Question: I am investigating the claim, made by Leslie McFall's [Erasmus and Divorce in Matthew 19:9](http://www.academia.edu/10729554/Erasmus_and_Divorce_in_Matthew_19_9), that in fact Erasmus(1466-1536), a Catholic priest, in his construction of a Greek New Testament, altered the text of Matthew 19:9 to allow the fornication exception. He asserts the text should read:

> 
> "Now I say to you that whoever shall dismiss his wife—not even over fornication—and shall marry another, he commits adultery. And the one who marries one divorced commits adultery."
> 
> 
> 

I have read various rebuttals which to my mind are compelling, such as several ante-nicene writers also have the Erasmus' "traditional" understanding (divorce is permitted following adultery). However, I am far from being a Greek scholar, theologian, historian or anyone with any particular knowledge other than what I've been able to glean on the web - mainly through blog posts.

So my question is: Does/has McFall's theory stood up to academic critique?

Answer: 
John Chrysostom, a 4th century Byzantine Greek Church hierarch quotes this verse in his [62nd Homily on Matthew](https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LIX.html):

> 
> *Whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication, and marry another, committeth adultery.*
> 
> 
> 

This would have been over a millennium prior to Erasmus.
I, also, have read Mr. McFall's writings on the subject, as well as several of the writings of the early Church fathers and other writings on the subject. Here is my understanding from what I've learned:

I believe the reading and connotation, in the original Greek, of this clause - as per Mr. McFall- was "such as"; rather than the word "except". 
In the writings of the early Church Fathers, my understanding is that the majority did view marriage as permanent. 
Further readings offered the explanation that the Jews would have clearly understood Jesus' meaning, due to their own law: That the only "exception" was if one of the parties slept with another party, (which was adultery), during the Betrothal period. Betrothal was far more than the "engagement" period of today. It could only be dissolved by divorce. Bottom line according to this: Jesus was telling them the only time divorce was justified was in the case just described.