We still read in Matthew 27—9 that the purchase of the potter’s field with the thirty pieces of silver paid to Judas for the betrayal of innocent blood, was a fulfilment of “that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet,” saying: “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, &c.” It is objected to this that the quotation is from Zechariah and not from Jeremiah; and it is said that when the words are written in an abbreviated form in Greek letters they may easily be read the one for another. It is impossible to believe that Matthew made a wrong citation here, thus exposing himself to the criticism of the Jews. Indeed, it is notorious that the Jews of old never found opportunity to lodge such an objection against the writings of any of the New Testament writers. It may be observed that the Syriac Peshito and the Persian versions, as well as some Greek manuscripts, read: “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet, ” no name being given. But it has been thought that this reading, which is not according to the oldest and best authorities, is an adaptation of the text, with the object of clearing up what might to some copyists have seemed to me an error. It is not, however, certain that the quotation is from Zechariah. The verse reads: “That which was spoken by Jeremiah,” and therefore the fact that the writings of Jeremiah do not contain the words quoted does not prove the gospel to be inaccurate. McClellan well observes: “There is no proof of mistake or error. Apart from inspiration, is it reasonable to suppose S. Matthew, on a specially-cited prophecy, and in solemn writing, ignorant, forgetful, or careless of verification? Besides, as S. Augustine remarks, a mistake of memory would have been noted and corrected in his lifetime. The prophecy is cited as one “spoken by Jeremiah,” not written in his book: and several spoken prophecies of Jeremiah, as doubtless of other prophets, are not recorded. (Jeremiah 36:32. Compare 1 Kings 4:32–34; Luke 3:18, 11:49–51; John 20:30). Both in Hebrew and Greek (especially the latter) the passage of Zechariah differs considerably from the citation in S. Matthew, and the context of Zechariah from the context of S. Matthew. Later prophecies frequently interweave portions of earlier oral prophecies (compare Isaiah 2:2–22 with Micah 4:1–13; Isaiah 53:7 with Jeremiah 11:19). Such earlier oral prophecies may only be extant in the later form of the later Scripture. (See the prophecy of Enoch only in Jude, verses 14 and 15; compare 5:9; 2 Timothy 3:8; Hebrews 12:21). Our conclusion is that S. Matthew has cited a prophecy spoken by Jeremiah, but nowhere written in the Old Testament, and of which the passage in Zechariah is only a partial reproduction. (Compare Genesis 36:28).” This view of the matter will doubtless commend itself to right-minded people. As it reads “spoken by Jeremiah,” and not written, the difficulty which some have seen is reduced to the smallest proportions: it is not a difficulty at all to those who know the importance of accuracy in the study of the Holy Scriptures. It may be added that in at least two places Zechariah has embodied in his book expressions found in the writings of Jeremiah. (See Zechariah 1:4, and Jeremiah 18:11; Zechariah 3:8, and Jeremiah 23:5).
In the Authorised Version the first three verses of Mark’s Gospel read: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” In the Revision we read in the text “as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, ” and are informed in the margin that some ancient authorities read “in the prophets.” The passage demands some notice because the words “Behold I send my messenger, &c.” are not found in the prophecy of Isaiah, but are found in Malachi. It becomes a question of this sort—Did Mark make a mistake? or of this sort—Have copyists introduced an error into the place? The quotation in verse 2 is from Malachi 3:1, and that in verse 3 is from Isaiah 40:3. A little weighing of the evidence makes it plain that Mark made no mistake, and it is by no means difficult to account for the word Isaiah getting into the text. Copyists made it a custom to make notes in the margin, and it is only reasonable, with a knowledge of what can be known about the matter, to conclude that a marginal note to the effect that Isaiah was the writer of the prophecy in verse 3 has, by error, been embodied in the text itself. While the Sinaitic, Vatican, and other old manuscripts, and several ancient versions and most editors of the text, support the reading of the Revisers, the Alexandrian and many other manuscripts, several early versions and authorities read “written in the prophets, ” as the common version represented, and as the blended citation seemed to demand. Whitby, Campbell, Lightfoot and many others have contended for the reading followed by King James’s translators. McClellan observes that “the prophets” is scarcely the correction copyists would have attempted if not genuine. That is, the alterations made by copyists usually were of such sort as to specify where the original was general. The authority just cited, also says: “It may well be doubted whether S. Mark would have mentioned the name of the prophet. He never does elsewhere.” In illustration of this last statement, McClellan refers to Mark 4:12, 7:6; 11:17; 14:27 and 15:28. It will be observed that the mention of the name of Isaiah in chap. 7:6, is not by Mark, but by Jesus in answer to the Pharisees; and the words of Jesus are recorded in the passage. The Old Testament was among the Jews devided into the Law, the Prophets and the Holy Writings; and so the words of any prophet would, without regard to name, be quoted as from The Prophets. It may be added that some translators who have adopted the reading found in the revised version, have enclosed verse 2 in parenthesis. There are several ways in which the name Isaiah may be accounted for in verse 2; and as we are not at all disposed to entertain the idea that Mark made a wrong citation, we agree with those who retain the familiar and well attested reading, “as it is written in the prophets.”
There are only two occurrences of the Greek word methodeia, craft, artifice, and it is satisfactory to find them uniformly rendered in the Revised Version, by the word “wile.” In Ephesians 4:14, 15, we read that something was done to the end that we “may be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error; but speaking truth in love may grow up in all things into him, which is the head, even Christ,” &c, In the A. V. the words now rendered “after the wiles of error,” were translated “whereby they lie in wait to deceive”; and there was consequently no apparent connection between this passage and chap. 6. verses 11 & 12. Now, however, the connection is made plain to the English reader, for we have the Greek word methodeia rendered in each instance by “wile.” In the latter place we read: “put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.” We have here “the wiles of the Error,” and “the wiles of the Diabolos,” just as in other places we read of “the working of the Error,” and “the working of the Satan.” Both the workings and the wiles are against the truth and opposed to righteousness. What is said of the Diabolos and the Satan is also said of the Error; and the Revision has, by some of its improvements, made the true teaching on the subject of Diabolism more apparent than the A. V. represented it to be.
In one notable place where, in the A. V., we read of superstition, the Revisers have given us the word religion, the other expression being placed in the margin. Festus, in laying Paul’s case before King Agrippa, said the Jews who accused Paul, charged him on certain questions “of their own religion, and of one Jesus, who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.” (Acts 25:19). The Greek word rendered “religion” here is deisidaimonia which means demon worship, the fear of the demons, and therefore is superstition. It was nothing but natural that a heathen like Festus should use this name in reference to the religion of the Jews. He in effect told Agrippa that the difference between Paul and his accusers involved questions of their own reverence of the demons, not that worship common to Romans in general. The only other place where this Greek expression is used, is in Acts 17:22, and this time it comes from the mouth of Paul, and is used to denominate real demon worship. We read that Paul, standing in the midst of Areopagus, said: “Ye men of Athens, in all things I perceive that ye are somewhat superstitious.” The verse is forcibly rendered by Rotherham, thus: “Men-Athenians! in all respects how unusually reverent of the demons ye are, I observe!” By this Paul was calling the attention of his hearers to their heathen worship. The Athenians, too, on their part, regarded Paul as a declarer of demons foreign to those of their regard or reverence, because he discoursed to them concerning Jesus and the resurrection. In the Revised Version we read in Acts 25:19 religion, where we did read superstition, and in Acts 17:22, we read superstitious where in the Authorised Version, we read religious. If the Revisers had in the outset decided to give us demon for daimoon in the text, instead of the misleading mistranslation devil, they might perhaps have rendered the Greek words found in these passages by words of kindred meaning—“demon-reverence,” instead of religion; and “demon-reverencing” instead of superstitious.
We read in Acts 17:5, that “the Jews, being moved with jealousy, took unto them certain vile fellows of the rabble and gathering a crowd, set the city on an uproar.” That city was Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish Synagogue, into which, as his custom was, Paul went, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them out of the Scriptures concerning the Anointed. These vile fellows of the rabble (termed in the A. V., “certain lewd fellows of the baser sort”) were the very offscouring of the town, and they willingly assisted the Jews in venting upon the Apostles a jealousy excited by some of the people consorting with Paul and Silas. The Revisers’ description of these men is more expressive than the reading of the common version. It is well that those who in the work of proclamation nowadays are sometimes annoyed and illused by the most ignorant and impudent people, should bear in mind that the characters who dragged Jason and certain brethren before the rulers of the city, were the rough market-loungers and vulgar idlers of Thessalonica. Different translators have described them in various ways: Alford—“certain fellows out of the streets gathered a mob;” Sheldon Green—“some rascals of the baser sort gathered a rabble;” Green and Jacob—“certain bad men of the idlers in the market place.” From these views of the meaning of the Greek words, we can in a measure realise the composition of the rabble which assaulted the house of Jason.
In Acts 26:2, 4, 7, we still read that “the Jews” accused Paul, as if the whole people had risen up against him. As there is no article before the word “Jews,” we should read “whereof I am accused by Jews”—i. e. “whereof Jews accuse me.” This shows how exact Paul was in making his defence before Agrippa. He did not charge upon his nation something for which only infatuated sections of it were responsible. In Galations 6:11, we read in the Revision: “See with how large letters I have written unto you, with mine own hand;” instead of “Ye see how large a letter, &c.” Those who believe that Paul was near-sighted will look upon this as an allusion to his infirmity. Alford, Wordsworth, Green, Rotherham, Lightfoot, Ellicott, and many others, have rendered as the Revisers do. Some students of the passage have concluded that up to this verse the epistle was written by an amanuensis, in accordance with Paul’s custom; but before sending the epistle to the Galatian ecclesias, the Apostle made a sort of recapitulatory addition with his own hand, and in such large letters as to give rise to the language employed in the verse. Luke 20:37, now reads: “But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the place concerning the Bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” In the A. V. the reading was “Moses showed at the bush, &c.” To the reading of King James’s version, it has been objected that Moses did not show at the bush what it is said he did, but he merely recorded the words of the angel which spoke to him. In Mark 12:26, the parallel passage, we read the words of Christ in this form: “Have ye not read in the book of Moses, in the place concerning the Bush, how God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, &c.?” Considering the two passages, we may fairly conclude that the allusion is to the narrative known as the Bush; and the italics introduced by the Revisers will be an assistance to the general reader. Many authorities might be mentioned in favour of the view adopted by the Revisers. The Greek word anastrophee, occurring thirteen times, and in the A. V. rendered uniformly “conversation,” is now in every instance translated by words conveying a more correct idea of the original. The verb anastrephoo also has been more satisfactorily dealt with. In every case the noun is now rendered behaviour, manner of life, living, or manner of living; and the verb has been translated live and behave. Instead of reading in 1 Peter 2:12, “having your conversation honest among the Gentiles,” we now read “having your behaviour seemly, &c.” The word rendered “conversation” by King James’s translators, in Phillipians 3:20, is politeuma, and instead of “For our conversation is in heaven,” we read in the Revision “For our citizenship is in heaven.” In other words, “our citizenship begins in heaven,” or “our enrollment as citizens is in the heavens.” It still remains for those who undertake to meet the objections of inquirers, to explain that the verb analuoo means the same in Phillipians 1:23, as it does in Luke 12:36, and that when Paul said: teen epithumian echoon eis to analusai, he had no idea of going away to be with Christ, and, there for, no such wish; but that his desirewas to be released from present cares and troubles. Rotherham renders “having the strong desire to be released;” and in 2 Timothy 4:6, where the word analusis is by the Revisers, after King James’s translators, rendered departure, the same Scholar translates: “the season of my release is at hand.”
The Revisers did not seem willing to allow the name of Judas to be any longer associated with a bishopric, and therefore rn Acts 1:20 the word episcopee has been rendered “office,” with the marginal intimation that the Greek word means overseership. While, however, the Episcopal institution has lost one association by this altered rendering, it has gained another, for in Acts 20:28, where in the A. V. we did read that the elders of the ecclesia at Ephesus were told to take heed unto themselves, and to “all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,” we now read “made you bishops,” with the old rendering in the margin. One Bisrop of the Anglican Church has remaaked that the change “is in some quarters supposed to be no gain to Episcopacy.” The change can hardly be regarded as politic from an Episcopal standpoint. The credit or discredit may be siven to those who made it. The truth stands in spite of the assumption and arrogance of the clerics.
The excellence of some of the readings and renderings preferred by the American Committee of Revisers is beyond question. In the common version we have “St.” before the names of the Evangelists, but in the Revision we have the Romish contraction pure and simple. The American scholars wished all such distinctions to be omitted from the work, advocated the nonuse of the word Ghost after the and jective Holy, and the uniform rendering Holy Spirit; and also contended that the words daimoon and daimonion should no longer be mistranslated “devils,” but should be represented by “demon.” To follow the Americans and read in Matthew 9:6–8; Mark 2:10; and Luke 5:24, that the Son of man had authority to forgive sins would be an improvement. The real meaning of Matthew 19:14; Mark 10:14; and Luke 18:16 is better expressed by the American rendering: “Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven,” than by the words “of such is the kingdom, &c.” Many have rendered in this way, regarding the genitive as denoting possession. This translation certainly brings to mind the words of Christ: “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” (Luke 12:32). Again, the saints will posess the kingdom. (Daniel 7:18–22.)
Whatever may be the characteristics of the Revised Version, one thing is certain, and that is, the changes made are, as a whole, in support of the broad conclusions which unbiassed and sober students of King James’s version must arrive at with regard to the truth. No doctrinal proposition in the Statement of the One Faith has been touched; but here and there we have an accretion of evidence, and as surely as it is for the Truth, it is against Error. While, therefore, some of the sects may have reason for dissatisfaction, the Truth has none; and as knowledge increases and facilities for understanding and translating the originals become more numerous, the more true will the words of the Psalmist appear, when he wrote: Rosh d’var’ka emeth:—“THE SUM OF THY WORD IS TRUTH.” (Psalm 119:160
Review of “The Early Earth” by John Whitcomb (1972)