How Badly has Matthew 19:9 been Corrupted?
by Robert Norvin Crawford
11 December, 2024
[This article updates and vastly expands the research from my last post titled:
Major Mistakes in the Bible - Matthew 19:9 - Latest Research (from July 4, 2021). I am, here, exploring whether, or not, the Greek word ει in the exception clause of Matthew 19:9 changes over time and whether or not, it has any doctrinal ramifications. Conclusions are still tentative at this point. This content is a summary of my second edition of my free Public Domain book which surveys and enumerates the Greek Text of Matthew 19:9 from all available Greek New Testament Manuscripts and this second edition adds Unique Editions of Print Editions of the Greek New Testament from 1514 to 2024.
i]
Most theologians assert that mistakes in the Bible - which they term 'Variants' - are minor variations that do not affect any major Christian Doctrine.
ii The latest research, presented in this second edition, possibly, refutes this assertion. Although several minor variants in Matthew 19:9 are enumerated, there is one major, serious corruption in Matthew 19:9. Whether or not this corruption affects the Doctrine of Divorce is still tentative but I am hoping that Biblical Scholars will enjoy chewing over the meaty facts discovered in this study.
This major error is in the so-called
exception clause, namely 'ει μη επι πορνεια' - the wording popularized by Erasmus in his
Novum Instrumentum omne (1516).
iii This wording of the
exception clause has - historically - been used to justify the Protestant Doctrines of: 1. Divorce, and 2. Remarriage after a Divorce.
The Significance of the Exception Clause of Matthew 19:9.
Professor William (Bill) Mounce, in a sidebar in his book
Greek for the Rest of Us (2003) explains the translation of this phrase well. "Sometimes a Greek word is joined with another, and together they have a meaning that each word by itself does not have. This is called an idiom. εἰ μη together means
except."
iv A great thank you to Professor Mounce because he is the only one, who I have found, to make this line of reasoning and translation explicit.
The phrase ει μη επι πορνεια, translated word-for-word is 'if not for fornication', but if the first two-words are considered to be an 'idiom', then the translation is 'except for fornication'. This second translation - using ει μη as a two-word idiom - has been the translation accepted by the vast majority of Protestants since the Reformation.
The Weakness of the Translation 'Except'.
Here is the problem with this translation. This research shows that the first word (ει) of the so-called 'idiom' is only in 20 Greek New Testament Manuscripts out of 1608 manuscripts for an overall percentage inclusion rate of, one percent (rounded). Ninety Nine percent of Manuscripts do not have the ει, therefore there is no 'two-word' idiom because the first word - ει - is a mistake. Additionally, the first occurrence of ει is in a 12th century Manuscript whereas the earliest Greek New Testament Manuscripts are 4th century - a span of 800 years. These two facts alone, ought to convince anyone that the inclusion of ει is an error.
The Extent of the Corrupt word 'ει' in Matthew 19:9
As I was gathering data for the first edition of this book,
v I noticed that the percentage of Manuscripts that contained the ει by century was not constant from one century to the next, but was rising at a parabolic rate with time. I wondered, 'Well, if the rate is going parabolic in the Manuscripts, what happens to that rate in the group of Editions of the Greek New Testament that came after the Manuscripts - the Print Editions of the Greek New Testament?' So, in my second edition, I greatly expanded my data-gathering to include Unique Print Editions. When the data from both groups are combined, the following graph is the result.
[graph by RNC. It is Public Domain 2024]
View attachment 358625
This graph shows that the percentage of Editions that included the ει in the
so-called 'exception clause' of Matthew 19:9 grew, in a parabolic manner, from the 12th century, and reached a peak of 79% in the 18th century, whereupon the rate fell, in a parabolic manner, to the 21st century and is currently at about 12% and the trend is still downward.
One might ask: 'Why did the rate go up from the 12th to the 18th century?' The answer is that the percentage of editors who believed that the ει ought to be included kept growing during that time span. And why did it peak and then come down? The answer is that at the peak, in the 18th century, no more editors could be convinced that the ει ought to be included, so the growth stopped. After the 18th century - until the present century - there is an ever decreasing percentage of editors who believe that ει ought to be included. Said another way: after the 18th century peak, there is an increasing percentage of editors who believe that the ει is a mistake and must be excluded from the 'exception clause'.
The trend is currently down, and it would be a safe bet, that it will - eventually - to go zero, where it should be - because the ει is a mistake - a corruption.
After I made this shocking graph, I went over my raw data and I discovered that between the years 1657 and 1728 there are 35 new, unique Print Editions in a row, that contain the ει. This means that in this odd time frame, the corruption rate was 100%. This is devastating news. The words of Jesus is not supposed to change to such a large extent, over time.
Summary of Facts.
So, in summary of the facts: from the 4th century to the 11th century (a period of 800 years), the ει was in none of the Manuscripts (zero percent), and between the years 1657 and 1728 (a period of 71 years), the ει was in 100% of the Unique Print Editions, and now, in the 21st century, the rate is down to about 12%, and still trending downwards. This word ει, has evolved. This is a fact and you can't argue with numbers.
So Where Does This Leave Us?
The good news is that Theologians of the past, have been debating this error for five hundred years, and it is evident that they have formed a consensus and they are currently in the process of correcting this error in editions of the Greek New Testament.
The bad news is that this error is not being corrected in English Translations of the New Testament, nor have Pastors and Preachers corrected their errant interpretation of Matthew 19:9.
This error is especially egregious in English Language Red-Letter Editions of the Bible. The Red Letters indicate words spoken by Jesus. These editions quote Jesus as saying "... except for fornication... ." This is not a fact according to the Greek New Testament Manuscripts. Matthew did not write the word 'except'. Jesus did not say the word 'except'. The translation 'except' is merely someone's opinion of the meaning of the words of Jesus - not the words of Jesus himself. The word 'except' is merely one interpretation, so it is false and misleading to put the word 'except' in red.
In the Greek, when the ει is removed - as it should be - we are left with μη επι πορνεια, which, word-for-word is 'not for fornication'. Pastors must bring their congregations in line with the latest research and instruct them to turn to Matthew 19:9 in their Bibles, and cross out the word 'except' and write the word 'not' above the crossed-out, errant word.
More importantly, Pastors and Preachers must stop saying, "In Matthew 19:9, Jesus says, 'Except for Fornication'". This saying, by the Pastors, is not factual. They ought to say, "In Matthew 19:9, Jesus says, 'Not for fornication'".
It is important to note that this research is based only on Greek New Testament Manuscripts and Print Editions of the Greek New Testament and not on Commentaries or Lectionaries. On this forum, in Comments by users: '1Straightshooter' and 'public hermit', they pointed out that pre-Erasmus Church Fathers quoted the word 'except' in their paraphrase of Matthew 19:9. These valuable comments raise the question: If there is no ει in any GNT Manuscript before the 12th century, and Mounce (2003) says that ει μη is a two-word idiom that means 'except', then where did they get the translation 'except' and why does it inclusion frequency vary so much over time? Why are post-18th century editors getting rid of it? There is definitely something strange going on here.
The Consequences of Eliminating the ει from Matthew 19:9.
Most Protestants are going to argue that taking out the ει does not change the meaning of the sentence: 'not for fornication' means the same things as 'except for fornication'. I respond, 'Well, that is merely one interpretation.'
For the past five hundred years, the Protestant Doctrine claimed an explicitly stated 'exception' in Matthew 19:9, and this text has been hotly contested by the Catholics the entire time. Now we discover that, for the entire time, we all have been working from a Corrupted Text. There is no 'explicitly stated exception'. The claimed 'exception' is merely someone's interpretation, masquerading as a direct statement of Jesus. Now the facts have been exposed. Now the entire debate will explode and new interpretations become possible without an explicit 'exception'.
How do we know that 'not for fornication' means the same thing as 'except for fornication'. Where is their evidence.
Going to the other extreme, in the spirit of friendly debate, Doctor Leslie McFall suggests an alternative interpretation.
vi He suggests that instead of '[except] for fornication', this phrase should be interpreted as 'not [even] for fornication', arguing that there is no such thing as 'even' in Greek, therefore it is not impossible to include it as a clarification. It is enclosed in square brackets to show that 'even' is not in the Greek text but merely added as a clarification.
For those who object to such an addition, it must be pointed out that a person could take the view that inclusion of the word 'except' has been an illegitimate 'addition' for the last five hundred years. Here, the addition of 'even' is done honestly, without any attempt to deceive, as indicated by the square brackets, whereas the same cannot be said in the case of 'the illegitimate five hundred year addition' of, the word 'except'. But, maybe this view is too harsh?
Does the Exception Clause in Matthew 5:32 Save Us?
For those who might argue that Matthew 5:32 also has an 'exception clause' which also means 'except', I point out one inconvenient fact as an ominous black cloud on the horizon. This second edition of my book - as an aside - points out that in the 'exception clause' of Matthew 5:32, the Greek word παρεκτος shares the same weaknesses as the two-word idiom ει μη. Παρεκτος, is an extremely rare word, and Arthur Car (1906) writes: "παρεκτος. A rare word in the N.T. and
condemned by the Atticists." [emphasis added].
vii This suggests that the meaning of παρεκτος might have changed in the past,
viii and if that conjecture proves to be true, then if such a change occurred after the time of Jesus, then the foundation stones of the Protestant Doctrine justifying Divorce would be, effectively, destroyed. This issue with παρεκτος desperately needs to be investigated by the Professionals, since such a study is beyond my skill set.
For More Information
Both editions of my book have been placed in the Public Domain and are available - free - in multiple formats at Archive (dot) org and on Google Books [but with removed URLs by Google because of their forced external URL automatic deletion policy]. Doctor Leslie McFall's work is also available as a free web-download, and his TalkShoe interview is also available, free, online. See my book on Archive (dot) org, for URLs to McFall (2014), and Car (1906).
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank all those who posted replies to my last post on this subject (July 4, 2021). They were helpful in this ongoing line of research, especially username: '1Straightshooter' and 'public hermit'. Thank you. I appreciate your feedback and comments. I hope they will appreciate the enclosed, disturbing graph which shows large percentage changes in the inclusion of ει over time.
Robert Norvin Crawford is an independent, amateur, self-taught, Bible Enthusiast and Researcher and a Protestant. You don't need a Phd., to count words.
Bibliography
Car, Arthur.
The Gospel According to St. Matthew, with Maps, Notes and Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1906.
Crawford, Robert Norvin.
A Word-Frequency Study of Matthew 19:9 Using all Available Greek New Testament Manuscripts. 1st ed. Chamberlain, South Dakota, USA: Pebble in Your Shoe Publishing, 2021.
Crawford, Robert Norvin.
A Word-Frequency Study of Matthew 19:9 in Editions of the Greek New Testament: Majuscule Manuscripts, Minuscule Manuscripts, and Print Editions: 4th Century to 2024. 2nd ed. Chamberlain, South Dakota, USA.: Pebble in Your Shoe Publishing, 2024.
Crawford, Robert Norvin.
Significant Corruption Discovered in Matthew 19:9. 1st ed. Chamberlain, South Dakota, USA.: Pebble in Your Shoe Publishing, 2024.
Erasmus, Des.
Novum Instrumentum Omne. 1516.
McFall, Leslie,
The Erasmian Deception Clause: The Mistranslation of Matthew 19:9. (In a Talkshoe episode.) (Accessed: March, 2020).
Mounce, William.
Greek for the Rest of Us: Using Greek Tools without Mastering Biblical Languages. Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA: Zondervaqn, 2003.
Endnotes
iRobert Norvin Crawford.
A Word-Frequency Study of Matthew 19:9 in Editions of the Greek New Testament: Majuscule Manuscripts, Minuscule Manuscripts, and Print Editions: 4th Century to 2024. 2nd ed. Chamberlain, South Dakota, USA.: Pebble in Your Shoe Publishing, 2024.
iiRobert Norvin Crawford.
Significant Corruption Discovered in Matthew 19:9. 1st ed. Chamberlain, South Dakota, USA.: Pebble in Your Shoe Publishing, 2024. Endnote number one lists eight theologians who have stated it.
iiiDes. Erasmus.
Novum Instrumentum Omne. 1516.
ivWilliam Mounce.
Greek for the Rest of Us: Using Greek Tools without Mastering Biblical Languages. Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA: Zondervaqn, 2003. (p. 88 in a side bar note).
vRobert Norvin Crawford.
A Word-Frequency Study of Matthew 19:9 Using all Available Greek New Testament Manuscripts. 1st ed. Chamberlain, South Dakota, USA: Pebble in Your Shoe Publishing, 2021.
viLeslie McFall,
The Erasmian Deception Clause: The Mistranslation of Matthew 19:9. (In a Talkshoe episode.) (Accessed: March, 2020). (
see my 1st or 2nd edition for URL links)
viiArthur Car.
The Gospel According to St. Matthew, with Maps, Notes and Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1906. p. 122 in notes to Matthew 5:32. (
see my 1st or 2nd edition for URL links)
viiiNote: As an example of a word that dramatically changed its meaning: consider the word 'egregious'. The Oxford Languages Dictionary states that, in modern times, it means "outstandingly bad; shocking", but in Archaic times, it means "remarkably good".
