Author Archives: admin

Which Was the First Authorized English Bible?

Posted on by Posted in MB

In the years 1536-1539, the battle for the Bible was finally won in England. The soldiers in the front line of this battle were William Tyndale, Myles Coverdale, John Rogers, Thomas Cromwell, and Thomas Cranmer. Between them, and with the hard won cooperation of King Henry VIII, these men gave us three whole English Bibles: Coverdale’s of 1535, the 1537 Matthew Bible, and the 1539 Great Bible.

The story of these men and their work is woven together in my book, The Story of the Matthew Bible, due out in early 2018. One of the things I looked into was the question, which of these Reformation Bibles was the first authorized English Bible? I was frustrated by the disagreement I found among historians. Some assert firmly that it was the Matthew Bible, and others say only the Great Bible was ever truly authorized. So which was it, and why the confusion?

The Matthew Bible

Many of my readers will know that in 1537 the Matthew Bible arrived in England from Antwerp, where it had been illegally printed. This Bible contained the combined translations of Tyndale and Coverdale, compiled and annotated by John Rogers. The name ‘Matthew’ derives from the title page, which stated that the Scriptures were translated by ‘Thomas Matthew,’ a fictitious name used to conceal the involvement of William Tyndale, whose works were banned. A copy of the Matthew Bible was given to Archbishop Cranmer. He examined it, and wrote to his friend Thomas Cromwell, Vice-Regent to King Henry, asking him to seek the King’s consent for it to go forth. When the King granted his approval in the summer of 1537, it was a historic day for England.

Coverdale’s Bible

But the fact is that the year before, early in 1536, the King had approved Coverdale’s Bible. This was also a whole Bible, containing the New and Old Testaments along with the Apocrypha. Coverdale translated it mainly from Martin Luther’s German version. When Henry permitted it to be bought, sold, and used in the Church, this was also a big day – a huge day, in fact. Now, after centuries of darkness, and all the vicious persecutions of Lollards and Lutherans, England received the word of God lawfully in her own tongue.

However, Coverdale’s accomplishment is often overlooked. For example, take the famous story about Tyndale’s last words before he was garrotted and killed in Brussels, in October 1536. His last prayer was, “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.” It is commonly held that this was a prayer for English Scriptures, and was answered the next year when the King received the Matthew Bible. However, when Tyndale was killed, Coverdale’s Bible had already been circulating for months. Therefore, either Tyndale did not know that his prayer had already been answered, or it has been misunderstood.

The Great Bible

Not long after the reception of the Matthew Bible in England in 1537, Henry desired a new Bible in order to appease the conservatives, who were complaining loudly about the existing versions. As a result, Cromwell commissioned Coverdale to revise the Matthew Bible. This revision, commonly known as the Great Bible, was published in 1539. It established vernacular Scriptures firmly in the Church.

How did the King authorize the different Bibles?

The inscription on the title page of the 1537 Matthew Bible, shown above, tells us that it was “Set forth with the kinges most gracyous lycēce,” or, in modern spelling, “Set forth with the King’s most gracious licence.” But did this licence mean the Matthew Bible was “authorized,” and if so, was it the first so to be?

I discovered that the answer lies in how the noun ‘licence’ and the past participle ‘authorized’ were used in the early 16th century. A little more research into the title pages of the three Bibles also assisted to answer the question.

Licence: In the early modern English period ‘licence’ meant simply ‘leave’ or ‘permission.’ Nowadays, therefore, we would say the Matthew Bible was “set forth with the King’s most gracious permission.” But as we know, the King had already granted permission for Coverdale’s Bible to go forth, and the title page of a 1537 (third) printing of Coverdale’s Bible also states that it was set forth with the King’s licence.

Authorized: (1) In an old, specialized sense, authorized meant “set up as authoritative, endowed with authority.” This is a rare use now. (2) A second, more common meaning is “sanctioned by authority,” which simply means permitted. This, of course, is the same thing as ‘licensed,’ and explains the confusion.

The title page in the fourth edition of the Great Bible, printed in 1541 (earlier editions were silent), says it was “ auctorised [authorized] and apoynted by the commaundement of oure moost redoubted prynce and soueraygne Lorde, Kynge Henrye … ” Without doubt, “auctorised” was used here in the old, specialized sense. Nowadays we might say it was commissioned and appointed for use in the Church.  Only the Great Bible was authorized in this special way. However, it is also fully correct to say that the Coverdale and Matthew Bibles were authorized, if we mean only that they had received authoritative sanction. In fact, they were not only sanctioned, but in 1538, both Cromwell and Cranmer issued injunctions requiring English Bibles to be placed in church lecterns, and directing clergy to read them, and also to encourage the people to read them. Parish records reveal that both Bibles were purchased after these injunctions were issued.

In conclusion, Coverdale’s 1535 Bible was the first authorized English version in the common sense, but in the special sense, the honour must go to the Great Bible. However, this does not diminish the significance of the Matthew Bible. Coverdale used it as his base for the Great Bible, and in this way it proved the dominant translation, and its Scriptures were largely preserved.

To avoid confusion, given the double meaning of ‘authorized,’ it might be best to simply avoid the word. We may describe Coverdale’s and Rogers’ Bibles as licensed, which is understandable, though archaic, and the Great Bible as the first to be commissioned for the Church. But in the eyes of God, man’s sanction, permission, or commission count for nothing, except when he uses it, as he did in the early Reformation, so that the people could freely have his word again.

*****

©Ruth Magnusson Davis, November 2017

May be copied and distributed without charge, provided no alterations are made, with credit to:

Ruth M. Davis, Founder and Editor, New Matthew Bible Project, www.newmatthewbible.org, www.octobertestament.com

Subscribe for updates on this website, and we will let people know when The Story of the Matthew Bible is published. In it, we answer many more questions. Follow me on Twitter for more blog posts like this.

The Geneva & RV Prefaces on “Correcting” the Former Translations

Posted on by Posted in Geneva

Two years of research into English Bible history have yielded some surprising insights.

The past 650 years can be divided into four periods. During the first two, God’s word struggled for light. In the latter two, men took the former translations in hand in order to revise them. In particular, the Geneva Bible (1560) and Revised Version (1881-1894) were touted by their makers as badly needed “corrections” of earlier Bibles.

(1) The Lollard Period, from the late 14th century to the dawn of the Reformation.

The word of God was under open assault when Wycliffe and his men fought to give England her own Bible. Their Scriptures were laboriously written out by hand. Many people died in the Lollard persecutions.

(2) The Reformation Period, during the reign of King Henry VIII

After the invention of the printing press, and after a bloody battle in which many more people lost their lives, vernacular Scriptures were at last lawfully received in England. During this time we received three Bibles:

In 1535: The Coverdale Bible;

In 1537: The Matthew Bible, also known as Matthew’s version;

In 1539: The Great Bible

The Matthew Bible contained the combined translations of William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale. Martin Luther’s influence on Coverdale should be noted: Coverdale translated mainly from Luther’s 1534 German version, and his Scriptures are remarkable for their Lutheran clarity. The Great Bible was a minimal revision of the Matthew Bible by Coverdale himself, commissioned to appease the conservatives and establish an English Bible in the Church.

Clarity was very important to Luther, Tyndale, and Coverdale. We are all familiar with Tyndale’s famous promise: if God spared his life, he would give England a Bible in her own language, and the boy who drives the plough would understand them. He succeeded. His Scriptures are actually easier to understand than the KJV, which came in the next century, due to his philosophy of translation. I call the Bibles of the Reformation period the “ploughboy Bibles.”

By the end of this period, the Great Bible was the official English version of the Church.

(3) The Literal Period, after an English Bible is established in the Church

The fight for God’s word was over, and the victory won. Now certain men took in hand the Scriptures we received in the Reformation, and changed them.

The Literal period was inaugurated by the Geneva Bible, a Puritan revision of the Great Bible. In their 1560 preface, the Puritans criticized the former translations as immature, imperfect, and even irreverent. Alas, a lot of people believed them (and still do). They said the Great Bible “required greatly” to be reviewed and corrected. Though Coverdale and Tyndale were of the same generation, and Coverdale was still living, they characterized their work as from “the infancy of those times.” They also claimed to have more perfect knowledge of the biblical languages, and a revelation of “clear light” from God:

Preface, 1560 Geneva Bible: We thought that we should bestow our labours and study in nothing which could be more acceptable to God and conformable to his Church than in the translating of the Holy Scriptures into our native tongue; the which thing, albeit that divers heretofore have endeavored to achieve [i.e. Tyndale and Coverdale], yet considering the infancy of those times and imperfect knowledge of the tongues, in respect of this ripe age and clear light which God hath now revealed, the translations required greatly to be perused and reformed. (This preface is reproduced in 1599 Geneva Bible, Tolle Lege edition. See p. xxvii.)

The Puritans employed a different translation technique; that is, an intensified literal approach, which, they said, “most reverently kept the propriety of the words.” Briefly, this meant following the words of Hebrew idioms even though English speakers could not understand the meaning. They departed from Tyndale’s and Luther’s translation emphasis, which put meaning first. The Puritans did, however, acknowledge that they had obscured the meaning, or as they put it, had made the Scriptures “hard in their ears that are not well practiced.” Therefore they added hundreds of edifications and commentaries:

Preface, 1560 Geneva Bible: Now as we have chiefly observed the sense, and labored always to restore it to all integrity: so have we most reverently kept the propriety of the words, considering that the Apostles who spake and wrote to the Gentiles in the Greek tongue, rather constrained them to the lively phrase of the Hebrew, than enterprised far by mollifying their language to speak as the Gentiles did. And for this and other causes we have in many places reserved the Hebrew phrase, notwithstanding that they may seem somewhat hard in their ears that are not well practiced and also delight in the sweet sounding phrases of the holy Scriptures. Yet lest either the simple should be discouraged, or the malicious have any occasion of just cavillation, seeing some translations read after one sort, and some after another, whereas all may serve to good purpose and edification, we have in the margent [margin] noted that diversity of speech or reading which may also seem agreeable to the mind of the holy Ghost, and proper for our language.

In other words, God’s word, now “restored to all integrity,” was no longer plain for the ploughboy. Everywhere in the margins of the book were added “diversities of speech or reading” to explain the difficult translations, with also “edifications … proper for our language” of the uncertain “lively” and “sweet sounding” phrases. (So much for the perspicuity of Scripture. It seems ironic, to make the word of God harder to understand, and then insist on its perspicuity, as the Puritans did.)

As time would tell, the notes and commentaries of the Geneva Bible inflamed people against the English Church, and so the Bishops’ and King James Bibles were commissioned to allay its influence. These versions proceeded of a genuine unifying spirit, and eventually the KJV did bring a good measure of stability to Christendom, however the KJV revisers carried on the Puritan literal tradition.

(3) The Modern Period: from the Revised Version until now

In the late 1800s, the Revised Version came along, the work of Westcott and Hort with certain other academics. These scholars offered criticisms of the former work that were similar in kind to those of the Puritans. In their New Testament preface, they said the KJV was produced in the infancy of time, as it were, when we still had much to learn, and they also had new light: this time, it was their superior manuscripts and critical skills. Also, they rebuked the manner of expression of the KJV – in particular “variety of expression” – as “hardly… faithful.” They intensified literalism and adherence to the propriety of words in their own fashion:

RV 1895 preface to NT: Of the many points of interest connected with the Translation of 1611, two require special notice; first, the Greek Text which it appears to have represented; and secondly, the character of the Translation itself …

… 1. All [their “guides”] were founded for the most part on manuscripts of late date, few in number, and used with little critical skill. But in those days, it could hardly have been otherwise. Nearly all the more ancient of the documentary evidence have become known only within the last two centuries … While therefore it has long been the opinion of all scholars that the commonly received text needed thorough revision, it is but recently that materials have been acquired for executing such a work with even approximate completeness.…

… 2. they [the KJV committee members] profess in their Preface to have studiously adopted a variety of expression which would now be deemed hardly consistent with the requirements of faithful translation…. it cannot be doubted that they carried this liberty too far, and that the studied avoidance of uniformity in the rendering of the same words, even when occurring in the same context, is one of the blemishes in their work.

And thus the members of King James’ translation team now joined Tyndale and Coverdale in the company of translators whose work required greatly to be reviewed and corrected.

Interestingly, the Westcott and Hort committee, also like the Geneva revisers, added alternate readings in the margins. However these gave alternate meanings, whereas the Geneva Bible (apparently) focused on re-wording and clarifying the passage. Now the ploughboy had to make up his own mind about what the Scriptures might actually have meant.

All this raises many questions, including whether the later revisions really did improve the Scriptures, and, especially, the merits and demerits of the literalistic technique espoused by the Puritans and Westcott and Hort. The Story of the Matthew Bible, especially Part Two, will consider some of the questions. We will see what Luther and Tyndale, not to mention also Hilary, St. Jerome (who gave us the Latin Vulgate Bible), and John Purvey (one of Wycliffe’s top translators), had to say about the best approach to Bible translation. For now, I close simply with some quotations from these men:

Purvey: First it is to know that the best translating is… to translate after the sentence [meaning], and not only after the words.

Luther: Many know-it-alls, and even some pious souls, may take offense. But what is the point of needlessly adhering so scrupulously and stubbornly to words which one cannot understand anyway? Whoever would speak German must not use Hebrew style. Rather, he must see to it – once he understands the Hebrew author – that he concentrates on the sense of the text … [and] once he has the German words to serve the purpose, let him drop the Hebrew words and express the meaning freely in the best German he knows.

Hilary: We enter the faith by the meaning of what has been said.

Jerome: The gospel is not in the words of Scripture, but in the meaning.

© Ruth Magnusson Davis, October, 2017.

Praising vs. Thanking God

Posted on by Posted in MB

In a post on my Facebook timeline, I recently compared Psalm 107:21 in different Bible versions. The Matthew Bible (and also KJV) spoke of giving God praise. The Geneva Bible spoke of “confessing before” God, and the NIV of giving God thanks. Now those are three quite different things. But I was too tired to think about it, except that it seemed to me that “praise” engaged the heart more. It seems to reach higher somehow. I have sometimes felt, when truly praising God, that only then are my thoughts pure, and it is when I love God the most. So I preferred the MB, but couldn’t explain it any better than that.

See again:

♦ 1537 Matthew Bible: O that men would praise the Lord, and the wonders that he doth for the children of men.
(=Praise God and praise what he does for men.)

♦ 1599 Geneva: Let them therefore confess before the Lord his loving kindness, and his wonderful works before the sons of men.
(= Acknowledge (or express) God’s kindness before him, and what he does before men (?) )

♦ 2016 NIV: Let them give thanks to the Lord for his unfailing love and his wonderful deeds for mankind.
(= Thank God for his love and what he does for men.)

After posting these verses without comment, I went to bed, opened a little book that I recently found in a thrift store, and there was a whole chapter discussing praise. I found there a most interesting and relevant comment, which I would like to share:

Praise to God [is] one of the exalted [path]ways on which the soul approaches the Eternal. “Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me,” that is, by this one attitude and act the soul attains that which has rightly been called “the chief end of man.” …There is thus greater wealth of riches attached to the offering of praise than to any other exercise of the human spirit. It also affords to man the opportunity of doing something as a requital to God for all that has been done for him in redemption….

There is that in the offering of praise to God which possesses for the true Christian a special attraction. It is an opportunity for the going forth of the heart to an object outside self. Prayer may so easily become the means of obtaining from God some blessing that is needed for life – our own, or for others. Even thanksgiving may become little more than animal gratitude for blessings received. But true praise is the drawing out of the soul to that which is wholly external to the self. It is the appreciation of what God is in Himself, and of his wonderful works. “He is thy praise and thy God,” said Moses to Israel (De 10:21). The Psalms abound in the thought of God Himself being the object of praise; so also the prophets.”(1)

Praise matters in and of and for itself. I think it loses something, in understanding and practice, to substitute it with confessing, or, especially, giving thanks. It seems to lose the fullness of the knowledge of that exalted pathway to the Eternal. (Perhaps I am being a little too harsh on the Geneva here, but I think it would have been best to keep ‘praise’.)

(1) Canon R.H.A. Haslam, An Highway Shall Be There (Toronto, Canada: Evangelical Publishers, 1948), pages 79-80.

 

 

Compare Proverbs 15:22 in Different Bibles

Posted on by Posted in MB Leave a comment

Good counsel vs. much counsel. What really is the point?

This one bothered me when I first came to the Bible as a new Christian, until I found the 1537 Matthew Bible. See what the different versions say, and tell me if the Matthew Bible doesn’t make a whole lot more sense:

♦ Wycliffe Bible: Thoughts be destroyed, where no counsel is; but where many counsellors be, they be confirmed.

♦ 1537 Matthew Bible (from Coverdale 1535): Unadvised thoughts shall come to nought, but where men are that can give counsel, there is steadfastness.

♦ 1599 Geneva:  Without counsel, thoughts come to nought, but in the multitude of counsellors there is steadfastness.

♦ KJV: Without counsel, purposes are disappointed, but in the multitude of counsellors, they are established.

♦ 2016 NIV & ESV: Without counsel plans fail, but with many advisers they succeed.

♦ The Message: Refuse good advice and watch your plans fail; take good counsel and watch them succeed.

Coverdale simply makes sense: seek wise counsel, not many counsellors. A multitude of wise advisors would of course be a good thing, but that is because good advice lies in wisdom, not because it lies in numbers.

Jay Green (Interlinear Hebrew/English Bible) indicates that number is not necessarily the point here. In his marginal rendering he has “great counsellors.” At least Eugene Peterson had the guts to depart from the common wisdom.

Does the Bible not teach that the wisest usually stand alone, and the Lord’s servants will often be lonely witnesses? They will follow His footsteps, for the servant is not greater than the master. And how alone was He before a multitude of counsellors in Jerusalem, who condemned Him to death, the Lord of Life and Truth. That shows where a multitude of counsellors can take us.

Thoughts??

Ruth, August, 2017

Sola Scriptura … Sine Verbo? Where the Geneva Bible Lost the Word of God

Posted on by Posted in Geneva 4 Comments

I accept that Scripture – truly translated, that is – must be our source and arbiter of doctrine, if that is what is understood by ‘sola scriptura’. But if I were to rally around a slogan, it might be ‘Verbum prius’, or ‘the Word first’, by which I mean Him who is the Incarnate Word. For he not only gave us the writings that we call the Scriptures, but also gives himself in the Word faithfully spoken (in preaching or liturgy), in the Supper (where we partake of Him who is the Word), and so forth. For the Word is bigger than the writings. And no matter how the writings may be corrupted by men, he remains true.

The Geneva Puritans made ‘sola scriptura’ a rallying cry, but what I find interesting is that when they produced their version of the Scriptures in 1560, in the Geneva Bible, they removed the Word from many passages. Keep in mind that their Bible was a second revision of the 1537 Matthew Bible the first revision being the Great Bible. The Puritans said in their preface that “the former translations required greatly to be perused and reformed,” and they were the men to do it because they had “clear light.” Also, they would be more literal, because literalism was more “reverent.”[*] Below are three of their “reverent reformations”:

1 Corinthians 13:12 – We see in a dark speaking

♦ 1537 Matthew Bible: Now we see in a glass, even in a dark speaking.
♦ 1560 and 1599 Geneva Bible: For now we see through a glass darkly.

Discussion:
(1) ‘Dark speaking’ is a noun phrase that translates the Greek noun ‘ainigma’; that is, ‘enigma’ or (Strong) ‘obscure saying’. This refers to God’s Word, which is mysterious, but in which we seek understanding.
(2) Tyndale put noun-for-noun. The Geneva revisers put adverb-for-noun, with ‘darkly’. So much for reverent literalism.
(3) The sola scriptura men removed the word as the place  in which we look.

Psalm 23:1-2 – He feeds us in a green pasture

♦ 1537 Matthew Bible: The Lord is my shepherd; I can want nothing. He feedeth me in a green pasture, and leadeth me to a fresh water.
(MB note: This fresh water is the healthful water of the Word of God.)
♦ 1560 and 1599 Geneva: The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. He maketh me to rest in green pasture, and leadeth me by the still waters.
(Geneva note: He hath care over me and ministreth to me all things.)

Discussion:
(1) All reference to feeding and the Word is removed in the Geneva Bible, though the early Reformers (and in part St. Augustine) considered this Psalm to be about the Word as our pasture, water, oil, and table set before us in the presence of our enemies.
(2) The Puritans also removed eternal life from verse 6. The MB had, “that I may dwell in the house of the Lord forever.” The Geneva Bible put, “I shall remain a long season in the house of the Lord.”
(3) The sola scriptura men removed the word as our food and refreshment.

1 Peter 1:13- Trust on the grace brought when Christ is declared

♦ 1537 Matthew Bible: Trust perfectly on the grace that is brought unto you by the declaring of Jesus Christ.

♦ 1599 Geneva: Trust perfectly on the grace that is brought unto you, in the revelation of Jesus Christ.
(Geneva note 3: He setteth forth very briefly, what manner of hope ours ought to be, to wit, continual, until we enjoy the thing we hope for: then, what we have to hope for, to wit, grace (that is, free salvation) revealed to us in the gospel, and not that, that men do rashly and fondly promise to themselves.)
(Geneva note 6: He setteth out the end of faith, lest any man should promise himself, either sooner or later that full salvation, to wit, the later coming of Christ: and therewithal warneth us, not to measure the dignity of the gospel according to the present state, seeing that that which we are now, is not yet revealed.)

Discussion:
(1) The Puritans reinterpreted 1 Peter 1:13 and referred it to the second coming. Among other problems, including semantic mumbo-jumbo, they conflate the first and second comings, and turn the second coming into the time of grace. This ignores and suppresses all the significance of the Incarnation: Jesus’ first coming to us – God taking flesh upon himself to suffer and die for our redemption – has brought to us who dwell upon the earth the very time of grace prophesied by the prophets. It inaugurated the New Covenant. It changed everything, and now God has poured out his Spirit upon all flesh: “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us … full of grace and truth” (Joh 1:14), and, “The grace of God that brings salvation to all men has appeared” (Tit 2:11). For Jesus has appeared in the flesh. But what do the Geneva commentators say? They tell us “not to measure the dignity of the gospel according to the present state, seeing that that which we are now, is not yet revealed.” This is their reverent teaching?
(2) The grace we must trust on is brought to us when Christ is ‘declared’. This old English word carried the senses of speaking and showing forth. When Christ is declared, he is revealed: faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word (Ro 10:17). This is the power of God unto salvation (Ro 1:16), by which we are raised up in the resurrection life of the Lord. This is supreme and excellent grace.
(3) The Puritans removed the word as the means of grace and salvation. They made the second coming the means of grace and salvation.

*****

Why did the Puritans make these changes? Why did they exalt their Scriptures, but at the same time knowingly take away teachings that would turn us to the Scriptures, and which teach about the Word? I say “knowingly” because they had the earlier versions at hand, and anyway, they proclaimed themselves learned and wise to amend and correct the English translations.

I think I know what happened, but I need space to tell about it. God willing, this I will do in the upcoming Story of the Matthew Bible. Please subscribe for updates on this website if you are interested. I send mailouts to my subscribers 2 – 5 times a year at most.

© Ruth Magnusson Davis, August 2017.

Endnotes:

[*] See the preface to the 1560 Geneva Bible, also apparently included in the Tolle Lege edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible.

 

Comparing Bibles – “In the Gates,” An idiom with many meanings

Posted on by Posted in MB

The word ‘gates’ was often used in Hebrew idioms, with a variety of figurative meanings. The idiom was retained in the Matthew Bible when it could be easily understood, or the meaning learned over time, as in “gates of hell.” But where the meaning was not easily derived, the Matthew Bible often gives the figurative sense.

The idiom “in the gate(s)” illustrates the translation approach of William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale, and how it contrasts with that of the Geneva revisers. Where it was fully translated in the Matthew Bible, the Geneva Bible, consistent with the revisers’ literalistic approach, often gave the words alone. Certain verses in Amos 5 show the difference in result:

Amos 5:10, 12

VMatthew Bible (Coverdale)1599 Geneva Bible
10They owe him evil will, that reproveth them openly, and whoso telleth them the plain truth, they abhor him…They have hated him that rebuked in the gate: and they abhorred him that speaketh uprightly…
12As for the multitude of your wickednesses and your stout sins, I know them right well. Enemies are ye of the righteous. Ye take rewards, ye oppress the poor in judgment.For I know your manifold transgressions and your mighty sins: they afflict the just, they take rewards, and they turn aside the poor in the gate.

 

Some notes on the Geneva rendering:

(1) ‘In the gate’, which occurs twice, is a literal translation of a Hebrew idiom. However it is foreign to English, and so it is not easy to guess the meaning.

(2) Verse 10, though short, contains a confusion of three verb tenses, the present perfect, past, and present. The Hebrews do this, but the English do not, and so it is distracting. In fact, it is poor English composition.

(3) Verse 12 demonstrates confusion of second and third persons: “I know your sins …  they take bribes” does not follow. Perhaps the Hebrews confused grammatical person like this, but it is not proper English.

None of these problems are in the Matthew Bible. ‘In the gate’ is fully translated. The present tense is consistent throughout, which makes the passage relevant for all times, and which makes sense of it. In verse 12, the consistent use of the second person also makes sense. These are only some of the things that make the Matthew Bible clear and easy to read and understand.

Changes to Psalm 23 from the Matthew Bible to the Geneva Bible

Posted on by Posted in Geneva 1 Comment

<< It is impossible to stay on the right track when the word is not held in the highest esteem and when faith in it is not exercised. (Martin Luther) >>

AN ENGLISHMAN named John Rogers published a seminal work in 1537, early in the English Reformation. It was an English Bible called the “Matthew Bible,” or “Matthew’s version,” which contained the Scripture translations of William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale, together with Rogers’ notes and commentaries. It also contained a healthy portion of Martin Luther’s work, because Coverdale translated from his German Bible.

Hardly anyone knows that Matthew’s version is the real primary version of our English Bible. It served as the base for the Great Bible, which the Geneva Puritans revised in 1560. The Great Bible was also the base of the Bishop’s Bible, which went on for further amendment in the KJV, making the KJV the fourth revision of the Matthew Bible.

For my upcoming book, The Story of the Matthew Bible, I examined some of the changes made to the Scriptures over the years. One of my surprises has been Psalm 23, and in particular what the Geneva Puritans did with it. In my last post, I showed what they did at 1 Peter 1:13, when they removed the teaching of the revelation of Christ in the preaching of the word. Now at Psalm 23, the teaching of the word was removed again. (The full versions of the Psalm, with commentaries, are at the end of this paper, for reference.) See what happened to verse 2:

Psalm 23:1-2

1537 Matthew Bible The Lord is my shepherd; I can want nothing. He feedeth me in a green pasture, and leadeth me to a fresh water. (Rogers’ note: This fresh water is the healthful water of the word of God.)

1539 Great Bible The Lord is my shepherd, therefore can I lack nothing. He shall feed me in a green pasture, and leadeth me by the still waters.

1560 & 1599 Geneva The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. He maketh me to rest in green pasture, and leadeth me by the still waters.

In the Matthew Bible, v.2 is about the word of God as our pasture, food, and refreshing water. This was also the teaching of St. Augustine and of Martin Luther (and is also reflected in the Psalm as contained in the traditional Anglican prayer books). According to them, not only v.2, but the whole Psalm is mainly about the word, which quickens the soul and leads us to righteousness (v.3). John Rogers confirmed this understanding in his notes, in which he taught that the word refreshes us as we walk through the valley of the shadow of death (v.4). The ‘shadow’, Rogers explained, is darkness and affliction.[1] Therefore, God’s word is the pasture and water of his sheep while they walk in adversity. It is also the table set before us in the presence of our enemy (v5).

In Coverdale’s Great Bible revision, we go from being fed and led to fresh water, to being fed and led by still waters. However, we need to understand this as agreeing with Rogers’ exposition, in that God’s word stills our hearts. Coverdale himself expressed this understanding when he translated Luther’s essay on Psalm 23, in which he made it clear that God’s word, especially when we hear it in the congregation and receive it by the sacraments, is our green grass, water, table, oil, and full cup. “In this Psalm,” he wrote, “doth David and every Christian heart give thanks and praise unto God for his most principal benefit, namely, for the preaching of his dear and holy word …”[2] The word and promises of God are our final resort and comfort in adversity:

In the great heat, when the sun doth sore burn (Ps cxx), and I can have no shadow, then leadeth he me to the fresh water, giveth me drink, and refresheth me: that is, in all manner of troubles, anguishes, and necessities, ghostly [spiritual] and bodily, when I know not elsewhere to find help or comfort, I hold me unto the word of grace. There only, and nowhere else, do I find the right consolation and refreshing.[3]

But then, in the Geneva Bible, all teaching about the word of God disappears. There is nothing about it, nor about being fed in any way, in the Geneva Scriptures or commentaries. The notes do refer to God’s care and provision, but not through or by the word. All such reference was removed – and this knowingly, by men who had the earlier versions at hand. Surely they were aware of Reformation teaching and the teaching of St. Augustine. But, remarkably to me, they departed from it. They whose loud cry was sola scriptura, now emphasized God’s care sine scriptura.

After the Geneva version, no Bibles that I have seen recovered Matthew’s message:

Psalm 23:1-2 in versions after the Bishops’ Bible

1611 KJV and 1895 RV  The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

NIV 1984 The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not be in want. He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters.

The Message 1996 God my shepherd! I don’t need a thing. You have bedded me down in lush meadows, you find me quiet pools to drink from.

The modern versions of Psalm 23 might cause believers who walk in adversity, not in rest, to wonder if their faith is lacking. The Matthew Bible, however, sows no such confusion, but contrariwise, gives comfort. I remember how, as a new believer coming to this Psalm in modern versions, I was puzzled by it. Shall we be bedded down in lush meadows while the Lord had nowhere to rest his head? The reality is that much of our lives are passed in want of rest and stillness, but what is never wanting to us is God’s word and promise.

Lastly, see below how, in the Geneva Bible, two more essential doctrines are lost, which were also lost at 1 Peter 1:13 (again, see my previous post). At v.3, the idea of the new birth through the word is lost. (The old English ‘quickeneth’ meant ‘quickened to life’.)  In v.6, the idea of eternal life is lost.

Psalm 23 Compared

1537/ 1549 Matthew Bible1560/ 1599 Geneva Bible
Summary: He describeth the wonderful surety and great grace of a faithful and sure confidence in God.Summary: Because the Prophet had proved the great mercies of God at divers times, and in sundry manners, he gathereth a certain assurance, fully persuading himself that God will continue the very same goodness towards him forever.
1. The Lord is my shepherd; I can want nothing.

2. He feedeth me in a green pasture, and leadeth me to a fresh (a)water.

3. He quickeneth my soul, and bringeth me forth in the way of righteousness for his name’s sake.

4. Though I should walk now in the valley of the (b)shadow of death, yet I fear no evil, for thou art with me; they staff and thy sheep-hook comfort me.

5. Thou preparest a (c)table before me against [in full view of] mine enemies; thou annointest my head with oil, and fillest my cup full.

6. O let thy loving kindness and mercy follow me all the days of my life, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

1. The Lord is my shepherd, (a)I shall not want.

2. He maketh me to rest in green pastures, and leadeth me by the still waters.

3. He (b)restoreth my soul, and leadeth me in the (c)paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.

4. Yea, though I should walk through the valley of the (d)shadow of death, I wll fear no evil, for thou art with me: thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.

5. Thou doest prepare a (e)table before me in the sight of mine adversaries: thou doest (f)anoint mine head with oil, and my cup runneth over.

6. Doubtless kindness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall remain a long season in the (g)house of the Lord.

Rogers’ Notes:Geneva Notes:
 

(a) The fresh water is the healthful water of the word of God, of which is said Esai lv.a*

(b) Shadow for darkness and affliction, as it is said Esai li.e*

(c) Look the Psalm lxxviii.c. [Rogers’ note on Psalm 78:19 says, “By the table is understood all sorts of victuals necessary for man, yet it is often taken for the bread and water of the wisdom of the word of God, as in the Psalm xxiii.b.]

 

* The Isaiah verses mentioned in Rogers’ notes are too long to include here.

(a) He had care over me & ministreth unto me all things

(b) He comforteth or refresheth me.

(c) Plain, or straight ways.

(d) Though he were in danger of death, as the sheep that wandereth in the dark valley without his shepherd.

(e) Albeit his enemies sought to destroy him, yet God delivereth him, & dealeth most liberally with him in despite of them.

(f) As was the manner of great feasts.

(g) He setteth not his felicities in the pleasures of this world, but in the fear and service of God.

 

Endnotes:

[1] A clue perhaps to the meaning of ‘shadow’ in Tyndale’s translation of 1 Peter 3:6, that the women are not to be afraid of “every shadow.”

[2] Myles Coverdale, A very excellent and swete exposition upon the two and twentye Psalme of David, called, in latyn, Dominus regit me, et nihil. Translated out of hye Almayne into Englishe by Myles Coverdale, 1537, in Parker Soc., Remains, 282. The “two and twentye Psalme” is now known as the 23rd Psalm.

[3] Ibid., 300.

[4] L. Maria Willis (1864), Canadian Book of Common Prayer, Hymn #454.

Comparing Bibles: 1 Peter 1:13, Grace Now or a Future Hope?

Posted on by Posted in Compare 1 Comment

 

Here we compare translations of 1 Peter 1:13 from Wycliffe in 1380 to the present. William Tyndale’s translation is based on the understanding that we receive grace when we are redeemed through faith, and then we await our entrance into eternal life. Therefore we trust on present grace and hope for the life to come. Eternal life is the object of our hope. Others say we hope for future grace; in particular, we set our hope on grace to come when Jesus returns. Here grace is the object of our hope.

At first I intended this only to be a simple comparison. But it grew into more. I experienced joy in the Holy Spirit studying Tyndale’s translation in The October Testament, as I entered into the mystery of the revelation of Christ that we receive through his word, and what it is to be in him now through faith, in this, the age of grace and fulfilment of prophecy. In the end, I felt obliged to express some concerns about the NIV and Geneva commentaries, which change the message and, at least as far as I am concerned, lose the joy.

Tyndale and the Reformation Bibles: The declaring of Jesus Christ brings grace

At 1 Peter 1:13 in the Matthew Bible, Tyndale had (with context):

13Wherefore gird up the loins of your minds, be sober, and trust perfectly on the grace that is brought unto you by the declaring of Jesus Christ, 14as obedient children, not fashioning yourselves unto your old lusts of ignorance: 15but as he which called you is holy, even so be ye holy.

From this we learn that the grace we are to trust on is brought when Christ is declared; that is, when he is preached. The old English ‘declaring’ was a broad word, and carried the senses of speaking forth, telling, and revealing. When Christ is preached, he is revealed, and we believe, and receive grace now. This is salvation by faith unto eternal life. In his 1534 prologue to 1 Peter, Tyndale summarized the first chapter as follows:

Tyndale: In the first he [Peter] declareth the justifying of faith through Christ’s blood, and comforteth them with the hope of the life to come, and sheweth that we have not deserved it, but that the prophets prophesied it should be given us, and as Christ which redeemed us out of sin and all uncleanness is holy, so he exhorteth to lead an holy conversation [a holy life]: and because we be richly bought and made heirs of a rich inheritance …

By the declaration of Christ, who is the enduring word (1Pe 1:25), he is revealed and comes (or is brought) to those who hear. This is a secret revelation to the elect, for the wind blows unseen where it will (Joh 3:8). The word planted within is an immortal seed (1Pe 1:23), and is the seed of eternal life, which is our “rich inheritance.” Rogers explained in a note on 1 Peter 1:3 that “a living hope is that whereby we are certain of everlasting life.”

Post-Reformation Bibles: The second coming will bring grace

In v.13 in later Bibles, the coming of grace and the revelation of Christ are not through ‘declaring’ him, but will happen at a later time or event. In modern Bibles, this event is identified as the second coming. I compared the NIV Nestle text with Jay Green’s Received Text, and no MS variation explains the difference. It is purely a matter of interpretation. See what happened over the years:

1 Peter 1:13

In Wycliffe 1380 Hope ye into the grace that is proffered to you by the showing of Jesus Christ. [In old English, ‘showing’ = preaching, revealing by telling]

Matthew Bible 1537/1549 Trust perfectly on the grace that is brought unto you by the declaring of Jesus Christ. (Also 1535 Coverdale & 1539 Great Bible)

Geneva 1557 & 1560 Trust perfectly on the grace that is brought unto you, by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Also Bishops’ Bible 1568)

Rheims 1582 Trust perfectly in that grace which is offered you, in the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Geneva 1599 Trust perfectly on the grace that is brought unto you, in the revelation of Jesus Christ.

KJV 1611 Hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

RV 1895 Set your hope perfectly on the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. (RV Marginal note: Gr. is being brought.)

RSV 1946 Set your hope fully upon the grace that is coming to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Jerusalem Bible 1968 Put your trust in nothing but the grace that will be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed.

Living Bible 1971 So now you can look forward soberly and intelligently to more of God’s kindness to you when Jesus Christ returns.

NKJV 1982  Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

NIV 1984  Set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed.

NIV 2016 Set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming.

ESV 2016 Set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

So then, in later Bibles, we look to the future for grace. In the Living Bible, it is not even grace anymore. As the verse evolved, there was more than a change in verb tense. The preposition ‘by’, which denotes instrumentality, morphed to ‘at’ in the KJV, denoting place, time, or event. Then ‘at’ became ‘when’. Also starting with the KJV, ‘trust’ became ‘hope’. The versions that speak of hoping ‘on’ future grace are a bit confusing, because in English we do not speak of hoping ‘on’ a thing that we trust will be given later. Rather, we hope ‘for’ it. Therefore it is fair to characterize the later versions as saying we are to hope for future grace – which is in fact how the commentators put it below, and explains why some versions changed the wording to ‘set hope on.’

The Geneva Influence

Though it looks as if the KJV began the shift from present to future grace, in fact, the early English Puritans introduced it in their Bible notes:

1 Peter 1:13 in the 1560 Geneva Bible Wherefore kgird up the loins of your mind: be sober, and trust perfectly on the grace that is brought unto you, by the lrevelation of Jesus Christ.

Note k: Prepare yourselves to the Lord

Note l: Until his second coming.[1]

The 1560 Geneva notes say we are to prepare ourselves for the Lord until the second coming. I do not say this is wrong, but it changes the message. Then the 1599 edition, in a set of six new notes, conflated grace with “full salvation”, such that salvation is not by grace, but is grace, and is the second coming. This is an unbiblical soup. Though the Puritans retained the present perspective in the Scripture, their (muddled) notes put grace in the future:

1 Peter 1:13 in the 1599 Geneva 1Wherefore 2gird up the loins of your mind: be sober, 3and trust 4perfectly on the grace 5that is brought unto you, 6in the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Note 3: He setteth forth very briefly, what manner of hope ours ought to be, to with, continual, until we enjoy the thing we hope for: then, what we have to hope for, to wit, grace (that is, free salvation) revealed to us in the Gospel, and not that, that men do rashly and fondly promise to themselves.

Note 6: He setteth out the end of faith, lest any man should promise himself, either sooner or later that full salvation, to wit, the later coming of Christ: and therewithal warneth us, not to measure the dignity of the Gospel according to the present state, seeing that that which we are now, is not yet revealed. [2] (Emphasis added. Other notes in endnote.)

The Puritans had the earlier Bibles at hand, but for reasons best known to themselves, reinterpreted v.13. It would be interesting to explore this further. Jesus’ first coming was for salvation by grace, which is abundantly testified by many Scriptures, as “The grace of God that brings salvation to all men has appeared” (Tit 2:11). The second coming will be for the final judgment (M’t 25:31-46, etc). Did the Puritans wrongly conflate the two comings at this verse? In any case, they divided the revelation of Christ from present grace, and perhaps due to their influence, the KJV changed v.13 to make grace a future thing.

Modern treatment

Verse 13 gradually evolved, so that the Living Bible boldly changed the Greek to the “return” of Christ. In 2016, the NIV committee added the words “at his coming” to clearly articulate the prevailing interpretation. But what ‘grace’ are they talking about, and what ‘coming’? The NIV Zondervan commentary acknowledges a “beginning of grace” in the present time, but says it is not the main point:

1 Peter 1:13 in the NIV 2016 Set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming.

NIV Zondervan commentary: The main emphasis of v.13 is on putting one’s hope wholly in the final consummation of the grace of God in Jesus Christ. At the present time, we enjoy only a beginning of that grace (cf 1Jn 3:2-3). This longing for the unveiling of Jesus at his second coming permeates the NT.[3] (Emphasis added.)

So grace now is not the main thing? We have a “beginning” of it, but not the “abundant grace” that the apostle Paul speaks of everywhere: “Where there was much sin, there was more abundance of grace” (Ro 5:20; see also 5:17)? Nor is there any mention anywhere in the Zondervan notes of eternal life as the substance of our hope. As for the second coming, of course all believers long for it, but by emphasizing it, and making it the time of grace, do we lose the Gospel, and all understanding of the revelation of Christ through the word?

I thank God for Tyndale. His translation and exposition raise no doubts or questions in my mind. He is perfectly consistent with everything the Scriptures say. Needless to say, the New Matthew Bible restored his translation:

1 Peter 1:13 in the NMB 2016 (The October Testament) Trust perfectly on the grace that is brought to you by the declaring of Jesus Christ.

So many issues are raised by this! I wish I could explore more. But space and time are limited. One thing I can say: I thank God for the grace I have received, on which I trust, as I hope for my rich inheritance in Christ, whom I know now by faith.

© Ruth Magnusson Davis, June, 2017

 

Endnotes:

[1] Geneva Bible (1560), 1st printing, 1st edition (Arizona: facsimile by The Bible Museum, 2006). Missing the preface and possibly other preliminary pages, but presumed an accurate facsimile as to the balance.

[2] Geneva Bible (1599), Tolle Lege Press edition (White Hall, WV: Tolle Lege Press, 2006). The full set of notes on 1 Peter, verse 1:13, were:

Note 1: He goeth from faith to hope, which is indeed a companion that cannot be sundered from faith; and he useth an argument taken of comparison: We ought not to be wearied in looking for so excellent a thing, which the very Angels wait for with great desire.

Note 2: This is a borrowed speech, taken of a common usage amongst them: for by reason that they wore long garments, they could not travel unless they girded up themselves: and hence it is that Christ said, Let your loins be girded up.

Note 3: See article.

Note 4: Soundly and sincerely.

Note 5: An argument to stir up our minds, seeing that God doeth not wait till we seek him, but causeth so great a benefit to be brought even unto us. [No need to seek to find?]

Note 6: See article.

[3] Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary: An Abridgment of the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 1 Old Testament, Vol. 2 New Testament. Consulting Eds. Kenneth L Barker and John R Kohlenberger III, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), p. 1045.

Comparing Bible Versions: Revelation 10:6 – When Jesus Returns

Posted on by Posted in MB

 

The Reformers – every single one of them – believed that when the Lord returns at the close of this age, he will usher in the end of time and of the world. The earth will burn with a fervent heat (2 Peter), the Great Judgment will follow, and then there will be a new heaven and a new earth. This is the orthodox Amillenial view.

But in recent times this has been replaced in popular understanding by the idea that Christ will reign on earth for a literal period of 1,000 years after he returns. This is generally called “Premillenianism,” though it comes in different forms. Many teachers I respect teach Premillenianism (as did some early Church fathers, until the teaching lost ground). It has virtually consumed evangelical Christianity … to the point even that modern translators have changed the Bible to agree with it. One example only is at Revelation 10:6. Here Tyndale had:

Revelation 10:6 in the Matthew Bible, with context 5And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea, and upon the earth, lifted up his hand to heaven, 6and swore by him that liveth for evermore, which created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which therein are: that there should be no longer time, 7but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to blow, even the mystery of God shall be finished as he preached by his servants the prophets.

Tyndale’s translation is consistent with Amillennialism. The meaning is, when the 7th angel begins to blow his trumpet, time will be no more. Creation and time will be swallowed up in eternity as the mystery of God is finished. This is based on the understanding that we are now in the millennium, during which Jesus reigns in the hearts and consciences of his people. For his kingdom is not of this world. The millennium is not a literal 1,000 year period, but in accordance with the common Hebrew usage of numbers, symbolizes a long, indefinite period of time.

Older Bibles, right through to the KJV, followed Tyndale. But then the RV sowed the seed of new doctrine in their marginal note. Moderns seized upon this in support of a future millennium, and changed the Scriptures:

Revelation 10:6

Wycliffe 1380  time shall no more be

Cranmer 1539  there should be no longer time   

Geneva 1560 & 1599  time should be no more

Rheims 1582 (Roman Catholic)  there shall be time no more

KJV 1611  there should be time no longer

RV 1895  there shall be *time no longer … (*Marginal note: or ‘delay’.)

Now the change takes root in Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Jehovah Witness Bibles:

RSV 1946  there should be no more delay

Jerusalem Bible 1968 (Roman Catholic) the time of waiting is over

NEB 1970  there shall be no more delay

Living Bible 1971 there should be no more delay

NIV 1984 & 2016 There will be no more delay!

New World Translation 1984 (Jehovah Witnesses) There will be no delay any longer

New King James 1988  there should be delay no longer

Of course, this verse has been restored in The October Testament, which is unique among the modern Bibles I have surveyed:

NMB 2016  (The October Testament)  time shall be no more …

As I have been comparing Bible versions, I have noticed how often the RV introduced new doctrine and stirred up waves of changes, small and great, to the Scriptures.

Many changes that support Premillenialism have to do with moving New Covenant promises of grace, etc., to the future. The Old and New Testament perspective is changed so that we are looking to the future for many blessings that the Reformers understood us to enjoy here and now. This is a large topic, and too much to deal with presently, but it is important, and I will explore it more in The Story of the Matthew Bible.

Ruth Magnusson Davis
Founder, New Matthew Bible Project
Editor of The October Testament (Tyndale’s New Testament as annotated in the Matthew Bible)
June, 2017

Ascension Day Poem – Comfort

Posted on by Posted in MB

Last Sunday was Ascension Day in the Church Calendar. I love the calendar, it keeps us on track. This morning I read a great poem from A. S. Worsley about the Ascension:

The Ascension of Christ

By A. S. Worsley

Nothing now is left to do.
All the labour is gone through.
Christ has bought us with his blood,
Proved the work and found it good,
Sealed and writ with iron pen,
The unutterable Amen.

Only by a chosen few
Who believe his promise true,
Eat his bread and drink his cup,
He is seen as he goes up,
Till the cloud, which waiting lies,
Veils him from their yearning eyes.

On the pure lips, before he passed,
Words of blessing were the last.
His receding hands, outspread,
Pour redemption on their head,
But the cloud comes in between,
And the Form is no more seen.

Spake beside them in their sight
Two men robed in shining white –
Why in wonder thus do ye
Gaze, O men of Galilee?
Go now, nor from the work refrain,
Till your Christ shall come again.

Then into the world they fare,
And his love goes with them there.
To life’s daily tasks they turn,
And his secret Presence learn,
While they do his gracious will,
All is good and nothing ill.

***

Now let us new comfort draw
From the vision that they saw,
And ourselves example take
From the words those angels spake,
Nor from the good work refrain,
Till our Christ shall come again.

Shortened from Worsley’s poem (3 stanzas omitted). Minor updates.

Posted on the Sunday after Ascension Day, May 28 2017 in the Year of Our Lord