"AS I SEE IT" 

Volume 6, Number 5, May 2003

 

“I too will have my say; I too will tell what I know.

For I am full of words, and the spirit within me compels me;

Inside I am like bottled-up wine, like new wineskins ready to burst.

I must speak and find relief; I must open my lips and reply.

I will show partiality to no one.  Nor will I flatter any man.”

Job 32:17-21

 

["As I See It" is a monthly electronic magazine compiled and edited by Doug Kutilek.  Its purpose is to address important issues of the day and to draw attention to worthwhile Christian and other literature in order to aid believers in Jesus Christ, especially pastors, missionaries and Bible college and seminary students to more effectively study and teach the Word of God.  The editor's perspective is that of an independent Baptist of fundamentalist theological persuasion.

 

AISI is sent free to all who request it by writing to the editor at: DKUTILEK@juno.com.  You can be removed from the mailing list at the same address.  Back issues sent on request.  Some may also be downloaded at http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly.  Articles on the King James Bible controversy and recent issues may be accessed at http://www.KJVOnly.org

 

All articles are by the editor (unless otherwise noted) and are copyrighted but may be reproduced for distribution, provided the following conditions are met: 1. articles must be reproduced in unedited, unabridged form; 2. the writer must be properly credited; and, 3. such reproduction must be for free distribution only.  Permission to distribute in any other form must be secured in writing beforehand.  Permission for reproduction in Christian print periodicals will generally be given.]

----------

 

The Power of God in the Life of George Whitefield

 

By his own admission, the man Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) most admired, and whom he placed as his role model in the ministry was 18th century English evangelist George Whitefield (1714-1770).  That Spurgeon considered Whitefield as worthy of emulation is a recommendation of the highest order.  But, we must ask, what drew Spurgeon to Whitefield?  What made him eminently suited as a pattern for life?  Above all else, surely it was the remarkable spiritual power that perpetually accompanied Whitefield’s abundant labors throughout England, Wales, Ireland and especially the American Colonies.  That God chose to use this man to such a remarkable degree immediately invites our attention.  Two incidents from Whitefield’s life illustrate the divine power that rested upon him.

 

First, there was Whitefield’s innovation of preaching out of doors, in large measure made necessary because the use of Anglican church buildings was becoming prohibited to him.  His first field preaching took place in 1739 at Kingswood, an English coal-mining town.  Let us hear the account excerpted from Whitefield’s published journal--

 

“Saturday, February 17

 

About one in the afternoon, I went with my brother Seward and another friend to Kingswood, and was most delightfully entertained by an old disciple of the Lord.  My bowels have long since yearned toward the poor colliers [coal-miners], who are very numerous, and as sheep having no shepherd.  After dinner, therefore, I went upon a mount and spake to as many as came unto me.  They were upwards of two hundred.  Blessed be God that I have now broken the ice!  I believe I was never more acceptable to my Master than when I was standing to teach those hearers in the open fields.  Some may censure me; but if I thus pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.”

 

“Wednesday, February 21.

 

At three in the afternoon, according to my appointment, I went to Kingswood amongst the colliers.  God highly favored us in sending a fine day, and nearly two thousand people were assembled on that occasion.  I preached John chapter 3, verse 3 and enlarged for near an hour--I hope to the comfort and edification of those who heard me.  God grant the seed sown may not fall on stony or thorny, but on good ground.”

 

“Friday, February 23.

 

After dinner, I was taken very ill, so that I was obliged to lie upon the bed; but looking upon it as a thorn in the flesh, at three I went, according to appointment, and preached to near four or five thousand people from a mount in Kingswood.  The sun shone very bright, and the people standing in such an awful manner round the mount, in the profoundest silence, filled me with a holy admiration.  Blessed by God for such a plentiful harvest.  Lord, do thou send forth more laborers into thy harvest.”

 

“Sunday, February 25.

 

At four, I hastened to Kingswood.  At a moderate computation, there were about ten thousand people to hear me.  The trees and hedges were full.  All was hush when I began; the sun shone bight and God enabled me to preach for an hour with great power and so loudly, that all, I was told, could hear me.  Mr. B......n spoke right.  The fire is kindled in the country; and, I know, all the devils in hell shall not be able to quench it.”

 

(Quotes taken from George Whitefield’s Journals.  London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965.  Pp. 215-6, 220, 220-1, 223).

 

Imagine!--starting from scratch and unannounced, Whitefield’s auditors grew in the course of eight days from 200 to 2,000 to between 4,000 and 5,000 to about 10,000!  In the middle of February, outdoors, the audience standing the whole time, and Whitefield just 24 years of age!

 

Later that same year, Whitefield made his second voyage to America.  During his sojourn in the Colonies, he spoke in October 1740 at Middletown in Connecticut, where he “preached to about four thousand people at eleven o’clock,” a not particularly unusual occurrence (by Whitefieldian standards).  But one of those who came to hear Whitefield that day, a semi-literate farmer named Nathan Cole, left a written account of the fever-pitch of excitement that Whitefield’s coming generated (I standardize the spelling and some of the grammar for the sake of intelligibility)--

 

“Now it pleased God to send Mr. Whitefield in this land and [I] longed to see and hear him . . . And then one morning all of a sudden there came a messenger and said Mr. Whitefield . . . is to preach at Middletown this morning at 10 o’clock.  I was in my field at work.  I dropped my tool that I had in my hand and ran home and through my house and bade my wife to get ready quick to go and hear Mr. Whitefield preach at Middletown, and ran to my pasture for my horse with all my might fearing I should be too late to hear him, and took my wife and went forward as fast as I thought the horse could bear, and when my horse began to be out of breath, I would get down and put my wife on the saddle and bid her ride as fast as she could and not stop or slack for me except I bade her, and so I would run until I was almost out of breath and then mount my horse again . . . fearing we should be too late to hear the sermon for we had twelve miles to ride double in little more than an hour.

 

I saw before me a cloud or fog, so I first thought, from the great river but as I came nearer the road, I heard a noise something like a low rumbling thunder and I presently found out it was the rumbling of horses’ feet coming down the road and this cloud was a cloud of dust made by the running horses’ feet.  It rose some rods into the air over the tops of the hills and trees and when I came within twenty rods of the road, I could see men and horses slipping along--it was like a steady stream of horses and their riders scarcely a horse more than his length behind another.  I found a vacancy between two horses to slip in my horse, and my wife said, “Our clothes will be all spoiled; see how they look!”  And when we got down to the old meeting house there was a great multitude (it was said to be 3 or 4,000) and when I looked towards the great river, I saw the ferry boats running swift forward and backward.  When I saw Mr. Whitefield come up upon the scaffold, he looked almost angelic, a young slim slender youth before thousands of people and with a bold undaunted countenance, and my hearing how God was with him everywhere as he came along--it solemnized my mind and put me in a trembling fear before he began to preach, for he looked as if he was clothed with authority from the great God and a sweet solemnity sat upon his brow, and my hearing him preach gave me a heart wound, and by God’s blessing, my old foundation was broken up and I saw my righteousness would not save me.”

 

(Taken from George Whitefield, by Arnold Dallimore.  London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1970.  Vol. 1, pp. 540, 541.  Incidentally, this is the biography, in two volumes, of Whitefield to get, read and ponder).

 

What preacher in our day, indeed at any time in the past century, could stir such interest and excitement by his mere arrival in a community?  No advance men, no advertising, no expensive media blitz, no carefully organized city-wide crusade, no bus caravans.  Just a man on whom the Spirit of God, and the power of God, rested in full measure.  Do not our hearts burn within us to see such a man today, to be such a man today?  What price this power?  Study the life of Whitefield, and entreat God to “do it again.”

---Doug Kutilek

----------

 

Spurgeon on the Spiritually Deadening Effects of Consist Preaching of Cold Doctrinaire Calvinism

 

“But suppose the doctrinal preacher should have it all his own way, and there should be none others at all, what should be the effect?  See it in our Baptist churches about one hundred and fifty years ago.  They were all sound and sound asleep.  Those doctrines had preached them into a lethargy, and had it not been for some few who started up and proposed the missions for the heathen, and who found but little sympathy at first, the church would have been utterly inactive.  Now, I would not be hard with any, but there are some brethren still whose preaching might justly be summed up as being doctrinal, nothing more than doctrinal, and what is the effect of their ministry?  Bitterness.  They learn to contend not only earnestly for the faith, but savagely for it.  Certainly we admire their earnestness, and we thank God for their soundness, but we wish there were mingled with their doctrine a somewhat else which might tone down their severity and make them seek rather the unity and fellowship of the saints than the division and discord which they labour to create.”

                        C. H. Spurgeon

                        Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit

                        1861, vol. 7, p. 173

----------

 

All the Aramaic Words in the New Testament

 

The linguistic situation in first century A.D. Judea has long been a subject of keen interest.   Which languages were commonly used by the inhabitants, and to what degree, have been much debated. 

 

It is known with certainty that the populace, to an uncertain degree, knew and used Greek, the lingua franca of the Roman Empire.  That the family of Joseph the carpenter in Nazareth in particular was familiar with Greek seems evident--both James and Jude, the half-brothers of Jesus, knew and wrote good Greek.  We can deduce from this fact that Jesus also knew well the Hellenistic tongue.  The absence of any mention of a translator when Jesus stood before Pilate suggests the same (though admittedly it is the weaker “argument from silence”).

 

Latin, surprisingly not the language most widely used in the Roman Empire, and not necessarily know and used by the Roman soldiers stationed in Syro-Palestine, was used to some extent for legal documents (such as the indictment attached to Jesus’ cross, delineating His “crimes”) in the Jews’ homeland.  Some 25 Latin loan-words are found in the New Testament, many of them related (not surprisingly) to weights and measures, and military or government matters (for a list, see Warren C. Trenchard, The Student’s Complete Vocabulary Guide to the Greek New Testament.  Zondervan, 1992; p. 298)

 

Hebrew, the chief language of the Old Testament Scriptures, was known and used by educated religious teachers in 1st century Judea (perhaps as Latin was the Medieval scholars’ tongue), and was read in at least some of the synagogues each Sabbath day, though whether the common folk understood it much is open to debate (cf. a similar situation in the former Roman Catholic practice of reciting the Mass in Latin).  Certainly the Pharisees and rabbis would have been well-versed in Hebrew.  Further, some of the non-Biblical writings from the Qumran sect are in Hebrew.  But that Hebrew was widely known and used by the general populace seems less likely. 

 

We may deduce, however, that if the synagogue in Nazareth (Luke 4:16ff) followed Mishnaic/pharisaic rules regarding the public reading of the Scriptures in the synagogue, then Jesus assuredly knew biblical Hebrew, since the rules of the Mishnah (compiled ca. 200 A.D.) required the weekly reading of portions of the Law and the Prophets directly from the Hebrew, with any Aramaic translation of the passage read to be strictly oral, expressly forbidding the making or use of written Targums (Aramaic translations) in the synagogue, lest the hearers ascribe to the translation Divine authority which resided solely in the original language text (see Mishnah tractate “Megillah” et al.).

 

Though Jesus all but certainly knew both Greek and Hebrew, we can with greatest confidence declare that Jesus’ native dialect, and the language He commonly used, especially in Galilee, was Aramaic which, like Hebrew (and Arabic, Akkadian, Ugaritic, Phoenecian, Ethiopic and several other tongues), is a member of the Semitic family of languages.  “Aramaic” (or, strictly transliterated, “aramith”) is the name given to this ancient language in the original language text of Daniel 2:4.  Another name given it (e.g., by the Septuagint at Daniel, 2:4, and by the Latin Vulgate and the KJV which imitate it) is “Syriac.”  A third name sometimes employed for it is “Chaldee”--a now passe name applied by scholars some centuries back to this tongue, based on what was probably a misunderstanding of Daniel 1:4, “the language . . . of the Chaldeans.”  And if that were not enough, it is demonstrable that in every case but one in the New Testament where a word, phrase or language is identified as “Hebrew” (John 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20; 20:16; Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14; Revelation 16:16) it is actually what today is called “Aramaic” (the one exception is Revelation 9:11 where “Abaddon,” a genuinely “Hebrew” word, occurs).  Of course, the Greek NT calling this language “Hebrew” is not an error, but merely yet one more among several names by which this language has been variously known.  (It is notable that what we call the “Hebrew” language was not so designated generally until the Middle Ages.  In the OT, it is called “the lip of Canaan” [Isaiah 19:18, literal translation], and “Jewish” [Hebrew, “yehudith,” Isaiah 36:11]). 

 

All very confusing, I know.  That being said, we shall henceforth call the language under discussion here “Aramaic.”

 

We know that some whole speeches originally spoken in Aramaic have been transmitted to us in Greek translation in the original NT (e.g., Paul’s address to the mob in the temple, Acts 21:40-22:21, and not unlikely at least some of Jesus’ discourses and sayings).  Beyond this, bits and pieces preserved in Aramaic itself have been included in the text of the Greek New Testament.  Mark especially and repeatedly in his Gospel quotes for us the words of Jesus in Aramaic, in each case followed by a Greek translation.  At the house of Jairus in Capernaum, Jesus spoke the words “talitha, koumi” (Mark 5:41) which mean, “little girl, get up!”  To the man both deaf and mute (Mark 7:34), Jesus said, “ephphatha,” “be opened.”  In Gethsemane (Mark 14:36), while in prayer, Jesus addressed God as “Abba,” a vocative form meaning “O, Father” or “My Father.”  The word was apparently picked up and commonly used by Christians (as it also was among the Jews) in addressing God in prayer.  Paul uses it twice in his letters (Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:6), in each case providing a Greek translation for his readers.  Finally, in the depths of agony on the cross, Jesus spoke those most terrible of all words, “Eloi, eloi, lema sabachthani,” an Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew text of Psalm 22:1a, which Mark translates as “My God! My God!  Why have you abandoned me?” (Matthew 27:46 also gives the Aramaic, transliterated in a slightly different form, accompanied by a Greek translation, a translation that differs in precise form from Mark but gives the same sense--behold, it is possible to have more than one correct translation of a given Biblical passage!) [And as a mere footnote, let me mention that here Luther, for reasons known only to him, in his German version substituted the Hebrew of Psalm 22:1 for the Aramaic of Matthew and Mark, viz. “Eli eli, lama asabthani.”] 

 

Beyond phrases spoken by Jesus, there are numerous individual Aramaic words recorded in the NT.  The most common Aramaic word found in the Greek NT is the word “bar” (cf. “bar-mitzvah”) which means “son” (the Hebrew equivalent is “ben”); it is always found compounded with other words in proper names (or nicknames): bar-Nabas, bar-Jesus, bar-Tholomew, bar-Abbas, bar-Sabba, bar-Jonah, bar-Timaeus.  Men were commonly identified by the name of their father, and in this  “bar” functions much like “O’” in Irish names, “Mc” or “Mac” in Scottish names, and the ending “-son” in English names such as “Johnson” (originally, “John’s son”), Williamson, Robertson, etc.  The frequency of “bar” in the NT is thereby explained.

 

And speaking of names, the nickname Jesus gave to Simon, brother of Andrew (John 1:43), was “kepha” (“Cephas” in the English Bible), a common Aramaic word which, like its Greek counterpart “petros,” means “rock,” or as we would say in our day, “Rocky.”  Paul uses this name for the Apostle eight times, though no one else in the NT does, other than Jesus.

 

The second most common Aramaic word in the NT is “pascha”/”passover,” which occurs 29 times, always referring to the Jewish springtime feast (and the “feast of unleavened bread” which immediately follows) celebrating the historic deliverance from Egypt reported in Exodus.  It never has the meaning “Easter” though that rendering is found in some English translations (e.g., the KJV at Acts 12:4 but only there) made during the century following the Reformation (and, in mere imitation of Luther’s German version in such places, it should be noted).

 

“Gehenna” occurs a full dozen times in the NT, all being found in the Synoptic Gospels and spoken by Jesus with but one exception (James 3:6).  Literally, it indicates “the valley of Hinnom” a proper name for what was originally a place of idolatry and paganism just to the south of Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 28:3), but which become the city’s garbage dump (a deliberate act of desecration of this pagan site, 2 Kings 23:10) where rubbish was burned continually.  This place of fire, smoke, stench, worms and death came to be emblematic of the eternal destiny of the lost, and so the name came to be used of what is elsewhere in the NT called “the second death,” and “the lake of fire,” where body and soul are punished forever, the proper NT equivalent of our English word “hell” (see “Gehenna” in Unger’s Bible Dictionary).  By contrast, the Hebrew “sheol” and the Greek “hades” though in some translations rendered “hell” are rather the temporary, not eternal, depository of the spirits only (not the bodies) of the dead, and since there is no specific English equivalence for these words, they are best transliterated in English Bible versions, that is, simply transferred as “Sheol” and “Hades,” and capitalized, since they are proper names of a location.  Of course, “Gehenna” also could be simply transliterated as well, rather than being rendered “Hell.”

 

Two Aramaic words relating to money are also found in the NT--“korbana,” the word for the temple treasury, Matthew 27:6, (related to the Hebrew “korban”/”corban” which denotes something committed to the temple treasury, a religious gift, Mark 7:11), and “mamona” (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13) which denotes property or wealth, a potentially serious barrier to spiritual well-being.

 

Jesus mentioned “raka” a commonly-used Aramaic term of contempt, in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:22), declaring that to so call your fellow man was to make yourself liable to the judgement of the counsel (sanhedrin).  “Raka” comes from a root that means “empty” and would colloquially equate to our derisive epithets “dolt,” dim-wit,” “half-wit,” “retard” and such like.

 

Twice Jesus is referred to by disciples (John 1:41; 4:25) as “the Messiah.”  In both cases, John translates this Aramaic word for his readers by the Greek equivalent “Christos” (from whence comes the common NT term for Jesus, “the Christ”).  Since “Christos” in these places is intended as a translation for the reader, it should be rendered literally in both passages, namely “which, when translated means ‘the anointed one,’” rather than “the Christ.”  “Messiah” let it be noted, is unquestionably an Aramaic word, not Hebrew (a commonly met with error, even in the writings of some who should know better; the Hebrew form is “mashiach,” as in Daniel 9:25); it is of course a term which developed in Judaism to refer solely to the ultimate and final king of Israel, the promised son of David foretold in Psalm 2; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6,7; 11:1ff; and so many other passages

 

Mary Magdalene, upon discovering that the supposed gardener at the tomb was in fact the resurrected Christ, addressed Him by the title of respect, “Rabbouni,” which means “my teacher,” as John explains (John 20:16), as well as “master, lord.”  Earlier, blind Bartimaeus so addressed Jesus (Mark 10:51; Mark, unusually, gives no translation of this Aramaic word for his readers).

 

Some Aramaic places names are also found in the NT.  “Bethesda” (John 5:2; Aramaic, “bet-chesda”) is generally understood to mean “house of mercy.” “Bethzatha,” a variant reading found in some manuscripts and versions at John 5:2 (Aramaic, “bet-zayta”) seems to mean “house of the olive.”  “Bethsaida” (Aramaic, “bet-tsaida”) apparently means “house of fishing.”  “Bethphage” (Aramaic, “bet-pagey”) indicates “house of unripe figs.”

 

One Aramaic word in the NT, “sikera” (Luke 1:15), ultimately goes back to an ancient Akkadian word, “shikaru,” and indicates an alcoholic beverage other than wine, namely, beer, which was forbidden to John the Baptist

 

Finally, in Paul’s letter to the church at Corinth, Paul speaks in his final salutation, “if anyone does not love the Lord, let him be accursed” (16:22), to which he immediately adds, “maranatha.”  Depending on how the word is divided, and the quantity of the final two vowels (long or short), this has three possible meanings.  First, if it is divided “Maran-atha” it can mean either 1. “Our Lord is coming” (“mar” is the Aramaic word for “lord”, the “-an” suffix is a pronoun meaning “our.”  Assuming the verbal form “atha” is a participle gives “is coming”); or, 2. “Our Lord has come” (assuming the verb is a preterite/past tense).  The third possible meaning of “maranatha” is based on a word division “marana-tha.”  The first part “marana” would then be a vocative, “O, Our Lord” and “tha” would be an imperative form, “come!” and taken together yield, 3. “O, our Lord, come!”  Of these three, “Our Lord has come” (referring back to the incarnation), does not seem to fit the context of Paul’s warning, though it is an important truth emphasized elsewhere by him (e.g., Galatians 4:4, I Timothy 3:16).  As a warning, “Our Lord is coming,” with the implied truth of judgment to come for all Christ’s enemies (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9), this sense seems well-suited to the context.  The final possibility, “O, our Lord, come!” of course is virtually identical to the closing prayer of the NT, uttered by John (Revelation 22:20), “Amen, come, Lord Jesus.”  All three possible interpretations are consistent with Biblical truth--our Lord has come, He is coming, and our heart’s yearning is that He will come.

 

[“Hosanna” was on the lips of the crowd that welcomed Jesus into Jerusalem upon His triumphal entry (in the accounts of this event as found in Matthew 21, Mark 11 and John 12).  It means “Save, please,” and is from the same root as the name “Jesus.”  Though identified by some as “Aramaic” (e.g., Trenchard, and also the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich lexicon), it is more likely a Hebrew phrase.  It is taken from Ps. 118:24, a Psalm well-known to every devote Jew because of its regular use in Jewish worship; the other phrase spoken by the enthusiastic throng, “blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD,” is from the next verse of the Psalm.  Let it be stated that Trenchard’s list of Aramaic words in the NT, op. cit., p. 297, is inaccurate; besides including at least one Hebrew word, it omits at least nine truly Aramaic ones]

 

Having surveyed all the Aramaic words found in the Greek NT, we need to turn our attention to one other consideration.  One occasionally reads claims that the Peshitta Syriac version of the NT “reproduces the words of Jesus in their original, untranslated form,” (Lamsa’s rather poorly done translation of the Syriac into English makes some such extravagant claims) and that if we really want to get the original words of Jesus, we should consult the Peshitta, rather than just the Greek text.  While I value the Peshitta (as well as the Old Syriac versions), and have found it a very helpful tool for greater understanding of the NT that should be more widely known and read, it must be recognized that the Peshitta, while no doubt from time to time giving us the precise original Aramaic words used by Jesus, nevertheless on the whole stands at some not inconsiderable distance from Jesus‘ original Aramaic words.  First, the Peshitta is very much a translation of the Greek text, not an independent record of the words of Jesus.  Second, the Peshitta is in an eastern dialect of Aramaic, one with many features distinct from the Palestinian Jewish Aramaic dialect used by Jesus.  Third, the Peshitta, dating from the early 5th century A.D., not the mid-2nd century as was the common opinion a century and more ago, is about 400 years removed from the days of Jesus--much as we are removed 400 years from the English of Shakespeare, and how much difference is there between the English language of our day and his?  And fourthly, we can with confidence assert that the words of Jesus preserved for us in Greek in the NT were in a great many cases the very words spoken by Jesus originally in Greek, not translations of them from Aramaic.

---Doug Kutilek

----------

 

The KJV and the Catholic Rheims NT: Two Examples of Dependence

 

One reader, in response to the article “Is the King James Version a ‘Roman Catholic Bible’?” (As I See It, 6:2, February, 2003) indicated that citing specific examples of KJV direct dependence on the Catholic Rheims version would be most helpful.  We therefore give two among the nearly 3,000 possible examples, but two which are typical.

 

The Greek word exodos, a common word which literally means “the way out, the journey out,” and obviously the source of our English word “exodus,” is found three times in the New Testament: Hebrews 11:22 (of the departure of Israel from Egypt); Luke 9:31, of Jesus’ departure from this world by death; and 2 Peter 1:15, of Peter’s departure from this world by death.  It occurs more than 50 times in the Septuagint (LXX), the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT, and is common in secular Greek literature. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon gives as meanings for this word, “exit, departure; departure from life, decease.”  Abbott-Smith, Manual Greek Lexicon gives “a going out, departure.”  Other standard Greek lexicons read similarly.

 

How this word was handled in early English translations is illustrative of how the Catholic Rheims NT of 1582 influenced the KJV translation.

 

In Luke 9:31, for exodos, Wycliffe’s version has “going out,” a literal translation of excessum as found in the Latin Vulgate, Wycliffe’s base text.  Tyndale (1526, 1534, 1536), translating directly from the Greek original, has “departing” as do other English translations: Cranmer (1539), Whittingham (1557), Geneva (1560, 1607), and Bishops’ (1568).  But the Roman Catholic Rheims (1582) reads “decease” which the KJV precisely reproduces.

 

At Hebrews 11:22, the earlier English versions made from Greek all have “departing” and here the KJV follows them; the Rheims in contrast has “going forth.”

 

At 2 Peter 1:15, the KJV returns to its imitation of the Rheims translation.  Wycliffe, translating the Latin obitus, has “death.”  Tyndale (1526, 1534, 1536) renders the Greek “departing” as do Cranmer (1539), Whittingham (1557), Geneva (1560, 1607), and Bishops’ (1568).  The Rheims, as at Luke 9:31, has “decease” and the KJV once again abandons the uniform rendering of all earlier Protestant versions and follows the Catholic version here, reading “decease.”

 

The issue is not whether the Rheims (and KJV) translation is a legitimate translation of exodos, as indeed it is--though not the only possible accurate English equivalent; the issue is whether the KJV is demonstrably dependent at Luke 9:31 and 2 Peter 1:15 on a Roman Catholic version, one not included in the king’s instructions.  Of this, there is not the least doubt.  As noted in AISI 6:2, there are literally thousands of such cases in the KJV NT where the KJV translators, contrary to the explicit instructions of King James, consulted and followed the translation as found in the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims NT, against the earlier accurate renderings of all Protestant translators from Tyndale through the Bishops’ Bible.

 

For a complete listing of all nearly 3,000 such places, the reader should consult Dr. J. G.  Carleton,The Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902).  It is readily accessible through inter-library loan.

                                                                        ---Doug Kutilek

----------

 

And Just How Do You Pronounce “KUTILEK” Anyway?

 

A recent e-letter inquiring about the pronunciation of my last name made me realize that likely a majority of readers of “As I See It” have never met me, nor heard my uncommon last name correctly pronounced.  So, FYI, here goes--“Kutilek” is a Bohemian name (all four of my paternal great-grandparents came from Bohemia to Nebraska in the 1880s and 90s), and means "tinker" (I like to fantasize that I have some spiritual kinship with John Bunyan, who was a tinker by trade; notice I said “fantasize”).  In 1996, in Munich, Germany, I met a nuclear physicist from Slovakia who indicated that there is a related adjective, “kutil” which means “competent.”  Not all names are entirely apt.

 

The name is relatively rare in the States--most common in Sedgwick County, Kansas, with less than 20 of us (all are relatives), with some strays in Nebraska, South Dakota, South Texas, Florida, Southern California, and perhaps one or more in New York, Chicago, and St. Louis.  Only a few of those are known to be relatives.

 

Outside the States, I discovered that Vienna, Austria had almost a dozen Kutileks listed in the phone book in 1992, though all had German and not Czech first names.  The village, Lhuta, about 40 kilometers east of Prague from which Great-Grandpa Vaclav Kutilek came in 1892 presently has about a dozen families named Kutilek there, though none are known to be relatives. 

 

 In the States, we pronounce Kutilek something like "Q-ti-leck"--accent first syllable, short "i", short "e." 

 

In the Czech Republic, it is pronounced more like "COO-chi-leck" ("coo"--as in the sound a pigeon makes, "chi" as in "chip", and "leck" again with a short "e").

 

In South Dakota, it has a different pronunciation, the "ti" being pronounced "zsi"--that is the "t" is pronounced the same as the "zs" in Zsa Zsa Gabor.  The rest is as in the Czech Republic, hence "COO-zsi-leck."  Pronounced this latter way, the name sounds like the word for “leather-worker.”

 

Probably more information than you needed.

---Doug Kutilek

----------