Did the KJV get Matt. 5:21 Wrong?

[KMK]

Both the TR and NA28 agree the first 5 words of Matt. 5:21 are ακοθσατε οτι ερρεθη τοις αρχαοις. Why does the KJV translate τοις αρχαοις as a Dative of Agency, but all others translate it as an indirect object?

 

[Charles Johnson]

Both the TR and NA28 agree the first 5 words of Matt. 5:21 are ακοθσατε οτι ερρεθη τοις αρχαοις. Why does the KJV translate τοις αρχαοις as a Dative of Agency, but all others translate it as an indirect object?

My bible has Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, Οὐ φονεύσεις· ὃς δ’ ἂν φονεύσῃ, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει.

The question of whether to translate it "to the ancients" or "by the ancients" isn't just a grammatical one. It also depends on whether one thinks Christ is citing Ex. 20:13, in which case it would be God speaking "to the ancients," or he is citing Rabbinic tradition, in which it would be something "by the ancients," i.e. preceding generations of Rabbis.

Generally throughout Matthew 5 he's interacting with the corrupt biblical and legal interpretations of 1st century rabbinical Judaism. And further evidence that that's what he's doing here comes from the words "ὃς δ’ ἂν φονεύσῃ, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει" (and the one who murders shall be liable to judgment). Those words aren't found in Ex. 20:13, and they are characteristic of Talmudic legal statements, which speak, not in terms of sin and what is right and wrong, but in terms of what is "liable," i.e. punishable by the Jewish courts.

John Lightfoot takes note that Christ is referring to Rabbinic tradition in his commentary on Mt. 5:21:

"[Ye have heard.] That is, ye have received it by tradition. If they have heard [that is, learned by tradition], they speak to them. They learned by hearing; that is, by tradition; a saying very frequent in Maimonides.

[That it was said by them of old time.] That is, "it is an old tradition." For the particular passages of the law which are here cited by our Saviour are not produced as the bare words of Moses, but was clothed in the Glosses of the Scribes; which most plainly appears above the rest, Matthew 5:43, and sufficiently in this first allegation, where those words, "Whosoever shall kill shall be guilty of the judgment," do hold out the false paint of tradition, and, as we observe in the following verses, such as misrepresents the law, and makes it of none effect. If it be asked, why Christ makes mention of "those of old time?" it may be answered, that the memory of the ancienter Fathers of the Traditions was venerable among the people. Reverend was the name of the first good men; and the first wise men. Therefore Christ chose to confute their doctrines and Glosses, that he might more clearly prove the vanity of traditions, when he reproved their most famous men. But the sense which we have produced is plain, and without any difficulty; as if he should say, "It is an old tradition which hath obtained for many ages."

 

[Phil D.]

Grammatically, Meyer allows for both renderings, but ultimately sides with the majority of modern translations, while not discounting the contextual presence and role of contemporaneous midrash.

τοῖς ἀρχαίοις] may grammatically be taken not only as a dative (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Luther, Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein, Bengel, and many others; also Tholuck, Neander, de Wette, Ritschl, Bleek, Weizsäcker), but also as an ablative: by the ancients (see Kühner, II. 1, p. 368 f.; Winer, p. 206 [E. T. 277]); so Beza, Piscator, Schoettgen, Raphel, and many; also Paulus, Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Olshausen, Baumgarten, Ewald, Lechler, Keim.​

​

On the first rendering, which most obviously suggests itself (Romans 9:12; Romans 9:26; Galatians 3:16; Revelation 6:11; Revelation 9:4), the ancients are the Jewish generations of earlier times (before Christ), to which Moses and his followers (Matthew 23:2 f.), the scribes, spoke (de Wette, Ritschl), not simply the Israelites in the time of Moses, to whom the latter spoke (Neander, Bleek); on the latter view it is Moses (who would not have to be excluded, as Keim maintains), and his ancient expositors learned in the Scripture; for there follow their sayings, which are partly without, partly accompanied with, additions proceeding from the scribes.​

​

The decision between these two views is given not merely by the constant usage of the N. T., which joins ἐῤῥέθη with the dative, but also by the antithesis ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, in which ἐγώ corresponds to the logical subject of ἐῤῥέθη, and ὑμῖν to τοῖς ἀρχαίοις; the latter consequently cannot itself be the subject. Luther therefore rightly renders: that it is said to them of old time. Pointless objections are made by Keim, II. p. 248, who even finds in this view something opposed to the sense; because the people of the present day have not yet heard of that which was enjoined on them of old time, but of what has been enjoined upon themselves. On the other hand, it is to be recollected that it was precisely a peculiarity of the Jewish method of instruction, and still is so, to refer the present generation to those of old time, to inculcate upon the former the παράδοσις which had been common in ancient times, and had been already given to their forefathers. Thus the people of the present time have certainly heard in the synagogues what was said to them of old time. Comp., moreover, Diodorus Siculus xxii. 20 : καλῶς εἴρηται τοῖς παλαῖοις, ὅτι, κ.τ.λ.​

​

οὐ φονεύσεις] Exodus 20:12. The prohibition refers to the act, though not by itself, but as the effect of anger, of hostility, and so on; for there is also a putting to death which is permitted, nay, even commanded. The Pharisaic explanation and application of the legal saying was confined to the literal prohibition of the act; the fulfiller of the law lays open the whole disposition that deserves punishment, which, as the ethical condition of the act, was aimed at by the prohibition of the latter. The following words contain a traditional addition, although one not alien to the law, by the scribes, who interpreted that prohibition externally.​

​

κρίσις, according to Matthew 5:22, opposed to the Sanhedrin, is the local court, found, according to Deuteronomy 16:18, in every city of Palestine, to which it belonged to take cognizance of and to punish even murder (execution by the sword), 2 Chronicles 19:5; Josephus, Antt. iv. 8. 14. According to the Rabbins, it consisted of twenty-three members; according to Josephus, of seven. See generally, Tholuck, Keil, Arch. II. p. 250 ff. To the higher court of justice, the Sanhedrin, Matthew 5:22, it belonged to take cognizance also of crimes punishable by stoning.​

 

[Charles Johnson]

Grammatically, Meyer ultimately sides with the majority of modern translations

Grammatically I think the best Greek for "said by the ancients" would be ὑπὸ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις. So in a way I agree with him. But alas, sometimes the NT is, grammatically speaking, a little odd by the standards of the best Greek.

 

[Phil D.]

But alas, sometimes the NT is, grammatically speaking, a little odd by the standards of the best Greek.

True, although Meyer points out that particular rendering is most consistent with other NT usage.

 

[KMK]

Its hard to ignore the parallel between ακουσατε οτι ερρεθη τοις αρχαοιοις (direct object), and εγω δε λεγω υμιν (direct object). Also, it seems obvious that ερρεθη is a divine passive, referring to when the ancients heard it spoken to them on Sinai.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Its hard to ignore the parallel between ακουσατε οτι ερρεθη τοις αρχαοιοις (direct object), and εγω δε λεγω υμιν (direct object). Also, it seems obvious that ερρεθη is a divine passive, referring to when the ancients heard it spoken to them on Sinai.

That is possible, but then the allusion would be to the alleged transmission of the so-called oral law, which the Jews claim Moses received from God on Mt. Sinai in addition to the written law. The words ὃς δ’ ἂν φονεύσῃ, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει are not contained in Ex. 20. Christ would not be claiming that those words actually were given on Mt. Sinai, but instead be referencing Jewish tradition that they were.


Compare the use of Ἠκούσατε in v. 43, where words are alleged that not only are not found in the law of Moses, but are actually directly contrary to it:

"Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη, Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου καὶ μισήσεις τὸν ἐχθρόν σου."
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'"

 

[KMK]

That is possible, but then the allusion would be to the alleged transmission of the so-called oral law, which the Jews claim Moses received from God on Mt. Sinai in addition to the written law. The words ὃς δ’ ἂν φονεύσῃ, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει are not contained in Ex. 20. Christ would not be claimed that those words actually were given on Mt. Sinai, but instead be referencing Jewish tradition that they were.


Compare the use of Ἠκούσατε in v. 43, where words are alleged that not only are not found in the law of Moses, but are actually directly contrary to it:

"Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη, Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου καὶ μισήσεις τὸν ἐχθρόν σου."
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'"

These are all good points. Thank you.

 

[MW]

Matt 7:28-29, "And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes."

The people heard from the scribes. The scribes taught the tradition of the elders.

Christ taught the true exposition of the Scriptures. He was not correcting the law. The law is perfect. He was clearing the law from qualified interpretations which limited its perfection.

 

[Phil D.]

It is interesting that in this instance it might be said modern translations are more literal in their rendering, while the KJV is more dynamic.

 

[MW]

It is interesting that in this instance it might be said modern translations are more literal in their rendering, while the KJV is more dynamic.

How so?