Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
$5.00
EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 180+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).
Major Critical Texts of the New Testament
Byz RP: 2005 Byzantine Greek New Testament, Robinson & Pierpont TR1550: 1550 Stephanus New Testament Maj: The Majority Text (thousands of minuscules that display a similar text) Gries: 1774-1775 Johann Jakob Griesbach Greek New Testament Treg: 1857-1879 Samuel Prideaux Tregelles Greek New Testament Tisch: 1872 Tischendorf’s Greek New Testament WH: 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament NA28: 2012 Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament UBS5: 2014 Greek New Testament NU: Both Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society SBLGNT: 2010 Greek New Testament THGNT: 2017 The Greek New Testament by Tyndale House GENTI: 2020 Greek-English New Testament Interlinear
Matthew 19:9The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI)
9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery.”
Matthew 19:9 English Standard Version
9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
Matthew 19:9 Lexham English Bible
9 Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the basis of sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
Matthew 19:9 Christian Standard Bible
9 I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery.”
Matthew 19:9King James Version 9 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.
Matthew 19:9
(TR) WH NU ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται “whoever divorces his wife, except for infidelity, and marries another, he commits adultery” א C3 D L (W) Z Θ 078 Maj
Variant 1 ος αν απολυση την γυναικα αυτου ποιει αυτην μοιχευθηναι “whoever divorces his wife makes her commit adultery” C* N
Variant 2 ος αν απολυση την γυναικα παρεκτος λογου πορνειας ποιει αυτην μοιχευθηναι “whoever divorces his wife, except for the matter of unchastity, makes her commit adultery” B f cop
Variant 3 ος αν απολυση την γυναικα παρεκτος λογου πορνειας και γαμηση αλλην μοιχαται “whoever divorces his wife, except for the matter of unchastity, and marries another, he commits adultery” D f13 33 it copsa
Textual scholar Philip W. Comfort is below in detail, but in short, he argues that “and the one marrying the divorced woman commits adultery” is the original wording. This is found in (𝔓25 B C* W Z), as well as 078 Maj, but omitted in א L. He feels that the textual evidence supports the inclusion of the clause, even though it is suspected of having been borrowed from Matthew 5:32. First, it should be noted that 𝔓25 dates to about 300-350 C.E. and is independent in textual character. There is the possibility that this clause was accidentally omitted by a copyist who simply skipped “from the first verb μοιχᾶται to this second occurrence of the same verb.” However, it is far more likely that we have another case of a copyist at a later date adding the clause in an effort to have it read similarly to Matthew 5:32.
Philip W. Comfort writes,
It should be noted that 𝔓25 supports either variant 1 or variant 2 because it shows the last word μοιχευθηναι. According to some manuscripts (א C3 D L) the verse ends after μοιχαται or μοιχευθηναι. However, several manuscripts have an additional clause in two forms:
addition 1 και ο απολελυμενην γαμων μοιχαται “and the one marrying a divorced woman commits adultery” (B) C* W Z Θ 078 (Maj)—so TR
addition 2 ωσαυτως και ο γαμων απολελυμενην μοιχαται “so that also the one marrying a divorced woman commits adultery” 𝔓25
The issue at stake in the first set of textual variations is whether (1) the man commits adultery by marrying another woman after divorcing his wife or (2) the divorced woman is put into a situation where she cannot but commit adultery if she marries another man. The other issue pertains to the clause, “except for unchastity,” which may be original or may have been borrowed from 5:32, where the text is firm on this clause. The various changes in the manuscripts represent differing exegetical viewpoints among the scribes; in other words, the changes are not due to any kind of transcriptional error. Whatever the original reading, the man who divorces his wife is at fault because his remarriage is sin and so is the remarriage of his former wife. The only way for the man not to be held culpable is if the woman was unchaste, which is what nearly all the manuscripts say and which is affirmed by Jesus’ words in 5:32.
The issue in the second set of variants is just as critical, for it directly addresses the issue of a man marrying a divorced woman. Not only are divorced women who remarry culpable, so are those who marry them. Of course, Matthew may not have written this here, but it is fairly certain that he did so in 5:32 (the parallel passage), for the clause is included in all Greek manuscripts except D (see note).
Bruce M. Metzger writes,
19:9 μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται {B}
The “excepting clause” in the Matthean account of Jesus’ teaching on divorce occurs in two forms: παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας (“except on the ground of unchastity”) and μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ (“except for unchastity”). It is probable that the witnesses (including B D f f 33) that have the former reading have been assimilated to 5:32, where the text is firm. Likewise the phrase ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι (“makes her commit adultery” [i.e. when she remarries]) has come into several witnesses (including B C* f ) from 5:32, where it is firm. The short reading of 1574, καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, has been conformed to the prevailing text of Mk 10:11.
19:9 μοιχᾶται {B}
After μοιχᾶται several witnesses (including K W Δ Θ Π f ) add καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμῶν (or γαμήσας) μοιχᾶται (“and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery”). Although it could be argued that homoeoteleuton (μοιχᾶται … μοιχᾶται) accounts for its accidental omission from א D L 1241 al, the fact that B C* f al read μοιχᾶται only once (at the conclusion of the combined clauses) makes it more probable that the text was expanded by copyists who accommodated the saying to the prevailing text of 5:32.
Roger L. Omanson and Bruce Manning Metzger write,
19:9 μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται (except for unchastity and marries another woman, commits adultery) {B}
The “excepting clause” in the account of Jesus’ teaching on divorce in Matthew occurs in two forms: παρεκτός λόγου πορνείας (except on the ground of unchastity) and μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ (except for unchastity). The manuscripts that have the first form of the text include good representatives of several text-types, but it is probable that this form of the text has been created under the influence of the similar text in 5:32. There is no real difference in meaning between these two variant readings (Hagner, Matthew 14–28, p. 549). Likewise, in place of the words καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται, the phrase ποιεῖ αὐτήν μοιχευθῆναι (makes her commit adultery [that is, when she remarries]) has come into several manuscripts from 5:32.
Although the meaning of the two forms of the clause is the same, interpreters are divided on the meaning, as the following translations indicate: “except for unchastity” (RSV, NRSV, REB), “except for marital unfaithfulness” (NIV, similarly TEV, FC, Seg), and “unless the marriage is unlawful” (NAB, TOB, and similarly NJB, which has a long and very helpful note explaining the reason for the translation given).
19:9 μοιχᾶται (commits adultery) {B}
After the verb μοιχᾶται, several manuscripts add καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμῶν (or γαμήσας) μοιχᾶται (and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery). It is possible that these words were accidentally omitted by a copyist whose eye jumped from the first verb μοιχᾶται to this second occurrence of the same verb. But it is more probable that the addition of these words represents a later attempt to make the text similar to 5:32.
TERMS AS TO HOW WE SHOULD OBJECTIVELY VIEW THE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY FOR THE READING ACCEPTED AS THE ORIGINAL
The modal verbs are might have been (30%), may have been (40%), could have been(55%), would have been (80%),must have been (95%), which are used to show that we believe the originality of a reading is certain, probable or possible.
The letter [WP] stands for Weak Possibility (30%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading might have been original in that it is enough evidence to accept that the variant might have been possible, but it is improbable. We can say the reading might have been original, as there is some evidence that is derived from manuscripts that carry very little weight, early versions, or patristic quotations.
The letter [P] stands for Plausible (40%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading may have been original in that it is enough to accept a variant to be original and we have enough evidence for our belief. The reading may have been original but it is not probably so.
The letter [PE] stands for Preponderance of Evidence (55%), which indicates that this is a higher-level proof that the reading could have been original in that it is enough to accept as such unless another reading emerges as more probable.
The letter [CE] stands for Convincing Evidence (80%), which indicates that the evidence is an even higher-level proof that the reading surely was the original in that the evidence is enough to accept it as substantially certainunless proven otherwise.
The letter [BRD] stands for Beyond Reasonable Doubt (95%), which indicates that this is the highest level of proof: the reading must have been original in that there is no reason to doubt it. It must be understood that feeling as though we have no reason to doubt is not the same as one hundred percent absolute certainty.
NOTE: This system is borrowed from the criminal just legal terms of the United States of America, the level of certainty involved in the use of modal verbs, and Bruce Metzger in his A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), who borrowed his system from Johann Albrecht Bengel in his edition of the Greek New Testament (Tübingen, 1734). In addition, the percentages are in no way attempting to be explicit, but rather, they are nothing more than a tool to give the non-textual scholar a sense of the degree of certainty. However, this does not mean the percentages are not reflective of certainty.
Copyists made some additions to their Greek text at times. They were more inclined to do this than to omit material. One must always carry out careful research of the external and internal evidence to uncover such scribal interpolations. Hence, the most dependable witnesses are from the Alexandrian family of manuscripts found to be the most condensed. On the other hand, the Byzantine family is the most drawn out and extended from scribes taking liberties with the text.
Variant Reading(s): differing versions of a word or phrase found in two or more manuscripts within a variation unit (see below). Variant readings are also called alternate readings.
Variation Unit: any portion of text that exhibits variations in its reading between two or more different manuscripts. It is important to distinguish variation units from variant readings. Variation units are the places in the text where manuscripts disagree, and each variation unit has at least two variant readings. Setting the limits and range of a variation unit is sometimes difficult or even controversial because some variant readings affect others nearby. Such variations may be considered individually or as elements of a single reading. One should also note that the terms “manuscript” and “witness” may appear to be used interchangeably in this context. Strictly speaking “witness” (see below) will only refer to the content of a given manuscript or fragment, which it predates to a greater or lesser extent. However, the only way to reference the “witness” is by referring to the manuscript or fragment that contains it. In this book, we have sometimes used the terminology “witness of x or y manuscript” to distinguish the content in this way.
B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek: Appendix (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1882)
Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006)
Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994),
Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: NTG Apparatus Criticus, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
Dirk Jongkind, ed., The Greek New Testament: Apparatus (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017).
Dirk Jongkind, ed., The Greek New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017),
Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012)
Philip Wesley Comfort, A COMMENTARY ON THE MANUSCRIPTS AND TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2015).
Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008).
Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts: Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, 2 Volume Set The (English and Greek Edition) (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2019)
Rick Brannan and Israel Loken, The Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible, Lexham Bible Reference Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014).
Roger L. Omanson and Bruce Manning Metzger, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006).
Wallace B., Daniel (n.d.). Retrieved from The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts: http://csntm.org/
The modal verbs are might have been (30%), may have been (40%), could have been (55%), would have been (80%), must have been (95%), which are used to show that we believe the originality of a reading is certain, probable or possible.
The letter [CE] stands for Convincing Evidence (80%), which indicates that the evidence is an even higher-level proof that the reading surely was the original in that the evidence is enough to accept it as substantially certain unless proven otherwise.
Leave a Reply