Article: Matthew 27:44 cast in teeth; Mt. 14:9 oaths sake by Will Kinney

From Textus Receptus

Jump to: navigation, search


Matthew 27:44 "Cast the same in his teeth


" He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth."


James White has produced a book called The King James Only Controversy. It contains a great deal of misinformation, unjust criticism, and outright hypocricy in his attacks on the King James Bible.


On page 231 Mr. White discusses paraphrases in the various versions and says: "The KJV is not free from "dynamic" translations. At times the translators were actually quite free with their terms. They translated the rather straightforward term "reviled" as "cast the same in his teeth" at Matthew 27:44 (there is no word "teeth" in the Greek text)." End of quote. Again, Mr. White is not completely accurate. The single word 'oneidizo' is translated as "cast in his teeth"; the part about "the same" is actually in the Greek text as separate words in this sentence.


I do not dispute that there are a few instances when the KJB paraphrases some constructions while retaining the intended meaning of the phrase, but the number these is much fewer than the other versions. On the whole the KJB gives us a far more literal rendering of the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts than the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and others. If you want proof of how the NASB (for whom James White presently works) is far less literal in scores of verses, please see my article "The ever-changing 'literal' NASB" here: ever changing NASBs


The exact phrase in Greek found in Matthew 27:44 is different from the one in Mark 15:32 which is translated as "reviled him". Here in Matthew 27 there are extra words added in all the texts which make it extremely awkward to translate them literally. In fact, none of the versions, including the NKJV, NASB, NIV,take a literal approach but they ALL paraphrase to some extent.


The Greek here reads: "To d' auto (kai hoi leestai hoi sustaurothentes autoo) ooneidizon auton" which would be something like "and the same also the thieves the ones were crucified with him reviled him".


Here are some of the different ways various versions have rendered this construction. It should be noted that none of them is a stricly literal rendering. All of them are "paraphrases".


The NASB keeps on changing from one edition to the next. The changes introduced in the 1995 NASB update where it differs from the 1977 edition affect 10,616 verses and directly affect 24,338 words. There are only 4,704 changes in capitalization, 32 in spelling, and 30 in italics. This makes 19,572 corrections involving word omissions, additions, transpositions, or substitutions to the text of the NASB 1977. There are 6,966 fewer words in the 1995 edition than there were in the 1977 NASB. These are not all just different ways of saying the same thing -the NASB of 1995 has actually altered the text itself, by adding whole phrases which were not found in the 1977 edition. Every example of these changes is documented in a book by Laurence M. Vance titled Double Jeopardy, published in 1998. It can be obtained by calling 850-474-1626 or by going to http://home.att.net/~vancepub


In the 1977 edition the NASB has: "were casting the same insults at Him", but in the 1995 edition it says: "were also insulting Him with the same words". In both editions, there are words added that are not found in any Greek text. Both editions rearrange the word order; "the same" is not connected with insults in the one, and there is no word for "words" in the 1995 NASB. Mr. White said it should be "reviled" yet neither NASB uses this word.


NIV - "also heaped insults on Him" - omits "the same", which is found in the KJB and in all Greek texts.


NKJV - "reviled Him with the same things" - again there is no "with" or "things" in any text, and the word order is again changed.


Young's - "were reproaching him" - omits "and the same".


NEB, NRSV - "taunted him in the same way" - no word for "way".


Bible in Basic English - "said evil words to him".


Contemporary English Version - "said cruel things to Jesus".


New Life Version - "made fun of him in the same way".


The expression "to cast in one's teeth" is not archaic or hard to understand. It effectively communicates the meaning intended here. In Dictionary.Com and in Webster's Dictionary the expression is listed as meaning "to upbraid or abuse one for something".


It should be noted that the KJB does not stand alone in rendering this awkward Greek construction as "cast the same in his teeth". So also do the following Bible versions: The Tyndale New Testament 1534, Miles Coverdale 1535, Matthew's Bible 1551, the Great Bible (Cranmer's bible) 1569, The Bishop's Bible 1577, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, and in more modern times we also have the Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21st Century Version. Not only do all these versions render the phrase in the exact same way as the KJB but even the Living Bible of 1981 says: "And the robbers also threw the same in his teeth."! The New English Bible of 1970 translates this same Greek word in 1 Peter 4:14 as: "If Christ's name IS FLUNG IN YOUR TEETH AS AN INSULT, count yourselves happy."


There are many examples in the NASB and NIV where they are not nearly as literal as the King James Bible, nor even as the previous Revised Version of 1881 nor the American Standard Version of 1901. Here are just a few examples:


Matthew 1:25 "And KNEW HER NOT till she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN son; and he called his name JESUS." Aside from the fact that the word "firstborn" is found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts, including C and D, and is found in the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta and Harkelian, the Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic and Slavonic ancient versions, the NASB, NIV,RSV and Holman omit this word because not in Sinaiticus nor Vaticanus.


However the phrase "And he knew her not" (kai ouk eginoosken auteen) is the reading of all manuscripts and is the correct literal translation found in the RV, ASV, NKJV,RSV and the ESV of 2001. But the NASB paraphrases this as: "but he kept her a virgin", the NIV says: "he had no union with her" and the Holman has: "he did not know her intimately".


In Luke 2:36 all Greek texts read as does the King James Bible with: "she was of great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her VIRGINITY" (parthenios). So read the RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV and the ESV. However the NASB and NIV totally paraphrase this by saying "from her MARRIAGE". The Holman also says "marriage" but then footnotes for us that the literal word is "virginity". There is an entirely different Greek word for "marriage". (gamos)


In Luke 9:44 all the Bible versions have a paraphrase of sorts, but the NIV goes beyond most. The Lord Jesus says to His disciples: "Let these sayings SINK DOWN INTO your ears". The 'literal' Greek says "Place you into your ears these sayings (or words)". Agreeing with the King James reading are the NKJV,RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, and ESV. The Holman has: "Let these words sink in", thus omitting the literal "your ears", while the NIV reads: "Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you."


In Luke 12:33 the Lord says: "Sell that ye have, and give ALMS" (eleemosuneen). "Alms" is the literal meaning and the reading found in the RV, ASV, NKJV,RSV and the NRSV. However the NASB paraphrases this as: "give TO CHARITY"; the NIV and Holman have: "give TO THE POOR" and the ESV paraphrases as "give TO THE NEEDY".


In Luke 12:35 the literal Greek and the reading of the King James Bible is "LET YOUR LOINS BE GIRDED ABOUT, and your lights burning." (estoosan humoon hai osphues periezoosmenai) So also read the RV, ASV, and the RSV of 1952. The NKJV is slightly wrong with: "Let your WAIST be girded", whereas the NASB, NIV,ESV go way overboard in paraphrasing. The NASB says: "BE DRESSED IN READINESS"; the NIV "BE DRESSED FOR READY SERVICE"; and the ESV has "STAY DRESSED FOR ACTION" and then kindly footnotes for us the literal Greek as "Let your loins be girded".


In Luke 12:50 all Greek texts have the Lord Jesus saying: "But I have a baptism TO BE BAPTIZED WITH" (baptistheenai) and so read the RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV,NRSV, ESV and Holman, but the NASB and NIV totally paraphrase this as: "But I have a baptism TO UNDERGO".


If being literal is generally a good thing to do when possible, then the King James Bible is far, far more literal than the NASB, and especially the NIV. I marvel at so many who go around telling us the NASB is such a "literal translation". It is not. A real eye opener for those who think the NASB is such a great literal translation, may I suggest you read my comparative study of the vaunted NASB called The Ever-Changing "literal" NASB, found here:

ever changing NASBs


Of a far more serious nature than the occasional "paraphrase" found in the King James Bible is the multitude of textual changes found in the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV. Each of these modern versions departs scores of times from the Hebrew Masoretic text, and often not in the same places as the others. The New Testament text of each of these versions differs from each other and they omit over 5,000 words from the text found in the King James Bible.


The ultimate question we have to ask ourselves is: Did God in fact preserve His infallible words in the Holy Bible as He promised or didn't He? Either the KJB has added to God's word or the new versions, which also differ among themselves, have taken away some of God's words. They both cannot be the pure, perfect, preserved words of the living God.


In this single chapter of Matthew 27 there are several representative alterations that illustrate the problem. In verse 19 Pilate's wife says: "Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have sufered many things THIS DAY in a dream because of him." All texts say "this day" (seemeron) and so do the NKJV, RV, ASV, NIV but the NASB says "LAST NIGHT". Can they tell the difference between night and day?


In verse 24 Pilate says: "I am innocent of the blood of this JUST person: see ye to it."


The word "just" or "righteous" is found in most manuscripts, Sinaiticus, the Revised Version and the ASV, but Vaticanus omits the word and now the NIV, NASB, ESV have rejected this previous accepted reading. So the NIV says: "I am innocent of this man's blood". The omission of this single word alters the testimony of even the enemies of our Lord as to His perfect character.


In verse 35 the whole phrase: "THAT IT MIGHT BE FULFILLED WHICH WAS SPOKEN BY THE PROPHET, THEY PARTED MY GARMENTS AMONG THEM, AND UPON MY VESTURE DID THEY CAST LOTS", which is a fulfillment of the prophecy found in Psalm 22, is found in the KJB, NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, Young's, TMB, KJV 21, French Louis Segond, Italian Diodati, Spanish Reina Valera, German Luther Bible, Rumanian bible, Portuguese, Danish, the Modern Greek and many others both ancient and modern. These words are found in many Old Latin copies which predate anything we have in Greek, and in many Greek copies both uncial and cursive, yet the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and many modern versions completely omit these 25 words. Did God inspire them or not?


In verse 42 the mockers said: "IF he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him." Here the little word IF is omitted by the NASB, NIV so that it reads: "He is the King of Israel; let Him now come down..." Not quite the same meaning is it? So, which one is right, or does it even matter?


In verse 49 "the rest said, LET BE, let us see whether Elias will come to save him." Here the words LET BE are found in all Greek texts and even in the NIV,RV, ASV but the NASB chose to omit them. Likewise the words "the body" are omitted in verse 58 and "by night" in verse 64 of the NASB, NIV but are found in the KJV, NKJV and an host of other versions.


These are only a very few of the literally hundreds of similar examples that can be pointed out in chapter after chapter of God's word. Are we to believe Bible "experts" like James White who recommends such diverse and contradictory versions like the NKJV, NIV and NASB as being "reliable" versions, even though they differ from each other in hundreds of verses in both meaning and text, or should we believe what God said about preserving His pure words? "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35


Matthew 14:9 - for the oaths sake


Mr. James Richard May is another Bible critic who has exalted his own mind above the true words of God as found in the King James Bible. He has a long article of rambling theories on the internet where he shows he has no infallible Bible and doesn't know where to get one.


Towards the end of his article he reveals a great deal about his particular mindset by pointing out for us what he considers to be errors in the King James Bible.


They are really silly and easily answered, but the amazing thing is he actually criticizes some things that are found even in most modern versions. He lists four examples of what he thinks are errors in the KJB.


  1. 1. Matthew 14:9 where it has "oath's sake", singular, which he thinks should be plural "oaths sake" like the NKJV, NIV, NASB have it.


  1. 2. John 2:4 where he objects to Jesus calling his mother "woman", even though the NKJV, NASB, NIV do the same thing.


  1. 3. John 4:27 where the KJB has Jesus talking to "THE woman", which he thinks should be "A woman".


  1. 4. Romans 8:16 where the KJB refers to "the Spirit ITSELF", which he thinks is a "disastrous mistranslation".


In this little study, we will address the first example Mr. May thinks is an error in the King James Bible.


Mr. May says: "Not only does the KJV fail to follow any one particular Textus Receptus in every detail, but there are a variety of places where it is not an accurate translation of any Textus Receptus (or any other Greek text, for that matter). These consist mainly of instances where the Greek text in all editions of the TR plainly says one thing, and the KJV plainly says something else, not because the translators used a differing Greek text, but because they failed to properly translate what was before them."


Matthew 14:9 - "And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the OATH'S sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her."


The original printing of the 1611 had: "for the othes sake, and them which sate with him at meate"


Mr. May says: "All editions of the Greek NT in this verse have the reading, “dia de tous orkous,” “nevertheless for the oaths’ sake.” The word “oaths’” (orkous) is plural in Greek. The KJV 1611 failed to insert the necessary apostrophe for the possessive of its translation (“nevertheless for the oaths sake”). This makes it impossible in English to determine if “oaths” is singular or plural. Later editors “corrected” the problem by inserting the apostrophe in the wrong place, thus rendering “oath’s” as singular."


First, Mr. May sees an "error" where none exists. If he had bothered to read the text carefully, he would have noticed that there was ONLY ONE OATH.


In Matthew 14:6-7 we read: "But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised WITH AN OATH to give her whatsoever she would ask."


The specific oath Herod swore is not mentioned in Matthew, but we do find it in Mark 6. There in verse 22-23 we read: "And when the daughter of the said Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod and them that sat with him, the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee. And he sware unto her, Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom."


Then in Mark 6:26 we read the same thing in the King James Bible, where the plural is properly rendered as a singular: "And the king was exceeding sorry; yet for his OATH'S sake, and for their sakes which sat with him, he would not reject her."


The original 1611 printing has the same thing here as in Matthew 14:9. It says: "yet for his othes sake, and for their sakes which sate with him, hee would not reject her."


There was only ONE OATH, yet the same oath was, after a fashion, repeated, as we see in Mark 6:22-23.

It is im portant to note that BOTH the singular and plural POSSESSIVES LOOKED THE SAME in the first printing of the King James Bible, and in other early English Bible versions as well. The English language DID NOT USE apostrophes like we do today. The rules for spelling English words were not well established in 1611 nor even in the 1800's. Educated men like Lewis and Clark would often spell many words and names in a variety of ways.


Check out Romans 10:1 "my HEARTS desire" (singular), which now is "my heart's desire". Then compare this with the plural in the 1611 of Psalms 81:12 "He gave them up to their own HEARTS lust", which is now "he gave them up to their own hearts' lust" .


Can you see that they did not use apostrophies in either the singular or the plural? The singular and the plural possessive both looked the same. This is how it was done in 17th century English. We find the same thing in the following English Bibles: Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, and the Geneva Bible of 1599.


Matthew 13:15 "this peoples heart is waxed gross", which is now "this people's heart is waxed gross" (singular possessive). Then compare it to the plural in Revelation 10:11 "prophesy before many peoples" - it has the same form in the 1611 printing. This is also true of Tyndale, the Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible.


Then we have the priest's and the priests' (singular possessive and plural possessive), but in the 1611 they look the same. In Luke 1:9 we read "according to the priest's office" - singular, but the 1611 has "according to the priests office". Likewise the same is true of Tyndale, Bishops' and the Geneva English Bibles of that era.


Then we have the plural in Joshua 4:3 "the priests' feet" - plural, but the 1611 has "the priests feet".


Secondly, there are many Greek words that are plural in form yet are correctly rendered as a singular in English. In fact, right here in Matthew 14:6 the word "birthday" is in the plural, yet all the versions render it as a singular.


Other examples of plural nouns being translated as a singular are: heaven - Mat. 6:11; Sabbath day - Mat.12:1, 11; water - Mat. 14:29; bread - Mat. 16:7; a marriage - Mat. 22:2; heart - Mat. 18:35 (NKJV, NIV, NASB); fruit - (NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV); a fever - Acts 28:8; my will - Acts 13:22; blood - John 1:13; time - 1 Tim. 2:6; door - James5:9; conversation (conduct); godliness - 2 Peter 3:11; and incense - Rev. 8:3, just to name a very few of the many examples that could be given.


Thirdly, the King James Bible is not the only one that correctly saw that there was only one oath taken by Herod on this occasion and translated it as a singular. The following Bible translations also translated it as a singular: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1560, Mace's New Testament 1729, Wesley's 1755 translation, Webster's 1833, Spanish Reina Valera 1909,1960 and 1995 “pero a causa del juramento”, the Douay-Rheims 1582, the French Ostervald 1996, and the 1999 La Bible du Semeur -”cause de son serment”; the Portuguese Almeida, and the 2000 O Livro - “por causa do juramento”; the Italian New Diodati 1991, and the 1997 La Parola e Vita “a causa del giuramento”, Luther’s German bible 1545, the New English Bible 1970, Weymouth, New Century Version, Good News Translation 1992, God's Word Translation 1995, Contemporary English Version, Today's English Version, The New Living Translation 1998, the KJV 21st Century Version, Green's Modern KJV 1998, Third Millenium Bible, and the 2001 Easy to Read Version.


Mr. May has no Bible in any language he considers to be the complete, infallible, inerrant and pure words of God. So he has placed himself in the position of being his own final authority and tries in vain to pick holes in the King James Bible by showing "errors" that exist only in his own mind rather than in God's infallible Book.


Mr. May continues his silly attack on the King James Bible with his second objection.


  1. 2. John 2:4 "Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come."


Mr. May says: "Would any reader of this paper address his dear mother as “woman”? To do so would be rightly considered the height of disrespect. The problem here is that “woman” in this context is an excellent translation of the denotative meaning of gune, but a most horrible translation of the connotative meaning. The Lord Jesus was never disrespectful to his mother (Exodus 20:12). The English word “woman” carries a connotative meaning of disrespect here that the Greek gune does not. On the denotative level the KJV is correct; on the connotative level it is in error (along with many other English versions)."

Mr. May is entitled to his opinions, but he is exalting his own understanding above the word of God. The fact is, there is no disrespect from Jesus towards His mother, but He is reminding her that she is not in control of His life. He is a full grown adult and is in submission to His heavenly Father. When Jesus says: "Woman, what have I do to with thee? mine hour is not yet come", He is making it clear that He is taking His orders from God the Father and not from his earthly mother. She is only another woman and not the guide or director of His life.


The NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV and almost every other bible version out there reads the same as the King James Bible by calling his mother "Woman". The NIV adds a word not found in any text and has Jesus saying: "DEAR woman, why do you involve me? My time has not yet come."


However, the NIV is inconsistent in that it translates the same word addressed to other women as "woman". For example, Matthew 15:28 "O woman, great is thy faith"; Luke 13:12 "Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity"; John 4:21 "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh..."; John 20:13, 15 "Woman, why weepest thou?". Is Jesus being disrespectful to these women, as Mr. May implies?


  1. 3. Mr. May's third criticism of the King James Bible has to do with John 4:27. "And upon this came his disciples, and marveled that he talked with THE woman: yet no man said, What seekest thou? or, Why talkest thou with her?"


Mr. May says: "That first century Jews held a low view of women is reflected in one of the daily thanksgivings in the Synagogue: “Blessed art Thou, O Lord . . . Who hast not made me a woman.” They also had a saying that it would be better to burn the Law than to give it to women. The disciples of Christ were not surprised that he spoke to this particular woman (“the woman”), but rather that he would so speak to any woman in public. This is clearly indicated in the Greek text, which does not possess the definite article (“the”). The correct translation of the text should indicate the surprise that “he talked with a woman.” The Textus Receptus does not have the Greek article here, and there is no reason to supply one in English. The KJV is in error in doing so."


Again, Mr. May shows his ignorance of both the manner in which Jesus commonly dealt with women in His ministry and the use or non-use of the definite article "the".


The Lord Jesus Christ frequently talked with women and in public. He often spoke with Martha and Mary and some of their conversations are recorded in Scripture. He publicly talked with the Syrophenician woman who requested He cast forth the devil out of her daughter (Mark 7:26), the woman who had an issue of blood 12 years and touched his garment (Mark 5:33); the woman who had an infirmity 18 years (Luke 13:11); and the woman taken in adultery (John 8).


As for the definite article, ALL bible versions FREQUENTLY either add the definite article when not there, or omit it when it is there. Even the Holy Ghost who inspired the Bible, will sometimes use definite articles in one instance, and yet when the same events and words are recorded in another gospel, He does not use them.


Right here in John chapter 4 itself, there are at least 20 examples of the definite article not being translated by the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV,and KJB, and there are examples of adding a definite article when none appears in the Greek texts.


Just a few examples of not translating the definite article are in John 4 verses 3 - the Judea, the Galilee; 4 - the Samaria; 6 - the Jacob; 6 - the journey; 10 - the God; 11 - the living; 16 the husband your; 28 - the waterpot her.


Examples of various versions adding the definite article "the" when none is found in the Greek are: 4:6 THE sixth hour (NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV); 4:21 THE hour is coming (NKJV, ESV); 4:23 the hour (NKJV, ESV); 4:52 THE seventh hour (NASB, NIV, NKJV,ESV)and 4:54 THE second sign (NIV, NKJV,ESV).


Even when we take a look at the word "woman" or "women" we see the modern versions have added the definite article 'THE' in the following: Acts 1:14 "they continued in prayer and supplication with THE women" (NASB, NKJV, NIV,ESV); 1 Cor. 7:10 "THE wife (same word as 'woman') should not leave her husband" (NASB, ESV)and 1 Timothy 5:9 "having been THE wife of one man" (NASB, NKJV,ESV).


In John 4:27 when the disciples returned from the city to the well and saw Jesus talking with THE woman, they marvelled because she was a woman of questionable character, and a Samaritan to boot, for whom the Jews had no high regard, and she was all by herself with the Lord Jesus. It was not because Jesus was not in the habit of talking with A woman, as Mr. May surmises. Mr. May and others like him have succumbed to scholastic suppositions rather than common sense from a plain reading of the Scriptures themselves.


Other Bible versions that likewise translate the phrase as "And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with THE woman" are: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, Mace New Testament 1729, Webster's 1833 translation, Douay 1950, KJV 21st Century version, Third Millenium Bible, and Green's Modern KJV 1998.


The 2002 Message says: " They couldn't believe he was talking with that kind of a woman. "


  1. 4. Mr. May's fourth criticism of the King James Bible has to do with referring to the Holy Ghost as the Spirit "itself". Mr. May says regarding Romans 8:16: "In this verse, the King James Bible refers to the Holy Spirit as an "it". KJV Only advocates defend this degrading mistranslation." He also calls this "a disastrous mistranslation".


The only thing "disastrous" here is Mr. May's ignorant charge against the King James Bible, which reveals his lack of understanding of both the Greek and the English languages.


I have already written an article responding to this fallacious argument which can be seen here: Textcrit Romans


The King James Bible is ALWAYS right. God, in His sovereign providence, has given to the English speaking people His perfect words, and they are found in all their glory only in the Authorized King James Holy Bible.


"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."


Will Kinney


External Link

Personal tools