Truculentus and the Bible Interpreter’s Eyesight

Plautus’s Latin play of 485 BC, Truculentus, highlights an inescapable maxim for biblical exegesis (Bible interpretation) uttered by Stratophanes, “Of more value is one witness who can see than ten who can only hear; those who can only hear tell the things heard, those who can see know for sure.” The Bible interpreter’s goal of ascertaining the meaning of a text must begin by seeing all the data.

Seeing all the data is the starting point for a sound translation that can lead to an all-encompassing interpretation—not a simple task. Since English and Greek differ in grammatical usage some data in the Greek New Testament is untranslatable and other data is blurred or distorted. Even the most skilled translator can only partially render the substance of the Greek New Testament into English.

The use of the Greek definite article, “the” in English, represents a major problem area for translators. A.T. Robertson notes (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 756), “The article is never meaningless in Greek, though it often fails to correspond with the English idiom. . . . Its free use leads to exactness and finesse.” Wallace ties its significance to New Testament interpretation (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 207-08):

One of the greatest gifts bequeathed by the Greeks to Western civilization was the article. European intellectual life was profoundly impacted by this gift of clarity. By the first century CE [Common Era], it had become refined and subtle. Consequently, the article is one of the most fascinating areas of study in NT Greek grammar. It is also one of the most neglected and abused. In spite of the fact that that [sic] the article is used far more frequently than any other word in the Greek NT (almost 20,000 times, or one out of seven words), there is still much mystery about its usage. . . . In the least, we cannot treat it lightly, for its presence or absence is the crucial element to unlocking the meaning of scores of passages in the NT.

In short, there is no more important aspect of Greek grammar than the article to help shape our understanding of the thought and theology of the NT writers.

Not only does the presence of the Greek definite article pose problems for the translator, its absence can be downright confounding! This is amazing—some of the positive data in the Greek New Testament focuses on a part of speech that is not there! Moulton in his Grammar of New Testament Greek, Volume I, 83, states, “For exegesis, there are few of the finer points of Greek which need more constant attention than this omission of the article when the writer would lay stress on the quality or character of the object.”

As crucial as this matter is for interpretation, the English Bible reader can never know if the Greek text has or does not have a definite article. Where English requires it, Greek may not; where Greek requires it, English may not. And perhaps most difficult, when the Greek article is absent to stress the qualitative nature of the noun, English may turn the word into an indefinite noun by inserting the indefinite article “a” or “an” or by adding “the” laying stress on its identity instead of on its quality, nature, or essence.

With this introduction, one of the most startling if not one of the most misdirected passages of the New Testament puts the importance of the presence and absence of the Greek definite article on display. The significant portions of Colossians 2:2-3 in popular English translations along with the Greek text (Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition) are:

New International Version (NIV)—“the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”

New American Standard Bible (NASB)—“God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”

New King James Version (NKJV)—“the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”

Christian Standard Bible (CSB)—“God's mystery—Christ. In Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden”

Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)—“the secret of the God and Father, and of the Christ, in whom are all the treasures of the wisdom and the knowledge hid”

Greek New Testament—“τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ, ἐν ᾧ εἰσιν πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ γνώσεως ἀπόκρυφοι”

The definite article occurs with the word “mystery.” An article’s presence predominantly identifies what object is being discussed, and the previous reference function “is the most common use of the article and the easiest usage to identify” (Wallace, Ibid., 209 and 217-18).

In Colossians 2:2, the article ties “the mystery” to its previous mention in 1:26 and 27 where Paul explains that the Church, the Body of Christ, is indwelt by Christ Himself (Colossians 1:18, 24; Ephesians 1:22-23; 3:2-6). Bornkamm, commenting on Colossians 1:27, states that “the content of the μυστήριον [mystery] is stated in the formula Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν [Christ in you]. That is to say, it consists in the indwelling of the exalted Christ in you, the Gentiles” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume IV, 820). Paul takes this one step further by adding that “Christ in you” is “the hope of the glory,” “the self-revelation” of Christ in the world through His spiritual Body, the Church. (For additional materials relating to the interpretation of the glory see http://denniswretlind.blogspot.com/2010/06/glory-be.html) Therefore, in Colossians 2:2, , “the mystery of God” is the “Christ-indwelt Church” referred to by the simple word “Christ” that illuminates the essence of “the mystery.”

Fifteen different variations occur in the text at the end of verse 2 (literally “of the God, of Christ,” τοῦ θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ)! Clearly this impacts both the above-mentioned English translations and the foregoing interpretation of the mystery. Without detailing the variations and solution, the reader is referred to Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 3rd edition, 236-238 where the passage is discussed in detail. The conclusion of the textual editorial committee reads (Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 555):

Among what at first sight seems to be a bewildering variety of variant readings, the one adopted for the text is plainly to be preferred (a) because of strong external testimony . . . and (b) because it alone provides an adequate explanation of the other readings as various scribal attempts to ameliorate the syntactical ambiguity of τοῦ θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ.

The absence of the definite article before “Christ” focuses upon the quality, nature, or essence of the noun. If the article were indeed present, the focus would have been on identifying the Person of Christ. But here and in the immediately preceding references to “Christ” (1:27-28) the emphasis is on the nature or essence of “Christ,” that mystical union between the heavenly Person and His earthly Body. And in this matter, every one of the above-mentioned English translations misses the point:

The NIV identifies the Person of Christ with “in whom.” “Whom” in English refers to an individual.

The NASB likewise states “in whom,” but it also adds “Himself,” a term not in the original text and inserted to punctuate the translators’ preferred interpretation.

The NKJV bases its translation on one of the textual variants, and by paralleling “Christ” with “the Father” it focuses attention on the individual Person of Christ.

The CSB refers the relative pronoun of verse 3 (ᾧ) to “Christ” and stresses personal identity by translating it “Him” where English would use “which” for a non-personal entity such as the Church.

The YLT agrees with the NKJV regarding the text but also adds the definite article to the English translation, “of the God and Father, and of the Christ” (italics added).

But the discussion does not end here. The prepositional phrase beginning verse 3 (ἐν ᾧ) refers to “Christ” as the antecedent of the pronoun. This fact coupled to the rest of verse 3 means that “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” are “hidden” in the Church! No one disputes the fact that the Person of Christ does have all wisdom and knowledge, but He disseminates these through His earthly Body, the Church. To be “hidden” does not mean being “inaccessible” but accessible in and through the Church. This has enormous theological and practical implications.

Theologically, Colossians 2:2-3 makes a major contribution to the doctrine of the Church because the Church Universal is seen as the earthly repository of Christ’s wisdom and knowledge. Practically, granting the preceding statement as true, individuals who cut themselves off from the Church in its local manifestation quarantine themselves from much of Christ’s wisdom and knowledge and impede their spiritual growth.

So, to apply Stratophanes’ maxim, the value of seeing the textual data cannot be overestimated. Neither can the value of reading the Greek New Testament which is the only place where the Bible translator can see and not see the data needed so that accurate biblical interpretations can rise to the surface!

“Do You Understand What You Are Reading?”

Hebrew is a delightful language! However, western-oriented students generally get frustrated by some of its characteristics: right-to-left reading, fluctuations of vowels, expansive nature of word meanings, syntax, ancient idioms, and the strangely fluid nature of verbal time (past, present, future). These matters may be difficult for the student but they also challenge scholars who in turn influence Bible translators. To be crystal clear: How the Hebrew text is understood and the English Bible subsequently translated determines its interpretation.

This posting focuses on the issue of verbal time. Scholars do not always agree as to whether a particular verb in a specific context speaks of the past, present or future since time is a secondary matter in Hebrew verbs (Arnold and Choi, A guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 36). This results in different English translations and interpretations. Obadiah 12-15 presents a case in point. Notice the variations in the wording of the bold portions in the New King James Version (NKJV) and the New International Version (NIV) as representative examples of commonly used translations:

NKJV

12 “But you should not have gazed on the day of your brother
In the day of his captivity;
Nor should you have rejoiced over the children of Judah
In the day of their destruction;
Nor should you have spoken proudly
In the day of distress.
13 You should not have entered the gate of My people
In the day of their calamity.
Indeed, you should not have gazed on their affliction
In the day of their calamity,
Nor laid hands on their substance
In the day of their calamity.
14 You should not have stood at the crossroads
To cut off those among them who escaped;
Nor should you have delivered up those among them who remained
In the day of distress.
15 “For the day of the LORD upon all the nations is near;
As you have done, it shall be done to you;
Your reprisal shall return upon your own head.

NIV

12 You should not gloat over your brother
in the day of his misfortune,
nor rejoice over the people of Judah
in the day of their destruction,
nor boast so much
in the day of their trouble.
13 You should not march through the gates of my people
in the day of their disaster,
nor gloat over them in their calamity
in the day of their disaster,
nor seize their wealth
in the day of their disaster.
14 You should not wait at the crossroads
to cut down their fugitives,
nor hand over their survivors
in the day of their trouble.
15 “The day of the LORD is near
for all nations.
As you have done, it will be done to you;
your deeds will return upon your own head.

The verbs in the NKJV indicate past activity; in the NIV, the immediate future. Do these verses reflect Edom’s sin in the past or Edom’s potential sin in the future?

As discussed by Arnold and Choi, (Ibid, 57), the issue of time relates to whether the verbs are Imperfects, a verb form focusing on progress that can have reference to the past, present, or future, or Jussives, a verb form expressing a desire, wish, or command connecting to the present and future. The NKJV editors considered the verbs Imperfects; the NIV translators, Jussives.

Two issues of Hebrew grammar justify the NIV interpretation: (1) The Imperfect and Jussive verb forms are identical in spelling except for the Hiphil (causative) verb stem where a difference exists. In verses 12 and 14 two clear Jussives appear, “boast” (תָּגְדֵּל) and “hand over” (תַּסְגֵּר). The Imperfect forms of these verbs are תַּגִדִּיל and תַּסִגִּיר. No confusion of verb forms exists. Therefore, in verses 12-14 either all the verbs are Jussives or the writer switched from Imperfects to Jussives arbitrarily—an unlikely scenario. (2) A second aid to resolve this translation variation involves the negative found throughout verses 12-14. This particular negative (“not” אַל) “governs the jussive” (Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 516). Based on these two grammatical observations, the NIV wins the debate.

But then a context complication arises. Verse 15 seems to say that Edom did wrong in the past and will be judged accordingly in the future. But the immediate context of verses 12-14 with the Jussive verb forms encourages a departure from sinful acts in the present and future. These verses appear to be ignored by verse 15b that has a past time reference—or does it?

Baker, writing in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1457, suggests this historical scenario:

When did all of this happen? This probably took place when the Philistines and Arabians attacked Jerusalem in the days of Jehoram, Jehoshaphat’s son . . . . Since Obadiah told Edom not to do such things (cf. “should not” in Obad. 12-14) again [italics added], he was probably writing about a time before Jerusalem’s total destruction by Nebuchadnezzar.

In other words, Edom did wrong in the past and is being encouraged to change its ways in the future. Though plausible, this scenario creates a contextual disconnect between verses 12-14 that focus on the future and verse 15b that connects either to the past or to the far distant future as suggested by Baker. He continues:

Besides her past humiliation, Edom will be repopulated in the future . . . and with other nations will again come under God's wrath in the forthcoming day of the Lord when Christ returns to establish His reign. God's judgments on Edom corresponded to her crimes. What she . . . had done to Judah would then be done to her.

This future perspective means that verse 15b should be translated, “As you will have done, it will be done to you.” A future perfect English translation connects smoothly with Baker’s historical outline. The first verb of verse 15b (NIV, “you have done” עָשִׂיתָ) can indeed be functioning as a future perfect (Waltke, O’Connor, Ibid, 491). Such a translation leaves open the possibility that Edom had the option to repent and change her ways, and it keeps intact the prophecy of Edom’s eventual demise. In short, a future perfect translation maintains contextual continuity.

As a conclusion, translations that interpret the verbs as Jussives should make a clear connection between verses 12-14 and verse 15. This can be done easily by translating the first verb of verse 15 as an English future perfect, “As you will have done [from this time forward], it will be done to you.” The bracketed insertion could perhaps be footnoted to coordinate with the historical scenario.

How the Hebrew text is understood and the English Bible subsequently translated determines its interpretation. Beekman and Callow (Translating the Word of God, 32) state that an accurate translation “faithfully transmits the message of the original.” Obadiah’s message comes by way of Hebrew grammar and contextual continuity—the domain of Bible scholars. Translators must incorporate their conclusions making it possible for readers to interpret the English Bible accurately.

To redirect a familiar dialogue, “Do you understand what you are reading?” “How can I except someone translate the text accurately!”

“From Whence Cometh My Help?”

Psalm 54:4 (verse 6 in the Hebrew Old Testament) reads in the New American Standard Bible, NASB):

“Behold, God is my helper;
The Lord is the sustainer of my soul.”

The New International Version (NIV) and the English Standard Version (ESV) among others translate essentially the same.

But Psalm 54:4 in the New King James Version (NKJV) gives this rendition:

“Behold, God is my helper;
The Lord is with those who uphold my life.”

The different translations of line two constitute the burden of this article. Some translations that follow the NKJV are the King James Version, the American Standard Version, and Young’s Literal Translation. The Amplified Bible conflates the NASB and NKJV readings (“the Lord is my upholder and is with them who uphold my life.”) and the Holman Christian Standard Bible places the first reading in the text and footnotes the second. The NET Bible places the second reading in the text (“The Lord is among those who support me.”) and does not acknowledge the first option.

Both translation options are grammatically possible but only one is probable. The following discussion uses the identifications of 1st reading (i.e. NASB) and 2nd reading (i.e., NKJV) to organize the dialogue.

Line two of Psalm 54:4 reads literally in the Hebrew text “the Lord [is] among/with those who sustain my soul/life” (אדני בסמכי נפשׁי). The controversy centers around the terms in bold font consisting of a preposition “among/with” (ב) attached to the plural participle “who sustain” (סמכי). On the surface the 2nd reading appears to follow the Hebrew text closely while the 1st reading seems to ignore the preposition and the plural participle. But this is not the end of the story.

The 1st reading claims validity from Hebrew grammar. In the Word Biblical Commentary, Psalms 51-100, p.45, Tate explains the grammar by acknowledging the plural form of the word “sustainers” but suggests that it is an intensification used for the superlative meaning that the Lord is “the sustainer par excellence.” But what of the attached preposition? Here Tate refers to Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 379, wherein the idea of essence is attributed to the preposition with the sense of ascribing “to [the Lord] a similar character.” Gesenius translates line two “the Lord is one who upholds my soul” Thus, the NASB, NIV, and ESV stand as grammatically valid translations. But, again, the story does not end here.

Logically, the 2nd reading enjoys the benefit of Occam’s Razor, the principle that prefers among competing hypotheses the one that makes the fewest assumptions to arrive at its conclusions (Webster's College Dictionary). In our text, the 1st reading assumes that the plural does not refer to plurality and that the preposition “with/among” can be muted by introducing the idea of essence. Surely this is more complicated than simply taking the words at face value as seen in the 2nd reading. Grammatically, no interpretive assumptions are required with the 2nd reading; it can stand unchanged with clear understanding.

From the perspective of Hebrew poetics, the 1st reading represents synonymous parallelism wherein the second line essentially repeats the first line. This makes a nice doublet. The 2nd reading involves synthetic parallelism wherein “one or more poetic lines not only repeat the basic idea of the first line in different words but also stress, intensify, or refine the thought in some way” (Sandy & Giese, Cracking Old Testament Codes, 225). With this definition, God (אלהים) is repeated in the term Lord (אדני), the pronominal phrase my soul is refined by my life (נפשׁי, Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 243), and helper is intensified by the term sustainer. This too provides a pleasant doublet while adding a third group of persons to the equation—the Lord, the Psalmist, and the Psalmist’s supporters.

Viewing the passage from a theological standpoint, the 2nd reading resonates best with the biblical theology of both Old and New Testaments. No dispute exists regarding the truth that God helps His people as line one of Psalm 54:4 proclaims. But He typically gives help through His people as line two states when translated literally. Occasionally one can see God working independently, as in creating a dry path for the Israelites to cross the Sea of Reeds (Exodus 14), or by feeding Elijah by ravens at the brook Cherith (1 Kings 17). But more often He meets the needs of His people with His people. The 2nd reading of the verse, therefore, lays claim to God’s typical pattern for helping His own and overall claims the greater probability for interpretation.

The theological truth in both lines of this verse involves a practical orientation as well. The believer who prays for divine help should look in the direction of God’s people for support. “From Whence Cometh My Help?”—Thank God for His help; thank God for His people!

Jesus Christ and “The Glory”

James 2:1 in the New American Standard Bible (NASB) reads, “My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism.” The portion in bold font reads the same in the New International Version (NIV) but differently in the King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), and the English Standard Version (ESV) where one reads the Lord of glory.

This article interprets the preposition of in connection with glory as seen in the KJV, NKJV and ESV, and evaluates the use of “glorious” in the NIV and NASB translations. Which, if any, satisfies the textual requirements, and how does this issue affect the meaning of the passage?

First, the Greek text of the affected portion reads: τὴν πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης. The noun “Lord” (κυρίου) appears only once but the KJV, NKJV and ESV sought to make sense out of the puzzling reading, “our Lord Jesus Christ of the glory,” by introducing “Lord” a second time, “our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory” (KJV). This same problem presented itself to the translators of the NIV and NASB, but they chose to change the prepositional phrase “of the glory” into an adjective “glorious” presumably based on their understanding of the function of “glory” as merely descriptive.

The preposition “of” defines the function of the Greek noun within the sentence which is in the genitive case and which carries a general sense of description. However, at least 33 distinct nuances of meaning are embedded in this case (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 72). In James 2:1 the nuance of simple apposition accounts for the relationship between “our Lord Jesus Christ” (τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) and “the glory” (τῆς δόξης). Wallace describes simple apposition in these terms (Greek Grammar, 96, italics added):

It gives a different designation that either clarifies who is the one named or shows a different relation to the rest of the clause than what the first noun by itself could display. Both words thus have the same referent, though they describe it in different terms.

The translation with this simple apposition understanding reads like this, “the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ who is the glory.” Such an interpretation of the relationship between “Jesus Christ” and “the glory” would have helped the KJV, NKJV and ESV translators avoid the error of unnecessarily inserting words not in the original text, namely, the Lord. But what can one say of the NIV and NASB change from “the glory” (τῆς δόξης) to the adjective “glorious?” The presence of the definite article in the Greek text (τῆς, “the”) renders this translation unacceptable.

The definite article in Greek and English does not function in the same way. The Greek article has broader uses. Wallace comments (Greek Grammar, 209-210):

In terms of basic force, the article conceptualizes. In terms of predominant function, it is normally used to identify an object. That is to say, it is used predominantly to stress the identity of an individual or class or quality.

However, the absence of the article in Greek can render a noun indefinite, where English would use the indefinite article “a” or “an.” Or, it can give a qualitative aspect to a definite noun. Again, Wallace writes (Greek Grammar, 243-44),

A qualitative noun places the stress on quality, nature, or essence. It does not merely indicate membership in a class of which there are other members (such as an indefinite noun), nor does it stress individual identity (such as a definite noun).

When a definite but qualitative Greek noun is translated into English the definite article is typically used but in so doing the important qualitative nature of the original term is unfortunately hidden from the reader.

Returning to James 2:1, the word “glory” is preceded by the definite article. The noun points to something definite. The “glorious” translation as a descriptor of Jesus Christ could fit nicely with a Greek noun not preceded by the definite article. It does not fit with “the glory.” In other words, James is not attributing the quality of “glory” to Jesus Christ,” hence “glorious,” but he is identifying Him as “the glory.” Therefore, the NIV and the NASB do not accurately communicate the meaning of the original text. This, then, leads to the ultimate question, To what does “the glory” refer? Or, to incorporate the identification aspect of the phrase, How does “the glory” give a different designation to Jesus Christ?

The New Testament meaning of “glory” (δόξα) when used of God or Jesus Christ was discussed in an earlier blogspot to which the reader is referred (http://denniswretlind.blogspot.com/2010_06_06_archive.html), and a conclusion bearing upon the present discussion follows:

The abstract English word “glory” as a reference to God, speaks of His “divine nature,” His self-revelation, those definable, and one might add measurable, characteristics revealed in Scripture. . . . To make definite “the glory of God” means to break away from the abstractness of the word “glory” and to reflect concretely on God’s attributes.

In James 2:1, the writer identifies Jesus Christ as God revealed. This identification gives tremendous theological and interpretive weight to the verse.

Three applications grow out of this study:

• Grammatically, this discussion helps the Bible interpreter realize that “of” is a notoriously weak preposition capable of various nuances of meaning that must not be ignored (see Webster’s College Dictionary and Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, Appendix B on “The Usage of the Genitive Case,” pp. 989-1002). Also, one should make a practice of comparing the English text to the Greek original whenever the English definite article (“the”) is encountered. One can never know whether the original text included it or not based on a reading of any English Bible, and both the presence and absence of the article is exceedingly important in the Greek New Testament!

• Theologically, this blogspot posting encourages the Bible reader to augment the mysterious English word “glory” with deeper meaning when referring to Jesus Christ.

• Practically, the present conversation reminds the student that the New Testament is a Greek book and that English provides a good but imperfect means for accessing its truths.

“Resurrecting” an Image

Imagery represents a universal staple in poetry and Hebrew poetry is no exception. To consciously or unconsciously remove or disfigure images of a poem diminishes it. When translating Hebrew poetry errors of this sort sometimes occur because of the overwhelming desire to clarify God’s word, an admirable goal that sometimes leads to a mishandling of the Bible as written. Psalm 17:11 is one such passage. Consider these representative translations:

“They have now compassed us in our steps: they have set their eyes bowing down to the earth” (King James Version, KJV)

“They have now surrounded us in our steps; They set their eyes to cast us down to the ground” (New American Standard Bible, NASB)

“They have tracked me down, they now surround me, with eyes alert, to throw me to the ground” (New International Version, NIV)

Of these translations the KJV is the least problematic—

• It uses the antiquated term “compassed” whereas “surrounded,” as in the New King James Version, is better.
• The phrase “in our steps” that begins the clause, an accusative of limitation (see Waltke & O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 173), is ambiguous because of the preposition “in. ” Wording such as “With respect to our steps” focuses the subject well, although the term “steps” could be sharpened to “tracks” as the NIV suggests and the conclusion will demonstrate (see Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 30).
• Finally, the narrow-focused term “ground” may fit the context better than the expansive word “earth” (see Holladay, p. 28).

The NASB takes second place in acceptability—

• The phrase “have now surrounded” translates well. This translation, however, uses the ambiguous “in our steps.”
• The phrase “set their eyes” could be taken as metaphorical especially in light of the following purpose-oriented infinitive “to cast us down.” However the phrase should be translated literally using “directed” or “fixed” (Holladay, p. 368) to eliminate any misunderstanding.
• The verb נטה does not mean “to cast down” but “to incline or bend towards” (Holladay, p. 235-36; Brown, Driver Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, pp. 639-41). Such a translation removes the purpose idea interpreted by the NASB (“to cast down”) and removes the necessity to add “us” to the last clause.
• The preposition “to” (ל) focuses the direction or fixation of the eyes (Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, p. 48).

The NIV places last in this series of translations—

• The paraphrase “they have tracked me down” captures the initial imagery but replaces “our” with “me,” a weak textual solution based on the principles set forth in The Text of the Old Testament, pp. 111-119, by Ernst Würthwein.
• The last clause is the biggest problem with the NIV. The clearly metaphorical translation,“with eyes alert,” instead of the literal, “they have set [fixed] their eyes,” is far too paraphrastic to enable the reader to understand the overall imagery.
• The verb נטה does not mean “throw.”
• The purpose idea, “to throw,” required because of the metaphorical translation “with eyes alert,” and the extra-textual insertion “me” combine to dismantle the biblical image.

A translation that “resurrects” the image follows—

With respect to our tracks, they have now surrounded us; they have fixed their eyes on the ground.

The picture is that of Saul and his forces searching for David and his men in the wilderness intently examining the ground for their tracks and possible location. They were successful according to this verse, and verse 12 both justifies and carries this image further with its stalking lion illustration.

Love and “Conventional Wisdom”

The verbal interchange between Jesus and Peter found in John 21:15-17 undoubtedly served as a catharsis for Peter’s threefold denial at Jesus’ trial. It also demonstrates Jesus’ characterization of Peter as a “rock.” Unfortunately, however, the English translations of this text either hide or interpret unfavorably Peter’s responses to Jesus’ questions. The issue centers on the word “love” seen in bold font in the following translation from the New International Version (NIV).

15”Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

The NIV translates this famous interchange different from other translations such as the King James Version and the New American Standard Bible by adding “truly” to the text of verses 15 and 16, words that do not exist in the Greek text. Why did the translators choose to add it? What does the addition imply?

To answer the first question, the verbs for “love” in the Greek text vary according to the following threefold scheme:

Jesus — agapao (ἀγαπάω)
Peter — phileo (φιλέω)

Jesus — agapao (ἀγαπάω)
Peter — phileo (φιλέω)

Jesus — phileo (φιλέω)
Peter — phileo (φιλέω)

The NIV translators apparently sought to distinguish between Jesus’ word “love” in the first two exchanges from that of Peter. Therefore “truly” was inserted without endorsement from the Greek text. The legitimacy of this interpretation involves the second question.

To answer to the second question, the addition of “truly” seems to communicate that Simon’s simple response, “I love you,” implies a lesser degree of love, a love that fails to equal Jesus’ word for love. The two words for love appear to be understood by the NIV translators in hierarchical terms wherein Jesus’ word rises higher on the ethical plane than that of Simon. Such an understanding may enjoy the benefit of “conventional wisdom” regarding the words for love, but it falters under close examination.

In the Greek language at least four different words for love existed, all of which are translated “love” in English. Two of these words constitute the primary burden of this article. It is frequently affirmed that agapao (ἀγαπάω) represents the God-kind of love whereas phileo (φιλέω) a human-kind. However, this analysis does not fit passages such as John 5:20 (NIV), “For the Father loves (using phileo, φιλέω) the Son,” or John 16:27 (NIV), “the Father himself loves (using phileo, φιλέω) you.” An understanding of the uses of these words based on relationships instead of on a higher or lower ethical plane resolves this difficulty admirably and is completely consistent with the lexical meanings of the words (see Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition).

The Greek nouns for love based on relationships follows. (Verbs from the same roots mirror the meanings of the nouns.) For the sake of completeness all four Greek words for love are included.

eros (ἔρος) — The relationship between an individual and his/her own need—focused on oneself. This word does not occur in the New Testament.

storge (στόργη) — The relationship between an individual and his/her relatives—focused on family/marital relationships. In the New Testament it occurs only in a compound word (Romans 12:10, philostorgos, φιλόστοργος).

philia (φίλια) — The relationship between an individual and his/her acquaintances—focused on friendship. The verb form is φιλέω (phileo).

agape (ἀγάπη) — The relationship between an individual and any other person regardless of the nature of that relationship—focused on others. The verb form is ἀγαπάω (agapao).

These are not ethical or qualitative differences. Each is perfectly proper and devoid of ethical classification as a higher or lower degree of love. Each can be used properly for the same “love event” depending upon the perceived relationship.

Once this relationship-focused description for the “love words” is applied, notice the major interpretation difference discovered in John 21:15-17.

Under the traditional “ethical paradigm” it has been fashionable to accuse Peter of failing to love Jesus with a divine-kind of love. He settles for a lesser human-kind of love to which Jesus Himself with subtle sarcasm acquiesces in the third interchange. To avoid this conclusion some scholars have claimed that John uses the two verbs for love interchangeably without distinction in sense. Carson writes (Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd edition, 53, italics his), “In any case, my point is that it is rather strange to insist on a semantic distinction between the two words for “to love” in this context, and not on small distinctions between other pairs of words in the same context.” But why would a competent scholar neglect these other “small distinctions”? Carson’s argument evaporates.

Under the “relationship paradigm,” however, Peter steadfastly refuses to accept the possible implication, based on Jesus’ use of agapao (ἀγαπάω), that a broken relationship exists. He stands undeterred in declaring that his love for Jesus continues on a friendly basis. In the third interchange, Jesus agrees and thereby brings closure to problem of Peter’s denials, and Peter lives up to the steadfastness implied by his name, Rock.

The interpretation problem of John 21:15-17 involves minimally three matters: (1) the English language that has difficulty in clearly distinguishing between the different words for “love,” (2) the English Bible translators who introduce interpretations into the passage implying that they exist undisputed in the Greek text, and (3) the Bible interpreters who ignore word variations on the basis of assumed synonymity.

Regarding this third point, a consistent interpretation methodology must give first priority to the biblical author’s word choices and approach the study with the expectation that similar but different words reflect different nuances of meaning unless it can be unequivocally proven otherwise. Moule stated (An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 198), “The safest principle is probably to assume a difference until one is driven to accept identity of meaning.” In the case of John 21:15-17 synonymity has not been proven.

Other passages involving the word phileo (φιλέω) with Jesus or God the Father as the subjects are Matthew 10:37; John 11:36; 20:2; Revelation 3:19. It should be clear that phileo (φιλέω) is not a lesser “human-kind” of love.

To illustrate the agapao (ἀγαπάω) “relationship paradigm” in other portions of the New Testament consider the following: Matthew 5:44 (NIV), “Love your enemies”—agapao (ἀγαπάω) must be the verb of choice where interpersonal antagonism exists. Ephesians 5:28 (NIV), “Husbands ought to love their wives”—Likewise agapao (ἀγαπάω) is invoked in a husband/wife relationship placing the love obligation upon the husband—love cannot be withdrawn when marital tensions arise.

Other love passages in the New Testament could be included but these serve to establish the moral of this posting—“Conventional wisdom” is not always conclusive wisdom!

Hendiadys and Amphibologia—A Hope-Filled Future

Jeremiah 29:11—“I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an end and expectation” (King James Version, italics mine). The marginal reading of the italicized portion says, “to give you an expected end.” The Revised Standard Version renders the phrase “to give you hope in your latter end,” and puts in the margin “Heb., a latter end and hope.” Figurative language and word order supplies the basis for a proper understanding and translation of this verse.

The figurative language involves the figure of speech called hendiadys meaning literally one idea expressed by two nouns connected by “and.” Bullinger explains Jeremiah 29:11 this way, “‘to give you the end, yes—the end you hope for’: i.e., the end which I have promised and on which I have caused you to hope and depend. All this, and more, is contained in and expressed by the figure Hendiadys” (Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, 661). The Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, p.876, amplifies this passage, “i.e. by hendyadis [sic], the hoped-for future.”

The New International Version (NIV) gives a translation that appears not to recognize or appreciate the language of the original Hebrew text, “‘For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future’” (italics mine). To arrive at this two-issue focus, hope and future, the NIV translators felt the need to reverse the order of words found in the Hebrew text, a situation that should have signaled to them that something was not yet understood.

The New American Standard Bible parallels the NIV by translating a two-issue focus as well, but in this case the order of words does not reverse, “‘For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope’” (italics mine). Again, the figurative expression is not recognized or if recognized was not translated. In the hendiadys seen in this text the main idea, future, is modified adjectively (in English) by hope. “To give you a hope-filled future” captures the force of this divine purpose statement.

There is more than hendiadys here, however. There is also amphibologia, where a word has two meanings and both are true (Bullinger, 804). In this case the Hebrew words for hope (תּקוה) and cord (תּקוה) are identical in every way. The scarlet cord was used by Rahab to signal the Israelite warriors to keep her safe when they attacked the city of Jericho (Joshua 2:18, 21). To Rahab the cord represented literally a hope-filled future. Likewise, in Jeremiah 29 the promise of Yahweh denotes a hope-filled future for the chastened people of God—a promise upon which to hang their hope as they endure their 70 years of punishment in Babylon (Jeremiah 29:10).

Hendiadys and Amphibologia—two figurative expressions used in Jeremiah 29:11 giving God’s people something positive to hang on to as they face the future.