Martyr, or Witness?
Truthfulness is the Issue
R. M. Davis
Contents:
The Greek Martys Means ‘Witness’
About ‘Witness’
Martys Does Not Mean ‘Martyr’
The Problems with ‘Martyr’
The Significance of the Testimony of God’s Witnesses
Conclusion: Tyndale’s Consistent Use of ‘Witness’ Was Correct
The Greek Martys Means ‘Witness’
The Greek noun martys (or martus) means ‘a witness’; that is, a person who testifies of that which is within his personal knowledge. Turning to William Tyndale’s 1534 New Testament, we see martys used in this sense at Acts 22:15, where Ananias tells Saul:
The God of our fathers hath ordained thee before, that thou shouldest know his will, and shouldest see that which is rightful, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth: for thou shalt be his witness unto all men of those things which thou hast seen and heard.1
In modern English, this might read:
The God of our fathers appointed you beforehand, to know his will, and see that which is rightful, and hear the voice of his mouth; for you will be his witness to all men of those things which you have seen and heard.2
From this passage we learn that Saul, who came to be known as the Apostle Paul, had been chosen by God to receive great revelations from Him, and to testify to all men of the things he would see, hear, and come to know. And it happened just as Ananias had foretold: Paul testified in person all around Asia and parts of Europe, and then also in the letters to the congregations that make up a large portion of our New Testament. Through these letters Paul has continued to testify to the world down through the centuries. He was a very special witness, who gave unusual testimony of things that he saw and heard spiritually through visions and supernatural revelation, much as the Prophets of the Old Testament had done. Paul himself, speaking about one such revelation, said he did not even know if he was in the body or out of the body (2 Corinthians 12:2).
The Lord’s other Apostles were eye-witnesses who walked with Jesus while He was on the earth, having seen Him with eyes of flesh and having heard His sweet voice in their ears day upon day while they kept company with Him. They supped with Him both before He was slain and after He was raised up from death in His new body. They received miraculous powers from Him, including the ability to cast out demons. We find Peter alluding to the importance of being present at all these things at Acts 1:19-22, where he is praying to God about replacing Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve (perhaps not understanding that the Lord Himself would choose and appoint Paul). Peter emphasizes the need for a witness who had seen it all:
Wherefore of these men which have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning at the baptism of John unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to bear witness with us of his resurrection.
In the King James Version, this phrase is rendered "to be a witness". Tyndale preferred an action verb here, which emphasized the actual bringing of the testimony. This brings us to an interesting point about the English 'witness'.
About ‘Witness’
The English noun witness is a little more complicated than the Greek martys. It is defined by Funk and Wagnall as meaning “1. An act or fact of attestation to a fact or an event; testimony, evidence. 2. A person who has seen or knows something, and is therefore competent to give evidence concerning it; a spectator.” 3 The first definition refers to a testimony [i.e. witness] given, and is rendered by a variety of Greek words in the New Testament. The second sense is, of course, the English equivalient of martys. Following are examples of 'witness' used in differing ways in Tyndale's New Testament:
—The night following, God stood by him and said: Be of good cheer Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness at Rome (Acts 23:11);
—The chief priests and the elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus (Matthew 26:59);
—For God is my witness, whom I serve… (Romans 1:9);
—But when the comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the father, which is the spirit of truth, which proceedeth of the father, he shall testify of me. And ye shall bear witness also, because ye have been with me from the beginning (John 15:26,27);
—Grace be with you and peace, from him which is and which was, and which is to come…and from Jesus Christ which is a faithful witness…(Rev 1:4,5).
While 'witness' can be used in different ways, the Greek martys is quite uncomplicated. Tyndale consistently translated it by ‘witness’ in his New Testament.
Martys Does Not Mean ‘Martyr’
However, the straightforward sense of martys as ‘witness’ was later darkened in three New Testament passages as a result of later translators substituting the word ‘martyr’ in its stead. Obviously a witness is a very different thing than a martyr, and martys does not mean martyr. Funk and Wagnall defined ‘martyr’ as (considering the relevant definition only): “A person who submits to death rather than forswear his religion; specifically, one of the early Christians who suffered death for their religious principles.” Thus ‘martyr’ has to do with sacrificing for one’s faith, not bringing a testimony. Furthermore, over the years it has generally lost any connection with the Christian religion. However, the substitution was unfortunately made:
- At Acts 22:20: Tyndale had—“And when the blood of thy witness Steven was shed, I also stood by, and consented unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.”
— In 1557 in the Geneva version, 'martyr' was substituted. This was followed by the KJV committee in 1611.
- At Revelation 2:13: Tyndale put—“And in my days Antipas was a faithful witness of mine, which was slain among you where Satan dwelleth.”
—The Geneva, Rheims, and KJV put 'martyr' here.
- At Revelation 17:6: Tyndale had—“And I saw the wife drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. And when I saw her, I wondered with great marvel.”
—The Geneva, Rheims, KJV versions all have ‘martyrs’ here.
We later find James Strong, in his truly great Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible of 1890, diluting the purity of his definition in an effort to describe how ‘martyr’ came to be used in these passages: he defines martus (#3144)as, “A witness (literally [judicially] or figuratively [general]); by analogy, a martyr.” It is this “analogy” that is the problem. By “analogy” is meant an apparent agreement between things that are otherwise entirely different.4 But the analogy or apparent agreement between ‘witness’ and ‘martyr’ arose after the Scriptures were written. The original Greek never carried the sense ‘martyr’, which only developed later in the minds of men who then carried their understanding over into the New Testament.The Encyclopedia Britannica explains:
The original meaning of the Greek word martys was ‘witness’; in this sense it is often used in the New Testament. Since the most striking witness which Christians could bear to their faith was to die rather than deny it, the word soon began to be used in reference to one who was not only a witness but specifically a martyr.5
However, although martyrdom is certainly a witness of sorts—and a very significant one—that does not mean it is correct to translate martys by ‘martyr’. Neither the fact that death is a “striking witness”, nor the fact that over time (due partly to the influence of the Latin Vulgate Bible) martys came to be used with reference to martyrs, justifies taking such liberty with the Holy Scriptures.
The substitution of ‘martyr’ for ‘witness’ was not needed to signify the deaths of the witnesses, which were clear from the context. Quite simply, this substitution was not true to the original. The New Testament authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit, did not use a different word to distinguish between witnesses that suffered death and those that did not. This is not to say that it is always wrong to use different English words to translate one Greek word. Often it is justified to capture all the nuances of a Greek word that cannot be captured in one English word, or because the word takes on varied meanings in varied contexts. It can be justified for euphonics, since it is good for God’s word to be pleasing to the ear. Tyndale was a master at all these arts. But when a different word detracts from, adds to, or obscures the original sense, as ‘martyr’ does, it is not justified—especially with such a simple, unambiguous word as martys and, what’s more, when there is an equally simple and unambiguous corresponding English word.
The Problems with ‘Martyr’
There are other problems with the substitution of ‘martyr’ for ‘witness’. For one, ‘witness’ is a neutral, secular word, but ‘martyr’ is emotionally charged in religious context, where martyrs are honoured heroes. We can speculate that the authors of the Geneva, Rheims and KJV were partly moved to alter the Scriptures as they did to honour martyred witnesses. The 1936 Oxford English Dictionary definition of ‘martyr’ reflects such a spirit:
“Martyr: Eccl: A designation of honour (connoting the highest degree of saintship) for: One who voluntarily undergoes the penalty of death for refusing to renounce the Christian faith or for obedience to any law or command of the Church”.
But this describes how ‘martyr’ came to be used in English, not how martys was used in the Greek, which bestowed no such designation of honour. Men therefore ought not to do so of their own accord, for this is to add to the Scriptures. Time has shown that the glorification of martyrdom can lead to tragic error. Some individuals get caught up in the apparent glories of martyrdom, and others can be manipulated to ruinous ends. Because ‘martyr’ is ecumenical, error occurs across other faiths, and we now see tragic consequences in terrorist Islam with its suicide bombers.6 In fact, many religions have made martyrs among their own members, and have made martyrs of others. This is not to blame the English translators for terrorism, not at all. We just point out that the glorification of death by martyrdom is problematic. Let God reward His martyrs: but let not men seek or glorify death!
The change to ‘martyr’ shifted attention away from the identity of the individuals in question as witnesses who brought a rejected testimony of God’s word, which is unique in true Christianity. Instead, it emphasized their identity as steadfast heroes of the faith. Their role as devoted Christians, rather than their role as truthful witnesses of the Gospel, comes to the fore. Such a mistaken emphasis is displayed in the Funk and Wagnall definition seen above, which refers to the martyrs as dying for religious principles, not for the Christian witness. The error is also seen in the Encyclopedia Britannica explanation that “the most striking witness which Christians could bear to their faith was to die rather than deny it”. This misses the point. Stephen’s death was not reported in the book of Acts to give us an example of a striking witness of faith, as if, perhaps, this might move us to greater personal devotion ourselves. Rather, from it we are to learn about how a faithful witness might fare at the hands of men. Israel’s religious leaders hated the Lord’s witness Stephen, and they resisted him, and sought ways to condemn him falsely (Acts 6). At the end, Stephen spoke of his vision of heaven and the Lord, and in a fury they attacked and stoned him (Acts 7). From such examples the faithful can learn how their own testimonies might fare before men.
Another difficulty with ‘martyr’ is that the significance that attaches to truthfulness is lost. We can make a distinction between a faithful and a false witness because the tacit issue is willing fidelity to known truth. But we cannot distinguish between a faithful and a false martyr. This is because the tacit issue is not truthfulness, but devotedness. There is no such thing as a ‘false martyr’. The truthfulness of the character of the martyr is irrelevant, and their testimony is not the point. Anyone who dies for any faith is a martyr, and any liar can be a faithful martyr. But only a person who cares about truth will be a faithful witness.7
The Significance of the Testimony of God’s Witnesses
Witnesses for the Lord, therefore, testify of what they have seen through eyes of faith and of what they have learned through the anointing of the Holy Spirit. For believers today, this means for the most part that they will testify of what the Holy Spirit has taught them through hearing or studying God’s word; they themselves accept the testimony of the Scriptures, and upon this foundation God, by His Holy Spirit, teaches those who seek for truth as for hidden treasure.
From the Scriptures we learn that the world at large will not receive testimonies of God’s word. However, truth sometimes requires a testimony. And sometimes such testimony will meet with great resistance. The greatest testimonies usually evoke the greatest wrath. Of course the master Himself, Jesus Christ, was crucified for His marvelous witness, which is of infinite value. History shows that in the most terrible times powerful men and women—moved by envy, or by religion or other learning that has fanned unbelief or stoked hatred, or by fear if a true testimony threatens to cause loss of face or position or wealth—may seek the death of the Lord’s witnesses. It was in such circumstances that the Pharisees and religious leaders of Jerusalem, when their murder of the Lord did not silence the testimony of His word, turned and went after His disciples. Stephen was first they killed. What was truly striking about Stephen’s witness was the greatness of his understanding of the meaning and application of the Old Testament Scriptures, as related at Acts 7, which moved them to such murderous rage.
After Stephen, Peter and Paul and most of the other Apostles, with their eye-witness testimonies, were slain. Then, many more were to die down the centuries: the great cloud of witnesses referred to at Revelation 17:6. William Tyndale was one of these, slain in 1536 by the “woman who rides the beast” (Book of Revelation), she who is also the “wife drunk with the blood of the saints”: the great, false, Mother Church. Tyndale’s great testimony was the translation of the Scriptures into English, which effectively freed them from the withholding grasp of the Roman Catholic Church. His associate John Rogers, who gave England the Matthew Bible of 1537, was also slain by the drunken wife.
Of course, rejection of God’s witnesses and their testimonies can be found elsewhere, not only among the religious who falsely claim to follow God’s word. The Bible gives us the examples of pagan vendors of idolatrous shrines in Ephesus, who pursued Paul when men began to turn from idols and their livelihood was threatened. In Philippi they pursued him after he cast the spirit of divination out of the slave girl who had been earning good money for her master by fortune-telling. Now, in fanatic strongholds of Islam and Hinduism, the Lord’s witnesses face daily dangers to life and property.
Conclusion: Tyndale’s Consistent Use of ‘Witness’ Was Correct
The Scriptures reveal that when men hate or fear a testimony and have power or occasion to harm the witness, they may pursue this end to silence him. And sometimes God, in accordance with His secret and mysterious purposes, permits the murderous passions of men to be exhibited upon His servants. Their glory will be exceedingly great in heaven, but glory in this world would mean little or nothing to them, for their desire is always and only for the testimony of God’s word.
‘Martyr’ was a poor translation of martys—wrongly influenced by popular usage in the Church, the Latin Vulgate, and men’s perception of martyrdom. It obscured the important concept of truth’s testimony, and added meanings that were not in the original Greek.
This is not, of course, to take anything from God’s martyrs, whose deaths give silent testimony of the unbelief of men who suppress truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).
Tyndale was right to use ‘witness’ consistently in his New Testament translation, and this is only one of many examples where his translation was superior.
© R. P. M. Davis, November, 2009
Endnotes:
1 New Testament quotations are from Professor David Daniell’s modern-spelling version of William Tyndale’s 1534 New Testament.
