Major Mistakes in the Bible - Matthew 19:9 - Latest Research

[robert424]

Major Mistakes in the Bible - Matthew 19:9 - Latest Research



12 June, 2021

by Robert Crawford



Now that Images of Greek New Testament Manuscripts are beginning to be available online, research into these ultimate source materials will - without a doubt - uncover mistakes in our Bibles. As Christians, we need to be prepared for what we find, whether it confirms our core beliefs or contradicts them.

Over the past three years, I have been conducting this type of research on Matthew 19:9, which is a keystone text used to support the Protestant Doctrine allowing Divorce and Remarriage after a Divorce. This verse has always been controversial - from the very beginnings of Protestantism.

My results show that there continues to be two major errors in Matthew 19:9 - the Protestant Greek New Testament (commonly referred to as the Textus Receptus) contains one error, and the Catholic Greek New Testament (The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament) contains a different error. These errors need to be corrected, especially since they represent the words of Jesus.

I have written a Theological Article presenting my study and results, but there was no room for it in the few Academic Theological Journals that deal with this branch of study, so I published it myself and placed it in the Public Domain. If you are interested in the details, you can read/download it for free from Archive.org. You can search for it by title or ISBN.



Title: A Word-Frequency Study of Matthew 19:9 using all Available Greek New Testament Manuscripts



ISBN: 978-1-5136-8273-0



Synopsis:
The Greek New Testament of Erasmus (1516) ‒ the Textus Receptus ‒ copies the second and last phrases, respectively, of Matthew 19:9, thus: "ει μη επι πορνεια . . . και ο απολελυμενην γαμησασ μοιχαται". The following variances exist: First, neither the Complutensian Polyglot Bible (1514), nor the Nestle‒Aland Greek New Testament (2016) (NA28) contain the Greek word ει. Second, the NA28 does not contain the last phrase, while the other two include it. This research is based on 1623 Greek New Testament Manuscripts, which represents about 90% of all manuscripts known to contain Matthew 19:9. The major results were: 1. the Greek word ει was present in only 19 (1.2%) manuscripts, and 2. the last phrase was present in 1510 (93%) manuscripts. The conclusion is that, based on word-frequency percentages, the inclusion of the Greek word ει in modern versions of the Greek New Testament, should be considered to be an error, and, likewise, the exclusion of the last phrase should also be considered an error. The natural consequence of ‘the Greek word ει is an error’ is that the translation of the two-word idiom, ει μη (in Matthew 19:9) as "except" is illegitimate and therefore, Matthew 19:9 does not contain an explicitly stated exception.

Keywords: Christian; Bible; textual criticism; Matthew 19:9; Strong's 1508; ει μη

I welcome discussion/debate about the results of this study. Robert Crawford

 

[public hermit]

Which variation in the extant manuscripts is earliest? Did I miss that in the OP? That makes a huge difference.

The idea among scholars is that earlier readings take precedent. It's not a fail-proof approach, but has some intuitive force.

 

[Mr. M]

Now that Images of Greek New Testament Manuscripts are beginning to be available online, research into these ultimate source materials will - without a doubt - uncover mistakes in our Bibles. As Christians, we need to be prepared for what we find, whether it confirms our core beliefs or contradicts them.

Why will on line availability without a doubt uncover mistakes that would not have
come to light before the internet?
Could you mention other examples that may confirm or contradict our core beliefs.
It would seem to be an exaggeration to suggest such faith shaking discoveries.
"He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

 

[hedrick]

First, what would it mean without that word? The phrase would still say not. Second, what about 5:32? Third. Jesus is not a legalist. If a marriage has become harmful it should not continue. Marriage is made for man, not man for marriage.

the question was asked in the context of a debate within Judaism where one side claimed you could divorce your wife with no cause at all. Jesus was asked where he stood, and he rejected that view. There is no reason to think he would want someone to stay in a harmful marriage.

 

[Mr. M]

Over the past three years, I have been conducting this type of research on Matthew 19:9, which is a keystone text used to support the Protestant Doctrine allowing Divorce and Remarriage after a Divorce. This verse has always been controversial - from the very beginnings of Protestantism.

I wonder if the issue would be more or less controversial with a better understanding
of the terminology used. There is much more involved with the idea of "putting away" a wife
than a common divorce, and has nothing to do with the bill of divorcement described in Deut. 24.
Dealing Treacherously With Your Covenant

 

[BobRyan]

My results show that there continues to be two major errors in Matthew 19:9 - the Protestant Greek New Testament (commonly referred to as the Textus Receptus) contains one error, and the Catholic Greek New Testament (The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament) contains a different error. These errors need to be corrected, especially since they represent the words of Jesus.

1. Which textus recptus MSS? Textus Receptus Bibles
2. Erasmus compiled what resulted in "Textus Recptus" from other manuscripts. And then that was revised a few times -- over time.

 

[Clare73]

Major Mistakes in the Bible - Matthew 19:9 - Latest Research



12 June, 2021

by Robert Crawford



Now that Images of Greek New Testament Manuscripts are beginning to be available online, research into these ultimate source materials will - without a doubt - uncover mistakes in our Bibles. As Christians, we need to be prepared for what we find, whether it confirms our core beliefs or contradicts them.

Over the past three years, I have been conducting this type of research on Matthew 19:9, which is a keystone text used to support the Protestant Doctrine allowing Divorce and Remarriage after a Divorce. This verse has always been controversial - from the very beginnings of Protestantism.

My results show that there continues to be two major errors in Matthew 19:9 - the Protestant Greek New Testament (commonly referred to as the Textus Receptus) contains one error, and the Catholic Greek New Testament (The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament) contains a different error. These errors need to be corrected, especially since they represent the words of Jesus.

I have written a Theological Article presenting my study and results, but there was no room for it in the few Academic Theological Journals that deal with this branch of study, so I published it myself and placed it in the Public Domain. If you are interested in the details, you can read/download it for free from Archive.org. You can search for it by title or ISBN.



Title: A Word-Frequency Study of Matthew 19:9 using all Available Greek New Testament Manuscripts



ISBN: 978-1-5136-8273-0



Synopsis:
The Greek New Testament of Erasmus (1516) ‒ the Textus Receptus ‒ copies the second and last phrases, respectively, of Matthew 19:9, thus: "ει μη επι πορνεια . . . και ο απολελυμενην γαμησασ μοιχαται". The following variances exist: First, neither the Complutensian Polyglot Bible (1514), nor the Nestle‒Aland Greek New Testament (2016) (NA28) contain the Greek word ει. Second, the NA28 does not contain the last phrase, while the other two include it. This research is based on 1623 Greek New Testament Manuscripts, which represents about 90% of all manuscripts known to contain Matthew 19:9. The major results were: 1. the Greek word ει was present in only 19 (1.2%) manuscripts, and 2. the last phrase was present in 1510 (93%) manuscripts. The conclusion is that, based on word-frequency percentages, the inclusion of the Greek word ει in modern versions of the Greek New Testament, should be considered to be an error, and, likewise, the exclusion of the last phrase should also be considered an error. The natural consequence of ‘the Greek word ει is an error’ is that the translation of the two-word idiom, ει μη (in Matthew 19:9) as "except" is illegitimate and therefore, Matthew 19:9 does not contain an explicitly stated exception.

Keywords: Christian; Bible; textual criticism; Matthew 19:9; Strong's 1508; ει μη

I welcome discussion/debate about the results of this study. Robert Crawford

In light of 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 39, Romans 7:3 and Mark 10:5-9, I am not surprised.

See 2 Corinthians 6:14; Ezra 10:1-3, 10.

 

[Ahermit]

Now that Images of Greek New Testament Manuscripts are beginning to be available online, research into these ultimate source materials will - without a doubt - uncover mistakes in our Bibles. As Christians, we need to be prepared for what we find, whether it confirms our core beliefs or contradicts them.

Truth, Faith, and Love is the core conviction (not belief). Nothing can contradict the Truth within us.

The Word (Truth) goes deeper than anybody could imagine or have knowledge of, for both of these are conditional. Truth is an unconditional 'knowing', a conviction of the obvious. The bible is a portal of infinite depth of Truth; only the humble-self can journey it. It is the way and the truth and the life.

The only mistake is what the conditional self grasps onto out of fear of what may lay beyond it. Only the conditional, fear the Truth, for their conditional self would be exposed and become dismantled, leaving them nothing to grasp on to. It's the lifelong fear of invalidity ["I am losing my mind"]. Forget about the mind, it's the heart that God discerns.

The heart moves blood through the body. The Spirit of Truth, when we Love being Faithful to the Truth, moves Living Water through the body _ expressing God's will, the living Light in this dark world we walk through.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Major Mistakes in the Bible - Matthew 19:9 - Latest Research



12 June, 2021

by Robert Crawford



Now that Images of Greek New Testament Manuscripts are beginning to be available online, research into these ultimate source materials will - without a doubt - uncover mistakes in our Bibles. As Christians, we need to be prepared for what we find, whether it confirms our core beliefs or contradicts them.

Over the past three years, I have been conducting this type of research on Matthew 19:9, which is a keystone text used to support the Protestant Doctrine allowing Divorce and Remarriage after a Divorce. This verse has always been controversial - from the very beginnings of Protestantism.

My results show that there continues to be two major errors in Matthew 19:9 - the Protestant Greek New Testament (commonly referred to as the Textus Receptus) contains one error, and the Catholic Greek New Testament (The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament) contains a different error. These errors need to be corrected, especially since they represent the words of Jesus.

I have written a Theological Article presenting my study and results, but there was no room for it in the few Academic Theological Journals that deal with this branch of study, so I published it myself and placed it in the Public Domain. If you are interested in the details, you can read/download it for free from Archive.org. You can search for it by title or ISBN.



Title: A Word-Frequency Study of Matthew 19:9 using all Available Greek New Testament Manuscripts



ISBN: 978-1-5136-8273-0



Synopsis:
The Greek New Testament of Erasmus (1516) ‒ the Textus Receptus ‒ copies the second and last phrases, respectively, of Matthew 19:9, thus: "ει μη επι πορνεια . . . και ο απολελυμενην γαμησασ μοιχαται". The following variances exist: First, neither the Complutensian Polyglot Bible (1514), nor the Nestle‒Aland Greek New Testament (2016) (NA28) contain the Greek word ει. Second, the NA28 does not contain the last phrase, while the other two include it. This research is based on 1623 Greek New Testament Manuscripts, which represents about 90% of all manuscripts known to contain Matthew 19:9. The major results were: 1. the Greek word ει was present in only 19 (1.2%) manuscripts, and 2. the last phrase was present in 1510 (93%) manuscripts. The conclusion is that, based on word-frequency percentages, the inclusion of the Greek word ει in modern versions of the Greek New Testament, should be considered to be an error, and, likewise, the exclusion of the last phrase should also be considered an error. The natural consequence of ‘the Greek word ει is an error’ is that the translation of the two-word idiom, ει μη (in Matthew 19:9) as "except" is illegitimate and therefore, Matthew 19:9 does not contain an explicitly stated exception.

Keywords: Christian; Bible; textual criticism; Matthew 19:9; Strong's 1508; ει μη

I welcome discussion/debate about the results of this study. Robert Crawford

I tried to look for your article no such ISBN was found and a title search retrieved no results. The only thing that I found was an identical post on "religionforums.org".

 

[hedrick]

I just looked at the UBS5 and apparatus. As the OP says, it doesn't contain "ei". Yet the passage is still translated "except", because that's what "me" means in this context. So the OP seems to be about a non-issue.

There's a lot of variation in manuscripts of this verse. But not in the corresponding part of Mat 5:32.

I should note that the commentaries I would trust think that this exception was added by Matthew, because that's how his church interpreted it. One reason is that the parallels in Mark and Luke don't have the exception. However even though we don't think Jesus actually made the exception, we agree with Matthew that it's a reasonable exception given Jesus' normal approach to applying Scripture.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Here is a copy and paste from the UBS5 for those Greek scholars who want to geek out on this.

Matthew 19:9
{B} μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται א (C* ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι) C3 L (W omit καί) Z Δ Θ 078 28 157 180 205 565 579 700 892 1006 1010 1071 1241 1243 1292 1342 1424 1505 Byz [E F G H Σ] Lect itl vg syrs, p, h arm ethpp Basil; Jerome // παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι (see 5:32) B 0233 1 l 547 itff1 (syrpal) copbo ethTH slav Origengr Cyril // παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται D f13 33 (597) l 184 l 1016 ita, aur, b, c, d, e, f, ff2, g1, h, q, r1 vgmss (syrc) copsa, (boms) Origenlat Chrysostom; Speculum.
{B} no addition after μοιχᾶται / μοιχευθῆναι (see footnote 3) א C3 D L Z 828 1241 l 253 l 1074 ita, b, d, e ff2, g1, h, l, r1 vgms syrs, c copsa, boms Origen // add after μοιχᾶται / μοιχευθῆναι: καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχᾶται (see Mk 10:11) B 28 157 180 205 597 700 892 1006 1071 1243 1292 1342 Byz [E F G H] Lect itaur, c, f, q vg arm eth geo Origenlat 1/2 Basil Cyril; Jerome // add after μοιχᾶται / μοιχευθῆναι: καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμῶν μοιχᾶται C* N O W Δ Θ Σ 078 0233 f1 f13 33 (565) (579 ἀπολελυμένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρός) 1010 1424 1505 l 547 copbo slav Speculum // add after μοιχευθῆναι: ὡσαύτως καὶ ὁ γαμῶν ἀπολελυμένην μοιχᾶται 25 (copmeg)
Mt 5:32; 1 Cor 7:10–11


Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, et al., eds., The Greek New Testament: Apparatus, Fifth Revised Edition (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; American Bible Society; United Bible Societies, 2014), 70.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I just looked at the UBS5 and apparatus. As the OP says, it doesn't contain "ei". Yet the passage is still translated "except", because that's what "me" means in this context. So the OP seems to be about a non-issue.

There's a lot of variation in manuscripts of this verse. But not in the corresponding part of Mat 5:32.

I should note that the commentaries I would trust think that this exception was added by Matthew, because that's how his church interpreted it. One reason is that the parallels in Mark and Luke don't have the exception. However even though we don't think Jesus actually made the exception, we agree with Matthew that it's a reasonable exception given Jesus' normal approach to applying Scripture.

I just posted a copy of the UBS5 apparatus in post #11.

 

[HARK!]

Keywords: Christian; Bible; textual criticism; Matthew 19:9; Strong's 1508; ει μη

It would seem that you are familiar with Textual Criticism.

If so, then you should understand that just because there are more copies of one rendering; does not mean that the Majority Text is the correct rendering.

If you already understand this; I'll explain it for those who don't.

We don't have the Autograph Manuscripts (original manuscripts) of any of the books of the Bible. What we have are copies of copies; but let's pretend that we did have an Autograph Manuscript; and someone copied it. However, when he hand copied it; he made a mistake. He then went down to the copy shop, and had them run off 1000 more copies of his flawed copy. Now we have 1001 flawed copies of the Autograph Manuscript.

Should we then dismiss the Autograph Manuscript, by the Author himself, as being in error?

This is just one of many factors that scholars of Textual Criticism weigh, in discerning which of the thousands and thousands of variants that we find in the many manuscripts available to us today, to most accurately restore the Autograph Manuscripts.

The debates over these many factors probably won't be fully settled until Messiah comes back to set us all straight.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

It would seem that you are familiar with Textual Criticism.

If so, then you should understand that just because there are more copies of one rendering; does not mean that the Majority Text is the correct rendering.

If you already understand this; I'll explain it for those who don't.

We don't have the Autograph Manuscripts (original manuscripts) of any of the books of the Bible. What we have are copies of copies; but let's pretend that we did have an Autograph Manuscript; and someone copied it. However, when he hand copied it; he made a mistake. He then went down to the copy shop, and had them run off 1000 more copies of his flawed copy. Now we have 1001 flawed copies of the Autograph Manuscript.

Should we then dismiss the Autograph Manuscript, by the Author himself, as being in error?

This is just one of many factors that scholars of Textual Criticism weigh, in discerning which of the thousands and thousands of variants that we find in the many manuscripts available to us today, to most accurately restore the Autograph Manuscripts.

The debates over these many factors probably won't be fully settled until Messiah comes back to set us all straight.

I thought it was rather unusual to refer to the Textus Receptus as the "Protestant Greek New Testament". As far as I know, the KJV is the only Bible that used the Textus Receptus as the basis for their translation. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[robert424]

Which variation in the extant manuscripts is earliest? Did I miss that in the OP? That makes a huge difference.

The idea among scholars is that earlier readings take precedent. It's not a fail-proof approach, but has some intuitive force.

[QUOTE="Which variation in the extant manuscripts is earliest?][/QUOTE]

Thank your for your observation. To answer your question:



Regarding the second phrase of Matthew 19:9: 'ει μη επι πορνεια', [literally, and word for word: 'if not for fornication' and translated as 'except for fornication'] the greek word ει [if] first occurs in Greek Manuscript Number 989, 12th century. So that means someone copied that text sometime in the 1100s. This means that during the first thousand years of Church history, not one Greek Manuscript contained the greek word ει in the, so called, 'exception clause' of Matthew 19:9.



When Erasmus wrote the first Greek New Testament in 1516, there were six Manuscripts that contained the ει, so it is possible that Erasmus might have seen one. The complete table of the 19 Manuscripts that contain ει in the exception clause is found in Appendix B in my book. [Update, since I wrote the book, I reviewed the Manuscripts that were unaccessible, and I found a few more that have since been scanned, and I found one more 16th century manuscript that contains the ει, so that means that there is now 20.]



Regarding the last phrase of Matthew 19:9 'και ο απολελυμενην γαμησασ μοιχαται', [And he who her (that is) put away marries, commits adultery, Dr. G.R.Berry, 1897]; the two oldest, complete Uncial Greek Manuscripts that we have are:



1. Manuscript number: 01, Codex Sinaiticus, 4th century, which does not contain this phrase, and

2. Manuscript number: 02, Codex Vaticanus, 4th century, which does contain this phrase.



3. There is one Papyrus (number P25), 4th century, which is heavily damaged, but it appears to include this last phrase, as far as we can decipher.



The Uncials are considered the oldest group of Manuscripts. They were written with all capital letters and no spacing between words. Generally speaking, the Uncial style of manuscript was in almost exclusive use before the 10th century and was phased out around the late 10th century.



My major focus was the second phrase of Matthew 19:9, so I do not list the number of Uncials that contain the last phrase separately in my book, so I went back through my data to find the presence or absense of the last phrase by Uncial Greek Manuscript. The results are in the following table.



Notice that among the three, fourth century manuscripts: two-thirds included the last phrase of Matthew 19:9. The same proportions exist for the three fifth century manuscripts. All the rest contain the last phrase except for manuscript number 028 - a tenth century manuscript. So, you see, even if you only consider the oldest two groups of manuscripts - the fourth and fifth century manuscripts - even they have a two-thirds majority containing the last phrase of Matthew 19:9.



If a person were to say that manuscripts that include the last phrase are corrupt, then that would mean that, from the sixth century onward, twenty out of twenty one uncial manuscripts are corrupt - a 95% corruption rate. How could anyone remain a Christian with a Bible corruption rate that high?



The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament has never included the last phrase of Matthew 19:9 - even from its first edition, and this book is considered the most important and complete (critical edition) reference book for Theologians and is extensively used by Catholics and Protestant students of Theology world-wide. Yet, the Catholic Complutensian Polyglot Bible (1514) did include the last phrase of Matthew 19:9. It would be nice to know why Doctor Nestle left it out. My research results suggests that this needs to be investigated - afterall, we are talking about the words of Jesus here.

 

[HARK!]

I thought it was rather unusual to refer to the Textus Receptus as the "Protestant Greek New Testament". As far as I know, the KJV is the only Bible that used the Textus Receptus as the basis for their translation. Please correct me if I am wrong.

English translations from the Textus Receptus

• Tyndale New Testament 1526–1530
• Coverdale Bible 1535
• Matthew Bible 1537
• Great Bible 1539
• Geneva Bible 1560-1644
• Bishops' Bible 1568
• Douay-Rheims Bible 1582, 1610, 1752. Base translation from the Vulgate but contains major borrowings from the Tyndale, Geneva and King James versions.[30][31][32]
• King James Version 1611, 1613, 1629, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, 1850
• English Dort Version 1657, English translation of the Statenvertaling by Theodore Haak
• Quaker Bible 1764
• Webster's Revision 1833
• Young's Literal Translation (YLT) 1862, 1887, 1898
• Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (EBR) 1872 edition.
• Julia E. Smith Parker Translation 1876
• New King James Version (NKJV) 1982 (New Testament 1979). With an anglicized version originally known as the "Revised Authorized Version".
• Green's Literal Translation 1985. Included in The Interlinear Translation 1986.
• Third Millennium Bible 1998
• Modern English Version 2014[33]
  
  Textus Receptus - Wikipedia

 

[HARK!]

I tried to look for your article no such ISBN was found and a title search retrieved no results. The only thing that I found was an identical post on "religionforums.org".

I went to the referenced source with the ISBN. No go.

I also tried to find it at the referenced source this way:

 

[public hermit]

Regarding the second phrase of Matthew 19:9: 'ει μη επι πορνεια', [literally, and word for word: 'if not for fornication' and translated as 'except for fornication'] the greek word ει [if] first occurs in Greek Manuscript Number 989, 12th century. So that means someone copied that text sometime in the 1100s. This means that during the first thousand years of Church history, not one Greek Manuscript contained the greek word ει in the, so called, 'exception clause' of Matthew 19:9.

My intuition is that the copyist is simply filling in what is already assumed. As @hedrick pointed out, "me" alone is sufficient for context. Nonetheless, "ei me" is a better reading. It's like reading a friend's text, if you read "typo" you still know what they mean.

 

[robert424]

I tried to look for your article no such ISBN was found and a title search retrieved no results. The only thing that I found was an identical post on "religionforums.org".

Yes, having to do a search for material is not always successful and I am very limited because I am not allowed to post a link. I also had difficulty finding the article on archive dot org. I just went there, and, after tries, here is how I found it: 1. use the search-term 'word-frequency', and 2. just below the search box, there are four radio-buttons - I clicked on 'search-text-contents', and I found the article in the first row of results.
I hope this helps you find it. robert424

 

[HARK!]

Yes, having to do a search for material is not always successful and I am very limited because I am not allowed to post a link. I also had difficulty finding the article on archive dot org. I just went there, and, after tries, here is how I found it: 1. use the search-term 'word-frequency', and 2. just below the search box, there are four radio-buttons - I clicked on 'search-text-contents', and I found the article in the first row of results.
I hope this helps you find it. robert424

Here it is:

word-frequency-study-of-matt19-9 : Robert Crawford : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive