Category Archives: MB

I love Martin Luther. He was an original thinker, fearlessly independent, brilliant in depth and simplicity. He was devout and Christ-centered. And he gave the German people a wonderful bible. So I turned to him when I was wondering about literalism in bible translation. It seemed to me that sometimes the scholars overused it. He confirmed that I was on the right track.

In my research for The Story of the Matthew Bible, I have examined revisions to Tyndale’s and Coverdale’s scriptures made by the Geneva Bible, the Bishops’, the KJV, and the RV. I have wondered at the obscurity introduced by some “literal” renderings. Too often the meaning suffers or is lost. I realized that this is why I love the Matthew Bible: it is full of meaning.

What is literalism? Briefly, it is rendering the words in native idiom rather than English idiom (or in Luther’s case, German idiom). The result is to give the words, but not the meaning. One example only:

     Matthew Bible 1537- Hear me when I call, O God of my righteousness, thou that comfortest me in my trouble.

     KJV 1611- Hear me when I call, O God of my righteousness: thou hast enlarged me when I was in distress.

“Enlarge me” is a literal translation of a Hebrew idiom. But the trouble is, while it may mean something to a Jew, it does not to us. The Matthew Bible gave the meaning – “comfort me.”

Luther did not say that literal translation is wrong. He just said it is wrong to subordinate meaning to technique:

” 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.” (from Defense of the Translation of the Psalms).

But this does not mean that literal renderings are casually jettisoned:

“On the other hand, we have at times also translated quite literally – even though we could have rendered the meaning more clearly another way – because everything turns on these very words. For example, here in [Psalm 68:18], “Thou hast ascended on high; thou hast led captivity captive,” it would have been good German to say, “Thou has set the captives free.” But this is too weak, and does not convey the fine, rich meaning of the Hebrew, which says literally, “Thou hast led captivity captive.” This does not imply merely that Christ freed the captives, but also that he captured and led away captivity itself, so that it never again could or would take us captive again; thus it is really an eternal redemption.”  (Also from Defense)

It comes down to judging when the meaning is best rendered in the idiom of the target language, or when the idiom of the source language may or should be retained. This decision requires not only care and philological knowledge, but also that which only a called and Spirit-filled Christian can have: a right understanding of the passage.

St Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate, said, “The gospel is not in the words of scripture, but the meaning.” In the Story of the Matthew Bible, I will look closely at how the literalistic approach to translation has affected meaning and readability in English scriptures from the Matthew Bible to the present time.

Since the 14th century, English Protestant bibles can be divided into four periods:

1380 – c1500 – Lollard bibles (John Wycliffe)

During this period, Church leaders were violently opposed to having an English bible. They wanted it in Latin, and people to trust the clergy to tell them what the bible means. Translators worked “outside the camp” under John Wycliffe. They and their readers were reviled and persecuted, even to bloodshed.

The principle of translation articulated by John Purvey was that the full meaning of the original passage must be translated, not just the words.

c1500 – c1540 – Plouhboy bibles (Tyndale, Coverdale, Rogers, and Martin Luther)

In the early Reformation period, Church leaders remained opposed to an English bible. They claimed authority to teach the scriptures to the people. William Tyndale said that if God spared his life, he would make the bible so clear, that the ploughboy would understand it better than the clergy. Translators again worked “outside the camp” and they and their readers were persecuted.

Governing principle of translation: the bible should be clear enough to stand on its own. Overly “literalistic translations,” which follow the words at the expense of giving the meaning, defeat the purpose (Martin Luther). The true literal sense of the bible is in the meaning (William Tyndale).

 ‘Ecclesia’ is translated ‘congregation’.

1557 – c1900 – Literal translation theory assumes dominant place

In the 1550s, Englishmen living in Geneva wished to revise the bible. These were men within the puritan camp, and in their bible they pit their Church against not only the Roman Catholics, but also Anglicans and Lutherans. They translated ‘ecclesia’ as ‘Church’. The translators were not reviled or persecuted, but esteemed within their Church.

The dominant principle of translation in the Geneva Bible is that “literal” renderings, especially of Hebrew idioms, are best, “notwithstanding that they may seem somewhat hard” to understand (preface to Geneva Bible). Readers should turn to clergy for a full understanding (See Geneva note on 1 Corinthians 13:12).

Both Queen Elizabeth and King James were obliged to respond to the Geneva Bible, and wisely removed divisive notes. However, the “literal” translation approach influenced their bibles.

Modern bibles – Anything goes

Anyone can make their own bible. New bibles are supposedly better due to better manuscripts. However, 99% of the time differences in translation are not due to manuscript variations, but to different interpretations, and certain Reformation doctrines are changed. “Messianic” bibles do not translate at all, but use transliterated Hebrew words, even in the Greek Testament.

x x x x x x

Stay tuned for the next blog post, which will look at Martin Luther’s translation theory.

Revelation 10:5-7 in the Matthew Bible: And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea, and upon the earth, lifted up his hand to heaven, and 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, but 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.

What does this passage have to do with the millennium? Read on.

The Matthew Bible teaches many doctrines that have been eclipsed or lost. One is amillennialism (as it is called). The Matthew men – William Tyndale, Myles Coverdale, and John Rogers – believed that we are now in the thousand-year reign of Christ, which is a spiritual reign in the hearts and consciences of his people, his nation. The 1,000 years is symbolic of a long period of time, the end whereof is only in the knowledge of God the Father, though certain events are foretold that will be harbingers of the end.

When the end comes, Jesus will return. Then will come the resurrection of all people from their graves, and the great judgment will begin. That will mean the end of time as we know it, a doctrine which is upheld in Revelation 10:6 in the MB and in all bibles until the KJV; that is, time will be no more (as updated in the October Testament).

Simple. Clear.

However modern bibles have changed Revelation 10:6, so it says “there will be no more delay.” Why? To accommodate the now-popular theory that the millennium is not here and now, but is a future thing.

But one of Satan’s tricks is to push off God’s promises and blessings to the future, so that we miss them now. Thus:

-The blessings of the millennium and the reign of Christ – in which he reigns over sin and death now in his saints, who are his body on earth – is a future thing.

-The first resurrection is a future thing. Rather than understanding that the first resurrection is the time when we pass from death to life in the power of the Holy Spirit on hearing the voice of the Son of God (John 5:25), it is something to look for in the future.

-The time when Jesus drink wine with us is a time in the future, not now in the new kingdom and the Lord’s Supper.

To fail to understand that the kingdom is now is to misunderstand the faith, and is to diminish the power and wonder of salvation, and results in losing the true and deep sense of many scriptures. But a right understanding is restored in the Matthew Bible, which is one reason why I want the world to have it again.

—Ruth Magnusson Davis, July 2016

An observant reader noticed this. There is a good explanation, having to do with the grammar of what are called “that-clauses,” and especially “purpose and result clauses.”

The grammatical rules have changed since the early 16th century. Therefore in purpose and result clauses I updated the simple conjunction ‘that’ to the compound conjunction “so that.” An example is at Acts 3:19:

Tyndale: Repent ye therefore, and turn, that your sins may be done away when the time of refreshing cometh.

Updated: Repent therefore, and turn, so that your sins may be put away when the time of refreshing comes.

In modern English, we no longer use a simple “that” to introduce purpose or result clauses. For example, if I want to explain why I went to a certain store, I might say, “I went there so that I could check out their selection.” This is a purpose clause – it explains the purpose of going to the store. I would not say “I went there, that I could check out their selection.”

The general rule (only general, it has exceptions) is that you should not use a comma in purpose clauses, but do add a comma in result clauses:

Purpose clause: Jennifer explained the matter thoroughly so that they could understand.

Result clause: Jennifer explained the matter thoroughly, so that they finally understood.

It is not always easy to distinguish purpose clauses from result clauses.

Note also that in object clauses we do not need to change the conjunction:

Object clause: Jennifer explained that we don’t do this in modern English any more.

When I came to faith as an adult and began reading the bible, I found the biblical usage confusing. For some reason, most modern bibles do not update purpose and result clauses. People who grew up reading the bible may be used to the obsolete construction, but I am updating for everyone, and especially new Christians. Sometimes I think perhaps that is why the Lord had me come to faith as an adult – so that I would be able to recognize the issues for new Christians, who turn to the scriptures and want to understand them as fully as possible.