Question about Matthew 19:9's "exception clause"

[Tiny_Montgomery]

The so-called “exception clause” in Matthew 19:9 is usually translated “except for immorality.”

But I have seen the case made that this Greek passage is better understood as a set-aside, as explained here:

English translations almost always render the Greek MN in Matt 19:9 as “except,” in spite of the fact it is never translated like that anywhere else in the NT, except when it is accompanied by other particles, such as EI or EAN. In over 500 occurrences of the negative MN without either particle (as in Mt 19:9) the rendering is “not”.

…There is no good reason why MN in MN EPI PORNEIA should not be translated by its normal “not.” Literally, the translation would be something like, “not for immorality,” or “setting aside the matter of porneia,” the idea being to exclude porneia or immorality from consideration at this point…

I do not have expertise in Greek to verify the accuracy of this argument, and in particular the contention that “MN without either particle (as in Mt 19:9)” is always translated “not”.

For those who know Greek, does this argument withstand scrutiny?

 

[Verbum]

Hi Tiny,

That word is spelled mu, eta. In Greek capital letters,it looks like this : MH. The translitteration is “mê”.

Your analysis is correct. Looking at my Greek and Latin New Testament, I note that our teacher made us change “nisi” (except), in the Latin to “non” (not).

My French Bible de Jérusalem has a long note on this. It says, among other things, that the question of infidelity, excluded here, is covered in 1Cor 7, 10-11 where St.Paul allows separation without remarriage.

Verbum

 

[Mystophilus]

I do not have expertise in Greek to verify the accuracy of this argument, and in particular the contention that “MN without either particle (as in Mt 19:9)” is always translated “not”.

For those who know Greek, does this argument withstand scrutiny?

It does linguistically, but not necessarily textually.

ει is a hypothetical particle; μη is a negative particle. Put them together and you have ‘if not’, or ‘unless’.

However, the Textus Receptus and the Codex Sinaiticus both have ει in that verse.

Thus, while the other manuscripts do say, “Not for fornication”, the TR and S say, “Except for fornication”. Sorry to have complicated things further, but this is the joy of textual-historical study: nothing is ever simple.

 

[Tiny_Montgomery]

thank you verbum and mystophilus.

further to mystophilus’ observation:

putting aside, for the moment, the question of interpretation, as such, would you say that the following statement is true, or false?

In over 500 occurrences of the negative MN without either particle (as in Mt 19:9) the rendering is “not”.

 

[copland]

MH EPI should be translated as except due to the basic principles of syntax. Kind of like OU MH, if translated literally it would say “no not.” But it is correctly translated as “surely not.”

 

[Tiny_Montgomery]

MH EPI should be translated as except due to the basic principles of syntax…

i don’t think the syntax argument is conclusive; logically and syntaxically, it could be a set-aside, rather than an exception.

i am interested whether this statement is true or false:

In over 500 occurrences of the negative MN without either particle (as in Mt 19:9) the rendering is “not”.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I thought the exception clause really had to do with incestous marriages which weren’t valid. Is this true?

 

[Tiny_Montgomery]

Can anyone offer me any further insight on the questions asked in the first and fourth posts of this thread?

Thanks.

 

[_L]

The exception clause has to do with the way Jews would marry back in the day. Keep in mind that the gospel according to Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. Back then, when a Jewish couple decided to get married, the husband first met with his future wife’s parents and they would work out a marriage contract of sorts, where they would be considered betrothed (a formal agreement to be married), and they would wait a year for the husband to prepare the home before the marriage was actually consummated, and in the case of Matthew 19:9, if the woman was fornicating behind the back the man she was betrothed to then that would be the only grounds for the man to break off the deal and divorce the woman before the marriage officially happened in consummation.

In my opinion it is no coincidence this “exception clause” only appears in Matthew’s gospel which was written for the Jews, who had a different way of performing marriages than the gentile converts to Christianity. In Marks gospel the “exception clause” is nowhere to be found, and due to his insistence on explaining Jewish customs it is widely believed he was writing to a gentile audience and they did not follow the Jewish marriage tradition so that exception clause would not apply to the way they did things or the way we do things now.

 

[John7]

However, the Textus Receptus and the Codex Sinaiticus both have ει in that verse.

Receptus > Yes
Sinaiticus > No

Sinaiticus just reads ‘mh epi’

its in the left-most column about 1/3 way down at the Sinaiticus site
codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?=Submit%20Query&book=33&chapter=19&lid=en&side=r&verse=9&zoomSlider=0

Thus, while the other manuscripts do say, “Not for fornication”, the TR and S say, “Except for fornication”.

only TR

Sorry to have complicated things further, but this is the joy of textual-historical study: nothing is ever simple

found the following at morechristlike.com/except-for-fornication-clause-of-matthew-19-9/

"Erasmus did the same thing with the Greek text in Mat 19:9 when he with no support added εἰ (if) before μὴ (not), thus changing the text to read from “not” to “except” thus making a clause that could be seen as parenthetical clause into a exceptional clause that has been used to make the exception for remarriage in the case of marriage unfaithfulness.

There is not one known manuscript that supports this besides a 1500’s manuscript (MS69) that has this reading in the marginal and this marginal reading is in non-scribe writing and some hold it is post-Erasmus. "

Here is MS69 check out the insertion of ‘ei’ in the margin (at the right of the MS, at bottom of the page)
morechristlike.com/codex-leicester-manuscript-69/

 

[John7]

i don’t think the syntax argument is conclusive; logically and syntaxically, it could be a set-aside, rather than an exception.

i am interested whether this statement is true or false:

In over 500 occurrences of the negative MN without either particle (as in Mt 19:9) the rendering is “not”.

Yea, I think ‘mh’ without ‘ei’ or ‘ou’ preceding can always be translated somehow as no/not. Sometimes with the imperative it has the idea of ‘stop’ as in John 2:16 μὴ ποιεῖτε τὸν οἶκον τοῦ πατρός μου οἶκον ἐμπορίου = “Stop making my Father’s house a house of merchandise” but even this can be translated as ‘do not make’.

I can’t think of any exceptions off the top of my head…

 

[Tiny_Montgomery]

THANK YOU to John 7 for his detailed comments.

That is exactly the kind of information I needed.

Thanks also to L.

Much appreciated!

 

[ryanoneil]

i don’t think the syntax argument is conclusive; logically and syntaxically, it could be a set-aside, rather than an exception.

I don’t know if this is the “set-aside” you were thinking of, but there is a “no comment” view. According to this position, Jesus sets aside Jewish debates over the grounds for divorce in the Old Covenant (Deut 24). Because Jesus is revoking the OT concession on divorce, he brackets the whole issue and sets it off to the side as irrelevant. Thus, “except for unchastity” means **“regardless of the OT grounds for divorce”. **Jesus refuses to even comment on Deut 24:1. To do so would blunt the force of his own teaching, since he is not clarifying or reaffirming Moses’ permission, he is abolishing it.

There are other views of course, but I wondered if this is what you are refering to.