English Standard Version

[Nan_S]

Wow, Nan, now THIS is “scholar”-ly, in that it’s something that comes up very frequently with friends and relatives who divorce and re-marry.

Another interpretation is that sexual relations within an illicit marriage (any of those forbidden by the consanguinity restrictions spelled out in Leviticus) contracted by certain Jews were considered “fornication” rather than “marital unfaithfulness” (brilliant rendering, NIV; NOT!). Douay-Rheims uses fornication, as does the Nova Vulgata still.

Again, Nan, great post!

*** blush *** You give me too much credit. I’m simply repeating something about Mt 5:32 that I got from another source.

Of course, an illicit or unlawful marriage (as the NJB and NAB describe it) is really no marriage at all, and the parties to that pseudo-marriage are really still single, so “fornication” (as the KJV and D-R say) is the correct term in their case.

Even though the RSV renders the term “unchastity” it footnotes the word, describing it the way you just did: “The Greek word used here appears to refer to marriages that were not legally marriages because they were either within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity or contracted with a Gentile.”

I notice that for all the word-smithing done in the evangelical bibles, none of them have the temerity to render Mt 5:32 as "Anyone who divorces his wife, except for “adultery”, causes her to become an adulteress… The awkwardly vague terms evangelical bibles use result in people interpreting the verse as an adultery exception, but they never actually come out and say it.

Coming full circle, however, the prescribed punishment for an adulterer/adulteress was to be stoned to death, which rendered the innocent spouse single again and available to remarry… No divorce needed…

Nan

 

[Manfred]

*** blush *** You give me too much credit. I’m simply repeating something about Mt 5:32 that I got from another source.

Of course, an illicit or unlawful marriage (as the NJB and NAB describe it) is really no marriage at all, and the parties to that pseudo-marriage are really still single, so “fornication” (as the KJV and D-R say) is the correct term in their case.

Even though the RSV renders the term “unchastity” it footnotes the word, describing it the way you just did: “The Greek word used here appears to refer to marriages that were not legally marriages because they were either within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity or contracted with a Gentile.”

I notice that for all the word-smithing done in the evangelical bibles, none of them have the temerity to render Mt 5:32 as "Anyone who divorces his wife, except for “adultery”, causes her to become an adulteress… The awkwardly vague terms evangelical bibles use result in people interpreting the verse as an adultery exception, but they never actually come out and say it.

Coming full circle, however, the prescribed punishment for an adulterer/adulteress was to be stoned to death, which rendered the innocent spouse single again and available to remarry… No divorce needed…

Nan

Nan,

While I was aware of the illicit union angle, you were the first to frame this within the context of Mary and Joseph; that I found refreshing!

And, yes, there ARE evangelicals who believe that adultery on the part of either spouse justifies divorce AND remarriage. I believe either Karl Keating or Jimmy Akin addresssed this very faulty interpretation in a “This Rock” article some time back. (Try an archive search using “annulment” or “re-marriage”.)

 

[Nan_S]

Nan,

While I was aware of the illicit union angle, you were the first to frame this within the context of Mary and Joseph; that I found refreshing!

*** blush again *** Not the first, just one of the more recent.

Saint John the Evangelist recorded it first, when the Pharisees and other Jews who formerly believed in Jesus tried to discredit Him by accusing Him of being a child of sin:

Jn 8:39b-42 …Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do what Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did. You do what your father did.” They said to him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God." Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.”

By the way, Jn 8:41 is rendered in the ESV as “We were not born of sexual immorality”, and in the NIV as “We are not illegitimate children” and in the RSV and KJV as “We were not born of fornication.” The Greek word being translated, porneia, literally means “fornication.”

And, yes, there ARE evangelicals who believe that adultery on the part of either spouse justifies divorce AND remarriage. I believe either Karl Keating or Jimmy Akin addresssed this very faulty interpretation in a “This Rock” article some time back. (Try an archive search using “annulment” or “re-marriage”.)

That’s the whole point from the earlier posts on this thread. These modern “quality evangelical bibles” fuzz up the verses to make holy scripture a justification for modern social liberalism. Note that the KJV doesn’t have the problem mistranslating “porneia.”

–Nan

 

[lak611]

*** blush again *** Not the first, just one of the more recent.

Saint John the Evangelist recorded it first, when the Pharisees and other Jews who formerly believed in Jesus tried to discredit Him by accusing Him of being a child of sin:

Jn 8:39b-42 …Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do what Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did. You do what your father did.” They said to him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God." Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.”

By the way, Jn 8:41 is rendered in the ESV as “We were not born of sexual immorality”, and in the NIV as “We are not illegitimate children” and in the RSV and KJV as “We were not born of fornication.” The Greek word being translated, porneia, literally means “fornication.”

That’s the whole point from the earlier posts on this thread. These modern “quality evangelical bibles” fuzz up the verses to make holy scripture a justification for modern social liberalism. Note that the KJV doesn’t have the problem mistranslating “porneia.”

–Nan

The Douay-Rheims says “We have not been born of fornication”. The NAB says “We are not illegitimate”. So the modern Catholic translations are not necessarily any more accurate than the modern Protestant translations in some cases. Both the Douay-Rheims and the KJV get this verse right.

 

[Nan_S]

The Douay-Rheims says “We have not been born of fornication”. The NAB says “We are not illegitimate”. So the modern Catholic translations are not necessarily any more accurate than the modern Protestant translations in some cases. Both the Douay-Rheims and the KJV get this verse right.

The NAB’s Jn 8:41 could have been worded better, but it is still effective as a “proof” text that Mt 5:32 and Mt 19:9 refer to invalid marriages or pre-marital sex, rather than to the vaguely term “sexual immorality” or to “marital unfaithfulness.” Children conceived and born during a marriage are considered legitimate, unless conclusively proven otherwise.

Nan

 

[Manfred]

…the modern Catholic translations are not necessarily any more accurate than the modern Protestant translations in some cases.

Well, duh.

This is a nicely-worded “mission statement” for those of us dubbed “arrogant” enough to critique the work of “modern biblical scholars”.