• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer

Illuminating the History of the Bible

Text & Canon Institute
  • Articles
  • Articles
        • Topics

          • Text
          • Canon
          • Translation
          • Old Testament
          • New Testament
          • Theology
          • Manuscripts
          • Apocrypha
          • Pseudepigrapha
        • Levels

          • Beginner
          • Intermediate
          • Advanced
  • Research
    • Academic Colloquia
    • Hexapla Institute
    • TCI Fellowship
  • Events
    • Scribes & Scripture
    • Text-Types Colloquium
  • About
    • Mission
    • Staff
    • Contact Us
  • Give
    • Español
    • Português

Translation

What Makes a Bible Translation Bad?

Sectarian translations go too far beyond the natural bias inherent in something as complex as translating the Bible.

Mark Ward

If you find an English Bible translation on your Christian bookstore shelf, it’s almost certainly good. Buy it. Read it. Trust it.

But there are some “bad Bibles” out there, Bibles you won’t find careful evangelical biblical scholars recommending. Consider this article to be like the list of possible adverse side effects that are rattled off in monotone at the end of drug commercials on TV. Hopefully you’ll never need this information. But if you accidentally buy a bad Bible at Goodwill and you develop an odd tic, you’ll know what happened.

More seriously, I don’t think most of my readers will ever hold in their hands a truly “bad Bible.” But by seeing Bible translation done badly, you will gain better understanding and appreciation for the many good Bibles we have in English.

What, indeed, makes a Bible translation bad? Bibles are bad—when, on rare occasions, they are bad—for two major reasons: sectarianism and crackpottery.

In this article: sectarian translations. In my next article: crackpot translations.

Sectarian translations are those that have more than the natural bias inherent in the effort of any person or group to do something as complex as translating the Bible. Escaping all bias whatsoever is impossible; it’s not even desirable. I have a bias toward seeing the Bible as coherent, for example. I think that’s good. But some biases merit the label “sectarian.” I won’t cover all of them, just four.

1. The New World Translation

I have a regular YouTube commenter who is a courteous and intelligent Jehovah’s Witness (JW). He frequently points out places where his New World Translation, produced by the Watchtower Society in the 1950s, makes a fine rendering of a Bible word or phrase I’ve just discussed in a video. Numerous times he has done this, and I don’t remember ever having to disagree with the NWT in these instances.

But the NWT earns the sectarian badge because of the classic complaints evangelicals have made about it since its release 60-plus years ago.

The New World Translation is used worldwide by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Source

First, the NWT manipulates John 1:1 to support the JW’s anti-trinitarian bias, turning “the Word was God” into “the Word was a God.” I’ve heard this charge my entire life, and I tried again to listen to the JW’s counterarguments as I wrote this article. I remain unconvinced. It appears to me that the argument between Christian orthodoxy and the JWs—modern Arians—over John 1:1 has never made any real advances, because they haven’t needed to. The matter is reasonably straightforward.1I say this despite the now twenty-year-old book by Jason BeDuhn, Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2003). See Robert H. Countess, The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament. A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982). There’s nothing more to say: the NWT mistranslates a text that teaches the deity of Christ, and not only here.2See Kenneth J. Baumgarten and Kevin Gary Smith, “An Examination of the Consistency of the New World Translation with the Stated Philosophy of the Translators,”Conspectus Volume 6 (2008).

As with the Son, so with the Spirit: the NWT regularly turns what should properly be “the Holy Spirit” into “a holy spirit” (Acts 8:15, 17–19; 10:38; 19:2; Luke 2:25; 11:13; John 20:22).3See N. E. Barry Hofstetter, “Review of Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament by Jason BeDuhn,” Westminster Theological Journal 66, no. 2 (2004): 448.

The KJV translators, in their justly famous preface, urge their readers to judge Bible translations by their predominant character.

A man may be counted a virtuous man though he have made many slips in his life (else there were none virtuous, for, “in many things we offend all”), also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand.4David Norton, ed., The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with the Apocrypha: King James Version, Revised edition., vol. 1 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011), xxviii.

I find myself continually quoting this portion of the KJV preface as I work to smother the flames of the never-ending social media Bible wars. Some people are ready—no, eager—to distrust whole Bible translations based on the tiniest of alleged blemishes.5One KJV-Only Facebook commenter, for example, recently insisted that English Bibles must “retain the distinction between singular and plural second person pronouns”; if they don’t, “that’s a deal killer for me.” Never mind that many other grammatical features—such as the distinction between singular and plural relative pronouns—are “lost” on the trip from Greek to English. Actually: context is nearly always sufficient to communicate this distinction.

But intentionally and repeatedly subverting the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity are rather large warts for a Bible translation to have protruding from its genuine leather cover. The NWT is a bad Bible because it is openly sectarian in multiple places that matter.

The New World Translation is a bad Bible because it is openly sectarian in multiple places that matter.

2. The New Revised Standard Version (Updated Edition)

I wouldn’t quite say the same of the second sectarian translation, the New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition (NRSVue). Consensus so far among people I trust is that this revision does not have a bad predominant character (I have not read the whole thing, I confess; I am merely reporting on the buzz). The one wart that has received real attention since its recent release is in the NRSVue’s rendering of 1 Corinthians 6:9–10:

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, men who engage in illicit sex, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, swindlers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

It is true that the two Greek words at issue here require translators to make some judgments. But into a crack of minor uncertainty the NRSVue has wedged a whale-sized obfuscation. These words almost certainly refer to the passive and active partners in a male-to-male homosexual pairing. The NRSVue is “sectarian” here because it overspecifies the first word and overgeneralizes the second—just as the sect that produced the translation, the sect called mainline Protestantism, would prefer Paul had done. One of Paul’s clear condemnations of male homosexuality is thereby removed from his writings.

Related

  • What Makes a Bible Translation Really Bad?
  • Mark Ward
  • Why We Worry When Choosing a Bible Translation
  • Peter J. Gurry
  • Five Decisions Every Bible Translator Must Make
  • Peter J. Gurry

That wart is significant enough, I would think, to keep those of us who uphold an orthodox sexual ethic from using the NRSVue as the main pulpit Bible in our churches. But whereas I never check the NWT, I will happily check the renderings in the NRSVue in my Bible study in years to come. The (yes, mostly—but not entirely—liberal) translators behind that work appear to me to have been generally responsible and careful.

3. Certain Bible translations for Muslim nations

I am a signatory of the Arlington Statement on Bible Translation, which alleges that certain Bible translations that were made for Muslim-majority languages have soft-pedaled the deity of Jesus, and specifically his status as “Son of God.” I was asked by several friends to sign the statement, but I actually resisted for quite some time—because I felt like I wasn’t hearing anything from the other side, and I wasn’t seeing the dispute laid out in any responsible academic venues. Also, I had no way of checking the offending translations for myself. I don’t like being asked to take sides without hearing from the best of all parties.

But then I listened to Georges Houssney in his guest appearance on the Working for the Word podcast, with my friend (and Text & Canon contributor) Andrew Case. Houssney was obviously knowledgeable: he was an Arabic Bible translator from Egypt. He immediately won me over, and he helped me understand why I wasn’t hearing from his opponents. I signed the statement based almost solely on his testimony—and to hear more, you really must listen to Houssney.

As an example of the concerns that have driven Houssney and the Arlington Statement, The True Meaning of the Gospel of Christ, an Arabic translation available on YouVersion, translates Mark 13:32 this way:

No one knows when that day and that hour comes, not even the master of humanity and the angels. For Allah, the father, the All-Beneficent, the All-merciful alone possesses knowledge of the hour.6For this back-translation and all examples in this section, I am indebted to linguist Mike Tisdell. His review of La Bible en arabe tchadien contains more detailed examples.

Jesus calls himself “the Son” in Mark 13:32; this translation adjusts to Muslim sensibilities and calls him “Master of humanity.” And instead of doing what Jesus did here and calling God simply “the Father,” The True Meaning adds three Muslim-friendly titles—“Allah,” “All-Beneficent,” and “All-merciful”—that don’t occur in the Greek. (To be clear: “Allah” is not exclusively an Islamic word; it is the generic word for God used by Arabic-speaking Christians. But the word “God” does not occur in the Greek in this verse.)

Jesus calls himself “the Son” in Mark 13:32; this translation adjusts to Muslim sensibilities and calls him “Master of humanity.”

Another Arabic translation of the New Testament is called The Honored Injil. This translation is actually paired with an English back-translation on its website, so in this same verse you can see for yourself that the Son is called “the beloved Amir,” or “Prince”; and the Father is called “Al-Malik Al-Rahman,” or “the Gracious King.” Now, the Son is a Prince, and the Father is a King; but Jesus could have used those words (in Greek) and he did not. Once again, a translation is bowing not just to Muslim preferences but to actual Islamic doctrine.

I call these offending translations “sectarian” because they end up doing the same thing to the deity of Jesus that the NWT does. At best, they confuse the Bible’s picture of Jesus; at worst, they draw up the blueprints for a sect in which you can hold on to Muslim-style monotheism (denying the doctrine of the Trinity) and still consider yourself a follower of Jesus Christ. These are bad Bibles.

4. The Tree of Life Version

The fourth sectarian Bible I’ll describe is not “bad,” not that I know of. Even to use the word “sectarian” feels a little harsh. But I regret that I must. It’s the Tree of Life Version, a Messianic Jewish translation released in 2011. A few well-known names participated (namely Richard Averbeck and Craig Keener), and the TLV has not raised any public hackles that I have seen. I’m not going to posit inaccuracies in it.

But the constant use of transliterated Hebrew is nothing if not characteristic of Messianic Judaism; my inner William Tyndale balks every time I read in an English Bible words like Ruach Elohim instead of “Holy Spirit”—or “Yeshua finished all his drash,” instead of “Jesus finished his sermon.”

Though I honor Abraham’s seed as, yes, God’s chosen people, God is not a respecter of languages. Hebrew transliterations are not holier or more accurate than English renderings. They’re nifty, but they don’t merit the creation of a fresh Bible translation.

The more Christian groups with “their own Bible,” the more it looks to outsiders like some funny business is going on.

Perhaps it’s a little self-aggrandizing or grandiose for the ESV or CSB or NASB or NRSV to put “Standard” in the names of their Bible translations, but there’s some good in this common practice: I read it as an attempt to acknowledge that the Bible is for the whole church—the whole world. The more Christian groups get to have “their own Bible,” the more it looks to outsiders like some funny business is going on.

Also: sprinkling Hebrew words that English speakers don’t know throughout your Bible translation (or Christian-synagogue service) runs counter to Paul’s principle that edification requires intelligibility. This raises the question: intelligible to whom? Not just those who’ve picked up the patois. At 1 Corinthians 14:23, the TLV itself reads,

If Messiah’s whole community comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and uninstructed or unbelieving people come in, won’t they say that you are crazy?

The more jargon the man on the street has to master before he can understand what you’re saying in your services, the more in tension you are with 1 Corinthians 14.

The TLV preface says that it was born out of a fear of seeing the Bible lose its “actual Jewish essence.” I don’t at all deny that that the Bible’s Jewishness gets overlooked or even self-consciously muted by Gentiles. I welcome better understanding of my own wife’s Lithuanian-Jewish roots. And I’ve heard a very responsible and intelligent, ethnically Jewish Presbyterian pastor make a careful case that Protestant Gentiles have something to learn from the Messianic Jewish movement. Also, I found it thought-provoking to see Torah in the place of “the law” at places in the New Testament.

But replacing the perfectly legitimate English rendering “slander” (in 1 Pet. 2:1) with the opaque Hebrew transliteration “lashon ha-ra” (Hebrew for “tongue of evil”) is, I’m sorry, a rather arbitrary and linguistically suspect way of restoring people’s appreciation of the Bible’s Jewishness. The uniqueness of Judaism in its own original context was that its God, Yahweh, wasn’t just the God of the valleys or of the hills but of all the earth. And the founding promises to Abraham include precisely a prediction that through his seed, God will bless all the families of the earth. God’s own lashon is not shackled to ancient Hebrew.

The TLV is produced by the Tree of Life Bible Society for Messianic Jewish. Source

I’m not persuaded, either, by the TLV’s practice of replacing “Lord” in the New Testament with “ADONAI.” I understand the reasoning: it’s analogous to what ancient Jews apparently did with Yahweh.7Though actually, the linguistic situation that obtained then is not at all the one that exists in English. Ancient Jews replaced the vowels for YHWH with those of adonai; the way to do this in English would actually be something like Larsder—figure that one out and be the first to email me, and you’ll get a prize. But if Jesus himself was happy to translate both adonai and Yahweh with the Greek kurios (Lord) in his discussion of the all-important Messianic passage Psalm 110:1,8See Luke 20:42, for example. Even if Jesus was not speaking Greek when he uttered those words, the inspired (Greek) text given to us is an authoritative translation of his words. then I tend to feel safest retaining the English word “Lord” in the New Testament. And to any of the multiple translations in this article that give special focus and attention to getting the name of God just right, I observe that God himself permitted the correct pronunciation of his name (possibly “Yahweh”) to fall out of Jewish tradition—a difficult feat among that heavily traditional people, I tend to think.

Related

  • Illustration by David Fassett
    How Was the Pronunciation of God’s Name Lost? Part 2

    Ancient tradition divides on the use of God’s name, with no clear reason why some banned it.

    Andrew Case

As with names, so with languages. It is a very, very common thing in religion for people to invest a particular human language with divine sanctity and authority—and then with a depth and accuracy that no other language can match. Roman Catholics do this with Latin; Muslims do it with (a particular variety of) Arabic; Ethiopians do it with Geʽez; KJV-Onlyists do it with Elizabethan English. Messianic Jews have, I allege, done this with Hebrew.

Again: I’m not saying that the TLV is a “bad Bible,” as in erroneous or dangerous. From what I’ve read, it’s mostly a traditional Protestant translation with a bunch of Hebrew transliterations bobbing up and down on the surface. But I will say that the effort falls completely flat for me. If you have to resort to translating the Greek New Testament back into Hebrew every so often to get people to see its Jewishness, I think you’re taking a superficial, sectarian shortcut that actually undercuts your purpose.

Get new articles and updates in your inbox.

The solution to sectarianism

I do think Bible translations need to do what they can to avoid the appearance of sectarianism. My own beloved ESV has been charged with sectarianism on behalf of the translators’ complementarian viewpoint. Though I think this criticism is overblown, sticking with the literal/traditional translation in Genesis 3:16 probably could have saved them significant grief. In general, retreating to the literal in sticky places is a wise policy.

And here’s another: I like the tradition, going back at least to the NIV, of involving many Christian denominations—from complementarians to Messianic Jews—in a Bible translation committee, as a method of both eliminating and of appearing to the public to eliminate denominational bias. I acknowledge at this point my own (inerrantist evangelical) biases, and my own fallenness and finiteness and situatedness. But I cannot sit nowhere, or in heaven; so from where I sit, some Bibles are, at least sometimes, sectarian. I’m okay checking such Bibles in my study, but I wouldn’t use them as the official translation of a church or other institution.

In our balkanized Christian world, no English translation will ever be trusted by the whole English-speaking church. But translators (or rather revisers, because we don’t need any more mainstream translations) should still aim for that possibility instead of giving in to the temptations of sectarianism.

The next essay will cover a second mark of bad translation that I call crackpottery. You can watch this as a video.

Notes

  • 1
    I say this despite the now twenty-year-old book by Jason BeDuhn, Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2003). See Robert H. Countess, The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament. A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982).
  • 2
    See Kenneth J. Baumgarten and Kevin Gary Smith, “An Examination of the Consistency of the New World Translation with the Stated Philosophy of the Translators,”Conspectus Volume 6 (2008).
  • 3
    See N. E. Barry Hofstetter, “Review of Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament by Jason BeDuhn,” Westminster Theological Journal 66, no. 2 (2004): 448.
  • 4
    David Norton, ed., The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with the Apocrypha: King James Version, Revised edition., vol. 1 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011), xxviii.
  • 5
    One KJV-Only Facebook commenter, for example, recently insisted that English Bibles must “retain the distinction between singular and plural second person pronouns”; if they don’t, “that’s a deal killer for me.” Never mind that many other grammatical features—such as the distinction between singular and plural relative pronouns—are “lost” on the trip from Greek to English. Actually: context is nearly always sufficient to communicate this distinction.
  • 6
    For this back-translation and all examples in this section, I am indebted to linguist Mike Tisdell. His review of La Bible en arabe tchadien contains more detailed examples.
  • 7
    Though actually, the linguistic situation that obtained then is not at all the one that exists in English. Ancient Jews replaced the vowels for YHWH with those of adonai; the way to do this in English would actually be something like Larsder—figure that one out and be the first to email me, and you’ll get a prize.
  • 8
    See Luke 20:42, for example. Even if Jesus was not speaking Greek when he uttered those words, the inspired (Greek) text given to us is an authoritative translation of his words.

Filed Under: Theology, Translation Tagged With: New World Translation

How Was the Pronunciation of God’s Name Lost? Part 2

Ancient tradition divides on the use of God’s name, with no clear reason why some banned it.

Andrew Case

Part 1 of this series is available here.

It’s important to recognize right up front that we simply do not know with absolute certainty how God’s name was originally pronounced. The common English pronunciation of “Yahweh” is an educated guess, but we’ll never know for sure how it sounded when God spoke it to Moses.

Two key things prevent us from knowing: (1) Hebrew was written without vowels for many centuries, so we’re left with only four consonants: YHWH, and (2) people started avoiding the pronunciation of God’s name long before Hebrew began to be written with vowels. And when the Hebrew Bible was finally written with vowels, artificial vowels were inserted into the spelling of God’s name in order to keep people from pronouncing it! So, in this article we’ll try to understand why—why did the Israelites go from swearing by Yahweh’s name, using it in prayer, song, and greetings to forbidding its use altogether?

Why did the Israelites go from swearing by Yahweh’s name, using it in prayer, song, and greetings to forbidding its use altogether?

Clues from the Bible

God himself gives us a clue as to what might have motivated this historical change of attitude towards his name in the book of Amos. This book goes back at least to the 8th century BC, and thus represents the oldest evidence of what might have caused the shift. Amos warns the people of the coming exile and destruction that will punish their pride and oppression of the poor and needy. As he describes the horrors of Yahweh’s imminent judgment, he says, “And if the relative who comes to carry the bodies out of the house to burn them asks anyone who might be hiding there, ‘Is anyone else with you?’ and he says, “No,” then he will go on to say, ‘Hush! We must not mention the name of Yahweh’” (Amos 6:10).

Thus, there exists the possibility that some Hebrews were so traumatized by what happened under Yahweh’s judgment that they preferred not to talk about him anymore. This trauma could have easily developed into never mentioning his name for fear that they might somehow run the risk of falling under a similar judgment. This trauma-induced fear could have then evolved into the substitution of titles for God’s name, which the Jews later labeled as a sign of reverence or respect.

This idea of avoiding his name out of reverence or respect, however, cannot be found in Scripture, but rather is described in later man-made traditions. It’s also important to recognize that an ancient contingent of Karaite Jews condemned these traditions, saying that those who insist on avoiding the pronunciation of God’s name should be considered unbelievers.

During the intertestamental period the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek (popularly called the Septuagint), and an interesting thing happened in the translation of Leviticus 24:16. The original Hebrew reads: “The one who blasphemes (naqab) the name of Yahweh shall surely be put to death.” But the Greek version reads: “The one who names the name of the Lord will surely be put to death.”

Related

  • How Was the Divine Name Translated in the Reformation? Part 4
  • Andrew Case
  • Does God Want Us to Use His Divine Name? Part 1
  • Andrew Case
  • Why Didn’t the New Testament Authors Use God’s Name? Part 3
  • Andrew Case

Here, the act of blaspheming is translated into Greek as the simple act of naming. The manuscript tradition of Leviticus in Greek is unanimous without variation on this text. The Septuagint translators may have rendered “to blaspheme” (naqab) in Leviticus 24:16 as “to name” for any of the following reasons:

  1. In a spirit of piety, they could not even bring themselves to translate the verb “to curse/blaspheme/slander” when so directly connected to the divine name. So, they used circumlocution to generalize or soften the phrase.
  2. They simply misunderstood the Hebrew verb.
  3. They allowed a belief about pronouncing the divine name to influence their translation.

Because of the Septuagint’s strong influence on post-exilic Judaism and the early Church, this reading may have led to the proliferation of sentiments against the pronunciation of the name. If an anti-pronunciation belief was already prevalent during the time of the translation, then it may have served to strengthen that belief. This is admittedly speculation, but nevertheless an important piece of evidence that needs to be mentioned and considered in the search for why the tide turned against vocalizing the divine name.

Clues from outside the Bible

The Babylonian Talmud offers another explanation,1Michael L. Rodkinson, trans., The Babylonian Talmud: Original Text, Edited, Corrected, Formulated, and Translated into English, vol. 1. (Boston: The Talmud Society, 1918), Rosh Hashannah 18b. but not as ancient as Amos or the Septuagint: the prohibition against the use of God’s name began as one of the anti-Torah decrees enacted by the Seleucid Greek tyrant Antiochus IV Epiphanes around 168 BC. This was part of his plan to convert the Jews to Hellenism. But when Judas Maccabeus defeated the Greeks, he restored the use of the divine name and established a law requiring the use of God’s name in contracts so that every Jew would regain the habit of using it. But the Rabbis were opposed to this decree and banned its use in contracts because those contracts might eventually be burned with the divine name written on them.

Get new articles and updates in your inbox.

The Essene community who copied the Dead Sea Scrolls also strictly forbade speaking God’s name in any context, including prayer, but they give no reason for this in their rulebook. Later writings in the Mishnah from the 3rd century AD describe a developing attitude of Jewish teaching on the issue: “The following have no portion in the world to come: … Abba Saul says: Also one who pronounces the divine name as it is written” (Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1). Ironically, there is much rabbinic teaching that has contradicted the ban on speaking God’s name.

If you read Mishnah Berakhot 9:5, 54a:1–9, 63a:7–8, Makkot 23b:10 and other Jewish commentaries on Judges 6:12, you’ll find ancient rabbinic agreement that using God’s name in simple greetings as Boaz did is not only permitted, but should be encouraged. Strangely, the typical practice and overwhelming culture around the divine name in Israel today is one completely contrary to what these traditional Jewish commentaries conclude. In my research I have not found a reason for this, and it is difficult to know with any certainty when the ban on using the name became mainstream.

Clues from the Septuagint

The majority tradition of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (or Old Greek) used kurios, “Lord” in place of the divine name. The great Christian manuscripts Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus all have kurios in place of God’s name. What motivated this? Some have suggested that this was a strategy used by authorities to facilitate the Hellenizing of Jews. By suppressing the special name of God and using kurios, it made it more universal and easier to harmonize with the emperors and gods of the Greco-Roman world.2Robert Wilkinson, Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 51.

Related

  • LXX
    Illustration by Peter Gurry. Images from iStock
    The Most Important Bible Translation You’ve Never Heard of

    Used by the Apostles and the early church, the Greek translations of the Old Testament may be the most important ever made.

    William A. Ross

But some Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament differ from the standard of using kurios for the Name, especially amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. For example, the Nahal Hever scroll fragments of the Minor Prophets (8Hev XII gr), dated from about 50 BC to 50 AD have the divine name written in paleo-Hebrew script in 28 places. Another scroll has iao in the place of the name.

So, whether the original Septuagint translators first chose to use kurios or something else remains inconclusive, leaving us to speculate. Whatever the case may be, it appears that there was controversy or confusion amongst the Septuagint translators and revisers regarding what to do with the divine name, as well as a special interest in it. The practice of substituting the title kurios (“Lord”) for God’s name was widespread, but no one ever revealed a clear reason as to why. There’s much more to say about the Septuagint evidence, which you can read for free in my book on the divine name.

Conclusion

It seems that ancient Jewish tradition was divided on what to do with God’s name.

If you think the evidence looks confusing, that’s because it is! It seems that ancient Jewish tradition was divided on what to do with God’s name, but there is no conclusive reason as to why some banned its use. Was it due to the trauma of exile, the mistranslation of Leviticus 24:16, the prohibition of an evil tyrant, reverence, or a combination of all of these? It’s impossible to be certain with the evidence we have. What we do know is that it eventually became standard to avoid pronouncing God’s name, especially in Jewish circles, and this played a part in the loss of how it originally sounded. In the next article we take a look at what the New Testament authors did with the divine name.

Related

  • Illustration by David Fassett
    Why Didn’t the New Testament Authors Use God’s Name? Part 3

    The use of “Lord” for the divine name probably helped identify Jesus with the God of the Old Testament.

    Andrew Case

This article is in the public domain. You may freely use, share, and reproduce it. For a more in-depth treatment, see here.

Notes

  • 1
    Michael L. Rodkinson, trans., The Babylonian Talmud: Original Text, Edited, Corrected, Formulated, and Translated into English, vol. 1. (Boston: The Talmud Society, 1918), Rosh Hashannah 18b.
  • 2
    Robert Wilkinson, Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 51.

Filed Under: Old Testament, Translation

Does God Want Us to Use His Divine Name? Part 1

The Old Testament shows that God wants his people to use his personal name, which is why it is used nearly 7,000 times.

Andrew Case

Growing up, I understood that the name of God was “the Lord.” As I got older, I began to understand that when I saw the Lord in all caps, that meant that it was God’s special, divine name that he revealed to Moses. This seemed strange and confusing to me—adding a level of complexity to understanding a Bible that was already difficult enough for a teenager to understand. I don’t remember when it was that I first heard the name Yahweh pronounced, but when I went to seminary, I quickly realized that it was an accepted pronunciation and spelling for God’s name, especially in academic circles.

So how did we get to this point where nearly every English Bible uses “the Lord” (a title) in place of his personal name? Can we know how God’s name was originally pronounced? Shouldn’t we avoid using God’s name out of reverence for the sacred? Why didn’t the New Testament authors use God’s name? How do Bible translators decide whether they should render something like Yahweh or the Lord? These are all important questions that we will try to answer throughout this series. But first, we need to answer a foundational question: What is God’s revealed desire regarding the use and preservation of his name?

God’s desire

Many people think that God is offended by the pronunciation and use of his personal name in any and every context. For example, in Jewish circles there is a strong consensus that it is blasphemous to pronounce or even write God’s name, and that everyone must refer to him only through titles such as “Lord” or “The Name” out of respect and honor. The desire to fear God and treat his name with honor is to be commended, but Scripture teaches that this is done by loyal love and obedience, not by eliminating the pronunciation of his name (Deut. 28:58). In order to test this idea, we must turn to Scripture to understand what God wants us to do with his name.

Many people think that God is offended by the pronunciation and use of his personal name in any and every context.

Let’s begin with Exodus 3:15: “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘Yahweh (יהוה), the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.” In Hebrew the last sentence reads literally: “This (is) my name forever, and this (is) my memorial/remembrance/mention (זכר zeker) to all generations.” Some versions like the NET Bible and KJV translate zeker as “memorial,” but the word in this context can be understood as implying the speaking of the name, since things that remain unspoken are usually lost in oral cultures. That’s why the NIV translates: “This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation.”

In Isaiah 26:8 God’s name and “mention/remembrance” are paired together again, hearkening back to Exodus 3:15: “O Yahweh, … your name and remembrance (from zeker) are the desire of our soul.” The opposite of this remembrance is the grave, where Yahweh’s name is not heard: “For in death there is no remembrance (zeker) of you; in Sheol who will give you praise?” (Ps. 6:5, see also Eccles. 9:5). Hosea also echoes Exodus 3:15 when he writes, “Yahweh, the God of armies, Yahweh is his memorial name (zeker)” (Hos. 12:5). The psalmist also picks up the same theme: “Your name, O Yahweh, is everlasting, your remembrance, (zeker) O Yahweh, throughout all generations” (Ps. 135:13).

Thus, it’s clear that God wants us to remember/memorialize the name he revealed to Moses on Sinai, which many scholars pronounce as Yahweh. But what about the names of other gods?

Other gods’ names

If we return to Exodus, we find the verbal form of zeker used to prohibit the mentioning (and hence remembering) of the names of other gods: “and the names of other gods you shall not mention (tazkiru) nor shall they be heard upon your lips” (Exod. 23:13). The point of the verse is that God’s name is the only one worthy to be on people’s lips, and thus remembered and made famous. Other gods should not be allowed to compete with him in this arena.

In the same vein, Joshua says, “and the names of their gods you shall not mention (tazkiru) nor shall you swear by them nor shall you serve them nor shall you bow down to them” (Josh. 23:7). In other words, a unilateral agreement of silence when it comes to the names of the gods is a way of forgetting and belittling them, which will help the Israelites avoid swearing by them and serving them.

Evidence from vows

One of the practical ways God established the use and remembrance of his name was through vows. Scripture speaks clearly about this in Deuteronomy 6:13: “It is Yahweh your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve and by his name you shall swear” (see also Deut. 10:20). Jeremiah, as a faithful Torah student, reiterates the importance of this: “And it shall come to pass, if they will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, ‘As Yahweh lives,’ even as they taught my people to swear by Baal, then they shall be built up in the midst of my people” (Jer. 12:16). This is a surprising promise to restore the other nations along with Judah, if they will learn the ways of Yahweh’s people.

Related

  • How Was the Divine Name Translated in the Reformation? Part 4
  • Andrew Case
  • How Can You Know We Have the Right Books in the Bible?
  • Michael J. Kruger
  • How Was the Pronunciation of God’s Name Lost? Part 2
  • Andrew Case

Thus, it is clear that swearing by Yahweh’s name constitutes an important mark of those who belong to and follow him. Conversely, Yahweh places no value on avoiding the use of his name either out of reverence, or to avoid the risk of blasphemy. Consequently, to avoid using the name of Yahweh to make a vow would be to go against his explicit wishes.

Many people in the Hebrew Bible conform to Yahweh’s desire that his name be used to swear or vow. Boaz says to Ruth, “as Yahweh lives, I will redeem you” (Ruth 3:13). The people defend Jonathan to Saul by saying, “As Yahweh lives, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground” (1 Sam. 14:45). Even Saul says of David, “As Yahweh lives, he shall not be put to death” (1 Sam. 19:6). Elijah (1 Kings 17:1) and Micaiah (2 Chron. 18:13) are other examples.

Typical use of the name

If it were forbidden to use God’s name, we would expect that righteous men like Boaz and Elijah would refrain from using it. Yet that’s simply not the case. We even see evidence of the divine name in casual greetings. Ruth 2:4 reads, “Now Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to those harvesting, ‘May Yahweh be with you!’ And they answered him, ‘May Yahweh bless you!’” Although there is no uniform agreement among commentators about how casual or formulaic this greeting was, what is clear is that the divine name is being used in a non-religious context as a kind of greeting. The context gives more weight to the idea that this was a standard greeting like “Good morning!” This seems to be yet another practical way Yahweh’s name was remembered throughout generations (see also Judg. 6:12). The name was not considered too sacred to pronounce in everyday interactions.

Furthermore, it’s important to observe how Eli instructs young Samuel to address God in 1 Samuel 3:9: “Eli said to Samuel, “Go, lie down, and if he calls you, you shall say, ‘Speak, Yahweh, for your servant hears.’” It’s striking that a priest of God tells a little boy to call God by his name directly. One would think that if ancient Israelites had a strong custom of showing respect to God by addressing him only by “my Lord,” then Eli would have instructed Samuel to do so, but he did not. Given God’s love of children displayed throughout Scripture, it should come as no surprise that he welcomes them to call him by name.

Get new articles and updates in your inbox.

How God’s name differs

Finally, Yahweh made himself unique amidst the gods of the nations by revealing his own personal name. All the other gods around the Hebrews were called by titles or elements of creation that they ruled over or represented. Examples include Baal (“Lord”), Dagon (probably “grain”), and Molech (“ruler” melek, with the vowels of “shame” bosheth). It makes sense that pagan gods did not have personal names because they were not intended to be related to on a personal level, but rather to be manipulated in order to get the good life.

We lose this striking contrast between the pagan gods and Yahweh when we avoid using the personal name he revealed.

Thus, I might suggest that we lose this striking contrast between the pagan gods and Yahweh when we avoid using the personal name he revealed and only use a title. By only translating the name as “Lord” in the Old Testament, we may be unintentionally blinding the reader to this particular uniqueness of the one true God. Does this same criticism apply to the New Testament writers? Not at all, as we will see in a subsequent article.

Conclusion

God clearly wants his personal name to be remembered forever. And the best way to remember his name is to do what David and other biblical writers did: use his name freely, especially in prayer, praise, vows, and in retelling his marvelous works throughout history. No passage in Scripture forbids the use of God’s name, which is why it is used nearly 7,000 times by the biblical authors. So how did we lose God’s name in many traditions and Bible translations? We’ll treat this question in our next article in this series.

Related

  • Illustration by David Fassett
    How Was the Pronunciation of God’s Name Lost? Part 2

    Ancient tradition divides on the use of God’s name, with no clear reason why some banned it.

    Andrew Case

This article is in the public domain. You may freely use, share, and reproduce it. For a more in-depth treatment, see here.

Filed Under: Old Testament, Translation

How Bible Software Solves Differences in Versification for You

Software developers have to account for different versification in how Bible data is both stored and presented.

Rick Brannan

Back in the mid-1990s, before the internet was everywhere, I worked in the telephone sales department at Logos Bible Software (now known as Faithlife). In those pre-internet days, companies would run advertisements in magazines with 1-800 numbers that people could call to learn more or get help. I was at the other end of that line and talked with many people about studying the Bible and how Logos Bible Software could help them.

It was in this context that I first learned that Bible verses, those trusty guides to where something is in the Bible, are , in fact, not so trusty across versions and languages. That is, what is in one verse in one translation may not necessarily be the same when compared to a different translation.

A case of a missing verse

In addition to selling software to interested folks, I also called people after they bought the software to follow up and make sure they were able to use the software. And sometimes people who I sold software to would call me with questions. One day a call was transferred to me and to the person on the other end asked me, fairly bluntly, “Where’s Matthew 18:11 in my NIV Bible?”

To understand what the customer was seeing, I opened my copy of Logos Bible Software version 1.6, opened the NIV, and navigated to Matthew 18:11. It just went from verse 10 to verse 12. And I somewhat confusedly confirmed with the person on the phone that Matthew 18:11 was not in the NIV. But it was in the KJV. I said I’d look into it and see if there was an issue and get back to him.

Now, this was the mid-1990s. Bible software at the time really only had Bibles, Strong’s numbers (only in the KJV) with some brief definitions, and not much else. So missing a whole verse was a big thing, and I wanted to figure out where it went.

Thankfully, the NIV has a note at the end of verse 10: “Some manuscripts heaven. The Son of Man came to save what was lost.” And that nearly matches the text of Matthew 18:11 in the KJV: “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.”

Related

  • The NA28 (left) and THGNT (right), opened to the beginning of John’s Gospel
    The NA28 (left) and THGNT (right), opened to the beginning of John’s Gospel
    What Pastors Should Know about Developments in Textual Criticism

    An introduction to new editions, methods, and digital tools for studying the Greek New Testament

    Peter J. Gurry

I’d taken a year of Greek in college, and Logos Bible Software had the standard critical Greek New Testament text at the time which was the Nestle-Aland 26th edition (NA26). This edition was fairly reflective of the Greek text behind the NIV. Logos also had Scrivener’s edition of the Greek New Testament, best described as an edition of the Textus Receptus (TR) which closely matches the text the KJV was translated from. I looked up Matthew 18:11 in the NA26 edition, and the verse was not there. I looked the verse up in Scrivener’s text, and it was there.

This was my smoking gun. The footnote in the NIV explained that some manuscripts include an extended form of the material at the location we today call Matthew 18:11. Evaluating the Greek texts indicated that the NIV and KJV translated different editions of the Greek text. This accounts for the presence of Matthew 18:11 in the KJV and its absence in the NIV. I was able to call the customer back and explain how the absence of Matthew 18:11 in the NIV was explained by the note in the text and was able to give some background on the differences in the Greek between the NIV and the KJV. Both the customer and I learned one of the reasons that versification between Bibles doesn’t always match.

Related

  • How Digital Apps Are Changing How We Read the Bible
  • John Dyer
  • What Makes a Bible Translation Bad?
  • Mark Ward
  • What Makes a Bible Translation Really Bad?
  • Mark Ward

The Ethiopian’s Confession

A similar “missing verse” situation happens in the story of the Ethiopian eunuch, found in Acts 8. The story is well-known: Philip was drawn by the Spirit to the chariot of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:29), who happened to be reading from Isaiah 53:7–8 (Acts 8:32–33). It was a perfect setup for Philip to explain the Gospel, and he did (Acts 8:35) to the point that the eunuch asked to be baptized (Acts 8:36).

This is where the complication starts. Acts 8:37, which contains the incredible testimony of the eunuch, is present in some translations like the KJV and NKJV. It is present but in [brackets] that indicate its dubious nature in the 1977 edition of the NASB and also in the HCSB. It is absent in most modern translations (ESV, NIV 1984 and 2011 editions, NRSV, NRSVue, NASB 1995 and 2020 editions, and the CSB). When absent, the material from verse 37 is mentioned in a footnote. The NIV 2011 includes a superscript “[11]” in the text acknowledging the absence of the material with a further clarifying note.

The moving seashore

In the mid- to late 1990s, I shifted from sales and marketing and moved over to the technical side of the company. There my job involved writing computer programs to produce the electronic versions of books for use in what was then known as the Logos Library System, aka Logos 2.0. I soon learned that some examples of differences in versification are more complex than just a difference between manuscripts. The examples from Matt 18:10–11 and Acts 8:36–37 all agree on the versification while disagreeing on the content. What happens when there is disagreement in both versification and content?

Welcome to Revelation 12:17–13:1. Rather than trying to explain the differences, it is perhaps best to simply see them. Here the text is laid out by verses in a table. Depending on the Bible translation, the same content could be in Revelation 12:17, 12:18, or 13:1. Also, within that content unit, a slight variation in who stood on the shore occurs that is represented in italics. This variant helps explain the choices that translators made in representing the text in their editions.

ESVNIV 2011NRSVueKJVNA28TR
12:17 Then the dragon became furious with the woman… And he stood on the sand of the sea.12:17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman…12:17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman…12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman…12:17 καὶ ὠργίσθη ὁ δράκων ἐπὶ τῇ γυναικὶ …12:17 καὶ ὠργίσθη ὁ δράκων ἐπὶ τῇ γυναικί…
12:18 Then the dragon took his stand on the sand of the seashore.12:18 Καὶ ἐστάθη ἐπὶ τὴν ἄμμον τῆς θαλάσσης.
13:1 And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads…13:1 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads…13:1 And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads…13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns…13:1 Καὶ εἶδον ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης θηρίον ἀναβαῖνον, ἔχον κέρατα δέκα καὶ κεφαλὰς ἑπτὰ…13:1 καὶ ἐστάθην ἐπὶ τὴν ἄμμον τῆς θαλάσσης. Καὶ εἶδον ἐκ τῆς θαλάσσης θηρίον ἀναβαῖνον, ἔχον κεφαλὰς ἑπτά καὶ κέρατα δέκα…
Versification differences at Revelation 12:17–13.1

The material with the variation (“he stood” in NA28 vs. “I stood” in the TR) is the material that migrates into and out of chapter 13 depending on edition. When the NA28 is followed (ESV, NRSVue) and “he” (the dragon) is the one standing on the seashore, the translations tend to keep the material in chapter 12. When the Scrivener edition of the TR is followed (KJV, NKJV) and “I” (John the Revelator) is the one standing on the seashore, the translations tend to keep the material in chapter 13. Bucking this trend, the NIV translates the NA28 text but puts the material in chapter 13, possibly to keep the material where KJV readers expect it.

In this area of Revelation, the location of the chapter break in modern editions seems dependent on the content and may not even follow the versification of the underlying Greek edition.

Get new articles and updates in your inbox.

Why Does this Matter for Bible Software?

Versification differences are not uncommon once you become aware of them. For example, the versification of the Psalms is different between the Hebrew Bible and Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) and even has differences from these in some English Bibles. Differences between the Hebrew and Greek versions of Jeremiah are also well known.

Major Bible software packages have developed systems to account for versification differences in ways that Bible data is both stored and presented. If someone has their NIV and NRSVue linked together and is scrolling through the material, Revelation 13:1 in the NIV and Revelation 12:18 in the NRSVue should scroll together. Search results for common terms (like “dragon”) should be listed in parallel in multi-version searches despite the versification differences.

The basic goal is to let reading and study proceed without the speedbumps of versification differences. These problems are not hidden; the lack of Matthew 18:11 in some Bibles is still discoverable. But hopefully the explanations of these differences are equally discoverable and do not lead to distressed communication with customer service agents about how a particular Bible version is missing content.

Filed Under: Translation

The Legacy of the First Revised Bible Translations

The modern impulse to get the Bible right in translation has its roots in the Jews who revised the Septuagint.

John D. Meade

Many Christians today read the Bible through revisions of original translations. We read the Revised Standard Version (RSV), a revision of another revision of the King James Version; English Standard Version, a revision of the RSV; the New King James Version, another revision of the King James and on and on. Translation committees simply find it easier to revise already existing translations by conforming them to a more contemporary understanding of the Hebrew and Greek texts and updating English diction as needed. Instead of de novo translations, they produce thorough revisions of older translations and in many cases improve the accuracy and readability of the older translation. Nothing is new under the sun.

Ancient Jewish communities who read the Scriptures in Greek translation were the first to revise older Greek translations. These older Greek translations are popularly known as the Septuagint (an abbreviated Latin term meaning “Seventy”) and probably are to be dated between 280–100 BC. But even before the Jews finished translating each Hebrew book into Greek, some Jewish communities had already begun to revise the older ones. What are these Jewish Greek revisions? Why were they undertaken? Where do we find them? What do they tell us about the Bible’s history and our own translation proclivities? Learning more about the ancient Jewish revisions and why they were undertaken not only tells us more about the Bible’s history, but it also explains our modern-day practice too.

The impulse to revise Bible translation

Ancient translators and revisers do not tell us explicitly why they did what they did. But the historical background and the texts themselves suggest why Jews revised their texts. In the third to second century BC, in the library at Alexandria, Egypt, grammarians like Aristarchus of Samothrace were carefully correcting the copies and texts of Homer’s Iliad.1Francesca Schironi, The Best of the Grammarians: Aristarchus of Samothrace on the Iliad (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2018). Perhaps, the Jewish revisers simply followed their lead in wanting more accurate texts of their scriptures in Greek. To do that, they revised or corrected the earlier translations by conforming them more closely to the standard Hebrew text.

An illustration of the Septuagint translators from the Nuremberg Chronicle. Wikimedia

The translations themselves suggest two other motives for revisions: (1) bringing the older translation into greater alignment with the standard Hebrew text and (2) ensuring their Greek translations reflected current interpretation of the text. Regarding the first reason, the old Greek translator of Job worked as a paraphrast or epitomizer, abbreviating the original, longer Hebrew text by about one-sixth in length. But the Jewish revisers wanted to restore or correct the older translation by supplying an equivalent Greek line for every Hebrew line of the poetic speeches.

Regarding the second reason, the most famous example of interpretive revision probably comes from Isaiah 7:14. The Septuagint contains “Behold the virgin (parthenos) will conceive…,” while the revisers have “Behold the young woman (neanis)….” Hebrew ‘almah could mean “virgin” or “young woman,” and Jewish interpretation of this passage could have shifted between the older and newer translations. Though debate persists over whether the Jewish interpretation of this passage evolved from “virgin” to “young woman,” what is clear is that, as parthenos came to mean only “chaste woman” in Greek, the revisers adjusted their translations to neanis “young woman” to reflect the current Jewish interpretation of this word to mean “maiden of marriageable age.”

What’s significant is that both of these reasons—textual accuracy and correct meaning—are still major reasons we revise Bible translations today.

Both these reasons—textual accuracy and correct meaning—are still major reasons we revise Bible translations today.

Understanding the ancient Jewish revisions

Several ancient Jewish revisions of the Septuagint have names associated with them. Most famous among them are “the Three”: Theodotion (post 30 AD), Aquila (ca. 130 AD), and Symmachus (ca. 200 AD). We will return to them. Most other revisions were anonymous. The church father Origen of Alexandria discovered two other versions which he called “the Fifth” and “the Sixth,” since the texts did not have names attached to them. But before these famous revisions existed, we now know that Jewish communities had long been revising their older Greek translations.

The dividing line between an original translation and its revision is not easy to establish. Thus, for the earliest manuscripts of the Greek translations, some debate exists among scholars for what constitutes an early witness to the original translation and what is evidence for its earliest revision. That said, scholars do agree that some Jewish communities were revising older Greek translations since we have manuscript evidence from as early as 2nd–1st centuries BC showing revisions of Numbers (4QLXXNum) and Deuteronomy (Papyrus Fouad Inv. 266b-c). That is, these texts show a revision of the older Greek translation towards the standard Hebrew text.

A brief example comes from Numbers 4:7 where the old Greek translation has, “And over the presentation table they shall throw over it a wholly purple cloth, and the bowls…” But 4QLXXNum has “And over the presentation table they shall throw over it a wholly purple cloth, and they shall set on it the bowls…,” which agrees with the standard Hebrew text. If the original translation of Numbers occurred around 280 BC, this revision could have been carried out about hundred years later.

Related

  • Five Decisions Every Bible Translator Must Make
  • Peter J. Gurry
  • Seven Common Misconceptions about the King James Bible
  • Timothy Berg
  • Borrowing from the KJV Bank and Trust
  • Mark Ward

Probably in the first century BC, a Jewish community engaged in a major project of revising older translations and producing new translations for books like Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. We call this tradition the “kaige tradition,” since it employed a distinctive Greek translation kaige (καίγε) “and even” for Hebrew gam/wegam (גם/וגם) “and even.” This tradition produced a literal or formal equivalence translation of the standard Hebrew text, not unlike our own English translations that follow in the tradition of the NASB.

Here we can locate the famous Three revisers within the overall tendency to revise the older Greek translations. Although the kaige tradition included mostly anonymous revisions and translations, the kaige did include the more well-known reviser, Theodotion, and probably peaked and was perfected in the work of Aquila. Both of these revisions represent very literal translations and even stereotypical equivalents (each Hebrew word rendered by the same Greek word) in the case of Aquila. Later, Symmachus rendered the Hebrew more functionally (think closer to the NIV) and generally avoided the approaches introduced by kaige.

For example, Theodotion would usually render Hebrew ’el “God” with Greek ho ischyros “the powerful one” and Aquila would render the same word with ischyros “Powerful One” (as a proper noun). Symmachus came later and used the more typical Greek rendering theos “God” instead of continuing the idiosyncratic rendering of the kaige tradition. When later Jewish and Christian debates over the interpretation of the Scriptures arose, usually the debates centered on the texts of the Three and the Septuagint. But scholars now see that early Christian exegetes sometimes used the revisions of the Three for their interpretations more than has been recognized in the past.

When the Apostle Paul quoted Isaiah 25:8 in 1 Corinthians 15:54 he quoted the text of Theodotion (“Death is swallowed up in victory”) and not the text of the Septuagint (“Death, having prevailed, swallowed them [nations] up”) or the later reading of the Masoretic Text (“He will swallow up death forever”). A variant Hebrew text does not explain the differences. Rather, the translators and revisers read the same Hebrew consonants differently, and in this case, Paul must have agreed with how Theodotion’s version conveyed the Hebrew with its emphasis on God’s “victory” over death.

Where we find the revisions

We observe the earliest revisions from the manuscripts themselves. For example, we can observe the kaige tradition directly in the fragments of the Greek Minor Prophets scroll from Nahal Hever. This scroll was discovered in 1952 and 1961, and, amazingly, another part of this same scroll was found as recently as 2021. A very interesting feature of this Greek scroll is its exhibition of the divine Name or the Tetragrammaton in proto-Hebrew letters.

The Nahal Hever scroll with the Tetragramaton in proto-Hebrew script (lines 3, 5). Wikipedia

How about the remains of the Three? Unfortunately, the Three only survive fragmentarily. Some of Aquila’s translation for 1 Kings 21:7–17 and 2 Kings 23:12–27 survives, but most of the remains of the Three come from Origen of Alexandria’s Hexapla, where these revisions were included. But the Hexapla does not survive in full. Rather, we find most remains of the Hexapla in the margins of Greek manuscripts, citations in patristic commentaries, and ancient translations like Syriac. The last edition of the hexaplaric fragments was published in 1875 by Frederick Field. The Hexapla Institute, which is now hosted by the Text & Canon Institute, seeks to publish new critical editions because more evidence of the Three has since come to light. Newer editions will further our knowledge of the Three’s language and approach to the revisionary task.

What these revisions tell us

Although most of us don’t read the remains of the Jewish revisers directly, we do encounter Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion in the footnotes of our English Bibles (see, e.g., Job 5:5). Interestingly, the early English Bible prefaces appeal to the Three by name, ensuring they play a part in the English Bible’s history. Describing the benefit of various Bible translations throughout history, Myles Coverdale (1535) says,

Whereas some men think now that many translations make division in the faith and in the people of God, that is not so: for it was never better with the congregation of God, than when every church almost had the Bible of a sundry translation … Beside the seventy interpreters, is there not the translation of Aquila, of Theodotion, of Symmachus, and of sundry other?2Spelling updated.

Even the venerable Preface to the KJV 1611 mentions Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, and the anonymous Fifth and Sixth translations as responses to the perceived problems in the Septuagint translations. In this way, the work of the ancient Jewish revisers was seen as a powerful precedent for revisions made more than 1,000 years later.

Overall, the Jewish revisions attest the conservatively copied Hebrew text.3But even here these fascinating revisions tell different tales. For example, the ending of Job in the older Greek translation came to have a longer ending beyond the Hebrew text which ended with “And Job died an old man and full of days.” The earlier reviser, Theodotion, continued to revise the longer ending of Job, while the slightly later revisers of Aquila and Symmachus ended their revisions precisely where the Hebrew ended. Their literal translation approach reveals the antiquity of the standard Hebrew text. Thus, where we can consult these readings, we can usually see that Hebrew text as the base text. Sometimes, these translations show a different Hebrew reading than the Masoretic Text and as such become very valuable witnesses to the textual history of the Hebrew Bible.

Conclusion

The Bible’s history has many chapters. The Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Septuagint constitute major developments in the plot. As such, the revisions and later corrected texts like those produced by Origen often are overlooked. But these textual endeavors show a great interest in possessing the correct text and as such tell us much about the texts’ creators, curators, and users. Today, when we read or attempt revisions of our older translations, we can rest assured that we’re participating in a long-standing tradition, one that has roots in the impulse to get the text right. That tradition and its history are worth exploring more deeply so that we can also understand our own impulses and desires.

Notes

  • 1
    Francesca Schironi, The Best of the Grammarians: Aristarchus of Samothrace on the Iliad (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2018).
  • 2
    Spelling updated.
  • 3
    But even here these fascinating revisions tell different tales. For example, the ending of Job in the older Greek translation came to have a longer ending beyond the Hebrew text which ended with “And Job died an old man and full of days.” The earlier reviser, Theodotion, continued to revise the longer ending of Job, while the slightly later revisers of Aquila and Symmachus ended their revisions precisely where the Hebrew ended.

Filed Under: Old Testament, Text, Translation Tagged With: Hexapla

The Day the Bible Became a Bestseller

Martin Luther didn’t set out to produce a bestseller. But 500 years ago that’s exactly what he did.

Jeffrey Kloha

We know exactly when the Bible first became the “best-selling book of all time.” It was September 21, 1522. This date was the opening of the annual book fair in Leipzig, Germany. The previous April, Martin Luther refused to recant his writings before the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at an assembly convened to examine his works known as the Diet of Worms. From there he was secreted to the Wartburg Castle for his own protection.

In eleven weeks, he completed a translation of the New Testament from Greek into German. From there, his colleague at Wittenberg University, Philip Melanchthon, edited the translation. Two businessmen in Wittenberg, Lucas Cranach the Elder and his partner Christian Doering, then employed the printer Melchior Lotter the Younger to rush to completion this New Testament in German in time for the book fair—even setting up temporary presses on their property to ensure completion. Between 3,000 and 5,000 copies were made, bundled up, and rushed to Leipzig for the book fair.

Luther translating the Bible in 1521 as depicted by Eugène Siberdt. Wikimedia Commons

An Immediate Bestseller

The book was a hit. All the copies of this German New Testament sold out before the fair ended a week later. From there, Luther’s German New Testament spread around Europe. A second printing was started immediately and released in December. A pirated version was printed in Basel before the end of 1522. In the next year a total of twelve authorized and sixty-six unauthorized reprints appeared throughout Germany and Europe—hundreds of thousands of copies sold in just over twelve months. Suddenly, the Bible was a bestseller. Luther’s Bible. The German New Testament.

Now, all this might be left as a footnote in history, except that this little Bible by Luther still influences the way that we read Bibles today. From format to contents to readability to explanatory notes—all have been shaped by the Septembertestament.

How did this instant success happen? Luther was not the first to market. In fact, the first printed German Bible had appeared in 1466, fifty-five years before Luther’s work. Seventeen total versions appeared before 1522. So, there was not simply a pent-up demand for the Bible in German into which Luther tapped. Rather, it was Luther’s theology and notoriety, combined with a readable translation style and a physical and visual format designed to help the reader understand the text—at least the text as Luther wanted the reader to understand it—that made this Bible become a bestseller.

Wartburg Castle, where Luther finished his German New Testament in 1522. Photo by Ashley Van Haeften

The Context of Luther’s Achievement

For the first 1500 years of the church, the Bible, or rather, the various books and stories in the Bible, were accessed by almost all people not by reading, but by hearing. People heard the Bible in worship, they sung it in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. They were taught it in sermons and catechetical teaching, they saw its contents portrayed in icons and eventually stained glass, watched it performed in mystery plays and passion plays (some of which are still performed today).

But possessing a Bible, holding a Bible, whether on papyrus or parchment or paper was not at all common. Almost all physical copies of the Bible down to the 1500s were produced for use in churches, in monasteries, and for clergy. A few wealthy people had beautifully decorated devotional books, which often contained the Psalms, but the Bible as we know it was simply not accessible—nor indeed seen to need to be accessible—to the vast, vast majority of people.

Even Gutenberg did not produce a bestseller because what he produced looked and felt and, to some extent, even cost what a Latin manuscript of the Bible cost in the 1450s. Gutenberg could produce sixty copies in the time it took a copyist to produce one manuscript. The first edition of 1454 was produced in about 160 to 180 copies: ¾ of them on paper and ¼ on vellum.

Paper copies cost thirty florins at a time when the salary of a clerk in the Medici bank earned between fourteen and fifty florins per year. So, if you have a great job in 1450, a Gutenberg Bible would cost roughly one year’s wages—and you still had to be able to read Latin. Most copies were purchased by religious orders or wealthy individuals for donation to churches and ecclesial institutions. While a pivotal moment in western history (Time magazine named it the most significant event of the past 1000 years) Gutenberg did not immediately change the way that people accessed the Bible.

Related

  • The Life and Legacy of William Tyndale
  • Peter J. Gurry
  • Erasmus and the Search for the Original Text of the New Testament
  • Martin Heide
  • Why Are Protestant and Catholic Bibles Different?
  • John D. Meade

But in the early 16th century, people began to want to read the Scriptures for themselves. And reform-minded scholars throughout Europe worked to make it accessible to all people, in their own languages.

Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam was one of the greatest classical scholars of all time. He produced numerous first editions of texts from antiquity, including the first published Greek New Testament in 1516. But he did not call it a “New Testament.” He called it a “Novum Instrumentum,” a new tool. The edition has Greek in one column and Latin in the other, but not the Vulgate, the commonly used Latin text, but a fresh translation that Erasmus argued was more accurate to the Greek. He wanted to make the Greek text more accessible to scholars and theologians in the west who did not really know Greek. And what was this tool to be used for? He lays this out in his preface, what he called the paraclesis or “exhortation” at the beginning of his new tool:

The sun belongs to everyone; the science of Christ is just the same. I am totally opposed to the fact that divine scripture should not be translated into one’s native language, to be read by the non-clergy; it is as if Christ’s teaching was so mysterious that only a handful of theologians could understand it, or as if the fortress of religion was built with the ignorance which the Church has forced on the common man. I wish that even the lowliest women read the gospels and the Pauline Epistles. And I would that they were translated into all languages so that they could be read and understood not only by Scots and Irish, but also by Turks and Saracens… Would that, as a result, the farmer sing some portion of them at the plow, the weaver hum some parts of them to the movement of his shuttle, the traveler lighten the weariness of the journey with stories from this source.

Luther used the second edition (printed in 1519) of Erasmus’s “new tool” to create a New Testament for German farmers and weavers, and in so doing created a runaway success. The audience for this German New Testament was the German people themselves. Where the Gutenberg Bible was out of the reach of almost all people, both for the cost and the fact that it was in Latin, a bound copy of Luther’s New Testament cost a single guilder: schoolteacher’s two month’s wages, or the price of a calf.

A Book to Point to Christ

It seems self-evident to us today that the Bible should be translated. But for Luther, the translation of the Bible was not an end in itself. It was not simply, “let’s get the Bible out there and see what happens.” Nor was he interested in a text for academic study since Greek, Hebrew, and Latin editions were available for that if one wanted. Rather, Luther wanted a New Testament through which individuals could hear the Word of God directly, without the mediation of the church or a priest. Said another way: Luther’s goal was that individuals hear “God’s message about Christ.”

Luther’s goal was that individuals hear “God’s message about Christ.”

In the language of Romans 10: “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” Luther expresses this in his introduction to the Old Testament published later in 1534: “If, then, you would interpret well and surely, set Christ before you; for He is the man to whom it all applies.” But even the New Testament, which Luther acknowledged should be clear enough, also can be misinterpreted and therefore the reader needs assistance to hear the Gospel clearly.

Luther produced this book, quite simply, to point to Christ. To give people access, for themselves—with Luther’s guidance—to the promises of God. We see this on the title page of a 1524 Wittenberg Bible with its simple description, and Christ on the cross.

The title page to the Old Testament in Luther’s 1524 Bible with Christ on the cross. Museum of the Bible BIB.003838.

Luther’s entire purpose in translating the New Testament, then, and every feature of the translation and the contents of the volume is designed to preach Christ and the Gospel message. This accounts for the new features of the Septembertestament. It was a text like no other before it. It translated a Greek text into the vernacular for the first time in Western Europe since the Vulgate. It included prefaces and notes to ensure that the readers heard the Gospel. And even the sequence of the New Testament books was altered to suit Luther’s goal of leading people to trust the promises of Christ.

This might be surprising. A Reformation motto is sola Scriptura! By Scripture alone! without tradition or interpretation. But sola Scriptura itself is actually in service to the central Reformation tenet: “Christ Alone!” (solus Christus). Luther put Scripture into the language of the people so that by Scripture alone they could hear Christ and his gospel, and so receive salvation.

Helps to Guide the Reader to Christ

The physical format and additional features that Luther and his collaborators added to this Septembertestament helped accomplish this goal. These were not without precedent, and certainly not without controversy, as we will see. And there is an important juxtaposition between Luther’s desire for the Word to be heard clearly and directly by people on its own terms and, at the same time, the addition of several “helps” to make sure that the reader gets the right interpretation. Here I will focus on four “helps,” many of which are still used on our Bibles today.

1. Text and Translation

As noted, Luther used the second edition (1519) of Erasmus’s Novum Instrumentum as his base text. The parallel Greek-Latin diglot gave Luther access not only to the Greek but also to Erasmus’s Latin rendering. In addition, Erasmus published a remarkable scholarly and historical word-by-word analysis of the Greek New Testament in 1516 called Annotations. He significantly enlarged this resource in 1519, and we know that Luther used both tools, because there are places where the translations follow exactly Erasmus’s explanations. Luther, therefore, would be the first to use these “new tools” to bring a Greek text of the New Testament into a vernacular language.

Get new articles and updates in your inbox.

Given the manuscripts available to him, Erasmus’s Greek text was quite similar to the text used for centuries in the Greek-speaking church. Later editions of his basic text came to be called the Textus Receptus, most commonly available after the mid-16th century in the editions edited by Reformed theologian Theodore Beza. That text was the basis of the Geneva Bible (1557, 1560) and the 1611 Authorized Version of King James. Erasmus’s 1519 edition repaired many of the typos and errors of the 1516 edition. Famously, though, neither edition included the comma Johnanneum at 1 John 5:7–8: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one” (KJV).

This passage was added by Erasmus in his 1522 edition, and Luther was aware of the reading. But Luther never included the reading in his German Bible, including the 1534 complete Bible and the 1545 edition, the last printed during Luther’s lifetime. In fact, Luther elsewhere comments on this reading, noting that it was added by the orthodox theologians to counter Arian theology.

The Greek text was Luther’s foundation, but his deepest concern was that the text be readable and understandable by all people. Matching the Greek or Latin style and idiom would not have communicated the message of the New Testament clearly. His defense of his translation work against Catholic critics, written in 1530, underscores this goal.

We do not have to ask the literal Latin [text] how we are to speak German, as these donkeys [Papists] do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their language, by the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.

In this treatise, Luther provided several examples of how the idiomatic German of his translation is more effective than a translation held captive to other languages:

For instance, Christ says: Ex abundatia cordis os loquitur [Matt. 12:34]. If I am to follow these donkeys, they will lay the original before me literally and translate it thus: “Aus dem uberfluss des hertzen redet der mund” [of the excessiveness of the heart his mouth speaks]. Tell me, is that speaking German? What German could understand something like that? What is “the excessiveness of the heart”? No German can say that; unless, perhaps, he was trying to say that someone was altogether too generous, or too courageous, though even that would not yet be correct. “Excessiveness of the heart” is no more German than “excessiveness of the house,” “excessiveness of the stove” or “excessiveness of the bench.” But the mother in the home and the common man say this: “Wes das hertz vol ist, des gehet der mund über” [What fills the heart overflows the mouth]. That is speaking good German of the kind I have tried for, although unfortunately not always successfully. The literal Latin is a great obstacle to speaking good German.1Ein sendbrief D. M. Luthers. Von Dolmetzschen und Fürbit der heiligenn (1530)

The most radical—some might say, egregious—example is his rendering of Romans 3:28 where his text has added the word “alone.”

So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben
So now we hold that a person is justified without the works of the law, by faith alone.

The Greek text does not read an equivalent to “alone” in this passage. As the KJV reads: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” Luther defends his translation, again in the 1530 Sendbriefe:

Here in Romans 3, I knew very well that the word solum [alone] is not in the Greek or Latin text; the papists did not have to teach me that. It is a fact that these four letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate. At the same time they do not see that it conveys the sense of the text; it belongs there if the translation is to be clear and vigorous… It is the nature of the German language to add the word allein in order that the word nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete…  Actually, the text itself and the meaning of St. Paul urgently require and demand it. For in that very passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the law.

For Luther, the sense of the text, undeniably influenced by the importance placed on this passage for the teaching of justification by faith, was more important than the Greek or Latin vocables in the base texts. Luther’s goal is to create a New Testament that preaches Christ, understandable directly by the people in language that they can understand. This is not a translation that seeks to capture the feel of an ancient text. It does not seek to sound “authentic” to the speech of, say, a Roman official in the book of Acts. Rather, the translation seeks to speak directly to ordinary people on their own terms. It is direct speech, as if God were speaking German. As if God were preaching Christ directly to them, into their hearts, with no priests, no tradition, no one else needed for the person to hear God and gain Christ.

Luther’s goal is to create a New Testament that preaches Christ, understandable directly by the people in language that they can understand.

2. Prefaces

A second device Luther used in his Septembertestament was to affix prefaces to the four Gospels and then individually for each subsequent book. He was not the first to add prefaces; prologues are found in Latin and Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that provide historical and chronological information and occasionally argue against heretical theological views. But Luther takes this in a different direction. He added prefaces to each book, not modeled on his predecessors, but designed instead to give the reader a basic understanding of the contents and what they will find in the book—or, more accurately, what Luther wants them to find in the book. In the initial preface to the Gospels and the New Testament, he directly explains his purpose for this device.

It would be right and proper that this book should appear without preface and without any other name than that of its authors and convey only its own name and its own language. But many wild interpretations and prefaces have driven the thought of Christians to a point where no one any longer knows what is Gospel or Law, Old Testament or New. Necessity demands, therefore, that it should have an announcement, or preface, by which the simple man can be brought back from the old notions to the right road and taught what he is to expect in this book, so that he may not seek laws and commandments where he ought to be seeking the Gospel and God’s promises.

Luther’s evangelistic purpose is clear here: He wants the reader to seek the Gospel and God’s promises, and to not read the New Testament as a book of rules to be obeyed. This becomes clearest in his preface to Romans. While most prefaces are quite brief, three individual books have extended prefaces: Romans, James, and Revelation. Romans is an outlier, but for that reason it is instructive: It shows how much emphasis Luther put on the contents and teaching of that book. Its preface is far longer than any other: ten full pages of introduction, and this to a book that, in translation, is only nineteen pages long.

The preface to Galatians, which has perhaps even clearer explicit teaching of faith over and against law has an introduction of less than half of a page, with a text that is seven pages long. Ephesians has an even shorter preface: less than fourteen lines of type for six pages of text, and this in the letter that says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” That seems clear. And yet Luther relies on Romans to carry the weight of explaining the entire Bible and the Gospel: “This Epistle is really the chief part of the New Testament and the very purest Gospel and is worthy not only that every Christian should know it word for word, by heart, but occupy himself with it every day, as the daily bread of the soul.”

Not only was this approach novel, it was effective. John Wesley, the famous 18th century English evangelist, preacher, and theologian, claims that his “heart was strangely warmed” and that he was converted to the Gospel by reading Luther’s preface to Romans—not, mind you, by reading Romans itself, but reading Luther’s preface to Romans. The other two lengthy prefaces, for James and Revelation, have a decidedly different tone, as we will see below.

3. Notes

Luther also included notes and explanations in the margins of his edition. Again, this is not a new practice. Medieval manuscripts frequently contain quotations from theologians or glosses, i.e., brief explanatory and interpretive notes throughout the text. But Luther’s goal is not to repeat the best teaching and instruction of the past. His notes also reflect his goal of helping the reader trust in Christ and the Gospel. For example, this is an image of Romans 3. Notice how the margins are completely fullwidth with about 75 percent Bible and 25 percent Luther.

Luther’s marginal notes took almost almost a quarter of the page. Photo

You can almost hear Luther pleading with the reader in the margin:

Note well that he says you are all sinful, etc. This is the chief thing and the central place of the epistle and the whole of the Scriptures. Namely, that all are sinful who are not redeemed by the blood of Christ and justified by faith. So grasp this text, because according to it all work, merit, and deeds remains God’s pure gift and honor (Ps. 84:11).

4. Luther’s New Testament Canon

Perhaps most controversially, Luther arranged the sequence of the New Testament writings to reflect his views of the clarity with which those books taught the Gospel. The table of contents for this New Testament reflects this clearly.

The list of books for Luther’s New Testament. Photo

All twenty-seven books of the New Testament are present. But only twenty-three books are numbered. Four books are shifted to the end, unnumbered, as a kind of appendix: Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. Luther placed these books last and added prefaces warning readers about certain sections and passages. To Luther, Hebrews seemed to disallow repentance if one sins after baptism; Jude seemed to be an epitome of 2 Peter (with the addition of non-canonical stories); the Apocalypse is “a concealed and mute prophecy and has not yet come to the profit and fruit which it is to give to Christians.” James, however, receives the harshest criticism. It is “flatly opposed to St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture, it ascribes righteousness to works.” Luther concludes that “This fault leads to the conclusion that it is not the work of any apostle” and it is, therefore, an “epistle of straw.”

This arrangement of the New Testament writings is unique to Luther, apart from his influence on William Tyndale’s New Testament translation of 1525, which in turn is followed in English by Coverdale (1535) and Matthew (1537). From the Great Bible of 1539, however, all English translations use the sequence of books commonly known today. Luther, though, retained this format through the last edition of the Lutherbibel published during his lifetime in 1545.

A Bible for the People

Luther sought to create a Bible not to be a bestseller, but one through which individuals would hear God speaking directly to them in their world, in their time, in their place. A Bible that was God’s Word—more accurately, God speaking. Not a passive tool that sits on a shelf or a table or even altar. But an active, speaking, seeking, hearable, and impactful speaking of God. Everything Luther does, from the style of translation to the title page to the sequence of the books to notes is designed to bring people to Christ.

This is a Bible designed to not only make the words of the Bible clear, but to make the message of the Bible clear, the message of the Bible that Luther and the Wittenberg School had come to be convinced of: that Christ alone, and his work, received by faith alone, was what God was speaking in his word.

Notes

  • 1
    Ein sendbrief D. M. Luthers. Von Dolmetzschen und Fürbit der heiligenn (1530)

Filed Under: Canon, New Testament, Translation Tagged With: Martin Luther, Reformation

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to Next Page »
TCI logo

The Text & Canon Institute illuminates the history of the Bible through church resources, research, and mentoring.

[mc4wp_form id="651"]

Footer

Articles

  • Beginner
  • Intermediate
  • Advanced

Research

  • Colloquia
  • Hexapla
  • Fellowship

Events

  • Scribes & Scripture
  • Text-Types Colloquium
  • Sacred Words

About

  • Mission
  • Staff & Board
  • Contact Us

Support

  • Give Online

© 2026 Text & Canon Institute  |  Colophon