How Badly has Matthew 19:9 been Corrupted?

[HIM]

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".

I pray that your silence means you are busy printing a retraction.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Maybe the OPoster can throw Matt. 5:28 into the mix and tell how many married women have been cheated on?

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

And I would suggest it works in a vice versa manner, women looking upon a man to lust according to Matt. 4:4, Luke 4:4 and Deut. 8:3

On this basis a very high percentage of people are perpetual cheaters I would suspect. I'm sure the numbers would be astounding

IF anyone wrangles about the law on any basis of understanding jots, tittles and supposed errors and have not figured out that no sinners are actually compliant with any laws they probably missed the main point altogether and are whistling past the graveyard as they say

Post Script: Everyone other than Jesus was/is/continues to be in the flesh life, a sinner. There is no escaping this conclusion for any reason, no exceptions

 

[robert424]

I pray that your silence means you are busy printing a retraction.

HIM, thank you for your comment.
Did I miss something? Sorry, I'm only on this forum once or twice a week.
'Retraction'? Could you be a little more specific? I'm just a word-counter, and the beauty of numbers, is that it is impossible to argue against them. Either the ει is in only 1% of the Greek New Testament Manuscripts, or it is not - there is no middle ground. So, I stick with that number as a newly discovered fact. Once that number has been discovered there is no erasing it, so there is nothing to retract. No?

As far as my interpretation of the meaning of those numbers - that is a different story altogether. I could, very well be wrong, so then I'd have something to retract.
sincerely
Robert424

 

[robert424]

But the understanding of an exception is there. Here are just the text in Matthew.

HIM, thank you for your well researched reaction to my article.

Yes, I agree that the word 'except' could be substituted into most of the verses that you quote, and it would still make logical sense. And should someone do so, it would be a perfectly valid 'interpretation'.

My main point is that such a strategy would be 'merely' one person's 'interpretation'. In other words, it would not be valid to claim that the writer 'actually wrote' the word 'except'. It is valid to claim that the writer 'meant except', but that is very different than claiming that the writer 'wrote' the word 'except'.

My research shows that the first printed Greek New Testament (GNT) by Erasmus in 1514, had 'ei ma' in Matthew 19:9, but now we know that the Greek word 'ei', [literally 'if'] is only in 1% of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, therefore, it is an error, and even most modern GNTs now remove it. So, now we are left with modern GNTs reading (in Greek Text, translated word-for-word) 'not for fornication'. This means that the GNTs are currently being corrected, but almost all the English New Testaments still have the word 'except'.

The main problem is that in the 'red-letter' editions of the English New Testaments, they have the word 'except'. They are saying that Matthew wrote the word 'except' and that Jesus said he word 'except', but this is not true. They are presenting 'interpretation' or 'opinion' as fact. So, either they have to place square brackets around the word 'except' like this [except] to show that Matthew didn't write the word 'except' and that it is merely someone's interpretation, or get rid of it altogether and just write 'not for fornication' which is the literal word-for-word translation from the Greek.

Anyone is free to claim that 'except' is implied, but that is merely one interpretation, and McFall's interpretation of 'not [even] for fornication', is an equally valid interpretation.

What is needed now, is for Bible Scholars to provide some evidence for their favorite 'interpretation', which so far, has not been forthcoming, but I, for one, am eagerly awaiting such evidence.

sincerely
Robert424

 

[robert424]

Maybe the OPoster can throw Matt. 5:28 into the mix and tell how many married women have been cheated on?

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

And I would suggest it works in a vice versa manner, women looking upon a man to lust according to Matt. 4:4, Luke 4:4 and Deut. 8:3

On this basis a very high percentage of people are perpetual cheaters I would suspect. I'm sure the numbers would be astounding

IF anyone wrangles about the law on any basis of understanding jots, tittles and supposed errors and have not figured out that no sinners are actually compliant with any laws they probably missed the main point altogether and are whistling past the graveyard as they say

Post Script: Everyone other than Jesus was/is/continues to be in the flesh life, a sinner. There is no escaping this conclusion for any reason, no exceptions

Thank you for your observations,

Yes, I agree with your points.

I'm merely using a different strategy and working on a much, much lower level than your points suggest. My fellow Protestants are all saying that the Bible teaches that, under certain circumstances, a divorcee can remarry, thus they are leading all Protestantism into sin by teaching a false doctrine. My strategy is to provide some good reasons why their interpretation of the bible is incorrect, and if they accept my evidence, then maybe they will reform themselves. This requires attention to jots and tittles, in my view. I have to start somewhere.

But I'm open to suggestions as to other strategies.
sincerely
Robert424

 

[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]


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".

Link to my main research book which contains all the data with many tables and graphs. It is Public Domain and free for all. word-freq-Matt19-9-2ed : Robert Norvin Crawford : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
robert424

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

My fellow Protestants are all saying that the Bible teaches that, under certain circumstances, a divorcee can remarry, thus they are leading all Protestantism into sin by teaching a false doctrine.

Teaching anyone they can stop being a sinner is a false doctrine, my general point, and also the point of the Gospel.

Everyone is bound to the spirit of disobedience regardless of the long and silky religious cloth and front row seats

A lot of believers give that fact lip service but nevertheless the quest to self justify is so strong that sooner or later that false teaching turns everyone essentially into being liars and hypocrites. The very condition that Jesus seemed to hate the most.

It's also how we go from taking the command to love our neighbors as ourselves into condemning them to potentially burn alive forever for the same sins we all have.

Pity

 

[johansen]

Everyone is bound to the spirit of disobedience

Even paul plainly explains this is wrong lol.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Even paul plainly explains this is wrong lol.

You mean here?

Romans 11:32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

As here?

Eph. 2:2
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

As here?

1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

As here?

Mark 4:15
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

Sins are not committed in the vacuum of individuality. No one other than Jesus was/is sinless.

Every spirit of disobedience blames Adam, Eve, our neighbors and everything but ITSELF because "they" are not capable of telling the truth

 

[johansen]

Everyone by default is born spiritually dead.

We then become born again (Lord willing) and are no longer children of disobedience ...

Wherein in time past

Prior to salvation

 

[robert424]

Teaching anyone they can stop being a sinner is a false doctrine, my general point, and also the point of the Gospel.

Everyone is bound to the spirit of disobedience regardless of the long and silky religious cloth and front row seats

A lot of believers give that fact lip service but nevertheless the quest to self justify is so strong that sooner or later that false teaching turns everyone essentially into being liars and hypocrites. The very condition that Jesus seemed to hate the most.

It's also how we go from taking the command to love our neighbors as ourselves into condemning them to potentially burn alive forever for the same sins we all have.

Pity

"Teaching anyone they can stop being a sinner is a false doctrine, my general point, and also the point of the Gospel."

2 Chronicles 7:14 'If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.'

The part that says 'and turn from their wicked ways', appears - at first glance - to contradict your interpretation. As far as I understand it, the whole goal of the call to repentance is to get people to stop sinning. No? Of course, maybe you mean that we, as humans, can never attain that goal, and in that case, yes, you are probably right on that count, but I think that we should still be making our best attempt, just to show God that we are serious - not that it will earn us any reward, nor to impress anyone - but just to show God a little gratitude - an act of worship, if you will. So, it appears like what we are probably saying is not opposites, but probably closer than some would imagine. I don't totally disagree with you - it depends on how it is cut and dried, I suppose. There appears to be some common ground here.
robert424

 

[johansen]

As far as I understand it, the whole goal of the call to repentance is to get people to stop sinning. No? Of course, maybe you mean that we, as humans, can never attain that goal,

Regardless your interpretation of things, the reality is that every other author of the bible has called people to repent.

 

[HIM]

Teaching anyone they can stop being a sinner is a false doctrine,

That statement is not true

 

[HIM]

You mean here?

Romans 11:32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

That is a bad translation. And the teaching you are sharing is not true.

Verses 26 and 27 show what it means by the statement that God promised to take away our sin. It is turn us from ungodliness.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

This gift of turning from ungodliness is sure verses 28 and 29 share for God's gift and calling is without repentance.

Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

The gentiles here in verse 30 are being put forth as not being disobedient anymore. So verse 32 does not apply to them at this point because they have received Christ and the Gift that is without repentance from God
.
Rom 11:30 Just as you were formerly disobedient to God, but have now received mercy due to their disobedience,

The "They also may obtain mercy" in verse 31 is in the 3rd person singular and refers to the Jews. And Since the Gentiles are not in disobedience anymore according to verse 26. The Them that are not bound to unbelief as verse 32 is not referring to them.

The Jews need to come to the point to which the Gentiles have in Christ. Where they were formerly disobedient but are now turning from their ungodliness, for God has promised to take away our sin through Jesus.

Rom 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
Rom 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
Rom 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

That is a bad translation. And the teaching you are sharing is not true.

Verses 26 and 27 show what it means by the statement that God promised to take away our sin. It is turn us from ungodliness.

God hasn't made anyone sinless yet that I'm aware of IF this is what you are claiming. We can cut right to the chase on this subject.

All people are permanent sinners in our current state. And that sin is as the scriptures show, "of the devil," 1 John 3:8, Mark 4:15. We all come before God with an evil conscience intact, Heb. 10:22

It is those who teach sinlessness is an achievable reality who are actually quite thoroughly deceived. Not that scriptures blame people for the issue mind you. Sins are not counted against people, just to make it more interesting and get things pointed in the right direction. 2 Cor. 5:19

As to "bad translations" I think the NIV in this case is spot on and quite in accord with Eph. 2:2, 2 Cor. 4:4 and many others.

The Jews need to come to the point to which the Gentiles have in Christ. Where they were formerly disobedient but are now turning from their ungodliness, for God has promised to take away our sin through Jesus.

That is not the case, as Paul stated, even enemies of the Gospel as it pertains to the Jews are in fact saved and included in the "ALL OF ISRAEL," saved for the sake of their fathers. Paul specifically isolates those who "are" enemies, present tense. And in Romans 11:8 Paul shows that there is a reason they can't see or hear, because God put a spirit of slumber upon them. There is nothing they can do about it, just as we can not unbind ourselves from the spirit of disobedience, that God Himself bound us all with.

This reality is instantly realized when we concede that we are tempted withIN by the tempter, our adversary. It's not just about "us" as individuals in this matter. We do engage in a wrestling match, meaning there is an opponent in view.

I consider those who claim sinlessness to be religiously delusional myself. Nothing personal.

Jesus was abundantly clear that evil comes from within and that evil thoughts defile all of us. It was not presented as "an option." Mark 7:21-23 is just as true today as it was in the Garden for both Adam and Eve.

Paul also advised us that we are no better than anyone else when it comes to sin, Romans 3:9. And that the law was given precisely to shut us all up and make us all GUILTY as charged. Romans 3:19

All of this to know that we are saved based on nothing from ourselves. No performances. No acts sufficient. No obligation put upon God because of what we did to make Him Bound to do something for us.

Grace Alone through Christ, in His Eternal Mercy

 

[Dan Perez]

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.

Here are 4 words that I always see !

# 1 THE ARGUMENT

# 2 THE PREMISE

# 3 THE CONCLUSION

Then , is this ARGUMENT for today and I say NO .

# 4 It is speaking to ISRAEL

# 5 AND 1 Cor 7:1-17 speaks to your ARGUMENT for the Body of Christ , right on the button !

dan p