another lives in adultery >> does not mean to suggest that the “whore” actually received money for sex, merely that her infidelity was viewed as making her a “whore.”-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIAMatthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Sat Oct 16 13:06:18 EDT 1999

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA On Sat, 16 Oct 1999 11:07:26 -0500 Steven Craig Miller<scmiller at www.plantnet.com> writes:<snip>> You seem to have misunderstood what I have written, perhaps I wasn’t as> clear as I should have been. My suggestion is that PORNEIA is beingused > here as an ABUSIVE METAPHOR. Like all metaphors, it does NOT MEAN its > primary referent, but rather it MEANS something else! When you write:<< > While PORNEIA can mean or include prostitution, its meaning here can > hardly be that >> I concur with you completely! The translation: << Isay > to you: whoever divorces his woman (except for divorcing whores) and > marries another lives in adultery >> does not mean to suggest that the > “whore” acctually received money for sex, merely that her infidelitywas > viewed as making her a “whore.”The problem is your abusive metaphor seems to communicate thevery least the idea of adultery (infidelity, as you say). If so, thenyoustill have to deal with the problem I raised. Would you say, then, that the wife who has committed such infidelity/adultery could be lawfully divorced? If so, how would that comport withthe law which stipulates she should be stoned to death?This is exactly where the Pharisees would have had Jesus. Theyassumed the law was non-contradictory and they approached Jesusrepeatedly with questions assuming such law of non-contradictionwithin the law. The law does command death for adultery. It doesnot elsewhere command non-death, but divorce for the same offense.This is why PORNEIA here must be interpreted in light of the precedingverses and ultimately in light of Deut 24:1ff. It is apparently anuncleanness, indecency (literally, nakedness of some sort) fallingshort of adultery.Paul Dixon

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIAMatthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at mailhost.chi.ameritech.net
Sat Oct 16 13:22:18 EDT 1999

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA Steven Craig Miller wrote:> To: Jeffrey B. Gibson,> > I’m not suggesting that “prostitution” was a real problem, only that the> term PORNEIA was used as an abusive metaphor. This to me, if I may be> allowed to speak so bold, is a point which I believe most scholars have missed!> > JBG: << I am still inclined to see that what Jesus is saying here is that> even the reason that ordinarily, and according to the Mosaic Law, was> recognized as grounds for divorce, is not to be considered so, i.e., that> there is no cause for which a man may divorce his wife PORNEIA included. >>> > So, how would you translate Mt 19:9?If PORNEIA does not refer to incestuous relationships, I would translateMatt. 19:9as “If any man divorces his wife for any reason — the grounds ofPORNEIAnotwithstanding, he ….”Any other translation, except the one that envisages Jesus speaking ofmarriageswhich violate Jewish conceptions of consanguinity, make Matthewcontradict what issaid on the issue in GMark. We also have to take into account whether ornot in GMattthe opponents of Jesus are trying to get Jesus to utter a damningcomment on themarriage of Herod to Herodias, and thus get him into the same sort oftrouble withHerod as JtheB found himself in.Yours,Jeffrey–Jeffrey B. Gibson7423 N. Sheridan Road #2AChicago, Illinois 60626e-mail jgibson000 at ameritech.net

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIAMatthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Sat Oct 16 14:59:38 EDT 1999

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA To: Jeffrey B. Gibson,<< If PORNEIA does not refer to incestuous relationships, I would translate Matt. 19:9 as “If any man divorces his wife for any reason — the grounds of PORNEIA notwithstanding, he ….” >>Joseph A. Fitzmyer (1981:105n39) has written:<< Tortuous attempts to read these phrases as other than “exceptive” have to be recognized for what they really are, subterfuges to avoid the obvious. >>I would assume that you would disagree, yes? What grammatical reason justify such a translation? (I’m really wanting to know and understand this as best I can.)-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIAMatthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Sat Oct 16 15:19:45 EDT 1999

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIA Bear with me, here. 🙂 To: Paul Dixon,<< Would you say, then, that the wife who has committed such infidelity/adultery could be lawfully divorced? If so, how would that comport with the law which stipulates she should be stoned to death? >>Although the evidence is not absolutely clear, it is possible that the Matthean Jesus was in effect suggesting that if we were under our own law, such a woman would be dead and thus one could remarry, but since we are not under Roman law (cf. Jn 18:31), we will allow such a man to remarry, BUT no one else! Or it could be that the Matthean Jesus no longer felt that adulterous women should be put to death (cf. Jn 7:53-8:11), and yet that the man should be able to divorce in such a situation, but no other. (See: Brown’s “The Death of the Messiah” pp. 363-372.)<< This is why PORNEIA here must be interpreted in light of the preceding verses and ultimately in light of Deut 24:1ff. It is apparently an uncleanness, indecency (literally, nakedness of some sort) fallingshort of adultery. >>How would you want to translate Mt 19:9?-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com

Matthew 19:9, mng of PORNEIABear with me, here. 🙂
Dear List-Members,

a friend of mine asked me to post his question on Mat 19,9 here: “LEGW DE hUMIN hOTI hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIAi KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOICATAI.”

He wants to know, if it’s possible to understand “MH EPI PORNEIAi” as “not even because of fornication”.

Thank you for any help !

Yours

Peter, Germany www.streitenberger.com

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

0 people found this article useful

20 thoughts on “Matthew 19:9”

George F Somsel says:

Matthew 19:9λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται.

                    LEGW DE hUMIN hOTI hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIAi KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOIXATAI.

Perhaps it’s the word order here which has caused some confusion. Let’s reorganize it to make it more straight-forward.

λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν μὴ ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὺτοῦ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται. LEGW DE hUMIN hOTI hOS AN MH APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU EPI PORNEIAi KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOIXATAI.

Now the sentence is relatively simple: “Whoever does not divorce his wife because of adultery and marries another commits adultery.”

george gfsomsel

… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.

– Jan Hus _________

________________________________ href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Sun, May 8, 2011 7:10:37 AM

Dear List-Members,

a friend of mine asked me to post his question on Mat 19,9 here: “LEGW DE hUMIN hOTI hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIAi KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOICATAI.”

He wants to know, if it’s possible to understand “MH EPI PORNEIAi” as “not even because of fornication”.

Thank you for any help !

Yours

Peter, Germany http://www.streitenberger.com

  Reply

  May 8, 2011 at 7:44 am
Rollins David says:

Peter: There was an extensive discussion of that passage in 1998 or 99 ?? in which Paul Dixon made that very argument about Matt. 19:9. If you search the archives it may come up.

With undeserved acceptance from Christ and unreserved accountability to Christ, David Rollins

Reply

May 8, 2011 at 7:48 am
Anonymous says:

This has been argued by Bruce Vawter in “The Divorce Clauses in Mt 5, 32 and 19, 9.” CBQ 16.2 (April 1954), 155-167..

Jeffrey

Reply

May 8, 2011 at 8:13 am
Mark Lightman says:

It seems to me that would require κἄν ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ.

Mark L

Φωσφορος

FWSFOROS MARKOS

Reply

May 8, 2011 at 9:41 am
Anonymous says:

That’s more or less what Davies and Allinson say.

Jeffrey

Reply

May 8, 2011 at 9:51 am
George F Somsel says:

I would be inclined to think that it would need to read

λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μηδὲ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται.

LEGW DE hUMIN hOTI hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MHDE EPI PORNEIAi KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOIXATAI. george gfsomsel

… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.

– Jan Hus _________

________________________________ href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org; Peter Streitenberger Sent: Sun, May 8, 2011 9:41:14 AM

It seems to me that would require κἄν ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ.

Mark L

Φωσφορος

FWSFOROS MARKOS

Reply

May 8, 2011 at 10:46 am
Oun Kwon says:

One of them would be {Feb 17, 2009 Re: [B-Greek] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9}

Oun Kwon.

Reply

May 8, 2011 at 5:44 pm
George F Somsel says:

The very one would be

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/1999-May/005386.html

george gfsomsel

… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.

– Jan Hus _________

________________________________ Sent: Sun, May 8, 2011 5:44:44 PM

One of them would be {Feb 17, 2009 Re: [B-Greek] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9}

Oun Kwon.

Reply

May 8, 2011 at 6:44 pm
George F Somsel says:

Matthew 19:9λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται.

                    LEGW DE hUMIN hOTI hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIAi KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOIXATAI.

Perhaps it’s the word order here which has caused some confusion. Let’s reorganize it to make it more straight-forward.

λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν μὴ ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὺτοῦ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται. LEGW DE hUMIN hOTI hOS AN MH APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU EPI PORNEIAi KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOIXATAI.

Now the sentence is relatively simple: “Whoever does not divorce his wife because of adultery and marries another commits adultery.”

george gfsomsel

… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.

– Jan Hus _________

________________________________ href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Sun, May 8, 2011 7:10:37 AM

Dear List-Members,

a friend of mine asked me to post his question on Mat 19,9 here: “LEGW DE hUMIN hOTI hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIAi KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOICATAI.”

He wants to know, if it’s possible to understand “MH EPI PORNEIAi” as “not even because of fornication”.

Thank you for any help !

Yours

Peter, Germany http://www.streitenberger.com

  Reply

  May 15, 2018 at 8:56 pm
Rollins David says:

Peter: There was an extensive discussion of that passage in 1998 or 99 ?? in which Paul Dixon made that very argument about Matt. 19:9. If you search the archives it may come up.

With undeserved acceptance from Christ and unreserved accountability to Christ, David Rollins

Reply

May 15, 2018 at 8:56 pm
Anonymous says:

This has been argued by Bruce Vawter in “The Divorce Clauses in Mt 5, 32 and 19, 9.” CBQ 16.2 (April 1954), 155-167..

Jeffrey

Reply

May 15, 2018 at 8:56 pm
Mark Lightman says:

It seems to me that would require κἄν ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ.

Mark L

Φωσφορος

FWSFOROS MARKOS

Reply

May 15, 2018 at 8:56 pm
Anonymous says:

That’s more or less what Davies and Allinson say.

Jeffrey

Reply

May 15, 2018 at 8:56 pm
George F Somsel says:

I would be inclined to think that it would need to read

λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μηδὲ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται.

LEGW DE hUMIN hOTI hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MHDE EPI PORNEIAi KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN MOIXATAI. george gfsomsel

… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.

– Jan Hus _________

________________________________ href=”mailto:b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org”>b-greek@lists.ibiblio.org; Peter Streitenberger Sent: Sun, May 8, 2011 9:41:14 AM

It seems to me that would require κἄν ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ.

Mark L

Φωσφορος

FWSFOROS MARKOS

Reply

May 15, 2018 at 8:56 pm
Oun Kwon says:

One of them would be {Feb 17, 2009 Re: [B-Greek] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9}

Oun Kwon.

Reply

May 15, 2018 at 8:56 pm
George F Somsel says:

The very one would be

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/1999-May/005386.html

george gfsomsel

… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.

– Jan Hus _________

________________________________ Sent: Sun, May 8, 2011 5:44:44 PM

One of them would be {Feb 17, 2009 Re: [B-Greek] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9}

Oun Kwon.

Reply

May 15, 2018 at 8:56 pm
Troy Day says:

Its a very long but very good discussion Joseph D. Absher

Reply

May 15, 2018 at 8:57 pm
Joseph D. Absher says:

Would you believe I’m still on soteriology? The only reason I read that long thread about Dr. Peterson is because it was about men. And our young men are having such a hard time growing up. I’ll have to come back to this if it’s alright?

Reply

May 15, 2018 at 8:56 pm
Troy Day says:

Its a very long but very good discussion Joseph D. Absher

Reply

February 12, 2018 at 5:04 pm
Joseph D. Absher says:

Would you believe I’m still on soteriology? The only reason I read that long thread about Dr. Peterson is because it was about men. And our young men are having such a hard time growing up. I’ll have to come back to this if it’s alright?

Reply

February 12, 2018 at 7:55 pm

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

People who read this article also liked:

20 thoughts on “Matthew 19:9”

Leave a Reply