Rightly Dividing the Translations
Bill Link considers how translation choices shape understanding and urges readers to compare carefully while seeking the sense of Scripture.
Read Time: 9 minutes
This article is written to supplement Brother Steve Davis’s excellent article on Bible translations, first published in 2015, and included in this special issue on Bible reading. There’s a lot to compliment in that article, notably this paragraph:
I remember many years ago, asking a brother which was the best Bible translation. This old man was the salt of the earth and had taught the Truth to many. His answer was a dismissive wave of the hand, and “Doesn’t matter—we can teach the Truth from any.” His response impressed me that we need to keep our priorities straight, eagerly seeking opportunities to preach, and not getting bogged down in academic hair-splitting.
That said, there are many admonitions in Proverbs to excellence in wisdom and understanding. David’s example of continual meditation on the Word, and Paul’s exhortation that we “rightly divide the word of truth,” ought to encourage us to careful consideration of differences among versions. Sometimes our choice of Bible translation might color our understanding. Some translations of the Bible are excessively interpretational, guided by doctrinal prejudices.
The best solution is readily available for many of us: look at various versions, noting where and how they agree or disagree. And then we should do our best to get to the bottom of the matter. Why do they disagree? Which reading is more convincing and consistent with the rest of the Scriptures? And does it matter? In all of this, we should be humbly willing to acknowledge our own uncertainty and to realize that we might have to wait patiently to find answers.
I have written this supplement to Brother Steve’s article to present three case studies of translation variation. The first illustrates doctrinal challenges arising from prejudicial translations. The second shows that biblical connections can be lost through the interpretation of metaphors. And finally, I show some examples of passages commonly misused in our community because archaisms have misled us.
The Evil One
Most of us have learned the Lord’s prayer with “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” We find this in Matthew 6:13 in the King James Version (KJV), English Standard Version (ESV), New American Standard Version (NASB), and the Revised Standard Version (RSV).
However, if we read it from the New King James Version (NKJV), the Revised Version (RV), the New International Version (NIV), or the New English Translation (NET), we have “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.” Sounds like maybe Jesus is talking about a personal devil, doesn’t it?
What can we find out?
The NET Bible (accessible online at netbible.org) is to be commended for its inclusion of translation notes. For the passage in question, it says
The term πονηροῦ (ponērou) may be understood as specific and personified, referring to the devil, or possibly as a general reference to evil… Cf. also “the evildoer” in 5:39, which is the same construction.
The NET notes very helpfully point to the same construction in Matthew 5:39. There, the NET reads “the evildoer,” and the NKJV says “But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” I’ve never heard anyone suggest that Jesus is speaking of the fallen angel devil as the one who slaps your right cheek!
The NET and NKJV are forced by context to translate Matthew 5:39 as a general reference to evil people, but in the next chapter, they choose a translation of the same Greek construction1 that suggests reference to a specific individual, the personal devil of orthodoxy.2
It is useful to know that respected scholars who believe in a personal devil nevertheless discourage translation of Matthew 6:13 as a specific reference to him. Examples include the Cambridge Bible Commentary (1881) and Jamieson, Fausset and Brown (1878).
This example shows the potential for translations to be guided by orthodox doctrinal considerations.3 We need to be aware of this possibility when witnessing the Truth to interested friends.
Interpreting Metaphors
It’s tricky trying to explain figurative language to folks who speak a different language. I chuckle whenever I think back on early days with Brother Ed Binch in El Salvador, when the two of us tried to explain in our limited Spanish what was meant by having a frog in one’s throat.
There is a lot of metaphorical language in the Bible. Translators can interpret the metaphor, making the text easily readable and intelligible. Or not! They can simply translate the literal sense of the text, requiring the reader to become familiar with the biblical metaphor. A good example is in Romans 7:18. There, the ESV reads “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh.” On the other hand, the NIV reads “For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.”4
The NIV interprets “flesh” as meaning “sinful nature.” And that’s basically correct, so an inexperienced reader can more easily understand what is being said. But something is lost by interpreting the metaphor. If you compile a list of passages in Romans where Paul uses sarx (flesh) or sarkikos (fleshly), it turns out that there are a whole lot more of them than you might realize using the NIV.
While the general sense of particular verses might not be lost, a potential connection between passages is lost. Whether the connection is legitimate or not is something for the reader to ponder, but the NIV takes that option away. Here are some examples of NIV’s translations:
- Romans 1:3. Jesus, “as to his earthly life [“according to the flesh” NKJV] was a descendant of David.”
- Romans 2:28-29. “A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical [“outward in the flesh” NKJV]. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.” This one strikes me as unfortunate, for Paul’s words here clearly anticipate his metaphor of flesh and spirit and link back to Moses’s words in Deuteronomy 10:16 and 30:6, as well as metaphorical references to circumcision in Jeremiah 4:4 and 9:26.
- Romans 3:20. “No one [“no flesh,” NKJV] will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law.”
- Romans 15:27. “The Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings [“carnal things,” KJV]. Here, spiritual and fleshly things are mentioned together, surely hearkening back in some way to the familiar contrasts in Romans 8. Yet most modern versions obscure the connection; the RV and the American Standard Version (ASV) are exceptions.
Is anything lost by interpreting the metaphor? Not too much, in giving the general sense of a passage. But maybe a little bit is lost, particularly in seeing connections between passages.5 The NASB, ESV, and KJV are generally regarded as the most literal translations.
KJV Archaisms
Many of us grew up with the King James Version and enjoy its stately loftiness and literary elegance. I do. But understanding the KJV is sometimes like speaking a different language. We know how confusing it can be: “let” means “prevent” and “prevent” means “go before.” There’s “conversation” that means “conduct,” “meat” that means food generally, etc. When we were kids, my big sister and I used to lament the long-winded contributions of a certain brother, saying, “Now I know what it means to ‘suffer the word of exhortation.’” We knew that wasn’t what Hebrews 13:22 meant, but got some relief by a bit of wry humor.
Many of us are aware of most of these differences, but there are some that slip by. We may have been encouraged to “study to show thyself approved.” (2 Timothy 2:15). It’s a fine sentiment, that good Bible study is important. In fact, Paul carries right on to say something of the sort in the same verse, with “rightly dividing the word of truth.” (NKJV). But “study” is another one of those words that has changed meaning. In the 17th century, it meant to endeavor, to try hard. Modern translations of 2 Timothy 2:15 typically say, “do your best” or, better, “be diligent.”
Teaching the Truth is and should be of the highest priority for us, and it’s wise for us to recognize that the good old KJV might not be the best for our interested friends. Preaching the Truth is also of the highest priority, and it’s wise for us to recognize that our young people and brethren who are not native English speakers might have an additional burden imposed by archaic English.
Conclusion
How to decide which version to use? Ecclesias might choose a single version for congregational reading, or ask readers to announce which version they’re reading from. Such choices should be made with the goal of edification.
For individual devotional reading and study, the best advice might be not to make a single decision—use lots of versions, and learn from the differences. We are enormously blessed to have so many tools at our disposal for Bible study and the work of many scholars. Let’s give our best, devoting ourselves to a fuller understanding of God’s blessed Word, and to putting that understanding into practice through godly living and personal witness.
Bill Link,
Baltimore Ecclesia, MD
- Same construction, as noted by the NET. There is a slight difference in phrasing, with τῷ πονηρῷ in 5:39 and τοῦ πονηροῦ in 6:13, but this arises from sentence structure rather than a change in what is being referred to.
- The Greek uses a “substantiual adjective,” where an adjective is pressed into service as a noun. Readers in the USA are likely familiar with a similar construction in the national anthem, which speaks of the flag flying over “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Free and brave are adjectives, functioning as nouns. While “the evil one” might be justifiable as highlighting this construction, “the evil doer” would be better, since it doesn’t suggest the fallen angel of orthodoxy.
- Some further examples:
- Many modern versions use “him” in references to the holy spirit in the New Testament. In fact, the Greek word spirit (pneuma) is neuter, so it should be translated as “it,” as in the KJV of Romans 8:16, where we read, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” The NKJV reading that “The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit” reflects Trinitarian bias. Even the KJV’s capitalization of Spirit reflects interpretive decisions rather than features of the original text.
- Similarly, Spanish versions of John 1 almost always translate logos (word) as verbo (verb!) rather than palabra (word). Why? Because in Spanish, “word” is feminine, while “verb” is masculine. If in the Spanish version’s logos were translated “palabra” as it ought to be, then for consistency John 1:3 would have to be translated as “Todas las cosas por ella fueron hechas” (“All things were made by her”)—which wouldn’t fit very well with orthodox theological conceptions, and thus translators change the word to verbo, something that fit their ideas.
- In 1 Timothy 3:6, Paul warns Timothy against appointing a new convert as a bishop, saying that a new convert might become conceited and “fall into the condemnation of the devil.” Five verses later, Paul says that deacons’ wives must not be “slanderers” (KJV). The only difference between “devil” (v. 5) and “slanderers” (v. 11) in the Greek is that the latter is plural. A more consistent translation of 3:6 would use “slanderer,” giving the sense that a new convert might make King David’s blunder and allow the enemies of God to blaspheme (2 Samuel 12:14).
- The NIV has been revised and republished several times. Quotes here are from the 2011 version.
- The interested reader might want to compare KJV, ESV, NASB, and NIV translations of the figurative “God visited His people” (a common Hebraism) in Genesis 21:1. In Luke 1:68, 7:16. All convey the correct sense. Still, there’s something special in seeing the Hebraism carried over into the Gospel of Luke that’s lost in some translations.