APPENDIX H Leslie McFall 1 February 2015

(This paper is part of my ebook on Divorce & Remarriage.} TITLE: “CAN WE TRUST THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS? CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: A TEST CASE.”

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (c. 150 – c. 215)

The purpose of this appendix is to show that translations of the works of the early Church Fathers were made from very late copies of the original works, and in the case of Clement’s works, the translations were made from just one surviving Greek manuscript which is dated no earlier than the 11th century. If this situation obtains for most of the other Church Fathers, then this severely undermines using them as reliable witnesses and reliable translations.

Titus Flavius Clemens, better known as Clement of Alexandria is the earliest, extant Greek Church Father to refer to Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 on divorce and remarriage, which he does in his work Stromata (meaning Miscellanies or Patchwork matters). The following is an extract from the introduction to Clement’s work by Rev. B. J. Pratten, on the little that we know of this man.1

Titus Flavius Clemens, the illustrious head of the Catechetical School at Alexandria at the close of the second century, was originally a pagan philosopher. The date of his birth is unknown. It is also uncertain whether Alexandria or Athens was his birthplace.2

On embracing Christianity, he eagerly sought the instructions of its most eminent teachers; for this purpose travelling extensively over Greece, Italy, Egypt, Palestine, and other regions of the East.

Only one of these teachers (who, from a reference in the Stromata, all appear to have been alive when he wrote3) can be with certainty identified, viz., Pantaenus, of whom he speaks in terms of profound reverence, and whom he describes as the greatest of them all. Returning to Alexandria, he succeeded his master Pantaenus in the catechetical school, probably on the latter departing on his missionary tour to the East, somewhere about a.d. 189.4 He was also made a presbyter of the Church, either then or somewhat later.5 He continued to teach with great distinction till a.d. 202, when the persecution under Severus compelled him to retire from Alexandria. In the beginning of the reign of Caracalla we find him at Jerusalem, even then a great resort of Christian, and especially clerical, pilgrims. We

1 Taken from: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.txt. I have retained the footnotes given with this ET. The original ET was by Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (series by Philip Schaff [1819–1893]). 2 Epiph., Haer., xxxii. 6. 3 Strom., lib. i. c. v. 4 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., vi. 6. 5 Hieron., Lib. de Viris Illustribus, c. 38; Ph., Bibl., 111. also hear of him travelling to Antioch, furnished with a letter of recommendation by Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem.6 The close of his career is covered with obscurity. He is supposed to have died about a.d. 220.

Among his pupils were his distinguished successor in the Alexandrian school, Origen, Alexander bishop of Jerusalem, and, according to Baronius, Combefisius, and Bull, also Hippolytus.

The above is positively the sum of what we know of Clement's history.

His three great works, The Exhortation to the Heathen (logos ho protreptikos pros Hellenas), The Instructor, or Paedagogus (paidagogos), The Miscellanies, or Stromata (Stromateis), are among the most valuable remains of Christian antiquity, and the largest that belong to that early period.

Unfortunately, only one 11th century manuscript (MS L) has survived of his Stromata. The 11th century Florence MS, which goes under the library designation Medic. Laur. Pl. v c. 3 [Laurentianae plutei 5 codex 3], and is referred to as Laur. V 3. It is better known as MS L. According to P. Mordaunt Barnard, MS L is our earliest and only authority for the Stromata.7 Another sixteenth-century manuscript, Codex Athous (also known as Codex Lawra B 113) is said to be a direct copy of the MS L, and therefore is of no value textually. There are samples of facsimiles of MS L in older works, but no photographic edition is currently available.

The earliest Latin translation of the Stromata appears to have been made in 1551 (without the Greek text) by Gentiano Herueto Aurelio [Gentian Hervet, 1499-1584], Clementis Alexandrini Omnia qvae qvidem extant opera, nunc primum è tenebris eruta Latinitateque donata, Gentiano Herueto

6 The reader is already acquainted (Hermas, p. 12, [13] note 9) with permissive canons, by which bishops might commend to their brethren, books fit to be read, which they sent, authenticated, not only by hand and seal, but by a clerical messenger whose duty it was (in the language of Bingham) “to go on the bishop’s embassies, with his letters or messages to foreign churches; for in those days, by reason of the persecutions, a bishop did not so much as send a letter to a foreign church, but by the hands of one of his clergy. Whence Cyprian calls them literae clericae.” Antiquities, book iii. cap. ii. 3. (The reference to ‘Bingham’ is to Joseph Bingham [1668- 1723], Origines ecclesiasticae: or, the antiquities of the Christian Church; and Other Works. Revised by R. Bingham. 9 vols. London, 1829. There was an earlier edition of 10 vols. London, 1710-22.) 7 J. Armitage Robinson (ed.), Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature. Vol. 5. No. 2. Clement of Aledxandria: Quis Dives Salvetur by P. Mordaunt Barnard (Cambridge University Press, 1897), 66pp. See pp. xii, xix.

2 Aurelio interprete. (Florentiae: Laur. Torrentius, 1551).8 It would appear that the translation was made from the manuscript in the Medicae bibliotheca (Florence) by Hervet in January 1550 (see page 4), and his translation became the standard that was followed by all the succeeding diglots of Clement’s Stromata. The earliest publication of the Stromata in Greek (without any Latin translation) was by Petrus Victorius, KLHMENTOS ALECANDREWS TA EURISKOMENA APANTA. Ex Bibliotheca Medicea (1550).9 The earliest publication of the Stromata in Greek and Latin appears to have been made in 1616 by Friedrich Sylburg [1536-1596] Clementis Alexandrini Opera graece et Latine quae extant/Daniel Heinsius textum graecum recensuit . . . . à Friderico Sylburgio collectae; cum tribus locu pletibus, auctorum, rerum, verborum & phraseon indicibus (Lugduni Batavorum: Ionnes Patius, pro Bibliopolio Commeliniano, 1616).10 The standard followed by most studies on Clement’s writings tended to follow John Potter’s edition, KLHMENTOS ALECANDREWS TA EUPISKOMENA. Clementis Alexandrini Opera, quae extant (Venetiis, 1757 [Oxford, 1715]).11 It would appear that textual scholars, like Tischendorf and Tregelles, relied on Potter’s edition as the most accurate transcription of Clement’s Greek text (see §1.4. above). I have not been able to examine the 11th century Florence MS directly, but if the 16th century MS is an exact copy of it, then this creates confusion over what exactly Clement did write.

Sylburg’s Latin translation of Stromata Book II. Chap. 23. sect. 145 [p. 506 in Potter] reads:12

à lingva ad opera traducere moderationem. Ad impudentiam autem via est turpis sermo: & utriusqve finis est turpium rerum perpetratio. Qvod autem consulit [consulat = H] Scriptura uxorem ducere, & nec à conjugio unqvam permittit discedere, legem apertè constituit: Non dimittes uxorem, praeterqvam propter fornicationem. Adulterium autem existimat conjungi matrimonio, vivo altero ex [dum vivit alter = P] separatis. A [omit = P] suspicione autem & criminatione ‹alienam oftendit› [liberam reddit = P] uxorem, ‹eò qvòd› [ut = P] non ornetur ac cometur plus, qvàm [plusquàm = H] sit decorum, [add: sed = P] assiduè attendens [attendat = P/attendendo = H] precibus & orationibus: qvodqve [utque = P/omit qvodqve = H] ‹multos [add autem = H] domus exitus custodiat:›13 à sui autem aspectu, qvoad ejus [omit ejus = P] fieri potest, excludat [excludens = H] eos, qvi ad eam non attinent, ducatqve [ducendo = H] domus custodiam intempestivis nugis conducibilorem. Qvi autem dimissam accipit uxorem, moechatur, inqvit: si qvis enim

8 Cambridge University Library, shelf no. 3.15.22. 9 Cambridge University Library, shelf no. 3.15.21, and Adv. a. 19.1. 10 Other editions by Friderico Sylburgio followed in 1592 (Heidelburg), 1641 and 1688, KLHMENTOS ALECANDREWS TA EURISKOMENA Clementis Alexandrini Opera Graece et Latine qvae extant. Post accuratam D.V. Danielis Heinsii recensionem, & breves additas in fine emendationes, facta est non poenitenda, imò necessaria praelectio ab eo, qvi operis Editioni praefuit: adjecit doctissimas annotationes ex variorum Auctorum scriptis decerptas. Accedunt diverae lectiones & emendationes, partim ex veterum scriptus, partim ex huius aetatis doctorum iudicio à Friderico Sylburgio collectae: cum tribus locu pletibus, auctorum, rerum, verborum, & phraseon indicibus. Editio nova, juxta Parisinam anni MDCXLI. (Coloniae: Apud Jeremiam Schrey, & Heinricum Joh. Meyerum, 1688). 11 Reprinted in Migne, Patrologia Graeca VIII, Parisiis, 1857. 12 Where Hervet and Potter differ from Sylburg, these are embedded in Sylburg’s translation. Where the difference might cause confusion, the differences are given in the footnotes. 13 In place of: multos domus exitus custodiat: Potter has: è domo saepe non exeat.

3 dimiserit uxorem, moechatur ipsam, hoc est, cogit eam moechari. Non solùm autem, qvi dimisit, est ejus causa, sed etiam qvi eam suscepit, praebens mulieri peccandi occasionem: si enim non suscipiat, revertetur ad virum.

P. Mordaunt Barnard collected three references to Matthew 5:32 in Clement’s Stromata.14 The three are given under Matthew 5:32 (p. 7).

QUOTATION 1. Ou0k a0polu/seij gunai=ka plh\n ei0 mh\ e0pi\ lo\gw| pornei/aj (Strom II. XXIII. 145.3 [Potter 506; Victorius 168 line 18]. Non dimittes uxorem, praeterqvam propter fornicationem (Potter). ‘You shall not put away the wife, except for the cause of fornication . . . .’ (Wilson 8215).

QUOTATION 2. 9O de\ a0polelume/nhn lamba/nwn gunai=ka moixa=tai, fhsi/n (Strom II. XXIII. 146.2 [Potter 506; Victorius 168 line 23]) Barnard links Mt 5:32 with Mt 19:9 and Lk 16:18. Qui autem dimissam accipit uxorem, moechatur inquit: (Potter 506). ‘He that taketh a woman that has been put away, it is said . . . .’ (Wilson 82). Under Mark 10:11 Barnard gives another quotation from Clement (p. 32), but this is the continuation of quotation 2: 0Ea\n gs/r tij a0polu/sh| gunai=ka moixa=tai au0th\n,16 toute/stin, a0nagka/zei moixeuqh=nai. (Strom II. XXIII. 146.2 [Potter 507; Victorius 168 line 24]). si quis enim dimiserit uxorem, moechatur ipsam, hoc est, cogit eam moechari. (Potter) “For, if, say, one divorces a wife

QUOTATION 3. #Wste o( a0polu/wn th\n gunai=ka xwri\j lo/gou pornei/aj poiei= au0th\n moixeuqh=nai (Strom Book III. Chap. VI section 47.2 [Potter 533,17 Victorius 178 line 29]). Quare qui dimittit uxorem, praeterquam fornicationis causa, facit eam moechari (Potter).

QUOTATION 4. o4 o( qeo\j sune/zeucen, a1nqrwpoj mh\ xwrize/tw, “whom God has joined together, let not man separate.” This is an exact quotation of Matthew 19:6 apart from the necessary omission of ou]n.

To put quotations 1 and 2 in their context, I give Philip Schaff’s translation (with Greek text in places):

145.3. Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows18 no release (ou)de a)fi/stasqai/19) from the union,20 is expressly2122 contained in the law, “Thou shalt not put away

14 P. Mordaunt Barnard, The Biblical Text of Clement of Alexandria in the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge: University Press, 1899). He relied on the work of Alfred Resch [1835-1912], Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien 5 vols. (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. x; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1893-97). 15 William Wilson, The Writings of Clement of Alexandria. Vol. 2. (Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. Vol. XII. Clement of Alexandria. [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1869]). Unfortunately this volume lacks an ET for Book III, which a footnote on I. 84 explains: “After much consideration, the Editors have deemed it best to give the whole of this Book in Latin” It is said in II. 244, of chap. 10 in Bk 2 of the Paed. “For obvious reasons, we have given the greater part of this chapter in the Latin version.” This, no doubt, was due to the sensitive matter of husbands having sex with menstuating wives. 16 MS L was published by Petrus Victorius (Florentiae: L. Torrentinus, 1550), which read au0th\n, but MS L reads au0th.\ 17 The page number refers to Potter’s edition.

4 (a0polu/seij) thy wife, except (plh\n ei) mh|) for the cause of fornication (e0pi\ lo/gw| pornei/aj);” and it regards as fornication23 (moixei/an), the marriage of those separated (kexwrisme/nwn) while the other is alive. 146.1. Not to deck and adorn herself beyond what is becoming, renders a wife free of calumnious suspicion, while she devotes herself assiduously to prayers and supplications; avoiding frequent departures from the house, and shutting herself up as far as possible from the view of all not related to her, and deeming housekeeping of more consequence than impertinent trifling. 146.2. “He that taketh a woman that has been put away (a)polelume/nhn),” it is said, “committeth adultery (moixa~tai); and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress (moixa~tai),” that is, compels her to commit adultery (moixeuqh~nai). 146.3. And not only is he who puts her away (a)polu/saj) guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband. 147.1. What, then, is the law? In order to check the impetuosity of the passions, it commands the adulteress (moixeuqei~san) to be put to death, on being convicted of this [Lev 20; Dt 22:22]; and if of priestly family, to be committed to the flames [Lev 21:9]. And the adulterer (o( moixo/j) also is stoned to death, but not in the same place, that not even their death may be in common. 147.2. And the law is not at variance with the Gospel, but agrees with it. How should it be otherwise, one Lord being the author of both? She who has committed fornication (porneu/sasa) liveth in sin, and is dead to the commandments; but she who has repented, being as it were born again by the change in her life, has a regeneration of life; the old harlot (th~j po/rnhj th~j palaia~j) being dead, and she who has been regenerated by repentance having come back again to life. 147.3. The Spirit testifies to what has been said by Ezekiel, declaring, “I desire not the death of the sinner, but that he should turn.” Now they are stoned to death; as through hardness of heart dead to the law which they believed not. But in the case of a priestess the punishment is increased, because “to whom much is given, from him shall more be required.” Chapter XXIII.— On Marriage.

The context of quotation 4 is:

18 Present ind. act. 3 pers. sg. from e)pitre/pw (e)pi/ + tre/pw), meaning to permit, allow; to yield, submit, comply; to commit, intrust, deliver to (Groves 239). 19 Present middle/passive infinitive from a)fi/sthmi (fr. a)po\ from and i3sthmi to set), meaning, to separate, sever, disjoin, disunite, to put away, place at a distance, break off (so John Groves, A Greek and English Dictionary comprising all the words in the writings of the most popular Greek authors; in the Septuagint and the New Testament . . . with an English and Greek Vocabulary. All the inflections in the New Testament, and many of the more difficult that occur in other Greek writings . . . (8th ed.; London: Cowie, Jolland & Co., 1840), p. 105. 20 The ‘union’ is suzugi/aj, from su\n together, and zeu/gnumi to join; meaning, a joining together, a yoke, pair; marriage (Groves 532). Literally, “Now that the Scriptures recommend to marry, but not to separate when, indeed, the marriage is permitted, is sanctioned by law [when set] over against, ‘You shall not divorce a wife, except 21 The adverb a)nti/kru[j] (see Acts 20:15) means opposite, over against; to the other side, through and through; clearly, openly, decidedly, expressly, against all opposition (Groves 54). 22 The verb means to enact laws, legislate; to promulgate or publish a law; to ordain or sanction by law; to instruct in the law (Groves 408). 23 This is a wrong translation of moixei/an. Read ‘adultery’ in place of ‘fornication.’

5 49.1. There are those who say openly that marriage is fornication. They lay it down as a dogma that it was instituted by the devil . . . . 49.3. Next, they do not know the reason why the reason why the Lord did not marry. In the first place, he had his own bride, the Church. Secondly, he was not a common man to need a physical partner. Further, he did not have an obligation to produce children; he was born God’s only Son and survives eternally. It is this very Lord who says, “Let no human being part that which God has joined together

STROMATA, BOOK III. CHAP. VI. SECTION 146 [Page 533 in Potter]

#Wste o( a0polu/wn th\n gunai=ka xwri\j lo/gou pornei/aj poiei= au0th\n moixeuqh=nai (Strom Book III. Chap. VI section 47 [Potter 533]).

John Potter, KLHMENTOS ALECANDREWS TA EUPISKOMENA. Clementis Alexandrini Opera, quae extant (Venetiis, 1757 [Oxford, 1715]).24

The quote from Matthew 5:32 reads: #Wste o( a0polu/wn th\n gunai=ka xwri\j lo/gou pornei/aj poiei= au0th\n moixeuqh=nai (p. 533). The Latin of Potter reads:

Nam quanam ratione dicit Paulus Apostolus esse sanctificatam mulierem à viro, aut virum à muliere? Quid est autem, quod Dominus quoque dixit iis, qui interrogabant de divortio, An liceat uxorem dimittere, cum Moses id permiserit? Ad duritiam cordis vestri, inquit, Moses haec scripsit. Vos autem non legistis, quod protoplasto Deus dixit, Eritis duo in carne una? [Sylburg and Hervet omit the question mark] Quare qui dimittit uxorem, praeterquam fornicationis causa, facit eam moechari. Sed post resurrectionem, inquit, nec uxorem ducunt, nec nubunt. The same Latin translation is given in Sylburg (p. 446) and Hervet (p. 95).

The phrase e0pi\ pornei/a| occurs with reference to Matthew 19:9 at Strom. III. VI. 50.3 Dindorf, II. 275 (lines 2-5)(Potter 534) in the following context:

tou=to ga\r oi9 punqano/menoi maqei=n h9boulh/qhsan, ei0 sugxwrei= katagnwsqei/shj e0pi\ pornei/a| gunaiko\j kai\ e0kblhqei/shj e9te/ran gh=mai.

Ferguson has translated this as: ‘Those asking the question wanted to find out whether, when a wife had been condemned for sexual misconduct (e0pi\ pornei/a|) and removed, there was any advantage in marrying another.25

I discovered 0Iwa/nnhj at Strom. III. VI. Dindorf, II. 27 (line 10)(Potter 535), p. 277 (line7), pornei/a occurs at III. XII. 82 (Dindorf II. p. 294 line 15. P. 299 (sect. 89) line 13, 15, 17 (and moixei/a)(Potter 552) Bk III. XVIII, 108 (Dindorf, II. 311, line 25 deals with 1 Cor 7, “a man is not to release (a0fie/nai) a wife.”

F. C. Birkitt in his Introduction to Barnard’s work concluded that, “Clement’s quotations have a fundamentally ‘Western’ character.26 His allies are not B and the Coptic versions, but D and

24 It would appear that this work is basically a reissue of Sylburg’s 1688 work. 25 John Ferguson, Clement of Alexandria Stromateis Books One to Three (Fathers of the Church, vol. 85; Washington D.C.; The Catholic University of America Press, 1991), p. 287.

6 the Old Latin.” 27 In Clement’s quotation of Matthew 11:16-17 in Paed 1. v. 13, 3 (Potter 105; Marcovich28 10), he notes that there are “no less than three agreements of Clement with the ‘Received Text’ against the better mss, viz. the position of kaqhme/noij, the omission of the article before a0gorai=j, and the addition of kai\ before le/gousin.”29 However, Burkitt noted that when the best Greek and the best Latin mss disagree, Clement more often than not agrees with the Old Latin (often in company with D) than with the best Greek mss, which, for Burkitt, are ) and B. In the case of Luke 9:62, however, Burkett makes the point, “Moreover, the reading of D and Clement is obviously wrong; and it is companionship in error which shows real affinity of text. As a working hypothesis, therefore, we have good grounds for treating the text used by Clement as a branch of the ‘Western’ text not akin to the Old Syriac Version; in other words, as a text really and geographically Western.”30 He notes the number of striking agreements between Clement and the Old Syriac which inclines him to believe that they both go back to an ancient confluence. In Clement the text of John 17:24-26 agrees with the TR, but Burkitt dismisses it with the comment, “I should not be inclined to lay much stress upon the agreement of Clement with the ‘Received Text’ in Jn xvii 24—26, except so far as it discredits the eccentric reading of D in this passage.”31 This is a curious way to handle textual issues. The text reads as follows, with NA28 and RP variants placed in square brackets:32 Pa/ter, ou4j e1dwka/j [o4 de/dwka/j/RP = ou4j de/dwka/j] moi, qe/lw i3na o3pou ei0mi\ e0gw\ ka0kei=noi w{si met0 e0mou=. i3na qewrw=si th\n do/can th\n e0mh/n [RP e0mh\n/NA28 = e0mh/n], h4n e1dwka/j [de/dwka/j] moi, o3ti h0ga/phsa/j me pro\ katabolh=j ko/smou. Pa/ter di/kaie, kai\ o9 ko/smoj se ou0k e1gnw, e0gw\ de/ se e1gnwn, ka0kei=noi [kai\ ou[toi/= RP ] e1gnwsan o3ti su/ me a0pe/steilaj kai\ e0gnw/risa au0toi=j to\ o1noma/ sou kai\ gnwri/sw. (Paed I. viii. 71,2) Burkitt noted that the main problem concerns o4 and ou4j. He notes that o4 has the support of )BD Bohairic, but “for ou4j we have all other MSS and versions, including the Latin and the Sahidic. In spite of this opposing array there is much to be said for the reading of )BD, seeing that with ka0kei=noi following in the same sentence there was more reason to change o4 in ou4j than vice versa.”33 This last point is to no avail because the RP text reads the same.

Jerome gives the following list of Clement’s works (chiefly taken from Eusebius):34

26 By ‘Western’ Burkitt means readings which are at once non-Alexandrian [Egyptian] and non- Antiochian [Byzantine]. 27 J. Armitage Robinson (ed.), Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature. Vol. 5. No. 5. The biblical text of Clement of Aledxandria in the Four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, collected and edited by P. Mordaunt Barnard with an Introduction by F. Crawford Burkitt (Cambridge University Press, 1899), 64pp. See p. xi. 28 The most accurate Greek text of Clement’s Paedagogus (The Instructor) is that by M. Marcovich, Clementis Alexandrini Paedagogus (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2002). The Greek text is given 29 Burkitt, idem. p. xii. 30 Burkitt, idem. xiii. (see p. 61 for the Gk text). Clement’s text occurs in Paed i. viii. 71, 2 (Potter 14; Marcovich p. 44). 31 Burkitt, idem. p. xvi. 32 Differences with the Robinson & Pierpont text are specifically noted with RP. The introductory words are: o3ti de\ o9 au0to\j mo/noj w@n qeo\j kai\ di/kaio/j e0stin o9 au0to\j kai\ mo/noj o1ntwj e0n tw=| au0tw=| marturh/sei ku/rioj eu0aggeli/w| le/gwn: 33 Ibid. p. xvii. 34 John Kaye, ibid. pp. 4-9 has listed other titles that Clement refers to in his works which are no longer extant, or were proposed writings.

7 Strwmatei=j Stromateis [or Miscellanies] in eight books. (GCS35 12 [1972]; Marcovich [2002]) Quis dives salvetur [Who is the Rich Man that shall be Saved?]. (GCS 17 [1970]). Paidagwgo/j Paedagogos [The Instructor] in three books. (GCS 12 [1972]; Marcovich [2002]). 9Upotu/pwsij Hypotyposes [or Deliniations] in eight books. (GCS 17 [1970])36 Lo/goj protreptiko\j pro\j 3Ellhnaj The Exhortation to the Gentiles. (GCS 12 [1972]; Marcovich [1995]).37

The following titles have not survived, or do some as fragments: De pascha. Treatise on Easter. (GCS 17 [1970]) A Discourse on Fasting. Not extant. A Book on Slander. Extant in Potter’s edition, MXX. 40 (incomplete). A Book on the Ecclesiastical Canons (Against Judaizers). (GCS 17 [1970]) On the Prophet Amos On Providence On Evil-speaking Exhortation to Patience (for newly baptised) and about 15 other titles either written by him or about to be written.

The paucity of source manuscripts to recover the Greek text of the writings of Clement of Alexandria.

For the Protrepticus and Paedagogus the best authority is MS P (Paris. Gr. 451; written in 914 for Arethas, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, sometimes known as Codex Aretas), but it lacks Paed. Bk I. i-x and the beginning of xi, which are supplied from MSS F (Florence. Medic. Laur. Pl. 5. c. 24 [only contains the Paed. with lacunae38], 11th cent.) and M (Mutinensis Gr. 126; 10/11th

35 Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten [drei] Jahrunderte. 36 In this work Clement asserted that there was a succession of worlds before Adam. See John Kaye (Bp. of Lincoln), Some account of the writings and opinions of Clement of Alexandria (London: J. G. & F. Rivington, 1835), p. 6 note. 37 The four complete works were translated by William Wilson in two volumes for the Ante- Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark). Volume 4 in the series (1867) contains Exhortation to the Heathen, The Instructor, The Miscellanies; or, Stromata (Book I). Volume 12 in the series (1869) contains The Miscellanies Books 2-8. Unfortunately Book 3 was not translated. Only the Latin text is given. The Instructor [Paedogogus] was translated by Simon P. Wood as Clement of Alexandria: Christ the Educator, vol. 23 in the series The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, published by The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, 1953. See pp. 170-71 on why husbands should not have relations during the period of menstruation (Bk II. x. 92). On page 175 (Bk II. x. 99,3), “Yet, he who seeks only sexual pleasure turns his marriage into fornication.” The Greek reads: moixeu/ei ga\r to\n e9autou= ga/mon o9 e9tairizo/menoj au0to/n. W. Wilson translates the same Greek text as, “For he violates his marriage adulterously who uses it in a meretricious way.” Potter’s Latin translation is: suum enim adulterio violat matrimonium, qui eo utitur meretricio more. 38 Copies of F with the same missing pages of text, proving that they are direct copies, are MSS B (Oxford), R (London), Gr. 452 and 587 (Paris), N (Oxford, 15th cent.), Vat. Palatinus Gr. 86, and others, see J. Armitage Robinson (ed.), Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic

8 cent.). MS M is regarded as a very faithful copy of P, and F an inferior copy of P. It is now recognised that all extant copies of the Paedagogus go back to a single manuscript, namely MS P.39 The latest edition of the Greek text of the Paedagogus acknowledges that, “Clement’s Paedogogus is preserved virtually in a single manuscript . . . MS P.”40 This MS was copied “from an exemplar that was full of textual corruptions, lacunae, interpolations and dislocations.41 For the Stromata, Exerpta, and Eclogae, are preserved virtually in a single manuscript, MS L (Florence. Medic. Laur. Pl. v. c. 3). A direct copy of this was made in the 16th cent., MS. Suppl. Gr 250 (Paris). For the Quis Dives Salvetur is preserved virtually in a single manuscript, MS S (Scorialensis W III 9. 11th cent.). Michael Ghisler printed this homily in 1623 from a 16th cent. MS V (written by three scribes). There are about twelve fragments of this work, which were collated by P. M. Barnard.42

Note that praeterquam fornicationis causa, is the translation of: xwri\j lo/gou pornei/aj.

Dean Burgon [1818-1888] examined Mark 10:17-31 in Clement’s quotations from this Gospel. He took Mark 10:17-31 as his test passage, and noted, “We make a surprising discovery. There are but 297 words in those 15 verses,—according to the traditional Text: of which, in the copy that belonged to Clemens Alexandrinus, 39 prove to have been left out: 11 words are added: 22, substituted: 27, transposed: 13, varied; and the phrase has been altered at least 8 times. Now, 112 words out of a total of 297, is 38 per cent.” When Burgon used Westcott & Hort’s text as the standard he found that “the words omitted amount to 44. The words added are 13: the words substiuted, 23: the words transposed, 34: the words varied 16. And the phrase has been altered 9 times at least. But, 130 on a total of 297, is 44 per cent. You will also bear in mind that Clement of Alexandria is one of our principal authorities for the Text of the Ante-Nicene period.” He concluded: “It is impossible to produce a fouler exhibition of S. Mark x. 17-31 than is contained in a document full two centuries older than either B or ),—itself the property of one of the most famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers.”43 Clement habitually mistakes apocryphal writings for inspired writings.44 J. J. Griesbach collected all the N.T. quotations of Clement in Symbolize criticae ad supplendas et corrigendas variarum N.T. lectionum collectiones. Accedit multorum N.T. codicum Graecorum descriptio et examen (2 vols; Halae: impensis lo. lac. Curtii vidvae, 1785-1793), vol. 2, pp. 227-620. Tischendorf’s readings of Clement are excerpted from this work (so Barnard, 1899, viii n 1). Griesbach’s work was superseded by Resch, and he in turn was succeeded by P. M. Barnard (1899) as far as the Gospels and the Acts is concerned. P. Mordaunt Barnard collected the evidence for the Greek text of Clement’s Stromata45 and discovered that the earliest manuscript was MS L. He examined MS P which was written in AD 914

Literature. Vol. 5. No. 2. Clement of Alexandria: Quis Dives Salvetur by P. Mordaunt Barnard (Cambridge: University Press, 1897), p. xiii. 39 M. Marcovich, Clementis Alexandrini Paedagogus (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2002). Preface, p. x. 40 M. Marcovich, Clementis Alexandrini Paedagogus (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2002). Preface. 41 Ibid. Preface. 42 See J. Armitage Robinson (ed.), Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature. Vol. 5. No. 2. Clement of Alexandria: Quis Dives Salvetur by P. Mordaunt Barnard (Cambridge: University Press, 1897), p. xxiv. 43 Dean John William Burgon, The Revision Revised (London: J. Murray, 1883). pp. 327-8. 44 See John Kaye (Bp. of Lincoln), Some account of the writings and opinions of Clement of Alexandria (London: J. G. & F. Rivington, 1835), chaps 6 and 8.

9 by the scribe Baanes for Arethas, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and also MS M. He compared the hand of MS M (which he dated to the 10th or 11th century) with the hand of MS L and concluded: “This hand cannot, I think, be placed later than the 11th century, and is, I am convinced, the hand of the scribe of Med. Laur. Pl. v. c. 3 [MS L], the only authority for the Stromata. I saw both MSS. within 48 hours, and also compared this hand of [MS} M with Bandini’s facsimile of the Laurentian codex [MS L].”46

John Kaye notes that Clement put the birth of Jesus in the 28th year of the reign of Augustus, and the 28th year must be dated from the victory at Actium.47 But Clement also believed that Jesus’ ministry lasted only one year. He quoted from all the books of the OT except Ruth, 2 Chronicles, Song of Solomon, and Obadiah.48 He regarded Tobit as Scripture and Ecclesiasticus. He quotes all of Paul’s Epistles except Philemon, but not James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John.

The Matthean exception clauses in other early sources

The following extracts are taken from Alfred Resch [1835-1912], Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien 5 vols. (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. x; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1893-97), Vol. 1. pp. 242-43.

Resch’s parallels to Matthew 19:9a are: (1) Clem. Al. Strom. II, 23, 144. p. 506 in Potter. h9 grafh\ — nomoqetei= ou0k a0polu/seij gunai=ka plh\n ei0 mh\ e0pi\ lo/gw| pornei/aj (2) Matthew 5:32a pa=j o( a0polu/wn [Syr. Cur., Cod. Cantabr. o4 a1n a0polu/sh|] th\n gunai=ka au0tou= parekto\j lo/gou pornei/aj, poiei= au0th\n moixeuqh=nai. (3) Theophil ad Autol. III, 13 kai\ o4j a0polu/ei gunai=ka parekto\j lo/gou pornei/aj poiei= au0th\n moixeuqh=nai (4) Clem. Al. Strom. III, 6, 47. p. 533 in Potter. w3ste o9 a0polu/wn th\n gunai=ka xwri\j lo/gou pornei/aj poiei= au0th\n moixeuqh=nai. (5) Matthew 19:9a o4j a2n a0polu/sh| th\n gunai=ka au0tou= mh\ e0pi\ pornei/a| kai\ gamh/sh| a1llhn, moixa=tai. (6) Diatessaron, edition Ciasca p. 46a. quicunque dimiserit uxorem suam, sine fornicatione, et aliam duxerit, exponit eam adulterio. (7) Athenag. Legat. 33. p. 44 Schwartz’s edition o4j ga\r a2n a0polu/sh|, fhsi/, th\n gunai=ka au0tou= kai\ gamh/sh| a1llhn, moixa=tai. (8) Mark 10:11 o4j a2n a0polu/sh| th\n gunai=ka au0tou= kai\ gamh/sh| a1llhn, moixa=tai e0p0 au0th/n. (9) Herm. Mand. IV, 1, 6. [p. 78, 10] e0a\n de\ a0polu/saj th\n gunai=ka e(te/ran gamh/sh|, kai\ au0to\j moixa=tai. (10) Clem. Al. Strom. II, 23, 145. p. 506 in Potter.

45 P. Mordaunt Barnard, The Biblical Text of Clement of Alexandria in the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge: University Press, 1899). He relied on the work of Alfred Resch [1835-1912], Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien 5 vols. (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. x; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1893-97). 46 Ibid. p. xii. 47 See John Kaye (Bp. of Lincoln), Some account of the writings and opinions of Clement of Alexandria (London: J. G. & F. Rivington, 1835), p. 347. 48 Ibid. 370.

10 e0a\n ga/r tij a0polu/sh| gunai=ka, moixa=tai au0th/n. (11) Luke 16:18a pa=j o9 a0polu/wn th\n gunai=ka au0tou= kai\ gamw=n e9te/ran moixeu/ei.

Resch’s parallels for Matthew 19:9b are: (12) Clem. Al. Strom. II, 23, 145. p. 506 in Potter. o9 de\ a0polelume/nhn lamba/nwn gunai=ka moixa=tai, fhsi/n. (13) Codex Ephraemi (C) Mt 19:9b kai\ o9 a0polelume/nhn gamh/saj moixa=tai (14) Matthew 5:32b kai\ o4j e0a\n a0polelume/nhn gamh/sh|, moixa=tai. (15) Justin Apol. I, 15. [p. 62A] kai\ o4j gamei= a0polelume/nhn a0f0 e9te/rou a0ndro/j, moixa=tai. (16) Theophil. ad Autol. III, 13. kai\ o9 gamw=n, fhsi/n, a0polelume/nhn a0po\ a0ndro\j moixeu/ei. (17) Luke 16:18b kai\ o9 a0polelume/nhn a0po\ a0ndro\j gamw=n moixeu/ei. (18) Diatessaron, Ciasca edition, p. 46a. et qui dimissam duxerit, moechatur (19) Matthew 19:9b kai\ o9 a0polelume/nhn gamh/saj moixa=tai (20) Codex Cantabr. Mark 10:12 kai\ e0a\n gunh\ e0ce/lqh| a0po\ tou= a0ndro\j kai\ a1llon gamh/sh|, moixa=tai. (21) Codex Colbert. Mark 10:12 [p. 54. ed. Belsheim] et mulier si reliquerit virum et alii nupserit, moechatur super illum. (22) Codex Cantabr. Latin Mark 10:12 et si mulier exiet a viro et alium duxerit, moechatur. (23) Mark 10:12 kai\ e0a\n au0th\ a0polu/sasa to\n a1ndra au0th=j gamn/sh| a1llon moixa=tai

Resch’s parallels for Matthew 19:10 are: (24) Clem. Al. Strom. III, 6, 50. p. 534 in Potter. e0a\n ou4twj h]| h9 ai0ti/a th=j gunaiko/j, ou0 sumfe/rei tw=| a0nqrw/pw| gamh=sai. (25) Matthew 19:10 ei0 ou3twj e0sti\n h9 ai0ti/a tou= a0nqrw/pou [Syr. Cur., Cod. Cantabr.: a0ndro/j] meta\ th=j gunaiko/j, ou0 sumfe/rei gamh=sai. (26) Epiph. Haer. XXI, 5. [p. 59C] ei0 ou3twj h9 ai0ti/a tou= a0ndro\j kai\ th=j gunaiko/j, ou0 sumfe/rei gamh=sai.

The confusion in Clement's quotation of Matthew 19:9

Otto Stählin, in Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata Buch I–VI (2 vols.; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich's Buchhandlung, 1906), quotes Clement on Matthew 19:9.49 The quotation can be found in Volume I. 50 Book II. Cap. XXIII (§145.3). It reads as follows: plh;n eij mh; ejpi; lovgw/ porneiva". If this is what Clement wrote, then he has amalgamated (conflated) the so-called exception clauses in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 in a botched manner.

49 This belongs to the series, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten [drei] Jahrhunderte. (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich’s Buchhandlung, 1905-1936/60 vols. 1897–1989)(GCS). This was followed by Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte. Neue Folge. (Berlin, 1995–)(GCS-NF). 50 I have checked Stählin’s Greek version against Johann Potter's edition and there is no difference in Matthew 19:9. Otto Stählin, Clemens Alexandrinus Stromata Buch I–VI. Vol. 2 of Clemens Alexandrinus. 3rd ed. Edited by Ludwig Früchtel (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1960).

11 The original text of Matthew 5:32 read: parekto" logou porneia" (‘apart from the matter of fornication’) The original text of Matthew 19:9 read: mh; epi; porneia/ (‘not over fornication’)

In what follows I shall attempt to trace the steps that led to the confused text that represents what Clement is supposed to have written originally (according to what has survived), which is given as: plh;n eij mh; ejpi; lovgw/ porneiva". This translates as: nevertheless, except over a matter of fornication, First, the word parekto" in Matthew 5:32 is a very rare word, being used only three times in the New Testament and not at all in the LXX.51 The nearest equivalent to parekto" is plh;n, which occurs 31 times in the NT, and 230 times in the Old Testament. This may explain why Clement (or his transcribers) used plhn and not parekto". If so, then he (or his transcribers) would have read Matthew 5:32 as: plhn logou porneia", “besides the matter of fornication.”

Second, if Clement (or his transcribers) regarded plhn logou porneia" as the equivalent of mh; epi; porneiva/, (in Matthew 19:9), then it would have been a simple matter to change mh; into eij mh;. By this means Clement (or his transcribers) would have brought 19:9 into line with 5:32. Both would then be converted into explicit exclusion clauses. But did Clement do this, or did one of his many transcribers do it? We shall never know, and therefore we can never be sure what Clement actually wrote. The end result of these changes would be that Matthew 5:32 would have been read as: plhn logou porneia", instead of parekto" logou porneia" “besides the matter of fornication,” and Matthew 19:9 would have been read as: eij mh; epi; porneia/ instead of mh; epi; porneia/ “except/not for fornication.”

In the case of Matthew 5:32, plh;n has replaced the very rare word parekto;"; and in the case of Matthew 19:9 eij mh; has been made to agree with plh;n (or could Erasmus’s printed text have played a part in creating eij mh;?). All would have been well if Clement (or one of his transcribers) had chosen just one of these exception clauses when commentating on Jesus’ teaching about divorce, but Clement did not, if the present text represents what he wrote.

Third, unfortunately as the text now stands, someone attempted to combine every Greek word in the two different exception clauses in Matthew’s Gospel. The following diagram sets out how this was done.

MATTHEW 19:9 eij mh; ejpi; porneiva/

CLEMENT plh;n eij mh; ejpi; lovgw/ porneiva"

MATTHEW 5:32 plh;nÉparekto;" logvou porneiva"

Fourth, in attempting to harmonise and amalgamate (conflate) the two Matthean clauses, the compiler correctly (grammatically) altered the genitive lovgou to the dative lovgw/, but he replaced the dative porneiva/ with the genitive porneiva". This does not come across in the apparatuses of either Tischendorf or Tregelles, for both of them truncate their quotations of Clement to porn. (see §1.4. above), which most scholars would assume read the dative form here, following ejpi;, as in Matthew 19:9. Or more likely the compiler/copyist found porneia" already in

51 The three occurrences are Mt 5:32; Acts 26:29; and 2 Cor 11:28.

12 Clement’s text and let it stand. The fact that the genitive form stands in the extant text, plus the use of plh;n, shows that Clement very likely had the exception clause of Matthew 5:32 in mind when he wrote his work, and not Matthew 19:9. Now the exception clause in Matthew 5:32 says nothing about an exception, or exceptions, for divorce. Jesus is referring to culpability (not cultural ability to permit divorce) for the evil that would follow a divorce. The focus is on blame for the consequences of divorcing a wife. This is also the focus of Clement, because this is how he expounds Jesus’ exemption clause in Matthew 5:32, in what follows. For both Christ and Clement marriage was, and is, a life-long union dissolved only by the death of one member. There is no escape from marriage once it is entered into, and Jesus’ disciples instantly recognised this when they logically concluded that it was more advantageous for a man not to marry if that is the essence and implications of marriage. The resultant text of Clement (as it has come down to us 1,000 years after it was written) is clumsy with both plh;n and eij mh; meaning the same thing in this context. It is possible that originally Clement wrote plh;n lovgou porneiva" (Matthew 5:32), and this became plh;n ejpi; lovgw/ porneiva" “besides the matter of fornication” (cf. Esth 14:18; Sir 29:8 for the construction) when ejpi; was inserted. The next change occurred when someone wrote eij mh; in the margin, either to replace the uninspired plh;n, or to bring the wording of Clement’s exception clause into line with Matthew 19:9. The marginal reading was then inserted into the text when the text was recopied so that we ended up with plh;n eij mh; ejpi; lovgw/ porneia", which is how the text now reads. Johann Potter’s 1715 edition, for the first time, made Clement’s Greek text available to the academic world. If the 11th century text of MS L has not been tampered with, and if the words eij mh; ejpi; were the words that Clement wrote, then this would be the earliest evidence for the reading eij mh;. It would be interesting to know if the 11th century copy has the same text as the 16th century copy. Wenham and Heth noted that ‘Clement conflates the Matt. 19 and Mark 10 accounts, first reflecting Mark 10:2b-5 then Matt. 19:4-5. Then he writes: Hõste ho apolyõn tën gynaika chõris logou pornias poiei autën moicheuthënai (Matt. 5:32)! If we can learn anything from the patristic citations of the Matthean texts it is that they interpreted Matt. 19:9 in the light of 5:32.’52

We know that very early on, for instance, at the time that Codex Vaticanus was written in the mid-fourth century, that the distinction Jesus was making in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9-12 was lost, because Vaticanus and the Caesarean text-type in particular, replaced the ‘exception clause’ in 19:9 with the exemption clause in 5:32, but the distinction is maintained in Clement.

The danger of assimilation when translating the works of the early Church Fathers

What we must be aware of is that when someone translates a foreign language into his own language, and he comes across a quotation from the Bible in the foreign language, if he is thoroughly familiar with his own mother-tongue Bible, he will automatically give his own translation, and not try to give a strictly literal translation of the foreign version. So, for instance, it is common to find the AV translation being used in place of an unfamiliar English translation when foreign languages are translated into English. The same would apply when transcribing Greek copies after scholars throughout Europe had become familiar with Erasmus’s Greek version. It is acknowledged by most textual scholars that the so-called exceptive clause in Matthew 19:9 mh\ e0pi\ pornei/a is not as instantly clear as ei0 mh\ e0pi\ pornei/a is. It is the more difficult reading. One needs to stop and think about what mh\ e0pi\ pornei/a means (‘not over fornication’), whereas you do not need to stop and think about the meaning of ei0 mh\ e0pi\ pornei/a (‘except for fornication’).

52 Gordon J. Wenham, and William E. Heth, Jesus and Divorce: Updated Edition. (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1997), p. 248 n. 36. Cf. J. MacRory, “Christian Writers of the First Three Centuries and St. Matt. xix. 9,” Irish Theological Quarterly 6 (1911) 172-85.

13 Given the fact that many English commentators are on record as saying that there is no difference in meaning between mh\ e0pi\ pornei/a and ei0 mh\ e0pi\ pornei/a, then why would you omit the initial ei) if it is clearer in than out? Given that some modern scholars would have no hesitation in retaining ei), or adding it in, to bring out the meaning more clearly, would not those who were transcribing the Greek writings of the early Greek Church fathers, after the publication of Erasmus’s text, be tempted to follow Erasmus’s Greek text irrespective of the state of the Greek text that the early Church Father used in his original composition? It is for this reason that we must be very suspicious of nineteenth-century language translations of the writings of the early Church Fathers, Greek and Latin, because transcribers and translators may have taken liberties in their quest to hurry through with their assignments. We must also take into account the theological convictions of the translators, and their standard of education, in assessing the reliability of their finished work.53 Suppose the translator was a fervent supporter of Erasmus’s exceptive clauses and Erasmus’s addition of ei) was not in the text he was translating would he hesitate to insert it on his own authority? After all, he would argue, he was only making plain what was already there. But this is taking a liberty with the early Church Fathers’ writings. The translation of Clement of Alexandria, from Stromata 2:23:145:3 (a) reads:

That Scripture counsels marriage, however, and never allows any release from the union, is expressly contained in the law: ‘You shall not divorce a wife, except for reason of adultery.’ And it regards as adultery the marriage of a spouse, while the one from whom a separation was made is still alive. ‘Whoever takes a divorced woman as wife commits adultery,’ it says; for ‘if anyone divorce his wife, he debauches her;’ that is, he compels her to commit adultery. And not only does he that divorces her become the cause of this, but also he that takes the woman and gives her the opportunity of sinning; for if he did not take her, she would return to her husband.

The Greek text is the same in Dindorf (p. 240), Sylburg (p. 424), and Potter (p. 506). a0po\ th=j glw/tthj e0pi\ ta\ e1rga to\ ko/smion diaxeiragwgei=n, o9do\j de\ e0p0 a0naisxunti/an h9 ai0sxrologi/a, kai\ te/loj a0mfoi=n h9 ai0sxrourgi/a [variant: ai0sxrologi/a Sylburgio, p. 424] §145 o3ti de\ gamei=n h9 grafh\ sumbouleu/ei ou0de\ a0fi/stasqai/ pote th=j suzugi/aj e0pitre/pei a1ntikruj nomoqetei=: ou0k a0polu/seij gunai=ka plh\n ei0 mh\ e0pi\ lo/gw| pornei/aj: moixei/an de\ h9gei=tai to\ e0pigh=mai zw~ntoj qate/rou tw~n kexwrisme/nwn. §146 0Anu/popton de\ ei0j diabolh\n dei/knusi gunai=ka to\ mh\ kallwpi/zesqai mhde\ mh\n kosmei=sqai pe/ra tou= pre/pontoj eu0xai=j kai\ deh/sesi prosane/xousan e0ktenw~j, ta\j me\n e0co/douj th=j oi0ki/aj fulattome/nhn ta\j polla\j, a0poklei/ousan d 0 w(j oi[o/n te au0th\n th=j pro\j tou\j ou0 prosh/kontaj proso/yewj, prou0rgiai/teron tiqeme/nhn th=j a0kai/rou fluari/aj th\n oi0kouri/an. o9 de\ a0polelume/nhn lamba/nwn gunai=ka moixa=tai fhsi/n, e0a\n ga/r tij a0polu/sh| gunai=ka moixa=tai au0th/n, toute/stin a0nagka/zei moixeuqh=nai. ou0 mo/non de\ o9 a0polu/saj ai1tioj gi/netai tou/tou, a0lla\ kai\ o9 paradeca/menoj au0th\n, a0formh\n pare/xwn tou= a9marth=sai th=| gunaiki/: ei0 ga\r mh\ dexoito, a0naka/myei pro\j to\n a1ndra.

The above text should have been translated as: nevertheless, except over a matter of fornication (plh;n eij mh; ejpi; lovgw/ porneiva"). What the translator produced was: “except for reason of adultery.” This is a sloppy translation, because the text reads pornei/aj ‘fornication,’ not moixei/a|

53 Patrologiae cursus completus, series Graeca. 161 vols. Paris, 1857–66 (PG); Patrologiae cursus completus, series Latina. 221 vols. Paris, 1844–65 (PL); and Patrologiae cursus completus, seeries Latina. Supplementum. 5 vols. Paris, 1958-74 (PLS).

14 ‘adultery.’ Now many theologians—after Erasmus produced his exception clause—assumed that Jesus was referring to adultery as an exception for divorce, and it may be that the translator of Clement’s works had made this assumption also, so that when he came to translate Clement’s Greek he made Clement say what he wanted him to say. It is now a matter of concern to conservative-evangelicals that only those manuscripts that pre-date Erasmus’s 1516 edition should be used to make an accurate, new translation of the writings of the Church Fathers, because the old translations cannot be trusted on a number of levels as outlined above.

Misinformation regarding Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation

Jerome produced his Vulgate New Testament in the fourth century A.D. The Gospel accounts appeared in the year 383. We are told that Jerome used both Old Latin and Greek manuscripts, and an English translation of the Vulgate on Matthew 19:9 would read: And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, unless [nisi] it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, commits adultery. Now because this Latin translation preceded Erasmus’s Greek text by a millennia, it is held up as proof that Jerome had a Greek text that was identical to Erasmus’s at Matthew 19:9. There are three serious objections to this argument. First, if Jerome did have Greek copies identical to Erasmus’s text at Matthew 19:9, why are there no copies of Jerome’s Greek manuscripts extant today with ei) mh\ in Matthew 19:9? Secondly, Jerome used the Latin term nisi, (ni si) which means ‘if not.’ If Jerome wanted to make an exception he would have used excepta which means ‘except’ (as he did in Mt 5:32). If we retranslate Jerome’s text using nisi it would read: “whosoever shall put away his wife, if not over fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: . . . “ Given that God ruled out divorce for fornication, and Jesus ruled out divorce apart from fornication, taken together the two forbidden categories exclude divorce for any cause, which is what the original Greek said (see below). So Jerome was correct to use nisi and not excepta in this context because he knew what the Gospel tradition was since the time of Jesus, and he agreed with it in his writings: ‘no divorce and no remarriage.’ If Jerome had written excepta in Matthew 19:9, and if we knew from his writings that he believed that Jesus did make an exception for divorce in the case of fornication/adultery, then Jerome would have been our very first solid witness to Erasmus’s doctrine. Taken in isolation from what he believed, Jerome’s term nisi could be read either for or against an exception, and it is his rejection of an exception for divorce that is critical to understand how he interpreted the term nisi, and how we should understand his translation of the Greek text in front of him. In Matthew 5:32 Jerome correctly used excepta, whereas Erasmus did not understand the different teaching that Jesus taught in these two places, so he used nisi, to harmonise the two places. In this he may been misled by Codex Leicestrensis,54 which has imported the so-called exception clause of 5:32 into 19:9, and done away with the original text of 19:9.55 Thirdly, the Roman Catholic church had a single tradition going right back to the early Church Fathers which did not recognise the dissolution of a lawful marriage, and this was Jerome’s belief also, so he would hardly translate the Greek to create an exception for fornication/adultery. How could such a universal ban on divorce arise, and be a fixture in the mind of the early Church Fathers, if it did not go back to Jesus’ own teaching?

54 We know that Erasmus examined this Codex during his three-year stay in Cambridge, between 1513 and 1515, and he mentions it in his Annotations. 55 The same textual error appears in Codex Vaticanus.

15 Misinformation regarding Church Fathers’ support for Erasmus’s ‘exception clause’

Reliance is placed on English translations of the works of the early Church Fathers, pre- Nicene and post-Nicene, but these translations were made in the light of the Authorized Version which had followed Erasmus’s text at Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. Given that all English versions were in support of Erasmus’s text it was no wonder if the original texts of the Fathers would be brought into line with the new Protestant doctrines. It is doubtful if any of the following translations can be trusted, as they are all direct quotations from the KJV. One would need to see the original Greek or Latin transcriptions of each man’s works, and have the manuscripts dated, before one could trust the present English translations.

1. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 195)—“You shall not put away your wife except for the cause of fornication” (Roberts and Donaldson 1995, 2.379). I have shown that this ET cannot be trusted.

2. Tertullian (ca. 207): Jesus prohibits divorce “except for the cause of fornication” (Ibid. 4.45). Again, Christ “permits divorce when the marriage is spotted with unfaithfulness” (Ibid. 3.405). He allows “divorce for no cause, except one” (Ibid. 4.66).

3. Novatian (ca. 235): Christ “said that a wife must not be put away, except for the cause of adultery” (Ibid. 5.589).

4. Origen (ca. 245): The Savior does not at all permit “the dissolution of marriages for any other sin than fornication alone” (Ibid. 9:511). “For confessedly he who puts away his wife when she is not a fornicator, makes her an adulteress.” (Commentary on Matthew 14 [a]) The ‘exceptive’ clause is taken from Mt 5:32.

5. Basil the Great (375): “The Lord said, ‘If any one leave his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, he causes her to commit adultery.” (Amphilochius 199 [a]) The ‘exceptive’ clause is taken from Mt 5:32.

When it is known that the manuscript used to translate Clement of Alexandria’s works is a 16th century manuscript, and that there is only one manuscript of his works younger than it, we are talking about a gap of over 1,000 years between the original text and the oldest known copy of his work. What scribal errors accrued in that long line of transmitting his works and ideas? What harmonising tendencies and conflations were there when it came to translating his Greek into Latin, especially when Clement was quoting Scripture? If the oldest manuscript we had of Matthew’s Gospel was dated to 1000 years after he wrote it, could we trust it? This is what we have to ask ourselves when it comes to the writings of the ante-Nicene Fathers, especially in the light of Jerome’s translation of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 which are both open to misinterpretation. If you come looking to manoeuvre Jesus to support divorce, then He can be manipulated to do so. What is crucial is Jerome’s own understanding of what Jesus taught on the issue of divorce, and he is against divorce, and he is against remarriage. This suggests that his use of nisi was never intended to create an exception, but should be taken at its face value to mean ‘if not over fornication.’

The conclusion of the matter is this

I have examined the foundation of the claim that Irenaeus had the same Greek text as Erasmus, and discovered that the claim rested on just two manuscript copies of his works. Both manuscripts are over 1,000 years later than the time Irenaeus wrote. When I examined the manuscript on which the modern translation of his works was based I discovered it was not a

16 direct quotation of any known Greek text of Matthew 19:9, nor was it in agreement with Erasmus’s Greek text. Rather it was a conflation of two distinct readings. One was taken from Matthew 5:32 and the other was taken from Matthew 19:9. This fact is hidden in the English translation of Irenaeus’s works. The lesson we can draw from this is that the foundation of each quotation of any early Church Father must be closely examined to see how old are the manuscripts on which the English translations depend. Until this information is known and thoroughly examined and a full textual apparatus drawn up for the original wording of each Church Father’s work, we can no longer trust any translation of the works of the early Church Fathers, which are quoted as though this work had been done. The examination of Irenaeus’s work, in this article, has been a salutary lesson not to take any modern translation of a Church Father’s work for granted. They all come under suspicion as a result of this test case. The other factor that must be taken into account is that the surviving works of the early Church Fathers come from Gentile Christian church fathers. We do not have the works of any early Jewish Christian church fathers, which has created an imbalance. Everything is seen through the eyes of non-Jews, and this may account for the ignorance in understanding the Jewish background that pervades Matthew’s Gospel. When the Jewish background is taken into account this brings to light a new insight into how the Jews understood Jesus’ definition of ‘every cause.’ This new insight strengthens the ‘no divorce and no remarriage’ teaching that the Holy Spirit guided Mark and Luke to give to the Gentile world. Matthew said the same thing to a Jewish audience. The betrothal interpretation is an irrelevant distraction, because Matthew is saying exactly the same thing as Mark and Luke with no additional information, and with no exception clauses.

An observation

It could well be that Erasmus misunderstood Jerome’s use of nisi in Matthew 19:9 and thought it meant the same as excepta, which Jerome used in Matthew 5:32. Erasmus informs us in one of his letters that he clarified the meaning of the text in 600 places,56 and it would appear that his addition of ei0 before mh\ was one of those ‘clarifications.’ There are over 1,700 manuscripts of Matthew’s Gospel dating from AD 350 to 1500, but in not a single one of them is there the addition of ei0 that Erasmus added to the text. He added the word with no authority from the three manuscripts that he used to compile his text of the four Gospels. Consequently, he added ei0 on his own authority, thinking he was ‘clarifying’ what Jesus said, even though he knew perfectly well that this was not what Jerome believed (because he was editing Jerome’s works at the time he put his first edition of the Greek NT together). Nor did Erasmus’s ‘exceptive clauses’ agree with what the Roman Catholic Church taught consistently.

Understanding why Erasmus ‘clarified’ the divorce texts

Erasmus was deeply affected by the state of marriage in his day, and he witnessed a lot of hardship and degrading unions. He was a humanist at heart, and he desperately wanted to see divorce become a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, of which he was a son. So there is that factor to bear in mind. Next, we can sympathise with Erasmus’s addition of ei0 because when you remove it the text becomes difficult to understand, for it would read, ‘not over fornication.’ It is not immediately apparent what this is referring to.

56 Erasmus to Antonio Pucci. Basel, 26 August 1518. See P. S. Allen (ed.), Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami (11 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906-47), Epistle 373; CWE vol 3, pp. 198-99.

17 Given that there was some ambiguity in the way that some early Church Fathers understood the Greek words mh\ e0pi\ pornei/a ‘not over fornication,’ to mean a husband could divorce his wife for adultery/fornication, but could not remarry under any circumstances, it was tempting to create a text that would permit divorce for fornication. The early Church Fathers were clear that there could be no remarriage following a divorce/separation. It is well understood that practices, ceremonies, and rituals, will always be more stable than interpretations. If Jesus initiated no remarriage following a separation, this would soon develop into a tradition, and then into a set custom, and this custom would became embedded in the life of the Church universal, even if the interpretation that should have gone with it didn’t, due to heavy periods of severe persecution and disruption. It would appear that once the Jewish influx into the Church dwindled, and the Gentile element or proportion became the majority, the key to understanding the Gospel of Matthew, which was written for the Jew, faded or was lost. Now Jesus in Mark and Luke set out His doctrine very clearly that there were no grounds for divorce and every remarriage was an adulterous affair. Instinctively, the Early Church recognised that this was the true position of Jesus on the issue of divorce and remarriage. Consequently, the Jews must have been told the same thing in Matthew’s Gospel. But how can the words ‘not over fornication’ mean that there were no grounds for divorce and every remarriage was an adulterous affair? The answer was very simple once one took into account that Jesus was asked by Jews (not Gentiles) a question regarding the law of God. He was asked if it was lawful to divorce a wife for every cause. Because Jesus was addressing Jews, and because He was asked a legal question, Jesus addressed Jews with a legal answer. They knew that the law did not allow divorce for adultery or fornication. So there was no problem there. Both Jesus and the Pharisees were agreed that it was unlawful to get a divorce on the grounds of adultery or fornication. The question then turned on whether it was lawful to get a divorce for a non-fornication cause, and it was at this point that Jesus announced that if any Jew standing in front of Him divorced his wife on the grounds of a non- fornication issue, it was an unlawful thing to do, and the divorce did not dissolve his marriage, and if he divorced his wife and remarried, he was committing adultery against his ‘divorced’ wife. The Jews knew that God made it unlawful to punish adultery/fornication with divorce. Now they heard the Son of God make it unlawful to punish non-adultery causes with divorce. So, together, the first two Persons of the Trinity abolished divorce on any grounds for any reason, for all time to come. In this way all three Gospels are teaching the same thing. In effect what Jesus did was use a negative phrase (‘not over fornication’) to identify the positive causes that He would not allow divorce for. There were literally hundreds of non-sexual sins/faults that a wife could commit, any one of which could be used by a hard-hearted husband to get rid of her. Jesus was not going to go through this long list of non-sexual causes condemning them one by one, instead He cleverly encapsulated this multitude of causes by saying, anyone who divorces his wife over a non-fornication cause was doing so unlawfully. The answer is so simple, seen in this light. Jesus’ use of simple arithmetic summed up His position with mathematical precision. The Jews were faced with a simple sum to do in their heads. ‘Take away adultery and fornication and what are you left with?’ The answer staring them in the face was, ‘Non-adulterous and non- fornication causes.’ Back came Jesus’ mathematical logic, ‘Then I am telling you now that if you get a divorce over non-fornication issues, is it lawful.’ The Jews knew that God never gave them permission to divorce their wives ‘over non-fornication’ issues, despite the efforts of the rabbis to make Deuteronomy 24:1-3 say so. Deuteronomy was descriptive, not prescriptive, which meant that the Jews had no law justifying divorce as coming from God. The best interpreters of Jesus’ answer in Matthew 19:9 were the Jews, because they lived under the Law. Once they became a minority as the Church expanded and the Gentiles poured into

18 the Church in their vast hordes, the key to understanding what Jesus meant when He said, “whoever divorces his wife over a non-fornication issue” was lost. The Church was left with only Matthew’s words, and his words, taken out of their Jewish legal context, appeared to say to the ignorant Gentile Christian that it was not lawful to divorce for a non-fornication issue, but it was lawful to divorce for a fornication issue. But the Christian Jews knew that God did not allow them to divorce their wives for adultery/fornication, and this, they rightly judged, would carry over into Jesus’ teaching. So no Christian Jew would have argued that a Christian could get a divorce for adultery. And given Jesus’ ban on divorce for non-fornication issues, he would never accept that a Christian could get a divorce over a non-adulterous issue. It would not make sense to him. His history told him that Moses connived to permit them to divorce their wives only over non-fornication issues, but now Jesus had cut off these issues as grounds for a divorce. Given this Jewish legal context to Jesus’ answer to a legal question we can encapsulate His answer as follows:

Now I say to you that who, for instance, may have divorced his wife—not over fornication which is punished by death—and may have married another woman, he becomes adulterous by marrying her. And the man having married a divorced wife, he becomes adulterous by marrying her.

We can put the grounds for divorce that Jesus is condemning in a positive format:

Now I say to you that who, for instance, may have divorced his wife over a non- fornication cause and may have married another woman, he becomes adulterous by marrying her. And the man having married a divorced wife, he becomes adulterous by marrying her.

That Jesus has closed off the only loophole in the Torah that the Jews had been in the habit of using to get a divorce, would have been obvious to the Jew who first heard Jesus’ teaching, but it is not so obvious to Gentile Christians, even today, who continue to misunderstand the phrase Jesus used, and prefer to see it as a loophole to get a divorce for fornication/adultery.

POSTSCRIPT

MS L was collated by Joseph [Giuseppe] Müller for Gulielmi Dindorfii [Wilhelm Dindorf] (1802-1883).57 Three facsimiles of this manuscript can be found in older works. First, in the catalogue of Angelo Maria Bandini (1726-1803), Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae (4 vols. Florentiae, 1774-77; reprinted, Leipzig, 1961), I. p. 12f. Taf. I. 1 (p. 82) giving an extract from Bk 2.1 [and not 3.11 as titled].58

57 For a description of MS L see Gulielmi Dindorf, Clementis Alexandrini opera (4 vols; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1869), vol. 1, p. xvi.f. 58 The facsimile text is taken from Strom. Bk II.A, lines 1-6 (e(chj . . . progeneste/rwn), as transcribed in Dindorf’s edition (vol. 2. p. 145) and Stätlin Bk III. 1, 1. (ed. Früchtel; 1960, p. 113). The spelling of barbaron is given as marbaron (line 1) in the facsimile, but m for b is often found in manuscripts belonging to f1 and f13 (Caesarean Text). The same word is repeated in Bk IV. 1. (Dindorf II. 315. line 9 of text)(Potter 564) in Vitelli’s facsimile 107, as also eimolhn is written for

19 Second, in The Palaeographical Society. Facsimiles of Manuscripts and Inscriptions (London, 1884-1894), Series II. vol. II. pl. 107.59 The extract covers the end of Strom. III. Bk III. and the beginning of Bk IV. The third facsimile occurs in Girolamo Vitelli [1849-1935] e Cesare Paoli [1840-1902], Collezione Fiorentina di facsimili paleografici Greci e Latini illustrati, Fasc. I. Tavola x. (6 Fascicles; Firenze, 1884-1897).60 The facsimile is taken from Strom. Bk VI. chap. 16. section 144 (Dindorf Vol. III. p. 230).61

eisbolhn (Dindorf II. 315. line 13 of the text), and in Vitelli’s facsimile at Bk VI. XVI. (Dindorf III. 230. 144 lines 18ff.)(Potter 814) where we have emdomon (for ebdomon), metamolaj (for metabolaj), emdomada (for ebdomada), anhmoj (for anhboj), ekmallei (for ekballei), hmhj (for hbhj), emdomasin (for ebdomasin), emdomh (for ebdomh), and emdomadoj (for ebdomadoj)(2x). These are not noted in otherwise model transcriptions. In the second marginal note of this facsimile the spelling is ebdomatikwn. The contracted k[ai] in the 1st and 3rd marginal notes are close to those found in some parts of Codex Vaticanus (B). The nomina sacra of qj (qeoj) occurs twice (cf. Dindorf III. 230 line 23; 231 line 13). Dabid is contracted to dad (as is usual in biblical texts)(Dindorf III. 232. line 4). This is not noted in Vitelli’s transcription. Dindorf replaced MS L’s de faneishj with ekfainei from Philo (Dindorf, III. 230, last line). His footnotes reveal how often he departs from the reading of MS L, which does not bode well for his resultant text of what Clement may have written. As in biblical MSS, the first letter of the first full line of a new paragraph is outdented and enlarged, at the start of sect. 145 (Dindorf III. 231, line 15). 59 The printed Indices to Facsimiles of Manuscripts and Inscriptions Series I. and II. 1874-1894 (London, 1901), p. 15 has a register: ‘Clement of Alexandria. Miscellanies. Greek. 11th cent. ii. 107.’ This refers to the Second Series. Vol. I., and Plate 107 is the 63rd item from the front. (This series should not be confused with The New Palaeographical Society's Facsimiles, [London, 1913-1930]). The entry reads: “The Strwmatei=j or Miscellanies of Clement of Alexandria. Vellum; 338 leaves, measuring 10 3/4 by 8 inches; with 31 lines in a page. Written in the 11th century. In quires generally of eight leaves, ruled, but faintly, on one side with a hard point. Written in minuscules in a flowing hand, with moderate use of contractions. The occurrences of many large forms of letters, rising above the line, may be observed. There are some marginal notes in small uncials.” The text of the facsimile is taken from Strom. Bk III. XVIII. 110 (Dindorf, II. 313, lines 3-14 (i.e., to the end of Bk III), and Bk IV. I.1. (Dindorf, II. 315, lines 1-14/ Potter 563-64). The writing of iota subscript as a full letter, as in thi for th| is also commonly found in f1 and f13 mss, as is the contraction of kai \ to s with a grave accent (line 6). Transposition errors are corrected by the scribe by means of a, b (written as m), G, over the letters (line 9), and Dindorf has gone with the correction, but footnoted the exact reading of MS L. The bar Nu is used at the end of a line (line 11). The original was emperileifqhsetai and the syllable –leif– was corrected (superscript)(by the original hand, it would seem) to read emperilhfqhsetai, as noted by Dindorf (II. 315 n). Occasionally Dindorf will insert final Nu where it is not in the MS, as in parasth/swme(n) (line 8 of text) without any footnote notice. Occasionally he will depart from MS L and go with Sylburg’s text (Dindorf II. 315, line 12 of the text), but, fortunately, these changes are footnoted. There is one nomena sacra of qn (for qeon). 60 For the details, see J. Armitage Robinson (ed.), Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature. Vol. 5. No. 2. Clement of Alexandria: Quis Dives Salvetur by P. Mordaunt Barnard (Cambridge: University Press, 1897), 66pp., espec. pp. xii, xix. For MSS containing fragmentary extracts from the Stromata, see Otto Stählin, Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Handschriften des Clemens Alexandrinus (Nürnberg, 1895), pp. 12ff. 61 Vitelli gives the following details about MS L (Laur. 5, 3, c. 287; 11th cent.). Dimensions M. 0,267 x 0,196, with 29-31 lines per page; 388 pages (some mutilation). The facsimile text runs from kai thn palaian eptgafqoggon to

20 APPENDIX I

HOW TO CRITIQUE WORKS ON DIVORCE

This brief document examines the quickest way to assess any author’s position on the lawfulness of divorce and remarriage, from a conservative-evangelical point of view. When we are on a car journey there are many side roads that we can take to leave the main highway. It is the same with the study of divorce. This document outlines five key forks in the road where scholars have deviated from a conservative-evangelical highway and have ended up with a non-evangelical position as regards Jesus’ doctrine of forgiveness. I have used these five, potentially misleading routes as a template for assessing every new work dealing with the subject. Anyone who follows the recommended route outlined below and is fully aware of the dangers at each of the five forks in the road and knows which choice to make will find that they arrive at a destination that does full justice to Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage, and forgiveness, without adding to, or subtracting from, God’s Word, and without compromising a fully Reformed doctrine of the inspiration and infallibility of God’s Word, as set out in the Majority (Universal) Greek New Testament. Be warned in advance what to do when you come across five wrongs turns-offs in your journey through life. Here are brief signposts: 1. Do not go down the route of saying that God provided for divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1-3. 2. Do not accept the Greek text of Erasmus which added the word ‘except’ to God’s Word in Matthew 19:9. 3. Do not accept that Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 are saying the same thing. 4. Do not use the opinions of the early Church Fathers to cancel out the written Word of God. 5. Do not accept that the dispute between Hillel and Shammai had anything to do with the Phrarisees’ question in Matthew 19 and Mark 10. Do not follow rabbinic exegesis to cancel out the Spirit’s teaching. If you can avoid each of these potentially fatal wrong turn-offs from the direct route mapped out by Jesus then you stand a chance of getting to the end of your short life without having been robbed of the truth about divorce and remarriage. All five of these wrong turn-offs merge further on in their routes into one broad road leading to destruction.

WRONG TURN-OFFS

DEUT 24:1-4 "EXCEPT FOR NO DIFFERENCE CONFUSED FOLLOW THE PERMISSION TO FORNICATION" BETWEEN MATT CHURCH RABBIS DIVORCE 5 & 19 FATHERS

I.1. DESCRIPTION OR PRESCRIPTION?

1. Regarding Deut 24:1-4. If this is the proof text that God has given permission to all human beings everywhere, in all dispensations, to divorce their wives for ‘every cause,’ then this interpretation will make it impossible for its supporter ever to come to a knowledge of the truth. And even if some try to modify (that is, restrict) the universality of divorce (that Deut 24:1-4 is believed to advocate) in the light of Jesus’ intervention in history, this modification is what will hold the author in bondage to a doctrine of divorce of his own making, for others will modify it

21 their way, and everybody will do what is right in his own eyes (as the schools of Hillel and Shammai illustrate). Once committed to a doctrine of divorce for a lawfully consummated marriage, however modified it may be, it is virtually impossible to escape from this mind-set, because it is the mind-set of someone who does not have the Spirit of Christ actively dwelling in them, or who has followed a false teaching/teacher.

QUESTION: How do you recognise quickly the wrong interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1- 4? Look at 24:1. It will read (as in the AV/KJV): “then let him write her a bill of divorcement.” This ET presents God as the speaker, and presents God saying to every hard-hearted man (in all ages, and until the end of the world), “I give you permission to divorce your wife for any cause you care to think fit. And after you have dissolved your marriage, I give you permission to marry another virgin, and if you do not like her I give you permission to divorce her, and take a third wife, and a fourth wife, and so on and on, until you find a wife that you like. The only thing I do not want you to do is to remarry one of your past wives. This is the only restriction I put on your quest to find a suitable helpmeet.” Here God is misrepresented as prescribing (hence the term prescriptive) how divorce is to be carried out among His people.

QUESTION: How do you recognise quickly the correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1- 4? Go to 24:1. It will read: “and he writes her a bill of divorce.” This ET, which must begin with ‘and’ (not ‘then’) presents God as the speaker, but here He is describing something that He strongly disapproves of. This comes out if 24:4 begins with ‘then,’ as in: “then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back again.” In other words vv. 1-3 are taken up describing a practice that God disapproves of, and v. 4 is where He displays His anger against this universal custom of divorce that is common throughout the entire world, because it is endemic in all societies, all cultures, all nations and tribes and local communities. It is as common as sin; and it can no more be eradicated from human society than sin can be. God put up with sin and divorce during the Mosaic dispensation; but He has a clear plan to introduce a new dispensation, and a new Kingdom, in which these two evils will not be able to exist. This era came into being when Jesus announced, “You must be born again to enter the Kingdom of God.” Those born again into this new Kingdom do not divorce and do not sin (wilfully). Every author gives away his final position on divorce by the way he prefers to translate Deuteronomy 24:1-4. It is the second place I go to when I examine any work on the subject of divorce and remarriage.

I.2. ERASMIAN AND NON-ERASMIAN SOLUTIONS

2. Regarding Matthew 19:9. QUESTION: How do you recognise quickly the wrong interpretation of Matthew 19:9? If the ET reads: “except for fornication,” then the author is a supporter of Erasmus, who added a word to Scripture to put divorce into the teaching of Jesus. Because the AV/KJV dominated the English-speaking world for 400 years, its ET of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and Matthew 19:9 have controlled the thinking of readers and scholars alike. It is the default position, and so it became the consensus view. It is very difficult to shift it, now that divorce has come inside the Church from the world.

QUESTION: How do you recognise quickly the correct interpretation of Matthew 19:9? If the ET reads: “not over fornication,” then the author is not a supporter of Erasmus, and has removed the word he added to Scripture. Any of the following ETs bring out Jesus’ original teaching on divorce as spoken to His fellow-countrymen: (1) not over fornication which was punished by death (McFall), (2) not over fornication (Darby Bible; W. B. Godbey; Conservative Version), (3) for any other cause than the loss of her virtue (Basic English Bible), (4) for any cause other than her

22 unfaithfulness (Good News Translation), (5) for any reason other than her unfaithfulness (God’s Word® Translation; (6) not on [the ground of] fornication (J. B. Rotherham), and (7) for any reason except her unfaithfulness (Weymouth N.T.). What all these English translations have in common is that they have correctly isolated non-fornication issues as the grounds for divorce in Jesus’ content-identity phrase ‘not over fornication,’ because they have honestly translated the Greek text in front of them. However, it is not at all clear whether the committees or individuals who produced these ETs were aware that the Pharisees had not changed God’s capital punishment for fornication, so that divorce could not be obtained for adultery or fornication in Jesus’ time. The modern reader needs to know this background information if he is not to create an exception where no exception existed in the mind of the Lord Jesus. It is for this reason that I have translated Matthew 19:9 as: “. . . not over fornication which was punished by death.” It was easier for Jesus to refer to all non-fornication causes using this expression, than give a long list of non-fornication causes that He is about to condemn. He was a master of conciseness and precision. Jerome’s Latin has nisi ‘not if,’ and reads: “whoever divorces his wife if not for fornication, . . .” which, given that Jerome did not accept remarriage after divorce, means that he has identified non-fornication causes as the target of Jesus’ condemnation. In this he disagrees with the modern, Erasmian position. Speaking for myself, I recognise that Matthew wrote his Gospel specifically for his own fellow-countrymen. It was addressed to Jews, not to Gentiles, and that is the key to understanding and to interpreting the biblical record of what Jesus said regarding divorce. The solution is very simple. No Jew was permitted by God to divorce his wife for fornication. Every divorce was obtained by the Jews for non-fornication causes. Jesus grouped these non-fornication causes under the phrase “not over fornication.” God the Father banned divorce for fornication; God the Son banned divorce for non-fornication causes. Together, they banned divorce from the earth for all time to come. QED. Every author gives away his final position on divorce by the way he prefers to translate Matthew 19:9. It is the first place I go to when I examine any work on the subject of divorce and remarriage. In a matter of seconds the author’s position is revealed to be either Erasmian or non- Erasmian. The next step is to see how the author translates Deuteronomy 24:1-4. The author may not follow the AV/KJV, in which case he cannot trace divorce back to Moses, so he will go to the O.T. prophetical literature and justify divorce as a legitimate institution because God used it as an analogy of His relationship with Israel. “If God used it then it cannot be a sin for humans to use it,” goes the argument, but this is to use figurative language to establish a biblical doctrine. Is God a rock because He likens Himself to such?!

I.3. TWO DISTINCT TEACHINGS

3. Regarding the separate teaching in Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:3-9. All authors can be divided into two positions. (1) Those who recognise that Jesus is teaching two different things in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19; and (2) Those who are ignorant that Jesus is teaching two different things in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19. The vast majority are in the ignorant position. This position treats both passages as though Jesus is making an exception to His total ban on divorce for any cause, in both places. Those in position (1) recognise that there is a genuine exemption clause in Matthew 5, but there is no exception clause in Matthew 19. This position puts the exemption clause in Matthew 5 in the context of Jesus’ blame theology. Jesus blames the man who divorces his wife for any cause (sexual or non-sexual) and thus forces her into a position of sleeping with another man through a remarriage, which is adultery in Jesus’ eyes, but not in the eyes of the Jews.

23 In Jesus’ blame theology, her sin of adultery (when she remarries) will be blamed on the first husband, and not on his wife, whom he divorced. However, the exemption from blame comes into play if the divorced wife committed adultery or fornication before he divorced her, or if she became a prostitute after he divorced her. In these cases of fornication, the first husband will not be held accountable, because she sinned against her own conscience. Blame theology comes into its own where a divorce culture exists, and where it is believed (though wrongly) that divorce dissolves a lawfully consummated marriage. If the divorcer and the divorced believe they truly revert to being single again after a divorce bill has passed between the two, and the divorced wife sincerely believes she is doing a legitimate thing in remarrying another man, then Jesus shields her from the penalty for her remarriage, and blames the adultery of her remarriage on her first husband. The introduction of a blame theology was a completely new doctrine, as it affected the custom of divorce. It had never been discussed by the rabbis, or by the schools of Hillel and Shammai. It is nowhere mentioned in the Mishnah nor in the Talmuds. They are all ignorant of such a doctrine. Blame theology is not discussed in any modern treatments of divorce and remarriage. The reason for this oversight has been the way those in the ignorant category approach the text. They come to it with blinkers on. They are looking solely to see if the words can be read as a loophole to Jesus’ absolute ban on divorce for any reason. It is, sadly, a case of ‘Seek and you shall find’ what you come to the text to expect to find. In ignorance, the two, so-called exception clauses in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 are ignorantly assumed to be addressing the same exception to permit divorce for fornication. The cause of this confusion is twofold. (1) Ignorance in reading the text itself, coupled with ignorance of the different Greek words used in the two places, and (2), conflating what the Spirit said to the Gentiles with what He said to the Jews. This merging of the two cultural backgrounds, by Gentile teachers, was a fatal mistake. If the merging had been done by Jews then they would never have made the fatal mistake that some early, Gentile, Church Fathers made.

I.4. THE LEGACY OF THE CHURCH FATHERS

4. The legacy of the early Church Fathers. Unfortunately, part of the confusion left behind by the early, non-Jewish Church Fathers is still in place to this day. The Gospel of Matthew should have been read within a Christian Jewish context; and the Gospels of Mark and Luke should have been read within a Christian Gentile context, and kept distinct, which would have led to the discovery that Jesus was as absolute about His ban on divorce when speaking to the Jews, as He was when speaking through the Spirit to the Gentiles in Mark and Luke. The confusion among the early Gentile Church Fathers was caused when they ignored the Jewish background of the Gospel of Matthew, and became confused over their harmonisation of the divorce texts. Because these three Gospels were predominantly commented on by Gentile Church Fathers, their commentaries blinkered and channelled the thinking of all who followed in their wake. They lifted out the Jewish-orientated clauses in Matthew and metaphorically pasted them into what Mark and Luke said to the Gentile nations (Greek and Roman),62 and the inevitable result was confusion. Their error has been repeated by all who have followed, sheep-like, in their

62 It would have been inappropriate for Matthew to incorporate Mark 10:12 into his Gospel, as it would have been inappropriate for Mark to incorporate Matthew’s content-identity phrase ‘not for fornication’ into his Gospel. Because these two Gospels were written for different cultures, each spoke directly to the target culture in such a way as to leave both cultures in no doubt about Jesus’ absolute ban on divorce for any reason.

24 trails. Today, the untaught repeat the same methodological mistake that the early Church Fathers made. The lesson from church history is to interpret Matthew’s statements within a Jewish setting and a Jewish context, and do not attempt to harmonise the Synoptic Gospels as a first step. When Jesus’ answer is interpreted in terms of how the Jews lived under the Law, and how the Greeks and Romans lived without the Law, it will be appreciated that divorce for adultery was never a lawful option for the Jews, but it was a lawful option for the Greeks and Romans whom God allowed to live under their own laws. Through Mark and Luke, Jesus informed Greeks and Romans alike that divorce on any grounds was banned for ever. If the early Church Fathers had held back harmonising the statements in Mark and Luke with the statements in Matthew, and had, through this more cautious procedure, discovered that Jesus made no exception for divorce in Matthew’s Gospel, then they would never have made the blunder that many of them did in allowing divorce (which most of them viewed as a temporary separation) for fornication/adultery. What united them, however, was their insistence that there could be no remarriage following a ‘divorce.’ This must have come through to them from the earliest traditions, or ethics, as we would expect, because practices transmit longer and more faithfully than their interpretations. The procedure of most Western commentators is to merge the statements on divorce in the three Gospels, and treat them together in one place. This is to repeat the mistake of the past. It is a methodological error to exegete Matthew’s statements alongside those of Mark and Luke. This must lead to confusion in both the author’s mind and in his readers’ apprehension of the true situation and context in which these statements were made. Context is paramount in conjunction with the requirements of the target audience. Speaking for myself, it was only when I looked at Matthew’s statement on divorce in Matthew 19:9 in total isolation from those in Mark and Luke, and after I had removed Erasmus’s addition of ei0 before mh,\ and put myself in the sandals of those who stood in Jesus’ presence, that the Jewish setting of Jesus’ reply to the Pharisees proved to be the key to unlock its interpretation. This interpretation meant that the Betrothal interpretation became obsolete, unnecessary, and a hindrance to discovering the truth, because this explanation was created specifically to account for Erasmus’s insertion of the exception clause in Matthew 19:9, which the early proponents of the Betrothal solution assumed to be part of Jesus’ teaching on divorce. How wrong they were, but they can be forgiven because (as Paul said) they did it in ignorance. However, no modern supporter of the Betrothal solution can plead ignorance any longer. No textual scholar, worthy of the name, would ever accept Erasmus’s addition as the original Greek text of Matthew 19:9. The Betrothal ‘house’ had been built on Erasmus’s sand; the truth must be built on Matthew’s original text. With the collapse of the Betrothal house, where can conservative-evangelicals go to preserve the truth that Mark and Luke state very clearly, and yet account for the so-called ‘exception clauses’ in Matthew’s Gospel?

I.5. THE SCHOOLS OF HILLEL & SHAMMAI

5. The Schools of Hillel and Shammai. We know nothing about the teaching of Hillel and Shammai, who probably died before the birth of Jesus, but even that is not known for certain. There is no direct connection between them and the Schools of Hillel and Shammai. What little evidence we have about these two schools suggests that they came into existence after the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. Both schools belong to the sect of the Pharisees. The Mishnah, or Oral Torah, only reached a written form many generations after the time of Jesus, and after the era it purports to write about, and only from memory. The Babylonian Talmud was composed about 450 years after the death of Jesus, and it, too, is based on memory.

25 We have no evidence at all for the suggestion that the Schools of Hillel and Shammai existed in Jesus’ day. Consequently, we have no warrant to assume that the Pharisees who questioned Jesus in Matthew 19 belonged to either school. The likelihood is that the Jews in Jesus’ day were fiercely loyal to God in obeying His every command, and had been throughout the Maccabean period and through to the Second Jewish Revolt in A.D. 132-135. Although the Romans were tenuously masters of Palestine, they were forced by the Jews to remove their image-bearing standards from Jerusalem. The Jews were so incensed at this violation of their Law that they were prepared to die for their religion in order to ensure that they got their way. The result of these religious riots was that the conquerors had to give in to their zealous, religious hostility. Nowhere else in the Roman Empire were the Romans forced to back down in the face of such implacable, national, religious fervour. John records in his Gospel numerous occasions where the religious leaders were in total control of the national religion and had the public audacity to seek to kill religious heretics, such as Jesus. They had their own Temple police force. See John 5:16, 18 (Judea); 7:1, 19, 20, 25 (Galilee); 8:22, 37, 40; 11:53; 12:10. These twelve references to assassination attempts on Jesus’ life at the instigation of the highest religious authority had strong, religious backing in the Law of Moses, where law-breakers and blasphemers were to be stoned to death. Paul was one of these zealous defenders of the Law of Moses. Paul was given authority from the religious leaders in Jerusalem to imprison and kill any of Jesus’ followers, which he did willing out of pure zeal for God, and to preserve the national religion from heretical views. A woman taken in adultery would have been stoned to death at a nod from Jesus, showing that these men were keeping strictly to the commands of God. If the Roman authorities had tried to control the death penalty for breaking the Law of God they would have been sent packing with the words that Peter uttered before the Sanhedrin, “We ought to obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29). Every Jew, to a man and boy, had nothing but contempt for every Roman soldier who would keep them from obeying God. It was within this fiercely, nationalistic defence of their religion that Jesus lived and moved and had His being. If the Roman authorities had attempted to change the Law of God and take away from the Sanhedrin their right to discipline its heretics, they would have stirred up a hornet’s nest of protest, and galvanised the entire nation to such a pitch of national anger that it could have sparked off riots nationwide, which the Romans would not have been able to quell. The Romans had to tread very carefully not to offend the religious sensibilities of the people, as represented by the Sanhedrin. So if divorce replaced the death penalty, this would have to come from the religious leaders themselves and not be forced upon them by the Romans. It is an unproved assumption that the Roman authorities interfered in the internal affairs of the Jewish religion and could prevent the death penalty for adultery from being carried out. God commended any Israelite who took it into his own hands to inflict the death penalty for sins that He had laid down the death penalty for. So those who were prepared to stone the adulteress in John 8 would not have been sinning against God if they had carried out the stoning, because they were still living under the Law, and not under Grace, and death for adultery, Sabbath-breaking, blasphemy, etc. etc., must often have been carried out during the 1,500 years since God gave the law at Mount Sinai.

POSTSCRIPT Another identifying characteristic of those who follow the Erasmian teaching is the absence of Jesus’ doctrine of forgiveness in their pastoral counselling. It is very rare to find a soft-hearted divorcer; they are all hard-hearted sinners, male and female. If there is a reference to forgiveness among the Erasmians it is just a token section. It has no substance.

26 I.6. McFall’s solution in a nutshell

Mark and Luke state Jesus’ total ban on divorce for Greeks and Romans without any exceptions. Matthew states the same because he did not need to state that the Jews could not get a divorce for adultery and fornication, as these were punished with death, not divorce. Consequently, Jesus was able to say to the Jews, Whoever gets a divorce for a non-fornication issue, and remarries, he is an adulterer, because his first marriage has not been dissolved. What looked like an exception in the words “not over fornication,” was misunderstood by later generations and this accounts for the confusion in handling Matthew’s record. Jesus cleverly answered the Pharisees’ question “ . . . for all causes?” with his subtraction formula, Whoever divorces his wife, not over fornication (meaning, ‘anything besides fornication’), and marries another woman commits adultery.”

27 APPENDIX J

THE VERB ‘TO FORNICATE’ IN GREEK LITERATURE63

CATEGORY A: The verb ‘to prostitute/fornicate’ used in Greek sources.

No. 1. DEATH FOR ADULTERY AND BETROTHAL FORNICATION. Flavius Josephus (AD 37–ca. 105), Against Apion (Greek, ed. B. Niese; English: Loeb Class. Lib.) Josephus was born the year Pontius Pilate left Judea (AD. 36/7), so he was a contemporary witness to the punishments meted out for homosexuals, rapists of virgins, adulterers and adulteresses.

Book 2, section 199: But, then, what are our laws about marriage? That law owns no other mixture of sexes but that which nature hath appointed, of a man with his wife, and that this be used only for the procreation of children. But it abhors the mixture of a male with a male; and if any one do that, death is its punishment [Lev 20:13; 18:22, 29]. It commands us also, when we marry, not to have regard to portion [not to be influenced by dowry], nor to take a woman by violence, nor to persuade her deceitfully and knavishly; but to demand her in marriage of him who hath power to dispose of her, and is fit to give her away by the nearness of his kindred; for, says the Scripture, “A woman is inferior to her husband in all things.” (Note 1) Let her, therefore, be obedient to him; not so that he should abuse her, but that she may acknowledge her duty to her husband; for God hath given the authority to the husband. A husband, therefore, is to lie only with his wife whom he hath married; but to have to do with another man's wife is a wicked thing, which, if any one ventures upon, death is inevitably his punishment: no more can he avoid the same who forces a virgin betrothed to another man, or entices another man's wife [Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22-27]. The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind; if any one, therefore, proceeds to such fornication or murder, he cannot be clean.

COMPULSORY RITUAL WASHING AFTER INTERCOURSE (‘tradition of the Elders’?) Moreover, the law enjoins, that after the man and wife have lain together in a regular way, they shall bathe themselves; for there is a defilement contracted thereby, both in soul and body, as if they had gone into another country; for indeed the soul, by being united to the body, is subject to miseries, and is not freed therefrom again but by death; on which account the law requires this purification to be entirely performed.

(Note 1) A literal text is no where present in the Old Testament, but the concept certainly is (cf. Paul’s use of ‘law’ in 1 Cor 7:39). Flavius Josephus. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by. William Whiston, A.M. Auburn and Buffalo. John E. Beardsley. 1895.

No. 2. MARRIED WIFE COMMITTED ADULTERY AND FORNICATION Cassius Dio Cocceianus, Historiae Romanae (e0moixeu&eto) (e0porneu&eto)

63 All the material in this Appexdix was obtained via the online database of Perseus, which contains 69 million Greek words.

28 Book 61, chapter 31: o#ti h( Messali=na w#sper ou)k e0carkou~n oi9 o#ti kai\ e0moixeu&eto kai\ e0porneu&eto ?ta& te ga_r a!lla ai0sxrw~j e1pratte, kai\ e0p' oi0kh&matoj e1stin o#te e0n tw?| palati/w| au)th& te e0kaqe/zeto kai\ ta_j a!llaj ta_j prw&taj e0ka&qize0, kai\ e0pequ&mhse kai\ a!ndraj? tou~to dh_ to_ tou~ lo&gou

Messalina, as if it were not enough for her to play the adulteress (e0moixeu&eto) and harlot (= fornication)(e0porneu&eto),—for in addition to her shameless behaviour in general she at times sat as a prostitute in the place herself and compelled the other women of the highest rank to do the same,—now conceived a desire to have many husbands, that is, men really bearing that title. And she would have been married by a legal contract to all those who enjoyed her favours.

No. 3. (moixeuqei=san) (porneu&esqai) (e0porneu&eto) (e0moixeu&qh) (e0porneu&eto) Dio Chrysostom, Orationes (ed. J. de Arnim)(porneu&esqai)(e0porneu&eto) speech 64, section 364: . . . kai\ nomoqetikh&. trei=j e1qhken au#th toi=j Kupri/oij no&mouj: th_n moixeuqei=san keirame/nhn porneu&esqai: quga&thr au)th~j e0moixeu&qh kai\ th_n ko&mhn a)pekei/rato kata_ to_n no&mon kai\ e0porneu&eto. to_n au(to_n a)poktei/nanta a!tafon r(i/ptesqai: deu&teroj ou{toj Dhmwna&sshj no&moj: tri/toj w#ste mh_ a)poktei=nai bou~n a)ro&trion. duoi=n de\ au)th?| pai/dwn a)rre/nwn o!ntwn, o( me\n e0pi\ tw?| bou~n a)poktei=nai

[Cyprus had its famous women:] just so Cyprus too had its Demonassa, a woman gifted in both statesmanship and law-giving. She gave the people of Cyprus the followiing three laws: a woman guilty of adultery (moixeuqei=san) shall have her hair (ko/mhn) cut off and be a harlot (porneu&esqai)—her daughter became an adulteress ( e0moixeu&qh), had her hair cut off according to the law, and practised harlotry (e0porneu&eto); whoever commits suicide shall be cast out without burial—this was the second law of Demonassa; third, a law forbidding the slaughter of a plough- ox. Of the two sons which she had, the one met his death for having slain an ox, while the other, who slew himself, she refrained from burying.

No. 4. MARRIED WIFE COMMITTED FORNICATION (e0porneu&eto) (moixeu&eij) Lucian, Juppiter trageodeus (Zeus Rants) (ed. A. M. Harmon) Vol. 2. section 52:.. Timoklh~j ei0rwneu&h| tau~ta pro_j e0me/, tumbwru&xe kai\ miare\ kai\ kata&ptuste kai\ mastigi/a kai\ ka&qarma; ou) ga_r i1smen ou{tinoj me\n patro_j ei], pw~j de\ h( mh&thr sou e0porneu&eto, kai\ w(j to_n a)delfo_n a)pe/pnicaj kai\ moixeu&eij kai\ ta_ meira&kia diafqei/reij, lixno&tate kai\ a)naisxunto&tate; mh_ feu~ge d' ou}n, e3wj kai\ plhga_j par' e0mou~ labw_n a)pe/lqh|j: h!dh ga&r se toutw|i\ tw?| o)stra&kw| a)posfa&cw pammi/aron o!nta.

TIMOCLES: Are you mocking me, you ghoul, you miscreant, you abomination, you gallows-bird, you scum of the earth? Don’t we know who your father was, and how your mother was a courtesan (e0porneu&eto), and that you strangled your brother and you run after women (= you commit adultery, moixeu&eij) and corrupt the young, you height of all that’s lewd and shameless?

No. 5. MARRIED PROSTITUTE COMMITS ADULTERY (peporneume/nwn) (moixeu/tria) Procopius, Historia Arcana (Anecdota) (Greek). Vol. 6, chapter 1, p. 6, line 19ff.). ]Hn tw?| Belisari/w| gunh&, h{j dh_ e0n toi=j e1mprosqen lo&goij e0mnh&sqhn, pa&ppou me\n kai\ patro_j h(nio&xwn, e1n te Buzanti/w| kai\ Qessaloni/kh| to_ e1rgon tou~to e0ndeicame/nwn, mhtro_j de\ tw~n tinoj e0n qume/lh| peporneume/nwn. au#th ta_ pro&tera ma&xlon tina_ biw&sasa bi/on kai\ to_n tro&pon e0cerrwgui=a, farmakeu~si/ te patrw?|oij polla_ w(milhkui=a, kai\ th_n ma&qhsin tw~n oi9 a)nagkai/wn poihsame/nh, e0gguhth_ u#steron Belisari/w| gunh_ ge/gone, mh&thr h!dh pai/dwn genome/nh pollw~n. eu)qu_j me\n ou}n h)ci/ou moixeu&tria to_ e0c a)rxh~j ei]nai,

64 In Perseus this is wrongly referenced to Speech 47.

29 Belisarius had a wife, whom I have had occasion to mention in the previous books; her father and grandfather were charioteers who had given exhibitions of their skill in both Byzantium and Thessalonica, and her mother was one of the prostitutes (peporneume/nwn) attached to the theatre. This woman in her early years lived a lewd sort of life and having become dissolute in character, not only having consorted much with the cheap sorcerers . . . later became the wedded wife of Belisarius, after having already been the mother of many children. Straightway, therefore, she decided upon being an adulteress (moixeu/tria) from the very start, but she was very careful to conceal this business, not because she was ashamed of her own practices . . . but because she dreaded the punishment the Empress might afflict.

No. 6. BRIDE COMMITS ADULTERY. MARRIED MAN COMMITS FORNICATION Basil, Saint, Bishop of Caesarea, Epistulae (Greek) (p. 112, line 1ff.) XXI. In the case of a man married (sunoikw~n) to a woman, whenever not being satisfied with his marriage he falls into fornication (pornei/an),65 we judge such a person a fornicator (po/rnon), and we hold him to a longer period in his punishment; but we have no canon which subjects him to a charge of adultery (moixei/aj), if the sin be committed against some unmarried (e0leuqe/ran ‘free’) woman; because it says, “The adulteress (moixali\j) polluted shall be polluted,”66 and shall not return (a0nastre/yei) to her husband:67 and “He that keepeth an adulteress is foolish and wicked.”68 However, he who has committed fornication (porneu/saj) shall not be excluded from living with his wife (kai\ O( kate/xwn moixali/da a!frwn kai\ a)sebh&j. o( me/ntoi porneu&saj ou)k a)pokleisqh&setai th~j pro_j gunai=ka e9autou~ sunoikh&sewj). Therefore the wife will receive her husband when he returns from fornication,69 but the husband shall dismiss (a0pope/myei) the polluted woman from his house.70 But the reasoning in these matters also is not easy, but the custom has so obtained.

chapter 199: XXII (p. 114, line 9ff.) ... w#ste h( ... pornei/aj e0pignw~nai e0piti/mion. e1sti de\ e0n te/ssarsin e1tesin w(risme/nh toi=j porneu&ousin h( e0piti/mhsij. xrh_ tw?| prw&tw| e0kba&llesqai tw~n proseuxw~n, kai\

Continuation of the above (p. 112, line 17ff.). XXII. Regarding men who hold women by abduction, if they have carried off women who had been betrothed (promemnhsteume/naj) to others, they must not be received [to take Communion] before they have separated (a0fele/sqai) from them and have placed them in the power of those to whom they were originally betrothed (mnhsteusame/nwn), whether the latter wish to receive them or to give them up. . . . However, he who holds a wife by secret or somewhat violent seduction must acknowledge the punishment for fornication. And punishment for four years has been prescribed for fornicators (porneu&ousin).

65 A married man who cohabited with an unmarried woman was subjected, not to the punishment of adultery (fifteen years), but to that for fornication (seven years). Cf. Canons 59 and 77. This was in accord with the Mosaic law and the Roman law, but in the Christian law any carnal intercourse in which one of the parties, either the man or the woman, is married, is adultery. 66 Jer 3:1. Cf. Canon 9 and note. 67 Probably a reference to Deut 24:4. 68 Prov. 18:22. Cf. Canon 9 and note. 69 Cf. Canon 9 and note. 70 Basil does not use the word for ‘divorce’ but simply ‘sends away’ his wife. For how long is not stated.

30 No. 7. BETROTHED WIFE COMMITS FORNICATION (porneu~sai) Basil, Saint, Bishop of Caesarea, Epistulae (Greek) chapter 46 (p. 300, line 15ff.) )Epi\ tou&toij Mh_ o( pi/ptwn ou)k a)ni/statai; h@ o( a)postre/fwn ou)k e0pistre/fei; dia_ ti/ a)pe/streyen h( parqe/noj a)postrofh_n a)naidh~, kai/toige a)kou&sasa Xristou~ tou~ numfi/ou dia_ I(eremi/ou le/gontoj: Kai\ ei]pa meta_ to_ porneu~sai au)th_n tau~ta pa&nta: pro&j me a)na&streyon: kai\ ou)k a)ne/streye. Mh_ r(hti/nh ou)k e1stin e0n Galaa&d; h@ i0atro_j ou)k e1stin e0kei=; dia_ ti/ ou)k a)ne/bh i1asij qugatro_j laou~ mou;

Why did the virgin turn away, a shameless turning, even though she heard Christ her spouse declare through Jeremias: “And when she had committed all these fornications (to_ porneu~sai), I said: Return to me; and she did not return”? Is there no balm in Gilead?

No. 8. MARRIED FEMALE PROSTITUTES Strabo, Geography (porneu&ein) (Greek) (English) (English, ed. H.C. Hamilton, Esq., W. Falconer, M.A.) book 15, chapter 1: polla_j de\ gamou~sin w)nhta_j para_ tw~n gone/wn, lamba&nousi/ te a)ntidido&ntej zeu~goj bow~n, w{n ta_j me\n eu)peiqei/aj xa&rin ta_j d' a!llaj h(donh~j kai\ polutekni/aj: ei0 de\ mh_ swfronei=n a)nagka&saien, porneu&ein e1cesti. qu&ei de\ ou)dei\j e0stefanwme/noj ou)de\ qumia?| ou)de\ spe/ndei, ou)de\ sfa&ttousi to_ i9erei=on a)lla_ pni/gousin, i3na mh_ lelwbhme/non a)ll' o(lo&klhron [p. 989] didw~tai tw?| qew?|:

They marry many wives, who are purchased from their parents, and give in exchange for them a yoke of oxen. Some marry wives to possess obedient attendants, others with a view to pleasure and numerous offspring, and the wives prostitute themselves (porneu&ein), unless chastity (swfronei=n ‘to have self-control, discretion’) is enforced (a)nagka&saien) by compulsion. No one wears a garland when sacrificing, or burning incense, or pouring out a libation. They do not stab, but strangle the victim, that nothing mutilated, but that which is entire, may be offered to the Deity.

No. 9. FORNICATION AND ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING Plato, Laws book 8, section 841d: d? ka@n duoi=n qa&tera biasai/meqa peri\ e0rwtikw~n, h@ mhde/na tolma~n mhdeno_j a#ptesqai tw~n gennai/wn a#ma kai\ e0leuqe/rwn plh_n gameth~j e9autou~ gunaiko&j, a!quta de\ pallakw~n spe/rmata kai\ no&qa mh_ spei/rein, mhde\ a!gona a)rre/nwn para_ fu&sin: h@ to_ me\n tw~n a)rre/nwn pa&mpan a)feloi/meq' a!n, to_ de\ gunaikw~n, ei1 tij suggi/gnoito& tini plh_n tai=j meta_ qew~n kai\ i9erw~n ga&mwn e0lqou&saij ei0j th_n oi0ki/an, w)nhtai=j ei1te

[841d] . . . we might forcibly effect one of two things in this matter of sex-relations,—either that no one should venture to touch (a#ptesqai)71 any of the noble and freeborn, save his own wedded wife, nor sow any unholy and bastard seed in fornication, nor any unnatural and barren seed in sodomy,—or else we should entirely abolish love for males, and in regard to that for women, if we enact a law that any man who has intercourse with any women save those who have been brought to his house . . . COMMENT: The contrast is between ‘wedded wife’ (and lawful offspring) and unwedded sex (and illegitimate children). The words “in fornication,” are supplied by the translator. They are not in the Greek.

71 Paul used the same delicate expression in 1 Cor 7:1, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”

31

No. 10. FORNICATION (porneu&ontai) IS PRE-MARRIAGE SEX Herodotus, The Histories (Greek) (English, ed. A. D. Godley) book 1, chapter 93: qw&mata de\ gh~ h( Ludi/h e0j suggrafh_n ou) ma&la e1xei, oi[a& te kai\ a!llh xw&rh, pa&rec tou~ e0k tou~ Tmw&lou kataferome/nou yh&gmatoj. ? [2] e4n de\ e1rgon pollo_n me/giston pare/xetai xwri\j tw~n te Ai0gupti/wn e1rgwn kai\ tw~n Babulwni/wn: e1sti au)to&qi A)lua&ttew tou~ Kroi/sou patro_j sh~ma, tou~ h( krhpi\j me\n e0sti\ li/qwn mega&lwn, to_ de\ a!llo sh~ma xw~ma gh~j. e0cerga&santo de/ min oi9 a)gorai=oi a!nqrwpoi kai\ oi9 xeirw&naktej kai\ ai9 e0nergazo&menai paidi/skai. ? [3] ou}roi de\ pe/nte e0o&ntej e1ti kai\ e0j e0me\ h}san e0pi\ tou~ sh&matoj a!nw, kai/ sfi gra&mmata e0nekeko&lapto ta_ e3kastoi e0cerga&santo, kai\ e0fai/neto metreo&menon to_ tw~n paidiske/wn e1rgon e0o_n me/giston. ? [4] tou~ ga_r dh_ Ludw~n dh&mou ai9 qugate/rej porneu&ontai pa~sai, sulle/gousai sfi/si ferna&j, e0j o$ a@n sunoikh&swsi tou~to poie/ousai: e0kdidou~si de\ au)tai\ e9wuta&j. [5]?5 h( me\n dh_ peri/odoj tou~ sh&mato&j ei0si\ sta&dioi e4c kai\ du&o ple/qra, to_ de\ eu}roj e0sti\ ple/qra tri/a kai\ de/ka. li/mnh de\ e1xetai tou~ sh&matoj mega&lh, th_n le/gousi Ludoi\ a)ei/naon ei]nai: kale/etai de\ au#th Gugai/h. tou~to me\n dh_ toiou~to e0sti/.

There are not many marvellous things in Lydia to record, in comparison with other countries, except the gold dust that comes down from Timolus. [2] But there is one building to be seen there which is much the greatest of all, except those of Egypt and Babylon. In Lydia is the tomb of Alyattes, the father of Croesus, the base of which is made of great stones and the rest of it of mounded earth. It was built by the men of the market and the craftsmen and the prostitutes (paidi/skai, ‘maidens’). [3] There survived until my time five corner-stones set on the top of the tomb, and in these was cut the record of the work done by each group: and measurement showed that the prostitutes' (paidiske/wn , ‘maidens’) share of the work was the greatest. [4] All the daughters of the common people of Lydia ply the trade of prostitutes (porneu&ontai), to collect dowries, until they can get themselves husbands; and they themselves offer themselves in marriage. [5] Now this tomb has a circumference of thirteen hundred and ninety yards, and its breadth is above four hundred and forty yards; and there is a great lake hard by the tomb, which, the Lydians say, is fed by ever-flowing springs; it is called the Gygaean lake. Such then is this tomb.

No. 11. MALE PROSTITUTES (pepo&rneutai/) Aeschines, Against Timarchus speech 1, section 94: kai/toi logogra&foj ge/ tij fhsi/n, o( mhxanw&menoj au)tw?|= th_n a)pologi/an, e0nanti/a me le/gein e0mautw?|. ou) ga_r dh_ dokei=n2 ei]nai au)tw?| dunato_n to_n au)to_n a!nqrwpon peporneu~sqai kai\ ta_ patrw?|a katedhdoke/nai: to_ me\n ga_r h(marthke/nai ti peri\ to_ sw~ma paido_j ei]nai/ fhsi, to_ de\ ta_ patrw?|a katedhdoke/nai a)ndro&j. e1ti de\ tou_j kataisxu&nontaj au(tou_j misqou&j fhsi pra&ttesqai tou~ pra&gmatoj: a)poqauma&zwn ou}n perie/rxetai kai\ terateuo&menoj kata_ th_n a)gora&n, ei0 o( au)to_j pepo&rneutai/ te kai\ ta_ patrw?|a katedh&doken.

And yet a certain speech-writer who is concocting his defence says that I contradict myself; since it seems to him impossible, he says, for the same man to have been a prostitute and to have consumed his patrimony. For, he says, to have sinned against one's own body is the act of a boy, but to have consumed one's patrimony is that of a man. And furthermore he says that those who defile themselves exact pay for it. He therefore goes up and down the marketplace expressing his wonder and amazement that one and the same man should have prostituted himself (pepo&rneutai/) and also have consumed his patrimony.

No. 12. MALE PROSTITUTES (peporneu~sqai) Aeschines, Against Timarchus speech 1, section 70: ... au(to_n kath?|sxune pro_j H(gh&sandron, ou) dokei= u(mi=n pro_j to_n po&rnon peporneu~sqai; h@ ti/naj au)tou_j ou)k oi0o&meq' u(perbola_j poiei=sqai bdeluri/aj paroinou~ntaj

32 a}ra& ge e0caxqh&somai/ ti safe/steron ei0pei=n h@ kata_ th_n e0mautou~ fu&sin; ei1pate/ moi pro_j tou~ Dio_j kai\ tw~n a!llwn qew~n, w} a!ndrej A)qhnai=oi, o#stij au(to_n kath?|sxune pro_j (Hgh&sandron, ou) dokei= u(mi=n pro_j to_n po&rnon peporneu~sqai;

Shall I yield to the temptation to use language somewhat more explicit than my own self- respect allows? Tell me, fellow citizens, in the name of Zeus and the other gods, when a man has defiled himself with Hegesandrus, does not that man seem to you to have prostituted himself (peporneu~sqai) to a [male] prostitute?

No. 13. MALE PROSTITUTES (peporneu~sqai) Aeschines, Against Timarchus (Greek) (English) speech 1, section 79: fe/re dh_ pro_j tou~ Dio&j, ei0, w#sper peri\ tou~ ge/nouj, ou#tw kai\ peri\ tou~ e0pithdeu&matoj tou&tou e0de/hse dou~nai yh~fon Ti/marxon, ei1t' e1noxo&j e0stin ei1te mh&, e0kri/neto de\ to_ pra~gma e0n tw?| dikasthri/w|, ei0sh&geto d' ei0j u(ma~j w#sper nuni/, mh_ e0ch~n d' e0k tou~ no&mou h@ tou~ yhfi/smatoj mh&te e0moi\ kathgorei=n mh&te tou&tw| a)pologei=sqai, o( de\ kh~ruc ou(tosi\ o( nuni\ paresthkw_j e0moi\ e0phrw&ta u(ma~j to_ e0k tou~ no&mou kh&rugma: tw~n yh&fwn h( tetruphme/nh, o#tw| dokei= peporneu~sqai Ti/marxoj, h( de\ plh&rhj, o#tw| mh&, ti/ a@n e0yhfi/sasqe; a)kribw~j oi]d' o#ti kate/gnwt' a@n au)tou~

Come now, in God's name! if, as on the question of birth, so on the question of these personal habits, Timarchus had to submit to a vote as to whether he is guilty of the charge or not, and the case were being tried in court and were being brought before you as now, except that it were not permitted by constitution or statute either for me to accuse or for him to defend himself, and if this crier who is now standing at my side were putting the question to you in the formula prescribed by law, “The hollow ballot for the juror who believes that Timarchus has been a prostitute, (peporneu~sqai) the solid ballot for the juror who does not,” what would be your vote? I am absolutely sure that you would decide against him.

No. 14. MALE PROSTITUTES (peporneu~sqai) Aeschines, Against Timarchus (Greek) (English) speech 1, section 136: e0gw_ de\ ou!te e1rwta di/kaion ye/gw, ou!te tou_j ka&llei diafe/ronta&j fhmi peporneu~sqai, ou!t' au)to_j e0carnou~mai mh_ ou) gegone/nai t'1 e0rwtiko&j, kai\ e1ti kai\ nu~n ei]nai, ta&j te e0k tou~ pra&gmatoj gignome/naj pro_j e9te/rouj filoniki/aj kai\ ma&xaj ou)k a)rnou~mai mh_ ou)xi\ sumbebhke/nai moi.

Now as for me, I neither find fault with love that is honorable, nor do I say that those who surpass in beauty are prostitutes (peporneu~sqai). I do not deny that I myself have been a lover and am a lover to this day, nor do I deny that the jealousies and quarrels that commonly arise from the practice have happened in my case.

No. 15. MALE PROSTITUTES (po&rnhj) (peporneu~sqai) Demosthenes, Against Androtion speech 22, section 61: kai\ prosh&kein au)tw?| to_ e3kton me/roj ei0sfe/rein meta_ tw~n metoi/kwn, tw?| de\ pai=daj e0k po&rnhj ei]nai, tou~ de\ to_n pate/r' h(tairhke/nai, tou~ de\ th_n mhte/ra peporneu~sqai, to_n d' a)pogra&fein o#s' u(fei/let' e0c a)rxh~j, to_n de\ to_ dei=na, to_n d' o(mou~ r(hta_ kai\ a!rrhta kaka&, e9ch~j a#pantaj;

[61] Then do you suppose that all these men are his inveterate enemies merely because he collected this money from them? Is it not rather because he said of one of them, in the hearing of all of you in the Assembly, that he was a slave and born of slaves and ought by rights to pay the

33 contribution of one-sixth with the resident aliens; and of another that he had children by a harlot (po&rnhj); of this man that his father had prostituted himself (peporneu~sqai); of that man that his mother had been on the streets; that he was making an inventory of one man's peculations from the start of his career, that another had done this or that, and that a third had committed every conceivable crime—slandering them all in turn?

No. 16. MALE PROSTITUTES (peporneume/nw|) Aeschines, Against Timarchus speech 1, section 119: ei0 mh_ pa&ntej me/mnhsq' o#ti kaq' e3kaston e0niauto_n h( boulh_ pwlei= to_ porniko_n te/loj: kai\ tou_j priame/nouj to_ te/loj ou)k ei0ka&zein, a)ll' a)kribw~j ei0de/nai tou_j tau&th| xrwme/nouj th?| e0rgasi/a|. o(po&te dh_ ou}n teto&lmhka a)ntigra&yasqai peporneume/nw| Tima&rxw| mh_ e0cei=nai dhmhgorei=n, a)paitei=n fhsi th_n pra~cin au)th_n ou)k ai0ti/an kathgo&rou, a)lla_ marturi/an telw&nou tou~ para_ Tima&rxou tou~to e0kle/cantoj to_ te/loj.

The eminent orator Demosthenes says that you must either wipe out your laws, or else no attention must be paid to my words. For he is amazed, he says, if you do not all remember that every single year the senate farms out the tax on prostitutes, (porniko_n) and that the men who buy this tax do not guess, but know precisely, who they are that follow this profession. When, therefore, I have dared to bring impeachment against Timarchus for having prostituted himself, (peporneume/nw|) in order that I may deprive him of the right to address the people in assembly, Demosthenes says that the very act complained of calls, not for an accuser's arraignment, but for the testimony of the tax-gatherer who collected this tax from Timarchus.

No. 17. MALE PROSTITUTES (peporneume/nwn) Aeschines, Against Timarchus speech 1, section 155: kai\ pa&lin u(mi=n a)ntidie/ceimi a)nqrw&pwn peporneume/nwn ai0sxrw~j kai\ fanerw~j o)no&mata, i3na u(mei=j a)namnhsqe/ntej katanei/mhte ei0j th_n prosh&kousan ta&cin Ti/marxon.

I will recite to you the names of older and well-known men, and of youths and boys, some of whom have had many lovers because of their beauty, and some of whom, still in their prime, have lovers today, but not one of whom ever came under the same accusations as Timarchus. Again, I will tell over to you in contrast men who have prostituted themselves (peporneume/nwn) shamefully and notoriously, in order that by calling these to mind you may place Timarchus where he belongs.

No. 18. MALE PROSTITUTES (peporneume/nouj) Aeschines, Against Timarchus speech 1, section 159: u(mei=j h!dh tou~t' e0rwthqe/ntej a)pokri/nasqe pro_j e0me/, ei0j o(pote/ran th_n1 ta&cin Ti/marxon katane/mete, po&tera ei0j tou_j e0rwme/nouj h@ ei0j tou_j peporneume/nouj. ou)kou~n mh_ katalipw_n h$n ei3lou summori/an au)tomolh&sh|j ei0j ta_j tw~n e0leuqe/rwn diatriba&j.

To which class do you assign Timarchus—to those who are loved, or to those who are prostitutes (peporneume/nouj)? You see, Timarchus, you are not to be permitted to desert the company which you have chosen and go over to the ways of free men.

No. 19. MALE PROSTITUTES (peporneume/nouj) Aeschines, Against Timarchus speech 1, section 188: qauma&zw d' u(mw~n, w} a!ndrej A)qhnai=oi, ka)kei=no, ei0 tou_j me\n pornoboskou_j misei=te, tou_j d' e9ko&ntaj peporneume/nouj a)fh&sete: kai\ w(j e1oiken o( au)to_j ou{toj a)nh_r i9erwsu&nhn me\n ou)deno_j qew~n klhrw&setai,

34 I am also surprised, fellow citizens, that you who hate the brothel-keeper propose to let the willing prostitute (peporneume/nouj) go free. And it seems that a man who is not to be permitted to be a candidate for election by lot for the priesthood of any god, as being impure of body as that is defined by the laws, this same man is to write in our decrees prayers to the August Goddesses1 in behalf of the state. Why then do we wonder at the futility of our public acts, when the names of such public men as this stand at the head of the people's decrees? And shall we send abroad as ambassador a man who has lived shamefully at home, and shall we continue to trust that man in matters of the greatest moment? What would he not sell who has trafficked in the shame of his own body? Whom would he pity who has had no pity on himself

No. 20. MALE PROSTITUTES (peporneume/nouj) Aeschines, Against Timarchus speech 1, section 189: ti/ni d' u(mw~n ou)k eu!gnwsto&j e0stin h( Tima&rxou bdeluri/a; w#sper ga_r tou_j gumnazome/nouj, ka@n mh_ parw~men e0n toi=j gumnasi/oij, ei0j ta_j eu)eci/aj au)tw~n a)poble/pontej gignw&skomen, ou#tw tou_j peporneume/nouj, ka@n mh_ parw~men au)tw~n toi=j e1rgoij, e0k th~j a)naidei/aj kai\ tou~ qra&souj kai\ tw~n e0pithdeuma&twn gignw&skomen.

To whom of you is not the bestiality of Timarchus well known? For just as we recognize the athlete, even without visiting the gymnasia, by looking at his bodily vigor, even so we recognize the prostitute (peporneume/nouj), even without being present at his act, by his shamelessness, his effrontery, and his habits. For he who despises the laws and morality in matters of supreme importance, comes to be in a state of soul which is plainly revealed by his disorderly life

No. 21. MALE PROSTITUTES (peporneume/non) Demosthenes, On the False Embassy speech 19, section 233: tou~ton me\n toi/nun ou)k e1krinen Ai0sxi/nhj, o#ti to_n au(tou~ pai=d' e0p' ai0sxu&nh| pro_j Fi/lippon e1pemyen. ei0 de/ tij w@n e0f' h(liki/aj e9te/rou belti/wn th_n i0de/an, mh_ proi+do&menoj th_n e0c e0kei/nhj th~j o!yewj u(poyi/an, i0tamw&teron tw?| meta_ tau~t' e0xrh&sato bi/w|, tou~ton w(j peporneume/non ke/kriken

Now Aeschines never prosecuted Phryno for sending his own son to Philip with a dishonorable intention. But if a man in the bloom of his youth was more comely than others, and if, disregarding the suspicion that his personal charm might provoke, he has lived rather recklessly in later years, Aeschines must needs proceed against that man for fornication (peporneume/non).

No. 22. MALE PROSTITUTES (peporneume/noj) Aeschines, Against Timarchus speech 1, section 52 kai\ para_ tou&tou w(j e3teron e0lhluqo&ta, ou)ke/ti dh&pou fanei=tai3 mo&non h(tairhkw&j, a)lla_ ma_ to_n Dio&nuson ou)k oi]d' o#pwj dunh&somai periple/kein o#lhn th_n h(me/ran kai\ peporneume/noj: o( ga_r ei0kh?| tou~to kai\ pro_j pollou_j pra&ttwn kai\ misqou~, au)tw?| moi dokei= tou&tw| e1noxoj ei]nai

But if, saying nothing about these bestial fellows, Cedonides, Autocleides, and Thersandrus, and simply telling the names of those in whose houses he has been an inmate, I refresh your memories and show that he is guilty of selling his person not only in Misgolas’ house, but in the house of another man also, and again of another, and that from this last he went to still another, surely you will no longer look upon him as one who has merely been a kept man, but—by Dionysus, I don’t know how I can keep glossing the thing over all day long—as a common prostitute (peporneume/noj). For the man who follows these practices recklessly and with many men and for pay seems to me to be chargeable with precisely this.

35 No. 23. MALE PROSTITUTES (peporneume/non) Demosthenes, On the False Embassy speech 19, section 233: ... o!yewj u(poyi/an, i0tamw&teron tw?| meta_ tau~t' e0xrh&sato bi/w|, tou~ton w(j peporneume/non ke/kriken.

“Or the man who has failed to perform all the military service demanded of him, or who has thrown away his shield.” And he is right. Why? Man, if you fail to take up arms in behalf of the state, or if you are such a coward that you are unable to defend her, you must not claim the right to advise her, either. Whom does he specify in the third place? “Or the man,” he says, “who has debauched or prostituted himself (peporneume/non).” For the man who has made traffic of the shame of his own body, he thought would be ready to sell the common interests of the city also. But whom does he specify in the fourth place?

No. 24. MALE PROSTITUTES (peporneume/non) Aeschines, Against Timarchus speech 1, section 154: e0gw_ de\ ti/ le/gw kata_ Tima&rxou, kai\ ti/na pot' e0sti\n a$ a)ntige/grammai; dhmhgorei=n2 Ti/marxon peporneume/non kai\ th_n patrw?|an ou)si/an katedhdoko&ta. u(mei=j de\ ti/ o)mwmo&kate; u(pe\r au)tw~n yhfiei=sqai w{n a@n h( di/wcij h}|

What is it that I say against Timarchus, and what is the charge that I have brought? That Timarchus addresses the people, a man who has made himself a prostitute (peporneume/non) and has consumed his patrimony. And what is the oath that you have taken? To give your verdict on the precise charges that are presented by the prosecution.

No. 25. MALE PROSTITUTES 1 Corinthians 10:6-9 (porneu&wmen) (e0po&rneusan) (Greek) (English, ed. Rainbow Missions, Inc., Rainbow Missions, Inc.; revision of the American Standard Version of 1901) (Latin, ed. Saint Jerome, Bible Foundation and On-Line Book Initiative book I Corinthians, chapter 10:6-9, Tau~ta de\ tu&poi h(mw~n e0genh&qhsan, ei0j to_ mh_ ei]nai h(ma~j e0piqumhta_j kakw~n, kaqw_j ka)kei=noi e0pequ&mhsan. mhde\ ei0dwlola&trai gi/nesqe, kaqw&j tinej au)tw~n: w#sper ge/graptai E)ka&qisen o( lao_j fagei=n kai\ pei=n, kai\ a)ne/sthsan pai/zein. mhde\ porneu&wmen, kaqw&j tinej au)tw~n e0po&rneusan, kai\ e1pesan mia?| h(me/ra| ei1kosi trei=j xilia&dejmhde\ e0kpeira&zwmen to_n ku&rion, kaqw&j tinej au)tw~n e0pei/rasan, kai\ u(po_ tw~n o!fewn a)pw&llunto.

[7] Neither be idolaters, as some of them were. As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” [8] Neither let us commit sexual immorality (porneu&wmen), as some of them committed sexual immorality (e0po&rneusan), and in one day twenty-three thousand fell. [9] Neither let us test the Lord, as some of them tested, and perished by the serpents.

No. 26. MALE PROSTITUTION (e0po&rneue) Lucian, Alexander (ed. A. M. Harmon) Vol. 4. section 5: . . . meira&kion me\n ou}n e1ti w@n pa&nu w(rai=on, w(j e0nh~n a)po_ th~j kala&mhj tekmai/resqai kai\ a)kou&ein tw~n dihgoume/nwn, a)ne/dhn e0po&rneue kai\ sunh~n e0pi\ misqw?| toi=j deome/noij. e0n de\ toi=j a!lloij lamba&nei tij au)to_n e0rasth_j go&hj tw~n magei/aj kai\ e0pw|da_j qespesi/ouj u(pisxnoume/nwn kai\ xa&ritaj e0pi\ toi=j e0rwtikoi=j kai\ e0pagwga_j toi=j e0xqroi=j kai\ qhsaurw~n a)napompa_j kai\ klh&rwn diadoxa&j.

While he [Alexander] was still a mere boy, and a very handsome one, as could be inferred from the sere and yellow leaf of him, and could also be learned by hearsay from those who

36 recounted his story, he trafficked freely (e0po&rneue lit. he prostituted) in his attractiveness and sold his company to those who sought it. Among others he had an admirer who was a quack, . . . Lucian. Works. with an English Translation by. A. M. Harmon. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press. London. William Heinemann Ltd. 1915. 2

No. 27. MALE PROSTITUTE (peporneuko&ta) Cassius Dio Cocceianus, Historiae Romanae book 64, chapter 5: ge/lwta me/ntoi o( Ou)ite/llioj polloi=j parei=xen: o(rw~ntej ga_r a!ndra semnoproswpou~nta e0n tai=j dhmosi/aij proso&doij 1 o$n h!|desan peporneuko&ta, kai\ e0f' i3ppou basilikou~ kai\ e0n xlamu&di porfura?| o$n h)pi/stanto tou_j a)gwnista_j ?i3ppouj e0n th?| ou)eneti/w| e0sqh~ti yh&xonta,

Vitellius, however, furnished many with material for amusement. They could not restrain their laughter when they beheld wearing a solemn face in the official religious processions a man whom they knew to have played the strumpet (peporneuko&ta, ‘prostituted himself’).

No. 28. MALE PROSTITUTE (peporneu~sqai) Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists (Greek) (English, ed. C. D. Yonge, B.A.) (Greek, ed. Kaibel) book 6, chapter 40: . . Filo&cenoj d' h( Pternokopi\j e0mpeso&ntoj lo&gou o#ti ai9 ki/xlai ti/miai/ ei0si kai\ tou~ Koru&dou paro&ntoj, o$j e0do&kei peporneu~sqai, a)ll' e0gw&, e1fh, mnhmoneu&w o#te o( ko&rudoj o)bolou~ h}n. h}n de\ kai\ o( Filo&cenoj tw~n parasi/twn, w(j A)cio&nikoj ei1rhken e0n tw?| Xalkidikw?|:

But Philoxenus, who was surnamed Pternocopis, when it happened to be mentioned that thrushes were very dear, and that, too, while Corydus was present, who was said formerly to have prostituted himself (peporneu~sqai)—“I,” said he, “can recollect when a lark (ko&rudoj) only cost an obol.” (And Philoxenus too was a parasite, as Axionicus has stated in his Chalcidian. But the statement is thoroughly proved.)

No. 29. MALE PROSTITUTE (peporneukui/aj) Demetrius of Phaleron (attributed author), Libro de Elocutione (ed. W. Rhys (William Rhys) Roberts, Demetrius on Style (Cambridge: University Press, 1902), p. 207). book 5, chapter 302: gi/netai de\ e0n toi=j pra&gmasin, e0pa&n tij ai0sxra_ kai\ du&srhta a)nafando_n le/gh|, kaqa&per o( th~j Tima&ndraj kathgorw~n w(j peporneukui/aj th_n lekani/da kai\ tou_j o)bolou_j kai\ th_n yi/aqon kai\ pollh&n tina toiau&thn dusfhmi/an kath&rasen tou~ dikasthri/ou.

Side by side with the forcible style there is found, as might be expected, a corresponging faulty style, called ‘the repulsive.’ It occurs in the subject-matter when a speaker mentions publicly things which are disgusting and defile the lips. The man, for instance, who accused Timandra of having lived a wanton life (peporneukui/aj, lit. ‘having lived fornicatingly’), bespattered the court with a description of her basin, her obols, her mat, and many other such unsavoury details.

No. 30. MALE PROSTITUTE (peporneu~sqai) Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae (Greek) (Greek, ed. Charles Burton Gulick) (English, ed. C. D. Yonge, B.A.) book 6, chapter 40: Filo&cenoj d' h( Pternokopi\j e0mpeso&ntoj lo&gou o#ti ai9 ki/xlai ti/miai/ ei0si kai\ tou~ Koru&dou paro&ntoj, o$j e0do&kei peporneu~sqai, a)ll', e0gw/ e1fh, mnhmoneu&w o#te o( ko&rudoj o)bolou~ h}n.' h}n de\ kai\ o( Filo&cenoj tw~n parasi/twn, w(j A)cio&nikoj ei1rhken e0n tw?| Xalkidikw?|: pro&keitai de\ to_ martu&rion ? mnhmoneu&ei d' au)tou~ kai\ Me/nandroj e0n Kekrufa&lw| au)to_ mo&non Pternokopi/da au)to_n kalw~n.

37 But Philoxenus, who was surnamed Pternocopis, when it happened to be mentioned that thrushes were very dear, and that too while Corydus was present, who was said formerly to have prostituted himself (peporneu~sqai)—“I,” said he, “can recollect when a lark (ko&rudoj) only cost an obol.” (And Philoxenus too was a parasite, as Axionicus has stated in his Chalcidian. But the statement is thoroughly proved.)

No. 31. MALE PROSTITUTION Jude 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities [fem. pl.] around them, in like manner to these [masc. pl.] prostituting themselves (e0kporneu/sasai [fem. pl. aor ptc, due to ‘cities’]), and gone after other flesh, have been set before — an example, of fire age-during, justice suffering.

Jude 7 w(j So/doma kai\ Go/morra kai\ ai9 peri\ au0ta\j po/leij to\n o3moion tro/pon tou/toij e0kporneu/sasai kai\ a0pelqou=sai o9pi/sw sarko\j e9te/raj, pro/keintai dei=gma puro\j ai0wni/ou di/khn u9pe/cousai.

No. 32. MALE FORNICATOR A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology72 Entry Apellos-biography “. . . . that he was expelled from the school of Marcion for fornication with one Philumene, who fancied herself a prophetess, . . .” Apelles flourished about A. D. 188, and lived to a very great age. Tertullian (Praescript. Haeret. 30) says, that he was expelled from the school of Marcion for fornication with one Philumene, who fancied herself a prophetess, and whose fantasies were recorded by Apelles in his book entitled Fanerw/seij (see Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 5.13).

No. 33. MALE DEACON COMMITS FORNICATION Basil, Saint, Bishop of Caesarea, Epistulae (porneu&saj) chapter 188, III (p. 22, line 6ff.): Dia&konoj, meta_ th_n diakoni/an porneu&saj, a)po&blhtoj me\n th~j diakoni/aj e1stai: ei0j de\ to_n tw~n lai+kw~n a)pwsqei\j to&pon, th~j koinwni/aj ou)k ei0rxqh&setai. dio&ti a)rxai=o&j e0sti kanw_n tou_j a)po_ baqmou~ peptwko&taj tou&tw| mo&nw| tw?| tro&pw| th~j kola&sewj u(poba&llesqai:

If a deacon commit fornication (porneu&saj) after receiving the diaconate, he shall be removed from the diaconate . . . those in the ranks of the laity, after being expelled from the place of the faithful, are again taken back into the place from which they fell, but the deacon once and for all incurs the lasting penalty of deposition.

No. 34. FEMALE PROSTITUTES (peporneume/nhn) Demosthenes, Against Neaera speech 59, section 107: ou!koun deino&n; pro_j me\n tou_j a)stugei/tonaj kai\ o(mologoume/nwj a)ri/stouj tw~n E(llh&nwn ei0j th_n po&lin gegenhme/nouj ou#tw kalw~j kai\ a)kribw~j diwri/sasqe peri\ e9ka&stou, e0f' oi[j dei= e1xein th_n dwrea&n, th_n de\ perifanw~j e0n a(pa&sh| th?| E(lla&di peporneume/nhn ou#twj ai0sxrw~j kai\ o)ligw&rwj e0a&sete u(bri/zousan ei0j th_n po&lin kai\ a)sebou~san ei0j tou_j qeou_j a)timw&rhton, h$n ou!te oi9 pro&gonoi a)sth_n kate/lipon ou!q' o( dh~moj poli=tin e0poih&sato

Is not this a monstrous thing? In the case of those who were neighbors and who had shown themselves of all the Greeks by common consent to have conferred the greatest benefits upon your state, you thus carefully and accurately defined regarding each one the terms on which they should

72 Apellos, a disciple of Marcion, departed in some points from the teaching of his master. Instead of wholly rejecting the Old Testament, he looked upon its contents as coming partly from the good principle, partly from the evil principle.

38 receive the gift of citizenship; are you then thus shamefully and recklessly to let off unpunished a woman who has openly played the harlot (peporneume/nhn) throughout the whole of Greece, who treats the city with outrage and the gods with impiety, and who is a citizen neither by birth nor by the gift of the people?

No. 35. FEMALE PROSTITUTE (porneu~sai) (pornei/aj) Revelation 2:20-22 (Greek) (Latin, ed. Saint Jerome, Bible Foundation and On-Line Book Initiative) (English, ed. Rainbow Missions, Inc., Rainbow Missions, Inc.; revision of the American Standard Version of 1901) a)lla_ e1xw kata_ sou~ o)li/ga, o#ti e1xeij e0kei= kratou~ntaj th_n didaxh_n Balaa&m, o$j e0di/dasken tw?| Bala_k balei=n ska&ndalon e0nw&pion tw~n ui9w~n I)srah&l, fagei=n ei0dwlo&quta kai\ porneu~sai: ou#twj e1xeij kai\ su_ kratou~ntaj th_n didaxh_n Nikolai+tw~n o(moi/wj. ?16 metano&hson ou}n: ei0 de\ mh&, e1rxomai/ soi taxu&, kai\ polemh&sw met' au)tw~n e0n th?| r(omfai/a| tou~ sto&mato&j mou. ?17

[20] But I have this against you, that you tolerate your woman, Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. She teaches and seduces my servants to commit sexual immorality (porneu~sai), and to eat things sacrificed to idols. [21] I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality (pornei/aj). [22] Behold, I will throw her into a bed, and those who commit adultery with her into great oppression, unless they repent of her works.

No. 36. FEMALE PROSTITUTE (po&rnhj)(e0po&rneusan) Revelation 17:2 (Greek) (Latin, ed. Saint Jerome, Bible Foundation and On-Line Book Initiative) (English, ed. Rainbow Missions, Inc., Rainbow Missions, Inc.; revision of the American Standard Version of 1901 Kai\ h}lqen ei[j e0k tw~n e9pta_ a)gge/lwn tw~n e0xo&ntwn ta_j e9pta_ fia&laj, kai\ e0la&lhsen met' e0mou~ le/gwn Deu~ro, dei/cw soi to_ kri/ma th~j po&rnhj th~j mega&lhj th~j kaqhme/nhj e0pi\ u(da&twn pollw~n, ?2 meq' h{j e0po&rneusan oi9 basilei=j th~j gh~j,

One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and spoke with me, saying, "Come here. I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who sits on many waters, [2] with whom the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality, and those who dwell in the earth were made drunken with the wine of her sexual immorality (e0po&rneusan)."

No. 37. FEMALE PROSTITUTE (e0po&rneusan)(porneu&santej) Revelation 18:3, 9 (Greek) (Latin, ed. Saint Jerome, Bible Foundation and On-Line Book Initiative) (English, ed. Rainbow Missions, Inc., Rainbow Missions, Inc.; revision of the American Standard Version of 1901. ...ta_ e1qnh, kai\ oi9 basilei=j th~j gh~j met' au)th~j e0po&rneusan, kai\ oi9 e1mporoi th~j gh~j e0k th~j duna&mewj tou~ ...[9] e0p) au)th_n oi9 basilei=j th~j gh~j oi9 met' au)th~j porneu&santej kai\ strhnia&santej, o#tan ble/pwsin to_n kapno_n th~j purw&sewj au)th~j

He cried with a mighty voice, saying, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, and has become a habitation of demons, and a prison of every unclean spirit, and a prison of every unclean and hateful bird! [3] For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her sexual immorality, . . . . [9] the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from the abundance of her luxury.”

No. 38. FEMALE PROSTITUTES (kataporneuqei/saij)(porneu&ein)

39 Strabo, Geography (Greek) (English) (English, ed. H.C. Hamilton, Esq., W. Falconer, M.A.) book 11, chapter 14: a)lla_ kai\ qugate/raj oi9 e0pifane/statoi tou~ e1qnouj a)nierou~si parqe/nouj, ai[j no&moj e0sti\ kataporneuqei/saij polu_n xro&non para_ th?| qew?| meta_ tau~ta di/dosqai pro_j ga&mon, ou)k a)paciou~ntoj th?| toiau&th| sunoikei=n ou)deno&j. toiou~ton de/ ti kai\ H(ro&dotoj le/gei to_ peri\ ta_j [p. Luda&j: porneu&ein ga_r a(pa&saj. ou#tw de\ filofro&nwj xrw~ntai toi=j e0rastai=j w#ste kai\ ceni/an pare/xousi kai\ dw~ra a)ntidido&asi plei/w polla&kij h@ lamba&nousin, a#t' e0c eu)po&rwn oi1kwn e0pixorhgou&menai: de/xontai de\ ou) tou_j tuxo&ntaj tw~n ce/nwn, a)lla_ ma&lista tou_j a)po_ i1sou a)ciw&matoj.

Both the Medes and Armenians have adopted all the sacred rites of the Persians, but the Armenians pay particular reverence to Anaitis, and have built temples to her honour in several places, especially in Acilisene. They dedicate there to her service male and female slaves; in this there is nothing remarkable, but it is surprising that persons of the highest rank in the nation consecrate their virgin daughters to the goddess. It is customary for these women, after being prostituted ((kataporneuqei/saij) a long period at the temple of Anaitis, to be disposed of in marriage, no one disdaining a connexion with such persons. Herodotus mentions something similar respecting the Lydian women, all of whom prostitute (porneu&ein) themselves. But they treat their paramours with much kindness, they entertain them hospitably, and frequently make a return of more presents than they receive, being amply supplied with means derived from their wealthy connexions. They do not admit into their dwellings accidental strangers, but prefer those of a rank equal to their own.

No. 39. FEMALE PROSTITUTES (porneu&esqai)(po&rnhj) Strabo, Geography (Greek) (English) (English, ed. H.C. Hamilton, Esq., W. Falconer, M.A.) book 13, chapter 4: ... ou{ to_ plei=ston e1rgon ai9 paidi/skai sunete/lesan: le/gei d' e0kei=noj kai\ porneu&esqai pa&saj: tine\j de\ kai\ po&rnhj mnh~ma le/gousi to_n ta&fon xeiropoi/hton de\ th_n li/mnhn e1nioi i9storou~si th_n Kolo&hn pro_j ta_j e0kdoxa_j tw~n plhmmuri/dwn, ai4 sumbai/nousi tw~n potamw~n plhroume/nwn. U#paipa de\ po&lij e0sti\ katabai/nousin a)po_ tou~ Tmw&lou pro_j to_ tou~ Kau%strou pedi/on.

The monuments of the kings lie around the lake Coloë. At Sardes is the great mound of Alyattes upon a lofty base, the work, according to Herodotus, of the people of the city, the greatest part of it being executed by young women. He says that they all prostituted themselves (porneu&esqai); according to some writers the sepulchre is the monument of a courtesan ((po&rnhj). Some historians say, that Coloë is an artificial lake, designed to receive the superabundant waters of the rivers when they are full and overflow . . .

No. 40. FEMALE PROSTITUTE (porneuome/nh) (e9tai/ran) Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists (Greek) (English, ed. C. D. Yonge, B.A.) (Greek, ed. Kaibel) book 13, chapter 51: Lusi/aj d' e0n tw?| pro_j Lai/da, ei1 ge gnh&sioj o( lo&goj, tou&twn mnhmoneu&ei: Filu&ra ge/ toi e0pau&sato porneuome/nh e1ti ne/a ou}sa kai\ Skiw&nh kai\ I(ppa&fesij kai\ Qeo&kleia kai\ Yama&qh kai\ Lagi/ska kai\ A!nqeia. mh&pote de\ dei= gra&fein a)nti\ th~j A)nqei/aj A!nteian. ou0 ga\r eu9ri/skomen par 0 ou0deni\ !Anqeian a0nagegamme/nhn e9tai/ran,

And Lysias, in his oration against Lais, if, indeed, the speech is a genuine one, mentions these circumstances— “Philyra abandoned the trade of a harlot (porneuome/nh) when she was still quite young; and so did Scione, and Hippaphesis, and Theoclea, and Psamathe, and Lagisca, and

40 Anthea.” But perhaps, instead of Anthea, we ought to read Antea. For I do not find any mention made by any one of a harlot (e9tai/ran) named Anthea.

No. 41. FEMALE PROSTITUTE (porneuome/nh) (e9tai/ran) Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists (Greek) (English, ed. C. D. Yonge, B.A.) (Greek, ed. Kaibel) book 13, chapter 62: . . . kai\ Lusi/aj d' e0n tw?| kata_ Lai/doj, ei0 gnh&sioj o( lo&goj, mnhmoneu&ei au)th~j, katale/gwn kai\ a!llaj e9tai/raj e0n tou&toij: Filu&ra ge/ toi e0pau&sato porneuome/nh e1ti ne/a ou}sa kai\ Skiw&nh kai\ I(ppa&fesij kai\ Qeo&kleia kai\ Yama&qh kai\ Lagi/ska kai\ A!nqeia kai\ A)risto&kleia.

For perhaps here we ought to read Nais, and not Lais. But Hermippus, in his Essay on Isocrates, says that Isocrates, when he was advancing in years, took the courtesan [= prostitute] Lagisca to his house, and had a daughter by her. And Strattis speaks of her in these lines And while she still was in her bed, I saw Isocrates’ concubine, Lagisca, Playing her tricks; and with her the flute-maker. And Lysias, in his speech against Lais, (if, at least, the oration be a genuine one,) mentions her, giving a list of other courtesans also, in the following words:—“Philyra indeed abandoned the trade of a courtesan while she was still young; and Scione, and Hippaphesis, and Theoclea, and Psamathe, and Lagisca, and Anthea, and Aristoclea, all abandoned it also at an early age.”

No. 42. FEMALE PROSTITUTE (e9te/rw|)(peporneume/nh) Procopius, Historia Arcana (Anecdota) Vol. 6, chapter 5 (p. 62, line 11ff.). h(ni/ka de\ A)ntwni/na th~j basili/doj a)pogenome/nhj e0j Buza&ntion h}lqen, e0pela&qeto me\n e0qelousi/a w{n e0kei/nh e1nagxoj ei0j au)th_n ei1rgasto, w(j h#kista de\ u(pologisame/nh w(j, h!n tw| e9te/rw| h( pai=j au)th?| cunoiki/zoito, peporneume/nh ta_ pro&tera e1stai, to_n Qeodw&raj e1kgonon khdesth_n a)tima&zei, th&n te pai=da w(j ma&lista a)kousi/an biasame/nh a)ndro_j tou~ e0rwme/nou a)pe/sthse. ?24 mega&lhn te a)gnwmosu&nhj e0k tou~ e1rgou tou&tou a)phne/gkato do&can ei0j pa&ntaj a)nqrw&pouj, h#konta& te ou)deni\ po&nw| a)napei/qei to_n a!ndra tou~ a!gouj au)th?| metalaxei=n tou~de.

But when Antonina, after the Empress’ death, came to Byzantium, she purposely forgot the benefits which the Empress recently had conferred on her, and paying no attention whatever to the fact that if the girl should marry anyone else, her previous record would be that of a prostitute (peporneume/nh), she spurned the alliance with the offspring of Theodora . . .

No. 43. FEMALE SLAVE PROSTITUTE (peporneu~sqai)(moixo_n) Achilles Tatius, Leucippe et Clitophon (ed. Rudolf Hercher) book 6, chapter 20: Ou)k a)gapa?|j o#ti soi lalw~, kai\ mega&lhn eu)tuxi/an dokei=j to_n so_n katafilh~sai despo&thn, a)lla_ a)kki/zh| kai\ sxhmati/zh| pro_j a)po&noian; E)gw_ me/n se kai\ peporneu~sqai dokw~: kai\ ga_r moixo_n filei=j. ?

[Leucippe, a female slave of Thersander, was a virgin and remained so.] Thersander . . . when he was disappointed of his hopes [to mate her] gave free rein to his anger, “Wretched slave,” he cried, striking her on the face, “miserable, love-sick girl; I heard all your ravings. Are you not delighted that I even speak to you? Do you not think it a great piece of good fortune to be able to kiss your master? . . . . A harlot you must be, for it is an adulterer ((moixo_n)) that you love.”

No. 44. MALE AND FEMALE PROSTITUTES (peporneuko&toj)(e9tai/raj) Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers (ed. R.D. Hicks) (Greek) (English, ed. R.D. Hicks) book 6, chapter 2: du&o malakw~n perikruptome/nwn au)to_n e1fh, mh_" eu)labei=sqe: ku&wn teutli/a ou) trw&gei." peri\ paido_j peporneuko&toj e0rwthqei\j po&qen ei1h, Tegea&thj" ," e1fh. a)fuh~ palaisth_n

41 qeasa&menoj i0atreu&onta e1fh, ti/" tou~to; h@ i3na tou&j pote/ se nikh&santaj nu~n kataba&lh|j;" qeasa&menoj ui9o_n e9tai/raj li/qon ei0j o!xlon ba&llonta, pro&sexe" ," e1fh, mh_" to_n pate/ra plh&ch|j

When two cowards hid away from him, he called out, “Don't be afraid, a hound is not fond of beetroot.” [62] After seeing a stupid wrestler practising as a doctor he inquired of him, “What does this mean ? Is it that you may now have your revenge on the rivals who formerly beat you ?” Seeing the child of a courtesan [e9tai/raj = prostitute] throw stones at a crowd, he cried out, “Take care you don't hit your father.”

No. 45. MALE AND FEMALE PROSTITUTES (ta_ pornei=a) (e9tai/raj) (e0porneu&eto) (ai9 po&rnai) Cassius Dio Cocceianus,Historiae Romanae (Greek) book 80, chapter 13: ta&de e0sti/n. e0j kaphlei=a e0sh?|ei nu&ktwr periqetai=j ko&maij xrw&menoj, kai\ ta_ tw~n kaphli/dwn ei0rga&zeto. e0j ta_ pornei=a ta_ peribo&hta e0sefoi/ta, ?kai\ ta_j e9tai/raj e0celau&nwn e0porneu&eto. kai\ te/loj e0n tw?| palati/w| oi1khma& ti a)podei/caj e0ntau~qa h)se/lgaine, gumno&j t' a)ei\ e0pi\ th~j qu&raj au)tou~ e9stw_j w#sper ai9 po&rnai, kai\ to_ sindo&nion xrusoi=j kri/koij e0chrthme/non diasei/wn,

He [Sardanapalus] would go to the taverns by night, wearing a wig, and there ply the trade of a female huckster [innkeeper]. He frequented the notorious brothels (ta_ pornei=a), drove out the prostitutes (e9tai/raj), and played the prostitute himself (e0porneu&eto). Finally, he set aside a room in the palace and there committed his indecencies, always standing nude at the door of the room, as harlots (ai9 po&rnai) do, . . . while in a soft and melting voice he solicited the passers-by.

No. 46. MALE AND FEMALE PROSTITUTES 1 Corinthians 6:15-19 (po/rnhj)(po/rnh)(pornei/an)(porneu&wn) (Greek) (English, ed. Rainbow Missions, Inc., Rainbow Missions, Inc.; revision of the American Standard Version of 1901) (Latin, ed. Saint Jerome, Bible Foundation and On-Line Book Initiative) book I Corinthians, chapter 6:15-19, !Araj ou]n ta\ me/lh tou= Xristou= poih/sw po/rnhj me/jh; Mh\ ge/noito. ou)k oi1date o#ti o9 kollw&menoj th=? po/rnh? e3n sw=ma/ e0stin; . . . .[17] o( de\ kollw&menoj tw?| kuri/w| e4n pneu~ma& e0stin. feu&gete th_n pornei/an: pa~n a(ma&rthma o$ e0a_n poih&sh| a!nqrwpoj e0kto_j tou~ sw&mato&j e0stin, o( de\ porneu&wn ei0j to_ i1dion sw~ma a(marta&nei. ?19 h@ ou)k oi1date o#ti to_ sw~ma u(mw~n nao_j tou~ e0n u(mi=n a(gi/ou pneu&mato&j e0stin, ou{ e1xete a)po_ qeou~;? kai\ ou)k e0ste\ e9autw~n, h)gora&sqhte ga_r timh~j: doca&sate dh_ to_n qeo_n e0n tw?| sw&mati u(mw~n.

Don’t you know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! [v. 16] Or don't you know that he who is joined to a prostitute (po/rnh?) is one body? For, “The two,” says he, “will become one flesh.” [v. 17] But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit. [v. 18] Flee sexual immorality (pornei/an)! “Every sin that a man does is outside the body,” but he who commits sexual immorality (porneu&wn) sins against his own body. [v. 19] Or don’t you know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body.

No. 47. ABSENCE OF ADULTERY AND PROSTITUTION (moixei/an)() Plutarch, Mulierum virtutes (ed. Goodwin)(English) (Greek, ed. Gregorius N. Bernardakis)

42 (English, ed. Frank Cole Babbitt) (Greek, ed. Frank Cole Babbitt)73 chapter 12: “It was a custom among the maids of Cios to assemble together in the public temples, and to pass the day together in good fellowship; and there their sweethearts had the felicity to behold how prettily they sported and danced about. In the evening this company went to the house of every particular maid in her turn, and waited upon each other’s parents and brethren very officiously, even to the washing of their feet. It oftentimes so fell out that many young men fell in love with one maid; but they carried it so decently and civilly that, when the maid was espoused (e0ggua/w) to one, the rest presently gave off courting of her. The effect of this good order among the women was that no mention (a)ne/gguon = not credited) was made of any adultery or fornication (fqora_n = destruction) among them for the space of seven hundred years.” mh&te moixei/an mh&te fqora_n a)ne/gguon e0tw~n e9ptakosi/wn mnhmoneu&esqai par' au)toi=j genome/nhn

Plutarch. Plutarch's Morals. Translated from the Greek by several hands. Corrected and revised by. William W. Goodwin, PH. D. Boston. Little, Brown, and Company. Cambridge. Press Of John Wilson and son. 1874. 1.

No. 48. COMMAND NOT TO COMMIT ADULTERY OR FORNICATION (porneu&seij)(moixeu&seij) Barnabas, Barnabae Epistula (ed. Kirsopp Lake) (Greek, Loeb, p. 76, by B. D. Ehrman) chapter 19.4: ou)x u(yw&seij seauto&n, e1sh| de\ tapeino&frwn kata_ pa&nta: ou)k a)rei=j e0pi\ seauto_n do&can. ou) lh&myh| boulh_n ponhra_n kata_ tou~ plhsi/on sou, ou) dw&seij th?| yuxh?| sou qra&soj; ou) porneu&seij, ou) moixeu&seij, ou) paidofqorh&seij. ou) mh& sou o( lo&goj tou~ qeou~ e0ce/lqh| e0n a)kaqarsi/a| tinw~n. ou) lh&myh| pro&swpon e0le/gcai tina_ e0pi\ paraptw&mati. e1sh| prau%j, e1sh| h(su&xioj, e1sh| tre/mwn tou_j lo&gouj ou$j h!kousaj. ou) mnhsikakh&seij tw?| a)delfw?| sou.

Do not exalt yourself but be humble in every way. Do not heap glory on yourself. Do not entertain a wicked plot against your neighbour; do not make your soul impertinent. 4 Do not engage in sexual immorality, do not commit adultery, do not engage in pederasty. The word of God must not go out from you to any who are impure. [Alternative ET:] You shall not exalt thyself, but shall be humble-minded in all things; thou shalt not take glory to thyself. Thou shalt form no evil plan against thy neighbour, thou shalt not let thy soul be froward. Thou shalt not commit fornication (porneu&seij), thou shalt not commit adultery (moixeu&seij), thou shalt not commit sodomy. Thou shalt not let the word of God depart from thee among the impurity of any men.

No. 49. FEMALE PROSTITUTES (porneuome/naj)(proagwgeu&ein), PIMPS (mastropou_j) Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists (Greek, ed. Kaibel)(English, Loeb, vol. iv. by C.B. Gulick) book 10.443a e1pausen ou}n au)tou_j tou&twn Kle/omij o( tu&rannoj, o( kai\ ta_j mastropou_j ta_j ei0qisme/naj proagwgeu&ein ta_j e0leuqe/raj gunai=kaj kai\ trei=j h@ te/ttaraj ta_j e0pifane/stata porneuome/naj e0ndh&saj ei0j sa&kkouj kataponti/sai tisi\n prosta&caj kai\ E#rmippoj de\ e0n toi=j peri\ tw~n e9pta_ sofw~n Peri/andron to_ au)to_ poih~sai.

‘. . . . And so the tyrant stopped them from these practices; he was the one who tied up in sacks the procuresses (= pimps, ta_j mastropou_j) who were in the habit of seducing (= to prostitute, proagwgeu&ein) well-born women of the free class, as well as three or four of the most

73 Where information about languages is given in each extracted entry, this is taken from Perseus, which does not always include an ET. This has to be obtained from elsewhere.

43 conspicuous harlots (porneuome/naj), and ordered them to be drowned in the sea.’ Hermippus, too, in his work On the Seven Sages, says that Periander did the same.

No. 50. ADULTERERS (moixeu&saj), FORNICATIORS (porneu&saj) Clement of Alexandria, Quis Dis Salvetur (‘The Rich Man’s Salvation’) (ed. G.W. Butterworth) chapter 40 (Loeb, p. 354, lines 4-8): o( kle/pthj, a!fesin bou&lei labei=n; mhke/ti kle/pte: o( moixeu&saj, mhke/ti purou&sqw: o( porneu&saj, loipo_n a(gneue/tw: o( a(rpa&saj, a)podi/dou kai\ prosapodi/dou: o( yeudoma&rtuj, a)lh&qeian a!skhson: o( e0pi/orkoj, mhke/ti o!mnue:

Thief, do you wish to receive forgiveness? steal no more. Adulterer, no longer burn. Fornicator, keep pure in future. Extortioner, repay with interest. False witness, practice truth.

No. 51. ADULTERY (moixei/an), FORNICATION (porneu&ein) Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus (‘Exhortation to the Greeks/Heathen’) (ed. G.W. Butterworth) chapter 4 (p. 136, lines 6-12): . . . kata&pauson, 3Omhre, th_n w?|dh&n: ou)k e1sti kalh&, moixei/an dida&skei: porneu&ein de\ h(mei=j kai\ ta_ w}ta parh|th&meqa:

Cease the song, Homer. There is njo beauty in that; it teaches adultery. We have declined to lend even our ears to fornication.

No. 52. FORNICATION (porneu&ein) PIMP (pornobosko\j) Xenophon of Ephesus, Ephesiaca (‘The Ephesian Tale of Anthia and Habrocomes’) (ed. Rudolf Hercher)74 (Greek)(ET by Jeffrey Henderson)75 book 5, chapter 7: Kai\ dh_ kosmh&saj kalh?| me\n e0sqh~ti pollw?| de\ xrusw?| h}gen w(j prosthsome/nhn te/gouj: h( de\ me/ga a)nakwku&sasa 2 feu~ moi tw~n kakw~n ei]pen, ?ou)x i9kanai\ ga_r ai9 pro&teron sumforai/, ta_ desma&, ta_ lh|sth&ria, a)ll) e1ti kai\ porneu&ein a)nagka&zomai; w} ka&lloj dikai/wj u(brisme/non, ti/ ga_r h(mi=n a)kai/rwj parame/neij; A)lla_ ti/ tau~ta qrhnw~ kai\ ou)x eu(ri/skw tina_ mhxanh&n, di0 h{j fula&cw th_n me/xri nu~n tethrhme/nhn swfrosu&nhn;

In due course the pimp (pornobosko\j) who had bought Anthia made her display herself in front of the whorehouse. He dressed her up in a beautiful costume and lots of gold and took her to her spot outside a stall. But she raised a loud wail: “What troubles are mine!” she cried, “Are my previous predicaments not enough, the chains of banditry? Must I now be a whore as well? Beauty of mine, you are justly violated, . . . [Anthia was married to Habrocomes.]

No. 53. ADULTERY (moixeu&ousin) FORNICATION (porneu&ousin) John, of Damascus (attributed author), Vita Barlaam et Joasaph (ed. G.R. Woodward, H. Mattingly) (Greek) chapter 27.253 (p. 422, lines 9-12): prosdokw~ntej a)na&stasin nekrw~n kai\ zwh_n tou~ me/llontoj ai0w~noj. ou) moixeu&ousin, ou) porneu&ousin, ou) yeudomarturou~sin, ou)k e0piqumou~si ta_ a)llo&tria, timw~si pate/ra kai\ mhte/ra, kai\ tou_j plhsi/on filou~si,

74 According to Liddell & Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, Vol. I. p. xxxviii, this work comes under: Xenophon Ephesius Scriptor Eroticus, edited by R. Hercher, Erotici. (ca. 2nd cent. AD). 75 Jeffrey Henderson, trans. Longus/Daphnis and Chloe. Xenophon of Ephesus/Anthia and Habrocomes (Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press, 2009).

44

[Christians:] They neither commit adultery nor fornication; nor do they bear false witness, nor covet other men’s goods: they honour father and mother, and love their neighbours.

No. 54. ABSENCE OF PROSTITUTES AND MALE FORNICATORS IN ISRAEL Deut. 23:17 ‘There is not a prostitute (po/rnh) among the daughters of Israel, nor is there one fornicating (porneu/wn) among the sons of Israel; Ou0k e0stai po/rnh a0po\ qugate/rwn Israhl, kai\ ou0k e0stai porneu/wn a0po\ ui9w~n Israhl: ou0k e0stai telesfo/roj a0po\ qugate/rwn Israhl, kai\ ou0k e0stai telisko/menoj a0po\ ui9w~n Israhl.

CATEGORY B: ‘Fornication’ used in non-Greek sources.

No. B1. Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome (ed. Evan T. Sage, Ph.D.)76 book 38, chapter 24: “... her disposition; when he found it shrinking from voluntary fornication (Lat. stupro), he did violence to her body, . . . .” LATIN: [3] is primo animum temptavit; quem cum abhorrentem a voluntario videret stupro, corpori, quod servum fortuna erat, vim fecit The full context to the above except is: “There remained an entirely new war with the Tectosagi. Setting out against them the consul came on the third day of marching to Ancyra, a famous city in that region, from which the enemy was a little more than ten miles distant. [2] While they were established in camp there, a memorable deed was done by a captive woman. The wife of the chieftain Orgiago, a woman of surpassing beauty, was held under guard among a large number of prisoners; the commander of the guard was a centurion, characterized by both the lust and the greed of the soldier. [3] At first he tried her disposition; when he found it shrinking from voluntary fornication, he did violence to her body, which fortune had made a slave. [4] Then, to quiet her indignation at the injury, he held out to the woman the hope of a return to her own people, but not even that, as a lover might have done, did he grant her for nothing. Having stipulated for a definite quantity of gold, to avoid taking one of his own men as an accomplice, he allowed the woman herself to send as a messenger to her people whomsoever of the prisoners she should choose. [5] He designated a spot near the river to which not more than two of the kinsmen of the captive were to come with the money the following night to receive her. It happened that one of the woman’s own slaves was among the prisoners under the same guard. [6] This man, as messenger, the centurion at nightfall conducted beyond the line of sentinels. The following night both the two kinsmen of the woman and the centurion with the prisoner came to the appointed place. [7] While they were displaying the money, which was to amount to an Attic talent —for [8] so great had been the sum agreed upon—the woman in her own language ordered them to draw sword and kill the centurion as he was weighing the money. [9] When they had slit his throat and cut off his head, the woman herself wrapped it in her garment and carried it on her return to her husband Orgiago, who had escaped home from Olympus;

76 Livy. Books XXXVIII-XXXIX with an English Translation. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1936: published without copyright notice. Practically the same story is told by Polybius (XXII. xxi), Plutarch (Mul. Virt. 43), Valerius Maximus (VI. i. ext. 2) and Florus (I. xxvii. 6). All probably came from the same ultimate source, although Plutarch quotes as from Polybius an item not now found in Polybius’ own version.

45 [10] before she embraced him she dropped at his feet the head of the centurion, and, when he wondered whose head this was and what this act meant, so unlike that of a woman, she confessed to her husband the violence done to her person and the vengeance exacted for her forcibly violated chastity, and, as the story goes, by the purity and dignity of her life in other respects maintained to the end the [11] glory won by a deed that marked her as a true matron.

No. B2. William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure (PERSEUS SOURCE: shak. mm 2.1) act 2, scene 1: “... a woman cardinally given, might have been accused in fornication, adultery, and all uncleanliness there.”

SCENE I. A hall in ANGELO'S house. Enter ELBOW, and Officers with FROTH and POMPEY. Elb. He, sir! a tapster, sir; parcel-bawd; one that serves a bad woman; whose house, sir, was, as they say, plucked down in the suburbs; and now she professes a hot-house, which, I think, is a very ill house too. Escal. How know you that? Elb. My wife, sir, whom I detest before heaven and your honour,— Escal. How? thy wife? Elb. Ay, sir; whom, I thank heaven, is an honest woman,— Escal. Dost thou detest her therefore? Elb. I say, sir, I will detest myself also, as well as she, that this house, if it be not a bawd’s house, it is pity of her life, for it is a naughty house. Escal. How dost thou know that, constable? Elb. Marry, sir, by my wife; who, if she had been a woman cardinally given, might have been accused in fornication, adultery, and all uncleanliness there. Escal. By the woman's means? Elb. Ay, sir, by Mistress Overdone’s means: but as she spit in his face, so she defied him. Pom. Sir, if it please your honour, this is not so. Elb. Prove it before these varlets here, thou honourable man; prove it. COMMENT: Shakespeare is aware that there is a difference between ‘adultery’ and ‘fornication’ but that the same woman can be guilty of both sins.

No. B3. MEN MISUSE WIVES FOR FORNICATION The Quran (ed. Muhammad M. Pickthall) (English, ed. Abdullah Yusuf Ali) (Arabic, ed. Muhammad M. Pickthall) (English, ed. M. H. Shakir) sura 5: The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And so are the virtuous women of the believers and the virtuous women of those who received the Scripture before you (lawful for you) when ye give them their marriage portions and live with them in honour, not in fornication, nor taking them as secret concubines.

No. B4. MEN MISUSE WIVES FOR FORNICATION The Quran (English, ed. Abdullah Yusuf Ali) (English, ed. Muhammad M. Pickthall) (Arabic, ed. Muhammad M. Pickthall) Sura 2: [197] The pilgrimage is (performed in) the well-known months; so whoever determines the performance of the pilgrimage therein, there shall be no intercourse nor fornication nor quarrelling amongst one another;

46

No. B5. MEN MISUSE WIVES FOR FORNICATION The Quran (English, ed. Abdullah Yusuf Ali) (English, ed. Muhammad M. Pickthall) (Arabic, ed. Muhammad M. Pickthall)

Sura 4: [24] And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah’s ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication. Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise. [25] And whoever among you has not within his power ampleness of means to marry free believing women, then (he may marry) of those whom your right hands possess from among your believing maidens; and Allah knows best your faith: you are (sprung) the one from the other; so marry them with the permission of their masters, and give them their dowries justly, they being chaste, not fornicating, nor receiving paramours; and when they are taken in marriage, then if they are guilty of indecency, they shall suffer half the punishment which is (inflicted) upon free women.

No. B6. MEN MISUSE WIVES FOR FORNICATION The Quran (English, ed. Abdullah Yusuf Ali) (English, ed. Muhammad M. Pickthall) (Arabic, ed. Muhammad M. Pickthall) sura 17: [31] And do not kill your children for fear of poverty; We give them sustenance and yourselves (too); surely to kill them is a great wrong. [32] And go not nigh to fornication; surely it is an indecency and an evil way.

No. B7. MEN MISUSE WIVES FOR FORNICATION The Quran (English, ed. Abdullah Yusuf Ali) (English, ed. Muhammad M. Pickthall) (Arabic, ed. Muhammad M. Pickthall) sura 25: [68] And they who do not call upon another god with Allah and do not slay the soul, which Allah has forbidden except in the requirements of justice, and (who) do not commit fornication and he who does this shall find a requital of sin; [69] The punishment shall be doubled to him on the day of resurrection, and he shall abide therein in abasement;

No. B8. MARRIED WOMEN COMMIT FORNICATION The Quran (English, ed. Abdullah Yusuf Ali) (English, ed. Muhammad M. Pickthall) (Arabic, ed. Muhammad M. Pickthall) sura 60: [12] O Prophet! when believing women come to you giving you a pledge that they will not associate aught with Allah, and will not steal, and will not commit fornication, and will not kill their children, and will not bring a calumny which they have forged of themselves, and will not disobey you in what is good, accept their pledge, and ask forgiveness for them from Allah; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

No. B9. MARRIED MEN AND WOMEN COMMIT FORNICATION The Quran

47 (English, ed. M. H. Shakir) (Arabic, ed. Muhammad M. Pickthall) (English, ed. Muhammad M. Pickthall) sura 24: A sura which We have sent down and which We have ordained in it have We sent down Clear Signs, in order that ye may receive admonition. [2] The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment. [3] Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden. [4] And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations), flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors; [5] Unless they repent thereafter and mend (their conduct); for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. [6] And for those who launch a charge against their spouses, and have (in support) no evidence but their own, their solitary evidence (can be received) if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth; [7] And the fifth (oath) (should be) that they solemnly invoke the curse of Allah on themselves if they tell a lie. [8] But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) By Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie; [9] And the fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth. [10] If it were not for Allah's grace and mercy on you, and that Allah is Oft-Returning, full of Wisdom, (Ye would be ruined indeed).

AT WHAT POINT WERE THE MARRIAGE VOWS MADE?

Deuteronomy 24:5 that it is when a man TAKES his wife that he is then exempt for military service for the first year of his marriage. The year does not begin with the betrothal. In Genesis the betrothal and marriage are not separated by any length of time. This is proved by comparing Deut 20:7 and 24:5. Scripture recognises that the first year of marriage only begins after the consummation of the marriage (Deut 24:5). It was only in later times that these two parts of a Hebrew wedding were artificially placed months apart. Adam and Eve were married the day they met. Abraham’s servant, Eliezer, paid the dowry to Laban (sister of Rebekah) and Bethuel (father of Rebekah) and without any delay he returned to Isaac with her immediately (Gen 24:55- 61). On meeting Rebekah Isaac married her immediately (24:67). There was no delay between purchase and consummation. The two stages were one. Jacob married Rachel seven days after he married Leah. Genesis 29:27 spells out the contract or dowry, and then Jacob took Rachel after he has fulfilled the week’s festivities for Leah. Jacob would have married Rachel the day he agreed to the terms of Laban, but for his obligation to complete the week of days for Leah (cf. Jud 14:12). That Jacob took both sisters for wives before he served fourteen years as their dowry, see Dake’s Bible p. 30, first side column. It would appear from the account of the marriage of Samson to an unnamed Philistine wife that the period between contracting the dowry to the marriage feast was a matter of days. Samson went with his father and mother to pay the dowry. While the parents stayed in Timnath, Samson journeyed back home (three miles away) but on the way he killed a young lion. A few days later, on his way back to Timnath to claim his bride a swarm of bees had nested inside the carcase, bringing their store of honey with them. Samson sampled the honey and took some of it for his parents who were still in Timnath, no doubt making preparations for the week-long wedding festivities. When David paid the dowry of 200 Philistine foreskins to Saul he was immediately given Michal as his wife (1 Sam 18:17-20, 28). There was a day set for the marriage of David to Merab,

48 Saul’s eldest daughter, but inexplicably, Saul gave her to another man. Saul tried to mollify David by offering to keep the date he set for their wedding but that it would be to Michal, his younger daughter. However, in place of a dowry, Saul requested 100 Philistine foreskins before the wedding day came. David accomplished the task set for him “before the days had expired” (1 Sam 18:26). So there was just a short time between David’s betrothal to Michal and his marriage to her.

END OF DOCUMENT

49 BIBLIOGRAPHY

From an Evangelical and Reformed point of view the two best works are those by W. A. Heth, & G. J. Wenham, Jesus and Divorce (1985), and Andrew Cornes, Divorce and Remarriage (1994).

Adams, Jay. Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1980. Alon, Gedalia. Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age (70–640 C.E.), ET by Gershon Levi. Cambridge, Mass.; & London: Harvard University Press, 1996. Amram, D. W. The Jewish Law of Divorce according to Bible and Talmud, with some reference to its Development in Post-Talmudic times. New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1975 (reprint of 1897 edition). Arendzen, J. P. “Ante-Nicene Interpretations of the Sayings on Divorce,” Journal of Theological Studies 20 (1919) 230-41. Arendzen, J. P. “Another Note on Matthew xix, 3-12,” Clergy Review 21 (1941) 23-26. Batiffol, Pierre [1861-1929], Didascalia CCCXVIII Patrum pseudepigrapha e graecis codicibus recensuit Petrus Batiffol. Parisiis: Apud Em. Leroux Bibliopolam, 1887. 21p. Item no. 1 in volume CUL 33.1.27. UkCU Belkin, S. Philo and the Oral Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1940. Bevilacqua, Anthony J. “History of the Indissolubility of Marriage,” Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America 22 (1967) 253-308. Birkitt, James N. What the Bible Teaches about Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage and the Family. Biblical Research Center, Glen Allen, Virginia, 2006. Supports the Betrothal solution. Bockmuehl, Markus. “Matthew 5.32; 19.9 in the Light of Pre-Rabbinic Halakah,” New Testament Studies 35 (1989) 291-95. Bromiley, Geoffrey W. God and Marriage. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. (Said to be an evangelical alternative to the view that permits remarriage after divorce for adultery.) Catchpole, D. R. “The Synoptic Divorce Material As a Traditio-Historical Problem,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 57 (1974) 92-127. Chadwick, Henry (ed.). Clement of Alexandria. Books 1–8. The Library of Christian Classics: Volume II, Alexandrian Christianity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), pp. 40-92. (Transcription by Jay Raskin, 2002; corrected by Lance Owens, 2011.) Available at: http://gnosis.org/library/strom3.htm Charles, R. H. The Teaching of the New Testament on Divorce. London: Wms. & Norgate, 1921. Choi, Junghwa. Jewish Leadership in Roman Palestine from 70 CE to 135 CE. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Cohen, Boaz. “Concerning Divorce in Jewish and Roman Law,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 21 (1952) 3-34. Cohen, Boaz “Concerning Divorce in Jewish and Roman Law,” in Jewish and Roman Law (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1966), I.377ff. Colson, F. H. “The Divorce Exception in St. Matthew,” Expositor 11 (1916) 438-46. Collins, R. F. Divorce in the New Testament. Good News Studies 38; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992. (He takes a historical-critical view; affirms Jesus’ exceptionless absolute position on divorce.) Condon, K. “Apropos of the Divorce Sayings,” Irish Biblical Studies 2 (1980) 40-51. Corbet, P. E. The Roman Law of Marriage. Oxford: Clarendon, 1930. Cornes, Andrew. Divorce and Remarriage: Biblical Principles and Pastoral Practice. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1994.

50 Crater, Timothy. “Bill Gothard’s View of the Exception Clause,” Journal of Pastoral Practice 4 (1980), 5-12. (Claims that the betrothal view is a dangerous position to hold.) Daube, D. “The New Testament Terms for Divorce,” Theology 47 (1944), pp. 65-67. Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. 3 vols. The International Critical Commentary I, III. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988-1997. (They affirm Jesus’ exceptionless absolute position on divorce.) Döllinger, John Ignatius [Johann Joseph Ignaz von]. The First Age of Christianity and the Church. Translated from the German by Henry Nutcombe Oxenham. 2 vols. London: Wm. H. Allen, 1866, 1st ed.; 2nd ed. 1877; 3rd ed., 2 vols. London: Wm. H. Allen, 1877; 4th ed. 1 vol. London: Gibbings, 1906. Dulau, Pierre. “The Pauline Privilege: Is It Promulgated in the First Epistle to the Corinthians?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 13 (1951) 146-52. Epstein, Louis. Marriage Laws in the Bible and Talmud. The Harvard Semitic Series 12. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1942. Epstein, Louis M. Sex Laws and Customs in Judaism. New York: Bloch Pub. Co., 1948/ Rev. ed.’ New York: Ktav, 1967. Ewald, G. R. Jesus and Divorce. A Biblical Guide for Ministry to Divorced Persons. Waterloo, Ontario/Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1991. (He discusses Jewish marriage customs and believes that Jesus allowed remarriage after divorce.) Falk, H. Jesus the Pharisee. A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus. New York—Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1985 (He thinks the Gospels are against Rabbi Shammai’s view but not against Hillel’s view.) Ferguson John (transl.). Clement of Alexandria: Stromateis Books One to Three. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1991. Finkelstein, J. J. “Sex Offenses in Sumerian Laws,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 86 (1966) 355-72. Fitzmyer, J. A. “The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence,” Theological Studies 37 (1976) 197-226. (He thinks the Church can be guided by the Holy Spirit to add other exceptive clauses to permit divorce.) Reviewed by A. Stock, “Matthean Divorce Texts,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 8 (1978) 24-33. Friedman, Mordechai A. “Divorce upon the Wife’s Demand as Reflected in Manuscripts from the Cairo Geniza,” Jewish Law Annual vol. 4 (1981) 103-126. Gardner, Jane F. Women in Roman Law and Society. Bloomington: Indiana University, 1986. Garland, D. E. “A Biblical View of Divorce,” Review & Expositor 84 (1987) 419-432. Garvie, Alfred E. “Did Jesus Legislate?” Expositor 5 (1913) 313-325. GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten [drei] Jahrhunderte. (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich’s Buchhandlung, 1905-1936/60 vols. 1897– 1989)(GCS). GCS–NF Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte. Neue Folge. (Berlin, 1995–)(GCS-NF). Geldard, M. “Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce: Thoughts on the Meaning of porneia in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9,” Churchman 92 (1978) 134-143. (Porneia = pre- marital sex and the exceptive clause refers to annulment rather than to divorce.) Gladstone, William E. Gleanings of Past Years, 1843–1878. Vol. VI. Ecclestiastical (London: John Murray, 1879), “The Bill for Divorce” (1857), pp. 47-107. Reprinted from the Quarterly Review, July 1857. Glasscock, Ed. ”’The Husband of One Wife’ Requirement in 1 Timothy 3:2,” BibSac 140 (1983) 244-58.

51 Gola, Stephen. Divorce: God’s Will? Martinsburg, WV: Holy Fire Publishing, 2003, 2005. Goldberg, A. “The Tosefta—Companion to the Mishnah,” in: S. Safrai (ed.), The Literature of the Sages, Part 1, pp. 289-292. Assen, The Netherlands Minneapolis: Van Gorcum Fortress Press, 2006. Greengus, Samuel. “Old Babylonian Marriage Ceremonies and Rites,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 20 (1966) 55-72. Greengus, Samuel. “The Old Babylonian Contract,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 89 (1969) 505-32. Groves, John. A Greek and English Dictionary comprising all the words in the writings of the most popular Greek authors; in the Septuagint and the New Testament . . . with an English and Greek Vocabulary. All the inflections in the New Testament, and many of the more difficult that occur in other Greek writings . . . (8th ed.; London: Cowie, Jolland & Co., 1840). Guenther, Allen R. “THE EXCEPTION PHRASES: EXCEPT pornei/a, INCLUDING pornei/a OR EXCLUDING pornei/a? (MATTHEW 5:32; 19:9),” Tyndale Bulletin 53.1 (2002) 83-96. http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_2002_53_1_05_Gue nther_ExceptionPhrases.pdf Hagner, D. A. Matthew, 2 vols. Word Biblical Commentary 33; Dallas, TX: Word, 1993-95. (He affirms Jesus’ exceptionless absolute position on divorce.) Harris, J. Rendel. The Teaching of the Apostles (DIDAXH TWN APOSTOLWN). Newly Edited, with Facslmile Text and a Commentary . . . (Baltimore: John Hopkins University/London: C. J. Clay & Sons, 1887). Harris, Rivkah. “The Case of Three Babylonian Marriage Contracts,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 33 (1974) 363-69. Hays, R. B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996. (He affirms Jesus’ exceptionless absolute position on divorce.) Herron, R. W. “Mark’s Jesus on Divorce: Mark 10:1-12 Reconsidered,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25 (1982) 273-281 (He thinks Mark 10:12 refers to desertion, not divorce, on the woman’s part.) Heth, William A. “An Analysis and Critique of the Evangelical Protestant View of Divorce and Remarriage,” ThM Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, TX. 1982. Heth, William A. “Divorce but No Remarriage,” in Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views, 73-129. Gen. Ed. H. Wayne House. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1990. Heth, W. A. “Another Look at the Erasmian View of Divorce and Remarriage,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25 (1982) 263-272 (He refutes Erasmus’s view that divorce can be obtained for serious sexual sins. Jerome permitted separation but not remarriage.) Heth, W. A. “The Meaning of Divorce in Matthew 19:3-9,” Churchman 98 (1984) 136-152 (By “to send away” Jesus means separation without the right to remarry. The exceptive clause exempted His followers from the responsibility of breaking his commandment not to divorce.) Heth, W. A. & Wenham, G. J. Jesus and Divorce. The Problem with the Evangelical Consensus. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1984/Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1985. (They concluded that Jesus gave an absolute prohibition of divorce and remarriage, and all remarriages (except after the death of a spouse) are adulterous relationships.) Review reply by D. E. Holwerda, “Jesus on Divorce: An Assessment of a New Proposal,” Calvin Theological Journal 22 (1987) 114-120. House, Wayne H. (ed.) Divorce & Remarriage: Four Christian Views (Downers Grove, ENG.: Inter- Varsity Press, 1990).

52 Instone-Brewer, David. Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Review by Ruth B. Edwards Evangelical Quarterly 7 (2005): 284-86. Critiqued by Leslie McFall, web-page, www.lmf12. wordpress.com Isaksson, Abel. Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple. A Study with Special Reference to Mt. 19.13 [sic]-12 and 1. Cor. 11.3-16. Trans. Neil Tomkinson with Jean Gray. ASNU 24. Lund: Gleerup; Copenhagen: Munsgaard, 1965. (Considered to be the best exposition of the betrothal interpretation, see esp. pp. 116-48. He has a study on the term porneia.) Jennings, Daniel. Except for Fornication (Published in 2012). ISBN-13:978-1475095395 ISBN- 10:1475095392. Available at: http://www.danielrjennings.org/except_for_fornication_version_1.pdf Jensen Joseph. “Does porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina” Novum Testamentum 20 (1978) 161-84. The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. 12 Vols.; New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1901-1906 Jones, David Clyde, “Malachi on Divorce,” Presbyterion 15 (1989) 16-22. (He translates Mal 2:16 as: “If [anyone] hating [his wife] divorces [her], says the Lord God of Israel, then violence covers his garment, says the Lord of Hosts.” See also W. C. Kaiser below.) Jones, David Clyde. “The Westminster Confession on Divorce and Remarriage,” Presbyterion 16 (1990) 17-40. Jones, David W. God, Marriage, and Family; Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004. Jones, David W. “The Betrothal View of Divorce and Remarriage,” Bibliotheca Sacra 165 (2008) 68-85, esp. p. 82 n 42. (He counters Laney’s point [The Divorce Myth, p. 70] that betrothals occurred in Gk and Roman cultures, and so if Mt 19:9 referred to divorce for betrothal marriages then it would be needed in the Gospels of Mark and Luke. He denies that betrothals in these cultures existed in NT times.) Kaiser, Walter C. Jr. “Divorce in Malachi 2:10-16,” CTR 2 (1987) 73-84 (Good exegetical approach.) Kampen, John. “The Matthean Divorce Texts Reexamined,” in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies. Paris 1992. Edited by George J. Brooke with Florentino Garcia-Martinez; STDJ 15; Leiden: Brill, 1994. Pp. 149-67. Keener, Craig. S. . . . And Marries Another. Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991. (He argued that under certain circumstances Jesus allowed divorce and remarriage. Reviewed by Peter M. Head in Themelios 18 (1993) 31.) Kilgallen, J. J. “To what are the Matthean Exception-Texts (5,32 and 19,9) an Exception?” Biblica 61 (1980) 102-105. Koffmann, E. Die Doppelurkunden aus der Wüste Juda. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968. Labosier, Brian C. “Matthew’s Exception Clause in the Light of Canonical Criticism: A Case Study in Hermeneutics,” PhD diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1990. Lake, Kirsopp. “The Earliest Christian Teaching on Divorce,” Expositor 10 (1910) 416-427. Laney J. Carl. “Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and the Issue of Divorce,” Bibliotheca Sacra 149 (1992) 3-15. (Dt prohibits the remarriage of a man to his divorced wife in cases of an intervening marriage by the wife.)

53 Laney J. Carl. The Divorce Myth. Minneapolis: Bethany, 1981. (Said to be an evangelical alternative to the view that permits remarriage after divorce for adultery. See also Geoffrey W. Bromiley) Laney, J. Carl. “No Divorce & No Remarriage.” In Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views, pp. 15-54. Gen. Ed. H. Wayne House. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990. Lefkowitz, Mary R. and Fant, Maureen B. Women’s Life in Greece and Rome. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University, 1982. Levine, L. I. The Rabbinic Class in Palestine During the Talmudic Period. Jerusalem & New York, 1989. Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon. New ed. by Henry Stuart Jones. 2 vols; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940. Lipinski,v E. “The Wife’s Right to Divorce in the Light of an ancient Near Eastern Tradition,” The Jewish Law Annual 4 (1981) 9-27. Lövestam, Evald. “Divorce and Remarriage in the New Testament,” The Jewish Law Annual 4:47-65. Ed. B. S. Jackson. Leiden: Brill, 1981. (porneia = sexual unfaithfulness on the woman’s part.) Luck, William F. Divorce and Remarriage. Recovering the Biblical View. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. (Divorce in a case like Heriodas is just. Remarriage to a Christian partner is permissible. Indissolubility is an ideal; marriages can lawfully end through treachery. This is rabbinic ethics applied to unregenerate persons. OT wine put into NT wine-skins.) Luck, William F. Divorce & Re-Marriage: Recovering the Biblical View. 2nd revised ed. (Richardson, TX: Biblical Studies Press, 2009. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 8–20. Hermeneia. Translated by James E. Crouch. Minnneapolis: Fortress, 2001. McDonnell, Myles. “Divorce Initiated by Women In Rome: The Evidence of Plautus,” American Journal of Ancient History 8 (1983) 54-80. MacRory, J. “Christian Writers of the First Three Centuries and St, Matt. xix.9,” Irish Theological Quarterly 6 (1911) 172-185. Malina, Bruce J. “Does Porneia Mean Fornication?” Novum Testamentum 14 (1972) 10-17. Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Libnrary. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2009. (Chap. 32, “Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce,” covers Old Testament, Intertestamental, and New Testament periods well. He has an annotated bibliography (pp. 128-39). Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus. Anchor Bible 3-3B. 3 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1991-2001. Montefiore, H. “Jesus and Divorce and Remarraige,” in Marriage, Divorce and the Church: The Report of the Commission Appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury to Prepare a Statement on the Christian Doctrine of Marriage, ed. The Church of England. London: SPCK, 1971. Moore, George Foot. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim. 3 vols. in 2. N.P.: Harvard University, 1927-30; reprint ed., New York: Schocken, 1971. Morgenstern, Julian. “Beena Marriage (Matriarchat) in Ancient Israel and its Historical Implications,” ZAW N.F. 6, (1929) 91-110. Morgenstern, Julian. "Additional Notes on Beena Marriage (Matriarchat) in Ancient Israel,” ZAW N.F. 8 (1931) 46-58. Mueller, J. R. “The Temple Scroll and the Gospel Divorce Texts,” Revue de Qumran 10 (1980) 247-56. (It proscribes both polygamy, divorce and remarriage; and porneia in Matthew 19:9 and Qumran = incest, and not adultery.)

54 Murray, John. Divorce. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed. Neufeld, E., 1944. Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1961. (He rejected the Betrothal view as untenable and facile (p. 34 n. 4), and supported the Erasmian view.) Murray, John. “Divorce,” Westminster Theological Journal 9 (1946) 31-46, 181-197; 10 (1947) 1-22. Niederwimmer, Kurt. The Didache: A Commentary. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998. Neufeld, E. Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws: With Special References to General Semitic Laws and Customs. London: Longman’s, Green, & Co., 1944. Neusner, Jacob. The Mishnah. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. Oliver, Isaac W. Torah Praxis after 70 CE: Reading Matthew and Luke-Acts as Jewish Texts. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. (See ‘porneia’ pp. 375-380 on Acts 15:20, 29 and the Council of Jerusalem.) Olsen, Norskov V. The New Testament Logia on Divorce; a Study of Their Interpretation from Erasmus to Milton. BGBE; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1971. Osburn, C. D. “The Present Indicative in Matthew 19:9,” Restoration Quarterly 24 (1981) 193-203 (The verb means “continues to commit adultery”—imprecise understanding of Greek. Best = gnomic present in which continuity is not under consideration.) PG Patrologiae cursus completus, series Graeca. 161 vols. Paris, 1857–66 (PG). PL Patrologiae cursus completus, series Latina. 221 vols. Paris, 1844–65 (PL). PLS Patrologiae cursus completus, seeries Latina. Supplementum. 5 vols. Paris, 1958- 74 (PLS). Palmer, P. F. “Christian Marriage: Contract or Marriage?” Theological Studies 33 (1972) 6127-665. Parker, David. “The Early Traditions of Jesus’ Sayings on Divorce,” Theology 96 (1993) 372- 83. Parunak, H. V. D. Structural Studies in Ezekiel. PhD Dissertation, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, 1978. University Microfilm 7918211. Parunak, H. V. D. “Oral Typesetting: Some Uses of Biblical Structure,” Biblica 62 (1981) 153- 168. Parunak, H. V. D. “Some Axioms for Literary Architecture,” Semitics 8 (1982) 1-16. Parunak, H. V. D. “Transitional Techniques in the Bible,” Journal of Biblical Literature 102 (1983) 525-548. Paul, S. “Exod. 21:10 A Threefold Maintenance Clause,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 28 (1969) 48-53. Philo of Alexandria. Opera quae supersunt I—VI. VII (Indices). Edd. L. Cohn-P. Wendland-Reiter (Berlin: H. Leisegang, 1896-1930). Piatelli, Daniela. “The Marriage Contract and Bill of Divorce in Ancient Hebrew Law,” in The Jewish Law Annual 4:66-78. Ed. B. S. Jackson. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Pickering, Wilbur N. The Sovereign Creator Has Spoken. Lexington, KY: n.p.; 4 December 2013. (This is his ET of his Greek Text.) Pickering, Wilbur N. The Greek New Testament According to Family 35. Lexington, KY: n.p.; 9 February 2014. Pietersma, Albert and Benjamin G. Wright (eds.), A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). Pospishil, Victor J. “Divorce and Remarriage in the Early Church,” Irish Theological Quarterly 38 (1971) 338-47. Rabello, Alfredo Mordechai. “Divorce of Jews in the Roman Empire,” The Jewish Law Annual vol. 4 (1981), pp. 79-102.

55 Roberts, R. L. “The Meaning of Chorizo and Douloo in 1 Cor 7:10-17,” Restoration Quarterly 3 (1965) 179-84. Ryrie, C. C. “Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage,” Grace Theological Journal 3 (1982) 177-192. (New Testament disallows divorce; Matthew 5:32; 19:9; 1 Corinthians 7:15 relates to unlawful unions and therefore do not justify divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality.) Sabatowich, J. J. “Christian Divorce and Remarriage,” The Bible Today 25 (1987) 253-55. (“Everyone who divorces his wife—adultery is a separate case—forces her to commit adultery.”) Schaller, Berndt. “’Commits Adultery with Her’, Not ‘against Her’, Mk 10:11,” Expository Times 83 (1972) 107-08. Shapira, Haim. “The Schools of Hillel and Shammai,” The Jewish Law Annual 17 (2007) 159- 208. (Excellent treatment on the ‘Houses’ of Shammai and Hillel.) Sharpe, Samuel The New Testament, translated from the Text of J. J. Griesbach. London: John Green, 1840; 2nd ed. 1844; 3rd ed. 1856. Sheppard, W. T. Celestine. “The Teaching of the Fathers on Divorce,” Irish Theological Quarterly 5 (1910) 402-15. Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford: University Press, 1963; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978. Sigal, P. The Halakah of Jesus of Nazareth according to the Gospel of Matthew. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986 (Ph.D., Pittsburgh Theological Seminary)(“Jesus held independent views on divorce and Sabbath.”) Smith, Don T. “The Matthean Exception Clauses in the Light of Matthew’s Theology and Community,” Studia Biblica et Theologica 17 (1989) 55-82. Sonne, Isaiah. “The Schools of Shammai and Hillel Seen from Within,” in Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume, 275-91. New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1945. Stein, R. H. “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22 (1979) 115-121. (Mark 10:11 are the actual words of Jesus, not Matthew 19:9. Jesus allowed for no exceptions, but Paul and Matthew see Jesus’ words as an overstatement underlining a principle.) Stooke-Vaughn, F. S. The Solution of St. Matthew v. 31, 32, and xix. 3-9. 2nd ed. (Exeter, UK: Eland Bros. 1927). Strack, H. L. and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. ET by Markus Bochmuehl. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991. Vawter, Bruce. “Divorce and the New Testament,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39 (1977) 528- 42. (Matthew 5:32 is closer to Luke 16:18 than to what Jesus would have said. Mark 10:2-12 and Matthew 19:3-12 are redactions of a common tradition. Jesus’ teaching on divorce was Gospel, not law, in the early Church.) Vawter, Bruce. “The Divorce Clauses in Mt 5,32 and 19,9,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 16 (1954) 155-67. Watson, A. The Law of Persons in the Later Roman Republic. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1967. Webb, Joseph A. & Patricia L. Webb, Divorce and Remarriage: The Trojan Horse Within the Church Whom Shall We Then Believe? Xulon Press, 2008. Supports the Betrothal solution. Contains a chapter on the Early Church Fathers. Webb, Joseph A. Till Death Do Us Part? Webb Ministries Inc.: Longwood, Florida, 2003 [1983]. (He supports the Betrothal solution.) Welsby, Alison. A Textual Study of Family 1 in the Gospel of John. Arbeiten zur neutestamentichen Textforschung. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013.

56 Wenham, Gordon J. and Heth, William E. Jesus and Divorce: Updated Edition Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1997). Wenham, Gordon J. “The Restoration of Marriage Reconsidered,” Journal of Jewish Studies 30 (1979) 36-40. Wenham, G. “May Divorced Christians Remarry?” Churchman 95 (1981) 150-161. (Jesus’ allowance of separation for porneia did not include the right to marry again. The Early Church up to AD 500 held that Jesus allowed separation but not divorce and remarriage.) (See a response in the same issue [pp. 162- 63] by D. Atkinson.) Wenham, G. J. “Gospel Definitions of Adultery and Women’s Rights,” Expository Times 95 (no. 11, 1984) 330-32. Wenham, G. J. “Matthew and Divorce: An Old Crux Revisited,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 22 (1984) 95-107. (Erasmus allowed divorce using Matthew 19:9.) Westbrook, Raymond. “Adultery in Ancient Near Eastern Law,” Revue Biblique 97 (1990) 542-80. (Pre-marital infidelity was also subject to severe punishment.) Westbrook, Raymond. “The Prohibition on Restoration of Marriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4,” in Studies in the Bible 1986, 387-405. Scripta Hierosolymitana 31. Ed. Sara Japhet. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986. Wijngards, J. N. M. “Do Jesus’ Words on Divorce (Luke 16:18) Admit of no Exception?” Jeevadhara 6 (1975) 399-411. (Not an absolute law binding on the future church. The Church has the power to grant divorce between Christians.) Witherington, B. “Matthew 5.32 and 19.9—Exception or Exceptional Situation?” New Testament Studies 31 (1985) 571-576. (Jesus taught exclusive monogamy. Useful for Jewish sources.) Yaron, R. “The Restoration of Marriage," Journal of Jewish Studies 17 (1966) 1-11. Yaron, R. “The Mesada Bill of Divorce,” in Studi in onore di Eduardo Volterra (Milan: Giuffrè, 1971), vol. VI. Yaron, R. Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri. Oxford: The Claredon Press, 1961. Young, J. J. “New Testament Perspectives on Divorce Ministry,” Pastoral Psychology 33 (1985) 205-216. Zakovitch, Yair. “The Woman’s Rights in the Biblical Law of Divorce,” The Jewish Law Annual 4 (1981) 28-46. Zerwick, Max, and Mary Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament. 2 vols.; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1974.

END OF e-BOOK ON DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE DR. LESLIE McFALL E-mail: [email protected] Telephone: United Kingdom 01223-263018 (USA: 0044-1223-263018) Web page: www.lmf12.wordpress.com/ Uploaded: 14 May, 2007. Expanded 18 June, 2009 (to 91 pages). Expanded again 8 October, 2011 (to 138 pages). Expanded 4 November, 2013 (to 310 pages). Expnaded to 393 pages 10 January, 2014. Expanded to 581 pages, 8 August, 2014.

SEE THE AUTHOR’S WEB SITE: www.lmf12.wordpress.com/ FOR ARTICLES ON (1) DIVORCE versus NO DIVORCE (2) LOVE-HEADSHIPS versus FEMINISM (Good Order in the Church)

57 (3) MAJORITY (Byzantine) TEXT versus MINORITY (Egyptian) TEXT (4) EVOLUTION versus AIK-CREATION (‘after its kind’) (5) BIBLE CHRONOLOGY

58