Mark 10:11-12.. any definitive understanding here?

[Verifyveritas76]

This is all great stuff. Really enjoying it as I get a minute here and there

 

[IshChayil]

@IshChayil, I get lost in the whole deponent voice thing, but I think the preposition alone seals the deal...

Just to be clear, I'm not saying it's a deponent verb; I'm saying it's actually functioning in Middle voice (whereas a deponent verb only takes on the appearance of Middle voice but is functioning in another voice, often Active).

Yeah your epi analysis is great. This is one of the things we should all be aware of; in ALL languages prepositions do not have a singular 1 to 1 translation. Sometimes it really trips people up if they only learn the first couple of meanings for a preposition.
Also, I don't think there was sinister intent in these other traditional translations; any time we translate we come at it from our own particular world view and with level of scholarship of the ancient languages available in the era. I think our group here, with our particular understanding of polygamy throughout scripture presents us with more options available when translating. Of course we all have our own personal biases but at least we wrestle with the text like Jacob with the Angel

Good discussion so far

 

[IshChayil]

To throw another fly in the translational ointment... Aside from the meaning of epi here (upon, at, with, or against), one must ask who is the antecedent of the her, upon/against whom the adultery is commited/caused? The man's first woman who is put away, or the second, other woman whom he marries. I've heard there is a linguistic argument for the later, though I'm not in a position to judge it's merits.

If this were the case, the passage could mean "whoever puts away his woman (the woman belonging to him), and marries another woman (i.e. a woman belonging to someone else), commits/causes adultery upon the other married woman."

Again, I can't judge the merit of this translation.

Hey Shibboleth I may be missing something, but I don't see any reason to assume there is another woman (ie. belonging to a phantom man) here. Maybe there was some tradition which interpreted it that way?
One interesting thing of note regarding the verse from Matthew that @Quartus brought up; many of the variant manuscripts don't have the "and she marries someone else"' phrase in them including Byzantium manuscripts.
If that phrase were missing I could see someone maybe pondering an interpretation like the idea you are referencing, i.e. as they tried to fill in the blanks.

 

[Shibboleth]

Hey Shibboleth I may be missing something, but I don't see any reason to assume there is another woman

We're still talking about Mark 10:11 right? Or did I miss something?

Mark 10: 11. He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her.

The bold bit is "kai gamese allen," The first question is whether this "other" (allen) is the antecedent of the final "her", which is the suggestion I came across online (which also makes the argument that epi here means with, which I'm not sure I agree with). The second question, which I didn't see mentioned but wondered myself is whether the "other" is also married (divorces his wife and marries another wife).

This isn't my view of the passage, just some interesting observations I had.

 

[IshChayil]

We're still talking about Mark 10:11 right? Or did I miss something?

Mark 10: 11. He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her.

The bold bit is "kai gamese allen," The first question is whether this "other" (allen) is the antecedent of the final "her", which is the suggestion I came across online (which also makes the argument that epi here means with, which I'm not sure I agree with).

Ah got it. Thanks. I was on one of my non-sleep get things done pushes. I think I was thinking about the Matt. verse when I responded. Maybe this is what it feels like to be on drugs lol.

The second question, which I didn't see mentioned but wondered myself is whether the "other" is also married (divorces his wife and marries another wife).
This isn't my view of the passage, just some interesting observations I had.

Good points Shibboleth... it does feel like we are missing part of the story.
Thanks for clarifying.

Maybe someone else can add to this concept.
One avenue for exploration can be the many meanings of this Greek word "to commit/lead into adultery". I'm not saying this is a solution but the word originally meant something like to make someone a paria (pre-Koine usage). I'll try to dig in my print resources that has essays on each word to see if that direction clears anything up.

 

[IshChayil]

For those interested, here are the variant readings for the Mark passage as referenced by the NA28 Critical Apparatus (latest version):

11/12 ⸂ εαν απολυση γυνη τον ανδρα αυτης (εαυτης 2542) και γαμηση αλλον μοιχαται και εαν ανηρ απολυση την γυναικα (+ αυτου 1, εαυτου 2542; + και γαμηση αλλην 1. 2542 sys) μοιχαται W 1. 2542 sys
⸀ γυνη A D K N Γ ƒ13 28. 1241. (Θ 565. 700. 1424) latt syp.h
¦ txt א B C L Δ Ψ 579. 892 co
⸄ απολυση τον ανδρα αυτης και γαμηθη αλλω A K N Γ f 1 vg syp.h
¦ απολυσασα τον ανδρα αυτης (− 1241. 1424) γαμηθη αλλω 579. 1241. 1424 (cf ⸀)
¦ εξελθη απο του (− 565) ανδρος και αλλον γαμηση (⸉ γαμηση αλλον 565) D ƒ13 565 it
¦ εξελθη απο (+ του 28) ανδρος και γαμησει αλλον Θ 28
¦ εξελθη απο ανδρος και γαμηθη αλλω 700
¦ txt א B C*.(2) L 892 (Δ Ψ) co
Nestle, E., & Nestle, E. (2012). Nestle-Aland: NTG Apparatus Criticus. (B. Aland, K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini, & B. M. Metzger, Eds.) (28. revidierte Auflage, p. 144). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

 

[frederick]

In the context, Jesus is still addressing the question of flippant divorce posed by the Pharisees. From my understanding, the "another" (v:11) is another woman without a legitimate divorce who, from the Divine perspective is still married, so adultery occurs. In v:12, it is the woman who is flippantly divorcing her husband who, without a proper divorce is still married, therefore commits adultery. Well, that's what I've been taught on the passage and it seems to fit the context.

 

[andrew]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying it's a deponent verb; I'm saying it's actually functioning in Middle voice

Well, I noticed that, and was trying to stay out of it, so I shouldn't have said anything. But now that we're having this little chat....

I don't know enough Greek to have an opinion, but the three texts I have in e-Sword are all notated with Robinson's which says it's a deponent. But if a deponent is a verb that is written in its middle or passive voice form but we just know it's functioning in active voice, how do we just know that? Is that also a choice that the translator makes, that could go other ways? Are deponents typically forms of verbs that aren't really used in their active voice form anymore, so we sub in the deponent? Or maybe no longer used passively (so if written in middle or passive we just know it's active)? Inquiring minds want to know....

 

[andrew]

From my understanding, the "another" (v:11) is another woman without a legitimate divorce

That seems like a huge assumption to me, that drastically narrows the force of Jesus' teaching without any real textual warrant. What am I missing?

 

[frederick]

That seems like a huge assumption to me, that drastically narrows the force of Jesus' teaching without any real textual warrant. What am I missing?

It's based upon the particular Greek word which "another" is translated from; i.e. being another of the same kind of woman.

 

[IshChayil]

WARNING - Grammar discussion follows... if you find that stuff boring just move right along citizen....

Well, I noticed that, and was trying to stay out of it, so I shouldn't have said anything. But now that we're having this little chat....I don't know enough Greek to have an opinion, but the three texts I have in e-Sword are all notated with Robinson's which says it's a deponent.

Haha you're roped in now buddy!

Ok so here is how one usually knows if a verb is "deponent" or not. When they look up the definition in a lexicon, the 1st person imperfect present form is listed with the Middle voice ending, viola! You know it's a supposed deponent. If you check BDAG or Liddell-Scott (the 2 most authoritative modern scholarly tombs for Greek stuff), both list the form in it's normal active state, informing us this is *not* a deponent verb. This is the Middle voice imperfect present 1st person singular ending you'll see on the verb at the end -ομαι (though the connecting vowel o may be ε). If the verb is a normal, non-sneaky verb it presents in the lexical entry with an ending like -οω (may have different connecting vowel than ο like -αω or -εω, etc.)
You did tweak my curiosity with Robinson's opinion so I'll respond and we'll see if we can come to a conclusion. I'm just a student of Greek too and not yet a master so we'll figure it out together!

**** Regarding Robinson ***
OK so what I know about Robinson is that he was/is? (not sure if still alive) a Byzantine majority text guy, so King James fella and those texts which don't use the older text base modern translations use (He doesn't use the much older Greek codex Sinaiticus as the basis of his work). Not discrediting him for being a King James guy, just pointing out that he's outside the fold in some of his Greek scholarship today and I'm wondering if he may not be up to date (assuming he's alive still). I am NOT disparaging your scholar; he really is the ONLY big name championing the King James version text base and he's done wonders for those folks in the King James camp with his scholarly contributions to this minority opinion (according to a podcast I heard where he was mentioned to that affect).

Sometimes there are traditions in Greek scholarship (see our discussion on μονογενής [monogeneys] meaning 'species unique' and NOT 'only begotten'). I'm wondering if Robinson being a Byzantium text guy is following in some tradition about moixeo being deponent?
So your resources in e-sword are tagged by 1 morphological scholarly source: Robinson. That's cool but it's 1 source, doesn't matter how many English sources or Byzantine Greek sources connect to that morphological database; it's 1 resource behind the scenes (there may be 3 English language texts referring back to his notes but it still counts as 1 scholarly source).

So now that you made me do my homework lol. I checked around and here are the resources I have now checked to verify the verb is not deponent (by their opinions):

1. Metzger in Aland, B., Aland, K., Karavidopoulos, J., Martini, C. M., & Metzger, B. M. (Eds.). (2014). The Greek New Testament (Fifth Revised Edition). Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
2. UBS5 Logos database (not sure who the scholars are who parsed this one; I can look if it matters.
3. My version of the parsed Byzantium text (same text Robinson uses but mine does not label this verb deponent) The New Testament in the original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, with morphology. (2006). (King Jimmy's base).
4. BDAG - μοιχάω lexical form (not-deponent) Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 656). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5. μοιχάω, properly Dor., also *μοιχέω: (so we are given 2 different lexical forms here, neither are not deponent) - Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon (p. 1141). Oxford: Clarendon Press. This lexicon was a 15 year project in it's assembly and is quite well respected.
6. μοιχάω (2012). The Lexham Analytical Lexicon of the Septuagint. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press. (so it's also not regarded as deponent in the LXX, at least by this lexicon)
7. μοιχάω Lust, J., Eynikel, E., & Hauspie, K. (2003). A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint : Revised Edition. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart. (another LXX lexicon regarding it as not deponent)
8. μοιχεύω. Hauck, F. (1964–). μοιχεύω, μοιχάω, μοιχεία, μοῖχος, μοιχαλίς. G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, & G. Friedrich (Eds.), Theological dictionary of the New Testament (Vol. 4, p. 729). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. This is an in depth article on these related words (several pages in length) by this 10 volume tomb (I scanned and uploaded an article from this beast in our bishop/deacon discussion). When deponency may be in issue they bring it up; there is no mention of deponency here and the lexical form is again that of a normal verb ending in -o (omega)

I'm going to stop searching now as I think I've demonstrated the scholarly community does not regard this word as "deponent" so it is capable of expressing true Middle voice when inflected that way.

But if a deponent is a verb that is written in its middle or passive voice form but we just know it's functioning in active voice, how do we just know that? Is that also a choice that the translator makes, that could go other ways? Are deponents typically forms of verbs that aren't really used in their active voice form anymore, so we sub in the deponent? Or maybe no longer used passively (so if written in middle or passive we just know it's active)? Inquiring minds want to know....

Yes that nails it (bold part).
I'll try to build an analogy from Latin (I'm not good with Latin at all, but I know they have "deponency" but in Latin deponent verbs are verbs which present in a passive conjugation but are to be translated as active, having lost the passive meaning (different verb pair used to represent passive).
In Greek this can happen also, but primarily with the Middle voice (which Latin doesn't have).
Middle voice is just weird. If it's singular it can be "he himself did something", it can be reflexive "He did to himself" or "he did for his purposes" if it's a plural it can be "they did to each other" or "for each others' benefit" or "all together". Often the nuance of Middle is lost in English. I'll list a full description from a popular grammar at the bottom for those who want to see that.
The simple way that we are informed that a verb is supposedly deponent is when we look up it's meaning in a lexicon, the "lexical form" tells us.
******************* another issue just mentioned because it's interesting to me and germaine to the whole deponency issue*****
Some verbs only have a Middle form that they show up in yet to English speakers it seems like those verbs have an Active meaning only.
The famous example cited is erxomai "I go". To make this even murkier, there is now a movement among some scholars, including big names, that there is no such thing as deponent verbs; the whole concept just comes from English language bias. Even Black's grammar (a mainstream Greek grammar claims these deponent verbs are nuanced in meaning-see my link bellow). So for example, when the new testament provides erxomai as the verb for "I go" the implication is it actually IS functioning in the Middle voice... one middle voice nuance lost in English is "I go for my own purposes" or "I go myself".
Here's a cool article I found: Your Intro Greek Teacher Was Wrong-Deponent Verbs Don't Exist

So you asked how we know? Really it's trusting the scholarship but I think the guy in the article may be on to something; I always had wondered like you asked "how do we know this thing is really deponent?" and I never really trusted the claims.
Even if we espouse deponent verbs they still at some time in their history had true middle voice meanings (back in Attica Greek or whatever) and I don't think it's possible for us to know 100% if the Middle voice was not actually in play just because our sample size of literature from the period seems to indicate that "active" voice works for our translations. Just because it works doesn't mean something deeper wasn't at play that we shouldn't asterisk or something.

The Middle voice, in my opinion, is part of the genius of the Greek language and we should be very guarded about stripping away it's subtleties and even if we hit a passage where someone tells us the verb is supposedly deponent (i.e. assuming it had lost it's Middle voice significance at the time of writing), it makes sense to attempt a Middle voice meaning in the translation to see if that can shed some light.
**************** more stuff for grammar Geeks follows.......
Here's an excerpt from Black's "Learn to Read NT Greek" explaining alleged deponency:

83. Deponent Verbs
A number of Greek verbs have middle or passive forms without any corresponding active forms. These verbs are called deponent verbs, the term “deponent” coming from the Latin depono, “I lay aside.” It is thought that somewhere in the development of the language the active forms of these verbs were “laid aside” out of preference for the middle forms. An example of a deponent verb is ἔρχομαι, “I go,” which is middle in form but active in meaning. Most verbs that are deponent in the present tense are deponent in one or more of their other tenses also. Some deponent verbs can be explained as true middles in which the subject is being emphasized in some manner. The following categories seem to be involved:
(1) Reciprocity. These verbs describe situations in which two parties are involved and, if one were removed, no action would be possible. Examples include δέχομαι (“I welcome”), λυτρόομαι (“I redeem”), χαρίζομαι (“I forgive”), ἰάομαι (“I heal”), μάχομαι (“I fight”), ψεύδομαι (“I lie”), ἀσπάζομαι (“I greet”), and ἀποκρίνομαι (“I answer”).
(2) Reflexivity. In these verbs the verbal idea turns back upon the subject. Examples include τυφόομαι (“I am conceited”), ἐπενδύομαι (“I put on”), μιμέομαι (“I imitate”), and ἐγκρατεύομαι (“I abstain”).
(3) Self-involvement. These verbs describe processes that the subject alone can experience. Examples include ἔρχομαι (“I go”), διαλογίζομαι (“I ponder”), ἡγέομαι (“I consider”), ὀργίζομαι (“I am angry”), and βούλομαι (“I wish”).
i. It should be noted that with some verbs the active form has one meaning and the middle another, as with ἄρχω, “I rule,” but ἄρχομαι, “I begin.”
ii. A number of deponent verbs occur with a prepositional prefix. For example, ἔρχομαι (“I go”) may be compounded with several prepositions: ἀπέρχομαι, “I go away,” εἰσέρχομαι, “I go into,” ἐξέρχομαι, “I go out.”
iii. Several New Testament verbs (deponent or otherwise) take their direct objects in a case other than the accusative. Examples include ἄρχω (“I rule”), which takes the genitive, and ἀποκρίνομαι(“I answer”), which takes the dative.
Black, D. A. (2009). Learn to read New Testament Greek (3rd ed, pp. 88–89). Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group.
*****************************
Thanks for asking, I found some cool articles as a result!
One of them opens with this interesting quotation by Pennington (I have his Audio Greek NT cds):
The thesis of this article is that the grammatical category of deponency, despite its widespread use in Greek grammars, is erroneous. It has been misapplied to Greek because of the influence of Latin grammar as well as our general unfamiliarity with the meaning of the Greek middle voice. As aresult, we have failed to grasp the significance of the Greek middle. Indeed, most if not all verbs that are traditionally considered 'deponent' are truly middle in meaning. But because the Greek middle voice has no direct analogy in English (or Latin), this point has been missed.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

@AgnosticBoy, try these on for size (fr a convo re Mt 19:9, the companion piece to Mk 10:11-12):
[NB - Those outtakes are from this thread from back in 2014, wherein Tom Shipley and I bang on each other pretty hard for several rounds. Good times!...]

Very good debate.. lots of good points!!! I actually liked Tom Shipley's position but I'm leaning towards it not being a valid explanation. Just some quick reasons why:

1. Still no evidence of physical (as opposed to spiritual) adultery being used in a non-sexual context. This seems to be presumed in Tom's arguments.
2. Divorce alone would be considered adultery under Tom's view. This can't be true since Paul allows a wife to stay separated (de facto divorce.. which leads to denial of marital rights to the husband) in 1 Corinthians 7, which is contrary to calling it "adultery" and punishing her for it.

If Jesus did not use the word adultery, and in connection to remarriage, then I would've certainly had little to no problems accepting Tom's argument. So in reading all of that debate, I'm still left wondering, or by now I should say leaning towards accepting, that Jesus's use of adultery in the NT was different than the OT usage. The issue from there is that I see no problem with Jesus adding rules just as long as it doesn't conflict with the OT moral law.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

OK here, I feel the translators are imposing their world view onto the text instead of allowing the text to speak freely for itself in the context of Jewish Law. I'll present my translation, then present justifications for my variance from the standard English translations, then follow with my selected definitions of words from BDAG (Scholarly Greek lexicon). I won't delve into the other passages which the English translations here contradict as you obviously have a handle on those to be bothered by this in the first place.

Greek critical edition text used by modern bible translations today:
11 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· ⸂ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται ἐπʼ αὐτήν· 12 καὶ ἐὰν ⸀αὐτὴ ⸄ἀπολύσασα τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς γαμήσῃ ἄλλον⸅ μοιχᾶται⸃.
Aland, K., Aland, B., Karavidopoulos, J., Martini, C. M., & Metzger, B. M. (2012). Novum Testamentum Graece (28th Edition, Mk 10:11–12). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

What I think it means...
11 And He said to them, "he who sends away his woman; if she marries another, he himself causes her to commit adultery.
12 And if she releases her man, and if she marries another, she herself commits adultery.

Thanks you for explaining and providing definitions. I have some disagreements or questions. In verse 11, it should say that "if HE marries another". This is what all English translations say that I've seen. But if it refers to the husband when it says "HE marries another", then it would not make sense for his remarriage to be a cause to his first wife's adultery since those are two separate matters.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Edit to my last post: Regarding vs. 11, I should say the English versions refer to the husband marrying another, and not the wife

 

[Mojo]

@AgnosticBoy , Paradigm shifts (in our case retro shifts) always take a while to catch on in the brain. Many on this forum can attest.

Just curious why we need to focus on this one verse? Jesus didn't spend a huge amount of time focusing on sexual morality. He had bigger fish to fry. As a practicing Jew, living in a Jewish world and preaching to the lost sheep, most of them would have known the Law like him. Why rewrite it? To what purpose?

The greater narrative in these verses is still regarding easy divorce, not minutiae of what's adultery or who adulterated whom. "Straining at gnats" comes to mind.

Jesus said he did not come to destroy the Law.
Paul himself said he would not have known what sin was without knowing the Law.
Where there is no law, there is no sin.

IMO- Jesus expounded on laws to distill them to their original intent. They had been humanly interpreted for so long, it just seemed like something new.

Are you proposing monogamy was God's original intent, or just a 5,000 year old change?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Thanks @IshChayil . Great response.

@AgnosticBoy, Ish, some others and I believe that OT and NT are essentially one document. Apparent contradictions or "changes" from Yeshua (Jesus) are often the products of Western Christian culture inserting ideas far out of context to the Jewish Torah mindset and/or 1st century mindset it was written to. If there ever are contradictions it's often from poor translations or poor hermeneutics.

I'm of course open to an explanation that involves Jesus not changing anything, which of course would take reconciling what Jesus calls adultery in NT with what is adultery in the OT. If that can't be done though, then my point also is that I see no problem with Jesus adding rules just as long as they don't contradict OT law.

To add to my comment to Andrew:
At least in Exodus 20 (which is the best connection I've seen argued between Matthew 19 to the OT) remarriage is not prohibited by any party but in Matthew 19, it is prohibited.

 

[andrew]

Thanks for that tour de force, IC--very helpful!

And I didn't mean to hold Robinson's up as an authority, I was just reporting on why I was assuming it was a deponent verb. That's why I was asking how do we know if it's deponent or simple middle or passive? Who gets to make that call, and on what basis?

You've answered that question to my satisfaction, and now I'm going to find out more about the theory that there's no such thing as deponent Greek verbs....

 

[Mojo]

You've answered that question to my satisfaction, and now I'm going to find out more about the theory that there's no such thing as deponent Greek verbs....

I can imagine the popcorn popping and hot cocoa warming already.

 

[Mojo]

I'm of course open to an explanation that involves Jesus not changing anything, which of course would take reconciling what Jesus calls adultery in NT with what is adultery in the OT. If that can't be done though, then my point also is that I see no problem with Jesus adding rules just as long as they don't contradict OT law.

To add to my comment to Andrew:
At least in Exodus 20 (which is the best connection I've seen argued between Matthew 19 to the OT) remarriage is not prohibited by any party but in Matthew 19, it is prohibited.

Not sure what you mean by remarriage changing between the two.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Note further that all the other cases of epi => against at least actually involve a sense of conflict or judgment between the parties in view (trying to give the translators a break, but I still think other translation choices would be better). If the man had actually "committed" an adultery (back to the verb voice for a sec), as opposed to putting adultery 'on' or 'over' her, or 'adulterating' her, then he would have committed a crime "against" the husband, right? Not "against" the woman.

This is why I bite the bullet for now to say that Jesus was coming up with some new term for adultery.