Tag Archives: 1537 Matthew Bible

Did the Matthew Bible Teach That the Earth is Flat?

Posted on by Posted in History MB

Did the 1537 Matthew Bible teach that the earth is flat? Or did it teach that the world is round? In fact, both the phrases “flat earth” and “round world” occur in the Matthew Bible (as well as in other early English Bibles). See the following examples from the Old Testament:

2 Samuel 11:11 Uriah said unto David: the ark and Israel and Judah dwell in pavilions, and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord lie in tents upon the flat earth: and should I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink and to lie with my wife?

1 Samuel 2:8 The pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and he hath set the round world upon them.

Do these verses show that the Bible contradicted itself about the shape of the earth? No, not at all. The Matthew Bible never intended to say that the planet earth is flat, but did say that the world is round, by which was meant round as a globe. This point needs to be made, because it seems that the flat-earth movement is growing among Christians, and they believe the falsehood that the early Bibles said the earth is flat.

Recently, a fellow contacted me to share his research proving that the earth is flat. Through simplistic literalism, such as construing the pillars of 1 Samuel 2:8 as literal pillars, he has also concluded that the flat earth is stationary in space, not circling around the sun. Flat-earthers think that the early English Bibles taught these great truths, but the information was removed from later versions “for political reasons.”

But, as will be seen, the reverse is true: it is the truth about the round world which was removed from later versions.

The flat-earther sent me a link to a video talk with the image shown below from a 16th-century printing of 2 Samuel 11:11. The caption, which is not entirely visible, suggests that the circled words (“flatt erthe”) were “erased” from the text in order to conceal the great, now-lost truth that the earth is flat:

Flat-earthers believe in error that the Bible’s teaching about the flat earth was “erased” from early bibles.

The same flat-earther sent me a long meme with a list of Bible verses which, he claimed, support his beliefs:

Terrible bible exegesis to prove that the Bible says the earth is flat.

Experience proves that there can be no discussing the issues with flat-earthers. However, the rest of us should know what the early English Bibles actually said.

Summary of my conclusions

Before discussion, below is a summary of my conclusions:

1. The Matthew Bible did NOT teach that the earth is flat. The phrase “flat earth” in 2 Samuel 11:11 simply refers to the flat ground where Joab and his army were encamped; that is, ground that was flat as opposed to hilly or mountainous. It was not saying that our planet is flat as opposed to round. Many later Bibles put “open fields” here. This was not to hide the truth about the shape of the earth, but was a simple translation.

2. The Matthew Bible gave the full sense of the Hebrew noun tay-bale wherever it used the phrase “round world,” and thus showed that the earth is spherical or globular in shape. According to many authorities, tay-bale implies a spherical shape. (I realize the earth is not a perfect sphere, but is slightly flattened at the poles.)

3. Flat-earthers rely upon false histories (not to mention false science) to buttress their error. They accept a myth that is common among both Christians and non-Christians, whether or not they are flat-earthers, that the ancients believed the world was flat. They also think the Christian Church taught this for centuries, which is another myth. History shows that the Greeks confirmed millennia ago, through astronomical observation, that the world is a spherical orb, and many Christians of antiquity, including Bede and Thomas Aquinas, held to this view. Further, the Oxford English Dictionary shows an Anglo-Saxon quotation from 1300 which says the earth is “round as an apple” (seen below). The idea that the world is round was not new to the translators (or the readers) of the Matthew Bible.

A great discussion of what the ancients really believed is by Jonathan Sarfati in his article “Flat Earth Myth,” linked at the end of this blog post. Mr. Sarfati is a Jewish Christian and a director of the Institute for Creation Research.

The “flat earth” of 2 Samuel 11:11

To understand how “earth” was used in the Matthew Bible, we need to know that in the 16th century, people sometimes said “earth” where now we would say “ground.” See the following example from 1 Samuel 5:3 (note, “Dagon” mentioned in this verse was an idol set up in a pagan temple):

1 Samuel 5:3 And when [the people] of Ashdod were up in the morning, behold, Dagon lay [face-down] upon the earth before the ark of the Lord. And they took Dagon and set him in his place again.

Now we would say, “Dagon was lying face-down on the ground.” In the very next verse, in the same context, Tyndale used the word “ground,” which shows that this was indeed the sense:

1 Samuel 5:4 And when they were up early in the next morning, behold, Dagon lay [face-down] upon the ground before the ark of the Lord.

Below is a further example, this one from 2 Samuel. Here King David had just received news that all his sons were dead (though in fact only Amnon was dead):

2 Samuel 13:31 Then the king arose and tare his garments, and lay along on the earth.

This means, of course, that he lay along on the ground.

The sense “ground” was also the meaning at 2 Samuel 11:11, where the Matthew Bible had “flat earth.” It was describing the terrain where the army of Joab was encamped. The Hebrew word translated “ground” in this verse was saw-deh, which means “spread out,” just as any expanse of flat land appears spread out. See below how much more meaningful the verse is when updated to “ground.” In addition, I updated “flat” to “open,” as other Bibles have here. Also shown for comparison is the KJV rendering:

2 Samuel 11:11

1537 Matthew Bible Uriah said unto David: the ark and Israel and Judah dwell in pavilions: and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord lie in tents upon the flat earth: and should I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink and to lie with my wife?

Update, New Matthew Bible Uriah said to David, The ark and Israel and Judah dwell in temporary shelters, and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord lie in tents on the open ground, and should I then go into my house to eat and drink and lie with my wife?

1611 KJV And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife?

The adjective “flat” in verse 11 translates the Hebrew paw-neem, which literally means “face.” Now we would better say “open” because the point was that, as flat land, it was open and unsheltered. Uriah was saying that he would not go to the shelter of his own home while his fellow soldiers lay in tents outside on wide open ground.

But to the chief point, Uriah was certainly not saying in 2 Samuel 11:11 that Joab’s army lay in tents on a flat planet. That would be an irrelevant detail, and ridiculous.

“Round world” in the Matthew Bible and other early English Bibles

Some say the phrase “round world” does not in itself prove anything either for or against the flat-earthers, because both a flat disc and a sphere can be described as “round.” True, but the evidence is convincing that “round world” in the early English Bibles indicated a spherical shape. As mentioned, the English people had for many centuries known that the earth is a sphere, as are also other heavenly bodies. Below, from the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), are three sample quotations from ancient writings:

c1300 Ase an Appel þe eorþe is round. [= As an apple, the earth is round.]

1400 (▸a1325) In þe sune…Es a thing a[nd] thre thinges sere; A bodi rond, and hete and light. [= In the sun…is a thing and three things sure; a body round, and heat and light.]

1475 (▸1392) Heuene ys round in þe maner of a round spere in þe myddis of whiche hangiþ þe erþe. [= Heaven is round in the manner of a round sphere, in the midst of which hangs the earth.][1]

As mentioned, the Mathew Bible was not alone in describing the world as “round.” See the other two Reformation Bibles, Myles Coverdale’s of 1535 and the 1540 Great Bible:

1535 Coverdale, Psalm 18:15 The springs of waters were seen, and the foundations of the round world were discovered [uncovered] at thy chiding (O Lord) – at the blasting and breath of thy displeasure.

1540 Great Bible, Jeremiah 51:15 Yea, even the Lord of hosts, that with his power made the earth – with his wisdom prepared the round world, and with his discretion spread out the heavens.

We might ask, when was the adjective “round” removed from the verses we have seen? The removal first came in the 1560 Geneva Bible revision. I say “revision” because the Geneva Old Testament was not an original translation, but was actually a revision of the Great Bible.[2] Therefore, the editors must have intentionally removed the adjective “round” in the course of their reviews. Where I spot-checked the 1568 Bishops’ Bible, I saw that it had followed the Geneva version, even though the bishops were also working from the Great Bible (or, were supposed to be working from it). Therefore, they also must have intentionally removed “round.” Then the KJV, in its turn, also omitted it everywhere.

And so, it was actually the teaching about the round world that was erased from the Bible. I wonder how the flat-earthers would answer this, if they actually read the old Bibles and discovered the truth?

The Hebrew

In every instance where I found “round world” in the Matthew Bible, it was translating the Hebrew noun tay-bale (Strong’s #8398). Tay-bale is defined as follows in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT):

TWOT 835h תֵּבֵל têbêl, tay-bale’; world: First, the noun is employed to represent the global mass called earth, including the atmosphere or heavens (cf. Ps.89:12 [or 89:11]; II Sam 22:16; et al.). … In several passages the sense of têbêl as the globular earth in combination with its inhabitants is clearly observed.

We see that, according to TWOT, the idea that the earth is globe-shaped (“globular”) is implicit in the Hebrew. Strong and Gesenius indicate the same. Therefore, the question is not so much why “round world” is in the early Bibles, but why was it removed? In certain verses, the answer is that the revisers re-interpreted tay-bale to apply it to the inhabitants of the earth, and not to planet earth. (I discuss this in my paper, The Round World in the Matthew Bible, linked at the end.) This is another meaning of tay-bale, as TWOT indicates. However, this does not explain every change.

Perhaps, in those verses that relate to planet earth herself, the revisers did not agree on the meaning of the Hebrew. Some scholars say tay-bale does not indicate anything about the shape of the earth. I corresponded with a modern Hebraist who wrote to me (also mentioning the Latin in his argument),

The fact is, in some passages, TBL [tay-bale] is referring to the inhabitants of the world, and in others, it’s talking about the physical earth. But it’s never talking about the shape of the planet. Orbis or orbis terrarum was a common Latin word or phrase for the whole world. Lexicons explain that the ancients viewed the world as a “circular plane or disc.” The word orbis itself can mean ring or circle. I’ve never seen an indication of it meaning sphere.

However, since this scholar’s opinion, and that of the lexicons he uses, disagrees with other authorities, it cannot be definitive. Further, both he and his lexicons premise their limited definition of tay-bale on the myth that the ancients held to a flat earth. They seem to think that since the ancients believed the world was flat, therefore their language could not have contemplated a spherical earth. But since this premise is false, their conclusion is doubtful, and their definition of the Hebrew could, as a consequence, be incomplete. Furthermore, I have read authorities who say the Latin word orbis may indicate a sphere, contrary to this scholar’s statement. Therefore, I do not have confidence in his opinion.

When it comes to understanding the ancient languages, one must choose thoughtfully who to trust, because there is always disagreement. Further, Satan never rests from his work of confusing, obscuring, suppressing, and changing meanings. In many things, the early Reformers and original translators – William Tyndale, Myles Coverdale, and Martin Luther, whom God raised up to open his word to the world – prove most trustworthy.

As a final example, see Psalm 96:

Psalm 96:10 Tell it out among the heathen, that the Lord is king: and that it is he which [who] hath made the round world so fast, that it cannot be moved.

Concerning this psalm, flat-earthers think that the round world being “unmoveable” means it is stationary in space. They misunderstand the figurative speech, which concerns the stability of God’s creation under his almighty control.

Finally, I note also that the other Hebrew noun in the Old Testament which was sometimes translated “world” “or “earth” is eh-rets (Strong’s #776). Jonathan Sarfati wrote that eh-rets also implies “ball-shaped” (see page 6 of his article “Flat Earth Myth,” linked below). I was also interested to learn from a former Muslim that the Koran says the earth is egg shaped, not flat. The Koran draws from the Hebrew Old Testament, and Mohammed was informed, at least in some small part, by the Jews of his time. Perhaps they taught him that the Hebrew indicates the world has a spherical shape.

In conclusion, the first English translators, when they spoke of “the round world,” were capturing the full sense of the Hebrew noun tay-bale, in which the sense of roundness is implicit just as it is in our noun “globe.” Further, the knowledge of the shape of the earth was not new to them or to their audience any more than it would have been new to the ancient Israelites who read the Hebrew scriptures. It also makes sense that God’s word should convey this truth.

Therefore, the truth about what the old Bibles said is the opposite of what the flat-earthers claim: it was in fact clear teaching that the world is round which was removed from the Bible. And the irony is that this omission serves their purpose: it renders the Bible silent about the shape of the earth, so that they can then fill the silence with their false “proofs” that the Bible says the earth is flat.

Ruth Magnusson Davis, 2023

* * * * *

A deeper look at the issues, and a comparison with other Bibles to see what they did with some of the other “round world” verses, is in my paper posted on Academia.edu: The “Round World” in the Matthew Bible.

Here is the link to Jonathan Sarfati’s article Flat Earth Myth. In it, he shows what the ancients taught and believed about the shape of the earth.

[1] These quotations are from the online Oxford English Dictionary under “Round, adjective,” definition 2, accessed March 28, 2023. The definition is: “Having the form of a sphere; shaped like a ball, spherical; (also) more or less spherical in shape; globular.” The OED is only accessible to subscribers or through some libraries.

[2] The sources of the Geneva Bible are discussed in Part 2 of The Story of the Matthew Bible. There is also lots of information about other changes that later revisers made to the Bible in both parts 1 and 2 of The Story. The Matthew Bible (MB) formed the base of and was revised for the 1539 Great Bible, and then went on to be overlaid with more and more revisions in the Geneva Bible (GNV), Bishops’ Bible, and King James Version.

KWs Does the Bible teach that the earth is flat? Did the early bibles say that the earth is flat?

Principal Matters from the Matthew Bible: Abuses

Posted on by Posted in Principal Matters A

Researched and prepared by Ruth Magnusson Davis
Answers the question, What are abuses in the Church?

This post belongs to the series “Principal Matters from the 1537 Matthew Bible.” The purpose of the series is:

(1) To get to know the Table of Principal Matters in the Matthew Bible.
(2) To learn through bible studies from the Reformation.

“As the bees diligently do gather together sweet flowers, to make by natural craft the sweet honey, so have I done with the principal topics contained in the Bible.”

So began John Rogers’ introduction to the Table of Principal Matters in the 1537 Matthew Bible. The Table was a concordance at the front of the book. It set out bible topics in alphabetical order. Under each topic were statements of doctrine and bible verses for further study. This series proceeds topic by topic, following the order of the Table, and sets out the bible verses in full.

Topic: Abuses

Under this topic we see the importance of guarding against abuses in the church. What is meant by “abuses” becomes clear as the study progresses. It includes idolatry, sects, acceptance of fornicators, carelessness for the weak, following the precepts and doctrines of men, etc. Interestingly, we see that separation of church and state was not an ideal of the Reformers: kings and rulers should maintain Christian laws in the land, just as it was in Israel.

In England the king or queen was (and is) the constituted head of the Church of England, a national church. As such, he or she was responsible for the church’s well-being. This accounts for Rogers’ reference to Romans 13:4 under entry (1) below, concerning the rulers as ministers of God to correct abuses in the church — even though, when the apostle Paul wrote this epistle, the Roman rulers were not Christian rulers. Rogers had in mind the rulers of England (and other European countries) in his time. The authority of the British monarch was much stronger in the 16th century than it is now, and the national church occupied a more important and ubiquitous place in the public arena, so Rogers naturally gave responsibility for the church to the ruler under Romans 13:4. Nowadays, however, we in the west tend to apply this verse only to matters of personal or national security, as Paul also did, given the circumstances of his day.

Also, in entry (1) I believe Rogers used the term “church” at least partly in an obsolete way, meaning the whole body of people in a land or community who identify as Christian. In his day, this meant the citizens under the jurisdiction of a professing Christian ruler.

Abuses

(1) The abuses that are in the church ought to be corrected by the [Christian] rulers.

Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God for your welfare.

  • An example is Hezekiah, who destroyed the serpent.

2 Kings 18:3-4 [King Hezekiah] did what pleased the Lord in all things, like David his father. He put away the high altars, broke the images, and cut down the groves. He also utterly broke the brazen serpent that Moses made, because until those days the children of Israel burned sacrifices to it and called it Nehushran.

  • Also an example is Jehoshaphat:

2 Chronicles 20:32 And [Jehoshaphat king of Judah] walked in the way of Asa his father, and bowed not therefrom, to do that which was pleasing in the sight of the Lord.

[Ed: Verse 33 goes on to say, “However, they did not put down the hill altars, neither did the people yet prepare their hearts unto the God of their fathers.” Rogers was aware of this verse, of course, but it speaks to other issues, such as the danger of falling away and the slippery slope to destruction.]

  • Also Josiah:

2 Kings 23:3 And [King Josiah] stood by the pillar and made a covenant before the Lord that they should walk after the Lord, and keep his commandments and his witnesses and his ordinances with all their hearts and all their souls, and make good the words of the said covenant, which were written in the aforesaid book. And all the people consented to the covenant.

(2) The ministers ought to preach against abuses.

  • An example is John the Baptist:

Matthew 14:4 For John said to [Herod], It is not lawful for you to have her.

  • And St. Paul, who rebuked the Corinthians for having sects:

1 Corinthians:10-11 I beseech you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to all speak one thing, and that there be no dissension among you, but be knit together in one mind and in one purpose. It is reported to me about you, my brethren, by those who are of the house of Chloe, that there is strife among you.

  • Also, Paul rebuked them because they suffered a fornicator among them:

1 Corinthians 5:1, 6-8: There is a report abroad that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not once named among the Gentiles: that a man should have his father’s wife… Your complacency is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven sours the whole lump of dough? Purge therefore the old leaven, so that you may be new dough, as you are sweet bread.

  • Also, Paul rebuked them because they accused one another before unfaithful judges:

1 Corinthians 6:1, 7-8: How dare one of you, having a problem with another, go to law under the unrighteous, and not rather under the saints? … Now therefore there is utterly a failing among you, because you go to law one with another.

  • Also, Paul rebuked them because they sat with the Gentiles in their temples and ate with them of their sacrifices:

1 Corinthians 8:4-12 To speak of meat dedicated to idols: we are sure that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. And though there be what are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many and lords many), yet to us there is but one God, who is the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. But not everyone has knowledge. For some still suppose that an idol really is something, and eat a thing as offered to the idol, and so their consciences, still being weak, are defiled.

Meat does not make us acceptable to God. We are neither the better if we eat nor the worse if we do not. But take heed that your liberty does not cause the weak to fall. For if someone sees you who have knowledge sitting at food in the idol’s temple, might not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things that are offered to the idol? And so through your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died. When you sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak consciences, you sin against Christ.

  • Also, Paul rebuked them because they abused the Supper of the Lord:

1 Corinthians 11:20-21, 22, 26-30 When you come together, a person cannot eat the Lord’s Supper, because everyone begins ahead to eat his own supper. And one is hungry, and another is drunk… In this I do not praise you… as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you show the Lord’s death till he comes. Therefore whosoever eats of this bread or drinks of this cup unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person therefore examine himself, and thus let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats or drinks unworthily, eats and drinks his own damnation, because he does not discern the Lord’s body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.

  • Also, Paul rebuked them because they doubted of the resurrection:

1 Corinthians 15. See entire chapter. Verses 12-14: If Christ is preached, that he rose from the dead, how is it that some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no rising again of the dead, then Christ is not risen. If Christ is not risen, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is also in vain.

  • And because they prayed in a language that people did not understand:

1 Corinthians 14:13-19 Therefore let him who speaks in an unknown tongue pray such that he may interpret also. If I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding brings no one fruit. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and will pray with the meaning also…. I thank my God that I speak with tongues more than you all, yet in the congregation I would rather speak five words with my meaning for the information of others, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

(3) Any manner of mere precepts of men are abuses.

Matthew 15:1-6 Then scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, Why do your disciples transgress the precepts of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.

He answered and said to them, And why do you transgress the commandment of God through your precepts? For God commanded, saying, Honour your father and mother, and, He who curses father or mother shall suffer death. But you say every man should tell his father or mother, That which you desire of me, to help you with, is given for God – and so he should not honour his father or mother. And thus you have made the commandment of God to be without effect, through your precepts.

Isaiah 29:13-14 Thus says the Lord: Since this people draws near me with their mouth and praises me highly with their lips, whereas their heart nevertheless is far from me, and the fear which they owe to me, in that they turn to men’s laws and doctrines. Therefore, I will also show to this people a marvelous, terrible, and great thing – namely this: I will destroy the wisdom of their wise, and the understanding of their learned men shall perish.

Mark 7:3-4 The Pharisees and all the Jews, unless they wash their hands often, will not eat, observing the precepts of the elders. And when they come from the market, unless they wash, they will not eat. And there are many other things that they have taken upon themselves to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers, and of copper pots, and of tables.

This traditional two-handled style of cup is still used today by the Jews in ritual handwashing ceremonies.

 

 

Notices:

Principal Matters from the Matthew Bible: Abrogation

Posted on by Posted in Principal Matters A

Prepared by Ruth Magnusson Davis
Answers the question, what is abrogation in the Bible?

This is the second post in the Principal Matters blog series. I found this a moving and edifying study. Pastors, here is great sermon material.

The purpose of the Principal Matters series is

(1) To get to know the Table of Principal Matters in the 1537 Matthew Bible.
(2) To learn through Bible studies from the Reformation.

“As the bees diligently do gather together sweet flowers, to make by natural craft the sweet honey, so have I done with the principal topics contained in the Bible.” So began John Rogers’ introduction to the Table of Principal Matters in the 1537 Matthew Bible. The Table was a concordance at the front of the book, which set out Bible topics in alphabetical order. Under each topic were statements of doctrine and scripture references for further study. This series proceeds topic by topic, following the order of the Table.

Topic: Abrogation

Rogers began by defining “abrogation” as to abolish, etc. Then he cited scripture verses that declare the futility of the Old Covenant and of the decrees and ceremonies of that covenant, which is why it and its ceremonies were abrogated. The verses also describe the inner virtues that please God. Then Jeremiah prophesies of the New Covenant, under which God would write his laws on our hearts so that we can walk in virtue and please him.

Note: It did not enter the Reformers’ minds that a time might come when people would interpret the Bible as foretelling a future beatific age when the abrogated ceremonies of the temple would be restored in fulfillment of God’s will for the Jews. Please see the full introduction to the Principal Matters series in this regard.

Now, from the Matthew Bible:

Abrogation

(1) Abrogation: that is, to abolish or make of no effect.

(2) And so the law of the commandments which was in the decrees and ceremonies is abolished:

Ephesians 2:15 For he is our peace, who has made of both one, and has broken down the wall that was a partition between us, and has also put away through his flesh the cause of hatred (that is to say, the law of observances contained in the written law), to make of the two one new man in himself, so making peace.

Colossians 2:14 And he has put out the handwriting that was against us, contained in the written law: he has taken it out of the way and has fastened it to his cross.

Galatians 3:13 Christ has delivered us from the curse of the law.

Romans 7:4-6 … my brethren, you are dead concerning the law by the body of Christ, in order to be coupled to another (I mean, to him who is risen again from death), so that we will bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the lusts of sin, which were stirred up by the law, reigned in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, and dead to that to which we were in bondage, in order to serve in a new life of the Spirit, and not in the old life of the letter.

(3) The sacrifices, feasts, foods, and all the outward ceremonies are abrogated:

Hosea 6:6 For I have pleasure in lovingkindness and not in offering; yea, in the knowledge of God, more than in burnt sacrifice.

Isaiah 1:10-17 Hear the word of the Lord, ye tyrants of Sodom, and hearken to the law of our God, you people of Gomorrah. Why do you offer so many sacrifices to me? I am discontent with the burnt offerings of rams and with the fatness of fed beasts. I have no pleasure in the blood of bullocks, lambs, and goats. When you appear before me, who requires you to tread within my porches?

Offer me no more oblations, for it is but lost labor. I abhor your incense. I cannot abide your new moons, your sabbaths, and solemn days. Your fastings are also in vain. I hate your new holy days and fastings, even from my very heart. They make me weary. I cannot abide them. Though you hold out your hands, yet I turn my eyes away from you. And though you make many prayers, yet I hear nothing at all, for your hands are full of blood.

Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean. Put away your evil thoughts out of my sight. Cease from doing evil and violence. Learn to do right, apply yourselves to equity, deliver the oppressed, help the fatherless to his right, and let the widow’s complaint come before you.

1 Samuel 15:22 Has the Lord as great pleasure in burnt sacrifices and offerings as he has that you should obey his voice? Behold, to obey is better than offering, and to give heed is better than the fat of rams.

Jeremiah 31:31-33 Behold, the days come (says the Lord) that I shall make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah – not the covenant that I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand and led them out of the land of Egypt, which covenant they broke, for which I punished them sore, says the Lord.

But this will be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will plant my law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Micah 2:7-8 Truth it is, my words are friendly to those that live right, but my people do the contrary. Therefore, I must take part against them. For they take away both coat and cloak from the simple….

Micah 6:8 I will show you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requires of you: namely, to do right, to have pleasure in lovingkindness, to be lowly, and to walk with your God, so that you may be called the city of the Lord and so that your name may be righteousness.

Amos 5:21 I hate and abhor your holy days. And whereas you cense me when you come together, I will not accept it. And though you offer me burnt offerings and food offerings, yet I have no pleasure in them. As for your fat thank offerings, I will not look upon them. Away with that noise of your songs: I will not hear your plays of music! But see to it that equity flows as the water, and righteousness as a mighty stream!

Zechariah 7:5-6 Speak to all the people of the land and to the priests, and say: when you fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh month (now this seventy years) did you fast for me? When you ate also and drank, did you not eat and drink for your own selves?

Hebrews 7:18-19 So then, the previous commandment is abrogated because of its weakness and unprofitableness. For the law made nothing perfect, but was a preparation for a better hope, by which hope we draw near to God.

Unidentifiable scripture citation: Esay.ix.a.

This painting by Rembrandt is of the prophet Jeremiah lamenting the destruction of Jerusalem.

~~End~~

Notice:

– New Testament Scriptures are from the October Testament, the New Testament of the New Matthew Bible. Old Testament Scriptures and Apocryphal writings are taken directly from the Matthew Bible, with obsolete English gently updated, roughly as they will read in the New Matthew Bible when it is complete.

– Information about the New Matthew Bible Project is here.

– Sample scriptures from the New Matthew Bible are here.

Previous topic: Abomination

The Table of Principal Matters in the Matthew Bible

Posted on by Posted in Principal Matters Series

“As the bees diligently do gather together sweet flowers, to make by natural craft the sweet honey, so have I done with the principal topics contained in the Bible.” (John Rogers, introduction to the Table of Principal Matters, 1537 Matthew Bible)

This is an introduction to the blog series, Principal Matters from the 1537 Matthew Bible. The purpose of the series is to make people familiar with the Table of Principal Matters in the Matthew Bible and to learn from the English Reformers. It will be a great series for bible study groups to follow topic by topic each month, or for sermon outlines, to preach from the Scriptures.

  • What was the Table of Principal Matters?
  • What are the topics of the Table?
  • Seven foundational points
  • A picture of the first page of the Table, including the short, original introduction

What was the Table of Principal Matters?

The Table of Principal Matters was one of the features of the 1537 Matthew Bible that made it the world’s first English study bible. It was a lengthy concordance, set at the beginning of the bible, which reviewed topics of the faith in alphabetical order. Under each topic were short statements of doctrine with verses for further study. A lot of care, thought, and labour went into its preparation.

The Englishman John Rogers compiled and published the Matthew Bible, which was so-called because it was presented to King Henry VIII as translated by “Thomas Matthew.” This was a pseudonym to conceal William Tyndale’s involvement in the translation, because the king had banned all Tyndale’s work. The real translators of the Matthew Bible were William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale. Rogers collated the work of these two men, added over 2,000 expository notes, and then put a church calendar, a review of the age of the earth, other notices, and the Table of Principal Matters, at the beginning of his amazing work.

The Table was not Rogers’ original work, but was taken and translated from the 1535 French bible of Pierre Olivetan.

At our website, NewMatthewBible.org, is information about the Matthew Bible, about our project to update it, and a variety of interesting articles.

What are the topics of the Table of Principal Matters?

Some of the topics reviewed in the Table are Abomination … Abstinence … Adultery … Angels … Anointing … Antichrist … Beatitudes, or Blessedness …… Born Again … Character or Mark (of Antichrist) … The Coming of Christ in the Flesh … The Coming of Christ unto Us … Free Choice or Free Will … Gifts … Hatred … Innocency … Kingdom … The General Judgment … Human Judgment … Providence … Prudence … Tribulation … The Word of God … Wrath or passion of man … Zeal.

This is just a small sampling; the Table had 237 topical entries in all. This series will review most of them, topic by topic, in alphabetical order following the Table. With 1-2 posts per month, it will be good for years to come (God willing). I’ll enhance each study by setting out the bible verses referred to, taken from the Matthew Bible. It is great food for the soul for those who love God’s word.

Seven foundational points

To properly understand the Table of Principal Matters, we need to appreciate that the Matthew Bible is amillennial and non-dispensational.[1] It is therefore premised on the following foundational beliefs concerning the New Covenant and the kingdom of Christ:

(1) Jesus’ kingdom is now; his marvelous kingdom has come. There is no promise of a worldly kingdom yet to come in a future millennium (as many interpret Revelation 20 nowadays). The Lord’s kingdom came in power at Pentecost. It is spiritual and heavenly, in spirit and in truth in the power of the Holy Spirit. In his kingdom, Jesus reigns in the hearts and consciences of his people. Rogers wrote in his note on John 18:36, where Jesus said that his kingdom is not of this world:

That is, my kingdom is not a worldly kingdom, which consists in strength, in armour, in men, in the sword, and in taking dominion over things of this material or worldly realm. But my kingdom is spiritual, and is in the hearts of the faithful, who are ruled not by the sword, but by the gospel.

(2) Under the New Covenant, the “people of God” means all believing people, Jew and Gentile. We are both as one in Christ Jesus because the middle wall of partition has been broken down (Eph. 2:14). There is no longer any difference Jew and Gentile, nor a special, favoured place for Israel:

Now there is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither man nor woman, but you are all one thing in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28)

One of the first Principal Matters topics is “Accepcyon” (that is, “Acception,” an obsolete word meaning “Partiality”). This entry shows how God is not partial to any man or nation, with Scriptures in support from both the Old and New Testaments.

But people may object that, under the Old Testament, the Jews had a special place and special promises. Indeed, but this was by way of example (1 Cor. 10:6,11), and to accomplish his purposes through them, but not out of partiality. For though he set his affection upon them, yet many were overthrown in the wilderness (1Cor. 10:5, Heb. 3:17). Rogers shows under the topic “Abrogation” how it was for its futility that the Old Covenant was abrogated; that is, completely done away with. It is written in Hebrews 7:18, “The previous commandment is abrogated because of its weakness and unprofitableness.”

Paul addressed the question of the preferment of the Jews in Romans 3:

What preferment, then, has the Jew? Or what advantage from circumcision? Surely very much. The word of God was committed first to them. What, then, if some of them did not believe? Does their unbelief make the promise of God without effect? God forbid. Let God be true and all men liars, as it is written: That you may be justified in your words, and should overcome when you are judged…. For we have already established that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin, as it is written: There is none righteous, no, not one…. Without doubt, the righteousness which is good before God comes by the faith of Jesus Christ, to all and upon all who believe. There is no difference. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Ro. 3:1-4, 9-10, 22-23)

(3) In the Bible, the “last days” (or “latter days”) generally refers to the entire period from Christ’s first to second coming. Rogers clarified this point several times in his expository notes. Many Scriptures support this. Peter said at Pentecost that the pouring out of the Spirit indicated that the last days had then arrived, pursuant to Old Testament prophecies (Acts 2:17). In Hebrews, also written in the first century, we are told that “in these last days” God has spoken to us by his Son. Therefore, the things of the last days are now, and they include not only Christ’s kingdom, but also the kingdom of Antichrist and tribulation. “Tribulation” is one of the topics of the Table that we will see.

(4) I would add my own point (which I have not seen addressed in the notes of the Matthew Bible nor in the Table of Principal Matters), which is that most amillennialists believe the 1,000-year millennium of Revelation 20 is the “last days.” The number 1,000 simply signifies a very long period of time. In the Hebrew tongue, numbers were often used symbolically (as, for example, the number ‘7’ symbolizes fullness or completeness). Another way to put it is, the 1,000 years signify God’s patience.

(5) I would add also that, in Jesus’ kingdom, the first resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20 is the resurrection of the soul when the people of God pass from death to life upon hearing the gospel and believing on Jesus. The second, general resurrection is the raising up of the bodies of all people from their graves, and will take place at the second coming. For believers, who are blessed to have part in the first resurrection (Rev. 20:6), the second resurrection, with union of soul and body and the promise of the entrance into the eternal life, is their hope. However, the hope for a future earthly dispensation when the Jewish nation will be exalted is the hope of Judaism.

(6) When Jesus returns, it will mark the end of his present kingdom in this earth and the end of time. It will bring the judgment, and the new heavens and earth will be ushered in, which will never pass away. Revelation 10:6 in Tyndale’s New Testament says that when Jesus returns, “there should be no longer time”; that is, time will be no more. The KJV has, “there should be time no longer.” In other words, time will not be for one minute longer, let alone a thousand years.

But many modern Bibles changed the translation. In the NIV, Revelation 10:6 reads, “There will be no more delay!” This is ambiguous. It could mean, no more delay till the end of the world. But it obviously (and more easily) supports the hope of a new age during which time will continue.

(7) The Reformers called the belief in a future, utopian, earthly kingdom a “Jewish dotage,” being derived from Judaic doctrine. In the 1553 Articles of Religion of the Church of England, Thomas Cranmer wrote about “Millenarii” (those who believe in a future millennial kingdom):

Heretics called Millenarii: They that go about to renew the fable of heretics, called Millenarii, [are] repugnant to Holy Scripture, and cast themselves headlong into a Jewish dotage.[2]

A gospel that promises another kingdom, one other than the present kingdom of Christ, really is another gospel (2 Cor. 11:4, Gal. 1:6-8). It denigrates from the greatness, reality, power, and wonder of Christ’s reign now – as all “other gospels” will do. It fractures our singular focus on the spiritual kingdom and its promises, to turn our eyes to another kingdom – a political one, so to speak – and to other promises.

When a person becomes familiar with the Matthew Bible, it washes the mind of the taint of strange doctrines. Over the years, many changes have been introduced to the original Scripture translations of William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale. These subtly or overtly contribute to weakening the truth that was purely set forth in the blood-bought Matthew Bible. Many of these are discussed in Part 2 of the Story of the Matthew Bible.

The first page of the Table, including the short, original introduction

Below is an image of the first page of the Table of Principal Matters in the 1537 Matthew Bible, including the introduction “To the Christen Readers.” This is a scan of my Hendrickson facsimile. The red numbers are my own, which I inserted for reference. Rogers also took the introduction from Pierre Olivetan’s 1535 Bible and translated it from the French.

The first page of the Table of Principal Matters in the 1537 Matthew Bible, with the introduction at the top.

Ruth Magnusson Davis, June 2022

________________________

Endnotes:

[1] Issues of the millennium are covered in more detail in chapter 27 of Part 2 of The Story of the Matthew Bible. See also my paper Christian Zionism: Rebuilding Jericho.

[2] Article XLI of the 1553 Articles of Religion was removed in 1563. Both pre- and postmillennialism have roots in Judaism. The concept of a future millennium is tied to a rabbinical interpretation of the creation week. The Jewish belief was that, after the fall, the world would continue for 6,000 years, and then there would be a millennium of rest, or Sabbatical millennium – a kind of earthly utopia. A Christianized form of this doctrine was known in the early Church as chiliasm, from the Greek chiliad or ‘thousand.’ Its adherents were called Chiliasts; they believed Christ would return and reign with the saints on earth for a thousand years. Some well-known Chiliasts were Irenaeus and Tertullian. Chiliasm was identified as a “Jewish fable” and put to rest in the 4th century, but was revived by the Anabaptists during the Reformation.

Dispensationalism began in early 19th-century England. It divides human history into seven dispensations or eras, from the era of innocence before Adam’s fall, through to Christ’s reign in a messianic kingdom during a future seventh and final age. The period from Moses to Jesus is considered the dispensation of Mosaic law.

 

Ten Tips on How to Read Early Modern English

Posted on by Posted in MB Leave a comment

It takes practice, but it is not difficult to learn how to read Early Modern English (EME). And it is worthwhile to learn, because then we can read and enjoy the 1537 Matthew Bible.

Some people who own Hendrickson’s facsimile of the Matthew Bible (the beautiful one with the red cloth cover, see Recommended) say they have given up trying to read it. And truly, when we see the EME text for the first time, it looks like another language. However, once the Matthew Bible opens up to you – especially the Old Testament, which is a masterpiece of clarity – you will not want to read another version. Well, perhaps Myles Coverdale’s Bible of 1535, which I also love, or the Great Bible of 1539-1540. But for these Bibles we also need to know how to read Early Modern English.

The ten rules below address common features of EME that may cause difficulty to new readers. The pictures of EME text are from the book of psalms in my own copy of Hendrickson’s 1537 Matthew Bible. The psalms of the Matthew Bible were translated by Myles Coverdale, so the word choice and grammar were his, except for the introductory summaries, which were written by John Rogers. However, it was the printer and typesetters who were responsible for page layout and orthography.

What is orthography?

Orthography means a system of spelling and notation. Though the orthography of the early English Bibles seems very inconsistent to us, the typesetters followed certain, definite systems and practices that are easy to learn. Some of their apparent inconsistencies were space-management devices — forms of shorthand, as it were, used only where needed. Because the rag paper used by early printers was thick and the Bible is a long book, typesetters sometimes abbreviated words to shorten the text. On the other hand, sometimes they spelled a word out in full to justify the margins or simply if they did not need to save space.

Knowing the tricks of the printers’ trade as well as a few obsolete rules of grammar will give people a head start in learning how to read Early Modern English texts. I will refer frequently to the specimen text below, Psalm 83:1-5. This specimen includes the psalm title and Rogers’ introductory summary. In modern orthography the summary reads, “The holy people complaineth that all the borderers about them had conspired to destroy them, and prayeth that they may utterly be consumed and wasted, even as their old enemies were consumed and wasted.” Below I explain some of the rules the typesetters followed for the summary and the rest of the psalm:

Psalm 83:1-5 in the 1537 Matthew Bible, with John Rogers’ introductory summary

 

Ten rules of EME orthography and grammar

1. The symbol below, called a capitulum, was used to indicate a new section. However, it has no other meaning or significance.

A new section in the Bible might be a new book, chapter, or psalm. Also, capitulums were always inserted before Rogers’ introductory summaries, as above in Psalm 83. Perhaps this assisted to show that the summary was added to the biblical text. Because the capitulum served no necessary purpose, it eventually fell out of use.

2. Instead of a comma the 1537 Matthew Bible used a mark called a virgule suspensiva, which looks like a forward slash (/). But sometimes a virgule suspensiva was used for a stronger pause, where now we would use a semi-colon or even a period or exclamation mark.

There are virgule suspensivas in every specimen of EME text in this article. If we update verse 1 of Psalm 83, it might read, “Hold not thy tongue, O God! Keep not still silence, refrain not thyself O God”:

Psalm 83:1

3. An old-fashioned form of ampersand (&) was used for the word and. Frequently it was used in combination with the virgule suspensiva (/&).

We see the /& combination in the introductory summary of Psalm 83 and in verses 2 and 5. However, and was also spelled out in full in the summary (“consumed and wasted”), and again in the psalm title where it was not necessary to save space (“A songe and psalme of Asaph”).

With modern spelling and punctuation, verse 2 reads, “For lo, thine enemies make a murmuring, and they that hate thee, lift up their head”:

Psalm 83:2

4. A line over the top of a vowel means that an M or N was dropped (mā = man, becōmeth = becommeth ). Also, special rules for from.

The lines above vowels that marked a missing M or N were called diacritics. Sometimes these diacritics were wavy. There are several in Psalm 83 above. In Rogers’ introductory summary, cōplayneth = complaineth, and in verse 3, coūcell = counsel. Dropping letters allowed the typesetters to justify the margins, or to avoid extending a sentence into the next line in order to save space.

In the first line of Psalm 83:4, shown below, dropping the M in from (frō) clearly helped fit the text into one line. If the typesetters had needed yet more room, they could also have shortened them to thē:

Psalm 83:4

______________

In some places, however, it appears that a diacritic was forgotten, as in Psalm 88 below. Should fro have been written frō in verse 14, “Wherefore hydest thou thy face fro me”?

Psalm 88:14-15

I do not believe “fro me” was a typesetting error in verse 14. For one thing, space did not require that the M be omitted. Also, the term “fro me” without a diacritic was repeated elsewhere. The Oxford English Dictionary shows that from Old English into the Early Modern Period the word fro was sometimes used for from. (Even today fro = from in the phrase “to and fro.”) It seems, therefore, that “fro me” was a special word pair. In EME certain word pairs received special treatment: “shall be” was written “shalbe” and “will be” became “wilbe.” Therefore, from appears to have its own rules: (1) it may be written in full; (2) it may be shorted to frō where needed; (3) in combination with me, it is written fro me.

Turning to verse 15 of Psalm 88, it shows how diacritical notation kept the verse to two lines instead of three. Written out in full, it says, “My strength is gone for very sorrow and misery, with fearfulness do I bear thy burdens.” This verse also manifests other features of EME. One is the frequent use of Y for I (mysery = misery). Another is the use of TH where now we use a D: burthens = burdens (or murther = murder). Also, the special form of the word with near the beginning of the second line in verse 15 was frequently used to save space, which brings us to the next rule.

5. The word with was abbreviated by printing a W with a tiny letter (T or H) above. The words that, the, thee were abbreviated by a Y with a tiny T or E above.

These were space-saving devices inherited from medieval times, when with was written wth and that was written yt. Thee and the were both written ye, and the proper sense was derived from the context.

In Psalm 83:5, wth at the beginning of the second line and ye at the end were used to shorten the words with and thee. This kept the text to one line. In modern orthography this verse reads, “For they have cast their heads together with one consent, and are confederate against thee”:

Psalm 83:5

In verse 2 of Psalm 83, shown below, the Y-form stood for that. As we have seen, in modern orthography this line reads, “and they that hate thee, lift up their head”:

Psalm 83:2

But notice above that thee is spelt the. This takes us to Rule 6.

6. The one-E rule: In the 1537 Matthew Bible the words the and thee were both spelt with only one E (the). Generally speaking, words with an EE sound followed the one-E rule (fre = free, se = see, whele = wheel, seke = seek, etc.).

In Psalm 83:2, which we saw just above, “they that hate the” = they that hate thee.

This spelling of thee seems strange to us, but it was perfectly consistent with the spelling of other English pronouns, such as me (which sounds like mee), ye (yee), and he (hee). Consistent spelling meant that the “rhyme” of Psalm 86:7 appealed to both eye and ear:

Psalm 86:7

In modern orthography, this is, “In the time of my trouble I call upon thee, for thou hearest me.”

However, not all EME texts followed the one-E rule as consistently as the 1537 Matthew Bible did. In other early 16th-century works I have noticed that the and thee were inconsistently spelt, and sometimes reversed.

________________

The single E to indicate the EE sound was mirrored also in other words, such as se. Psalm 89:47 reads, “What mā is he that lyveth, and shall not se death?” Here se = see:

Psalm 89:47-48

However, in Psalm 93:5 see = sea in “The waves of the see are mighty, and rage horribly [etc]”:

Psalm 93:5

Thus the apparently odd spellings of thee and see actually manifest consistency in the 1537 Matthew Bible, while they reveal a modern inconsistency (me, thee, see, ye, free, be).

7. Three kinds of Ss (called “allographs” of the S grapheme) were used in the 1537 Matthew Bible:

(1) The descending or long S. This allograph is relatively infrequent. If it followed an orthographic rule, I have not been able to determine it, though in the specimen text below (Psalm 88:18) it appears to be a space-saver.

(2) The “normal” S, such as we use now. The rule was to use this allograph only as a capital letter and at the end of a word.

(3) The f-like S, which was the most common. This looks like an f without the stroke on the stem. It was used everywhere the other allographs were not.

A normal S was used at the end of lovers in Psalm 88:18, shown below. (Here lovers means good and close friends.) However, a descending S was used at the end of frinds (friends). In this verse we also see another example of the word pair fro me without a diacritic:

Psalm 88:18

The normal and f-like allographs were used abundantly in Psalm 81 below. The rule for normal Ss (only for capitals and at the end of a word) was consistently followed. Verse 1 reads, “Sing merrily unto God which [who] is our strength, make a cheerful noise unto the God of Jacob”:

Psalm 81:1-7

However, to have three allographs for S was more trouble than it was worth, and by the end of the eighteenth century only the modern form was in use.

8. Past participles of verbs ending in T sometimes dropped the letters ED at the end. (effect = effected, often spelt yfect. Also, the elect = the elected, or the chosen)

In the introductory summary to Genesis 1 shown below, creat = created at the end of the last sentence. However, midsentence in verse 1 created was written out in full:

Genesis 1, introductory summary and verses 1-2

When a past participle drops the [ed], it is called an absolute participle. Possibly the use of the absolute form was dictated, at least in part, by euphonics. It was more emphatic and pleasing to the ear to end the introductory summary with the stressed syllable (cree-ate). On the other hand, mid-sentence the full form was more rhythmic and pleasing (God cree-ate-ed heav-en and earth).

Some absolute participles remain in use today. The past participle of the verb manifest can be written both ways: it is correct to say both “His real character was manifest by his deeds” and “His real character was manifested by his deeds.” It is the same with the verb incarnate. However, with reference to Christ we speak of him almost exclusively as the Son of God incarnate (= incarnated [i.e., by the Holy Spirit]). I sometimes regret that we do not now speak of Christ incarnated, because the full participle is more meaningful. It clearly conveys the amazing action and event of the Incarnation: the Son of God was born into the flesh of man.

9. The preposition of = by in passive construction.

This is an essential rule of grammar for understanding Early Modern English. In the first example below, in modern orthography and putting by for of, it says, “Thou hast put away mine acquaintance [friends] far from me, and made me to be abhorred by them…” (Also, here we see a third fro me word pair):

Psalm 88:8

In the next example we would say, “God is greatly to be feared in the council of the saints, and to be had in reverence by all them that are about him.”

Psalm 89:7

This rule is so important, I will include also an example from the New Testament, speaking of baptism by John or by Jesus:

Matthew 3:13-14

Here we would say, putting by for of in both places: “Then came Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be baptized by him. But John forbad him, saying, I ought to be baptized by you: and comest thou to me? [etc].”

(Check out how we have gently updated the Gospel of Matthew and other Scriptures for the New Matthew Bible here.)

10. The terms like as and like unto usually just mean like.

In verses 11-14 of Psalm 83, we find like as, like unto, as, and like all used to express comparison in contexts where the simple word like (or as) could function alone. Coverdale may have used such a variety of expression for interest and poetry’s sake. Notice also the one-E rule followed in whele (= wheel) in verse 13 and seke (= seek) in verse 16:

Psalm 83:11-18

In modern orthography verses 13 and 14 read:

13 O my God, make them like unto a wheel, and as the stubble before the wind.
14 Like as a fire that burneth up the wood, and as the flame that consumeth the mountains.

Gently updating the English, these verses might read:

13 O my God, make them like a wheel, and as the stubble before the wind;
14 Like a fire that burns up the wood, and as the flame that consumes the mountains.

However, the expression like unto had fascinating nuances of meaning. People who enjoy deeper studies of language and grammar might like my article on how William Tyndale used like unto in the Scriptures and in his writing.

****************

With these rules in mind, I hope people will be encouraged to take up their facsimile of the Matthew Bible, practice reading it, and discover how well they can learn to understand it. It took me a little while, but I can now read it as fluently as I read modern text. I know you can too! It is true that the obsolete words will remain a barrier to a full and correct understanding. That is why the Matthew Bible must be updated. However, the spelling and orthography will no longer be an obstacle.

How to read Early Modern English: some words to know:

all way = always
commodity = benefit
fly = flee
lust = wish or desire
other = or
sometime = formerly
syth = since
then = than
wealth = welfare
which = who, with reference to people and to the divine Persons

*************

Copyright claimed by Ruth M Davis, 2021. For permission to republish, recopy, or use contact here. However, limited permission is given for people to print and use this article for personal use with their facsimile of the 1537 Matthew Bible.

KPs How to read Early Modern English; Understanding Early Modern English