Talk:Milton's divorce tracts

his wife's name was Mary Powell not Marie

It is actually both Marie and Mary. Mary is the later spelling of Marie, which was the 16th century. See this book for details. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

oh ok, cool

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Milton's divorce tracts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130704170506/http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/ddd/book_1/notes.shtml to http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/ddd/book_1/notes.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Arguments

The article states:

"The overarching argument is that private divorce by mutual consent for incompatibility is consonant with Christian Scripture, specifically Matthew 19:3–9, where Christ seems to specifically forbid divorce. Yet although buttressed by Scriptural authority, ...."

Here is Matthew 19:3-9 (NIV):

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

In the "except for sexual immorality" passage, the Greek word is "porneia", which in King James Bible is translated (more accurately according to Catholics) as fornication (sex between unmarried).

So this passage from Matthew can either be interpreted as a strict no to divorce, whatsoever (Catholic interpretation for 1600 years at the point of Milton) or an "escape hatch" in the case of adultery on one part (Protestant view for 100 years at the time). It can't be interpreted as in consonant with and buttressed by Scripture to say "private divorce by mutual consent is ok".

Is this really Milton's argument?

Mortensi (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)