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 have checked out the few manuscripts supposedly used by Erasmus. (except for one which was inaccessible) None of them had "εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ". A few had "μὴ ἐπὶ". So why did he choose an expression found in none of his manuscripts? To match his "side by side" Latin translation. (Erasmus was primarily interested in the Latin translation and was keen to reconcile the Greek and Latin)

I'm entirely a novice when it comes to Greek but it seems clear that "εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ" translates as an EXCEPTION whereas "μὴ ἐπὶ" translates as an EXCLUSION. A subtle but crucial distinction. The "Textus Receptus" alone has the former, Majority and Critical, the latter.

Why would Jesus exclude certain sexual misdemeanors (πορνεια) from his answer? Because he was dealing with matters of law and the law prescribed death for certain sexual acts. In which case divorce/remarriage became an entirely different issue, demanding separate treatment. (Refer to "the woman caught in adultery". Yes, the death penalty still applies....but!)

Why can't the church see this? I suggest:

1. Because we find it very hard to think in terms of certain sexual sins deserving the death penalty.
2. Because as illustrated by the shocked response of the disciples, man always wants an exception to enable divorce. God's way seems too hard.
3. Momentum. Erasmus got things moving, it was carried on by the Reformation and KJV, and modern translations have conveniently failed to correct the error. (apart from 2 or 3 minor translations, Jerusalem is clearest)
4. There is a danger in insisting that every passage in the Bible is "word perfect" and can "stand alone". We need the whole counsel of Scripture.

Full disclosure: As a divorced person, I searched hard for a "loophole". But could not find one.