In class the other day a student commented that the NIV had dropped out half a verse, Romans 8:2. My immediate reaction was to assume the student was correct, and I checked the textual notes to see the variants in the manuscripts. No, the Greek text was fine.

He was reading the NASB. “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.” Pretty much word for word. ὁ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἠλευθέρωσέν σε ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου.

When I first glanced at the NIV, it did look like something was missing. They write, “because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.”

Someone just sent me the following. “I’m particularly interested in communicating Scripture in terms that the average person on the street can understand. So it bothers me that our translations are stuck on a fossilized word like ‘gospel,’ which means nothing to most people (and even many Christians!). Why not be consistent in translating euangelion as ‘good news.’ That may at least cause people to ask the question, ‘Well, what IS the good news?’ As it is, I believe people hear ‘gospel’ and dismiss it as ‘religious talk.’”

Does Paul really believe that “I have the right to do anything” ( 1 Cor 6:12)? Really? Anything?

Of course not. Paul does not have the right to sin. He doesn’t have the right to walk away from his ministry. So what is happening in v 12? And why does the NASB and KJV write, “All things are lawful for me” when we know they are not?

What do the other translations tell you? Many translations put the phrase in quotation marks. “’All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are helpful” (ESV, also HCSB, NRSV, NET). What would be the point? If you have done your homework, you know what Paul is doing. He is quoting what his Corinthians opponents are saying. He doesn’t agree with them, but he is citing them. So how do you indicate that in English?

I was asked a question at SBL by a person whose son is in the military. He said that his son, and many of his military buddies, objected to a specific translation. Seeing as how my son just joined the Marines, I thought I should pay attention to what they were saying.

The offending verse is 2 Tim 2:4. Paul is encouraging Timothy to persevere in his ministry in Ephesus, and in v 3 says, “Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.” To illustrate the point, Paul lists three different vocations and how perseverance is critical: the soldier, athlete, and farmer.

Having a great time at ETS/SBL in Baltimore. Always fun to see friends and make new ones. Talking with a guy at Accordance, and he had a good question.

In the parable of the two sons we read, “And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ (ἐγώ, κύριε), but did not go” (ESV). “I go,” of course, is not English, but even for the ESV this is a bit extreme (NRSV is the same). This is why you see other translations making it a little smoother, such as “I will, sir” (HCSB, NIV, NET).

But where is the verb that is translated “go” or “will (go)”? It would be the verb for ἐγώ , but it isn’t there.

Are you familiar with the grammatical category called the “instantaneous imperfect”? To any first year Greek student, this sounds like a contradiction. Isn’t the imperfect always, well, imperfective? Continuous?

Apparently not.

Wallace lists the “instantaneous imperfect” as the first category under “Narrow-Band Imperfects.” He writes, “The imperfect tense is rarely used just like an aorist indicative, to indicate simple past. This usage is virtually restricted to ἔλεγεν in narrative literature. Even with this verb, however, the imperfect usually bears a different nuance.” His last sentence is tantalizing; I will see him next week and ask him what he means.

Matthew 5:2 says that Jesus “opened his mouth and taught them, saying” (καὶ ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ ἐδίδασκεν αὐτοὺς λέγων). If you were in a sarcastic mood you might respond, “How else would he teach? With a closed mouth?” This is why the NIV skips it entirely: “he began to teach them,” as well as most other translations (HCSB, NRSV, NET, NLT). They see it as unnecessarily redundant. The ESV, NASB, and KJV keep the phrase.

I did a search for the phrase “open* his/its mouth” (* allows the search to find “opens” and “opened”). There are seven in the Greek Testament (ESV). There are non-metaphorical uses such as Peter opening the mouth of the fish to find the coin (Matt 17:27), and the metaphor of the earth opening its mouth to swallow the water from the beast (Rev 12:16).

In this day and age, this is obviously a controversial verse, but it is chock full of interesting Greek tidbits, not the least of which is semantic range.

Peter is encouraging Christian wives to respect their husbands, being submissive (ὑποτασσόμεναι, 3:1) to them, and placing an emphasis on internal qualities and not external beauty. The goal is evangelistic; their behavior may win their husbands to the faith.

As an example of submissiveness Peter refers to Sarah, who was submissive to Abraham her husband, κύριον αὐτὸν καλοῦσα. The participle καλοῦσα is expressing one way in which she expressed her relationship to Abraham. She addressed him as “lord.”

My pastor preaches out of the NIV 1984, and I tend to follow along in the 2011. Every once in a while I come across a significant change, and at first glance the passage Sunday looked like the NIV 2011 dropped out an entire phrase.

1 Thess 2:6-8 (NIV 1984) reads, “As apostles of Christ we could have been a burden to you, but we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children. We loved you so much (οὕτως ὁμειρόμενοι ὑμῶν) that we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well, because you had become so dear to us (διότι ἀγαπητοὶ ἡμῖν ἐγενήθητε).”

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).