Preach the word

 

Songs of Degrees

 Song of degrees

“Song of Degrees” is the title or superscription of fifteen Psalms, 120 through 134. In English the titles are “A Song of degrees” (10), A Song of degrees of David” (4), and “A song of degrees for Solomon” (1). Each of these start with the following Hebrew superscriptions (transliterated): “Shir HaMa'aloth” (120, 123, 125-126, 128-130, 132, 134. Hebrew: שיר המעלות), “Shir LaMa'aloth” (121. Hebrew: שיר למעלות), “Shir HaMa'aloth Dovid” (122, 124, 131, 133. Hebrew: שִׁיר הַמַּעֲלוֹת לְדָוִד), “Shir HaMa'aloth Shlomo” (127. Hebrew: שִׁיר הַמַּעֲלוֹת לִשְׁלֹמֹה). 

The Song of degrees for Solomon stands in the middle of these 15 songs, with 7 songs before it and 7 songs after it. Lord (Jehovah) is found 3 times in the 127th Psalm, and 25 times in the 7 songs on each side of it.[i] Two “of David” come before the Song of degrees for Solomon, and two come after it.

 

Differences of opinion exist, but a main traditional speculation is that “It seems most probable they were designed for the use of the people when going up (cf. 1 Kings 12:27-28) to Jerusalem on the festival occasions (Deuteronomy 16:16), three times a year” (Jamieson-Faucett-Brown). John Gill mentions “...the common opinion of the Jews, and which is embraced by many Christians, and is mentioned by Jarchi, Saadiah Gaon, Kimchi, and Ben Melech, is, that these are the songs sung by the Levites, on the fifteen steps, by which they went up from the court of the women to the court of the Israelites, or came down them; and on each step sung one of these psalms.”

The use of Lord (Jehovah)

---

[i] According to Palmer Robertson, there are 24 on each side (The Flow of the Psalms, O. Palmer Robertson, P&R Publishing, 2015, pp. 232–233).

Is the Holy Spirit a Thing?

Q. In the King James Bible in Romans 8:16 and 8:26, the Holy Spirit is called an “it.” Is not that translation incorrect?

Romans 8:16 - The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Romans 8:26 - Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

A. No, it is not incorrect. It seems to be something latched on to by KJV Detractors as some kind of major criticism of the flaws in the King James Bible. KJV-Only opponent Doug Kutilek is representative of the clamour (and perhaps the primary originator?).

“Any honest evaluation of the King James Version leads to the conclusion that it has numerous defects as a translation, some major, most minor. But of these defects, among the most serious, quite probably the worst of the lot, is its occasional use of the English pronoun ‘it’ to refer to the Holy Spirit. ... I will plainly state my opinion on the matter: I think that here the KJV comes dangerously close to blasphemy, if it does not in fact actually wander into it.” (from his website KJVOnly.org, which is not currently working, 12/14/2023)

This is a harsh “take down” of the King James Bible and its translators. To Kutilek, this is a serious error (possibly the worst in the KJV), and is “dangerously close” or “in fact” blasphemy! He covers all bases by implying that anyone who does not agree with him has not made an “honest evaluation” of the King James Version.

In the long run, Kutilek succeeds in exposing his own ignorance of the Greek language, the English language, and English Bible translations in general. His complaint and criticism focus on four verses: John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 8:26, and 1 Peter 1:11.

I will mainly focus on the passages in Romans, with some mention of 1 Peter 1:11. Even disregarding the explanations I will give below, his including John 1:32 is worse than a quibble. The antecedent of “it” in that passage is “dove.” Of course, the Spirit is descending like a dove, but “it” – the Spirit in the form of the dove – abode upon him.[i] 

Misunderstanding the Greek.

Every Greek word has a distinct gender – masculine, feminine, or neuter. The Greek word for spirit (πνεῦμα) is designated as a neuter noun. The Greek pronoun αὐτὸ is also neuter. The phrase “the Spirit itself” is an accurate translation of the Greek “auto to pneuma” (αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα). The pronoun “auto” is correctly translated “it” or “itself.” So, let us ask ourselves? Do we believe God inspired the words of the Bible – the very words that Paul wrote in Romans 8:16 and 26? If you claim the King James translators were wrong to use a neuter or genderless pronoun (itself) to refer to a neuter noun (Spirit), will you also, with Doug Kutilek, have a problem with God using a neuter pronoun (αὐτὸ) to refer to a neuter noun (πνεῦμα)?? What a gaggle of gibberish! Let God be true, but every man a liar.

These two verses use a neuter pronoun in reference to the Spirit. “Himself” is not incorrect in the sense of identification. Nevertheless, adding “himself” rather than “itself” is a case of the translators making a minor interpretation of what Paul wrote rather than simply translating what he wrote.[ii]  

1 Peter 1:11 searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

“it testified beforehand” is a translation of προμαρτυρόμενον, which is neuter in gender, so “it” is the proper pronoun (i.e., same kind of pronoun in English fitting the Greek).

Misunderstanding the English.

The quibbles on these three verses proceed from the assumption that “it” and “itself” only refer to inanimate objects, things. However, dictionaries disagree with this unsustained assessment. Dictionary.com gives the following:

“it” is a pronoun “used to represent an inanimate thing understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context” and/or “used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded.”

“itself” is a pronoun, “an emphatic appositive or a reflexive form of it.”

That’s right, it can refer to a person! The entire quibble is that using “it” or “itself” means the Holy Spirit is not a person. Not so.

KJV not the only one.

Some people say that only the King James Bible does this. That is not correct, though the majority of modern translations do have himself rather than itself. Using the two initial verses mentioned, at least the following English translations have “itself” in Romans 8:16, 26.

Romans 8:16 “The Spirit itself” (αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα) Darby Translation, 1602 Bishops, New American Bible (Revised Edition), New Testament for Everyone.

Romans 8:26 “the Spirit itself” (αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα) Coverdale, Darby Translation, 1560 Geneva, 1599 Geneva, 1602 Bishops, Jubilee Bible 2000, New American Bible (Revised Edition), New Testament for Everyone.

Additionally, though other Bibles may not have “itself” or “it” in these places, I would urge complainers, “Physician, heal thyself.” Check your own Bibles, whichever one you use regularly, and find that they also use neutral pronouns to refer to people.[iii] Just weights and measures, as anti-KJVO detractor Rick Norris always repeats. I guess he forgot to mention it to his friend Doug Kutilek.

Conclusion.

Sincere inquirers who want to know about the use of “it” in reference to the Holy Spirit can be assured there is nothing wrong, nefarious, or blasphemous in the King James Bible translations of John 1:32, Romans 8:16, 8:26, and 1 Peter 1:11.[iv] Those who persist in quibbling complaints on these verses expose the petty nature of their challenges to find anything they can to use against the King James Bible and the King James Onlyist. They say they are not against the King James Bible, but these charges about the translation itself prove otherwise.

---

[i] John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. Even Dan Wallace’s NET Bible has “…and it remained on him.”
[ii] Early English versions often used “same Spirit” or “selfsame Spirit,” which carries the same connotation.
[iii] For example, whatever is born of God in 1 John 5:4 is neuter. Many Bibles translate this as “whatsoever,” “whatever,” or “everything.” including AMP, ASV, CJB, DLNT, DRA, HCSB, KJV, LSB, NASB1995, NKJV, NRSV, NTE, OJB, RSV, WEB, WYC. Are you born of God? Are you a thing or a person? Let God use whatsoever word he will, and let every man bow before him.

[iv] If anything, it is Doug Kutilek who nears blasphemy. By his diatribe against the King James Bible for using a neuter pronoun to translate a neuter pronoun inspired by God, he inadvertently crosses the line into criticizing the words chosen by God in the original language.

Acts 7:59 at the Bar

Q. Did the KJV unintentionally obscure a strong proof of the deity of Christ at Acts 7:59?

A. No.

Acts 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

A late-September discussion in a Facebook group found itself focused on Acts 7:59. The persistent pertinacious anti-KJVO pugilist Rick Norris punctually presented himself with arguments available. He quickly unveiled the master question: “Did the KJV unintentionally obscure a strong proof of the deity of Christ at Acts 7:59?” Witnesses were called to the stand and sworn in.

Joseph A. Alexander, testifying with due deference to the old translations, allows that the translators of Geneva and King James “no doubt [had] a good design, but with a very bad effect.” What bad effect, Brother Alexander? “Why, of course, these translators utterly concealed ‘a strong proof of the divinity of Christ.’” David Brown concurs, under oath, “A most unhappy supplement of our translators is this word ‘God’ here; as if while addressing the Son, he was really calling upon the Father. The sense is perfectly clear without any supplement at all…” . Conclusively, Albert Barnes asserts in his testimony, “The word God is not in the original and should not have been in the translation” (p. 428).

Supporting witnesses include Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, and Bishop’s Bibles (which did not translate the verse the KJV way), as well as the 1842 “Baptist Bible” (The Holy Bible, Being the English Version of the Old and New Testaments Made by Order of King James, Carefully Revised and Amended by Several Biblical Scholars), and Baptist scholar A. T. Robertson. Apparently only part of the legal team, Rick Norris does not actually testify to how he believes the question should be answered, merely aggregating the testimony of others (an appeal to authority?).

Having read the King James Bible for as long as I have been able to read, it never occurred to me that the King James translation of Acts 7:59 somehow obscured the deity of Christ in Acts 7:59. No, far from it! I have always thought that it clearly teaches the deity of Christ – calling Christ God!

If I wanted to be picayunish, I could accuse various commentators who are objecting to “God” in verse 59 with obscuring a strong proof of the deity of Christ. Notice two comments easily located on BibleHub:

“And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God] The last word is supplied to make the sense clear in English, but from the words which follow it is better to read ‘the Lord’ instead of ‘God,’ for it is the Lord Jesus who is invoked.” (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)

Seriously, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, are you saying it is the Lord Jesus rather than God who is invoked? Don’t you believe Jesus is God?

“Calling upon God.

“God is not in the Greek. From the vision just described, and from the prayer which follows, it is evident that Jesus is meant.” (Vincent’s Word Studies)

Well, Mr. Vincent, do you mean it is evident that Jesus is meant instead of God? Don’t you believe Jesus is God?

Why do they comment as if Jesus is not God? See the point? I don’t think they mean to obscure the fact that Jesus is God, but it can be taken that way. Why not turn Norris’s devices against these commentators in the way he wishes to turn it against the King James translation? At times he clamors for “just weights and measures” – except when he doesn’t.

Let’s consider a few other things.

For the record, this is a translational issue, not a textual variant. The Textus Receptus, Critical, & Majority Greek texts have the same reading here: και ελιθοβολουν τον στεφανον επικαλουμενον και λεγοντα κυριε ιησου δεξαι το πνευμα μου.

επικαλουμενον when translated calling upon or calling on into English expects an object. The word “God” is supplied to make the sense clear in English, and is appropriately italicized in the KJB. A number of translations add that object for smooth English reading, some choosing “God” and some “Lord.” The commentary produced under the editorship of Charles John Ellicott, chairman of the NT company editing the KJV in the 1870s, admits as much: “The word ‘God,’ in the sentence ‘calling upon God,’ it should be noted, is, as the italics show, an insertion to complete the sense.” (See BibleHub link)

Notice the following translations of Acts 7:59, many available on Bible Gateway.

• WYC: And thei stonyden Steuene, that clepide God to help, seiynge, Lord Jhesu, resseyue my spirit. [And they stoned Stephen, that called God to help, saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.] (Though Wycliffe was translating from the Latin, the Vulgate’s I have researched do not have the word “God.” So this is in Wycliffe also an issue of English translation, not Latin vs. Greek. Note: This is verse 58 in the Vulgate.)
• GNV 1557 NT: And they stoned Steven, who called on God, & sayd, Lord Jesu receive my sprite.
• GNV: And they stoned Steven, who called on God, & said, Lord Jesus receive my spirit.
• AKJV: And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
• RV: And they stoned Stephen, calling upon the Lord, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
• ASV: And they stoned Stephen, calling upon the Lord, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
• AMP: They continued stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive and accept and welcome my spirit!”
• NASB: They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!”
• JB PHILLIPS: So they stoned Stephen while he called upon God, and said, “Jesus, Lord, receive my spirit!”
• WE: They kept on throwing stones at Stephen. He spoke to God and said, “Oh, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
• NKJV: And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
• GNT: They kept on stoning Stephen as he called out to the Lord, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!”
• NASB1995: They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!”
• CJB: As they were stoning him, Stephen called out to God, “Lord Yeshua! Receive my spirit!”
• JUB: And they stoned Stephen calling upon God and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
• OJB: And they went on stoning Stefanos as he called upon Hashem, saying, “Adoneinu, receive my neshamah.”
• WILLIAM D. MOUNCE: They kept stoning Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!”
• MEV: They stoned Stephen as he was calling on God, praying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”
• NMB: And they stoned Stephen, who was calling on the Lord and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!
• EMT (Esposito): And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

Interestingly, even William D. Mounce (that is the same Bill Mounce who is a member of the NIV translation committee) saw fit to add God to his 2011 Mounce Reverse Interlinear™ New Testament. Obviously, this is not some KJVO conspiracy. It is a normal and common way to translate such a sentence, even into the most modern of times. When we read that Stephen was “calling upon God” and that the person called upon is the Lord Jesus, it does not obscure the deity of Jesus Christ, but well supports it. Shame on those so dead-set to fight either the King James translation or King James Onlyism that they would suggest otherwise!

---

The Acts of the Apostles Explained, Joseph Addison Alexander, pp. 311-312.
A Commentary, Critical, Practical, and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, New Testament, Volume I, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, p. 487.
Notes Explanatory And Practical On The Acts Of The Apostles, Albert Barnes, p. 130.

Precious in the sight of the Lord

Psalm 116:15  Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.

Death.

Death is spoken of in several ways in the Scriptures – physical death (Genesis 5:5), spiritual death (Eph. 2:1, 5), eternal death (the second death, Rev. 20:14-15). In the context of Psalm 116, the word speaks of physical death, the time when our temporal bodies cease to function and return to the dust.

A clinical, medical, or scientific definition of death is the permanent cessation of all vital bodily functions. A legal definition of death is the irreversible cessation of cardiorespiratory function or irreversible cessation of all brain function. These are clinically measurable criteria, though ultimately imperfect and fallible. Folks who have been pronounced dead have later been found to have life – some before burial, fortunately.

The biblical definition of death is true and accurate, but not clinically measurable. “The body without the spirit is dead.” James 2:26.

Saints.

A saint in the minds of many people is a person of great virtue and holiness – and in the Roman Catholic sense especially a virtuous holy person who has been declared a “capital S” Saint. However, in the biblical sense a saint is a child of God, either living or dead. Jude 1:14 demonstrates the latter, “Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints.” (Cf. 1 Thessalonians 3:13) So does Matthew 27:52 (“bodies of the saints which slept arose”). But primarily in the New Testament, saints are the living born again believers in the gathered congregations (e.g., Acts 9:13, 32, 41; 26:10). They assemble together (Romans 16:15; 1 Corinthians 1:2), the Spirit intercedes for them (Romans 8:27), act carnally (1 Corinthians 5-6), need perfecting (Ephesians 4:12), experience want (2 Corinthians 9:12), need refreshing (Philemon 1:7), have feet that need washing (1 Timothy 4:10), pray & are prayed for (Revelation 5:8; Ephesians 6:18), and have had the faith delivered unto them (Jude 1:3).

In context these saints are initially physical alive, since it talks about their coming physical death.

Precious.

Precious is an adjective that means highly esteemed; cherished; dear; beloved; of great value; valuable. Some things described in the Bible as precious are: costly stones, metals, jewels, ointments, & spices (1 Kings 10:2; 2 Kings 20:13); thoughts (Psalm 139:17), a good name (Ecclesiastes 7:1), the fruit of the earth (James 5:7), life (2 Kings 1:14; Psalm 49:8), faith (2 Peter 1:1), promises (2 Peter 1:4), and – most of all – “the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:19).

All of these things named are either costly, cherished, beloved, and/or highly esteemed, by God or man.

In the sight of the Lord.

“In the sight of the Lord” ties together precious, death, and saints. The separation of the body and spirit in physical death of the born again children of God (his saints – not Catholic saints, not imagined saints on earth – his saints) is valuable, cherished, and highly esteemed.

“In the sight of the Lord” – This fact is based on God himself (i.e., his truth and his perspective) and by extension to all who then understand death from God’s point of view. To be precious, death must be viewed in a certain light. God is truth (John 3:33), his word is truth (John 17:17), and God’s point of view is truth. “Let God be true, but every man a liar.” 

To the dying saint going home, from God’s point of view, and in truth itself, death is gain (Philippians 1:21): a removal from mortal life in the temporal world to immortal life in the eternal world, a reunion of saints living on earth with saints already in heaven, a rest from strife and struggling, and a relief from pain and sorrow. 

To the living saint left behind, from God’s point of view, and in truth itself, death is a readjustment at which time we know that we can have sorrow for our loss, but that we “sorrow not, even as others which have no hope” (1 Thessalonians 4:13). The dead in Christ are with him in spirit (2 Corinthians 5:8), and when he comes again, the bodies of those saints will rise from their graves.

Death is not precious to the world. It is a hated and despised enemy. Like Ahab to Elijah, when death comes the world must say “Hast thou found me, O mine enemy?” And like Elijah and Paul, death answers, “I have found thee…for the wages of sin is death.” Those who have no hope beyond the grave cannot see that there is the victory over death – yea, cannot obtain victory over death, and can have neither feeling nor understanding that it is precious. 

To be precious, death must be viewed in a certain light – the light of God’s​ word, God’s will, and of God himself.

1 Corinthians 15:51-57.

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Fixing a typographical error

On a certain day I witnessed two adversaries aimlessly arguing on Ezekiel 24:7 concerning changes either made or not by Benjamin Blayney, while befuddled bystanders breathlessly hovered nearby. They were gasping at glimpses unseen to others and needing a word from a gentle true spirit to make a reply.

Unfortunately, such angry antagonists and bitter belligerents would not welcome a word of either hello or good-bye. I am placing a record here of what I found about the text of Ezekiel 24:7. There was a simple typographical error in Ezekiel 24:7 that was quickly corrected with no help from Benjamin Blayney, who was not even born until 1728.

For her blood is in the middest of her: she set it upon the toppe of a rocke, she powred it upon the ground, to couer it with dust:

Ezekiel 24:7, 1611 printing by Robert Barker

For her blood is in the midst of her: shee set it upon the top of a rocke, shee powred it not upon the ground, to couer it with dust:

Ezekiel 24:7, 1613 printing by Robert Barker

The word “not” was omitted in 1611, then shortly corrected by inclusion, and the text still stands today.[i] The old printings I have found online demonstrate that it was fixed at least by 1613, though it possibly happened even sooner.

---

[i] With the exception of spellings that have become more “fixed” as the English language progressed through the years. Notice even some variant spellings from 1611 to 1613. Some of this is because printers/typesetters would often choose the variant that would best help them justify a line of type. (In printing, to justify is to fit exactly into a desired length – so that each line of type is the same length.) Note that the the negative participle לֹ֤א is in the Hebrew text. It is obvious that this is not a translation issue, but a mistake made by the printers which they quickly corrected.

Ruckman’s seven times purified, et al

“Happy Birthday, God’s Bible! You were born in 1611; you were born as the seventh in the lists of Bibles that preceded you (see Psa. 12:6-7). You were the culmination of God’s word in history: 1) a Hebrew received text (1780–400 B.C.), an Aramaic received text (603–515 B.C.), a Greek received text (A.D. 35–96), a Syrian received text (A.D. 120–180), a Latin received text (A.D. 140–150), a German received text (Martin Luther, A.D. 1520-1600), an English received text (the AV, A.D. 1526–1611). It was the culmination of the Bible in the English language: Tyndale (1525), Coverdale (1535), Matthew (1537), Great (1539), Geneva (1539 [sic]), Bishops’ (1568), King James (1611). You were seventh on the lists of two sevens.” Happy Anniversary KJV: a Collection of Articles from the 2011 Bible Believers’ Bulletins Honoring the Authorized Version, Peter S. Ruckman, Pensacola, FL: BB Bookstore, 2011

The idea that the King James Bible has been purified seven times has become a popular theory in King James circles. I do not know whether it originated with Peter Ruckman (quoted above), or elsewhere. It probably does not matter. There are a number of differing theories vying to be the correct one. (Although, fascinatingly, this seems to be one area folks do not get incensed about, as long as you agree that it has in some way or every way been purified seven times.)

I am a staunch KJV supporter and defender. I do not hold the idea that Psalm 12:6 somehow applies to the right Bible having to be purified seven times. One of the primary proofs against this is the various ways people achieve making the King James Bible in some way be Number 7 in a series, which appear contrived, in my opinion. For some it is pinnacle Bible in the seventh language. There are other ways to achieve the goal, all different in method and purpose, to make it be the seventh Bible. If I were going to do so, I would keep it simple. The King James translators’ rule number 14 mentions six predecessors – Tindoll’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva, and Bishop’s – making the 1611 translation the seventh. Duane Bryant uses this system also. Why not stop there, if you are going there in the first place?

One problem seldom seems settled on, which should be settled before beginning, is what do we mean in terms of the groups of seven Bibles? Does it mean complete Bibles that contain all the Old and New Testaments (e.g. Tyndale only translated the NT and Pentateuch)? (Some, in fact, include Wycliffe rather than Tyndale because Wycliffe was complete and Tyndale was not.) Does it mean translations made from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (Wycliffe and Douay-Rheims are based on the Latin Vulgate). Does it only mean translations made from the Textus Receptus? Lots of things need to be asked and answered before the discussion even starts.

[Other connections to the number 7 are made as well. For example, the King James Bible uses the term Jehovah only seven times and only in the Old Testament; the King James Bible is the product of seven years of translation work, the English purification process took seven decades, etc.] 

Geoffrey Grider says Psalm 12:6 means the Bible “shall be preserved from that 7th generation forever. It’s probably just an amazing coincidence, but, the Bible has undergone 7 main iterations and they are as follows:”

1. The Aramaic Received Text: 603 – 515 BC
2. The Hebrew Received Text: 1780 – 400 BC
3. The Greek Received Text: 35 – 96 AD
4. The Syriac Received Text: 120 – 180 AD
5. The Latin Received Text: 140 – 500 AD
6. The German Received Text: 1520 – 1600 AD
7. The English Received Text: 1525 – 1611 AD

The Help Through Hope website uses a seven-fold division with the same languages (above, though with some differences in order and dating).

Afterward, they posit the purification of the Scriptures in English is seven-fold also:

1. The Gothic
2. The Anglo-Saxon
3. The Pre-Wycliffe
4. The Wycliffe
5. The Tyndale/Coverdale/Great/Geneva
6. The Bishops
7. The King James Bible

The English Bible’s seven-fold purification in the above list is equivalent to that proposed by the popular author Gail Riplinger.

In two “Line Upon Line” lessons (Gathering Into One and Standing for Purity), Matthew Verschuur spells out the seven times without (prior to), and within the King James Bible.

When the King James Bible was translated, their instructions were to follow the following versions:

1. Tyndale’s (1525, 1534),
2. Matthew’s (1537),
3. Coverdale’s (1535),
4. The Great (1539),
5. The Geneva (1560),
6. The Bishops’ (1568).

The Scripture which indicates seven times of purification can also be applied to the editions of the King James Bible. There are seven major editions. They are:

1. The First 1611,
2. The Second 1611,
3. The 1613,
4. The 1629,
5. The 1638,
6. The 1769,
7. The Pure Cambridge Edition from around 1900.

Summarized, the most common theories seem to be:

1. The King James Bible is the seventh major translation into major world languages.
2. The King James Bible is the seventh major early English translation.
3. The King James Bible itself has gone through a seven-fold purification process.

Many seem to see these three theories as complementary rather than exclusive.

Would the idea that purified seven times in Psalm 12:6 is a prophecy that must be fulfilled mean that: 

1. the Bible translated into each language must eventually have a seven times translation process (of some sort) in order to be the pure word of God? 
2. the Bible in the English language only, specifically the King James Bible, is the pure word of God?

I know there are those who believe No. 2. I am not sure how many arrive at the No. 1 position.

Psalm 12:6 says “The words of the Lord are pure words.”  They in the past and in the present are pure. They always have been pure. They always will be pure. Psalm 12:6 does not say “The words of the Lord have been, are, or will be purified seven times.” “Purified seven times” modifies “silver” rather than “words.” Then the figure of speech (beginning with “as”) suggests by analogy a similarity of the purity of an observable temporal process (silver) with an eternal spiritual force (words of the Lord). Silver – intensely, expertly, and purposefully purified – gives us a manner of comparison to the word of God, which is pure always and forever. See Psalm 119:89. (Note that both “tried” and “purified” both grammatically modify “silver.” Only by the extension of the simile do they relate to “The words of the Lord.”) I am suggesting to us, then, that we interpret the meaning of Psalm 12:6 by what the King James Bible says rather than what people say about the King James Bible.

While I know good solid Christians who hold the idea of the Bible being purified seven times, this seems to me—boiled down to its essence—actually to be a “low” view of the Bible and its preservation rather than a high one. I cannot get around the fact that, though it may not mean to, this theory actually denies that God preserved his word to all generations.

1 John 2:23

1 John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

In a blog post last November, I asserted that “it is past time that publishers remove the italics in 1 John 2:23 in new printings of the King James Bible. They are unnecessary, and the generally understood meaning of italics in the King James translation makes their presence here in 1 John 2:23 confusing.”

In this post I am primarily reproducing the same material, simply making a stand-alone post just on 1 John 2:23. Because of what we have been told about italics, when a person reads 1 John 2:23 in the King James Bible with an entire clause in italics, a solemn question arises in the reader’s mind. If the words in italics are those added by the translators simply to make a sentence clear (i.e., read correctly in the target language), how could they have added an entire clause?

The King James translators did not create the second half of 1 John 2:23 out of thin air, or from “implied” words. If you check English translations, the majority also have this clause. Early church writers mention it, and it is in Greek manuscripts.

The King James New Testament translation is based on what we call the Greek Textus Receptus. Some differences existed in this verse in Greek manuscripts and even in the TR tradition.

The 1519 Desiderius Erasmus and 1550 Robert Stephanus Greek New Testaments have the following as Ιωαννου Α 2:23 -

πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον, ουδε τον πατερα εχει.

On the other hand, the 1598 Theodore Beza New Testament has the following for Ιωαννου Α 2:23 -

Πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον, ουδε τον πατερα εχει ο ομολογων τον υιον, και τον πατερα εχει.

The Latin in Beza’s New Testament reads, “Quisquis negat Filium, nec Patrem habet: qui profitetur Filium, etiam Patrem habet.” Beza’s Greek and Latin texts may be translated to read “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; [but] whoever confesses the Son has also the Father,”or, in other words, as the King James Bible has it, “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.”

Beza gives the following explanation concerning verse 23:

qui profitetur, ο ομολογων Restitui in Graecis hoe membrum ex quatuor manuser codicum, veteris Latini, & Syri interpretis auctoritate sic etiam affeuto Ioanne istis oppositionibus contrariorum uti quam saepissime. Vide Matth. 10:32.

Beza explains (translated into English, however poorly I may have done so):

“Whosoever confesses,” I restored to the Greek this statement on the authority of four Greek manuscripts, [and] consulting versions of the old Latin and Syriac. John, who was fond of these opposites, used them as often as possible. See Matthew 10:32.

In his explanation, Beza refers to external and internal evidence – Greek manuscripts and John’s typical style of writing.

The King James translators’ use of distinguishing type in the concluding clause of I John 2:23 indicates that they were following a minority TR reading in this verse (which they believed was the correct reading). Distinguishing this clause demonstrates their careful attention to detail in order to accurately convey what they were doing. However, the italics in modern King James printings of the Bible do not convey the intent of the translators to the reader. In modern times readers assume it means a few words added to complete the meaning and smooth out the translation in the target language. Therefore, I conclude the removal of the italics would better serve the modern reader and avoid confusion.

Bible preservation and Deism

It sadly has become quite popular in supposedly conservative Christian circles to claim that God’s inspired word has been preserved by natural causes no differently than the words of Genghis Khan, Hugo Grotius, or John Gill. Notice William W. Combs in the “The Preservation of Scripture” (pp. 9-10):

“…the preservation of Scripture is not different in method from any other ancient book God has determined to preserve, as, for example, Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic War—both Scripture and Caesar’s work have been preserved providentially, by secondary causation, by essentially ordinary human means.”

Harry A. Sturz, in The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism (p. 38), wrote, “God…was under no special or logical obligation to see that man did not corrupt it.” Others like Daniel Wallace and Edward Glenny go further than Combs. For example, Wallace says, “I don’t hold to the doctrine of preservation.” The essential difference of Wallace and Combs is not in the historical process or end result, but rather the unwillingness or willingness to attach any theological significance to preservation (i.e., as a “doctrine”). Combs writes: “…we must distinguish between belief in a doctrine of preservation and, simply, belief in preservation” (pp. 6-7). It seems to me that the natural and incidental view of the preservation of Scripture has superseded the providential and supernatural view as the mainstream position among the conservative evangelical classes. Regretfully, we have allowed many foreign ideas to flood in and water down our once strongly-held absolute support of an inspired, infallible, and preserved Bible.

While listening to Jeff Riddle’s presentation on biblical preservation (How Has God Preserved His Word? at the 2023 Trinity and Text Conference of the Trinitarian Bible Society), something struck me about the natural view of the preservation of Scripture. It seems somewhat akin to Deism. In the religious theology or philosophical position of Deism, the Creator does not intervene or interfere in human affairs. In the naturalistic view of preservation, the Creator does not affect or intervene in the history of the transmission of his inspired word.

I meditated on this from my own standpoint as a sometimes “creator” of written records. Unlike God, I obviously cannot produce an errorless and infallible document. However, in the course of its transmission I take an interest in it. I try to correct any errors I find. When and where able, do not leave it to its own devices. When I find an error online, I correct it. If it is something in print, if able, I will correct when I reprint. On the other hand, we are led by the naturalistic and incidental view to accept that God is either disinterested or powerless in the face of the historical transmission of his word – or both! He does not care or is not able to care? Who can believe it?

Does not God rather by his infinite power and wisdom uphold, direct, dispose, and govern not only the inspiration, but also the preservation, of his Scripture by his wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge and the free and immutable counsel of His own will: to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, infinite goodness, and mercy.

Some mopping up on Matthew 27:9

In looking over the Jeremiah/Zechariah issue in Matthew 27:9, I noticed there are a great number of attempts to explain why “Jeremiah” is in that verse. Some fall within a reasonable attempt to understand the problem within the biblical inspiration and providential preservation. Others are outside the realm of consistency with these Bible doctrines. Here are 10 different suggestions.

1. The book of Jeremiah was first in the prophetic scroll, and sometimes the works in that scroll were referenced by the name of the first book. (Jeff Riddle, David Kimhi, et al.)
2. The prophecy began by Jeremiah (Jer. 18:1-6; 19:1-2, 10-12) was concluded by Zechariah (Zech. 11:12-13). (J. W. Griffith, et al.)
3. Matthew quoted from memory and got either the name of the prophet and text wrong, or both. (For example, Alfred Plummer writes, “A slip of memory is much more probable.”)
4. The prophecy is found in a lost writing or traditional saying of Jeremiah.
5. Jewish scribes tampered with the text of Jeremiah, removing the prophecy from Jeremiah’s writing.
6. The last three chapters in the book of Zechariah( 9-11) were written by Jeremiah. (Mede, et al.)
7. Jeremiah prophesied it, but did not write it down; Zechariah later wrote it down.
8. It was so written to teach us that all prophecies spring from one source, the Holy Spirit. (Augustine of Hippo, Christopher Wordsworth)
9. It is a copying error; a scribe added Jeremiah in the place of “Zechariah” or “the prophet.”
10. Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and later translated in Greek. The translator mistook Jeremiah for Zechariah, creating an error in this place.

This list is merely for informational purposes. Many of these explanations are obviously anti-biblical – from a standpoint of believing that the Bible is inspired, infallible, inerrant, and providentially preserved. I do not endorse or recommend them. See Tuesday’s post for what I see as the best understanding of Matthew 27:9.

More Matthew 27:9

Some comments of others on Matthew 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

Tertullian (ca 155-ca 220). Against Marcion, Book IV:

“And without a price might He have been betrayed. For what need of a traitor was there in the case of one who offered Himself to the people openly, and might quite as easily have been captured by force as taken by treachery? This might no doubt have been well enough for another Christ, but would not have been suitable in One who was accomplishing prophecies. For it was written, ‘The righteous one did they sell for silver.’ The very amount and the destination of the money, which on Judas’ remorse was recalled from its first purpose of a fee, and appropriated to the purchase of a potter’s field, as narrated in the Gospel of Matthew, were clearly foretold by Jeremiah: ‘And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him who was valued and gave them for the potter’s field.’”

Augustine of Hippo (354-430). The Harmony of the Gospels, Book III: 

“How, then, is the matter to be explained, but by supposing that this has been done in accordance with the more secret counsel of that providence of God by which the minds of the evangelists were governed? For it may have been the case, that when Matthew was engaged in composing his Gospel, the word Jeremiah occurred to his mind, in accordance with a familiar experience, instead of Zechariah. Such an inaccuracy, however, he would most undoubtedly have corrected (having his attention called to it, as surely would have been the case, by some who might have read it while he was still alive in the flesh), had he not reflected that perhaps it was not without a purpose that the name of the one prophet had been suggested instead of the other in the process of recalling the circumstances (which process of recollection was also directed by the Holy Spirit), and that this might not have occurred to him had it not been the Lord’s purpose to have it so written. If it is asked, however, why the Lord should have so determined it, there is this first and most serviceable reason, which deserves our most immediate consideration, namely, that some idea was thus conveyed of the marvelous manner in which all the holy prophets, speaking in one spirit, continued in perfect unison with each other in their utterances,—a circumstance certainly much more calculated to impress the mind than would have been the case had all the words of all these prophets been spoken by the mouth of a single individual. The same consideration might also fitly suggest the duty of accepting unhesitatingly whatever the Holy Spirit has given expression to through the agency of these prophets, and of looking upon their individual communications as also those of the whole body, and on their collective communications as also those of each separately. If, then, it is the case that words spoken by Jeremiah are really as much Zechariah’s as Jeremiah’s, and, on the other hand, that words spoken by Zechariah are really as much Jeremiah’s as they are Zechariah’s, what necessity was there for Matthew to correct his text when he read over what he had written, and found that the one name had occurred to him instead of the other? Was it not rather the proper course for him to bow to the authority of the Holy Spirit, under whose guidance he certainly felt his mind to be placed in a more decided sense than is the case with us, and consequently to leave untouched what he had thus written, in accordance with the Lord’s counsel and appointment, with the intent to give us to understand that the prophets maintain so complete a harmony with each other in the matter of their utterances that it becomes nothing absurd, but, in fact, a most consistent thing for us to credit Jeremiah with a sentence originally spoken by Zechariah? For if, in these days of ours, a person, desiring to bring under our notice the words of a certain individual, happens to mention the name of another by whom the words were not actually uttered, but who at the same time is the most intimate friend and associate of the man by whom they were really spoken; and if forthwith recollecting that he has given the one name instead of the other, he recovers himself and corrects the mistake, but does it nevertheless in some such way as this, ‘After all, what I said was not amiss;’ what would we take to be meant by this, but just that there subsists so perfect a unison of sentiment between the two parties—that is to say, the man whose words the individual in question intended to repeat, and the second person whose name occurred to him at the time instead of that of the other—that it comes much to the same thing to represent the words to have been spoken by the former as to say that they were uttered by the latter? How much more, then, is this a usage which might well be understood and most particularly commended to our attention in the case of the holy prophets, so that we might accept the books composed by the whole series of them, as if they formed but a single book written by one author, in which no discrepancy with regard to the subjects dealt with should be supposed to exist, as none would be found, and in which there would be a more remarkable example of consistency and veracity than would have been the case had a single individual, even the most learned, been the enunciator of all these sayings? Therefore, while there are those, whether unbelievers or merely ignorant men, who endeavor to find an argument here to help them in demonstrating a want of harmony between the holy evangelists, men of faith and learning, on the other hand, ought rather to bring this into the service of proving the unity which characterizes the holy prophets.”

Matthew Poole (1624-1679):

“spoken by Jeremy the prophet is a harder knot. It is observable that Zechariah hath many things found in Jeremiah, and it is not improbable that the very same thing was prophesied by Jeremiah, though afterward repeated by Zechariah, and only in the writings of Zechariah left upon sacred record.”

John Gill (1697-1771):

“But what seems best to solve this difficulty, is, that the order of the books of the Old Testament is not the same now, as it was formerly: the sacred writings were divided, by the Jews, into three parts: the first was called the law, which contains the five books of Moses; the second, the prophets, which contains the former and the latter prophets; the former prophets began at Joshua, and the latter at Jeremy; the third was called Cetubim, or the Hagiographa, the holy writings, which began with the book of Psalms: now, as this whole third and last part is called the Psalms, Luke 24:44, because it began with that book; so all that part which contained the latter prophets, for the same reason, beginning at Jeremy, might be called by his name; hence a passage, standing in the prophecy of Zechariah, who was one of the latter prophets, might be justly cited, under the name of Jeremy. That such was the order of the books of the Old Testament, is evident from the following passage:

“‘it is a tradition of our Rabbins, that the order of the prophets is, Joshua and Judges, Samuel and the Kings, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve.’” (a) T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 14. 2. Vid. Praefat. R. David Kimchici in Jer.

Adam Clarke (1760-1832):

“It was an ancient custom among the Jews, says Dr. Lightfoot, to divide the Old Testament into three parts: the first beginning with the law was called THE LAW; the second beginning with the Psalms was called THE PSALMS; the third beginning with the prophet in question was called JEREMIAH: thus, then, the writings of Zechariah and the other prophets being included in that division that began with Jeremiah, all quotations from it would go under the name of this prophet. If this be admitted, it solves the difficulty at once. Dr. Lightfoot quotes Baba Bathra, and Rabbi David Kimchi's preface to the prophet Jeremiah, as his authorities; and insists that the word Jeremiah is perfectly correct as standing at the head of that division from which the evangelist quoted, and which gave its denomination to all the rest.”

Albert Barnes (1798-1870):

“Much difficulty has been experienced in explaining this quotation. In ancient times, according to the Jewish writers, ‘Jeremiah’ was reckoned the first of the prophets, and was placed first in the ‘Book of the Prophets,’ thus: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve minor prophets. Some have thought that Matthew, quoting this place, quoted the Book of the Prophets under the name of that which had the ‘first’ place in the book, that is, Jeremiah; and though the words are those of Zechariah, yet they are quoted correctly as the words of the Book of the Prophets, the first of which was Jeremiah…Others have supposed that the words were ‘spoken by Jeremiah,’ and that ‘Zechariah’ recorded them, and that Matthew quoted them as they were – the words of Jeremiah.”

John Albert Broadus (1827-1895):

“Hengstenberg thinks that as the later prophets often reproduce earlier predictions, so Zech. was here really reproducing Jer. 18:2 and 19:2, and Matt. intentionally refers to the original source, though adopting mainly the later form…On the whole the last seems the most nearly satisfactory theory; but some of the other are possible, even plausible. If not quite content with any of these explanations, we had better leave the question as it stands, remembering how slight an unknown circumstance might solve it in a moment…”

 Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892):

“Even the disposal of the thirty pieces of silver fulfilled an ancient prophecy. The dark sayings of the prophets as well as their brighter utterances shall all be proved to be true as, one by one, they come to maturity.”

Herman Hanko:

“The truth of Scripture’s infallibility does not rest on our ability to solve problems created by this passage—and others like it. The proof of Scripture’s infallibility rests on the testimony of Scripture itself and the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers (John 10:35; 17:17)… we are not going to examine the text to find out whether Scripture is infallible or fallible. We are going to assume, before even beginning to examine the text, that Scripture is infallible and contains no mistakes. Whether we find a satisfactory answer or not makes no difference… There is an explanation offered by James Montgomery Boice, which seems to me to be the true solution. Boice writes, ‘The verses [in Zechariah] are not about a person who betrays the Messiah, and they say nothing about buying a field. On the other hand, Jeremiah 19 describes a symbolic action in which Jeremiah buys and then breaks a potter’s jar, symbolizing the destruction of the nation, and chapter 32 describes the purchase of a field ... The best explanation is probably that Matthew was putting together a number of passages that add significance to the death of Jesus’ false but well-known disciple Judas. The reference to Jeremiah 19 seemed appropriate because it refers to ‘innocent blood’ and because the place where the prophet broke the jar would eventually be used as a burial ground for those who were to die in the siege of Jerusalem. The reference to Zechariah and his role as a shepherd of the people adds the ideas of the rejection of Jesus as the true shepherd of the flock, his being valued at the price of a mere slave, and the betrayal money being cast into the temple.’”

Jeff Riddle:

“Matthew 27:9 was not considered a controversial matter in the days of early Christianity. As Metzger put it, the traditional text was ‘firmly established,’ and it raised no serious questions about the infallibility of Scripture.

“We can safely assume this same pre-critical posture in our generation.

“In the end, the most reasonable explanation as to why the reference is given in Matthew 27:9 to Jeremiah when the quotes which follows is taken from Zechariah, is the fact that Matthew and his hearers would have been accustomed to making reference to the whole of the prophets by use of the name Jeremiah as a reference to the whole corpus of prophetic writings.”

Jeremiah and Zechariah and Matthew

Matthew 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

On Saturday am, June 3rd, Pastor Jeff Riddle posted Word Magazine 283, “An error in Matthew 27:9?” This is a nice discussion on what some folks claim is an error in Matthew 27:9 – that the name Jeremiah should be Zechariah instead. Brother Riddle concludes with an explanation and exoneration of Matthew. This video and presentation made me think of a similar explanation that was taught me by a former pastor, an historian and Old Testament scholar. Below I give an excerpt from his book Old Testament in Matthew. This is part of Lesson 48, “A Prophecy Runs Its Course.” Brother J. W. Griffith divides this lesson into three parts: (1) “Jeremiah Begins It” (with reference to Jeremiah 18:1-6; 19:1-2, 10-12), (2) “Zechariah Continues It” (with reference to Zechariah 11:12-13) and (3) “Matthew Proclaims Its Fulfillment” (with reference to Matthew 27:1-10). The explanation incorporates the view of Brother Riddle and others (a sort of synecdoche or metonymy, I suppose we might call it), additionally seeing that the gospel author Matthew by inspiration created a cento of passages from Jeremiah and Zechariah. Brother Griffith writes:

“Zechariah Continues It, Zech. 11:12-13.”

“Prophetic Connections. The reference on which this lesson is based is found in Matthew 27:9-10. It is introduced with the words, ‘Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet,’ etc. It continues to record the prophecy of Zechariah 11:12-13. Various attempts have been made to explain this seeming mistake. The best seems to be that which has the prophecy beginning with that of Jeremiah, concerning the potter and the wheel and the broken vessel. Some authorities explain that the prophecy of Jeremiah was the first in a scroll which included the prophecy of Zechariah. It was commonly referred to as ‘Jeremiah,’ much as the first five books of the Bible are sometimes called ‘Moses’ and the Psalms ‘David.’

“If it is admitted that Matthew made a mistake in attributing the quotation to Jeremiah the divine inspiration of the Scriptures might be put in doubt. The Jews divided their Scriptures into the Law, Prophets, and Psalms. Several books were included in each of these divisions. Often there were scrolls which might contain one book, or several. The explanation above would account for the fact that Matthew referred to the scroll of ‘Jeremiah,’ including Zechariah. 

“The prophecies of Jeremiah, chapters 18 and 19, contain things clearly pertinent to the events around the Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of Jesus, his subsequent remorse, suicide, and burial. Thus they are clearly joined with what Zechariah prophesied a few hundred years later. The prophecy of the potter’s field had its beginning with Jeremiah and was added to by Zechariah.

“Jeremiah’s prophesying coincided with the fall of Jerusalem and the departure of the Jewish remnant into the captivity of Babylon. This was the early fulfillment of what he had told them about the marred vessel on the potter’s wheel and the broken vessel in the Valley of the son of Hinnom. Zechariah’s prophesying coincided with the return of the Jewish remnant from the Babylonian captivity and their attempts to re-establish themselves in the land of Judah.

“The re-establishment of the Jews was to prepare the land and the people for the birth of Jesus and His ministry. The Jews then living would treat their Messiah badly put Him to death. Zechariah foretold many things about this, some of which have been studied in the foregoing lessons of this book. When the Lord had Matthew to record the ministry and atonement of Jesus, the Son of Man, these prophecies were at another point of fulfillment. Matthew gospel seems to have been directly written for the Jews, and these things from the prophecies of Jeremiah and Zechariah were most pertinent to those things about which he wrote.”

James Wyatt Griffith, Old Testament in Matthew: Volume II, Pasadena, TX: White’s Printing, 1997, pp. 225-226.

Note: Gill, Lightfoot, and other commentators point to Bava Batra and Radak (David Kimchi) describing the Jewish practice of identifying a scroll by the name of the first book in the scroll. For example: “The Sages taught: The order of the books of the Prophets when they are attached together is as follows: Joshua and Judges, Samuel and Kings, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and Isaiah and the Twelve Prophets.” Bava Batra 14b.8.  Tertullian, who lived around AD 155-225, refers to this verse in his writing Against Marcion (Book IV), mentioning without comment that the event was foretold by Jeremiah. Augustine of Hippo, writing possibly two hundred later in his Harmony of the Gospels, Book III, gives a long, odd (to me), and somewhat tedious explanation of the correctness of the prophet Jeremiah in Matthew 27:9. While I am not sure I even understood some of what Augustine wrote, I agree with his basic premise: “this has been done in accordance with the more secret counsel of that providence of God by which the minds of the evangelists were governed.” It is not an error. Additionally, Matthew does not strictly follow the prophet’s words – that is, as a quote. Rather he follows the prophet’s sense – that is, an allusion to it – which Matthew shows to be fulfilled on this occasion.

Which art, and wast, and shalt be

It seemed to me that the discovery of Beza’s reference to a manuscript with εσομενος (and shalt be) was rather recent. However, German Reformed Protestant theologian David Pareus was aware of it. (Of course, anyone who had read the Latin annotations in Theodore Beza’s 1598 New Testament would have known it, but discussion of this nevertheless seems recent.)

O Lord which art] Sundry times before the true God, yea Christ is thus described: (* see Beza’s annotations on this place) save that in stead of καὶ ἐρχόμενος which is to come (before used) here it is ὁ ἐσόμενος who shalt be (as Beza hath brought to light out of an ancient maniscript) though it commonly be read, καὶ ὁ ὅσιος and holy, as cohering with the foregoing word δίκαιος ὁ ὅσιος righteous, as if he should say, Thou art righteous & holy, that is, pure from all unrighteousnesse. Let us learn therefore rather to adore Gods holy judgements, although we do not fully comprehend the causes of them, then to repine and murmurre against them as being unrighteous.

A Commentary upon the Divine Revelation of the Apostle and Evangelist, Iohn by David Pareus (1548–1622), (translated out of the Latin into English, by Elias Arnold), Amsterdam: Printed by C.P., 1644, p.384

One fold and one shepherd

John 10:16

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

και αλλα προβατα εχω α ουκ εστιν εκ της αυλης ταυτης κακεινα με δει αγαγειν και της φωνης μου ακουσουσιν και γενησεται μια ποιμνη εις ποιμην

There is a modern complaint that “one fold” in John 10:16 is an error or mistranslation. Older commentators, who understood language as well as any of us (e.g. Barnes, Calvin, Clarke, Gill, Henry), do not suggest “fold” is somehow in error here. In more modern times, among modern translators and commentators, it has become popular to accuse the translators of making an error John 10:16. Scottish commentator William Barclay writes:

“In the Authorized Version there is a mistranslation. It has: ‘There shall be one fold and one shepherd.’ That mistranslation goes back to Jerome and the Vulgate. And on that mistranslation the Roman Catholic Church has based the teaching that, since there is only one fold, there can only be one Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and that, outside it there is no salvation.”[i]

Not only does Barclay claim this is a mistranslation, he also assigns a motive for the mistranslation. Consider, in contrast, that the 1560 Geneva Bible translates ποιμνη as sheepfold in John 10:16. The English churchmen who translated the 1560 Geneva Bible had fled the country to Geneva during the reign of Roman Catholic Mary I (Bloody Mary). They most certainly were not trying to bolster Roman Catholic assumptions. No, common sense indicates they thought that to be the correct translation.[ii]

With the anti-movement against the KJV or KJVO, verses such as John 10:16 have provided a handy polemic for the naysayers. It is rather easy to point out that ποιμνη is usually translated “flock.” No dissent from that is allowed. It must always be translated flock (according to them) – that way, they do not have to discuss particulars, and will not lose one of their anti-KJV armaments.

It is perhaps their own problem that creates a problem – not understanding as much about language as they assert, though setting themselves up as authorities.[iii] Our English words have a range of meaning, and the semantic range of “flock” and “fold” have a significant overlap! Those who complain of this translation, or find it has to be an error, show a lack of knowledge of the range of meaning of these words. This can be seen, for example, in A Dictionary of the English Language by Samuel Johnson (1709-1784). There we find:

“1. The ground in which sheep are confined…2. The place where sheep are housed…3. The flock of sheep…”

As we begin to look at the definitions of “fold” (p. 827), we see fold can and does mean the flock as well as the enclosure of the flock.

Further, one does not even have to dig back into musty 1700s dictionaries to find this! Notice that the modern online Dictionary.com has:

“1. an enclosure for sheep or, occasionally, other domestic animals; 2. the sheep kept within it; 3. a flock of sheep.”

Fold in fact carries the idea of “a flock of sheep” in its range of meaning. The naysayers say ποιμνη is a flock. A fold is a flock (in its range of meaning, and in this context).[iv] How can someone say this is a mistranslation? They cannot, honestly and knowledgeably. No, it is a translation they may not prefer, but it is not a mistranslation. I am surprised that the haymakers have made so much hay out of so little grass.[v] Perhaps we have too long failed to check within the bale for the void.

---

[i] The Gospel of John, Volume 2, William Barclay, Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1955 (p. 65 in the 1975 Westminster Press printing).
[ii] The translation fold is also found in the Great Bible, 1557 Geneva NT, and Bishops Bible.
[iii] Possibly not also understanding so much about sheep and shepherds.
[iv] In “Translators to the Reader,” Miles Smith explains, “An other thing we thinke good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that wee have not tyed our selves to an uniformitie of phrasing, or to an identitie of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men some where, have beene as exact as they could that way.”
[v] For example, in his book The Unbound Scriptures, Rick Norris makes a page of hay with John 10:16 either without ever bothering to check the semantic range of the word “fold,” or without caring.