We have been talking about believing in God, and although it is not explicitly stated in John 3:16 (our primary text), we do need to be able to define and explain sin.

The challenge, of course, in this culture is to find a way to do so, firmly and biblically, and yet without our listeners blocking out the discussion because of their religious stereotypes. Now, we have the assurance that it is not our responsibility to convict the world of sin, and that “No one can come to me [Jesus] unless the Father who sent me draws them” (Jn 6:44, NIV). But we still have a responsibility to be as clear and convincing as possible.

So how do you explain sin without using religious language? How’s this?

God had given Adam and Eve one rule, just one rule. By keeping this rule, they were able to show God in a concrete way that they loved him and lived in submission to him; he is God and they are not. The Garden had many different trees with many different types of delicious fruit, all to be eaten and enjoyed. God had created them all, and had created them good. But there was one tree — and we don’t know what type it was; I’m sure it wasn’t an apple tree but that’s just me — and they were told not to eat the fruit on that tree. It was called “the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

NOTE: you can also watch a screencast on this blog on YouTube.

One of the differences between Greek and English style is in expressing a series. When English translations mimic Greek style, they are writing poor English style, or miscommunicating altogether.

Greek tends to say conjunction + item + conjunction + item + conjunction + final item. English says item + comma + item + comma (if you use the Oxford comma) + conjunction + final item. Take, for example, the listing of the 12 apostles. The NASB goes very much word for word.

“And [καί] He appointed the twelve: [καί] Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter), and [καί] James, the son of Zebedee, and [καί] John the brother of James ( [καί] to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, “Sons of Thunder”); and [καί] Andrew, and [καί] Philip, and [καί] Bartholomew, and [καί] Matthew, and [καί] Thomas, and [καί] James the son of Alphaeus, and [καί] Thaddaeus, and [καί] Simon the Zealot; and [καί] Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him.”

But notice the inconsistencies: twice the NASB fails to translate a καί. Why? This type of examples explodes the myth that an advantage of formal equivalent translations is that they reflect the underlying Greek structure. No they do not! I doubt there is a single verse in all the Bible whose structure, vocabulary, and grammar are precisely reflected in English.

The longer I translate, the more I realize how subtle language is, and how different people hear the same word or phrase differently.

In Galatians 2, Paul is talking about his relationship with the Jerusalem church and their agreement with his theology. His conclusion is in v 10. “All they asked was that we should continue to remember (μνημονεύωμεν) the poor, the very thing I had been eager (ἐσπούδασα) to do all along” (NIV).

μνημονεύωμεν is a present subjunctive, which the NIV makes explicit with the “continue.” The NLT has, “keep on helping the poor.” Other translations have the simple, “They asked only that we would remember the poor” (CSB, see ESV, NASB, NET, NRSV).

How do you hear “remember”? On one hand, the lexical idea of “remember” is imperfective so you don’t need the “continue” or “keep on.” However, just saying “remember” may imply to some readers that Paul had not been remembering the poor and they were asking him to start remembering the poor. In other words, while μνημονεύωμεν itself does not require a helping word to make it imperfective, perhaps the context does.

Then take ἐσπούδασα. The NIV has “the very thing I had been eager to do all along.” There is no Greek word or phrase explicitly paralleling “all along,” so where did it come from? Remember, there is always a reason, always. The NASB simply translates the words, “the very thing I also was eager to do” (also the ESV, CSB, NET, NRSV). The problem with this, at least to my ears, is that it sounds like Paul had not been eager to do this but now he was. Is that how it sounds to you?

BDAG gives the only meaning of εὐθέως as “at once, immediately.” In our passage it describes Paul’s resolve to not confirm his divine call with the leaders of the Jerusalem chuch.

“But when God, who had set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, εὐθέως I did not consult with flesh and blood” (1:15–16). How would you translate εὐθέως?

The more word-for-word approach tends to just translate the words. “I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood” (NASB). “I did not immediately consult with anyone” (ESV, CSB); interesting that a translation claiming to be “essential literal” didn’t translate σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι as “flesh and blood.” “Flesh and blood” certainly has a stronger contrast with the divine revelation than does the bland “anyone,” it is easily understood in English, and the RSV does use “flesh and blood” so this is a change in the ESV from its base text.

The NIV has the unfortunate translation, “my immediate response was not to consult any human being.” This may seem picky, but was this really Paul’s “immediate” response? I can think of many responses that would have followed a divine revelation. Amazement. Thankfulness. Apprehension at the magnitude of the calling.

Common sense tells us that what Paul means by what he says (which are sometimes not the same thing) is that instead of consulting with others he left right away for Arabia. It certainly wasn’t the first thing he did, but it was the first thing he did as a consequence to the revelation.

Even the translation “I did not immediately consult with anyone” could be confusing. He didn’t consult right away, but did he consult later? In other words, what is the precise meaning of “immediately”?

Life is a journey. Life is a hike from our City of Destruction to the Celestial City. But no matter how the journey unfolds along the path, it has a beginning point. In Jesus’ imagery, the journey begins at the gate. In my imagery, the hike begins at the trailhead.

Everyone’s trailhead is a little different. For some, we started the journey on our mother’s knee at a young age. For others it starts after a difficult time in the teenage years, and perhaps in the midst of those difficult times you met a friend who started to walk with you. For others the trailhead is much later, after you have sampled life and found it lacking. Our trailheads can often look quite different.

However all of our trailheads have many things in common, and today I want to talk about what we all have in common. As you start your journey as a follower of Jesus, or if you are just thinking about it, or if you are walking with a new traveler, it is important that we have the same understanding of what the trailhead looks like; otherwise it will become confusing on down the path.

One of the defining moments in my life was when I was in graduate school. I was waiting for the bus, and a young coed asked if I was one of those “Divinity” students. (That’s what it is called in Scotland.) I said yes, and she asked if I were a Christian. I said yes, and she responded, “What is a Christian?” Much to my shame, I had never thought through a quick and decisive answer. I was working on a Ph.D. but had not thought through this most important of all questions. The bus came in two minutes and she got on.

Was the Canaanite woman demanding the Jesus exorcise the demon and save her daughter? Some of the translations make it sound like she was.

She is pleading with Jesus, who eventually says, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (v 24). She replies, “Lord, help me!” (v 25). (Greek students: you should memorize her answer for the next time you need help in Greek class — κύριε, βοήθει μοι.) Jesus responds, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs” (v 26).

If you don’t know the story, it would look like Jesus was truly cruel, but I am sure he was pressing her to exercise her faith, if for no other reason to show the disciples what true faith looked like. She truly believed Jesus could save her daughter.

The NIV translates her answer, “‘Yes it is (ναί), Lord,’ she said. ‘Even (καὶ γὰρ) the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table’” (v 27). Doesn’t that sound like she is saying, “Yes, it is right to take the children’s bread and give it to the dogs.”

However, she is really agreeing with Jesus’ statement that it is not right to do so. ναί is a “particle denoting affirmation, agreement, or emphasis,” “certainly, indeed, quite so” (BDAG).

Note: This is the back story to our basic discipleship class, Life is a Journey, and why we started with a discussion of conversion.

When I decided to create our own new believers curriculum, the first step was to marshall what forces I could from the congregation. I looked for men and women who had a proven track record of mentoring new followers of Christ, as well as those who had a clear understanding of the end goal. I wanted people who had a heart for evangelism and discipleship, justification and sanctification.

I learned two things very quickly. 1. There are not many of them. 2. The few are easy to find. These are the people who are already doing the work, who are looking for people to serve. We used to joke that one of the ladies had a “bathroom ministry.” She watched the congregation very carefully during the service, and if a woman got up and left crying, there was a good chance one of two things were happening. 1. She were hurting. 2. She was being convicted by the Holy Spirit and needed a Phillip to guide her. This lady was God’s agent of leading many women through an awareness of their sin to God’s gracious forgiveness and Jesus’ provision of access to the Father.

Every once in a while you read a verse that obviously cannot mean what it says. Whether you are working with a formal or a functional equivalent translation, both are going to just translate the words and leave the exegesis up to the reader (and the commentaries). But if you are reading a natural language translation like the NLT, they will often try to help the reader. A couple examples.

John writes a short letter, and at the end says, “Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink” (2 John 12, ESV, see most translations). Do you see the problem here? He has just used “paper and ink” for eleven verses. Contextually, we understand that what he means, even though it is not what he says, is that he has more to say but he wants to say it in person. So the NLT adds, “I have much more to say to you, but I don’t want to do it with paper and ink.” The TEV reads, “I have so much to tell you, but I would rather not do it with paper and ink.” The NJB has a clever way to say this as well; “There are several things I have to tell you, but I have thought it best not to trust them to paper and ink.”

In Jesus’ tirade against the religious leaders, he attacks their arrogance, specifically, their desire for titles that separate them from the regular folk (23:5-6). He says that they are not to be called “Father” (πατέρα), “for you have but one Father, and he is in heaven” (23:9). Obviously, Jesus doesn’t mean what it says. I call my dad “Dad” or “Father,” I don’t know anyone who would fault me for that. What he actually means is spelled out in the last two verses. “The greatest among you will be your servant. And whoever will exalt himself will be humbled, and whoever will humble himself will be exalted” (Matt. 23:11–12).

There are several things going on in James 3:6. Two of the more interesting are the placement of γλῶσσα and whether καθίσταται is a middle or passive.

“And the tongue is a fire (ἡ γλῶσσα πῦρ)! The tongue is a world of iniquity (ὁ κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας ἡ γλῶσσα) set among our members (καθίσταται ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ἡμῶν ); it defiles the whole body (ἡ σπιλοῦσα ὅλον τὸ σῶμα), sets on fire the course of our life (καὶ φλογίζουσα τὸν τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως), and is set on fire by hell (καὶ φλογιζομένη ὑπὸ τῆς γεέννης).”

If the second γλῶσσα goes with the preceding, it means “The tongue is a (or “the”) world of iniquity, and this means that the subject of καθίσταται is drawn from its personal ending.

If γλῶσσα goes with the following, then κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας is a noun phrase in apposition to γλῶσσα (“The tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity”) and the second γλῶσσα is the subject of καθίσταται. “And the tongue is a fire. The tongue, a world of unrighteousness, is placed among our members” (CSB).

I will phrase this verse in a video to lay out it’s structure.

But the more significant challenge is the voice of καθίσταται.

In James 2:25 we read, “Was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she took in the spies (ἀγγέλους) and sent them out by another way?”

All interpretations are interpretive; anyone who says differently is selling something. (A slight takeoff of the man in black who said, “Life is Pain! Anyone who says differently is selling something.”)

The question is, “How interpretive should a translation be?” All translation committees struggle with this. When translating words doesn’t convey sufficient meaning, how far should we go to communicate? I just posted a YouTube on this issue in general (gk2.me/translations-overview).

James 2:7 gives a small example that shows how subtle this issue can be. James is asking a rhetorical question about the rich in this church; “Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the honorable name (τὸ καλὸν ὄνομα) by which you were called? (τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς).”

Some people say this is a reference to baptism and the invoking of the name of Jesus over the person being baptized. This would read the aorist ἐπικληθὲν as punctilear, but I am generally not persuaded by the approach that sees baptismal allusions under ever bush, as it were. However, this does explain some of the translations. The HCSB writes, “Don’t they blaspheme the noble name that was pronounced over you at your baptism?” which was change in the CSB to, “Don’t they blaspheme the good name that was invoked over you?” The NRSV has, “the excellent name that was invoked over you.”

Usually it is no big deal to find an antecedent. Start looking for a word with the same number and gender as the pronoun. But every once in a while, the antecedent can be a little elusive.

In Phil 1, Paul explains how his imprisonment and all that has happened to him (τὰ κατ᾿ ἐμὲ) has served to advance the gospel throughout the Palace Guard, which in turn has emboldened the Philippian Christians (1:12–15). He then includes a short caveat, explaining that different people have different motives, but at the end of the day he concludes ἐν τούτῳ χαίρω (1:16–18a).

Paul then shifts tenses from the present χαίρω to the future χαρήσομαι to say that he will also rejoice because he knows (οἶδα γάρ) that “this” (τοῦτο) will turn out for his (μοι ἀποβήσεται) deliverance (or salvation, εἰς σωτηρίαν). What does τοῦτο refer to?

Alistair Begg preached a sermon the other day on Truth for Life about 1 Peter 5:6–7. “Humble yourselves (ταπεινώθητε), therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. Cast (ἐπιρίψαντες) all your anxiety on him because he cares for you” (NIV).

His question was on the relationship between ταπεινώθητε and ἐπιρίψαντες. In the Greek, as well as the more formal equivalent translations, the answer is obvious. ἐπιρίψαντες is an adverbial participle explaining something about ταπεινώθητε; part of humbling yourself is to cast your anxiety on God. A proud person thinks that they can handle life and wants to stay in control; the humble person realizes that they can trust God to handle the anxious issues of life. So the ESV writes, “Humble yourselves ... casting all your anxieties on him” (see also the NASB and CSB).

Part of the thinking behind more dynamic translations is to shorten the length of the Greek verse, which all translations do to varying degrees, due to English style; it is common to find participles translated as indicatives (NIV, NRSV, NLT).

I started this blog because I want to share what I am writing for new believers, but there are few things I want to share first before I start. This blog post is on vengeance.

“I’m still standing better than I ever did,
Looking like a true survivor; feeling like a little kid.
I’m still standing after all this time,
Picking up the pieces of my life without you on my mind.
I’m still standing!”

I watch the cartoon musical Sing the other day, and when Taron Egerton sang this Elton John song, something touched me deep down in my heart. “I’m still standing.”

We all know that vengeance is a good thing when it is a God thing. Our job is to forgive; it is God’s job to act out his perfect love and justice when he sees fit in ways he sees fit.

One of the things I am sensitive to is the difference between an indicative and a non-indicative form. English style often blurs the distinction, but for Greek students it can be important to feel the difference. Often, the difference is one of nuance, but a difference nonetheless.

Look at James 1:18 in the English and tell me what is the main point?

• “He chose to give birth to us by giving us his true word” (NLT, see also the NIV).
• “Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth” (ESV; see also the CSB).
• “In fulfillment of his own purpose he gave us birth by the word of truth” (NLT).

If you read the NLT or NIV, it feels like the main point is that God made a choice. This is highlighted by the fact that in English we usually start a new sentence here, even though v 18 in Greek is dependent on v 17 (βουληθεὶς ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς λόγῳ ἀληθείας).

I have been thinking a lot about some of the general issues of translation, and one of the points that keeps coming up is the issue of metaphors, and I would like your opinion.

Are metaphors inspired?

I am asking if the inspired authors chose to use a metaphor to convey meaning, are we required to use a metaphor?

There are, of course, metaphors that make no sense in a target language. We have no choice with those and must interpret the metaphor. Consider the story of the prodigal son. When the father saw his prodigal son returning, he ran and “fell on his neck” (KJV, Luke 15:20). While that is a word for word translation, it certainly is not what the text means. Even the NASB, the most formal equivalent translation in English, says that the father “embraced” him, with the footnote, “Lit fell on his neck.”

You know you have been talking too much about translation when your spouse throws your own words back in your face. Robin was reading Ps 102:12 the other day. “But you, Lord, sit enthroned forever; your renown endures through all generations” (NIV).

“Renown,” she laughed, “what’s a renown?” And then she quoted my common response: “That’s not English; nobody talks like that.”

Now Robin knows precisely what “renown” means. “The condition of being known or talked about by many people; fame.” But would we use a word like that? Probably not; “fame” would be the normal way of saying it.

But this brings up the interesting issue of active vs passive vocabulary.

Did you see Chief Justice Roberts' graduation speech at his son's ninth-grade commencement? This is the part that caught my eye.

From time to time in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly, so that you will come to know the value of justice.

I hope that you will suffer betrayal because that will teach you the importance of loyalty.

Sorry to say, but I hope you will be lonely from time to time so that you don’t take friends for granted.

I wish you bad luck, again, from time to time so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either.

I started this blog so I could share what I am thinking about helping new believers start their spiritual journey well, but there are just a few topics I want to cover first.

The first came from a meeting I had with Mart Green, the son of David Green who started Hobby Lobby. What an amazing family, not only for their business acument but for their extravagant generosity.

Mart was talking about a Bible traslation project the Green family foundation helped to fund, and as he was listening to Yunike (below) accept the first Bible in their language, she said this: "Thank you to all the funders. Now all the Nsenga people can go to heaven."

I have been enjoying reading the CSB, the new version of the former HCSB. Tom Schreiner and his group of translators have done an excellent job at updating an already good translation.

I was reading in Matt 5 this morning and came across v 22. “Everyone who is angry with his brother or sister will be subject to judgment (κρίσει). Whoever insults his brother or sister, will be subject to the court (συνεδρίῳ). Whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be subject to hellfire (τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός).”

The progression of the three punishments has always been a difficult exegetical decision. But as I was reading on, it actually became a little more difficult. In v 25 Jesus says, “Reach a settlement quickly with your adversary while you’re on the way with him to the court (ὅτου εἶ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ), or your adversary will hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you will be thrown into prison.” Notice that ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ (“on the way”) has no object, and the CSB has added, “to the court.”

Some people feel every Greek word should be translated with an English word. There are, of course, notable exceptions; ὅτι introducing a direct quote is translated with quotation marks. But it is argued that inspiration requires every word to be translated one way or another.

I am not convinced this is an accurate way of thinking. Yes, Scripture is the Word of God, and all of it comes from the mouth of God (2 Tim 3:16). But how does Greek communicate? How does any language communicate? I suggest that authorial intent is discovered more at the phrase level (in most cases) than at the word level, and style is part of the communication process.

After all, if I wrote as a first grader, or in Yoda-speak, in a colloquial style, or in an extremely formal style, style is one of the tools I am using to communicate Is there a difference in meaning between answering the phone “It is I” and “It is me,” “yeh,” or “Me it is”? Is there a difference in saying “With whom should I speak?” and “Who should I speak to?”? Of course there is.

I came across a really strange use of ἀντί the other day. It serves as a good example of semantic range

Speaking of Jesus, Heb 12:2 says, “For (ἀντί) the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” The most common meaning of ἀντί, by far, is the idea of replacement. BDAG’s first two definitions are: (1) “indicating that one person or thing is, or is to be, replaced by another, instead of, in place of”; (2) “indicating that one thing is equiv. to another, for, as, in place of.”

This would give a strange interpretation of v 2. Jesus replaced “the joy set before him” with “enduring the cross.” I am not sure what that would mean, which is the major clue that I need to spend more time with BDAG. But notice the footnote in the NLT: “Or Instead of the joy.”

Sometimes Greek can really be frustrating, especially when it is succinct. Here is a good example. John 3:21 reads, “But the one who does the truth comes to the light, so that his deeds may be clearly seen (φανερωθῇ αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα), that (ὅτι) they have been done (ἐστιν εἰργασμένα) in God (ἐν θεῷ).”

Most of the translation is pretty straight forward except for the final phrase. If ἐν is given its normal meaning of sphere, it doesn’t make any sense. If ἐν is instrumental, then you have the awkward idea that the person does the truth, but actually they were done by God.

As always, it is fun to check out the translations.

We just completed another week of work on the NIV in Cambridge, and I was again reminded that there is always a reason. No matter how unusual a translation of a certain verse may appear, there is always a reason. Like Jason Bourne, nothing is random.

A good example is John 2:1 in the NLT. “The next day (τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ) there was a wedding celebration in the village of Cana in Galilee.” Someone might respond, how would you ever get “next” from τρίτῃ? But before you pronounce the NLT translators as incompetent — which they are not — repeat after me: “There is always a reason; nothing is random.”

The problem, of course, is that when John says “third,” the reader looks in vain for the “first” and the “second,” which don't exist. So since the NLT is committed to communicating meaning in the most natural way possible, they had to find some way to help the reader understand.

This blog is purely on translation and not directly on Greek, but I have been thinking about this a lot lately so thought I would share it.

Most people say there are two translation camps, formal equivalent and functional equivalent (or dynamic equivalent). The longer I am in translation work, the more I see how simplistic this division is. There actually are five methods on translation with three sub-categories for the handling of gender language.

Translations are all on a continuum, overlapping one another, and hence it is misleading to picture them as different points on a line. I am guessing, but for example, about eighty percent of the ESV and the NIV are the same, once you account for different translations of individual words.

1. Literal. The most accurate meaning of the word “literal” when it comes to translation work is “word-for-word.” The only “translations” that do this consistently are interlinears. (I quote the word “translations” because interlinears are not properly translations.) The word “literal” should never be used of any other form of translation since all of them, every single one, despite their marketing, rarely translate word-for-word. They will say they translate word-for-word unless it does not make sense or misinforms, but that is a red herring argument. They are never consistently word-for-word, unless you can find a translation that translates John 3:16 as, “in this way for loved the God the world so that the Son the only he gave in order that each the believing into him not perish but have life eternal.” No Bible on the market is “literal.”

One of the better known conundrums in NT exegesis is Jesus’ response to hearing about Lazarus. “Now Jesus loved (ἠγάπα) Martha and her sister and Lazarus. So (οὖν) when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days.” Jesus loved them, and “therefore” stayed longer (i.e., so Lazarus would die).

Some kind of love, or is it?

I find the NLT’s solution the least acceptable. “So although Jesus loved Martha, Mary, and Lazarus, he stayed….” It is impossible to get the concessive “although” out of the Greek (ἠγάπα). The NLT is moving out of translation into commentary.

A better solution is to spend some time in BDAG and see what other meanings are in the semantic range of οὖν.

We know that God is as loving as he is just. He is not more loving than he is just, nor more just than he is loving. All of his attributes are perfectly balanced.

Evangelical Christians have therefore always accepted the truth that God's holiness and justice sometimes requires a response of wrath. Hopefully, this is not something we cherish, but rather we accept as a necessary part of his justice.

However, I find myself wondering if we have misunderstood part of the biblical doctrine of God's wrath, and it can be summarized with this question. What is on God's face when he is meting out punishment — a scowl or a smile, or tears?

When it comes to particles and conjunctions especially, it can be difficult to translate every single one. Sometimes the best translation is punctuation, and other times it feels like the word is superfluous and should just be dropped in order to write in proper English.

But extreme caution is urged in the case of the later. There is a reason for every word, even if we don’t understand why it is used.

In Matthew 10 we find the list of the disciples. In v 10 we read, “Simon the Cananaean (Σίμων ὁ Καναναῖος), and Judas Iscariot (καὶ Ἰούδας ὁ Ἰσκαριώτης), who betrayed him (ὁ καὶ παραδοὺς αὐτόν).” ὁ … παραδοὺς αὐτόν is straight forward Greek, a phrase modifying Ἰούδας. But why is καὶ there, and should it be translated?

In first year Greek, we teachers need to make a bigger deal of Aktionsart. Meaning isn’t conveyed just by the meaning of the word, or its tense, or its aspect. Language gives us many tools to nuance what we want to say, and our students need to know that meaning can also help convey aspect.

For example, Mark 5:2. “And he opened his mouth and taught (ἐδίδασκεν) them” (ESV, also NRSV). ἐδίδασκεν is imperfective, but the ESV thinks that the meaning of “to teach” is sufficiently continuous that the verb doesn’t need to be expressly continuous. Most translations treat it as an inceptive imperfect: “he began to teach” (NASB, CSB, NIV, NLT), pointing forward to the Sermon on the Mount.

But what about Matt 7:7-8. A normal translation reads, “Ask (αἰτεῖτε) and it will be given to you, seek (ζητεῖτε) and you will find, knock (κρούετε) and it will be opened for you. For everyone who asks (ὁ αἰτῶν) receives, and everyone who seeks (ὁ ζητῶν) finds, and for everyone who knocks (τῷ κρούοντι) it will be opened.”

I have been spending some time reading the update of the Homan Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), thankfully renamed Christian Standard Bible (CBS). I don’t think God’s Word should carry a human name.

I find myself liking it. It does use an anaphoric “he” when referring back to a singular antecedent, which will limit its use to those cultures in which “he” includes women and men, but it does make translation much easier. “How happy is the one who does not walk in the advice of the wicked or stand in the pathway with sinners or sit in the company of mockers! Instead, his delight is in the LORD’s instruction, and he meditates on it day and night” (Ps 1:1-2).

But what I really like is how it is willing to break with tradition. Luke 2:7 reads, “Then she gave birth to her firstborn Son, and she wrapped him tightly in cloth and laid him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.” The old “swaddling” makes no sense to most readers (ESV), and “wrapped Him in cloths” is meaningless, albeit historically accurate (NASB). And it was a guest room and not an inn where they stayed since there were no inns in those days. But I was sad to see the change from “feeding trough” (HCSB) to “manger” (CSB) because “feeding trough” was exactly right. I hope that change wasn’t due to political pressure.