Did Erasmus von Rotterdam deliberately add εἰ to Matthew 19:9?

This is a question answered best by critical apparatus:

  19:9 οτι cum אCEFGHIKLMNSUVΓΔΠ al omnvid f ff2. g1. m q vg syromn sah cop arm aeth Baseth 308 Chr Dampar 640 … Ln Ti om cum BDZ a b c e ff1. g2. h :: cf ad 5:32
  ος αν: CM ος εαν
  απολυση: H al -σει
  μη επι πορνεια (אI -ια cum אCINZ unc13 al150 fere g2. vg (nisi ob fornicationem) syrutr arm aeth Dampar; item ϛ (= Gb Sz) praemisso ει cum minusc pauc Baseth (Clem - libere, et quaeritur quorsum spectet -532 χωρις λογου πορν. et506 πλην ει μη επι λογω πορν.) … Ln παρεκτος λογου πορνειας (: : ex 5:32) cum BD 1. 33. al6 itpler (c d ff1. m excepta causa adulterii; e praeter causam fornicationis; a b f ff2. g1. h q nisi ob causam fornic. Item Aug excepta causa fornicat., nisi ex causa forn., nisi ob causam forn.; Tertbis libere om μη επ.πορν., item Athenagleg 33) syrcu sah cop Or3,647 sqq (Clem533 χωρις λογου πορν.) Baseth Chr (et.mo 6G)


Constantin von Tischendorf, Caspar René Gregory, and Ezra Abbot, eds., Novum Testamentum Graece., vol. 1 (Lipsiae: Giesecke & Devrient, 1869–1894), 114.

Or, if you prefer:

9 ⸂ p) ος αν B D Z it
  ¦ οστις 1424
⸄ μη επι πορνεια και γαμηση αλλην (om. και γαμηση αλλην N) ποιει αυτην μοιχευθηναι C* N
  ¦ (5,32) παρεκτος λογου πορνειας ποιει αυτην μοιχευθηναι B ƒ1 ff1 bo
  ¦ παρεκτος λογου πορνειας και γαμηση αλλην μοιχαται D ƒ13 33 it (syc) sa mae
  ¦ txt א C3 K L (− και W) Z Γ Δ Θ 078. 565. 579. 700. 892. 1241. 1424 𝔪 1 vg sys.p.h


Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: NTG Apparatus Criticus, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), 60.

That Erasmus "added" it is urban legend; his beliefs, however, may have influenced his choice of text.

Steve said:

Erasmas in Greek?  What?

Sure ... Erasmus of Corfu [;)] ... the question was on the Greek; therefore, I provided the apparatus of the Greek. Erasmus of Rotterdam, the better known Erasmus, provided the New Testament in both Latin and Greek, IIRC.

J. Erik said:

MJ. Smith. I'm a 101, not 10300

Hi Erik,

while what MJ posted may look scary to you, it's the right answer. Going to a forum will give you opinions - going to the critical apparatus will give you data. 

Let me try to explain a bit - from one 101 learner to the other.

The Greek NT has come to us in a number of manuscripts. Today we have them collected in museums, digitized and to some extent even available in our bible software. This hasn't always been the case. The first printed Greek NT was published by Erasmus from Rotterdam. Even in his time, scholars knew that there were small differences between the Greek manuscript texts. He tried to use the best manuscripts available, and tried to find out what the best (i.e. original) reading was, if he had several manuscripts available for a passage (in some case he didn't). What Erasmus had printed would be named "textus receptus". As far as I know, Erasmus did not invented any Greek readings - except for some verses in the last part of Revelation where he could not obtain even one Greek manuscript - but relied on the manuscripts that were obtainable. Those mostly belonged to a "family" of manuscripts called Byzantine, since they had been copied -by hand! - in the Eastern part of the Mediterranean, in the Byzantine Empire (a Christian state governed from modern-day Istambul), which was overrun by muslim invaders back in the day and Christian scholars fled the area into more Northern and Western areas of Europe, bringing some of those manuscripts with them when they could.    

Editors of Greek NTs to this day decide over variant readings in the manuscripts. Nowadays, there are lots of manuscripts - most of which had not been discovered at Erasmus' times. So when scholarly edition of the Greek NT are published, they include a so-called apparatus. This is basically a listing of those manuscripts that support the reading taken by the publishers and it contains variants that are found in other manuscripts, which makes the publishers' decisions transparent.

Since the mid-20th century scholars have reached a near-stable consensus on what the most probable text of the original might have been (taking into account age of the available manuscripts, the way ancient scribal errors would influence the text and some heuristic rules that would help to explain how variants might have come into being) - this text is what you find in the Nestle-Aland editions and is the basis of most modern bible translations (a minority view exists that favors a text more in line with what Erasmus published and what had been the basis of Luther's original German bible and the KJV). Regardless of such publishers' decisions and transmission theories: the critical apparatus will give you the data which tells you, which manuscript supports which reading.

A good technical commentary on your verse would have a section on the Greek text and explain the apparatus information in more readable language.   

To answer this question you need to check reception history and technical commentaries. I know of no reception history commentaries within Logos but there are several technical commentaries.

e.      ἐπί with dative (LN 89.27) (BAGD II.1.b.γ. p. 287): because of’ [LN], ‘on the basis of’ [BAGD, LN]. The phrase μὴ ἐπί ‘except for’ [BECNT, BNTC, NICNT, NIGTC, PNTC, WBC; ESV, NASB, NET, NIV, NRSV] is also translated ‘except it be for’ [KJV], ‘except on the ground of’ [NTC], ‘not on the basis of’ [CC], ‘for any reason/cause other than’ [GW, REB, TEV], ‘if (your wife) has not … you must not’ [CEV], ‘unless (his wife has been unfaithful)’ [NLT], ‘the only reason is if’ [NCV]. This preposition indicates cause or reason as the basis for a subsequent event or state [LN].

David Abernathy, An Exegetical Summary of Matthew 17–28, Exegetical Summaries (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2015), 59.

-----

except for unchastity. This same exception is found at 5:32, but is not found elsewhere in the NT. Commentators have generally taken the position that these words are not part of the saying as originally uttered, but are a community regulation later inserted into the text. It certainly appears to be inconsistent with vs. 6. The precise meaning of unchastity is uncertain.
[and he who marries her …]. These words are not to be found in all the best manuscripts, and may have been added in the light of Mark 10:12.


W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, vol. 26, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven;  London: Yale University Press, 2008), 226.

-----

9. The main point of the passage is given in an apodictic statement which resembles 5:32.
λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι. This is more solemn than Mk 10:11 (‘and he says to them’) and recalls 5:32 (‘But I say to you that’).
ὅς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται.67 So Mk 10:11, without μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ and with ἐπʼ αὐτήν68 at the end. Mt 5:32 begins with πᾶς ὁ (cf. 5:32, 28; Lk 16:18) and so employs the participle. It also differs in having παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας (cf. MT Deut 24:1), in referring to the divorced wife being made to commit adultery (through remarriage), and in not saying that a divorced man commits adultery by marrying ἄλλην, ‘another’. The last difference is the most interesting. ἄλλην seems to refer to any woman, whether married or not. But in Jewish law adultery traditionally involved another man’s wife (Deut 22:22; Lev 18:20). So here the definition has been expanded.69
μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ is the equivalent of παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας. For discussion see on 5:32; also Allison, ‘Divorce’ (v), and Bockmuehl (v). The clause is redactional, its meaning probably not ‘except in the case of incest’ but ‘except for adultery’70—an interpretation which justifies the envisaged action of the ‘just’ Joseph in 1:18–25. Compare Sigal (v), pp. 94–102, who notes that in Jer 3:1–10 God gives Israel a bill of divorce for adultery and that Matthew’s interpretation of Deut 24:1 nicely harmonizes with this.71 In our Gospel divorce is not adultery only when the marriage bond has already been broken by unfaithfulness.

Nineham, Mark, pp. 261–2, raises the possibility that in Mark and Luke ‘cases of adultery are entirely excluded from the argument on the grounds that they were already dealt with in Deut 22:22 … [so that] the exceptive clauses in Matthew … correctly interpret Jesus’ meaning. It is true that, according to Abrahams’ careful study (in Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, 1 Chapter 9), “the death penalty was neither pronounced nor inflicted for adultery in the time of Christ,” but we know that soon after the time of Christ Jewish husbands were compelled to divorce their wives in cases of unchastity, and so the possibility cannot be altogether ruled out that already in Christ’s day divorce on this ground would have seemed so obviously right as to be beyond discussion altogether. Jesus may even have held that in such circumstances the adulterous wife had already sundered the unity and so no question of “putting asunder” (v. 9) arose.’ However matters may have been with Jesus, the same reflections may help us with Matthew. Perhaps in the author’s Jewish community divorce for adultery was imperative, so that the exception clause was a concession to this fact.72 Bockmuehl shows that many in first-century Judaism would have thought divorce for adultery unavoidable.73

μοιχᾶται harks back to the seventh commandment: ‘You shall not commit adultery’ (LXX Exod 20:14: οὐ μοιχεύσεις). It is presupposed that the decalogue must not be broken.
The problem of whether 19:9 allows remarriage for the innocent party (so traditionally most Protestants74) cannot, as Augustine conceded (De fide et op. 19), finally be answered.75 See 1, p. 529, and Carter (v), who returns a negative answer. Does μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ qualify only the first verb (ἀπολύσῃ; so Heth (v) and Wenham (v)) or both verbs (also γαμήσῃ)? Grammatical reflections cannot decide. Patristic opinion,76 burdened by a less than enthusiastic view of marriage, disallowed remarriage and so understood our text accordingly (cf. Pope Innocent 1, Ep. 6:12). The link with vv. 10–12, which have to do with sexual abstinence, has recently been thought to uphold this interpretation: the eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven are those who have separated from their spouses because of πορνεία and do not remarry. But the saying about eunuchs is not a command but a qualified recommendation: not all are given the gift (see on 5:12). So if 19:10–12 is closely associated with v. 9, it might appear that some are free to remarry. There is also the issue of whether something like the later distinction between separation (divorce a mensa et thoro) and divorce (a vinculo) would have made much sense in Matthew’s Jewish environment.77 The Jewish divorce bill contained the clause, ‘You are free to marry again.’ To obtain a divorce was to obtain permission to remarry. In line with this, 5:32 simply assumes that divorce leads to remarriage (to divorce a wife is to make her commit adultery—because she will take another spouse).78
καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχᾶται.79 If this be the correct text, Matthew now leaves Mark in favour of something very close to 5:32b (cf. Lk 16:18). This saves space and enhances the parallelism between 5:32 and 19:9 as well as between 19:9a and 9b. Furthermore, Matthew’s version, in harmony with those Jewish sources which forbid a woman to divorce her husband, does not take up Mark’s condemnation of such a one: such action is not envisaged (cf. 1, p. 527).

19:9 indirectly condemns polygyny. If it were permitted to have two wives at once, then it would not matter whether a first wife had been lawfully divorced or not before taking a second wife. But how controversial Jesus’ dismissal of polygyny would have been is unknown. While the OT does not condemn the practices80 and while rabbinic legislation covers it (SB 3, pp. 647–50), by the first century monogamy appears to have been the widespread norm, polygyny the very rare exception.81 It seems that the Essenes, despite Scripture, even prohibited it altogether (CD 4:20; Fitzmyer (v)). It should in any case be remarked that support for monogamy and the idea of conjugal fidelity was, before and after Matthew’s time, on the increase in the upper classes of the Graeco-Roman world.82
There are five different early versions of Jesus’ prohibition of divorce: 1 Cor 7:10–11; Lk 16:18 (Q); Mk 10:11–12; Mt 5:31–2; 19:9. According to Jeremias, Theology, p. 225, the stages of development through which the logion passed were these: ‘from Mt 5:32, without the qualification παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας (prohibition of the discharge of the wife and the wife’s remarriage), via 1 Cor 7:10f. (prohibition of divorce by the wife added in view of the Hellenistic legal situation) and vv. 12–16 (exception made for mixed marriages), Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11f. (prohibition of remarriage for both parties) to Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 (the exception πορνεία).’ Mt 5:32 is not, however, the place to start because it is Matthew’s combination of Mark and Q (1, pp. 528–30). The origin of the tradition must instead lie in Mt 5:32a (if it reproduces Q) or in the agreement between Lk 16:18 and Mk 10:11: everyone/whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery (cf. 1 Cor 7:11). The teaching was then modified in two ways, by the prohibition of a wife divorcing her husband and marrying another on the one hand83 (1 Cor 7:10; Mk 10:12; contrast Lk 16:18; Mt 5:32; 19:9) and by the prohibition of marrying a divorced person on the other (Lk 16:18; Mt 5:32b; contrast 1 Cor 7:10–11; Mk 10:11–12).84 Finally, two exceptions were added to the rule: it does not cover mixed marriages (1 Cor 7:10–11) and it does not cover adultery (Mt 5:32; 19:9).85
The ruling against divorce should be assigned to Jesus. It has multiple attestation (Mark, Q, Paul), its radicality is characteristic, and, as the history of the tradition shows, the church constantly found the ruling in need of clarification and qualification. For what Jesus probably meant see 1, p. 532, and Harvey, ‘Genesis’ (v).


W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 3, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 15–19.

-----

Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity is almost word-for-word identical with the equivalent part of 5:32. The only difference is that whoever divorces translates a subjunctive, while “if a man divorces” of 5:32 translates a participle. For important comments concerning the exegesis and translation of this part of the verse see 5:32.

There are several ways translators have found to render this verse; for example, “If a man divorces his wife, unless she had been unfaithful to him (or, unless the marriage was unlawful), if he gets married again (to someone else) he is committing adultery,” “Anyone who divorces his wife and then marries someone else commits adultery, unless the reason for the divorce was that his wife had been unfaithful (or, unless the reason for the divorce was that the marriage was illegal),” or “If someone gets a divorce from his wife for some reason other than that she had committed adultery (or, other than that the marriage was illegal), if he then marries someone else, he is committing adultery.”

Unchastity or “unfaithful,” if that is the interpretation chosen, will be expressed in some languages as “slept with another man.”

There are two textual problems in this verse which need some attention: (1) After the word unchastity (TEV “unfaithfulness”) some manuscripts add “makes her commit adultery” (see the RSV footnote). If this is an original part of the text, it means “makes her commit adultery when she marries again.” However, it is the opinion of TC-GNT that this is a later addition, introduced on the basis of 5:32. Apparently none of the modern translations include this wording. (2) At the end of the verse, some manuscripts add “and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (see the RSV footnote). Although it is possible that this statement was accidentally omitted by copyists, TC-GNT believes it more probable that the wording represents a later attempt to make the text similar to 5:32. Of the modern translations this clause is found only in Mft and NAB.


Barclay Moon Newman and Philip C. Stine, A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1992), 593.

Because of another thread which is verging on going off-course, I want to remind people here that we don't cross the line into telling people exactly what the Bible teaches (doctrine) - we simply show them the facts and how to use Logos to find those facts. That is not to say we must hide our beliefs, merely that we must show the same respect for the other 2 billion plus understandings that we wish to have shown for our own.

It is my estimate that approximately 99.9% of newish forum users have never found the forum guidelines. Here they are ... they are found at the upper right section of the initial forum page.

Phil Gons (Faithlife) said:

Please abide by the following guidelines as you interact on our forums.

1. Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc.
2. Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics. Use one of the many web forums intended for these kinds of discussions.
3. Please treat each other with the love, courtesy, respect, and kindness that you would if you were sitting in your living room together.
4. Please do not use our forums to
   • sell or give away anything or link to anything you’re selling or giving away—including Logos products
   • promote or link to competitors
   • point people to other places that sell Logos-compatible products
   • advertise yourself, your business, your ministry, your website, etc. (a tasteful link in your forum signature is acceptable)
   • post Logos Coupon Codes. If you are aware of a special promotion Logos is running online, you are welcome to link directly to the promotion.
5. Please search before posting. It’s likely that someone has already asked your question.
6. Please help others follow these guidelines. If the problems continue after you’ve given a gentle reminder of these expectations, please click “Report Abuse” under “More” or send an email to forums@logos.com.

Thank you for your cooperation. Enjoy discussing and learning about Logos Bible Software.