Will Kinney
Matthew 19:9 - Did Erasmus introduce an error in the Textus Receptus?
A Christian brother writes:
Hello Will, This was the response I received about Matthew 19:9
“Just to summarize the argument regarding Matthew 19:9 with a bit more information, in case you want to follow up with your friend who is King James Only, the TR reads ei mē epi porneiai, which is not found in any Greek text in existence prior to that time, including the Greek texts which Erasmus himself consulted.
The TR reading is found as a marginal note on one of the Greek texts which Erasmus consulted, a 15th century manuscript called Codex Leicestrensis (Manuscript 69); however, there is good evidence to suggest, which I did not realize when I spoke to you yesterday, that this correction was added after Erasmus saw the text (because the same corrector elsewhere uses verse numbering, which was first introduced in Robert Stephens’ royal edition of 1550, whereas Erasmus died in 1536). So it seems clear that the word ei was added by Erasmus out of the blue, without any textual support at all of any kind. He invented this reading out of nowhere.
So why did he do this? What was his motivation for corrupting the text? The argument for a theological motivation is as follows:
(a) Erasmus was introducing a new perspective on divorce and remarriage, which is still known today as the “Erasmian view”. This was in opposition to the traditional view of the Roman Catholic church, which was also pretty much uniformly the view of the church fathers.
(b) Matthew 19:9 is the crucial text in the debate. There is no other text in the entire New Testament which is potentially decisive in favour of the Erasmian view, and which is not open to very plausible and widely accepted alternative interpretations that many commentators continue to defend today.
(c) The reading mē epi porneiai is much more ambiguous as an exceptive clause for remarriage than the phrase invented by Erasmus.
(d) Erasmus also changed the reading in the Latin Vulgate of Matthew 19:9 in such a way as to widen the exemption clause.
So I would submit, this is a good example of a theologically motivated corruption to the TR by Erasmus. This in itself should be enough for anyone to reject King James Onlyism. I will be intrigued to see what your friend comes up with to explain this particular issue away.”
[End of Bible critics comments]
My Response -
First of all, it is obvious that this friend of yours does not believe that any Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God.
Just ask him to show you a copy of what he really believes is the inerrant Bible in ANY language - including “the” Greek and Hebrew. My bet is that he will never do it.
Secondly, it would have been more than a little difficult for Erasmus to have changed the Latin Vulgate reading found in Matthew 19:9 since he was not born till about 11 centuries later.
Thirdly, in the King James Bible we read: “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, EXCEPT IT BE FOR FORNICATION, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
The modern Vatican supervised Critical text versions like the NASB, ESV, NIV, NET, Holman, etc. all have THE SAME MEANING.
NASB 1995 - “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, EXCEPT FOR immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
ESV 2016 - “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, EXCEPT FOR sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
NIV 2011 - “ I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, EXCEPT FOR sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
The only difference translation wise is that the KJB is far more accurate when it says “except it be for FORNICATION”, which is a specific sexual sin, whereas the phony new versions use the open ended “you define it as you want to” vague term of “sexual immorality”.
See my article “Fornication or immorality - Sodomites or something else?”
Fourthly, when we look at the Greek texts here, what we see is a cluster of variant readings.
The Reformation Textus Receptus reads: “ει μη επι πορνεια” = except [it be] for fornication.
The so called “oldest and best manuscripts”, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, do not even agree with each other here.
Sinaiticus reads μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, and this is the text adopted by Westcott and Hort and the Vatican supervised Critical Greek text of Nestle-Aland.
However Vaticanus has a completely different reading and says παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχᾶται. But even though it reads παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας instead of μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ (All three words are different, and two of them are radically different) yet it comes out to mean the same thing.
Literally the Vaticanus reading would be “except for reason of fornication”.
And manuscript D reads differently than both Sinaiticus or Vaticanus with παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, differing from Vaticanus in the last 3 words, and different from Sinaiticus in all of them!
And these are his so called “oldest and best manuscripts”!
But even with all these textual differences here, the meaning comes out to be the same. Just different ways of expressing the same idea.
Even the Modern Greek Bible, which uses modern Greek rather than New Testament Greek, makes up its own text in modern speech Greek, but it comes out to MEAN THE SAME THING.
It reads: εκτος δια πορνειαν και νυμφευθη αλλην = except for fornication and marries another
The reading found in the Textus Receptus of Scrivener 1894 is ει μη επι πορνεια και γαμηση αλλην. This is also the reading apparently found in Erasmus, and it is that of Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, and the Elzevir brothers Textus Receptus of 1624 - ει μη επι πορνεια
Your “scholar wannabe” friend is making much ado about absolutely nothing, and is seeing “errors” where none exist.
He is his own authority, and it looks like not a very knowledgable one at that. Again, ask him to show you a copy of this complete and inerrant Bible he supposedly believes in. My bet is that he won’t be able to do it.
I hope this has been of some help to you, brother.
The King James Bible is always right, and the Bible critics just can’t stand it.
