Category Archives: MB

What Does Matthew 24:28 Mean about Eagles and a Dead Body?

Posted on by Posted in MB

– The meaning of Matthew 24:28 according to the ancients
– Back in time: About emblems and emblem books
– The emblem painting of Matthew 24:28
– Further back in time: What Chrysostom, Cranmer, and Jewel said

Matthew 24:28 a call to Holy Communion? So said the ancients.

What does Matthew 24:28 mean? Who are the eagles, and who or what does the dead body represent? See the verse:

For as the lightning comes out of the east and shines to the west, so will the coming of the Son of man be. For wherever the dead body is, there will the eagles resort.

It will seem strange to people nowadays, but for many centuries it was taught in the church that the eagles represent believers, while the dead body represents the body of our Lord, wounded and dead on the cross for us. According to this interpretation, verse 28 is a call to, and a picture of, Holy Communion: the eagles, or believers, soar in flights of faith when they gather at Holy Communion to remember the Body and Blood of the Lord, the crucified Christ. Therefore, as verse 26 says, these eagles do not go out to the desert to find Christ, nor to secret places. Nor do they flock to places where false prophets are working their miracles, as it is said. No, but they go to where he is openly shown in Holy Communion, which is the sacrament and remembrance that he ordained, the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. This is where he is shown and known.

Here are the verses in fuller context:

Matthew 24:23-28, New Matthew Bible: 23Then if anyone says to you, See, here is Christ! or, There is Christ! – believe it not. 24For false christs and false prophets will arise, and will do great miracles and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, the very elect should be deceived. 25Take heed, I have told you beforehand. 26So if they say to you, Behold, he is in the desert! go not forth; or, Behold, he is in the secret places! believe it not. 27For as the lightning comes out of the east and shines to the west, so will the coming of the Son of man be. 28For wherever the dead body is, there will the eagles resort.

In partaking of Holy Communion, the eagles find and commune with their Lord; there they remember his atoning death, look upon his saving wounds, and receive of his Body and Blood. There they, as priests of the New Covenant, partake of the altar and are nourished up to holiness and eternal life in the body. And as lightning shines from the east to the west, illuminating all upon whom it lights, so comes the Son of man by the Spirit in his fashion, from the east to the west, wherever the body is shown. I recently heard a bishop put it well: The Eucharist is the presence of the Lord in this world.

The idea that the meaning of Matthew 24:28 concerns the Eucharist (or Holy Communion, the Table of the Lord, etc.) may seem strange, because this teaching is now lost and forgotten. Moreover, if we read modern Bibles, we could never understand Matthew 24:28 as a call to Holy Communion because they use unfitting terms. Some refer not to eagles, but to “carrion vultures,” which is pejorative imagery. The Message Bible by Eugene Peterson even refers to a “rotting carcass” where these vultures gather, rather than simply to a dead body. Since the New Testament expressly says that Jesus’ dead body did not see corruption (Acts 2:27, 2:31, 13:35), there is no way Peterson’s rendering could lead the mind to the holy mysteries: there could be no holy gathering at a sacrament of the “rotting carcass” of the Lord.

I believe modern Bible translators are misled by the word “carcass,” which was used in older Bibles to refer to the dead body of the Lord.  Formerly, “carcass” was a neutral term, whereas now it also is pejorative. But I won’t discuss here how modern translations have changed the meaning and tone of Matthew 24:28 because I already reviewed the changes in my 2013 paper here on Academia.edu (linked again at the end of this paper).

I am writing about this topic now again, a decade later, because I recently received an email from a Danish minister, Pastor Poul Asger Beck, after he read my 2013 paper. He told me that there is an old colour painting on the wall of his church, called an emblem painting (shown later), which pictorially links Matthew 24:28 to Holy Communion. Pastor Beck was doing research relating to this painting in connection with a book he has written (1), and that was how he found my paper. He kindly sent some materials to me, and I am excited to share them here.

About emblems and emblem books

I had never heard of emblems or emblem paintings before. Now I know that emblems are allegorical paintings or sketches. As well as emblem paintings that hang on the walls of churches, there are also emblem books. These books are collections of emblems together with explanatory texts, typically morals or poems. Emblem books were popular in the 16th and 17th centuries for devotions and meditations.

Although emblems are, to the best of my knowledge, little known in Canada or the USA, they were widely known throughout Europe. They were apparently the highest fashion for church decoration around the 18th century under Pietism. (Pietism began as a 17th century movement in the German Lutheran Church. Its purpose was to infuse new life into dry Protestantism. It spread to other countries, but took different forms over time.)

Pastor Beck told me that there are emblem paintings hanging on the walls of about sixty churches in Denmark, and they can still be found in churches in other European countries. The cover of his new book (below) features images of several such emblems:

Emblems that answer the question, What Does Matthew 24:28 Mean?

Shown below now is the colourful emblem painting that hangs on the wall of Pastor Beck’s church, and which relates to Matthew 24:28. It was painted in 1705 by Christen Pedersen Lyngbye (1645-1715), who in turn was inspired by the emblem work of a man named Daniel Cramer. The Latin words Sic Alor, writ large in the sky of the painting, mean “Here I feed,” or “So I feed”:

Late 17th or early 18th century painting by Christen Lyngbye, illustrating Matthew 24:28.

Lyngbye’s painting shows a believer as an eagle with a heart-shaped body. To me, this signifies a believer’s love for the Lord, and also that his or her “flight” in Holy Communion is a spiritual one, where heart and soul ascend in faith. The eagle-believer, in remembrance, looks in his mind’s eye upon the Lord’s dead body, which is shown as a pierced hand, foot, and heart, representing the spiritual food of Holy Communion. This is why it is called the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord.

The next item Pastor Beck sent me is the image, shown below, of pages 172-173 from an emblem book called Emblemata Sacra, (or Emblematum Sacrorum) by the aforementioned Daniel Cramer (1568-1637). Cramer himself illustrated the book. He has been identified as a German Lutheran. Some say he had ties with the Rosicrucian movement; I do not know if this is true, but it does not matter since he was only illustrating an interpretation of Matthew 24:28 that long predated him.

Cramer’s emblem again shows the heart-eagle and the Lord’s pierced hands, feet, and heart. A common denominator of Cramer’s emblems was this mystic heart, represented in different situations as soaring on wings, or chained, or nailed to a cross, etc. The words Sic Alor (“Here I feed”) are again seen here, printed prominently above the emblem:

Pages from the 17th century emblem book of Daniel Cramer, with his emblem illustrating the meaning of Matthew 24:28.

The large-print French verse on the page facing Cramer’s emblem says “Où sera le corps mort, là aussi s’assembleront les aigles.” In English this is, “Where the dead body is, there also will the eagles gather.”

Below this, another line in the old French poetry says, “Mon cœur ailé de foi, tes plaies doucement va succant et s’en paist, pour non plus s’effrayer” (partially updated). I tentatively translate this, “My heart, on wings of faith, goes to gently suck and feed upon your wounds, no more to fear.”

Daniel Cramer got his inspiration for this emblem from the ancients. To go further back in time, to see the ancient sources he drew from, below are a few short quotations from leading men of the church.

John Chrysostom on the meaning of Matthew 24:28

John Chrysostom

John Chrysostom (c. 347-407) was a noted early Church father, known for liturgical reforms in the Greek Church, especially relating to Holy Communion. He was made Archbishop of Constantinople in about 397 AD. He spoke, taught, preached, and wrote in Greek, and studied the New Testament scriptures in their original tongue.

Chrysostom clearly referred Matthew 24:28 to Holy Communion; that is, to our Lord who was slain for us to take away our sins, and to  believers at the Communion Table, who, as soaring eagles, remember his death. Chrysostom wrote very eloquently:

For it is to this that the fearful and tremendous sacrifice leads us, warning us above all things to approach it with one mind and fervent love, and thereby become as eagles, so to mount up to the very heaven – nay, even beyond the heaven. “For wheresoever the carcase is,” saith he, “there also will be the eagles,” (Mat.xxiv.28), calling his body a “carcase” by reason of his death. For if he had not fallen, we would not have risen again. But he calls us eagles, implying that the person who draws near to this Body must be on high, and have nothing in common with the earth, nor wind himself downwards and creep along; but he must ever be soaring heavenwards, and look on the Sun of Righteousness, and have the eye of his mind quick-sighted. For eagles, not daws, have a right to this Table. (2)

Thomas Cranmer

Thomas Cranmer was a foremost English Reformer. As Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry VIII and Edward VI, he gave the Reformation Church of England her heavenly liturgy for Holy Communion in the Book of Common Prayer. Cranmer was a martyr for the faith, burned alive by Bloody Queen Mary in 1556.

Archbishop Cranmer often quoted from Chrysostom, including where he touched on the meaning of Matthew 24:28 in his homily, The Worthy Receiving of the Sacrament:

Thou must carefully search out and understand what good things are provided for thy soul, whither thou art come [to Holy Communion] – not to feed thy senses and belly to corruption, but thy inward man to immortality and life; nor to consider the earthly creatures [the bread and wine] which thou seest, but the heavenly graces which thy faith beholdeth. For this table is not, saith Chrysostom, for chattering jayes, but for eagles, who fly there where the dead body lies. (3)

Again we see this emphasis upon a true, earnest flight of faith, to appreciate the Lord’s self-offering upon the cross for his eagles.

John Jewel

Bishop John Jewel of the early Reformation Church of England also referred to the high flight of eagle-believers who partake of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord. He wrote:

For Christ himself altogether is so offered and given us in these mysteries that we may certainly know we be flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones, and that Christ continueth in us and we in him. And therefore, in celebrating these mysteries, the people are to good purpose exhorted, before they come to receive the Holy Communion, to lift up their hearts and to direct their minds to heavenward; because he is there by whom we must be full fed and live. Cyril saith, when we come to receive these mysteries, all gross imaginations must quite be banished. The Council of Nicea, as it is alleged by some in Greek, plainly forbiddeth us to be basely affectioned or bent toward the bread and wine which are set before us. And, as Chrysostom very aptly writeth, we say that “the body of Christ is the dead [body], and we ourselves must be the eagles”: meaning thereby that we must fly on high if we will come unto the body of Christ.” (4)

Conclusion

The ancient understanding of the meaning of Matthew 24:28 was meaningful and reverent, and it saddens me that it has been lost. I myself, since I first learned about it so many years ago, consciously practice this ascent of the eagles when I approach the holy sacrament.

To make an aside, I noticed when I was working on the New Testament that the parallel eagle-and-dead-body passage in Luke 17:37 is not apparently adaptable to the same interpretation. This is the only difficulty with it of which I am aware. Chrysostom and Cranmer did not, that I have ever seen, link the Luke passage with Holy Communion. But whatever the explanation (I won’t speculate here), I know that they were more advanced than I in their understanding. Further, they were uniquely chosen and gifted by God to give us the liturgy of the sacrament. Therefore, even if my heart was not instinctively drawn to their teaching on Matthew 24:28, I would defer to them. They knew the Scriptures. And they taught seriously and thoughtfully about the sacrament, and knew its blessings.

To close with a little more fruit from Cranmer’s pen:

We must be sure we understand that in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony. It is not just a bare sign. It is not an empty figure of something that is absent. As Scripture says, it is the Table of the Lord, the Bread and Cup of the Lord, the memory of Christ, the annunciation of his death, and the Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, in a marvellous embodiment and realization which, by the operation of the Holy Ghost, is wrought through faith in the souls of the faithful. By it not only do their souls live to eternal life, but they trust confidently to gain for their bodies a resurrection to immortality.

This result, and the union which is between the body and the Head (that is, the true believers and Christ), the ancient catholic fathers both experienced themselves and commended to their people. Some of them were not afraid to call this Supper the “salve of immortality” and “sovereign preservative against death.” Others called it a “deifical Communion” – that is, a communion that makes us to be holy like God. Others called it the sweet food of the Saviour, and the pledge of eternal health; also the defence of the faith, the hope of the resurrection; others still, the food of immortality, the healthful grace and conservation for eternal life…

All these things both the Holy Scripture and godly men have correctly attributed to this celestial banquet and feast…Here the faithful may see, hear, and know the mercies of God sealed, Christ’s satisfaction for us confirmed, the remission of sin established.  Here they may experience the tranquillity of conscience, the increase of faith, the strengthening of hope, the spreading abroad of brotherly kindness, with many other sundry graces of God. (5)

Amen and amen.

* * * *

Ruth Magnusson Davis, March 2023

For more history from a different perspective, including an etymological study of “carcass” as it was used in older Bibles, my 2013 research paper is here on Academia.edu.

This ancient understanding of Matthew 24:28 is not the only interpretation that has been lost today. Another is the correct understanding of  “Christ was made sin for us.” This is a Hebrew idiom which is not understood today. The meaning is that Christ was made a sin offering for us, as Augustine, William Tyndale, John Rogers, and other learned men have explained. I blogged on this topic here.

Another lost understanding concerns the-prohecy-of-daniel-927/

_____________________________________

(1) The book Pastor Poul Beck has written is called (English translation) Riddles of the Heart: The Emblems in Vroue Church Described and Illustrated. It is due to be published in May 2023. It includes colour photos and descriptions of the Vroue church’s forty-one emblems, and the emblems from Daniel Cramer’s Emblemata Sacra with the accompanying poems and biblical texts.

(2) Chrysostom, St. John, Homily XXIV on 1 Cor.x.13, Homilies on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians. Translator not identified. Editor Paul A. Boer, Sr. Original publisher Wm. B. Erdmanns Publishing Company, date not provided, (Facsimile publisher Veritas Splendor Publications, 2012), p. 266. [English minimally updated.]

(3) Cranmer, Thomas, “The Worthy Receiving of the Sacrament,” contained in Homilies (first published 1547, republished Oxford City Press, 2010), p. 368. William Tyndale called Cranmer “a holy man.”

(4) Jewel, John, An Apology of the Church of England, c. 1561, Editor John E. Booty (First published 1963, republished by Church Publishing Incorporated, New York, 2010), pp. 34-35.

(5) Cranmer, Thomas, excerpts from his homilies on common prayer and the sacraments, updated and published here: Thomas-Cranmer-on-Common-Prayer-and-the-Sacraments. See page 6. The updated homily is the joint work of editors Rev. Stanley F. Sinclair and this author.

Key words: What does Matthew 24:28 mean? The meaning of Matthew 24:28

Numbers 20 – Drawing Water from a Rock

Posted on by Posted in MB

It is wonderful to update the Old Testament of the 1537 Matthew Bible and see the meaning come alive.  I am now (June 16, 2022) almost finished the book of Numbers. At the end of this article is my full update of chapter 20. But first, a short discussion of two interesting features of this chapter.

The first concerns how Tyndale used a variety of words to draw out shades of tone and meaning. An example is in the passage where Moses draws water from a rock in the desert. Below is Tyndale’s original translation:

1537 Matthew Bible, Numbers 20:7-11

7And the Lord spake unto Moses saying: 8take the staff, and gather thou and thy brother Aaron the congregation together, and say unto the rock before their eyes, that he give forth his water. And thou shalt bring them water out of the rock and shalt give the company drink, and their beasts also.

9And Moses took the staff from before the Lord, as he commanded him. 10And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them: hear ye rebellious, must we fetch you water out of this rock? 11And Moses lifted up his hand with his staff and smote the rock two times, and the water came out abundantly, and the multitude drank, and their beasts also.

These verses contain words we no longer use in the same way that Tyndale used them. Especially, the expression ‘fetch out’ in verse 10 – “must we fetch you water out of this rock?” – is not quite right.

In modern use, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), to fetch means to go in quest of something and to bring it back.[i] But Moses was not going anywhere to get something and bring it back. He was commanded to work a miracle right there, on the spot. What, then, was the meaning of ‘fetch out’ in this passage? The answer lies in a sense that the OED describes as “now rare”: to draw from or out of a source. In modern English, we would say ‘draw out.’ That this was the sense in Numbers 20 is confirmed in Strong’s Concordance, which gives the meaning of the Hebrew word as ‘bring out.’ But ‘bring’ is a general word, while ‘draw’ is the word we normally use in the context of obtaining water from a well or a spring (like ‘fetch’ was used in the past).

The KJV also had ‘fetch out’ in verse 10, as did the 1540 Great Bible. However, most modern Bibles, including the NIV and ESV, have ‘bring out.’ (In fact, this revision was introduced in the 1560 Geneva Bible, which was a revision of the Great Bible[ii].) The NIV reads,

NIV: He and Aaron gathered the assembly together in front of the rock and Moses said to them, “Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?”

Sarcasm: Draw water from a rock!

The NIV translation is clear, and I certainly cannot say that it is wrong. In verse 8 of Numbers 20, Tyndale (and the KJV) used ‘bring out’ to translate the same Hebrew word. But Tyndale did not use a different word in verse 10 for no reason. If we follow his lead and update ‘fetch’ to ‘draw,’ in my view it highlights the sarcasm of Moses’ outburst, and his unbelief: What, was he to draw water from a rock, as a person might draw water from a well?

Actually, Moses’ attitude is difficult to understand here, because he had already seen God perform such a miracle. In Exodus 17:6, Moses struck a rock and brought water forth from it. However, something about his mindset in this situation dishonoured the Lord and indicated unbelief, as we learn later in chapter 20. Hence his sarcasm.

I gently updated verse 10 in the New Matthew Bible as follows:

And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said to them, Hear, ye rebellious! Must we draw you water out of this rock?

Many artists depict the rock Moses struck as very large, with a stream falling out into a pool that people drew water from.

The water of strife in Numbers 20

In Numbers 20 we see another wonderful feature of the Matthew Bible: how the meaning is given clearly in verses where later bibles lost meaning through unnecessary transliteration of the Hebrew.

An example of this is at verse 13. From Tyndale’s translation, we learn that the water from the rock that Moses struck (or perhaps the place itself) was called “the water of strife.” It was so called because the people of Israel strove with the Lord. The 1535 Coverdale Bible and the 1540 Great Bible also referred to “water of strife.” John Wycliffe’s bible, circa 1380-84, had “the waters of against-saying,” which is wonderfully descriptive.[iii] However, beginning with the Geneva version, this became instead “waters of Meribah,” a name that tells us nothing. The KJV followed the Geneva Bible here, as have most modern English versions.

Tyndale’s translation of Numbers 20:12-13, as I have updated the verses for the New Matthew Bible is below. Verse 12 informs us that Moses did not believe the Lord’s words about drawing water from a rock – even though, as mentioned, Moses had already seen the Lord perform this very same miracle:

12And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, Because you did not believe me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this congregation into the land that I have given them.

13This is the water of strife, because the children of Israel strove with the Lord.

The water of strife is referred to again in this chapter, where the Lord speaks to Moses and Aaron about Aaron’s appointed death. Below are verses 23-26 as I have updated them:

… the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron in Mount Hor, close by the border of the land of Edom, saying, Let Aaron be put unto his people. For he shall not come into the land that I have given to the children of Israel, because you disobeyed my mouth at the water of strife. Take Aaron and Eleazar his son, and bring them up into Mount Hor; and strip Aaron out of his vestments, and put them upon Eleazar his son. And let Aaron be put unto his people and die there.

For interest’s sake, below also is the Wycliffe translation of this passage (with updated spelling):

Wycliffe’s bible, Numbers 20:23-26: … the Lord spake to Moses and said, Aaron [shall go] to his peoples, for he shall not enter into the land which I had [promised] to the sons of Israel, for he was unbelieveful to my mouth at the waters of against-saying. Take thou Aaron, and his son with him, and thou shalt lead him to the hill of Hor; and when thou hast made naked the father of his cloth, thou shalt clothe with it Eleazar, his son, and Aaron shall be gathered [to his people], and shall die there.

How severe the law was! Moses was a wonderful servant of God, but at the water of strife he lost his faith and his temper. He disobeyed God by striking the rock in a display of unbelief and frustration, instead of simply telling it to give forth its water. And what a price he and Aaron must pay for that: neither of them would see the promised land. No wonder the apostle Paul described the law as “a yoke … that neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (Acts 15:10).

Aaron dies in Mount Hor, and his priestly office is transferred to his son Eleazar.

I hope later to write another blog post showing more examples of how the Matthew Bible avoided unnecessary transliteration, and how this made the scriptures come alive. But for now, following is my complete, gentle update of Numbers 20 for people who are interested.

Numbers 20: The complete chapter

This is the first draft of Numbers 20 for the New Matthew Bible. John Rogers’ chapter summary is also shown. Rogers added descriptive summaries at the beginning of every chapter in the Matthew Bible, as was the practice of the time:

Chapter 20 (draft)

Miriam dies. The people murmur. They have water even out of the rock. Edom denies the Israelites passage through his realm. The death of Aaron, to whose office Eleazar succeeds.

And the whole multitude of the children of Israel came into the desert of Zin in the first month, and the people dwelt at Kadesh. And there Miriam died, and was buried there. 2Moreover, there was no water for the multitude, because of which they gathered themselves together against Moses and Aaron. 3And the people fought with Moses and spoke, saying, Would God that we had perished when our brethren perished before the Lord! 4Why have you brought the congregation of the Lord into this wilderness, so that both we and our animals will die here? 5Why did you bring us out of Egypt, to bring us into this ungracious place, which is no place to sow seed, nor of figs nor vines nor of pomegranates, and neither is there any water to drink?

6And Moses and Aaron went from the congregation to the door of the tabernacle of witness and fell upon their faces. And the glory of the Lord appeared to them. 7And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 8Take the staff and gather the congregation together, you and your brother Aaron, and say to the rock, before their eyes, to give forth its water. And you will bring for them water out of the rock, and will give the company drink, and their beasts also.

9And Moses took the staff from before the Lord, as he commanded him. 10And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said to them, Hear, ye rebellious! Must we draw you water out of this rock? 11And Moses lifted up his hand with his staff and struck the rock two times, and the water came out abundantly. And the multitude drank, and their beasts also.

12And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, Because you did not believe me, to sanctify mea in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this congregation into the land that I have given them.

13This is the water of strife, because the children of Israel strove with the Lord. And he was sanctified upon them.

14And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom to say, Thus says your brother Israel: You know all the hardship that has happened to us – 15how our fathers went down into Egypt, and how we dwelt in Egypt a long time, and how the Egyptians dealt ill with both us and our fathers. 16Then we cried out to the Lord, and he heard our voices and sent an angel, and has brought us out of Egypt. And behold, we are in Kadesh, a city hard by the borders of your country. 17Let us go in good fellowship through your country. We will not go through the fields nor through the vineyards, neither will we drink of the water of the wells, but we will go by the highway, and neither turn to the right hand nor to the left until we are past your country.

18But Edom answered him, See that you come not by me, lest I come out against you with the sword.

19And the children of Israel said to him, We will go by the beaten way. And if either we or our livestock drink of your water, we will pay for it. We will do no more than pass through by foot only.

20But he said, You shall not go through.

And Edom came out against them with a mighty people and a strong hand. 21And thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his country. And Israel turned away from him.

22And the children of Israel removed from Kadesh, and went to Mount Hor with all the congregation. 23And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron in Mount Hor, close by the border of the land of Edom, saying, 24Let Aaron be put unto his people. For he shall not come into the land that I have given to the children of Israel, because you disobeyed my mouth at the water of strife. 25Take Aaron and Eleazar his son, and bring them up into Mount Hor; 26and strip Aaron out of his vestments, and put them upon Eleazar his son. And let Aaron be put unto his people and die there.

27And Moses did as the Lord commanded. And they went up into Mount Hor in the sight of all the multitude. 28And Moses took off Aaron’s clothes and put them upon Eleazar his son, and Aaron died there at the top of the mount. 29And Moses and Eleazar came down out of the mount. And all the house of Israel mourned for Aaron thirty days. ~~~~~

Verse 12, note (a): To sanctify is here to show and declare to be holy, as in M’t 6:13.

~~~~~

Ruth Magnusson Davis, June 2022.

Note, for more of the NMB Old Testament, Genesis 1-25 is in downloadable pdf format here.

[i] See the online OED under ‘fetch,’ verb. This online resource is only accessible to subscribers, so I have not linked it. Apparently, the former meaning of ‘fetch out’ could indicate a greater degree of sarcasm than we can now appreciate; it was sometimes used to suggest that the thing to be drawn out was very remote.

[ii] The base of the Geneva Old Testament was the Great Bible, whereas the Geneva New Testament was a direct revision of William Tyndale’s work. For a history of the English bible, with a focus on revisions introduced in the Geneva and Revised versions, see Part 2 of The Story of the Matthew Bible. Many of the revisions were more significant than the items discussed here. Part 2 of The Story sets them out in black and white, with complete citations and references.

[iii] Or, “again-saying,” in the sense “gainsay,” which means to speak against (literally, to back-say).

Ten Tips on How to Read Early Modern English

Posted on by Posted in MB Leave a comment

It takes practice, but it is not difficult to learn how to read Early Modern English (EME). And it is worthwhile to learn, because then we can read and enjoy the 1537 Matthew Bible.

Some people who own Hendrickson’s facsimile of the Matthew Bible (the beautiful one with the red cloth cover, see Recommended) say they have given up trying to read it. And truly, when we see the EME text for the first time, it looks like another language. However, once the Matthew Bible opens up to you – especially the Old Testament, which is a masterpiece of clarity – you will not want to read another version. Well, perhaps Myles Coverdale’s Bible of 1535, which I also love, or the Great Bible of 1539-1540. But for these Bibles we also need to know how to read Early Modern English.

The ten rules below address common features of EME that may cause difficulty to new readers. The pictures of EME text are from the book of psalms in my own copy of Hendrickson’s 1537 Matthew Bible. The psalms of the Matthew Bible were translated by Myles Coverdale, so the word choice and grammar were his, except for the introductory summaries, which were written by John Rogers. However, it was the printer and typesetters who were responsible for page layout and orthography.

What is orthography?

Orthography means a system of spelling and notation. Though the orthography of the early English Bibles seems very inconsistent to us, the typesetters followed certain, definite systems and practices that are easy to learn. Some of their apparent inconsistencies were space-management devices — forms of shorthand, as it were, used only where needed. Because the rag paper used by early printers was thick and the Bible is a long book, typesetters sometimes abbreviated words to shorten the text. On the other hand, sometimes they spelled a word out in full to justify the margins or simply if they did not need to save space.

Knowing the tricks of the printers’ trade as well as a few obsolete rules of grammar will give people a head start in learning how to read Early Modern English texts. I will refer frequently to the specimen text below, Psalm 83:1-5. This specimen includes the psalm title and Rogers’ introductory summary. In modern orthography the summary reads, “The holy people complaineth that all the borderers about them had conspired to destroy them, and prayeth that they may utterly be consumed and wasted, even as their old enemies were consumed and wasted.” Below I explain some of the rules the typesetters followed for the summary and the rest of the psalm:

Psalm 83:1-5 in the 1537 Matthew Bible, with John Rogers’ introductory summary

 

Ten rules of EME orthography and grammar

1. The symbol below, called a capitulum, was used to indicate a new section. However, it has no other meaning or significance.

A new section in the Bible might be a new book, chapter, or psalm. Also, capitulums were always inserted before Rogers’ introductory summaries, as above in Psalm 83. Perhaps this assisted to show that the summary was added to the biblical text. Because the capitulum served no necessary purpose, it eventually fell out of use.

2. Instead of a comma the 1537 Matthew Bible used a mark called a virgule suspensiva, which looks like a forward slash (/).  But sometimes a virgule suspensiva was used for a stronger pause, where now we would use a semi-colon or even a period or exclamation mark.

There are virgule suspensivas in every specimen of EME text in this article. If we update verse 1 of Psalm 83, it might read, “Hold not thy tongue, O God! Keep not still silence, refrain not thyself O God”:

Psalm 83:1

3. An old-fashioned form of ampersand (&) was used for the word and. Frequently it was used in combination with the virgule suspensiva (/&).

We see the /& combination in the introductory summary of Psalm 83 and in verses 2 and 5. However, and was also spelled out in full in the summary (“consumed and wasted”), and again in the psalm title where it was not necessary to save space (“A songe and psalme of Asaph”).

With modern spelling and punctuation, verse 2 reads, “For lo, thine enemies make a murmuring, and they that hate thee, lift up their head”:

Psalm 83:2

4. A line over the top of a vowel means that an M or N was dropped (mā = man, becōmeth = becommeth ). Also, special rules for from.

The lines above vowels that marked a missing M or N were called diacritics. Sometimes these diacritics were wavy. There are several in Psalm 83 above. In Rogers’ introductory summary, cōplayneth = complaineth, and in verse 3, coūcell = counsel. Dropping letters allowed the typesetters to justify the margins, or to avoid extending a sentence into the next line in order to save space.

In the first line of Psalm 83:4, shown below, dropping the M in from (frō) clearly helped fit the text into one line. If the typesetters had needed yet more room, they could also have shortened them to thē:

Psalm 83:4

______________

In some places, however, it appears that a diacritic was forgotten, as in Psalm 88 below. Should fro have been written frō in verse 14, “Wherefore hydest thou thy face fro me”?

Psalm 88:14-15

I do not believe “fro me” was a typesetting error in verse 14. For one thing, space did not require that the M be omitted. Also, the term “fro me” without a diacritic was repeated elsewhere. The Oxford English Dictionary shows that from Old English into the Early Modern Period the word fro was sometimes used for from. (Even today fro = from  in the phrase “to and fro.”) It seems, therefore, that “fro me” was a special word pair. In EME certain word pairs received special treatment: “shall be” was written “shalbe” and “will be” became “wilbe.” Therefore, from appears to have its own rules: (1) it may be written in full; (2) it may be shorted to frō where needed; (3) in combination with me, it is written fro me.

Turning to verse 15 of Psalm 88, it shows how diacritical notation kept the verse to two lines instead of three. Written out in full, it says, “My strength is gone for very sorrow and misery, with fearfulness do I bear thy burdens.” This verse also manifests other features of EME. One is the frequent use of Y for I (mysery = misery). Another is the use of TH where now we use a D: burthens = burdens (or murther = murder). Also, the special form of the word with near the beginning of the second line in verse 15 was frequently used to save space, which brings us to the next rule.

5. The word with was abbreviated by printing a W with a tiny letter (T or H) above. The words that, the, thee were abbreviated by a Y with a tiny T or E above.

These were space-saving devices inherited from medieval times, when with was written wth and that was written yt. Thee and the were both written ye, and the proper sense was derived from the context.

In Psalm 83:5, wth  at the beginning of the second line and ye at the end were used to shorten the words with and thee. This kept the text to one line. In modern orthography this verse reads, “For they have cast their heads together with one consent, and are confederate against thee”:

Psalm 83:5

In verse 2 of Psalm 83, shown below, the Y-form stood for that. As we have seen, in modern orthography this line reads, “and they that hate thee, lift up their head”:

Psalm 83:2

But notice above that thee is spelt the. This takes us to Rule 6.

6. The one-E rule: In the 1537 Matthew Bible the words the and thee were both spelt with only one E (the). Generally speaking, words with an EE sound followed the one-E rule (fre = free,  se = see,  whele = wheel,  seke = seek, etc.).

In Psalm 83:2, which we saw just above, “they that hate the” = they that hate thee.

This spelling of thee seems strange to us, but it was perfectly consistent with the spelling of other English pronouns, such as me (which sounds like mee), ye (yee), and he (hee). Consistent spelling meant that the “rhyme” of Psalm 86:7 appealed to both eye and ear:

Psalm 86:7

In modern orthography, this is, “In the time of my trouble I call upon thee, for thou hearest me.”

However, not all EME texts followed the one-E rule as consistently as the 1537 Matthew Bible did. In other early 16th-century works I have noticed that the and thee were inconsistently spelt, and sometimes reversed.

________________

The single E to indicate the EE sound was mirrored also in other words, such as se. Psalm 89:47 reads, “What mā is he that lyveth, and shall not se death?” Here se = see:

Psalm 89:47-48

However, in Psalm 93:5 see = sea in “The waves of the see are mighty, and rage horribly [etc]”:

Psalm 93:5

Thus the apparently odd spellings of thee and see actually manifest consistency in the 1537 Matthew Bible, while they reveal a modern inconsistency (me, thee, see, ye, free, be).

7. Three kinds of Ss (called “allographs” of the S grapheme) were used in the 1537 Matthew Bible:

(1) The descending or long S. This allograph is relatively infrequent. If it followed an orthographic rule, I have not been able to determine it, though in the specimen text below (Psalm 88:18) it appears to be a space-saver.

(2) The “normal” S, such as we use now. The rule was to use this allograph only as a capital letter and at the end of a word.

(3) The f-like S, which was the most common. This looks like an f without the stroke on the stem. It was used everywhere the other allographs were not.

A normal S was used at the end of lovers in Psalm 88:18, shown below. (Here lovers means good and close friends.)  However, a descending S was used at the end of frinds (friends). In this verse we also see another example of the word pair fro me without a diacritic:

Psalm 88:18

The normal and f-like allographs were used abundantly in Psalm 81 below. The rule for normal Ss (only for capitals and at the end of a word) was consistently followed. Verse 1 reads, “Sing merrily unto God which [who] is our strength, make a cheerful noise unto the God of Jacob”:

Psalm 81:1-7

However, to have three allographs for S was more trouble than it was worth, and by the end of the eighteenth century only the modern form was in use.

8. Past participles of verbs ending in T sometimes dropped the letters ED at the end. (effect = effected, often spelt yfect. Also, the elect = the elected, or the chosen)

In the introductory summary to Genesis 1 shown below, creat = created at the end of the last sentence. However, midsentence in verse 1 created was written out in full:

Genesis 1, introductory summary and verses 1-2

When a past participle drops the [ed], it is called an absolute participle. Possibly the use of the absolute form was dictated, at least in part, by euphonics. It was more emphatic and pleasing to the ear to end the introductory summary with the stressed syllable (cree-ate). On the other hand, mid-sentence the full form was more rhythmic and pleasing (God cree-ate-ed heav-en and earth).

Some absolute participles remain in use today. The past participle of the verb manifest can be written both ways: it is correct to say both “His real character was manifest by his deeds” and “His real character was manifested by his deeds.” It is the same with the verb incarnate. However, with reference to Christ we speak of him almost exclusively as the Son of God incarnate (= incarnated [i.e., by the Holy Spirit]). I sometimes regret that we do not now speak of Christ incarnated, because the full participle is more meaningful. It clearly conveys the amazing action and event of the Incarnation: the Son of God was born into the flesh of man.

9. The preposition of = by in passive construction.

This is an essential rule of grammar for understanding Early Modern English. In the first example below, in modern orthography and putting by for of, it says, “Thou hast put away mine acquaintance [friends] far from me, and made me to be abhorred by them…” (Also, here we see a third fro me word pair):

Psalm 88:8

In the next example we would say, “God is greatly to be feared in the council of the saints, and to be had in reverence by all them that are about him.”

Psalm 89:7

This rule is so important, I will include also an example from the New Testament, speaking of baptism by John or by Jesus:

Matthew 3:13-14

Here we would say, putting by for of in both places: “Then came Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be baptized by him. But John forbad him, saying, I ought to be baptized by you: and comest thou to me? [etc].”

(Check out how we have gently updated the Gospel of Matthew and other Scriptures for the New Matthew Bible here.)

10. The terms like as and like unto usually just mean like.

In verses 11-14 of Psalm 83, we find like as, like unto, as, and like all used to express comparison in contexts where the simple word like (or as) could function alone. Coverdale may have used such a variety of expression for interest and poetry’s sake. Notice also the one-E rule followed in whele (= wheel) in verse 13 and seke (= seek) in verse 16:

Psalm 83:11-18

In modern orthography verses 13 and 14 read:

13 O my God, make them like unto a wheel, and as the stubble before the wind.
14 Like as a fire that burneth up the wood, and as the flame that consumeth the mountains.

Gently updating the English, these verses might read:

13  O my God, make them like a wheel, and as the stubble before the wind;
14  Like a fire that burns up the wood, and as the flame that consumes the mountains.

However, the expression like unto had fascinating nuances of meaning. People who enjoy deeper studies of language and grammar might like my article on how William Tyndale used like unto in the Scriptures and in his writing.

****************

With these rules in mind, I hope people will be encouraged to take up their facsimile of the Matthew Bible, practice reading it, and discover how well they can learn to understand it. It took me a little while, but I can now read it as fluently as I read modern text. I know you can too! It is true that the obsolete words will remain a barrier to a full and correct understanding. That is why the Matthew Bible must be updated. However, the spelling and orthography will no longer be an obstacle.

How to read Early Modern English: some words to know:

all way = always
commodity = benefit
fly = flee
lust = wish or desire
other = or
sometime = formerly
syth = since
then = than
wealth = welfare
which = who, with reference to people and to the divine Persons

*************

Copyright claimed by Ruth M Davis, 2021. For permission to republish, recopy, or use contact here. However, limited permission is given for people to print and use this article for personal use with their facsimile of the 1537 Matthew Bible.

KPs How to read Early Modern English; Understanding Early Modern English

 

When All the People Are Evil: The Example of Sodom

Posted on by Posted in MB Leave a comment

Chapter 18 of the book of Genesis contains the incredible story of when the Lord and his angels visited and spoke with Abraham. At that meeting, the Lord warned Abraham about the pending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. I was fascinated to see how William Tyndale’s translation of verse 21 made the meaning come alive. However, first it is necessary to understand his obsolete English!

It all hinges on a word or two

The meaning of the word altogether is the issue. See Genesis 18:21 in the New King James Version:

And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it.”

The NKJV kept the word altogether as it had been used in the 1611 KJV. In accordance with modern English, this verse is now understood as if the Lord were saying that he would see if the sin of the city was entirely according to the outcry against it. Many modern versions paraphrase:

NIV: I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me.

NLV: I will now go down and see if they have done as much wrong as the cry against them has told Me they have.

According to the modern translations, the Lord was speaking about the nature or extent of the Sodomites’ sin. Then follow Abraham’s plaintive questions: Would the Lord spare the city if there were fifty righteous people in it, or forty-five … or even only ten?

However, Tyndale’s translation in the Matthew Bible gives another meaning at verse 21. My first clue was the different spelling. In the MB it says “all together,” not “altogether.” This does not mean that the nature or extent of Sodom’s sin was in question, but, rather, the extent of the people’s involvement: were they all guilty, all involved together? Every one of them? Understood this way, Abraham’s questions now follow quite logically: But Lord, what if there are in fact fifty, or even ten righteous?

Here is how the passage reads in the Matthew Bible:

And the Lord said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and their sin is exceeding grievous. I will go down and see whether they have done all together according to that cry which is come unto me or not…. But Abraham stood yet before the Lord, and drew near and said, Wilt thou destroy the righteous with the wicked? If there be fifty righteous within the city, wilt thou destroy it, and not spare the place for the sake of fifty righteous that are therein?

After Abraham’s questions the Lord answered, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, I will spare all the place for their sakes [etc.]” In other words, if the people were not all together evil, the Lord would not destroy the city.

Understanding the obsolete English usage

In older English, all together was sometimes merged to make one word: altogether. The same was done with shall be, which was sometimes merged to make shalbe. This usage is now obsolete, but it was still current when the KJV was made. Therefore, it is possible that the meaning “all together” was in the minds of the KJV translators. But, in any case, modern readers who are unaware of the obsolete use – or modern translators who are guided by the old English, perhaps more than they would like to admit, and who are also unaware of the obsolete use – can only understand verse 21 as paraphrased in the NIV and NLV.

The online Oxford English Dictionary confirms the obsolete meaning of the merged form altogether, with examples showing how it was used:

Altogether: Acting at the same time or in unison.

Quotations:

1616 (W. Shakespeare Comedy of Errors) “Then altogether they fell upon me.” (= all together)

1787 (Gentleman’s Mag.) “On the Coryphæus it depended..that the chorus altogether should symphonize.” (= all together)

1820 (S. Urban Gentleman’s Mag.)  “They went altogether to the stable in Cato-street.” (= all together)

These quotations make it perfectly clear that the correct meaning is derived simply by spelling out the constituent parts in full.

Both the modern and the Matthew Bible renderings of Genesis 18:21 may be plausible, but Tyndale’s is more fitting because Abraham’s questions flow more naturally in the context. To my mind, this is just one more example of the value and importance of mining the Matthew Bible for its treasures, which lie buried beneath almost five centuries of linguistic change.

R.M.D.

****

See how beautifully Tyndale translated the New Testament, and how our update of the older English makes the meaning come alive in The October Testament, the New Testament of the New Matthew Bible.

The Age of the Earth: Two Ancient Charts as Set Forth in the Matthew Bible

Posted on by Posted in MB

When John Rogers compiled the 1537 Matthew Bible, he included a wide variety of biblical information, guides, and study helps. One interesting feature in the front pages was two charts that compared two different calculations of the age of the earth. People who have the Hendrickson facsimile of the 1537 Matthew Bible will find the charts on the bottom of the last page just before the book of Genesis.

The first chart contained the calculations of the Hebrews, following the Hebrew Bible. The second chart set out the calculations of Eusebius and other “Chroniclers,” who were not identified and who, I am told, based their calculations on the Septuagint. I have adapted the charts for a table format and present them below. The English is gently updated. I also updated both charts to show the number of years passed since the coming of Christ as 2,020 years instead of 1,537 years.

The Hebrews arrived at an age of the earth which, to this present year, would make the world 5,972 years old. According to Eusebius’s calculations, however, the earth is now 7,190 years old.

Because the figures in the Matthew Bible were in Roman numerals and were often blurred due to the imperfect inking process, they were difficult to make out. There might be errors. However, I carefully compared my 1549 Matthew Bible with my 1537 facsimile and I believe the tables are correct.

Neither of these charts tallies exactly with Bishop James Ussher’s chart, which, according to a Wikipedia article I read, dates the earth as presently 6,060 years old. There are also other modern calculations, which disagree minimally.

From the Matthew Bible:

A brief review of the years passed since the beginning of the world
to this year of our Lord 2020,
both according to the reckoning of the Hebrews
and according to the reckoning of Eusebius and other Chroniclers.

© R. Magnusson Davis, September 2020

Thomas Cranmer’s Homily on Holy Communion

Posted on by Posted in MB

This is Cranmer’s homily on common prayer and the sacraments, first published in the mid 1550s, and now gently updated. Article 35 of the Articles of Religion requires this homily (along with others) to be read regularly in the churches — “diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.” However this is not done today.

From the Homilies on Common Prayer and Sacraments and the Worthy Receiving of the Sacrament

By Thomas Cranmer

Dear Christians: Among the many exercises of God’s people, none are more necessary than public prayer and the proper use of the Sacraments.

On prayer

In prayer we ask from God all such things as we cannot otherwise obtain.  In the Sacraments, God embraces us and offers Himself to be embraced by us.  Let us consider what prayer is and what a Sacrament is.

Saint Augustine teaches that prayer is the devotion of the mind; that is to say, returning to God through a godly and humble affection, inclining the mind towards God.  As for the Sacraments, he calls them “holy signs.” Writing about the baptism of infants, he says, “If Sacraments had not a certain likeness to those things whereof they are Sacraments, they would be no Sacraments at all.” From this likeness they receive for the most part the names of the things they signify.  By these words Saint Augustine allows the common description of a Sacrament: that it is a visible sign of an invisible grace, which sets before the eyes and outward senses the inward working of God’s free mercy, and seals in our hearts the promises of God.

As to prayer, in the Scriptures we read of three sorts. Two are private, the third is common [that is, shared by the congregation].

The first sort of private prayer Saint Paul speaks of in his first epistle to Timothy: “I will that men pray in every place, lifting up pure hands without wrath or striving.”  It is the devout lifting up of the mind to God without speaking aloud the heart’s grief or desire.  We have examples of this: Anna, the mother of Samuel, in the heaviness of her heart, prayed in the temple, desiring to be fruitful.  She prayed in her heart; no voice was heard.  This way must all Christians pray…as Saint Paul writes to the Thessalonians, “without ceasing.”  Saint James writes, “The continual prayer of a just man is of much force,” or is very effective.

The second sort of prayer Jesus taught in the Gospel of Matthew: “When you pray, enter into your secret closet, and when you have shut the door, pray to your Father in secret, and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you.” Cornelius, a devout man, said to Peter that when he was in his house in prayer at the ninth hour, there appeared to him one in a white garment.  This man prayed to God in secret and was rewarded openly.  So the first form of private prayer is mental, the other vocal.

The third form of prayer is public, or common.  Our Saviour Christ speaks of this prayer when he says, “If two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” By the histories of the Bible it appears that common prayer avails greatly before God, and must be esteemed among us who profess to be one body in Christ.

When the city of Nineveh was threatened to be destroyed within forty days, the Prince and the people joined themselves together in public prayer and fasting and were preserved.  In the prophet Joel, God commanded a fast to be proclaimed, and the people to say with one voice: “Spare us, O Lord, spare thy people, and let not thine inheritance be brought to confusion.”…When Peter was in prison, the congregation joined themselves together in common prayer, and Peter was wonderfully delivered.  Common or public prayer is of great force to obtain mercy and deliverance at our heavenly Father’s hand.

I beseech you, brethren, even for the tender mercies of God, let us be no longer negligent in this behalf: but as the people willing to receive at God’s hand such good things as in the common prayer are asked, let us join ourselves together, and with one voice and one heart ask all these things of our heavenly Father.

On the Sacraments

Turning to the Sacraments, you will hear how many there are, instituted by our Saviour Christ, to be continued and received by every Christian in due time and order, for the purpose our Saviour willed them to be received.  As for the number of those which should be considered according to the precise sense of a Sacrament – namely as visible signs, expressly commanded in the New Testament, which are joined with the promise of free forgiveness of our sin and of our holiness and union in Christ – there are but two: Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.

For although Absolution [Penance] has the promise of the forgiveness of sin, the promise is not joined with the visible sign, which is the laying on of hands.  For this visible sign is not expressly commanded in the New Testament to be in absolution, like the visible signs are in Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Therefore Absolution, lacking the visible sign, is not a Sacrament like Baptism and Communion are.  And the ordering of Ministers lacks the promise of the remission of sin.  Therefore neither it nor similar things are sacraments in the same sense as Baptism and Holy Communion.

In a general sense, a sacrament may be anything by which a holy thing is signified.  The ancient writers gave the name “sacrament” not only to the seven Sacraments but also to other ceremonies, such as the oil, washing of feet, and the like, not meaning them to have the same significance as the first two named.  Saint Augustine, weighing the true significance and meaning of the word, affirms that the most excellent Sacraments of the Christians are few in number, and makes mention expressly of two: The Sacrament of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.  Although by the order of the Church of England there are certain other rites and ceremonies— the institution of Ministers in the Church, Matrimony, Confirmation of children, and likewise for the Visitation of the Sick – yet no man ought to take these as Sacraments like Baptism and Holy Communion.  They are godly states of life, necessary in Christ’s Church, and therefore worthy to be set forth by public action and solemnity through the ministry of the Church; or for the instruction, comfort, and edification of Christ’s Church.

On the use of a known tongue (language)

Now let us see if the Scriptures or examples of the primitive Church allow any spoken private or public prayer, or any manner of Sacrament or other public rite, in an unknown tongue [or language], which is not understood by the Minister and people. To this we must answer, no.

As for Common prayer and the administration of the Sacraments, reason, if it ruled, would soon persuade us to have these in a known tongue. To pray commonly means that the people are asking one and the same thing, with one voice and agreement of mind.  But we do not need to flee to reasons and proofs.  We have both the plain and manifest words of Scripture and also the consent of the most learned and ancient writers.

St Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “Let all things be done for edifying” [that is, for instruction and building up in understanding].  This cannot be done without prayers and administration of Sacraments in the language known by the people. When the trumpet blown in the field gives an uncertain sound, no man can tell what is piped.  When prayers are in a language unknown to the hearers, who will be stirred to lift up his mind to God?  Who in the administration of the sacraments will understand what invisible grace is to be wrought in the inner man?  Saint Paul says, “He who speaks in a tongue unknown will be to the hearer a stranger and foreigner.” This, in a Christian congregation, is a great absurdity.  For we are not strangers one to another, but citizens with the Saints, and of the household of God.

From the time of Christ until Rome began to spread itself and impose on the nations of Europe the Roman language, there was no strange or unknown tongue used in the congregations.  St Justin Martyr, who lived 160 years after Christ, said of the administration of the Lord’s Supper in his time, “The head minister offers prayers and thanksgiving with all his power, and the people answer, Amen.”  These words plainly declare that not only were the Scriptures read in a known language, but also that prayer was made in the same.  Saint Ambrose says, “If you speak the praise of God in a tongue unknown to the hearers, there is no profit.”  Nothing should be done in the church in vain and to no profit.

On the benefits of the Lord’s Supper

[As for the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper], the great love of our Saviour Christ towards mankind appears not only in the dearly bought benefit of our redemption and salvation by his death and passion, but also in that he so kindly provided that this merciful work may be had in remembrance.  As a tender parent, our Lord and Saviour thought it not sufficient to purchase for us his Father’s favour again (which is the deep fountain of all goodness and eternal life) but also wisely devised the ways, [or means of grace,] whereby they might redound to our benefit and profit.

So our loving Saviour has ordained and established the remembrance of his great mercy expressed in his Passion, in the institution of his heavenly supper. In this we all must be guests, not onlookers, but feeding ourselves.  To this his promise beckons: “This is my body which is given for you,” and “This is my blood, which is shed for you.”  So then we must of necessity be partakers of this table.

But Saint Paul says, “He who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks his own condemnation.”  Therefore we must clearly understand that three things are requisite: First, a right and worthy estimation and understanding of this mystery; second, to come in a sure faith; and third, to have newness or pureness of life in order to effectively receive and possess the Sacrament.

We must be sure especially that this supper be ministered as our Lord and Saviour did and commanded to be done, as his holy Apostles used it, and as the good Fathers in the Primitive Church practised it.

Saint Paul blamed the Corinthians for profaning the Lord’s Supper. He demonstrates that ignorance of the thing itself and its true meaning was the cause of their abuse, for they came irreverently, not discerning the Lord’s Body.  What has been the cause of the ruin of God’s religion, but ignorance of it?  Let us try to understand the Lord’s Supper, so that we are not the cause of the decay of God’s worship or of idolatry, so we may more boldly have access, for our comfort.  We need not think that such exact knowledge is required that everyone must be able to discuss all the high points of doctrine. But we must be sure we understand that in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony. It is not just a bare sign. It is not an empty figure of something that is absent. As Scripture says, it is the Table of the Lord, the Bread and Cup of the Lord, the memory of Christ, the Annunciation of his death, and the Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, in a marvellous embodiment and realization which, by the operation of the Holy Ghost, is wrought through faith in the souls of the faithful. By it not only do their souls live to eternal life, but they trust confidently to gain for their bodies a resurrection to immortality.

Holy Communion: Union between the body and the head

This result and union which is between the body and the head — that is, the true believers and Christ — the ancient Catholic Fathers both perceived themselves and commended to their people. Some of them were not afraid to call this Supper the “salve of immortality” and “sovereign preservative against death.” Others called it a “deifical Communion” [that is, a communion that is deifying, or makes us to be holy like God]. Others called it the sweet food of the Saviour, and the pledge of eternal health; also the defence of the Faith, the hope of the Resurrection; others still, the food of immortality, the healthful grace and conservation for eternal life, as we find in the writings of St Irenaeus, Origen, St Cyprian, St Athanasius.

All these things both the Holy Scripture and godly men have correctly attributed to this celestial banquet and feast.  If we would remember them, O how they would inflame our hearts to participate in these mysteries… always holding fast and cleaving by faith to the rock from which we derive the sweetness of everlasting salvation.  Here the faithful may see, hear, and know the mercies of God sealed, Christ’s satisfaction for us confirmed, the remission of sin established.  Here they may experience the tranquillity of conscience, the increase of faith, the strengthening of hope, the spreading abroad of brotherly kindness, with many other sundry graces of God.

That faith is a necessary instrument in all these holy ceremonies, we may assure ourselves.  As Saint Paul says, “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” As the bodily food cannot feed the outward man unless it be truly digested in the stomach, no more can the inward man be fed unless his food be received into his soul and heart in faith.  St Cyprian said, “With sincere faith we break and divide that whole bread.”  The food we seek in this Supper is spiritual food, the nourishment of our soul, a heavenly reflection.

Thus, beloved, we see that when we gather to this table we must pluck up all the roots of infidelity, all distrust in God’s promise, so that we may make ourselves living members of Christ’s body; so that we receive not only the outward Sacrament but the spiritual thing also: not the figure, but the truth; not the shadow only, but the substance; and this not to death, but to life; not to destruction but to salvation… which thing may God grant us to do through the merits of our Lord and Saviour, to whom be all honour and glory for ever.  Amen.

 

 

Witness X: Choosing a Trustworthy Bible

Posted on by Posted in MB

For two years now I have been sharing comparisons of Old Testament translations on social media, especially the Proverbs. Quite often people respond with the question, “What does the Hebrew say?” They have before them several renowned translations, including the Matthew and Geneva Bibles, the KJV, and the NIV, but feel compelled to ask what the Hebrew says! Confusion arises because the translations disagree, creating a riddle. Sometimes they are so different, one wonders if they derive from the same Hebrew text. (And sometimes they do not. See note 1 below.)

Some moderns believe they are competent to pronounce on the correct translation with reference to their Hebrew dictionaries or seminary studies. I am content to let them be their own translators and debate the issues among themselves. However, I have studied languages. I know that even years of university study and great textbooks are not sufficient in themselves to make a good translator – much less when it comes to a dead language, and especially when it comes to the Bible, where faith and calling are prerequisites. Furthermore, all graduates are not equal. My father, a university professor, used to say that we must never forget that half of them were in the bottom of their class.

In the end the real question is, which Bible (or Bibles) can we trust? We cannot expect perfection, but must make a choice when translations disagree. They cannot all be true. If we care about truth, we are not indifferent to the problems they pose.

The confusion of commentaries

Often people try to solve translation riddles by wading through different commentaries. In my social media posts, conflicting “expert” opinions are offered as possible solutions. The truth is, the plethora of commentaries only increases confusion. A sensible reader will realize that bringing in ever more scholarly opinions will not solve the riddle either, because they also disagree.

In the early 1500s, William Tyndale lamented the same situation. There were so many commentators and expositors, he wrote, if you had but one book of each, they would fill a warehouse in London. And so he set out to give us a reliable English Bible, one the ploughboy could understand without resorting to scholars and clerics who would darken it with a thousand opinions. Myles Coverdale did the same. As we know, John Rogers then gathered the translations of these men together in the 1537 Matthew Bible, and even added helpful notes explaining Hebrew idioms, so we could know what the Hebrew said.

Did the Matthew men succeed in their mission to give us a true and clear Bible? Have all the later revisions really improved on their work? How can we judge? Lastly, can we confidently choose a trustworthy Bible from among those that disagree? I say we can, and, further, we need not learn ancient Hebrew to do so.

Witness X in the court of God’s word

I liken choosing a trustworthy Bible to juristic practice for choosing a trustworthy witness in a court of law. When a trial judge (or member of a jury) is faced with conflicting testimonies, he must choose between the witnesses. He cannot travel back in time to verify every fact, so he must choose the best witness(es) of the facts. This we must also do with our conflicting Bible translators, who are as expert witnesses in the court of God’s word. We cannot verify their understanding of ancient Hebrew, nor speak with the prophets and apostles to ask them what they meant. Therefore we must choose the most reliable witness or witnesses of the biblical testimony.

To evaluate trustworthiness a trial judge looks for certain things, including:

  1. Forthcomingness. Is the witness direct and earnest to tell the full story?
  1. Clarity. Is the witness clear? Clarity signals honesty, while confusion indicates error or deception. Clarify also indicates competence and clear-headedness.  A good maxim to remember is, Where there is confusion, there are lies.
  1. Consistency. A truthful testimony is internally and externally consistent; that is, the witness will not contradict himself or externally verifiable truths. Here a good maxim is, It is given to liars to self contradict.

After the judge has chosen the truest witness, he will say, “When there is a conflict between witness testimonies, I accept the evidence of Witness X.” He does not expect perfection, but will give Witness X the benefit of the doubt. The necessity and wisdom of this approach is obvious. He has to make a decision, get on with his work, and close the case.

Where God’s word is concerned, there is also the subjective, spiritual test of voice recognition: the sheep know the Shepherd’s voice. Hearing is impaired, however, if the flock is asleep, or when the thief makes himself sound like the Shepherd by weaving truth with falsehood, or by “speaking fair,” as Tyndale would say.

Getting on with our work

Can we apply the juristic tests to Bibles to choose our Witness X? Yes. We can test the biblical testimonies we have received from the men who have taken their hand to the Scriptures, make our finding, and get on with it. We should refuse the role of translator, to which we are not called and for which we are not qualified, and instead accept the role of juror in the court of God’s word. To this, all reasonably intelligent adults who know the Lord are called and qualified by the Holy Spirit.

If we are sincere and not blinded by pride or prejudice, we can examine and fairly judge Bible translations for forthcomingness, clarity, and consistency. I’ve done a lot of this work already, and will explain my discoveries and analysis in Part 2 of the Story of the Matthew Bible. We can’t always prove right or wrong in translation. Too  much is a matter of opinion, too much is lost in the mists of time. But we can weigh the preponderance of evidence.

As well as clarity, etc., Christians will want to assess a Bible translator’s faith. This is not easy with committee Bibles unless there are notes and commentaries. The Puritan notes in the Geneva Bible reveal that they were zealous for their “true Church of prophecy,” and we can discern the influence of their post-millennial doctrine. We have ample material to assess the faith of the Matthew men, Tyndale, Coverdale, and Rogers, through their legacy of writing. Also we have an extraordinary testimony from Martin Luther, who influenced the Matthew Bible. These were some of the translators God ordained to open his word to the world in the Reformation. It is up to the reader to read what they wrote and judge their faith. I have done this, and I believe they gave a faithful testimony. And after ten years of daily work with the Matthew Bible and comparing it to others, I can confidently accept it as my Witness X.

I should add, I would also be quite happy with Coverdale’s 1535 Bible — or Luther of 1534, or even Wycliffe’s Bible, if I could read the old German and middle English. I would base my decision on the trustworthiness of those men, like any good member of a jury is right to do.

Test the spirits, weigh the translations, decide for yourself

I don’t want anyone to just take my word for it. Subscribe for our upcoming blog posts, weigh the different translations, and decide for yourself. Given the great disagreement that exists between the biblical testimonies we have received, it is our responsibility to judge as best we can.

Notes:

(1) When the Puritans revised the Old Testament, in certain places they preferred LXX (Septuagint) renderings over the Hebrew text, as I explain in my paper on Exodus 21. We are not saying it is necessarily wrong to do this, but it is a relevant issue. As is demonstrated in my paper, modern resources may not reveal that a disagreement between translations results from a translator having departed from the Hebrew. Thus the lay researcher can never be sure he has the information he needs to judge the translations as “translations,” even if he were qualified to do so in the first place. However, the juristic tests may assist.

(2) To learn about the making of the Matthew Bible, read our book The Story of the Matthew Bible: That Which We First Received

(3) Find out about our gentle update of the Matthew Bible New Testament, called The October Testament, on our webpage , or purchase it here:  The October Testament on Amazon

Repentance and the Children of Abraham

Posted on by Posted in MB Leave a comment

Reading Luke chapter 3 today, it struck me that much in that chapter is an answer to Zionism. John the Baptist begins by teaching the people who are and who are not the true children of Abraham. He warns them not to consider themselves as such, but to understand that God is of power to create his own children of Abraham apart from them – out of the very rocks and stones even.

All scripture quotations below are from the October Testament, the New Testament of the New Matthew Bible. In Luke 3, John the Baptist is preaching to the people of Israel who had come to the Jordan River to see him, a strange man wearing only a girdle of skin, but speaking words of power:

Luke 3:7-9 Then he said to the people who came to be baptized by him, O offspring of vipers, who has taught you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth the due fruits of repentance, and do not begin to say in yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I say to you, God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also is the axe laid to the root of the trees, so that every tree that does not bring forth good fruit shall be hewn down and cast into the fire.

John calls the Israelites the offspring of vipers, and warns them that they must not consider themselves the offspring of Abraham unless they bring forth the due fruit of repentance. Repentance is the true and the good fruit, which identifies those who may call Abraham their father. Those who do not show it will be hewn down – including hardhearted Israel.

And the common people heard John’s message. The publicans and the soldiers wanted to know more. He answered and showed them that the true Israelite is merciful, honest, gentle, and abhors covetousness:

Luke 3:10-14 And the people asked him, saying, What should we do then? He answered and said to them, He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise.

Then there came publicans to be baptized, who asked him, Master, what should we do? And he said to them, Require no more than that which is appointed to you.

The soldiers likewise enquired of him, saying, And what should we do? And he said to them, Do violence to no man, neither trouble any man wrongfully, but be content with your wages.

These qualities, not ethnicity, make one a child of Abraham, and prove one to be a true child of the promise, the Jew that is hid within, and a citizen of the Israel that belongs to God. For it was not said idly that God loves mercy, and not sacrifices or burnt offerings. Many scriptures attest to this, and that repentance is the fruit that characterizes the children of the kingdom:

Matthew 9:13 Go and learn what this means: I have pleasure in mercy, and not in offering. For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.

*****

© Ruth Magnusson Davis 2018

The October Testament is William Tyndale’s New Testament as it was published in the 1537/1549 Matthew Bible. It contains also the commentaries of that Reformation Bible, which were written by Tyndale’s friend John Rogers. The whole work has been gently updated by Ruth Magnusson Davis, maintaining the truth, historic language, and beauty of the original. Ruth’s favourite edition of the October Testament, the hardcover case laminate, can be purchased through your bookstore, or with one click here from Amazon

Comparing Proverbs 22:8 – Doctrines of Sin

Posted on by Posted in MB

by Ruth Magnusson Davis, founder and editor of the New Matthew Bible Project

I’ve been discovering that the 1537 Matthew Bible and the Geneva Bible treat sin differently. Sometimes the differences are obvious, sometimes subtle. In this blog post I look at Proverbs 22:8. The issue concerns the end, fruit, or consequences of sin.

The question is, where does sin take us? What are the consequences of doing evil – or of “sowing iniquity,” as Myles Coverdale put it in the Matthew Bible? Another way to ask the question is, what are the consequences that really matter? What would God have us to understand? Does wisdom teach us that sin leads to (1) personal destruction, or (2) a loss of personal authority, or (3) merely to useless anger? All three of these very different things are taught in various Bibles. Clearly they cannot all be correct translations.

Proverbs 22:8

♦ 1537 Matthew Bible (from Coverdale 1535): He that soweth wickedness shall reap sorrow, and the rod of his plague shall destroy him.

♦ 1599 Geneva: He that soweth iniquity, shall reap affliction, and the *rod of his anger shall fail.

   Geneva note: His authority, whereby he did oppress others, shall be taken from him.

♦ KJV: He that soweth iniquity shall reap vanity: and the rod of his anger shall fail.

♦ NIV: Whoever sows injustice reaps calamity, and the rod they wield in fury will be broken.

♦ Complete Jewish Bible: He who sows injustice reaps trouble, and the rod of his angry outburst will fail.

♦ The Message: Whoever sows sin reaps weeds, and bullying anger sputters into nothing.

The Matthew Bible teaches that the man who sows wickedness will be plagued; that is, he will reap sorrow and troubles. These plagues will destroy him. This applies to everyone, high or low, weak or strong. ‘Plagues’ in the Scriptures are usually understood as trouble sent by God to punish sin.

The Geneva Bible, however, changes the message quite significantly. First, the ‘plague’ becomes a ‘rod of anger.’  Second, the rod is not wielded against the evil-doer, but it is his own. The evil man himself wields it. This takes God out of the picture as the one wielding a rod to plague the evil-doer.

According to the Geneva note, the rod of anger symbolizes the authority of the evil man. Thus the verse is made to apply to persons in positions of power or authority, and the consequence is merely that they will have their authority taken away. This abstracts the teaching from ordinary daily life and loses the message that evil-doing destroys a man. (I have a strong hunch that the Puritan interpretation is related to their post-millennial vision for the Church. The rod of anger to be destroyed is that of the Roman Antichrist. They believed they were prophets who, with God’s aid, would do this, and would restore the true Church to glory. They saw such prophecies everywhere in the Old Testament. However, that topic is for another time and place.)

In later Bibles the ‘rod of anger’ becomes not a man’s authority, but, more obviously, his anger. This is certainly a more intuitive understanding of the Puritan English translation, if moderns were guided in part by the English, which I suspect is the case. In the end, according to modern Bibles, a wicked person simply discovers that his anger gets him nowhere. The Message makes the evil-doer out as an impotent bully, which I think wrongly diminishes the powerful impact of sin on its victims.

All the revisions lose the idea that God punishes sin by visiting plagues upon evil-doers.

Does it matter? I think so.

In my last blog, I compared translations of Proverbs 10:16. The issue there was the agency of sin: in particular, human responsibility for working evil (or good). I cannot really criticize this revision, because the Puritans did not deny human agency. They simply followed the Hebrew literally, and it made no express mention of man as the agent of sin. But in the final analysis, the result has in modern Bibles been to diminish our understanding of the process and intentionality of people who work good and those who work evil. The post on Proverbs 10:16 is here.

It helps to have a bit of background. The Geneva Bible was a Puritan revision of the Bible translations of William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale. The early Puritans, to advance their vision for their Church, revised and annotated the original translations according to their “new light” – as they themselves said in their preface. This “new light” was their belief that they were the prophets foretold in the Old Testament who would restore the Church and lead it to glory. They taught about this restored Church in many of their notes. This partly explains why they departed from Tyndale and translated the Greek ‘ecclesia’ by ‘Church’ instead of ‘congregation.’ First they worked over Tyndale’s New Testament, which they characterized as immature and irreverent. Then they took the Great Bible as their base for the Old Testament and changed it also. More information about this fascinating and largely forgotten chapter in English Bible history is linked here.

Cite this article: Davis, Ruth Magnusson. “Comparing Proverbs 22:8 – Doctrines of Sin,” BaruchHousePublishing.com, etc.

** To purchase the OCTOBER TESTAMENT in Ruth’s favourite format, the “full size” hardcover, click here

How Proverbs 10:16 Has Changed Since 1537

Posted on by Posted in MB

I’ve been working through the Proverbs in the Matthew Bible, versifying them and preparing the text for the Old Testament of the New Matthew Bible. I’ve discovered many fascinating changes. See for example Proverbs 10:16, and how the meaning has been recast over the centuries.

My question: Have the changes impaired our understanding of responsibility for sin? Or our understanding of what evil people do?

Note: There is no verb in the Hebrew. It was up to the translator to determine the meaning.

♦ 1537 Matthew Bible (also Coverdale 1535 and 1540 Great Bible): The righteous laboureth to do good, but the ungodly useth his increase unto sin.

(“The ungodly useth his increase unto sin” means evil people use their wealth or influence for sin.)

♦ 1599 Geneva: The labour of the righteous tendeth to life, but the revenues of the wicked to sin.

♦ KJV: The labour of the righteous tendeth to life: the fruit of the wicked to sin.

♦ ESV: The wage of the righteous leads to life, the gain of the wicked to sin.

♦ NIV: The wages of the righteous is life, but the earnings of the wicked are sin and death.

♦ The Message: The wage of a good person is exuberant life; an evil person ends up with nothing but sin.

See how in English, the verb evolved from useth for > tendeth to >  leads to > is> ends up with.

In the Matthew Bible, good and evil are done by people. In the Geneva Bible (apparently following the Hebrew more literally), responsibility is abstracted, and labour and revenues are personified as agents of good or evil. My best guess is that the verb ‘tendeth to’ was used in the obsolete sense “to turn one’s attention, apply oneself to do something.”  Thus it had the same sense as the Matthew Bible, but agency was abstracted, so it was the labour and revenues that applied themselves, rather than the people. I’m not saying that this is wrong. In early modern English, a reader would probably have understood the metaphorical manner of speech, and that it was the persons who were active in the deed, given the meaning of the verb. Coverdale, however, clarified the agency of man. In this he apparently followed Martin Luther, who in 1534 had in the first clause “der gerechte erbeitet zum leben.”

However, in modern Bibles the meaning changed again, until finally in the NIV and the Message we find that sin is earned by people, not done by them. This is misleading no matter how you look at it. I suspect the modern translations are actually a misunderstanding of the old English “tendeth to.” It is not the first time I have suspected that the moderns were guided by old English words that have changed in meaning, and which they did not therefore understand properly.

In the end, the clarity of the Matthew Bible proves its worth.
—————————-

For more information about the Matthew Bible, and about our project to update it, click on our “NMB Project” link above.
The New Testament of the New Matthew Bible is complete. We have published it as The October Testament. Purchase it with one click here: The October Testament: The New Testament of the New Matthew Bible