Scripture translation question

[Mystic]

Hello all,

I have been reading through another post here and came across a discussion (or rather advice someone was giving) on marriage and divorce. It was said that a person cannot divorce even in the case where the other spouse has been unfaithul. It automatically made me think of a verse where Jesus was teaching on the issue of marriage and divorce. My translation of the Bible (Russian Orthodox), Matthew 19:9 literally says this: “Whoever divorces a woman NOT FOR THE REASON OF ADULTERY and marries another, commits adultery himself, and the one who marries a divorced woman commits adultery”. So I went for the English version of this verse in the Catholic translations, and here is what I found:
New American Bible: “I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (UNLESS THE MARRIAGE IS UNLAWFUL) and marries another commits adultery.”
The Jerusalem Bible: "Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife - I AM NOT SPEAKING OF AN ILLICIT MARRIAGE - and marries another, is guilty of adultery.’

Well, I did not stop there and checked the Greek tranlsation in which the New Testament was originally written, here is what it says (in the English transliteration): “legw de umin oti os an apolush thn gunaika autou mh epi PORNEIA kai gamhsh allhn moicatai.” Then I also went to the Latin Vulgate Bible to check the same verse, here is what it says there: “dico autem vobis quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam nisi ob FORNICATIONEM et aliam duxerit moechatur et qui dimissam duxerit moechatur”.

I do not profess to be a great scholar, but even those who did not take any Greek or Latin classes can recognize the words PORNEA and FORNICATION (Greek and Latin respectively), and see that you have to stretch it waaaay too far to get the current Catholic tranlsations of UNLAWFUL or ILLICIT MARRIAGE. The word “marriage” is not even used there in the original text, and “pornea” or “fornication” are words used in the Bible to describe sexual sins (sex outside of marriage, that is adultury or premarital sex would fall under this category). So my Russian translation seems to convey the original meaning just right: “Whoever divorces a woman NOT FOR THE REASON OF HAVING SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE (in other words, adultery), commits adultery himself.”

This seems important to me because, if translated right, it means that Jesus gives the permission to divorce if the spouse has been unfaithful. Can someone comment on that?

Thank you.

 

[Della]

No matter how it is translated, Our Lord was not saying that a man may divorce his wife because she committed adultery and then take another wife. People read that into it, but it’s simply not there.

The exception is being too closely related or having some other impediment to the marriage in the first place, not the behavior of one’s spouse.

 

[mercygate]

Mitch Pacwa discusses this and says that “porneia” means wrongful marriage (e.g., incest).

 

[Mystic]

Mitch Pacwa discusses this and says that “porneia” means wrongful marriage (e.g., incest).

Well, first I think if the word “marriage” was not used by Jesus, it should not be added into the translation, but the word “fornication” should be there just as He said it. Also, if I say “fornication” today, the first thought that will come to your mind will not be “incest” but rather “adultery” or “premarital sex”, and I assume that would have been the case in Jesus’ time when He was saying it to His hearers, however, He did not clarify it or go into any more details to make sure people understand it as “incest”. And on what basis out of so many more common meanings of this word (more common - I base this on other passages of Scripture where this word is used, and yes, in one case in 1 Corinthians 5:1 it is used in the meaning of “incest”, but it is specifically explained there, and too, it is not talking about marriage relations there but rather sexual relations OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE, and therefore called “fornication”), why all of a sudden in this context it is interpreted as “incest”? You have to stretch it to come to this conclusion. The more apparent meaning that His hearers got out of it is that the wife was adulterous. I have checked more than one Russian translation of this done based on the original Greek text, and all of them give the obvious meaning of this verse - unless the wife has been adulterous. I have no reason to not trust it especially after checking with the Greek and Latin versions. The way it is translated in the Catholic translations is not Jesus exact words but the Catholic understanding of His words, and I think it would be more honest to put it exactly as He put it. Why go around?

 

[mercygate]

Well, first I think if the word “marriage” was not used by Jesus, it should not be added into the translation, but the word “fornication” should be there just as He said it. Also, if I say “fornication” today, the first thought that will come to your mind will not be “incest” but rather “adultery” or “premarital sex”, and I assume that would have been the case in Jesus’ time when He was saying it to His hearers, however, He did not clarify it or go into any more details to make sure people understand it as “incest”. And on what basis out of so many more common meanings of this word (more common - I base this on other passages of Scripture where this word is used, and yes, in one case in 1 Corinthians 5:1 it is used in the meaning of “incest”, but it is specifically explained there, and too, it is not talking about marriage relations there but rather sexual relations OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE, and therefore called “fornication”), why all of a sudden in this context it is interpreted as “incest”? You have to stretch it to come to this conclusion. The more apparent meaning that His hearers got out of it is that the wife was adulterous. I have checked more than one Russian translation of this done based on the original Greek text, and all of them give the obvious meaning of this verse - unless the wife has been adulterous. I have no reason to not trust it especially after checking with the Greek and Latin versions. The way it is translated in the Catholic translations is not Jesus exact words but the Catholic understanding of His words, and I think it would be more honest to put it exactly as He put it. Why go around?

You did not see my indication “e.g.” The translation does not *say *incest. Are you sure of the first century meaning of porneia? I’m not in the hunt for this one as I merely have reported Fr. Pacwa’s explication. His Greek is *a *lot better than mine.

 

[BlestOne]

When I took Adventures in Matthew Bible Study, Jeff Cavins said the same thing about Pornea… that it was meaning incestuous or that the man and wife were too closely related.

 

[Todd_Easton]

According to my Stong’s Greek Lexicon, porneia has a wide range of meanings:

1. illicit sexual intercouse:
   
   a. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals, etc.
   b. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Leviticus 18.
   c. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mark 10:11.
   [*]metaph. the worship of idols:
   a. of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols.
   ​

 

[Mystic]

According to my Stong’s Greek Lexicon, porneia has a wide range of meanings:

1. illicit sexual intercouse:
   
   a. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals, etc.
   b. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Leviticus 18.
   c. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mark 10:11.
   [*]metaph. the worship of idols:
   a. of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols.
   ​

I agree with all this, but if today I said to you “there are some sexual sins in our church”, knowing that “sexual sins” comprise such a great variety of sins, would I expect you to automatically think that it is incest that is present in our church? And if you think about it honestly, would you automatically think of incest in this case? No, you would probably think of the sins that are most common in our society today, so probably premarital sex, adultery, pronography, maybe homosexuality, and the last one in the list would probably be incest. Actually, sex with animals is also a sexual sin, somehow I would not expect you to get this meaning out of my words, if I wanted it, I would have to be more specific about it.

Now, let us remember that Jesus was speaking to Jews here, not gentiles! And Jews had the law which went into great details about this issue of sex with relatives - Leviticus 18 is one proof. So incest was not that big of a problem in the Jewish society. Even if there were cases, still other sexual sins would be on top of the list if we were to make one. And here in Matthew 19:9 as well as Matthew 5:32 where Jesus is talking about marriage and divorce and says “if someone divorces his wife except for the cause of FORNICATION…”, why out of all the most common sins among Jews at that time He would put the meaning of incest there???

 

[Mystic]

Also, if we think of marriage as an agreement, any agreement always takes two. Two people of free will voluntarily agree to keep certain terms of an agreement. If I sign an agreement saying that I will pay so much per month to my landlord with the condition that he lets me live in the apartment that he owns, if for some reason he kicks me out, am I obliged to keep paying him? No, one side breaks it, the other is free. You may say it is so if it is not bound by God. Well, think of the very nature of God - He also “signs” an agreement with us. The word “testament” means “covenant”, “agreement”. And this agreement between God and us is that if we do our part, He will do His part and grant us salvation. IF WE DO OUR PART. If I say - ok, I was baptized, and that was bound in heaven that I am a christian, and now whatever I do in this life, God is still obliged to save me - well, NO. God does not have to keep his part if I do not keep mine. It has always been like this between Him and His people under the Old covenant, and it is like this now. Why is it when it comes to marriage, if one party breaks it, the other is still obliged to keep it? Jesus words about having the permission to divorce with the only condition that the spouse is unfaithful (that is, breaks the agreement) make perfect sense to me.

 

[jemfinch]

I do not profess to be a great scholar, but even those who did not take any Greek or Latin classes can recognize the words PORNEA and FORNICATION (Greek and Latin respectively), and see that you have to stretch it waaaay too far to get the current Catholic tranlsations of UNLAWFUL or ILLICIT MARRIAGE. The word “marriage” is not even used there in the original text, and “pornea” or “fornication” are words used in the Bible to describe sexual sins (sex outside of marriage, that is adultury or premarital sex would fall under this category).

Your definition of porneia is too broad. It includes illicit sexual relationships (incest, premarital sex, etc.) but is distinguished from adultery: that’s why you see a different word is used when the end of the verse says that such a man commits adultery.

You can see that Matthew clearly distinguishes between porneia and adultery (moicheai) when he uses the words right next to each other in Matthew 15:19. If porneia included the sin of adultery, he would not have said both sins separately in that verse.

Jeremy

 

[paarsurrey]

Hello all,
I have been reading through another post here and came across a discussion (or rather advice someone was giving) on marriage and divorce. It was said that a person cannot divorce even in the case where the other spouse has been unfaithul. .

Hi
I think it is not reasonable.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.
GodAllahYHWH is All-Knowing; one should invariably give Claim and Reason on all important issues from one’s Revealed Book; one shouldn’t try putting one’s own words into God’s mouth.

 

[mercygate]

Your definition of porneia is too broad. It includes illicit sexual relationships (incest, premarital sex, etc.) but is distinguished from adultery: that’s why you see a different word is used when the end of the verse says that such a man commits adultery.

You can see that Matthew clearly distinguishes between porneia and adultery (moicheai) when he uses the words right next to each other in Matthew 15:19. If porneia included the sin of adultery, he would not have said both sins separately in that verse.

Jeremy

I’m glad you brought that up. I had moicheai somewhere in the detritus of my brain but was too lazy to dredge it up.

Also, with reference to our friend mystic’s objection to the Catholic position on divorce, to my mind, when Jesus states that he has come to “fulfill” the law, the “fulfillment” is often much stronger and tougher than the original.

 

[Della]

I agree with all this, but if today I said to you “there are some sexual sins in our church”, knowing that “sexual sins” comprise such a great variety of sins, would I expect you to automatically think that it is incest that is present in our church? And if you think about it honestly, would you automatically think of incest in this case? No, you would probably think of the sins that are most common in our society today, so probably premarital sex, adultery, pronography, maybe homosexuality, and the last one in the list would probably be incest. Actually, sex with animals is also a sexual sin, somehow I would not expect you to get this meaning out of my words, if I wanted it, I would have to be more specific about it.

Now, let us remember that Jesus was speaking to Jews here, not gentiles! And Jews had the law which went into great details about this issue of sex with relatives - Leviticus 18 is one proof. So incest was not that big of a problem in the Jewish society. Even if there were cases, still other sexual sins would be on top of the list if we were to make one. And here in Matthew 19:9 as well as Matthew 5:32 where Jesus is talking about marriage and divorce and says “if someone divorces his wife except for the cause of FORNICATION…”, why out of all the most common sins among Jews at that time He would put the meaning of incest there???

It is precisely because Jesus was talking to the Jews that he dismissed for consideration that which they all held as sinful–incest. It was a given, so Jesus put it outside the issue.

 

[Mystic]

Your definition of porneia is too broad. It includes illicit sexual relationships (incest, premarital sex, etc.) but is distinguished from adultery: that’s why you see a different word is used when the end of the verse says that such a man commits adultery.

You can see that Matthew clearly distinguishes between porneia and adultery (moicheai) when he uses the words right next to each other in Matthew 15:19. If porneia included the sin of adultery, he would not have said both sins separately in that verse.

Jeremy

Check this verse: John 8:41 “umeis poieite ta erga tou patros umwn eipan | | [oun] | autw hmeis ek porneias | ouk egennhqhmen | ou gegennhmeqa | ena patera ecomen ton qeon” (You are doing your father’s work. They replied, ‘We were not born illegitimate, the only father we have is God.’ - “illegitemate” meaning “outside of marriage” or “out of sexual relations outside of marriage”). Again, this word PORNEIAS is used, which definitely includes the sin of adultery. It is just porneia word is more broad in meaning compared to moicheai, and includes any type of illicit sexual relationship (sex with someone who is not a person’s spouse whether before or after she is married).

 

[Mystic]

Also, with reference to our friend mystic’s objection to the Catholic position on divorce, to my mind, when Jesus states that he has come to “fulfill” the law, the “fulfillment” is often much stronger and tougher than the original.

I agree 100%. That is why Jesus says (Mtt. 5:31-32) “It was also said, `Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ (that’s the original). But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (that’s the stronger and tougher fulfillment of it).

P.S. I used the Revised Standard Version translation here.

 

[Spirithound]

Well, first I think if the word “marriage” was not used by Jesus, it should not be added into the translation, but the word “fornication” should be there just as He said it.

But Jesus didn’t say “fornication” He said…something in Aramaic. You have just encountered one of the problems with translation, and that is that languages often don’t have a one-to-one translation for any given term. So if a translator writes a phrase that includes “marriage” to translate “porneia”, then he must believe that they are equivalent phrases.

Also, if I say “fornication” today, the first thought that will come to your mind will not be “incest” but rather “adultery” or “premarital sex”, and I assume that would have been the case in Jesus’ time when He was saying it to His hearers, however, He did not clarify it or go into any more details to make sure people understand it as “incest”.

If you say “fornication” today, then your observations are correct. However, adultery is actually outside of the technical definition of fornication, which is sex between two single people. Adultery is where one or more of the participants is married. Your assumption here is rather dangerous, moreso than a typical assumption because in order to make it, you are absolutely equating several terms across at least 3 languages on the basis of etymology.

So, in the passage at hand, I don’t think that incest is necessarily implied, but rather it means that there is something wrong with the marriage, so much so that it is not actually a marriage. One of the possibilities contained therein is incest.

And on what basis out of so many more common meanings of this word (more common - I base this on other passages of Scripture where this word is used, and yes, in one case in 1 Corinthians 5:1 it is used in the meaning of “incest”, but it is specifically explained there, and too, it is not talking about marriage relations there but rather sexual relations OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE, and therefore called “fornication”), why all of a sudden in this context it is interpreted as “incest”? You have to stretch it to come to this conclusion. The more apparent meaning that His hearers got out of it is that the wife was adulterous. I have checked more than one Russian translation of this done based on the original Greek text, and all of them give the obvious meaning of this verse - unless the wife has been adulterous. I have no reason to not trust it especially after checking with the Greek and Latin versions. The way it is translated in the Catholic translations is not Jesus exact words but the Catholic understanding of His words, and I think it would be more honest to put it exactly as He put it. Why go around?

I think i have addressed this above…let me know if i haven’t.

 

[Ilroy]

To get a more accurate answer to your question, you need to get the original wording which was in Aramaic. Matthew was writing this Gospel for his countrymen and as such, wrote in their native tongue. You can sit there and pick and choose which definition of the Greek you feel like, but that doesn’t make your personal interpretation right.

As was pointed out by Della earlier, even if He was saying a bill of divorce could be given, He did NOT say the two were free to marry anyone else. In fact, in the verses you are siting, Christ says he who marries her who was put away commits audultery.

 

[runandsew]

**Matthew 19:10 **
The disciples said to him, “If that’s the way it is between a husband and wife, it is better not to get married.”

If Jesus was saying that you could get remarried after adultery, then the response from his disciples doesn’t make sense to me.

When Jesus is speaking about pornea, he is referring back to the book of Leviticus.

Lev 18:6-16
" 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.
" 'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
" 'Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.
" 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
" 'Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.
" 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
" 'Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.
" 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.
" 'Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
" 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.
" 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

All things things would make a marriage unlawful.

 

[Mystic]

But Jesus didn’t say “fornication” He said…something in Aramaic. You have just encountered one of the problems with translation, and that is that languages often don’t have a one-to-one translation for any given term. So if a translator writes a phrase that includes “marriage” to translate “porneia”, then he must believe that they are equivalent phrases.

Well, it is true that Jesus actually said it in Aramaic, but the person who translated it into Greek (and provided that Greek was still widely spoken at that time - that’s the reason for translating it into Greek in the first place to make it more universal - the person who did the translation was quite proficient in it) used the word that he considered most close to the original Aramaic word. And if you think about it - here is the case where Jesus addressed a crowd of his countrymen, and if the translator, most likely a Jew himself, had been one of them, that is how he would have understood Jesus’ words, and that is how he translated it into Greek. If the translator misunderstood it, then Jesus’ heareres could have too, and I doubt it that Jesus would have allowed for such situation to happen, He would have definitely made Himself more clear there.

If you say “fornication” today, then your observations are correct. However, adultery is actually outside of the technical definition of fornication, which is sex between two single people. Adultery is where one or more of the participants is married. Your assumption here is rather dangerous, moreso than a typical assumption because in order to make it, you are absolutely equating several terms across at least 3 languages on the basis of etymology.

Well, although English is a learned language for me, I check different authoritative sources to get the right understanding:

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition defines “fornication” simply as: “Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.”

A Dictionary of modern American Usage, defines “fornication” to refer to sexual intercourse by two unmarried persons, or by one unmarried person with a married person.

Here is where I get the idea that fornication can include adultery.

 

[Mystic]

**Matthew 19:10 **
The disciples said to him, “If that’s the way it is between a husband and wife, it is better not to get married.”

If Jesus was saying that you could get remarried after adultery, then the response from his disciples doesn’t make sense to me.

Well, it does make sense since whereas before a man could divorce his wife simply because he got tired of her, or his passion for her died, or she could not have more children for him, or he found someone else more attractive, etc etc, now Jesus is saying “This is it, guys. You marry a woman, and it is for life!” (Unless it is the wife that chooses to destroy the marriage).

When Jesus is speaking about pornea, he is referring back to the book of Leviticus.

Lev 18:6-16
" 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.
" 'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
" 'Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.
" 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
" 'Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.
" 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
" 'Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.
" 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.
" 'Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
" 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.
" 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

All things things would make a marriage unlawful.

Well, I do not see where you get this assumption that this is exactly what He means here. With the same success I can say that He really meant adultery here, and you know there are multiple verses in the OT against the sin of adultery. Jesus Himself did not make that allusion, by saying that He meant exactly this we put OUR DESIRED MEANING into His words.

And too, I think I mentioned it already, Leviticus is talking about unlawful sexual relations. Jews (who were Jesus’ audience) knew those laws. And I can assume such incestous relations could happen in the Jewish society occasionally, still, it would probably be more of a “taken over by passion” thing. Jesus is talking about divorce - that is when people ARE OFFICIALLY MARRIED (according to all of the Jewish traditions and requirements of the time), and then separate/divorce. Honestly, do you think it is very much likely that an official marriage (which is not something secret, but known and open to the public) could have taken place in the Jewish society which had known the law (Leviticus which you mentioned)? And you know Jews - they took pride in their origin and kept their genealogies as something sacred, held onto them, kept the records. How easy would it be for two people who are related to each other to hide their ancestries and somehow get married publicly and live together in the Jewish community? Why would Jesus all of a sudden talk about incestous MARRIAGES (not just RELATIONS - note the difference) as if it was something common among them? I think Jesus’ listeners did not even have this idea in their mind when they heard Jesus words.