How Badly has Matthew 19:9 been Corrupted?

[robert424]

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]

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".

 

[Richard T]

An interesting post though your thinking is not mainstream and perhaps over-reliant on Professor Mounce, who is nearly alone in his interpretation?
I am not scholarly enough to debate the points you have made though in this. However, I am sure that anyone contemplating a divorce, that the Holy Spirit would lead them in the direction they should go. I recall a testimony where a woman in my church waited 7 years to remarry because she believed God told her too. She was legally divorced but she waited, prayed, put out the effort and was fully rewarded as he came back and was really committed to God. I imagine too there are many who are justified to get rid of their abusers. That if someone takes it sincerely to the Lord, that He will give them the guidance they need.

 

[robert424]

An interesting post though your thinking is not mainstream and perhaps over-reliant on Professor Mounce, who is nearly alone in his interpretation?
I am not scholarly enough to debate the points you have made though in this. However, I am sure that anyone contemplating a divorce, that the Holy Spirit would lead them in the direction they should go. I recall a testimony where a woman in my church waited 7 years to remarry because she believed God told her too. She was legally divorced but she waited, prayed, put out the effort and was fully rewarded as he came back and was really committed to God. I imagine too there are many who are justified to get rid of their abusers. That if someone takes it sincerely to the Lord, that He will give them the guidance they need.

Thank your for your comments. Yes, I agree, the results of this study are definitely not mainstream.
Regarding Professor Mounce - and also, the same observation would also apply to Arthur Car and Professor Stock - these three ae the only ones who explain the logic and reasoning behind the wording of the Greek text of Matthew 19:9. Professor Mounce's book is not a Commentary, but is meant for beginning students studying Greek. Mounce was the only one who explained the idiom and how it should be translated and it explains nicely the origin of the word 'except' in the English translations, but there are other points of view on that, as you suggest. In six years of study on Matthew 19:9, I have yet to find anyone who has written anything on the origin of the word 'except' in Matthew 19:9. I am hoping the facts in this study will inspire such articles.

On another note, when I first made that graph, I was shocked. I was definitely not expecting such a large change of the word-frequency over time.
robert424

 

[Der Alte]

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] ***​

The passage in question in the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible.

"Matthew 19:9 Jesus replied, “Because of the hardness of your hearts, Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been so. °I tell you that whoever divorces his wife (except for reason of sexual immorality*) and marries another commits adultery;' and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”​

Greek has been the language of the Eastern Orthodox church since the church began. See link below.

The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The New Testament (The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible)

archive.org

 

[Der Alte]

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".

Tertullian Against Marcion book 4 chapter XXXIV
For in the Gospel of Matthew he says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.” (Mat_5:32) He also is deemed equally guilty of adultery, who marries a woman put away by her husband. The Creator, however, except on account of adultery, does not put asunder what He Himself joined together, the same Moses in another passage enacting that he who had married after violence to a damsel, should thenceforth not have it in his power to put away his wife.

 

[public hermit]

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

Congratulations on your research! Your commitment to this question is admirable. I have no idea what I might have said in 2021, and I'm not confident I still agree with me.

Is your basic argument that Protestants caused divorce to become acceptable?

 

[robert424]

The passage in question in the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible.

"Matthew 19:9 Jesus replied, “Because of the hardness of your hearts, Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been so. °I tell you that whoever divorces his wife (except for reason of sexual immorality*) and marries another commits adultery;' and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”​

Greek has been the language of the Eastern Orthodox church since the church began. See link below.

The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The New Testament (The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible)

archive.org

TY for your comment. Yes, I included Greek Orthodox GNTs in my research. The Authorized 1904
text of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople - The Patriarchal Text does not have the ει in the 'exception clause' of their Greek New Testament.

 

[Jamdoc]

the "not for fornication" doesn't really make sense except as an exception

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, not it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

I mean, if Jesus is not giving fornication as an exception, why have that clause?
if there are no exceptions to divorce
then the passage should read

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

though I also have a question... does adultery count as fornication in this sense.
I have a family member who's husband is currently in an adulterous affair with another woman. It's not like we get to go old testament on him and stone him to death with stones and the woman he's having an affair with, not the way our civil law works, and not the way the bible does things in the new testament. So we're just supposed to... ignore the affair? Just say "you shouldn't do that" and leave it at that? While he continues to destroy the family and even involve his kids in the affair (and they're absolutely wrecked over this "I hate daddy" comments and such)

 

[Der Alte]

TY for your comment. Yes, I included Greek Orthodox GNTs in my research. The Authorized 1904
text of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople - The Patriarchal Text does not have the ει in the 'exception clause' of their Greek New Testament.

That may well be but we do not have to rely solely on Matt 19:9

Matthew 5:32​

(32) But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving [παρεκτός] for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.​

παρεκτός/parektos, except, with the exception of (a thing), besides. Which does not appear to be in question.

EOB Matt 5:32 but I tell you that whoever divorces his wife (except for the cause of sexual immorality), makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a woman put away in this manner commits adultery​

 

[Der Alte]

***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.*** 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.***

The unsupported speculation of an independent self-taught amateur. ει μη/ei me' is NOT a rare word it occurs 85 times in the New testament.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Single word or verse does not creates a doctrine. Regardless of the Greek translation for Matthew 19:9, Bible illustrate adultery and fornication in the context of divorce. This concept applies not only to relationships between men and women but also to the relationship between God and Israel.

Jeremiah 3: 8 “I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery. “

Malachi 2:10-15 “Do we not all have one Father[b]? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another? 11 Judah has been unfaithful. A detestable thing has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem: Judah has desecrated the sanctuary the Lord loves by marrying women who worship a foreign god. 12 As for the man who does this, whoever he may be, may the Lord remove him from the tents of Jacob[c]—even though he brings an offering to the Lord Almighty. 13 Another thing you do: You flood the Lord’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer looks with favor on your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. 14 You ask, “Why?” It is because the Lord is the witness between you and the wife of your youth. You have been unfaithful to her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. 15 Has not the one God made you? You belong to him in body and spirit. And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring.[d] So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth.

There are other verses in Isaiah where God refers to Israel’s unfaithfulness as a reason for ending the covenant between God and Israel. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, and acts of fornication and adultery can surely end that covenant, just as unfaithfulness did between God and Israel in Jeremiah 3.

One could argue that God did reestablish a relationship with Israel and established a new covenant. I agree. The Book of Hosea exemplifies God's love and forgiveness. If someone commits adultery but truly repents, as Christians, their spouse should forgive them.

I have seen Christians cite Matthew 19:9 to justify divorce, even when the spouse who committed adultery genuinely repented and wanted to reconcile. In those rare situation I don’t think Matthew 19:9 is a justification for divorce.

 

[RBarnes]

Hello sir! @robert424

Your counting adventure fascinates me! There are scholars who get cited for their pedigreed opinions, and then there are scholars who do the work no one wants to do. I appreciate your self-aware spunk and I'm grateful that you uploaded your research and findings online. I too feel quite indebted to McFall's work on this subject, exposing the weak grammatical and historical basis for the so called exception clause in Matt 19:9 as we know it today.

I have a couple of questions:

1. Can you elaborate on what it means for "έἰ " to be present "as a symbol" in the minuscules? (page 204)?

2. Would you be able to provide 1 or 2 screen shot examples of the handwritten minuscules which contain έἰ μή?

Thank you,
Ryan

 

[Der Alte]

Hello sir! @robert424

Your counting adventure fascinates me! There are scholars who get cited for their pedigreed opinions, and then there are scholars who do the work no one wants to do. I appreciate your self-aware spunk and I'm grateful that you uploaded your research and findings online. I too feel quite indebted to McFall's work on this subject, exposing the weak grammatical and historical basis for the so called exception clause in Matt 19:9 as we know it today.

I have a couple of questions:

1. Can you elaborate on what it means for "έἰ " to be present "as a symbol" in the minuscules? (page 204)?

2. Would you be able to provide 1 or 2 screen shot examples of the handwritten minuscules which contain έἰ μή?

Thank you,
Ryan

That "weak grammatical exception clause" occurs 85 times in the N.T. And we don't have to rely on Matthew 19:9. A similar verse Matt 5:32 expresses the same meaning but employs a different word parektos vice ei me'

Mat 5:32 ’but I tell you that whoever divorces his wife except [παρεκτὸς/parektos] for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a woman put away in this manner commits adultery. Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible.​

 

[robert424]

Hello sir! @robert424

Your counting adventure fascinates me! There are scholars who get cited for their pedigreed opinions, and then there are scholars who do the work no one wants to do. I appreciate your self-aware spunk and I'm grateful that you uploaded your research and findings online. I too feel quite indebted to McFall's work on this subject, exposing the weak grammatical and historical basis for the so called exception clause in Matt 19:9 as we know it today.

I have a couple of questions:

1. Can you elaborate on what it means for "έἰ " to be present "as a symbol" in the minuscules? (page 204)?

2. Would you be able to provide 1 or 2 screen shot examples of the handwritten minuscules which contain έἰ μή?

Thank you,
Ryan

Greek Abbreviations or Symbols used in Manuscripts for the Greek Word ει.


A good book that shows many Greek Abbreviation Symbols is:

Wallace, William. Greek Ligatures in Early Modern Printing. 1923.

You can find a copy on Internet Archive at the following URL:

https://ia601509.us.archive.org/9/items/GreekLigaturesInPrinting/griekseligaturen.pdf

File name: griekseligaturen.pdf (Following Image: Public Domain and Fair Use.)

from page 187 in the pdf and also other variants on some later pages.

There is also a good introduction at for following url: Greek ligatures - Wikipedia
And half way down the page under the title 'Example images', there is another variant of the symbol for ει - on the left. And under the title 'Other examples', just below, there is another example.

Here is an image of Gregory-Aland Greek New Testament Manuscript Number 989 which is a 12th century Manuscript, showing the Greek Text of Matthew 19:9 and the abbreviation symbol representing the Greek Word ει underlined in red. As a reminder, this Manuscript contains the earliest occurance of ει. None of the other Greek New Testament Manuscripts - from the fourth century to the 11th century have the ει - not one, and there are only 20 manuscripts that contain it overall. (Following Image: Public Domain and 'Fair Use'.)

During the 12th century, the scribes started using a lot of abbreviation marks and symbols.
sincerely robert424

 

[johansen]

To some extent none of this matters because no one post Christ has the authority to separate from their spouse for any reason except as directed or given permission by God.


Sometimes you pray for your enemies..sometimes against.. im not saying you have to endure abuse but you are not free to re marry until God nullifies the vows you made to your prior partner.

I know most of you say "forsaking all others" as a cop out to "till death do us part"... But your heart is often not that legalistic.

Some people when finding out their partner cheated on them are initially filled with joy that their partner finally found someone to love..

 

[robert424]

Congratulations on your research! Your commitment to this question is admirable. I have no idea what I might have said in 2021, and I'm not confident I still agree with me.

Is your basic argument that Protestants caused divorce to become acceptable?

Well, I'm not so confident that all the blame can be placed on Protestants - fyi, I'm a protestant - but there were some very high-profile protestants such as John Milton (the poet) who was violently shaking the cage of the English Parliament, trying to get them to decriminalize divorce. He wrote three books in support of his claims. So, protestants need to shoulder some of the blame, but, perhaps, not all of it.

We are all striving, trying to get at the truth about the real meaning of Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9, but we are all working from text that has been, to some extent, corrupted, but the good news is that in the Greek New Testament, the corrections are underway. Unfortunately, the English translations have not even begun to be corrected.

Some more bad news is that someone really needs to investigate Arthur Car's observation (in his The Gospel According to St. Matthew. Cambridge: University Press, 1906. p. 122, where he writes that the word Parektos is a rare word and condemned by the Atticists. This implies that, in the past, Parektos might have changed meanings, or, maybe he means that the Atticists don't translate it as 'except' at all. If the meaning did change and changed after the death of Christ, then that will change everything. I think this really needs to be investigated, but it will have to be an expert in Greek, and that is not me. I'm just a word-counter. One of the Professionals will have to do it. So, you see, this issue is not solved yet, and the whole thing could still blow up in your faces.

 

[robert424]

That "weak grammatical exception clause" occurs 85 times in the N.T. And we don't have to rely on Matthew 19:9. A similar verse Matt 5:32 expresses the same meaning but employs a different word parektos vice ei me'

Mat 5:32 ’but I tell you that whoever divorces his wife except [παρεκτὸς/parektos] for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a woman put away in this manner commits adultery. Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible.​

Thank you for your comment.
Yes, I agree with you that 'ei me', is quite common. My point is that 'ei me' is translated as 'except' a very low percentage of the time. I called it 'weak' because of the 'low percentage of the time it is translated as 'except' in the Bible. I am arguing that, if 'ie me' is only translated as 'except' in the Bible, 7% of the time - and a lot lower than that in the wild - then translating it that way, makes for a very weak interpretation. I know that this observation is a small point, but I am counting on the fact that a bunch of small points quickly add up to something bigger - for what its worth.
sincerely, robert424.

 

[robert424]

Single word or verse does not creates a doctrine. Regardless of the Greek translation for Matthew 19:9, Bible illustrate adultery and fornication in the context of divorce. This concept applies not only to relationships between men and women but also to the relationship between God and Israel.

Jeremiah 3: 8 “I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery. “

Malachi 2:10-15 “Do we not all have one Father[b]? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another? 11 Judah has been unfaithful. A detestable thing has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem: Judah has desecrated the sanctuary the Lord loves by marrying women who worship a foreign god. 12 As for the man who does this, whoever he may be, may the Lord remove him from the tents of Jacob[c]—even though he brings an offering to the Lord Almighty. 13 Another thing you do: You flood the Lord’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer looks with favor on your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. 14 You ask, “Why?” It is because the Lord is the witness between you and the wife of your youth. You have been unfaithful to her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. 15 Has not the one God made you? You belong to him in body and spirit. And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring.[d] So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth.

There are other verses in Isaiah where God refers to Israel’s unfaithfulness as a reason for ending the covenant between God and Israel. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, and acts of fornication and adultery can surely end that covenant, just as unfaithfulness did between God and Israel in Jeremiah 3.

One could argue that God did reestablish a relationship with Israel and established a new covenant. I agree. The Book of Hosea exemplifies God's love and forgiveness. If someone commits adultery but truly repents, as Christians, their spouse should forgive them.

I have seen Christians cite Matthew 19:9 to justify divorce, even when the spouse who committed adultery genuinely repented and wanted to reconcile. In those rare situation I don’t think Matthew 19:9 is a justification for divorce.

Faith-in-him,

Thank you for your comments.

Regarding your statement: 'Israel's unfaithfulness as a reason for ending the covenant between God and Israel'.

I would ask: What does it really mean to 'end' the covenant?

I am not convinced that it means to permanently terminate the covenant - like us humans do when we permanently terminate our cell phone contract.

In Jeremiah 3:8, God gave Israel a bill of divorce, yet was God's [figurative] marriage to Israel over? To me, it would seem not, because six verses later (v.14) he says "Turn, O backsliding children [plural], says the Lord, for I am married unto you".

Wait a second! He just got finished divorcing Israel, and now he says that he is 'married' to them?

I conclude from these two passages, that divorce does not permanently terminate a marriage. Additionally, the whole book of Jeremiah is all about how God is going to be reconciled to Israel, and in Revelation, above all the twelve gates of Heaven, is inscribed with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel - further proof that God will be physically reunited with Israel.

That is my interpretation anyway - for what its worth.

Some say that the covenant is permanently terminated and that Jeremiah is actually talking about Israel's replacements - that - for example - the Tribe of Gad is actually a new Gad and not the EX-Gad. Well if that were true, then Heaven will be a very embarrassing place, don't you think? Would you be joyful in Heaven when all the doors are inscribed with your 'same-named-EX'. Would your new wife be happy to wear the same wedding dress and wear the same gold band that once belonged to your EX - and she lives across the road, and will be glaring like an angry cat, at your new same-named-wife every day? I think not.

I once heard of a man who divorced his wife and he went to another region and married another woman with the same name as his EX, and they had the same number of children and the same gender split, and - get this - he named his new children with the same names as his Ex-children! WOW. That is so..o.o...oo.oo disrespectful! XD. LOL.

I would hate to think that Heaven would be like that, so - no offence intended - I'll stick with my interpretation, thank-you-very-much. lol.
sincerely robert424

 

[robert424]

the "not for fornication" doesn't really make sense except as an exception



I mean, if Jesus is not giving fornication as an exception, why have that clause?
if there are no exceptions to divorce
then the passage should read


though I also have a question... does adultery count as fornication in this sense.
I have a family member who's husband is currently in an adulterous affair with another woman. It's not like we get to go old testament on him and stone him to death with stones and the woman he's having an affair with, not the way our civil law works, and not the way the bible does things in the new testament. So we're just supposed to... ignore the affair? Just say "you shouldn't do that" and leave it at that? While he continues to destroy the family and even involve his kids in the affair (and they're absolutely wrecked over this "I hate daddy" comments and such)

Thank your for your Comments.
Ok, I've been working on a reply, and looking up at the clock, I now realize that I've been working for six hours on this reply - I totally lost all sense of time - and my answer has grown to four pages - single spaced - which is much too long, so I'll need a day or two to edit it, and I'm also a little concerned that it will be too controversial as it is. I'll be finished this weekend, so I'll post it then.

 

[Jamdoc]

Thank your for your Comments.
Ok, I've been working on a reply, and looking up at the clock, I now realize that I've been working for six hours on this reply - I totally lost all sense of time - and my answer has grown to four pages - single spaced - which is much too long, so I'll need a day or two to edit it, and I'm also a little concerned that it will be too controversial as it is. I'll be finished this weekend, so I'll post it then.

There's a lot of other factors too.
like he's doubled down on the affair rather than repent of it.
and I worry about him doing things like being convinced to kill her for life insurance money (his small business is failing), her losing the house in the divorce, the kid's custody situation being a mess for them, or something like this girl convinces him to kidnap the kids and flee the country.

There's just a point where the adultery is dangerous and not something you can just forgive and forget. Not when he doubles down on his sinful choice.