New Matthew Bible Project - Restoring the Matthew Bible, the original English Bible.

Editing the Matthew Bible for Today
R M Davis
February, 2010, Revised April 2012

Contents:
Sample Texts
Syntax, and a Little History
Will, Shall
The Verb Do
Verb Conjugation
To and Unto, Prepositions
Text or Translation Issues
Obsolete, Archaic, or Unusual Words or Expressions
Miscellaneous

Much prayer, study, and thought have been and continue to be devoted to developing guidelines for the New Matthew Bible (“NMB”). As the work continues, understanding grows and new things come to light, so changes will almost certainly follow the writing of this article; therefore what is written is not cast in stone. The purpose of this page is only to identify some of the issues, with a little background that may be of interest.

The goal of the New Matthew Bible Project is not to make a modern Bible from an old one. And the goal is not to make a work that will comply with all rules of grammar and prescribed modern English usage, since that would involve too many changes—changes not needed as long as the meaning is clear. What we aim to do is make a version that is faithful to the original Matthew Bible, while utilizing rules of grammar and abiding by modern English usage only insofar as is necessary and advisable to make it understandable and pleasing for 21st century believers. In its present form, some of the meaning of the original is obscured behind obsolete usages or words (or, worse yet, current words in obsolete senses), foreign syntax, etc. But at the same time, much of its charm and importance lies in Tyndale's word coinages, and in certain uses that, while unfamiliar to us, are worthy to be retained.

Below are two sample passages from the original Mathew Bible (“MB”) and proposed drafts for the NMB. (Later changes, if any, will not be updated here). For the MB we show the original spelling, except that certain letters and symbols have been silently modernized. Readers will notice that spelling is inconsistent in the original MB; this is typical of writings from that period. Readers of the KJV or Geneva Bibles will also realize how familiar these verses are, and who the true author was:

MB (from 1549 edition)

NMB (draft)

But nowe is Criste rysen from the dead, and is become the first frutes of them that slepe*. For by a man came death, and by a man came the resurreccyon of the deed. For as by Adam al die: even so by Christ, shal al be made aliue, and euery man in his owne ordre. The fyrste is Christe, then they that are Chrystes at his comming. Then commeth the end, when he hath deliuered up the kingdome to God the father, when he hath put doune al rule, auctorite and power. For he must raygne tyll he haue put his enemies under his fete. The last enemy that shal be destroied, is death. For he hath put all thinges under his fete. But when he saith al thinges are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which dyd put al thinges under him. When al thinges are subdued unto him, then shall the sone also himself be subjecte unto him that put thynges under hym, that God maie be al in all thinges.

*John Rogers altered Tyndale's “slepte” to "slepe" in 1549.

²⁰But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the first fruits of those who sleep. 21For through a man came death, and through a man came the resurrection of the dead. ²²For just as through Adam all die, even so through Christ shall all be made alive, 23and each one in his own turn. The first is Christ, then those who are Christ’s at his coming. ²⁴Then comes the end, when he has delivered up the kingdom to God the father, when he has put down all rule, authority and power. ²⁵For he must reign until he has put his enemies under his feet.
²⁶The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. ²⁷For he has put all things under his feet. But when he says all things are put under him, it is evident that the one who put all things under him is excepted. ²⁸When all things are subdued to him, then the son himself shall also be subject to him who put things under him, so that God may be all in all things.

NMB

But thou after thyne herde herte that cannot repent, heapest thee to gether the treasur of wrath against the dai of vengeaunce, when shal be opened the ryghtwes iudgement of God which will rewarde every man accordynge to hys dedes: that is to saye, prayse, honoure and immortalite to them whych contynue in good doying, and seke eternall lyfe. But unto them that are rebellious and disobey the trueth, and folowe iniquytie, shal come indignacion and wrath, tribulacion and anguysshe upon the soule of euery man that doth euyill: of the Jewe fyrst, and also af the Gentyl. To euery man that doth good, shall come prayse, honoure, and peace, to the Jewe fyrst, and also to the Gentyll. For there is no parcialite with God.

⁵But you, by your hard heart that cannot repent, heap together for yourself the treasure of wrath for the day of vengeance, when shall be opened the righteous judgment of God, ⁶who will reward every man according to his deeds; ⁷that is to say, praise, honour and immortality to those who continue in doing good, and seek eternal life; ⁸but unto those who are rebellious and disobey the truth, and follow iniquity, will come indignation and wrath—⁹tribulation and anguish upon the soul of every man that does evil: of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile. ¹⁰To every one who does good will come praise, honour and peace: to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile. ¹¹For there is no partiality with God.

The above texts illustrate some challenges of transposition, a few of which are discussed below.

The order and arrangement of words in a sentence (syntax) is important. Every language has its own norms, and these norms change as a language develops.

The Matthew Bible was published at the beginning of what is called the “Early Modern” stage in the English language. The prior centuries had seen many developments. One of these was some loss of inflections. Inflections are changes in the forms of words that show their meaning or significance in a sentence and their relation to other words. English is now a minimally inflected language; that is, compared to other languages, not many English words undergo changes in form depending upon their use or meaning. But as words lost inflection, word order became more important to show meaning. According to Charles Barber¹ , by the opening of the 16th century the predominant word order in a declarative sentence was Subject-Verb-Object, as at present. Despite this, however, unusual inversions of word order are quite common in the Matthew Bible. Further, Early Modern English word order still differed quite markedly from ours—especially in interrogative and negative sentences, because where they used syntax to help formulate the question or negation, we use do (see “The Verb Do”, below).

Again, normal word order in a declarative sentence is subject-verb, and if there is an object, it is subject-verb-object. Take this simple sentence: “Moses (subject) struck (verb) the rock (object)”. It is confusing to put, “The rock Moses struck” (Object-subject-verb) because the object normally follows the verb; this word order makes the rock appear to be the subject of the sentence. Since “rock” is uninflected, it should follow the verb to show that it is the object, or receiver, of the action.

But where inflected words are used, syntax is more flexible. In English we still inflect certain pronouns, and where they are used we can change word order and still have an understandable sentence. For example, he and him are inflected subject and object forms respectively. If we were discussing a centurion who struck Jesus, we can say either “he struck him” or “him he struck”. The latter seems archaic or poetic, but we understand that Jesus, the “him” of the sentence, was the receiver of the action (the striking), whether or not the object follows the verb. It is the inflection that assists us to understand.

Subject/verb inversions, and subject/verb/object inversions with inflected or uninflected words, were quite common in the Matthew Bible. Some examples:

Matthew 23:1— Then spake Jesus to the people [verb-subject-object]
Mark 7:5— Then asked him the Pharisees and the scribes [verb-object-subject], why walk not thy disciples according to the traditions of the elders…?

Often such awkward constructions can be easily corrected. But where they may be retained without compromising clarity or disrupting the flow, they may be kept—to maintain the character of the transposition, to be as faithful to the original as is reasonably possible, to avoid inadvertent changes to the meaning, and sometimes because it is important to maintain the flow of thought, or for emphasis. In some cases, we may even introduce such a structure to convert a sentence that is very long or complex into two shorter sentences. In the following example from Romans 3 we substituted an inflected pronoun (Him) to introduce verse 25 where Tyndale had an inflected relative pronoun (whom), in order to divide one very long sentence into two:

We should not be deterred by the occasional long sentence, like the foregoing. In fact, many short, simple ones can be found. Working with the text has given us an appreciation for the way that both economy and clarity of expression are joined in the Matthew Bible.

From the 1 Corinthians sample text above, note the following instances when we amended syntax, and where we did not:

Syntax changed:
MB— But nowe is Criste rysen from the dead
NMB— ²⁰But now Christ is risen from the dead

MB— then shall the sone also himself be subjecte unto him
NMB— then the son himself will also be subject to him

Syntax not changed:
MB— Then commeth the end, when he hath delivered up the kingdome to God the father
NMB— ²⁴Then comes the end, when he has delivered up the kingdom to God the father

MB— For by a man came death, and by a man came the resurreccyon of the deed
NMB— ²¹For through a man came death, and through a man came the resurrection of the dead

One of the most challenging studies has been that of auxiliary verbs; that is, verbs that are used as auxiliaries to principal verbs to express such things as tense (placement in time: present, past or future), or mood (doubt, volition, potentiality, etc). Much has changed since the Matthew Bible was written. In Early Modern English shall was the auxiliary of choice to express simple futurity. But, except for certain parts of the UK, will is now in most common use for this, and we will so use it in the NMB. Shall will be selectively retained in certain verses in the prophetic voice, in commandments, etc. An example from Romans where we will likely make a change:

MB— But unto them that are rebellious and disobey the trueth, and folowe iniquytie, shal come indignacion and wrath
NMB— but unto those who are rebellious and disobey the truth, and follow iniquity, will come indignation and wrath

Many other considerations come into play in updating shall, which could in context mean must, may, can, should, is to, or carry other meanings. It has been one of the most challenging studies. Should also calls for careful study.

In the 16th century will was often used to express wish, want or desire. This is called a lexical use (as opposed to an auxiliary use, i.e. to signify future tense, which we also find in the Matthew Bible). To illustrate: an Early Modern English speaker might say, “I will read the Bible”, meaning he wishes to do so. But today we would understand this in the future tense; i.e. that the speaker is going to read the Bible. Therefore we must be cautious, in transposing the Matthew Bible, not to read will as an auxiliary verb signifying a future tense when it was intended to signify a present wish, as at 1 Corinthians 16:7:

MB— I will not see you now in my passage
NMB— I do not wish to see you now in passing

Nowadays, English speakers everywhere use do grammatically to form interrogative and negative statements. In Early Modern English, such statements were usually created differently, as at 1 Corinthians 9: “Woe is it unto me if I preach not the Gospel.” Now we would say “if I do not preach…”. Discretion will be used in updating negative statements, since Tyndale's use is often pleasing and effective, and it also helps maintain the flavour of the Matthew Bible.

Negatives changed:
Romans 11:25
MB— I would not that this secret should be hid from you my brethren (lest ye should be wise in your own conceits)…[note here the lexical use of would, in the sense of (not) wanting.]
NMB— 25I do not want this secret to be hidden from you, my brethren (lest you be wise in your own thoughts)…[we hesitate here between using do not want and would not want, which is a politer form that perhaps best corresponds to Tyndale's form in this verse. See discussion below of conceits, and why this was changed.]

Romans 14:15,16:
MB— Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Cause not your treasure to be evil spoken of.
NMB— Do not destroy with your meat one for whom Christ died. 16Do not cause your treasure to be ill spoken of.

In Early Modern English, interrogative statements were often created by inverting word order, as the French do. Now we use do. We will usually update these inversions in the NMB. Examples:

Interrogatives changed:
Romans 9:19
MB— Thou wilt say then unto me: why then blameth he us yet?
NMB— You will say then to me, Why then does he still blame us?

1 Corinthians 15:35
MB— But some man will say: how arise the dead? With what bodies come they in?
NMB— But someone will say, How do the dead arise? With what bodies do they come in?

In Early Modern English, intransitive verbs (i.e. verbs that do not take an object), especially verbs of motion or verbs which express a change of state, were usually conjugated with the auxiliary be and its forms, is, are, was, and were. The French still conjugate with be (être). However in English, over time, the auxiliary have and its forms, has, had, etc., came into use. To illustrate: In the 16th century they might have said that Jane is come home from the market. Nowadays we would say that she has come home. We do not say that John is become sad, except perhaps in poetic use, but rather that he has become sad.

We will selectively retain the old conjugation, as in the following verse from the 1 Corinthians 15:20 sample text given above:

MB— But nowe is Criste rysen from the dead, and is become the first frutes of them that slepe [slept]
NMB— But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the first fruits of those who slept

Is/has risen: “Is risen” is easily understandable in modern English as describing Christ's present state: He is risen; He is now alive from the dead. Therefore, it can be left as is, and it serves the sense well. It also preserves the familiar and precious language of the KJV.

Every dictionary or grammar we have checked says that to and unto are fully interchangeable prepositions. Indeed, Tyndale often used them interchangeably: “he said to them”, “he said unto them”; “he was nigh to Jerusalem/nigh unto”…; etc. But perhaps not always; after close review, it seems perhaps unto had slightly narrower application. Whatever the case, we observe:

1. Unto and to both have the sense of fusing or blending with the dative, or even taking over or taking the place of the dative (OED). But perhaps unto expresses this concept more emphatically. The addition of the phoneme “un” before “to” is not necessarily irrelevant, and for us, in any case, it has taken on certain precious significance as we work with it. We are aware than many of the saints lament the loss of unto in modern versions. From our review of their complaints, it seems they appreciated it for the same reasons we do; namely, relating to the concept of ‘fusing with the dative’, although they may not express it this way.

2. It is important to understand the concept of fusing with the dative. The dative case arises when a verb takes an indirect object. The object is the “dative” or the “dative object”. When there is fusion or blending with the dative object, the subject is understood as moving not only toward it, but right up to it, so as to touch it or even become as one with it. It also carries the senses of being given over to it, or up to it, or being bestowed upon it, or even becoming as one with it; or even yet, of taking its place (an OED example is “He hath turned heaven unto a hell”). Unto may import a sense of intimacy and closeness, or of reaching, or becoming. In spiritual matters this can be significant. We have much to learn from the Bible about spiritual giving over, bestowing, or “fusing”— the divine with the human, or the human with the divine, or the human with what defiles, etc. The human spirit is as one with those things it touches, or receives, or takes in, or suffers, or hears, or approves, or believes, or….

3. The preposition for, currently used instead of unto in many modern versions, does not import the sense of fusing with the dative (see the OED definition of for). For is therefore inadequate to convey what unto can convey.

The use of a unique word in unique ways to express unique spiritual truths may have great value to help understanding, as the Holy Spirit comes alongside to quicken the sense to our minds. The NMB will retain Tyndale’s use of unto selectively to express spiritual truths. This is an example of several instances when Early Modern English seems to do a better job of expressing biblical concepts, and we are tempted to speculate that the Lord had a purpose in choosing to have His word rendered in English when he did. We are therefore loathe to modernize where it might stifle truth. Moreover, to keep unto also maintains the flavour of the MB.

As the work progresses, we compare the Matthew Bible translation with others. Where there are differences of concern, we will seek out the reason, to see if correction is called for. Occasionally, though not often at all, it seems necessary. An example is at Revelation 22:19. Here, Tyndale had “book of life”, followed in the KJV and NKJV. However others have “tree of life”. We understand that it should read “tree of life”; no existing Greek manuscript reads “book of life”. How then did this come into Tyndale's translation? Tyndale used the 3rd edition of Desiderius Erasmus’s Greek New Testament. When Erasmus was compiling his text, he had access to only one manuscript of Revelation, which lacked the last six verses. So he referred to the Latin Vulgate and “back-translated”; his copy of the Vulgate had “book of life”.³ Tyndale was, of course, faithful to the text at hand. But he would want this corrected, and we will do so.

As for gender issues, we are not concerned to be politically correct. But we do appreciate that English usage has greatly changed, and feel that some concern about inclusiveness is valid. Therefore though we will retain 'him' as inclusive of 'her', and 'brethren' as inclusive of 'sisters', we may, where the Greek and the context permit, make appropriate substitutions, such as 'children' for 'sons' and 'everyone' for 'every man'.

Many archaic words or expression and Tyndale's word coinages will be retained; indeed, we will keep as many as we can. Examples include the archaic "beseech" and "behold" (selectively), and "ye" and "thou" in certain expressions, such as "O ye of little faith" and in the Lord's prayer. We will keep "heathen", which is an integral and important part of the fabric of the entire Bible, and "sweet bread", by which Tyndale followed Martin Luther and where others often put "unleavened bread". We will also keep:

Obsolete words and expressions, and words that have changed their meaning—except for a few exceptions where we cannot find an adequate modern synonym and we will make a note of the meaning in the margin—will be modernized. Some examples:

'Conceits': in Early Modern English this meant thoughts, ideas, or opinions, and this is how Tyndale used it at Romans 11:25: “I would not that this secret should be hid from you my brethren (lest ye should be wise in your own conceits)”. Conceits is etymologically related to ‘conceive’. The modern sense of conceited—vain—arose in the early 17th century. It is confusing to leave conceits here. Transposed, this sentence could be rendered "lest you be wise in your own thoughts".

'Again': In some uses, again is obsolete. In Early Modern English it often meant ‘in response’, ‘back’, or ‘returning to the same place or position again’. Following are examples of obsolete usages from Tyndale's book, The Obedience of a Christian Man:

One of Tyndale's frequent uses of ‘again’ in scripture was in the expression ‘rose again from death’, regarding the resurrection of Jesus. This was carried over in the King James version. The intended sense is that he rose up again; i.e. back up to life, and not that he rose up once more.

'Damnation’: This is a word that has greatly narrowed in meaning. When Tyndale wrote, it meant not only eternal punishment, but also judgment, condemnation, a sentence. It will be retained where appropriate, as the only word that imports the idea of eternality.

‘Easter’: Will be amended to Passover, for example as at 1 Corinthians 5:7: “Christ our Easter lamb is offered up for us”.

We will add to the New Matthew Bible marginal notes defining certain Greek and Hebrew words, something we understand Tyndale wished to do. We plan to keep to Strong’s definitions (which are suitably short), if and as appropriate. But we do have concerns that some of Strong’s definitions seem more descriptive of how words came to be understood by the Church, rather than what they meant to the original writers. See Martyr or Witness?

We will add occasional marginal notes of historic or general interest. We will also add back certain of Tyndale's prologues to various books that were omitted from the 1549 edition of the Matthew Bible.

In the odd place where it appears Rogers understood a verse differently than Tyndale, we will consider adding Tyndale's differing commentary so the reader may judge between the two.

Some notes in the Matthew Bible repeatedly address the same issues, such as the meaning of ‘saint’ as used in the Scriptures. This was a heated issue in the 16th century, when there was great concern about the superstitious veneration of saints. Also, there is an abundance of references to the teachings of Church fathers where it appears John Rogers was attempting to buttress support for tenets of the faith that were then widely misunderstood, and little taught. We will omit overly-repetitive notes.

Names will be normalized to the New King James Version.

Punctuation will require considerable updating because there have been so many developments in the theory, purposes and method of punctuating.

¹ Barber, Charles, Early Modern English, 1976 (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 1997), p 190.