I saw some fascinating translation techniques used with Romans 2:28 and wanted to share them with you. In the process, I realized I had blogged on this passage four years ago, but I think it is still worth mentioning.

The text reads, “For that person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is  circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.” The Greek is a tad weird: οὐ γὰρ ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ Ἰουδαῖός ἐστιν οὐδὲ ἡ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ ἐν σαρκὶ περιτομή. “For the Jew is not in-the-open and the circumcision (is) not in-the-open in (the) flesh.” As I like to say, “Thanks Paul.” But the previous translation gets at its meaning.

I heard my nephew preach this morning on Romans 13. It was fun watching him work to make the main point and not let politics deter people’s thinking. Authority structures are God-given and are to be obeyed — unless they “clearly” contradict God’s moral law.

Davy (he goes by “Dave,” but uncles have special privileges) preaches out of NIV 1984, and I was following in the 2011. V 3 caught my attention.

If ever there were a word that cried out for a word study, it is “to know.” Jesus says, “I am the good shepherd. I know (γινώσκω) my own and they know (γινώσκουσίν) me, just as the Father knows (γινώσκει) me and I know (γινώσκω) the Father”

If these two verses aren’t enough, then John 17:3 cements the deal: “This is  eternal life, that they know (γινώσκωσιν) you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent.”

γινώσκω functions as the key term describing not only our relationship with the Son and the Father, but the Son with the Father and the Father with the Son. In addition, it shows there is a correlation between how we “know” the Father/Son and how the Son/Father know each other.

Because English uses the same form, "you," for both singular and plural, it can make exegesis a little complicated at times. In some of these circumstances, you will find your English translation footnoting the fact that the "you" is singular or plural.

Take for example 1 Cor 3:16-17. "Do you (οἴδατε) not know that you are (ἐστε) God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you (ἐν ὑμῖν)? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him (τοῦτον). For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple (οἵτινές ἐστε ὑμεῖς)" (ESV). The "you" in v 16 is footnoted, "The Greek for you is plural in verses 16 and 17."

The ἐγώ εἰμι sayings in the gospel of John are famous. The phrase occurs 21 times. Jesus says that "I am" the Bread of Life (6:20, 35, 41, 48, 51), the Light of the World (8:12), the Gate (10:7, 9), the Good Shepherd (10:11, 14), the Resurrection and the Life (11:25), the Way (14:6), and the True Vine (15:1, 5).

These are significant in that they are a reflection of the divine name in Exodus 3:14, where the God of the burning bush answers Moses' question about his name. In the LXX we read, Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, "I am who I am" (ESV).

This most clearly surfaces in John 8:55, "Jesus said to them, 'I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came to be, I am!'” (πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί).

I will be taking a short break from blogging to enjoy the rest of my summer, and get the new release of BiblicalTraining.org out the door. See you again on September 16.  —Bill

I just came back from a great week at Southern seminary in Louisville. It is the first time in many years I have taught the Pastorals from the Greek, so it was good to get back into the text.

(By the way, the students were great. Thanks guys for such an encouraging week.)

This is one of the more interesting words in Greek, partly because it is so hard to translate.

BDAG says μυριάς can mean, "a group/collective of 10,000, myriad," but it can also mean, "a very large number, not precisely defined, pl. myriads."

It is this second meaning that is most interesting. Basically, it means a "gajillion." Or perhaps a "bajillion." What slang do you use? A gajillion means lots and lots and lots, with no specific number in view.

μυριάς occurs eight times in the New Testament. The Ephesians burned magic books worth "fifty thousand pieces of silver (ἀργυρίου μυριάδας πέντε)" (Acts 19:19). That is an easy translation.

I found an interesting little example of the synoptic problem and harmonization. In Luke 8:18, Jesus says, "Therefore consider carefully how you listen. Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have ((ὃς ἂν μὴ ἔχῃ)), even what they think they have (ὃ δοκεῖ ἔχειν) will be taken from them" (NIV).

When I first read this, it felt strange. I spend more time in Mark than in Luke, so I checked out Mark 4:25 (also Matt 13:12; 25:29). "Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what they have (καὶ ὃ ἔχει) will be taken from them" (NIV).

The angel tells Zechariah that his son, "is never to take wine (οἶνον) or other fermented drink (σίκερα)" (NIV). On this traditional reading of σίκερα, John was not allowed to drink any alcohlic beverage.

Most translations go this direction: "wine or liquor'" (NASB); "wine or strong drink" (ESV, NRSV, NET, KJV); "wine or other alcoholic drinks" (NLT).

However, when you check BDAG, σίκερα is not a generic word meaning "fermented drink," as if it were a broad term covering any alcoholic beverage. It means specifically "beer." HCSB sees this and properly translates, "wine or beer."

No Coors for John!

I was asked this today.

[On your Twitter account] it indicates you are working on the NIV. I thought the NIV was complete. ??? I have used the NIV for a long time. A couple years ago I started using the ESV. But now there is a new NIV. But my wife and one of my grown sons are convinced that the new NIV is evil for some reason. Something about watering down the truth, or trying to be politically correct at the expense of the truth. Could you comment on this?

Here is my response.

All Bible translations are constantly being updated. English changes. New research teaches us new things.

Remember the adage: "Greek gives us the range of possibilities; context makes the determination."

Maybe "adage" is too strong, since I made it up; but I do say it a lot.

Matthew starts his gospel as such: "This is the genealogya of Jesus the Messiahb the son of David,a the son of Abraham" (NIV). There is a footnote on "genealogy" that says, "Or is an account of the origin."

γένεσις has four basic meanings according to BDAG.

• "Birth"
• "Existence"
• "An account of someone’s life, history, life"
• "Lineage, family line"

According to Carson, this gives us three possibilities in Matthew 1:1.

We had a good week working on the NIV in Switzerland; lots of ideas for future blogs. I also had one day afterwards to do a little more site-seeing with the family, and had a really cool experience I wanted to share. More about Greek next week.

I have often said that while general revelation tells us something of God's divinity and power (Rom 1:20), it tells us nothing of God's love. I stand corrected.

We took a train to Zermatt, and then up a sequence of gondolas for about an hour. At the top of the final gondola you take an elevator up to the highest viewing platform in the Swiss alps. I stood there totally amazed, dumbstruck.

This isn't going to sound like much, but much of translation is in the details, often little nuances.

The rich young man comes to Jesus and asks, "Teacher, what good deed must I do (ποιήσω ← ποιέω) to have (σχῶ ← ἔχω) eternal life?” (ESV).

At first it sounds like a good question. Shouldn't we all want to have eternal life, and shouldn't we want to know how to get there? Yet, as is often pointed out, the verb "do" betrays the core issue (along with "good thing"). He had already been keeping the ten commandments, and yet he evidently believed, as did many Jews, that one "specific act of goodness could win eternal life (Carson, citing Str-B, 1:808ff.).

Before I get into today’s blog, I want to mention something I was asked recently. The question has to do with why learn Greek.

“It seems there are many cases where this is true [referring to multiple interpretations], and it seems the Greek leaves us with nothing definitive. Then I see all of the Greek cases on your website, all the possibilities to consider ... then throw in verbal aspect or Aktionsart and it makes the idea of wanting to know New Testament Greek seem so much less appealing. In light of all of this, what would be the benefits of me (Joe Pew-sitter) to try to learn and understand New Testament Greek?”

I was asked why the ESV translates the plural μάχαι as the singular “fighting,” and the plural φόβοι as the singular “fear.”

When it comes to the ESV, the first place you always go to is the RSV and see if the ESV repeats its predecessor. (The ESV has always been clear that it is an evangelical update of the ESV.)

You will see the the ESV did not change the RSV at this point, and that may be all the answer there is.

I was asked why the ESV translates the plural μάχαι as the singular “fighting,” and the plural φόβοι as the singular “fear.”

When it comes to the ESV, the first place you always go to is the RSV and see if the ESV repeats its predecessor. (The ESV has always been clear that it is an evangelical update of the RSV.)

You will see that the ESV did not change the RSV at this point, and that may be all the answer there is.

I just got back from a week of teaching the Pastorals at the Carolina School of Divinity. In going through the Pastorals again I was reminded how difficult some Greek can be to exegete. The interpretation of some passages just ends up being 50/50, and 2 Tim 1:12 is one of them.

In my commentary I translated it, “I am not ashamed, for I know in whom I have trusted and I am fully convinced that he is able to guard my deposit (δυνατός ἐστιν τὴν παραθήκην μου φυλάξαι) until that day.”

Is Paul convinced God can guard what God entrusted to Paul (e.g., the gospel), or what Paul entrusted to God (his life)? The Greek allows both, and my point today is that the arguments are strong for both positions.

I was asked about the subjunctive in John 3:16. The concern was that the NIV/NLT reads “shall,” which makes it a promise of salvation. His contention is that the subjunctive makes it a “condition of salvation” and it should be translated as “may,” and the Greek grammar does not “allow” the translation “shall.”

First of all, let’s have a little humility. To say that two major translations mistranslate a famous verse, choosing a translation that the Greek does not “allow,” is quite a claim.

Is it possible for two major translations to make a major mistake? Sure. I think that translating οὕτως in John 3:16 as “so” is precisely that. But is it possible that two major translations violate Greek grammar in the same verse? Highly unlikely.

I am beginning to think that the imperfect is perhaps one of the more subtle tenses, and one whose full significance is most often overlooked.

Sunday school last week was on Mark 8:14-21. Jesus just finished the Feeding of the 4,000, and as they are traveling across the lake he says, “’Be careful,’ Jesus warned (διεστέλλετο) them. ‘Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod’” (NIV; cf. also NLT).

διεστέλλετο is imperfect, but there is no way someone would understand this from “warned,” which sounds more like an aorist. Other translations include “cautioned” (ESV, NRSV), “commanded” (HCSB), “ordered” (NET), and “charged” (KJV).

Substantival participles (and substantival adjectives) can be tricky, especially when they are generic. Take, for example, τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας in Mark 6:55 in the HCSB.

“Mark 6:55 They hurried throughout that vicinity and began to carry the sick on mats to wherever they heard He was.”

When I first read this, I stopped on the word “sick.” “Sick what?” I found myself asking. It actually took me a few passes before I realized that “the sick” meant “the sick people.”

I don’t know why I struggled with this one. I am scanning other verses in the HCSB that use “the sick,” and they seem fine. And when the adjective is in the predicate, it is clear as well. “Now a man was sick, Lazarus, from Bethany” (John 11:1).

I had a great time at Lifeway a few days ago, and as I was leaving they handed me an HCSB study Bible. Pretty impressive, especially in its use of color. Not sure I like their lack of formatting on poetry, but time will tell. Anyway, I thought I would use it for my daily devotions for a while; it is fun to develop a better feel for the translation.

In talking about his ecstatic experience, Paul says that this “man” (i.e., himself most likely) “was caught up into paradise and heard unspeakable (ἄρρητα) words that a person may (ἐξὸν) not utter.

There are two ambiguities in this verse. (1) ἄρρητος can mean “that cannot be expressed, since it is beyond human powers, inexpressible” (BDAG), or “of someth. that must not be expressed, since it is holy, not to be spoken” (BDAG). It is a NT hapax

(2) ἔξεστιν likewise can mean “to be authorized for the doing of someth., it is right, is authorized, is permitted, is proper,” or, “to be within the range of possibility, it is possible.

So was Paul unable to express what he saw, or was he not permitted to tell?

This is not a big deal, but the NIV struck me as a little strange here. Jesus cries out, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani." The soldiers think he is calling for Elijah, and one of them offers Jesus some wine vinegar. The others respond, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.”

Two things.

Every once in a while we find a Greek word or expression that simply cannot come into English. We want to translate every word, but in some cases, no matter what you choose, you create the wrong impression of what was being said.“Woman” is one of those words.

Jesus heals a crippled woman, and says to her, “Woman, you are freed from your disability” (Luke 13:12; ESV). There is no getting around that the fact that the use of “woman” sounds pejorative to our ears, and yet there is nothing pejorative at all in the Greek γύναι. After all, this is what Jesus calls his mother (John 2:4; 19:26). It is the term Jesus uses to address the weeping Mary at the tomb (John 20:15).

I was reading through the Parable of Sower and noticed something strange. It isn’t a big think, but isn't it nice when Greek slows you down and you start to notice God’s words?

The parable starts with the emphasis on what was sown. “And as he sowed, some seeds (ἃ) fell along the path” (Matt 13:4). “Seeds” is assumed from the relative pronoun. The antecedent is not explicit, but it is implicit from the infinitive (ἐν τῷ σπείρειν αὐτὸν).

And yet, why is it neuter. Notice that the neuter continues in the word ἄλλα (vv 5, 7, and 8). One of the things I learned latter in my Greek career is that often a word’s form can be explained by a word that has been omitted in the sentence. The trick is to find the implied word being referenced by the explicit words.

Here is a great example of the ambiguity of personal endings. In Mark 13:29 Jesus says, “So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near (ἐγγύς ἐστιν), at the very gates ” (ESV).

Any first year Greek student knows that ἐστιν is third singular, and that the personal ending does not designate gender. So what is the subject of the verb?

As usual, the rule is context. What does the previous verse talk about? V 28 talks about learning the lesson from the fig tree, and the preceding verses talk about the return of the Son of Man, Jesus. So it is natural that the ESV would use “he.”

I was teaching on the end of Mark 1 a couple weeks ago in Sunday School, and I hadn't read the text as carefully as I should have. I was using the NIV; because I am more familiar with this story in the ESV, I wasn't ready for the surprise.

So lesson #1: prepare for Sunday School by reading the entire passage in the Bible version from which you are teaching.

It is the healing passage of the man with leprosy. He says to Jesus, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.” V 41 in the NIV says, "Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. 'I am willing,' he said. 'Be clean!'”

"Indignant"? That's what caught me off guard. Every other translation has something like, "moved with compassion."

Every once in a while I am asked a question that surprises me because it alerts me to an exegetical option I have never thought of or read. (I am surprised quite often.)

The question is whether James 5:14 could be speaking of a person who is weary in their Christian walk (struggling, flagging in faith or courage); when this depressed person calls for the elders, their prayer will most assuredly help restore him to spiritual health and dedication to the Lord.

The verse is generally understood as being about a person who is “sick” (ἀσθενεῖ τις). The elders pray and anoint the person, and “the prayer (εὐχή) offered in faith will restore (σώσει) the one who is sick (τὸν κάμνοντα) and the Lord will raise him up (ἐγερεῖ).”

One of the greatest exegetical conundrums for me is this final phrase in the Lord’s Prayer. My assumption is that when asked how to pray, Jesus would have given an answer that was understandable. But then again, I am not Jesus.

As we all know, Jesus starts by orienting us to God, his immanence and transcendence. “Our Father in heaven.”

We then confess his supremacy in all things: his holiness, kingly rule, divine will. And we conclude by admitting our dependence on him for all things: sustenance, forgiveness, and protection from sin and Satan (assuming τοῦ πονηροῦ is substantival).