Did Lord Jesus say:"whoso marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adultery"?

[javid]

Matthew19:9:

KJV:
And I say vnto you, Whosoeuer 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.

NIV:
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.

This sentence: “And whoso marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adultery” We have it in some vertions like KJV and we do not have it in some vertions like NIV.

Did Matthew realy wrote it in his Gosple or not?

 

[Church_Militant]

Douay-Rheims Bible reads: [9] And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Did Matthew realy wrote it in his Gosple or not?

In the Greek text, Matthew refers to the Greek word “pornea” (the root of our modern English word pornography). The Greek word refers to sexual deviancy, and is not specific to any particular sexual offense. Different translators render “pornea” into English differently.

I once challenged the NAB (which is kinda the official English modern Catholic Bible) translation of “pornea.” Forum member “Third Day” put the smackdown on my question with his reply, which I am pleased to liberally quote here:

Take a close look at Matthew 19 and I believe it is clear that “porneia” refers to unlawful marriages which were classified as incest.

The Sadducees believed that one could divorce and remarry for any reason.
The Pharisees believe one could divorce and remarry only for limited reasons like adultery. The Pharisees asked Jesus this question:

Matt 19:3-9: “And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?’

He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder’.

Jesus is saying that He is re-instating marriage as it was from the beginning

They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.”

In the time of Jesus, Jews and pagans had illegal “marriages” which were forbidden in Leviticus 18:6-23 and Leviticus 20: 10-21 which lists all sorts of unlawful practices. The unlawful marriages were considered to be incest and were referred to by the Greek word ‘porneia’ which is translated in English as fornication or unchastity.

The New Testaments was written in Greek. What we have is an English translation.

In Acts 15: 29 the pagans that converted to Christianity were told this:
“abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchasitity. (porneia)

Sacrificing to idols and eating animals with blood still in them was forbidden in Leviticus 17 and fornication ( porneia) was forbidden in Leviticus 18 and 20.

In Greek this is what Jesus said:
Matt 19: 9 “And I say to you whoever divorces his wife, except for porneia, and marries another commits adultery.”
This is what Jesus is referring to in the Gospel of Matthew. He was referring to unlawful marriages. The Gospel of Matthew was written for a Jewish audience and that is why it is the only gospel to have the so-called exception clause.

Matthew 14:1-4 tells us about Herod who was living in porneia. John the Baptist was beheaded because he told Herod “It is not lawful for you to have her.” Herod was “married” to his niece who had been his brother’s wife ( and also his niece) which was porneia and therefore an unlawful marriage.

Paul uses the word porneia here for an illegal “marriage”.

1 Cor. 5:1 “It is actually reported that there is immorality (porneia) among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife”

Most likely this man was living with his mother. This is why Paul says “of a kind that is not found even among pagans” and later Paul says in verse 5 “ you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.”

Another reason we know there is not an exception clause is because it is not mentioned anywhere else.
Jesus gives no exception clause in Mark 10:11–12: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

Paul tells us this:
1 Cor. 7:10, “To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord that the wife should not separate from her husband, but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled from her husband, and that the husband should not divorce his wife.”

Romans 7: 2-3, “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If her husband dies she is discharged from the law. Accordingly, she shall be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive.”

Going back to Matt 19: 9 “And I say to you whoever divorces his wife, except for porneia, commits adultery”
This could be translated like this. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery. Those who are living together are committing the sin of fornication but are not in a true marriage and if they marry it will not be adultery since they were never married in the first place.”

It’s clear that the apostles did not take Jesus words to mean there was an exception clause because immediately following His words they said “If such is the case of a man with his wife it is better not to marry.”

 

[anruari]

In the Greek text, Matthew refers to the Greek word “pornea” (the root of our modern English word pornography). The Greek word refers to sexual deviancy, and is not specific to any particular sexual offense. Different translators render “pornea” into English differently.

I once challenged the NAB (which is kinda the official English modern Catholic Bible) translation of “pornea.” Forum member “Third Day” put the smackdown on my question with his reply, which I am pleased to liberally quote here:

Great post!
Very enlightening. I was about to go and look to see if this was an example of a “Coma”, or suspected addition to the original text, or as you propose an example of a poor translation.

The KJV does contain several examples of very poor translation.

 

[javid]

My Question is “Does saint matthew quote this sentence or not?” In some versions: YES and in some: NO!

Matthew19:9:

KJV:
And I say vnto you, Whosoeuer 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.

NIV:
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.

This sentence: “And whoso marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adultery” We have it in some vertions like KJV and we do not have it in some vertions like NIV.

Did Matthew realy wrote it in his Gosple or not?

 

[DavidFilmer]

My Question is “Does saint matthew quote this sentence or not?” In some versions: YES and in some: NO!

Oh, I see. It depends on which manuscript the translator was using. We have several old Biblical manuscripts, and they don’t always agree (and, in fact, they never agree). Some have text not found in others.

Modern textual sciences (using language analysis and computational models) have been effective at analyzing different manuscripts to determine which texts are probably original and which were added later (called glosses). Modern translations are the collaborative work of hundreds of scholars working around the world.

The KJV was translated centuries ago, entirely by hand, by a small group using only one manuscript. It’s not a very good translation by modern standards (though it is quite beautiful).

In this case, it appears that text was in the manuscript that King James-2’s scholars were using, but it appears to have been ruled out as a gloss by more modern scholars.

 

[javid]

Oh, I see. It depends on which manuscript the translator was using. We have several old Biblical manuscripts, and they don’t always agree (and, in fact, they never agree). Some have text not found in others.

Modern textual sciences (using language analysis and computational models) have been effective at analyzing different manuscripts to determine which texts are probably original and which were added later (called glosses). Modern translations are the collaborative work of hundreds of scholars working around the world.

The KJV was translated centuries ago, entirely by hand, by a small group using only one manuscript. It’s not a very good translation by modern standards (though it is quite beautiful).

In this case, it appears that text was in the manuscript that King James-2’s scholars were using, but it appears to have been ruled out as a gloss by more modern scholars.

So, we must accept that some distortions exist in Bible, Not?

 

[DavidFilmer]

So, we must accept that some distortions exist in Bible, Not?

We do not possess the actual original written text of any book in the Bible (either Old or New Testament). We think we might possess a couple of fragments of two or three words that were actually original, but we are not sure even of that.

What we do have is a number of manuscripts (or portions of manuscripts) that are very old, but not anywhere close to being original. These texts do not (ever) completely agree with each other. It has been an ongoing challenge for scholars to determine which portions are original.

It might seem logical to believe that more ancient scholars were better informed, because less time had elapsed between the creation of the manuscripts and their study of them. So they were “closer” to the source. Indeed (for example), crime scene evidence is usually considered more reliable if it is more “fresh.”

But, like crime scene evidence, more modern science can change the equation. DNA evidence that was unknown decades ago can be used to solve old crimes today (where genetic material has been preserved, as in the Boston Strangler case which was recently in the news).

In the field of scholarly Biblical textual science, modern technology can shed light on ancient manuscripts that was previously unknown for many centuries (this science is called “textual criticism,” although I hesitate to employ the term because “criticism” in English has a negative connotation).

Modern textual scientists feed millions of words from ancient manuscripts into computers, which analyze sentence structure, word frequency, spelling, etc. In many instances, such study can correctly p(name removed by moderator)oint, within a decade or less, things such as which year Shakespeare wrote “Othello” without looking it up on Wikipedia.

Even though Biblical manuscripts are far more ancient for us than for the handful of scholars who translated the King James Bible, modern scholars know a great deal more about those manuscripts than their more ancient counterparts. And, oddly enough, the more time that passes, the more we will know.

So we cannot ever deny that some distortions exist in any particular translation of the Bible, but we can say that modern translations are approaching a perfect translation (with the notable exception of the NIV and (of course) the NWB, which are both deliberate distortions).

 

[rcrntwo]

What about catholic with a civil marriage outside I
Of church married to a non catholic. This marriage not recognized in Catholic Church so does this scripture apply

 

[jmcrae]

What about catholic with a civil marriage outside I
Of church married to a non catholic. This marriage not recognized in Catholic Church so does this scripture apply

Yes; it is an unlawful marriage.

If they get divorced, the Marriage Tribunal will find that they were not married lawfully, and will grant a Declaration of Nullity.

If they want to receive the Sacraments of Jesus Christ in the Church, and they want to be married, then they need to apply for a Convalidation of Marriage, which entails many of the same steps as marriage preparation.