1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

New Mathew Bible, October Testament

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by robycop3, Jun 25, 2019.

  1. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This version is a remake of the New Testament Mathew Bible of 1535, in modern English & spelling. I've read a smattering of it. Has anyone here read it completely, and can offer an opinion of it?
     
  2. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    15,891
    Likes Received:
    1,236
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Changed "Easter lambe" to "Passover lamb." Throwing out an important piece of its history. And the post resurrection reason for the KJ V Acts of the Apostles 12:4, keeping "Easrer."
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We've had the "Easter" thingie discussed ad nauseam & the fact remains it's a GOOF in the KJV's Acts 12:4. And in reality, there never was an "Ester lambe". That's simply archaic usage. Thus, Davis modernized it into TODAY'S usage.
     
  4. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    15,891
    Likes Received:
    1,236
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Tyndale when he traslated the Greek, the English name of that Christian observance was Easter at that time he did the translaton from the Greek. When Tyndale translated the Hebrew he invented the word "passover."
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And that's why the KJV goofed when it called passover "Easter". That definition no longer applied then, and that's why the October Testament says 'passover' as well.
     
  6. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'd never heard of it until seeing your post here, so I haven't read it, and can't offer much opinion on it. My first thought was why an update of this particular Bible. To me I would find it more interesting as an historic English Bible rather than a revision, however lightly done. The fact that they revised it suggests someone thinks it should be a primary Bible. I searched online and found the site for The October Testament (New Matthew Bible – New Testament). The bottom of that page has this information:
    On another page they give some of the thinking behind producing this revision:
    "it brings needed light where winds of false doctrine have obscured God’s truth" suggests to me that they think it favors some pet doctrine they have. I may be wrong. I have been before.

    As noted in the first quote above, the New Matthew Bible is now on Bible Gateway. I had not noticed this before.
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thanx for your responses so far!
     
  8. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    15,891
    Likes Received:
    1,236
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It was not a goof. Tyndal translation of the Greek NT, in English, that observance was known only as Easter. So it was transalated. When Tyndal translated the Hebrew OT, it is said, he at that time invented our word "Passover" for the Hebrew, which in the Greek he had used for the English translated as Easter. So the thinking became for the KJV is before Christ's resurection to be called Passover and afterwords, Easter, Acts of the Apostles 12:4.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, it's a GOOF !

    The AV makers plainly knew Easter & passover apart, as they placed an "Easter-Finder" within the AV 1611. The AV men copied some of their work from the Geneva and Bishop's versions, and they evidently missed Acts 12:4 in their proofreading. The interchangeability of Easter & pascha was history by the time the AV was made.

    So, the October Edition is correct in reading 'passover' in Acts 12:4.
     
  10. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    15,891
    Likes Received:
    1,236
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What is your historical source for your ". . . evidently missed . . ." claim? << Only sinse the 19th century, the best I can tell. << Got any source earlier making that claim? Now the Geneva Bible of 1599 did translate all references correctly as passover. Now Miles Coverdale when he had the completed Bible printed 1535, not knowing Hebrew, and for what ever reason, missing Tyndale's translation of "passover" in the OT rendered Easter throughout. The Great Bible of 1539 kept Easter in Ezekiel 45:21, and rendered it "Ester" without the "a" in Acts 12:4. The Bishops' Bible 1568, 1572, 1602 kept Easter in John 11:55 and Acts 12:4.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    According to a rabbi I consulted, the Jews themselves quickly adopted the term "passover" in English for the p'sach. And the evidence is, the Geneva Bible used passover for pascha. And, of course, the KJV uses passover for the other 28 appearances, which speax volumes.

    Some things, such as the doctrine of the Holy trinity, are self-evident. The AV makers plainly knew the difference between passover & easter, as they placed an "Easter-Finder" in the AV 1611, & considered Easter and Christmas as the 2 holiest days of the year. And it's pretty evident that those men simply overlooked a booboo in Acts 12:4, as the context plainly shows Luke was referring to PASSOVER.
     
    #11 robycop3, Jul 4, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2019
  12. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If the KJV translators' notes at BibleHub are reliable, it cannot be accurate to describe the use of Easter in Acts 12:4 as something overlooked or a proofreading error. Disagree with its use if you choose, but their note that Easter is Passover indicates it was not overlooked.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. Jerome

    Jerome Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    9,788
    Likes Received:
    698
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, many of us have learned to look for ourselves rather than relying on folksy 'pronouncements' or selective 'word lists' regarding early English Bibles' content.

    Look in the Geneva Bible, one published just before the KJB, and you'll see that the Passover / Easter / Feast of Unleavened Bread were being used as synonyms:

    1606 Geneva Bible, p. 240
    passover deut gen1606 - Copy (2).jpg

    1606 Geneva Bible, p. 148
    passover exodus gen1606 - Copy (2).jpg

    Same thing as above can be seen on pp. 84 & 202 here:

    1599 Geneva Bible | Monergism
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,205
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    According to a digital reproduction of the 1611 "He" edition of the KJV, this note at Acts 12:4 is not found in it.

    It may come from some other later 1600's edition of the KJV, and thus may not be a note of the KJV translators themselves. It is found in a London edition of the KJV printed in 1660, and I am not aware of it being in any earlier edition. There were also some later 1600's editions of the KJV that were printed with the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible.

    There is also some historical evidence from the 1600's that indicates that the majority of the KJV translators may not have been responsible for the rendering “Easter” at Acts 12:4. Instead they likely may have put the Geneva Bible’s rendering “Passover" in the text that they prepared. Just as the KJV translators changed the Bishops’ Bible’s two other uses of “Easter” at John 11:55 to “Passover,” they may have also changed this third use in it at Acts 12:4.

    Whiston indicated that a great prelate, the chief supervisor of the KJV, inserted “Easter” back into the text of the KJV at this verse as one of the 14 changes he was said to have made (Life, p. 49). In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,” Thomas Hill also noted that Acts 12:4 “was another place that was altered (as you have heard) to keep up that holy time of Easter, as they would think it” (Six Sermons, p. 25). In his 1727 book, John Currie maintained that at “Acts 12:4 in which place we have Easter, whereas it is the Passover according to the Original, this might be to favor their holy time of Easter, or an Easter communion” (Jus Populi Divinum, p. 38).
     
    #14 Logos1560, Jul 4, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    15,891
    Likes Received:
    1,236
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In an exhaustive listing of the original 1611 margin notes there is no note for Acts 12:4.
    An exhaustive listing of the marginal notes of the 1611 edition of the King James Bible | Literatura Bautista
     
  16. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    At any rate, it's still incorrect.
     
  17. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    15,891
    Likes Received:
    1,236
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Two things about this. First, prior to Tyndal it was not translated from the Greek as Easter. And in English it was tranliterated from the Latin as pask by Wycliffe. Second, prior toTyndal it was not translated Passover. Tyndal created that word for his translation from the Hebrew.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Somewhere years ago I read Tyndal coined passover to make sure it was separated from Easter, one of the 2 holiest days of the year(the other being Christmas) to Protestant & Catholic alike, but not to Jews. Because Jesus' death & resurrection occurred during Passover Week, the two events were intertwined for awhile.

    Passover was given only to Israel, as they were the ones who were "passed over" by God's destroyer, and who "passed over" the Red Sea, while Easter was invented by man & is observed by Christians of all races & nations.
     
  19. Conan

    Conan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2019
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    314
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Here is some information from Bible Gateway. New Matthew Bible (NMB) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com

    Version Information


    The New Matthew Bible is the only ‘modern’ Bible which is not.

    This is the New Testament of William Tyndale, his final revision of 1535, now gently updated. It is not a new translation. It is William Tyndale’s work made understandable for today with the light editorial touch of Ruth Magnusson Davis.

    This New Testament was first published in the 1537 Matthew Bible by a friend of Tyndale, his fellow Englishman John Rogers, who also added chapter summaries and commentaries. Rogers’ historic summaries are included here. (Baruch House has published a print version of the New Testament as The October Testament, which also contains the commentaries.)

    Few people are aware that the Matthew Bible formed the base of the King James Version, but everyone will recognize the familiar language. Ruth has maintained Tyndale’s beautiful style and guarded the historic language of the faith. She has also been faithful to every detail. For example, ‘tribute’ is not changed to ‘tax,’ as modern Bibles have done in the Gospels and at Romans 13:6.

    ‘Tribute’ is a special levy paid to a foreign power for protection or as a sign of
    submission. ‘Tax’ is a more general word and suggests domestic payments. The Jews were required to pay tribute to Rome, a hated conqueror, from whom they hoped Messiah would deliver them. They did not want to hear that they should continue to pay it (Matthew 22:21, Romans 13:7). However, this teaching helps them (and us) understand not only that we should pay all lawful dues, but, more importantly, that the Messiah did not come to win political emancipation for the Jewish people. For his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). He is a spiritual redeemer to both Jew and Gentile, and came to win eternal life for everyone who would believe on his name. But this lesson is lost when the words and historical context are altered.

    Tyndale’s New Testament informs and feeds the Christian soul with sweet clarity and truth.

    More information about the Matthew Bible and the work of Baruch House Publishing is at:
     
  20. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thanks. I was trying to find something online since I didn't have access to my two KJV 1611 reprints at the time (which I checked later and there is no note in them either). I was a bit skeptical since I couldn't find that BibleHub gave their source. Thanks for clearing that up.

    It would be interesting to know if there were any handwritten annotations of translators re Acts 12:4 as has been made available for the gospels in The Coming of the King James Gospels by Allen and Jacobs.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
Loading...